Wilmington City Council Agenda Briefing Meeting – March 3, 2025

This agenda briefing, held at 8:30 a.m. in City Hall Council Chambers, was convened to review items scheduled for the March 4, 2025 regular council meeting. The meeting lasted approximately one hour and three minutes, adjourning at 9:33 a.m. Notable items included the postponement of a special use permit, a discussion of the South 17th Street multi‑use path project, and extensive debate over a proposed resolution supporting a 100‑foot fixed‑span replacement for the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. No votes were taken during this briefing.

Consent Calendar

• The consent agenda was presented without individual discussion. It included approval of minutes, a golf‑cart lease agreement ($332,347 with Club Car LLC), retirement and transfer of police canine Officer Jacko, a resolution authorizing the city’s participation in a C‑PACE program, and several zoning ordinances.

Public Comments & Testimony

• William Stolz (Executive Director, Historic Wilmington Foundation) spoke in favor of the 100‑foot fixed‑span bridge (Alternate C) for the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge replacement. He stated that Alternate C is the most cost‑effective option and least impactful to Wilmington’s Historic District, citing NCDOT cost estimates: $255 million for a 65‑foot bridge, $452.9 million for a 135‑foot bridge, and their belief that a 100‑foot bridge would be closer to $255 million. He noted that NCDOT has not released an estimate for the 100‑foot bridge. He also mentioned that a 100‑foot bridge would accommodate all existing recreational and commercial vessels based on the June 2024 Navigation Impact Report, and that a 135‑foot bridge could require tolls.
• Trevor Carroll (Division Engineer, NCDOT Division 3) and Landon Zimmer (Board Member, NCDOT Division 3) provided technical background. Mr. Zimmer stated that the proposed resolution’s claim that a 100‑foot clearance “would sufficiently meet current and foreseeable maritime needs” is in direct conflict with NCDOT’s navigation impact study (Section 18), which found that 100 feet does not meet current navigational guidelines. He cautioned that passing the resolution could jeopardize the $242 million federal grant awarded in July 2024, which was based on a 135‑foot fixed‑span option. Mr. Carroll explained that the three options were part of the required federal “merger process,” and that the 100‑foot option was listed as “100 feet ± 35 feet” to allow flexibility. He stated that design has not been finalized and that the true alignment and height will be determined after environmental studies are completed.
• Sylvia Kochler (Board Member, Historic Wilmington Foundation) countered that she has been told by NCDOT that the $242 million grant is not contingent on any specific height and can be used for any of the three options. She argued that the public interest is best served by a 100‑foot bridge because it is cheaper, quicker to build, and causes the least environmental and historic‑district damage. She also stated that the navigation impact report supports the 100‑foot clearance for current vessel traffic.

Discussion Items

• South 17th Street Multi‑Use Path Project (Items O3a/O3b) – Councilmember Rivenbark questioned why this specific stretch was prioritized, noting the cost of $2,400,000 in federal funds with a $600,000 local match. Project Manager Rachel McIntyre and Division Engineer Denise Freund explained that it is part of a regional plan, serves high‑transit areas, includes pedestrian improvements at Shipyard Boulevard and 17th Street, and is identified in the Walk Wilmington Plan as a high‑injury‑network intersection. They noted that constructing the full path as one project would cost $10‑15 million and require longer funding timelines. Councilmember Rivenbark expressed concern about piecemeal sidewalk projects amid other high‑priority needs.
• Cape Fear Memorial Bridge Replacement Resolution (Item R1) – The resolution, brought forward by Councilmember Andrews, would express city support for a 100‑foot fixed‑span replacement. A lengthy discussion ensued among council members, NCDOT officials, and Historic Wilmington Foundation representatives. Key points:
  • Positions for 100‑foot bridge: Historic Wilmington Foundation advocated for Alternate C, citing lower cost ($255 million estimate), minimal historic‑district impact, and avoidance of tolls. They argued that the federal grant is flexible and that a 100‑foot bridge meets navigational needs.
  • Positions cautioning against the resolution: NCDOT representatives stated that a 100‑foot bridge does not meet current navigation guidelines, that the federal grant application was based on a 135‑foot option, and that putting “a stake in the ground” could jeopardize funding and close off options. They emphasized that environmental and historic impact studies are still ongoing.
  • Legal/liability concerns: Councilmember Waddell and Mayor Saffo raised the issue of condemnation if a lower bridge restricts navigation rights of upriver property owners (including the City of Wilmington). Mr. Zimmer confirmed that reducing the 135‑foot maritime right would likely involve condemnation and potential litigation.
  • Funding timeline: The environmental studies must be completed by September 2026 per the federal grant. The Army Corps of Engineers’ permit decision is expected in spring 2025.
  • The Council did not take a vote on the resolution; it remained scheduled for the March 4 regular meeting.

Key Outcomes

• Postponement of Item PH1 (Special Use Permit for 5651 Greenville Loop Road) – Moved to a June 2025 council meeting because the project was not ready for a decision.
• No consensus on bridge resolution – After extensive discussion, council members indicated they would review the provided navigation impact report and consider further input before the March 4 meeting. NCDOT agreed to share the report with council members.
• Clarification on funding – NCDOT reiterated that the $242 million grant is tied to the 135‑foot option, while Historic Wilmington Foundation asserted the grant is not height‑contingent. The conflicting positions were noted.
• Instruction to NCDOT – Councilmember Waddell requested a copy of the navigation impact report and asked NCDOT to clarify which entity originally proposed the 100‑foot ± 35 option.
• Next steps – The March 4 regular council meeting was scheduled to include the bridge resolution on its agenda for possible action.