NEW BERN BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING--AUGUST 7, 2013

  CCTA WATCHDOG REPORT

NEW BERN BOARD OF ALDERMEN

SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF 7 AUGUST 2013

Meeting convened at 6 PM with Alderman Taylor being the only absentee.  There was only one agenda item, that being "Discussion of the approved 146-12 easement."  (important to note the word "approved" here).  The meeting was noticed at least on the City's Facebook page on Friday, Aug 2, 2013.  This agenda also appeared on the City website; however, contrary to previous practice, there was not a posting date listed.  Also, it was not published in the online edition of the NB Sun Journal.  My email to the newspaper asking if they received a notice has gone unanswered.    

However, according to the Aug 8 NB Sun Journal article, "Aldermen hold contentious meeting about marina easement",  this meeting was convened for the purpose of someone (board members, public, everyone?) discussing submitting the city's application for a 146-12 easement.  But, we all know that government proceedings and decisions do not rely on the media's interpretations of government documents.   If this easement is truly "approved", why does the agenda item read that the meeting's purpose is for discussion vice announcement of what this approved easement means to the citizens and marina users as well as other particulars about the actual approval?  Particulars such as:  I thought the NCGA had to approve a 146-12 easement?  Did that already happen? 

According to the Sun Journal article, a portion of the reporting developed from interviews with city officials and overheard discussions held in the hallway outside the meeting room and after the actual BOA meeting.  It noted that Alderman Bucher disagrees with both Alderman Outlaw and Mayor Bettis that an actual vote on this matter was taken.  If the easement was approved, how could that be when the local aldermen aren't even certain if they voted the application to be moved along to the NCGA?  Or, if Alderman Bucher is correct that there was not a vote, yet this 146-12 easement is indeed approved, is it now subject to being rescinded?   Why is it acceptable or appropriate for Mayor Bettis and Aldermen Outlaw and Bucher to gnash teeth, outside of the public meeting yet in the midst of some of the public and at least one reporter, over whether a legal vote approving either an application for the easement or the easement itself was taken during a prior City of New Bern board meeting?       

An email I obtained from a city official in February 2013 (when I was seeking info about how the BOA approval for the $30K in total for the City Manager's bonus came to be during a planning retreat) which included the board members' discussion of subject easement and its resulting decisions from the Saturday morning Feb 16, 2013 Board Retreat chronicles the proceedings in these ways:  

(a)  A Feb 18, 2013 email from City Manager Epperson to the Mayor and Board members forwarded Mr. Epperson's notes on the Retreat's proceedings regarding this subject and reads,  

To clarify what the City can and can't do that permits it to apply for this easement now, and to try to validate Mayor Bettis' claim within the last paragraph of the same Sun Journal article that "the city already has the authority to apply for a G.S. 146-12 easement because it was voted on...", may end up requiring a legal opinion on what the meaning of the word "and" is.  I wonder if this will require another expenditure of taxpayer money on yet another out-of-town attorney to render the opinion? 

• "Discuss application for 146-12 waterfront easement -

• The BOA discussed the history of the waterfront development directly behind the Double Tree Hotel and the associated easements that have been issued to the marina owner.  There was further discussion regarding concerns over the access to our waterfront and concerns over the current financial status of the marina ownership.  Several members of the BOA expressed concerns over the appropriateness of previous easements being issued by the NC Department of Real Estate. Direction was given to bring forth a future resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign application for a 146-12 easement on behalf of the City of New Bern.  Further direction was given to begin to evaluate the feasibility of the City purchasing the marina."  (Note:  the underline was done by the City Mgr). 

(b)  A Feb 19, 2013 email from Alderman Bengel to City Manager Epperson forwarding her notes about the Retreat reads:

"2. Discussion on waterfront easement
Directed mr epperson to look at purchase of marina and
applying for 146 -12"

The official BOA minutes of Feb 16, 2013 read: 

(c)  Discuss application for 146-12 waterfront easement

The waterfront easement was discussed. The Board directed Mr. Epperson to look at purchasing the marina and applying for a 146-12 easement."
 

I remind the readers that compiling the minutes for the Feb 16Retreat required lengthy, heated Board discussion during two regular BOA meetings (2-26-13 and 3-26-13) and a March 6, 2013 special called BOA session, wherein the City Attorney delivered a brief on what kind of Board member information constitutes minutes (notes, memory recollections, and/or video & audio recordings) and legal public meeting noticing.  Reason being is a similar disagreement arose over whether or not an official vote was taken to approve a $10,000 bonus for each of 3 years for City Manager Epperson.  Recall that the contentious discussions surrounding this previous Board member-and-citizen-contested agenda item also rested on the answer of "who approved what when, if at all?".    Despite all of those discussions, it still took an amended version of the minutes (and an extra 20 minutes to produce the appropriate wording) regarding that bonus vote to receive final Board approval at the March 26, 2013 board meeting.            

It's a shame that there is no City3TV video of this 2013 BOA Retreat, no professionally trained city clerk present that typically records the proceedings that will be voted into official minutes, was no live press coverage and that the only citizen who showed up (expressly to learn what the Board decided about the 146-12 easement, marina purchase and special appropriations' funding) was regular citizen Mr. Tony Bonnici who is presently a candidate for Ward 1 alderman.  He is also one of the original petitioners with the New Bern AWARE group (Against Water Access Right Encroachment) that hired now-Mayor Lee Bettis as their attorney in 2007.  The group's intent was to gain public access to the public trust waters that lie in the City.  It felt that would be accomplished by petitioning that year's Board of Aldermen to have the City file for an easement in the City's name; it did so at the Nov 27, 2007 BOA meeting.  Mr. Bonnici has kept up with and active in this issue unwaveringly ever since.  Unfortunately, to attend this Retreat, he had to find a Tryon Place NC History Center security guard to unlock doors and escort him to the upstairs meeting room where this open, legally noticed, public meeting convened.  If it had been recorded, it would have quickly cleared up two issues that have served to agitate the public and the taxpayers. (There is City3TV video posted for all other BOA meetings beginning with 1st live broadcast Apr 5, 2011, with one exception being the April 21, 2011 special town hall held at the downtown NB Library to discuss the city's intervention of the Duke Progress Merger and its estimated costs.  There is also video of a couple of March 2011 meetings pulled from other sources),  Word to the wise is to check the City website daily for the BOA agenda.

It often times is helpful for citizens to consult the city website under the Development Services Department tab and read the agendas for the other city boards, attend any of their meetings or watch them live, or view City3TV videos regarding issues they find will affect them.   Many of the issues that directly affect citizens, such as issuance of certificates of appropriateness (COAs) and zoning rulings originate during these boards' deliberations.  One of these boards' duties is to make recommendations to the Board of Aldermen prior to the aldermen voting.  Sometimes a solution or answers can be found by contacting overseeing staff members for these boards.  According to a source familiar with issues involving the marina, that advice may have helped in this instance 

The purpose of this meeting was not adjudicated due to members of the gallery disrupting the Board proceedings. Perhaps if the agenda had read, "Board discussion of submitting an application for the approval of a 146-12 easement", the gallery members would not have attended with the preconceived notion that their city government had enacted another done deal that affected an important aspect of their life or with expectations that they would allowed to voice their opinions as well as ask questions, and the meeting would have proceeded with proper decorum and could have been concluded?  Although I do not condone disruption of public meetings, many in the audience live on their boats at the marina and had true concerns for their safety and the environment that their domicile was located within.   For even more info on what transpired after the meeting, please read the NB Sun Journal newspaper article previously mentioned in this report.

Rhonda Taylor

CCTA Watchdog Reporter for NB Bd of Aldermen

Ward 6 

NEW BERN BOARD OF ALDERMEN REGULAR MEETING OF 9 JULY 2013

CCTA WATCHDOG REPORT FOR NEW BERN BOARD OF ALDERMEN REGULAR MEETING OF 9 JULY 2013 

1. The meeting was opened by Mayor Bettis. Alderman Bucher offered the opening prayer. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

2. All members of the Board, the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk were present.

Agenda item 3. Request and Petition of Citizens.

a. Mayor Bettis announced that the first petitioner was Audrey Fields who was to speak on community issues. She resides on College Way. She asked for those in the audience who were present to support the issue regarding Mr. James Henry Brown to stand. She explained that he recently celebrated his 102nd birthday. She said he may not be the oldest to live in either the city or Craven County, but she and his/her supporters felt his long life was very worthy of "a city proclamation to honor his longevity". She said she and her group were prepared to accept a denial of the proclamation until they found out that there had been a proclamation awarded to someone who trains dogs. "What makes that person more viable to receive a proclamation than someone who has lived to be 102 years old?", she asked. Mayor Bettis asked her who denied it? At that point and after Alderman Taylor prompted her to do so twice, Ms. Fields yielded the podium to Alderman Taylor. He stated that he gave the city clerk two proclamations: one to be approved & signed for Mr. Brown and one on behalf of Ms. Valentina Wilson (an anchor for WCTI-TV Ch12). Ms. Wilson's proclamation was to recognize her work in staging a teen fashion show, for which over 200 people attended, and providing mentoring to teens utilizing a fashion venue. Mr. Taylor said that he turned one in to the clerk 3 weeks prior to the event and turned the other in one week prior to the event. Mr. Taylor said he was informed on aFriday before the event that the Mayor denied the proclamation. Mayor Bettis dismissed Ald Taylor from the podium saying "no, that was your 4 minutes" to speak. Mayor Bettis addressed Ms. Fields, saying, "Audrey, in answer to your question, come see me after, no one ever asked me". Alderman Taylor continues to protest, the mayor gavels him and demands for him "to sit down"; which eventually happens as Alderman Taylor walks up to the dais still protesting that the lack of proclamations is not equal rights and justice and is an unfair and unjust act.

b. The second petitioner is Stevie Bennett of National Ave. She states that she up there often to ask questions and that she will continue to come up to ask questions until she receives the answers in a complete and timely manner. She asks numerous questions about the city's Branding Program. Some of the questions were: what were the criteria for deciding upon North Star; what were the various branding committees' meetings dates, were their recorded minutes, who was on those committees, who was in attendance at each of these meetings; how many meetings did Aldermen Bengel, Taylor & Bucher attend; what groups were in partnership with the City for branding, how much money have thesse groups contributed; was Craven County asked to contribute, if not - why not, or did they refuse? She also asked for the list of names and organizations that evaluated the any and all bid responders along with the names & addresses of the companies that submitted bids, a copy of the original Request for Proposal along with its issue date and its submission timeline. In finality, she asks "why are the taxpayers kept in the dark about this branding program? This information should be on the city website and the PEG TV channel. There is no transparency from this Board when it comes to the Branding Program." This is at least her third time to ask many of these same questions about the Branding Program. In other words, the city officials are not answering for whatever reason. Ms. Bennett continued by reminding the Board that she had also asked some of her Branding Program questions, in addition to others, at the June 11, 2013 Board meeting Petition of Citizens agenda item.

As of tonight she has not received answers to four of her questions. Diadre can only relay answers that she receives from the various departments, Ms. Bennett says. She asks how long will it take to get the answers? So far the responses I have received are less than satisfactory. She said, "the Petitions are only this administration's mere attempt to answer the citizens with as little information as possible. I want questions to be answered completely and in a timely fashion". Mayor Bettis asks her, "does that have all the bullet points on it that you wanted answered?" (referring to the paper she is reading from). She replies, "I already gave a copy to Diadre".

Agenda item 4. Adopt Resolution Calling for Public Hearing on Proposed Renaming of the 700 Block of A Street and B Street. "(Ward 1)  The western portion of A Street and B Street are completely separated from other sections of the respective streets by railroads. Because of this, the western portions of the streets are unreachable from National Avenue during emergencies. Safety concerns have been raised by emergency personnel as it relates to dispatching in a timely manner to these addresses. Therefore, it's proposed that the 700-blocks of both A Street and B Street be renamed to "West A Street" and "West B Street"." Approved by unanimous "yes" vote.

Agenda items 5 through 8 pertained to voting on ordinances to demolish various dwellings that did not meet minimum housing code subsequent to the appropriate legal procedures being executed. The addresses are 1230 Cedar Street (Ward 2), 1710 Wilmington Street (Ward 5), 202 Poplar Street (Ward 5), and 809 Lees Avenue (Ward 1). 

Agenda item 5. Adopt Ordinance for the Demolition of the Dwelling Located at 1230 Cedar Street. "(Ward 2) The owner of this property was first notified of minimum housing violations in September 2007. Since that notification, the property has changed ownership two additional times. A final hearing was held in April 2013, and the current owner was provided notice of such, but was not present at the hearing. No substantial progress has been made between 2007 and 2013 to bring the property into compliance, including no requests for permits since the recent hearing in April." 

Alderman Taylor asks Development Services Dept Dir Jeff Ruggieri if effort was made to get up with the owners via mail. Mr. Ruggieri answered "yes, we sent certified mails out. The City ensures we go above and beyond what's required for noticing. Alderman Bengel asks Mr. Ruggieri if that means that he did not have a good address to reach the owners". Mr. Ruggieri replied "yes". Approved by unanimous "yes" vote.

Agenda item 6. Adopt Ordinance for the Demolition of the Dwelling Located at 1710 Wilmington Street. "(Ward 5) The owner of this property was first notified of minimum housing violations in November 2007. Hearings between the City and property owner were held in July of 2007 and April 2013. In December 2011, the property was affected by fire which made rehabilitation unlikely. No progress has been made to bring the property into compliance." Alderman White asked Mr. Ruggieri is a chance was offered for someone to buy this dwelling at auction or to fix it?" Mr. Ruggieri replied, "No, the city is not the interface for negotiations with private property owners". Alderman White states, "It seems we're gettin' in the demo business, so where's the money coming from?" Mr. Ruggieri explains that there is a line item in the Board-approved budget. City Manager Epperson chimes in that we are trying to identify these properties so we can fulfill the directions from the Board to remove these dwellings that have become public nuisances. At about $10,000 per house, we have included up to $100,000 for removal of these below minimum-standards houses after staff has exhausted all means to get the owner to correct the situation. We have earmarked between $70,000 to $100,000 per year now from the Development Services Dept for demolitions per the Board's direction. Alderman White comments, "so we gonna tear 'em down? Why is it one house can remain for 24 or 25 years, then you look at one being demolished after only 2 to 3 years?" Mr. Epperson replies that whenever he sees any dwellings that he has questions about to be sure and contact him and he will see about it for him; but we are going through all means prior to issuing a demo order. He begins to voice the motion when Alderman Outlaw asks Mr. Ruggieri if the city is going to tear down the garage in back that goes with it, also? The answer was "yes". Approved by unanimous "yes" vote.

Agenda item 7. Adopt Ordinance for the Demolition of the Dwelling Located at 202 Poplar Street. "(Ward 5) The owner of this property was first notified of minimum housing violations in February 2010. A hearing was held between the City and owner in February 2011. Following this hearing, the owner filed for a building permit in March 2011 to make the necessary repairs to bring the property into compliance. That permit subsequently expired with minimal work completed. In July 2012, a second hearing was held to which the property owner was not present. To date, no progress has been made and no other permits have been applied for." City Manager Epperson states there have been recent conversations with the owners of this property, so he recommends tabling this item out of an overabundance of caution. Alderman Taylor says he heard that the owner did not know about this - he certainly doesn't want to demo it when an owner isn't aware of what is about to happen. They have further discussion as to who is the owner of record. (I am choosing not to mention his name). Once that issue is satisfied, the vote is for approval with a unanimous "yes".

Agenda Item 8. Adopt Ordinance for the Demolition of the Dwelling Located at 809 Lees Avenue. "(Ward 1) This property was flooded during Hurricane Irene and sustained damage in excess of 50% of the value of the property. The property will have to be elevated out of the floodplain to meet current flood regulations. A hearing was held on February 14, 2013 to which the property owner was not present. To date, no progress has been made and no permits have been applied for." Mr. Ruggieri reports that to adequately repair this dwelling to bring it up to code it would take greater than 50% of it's value and the city would then have the cost to elevate it as it is in a flood plain. Alderman White asks him, "Have you been inside the apartments...?" Alderman Bucher interjects that he looked at it with Pastor Strayhorn. He continues, you can tell that alot of drug activity has gone on, it's deplorable inside. Alderman Bengel says this property/dwelling has the same owner and issues of the property that they talked about earlier, and is in the same awful condition as the previous ones. Approved by unanimous "yes".

Agenda item 9. Adopt Resolution to Close Carmer Street for Mount Calvary Missionary Baptist Church Family Fun Day from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on July 20, 2013. "(Ward 2) Mount Calvary Missionary Baptist Church has requested Carmer Street be closed to vehicular traffic on July 20, 2013 from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.for the church's Family Fun Day. This event will include games for the children and food, and the day's events will be held in the church parking lots." Alderman Taylor says the 102 year old Mr. Brown is a member of this church. Approved by unanimous "yes" vote. Agenda item

10. Minutes from the June 11, 2013 Board meeting were approved.

Agenda item 11. Appointment(s). Alderman White recommends Kim George be appointed to replace Lois Jamison's term on the Police Civil Service Board, which expired on July 1, 2013. .

12. There was no Attorney's Report.

13. City Manager's Report. Mr.... Epperson reminded the Board members that he sent them an email that announced that on July 15, 2013 @6 PM at the Convention Center, there will be an update given for the Craven County Economic Development Plan. They are close to completing that plan. He said that the contractor, RKG Associates, would be in attendance. He reminded the Board that next Tuesday, July 16, 2013, at 6PM, there is to be a Board work session. So far, he has 3 items on the agenda: (1) the ISO Fire insurance ratings; a rep from the Dept of Insurance will be present to talk about it; (2) a brief update on economic development pertaining to the US Hwy70, Township 7 corridor; and, (3) a dog & pony demo at the new Emergency Operations Center (EOC) at 521 Hwy 55 on July 16th at 6 PM. Mr. Epperson then stated there needed to be a motion for this meeting. 

Alderman Bengel asked if it could be filmed for City3TV, could someone bring a camera? Mr. Epperson said he would see if it could be broadcast live as that was one of the improvements that were made to the EOC. Approved by a unanimous "yes" vote.

14. Announcements.

a. Ald Outlaw: Alderman Outlaw asked to also add the city Branding Campaign to the agenda. He said that this is one of the issues that the Board has been in the most agreement on. He said that as long as he's lived here (since 1968) people have asked why the young people were not able to find employment in New Bern after high school and even college graduation. He felt the Branding program would address that problem. He further stated that the Branding Campaign gives New Bern and Craven County the opportunity to lead in new marketing and promotion opportunities for the entire area. He asked for the public to "bear with us until branding gets here and the final results are presented" (Reporter's comment: reminds me of Nancy Pelosi's remark that we have to pass Obamacare before we can know what's in it). He totally supports the idea. He says New Bern is being progressive like Greenville in doing the branding program. (Reporter's note: G'ville has a population of 86,000; a tax rate of 52-cents p/hundred); the city taxpayers are only out $60K because the G'Ville/Pitt Cty Convention & Visitors' Authority are contributing funds & occupancy taxes equaling $30K. I've interviewed 2 of their points of contact, the G'ville PIO & the CVA rep. New Bern taxpayers have already spent $92K and the city manager has asked for $75K more, but is not able to specifically state what for as of this date.).

b. Ald White: He adds to Ald Outlaw's remarks on branding New Bern. We need jobs for youth to come back to, he begins. "When youth graduate they don't come back...'cause they can't find a job. We need young people around to keep the city afloat and keep the young people here. Most people here that had children here, the children are not here." He says that he best be quiet, this is the most he's talked in a while. Mayor Bettis encourages him by saying, "...go ahead, fillibuster". So Ald White continues, "A town for old people is good - and I can say it 'cause I'm there. (much laughter in the room) These people runnin' around with the big heads, speakin' their mind (he then admits that he is known for speaking his opinion at times also) aren't helpin' the people you need to help, they're ruinin' (ruining) it for the youth. You got to have it in your heart to want the City to grow". (Reporter's comments: Did he just call Stevie Bennett in particular, and others in the community - such as myself, those who have written Letters to the Sun Journal Editor - who have called the Branding Campaign into question and/or requested public information an unattractive name of "big headed for speakin' their minds?" What?? Last time I looked, one of this country's founding principles was for the people to have the right to question their government, especially about what is being done with their taxes. It is my opinion, based solely on this remark, this man should not be holding and never be allowed to hold public office again!). Ald White's last statement was a request, "I want to see summer coop programs - a substantial amount - to come (to New Bern) to put money in their (the youth) pockets and get jobs for 'em. That'll cut down on crime, too".

c. Ald Kinsey: Addressing the branding campaign and economic development in the city in general, he says, "I like the direction we're heading in." He continues, talking about his appointment to the board for the metropollitan Planning Organization (MPO) and claims it will take New Bern far ahead and be an excellent tool to promote the area.

d. Ald Bucher - No announcements.

e. Ald Taylor: He continues his protests about the mayor not approving the proclamations for Mr. Brown and Valentina Wilson. He commended the committee for putting on the James City Fun Day last weekend. He thanked Dir of Parks & Recreation, Thurman Hardison, about a meeting in Pembroke. He wished a Happy Birthday to Mr. Brown and asked Mr. Brown's supporters in the audience to stand - again. He added an interesting tidbit of information regarding the two proclamations  claiming that the City Clerk tried to reach Mayor Bettis over 3 days to approve/sign the proclamations  but had no success in reaching him. He continued by saying that he finally received an answer of "no" on Friday, the 28th. He said, "If you make a decision on personal reasons it's an unjust". He also said, "Whoever sit as mayor next must represent the entire city. It's always right to do what's right". Mayor Bettis interrupts him, saying that's a tough act to follow. Alderman Taylor retorts that what he said was no act.

f. Ald Bengel: Says she approves and agrees with what Ald Outlaw said about the importance of the Branding Campaign. She claimed that we will never solve our problems without branding. People who don't know New Bern will now know it and come. When they come to New Bern, they see our flag with our wonderful bear and are enticed to stay here. The branding initiative will be good for New Bern, it will help expose our community to growth. We will not be able to do the things we want to do if we don't have growth. She says she has talked with the county (she is a recent reappointee to the county Tourism Development Authority) and other partners in on the branding, and states we're in charge and branding is the way to go.

Agenda item 15. City Attorney Davis says there is to be a Closed Session to discuss a business relocation issue and a dispensing of real property.

16. Meeting adjourned at 7:54pm.

Rhonda Taylor 
CCTA Watchdog Reporter for 
  NewBern Board of Aldermen
Ward 6, New Bern, NC