Dare County commissioners authorize negotiator after heated public meeting on disputed Alexander property

The Dare County Board of Commissioners on Jan. 15 held a special meeting to consider whether the county should acquire property owned by Brad Alexander in the community referred to in the meeting transcript as “Wanchi’s” and how to pay for it. County Manager Alton told the board that the parcel sold in July 2024 for $1,000,000, had a 2024 tax value of $300,600 and a 2025 fair-market value of about $1,028,300; Alexander’s asking price rose from $5,000,000 to $6,000,000 after recent clearing of the site.

Why it matters: Commissioners and residents framed the question as a choice between using county funds or a special tax district, or pursuing condemnation (eminent domain), with implications for local taxes, county budgets set aside for housing, and whether the site could host public uses such as recreation space or an EMS station.

County Manager Alton told the board that a special tax district limited by state statute could be used only for specific public purposes (beach nourishment, fire protection, parks/recreation, water, sewer, ambulance services under some interpretations, cemeteries, law enforcement where population qualifies, etc.). Using the assessor’s 2025 valuations for the area the manager said the total assessed value for the community is roughly $312,090,000, and estimated that a one-time 1-cent tax on that base yields about $31,209. Using that math, staff presented sample impacts: if the county paid half of a $5,000,000 price ($2,500,000) through a one-time levy it would require roughly an 80-cent increase; financed over 10 years that is roughly 8 cents a year added to the community’s current roughly 57-cent tax rate. For a $3,000,000 target those figures rose to about 96 cents one-time or roughly 9.6 cents annually over 10 years.

Commissioners voiced a mix of fiscal caution and sympathy. Commissioner Burrows said, “To me, it’s pretty cut and dry,” and argued the parcel could be justified as recreation and that financing over a longer term would make the burden more palatable for residents. Commissioner Ross said he was “really reluctant to take the county taxpayers’ funds in [to] enrich Mr. Alexander by $5,000,000,” and Vice Chairman House called a straight purchase for $6,000,000 “ludicrous,” while also saying he would consider condemnation as an option after more research on likely costs and legal risk.

Public commenters largely urged county action to remove the development threat and to secure public amenities. Several speakers said the community lacks emergency medical services and recreational space and urged the board to either buy the parcel or pursue eminent domain. One commenter said, “Condemn it and let God be the judge,” and others suggested the county already holds funds that could be repurposed short term if the board chose to buy the parcel outright.

Legal and timing constraints were discussed at length. Alton summarized the condemnation procedure described in state statute: the county would file a condemnation lawsuit, deposit what it believes is fair market value with the clerk (Alton cited $1,028,300 as the county’s current estimate), and the owner could contest on public-purpose grounds or value; a jury would ultimately decide value, and there is no guaranteed formula or timetable. Commissioners and staff warned condemnation outcomes are uncertain, potentially take years, and sometimes produce awards higher than initial deposits.

After hearing public comment and internal views, the board went into closed session. County Manager Alton later reported that, in closed session, the board gave the county negotiating agent authority and guidance to negotiate the purchase of the Alexander property; the board took no other action and did not finalize a purchase. The board then voted to adjourn until Feb. 3. No formal purchase, financing plan or tax district was approved in the open session.

What’s next: Commissioners directed staff and the county’s negotiating agent to pursue talks under parameters given in closed session; the board scheduled follow-up business at a Feb. 3 meeting. If negotiations fail, commissioners discussed returning to options that include condemnation or declining to acquire the parcel.

(Reporting note: the meeting transcript contains multiple variant spellings for the affected community — transcribed alternately as “Huanchi,” “Wanchi’s,” “Juan Chi’s” and similar forms. The article uses the wording “Wanchi’s” when quoting or paraphrasing meeting remarks but identifies the jurisdiction formally as Dare County.)