Bonds for Billionaires?

Should Iredell County help float $46 million in bonds to benefit private developers, including billionaire hotelier John Q. Hammons?

That’s the fundamental policy question that county commissioners could answer as early as noon tomorrow (Monday), when they’ll be asked to give a preliminary nod of approval to issuing $46 million in bonds to enable developers of Langtree at the Lake – the $800 million mixed-use development in Mt. Mourne – to install public infrastructure in their development.

Langtree is asking the county to issue the bonds. The county, in turn, would designate the development a special tax district. Langtree would repay the county through property assessments, which would be over and beyond what the development pays in property tax.

Taxpayers will not be legally liable for the bonds if Langtree defaults on repayment, according to County Attorney William Pope. County Manager Joel Mashburn added that “no tax money can be pledged to pay for the bonds.”

In a meeting Monday at noon in Statesville's Iredell County Government Center, county commissioners will consider approving a “final assessment resolution,” which is a necessary step before Langtree can take its proposal to the Local Government Commission (LGC). The LGC would then determine “the feasibility of the sale of the bonds … and whether or not the project itself is feasible and will be able to generate the monies needed to pay the bond,” said David Parker, a Statesville attorney and partner of Langtree at the Lake, during the county commission’s Oct. 21 public hearing on the developers’ request.

“The decision to refer this to the Local Government Commission via the ‘Final Assessment Resolution’ is not a ‘major’ decision,” said Parker in an e-mail to the Report on Sunday. “The county has zero risk, is making no promises, and will incur no expense in asking the LGC’s opinion on these bonds.

“The role of the commissioners at this point is fairly simple – if they ‘lower the drawbridge,’ we will go to the LGC castle,” Parker said. It will be up to the LGC, he said, “to recommend to Iredell County whether or not they should actually issue the bonds.”

County commissioners don’t have to take the LGC’s advice, Parker said. But they “generally do since that is the LGC’s function,” he added.

State legislation that enables county governments to enter into such financial arrangements with private businesses was signed into law just three months ago – on Aug. 3. (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=H1770&submitButton=Go). Langtree is the first private business in the state to take advantage of the new statute, which means that how the county proceeds will set precedent.

“The whole question that we are dealing with is new to North Carolina,” said County Commissioner Godfrey Williams. “The legislation was approved by the state in August. Other states have similar legislation and have been working with developers for years.

“Since Langtree is the first project in NC to make this request," added Williams, "the board of commissioners (and) Iredell County’s financial and legal staff will make sure that its questions are all addressed."

Pope, the county attorney, said in the Oct. 21 public hearing that he had unanswered questions and concerns, mainly because the concept is so new. But he said he felt the LGC would be able to satisfy his concerns in an Oct. 29 meeting with county staff.

It is unclear if Pope’s questions were answered in that meeting. County Commissioner Ken Robertson, responding to Report questions on Saturday, said: “It is my understanding that they (the LGC) believe that us passing a resolution at this time is premature and that it is the responsibility of the county commission to kind of vet this project out and determine whether or not this is an appropriate course of action prior to it going to the Local Government Commission.”

Commissioner Williams said on Saturday that “generally speaking, the LGC’s response was favorable.” However, he added, “we may still need more information from them in order to finalize our decision.”

Robertson, who will not be at Monday’s meeting due to a business trip to Canada, said he is concerned about issuing bonds for Langtree when the county hasn’t received any of the development’s detailed financial information. “As with any institution that loans money to businesses or individuals,” said Robertson, “the only responsible course of action must include a list of assets, liabilities, current and future expenses, and current and projected revenues in order to ensure or have a high degree of confidence that the borrower can pay back the loan.

“A failure on the part of the lending institution – whether it’s a bank, individual or a governmental body – to have that information would be totally irresponsible,” he said.

Williams agreed that the county “should be allowed a full disclosure of (Langtree’s) business plan.”

And though the LGC will scrutinize those records before it issues an opinion to the county on the bond request, Parker said that Langtree would “of course” be willing to submit its financial records to the county. However, he said, “the figures will not be final due to (a) not knowing what the interest rates will be when the bonds are actually issued, and (b) not knowing the costs of labor and materials at the time the bonds are issued and moneys made available through the Trustee appointed by the county to regulate the draws."

Parker continued: “One of the reasons that Langtree wants to go forward is because building in a recession generally means that the project comes in on time and under-budget.”

Also, he said, “The ability to create jobs in Iredell County in a time of layoffs is in the public interest, as is the creation of tax base income stream to the county (and to Mooresville upon annexation) via Langtree’s property taxes.”

Parker emphasized that “the taxpayers of Iredell County will bear no risk, responsibility or expense in the issuance of these bonds.”

Still, is it the proper role of government to facilitate what is essentially a $46 million loan for private developers?

“Facilitation is not the right word for what Langtree has asked the county to do,” said Parker. “Iredell County will have no liability whatsoever for these bonds – their role as issuer permits bond buyers to have favorable tax treatment which in this economic environment can mean the difference between an investor investing or staying on the sidelines.”

He said that “the Special Assessment Improvement bonds are secured solely by the assessed/‘benefitted’ properties only i.e. the developer’s land and improvements thereon.

“Iredell County’s tax base is not at risk," Parker said. "No other property owner other than Langtree and John Q. Hammons will have to pay a dime for these bonds.

"Our county government has previously engaged in stimulating the local economy in the best of times by utilizing tax forgiveness, free office space, training through the Community College, etc.," Parker said, adding that Langtree "has asked for no such perks, benefits, or stimuli."

The development is "merely requesting that the county authorize the issuance of bonds as a funding method in this tight credit economy," he said.

“The county is not guaranteeing these bonds, and there is no expenditure from the county,” Parker continued. “Langtree is even going to pay the county’s attorney’s fees for its outside bond counsel from the bond proceeds or out of its own pocket regardless of whether or not the bonds are issued.”

Hammons, a partner in the Langtree project, is a billionaire hotelier. Why doesn’t Langtree borrow the $46 million from him instead of the county? Some of the comments made during the Oct. 21 public hearing suggested that it makes good business sense to invest in Langtree. But if it’s such a good investment, why didn’t Hammons lend the money?

Responded Parker: “Mr. Hammons may well be one of the buyers for the bonds but, like all investors, would be interested in obtaining the favorable tax treatments available through these bonds.

“Billionaires do not build their wealth and success by simply giving away their assets,” he said. “In addition, Hammons' business plan does not include investing in infrastructure for properties surrounding his hotels. His planned expenditure in Iredell County will probably top $80 million.

“Also bear in mind,” said Parker, “that many, if not most, communities that have Hammons Hotels in them have given the land or infrastructure to Hammons in return for getting Hammons to build a 250-room full service hotel with 35,000 square feet of meeting space such as he proposes to build at Langtree.

"Neither Langtree nor Hammons has asked for any such assistance or benevolence for the Langtree project, notwithstanding that it will generate hundreds of jobs in the Mooresville area during construction and operation,” Parker said.

Robertson said he believes that “economic incentives for industry are not the proper role of government.” However, he said, “because it is the law of the land and its constitutionality has been held up in court, we have been forced to give economic incentives to industry to locate in Iredell County.

“It appears that legislation has been broadened from attracting manufacturing industries to now there’s a venue for us to assist or subsidize commercial ventures as well,” Robertson said. “While I believe that it is not the proper role of government to do either, I feel that Iredell County will have to do both.”

A 175-acre development, Langtree expects to add up to $1 billion to the county’s tax base and up to $4.5 million in county revenues every year once it has reached full build out, which is expected to be within the next decade.

Said Robertson: “The Langtree at the Lake project could be a real asset to the community – that point is not in contention.

“The issue at hand,” he said, “is whether Iredell County should lend its name to a $46 million bond without the borrower providing any information whatsoever as to their ability to repay the loan.

“If the Langtree developers were to provide the information that shows they have the ability to repay the bond,” Robertson said, “then I see no reason the keep this proposal from moving forward.”

In addition to Robertson not being at Monday's meeting, the county board is a month away from swearing in its newest member, Scott Keadle, who will replace Sara Haire Tice, who didn’t seek re-election this year.

Tice is a longtime friend of the family of Langtree’s managing partner, Rick Howard, and Tice's son works for Langtree.

Parker said Langtree’s attempts to quickly obtain the county’s approval to approach the LGC “is not an attempt to avoid the ‘new’ board.”

“The new board will have to decide on the ultimate question of issuance if, but only if, (the) LGC approves or recommends the issuance,” Parker said. “Langtree is confident that Iredell’s commissioners, regardless of their composition, will carefully weigh the advantages of a risk-free, cost-free stimulus to the economy and approve the final assessment resolution and the bonding resolutions after LGC approval.”

Commissioner Williams – who accepted a $250 campaign contribution from Rick Howard about three weeks before the Nov. 4 election – said he feels that the county will make a decision “when the commissioners have the necessary information that they are seeking.”

When asked what impact, if any, the campaign contribution would have on his vote on Monday, Williams responded: “I resent the assertion that any contribution received could impact my vote on any issue. I have served my county for 16 years in elected office – and you are the first person who has every questioned my integrity.

“Do you actually believe a person could buy my vote for a measly $250? I will vote on this issue on its merits alone.”

“I question your motives in bringing this up at this time,” Williams continued. “It appears to me that this is an attempt to try to influence my vote in the negative.”

In a second e-mail to the Report on Sunday morning, Williams wrote: “I will be sending Mr. Howard a personal check in the amount of $250 from my personal account tomorrow. I hope this will clear up this issue for good.

“By the way,” he added, “where is all the widespread concern about Mr. Keadle accepting an out of county contribution of $8,000 from the Richardson family? Are you aware that they have filed a lawsuit against the very board that (Keadle) now sits on?”

(The Report plans to have Keadle’s response to those concerns within the next few days. Meanwhile, follow this link to read what was reported on the issue by the Statesville Record & Landmark: http://www2.statesville.com/content/2008/nov/01/commission-candidates-raise-thousands/)

When asked if the county should wait until Robertson is back in town and Keadle is seated before making a decision on Langtree's request, Williams said: “The current board has had the advantage of hearing all the questions and answers.”

“The decision will be decided only when the commissioners are satisfied the county is free of any financial liability,” Williams said. “The question concerning this project was first placed in the agenda at the mid-September (Iredell County) commissioners meeting. Since that time we have discussed the issue one other time.”

Williams said he is “prepared to take as long as necessary to resolve in my mind if this will benefit our citizens.”

Robertson said it “wasn’t my decision” to schedule a potential vote on a day when he wouldn’t be in town. In fact, he said, “I would like to participate in this process.”

He said he alerted the county clerk that he would be out of the country on business this coming week. “It is possible that (County Commission Chairman) Marvin (Norman) did not know that,” Robertson said. “He said he did not know that when he set the meeting up, and I believe Marvin.”

Responding to Report questions today about whether he would prefer the county to wait until he is seated before voting on the Langtree request, Keadle said: “Notwithstanding my eagerness to serve on the board, the current board is still the current board, and my only preference, as a citizen, is that the board proceed in a timely fashion that is respectful of the needs of the county business calendar and not of any election-related calendar.

“I can only assume that this is what the board is doing, and be ready to make decisions next month about whatever issues are pending at the time,” Keadle added.

He said that he received his “first briefing about the Langtree deal on Friday, and as I was out of town, I didn’t get a look at it until (Sunday afternoon).

“My information is therefore very limited and confined to a copy of the ‘Final Assessment Resolution’ that was sent to me by County Attorney Bill Pope on Friday,” Keadle said. “After reading the proposed resolution, I was left with several questions, which would have to be answered before I could comment in favor of the resolution. I will not be attending the meeting, so it is unlikely that my questions will be answered.”

But generally speaking, said Keadle, “I believe that the government should reduce regulatory burden as much as is possible and cooperate with business entities in their free-market pursuit of commerce. I also believe that government should not invest taxpayers' money in private enterprise, or otherwise deviate from the Constitutional intent of government.”

Commissioner Tice did not respond to Report questions this weekend, nor did Commissioner Johnson, though he signed a “read receipt” indicating that he opened the e-mail of questions on Saturday. Commissioner Norman attempted to respond through a voicemail on Saturday, but he was unable to be reached on Sunday.

What would be the ramifications to Langtree if a vote was delayed for a month until Robertson is back in town and Keadle is sworn in? What’s the hurry to obtain a decision tomorrow?

“Langtree has encountered numerous bureaucratic delays stemming from similar questions,” said Parker. “Two years after receiving zoning approval seems to be enough time to wait.”

“There are over 3,600 of these districts nationwide, and they have worked well,” he added. “Although Langtree is ready, willing and able to continue to pay to carry the expenses of such a large venture pending vertical and horizontal (infrastructure) development, time is always money.”

He said the state legislation was signed into law in August “specifically to be a rapidly deployable economic stimulus tool available to counties and municipalities interested in improving the economic environment in their jurisdiction.”

Some counties, said Parker, “will decline or place the idea into bureaucratic limbo,” while other counties “will take advantage of this zero-cost stimulus opportunity.” The latter group, he said, “will do well by its citizens.”

“Langtree has patiently waited for state and local officials to learn about this bonding process even though it has been utilized in other states since as far back as the 1700’s,” Parker said. “Such similar states as South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Alabama have been able to turn these bonds around in 60-90 days because they work.

“Langtree realizes that as the first project in NC, it will take a little longer,” he added. “There is also the question of economic stimulus to the economy. For the folks that are out of work but would be able to be employed by Langtree and its contractors during the infrastructure phases, a month’s delay can mean the difference between keeping and losing their homes.

“Inertia is always a challenge for any business dealing with governmental agencies,” Parker said. “Some agencies understand that ‘he who hesitates is lost’ – others do not.

“Langtree believes that the sheer common sense of this bonding opportunity, particularly given the potential for such a large employment center, will not be lost on this commission.”

Public Comments. Period.

Mooresville’s town board reserves 30 minutes at the beginning of every regular monthly meeting for public comments – and, if necessary, an additional 30 minutes at the meeting’s end.

But many of the “rights” granted to the people by the town’s public comment policy – revised most recently in December 2005 – are determined and divvied out at the discretion of the town’s sitting mayor. The policy – and the way Mayor Bill Thunberg interpreted it at the town board meeting earlier this month – was recently the topic of spirited debate among and between Report readers. (See the Comments section, “Resolution passes 4-2,” May 6.)

One commenter, DocW, posed a challenge to other posters: “There is not many meeting I miss, and strangely enough, the number of people talking in the public comments is low, as usually the crowd is, unless there’s one big topic, then they leave afterwards … come on out to a meeting, and speak up and be heard!! There’s plenty of room in the board room.

“Last I knew,” DocW continued, “it was your meeting and you have three minutes to voice your opinions.”

But Mooresville resident Rhett Dusenbury, who signed up to address commissioners immediately before the May 5 town board meeting, didn’t appear to leave the meeting with the same rosy impression.

Dusenbury was allowed to speak at the meeting – four hours after everyone else who had signed up to speak. All the other speakers were allowed to address the board during the meeting’s public comment period at 6 p.m. Thunberg told Dusenbury, however, that he would have to wait to speak until commissioners considered the agenda item about which Dusenbury had signed up to speak … which ended up being around 10 p.m.

On the surface, the argument could be made that Thunberg was being “considerate” of both the speaker and the board by allowing Dusenbury to speak just before a vote on the subject, ensuring the content of his remarks was still fresh on the commissioners’ minds.

On the other hand, the question is why Dusenbury wasn’t allowed to speak, along with the other members of the public, during the town’s prescribed time for public comments at 6 p.m.

N.C. General Statute 160A-81.1 requires the town to hold a public comment period at least once a month and allows the town to adopt “reasonable rules” to govern those periods. The law (below) does not provide a “reasonable rule” for governing comments based on subject matter.

The council shall provide at least one period for public comment per month at a regular meeting of the council. The council may adopt reasonable rules governing the conduct of the public comment period, including, but not limited to, rules (i) fixing the maximum time allotted to each speaker, (ii) providing for the designation of spokesmen for groups of persons supporting or opposing the same positions, (iii) providing for the selection of delegates from groups of persons supporting or opposing the same positions when the number of persons wishing to attend the hearing exceeds the capacity of the hall, and (iv) providing for the maintenance of order and decorum in the conduct of the hearing. The council is not required to provide a public comment period under this section if no regular meeting is held during the month. (2005‑170, s. 3.)

Dusenbury was adhering to what he believed was town policy when he provided on the public comment sign-up sheet his name, address and the subject about which he wished to address the board. That subject, Dusenbury said, was “limiting the mayor’s powers of office to protect the public.” More specifically, he wished to speak about the then-pending resolution to limit the mayor’s authority to sign documents on the town’s behalf – a measure that was passed by a 4-2 vote later that evening. (See “Resolution passes 4-2,” May 6.)

Dusenbury was sixth on the list of people who signed up to speak during the public comment period that evening, and he was the only one who listed the resolution as his subject matter. As Dusenbury approached the podium when it was his turn to speak, the mayor stopped him and said that since his comments were related to an item on the town board agenda, he would have to wait to speak until that item came up for town board discussion.

Dusenbury – who frequently attends town board meetings and has addressed the board in the past (oftentimes disapprovingly) – said he was “surprised” when the mayor did not allow him to speak during the public comment period. He said he’s always believed that the public comment segment of the board meeting was for just that – public comments – “and it was your three minutes to voice your comments, even if they are irrelevant to the agenda items.”

Thunberg’s actions left Dusenbury wondering if the reason the mayor moved him to 10 p.m. was so that fewer people would be present to listen to his remarks, especially considering the subject matter. Dusenbury estimated that 100 people were at the meeting during the public comment period at 6 p.m. while only about 10 were in attendance at 10 p.m. when the mayor finally allowed him to speak.

Though we may never know Thunberg’s true intent in removing Dusenbury from the public comment period, the situation raises serious concerns regarding the town’s public comment policy and the willingness of the mayor to use his “discretion” fairly and for all citizens – including those who are critical of the mayor himself.

One concern is that the mayor can apparently be selective in who he allows to speak during what part of the meeting, which could easily discourage citizens from exercising their right to be heard. Take Dusenbury, for example: He had other business to tend to the Monday night of the town board meeting. It so happened that on that particular evening he was able to leave and return in time to address the board when the agenda item for the resolution came up for discussion. But not every citizen can wait until 10 p.m. to address the board – and neither should they have to.

Town board meetings are held monthly for our elected officials to conduct our business. People who wish to address the board did not run for public office and should not be expected to sit through a four-hour meeting before being “allowed” to speak. Citizens have conveniently been conditioned by our government to think that we are “beneath” the government -- when, in fact, we are the sole source of the government’s power. We elect officials to office, and we hold the power to remove them. A government official making a citizen wait for four hours to be heard is as absurd as a company employee telling the CEO that she’ll have to wait until the end of a business meeting to speak.

Further, making a citizen wait to speak at any time other than the public comment period directly contradicts the very reason the Town of Mooresville established a public comment period in the first place. The purpose of the town’s public comment policy includes this statement: “The Board of Commissioners encourages and welcomes the input of citizens at its regular monthly meetings, and in order to balance the need and desire for such citizen input with the necessity of disposing of its regular Town business during such meetings, the Board is establishing the following policy to encourage open communications with its citizens pursuant to an organized, yet flexible, procedure.”

What if Dusenbury had not provided the subject about which he wished to address the board? Would the mayor have been able to make him wait four hours to speak? (For a complete look at the town’s public comment policy, click on the documents below:)

Section No. 1 of the town’s policy states that citizens who wish to address the town board “regarding a town-related matter” are asked to contact the town clerk or manager by noon on the Monday preceding the town board meeting. Those who sign up to speak in advance “are requested to give their names, addresses and subject matter upon which they wish to speak,” the policy reads. “Failure to provide the information requested may result in delaying the public comment until the requested information is provided.”

Section No. 2 of the policy refers to citizens who, like Dusenbury, did not sign up in advance to speak at the meeting. “Regardless of whether a citizen has requested to speak prior to the regular meeting,” that section states, “ a sign-up sheet for speakers requesting to address the Board at its regular meeting will be placed at the front door of the Board meeting room prior to the said meeting.”

The sign-up sheet has a space for the speaker to list his/her name, address and subject matter – but it does not indicate that providing that information is optional. (Click on the document to see a larger version:)


Asking speakers to provide their name and residency is a given – though, specific to residency, elected officials have been known to dismiss a speaker’s comments if s/he does not live within the city limits … even if that person is connected to town services. But what is the purpose in the asking for a speaker’s subject matter? Further, why would I, and citizens like me, suspect that one possible reason that the government asks for that information is to penalize and/or punish its possible detractors?

Those questions unfortunately catapulted me back to a dark, foreboding time in Mooresville’s history.

Rewind to 2002. Bill Thunberg – at the time a member of the Mooresville Graded School District Board of Education – wrote a letter to the editor of the Mooresville Tribune, published Nov. 20, 2002, following the Tribune’s painful report of what had transpired at a town board meeting when our government denied a local resident the opportunity to speak.

In his letter, Thunberg stated that “the First Amendment right of free speech is not absolute.” (Read the complete letter by clicking on it below:)


Beth Sherrill is the woman who was denied her right to speak by the 2002 town board. Although Sherrill does not live inside town limits, she is nevertheless connected to the town’s sewer system and pays double-rates for municipal sewer services. She had addressed the board at its September and October 2002 meetings about the double rates charged to her and other municipal water/sewer customers who live outside town limits and about specific conflicts of interest that certain town officials had. In the meantime, she had been asking questions of town staff about a $30,000 outstanding water bill owed to the town by developers of the sprawling Morrison Plantation development west of Mooresville.

When Sherrill asked Town Clerk Janet Pope to include her on the November 2002 town board agenda, Pope responded that the mayor (Al Jones), who was out of town, would first have to grant permission for Sherrill to speak. Pope also asked for the subject about which Sherrill wished to speak. Sherrill did not respond, assuming the elected leaders would know her subject matter since she had addressed them at the two prior board meetings.

In the days before the November meeting, Pope said that Sherrill would be denied the opportunity to speak to the board because she did not provide a subject matter and because the town board was "tired of hearing from her."

"We’ve heard her twice, and she doesn’t stick to the subject," Pope said. "It's a closed subject. It's a dead issue." ("Board says it’s tired of hearing from local resident," Mooresville Tribune, Nov. 1, 2002).

Sherrill attended the November meeting anyway. Shortly after it was called to order, she stood to note for the record that she wished to address the board but was being denied the right to do so. She also asked town board members to indicate by a show of hands if they had participated in denying her the right to speak.

Not a single elected official raised a hand or offered a response. But Sherrill did receive a response from two Mooresville police officers. “As she rose,” noted the Nov. 8 2002 Tribune editorial to which Thunberg was responding in his Nov. 20 letter to the editor, “two police officers in the meeting chamber began to slowly walk toward her, an implicit threat because the officers were armed with the ability to arrest.

“It was a display of the outright hostility toward the people that moves our local government,” read the editorial. “It was a moment that captured, sadly, an essential truth about government in Mooresville: Our leaders have alienated themselves from the people, the sole source of their authority.” (To read the entire editorial, click on the document below:)

Thunberg, who had several friends in local government at that time, was clearly angered by the content of the editorial, as evidenced by the letter to the editor that he authored in response to it. In his letter, not only did he attack the local press, but he made plain his feelings about the people’s First Amendment right to free speech, and he stated in no uncertain terms how he feels about Sherrill and other southern Iredell County residents who do not live inside town limits but who still help foot the municipal bills – at double the rate that Mooresville “citizens” pay for the services.

“Mrs. Sherrill is not a citizen of Mooresville,” stated Thunberg. “The town of Mooresville provides water treatment service to her property outside the city limits using the tax money paid by the citizens of Mooresville. She, as a consideration for the goodwill of the tax-paying citizens of Mooresville, should be required to pay more for that service.”

Our future mayor went on to liken the local media – specifically, the Mooresville Tribune – to Socialists and to suggest that we, the people, can “wad the paper up and throw it in the trash” or “wrap fish with it.”

“Just because it is well written and articulate doesn’t mean it’s the truth, or that we have to believe it, subscribe to it or advertise in it,” Thunberg wrote.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, those are the sentiments of our mayor – the same person to whom the town’s public comment policy grants the job of identifying speakers as “having the right to be heard” – the same person who has the sole discretion to “modify” that policy “from time to time, in order to accomplish the purpose” of the policy, which, as stated, is “open communication” – the same person to whom our policy grants the power to establish the order of speakers, and thereby pick and choose who is allowed to speak at 6 p.m. … and who will wait until 10 p.m. – the same person to whom our policy grants the authority to extend the established three-minute time limit for speakers as he, the mayor, “deems reasonably appropriate in order to foster and promote the opportunity for citizen speakers to have open and full access to address the board” – and the same person who has the discretion, per our policy, to determine “the total time available for citizen speakers … based upon the anticipated length of the meeting …”

Is it any wonder that some citizens would be suspicious about this particular mayor having sole discretion over the town’s public comment policy – a policy that was born from the federal lawsuit that Beth Sherrill herself filed against the town after it denied her the opportunity to be heard?

Sherrill summed it up best in her own letter to the Tribune’s editor, published on Sept. 5, 2003 – 10 months after Thunberg’s letter was published and two months before he sought re-election to the Mooresville Graded School District Board of Education.

Responding to Thunberg’s 2002 letter, Sherrill stated: “Mr. Thunberg felt so strongly that I should not have been allowed to speak that in a single sitting, he managed to use the terms ‘Socialist agenda,’ ‘club rhetorical,’ ‘adolescent,’ ‘mundane,’ ‘demeaning,’ ‘self-righteous,’ ‘bias against our society,’ (and) ‘antiglobalist’. Mr. Thunberg’s letter insinuated that the Tribune and/or its writers were anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, dishonorable, unfair, inaccurate, untruthful and that they ‘don’t like Mooresville’ and allow ‘no room for God.’

“All of this harsh terminology, presumably because the local newspaper had dared to stand up for the First Amendment of a Constitution which we expect Mr. Thunberg to uphold as a school board member and role model for our children,” Sherrill continued. “Mr. Thunberg appears more interested in abusing his leadership roles than in serving those he is supposed to be serving.” (Read Sherrill’s entire letter by clicking on the document below:)


Incidentally, Thunberg was not re-elected to the school board that year.

But two years and many thousands of campaign dollars from developers later – and after dropping many hundreds of dollars in the “Fish Wrap’s” coffers for large, colorful campaign ads, then somehow securing the newspaper’s endorsement – Thunberg won his first bid as Mooresville’s mayor. In 2007, with significantly less campaign money but, ironically, yet another Tribune endorsement under his belt, Thunberg won another term as mayor … but by far fewer votes than in 2005 and against a political newcomer. Thunberg’s current term expires in November 2009.

Morrison Plantation developers not listed as contributors to mayor's 2007 campaign

I mentioned in my last entry that I had not checked Bill Thunberg’s 2007 mayoral campaign contributions to see if he accepted money from Morrison Plantation developers.

I hate leaving things “open,” so I took a quick trip to the Iredell County Elections Office in Statesville today.

None of the Morrison Plantation developers who contributed to Thunberg's first campaign in 2005 were listed as contributors to his 2007 campaign. Additionally, per the suggestion in the comments that followed yesterday's entry (“Morrison Plantation: still a mess after all these years”), I did not see that anyone from Bristol, Va. or Bristol Virginia Utilities (operators of the M-I Connection cable company) contributed to Thunberg's 2007 campaign.

Morrison Plantation: still a mess after all these years

Do some town officials use selective leniency in dealings with developers? And if so, why?

Nearly two years after a Mooresville woman’s death triggered a public spat between developers and the Town of Mooresville over who is responsible for streets in the 483-acre Morrison Plantation development west of Mooresville, developers are yet to complete the repairs and improvements necessary for the town to take over maintenance of the development’s streets and utilities.

Pedestrian Janet Bush, 56, was killed on Sept. 5, 2006 when she was struck by a motorist while crossing Morrison Plantation Parkway and Plantation Ridge Drive, a dangerous intersection that, at the time, lacked stoplights or four-way stop signs.

The developers eventually erected a stoplight, but only amid public outcry and after playing a game of tug-of-war with the Town of Mooresville for a couple months.

Town government officials contended that developer Ed Kale of Carolina Income Management had not completed needed improvements and repairs to the streets in Morrison Plantation, including the addition of a stoplight at the dangerous intersection. The town said until that work was complete, and until the town accepted the streets for public maintenance, the streets were private and the sole responsibility of the developer.

The developers, on the other hand, argued that the roads were originally approved by the Town of Mooresville. And since the streets would eventually be publicly maintained, they stated in a Sept. 8, 2006 press release, “We’re limited in what we can do.”

In the end, the developers erected a stoplight, and folks were satisfied.

What was seemingly forgotten, however, were all the other improvements that the town’s engineering department – under the leadership of then-Engineering Director Richard McMillan – had been pushing Kale to complete in the development for several years before Bush’s death.

And as of one month ago, many repairs and improvements are still incomplete.

On Feb. 22, the town’s engineering department – now supervised by Tonia Wimberly – sent the Morrison Plantation developers a punch list of 41 repairs and improvements that need to be made on 10 different Morrison Plantation streets before the developers can submit a final request for town inspection. And until the development passes that inspection, the town will not take over public maintenance of the streets.

But why has the town continued to allow the developers to build and obtain certificates of occupancy (COs) despite their reluctance – or refusal – to bring their development up to town standards over the past several years?

Maybe we’ll never know the answer. But what we do know is that relationships that some current and former town government officials have had with Kale and other Morrison Plantation developers over the past few years provide more questions than answers.

Here’s a timeline, much of which I originally reported in a September 2006 issue of the Tribune:

Summer 2005
Issues arose from Morrison Plantation and its Meeting Street Homes residential development concerning the town’s release of COs and water meters. McMillan communicated repeatedly with Kale in public records about numerous problems within the development. McMillan told Kale that per state statutes, improvements would need to be complete before the town could release water meters.

September 2005
McMillan and the town’s then-director of utilities, Wilce Martin, continued to inform Town Manager Jamie Justice and Town Attorney Steve Gambill of problems within the Morrison Plantation development, virtually begging for the administrators’ help and support to push the developers to conform to town standards.

McMillan also repeatedly told Justice and Gambill that in his capacity as a licensed professional engineer, he could not agree to the town releasing water meters until Kale followed and completed state-mandated requirements in his development.

However, Justice “was insistent that (McMillan) release the meters in order to ‘help the developer out,’” according to the lawsuit that McMillan and Martin filed against the town after Justice fired them in February 2006. (The hearing on the town's request for dismissal of that case is scheduled for April 7, by the way.)

Ignoring McMillan’s protests, Justice signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Kale and instructed town staff to release the meters, telling McMillan that “If the developer and his engineer have not complied with the requirements, it (is) their butt on the line, not the town’s,” the lawsuit reads.

McMillan and Martin told Justice again that releasing the meters would violate state law since the project was incomplete and had not been certified by the developer’s engineer-of-record, as required by state regulations.

Meanwhile, McMillan and Martin called a meeting with officials of the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), who told the two men that if the town released the meters before the improvements were complete, the town would be fined by the state.

McMillan and Martin relayed the state’s warning to Justice, who apparently chastised the two men for meeting with NCDENR. McMillan and Martin responded that it was their “duty to protect the Town and the health, safety and welfare of the public.”

October 3, 2005
Four developers – including two from Morrison Plantation – lambaste McMillan and the town’s engineering staff at a town board meeting. Kale, the most confrontational developer at the meeting, called the engineering department “incompetent, disorganized, unprofessional, unreasonable and out of control.”

He told commissioners that he had been called to speak at the meeting. Each developer who spoke that evening later stated they were called to attend the meeting, according to McMillan and Martin’s lawsuit. It states that McMillan and Martin later discovered that Assistant Town Manager Erskine Smith - who is now serving as the town's interim town manager - asked the developers to attend the meeting and “publicly disparage” McMillan and the engineering department.

Smith, according to the lawsuit, later told Martin that he was simply following Justice’s orders to summon the developers to the town board meeting.

It also states that Justice never requested a response from McMillan concerning the developers’ comments at that town board meeting.

But then-Mayor Al Jones asked McMillan to respond to the allegations, which McMillan did in a six-page public document dated Oct. 10, 2005. In it, McMillan stated: “Staff has been trying to get Mr. Kale to correct many problems in Morrison Plantation so his problems will not become taxpayer problems, being correct(ed) with taxpayer dollars. None of the roads in Morrison Plantation have been accepted by the Town due to the fact that they are all falling apart. Very little if any effort has been made to correct."

Also, McMillan stated in the response: “Over the years, Mr. Kale has made many comments to Staff concerning his relationship with the Town and Staff. Many times he has praised Staff for helping, next time calling Staff ‘liars’, next time offering tickets to golf championships, next time blasting staff about costing him money. Mr. Kale has been treated with respect, as any customer or developer. Staff always looks for compromises – win-win scenarios. But sometimes, when things are not being done properly, the answer the Town must provide is ‘no’.”

… Did he say golf tickets??? ...

Back to the Oct. 3 town board meeting: when the developers had completed their public remarks that night, then-commissioner Frank Owens – who was defeated the following month in his bid for at-large commissioner – told Kale, “Our administration and board will see that you’re treated better.”

Interestingly, another developer, Neil Kapadia of Faison, sent McMillan an e-mail on Oct. 7, 2005, stating: “I was embarrassed by the way you guys were treated in the public meeting by certain developers in the area. I believe you two have been good to work with, and while not always agreeing with our opinions, were willing to listen to reason. I want you to know that you have my support and if you need me to show up at a meeting and speak my mind, I’m willing to do so.”

November 2005
Bill Thunberg was elected Mooresville’s mayor in his first bid for the seat.

Records at the Iredell County Elections Office show that two weeks after the Oct. 3 town board meeting, which Thunberg attended, the mayor-hopeful accepted sizeable campaign contributions from several Morrison Plantation developers, including $500 from Pamela Rice, a receptionist for Ed Kale’s Carolina Income Management; $1,000 from James Flowers III, president of Carolina Income Properties; $500 from Sandra Anderson, a Morrison Plantation bookkeeper; and $1,000 from original Morrison Plantation developer Rex Welton. (As an aside, Thunberg was re-elected in November 2007. I have not checked with the Elections Office to see if his 2007 campaign was bankrolled by developers.)

McMillan sent a letter to Kale on Nov. 1, instructing him to make needed street improvements in the Morrison Plantation development and to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Morrison Plantation Parkway and Plantation Ridge Drive. He said work on the improvements needed to begin “immediately” and be paid for by Kale’s Carolina Income Management. (Just to provide a little perspective: Bush's death at this point in the timeline is still 10 months away.)

January 2006
Several town officials – including Justice, Gambill, McMillan, Martin, Thunberg and Commissioners Chris Carney and Frank Rader – met with Morrison Plantation developers to discuss the development’s problems and, specifically, the stoplight at the Morrison Plantation Parkway and Plantation Ridge Drive, with McMillan stressing the importance of Kale installing a traffic signal there.

“Mooresville staff was very much trying to find a way to help move the situation along,” recalled Carney. “Everybody was trying to find a way to be fair but still get the necessary improvements done – not just with that road, but all the other roads (in Morrison Plantation).”

Due to the number of improvements needed, Carney said the town decided to let Kale complete his work in phases, with the first phase being completed and approved within two weeks after the January meeting. Thunberg at that meeting appointed Justice the “go-to-man” for Kale. But nine months later, none of those improvements were complete. It is unclear how many, if any, of those improvements are included in the February 2008 punch list.

February 2006
Four months after the Oct. 3 town board meeting – and two months after Thunberg was sworn into office – and three weeks after most of the town administration and several commissioners met with the Morrison Plantation developers – Justice fired McMillan and Martin. In the separation notices, which were left anonymously on my desk at the Tribune, Justice listed several reasons for McMillan’s firing. Interestingly, one was “constant work issues with … the development community.”

But McMillan has contended that Justice fired him, among other reasons, for adamantly requiring developers to meet town standards and for refusing to violate numerous state laws despite the town manager's instruction.

Also in February 2006, Owens, no longer a town commissioner, urged the public in a letter to area newspapers to “listen to the developers” who criticized McMillan and the engineering department at the October town board meeting. Also, Owens wrote: "I have worked with and for many Town Managers and they all had their good traits and their bad ones. Mr. Justice, in my opinion, is the best Town Manager we have ever had. He stood up for what is right, knowing that your paper was going to bash him in print."

May 2006
Steve Allen, an independent consultant hired by the town in November 2005, told Mooresville commissioners that a barrier is needed between the town board and developers.

Developers, said Allen, should not bypass town staff and go directly to the board to seek approval for a project, either officially or unofficially, and no member of the board should respond to such overtures. “The seven most divisive words are ‘let me see what I can do,’” he said.

Allen’s report also concluded that while more staff members were needed in the engineering department, and the town’s technology and design standards needed updating, the engineering department, under McMillan’s leadership, had a quicker turnaround time for review than many towns in the region and a well-established plan review process.

September 2006
Bush was killed in the dangerous Morrison Plantation intersection.

February 2008
Justice resigned, per the request of the majority of Mooresville’s town board. About three weeks later, the town sent Morrison Plantation developers yet another punch list of items that must be corrected in their development before the town will take over the streets.

To bring it all home: A lady died. Yes, a much-needed stoplight was eventually erected at the intersection where she died. But many other improvements still need to be made in the development. And for some reason, the town and the Morrison Plantation developers can’t seem to get it together and move it along.

Why has the town continued to allow the developer to build and receive COs when he clearly has not completed his project? Are all developers in Mooresville treated this way, or only a select few?

Why would our town manager risk being fined by the state in an effort to “work with the developer?” Why would our town manager and Assistant Town Manager Erskine Smith – who’s now our interim town manager – ask developers to show up at a town board meeting and publicly blast our town staff? And why would one of our former town commissioners, who was a sitting commissioner during that meeting, promise those developers they would be "treated better"? Why, after that commissioner was ousted, did he write a letter to local newspapers, asking us, the Mooresville taxpayers, to “listen to the developers” instead of our own town staff?

Further, why would Mayor Bill Thunberg, two weeks after witnessing the fiasco that happened in that Oc.t 3 meeting, accept campaign contributions from the same developers who were there, publicly blasting our town staff – the same developers who in 2008 are still dragging their feet?

Why did our town manager fire the two men who were jumping up and down about this situation, clearly trying to look out for the best interest of Mooresville taxpayers?

And what the heck is up with those darned championship golf tickets???...