New Hanover County Commissioner
Rob Zapple, Democratic incumbent
Career: Build, Rob Zapple Design & Build Inc.
Education: B.A., University of Virginia
Q: Why are you seeking a seat on the NHC Board of Commissioners and what is your top campaign priority; why?
A: I am seeking another term because I believe my experience matters at a time when New Hanover County is facing major decisions about infrastructure, schools, housing and the environment.
My top priority is responsible growth. We cannot stop growth, but we can make better decisions about where and how it occurs. Growth affects everything from traffic and school capacity to housing affordability, water quality and the cost of providing public services. We need thoughtful planning that looks beyond the next development proposal and considers the long-term needs of the entire county.
Q: What is the biggest challenge facing New Hanover County currently and what steps will you take to help correct it?
A: Managing growth responsibly is the biggest challenge facing the county. Growth is putting pressure on our roads, schools, utilities, housing supply, environment and county budget. We need better cooperation and coordination between the county and our municipalities, better planning for infrastructure, and better land-use decisions that account for the cumulative impact of development.
My approach is to look at the long-term consequences of decisions and make sure infrastructure and public services keep pace.
Q: Controversy over citizen surveillance and Flock cameras have become a topic of concern for many in recent months. Do you support the current board’s decision to cancel the ALPR contract; why/why not? Would you consider renegotiating a contract for automated license plate readers, AI-based or otherwise, in the future?
A: I supported the board's Sept. 8 decision to cancel the county's Flock contract. Privacy rights are important, and I heard concerns expressed by residents about surveillance and the need for safeguards surrounding this technology. I believe law enforcement should have effective tools to investigate and prevent crime, but those tools must come with appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties.
I would not rule out the use of technology in the future, but any future agreement would need clear safeguards, transparency, appropriate limits on data access and retention, and strong accountability.
Q: Public transportation has been at the forefront of discussion as of late, particularly when it comes to a lack of amenities — benches, shelters — at roughly 300 bus stops. Do you support more funding for public transportation to address these issues or to increase the system’s capacity? How do you see public transportation evolving with our growing county needs?
A:Yes. I have consistently supported reliable, affordable public transportation and a stable funding source for WAVE. As our county grows, we need transportation options that work for people who depend on transit to get to work, school, medical appointments and other essential services. That means frequent and reliable service, sheltered stops, connections to major employment and retail centers, and service that accommodates early and late work shifts. Public transportation is also part of our broader strategy for managing congestion as the county grows.
Q: Recent rainstorms have brought flooding concerns back to the forefront of discussion. What specific stormwater or land use strategies would you advance if elected to address flooding and/or support the overall environmental concerns facing the county?
A: We need to continue investing in stormwater infrastructure and understanding where our system has deficiencies. The county has mapped more than 600 miles of its stormwater system, and that work needs to continue so we can identify problem areas and prioritize improvements. We should also use land-use planning to protect natural areas that absorb stormwater and avoid putting additional development pressure on vulnerable areas. Green infrastructure, including bioretention and living shorelines, can also improve water quality while helping manage runoff. I support using science and data to guide these decisions rather than reacting after every major storm.
Q: The deadline for the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge grant is approaching. WMPO Director Mike Kozlosky has been clear the only options to fund a new bridge at this point is the toll or the local options sales tax — which do you support? Additionally, do you support the 65-foot, the 135-foot bridge option, or do you think a third design option should be explored?
A: I do not support putting the entire burden of replacing this regional bridge on local residents through a toll. We should continue pursuing state and federal funding and make sure every available funding source is considered.
On the design, I believe we need more information before accepting the two current alternatives as the final choices. The 135-foot navigation determination dates back decades and maritime traffic has changed. I recently called for an expanded navigation assessment using current and projected maritime traffic so we can determine whether a better third option is possible.
Q: Do you think the current tax rate is providing sufficient funding for county services? If you want to see the tax rate, go up or down, where would you take funding from or direct funding to?
A: The current 30.6-cent tax rate has made it difficult to keep up with the county's recurring expenses and service needs. My concern has not been what we are funding but how we are funding it.
I opposed using the Revenue Stabilization Fund or other one-time resources to cover recurring expenses because that does not solve the underlying mismatch between revenues and expenses. During the 2026 budget process, I supported looking at a modest tax increase rather than relying on one-time money or additional borrowing.
In the long run, paying your bills can be cheaper than borrowing. In terms of spending, the priority should be sustainable funding for schools, public safety, infrastructure and other core services.
Q: A school bond is on the ballot this year, though it won’t cover all the capital needs of the district. Do you support providing more capital funds for local schools; can you explain?
A: Yes. I support the $320.5-million school bond because New Hanover County has significant needs involving aging facilities, deferred maintenance, safety and capacity. We have allowed some of these needs to accumulate for too long. The bond addresses important projects across the county, but it will not eliminate every capital need facing our schools.
We will need to continue planning for future needs and identifying responsible ways to fund them. The Endowment's commitment of up to $116 million toward the county's school capital program is also an important partnership that substantially reduces the projected tax impact of the bond.
Q: Earlier this year the county established its Workforce Housing Development Fund, designed to support projects dedicating at least 20% of units to households earning between 60% and 120% of the area median income. The Proximity at Blue Clay was then granted $2 million, leaving $2 million available in the fund. Do you support this fund, and if so, how would you like to see money allocated to the fund and projects chosen for support? Do you support the county establishing any other housing initiatives, and if so, what?
A: Yes. I support the Workforce Housing Development Fund and the approach of using public dollars to leverage additional private investment and put workforce housing on the ground. I supported the county's $2 million investment in Proximity Blue Clay, which is designed to produce rents below typical market rates while returning the county's initial investment.
We should look for additional projects that provide meaningful affordability for working families, have a realistic path to construction, and leverage county dollars with private, state and philanthropic resources. Avenue Flats is another example of what can happen when the county, city, state, Endowment and private partners work together.
Q: How do you think the county should handle its Revenue Stabilization Fund, the $300 million reserve fund established after the sale of New Hanover Regional Medical Center? Do you think commissioners should adopt a policy for the fund or continue making decisions as opportunities arise?
A: The Revenue Stabilization Fund should be treated as a long-term asset, not as a checking account for recurring expenses. I believe the county should establish clear policies governing when the principal can be used, with emergencies such as major hurricanes or significant economic disruptions being among the appropriate circumstances. We should also preserve the fund's ability to generate investment income for the county. I supported using the fund for appropriate one-time investments, such as land acquisition, where the expenditure creates a lasting public asset. But using the principal to balance recurring operating expenses simply pushes the problem into the future.