Comprehensive Plan 1997-2010-1998

Wilmington - New Hanover County
Comprehensive Plan
1997-2010
November 1998

. 10
Wilmington - New Hanover County
Draft Comprehensive Plan 1997-2010
November 1998
•
0

Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Introduction
III. Issues
IV. Planning Process
V. Vision and Goals
VI. Natural Resources Element
VII. Land Use and Urban Design Element
VIII. Transportation Element
IX. Community Infrastructure Element
X. Housing and Economic Development Element
A. Housing
B. Economy
C. Historic Preservation
XI. Storm and Natural Hazard Element
XII. Land Classification
XIII. Appendix - Technical Reports
A.
Survey of Registered Voters
B.
Population
C.
Environmental Resources and Constraints
D.
Existing Land Use
E.
Transportation Planning,- General Information
F.
Community Infrastructure
G.
Future Land Use
H.
Hurricane Mitigation and Reconstruction
I.
Housing
J.
Economy
i

0 Acknowledgements
Steering Committee
John Jefferies, Steering Committee Chairman
971mington New Hanover County
Comprehensive Plan
William Caster, Chairman, County Commissioners
Hamilton Hicks, Mayor, City Council
Buzz Birzenieks, County Commissioner
Harper Peterson, City Councilman
Kirk Davy, County Planning Board
Glenn Richardson, Chairman, City Planning Commission
Wes Beckner, President, Chamber of Commerce
Carlton Fisher, Wilmington Regional Association of Realtors
Johnnie Henagan, Council of Neighborhoods Association
Tilghman Herring, Historic District Commission
Edward Higgins, Board of Education
Jim Hunter, At -Large Representative
Jim Kenny, President, Home Builders Association
Gerry McCants, At -Large Representative
Linda Pearce, Elderhaus Representative
Ernest Puskas, Castle Hayne Area Representative
Tracy Skrabal, Environmental Representative
Debbie Keck, Board of Education, participant
ii

•
•
Acknowledgements
New Hanover County
Board of Commissioners
William A. Caster, Chairman
Robert G. Greer, Vice Chairman
Buzz Birzenieks
Ted Davis, Jr.
Charles R. Howell
Planning Board Members
Rodney Harris, Chairman
Kirk Davy, Vice Chairman
McKinley Dull
Joyce Fernando
John Galarde
Michael Keenan
James E. Wolle
New Hanover County
Planning Department
Dexter Hayes, Director
Patrick Lowe, Assistant Director
Chris O'Keefe, Planner
Wanda Coston, Planner
Sam Burgess, Planner
Pete Avery, Senior Planner
Phoebe Saavedra, Administrative Secretary
Grant D. Gore, Graphics Technician
Bert Hatchell, Intern
Support Staff
Mike Arkinson, GIS Manager
Bruce Walker, GIS Analyst
Former Interns
Elizabeth Adams
Mike Gutekunst
Katheryn Quinelly
Kim Wolfer
Facilitator
Robert Gerlach, President, The VTA Group
Todd Gerlach, Facilitator
Wimington New Hanover County
Comprehensive Plan
iii
Wilmington City Council
Hamilton E. Hicks, Jr., Mayor
Katherine B. Moore, Mayor Pro Tern
Frank S. Conlon
J. C. Hearne, II
Harper W. Peterson
Jim Quinn
Charles H. Rivenbark, Jr.
Wilmington Planning Commission
Glenn Richardson, Chairman
Jack Watkins, Vice Chairman
Frank Hamilton, III
Donald M. Hand
Rose Ann Mack
Elaine Selden
City of Wilmington, Development
Services Department, Planning Division
Mike Hargett, Assistant City Manager / Interim
Planning Manager
Mark Zeigler, Planner
Bill Austin, Transportation Planner
John Ponder Transportation Planning Engineer
Dorothy Chavious, Department Secretary
Deborah Haynes, Graphics Technician
Support Staff
Mellisa Allcox, Development Mgmt. Intern
Bettie Bisbee, WHFD, Inc. Program Manager
Kaye Graybeal, Historic Preservation Planner
Chad Ives, GIS Analyst
Mark Karet, Community Development Manager
Robert Lucas, WHFD, Inc. Administrator
Eleanor Price, Historic Preservation Consultant
Fred Reisz, Housing Services Counselor
Jim Sahlie, GIS Systems Analyst
Andrea Surratt, Development Mgmt. Manager
Gaines Townsend, Comm. Develop. Planner
Former Staff
Arcelia Wicker, Sr., Director of Planning
Ockert Fourie, Contract Planner
Jayson Ward, Planning Technician
Paul D. Harsch, hrtem
Mark Sudduth, Intern
Zachary Taylor, Intern

Acknowledgements Wilmington New Hanover County
0 nowComprehensive Plan
The Steering Committee and Planning staff thank all public participants.
Elected Officials
Planning Board and Commission
Citizens in the Public Forums
Citizens in the public Sub -Committees and Fall 1998 Public Hearing
Members of Community Growth Planning
•
•
iv

•
m
x
cn
0
c
m
c
3
3
SD
•
0

I. Executive Summary Wilmington=NewIanover County
------------------ ------------------------------
Comprehensive �l�n = =_
• INTRODUCTION
Population Growth Pressures
Between 1997 and 2010 the projection is for 31,000 new people to join the population of
Wilmington and New Hanover County. This is an increase from 149,000 people in 1997 to 180,000
in 2010. The challenge for the County and City is to wisely allocate land use in the urban,
urbanizing, and rural areas for our existing residents and projected newcomers.
Plan Background Information and Land Use Survey
The enclosed 1997-2010 draft Comprehensive Plan has been in the making since December
1996 when elected officials of the City and County authorized the creation of the Plan. Throughout
1997, and into spring of 1998, technical reports were written concerning: population; environmental
resources and constraints; existing land use; transportation planning general information;
community infrastructure with fiscal impact analysis; hurricane mitigation and reconstruction;
housing; and economy.
In October 1997 a registered voter land use issues survey was conducted. The results
showed that the major public concern was that the current rate of growth was much too fast. Survey
respondents expressed the desire for more economic growth but only if it is the right kind of growth
such as high technology industrial. Eighty nine percent of the survey respondents expressed the
desire that developers pay for infrastructure costs caused by new development, such as roads and
schools. Protecting the environment was another clear outcome of the survey.
Public Participation and Plan Guidance
In the fall of 1997 six Public Forums were held across the City and County where input
was solicited regarding the environment, land use and design, community infrastructure,
transportation, housing, and economy. Included in the Plan Public Forums were participants from a
citizen driven Community Growth Planning initiative.
From winter to fall in 1998 the community participation process was guided by an elected
official appointed 18 member Steering Committee of diverse backgrounds including: elected
officials; planning commission and board members; business, environment, development, minorities
real estate, and the school board.
The Public participation process continued into the spring of 1998 with four Public Sub -
Committees meetings which were also attended by 70 non -appointed volunteer members. These
meetings were used to gather additional information and create draft policy statements for the Plan
topics. Issues and vision statements from Community Growth Planning were included in the Sub -
Committee meetings.
During the summer and fall of 1998 the Steering Committee molded the issues and policies
generated by the Public Sub -Committees and added implementation actions and a vision statement.
In the fall of 1998 the future land use technical report was written incorporating proposed concepts
from the public and Steering Community. In October 1998 the draft Plan was presented to City
Council and the County Commissioners and was authorized to be sent to the State for review.
Public hearings and adoption of the Plan by the City and County is scheduled for spring 1999.
I-1

CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
PHYSICAL PLAN GUIDE 0
Land Classification - Guiding Architecture for the Physical Plan
The guiding architecture for the physical Plan is provided with a land classification map.
Intensity of development ranges from urban land to the less developed rural and resource protected
areas. The land classes are: developed; urban transition; limited transition; community; rural;
conservation; and resource protection.
Conservation Corridors, Greenways, Parks and Open Space
The Plan provides for conservation corridors and greenways that link and incorporate
conservation areas key parks and open space areas. The plan makes provision for the development
of residential neighborhoods with environmentally sensitive design and an integration of open space.
Residential Neighborhood Development
The Plan focuses on Traditional Neighborhood Development with narrower tree lined
streets and sidewalks emphasizing a pedestrian orientation and scale. Diverse housing types and lot
sizes are encouraged. Public spaces such as formal public parks, village greens are primary features
included in the design.
Linking Pedestrian Friendly Business and Residential Development
A vision presented in the Plan is to concentrate business and residential development in
nodes, while retaining open space. The business nodes would include highly accessible linked
pedestrian friendly commercial centers, surrounded by mixed density residential neighborhoods.
Moving out from these centers the residential densities would decrease. The Plan provides for
innovation and flexibility of land use. The Plan establishes guidelines to be followed in the
development regulations, that will specify the size and the necessary design elements of development
with incentives for their achievement.
Urban Design for Business and Residential Neighborhood. Development
The Plan addresses the recurring theme desired by our citizens with design guidelines for
thoroughfare landscaping and signage, pedestrian access, dedicated bicycle routes, and pedestrian
friendly shopping centers and parking lots. The Plan design guidelines address strip commercial
development and establishing an integrated transportation network.
Historic Preservation
Downtown Wilmington has inherited a unique treasure of existing historic residences and
business properties. The Plan recognizes the need to nurture and maintain this rich cultural heritage
through historic preservation guidelines.
Community Infrastructure
The Plan directs where community infrastructure is needed including schools, libraries,
parks, sheriff and police, fire, roads, water, sewer, and storm water. Fiscal analysis shows that
provision of community infrastructure is cost efficient by focusing it in an Urban Service Area.
There is the added benefit of deterring urban sprawl. Policy direction includes how to pay for the
needed community infrastructure with exploration of alternative forms of financing. Addressed are
the improvements needed to have a high quality level of service, and to prevent a decline in the level •
I-2

of service provided to County and City residents. Paying for community infrastructure will be fairly
shared by new development and existing residents.
Transportation
The Plan acts as a guide for transportation planning. Directions include: major and minor
new thoroughfares; widening of existing streets where appropriate; the feasibility of multi -modal
transit alternatives; park and ride lots, express bus service, and carpool and vanpool services;
increased rubber tired trolley service; bicycle and pedestrian pathways; and congestion
management.
Storms and Natural Hazards
The Plan addresses storms and natural hazards with mitigation, evacuation, and recovery in
the event of a hurricane or disaster. Recovery management includes the provision for a recovery
task force.
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SOCIAL NEEDS
Housing
One of the key housing components of the Plan is to increase affordable housing for low
and moderate income persons. Methods for increasing affordable housing and ownership for low
and moderate income residents include: expanding existing programs; establishing a mortgage
revenue bond program; and establishing a land trust program for affordable housing land
acquisition.
r
Other key related housing components in the Plan are: creating County minimum housing
standards and enforcement, and enhancing the City's; consolidating the City and County
Community Development Block Grant program to increase money for programs; increasing
affordable rental housing; expanding programs for the homeless population; increased public
outreach to the public by government on growth and development challenges; housing challenges
for the elderly and special needs population; and adequate student housing for University of North
Carolina` -Wilmington and Cape Fear Community College.
Economy
The Plan addresses the need for a coordinated economic development strategy to attract
high paying employers, that are environmentally friendly, to create a more diversified economy.
Another key concept of economic development in the Plan is to increase the skills level and
education of the workforce for a healthy economy. The Plan addresses this challenge with school
and work programs of Cape Fear Community College and the County public schools. The need for
vocational education is particularly emphasized.
Other economic development needs addressed by the Plan are: improving employment
opportunities in economically distressed areas of the City and County; supporting the Wilmington
State Port needs to deepen its harbor, improve inland highway and rail access, and upgrade the
terminal; support the local water dependent marine economy; support the airport growth and
expansion; and encourage a diversified economy including heritage and historic preservation
tourism, boating, and eco tourism.
I-3

•
•
•
5
0
o.
c
0

II. Introduction
0 Background
The Wilmington City Council and New Hanover County Commissioners agreed to jointly
prepare a Comprehensive Plan in anticipation of continued growth, and in response to the scheduled
update of the Land Use Plan, as required under the provisions of the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA), and the Wilmington Urban Area Transportation Plan. Both these plans have future land use
implications for the City and County, and it was rational to coordinate these two planning initiatives
through a Comprehensive Plan process.
The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), 1974, requires the establishment of a
cooperative program of coastal land management between local government and the State of North
Carolina for preparing, adopting and enforcing local land use plans. CAMA requires that local
governments within the 20 coastal counties prepare land use plans which provide for the protection,
preservation, orderly development and management of the coastal area of North Carolina.
Wilmington is classified as an Urbanized Area by the US Census Bureau. As a result of this
designation, the area is required to have a continuous transportation planning process that encompasses
the urban area around Wilmington. A Greater Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
is responsible for guiding the transportation planning. One of the main roles of the MPO is to develop
the Transportation Plan.
The Wilmington -New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan will become an official public
document of the Wilmington City Council and the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners.
Public hearings for the Plan are scheduled for Spring 1999 and will be followed by adoption. The Plan
will act as a set of long range, general guidelines for local decision making. The Plan is also officially
certified by the State and used by regional, State and Federal agencies in making project consistency
determinations, funding and permit decisions.
The Comprehensive Plan is intended to provide substantial guidance to City and County
officials in their decisions on development plans, programs, regulations and incentives. The Plan also
communicates local government policies to interested citizens and organizations. While the
Comprehensive Plan is not statutorily binding in the sense of an ordinance, it is an important policy
document that is adopted, amended and updated by formal action of the City Council, Board of
Commissioners, and the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission.
This Plan is the fourth update to the original Wilmington -New Hanover CAMA Land Use Plan
which was adopted by the City Council and the Board of Commissioners in 1976. Previous updates to
the original Plan occurred in 1981, 1986 and 1993, in accordance with State planning guidelines.
is

e Purpose of the Plan
The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County continue to experience a high level of
population and employment growth. This growth will exert increasing pressure on the City and
County's ability to provide services, insure wise development of the land, and minimize further
degradation of our resources and loss of our natural landscape.
The main purpose of the City -County Comprehensive Plan is summarized by the following.
• Recognize the need for effective environmental and conservation management measures to
ensure environmental protection.
• Guide and monitor land use changes as a result of development.
• Meet the transportation challenge with diverse solutions including automobile, bus, bicycle and
pedestrian.
• Maintain and enhance the fiscal sustainability and community infrastructure needs.
• Support and enhance affordable housing and minimum housing programs.
• Increase efforts to improve economic diversification, and efforts to attract employers with high
paying jobs.
`:'�. •
�.' • Protect and nurture our historic heritage.
• Ensure that there is a proactive plan for storm and natural hazards in the event of a hurricane
or other natural disaster.
• Provide a land classification system and map to chart a course of growth and development, and
land conservation.
II-2

•
Components of the Plan
The Comprehensive Plan consists of the following sections: issues; the planning process; vision
and goals; issues, policies, and implementation actions; and land classification and map. Any changes,
additions, or deletions to these elements will require an amendment to this Plan.
Technical reports were used to support and provide information for the public and Steering
Committee and are included in the appendix.
Issues
This section lists the community issues developed by the public and Steering Committee
regarding natural resources, land use and urban design, community infrastructure, transportation,
housing, historic preservation, economy, and storm and natural hazards.
Planning Process
This section contains details of the planning process for public participation and the Steering
Committee. The planning process was used to create: a vision and goals; identify issues affecting the
community, and create policies and implementation actions to address the issues.
Vision and Goals
This section contains the vision and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The vision and goals
were synthesized by the Steering Committee as a result of issues and policies brought forward by the
public and Steering Committee through the planning process.
Issues, Policies, and Implementation Actions
This section of the Plan contains a reiteration of the issues, and policies and implementation
actions, to guide future growth and development. The main topics are: natural resources, land use and
urban design, community infrastructure, transportation, housing, historic preservation, economy, and
storm and natural hazard.
For each of the main topics the implementation actions have been consolidated into tables
with the following detail: the priority given to the action item; the estimated relative cost of
implementation; the fiscal year in which it is proposed to be initiated; and the responsible agency.
These implementation action tables are to be used to evaluate progress in implementing the Plan
policies, and will serve as an annual status report to City Council and the County Commissioners.
Land Classification and Map
The land classification and map show the location of the land categories which are: developed;
urban transition; limited transition; community; rural; and conservation. These categories are intended
to guide and promote wise development and natural resource conservation for the Plan. The policies
and implementation actions fit within the architecture provided by the land classification.
Appendix - Technical Reports
The technical reports and survey are separate data inventory and analysis documents by topic
and were developed to serve as resources for the public and Steering Committee members. These
reports contain background information and statistical data from which the issues were quantified, and
II-3

policies and implementation actions developed. Information required under State guidelines for this
Plan is contained within the technical reports.
•
•
II-4

•
•
U
cn
c
cn
U)
0

III. Issues
0 Community Issues
An important first step in the Comprehensive Plan process was to identify community
concerns. Issues were identified through an extensive public consultation, participation and review
process which included: a New Hanover County voter survey (Eastcoast Consumer Research group,
October 1997); public forums; the Wilmington Chamber of Commerce's Community Growth
Planning initiative; and the public Comprehensive Plan Subcommittees, and Steering Committee.
The issues, as expressed by the community through this collaborative process, have been
grouped into the following topics: natural resources; land use and urban design; community
infrastructure; transportation; housing; historic preservation; economy; and storm and natural
hazards. The following major issues were identified.
Natural Resource Issues
Continued declining water quality has led to strong community desire for protection and
enhancement of our surface and ground water quality and to bring all coastal water up to the highest
quality possible.
Loss of open space and farmlands to development has resulted in strong community desire
to preserve remaining areas of public use; greenways, bike paths, hiking trails, conservation areas.
The quality of our environment is perceived as an important ingredient in our overall quality
40 of life including our potential for continued economic growth; must ensure the protection and
enhancement of our natural resources.
The current rate of growth is much too fast for the community's comfort level and it is
having a perceived negative impact on the quality of life.
Identified as a weak area in previous plans; the Comprehensive Plan should identify the
time frame, resource/costs, accountability, and feedback necessary to ensure its implementation.
Land Use and Urban Design Issues
Allocation of sufficient land for all desirable land use types.
Flexible and Innovative site plan criteria are needed to guide the development process
throughout the county.
Continue to promote Wilmington as a regional trade center.
Minimize dependence on the automobile by changing land use patterns and providing
facilities for alternative methods of transportation.
•

Increase density where adequate infrastructure exists and where natural conditions will not
be adversely effected.
Land use plans and regulations effecting land use should be coordinated between the City
and County and should incorporate the conclusions of other planning efforts (i.e. Community
Growth, Downtown 2020, River Corridor Plan).
Define urban growth boundaries.
Identify elements that define quality of life and determine the impacts of the built
environment on those elements.
Community Infrastructure Issues
The uncoordinated, costly provision of community services and facilities is of concern.
The high cost of infrastructure investment places a burden on public and private financial
resources.
Storm water drainage problems caused by existing and future development raises concern.
There are inadequate sewer and water services in some unincorporated areas.
The optimal location, use and maintenance of education facilities should be a priority.
Insufficient provision of community open space, recreation and cultural facilities for present •
and future needs.
region.
priority.
Downtown Wilmington should be given greater recognition as the cultural nucleus of the
Maintenance of adequate police and fire services in unincorporated areas should be a
There is an increased waste management problem due to growth and development.
The proliferation of telecommunication towers is a cause for concern.
Transportation Issues
The full impact of new development and changes in land use on transportation systems, and
the cost of mitigating this impact, is not adequately addressed.
Efforts to improve flow of people and products are not sufficiently coordinated.
Alternative forms of transport are not given enough emphasis.
Strip development along thoroughfares.
III-2

•
The preservation of transportation corridors is inadequate.
The appearance of road arteries needs improvement.
The construction and maintenance of transportation facilities negatively impacts the
environment, particularly water quality.
Driveway access to arterial roads are not sufficiently controlled.
Traffic volume exceeds the capacity of street networks.
The negative affects of new roads on neighborhoods.
Housing Issues
The City minimum housing program needs to be strengthened, and the County should
establish adopt a minimum housing code and enforcement program.
With the growth of UNC Wilmington and Cape Fear Community College, students will
need adequate on and off campus housing. I
Regarding growth and change neighborhood residents need a mechanism to voice their
concerns, and the County and City needs an efficient way to provide information to residents.
The City and County needs to ensure that it is receiving the maximum amount of federal
and state financial opportunities for community and economic development.
There is a documented need for affordable housing, particularly for low and moderate
income residents.
There is a need to expand monetary incentives to increase affordable housing.
Increased support of non profit organizations to increase the amount of affordable housing.
There is a need to provide increased affordable rental and condominium housing.
If zoning and regulations are more flexible, streamlined and have incentives; this will
provide an increase in the amount of affordable housing.
There are an estimated 800 homeless persons County wide with the majority living in the
City.
There is a need for adequate housing for the special need population, elderly, and disabled
in the City and County.
III-3

Economy Issues
There needs to be improved economic diversification, and continued effort to attract
employers that provide high paying jobs.
Continue efforts to attract and retain business to economically distressed areas.
To remain competitive into the next decade the State port will need to deepen its harbor,
improve inland highway and rail access, and upgrade the terminal.
The area could increase marine related employment opportunities with: marine technology;
aquaculture; the aquarium; and boat manufacturing and marinas.
The New Hanover County airport needs to expand to improve its competitiveness and at the
same time balance the noise concerns of adjacent residents.
There is a need to balance tourism with a diversified economy.
There is a need to increase workforce preparedness, especially for the marginally trained
and under educated.
Historic Preservation Issue
The City and County need to identify, protect and plan for the preservation of its historic
and cultural resources.
Storm and Natural Hazard Issues 0
Three hurricanes and five major storms in the past three years have focused attention on the
need for examination of many existing ordinances and building codes.
Use of land susceptible to hurricane and flooding damage must be scrutinized to assure the
safety of visitors and citizens.
Areas should be assessed as to their vulnerability to Natural Hazards.
Following Natural Hazards infrastructure to aid in recovery must be in place to insure that
essential functions of Government and commerce resume as soon as possible.
There must be provisions for those who are unable to evacuate hazard areas.
I11-4

IV. Planning Process \
• • •

i
IV. Planning Process
wimht edh_ New hanoveT `ounty
'preheAsimr'�an
Community Participants to the Plan
Public involvement was assured throughout creation of the Comprehensive Plan with:
public forums; a public survey; inclusion of a citizen Community Growth Planning initiative;
Public Subcommittees; and a Steering Committee.
• A Public Opinion Survey.
• Six Public Forums.
• A citizen initiative, Community Growth Planning.
• Four Public Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee meetings.
• Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee with 18 oversight meetings.
Subject topics discussed included: natural resources; land use and urban design;
community infrastructure; transportation; housing; economy, historic preservation; and storm and
natural hazards.
Public Opinion Survey
The Public Opinion Survey was conducted in 1997 through a random telephone survey of
410 registered voters in New Hanover County. Detailed findings of the survey are the following
(see appendix for copy of report).
"The current rate of (County) growth is much too fast for voters to accept and is much
higher than previous study levels. A total of 72% said growth was too fast, versus 51 % in 1991 or
41 % in 1986. The voter population has decided to accept more (economic activity in the County)
but it is limited to mostly "light high tech" industrial business. This suggests that most voters like
(economic) growth if it is the right growth. The voters definitely want developers to pay of the
infrastructure costs, roads, schools, ect., caused by their growth or developments. The 89% rating
was even higher than the 83% or 84% ratings of the previous studies (1986 and 1991). However,
developers would likely pass along any of these costs to their buyers, voters or taxpayers or
businesses."
"Half of the voters said that continued growth and development is just as important as
protecting the environment in the current study. This indicates that they are having difficulty in
choosing, because both issues are important. Most of the voters are willing to see City and County
dollars spent on solving their most important problem (growth). The 88% current study level is
much stronger than the previous study levels (1991 and 1986). There was no clear choice on what
(transportation) facility needs improvement. Responses were evenly distributed across most
choices, except for a slight preference for improved roads. This likely reflects their traffic issue
concerns."
Public Forums
In the fall of 1997 six Public Forums were held across the County and included help from
Community Growth Planning volunteers. Public input was solicited with a growth and land use
survey and prioritized issues.
Including a -Citizen Initiative - Community Growth Planning
• In response to concerns over rapid growth in the planning area a citizen driven Community
Growth Planning initiative was supported by the Chamber of Commerce. This initiative identified
IV-1

`-� and prioritized growth related issues facing our community. Community Growth Planning
conducted a visioning process attended by more than 250 citizens, representing over 90 civic •
groups during six public meetings. Initiative issues and vision ideas were incorporated directly into
the Comprehensive Plan. This citizen initiative and the Comprehensive Plan have been mutually
beneficial.
Public Subcommittees
The Public Subcommittees for the Comprehensive Plan consisted of over 70 non -appointed
volunteer members who attended four meetings over a three month period during the Spring of
1998. The Subcommittees developed issue and policy statements, and implementation actions. This
process included issues raised by Community Growth Planning.
Plan Oversight - Steering Committee
The Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, is body appointed by the elected officials,
representing the community. In creation of this draft Comprehensive Plan the Steering Committee
has met for 18 times in 1998 from February to October. This Committee provided oversight for the
duration of the plan development. The statements and actions developed by the Public
Subcommittees were forwarded to the Steering Committee for review and refinement for inclusion
in the Comprehensive Plan. The Steering Committee created a vision statement and goals
summarizing the statements and actions for the Plan. A public hearing was held in September 1998
to further solicit information regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan. In October 1998 the County
Commissioners and City Council authorized the submittal of this draft Comprehensive Plan to the
State for Initial Review. Public hearings and final consideration and adoption of the Plan is
scheduled for Spring of 1999 by the County Commissioners and City Council.
IV-2

/ V. Vision & Goals

V. Vision and Goals -_ l Imiin o -l- Han j
VISION STATEMENT
Wilmington and New Hanover County are rich in history, natural resources and tradition.
These are the characteristics that have formed our way of life and have made the area attractive to
those who visit here. This way of life has adapted to changing times and to new people of differing
ethnic proportion, customs and background. The natural resources have contributed to the area's
economic prosperity and beauty.
Our vision is to continue to adapt to growth as we preserve the values that make our
community a great place to live in harmony with the earth and the sea and give our people unique
opportunity for making a living.
Thus, we combine the legacy of the past with the promise of the future.
VISION OBJECTIVES
Our Way of Life
Our overall quality of life will be enhanced through the preservation, renovation and
restoration of our neighborhoods.
We will have parks, greenways, and bike paths that provide recreational opportunities for
every citizen.
Our region will offer outstanding, affordable health care systems and facilities.
All these elements will continue to make this area a very desirable place to live, work and
raise a family.
Government
There will be cooperation among all government agencies.
We will defeat crime, drugs and violence through community wide commitment and action,
coordinating educational, preventive, enforcement and rehabilitative programs and
initiatives.
Infrastructure and Transportation
Our infrastructure systems will meet the needs of our economy and provide a high level of
service to a growing population in a fiscally responsible manner.
Our highways will meet the appropriate levels of service and scheduled plans will be ahead
of anticipated growth patterns.
There will be an inter -modal transportation system serving our County, State and Region.
V-1

Housing and Economics •
Safe, sanitary and affordable housing will be available to every citizen.
Business development and diversity will embrace all economic, ethnic, social and cultural
segments of the community.
We will have grown our economic base and average wages/salaries by growing our high
tech, heritage tourism, movie industry and port industry.
We are recognized for our culturally diverse and highly inclusive business community.
The business and industrial sectors will first look within our community for human
resources development.
Employment and financial opportunities will be provided for all citizens.
Our historic and commercial districts will flourish and continue to be a hub for economic
and cultural activities.
Education
Our children and their education will be this community's highest priority beginning at the
pre-school level.
Our school system test results will be among the leaders in the state.
Vocational and technical training alternatives will begin at the middle school level.
Cape Fear Community College and UNC-Wilmington will continue to grow and offer
advanced vocational and post -secondary educational opportunities.
Environment
We envision that in the year 2020, Wilmington and New Hanover County will be an
environmentally clean area with a healthy economy.
Our natural resources, including our beaches, rivers, sounds, aquifers, natural vegetation
and tree canopy will be preserved and protected.
V-2

GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The following goals and common themes for the Wilmington and New Hanover County
Comprehensive Plan are summarized from the policies and implementation actions.
CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT - PHYSICAL PLAN
Land Classification
The guiding architecture for the physical Plan is provided with the following mapped land
classification. Land classes range from the developed urban land to the less developed rural and
resource protected environment. The land classification system is supported and complemented by
zoning.
Land Classification - Guiding Architecture for the Physical Plan
Developed Limited Transition Rural Resource Protection
Urban Transition Community Conservation
The developed and urban transition classes comprise the urban service area. The purpose
of the developed class is to provide for continued intensive development and redevelopment of
existing urban areas. The urban transition class provides for future intensive urban development on
lands that have been or will be provided with necessary urban services. The developed and urban
transition classes allow residential densities greater than 2.5 units per acre.
Residential densities may not exceed 2.5 units per acre for the non -urban service area
composed of. limited transition; community; rural; conservation; and resource protection. The
limited transition class provided for development in areas that will have some services, but at lower
densities than those associated with urban transition. The community class provides for a
"crossroads" type of development to help meet housing, shopping, employment and public service
needs within the more rural areas of the County. The rural class provides for areas of low intensity
land uses, such as agriculture, forests, and mineral extraction areas. The conservation class
provides long-term management and protection of significant, limited or irreplaceable natural
resources. The resource protection class provides preservation and protection of important natural,
historic, scenic, wildlife, and recreation resources.
Conservation and Development - Physical Plan
The Plan's policies and implementation actions fit within the land classification. Together they
address the need to balance conservation and development, through physical planning, for the City
and County. The following are the key physical Plan elements and objectives.
Kev Elements for the Conservation and Development - Phvsical Plan
Conservation Corridors, Greenways, Parks, and Open Space
Residential Neighborhood Development
Linking Pedestrian Friendly Business and Residential Development
Urban Design for Business and Residential Neighborhood Development
Historic Preservation
Community Infrastructure
Transportation
V-3

Storm and Natural Hazards
•
Conservation Corridors, Greenways, Parks and Open Space
The plan provides for conservation corridors and greenways which are linear open space
systems that link and incorporate conservation areas, key parks, open space areas and utility
corridors.
The Plan includes neighborhood, community and regional parks. These are intended to
provide a wide range of facilities to serve the diverse recreational and sporting needs of the
community. The parks and facilities serve both passive and active recreational needs of the
community. The proposed facilities range from playgrounds, picnic areas, basketball courts,
baseball diamonds and tennis courts to larger athletic fields and parks which provide for resource
oriented activities, such as boating, fishing, and hiking. Specialized parks include golf courses and
nature parks.
The greenways are usually located along natural and -or man-made features and may serve
as conservation areas or as recreation areas for walking, jogging, biking and enjoying nature. The
conservation component of greenways afford opportunities to protect and connect key natural
features and functions, preserve essential water resources, act as natural filtration areas for runoff
and pollutants, and to provide corridors for wildlife migration.
Greenways are typically located along streams, flood plains and wetlands, and correspond
to natural vegetated buffers adjacent to wetlands and perennial stream channels. Greenways may
be either publicly or privately owned. Utility corridors such as roads, canals, reservoir shorelines
and water, sewer, and power line easements can also be good locations for greenways. Greenways
range in improvements from slightly cleared natural pathways to fully paved bike and pedestrian
paths, and may or may not be accessible to the public.
Residential Neighborhood Development
The Plan makes provision for the development of residential neighborhoods, with
environmentally sensitive design and an integrated open space system. The Plan focuses on the
concept of Traditional Neighborhood Development which is a type of development with smaller lot
neighborhoods with narrower tree lined streets and sidewalks on both sides of the street. This
design emphasizes a pedestrian orientation and scale. Diverse housing types and lot sizes are mixed
and houses are located close to the fronting street. There may also be some compatible
nonresidential uses mixed in among the residential uses in the neighborhood. Public spaces, such as
formal neighborhood parks, village greens or squares are primary features included in the design.
These serve as focal points for community interaction to compensate for the smaller lot sizes.
Traditional neighborhood designs include alleys for access to parking and for essential public
services. Most traditional neighborhoods use on -street parking , which also serves to reduce traffic
speed, buffer sidewalk pedestrians from traffic, and supply daily overflow or guest parking.
Linking Pedestrian Friendly Business and Residential Development
A vision presented in the Plan is to concentrate business and residential development in
nodes, while retaining open space. This vision provides an alternative to unattractive, inefficient,
and land wasteful strip development, with isolated cut off residential neighborhoods. This vision •
V-4

decreases dependence on the automobile. The business nodes would include highly accessible,
pedestrian friendly commercial centers, surrounded by mixed density residential neighborhoods.
Moving outwards from these centers, the residential densities would decrease.
The Plan provides for innovation and flexibility in land use. Proposed business and
residential nodes are identified, but the precise internal arrangement of the commercial, office,
institutional and higher density residential uses that make up the activity center is not specified.
Instead the Plan establishes guidelines to be followed in the Unified Development Ordinance that
will specify the size and the necessary design elements of development and provide incentives for
their achievement. Changes to the Unified Development Ordinance regulations and procedures will
provide the flexibility for innovation to establish and promote a hierarchy of neighborhood,
community and regional activity centers.
Urban Design for Business and Residential Neighborhood Development
A recurring theme from the community involvement and consultation process was design
related issues. These included thoroughfare landscaping and signage, pedestrian access, dedicated
bicycle routes, and pedestrian friendly shopping centers and parking lots.
The Plan includes general design guidelines to be expanded in the Unified Development
Ordinance. The aim is to maintain and enhance the City and County's visual appeal and its image
as an attractive place in which to live, work and recreate. The Plan design guidelines address the
aesthetic qualities of residential areas, activity and employment centers. The focus of the Plan
design guidelines is on the preservation and creation of a connected open space system with
recreation facilities, and the preservation of environmentally significant features and functions. The
r> . • design guidelines also address preventing strip commercial development, and the establishment of
an integrated transportation network. The Plan guidelines serve as a basis for developing specific
regulations, standards and requirements to manage growth and development.
Historic Preservation
Closely related to urban design for business and Traditional Neighborhood Development is
the unique treasure of existing historic residences and business properties, primarily located in
downtown Wilmington. The public involvement identified the need to nurture and maintain this rich
cultural heritage through historic preservation with a set of guidelines for homeowners, builders
and contractors. These guidelines are currently being written. The Plan recognizes the established
Historic Districts which protects and preserves areas with architectural significance, heritage,
historic importance, and their overall aesthetic qualities.
Community Infrastructure
The Comprehensive Plan serves as an official statement of where growth and development
will be given preference in the future. Not only does it serve to guide investment decisions by the
private sector and citizens, it also serves as a powerful tool to direct new community infrastructure
and investment.
The developed and urban transition land classes comprise the urban service area of the
Wilmington and the unincorporated County (see Land Classification Map section XIn. Beyond the
urban service area are the land classes of the non -urban service area. Guiding growth in the urban
service area will deter land development sprawl and provide for more efficient infrastructure levels
of service.
V-5

Policy direction is addressed on how to pay for the needed community infrastructure with
exploration of alternative forms of financing included impact fees, bond, user fees, and tax increases
for the improvements needed to have a high quality level of service, and to prevent a decline in the
level of service provided to County and City residents. Paying for community infrastructure will be
fairly shared by new development and existing residents.
Transportation
The Greater Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is responsible for
developing and implementing the Transportation Plan for most of the Plan study area. The MPO
includes the City of Wilmington, New Hanover and Brunswick Counties, Belville, Leland,
Navassa, and Wrightsville Beach.
Future housing and employment data forms the basis for the development and testing of
alternate transportation plans. These plans were developed taking into account economic
feasibility, public desires, and environmental impacts. For these plans to be successfully
implemented, the future rights -of -way must be procured or protected.
The Greater Wilmington Urban Area Transportation Plan contains recommended
improvements to the transportation system and these recommendations are reaffirmed by the
policies and actions contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations focus on the
following.
The provision of major and minor new thoroughfares.
Widening of existing streets where appropriate.
The feasibility of multi -modal transit alternatives. •
Park and ride lots, express bus service, and carpool and vanpool services.
Increased rubber tired trolley service.
Bicycle and pedestrian pathways.
Congestion management.
Storms and Natural Hazards
Three hurricanes passing over our County and City between 1996 to 1998 fully illustrate
the need for a proactive storm and natural hazard policy with implementation actions to be
included in the Plan. A set of policies and actions are in place that address mitigation, evacuation,
and recovery in the event of a hurricane or disaster. These policies and actions focus on measures
to safeguard increased future populations from the risk of natural disaster. A Recovery Task Force
may be appointed with the responsibility for directing reconstruction after a damaging storm. If
needed the City and County may retain on a seasonal basis a facilitator or consultant to assist with
mitigation, evacuation, recovery efforts. Actions address immediate removal and debris clean up
and restoration of services following a major storm event.
V-6

HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - SOCIAL NEEDS
Housing and Related Challenges
The following are key housing related challenges to come out of the Plan public
consultation process.
The Plan supports the effort for the City to enhance it's minimum housing program, and
for the County to establish a minimum housing program with appropriate enforcement.
The Plan contains policy and action to increase affordable housing for low and moderate
income persons. Methods for increasing affordable housing and ownership for low and moderate
income residents include: expanding existing programs; establishing a mortgage revenue bond
program; and establishing a land trust program for affordable housing land acquisition.
Federal and State funding for housing and economic development programs would be
maximized through a consolidation of the County and City, Housing and Urban Development,
Community Development Block Grant program. It is recommended that consolidation of the City
and County programs should be considered.
The amount of rental affordable housing needs to be increased and the Plan calls for an
expanded City rental rehabilitation loan program and the establishment of a similar County
program.
• The City and County homeless population is a challenge to be addressed. The Plan calls
for expanded programs for homeless shelters with adequate quality accommodations and with an
emphasis on housing for the mentally disabled.
There was a concern that a mechanism for public outreach on growth and development is
needed. These concerns identified the need for better communication in both the City and County
between government staff, elected officials, and citizens neighborhood associations. The Plan calls
for creating neighborhood guidelines to remedy this challenge.
The elderly population in the City and County will increase because of immigrating
retirees and aging "baby boomers" in the next decade. The Plan calls for establishing a housing
program to deal with the challenge of the projected increase in persons with special needs and
elderly persons.
To insure that there will be adequate student housing for the University of North Carolina
- Wilmington, and Cape Fear Community College, the Plan calls for an on and off campus student
housing program coordinated with the University, the College, and the City and County.
Economy
Key economic concepts to come out of the Plan public consultation process include the
following.
Data from the economic technical report show that 57% of the jobs in the County are
relatively low paying, consisting of retail trade, service, and construction. Manufacturing jobs are
the highest paying but they have been steadily declining and now constitute only 11 % of the work
V-7

force. Policy and implementation action to address this challenge is to develop a coordinated
economic development strategy to attract high paying employers, while creating a more diversified
economy. 4)
Some areas of the City and County are economically distressed and the City and County
are working with non-profit and for profits organizations to attract and retain business to these
areas. A priority is to expand economic opportunities for low and moderate income residents so
that poverty is reduced, and employment increased. As more businesses are located in economically
distressed areas commercial districts will improve and related jobs will increase for local residents.
From 1990 to 1996 the Wilmington State Port Authority added to the state economy by
ripple effect: 46,000 new jobs, $1.3 billion in income; $8.3 billion in new sales; $185 million in
new taxes. This major player in our local economy will need to remain competitive into the next
decade by deepening its harbor, improving inland highway and rail access, and upgrading the
terminal. The Plan supports the needed Port upgrades with policy and implementation actions.
An important part our coastal County and port City heritage is the water dependent marine
economy. The Plan supports: local aquaculture research and marine technology, the expansion
efforts of the North Carolina Aquarium at Fort Fisher, and expanded boat manufacturing and
boating services such as marinas.
The Plan encourages airport economic growth and development to be compatible
surrounding land uses.
The City and County are a favorite destination for tourists. New Hanover County's per •
capita retail sales ranked fourth highest in the state in 1995. The Plan encourages a diversified
economy including heritage and historic preservation tourism, boating tourism, and eco tourism
activity.
A skilled and educated workforce is essential for a healthy economy. The Plan addresses
this challenge by supporting the school and work programs of Cape Fear Community College and
the New Hanover County Public Schools. Vocational education is a particular emphasis to the
Plan. Another action item in the Plan is to expand the job skills program for the post high school
aged under -prepared. The Plan supports a study needed to prepare guidelines to address challenge
of public school drop outs and high school students working excessively during the school year.
•
V-8

VI. Natural Resources
Element ,

•
•
VI. Natural Resources
(Environment)
Wilmington New Hanouer County
Comprehensive;plan
ISSUES............................................................................................................................
The following issues have been identified by Citizens through the Community Growth Planning Initiative
and throughout the Comprehensive Plan public participation process, which has included public forums, a telephone
public opinion survey, Subcommittees, and the Steering Committee Task Groups.
1. Clean Water - continued declining water quality has led to strong community desire for protection
and enhancement of our surface and groundwater quality and to bring all coastal waters up to the
highest quality possible.
2. Open Space Preservation & Acquisition - loss of open space and farmlands to development has
resulted in strong community desire to preserve remaining areas for public use; parks, greenways,
bike paths, hiking trails, conservation areas; Save Airlie Gardens!
3. Environmental Protection/Quality of Life - the special quality of our coastal environment is
perceived as an important ingredient in our overall quality of life including our potential for
continued economic growth. We must ensure the protection and enhancement of our natural
resources as stewards for future generations.
4. Growth Management- the current rate of growth is much too fast for the community's comfort level
and it is having a perceived negative impact on the quality of life. The Comprehensive Plan must
have implementable policies to encourage sustainable and orderly growth.
5. Implementation of Plans - identified as a weak area in previous plans; the Comprehensive
Plan should identify the time frame, resource/costs, accountability, and feedback necessary
to ensure its implementation.
VI-1

Natural Resources
:= POLICIES....................................................................................................................................
•
A. RESOURCE PROTECTION
We must preserve, protect and enhance the area's natural resources, because the quality of our environment
is an important ingredient in our overall quality of life, including our potential for continued economic
growth.
The protection of our resources shall be pursued in a regional context with area -wide planning, through a
political process that favors long-term goals over short-term interests and provides accountability for the
implementation of the goals and policies stated herein.
1. WATER QUALITY The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County shall:
1.1 Prevent further deterioration of estuarine water quality and loss of public trust uses
in the creeks and sounds and bring all coastal waters quality up to its use designation
as determined by the Division(s) of Water Quality, Marine Fisheries, Health, and E.P.A.
1.2 Ensure the protection of water quality throughout the Cape Fear River Basin within New
Hanover County and the management & maintenance of drainage within our coastal
watersheds through participation in the development of regional water quality / stormwater
management programs.
F' 1.3 Ensure the protection, preservation and wise use of our natural resources by careful
review and consideration of the anticipated impacts of development through the creation and
implementation of an Environmental Review Program.
1.4 It is the intent of this plan to further provide for the protection and improvement of
our water quality through our Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The UDO
should specify standards for water quality, buffers, setbacks, density, impervious surface,
and overlay corridors; it should consider estuarine, river and other feeder creeks water
quality; and it should build upon existing information and ordinances.
2. OPEN SPACE The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County shall:
2.1 Ensure the preservation of adequate open space for its continued enjoyment and
contribution to our community today and for generations to come, to protect our natural
environment and wildlife habitats and to provide educational & recreational opportunities.
2.2 Identify and protect wildlife corridors as a part of the greenway system and require their
protection or mitigation with all new development.
2.3 Preserve Airlie Gardens as a part of the greenway system to provide public open space,
natural environment and water quality protection, coastal landscape, educational
opportunities, and to ensure its continued enjoyment and contribution to our community.
•
VI-2

2.4 Ensure the protection of our community's significant trees and the provision of adequate
landscaping to address urban design and resource protection issues through the update
of city and county development ordinances & processes and establishment of a joint
Tree Advisory Commission.
2.5 Provide for the protection, acquisition and development of public shorefront and boat access
areas.
3. NATURAL RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS The City of Wilmington and New Hanover
County shall:
3.1 Preserve and restore shell fishing to all SA waters and bring all coastal waters designated
or formerly designated SA up to their use designation.
3.2 Provide for the continued protection of the Cape Fear River from the cumulative impacts
of development by ensuring that Industrial permitting does not exceed the river's carrying
capacity and land disturbing activities are carefully reviewed and considered for their
potential sediment/turbidity and nutrient impacts.
3.3 Minimize dense development activities in ocean erodible areas, high hazard flood areas,
inlet hazard areas, and coastal & federally regulated wetlands to protect the public safety,
reduce the risk of property damage, and provide for the long-term protection and
management of these environmentally significant resources due to their natural role in the
integrity of the coastal region.
3.4 Ensure the protection of coastal and federally regulated wetlands that have important
functional significance through earl identification in the development process. Review of
g � Y P
development proposals should seek to achieve the goal of avoidance, minimization, and/or
compensation.
3.5 Ensure the protection of our undeveloped barrier and estuarine system islands and support
research and passive recreation as their primary uses. Undeveloped barrier and estuarine
system islands should not be developed and should be identified as public acquisition
areas.
3.6 Carefully control development activities within the 100-year floodplain to minimize
density and impervious surfaces and require low intensity uses such as open space and
recreation, to protect the public safety, reduce the risk of property damage, and provide for
the long-term protection and management of these environmentally significant resources.
• Limited shared industrial access corridors and exceptionally designed residential
development projects may be allowed within the floodplain only where it can be
demonstrated that the project cannot be located out of the floodplain and where
adverse impacts to the estuarine system can be shown to be negligible.
• All projects shall comply with hierarchical review standards of avoidance,
minimization, and compensation for unavoidable impacts.
3.7 Require that the cumulative and secondary impacts of land use and development, and the
limited carrying capacity of our coastal ecosystems be considered in all land use decisions
and in the development or revision of local plans, capital facilities, services, and ordinances.
1 0
VI-3

3.8 Allow channel maintenance projects only where the public trust interest is preserved or
enhanced; significant economic or recreational benefits will occur for planning area
residents; and no significant adverse impacts will occur on shoreline dynamics.
3.9 Allow shoreline erosion control only where the public trust interest is not adversely impacted
and the public shoreline will be the primary beneficiary, The shoreline stabilization method
chosen shall, to the maximum extent feasible, maintain water quality and avoid or minimize
adverse effects on nearshore habitat or natural resources.
3.10 Carefully control development activities within the estuarine watersheds to prevent the
degradation of water quality in the creeks and sounds, to protect the public health, and to
ensure the protection of these vital natural resources by reducing nutrient, pesticide,
sediment and other harmful loadings through density controls, setbacks, buffers, impervious
surface limits, and other means. The following standards shall apply:
• Limit density to 2.5 units/acre or less in Resource Protection & Conservation.
• Limit impervious surface coverage within defined water quality critical areas.
• Increase existing setbacks and establish a natural vegetative buffer to effectively
filter runoff prior to entering surface waters.
3.11 Limit density in hydric soils and Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's);and encourage
Planned Residential Development and Planned Unit Development to allow greater -design
flexibility to save trees and natural buffers.
3.12 Clearcutting or mowing of coastal wetland vegetation within any coastal wetland AEC
shall not be allowed.
4. AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN The City of Wilmington and New Hanover
County shall:
4.1 Prohibit the use of estuarine waters, estuarine shorelines and public trust areas for
development activity which would result in significant adverse impact to the natural
function of these areas.
4.2 Carefully control development activities within AEC's to prevent the degradation
of water quality and to ensure the protection of these vital natural resources by reducing
nutrient, pesticide, sediment and other harmful loadings through the use of density control,
setbacks, buffers, impervious surface limits, and other means. The following standards shall
apply:
• Limit density to 2.5 units/acre or less in Resource Protection and Conservation.
• Limit impervious surface coverage within defined water quality critical areas.
• Increase existing setbacks and establish a natural vegetative buffer to effectively
filter runoff prior to entering surface waters.
4.3 Support the preservation, protection, and acquisition of the Masonboro Island Estuarine
Research Reserve
4.4 Discourage the development of undeveloped barrier and estuarine system islands, and allow
development only in limited circumstances.
VI4
•

•
4.5 Continue the phased development and extension of the County sewer system within the
urban services area as a means of eliminating water pollution from malfunctioning or
inadequate septic systems and package treatment plants. In Conservation and Resource
Protection areas an environmental review shall be required prior to sewer system
development or extension and no additional density shall be allowed in these areas. Planned
Residential Development, Planned Unit Development and other methods of cluster
development shall be encouraged to allow greater design flexibility.
4.6 Allow only tertiary sewage treatment plants of the highest quality, whose standards of
operation provide the greatest measure of water quality protection, to discharge into public
surface waters; and then only if it is not feasible to connect to the public sewer system. or
as an alternative, on or off -site land application located away from surface waters.
4.7 Seek to provide additional boat access facilities, recognizing that adequate, properly
sited facilities are essential to the preservation of both the environment and economy.
4.8 Allow the development of marinas and moorings as a means of providing public access to
the extent that their development shall not adversely effect estuarine resources or public
trust waters.
• Marinas shall not be allowed in Primary Nursery Areas(PNA), Outstanding
Resource Waters(ORW), or open Shellfishing Waters(SA).
• Moorings and mooring fields shall not be allowed where they may have an
adverse effect on navigation channels.
• Pumpout facilities shall be required for existing marinas which have boats
containing enclosed heads.
4.9 Allow uses of estuarine and public trust waters that provide benefits to the public and which
satisfy riparian access needs of private property owners. In tidal waters, docks shall be
limited to the minimum necessary to provide riparian access to waterfront property owners
4.10 Not allow new dredging activities in Primary Nursery Areas (PNA), Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), or Shellfishing Waters (SA) , except for the purpose of scientific research,
designed for the purpose of protecting and enhancing water quality, and where supported
by sound scientific and technical knowledge.
4.11 Clearcutting or mowing of coastal wetland vegetation within any coastal wetland AEC shall
not be allowed.
4.12 Prohibit floating home development in order to protect our public trust and estuarine waters.
4.13 Pursue a policy of "retreat" along our estuarine shorelines in order to accommodate
future sea level rise and wetland migration.
4.14 Allow shoreline erosion control and stabilization above our marsh wetlands only where
the public trust interest is not impacted and the public shoreline will be the primary
beneficiary. The shoreline stabilization method chosen shall, to the maximum extent
feasible, maintain water quality and avoid or minimize adverse effects on nearshore
habitat or natural resources.
VI-5

5. POTABLE WATER SUPPLY The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County shall:
5.1 Ensure that all land use and development decisions protect our groundwater aquifers. •
5.2 Not allow the development of mining operations if, based upon the best available information
and scientific data, adverse impacts to the ground water aquifer will most probably occur.
5.3 Conserve and protect the best sources of potable surface and groundwater.
5.4 Preserve the Castle Hayne and Pee Dee aquifers in their present unpolluted
state as the primary groundwater resources for the County.
6. OTHER FRAGILE OR HAZARDOUS AREAS The City of Wilmington and New
Hanover County shall:
6.1 Continue to support plans for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, for the
prevention and clean-up of spills of toxic materials, and the evacuation of area residents in
response to natural or man-made hazardous events.
6.2 Carefully review the siting of all industries, including energy facilities and high voltage
utilities, to ensure the protection of area residents and natural resources. `
6.3. Ensure that industrial permitting on the Cape Fear River does not exceed the rivers
carrying capacity and that land disturbing activities are carefully reviewed and considered
for their potential cumulative impacts.
6.4. Ensure the continued protection of the Masonboro Island Estuarine Research Reserve and
support the preservation and acquisition efforts.
7. AIR QUALITY The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County shall:
7.1 Ensure the protection and enhancement of air quality in our community through continued
commitment and actions to meet or exceed the Cape Fear Region's National Air Quality
Standards.
B. RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT
We must seek to ensure the continued sustainable development of the area's natural resources
through responsible management which avoids short sighted or premature commitments and
fulfills our community's needs without permanent impairment to the resource base.
We will support efforts to wisely manage the natural resources of the area and the region through
cooperation with other governmental entities and public and private agencies.
1. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES The City of Wilmington and New
Hanover County shall:
1.1 Discourage the premature conversion of the planning area's remaining farmlands and
commercial woodlands into more intensive uses. •
VI-6

0"
is
2. MINERAL RESOURCES The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County shall:
2.1 Not allow the development of mining operations if, based upon the best available
information and scientific data, adverse impacts to the ground water aquifer or other
significant environmental resources will most probably occur.
3. FISHERIES RESOURCES The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County shall:
3.1 Support the continued productivity of commercial and recreational fisheries through the
protection of the unique coastal ecosystems, including primary nursery areas, shellfish
waters and coastal marshes upon which they depend, and the Masonboro Island Estuarine
Research Reserve.
3.2 Pursue the protection, preservation, and restoration of shellfishing in all SA waters.
4. OFF -ROAD VEHICLES The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County shall:
4.1 Ensure the continued protection of ecologically sensitive ocean and estuarine shoreline areas
through monitoring and control of off -road vehicle use, including signage programs,
rewards, increased fines, and other means.
DEFINITIONS
• Carrying Capacity- the number of individuals who can be supported without degrading the
physical, ecological, cultural and social environments(eg-without reducing the ability of the
environment to sustain the desired quality of life over the long term).
• Cumulative Impacts- two or more individual effects which when considered together are
considerable or which compound or increase other environmental effects.
• Secondary Impacts- later and unintended effects of any direct man-made action or indirect
repercussions of man-made actions
• Barrier Islands - any land formation composed of unconsolidated materials lying on the ocean side
of the mainland and which have the following characteristics: a) The land is an island or part of
island with a density equal to or less than one residential unit per five acres; b) the island area has
been assigned the most severe rank with regard to hurricane forces; c) the island area is not
connected to the mainland by a permanent network of roads and bridges that would allow safe and
timely evacuation by land rather than boat; d) the island area does not qualify for the National Flood
Insurance Program as administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency; e) the island
area is classified as Conservation in the Land Use Plan; also includes estuarine islands, riverine
islands, and spoil disposal islands (note: further clarification of this definition will be provided with
amendments to zoning and subdivision definitions).
VI-7

• Hydric Soils - Soils that are saturated or seasonally saturated with water at or near the surface
(within 12-18 inches depending on soil type). Generalized characteristics include high organic matter
f content of the surface, low shrink swell potential, and frequent sustained flooding. All Class IV and •
some Class III Soils as defined in the 1981 technical report, Classification of Soils in New Hanover
Countyfor Septic Tank Suitability.
Development -any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not
limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, or
drilling operations; excluding bona fide farming activities.
• Major Development - the term major development project shall include but is not limited
to shopping centers, subdivision and other housing developments, and industrial and
commercial projects, but shall not include any project of less than 2 contiguous acres in
extent (G.S. I I3A-9. Definitions -NC Environmental Policy Act).
Watershed - the area of land where water that falls or is contained therein runs off or drains into the
same river, stream, lake, estuary, or aquifer.
Riparian Access - the legal right of waterfront property owners to construct docks or piers that are
contained within the boundaries of their riparian area limit (90 degree angle from the edge of the
channel back to the property line or shore).
Marina - includes commercial marinas, rental slips, community boating facilities, and residential
piers renting more than two slips.
• Commercial Marina- any dock or basin and associated structures commercially providing
permanent or temporary harboring or storing of two or more boats, pleasure or commercial,
and providing marine services, including but not limited to retail sales for fuel, repair, •
convenient food stuffs, boats, engines, and accessory equipment.
Community Boating Facility- a private non-profit boating facility including a dock, pier,
and/or launching ramp on property which has water frontage, the use of which is intended
to serve 5 or more residential lots or units. The right to use such facility must be conferred
by an easement appurtenant to the residential lot it is intended to serve. No commercial
activities of any kind shall be allowed within the confines of the facility.
Mooring - any means to attach a ship, boat, vessel or other water craft to a stationary
underwater device, buoy, buoyed anchor, or freestanding piling.
Water Dependant Uses- those activities or structures for which the use requires access or proximity
to or siting adjacent to or within surface waters to fulfill its intended purpose, such as boat docks,
ramps, shoreline stabilization measures, navigational aids and/or channels. Examples of structures
that are not water dependant include but are not limited to commercial boat storage facilities,
restaurants,residences, parking lots, trailers, hotels, motels, roadways, tennis courts, or swimming
pools.
Passive Recreation- those activities which avoid or minimize the use of impervious or built upon
surfaces, such as raised wooden walkways, vegetated greenways, non -paved pathways, and other
similar uses. Passive recreation activities shall conform to standards for setbacks, buffers, impervious
surfaces, etc.
VI-8

NATURAL RESOURCES I LEMENTATION ACTIONS
Policy Implementation Actions Details for Actions Priority Resources Fiscal Responsibility,Status
#'s - - - - Required Year(s)
$
All Planning
duality One (1) $$$$$
1999 - . Planning /
r duality, !
2000 - Engineering
2001 -'
2002
that
ed (ie-1.
rshed, to .
ale
isition
reserve,
protect
its
ii'of
pursue an avauawe;gran is.
9) Continue to support the Lower Cave.F
& the'UNCW Tidal Creeks Program':
VI-9

Policy
Implementation Actions
Details for Actions
Priority Resources Fiscal .;' Responsibility :,Status
#'s
Required Year(s)
ALL
Develop an environmental
1) Develop an environmental review process and ordinance;
One (1) $$ 1999 Planning
1.3
review program
to be required for all major development projects, or any
1.4
development in conservation, resource protection, coastal
2.1 :
404 wetlands or other sensitive areas; to include:
2.2
a) guidelines for the evaluation of cumulative impacts on the
3.2-12
community:
4.1
b) guidelines for review of impacts in accordance with goals of
4.4-6
avoidance, minimization, compensationand/or mitigation.
4.8-10 `
c) identification and protection of historical, archaeological, and
4.13-14
other conservation resources
5.1-4
d) preservation of significant /specie trees
6.1-4
e) guidelines for mitigation of impacts
A2.1-5
Develop a comprehensive open
I)Develop and implement a joint city -county masterplan for:
Two (2) $$$$$ 1999- Planning/
4.7-8
space, greenways and trails
open space, greenways, parks, and trails.
2003 Parks
system
2)Develop a funding "program to ensure adequate resources ;
are allocated. Funding strategies for consideration, to
include fees, bonds; grants; and others.
3)Develop public access/boat access area plans
4)ldentify areas on Future Land Use and Land
Classification: Maps:..
23
Preserve Airlie Gardens
Pursue acquisition !preservation strategies, to, include
One (I) $$$$$ 1998- Planning/
program funding through grants, bonds, and, others:
1999 Parks
(See also implementation actions for Policy A2.I above)
A1.4
Update city and county,
1) Revise andiupdate the Unified Development Ordinance
:.One $$ 1999 Planning
24
development processes and
3.3-6
ordinances !
2) Include new standards to address identified resource
3.10-12
protection issues, urban design issues, tree preservation /
44
landscaping issues and others:
411-13
51
3) Develop specific performance standards for setbacks,
64.1
natural vegetated buffers, and impervious surface limns for
each watershed.
4) Revise and update development/permit review process
0 AD 0

Policy
Implementation Actions
Details for Actidns—..... Pdority
Resources"Fiscal
# Is
......
R ..
equired Year(s).
3.2
Support the protection of the
1) Support the Lower. Cape Fear River Program, Cape Fear One (1)
Planning
Cape Fear River from the <
River Assembly, Cape Fear Resource, Conservation &
2002
cumulative impacts of
Development Council,: and the Cape Fear -Rivet Basin
development:
Modeling Program (NC Div*. of Water Quality).
2) Support: the 'develo development of best management
p en ntpract1ces,.:.:,,:
and pursue, their implementation f6r upstream no n-spoint-;
u
sources of pollution, including agricultural (hog, 139Itry,
,
etc) and '.forestry operations.
3) Support a continued moratorium on new orexpanded:'
industrial hog farming operations pending basinMde
environmental impact assessment.
A4.3-4
Support the protection and
1) Pursue island acquisition and preservation strategies 1. . . I on I e (1):::
$$ :1999- Planning
6.4
preservation of Masonboro. Island
2002.
Estuarine Research Reserve..
2) Develop guidelines.for .the environmental revid,1,v:jpi6cess:.,
to ensure no significant Adverse effects from, mainland
development activities
3) Support the scientific research activities of the Reserve
VI-1 I

VII. Land Use & Urban
Design Element

VII. Land Use and Urban -Design
ISSUES.........................................................................................................
1. Allocation of sufficient land for all desirable land use types
2. Flexible and Innovative site plan criteria are needed to guide the development process throughout the county.
3. Continue to promote Wilmington as a regional trade center
4. Minimize dependence on the automobile by changing land use patterns and providing facilities for
alternative methods of transportation
5. Allow higher density where adequate infrastructure exists and where natural conditions will not be adversely
effected.
6. Land use plans and regulations effecting land use should be coordinated between the city and county and
should incorporate the conclusions of other planning efforts (ie. Community Growth, Downtown 2020, River
Corridor Plan).
7. Define urban service district.
•8. Identify elements that define quality of life and determine the impacts of the built environment on those
elements.
•
POLICIES...................................................................................... .
Location/Demand
l . The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County shall strive to enhance the quality of the built
environment while preserving and protecting the area's natural environment.
2. The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County will designate sufficient land area and suitable
locations for the various land use types.
2.A. Use projected needs and available services identified in the technical studies as the basis for land
use allocations.
2.13. Locate land use types based on the following guiding policies and implementation items:
VII-1

Open Space, Cultural and Recreation
3. The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County will strive to acquire, protect and beautify historic
and cultural sites, corridors along key roadways and significant open spaces.
3.A. Establish protective corridors along key roadways, historic and cultural sites and other areas that
are visually significant.
3.13. Pursue railroad and other rights -of -way as potential open space, trailway and recreation areas.
3.C. Identify environmentally sensitive land as potential open space and recreation areas and key sites
for parks.
Industrial
4. New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington will delineate areas for industrial usage so that these
sites maximize the efficient use of man made resources while not harming the fragile ecosystem or
causing undue impacts upon residents.
4.A. Locate heavy industrial uses in locations: with adequate land area to accommodate the expansive
sites required for such uses; that are environmentally suitable; and, where necessary
infrastructure (utilities, transportation facilities) is available or included in capital improvement
plans.
4.13. Allow light industrial (clean) uses in mixed use areas with clear requirements for location on no
less than collector streets, availability of utilities, and appropriate performance controls to
address odor, noise, lighting and other impacts on surrounding uses.
4.C. Provide a wide choice of sites with good access to labor markets, suppliers and buyers through
consultation with Wilmington Industrial Development, the State Port and others in the field of
industrial promotion.
Commercial
5. New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington will assure that land is available for commercial uses
within close proximity to the markets they serve while not diminishing the quality of residential and
mixed use neighborhoods.
5.A. Locate regional commercial nodes at major intersections to accommodate uses that serve a
regional market.
5.13. Designate the central business district as a regional trade/office center.
0
•
5.C. Locate commercial centers to provide community level service and trade needs at key
intersections or on major thoroughfares with appropriate performance and design requirements. is5.D. Allow neighborhood level commercial in mixed use areas with strict guidelines for development.
V II-2

•
�j
Mixed Use
6. The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County will promote mixed use development in undeveloped
areas in order to maximize benefits from available infrastructure, preserve valuable natural resources
including open space and reduce dependency on the automobile.
6.A. Develop performance criteria for mixed use development to ensure proper design, density,
access, etc.
6.13. Designate undeveloped and underdeveloped areas as mixed use to accommodate residential and
less intense commercial, office, industrial uses with strict performance controls.
Residential Neighborhoods
7. The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County shall strive to protect the character of the area's
existing residential neighborhoods.
7.A. Afford existing residential neighborhoods performance standards to keep the neighborhood
character consistent with the pattern of development for the area.
7.13. Afford a higher level of protection for existing residential neighborhoods by limiting non-
residential uses and allowing public review.
Design/Regulatory
The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County shall encourage innovative development strategies
while providing flexible design guidelines that enhance the aesthetic impact of the built environment.
8.A. Develop performance standards that will allow the mingling of compatible uses.
8.13. Develop specific urban design standards to promote public spaces.
9. New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington shall adopt specific performance criteria to encourage
the conservation of natural resources and enhance economic desirability by promoting accessibility of
goods and services, providing alternatives to automobile transportation and adopting specific
performance criteria for new development.
9.A. Conduct design charettes to develop models (examples) of desirable characteristics of
development elements (streets, parks, neighborhood services,....).
9.13. Provide incentives to property owners to preserve and reclaim key natural resources through
innovative design using available public and private resources towards creative approaches
toward acquisition.
9.C. Develop standards to ensure that heavy industrial areas have adequate access and are properly
VII-3

distanced from and minimize impacts such as noise, fumes and lighting, on adjoining non-
industrial areas.
9.D. Provide design criteria for regional nodes to ensure the appropriate relationship to the existing
streetscape. Criteria will address the issues of congestion, visual clutter, utilities and the proper
relationship with adjoining properties.
9.E. Provide clear requirements for mixed use development to include maximum square footage,
buildable area ratio, impervious surface coverage, landscaping buffering, lighting, access, height,
density, exterior materials, parking, orientation to the street, etc.
9.F. Promote alternative modes of transportation in design guidelines.
9.G. Reference approved plans, such as the Wilmington Downtown Plan, Vision 2020 and the historic
district guidelines, in applicable development guidelines.
Infrastructure
10. New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington shall promote development within an established
urban service area defined by the existence of essential urban services and the planned provision of those
services.
10.A. Modify applicable plans, regulations and budgets to focus the provision of urban -level services
within the areas designated as "Urban" on the land classification map. •
10.B. Modify development regulations to encourage development within the urban services area where
existing infrastructure is available.
10.C. Consider the cost of infrastructure that are land use driven in modifying development
regulations.
10.D. Initiate innovative capital facilities financing as a part of the development approval process.
10.E. Implement the comprehensive plan through the City and County capital improvement programs.
10.F. Pursue joint ownership by the City and County of major utility systems.
10.G. Develop a schematic collector street plan as a guide in the development approval process and
implementation of an effective transportation network.
10.H. Consider providing state of the art technical services such as fiber optic lines which will make
the area more attractive to prospective commercial and industrial companies when planning
other essential urban services.
VII-4

LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
2.A.
Use projected needs and available
Compare projections with future land use
Planning
$
N/A
September
services identified in the technical
map.
1998
studies as the basis for land use
allocations.
2.13.
Locate land use types based on the
Future Land Use Map
Steering
$
N/A
September
following guiding policies and
Committee
1998
implementation items:
3.A.
Establish protective corridors along key
Reflect on Future Land Use Map (Sept.
Steering
$
H
Spring,
roadways, historic and cultural sites and
'98), incorporate into revisions to UDO;
Com/Planning
1999
other areas that are visually significant.
Brd./ Planning
Com./
Planning
3.13.
Pursue railroad and other rights -of -way
Monitor for abandonment.
Planning
$
M
On -Going
as potential open space, trailway and
recreation areas.
3.C.
Identify environmentally sensitive land
Incorporate into Parks Master Plan and
Parks & Rec./
$$$
M
1999-2000
as potential open space and recreation
Capital Improvement Programs.
Admin./
areas and key sites for parks.
Planning
4.A.
Locate heavy industrial uses in locations
Reflect on Future Land Use Map (Sept.,
Steering Com.
$
H
Spring,
w/adequate land area to accommodate
1998), incorporate into revisions to UDO.
/Planning
1999
expansive sites required for such uses;
Commission/
that are environmentally suitable; and,
Planning
where necessary infrastructure (utilities,
transportation facilities) is available or
included in capital improvement plans.
4.13
Allow light industrial (clean) uses in
Reflect on Future Land Use Map (Sept.,
Steering Com.
$
H
Spring,
mixed use areas with clear requirements
1998), incorporate into revisions to UDO.
/Planning
1999
for location on no less than collector
Commission/
streets, availability of utilities, and
Planning
appropriate performance controls to
address odor, noise, lighting and other
impacts on surrounding uses.
VII-5

LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
4.C.
Provide a wide choice of sites with good
Develop inventory of sites.
Planning/WID
$
M
1999-2000
access to labor markets, suppliers &
/Chamber/
buyers through consultation w/ Wilm.
SPA/UNCW
Indus. Devel., the State Port and others
in the field of industrial promotion.
S.A.
Locate regional commercial nodes at
Reflect on Future Land Use Map (Sept.,
Steering Com.
$
H
Spring,
major intersections to accommodate
1998), incorporate into revisions, to UDO.
/Planning
1999
uses that serve a regional market.
Commission/
Planning
5.6.
Designate the central business district as
Reflect on Future Land Use Map (Sept.,
Steering Com.
$
H
Spring,
a regional trade/office center.
1998), incorporate into revisions to UDO.
/Planning
1999
Commission/
Planning
S.C.
Locate commercial centers to provide
Conduct design charettes, research
Steering
$
H
Fall, 1998
community level service and trade needs
regulations in other communities,
Com/Planning
at key intersections or on major
incorporate results into UDO revision.
Brd./ Planning
thoroughfares with appropriate
Com./
performance and design requirements.
Planning
S.D.
Allow neighborhood level commercial
Conduct design charettes, research
Steering
$
H
Fall, 1998
in mixed use areas with strict guidelines
regulations in other communities,
Com/Planning
for development.
incorporate results into UDO revision.
Brd./ Planning
Com./
Planning
6.A.
Develop performance criteria for mixed
Conduct design charettes, research
Steering
$
H
Fall, 1998
use development to ensure proper
regulations in other communities,
Com/Planning
design, density, access, etc.
incorporate results into UDO revision.
Brd./ Planning
Com./
Planning
6.13.
Designate undeveloped and
underdeveloped areas as mixed use to
Reflect on Future Land Use Map (Sept.
'98), incorporate into revisions to UDO;
Steering
Com/Planning
$
H
Spring,
1999
accommodate residential and less
Brd./ Planning
intense commercial, office, industrial
Com./
uses with strict performance controls. I
I
Planning
0 .V16 0

LAND USE ANDqjRBAN DESIGN 6111
7.A.
Afford existing residential
Conduct design charettes, research
Steering
$
H
Fall, 1998
neighborhoods performance standards to
regulations in other communities,
Com/Planning
keep the neighborhood character
incorporate results into UDO revision.
Brd./ Planning
consistent with the pattern of
Com./
development for the area.
Planning
7.13.
Afford a higher level of protection for
Conduct design charettes, research
Steering
$
H
Fall, 1998
existing residential neighborhoods by
regulations in other communities,
Com/Planning
limiting non-residential uses and
incorporate results into UDO revision.
Brd./ Planning
allowing public review.
Com./
Planning
B.A.
Develop performance standards that will
Conduct design charettes, research
Steering
$
H
Fall, 1998
allow the mingling of compatible uses.
regulations in other communities,
Com/Planning
incorporate results into UDO revision.
Brd./ Planning
Com./
Planning
8.13.
Develop specific urban design standards
Conduct design charettes, research
Steering
$
H
Fall, 1998
to promote public spaces.
regulations in other communities,
Com/Planning
incorporate results into UDO revision.
Brd./ Planning
Com./
Planning
9.A.
Conduct design charettes to develop
Conduct design charettes, research
Steering
$
H
Fall, 1998
models (examples) of desirable
regulations in other communities,
Com/Planning
characteristics of development elements
incorporate results into UDO revision.
Brd./ Planning
(streets, parks, neighborhood
Com./
services,...).
Planning
9.13.
Provide incentives to property owners to
Conduct research and develop changes to
Planning
$
M
1999 —
preserve and reclaim key natural
unified development ordinance.
2000
resources through innovative design
using available public and private
resources towards creative approaches
toward acquisition.
V11-7

LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN
9.C.
Develop standards to ensure that heavy
Revise unified development ordinance.
Planning
$
H
Spring,
industrial areas have adequate access
Board/
1999
and are properly distanced from and
Planning
minimize impacts such as noise, fumes
Commission
and lighting, on adjoining non -industrial
areas.
9.D.
Provide design criteria for regional
Conduct design charettes, research
Steering
$
H
Fall, 1998
nodes to ensure the appropriate
regulations in other communities,
Com/Planning
relationship to the existing streetscape.
incorporate results into UDO revision.
Brd./ Planning
Criteria will address the issues of
Com./
congestion, visual clutter, utilities and
Planning
the proper relationship with adjoining
properties.
9.E.
Provide clear requirements for mixed
Conduct design charettes, research
Steering
$
H
Fall, 1998
use development to include maximum
regulations in other communities,
Com/Planning
square footage, buildable area ratio,
incorporate results into UDO revision.
Brd./ Planning
impervious surface coverage,
Comd
landscaping buffering, lighting, access,
Planning
height, density, exterior materials,
parking, orientation to the street, etc.
9.F.
Promote alternative modes of
Conduct, research and develop changes to
Planning
$
M
1999—
transportation in design guidelines.
unified development ordinance.
2000
9.G.
Ref. Approved plans, such as Wilm.
Incorporate into applicable regulations.
Planning
$
M
1999—
Downtown Plan, Vision 2020 and the
2000
historic district guidelines, in applicable
development guidelines.
10.A.
Modify applicable plans, regulations &
Incorporate into 1999 — 2000 budget
Planning/
$
M
1999—
budgets to focus provision of urban-
process.
Admin.
2000
level services within the areas desig. as
"Urban" on the land classification map.
10.B.
Modify development regulations to
encourage development within the
Revise unified development ordinance.
Planning
Board/
$
H
Spring,
1999
urban services area where existing
Planning
infrastructure is available.
Commission
VII-8

LAND USE AND -URBAN DESIGN �J
10C.
Consider the cost of infrastructure that
Revise unified development ordinance.
Planning
$
M
Spring,
are land use driven in modifying
Board/
1999
development regulations.
Planning
Commission
10.D.
Initiate innovative capital facilities
Revise unified development ordinance.
Planning
$
M
Spring,
financing as part of the development
Board/
1999
approval process.
Planning
Commission
10.E.
Implement the comprehensive plan
Incorporate into 1999 — 2000 budget
Planning/
$
M
1999—
through the City and County capital
process.
Admin.
2000
improvement programs.
10.F.
Pursue joint ownership by the City and
Continue City/County Utilities Committee.
City Council/
H
1999—
Present
County of major utility systems.
County Com-
2000
missioners/
Admin
10.G.
Develop schematic collector street plan
Complete work on the collector street
Planning/
$$
H
Spring,
as a guide in the development approval
network in the metropolitan planning area;
NCDOT/ TCC
1999
process and implementation of an
possibly consulting contract.
effective transportation network.
I O.H.
Consider providing state of the art
Conduct research and develop changes to
Planning
$
L
1999—
technical services such as fiber optic
unified development ordinance.
2000
lines which make the area more
attractive to prospective coml. &
industrial companies when planning
other essential urban services.
VII-9

Vill. Transportation
Element
0 • •

VIII. Transportation
Issues ._
• The full impact of new development and changes in land use on transportation systems, and the cost
of mitigating this impact, is not adequately addressed.
• Efforts to improve flow of people and products are not sufficiently coordinated.
• Alternative forms of transport are not given enough emphasis.
• Strip development along thoroughfares.
• The preservation of transportation corridors is inadequate.
• The appearance of road arteries needs improvement.
• The construction and maintenance of transportation facilities negatively impacts the environment,
particularly water quality.
• Driveway access to arterial roads are not sufficiently controlled.
• Traffic volume exceeds the capacity of street networks.
• The negative affects of new roads on neighborhoods.
• Policy
-1. TRAFFIC
1.1 The City and County shall initiate and support increased funding from state, and federal agencies
to improve the flow of people and products to and in the City and County.
•
1.2 The MPO and the urban area jurisdictions shall encourage the State and the federal authorities to
provide interstate connections to areas south of the urban area.
1.3 The City and County shall work with the MPO and NCDOT to increase the capacity of the
existing street network and other transportation facilities.
1.4 The County shall reduce the impact of new driveways on the roadway network.
1.5 The City and County shall require street connectivity and minimizing cul-de-sac development
through collector street planning.
1.6 In order that existing and planned thoroughfares may operate adequately, all new development
must adhere to the intent and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION
2.1 The City and County shall support improved non -highway transportation facilities to access the
area.
VIII-1

2.2 City and County shall work with the NCDOT and the MPO to encourage alternative forms of is
including regional rail, local transit, Transportation Demand Measures such as
van -pooling and ride sharing, and an inter -modal transportation system.
2.3 New development and improvements to existing facilities shall make provision for a
comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including pedestrian causeways,
breezeways and crossings, on collector streets and major arterials. These facilities will provide
an alternative to the automobile.
3. AESTHETICS
3.1 The City and County, through the MPO, will encourage the State to improve the community
through enhancements of streetscaping, including the preservation and use of indigenous flora,
on new and existing streets.
3.2 The City and County shall ensure the preservation of adequate landscaping and tree protection
for parking lots, sidewalks and in street right-of-ways for both public and private projects.
4. ENVIRONMENT
4.1 Priority shall be given to environmental concerns, in particular water quality and surface water
management, when considering the construction and maintenance of transportation facilities.
4.2 Have regard for noise, air quality, and other environmental impacts on existing neighborhood
areas when constructing and maintaining transportation facilities.
5. CORRIDOR PROTECTION •
5.1 Local government and the State shall identify and utilize sources of funds and incentives to
purchase or preserve thoroughfare or rail corridors in a timely and equitable manner. Where
necessary the City will participate in these improvements using impact fees, bonds and or tax
increases.
5.2 City, County and State will investigate and use regulatory provisions for preserving thoroughfare
and rail corridors.
5.3 The City and County will cooperate through an agreement to allow for the purchase of rail and
road corridors
•
V1II-2

TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
I `tementalianAclPan ....Lietatis
ar.: ,/, Adlu�sa
��'
IaMIW
` �rsllii'i
,�lrrlir�
,e'x:
fG�iJ
�8
.... Y�
. aa, a
1.0
Traffic
1.1.1
The Wilmington Urban Area
Implement ongoing MPO
$
1998-on
City of
Established
Metropolitan Planning
operations
Wilmington,
process
Organization(MPO) shall coordinate
New Hanover
programs aimed at improving the flow of
Co., NCDOT,
people and products.
FHWA
1.1.2
The MPO's transportation planning
MPO Staff currently
$
Plan must be
City of
Established
horizon shall be at a minimum 25 years to
implementing 25 year
updated
Wilmington,
process
anticipate future growth.
planning horizon
every 5 years
New Hanover
Co., NCDOT
1.2.1
Create an interstate type facilities to
MPO works with NCDOT,
$$$$$
1998-?
MPO,
New Project
connect with I-20 at Florence, South
NCDOT, FHWA, and
SCDOT,
Carolina.
Florence SC to determine
NCDOT,
feasibility, desirability and
FHWA
funding of connection.
1.2.2
Create an interstate type facility to
MPO works with NCDOT,
$$$$$
1998-?
MPO,
New Project
connect to Charlotte, North Carolina.
NCDOT, FHWA, and
NCDOT,
Charlotte NC to determine
NCDOT,
feasibility, desirability and
FHWA
funding of connection.
1.3.1
The City and County and NCDOT shall
MPO conducts study and
$$
1999-on
NCDOT, City
Continuing
implement the Urban Area Congestion
makes recommendations to
of Wilmington
Project
Management System and level of service
NCDOT and the City of
standard currently being developed by the
Wilmington
MPO.
1.3.2
All appropriate law enforcement agencies
Increased enforcement of
$$
Continuous
State Highway
Continuing
shall improve the enforcement of traffic
traffic laws
Patrol, New
Project
laws.
Hanover
County
Sheriffs Dept.,
City of
Wilmington
Police
VIII-3

TRANSPORTATION IMPUMENTATION ACTIONS
sh
Iartl
. v.._...,R
�.,
sarty
..._ , .RegtrlrerX
......
z.
1.3.3
The City shall continue to improve the
Continuos upgrade of traffic
1
$$
Continuous
City of
Continuing
areas signal system, and to provide the
operations data and
Wilmington
Project
public with more information on this
equipment. Proactive public
program.
information effort.
1.3.4
Continue to work with NCDOT to
Continuos cooperation
1
$
Continuous
City of
Continuing
improve that portion of the signal system
Wilmington
Project
under their control.
1.3.5
Work with the MPO and NCDOT to
Create Plans, Receive
1
$$$$$
1999-on
MPO
New Project
create interchanges at major intersections
Funding, Implement
responsible for
throughout the street network. Where
creating plans
necessary the City will participate in
and acquiring
these improvements using impact fees,
funding, City
bonds and or tax increases.
of
Wilmington,
NCDOT, and
FHWA
responsible for
funding and
implementing
1.3.6
The City, NCDOT and other appropriate
Create Plans, Receive
1
$S$
1999-on
MPO and City
agencies shall construct Separate bicycle
Funding, Implement
responsible for
and pedestrian facilities where
creating plans
appropriate.
and acquiring
funding, City
of
Wilmington,
NCDOT, and
FHWA
responsible for
funding and
implementing
VIII-4

TRANSPORTATION IMP EMENTATION
ACTIONS
Iy��' lemerifalian Ail%nUelaiis
arA ns �Fli j
R�isca
�.�,. >;?.. e
]�e a i61
3. tea..
ASltitwis
�''•o�J, _
�
1.4.1
The County shall adopt more stringent
Prepare, review and adopt
1
$
1999
New Hanover
Ongoing
driveway standards.
amendment to standards
Co./UDO
1.4.2
The City and County shall enact land use
Prepare, and adopt standards
$
1999
New Hanover
Ongoing
policies that minimize driveway access to
-
Co./UDO
major thoroughfares
1.5.1
Develop collector street networks for
Prepare collector street plans
1
$$
1999-
MPO, New
Plans
small areas.
in cooperation with property
2001(?)
Hanover Co.,
currently
owners and affected
City of
created as
neighborhoods. Adoption by
Wilmington
development
appropriate board.
Implemented
is approved
as areas built
out by
development
and City of
Wilmington
1.6.1
Conform to the Comprehensive Plan
Ongoing process conducted
1
$
Continuous
City of
Continuous
policies by examining all proposed
by Planning Commissions,
Wilmington,
rezoning and subdivisions compliance
Technical Review staff and
New Hanover
with the intents and policies of the plan.
governing boards
Co.
2.0
Alternative Forms of
Transportation
2.1.1
Encourage the improvement of freight
MPO, NH Co., City of
1
$
Continuous
NCDOT, CSX
Continuous
and passenger rail service to Wilmington
Wilmington
and New Hanover County.
2.1.2
Encourage the growth of the North
NH Co., City of Wilmington,
$
Continuous
NC Ports
Continuous
Carolina State Port at Wilmington with
Authority, NC
infrastructure improvements and
Dept. of
increased channel depths for shipping.
Commerce,
Army Corps.
of Engineers
2.1.3
Encourage the growth of the Wilmington
NH Co., City of Wilmington
$
Continuous
Airport
Continuous
1 International Airport
Authority,
VIII-5

TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
NCDOT, City
of
Wilmington,
NH Co.
2.2.1
Implement the Transportation Demand
Plan identifies potential
$$
1999
MPO, City of
Ongoing
Measures program being developed by
corporate participants and
Wilmington,
Wilmington Transportation Authority.
users, design service, adopt
NCDOT
program, apply for Federal
and State assistance,
implement
2.2.2
Periodically evaluate the feasibility of all
Monitor existing service and
$
Continuous
MPO,
Continuous
forms of public transportation including
identify potential service
Wilmington
buses, trolleys, and light rail for or any or
expansion and modification
Transit
all portions of the area, prepare a
opportunities. Evaluate areas
Authority. NH
conceptual light rail master plan for the
outside of the City through
Co.
urban area and participate in ongoing
transportation planning
Transportation
NCDOT passenger rail and multi -modal
process.
feasibility studies.
2.2.3
Actively participate in ongoing NCDOT
Support NCDOT efforts to
high
$$$$
1998 - ?
MPO, WTA,
Ongoing
passenger rail and multi -modal facilities
provide passenger rail
Wilmington,
studies. Support funding objectives of
service between Wilmington
New Hanover
the NCDOT in order to assure viability of
and Charlotte.
County
the Charlotte to Wilmington passenger
rail service.
2.3.1
Implement the recommendations of the
Seek Federal, State and
high
$$$
Continuous
NH Co.
Continuous
New Hanover County Bicycle Advisory
Local funding to implement
Bicycle
Committee.
the Plan. Develop and
Advisory
implement Capital
Committee,
Improvements schedule for
MPO, City of
construction of facilities.
Wilmington,
NCDOT
2.3.2
Strongly encourage the State to provide
Request NCDOT to improve
I
high
$
Continuous
MPO, City of
Continuous
bicycle and pedestrian facilities in
facilities for Bicycle and
Wilmington,
VIII-6

{
TRANSPORTATION IMPEEMENTATION ACTIONS
'- i ��Qa:...�.-:-2� tlM.�•
I, 'lerrreri ntlon r�dm
,,,� �!►�P �.. � s��
:c •-.:`�. a. Q..ica".�'.r �..M
beta otA�xi ��
Ma, .., c.;; , Y w..rw�
s�.:.�c �;
l
`/t
.;. .., `
��./w�<}}�
1.
air
a, ate:... , `��.. .�..:::
. �°y«�.�y: °,tea. a�«•
a.`. ".3
Y is�a
�= d .e , v.�s �c � , ,::e:.
.`C,
Y"v. k ✓- �
�.�
•,`;ti3+'..
•s:.'.;
,...� ^v � A
..f e � 1. •i,.�,•3' � Y ih .. �� �� F,•:
^. �-�.�, . �. w, r -_ g,
� �� \''Kx'J�' �
� Tw3,?..y a 3r.u.
.��:
'j �1 '"�
?P�,`��t/f�y
���4RN 3
�«y1:`�.mR,
F��Y� 4.
g�eq�554.
�'1
�...,q .s.,�re.:
'�,�'��! a�� �V•r \n..
.�a.....:i i _`�` ,...,E=
..Fy��
.. .. �b � .�
,
...,<.... .,
i^`
�@c
�#R`�fi ao. 3.a� �.
t ., # u '•a�. . �..
conjunction with new construction and
pedestrian access as they
NCDOT
improvements to transportation facilities.
upgrade facilities
3.0
Aesthetics
3.1.1
The City and County will participate with
Identify corridors needing
1'
$$$
2000-2005
MPO, City of
New Project
NCDOT to enhance streetscaping through
enhancement, develop plan
Wilmington,
the use of regulations, impact fees, bonds
for needed enhancements.
NCDOT
and or tax increases.
Request funding from
NCDOT for enhancements.
Seek necessary local funding
for enhancements and
maintenance.
3.1.2
The City and County will participate with
Identify corridors for
* 1
$
1999-
MPO, City of
New Project
NCDOT to enhance streetscaping by
enhanced streetscaping.
Wilmington,
Unified
encouraging private initiatives.
Coordinate maintenance and
NH Co.,
Development
ROW access issues with
NCDOT
Ordinance
NCDOT. Enact regulations
with incentives for
improvements. Work to
inform and organize private
interests to improve
corridors.
3.1.3
City and County shall enforce regulations
Strictly enforce regulations
$
1999
City of
Unified
to create less obtrusive commercial
to control billboards.
Wilmington,
Development
signage and billboards.
NH Co.,
Ordinance
3.2.1
Develop design standards, ordinances and
Prepare and adopt specific
$
1999
City of
Unified
regulations that specifically identify the
design standards and
Wilmington,
Development
natural resources to be preserved with
ordinances to reflect
NH Co.,
Ordinance
development and redevelopment..
community standards for
resource protection to give
specific guidance as to which
resources to protect.
VIII-7

TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS :y
� -.d �n n `^`v � ) `�•-
� � � �G ar��� � 4�,
�%Y�y`A S,
��
`F nn��'(,�+ y-, � �
4�`�'i � ,+ski`, =nn 4
E
� tl� ..;
1��'i:"*[
4.0
Environment
4.1.1
NCDOT shall adhere to or exceed to
Review proposed NCDOT
$
Continuous
MPO, Cape
Continuous
State and Federal Environmental
actions to insure compliance
Fear Council
regulations for the construction and
with applicable regulations.
of
maintenance of transportation facilities.
Governments
NH Co. City
of Wilmington
4.1.2
The City of Wilmington shall establish
Prepare and adopt specific
$$
2000
City of
Unified
standards for the construction of
design standards and
Wilmington
Development
transportation facilities that exceed State
ordinances to reflect
Ordinance
and Federal requirements for water
community standards for
quality and surface water management.
resource protection to give
specific guidance as to the
required level of water
quality protection.
4.1.3
The City and County shall seek
Identify specific concerns
$
1999
City of
Continuos
legislation to require NCDOT to exceed
with NCDOT's current
Wilmington,
State and Federal requirements for water
practices and seek legislation
NH Co., MPO,
quality and surface water management.
to address these issues.
Local
environmental
groups and
agencies
4.2.1
All proposals for the construction and
All appropriate review
$
Continuous
NH Co. City
Continuous
maintenance of transportation facilities,
boards shall review proposed
of Wilmington
shall be reviewed for noise and other
local government and private
environmental impacts on existing
actions to insure compliance
neighborhood areas.
with applicable regulations.
5.0
Corridor Protection
5.1.1
Local and State Governments will
The MPO and NCDOT will
1
$$$
2000-2002
NCDOT,
New Project
identify thoroughfare and rail corridors as
prepare Phased
MPO, NH Co.
completely as possible through
Environmental studies after
City of
appropriate environmental studies.
adoption of the Thoroughfare
Wilmington
Plan to identify proposed
corridors as closely as
possible in compliance with
V 111-8

TRANSPORTATION IMP EMENTATION ACTIONS
• N ` m lem�natinn.�4cll � � , � � ��`
I) ��e or ,�atirins ,
�Hi h
:R r�urc�s�'�, �
.�S��t�,, bz �
�.n vr"`ibi
y,Slatas ;��. �"
..., � . > N•p� a.. 'lay.: °Y Y:: ..: �. . d. � x _t � f'.
�,�: :�, r...:.. �$ 'w ..: :a�. �..
:N: ;r Sd
.a: � t
"�°� .. ,... '"'".� :
`l .,:1`��`u '�
� rn '°'�.abfi 1`y",,.e
guidelines established by the
National Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA)
5.1.2
City, County and State will investigate
Identify and enforce provis-
$
1999
NH Co. City
New Project
and use regulatory provisions for
ions of State law that protect
of Wilmington
Unified
preserving thoroughfare corridors.
Thoroughfare Plan Corri-
Development
dors. Modify local ordinan-
Ordinance
ces where necessary to pro-
vide the maximum amount of
corridor protection allowed
under State law.
5.1.3
The City and County will cooperate
Establish an agreement
$$
1999
NH Co., City
New Project
through an agreement to allow for the
between the City and the
of Wilmington
Unified
purchase of rail and road corridors.
County to allow the County
Development
to request that the City
Ordinance
proceed with necessary
actions to improve the street
network.
VIII-9

IX. Community Infrastructure
•
I. Introduction
This section of the Plan examines the City and County's public facilities, the basic systems that
support life in an urban environment. The policies and implementation actions call for the
provision of community facilities and services which meet the present and future physical, social
and cultural needs of the population.
II. Background
The increasing cost of providing community services continues to be a community concern.
Improving the level of services to areas that are currently under provided, or where the service
levels could result in undue risk to human health as well as the natural environment and
resources, has also been identified as an issue that needs to be addressed.
A study, Fiscal Impact of Providing Services in 1998 and 2010 for Wilmington -New Hanover
County (June 22, 1998) by Tischler & Associates, Inc., evaluated the fiscal impact of providing
services in 1998 and 2010. It was concluded that in the year 2010 the City would benefit from
existing economies of scale that allow the provision of urban services to contiguous geographies.
Improved levels of service required by new development in the unincorporated areas of the
County is expected to generate greater deficits. Consequently, while providing equitable levels
of services across the planning area is a worthy objective, development densities and the cost of
providing services to the more scattered development in the unincorporated areas of the County,
is not fiscally attainable.
A Capital Improvement Program should therefore be closely tied to a Growth Management
Strategy that recognizes the benefits of preferred urban growth within an existing urban services
area.
Additional community concerns raised during the Plan development process also centered
around the need for greater coordination, rationalization and consolidation of City, County and
other agency programs for the planning, development and management of infrastructure and
community services.
IX-1

_hn'l •
Issues
• Uncoordinated, costly provision of non municipal services and facilities.
• The high cost of infrastructure investment.
• Storm water drainage problems caused by existing and future development.
• Inadequate sewer and water services in some unincorporated areas.
• Optimal location, use and maintenance of education facilities, some of which are overcrowded
and need improvements.
• Insufficient provision of community open space, recreation and cultural facilities.
• Recognition of Downtown Wilmington as the regional cultural nucleus.
• Maintenance of adequate police and tire services in unincorporated areas.
• Increased waste management problem due to growth and development.
• The proliferation of telecommunication towers.
This section of the Comprehensive Plan examines the City and County's public community infrastructure •
facilities, the basic systems that support life in the developed environment. The policies and implementation
actions call for the provision of community facilities and level of services which meet the present and future
physical, social, and cultural needs of the population. This community infrastructure policy and implementation
action is fully consistent with the natural resource and land use elements of the Plan.
Policies
1. FACILITY AND SERVICE PROVISION
1.1. Provide timely, cost-effective and efficient capital facilities and community infrastructure
services based on the Growth Management Strategy and the Preferred Urban Structure.
1.2. Coordinate, rationalize and consolidate where appropriate, City, County and other governmental
agencies programs for the provision and maintenance of infrastructure and community facilities
and services.
1.3. Explore alternative forms of financing including impact fees, bonds, user fees, and tax increases
for the infrastructure improvements needed to have a high quality level of service and to prevent
a decline in the levels of service provided to the County -City residents. Infrastructure needs to be
addressed in this effort shall include transportation, education, sewer, water, recreation, libraries,
police, fire, stormwater management, and other services deemed to be appropriate.
IX-2

•
•
2. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
2.1. Expand storm water management to include areas not incorporated in existing programs.
2.2. Develop a County stormwater management and water quality program that includes our adjacent
ocean, river, and estuarine systems.
2.3. Develop a City and County stormwater management program that fairly balances the financial
cost between existing and new development.
2.4. Prohibit and seek to eliminate collection systems that directly discharge stormwater to surface
waters.
2.5. Ensure that drainage from land use activities has a rate of flow and volume characteristics as
near to predevelopment conditions as possible to provide for the protection of our water quality.
3. SEWER AND WATER
3.1. Provide public sewer service to existing development in unincorporated areas that have
inadequate and malfunctioning septic systems and package treatment plants.
3.2. Consolidate the City and County sewer and water system.
3.3. Ensure optimal use of sewage treatment facilities.
3.4. Ensure the provision of sufficient, affordable water and sewer services to proposed new service
centers and industrial sites in the unincorporated areas of the Plan.
4. SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION
4.1. Give a higher priority to the maintenance and optimal use of existing education facilities.
4.2. Elementary schools and kindergartens should be encouraged to locate in areas where they would
provide the maximum benefit to adjoining neighborhoods.
4.3. New schools shall be constructed by New Hanover County to maintain an adequate level of
service.
4.4. Encourage greater coordination in planning and budgeting with the School Board and County
and City government.
5. CULTURAL ARTS AND RECREATION
5.1. Emphasis on economically distressed City neighborhoods with inadequate facilities.
5.2. Recognize the Downtown as the cultural nucleus which nurtures, supports and strengthens
cultural centers throughout the region.
5.3. Develop a joint master plan for a comprehensive system of open space, greenways, parks and
trails throughout the city and county that will provide for both the present and expected
population growth.
IX-3

5.4. Preserve utility easements as part of the greenway system as passive open space areas and
combine them with trails and trail access areas where possible.
6. POLICE AND FIRE SERVICES
6.1. Provide timely and adequate staffing and facilities to maintain and improve the level of police
and fire services.
7. SOLID WASTE
7.1. Establish and maintain an environmentally responsible, cost effective system for managing solid
waste, that protects public health, and provides adequate waste disposal capacity, mandatory
solid waste collection and recycling services, and waste reduction opportunities.
7.2. Meet and exceed established waste reduction goal.
7.3. Continue to seek ways to reduce and manage the solid waste stream through establishment of
countywide garbage pick-up, expanded recycling programs, encouraging composting, expanded
hazardous waste pick-up/education, and multi jurisdictional cooperation.
7.4. Eliminate illegal trash dumping through strict monitoring and enforcement, including increased
fines, signage program, rewards, and other means.
7.5. Continue to support and improve the County's innovative incinerator and landfill system.
8. COMMUNICATION •
8.1. Require telecommunication companies to share facilities through the joint use, and location of
telecommunication equipment.
IX-4

-
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTUR IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
l lem�ntaio3r: ctiv x.:tl'eiatls
�¢
�K � ��•,��
v «:
,,.. >- r\ ....
a''v t'a .�"v*.... i�` r"
P..id� • �
� �i «e� I}^Jj �
«• a-�. .
_
� �. z ,.. a�-"`
� tsc �� :
t • .... a\ „ r
t \ �fi
�� ibtt .,
:k o tE
:+� �'w� �«•\\, ate. a •€ °
n
�'�,
=.. .Q` , ,. 's£�. k.� s"«.o . �'3«:.,. \ �g ,�,� %� E.:.
:_E 1.2... S,�a �E�
t "\n�u. :. ..:9 � .¢ k'�.M � r+ .�.. .a..wt« rmpp 'E',.�i { `v "�rt�� a`
.. ,�i.< , i\ '..:e �.... -> y, <> � v�*'T
a:. yy, � � a :�7.
'�`��'.¢.��.. �3 Q�i,`�� �'.^.3 �i �s�#,�\�S
..>a,�+.:. '`,�� .��.• a
, 0.: �'e¢ •.
A17 �,v
-:� 4. a.
�
iw�
N! 3
��
.a; �'a•.�:
�.Y. c a. �k. `�'
v,
\�� �
��� a
d
�a.�C"�'.
1.0 Facility and Service Provision
1.1.1 Develop a program for the rigorous
Fiscal Impact Study.
1
$$
1999
City and County
economic analysis of infrastructure and
Develop a modal to measure the cost
community facility investments, which
impact of major infrastructure expansion
considers the fiscal impact, level of
due to annexation proposals.
service, benefit, and the priority
according to a preferred urban structure.
1.1.2 Develop a program for joint
Investigate feasibility; formulate
1
$
1999
City, County, financial
public/private infrastructure investment
conditions and required agreements; and
institutions & developers.
opportunities.
design organizational structure
1.1.3 Develop a joint City -County Committee
Committee review and implement
1
$ for
1999
City and County set up
to review financing techniques and to
program based on Committee
Com-
Committee with private
recommend alternative financing
recommendations.
mittee
sector representation.
methods.
review.
$ to $$$
depend-
ing on
program
size.
1.2.1 Develop interlocal agreements and
Unified Development Ordinance
1
$
Current-
City and County
unified development codes to establish
ly
consistency.
Ongoing
1.2.2 Develop a joint City and County Capital
Capital Facilities Plan
2
$
1990
City and County
Facilities Plan.
1.2.3 Strengthen infrastructure inspection and
Determine staffing requirements and
2
$
Current -
County
maintenance programs in the County.
develop infrastructure prerequisites
ly
Ongoing
1.2.4 Develop guidelines for the interregional
Develop criteria, conditions,
2
$
2002
City and County
sharing of sewer facilities when
requirements and cost sharing formula.
economically feasible.
IX-5

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
,lt leiii iatlontictidn
en
�:5 �:,.
h::?:
ctr.d41'% , . � , � y � .a\ # ,`w�fxc
`\'� °£.'x kR \ £`Yec'4>.' @1...: .'.'�Y,
.. .F � ?,�.
ft:.k
A. �F
Z.IR vlfFli\ ia^'.:
•.>+',.:t'�
- w
� Jhl{RI�IF �✓.. \
."kid:; �',� E .: M.,,. ie'
.�3 f;.
v—.'
Ord
__, ..� F ,_A^. :..,, ......�.3•a. ... �.., y��x
�.. ���
��
k3
r
2.0 Storm Water Management
2.1.1 Develop a storm water management and
Develop a program proposal for
1
$
1999 /
County and City
water quality program for existing and
consideration. Program shall include
2000
new development in the County.
adjacent ocean, river, and estuarine
Coordinate and join this program with the
system.
existing City Program.
Create program to prohibit and methods
to eliminate collection systems that
directly discharge stormwater to surface
waters.
Create program to ensure that drainage
from land use activities has a rate of
flow and volume characteristics as near
to predevelopment conditions as possible
to provide for the protection of our
water quality.
Develop a County storm water
1
$$-$$$
1999 /
County and City
-
management financing program.
depend-
2000
Investigate using the Unified
ing on
Development Ordinance or similar
size of
program as a mechanism to carry out
program.
program. Coordinate and join this
program with the existing City program.
Ensure that there is an equitable and
balanced financing program for existing
and new development in the County and
City.
3.0 Sewer and Water
3.1.1 Develop a Capital Facilities Plan for
Capital Facilities Plan
1
$
1999 -
County and City
areas that should be provided with sewer
2001
and water services based on
environmental concerns, water quality

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
,... ..
ar,.
y.
win <.�i \£•
�. � r
-
,u. t` .lv 2` �: � e>;.enF' ..n. n. -..vr .. �°.... 1 •. e�.�.
:?x... ,,.. �, 'k •mow
L .. `ac,0.m1W. .n. .h 4v 'Se.. r, n;.:oa
�
., ,
��\.�� �::,
�'
k i+=. '
�.
a.
.»;: .. .w.�.., ,' ..,,..-:.'�^YTA"� a .S ,wa• ,,..� .». ,:.... .��
�'�`_�:; �`„,u�u�, -.. ..H �;Y.. ,.��35, Z; A. �m .a'.�y
w
�. �..m�xi...
�. .�"�::.:��s�..:
^a' ..�gr, td�"'x�aa aM�x: a�=.,„s: tr*re'
`eve
concerns and servicing costs.
3.2.1 Develop County standards for the
Develop design standards
2
$
1999
County and City
installation of utilities that are consistent
to those of the City
3.3.1 Develop fiscal and environmental
Develop and evaluate alternative
3
$
2001
City, County and State
responsible strategies for the long term
strategies.
management and disposal of sewage
sludge.
3.4.1 On completion of the Thoroughfare Plan
Review zoning and prepare land use
2
$
2001
City and County
update, review the existing zoning and its
alternatives for consideration with next
potential to develop into service centers,
update of the Comprehensive Plan.
as well as the feasibility and cost of
providing water, sewer and other
infrastructure services to these areas.
3.4.2 Give higher priority to the servicing of
Identify priority areas.
1
$$
Ongoing
City and County
existing and new industrial sites.
Incorporate in City and County
annual
Servicing Program
4.0 Schools and Education -
Infrastructure Facilities
4.1.1 Provide annual funding for the sustained
Include funding in annual Education
1
$$
Ongoing
Board of Education
maintenance of facilities that serve both
budget. Ensure that school facilities in
the existing and future education needs of
older areas of the City and County
the community.
receive adequate maintenance.
4.1.2 Plan and locate schools to allow for
Determine needs; develop location
2
$
Ongoing
Board of Education
future expansion, and to ensure better and
criteria and standards.
shared use of the facilities and campus.
4.1.3 Develop an understanding of the long
Anticipate needs and technological
1
$
Ongoing
Education agencies
term costs/implication of computer
trends, and consider adaptable systems
technology.
IX-7

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS "
a, ,.a,
°a a < f:*fr a
T lem�ntalloM Acxiox� �^--�s�^..n: Y
�'.t.a
c.' x�.. .•&ks� - 3. �'a..
'`
x l�wi,`
i.
h i'=;±Y t'
�,q
,+` ,.'..�
�.,:.. ', ��k'`.
4.2.1 Determine the needs and plan for the
Determine needs; develop location
1
$
Ongoing
Board of Education
optimal location of elementary schools
criteria and standards.
and kindergartens.
4.3.1 Explore the use of alternative forms of
Conduct a study. Create a committee to
1
$$ to $$$
New
Board of Education
financing for improving New Hanover
oversee study and carry out
depend-
New Hanover County
County Schools.
recommendations.
ing on
Schools
size of
Other County and City
program
pertinent government
branches.
4.3.2 Adequately fund the New Hanover
Coordinate facilities program with the
1
$$$
Ongoing
Board of Education
County School new school facility
other County and City branches of
as result
New Hanover County
program.
government. Create a quality control
of
Schools
program to ensure high quality
passed
Other County and City
construction.
school
pertinent government
bond
branches.
4.3.3 Provide a greater emphasis for athletic
Upgrade existing and build high quality
1
$$ to $$$
Ongoing
Board of Education
facilities at existing and new schools.
athletic fields, ball fields, tracks, pools,
depend-
as result
New Hanover County
gymnasiums, outdoor playgrounds for
ing on
of
Schools
school children, with improved sodding,
size of
passed
Other County and City
and related facility improvements,
program
school
pertinent government
including maintenance.
bond
branches.
4.4.1 Coordinate new school facilities and
Hold regular meetings with concerned
1
$
Needs to
Board of Education
maintenance upgrade program.
parties for increased coordination with
be
New Hanover County
above 4.0 items with New Hanover
ongoing
Schools
County Schools, School Board and other
Other County and City
pertinent branches of County and City
pertinent government
government. Create benchmarks for
branches
monitoring progress.
5.0 Cultural Arts and Recreation
5.1.1 Prepare and implement a joint
Prepare and Implement a
3
$$
1999
City and County
City/County Greenway/Open Space Plan
Greenway/Open Space Plan.
for the establishment of a contiguous
Determine requirements, funding,
IX-8
•

1W
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLEME14TATION ACTIONS
F
-. :I
..,, k •.. � �.°....°'. V •li Jvi3 ,pvw\ r^v t': T^ A
.:; s.. ,.. � . ,F.. A. za ...x� -v e ..s x_
p.. 'i�_,ia sl.A ;.,v a+ � rc:...
..... n ... wK **Kc<'Y.:-:t b' As, Y. � w.. . K .� 'va
$g
:.... ��'.i�':�,J.. ��.. .in
,...> \ F>....a vo � J..., s vp �. � \ :4�.a
..... 13v� �. :10• ..o- H �, >tK }.II �..,
p'.. � xit�6 '� J vC . . , v..' �'. "i
\�"^ ..... ;:tia
�w{w \x, .. �.
-\vv Ai C"..
��
�:.."
.. c ::. �J,
/�•u �
lr7f%G�+I1
�,i"'a - �Y•'"C � �•
...; � �
J. �,$v`^0`
A�'.�' S v
...?.x.. 3�»
.. .'F..
'�
we
i..... J`'t .,....bC ...Y`.: ..a:. L
�........ �T � 6 s., Y
a" >.
,n..
.....« � , i",a ..�•i
� y'ro- a.-aa\z�,.a.4.�-.a.�.,-..
?� ... .... ... •,.
�+ •YN•',....:. .. X � .. .� x v\i\ f ...v:.. f \ \..:a....
�w.�k?'aea..i•„.Fq.�..i'' ����"��\�.�'�k.
.sv... v :..'.
.:, y..:..-x
... .. .wS. !v'�.
a
�`�>�`
..�fFR J .�$Y`.
.. ., ... ....
k'�'
t'zt II
•3' � •:.ti. .,,..x.
3" ��:� �
a,�,�Y ;ear. .,x,
.:^ww»�..<: ��v.A\v�/ii,
.�.+„c`�i .�
e�
"r.� xvv,a awc..
v�a�"�.
v,.c�.»ha^eW, ro
•�,J �«v><..�ya .,
.�
f. . X�..�� x X�`i`.`�'s
��:3,°:
Greenway System that links
acquisition and protection options;
neighborhoods to community activity
include trails. Insure that plan provides
centers, and serves the recreational and
for both present and expected population
open space needs of the community.
growth-.
5.1.2 Continue to implement, fund and join
Prepare and Implement a joint
1
$$
Ongoing
County
together the County and City Park Plans.
Greenway/Open Space Plan.
5.1.3 Develop public/private partnerships for
Prepare and Implement a
1
$
1999
City and County
the provision of recreation facilities
Greenway/Open Space Plan.
5.1.4 Establish, in the unincorporated areas,
Prepare and Implement a
1
$
1999
County
requirements for commercial and
Greenway/Open Space Plan.
residential development to reserve land
for open space/recreation or provide a fee
in lieu.
5.1.5 Develop different acquisition/protection
Prepare and Implement a
1
$
1999
City, County and State
options for significant sites for open
Greenway/Open Space Plan. Include
space/recreation, such as purchase,
utility easement preservation as part of
public/private partnerships, conservation
the greenway system as passive open
easements and conservation trusts.
space areas and combine them with trails
and trail access areas where possible.
5.1.6 Develop a public participation process
Public Participation Plan
1
Existing
1999
City and County
for the acquisition and preservation of
process
significant sites for open
to be
space/recreation.
reviewed
5.1.7 Continue to expand and enlarge existing
Determine expected future growth and
1
$$$
Ongoing
County
library facilities to maintain the current
needs.
level of service to the community.
5.1.8 Continue to support and improve the
Determine expected future growth and
2
$$
Ongoing
County
museum facilities.
needs and formulate a long term
IX-9

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE' IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
tr�if .Rr_
Im le»ieniatn•.Acta,�
A, :; __.
,,. �P �,y .�, a `��,, n..
�;:.
De'Is t
I zed: , •
� .:. � _ Al
.. '.. .,e 5� �•� .,.. , „a.,„�„ `�„s., s'*��,3 � ...�.a.
�i. �•. '^:?nac.
.FR oitr'
��t .,
,
, � <��.... '�`w, �-tT- a. ���.
..,. m «. Y ... .x , a .: ,.
... ,.. �. :� �•' -q. .. y., r. ,nr...
�h^� # 3::�?n
i"l". -''
-:�� 1`.
r:: ?� .
development strategy.
5.1.9 Investigate the feasibility of providing a
Determine needs, requirements and
1
$$
Ongoing
City, County and
convention center to serve the needs of
feasibility.
surrounding local
the community and its surrounding area.
authorities
5.1.10 Investigate the feasibility of providing a
Determine needs, requirements and
2
$
Ongoing
City, County and
performing arts center to serve the needs
feasibility
surrounding local
of the community and its surrounding
authorities
area.
5.1.11 Encourage the provision of social and
Determine needs and priorities; and
2
Ongoing
Advocacy group(s) for the
cultural opportunities for the aging
identify opportunities.
elderly, City, County
population.
5.2.1 Support and implement the goals and
1
$$
Ongoing
City, County, DARE, Inc.,
recommendations of the Wilmington
Downtown Plan: Vision 2020; the Cape
Fear River Corridor Plan; and DARE,
Inc. that reinforces the cultural
importance of the Downtown area.
5.2.2 Develop additional and support existing
Identify opportunities; develop and
1
$
Ongoing
City, County,
programs that specifically promote,
implement programs
strengthen and support Downtown
Wilmington as the regional cultural
center.
6.0 Police and Fire Services
6.1.1 Plan and provide staffing and facilities
Determine projected future needs.
1
$$
Annual
City and County
for police and fire services at least
proportionate to the growth in the
community.
7.0 Solid Waste
IX-10
0 0 0

a
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE -IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
l .0 7�m�ntatJon Actlort �•,.
a � .�... .� � •w�x. �� ��, �
,,.,, ..;>< -.:.r. :. rb,.. ..v
�ia�i�i�r� r t�ians � ;�x ...
1 ! :a.. 8�{@� 2. •.a±xy�.
�_ k
�Mx�
�'
�
y
R �iYri � �
�.3
.... •.. .Q.,..w ..
f .., r'z" 3. H''S : .i ?ru<w�ti- iw...:
�;.'t� :. AZ 'Pa�+ •... 6. ,:h ��cc: �
�.. , , ....r.. � :.'�� <... . ? wt.... �.`. Sc:,. s
... ..�.:.: k. ..... �. ..x ... .<...�.a aA ? \..uC.
�a.ti�v. `.. .. �...... .> o- x�' �
.ti. H,; S �.�:i . :� � F.: ,•sec..
>'�. Mi .l.: a �d...... . •...>S � a`•e...
� t.,.,.. �
.�...i �`...
\.. .xx.. �\.....
4,,.. .. as< ...
�
\.
p.� )./.riyy�°'a"
'�.. .�
.: V ` �...
.iT
t
-' M.f Jj .a�
..... �
"�..
.�V. Yy �k Swii..:-'Bn S nl
},.
`•tc2N...�...-:K .P<t.�.u:"C ai < x.
..�� Rie \ ::� �.
'�,
�'.
r'^^ a'� ,.,., x '� F
-:: a.,.-..�.u. x ..s xa�>.. Cea Vim..: L3�P -... .. .:. .�.., teH, {.v d....� ,. a.i s. ,. .`"',
�..� �. 1 �`sY,:: ,'� �:.�
k�a� \� •'.�vi�e , i'.ft�1?l�"�3R,'•,F`.. .`a<$\.;.,, x:�>=�»y�:.d�`iYx `a,�. Vie.
.. y��
��•7[��L,.�>x�l�••_'��
p.�`,m�.. .. a�i,,:. w
�hiA.�k`e•�� t����
:?3.<, .. 5.. Sri .«�
`�A�. a�S ��'§; �'i1
�. y'v «..•�.::x ��? �^
..,. .4�t�4� .. `a�+a 9wx}A ��•H�2,.-x"'N>.�:�u�.� ..i.,va�
;�4.
>��:'.
7.1.1 The County and City together with the
Comprehensive Solid Waste
1
$
Ongoing
City, County and the
Towns of Carolina Beach, Kure Beach,
Management Plan. Include methods to
Towns of Carolina Beach,
and Wrightsville Beach will continue
eliminate illegal trash dumping by strict
Kure Beach, and
their joint update of the Comprehensive
monitoring and enforcement; increased
Wrightsville Beach
Solid Waste Management Plan every 3
fines, signage program, rewards and
years, and establish programs and set
other means. Include continued support
goals for the management and reduction
and improve innovative incinerator and
of solid waste for the next 10 years.
landfill sytem
7.1.2 Expand local government recycling.
Address with the Comprehensive Solid
1
$$
Ongoing
City and County
Waste Management Plan. Including:
expand collection programs; encourage
commercial recovery programs which
focus on paper fiber materials; promote
local private recovery/recycling initia-
tives; encourage composting; expand
hazardous waste pick-up and education;
and promote local construction -
demolition recycling -recovery programs.
8.0 Communication
8.1.1 Amend regulations to require'the joint
Amend regulations; develop standards
2
$
1999
City and County
use and location of equipment on existing
and requirements.
telecommunication towers and other
public and private structures.
IX-11

X-A. Housing
�-------- ----------------------------------------------
Issue
1. The City minimum housing program should be improved. The County should establish adopt a minimum
housing code and enforcement program.
2. There is a documented need affordable housing, particularly for low and moderate income residents.
3. The City and County need to ensure that they are receiving the maximum amount of federal and state
financial opportunities for community and economic development.
4. There is a need to provide increased amount of affordable rental housing.
5. There are an estimated 800 homeless persons County wide with the majority living in the City.
6. Neighborhood residents need a mechanism to voice their concerns regarding growth and change, and the
County and City needs an efficient way to provide information to residents.
There is a need for adequate housing for the special needs population, elderly, and disabled in the City and
County.
8. With the growth of UNC-Wilmington and Cape Fear Community College, students will need adequate on
and off campus housing.
• P°licy
.1. MINIMUM HOUSING PROGRAM
The City shall enhance the minimum housing program. The County shall adopt a minimum housing program
with enforcement.
2. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS
The County and City shall continue to support and enhance a broad range of affordable housing programs.
Explore alternative forms of financing including impact fees, bonds, user fees, and tax increases for affordable
housing.
3. MAXIMIZE FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING
The County and City shall maximize funding opportunities from federal and state sources for community and
economic development.
4. RENTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The City and County shall increase affordable rental housing.
5. HOMELESS
The County and City shall cooperate with non-profit organizations to provide temporary and transitional
shelter to persons who are homeless and enhance a job referral program.
6. NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS
•The County, City, and residents shall be encouraged to use neighborhood associations for outreach
information and education.
X-A-1

`.
7. SPECIAL NEEDS AND ELDERLY
The City and County shall cooperate with non-profit organizations to ensure an adequate supply of housing
for special needs, the elderly, and the disabled.
8. ADEQUATE UNCW AND CFCC STUDENT HOUSING
Working together the County, City, UNC-Wilmington, and Cape Fear Community College shall meet student
housing needs.
•
•
X-A-2

0 0 0
HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Implementation Action Details for Acdlons Priority Resources Fiscal Responsibility Status
1 2", Required Year(s)
a-as-sas
1.0
Minimum Housing
Program
1.1
The City shall improve its
1.1.1 Develop code enforcement
1
$$
Current
City
Underway
minimum housing enforcement
strategies that emphasize
program.
improvements in housing quality
and preservation. A balance is
recognized between expenses to
property and home owners, and
better living conditions for
occupants.
1.2
The County shall adopt a
1.2.1 Draft and adopt a minimum
1
$
'99= 01
County
None
minimum housing code and
housing code. A balance is
establish an enforcement
recognized between expenses to
program.
property and home owners, and
better living conditions for
occupants. _
1.2.2 Establish position(s) and hire
1
$$
'99 '01
County
None
code enforcement officer(s).
1.3
The City and County shall ensure
Ensure that there is adequate
1
$
On-
City and County
Ongoing City.
that there is strong code
regulations and code enforcement
going
New for County.
enforcement to remedy areas and
staff to remedy this situation. See
City.
lots with abandonded vechicles,
1.1 for City and 1.2 for County.
199= 01
trash, debris, and boarded up
for
housing.
County
2.0
Affordable Housing
Programs
2.1
Increase support of affordable
2.1.1 Home Ownership Pool loan
1
$ existing
On-
City
Ongoing
housing programs.
program (HOP)
$$ expanded
going
County
Direct Loans and Home Loans for
programs
HUD
housing rehabilitation
Private Lending
XA-3

HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Implementation Action Details for Actions Priority Resources Fiscal Responsibility Status
1", 2", Required Year(s)
31, $_SS_SS$
Fannie Mae Lease Purchase
Institutions
Project Home
Community Development Block
Grant Program
Home Investment Partnership
2.1.2 Establish an affordable
2
'02-'03
City, County
None
housing advocacy coalition with
Nonprofit housing
wide representation.
providers
2.2
Investigate and act upon ways to
2.2.1 Establish a mortgage revenue
1
$ study
'9941
City
None
increase affordable housing
bond program to provide affordable
$$ program
County
supply and ownership for low and
housing backed by appropriate
moderate income residents.
sources. Conduct a study with
recommendations.
2.2.2 Establish a land trust
1
$ study
On-
city
Ongoing
program for affordable housing land
$$ program
going
County
acquisition. Conduct a study with
recommendations.
2.2.3 Encourage participation in the
1
On-
city
Ongoing
down payment assistance program.
going
County
With the aid of grants, this program
NC Housing Finance
allows down payment assistance for
Agency
closing costs.
2.2.4 Investigate methods to reduce
1
On-
City
Ongoing
development costs for affordable
going
County
housing. Review development
review process and codes. Make
appropriate changes to Unified
Development Ordinance.
0 4 0

•
HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Implementation Action DetailsforActions ` Priority Resources Fiscal Responsibility Status
1', 2s, Required Year(s)
3" 3-ss-3sS
2.2.5 Expand existing education
2
$$ expanded
'02 '03
City
None
programs on affordable housing _
program
County
opportunities, including home
ownership for first time buyers.
2.2.6 Set a target for future
2
$ study
'02'03
City
None
increased homeownership
County
emphasizing first time home buyers.
Non-profit housing
Conduct a study with
providers
recommendations.
Private lending
institutions
2.2.7 Encourage commercial banks
1
$$ expanded
'9941
City
None
to participate in a below market rate
program
County
mortgage interest program.
Private lending
institutions
2.2.8 Inventory available sites as a
2
$
'02'03
City
None
resource for new residential develop-
County
ment and provide incentives for the
development of new housing. Con-
duct a study with recommendations.
2.2.9 Investigate how to strengthen
2
$
'02'03
City
None
partnerships with for profit
County
developers to provide affordable
housing including density bonuses
that provide additional affordable
housing units. Conduct a study with
recommendations include with
Unified Development Ordinance.
2.2.10 Conduct study with
2
$
'02'03
City
None
recommendations regarding zoning
County
changes that require mixed income
residential developments.
XA-5

HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Implementation Action Details for Actions Priority Resources Fiscal Responsibility Status
1, 2", Required Year(s)
3" $-SS-SSS
2.2. 11 Conduct study with
2
$
'02-'03
City
None
recommendations regarding:
County
incentives for an employer -assisted
housing program to assist
development of affordable housing.
2.2.12 Cooperate with the
1
$ coordin-
On-
City
Ongoing
Wilmington Housing Authority in
ation
going
Wilmington Housing
the maintenance, renovation and
$$$ Jervay
Authority
construction of affordable housing.
project and
other projects
2.2.13 Encourage scattered site
1
'99201
City County
None
affordable housing.
3.0
Maximize Federal and
State Funding
3.1
Consider creating a consolidated
Discussion between City and County
1
$
199-101
City
None
County and City Community
and staffs and elected officials.
County
Development Block Grant
Consult with HUD.
program.
3.2
Insure that federal and state
Use existing staff.
1
On-
City
Ongoing
community and economic
going
County
development funding
opportunities are being
maximized.
4.0
Rental Affordable Housing
4.1
Improve and expand the City
Conduct study with
1
$ study
On-
City
Ongoing
rental rehabilitation loan
recommendations.
$$ program
going
program.

HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Implementation Action Details for Actions Priority Resources Fiscal Responsibility Status
1", 2", Required Year(s)
P $-SS-$S$
4.2
Establish a County rental
Conduct study with
1
$ study
'99-'01
County
None
rehabilitation loan program.
recommendations.
$$ program
4.3
Ensure that there is funding for a
Conduct study with
t
$ study
199101
City
Ongoing
rent -to -own program in both the
recommendations. Determine
Decide
County
City and County. This program
appropriate level of funding.
funding level
Non-profit housing
would enable a renter to apply
range $ to $$
providers
rent payments towards the
purchase of a home.
4.4
Explore the possibility that
Conduct study with
3
$ study
'04205
County
None
apartment complexes that are
recommendations.
$$ program
city
converted to condominiums
provide affordable units, or
payments into a City and County
affordable housing or non-profit
housing program.
1
5.0
Homeless
5.1
Expand programs for homeless
Continued funding and support for
1
$ existing
On-
City, County, HUD,
Ongoing
shelters with adequate quality
Continuum of Care and other related
program
going
coordinating with
accommodations with emphasis
programs. Ensure that the areas of
Non profit housing
on housing for the mentally
the City and County that have high
1
$$ expand
'99201
providers including,
None for
disabled.
homeless concentrations receive
program
Good Shepherd
expanded
specific neighborhood outreach to
House, Salvation
program
remedy the challenge.
Army, and Cape Fear
Rescue Mission.
5.2
Expand job referral program for
Through the Continuum of Care
2
$$ expanded
'02-'03
Through
None for
the homeless.
process address counseling and job
program
City, County
expanded
referral program to assist homeless
Non -profits such as
program
persons and households achieve self
the Good Shepherd
sufficiency.
House.
XA-7

j..
HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Implementation Action Details for Actions Priority Resources Fiscal Responsibility Status
1r 2", Required Year(s)
'
s-ss-sss
6.0
Neighborhood
Associations
6.1
Create neighborhood guidelines.
Conduct a study with
1
$ study
'99= 01
County
None
recommendations. Discussion on:
$$ public
City
methods for public outreach; the
outreach
Including: Council of
impact of new development on
Neighborhoods
adjoining neighborhoods, such as
Association and other
density; housing by type; home
similar organizations
ownership; rental concerns; and
drainage. Create booklet.
7.0
Special Needs and Elderly
7.1
Establish a housing program for
Conduct study with
2
$ for study
'02= 03
City
None
the special needs, elderly, and
recommendations for program
County
disabled, that is integrated
creation; include congregate living
$$ program
Non-profit housing
throughout the community.
arrangements for the elderly, and
providers
other special needs populations, e.g.
Private business
nursing homes. Study how to
integrate with private sector.
7.2
Modify zoning regulations where
Conduct a study with
2
$ for study
'02= 03
City
None
appropriate to encourage housing
recommendations to include with
County
for the special needs, elderly,
Unified Development Ordinance.
disabled.
8.0
Adequate UNCW and
CFCC Student Housing
8.1
Develop an on and off campus
Conduct a study with
3
$
'04-105
City
None
student housing program for
recommendations.
County
UNC-Wilmington.
UNCW

HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Implementation Action Details for Actions Priority Resources Fiscal Responsibility Status
lY� 1" Required Years)
3^' „a-as-sss
8.2 Develop an on and off campus Conduct a study with 3 $ '04= 05 City None
student housing program for Cape recommendations. CFCC
Fear Community College.

X-B. Economy
------------------------------------------------------ Comprehensive Flan
Issue
1. There needs to be improved economic diversification, and continued effort to attract employers that have
high paying jobs.
2. Continue efforts to attract and retain business to economically distressed areas.
3. To remain competitive into the next decade the State port will need to deepen its harbor, improve inland
highway and rail access, and upgrade the terminal.
4. The area could increase water dependent marine related employment opportunities with: marine technology;
aquaculture; the NC Aquarium at Fort Fisher; and boat manufacturing and marinas.
5. The Wilmington International Airport needs to expand to improve its competitiveness while working to
ensure community compatiability.
6. There is a need to balance tourism with a diversified economy.
7. There is a need to increase workforce preparedness, especially for the marginally trained and under educated.
Policy
1. GENERAL ECONOMY
•Develop a coordinated economic development strategy to attract high paying employers, that is economically
diverse and environmentally mindful.
2. IMPROVING ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED AREAS
The City and County with non profit and for profit organizations shall work to attract and retain business in
areas that are economically distressed.
3. WILMINGTON STATE PORT
The County and City shall work with the State Port in achieving mutually acceptable development goals.
4. MARINE ECONOMY
The City and County shall support the water dependent marine economy.
5. AIRPORT
The County and City shall cooperate with the New Hanover County Airport Authority to increase the
competitiveness, of the Wilmington International Airport while being mindful of the compatibility with adjacent
businesses and homes.
6. TOURISM
The City and County shall encourage a balance of tourism as part of a diversified economy.
7. SKILLED WORKFORCE AND EDUCATION
The County and City and private sector shall cooperate with schools to develop a properly trained work force
• with employable skills.
X-B-1

ECONOMY IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Implementation Action Details for Actions Priority Resources Fiscal Responsibility Status
11" 2"", . Required Yeru(s)
1.0
General Economy
1.1
Establish a task force with
Select lead agency, or consultant to
1
$
199= 01
Lead agency or consultant
None
a mission to attract high
guide process.
With representation that should
paying diverse employers
Meet and create framework to proceed.
include:
and consider incentives.
Resolve who would compose task force;
Private sector
include private sector.
Wil. Industrial Develop. , Inc.
Address topic for set time.
Co. Commissioners, City
End with recommendations to proceed
Council
after task force finished.
Cape Fear Tomorrow
UNCW, CFCC, Public Schools
Chamber of Commerce, Black
Cham. Com.
Wilmington State Port
Wil. International Airport
Small Business Coalition
Wil. New Han. Co. Commun.
Devel. Corp.
Small Business & Tech.
Develop. Center — UNCW
Partners for Economic
Inclusion
1.2
Enhance a County -City
Select lead public agency or consultant
1
$
199= 01
Lead public agency and or
None
economic development
to do study with recommendations.
consultant.
program.
Include these following items.
1.2.1 Strengthen existing public and
private programs that target existing
business for new expansion and job
creation, including small businesses.
1.2.2 Establishing a Research and
Development Park including
infrastructure, with business
connections to UNCW and CFCC.

ECONOMY IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Implementation Action Details jor Actions Priority `Resources Fiscal Responsibility . Status
11, 24`, Required Year(s)
$-$$-$$$
1.2.3 Investigate establishing a local
branch of the Office of Industrial
Extension Service in the County.
1.2.4 Increase public outreach and
improve awareness of the importance of
business and industry to the tax base.
1.3
Investigate expanding the
Conduct a study with recommendations.
1
$ study
199 '01
UNCW with NC State and NC
Program
engineering cooperative
Cost and logistics of expanding the
A&T coordination.
currently is
education program
engineering program.
$$ ex -
panded
with
between UNCW, NC
Consider enhancing ties to local
UNCW and
State and NC A&T.
business.
program
NC State.
1.4
Enhance: promotion of
1.4.1 Strengthen promotion and
1
$
Ongoing
Wilmington Regional Film
Ongoing
the local film industry;
incentives on behalf of the City and
Commission coordinating with:
and education
County.
Private film industry;
opportunities.
Meet with Task Force regarding
City and County.
continuous updates on "Film
Guidelines."
Establish and improve existing
procedures for location filmmaking with
Police, Fire and government.
Create program to improve existing
public relations with the community
regarding on -location film making.
Improve website, update computer
programs with maintenance.
1.4.2 Strengthen and nurture the
2
$$
Ongoing
UNCW
Ongoing
UNCW Film Studies education
program.
a:

R
ECONOMY IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Implementation Action Details for Actions Priority Resources Fiscal Responsibility Status
1' 20', Required Year(S)
34
1.5
Consider establishing a
Conduct a study on the best method to
2
$ study
'02= 03
An existing agency or
None
program with incentives
achieve this with recommendations for
consultant to conduct study
for larger companies to
setting up program.
possibly with New Han. Co.
assist employees with
Regional Medical Center, or
high quality affordable
UNCW, or the Early
child day care.
Childhood Faculty of CFCC
with the County and City.
1.6
Develop a program to
Conduct a study with recommendations
2
$
'02= 03
Likely private initiative with
None
attract professional sports.
for program creation.
possible government
partnership.
2.0
Improving
Economically
Distressed Areas
2.1
Use of Community
Identify and prioritize projects. Act
1
$$
Ongoing
City
Ongoing
Development Block Grant
upon proposals that have real potential
County
funds for programs and
to create jobs. Insure that money is
activities that create jobs
leveraged to increase success.
for low and moderate
income persons.
2.2
Encourage and support
Research: which existing businesses
1
$
199-101
City
None
the federal Small
have contracts with the Federal Gov't.
Wilmington Industrial
Business Administration
Educate potential clients regarding
Development, Inc.
HUBZone program to
program. Coordin-ate possible:
attract business and jobs
relocation, and expansion of existing
to the economically
businesses.
challenged areas of
Wilmington.

ECONOMY IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Implementation Action Details for Actions Priority Resources : Fiscal Responsibility Status
Ir 2w". , Required Year(s)
3r° $-$$-$$$
2.3
Encourage the creation of
Expand family resource centers and
2
$
Ongoing
City, Including: Wilmington
Ongoing
family resource centers
programs into distressed areas. Support
existing
Community Coalition
and programs.
existing programs. Examples include
'02= 03
the Bottom, and Long Leaf Park
$$
None
Resource Center.
expanded
program
2.4
Encourage public and
Create flexible regulations in the
2
$
199 101
City
None
private business
Unified Development Ordinance.
County
partnerships for the
Private Business
development of
speculative properties.
2.5
Ensure that the economic
Study is underway and
2
Project
Ongoing
City
Ongoing
revitalization of
recommendations will be forthcoming.
could
Wilmington Industrial
Greenfield Industrial Park
range
Development, Inc.
occurs.
from $ to
$$$
3.0
Wilmington State
Port
3.1
Support the Wilmington
Using the ports Master Capital
1
$ for
Ongoing
Wilmington State Port
Ongoing
State Port facilities to
Development Plan, follow the
review-
Federal agencies, including
create a more competitive
recommendations; including, deepening
ing study
US Army COE
shipping port.
the shipping channel, and upgrading the
and
NC Dept. Commerce
terminal. Follow the recommendations
coordin-
NC DOT
of the Transportation section of the
ation.
CSX Railroad
Comprehensive Plan for improved
City and N. H. County
inland highway and rail access.
$$$ for
Brunswick Co.
carrying
out the
recom-
menda-
tions.
3.3
Balance the needs of the
Adhere to Cape Fear River Corridor
3
$
Ongoing
Wilmington State Port
Ongoing
State Port with the
Plan recommendations. Review study
City and N. H. County
recreational boating on
and coordinate with concerned parties.
Brunswick Co.
the Cape Fear River.
Coast Guard

J.
.
ECONOMY IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Implementation Action Details for Actions Priority Resources Fiscal Responsibility Status
1",2^', Required Years)
3rd
4.0
Marine Economy
4.1
Support aquaculture
4.1.1 Enhance promotion of the
2
$
Ongoing
UNCW Center for Marine
Program
research and marine
environmentally friendly aquaculture
NC Sea Grant Program
exists,
technology.
research technology.
NC Marine Trades Services
would con-
sider
increased
Promotion.
4.1.2 Increase financial support of the
2
$$
'02 '03
Cape Fear Community College
Would con -
existing marine technology education
NC Marine Trades Services
sider
program at CFCC.
increased
financial
support.
4.2
Support the expansion
Work with the Aquarium to ensure
1
$$
Ongoing
NC Aquarium at Fort Fisher
Ongoing
effort of the NC
smooth expansion effort of building
County
Aquarium at Fort Fisher.
facilities.
Chamber of Commerce
4.3
Support the efforts of
Enhance the existing promotion,
2
$
Ongoing
Small Business and
Ongoing
marine trade services for
advertisement, and public outreach.
Technology Development
expanded boat manufac-
Center - UNCW
turing, and boating
Coastal Waterways Heritage
services such as marinas.
Tourism Council
4.4
Address the of loss of
Conduct a study with recommendations
2
$
'02= 03
Coastal Waterways Heritage
None
public accessible boat
by consultant or agency.
Tourism Council
slips and marinas to
Small Business and
traveling boaters.
Technology Development
Center — UNCW
County, City
0 i 0

ECONOMY IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Implementation Action Details for Actions Priority Resources Fiscal Responsibility Status
- Y, 2", Required Year(S)
3rd $-$$-$$$
5.0
Airport
5.1
Encourage airport
Support the airport master plan with
1
$
On -going
Wilmington International
Ongoing
economic growth and
regard to economic growth. Address
Airport
development.
compatibility with the Land Use and
County
Transportation policies of the
City
Comprehensive Plan. Coordinate with
concerned parties.
6.0
Tourism
6.1
Promote Wilmington and
Conduct a study with recommendations
2
$
'02 '03
Possibly use a consultant for
None
the County as an area for
on how to increase heritage -historic
study with: Carolina Heritage
heritage and historic
preservation tourism; study likely
Tourism Network
preservation tourism.
conducted by a consultant.
Cape Fear Convention and
Visitors Bureau
1898 Foundation
6.2
Support promotion of
Support the existing promotion.
2
$
On -going
Coastal Waterways Heritage
Ongoing
Wilmington as a boating
Tourism Council with
destination hub and
NC Marine Trades Services
related eco-tourism
activity.
7.0
Skilled Workforce
and Education
7.1
Enhance support for
7.1.1 Expand the existing Dual
1
$$
199 '01
Cooperation with:
Exists but
school and work
Enrollment high school and community
Cape Fear Community College
needs pro -
programs with Cape Fear
college program that emphasizes
New Hanover Co. Board of
motion;
Community College and
vocation training. Advertise to students
Education
consider
New Hanover Co. Public
and parents.
Pender County
increased
Schools, particularly with
Shaw University
financial
vocation emphasis.
support.

3
ECONOMY IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Implementation Action Details for Actions Priority Resources Fiscal Responsibility Status
Is, 2r, Required Year(s)
3td $-$$-$$$
7.1.2 Expand the cooperative public
1
$$
199= 01
New Hanover Co. Board of
Exists but
school and work internship programs
Education
needs
for students. Develop a cooperative
NC State Dept. of Commerce
promo -
agreement. Expand the Job Ready
Volunteer efforts Cape Fear
tion.
internship program between business
Partners for Career Success.
and the New Hanover County Public
Unions.
Schools.
7.2
Expand a job skills
Expand the Human Resources
1
$$
199-101
Cape Fear Community College
Available
program for the post high
Development Program with Continuing
but under -
school aged under-
Education.
funded.
prepared.
7.3
Consider establishing an
Conduct a study with recommendation
1
$
199= 01
New Hanover Co. Board of
None
independent Board of
e.g. using a consultant. Study other
Education possibly with
Education supplemental
systems in other states with this
consultant.
education tax to improve
authority.
State
the quality of public
school education.
7.4
Address the public school
Conduct a study and write guidelines,
1
$
199-01
New Hanover Co. Board of
None
drop out challenge and
brochure, public affairs messages.
Education possibly with
high school students
Discussion to include, drop out
consultant.
working excessively
challenge, excessive work by high
during school year.
school students, and methods to
encourage employers to assist teenage
persons to obtain a high school diploma.

X-C. Historic Preservation
6 ------------------------------------------------------
•
•
Issue
The City and County need to identify, protect and plan for the preservation of historic resources.
Policy
1. The County and City in cooperation with non profit and for profit organizations shall preserve, and provide
regulatory and cultural guidance for historic sites and areas.
2. Take proactive steps to identify and protect important historic and archaeological resources including an
updated inventory of significant areas or sites and updates to current regulations to require identification of
potential impacts, a plan for protection of sensitive areas/sites or a mitigation/ data recovery plan where
preservation is not possible. Density credits should be used to aid in area/ site protection plans.
3. Support a community archaeological program that will provide assistance to help salvage threatened historic
and archaeological sites and promote public education/ participation.
4. Continue the redevelopment of historic downtown Wilmington as a high priority, building on past successes
and carefully matching public incentives with private investment. Care should be taken to preserve the visual
character and historic atmosphere of old Wilmington.
X-C-1

c`
HISTORIC PRESERVATION IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Implementation Action Details for Actions Priority Resources Fiscal Responsibility Status
T' 2"s, Required Year(s).
3rd $-$$-$$$
1.1
Update and revise existing historic
Complete guidelines and
1
$
`98-`99
City, (Preservation
Draft
district design guidelines to provide
implement them.
Consultant, in process of
form
direction to the homeowners, builders
refining guidelines with
and contractors, and to preserve visual
public's and Historic District
and historic character in the
Commission input)
redevelopment of downtown Wilmington.
1.2
Conduct a city- and county -wide historic
Complete survey.
1
$$
`98-`99
Historic Wilmington
In
resource survey update that identifies
Foundation, Inc., City, and
process
additional historic resources, both
County
architectural and natural.
1.3
Update existing National Register
Retain consultant to conduct
1
$
199-100
City, Historic Wilmington
None
District survey to identify contributing,
survey update.
Foundation, Inc.
noncontributing resources for tax credit
purposes, and demolished resources and
new construction.
1.4
Expand boundaries of city's local historic
Complete study and
1
$
199
City, Historic Wilmington
Draft
districts towards the north and south.
designation report.
Foundation, Inc., Consultant
form
1.5
Expand the boundaries of the National
Conduct reconnaissance
1
$
`99-`03
City, Historic Wilmington
None
Register District to encompass adjoining
survey with
Foundation, Inc
areas that have become eligible for
recommendations.
inclusion.
1.6
Enhance existing affordable housing
See Housing implementation
1
$$
Ongoing
City, and WHFD, Inc.
On -
programs within the historic districts.
actions.
going
Adopt design guidelines and building
codes to facilitate renovations in low-
income areas.
1.7
Protect and maintain historic brick street
Conduct survey and research
1
$ study
199 '00
City, Historic District
On -
pavers.
and implement program.
$ program
Commission, Historic
going
Wilmington Foundation, Inc.
1.8
Include Historic Preservation Plan as an
Collect comments as
1
$
`98-`99
City, -Historic District
None
element of the Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Plan is
Commission, Historic
updated.
Wilmington Foundation, Inc.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Implementation Action Details for Actions Priority Resources Fiscal Responsibility Status
1", 2"r, Required Year(s)
Yd $-$$-$$$
1.9
Initiate the establishment of
Conduct public education.
3
$
'02= 04
City, Historic District
None
Conservation Districts.
Commission, Historic
Wilmington Foundation, Inc.
1.10
Establish local historic districts in early
Conduct reconnaissance
2
$$
'99-'03
City, Historic District
None
20t'-century neighborhoods such as
survey with
Commission, Historic
Forest Hills and Sunset Park.
recommendations.
Wilmington Foundation, Inc.
1.11
Establish historic resource design
Use guidelines created by
3
$
`04-`06
County, City, Historic
None
guidelines that pertain to districts and
other county jurisdictions as
Wilmington Foundation, Inc.
landmarks to be designated by the future
a model and revise
County Historic Preservation
appropriately.
Commission.
1.12
Coordinate historic preservation efforts
Continuous outreach and
1
$
Ongoing
City, County, Historic District
On -
and public education with non-profit
interaction.
Commission, Historic
going
historic preservation groups.
Wilmington Foundation, Inc.,
DARE, Inc.
1.13
Take proactive steps to identify and
Include: updated inventory
2
$ for study
'99='01
City and County
Need to
protect important archaeological
of significant areas or sites;
add to
resources.
updates to current
study
regulations to require
identification of potential
impacts; a plan for
protection of sensitive areas;
sites and mitigation; and use
density credits to aid in area
and site protection plans.
Support a community
2
$$ for
199= 01
City and County
Need to
archaeological program that
program
add to
will provide assistance to
pro -
help; salvage threatened land
gram
and water sites
archaeological sites; and
promote public education
and participation.
XC-3

XI. Storm & Natural
Hazard Element
• • •

•
1. Storm and Natural Hazard Mitigation, Evacuation and Recovery Policies
1.1. In the event of a hurricane or disaster the City and County shall assess measures to safeguard
future populations from development which may put increased numbers of people at risk in
hazard incidents.
1.1.1. Discourage high intensity uses and large structures from being constructed within the
100 year floodplain, erosion prone areas, and other locations susceptible to hurricane and
flooding hazards.
1.1.2. Following a storm event, take advantage of opportunities to acquire or purchase land
located in storm hazard areas which are rendered unbuildable. The property should
satisfy objectives including, but not limited to the conservation of open space, scenic
areas, and provision of public water access. -
1.1.3. Declare a moratorium on the acceptance of any request for rezoning in flood prone areas
other than for rezoning to a less intense use, unless that rezoning request is initiated by
the City or County.
1.1.4. Declare a moratorium on the permitting of any new construction, new utility hook-ups,
or redevelopment construction that would increase the intensity of the land uses existing
before the hurricane or disaster.
1.1.5. Request that new assessment of hazard areas be performed, depending on the extent of
flooding and the changes to shoreline and inlets caused by the hurricane.
1.2. A Recovery Task Force may be appointed with the responsibility for directing reconstruction
within New Hanover County after a damaging storm.
1.2.1. The Task Force shall be responsible for advising the Board of the County
Commissioners on a diverse range of post -storm issues.
1.2.2. A building moratorium may be authorized or extended by the Recovery Task Force
through a resolution by the Board of County Commissioners and/or City Council.
1.3. The City and County shall retain on a seasonal basis an assistance facilitator/consultant who, as
directed by the County Manager, will be responsible for:
• Determining the types of assistance available to the City and County and the type of
assistance most needed.
• Assisting in the coordination of federal disaster recovery effort.
• Coordinate State and Federal programs of assistance.
• Informing the Citizenry of the types of assistance programs available.
• Recommending to the Recovery Task Force and Board of Commissioners programs
which are available and then acting as facilitator in securing those programs
1.4. Immediately remove and clean up debris and restore services following a major storm event.
1.4.1. The City and County shall be responsible for the overall supervision of cleanup and
disposal of debris resulting from an intense storm event.
1.4.2. In hurricane damaged areas, give priority to those repairs that restore service to the
greatest number of people.
XI4

1.4.3. Where economically feasible replace or relocate public utilities, that have sustained
major damage due to a hurricane storm event, away from hurricane hazard areas or
strengthen their construction. •
1.4.4. The North Carolina Department of Transportation(NCDOT) will remove and clean up
debris from publicly maintained roads immediately following a major storm event.
1.4.5. The City of Wilmington will be responsible for the clean-up of City streets.
1.4.6. Private development homeowners will be responsible for the clean-up of debris on
private roads, or public roads not yet accepted by NCDOT.
XI-2

XII. Land Classification

XII. Land Classification
The land classification system is a means of assisting in the implementation of the land use plan
policies. It allows the local government and its citizens to specify those areas where certain policies will
apply. The land classification system is intended to be supported and complemented by zoning, sub-
division and other land use management tools. Together they provide the guidance to help realize the
desired future land uses. The land classifications for the 1998 Wilmington -New Hanover County Land
Use Plan Update are as follows:
Developed
The purpose of the Developed class is to provide for continued intensive development and
redevelopment of existing urban areas. These areas are already developed at a density approaching 500
dwelling units per square mile. Urban services are already in place or scheduled within the immediate
future. Most of the land within the City of Wilmington is designated as Developed, except for some
Urban Transition and Conservation areas. Density may exceed 2.5 units per acre within the Developed
class, depending upon local zoning regulations.
Urban Transition
The purpose of the Urban Transition class is to provide for future intensive urban development
on lands that have been or will be provided with necessary urban services. The location of these areas is
based upon land use planning policies requiring optimum efficiency in land utilization and public
service delivery.
Residential development can exceed 2.5 units per acre within the Urban Transition area provided
the development is adequately designed to be compatible with existing and proposed surrounding land
uses and it is served by:
1. Sewer - the development shall be served by City or County sewer systems or private package
treatment systems that meet the most stringent State requirements.
2. Municipal or County water system - the development shall be served by City or County water
systems or a private water system constructed in accordance with City of Wilmington standards.
3. Direct access to a minor arterial or larger access road, as classified under the New Hanover
County Thoroughfare Classification System - the development may be required to fully provide
or to share in the cost of the provision of roadway improvements needed to adequately serve the
proposed development and the community in general.
•
XII-1

Limited Transition
The purpose of the Limited Transition class is to provide for development in areas that will have
some services, but at lower densities than those associated with Urban Transition. 0
Residential density should be no more than 2.5 units/acre, with lower density being -more
desirable. The use of clustering and Planned Unit Developments (PUD) is encouraged.
These areas were previously designated as Transition and were intended to provide for more
intensive future urban development. However the provision of public services has been scaled back and
less intensive urban development is planned.
Community
The purpose of the Community class is to provide for "crossroads" type of development to help
meet housing, shopping, employment and public service needs within the more rural areas of the
County. Services may be provided to these areas, but not to stimulate more intensive development.
Density shall not exceed 2.5 units/acre.
These rural areas of the planning jurisdiction are typically characterized by a small grouping of
mixed land uses, such as community shopping, church, school and residences, which provide low
intensity retail service and housing opportunities. The only area currently designated as "Community" is •
Castle Hayne.
Rural
The purpose of the Rural class is to provide for areas of low intensity land uses, such as
agriculture, forest management, mineral extraction and other traditional agrarian uses. This
classification discourages the premature conversion of these lands into urban -type uses and the
subsequent loss of resource production.
Other land uses of a noxious or hazardous nature with the potential for negative impacts on
adjacent uses may be allowed, provided that they can be sited in a manner which will minimize their
negative effect on surrounding land uses and natural resources.
Only low density residential development not exceeding 2.5 units per acre is permitted, since the
extension of urban services into the Rural class would be an inefficient use of resources. Compatible
commercial and industrial uses may also be allowed, provided that natural resources are not adversely
impacted.
XII-2

Conservation
The purpose of the Conservation class is to provide for effective long-term management and
protection of significant, limited or irreplaceable natural resources. Management of these areas may be
required for a number of reasons, including natural, cultural, recreational, productive or scenic values.
Lands placed in the Conservation class are generally the least desirable for development because:
1. They are too fragile to withstand development without losing their natural value; and/or
2. They have severe or hazardous limitations to development; and/or
3. Though they are not highly fragile or hazardous, the natural resources they represent are too
valuable to endanger by development.
Generally, estuarine areas of environmental concern (AEC's) as defined by the State of North
Carolina and adjacent lands within the 100-year floodplain have been classified as Conservation.
Conservation areas should be preserved in their natural state. Woodland, grassland and
recreation areas not requiring filling are the most appropriate uses. Exceptions to this standard are
limited to water -dependent uses (i.e., uses that cannot function elsewhere), shared industrial access
corridors, and those exceptional development proposals which are sensitively designed so as to
effectively preserve the natural functions of the site. The following guidelines clarify these
Conservation area,objectives:
L . Water dependent uses - may include: utility easements, docks, wharves, boat
•
ramps, dredging, bridge and bridge approaches, revetments, bulkheads, culverts, groins,
navigational aide, moorings, pilings, navigational channels, simple access channels and
drainage ditches. In some instances, a water -dependent use may involve coverage of
sizeable land areas with limited opportunities to integrate the use with the site's natural
features. This would require reclassification of the site. By contrast, water dependent
uses which can be designed to preserve a site's natural features may not require
reclassification. This would be the preferred type of development.
•
2. Shared industrial access corridors - as discussed in the U.S. Army Corps' of
Engineers' The Wilmington Harbor: Plan for Improvement, would provide necessary
access to the channel of the Northeast Cape Fear River for industries located on high
ground while minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of such access.
3. Exceptional developments preserving natural features are projects which are
sensitively designed so as to harmonize with the site's natural features. Such projects
minimize erosion, impervious surfaces, runoff and siltation; do not adversely impact
estuarine resources; do not interfere with access to or use of navigable waters; do not
require extraordinary public expenditures for maintenance; ensure that ground absorption
sewage systems, if used, meet applicable standards; and do not damage historic,
architectural or archeological resources.
XII-3

In no case shall residential density in the Conservation class be permitted to exceed 2.5 units per
r acre, regardless of the existence of public urban services. Residential densities may be required to be as
low as 1.0 unit/acre or less, depending on the environmental constraints within a particular area. While •
certain Conservation areas may be served by public sewer in order to eliminate septic system pollution,
this should not be misconstrued as an incentive to facilitate increased development density.
Resource Protection
The purpose of the Resource Protection class is to provide for the preservation and protection of
important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and recreational resources. The Resource Protection class
has been developed in recognition of the fact that New Hanover County, one of the most urbanized
counties in the State, still contains numerous areas of environmental or cultural sensitivity which merit
protection from urban land uses.
The Resource Protection class includes land adjacent to the estuarine waters which are classified
SA by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. The class also includes land in the
Castle Hayne area where the protection of farmland, a rural lifestyle, and the aquifer system are highly
important issues. Residential densities greater than 2.5 units per acre shall not be permitted in the
Resource Protection class. Residential densities may be required to be as low as 1.O unit/acre or less,
depending on the development constraints within a particular area. Compatible commercial and
industrial development may be located within the Resource Protection class as long as important
•
resources are not adversely impacted. It is important to note that the County sewer service being
provided to portions of this area is intended for the purpose of eliminating septic pollution and not for
encouraging increased density of development.,
LAND CLASSIFICATION MAP
Included on the next page is the Land Classification Map. This map indicates the location of
each of the land classes previously described in this section. It is intended for general location purposes
only and should not be utilized for site -specific interpretive purposes due to its scale. For more detailed
information regarding the land classification for a specific site, contact the New Hanover County
Planning Department or the City of Wilmington Planning and Development Department.
XII4

•
0
Generalized Land Classifications
Legend
Developed
Urban Transition
❑
F//]
Limited Transition
Community
❑
Rural
Conservation
F]
Resource Protection
Not In Planning Area
AfapCr.~w 11/faM
W - m~ T . -h—tv
A
Brunswick
County
N
tj
Fender County
N I
A'. Beach
42

•
•
V
m
Q.
X
•

Survey of Registered
Voters

•
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
VOTER SURVEY
EASTCOAST RESEARCH
WILMINGTON, N.C.
OCTOBER, 1997

Prepared for: New Hanover County
Planning Department
414 Chesnut St.
Wilmincton, NC 28401
October 30, 1997
Prepared by: Eastcoast Consumer Research
1314 S. 16th St.
Wilmington, NC 28402
[phone]
Contact: Paulg,tbntz
•

EASTCOAST RESEARCH
INTRODUCTION
The following write-up reports the results of the New Hanover.
County Voter Survey conducted in October, 1997 by Eastcoast
Research of Wilmington, N.C. This is the third in -a series of
similar studies that seek to find the most important issues
that concern registered voters. Since registered voters
represent a significant portion of the population, the opinions
adequately reflect the entire New Hanover County area.
The previous two studies on issues, November 1991 and
,January 1986, were completed by another research company.
The previous studies were used to calculate trend information,
and selected information from them is included in this report.*
The current study uses the same questionnaire and sample
size as the November 1991 study so that better trend comparisons
can be made.
The report sections which follow include the methodology, conclusions,
detailed findings on all survey questions, and the tabular responses to
each question. The last section of this write-up contains a copy of
the questionnaire, which was designed by another research company.
Some minor corrections to the survey were made by Eastcoast
Research to increase the accuracy of the results.
*Note: The numbers used from the previous studies were accepted as
being accurate and factual. If the numbers used from these studies
prove to be inaccurate, this could alter the conclusions of our
study.

EASTCOAST RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
The survey was conducted utilizing a randomly drawn sample from
a list of registered voters in New Hanover County, Wilmington, N.C.
Individuals who were not registered to vote were excluded from the
study. The current study is highly accurate and considered
representative of the entire New Hanover County population.
The opinions on issues were limited to choices in the questionnaire
and in some cases were condensed from brief statements made by
respondents.
The sample consisted of 410 completed interviews, which
were proportioned to match the November 1991 sample
size exactly. The 1986 study sample had slightly more interviews,
or 502, primarily from the Wilmington City area. The larger sample
in 1986 is not significantly greater and should not have much of
an impact on trend information. The 1997 survey results were
from the following areas:
TOTAL INTERVIEWS
PERCENT
LOCATION
204
50%
City of Wilmington
97
24
Harnett Township
51
12
Masonboro Township
CFO
10
Cape Fear Township
18
4
Federal Point
410
100%
Total Sample

w
EASTCOAST RESEARCH
CONCLUSIONS
Many issues appear to be important when viewed on the
surface level. However, there are two central or "umbrella"
issues that all other issues can be placed under. In some
cases issues can be under both umbrella issues. The two
issues that appear to be extremely important to the voters
in New Hanover County are:
GROWTH
ENVIRONMENT
Growth or development is the root cause of most traffic road
problems, overcrowded schools, drainage problems and crime.
Growth is not a negative issue but rather a desirable issue, because
without it a community is either stagnant or in a state of decline.
Growth is what characterizes a healthy and vibrant community,
and the hallmark of the best cities in America. County growth has
been too fast for the voters comfort level. Voters also want developers
to be controlled and made to pay for increased infrastructure costs.
Growth also impacts the Environment issue.
Environment is the reason why many of the residents chose to live
in New Hanover County. Environment encompasses issues like
water quality, recycling, preserving trees and open spaces, or
revitalization of areas. The Wilmington area is rich in historic
buildings and is between rivers and the ocean. The purity and
preservation of this environment is of paramount importance.
Protecting the environment, is extremely important to the
voters in this county. The quality of life and the quality of the
community depend upon the quality of the environment.
An important question raised by this study is
"Does Growth Cost or Does Growth Pay?"
0

EASTCOAST RESEARCH
DETAILED FINDINGS
MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE
The questionnaire in this survey had four sections which collected
issue responses as follows:
1. Question #3 or "Before" the attitudinal and scaled statement ratings.
2. The (Agree[Disagree )attitudinal statements or questions # 9 to 26.
3. The scaled statement ratings(Importance) questions # 27 to 40.
4. Question #41 or "After" the attitudinal and scaled statement ratings.
When analyzed together, the results show that there are two
"umbrella" or extremely important issues (Growth and Environment);
and a large group of sub -issues that are also very important.
(The umbrella issues are discussed in the Conclusions Section of this
report.) The other issues are analyzed and reported in this section.
The "Before " issues indicate a rising importance to Traffic, Growth
and Education over the 11 year time period. A graph of the top three
Before issues follows this section.
The Agree%Disagree top issues also show an increase in the strength
of the Traffic and Recycling issues during this time period. The top
three issues were:
,January 1986
Traffic 87%
Zoning 77%
DT Revit.73%
(Downtown Revitalization)
November 1991
Recycling 92%
Traffic 89%
Water 84%
October, 1997
Recycling 94%
Traffic 90%
Water 84%

EASTCOAST RESEARCH
DETAILED FINDINGS
MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE -CONTINUED
The scaled statement ratings used importance of the issue as a
measurement. Issues were either very, somewhat, or not important.
The top three issues in the 11 year time period are presented below.
They show a rising importance in environmental issues like
water quality and preserving open spaces. Traffic was an issue
in the 1986 study, but the question was dropped from this section
in the last two studies. Drainage was also an important issue.
lanuary 1986 November 1991 October, 1997
Traffic 92% Water 92% Water 91%
Growth 61% Preserv.78% Preserv.80%
Hydrants 61% Trees 77% Drainage 78%
The "After" Issues also continue to show rising importance to growth
issues over the 11 year time period. Traffic has become less
important than water quality and education was not an issue
in this question area of the survey. The After Issues were also
graphed out and follow this section.
When analyzing the results of the four sections on issues, it is
better to look at the levels of an issue, rather than the exact
percentage. If an issue obtains a 90% rating, it should be considered
as very important, but it may not be very far in importance from
an issue which has only 70%. Most of the issues in this section
were top issues and had some degree of importance. Also of
note, an "unaided" rating of 40% may carry as much importance
as an "aided" rating of 70%. Question. #3 or #41 scores
were "un"aided" and the Agree(Disagree or scaled statement
scores were "aided".
•

50%
nel
30
Kil
10
M
EAST COAST RESEARCH
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SURVEY
TRENDS
Traffic/Roads
31 % Growth
30 /o
Traffic „
23%
Education
Roads 19%
16%
Growth
Education Traffic
12%
11 °� Crime
9% $%
Jan 1986 Nov 1991 Oct 1997
TOP ISSUES (BEFORE OR UNAIDED)

50%
.M
RM
10
RE
EAST COAST RESEARCH
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SURVEY
TRENDS
Traffic
41%
Water Quality
25%
.: Roads Water Quality
20% 19%
Growth
Growth 16% Traffic/Roads
Growth
12% Environment 18%
10%
9%
Jan 1986 Nov 1991 Oct 1997
TOP ISSUES (AFTER OR AIDED)

EASTCOAST RESEARCH
DETAILED FINDINGS
RESULTS FOR OTHER SURVEY QUESTIONS
(Please refer to questionnaire for full text of each question.)
Question 4: Rate of County Growth
The current rate of growth is much too fast for voters to accept
and is much higher than previous study levels. A total of 72%
said growth was too fast, versus 51% in 1991 or 41% in 1986.
Question 5: Desired Economic Activity in Counter
The voter population has decided to accept more growth, but it
is limited to mostly "light high tech" industrial businesses. This suggests
that most voters like growth if it is the right growth. However, the low
percentage (37%) combined with Question # 4 results indicates they are
highly concerned with the growth issue.
Question 6: Should Developers Pay For Infrastructure Costs?
The voters definitely want developers to pay for the infrastructure
costs (roads, schools, parks, etc.) caused by their growth or developments.
The 89% rating was even higher than the 83184% ratings of the previous
studies. However, developers would likely pass along any of these
costs to their buyers (voters or taxpayers or businesses.) This is an
issues known as "impact fees" which is a topic of much debate in
communities across the country.
Question 7: Cost of Growth Covered BY Property Taxes
Results of this question are inconclusive due to inconsistencies
in the questionnaire design.

EASTCOAST RESEARCH
DETAILED FINDINGS
RESULTS FOR OTHER SURVEY QUESTIONS
(Please refer to questionnaire for full text of each question.)
Question 8: Continued Growth And Development Vs. Environment
Half of the voters said that continued growth [development is just
as important as protecting the environment in the current study.
Another 44% said it is less important. This indicates that they
are having difficulty in choosing, because both issues are important.
This was the same for the 1991 study, but it was not in the 1986
study.
Question 42: Spending Dollars To Solve Most Important Problem
Most of the voters are willing to see city%county dollars spent on
solving their most important problem. The 88% current study level is
much stronger than the previous study levels (73180%).
Question 43: Desired Transportation Facility Improvement
There was no clear choice on what facility needs improvement
in the current survey. Responses were evenly distributed accross
most choices, except for a slight preference for improved roads.
This likely reflects their traffic issue concerns.
DEMOGRAPHICS OF SURVEY
The current study sample was generally more white, affluent,
better educated, and had more professionals than previous samples.
The market has a very strong "baby boomer profile. Over a
third of the sample had family income over $50,000 in 1996.
A high number of respondents (73%) had some college or higher
level of education, and a similar percent were in the 30-59 age range.

New Hanover Survey
Sample: 410
10r27/97
2. Area
Count Frequency Response
204
49.76%City of Wilmington
40
9.76%Cape Fear Township
97
23.66%Harnett Township
51
12.44%Masonboro Township
18
4.39%Federal Point
0
0.00%None of the Above
0
0.00%DK/NR
3. Most impt. issue
Count Frequency Response
93 22.68%Too much traffic
22 5.37%Drinking water (pollution)
8 1.95%Environment (clean)
2 0.49%Trash collection
124 30.24%Growth (too fast, not planned)
27 6.59%Land development (more control / better planned)
42 10.24%Overcrowded schools (busing, needed repairs)
4 0.98%Infrastructure
5 1.22°%Taxes
33 8.05%Crime, drugs
11 2.68%Drainage and Storm Water, sewer
4 0.98%Public transportation
•
34 8.29%Education
34 8.29%More roads and better conditions
23 5.61 %Annexation
15 3.66%Preservation of Natural Resources, parks, beach, recycling
3 0.73°%More protection for and from Police
7 1.71 %Consolidation between City & County
2 0.49%Affordable Housing
3 0.73°%Better job opportunities
1 0.24% Bond Issue
1 0.24%Fire protection
2 0.49%Landfll
2 0.49%Revitalization of Downtown
1 0.24%Zoning
2 0.49%Economic System

4. County Growth
Count Frequency Response
103 25.12%An Acceptable Rate
5 1.22%Not Fast Enough
294 71.71 %Too Fast
4 0.98%01her
4 0.98%Don't Know/Not Sure
5. Economic activity
Count Frequency Response
64
16.12%Large manufacturing plants
146
36.78%Light "high tech" industrial
47
11.84%Trade & service business
42
10.58%Tourism & travel business
71
17.88%All kinds
27
6.80%Not sure / no opinion
13
3.17%NR
6. Should developers pay
Count
Frequency Response
363
88.54%Yes
27
6.596/6 No
9
2.20%No opinion
11
2.68%Not sure
7. Cost covered by property tax
Count
Frequency Response
83
32.17%Yes
157
60.85%No
7
2.71%No Opinion
11
4.26%Don't know / Not Sure
152
37.07%NR
8. Continued growth and development is:
Count Frequency Response
17 4.21%More important
179 44.31%Less important
202 50.00%Just as important
6 1.49%Don't know / not sure
6 1.46%NR
•
4

•
Agree
Disagree
No Opinion Don't know
NR
9. Water quality
355
10
16
29
0
86.59%
2.44%
3.90%
7.07%
0.00%
10. No trouble parking at beach
82
296
19
13
0
20.00%
72.20%
4.63%
3.17%
0.00%
11. Satisfied with recreational prog.
199
130
43
38
0
48.54%
31.71 %
10.49%
9.27%
0.00%
12. Well water polluted
254
25
33
98
0
61.95%
6.10%
8.05%
23.90%
0.00%
13. Billboards
49
324
31
16
0
11.95%
79.02%
7.56%
1.46%
0.00%
14. Recycling
384
18
6
2
0
93.66%
4.39%
1.46%
0.49%
0.00%
15. Public boat access
193
98
65
54
0
47.07%
23.90%
15.85%
13.17%
0.00%
16. Traffic congestion
368
39
3
0
0
89.76%
9.51 %
0.73%
0.00%
0.00%
17. Enough parks and playgrounds
101
231
32
46
0
24.63%
56.34%
7.80%
11.22%
0.00%
18. Zoning
191
1 123
35
61
0
46.59%
30.00%
8.54%
14.88%
0.00%
19. Townhouses and condos
228
84
51
47
0
55.61 %
20.49%
12.44%
11.46%
0.00%
20. Wilmington and NHC consolidate
125
184
59
42
0
30.49%
44.88%
14.39%
10.24%
0.00%
21. Restore historic areas
313
54
33
10
0
76.34%
13.17%
8.05%
2.44%
0.00%
22. Enough housing
86
259
19
46
0
20.98%
63.17%
4.63%
11.22%
0.00%
23. Continue riverfront development
317
61
21
11
0 .
77.32%
14.88%
.5.12%
2.68%
0.00%
24. Signs
270
65
64
11
0
65.85%
15.85%
15.61%
2.68%
0.00%
25. Continued revitalization
44 ,
346
15
5
0
10.73%
84.39%
3.66%
1.22%
0.00%
26. 1-40
328
39
24
19
0
80.00%
9.51 %
5.85%
4.63%
0.00%

Very Imp. Some Imp.
Not Imp.
N/S
N/R
27.
Lack of fire hydrants
211
60
17
122
0
51.46%
14.63%
4.15%
29.76%
0.00%
28.
Athletic fields
112
161
80
57
0
27.32%
39.27%
19.51%
13.90%
0.00%
29.
Lack of public money
221
109
43
37
0
53.90%
26.59%
10.49%
9.02%
0.00%
30.
Beach erosion
176
110
101
22
1
43.03%
26.89%
24.69%
5.38%
0.24%
31.
Commercial development
253
90
40
27
0
61.71 %
21.95%
9.76%
6.59%
0.00%
32.
Government restrictions
186
87
66
71
0
45.37%
21.22%
16.10%
17.32%
0.00%
33.
Rapid strip commercial dev.
247
76
64
21
2
60.54%
18.63%
15.69%
5.15%
0.49%
34.
Removal of trees
312
67
23
7
1
76.28%
16.38%
5.62%
1.71%
0.24%
35.
Lack of compulsory
180
115
46
67
2
44.12%
28.19%
11.27%
16.42%
0.49%
36.
Lack of drainage
321
62
7
20
0
0.00%
78.29%
15.12%
1.71%
4.88%
37.
Closing of shellfish beds
258
53
27
72
0
62.93%
12.93%
6.59%
17.56%
0.00%
38.
More controls / water quality
374
26
3
7
0
91.22%
6.34%
0.73%
1.71%
0.00%
39.
Improving appearance
299
102
9
0
0
72.93%
24.88%
2.20%
0.00%
0.00%
40.
Preservation of open space
329
68
7
6
0
80.24*/0 :
16.59%
1.71%
1.46%
0.00%

41. Most important issue
Count Frequency Response
48 11.71%Too much traffic
101 24.63%Drinking water (pollution)
35 8.54°%Environment (clean)
1 0.24%Trash collection
54 13.17%Growth (too fast, not planned)
59 14.39%Land development (more control / better planned)
14 3.41%Overcrowded schools (busing, needed repairs)
6 1.46%Preservation of Historical sites
7 1.71 % Infrastructure
2 0.49%Taxes
7 1.71%Crime, drugs
32 7. 80% Drainage and Storm Water, sewer
19 4.63%Lack of money for declining neighborhoods (appearance)
4 0.98%Public transportation
10 2.44°%Education
17 4.15%More roads and better conditions
5 1.22°%Annexation
54 13.17%Preservation of Natural Resources, parks, beach, recycling
15 3.66%Consolidation between City & County
11 2.68°%Affordable Housing
4 0.98%Better job opportunities
5 1.22°%Revitalization of Downtown
4 0.98%Zoning
1 0.24°%Economic System
1 0.24%Closing of shellfish beds

42. Spending additional dollars
•
Count
Frequency Response
355
87.65%Yes
26
6.42%No
5
1.23%No opinion
19
4.69%Not sure
5
1.22%NR
43. Transportation facility
Count
Frequency Response
107
28.53%Public trans.
80
21.33%Bicycling paths
141
37.60% Roads
47
12.53%Sidewalks
35
8.54%NR
44. Last grade
Count
Frequency Response
0
0.00%8th
14
3.43%9th-11th
83
20.34%High School
•
14
104
3.43%Some Tech.
25.49%Some College
137
33.58%College Grad.
' 56
13.73%Post Grad.
0
0.00%Refused
2
0.49%NR
45. Occupation
Count
Frequency Response
144
38.20%Professional
41
10.88%Homemaker
68
18.04%Retired
21
5.57%Clerical
22
5.84%Managerial
16
424%Sales
15
3.98%Skilled Craftsman
4
1.06%Factory Worker
23
6.10%Self Employed
3
0. 80% Protective Services
8
2.12%Student
6
1.59%Transportation worker
3
0.80%Disabled
3
0.80%Refused
33
8.05%NR -
•

0
46. Age
Count
Frequency Response
45
10.98% 18-29
101
24.63%30-39
106
25.85%40-49
87
21.22%50-59
25
6.10%60-64
44
10.73%Over 65
2
0.49%Refused
0
0.00%NR
47. Income
21
5.16%15000 or under
29
7.13% 15001 to 25000
25
6.14%25001 to 30000
30
7.37%30001 to 35000
38
9.34%35001 to 40000
53
13.02%40001 to 50000
88
21.62%50001 to 75000
58
14.25%Over 75000
65
15.97%Refused
3
0.73%NR
48. Race
363
89.19%White
36
8.85%Black
5
1.23%Other
3
0.74%Refused
3
0.73%NR
49. Sex
158
40.93%Male
228
59.07%Female
24
5.85%NR

i
NEW HANOVER COUNTY LAND USE SURVEY
OCTOBER 1997
Hello, I'm from Eastcoast Research. We are
conducting a public opinion survey among registered voters in
New Hanover County. The survey is being conducted for the county
in an effort to update its land use plan, and we would like to
include your opinion.
1. Are you registered to vote in New Hanover County?
Yes (CONTINUE)
No (THANK & TERMINATE)
2. Which of the following areas do you live in?
City of Wilmington
Cape Fear Township
Harnett Township
Masonboro Township
Federal Point
None of the Above (THANK & TERMINATE)
• 3. What, in your opinion, is the most important issue
facing New Hanover County?
4. Do you feel the county is growing at:
An Acceptable Rate
Not Fast Enough
Too Fast
Other
Don't Know/Not Sure
5.• What economic activity would you most like to see in
New Hanover County?
Large manufacturing plants (like GE or Corning)
Light "high tech" industrial (electronics or computers)
Trade & service business (retail, banking, insurance)
Tourism & travel business
All kinds (DO NOT READ RESPONSE)
Not sure/no opinion
6. Should developers be required to help pay the costs of new public
facilities needed because of growth; such as new roads, parks and
schools?
Yes
No
No opinion
Not sure

New Hanover County Survey
Page 2
7. (IF ANSWER TO 6 IS NO, THEN ASK):
Should the cost of growth be entirely covered by the property
tax paid by everyone?
Yes
No
No opinion
Don't know/Not sure
8. Continued growth and development is:
MORE IMPORTANT, LESS IMPORTANT or JUST AS IMPORTANT,
as protecting the environment.
_ Don't know/not sure (DO NOT READ RESPONSE)
Please tell me whether or not you agree or disagree with the
following statements as they relate to New Hanover County. -=
If you have no opinion or have never heard of the issue, please
say so.
DIS- NO DON'T
AGREE AGREE OPINION KNOW
9. Water quality is declining
in our river, creeks, and sounds
10. I have no trouble.parking at
the beach when I want to
11. I am satisfied with the public
recreational programs and dervices
in the county
12. Our well water is becoming
polluted
13. Billboards are needed along
our highways
14. Recycling should be included in
all commercial and household
garbage collection
15. More public boat access to the
river & sounds is needed
16. Traffic congestion is a problem
for me

•
•
New Hanover County Survey
Page 3
DIS- NO DON'T
AGREE AGREE OPINION KNOW
17. New Hanover County has enough
parks and playgrounds
18. Zoning and land use regulations
should be the same in the city
and county
19. There are too many townhouses and
condominiums & other dense develop-
ments along the creeks & sounds
20. Wilmington and New Hanover County
should not consolidate
21. Wilmington should restore and
preserve more historic areas
22. There is enough housing
available for all income levels
23. Wilmington should continue the
development of its riverfront
24. Businesses should use fewer
and,smaller signs
25. Continued revitalization of down-
town Wilmington is not necessary
26. The opening of I-40 has had a
positive effect on Wilmington,
Please tell me how important you feel the following issues are to
Wilmington and New Hanover County. For each issue I read, please
tell me if it is; VERY IMPORTANT, SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT, NOT IMPORTANT,
OR YOU ARE NOT SURE OF THE ISSUE?
27. Lack of fire hydrants in the
outlying areas of the county
28. Additional multi -purpose
athletic fields
VERY SOME NOT IMP NIS
IMP. IMP.

New Hanover County Survey
Page 4
VERY SOME
IMP IMP
29. Lack of public money to help
declining neighborhoods
30. Beach erosion that results in
destruction of homes & businesses
31. Commercial development intruding
into residential neighborhoods
32. Too many government restrictions
on building construction and land
development
33. Rapid strip commercial development
along major roads, such as Market St.
College Rd., and Oleander Dr.
34. Removal of trees due to land
development
35. Lack of compulsory trash pick -up -
in the unincorporated areas
36. Lack of city and county drainage
and stormwater controls
37. Closing of shellfish beds
38. More controls to protect the
quality of drinking water
39. Improving the appearance of
our community
40. Preservation of open space and
greenways
NOT IMP NIS
41. Now that we have gone through some of the issues facing New
Hanover County, which one do you consider most important?
i

New Hanover County Survey
Page 5
42. If spending additional dollars was required to solve this problem,
would you be willing for the city or county to do so?
Yes
No
No opinion
Not sure
43. Which type of transportation facility in New Hanover County would
you most like to see improved?
Public transportation (bus service)
Bicycling paths
Roads
Sidewalks
Finally,,to ensure that we have a representative sample of the County,
I need to ask you a few questions for statistical purposes only.
44. What was the last grade of school you completed?
8th grade or less
9th-11th grade
High School Graduate
Some Technical Training
Some College
College Graduate
Post Graduate
Refused
45. What is your occupation?
Professional ;. ;
Homemaker
Retired
Clerical
Managerial
Sales
Skilled Craftsman
Factory Worker
Self Employed
Protective Service
Student
Transportation Worker
Disabled
Refused

New Hanover County Survey
Page 6
46. What is your age?
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-64
Over 65
Refused
47. What was your total family income in 1996?
$15,000 or under
$15,001 to $25,000
$25,001 to $30,000
$30,001 to $35,000
$35,001 to $40,000
$40,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $75,000
Over $75,001
Refused
48. What do you consider your race to be?
White
Black
Other
Refused
49. Sex:
Male
Female
Q
TELEPHONE I
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HELP. HAVE A NICE DAY.
•

Technical Reports
•
Population
New Hanover County - Wilmington
North Carolina
A Technical Report for the County - City Comprehensive Plan
1997-2010
October 1998
Prepared by the
New Hanover County, Planning Department
414 Chestnut Street, Suite 304 Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
City of Wilmington, Planning Division
202 N. 3rd Street, 4th Floor, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
0

•
•
0
Population
New Hanover County - Wilmington, North Carolina
Table of Contents page
I.
Introduction
I
II..
Summary
2
III.
Population size and characteristics
4
Historical population changes
Population projections
Immigration to New Hanover County
IV.
New Hanover County population growth comparison
11
Migration, birth and deaths: in the four County area
Population growth comparison in the four County area
Population growth comparison
Persons per square mile: density
V.
Wilmington population growth comparison
16
Wilmington population annexation comparison
Comparison of City population growth
Wilmington population with proposed annexation
VI.
Race and demographics
19
New Hanover County and Wilmington
New Hanover County demographic structure
Population, race and sex projections
Projections of population by age group
R.
References
24
A.
Appendix
25

f I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to show the population characteristics of New Hanover County and
Wilmington. The population characteristics are presented with the recent historical past, and projections
to the year 2010. This technical report is part of the County and City Comprehensive Plan effort,t and is
the 1998 update to the 1992 population reports.2
The population characteristics that are presented in the report are: size; age; sex; ethnicity; area
analysis; immigration; births and deaths; projections; and proposed City annexation. This report will help
provide information used for the amount of future land use needs, as part of the 1997-2010 County and
City Comprehensive Plan process. This information will help to guide public issues, policy, and
implementation action decisions.
' In addition this report fulfills requirements of state Coastal Area Management Act with regard to land use
planning (for more details see the Appendix).
Z The previous county and city population reports were "Population Study of New Hanover County" Sept. 1992,
and "Wilmington's Forecast" Jan. 1992.

II. SUMMARY
• The following are the main highlights of population changes presented in this report.
From 1940 to 1997 New Hanover County has shown a very rapid population growth compared
with years prior to 1940. In 1940 the County population was approximately 48,000 and 149,000 in 1997.
Since 1990 County growth rates have increased to approximately 3.1% per year. In 1980 the City
population was approximately 44,000 and an estimate for 1997 is 64,000. Wilmington has had a
population increase of approximately 2.1% per year since 1990.
The 2010 County projected population is 180,000 for an increase of approximately 31,000
people from 1997. Projected decreasing rates of annual growth for the County are 2.0% per year in 1997
to 1.4% in 2010. Wilmington's population is projected to increase from 64,000 to 73,000 from 1997 to
2010, for an increase of 9,000.
Eighty-five percent of the population growth in the County in the current decade from 1990 to
2000 is expected to be from immigration. Only 15% of population growth in the County during this
decade is expected to be from net natural growth (or births minus deaths). This trend is expected to
continue through the year 2010.
From 1995 to 2010 the County is projected to show the third largest increase in population
growth compared with seven other major urban counties in North Carolina.
It is projected that by 2010 New Hanover County will have the second or third highest
• population per square mile (or density) of all 100 counties in North Carolina. The projected density in
the County by 2010 is 900 persons per square mile, while the state average is projected to be
approximately 170.
The City of Wilmington has proposed two annexations which may add as many as 24,000 people
by the year 2000. The City's population would grow from roughly 64,000 to 88,000.
In 1995 the County race percentages were: 78% White, 19% Black, and approximately 3%
Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Other races. Wilmington in 1995 was 67% White and 30%
Black. The percentage of remaining races in the City was about the same as the County with 3%
Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, and Other races. The 2010 race projection for the County is 79%
White, and 2 1 % for the Other census race category.
Between 1995 to 2010 the percentage of males and females in New Hanover County is projected
to remain consistent with a higher percentage of females than males. In 1995 this difference was 4% for
Whites and 10% for Blacks. Estimates for 2010 show no significant change in the percentage of females
and males.
Age group populations will change dramatically between 1995 and 2010. The largest projected
change in age group population will be the increase in the number of people older than age 50. The
median age will increase from 36 in 1995 to a projected age of 40 by 2010.
The number of school aged children will also rise considerably as a result of the increase of people
• in their child rearing years. Between 1995 and 2010, the number of school age children (0 to 19 years of
OA

., age) will increase by approximately 6,500, an 18% increase. Most of these youths will attend public
schools.
•
0

•
•
•
III. POPULATION SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS
Existing Population - 1997. Wilmington 64,100
New Hanover County 149,200
Trend. From 1990 to 1997:
Population growth Growth Rate Per Year
Wilmington 18,700 2.1%
New Hanover County 28,900 3.1%
Historical Population Changes
The following table and chart shows the historical population changes that have occurred in New
Hanover County and the City of Wilmington. Moderate historical growth occurred in the County until
approximately 1940. After 1940 the County population grew comparatively fast. From 1990 to 1997 the
County population growth rate was from 3.0% to 3.4% per year, with an average of 3.1% per year, for an
increase of 28,900 people. In 1997 the County population was 149,200. Similarly, the City steadily
increased in population growth to 1950. After this time there was a thirty year time period of essentially
no growth. From 1980 to 1997 the City population once again grew and increased from approximately
44,000 to 64,100. Since 1990 the City growth rate has been between 1.5% to 2.3% per year with an
average of 2.1 % per year.3
County and City Population
1940-1997
Year
New Hanover County
Population Time
period
Growth per year
for time period
Year
City of Wilmington
Population Time
period
Growth per year
for time period
1940
47,935
1940
33,407
1950
63,272
1940-50
2.8%
1950
45,043
1940-50
3.0%
1960
71,742
1960-70
1.3%
1960
44,013
1960-70
-0.2%
1970
82,996
1960-70
1.5%
1970
46,169
1960-70
0.5%
1980
103,471
1970-80
2.2%
1980
44,000
1970-80
-0.5%
1990
120,284
1980-90
1.5%
1990
55,530
1980-90
2.4%
1995
139,577
1990-95
3.0%
1995
62,256
1990-95
2.3%
1997
149,211
1995-97
3.4%
1997
64,164
1995-97
1.5%
From: NC Office of State Planning & State Library
3 The growth rate equation is shown in the appendix.
El

140,000
120,000
= 100,000
0
R 80,000
3
p 60,000
IL
40,000
20,000
0
0
0
O
Population of the County and City
o_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I`
N M IV* to (p 1,. 00 CD N M �f 0 CO I-W O O
O M °D GO O GO O O O W O O O QI O2 to O O O W
Year
* New Hanover County --*-City of Wilmington
The following two tables compare the population change since 1960 in the unincorporated New
Hanover County, Wilmington and the beaches with the State of North Carolina population. The table
clearly shows that the bulk of the County's population resides in Wilmington and the unincorporated
portion of the County. The three beach cities constitute a small fraction of the total population in the
County. The second table shows annual growth rates between 1990 to 1997. These values are from the
Office of State Planning. Wilmington and New Hanover County have grown annually from
approximately 2% to 3% per year during this time period. The beach towns have grown from
approximately 1% to 4% per year.
Population of Cities in County, and State
1960
1970
1980
1990
1995
1996
1997
Unincorporated Co.
25,521
33,069
53,976
57,568
68,866
71,869
76,240
Wilmington
44,013
46,169
44,000
55,530
62,256
62,968
64,164
Carolina Beach
1,192
1,663
2,000
3,630
4,598
4,690
4,854
Wrightsville Beach
723
1,701
2,884
2,937
3,115
3,165
3,197
Kure Beach
293
394
611
619
742
738
756
New Hanover County (Total)
71,742
82,996
103,471
120,284
139,577
143,430
149,211
North Carolina
4,556,155
5,084,411
5,880,095
6,632,448
7,194,238
7,323,085
7,436,690
Source: US Census Bureau, NC Orrice of State Planning, Wilming. Plan. Div., NHC Plan. Dept
•
•
Annual Growth Rates
From 1990 to 1997
Wilmington 2.1%
Wrightsville Beach 1.2%
Carolina Beach 4.2%
- : Kure Beach 2.9% •
New Hanover Co. (Total) 3.1 %
5

r, The following chart shows the population growth from 1960 to 1997 for the unincorporated
County, Wilmington, and the beach towns. In approximately 1975 the unincorporated County surpassed
Wilmington in terms of population. In 1997 the unincorporated County had approximately 5,500 more
people than Wilmington.
•
70000
60000
c
0 :r 40000
M
0
a
0
a
30000
20000
10000
0
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ —♦—Unincorporated Co. .....
—*—Wilmington
- - - Carolina Beach
................. Wrightsville Beach .....
— —Kure Beach
1960 1970 1980 1990 1997
Trend. In 1960 more people lived in Wilmington than the rest of the
unincorporated County. By 1997 the opposite was true, where
there were more people living in the unincorporated County than in
the City.
rol

--: Population Projections
The following table and the chart on page 6 show historical and projected population growth
scenarios from 1997 to 2010 in New Hanover County, Wilmington, and the beach towns. The projected
growth scenarios from 1997 to 2010 are based on North Carolina Office of State Planning census values
with minor modifications by the City and County Planning Offices based on housing construction trends.
The City population projections do not include the proposed annexations4. A map depicting the urban
service area and the non -urban service area, as shown in the table below, is on the following page.
Population projection
Growth rate Growth rate Growth rate
Area 1997 July 199740 2000 July 200045 2005 July 2005-10 2010 July
Urban Service Area
Wilmington
64,164
1.31%
66,725
County
57,137
2.91%
62,271
Non -Urban Service Area
17,817
1.20%
18,466
Unincorp. Co. south of Snows Cut
1,286
1.10%
1,329
Wrightsville Beach
3,197
0.75%
3,269
Carolina Beach
4,854
2.50%
5,227
Kure Beach
756
1.50%
791
Above New Hanover Co. Total
149,211
1.99%
158,078
North Carolina
7,436,700
1.31%
7,733,100
Using: NC Office of State Planning growth rates, and NHC and Wil. Planning Dept's. growth estimates.
0.94%
69,925
0.91 %
73,179
1.99%
68,732
1.84%
75,303
0.85%
19,264
0.75%
19,998
0.75%
1,379
0.50%
1,414
0.55%
3,360
0.45%
3,436
2.00%
5,771
1.50%
6,218
1.00%
831
0.90%
869
1.43%
169,264
1.39%
180,416
1.03%
8,138,800
0.97%
8,543,300
Trend. By 2010 the County will add another 31,200 people. In 1997 the
population of the County was 149,200 and by 2010 the projection
is 180,400.
The County population on the following chart is projected to increase from approximately
149,200 to 180,400, for an increase of 31,200 people between 1997 and 2010. The growth rate per year is
projected to decrease from approximately 4.0% to 1.4% during the time period. The City population is
projected to increase from approximately 64,200 to 73,200 between 1997 and 2010, with the growth rate
decreasing from 1.3% to 0.9% per year.
Trend.. Since 1990 there has been an accelerated rate of growth in the
County. The same is true for the City post 1980.
'If allowed by the N.C. courts "Annexation '95 " would add 10,700 people to the City population and "Annexation
'98" would add 13,000. For more details see section IV.
•
•
•
7

•
200
180
160
MR,
0
0
CD
120
x
c 100
0
r
80
a
IL 60
40
20
New Hanover County and Wilmington
Recent Population Growth and Projections
--� New Hanover County
+City of Wilmington
0 Ln 0 Ln 0 Ln 0 Ln O U,) O
m 0 ti P 0 00 rn M o 0
rn M rn rn M rn rn rn 0 0 0
N N N
Immigration to New Hanover County
The bulk of population growth in New Hanover County has been and will continue to be a result
of people moving to the County from other parts of the Country. This is shown in the following chart on
:r the next page with a comparison of existing immigration and projected immigration. The chart shows
that the percentage of growth attributable to immigration has increased from 69% in 1980 to 85%
currently and that the percentage will continue to increase to 88% by 2010. Population change as a result
of a natural increase in fertility and/or a declining death rate will constitute a smaller share of the
County's population growth. This net natural growth rate will decrease from 3 1 % in 1980 to 12% by
2010.

Trend. In the 1990's decade 85% of the population growth has been due
to net. immigration to the County. Only 15% has been due to
births. The trend to 2010 is for more of the same.
40
35
c 30
0
0
25
m
a�
20
s
v
0 15
cc
0
c 10
a
5
0
New Hanover County
Population Growth and Immigration
p Net Growth
(Births -Deaths)
Net Migration
1980-1990
1990-2000
Year Interval
12%
2000-2010
•
i
U
E

IV. NEW HANOVER COUNTY
• POPULATION GROWTH COMPARISON
Migration, Birth and Deaths: in the Four County Region
The following table and chart compare population change in New Hanover County and
neighboring Brunswick, Columbus, and Pender counties from 1996 to 2010. Population growth occurs in
a similar pattern in Brunswick, Pender and New Hanover Counties with a high percentage of the growth
rate attributable to migration verses a small percentage attributable to natural growth. Columbus County
is projected to have almost no growth from 1996 to 2010 with a net out migration.
Comparison of County Births Deaths Migration
Population Change
(x 1000)
Population 1996-2010
County
1996
2010
Change
'96210
Births
Deaths
Net Growth (Births - Net Migration (Pop.
Deaths) Change - Net Growth)
Brunswick
62.1
84.5
22.4
12.8
11.9
0.9
21.5
Columbus
51.3
51.8
0.5
11.0
9.7
1.3
-0.8
New Hanover
142.0
179.8
37.8
30.4
24.1
6.3
31.5
Pender
35.5
48.3
12.8
7.8
6.2
1.6
11.2
Source: Office of State Planning
Comparison: Population Growth and Migration
1996 - 2010
40
35
c 30
0
0
c 25
a� 20
c
co
v 15
0 10
R
a
5
0
a 0
-5
•
B Net Growth (Births - Deaths)
N Net Migration
00
U >
C
O
N C
L
0 0_
2 _
U
m 3
a�
z
WE

Population Growth Comparison
y In the Four County Area
The bulk of the population in the four County area is in New Hanover, with the remainder in
Brunswick, Columbus, and Pender. The below table and chart shows existing and projected growth in
two successive decades from 1990 and 2010. Brunswick, New Hanover, and Pender have estimated
annual growth rates from 2% to 2.6%, while Columbus shows almost no growth.
Comparison of Four County Area
Region "0"
(x 1000)
Population
1990-2010
1990
2000
2010
Total Growth
Growth per year
Brunswick
51.0
69.7
84.5
66%
2.6%
Columbus
49.6
52.3
51.8
4%
0.2%
New Hanover
120.3
156.2
179.8
49%
2.0%
Pender
28.9
39.7
48.3
67%
2.6%
Source: Office of State Planning
Population Growth of Four County Area
180
.,160------------------ - - - --- -
0 1 ------ - - - - -- --------------------------
0120 ____
--------------------------
�100 --------------------
-----------------------------
0 80 ---------------------------------------
0 60 1 - - -- -- - - - - -- ----------------------
Q. 40 ---------------------
n. 20 -------------------------
0
1990 2000 2010
—*—Brunswick _Columbus ANew Hanover—)Pender
Population Growth Comparison
As the following table and chart show, New Hanover County will have the third largest
population growth change as a percentage from 1995 to 2010 compared with seven other major urban
counties in North Carolina. The percent growth change between 1995 to 2010 in the shown counties
ranges from 12% in Forsyth to 46% in Wake. New Hanover's population growth change is projected to
be 29%.
•
is
•
11

Trend. Of the compared major cities and counties in the state,
Wilmington New Hanover County is projected to show the third
highest growth percent change to 2010 behind Raleigh and
Charlotte.
Comparison of County Growth
Population
(in 000's)
County
Major City in County
1990
1995
2000
2010 % Change'95210
Cumberland
(Fayetteville)
274.7
294.0
314.8
354.9
21 %
Durham
(Durham)
181.9
192.9
203.3
229.2
19%
Forsyth
(Winston-Salem)
265.9
279.9
294.8
314.4
12%
Guilford
(Greensboro)
347.4
372.1
395.0
425.4
14%
Mecklenburg
(Charlotte)
511.5
577.5
640.3
757.7
31 %
New Hanover
(Wilmington)
120.3
139.6
158.1
180.4
29%
Onslow
(Jacksonville)
149.8
147.9
156.4
181.8
23%
Wake
(Raleigh)
426.3
518.3
602.2
758.4
46%
From: NC Office of State Planning
50%
w 45%
R 40%
V 35%
30%
c 25%
0 20%
c 15%
10%
a 5%
0%
•
County Population Growth 1995-2010
a>
v
E
c a�
w
o
t
v
o
3>
°' rn
U
ti
_ M
12

Persons Per Square Mile: Density
New Hanover County compared with three neighboring counties has a very high population
density or persons per square mile, as shown in the following table and chart. This is because the County
is small and is largely urbanized. The density of New Hanover County is projected to increase from 700
to 900 persons per square mile between 1995 and 2010. The other three counties are projected to have
densities of approximately 50 to 100 persons per square mile. In 1995 the State average persons per
square mile was 146 and by 2010 the density is projected to be 166.
Comparison of Four County Density
Region "O" Population Density .
(x 1000)
Persons per Square Mile
County
1970
1995
2010
Brunswick
28
71
99
Columbus
50
55
55
New Hanover
417
702
904
Pender
21
40
55
Source: NC Office of State Planning
1000
900
800
m 700
E 600
H 500
o 400
m 300
IL
200
100
0
Four County Area Density
®1970
0 1995:
p 2010
Brunswick Columbus New Hanover Ponder
The following chart and table show that by the year 2010 New Hanover County is projected to
be the second or third densest county (only slightly behind second most dense: Wake County), in terms
of persons per square mile, of the eight indicated major urbanized counties in the state. The presented
persons per square mile ranges from approximately 200 in Onslow to 1,400 in Mecklenburg. By the year
2010 New Hanover County will have a density projected to be 900 persons per square mile.
•
•
13

•
•
Trend. Wilmington -New Hanover County by 2010 is projected. to have the
2"d or 3rd densest population of the surveyed major cities and
counties in the state at 904 persons per square mile. By 2010 the
state average by County is projected to be 170 persons per
square mile.
Comparison of County Density
Population Density
(in 0O0's)
Persons per Square Mile
County
Major City in
1970
1995
2010
County
Cumberland
(Fayetteville)
325
450
543
Durham
(Durham)
457
664
788
Forsyth
(Winston-Salem)
525
683
767
Guilford
(Greensboro)
444
572
654
Mecklenburg
(Charlotte)
672
1095
1438
New
(Wilmington)
417
702
904
Hanover
Onslow
(Jacksonville)
134
193
237
Wake
(Raleigh)
275
621
909
From: NC Office of State Planning
1600
1400
d
1200
R 1000
rn 800
`m
Q
c 600
O
400
a
200
0
County Density
®1995
;,1
s f
p 2010, �+
6i
x
�x
f
k
a�
I fil
D
o as
C
O E
U
v
—0%
0
m
LL
E
r
o
a>
7>@
rn
U
a)
Z
14

V. WILMINGTON POPULATION GROWTH COMPARISON
•
•
Wilmington Population Annexation Comparison
Not all growth in cities occurs as a result of births and immigrants. This natural growth may
constitute only some of the growth in a given time period. Cities in North Carolina have historically and
in recent years continued to grow as a result of annexations. The following figure shows Wilmington's
growth and historical annexation patterns from colonial times to the 1980's.
The following table shows that from 1970 to 1990 Wilmington annexed approximately 10,000
people. Wilmington annexed land with no population present on the land between 1990 to 1995.
Recent Population Annexations by Wilmington
1970 Population 1980 Population 1990 Population 1995
Annexed Annexed Annexed
'70= 80 180= 90 '90-'95
46,169 930 44,000 8,901 55,530 0 62,256
City of Wilmington data from: '7&295 OSP; '00-10 Wilmington Planning Div. projection.
Comparison of City Population Growth
The following table shows a comparison of eight major cities natural growth and annexation in
North Carolina from 1990 to 1995. Natural growth is births minus deaths and net in migration to the
respective cities. In half of the shown eight cities annexation exceeded natural growth. As previously
mentioned, Wilmington annexed land between 1990 and 1995, but there was no resident population on
this land, and thus the below chart shows that no population was annexed.
•
15

Comparison of Growth in North Carolina's Major Cities
Population Change
(x 1000)
Population Change'90-95
City
In County
1990
Natural City
Annexed
1995 Average Growth
Growth
Population
Per Year
Charlotte
(Mecklenburg)
395.9
37.5
36.4
469.8
3%
Durham
(Durham)
136.6
7.3
4.2
148.1
2%
Fayetteville
(Cumberland)
75.9
5.3
12.0
93.2
4%
Greensboro
(Guilford)
183.9
6.3
3.1
193.3
1%
Jacksonville
(Onslow)
30.4
1.7
43.0
75.1
20%
Raleigh
(Wake)
212.1
21.3
15.9
249.3
3%
Wilmington
(New Hanover)
55.5
6.8
0.0
62.3
2%
Winston-Salem
(Forsythe)
143.5
3.4
18.9
165.8
3%
From: NC Office of State Planning
8(
70
0 60
0
0
50
0 40
a
c 30
R
n 20
0
IL
10
0
City Growth 1990 -1995
gl Annexation
p Natu ra I Growth
°'
m
o E
O L
j
O
-
N
j
N
m
f6 :
U)
C
f0
E
c
U
>
l
0
cc>
N
•
•
•
16

Wilmington Population with Proposed Annexation
• The map on the following page shows the locations of the proposed City of Wilmington
annexation areas to the east and southeast of the city. The annexation areas are within the urban service
boundary. These proposed annexation areas are known as "Annexation `95", and "Annexation'98". The
following table shows that the proposed annexations have populations of approximately 10,700 in
Annexation'95 and 13,000 in Annexation'98.5 Should these annexations occur the City would grow
from 64,200 to 87,900 people.
Trend. Cities in North Carolina have historically grown by annexation as
the previous tables and chart shows. Similarly Wilmington is
proposing to annex an area north-east of the City known as
"Annexation '95", and south-east of the City know as "Annexation
'98". If the courts allow this, there would be approximately
24,000 new residents added to City.
Proposed Wilmington Annexations
Population Estimates
Location Pop. Year Estimate Population (x 1000)
Existing City of Wilmington 1977 64.2
Annexation '95 1995 10.7
Annexation '98 1998 13.0
Subtotal 23.7
Total: City & annexations 87.9
from: NC Office of State Planning
City of Wilmington Mnexation'95 report.
City of Wilmington ITS Division.
0 s At time of press the annexation cases were being heard by the NC courts.
17

VI. RACE and DEMOGRAPHICS
•
New Hanover County and Wilmington
The below table and pie charts on the next page show the race characteristics of New Hanover
County and Wilmington. The predominant race percentages in the County in 1995 was: 78% White;
19% Black; and approximately 3% for Hispanics, Asians, and Pacific Islanders and the Others.
Wilmington in 1995 was 66% White and 30% Black. The percentage of other races in the City was about
the same as in the County at 3%. Between 1980 and 1995 the County saw a slight percentage increase of
Whites and a slight decrease in the percent of Blacks. This trend is also shown in the City. However part
of the White increase in the City is likely due to the approximately 9,000 people annexed from the
suburbs into the City during this time period.
Trend. In 1995 in the County, Whites comprised 78% of the population,
Blacks 19%, and other races made up 3%. The projection for
2010 is similar.
Race Characteristics of County and City
New Hanover County 1980 1995 % by Race % by Race NHC 2010 % by Race
1980 1995 2010
• Whites 80,353 110,868 77% 79% Whites 143,067 79%
Blacks 22,371 26,567 21% 19% Other 37,246 21%
Hispanics 1,359 0.7% 1.0% 180,313
Asian & Pacific Islander 779 1,043 0.3% 0.7%
Other 311 938 0.4% 0.7%
436
Wilmington 1980 1995 % by Race % by Race
1980 1995
Whites 26,468 41,536 60% 66%
Blacks 17,264 18,969 39% 30%
Hispanics 800 1.0% 1.3%
435
Asian & Pacific Islander 115 696 0.3% 1.1%
Other 153 573 0.3% 0.9%
1980: From US Census.
1995: Wilmington Planning Div. based on 1990 and 1994
US Census estimates.
2010: NC Office of State
Planning
Simplified 2010 race projections by the North Carolina Office of State Planning are shown above for
New Hanover County. This 2010 projected race composition is 79% White, and 21% for the Other
census category, which refers to a mixture of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Pacific Islanders, and other
races. Projections of race to the year 2010 are tenuous at best due to the large influx of migrants to the
area which is projected to be over 85% of the population growth as shown on page III-7.
V.

New Hanover County Demographic Structure
The below chart shows the visual demographic structure for Whites and the other race category
for New Hanover County for 1995. Shown are age groups and amount of males and females per group.
As previously mentioned Whites constitute 78% of the population in the County. Of the other race
category Blacks constitute approximately 97% of the shown males and females. The chart shows that
with age the number of females per age category increases, as compared with males, particularly beyond
the age of 60.
New Hanover Co. (% by Race, 1995)
Other
1% Black
19%
78%
Wilmington (% by Race, 1995)
Other
1%
Black
Asian &
30%
Pacific
Islander
1%
: -
Asian &
Pacific
Hispanic
Islander
1%
1%
Whit!
Hispanic
1%
Population Race and Sex Projections
The following table and chart show the 1995 County population for race and sex with 2010
projections. In 1995 there were 4% more white females than males, and 10 more other race category
females than males. The other race category is approximately 97% black, and thus there were in 1995
approximately 10% more black females than males in the County. Projections for 2010 are similar where
there will be 4% more white females than males, and 12% more black (other race census category)
females than males.
70+
60-69
50-59
'W 40-49
V
Q 30-39
20-29
10-19
0-9
New Hanover County Demographic Structure 1995
MALE FEMALE
0 White
El Other
-
-
M6N: dSP:ri
vA4iuu{'d. Xdixa�S
°:everNr. ,r.msxrne+�Kr
wd4&19.fkY. tY'YN'rAM.6W,i:
'k414 rr3sf$i4tr+FYr1F'iAGti'
K:+isFaaivrrat� lwarkA�xrei�
12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
POPULATION
•
•
•
19

•
•
New Hanover County
Population Race and Sex Projections
(x 1000)
1995
Percent (1995)
2010
Percent (2010)
Race Male Female
Male Female
Male Female
Male Female
White 50.4 54.6
48% 52%
57.3 62.1
48% 52%
Other 12.3 15.2
45% 55%
14.0 17.5
44% 56%
From: NC Office of State Planning; N.C. Pop. Projections, Winter'95, p. 92.
Projections of Population by Age Group
County projected population changes by age group are shown in the following table and chart for
1995 and 2010. Shown in the table are the percent changes and population change amounts between both
years for each age group. The chart on the next page clearly shows the projected relatively large increase
of people above the age of 50. This percent change increase of approximately 55% to 65% per age group
for people above 50, shows that the County will increasingly shift to an older and more elderly
population from 1995 to 2010. The cause of this shift is due to the large number of retirees moving to the
area and the aging "baby boomers" in the County. Also shown is the approximate 14% to 22% increase
in the number of young persons in the 0 to 19 age category. Most of these children will be in public
schools. Adequate future school facilities, elderly needs, and related infrastructure concerns will need to
be addressed with policy and implementation actions.
20

New Hanover County
Projected Population by Age Group
Population
1995 to 2010
Percent
Pop.
Age
1995
2010
Change
Change
0-9
17523
20013
14%
2490
10-19
18224
22226
22%
4003
20-29
21911
23849
9%
1938
30-39
21790
23252
7%
1462
40-49
20439
25709
26%
5271
50-59
15576
25647
65%
10071
60-69
11322
18813
66%
7491
70+
12962
20302
57%
7340
Source: NC Office of State Planning internet site Nov. 1997
Trend. From 1995 to 2010 it is projected that the 0 to 19 age group will
increase by between 14% to 22% in New Hanover County. Most
of these children will be in public schools. Adequate future school
facilities and related infrastructure concerns will need to be
addressed.
70%
60%
50%
rn
c
t 40%
V
u 30%
d
a
20%
10%
0%
New Hanover County
Projected Population Growth by Age Group
1995 to 2010
10,100
7.300
5,300
2,500 4,000
1,900 1,500
F]
0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+
Age Group
•
is
•
21

Trend. The largest shift of the general New Hanover County population
from 1995 to 2010 will be the aging baby boomers and immigrating
retirees. Projections are for the age groups older than 50 to
increase by 55% to 65%.
Further evidence for the aging population in New Hanover County is shown in the following two
tables. The first table shows that from 1980 to 1995 the median age in the County shifted from 30 to 36.
By the year 2010 the median age is projected to be 40 an increase of 4 more years. The next table shows
worker and elderly percentages in the County. Many of the elderly are dependent on working family to
support them. The percentage of elderly is projected to increase from 13% to 17% between 1980 to 2000,
and to 19% by 2010. The large increase in the elderly population should raise financial, social, and
physical planning concerns for residents of the City and County.
New Hanover County
Median Age Shift
1980 1995 2010
30 36 40
Source: NC Office of State Planning; NC Pop. Projections, Winter'95, p. 78.
•New Hanover County
•
Comparison of Workers and Elderly (65+ yrs)
1980
2000
2010
Amount
%
Amount
%
Amount
Workers 68,000
87%
91,900
83%
99,100
81%
Elderly 10,400
13%
19,100
17%
23,100
19%
Source: NC Office of State Planning; NC Pop. Projections, Winter'95, p. 78.
Trend. The projected shift to o more elderly population in the County by
2010 should raise issues with regard to: emergency medical
services; nursing homes; and hospitals.
22

REFERENCES
1. Unless otherwise noted in the text all information in this report is from the United t •
p Sates Census and
the North Carolina, Office of State Planning, demographic home page site.
2. "North Carolina Population Projections, Office of State Planning, Winter 1995." NC Office of State
Planning, 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, NC. Dec. 1994. S. Morgan, P.W. Tillman. 94 p.
•
23

•
APPENDIX
North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act
Mandated Planning Requirements
This report is one of the technical reports of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land
Use Plan. The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), from 1974 by the North Carolina General
Assembly, requires that the 20 coastal counties of the state prepare land use plans. These plans provide a
framework used to guide local leaders as they make decisions for the protection, preservation, orderly
development and management of the North Carolina coastal area.
The original CAMA Land Use Plan for New Hanover County was adopted in 1976. Updates to
the plan are required by CAMA on five year intervals. This report is part of the 1997 update (previous
updates were: 1981, 1986 and 1991) performed in conjunction with the Wilmington -New Hanover
Comprehensive Planning Program, initiated in 1974.
In accordance with CAMA-requirements, the land use plan consists of the following elements:
Summary of data collection and analysis; Existing land use map; Policy discussion; and Land
classification map. This information serves an important role in the formulation of local development
regulations, such as zoning ordinances, and it provides input for growth policy decisions.
Population Exponential Growth Rate Equation
In this report a population exponential growth rate equation was used for projections (pp. 125-6.
in "Urban Land Use Planning" 4th ed., 1995, E. Kaiser, D. Godschalk, and F. Chapin. Univ. of Illinois
Press., Urbana, I11.). The equation is as follows.
Where: r = rate of growth per unit time.
Pt+„ = projected population size at future year, n units of time beyond base year t.
Pt = population in base year t.
n = number of time periods beyond base year t.
For population growth: Pt+„ = Pt (1 + r)
For rate of population growth: r = ( P t + n / P t )1/n - 1
24

Environmental Resources
& Constraints
• • •

Technical Reports
--------------------------
rl�
Environmental Resources and Constraints
of New Hanover County and Wilmington,
North Carolina
A Technical Report for the County and City Comprehensive Plan
1997-2010
•
October 1997
Prepared by the
New Hanover County Planning Department
414 Chestnut Street, Suite 304, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
City of Wilmington Planning Division
202 N. 3rd Street, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
•

Environmental Resources and Constraints
of New Hanover County and Wilmington,
North Carolina
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Water Resources
Groundwater
Surface Water
III. Fragile Areas
County Classifications
State Classifications
Federal Classifications
IV. Hazard Areas
Ocean Hazard Areas
Floodplains
Airport
Industrial Hazards
Sea Level Rise
V. Soils
VI. Air Quality
VII. Resource Potential Areas
Prime Farmland
Forestry Resources
Mineral Resources
Public Lands
•
1
1
13
21
25
26
27

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this technical report is to describe the environmental resources and constraints
that will be instrumental in shaping the direction, type and rate of growth in New Hanover County. This
report examines water resources, fragile areas, hazard areas, soils, air quality, and resource potential
areas.
L WATER RESOURCES
Water resources in the County can be broken down into groundwater and surface water systems,
although it is important to note that water moves with limited restrictions between the two systems.
Approximately 54% of the population of New Hanover County receives their water supply from
groundwater and 46% receive their water from the Cape Fear River. The County report, "Drinking
Water in New Hanover County" (1989), summarizes the various water systems currently utilized by
county residents and examines some of the factors associated with possible implementation of a county-
wide water system.
A. GROUNDWATER
1. Physical Characteristics
The County's fresh groundwater system consists primarily of a near -surface, unconfined aquifer
and two deeper, confined aquifers. The unconfined aquifer is generally sandy and wells exposed to it
range in depth from approximately 20 to 75 feet. The two deeper confined aquifers are composed of
limestone and sandstone, respectively. Wells exposed to these aquifers range in depth from about 75 to
200 feet.
2. Yield and Hydraulic Characteristics
Wells deeper than 200 feet will usually yield brackish water. These confined aquifers slope
southeastward from where they approach the surface in the Castle Hayne and Wrightsboro areas (figure 1
- area 2 ), and extend in the subsurface to a maximum depth of two hundred feet along the coast. The
degree of connectivity between all of these aquifers varies considerably.
Very little information is available on the attributes of the near surface, unconfined aquifer. As a
general rule, the water yield from a shallow well is sufficient to supply a single family residence on a 1/3
acre lot. However, in the industrial corridor along Highway 421, where the unconfined aquifer is thick
and composed of coarse -grained sand, a large well can produce two to six hundred gallons per minute
(gpm) on a 24-hour sustained yield. Due to its shallow depth and transmissive nature, this aquifer is
extremely vulnerable to pollution.
The confined aquifers are the principally -used aquifers in the County. Estimates by the N.C.
Department of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section indicate that approximately 71.7
million gallons per day (mgpd) of groundwater could be available on a continually sustained basis for the
entire County. Sustained yield in any one area may be between 200,000 to 2,000,000 gpd per square
mile.
0

:�
��♦ r I s
��
1
...
Approximate Scale
1' . 3 furies
P�
i OG�
or 6
F1 MASON INLET
WRICITTr4LLE zrAH
MASONB'ORO INLZT
IQ
Q
ICAROLlNA
BEACH
Wla
J
CAROLIHA BEACH
IKME
BEACH
l
0
NEW ImLzr
AQUIFER SENSITIVITY
Primary recharge area of principal aquifers
(combined Castle Hayne and Peedee
aquifers -confined artesian
aSecondary recharge areas for Castle Hayne
or Peedee where occurring near land surface
under water -table conditions
Recharge area of Sandhill aquifer -water -table
conditions
,4 Chiefly a discharge area for ground -water
now
5 Nondescript area -a relatively poor aquifer
and not a recharge source of pnncipal
aquifers
A shallow water -table sand aquifer and
underlying artesian aquifer containing fr•
water over salty water

• A "Groundwater Field Evaluation Report" to the New Hanover County Groundwater Task
Force in December, 1996 estimated that a water supply of 23 mgpd is readily available from the Pee Dee
and Castle Hayne aquifers in the mid -county area.
Although the amount of groundwater utilized across New Hanover County has not been
documented since 1980, a shift in usage has occurred and should be noted. As a result of annexations,
many residential areas are now utilizing city water rather than groundwater systems, thus decreasing
residential usage in some areas. However, the continued development of the beach communities, new
golf course projects, both of which utilize groundwater, and new commercial centers increase demand
for groundwater. The extent of these changes and the total amount of groundwater being used is not
available to date.
It is estimated that the groundwater aquifer system could theoretically support a maximum
population of approximately 441,000 ( "Drinking Water in New Hanover County", 1989), based upon an
average per capita use of approximately 140 gallons per day and some estimates from 1980 usage
figures. However, it is unlikely that the groundwater aquifer alone could support a population of this
size, as the withdrawals and resultant aquifer drawdown would result in problems with lateral saltwater
intrusion, sinkhole development, and increased iron and total hardness.
3. Groundwater Quality
Presently, the groundwater system is still relatively free of pollution but there are a growing
number of incidents of contamination. As of September 1996, approximately 494 incidents of
contamination had been documented, most of which are associated with accidental industrial spills (122)
or leaking underground storage tanks (372). These sites are located throughout the county but are
somewhat more abundant in the industrial sectors of the county which are adjacent to the Cape Fear and
Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. Two sites in New Hanover have been identified as State Priority Sites due
to the size of their contamination plumes. Both sites are located in the northern part of the county and
are being monitored.
The aquifer in the Flemington area along Hwy. 421 became polluted from an old landfill site,
resulting in the County's provision of a small 280,000 gpd water system. A well -monitoring system has
been established for this area to determine the extent of groundwater impacts. Another area along Castle
Hayne Road in the Wrightsboro Community was also recently found to be contaminated, this one from
leaking fuel tanks from a nearby service station. The wells in this area are being monitored and the
affected homes are being connected to the County's water system.
The natural quality of the near -surface, unconfined aquifer system is extremely variable.
Generally, it is characterized by the presence of iron, carbon dioxide and sodium, resulting idan acidic,
soft, and slightly corrosive water quality. Iron content can range from none to high. The deep, confined
aquifers are characterized by the presence of calcium bicarbonate, resulting in a typically hard quality of
water, with a basic pH.
The unconfined aquifer is recharged by rainfall. In turn, water in the shallow aquifer eventually
moves down into the deep aquifer system. The deep aquifer has a primary and a secondary recharge area
as shown in Figure 1. The primary recharge area is where the greatest quantity of recharge takes place.
The secondary recharge area, though smaller in area, is more vulnerable to pollution due to its shallow
•
3

depth. Thus, it has become increasingly important to closely control and monitor development activities
within that recharge area. •
The viability of a county -wide water system utilizing the deep groundwater aquifer has been
explored by a Groundwater Task Force and found to be feasible. If developed, groundwater would be
drawn from a wellfield located in the northeast central part of the county and then be treated at the
Sweeney Water Plant on River Road. This would likely be supplemented by water from the Cape Fear
River, which currently comes from above lock and dam number one, via a pipeline.
4. Groundwater Classes
The state has classified all groundwaters for purposes of monitoring and regulation. The
different classes are defined in terms of depth, salinity and best possible use. The classes in New
Hanover county include the following:
a. GA - These waters can be best used for drinking and food preparation without treatment, except
that necessary to correct naturally occurring conditions. They have a chloride content less than 250
milligrams per liter (mg/o and begin at the top of the near -surface water table, generally at depths of
about 10 feet.
b. GSA - These waters are similar to GA waters except that they have a chloride concentration
greater than 250 mg/I and cannot be used for drinking without reduction of salinity.
c. GC - This class includes those groundwaters that do not meet quality criteria of FA or GSA
waters and for which efforts to restore these waters to a higher classification, while still in place, •
would not be feasible or in the best interest of the public.
The North Carolina department of Environment, health and Natural Resources has developed extensive
standards for regulating pollution of these different water classes. These water quality standards deal
with maximum allowable concentrations of heavy minerals, bacteria and synthetic organic compounds.
The regulations do allow some degradation of the groundwater resources; however, degradation is not
allowed beyond either established compliance boundaries or property boundaries. It is the intent of the
regulations to preserve the quality of the groundwater and allow no degradation of any class below the
standards established for that class.
B. SURFACE WATER
1. Cape Fear River
The Cape Fear River basin is the largest in the state, covering approximately 9,149 square miles.
There are 27 counties and 114 municipalities located fully or partially within the basin. Major industries
include textiles, chemical manufacturing, silviculture, and agriculture. While over half of the river basin
is forested, the last decade has found the amount of developed land steadily increasing while the amount
of cropland has been on the decline. The lower Cape Fear basin also encompasses the most concentrated
turkey and hog producing areas in the state, in Sampson and Duplin counties.

a. Water Use
City of Wilmington residents and certain residents in the unincorporated county are presently
served by a municipality owned and operated water system utilizing raw surface water from the Cape
Fear River pumped from just above Lock and Dam #1 at the Kings Bluff Pumping Station. The City's
Sweeney filtration plant, at 407 Hilton Street, originally began service in 1943.
The Sweeney plant has recently undergone construction and renovation that will increase the
design capacity from 15 to 25 million gallons per day (MGD). This work was needed to address
increasing demands of the current system to recent annexations, extension of water lines beyond the city,
and projected commercial and industrial growth. Additional raw water is also available to the City from
the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority.
b. River Water Quality
In North Carolina, all named streams have been classified as to their "best usage". In a recent
study, "Water Quality Progress in North Carolina" (1993) by the Division of Environmental
Management, it is shown that for streams and rivers in the state, 67% support their uses, 2 1 % partially
support and 4% do not support their uses (8% were not evaluated). This "use support" classification is
based upon water chemistry data and involves computing percentages of the values in violation of
applicable North; Carolina standards. For example, `fully supporting" is defined as standard exceedences
less than or equal to 10% of the total observations with the mean of measurements less than the standard.
By comparison, species richness values are calculated for three groups of pollution intolerant
• benthic fauna. These biological classifications generally correspond to the "use support" rankings:
poor = not supporting,
fair = partially supporting,
good -fair = support threatened,
good -excellent = supporting.
For the total Cape Fear River basin "stream miles" (6204 miles), this 1993 DEM study shows
that 37.9% fully support, 34% support -threatened, 15% partially support, and 3.4% do not support their
uses (9.0% were not evaluated). The major sources (reasons) for partially and non -supporting streams
for the Cape Fear River are municipal waste water treatment plants (WWTP) (9.1%), unknown nonpoint
sources (42.1%), agricultural runoff (34.8%), urban runoff (9.9%) and industrial WWTP's (3.1). The
major causes of the degradation are undifferentiated (18.0%), multiple (18.%) and sediment (54.1%).
This report states that there were 391 active permitted surface water discharges in the basin, an increase
of 25% since 1984.
According to the 1996 "Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan", of the
tidal saltwater estuaries and sounds in the Cape Fear River basin, 73% fully support and 27% partially
support their uses. Major causes of partially supporting streams are multiple nonpoint source pollution
including agriculture, urban runoff, septic tanks, and marina.
A coalition of industries, municipalities and educators has evolved to develop a monitoring
program. UNC-Wilmington is overseeing the group and performing the monitoring. In June of 1995, a
broad -scale water sampling program in the Cape Fear was begun under the auspices of the Cape Fear

7N River Program. Sixteen stations throughout the estuary and the lower Cape Fear River, Black and
Northeast Cape Fear Rivers were sampled monthly. The number of stations was increased to 34 in •
February 1996. Data were collected for a variety of physical, chemical and biological parameters.
This study compared nutrients and turbidity in water samples taken during summer 1995 in the
mainstream of the Lower Cape Fear River with samples taken in two of its tributaries, the Northeast
Cape Fear River and the Black Rivers. The findings included high levels of inorganic nitrogen
predominating in the mainstream of the Cape Fear, but the tributaries contained more organic nitrogen.
Such high levels can lead to algal blooms, eutrophication and fish kills.
Turbidity in the mainstream of the Cape Fear River exceeds state water quality standards, while
turbidity in the blackwater tributaries is very low. In addition to the increased cost of water treatment,
turbidity decreases plants ability to photosynthesize, it clogs the gills of fish, and fills in creek beds
which are home to many juvenile fish and other aquatic organisms.
Turbidity and nutrients, such as nitrate are indicators or non -point source runoff, especially
agriculture. During the Summer of 1995, several animal waste lagoon spills occurred in the Cape Fear
Watershed. This resulted in high nutrient loads entering receiving waters, algal blooms, fish kills, and
high turbidity concentrations. Low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels were observed in local receiving
streams. The lowest DO level was found 55 miles downstream of the waste input as well as elevated
nutrients. High concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria and other pathogens were also introduced to the
receiving waters. With the growing number of waste lagoons in the watershed there is an increased
potential for environmental damage from adverse weather conditions (Nor'easters, tropical storms,
hurricanes).
c. Drinking Water Treatment •
The City of Wilmington presently uses a conventional multi -step treatment process for
purification of its drinking water supply. Raw water is injected with chemicals such as alum and
polymer to coagulate mud and silt called turbidity and organic matter. Caustic or lime are also added as
needed for alkalinity and pH adjustment. Chlorine Dioxide is added for disinfection, oxidation, and to
assist with control of formation of disinfection by-products. These by-products such as trihalomethanes
(THM's) are generated by the addition of chlorine to water containing organic matter. Coagulated water
is then mixed and the coagulated material then is allowed to settle before the water is filtered. The water
is then adjusted for pH with caustic or lime. Fluoride for dental cared is added, a phosphate compound to
reduce the water's corrosiveness is added and chlorine.
When the City's renovations and upgrades are complete, new technologies will assist the plant
with meeting upcoming new regulations, as well as continuing to meet and exceed current regulations.
The City's plant constantly monitors the water to ensure that all applicable maximum limits for current
parameters are not exceeded.
2. Tidal Creeks and the Estuarine Watersheds
New Hanover County began to study its tidal creeks and the estuarine watersheds because of
growing community concern over declining water quality in the creeks and sounds. As rapid population
growth exerted increasing pressure on the areas fragile and limited natural resources, estuarine water
quality had become one of the early_ casualties. A gradual yet continuous decline, it eventually resulted in •
`"' the closure of once prime shellfishing areas throughout the county. With the closure of Howe Creek, a

state designated Outstanding Resource Water, on December 6, 1991, all of New Hanover County's
estuarine creeks were fully or partially closed to shellfishing.
The issue was further defined during the development of the Wilmington -New Hanover
County Land Use Plan Update in 1991-93, as area residents expressed increasing concern over:
declining water quality; potential groundwater pollution; over development; and a perceived decline in
the overall quality of the environment. As a result, land use policies were adopted that called for the
County and City to take all necessary actions to prevent further deterioration of estuarine water quality
and to bring all coastal waters up to the highest quality possible. This included the protection,
preservation and restoration of shellfishing in the tidal creeks and sounds through the development of an
Estuarine Watershed Management Program.
a. Estuarine Watershed Program
Work began on the Program in 1992, with development of watershed profiles and review of
existing regulations. A preliminary report on the issues and recommended actions was completed in
September 1993. The Estuarine Watershed Management Program addresses community estuarine water
quality problems and related land use issues through an innovative public -private collaboration that
provides for unique research/demonstration projects, tidal creek water quality studies, and land use
implementation measures. The Program was designed as a collaborative effort between New, Hanover
County, the Northeast New Hanover Conservancy, and the Center for Marine Science Research at the
University of North Carolina, Wilmington.
The Program represents a creative departure from previous undertakings, in that the funding and
management area joint effort of the County, the University, and the Conservancy. In addition, the three
organizations work closely together on special projects, such as the Futch Creek Demonstration Project
(discussed, below), as well as enlisting the support of other groups and agencies as the program evolves.
These would eventually grow to include the State of North Carolina's Division of Environmental
Health/Shellfish Sanitation, Division of Coastal Management, and Division of Soil & Water
Conservation; U.S. Department of Agriculture -Natural Resources Conservation Service, Cape Fear
Resource Conservation & Development; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; PenderWatch and Conservancy
and others.
b. Futch Creek Demonstration Project
The most significant achievement to date has been the reopening of Futch Creek to shellfishing
in May of 1996 This was made possible by the University's Tidal Creek Water Quality Studies, which
helped to support the development, funding, and multi -agency approvals necessary for a Clean Water
Demonstration Project for the creek. This pilot project, which began in 1994, was designed to study the
effects of salinity and tidal flushing on the fecal coliform levels in the creek, as coliform levels are the
indicator used by Shellfish Sanitation for determining water quality. While fecal coliforms themselves
may or may not be pathogenic to humans, their abundance is often indicative of sewage or other
pollution and the possibility of the presence of human pathogens.
The project consisted of dredging two channel openings through the shoals at the mouth of the
creek and monitoring the upstream effects. It was preceded by shoreline surveys, septic system and tidal
dye studies, and land use surveys to eliminate the possibility of known point source discharges for the
coliform pollution. The south channel was opened in April 1995 and the north channel in April 1996,
with a subsequent reduction in fecal coliform abundance ranging from 45-80%. The evidence from the

study suggests that fecal coliform survival is greatly reduced in higher salinity waters. It also points to a
likely terrestrial source for the pollution in the upper reaches of the creek, possibly concentrations of
indigenous animal populations, such as raccoon and deer. Monitoring of the creek is continuing,
including groundwater and wildlife studies, and a Community Steering Committee is working with the
Planning Board on the completion and adoption of the Futch Creek Watershed Management Plan.
The reopening of Futch Creek to shellfishing has provided tangible water quality benefits to
local residents, including direct economic benefits to the fishing/shellfishing industry. It has also
generated coastal wide interest, which may help lead to the development of other estuarine watershed
programs throughout coastal North Carolina.
3. Environmental Quality Factors
a. Commercial Resources
Water quality constraints strongly influence the intensity and location of future growth.
Maintenance of an adequate level of high quality surface water is extremely important to the County's
economy and environment. Finfishing, shellfishing and clean water for recreational activities help
support the areas high quality of life that is enjoyed by both residents and tourists.
The preliminary dockside value of finfish and shellfish which were reported for New Hanover
County from 1990-1996 are shown in table 2. Note that these numbers represent landings only (eg- the
amount which was sold to commercial fish houses) and are therefore extremely conservative. The
average amount of finfish and shellfish caught per year is 1,971,912 pounds. The average total price of •
these fish was $2,716,996 per year. Figure 2 shows the location of Primary Nursery Areas (PNA's).
These areas have been designated by the State as being highly conducive for juvenile habitat for marine
species. Destruction of these areas, either physically by dredging and filling or by pollution, damages
the ecosystem, decreases or eliminates certain economically valuable sport and commercial fishing and
reduces the overall attractiveness of the County and it's adjacent water. Figure 3 indicates where
shellfish beds are closed as a result of pollution. This designation declares it unlawful to possess, sell or
take oysters, clams or mussels in these areas. These closed beds are generally shown to be near the most
developed areas of the waterfront, e.g. near dense subdivisions, marinas, and waste treatment plant
outfalis. Note that the extent of closure surrounding marinas is dependent on size and other
characteristics of the marina. Historically, once an area has been closed, it is likely that the closure will
become permanent. However, the tidal creek research and resulting demonstration project on Futch
Creek that led to its reopening is indicative of what can be done.
b. Degradation Sources
There are basically three sources of pollution that influence water quality : septic systems,
urban runoff, and waste treatment and disposal systems.
0

1. Septic systems
Septic system failure can result from septic systems that are inadequately designed, placed in
poor soils, or inadequately maintained. The result may be leaching of untreated or partially treated
domestic waste into surface waters. Now that more stringent regulations and setbacks are in place
governing septic tank installation, the more common causes of septic tank failure are attributed to
unsuitable soil conditions and users exceeding the system design capability.
In a 1982 report, "The Impact of Septic Tanks on Shellfish Waters", DEM demonstrated that
shellfish beds on New Hanover County creeks tend to become closed if septic system density exceeds
one system per seven acres. With the increasing intensity of development this "seven acre" ideal
situation is not feasible. However, with improved design and installation, negative environmental
impacts of these systems can be mitigated. The development of watershed management plans and
additional sewer system construction will help to reduce this particular problem.
2. Urban Runoff
Urban runoff pollution is a rather broad term used to describe a number of sources and typed of
pollution. Urban runoff includes the washing off of petroleum products, animal wastes, and other debris
from roads, parking lots and roofs; runoff of lawn pesticides and fertilizer; and the intrusion of large
"slugs" of freshwater and sediment -laden water from impervious surfaces which upset the estuarine
salinity and turbidity balance. A special case of urban runoff is marina operations which not only
involve runoff pollution and intrusion from impervious surfaces, but also petroleum product leakage and
wastewater flushing from boats. A number of studies, including the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
(NURP) sponsored by the US Environmental Protection Agency, have shown that urban storm water
runoff is a significant contributor to water quality impairment. Approximately 200 miles of streams in
the Cape Fear River Basin are thought to be impaired by urban storm water. Greenfield lake is one of
several streams identified as being at least partially impaired from urban runoff based on DEM's most
recent biological monitoring.
Sedimentation is of great concern in the Cape Fear River Basin. It is essentially a widespread
nonpoint source -related water quality problem which results from land -disturbing activities. Major types
of these activities include agriculture and land -development. Subbasins 16 and 17 of the Lower Cape
Fear River and coastal waters have a combined total of 106 miles of streams impaired by erosion and
sedimentation. Additionally, the Northeast Cape Fear River basin contains 103 miles of impaired
streams.
In 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began requiring that municipalities
and most industries apply for a permit for point source storm water discharges to state waters or to
separate storm water systems. The intent of the new legislation is to monitor and more closely control
pollution impacts associated with storm water discharges.
Cities, towns and counties that operate facilities with certain industrial activities must apply for
the permits. In New Hanover County, this includes vehicle maintenance facilities, landfills, wastewater
treatment plants, airports, "waste to energy" facilities and certain wastewater sludge disposal facilities.
New Hanover County adopted a Conservation Overlay District (COD) in 1984 as part of the
isZoning Ordinance. This plan is further described below in the section titled, "Fragile Areas". The COD

o=
Map C,..hd on 11/1 &W
Monn"m TwlnoWpy
•
Legend
® Prfmary Nursery Areas
0 County Boundary
4
_Mllu
Primary Nursery Areas
Spec%/ Secondary Nursery Areas L] M*r Roads
Dao~jl M—.ffi n "we 11
Pender County

/r Y
%yam
Legend
' i Pmhlb/ted Areas
❑ County Boundary
w�eer+r+dm /tnmue
mam.m, rem..k y
•
Closed Shellfish Beds N
Marinas L', Major Roads
o.oy�onry mam.ra, sy.nm.
r �
r
Pender County
Il

regulations can significantly reduce urban runoff pollution by utilizing stormwater retention, buffer
. strips, setbacks and the preservation of wetlands in their natural state.
3. Waste Treatment and Disposal Systems
The approximate location of waste treatment and disposal systems in the County are shown in
figures 4 and 5. A minimum discharge rate of 2,000 gallons per day was used as the cutoff value.
There are two types of treatment and disposal systems: (1) "discharge systems those that
discharge treated effluent into surface waters (which are regulated by DEM and require a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit) and are considered to be point source
discharge sites; and, (2) "non -discharge systems" -those that disperse treated wastes onto the ground
through spray irrigation or into the ground using a subsurface disposal system (private systems are
regulated by the County Health Department and public systems are regulated by DEM and require an
NPDES permit).
Approximately two -third of these systems are from local industries, including several from
licensed public utilities and privately operated waste treatment facilities. Approximately one third
handle domestic wastes from subdivisions. A recent study found that 296 point source discharges occur
upstream in the Cape Fear Basin.
3. Surface Water Quality Classes
The State has classified the water quality of different surface waters in the County as shown in
Figure 6. These classes are based upon the "best usage" for each water body, as determined through
studies, evaluations and the holding of public hearings to consider the proposed classification schemes.
Each class is subject to protection toward maintaining "best usage" and regulation of discharges into the
waters. Note in Figure 6 that some of these waters have multiple supplemental classifications. More
details on each class can be found in "Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the
Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin" (1990) by the Division of Environmental Management. The areas
shown are subject to change.
a. Fresh Waters:
Class WSIV waters can only be found at one location in the county, Toomer's creek, 0.8 mile
upstream of Wilmington's water supply intake. This means that these waters could serve as an alternative
source of drinking water for the city, assuming adequate treatment was provided. Toomer's Creek is
sometimes used as a source of drinking water in emergency situations.
Class WSIII waters are protected as water supplies. These areas are usually found in
undeveloped water sheds. Point source discharges of treated wastewater must follow rules of the state
surface water standards. In addition, local programs are required to control non -point sources and
stormwater discharges of pollution. These waters are suitable for all usage specified by the C
classification.
Class B waters are protected for primary recreation which includes swimming on a frequent or
organized basis by the C classification.
12

" Class C waters are those areas best used for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
_. wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. •
b. Tidal Salt Waters:
Class SA waters are best used for commercial shellfishing and other uses specified by SB and
SC. Many of the County's SA waters are also classed as Outstanding Resource Waters, described below.
Class SB waters are best used for primary recreation and other uses specified by the SC class.
Class SC waters are best used for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife and
secondary recreation. All saltwater are classified to protect uses at a minimum. Note that shellfishing is
not allowed in Class SC waters.
c. Supplemental Classes:
Swamp waters (Sw's) are waters which have low velocities and other natural characteristics
which are different from adjacent streams.
High Quality Waters (HQW's) are waters which are rated as excellent based on biological and
physical or chemical characteristics through Division of Environmental Management monitoring or
special studies. This class includes, native and special trout waters (and their tributaries), some Primary
Nursery Area's and other functional nursery areas, critical habitat areas, special water supply watersheds
and all class SA waters.
OutstandingResource Waters ORW's are unique and special waters •
( ) q p ters of exceptional state or
national, recreational or ecological significance which require special protection to maintain existing
areas. This designation, which applies to many SQ waters in the County, requires that new development
within 575 feet of the waters meet coastal stormwater management regulations as specified by DEM.
For example, the built upon area for development within this 575 foot area is limited to 25% of the
parcel. The ORW designation also prohibits new or expanded discharges and new or expanded marinas.
Also, additional stormwater control and land development restrictions may apply to areas with this
classification.
II. FRAGILE AREAS
Fragile areas in the County cover a wide range of environmental resources, some of which have
been briefly mentioned in previous sections of this report. There are County, State and Federal levels of
classification and regulation schemes which apply to the fragile and hazard areas described below. Note
that there is considerable overlap of the resource areas regulated by each level of government and some
areas may fall under the auspices of all three.
For example; a parcel of marsh may lie in an area described and mapped as part of the County's
"Conservation Overlay District" and thus, be protected from certain levels of development. It may also
be positioned along the estuarine system, thus designating it as part of the State's Coastal Wetlands Area
of Environmental Concern (AECs) and eligible for protection under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) regulations. And finally, the parcel may be defined as a "404" Wetland and be protected by
Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act from being dredged or filled. •
13

•
�0
• i
CANOUNA BEACH
XUr
....C.
x
CAROL NA MACH
iKURE
!EACH
Approximate scale
1' . 3 Miles
NEW !NLEr
PERMITTED POINT
SOURCE DISCHARGE
(NPDES) SITES
IndustriaXommercial
Discharge (NPDES) Site
• Residential Discharge
(NPDES) Site

TO BM"W
■ �1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY
TO CIINTION
TO )ACMN"= .
nT
i
' OG
IT
TO WRMVI r E MASON /NLZr
• � errs o�
Wilmington
WRIGMVI= IFACH
�vse� HASONROROINI"
,
I� v
�p Q
° I CAROUNA REACH
arts
PERMITTED
x ■ NONDISCHARGE
GlOLIltA SUCH SITES
: I RUBE DrACa ■ Industrial/commercial
Nondischarge Site
Residential Nondischarge Site
Approximate Scale Q�?
V . 3 Miles
NEW lNu..T

Local regulations may be more stringent than federal regulations, but in all cases, the strictest
regulations imposed on an area will apply.
A. County Classifications
The County Zoning Ordinance established a Conservation Overlay District (COD) to help
protect fragile areas through required preservation of 50% to 100% of the conservation resource, buffer
strips and drainage controls. Setback distances range from 25 to 100 feet, depending on the COD
classification. The fragile areas have been mapped on aerial photos and transparencies at a scale of 1" _
400'. The COD includes the following fragile areas, referred tows Conservation Resources in the Zoning
Ordinance. These resources are more fully described in the County Planning Report, "Conservation
Resources in New Hanover County", prepared in 1984 by wetlands consultant, David Dumond.
1. Swamp Forests
Swamp forest communities occur along all major and many non or freshwater streams and rivers
of the County. Swamp forests are also associated with pocosins located at heads of streams. Much of
the swamp forest is subject to tidal influence. The major tracts of swamp forest are along the Northeast
Cape Fear River and its tributaries.
Swamp forest communities occur along all major and many minor freshwater streams and rivers
of the County. Swamp forests are also associated with pocosins located at heads of streams. Much of
the swamp forest is subject to tidal influence. The major tracts of swamp forest are along the Northeast
• Cape Fear River, and its tributaries.
Swamp forests generally have a highly organic soil. Characteristic tree species include cypress,
red maple, black gum, sweet gum, and swamp chestnut oak.
2. Pocosins
Pocosins, meaning "pond on a hill", make up the greatest acreage of any natural vegetation in the
County. Pocosins include Carolina Bays, transition areas between swamp forests and upland areas, and
any other broad, level terrain where water is perched. Although the soil type may vary considerably, the
County has expressed concern for those pocosins overlying highly organic soils.
Pocosin vegetation usually consists of a scattered or diffuse canopy of pond or longleaf pine and
a varied inventory of largely evergreen shrubs and briers, including fetter bush, several species of hollies
and bays, and others. Venus fly traps and pitcher plants can be found in pocosins.
3. Savannahs
Savannahs, relatively rare in the County, are characterized by longleaf pine and wire grass.
Periodic fires are instrumental in preventing this vegetation type from becoming pocosin. Venus fly
traps, pitcher plants, orchids, and other relatively rare herbaceous plants. are associated with savannahs.
16

Surface Water Quality Areas
Legend
-:1 SA M sB F—I sc N csw 0 scmaw# E] scsw 0 sc#
yv ffl SAIORW N SO# 7 BSW 0 WSIII
M.p C...d . 11/1&W
bf—OW T. Makw
• I Brunswick
Counh,
zl�
3 4
x,
m
4.o7.phl. *e—ffm 8YOW", I
Pender County

•
4. Ponds
Natural ponds are found throughout the County, usually where underlying marl has dissolved
and the surface has slumped into the water table. Often less than an acre in size, they contain rare and
diverse combinations of plants. Some County ponds contain loose water milfoil and dwarf bladderwort,
both listed as threatened species in North Carolina. These natural ponds are exceedingly fragile and
vulnerable to impacts from recreational vehicle use and indiscriminate drainage.
5. Fresh Marsh
Fresh marsh occurs along the Northeast Cape Fear River and its tributaries and is associated with
natural ponds. This type of marsh is characterized by pickerelweed, cattails, water willow, and other
relatively salt intolerant species.
6. Brackish Marsh
Brackish marshes intergrade between freshwater and saltwater marshes. They include most of
the Cape Fear River marshes from Ness Creek south to Snow's Cut and are dominant at the headwaters
of generally saline creeks such as Hewlett's and Whiskey Creeks. The characteristic species, in rough
order of decreasing salinity preference, are black: needlerush, sawgrass, giant cordgrass, cattails,
tearthumbs, and others. Brackish marsh also encompasses the old rice fields north of Wilmington that
were cultivated in the 1700s and 1800s.
7. Barrier Island -Beach Complex
The barrier island -beach complex represents the linear shoreline islands fronting the Atlantic
Ocean. They are composed of unconsolidated sand and therefore, are unstable and vulnerable to
hurricanes and natural erosion processes. Vegetation is generally sparse, consisting of such grass species
as sea oats, beach grass, and coarse panic grass on the seaward dunes. Scattered woody vegetation,
including yaupon holly, wax myrtle, and red cedar, may be found in more sheltered areas further back
from the ocean.
Barrier island -beach complexes include Zeke's Island (1,165 acres in Brunswick and New
Hanover Counties), and Masonboro Island (5,097 acres in New Hanover County), which are part of the
North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve Program, the beach area south of Kure Beach, and
Figure Eight Island. Zeke's Island is technically part of Brunswick County but is more accessible from
New Hanover County.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund was established in 1987 to allow state agencies
and non-profit organizations to purchase property for conservation purposes. Masonboro Island is a
prime example of such an area. The state has spent millions of dollars preserving the island. It is the
longest strip of undeveloped beach south of Cape Lookout. 90% of the Island is owned by the state.
Other areas being sought by the state include: Goat Island, which is next to Masonboro, Roan
Island, between the intersection of the Black and Cape Fear Rivers, and Bird Island, on the North
Carolina/ South Carolina boundary.
18

8. Maritime Shrub Thickets
These thickets of shrubby vegetation are characterized by an alternately wet and dry
environment, subject both to storm and spring high tides and to salt spray. The typical species is wax
myrtle, with some silverling, loblolly pine, yaupon holly and live oak. These thickets also contain the
northernmost extensions of the natural range of cabbage palm.
9. Salt Marsh
Salt marsh occurs in the regularly saltwater flooded muck soils of estuarine streams and behind
barrier islands. These well documented productive systems are characterized by smooth cordgrass,
saltmeadow cordgrass, salt grass and other saline tolerant species.
10. Primary Nursery Areas
Figure 2 shows the location of Fisheries Nursery Areas. These areas which include primary,
secondary and special secondary areas are important for initial post -larval and juvenile development of
finfish and crustaceans. They are found in the uppermost reaches of the estuaries. Division of Marine
Fisheries (DMF) marks these locations by posting signs at the downstream boundaries.
11. Animal and Plant Natural Areas of Special Significance
This class of fragile area include important breeding animal locations (four sites), important
animal and plant species locations (fourteen sites), potential natural areas (fourteen sites), and important
community complexes (twelve sites).
12. Significant Historical, Archaeological, and Architectural Sites
The County has hundreds of historical and archaeological sites where either Native Americans or
early settlers left evidence of their existence. Based on information provided by the North Carolina
Department of Archives and History, 25 have been designated as significant. These sites tend to be
located along the streams and rivers of the County. Such areas of special significance can be nominated
as "Areas of Environmental Concern" (AEC's) as described by the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). If the site is designated as an AEC, the Coastal Resources Commission will either adopt a
management plan or use standards that apply to the site in order to preserve and protect the resource.
The architectural resources of unincorporated New Hanover County plus Wrightsville, Carolina
and Kure Beaches have been inventoried. Of those 197 structures which were examined, 143 have been
judged to be historically and/or architecturally significant. These have been described and photographed
in the publication "Historic Architecture of New Hanover County, North Carolina" (1986), which is
available for purchase from the County Planning Department. Two structures, Mt. Lebanon Chapel and
the Bradley -Latimer Summer Home, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The
Masonboro Sound Historic District is still under consideration for National Register listing.
B. State Classifications
Due to the sensitive nature of the coastal region, the 1974 Coastal Areas Management Act
y (CAMA) directed the Coastal Resources Commission to involve local governments in preparing •
planning guidelines for each coastal county. The local governments are required to identify and
19

designate "Areas of Environmental Concern" (AEC's) in order to control development which might
cause irreversible damage to property, public health and the natural environment. CAMA authorization
is required to develop or build within these areas and specific guidelines apply to each category. There
are four categories of AEC, as described below. These are the Estuarine System, Ocean Hazard System,
Public Water Supplies, and Natural and Cultural Resource Areas. These are described in greater detail in
"A Guide to Protecting Coastal Resources through the CAMA Permit Program" (1988) by the Division
of Coastal Management.
1. Estuarine System
The Estuarine System is a complex, highly productive biotic system that contributes enormous
social economic, and biological values to North Carolina. Any project in the Coastal Wetland, Estuarine
Waters or Public Trust Areas that requires a CAMA permit must meet certain standards, as officially
stated in Title 15, Subchapter 7H, Section .0208 of the N.C. Administrative Code.
a. Coastal Wetlands - These wetlands include any marsh subject to regular or
occasional tidal flooding. They have tremendous value in contributing vegetative material to the
foodchain, filtering pollutants, trapping sediment, providing nursery areas to some marine life and serve
to reduce flooding and shoreline erosion.
b. Estuarine Waters - These are the sounds and creeks that serve as the bonding
element of the entire estuarine system, supporting finfish and shellfish populations. These waters
transport nutrients and plankton, control salinity and cleanse the estuarine system of pollutants. The
Estuarine Waters also support boating, swimming, hunting, fishing and other human activities.
c. Public Trust Areas - These include waters of the Atlantic Ocean under State
Jurisdiction and the lands under the ocean and estuarine waters. These areas hold valuable resources and
are rightly open to the public for recreation, navigation, and other activities.
d. Estuarine Shorelines - Estuarine shorelines include the area 75 feet landward of
estuarine waters. This area is important because of its vulnerability to flooding and erosion, and the
impacts of shoreline development activities on the estuarine system. Development within this 75 foot
area is restricted such that impervious surfaces are limited to less than 30 percent of the lot area. In areas
that lie adjacent to ORW's, development activities are restricted within 575 feet of the water.
2. Ocean Hazard System
These areas are described in detail in the section below titled HAZARD AREAS.
3. Public Water Supplies
Small surface water supply watersheds are specifically designated for possible use as public
water supplies. Toomer's Creek, as previously discussed, has been classified as WSIII by the Division of
Environmental Management for this purpose.
4. Natural and Cultural Resource Areas
isTheNatural and Cultural Resource Areas include complex natural areas, areas that sustain
remnant species, unique geologic formations, and significant historic architectural structures. These
20

AEC's are important to the entire state because of their role in maintaining the coastal ecosystem, value
for scientific research and education, historic significance and/ or aesthetic value. is
C. Federal Classifications
According to the "Federal manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands"
(1988), an interagency cooperative publication, wetlands can be characterized by three parameters.
These are hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. This 1988 manual is presently
undergoing review at this time. To date, wetland areas that meet these criteria are protected by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. This Act regulates the filling or dredging of U.S. waters such as open water
areas, mud flats, vegetated shallows and other aquatic habitats.
Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers is reviewing regulations that allow wetlands under a
certain acreage to be filled. Anything less than one acre does not require a permit from the federal
government for filling purposes. Under new rules this would be limited to one-third of an acre.
Developers who wish to fill parcels of land of ten acres are required to obtain permission from the Corps
of Engineers. This may also change and then developers will have to notify the Corps on anything over
three acres.
In New Hanover County, environments protected by Section 404 would include salt, brackish
and fresh tidal marshes, pocosins, ponds and swamp forests. These areas can sometimes be developed
within certain federal restrictions, or as allowed by County or state regulations.
In addition to the three classification schemes described above (e.g. County, State and Federal),
the Soil Conservation Service delineates wetlands on agricultural land in assessing farmer eligibility for •
agricultural benefit programs, in accordance with the "Swampbuster" provision of the 1985 Food
Security Act. The 1996 farm bill has undergone a number of policy changes to existing Swampbuster
provisions. This will allow farmers to comply with wetland conservation requirements with more
flexibility while continuing to protect natural resources.
III. HAZARD AREAS
Hazard areas are defined as those locations in the county where development should be
controlled due to the existence of natural or man-made dangers to human safety. Hazard areas in the
county include the Ocean Hazard System, consisting of Ocean Erodible, High Hazard Flood (including
estuarine "V" zones) and Inlet Hazard Areas of Environmental concern (AEC's), Foodplains, New
Hanover County Airport, Industrial Hazards and areas directly impacted by Sea Level Rise.
A. Ocean Hazard System
The ocean hazard system includes those lands along the oceanfront and inlets that are vulnerable
to storms, flooding and erosion. These hazard areas are defined and regulated by the State through the
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). CAMA standards for development within or adjacent to these
areas are designed to minimize loss of life and property due to storms and reduce damage to the natural
environment.
21

•
1. Ocean Erodible Areas
This includes the area between mean ocean low water and a distance landward from the first line
of vegetation equal to 60 times the natural erosion rate, plus the distance equal to the erosion caused by a
100 year storm. This width varies for different sections of the oceanfront, ranging between about 145
feet to over 700 feet. Within this area, development is regulated.
2. High hazard Flood Areas
These areas include lands subject to flooding, wave action, and high velocity water currents
caused by a major storm. Any "V-zone" (defined in the section below titled "Floodplains") located
within an oceanfront community as well as any estuarine V zone" is included in this area. This includes
"V zones" on flood insurance maps, prepared for oceanfront communities by the Federal Insurance
Administration.
3. Inlet Hazard Areas
These areas are delineated on an individual basis depending on an analysis of the stability and
migration rate for the inlets. The individual inlet hazard areas range in width from about 250 feet for
more stable inlets to about 4,000 feet for the most dynamic inlets.
B. Floodplains
New Hanover County's flooding problems are almost completely due to hurricane induced storm
surges. In 1978, the County adopted a Floodplain Ordinance regulating development, construction and
use within all areas of special flood hazard. The Ordinance has been amended several times since its
adoption.
The County's floodplain maps have also been revised, with the major change being the
reclassification of areas along the sounds from V to A zones. Floodplains in the County can be generally
grouped into the following classes:
V Zone - The V zone is the most hazardous zone. It is defined as those areas which would
be flooded by a 100 year storm and would be subject to battering and erosive wave action.
A Zone - The A zone encompasses those areas which would be flooded by a 100 year storm
but would not be subject to wave action.
B Zone - The B zone encompasses those areas between the limits of the 100-year flood and
500-year flood.
In 1990, the County established a Floodplain Management Plan to further establish alternative
measures to prevent flooding damages. The County's participation in the Community Rating system, as
established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has resulted in a number of regulatory,
public outreach and other measures.
22

C. International Airport
The Coun 's airport •
ty rp poses a possible threat to development through the potential for airplane
crashes mainly within designated flight zones. Development, in turn, poses a threat to air traffic both by
the intrusion of towers or other tall structures into the flight zones; by the need to minimize excessive
airplane engine noise during landing and taking off over developed areas, which may impact the safe
operation of airplanes; and by the use of lighting or signals that could interfere with airplane navigation.
The County, therefore, has created Airport Residential and Industrial Districts. Both districts
restrict the density and height of development and restrict the use of pulsating lights or similar devices
interfering with navigation. The erection of tall structures must also comply with Federal Aviation
Agency regulation. The City has an Airport Industrial District within its Zoning Ordinance. The County
has also adopted a separate Airport Height Ordinance.
A small private airfield associated with a residential subdivision has been constructed in the
southern part of the county between U.S. Highway 421 and River Road. The county has not adopted
regulations specifically controlling airparks or uses surrounding this or other potential commercial or
private airstrips.
D. Industrial Hazards
Industrial hazard areas generally result from the presence of volatile, reactive or toxic chemicals
(i.e. hazardous materials) in quantities sufficient to pose fire or health hazards to residences in the event
of a fire, spill or release. These hazard areas tend to be concentrated along the Cape fear and Northeast •
Cape Fear Rivers, as indicated by the existing land use study. Most major industries have developed
plans and procedures in case of emergency.
The transportation of volatile or toxic chemicals can also pose hazards to residences. Major
highways and rail lines serve as the primary conduits for these hazards. These highways include U.S.
74-76, U.S. 421 north of Wilmington, I-40, U.S. 17 and 117, and NC 133. The rail line looping through
the city of Wilmington also poses a potential risk. In addition, the state port along the Cape Fear River
frequently handles and temporarily stores materials which could pose a health hazard to County residents
in the event of an accident.
The New Hanover County Department of Emergency Management is the lead agency for the
County in support of hazardous materials inventory and Emergency Response Planning in conjunction
with the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title ii of 1984. At present, the
department has recorded approximately 23 billion pounds of chemicals at 161 business and industrial
sites. Figure 7 shows the location of the larger industrial sites where some type or amount of hazardous
material is located. The Hazardous material Emergency Response Plan, which is regularly updated,
serves as a reference for activating response teams and procedures in case of a disaster. The department
of Emergency Management also coordinates the activity of the New Hanover County Hazardous
materials and Emergency planning committee, as required by the SARA legislation.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has established a system of identification of
the fire hazards of materials which may present a danger to life and health of individuals exposed to or
handling the material under conditions of fire, spill or similar emergency. The system applies to
industrial sites, businesses or institutions that manufacture, process, use, or store bulk amounts of •
hazardous materials.
23

•
•
TO CLIMMN
TO WI=VT= 3,
Wilmington
N
Approximate Scale
1' . 3 Niles
TO tURCAW
• �1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY
\ TO JACxSOxVIIS.E .
\g
8~C� P�
'
0G�
YAA7N mur
WRIGFMVILIE BEACH
i/ASONIOIO /N1AJ'
'6
° I
CAJtouNA REACH
/N/ir
r
CAROUNA BEACH
FIGURE 7
INDUSTRIAL SITES
II=Z
BEACH
Industrial Site containing
some type or amount of
hazardous material
oa
0
NEW /NZAT

--- The NFPA system identifies the hazards of materials on colorful, diamond -shaped signs which
•
are posted on the exterior of buildings and within view of approaching emergency personnel. The
hazards are displayed in terms of 4 categories: health -located on the left, with a blue background;
flammability -located at the top and center, on a red background; reactivity -located on the right, on a
yellow background; and, special hazard -located on the bottom and center, on a white background. The
NFPA system also indicates the degree of severity by a numerical rating that ranges from four (4)
indicating severe hazard, to zero (0) indicating no hazard.
Presently, nearly any industrially -zoned area in the County could pose a potential threat
depending on the use and association of materials on site. The County, however, attempts to buffer these
areas from high density residential areas through transitional zoning of commercial, light industrial and
low density residential uses. Wilmington attempts to provide transitional zoning designations of light
industrial or commercial zoned areas. It is important to note that there are also a number of industrial
sites across the Cape Fear River and in adjoining counties which utilize hazardous materials and could,
in an emergency, pose a potential threat to residents of New Hanover County.
E. Sea Level Rise
A wide range of potential sea level rise projections have been developed by many respected
authorities. Sea level rise may range from 11 to 50 inches by the year 2050, and 30 to 144 inches by the
year 2100 (Hoffman et al 1983), but will most likely be in the mid range of these estimates. An EPA
report, "The Probability of Sea Level Rise, " estimates that there is a 50% chance that the sea level will
rise at least 1 foot by 2050 and 2 feet by 2100. •
Potential impacts from sea level rise are numerous and diverse. They include inundation of
developable land, increased flooding impacts, increased shoreline erosion, loss of wetlands, and saltwater
intrusion into fresh groundwater. The impacts would be significant in the County because much of the
County's barrier island and estuarine shorelines are less than 15 feet above sea level.
The range of measures that a local government can take to mitigate sea level rise impacts can be
broadly classified as whether the measure attempt to halt the approach of the sea, i.e. "no retreat", or
allows the sea to rise and avoid the impacts, i.e. "retreat". "No retreat" measures include construction of
levees, sea walls and revetments to protect the shoreline, development of groin and breakwaters to
reduce wave energy and trap sand, and other shoreline stabilization measures. "Retreat" measures
include such regulations as increased set back distances and building elevations for new construction,
policies for purchase of low lands, restriction on reconstruction of damaged structures after severe
hurricane damage, and other planning -oriented measures.
IV. SOILS
The suitability of soils for septic systems historically has been a major factor in determining the
density of development in New Hanover County. The construction of a county -wide sewer system will
eliminate soil suitability for septic systems as a major constraint to development. Although certain
highly organic soils may pose construction difficulties, these can generally be overcome through certain •
engineering and land modification practices. Detailed information on County soils may be obtained
25

from a previous Technical Report, prepared as part of the 1981 Land Use Plan Update, called
"Classification of Soils in New Hanover County for Septic Tank Suitability". This report, along with
1"=400' transparency maps, classifies all soil types with regard to septic system suitability as being
either suitable, suitable with moderate limitations, severely limited, or unsuitable. Generally, the more
unsuitable soils tend to be found in the flat, wet parts of the County along drainage ways. Additional
information on soil types can also be found in the U.S. Soil Conservation Service report, "Soil Survey of
New Hanover County, North Carolina", which discusses soil productivity, permeability, and other
factors.
V. AIR QUALITY
The Division of Air Quality monitors compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) in New Hanover County. New Hanover is part of a seven county region which includes
Brunswick, Carteret, Columbus, Duplin, Onslow, and Pender Counties. The EPA has established
primary and secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards for six criteria air pollutants: total suspended
particulate matter (TSP) and particulate matter less than ten micrometers (PM-10), carbon monoxide,
ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and lead. The Federal Clean Air Act of 1990 states that the
primary AAQS must "protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety", and the secondary
standards must "protect the public welfare from, known or anticipated adverse effects (aesthetics, crops,
architecture, etc.) The primary standards were established, with a margin of safety, considering long
term exposures for the most sensitive groups in the general population (i.e., children, senior citizens,
people with breathing difficulties). The state of North Carolina has also adopted these standards, with
some minor differences.
s
The DEHNR Division of Environmental Management operated one air monitoring system within
the region during 1993. This station, located at the corner of Orange and Ninth Streets in the City of
Wilmington, measured particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM-10). Such particulates
are respirable. In 1993, the most recent year data are available, the measured PM-10 arithmetic mean
concentration was 48 µg/m3. These measurements are well within the federal and state standards.
In accordance with the Federal 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, all areas within the state are
designated as attainment or non -attainment with respect to the AAQS. Areas that meet the AAQS are
designated as attainment. New Hanover County has been designated as an attainment area for all six
criteria pollutants. By comparison with other metropolitan areas in the state, New Hanover's air quality
is considered excellent as none of the counties within the region have exceeded any ambient air quality
standards.
According to the Toxic Air Emissions Inventory, 1993, New Hanover County ranks fourteenth in
the state with 4.9 million pounds of Total Air Pollutants (TAPS) and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS)
combined. Brunswick County is third. These values are generated from emissions reports which are
subject to change. The inventory include all 189 of the HAPS as specified by the EPA. The most
abundant chemicals in New Hanover County in decreasing order are as follows: Hydrochloric acid,
methanol, acetic acid, p-xylene, ammonium, toluene, chlorine, N-hexene, formaldehyde, and
hydrofluoric acid. Largest emitters in decreasing abundance for 1993 were: Hoechst Celanese, CP&L,
Corning, International Paper, Arcadian fertilizer, Paktank, General Electric, B.F. Goodwrench, Takeda
Chemical, Koch Refining, and Occidental.
•
26

According to the EPA, there will be more stringent standards on the nation's air quality by next
-' year. New Hanover County is identified as a county that meets current standards, but would not meet the
proposed new standards for ozone limits.
It should be noted that in terms of air pollution, New Hanover County has a natural advantage
over inland areas. Due to the differential cooling and heating rates of land and water, sea breezes blow
air offshore in the evenings and onshore during the day. According to the state's Air Quality Division,
this sea breeze effect provides ample air movement to limit accumulation of airborne toxic chemicals.
VI. RESOURCE POTENTIAL AREAS
Resource potential areas refer to lands, other than those previously discussed, that are of value to
the County in terms of their natural characteristics. They include prime farmland, forestland, mineral
sites, and publicly owned land to be used for low intensive outdoor recreation.
A. Prime Farmland
Prime farmland, as specified by the Governor's Executive Order No. 96, includes land that has
the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics and is available for producing food, feed,
forage, fiber, and oil seed crops. These characteristics include the presence of proper climate, soil, and
water table conditions for a specified portion of the growing season. These conditions are described in
greater detail in U.S. Department of Agriculture Regulations (DR9500-3).
In New Hanover County, Craven, Norfolk, Onslow, and Wrightsboro soil types can meet these
conditions. Prime farmland is that which consists of at least one of these soil types, is ten acres or greater
in size and is undeveloped. Additional farmland areas sustain farming ventures but do not fall into these
particular soil types and are therefore not considered prime farmland. Figure 8 shows the location of the
larger tracts of the county's farmland. These areas are mapped based on input from the Soil
Conservation Service and Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service, soil maps and 1990 aerial
photographs.
Note that most of the prime farmland is located in the Castle Hayne area and the northwest part
of the County. Additional farmland is located as small tracts distributed across the county. Individually
owned agricultural land consisting of at least ten contiguous acres, in actual production, and having
produced an average gross agricultural income of at least $1,000.00 for the past 3 years may qualify for
"present use value" for property tax purposes. The property must be in production under a sound
management program, as designed by the Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service and available to the
public.
In the northeast corner of the County, several tracts of Kenansville soil are excellent for the
production of peanuts and sweet potatoes and will probably be used for this purpose until ongoing
development absorbs these lands. New Hanover County has a few areas of "unique" farmlands devoted
to the production of blueberries, a high value crop. The soils where blueberries are grown support
wetlands in their natural state. Unless present rules are modified, no more areas can be cleared for
blueberry production because the wetlands are protected from destruction.
27

• TO CLWrON
•
•
To wHrnCV1L1.r
Wilmington
Approximate Scale
V a 3 Mies
�O �Q
CAROUNA REACH
JNL9r
CAROUNA SUCH
NZI
:b KMZ IXACH
NEW 1NLPr
MASON 1NLZr
W WRIGR73VILLE REACH
,"GMVIL
MASONSONO JNLZr
SUITABLE PRIME FARM
LAND AND ADDITIONAL
FARMLAND AREAS
Prime Farmland
Additional Farmland Areas

~' According to the soil Conservation Service's 1987-88 "Annual Strategy Plan", New Hanover
county had approximately 6,320 acres of cropland. Currently, approximately 5,000 acres of cropland •
remain in the county. The 1990 "Summary of Income Estimates" by the Agriculture Cooperative
Extension Service, reports that approximately $7.6 million was derived from farming and forestry
ventures in the County. Of this $7.6 million, food crops made up 41%, ornamental trees and shrubs,
greenhouse crops and outdoor flowers made up 30%, and forestry made up 28% of this total.
Crops grown in the County include corn, wheat, soybeans, oats, hay, tobacco, peas, sweet
potatoes, leafy greens, tomatoes, blueberries, strawberries, peaches, grapes and pecans.
B. Forestry Resources
According to the U.S. Forest Services' "Forest Statistics for the Southern Coastal Plain of North
Carolina (1990)", 49,329 acres of the County's total 118,106 acres are considered timberland. In 1973,
the Forest Service documented that the County had 60,312 acres of timberland; thus, the County lost
18% of its timberland during those 17 years. The Forest Service defines timberland as "land at least 16.7
percent stocked by forest trees of any size, or formerly having had such tree cover, not currently
developed for nonforest use, capable of producing 20 cubic feet of industrial wood per acre per year and
not withdrawn from timber utilization by legislative action"
Of the 49,329 timberland acres: 29,075 are owned by individuals; 9,692 by corporations, 3,509
by forest industry; 3,231 by farmers; and 3,822 total by county/municipal, state and federal governments.
Individually -owned forestland consisting of at least 20 contiguous acres, in actual production and not
part of a farm unit, may qualify for "present use value" for property -tax purposes. The property must be
commercially growing trees under a sound management program, as designed by the Forest Service. •
This service is available to the public and can be obtained by contacting the Division of Forest
Resources.
The most abundant forest types are in order of descending abundance; oak -gum cypress,
loblolly-short leaf pine, oak -pine, longleaf -slash pine and oak -hickory. Figure 9 shows the location of
the larger tracts of forest land in the county, utilizing a minimum cutoff of approximately 100 acres. The
areas are mapped from 1990 aerial photographs and have not been field checked. It is important to note
that this map does not necessarily include all timberland in the County, nor does it infer that these tracts
would all necessarily be defined as timberland by the Forest Service.
C. Mineral Resource Sites
The County's major mineral resource sites are along the Northeast Cape Fear River. These
limestone deposits support several major cement and crushed stone manufacturing firms. In addition,
several small borrow pits are located around the County for mining sand.
D. Public Land
Public low -intensity, recreational -use lands in the County include several large County and City
Parks as indicated in Figure 10. Hugh MacRae Park, including an adjoining tract of County property
across College Road, is probably the most utilized park facility in the City and County.
As recommended by the County's "Master Plan for Parks and Recreation" (1988), the county is
currently increasing park acreage through the purchase of additional land. Funds have been made 0
29

•
available by the 1989 Bond Referendum and the money is allocated for purchase and development of
recreation properties. To date, four properties have been acquired for use as both passive and active
recreation. Development of these facilities is underway. Three additional properties have been acquired
through donations. In September 1990, Snow's Cut Park was expanded to include additional parking,
picnic shelters and a gazebo.
State facilities and land also include Carolina Beach State Park, Ft. Fisher, the Marine Resources
Center, and the undeveloped lands surrounding these facilities in Federal Point. In addition, the
existence of a buffer area for the Sunny Point Military Terminal also limits intense development in the
Federal Point area.
Masonboro Island and Zeke's Island, perhaps the two most significant low intensive public
lands available to the county, are managed as part of the North Carolina National Estuarine Research
Reserve Program. These sites have been dedicated as nature preserves through the state's Natural
Heritage Program. Both islands provide research and educational opportunities, in addition to low -
intensity recreational uses.
31

TO CLLNMm
-1
TO V4ffr =
Wilmington
J�
Approximate Scale
1' - 3 Miles
I
Q
�v
Q
CAROUNA REACH
DUET
CAROLINA BEACH
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
TO ]ACXSOxvmLt •
µltIGFM%7LLL BEACH
NASONRORO INW
FOREST RESOURCES
151 Forest Areas
L

Existing Land Use

Technical Reports
--------------------------
EXISTING LAND USE
In New Hanover County, Wilmington,
Wrightsville, Kure and Carolina Beach
A Technical Report for the County and City Comprehensive Plan
October 1997
Prepared by the
New Hanover County Planning Department
414 Chestnut Street, Suite 304, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
City of Wilmington Planning Division
is 202 N. 3rd Street, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]

0 Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION
II. COMPARABILITY OF LAND USE STATISTICS
III. MAJOR FINDINGS
A. Land Use By Parcel Size
B. Summary of Land Use by Parcel Size
IV. LAND UTILIZATION COMPARED TO OTHER AREAS
V. LAND USE AREAS OF CONCERN IN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY
A. Commercial Development
B. Transportation
C. Sewer Services and Land Development
VI. LAND USE AREAS OF CONCERN IN THE CITY OF WILMINGTON
A. Land Use Conflicts
B. Transportation
C. Redevelopment
VII. APPENDICES
Appendix One - Methodologies
Appendix Two - PCS Land Use Codes List of Figures
Appendix Three - Uninc. County & City of Wilmington Land Use by Parcel Size
Appendix Four - Unicorporated County Land Use by Parcel Size
Appendix Five - City of Wilmington Land Use By Parcel Size
List of Figures
Land Use Map of New Hanover County
•
2

I. INTRODUCTION
This document is the 1997 update to the 1991 "Existing Land Use in New Hanover
County", one of the County's technical reports of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
Land Use Plan. The purpose of this technical report is to describe and discuss the current
inventory of land use in New Hanover County and compare this data to historical land use data.
Data comparison is used to identify land use trends, shortcomings in service provision and other
land use characteristics that will be instrumental in shaping the direction, type and rate of growth
in New Hanover County.
As part of the data collection process for this study, numerically -coded land use maps
were prepared on current County and City property maps (1 "=500'). These are available for
review and use within the respective Planning Departments. Land Use is presented by parcel size
totals. Parcel size statistics for 1985, 1990 and 1997 are presented in tables to determine the
most significant changes in land uses that have taken place in the previous 12 years. The methods
used for collecting and calculating each set of data are described in detail in Appendix One. The
Land Use Codes assigned to each parcel are given in Appendix Two.
It is important to note that each of the summary tables presents a different set of data
which may not be directly comparable to data shown in other tables or to data from previous land
use studies. Briefly;
Table 1 compares the total parcel acreage's per land use type for the combined area of
the unincorporated County, the Beaches, and the City of Wilmington for Sept. 1997.
Table 2 shows the percentage of the total parcel acreage by land use type for the
unincorporated County, the City of Wilmington and the beaches for Sept. 1997.
Table 3 shows the percent of the total amount of developed land that each land use
category represents in the unincorporated County, the City of Wilmington and the
beaches for Sept. 1997.
Table 4 shows the average percentage of land use type in other areas throughout the
country.
Appendix Three compares land use by parcel size for Wilmington and the
unincorporated County from 1985 to 1990.
Appendix Four shows land use by parcel size for the unincorporated County for 1985
and 1990.
Appendix Five contains land use figures for the City of Wilmington for 1985 and 1990.
•
3

II. COMPARABILITY OF LAND USE STATISTICS
It should be noted that several difficulties exist in collecting and computing land use
information. These problems can reduce the accuracy and hence the comparability of the results
from one year to the next. Some of the major difficulties that affect the results of a study such as
this include:
1. Judgmental decisions in assigning the proper land use code (the land use categories used
in this report are listed in Appendix Two).
2. Utilization of different data sources and methodologies for calculating statistics in 1997
as compared to 1985 and 1990.
3. Verification of whether or not a parcel is developed or undeveloped. For example, a two
acre lot with one house may be considered to be fully developed even though the parcel
may be subdivided into additional lots in the future. Or, a five acre lot with one single
family home may be considered a single family lot or an undeveloped lot.
Because of these types of problems, some fairly large differences are apparent when one
compares datafrom 1985 and 1990 to data from the 1997 inventory. Some of these differences
are obviously due to methodology and do not reflect trends in the County's land use while some
of them are due to the fact that sophisticated computer equipment has made calculating land use
totals more precise.
The values given for Tables 1, 2 and 3 have been calculated using methods which were
not used in 1985 and 1990, therefore these values are not directly comparable to the data from
?' these years. These methods are explained in Appendix One. Again, the same kinds of problems
were encountered as mentioned above in collecting and calculating these data.
III. MAJOR FINDINGS
A. Land Use by Parcel Size
Table 1 shows the land use acreage's for the combined area of the unincorporated
County, the City of Wilmington, and the beach communities, using total parcel acreage's per
land use category. Table 2 shows the percentage of each land use as part of total acres. Table 3
shows the percent of each land use category of the total amount of developed acres only. The
values used in the appendix Tables 3, 4, and 5 were obtained from the County Tax Appraisal
Office's Data Bank for 1990 and 1985, thus these data are generally not comparable.
•

Table 1.
iandtbeTofalsbyPar elAaa 'in MewNaswerCou�y. _, � e -P § , p .�: `<;� - �.� 3!k�h�
"' Piandtk0,09+gWVy ° � ,AkwM mwCouX M]O Naftito r. W0vol naBaxh..='�iMkft- lleBeachAKm Beach. 7af JR¢ s .,�aKa�
a ass aereiaSal7n,xn...aa.::r :a a'i ,ax
Residential Total 18854.065743.87 287.37 227.21 10229 25214.8
- ,16285640237_' .° 1244s
-x=s 5
�
_.. -
MA Family 328.12 78243 1.3 216 0 1114.01
:012,: 168835
Office and tti oriel 4 ». ��- -�;.
758 r�,r.�21>12 �-,,,�.,,1�19�.N..��;i.-"58.29=�•,E'.`472t:a2�:
9 ..- e a r 1299 2277,1107�13 9�67W^»s7�
�.27084
T l)h $ Carrrrxriicafions � , 4408 69
Recre�Son»� 263268 F ' 152264 5�45; '> 0 86 Q45 „.:41
,
-
tofai6'evet"'""'"
.- .. 252086... 77 02 5522, .W. m�0... .v a; a' 02653 25
As mentioned in Section II in the discussion of the comparability of land use statistics,
some of the major differences between the 1990 and 1985 statistics can probably be attributed to
inconsistencies in assigning land use codes in the Tax Appraisal Office's Data Bank. It should
be noted that these values reflect total land use by parcel size and do not indicate actual land
utilization acreage's.
Until recently, values contained in the Tax Appraisal Office's Data Bank were not
consistently updated over time. Many of the discrepancies which occur in the Data Bank will be
reconciled now that new technology such as the GIS, which can measure land features more.
accurately and in less time, is being used. Surveyors frequently discover lots which have been
recorded in deeds for hundreds of years that are much larger than stated in the deed.
Improvements in the way this spatial data is stored and accessed also will aid in the classification
of land use types and the compilation of utilization statistics or parcel size tabulations.
It should be noted that in 1990 data by parcel size was not available for the City of
Wilmington alone. Thus, the City of Wilmington acreage's included Wrightsville Beach (851
ac), Carolina Beach (1,075 ac), and Kure Beach (518 ac). However, because these values are
quite small, and constitute less than 2,500 acres of the City's approximately 21,000 acres, they
have only a minor affect on the overall totals and proportions per land use type for Wilmington.
•
5

r
•
•
Table 2.
PawtdTcdL& U* FbrtV/�� bN3v m�aeO..y�� 2E 3E T., _ V;,wr� Z�:�bW. M �F
,�.,. `V� �l�di.x fir& x'�'"F�-:.aK "'f'„�'�'a"'LV+diti,c'o4 3 �i } �,✓""#tY%2't23"ti;
Rmkbrdd Rd fl% Me 21% 7/9 2r/o W/o
Mid PaTlly 0% 4% (r/o 01/o MO 1%
�.,
Clflaeatdael�-»�11%� ,2% .7"/0 ` �°%
;."-•_,.,,�P7,77M 7r�a*^„""4_e°'"- F "377'S�. x „'.pc'^ q.�'^s y,-.^r,.,^,^.�„*...x OVER
E .:
T--Mtwes$iQ ltuiC2tlo�s_. 4°%».L...
�<���W� y":•s 4 a..a p.'c �� y� .-J76� �,,k� �,� _ y� �' 1170x-4,...--t V/p'i t. 'S aT/O �" .�.
�,1.b,$„yia `k:8 ».... _. ➢ ' ��; z^ •q.¢L/6i Sa' ? � Y/O '��„-..fi x1lO=>v r. e�._e .-:
0
��a'•--` ...�.a.i,y„,_._r.,:,�, .yam., . --,
a.,'.+�•r.+ rx�«r,''m. , n •z^^ +� � f+r � rr•-c -�,�.� ,. s^sr- --+r �--� ,:ems '°t` ,„'^^^,a..
.Vir.a.»1..:.'iAKw'«iz`.'i�az:.,:.fiw;....a�roFk.....Mi..::ar:.�t..s...w:F:....iii ... '- .• .. �`'. " .r, t„w=aaz.,,.,.+E'Nv -' i.Siai.ar.✓'iii.�. '`�"a:�8<i' .�3' "�"'"*:.
%"
TAW
�y iN .gym �.n�. �p .✓�
1'yaF""° �;. -s', .,""= v S .�'°' r v "x` ..rater. _ r 1< •&..x.„„mz^,».. e: y
d ,yyp yryy yyp ,yyp
MO,m;rc-
B. Summary of Land Use by Parcel Size
Examination of the land use totals in Table 3 shows that residential land use
constitutes the largest category of developed land for the combined area of the unincorporated
County, the City of Wilmington and the beach communities. The residential land use category
when compared to figures in Appendix Three, shows a decrease in total acreage from 1990
through 1997, while increases are recorded for all other land use categories with the exception of
industrial. As mentioned before, although there are problems with using parcel size as an
indicator of land use and with using the Tax Appraisal Data Bank, the overall proportions for
each category are generally consistent with other land use data.
The values in Tables 1 through 3 and Appendices 3 through 5 were obtained from the
Tax Parcel Data Base for 1997, 1990 and 1985. It is important to note that these values reflect
totals by parcel size for each specified area and may not accurately represent actual land
utilization acres.

3
Table 3.
TddL&di.*7 FkMWaftr�"!T'°"rv*^'+eJs�,
P0 tcf LadeAbwM"
`.�A'�"aW S'Ia. .
���_.,-�i�,��4+�►Y,�''.; �f '� 1!�wfErx�GbrsXy,� �,�V{�nv r�r!.. �roi�a� ��`;Wagh[sW/et�.edt�f4ie13eadr �'�-Tagil.
�,t• a z .x a_A`} "3 $r * rr .,,k ,. " ��MMX w . F ,d`""'^ „'r's. *'s '_�, ,si9-*e<+' r'*e"y -t r * '-ems k# - a•
PbddwtWTbTaW� 900/0 49% 0/0 �71%
y L61%
`�^�WL ';.1`'zx 3� .q�t .w,.,s+rm.,..>''sK 9.�°�3`"$�4a r�W� -'. e... r r�fil0 P V(°lQ �+Y e' a�;
'`.3�:tb:.3 - y °x`'i. �d..Wi:::y.�.�:.:as.°a:,.a...i.�. .ia, `
MLhFbr 7 1% %% 0°/Q 1% 0% �2%
!�.^.'•��t�+ � '!'x'+'+' ^.......a /gyp/"�7�p! "y'�"""'^.`." °x'F''y./�p/....its""ip".eA' �p -
�f1.�14'4-'i- z�-�'�+4�« *� -i-� ^li'd ��--n5 'a•>ed> � :-J/a� .�`..y �> V/Oxk$� �^-�. a 4/O ,yRc. ., r,;. i V/a - a"Y�•�k�� .�.L,3
-�.'a'"'u5mi..�biar..wi.'w......r'.�x,�,' mds.7.w _^.. �,,.aaa...av7:re.r:w.�..>..i.•a.a:�+w.:w:�w.i�.:a3J..i'-.:.�,'..a.��:n.my'µaxsukao.�+.m.taiw�;�a.,...,w `�-,_ . 'art
W
LUZ
(bmeraal s x 3 ' �,6 y
z
''^'+bi'ffe.M ay.ror+^vm+.w�M+•mw,Y•sA4F �9"MM.rrSs
'fY�+•/fix-'+y�r.KF"" �jp[
.�'vC"� �a,�/!Q
�..:...,���100° `�,,..��,� +,r-� �e ;� ,7f)0'%�"��'
The decrease in the percentage of developed land that is attributed to residential land use
is probably the result of differing measurement techniques used in the land use inventories. New
Hanover County and each of the municipalities have seen significant growth in residential land
use since 1990. The increase in the percentage of Office and Institutional, Commercial,
Transportation, Communications and Utilities would logically follow the kind of unprecedented
residential growth that has occurred in this area. •.
A large percentage of the growth in residential land use has been in the form of golf
course developments. The significant growth in the amount of recreational land from 1990 to
1997 reflects the development of several new golf courses during that period. Additionally, new
parks have been added to try to meet the demands of the growing population.

• IV. Land Utilization Compared to Other Areas
In a study of land use ratios by Loghinin and Sutton (1983), land use was examined for
22 small cities and 46 large cities. Ratios per land use were calculated and compared. As seen in
Table 4, the City of Wilmington is fairly consistent with the trends identified in the Longhini and
Sutton study however the beach communities have a much higher percentage of residential
development as would be expected. It should be pointed out however, that the methods used to
generate the actual acreage's for each individual study are probably not the same, thus only
general trends can be deduced from this comparison. Additionally, it is not appropriate to
compare land use values for the unincorporated county to values presented in this study of Cities.
Table 4.
Wdmington and the8eathes.Campared to Athercwes._
_._..LmedUse,Cafagory a gton=Carolina;Beachx$WrightsvAleBeachKure.BeachSmallCitlestaige'taitTes
. WdmJn
"''�.,k v."<..�..._a=.
�:tY '' �w:�«sz" ,�'',,x,., a8•,', «c e�w iJ:s� .ec..+#,r�:�w "' � i :�+w€isi � �w.sa�....ti«m�.a...
Residential Total 49% 87% 71% 61% 48% 48%
Office and Institutional .w 19% 6% 6% 35% 13% NIA
ids%3'�.1#a$k�`$;�:.;iba.-`,v�o�" �:i«S.aa�s;.ii&.�"F,Cm��. �"�ix"....� `�w�.�'.-wj�wl +� ao- ae�5. .�s 3 ;i ,.":.� � a��="': � f -, a f .r�-z.•k.
Commercial 9% 3% 9% 3% 7% 9%
d u„t.,'..' eas^'l ,•''pax=^.s En-+5 "'Sti.` 3i" s+'.«z' .r '^"^°.`°4;E...a-wf`"'„re* �TC?n'ax*,
Transportation Utilities & Communications 5% 1 % 7% 0% 19% N/A
+r„LL 'n h +r-s<*»'.a�+s,2 -'€e %ipet-+^ r--�,x ;�-*•a -�-"-*'"'r;?,., g ,ro<,+.,rr
Industrial 5% 1% 0% 0% 8% 12%
N—snn'. a
Recreation 13% 2% 7% a 0% 4% s NIA u
V. Land Use Areas of Concern in the Unincorporated County
The 1990's have been a period of unprecedented growth in New Hanover County and
the surrounding counties. As the County has risen to become the regional service and trade
center for southeastern North Carolina, some problems have evolved. For example, urban
services need to be provided, land use conflicts have been created and must be solved, and traffic
congestion has increased in some areas. The following land use issues are of particular concern:
1.) Commercial Development - It is obvious that a certain amount of commercial
development is needed to service the local area. However, New Hanover County has
developed into a regional retail center, providing shopping opportunities for people well
beyond its geographic borders. As a result, growth in commercial development should
continue as long as the regional population continues to swell.
While the retail opportunities may be good for the local economy, they are not without
problems. First, the push to provide commercial opportunities to satisfy regional
8

demand has meant that more vacant land has been rezoned. When that happens, land use
conflicts occur, especially when located adjacent to residential uses. Second, '
commercial expansion is sometimes ill -planned, resulting in strip commercial
development. In addition, over -development in some areas, has resulted in the creation
of under-utilized commercial properties in traditional commercial corridors. Though
these commecial centers may be unoccupied, they still are allotted services, reduce open
space and potentially impact the environment.
2.) Transportation - The opening of Interstate 40 (I-40) was projected to be the impetus
for rapid development of all types in the County. The interstate has had a major impact
on some types of growth in the County. I-40 has provided convenient access into and
out of the County, but construction of new companion roads to facilitate cross county
travel has not kept pace.
Two study areas, located just north of the City, have been selected for the location of the
western link of the Smith Creek Parkway connecting I-40 and Eastwood Road to
Downtown Wilmington and US 17. The first two sections of the Parkway linking
Eastwood Road with I-40 and I-40 to N. Kerr Ave. have been completed while
construction of the remainder is underway.
Additionally, local officials continue to prioritize various road projects identified in the
Wilmington Thoroughfare Plan. Several inner-city thoroughfares have already been
constructed, such as Racine Drive, South 17th Street Extension, Randall Parkway, Holly
Tree Road, and Independence Blvd.
It is important to remember that new roads, particularly thoroughfares, will have a
dramatic impact on land use patterns. The County and City should be prepared to
identify specific needs and possible conflicts as these roads are constructed. If this
foresight is achieved, long-term negative impacts can be minimized.
3.) Sewer Services and Land Development - As can be expected, development in the
unincorporated County has been brisk where County sewer service has been installed.
Areas once not fit for development because soil conditions would not support septic
tanks have now been transformed into buildable lots.
The County continues to pursue a County -wide sewer system, but funding shortfalls
have delayed completion of some parts of the system. Alternative revenue sources are
being sought, and decisions are being made on a piecemeal basis as to future expansion
plans.
If and when the needed funding is identified, the County must be prepared to insure that
the availability of sewer services does not open up lands to development that would not
ordinarily be considered suitable. For example, wetlands are still abundant in the
County but many tracts, large and small, which contain these resources are rapidly being
converted into buildable land through engineered drainage trenching. Additionally,
9

many of the County's estuarine watersheds may require buffers and density restrictions
to protect water quality and in turn aid our fishing and tourism industries.
Septic tanks cannot function in poorly -drained soils or wetland areas and although public
sewer availability eases the sewerage concern, it subjects these wetland resources to
development pressures. To the greatest extent practical, these wetlands should be
protected. The County must demonstrate that it is committed to striking a palatable
balance between development needs and the larger issue of environmental conservation
and resource protection.
VI. Land Use Areas of Concern in the City of Wilmington
1.) Land Use Conflicts - An issue of concern in the City of Wilmington is the conflict
between land uses and the need for a balanced approach to the placement of land use
activities. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Wilmington was designated to minimize
the conflicts between land use activities through the provision of setback requirements
and more recently, revised landscaping standards and sign regulations. There has been a
concerted effort to balance the need for residential, office & institutional, commercial
and industrially classified properties, and to weigh the impacts of these activities in
placement decisions. In the instance of commercial development, there has been an
effort to provide services at neighborhood, community and regional levels, and to
properly place zoning classifications to achieve that goal.
The 1993 Wilmington -New Hanover County Policies for Growth and Development
recommends against allowing commercial strip development along major thoroughfares.
The pressure to continue the commercialization of these thoroughfares is very strong,
however, and will continue to be a prevalent issue. The City of Wilmington has
recognized the need for thoroughfare planning through an emphasis on corridor -wide
planning efforts. The completion of the Dawson -Wooster Corridor Plan, the Wrightsville
Avenue Land Use Plan, the Carolina Beach Road Corridor Study and the North Kerr
Avenue Land Use Study, are all examples of the City's efforts to provide a blueprint for
the development of these corridors, and to provide a comprehensive planning approach
to land use evaluation, rather than incremental changes in zoning. There has been a
greater recognition of the impacts of commercialization, including increased traffic and
reduced effectiveness of thoroughfares to handle existing traffic loads. There has also
been an increased awareness of the need to protect areas of affordable housing which are
in transition in neighborhoods adjacent to commercial activity.
The City of Wilmington has recently engaged in the process of developing a City Master
Plan, which will provide further direction in the placement of land uses in a manner that
• will minimize the negative impacts of conflicting land uses. This plan is currently in the
draft phase and will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council prior
10

to adoption. The City Master Plan is designed to provide a framework for the
development of the City of Wilmington into the next century. S`='
2.) Transportation - The City of Wilmington has engaged in an aggressive plan to build new
thoroughfares within the city limits. The newly constructed streets include the South
Seventeenth Street Extension, Independence Boulevard Extension, Holly Tree Road
Extension and Randall Parkway. Other roads, including George Anderson Drive, are in
the final planning stages for completion. There has been an awareness of the need to
protect these new thoroughfares from strip development as a means of enhancing their
function; to safely and effectively handle traffic loads to the newly developing areas of
the city. The South Seventeenth Street Extension Land Use Plan has provided the
blueprint for development within that area, and other similar studies will be needed to
provide a framework for development of these newly accessible areas within the city
limits.
The construction of the Smith Creek Parkway has gained new urgency with the opening
of I-40 and the increased traffic impacts on the Market Street corridor. The City of
Wilmington will continue to push for the development of this parkway as a means of
alleviating traffic congestion and providing greater access to the redeveloping inner city
area.
3.) Redevelopment of the Inner City Area - Within the past five years, the City of
Wilmington, in partnership with private residential and commercial property owners, and •'
the Historic Wilmington Foundation and DARE, Inc., has had great success in the
redevelopment of the historic core of the inner city. The preservation and reuse of
significant portions of the downtown have been accomplished through this effort. New
Hanover County has also contributed to the stabilization of the downtown through the
revitalization of the historic New Hanover County Courthouse for administrative and
meeting space.
However, continued effort is needed in the residential neighborhoods within the National
Register Historic District, including Hemenway and the Bottom, and the North Fourth
Street and Castle Street commercial areas. The Department of Housing and
Neighborhoods, in conjunction with Wilmington Housing Finance and Development, are
continuing their efforts to provide affordable, rehabilitated housing within these
neighborhoods, as well as redevelopment of the historic commercial corridors on North
Fourth Street and Castle Street. The Historic Wilmington Foundation and DARE, Inc.
will continue to play key roles in the respective residential and commercial rehabilitation
efforts.
11

•
•
APPENDIX 1
METHODOLOGIES
1. Methodology for calculating 1997 statistics for Unincorporated New Hanover
County, the City of Wilmington, Wrightsville, Kure and Carolina Beach
The introduction of the Geographic Information System (GIS) to tracking land use has led to
many improvements in the way land use statistics were calculated. For this inventory each tax parcel in
New Hanover County was assigned a land value by the tax appraisal office. These values were
converted to land use codes which are on the following appendix. Interns were used to verify each of the
land use codes by going out and visually checking on the land use of each parcel. Orthophotography,
which also is available on the GIS, served as an additional verification method for buildings which
existed prior to march, 1994, the date of the arial photography. The GIS allowed us to relate the tax
parcel file with the land use file and thus produce statistics for each land use category by parcel ID.
Because this data can be geo-referenced, data was easily separated in to the different geographic areas of
the county.
12

APPENDIX 2
LAND USE CODES
Old Code
IDescription
New Code
Residential
1
1 Family Residential
10
2
2 Family Residential
11
3
3 or more Family Residential
12
10
Mobile Home
13
14
Mobile Home Park
14
Single Family Attached (condo)
15
Vacant/Dilapidated
16
4
Season Res. 1 Family
21
5
Season Res. 2 + Family
22
19
Other Residential
99
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing and Mining
81
Agriculture
101
82
Agricultural Related
107
83
Forestry & Related
108
84
Fishery
109
84
Sport Fishing
110
84
Commercial Fishing
111
84
Other Fishing and Related
112
85
Mining & Related
121
89
Other Resources
149
Manufacturing
21
Food & Kindred
201
22
Textile Mill
221
23
Apparel & Similar
231
24
Lumber & Wood
241
25
Furniture & Fixtures
251
26
Paper & Allied
261
27
Printing & Publishing
271
28
Chemical & Allied
281
29
Petroleum, Refining & Related
291
•
•
13

•
U
•
31
Rubber & Plastics
301
32
Stone, Clay & Glass
321
33
Primary Metal
331
34
Fabricated Metal
341
36
Boat & Ship Construction
373
35
Prof. & Scientific Instrumentation
381
39
Misc. Manufacturing
399
Transportation, Communication and Utilities
41
Rail Transit
401
42
Motor Vehicles - Transit
411
45
Street R.O.W.
412
Trucking
421
Warehousing/Self-Storage
422
44
Water Trans. (Freight)
441
Water Trans. (Passenger)
448
55
Marina -Marine Craft Docking
449
43
Aircraft
458
47
Radio/Phone/TV Comm.
481
48
Utilities
491
49
Other T, C & U
499
Trade
51
Wholesale
501
55
Aircraft & Accessories, Other
508
Paper and paper products
511
52
Retail -Bldg. Materials,
521
Hdwr. & Farm
53
Retail Gen. Merchandise
531
54
Groceries -Retail Convenience
541
54
Fish and Seafoods -Retail
542
Candies, nuts, confectioneries
544
54
Other Retail Trade -Food
549
55
Retail Auto
551
55
Tires, Batteries, and
553
Accessories - Retail
55
Gasoline Service Stations
554
55
Marine Craft and
555
Accessories - Retail
56
Retail Apparel & Accessories
561
57
Home Furnishings -Retail
571
58
Eating Place -Consumption
581
14

on premise, prepared foods
58
Drinking Place (Alcoholic
582
Beverages)
58
Fast Food Drive -In -Retail estab
583
for immediate consumption
59
Other Retail
599
Services
61
Finance/Banks
601
Trust Company
604
Real Estate
651
66
Construction Contracting
655
13
Residential Hotel
701
15
Transient Lodging
702
75, 6
Travel Trailer Park, Resorts and Camps
703
Bed and Breakfast
704
62
Personal
721
63
Business
731
Computer Services
738
46
Auto Parking
752
64
Repair (non -auto)
761
Auto Repair and Service
762
Motion Picture Production
781
Movie Theater
783
Video Rental
784
72
Public Assembly
792
76
Parks
796
73
Recreational (public/non-park)
797
74
Recreational (private)
798
79
Other C E & R
799
65
Physician
801
Dental Service
802
65
Other Medical and Health
804
65
Nursing, Convalescent, and
805
rest home services
65
Hospital Services
806
65
Medical and Dental Lab. Services
807
65
Legal Services
811
68
Educational
821
12
Group Quarters (residential care
836
facility)
71
Cultural or Nature Exhibition
841
69
Religious Activities (Churches)
866
69
Religious Activities (schools)
867
15

•
•
69
Other Services
899
67
Governmental
911
Court of Law
921
Land and Water areas
99
Marshes
951
93
Water Areas
952
92
Non Commercial Forest
953
Landfill
955
95
Under Construction
956
94
Vacant Floors
957
91
Unused Land
958
991Other
Undeveloped Land
959
Condo Common Area
961
16

Appendix 3
New Hanover County - Land Use By Parcel Size •
1985 1990
Parcel
Percent of
parcel
Percent of
Land Use Category
Acres
Developed
Acres
Developed
Area
Area
Residential Total:.
33,480 , .
57.1 % `
35,'132
65.1Yc
Single Family
30,081
51.3%
3,303
6.1%
Multi -Family.
1,451 .
:. 2.5%
492
0:9%
Mobile Home
1,948
3.3%
1,337
2.5%
Office & Institutional
5,127
8:7%
3;983:
7.4% ,.
Commercial
4,458
7.6%
1,733
3.2%
Transportation, Utilities &
Communiticaiton
4,694
8.0%
4,370
8.1 % _.
Industrial
8,529
14.5%
7,689
14 2% •
Recreation
2,351
4.0%
1;086.
2`.0%
Total Developed
58,639
100.0%
53,993
100.0%
.Undeveloped,.
57,413
N/A
75,566
N/A.
Water
19,493
N/A
19,493
N/A
Total Combined.Acres
135,545
N/A
.149;052
N/A
Note: figures include Wilmington, the Beaches and the Unincorporated County
Source: New Hanover County Land Records
•
17

Appendix 4
Unincorporated County - Land Use By Parcel Size
1985 1990
Percent of
Percent of
Land Use Category
Parcel
Developed
Parcel
Developed
Acres
Acres
Area
Area
Residential Total. .
28,009
62.4%
22175
612% ..
Single Family
25,597
57.0%
20,858
57.5%
Multi- Family
464
1.0%
28
0.10
Mobile Home
1,948
4.3%
1,289
3.6%
Office & Institutional
3,710
8.30/c
1,896
5 2%
Commercial
3,263
7.3%
938
2.6%
Transportation,, Utilities &2,003
Communiticaiton
4:5%
3880
10:70/co
Industrial
7,265
16.2%
6,827
18.8%
Recreation .. ..
660
1:5%
537 -
1.50
Total Developed
44,910
100.0%
36,253
100.0%
Undeveloped
51,221
N/A
71,940
N/A:
Water
18,982
N/A
18,982
N/A
Total Combined Acres
135,545
N/A
127,175
NIA,"
•
Note: figures include the Unincorporated County only.
Source: New Hanover County Land Records
18

Appendix 5
Wilmington and the Beaches - Land Use By Parcel Size`+
1985 1990
Parcel
Percent of
Parcel
Percent of
Land Use Category
Acres
Developed
Acres
Developed
Area
Area
Residential Total:
5,471
39 8% :
121957
710W
Single Family
4,484
32.7%
12,445
70.1 %
Multi -Family
987
7.2%
464
2.6%
Mobile Home
2
0.0%
48
0.3%
Office & Institutional
1;417
.10.3%
2,087
11.80/c
Commercial
1,195
8.7%
795
4.5%
Transportation, Utilities &
Communiticaiton .
2,691
19.6%
490
2.8%
Industrial
1,264
9.2%
862
4.9%
Recreation;,:1,691
12.3%
549
3.1 % ..
Total Developed
13,729
100.0%
17,743
100.0%
Undeveloped.,,,,..,
- 6,192 _ .
N/A
3,626
N/A
Water
511
N/A
511
N/A
Total Combined Acres
20,432
N/A
21;880
N/A
Note: figures include Wilmington, Wrightsville, Carolina and Kure Beaches
Source: New Hanover County Land Records
0,;
19

MOVIE,
"wTM
-is
giver k-,..ouni
0--Anm-s Art"" I "No rwAr
1117NA I.

Generalized
Land Map
Wilmington — New Hanover
Comprehenisive Planning Program
CAMA
1998 Land Use Plan Update

•
•
-I
W
"0
0
0
m
•

General Information
Wilmington New Hanover County
Comprehensive Plan
Meeting the Transportation Challenge:
Transporation Planning
in the Wilmington Urban Area
General Information for the City and County Comprehensive Plan
1997-2010
March 1998
Prepared by the
City of Wilmington, Planning Division, Transportation Planning Unit
202 N. 3rd Street, 4 h Floor, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
New Hanover County, Planning Department
414 Chestnut Street, Suite 304, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]

The Transportation Challenge
National Trends
1976 1995 Difference % Chance
US Population 214,659,000 262,755,270 +48,096,270 +22%
Total Vehicle 1,409,163 2,422,775 + 1,013,612 +72%
Miles Traveled
(millions)
Total Miles Fed. 3,857,356 3,926,724 + 69,368 +1.7%
Aid and Non -Fed.
Aid Highways .
The Local Impact
In summarizing the data collected for the City of Wilmington 1996 Traffic Count Program, data from
1990 and 1996 were compared for approximately 200 count locations. In 1990 these locations had
2,035,921 vehicle trips counted as part of the regular count program. In 1996 these locations had
2,451,494 vehicle trips counted during comparable time periods. This represents a 20% increase in
traffic in six nears or about 3.33%annually. County wide population growth has averaged
approximately 2.75% per year. Traffic has grown faster than population. Traffic on many of the areas
streets exceed the streets satisfactory operating capacity due to this growth.
City of Wilmintrton-Traffic Increases on Selected Facilities
Facility 1990 Traffic 1996 Traffic % Change
College Rd. 31,040 53,038 + 71%
(College Acres
to New Centre)
College Rd. 40..400 53,358 +32.1%
(Macmillan
to Wilshire)
Pine Grove 13,819 17,258 + 25%
(Edinboro -
Greenville Loop)
Wrightsville Ave. 19,719 25,108 +27.3%
(Col. -Hill)
Wrightsville Ave.
(Dawson -Spofford) 18,663 25,609 +34.3%
Mercer Ave. 6,476 17,568 +160.4%
(Camden-Covil)
Traffic Accidents are increasing as the volume of traffic grows the following charts illustrates this point.

Comparison of Total Daily Traffic Volumes
at 191 Locations in Wilmington In
1990 and 1996
TOTAL ACCIDENTS IN WILMINGTON
FROM 1985 TO 1996
IFFSM
P - q
off Oman
-BONN
•

How are we meeting this Challenge?
The Wilmington Urban Area is addressing the need for transportation solutions in a variety of ways. �` +
The Wilmington Urban Area consists of the City of Wilmington, New Hanover County, Brunswick
County and the towns of Wrightsville Beach, Belville, Leland and Navassa and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT). NCDOT and these jurisdictions work together to address
the urban area's transportation needs across jurisdictional lines. Elected officials from the governing
boards of the urban areas jurisdictions_ and the member of the North Carolina Board of Transportation
appointed for our area work together with staff to develop and implement the Urban Area's
Transportation Plan.
In addition to the urban area jurisdictions the Wilmington International Airport, the Wilmington
Transit Authority, the New Hanover County Bicycle Advisory Committee and the North Carolina
State Ports participate in the planning process. This ensures that the areas residents and agencies
receive consideration for transportation projects to relieve congestion. In addition to these agencies and
officials there will be an extensive public involvement process prior to the adoption of any plan. The
following planning efforts are underway to help address the area's critical transportation needs.
City of Wilmington -New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan
Land use is the driving force behind the growth in the urban area's traffic. New development, the
growth in the tourist trade as well as in the area's institutions such as the Universitv of North Carolina
at Wilmington create increasing demand on the area's transportation network. The Comprehensive Plan
will develop policies that may help to lessen the impact of growth on transportation. The Comprehensive
Plan will also develop proposed future land uses in New. Hanover County. These proposed land uses
will be used to forecast the demands of growth on the area's transportation network. In addition to the
needs of land use the Comprehensive Plan will develop policies on the inter-conectivity of streets,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities and site design that affect the transportation network.y
Transportation Plan Update
The Wilmington Urban Area is undergoing a comprehensive Transportation Plan Update. This Plan update
includes examining the area's needs for thoroughfares, bicycle and pedestrians facilities, improvements to
transit senice and the possibility of implementing Transportation Demand Management systems (TDM). TDM
includes measures such as van -pooling, ride -sharing (including park and ride lots and ride -matching), and
working with employers to shift work hours to non -peak time periods. The Transportation plan plans the urban
area's transportation network for the next 20 years. Once the transportation plan update is adopted the Urban
Area may seek funding from Federal and State agencies to implement these projects. It is anticipated that an
updated Transportation Plan will be presented to the public in the summer and fall of 1998.
Congestion Management Svstem
The Wilmington Urban Area is developing a Congestion Management System (CMS) to address the
even• day congestion experienced by the area's motorists and to predict congested areas in the
inunediate future. The CMS examines ways of improving the transportation system 's operations
through short term measures such as changing the configuration of intersections through striping and
other non -construction methods. The CMS is designed to improve the efficiency of the existing network
in the short term while the Transportation Plan meets the area's long term needs. The CNIS will be an
ongoing program it is anticipated that the CNIS will be in place during the summer of 1998. •

•Rail Service and Multi -modal Transportation
The Wilmington Urban Area is working with the North Carolina Department of Transportation to
determine the feasibility of passenger rail service to the area. If this service proves feasible the urban
area will seek to provide a multi -modal transfer facility with the Wilmington Transit Authority to
integrate public transportation with rail service. The urban area also works with NCDOT and the State
Ports to improve freight rail service.
Traffic Signal Operations
In addition to the planning efforts described above the City of Wilmington and NCDOT conduct an
ongoing program to insure that the area's signal system is operating at peak efficiency. These agencies
conduct traffic count studies at intersections throughout the area and adjust the signal system to meet
the demands on the system. In many instances changing the timing on signals cannot compensate for the
fact that the road network is over -loaded during the peak hours
For More Information on the Transportation Planning Process Contact:
City of Wilmington
Transportation Planning Unit
PO Box 1810
Wilmington NC 28402
[phone]

Infrastructure \

•
Technical Reports
Wilmington New Hanover County
Comprehensive Plan
Community Infrastructure
1. Description of the two reports.
2. Final Level of Service, Cost & Revenue Factor
Assumptions (April 28, 1998)
3. Fiscal Impact of Providing Services in 1998
and 2010 (June 22, 1998)
Two Technical Reports for the City and County Comprehensive Plan
1997-2010
•
Prepared by
Tischler & Associates, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland
For the
City of Wilmington, Planning Division
202 N. 3rd Street, 4`h Floor, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
New Hanover County, Planning Department
414 Chestnut Street, Suite 304, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]

Description of the
Community Infrastructure Assessment
Using Fiscal Impact Analysis
Wilmington and New Hanover County
for the
City and County Comprehensive Plan 1997-2010
November 1998
Prepared by the
City of Wilmington, Planning Division
202 N. 3rd Street, 4th Floor, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
New Hanover County, Planning Department
414 Chestnut Street, Suite 304, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
•

Community Infrastructure Assessment
• Using Fiscal Impact Analysis
A key component of the Comprehensive Plan is assessing the existing and future, needs
costs and revenues of Community Infrastructure composed of : schools buildings (Cape Fear
Community College, New Hanover County Schools); County library buildings; public utilities
(water, sewer, streets); parks and recreation (County and City); public safety (Police, Sheriff, City
Fire, County Fire); solid waste; and administration (budget and finance).
•
The general service categories are shown in the following table.
Wilmington and New Hanover County - Community Infrastructure Assessment
Using Fiscal Impact Analysis 1998 - 2010
Community Infrastructure
Public Level of Service
County wide
Existing Improved
Non -urban
Existing Improved
Urban
Existing Improved
Public schools
x x
Community College
x x
Human services
x
Culture - Libraries
x x
Culture - Parks
x x
Sheriff - Police
x
x
x
Fire
x x
x
Roads - transportation
x x
x x
General government
x
x
x
Water
x x
x
Sewer
x x
x
Storm Drainage
x x
x x
Solid waste
x
x
Parks and recreation
I
x
Development services
I
x
The existing and future level of service, costs and revenue analysis for Wilmington and
New Hanover County was studied with Fiscal Impact Analysis in the following attached two
technical reports. Tischler & Associates, a nationally recognized consulting firm analyzed the
fiscal impacts of growth on City and County services.
The study identified the current level of service in 1998 for all City and County services,
including costs and revenues. Then projections based upon population and employment growth,
show what that same level of service would be in 2010. In some cases, an improved level of service
was identified, along with additional costs and benefits for 1998 and 2010. The study areas are
(see map p. 3): the urban service area composed of Wilmington and the urban County area
surrounding the City; the non -urban County area with north and south portions; and the County.
These services were analyzed for each of these areas to reflect changes in the level of service in
1998 and expectations for service levels in 2010.

The benefit to citizens of this analysis is a broader understanding of the land development
costs associated with growth. The results of this study will be used in the Comprehensive Plan
addressing the long range vision, goals and policies that drive land use decisions to the year 2010. 40
The reports show: the finished level of service, cost and revenue document; a fiscal impact model;
and cost and revenue alternatives. The Level of Service study describes the current conditions of
service costs and revenues in the City and County. A model illustrates what effect growth will have
on the ability of the City and County to continue to provide those same services in 2010. The cost
and revenue alternatives provide information on how to pay for the community infrastructure
services. The information from the Fiscal Impact Analysis will help establish more detailed
Community Infrastructure planning, identify future service needs, and manage resources based
upon the Comprehensive Plan.
0

00
_ u
IM
• ; ;'�'' ' E 5 z Lb s
ILA
Lu
ZOZ • • . ` ' /''//'/'' /,' / /,'ram''/' '' /'I ' /''/'/''' /''" / b r'' , '," ''/ / ''/'�''" ''' �. �
CL
GOP
tm
CL
le
. /, , / / / / / ' > � / , , / ,' / /�.�, t l-^a tea• , .-_ i
+m
U
N

Final Level of Service, Cost &
Revenue Factor Assumptions
For
City of Wilmington -New Hanover
County, North Carolina
April 28, 1998 (R)

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERALL METHODOLOGY AND MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................1
A.
The FISCALS Process and Data Input Categories........................................................................1
B.
Major Assumptions......................................................................................................................... 2
1.
Marginal, Growth -Related Costs and Revenues........................................................................ 2
2.
Level of Service......................................................................................................................... 2
3.
Revenue Structure and Tax Rates............................................................................................. 3
4.
Inflation Rate.............................................................................................................................. 3
5.
Non -Fiscal Evaluations.............................................................................................................. 3
C.
Service Areas................................................................................................................................. 3
D.
Market Values................................................................................................................................ 6
11. COUNTYWIDE SERVICE AREA........................................................................................................ 8
1.
General Government Operating..................................................................................................... 8
A.
County Manager........................................................................................................................ 8
B.
Budget....................................................................................................................................... 8
C.
Board of Elections...................................................................................................................... 8
D.
Engineering................................................................................................................................9
E.
Finance................................................................................................................................9
F.
County Commissioners.............................................................................................................. 9
G.
Human Resources..................................................................................................................... 9
H.
County Attorney.......................................................................................................................10
I.
Management Information Systems..........................................................................................10
J.
Non-Departmental...................................................................................................................10
KPrint
Shop................................................................................................................................11
L.
Property Management.............................................................................................................11
M.
Register of Deeds....................................................................................................................11
N.
Tax...........................................................................................................................................12
0.
Veteran Services.....................................................................................................................
12
P.
Planning...................................................................................................................................12
2.
Human Services...........................................................................................................................14
A.
Health Department...................................................................................................................14
B.
Aging.......................................................................................................................................14
C.
Human Relations.....................................................................................................................14
D.
Human Services Transportation..............................................................................................15
E.
Social Services..........................................15
F.
..........................................................................
Capital Costs...........................................................................................................................16
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
3.
Culture and Recreation................................................................................................................18
A.
Library ......................................................................................................................................18
B.
Parks........................................................................................................................................20
C.
Cape Fear Museum.................................................................................................................
21
D.
Cooperative Extension Service.....................................................................................:..........
22
4.
Schools........................................................................................................................................
24
A.
Capital Costs...........................................................................................................................
24
B.
Operating Costs...................................................................................................................
26
5.
Cape Fear Community College....................................................................................................
28
A.
Capital Costs...........................................................................................................................
28
B.
Operating and Maintenance Costs..........................................................................................
30
6.
Public Safety................................................................................................................................
33
A.
Court System...........................................................................................................................
33
B.
Emergency Management.........................................................................................................
33
C.
Emergency Medical Services...................................................................................................
34
D.
Inspections...............................................................................................................................
34
E.
Sheriffs Department................................................................................................................
34
7.
General Fund Revenues..............................................................................................................
44
A.
Ad Valorem Tax.......................................................................................................................
44
•
B.
Ad Valorem Interest.................................................................................................................
44
C.
Real Property Transfer Tax......................................................................................................
45
D.
One -Half Cent Sales Tax Fund................................................................................................
45
E.
Beer and Wine Tax..................................................................................................................
45
F.
Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Revenues..........................................................................
46
G.
Cable Franchise Fees..............................................................................................................
46
H.
Intergovernmental Revenue.....................................................................................................
46
I.
User Fees................................................................................................................................
47
J.
Intangibles Tax........................................................................................................................
47
K
Other General Government Revenues....................:...............................................................
47
L.
Interest on Investments............................................................................................................
47
M.
Appropriated Fund Balance.....................................................................................................
48
8.
New Hanover County Fire District................................................................................................
50
A.
Impact on Volunteer Fire Departments....................................................................................
50
9.
New Hanover County Water and Sewer District..........................................................................
51
10.
Environmental Management Fund...............................................................................................
52
III.
URBAN SERVICE AREA.................................................................................................................
53
1.
General Government....................................................................................................................
53
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
A.' City Council ............................................................................................. ......................... 53
B. City Clerk............................................................................................................................. .... 53
C.
City Manager...........................................................................................................................
53
D.
City Attorney............................................................................................................................
54
E.
Human Resource Management...............................................................................................
54
F.
Finance....................................................................................................................................55
G.
Administrative Services...........................................................................................................
55
H.
Development Services..............................................................................................................
56
I.
Sundry Appropriations .........................................................................................................
58
2.
Police...........................................................................................................................................61
A.
Operating Costs.......................................................................................................................
61
B.
Capital Costs...........................................................................................................................
67
3.
Fire...............................................................................................................................................70
A.
Operating Costs.......................................................................................................................
70
B.
Impact on Volunteer Fire Departments....................................................................................
72
C.
Capital Costs...........................................................................................................................
73
4.
Public Services and Facilities.......................................................................................................
76
A.
Administration..........................................................................................................................76
B.
.........................................................................................
Operations ................ ......................76
C.
Transportation..........................................................................................................................78
D.
Solid Waste..............................................................................................................................
79
D.
Recreation...............................................................................................................................
80
5.
General Fund Revenues..............................................................................................................
83
A.
Property Taxes........................................................................................................................
83
B.
Penalty and Interest on Property Taxes...................................................................................
83
C.
Sales Tax.................................................................................................................................
83
D.
Licenses, Fees and Permits.....................................................................................................
84
E.
Intergovernmental Revenues...................................................................................................
85
F.
Charges for Public Service ..................................... :................................................................
86
G.
Charges for Recreation Programs...........................................................................................
86
H.
Miscellaneous Charges for Service.........................................................................................
86
I.
Charges for General Government Services.............................................................................
86
J.
Charges for Public Safety Services.........................................................................................
87
KFines
and Forfeitures...............................................................................................................
87
L.
Investment Income...................................................................................................................
87
M.
Other Revenue........................................................................................................................
87
N. Appropriated Fund Balance
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
6. Public Utilities Fund...................................................................................................................... 89
7. Community Development Block Grant Fund................................................................................ 89
8. Home Investment Partnership Fund........................................................... ............................... 89
10. Parking Facility Fund.................................................................................................................... 89
11. Solid Waste Management Fund................................................................................................... 90
A. Operating Costs....................................................................................................................... 90
12. Equipment Maintenance/Replacement Fund............................................................................... 90
13. Golf Course Enterprise Fund....................................................................................................... 91
APPENDIXI.............................................................................................................................................. 92
APPENDIXII............................................................................................................................................. 94
•
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

I. OVERALL METHODOLOGY AND MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS
The City 9 of Wilmington and New Hanover County have contracted with
TIscrER& Tischler & Associates, Inc. (TA) to evaluate the fiscal impact of growth to both
)5j,SS M, INC. the City and County between 1997 and 2010. These impacts will be evaluated
4701 Sangamore Road from a Countywide, Urban and Nonurban perspective. In addition, for certain
Suite N210
Bethesda, MD 20816 facilities and services, the fiscal impact of a higher level of service will be
[phone] calculated.
Fax: [phone]
80 Annandale Road This Service Level, Cost and Revenue Factors document discusses City
Pasadena, CA 91105-1404
[phone] and County services and facilities that will be impacted by new development.
Fax: [phone]
[phone] These service level, cost and revenue factors are based on TA's on -site
interviews with City and County staff and project management team. The final
assumptions will be utilized with demographic projections to calculate the fiscal
impact on the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County budgets for the 13-
year period between 1997 and 2010. Calculations will be performed using
TA's FISCALS software designed exclusively for the City of Wilmington and
New Hanover County.
A. The FISCALS Process and Data Input Categories
In order to provide an understanding of the overall methodology used in
this fiscal impact analysis, a brief explanation of the FISCALS process follows.
The FISCALS software utilizes two types of input data. The first category of
demographic/economic projections is called Demand Base data inputs. These
.numerical projections include data such as population, housing units,
employment, and commercial and industrial space. The 1997 population and
job estimates, in addition to the current number of dwelling units, were used to
calculate unit costs and service level thresholds. These estimates were
Fiscal Impact Analysis
• provided by the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County Planning
Capital Facility Analysis
Impact Fee systems Departments.
Growth Policy Planning
Economic and Market Analysis
MUNIES, FISCALS & CRIM 1
Fiscal impact systems tailored
for each community

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
The second type of input data relates to the government_ service levels, costs and
revenues. The government service level, cost and revenue data used in the fiscal
analysis have been determined and agreed upon by TA and City of Wilmington and
New Hanover County personnel.
This data will be used by TA's FISCALS system to calculate the annual costs,
revenues, and capital facilities by department or function, where appropriate. These
assumptions are outlined in this report.
B. Major Assumptions
This fiscal impact analysis can be regarded as a snapshot of the current budget.
The Fiscal Year 1998 Budget has been used to represent a "snapshot" of the City and
County's current costs, revenues and levels of service. In summary, the "snapshot"
approach does not attempt to speculate about how services, costs, revenues and other
factors will change over 13 years. Instead, it evaluates the fiscal impact on the City and
County as they currently conduct business under the present budgets.
The following major assumptions regarding the fiscal methodology should be
noted.
1. Marginal, Growth -Related Costs and Revenues
For this analysis, costs and revenues that are directly attributable to new
development or from the annexation of existing development are included. Some costs
are not expected to be impacted by demographic changes, and may be fixed in this
analysis, such as some administrative functions. In this analysis, most of the costs are
driven by new residents and new jobs. On the revenue side, income of residents and
value of dwelling units have an impact on the amount of revenue collections.
2. Level of Service
The cost projections are based on the "snapshot approach" in which it is
assumed the current level of spending, as provided in the Fiscal Year 1998 budget, will
2 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
46
•
continue through the 13 year analysis period. The current level of spending is referred
to as the current level of service (LOS) in this type of analysis.
3. Revenue Structure and Tax Rates
In most cases, revenues are projected assuming that the current revenue
structure and tax rates, as defined by the FY98 adopted budget, will not change during
the analysis period. However, when it is known that an increase or decrease will occur
in a rate or structure, it will be reflected and noted.
4. Inflation Rate
The rate of inflation is assumed to be zero throughout the projection period, and
cost and revenue projections are in constant 1997 dollars. This assumption is in accord
with current budget data and avoids the difficulty of speculating on inflation rates and
their effect on cost and revenue categories. It also avoids the problem of interpreting
results expressed in inflated dollars.
5. Non -Fiscal Evaluations
It should be noted that while a fiscal impact analysis is an important
consideration in planning decisions, it is only one of several issues that should be
considered. Environmental and social issues, for example, should also be considered
when making planning and policy decisions. The above notwithstanding, this analysis
will enable interested parties to understand the fiscal implications of future development.
C. Service Areas
The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County has asked TA to evaluate the
impact of growth on three geographic layers upon which levels of service will be based.
These geographic layers are as follows and can be found in Appendix I of this
document.
Countvwide: The Countywide services to be evaluated include public schools,
community college, human services, culture/library, culture/parks, sheriff and general
3 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
government. The four categories in which an improved level of service is considered
are community college, schools, culture/library, and culture/parks. The demand base
for the Countywide service area is shown in the table below.
Demand Base Information
Countvwide Service Area
1997
1998
2010
Increase
Absolute %
Category
Estimate
Projection
Projection
1997-2010
Increase
Population
149,211
151,611
180,417
31,206
21%
Employment
Retail
28,669
29,085
34,072
6,403
19%
Office
15,100
15,316
17,914
2,814
19%
Flex*
14,771
14,973
17,394
2,623
18%
Total
58,540
59,374
69,380
.10,840
19%
Housing
Single Family
41,292
41,915
49,388
8,096
20%
Duplex/Townhome
5,496
5,723
8,451
2,955
64%
Apartment
10,321
10,459
12,117
1,796
17%
Mobile Home
3,785
3,785
3,785
0
0%
Total
60,894
61,882
73,741
12,847
21%
Nonresidential Sq. Ft.**
Retail
11,467,600
11,633,846
13,628,800
2,161,200
19%
Office
3,653,550
3,814,162
4,520,100
866,650
24%
Flex
6,930,113
7,222,240
8,691,332
1,761,219
25%
Total
22,051,263
22,670,248
26,840,232
4,788,969
22%
*Flex space is a space utilized for various industrial uses with 10%-20% of the space utilized for office activity
**The nonresidential square footage is based on the assumptions contained in the following two tables
Nonurban: The Nonurban service area reflects the existing level of services as
provided by the County as its proxy. The Nonurban services include Countywide
services provided by the County, but also includes the Fire District, which will be
impacted significantly as the City provides services to the annexation areas in 1998 and
Urban areas of the County in 2010. The demand base for the Non -Urban service area
is shown in the table below. The negative numbers reflect the annexation of this area
by the City and the loss of Nonurban service area population and employment
4 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
s
•
Demand Base Information
_ .._LA�
1997
1998
2010
Increase
Absolute %
Category
Estimate*
Projection*
Projection**
1997-2010
Decrease
Population
85,047
51,334
31,935
(63,112)
-62%
Employment
Retail
10,148
5,415
2,440
(7,708)
-76%
Office
5,050
2,347
1,230
(3,820)
-76%
Flex*
9,914
8,254
6,851
(3,063)
-31%
Total
25,112
16,016
10,621
14,591)
-58%
Housing
Single Family
26,638
15,204
6,886
(19,752)
-74%
Duplex/Townhome
2,251
592
443
(1,808)
-80%
Apartment
447
473
-
(447)
-100%
Mobile Home
3,285
2,153
1,156
(2,129)
-66%
Total
32,621
18,421
8,485
(24,136)
-74%
Nonresidential Sq. Ft.***
Retail
4,059,200
2,165,815
976,000
(3,083,200)
-76%
Office
1,090,800
506,969
265,680
(826,120)
-76%
Flex
4,292,762
3,574,115
2,966,483
(1,326,279)
-31%
Total
9,442,762
6,246,899
4,208,163
5,234,599
-55%
*Includes Non -Urban and Urban County areas
**Urban County becomes part of Urban Service Area
***Nonresidential square footage was estimated using the following factors developed by the Urban
Land Institute: 400 sq. ft. (Retail), 216 sq. ft. (Office), and 433 (Flex)
Urban: The City of Wilmington, the three annexation areas, and an urbanized portion
of the County comprise the urban service area. The service categories evaluated are
police, fire, roads, general government, parks and recreation, and development
services. The demand base for the Urban service area is shown in the table below.
5
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
Demand Base Information
lJrban Service Area
1997
1998
2010
Increase
Absolute %
Category
Estimate*
Projection**
Projection***
1997.2010
Increase
Population
64,164
100,277
148,482
84,318
131%
Employment
Retail
18,521
23,670
31,632
13,111
71%
Office
10,050
12,969
16,684
6,634
66%
171ex*
4,857
6,718
10,543
5,686
117%
Total
33,428
43,358
68,869
25,431
76%
Housing
Single Family
14,654
26,711
42,502
27,848
190%
Duplex/Townhome
3,245
5,132
8,008
4,763
147%
Apartment
9,874
9,987
12,117
2,243
23%
Mobile Home
500
1,632
2,629
2,129
426%
Total
28,273
43,461
65,256
36,983
131%
Nonresidential Sq.Ft.****
Retail
7,408,400
9,468,031
12,652,800
5,244,400
71%
Office
2,562,750
3,307,193
4,254,420
1,691,670
66%
Flex
2,637,351
3,648,125
5,724,849
3,087,498
117%
Total
12,608,501
16,423,348
22,632,069 1
10,023,568
79%
*City of Wilmingon only
"Assumes City and Phase I, II & III Annexation areas
-Adds Urban Portion of County
—Nonresidential square footage was estimated using the following factors developed by the Urban
Land Institute: 400 sq. ft. (Retail), 255 sq. ft. (Office), and 543 (Flex)
D. Market Values
Market values for new residential and nonresidential construction has been
estimated for the City, Phase I, II, and III annexation areas, as well the County. The
estimates for the single family and duplex/townhome categories were obtained through
an analysis of information provided by the New Hanover County Board of Realtors. The
apartment market value was obtained using the Marshall & Swift Valuation Service,
assuming a square foot cost of $54.36 (based on localized Wilmington area data), a
multiplier of 20% for land, and an average unit size of 950 square feet.
The Marshall & Swift Valuation Service was also used to obtain nonresidential
•
market values. For the retail category, a Good Class C Community Scale Shopping
Center was assumed for the City and Phase I, 11, and III annexation areas, with a
square foot value of $59.48 (based on localized Wilmington area data) and a 20% •
6 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
f
multiplier for land. Retail space in the County was assumed to be Average Class C,
with a square foot value of $56.13 (based on localized Wilmington area data) and a
20% multiplier for land. For office space in the City and Phase I, II, and III annexation
areas a Good Class C construction was assumed, with a square foot value of $56.62
(based on localized Wilmington area data) and a 20% multiplier for land. Average Class
D construction was assumed for office space in the County, with a square foot value of
$53.57 (based on localized Wilmington area data) and a 20% multiplier for land. Flex
space in the City and Phase I, II, and III annexation areas was assumed to be Average
Class C, with a square foot value of $28.43 (based on localized Wilmington area data)
and a 20% multiplier for land. Flex space in the County was assumed to be Low Cost
Class S, with a value of $17.89 per square foot (based on localized Wilmington area
� data) and a 20% multiplier for land. The table below contains the market value
assumptions.
Market Values of New Construction
city of WilminntnnMaw Hanover County
7
Unit
City
Phase I
Phase 11
Phase III
County
Single Family*
$146,862
$356,616
$222,738
$205,063
$159,398
Duplex/Townhome*
$93,712
$113,502
$113,502
$113,502
$143,120
Apartment"
$61,969
$61,969
$61,969
$61,969
$61,969
Retail (per sq. ft.)**
$71.38
$71.38
$71.38
$71.38
$67.36
Office (per sq. ft.)**
$67.94
$67.94
$67.94
$67.94
$64.28
Flex(per sq. ft.)**
$34.12
$34.12
$34.12
$34.12
$21.47
'Source: New Hanover County Board of Realtors
**Source: Marshall & Swift Valuation Service
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
II. COUNTYWIDE SERVICE AREA
1. GENERAL GOVERNMENT OPERATING
A. County Manager
The County Administrator is the chief administrator of the County government,
responsible to the Board of Commissioners for administering all departments of County
government. The Manager provides administrative and legislative leadership by
supervising departmental operations, recommending new and revised policies and
programs to the Commissioners, and ensuring that policies and programs adopted by
the Board of Commissioners are executed in an effective and economical manner. The
FY98 budget for this Department totals $552,427. This budget is not expected to
increase significantly as a result of new growth and will remain fixed in the fiscal impact
analysis.
B. Budget
The budget Department provides financial information and guidance to the Board
of Commissioners and County Manager. The Department is responsible for the audit
and evaluation of ongoing management and fiscal controls of the County. The FY98
budget for this Department totals $248,520. This budget is not expected to increase
significantly as a result of new growth and will remain fixed in the fiscal impact analysis.
C. Board of Elections
The Board of Elections is responsible for.conducting all elections including party
primaries, general, municipal, and special elections, and referendums held within the
County. Voter registration records for all County and municipal voters are maintained
by this office. The FY98 budget for the Board of Elections is $666,145. This budget is
projected to increase with population, although on a partial cost basis estimated at 25%.
The FY98 budget of $666,145 is multiplied by 25% and is then divided by the 1997
population estimate of 149,211, for a partial per capita increase of $1.12.
•
8 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
D. Engineering
The Engineering Department provides for the administration and inspection of a
variety of functions including: Sedimentation and Erosion permits, certain aspects of
subdivision reviews, engineering and construction contracts, review of sewer plans,
inspection of sewer system construction and-acquMion-of easements:---The-Department
also operates and maintains the County's water and sewer systems. The FY98 budget
for Engineering totals $543,113. Operating costs for water and sewer activities are
reflected in the New Hanover County Water & Sewer District Fund. Other operating
costs are expected to remain fixed. Therefore the FY98 budget of $543,113 will remain
fixed in the fiscal impact analysis.
E. Finance
The Finance Department is responsible for maintaining a centralized Countywide
system of financial planning, reporting and control. The Department is responsible for
preparing for bond sales, managing debt, accounting for the County's receipts and
disbursements, processing payroll, managing investments, accounting for the County's
fixed asset inventory, billing for water and sewer, as well as other financial functions.
The FY98 budget for this Department totals $872,119. This budget is not expected to
increase significantly as a result of new growth and will remain fixed in the fiscal impact
analysis.
F. County Commissioners
The County Commissioners budget covers the operating expenses and salaries
of the five -member County Commissioners. The County Commissioners are
responsible for adopting the annual budget, establishing a tax rate, enacting local
ordinances and setting County policy. The FY98 budget for the Commissioners is
$338,988. This budget is not expected to increase significantly as a result of new
growth and will remain fixed in the fiscal impact analysis.
G. Human Resources
The Department of Human Resources administers the recruitment and employee
selection process for all County departments, assuring compliance with federal, state,
9 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
and/or local regulations and polices, and maintains employee personnel records. The ` N
FY98 budget for Human Resources totals $558,001. This budget is projected to
increase with population and employment, although on a partial cost basis estimated at
50%. The FY98 budget of $558,001 is multiplied by 50% and is then divided by the
1997 population and employment estimate of 207,751, for a partial per capita and
employee increase of $1.34.
H. County Attorney
The County Attorney provides legal counsel and representation to the Board of
Commissioners, County Manager, County Departments, and Boards and Commissions
to ensure their work is performed in a legally authorized and productive manner. The
Department also prepares and reviews all legal documents, represents the County in all
civil litigation, and reviews and enforces the County ordinances. The FY98 budget for
the County Attorney !s_$45.6,268..._This -budget is. projected_ to iacrEase..witb_population
and employment. The FY98 budget of $456,268 is divided by the 1997 population and
employment estimate of 207,751, for a per capita and employee increase of $2.20
I. Management Information Systems
The Management Information Systems Department (MIS) provides information
management to all County departments through computer hardware and software
services. The Department is also responsible for providing support for all hardware and
software purchases. The FY98 budget for the Board of Elections is $2,091,246. This
budget is projected to increase with population, although on a partial cost basis
estimated at 25%. The FY98 budget of $2,091,246 is multiplied by 25% and is then
divided by the 1997 population estimate of 149,211, for a partial per capita increase of
$3.50.
J. Non -Departmental
This budget contains funds for principal and interest on bonded debt, transfer to
other funds, as well as contingencies. In this analysis, TA's FISCALS software will
calculate future debt payments for capital facilities due to growth. The assumed interest
rate is 6% and the term is 20 years. Therefore existing debt service is not included. •
10 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
im
Once debt service of $4,521,137 is netted out of the budget, the remaining Non-
Departmental budget is $1,113,703. This budget is projected to increase with
population, although on a partial cost basis estimated at 25%. The adjusted FY98
budget of $1,113,703 is multiplied by 25% and is then divided by the 1997 population
estimate of 149,211, for a partial per capita increase of $1.87.
K. Print Shop
The Print Shop is responsible for the County's departmental printing needs
offering assistance in all printing related matters including paper selection, layout,
preparation, and printing. The FY98 budget for the Print Shop is $158,800. Based on
discussions with County staff, this budget is not expected to increase significantly as a
result of new growth and will remain fixed in the fiscal impact analysis.
L. Property Management
The Property Management Department is responsible for providing a safe and
comfortable environment for the public and employees in New Hanover County facilities
through quality and cost -saving maintenance, repairs and housekeeping services. The
Vehicle Management Division maintains the County's vehicle fleet of 330. The FY98
budget for Vehicle Management totals $3,888,234 and will remain fixed in the fiscal
analysis since TA will be direct entering vehicle maintenance costs for new vehicles
purchased by the County as a result of new growth. The FY98 budget for the Property
Management Division totals $3,067,860. This budget will also remain fixed as TA will
direct enter maintenance costs for new County facilities built as a result of new growth.
M. Register of Deeds
The Register of Deeds is responsible for recording, indexing and maintaining
accurate records governed by North Carolina General Statutes and local ordinances.
This Department is the custodian of all County legal records, which include: vital records
such as births, deaths, and marriages; tax maps, land and property transactions, etc.
The FY98 budget for this Department totals $895,256. The operating costs for this
Department are assumed to be covered by the fees collected for transactions and will
not be independently calculated in the fiscal impact analysis.
11 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
N. Tax
The Tax Department is responsible for obtaining, developing, and maintaining
•
records necessary for the appraisal, assessment, billing, collection and listing of taxes
associated with real and personal property within the County. The FY98 budget for this
Department totals $1,834,763. The budget is expected to increase with residential and
nonresidential growth in the County, although on a partial cost basis estimated at 25%.
The FY budget of $1,834,763 is multiplied by 25% and is then divided by the 1997
population and employment estimate of 207,751, for a per capita and employee
increase of $2.21.
O. Veteran Services
The Veterans Services Department counsels and advises veterans, their
dependents and survivors of their entitlements and benefits under Federal and State
laws. This includes responsibility for proper processing of all claims to the Department
of Veterans Affairs. The FY98 budget for Veteran Services is $39,449. This budget is
not expected to increase significantly as a result of new growth and will remain fixed in
the fiscal impact analysis.
P. Planning
The Planning Department provides guidance and direction in the adoption of
policies and regulations to encourage orderly and balanced growth and development in
New Hanover County. The Department is directly responsible for the administration and
enforcement of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, Special Use Permits, site plan
approval and street mapping, and addressing in the County. The FY98 County
contribution to this Department totals $621,196. This budget is projected to impacted by
additional population and employment growth. The FY98 County contribution is divided
by the 1997 population and employment estimate of 207,751, for a per capita and job
cost of $2.99.
•
12 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
•'
Activity
Allocation
Amount
A.
County Manager
Fixed
N/A
B.
Budget
Fixed
N/A
C.
Board of Elections
Partial per capita
$1.12
D.
Engineering
Fixed
N/A
E.
Finance
Fixed
N/A
F.
County Commissioners
Fixed
N/A
G.
Human Resources
Partial per capita & emp.
$1.34
H.
County Attorney
Per capita & emp.
$2.20
I.
Management Information Systems
Partial per capita
$3.50
J.
Non -Departmental
See text
N/A
K.
Print Shop
Fixed
N/A
L.
Properly Management
Direct entry
See text
M.
Register of Deeds
See text
N.
Tax
Partial per capita & emp.
$2.21
O.
Veterans Services
Fixed
N/A
P.
Planning
Per capita & emp.
$2.99
•1
13 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
2. HUMAN SERVICES i
A. Health Department
The Health Department provides quality health care, preventive medical and
dental services, and environmental protection for the citizens of New Hanover County
through the following programs: Environmental Health; Vector Control; Animal Control;
Women, Infants & Children (WIC) Program; Adult Health; Child Health; Dental Health;
Health Promotion Programs; General Nutrition Program; Community Health; Women's
Health Care; and Communicable Disease Program. The FY98 County contribution to
this Department totals $4,235,109. From this amount is deducted fixed costs of
$255,855 for Mosquito Control, $502,838 for Administration, and $4,820 for the Board of
Health, for a net variable cost contribution of $3,471,596. The FY98 variable cost
contribution is divided by the 1997 population estimate of 149,211, for a per capita cost
of $23.27.
B. Aging
The New Hanover County Department of Aging serves persons sixty years or
older through a variety of recreational, educational, and social programs. Services
include operation of the Senior Center; providing transportation services to seniors;
adult day care services; administering the Retired Senior Volunteer Program; managing
the Home Delivered Meals and Congregate Nutrition Programs; and providing in -home
services. The FY98 County contribution to the Aging Department amounts to $530,589.
As the population in the County grows, so too will the elderly population. Therefore, the
FY98 County contribution is divided by the 11a97 population estimate of 149,211, for a
per capita cost of $3.56.
C. Human Relations
The Human Relations Department provides staff support for the New Hanover
Human Relations Commission. The Department and Commission address the
elimination of discriminatory practices with regard to race, color, gender, national origin,
religious belief, age disability, and familial status. The Department also enforces the
14 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service. Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
County's Fair Employment and Fair Housing Ordinances. The FY98 County
contribution to the Department totals $276,445. This Department's activities are
projected to increase with additional population growth in the County. The FY98 County
contribution is divided by the 1997 population estimate of 149,211, for a per capita cost
of $1.85.
D. Human Services Transportation
New Hanover Transportation Services (NHTS) is a coordinated human service
system, designed to meet transportation needs of the elderly, disabled, Medicaid
eligible pregnant women and dependent children, and other special populations who are
clients of human service agencies. The FY98 County contribution to the NHTS
amounts to $30,762. The provision of this service is projected to increase with
additional population growth. The FY98 County contribution is divided by the 1997
population estimate of 149,211 for a per capita cost of $0.21.
E. Social Services
• The Department of Social Services provides economic assistance to New
Hanover County citizens with basic subsistence needs and provides services to citizens
with physical, social and emotional problems. Programs the Department offer include:
the Work First Program; Foster Care Services to Children; Foster Care Services for
Adults; Child Day Care Services; Services to the Blind; Low Income Energy Assistance;
Child Support Enforcement; Medicaid; Food Stamps; Protective Services for Children;
and Crisis Intervention, AFDC -Emergency Assistance, and Project Share. The FY98
County contribution to this Department totals $11,335,727. From this amount is
deducted the fixed costs of $3,698,145 for Administration and $986 for the Social
Services Board, for a net variable County contribution of $7,636,596. As the population
of the County increases, so too will the demands placed on this Department. The FY98
County variable cost contribution is divided by the 1997 population estimate of 149,211,
for a per capita cost of $51.18.
15
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
F. Capital Costs
New Hanover Count H Service
y Human Se ice agencies operate out of three facilities in
the County. These facilities and their square footage are shown in the table below.
Existing Human Services Space
Building
Square Footage
Aging Center
29,200
Health Department
20,000
Social Services
38,000
Total
87,200
Divided by 1997 Population
Estimate
149,211
=S uare Feet per Capita
.58
As indicated in the table, square footage for Human Services totals 87,200 square feet.
When compared to the 1997 population estimate of 149,211, the result is a ratio of .58
square feet per person. There are currently no plans for new Human Service capital
facilities in the near future. However, in order for New Hanover County to maintain the
current level of service for Human Services, additional space will have to be constructed
in the future. Therefore, the current level of service is multiplied by the current cost to
develop a square foot of Human Service space, $121 (figure is based on the Marshall &
Swift Valuation Service, Good Class C Public Building, 20% was added for furnishings
and contingencies). This results in a one-time Human Services capital cost per person
of $66.70.
•
16 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors
Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
HUMAN SERVICES
Activit
Allocation
Amount
B.
Health Department
Per capita
$23.27
B.
Aging
Per capita
$3.56
C.
Human Relations
Per capita
$1.85
D.
Human Services Transportation
Per capita
$0.21
E.
Social Services
Per capita
$51.18
F.
Capital Costs
One-time cost
$66.70
per capita
17 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
3. CULTURE AND RECREATION
A. Library
The New Hanover County Public Library provides high quality library services to
County citizens through the Main Library, three branches, and the Law Library. The
Library provides the public access to over 264,000 books in its collection through a
computerized catalog. For the fiscal impact analysis, TA will be measuring the cost of
maintaining the existing level of service, as well as providing an improved level of
service for the Library. The improved level of service will be reflected in additional
space and more books per capita.
1. Capital Costs -Existing Level of Service
a. Library Space
The New Hanover County Public Library current operates 66,987 square feet of
space. The table below provides detailed information regarding square footage by
branch.
Current Library Space
Facility
Existing Square
Footage
Main Library
52,000
Myrtle Grove Branch
6,987
Plaza East Branch
leased
3,800
Carolina Beach
2,200
Law Library
2,000
Total
66,987
In order to maintain the current level of service to serve the 2010 County
population, the library estimates that it needs to texpand several branches, construct an
additional branch, and renovate one existing branch. These expansions and their
estimated capital costs are presented in the table below:
18
Additional Library S ace Needs
Facility
Space Needed
Year Built
Estimated Capital Costs
Main Library
26,000
1998
$1 560 000
Myrtle Grove Branch
3,013
2000
$180 780
Military Cut-off
20,000
2002
$4 700 000
Carolina Beach
N/A renovation
2005
$100 000
Northchase new
10,000
2008
$1 450 000
Total
59,013
$7,990,780
Source: New Hanover County Library
Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
These capital costs of $3,290,780 will be direct entered into the fiscal model as
the cost of maintaining the current level of service in terms of library space. This cost is
assumed to be debt financed at 6% interest over a 20-year period.
b. Books
The current level of service in terms of books per capita is 1.89. The Library
estimates the average cost of a book at $17. This cost will be applied to population
growth between 1998 and 2010.
2. Operating Costs
The County's FY98 contribution to the Library operating budget totals
$1,780,170. TA will direct enter the marginal increase in operations (including staffing)
and maintenance costs for the expansions, based on the Northeast Branch Library Site
Report. These costs are estimated at $584,000.
3. Improved Level of Service
For purposes of the fiscal impact analysis, an improved level of service is
expressed in additional square footage and additional books per capita.
a. Additional Library Space
northeastern portion of the Count on
. The Library owns a tract of land m the ort p y
which they would like to build a 20,000 square foot branch. The development of this
site would provide the Library system the amount of the space they feel is appropriate
for the County to 2010. The cost to construct this branch is estimated at $2,600,000. In
addition, another $300,000 is required for equipment and furniture. These cost will be
direct entered into the model in 2005 and are assumed to be financed through a 20-year
bond at 6% interest.
b. Books
The level of service in terms of books per capita is assumed to increase to 3
books per capita, rather than the current 1.9 per capita. The cost of $17 per book is
assumed.
G. Operating Costs -Improved Level of Service
Annual operations and maintenance costs for the additional branch location is
estimated at $200,000 annually. This cost will be direct entered into the fiscal model in
2005.
19 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
B. Parks
The Parks Department presently operates thirty parks and beach access areas,
which provide a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities for New Hanover County
citizens and visitors. The Parks Department also operates and maintains outdoor
recreation facilities on public school property. The table below provides information
regarding current County Park acreage.
Park Acreage
New Hanover Coun , North Carolina
Park Classification
Acres
Regional Parks
178
Community Parks
158
Neighborhood Parks
36
Source: New Hanover County Parks Department
The County usually obtains Neighborhood Park land through acquisition using
bond proceeds. Community Parks are typically located on School property. Therefore,
the County Parks budget is typically impacted strictly from an operating perspective.
Capital costs will be incurred from the development of Regional Parks. In addition, TA
will also be measuring the cost of providing an improved level of service for the Parks
Department. The improved level of service will be reflected in an additional regional
park.
1. Capital Costs -Existing Level of Service
a. Ogden Park
Ogden Park opened in the Spring of 1997. At that time, approximately 1/3 of the
facilities planned for the park were completed. The cost to complete the park is
estimated at $2,000,000, including $500,000 in 'the FY98 budget, which will be directly
entered into the fiscal model. The remaining development costs will be phased in over
a three-year period.
b. Pilot Ridge Park
This 110 acre park will be developed in conjunction three schools in the Monkey
Junction area of the County. The land cost per acre is estimated at $25,000 for a total
land cost of $2,750,000. .,
20 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
C. Additional Regional Park
• In order to maintain the current level of service for Regional Parks, the Parks
Department estimates another regional park facility will need to be constructed prior to
2010. In lieu of a formal facility plan for this park, the cost to acquire and develop this
park is estimated at $3,000,000. This cost will be directly entered into the model in
2007 and is assumed to be debt financed over 20 years at an annual interest rate of
6%.
2. Capital Costs -Improved Level of Service
An improved level of service will be reflected in a second Regional Park facility
over what is needed to maintain the current level of service. A capital cost of
$3,000,000 will be used as a proxy to represent the acquisition and development costs
of this park. The cost will be direct entered into the model in 2005 and is assumed to
be debt financed over 20 years at an annual interest rate of 6%.
3. Operating Costs
a. Maintenance Costs
The County's current annual maintenance cost per acre is $2,794. As additional
regional park land is developed to serve new growth, the fiscal model will apply this cost
per acre on annual basis.
b. Staffing
The County's current level of service for acres maintained per employee is 14.3.
For every additional 14.3 acres of park land built to serve new growth, the fiscal model
will add an additional employee, at an estimated cost of $28,000, including benefits.
C. Cape Fear Museum
The Cape Fear Museum is the oldest history museum in the state of North
Carolina. It collects, preserves, and interprets objects relating to the history, science,
and cultures of the Lower Cape Fear, and makes those objects available to the public
through educational exhibitions and programs. The FY98 County contribution to the
Museum totals $701,105. The Museum is not expected to be significantly impacted by
additional growth and will remain fixed in the fiscal impact analysis.
21 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
D. Cooperative Extension Service
The North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service is a unique educational
system with support from the County, State and Federal governments. The Service is a
component of the State's two land grant universities. The Service helps people improve
the quality of their lives by providing research -based information and informal
educational opportunities in the areas of agriculture, home economics, 4-H and youth
and community resource development. The FY98 County contribution to the Service
totals $386,550. As the population in the County increases, so will the demands placed
on the Cooperative Extension Service. The FY98 County contribution is divided by the
1997 population estimate of 149,211, for a per capita increase of $2.59.
•
•
22 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
i
CULTURE AND RECREATION
Activit Allocation
A. Library
1. Capital Costs
L=�
C.
D.
23
a. Library Space
Direct entry
b. Books
1.9 books per capita
2. Operating Costs
Direct enter
3. Improved Level of Service
a. Library Space
Direct entry
b. Books
3.0 books per capita
c. Operating Costs
Direct entry
Parks
1. Capital Costs -Existing Level of Service
a. Ogden Park
Direct entry
b. Pilot Ridge Park
Direct entry
c. Additional Regional Park
Direct entry
2. Capital Cost -Improved Level of Service
a. Additional Regional Park
Direct entry
3. Operating Costs
a. Maintenance Cost
Per acre
b. Staff
Per 14.3 acres
Cape Fear Museum
Fixed
Cooperative Extension Service
Per capita
Amount
$3,290,780
$17.00
$384,000
$6,190,780
$17.00
$584,000
$2,000,000
$2,750,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$2, 794
$28,000
N/A
$2.59
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
4. SCHOOLS
The New Hanover County Board of Education operates 33 schools. This
includes 23 elementary schools, 6 middle schools, and 4 high schools, including an
alternative high school. Full time enrollment totals 10,377 ,elementary students, 4,917
middle school students, and 6,159 high school students, for a total full time enrollment
of 21,453. New Hanover County is responsible for the building needs of the schools
(with some assistance from the State) and the related bonded debt of the Board of
Education. In addition the County allocates funds for some school personnel and
operating expenses.
A. Capital Costs
1. Existing Level of Service
Information compiled for school capital facility needs was obtained from the New
Hanover Schools Long Range Building Program, 1997-2007. For the fiscal analysis, TA
will be considering only schools needed to serve new growth. This analysis does not
consider facilities necessary to relieve existing overcrowding. •
The fiscal analysis measures the cost to serve new growth to the year 2010. The
New Hanover County Schools Long Range Building Plan has a horizon of 2007. TA
requested that New Hanover County Schools evaluate enrollment projections to
determine how many additional schools are necessary to serve new growth from 2007
to 2010. However, due to staffing and time constraints, New Hanover County Schools
was not able to provide this information in as much detail as they would like. However,
they did project one additional high school in 2009.
1. Facility Needs to 2001
. According to information contained in the New Hanover County Schools Long
Range Building Program 1997-2007, two elementary, one middle and one high school
are needed by 2001 to accommodate new growth. The table below contains
information pertaining to capital costs, capacity and year built.
24 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
School Facility Needs to 2001
Wilmington -New Hanover County
Facility
Year Opens
Capacity
Cost"
A Elementary School
1999
500
$7,957,560
B Elementary School
1999
500
$7,957,560
AA Middle School
2000
750
$15,792,582
AAA High School
2001
1,500
$36,575,729
'1997 dollars
These facilities will be directly entered into the fiscal model and are assumed to
be debt financed over 20 years at an interest rate of 6%.
2. Facility Needs 2002-2010
The Long Range Building Program also contains information pertaining to school
facility needs to serve new growth past the year 2001. According to the Plan, two
elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school are needed to serve new
growth past 2002. Capacity and cost information are provided in the table below.
School Facility Needs. 2002 to 2010
Wilmington -New Hanover County
Facility
Year Opens
Capacity
Cost"
C Elementary School
2004
500
$7,957,560
D Elementary School
2007
500
$7,957,560
BB Middle School
2007
750
$15,792,582
BBB High School
2009
1,500
$36,575,729
'1997 dollars
These facilities will be directly entered into the fiscal model and are assumed to
be debt financed over 20 years at an interest rate of 6%.
3. Improved Level of Service
An improved level of service will be reflected in implementation of the County's
plan to relieve overcrowding and use of non-traditional space. This also includes
upgrade, repair and modernization of existing facilities, and providing system -wide
technology upgrades. The estimated cost of these improvements is $257,721,104.
Bond financing will be assumed for these improvements in three equal increments of
$85,907,035. Bonding for these projects will happen in 1999, 2004, and 2008, at an
interest rate of 6% and a term of 20 years.
25
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
B. Operating Costs
As stated previously, New Hanover County does allocate funds to cover a portion
of New Hanover County Schools operating expenses. Since it can not be ascertained
how much of the O&M and staffing costs the County will cover for a given school when
it is constructed, TA will utilize an operating cost per student methodology to project
future operating costs to serve new growth. The adopted FY98 New Hanover County
Schools Budget includes a $31,296,258 County contribution for operating costs. When
this contribution is compared to the 1997 enrollment of 21,453, the operating cost per
student is $1,459. This figure will be applied on an annual basis to enrollment increases
from 1997 to 2010.
26 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
gfi NEW HANOVER COUNTY SCHOOLS
Acts ivit Allocation Amount
(
A. Capital Costs
1. 1997 to 2001 Direct entry $68,283,431
2. 2002 to 2010 Direct entry $68,283,431
B. Operating Costs Cost per student $1,459
•
27 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
5. CAPE FEAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE
The Cape Fear Community College offers vocational, technical, pre-
baccalaurate, basic skills and literacy programs, as well as continuing education
services to residents of New Hanover County. For the fiscal impact analysis, TA will be
measuring the cost of maintaining the existing level of service, as well as providing an
improved level of service for the Community College. The improved level of service will
be reflected in additional academic facility space to meet the current State system
average.
A. Capital Costs
1. Existing Level of Service
The Cape Fear Community College Strategic Plan 1997-2017 contains an
analysis of the College's space needs to 2017 to meet anticipated growth. Despite the
�3
County's growth over the past twenty years, the College has only recently added
buildings and properties to its campus. As a result, the College currently has a level of
service of 60 square feet of academic facilities space (ASF) per FTE student, which •
ranks among the most crowded of the 58 community colleges in the State system. The
1994 average for the system was 84 square feet of ASF per FTE student. The table
below provides an analysis of space needs to 2010 in order for the Community College
to maintain its current level of service of 60 square feet of ASF.
•
28 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
Space Needs to Maintain current Iw5
Year
Projected
FTE
Cum.GSF to
Maintain 60 sqf.
ASF/FTE
1998
3,223
0*
1999
3,545
0*
2000
3,676
0*
2001
3,812
5,954
2002
3,953
18,469
2003
4,099
31,428
2004
4,251
44,919
2005
4,408
58,854
2006
4,572
73,410
2007
4,741
88,410
2008
4,916
103,942
2009
5,098
120,096
2010
5,286
136,783
Source: Cape Fear community College
*New space will come on line
The Community College estimates the construction cost per square foot at
$195.61 based on data contained in their proposed bond referendum. This square foot
construction cost includes bricks and mortar, land, fees, contingency, etc. When this
•
figure re is applied to the amount of square feet needed to maintain the current level of
pp q
service of 60 square. feet of ASF per student, the estimated construction cost is
$26,756,122. This amount will be direct entered into the fiscal model in 2005 and is
assumed to be debt financed over 20 years at an interest rate of 6%.
2. Improved Level of Service
•
The improved level of service for the fiscal impact analysis is the current State
community college system level of service of 84 square feet of ASF per student. An
analysis of the additional space needs of the Community College to meet this improved
level of service is provided in the table below.
29
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
Space Needs for Improved LOS
Year
Projected
FTE
Cum. GSF to
Maintain 84 sqf.
ASF/FTE
1998
3,223
68,102
1999
3,545
108,114
2000
3,676
124,392
2001
3,812
141,291
2002
3,953
158,812
2003
4,099
176,954
2004
4,251
195,842
2005
4,408
215,351
2006
4,572
235,729
2007
4,741
256,729
2008
4,916
278,475
2009
5,098
301,090
2010
5,286
324,451
Source: Cape Fear Community College
When the construction cost per square foot ($195.61) is applied to the amount of
square feet (324,451) needed to provide an improved level of service of 84 square feet
of ASF per student, the estimated construction costs is $63,465,860. This amount will
be direct entered into the fiscal model in 2005 and is assumed to be debt financed over
20 years at an interest rate of 6%.
B. Operating and Maintenance Costs
The County contributes General Fund dollars to the Community College to cover
building operation and maintenance expenses, as well as debt service. The Community
College has estimated the marginal operating cost per square foot of space at $6.87.
1. Marginal Operating Cost -Existing Level of Service
In order to maintain the current level of service, it is estimated that an additional
136,783 square feet of space is needed. At $6.87 a square foot, the annual marginal
operating and maintenance cost to maintain the current level of service is $939,699.
This cost will be direct entered into the fiscal model beginning in 2005.
2. Marginal Operating Cost -Improved Level of Service
In order to provide an improved level of service, it is estimated that an additional
324,451 square feet of space is needed. At $6.87 a square foot, the annual marginal
30 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
r
•
•

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
•
operating and maintenance cost to provide an improved level of service is $2,228,978.
This cost will be direct entered into the fiscal model beginning in 2005.
31 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
CAPE FEAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Activit
_y Allocation Amount
A. Capital Costs
1. Existing Level of Service
Direct entry
$26,756,122
2. Improved Level of Service
Direct entry
$63,465,860
B. Operating & Maintenance Costs
1. Existing Level of Service
Direct entry
$939,699
2. Improved Level of Service
Direct entry
$2,228,978
•
•
32 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
�j 6. PUBLIC SAFETY
A. Court System
1. Operating Costs
Counties must provide appropriate and adequate space and furniture for those
functions of the court system performed at the local level. A portion of New Hanover
County's contribution to the Court System is for operating expenses included in the
Clerk of the Court's budget. The County also repairs and maintains the Court System
facilities through expenditures included in its Property Management Department's
budget. The FY98 County contribution to the Court System totals $145,786. This
contribution is expected to increase with population growth in the County. The FY98
budget is divided by the 1997 population estimate of 149,211, for a per capita cost of
$0.98.
2. Capital Costs
?4 The New Hanover County Court System operates out of a 55,000 square foot
facility. An 11,000 square foot addition is presently being constructed to meet existing
demands on the system, for a total of 66,000 square feet. When compared to the 1997
population estimate of 149,211, the result is a ratio of .44 square feet per person. There
are currently no plans for an additional expansion. However, in order for New Hanover
County to maintain the current level of service for the Court System, additional space
will have to be constructed in the future. Therefore, the current level of service is
multiplied by the current cost to develop a square foot of Courthouse space, $115
(figure is based on Marshall & Swift Valuation Service, Good Class C Public Building,
15% was added for furnishings and contingencies). This results in a one-time capital
cost per person of $50.60.
B. Emergency Management
The Emergency Management Department works to protect the citizens of New
Hanover County from the effects of natural or technological disasters. The Department
works with all County departments, municipalities and public safety agencies to insure
their preparedness and ability to respond to emergency situations. The Department
33 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
maintains a 24-hour a day on -call status with paid and volunteer staff. The Department "-`
also operates the Emergency Operations Center, coordinates two-wayradiosystems Is
and follows an annual work program developed by FEMA and the North Carolina
Division of Emergency Management. The FY98 County contribution to this Department
totals $289,014. This budget category will remain fixed for purposes of the fiscal impact
analysis, as its activities are not driven by population or employment growth, rather the
number of natural or technological disasters.
C. Emergency Medical Services
The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department provides Countywide
emergency medical care and transportation. County personnel serve as the primary
provider of services. Crash/Rescue services are provided, through contract, by the City
of Wilmington Fire Department and Ogden -New Hanover Volunteer Rescue Squad, Inc.
Revenues generated from EMS fees and the New Hanover Regional Medical Center
offset the operating costs of this Department. Therefore this budget will not be
calculated in the fiscal impact analysis.
D. Inspections
The Inspections Department enforces the North Carolina State building,
electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and mobile home codes in the City of Wilmington, New
Hanover County, and three surrounding beach communities. The Department also
enforces the local County Zoning and Flood Plain Management Ordinances and the
Coastal Area Management Act regulations. The revenues the Department generates
from inspection fees and citations offset the operating costs of the Department.
Therefore this budget will not be calculated in the fiscal impact analysis.
E. Sheriffs Department
The Sheriff is the principal law enforcement officer of New Hanover County. The
Sheriffs Department has an operating budget of $12,754,719. Both residential and
nonresidential development will impact the future costs to provide law enforcement
services to New Hanover County residents and employees. However, as the
unincorporated County decreases in size due to annexation by the City of Wilmington,
34 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
r
the demand base for patrol activities decreases as well. For purposes of the fiscal
impact analysis, we will assume that as the population and employment base decreases
in the unincorporated County, so too will the costs to maintain the current level of
service for patrol activities. However, the Sheriff has stated to TA that annexation will
not affect his patrol budget, as he feels it is currently understaffed. If this scenario were
to occur, it would result in an increase in the Sheriffs level of service. For purposes of
the fiscal impact analysis, TA will measure the decrease in costs to maintain the current
level of service. The methodologies used to project the operating and capital costs
are described in the sections below.
1. Operating Costs
Based on the FY98 budget, the Sheriffs Department budget is divided into the
following six divisions: 1) Support Services, 2) Custody, 3) 911 Center, 4) Vice and
Narcotics, 5) Uniform Patrol, and 6) Detective Division. The table below shows the
estimated FY98 operating costs and percentage for each division.
FY98 Sheriff Department Budget
New Hanover County
Division
Budget
Percent
Support Services
$1,686,376
13%
Custody/Jail
$4,011,266
31 %
911 Center
$2,062,135
16%
Vice
$825,164
6%
Patrol
$3,262,172
26%
Detectives
$907,606
7%
$12,754,719
100%
a. Support Services
The Support Services Division includes Administration, Civil and Records
Sections, Front Desk, Personnel and Purchasing. The Civil Section serves all Civil
Process (Civil Summons, Magistrates Summons, Show Cause Orders, Evictions, and
Domestic Violence Orders), collects money judgements on Executions, and seizes
property under Attachments and Claim and Deliveries. The Records Section processes
pistol permit applications, concealed weapons permit applications and maintains a
computer records system. The FY98 budget for this Division totals $1,686,376. From
this amount is deducted revenues of $127,200, for a net budget of $1,559,176. Since
35
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
this Division contains some administrative functions, costs are expected to increase on
a partial cost basis, estimated at 50%. The FY98 budget of is multiplied by 50% and is
then divided the 1997 population estimate of 149,211, for a per capita cost of $5.22.
b. 911 Center
The 911 Center is responsible for answering calls and dispatching personnel and
equipment for emergency assistance for City and County fire service, ambulance
assistance, and sheriff patrols. The FY98 budget for the 911 Center totals $2,062,135.
Deducted from this amount is $400,000 in revenue from the Emergency Telephone
System Fund, for a net County contribution of $1,662,135. As the number of residents
and jobs increase in the County, so too will 911 activities. This budget is projected to be
impacted on a partial cost basis, estimated at 25%, as increased activity will be offset by
computer automation for dispatch functions. The FY98 County contribution of
$1,677,305 is multiplied by 25% and is then divided by the 1997 population and
employment estimate of 207,751, for a per capita and employment cost of $2.02.
C. Custody Division
The Custody Division is responsible for the County Jail and the operations of the
Transportation Unit and Court Bailiff Section. The FY98 budget for this Division totals
$4,011,266. Deducted from this amount is $1,604,339 in revenues from various
sources including Court Facility fees, Jail fees and Officer fees, for net budget of
$2,406,927. This budget is projected to increase with additional population growth in
the County. The FY98 net budget is divided by the 1997 population estimate of
149,211, for a per capita cost of $16.13.
d. Patrol
The Patrol Division consists of four Patrol squads, a K-9 squad, a Special
Operations squad, a Crime Prevention unit and a Warrant squad, totaling 70 sworn
deputies. The Patrol budget will increase based on calls for service. The table below
contains breaking and entering calls for service for 1997. These calls for service are the
only ones that could be provided based on residential versus nonresidential location.
The 58% residential/42% nonresidential distribution is assumed to be an accurate proxy
for overall calls for service in the County.
36 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
0

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
•
0
Calls for Service, 1997
New Hanover Countv. North Carolina
Location
Calls
Percent
Residential
Nonresidential
598
426
58%
42%
Total
1,024
100%
Source: New Hanover County Sheriffs Office
The table below breaks out the residential portion (58%) of the Patrol Division
budget based on calls for service. The residential portion is then divided by the existing
population and then multiplied by the household size by type of unit to obtain a cost per
unit factor. This factor will then be used to project the decrease in costs to maintain the
current level of service.
Patrol Division Residential Land Use Factors
New Hanover County Sheriffs Office
FY98 Budget
$3,262,172
Existing Pop.
Residential Portion (58%)*
$1,892,060.
Per Capita Cost
Household
Cost per
Land Use
Size**
Unit
Single Family
2.65
$33.60
DuplexiTownhouse
2.23
$28.28
Apartment
1.86
$23.59
Mobile Homes
2.32
$29.42
*Based on calls for service data provided by the Sheriffs Office
**Based on an analysis of 1990 Census Data
149,211
$12.68
The nonresidential methodology allocates the nonresidential portion (42%) of the
Patrol Division budget, which totals $1,370,112. The nonresidential portion of the
budget is allocated by type of nonresidential land use. Since specific records for calls
for service by land use type is not available, trips by type of nonresidential land use are
utilized as a realistic proxy. This methodology indicates that the greatest calls for
service on a per square foot basis are for retail, then office and then flex. The table
below summarizes the nonresidential vehicle trips on an average weekday in New
Hanover County.
37
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Nonresidential Gross Floor Area (Sq. Ft. x 1, 000) Assumptions
Retail/Shopping Center 11,468
Office 3,654
Flex 6,930
Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Ends per 1,000 Sq. Ft."
Retail/Shopping Center 53.22
Office 15.59
Flex 3.82
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday
Retail/Shopping Center 195,298
Office 28,479
Flex 13,237
Total 237,014
'Trip Rates are from Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers,1997. Trip rates assume
community scale shopping center in the 200,000 sq. ft. range, office in the 50,000 sq. ft. range and
manufacturing.
Trip Factors I
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends are from the reference book, Trip
Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (6th Edition, 1997).
A "trip end" represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development. Trip rates
have been adjusted to avoid over estimating the number of actual trips because one
vehicle trip is counted in the trip rates of both the origination and destination points. A
simple factor of 50% has been applied to Office and Flex categories. The
Retail/Shopping Center category has a trip factor of less than 50% because this type of
development attracts vehicles as they pass -by on arterial and collector roads. For
example, when someone stops at a convenience store on their way home from work,
the convenience store is not their primary destination. The ITE manual indicates that on
average 37% of the vehicles entering shopping centers are passing by on the way to
some other primary destination and 63% of the attraction trips have the shopping
centers as their primary destination. Therefore, the adjusted trip factor is 32% (0.63 x
0.50).
Based on the 237,014 average daily trips and the nonresidential operating
cost for the Patrol Division of $1,370,112 (42% of $3,262,172), the operating cost per
nonresidential vehicle trip is $5.78. This level of service standard is then multiplied by
the associated nonresidential trip ends and trip factors to derive the nonresidential
38 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors , Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
factor decrease for the Patrol Division as the unincorporated County decreases as a
result of annexation.
Nonresidential Land Use Factors for Patrol Division Operating Costs
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Nonresidential Weekday Vehide Trips per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Standards Trip Factors
Retail/Shopping Center
53.22
32%
Offer
15.59
50%
Flex
3.82
50%
Level of Service Standards
Nonresidential Operating Costs (42%x $3,262,172)
$1,370,112
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips
237,014
Operating Cost per Vehicle Trip
$5.78
Operating Costs
Per 1,000 sq. ff.
Per Employee*
Retail/Shopping Center
$98.45
$39.38
Office
$45.06
$11.49
Flex
$11.04
$6.00
-Based on 400 square feet per retail employee, 255 square feet per office employee and 543 square feet per
flex employee
e. Detective Division
The Detective Division consists of 20 sworn deputies and is responsible for
• investigation of criminal cases and crime scene analysis. Since criminal investigations
are related to calls for service, as calls increase, investigations can be expected to
increase proportionately. The table below breaks out the residential portion (58%) of
the Detective Division budget based on calls for service. The residential portion of
$526,411 is then divided by the existing population and then multiplied by the household
size by type of unit to obtain a cost per unit factor. This factor will then be used to
project decreases in Detective Division costs as a result of City annexation.
Detective Division Residential Land Use Factors
New Hanover County Sheriffs Office
FY98 Budget $907,606 Existing Pop. 149,211
Residential Portion (58%)* $526,411 Per Capita Cost $3.53
Household Cost per
Land Use Size** Unit
Single Family 2.65 $9.35
Duplex/Townhouse 2.23 $7.87
Apartment 1.86 $6.56
Mobile Homes 2.32 $8.18
*Based on calls for service data provided by the Sheriffs Office
**Based on an analysis of 1990 Census Data
39 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
The nonresidential methodology allocates the nonresidential portion (42%) of the
Detective Division budget, which totals $381,195. As was the case for the Patrol
Division, the nonresidential portion of the budget is allocated by type of nonresidential
land use. This methodology indicates that the greatest calls for service on a per square
foot basis are for retail, then office and the flextindustrial. The table below summarizes
the nonresidential vehicle trips on an average weekday in New Hanover County.
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Nonresidential Gross Floor Area (Sq. Ft. x 1,000)
Retail/Shopping Center
Office
Flex
Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Ends per 1,000 Sq. Ft.*
Retail/Shopping Center
Office
Flex
Assumptions
11,468
3,654
6,930
Trip Factors
53.22
32%
15.59
50%
3.82
50%
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday
Retail/Shopping Center 195,298
Office 28,479
Flex 13,237
Total 237,014
'Trip Rates are from Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997. Trip rates assume
community scale shopping center in the 200,000 sq. ft. range, office in the 50,000 sq. ft. range and
manufacturing.
Based on the 237,014 average daily trips and the nonresidential operating cost
for the Detective Division of $381,195 (42% of $907,606), the operating cost per
nonresidential vehicle trip is $1.61. This level of service standard is then multiplied by
the associated nonresidential trip ends and trip factors to derive the nonresidential
factor decrease for the Detective Division as a result of City annexation.
40 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•
•

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
Nonresidential Land Use Factors for Detective Division Operating Costs
`
•' New Hanover County, North Carolina
Nonresidential Weekday Vehicle Trips per 1, 000 Sq. Ft.
Standards
Trip Factors
Retail/Shopping Center
53.22
32%
Office
15.59
50%
Flex
3.82
50%
Level of Service Standards
Nonresidential Operating Costs (42% x $907,606)
$381,195
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips
237,014
Operating Cost per Vehicle Trip
$1.61
Operating Costs
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Per Employee*
Retail/Shopping Center
$27.39
$10.96
Offer
$12.54
$3.20
Flex
$3.07
$1.67
*Based on 400 square feet per retail employee, 255 square feet per office employee
and 543 square feet per
flex employee
f. Vice and Narcotics Division
The Vice and Narcotics Division provides proactive drug enforcement throughout
the County. The Division totals 16 deputies and has an operating budget of $825,164.
As the population of the County increases, so too will the activities of the Vice and
Narcotics Division. The FY98 budget of $825,164 is divided by the 1997 population
estimate of 249,211, for a per capita increase of $5.53.
2. Capital Costs
a. Jail
For the New Hanover County Jail, a one-time cost per capita methodology will be
used, since there are no planned expansions of the current facility. The New Hanover
County Jail has 33,668 square feet of space in the Main Jail and 1,815 square feet of
space in the Jail Annex, for a total of 35,483 square feet. When this is compared to the
current population of 149,211, the resulting level of service is .237 square feet per
capita. With no recent construction projects from which to base a capital cost per
square foot of jail space, TA utilized the Marshall & Swift Valuation Service to estimate a
capital cost of $91.98 per square foot of jail space. This estimate used an Average
Class C Government Building, with a 20% multiplier for land. When the capital cost per
square foot is applied to the .237 square foot per capita standard, the capital cost per
capita is $20.76.
41
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
b. Sheriffs Deputy Equipment
The table below shows
all the one-time costs associated with a new deputy
sheriff, as well as vehicle costs. One time costs include radio and related equipment,
weapon and ammunition, as well as uniforms and related equipment. The County
currently has 100 vehicles for 111 deputy sheriffs involved in patrol, civil, vice and
investigative functions. This is a ratio of 1 vehicle for every 1.11 deputy sheriff. Vehicles
are assumed to have a useful life of five years.
Capital Equipment Costs
New Hanover County Sheriffs Office
Item Cost
Uniforms & Equipment"
$1,872
4 Door Sedan*"
$21,500
Equipment
$1,500
Total
$24,872
`One-time cost
**Useful life of five years
According to the most recent information (1997) provided by the Sheriffs Office,
the Sheriff received 53,383 calls for service in FY97. When this is compared to the
1997 population and employment total in the County of 207,751, there were .26 calls for
service for every resident and job in the County. Given the current 111 deputy sheriffs
involved in patrol, civil, vice and investigative functions, there is an average of 481 calls
for service per deputy. Therefore, for purposes of the fiscal impact analysis, a new
deputy sheriff with an associated one-time capital cost of $1,872 will be incurred by the
County for each additional 481 calls for service. In addition, for every 1.11 officers a
capital cost of $23,000 will be incurred by the County for a patrol vehicle with a useful
life of five years.
•
42 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
' PUBLIC SAFETY
Activit
A. Court Syst
1. Ope
2. Capi
B. Emergency
C. Emergency
D. Inspection
E. Sheriffs D
1. Operatin
a. Sup
b. 911
c. Cust
d. Patro
e. Dete
f. Vice
2. Capital
a. Jail
b. Equi
Allocation
Amount
ern
rating Costs
Per capita
$0.98
tal Costs
One-time per capita
$50.60
Management
Fixed
N/A
Medical Services
N/A
See text
s
N/A
See text
epartment
g Costs
port Services
Per capita
$5.22
Center
Per capita & emp.
$2.02
ody Division
Per capita
$16.13
I
Per unit/nonres. trip
See text
ctive
Per unit/nonres. trip
See text
& Narcotics
Per capita
$5.53
Costs
One-time per capita
$20.76
pment
Direct entry
See text
43
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
7. GENERAL FUND REVENUES
A. Ad Valorem Tax
Ad Valorem Tax is a tax on real property and vehicles based on the value of the
property as a marketable item. Real property includes land, buildings, and items
permanently affixed to land or buildings. The market value of the land is established by
an appraisal, which must be carried out by the County every eight years. A tax rate is
established by the County Commissioners for each fiscal year. The current tax rate is
$0.665 per $100 dollars of assessed value. For purposes of the fiscal impact analysis,
a 100% collection rate is assumed. For the fiscal impact analysis, TA's FISCALS
software will calculate Ad Valorem Taxes from new development by multiplying the tax
and assessment rates by the average market values. The average market values for
new construction are shown in the table below.
Market Values of New Construction
Citv of Wilminaton/New Hanover County
Unit
City
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
County
Single Family*
$146,862
$356,616
$222,738
$205,063
$159,398
Duplexrrownhome*
$93,712
$113,502
$113,502
$113,502
$143,120
Apartment**
$61,969
$61,969
$61,969
$61,969
$61,969
Retail (per sq. ft.)**
$71.38
$71.38
$71.38
$71.38
$67.36
Office (per sq. ft.)**
$67.94
$67.94
$67.94
$67.94
$64.28
Flex (per sq. ft.)**
$34.12
$34.12
$34.12
$34.12
$21.47
'Source: New Hanover County Board of Realtors
**Source: Marshall & Swift valuation Service
The number of registered vehicles in the County totals 115,559 in FY98 and
comprises an assessable base of $841,320,128. When the number of vehicles is
compared to the total value, the result is an average value per vehicle of $7,280. And
when the number of vehicles is compared to the 1997 population of 149,211, there are
.77 vehicles per capita. For the fiscal impact analysis, TA's software will forecast
additional vehicles at the rate of .77 per capita as population increases in the County.
The current assessment rate will be applied to the average value per vehicle of $7,280.
B. Ad Valorem Interest
Interest on Ad Valorem Taxes is charged for property taxes not paid on time.
Interest of 3/4 of one percent is charged beginning the first day of each month following
44 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•
•

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
the tax due date until paid. This revenue source totals $230,000 in FY98. Since a
100% collection rate is assumed for ad valorem taxes, this revenue source will remain
fixed in the fiscal impact analysis.
C. Real Property Transfer Tax
The Real Property Transfer Tax is an excise tax on each deed or other
instrument by which real property is conveyed. Although this tax is levied by the State
of North Carolina, the proceeds go directly to the New Hanover County government.
The tax rate is $.50 for each $500 of the sale price. This tax will be treated as a one-
time revenue and will be applied toward the projected number of housing units and non-
residential square feet added in year 2010 of the fiscal impact analysis.
D. One -Half Cent Sales Tax Fund
Sales Tax includes two local option half -cent sales taxes. The taxes are
collected by the State of North Carolina on retail sales or leases of tangible personal
- property. These funds are returned to the County by the State. North Carolina Statutes
irequire that 30 percent of Article 40 and 60 percent of Article 42 taxes be used for
County public school capital expenditures. In FY98, the undesignated portions of these
revenues have been transferred to the Environmental Fund and Water and Sewer
District. For purposes of the fiscal analysis, it is assumed that the restricted portions of
these revenues are used to retire School bonded debt. It is further assumed that the
unrestricted portions continue to be designated for Water and Sewer Fund and
Environmental Fund activities and are therefore not available for General Fund
activities. A retail square footage projection methodology will be used for each of the
sales tax revenue sources. This methodology utilizes information contained in Dollars &
Cents of Shopping Centers, published by the Urban Land Institute, and assumes that
every additional square foot of retail space added in the County generates sales of
$191.63 annually (A neighborhood scale shopping center prototype was assumed).
E. Beer and Wine Tax
Beer and Wine Tax is an excise tax levied by the State on the sale of beer and
wine at the wholesale level. Counties and cities, in which beverages are sold and
45 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
taxed, may share in the proceeds of the tax on a per capita basis. This revenue source
totals $274 000 in FY98 and isj projected to increa
se ase with population. The FY98
revenue total is divided by the 1997 population estimate of 149,211, for a per capita
increase of $1.84.
F. Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Revenues
1. 5-Cent Bottle Charge
The 5-cent per bottle revenue is turned over by the County to Southeastern
Center and .must be spent for alcohol abuse treatment or research. This revenue
source totals $66,000 in FY98. Since this is essentially a "pass through" revenue, it will
not be factored in the fiscal analysis.
2. Other ABC Revenues
Other ABC revenues consist of the following ABC charges: (1) 3.5 percent add -
on, (2) additional 5-cent per bottle, and (3) mixed beverage (liquor by the drink). The
County also receives distribution of ABC net profits. The FY98 total for these revenue
sources is $846,100 and is projected to increase with population. The FY98 revenue
total is divided by the 1997 population estimate of 149,211, for a per capita increase of
$5.67.
G. Cable Franchise Fees
This revenue source is a franchise fee that is charged to each cable television
account in the County. The FY98 revenue total amounts to $334,000, which is
expected to increase with additional residential development. The FY98 revenue total is
divided by the FY98 dwelling unit estimate of 60,894, for a per dwelling increase of
$5.48.
H. Intergovernmental Revenue
Several departments offset a portion of their operating expenditures with grants
and transfers from Federal and State Governments. This revenue source totals
$21,827,280 in FY98. For purposes of the fiscal impact analysis, these revenues have
been netted out of the appropriate operating budgets.
46 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
I. User Fees
IW are fees charged to direct users of selected County services.
User Fees g
Examples of these fees include Library fines, Inspection fees, Dog and Cat License
fees, etc. For purposes of the fiscal impact analysis, these Fees are netted out of the
appropriate operating budget.
J. Intangibles Tax
The Intangibles Tax is a hold harmless reimbursement paid by the State to the
County to replace tax revenues lost from the 1995 repeal of the North Carolina
Intangibles Tax. The FY98 revenue includes $2,430,000 for intangibles reimbursement
and $2,000,000 in tax, based on prior years actual receipts. The $2,430,000
reimbursement will remain fixed in the fiscal impact analysis while the $2,000,000 tax
revenue is anticipated to increase with additional employment. The FY98 variable
amount of $2,000,000 is divided by the 1997 employment estimate of 58,540, for a per
employee increase of $34.16
0 K. Other General Government Revenues
•
These revenues include Food Stamp Sales Tax Reimbursement, Sale of Fixed
Assets, Rental Income, Tax Collection Fees, Marriage License Fees, etc. These
revenues total $1,659,754 in FY98 and are projected to increase with population,
although at a semivariable rate estimated at 25%. The FY98 revenue total is multiplied
times 25% and then divided by the 1997 population estimate of 149,211, for a partial
per capita increase of $2.78.
L. Interest on Investments
This revenue source is interest earned on County funds invested. According to
North Carolina laws, to maximize the return between the time funds are collected and
used. This revenue source totals $1,900,000 in FY98. For purposes of the fiscal
impact analysis, this revenue is assumed to remain the same percentage of property tax
revenues in 2010 (2.0%) as it is in FY98.
47 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
M. Appropriated Fund Balance
•
In accordance with the Local Government Fiscal Control Act, the County may
use some unexpended funds from previous years to balance the budget. This revenue
source totals $156,325 in FY98 and will remain fixed in the fiscal impact analysis.
•
0
48 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Revenue
Allocation
Amount
A.
Ad Valorem Tax
Market Value
$0.665 per $100
value
B.
Ad Valorem Interest
Not factored
See text
C.
Real Properly Transfer Tax
Market Value
$0.50 per $500
D.
One -Half Cent Sales Tax Fund
Square feet
$172.58
E.
Beer and Wine Tax
Per capita
$1.84
F.
ABC Revenues
1. 5 Cent Bottle Charge
Not factored
See text
2. Other ABC Revenues
Per capita
$5.67
G.
Cable Franchise Fees
Per Unit
$5.48
H.
Intergovernmental Revenue
Net out
N/A
I.
User Fees
Net out
N/A
J.
Intangibles Tax
Per employee
$34.16
K.
Other General Government Revenues
Per capita
$2.78
L.
Interest of Investments
% of budget
2.0%
M.
Appropriated Fund Balance
Fixed
•
49 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
8. NEW HANOVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
Fire protection in the unincorporated portion of New Hanover County is provided
by the Special Fire District Fund. This Fund is a special revenue fund used to account
for a special tax in New Hanover County's Fire District. This District was established in
1986 to provide funds to volunteer fire departments in the unincorporated areas of the
County. The Fire District property tax rate for property owners within the service district
is $2.5 cents per $100 value. The Fire Services Administration conducts activities
involving fire prevention, code enforcement, fire safety education, fire scene
investigation, and coordinates the contractual fire protection services of volunteer fire
departments.
A. Impact on Volunteer Fire Departments
1. Fire District Revenue Loss
a. Phase I Annexation Area
The tax valuation of the property to be annexed is $1,056,953,052. Annexation
of this property will result in annual property tax revenue loss of $264,238 to the New
Hanover County Fire District, assuming a tax rate of $2.5 cents.
b. Phase II Annexation Area
The tax valuation of the property to be annexed is $589,476,123. Annexation of
this property will result in annual property tax revenue loss of $147,369 to the New
Hanover County Fire District, assuming a tax rate of $2.5 cents.
c Phase III Annexation Area
The tax valuation of the property to be annexed is $535,353,211. Annexation of
this property will result in annual property tax revenue loss of $133,838 to the New
Hanover County Fire District, assuming a tax rate of $2.5 cents.
d. Urban County
The tax valuation of the property to be annexed is $1,062,753,299. Annexation
of this property will result in annual property tax revenue loss of $265,688 to the New
Hanover County Fire District, assuming a tax rate of $2.5 cents.
•
50 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
•
2. Supplemental Service Contracts
According to North Carolina State Law, when a City annexes County land it must
either contract with the County volunteer fire departments in an annexation area to
provide supplemental services to the annexed area or be responsible for paying a
proportionate share of the current department debt. For purposes of the fiscal analysis,
it is assumed that the City enters into supplemental service contracts. The table below
shows the estimated annual contract amounts for each area and the year the contract
begins. The Phase I and II annexation studies provide estimates for the annual
amounts of these contracts. The contract amounts for the Phase I and II areas are
used as proxies for the Phase III and Urban portions of the County.
4
Volunteer Fire Supplemental Service Contract
Revenue
Area
Year
Cost
Phase I Annexation
1998
$132,706
Phase II Annexation
1998
$74,540
Phase III Annexation
1998
$132,706
Urban Count
2010
$207,246
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
The New Hanover County Water and Sewer District was established in 1983.
The District includes all unincorporated areas within New Hanover County.
Approximately 70,000 people live in the District's service area. The District currently
provides service to approximately 20,800 customers (residential and commercial). The
FY98 budget for the District totals $9,478,233. For reasons documented in a separate
memo entitled "City/County Sewer and Water Issues", this enterprise fund is not
reflected in the fiscal impact analysis. This memorandum can be found in Appendix II of
this document.
51
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
10. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FUND
The Environmental Management Fund is used to account for the operations of
the County Landfill. Environmental Management operations total $12,439,493 in FY98
and are funded primarily through tipping fees. In FY98 the County General Fund
contributed $2.8 million to this Fund. If legislation is enacted to permitting governments
to mandate use of specific disposal sites for local solid waste, this General Fund
transfer will not be necessary. Based on conversations had with City and County staff
regarding this activity, it was decided not to factor this fund in the fiscal analysis, given it
is an enterprise fund operation.
•
52 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
• 111. URBAN SERVICE AREA
For the Urban service area, the fiscal analysis will measure the cost of providing
a City level of service to the City and the Phase I, II, and III annexation areas in 1998.
For 2010, the fiscal analysis will also measure the cost of providing a City level of
service to the Urbanized portion of the County. The City's revenue structure will be
used where City costs are used.
1. GENERAL GOVERNMENT
A. City Council
The seven -member City Council is the official legislative and policy -making body
of the City of Wilmington. The FY98 budget for the City Council is $131,230. According
to the Annexation Studies prepared by the City, additional population and employment
growth is not anticipated to substantially impact this budget. This budget will remain
fixed in the fiscal impact analysis.
B. City Clerk
Appointed by the City Council to a two-year term, the City Clerk acts as official
record keeper for the City. The City Clerk records minutes of all Council meetings,
certifies ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council, maintains files of deed
and contractual transactions, manages the codification of ordinances, as well as many
other duties. The FY98 budget for the City Clerk is $92,960. As is the case with the
City Council, this budget will remain fixed in the fiscal impact analysis.
C. City Manager
The City Manager directs and coordinates the services delivered by City
agencies. The FY98 budget for this Department totals $540,440. It is estimated, based
on the Annexation Studies prepared by the City, that a Program Specialist, at a cost of
$32,980, is needed to serve as a public information officer for the City. In addition,
operating costs are expected to increase by an additional $1,000. These costs will be
direct entered into the fiscal impact model.
le
53 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
D. City Attorney
The City Attorney's Office represents the City in all suits for and in behalf of the
City. The City Attorney also represents the City in administrative proceedings with other
governmental agencies relating to unemployment compensation, employment claims,
environmental issues and other matters. The FY98 budget for this Department totals
$374,040. It is estimated, based on the Annexation Studies prepared by the City, that
one additional Paralegal, at a cost of $34,720, will be needed to assist with acquisition
of property as needed for extending City services in Phase I area. Operating costs are
projected to increase by an additional $12,500. This cost will be used as a proxy for the
Phase III area and Urban County, respectively. These costs will be directly entered into
the fiscal impact model.
cityAttorne
Costs to 2010
Area
Year
Cost
Phase I Annexation
1998
$47,220
Phase II Annexation
1998
N/A
Phase III Annexation
1998
$47,220
Urban County
2010 1
$47,220
Source: City of Wilmington Annexation Studies/City Staff
E. Human Resource Management
The Office of Human Resource Management provides comprehensive services
to all City departments to support effective management of the workforce. Functional
areas include recruitment, classification, compensation, and benefits administration,
personnel record management, training and employee relations. The FY98 budget for
this Department totals $392,900. It is estimated, based on the Annexation Studies
prepared by the City and conversations with City`staff, that two Personnel Analysts, at a
cost of $35,080, will be needed to support the additional personnel associated with
providing City services to the Phase I and II areas. Operating costs are projected to
increase by an additional $6,000. These costs are projected to be incurred again to
provide service in the Phase III area and Urban County. These costs will be direct
entered into the fiscal impact model.
54 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•
•

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
•
Human Resource Mana ement Costs to 2010
Area
Year
Cost
Phase I Annexation
1998
$41,080
Phase II Annexation
1998
N/A
Phase III Annexation
1998
$41,080
Urban County 1
2010
1 $41,080
Source: City of Wilmington Annexation Studies/City
Staff
F. Finance
The Finance Department supports all City operations through the accounting and
payroll systems. The Finance Department is responsible for compliance to laws
governing the City's fiscal practices and for financial reporting related to statutory
requirements and generally accepted accounting principles. The FY98 budget for this
Department totals $1,410,090. It is estimated, based on the Annexation Studies
prepared by the City and conversations with City staff, that an Account Clerk and
Customer Service Clerk, at a cost $82,340, will be needed in each annexation area and
the urban county, primarily to provide billing and collection services for the new water
and sewer customers.. Operating costs are projected to increase by an additional
$100,000 in each area, primarily due to increased tax collection costs. These costs will
be direct entered into the fiscal impact model.
CityFinance Costs to 2010
Area
Year
Cost
Phase I Annexation
1998
$182,340
Phase II Annexation
1998
$182,340
Phase III Annexation
1998
$182,340
Urban County
1 2010
$182,340
Source: City of Wilmington Annexation Studies/City
Staff
G. Administrative Services
Administrative Services is comprised of three divisions: Budget, Management
Information Systems, and Central Services. The Budget Division prepares and
monitors the annual City budget, providing financial forecasts and other management
analyses. The Management Information Systems Division provides data processing
services through mainframe and personal computer systems. The Central Services
Division includes centralized purchasing, contracting, and warehousing functions, as
55 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
well as management, maintenance, and replacement of the City's fleet of vehicles and
other rolling stock. The FY98 Budget for this Department totals $1 326 890. It is
9 p
estimated, based on the Annexation Studies prepared by the City and conversations
with City staff, that Phase I annexation will increase operating costs by $54,998 as a
result of the need for one Computer Specialist ($27,030), and one Automotive Mechanic
($22,968), and operating costs of $5,000. Phase II annexation is expected to increase
operating costs by $22,882 (one Clerk Typist at $18,782 and operating costs of $4,100).
Phase I and II costs will be used as a proxies for the Phase III area and the urban
County. These costs will be directly entered into the fiscal impact model.
Administrative Services Costs to 2010
Area
Year
Cost
Phase I Annexation
1998
$54,998
Phase 11 Annexation
1998
$22,882
Phase III Annexation
1998
$54,998
Urban County
1 20101
$22,882
Source: City of Wilmington Annexation Studies/City Staff
H. Development Services
The level of activity in Development Services will continue to increase as the
Wilmington area grows. The Department will meet this demand through improved
customer service, expanded use of computer technology and streamlined department
operations. The creation, of the Development Review Division in FY99 combines all of
the development related functions within one unit. These functions were Dreviousiv
spread across the three existing divisions. Key features of this new unit include the
Development Center, offering one -stop shopping for development activities and Project
Specialists to track developments throughout the process.
1. Planning
The Planning Division mission is to work with citizens to provide positive,
comprehensive, and visionary community planning assistance to improve the quality of
life in the City. The Division provides staff support to City Boards and Commissions,
including the City Council, Planning Commission, Historic District Commission and
Board of Adjustment. In addition, the Division provides long range planning assistance
to the community. The FY98 Budget for this Division is $691,150. It is estimated,
based on the Annexation Studies prepared by the City and conversations with City staff, •
56 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
1 that Phase 1 annexation will increase operating costs by $91,900, as a result of the need
for an additional Planner II ($31,975), Code Enforcement Officer ($29,375), Clerk Typist
($18,775) and operating costs of $7,700. It is estimated that Phase II annexation will
increase operating costs by $32,343, as a result of the need for an additional Planner.
Phase I annexation costs will be used as a proxy for the Phase III and Urban County
areas, respectively. These costs will be directly entered into the fiscal impact model.
Pla
ning Costs to 2010
Area
Year
Cost
Phase I Annexation
1998
$91,900
Phase II Annexation
1998
$32,343
Phase III Annexation
1998
$91,900
Urban County
20101
$91,900
Source: City of Wilmington Annexation Studies/City
Staff
2. Engineering
The Engineering Division provides design and construction management for
capital projects, administers a stormwater management program, and reviews
subdivision plans. The FY98 budget for this Division totals $1,212,120. It is estimated,
based on the Annexation Studies prepared by the City and conversations with City staff,
that Phase I annexation will increase operating costs by $166,700, as a result of the
need for one Transportation Planner ($30,360), two Engineer Technicians ($53,720),
one Construction Inspector ($26,860), one Clerk Typist ($19,760) and operating costs of
$36,000 to support the additional Engineering activities associated with providing City
services to new areas. It is estimated that Phase II annexation will increase operating
costs by $203,019, as a result of the need for an two Engineers ($75,831), two
surveyors ($53,180), a Construction Inspector ($28,608) and operating costs of
$45,400. Phase 1 and 11 annexation costs will be used as proxies for the Phase III and
Urban County areas, respectively. These costs will be directly entered into the fiscal
impact model.
En i eering Costs to 2010
Area
Year
Cost
Phase I Annexation
1998
$166,700
Phase II Annexation
1998
$203,019
Phase III Annexation
1998
$166,700
Urban County
1 2010
$203,019
Source: City of Wilmington Annexation Studies/City
Staff
57 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
3. Community Development
The Community Development Division provides code enforcement,
neighborhood improvement and housing programs to City residents. The FY98 budget
totals $771,830. It is estimated, based on the Annexation Studies prepared by the City
and conversations with City staff, that Phase l annexation will not result in additional
operating costs for the City. It is estimated that the Phase II annexation area will
increase City operating costs by $50,993, as a result of the need for one Code
Enforcement Officer ($32,343) and operating costs of $18,650. Operating costs are
projected to increase by an additional $18,650. Phase 1 and 11 annexation costs will be
used as proxies for the Phase III and Urban County areas, respectively. These costs
will be direct entered into the fiscal impact model.
Community
Development Costs to 2010
Area
Year
Cost
Phase I Annexation
1998
N/A
Phase II Annexation
1998
$50,993
Phase III Annexation
1998
N/A
Urban County
2010
1 $50,993
Source: City of Wilmington Annexation Studies/City Staff
I. Sundry Appropriations
1. Non -Departmental
This budget covers miscellaneous City expenditures for items such as expenses
for City memberships in professional organizations, cost of the annual audit, City
contributions for medical insurance for retirees, and allowance for continuing costs of
cleanup of waste sites, as may be required by EPA. These expenditures total $432,060
in FY98 and are not expected to be impacted by growth. Therefore, this budget will
remain fixed in the fiscal impact analysis.
2 Payment to Other Agencies
The City provides funding to outside agencies whom provide services consistent
with the City's objectives. This leveraging of dollars with volunteer efforts and other
revenue sources increases the community services offered to citizens. The FY98
budget for these contributions total $534,010. As the population increases in the City,
so too will contributions to other agencies, in order to maintain the current level of
58 Tischler & Associates,. Inc.
•
0

s
Level of Service,. Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
service. The FY98 budget of $534,010 is divided by the 1997 population estimate of
64,164, for a per capita cost of $8.32.
59 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
-�3
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Activity Allocation Amount
A.
City Council
Fixed
N/A
B.
City Clerk
Fixed
N/A
C.
City Manager
Fixed
N/A
D.
City Attorney
Direct entry
See text
E.
Human Resource Management
Direct entry
See text
F.
Finance
Direct entry
See text
G.
Administrative Services
Direct entry
See text
H.
Development Service
1. Planning
Direct entry
See text
2. Engineering
Direct entry
See text
3. Community Development
Direct entry
See text
I. Sundry Appropriations
1. Non -Departmental
Fixed
N/A
2. Payments to Other Agencies
Per capita
$8.32
7_1
60 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
2. POLICE
The Wilmington Police Department utilizes community -policing tactics to promote
safe neighborhoods and reduce the fear of crime. The Police Department is structured
in four divisions: Administration, Criminal Investigations, Community Policing, and
Support Services. As part of the Phase I and II Annexation Studies prepared by the
City of Wilmington, the cost to extend Police service was evaluated. In these studies,
the present level of service for Patrol and Investigation activities was reflected in sworn
officers per 1,000 residents. For these functions, TA has utilized a methodology that
projects costs by type of land use, using trip generation rates and calls for service
information. This methodology provides a more accurate picture of the present cost
structure. For example, if the City were to lose population over a 5-year time period and
at the same time capture substantial nonresidential square footage, a sworn officer per
1,000 population methodology would not reflect the cost to serve the increase in
nonresidential activity.
A. Operating Costs
Based on the FY98 budget, the Police Department budget is divided into the
following four divisions: 1) Administration, 2) Support Services, 3) Community Policing,
and 4) Criminal Investigations. The table below shows the FY98 operating costs and
percentage for each division.
FY98 Police Department Budget
City of Wilmington
Division
Budget
Percent
Administration
$567,000
6%
Support Services
$1,784,070
20%
Community Policing
$4,954,340
54%
Criminal Investigations
$1,811,440
2000
$9,116,850
100%
1. Administration Division
The Administration Division is responsible for the overall management of the
department and also houses the professional standards and community relations
functions. Other activities include training, crime prevention programs, the DARE
61 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
program internal investigations and career development activities. The FY98 budget for
this Division totals $567,000. As the population and employment of the City grows, so
too will this Division's budget, although on a partial cost basis, estimated at 50%, as this
Division will have to increase its community relations and crime prevention programs.
Therefore the FY98 budget is divided by the 1997 population and employment estimate
of 97,592 and is then multiplied by 50%, for a per capita and job cost of $2.90.
2. Support Services Division
The Support Services Division is responsible for the management of police
records, property, and evidence. The Division also handles budget, personnel, and
purchasing functions of the Police Department. The FY98 budget for this Division totals
$1,784,070. Since this Division is primarily administrative, costs are expected although
on a partial cost basis estimated at 25%. The FY98 budget is multiplied by 25% and is
then divided by the 1997 population and employment estimate of 97,592, for a per
capita and employee increase of $4.57.
3. Community Policing Division
The Community Policing Division is the patrol function of the Police Department
and emphasizes a neighborhood based approach through the use of four Neighborhood
Area Base Stations (NABS). There are currently 167 officers performing patrol
activities. The Community Policing budget will increase based on calls for service. The
table below contains breaking and entering calls for service for 1996. These calls for
service are the only ones that could be provided based on residential versus
nonresidential location. The 60% residential/40% nonresidential distribution is assumed
to be an accurate proxy for overall calls for service in the City.
Calls for Service, 1996
Wilmington. North Carolina
Location
Calls
Percent
Residential
Nonresidential
931
629
60%
40%
Total
1,560
100%
Source: City of Wilmington Police Department
The table below breaks out the residential portion (60%) of the Community
Policing Division budget based on calls for service. The residential portion is then
divided by the existing population and then multiplied by the household size by type of
62 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•
•

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
0 _"N
unit to obtain a cost per unit factor. This factor will then be used to project growth
related costs.
Community Policing Residential Land Use Factors
City of Wilmington Police Department
FY98 Budget
$4,964,340
Existing Pop.
Residential Portion (60%)*
$2,972,604
Per Capita Cost
Household
Cost per
Land Use
Size**
Unit
Single Family
2.50
$115.82
Duplex/Townhouse
2.26
$104.70
Apartment
1.87
$86.63
Mobile Homes
2.04
$94.51
*Based on calls for service data provided by the Police Department
"Based on an analysis of 1990 Census Data
64,164
$46.33
The nonresidential methodology allocates the nonresidential portion (40%) of the
Community Policing Division budget, which totals $1,981,736. The nonresidential
portion of the budget is allocated by type of nonresidential land use. Since specific
records for calls for service by land use type is not available, trips by type of
nonresidential land use are utilized as a realistic proxy. This methodology indicates that
the greatest calls for service on a per square foot basis are for retail, then office and
then flex. The table below summarizes the nonresidential vehicle trips on an average
weekday in the City of Wilmington.
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday
Wilmington, North Carolina
Nonresidential Gross Floor Area (Sq. Ft. x 1, 000)
Retail/Shopping Center
Office
Flex
Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Ends per 1, 000 Sq. Ft.
Retail/Shopping Center
Office
Flex
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday
Retail/Shopping Center
Office
Flex
Total
7,408
2,563
2,637
53.22
15.59
3.82
126,161
19,979
5,037
151,176
*Trip Rates are from Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997. Trip rates assume
community scale shopping center in the 200,000 sq. ft. range, office in the 50,000 sq. ft. range and
manufacturing.
Trip Factors I
63 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends are from the reference book, Trip
Generation, published b the Institute of Transportation
p Y p n Engineers (6th Edition, 1997).
A "trip end" represents a vehicle either entering or exiting a development. Trip rates
have been adjusted to avoid over estimating the number of actual trips because one
vehicle trip is counted in the trip rates of both the origination and destination points. A
simple factor of 50% has been applied to Office and Flex categories. The
Retail/Shopping Center category has a trip factor of less than 50% because this type of
development attracts vehicles as they pass -by on arterial and collector roads. For
example, when someone stops at a convenience store on their way home from work,.
the convenience store is not their primary destination. The ITE manual indicates that on
average 37% of the vehicles entering shopping centers are passing by on the way to
some other primary destination and 63% of the attraction trips have the shopping
centers as their primary destination. Therefore, the adjusted trip factor is 32% (0.63 x
0.50).
Based on the 151,176 average daily trips and the nonresidential operating
cost for Community Policing of $1,981,736 (40% of $4,954,340), the operating cost per
nonresidential vehicle trip is $13.11. This level of service standard is then multiplied by
the associated nonresidential trip ends and trip factors to derive the nonresidential
factor increase due to new growth for the Community Policing Division.
Nonresidential Land Use Factors for Community Policing Division Operating Costs
Wilmington, North Carolina
Nonresidential Weekday Vehicle Trips per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Standards Trip Factors
Retail/Shopping Center 53.22 32%
Office 15.59 50%
Flex 3.82 50%
Level of Service Standards
Nonresidential Operating Costs (40% x $4,954,340) $1,981,736
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips 151,176
Operating Cost per Vehicle Trip $13.11
Operating Costs Per 1,000 sq. ft. Per Employee*
Retail/Shopping Center $223.25 $89.30
Office $102.18 $26.06
Flex $25.04 $13.60
*Based on 400 square feet per retail employee, 255 square feet per office employee and 543 square feet per
flex employee
•
64 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
4. Criminal Investigations Division
• Criminal Investigations Division investigates all crimes and targets career
The Cnm na
criminals in the community. The FY98 operating expenses for the Criminal
Investigations Division totals $1,811,440; Since investigations are related to calls for
service, as calls increase, investigations can be expected to increase proportionately.
'The table below breaks out the residential portion (60%) of the Criminal Investigations
Division budget based on calls for service. The residential portion is then divided by the
existing population and then multiplied by the household size by type of unit to obtain a
cost per unit factor. This factor will then be used to project growth related costs.
Criminal Investigations Residential Land Use Factors
City of Wilmington Police Department
FY98 Budget $1,811,440
Existing Pop. 64,164
Residential Portion (60%)* $1,086,864
Per Capita Cost $16.94
Household
Cost per
Land Use Size**
Unit
Single Family 2.50
$42.35
Duplex/Townhouse 2.26
$38.28
Apartment 1.87
$31.68
Mobile Homes 2.04
OJ
$34.56
Based on calls for service data provided by the
Police Department
"Based on an analysis of 1990 Census Data
s
The nonresidential methodology allocates the nonresidential portion (40%) of the
Criminal Investigations Division budget, which totals $724,576. As was the case for the
Community Policing Division, the nonresidential portion of the budget is allocated by
type of nonresidential land use. This methodology indicates that the greatest calls for
service on a per square foot basis are for retail, then office and the flex/industrial. The
table below summarizes the nonresidential vehicle trips on an average weekday in the
City of Wilmington.
65 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday
Wilmington, North Carolina
Nonresidential Gross Floor Area (Sq. Ft. x 1, 000)
Retail/Shopping Center
Office
Flex
Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Ends per 1, 000 Sq. Ft.*
Retail/Shopping Center
Office
Flex
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips on an Average Weekday
Retail/Shopping Center
Office
Flex
Total
7,408
2,563
2,637
53.22
15.59
3.82
126,161
19,979
5,037
151,176
*Trip Rates are from Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997. Trip rates assume
community scale shopping center in the 200,000 sq. ft. range, office in the 50,000 sq. ft. range and
manufacturing.
Trip Factors
Based on the 151,176 average daily trips and the nonresidential operating cost
for Criminal Investigations of $724,576 (40% of $1,811,440), the operating cost per
nonresidential vehicle trip is $4.79. This level of service standard is then multiplied by
the associated nonresidential trip ends and trip factors to derive the nonresidential
factor increase due to new growth for the Criminal Investigations Division.
Nonresidential Land Use Factors for Criminal Investigations Division Operating Costs
Wilmington, North Carolina
Nonresidential Weekday Vehicle Trips per 1, 000 Sq. Ft.
Standards TO Factors
Retail/Shopping Center
53.22
32%
Office
15.59
50%
Flex
3.82
50%
Level of Service Standards
Nonresidential Operating Costs (40% x $1,811,440)
$724,576
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips
151,176
Operating Cost per Vehicle Trip
$4.79
Operating Costs
Per 1,000 sq. ft.
Per Employee*
Retail/Shopping Center
$81.63
$32.65
Office
$37.36
$9.53
Flex
$9.15
$4.97
*Based on 400 square feet per retail employee, 255 square feet per office employee and 543 square feet per
flex employee
66 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•
•

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors
Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
B. Capital Costs
1. Headquarters
The Police Department presently operates out of a central Headquarters, located
in downtown Wilmington and four Neighborhood Area Base Stations (NABS). The
Headquarters is located in an old building in need of repairs. The Department is not
presently utilizing the entire building. TA is told that a Space Needs Analysis is being
conducted to determine Police space needs in the future. However, TA is of the opinion
that any capital investment in Police Headquarters space is not necessitated by new
growth, rather it is a reaction to the antiquated facility the Department is now utilizing.
Therefore there is no capital cost associated with this facility.
2. Neighborhood Area Base Stations
As part of the Departments community policing efforts, four Neighborhood Area
Base Stations (NABS) have been established. These base stations are essentially
office trailers that allow Officers a place to catch up on paperwork, make phone calls, as
well as establish a Police presence in the neighborhood. These NABS have an
estimated capital cost of $12,000 and have been paid for through grant money.
Additional NABS are planned in the annexation areas and will be required in the Urban
County. A cost of $12,000 is assumed in the analysis for a NABS in each of the
annexation areas and.two in the Urban County.
3. Patrol Officer Equipment
The table below shows all the one-time costs associated with a new patrol officer
added to the Police Department. These costs include radio and related equipment,
weapon and ammunition, as well as uniforms and related equipment.
67
One -Time Capital Cost Per Patrol Officer
City of Wilmington Police Department
Item
Cost
Radio Equipment
$835
Service Weapon
$422
Ammunition
$63
UniformsNest
$1,636
Equipment
$720
Total
$3,676
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
The table below shows the capital costs associated with the purchase of a new
patrol vehicle for the City of Wilmington Police Department. The City currently has 100
vehicles for 167 sworn officers. This is a ratio of 1 vehicle for every 1.67 sworn officers.
Vehicles are assumed to have a useful life of five years.
Vehicle Capital Costs
amity of vvnmington vouce uepartment
Item
Cost
4 Door Sedan
$21,000
Blue Light Bar
$625
Siren Speaker
$170
Switch Box
$60
Siren
$190
Communication Rail
$60
Seat Cover
$90
Security Screen
$170
Decal Kit
$190
Mobile Radio
$710
Fire Extinguisher
$13
Installation Costs
$400
Total
$23,678 j
According to the most recent information (1997) provided by the Police
Department, the City received 100,068 calls for service in 1997. When this is compared
to the 1997 population and employment total in the City of 97,592, there were 1.03 calls
for service for every resident and job in the City. Given the current 167 sworn police
officers, there is an average of 599 calls for service per officer. Therefore, for purposes
of the fiscal impact analysis, a new patrol officer with an associated one-time capital
cost of $3,676 will be incurred by the City for each additional 599 calls for service. In
addition, for every 1.67 officers a capital cost of $23,678 will be incurred by the City for
a patrol vehicle with a useful life of three years.
68 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•
•
is

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
POLICE
k
Activit
Allocation
Amount
A. Operating Costs
1. Administration
Partial per capita
$2.90
2. Support Services
Per capita/emp.
$4.57
3. Community Policing
Per res. unit/nonres. trip
See text
4. Criminal Investigations
Per res. unit/nonres. trip
See text
B. Capital Costs
1. Headquarters
N/A
N/A
2. Neighborhood Base Stations
Direct entry
$12,000
3. Patrol Officer Equipment
Direct entry
See text
69 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
3. FIRE
A. Operating Costs
Based on the FY98 budget, the Fire Department budget is divided into the
following five divisions: 1) Administration, 2) Support Services, 3) Fire
Prevention/Investigations, 4) Firefighting, and 5) Hazardous Materials. The table below
shows the FY98 operating costs and percentage for each division.
FY98 Fire Department Budget
City of Wilmington
Division
Budget
Percent
Administration
$92,250
2%
Support Services
$516,500
9%
Fire Prevention/Investigatior
$225,840
4%
Firefighting
$5,110,040
85%
Hazardous Materials
$72,700
1 %
$6,017,330
100%
1. Administration Division
The Administration Division is responsible for the overall management of the S
Department. The City of Wilmington Fire Department estimates the following increases
in administrative costs. In the Phase I Annexation area, a Secretary will be required, at
an annual cost of $21,750. No increase in administrative costs are projected for the
Phase II and III annexation areas. Phase I annexation costs will be used as a proxy for
the Urban County. These costs will be directly entered into the fiscal model.
Administration Costs to 2010
Area
Year
Cost
Phase I Annexation
.1998
$21,750
Phase II Annexation
1998
N/A
Phase III Annexation
1998
N/A
Urban County
1 2010
1 $21,750
Source: City of Wilmington Fire Department
2. Support Services
The Support Services Division provides equipment maintenance and training
functions for the Department. In the Phase I area, the Fire Department estimates that it
will incur an additional $176,000 in annual operating costs. In the Phase II area, an
70 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
increase in annual operating costs of $176,000 is anticipated. In the Phase III area, it
estimated that an additional Training Officer and Equipment Mechanic will be needed, at
an annual cost of $59,750, as well as an additional $176,000 in annual operating costs.
Phase 1 annexation costs will be used as a proxy for the Urban County. These costs
will be direct entered into the fiscal impact model.
Support Services Costs to 2010
Area
Year
Cost
Phase I Annexation
1998
$176,000
Phase II Annexation
1998
$176,000
Phase III Annexation
1998
$235,750
Urban County
2010
$176,000
Source: City of Wilmington Fire Department
3. Fire Prevention/Investigations
The Fire Prevention/Investigations Division inspects and permits all public
buildings and businesses for compliance with applicable building and fire safety codes.
This Division also investigates fires that are suspicious or involve injury, death, or a
large loss or property. In the Phase I area, the Fire Department estimates that it will
incur an additional $31,125 annually for an Inspector. No increase is expected for the
Phase II area. Phase I annexation costs will be used as a proxy for the Phase III area
and Urban County, respectfully. These costs will be direct entered into the fiscal impact
model..
Prevention/Investigations
Costs
to 2010
Area
Year
Cost
Phase 1 Annexation
1998
$31,125
Phase II Annexation
1998
N/A
Phase III Annexation
1,998
$31,125
Urban County
2010
$31,125
Source: City of Wilmington Fire Department
4. Firefighting Division
The Firefighting Division responds to fire calls and serves as a first responder for
other emergencies. Firefighting operates from six fire stations located throughout
Wilmington. In the Phase I area, the Fire Department estimates that it will incur an
additional $1,143,525 annually for 39 additional firefighting personnel. In the Phase II
71 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
and III areas, an additional cost of $684,250 will be incurred in each area for 24
firefighting personnel. Phase I annexation cos
g g p is will be used as a proxy for the Urban
County. These costs will be direct entered into the fiscal impact model.
Firefighting Costs to 2010
Area
Year
Cost
Phase I Annexation
1998
$1,143,525
Phase II Annexation
1998
$684,250
Phase III Annexation
1998
$684,250
Urban County
2010
1 $1,143,525
Source: City of Wilmington Fire Department
5. Hazardous Materials
The Hazardous Materials budget covers Departmental costs to respond to
hazardous materials incidents. The FY98 budget for this function is $72,700. This
budget is projected to increase with additional population and employment. The FY98
budget is divided by the 1997 population and employment estimate of 97,592, for a per
capita and employee cost of $0.74.
B. Impact on Volunteer Fire Departments
According to North Carolina State Law, the City has the option to enter into a
contract with volunteer fire departments in an annexation area to provide supplemental
services to the area. If the City chooses not to enter into a contract with the
departments, the City would be responsible for paying a proportionate share of the
current department debt. For purposes of the fiscal analysis, it is assumed that the City
enters into supplemental service contracts. The Phase I and II annexation studies
provide estimates for the annual amounts of these contracts. The contract amounts for
the Phase III and Urban County area was estimated using the required formula that
multiplies the assessed value by the Fire District's 2.5 cent tax rate and divides the
result by half. These amounts are shown in the table below.
Volunteer Fire Supplemental
Service
Costs
Area
Year
Cost
Phase I Annexation
1998
$132,706
Phase II Annexation
1998
$74,540
Phase III Annexation
1998
$66,919
Urban County
2010
$132,844
Source: City of Wilmington Fire Department
72 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•
•

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
C. Capital Costs
Capital cost for the extension of fire protection to the Phase I, II and III
annexation areas were provided by the City of Wilmington Fire Department.
1. Phase I Annexation Area
The Phase I Annexation Study calls for the construction of two additional Fire
stations in the annexation area. The total cost of the new stations, including land
acquisition, is estimated to be $2,000,000. This cost will be direct entered into the fiscal
impact model and is assumed to be financed through 20-year bonds at an interest rate
of 6%. The total cost of acquiring new equipment and vehicles is estimated at
$1,045,000. This purchase will be financed through a 5-year lease -purchase
arrangement.
2. Phase II Annexation
The Phase II Annexation study calls for the construction of two additional Fire
stations in the annexation area. The total cost of the new stations, including land
acquisition, is estimated to be $2,000,000. This cost will be directly entered into the
fiscal impact model and is assumed to be financed through 20-year bonds at an interest
rate of 6%. The total cost of acquiring new equipment and vehicles is estimated at
$550,000. This purchase will be financed through a 5-year lease -purchase
arrangement.
3. Phase III Annexation
The Fire Department estimates the need for an additional two stations in the
Phase III annexation area. The total cost of the new stations, including land acquisition,
is estimated to be $2,000,000. This cost will be direct entered into the fiscal impact
model and is assumed to be financed through 20-year bonds at an interest rate of 6%.
The total cost of acquiring new equipment and vehicles is estimated at $1,045,000.
This purchase will be financed through a 5-year lease -purchase arrangement.
4. Urban County
Lacking a detailed study regarding capital costs for stations and equipment to
serve the Urban County, the Phase I annexation area capital costs is used as a proxy.
73
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
Ca
ital Costs to 2010
Area
Year
Stations
Equipment
Total
Phase I Annexation
1998
$2,000,000
$1,045,000
$3,045,000
Phase II Annexation
1998
$2,000,000
$550,000
$2,550,000
Phase III Annexation
1998
$2,000,000
$1,045,000
$3,045,000
Urban County
2010
$2,000,000
1 $1,045,000
$3,045,000
Source: City of Wilmington Fire Department
•
74 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
FIRE
Activit
Allocation
Amount
A. Operating Costs
1. Administrative Division
Direct entry
See text
2. Support Services
Direct entry
See text
3. Fire Prevention/Investigations
Direct entry
See text
4. Firefighting
Direct entry
See text
5. Hazardous Materials
Pop. & emp.
$0.74
B. Impact on Volunteer Stations
Direct entry
See text
C. Capital Costs
1. Phase I Annexation
Direct entry
$3,045,000
2. Phase II Annexation
Direct entry
$2,550,000
3. Phase III Annexation
Direct entry
$3,045,000
4. Urban County
Direct entry
$3,045,000
75 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
4. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
A. Administration
The Administration Division is responsible for providing overall management of a
wide range of departmental activities, including the handling of telephone and visitor
inquiries, review of development plans for conformity with City regulations and providing
research and analytical support to the department. The FY98 budget for this Division
totals $368,880. According to the Annexation Studies prepared by the City, this Division
will need to add the following positions for the Phase I area: one Administrative
Assistant at $23,043, one Site Review Assistant at $23,043 and one Secretary at
$19,693, and $23,000 annually in additional operating expenses. In the Phase II area,
one Program Specialist at $33,964 is anticipated as well as an additional $10,000 in
operating expenses. The Phase 11 estimate will be used as a proxy for the Phase III
annexation area and Urban County, respectively. These costs will be directly entered
into the fiscal model.
7�
Public Service and Facilities -Administration
Costs
Area
Year
Cost
Phase I Annexation
1998
$88,779
Phase II Annexation
1998
$43,964
Phase III Annexation
1998
$43,964
Urban County
2010
$43,964
Source: _City of Wilmington Annexation Studies
B. Operations
1. Buildings and Facilities -Operating
The Buildings and Facilities Division provides emergency and preventative
maintenance to approximately 125 City -owned buildings and facilities used by City staff
and citizens. According to the Annexation Studies prepared by the City, there will be no
additional staff needed as a result of Phase I and Phase II annexations. These
assumptions will also be used for the Phase III and Urban County areas.
•
76 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
s
2. Buildings and Facilities -Capital
In order for the Public Services and Facilities Division to adequately provide
services to the annexation areas and Urban County, it will be necessary to construct a
new operations center to handle the increases staffing, equipment and supplies. This
center will cost $3,000,000 in FY99 and is assumed to be debt financed at an interest
rate of 6% and a term of 20 years.
3. Landscape and Parks
The Landscape and Parks Division is responsible for maintaining and improving
the City's park lands, open space and street trees. The FY98 budget for this Division
totals $1,282,180. According to the Annexation Studies prepared by the City, this
Division will need to add the following positions for the Phase I area: one Tree Crew
Chief at $23,100 annually and one Tree Trimmer at 21,350 annually, as well as an
additional $52,500 annually in operating expenses. In the Phase II area, two
Maintenance Mechanics/Operators at a combined $42,676 annually and 3 Maintenance
Workers at a combined $53,962 annually, as well as an additional $132,550 in annual
operating costs. The Phase I estimate will be used as a proxy for the rnase in
annexation area and Urban County, respectively. These costs will be direct entered into
the fiscal model
Public Service and Facilities -Landscape and Parks Costs
Area
Year
Cost
Phase I Annexation
1998
$96,950
Phase II Annexation
1998
$229,188
Phase III Annexation
1998
$96,950
Urban County
2010
$96,950
Source: City of Wilmington Annexation Studies
4. Stormwater
The City currently has 21.5 miles of open ditches and canals and 17 area -wide
retention ponds. The present operational budget, included in the Operation Division of
the Public Service and Facilities budget, covers ongoing activities including
maintenance, repairs, aquatic weed control, slope mowing, etc. However, as of July 1,
1998, this Program will be funded through a Stormwater Utility Fund. Stomwater
service fees are proposed as the primary source of revenue for this fund. This service
fee is based on impervious surface area and is proposed at $3.50 per month for single-
77 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
family residences. The fee for other uses is based on multiples of the residential fee,
depending on size of the impervious area. The current budget amount of 1 032 440
p 9 P 9 $ ,
used for stormwater activities will be netted out for purposes of the fiscal impact
analysis, as it is assumed to be covered by this new Utility Fund. There are costs the
City will have to pay to this fund due to growth. The City will pay the increase for
impervious surface from roads and sidewalks as well as City -owned buildings.
C. Transportation
1. Traffic Operation
The Public Services and Facilities Department provides preventive and routine
maintenance to paved and unpaved streets in the City. These activities include street
sweeping, shoulder and plaza stabilization, public hazard correction, street lighting, and
management of contracts for resurfacing streets and sidewalk repair.
Provision of Street and Traffic Operation maintenance services to the Phase 1
annexation area will require additions to the budget. A total of seven employees will be
added to existing crews at an estimated annual cost of $169,333. A bucket truck will be
purchased for the signal repair crew. The sign crew will have a utility truck and the road •
repair crew will utilize an asphalt patching truck and dump truck. Funds are also
provided for contracted street sweeping service and other operating costs, including the
rental of street lights. Annual operating expenditures are estimated at $258,000 and
initial capital expenditures are estimated at $365,000.
Provision of Street and Traffic Operation maintenance services to the Phase II
annexation area will require a total of seven employees to be added to existing crews to
provide these services at an estimated cost ,of $169,333. The sign crew will have a
utility truck and the street crew will require a pick up truck, a large truck, asphalt roller,
trailer, and backhoe. Funds are also provided for contracted street sweeping services
and for other operating costs, including the rental of street lights. Annual operating
expenditures are budgeted at $258,200. Initial equipment purchases and other capital
outlay are estimated at $287,310. Phase 1 operating costs will be used as a proxy for
the Phase III annexation area and Urban County, respectively. Phase I annexation
area capital costs will be used as a proxy for the Urban County and Phase 11 annexation •
78 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors . Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
s
area capital costs will be used as a proxy for the Phase III annexation area. These
costs will be direct entered into the fiscal impact model.
Street and Traffic Op eration Costs
Area
Year
Annual
O er. Costs
Capital
Costs
Phase I Annexation
1998
$427,333
$365,000
Phase II Annexation
1998
$427 533
$287 310
Phase III Annexation
1998
$427,333
$287,310
Urban County
2010
1 $427,5331
$365,000
Source: City of Wilmington Annexation Studies
- 2. Road Capital Costs
The State of North Carolina is responsible for constructing all thoroughfare
streets in the City of Wilmington and the private sector has responsibility for
participating in the construction of streets necessary to serve individual developments.
However, the City has funded the construction of non -local streets that were not in the
State Transportation Improvement Plan, sometimes with the participation of local
developers. The amount of funding the City has allocated for these types of
transportation projects has varied greatly over the years. However, it can be assumed
that this participation will continue in the future and will increase as the City's corporate
limits increase. Therefore, it will be assumed, based on discussions with the City
Planning staff, that the City will spend $500,000 annually on pay-as-you-go road
projects in each annexation area. In addition, there will be debt financed road capital
costs in each area. These amounts are shown in the table below. The City's cost for
sidewalks and bikeways are assumed to be captured in the capital costs below.
Road Ca ital Costs
Area
Year
Pay -As -You -Go
Debt Financed
Phase I Annexation
1998
$500,000
$6 000,000
Phase II Annexation
1998
$500,000
$7,000 000
Phase III Annexation
1998
$500,000
$7,000,000
Urban Count
2010
$500,000
$10,000,000
Source: City of Wilmington Planning Department
D. Solid Waste
The Public Services and Facilities Department provides refuse collection,
recycling, yard waste collection and bulky item removal through the Solid Waste
Management Fund. However, under the Public Services and Facilities General Fund
budget, there is a $226,490 budget for Solid Waste that covers the cost of collection
79 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
from public facilities, community level activities and dump site cleanups. The budget is
expected to increase with additional population growth. The FY budget contribution is is
P PP g 9
divided by the 1997 population estimate of 64,164, for a per capita cost of $3.53.
D. Recreation
1. Operating Costs
The Recreation Division manages a program of public recreation services,
including recreation centers, athletic leagues, and therapeutic and senior services.
According to the Annexation Studies prepared by the City, this Division will need to add
the following positions for the Phase I area: a Program Specialist at $32,980 annually,
as well as an additional $8,000 annually in operating costs. The Phase II area is not
projected to increase the operating budget. The Phase I estimate will be used as a
proxy for the Phase III annexation area and Urban County, respectively. These costs
will be direct entered into the fiscal model.
Public Service and Facilities -Recreation Costs
Area
Year
Cost
Phase I Annexation
1998
$40,980
Phase II Annexation
1998
N/A
Phase III Annexation
1998
$40,980
Urban County
1 2010
1 $40,980
Source: City of Wilmington Annexation Studies
2. Capital Costs
To estimate capital costs, TA will utilize a one-time capital cost per person
methodology. This methodology is being used since the City currently obtains the
majority of its park land through developer contributions, although this is generally
recognized as insufficient. The City has only'purchased 60 acres of park land over the
last 10 years. This cost $10 million and the City has budgeted $2 million for
improvements. A one-time capital cost per person is assumed to represent a proxy
cost, which will probably be used to develop a regional athletic complex on land the City
already owns.
. The City of Wilmington currently maintains approximately 250 acres of greenway
and park land. When this is compared to the 1997 population estimate of 64,164, the
resulting level of service standard is .004 acres per capita. The estimated development
80 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
•

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
•
cost per acre for a regional athletic area is $25,000 an acre. This translates into a
capital cost per person of $100.
81 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Activit
Allocation
Amount
A.
Administration
Direct entry
See text
B.
Operating Costs
1. Buildings & Facilities -Operating
Fixed
N/A
2. Buildings & Facilities -Capital
Direct entry
$3,00,000
3. Landscape & Parks
Fixed
N/A
4. Stormwater
NIA
See text
C.
Transportation
1. Operating Costs
Direct entry
See text
2. Road Capital Costs
Direct entry
See text
D.
Solid Waste
Per capita
$3.53
E.
Recreation
1. Operating Costs
Direct entry
See text
2. Capital Costs
One-time per capita
$100
•
82 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
i
5. GENERAL FUND REVENUES
A. Property Taxes
Property Tax is a tax on real property and vehicles based on the value of the
property as a marketable item. Real property includes land, buildings, and items
permanently affixed to land or buildings. A tax rate is established by the City Council for
each fiscal year. The current tax rate is $0.595 per $100 dollars of assessed value.
This rate changes every eight years during the valuation process. However, since this
fiscal impact analysis utilizes a "snapshot" approach, the current rate will be used. For
purposes of the fiscal impact analysis, a 100% tax rate is assumed. For the fiscal
impact analysis, TA's FISCALS software . will calculate property taxes from new
development by multiplying the tax and assessment rates by the average market
values. The average market values for new construction are shown in the table below.
Market Values of New Construction
rite of Wilminnfnn/Now HannvPr Cnunty
Unit
City
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
County
Single Family*
$146,862
$356,616
$222,738
$205,063
$159,398
Duplex/Townhome*
$93,712
$113,502
$113,502
$113,502
$143,120
Apartment**
$61,969
$61,969
$61,969
$61,969
$61,969
Retail (per sq. ft.)**
$71.38
$71.38
$71.38
$71.38
$67.36
Office (per sq. ft.)**
$67.94
$67.94
$67.94
$67.94
$64.28
Flex(per sq. ft.)**
$34.12
$34.12
$34.12
$34.12
$21.47
*Source: New Hanover County Board of Reaftors
**Source: Marshall & Swift Valuation Service
B. Penalty and Interest on Property Taxes
Interest on Property Taxes is charged for taxes not paid on time. This revenue
source totals $80,000 in FY98. Since a 100% collection rate is assumed for property
taxes, this revenue source will remain fixed in the fiscal impact analysis.
C. Sales Tax
1. Local Option Taxes
Sales Tax includes a 1-cent local option and two half -cent local option sales
taxes. The taxes are collected by the State of North Carolina on retail sales or leases of
tangible personal property and on the rental of hotel and motel rooms. A retail square
83 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
footage projection methodology will be used for each of the sales tax revenue sources.
This methodologyutilizes information contained in Dollars & Cents of Shopping•
Centers, published by the Urban Land Institute, and assumes that every additional
square foot of retail space added in the City generates sales of $172.58 annually (A
community scale shopping center prototype was assumed).
2. Room Occupancy Tax
The City collects room occupancy tax on hotel and motel room stays. This
revenue source totals $200,000 in FY98 and is given to the County. According to State
law, the County must use 60% of this revenue for beach erosion control and the
remaining 40% for tourism promotion. Therefore this revenue will not be factored in the
fiscal analysis.
D. Licenses, Fees and Permits
1. Privilege Licenses
Privilege License revenue is generated by the issuance of business licenses.
The FY98 revenue totals $795,000 and is projected to increase with employment
growth. The FY98 revenue amount is divided by the 1997 employment estimate of •
33,428, for a per employee increase of $23.78.
2. Motor Vehicle Licenses
Motor Vehicle License revenue totals $200,000 in FY98 and is projected to
increase with population growth in the City. The FY98 revenue total is divided by the
1997 population estimate of 64,164, for a per capita increase of $3.12.
3. Cable TV Franchise Fees
Cable TV Franchise Fee revenue is derived from monthly cable bills. The FY98
revenue totals $445,000 and is projected to increase with additional household growth
in the City. The FY98 revenue total is divided by the FY98 household estimate of
28,273, for a per household increase of $15.73.
4. Other Fees and Permits
The City also receives revenue from Fire Permits & Charges ($60,000),
Miscellaneous Permits ($10,000) and Stormwater Discharge Permits ($10,000). The
•
84 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
•
•
Stormwater Fee will be part of a Stormwater Enterprise fund next fiscal year and Fire
Permits and Miscellaneous Permits are expected to remain fixed sources of revenue.
E. Intergovernmental Revenues
1. Utility Franchise Tax
The Utility Franchise Tax is a revenue source generated from utility bills. This
revenue source totals $2,400,000 in FY98 and is expected to increase with population
and employment. The FY98 revenue total is divided by the 1997 population and
employment estimate of 97,592, for a per capita and job increase of $33.40.
2. Beer and Wine Tax
Beer and Wine Tax is an excise tax levied by the State on the sale of beer and
wine at the wholesale level. Counties and cities, in which beverages are sold and
taxed, may share in the proceeds of the tax on a per capita basis. This revenue source
totals $255,000 in FY98 and is projected to increase with population growth. The FY98
revenue total is divided by the 1997 population estimate of 64,164, for a per capita
increase of $3.97.
3. Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Revenues
ABC Revenues total $406,000 in FY98 and are projected to increase with
population growth. The FY98 revenue total is divided by the 1997 population estimate
of 64,164, for a per capita increase of $6.32.
4. Powell Bill Revenue
Powell Bill Revenue is revenue from State Gas Taxes that is distributed to
localities for street maintenance. These monies are distributed to localities based 75%
on population and 25% on local street mileage. This revenue source totals $1,915,000
in FY98 and is projected to increase with additional population. The FY98 revenue total
is divided by the 1997 population estimate of 64,164, for a per capita increase of
$29.85.
5. FTA/NCDOT Transit Revenue
The City receives several grants from the Federal Transit Administration and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, primarily for transit operations. These
grants total $727,480 in FY98. The majority of these funds are passed through to the
85
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
Wilmington Transit Authority and the remainder is used to offset City administrative
costs. Since these grant revenues are not directly related to growth the will remain �y
9 Y
fixed in the fiscal impact analysis.
6. Other Intergovernmental Revenue
There are several other Intergovernmental Revenue sources the City receives,
such as Inventories Tax Reimbursement, Food Stamp Reimbursement, and Federal
Transit Authority funds that, will remain fixed or will be netted out of the appropriate
operating budget.
F. Charges for Public Service
Charges for Public Services total $228,000 in FY98. These revenues are from
items such as parking meters, lot cleaning charges, and street department charges.
These revenues will remain fixed in the fiscal analysis.
G. Charges for Recreation Programs
This revenue source is comprised various fees and user charges for parks and
recreation programs and facilities. This revenue source totals $140,840 in FY98 and is
expected to increase with additional population growth in the City. The FY98 revenues
are divided by the 1887 population estimate of 64,164. For a per capita increase of
$2.20.
H. Miscellaneous Charges for Service
Miscellaneous Charges for Service total $15,000 in FY98 and will remain fixed in
the fiscal impact analysis.
I. Charges for General Government Services
Charges for General Government Services are primarily payments by the City's
enterprise and grant funds for -services provided by the General Fund departments.
These payments total $1,679,600 in FY98. Most of these payments are expected to
remain fixed in the analysis. However, the Public Utilities Fund payment is expected to
increase over time and will be reflected in the analysis.
•
86 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
�s J. Charges for Public Safety Services
This revenue source is comprised of miscellaneous charges and con
tracts for
Public Safety services. This revenue source totals $604,500 in FY98. Based on
discussions with City staff, this revenue source is not expected to be significantly
impacted by growth and will remain fixed in the fiscal analysis.
K. Fines and Forfeitures
Fines and Forfeitures are comprised of Civil and Parking Violations. This
revenue source totals $218,000 and is projected to increase with population growth.
The FY98 revenue total is divided by the 1997 population estimate of 64,164, for a per
capita increase of $3.39.
L. Investment Income
Investment Income comes from interest on investments, assessments, and liens.
This revenue source totals $724,000 in FY98. For purposes of the fiscal impact
analysis, this revenue source will remain the same percentage (4.2%) of Property Taxes
•1 in 2010 as it is in FY98.
t
M. Other Revenue
Other Revenue is comprised of proceeds from the sale of equipment, materials
and land. This revenue source totals $44,000 in FY98 and will remain fixed in the fiscal
impact analysis.
N. Appropriated Fund Balance
The Appropriated Fund Balance is essentially the rollover from, the previous fiscal
year fund balance. This balance totals $915,340 in FY98 and will remain fixed in the
fiscal impact analysis.
87 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Activit
Allocation
Amount �(
A.
Property Taxes
Per $100 ass. Value
$0.595
B.
Penalty & Interest
Fixed
N/A
C.
Sales Tax
1. Local Option Taxes
Per Square Foot
$172.58
2. Room Occupancy
See text
N/A
D.
Licenses, Fees & Permits
1. Privilege License
Per employee
$23.78
2. Motor Vehicle License
Per capita
$3.12
3. Cable TV
Per household
$15.73
4. Other Fees
Fixed
N/A
E.
Intergovernmental Revenues
1. Utility Franchise
Per capita & emp.
$33.40
2. Beer & Wine Tax
Per capita
$3.97
3. ABC Revenues
Per capita
$6.32
4. Powell Bill Revenue
Per capita
$29.85
5. FTA/NCDOT Transit Revenue
Fixed
N/A
6. Other Intergovernmental Revs.
See text
N/A
F.
Charges for Public Service
Fixed
N/A
G.
Charge for Recreation Programs
Per capita
$2.20
H.
I.
Miscellaneous Charges for Service
Charges for General Govt. Services
Fixed
See text
N/A
N/A
J.
Charges for Public Safety Services
Fixed
N/A
K.
Fines and Forfeitures
Per capita
$3.39
L.
Investment Income
% of Prop. Tax
4.2%
M.
Other Revenue
Fixed
N/A
N.
Appropriated Fund Balance
Fixed
N/A
88 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
is 6. PUBLIC UTILITIES FUND
The Public Utilities Fund is an enterprise fund used to account for the operations
of the City's Public Utilities Department. The FY98 budget for the Public Utilities Fund
totals $21,771,560. For reasons documented in a separate memo entitled "City/County
Sewer and Water Issues", this enterprise fund is not factored in the fiscal impact
analysis. This memorandum can be found in Appendix II of this document.
7. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND
The City receives Community Development Block Grant funds on an annual
basis for housing, economic development and community development programs in
eligible areas of the City. The City makes a General Fund contribution each year to
cover the administrative costs associated with this Program. This contribution totals
$137,400 in FY98 and will remain fixed in the fiscal impact analysis.
8. HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP FUND
The City receives funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development on an annual basis to be used for neighborhood conservation loans and
for rehabilitation and redevelopment of large tracts of land in distressed neighborhoods.
The City General Fund covers the administrative costs associated with this Program.
This contribution totals $24,200 in FY98 and will remain fixed in the fiscal impact
analysis.
10. PARKING FACILITY FUND
The Parking Facility Fund is used to account for the operations of the City's two
downtown parking facilities. Revenues are primarily earned from hourly and monthly
charges for parking'. In FY98, this Fund contains a contribution of $350,000 from the
City's General Fund for possible City participation in the construction of a new
public/private parking deck. This sort of contribution is not expected to continue and will
not be factored in the fiscal impact analysis. In addition, for purposes of the fiscal
impact analysis, this Fund will remain fixed as it is fee sustaining in nature.
0,
89 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
11. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FUND
The Solid Waste Management Fund is used to account for operations of the
Solid Waste Disposal program in the City. Revenues are earned primarily from monthly
fees charged to solid waste customers based on the level of service chosen. The total
budget for this Fund totals $3,712,000 in FY98 and includes a $58,000 contribution from
the General Fund to subsidize solid waste services for low-income elderly and disabled
citizens.
A. Operating Costs
Because of the Statutory requirements that the City contract with existing haulers
in the annexation area for the first two years after annexation, the City's Annexation
Studies project a deficit of $424,770 for the first year in the Phase I area and a deficit of
$223,786 in the Phase II area. After two years, the City can competitively bid collection
services as is done for the existing City routes services by private haulers. The Phase I
deficit will be used as a proxy for the Phase III and Urban County areas in 1998 and
2010, respectively. It assumed after the initial two years that operating revenues will
cover expenses on an annual basis.
Operating Costs for Solid Waste Manacnement
Fund
Area
Year Cost
Annual Cost
Phase I Annexation
1998
$424,770
Phase II Annexation
1998
$223,786
Phase III Annexation
1998
$424,770
Urban County
2010
$424,770
Source: City of Wilmin ton Annexation Studies
12. EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/REPLACEMENT FUND
The Equipment Maintenance/Replacement Fund is used to account for the
maintenance, repair, insurance and replacement of most City vehicles and equipment.
Patrol vehicles are purchased from the Police Department budget and are maintained
as part of the centralized fleet. The Fire Department is the only department that does
not participate in the centralized program. As these charges are already accounted for
in the Departmental operating budgets, this Fund will not be factored in the fiscal
analysis.
90 Tischler & Associates, Inc.
r
•

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
13. GOLF COURSE ENTERPRISE FUND
The Golf Course Enterprise Fund is used to account for the operations of the
Municipal Golf Course. Since this is an entirely fee sustaining operation it will not be
factored in the fiscal impact analysis.
91
Tischier & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
APPENDIX I
•
92 Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factors Wilmington -New Hanover County, North Carolina
•
94
APPENDIX II
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Tisch &
AssocLkm, INC.
4701 Sangamore Road
Suite N210
Bethesda, MD 20816
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
80 Annandale Road
Pasadena, CA 91105-1404
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
[phone]
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Capital Facility Analysis
Impact Fee Systems
Growth Policy Planning
Economic and Market Analysis
s
MEMORANDUM
To: Andrea Surratt, Planner III
City of Wilmington Planning Department
From: Tischler & Associates, Inc. (TA)
Date: April 28, 1998
Subject: City/County Water and Sewer Issues
Based on numerous conversations with City and County staff and review
of City annexation studies and budget information, TA recommends
against including City/County Water and Sewer operations in the fiscal
impact analysis. Some of the reasons for this recommendation are
provided below:
• The Phase I and II Annexation Studies prepared by the City contain
detailed information regarding operating and capital impacts as a result
of annexation by the City. The same information does not exist for the
Phase III area and Urban County. 9
• There are numerous issues that need to be resolved before a realistic
analysis can be completed. For example, does it make sense for both
the City and the New Hanover County Sewer and Water District to
provide wastewater treatment in the Phase I and II annexation areas?
What areas will each entity provide service to in the Phase III area and
Urban County? Will the County continue with planned capital
improvements in the Phase III area and Urban County if annexation is
a real possibility?
• Both the City and County provide public utility service through an
Enterprise Fund arrangement. Therefore, regardless of what happens,
it can be argued that rates would be adjusted as necessary to cover
increases in operating costs and debt service payments.
Because of these points, we feel that including these enterprise funds as
part of the analysis will only serve to "muddy the waters", when the bottom
line of this analysis is the cost to the General Fund.
Please call with any questions or comments.
•
MUNIES, FISCALS $ CRIM
Fiscal impact systems tailored
for each community

�K
__ .... .....
Fiscal Impact of Providing
Services. in 1998 and 2010
For
Wilmington -New Hanover County,
North Carolina
June 22, 1998
Prepared By:
Tischler &Associates, Inc.
Bethesda, Maryland
Pasadena, California

TAR &
ASSOCIATES, INC.
4701 Sangamore Road
Suite N210
Bethesda, MD 20816
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
80 Annandale Road
Pasadena, CA 91105-1404
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
[phone]
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Capital Facility Analysis
Impact Fee Systems
Growth Policy Planning
Economic and Market Analysis
June 22, 1998 k
Ms. Andrea Surratt
City of Wilmington Development Services Department
PO Box 1810
Wilmington, NC 28402
Dear Andrea:
TA is pleased to present the Fiscal Impact of Providing Services in 1998 and
2010 Report. This report evaluates the fiscal impact of providing services in
1998 and 2010. These impacts were evaluated from a Countywide, Nonurban,
and Urban perspective. Evaluations were performed using TA's FISCALS
software designed exclusively for City of Wilmington and New Hanover County.
The following are major observations from the analysis:
• Although the results for the Urban Service Area are fiscally neutral in 1998,
the analysis clearly shows that in 2010, the City benefits from existing
economies of scale that allow the provision of urban services to contiguous
geographies. The individual service areas that comprise the Urban Service
Area generate combined net revenues of $25.4 million in 2010.
• New development generates net deficits for the Countywide Service Area,
primarily because of schools. In 2010, as would be expected, improved
levels of service generate greater deficits in all cases, $28 million higher in
the Countywide Service Area and $27 million higher in the Nonurban Service
Area.
• Both the City and County benefit from the City providing urban services in lieu
of the nonurban services (certain Sheriff and General Government services)
provided by the County. One major reason is the cost economies from the
City providing some services (certain Sheriff and General Government
services) previously provided by the County. The second major reason is
that although the County no longer provides these Sheriff and General
Government services, it receives the same tax revenue, thereby realizing a
significant cost savings of about $1.4 million in 2010.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
L. Carson Bise, II, AICP
•
MUNIES, FISCALS & CRIM
Fiscal impact systems tailored
for each community

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................•.......1
A.
Background.........................................................................................................1
B.--
--Service- Areas ...
C.
Fiscal Impact Results...........................................................................................4
1. Urban Service Area..........................................................................................5
2. Countywide Service Area.................................................................................
6
3. Nonurban County Service Area........................................................................7
4. Summary ..........................................................................................................7
II.
METHODOLOGY AND MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS....................................................
9
III.
FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS UNDER EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE.................11
A.
Results in 1998 and 2010..................................................................................11
1. Countywide....................................................................................................11
2. Nonurban County...........................................................................................12
2. City and Urban Service Areas........................................................................13
3. City and Urban Service Areas-Combined.......................................................14
B.
Annual Results from 1998 to 2010.....................................................................15
1. Countywide....................................................................................................15
2. Nonurban County...........................................................................................16
3. Independent Service Areas............................................................................17
4. City and Urban Service Areas-Combined.......................................................
21
IV.
A.
FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS UNDER IMPROVED LEVEL OF SERVICE ..............23
Results in 1998 and 2010..................................................................................23
1. Countywide....................................................................................................
23
2. Nonurban County...........................................................................................
24
B.
Annual Results from 1998 to 2010.....................................................................24
V.
EXPENDITURE DETAILS.....................................................................................27
A.
Countywide Service Area -Existing vs. Improved Levels of Service....................27
B.
Countywide vs. Nonurban Service Area.............................................................28
C.
Urban Service Area...........................................................................................28
VI.
APPENDIX I..........................................................................................................
30
0

Tisa= &
Assoam-Es, INc.
4701 Sangamore Road
Suite N210
Bethesda, MO 20816
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
80 Annandale Road
Pasadena, CA 91105-1404
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
[phone]
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Capital Facility Analysis
Impact Fee Systems
Growth Policy Planning
Economic and Market Analysis
MUNIES, FISCALS & CRIM
Fiscal impact systems tailored
for each community
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Background
The City of Wilmington and New Hanover County have contracted with
Tischler & Associates, Inc. (TA) to evaluate the fiscal impact of providing
public services in 1998 and 2010. These impacts will be evaluated from a
Countywide, Urban and Nonurban perspective. In addition, for certain
facilities and services, the fiscal impact of a higher level of service will be
calculated.
As a first step in the fiscal analysis, TA prepared the "Level of Service,
Cost and Revenue Assumptions" (LOS) document (April 28, 1998),
discussing City and County services and facilities impacted by new growth
and annexation. The impacts from both residential and nonresidential
developments are evaluated. The level of service, cost and revenue
assumptions are based on TA's on -site interviews with the service
providers, in addition to an evaluation of the FY98 Budget. Both operating
and capital costs are inciuded in the analysis.
The level of service assumptions have been utilized in combination with
demographic and employment projections to calculate the fiscal impact of
growth on the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County budgets for
the 13-year period between 1998 and 2010. Ca
lculations alculattons will be
performed using TA's FISCALS software designed exclusively for the City
of Wilmington and New Hanover County.
B. Service Areas
The impact of growth on three geographic layers is analyzed. The
geographic layers are as follows and can be found in Appendix I of this
document.
Countywide: The seven Countywide service categories evaluated
include public schools, community college, human services, culture/library,
culture/parks, sheriff and general government. The four categories in
which an improved level of service is considered are community college,
schools, culture/library, and culture/parks. The demand base for the
Countywide service area is shown in the table below.
s

•
•
Demand Base Information
Countvwide Service Area
1997
1998
2010
Increase
Absolute %
Category
Estimate
Projection
Projection
1997.2010
Increase
Population
149,211
151,611
180,417
31,206
21%
Employment
Retail
28,669
29,085
34,072
5,403
19%
Office
15,100
15,316
17,914
2,814
19%
Flex'
14,771
14,973
17,394
2,623
18%
Total
58,540
69,374
69,380
10,840
19%
Housing
Single Family
41,292
41,915
49,388
8,096
20%
DuplexiTownhome
5,496
5,723
8,451
2,955
54%
Apartment
10,321
10,459
12,117
1,796
17%
Mobile Home
3,785
3,785
3,785
0
0%
Total
60,894
61,882
73,741
12,847
21%
Nonresidential Sq. Ft."
Retail
11,467,600
11,633,846
13,628,800
2,161,200
19%
Office
3,653,550
3,814,162
4,520,100
866,550
24%
Flex
6,930,113
7,222,240
8,691,332
1,761,219
25%
Total
22,051,263
22,670,248
26,840,232 1
4,788,969
22%
'Flex space is a space utilized for various industrial uses with 10°k-20% of the space utilized for office activity
**The nonresidential square footage is based on the assumptions contained in the following two tables
The 1997 County population estimate is 149,211. Between 1997 and 2010, population
in the Countywide Service Area is projected to increase by 31,206 persons, a 21 %
increase. The 1997 County housing unit estimate is 60,894. Housing units are
projected to increase by 12,847 to 2010, or 21 %
The 1997 County employment estimate is 58,540. Between 1997 and 2010,
employment in the Countywide Service Area is projected to increase by 10,840, or 19%.
The resulting nonresidential square footage increase is projected at 4.7 million square
feet.
Nonurban: The proxy for the Nonurban service area is the existing level of services as
provided by the County. The Nonurban services are the seven Countywide services.
However, cost to provide certain services such as Sheriff patrol functions and General
Government activities such as Planning & Zoning are assumed to decrease as the City
provides services to Urban portions of the County in 1998 and 2010. The demand base
for the Nonurban service area is shown in the table below. The negative numbers
reflect the annexation of this area by the City and the loss of Nonurban Service Area
population and employment
2
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Demand Base Information
Non -Urban Service Area
1997
1998
2010
Increase
Absolute %
Category
Estimate'
Projection"
Projection"
1997-2010
Decrease
Population
85,047
51,334
31,935
53,112
-62%
Employment
Retail
10,148
5,415
2,440
(7,708)
-76%
Office
5,050
2,347
1,230
(3,820)
-76%
Flex'
9,914
8,254
6,851
3,063
-31%
Total
25,112
16,016
10,521
14,591
-58%
Housing
Single Family
26,638
15,204
6,886
(19,752)
-74%
Duplex/Townhome
2,251
592
443
(1,808)
-80%,
Apartment
447
473
-
(447)
-100%
Mobile Home
3,285
2,153
1,156
2,129
-66%
Total
32,621
18,421
8,485
24,136
-74%
Nonresidential Sq. Ft
Retail
4,059,200
2,165,815
976,000
(3,083,200)
-76°%
Office
1,090,800
506,969
265,680
(825,120)
-76%
Flex
4,292,762
3,574,115
2,966,483
1,326,279
-31%
Total
9,442,7621
6,246,899
4,208,163
5,234,599
-55%
Includes Non -Urban and Urban County areas
"Urban County becomes part of Urban Service Area
'Nonresidential square footage was estimated using the following factors developed by the Urban
Land Institute: 400 sq. ft. (Retail), 216 sq. ft. (Office), and 433 (Flex)
The 1997 Nonurban Service Area population estimate is 85,047. For Nonurban
services (Planning/Engineering and Sheriff patrol), the population base is projected to
decrease by 33,713 persons in 1998, as the Phase I, II, and III annexation areas no
longer receive these Nonurban services. Nonurban population is expected to decrease
by another 19,399 persons in 2010, when the Urbanized County receives urban levels
of service. This decrease of 53,112 persons between 1997 and 2010 is a 62%
decrease. Nonurban housing units are projected to decrease by 14,200 in 1998 and
9,936 in 2010, for a total decrease of 24,136, or 74%.
The 1997 County employment estimate is 25,112. Nonurban employment is projected
to decrease by 9,096 in 1998 and 5,495 in 2010, for a total decrease of 14,591, or 58%.
Urban: The City of Wilmington, the three annexation areas, and an urbanized portion
of the County comprise the urban service area. The service categories evaluated are
police, fire, roads, general government, parks and recreation, and development
services. The demand base for the Urban service area is shown in the table below.
4
•
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

•
Demand Base Information
Urban Service Area
1997
1998
2010
Increase
Absolute %
Category
Estimate*
Projection**
Projection***
1997-2010
Increase
Population
64164
100,277
148,482
84,318
131%
Employment
Retail
18,521
23,670
31,632
13,111
71%
Office
10,050
12,969
16,684
6,634
66%
Flex*
4,857
6,718
10,543
5,686
117%
Total
33,428
43,358
58,859
25,431
76%
Housing
Single Family
14,654
26,711
42,502
27,848
190%
DuplexiTownhome
3,245
5,132
8,008
4,763
147%
Apartment
9,874
9,987
12,117
2,243
23%
Mobile Home
500
1,632
2,629
2,129
426%
Total
28,273
43,461
65,256
36,983
131%
Nonresidential Sq.Ft.****
Retail
7,408,400
9,468,031
12,652,800
6,244,400
71%
Office
2,562,750
3,307,193
4,254,420
1,691,670
66%
Flex
2,637,351
3,648,125
5,724,849
3,087,498
117%
Total
12,608,601
16,423,348
22,632,069
10,023,568
79%
*City of Wilmingon only
**Assumes City and Phase I, II & III Annexation areas
***Adds Urban Portion of County
—Nonresidential square footage was estimated using the following factors developed by the Urban
Land Institute: 406 sq. ft. (Retail), 255 sq. ft. (Office), and 543 (Flex)
The 1997 City (Urban Service Area) population estimate is 69,164. In 1998, population
is projected to increase by 36,113 as urban services are extended to the Phase I, II, and
III annexation areas. Population increases by another 48,205 persons between 1998
and 2010, as the Urbanized County receives urban services. This increase of 84,318
persons between 1997 and 2010 is a 131% increase. The 1997 County housing unit
estimate is 60,894. Housing units are projected to increase by 12,847 to 2010, or 21 %
Urban Service Area housing units are projected to increase by 15,188 in 1998 and
21,795 in 2010, for a total increase of 25,431, or 131%.
The 1997 City employment estimate is 33,428. Between 1997 and 2010, employment
in the Urban .Service Area is projected to increase by 25,431, or 76%. The resulting
nonresidential square footage increase is projected at 10 million square feet.
C. Fiscal Impact Results
The fiscal impacts of providing services to the Countywide, Nonurban and Urban
Service Areas are shown in the chart and table below. All results are those accruing to
the City and County General Funds and include capital expenditures.
4
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Fiscal Results in 1998 and 2010
Under Existing Levels of Service
$30, 000 — -- ----
$25, 000
$20,000
$15,000 131998
c$10,000
$5, 000 ■ 2010
$0 $81
000)- Urban Service Area
($10,000)
($15,000) $8 782
Fiscal Results Under Existing LOS (in $1,000's)
Service Area 1998 2010
Countywide Service Area $20 ($10,118)
Nonurban Service Area $1,442 ($8,782)
Urban Service Area $81 $25,405
The fiscal impacts of providing improved levels of service to the Countywide Service
Area are shown in the table below. All results are those accruing to the County General
Fund and include capital expenditures. 0
Fiscal Results Under Improved and Existing LOS (in $1,000's)
Scenario 1998 2010
Existing LOS $20 ($10,118)
Improved LOS ($25) ($38,114)
Selected highlights from the analysis are discussed below:
�. Urban Service Area
• The provision of urban services by the City in 1998 to the Phase I, II, and III
annexation areas results in modest net revenues of $81,000 in 1998. The Urban
Service Area results in 1998 should be considered, within the margin of error, as
fiscally neutral.
• Of the individual service areas, the Phase I annexation area produces the best result
in 1998. The extension of urban services to this area produces net revenues of
approximately $2.2 million in 1998. This is a result of two key factors: 1) the value of
property in this area (assessed base of $1.05 billion), and 2) projected sales tax
revenues from retail sites within the area.
5
:7
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

In 1998, the Phase II and III annexation areas generate net deficits of $.803 million
and $1.3 million, respectively. The financial resources these areas provide, primarily
in the form of property tax and local option sales tax, are not sufficient to cover the
initial "startup" costs associated with providing a City, or urban level of service to
these areas. The Phase II annexation area results are better than the Phase III
annexation area due to higher property values and more retail square footage. In
addition, the estimated startup costs are lower for this area.
Although the results for the Urban Service Area are fiscally neutral in 1998, the
analysis clearly shows that in 2010, the City benefits from existing economies of
scale that allow the provision of urban services to contiguous geographies. The
individual service areas that comprise the Urban Service Area generate combined
net revenues of $25.4 million in 2010.
2. Countywide Service Area
• The County's provision of current levels of service to new growth (assuming no loss
in unincorporated area), results in net revenues of $20,000 in 1998. A major reason
is that there are no major capital facilities constructed in 1998. When improved
levels of service are considered, the Countywide Service Area generates a net
deficit of $493,000.
• The Countywide Service Area generates a net deficit of $10.1 million in 2010. The
debt service payment alone in 2010 for schools, community college, parks and
• libraries are more than total revenues generated from new growth.
• The analysis shows that under existing levels of service, the existing County tax
base will have to subsidize new growth between 1998 and 2010. This leaves no
room for consideration of level of service increases.
• The cost for school capital facilities to serve new growth totals $136 million before
interest. The County currently does not collect impact fees. This should be given
serious consideration in light of the Board of Education's desire to implement a $257
upgrade, repair and modernization program.
• When improved levels of service are considered, the Countywide Service Area
generates a net deficit of $38 million in 2010. The cumulative difference in
expenditures between improved and existing levels of service is $199 million.
• The greatest difference in expenditures between existing and improved levels of
service is school capital expenditures. Under improved levels of service, the
increase in debt service payments to implement the Board of Education's plan to
relieve overcrowding and use of non-traditional space is $164 million more over the
12-year period.
[.1
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

3. Nonurban County Service Area
When it is assumed that the County loses a portion of it's unincorporated area
(Phase I, II, and III annexation areas) to the City in 1998, revenues of $1.4 are
generated. Assuming that the County's cost to maintain the current level of service
for certain County functions (Sheriffs patrol and Planning) decreases with the loss of
unincorporated County, there are cost savings of $1.4 million in 1998 in the
Nonurban County.
In 2010, the Nonurban County generates a net deficit of almost $8.7 million. This
deficit would be about $10.1 million if urban services were not extended to an
additional portion of the unincorporated County (Urban County Service Area) in
2010. The result of the County no longer having to provide certain services in this
area results in cost savings of $1.3 million in 2010.
• As indicated above, the provision of County services to new growth generates net
deficits.
4. Summary
Although the results for the Urban Service Area are fiscally neutral in 1998, the
analysis clearly shows that in 2010, the City benefits from existing economies of
scale that allow the provision of urban services to contiguous geographies. The
individual service areas that comprise the Urban Service Area generate combined
net revenues of $25.4 million in 2010. •
Both the City and County benefit from the City providing urban services in lieu of the
nonurban services (certain Sheriff and General Government services) provided by
the County. One major reason is the cost economies from the City providing some
services (certain Sheriff and General Government services) previously provided by
the County. The second major reason is that although the County no longer
provides these Sheriff and General Government services, it receives the same tax
revenue, thereby realizing a significant cost savings of about $1.4 million in 2010.
• New development generates net deficits for the Countywide Service Area, primarily
because of schools. In 2010, as would • be expected, improved levels of service
generate greater deficits in all cases, $28 million higher in the Countywide Service
Area and $27 million higher in the Nonurban Service Area.
The fiscal findings for the Countywide and Nonurban Service Areas indicate the
need for New Hanover County to consider new sources of revenue to subsidize new
growth. If additional sources are not found, or existing sources increased, new
growth in the County will be subsidized by the existing development base. A
continuation of this trend could lead to decreased levels of service in the future.
7
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

• The economies of scale found in General Fund services in the analysis of the Urban
` Service Area suggest that economies may also exist in the Enterprise Funds (i.e.
Sewer and Water).
•
• The fiscal findings in all three service areas suggest that further analysis be
completed regarding the duplication of services (i.e. Planning, Engineering, Parks
and Recreation, Fire, Sheriff/Police etc.).
0
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

II. METHODOLOGY AND MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS
The analysis projects the fiscal impacts of providing services in 1998 and 2010 based
on the current level of service. The FY98 budgets are used as a baseline since they are
representative of the current fiscal year operations for each jurisdiction. Constant 1998
dollars are used throughout the study. The FY98 (1997) population, housing unit and
employment levels are used. These values are used to calculate unit costs and service
level thresholds.
In order to provide an understanding of the overall methodology used in this fiscal
impact analysis, a brief explanation of the FISCALS process follows. The FISCALS
software utilizes two types of input data. The first category of demographic/economic
projections is called Demand Base data inputs. These numerical projections include
data such as population, housing units, employment, and commercial and industrial
space. The 1997 population and job estimates, in addition to the current number of
dwelling units, were used to calculate unit costs and - service level thresholds. These
estimates were provided by the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County Planning
Departments.
The second type of input data relates to the government service levels, costs and
revenues. The government service level, cost and revenue data used in the fiscal
analysis have been determined and agreed upon by TA and City of Wilmington and
New Hanover County personnel. This data has been incorporated into TA's FISCALS
system to calculate the annual costs, revenues, and capital facilities by department or
function, where appropriate.
The following major assumptions regarding the fiscal methodology should be noted:
Marginal, Growth -Related Costs and Revenues: For this analysis, costs and
revenues that are directly attributable to new development or from the annexation of
existing development are included. Both operating and capital costs are taken into
consideration. Wherever possible, a marginal cost approach is used. In some cases,
the data used are average costs, based on a decision by the City and County staffs and
TA that this is the best information available at this time. Some costs are not expected
to be impacted by demographic changes, and:. may be fixed in this analysis, such as
some administrative functions. In some cases, there is a realization that costs are
semi -variable. A best estimate was then made by the department personnel and TA,
using proxy percentages.
Level of Service: The costs projections are based on the assumption that the current
level of spending, as provided in FY98 budgets, will continue through the 13-year
analysis period. The current level of spending is referred to as the current level of
service (LOS) in this type of analysis. TA also analyzed the fiscal impact of providing
improved levels of service for certain Countywide and Nonurban services.
•
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

0'
Revenue Structure and Tax Rates: Revenues are projected assuming that the
current revenue structure and tax rates, as defined by the FY98 adopted budget, will not
change during the analysis period.
Inflation Rate: The rate of inflation is assumed to be zero throughout the projection
period, and cost and revenue projections are in constant 1998 dollars. This assumption
is in accord with current budget data and avoids the difficulty of speculating on inflation
rates and their effect on cost and revenue categories. It also avoids the problem of
interpreting results expressed in inflated dollars over an extended period of time.
Non -Fiscal Evaluations: It should be noted that while a fiscal impact analysis is an
important consideration in planning decisions, it is only one of several issues that should
be considered. Environmental and social issues, for example, should also be
considered when making planning and policy decisions. The above not withstanding,
this analysis will enable interested parties to understand the fiscal implications of future
development.
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

III. FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS UNDER EXISTING LEVEL OF JW-'
SERVICE
The fiscal impacts are discussed in terms of the cost to provide services in 1998 and in
2010. For the Countywide Service Area, all results are those accruing from new
population and employment growth. For the Nonurban Service Area, all results are
those accruing from new population and employment growth and from the loss of
unincorporated area in 1998 and 2010, as the City is assumed to provide urban levels
of services to these areas. For the Urban Service Area, results are those accruing from
both new population and employment growth and from the assumed annexation of
County land.
A. Results in 1998 and 2010
1. Countywide
The chart below shows the fiscal impacts of new growth to the County from 1998 to
2010, assuming the current level of service is maintained, and the County loses no
unincorporated area as a result of annexation.
Net Fiscal Results in 1998 and 2010
Countywide Service Area
$2,000
$0
v ($2,000)
0
c ($4,000)
r=
($6,000)
($8,000)
($10,000)
($12,000)
As can be observed from the chart, new growth generates net revenues of $20,000 to
the County in 1998. This should be considered, within the margin of error, as fiscally
neutral. Over time, however, revenues from new growth are not enough to cover the
associated costs. In 2010, revenues from new growth are $10 million less than what is
needed to maintain the current level of service. Major reasons for these results are
summarized below.
11
•
•
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

-� Modest revenues of $20,000 are generated in 1998 because there are no major
capital facilities constructed in 1998, other than a Library expansion and a $500,000
expenditure for Park development.
• The Countywide Service Area generates a net deficit of $10.1 million in 2010. The
debt service payment alone in 2010 for schools, community college, parks and
libraries are more than total revenues generated from new growth.
2. Nonurban County
The chart below shows the fiscal impacts of new growth to the County from 1998 to
2010, assuming the current level of service is maintained, and the County no longer
provides certain General Government and Sheriff services to the areas that are
assumed to receive urban services from the City in 1998 and 2010.
As can be observed from the chart, the cost to provide existing levels of service
generates net revenues to the Nonurban County in 1998. Over time, however,
revenues from new growth are not enough to cover the associated costs. Major
reasons for these results are summarized below.
• Initial revenues of $1.4 million are generated in 1998 because it is assumed the
County loses a portion of its unincorporated area in 1998, to which urban services
have been extended by the City. This means that in order to maintain the current
level of County services, certain General Government functions, such as. Planning
and Engineering are scaled back, as these departments essentially serve the
unincorporated County, whereas other General Government function are truly
Countywide in nature. This same type of relationship is also applicable to certain
Sheriffs Office functions, such as patrol. This assumption results in cost savings of
$1.4 million dollars in 1998.
•
12
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

• The Nonurban County
generates a net deficit of $8.7 million in 2010. This deficit
would be even higher if it weren't assumed that urban services were extended to an
additional portion of the County (Urban County Service Area) in 2010. The result of
the County no longer having to provide certain services to the Urban County results
in a cost savings of $1.3 million in 2010.
2. City and Urban Service Areas
The chart below shows the fiscal impacts for the City and each Urban Service Area in
1998 and 2010, assuming the current level of service is maintained in the City for new
growth and urban levels of service are provided to the Urban Service Areas in 1998 and
the urban portion of the County in 2010.
Net Fiscal Results in 1998 and 2010
City and Urban Service Areas
$15,000 $13 AA
o $10,000
o
CL $5, 501
$5,000 $2 805 ❑ 1998
$2,182 $2,056
$0 $79 $1,499 S 2010
City Phase I Phase II phak�ee Ili Urban
($5,000) ($803) ($1,378) Coun
'Urban County does not become a service area until 2010
As can be observed from the chart, the Phase I annexation area and City are the only
areas that produce revenues in 1998. The Phase I and II annexation areas produce net
deficits in 1998, with the Phase III annexation area producing the poorest results, a net
deficit of $1.3 million.
When urban services are extended to the Urban. County in 2010, the existing population
and employment base is large enough to generate net revenues of $13.5 million. In the
other areas, revenues from new growth increase at faster rates over time than
expenditures and all areas generate net revenues in 2010, with the Phase I annexation
area generating net revenues of $5.5 million, followed by the City ($2.2), Phase II
annexation area ($2.0) and Phase III annexation area ($1.5 million). Major reasons for
these results are summarized below.
13
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

1998
• • The Phase I area produces the best result in 1998. The extension of urban services
to this area produces net revenues of approximately $2.2 million in 1998. This is a
result of two key factors: 1) the value of property in this area (assessed base of
$1.05 billion), and 2) projected sales tax revenues from retail sites within the area.
Under existing levels of urban service, new residential and nonresidential
development generates modest net revenues of $79,000 to the City in 1998. This
could be considered, within the margin of error, as fiscally neutral. The main reason
for the positive result is the relative lack of capital facility needs to serve the
projected increase in City population and employment in 1998 of 1,054.
In 1998, the Phase II and III annexation areas generate net deficits of $.803 million
and $1.3 million, respectively. The financial resources these areas provide, primarily
in the form of property tax and local option sales tax, are not sufficient to cover the
initial "startup" costs associated with providing a City, or urban level of service to
these areas. The Phase II annexation area results are better than the Phase III
annexation area due to higher property values and more retail square footage. In
addition, the City's estimated startup costs are lower for this area.
2010
• The Urban County generates the best result in 2010, with the extension of urban
services to this area producing net revenues of $12,605. This is the result of an
existing `tax base of almost $3.2 billion at the time urban service is extended.
• The Phase I annexation area produces the second best result in 2010, with net
revenues of $5.5 million. This is again due to the high tax base ($1.05 billion) that is
absorbed in 1998 and from this area having higher rates of growth between 1998
and 2010 than the Phase I and II annexation areas.
• The Phase II and III annexation areas each produce net revenues in 2010, $2.0 and
$1.5 million, respectively, after generating net deficits in the initial year urban
services are extended. This is because, over time, revenues generated from new
growth are added to the already substantial existing tax bases of these areas ($535
million and $589 million, respectively) and,a portion the initial startup costs for these
areas are retired, thereby allowing net revenues to begin to generate.
• The Phase II annexation area produces better results in 2010 than the Phase III
annexation area because of: 1) a higher existing tax base when urban services are
extended, 2) a higher growth rate over the 13-year analysis period from which to
capture new revenues, and 3) lower urban service startup costs in 1998.
3. City and Urban Service Areas -Combined
The table below shows the combined fiscal impacts of new growth in the City and the
extension of urban services to all three Urban Service Areas (Phase I, II and III
14
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

annexation areas) in 1998 and 2010. The 2010 combined results include the Urban,
County, which is assumed to receive urban services in 2010. 0"
Combined Net Results (in $1,000's)
City and Urban Service Areas
Year
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Result
1998
2010
$19,986
$55,687
$19,904
$30,283
$81
$25,405
As the table above indicates, the City and three Urban Service Areas combined
generate modest net revenues in 1998 of $81,000, which could be considered within the
margin of error, as fiscally neutral. In 2010, after the initial startup costs have been
absorbed, the areas have added revenues from new growth to the existing base, and
urban services are extended to the Urban County, the City, Phase I, II, III areas and
Urban County, the City and three Urban Service Areas generate net revenues of $25.4
million in 2010.
Although the combined results show that the provision of urban services is fiscally
neutral in 1998, the analysis clearly shows that the City benefits from existing
economies of scale that allow the provision of urban services to contiguous
geographies.
B. Annual Results from 1998 to 2010
Annual results are determined for the Countywide and Nonurban Service Areas, as well
as for the City and each of the three urban service areas independent of one another.
In addition, results are determined the combined areas. By showing the results
annually, the magnitude, rate of change, and timeline of deficits and revenues can be
observed.
1. Countywide
The chart below shows the annual revenues to the County from new growth from 1998
to 2010, assuming the current level of service is maintained, and the County loses no
unincorporated area due to annexation by the City.
15
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Net Results (Including Capital Facilities)
Countywide Service Area
$2, 000
$0
($2.000) 1998 1 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
0
o ($4,000)
($6.000)
($8.000)
($10,000)
($12,000)
The following points summarize the annual results for the Countywide Service Area:
• The revenue curve starts off with slight net revenues in 1998 and begins a 3-year
downturn as two elementary schools and one middle school open, the County
makes three cash payments of $500,000 for Ogden Park development, and the main
library is expanded. The debt service payments alone for schools and library
expansion total $6.5 million in 2001.
• Revenues turn upward in 2002 and 2003, once Ogden Park development is
complete and the County does not incur additional bonded debt.
• Revenues turn downward in 2004 and again in 2005, as an elementary school is
opened and the Community College expands.
• Revenues turn downward in 2007 as an elementary school and middle school open
and again in 2009 when a high school is opened.
• Revenues turn upward slightly in 2010, as there are no major capital facilities
constructed. However, there is still a deficit :approaching $10 million in 2010, which
indicates that the combination of additional capital debt costs and operating
expenses are not being covered by the revenues from new growth.
z Nonurban County
The chart below shows the annual revenues to the County from new growth from 1998
to 2010 for that portion of the County not receiving urban services (the Nonurban
Service Area). (The Nonurban area receives the current Nonurban level of service
while the urban area receives urban services). The only difference between the
Nonurban and Countywide Service Areas are the savings in costs from less Sheriffs,
16
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Planning and Engineering activities since the City has provided urban services to parts -Zt,
of the County (Phase I, II, III annexation areas and Urban County). i'
Net Results (Including Capital Facilities)
Nonurban Service Area
$4,000
$2, 000
0
$o
g ($2,000k0 43
40 ($a,00o)
($6.000)
($8,�)
($10, 000)
With the exception of 1998 and 2010: the revenues pattern for the Nonurban Service
Area is the same as Countywide Service Area except, that the Nonurban Service Area
generates greater revenues in 1998 as a result of cost savings from Sheriff and certain
General Government activities when urban services are extended to portions of the 0County. The same situation occurs again in 2010, when urban services are extended to
the Urban County.
3. Independent Service Areas
This section discusses the following services areas, City of Wilmington, Phase I, II, and
III annexation areas, and the Urban County. The charts below show the annual fiscal
impacts from 1) the City, 2) Urban Service Areas, reflecting the Phase I, II and III
annexation areas, and 3) the Urban County. It is assumed that Urban County has
urban services extended in 2010.
17
•
Tischler &Associates, Inc.

s
City of Wilmington
Net Results (Including Capital Facilities)
City of Wilmington
$3.000
$2,500
$2,000
0
c $1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
The following points summarize the annual results for the City from new growth:
• Annual net revenues for the City start out modestly in 1998 and grow increasingly
positive; and about at the same rate, each year thereafter. By 2010, annual net
operating revenues are approximately $2.8 million.
• The reasons for this steady annual increase in net revenues include 1) new
population, housing and employment growth in the City from 1998 to 2010 is
increasing in equal increments over the analysis time period so development can be
accommodated more easily, 2) the additional increment is relatively small compared
to the existing City base so there are many semi -variable or fixed costs, and 3)
available capital facility capacities limit capital expenditures to park improvements,
patrol vehicles and the City's portion of the Public Services operation facility.
18
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Phase I, II, and III Annexation Areas
Net Results (Including Capital Facilities)
Phase I Area
$7, 000
$6,000
$5, 000
)
0 $4,000
0
0
•-� $3, 000
�n
$2,000
$1,000
$0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Net Results (Including Capital Facilities)
Phase II Area
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
CD N
c $1,000
$500
($500p 0
($1,000)
19
•
•
•
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

s
Net Results (Including Capital Facilities)
Phase III Area
$2,L&
$1,500
$1,000
w $500
0
o $0
($500) S 1999 000 0 1 002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2 10
($1,00o)
($1.500)
{$2, 000)
The following points summarize the annual results for the Phase I, II and III annexation
areas:
• The revenue patterns for the Phase I, II and III areas have essentially the same
characteristics, except for the first year. The one exception being the Phase I area
generates net revenues the first year urban services are extended, versus the
second year for the Phase II and III areas. This is because the projected growth
patterns between 1998 and 2010 are occurring in equal increments throughout the
analysis period.
For the remainder of the period, 1999 to 2010, the revenue curves for the Phase I, II
and III areas turn sharply upward as the urban service startup costs have been
absorbed and the areas begin to receive revenues from new growth. Revenues
begin a gradual ascent for the next four years and then turn up sharply in 2003, as
the initial Fire Department equipment lease purchase contract is retired. Revenues
then turn down sharply in 2004 as the useful life expires for the original Police
vehicles purchased when urban services were extended and new vehicles are
purchased. Revenues then begin a gradual ascent in 2005 that continues until
2009. In 2010, revenues decline again as the useful life of the second group of
Police vehicles end and additional vehicles are purchased.
20
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Urban County
Net Results (Including Capital Facilities)
Urban County
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
c $10,000
o $8, 000
$6, 000
$4,000
$2, 000
$0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Assumes urban services are extended in 2010
The following points summarize the annual results for the Urban County:
• The Urban County revenue curve is rather simple to explain. From 1998 to 2009,
the Urban County is assumed to receive County levels of service and therefore is
not factored. In 2010, when urban services are extended, the existing tax base is so
large that net revenues of $13.5 million are generated. This can be considered as
an annual revenue stream.
4. City and Urban Service Areas -Combined
The chart below shows the combined annual revenues from new growth in the City and
from the extension of urban services to all three Urban Service Areas in 1998 and to the
Urban County in 2010.
21
•
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

•!>
Combined Net Results (including Capital Facilities)
City and Urban Service Areas
$30,000
$25,000
w $20,000
0
c $15,000
IT-
40). $10,000
$5,000
$0
-1 44
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2010 results assume urban services are extended to the Urban County
• Annual net revenues for the combined results follow a similar pattern to that of the
individual revenue curves of the Phase I, II, and III areas. Similar to these areas, the
combined results increase sharply is 1998 as the urban service startup costs have
been absorbed and the areas begin to receive revenues from new growth.
• Revenues begin a gradual ascent for the next five years and then dip slightly in 2004
j. as the: useful life expires for the original Police vehicles purchased when urban
services were extended and new vehicles are purchased.
ev
• Revenues then begin a gradual ascent in 2005 that continues until 2009. In 2010,
revenues increase sharply as a result of absorbing revenues from the Urban County,
as urban services are extended to this area. The findings in 2010 show that the City
benefits from providing urban services in lieu of the nonurban services (certain
Sheriff and General Government services) provided by the County. One major
reason is the assessed value of the existing development base in the Phase I, II, III
annexation areas and the Urban County. The second major reason is there are cost
economies from the City providing some services (certain Sheriff and General
Government services) that were previously provided by the County.
22
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

IV. FISCAL IMPACT RESULTS UNDER IMPROVED LEVEL OF
SERVICE
The fiscal impact results are discussed in terms of the costs to provide improved levels
of service in 1998 and 2010. For the Countywide Service Area, all results are those
accruing from new population and employment growth. For the Nonurban Service area,
results are those accruing from new population and employment growth between 1998
and 2009 and from the assumed ' loss of a portion of the existing population and
employment base in 1998 and 2010, as a result of the City providing urban levels of
service to these areas. There are no improved levels of service being analyzed for the
Urban Service Area.
A. Results in 1998 and 2010
1. Countywide
The chart below shows the fiscal impacts of new growth to the County from 1998 tc
2010, assuming an improved level of service is provided for the Community College,
Schools, Library system and Parks.
As can be observed from the chart, new growth revenues are not enough to cover the
improved levels of service assumed in this analysis in either time period. A net deficit of
$25,000 is incurred in 1998. The cost to the County in 1998 to provide improved levels
of service is approximately $45,000 more than providing the existing level of service.
Under improved levels of service a net deficit of $38 million is incurred in 2010. This
annual deficit is $28 million more than under existing levels of service. It is important to
23
•
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

note that the additional cost to provide the improved levels of service to the existing
population is not included.
2. Nonurban County
The chart below shows the fiscal impacts of new growth to the County from 1998 to
2010, assuming an improved level of service is provided, and the County no longer
provides certain services to the areas that are assumed to receive urban services in
1998 and 2010. The four categories in which an improved level of service is measured
are community college, schools, culture/library, and culture/parks.
As can be observed from the chart, new growth generates net revenues to the
Nonurban County in 1998 under improved levels of service. Over time, however, net
deficits increase significantly over the levels associated with maintaining the current
levels of service.
Results for the Nonurban Service Area are slightly better than the Countywide Service
Area as a result of the assumed cost savings associated with losing a portion of the
unincorporated County. Under improved levels of service, the Nonurban Service Area
results are almost $1.4 million better in 1998 and $1.3 million better in 2010.
B. Annual Results from 1998 to 2010
Annual results are determined for the Countywide and Nonurban Service Areas. By
showing the results annually, the magnitude, rate of change, and timeline of deficits and
revenues can be observed.
The charts below show the annual results for the Countywide and Nonurban Service
Areas from 1998 to 2010, assuming increases in levels of service for schools, parks,
24
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

community college and library. As a point of reference, each chart also shows the
annual results under existing levels of service.
Net Results Improved vs. Existing LOS (Including Capital
Facilities)
Countywide Service Area
$10,000
$0
($10,000) 1998 2 1 2 2003 2 2 0
0
0
($20,000)
($30,000)
($40, 000)
($50,000)
—�—Improved LOS tEAsting LOS
Net Results Improved vs. Existing LOS (Including Capital
Facilities)
Nonurban Service Area
$10,000
$0
1998 9 2000 2 1 2M-2 2603 2 2009 0
c {$10,000)
0
($20,000)
($30, 000)
($40,000)
--♦— Improved LOS --*—Existing LOS
The following points summarize the annual results for the Countywide and Nonurban
Service Areas under improved levels of service:
• The revenue curve starts off with slight deficit in 1998. The revenue curve begins a
3-year downturn, just as under existing levels of service, as two elementary schools
and one middle school open, the County makes three cash payments of $500,000
for Ogden Park development, and the main library is expanded. However, deficits
are approximately $8 million more as a result of the first phase of school renovations
begin (resulting in additional debt service payments of $7.4 million).
4-1
•
•
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

•
•
• Whereas the annual results gradually decrease from 2004 to 2010 under existing
levels of service, annual results decrease sharply in 2004 as debt service payments
begin for phase II of school renovations and again in 2005 as debt service payments
begin for additional community college space. Revenues level off in 2006 and 2007
and then turn downward in 2008, as debt service payments begin for phase III of
school renovations.
The revenue curve for the Nonurban Service Area follows the same pattern as the
Countywide Service Area, with two exceptions in 1998 and 2010. In 1998, revenues
occur as a result of losing unincorporated area to the City. It is assumed the County
realizes cost savings for some General Government and Sheriff services. This
happens again in 2010, as the Urban County receives urban services from the City.
• Over the 12-year period the average annual net deficit to provide improved levels of
service increases by $16.6 million for the Countywide Service Area.
26
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

V. EXPENDITURE DETAILS
A. Countywide Service Area -Existing vs. Improved Levels of Service
The table below shows the cumulative General Fund operating and capital expenditures
from 1998 to 2010 for the Countywide Service Area under existing and improved levels
of service. This chart shows the difference between cumulative expenditures to provide
improved levels of service versus existing levels of service.
Cumulative Expenditures -Countywide Service Area
Existing versus Improved Levels of Service
Expenditure
Existing
LOS
%
Improved
LOS
%
Difference
General Government -Operating
$2,704
1%
$2,704
1%
$0
Human Services -Operating
$7,443
4%
$7,443
2%
$0
Human Services -Capital
$319
0%
$319
0%
$0
Culture and Recreation -Operating
$12,100
7%
$15,744
4%
$3,644
Parks -Debt Financed
$3,596
2%
$5,166
1%
$1,569
Parks -Pay -as -you -Go
$1,500
1%
$1,500
0%
$0
Libraries -Debt Financed
$2,373
1%
$4.649
1%
$2,276
Libraries -Pay -as -you -Go
$391
0%
$620
0%
$229
Schools -Operating
$41,248
23%
$41,248
11%
$0
Schools -Capital
$83,201
46%
$247,976
65%
$164.775
Community College -Operating
$5,638
3%
$13,374
4%
$7.736
Community College -Capital
$13,996
8%
$33,199
9%
$19,203
Public Safety -Operating
$6,524
4%
$6,524
2%
$0
Public Safety -Capital
$705
0%
$705
0%
$0
Total
$181,738
100%
$381,170
100%
$199,432
Total cumulative expenditures under existing levels of service for the Countywide
Service Area are $181 million. Of this amount, $75 million are for operating expenses
and $106 million are for capital expenditures. Under improved levels of service,
cumulative expenditures are $381 million. Of this amount, $87 million are for operating
expenses and $294 million are for capital expenditures. The cumulative difference in
expenditures under improved levels of service is $199 million. It should be noted that
cumulative debt financed capital expenditures do not include the total life cycle principal
plus interest payments for individual facilities, "just the cumulative total payments to
2010.
•
The greatest difference in expenditures between existing and improved levels of service
is school capital expenditures. Under improved levels of service, the increase in debt
service payments to implement the Board of Education's plan to relieve overcrowding
and use of non-traditional space is $164 million more over the 12-year period. The
County's share of operating costs is not expected to increase with the implementation of
this plan. The total school costs (operating and capital) are 69% of the Countywide
expenditures due to growth under the existing level of service and 76% under the
improved levels of service. •
MA
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

•
The increased cost to provide more community college space per student results in
cumulative capital expenditures of an additional $19 million in capital and $7 million in
increased operating expenditures, for a total of $32 million. The cost to provide
additional regional park land results is an additional $1.5 million in debt service
payments in 2010 and $1.8 million in increased operating expenditures. The cost to
provide additional library space per person results in cumulative debt service
expenditures of $2.2 million. The increase in library space also increases operating
expenditures by $1.8 million. Cumulative expenditures to provide more books per
person in the County result in cumulative expenditures of $229,000.
B. Countywide vs. Nonurban Service Area
The table below shows the difference in cumulative expenditures between the
Countywide and Nonurban Service Areas. With the exception of the three categories
shown below, expenditures for County services that are truly Countywide in nature are
the same in both Service Areas.
Cumulative Expenditures
Countywide versus Nonurban Service Area
Countywide
Nonurban
Expenditure
Service Area
%
Service Area
%
Difference
General Govemment-0perating
$2,704
26%
$1,469
26%
($1,235)
Public Safety -Operating
$6,524
65%
$3,653
65%
($2,871)
Public Safety -Capital
$705
9%
$490
9%
$215)
Total
$9,933
100%
$5,612
100%
($4,321)
As the table above indicates, Countywide Service Area cumulative expenditures are
$4.3 million more than the Nonurban Service Area. This is a result of decreased
expenditures in the Nonurban Service Area for General Government and Sheriffs Office
functions. This is because it is assumed that in order to maintain the current level of
service in the County, the costs to provide certain General Government functions such
as Planning'''and Engineering will decrease as the unincorporated County land area
decreases. This assumption is also applied to Sheriffs Office patrol activities. If the
City is providing Police services to an area, then the Sheriffs Office is no longer the
primary law enforcement provider in that area, therefore, it is assumed to reassign these
officers to other parts of the County results in,an improved level of service.
The assumed reduction in General Government activities (Planning and Engineering) as
a result of urban service being extended to the Phase I, II and III annexation areas in
1998 and Urban County in 2010, results in a cumulative cost savings of $1.2 million
over 12 years. The cost savings from a reduction of Sheriffs Office patrol activities are
$3 million over 12 years.
C. Urban Service Area
The table below shows the cumulative expenditures for each Urban Service Area and
the combined total of each.
28
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

Cumulative Expenditures
Urban Service Area
Category
City
Phase I
Area
Phase II
Area
Phase III
Area
Urban
County
Combined
Total
General Government -Operating
$4,915
$11,258
$9,024
$10,171
$1,360
$36,728
Police -Operating
$7,462
$21,287
$14,052
$13,321
$2,893
$59,015
Police -Capital
$615
$1,950
$1,348
$1,291
$1,159
$6,362
Fire -Operating
$1,189
$20,225
$12,591
$13,650
$621
$48,276
Fire -Pay -as -you -Go
$0
$1,045
$550
$1,045
$209
$2,849
Fire -Debt Financed
$0
$2,267
$2,267
$2,267
$174
$6,975
Public Serv.& Fac: Operating
$2,238
$10,406
$10,966
$9,776
$713
$34,099
Public Serv.& Fac: Pay -as -you -Go
$0
$365
$287
$287
$365
$1,305
Public Serv.& Fac: Debt Financed
$850
$850
$850
$850
$0
$3,400
Parks -Capital
$902
$1,558
$1,520
$1,520
$2.932
$8,432
Roads -Pay -as -you -Go
$0
$6.500
$6,500
$6,500
$500
$20,000
Roads -Debt Financed
$0
$567
$567
$567
$44
$1,744
Total
$18,170
$78,278
$60,522
$61,245
$10,970
$229,183
The Phase I annexation area generates the most cumulative expenditures of the five
service areas, at $78 million. This is because population and employment in this area is
the highest. The Phase III annexation area generates cumulative expenditures of $61
million, followed by the Phase II annexation area ($60 million), and City of Wilmington
($18 million). The Urban County generates almost $11 million in cumulative
expenditures. Expenditures in this service area are the lowest since urban services are
not extended until 2010. If urban services were extended to the Urban County in 1998,
this area would have generated the most cumulative expenditures, given its large
population base.
In the Cit
y of Wilmington, cumulative expenditures are highest for Police activities, with
cumulative operating and capital expenditures of $8 million. The majority of these
expenditures are for additional Police officers to serve the almost 9,000 person increase
in population from 1998 to 2010. Cumulative expenditures for General Government
functions are the second highest, at almost $5 million.
Cumulative expenditures are highest for Fire and Police activities in the Phase I
annexation area, with cumulative expenditures of $23.5 million and $23.2 million,
respectively. In the Phase II annexation area, cumulative expenditures are the reverse
of the Phase I area. Police activities account for the highest cumulative expenditures, at
$15.4 million, and cumulative Fire expenditures are $13.3 million. This is because the
City Fire Department estimates that it needs lest equipment to serve the Phase II area.
In the Phase III area cumulative expenditures are highest for Fire, at almost $17 million,
followed by Police at $14.6 million.
Cumulative expenditures in the Urban County are actually only for 2010, as this is the
year urban services are extended. Of the year 2010 expenditures, expenditures for
Police are the highest, at $4.0 million. This is because 64 new Police officers must be
hired in 2010 to provide an urban level of service to this area. The Fire Department
requires the most "upfront" infrastructure to provide an urban level of service, however,
equipment is acquired through a 5-year lease purchase agreement and new stations
are debt financed over 20 years. •
29
Tischler & Associates, Inc.

/ Future Land Use

Technical Reports Wilmington New Hanover County
Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use
of New Hanover County and Wilmington,
North Carolina
A Technical Report for the City and County Comprehensive Plan
1997-2010
November 1998
Prepared by the
City of Wilmington, Planning Division
202 N. 3rd Street, 4 h Floor, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
New Hanover County, Planning Department
414 Chestnut Street, Suite 304, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
0

Future Land Use
•
New Hanover County and Wilmington, North Carolina
A Technical Report for the County and City Comprehensive Plan
1997-2010
Table of Contents
Pale
1. Introduction
I-1
II. Summary
II-1
M. Population
III-1
IV. Vacant & Developed Land and Flood Plain
IV-1
V. Housing Growth and Land Use
V-1
VI. Employment Growth and Land Use
VI-1
VII. Projected Future Land Use
VII-1
•
Vill. Alternative Future Land Use Scenario
VIII-1
R. References
R-1
A. Appendix
A-1
•
M

•
•
I. Introduction
The purpose of this Future Land Use report is to describe business and residential growth
trends on vacant land in Wilmington and New Hanover County. This report is one of the updated
technical reports for the Wilmington and New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan 1997-
2010! Growth trends are presented for employment and housing. The existing land use growth
pattern for employment and housing is used to project a future growth pattern trend to the year
2010. Input from the Comprehensive Plan public forums was included in the Steering Committee
recommendations and is presented as a proposed future land use alternative for land development
and conservation.
1 The previous "Future Land Use of New Hanover County. " report is from September 1992.
I-1

II. Summary
Population
Wilmington's population is projected to increase by approximately 9,000 people from
1997 to 2010. The County total is projected to increase by approximately 31,200 people. There
will be continued pressure to develop vacant land in the City and County.
Vacant & Developed Land and Flood Plain
In 1997 land use in Wilmington was 24% vacant, 29% residential, 22% business, and 8%
recreation.
In 1997 land use in the unincorporated County was 50% vacant, 17% residential, 12%
business, 2% recreation, and 4% agriculture.
A vacant and developed land use map shows that the greatest development density is
centered in the Wilmington urban area with the greatest vacant land in the northern portion of the
County with a lesser amount in the southeast.
Approximately 21 % of vacant residentially zoned land in the Planning Service Area
(unincorporated County north of Snow's Cut and City) is in the flood plain.
In the Planning Service Area, 32% of the vacant industrial land zoned for development, is
in the flood plain, and 8% of the retail and 3% of the office vacant land is in the flood plain.
Housing .Growth and Land Use
In the Planning Service Area approximately 12,900 new units of housing are projected to
be constructed between 1997 to 2010.
For the projected growth from 1997 to 2010, 7,900 units will be constructed in the urban
County, 4,000 in the City, and 900 in the non -urban County.
A mapping model of projected residential growth from 1997 to 2010 shows that high
growth will occur in the urban County, medium growth in the north and south County, and low
growth in the small scattered lots in the City and in the extreme northwest County.
Employment Growth and Land Use
From 1990 to 1996 the four largest gains by job type were in services, trade, government,
and construction. There were three job types with losses; manufacturing, agriculture, and
transportation -communication -public utilities. This trend will likely continue into the next
decade.
A mapping model was used to project from 1997 to 2010 business land use growth on
vacant land for retail, office, and industry. The model reveals where high, medium and low
growth on vacant land will likely occur.
Areas mapped for retail show that high and medium growth will occur on vacant land in
the City and County along major arterial roads. Comparing this projected retail growth with
•

existing development shows a continuation of strip development along many City and County
arterial roads. 0
Areas mapped for office type growth indicate that high and medium growth will mostly
occur within Wilmington. The highest concentration of projected office growth is in the vicinity
of the intersection of Shipyard Boulevard, Caroling Beach road and South 17'h Street. A challenge
will be to provide adequate attention to site plan requirements for pedestrian sidewalks,
aesthetics, road design, and traffic congestion through the Comprehensive Plan and zoning
regulations.
The largest amounts of vacant land for industrial growth in the high and medium
projection categories from 1997 to 2010 is in the north unincorporated County along the Cape
Fear River, Blue Clay Road, Castle Hayne-Holly Shelter Road area, and off Market Street south
of Gordon Road. Much of this vacant land is outside of the Urban Service Area. About one-third
of the land is within the 100 year flood plain. A challenge will be to address infrastructure needs
and stormwater management concerns through the Comprehensive Plan, capital improvements,
and zoning regulations.
Projections for Future Land Use
The land use projection from 1997 to 2010 shows that the amount of developed
residential property in Wilmington will increase from 73%to 83%, leaving 17% vacant land.
Business land will increase from 64%to 77%, leaving 23% vacant land.
The land use projection from 1997 to 2010 for the Urban County area shows that the
amount of developed residential property will increase from 54% to 67%, leaving 33% vacant
land. Business land will increase from 71%to 941/6, leaving 6% vacant land.
The Non -Urban County area land use projection from 1997 to 2010 shows that the is
amount of developed residential property will increase from 23% to 26%, leaving 74% vacant
land. Business land will increase from 40% to 41%, leaving 59% vacant land.
As the vacant landscape become increasingly developed a larger amount of area is
converted to roads. In 1997 15% of Wilmington's land use was composed of roads, the Urban
County 10%, and the Non -Urban County 3%. Projections to 2010 are that an additional 2% more
vacant land will be converted to roads.
Approximately 21 % of the vacant residential zoned land lies in the 100 year flood plain.
Eight percent of the retail, 3% of the office, and 32% of the industrial zoned land lies in the 100
year flood plain.
Alternative Future Land Use Scenario
The fidwe land use scenario presents flexible development, efficient use of urban
services, increased density where appropriate, while striving to retain open space.
The firture land use scenario presents flexible development, efficient use of urban
services, increased density where appropriate, while striving to retain open space.
H-2

40 III. Population
The following table III-1 below and graph on the next page show the recent population
changes and projected growth in New Hanover County and Wilmington from 1997 to 2010. The
location of the Urban Service Area and Non -Urban Service Area noted in the table below, are
show on page III-3. These two areas comprise the Planning Service Area which is the
Unincorporated County north of Snow's cut and Wilmington.
Wilmington's population is projected to increase by approximately 9,000 people from
1997 to 2010, and the County total is projected to increase by approximately 31,200 people. The
table shows that the bulk of the County wide population growth is projected to occur in the Urban
Service Area, at approximately 27,100 new people from 1997 to 2010. Wilmington and a largely
urban area of the Unincorporated County comprise the Urban Service Area.
The growth in the Non -Urban Service or more rural north and south portions of the
County will constitute only a small amount of the growth, at approximately 2,200 new people.'
The Urban Service Area is projected to grow at annual rates of approximately 1.6% per
year. The Non Urban Service Area is projected to grow at a comparatively slower annual rate of
approximately 0.9% per year.
Table 111-1.
Population
Projections
Growth/year
Area
1997July 1997-10 2010July Increase'97to'10
Wilmington
64,164 1.0% 73,179 9,015
New Hanover County
149,211 1.5% 180,416 31,205
Urban Service Area 121,301 1.6% 148,392 27,091
Non -Urban Service Area 17,817 0.9% 19,998 2,181
Note the Urban Area and Non -Urban Area is delineated by the Urban Service Boundary.
These two areas constitute the Planning Service Area.
' Note that the population estimates for the Non -Urban Service Area in this report exclude a small amount
of residents south of Snows Cut, who presently live in the Unincorporated County, but are in the extra
territorial jurisdiction of Carolina Beach and Kure Beach. The beach towns, Wrightsville, Carolina, and
Kure are outside of the planning jurisdiction presented in this report. At time of press there are proposed
annexation area by Wilmington Population and land use estimates of these proposed areas are excluded
from this report. The population values are from the Office of State Planning with adjustment by the City
and County Planning Offices.
•

Trend: Wilmington's population is projected to .increase by approximately
9,000 people from 1997 to 2010. The County total is projected to
increase by approximately 31,206 people. There will be continued
pressure to develop vacant land in the City and County.
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
c
O 120,000
w
ev
100,000
C-
0 80,000
IL
60,000
40,000
20,000
New Hanover County and Wilmington
Recent Population Growth and Projections
e New Hanover County
—m— Wilmington
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
III-2
•
.•
•

0
0
PENDER COUNTY
o L
• ,.N
17
74 76 �� • 74 G00
32 MCI
BRUNSWICK
COUNTY I•r Pti
s
•
S 421 N ,
T
O op •°
9 ° Planning Service Area
4 � o
•
a` 1 Urban Service Area
o 2 A Wilmington
B Urban County
2 Non -Urban Service Area
,000
New Hanover County - Wilmington , j j I ACRES
1998 Comprehensive Plan
. 2map.w i

•
•
IV. Vacant & Developed Land and Flood Plain
The 1997 land use for Wilmington and New Hanover County is presented in a map in the
accompanying Existing Land Use technical report. The land use categories shown on the map are
also listed in the table W-1 below. The main land use categories are residential, recreation,
business, and vacant.
Table IV-1. Generalized 1997 Land Use
New Hanover County
Developed
Vacant
Residential
Business
Single family Recreation
Commercial Undeveloped
Mufti -family
Office & institutional
Mobile home
Utilities/transportation
Industrial
Agriculture
The general land use is summarized in the table IV-2 below.' The areas are the
Unincorporated County and City. Approximately 32% of the Unincorporated County land is
developed and 50% is vacant (table below).2 Approximately 60% of the City land is
Table IV-2. Land Use by Parcel 1997
Unincorporated County and Wilmington (in Acres and %)
Unincorporated Countv Cfir
% of
Total Land
% of Total Land
Total Use by Parcel
Total Use by
Land by
as a % of
Land by Parcel as a %
Land Use Category
Acres
Parcel
Developed
Acres
Parcel of Developed
Residential
18,854
17%
63%
5.744
29% 49%
Business
13,881
39%
4,459
38%
Office & institutional
2,447
2%
7%
2,176
11 % 19%
Commercial
1,299
1 %
4%
1.107
6% 9%
Transportation, utilities
& communications
4,407
4%
12%
577
3% 5%
Industrial
5,728
5%
16%
599
3% 5%
Recreation
2,633
2%
7%
1,523
8% 13%
Total Developed
49,249
32%
100%
16,185
60% 100%
Agriculture
4,309
4%
61
0%
Vacant Undeveloped
65,248
60%
4,679
24%
Water
2,521
2%
77
0%
Other (water right of way,
unknown)
12,473
11 %
3.089
16%
Total
109,919
100%
19.632
100%
1 The data in this table was collected in the field and entered into
the computer GIS by the County and City
Manning offices in 1997.
• The remainder of land is composed of
a minor amount of these
categories; agriculture, water, and other.
IV-1

developed and 24% is vacant.
Trend: In 1997 land use in Wilmington was 24% vacant, 29% residential, 22%
business, and 8% recreation..
Of the developed land in the Unincorporated County approximately 53% is residential,
39% is business and 7% is recreation (previous table). Similarly of the developed land in the City
approximately 49% is residential, 38% business and 13% recreation.
Trend: . In.1997.1and. use in the unincorporated County was 50% vacant, 17%
residential, 12% 2% recreation, and 4% agriculture.
The acres of total land use from the previous table IV-2 are summarized in the following
two pie charts for the Unincorporated County and City.3 The City compared with the County is as
follows: half as much vacant land (24% City vs. 50% County); twice the percent of land use for
business (22% City vs. 12% County); four times by percent the amount of recreation land (8%
City vs. 2% County); approximately twice the percent amount of residential land use (29% City
vs. 17% County); and no agricultural land (0% City vs. 4% County). As one would expect the
City Land Use 1997
Vacant
Recreation 8
Unincorporated
County
Land Use 1997
Vacant 50%
24% :.
Residential 29%
ova
Business 22410
itial 17%
Business 12%
ecreation 2%
:ulture 4%
3 The categories water and other shown in the table on the previous page are not shown in the above pie
charts. •
IV-2

•
comparison shows that the City has a greater percent amount of development compared with the
Unincorporated County. Conversely, the Unincorporated County is more rural than the City.
The map on the next page shows the vacant land and developed land in the City and
County. As can be seen the majority of developed land is within the urbanized area, while the
greatest amount of vacant land is primarily north and south of the urbanized area and generally
away from the beaches.
Trend: The greatest development density is centered in the Wilmington
urban area with the greatest vacant land in the northern portion
of the County and southeast County.
The map on page IV-5 shows the location of the 100 year flood plain in the City and
County. Table IV-3 below shows the percent of developed and vacant land that is in the 100 year
flood plain 4 Generally the table reveals that the non -urban portion of the County has the highest
amount of both developed and vacant land in the flood plain. Conversely, the more urban areas of
the City and urban County have a lesser amount of developed and vacant land in the flood plain.
Trend: An average of 21% of vacant residentially zoned land in the Planning
Service Area (Unincorporated County north of Snows Cut and
Wilmington) is in the flood plain.
Table N-3. Land in the 100 Year
Flood Plain (1997)
Location
Residential
Developed
Vacant
Business
Developed
Vacant
Wilmington
5%
7%
21 %
Qii
Urban County
10%
26%
10%
20%
Non -Urban County
18%
19%
37%
34%
County Service Area
11 %
21 %
27%
30%
4 See Appendix Tables A2 to A5 for details.
IV-3

A
0
0
blew Hanover County Vacant & Developed land (1997)
Legend
Brunswick County Pander County Developed Land Vacant Land
Urbanized SoundiYes F/77 Main Roads [:] Hyrfrography Lines
Pender County
40
Brunswic
r
County
74
C)
%K �,IIR O-Ch
�" a }�� ..�, r :� Z r. , sad � � I
Y'I
4
lkmch
'Kure Beach
0 rS
Miles K/
— I

•
•
•
New Hanover County 100 Year Flood Plain Map N
Y �t
Legend
New Hanover Co. Fender Co. Brunsw/ck Co. Water
C�Mp RiH �'
M pO.Md. 11/10W Urban/zed Boundrles FIVI Ma/n Roads 100 Year Floodpla/n Mun/c/pa/Boundrles
Mmmdav 7eMnobp� M.p L...Yorl, mhotlmmm
r�
•. f j
\ Fender unty
40
I If
17
'r pp
% -� L - Ili• � �' ° �� ,
Brunswick
County
7.
74 I
76
1 4.. wrbCM�p
D V
f+\ , Y i...Yti1 i.F
� y 7e ,
p \
6 Kr S f ,
♦1 0 1 :! -
..,`1 rPIyy ' IV
1
_ UR+BYACIf
C
o,.....�.6f.-.... Z 4

•
•
Further inspection of appendix tables A3 to A5 reveals that most of the business land
(vacant and developed) that lies in the flood plain is industry related as shown in the following
table IV4. In the Planning Service Area (Unincorporated County north of Snow's Cut and
Wilmington) approximately 32% to 35% of the industry land lies in the flood plain compared
with approximately 8% for retail and 3% for office.
Table Iv 4. Business Land in the 100
Year Flood Plain (1997)
Location
Retail
Office
Industry
Wilmington
Developed
5%
2%
49%
Vacant
3%
2%
18%
Urban County
Developed
6%
6%
13%
Vacant
5%
5%
32%
Non -Urban County
Developed
11 %
23%
39%
Vacant
19%
0%
34%
Planning Service Area
Developed
6%
7%
35%
Vacant
8%
3%
32%
The map on the next page shows that the low lying flood plain areas follow creeks,
adjacent estuaries, and the Cape Fear River. An area with a comparatively large amount of land in
the flood plain is in the northwest portion of the County.
Trend: In the Planning Service Area,32% of the vacant industrial land
zoned for development, is in the flood plain; and 8% of the retail
and 3% of the office vacant land is in the flood plain.
In many areas of the City and County there are flooding challenges as a result of periodic
intense rainfalls and storms. Developing vacant land within the flood plain, and maintaining
existing developed land poses challenges in terms of livability, natural resources, stormwater
management, economic well being, and water quality.
IV-6

V. Housing Growth and Land Use
The following table V-1 shows the projected housing unit growth for the City and the
unincorporated County from 1997 to 2010.' The percent change column shows that Wilmington
is projected to increase 14% by the year 2010. The urbanizing County area adjacent to the City
will have a growth rate more than twice this amount at 32%. For the location of these areas see
the map on page III-3. The non -urban service area in the County will have a similar growth rate
to the City at 12%. Overall the Planning Service Area will have a projected growth of 21% from
1997 to 2010.
Trend: In the Planning Service Area approximately 12900 new units of
housing are projected to, be constructed between 1997 to 2010.
Table V 1. City -County Projected
Housing Units 1997-2010
# new
Computer
Units
Units
%
units/
New
Area Type Code
Nov. 1997
2010
Change
yr
units
Urban Service Area
Wilmington Single Family 10,21
14,654
16,728
160
2,074
Duplex & Townhome 11,15
3,245
3,698
35
453
Apartment 12
9,874
11,251
106
1,377
Mobile Home 13,14
500
571
5
71
•
Subtotal
28,273
32,248
14%
306
3,976
Urban County Single Family 10,21
20,548
25,211
359
4,663-
Duplex & Townhome 11,15
1,938
4,317
183
2,379
Apartment 12
447
862
32
415
Mobile Home 13,14
2,129
2,621
38
492
Subtotal
25,062
33,011
32%
611
7,949
Total
53,335-
65,259
22%
917
11,924
Non -Urban County Single Family 10,21
6,090
6,759
51
669
Service Area Duplex & Townhome 11,15
313
443
10
130
Apartment 12
0
0
0
0
Mobile Home 13,14
1,156
1,283
10
127
Total
7,559
8,485
12%
71
926
Planning Service Area Single Family 10,21
41,292
48,698
570
7,406
(Urban & Non-Urb. Ser. Areas) Duplex & Townhome 11,15
5,496
8,458
228
2,962
Apartment 12
10,321
12,113
138
1,792
Mobile Home 13,14
3,785
4,475
53
690
Total
60,894
73,744
21%
988
12,860
•
' The housing data was collected in the field by the City and County planning offices in 1997.
V-1

Trend: For the projected growth from 1997 to 2100, 7,900 units will be
constructed in the urban County, 4,000 in the City, and 900 in the
non -urban County.
The figure V-1 below is a summation of the previous table V-1 and it shows the projected
housing growth. The amount of projected new constructed units from 1997 to 2010 shows that;
the City will add approximately 4,000 units, the urbanizing County approximately 8,000 units;
the non -urban service area approximately 900 units; and the overall Planning Service Area
approximately 12,900 new units. The Planning. Service Area is a summation of the urban and non -
urban service areas.
Figure V-1
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
Projected Housing Growth 1997-2010
Urban Service Area - Urban Service Area - Non -Urban Service Planning Service Area
Wilmington County Area total
The following four figures V-2 to V-5 show the relative amounts of housing types
projected to be built from 1997 to 2010. The types are single family, duplex and townhome (also
referred to as single family attached condominium), apartment, and mobile home. Figure V-5 is
the Planning Service Area with a total housing count and it includes the urban and non -urban
areas of the City and unincorporated County. The location of these areas is show on page III-3.
Figure V-2
Urban Service Area - Wilmington
Projected Housing Growth 1997-2010
2,500
2,000
1,500
Cn
N 1,000
= 500
Single family Duplex & Apartment Mobile Home
Townhome
V-2
•
•
is

•
The majority of new construction City and County wide is projected to be 66% single
family or approximately 7,400 units (see Figure V-5 on the next page for Planning Service Area).
A comparison of the Figures V-2 to V4 shows that Wilmington will realize the most amount of
apartment construction with approximately 1,400 units. The urban service area in the County is
projected to have the largest amount of duplex and townhome construction at approximately
2,400 units. The non -urban County service area is projected to have a small amount of duplex and
townhome construction at approximately 100 units. Most of the mobile home growth is projected
to be in the urban service area of the County at approximately 500 units, and in the non -urban
service area at approximately 100 units. Figure V-5 on the next page shows the Planning Service
Area and the overall projection from 1997 to 2010 is approximately 7,400 single family units,
3,000 duplexes and townhomes, 1,800 apartments, and 700 mobile homes.
Urban Service Area - County
Projected Housing Growth 1997-2010
5,000
w 4,000
c
3,000
N 2,000
= 1,000
Single family Duplex & Apartment Mobile Home
Townhome
Figure V-3
Non -Urban County Service Area
Projected Housing Growth 1997-2010
800
700
c
600
:3
500
c
400
'y
300
c
200
x
100
Single family Duplex & Apartment Mobile Home
Townhome
Figure V-4
V-3

Planning Service Area
Urban and Non -Urban Service Areas Combined
Projected Housing Growth 1997-2010
8,000
vw! 7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
'G 3,000
c 2,000
= 1,000
Single family Duplex & Apartment Mobile Home
Townhome
Figure V-5
Projected Residential Growth Areas Map
The following map on the next page shows projected growth areas 1997-2010 for
residential housing in the unincorporated County and Wilmington. This map shows in spatial
form the housing unit projected growth from table V-1 shown on page V-1. The map shows the
general trend of how residential development could occur, but because of projection limitations
not necessarily how development will occur. Nevertheless, it provides a useful tool for future
planning. The future residential growth model components shown in the following figure V-6 are:
housing growth 1997-2010; zoning; and undeveloped land.
Future Residential
Growth Mapping
Model Components
Maps
and
Data
O
V �=Il
_=�M=A
Housing Growth 1997-2010
Zoning
Undeveloped Land
Result
Future Growth Areas
1997-2010 Residential Growth
High, Medium, Low
Figure V-6
V-4
•
•
•

The three categories of growth are termed high, medium, and low as shown in the below table V-
2.2 High means that there is a high probability that development will occur on vacant residential
land. The projected growth change for the high category from 1997 to 2010 is greater than 46%.
The medium growth category probability is between high and low, and the projected growth is
between 22% to 46% from 1997 to 2010. Low means that there is a low probability that
residential development will occur on vacant land, and the projected growth is from 0%to 22%.
Table V 2. Growth Rates for Residential Map Projections 1997-2010
High growth Medium growth Low growth
greater than 46% 22% to 46% less than 22% growth
Projected Residential Growth Map Analysis
Analysis of high, medium, and low projected growth on vacant land from 1997-2010 on
the map on the next page shows that certain areas of the County and City will grow at different
rates. The location of these generalized growth areas are summarized in the following table V-3
on page V-6.
Table v-3. Residential Growth Map Analysis 1997 2010
Projected Areas of Growth: High, Medium, and Low
High '
Primarily in the Unincorporated County Urban Service Area adjacent to Wilmington.
• Medium
Non -Urban Service Area, north and south Unincorporated County.
Wilmington; with larger sites in the South 17th Street Extension vicinity.
•
Low
Scattered small sites in Wilmington
Northwest portion of the Unincorporated County.
Trend: A. mapping model of projected residential; growth from 1997 to 2010
shows that high growth will occur in the urban County, medium
growth in the north and south County, and low growth in the small
scattered lots in the City and in the northwest County.
2 Approximately 200 TATs or transportation analysis zones are in the County -City and were used in the
model.
M

0
•
�f x
11 HC FUTURE RES6®ENTIAl GROWTH AREAS 1997 - 2010
Legend
NHC Co. High Rea. Growth Med. Res. Growth Low Res. Growth
El
\yJfO�xoitn+o�' -
MMo Any Urbanized 3oundries 100 year Floodplain Hydrography Municipal Roundries
Brunswick
County
1.
i
N
tj
mv
asoyr�onp mro�manon sywwn�
MSo L.U.:/AAMdWWb w

most of the hi residential growth is
High Projected Growth Areas. Generally gh
projected to occur within the Urban Service Area of the unincorporated County (see map p. V-6).
This area is between the red dashed line on the map and the green Wilmington municipal
boundary. The growth is concentrated: largely within two miles of the coast line; in the vicinity of
North Kerr Avenue, and north and south Gordon Road; and in the Monkey Junction area.3
Inspection of the existing residential developed land, (see Existing Land Use map in the back
pocket of report) 14 with the projected future residential growth areas map (p. V-6) shows that
much of the present and future residential development will be long distances away from retail
areas (see Existing Land Use map). Employment map analysis in section VI of the report shows
that retail land use has become primarily concentrated along a few arterial roads with strip
development. This will raise policy challenges of declining service levels on arterial roads, with
dependent automobile use, and a need for a more comprehensive bus system particularly in the
Urban Service Area of the County.
Medium Projected Growth Areas. The primary areas of medium projected
residential growth (orange color on map on previous page) are: the Non -Urban Service Area in
the north and south Unincorporated County, and in Wilmington especially in the South 17'h Street
Extension vicinity.
Low Projected Growth Areas. Generally the areas with low projected residential
growth (see map p. V-6) are: scattered small sites in Wilmington; and the northwest portion of the
Unincorporated County largely near the Cape Fear River.
•
3 Near the intersections of Carolina Beach Road, Piner Road, Sanders Road and South College Road
4 New Hanover County generalized 1997 land use map.
•
V-7

0 VI. Employment Growth and Land Use
The following table VI-1 shows New Hanover County employment projections by job
type from 1996 to 2010. From 1990 to 1996 the following three job types decreased; agriculture,
manufacturing, and transportation -communications -public utilities. The other five job types
increased. The two largest increases were in the service and construction categories. It is
debatable whether or not these trends will continue to the year 2010 and at what rates. The fourth
column shows jobs as a percentage of 1996 County population. This projection by job type was
done to the year 2010 with NC Office of State Planning population projections. The trend, should
only be used as rough estimates due to unforeseen future changes in the economy.
Table VI-1. Projected Job Types
New Hanover County
Change Jobs as a Trend Jobs as a
per % of 1996 projection % of 2010
Job types _
1990
1996
year
population
2010
population
Agriculture
303
270
-1.9%
0.2%
340
2.0%
Manufacturing
9,500
8,590
-1.7%
6.0%
10,805
6.0%
Construction
4,110
6,080
6.7%
4.2%
7,648
4.2%
Transportation, communications, public utilities
3,620
3,590
-0.1 %
2.5%
4,516
2.5%
Trade
18,250
22,880
3.8%
16.0%
28,780
16.0%
Finance, insurance, real estate
2,470
3,100
3.9%
2.2%
3,899
2.2%
Services
13,430
20,500
7.3%
14.3%
25,786
14.3%
Government
11.340
12.950
2.2%
9.0%
16.289
9.0%
•
Total and % average
63,023
77,960
3.6%
143,430
98,063
180,416
To determine how much land will be used for business employment growth over the next
12 years to 2010, an estimate of future employment is needed.' In terms of generalized land use
the employment sectors were grouped into retail, office, and industry (Table VI-2). These
employment groups are used to calculate future land use needs in the City and County. Since the
service trade has overlapping job types in the retail and office categories. It is estimated that one-
half of service employees fit in the retail category and one-half in the office category.
1 Agriculture is a very small amount of the total County employment at 0.3%. For the projection estimates
it was excluded, because it is estimated that there will be enough agricultural land to accommodate the
market demand in the next 12 years. Government employees and hence land use needs are analyzed in the
infrastructure section of the Comprehensive Plan.
VI-1

•Table VI-2. Employment groups for future land use calculations to the year 2010
Retail Office Industry
Wholesale trade Finance -insurance -real estate Construction
Retail trade 12 of Service Manufacturing
12 of Service Transportation -communications -utilities
The following three tables VI-3 to VI-5 show the employment projections for future land
use planning areas of the County and City to the year 2010. The areas are the urban service area
and the non -urban service area. Future employment is related to population growth to provide a
realistic projection.2
Table VI-3. Retail Employment
Projections
Area
1997
2000
2005
2010
Increase'97-'10
Urban Service Area
Wilmington
18,521
19,260
20,184
21,123
2,602
Urban County
7,974
8,690
9,592
10,509
2,535
Total
26,495
27,950
29,776
31,632
5,137
Non -Urban Service Area
2,174
2,253
2,351
2,440
266
Planning Service Area (total above)
28,669
30,203
32,127
34,072
5,403
Employment values from Wilmington Planning Div. July 1997 Transportation Plan data collection
Projections based on keeping ratios with NO Office State Plan. population
growth modified Wilmington Planning Div. & NHC Plan. Dept.
Table VI-4. Office Employment
Projections
•
Area
1997
2000
2005
2010
Increase'97210
Urban Service Area
Wilmington
10,050
10,451
10,952
11,462
1,412
Urban County
3,954
4,311
4,763
5,222
1,268
Total
14,004
14,762
15,715
16,684
2,680
Non -Urban Service Area
1,096
1,136
1,185
1,230
134
Planning Service Area (total above)
15,100
15,898
16,900
17,914
2,814
: The 1997 employment data was collected in the field by the City -County Transportation Planning office.
Future projections were compared with population growth trends within the County and by a method from
Dr. William Hall economist at UNCW. These future land use projections were also used by Tischler and
Assoc. for the Community Infrastructure section of the Comprehensive Plan In the infrastructure study the
term "flex" was used to describe industry employment because some industry today is light manufacturing,
and contains a - 10 to 20% "flexible amount" of office space. Most readers are more familiar with the term
industry and therefore it is used in this report instead of flex.
VI-2
is

Table VI-5. Industry Employment
Projections
Area 1997
2000
2005
2010
Increase'97210
Urban Service Area
Wilmington 4,857
5,051
5,293
5,539
682
Urban County 3,810
4,148
4,572
5,004
1,194
Total 8,667
9,199
9.865
10,543
1,876
Non -Urban Service Area 6,104
6,326
6,600
6.851
747
Planning Service Area (total above) 14,771
15,525
16,465
17,394
2,623
•
Projected Growth Area Maps., Retail, Office, Industrial 1997-2010
Trend: A mapping model was used to project from 1997 to 2010 business
growth on vacant land for retail, office, and industry.The model
reveals by map where high, medium and low growth_on.vacant land
will likely occur.
The following figure VI-1 shows the components used in the future employment growth
mapping model from 1997 to 2010. The resulting maps are shown on the following three pages.
The maps show projected employment growth of the land from 1997 to 2010 in the
unincorporated County and Wilmington. These maps present in spatial form the employment
projections.. from the previous three tables on page VI-2 for retail, office, and industry. The maps
are a projection of how development could occur and not necessarily how development will
occur. However the model is a useful method to help plan for the future.
Future Employment Employment Growth 1997-2010
Growth - Office
Mapping Model 7 -Retail
Components + - Industrial
Housing Growth 1997-2010
Maps +
and
Figure VI-1 Data Zoning
Undeveloped Land
Result =
Future Growth Areas
1997-2010 Retail
High, Medium, Low
Office
VI-3
Industry

•
•
0 tj
NHC FUTURE RETAIL GROWTH AREAS 1997 - 2010 N
Legend
NHC Co. High Retail Growth ''T Med. Retail Growth Low Retail Growth
M.por.rdmnnane El
Urbanized Boundries 100 YearRioodpisin li Hydrogrephy ❑ Municipal Boundries o•0_.NPh10b7f , d SYW. l
M—Om TwhnoAW ra.p �oo.ron: �Manr rom
\
\
� v r
r
40
r
, `
� a
_
17
.
Brunswick
County
74
74
�- 74 79
�l� _ v
7B
Ella da•�:�
• 1
l �< � �a
c
D .6 1 t
J

��fwi
NHC FUTURE OFFICE GROWTH AREAS 1997 - 2010 N
Legend
* i) ❑ NHC Co. High Office Growth Med. Office Growth Low office Growth
F�FATIRTN��
,wgo0n.nd.11110 a Urbanized Boundries 100 Year Floodpiain Hydrography Municipal Boundries a.o�DbMa mwon8y.fm.
WO Ocft T.M-bDY U.p Lwow., Aftmmwb.w
Pender unty
\ G,
5
w.
I •� 1 F
) A )
e"
1 1• ,
L J i t \ I ♦ ?,
t _
1�.
\ o
i
C
1 -
W
�• n .♦
Brunswick \
County
- WRION�� /•. Y
f• 1pnO. o rc'rUeB.nch O
_ Te
711
yr , / �OFIb ♦ \ a
7Ma . ..
i iar
016

•
•
KI
NHC FUTURE INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AREAS 1997 - 2010 N
Lj
y y Legend
Z
NHC Co. ■ High Indust. Growth ,,`7 Med. Indust Growth ❑ Low Indust Growth
M.p On.ndm 11/lova U/f5anized Boundries 100 Year Floodp/ain '� Hydrography Municipal Boundri s'°°'�o°" "'°""""' �''"""•
NlamWon T•W°°l°py M•p Lrod°n: /nhwdtrb�w
Pendeuii
•
i
Z
40
1. -
Brunswick
0.
County
7<74
,�
s
�.7
W■IC M\
�h
_ w
kit -
f Wj in y�
76
z
-rol,.
-'
42
c
U .6 1 2

The three qualitative categories of growth by area are termed high, medium, and low as
shown in the following table VI-6.3 High means that there is a comparatively high probability that
a large number of jobs and hence development will occur. This development would be on vacant
land, suitably zoned for retail, office, or industry. Low means that there is a low number of jobs
projected for a given area. Therefore, there is a low probability that development will occur on
suitably zoned vacant land as shown on the maps. The medium growth category is between high
and low.
Table VI-6. Growth Rates for Employment Map Projections 1997-2010
From 200 County Transportation Analysis Zones
High growth Medium growth Low growth
Greater than 166 jobs 16 to 166 jobs Less than 16
Projected Employment -Land Use Growth Map Analysis
Analysis of the high, medium, and low growth areas on vacant land from the three
projected employment maps (on pages VI4 to VI-6), shows that certain areas of the County and
City will grow at different rates. These growth areas are summarized table VI-7 on page VI-9.
Retail Growth. Generally most of the high and medium retail growth is projected to
occur within the urbanized boundary as shown on the map (page VI4). The location of this
boundary is also shown on the map on page III-3. High and medium growth is also projected to
occur on a relatively large area of retail suitable land in the north County in the vicinity of 140
and Holly Shelter Road in the Castle Hayne vicinity, and south of Monkey Junction along
Carolina Beach Road. Existing 1997 commercially used land is largely retail and is shown as red
colored areas on the map (see Existing Land Use report, back pocket). Comparison of this
commercial land with the projected retail growth areas map (page VI4) shows a continuation of
strip development along many the City and County roads.
3 Determining numerical ranges of high, medium, and low was accomplished by reviewing the job growth
and assigning the following intervals; low, 0-15 new jobs; medium, 16 to 166 new jobs; and high, greater
than 166 new jobs. Approximately 200 TAZ's or transportation analysis zones are in the County -City and
were used in the model
4 New Hanover County generalized 1997 land use map.
i
VI-7

Office Growth. Almost all of the office growth for the high medium and low trends
y M1'
is projected to occur within the current Wilmington city limits (page VI-5). There is also a
relatively large parcel with high office growth potential off Military Cutoff. 0
Industrial Growth. The largest amounts of vacant land for industrial growth (page
VI-6) in the high and medium categories, is projected to occur in the north Unincorporated
County along the Cape Fear River, Blue Clay Road, Castle Hayne-Holly Shelter Road area, and
off Market Street south of Gordon Road. The primary sites within the City with a medium
potential for growth are south of Smith Creek. The low growth projections are scattered in
northern County locations, along Smith Creek, Downtown, off Market Street, and along River
Road.
Trend: The largest amounts -of vacant land for industrial growth in the high
and medium projection categories ,from 1997 to 2010 is in the
north unincorporated County along the Cape Fear. River, Blue Clay
Road, Castle Hayne-Holly Shelter. Road area, and off Market
•
Street south of Gordon Road. Much of this vacant land as outside
of the Urban Service Area.
LJ
VI-8

Table VI-7.
Employment Growth Map Analysis 1997-2010
Projected Areas of Growth: High, Medium, and Low.
* Denotes comparatively large areas of vacant land.
Retail
High
• Vicinity of North College Rd. and Gordan Rd.
' Market St. north of Gordon Rd.
Eastern Oleander Dr.
Medium
Downtown Wilmington vicinity.
' Vicinity of: Market St., Kerr Av. & Blvd., east
Eastwood Rd.
' Shipyard Blvd.
Monkey Junction vicinity: Piner Rd., Sanders Rd.,
Carolina Beach Rd.
' Castle Hayne vicinity.
Low
Downtown Wilmington vicinity.
• South Kerr Blvd.
N. College Rd.
Market St. between N. College and Gordon Rd.
Office
High
East Gordon Rd.
Military Cutoff Rd.
Monkey Junction at Piner Rd. and Carolina Beach Rd.
Medium
Vicinity of Market St. and N. Kerr Av.
Vicinity of Shipyard Blvd., Carolina Bch. Rd., 17th.
St., Independence Rd.
Vicinity of east Eastwood Rd. and S. College Rd.
Low
Vicinity of: south of Eastwood Rd. and east of S.
College Rd.
•
VI-9
Industrial
High
East -west branch of N. Kerr Av.
Along the Cape Fear River west of Castle Hayne Rd.
Northwest of Market St. between N. College Rd. and Gordon
Rd.
Medium
In north County area in Holly Shelter Rd. vicinity.
North of N. Kerr Ave. Between Castle Hayne Rd. and 1-40.
Along the Cape Fear River west of Castle Hayne Rd.
Along the Smith Creek west of N. Kerr Ave.
River Rd. and Titanium Rd.
Low
Along Route 421.
Blue Clay Rd.
Along the Smith Creek west of N. Kerr Ave.
Vicinity of N. College Rd. and Market St.
Vicinity of S. Kerr Blvd. And Market St.
Downtown Wilmington scattered sites.
' Vicinity of River Rd. and Titanium Rd.
(Independence Blvd. extension)

ib VII. Projections for Future Land Use
•
Land Use Categories for Future Land Use Analysis
The land use categories for analysis of developed and vacant land from 1997 to 2010 in
the County and City are shown in the table below.
The main land use categories for 1997 are: residential; business; recreation; agriculture;
water; and the 'other" category which includes roads.
Projected changes to 2010 in land use consisting of residential, business, and roads
categories are analyzed in this report. The projected 1997-2010 recreation needs of the City and
unincorporated County are documented in the Fiscal Analysis community infrastructure report. In
the last 15 years there has been little rezoning of agriculture land for development in the
unincorporated County. Thus, agriculture has no projected land use change in the next 12 years!
Developed and Vacant Residential & Business Land 1997-2010
The following tables VII-1 and VII-2 show a the Land Use Summary for 1997 and 2010.
The amount of land in 1997 and a projection for 2010 are shown for developed, vacant,
residential and business.2 The County Service Area is composed of the Urban Service Area and
the Non -Urban Service Area as shown on the map on page III-3. The Urban Service Area is
composed of Wilmington and the Urban County. The residential category is composed of single
family, duplex and townhome, apartment, and mobile home. The business category is composed
of retail, office, and industry made up of job types shown in the lower table on page VI-1.
Table VII-I. Land Use Summary 1997 (Acres and Percent)
Urban Service Area
Wilmington
Urban County
Category
Developed
%
Vacant
%
Total
Developed
%
Vacant
%
Total
Residential
5,528
73%
2,064
27%
7,592
12,099
54%
10,393
46%
22,492
Business
2,988
64%
1,658
36%
4,646
3,339
71%
1,359
29%
4,698
Non -Urban County Service Area
County Service Area Total
Category
Developed
%
Vacant
%
Total
Developed
%
Vacant
%
Total
Residential
6,626
23%
21,959
77%
28,585
24,253
41%
34,416
59%
58,669
Business
7,078
40%
10,618
60%
17,696
13,405
50%
13,635
50%
27,040
1 Table VI-1 shows that there has been a loss of 33 agriculture jobs from 1990 to 1996. It is not known if
this trend will continue into the future.
2 See appendix Tables A-1 and A-9 for details.
•
VII-I

Table VII-2.
Land Use Projection 2010
<_
(Acres and Percent)
"
Urban Service Area
•
Wilmington
Urban County
Category
Developed % Vacant
%
Total
Developed
%
Vacant
%
Total
Residential
6,309 83% 1,283
17%
7,592
15,152
67%
7,340
33%
22,492
Business
3,575 77% 1,071
23%
4,646
4,430
94%
278
6%
4,70B
Non -Urban County Service Area
Planning Service Area Total
Category
Developed % Vacant
%
Total
Developed
%
Vacant
%
Total
Residential
7,431 26% 21,154
74%
28,585
28,892
49%
29,777
51 %
58,669
Business
7,295 41% 10,401
59%
17,696
15,300
57%
11,750
43%
27,050
The following table VII-3 is an extract from the previous two tables and it shows the
projected increase in development and loss of vacant land from 1997 to 2010. Wilmington and
the urban County are projected to see an increase of 10% and 13% developed residential land,
and 10% and 23% in developed business land. The non -urban County is projected to show less
land development than the City or urban County with 3% growth in residential and 1% in
business. The Planning Service Area shows land development at 8% and 7% for residential and
business respectively.
Table VII-3. Increase in Development,
Loss of Vacant Land 1997-2010
Wilmington
Developed Vacant
Category 1997 2010 Change'97-10 1997 2010 Change'97-'10
Residential 73% 83% 10% 27% 17% -10%
Business 64% 77% 13% 36% 23% -13%
Urban County
Developed
Category
1997 2010 Change '97-'10
Residential
54% 67% 13%
Business
71 % 94% 23%
Non -Urban County
Developed
Category
1997 2010 Change'97210
Residential
23% 26% 3%
Business
40% 41 % 1 %
Planning Service Area
Developed
Category
1997 2010 Change'97210
Residential
41 % 49% 8%
Business
50% 57% 7%
Vacant
1997 2010 Change'97210
46% 33% -13%
29% 6% -23%
Vacant
1997 2010 Change'97-'10
77% 74% -3%
60% 59% -1 %
Vacant
1997 2010 Change'97-'10
59% 51 % -8%
50% 43% -7%
VII-2
•

i
Projected Consumption of Vacant Land by Roads 1997-2010
The following table VII-4 shows the projected increase in the amount roads (in acres) for
each area of the Planning Service Area. The City is the most urbanized area and in 1997 15% of
its land use was roads. In 1997 10% of the urban County was composed of roads, and 3% of the
more rural non -urban County was composed of roads. From 1997 to 2010 the projection is that
the Planning Service Area will add approximately, 1,300 acres of new roads at the expense of
vacant land. The projected 2010 land use is: 17% of the City; 12% of the urban County; 3% of the
non -urban County, and 8% of the Planning Service Area.
Table. VII-4. Projected Consumption of Vacant Land
by Roads 1997-2010
(acres & %)
1997 1997-2010
2010
Location Roads Developed & % Roads Estimate of vacant land
Roads
% Roads
vacant land conversion to roads
Wilmington 2,784 18,486 15% 273
3,057
17%
Urban County 3,354 33,983 10% 829
4,183
12%
Non -Urban County 1,763 60,393 3% 204
1,967
3%
Planning Service Area 7,901 112,862 7% 1,306
9,207
8%
(total of above)
•
The following two tables VII-5 and VII-6 show the amount of vacant land in percent in
the 100 year flood plain.3 A map on page IV-5 shows the location of the flood plain. Some of this
land will likely be developed in the next 12 years. Many portions of the County and City have
flooding problems and stormwater management concerns. There should be concern about how
land that is in the flood plain is developed, and policy and implementation actions should address
this issue.
• 3 See appendix tables A4 and A5 for details.
VII-3

r Table VII-5. Vacant Land in the
y 100 Year Flood Plain (1997)
Residential
Business
Location % acres
%
acres
Wilmington 7% 178
12%
252
Urban County 26% 3028
20%
288
Non -Urban County 19% 4329
34%
4117
Planning Service Area 21 % 7535
30%
4656
Table VII-6. Vacant Business Land in the
100 Year Flood Plain (1997)
Location
Retail
Office
Industry
Wilmington
3%
2%
18%
Urban County
5%
5%
32%
Non -Urban County
19%
0%
34%
Planning Service Area
8%
3%
32%
VII-4
•
•

•
VIII. Alternative Future Land Use Scenario
Background
Through the Comprehensive Planning process it was discovered that many citizens want to
see current development patterns change in New Hanover County and Wilmington. For years
Wilmington and the County have been undergoing a development concept called urban sprawl.
Sprawl is the land use pattern that has arisen due to strict adherence to single use zoning districts
and the construction of infrastructure to support the use of the single occupant automobile. Zoning
since the late 1920's functioned to separate residential uses from industrial and commercial uses.
This separation also encouraged residential subdivisions to move further away from city centers.
While many people enjoy owning a home on a relatively large lot, away from the central city,
others want the convenience and sense of community that urban living brings. Additionally,
concerns which range from increased traffic on the roads, to pollution in the estuarine creeks and in
our groundwater, can be addressed through changes in the way our land is developed.
The{ development trend which the following land use scenario promotes mingles different
but compatible land uses within the same neighborhood. The scenario strives to maintain the
character of existing neighborhoods while encouraging new neighborhoods to increase density
where service can be provided most efficiently and commercial, office and Institutional, and light
industrial land uses can be located in harmony. This Traditional Neighborhood Development type
would link pedestrian friendly business, and residential development while striving to retain open
space.
Future Land Use Scenario Categories
The following table VIII-1 lists the future land use scenario categories. These categories
are applied to a future land use map on the next page VIII-2. The categories are intended to
promote the development of detailed performance criteria for consideration in the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO). The future land use scenario map presents flexible development,
efficient use of urban services, and increased density where appropriate. The presented future land
use scenario should be achievable under the classifications set forth in the CAMA Land
Classification map. In many areas the classifications coincide geographically, and the future land
use scenario provides a flexible framework for future ordinance development.
Table Vill-1. Future Land Use Scenario Categories
Mixed Use Urban Neighborhood Flood Plain Regional Center
Mbced Use Rural Neighborhood Unique Feature Overlay Community Center
Residential Neighborhood Industrial
VIII-I

•
•
0
New Hanover County Future Land Use Scenario N
Legend
' I ❑ Mixed Use Urban Regional Center ❑ Nelghborhood Residendal ❑ Industrial ``
Mixed Use Non -Urban ❑ Community Center ❑ f00 Year Flood Plaln ❑ UnIque Feature Oveday -. _e
Nast
Mop on.ndm tatane ❑ Urbanized Bounddes lV Main Roads ❑ Hydrography ❑ Munlclpa/ Bounddes a.orlohb kf—.Vm 8YOW.
Wwna an T40II0lWlop
M.pLrotl'ah: /nhaH.trbnv

•
•
The future land use scenario presents flexible development,
efficient use of urban services, increased density where
appropriate, while striving to retain open space.
The following are descriptions of the future land use scenario categories listed in table
VIII-1 and presented in the map on page VIII-2.
Mixed Use Urban Neighborhood
Undeveloped and redevelopment areas with mixture of uses permitted in accordance with
clear guidelines for performance controls and site design. Increased residential density and the
clustering of land uses are encouraged. Urban services are either existing or planned in these areas.
Mixed Use Rural Neighborhood
Urban services are not planned or currently available in these areas. Mixed land use types
are encouraged but density should not exceed density limits set forth in the land use plan. Cluster
and mixed use development should be encouraged to maximize the utility of available services.
Residential Neighborhood
Established residential neighborhoods with guidelines that reflect the existing patterns of
development. Non-residential uses limited to neighborhood level activities with strict performance
standards and public review.
Flood Plain
Land within the Flood Plain which is Environmentally sensitive land or potential open
space and recreation areas. Residential and mixed use development are permitted with specific
design criteria and are subject to CAMA Land Classification density and impervious surface
standards.
Unique Feature Overlay
Key roadways and unique natural or historically significant areas where safeguards to
preserve the integrity of the area are warranted. Mixture of uses permitted with strict design
guidelines for appearance, density, access, and resource protection.
Industrial
Areas with suitable land area and existing or planned infrastructure to accommodate
expansive sites for heavy manufacturing and similar uses.
Regional Center
Nodes at major intersections designed to accommodate regional level service and trade
needs with other less intense uses. High density residential shall also be encouraged in Regional
Centers but they shall only occupy a portion of the total center area.
Community Center
Areas designed for the service and trade needs at the community level located at key
intersections. A mixture of other less intense uses, including residential, may be included in the
VIII-3

�. center area.
Future Land Use Comparison;
Projected and Scenario
The following table VIII-2 is a future land use comparison of the projected developed land
shown in section VH of the tent, and of the scenario presented in this section (VIII). Shown is the
amount of developed acres of land by 2010. The Planning Service Area is composed of
unincorporated New Hanover County north of Snows Cut and Wilmington combined as shown on
the page III-3 map.
Table VIII-2.
Future Land Use Comparison;
Projected and Scenario
Total Developed Land by 2010 in Planning
Service Area`
(acres)
Projected
Total
Scenario
Single Family
Multi -Family
Retail
Office
Industry
Developed
Industrial
37
0
20
50
5,800
5,907
Mixed Use Urban
4,700
790
950
539
920
7,899
Mixed Use Non -Urban
3,445
477
900
100
959
5,881
Regional Center
50
205
1,150
300
155
1,860
Community Center
250
65
220
50
0
585
Residential Neighborhood
16,500
290
100
9
0
16,899
Flood Plain
3,655
166
187
61
3,467
7,536
Unique Feature
133
30
11
0
0
174 •
Total Developed
28,770
2,023
3,538
1,109
11,301
46,741
The following table VIII-3 is a comparison by 2010 with the amount of developed land
from table VH-2 and vacant land in acres for each of the scenario future land use categories. By
2010 the estimate is that approximately 46,700 acres will be developed and 65,500 will be vacant.
Table VIII-3.
Comparison of Developed and
Vacant Land by 2010
(acres)
Scenario Future Land
Total Amount of Scenario
Total Developed
Scenario Vacant
Use Categories
Vacant and Developed Land
Land by 2010
Land by 2010
Industrial
9,107
5,907
3,200
Mixed Use Urban
19,333
7,899
11,434
Mixed Use Non -Urban
25,559
5,881
19,678
Regional Center
3,686
1,860
1,826
Community Center
1,550
585
965
Residential Neighborhood
25,879
16,899
8,980
Flood Plain
26,753
7,536
19,217
Unique Feature
352
174
178
Total
112,220
46,741
65,479
•
VIII-4

�J
•
References
Unless otherwise indicated all data is from the Wilmington Planning Division and the
New Hanover County Planning Department. Data was accessed by the Information Technology
offices in the County and City through the Geographical Information System.
FIN

Appendix •
North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act;
Mandated Planning Requirements
This future land use report is one of the technical reports for the Wilmington -New
Hanover Comprehensive Plan 1997-2010, and the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land
Use Plan. In 1974 the North Carolina General Assembly required that 20 coastal counties of the
state prepare land use plans. This plan provides a framework to guide local leaders with
protection, preservation, orderly development and management of the North Carolina coastal
area. Updates to the plan are required in five year intervals. In accordance with CAMA
requirements, the land use plan consists of the following elements: summary of data collection
and analysis; existing land use map; policy discussion; and a land classification map. This
information serves an important role with local development regulations, such as zoning
ordinances, and it provides input for growth policy decisions.
•
•
A-1

The following Land Use Computer Codes were used to calculate vacant and developed
land and other categories in this report. The land use data was collected in 1997 and is accessed
by the City -County GIS program.
Table A-1.
Land Use Computer Codes
Residential Trade (continued)
10 1 Family Residential
542
Fish 6 Seafoods -Retail
11 2 Family Residential
549
Other Retail Trade -Food
12 3 or More Family Residential
551
Retail Auto
13 Mobile Home
553
Tires Batteries t Accessories -Retail
14 Mobile Home Park j,
554
Gasoline Service Stations
15 Single Family Attached (Condos)
555
Marine Craft 4 Accessories -Retail
16 Vacant/Dilapidated
561
Retail Apparel 6 Accessories
21 Seasonal Res 1 Family
571
Retail Home Furnishings
22 Seasonal Res 2+ Family
581
Eating Place -Consumption on Premises
99 Other Residential
582
Drinking Place(Alcoholic Beverages)
583
Fast Food Drive -in -Retail Consumption
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Mining
599
Other Retail
101 Agriculture
Services
107 Agriculture Related
108 Forestry c Related
601
Financial G Banks
109 Fishery
651
Real state
110 Sport Fishing
655
Construction Contracting
111 Commercial Fishing
701
Residential Hotel
112 Other Fishing and Related
702
Transient Lodging
121 Mining and Related
703
Trav Trlr Park
149 Other Resources
703
Resort and Camps
704
Bed and Breakfast
Manufacturing
721
72
Personal
Business
•
201 Food and Kindred
752
Auto Parking
221 Textile Mill
7661
Repair non -auto
231 Apparel and Similar
762
Auto Repair/Service
241 Lumber and Wood
781
Motion Picture Production
251 Furniture and Fixtures
783
Movie Theatre
261 Paper and Allied
784
Video Rental
271 Printing and Publishing
792
Public Assembly
281 Chemical and Allied
796
Parks
291 Petroleum, Refining and Related
797
Recreation(public/non-park)
301 Rubber and Plastic
798
Recreation(private)
321 Stone, Clay and Glass
799
Other C. E 6 R
331 Primary Metal
801
Physician
341 Fabricated Metal
802
Dental Service
373 Boat and Ship Construction
804
Other Medical 6 Health Services
381 Professional and Scientific Instrument
805
Nursing, Convalescent 6 Rest Home Services
399 Miscellaneous Manufacturing
806
Hospital Services
807
Medical c Dental Laboratory Services
Transportation, communication and Utilities
811
Legal Services
821
Educational
401 Rail Transit
822
Day Care Facilities (not in new list)
411 Motor Vehicles - Transit
836
Group Quarters(residential care)
412 Street R.O.W.
841
Cultural or Nature Exhibition
422 Warehousing/Self-Storage
866
Religious Activities(Churches)
441 Water Transport - Freight
867
Religious Activities(Schools)
448 Water Transport - Passenger
899
Other Services
449 Marina -Marine Craft Docking
911
Governmental
458 Aircraft
481 Radio, Phone, TV Communications
Land and Water Areas
491 Utilities
499 Other T, C and U
951
Marshes
952
Water Areas
Trade
953
Non-commercial Forest
953
Landfill
501 Wholesale
956
Under Construction
508 Aircraft s Accessories, Other
957
Vacant Floors
521 Retail -Bldg Materials, Hardware Farm
95B
Unused Land
531 Recai'_-General Merchandise
959
Other Undeveloped Land
541 Groceries -Recall Convenience Food
•
A-2

Tables A-2 to A-9 refer to areas shown on the map on page III-3: the Urban Service Area
�- is composed of Wilmington and Urban County land adjacent to the Wilmington; Non -Urban •
County; and the Planning Service Area which is composed of the Urban Service Area and the
Non -Urban County.
Table A-2.
Developed Residential Land
1997
Planning Service Area
(Acres & %)
Above
Computer
flood
Flood
Area
Type
Code
plain
plain
%
Total
%
Urban Service Area
Wilmington
Single Family
10,21
4409
237
4%
4646
84%
Duplex & Townhome
11,15
245
5
0.1 %
250
5%
Apartment
12
555
25
0.5%
580
10%
Mobile Home
13,14
52
0
0%
52
1%
Subtotal
5261
267
5%
5528
100%
Urban County
Single Family
10.21
9700
1171
10%
10871
90%
Duplex & Townhome
11,15
241
17
0.1 %
258
2%
Apartment
12
62
3
0.0%
65
1 %
Mobile Home
13,14
831
74
0.6%
905
7%
Subtotal
10834
1265
10%
12099
100%
Total
16095
1532
13%
17627
Non -Urban Co.
Single Family
10,21
4345
1084
16%
5429
82%
Service Area
Duplex & Townhome
11,15
242
16
0.2%
258
4%
•
Apartment
12
12
0
0%
12
0.2%
Mobile Home
13,14
838
89
1%
927
14%
Total
5437
1189
18%
6626
100%
Planning Service Area
Single Family
10,21
18454
2492
10%
20946
86%
(Total: USA & N-USA)
Duplex & Townhome
11,15
728
38
0.2%
766
3%
Apartment
12
629
28
0.1 %
657
3%
Mobile Home
13,14
1721
163
1 %
1884
8%
Total
21532
2721
11 %
24253
100%
•
A-3

• Table A-3.
Developed Business Land
1997
Planning Service Area
(Acres & %)
Wilmington
Job Type
Above flood
plain
Flood plain
%
Total
Retail
1359
68
5%
1427
Office
433
11
2%
444
Industry
565
552
49%
1117
2357
631
21%
2988
Urban County
Job Type Above flood
Flood plain
%
Total
plain
Retail 1003
66
6%
1069
Office 340
20
6%
360
Industry 1657
253
13%
1910
3000
339
10%
3339
Non -Urban County
Job Type Above flood
Flood plain
%
Total
plain
Retail 428
53
11 %
481
Office 101
30
23%
131
Industry 3950
2516
39%
6466
•
4479
2599
37%
7078
Planning Service Area Total
Job Type Above flood
Flood plain
%
Total
plain
Retail 2790
187
6%
2977
Office 874
61
7%
935
Industry 6172
3321
35%
9493
9836
3569
27%
13405
A-4

Tables A-4 and A-5 show a category "marginal land". From a development point of view •
it is unlikely that this land would be developed in the near future as it is composed of common
area between buildings (e.g. in an condomium complex), marsh, landfill, and water.
Table A-4.
Vacant Residential Land 1997
Planning Service Area (acres & %)
Area Type
Zoning
Above
Flood
% in
Total
Under con-
%
Mar-
%
Net Total
flood
plain
flood
struction
ginal
plain
plain
land
Urban Service Area
Wilmington
Single family: R15, R10, R7,
1,462
107
7%
1,569
12
29
1,529
R5, R3, HDR
Mufti -family: MFL, MFM, MFH
741
71
9%
812
143
133
536
Mobile home: MHD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
sub total
2,204
178
7%
2,381
155
7%
162
7%
2,064
Urban County
Single family: R20S, R20,
7,415
1,941
21 %
9,356
475
290
8,591
R15, R10
Planned develop. Airport
1,004
1,087
52%
2,091
31
258
1,802
residen.: PD, AR
sub total
8,419
3,028
26%
11,447
506
4%
548
5%
10,393
USA Total
10,623
3,205
23%
13,828
661
5%
710
5%
12,457
Non -Urban County
•
Service Area
Single family: R20S, R20,
13,032
3,320
20%
16,352
175
348
15,829
R15, R10
Planned develop.: PD
5,121
1,010
16%
6,130
0
0
6,130
Non -USA Total
18,153
4,329
19%
22,482
175
1%
348
2%
21,959
Planning Service Area (Total: USA 8 N-USA)
28,776
7,535
21 %
36,310
836
2%
1,058
3%
34,416
•
A-5

• Table A-5.
Vacant Business
Land 1997
Planning Service Area (acres & %)
Wilmington
Job Type Zoning
Above
Flood
% in
Total
Under
%
Marginal
%
Net Total
flood
plain
flood
construe-
land
plain
plain
tion
Retail City: CB, RB, CBD, CS
478
14
3%
492
28
6%
18
4%
446
Office City: 0&1
276
5
2%
281
7
3%
31
11 %
243
Industry City: Al, LM, HM
1,044
233
18%
1,277
122
10%
187
15%
969
1,798
252
12%
2,050
157
8%
236
12%
1,657
Urban County
Job Type Zoning
Above
Flood
% in
Total
Under
%
Marginal
% Net Total
flood
plain
flood
construc-
land
plain
plain
tion
Retail County: 131, B2, SC
471
26
5%
497
41
8%
6
1%
450
Office County:O&1
145
8
5%
153
2
1%
-
0%
152
Industry County:11, 12, Al
534
253
32%
787
18
2%
12
2%
757
1,150
'_>R8
20%
1,437
60
4%
18
1 %
1,359
Non -Urban County
Job Type Zoning
Above
Flood
% in
Total
Under
%
Marginal
% Net Total
flood
plain
flood
construc-
land
plain
plain
bon
Retail County: 61, B2, SC
255
59
19%
314
0
0%
44
14%
270
Office County:O&1
18
0%
18
0%
0%
18
Industry County:11, 12, Al
7,764
3,999
34%
11,764
62
1%
1,388
12%
10,314
8,037
4,058
34%
12,095
62
1%
1,431
12%
10,602
Planning Service Area
Job Type
Retail
1,204
99
8%
1,303
69
5%
68
5%
1,166
Office
439
13
3%
452
9
2%
31
7%
412
Industry
9,342
4,486
32%
13,828
202
1 %
1,586
11 %
12,040
10,985
4,598
30%
15,583
279
2%
1,685
11 %
13,618
•
A-6

Table A-6.
•
Projected Housing and Residential
Development 1997-2010
(units and acres)
Projected
Projected
acres of new
Units
Developed
Units / Ac.
new units
development
Area Type
Nov. 1997
Acres W
1997
V7210
VVI0
Urban Service Area
Wilmington Single Family
14,654
4,646
3.2
2,074
658
Duplex & Townhome
3,245
250
13.0
453
35
Apartment
9,874
580
17.0
1,377
81
Mobile Home
500
52
9.8
71
7
Subtotal
28,273
5,528
5.1
3,975
781
Urban County Single Family
20,548
10,871
1.9
4,663
2,467
Duplex & Townhome
1,938
258
7.5
2,379
317
Apartment
447
65
6.9
415
60
Mobile Home
2,129
905
2.4
492
209
Subtotal
25,062
12,099
2.1
7,949
3,053
Total
53,335
17,627
3.0
11,924
3,834
Non -Urban County Single Family
6,090
5,429
1.1
669
596
Service Area Duplex & Townhome
313
258
1.2
130
107
Apartment
0
12
-
0 .
- -
Mobile Home
1,156
927
1.2
127
102
Total
7,559
6,626
1.1
926
805
Planning Service Area Single Family 41,292 20,946 2.0 7,406 3,721 is
(Total: USA & N-USA) Duplex & Townhome 5,496
766
7.2 2,962
459
Apartment 10,321
657
15.7 1,792
141
Mobile Home 3,785
1,884
2.0 690
318
Total 60,894
24,253
2.5 12,850
4,639
Is
A-7

• Table A-7.
Employment
Projections 1997-2010
Planning Service Area
(employees & acres)
Retail
1997
1997
1997
Increase
Projected develop.
Area
Employees
Land (ac.)
Empl. /Ac.
'97--10 employ.
land'97-'10 (ac.)
Urban Service Area
Wilmington
18,521
1,427
13.0
2,602
200
Urban County
7,974
1,069
7.5
2,535
340
Total
26,495
2,496
10.6
5.137
540
Non -Urban Service Area
2,174
481
4.5
266
59
Planning Service Area
28,669
2,977
9.6
5,403
599
Office
1997
1997
1997
Increase
Projected develop.
Area
Employees
Land (ac.)
Empl. /Ac.
'97-'10 employ.
land'97-'10 (ac.)
Urban Service Area
Wilmington
10,050
444
22.6
1,412
62
Urban County
3,954
360
11.0
1,268
115
Total
14,004
804
17.4
2,680
178
Non -Urban Service Area
1,096
131
8.4
134
16
Planning Service Area
15,100
935
16.1
2,814
194
Industry 1997 1997 1997 Increase Projected develop.
Area Employees Land (ac.) Empl. / Ac. '97--10 employ. land '97--10 (ac.)
Urban Service Area
Wilmington
4,857
1,117
4.3
1,412
325
Urban County
3,810
1,910
2.0
1,268
636
Total
8,667
3,027
2.9
2,680
960
Non -Urban Service Area
6,104
6,466
0.9
134
142
Planning Service Area
14,771
9,493
1.6
2,814
1,102
•
Total: Retail, Office,
Industry
Planning Service Area
(USA &N-USA) 58,540 13,405 4.4 11,031 1,895
Employment values from Wilimington Planning Div. July 1997 Transportation Plan data col ection.
Projections based on keeping ratios with NO Office State Plan. population growth modified by Wilmington Planning
Div. & NHC Plan. Dept
Acres from GIS land data.
A-8

Table A-8. •
Residential Land Development 1997-2010 (acres)
Planning Service Area
Urban Service Area
Wilmington
2010
1997
'97210
Road
1997
1997
Road Acres
V7210
2010
2010
Road Acres
Acres
Develope
Vacant
Estimate
Developed
Developed
Vacant
Estimate
Estimate
d
Single family 4698
1529
1104
665
5363
864
133
1237
Mufti -family 830
536
242
116
946
420
23
265
total 5528
2065
1346
781
6309
1284
156
1502
Urban
2010
County
1997
V7210
Road
1997
1997
Road Acres
'97-10
2010
2010
Road Acres
Acres
Develope
Vacant
Estimate
Developed
Developed
Vacant
Estimate
Estimate
d
Single family ' 11776
10393
2428
2676
14452
7340
535
2963
Mufti -family 323
-
-
377
700
-
75
75
total 12099
10393
2428
3053
15152
7340
611
3038
Non -Urban County
2010
Service Area
1997
V7210
Road
1997
1997
Road Acres
V7210
2010
2010
Road Acres
Acres
Develope
Vacant
Estimate
Developed
Developed
Vacant
Estimate
Estimate
d
•
Single family 6356
21959
851
698
7054
21154
140
991
Mufti -family 270
-
-
107
377
-
21
21
total 6626
21959
851
805
7431
21154
161
1012
Planning Service Area
2010
(Total: USA & N-USA)
1997
V7-10
Road
1997
1997
Road Acres
57210
2010
2010
Road Acres
Acres
Develope
Vacant
Estimate
Developed
Developed
Vacant
Estimate
Estimate
d
Single family 22830
33881
4383
4039
26869
29358
808
5191
Mufti -family 1423
-
242
600
2023
420
120
362
total 24253
34417
4625
4639
28892
29778
928
5553
•
A-9

aTable
A-9.
Business Land Development Projections
1997-2010 (acres)
Planning Service
Area
Retail
Increase in
2010
1997
Road Acres
Road
1997
1997
Road Acres
W--10
2010
2010
V7210
Acres
Area
Developed
Vacant
Estimate
Developed
Developed
Vacant
Estimate
Estimate
Urban Service Area
Wilmington
1427
446
332
200
1627
246
40
372
Urban County
1069
450
166
340
1409
110
68
234
Total
2496
896
498
540
3036
356
108
606
Non -Urban Service Area
481
270
23
59
540
211
12
34
Planning Service Area
2977
1166
521
599
3576
567
120
641
Office
Increase in
2010
1997
Road Acres
Road
1997
1997
Road Acres
V7210
2010
2010
V7210
Acres
Area
Developed
Vacant
Estimate
Developed
Developed
Vacant
Estimate
Estimate
Urban Service Area
Wilmington
444
243
122
62
506
181
12
134
Urban County
360
152
56
115
475
37
M
79
Total
804
395
178
177
981
218
35
213
Non -Urban Service Area
131
34
5
16
147
18
3
8
•
Planning Service Area
935
429
183
193
1128
236
39
221
Industry
Increase in
2010
1997
Road Acres
Road
1997
1997
Road Acres
V7210
2010
2010
V7210
Acres
Area
Developed
Vacant
Estimate
Developed
Developed
Vacant
Estimate
Estimate
Urban Service Area
Wilmington
1117
969
370
325
1442
644
65
435
Urban County
1910
757
292
636
2946
121
127
419
Total
3027
1726
662
961
3988
765
192
854
Non -Urban Service Area
6466
10314
505
142
6608
10172
28
533
Planning Service Area
9493
12040
1165
1103
10596
10937
221
1387
Total: Retail,
Office, Industry
Planning Service Area
(USA & N-USA)
13405
13635
1870
1895
15300
11740
379
2249
A-10

Hurricane Mitigation &
Reconstruction

Technical Reports Wilmington New Hanover County
Comprehensive Plan
0
Hurricane Mitigation & Reconstruction
of New Hanover County and Wilmington,
North Carolina
A Technical Report for the City and County Comprehensive Plan
1997-2010
•
October 1997
Prepared by the
New Hanover County, Planning Department
414 Chestnut Street, Suite 304, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
City of Wilmington, Planning Division
202 N. 3rd Street, 0 Floor, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
•

• TABLE OF CONTENTS
•
®r
Page
I.
Purpose and Scope of Study
I
II.
Tropical Storm Characteristics
2
M.
Coastal Storm Activity
4
IV.
Coastal Storm Mitigation Policies
5
V.
Evacuation Policies
9
VI.
Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
14
VII.
References
16
H

STORM HAZARD MITIGATION, POST- DISASTER RECOVERY, AND
S EVACUATION PLANS
I. Purpose and Scope of Study
This document focuses on existing and future procedures and policies New Hanover
County can develop and utilize to mitigate the potential for the loss of life and property
associated with intense tropical storms known as Hurricanes and the orderly reconstruction of
public and private infrastructure after the storm event. To lend support of the following proposed
policies and procedures, a brief background on tropical storm characteristics and recent tropical
storm activity in the Cape Fear area will be discussed. This plan is presented under the format
required by the North Carolina Coastal Management (CAMA) regulations and includes the
following elements:
A. Coastal Storm Hazard Mitigation Policies that include:
1. Mitigating the effects of high winds, storm surge, flooding, wave
action and erosion.
0 2. Discouraging high density and large structure development in hazardous areas.
3. Public Acquistion of land in hazardous areas.
B. Evacuation Policies that would include:
1. Decreasing density in order to decrease the number of evacuees.
2. Requiring major residential development to provide emergency shelter
3. Design of new public buildings for emergency shelter use.
4. Participate in a regional evacuation plan.
C. Post Disaster and Reconstruction objectives including:
1. County Emergency Plan
2. Long term reconstruction policies
3. Establishment of a recovery task force
4. Schedule for staging building permits and the imposition of a moratoria.
5. Repair and replacement of public infrastructure.
0

2
II. Tropical Storm Characteristics
The development of a tropical storm resembles a cluster of organized and unstable
weather typically in the form of thunderstorms that persist over the tropics for a period several of
days. This area of unstable weather may originate off the west coast of Africa, in Caribbean Sea,
Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic Ocean. The tropics supply the key ingredients needed for tropical
storms to develop including but not limited to warm ocean water (80 degrees or higher) and light
surface and upper level winds. As a tropical storm continues to develop, a circular, counter-
clockwise rotating column of air evolves near the center of the storm. It is this circular column of
air around the center of the storm that produces the most violent winds and very heavy rainfall
associated with a hurricane. Tropical storms develop and mature by passing through several
stages based -on sustained* wind speed characteristics ( below) and can last for several days or
even weeks based on upper level wind dynamics or the storm slamming into a coastal area such
as the Gulf or Southeast Coast. Sustained winds within hurricanes may exceed over 150 miles
per hour near and to the right of the center or eye with wind gusts close to 200 miles per hour.
Storms of this magnitude are rare.
•
Tropical Depression: sustained winds of 38 miles per hour or less
Tropical Storm: sustained winds between 39 & 73 miles per hour
Hurricane: sustained winds greater than 73 miles per hour
Typically, the hurricane season begins on the first day of June and extends through the
last day in November. The most active and intense period of hurricane activity along the North
Carolina coast based on historical records has occurred in August, September and October.
Hurricanes typically move in a westerly direction approximately 12 to 15 miles per hour 10
degrees of north latitude. The forward speed and direction of the storm can vary greatly once
entering the Atlantic basin* due to the number of different atmospheric variables the system may
encounter (McElyea et al, 1982).
Hurricanes are special and very unique. Names for these powerful storms are appropriate
because we come to know them before they strike. The uniqueness of these awesome storms is
the limited ability and difficulty of weather forecasters to predict the exact path and travel time
that a storm will take. In the past decade though, this difficulty has been greatly reduced through
the use of satelllite imagery, computer software, high altitude aircraft such as the "Gulfstream"

Losses from Hurricanes in the
Continental United States,
by Decades (through 1993)
Source: Nona, National
Hurricane Center.
•
Estimated Losses from
Hurricanes in the United States,
by Decades (through r993;
damages in 1992 dollars)
Source: Roan, National
Hurricane Center.
•

3.
and the hurricane watch/warning system. These tools combined with an sophisticated.
communication network between weather related agencies and local emergency officials and the
general public has
improved the ability to forecast the path of a storm and reduce a degree of uncertainty as to
where the storm will make landfall. It is these technological tools that have greatly diminished
the potential loss of life (graphic Barnes Book). While the potential loss of life has been reduced
over the past 25 years, the monetary loss of public and private property continues to escalate
with the amount of development along the coastline (graphic Barnes ). This issue will be more
discussed later in this report.
An additional tool used by the National Hurricane Center to determine storm intensity is
the Saffir/Simpson scale. The scale, developed by Herbert Saffir and Robert Simpson in the early
1970's classifies and/or describes the amount of property damage based on sustained wjiid speed
and barometric pressure levels. Prior to the creation of the Saffir/Simpson scale, the Hurricane
Center had a complicated time explaining to disaster agencies how much damage to expect from
an approaching storm. Based on the Saffir-Simpson classification, a category 3 hurricane or
stronger is considered "major" (Weather Book) storm.
Category 1- Minimal Damage: Sustained winds between 74-95 m.p.h. Storm surge four to five
to five feet. Flooded low- lying coastal roads, minor pier damage, vegetation and
branches torn from trees.
Category 2- Moderate Damage: Sustained winds between 96-110 m.p.h. Storm surge six to
eight feet. Coastal and low-lying roads leading inland flooded two to four hours
before the hurricane eye approaches. Piers damaged, marinas flooded, and trees
downed.
Category 3- Extensive Damage: Sustained winds between I I 1-130 m.p.h. Storm surge 9 to 12
feet. Small structures destroyed by winds and coastal flooding. Larger structures
along ocean front destroyed by battering waves and floating debris. Low-lying
roads leading inland flooded three to five hours before hurricane eye approaches.
Category 4- Extreme Damage: Sustained winds between 131-155 m.p.h. Storm surge 13 to 18
feet. Flooding of flat terrain up to 10 feet above sea -level as far as 6 miles inland.
Major flooding and wave battering damage to lower floors of structures near shore.
Low-lying roads leading inland flooded three to five hours before the hurricane eye
approaches. Major beach erosion.
Category 5- Catastropic Damage: Sustained winds above 155 m.p.h. Storm surge greater than
18 feet. Complete roof failure on most homes and businesses. Massive evacuation

dull
tr
-`Elio
Ora
-UN7.7—
rVa%s,
Mh
i sfFVl-0 Nj;g
ams
kill
WAV 74Y.
12- 1
i .�KA
P
f I >�n.

....... . . . . .
IS

of residential areas on low ground within 5 to10 miles of shoreline -may be required
III. Coastal Storm Activity
The Cape Fear area of southeast North Carolina has a storied hurricane history. In
October, 1954, Hurricane Hazel made landfall near Southport with 140 m.p.h. winds, very heavy
rainfall and a storm surge over 18 feet. Based on the amount of damage and sustained wind speed
levels, Hazel would have been ranked as a category 4 hurricane. Extreme damage occurred along
the south facing beaches of Brunswick County and the beaches of New Hanover County(Barnes
picture) due to the heavy winds and tremendous storm surge which occurred at high tide.
Records indicate that only five buildings were left standing along the shoreline at Long Beach
(Barnes, p. 90). Thirty years later, Hurricane Diana visited the Cape Fear region (Barnes- picture).
Prior to landfall near Fort Fisher, Diana was classified as a minimal category 4 storm -With 135
m.p.h. winds. Due to her fickle nature, Diana made landfall as a category 2 storm producing a 4
foot storm surge and minor damage to property at Carolina and Wrightsville Beaches.
After Diana's visit to the Cape Fear area, hurricane activity along the southeast coast had
been been relatively quite. The tropical storm picture changed dramatically during the 1996
season when not one, but three tropical systems visited and impacted the area. In July, Hurricane
Bertha wobbled along the coast between Carolina and Topsail Beaches as a strong category 1
storm. At the time of landfall, Bertha's sustained winds were clocked at 92 m.p.h. at the local
weather service office in Wilmington. The storm surge was approximately 6 feet. In New
Hanover County, damage was assessed at 27 million dollars. The total economic impact on
tourism and businesses was over 66 million dollars (Bertha Stats from Emer. Man.).
Before clean-up from Bertha was completed, Hurricane Fran visited the Cape Fear area in
September. With sustained winds close to 120 m.p.h. prior to landfall and a storm surge of over
12 feet, Fran ranked as the most costly storm ever in the State of North Carolina and eclisped
many property damage records previously held by Hazel. In New Hanover County alone, damage
totalled over 365 million dollars. Statewide, damage figures were close to 6 billion dollars.
Adding to the property damage price tag were the number of trees that toppled over onto homes
due to rain satuarated soils prior to Fran. It is estimated that approximately 19 inches of rain fell
during a five day period in the greater Wilmington area (Nat'l Weather Ser). Flooding in New
Hanover County was extensive as many creeks, streams and low-lying areas were inundated.
Fortunately, despite all the property damage, one life was lost in New Hanover County- that •
being due to an electrocution after the storm event.

•
Hurricane Diana, the first
hurricane to cause significant
damage on the North Carolina
coast since Donna in tg6o, finally
made landfall near Bald Head
Island in September 1984. This
house at Holden Beach was
destroyed during the storm.
(Photo courtesy of the National
Weather Service) .�
•
This late afternoon satellite image
of Diana clearly shows the storm's
eye poised just off the coast of
Cape Fear. The hurricane stalled
for more than two days before
finally moving onshore. (Photo
courtesy of the National Weather
Service)
0

10.
those citizens who decide to stay.
Evacuation plans for the coastal areas of Brunswick, New Hanover, Pender and OnsIow
Counties have been studied by Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan . The 1996 study indicates
major routes that evacuees can take to inland areas such as Raleigh and Greensboro (see maps) '
County discussion and participation in a regional evacuation plan involving Brunswick,-Pender
and Onslow Counties has not yet taken place. With development continuing to increase along
these coastal Counties in the coming years, officials may want to seriously consider a regional
evacuation plan (see Post, Buckley evac maps), especially with the proposed construction of the
Northern Outer Loop in the next several years. The Northern Outer Loop will provide the
Counties of Brunswick, New Hanover and Pender with greater vehicular access to U.S.'
Highways such as 74/76, I-95 and I-40.
•
New Hanover County has a well established emergency plan that was put to the test last
season with hurricanes Bertha and Fran. When the hurricane warning was issued by the National
Hurricane Center for the County in advance of Fran, the County immediately activated its
Emergency Operation Center (EOC). The County Commissioners also declared a state of •
emergency which enabled the County to take immediate action to protect the'residents of the
beach communities (Emergency Response Fran). The County also opened the Media Center,
which was operated by county and municipal personnel the day before the storm to inform media
outlets of important information so it could be released to the public alone with instructions on
when to evacuate.
During the Fran event, the Media Center continued to received updated in from
the EOC. This information was provided through a series of "press releases" to the media which
in turn provided the information to the public. Information included in the "press releases"
included potential threats to the public such as fallen trees and power lines, health concerns and
services that would be provided after the storm such as food, water, ice and other basic
necessities. Through a steady flow of information to the media, the public continued to stay
informed of on the cleanup process and utility restoration that took place after the storm.
While the Emergency Operations Center responded well to the Bertha and Fran events,
several areas of concern were expressed by Emergency Response Planning & Management, Inc
(ERP & M). Among the areas of concern expressed by ERP & M included the need to work
more closely with external organizations and jurisdictions such as utility companies,
municipalities within the county, health care institutions & the State Emergency Operations
Center. The continued development of mutual aid and volunteer organizations participating in
humanitarian efforts during and after the storm was also seen in need of "beefing up." Finally, •
the development of additional resources such as generators, heavy equipment and outside aid
were deemed to be important. At the present time, the Emergency Management Department is
fine tuning the Counties Emergency Operations Manual based on these concerns. This updated

f
•
•
1996 EVACUATING PEOPLE STATISTICS BY COUNTY
AND STORM SCENARIO
North Carolina Hurricane Evacuation Restudy
Brunswick Countv
Maximum Evacuating Population/Public Shelter Demarfd
Low Tourist Medium Tourist High Tourist
Occupancy _-Occupancy _Occupancy
Category 1-2 Hurricane
38,850/4,450 people 49,600/4,99-0 61,880/5,600
Category 3-5 Hurricane
49,070/7,030 people 62,870/7,720 78,640/8,500
_
Low Tourist Occupancy = 15% Public Shelter Capacity - 10,503
Medium Tourist Occupancy = 50%
High Tourist Occupancy = 90%
New Hanover County
'
Maximum Evacuating Population/Public Shelter Demand
Low Tourist High Tourist
_Occupancy Occupancy
Category 1-3 Hurricane
41,300/3,800 people 45,200/3,960
Category 4-5 Hurricane
56,900/7,400 people 61,100/7,650
)?ender Countv
Low Tourist Occupancy = 50% Public Shelter Capacity - 1,550
High Tourist Occupancy = 90%
Maximum Evacuating Population/Public Shelter Demand
Low Tourist High Tourist
Occupancy Occupancv
Category 1-2 Hurricane 19,600/2,500 people 21,900/2,600
Category 3-5 Hurricane 22,100/3,400 people 24,860/3,550
Onslow County
Category 1-2 Hurricane
Category 3-5 Hurricane
Low Tourist Occupancy = 50% Public Shelter Capacity - 1,633
High Tourist Occupancy = 90%
Maximum Evacuating Population/Public Shelter Demand
Low Tourist High Tourist
Occupancy Occupancy
49,200/7,600 people 50,800/7,700
63,370/12,100 people' 65,190/12,240
Low Tourist Occupancy = 50% Public Shelter Capacity - 1,893
High Tourist Occupancy = 90%
NOTE: Each scenario includes 100% of the population in the surge area plus all mobile homes plus a small percentage
of the theoretically "non -vulnerable" population for each scenario.

9. •.
ensuring that the extraordinarily expensive cycle of destruction and rebuilding is not endlessly is
repeated.
The purchase of high risk areas for open space and recreation is one of the best mitigating
measures a local government can utilize. Currently, the State has control over the Fort Fisher -NC
Aquarium Beaches and the purchase of Masonboro Island as a part of the Estuarine Research.
Reserve Program is almost complete.
V. EVACUATION POLICIES
As mentioned, floodplain management and zoning tools are effective means in decreasing
density (less evacuees) close to high energy areas that would absorb the brunt of a major ."
hurricane. In New Hanover County, mobile homes and mobile home parks are not permitted -
within the 100 year floodplain. Residential and commercial structures can be located within the
100 year flood zone providing that the lower floor be elevated two feet above flood level. Zoning
regulations have in place a low density zoning district (R-20) in several areas of the County that
contain low-lying and estuarine areas that are prone to flooding .With the number of residential •
structures limited in these areas, the responsibility of local government to evacuate large numbers
of citizens is minimized.
In areas along the coast that have already been heavily developed prior to the
establishment of stricter zoning codes and floodplain management, an effort to educate the public
on when to safely evacuate prior to a major hurricane reaching landfall has been re-emphasized
prior to every storm season. For the past several years, local government has held training
sessions in various geographical areas of the County informing the public on the dangers of
tropical systems and the many human inconveniences a storm can produce. Visual aids such as
evacuation routes, low- lying areas that are prone to rain induced flooding prior to the storm
event and other revelant information assist residents in making an informed decision on when to
evacuate. This information can be obtained from the County's Emergency Management
Department.
At the present time, New Hanover County does not have a policy requiring major
subdivision developments to provide emergency shelter. While additional alternative emergency
shelter has been suggested by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan (see shelter figures by P,B,S &
J), primary and secondary shelters listed in the County's Emergency Plan should currently
provide adequate safety for citizens and tourists who choose to stay during a major hurricane
event. It is worth noting that several new schools have been completed and several more are
planned for the future. These new public facilities will greatly aid emergency shelter capacity as
the population in the County continues to increase.If additional shelters are needed with the
approach of a category 4 or 5 storm, churches and private businesses may be able to accomodate

U
North Carolina State Building Code's
Basic Design Wind Velocities (in mph)
•.
120
0

8. - •
is issued within twelve months. Reconstruction must meet current building codes'and-.zoning
requirements. If a non -conforming use is discontinued for more than 180 days, then the property
must be used only for conforming purposes from that point on.
Performance residential developments allow for flexible lot lines and setbacks,
facilitating a site plan layout that avoids hazardous areas as opposed to the "cookie cutter"
method of conventional subdivisions. Maximum density is based on a net tract acreage.after
subtracting for natural ponds, lakes, rivers and class IV soils from the gross acreage. One .new
option that a developer may have is to leave the class IV soils in their natural state (with the
exception of tidal marsh) . This method would allow the developer to count reserved acreage as a
part to his density calculations. Drainage regulations would also be required. High density
developments like their cousin "Performance Developments" allow for flexible lot lines, and
setbacks, thereby creating a site plan layout around environmentally sensitive and hazard areas.
In order to apply for a high density project, the site must meet four critical elements•incl'uding
being in a "developed" or "transitional" area based on the land use plan, adjoin a U.S. orN.C.
numbered highway, have available water and sewer and meet the collector size road c'riieria. If a
high density project meets these criteria, drainage regulations would also need to be met.
Construction codes have also been widely utilized by local and state governments to
reduce the hazard of flooding and intense winds by creating standards for flood proofing,
elevation and wind resistance. The North Carolina State Building Code establishes basic wind
load criteria of 120 miles per hour for oceanfront residential structures and 110 miles per hour for
structures west of the Intracoastal Waterway (see Figure ). State Building Code criteria now
require that all structures be reinforced at the base, including windows and doors ???- check with
Jay. New Hanover County uses the State.Building Code for all of their commercial and
residential inspections for all new structures.
The preservation of floodprone areas as open space in New Hanover County is the most
effective means of mitigating storm damage. Preservation can be achieved through public
acquisition, restrictive regulations and deed restrictions. Acquistion and relocation of existing
structures by the County would be ideal but impractical. A very natural motivation in the
aftermath of a disaster is to not only allow victims to rebuild damaged or destroyed structures,
but to economically or procedurally facilitate their ability to do so. While this has been a natural
reaction on the part of the community and even local government to the hardship at hand,
without careful planning, it simply places the restored property again in harms way of the next
hurricane (Assesmt Fran, p.33). The Coastal Resources Commission is now struggling with this
issue at North Topsail Beach and other areas after the Fran event. One main reason for local
agencies to examine a win -win situation is that most homes built in high energy areas such as
barrier islands are primary residential homes, not vacation homes or cottages of the 1950's and
60's. Unless the Federal government were to provide tax credits or some other tax incentive, it •
will be continue to be very difficult for local and state government to find the optimum balance
between allowing disaster victims to restore their property to its pre -disaster condition and

0,
7.
Approximately.17,300 acres or 21,000 parcels of land are located within the 100 year .:
floodplain in New Hanover County. This land includes swamps, but not marshlands or large . .
waterbodies. Based on available permitting data, approximately 1,393 structures are located
within the 100 year floodplain (NHC MIS/Inspections Department).
Land use controls such as subdivision, mobile home placement and zoning code
requirements are very effective regulatory tools in reducing the risk of flood damage to
residential homes and commercial establishments. In New Hanover County, subdivision
regulations currently require several elements of hurricane hazard information for new
developments. Site plans require that 100 year floodplains, topography, watercourses and other
drainage features be displayed. Developers are also req,-,,.red to submit additional information if
they -plan to build on barrier islands. Information would include but not be limited to evacuation
plans, estimated carrying capacities of the roads, bridges and low elevation points on their site
plan.
Zoning is also a very common instrument in managing land development. It is used to
control the use of land and placement of structures via setbacks, density limits near areas of
environmental concern and height limitations. Proposed development is restricted in hurricane
hazard areas by zoning regulations. Several provisions within the ordinance help mitigate
potential hazards associated with hurricanes. Key provisions include the Conservation Overlay
District, non -conforming structures and performance/high density controls.
The Conservation Overlay District developed in 1984 encompasses the entire
unincorporated area of New Hanover County with the exception of Pleasure Island. This district
protects certain natural resources common to the area. Several of these resources are hazard
oriented areas to development. Resources that would be a hazard include swamp forest, natural
ponds, marshes and maritime shrub thickets. The protection measures include varying setbacks,
drainage restrictions with storm water retention, and preservation of between 50 to 100 % of the
resource left in its natural state. For example, residential or commercial structures would be
prohibited from being constructed along the shoreline due to strict setbacks imposed by the
conservation overlay requirements. Setbacks range from 25 to 100 feet.
Non -conforming structures involve the use of a building or land which does not conform
to the regulations imposed by the zoning district in which it is located. Generally, non-
conforming structures can not increase in area occupied and restrictions such as lot or yard
requirements may not be reduced. If a non -conforming structure is totally or partially destroyed,
it may be replaced provided notice of intent is provided within six months and a building permit

STORM SURGE CONTOURS: CATEGORY 5.
77OW IRON
NW - CAT 5 - 12 MPH
m Mgm
8
9 7 6
5
/j� 4
New Hanover County
78*W 77*W 33*N 76*W
14 I /iJi 'l
75*W 340N 74*W 350N
4
5
6
Source: Eastern North Carolina Hu -ic Evacuation Study, 1987
•
—3
--- 2
74P

r
STORM SURGE CONTOURS: CATEGORY 4
7
6
5'
4
.3
`�/��4 ® �� �m
2-
New Hanover County
7A•W 77•W 33•N 76•W, 75•W 34•N 746W 35•N . IAON q�•� �e•ui
Source: Eastern North. Carolina Hurricane Evacuation Study, 1987
0)

requirements. The NFIP requires participating communities to regulate, by building permits, any
new or substantially improved structures during non -disaster
periods and to monitor and identify any substantially damaged structures as a result of a storm
related event within the community's floodplain areas (see floodplain map). As an example,
when an existing
building has been substantially damaged (exceeds 50 % of pre -damaged market value),
floodplain management regulations require that it be elevated to or above the current flood
elevation.
This retro-fitting of structures helps protect not only lives, but property and the ability to recover
more quickly (FEMA Report). There are 57 counties and 362 muncipalities that have been
defined as being in nature's way. Of these, 223 participate in the NFIP. New Hanover County
participates in the National Flood Insurance Program which makes flood insurance available to
all property owners.
As an incentive to property owners, a more comprehensive approach to floodplain.''
management has been developed and is called the Community Rating System (CRS). Inthis
mitigation effort, local governments have the opportunity to adopt more stringent floodplain
management standards which are akin and appropriate for known local flood hazards. In return
for compliance, local residents pay reduced insurance premiums to reflect enhanced mitigation
actions. Approximately 56 local governments in addition to New Hanover County participate in
the CRS.
Other programs which assist in mitigating to reduce storm event damage include the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, the Community Block Grants and Small Business
Administration Loans. All three programs help assist individual property owners with retro-
fitting and "relocating structures damaged structures. In some cases, several of these programs
purchase substantially damaged buildings.
As experienced with Bertha and Fran, most of New Hanover County is susceptible to
hurricane induced flooding. In December 1992, a storm surge atlas was created using the Sea,
Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model. The SLOSH model developed by
Chester Jelesnianski of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather
Service displays potential flooding levels within the County based on storm surge estimates.
These estimates are based on various combinations of hurricane strength, forward motion, wind
speed, direction of movement and use of the Saffir-Simpson Scale. The modeling for each
hurricane category, was achieved by using seven storm tracking headings (W, WNW, NW,
NNW, N, NNE & NE) as indicative of storm behavior in coastal North Carolina.
Using the storm surge model for New Hanover County, projections indicate that the
County would be subjected to substantial flooding (see Figures I & II) well inland along creeks
and streams. This information is based on a worst case scenario of a category 5 storm moving •
northwest with a forward speed of 35 miles per hour. A more detailed report describing these
hurricane scenarios is available for review at the County Depar.of Emerg. Management.

TO 30tGAW
•�
NEW H
z
ANOVER COUNTY
iii ^:.y
•\•
i0 CLIN7'OH :�:�9r�%i;'yx,..:!" �4ft
•
,;sr;;.r; - ((.'•'.:<. ''t:+;iv/rN'`,..'�''S'
•�
\ TO JACKSONVILLL.
r• f
�tJ i � rl
•/�
IIl
lNlET
•

SEVERITY OF RISK IN HAZARD AREA
HAZARD AREA
EXPOSURE TO DAMAGING FORCES
Severity
Erosion/
Wave Action/
Flooding.,
High
Rank
Scour
Battering
Wind
OCEAN ERODIBLE AEC
1
INLET HAZARD AEC
1
ESTAURINE SHORELINE AEC
1
V-ZONE
2
WETLAND AEC
2
'
A -ZONE
3
REST OF COMMUNITY
4
.
Exposure Level:
High - 0 Moderate - 0 Low -

In October, the remanents of Hurricane Josephine visited the weary residents of the Cape
Fear area with winds and rain. While for the most part wind damage was non-existent, flooding
occurred in parts of New Hanover County as over 3 inches fell over most of the area. With
3 tropical storms in 4 months, County officials became quickly educated on the area's
vunerability to drainage and storm water related issues.
Hurricanes along the southeast coast of North Carolina are a fact of life. Despite .
mitigation efforts of the past, Bertha and Fran dramatically redefined the shore line and
protective primary dune system (before Bertha and Fran picture). Various levels of dune and
beach erosion along with wind driven salt spray occurred from Kure Beach to Atlantic Beach
caused a loss of vegetation and changes in the mean high water line (DEHNR Report -Owens).
As stated in an earlier mitigation report (Dec, 1991), specific areas along the County's
coast are highly exposed to natural shoreline erosion. These conditions are exacerbated vkhen•you
include excessive wave action, scouring of the dune system and flooding. These areas afe defined
as Ocean Erodible Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's), Inlet AEC's and Estuarine
Shoreline AEC's. These areas are most critical for hurricane protection planning.Table
displays these hazard areas and their severity of risk. A good example of an Inlet Hazard AEC
would be Mason Inlet. For the past five years, the inlet has migrated south at a remarkable rate.
These natural forces along with the storm events of 1996 has removed the primary dune line that
once protected the resort at Shell Island. With the threat of future storms and the lack of a
protective dune line system and adequate setbacks, the resort is facing serious challenges from
the natural forces of nature, resort residents, and environmental planners.
IV. COASTAL STORM MITIGATION POLICIES
Reducing the risk of fatalities and property damage from the harmful effects of hurricanes
has always been the primary goal of local government emergency planners and policy makers.
Because of the inherited responsibility to protect the public health and safety of coastal residents,
many local governments have reacted well to coastal,storm problems, especially flooding and
high winds. Local government response has resulted in the geographic delineation of storm prone
areas as they relate to flooding. Additionally, existing land use controls such as subdivision and
zoning regulations along with stringent building construction codes have greatly helped mitigate
storm hazards as experienced with Bertha and Fran in 1996.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) created in 1968 is a federal program
designed to mitigate the nation's susceptibility to floods and flood related hazards. The thrust of
the program is to guide the location and quality of development in flood prone areas. In order to
participate, a local community must adopt and enforce flood plain management regulations
which meet minimum federal

O
C'
.L'VLM
0
,L
s
M
Q
C3
v
o
�o
N
L
a
co
CY)
�r
w
N M
O
c v O O
0 ca 000
> OOO
7 W LO M U
O tr I , +
O to ' 0
L ' %- O O O
N
0too 0
IU.0OU)e-MLO
E OJR
O -
Z

C]
0
Table '
CRITICAL ROADWAY SEGMENTS
North Carolina Hurricane Evacuation Restudv
Brunswick County
NC 133 and NC 211 intersection northwest of Southport
NC 130 out of Holden Beach
NC 87 and US 17 intersection at Bell Swamp
NC 87 and US 74/76 intersection
US 17 intersections with NC 904, NC 130, and NC 211
New Hanover County
Carolina Beach Road south of and at Monkey Junction
College Road and Oleander Drive intersection
Cape Fear River Memorial drawbridge
Market Street and Eastwood Road intersection
Pender Countv
NC 210 from US 17 to I-40
Ocean Boulevard From Surf City to NC 50
US 17/NC 50 intersection at Holly Ridge in Onslow County
NC 210 on ramp to I-40 northbound
Onslow County
Marine Boulevard between Lejeune Boulevard and NC 53
US 17 and US 258 intersection west of New River
US 17/NC 50 intersection at Holly Ridge
NC 24 and US 17 intersection
NC 210 and NC 172 (Four Corners) intersection
US 17 and NC 210 intersection

c .
r
�m
Figure
Evacuation' Traffic Congestion
o-,
Category 1-3 Hurricane
Low Tourist Occupancy
N
W g
S
0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles
15 Evacuation Zone
Evacuation Traffic Congestion
0 -1 hours of travel demand
6� -/1.01 .3
3.01 - 4
�4.01 - 6
�6.01 +
New Hanover County

•
Figure
Evacuation Traffic Congestion
Category 4-5 Hurricane
High Tourist Occupancy
N
W E
S
0 2 4 6 V 10 Miles
F—j5-j Evacuation Zone
Evacuation Traffic Congestion
'`0 - 1 hours of travel demand
1.01 - 3
3.01 - 4
�PW4.01 - 6
W/6.01 +
New.Hanover County

Brunswick County
Table
CLEARANCE TIMES (IN HOURS)
North Carolina Hurricane Evacuation Restudy
Low Tourist
Category 1-2 Hurricane
Occupancy
Rapid Response
7 %4 hours
Medium Response
8
Long Response
9 y2
Category 3-5 Hurricane
Rapid response
7 %2
Medium Response
8 /4
Long Response
9 y2
New Hanover County
Low Tourist
Cate mory 1-3 Hurricane
Occupancy
Rapid Response
5 /2
Medium Response
6 /2
Long Response
9 y2
Cate�o__ry 4-5 Hurricane
Rapid Response
6 %2
Medium Response
7 %4
Long Response
9 /2
Medium Tourist High Tourist.
Occupancy ccu ancv
9 %2 12 %
10 %4 14 %2
11 %2 16 %2
10 %4 13 %2
11 15
12 %4 17 V4
High Tourist
Occupancy
7
8 '/4
10 '/4
7 3/4
9 '/
11 '/4
•
�A

11.
manual will be ready in the next few months.
Hazard mitigation grants appear to be the best solution as it relates to long term
reconstruction activity for the County. As an example , New Hanover County has recently
applied for a grant to mitigate against the hazards of flooding. This project is seen as the initial
phase of a comprehensive storm water management plan which will provide base information for
regulations on development which will protect future property relocation as well as improving
the effectiveness of early flood warning systems. New Hanover Counties Policies for Growth and
Development calls for the implementation of a storm water management plan and restrictions on
development in hazardous areas.
The establishment of a."Recovery Task Force" after a major storm event will consist of
members of the County Management Team. In concert with the Department of Emergency
Management, this task force should include the following individuals:
1. Two elected officials. (County Commissioners, City Council, Beach Community Of c'ials)
2. County Manager & Assistant County Managers
3. Emergency Management Director & Designee
4. County Engineer
5. County Health Director
6. Planning Director
7. Zoning Administrator
8. Inspections Director
9. Property Management Director
10. County Sheriff
11. County Fire Marshal
12. Real estate and construction representatives (one from each)
13. Bellsouth representative
14. CP&L representative
15. City of Wilmington representative
16. "No Cuts" representative
17. Cable TV representaive
18. NCDOT representative
19.Other members as designated
Members of this task force shall be appointed annually by the Board of County Commissioners.
The Board of County Commissioners will be advised by the task force on the status of
post reconstruction progress. A primary element of the task force is to receive and assess damage
reports from the "local assessment teams as defined in the County Emergency Plan. Other
responsibilities of the task force would include:

12.
1. Reviewing the nature of the damages, identifying and evaluating alternative program
approaches for repairs and reconstruction and also formulating recommendations for handlirig
County recovery. '
2. Recommending possible rezoning adjustments in areas of severe damage to prevent or .. ' .
reaccomodate new building.
3. Setting a definitive, yet flexible calendar of reconstruction goals with the cooperation -of other
local officials.
4. Initiating requests for repairs and upgrading critical utilities.
5. Recommending the expiration or extension of the moratorium on structual repairs..:;
6. Recommending the extension or termination of the moratorium on new developm6nt., .'
7. Initiating negotiations for relocations and acquistions of property with local and state agencies.
8. Participate in federal hazard mitigation planning and apply for hazard mitigation grants. •
9.Other
To prevent a recurrence of major coastal damage, the task force could also recommend to the
Board of County Commissioners changes in the zoning, subdivision, mobile home park, building
codes or any other regulations to protect the public.
The local damage assessment team is responsible for locating and identifying storm
related structures that pose a risk of human habitation. These assessment findings will be
communicated to the Inspections Director as to whether the structures have been destroyed,
received major damage (foundation, roof, etc.) or minor damage (minimal repair). The
Department of Inspections can then verify what has been accomplished by the assessment team
classify each structure accordingly. Out of town building inspectors is strongly recommended in
the event of a major hurricane.
A building/construction moratorium shall be declared if the occurrence of one or more of
the following elements:
1. The County is directly hit by a major hurricane (category 3 or greater) based on the Saffir-
Simpson scale as determined by the National Hurricane Center. •
2. The County is decalred a disaster area by the Governor of North Carolina and the President of
the United States.

•
0
` Duration of Moratorium. May be cancelled or extended by the Reconstruction Task Force or by
resolution by Board of Commisioners.
r� •
tEmergency repairs can be done anytime - examples: minor interior repairs acid repairs necessary to
;prevent injury, loss of life or imminent collapse.

13. •
3. Several hundred or more structures have received major damage or been destroyed -as
determined by the Inspections Department.
4. Upon determination by the Inspections Director that a building moratorium be declared for tits
protection of lives, safety and property or due to the inability of the County to maintain
acceptable levels of public order and services.
Once a building moratorium has been declared, the recovery task force will be activated.
The initial building moratorium shall be in effect for at least two days (see figure -may want to
modify). Building permits will not be issued during this time.
tuilding permits will not be issued for 30 working days following the termination of the
initial moratorium for the replacement of any structure which has been defined as "destroyed."
The replacement of any structure shall be subject to meeting all the requirements of the County's
zoning regulations, building codes and all coastal area mandates.
For structures that have received major structual damage from a major storm -event, a
seven working day waiting period will be required following the expiration of the initial
moratorium. All necessary repairs shall meet applicable zoning and building code requirements.
Permits for the repair of structuals • p that have received only minor damage from a major
storm event may be issued following the expiration of the initial moratorium. All minor repairs
will be in accordance with applicable zoning, building and coastal regulations.
If a major storm event takes place, building permits issued prior to the event shall be void
and not reissued for a period not less than 30 working days following the initial moratorium. This
block of time may be relaxed on a case by case basis if in the opinion of the Director of
Inspections, sufficient staff and other available resources are present. Revoked building permit
applications shall be reissued at no cost.
Preliminary site plans submitted to the County Planning staff prior to the storm event
which have been not approved by the Planning Board's Technical Review Committee shall not be .
reviewed for a period of 30 working days following the expiration of the initial moratorium.
Scheduled Technical Review Committee meetings shall be established after the moratorium is
lifted.
The 30 day moratorium shall also apply to any submittal of final plats, minor plats, mobile
home park/travel trailer park plans, rezonings, special use applications and, conditional use
applications. Again, submittal dates will be adjusted to reflect the moratorium expiration.
All moratoriums may be cancelled or extended by the Recovery Task Force or resolution •
by the Board of County Commissioners depending on the nature of the damage from the storm
and the availability of resources coming into the County.

• 14.
Emergency repairs to roofs and other minor structural nusicenses may be permissible to
prevent injury, loss -of life or immediate structural collapse. Minor interior repairs may also take -
place to prevent additional damage from wind and water after the storm event.
The repair and possible replacement of public infrastructure would be a significant priority
in the restoration chain of events following a major storm. It is extremely vital that if repair or . • .
replacement is needed on public facilities, mitigations efforts should be made to ensure that the
structures be more resistant to the impacts of a disaster (Response Fran, p.31). If structures of
this nature can function properly during and after a storm event, the protection and response to
the public safety and health can be assured. The repair and protection of public infrastructure
would include emergency shelters, the availability of generators to provide water and sewer to not
only residential enclaves, but also commercial and industrial facilties.
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMENDATIONS
Based on the Bertha and Fran storm events from the summer of 1997 and other well
• documented literature, public officials along with the citizens of New Hanover County are very
aware of the property damage and recovery operations that could materialize with the next major
storm. Due to the projected frequency for these naturally occurring events, the following policies
are suggested for inclusion in the Wilmington -New Hanover County Larid-Use Plan Update to
assist in the orderly reconstruction of public property.
POLICY:Immediate clean-up and removal of debris from publically mainatined roads.will be the
responsibility of the North Carolina Department of Transportation. New Hanover
County will be responsible for the clean-up of roads not yet accepted by NCDOT that
have been dedicated for public use. It will be the responsibility of private development
homeowners to clean-up debris on private roads.
POLICY: The responsibility for directing reconstruction within New Hanover County after a
major/damaging storm event shall be the Recovery Task Force. This task force shall
be responsible for advising the Board of County Commissioners on a diverse range of
poststorm issues and a daily/weekly status report on recovery efforts.
POLICY: A building moratorium of no less than 30 working days following the initial two day
moratorium shall not occur unless authorized or extended by the Recovery Task Force
or resolution by the Board of County Commissioners.

15.
POLICY: Following a major storm event, the County will take advantage of opportunities to
acquire or purchase land located in storm hazard areas which are rendered
unbuildable. The property should satisfy objectives including, but not limited to the
conservation of open space, scenic areas and provision of public water access.
After a major storm event, there are numerous federal and state programs that are
available to the County to aid in disaster recovery and reconstruction. These programs
can provide assistance through local government to individuals, businesses, families. .
and non profit organizations. Some of these programs can be only implemented upon
declaration of a major disaster by the President of the United States. Other programs
can be made available independently of a Presidential Declaration of a major disaster
emergency.
POLICY: The damaging effects and lessons learned from Hurricane Fran present a golden
opportunity to review, adjust and polish the County's Emergency Plan. This.
practical experience gained from Fran will help identify those areas within the realm
of regulatory, programatic and administrative options to mitigate future vulnerability
to disasters.
POLICY: In order to prevent or minimize the damaging effects from a major storm and to
recover quickly, the County in concert with local and regional insurance agencies shall •
provide incentives not only the property owners, but also builders to
construct a well built and sound home that meets or exceeds County and State building
codes. These incentives shall be in the form of lower insurance premiums to
homeowners and perspective buyers of homes.
0

REFERENCES
1. McElyea, W.D., D.J. Bowers, and D.R. Godschalk, 1982, `Before The Storm: Managing --
Development To Reduce Hurricane Damages," Center For Urban & Regional Studies,
UNC-Chapel Hill.
2. Barnes, Jay, NORTH CAROLINA'S HURRICANE HISTORY, University North
Carolina Press, 1995.
3. Williams, Jack, THE WEATHER BOOK, Vintage Books, N.Y., 1993.
4. New Hanover County Department Emergency Management, 1997, "Bertha and Fran
Statistics," New Hanover County, Wilmington, NC.
5. New Hanover County Planning Department, "Hurricane & Reconstruction Plan,".-1991',
New Hanover County, Wilmington, NC.
6. Owens, David, 1997, "Overview of the Development of Ocean Hazard Rules," Division
iEnvironmental Health & Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. -
7. FEMA-1134-DR-NC, "North Carolina Mitigation Strategy Report," State of North
Carolina Division of Emergency Management, Raleigh, NC.
8. Storm Surge Group of National Hurricane Center, 1992, "The Storm Surge Atlas," U.S.
Army Corps Engineers?
9. New Hanover County Department of Inspections, 1997, "Permit Data," New Hanover
County, Wilmington, NC.
10. Emergency Response Planning & Management, 1996,"The Emergency Response to
Fran," Princeton, N.J.
11. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, 1996, "Transportation Analysis Update: North Carolina
Hurricane Evacuation Restudy for Brunswick, New Hanover, Pender and Onslow
Counties," Tallahassee, Florida.
12. Nags Head Planning Department, 1988, `'Hurricane & Storm Mitigation and
Reconstruction Plan," Town of Nags Head, Nags Head, NC.
13. New Hanover County Planning Department, 1990, "Floodplain Management Plan," New
Hanover County, Wilmington, NC.

Technical Reports Wilmington New Hanover County
Comprehensive Plan
i
Housing
of New Hanover County and Wilmington,
North Carolina
A Technical Report for the City and County Comprehensive Plan
1997-2010
•
October 1998
Prepared by the
City of Wilmington
Planning Division
202 N. 3rd Street, 4 h Floor; Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
Community Development Division
202 N. 3rd Street, 2nd Floor, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
New Hanover County, Planning Department
414 Chestnut Street, Suite 304, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
0

Housing
Wilmington - New Hanover County, North Carolina
Table of Contents
page
I.
Introduction
1.1
11.
Summary
-111.
Existing and projected housing
lII-1
IV.
Number and size of households
rV_1
V.
Household income -in -generalized -planning areas
-V-1
VI.
Median home value by census tracts -1990
-v1.1
VII.
Housing sales costs compared 1990 -1997
VU-1
Vill.
Affordable housing-chailenges
ViII-1
IX.
City - County Affordable and rehabilitation housing
Programs_1
X.
University of North Carolina - Wilmington, -housing
x-1
XI.
Household mobility =1997
-1
XII.
Owner occupied housing=1990Ii-1
XIII.
Demolition and code compliance
MIM
XIV.
Historic preservation - economic and housing trends
1UV_1
A.
Appendix
A-1
U
it

I. 'Introduction
This technical report is part of the County and City Comprehensive Plan 1997-2010
effort.' The purpose of this report is to -show the housing characteristics of New Hanover County
and Wilmington. The current -housing characteristics are presented with projections to the year
2010.
The housing characteristics and trends presented in the report are: size; number; income;
home value; housing sales; rent costs; affordable housing; student housing; mobility; occupancy;
code enforcement; and historic preservation. This report will provide information for fixture
affordable housing and land use needs. This information should guide public issues, policy, and
implementation actions.
•
' In addition this report fulfills requirements of state Coastal Area Management Act with regard to land
• use planning (for more details see the Appendix).

II. Summary -
Existing• and projected housing
Wilmington is projected to add 4,000 new housing units from 1997 to 2010. The
unincorporated County is projected to build more than twice this amount at 8,900 units.
Based on current trends, the urbanizing area around Wilmington, should see an increase of
apartments and single-family attached housing, from 6 to 12% as the cost of land becomes
increasingly expensive.
Number and size of households
The County is projected to add 18,000 new households by 2010 for a 30% increase.
Countyhousehold size could decrease from 2.40 to 2.34 persons per household by 2010.
Projections of household size in the City to 2010 are difficult to estimate. Although there will be
an increase in the aging "baby boomers" and perhaps "empty nester parents", their increase could
be offset by an increase in people living together. This would be the result of increased cost of
renting and home ownership.
Household income in generalized planning areas
Mean household income in the City decreased slightly by approximately $500 after
factoring in inflation from 1990 to 1997. Mean household income in the unincorporated County
has increased from $1,800 to $4,600 per household after adjusting for inflation.
Median home value by census tracts -1990 i
In 1990 median home values increased from the inner City of Wilmington at $39,900, to
the inner suburbs at $70,200, to the outer suburbs at $79,900. Many units in the historic
downtown have been renovated since 1990, and preliminary data analysis shows that the median
cost of housing in the inner City is rebounding to values found in the suburbs.
Housing sales costs compared 1990-1997
Comparison of census and sales data shows that the median price of housing in the County
rose from $75,300 in 1990, to $120,000 in 1997. This is an increase of 59%.
Comparison of 1990 census median housing values and 1997 sales cost of housing shows
an increase of approximately 59% in the past seven years. During this time average weekly wages
have been stagnant, especially in Wilmington, with a slight decrease during the same time period.
This should raise concerns of affordable housing for many of our citizens.
Affordable housing challenges
Estimates are that there were approximately 8,300 County families in 1997 who could not
afford housing that sold for more than $80,000. In 1997 there were only approximately 500 units
of housing were available under the $80,000 price. This means that 7,800 families were effectively
locked out of the housing market as there was an inadequate supply of affordable housing.
An estimated 13% of families in the City and County in 1997 could not afford a house that
cost more than $78,500. An extended trend shows there will be an even larger number of families
•
II-1

-� who can not afford to buy a home by 2010 unless affordable housing policy and construction is
implemented.
In the 1990's, rents in the County have been increasing at 4% to 6% per year. During this
same time period, weekly wages have been stagnant. Low and moderate income families are
increasingly paying more of their income for housing.
Affordable and rehabilitation housing programs
City and County low and moderate income affordable housing with new construction and
renovation was approximately 66 homes in 1997. If this amount is subtracted from the 7,856
families in 1997 who were locked out of the housing market this still leaves approximately 7,790
families in the City and County who were unable to afford a home.
In the past three years, the Home Ownership Pool loan program has invested over $1
million for purchase and renovation of older homes for moderate income families for
approximately 20 homes.
In the last three years, the City of Wilmington assisted 76 home owners renovate their
homes with Direct and Home Loans for low to moderate income families.
In the last ten years, the Wilmington Housing Finance and Development, Inc. has made
$15.5 million dollars worth of loans for 405 housing units.
The Fannie Mae Lease Purchase Program has a high demand, but currently is in need of
grant support to continue. From 1993 to 1997, $150,000 in loans were provided for eight new
• homes and two renovated homes.
Since Project Home began, four houses have been constructed and sold in 1998 for low
and moderate income families. The agency that oversees the project proposes to expand their
housing construction program into the unincorporated County.
The County has used Community Development Block Grant money to rehabilitate more
than 30 homes, constructed five homes, and provided six manufactured homes for low and
moderate income families, and made County sewer and drainage improvements.
The Wilmington Housing Authority has plans to build approximately 125 single family
and multi -family housing units at Jervay Place, with additional community amenities and
commercial uses. There are additional plans to build approximately 100 single family homes on
scattered sites throughout the City.
A private sector non-profit affordable housing program provides a valuable service to the
County and City. If the number of families who would like to own a home but can not afford one is
to be reduced, programs such as Habitat for Humanity will need more public and private support.
II-2

MIZ
University of North Carolina - Wilmington Housing
Estimates for 1997 to 2010 are that between 500 to 1,000 of off -campus housing units will
need to be constructed to accommodate the increased number of students at UNCW.
Household mobility
A large number of household turnover was found to occur in the vicinity of UNCW due to
of the relatively mobile student population. Two areas were found to have very low turnover, one
area is located downtown and the other area is in the northern part of the City.
Owner occupied housing 1990
Owner occupancy of housing in 1990 was found to increase from the inner City at 38%, to
the inner suburbs at 49%, and to the outer siibuTbs at 67%. This trend correlated with an increase
of household income.
The beach towns show a low occupancy rate of approximately 54% due to seasonal
habitation, compared with the northern and southern portions of the County occupancy of
approximately 82%, and the outer suburbs of Wilmington at 67%.
Demolition and code compliance
From 1993 to 1997, the City demolished an average eight houses per year that were unfit
for habitation. Since 1992, in partnership between the City and WHFD, Inc., 21 new affordable
homes have been built on the demolition sites.
Historic preservation - economic and housing trends
Since 1976, approximately 100 projects, including historic residential and commercial
buildings, have been renovated through federal and state tax credit programs. This has involved
over $19.3 million dollars for construction costs. This rehabilitation has directly contributed to the
revitalization of downtown Wilmington.
The recent renovation to many properties in the historic downtown area has led to
increased property and housing values. The rebounding downtown is pushing up tax values and
forcing out some of the poorer residents. This poses the challenge of retaining affordable housing
for some of the existing residents.
Wilmington has become an active tourist center because of its historic houses and
associated cultural resources. Heritage tourists spend on average $62 more per day than other
tourists. This is an important economic infusion of money into the local economy.
•
II-3

Ll
M. Existing and Projected Housing
Tmnd. Wilmington is projected to add-4,000 new housing units from
1997 to 2010. The unincorporated County is projected to build
over twice this amount at 8,900 units.
The following table lists the existing and projected housing from 1997 to 2010. The
location of the areas are shown on the next page. Wilmington and the County are projected to add
approximately 12,900 new units in the next 12 years. It is projected in the unincorporated County
will have over twice the number of units built compared to the City. For more details see Table A 1
in the Appendix.
Existing and Projected Housing Summary
Number of Units
# New units
'97210
Nov. 1997
2010 % Change
per yr'97-'10
New Units
Wilmington
28,273
32,245
14%
306
3,972
Unincorporated County
33,171
42,095
27%
686
8,924
Urbanizing County
25,062
33,011
32%
611
7,949
Non -Urban County
7,559
8,485
12%
71
926
Total Wil. and Unincor. Co.
61,444
74,340
21%
992
12,896
30000
N
M 25000
C
a 20000
O
S
i
C
Projected Housing Unit Growth 1997-2010 78,9M01997 02010 ............ - --- ..._ _ _.. -- ------........ - _
Wilmington Urbanizing County Non -Urban County Unincorporated County
Note: Number of new units rounded to nearest 100.

NU1
VITA
,
•
U1
U3
U
U2
�i
U4
Us
NU
City and County Planning Areas
NU2 Wilmington W
Snows cut Urbanizing County U
Non -Urban County NU
•
III-2

�* The percent of
housing type is shown in
• the following pie charts
for three simplified
planning areas. The
best diff
erence
rence
"ff e
between the areas is that
35% of Wilmington's
housing is apartments,
while the urbanizing and
non -urban areas are
composed of
approximately 2 to 3%
apartments.
Wilmington - Housing Dwellings: % by Units (Nov. 1997)
Mobile Home
Apartments 3+ units 2'6
35%
Single Family Attached
4%
Single Family
52%
Trend. 1997-2010.- Based on current -trends, the urbanizing -area
around .Wilmington, should see an increase of apartments.and
single-family attached housing.from 6-to 12% as the cost -of
land becomes increasingly expensive.
Housing
• projections were tied to
population growth and
existing persons per
household. The general
housing growth model
from 1997 to 2010
projected by staff
assumed that recent and
current trends will
continue. The City as of
1997 had a relatively
high amount of multi-
family housing
compared with the rest
of the County, and this
trend is expected to
continue.
•
Urbanizing County - Housing Dwellings: % by Units (Nov. 1997)
Duplex Apartments
Single Family Attached 3% 3+ units - 2% Mobile Home 8%
5% _...
III-3
Single Family
82%

For the
urbanizing County area,
future growth to 2010 is Non -Urban County - Housing Dwellings: % by Units (Nov.1997)
projected to become
increasingly similar to Duplex Apartments 3+ units-O%
Wilmington. As Single Family Attached 30,E Mobile Home
1 % 15%
•
•
III-4

•
•
IV. Number and Size of Households
Trend. Household Number. The County is projected to add
.18,000 new households by 2010 for a 30% increase.
The County increased it's number of households from1990 to 1997 by 23% to
approximately 48,100 to 59,100. The projection is that the County will add approximately 18,000
new households by 2010, for a 30% increase.
County Households
1990 1997 Per year % increase 2010 Increase in % increase
increase '90-'97 HH'97-'10 '97-10
New Hanover County 48,139 59,109 1,567 23% 77,101 17,992 30%
Source. 1990 & 1997 CPA, 1997; 2010 projection by Wil. Plan.
Div. & NHC Plan. Dept
Trend. -Household Size. County household size could decrease
from 2.40 to 2.3.4 persons. per household .by 2010. _ Projections
of household size in the- City to ,2010 are difficult to estimate.
..Although there will be -an increase in the aging "baby boomers"
and perhaps "empty nester parents", their increase could be
offset by an increase in people. living together. This would be
the result of increased cost of-rentinq and home ownership.
The following table shows that household size in Wilmington dropped from 2.45 in 1980
to 2.26 in 1990. Since 1990, it has remained about the same at approximately 2.26 to 2.27 persons
per household. New Hanover County household size has been higher than the City but it decreased
from 2.43 persons per household (pphh) in 1990, to 2.40 pphh in 1997.
County- Household Size
Household size 1980 1990 1997 2010
Wilmington 2.45 2.26 2.27 ?
New Hanover County 2.69 2.43 2.40 2.34
Source: Wilmington, 1980 &'90 US Census,'97 based on housing count by Wil. Plan. Div. & NHC Plan. Dept
NHC: from NHC Plan. Dept
IV-1

V. Household Income in Generalized Planning Areas -,
Income estimates for 1990 and 1997 for the Cityand Count are shown in the following
Y '
two charts (Community Profile ,analysis 1997, ed., New Hanover Co., NC. By: Stratggic Mapping Inc. Arlington, VA and Claritas,
Ithaca, NY. ). To make the comparison meaningful, the 1990 incomes were adjusted for inflation in
1997 dollars. Mean household income in Wilmington has decreased by approximately $500 since
1990. All areas of the urban and non -urban County have experienced mean household income
increases ranging from $1,800 to $4,600. The area south of Snows Cut, which includes the towns
of Kure Beach and Carolina Beach has seen a $5,600 increase.
Trend. Mean household income in the City decreased slightly by
1
approximately $500 after factoring in inflation from 1990 to
1997. Mean household income in the unincorporated County has
increased from $1,800 to $4,600 per household after adjusting
for inflation.
From: Community Profile Analysis
V-1
•
•

Non -Urban County Areas & South of Snows Cut
Household Income -1990 Adjusted for Inflation
60,000
0 Year 1990
E
50,000
El Year 1997
O
0
30,000
d
0
20,000
-
€
10 000
NU1 (N. County) NU2 (S. County) S. of Snws. Cut
For location see map
From: Community Profile Analysis
•
•
V-2

VI. Median Home Value by Census Tracts -1990
Trend. In 1990 median home values increased from the inner.City of
Wilmington at $39,900, to the inner suburbs at $70,200, to.
the outer suburbs at $79,900: Many units in the historic
downtown have been renovated since 1990, and preliminary data
analysis shows that the median cost of housing in the inner City
is rebounding to values found in the-suburbs.
The below table summarizes the mediair home value by census tracts in Wilmington and
the County for 1990 (Source: CPA 1997). On the next page is a map of the locations. Page VI-3
has the location of the remaining north and south County tracts. The trend shows that median home
values in 1990 increased from the inner City at approximately $39,900, to the inner suburbs at
$70,200, to the outer suburbs around Wilmington at $79,900. The north-northeast County median
home value was $74,500. Wrightsville Beach and Figure Eight Island had by far the highest
median tract value at approximately $206,000. The south County was $76,000. The New Hanover
County median home value in 1990 was $61,479.
New Hanover County Summary Table
Median Home Value ($) 1990
Location
Median Home Value ($)
Wilmington inner City
39,919
Wilmington inner suburbs
70,223
Outer suburbs around Wilmington
79,907
Northern portion of County
74,471
Wrightsville Beach - Figure Eight Is.
205,797
Southern portion of County
76,035
New Hanover County overall
61,479
Source U.S. Census
VI-1
•

•
•
r
Wilmington Area 1990 Median Home Values
Inner
Inner Subur
Outer Sub
r j
i y
r
x
a014416M
116.01
114
'•�"i x x
103
,�
117.01
5
101 ;+
10 5.01, r, o x
City 112
^ ,-
..u..
104
0 10119,61 0 o I
X x �•°'4� 105.02 Fr °
113 11 — •
• Y
119.02 b
109
�',.�
o 120.01,1 °
107 v.. o
bS "° ., ..... o
108
, o
` 120.03
,
o o o
nymur
MOO
r
o
120.02�urbs
o
o
x
1990 Median Home Value (S)
x o
121.01 X X n
® 0 - 38,999
x x
40,000 - 59,999
Area Boundary Map
Wilming;on;Ne:+ Hanover County
x,� `
'� 60,000 - 89,999
x
- --" Wilming;on Corporata Limit
° 90,000 - 99,999
c
Census hac:s -�
p
s
City Of `Pllminton GIS .:
110,000 - 130,000
VI-2

Census Tracts Outside of Wilmington Area
•
•
VI-3

The following charts show the median home value in 1990 by census tract for Wilmington
• and the County as shown on maps on the preceding two pages. In 1990, housing values increased
from the inner City at approximately $39,900 to the outer suburbs at $79,900. Wrightsville Beach
and Figure Eight Island had by far the most expensive housing with a median value of $206,000.
•
•
Wilmington & County Median Home Value ($) 1990
140,(= .. .... ......... ....... ......... .......... ...... ......
120,000
I V.J'000
> 80,000
0
0
E
60,000 Inner city
M Avg. value $39.900
(U 40,000
. .. .... ....... ...... ... ..... .. ... . . ... ....... .. .......
...... ......... . . ..............
20
Inner City Suburbs ,000 Outer Suburbs9. value $70,200 Avg. value 579,900
O
8 C7 Q4 8
C� (d d ci
8 — — R R R
North & South County, Wrightsville Beach & Fig. Eight Is.
Median Home Value ($) 1990 ,
150,000
E 100,000
ecO 50,000
Census Tracts 115 116.02 117.02
V1-4
118 121.02 122

VII. Housing Sales Costs Compared 1990-1997
The following table and real estate map show the City and County 1997 sales cost of
housing (courtesy of the Wilmington Regional Association of Realtors, Inc.). In 1997 the County
median cost of housing was $120,000 and the average cost was $154,230. Not surprisingly some
of the most expensive housing is found along the sound and beach areas of Figure Eight Island -
Wrightsville Beach (Area 5) and the general area of Masonboro Loop Road - Greenville Loop
Road (Area 2), and south of Snows Cut (Area 6). Most of Wilmington is found in areas 3 and 4 on
the map below. Areas 3 and 4 generally show a less expensive median price of housing compared
with other areas. This is likely the case because of the wide range of income, housing costs, and
large population.
The median and average sales price in $ for County housing in 1997.
Median Price
Map
Single Family
All Units
Location
area 2 Bdrms
3 Bdrms
4 Bdrms
Condo
Median Price
North East County
1
86,700
111,000
205,000
68,825
117,995
South East County
2
96,900
138,750
217,125
114,000
150,000
South West County
3
69,900
117,900
183,000
83,000
109,600
North West County
4
77,000
106,000
158,500
88,595
97,000
Wrightsville Beach -
Figure Eight Is.
5
247,000
435,000
510,750
332,500
384,000
South of Snows Cut
6
79,900
150,000
195,000
90,000
105,500
County wide
1-6
79,000
119,775
207,950
89,000
120,000
Average Price
Map
Single Family
All Units
Location
area 2 Bdrms
3 Bdrms
4 Bdrms
Condo
Average Price
North East County
1
114,321
136,359
381,797
93,804
176,618
South East County
2
98,260
149,051
242,165
114,373
173,310
South West County
3
73,190
121,951
210,298
91,455
120,951
North West County
4
76,019
123,986
151,884
85,057
116,530
Wrightsville Beach -
Figure Eight Is.
5
247,000
540,591
558,231
303,252
418,792
South of Snows Cut
6
92,680
168,405
205,963
104,445
125,097
County Wide
1-6
86,934
137,354
274,741
112,949
164,230
New Hanover County
Real Estate Mao ?seas 1 to 6
Trend. Comparison.of census and sales data shows that the median
price of housing in the County rose from $75,300 in 1990, to
$120,000 in 1997. This is an increase of 59%.
The median cost of a home in the County in 1990 was $61,479 (see table on page VII-1;
from Census). Adjusting for inflation, the value was $75,308 in 1997 dollars. The median cost of
home sales in the County in 1997 was $120,000 (see table above; from real estate data). This is an
increase of 59% in the last seven years.
•
VII-1

•
•
Median Home Cost $ Comparison 1990297
New Hanover County
1990 ($) 1990 $'s adjusted for 1997 Includes all housing: % Increase
inflation to 1997 $'s 2, 3, & 4 Bed -rooms & ($75,308 to
Condo ($) $120,000)
61,479 75,308 120,000 59%
Source. 1990 U.S. Census from CPA, 1997; 1997 Housing cost WAR, Inc.
While the cost of housing has continued to rise, wages have stagnated in the last ten years.
The following table shows that pay has slightly decreased in the last decade in the County after
accounting for inflation! The overall County pay average was $313 per week in 1987 and was
$433 per week in 1997. This apparent $120 perfweek increase in pay evaporates when the effects
of inflation are included. After adjusting for inflation, wages have decreased by $8 per week from
1987 to 1997. Comparison with household income on pages V-1 and V-2 suggests that the
decrease is concentrated in Wilmington and that the surrounding unincorporated County and beach
towns have faired better.
Average Weekly Wages - New Hanover County 1987297
.1967 1987 $'s adjusted for 1997 Change 1987 to'97 after accounting for
inflation to 1996 $'s inflation -Weekly Wages
All Jobs $313 $441 $433 -$8
From: Employment Security Commission of NC
Trend. Comparison of 1990 census median housing values and 1997
sales cost of housing shows an increase of approximately 59% in
the past seven years. During this time, average weekly wages
have been stagnant, especially in Wilmington, with a slight
decrease during the same time period. This should raise
concerns of affordable housing for many of our citizens.
t From: North Carolina Employment Security Commission in the Wilmington Star, 7/27197.
VII-2

VIII. Affordable Housing Challenges
The following table shows that in 1997, 21,679 families in the City and County could not
afford more than a $78,529 home based on mortgage calculations (see Appendix tables A2 to A8
for details). This calculation includes families that own and do not own their homes.
The number of families in the City and County in 1997 who could not afford
more than a $78,529 home based on mortgage calculations.
Location
# of Families
Inner City - Wilmington
5,226
Inner suburbs - Wilmington
5,213
Outer suburbs around Wilmington
6,705
Northern portion of County
'• 2,344
Wrightsville Beach - Figure Eight Is.
295
South County
Total
1.896
21,679
All of the 21,679 families listed in the above table have a household income of less than
$25,000 per year (see Appendix tables A2-A8). An estimated 11,603 of these families own their
homes, and an estimated 9,837 do not own their homes (tables A9-A10). It is not known how many
families of the group that own their homes would want to move to a different home elsewhere in the
County, for example, to be closer to employment, or to be in a different school district. However, it
is likely that some would find a replacement home difficult given that their household income is not
more than $25,000 per year and that the median sales price of housing was $120,000 in the County
in 1997 (see page VII-2).
The following table shows the number of families in the City and County that do not own a
home, make less than $25,000 per year, and would prefer to rent. Assume that 15 percent (or
1,476), of the estimated 9,837 families who do not own a home, would prefer to rent. This
calculation yields 8,361 families, based on the mortgage calculations in the Appendix (tables A2 to
A8), who could not afford a home that cost more than $78,529.
Rent preference: # of families who do not own a home and make less than $25,000 per year
Total # who prefer to rent (assumed at 15%) Low income families who would like to own a home
9,837 1,476 8,361
The following table shows that 505 housing units were sold in 1997 that were less than
$80,000 (for details see table Al 1).'
Total number of homes in the County that sold for less than $80,000 in 1997.
Single Condo Total
Family
Number of homes less than $80,000 286 219 505
1 Courtesy of the VALAR, Inc.
VIII-1
•
•

•
•
Trend. Estimates are that there were approximately 8,300 County
families in 1997 who could not afford housing that sold for
more than $80,000. In 1997 there were only approximately 500
units of housing were available under the $80,000 price. This
means that 7,800 families were effectively locked out of the
housing market as there was an inadequate supply of affordable
housing.
There were an estimated 8,361 City and County families in 1997 who would have liked to
purchase a home, but could not afford one that.cost more than $78,529. The number of homes that
were available under $80,000 in 1997 was 505. The following table shows that in 1997 there were
approximately 7,856 families in Wilmington and the County who could not afford any type of
housing, and were thus effectively locked out of the housing market. A comparison was made with
the number of families in the County who make less than $25,000 per year and who can't afford a
home with the total number of County families. This comparison shows that approximately 13% of
the families in the County could not afford a house in 1997.
N-
The number of families who make less than $25,000 per year, and were effectively locked out of the
housing market in 1997.
Estimated # of families Estimated # of families
who would like to buy a home Available affordable homes who can't afford a home
8,361 505 7,856
The percent of families in the County, who make less than $25,000 per year, and who could not
afford a house that cost more than $78,529, and do not own a home.
Estimated # of families Estimated percent
who can't afford a home Total # of County families who can't afford a house
7,656 59,109 13%
Trend. An estimated 13% of families in the City and County in 1997
could not afford a house that cost more than $78,500. An
extended trend shows that there will be an even larger number
of families who can not afford to buy a home by 2010 unless
affordable housing policy and construction is implemented.
Furthermore, there were an additional 6,567 families in the City and County in the
$25,000 to $50,000 income bracket who do not own a house (Appendix Table A9). It is likely that
some of the families in this group would like to own a home, but are not buying because of
unaffordable housing costs in relation to employment location, and school considerations.
VIII-2

County Rental Increases 1990 - `98
Trend. In the 1990's, rents in the County have been increasing at 4%
to 6% per year. During this same time period, weekly wages have
been stagnant. Low and moderate income families are increasingly
paying more of their income for housin
Throughout the County and City, rent has increased as demand for housing exceeds
supply. A study in December 1994, showed that annual rental increases have been approximately
4% to 6%.2 This general trend was also reinforced by the increases found in a local apartment
complex from 1990 to 1998. During this general time frame, weekly wages in the County have
been stagnant and have not increased. Low and moderate income families are increasingly paying
more of their income for housing.
Rental Increases at a Local Apartment Complex
(1990 Vs adjusted for inflation to 1998 Vs)
# of Bedrooms
1990
1998
1990-W
% increase per year'90298
1 B R
$339
$510
51 %
6%
2BR
$407
$5M
40%
5°%
3BR
$474
$690
45°%
6°%
Data is from The Wilmington Apartment
Association,
Cypress Grove
Apartments; 3 SR is estimated.
2 "1995 Community & Economic Development Plan," City of Wilmington, Community Development Div.
p. 47
VIII-3
•
r�
J

00
•
•
IX. City -County
Affordable and Rehabilitation Housing Programs
Affordable housing and rehabilitation programs with the City and County are as follows.
Wilmington and New Hanover County housing programs
Home Ownership Pool Loan Program (HOP)
Direct loans and Home loans for housing rehabilitation
Rental rehab loans
Fannie Mae Lease Purchase Program
Project Home
County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
The following table is an estimate fot 1997 of the amount of new construction and
renovated housing that occurred as a result of the above presented affordable housing programs.
City and County: New Construction and Renovated
Affordable Housing Estimates for 1997
Program
Approx. # of new construction and rehabilitated homes
Home Ownership Pool loan - WHFD, Inc. 18
Direct Loan and Home Loan 2 25
WHFD, Inc. for lease -purchase ] 10
Fannie Mae lease purchase ` 3
Project home 4
County Commun. Develop. Block Grant ° 6
Total 66
1. Average per year from 1991-97.
2. Average over last three years.
3. Includes lease purchase and Creekwood North.
4. In last four years 8 new homes and 2 renovations.
5. Includes 30 rehabilitated and 5 new construction homes from 1991-97.
Trend. City and County.low.and moderate income affordable housing,
with new construction and renovation; was approximately 66
homes in 1997. If this amount. is subtracted from the 7,856
families in 1997 who were locked out of the housing market,
this still leaves approximately7,790 families in the City and
County who were unable to afford a home.
Home Ownership Pool Loan Program (HOP)
HOP is a community development partnership that was created by the Wilmington
Housing Finance and Development, Inc., local banks, and the City of Wilmington. The program is
administered by the WHFD and targeted generally to persons with incomes less than 80% of the
County median and to potential home buyers who are willing to purchase and rehabilitate homes.
IX-1

This program provides financing for moderate income citizens for home purchases in areas shown
in the following map. Funds are also lent for needed renovation to correct structural or minimum
housing code problems and for housing construction. The participating bank lends 60%to 70% of
the amount with the balance from the City as a second mortgage. As a result of the HOP
program, from 1991 to
1996, 20 new homes were
constructed, and 50 were
rehabilitated. In 1997, the
HOP program made 21
more loans for homes
(Community Development
Division).
Trend. In the
past three years, the
Home Ownership Pool
loan program has
invested over $1
million for purchase
and renovation of
older homes for.
moderate income
families for
approximately 20
homes.
'Z • u
'00 i
City of Wilmington
4 �7 Home Ownership Pool Areas
Summary of Home Ownership Pool (HOP) Loan Program
1991-1996 (Fiscal Years) 1996-'97 FY
Newly Constructed Homes Sold Rehabilitated Homes Existing Homes Sold Last years loans
KX
T
IX-2
19 21
•
•

•
•
•
Direct Loans and Home Loans for Housing Rehabilitation
Trend. In the last three years, the City of Wilmington assisted 76
home owners renovate their homes with Direct and Home Loans
for low to moderate income families.
The City of Wilmington provides housing rehabilitation loans to low and moderate income
homeowners using funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The
Direct Loan Program provides loans for repairs and improvements not exceeding $30,000. Interest
rates range from 0% to 4% for borrowers. The Home Loan Program allows for rehabilitation
amounts up to $55,000. All home loans are interest free and are restricted to borrowers with
incomes less than 80% of the New Hanover County median. A deed of trust secures both the direct
and home loans. If the loan is not fully paid within twenty years, a balloon payment for the unpaid
principal balance is due. In fiscal year `96297, the City made 27 loans to owner occupants with
the Home and Direct Loan programs.
Rental Rehab Loans
The Rental Rehabilitation Loan Program offers an incentive to investors to renovate rental
housing for lower -income families. Up to one-half the total renovation costs may be borrowed at
rates as low as three percent. The maximum loan amount is $11,000 per unit with repayment
amortized over a 15 year period. The low interest rates and long term for repayment make lower
rents possible while allowing for a reasonable return on investment
Wilmington Housing Finance and Development, Inc.
The Wilmington Housing Finance and Development, Inc. (WHFD, Inc.) was created in
1988 to enhance the ability of the City and the Housing Authority to meet the housing needs of low
and moderate income families.' The quasi -independent agency, with the City acts as an
implementation program for affordable housing, assistance, rehabilitation, and historic
preservation. In the last ten years the WE'D, Inc. has made $15.5 million dollars worth of loans
for 405 housing units. Programs implemented and loan amounts for housing units are as follows.
Trend. In the last ten years, the Wilmington Housing Finance and
Development, Inc. has made $15.5 million dollars worth of loans
for 405 housing units.
' From the "Annual Report" 1996-1997. Wilmington Housing Finance & Development, Inc.
IX-3

Programs of the WHFD, Inc. implemented in the last 10 years
Affordable multifamily housing
- Apartments: Willow Pond, Kent Street, James A. Walker
Housing rehabilitation - neighborhood revitalization
- Home ownership pool - HOP
- Lease - purchase program
- Economic development - historic preservation
New construction of affordable single family houses
- Home building training
Support and assistance of Housing Authority initiatives
- Turnkey III houses
- Youthbuild
- Shelter plus care - Hopewood Apartments
Home buyer's training programs
- Seminars have been held to facilitate home ownership
Accomplishments of the WHFD, Inc. Fiscal Year 1996-7
Program - project
Units
Loan amounts in Millions of $'s
Home ownership pool
20
1.4
Creekwood North
8
.2
Purchase -lease -purchase
2
1
Total
30
1.7
Loan amounts for Housing units by the WHFD, Inc. Fiscal Years 1988-97
FY
Housing Units
Loan Amounts in Millions of $'s
1988-9
52
1.8
89-1990
67
2.3
90-1
33
1.0
91-2
36
1.1
923
35
1.3
93-4
39
1.8
94-5
81
2.8
95-6
32
1.5
96.7
30
1_7
Total
405
15.5
Fannie Mae Lease Purchase Program
The Fannie Mae Lease Purchase Program is implemented by the Wilmington Housing
Trend., The Fannie Mae Lease Purchase Program has a high demand, but
currently is in need of grant support to continue. From 1993 to
1997, $150,000 in loans were provided for eight new homes and
two renovated homes.
Finance and Development (WHYD) Agency. This program was established to help improve
housing conditions and to provide home -ownership opportunities for low and moderate income
families of Wilmington and the County. Families who live in public housing and have a gross
annual income of at least $19,000 are targeted by WHFD to participate in the program. Through
the program a house is leased for five years. This provides the opportunity for the family to save
for the down payment, closing costs, and to clear credit problems.
The City of Wilmington provided WHFD with a $75,000 grant and the North Carolina
Housing Finance Agency (NCHFA) also provided a $75,000 grant to assist in the funding of this
I m
•

—� program. The funds provided by the City and the NCHFA have been used for low interest
• amortized loans or deferred loans depending on the participant's income. WHFD has completed
ten loans under this program in the last four years.
There is a huge demand for lease -purchase houses and requests for this type housing, not
only in the City, but in the unincorporated New Hanover County.
Project Home
Trend. Since Project Home began, four houses have been constructed
and sold in 1998 for low and moderate income families. The
agency that oversees the project proposes to expand their
housing construction program into the unincorporated County.
Project Home was established by eight local banks, the Wilmington - New Hanover
Community Development Corporation (CDC) and the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency to
address the affordable home ownership needs of low and moderate income families. The maximum
income limit for eligibility for Project Home is 80 percent of the median income for New Hanover
County depending on family size.
To overcome some of the challenges to home ownership, the CDC sponsors a Home
Buyers Club. The objective of the Club is to help families understand the process of purchasing a
home and to establish savings goals to qualify for home ownership. The Home Buyers Club also
provides a support system for the potential home buyer. To assist the potential homeowner with
financing, a local bank provides a first mortgage for 75% of the financing and the NCHFA through
the CDC provides a second mortgage for 25% of the financing. Since Project Home began, four
houses _have been constructed and sold. The CDC proposes to expand their housing construction
program out into the unincorporated County in 1998.
County Community Development Block Grant Program
The primary purpose of the County CDBG Program is to provide financial assistance to
local governments in the development of viable communities by providing decent housing and a
suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, especially for persons of low
and moderate incomes.
Trend. The County has used Community Development Block Grant
money to rehabilitate more than 30 homes, constructed five :...:
homes, and provided six manufactured homes for low and
moderate income families, and made County sewer and drainage`-,
improvements.
The unincorporated County along with the beaches, have been designated to receive funds
competitively under the North Carolina Small Cities CDBG program. Under this program, the

unincorporated County successfully rehabilitated more than 30 houses, and constructed five houses _
for low and moderate income households from 1991 to 1997. There has also been construction of
County sewer and drainage improvements. The County has provided assistance for two private
industries with expansions that resulted in the creation of approximately 75 jobs for low and
moderate income persons.
Housing Authority of Wilmington
The Housing Authority of Wilmington owns and manages public housing developments
which provide safe and sanitary housing for low and moderate income families. Rent is based on
Trend. The Housing Authority of Wilmington has plans to build
approximately 125 singli family and multi -family housing units
at Jervay Place, with additional community amenities and
commercial uses. There are additional plans to build
approximately 100 single family homes on scattered sites
throughout the City.
income and family composition at the rate of 30 percent of adjusted family income. Approximately
3,024 people live in the
conventional public
housing units. In
Housing Authority of
Wilmington
addition, there are 2,063
Name/Location
Units
Age Years
Condition
Recreational
Facilities
people residing in the
Nesbitt Courts'
261
59
Renov.
Yes
Section 8 housing units
1404 S. 2nd St.
1997_1998
administered by the
Taylor Homes'
276
60
Renov.
Yes
Housing Authority. The
1302 N. 5th Ave.
1997
Housing Authority
Jervay Place*. •
125
48
To be
Yes
902 Dawson St.
Demolished
thus serves a total of
Houston Moore
150
45
Renov.
Yes
approximately 6,224
1601 S.13th St.
1998
people. Funding for the
Hillcrest'
256'
57
Renov.
Yes
Housing Authority
1402 Meares St.
1997
results from rent
Solomon Towers
151
25
Renov. 1997
Yes
charged to residents and
15 castle St.
Creekwood South
199
25
(Handicapped)
Renov.
Yes
from a subsidy from the
714 Emory St.
1998
U.S. Department of
Rankin Terrace
80
25
Renov.
Yes
Housing and Urban
410 N. 11th St.
1958
Development.
Vesta Village
43
25
Renov.
Yes
1601 S.13th St.
1997
Creekwood North—
19
26
Yes
1210 KornegayAve.
*Location of additional 20-ye2r-old buildings which are classified as an "Elderly
Annex". These units are included in the overall total.
"Approximately 100 units of housing will be developed on the site. This is still
in the planning stage.
"'"Orginally consisting of 200 units: 181 units have been sold (as of 2/1198) as
part of a Homeownership Development program.
IX-6

Private Sector / Affordable Housing Program - Habitat for
Humanity
Trend. A private sector, non-profit, affordable housing program
provides a valuable service to the County and City. If the number of
families who would like to own a home but can not afford one is to be
reduced, programs such as Habitat for Humanity will need more public
and private support.
From 1990 to 1998, 27 homes have been built in Wilmington and the County by Habitat
for Humanity. In 1995, four homes were renovated by Habitat. During 1996, Habitat for
Humanity did not build new homes because the hurricanes. Habitat for Humanity estimates that
they will complete six to seven homes during 1998 and 1999. The first home built in 1998 was
sponsored by the local Target store. The Rotary Club plans to sponsor a second home.
Amount of Habitat for Humanity Homes Constructed
1990 '91 '92 W '94 '95 '96 W W Total
1 1 4 3 2 8 0 7 1 27
IX-7

X. University of North Carolina - Wilmington, Housing.
i
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington is an integral part of the economy and
fabric of the City and County. In the spring semester of 1998, there were approximately 9,100
undergraduate students at UNCW, with 25% of those students living on campus, and 75%living
Trend. Jtstimafes for 1997-to 2010 are that between 500 to 1000 of
off -campus housing units will need to be constructed to
accommodate the increased number.of students at UNCW.
off campus. Estimates provided by the University are that by 2010 the size of the school will be
11,800 students. Projections to 2010 indicate that an additional 500 to 1,000 units of off campus
housing will need to be constructed to accommodate campus growth.
UNCW Housing Projections
Estimated needed off campus housing units by 2010
1998
2010
W10
2 students per 3 students per 4 students per
Increase
dwelling dwelling dwelling
# of students
9,100
11,800
2,700
Students living on campus
2,275
2,950
675
Students Irving off campus
6,825
8,850
2,025
1,013 675 506
Information from: UNCW
•
•
X-1

•
XI. Household mobility -1997
Trend. A large
number of household
turnover was found to
occur in the vicinity of
UNCW due to the
relatively mobile student
population. Two areas
were found to have very .
low turnover, one area is
located downtown and
the other area is in the
north part of the City.
Two areas were found to
have a lesser amount of turnover
than the rest of the City and
County. Both are within the City
one is north of Market and the
other is downtown. 'Three areas
were found to have a high turnover
and are adjacent to UNCW. All
other areas had a medium
amount of turnover (from CPA
1997).
116.01
114
'•
/
103
117.01
101
105.01• \•.� \
_
-
112 102.E
' ✓
w
.
111
A
'
�104
113 110
105.02
•�
119.02 �
/
t
109
/ \ '7
.,
120.01
107y-
f
i
�f •, ,,
r
108�—
'
120.03
,
i 1
1 /
120.02+
1997 Household tumover
Low
„ Area 8cundary Map
Medium
gi , n,N,w Nana Caunty
_Wil
High
i
�— c_-,a,a,
C:ri Cf WRn ma. GIs
City -County Mobility 1997
Turnover ratio
Census Tract
Newcomers (% of
Exodus (% of
(newcomers!
census tract)
census tract)
exodus)
Low Turnover
N. of Market, see map 103
2%
2%
0.04
Downtown Wilmington 112
4%
2%
0.04
Medium Turnover
Rest of City -County All tracts except above and below
2%-40,6
5%-6%
.06-.07
High Turnover
Adj. to UNCW 105.1
5%
7%
0.11
Adj. to UNCW 119.01
5%
5%
0.07
Triangle: Market-
Eastwd-Military Cutoff 117.01
2%
8%
0.10
Note: tract 119.01 was included in the high turnover category as both newcomers and exodus indicators at
5% exceeded the average.
Kim

XII. Owner Occupied Housing -1990
Trend. Owner occupancy
of housing in 1990 was found to
increase from the inner City at.
38%, to the inner suburbs at
49%, and to the outer Suburbs
at 67%. This trend correlated
with an increase of household
income.
Wilmington and Suburbs
Owner Occupancy
The adjacent map and following
graph show the percentage of owner
occupied housing in Wilmington and the
County in 1990 (CPA 1997). Generally,
the map and graph show the trend
towards greater owner occupancy from
the inner City at 38%, to the inner
suburbs at 49%, and to outer suburbs at
67%. Inspection of census tract median
household income shows that the higher
the income the higher owner occupancy!
Wilmington and Adjacent Unincorporated County
Housing - Owner Occupancy (%) 1990
9080 I ---i
I
70
r 83
j
a 50
o
u40I
e 30
20
10 llnner City Avg. 38% Inner Suburbs Avg. 49°�
i ! H-1
Outer Suburbs Avg. 670A
0
1Z Of Of N N N N
Censua Tracts O
Effect of UNCW students J
t Note: In a clockwise manner as shown on the map Census tracts 116.01, 119.01, 119.02, 120.01, 120.02, 120.03, and 121.01 are
located in the City and unincorporated County. •

i
•
•
Northern and Southern Portions of the County, Owner Occupancy
Trend. The beach towns show a low occupancy rate of approximately
54% due to seasonal habitation, compared with .the northern
and southern portions of the County occupancy of approx-
imately 82%, and the outer suburbs of Wilmington at.67%.
The graph to the
right shows the percentage
of owner occupied housing
in the north and south
County, and the beach
towns. The location of
these tracts are shown on
the map on page VI-3. The
three northern tracts and
one southern tract show a
uniform owner occupancy
with an average of 82% to
83%. The two beach town
tracts have,,a lower owner
occupancy of 53% to 54%,
due to the large amount of
rental and seasonal housing
for tourists.
Northern & Southern N.H. County, Wrightsville Beach & Fig. Eight Is.
% Housing - Owner Occupancy (011 1990
90
80
a 70
�60
�a 50
u
o
20
10
0
Census Tracts 115
MI-2
116.02 117.02 118 121.02 122

Xlll. Demolition and Code Compliance
The following table shows that from 1993 to 1997 the City: demolished between 2 and 11
houses a year; and brought into compliance between 8 and 25 housing units a year.
Demolition and Code Compliance in Wilmington 1993 to 1997
Activity 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total Average per year
Demolition 10 11 7 2 10 40 8
Code Compliance 18 21 8 8 25 So 16
From: Community Develcpment Civisicn. Citt cf Wilmington
Trend. From 1993 to 1997 the City demolished on average eight houses
per year that were unfit for habitation. Since 1992 in
partnership between the City and WHFD, Inc. 21 new
affordable homes have been built on the demolition sites._.
Houses are demolished after an Order of Condemnation has been issued. The structure may be
deemed unfit for human habitation, or the house is judged to be in a dilapidated condition, and
unsalvageable historically, or structurally. Since 1992 the WHFD, Inc. with the City, have built 21
new affordable homes on vacant lots. These lots previously had condemned houses that were
demolished. Code enforcement has brought units into compliance with the minimum housing code.
XIII-1
•
•

XIV. Historic Preservation -
Economic and Housing Trends
The economic impact of Historic Preservation of housing and buildings in Wilmington is
signifmgie shows the location of the historic districts in the City of
Wilmington. Some of the key highlights of historic preservation are as follows.
Trend. Since 1976 approximately 100 projects, including historic
residential and commercial buildings, have been renovated
through federal and state tax credit programs. This has
involved over $19.3 million dollars for construction costs. This
rehabilitation has directly contributed to the revitalization of
downtown Wilminaton.
Downtown Revitalization. The Federal Historic Preservation investment tax credit program
which started in 1976 had enormous impact on the revitalization of Wilmington's downtown
.. neighborhoods. It increased the tax base, and loan demand spurred economic growth and enhanced
property values. Since 1976, 101 projects to the sum of Sim)66,868 were completed through
federal and state tax credit programs.
• Stabilizing Neighborhoods and Affordable Housing Challenges. The residential areas
of Wilmington's historic districts have a variety of housing in size, quality, price and configuration,
that accominodate families from many income brackets. Rehabilitation has spurred additional
rehabilitation. The designation of Historic District zoning generally controls the size, quality and
scale of new construction, restricts demolition and protects the character and quality of the area.
•
!Trend. The recent renovation to many properties in the historic
downtown area has led to increased property and housing values.
The rebounding downtown is pushing up tax values and forcing
out some of the poorer residents. This poses the challenge of
j retaining affordable housing for some of the existing residents.
However, recent trends are that property and housing values in Wilmington's historic
district and downtown have dramatically increased. For example, County tax values for two story
wood -frame houses on Second Street were valued at $28,500. Within a couple of blocks new three-
story brick townhouses are being constructed with asking prices of $264,900 to S294,400. The
rebounding downtown and parts of the historic district is pushing up tax values and forcing out
some of the poorer residents.' A challenge will be to find a way to retain existing affordable
housing and constnlct new affordable housing.
' The Wihnington Star Newspaper. Feb. S. 1998. "Drnmtown rebound pushes new huusing to fringe sites." by P. Hervey.
XI V-1

I
H -6, Dkvirl O.erlar
Rnidenbal
Carolina Heigh,
r
6rilecoe ceme�em. �_
Pme funrt nq'�---7Fr
oak.lale Cemrrrry
L
r
l '
I I
Hiatorie D�stricl O•erla. Raid<nlia!
i�a1��a1 a1 a1 al��a1■
City of Wilmington
HISTORIC
DISTRICTS
N.Ii-A Rniarer Himrir Disrrin
Carolina Plue
LECL1O
Hicar:r DDuw
�� Nusne ifria-loNn�ial
■t• Nbor:r Oirnu O..n.r.lddao.l
. Xiarie DiY.ia O`^b/ • Ce. w
was mq6—
I]
•
•
XI Y —?

Building Economics. Historic Preservation is cheaper than new construction. The renovation
costs on average are one half the cost of comparable new construction.Z
Value to the Community. A large percentage of rehabilitation projects require a substantial
amount of labor which provides local employment. The money earned from these jobs increases
the local cash flow for goods and services.
Trend. Wilmington has become an active tourist center because of its.
historic houses and associated cultural resources. Heritage
tourists spend on average $62 more per day than other
tourists. This is an important economic infusion of money into ..
i
the local economy.
Heritage Tourism. Tourists come to Wilmington because of its historic houses, buildings,
museums, and other cultural resources. They often stay at bed and breakfast inns. Wilmington
has 32 bed and breakfast inns and all are located in historic houses. Heritage tourists spend an
average of $62 or more per day than other tourists. Ninety percent come with their family, 55 %
spend nights away from home, and 84% will come to visit the site again.
Film Industry. Wilmington is a major center of the film industry's growth and development
because of its urban location, variety of period buildings, and unbroken streetscapes. This industry
• generates twenty million dollars a year and contributes to the local economy through historic
preservation. In 1997, forty five movies were shot in Wilmington including commercials, TV mini-
series, and feature films.
r` Historic Districts. Wilmington has five locally designated historic districts and three districts
listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as shown in the map. Properties in the National
Register District are eligible for federal and state tax credit programs.
Tax Credits. Unlike new construction, the state and federal governments allow a 40 %tax credit
to rehabilitated, income producing, historic properties. Since 1989, the state has allowed a 30%tax
credit for rehabilitation of owner occupied personal residences.
•
Summary of Historic Property and Residences in Wilmington
Properties in the National Register District: 3,098
Owner occupied residences: 945
Historic Preservation Plans for 1998
There are plans to update the design guidelines for the historic districts. There is a
proposed expansion of local historic districts, which would add 493 buildings. A survey is
underway, of the Carolina Heights - Winoca Terrace district, for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. Future goals might include expanding the historic district to preserve additional
historic housing, the creation of conservation districts, and promotion of heritage tourism through
self -guided walking tours.
2 .,The Economics of Historic Preservation". by: D. Rypkema, 1996.
MV-3

Appendix
North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act; Mandated Planning Requirements
This housing economy report is one of the technical reports for the Wilmington -New
Hanover Comprehensive Plan 1997-2010, and the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land
Use Plan. In 1974 the North Carolina General Assembly required that 20 coastal counties of the
state prepare land use plans. This plan provides a framework to guide local leaders with protection,
preservation, orderly development and management of the North Carolina coastal area. Updates to
the plan are required in five year intervals. In accordance with CAMA requirements, the land use
plan consists of the following elements: summary of data collection and analysis; existing land use
map; policy discussion; and a land classification map. This information serves an important role
with local development regulations, such as zoning ordinances, and it provides input for growth
policy decisions.
Housing Calculations
The data was collected in the field July -November 1997 by the Wilmington Planning
Division and the New Hanover County Planning Department. Projections were calculated by the
two planning departments based on recent trends, housing starts, and the N.C. Office of State
Planning demographic trends. Housing calculations in the unincorporated County south of Snows
Cut is an estimate, based on the ratio of population to housing found in the non -urban County.
Table Al. Housing Projections 1997-2010
Location &
1997210
Avg. # units/ yr
Map Reference
Housing Type
1997
%
2010
%
New Units
growth
Wilmington
W
SF and mobile homes
15154
54%
17299
54%
2145
165
Duplex
2008
70/6
2286
7%
278
21
SF attached -condo &
Apts. 3+ units
11111
39%
12660
39%
1549
119
28273
100%
32245
100%
3972
306
Urbanizing County
U
SF and mobile homes
22677
90%
27832
84%
5155
397
Duplex
760
3%
1160
4%
400
31
SF attached -condo &
Apts. 3+ units
1625
6%
4019
12%
2394
184
25062
100%
33011
100%
7949
611
Non -Urban County
NU
SF and mobile homes
7246
96%
8042
95%
796
61
Duplex
217
3%
245
3%
28
2
SF attached -condo &
Apts. 3+ units
96
1 %
198
2%
102
8
7559
100%
8485
100%
926
71
South of Snows Cut
Unincorporated
SF and mobile homes
527
96%
569
95%
42
3
County
Duplex
16
3%
18
3%
2
0.2
SF attached -condo &
Apts. 3+ units
7
11 %
12
2%
5
0_4
550
100%
599
100%
49
4
Totals
Wilmington
28273
32245
3972
306
Unincorporated County
33171
42095
8924
686
Total
61444
74340
12896
992
A-1
•
•

Housing Affordability in New Hanover County
Calculations were made of housing affordablity for 1997 by Census Tract for the City and
the County. Table A2 shows the housing price range that families or households could afford in
1997 given the stated mortgage assumptions. From the data household income was known for each
tract in the County. Gross monthly income was calculated for each of the household income ranges.
This allowed the calculation of monthly mortgage amounts, and hence affordable housing range,
for each of the income ranges.'
For example, if a household made between $25,000 to $50,000 per year the range of
housing that they could afford was between $78,529 and $156,992. The monthly mortgage
payments would range from $687 to $1,375. The available census data is not refined beyond the
shown ranges, but an assessment of affordable housing in the County could be made.
Table A2.
The monthly mortgage and house price households could afford In Wilmington
- New Hanover County in 1997.
Assumptions
3% down.
Loan interest rate 7.5%
House payments as percent of monthly income: 33%. Or total debt doesn't exceed 38% of gross income.
Taxes and insurance as percent of house price: 1.5%.
Mortgage insurance as percent of original loan: 0.91 %A
Fixed rate loan, term in years: 30 years.
Category
$Ranges
1997 Estimated Household Income $
<9999
10000-44999
25000-49999
50000-74999 >75000
Gross monthly income range $
<833
833-2083
2083-4167
4167-6250 >6250
Maximum monthly house payment range $
<275
275-687
687-1375
1375-2063 >2063
Maximum house range in $ that households can afford.
<31342
31342-78529
78529-156992
156992-235500 >235500
The next step was to determine how many families in 1997 could afford the range of
housing costs by census tract. The income distribution by tract was known. The mortgage ranges
were known. Thus the number of families and how much housing they could afford by tract were
known for 1997. To facilitate data analysis, the census tracts were grouped together by proximity
• ' Mortgage methods are from: Community Development Division, City of Wilmington, "The GE community home buyer's program.
Affording a home in the 90's", by GE Capital Mortgage Corporation, Raleigh NC. Household income by census tract from: CPA, 1997.
A-2

moving out from the City core to the outer portions of the County. The map location of the census
tracts and groupings are shown on pages VI-2 and VI-3 of the text.
Census Tract Groupings
1.
Wilmington inner City
2.
Wilmington inner suburbs
3.
Outer suburbs around Wilmington
4.
Northern portion of County
5.
Wrightsville Beach - Figure Eight Is.
6.
Southern portion of County
Inspection of the data on the following pages in tables A3 to A8 showed that there was a
significant number of families, who could not afford a home with a sales price greater than
$31,342. Similarly, there were many families who could not purchase a home that cost more than
$78,529. For example, in Hemenway census -tract 101, there were 1,121 families (Table A3 -B).
Of this amount 32% of the families could not afford a home that would exceed $31,342, and 39%
could not afford a home that would exceed $78,529 (Table A3 -A). The sum of 32% and 39% is
7 1 % (Table A3 -B). Thus 71%times 1,121 yields 796 families in Census tract 101 who could not
afford a home that exceeded $78,529 in 1997. This data analysis was repeated for all six census
tract groupings (listed above) with the following detailed results (tables A3 to A8).
Table A3.
Wilmington - Inner City
A. The percent distribution of households in a census tract that could afford the
range of home costs in 1997.
Percent distribution of households who can afford stated housing cost
Places in Census Tract
Census
<$31342
$31343-
$78530-
$156993-
>$235501
tract
$78529
$156992
$235500
Hemenway
101
32%
39%
23°%
3%
3°%
Carolina Heights - Wrightsville Av.
102
17°%
31 %
31 %
12%
9%
South Dry Pond
110
25%
40%
26%
8%
1 °%
North Dry Pond
111
47%
38%
15%
0°%
0°%
The Bottom
112
22%
34%
23%
130%
8°%
Old Wilmington -Downtown
113
38%
34%
14%
3°%
11 °%
Brooklyn
114
41 %
34°%
17%
6%
2°%
B. The percent and number of households in a census tract that could not afford
a home that cost more than $78,629 In 1997.
Places in Census Tract Census In Percent Total 9 of households in No. of households who couldn't
tract M Census tract afford a >$78529 home
Hemenway
101
71%
1121
796
Carolina Heights - Wrightsville Av.
102
48°%
1667
800
South Dry Pond
110
65%
1157
752
North Dry Pond
111
85°%
1138
967
The Bottom
112
560%
1034
579
Old Wilmington -Downtown
113
72%
1045
752
Brooklyn
114
75%
772
579
Total# of households
7934
6226
A-3
i'
•
•

' Table A4.
i Wilmington - Inner
Suburbs
A. The percent distribution of households in a census tract that could afford the
range of home costs in 1997.
Percent distribution of households who can afford stated housing cost
Places in Census Tract Census tract <$31342 $31343- $78530- $156993- >$235501
$78529 $156992 $235500
East Wilmington
103
21 %
29%
38%
8%
4%
Forest Hills
104
12%
23%
27%
18%
20%
Empie Park
105.02
15%
28%
39%
14%
4%
Country Club - Lincoln Forest
106
5%
21 %
24%
21 %
29%
Greenfield
107
11 %
26%
43%
18%
2%
Long Leaf Park - JC Rowe E.S.
108
33%
36%
21 %
9%
1 %
Sunset Park
109
16%
41 %
35%
7%
1 %
B. The percent and number of households in a census tract that could not afford
a home that cost more than $78,629 In 1997.
Places in Census Tract Census tract In Percent (%) Total # of households in No. of households who couldn't
Census tract afford a >$78529 home
East Wilmington
103
50%
1831
916
Forest Hills
104
35%
1366
478
-^� Empie Park
105.02
43%
2636
1133
Country Club - Lincoln Forest
106
26%
1905
495
Greenfield
107
37%
1952
722
Long Leaf Park -JC Rowe E.S.
106
69%
1192
822
Sunset Park
109
57%
1134
646
Total # of households
12016
6212
•
Table A5.
Outer Suburbs Lying in Wilmington -
Unincorporated County
A. The percent distribution of households in a census tract that could afford the
range of home costs in 1997.
Percent distribution of households who can afford stated housing cost
Places in Census Tract Census tract <$31342 $31343- $78530- $156993- >$235501
$78529 $156992 $235500
Triangle: Kerr -College -Market
105.01
28%
39%
24%
5%
4%
Area: Kerr -Gordon -Market
116.01
6%
190/0
37%
27%
11 %
Triangle: Market -Eastwood -Military Cutoff
117.01
8%
15%
27%
30%
20%
UNCW Duck Haven Golf Course
119.01
18%
22%
29%
17%
14%
Winter Park Elementary School
119.02
17%
37%
30%
11 %
5%
Greenville Loop Road
120.01
6%
16%
34%
18%
26%
Masonboro Sound Road
120.02
3%
10%
28%
27%
32%
Pine Valley
120.03
4%
17%
29%
26%
24%
Echo Farms -Mary Williams E.S.
121.01
5%
18%
38%
23%
16%
A-4

B. The percent and number of households in a census tract that could not afford
a home that cost more than $78,529 In 1997.
Places in Census Tract
Census tract In Percent (%)
Total # of households in No. of
households who couldn't
Census tract
afford a >578529 home
Triangle: Kerr -College -Market
105.01
67%
1779
1192
Area: Kerr -Gordon -Market
116.01
25%
2524
631
Triangle:Market-Eastwood-Military Cutoff
117.01
40%
1407
563
UNCW-Duck Haven Golf Course
119.01
40%
2717
1087
Winter Park Elementary School
119.02
54%
2111
1140
Greenville Loop Road
120.01
22%
2269
499
Masonboro Sound Road
120.02
13%
3955
514
Pine Valley
120.03
21 %
2849
%8
Echo Farms -Mary Williams E.S.
121.01
23%
2092
481
Total # of households
21703
6705
Table A6.
Northern Portion
of County
A. The percent distribution of households in a census tract that could afford the
range of home costs In 1997.
Percent distribution of households who can afford stated housing cost
Places in Census Tract Census tract <$31342
$31343-
$78530- $156993-
>$235501
$78529
$156992 $235500
Wrightsboro-Castle Hayne
115
5%
21 % 38%
25% 11 %
Wrightsboro-Castle Hayne
116.02
8°%
24% 32%
28°% 8%
Landfall - Ogden - Porters Neck
117.02
3%
11 % 25%
30 % 31 °%
B. The percent and number of households in a
census tract that could not afford
•
a home that cost more than $78,629 in 1997.
Places in Census Tract
Census tract In Percent (%)
Total # of households in No.
of households who couldn't
Census tract
afford a >$78529 home
Wrightsboro-Castle Hare
115
26%
2442
635
Wrightsboro-Castle Hayne
116.02
32°%
3917
1253
Landfall - Ogden - Porters Neck
117.02
14°%
3254
456
Total # of households
9613
2344
Table A7.
Wrightsville Beach - Figure
Eight Island
A. The percent distribution of households in a census tract that could afford the
range of home costs in 1997.
Percent distribution of households who can afford stated housing cost
Places in Census Tract Census tract <$31342 $31343- $78530- $156993- >$235501
$78529 $156992 $235500
Wrightsville Beach - Figure Eight Island 118 7°% 15% 32% 200% 26%
•
A-5

-, B. The percent and number of households in a census tract that could not afford
' a home that cost more than $78,629 in 1997.
Places in Census Tract Census tract In Percent (%) Total # of households in No. of households who couldn't
Census tract afford a >$78529 home
Wrightsville Beach - Figure Eight Island 118 220% 1339 295
Total # of households 1339 295
Table A8.
Southern Portion of County
A. The percent distribution of households In a census tract that could afford the
range of home costs in 1997.
Percent distribution of households who can afford stated housing cost
Places in Census Tract Census <$31342 $31343- $78530- $156993- >$235501
tract $78529 $156992 $235500
Myrtle Grove-MonereyHeights Park 121.02 8% 19% 32% 21 % 20%
S. of Snows Cut Unincorp. Co. - Kure & Carolina Beach 122 9% 23% 35% 17% 16%
B. The percent and number of households in a census tract that could not afford
a home that cost more than $78,629 in 1997.
Places in Census Tract Census In Percent (%) Total # of households in No. of households who
tract Census tract couldn't afford a >$78529
home
Myrtle Grove-MonereyHeights Park 121.02 27% 3705 1000
S. of Snows Cut Unincorp. Co. - Kure & Carolina Beach 122 32% 2799 896
0 Total # of households 6504 1896
County -City Home Ownership Estimates
Home ownership amounts were estimated for the City and County (tables A9-A10). The
following is an example of how an estimate was made of the number of families per income bracket
that do not own their own homes using census tract 101 in table A9.
Calculation example for census tract 101.
Number of families who do not own their home = 1 - 46% = 54%.
Applying the 54% uniformly across the 1,121 households leads to the following:
For the $0 to $9.9 thousand income bracket, 1,121 hh x 32% x 54% = 194
households.
For the $10 to $24.9 thousand income bracket, 1,121 hh x 39% x 54% = 236
• households.
A-6

This method was repeated for the remaining income brackets of. $25k - $49.9k, $50k - �
$74.9k, and $75k+; and other census tracts. These calculations should only n a be used igeneral •
way in discussion with affordable housing challenges. The owner occupancy was applied evenly
for each income bracket. It is likely that the lower income brackets of less than $25 thousand have
an even higher non -home ownership that what is shown. This is thought to be the case as owner
occupancy decreases as income decreases. Conversely, the amount of non -home ownership shown
in the higher income brackets of above $50 thousand is likely less than what is shown. The same
type of methods were used for table A10.
Table A9. New Hanover County Estimated'Number of Families That Do Not Own Their Home
Data from: CPA. Inc. 1997 with US Census
1997 Estimated
1997 Estimated: HH distribution of
Summary of families
Household Income in $1,000's
Owner
# of families who
do not own
who do not own
1997 #
% Distribution
Occu-
their home
their home
Census
of House-
10•
25-
50-
75 &
pancy
25-
50-
75 &
tract
holds
0-9.9
24.9
49.9
74.9
over
1990 (%)
0-9.9 10-24.9
49.9
74.9
over
0 to 24.9
0 to 75+
101
1,121
32
39
23
3
3
46
194
236
139
18
18
430
605
102
1,667
17
31
31
12
9
57
122
222
222
86
65
344
717
103
1,831
21
29
38
8
4
58
161
223
292
62
31
385
769
104
1,366
12
23
27
18
20
61
64
123
144
96
107
186
533
105.01
1,779
28
39
24
5
4
15
423
590
363
76
60
1013
1512
105.02
2,636
15
28
39
14
4
37
249
465
648
232
66
714
1661
106
1.905
5
21
24
21
29
72
27
112
128
112
155
139
533
107
1,952
11
26
43
18
2
21
170
401
663
278
31
571
1542
108
1,192
33
36
21
9
1
31
271
296
173
74
8
568
822
109
1,134
16
41
35
7
1
60
73
186
159
32
5
259
454
110
1,157
25
40
26
8
1
30
202
324
211
65
8
526
810
111
1,138
47
38
15
0
0
35
348
281
111
0
0
629
740
112
1,034
22
34
23
13
8
47
121
186
126
71
44
307
548
113
1,045
38
34
14
3
11
22
310
277
114
24
90
537
815
114
772
41
34
17
6
2
31
218
181
91
32
11
400
533
115
2,442
5
21
38
25
11
81
23
97
176
116
51
121
464
116.01
2,524
6
19
37
27
11
77
35
110
215
157
64
145
581
116.02
3.917
8
24
32
28
8
84
50
150
201
175
50
201
627
117.01
1,407
8
15
27
30
20
88
14
25
46
51
34
39
169
117.02
3,254
3
11
25
30
31
82
18
64
146
176
182
82
586
118
1.339
7
15
32
20
26
53
44
94
201
126
164
138
629
119.01
2,717
18
22
29
17
14
51
240
293
386
226
186
533
1331
119.02
2,111
17
37
30
11
5
55
161
351
285
104
47
513
950
120.01
2,269
6
16
34
18
26
83
23
62
131
69
100
85
386
120.02
3,955
3
10
28
27
32
89
13
44
122
117
139
57
435
120.03
2,849
4
17
29
26
24
69
35
150
256
230
212
185
883
121.01
2,092
5
18
38
23
16
79
22
79
167
101
70
101
439
121.02
3,705
8
19
32
21
20
83
50
120
202
132
126
170
630
122
2,799
9
23
35
17
16
54
116
296
451
219
206
412
1288
Total
3797
6040
6567
3257
2329
9837
21991
•
•
A-7

.i
Table Al 0. New Hanover County Estimated Number of Families That Own Their Home
Data from: CPA, Inc. 1997 with US Census
1997 Estimated
1997 Estimated: HH distribution of
Summary of families
Household Income in $1,000's
Owner
# of families who own
who own
1997 #
% Distribution
Occu-
their home
their home
Census
of House-
10-
25-
50-
75 &
pancy
25-
50•
75 &
tract
holds
0-9.9
24.9
49.9
74.9
over
1990 (%)
0-9.9 10-24.9
49.9
74.9
over
0 to 24.9
0 to 75+
101
1,121
32
39
23
3
3
46
165
201
119
15
15
366
516
102
1,667
17
31
31
12
9
57
162
295
295
114
86
456
950
103
1,831
21
29
38
8
4
58
223
308
404
85
42
531
1062
104
1,366
12
23
27
18
20
61
100
192
225
150
167
292
833
105.01
1,779
28
39
24
5
4
15
75
104
64
13
11
179
267
105.02
2,636
15
28
39
14
4
37
146
273
380
137
39
419
975
106
1,905
5
21
24
21
29
72
69
288
329
288
398
357
1372
107
1,952
11
26
43
18
Y
21
45
10i
176
74
8
152
410
108
1,192
33
36
21
9
1
31
122
133
78
33
4
255
370
109
1,134
16
41
35
7
1
60
109
279
238
48
7
388
680
110
1,157
25
40
26
8
1
30
87
139
90
28
3
226
347
111
1,138
47
38
15
0
0
35
187
151
60
0
0
339
393
• 112
1,034
22
34
23
13
8
47
107
165
112
63
39
272
486
113
1,045
38
34
14
3
11
22
87
78
32
7
25
166
230
114
772
41
34
17
6.
2
31
98
81
41
14
5
179
239
115
2,442
5
21
38
25
11
81
99
415
752
495
218
514
1978
116.01
2,524
6
19
37
27
11
77
117
369
719
525
214
486
1943
116.02
3,917
8
24
32
28
8
84
263
790
1053
921
263
1053
3290
117.01
1,407
8
15
27
30
20
88
99
186
334
371
248
285
1238
117.02
3,254
3
11
25
30
31
82
80
294
667
800
827
374
26W
118
1,339
7
15
32
20
26
53
50
106
227
142
185
156
710
119.01
2,717
18
22
29
17
14
51
249
305
402
236
194
554
1386
119.02
2,111
17
37
30
11
5
55
197
430
348
128
58
627
1161
120.01
2,269
6
16
34
18
26
83
113
301
640
339
490
414
1883
120.02
3,955
3
10
28
27
32
89
106
352
986
950
1126
458
3520
120.03
2,849
4
17
29
26
24
69
79
334
570
511
472
413
1966
121.01
2,092
5
18
38
23
16
79
83
297
628
380
264
380
1653
121.02
3,705
S
19
32
21
20
83
246
584'
984
646
615
830
3075
122
2.799
9
23
35
17
16
54
136
348
529
257
242
484
1511
Total
3698
7905 11481
7770
6264
11603
37118
•
A-8

County Real Estate Housing Count <$80,000 in 1997
The following table A -I I shows the breakdown by real estate map area in the County0
(page VII-1) the total number of homes that sold for less than $80 000 in 1997 as summarized on
page VIII-1.
Table Al 1.
Number of housing units sold in 1997 under $70,000.
Location
Map area Single
family
Condo
North east County
1
7
37
South east County
2
12
14
South west County
3
99
41
North west County
4
36
9
Wrightsville Beach - Figure Eight is.
5
0
4
South of Snows Cut
6 '
18
39
172
144
Number of housing units sold in 1997 from $70,000 to $20,000.
Location
Map area Single
family
Condo
North east County
1
11
7
South east County
2
9
1
South west County
3
56
52
North west County
4
28
2
Wrightsville Beach - Figure Eight Is.
5
0
0
South of Snows Cut
6
10
13
114
75
Total number of housing units sold in 1997 for less than $80,000.
Map area Single family Condo
Number of homes <$80,000 286 219 505
•
A-9

•
•
m
0
0
0
•

Technical Reports Wilmington New Hanover County
Comprehensive Flan
Economy
of New Hanover County and Wilmington,
North Carolina
A Technical Report for the City and County Comprehensive Plan
1997-2010
October 1998
Prepared by the
City of Wilmington, Planning Division
202 N. 3rd Street, 4`' Floor, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
New Hanover County, Planning Department
414 Chestnut Street, Suite 304, Wilmington, NC 28401 [phone]
is

Economy
New Hanover County - Wilmington, North Carolina
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
11. Summary
Ill. Employment Indicators ;
IV. County and U.S. Economic Comparison
V. Additional Economic Factors
VI. Unemployment
VII. Employment Projections
iR. References
A. Appendix
page
I-1
II-1
III-1
IV-1
V-1
VI-1
VII-1
R-1
A-1
ii

I. INTRODUCTION
This document is part of the New Hanover County and City of Wilmington
Comprehensive Plan effort, begun in 1997 to update to the 1991 Land Use Plan.'"' This report is
being used with the Comprehensive planning process help to guide public issues, policy, and
implementation actions.
The main purpose of this report is to evaluate the economic condition of New Hanover
County and Wilmington by examining the factors that affect it, such as: changes in employment
job types; a comparison with the US economy; cost of living; wages; impact of the movie industry;
travel and tourism expenditures; the state port; construction activity; changes in per capita retail
sales; and airport use. Future employment projections include: the local and three county area;
changes by job type; jobs and households; and job amounts in the proposed City annexation areas.
An examination of past and future trends in various economic sectors shows which areas
of the economy have been growing and which areas have been declining. The information provided
in this report will help the County and City project the amounts and types of future land use needs,
and show what parts of the economy need improvement.
•
'"' The previous 1991 economy report is entitled "Economy oNew Hanover Count
y. " 1991. See
the appendix for CAMA planning information. .

II. SUMMARY
Total Employment
Number.of County employees in 1996: 78,200.
Top four employment f ields: Service 26%, 20,500; Retail trade
23%, 17,900; Government 17 13,000; and Manufacturing 11%, 8,600.
In 1996 total employment in New Hanover County was approximately 78,200. Of that
total the top four job types were: retail trade, 17,900; services 20,500; government 13,000 and
manufacturing 8,600. These and the other five remaining generalized job types in the County are
shown in the following table and chart (Source: NC Employment Security Commission).
New Hanover County Employment
Sector
1996 Employment
% of County Employment
Agriculture
270
0.3%
Manufacturing
8590
11 °%
Construction
6080
8%
Transportation Communication Utilities
3590
5%
Wholesale Trade
5034
6%
Retail Trade
17846
23%
Finance Insurance Real Estate
3100
4°%
Services
20500
26%
Government
12950
17°%
Total
78205
100°%
Source NC ESC
Services
26°%
•
Employment in New Hanover County -1996
Government
170A
Finance Insurance Real
Estate 4°%
Agriculture
.3°%
Manufacturing 11 %
Retail Trade 23°%
^^ 'vcti8 on %
Transportation
Communication
Public Utilities 5°%
Wholesale Trade
6°%

Trends: County job gains and losses 1990-'96
Top three job gains Services +7,100, Trade +4,600, Construction +2,000.
Top job loss - Manufacturing -900.
The following table and chart show the County job gain and loss between 1990 and 1996.
The three largest job growth areas were in service, trade, and construction. The largest loss of jobs
was in manufacturing. Agriculture and transportation -communication -utilities showed slight losses
during the time period (Source: NC Employment Security Commission). Local government
responsibilities grew as the population in New Hanover County grew. Between 1990 and 1996 the
population grew from approximately 120,000 to 143,000 an increase of 2'U00 new residents.
W
N
O
J
O
G
ro
0
0
7
New Hanover County Job Gain and Loss
1990-1996
Existing Jobs by Year Change in jobs
1990 1996
1990-1996
Agriculture
303 270
—33
Manufacturing
9,500 8,590
-910
Construction
4,110 6,060
1,970
Transportation, communication,
utilities 3,620 3,590
-30
Trade
18,250 22,880
4,630
Finance, insurance, real estate
2.470 3,100
630
Services
13,430 20,500
7,070
Government
11,340 12,950
1,610
Total
63,023 77,960
14,937
New Hanover County Job Gain or Loss, 1990 -1996
t
,970
d PIP)
7
C
C C N
d
U
N C
V
U
2
O I�Q
_
0
C
w
0
E
E
C3 7
(A0
7=
N N
44)
(n
o
Q
E
m
C7
c
LL
II-2
•
•

Manufacturing
Between 1975 and 1995 the relative proportion of Manufacturing in the County's total
•Industry Employment decreased approximately 13% from 9,700 to 8,500 workers. Significant
decreases in employment took place in the Fabricated Metals and Textiles industries, and a
significant increase took place in the Printing industry. However, over the last approximate ten
years total manufacturing employment figures have remained fairly constant.
Nonmanufacturing
From 1975 to 1995 the proportion of Nonmanufacturing employment has continued to
increase, from 26,900 workers to 65,300 workers. Trade, Service, and Government employment
constitute the major proportion of the Nonmanufacturing employment growth.
Cost of Living
Local 1996 cost of living values were compared with the nation. The composite cost of
living value for the nation was 100 and Wilmington was 103. Values greater than 100 mean that
Wilmington was more expensive than the nation. A breakdown of Wilmington cost of living values
compared to the nation were: groceries - 98, housing - 110, utilities - 114, transportation - 89, and
health care - 100. Most notably housing costs in Wilmington were 10 points higher than the nation.
Wages
New Hanover County business patterns for 1995-96 show that approximately half of the
jobs were in retail trade and services. The third and fourth greatest percentage of jobs were
respectively in government - 17%, and manufacturing - 12%. The average annual wage per
employee was $23,300. The top three wage categories were in manufacturing - $38,400,
government - $27,100, and transportation -communications -public utilities - $27,100. The bottom
three wage categories were in retail trade - $13,300, agriculture -forestry -fishing -mining - $15,200,
and services - $21,300. The fact that half of the jobs in the County in 1995 were in the bottom
three wage earning categories and that housing is 10 points higher than the nation, are issues of
H_ concern that policy and implementation actions should address in the Comprehensive Plan.
- County Compared With the United States
Shift Share Analysis is an economic method used to compare County's employment with
the US employment. Between 1990 to 1995 analysis shows that there has been a loss in
competitive share in the County compared to the US in five of eight manufacturing employment
types. There were increases in five of six nonmanufacturing types. Policy and implementation
actions should address steps that can be taken to increase better paying manufacturing employment
in the County.
•
Movies
The film industry represents about 12% of the County's economy. In 1996, production
spending in the County was $242 million; $165 million from six theatrical and 28 made for
television features, and $77 million from television projects, commercials and allied production
services. There are approximately 750 area resident technical crew members who work in the local
film industry.
II-3

Tourism
In 1996 Travel and Tourism contributed $235 million to the County's economy. After0
adjusting for inflation, travel and tourism expenditures have not increa xp sed substantially from the
1989 level.
Almost $2 million in revenue was generated in 1995 by the County's 3% room occupancy
tax. 60% of the tax was contributed to beach renourishment and 40% to travel and tourism
promotions. In 1996 approximately 1.5 million tourists visited the County.
Shipping Port
The Wilmington state port from 1990 to 1996 added to the state economy by ripple effect:
46,000 new jobs, $1.3 billion in income; $8.3 billion in new sales; and $185 million in new taxes.
Needed port improvements to remain competitive include: deepening the harbor; improving inland
highway and rail access to the terminal; and modernizing and maintaining the terminal to meet
demands of the market place.
Construction
New construction pumped $268 million into the New Hanover County economy in 1996,
up from $108 million in 1981. Since 1981 the unincorporated County has consistently seen the
greatest amount of annual new construction in terms of dollars. This amount has been
approximately twice the amount produced by Wilmington and the beach towns combined.
From 1990 to 1996 the Unincorporated County has seen an increase of residential
construction from approximately 1,000 to 2,100 units per year. Wilmington has seen an increase
from 200 to 1,400 units per year. The three beach towns combined annually average approximately
100 to 200 units of new construction. 0
From 1981 to 1996 the annual number of approved subdivision lots in the Unincorporated
County has increased from 400 to 1,900.
Per Capita Retail Sales
New Hanover County was essentially tied for third place in per capita retail sales in 1995
statewide. In terms of the ratio of per capita retail sales verses population the County was second
highest. New Hanover County remains a favorite destination for shopping and tourism.
Airport
Between 1980 to 1996 airport use grew by 2.5 times to 405,000 users. By 2010 the
projected use is expected to double. Commercial, industrial, and residential land development near
the airport will need to be carefully guided.
General Business Climate
Wilmington has a good general business climate and ranked second in the state in a 1998
poll.
Unemployment
Since 1985 the unemployment rate has averaged 1%to 1.5%higher in the City than the
County. During this time unemployment for the City and County has ranged from approximately
4% to 8%. In 1996 and 1997 the County and City were at a time of relatively low unemployment.
II-4

•
•
Historically the City has had higher unemployment than County. In recent years many jobs
have moved from the central City to the suburbs, such as east Oleander Drive, Carolina Beach
Road, and South College Road, leaving the unemployed behind. Policy and implementation actions
will need to address chronic unemployment challenges, and new mass transportation routes.
Employment Projections
The three county area trend from 1997 to 2010 predicts New Hanover will add 22,000
new workers, Brunswick 25,000, and Pender 7,000.
From 1997 to 2010 the County is projected to gain an increasingly aging workforce in the
+60 age group, and the City is projected to gain a large increase in the 30 to 49 age group
workforce.
The 2010 projected top four most numerous job types are: Trade, Service, Government,
and Manufacturing. This projection should only be used as a rough estimate as unforeseen changes
in the economy could alter the amounts.
The County and City jobs to household ratios have slightly decreased from 1985 to 1995.
This projection is for this trend to continue as the size of households decreases. In 1995 the ratios
were 1.26 in the County and 1.07 in the City. The County has a higher number of jobs per
household than the City and is likely due to the City's higher unemployment.
II-5

III. EMPLOYMENT INDICATORS
Employment by Place of Work
Trend. The top four growth fields in County to 2010 will likely be:
Service, Construction, Trade, Finance -insurance -real estate.
The County economic growth rate from 1990. to 1996 averaged
4% per year.
The following table and chart show that from 1990 to 1996 total average employment
growth in the County was almost 4% per year (see right side of chart). The two largest areas of
growth in terms of employment were service and construction jobs, at respectively 8.8% per year
and 8.0% per year. Agriculture and manufacturing registered employee losses of, respectively,
1.8% and -1.6% per year. Transportation -communications -utilities showed no growth at
approximately 0%. The remaining job categories grew at 2% to 4% per year (from the NC ESQ.
9%
8%
7%
2%
t
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
Average Employment Growth Per Year 1990= 96
j
Cp C C C
OU
m
C u
m
O
V
b f
` m
E
< m
a E
fn
U
�
c
iL
~
New Hanover County Employment Changes'90= 96
Job
Average Change per
Agriculture
1990
1996
Change
year(1990.1996)
Manufacturing
303
270
(33)
-18%
Construction
9,500
8,590
(910)
-1.6%
Transportation, Communication, Utilities
4,110
3,620
6,080
3,590
1,970
8.0%
Trade
(30)
-01 %
Finance, Insurance, Real estate
18,250
2,470
22,880
3,100
4,630
630
4.2%
Services
13,430
20,500
7,070
4.3%
8.8%
Government
11,340
12,950
1,610
2.4%
Total Average
63,023
77,960
14,937
4.0%
s
1�
u
is

-
Generalized historical employment by type of work in New Hanover County from 1975 to
1995 is characterized by the following table.
Employment by place of work.
Number of Workers
Category 1975 1995
% Change
Total industrial 36,570 73,790
102%
Manufacturing 9,710 8,460
-13%
Nonmanufacturing 26,860 65,330
143%
Total non -industrial 5,999 2,645
-56%
Agriculture 442 270
39%
Other 5,557 2,375
-57%
Total 42,569 76,435
80%
Source: NCESC ..
The above table and the following figure show employment trends between 1975 and 1995
where: manufacturing decreased by approximately 13%, nonmanufacturing more than doubled,
agriculture decreased by 39%, and the 'other" m-' category had two long periods of no change and
two decreases (see below figure) which resulted in a decrease of 57%. As shown in the above table
the important trends are a sharp increase in non -manufacturing, a steady decline in manufacturing,
and a decrease in agriculture and the 'other" category. These changes mark a steady shift towards
a nonmanufacturing economic base in New Hanover County. For more manufacturing and
nonmanufacturing information see the Appendix.
• New Hanover County Employment by Place of Work
. 70,000
60.000 L----------------------------------- - - - - --
-
50,000�------7----------------------- --------- - - - - -.
0
4,= �.-------------- - - - - -- -- - - --
--------------------
30,000 -- - ------------------------------------------
0
20,0M - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10,000 • • • •--C--�— ♦--�—• • +—r—• • • a
Year
�- ♦— Manufacturing —M-- Nonmanufacturing —A— Agriculture —jE— Other*
m -1 Other: nonagricultural self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, and domestic workers in
private households.
III-2

Cost of Living
Trend. Housing in Wilmington is more expensive than the national
average, and more expensive than_almost all cities in North
Carolina.
The following table shows a comparison cost of living in 1996 for Wilmington, with the
nation and five other cities in North Carolina (N.C. SE Regional Data Book). The comparative
standard is the nation as a whole where all values are 100. In terms of the cost of groceries,
Wilmington was two points lower than the nation. For housing, Wilmington was 10 points higher
than the nation and more expensive than Ral6igh-Durham and Winston-Salem, but cheaper than
Chapel Hill. For utilities, Wilmington was 6 points higher than the average of cities shown. For
transportation, Wilmington was 11 points cheaper than the nation. For health care costs,
Wilmington had the same value as the nation at 100. Wilmington's composite index was 103 or
three points higher than the nation. Of the cities shown Fayetteville had the cheapest composite
index, and Chapel Hill was the most expensive.
Comparison Cost of Living -1996
Composite Index Groceries
Housing
Utilities
Transportation
Health Care
United States
100 100
100
100
100
100
Wilmington
103 98
110
114
89
100
Fayetteville
97 99
85
117
95
90
Raleigh-
103 101
108
112
94
105
Durham
Chapel Hill
115 98
138
112
101
111
Winston-
101 95
108
110
100
88
Salem
Charlotte
99 97
98
104
99
103
From: North Carolina's Southeast Regional Data Book
Elizabethtown, NC.
Wages
The table on the next page shows the summary of business patterns in 1995 for the County
(N.C. SE Regional Data Book). Shown are work category, employment, payroll, and annual wage
per employee. For employment: 80% of the jobs in the County were in service; 19% were in goods
consisting of manufacturing and construction; and 1 % were in Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and
Mining. The County annual average wage per employee was $23,300. The best paying
employment was in manufacturing, although these jobs make up only 12% of the employment.
Although services and retail trade jobs constitute half of the County employment, the pay is
relatively low at $13,300 for retail trade and $21,300 for services.
Trend.,*,,: Manufacturing jobs pay the best, but the trend has been a loss.
of these jobs.at 1% per. year. In"1996 manufacturing comprised
11% of the workforce in the County.'.
III - 3
f
•

-� New Hanover County Business Patterns -1995
Work Category
Employ-
% of Total
Payroll $ Millions
Annual
Wage /
ment
Employee ($)
Goods - Producing
13,800
19%
$
446
$
32,400
Manufacturing
8,400
12°%
$
324
$
38,400
Construction
5,400
8%
$
122
$
22,800
Services -Producing
57,500
80°%
$
1,218
$
21,200
Retail Trade
18,300
25°%
$
245
$
13,300
Services
17,200
240%
$
366
$
21,300
Government
12,100
17°%
$
343
$
28,200
Wholesale Trade
3,500
5°%
$
97
$
27,700
Transportation - Commun-
3,400
5°%
$
92
$
27,100
ications - Public Utilities
Finance-Insur: Real Estate
2,900
4%
$
77
$
26,600
Agricul. Forestry Fish. Mining
600
10C
$
9
$
15,200
Total
71,800
1000,6 Total
$
1,673 Avg.
$
23,300
•
Trend. Fifty-seven percent of the jobs in the County pay relatively
poorly. These jobs are in retail trade $13,300, service $21,300,
-and construction $22,800. These three job categories.are
projected to be #1, #2, and #3 in growth based on past trends.
The chart on the next page shows that pay has not increased markedly in the last decade in
the County (from: NC ESC in the Wilmington Star, 7/27/97). Overall County pay average was
$313 per week in 1987 and was $433 per week in 1997. This apparent $120 per week increase in
pay shows essentially no increase after including inflation. Manufacturing has made steady gains
even accounting for inflation from approximately $660 per week to $760 per week. Unfortunately
these relatively high paying jobs made up only approximately 11% of the jobs in the County in
1996. Furthermore, the number of manufacturing jobs have been decreasing at 1% per year since
1990. Non -manufacturing jobs constitute the bulk of the County employment at 89%. After
adjusting for inflation, there has been no significant increase in pay in non -manufacturing jobs in
the last ten years, from approximately $370 per week in 1987 to $385 in 1997.
I11-4

Trend. Local pay has not increased much in the last '.*10,yd:a:_r:safter
inflation is factored in. However, an exception is*_'m'an_U*'facturin'q'*
jobs that comprise 11% -of the -work force.
Average Weekly Wage New Hanover County
8M............... ............... ......... ............ ...... ­T*­ ­'i ...........
750 - - - --- - - --- - - -
700 -- - - - - - -
6501 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IManufacturing
600 - - -
550
----- loverall I
-------------
3: 450
CL 400 y - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --- - - -
350 - - - - - - -
O "I
300 T Non -manufacturing
250 - - --- - - -
200 - - -
150--
1 0 Adjusted for inflation
100 L
T1' - --*—Not adjusted for inflation
0
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
111-5

IV. COMPARISON OF COUNTY ECONOMY TO U.S.
OR SHIFT SHARE ANALYSIS
Explanation of Shift Share Analysis Methods Used
Shift Share Analysis is economic analysis that shows changes in the industrial jobs of New
Hanover County as compared to the U.S. by three parts: national growth, industrial mixture, and
local competitive edge, as shown in the following table. These three parts sum to give total change
for the County in terms of number of employees for each job type IV-1
Comparison of County employment to U.S.
Shift share analysis
Employment Change 1990-1995
National
Industry County Competitive
Total County Job
Growth
Mixture Edge versus US
Change
Manufacturing
Textiles
-3
0
-27
30
Apparel
-47
39
-794
-880
Lumber and Wood
-12
29
113
130
Printing
-16
12
84
80
Chemicals
-69
30
290
251
Fabricated Metals
-8
20
-22
-10
Machinery '.
-40
32
-328
-400
Other Manufacturing
-118
33
-28
-179
Total Manufacturing
313
-13
-712
-1038
Nonmanufacturing
Construction —98%• Mining —2%
333
348
1525
1510
Transportation, Communications,
294
39
355
-100
Public Utilities
Trade
1480
-125
2655
4010
Financial, Insurance, Real Estate
200
-212
522
510
Service, Miscellaneous
1089
918
2722
4729
Government -:
920
-32
563
1451
Total Nonmanufacturing
4316
162
7632
12110
Trend: Between 1990 to 1995,-thEre was a loss in the County
competitive share compared to the U.S. in five of eight
manufacturing job types. There were increases in five of six
nonmanufacturing jobs types.'Policy and implementation actions
should address what steps can be taken to increase high paying
manufacturing employment and decrease :the amount of low
-paying nonmanufacturing`jobs inthe County =
rv' 1 The explanations in this section are quoted and paraphrased from: "Microcomputers & economic
analysis; spreadsheet templates for local government." 1987, Univ. of Florida. Bureau of Economic and
• Business Research, College of Business Administration. Issue No. 4. Gainesville, FL. For details see
Appendix.
IV-1

National Growth Results
The National Growth column in the previous table shows that all US manufacturing`
employment decreased from 1990 to 1995, while all nonmanufacturing employment increased
during the same time period. The three largest losses in manufacturing were the 'other"
manufacturing category, chemicals, and apparel. The three largest gains in nonmanufacturing
employment were service and miscellaneous, trade, and government.
Industrial Mixture Results
Categories in manufacturing apparel, machinery and other manufacturing grew slower
than the national average of all manufacturing employment; while lumber and wood, printing,
chemicals, and fabricated metals grew faster than the national average. The textiles employment
category grew at the same rate as the national average of all manufacturing employment.
For nonmanufacturing, all employment categories showed slower growth than the national
average of all nonmanufacturing employment except for service and miscellaneous.
Competitive Edge Results
New Hanover County's competitive edge in five of eight manufacturing employment
categories decreased from 1990 to 1995. Three manufacturing employment types had a competitive
edge increase and they were lumber and wood, printing, and chemicals. The two biggest decreases
in competitive edge were in apparel and machinery.
Local nonmanufacturing competitive edge employment increased in all employment types
from 1990 to 1995 except for the category of transportation, communications and public utilities
which saw a decrease. The three most competitive employment types in nonmanufacturing were •
trade, service and miscellaneous, and construction and mining.
Total Change Results
The previous table shows nonmanufacturing employment in New Hanover County grew by
approximately 12,100 jobs from 1990 to 1995, while manufacturing lost approximately 1,000
jobs. In the eight manufacturing employment categories, only three posts, gains and they were in
lumber and wood, printing, and chemicals. All other manufacturing employment categories lost
jobs. ,
In the six nonmanufacturing categories, five gained employment with the exception of the
transportation, communications and public utilities category which saw a loss of 100 jobs from
1990 to 1995. The four biggest employment gains were in service and miscellaneous (an increase
of approximately 4,700 new jobs), trade (approximately 4,000 new jobs) and construction
(approximately 1,500 new jobs; note that mining only constitutes approximately 1-2% of the total),
and government with1,450 new jobs.
Between 1990 to 1995, there was a loss in competitive share in the County compared to
the US in five of eight manufacturing employment types. There were increases in five of six
nonmanufacturing types. Policy and implementation actions should address what steps can be
taken to increase high paying manufacturing jobs, and decrease the amount of low paying
nonmanufacturing jobs.
IV-2

•
0
V. ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC FACTORS
Movie Industry
Trend. The movie industry -constitutes 12% of the local economy and. -_
the prospect is for continued growth. -
11 The film industry constitutes about 12% of the County's economy. v" In 1995, production
spending in the County was $240 million, and in 1996 it was $242 million. Wilmington has led the
way in North Carolina's $1.2 billion film industry from 1993 through 1995. In the last three years,
over $720 million in film generated revenue,was brought to the Wilmington area from 20 feature
films, 45 made -for -television movies and mini-series, three television series (53 episodes), and
numerous commercial projects. There are approximately 750 area resident technical crew members
who work in the local film industry. Wilmington is home to Screen Gems film -production facility
and Wilmington Film Studios. The industry as a whole provided approximately 16,700 local jobs
directly related to production in 1996. In 1994, the Wilmington Regional Film Commission was
created and acts as a film liaison to the production industry and local community.
Travel and Tourism Expenditures
Trend..After adjusting for inflation, travel and tourism expenditures
have not increased substantially from the 1989 level.. However*
after a decrease in 1990, there has been a steady increase
since 1992.
The County is a travel and tourist destination. Between 1989 to 1996, travel and tourism
expenditures in New Hanover County increased from approximately $200 million in the early
1990's to $235 million by 1996 after adjusting for inflation as shown in the following chart.
7200
C
O
E 150
c
a 100
`m
0 50
1989
New Hanover County TRAVEL and TOURISM EXPENDITURES
El Unadjusted for inflation €
ElAdiusted for inflation
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
v-1 Based on a study done by Dr. William Hall at the UNCW at Wilmington's Cameron School of
Business. This number was determined by looldng at the actual spending by productions in the county.
V - 1

Local tourism draws are the beaches, the battleship, golf, fishing, historic sites, the
aquarium, and scenic areas. The dollar amount of tourism in 1996 in New Hanover County
represented 2.4% of the total for North Carolina. New Hanover County placed 8th of the 100
counties in the state for tourism dollars (from: NC Dept. of Commerce, Travel and Tourism Div.) As a
result of tourism, state and local tax revenues from New Hanover County amounted to over $18
million in 1996. In the County, 4,510 jobs were directly attributable to travel and tourism. An
additional 6,280 more jobs in the County are related to tourism. The average age for tourists in
1996 was 41 years old, 45% had household incomes of $50,000 or more, 48% were college grad-
uates, and 21 % had graduate or professional school education. With regard to accommodations,
39% of visitors stayed in hotels and motels, 26% chose to stay with friends, 14% stayed in a
cottage, cabin or condo, 5% stayed at a campground, 3% in a resort, and 1% in a bed and
breakfast.
Almost $2 million was collected by the County's 3% motel and hotel room occupancy tax
in 1995, of which 60% was designated for beach renourishment and 40% for tourism promotions.
The following table shows that room occupancy tax per month has increased on the order of 120%
to 200% between 1985 to 1995, after adjusting for inflation. The figure below shows a comparison
of monthly room tax revenue records over the past several years. Room tax receipts consistently
increased during the summer and during the "shoulder seasons" of fall and spring.
Motel - Hotel Room
Occupancy Tax
Collections (in 000's)
Month 1985 ($) '85 adj. for 1995
inflation ($) ($)
June
75.3
106.7
July
89.6
127.0
Aug
80.2
113.7
Sept
45.8
64.9
Oct
35.8
50.7
Nov
22.8
32.3
Dec
17.9
25.4
Jan
19.4
27.5
Feb
21.2
30.0
Mar
33
46.8
Apr
46.4
65.8
May
58.8
83.3
Source: NC Dept of Commerce
Port Impact
250.2
355
257.3
196.8
133.4
91.3
61.8
60.6
75.3
103.5
160.9
206.5
Change
1340,E
1800/0
126%
203%
163%
183%
144%
120%
151 %
121 %
145%
148%
New Hanover County Room Tax Receipts
a $300,000Ev .
d
$200,000
E
$100,000
$0?�
c
l0 N T T
g 5 'o
rn z
Month
1994
PF 1991
1988 Year
1965
Trend. From 1990 to 1996 the Wilmington state port added to the
state economy by ripple effect: 46,000 new jobs, $1.3 billion in..
income; $8.3 billion in new sales; and $185 million in new taxes
A comparison of economic impacts on North Carolina between 1990 and 1996 by the
state ports of Wilmington and Morehead City are summarized in the following table." Healthy
v-3 North Carolina state ports authority economic impact study. 1990 and 1996 Update. Shoesmith,
G.L. Babcock Graduate School of Management, Wake Forest University. Winston-Salem, NC.
V-2
0
•

increases have occurred in terms of employment, income, sales, and taxes to the State of North
Carolina during the six years. In all areas, the Wilmington state port provided more port related
economic activity than Morehead City.
1990 '96 Economic Impact to North Carolina
Wilmington & Morehead City State Ports
Employment (in'000s)
State Ports
1990
1996 Increase
Morehead City
6.1
14.8
8.7
Wilmington
19.8
65.6
45.8
Wilmington & Morehead City
25.9
80.4
54.5
Sales (billion)
'90 adj. for '`
In -
State Ports
1990
inflation
1996
crease
Morehead City
0.5
0.6
2.1
1.5
Wilmington
1.5
1.8
10.1
8.3
Wilmington & Morehead City
1.9
2.2
12.2
10.0
Source: NCSPA
Income (billion)
'90 adj. for
1990 inflation 1996 Increase
0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3
0.4 0.5 1.8 1.3
0.5 0.6 2.2 1.6
Taxes
(million)
'90 adj. for
In-
1990
inflation
1996
crease
14.1
16.5
57.6
41.1
43
50.2
235.2
185.0
57.1
66.6
292.9
226.3
Trend. To remain competitive into the next decade, the state port will
need to deepen its harbor, improve inland highway and rail
access, and upgrade the terminal.
The port growth is being guided by a Master Capital Development Plan (1997 to 2006).
Improvements include: deepening the harbor; improving inland highway and rail access to the
terminal; and modernizing and maintaining the terminal to meet demands of the market place. The
following table shows a comparison of ports along the southeast coast. As a generalization,
Wilmington moves a smaller amount of tonnage than the other ports shown. Similarly, Wilmington
has a smaller amount of open storage in acres and reefer outlets (from: Vol. I: Summary NCSPA
Master Capital Development Plan (1997-2006), North Carolina Ports. Moffatt & Nichol Engrs.).
Competition from the other ports centers on: the size of the local market that can be more cost
effectively served; transportation access by rail and road to inland markets; competitive terminal
costs; harbor quality such as depth and distance from the open sea; and facility quality. For the
port of Wilmington to expand these issues will have to be addressed.
Comparison of Competing Ports
Annual Tonnage
Port Open Storage Reefer Outlets
Container
Break -bulk Dry -bulk Liquid -bulk
Hampton Roads 1,171 na
6,586,000
1,052,000 0 0
Morehead City 14 0
0
178,000 2,076,000 0
Wilmington 123 129
762,000
745,000 619,000 0
Charleston 411 764
6.300.000
1,600,000 400.000 0
Savannah 406 354
4,072,000
2,267,000 1,065,000 1,264,000
Jacksonville 563 592
2,989,000
981,000 266,000 177,000
The following map and table on the
next page shows the regional job growth in the state
created by the Port of Wilmington employment and economic effects (from: G. L. Shoesmith, see
V-3

footnote V-3). The below table shows the 45,800 new jobs were generated state wide by ripple
effect by the State Port of Wilmington from 1990 to 1996. This increase was from 19,800 to
65,600 jobs.
North Carolina Multi -County Planning Regions
Wilmington State Port Employment Impact
To North Carolina by Region
Including Direct, Indirect, and Induced Effects
Employment Persons
•
A City in the region
Region
1990
1996
Growth (Decrease)
Franklin
A
100
60
(40)
Ashville
B
300
10
(290)
Shelby
C
300
90
(210)
Boone
D
100
400
300
•
Hickory
E
700
5,500
4,800
Charlotte
F
3,300
11,000
7,700
Greensboro
G
3,800
2,700
(1,100)
Rockingham
H
300
800
500
Winston-Salem
1
4,900
8,100
3,200
Raleigh
J
300
17,700
17,400
Henderson
K
300
1,700
1,400
Rocky Mount
L
100
5,100
5,000
Fayetteville
M
650
400
(250)
Lumberton
N
400
600
200
Wilmington
O
2,700
5,100
2,400
Knston
P
600
4,600
4,000
Greenville
Q
500
1,600
1,100
Elizabeth City
R
300
50
(250)
North Carolina
19,800
65,600
45,800
Note: Rounding up of values was used. For exact amounts readers are referred to the reports
Analysis of the table on the next page shows the growth of income, sales and taxes by
region in the state created by the Wilmington State Port. With very few exceptions, regions saw an
increase in income between 1990 and 1996. Not surprisingly, the larger urban areas such as
Charlotte, Winston-Salem, Raleigh, and Rocky Mount saw the largest increases. Some of the less
urban areas saw slight income decreases during the time period. Similar patterns are shown for
sales and taxes. The Port of Wilmington is a large contributor to the economy of the state and
added to the state economy by ripple effect $1.3 billion in income, $8.3 billion in new sales, and
$184 million in new taxes from 1990 to 1996.
V-4

z
Wilmington State Port Impact to North Carolina by Region
Income, Sales & Taxes
Including Direct, Indirect, and Induced Effects
$ In Millions
Income
Sales
Taxes
A City in the region
Region
1990 '90 adj.
1996
Growth
1990
'90 adj. for
1996
Growth
1990 '90 adj.
1996
Growth
(see map)
for in-
(Decrease)
in-flation
(Decrease)
for in-
(Decrease)
flation
flation
Franklin
A
2
2
1
(1.1)
7
8
6
(2.1)
0.2
0
0.2
(0.0)
Ashville
B
7
8
0
(7.5)
26
31
2
(29.5)
0.8
1
0.1
(0.9)
Shelby
C
6
7
2
(4.9)
22
26
11
(15.5)
0.7
1
0.3
(0.5)
Boone
D
2
2
8>
1 5.7
6
7
25
18.8
0.2
0
1.0
0.8
Hickory
E
12
15
137
122.4
46
55
876
821.1
1.4
2
18.1
16.4
Charlotte
F
58
70
284
213.9
212
254
1,744
1,489.5
6.7
8
37.2
29.2
Greensboro
G
70
84
61
(22.8)
257
309
222
(86.8)
8.1
10
7.7
(2.0)
Rockingham
H
5
5
20
14.2
16
20
97
77.7
0.5
1
2.5
1.9
Winston-Salem
1
93
112
235
123.7
415
499
2,165
1,665.9
10.6
13
34.5
21.8
Raleigh
J
5
6
509
502.6
19
22
1,766
1.743.5
0.6
1
64.4
63.7
Henderson
K
4
5
39
34.0
13
16
157
140.5
0.5
1
5.0
4.4
Rocky Mount
L
2
2
154
151.5
7
9
1,446
1,436.8
0.2
0
22.6
22.4
Fayetteville
M
13
15
12
(2.8)
51
61
50
(10.9)
1.5
2
1.6
(0.2)
Lumberton
N
7
8
18
10.0
24
29
72
43.0
0.8
1
2.3
1.3
Wilmington
Q
58
70
140
70.5
231
278
565
287.4
7.0
8
18.1
9.7
Krnston
P
12
14
116
101.8
43
51
746
694.4
1.4
2
15.4
13.7
Greenville
a
11
13
32
19.7
43
51
143
92.0
1.3
2
4.2
2.6
Elizabeth City
R
6
7
1
(5.3)
21
25
6
(19.6)
0.7
1
0.2
(0.6)
North Carolina
370
444
1,770
1.325.9
1,457
1.750
10.097
8,346.5
43
52
235
183.5
Note: Rounding up of values was used.
For exact amounts readers are referred to the reports.
0-
Dollar Amount of New Construction
7:­
Trend.':,._:�New construction pumped $268 million into the New Hanover
County economy in 1.996, up_from $108 million in 1981 This isan
.Increase of $159 million.
The table on the next page shows that the total value of new construction in New Hanover
County markedly increased from 1981 to 1996 from $108 million to $268 million for an increase
of $159 million (Source: New Han. Co. Planning Dept.). During this time period, the
unincorporated County total value increased from $61 million to $175 million. Wilmington grew
with new construction from $26 million in 1981 to approximately $78 million in 1996.
Wrightsville Beach saw a decrease from $13 million to $3 million total value of new annual
construction likely caused by most of the land being built out. Carolina Beach increased from $8
million to $11 million, and Kure Beach from $.3 million to $4.6 million.
V-5

Total Value of New Construction New Hanover County
In Millions ($)
1981
1996
Change'81-'96
Unincorporated New Han. Co.
60.8
175.1
114.3
Wilmington
25.9
77.5
51.6
Wrightsville Beach
13.3
3.0
-10.3
Carolina Beach
7.9
11.5
3.6
Kure Beach
0.3
4.6
4.3
Total New Hanover County
108.3
267.6
159.3
Note: I MI Vs ue aQusted for Inftbon to ISM.
Tre-n Since 1981, the -Unincorporated County has consistently seen
the largest dollar amount of annual new construction. This -
amount has been approximately. twice that of Wilmington and_.
the beach towns combined.--:._.
The following chart shows the 1981 to 1996 annual total value of new construction for:
(from left to right for each year) Kure Beach; Carolina Beach; Wrightsville Beach; Wilmington;
and unincorporated New Hanover County. All values are adjusted for inflation to 1996 dollars.
is
V-6

401-.
.i
The chart on the previous page shows general economic growth from 1981 to
approximately 1989, an economic slump for 1990 and 1991, and a resumption of increased growth
to 1991. The largest growth has been in the unincorporated County, from $60 million in 1981 to
$175 million in 1996. Wilmington saw an increase from 1981 to 1989 of $25 to $75 million. This
was followed by a drop in 1990 to approximately $30 million and thereafter, steady gains to 1996
to approximately $75 million. Carolina Beach saw most of its growth from 1981 to 1884 where it
peaked at $30 million. Since that time, it has averaged approximately $10 million annually.
Between 1981 and 1982, Wrightsville Beach had between $10 and $25 million in annual new
construction. Since 1983, Wrightsville Beach has not exceeded $5 to $10 million annually. From
1981 to 1996, Kure Beach has generally averaged between $5 and $10 million in annual new
construction.
Annual Units of Residential Construction
Trend. from 1990 to 1996, the unincorporated County has had an
increase of residential construction from approximately-1,000
-to 2,100 units per -year. Wilmington -has seen an increase from
200 to 1,400 units per year. The three beach towns combined
annually average approximately 100 to-200-units of new.
construction.
The following chart shows that residential construction in New Hanover County has
steadily increased from approximately 1,300 units in 1990 to 3,700 units in 1996 (Source: NHC
Planning Dept.). The chart shows that approximately 90% of the annual residential unit
construction in New Hanover County has been in the unincorporated County and Wilmington.
Only approximately 10% of County annual residential construction occurred in Kure Beach,
Carolina Beach, and Wrightsville Beach. From 1990 to 1996 the Unincorporated County had
Residential Construction
New Hanover County
Wrightsville Beach
3500
❑ Kure Beach
3000
0 Carolina Beach -
H 25oo
L�J1J�/
Z 1500
1000
500
❑ Wilmington
❑ Unincorporated New Han. Co.
....•
-4^�C
G •.n
y" -
. `ice'
NX
:::•
:....
`
0
1990 1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Year
V-7

an increase of residential construction from approximately 1,000 to 2,100 units per year.
Wilmington saw an increase from 200 to 1,400 units per year. The three beach towns combined '
annually averaged approximately 100 to 200 units of new construction.
Unincorporated County Residential Subdivision Activity
The following chart shows subdivision activity in the Unincorporated County from 1981 to
1996. In 1980, the number of final approved plat lots was approximately 400. By 1987, this
amount climbed to over 2,100. But in the time interval between 1988 to 1992, the amount
decreased to approximately 1,000 lots per year. Since 1992, there was a steady increase in lots
approved. By 1996, the number of lots approved was 1,900. Preliminary lots (not final) approved
in the unincorporated County doubled from 2,500 in 1994 to 5,000 in 1996. (Source: NHC
Planning Dept.). > ;
Trel'lc! from98i to 3996, the annual number of approved subdivision
lots in the Unincorporated County increased from 400-to1,900.
> 2000
0
a
a
a 15M
O
J
`o 1000
`m
E 500
M
z
Subdivision Activity
In Unincorporated New Hanover County
•
!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -�
i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -�
i
-- ----------------------------------- - - - - -
i
I
a 8 9
Year
Per Capita Retail Sales
New Hanover County continues to serve as a regional trade and service center for
southeastern North Carolina. The following table on the next page shows the leading contributors
to retail sales in descending retail contribution for the past several years in the County. Typical
examples are also shown for each category.
•
V-8

•
New Hanover County
Leading Contributors to Retail Sales Typical Examples
General merchandise Department stores, drug stores and discount stores
Food Grocery stores and restaurants
Unclassified category Hotels, office machine stores, and supply stores
Automobile sales Motor vehicles, mobile homes, and service stations
Trend. New Hanover County was essentially tied for third place in per
capita retail.sales in 1995.in thestate. In terms of_theratio of
per capita retail sales verses popuiation, the County was.second
highest. New Hanover County remains a favorite.destination for
shopping and tourism:
The following chart shows a comparison of 1995 per capita retail sales and population in
twelve counties in the state. In 1995, New Hanover County's per capita retail sales were ranked
fourth highest in the state at $15,717. Even though New Hanover County has a relatively small
population, it has a very high amount of retail sales as compared with Forsyth (Winston-Salem),
Guilford (Greensboro), Mecklenburg (Charlotte), and Wake (Raleigh). The following table shows
the ratio of per capita retail sales to population. This comparison reveals that New Hanover
County with a ratio . I I had the second highest value only exceeded by Catawba (Hickory) at .12.
Comparison: Per Capita Retail Sales and Population -1995
—
700,000
d
S25,000
I
�'
—
600,000
I w
520,000 i
$15,774 $19.198
i :.':
:.: $19657
—
,000
$14.511
7ji.i
515.71T
$14.754
O
515,000
S 13.391
S12.3Q3
wy.
400=0
I
,
;
$8.548
R
wo,� f1 j
G
$10,000
37.400
d
I �a
I U
y►
:i:
$5.612
2W,0w
S5 030
100 000
f
O
E
R
3
•O C E t C
6 U M N N
V
o•
e y
Y
1
u
@
e li
Z y 0
U
o
m'
UD
Per Capita Retail Sales
— Population
Ratio of Per Capita Retail Sales to Population
County
Ratio
Buncombe
0.07
Catawba
0.12
Cumberland
0.03
Davidson
0.05
Durham
0.06
Forsyth
0.06
Gaston
0.06
Guilford
0.05
Mecklenburg
0.03
New Hanover
0.11
Onslow
0.04
Wake
0.03
V-9

Airport Growth
Trend. Between 1980 to 1996, airport use grew by 2.5 times to
405,000 users. By 2010, the projected use is expected to..
double. Commercial, industrial, and residential land development
_
near the airport will need to be carefully guided
The New Hanover County airport will continue to attract industrial, commercial, and
service -related businesses to locate near the airport. Proposed industrial and commercial facilities
and aviation -related expansion potential would result in employment opportunities for New
Hanover County citizens. _
In 1996 New Hanover International Airport represented 95 percent of the region's total
airport related expenditures.v- With approximately 100 based aircraft and 79,200 annual aircraft
operations, the airport generated $117.1 million in airport expenditures, and $55.5 million in
earnings. The local economy benefited from approximately 2,700 jobs created by airport activity
and 200,900 visitors in 1996.
From 1980 to 1996 airplane passenger use at New Hanover International Airport
increased from 156,000 to 405,000. This is a growth of approximately two and a half times in the
last sixteen years. Enplanements and deplanements have increased an average of 4 to 6 percent per
year from 1980 to 1996. " The ratio of passenger use to population almost doubled during the
same time periodBy the year 2010, passenger use is projected to increase to approximately twice
the 1996 level. (source: New Han. Inter. Airport. Airport master plan update: 1995= 15. March 1997 final comprehensive draft: Vol.
I. For: New Han. Co. Airport Authority. By: Delta Airport Consultants, Inc. Charlotte, NC.)
Airplane Passengers
New Hanover International Airport
Year Population of
Number of Ratio of
Number of
Ratio of
Four County
enplanements enplanments
deplanements
deplanments
Area
to population
to population
1980 212,500
77,600 0.37
78,100
0.37
1996 294,100
203,700 0.69
200,900
0.68
Source: New Hanover Intemational Airport Report, 1997.
Four County Area: New Hanover, Columbus, Pender, Brunswick
The following two figures on the next page show the increase of enplanements and
deplanements with population, from 1980 to 1996, at the New Hanover International Airport for
the four county area: New Hanover, Columbus, Pender, Brunswick.
0,
v4 1997 Information provided by New Hanover International Airport.
" Yew Han. Inter. Airport. Airport master plan update: 1995-75. March `97 final comprehensive draft: •
Vol. I. For: New Han. Co. Airport Authority. By: Delta Airport Consultants, Inc. Charlotte, NC.
V-10

50,000
Enplanements vs. Population
New Hanover International Airport
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1096
150,000
E
100.000
50,000
General Business Climate
Deplanements vs. Population
New Hanover International Airport
® No. of declanements
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1 99:0 1992 1994 1996
Trend. WAI-mington has a good general business climate and ranked
second in the state in a 1998 poll.
The magazine "Business of North Carolina" in January 1998 released the general business
climate of 50 cities in North Carolina. Wilmington was ranked second and is a positive business
indicator. Components to the study were work force, infrastructure, business climate, and quality
of life. The other top ten cities from the poll are shown below.
General business climate rankings of top ten North Carolina cities -1998
1. Charlotte 5. Hickory 8. Kemersville
2. Wilmington 6. Burlington 9. Huntersville
3. Raleigh 7. Winston-Salem 10. Statesville
4. Greensboro
Components to business ranking
Workforce: Unemployment, work -force growth, college graduates, community -college education.
Infrastructure: Interstate highway connection, air -service, water cost.
Business climate: Business starts, success ratio, economic development spending, per capita
property tax, per capita retail sales.
Quality of life: Parks and cultural spending, weather, crime, medical services, schools.
V-11

VI. UNEMPLOYMENT
County and City unemployment rates from 1985 to 1995 are shown in the following table
and graph. The City has consistently had unemployment on the order of 1% to 1.5 % higher than
the County (from NC ESC data). In 1997 the unemployment rate was 3.7% in the County and
4.4% in the City.
County and City
Unemployment Rates
Year and % Unemployment
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
New Hanover Co. 5.7 6.5 6.2 4.6 '3.9, 4.6 6.0 7.3 7.0 6.9 5.7 4.6 3.7
Wilmington 7.1 8.1 7.6 5.6 4.9 5.6 7.4 8.9 8.6 8.3 6.9 5.6 4.4
County and City Unemployment Rates
10------------- _---------------------- ----- ---- ------------- ------------------------ ..---------------------------
c 8
m
'' 6
o ,
E
4
2
0I
- - - - New Hanover Co. Wilmington
The following table shows that in 1997 there were approximately 1,500 and 2,900
unemployed respectively in Wilmington and New Hanover County.
City -County Employment & Unemployment 1997
Civilian Employment Unemployment Percent
Labor Force Unemployed
Wilmington 33.990 32,460 1,530 4.5%
New Hanover County 78,590 75,700 2,890 3.7%
Within the above unemployment amounts are chronically the unemployed in the City and
County. A 1991 report entitled "Mayor's Task Force on Unemployment" summarized the
challenges facing unemployed and discouraged workers in the Wilmington area. In 1990, the U.S.
Census estimated that discouraged workers in the 18 to 34 age range comprised 2.3% of the
population, 7% for blacks and 1.1% for whites.
•
•
VI - I

• The key finding of the report was that the problems of the chronically unemployed can be
traced through stages in the life cycle of individuals. The problems do not suddenly appear at the
point of job entry; instead, they begin in many instances as early as birth and are compounded
throughout life. The cumulative effect of adverse developmental conditions hinders an individual's
ability to participate successfully and remain in the workforce.
•
Much of the recent business development has located in the suburbs outside of downtown
Wilmington. This has added to the difficulty of many of the unemployed obtaining work due to the
distance between residence and jobs. The Comprehensive Plan should address the unemployment
challenge with policy and implementation actions.
VI-2

VII. EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Regional Employment Projections
The following table shows the projected regional employment to the year 2010 excluding
the unemployed. According to the estimate, in the next 13 years New Hanover County will add
approximately 22,000 new workers residing in the County. Brunswick County is projected to add
approximately 25,000 new workers, Pender County 7,000, and the Wilmington 15,000.
Wilmington's projection excludes proposed annexations.
Regional Employment Projections
_
1997-2010 (x 1,000)„
Jurisdiction
1997
2016 1997 to 2010 Change
New Hanover County
71.4
93.5
22.1
Brunswick County
28.7
54.1
25.4
Pender County
14.5
21.2
6.7
City of Wilmington
31.2
45.7
14.5
From: NC ESC
(Total Jobs, Civilian Labor Force by Residence, excluding unemployed)
Trend. The three county area trend from 1997 to 2010 is fihat New
Hanover will add 22,000 new workers, Brunswick 25,000, and
Pender 7,000.
County and City Projections of Labor Force by Age Group
The following table and chart show the projected worker percent changes by age group in
New Hanover County from 1997 to 2010. Labor force includes the employed and unemployed
residents in New Hanover County.v"-' Inspection reveals a projected comparatively large increase
in the number of people older than 60 including retirees, and fairly uniform increases in four age
groups from 20 to 59. The 16 to 19 age group is projected to remain about the same.
0-
0
Change in New Hanover County Labor Force by Age Group
1997 - 2010 (xl,000)
Age Group 1997-2010 1997-2010 % Change
16-19 0.2 3%
20-29 4.5 21 °%
30-39 8.2 39%
40-49 8.2 39°%
50-59 3.9 25%
60+ 10.6 43°%
U.S. Census data.
Resident Civilian Labor Force; employed and unemployed.
vu-' The data from the U.S. Census is pro,0ded in age year groups of 16 to 19, 20 to 24, 25 to 54, 55 to 64,
and greater than or equal to 65. Notice that the ages between 25 to 54 were lumped together by the U.S. •
Census. To facilitate comparison the data was converted to ten year increments.
VII - 1

•
New Hanover Co.
Projected Labor Force Age Groups 1980-2010
40 •:i ■ 1990 ® 2000 % 2010
35
30
25
20
Age Group :.
Trend. From 1997 to 2010, the County is projected to see. an
increasingly aging workforce in the +60 age group, and the City
is projected to see an large percent workforce increase in the
30 to 49 aoe Qroup.
The following table, similar to the County, shows the percent increases in the Wilmington
labor force by age group from 1997 to 2010.v11-2 Inspection reveals a projected comparatively large
increase in the 30 to 49 age group to the year 2010. Comparison of this table with the preceding
County table reveals that Wilmington is projected to have fewer persons in the above 60 age group,
and a greater percent change in the 30 to 49 age group.
Change in Wilmington Labor Force by Age Group
1997 - 2010 (x1,000)
Age Group 1997-2010
1997-2010 % Change
16-19
1.2
26%
20-29
4.3
39%
30-39
5.8
62%
40-49
5.8
62%
50-59
1.9
28%
60+
5.2
39%
U.S. Census data.
(Resident Civilian Labor Force; employed and unemployed)
"11The data was reduced in the same manner as the previous table. This table excludes proposed
annexation areas.
VII-2

County Job Type Projections 1996-2010
The following table shows New Hanover County employment projections by job type from i
1996 to 2010. From 1990 to 1996 the following three job types decreased; agriculture,
manufacturing, and transportation -communications -public utilities. The other five job types
increased. The two largest increases were in the service and construction categories. It is debatable
whether or not these trends will continue to the year 2010 and at what rates. The fourth column
shows jobs as a percentage of 1996 County population. A projection by job type was done to the
year 2010 with NC Office of State Planning population projections. The trend should only be used
as rough estimates due to unforeseen future changes in the economy.
N.H. County Projected Job Types
1996-2010
Change Jobs as a Trend Jobs as a
per % of 1996 projection % of 2010
Job types
1990
1996
year
population
2010
population
Agriculture
303
270
-1.9%
0.2%
340
0.2%
Manufacturing
9,500
8,590
-1.7%
6.0%
10,805
6.0%
Construction
4,110
6,080
6.7%
4.2%
7,648
4.2%
Transportation, communications, public utilities
3,620
3,590
-0.1 %
2.5%
4,516
2.5%
Trade
18,250
22,880
3.8%
16.0%
28,780
16.0%
Finance, insurance, real estate
2,470
3,100
3.9%
2.2%
3,899
2.2%
Services
13,430
20,500
7.3%
14.3%
25,786
14.3%
Government
11.340
12.950
2.2%
9.0%
16.289
9.0%
Total and % average
63,023
77,960
3.6%
143,430
98,063
180,416
Trend. The 2010 projected top four most numerous jobs are in; Trade,.
Service, Government, and Manufacturing. This trend should only.
be used as a rough estimate due to unforeseen future changes
in the economv.
is
•
VII-3

r]
County and City Jobs to Households Ratios
Future jobs and household data in the following two tables was projected using the,
exponential change equation (see appendix for details). The tables show that the New Hanover
County ratios of jobs to households has decreased slightly from 1.30 and 1.26 between 1985 to
1995. While the City of Wilmington ratio decreased slightly from 1.08 and 1.07. Due to the small
difference between the 1985 and 1995 ratios for the County as well as the City, future projections
are of questionable accuracy and for this reason were not done. But for both the County and the
City, the trend is a slight decrease in the ratio. This is likely due to the more numerous and smaller
household sizes. Overall, New Hanover County between 1985 to 1995, had a higher number of
jobs per household than the City, likely related to the lower County unemployment (see section
page VI-1).
New Hanover County Jobs to Households Ratios
1985 to 2010 projection (in 000's)
(excluding unemployed)
Jobs Households Jobs / Household Ratio
1985 55.5 42.6 1.30
1995 68.5 54.3 1.26
2000 76.0 61.3 -
2005 84.3 69.2 -
2010 93.5 78.1 -
Source: Jobs: NO ESC; Households: U.S. Census
Wilmington Jobs to Households Ratios
1986 to 2010 projection (in 000's)
(excluding unemployed)
Jobs Households Jobs / Household Ratio
1985 21.8 20.3 1.08
1995 29.4 27.4 1.07
2000 34.1 31.8 -
2005 39.5 37.0 -
2010 45.7 43.0 -
Source: Jobs: NO ESC; Households: U.S. Census
Trend. The County and City jobs to household ratios have slightly
decreased from 1985 to 1995. The trend is for this to continue
as the size of households decreases. In 1995 the ratios were
1-26 in the County and 1.07 in the City. The County has a higher.
number of jobs per household than the City and this is probably
related to the City's higher unemployment.
VII-4

REFERENCES
The following references are in addition to the references cited in the footnotes:
NC ESC North Carolina Employment Security Commission
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics (Employment and Earnings)
North Carolina Department of Commerce, Travel and Tourism Division
New Han. Planning Dept. 1996. Construction Activity 1981-1996 Wilmington, NC.
NC OSP North Carolina Office of State Planning
•
•
R-1

0
.7
APPENDIX
North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act
Mandated Planning Requirements
This economy report is one of the technical reports for the Wilmington -New Hanover
Comprehensive Plan 1997-2010, and the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land Use Plan.
In 1974 the North Carolina General Assembly required that 20 coastal counties of the state prepare
land use plans. This plan provides a framework to guide local leaders with protection, preservation,
orderly development and management of the North Carolina coastal area. Updates to the plan are
required in five year intervals. In accordance with CAMA requirements, the land use plan consists
of the following elements: summary of data collection and analysis; existing land use map; policy
discussion; and a land classification map. This information serves an important role with local
development regulations, such as zoning ordLarices, and it provides input for growth policy
decisions.
Text section III. Manufacturing and Nonmanufacturing Employment details
Employment by type of industry in New Hanover County is characterized by the following
table.
Industry Employment - New Hanover County
Number of Workers
Category
1975
1995
Total Industry
36,570
73,790
Manufacturing Total
9,710
8,460
Nonmanufacturing Total
26,860
65,330
Percent of Total Industry Employment
Total Industry 36,570 73,790
Manufacturing Total 26.6% 11.5°%
Nonmanufacturing Total 73.4% 88.5°%
Source: NCESC
. The above table and the following figure on the next page show a significant trend away
from manufacturing employment. Between 1975 and 1995, employment in the manufacturing
sector decreased by 15% from 26% to 11%, while nonmanufacturing employment increased 15%
from 73% to 88%. These trends show New Hanover County's continual shift to a more
nonmanufacturing oriented economy.
A-1

70,000
60,000
50,000
c 40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0.
New Hanover County Industry Employment
Manufacturing
-10
Non man ufactu ring
MENEM
1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Year
Manufacturing Details
New Hanover County manufacturing employment is shown in the following table.
Manufacturing employment
Number of Workers
Category
1975
1995
°% Change
Manufacturing total
9,710
8,460
-13%
Textiles
1,530
70
-95°%
Apparel
760
540
-29%
Lumber & wood
620
500
-19%
Printing
290
570
97%
Chemicals
1,480
2,350
59%
Fabricated metals
3,310
220
-93%
Machinery, nonelec. & elec.
720
810
13%
Other manufacturing
1,000
3,400
240%
Source: NCESC
The above table and following figure show manufacturing employment trends between
1975 and 1995. Decreases are found in textiles, apparel, lumber and wood, and fabricated metals,
while increases are found in printing, chemicals, machinery -nonelectric -electric, and other
manufacturing.' The largest significant loss in numbers of workers was in textiles and fabricated
metals, while the largest gain was in printing and chemicals. Overall manufacturing had a 13%
decrease in employment in the two decades.
1 Other manufacturing: food, stone, clay glass, primary metals, paper, rubber, furniture, transportation,
miscellaneous manufacturing and instruments.
01;
•
•
A-2

New Hanover Count Manufacturing Employment
Y 9
7.000
,
—i—Textiles
i
---i--Apparel
6.000
- -A-- - Lumber&Wood �--- /-\----------------------
X Printing I / \
5,000
—X Chemicals _ 4 - _ - \ _ -------------------
- - i - -Fabricated Metals / \\
---1 Machinery, Nonelec. & Elec \
ti
4'0°0
— — — Other Manufacturing'
3.000
- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
c
2.000
- - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1,000 ---- - T---------
--------
1975 1978 1981 1984 1987
1990 1991
1992
1993 1994 1995
Year
Nonmanufacturing Details
Employment by type of nonmanufacturing in New
Hanover
County is characterized by the
following table.
. Nonmanufacturing employment.
Number of
Workers
Category
1975
1995
% Change
Nonmanufacturing total
26,860
65,330
143%
Construction -98%; and mining -2%
1,720
5,620
227%
Transportation, communications, public utilities
3,340
3,520
5%
Trade
8,950
22,260
149%
Finance, insurance, real estate
1,460
2,980
104%
Service -98%; and miscellaneous -2%
4,630
18,160
292%
Government
6,760
12,790
89%
Source: NCESC
•
The above table and following figure show nonmanufacturing employment trends between
1975 and 1995. Every nonmanufacturing category saw an increase during the two decades with
the two largest gains in terms of workers in trade (-13,000 new workers) and service and
miscellaneous category2 (-13,000 new workers).
2 The miscellaneous portion of the service category includes: agricultural services, forestry and fishing.
A3

New Hanover County Nonmanufacturing Employment
15,000�,�
LL
Y
10,000
5,000
... .
..... X - - - - - X .... . X - - - .. X .
......... - . .
1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Year
—Construction& Mining — -m — Transp., Comm., Pub. Util
--�—Trade - - x - -Finance, Insur., Real Est.
-- —Service & Miscellaneous' --s Government
US and New Hanover County Employment Percentages - details
Manufacturing
The following manufacturing figure shows that in 1978 New Hanover County exceeded
the US by percentage type of employment in five of eight categories. These were textiles, apparel,
lumber and wood, chemicals, and fabricated metals. In 1978, the US exceeded the County in three
categories which were printing, machinery, and the other" manufacturing category (see footnote 3
for the 'other" manufacturing composition).
9.0
8.0
7.0
0 60
i c
w 50
� u
4.0
c
I u 3.0
`m
a 20
1978 us & New Hanover County
Manufacturing Employment Percentages
I
H Q E 3 a` v i r �,
Employment Category 2
A-4

•
•
A comparison of the 1978 manufacturing figure with the following 1995 manufacturing
figure clearly shows two trends. Firstly, the US generally surpassed the County in terms of
manufacturing during the 1978 to 1995 time period. By 1995, the US exceeded the County by
percentage type of employment in six of eight categories. In only one category during 1995 did the
County exceed the US and this was in chemicals, which was about the same as in 1978 for both the
US and the County. The County decreased its percentage of employees from 1978 to 1995 in
lumber and wood. By 1995, the percentage of employees were about equal for the US and the
County in lumber and wood. The second trend between 1978 and 1995 is a clear decrease in
manufacturing as an employment percentage in the US, and an even faster rate in the County.
9.0
� 6.0
7.0
T
0 6.0
j c
w 5.0
q 4.0
C
v 3.0
u
i 2.0
1.0
0.0
1995 US & New Hanover County
Manufacturing Employment Percentages
---' 0 U.S. ---------------------------------
IG County --------------------------- -
------------------------------------------ V --
------------------------------------------
------------------------- --------
-------------------
d °a .S N W r C
H Q E
A
Employment Category f
Nonmanufacturing
The following two nonmanufacturing figures show changes between 1978 and 1995 for the
US and the County. In the County nonmanufacturing increased from 1978 to 1995 relative to the
US in the construction, trade, and service categories. Between 1978 and 1995 the County
decreased relative to the US in the following categories: transportation -communication -public
utilities; and government. The percentage of employment was about the same for the US and the
County from 1978 to 1995 in finance, insurance, and real estate. A small amount of the increase
between 1978 and 1995 in the construction category and the service category is attributed to a new
method of reporting the statistics.' Data is not available for the 1995 other nonmanufacturing
category because this category from 1990 onwards was split up and folded into the construction
and service categories.
3 In 1978 the other nonmanufacturing category was composed of: mining, agricultural services, forestry,
and fishing. From 1990 onward: mining was moved to the construction category; and agricultural
services, forestry, and fishing were moved to the service category. In the 1995 construction category:
mining constituted approximately 2%, while construction constituted 98%. In the 1990 service category:
agricultural services, forestry, and fishing constituted approximately 2% of the service category.
A-5

1973 US & New Hanover County
Nonmanufacturing Employment Percentages
3 EEF
3 j 5 W m i
V
G W T > W 9
tea' o C i
g g
iz
i
Employment Category Z
1995 US & New Hanover County
I
Nonmanufacturing Employment Percentages
I
30
v 25
a
a20
E
W
o, 15
A
C
u 10
a
5
0
2 aae
` E 7
V V
d A
m ai 4+
C W
� N
Employment Category
Text section IV. County and U.S. Comparison, Shift Share details •
Total Change 1990-1995
The total employment change is an overall indicator of how a local employment mix
compares to the total national mix of employment and whether a local community is getting an
increasing or decreasing competitive share of the employment types. Total change from 1990 to
1995 is calculated by the following.
Total change 1 r.-90-95 = (U.S. growth + industrial mix + competitive share) =
(1995 New Hanover Co. employment by category -1990 New Hanover employment by category)
National Growth
This indicator essentially answers the question, "How much would a given industry in a
given locality have grown if the industry had the same proportion of employees in the local
community's economy as existed in the national economy, and if the local industry had grown at
the same rate as the industry at the national level?" As total US employment increases or decreases,
a similar change is assumed to occur in each local New Hanover County employment category.
National growth allocates a portion of New Hanover's local employment by category to the US
trend. National growth is calculated by the following.
National growth = (U.S. % change in total employment) x (1990 base year New Hanover Co. employment by category)
Industrial Mixture
The industrial mixture adjusts the national growth effect by acknowledging that the county
proportion of employment in a given industry is not likely to equal the national proportion. The •
A-6

. industrial mixture assumes that the local industry grows at the same rate as the national industry.
The effect applies that growth rate to the county industrial mix. Industrial mixture is calculated by
the following.
Industrial structure = (U.S. % change in employment by category - U.S. % change in total employment) x
(1990 base year New Hanover Co. employment by category)
Industry mix represents the change in US employment for a specific employment type
compared to the total change in the US employment. This determines whether the employment type
is growing more rapidly or more slowly than the US growth rate for all employment type. This
percentage is then multiplied by New Hanover County's base year (1990) employment to compute
the number of jobs attributable to that employment's U.S. growth. A positive industrial mixture
indicates that the employment category is growing faster than the average of all U.S. industries. A
negative mixture indicates that the employment category is growing slower than the average of all
U.S. industries.
Competitive Edge
The competitive edge adjustment to the national growth and industrial mixture accounts
for the fact that growth rates in local employment may be different than national industry
employment growth rates due to such factors as efficiency of local firms and attractiveness of
living environment. Competitive edge is calculated by the following.
Competitive edge = (New Hanover Co. % change by employment type - U.S. % change by employment type) x
(1990 base year New Hanover Co. employment by category)
• Competitive edge compares New Hanover County's position with that of the same
employment in other parts of the US. If the percentage change for the local employment is less than
the national change in that employment, some of the competitive share has been lost., A positive
competitive share shows the number of jobs which have been added and indicates the local
employment competitive increase. Competitive share provides local information for New Hanover
County.
Reasons for a loss in competitive share may include the following.
- population increases or decreases affecting demand
- technology improvements which decrease jobs while increasing production
- changes in market demand due to imports at competitive prices
- changes in market preferences for goods and services
- increased transportation costs or poor access
- increased labor costs
- low profit margins prohibiting capital reinvestment
- lack of available public facilities and services
Text section VII. Employment Projection details
The following table shows the regional employment in the three county area (New
Hanover, Brunswick, and Pender) and Wilmington. From 1985 to 1997 New Hanover added
approximately 16,000 new employees, and Brunswick and Pender combined added approximately
17,000. The City of Wilmington added over 9,000 new employees from 1985 to 1997. The City of
Wilmington employees are within New Hanover County, and there was estimated in 1997
approximately 40,000 employees in unincorporated New Hanover County. In the three county area
Brunswick has had the fastest growth at 5% over the last 12 years compared with 2% for New
Hanover, 3% for Pender, and 3% for Wilmington. The faster growth rate for Brunswick is likely
A-7

related to its smaller size. In 1997 New Hanover and Wilmington still dominate the area in terms of
employee size with approximately 71,000 and 31,000 employees respectively. This is compared
with 29,000 in Brunswick and 14,000 in Pender. Unincorporated New Hanover County
employment was estimated by subtracting the City values from the County.4 Regional employment
in the table is employed civilian labor force estimates by place of residence. The employment
values do not include unemployment.5
Regional Employment 1985-1997 (x 1,0oo)
Jurisdiction
1985
1995
1997
1985 to 1997
12 Year
12 yr. Annual
change % Change
Growth Rate
New Hanover County
55.5
68.5
71.4
15.9
29%
2.1 °%
Brunswick County
16.0
26.0
28.7
12.7
79%
5.00%
Pender County
10.2
13.6
14.4
4.2
41 °%
2.9°%
City of Wilmington
21.8
29.4 .
31.2
9.4
43°%
3.0°%
Unincorporated New Han. Co.
33.7
39.1
40.2
6.5
19%
1.5°%
(Total Jobs, Civilian Labor Force by Residence, excluding unemployed. From NC ESC)
The following table shows the projected jobs from U.S. Census data in the three county
area to the year 2010 with employed civilian labor force by residence. According to the projection,
the total number of jobs in the three county area will increase from 115 thousand to 169 thousand
between 1997 and 2010. The second sub -table shows in five year increments the change in jobs
where 1990 to 1995 saw a slow down of job increase compared with the previous five years.
Beyond 1995 the projection smoothes out the rate of increase with steady job gains. From 2005 to
2010 New Hanover will increase with a projected 9,200 new jobs, Brunswick with 11,700, and
Pender 2,900.
Jobs in the Three County Area
•
Total Jobs 1980 to 2010
Share
of Total Three
County Job
Gain
Year
New Hanover Brunswick Pender
Total
Year
New Hanover
Brunswick
Pender
1960
45,043 13,165 8,694
66,902
80-90
53%
32%
15%
1990
60,179 22,310 12,868
95,357
90-97
49%
36°%
15°%
1997
73,511 32.239 16,933
122,684
97-00
46%
39°%
15°%
2000
80,094 37,749 19,048
136,891
00-05
44°%
41 %
15%
2005
92,401 49,103 23,175
-164,678
05-10
42%
43°%
15%
2010
106,599 63,872 28,195
198,666
Change in Jobs
Year
New Hanover
Brunswick
Pender
Total
80-90
15,136
9,145
4,174
28,455
90-97
13,332
9,929
4,065
27,327
97-00
6,583
5,510
2,114
14,207
CO-05
12,307
11,354
4,127
27,788
05-10
14,198
14,769
5,021
33,988
° Between 1980 and 1990 the City annexed approximately 9,000 people which would artificially lower the
12 year annual growth rate for the unincorporated County and raise it for the City.
5 Kaiser, E. Godscha% D. and Chapin, F. "Urban Land Use Planning" 4th ed., 1995. University of
Illinois Press, Urbana, IL. P t+n = Pt ( 1 + r) n Where: P ta.n = projected population size at a future
year, n units of time beyond base year t. Pt = population in base year t. r = rate of growth per unit of
time. n = the number of time periods beyond base year t. •
A-8