Closed Doors and Conflicts

Though very little has been discussed publicly about Langtree at the Lake’s request for the Town of Mooresville to issue millions in bonds to pay for the massive mixed-use development’s first phase of infrastructure, much has been said behind closed doors.

E-mail exchanges over the past month between Langtree Attorney David Parker and town administrators provide a more thorough glimpse into the discussions – sometimes quite heated – between the development group and the town.

Langtree: ‘The vultures are circling’

When Langtree asked Iredell County late last year to issue $46 million in bonds, Parker said that Langtree would continue building even if Iredell didn’t approve the deal, but that the developers would likely wait at least a year, until the recession is over. But in a Jan. 29 e-mail from Parker to Mooresville Town Attorney Steve Gambill, Parker said: “We cannot go forward without the infrastructure financing.”

In a Jan. 30 e-mail Parker appears to beseech Town Manager Steve Husemann: “Although I cannot tell you how much time is of the essence in this for us because of the tone that my voice would take, I do understand that our need does not control your requirement of vigilance. That being said, the number of developers that go under daily is astounding and the vultures are continually circling in the sky over all of us.

“We would very much like to survive to build this project,” Parker said.

He went on to state that Langtree “suffered a 120 day delay” trying to negotiate the bond deal with Iredell, only to discover that the county “has no interest in getting into the infrastructure business in any fashion and would have had to take the infrastructure as part of its deal according to their bond counsel.

“Had we known that the County would back off,” Parker continued, “we would have pursued the annexation (with credit against the Utilities payments) months ago and not been in such a state.

“Please help us,” Parker pleaded.

But in previous e-mails – and those written the week leading up to the Feb. 2 town board meeting – Parker’s disposition wasn’t as conciliatory, as exchanges between him and town administrators turned heated.

Biting the hand that could feed you

On Jan. 29 – just days before the February town board meeting, when Langtree was scheduled to request that the Town of Mooresville annex 143 acres of the Mt. Mourne development – Parker e-mailed Gambill and Husemann, discussing the addition of a preliminary-assessment resolution to the Feb. 2 town-board agenda.

The resolution, which was given to commissioners just before they were expected to vote on it, set a public-hearing date for March 2. The resolution passed 5-1 (Commissioner Miles Atkins opposing), but the public hearing was postponed until tomorrow, March 9, because of last week’s inclement weather.

A final-assessment resolution – a document that requests the Local Government Commission to look at the proposed special-assessment financing between Langtree and the town – would be brought up for consideration at a later date, Parker explained in the Jan 29 e-mail. “Bear in mind that the notice only goes out to the Benefitted Property owners and a version is published in the newspaper,” Parker wrote. “NO one other than the Benefitted property owners have legal standing to protest the Notice and we will waive protest if you would like.”

Also, Parker wrote to town administrators, “I do not think that you realize that we cannot keep on having delays and avoid splitting up this property.

“We ask for no special consideration, but after over a year of delays due to slow down by (town) Staff, it would appear that further delays only damage the Town’s reputation for encouraging a higher quality of life.

“We are asking for annexation solely because we have to be annexed in order to ask the Town to ask the LGC (Local Government Commission) to allow the Town to issue the bonds which the Town does not back but are rather secured solely and completely by our property as improved,” Parker said to Gambill, adding, however: “You are now saying that you do not think that we are an ‘Economic Development’ project where a tax check swap will work. Steve Husemann is apparently saying that he cannot think of a way to offset our taxes, hold them in abeyance, or do a swap.

“Being lulled into asking for annexation on a bait-and-switch is not a very appealing situation for us,” Parker said.

Husemann responded on Jan. 30 (the Friday before the Monday, Feb. 2 town board meeting): “Just to be very clear! There is absolutely no agreement at this time that we will defer, waive, credit or in any way credit Langtree for taxes that they will pay after annexation.

“I recall about a 30 second discussion on this topic in which I said that I did not believe that what you were asking for was legal,” Husemann said. “That is certainly not a bait and switch.

“If you were going to pursue this further, you should have done so before the last minute,” Husemann said. “Any discussion on this matter needs to be presented to the entire Board in public session. I have never even suggested to the Board that such a move was pending.

“If you proceed with the annexation with the expectation that some future swap will be approved, you do so at your own risk,” Husemann added. “There is absolutely no commitment or promise from me or any other staff member at this time.”

Parker responded to Husemann that same day, copying Gambill and Mayor Bill Thunberg: “I do not ask for things, considerations, or agreements that cannot stand the twin tests of both public and judicial scrutiny.” Parker said he is “happy to conduct business in the bright light of day, as people that know me will attest.”

It was about four hours later that Parker sent an e-mail to Husemann individually, pleading for help on behalf of the developers.

Closed Doors and Conflicts

After the regular session of the February town board meeting, Mooresville commissioners went into closed session to discuss economic incentives for Langtree.

Though the details of that discussion are unknown, continuing e-mails between Parker and town administrators after the February town-board meeting indicate that things quickly went sour behind closed doors.

The Friday before Monday’s town board meeting, Husemann wrote in an e-mail to Parker: “It is my feeling that our willingness to proceed with this very complicated bonding process is sufficient incentive. I know that you are concerned about additional taxes but we are going to incur costs as well. We need to get a fire station built before that 1st building is occupied. Then we will have to man it.”

Husemann told Parker that if Langtree wanted to negotiate an agreement with commissioners at the Feb. 2 board meeting, then the developers would likely want to contact Russ Rogerson – executive director of the Mooresville-South Iredell Economic Development Corporation (MSIEDC) – “and ask him to present it to the Board.”

Rogerson did in fact approach commissioners in closed session on behalf of the MSIEDC. He apparently asked for economic incentives for Langtree, which is a top financial sponsor of the MSIEDC’s Partners in Progress campaign. Additionally, Rick Howard – Langtree’s CEO – is on the MSIEDC board of directors.

In closed session, Rogerson apparently broached a subject that he wasn’t allowed to discuss in closed session, per the Open Meetings law – and his request for incentives for developers apparently wasn’t well received by all the commissioners.

The day after the Feb. 2 town board meeting, Parker clarified in an e-mail to Gambill: “We are not asking for incentives. It is possible that (John Q.) Hammons will ask for incentives, but Langtree has never asked for any – Russ was not correct.”

In an e-mail to Husemann, Parker said: “I will take the blame for the conversation about incentives not being stopped immediately – I did not foresee that possibility. I fully concur with Steve Gambill that under the Open Meetings law, the SIAD (sic) could not be discussed under the Motion for Closed Session.”

The Open Meetings law allows commissioners to meet behind closed doors to discuss a limited and specific list of confidential matters such as personnel, litigation, economic incentives, etc. The board must provide to the public the subject of what they will be discussing behind closed doors and the accompanying statute that allows them to discuss that particular subject confidentially. Additionally, the law clearly states that the discussion cannot stray from what was advertised as the subject matter. Minutes of closed-session discussions must be released to the public once their release would no longer compromise the matters at hand.

“Russ apparently thought that he was going to talk about the bonds (in closed session) and when he found out that he could only talk about incentives, he did his best,” Parker said in the e-mail to Husemann. “We have not asked for those in the past.

“The tax issue should have never been raised with the Board by Russ the other night,” Parker stated. “I wanted this to go away and merely be looked at later inside the context of the Utilities Agreement. Our understanding was that we would not withdraw the Voluntary Annexation Petition and that we would not be involuntarily annexed until we had a CO (Certificate of Occupancy) – I was simply trying to preserve the original understanding in this new context of having to be annexed now in order to be considered for bond issuance.”

In an e-mail on Feb. 3, Parker wrote to Gambill: “The only thing we wanted on the taxes was to keep our agreement under voluntary annexation that we would not start paying taxes until we had a CO – just trying to keep the same deal that we had before.

Agreement? What agreement? With whom?

The “agreement” to which Parker referred in several e-mails prompted a response from Gambill and Husemann, both of whom said that such an agreement seemed illegal.

“I was not a party to any agreements concerning taxes and annexation,” Gambill wrote in a Feb. 4 e-mail to Parker, “(and, as I have stated before, I do not believe that property taxes can be abated per NC Constitution). I say this to be clear that I have not been involved in any agreements, formallyl (sic) or informally, where I have in any way stated that property taxes would be abated,” Gambill added. “I realize you are not saying that I have been but I have an obligation to be clear on this point.”

A clearly frustrated Husemann jumped into the e-mail discussion, responding to Parker: “I just read your E-mail that you sent to Steve Gambill and once again fear that you are trying to imply that some type of agreement exists or existed that has never existed,” Husemann wrote. “I made it very clear to you last week that we never agreed that you ‘would not start paying taxes until you had a CO.’ I said I thought it was illegal and Steve (Gambill) sent you information to that effect.

“If you ever intend to make such a claim,” Husemann added, “please send me such information immediately. I am uncomfortable with an inference that such an agreement exists when in my opinion there has been no agreement and would like to put this matter to rest before we move forward with discussions about the special assessment bonding process.”

In an e-mailed response on Feb. 4 to Gambill and Husemann, Parker said: “There has been no agreement on tax abeyance, rebates, or anything else – only discussions at a hypothetical level.”

So why, then, the repeated references to an agreement? Who, on behalf of the Town of Mooresville, led Langtree to believe that a potentially illegal agreement regarding taxes could be reached?

The answer to that question was made clear in a Jan. 28 e-mail from Parker to Gambill. The answer? Mayor Bill Thunberg.

“We did not discuss this this AM,” Parker said in the e-mail to Gambill, “but my agreement with the Mayor and others is that we will not pay Town taxes until we get a CO.”

Mayor gives public the finger

It is unclear if Thunberg documented any such agreement with Langtree in e-mails. He has ignored repeated requests over the past few weeks from the Gatton Report to provide any and all e-mail correspondence with any Langtree at the Lake official. Those e-mails, according to the N.C. Public Records Law, are documents that belong to the public. By ignoring the Report’s request for those records, not only is the mayor violating law, he is also giving his constituents the proverbial middle finger.

As soon as he has decided to comply with the law, I will post any relevant e-mails here.



Click on each document below to read the e-mails that were sent to the Report by Husemann; I have placed them in chronological order (except for the first one):



Jan. 28 e-mail exchange:



Jan. 29:





Jan. 30:




Feb. 2:

Feb. 3:


Feb. 4:


Feb. 18: