New Hanover County Commissioner
LeAnn Pierce, Republican incumbent
Career: Entrepreneur
Education: Bachelor of Science degree in Biology from ECU, certified in Business and Technical Communications
Q: Why are you seeking a seat on the NHC Board of Commissioners and what is your top campaign priority; why?
A: I’m seeking re-election because experience matters, particularly at a time when New Hanover County is growing and facing some important decisions.
I have four years of experience as a New Hanover County Commissioner, and I currently serve as chair of the board. Before that, I spent eight years as an elected official in Carolina Beach, including serving as mayor. That municipal experience taught me first hand about managing growth, infrastructure, flooding and stormwater, and the unique challenges that come with being a coastal community. I believe that experience gives me a valuable perspective on the county commission.
My top priority is affordability. Families are paying more for groceries, insurance, housing and almost everything else. County government can’t control all those costs, but we can control how we spend taxpayer dollars.
That means looking for efficiencies first, keeping our tax burden as low as possible, supporting good-paying jobs, and making responsible investments in schools, public safety and infrastructure.
I want to continue putting that experience to work and keep New Hanover County a place where people can afford to live, work, raise a family and retire.
Q: What is the biggest challenge facing New Hanover County currently and what steps will you take to help correct it?
A: I believe one of the biggest challenges facing New Hanover County is the pace of growth and what it is doing to the people who already call this community home.
I hear from residents who are frustrated. They see more apartments, more traffic and more development, while our roads, schools and infrastructure are struggling to keep up.
We need to be much more thoughtful about where we grow. Development should be approved in areas where the roads, schools, water and sewer, stormwater systems and public safety infrastructure are there to support it. We should not continue adding density where the infrastructure simply cannot handle it.
I also believe we need to protect our existing neighborhoods and recognize the value of single-family homes and homeownership. Owning a home is one of the primary ways families build financial security and generational wealth, and I want more people — not fewer — to have that opportunity.
Growth may be inevitable, but overdevelopment is not. We can grow responsibly while protecting the quality of life that makes New Hanover County such a special place to call home.
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: Yes, I support the board’s decision and that is why I voted for it.
This was not a decision we made lightly and it was not a vote against law enforcement. I met with the sheriff, looked at how the system worked, listened to our citizens and asked a lot of questions. In the end, there were simply too many unanswered questions about privacy, data-sharing and oversight, and I did not believe adequate safeguards were in place to protect our citizens.
Technology can be an important tool for law enforcement, but public safety and individual privacy do not have to be mutually exclusive.
I don’t know what the future holds, but I do know technology is coming. Before I would consider any other system, I would need to see strong safeguards in place, transparency about how the technology would be used, and most importantly, I would want the public to understand and be comfortable with those safeguards. Public safety is important, but so is maintaining the trust of the people we serve.
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: I support public transportation because for many people in our community, it is how they get to work, school, medical appointments and other essential services.
This year New Hanover County increased our funding for Wave Transit by $488,000, bringing the county’s total commitment to $1.83 million. I believe we need to make sure those dollars are being used where they make the biggest difference for the people who depend on the system.
Earlier this year, I met with the director of Wave Transit, and we discussed the lack of benches and shelters at many bus stops. One idea we discussed was a sponsorship program where businesses and community partners could help fund those amenities. That is something I would like to see put in place.
I also believe our bus stops should be welcoming and neutral spaces. Benches and shelters should not be used for political messages or advocacy by any group. They should be clean, standardized places where riders can sit and have protection from the heat and rain.
As our county grows, we need a system that is safe, reliable and responsive to the people who depend on it, while also being responsible with taxpayer dollars.
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: Flooding is an issue I understand firsthand. I spent eight years as an elected official in Carolina Beach, including serving as mayor, and I have seen what heavy rain, storms and poor drainage can do to homes, businesses and neighborhoods.
That experience taught me that we must address stormwater before we approve development, not after the problems occur.
New Hanover County has made significant investments in stormwater, and I want to continue improving drainage and addressing areas that repeatedly flood. But we also must make better land-use decisions. Before approving development, we should ask: Can the roads handle it? Can the stormwater system handle it? What impact will it have on neighboring properties?
I also strongly believe in preserving wetlands, trees and open space. Those are not just quality-of-life issues, they provide natural protection against flooding.
We cannot stop every flood, especially in a coastal county. But we can stop making the problem worse.
My goal is simple: plan ahead, protect existing neighborhoods and make sure development only occurs where the infrastructure can support it.
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: The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge is one of the most important transportation corridors in our region and we must get this done.
When I served on the WMPO about six years ago, we were already talking about replacing this bridge, and the estimated cost was substantially less than it is today. Now we are looking at a project costing more than a billion dollars. Every year we delay, the cost continues to rise, and we cannot keep kicking this decision down the road.
I have consistently opposed tolling the bridge. Thousands of people cross it every day for work, school and everyday life, and I don’t want to add another expense to families who are already feeling stretched.
If our choice truly comes down to tolling or a local-option sales tax, I would rather explore the sales-tax option and let the voters decide.
As for the design, Alternative A is the 65-foot movable bridge and Alternative B is the 135-foot fixed bridge. I have concerns about the impact Alternative B could have on downtown Wilmington and surrounding properties, so I believe Alternative A deserves serious consideration.
If there is another realistic option that reduces the cost and community impact without jeopardizing our federal funding, we should look at it. But we need to decide. The longer we wait, the more expensive this bridge becomes.
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: I believe our current tax rate is sufficient to provide the core services our citizens expect, and I supported keeping it at 30.6 cents this year.
As a former business owner, I know what it means to make a budget work. You must set priorities, look for efficiencies and make difficult decisions. Government should be no different.
Families are already stretched. Groceries, insurance, housing and everyday expenses continue to cost more, and I don’t believe the county government should add to that burden unless it is absolutely necessary.
Before I would consider raising taxes, I want us to look carefully at every department and every program to determine whether it is necessary, whether it is working and whether taxpayers are getting the best value for their money.
At the same time, I will continue to prioritize the services people depend on — public safety, our schools and the infrastructure needed to support our community.
My goal isn’t simply to raise or lower a tax rate. My goal is to deliver the services our citizens expect while leaving as much money as possible in the pockets of the people who earned it.
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 believe providing safe, secure and well-maintained schools is one of the most important responsibilities we have as a county.
I support the $320-million school bond on the ballot this November. It addresses some of our most pressing needs, such as replacing aging schools, adding classroom capacity, improving New Hanover High School, and making safety, technology and infrastructure improvements throughout the district.
We have worked with the New Hanover Community Endowment to secure a $116 million commitment toward these projects. That partnership allows us to make needed investments in our schools while significantly reducing the burden on our taxpayers.
The bond will not address every capital need, so there will be more work ahead. I support additional capital funding when it is based on a clear, prioritized long-term plan. We must address our greatest needs first and be responsible with every taxpayer dollar.
Good schools are important for our children and teachers, but they are also important to our economy. Businesses looking to locate here look at the quality of our schools, and families do too.
Investing wisely in our schools is an investment in the future of New Hanover County.
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 because I believe we need creative ways to help working families afford to live in New Hanover County.
What I particularly like about this new approach is that we are investing taxpayer dollars rather than simply giving them away. With Proximity at Blue Clay, the county invested $2 million as a loan. We will earn interest on that money, and after 10 years the principal comes back to the county so it can be invested again.
As we consider the remaining $2 million, I want projects to demonstrate a real need, provide meaningful affordability for our workforce and give taxpayers a return on their investment.
But rental housing is only part of the solution. I also want us to focus more on homeownership. Teachers, first responders, healthcare workers and other working families should have the opportunity to own a home and build equity and generational wealth.
I would like us to explore partnerships with private developers, nonprofits and the use of county-owned land to create more attainable homeownership opportunities.
For me, the goal is not simply to build more housing. It is to help the people who work here to afford to call New Hanover County home.
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 is a tremendous asset for New Hanover County, and I believe we have a responsibility to protect it for future generations.
There are already important safeguards in place. Using principal from the fund requires a supermajority vote of four commissioners. I think that is important because no simple majority should be able to spend down an asset of this magnitude.
I also believe we should have clear guidelines for how the funds are used. I do not support routinely dipping into the principal to pay for recurring operating expenses. Once that money is spent, it is gone, and we cannot treat a finite fund as an ongoing source of revenue.
At the same time, I don’t believe the money should simply sit there when we have opportunities to make responsible investments that benefit the community.
Our workforce housing investment is a good example. We are using a portion of the fund as a loan, earning interest, and ultimately getting the principal back so those dollars can be used again.
I would support a policy that protects the principal, while maintaining flexibility for emergencies, economic downturns and carefully evaluated investments that provide a return or significant long-term benefit to taxpayers.
This money came from an asset that belonged to this community, and we have a responsibility to make sure it continues benefiting this community for generations.