September 11, 2001 Agenda
September 11, 2001 Minutes
|
REGULAR
MEETING OF THE
|
|
MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING
Present
for the meeting were Mayor Barbara Harris; Commissioner Emily Farmer;
Commissioner Patricia McElraft; Commissioner Jay Murphy; Commissioner Emory
Trainham; Commissioner John Wootten; Town Manager Frank Rush; Assistant Town
Manager Mitsy Overman; Town Attorney Derek Taylor; Town Clerk Carolyn Custy;
Planning Board Chairman Ceil Saunders; Police Chief Mark Wilson; Fire Chief
William Walker; Alesia Sanderson, Parks and Recreation; Building Inspections
Department Head Carol Angus; and Public Works Director Robert Conrad.
Mayor Harris
asked that the public bow their heads for a silent moment for the victims and
their families for the nation’s tragedy.
Commissioner
Farmer said she had
received a call from a resident who was quite upset that they were having the
meeting, and obviously there are a lot of people who wanted to get out tonight
and have their say. She wanted to
make it clear that they meant no disrespect. 4.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA.
Mayor Harris
said for item 6, Resolution of Intent to Abandon a Portion of Reed Drive, the
owner has asked that this be pulled from the agenda. Commissioner Trainham moved and
Commissioner Murphy seconded the removal of the Intent to Abandon a Portion of
Reed Drive from the agenda and that they approve the agenda as such. Commissioner Farmer asked for discussion. There were a couple of letters to the editor in the newspaper, and there were a number of people who were expecting to have a public hearing on the plat. She asked that Mr. Rush explain why this was being pulled from the agenda. Mr. Rush said there was never a public hearing scheduled on the resolution of intent to close Reed Drive. It was simply a resolution of intent. Had the Board considered that resolution and had they passed it this evening, all it would have done is schedule a public hearing for the October 9 Board of Commissioners meeting. It was withdrawn this evening from the agenda completely because the occupant has withdrawn her plans, of which this resolution of intent to close the road was associated with. Mayor Harris said all public hearings are posted on the bulletin board or in the newspaper, and that is official. Vote was unanimous in favor of the
motion. Motion carried. 5.
CONSENT AGENDA.
Commissioner
Murphy moved and Commissioner McElraft seconded the approval of the Consent
Agenda, which included Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 14, 2001 and
Minutes of the Special Meeting of August 27, 2001.
The Board voted unanimously to approve.
Motion carried. 7.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN MANAGER TO SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATION TO THE
REGIONAL WASTEWATER COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR THE COAST GUARD ROAD STORM WATER
PROJECT. Mayor Harris read a portion of this, and Mr. Rush elaborated on it. It comes before the Board this evening to approve or deny “that the Town Manager is hereby authorized to submit an application for grant funding through the Regional Wastewater Coordinating Council in the amount of $31,220 for additional feasibility studies related to the proposed Coast Guard Road storm water project. A local match in the amount of $31,220 will be committed by the Town of Emerald Isle.” Mr. Rush commented briefly. He said it is a grant application for funding for the study that was approved at the August meeting with Moffatt & Nichol to do additional engineering and geotechnical work for the storm water project. The grant program is from the Regional Wastewater Coordinating Council, which is a four-county agency that has grant funds available for counties and municipalities for innovative wastewater solutions. The storm water project would qualify for that, and this application would go before that board on September 26, and he is hopeful they will approve the application and that will help offset the cost of the study for the storm water project. Commissioner Farmer said she went to one of the Regional Wastewater Coordinating Council meetings and talked about the project, and they were enthusiastic. They are looking for innovative projects like this, and mostly what they have been seeing are run-of-the-mill sewer projects. She is hopeful we have a good chance of getting the funding. Commissioner Wootten made a motion
to approve the resolution authorizing the Town Manager to submit the grant
application to the Regional Wastewater Coordinating Council.
Commissioner Trainham seconded the motion.
Vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.
Motion carried. 8.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN MANAGER TO SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATION TO THE
NC DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES FOR THE POINT STUDY. Mayor Harris said in the resolution, the Board is to approve or deny “that the Town Manager is hereby authorized to submit an application for grant funding through the Water Resources Development Grant Program in the amount of $32,380 (which represents 50% of the study cost) for an analysis of alternatives for addressing the erosion problems at the Point. Mr. Rush said this is also a 50% grant that would go to state Division of Water Resources to offset the cost of the study that was approved at the August meeting dealing with erosion at the Point. This grant program is a rolling grant program, and there is some question right now with the state’s budget how much money will be available for this grant program. Prior to any additional cuts from the state budget, it appeared that this program will be funded. Mr. Rush said he thinks we have an excellent chance of receiving grants from this project. It is the same grant program that enabled the county to do its initial beach nourishment study in 1999. Commissioner McElraft made a motion for approval of the resolution authorizing the Town Manager to submit a grant application to the NC Division of Water Resources. Commissioner Farmer seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. Motion carried. 9.
BEACH NOURISHMENT a.
Public Hearings – Primary Benefit Municipal Service District /
Secondary Benefit Municipal Service District b.
Resolution Creating the Primary Benefit Municipal Service District c.
Resolution Creating the Secondary Benefit Municipal Service District d. Resolution Authorizing Application to the NC Local Government Commission for General Obligation Bonds for Beach Nourishment Mayor Harris said the Board would consider the first step in a three-meeting process to schedule a $17 million bond referendum on the proposed beach nourishment project. We will have the public hearing, then the Board will approve or deny the resolution creating the primary district; then the Board will approve or deny a resolution creating a secondary district; then the Board will approve or deny the resolution authorizing application to the NC Local Government Commission for general obligation bonds for beach renourishment. She had asked Mr. Rush to make a few comments before the meeting was opened up to the public for comment. Mr. Rush said there was a fact sheet about the beach nourishment projects. To give a brief overview of the beach nourishment project so everyone would have a clear understanding of what the Board is contemplating, first of all, with this project the Board is moving forward with the recommendations of the Town’s Beach Nourishment Committee that met for several months and considered several different options for a financing plan and a nourishment plan and did a lot of hard work, and that plan is represented in the handouts given. The project, as it is preliminarily designed, is based on the 1999 study that Carteret County did for all of Bogue Banks. That is the basis for the project that the nourishment committee is recommending. It calls for the replacement of the initial sand deficits that existed in 1999 plus a 10-year sand advance, which is based on the historical erosion rates on Bogue Banks. Typically we are losing about 2 feet per year. This project would provide enough for that initial deficit plus provide enough sand to cover 10 year’s worth of erosion at that historical rate. It involves replacement of about 3.6 million cubic yards of sand on about 10 miles of beach in Emerald Isle, roughly 1.7 million would go in the area from 1st Street to 30th Street, another nearly 2 million would go in the area from 30th Street down to Shipwreck Lane in Spinnakers Reach subdivision. That is the project boundary, from the Indian Beach town line to the boundary between Spinnakers Reach and Lands End subdivisions. The total project budget is $17 million, and if the Board moves forward with the referendum, that is the amount that the bond question would ask the voters to approve. The financing plan involves four different revenue sources, two of which are under consideration tonight. The first is a special tax district of oceanfront property owners, which is called the Primary Benefit District. The nourishment committee recommended $0.48 tax rate for the property owners within that district. Those funds would provide approximately 69 percent of the total cost of the nourishment project. The second revenue source is a $0.03 tax levy in the Secondary Benefit District, which is all other properties in town that are not located on the ocean front. That would generate about 14 percent of the total cost of the project. Third, there is a contribution from the town’s general fund that is equal to about 6.5 percent of the total project cost. The intent behind that funding source is that the town owns several beach accesses in the town, including the two regional beach accesses for public access. The fourth source of revenue for the project is an allocation from the Carteret County Room Occupancy Tax. With the approval by the General Assembly last month of a new room tax, Emerald Isle will get $540,000 per year for a period of four years that it can use solely for beach nourishment projects. Those are the funding sources recommended by the nourishment committee. He knows there are a lot of small arguments on both sides of the issue about whether that is fair or not fair, but the committee spent a lot of time and worked long and hard to consider a lot of different options. Mr. Rush mentioned the project schedule. If the Board moves forward, we are recommending a March 5, 2002, referendum date whereby all registered voters in the Town of Emerald Isle will vote on the bond referendum. The referendum will have to pass by a majority vote in both districts, a majority of those voters in the Primary Benefit District and also a majority of those in the Secondary Benefit District. If it fails in one district and passes in the other, the referendum fails. If the referendum is successful, we would look for construction to begin next winter (2002-2003). There is some possibility that the construction schedule may be phased in over two years. It is possible that construction could occur in the eastern part of town in the ’02-’03 winter season, with the rest of the town being nourished in ’03-’04. That is a result of some of the conditions that might be placed on permits, as well as some of the technical capabilities of dredge production. Mayor Harris said Julia Wax is the chairman of the Beach Renourishment Committee. Her father is critically ill, and she could not be here so she asked Commissioner McElraft if she would read a statement. Commissioner Wootten made a motion
to open one public hearing to cover the establishment of both tax districts, the
primary and the secondary. Commissioner
Farmer seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.
Motion carried. Commissioner McElraft said she sent her prayers to Mrs. Julia Wax and her family. Her father is very ill, and that is why she could not be here tonight. Mr. Jim Batten is an icon in Emerald Isle. She read the statement from Mrs. Wax, content which is included in its entirety below: Emerald Isle Neighbors and Friends: Tonight we will be privileged to hear from many of the property owners and residents of Emerald Isle, our beautiful coastal home. I was honored to serve as chairman of the Emerald Isle Beach Nourishment committee and regret that my father's illness will keep me from attending the public hearing tonight. Many thanks to Commissioner McElraft, a fellow member of this committee, for agreeing to read this summary for me. As a committee, we had residents who held strong viewpoints from both sides of the issue of beach nourishment. Just like the audience tonight, some were for it, and some were against it. Together, we educated ourselves on the facts relating to the pros and cons of beach nourishment—both scientifically and economically. I'm proud of the moderate consensus we were able to hammer out through numerous, lengthy committee meetings, all of which were open to the public. My hope is that the off-the-ocean residents and taxpayers will understand that the benefits of beach nourishment overwhelmingly outweigh the cost to you personally. For example: Non-oceanfront property owners whose annual taxes for beach nourishment will be $60 if their property is tax valued at $200,000, $120 if $400,000, or $180 if the tax value is $600,000. In return, your beaches will be wide and stable and you won't have to fear a devastated, hideous oceanfront neighborhood after the next severe storm. Biologists have studied how quickly the marine animal population rebounds after nourishment and the results are very positive. The News and Observer today in an article on beach nourishment from sand dredged from Oregon Inlet quoted refuge biologist Dennis Stewart of the US Fish and Wildlife Service: “We’ve got the equivalent of starved beaches ... The idea is to get the sand into the long shore transport system sooner. We expect this beach to be fully recovered and naturalized in about 12 months." We as a town and a county need to continue to pursue our commitment to get the dredge spoils from the Morehead City-Beaufort Harbor Dredging project placed on adjacent beaches but this may take years and possibly litigation to resolve. In the meantime, Emerald Isle needs to perform the same emergency “triage” in the form of a “sand transfusion”. This triage will protect your investment in your island property, protect Emerald Isle’s tax base, and will protect oceanfront properties in the event of the next severe storm. We are at the height of hurricane season, one that has been remarkably quiet. I have not forgotten the sight of our beautiful island after homes and vegetation were traumatized after Bertha, Fran, Dennis and Floyd. More important to me, I have not forgotten the human toll it took on homeowners, many of whom our family has known for almost forty years. I watched one homeowner battle cancer and at the same time, fight to save his devastated oceanfront home at the eastern end. In letters to the editor, statements by Orrin Pilkey, even editorials in the News and Observer, much has been written about beach nourishment being welfare for wealthy oceanfront property owners. I’d like to clear that misconception up, once and for all tonight. The oceanfront property owners that it has been my privilege to know are a wonderful slice of eastern North Carolina. We number among our friends oceanfront property owners who are farmers, school teachers, ministers, hairdressers, college professors, military folks serving our country, shopkeepers, middle managers and civil servants. Rarely, we also have what folks would think of as the elitist professions: doctors and attorneys. The doctors who own property on Emerald Isle are also down home North Carolina: for example, one is the cardiologist that may have saved your life or a family member’s life at Wake Med. Other doctor friends are on staff at UNC-Chapel Hill. The attorneys are small town folks providing legal services for people across eastern North Carolina. The truly wealthy choose the snob appeal of Figure Eight or Bald Head Island....not Emerald Isle. I’ve seen the faces of these oceanfront property owners and know their stories. It is not possible to hate an individual you know well but it has been too easy to lump all oceanfront owners into this faceless, anonymous group of oceanfront “welfare for the wealthy.” Over the next few months as we prepare to bring this issue to the people in the form of a bond referendum for beach nourishment, I’d like to ask that everyone exercise the great privilege of living in a democracy—keep an Open Mind! Truly study the issue as the Emerald Isle Beach Nourishment Committee has done and you will learn as we did that this is the most intelligent, reasonable and prudent choice for our island town. Respectfully, Julia Batten Wax Mayor Harris said there were 38 people who wished to speak, and she wanted to give the opportunity for everyone to speak. However, she asked that if someone else has said the same thing another person wanted to say, that the next person pass, because they did not want the repetition to go on and on. She said she would be timing everyone, for two minutes at the very max. Mrs. Hilda Wilson, resident of 1502 Ocean Drive, said she does not live on ocean front but wondered about the secondary tax district. She asked if that includes all businesses in Emerald Isle? Mr. Rush replied that it included all properties not on the ocean front in Emerald Isle. Mrs. Wilson asked if there were three building lots for one house, is this divided into lots or the piece of property. Mr. Rush replied said the tax bill would go to the person who currently receives the tax bill, the owner of the property will be liable. Mrs. Wilson asked if the people in Carteret County will be a part of this. Mr. Rush said all of the funds for the project will come from the Town of Emerald Isle, with the possible exception of the room occupancy taxes, which are collected countywide, and Emerald Isle will be receiving $540,000 a year from that. It is a local Emerald Isle project. Mrs. Wilson said it is not like a school tax that even people in Emerald Isle pay, even if they have no children who go to the school. She pays the same amount of tax as anyone who lives off the island. Mr. Rush said school tax is a county tax that everyone in the county pays. The beach nourishment tax is a Town of Emerald Isle tax that everyone in the Town of Emerald Isle will pay. Mr. Wayne Yelverton, resident of 523 Sea Lavender Trail, said he had looked into this for a month. He had been to Kure Beach, walked our beach locally, had been to the Point, and has lived here 18 years. They came here for a family beach. Now it is becoming a commercial beach. The benefits as described to people are commercial. The beach is no more or less than when they came here. There is the same beach as 18 years ago. He has pictures to show it. Nevertheless, he is sad that it is becoming commercial beaches, and get taxed and taxed so that most of the people cannot afford to live there any longer. There was one guy, a vacationer, at the end who walked up, and Mr. Yelverton told him he was walking the beach to see how bad the terrible erosion is. It’s not bad. He has seen Florida beaches. The vacationer said he is from Boca Raton, and he should see how they have ruined that beach by nourishing it. A guy who lived all his life on Kure Beach said the same thing, we are wasting money. We get all these chicken littles who say the sky is falling on the beach. A clear majority, economic impact, tourism totally dependent, baloney. Tourism comes here for a friendly beach. Before we jump on this thing, we should listen and discuss. What he has read says it is wrong to do what they are talking about. He mentioned Orrin Pilkey and said he had wild ideas but doesn’t agree that they should nourish the beaches. His dunes have grown two to three feet. Nobody talks about them—it is how flat the beach is. The dunes have grown. Mr. Mark Brennesholtz, resident of 9322 Ocean Drive, said he had mentioned in meetings in the past that he has seen beach renourishment on the south shore of Long Island, which is also an east-west oriented island, and he has seen it work. It was done over 40 years ago. He does not know if there is anything unique about east-west islands, but certainly not every experience with beach renourishment is a bad one. He strongly supports it. Mr. Al Lubeck said when he signed the sheet he thought he was expressing his opinion and not be given a chance to speak. The great emphasis has been on reports of tourism, the revenue it brings into town. He is for that, but he is also aware that the lion’s share of the revenue goes to the county. If it is so important to all of us, he thinks it is fair that the county also contribute its fair share. If we pass it as we plan to do, we will set a dangerous precedent for the future. They should have some continued negotiations with the county to get them to contribute their fair share to the program. Mr. Tom Wagoner, owner of property at 107 Janell Lane, said he is for the nourishment of the beach but is not for the separation of the two tax districts. He agrees with the last speaker that the county needs to share more of that function, and, as an oceanfront property owner, he should not bear 32 times the tax burden of everyone else. Homes on the beach are already valued twice what homes off the beach are for the same house, as a rule of thumb. In that case, they will be paying twice as much. He is a non-resident and rents it during the prime season. He asked his real estate management company about rentals off the beach and on the beach, and they said soundfront [sic] is $30,000 a year on average, off is $9,000. That says that beachfront rental value is worth three times. It is already taxed at twice that. If they want to separate two districts, make it twice. That is the maximum he can see. Everyone is going to enjoy the beach whether they are oceanfront or not. Businesses will profit from both oceanfront and non-oceanfront. The burden of beach nourishment should be shared equally based on the economic value to them or real estate value of that property. He is against the separation of the tax district. Mrs. Paxon Holz, owner of property at 6715 Ocean Drive, said she does not have a choice. She is not eager to pay for the burden of this, but she has no choice, and she is willing to pay for others on the beach who have no choice. It is well and good to say we would like a free lunch, we want the federal government to pay, we want the county government to pay, but they are not going to. We have to take our medicine and pay and do what it takes to save these beach houses. We have one oceanfront property, and it is a business. Until the bank is paid, they rent it as hard as they can rent it, on season, off season, anytime people will rent it, they rent it. The ocean was within 20 feet of their septic tank and drainfield. They set their house as far back from the ocean as the law allowed. They did not build up as far as they could, just the opposite. They have lost foot after foot after foot of beachfront. They need it back. Her family, for whom she serves as trustee for family trust, has more non-oceanfront property than oceanfront. She said she would gladly pay the taxes on that land in order to nourish the oceanfront properties of strangers. Mr. Benice Myers, resident of 102 Rhett Street, said he was one person who did not think the meeting tonight should have been held out of respect for this country, but they had the meeting so he was there. He is not an oceanfront property owner, but he does not believe their obligation to ask the oceanfront property owners to pay 16 times as much as they will charge him is fair to them. When they gave him an opportunity about three months ago to respond to a letter, he wrote a letter to the town and never received any response to it, but he offered three districts to pay for this bill—the oceanfront; the middle row, of people who live between Ocean Drive and Emerald Drive; and people who live on the sound side. People who live on the ocean think they own it anyway. They do not own it, and he does not want it to become worse. He thinks they should break it into three categories—a category of 18 cents, 12 cents, and 9 cents, and that comes out to be the same number of dollars. Mr. Charles Vincent, resident of 7209 Ocean Drive, said he had been here quite a few years. He has watched this beach since 1974. Some fellow stood up here and said all of this was a mirage, they are really not losing any beach. Maybe we are spinning our wheels and wasting the Board’s time, but he does not think so. He can show how much has been lost here. There are places on this beach that have been renourished by the Corps of Engineers. The western end of the beach has been added to, and it is big and wide and nice. But there are other places on this beach that must be protected, where something must be done. Every other state on the coast and every other beach in North Carolina nourishes and tends to their big industry, the tax base. We in Emerald Isle and Carteret County do the same thing. As to who pays for it, he agrees that the county benefits from taxes and from income that this beach makes. The county should pay. Everybody in Emerald Isle, everybody in Carteret County benefits from this beach. The taxes are assisted by large values of homes on that beach. But they tried that a year or so ago, and the people in the county said no, keep our taxes low, we are not going to help you. So now it is up to us, the people in Emerald Isle, to tend to it ourselves and carry it on our backs. He is oceanfront. He is willing to do every bit of his share, and if he has to, he will pay for all of it and keep the taxes low behind the oceanfront. It is not fair, but what they have to figure is what is going to pass and what will nourish our beach and that is what they have to do. Mr. John McEnaney, resident of 106 Tammy Street, said he is extremely concerned about this issue because he used to live on the eastern side of the beach and spent the morning over there this morning. It is worse than he thought it was. Should the voters pass the beach renourishment referendum, here is something they need to think about. According to 15A NCAC 07H.0305 (c) of Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA): “In areas within the boundaries of a large scale beach nourishment or spoil deposition project, the vegetation line that existed before commencement of the project shall be used as the vegetation line for determining oceanfront setbacks after the project is completed. A project shall be considered large scale when: (1) in places more than a total volume of 200,000 cubic yards of sand at an average ratio of more than 50 cubic yards of sand per linear foot of shoreline, or (2) it is a Hurricane Protection project constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. So, assuming Emerald Isle spends $19 or $17 million on a beach nourishment project that fits criteria (1) above (which it may or may not) and assuming that a major hurricane impacts the town causing substantial (greater than 50%) wind or water damage to the front row, if the vegetation line (and therefore the setback line) that was marked before the nourishment project began (which would happen based on the statute above) is far enough landward, there might not be enough room to rebuild many substantially damaged structures, even though the nourished beach may be left relatively intact. Or the beach may be substantially eroded in addition to the wind damage. Either way, Emerald Isle loses. He is becoming
mixed about the tax issue. He
submitted the following: Leaving
the beach alone will either add additional sand over the years or sand will be
totally evacuated due to hurricane damage.
If the former, we all win. If
the latter, the losses are incalculable; beachfront homeowners will have a
double loss, (1) their property and (2) continue to be taxed for the beach
renourishment program. All
taxpayers will lose. Such funding
that this taxation may raise may preclude salary increases for Town employees or
any increase in services to Emerald Isle owners and renters.
He is concerned about piling on additional taxes.
He needs to research the Corps of Engineers issue a little further. With respect to the eastern-most part of Emerald Isle, he submitted that it is a hell of a mess and wondered if the town could provide immediate relief for the eastern section of our beach through a town tax credit to those properties which may qualify in accordance with town guidelines for immediate beach sand bulldozing activities; of why doesn’t the town lease or purchase its own bulldozer and begin dozing the beach daily during an acceptable period year round, in particular focusing on the eastern end of our beach. He realizes, having been an owner and a renter in that section of the beach, he lost 90 feet of dune. After the house was repaired, it was taken up again. He is concerned that they put their money down, and nobody can guarantee eight years of solid beach. Something should be done about the eastern end of the beach. Mr. C. G. Cooper, property owner of 4201 Ocean Drive, said he had been here since Hazel. He loves Emerald Isle and would love to keep it, cannot afford it. His assessment would be $2,000 a year. He does not net $2,000 out of his rent. He cannot pay it. He wants to pay his part, but 48 percent is more than his part and he needs help. He asked that we not put it all on the ocean front, they can’t afford it. He asked for help in keeping the beach. Mr. John Grady, resident of 113 Fawn Drive, said he still says we need nourishment but do not need to tax the people. His taxes in 1996 and this year have gone up over 100 percent, from $205 to $423. He cannot smell the ocean, cannot even see the ocean. We need the ocean, we have ad valorem tax, we have property tax. He told the county manager last March we are throwing in over $20 million to the county, and not one dime has gone to beach nourishment. He said the county manager or county commissioners or both were derelict. In that five years, we brought in $130 billion in sales tax, and not one dime has gone to beach nourishment. In the last referendum in March 2000, of the 38 precincts in the county, two of those (Newport and North River) voted for nourishment. It was defeated 5,340 to 3,611. In the past six or seven months, on his street there were six houses up for sale. People cannot stand the tax. The county is derelict, we are derelict for not forcing them to do their job. He fought against the school tax going up. He was in a meeting last night where they had the audacity to ask for $17 million, just like nothing had happened. He said they spent $8,000 of our tax money from the Economic Development Council to pass the budget. It is illegal, against the state law, to have tax money to influence the outcome of an election. But we don’t understand that there is a law in this county. We need nourishment, but we don’t need to pay for it. There are 105 kids, 1 percent, in school on the whole bank, and we pay 43 percent of the ad valorem tax. He said they are starting a Carteret County tax association to meet once a month, and we all need to get involved. Mrs. Alta Kornegay, resident of Warsaw, NC and 7517 Ocean Drive, said they built here in 1967. In the last five years, she has had sand pushed up in front of her place three times, and she said there should not be that much difference in what the oceanfront property owners pay and the rest of the island. Mr. William Holz, resident of Cape Carteret and property owner of 6715 Ocean Drive, said he is representative of the 75 percent of the taxpayers on Emerald Isle who are not allowed to vote. What we are seeking is an unnatural solution to an unnatural problem. Bogue Banks is eroding, but it is not a natural Mother Nature has taken her course type of situation. This is a situation brought about by the dredging of Beaufort Inlet. Jim Willis in Atlantic Beach works for NOAA, and he wrote up a paper in the late 1970s showing the two-foot loss of sand per year. Pilkey’s primary thing is that sand migrates down the beach, but when you have a 60-foot deep trench, it cuts off the migration, so we don’t have the sand. The county is not going to do anything about it. The county dances for the down east, and down east cares nothing for Bogue Banks. They have to get on board like Pine Knoll Shores and Atlantic Beach and take care of our own destiny. If we do not nourish, he predicts a new inlet will form below Pier Pointe condos because that is where an inlet formed in the 1950s. It was immediately filled in at that time. We have a lot less beach now, and a new inlet in that area will cut off the eastern end of Emerald Isle plus create all the problems associated with an inlet on the sound side and ocean side of that area. Septic tanks will be exposed, houses will fall into the sea. The consequences to him are: (1) when the property is condemned, they will be able to take a tax credit; (2) lots will be valued in the neighborhood of $25,000 and the government will allow you to spread a tax credit over several years; (3) when you wait for the houses to fall into the sea, you can collect your insurance money, a bad situation, but the lot owners will come out with a loss of about 10 percent overall. Off ocean owners will have health warnings because of exposed septic tanks, Emerald Isle will start making the list of worst beaches in America list. The sound fronts will fare the best, the interior wooded lots and houses will suffer 40 to 50 percent devaluation when houses start falling into the ocean. Mr. Jim Heatherly, resident of 8512 Woodcliff Drive, said July 12’s NBC “Fleecing of America” program said that Myrtle Beach has spent $97 million renourishing their beach and it has all washed out to sea and now has to be done again. The solution proposed is temporary with the hope that the federal and state money will support the next round of nourishment, and he would not bet on that. Tourist trade does nothing to enhance living on Emerald Isle as far as he is concerned—it pollutes his space, makes it impossible to get out on the highway, and in the time that he has been on the island since 1970, he has seen houses go up and infrastructure to support the tourists. Beach nourishment was opposed in the last referendum, and based on numbers from the committee, he does not see overwhelming support. If you take the numbers and calculate it on the basis of the number of properties, they have 33 percent support instead of 73. He is against increased tax as he is all increased taxes. His property tax this year went up 22 percent for the town, even with the new lowered rate. And the beach nourishment tax of 1 percent has gone up 36 percent. He does not see how they can support that kind of tax increase on people who just have a desire to use the property themselves for a vacation home. Mr. A. J. Bur, resident of 104 Live Oak Street five months of the year, said he had questions about pushing up, or using bulldozers to take public sand and move it up onto private property to enhance or rebuild dunes that have eroded. His understanding is that the town has sold 300 permits over the last four years to permit this, and these permits are four years and an unlimited number of pushups. He has not been able to talk to anybody who knows how many cubic feet have been removed from the beach and put up onto private property, but as far as he is concerned, we might as well truck that sand over to Trenton in terms of what it does. If a house is threatened, he can understand it, but to get the permits and use them whether the property is threatened or not . . . Aside from the ethics of taking his sand and moving it onto somebody’s private property, he wonders whether this is a good idea. They are talking about nourishment, taking sand from offshore and putting it on the beach, and pushing up takes the sand from the beach and moves it up above the high water mark. It is counter-productive unless the property is threatened. He wanted an understanding on the commitment or lack of commitment or interest the Board has in stopping the pushing up. If we pay for nourishment and they still allow pushing up, they come right back to taking sand that we paid for putting on the beach and push it up on private property. Commissioner McElraft said CAMA’s new rules do not allow pushing sand with beach bulldozing. She understood that people had three-year permits and could not use them now because they will not allow them to push that sand up anymore. Mrs. Angus said they cannot push anymore from low tide, they can only push from high tide. Mr. Bur asked if the proposed referendum would have a restriction on pushing up. The Board ought to say no more pushing up. Commissioner McElraft said she agreed with that 100 percent, and she thinks that after nourishment, there will be no need to push that up there. She thinks the reason most people pushed, and she had done it very reluctantly one time herself after a nor’easter because the dune was caving in and she was going to lose precious dune if she had not reinforced it with a push, and now the beach has built back in that area and the dunes, where she put sand fence and dune grass, are good. She agrees with Mr. Bur, that this does not need to be taken and pushed up onto private property. She thinks it needs to be left out on the beach, and she will do anything she can to try to keep it that way. But she does not think there will be the damage we have had in hurricanes that will make people want to push if we have a wide beach. Commissioner Farmer commented that Mr. Bur had just gotten two
votes. She would support anything
that says beach bulldozing would not be permitted after any renourishment in
Emerald Isle. Mr. Larry Long, resident of 1109 Ocean Drive, said they have had a beach house for 25 years. They have been in the ocean three times. He had sand hauled in one time because he did not want to wait for the bulldozer to push sand. A man asked him what it cost and he replied that he didn’t ask. He does not like the differential in the tax. Evidently, the people who live on second row and behind are second-rate citizens because the Board doesn’t want much money out of them. Maybe the problems come from Morehead where they did the dredging and put the sand in the wrong place. They have been to court and found guilty of doing this, but no monies come to Emerald Isle for this. Maybe we should look other places for money to do this. We know what has been done to the cigarette industry in North Carolina—let’s tax alcohol to push sand. The town can put in an alcohol tax. If the bond goes through, his property would become private. Anybody on second row or behind it will have to use the town’s access to get to the beach. He is in favor of pumping, but he is not in favor of the differential in the tax rate. He does not think his property is 16 times more valuable than the one that can walk across the street to the ocean. He thinks a 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 ratio would be better. Mr. John Vogler, resident of 7016 Sound Drive, said he is a
long-time owner of property here and has some oceanfront property.
If they want a tax shelter, he’ll talk about some.
He wanted to comment to Commissioner Wootten because in the paper he has
been quoted twice of saying there are comments that they are split 50-50 on sand
support and opponents. Commissioner Wootten said at the time he was asked the question, he
had been reading e-mail and correspondence that had come into Town Hall, and his
judgment was that it was about 50-50. Mr.
Vogler said at last month’s meeting, there were 3 people for it and about
15 people against it, which is very much like it is tonight. Commissioner McElraft said Commissioner Wootten was basing his
reaction on the survey and the comments from the survey.
Not all of our citizens come to these public hearings, though they did
hear from the great majority of the people who can vote here and cannot vote
here, and it was about 70 percent of the voters of Emerald Isle who were for
beach nourishment. Commissioner Farmer said she wanted to correct that. The survey asked people if they supported going to a referendum. We don’t know what the results are until we have that referendum. Mrs. Karen Preston, resident of 1714 Ocean Drive, said she is probably one of the newer owners in Emerald Isle, and they live here permanently full-time. She is very interested in what they are doing, and even as a newcomer she has a great passion about this, but she has questions. They talked about the survey, and the numbers are impressive. She was curious to know how they decided who got the survey and who did not because not all of the property owners and not all of the registered voters on Emerald Isle got the survey, and she thinks it would be important to have a complete representation of all property owners, not just a few. Mayor Harris asked Mr. Rush if they had not gone by the property owners on the tax list. Mr. Rush said the survey had been mailed prior to his arrival, but it was mailed to 5,795 property owners, and that is about how many there are in Emerald Isle. They went by the tax records, so everyone should have received a copy of that survey. Commissioner Wootten said there could be a voter who is not a property owner and did not get a survey. Mrs. Preston said she is a property owner and did not get the survey, so she can say that for at least one household, it was a flawed survey and she would question what other percentage of property owners on Emerald Isle did not get an opportunity to express an opinion. The numbers are impressive, but she questions the thoroughness of the survey. Mrs. Preston continued that there was a gentleman who has pictures of the beach and nothing has changed. She said she has vacationed here for about 25 years, and her first pictures of coming to Emerald Isle do not look like what Emerald Isle looks like today. Maybe one of the cameras has a faulty lens or something. There are a number
of issues that are important about beach nourishment, not only from an
ecological point of view but from a selfish point of view of wanting to maintain
the integrity of the beach, to maintain the family beach atmosphere, and she
does think that this is a family beach. It may be commercial in that some people rent their
properties, but this is not a commercial beach.
Go to Myrtle Beach, Virginia Beach, some of the other places that are
truly commercial beaches, and you will find that this is more a family-oriented
beach. Mrs. Preston also questioned what alternate revenue source is anticipated if they don’t renourish the beach and we don’t maintain the tourist industry and we don’t have the benefit of the money that they spend here. Tourists may be a bad thing in a lot of ways but they contribute a great amount to the economic base. When and if that goes away, if they let the houses fall into the ocean, which they undoubtedly will do if we don’t do anything, what is going to substitute for that revenue base. She would encourage the Board to think very seriously about voting yes for the opportunity for this referendum, and if second-row property owners like her need to pay more, she will do it gladly and thinks many of her neighbors would say the same thing. Mr. Greg Rudolph, resident of 7302 Canal Drive, thanked everyone for their hard work on this topic. He didn’t want to talk about the pros and cons of beach nourishment but about what the funding will be used for. One of the most important things is monitoring. Erosion is basically caused by a combination of three things: storms, whether or not there is sand, and whether or not there is a rising or falling sea. Monitoring can without a doubt help us understand the causes of beach erosion. For instance, whether it is because of storms, sea level rise, etc., is the beach accreting here or there. A lot of money is going to be appropriated for this, and he hopes this will be a part of this plan. He would like to see more parking along the beaches if we pass this. He likes to fish and surf, and it would be nice to have more public access for parking. Commissioner McElraft made a
motion to close the public comments. Commissioner
Murphy seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.
Motion carried. Mayor Harris asked if there were comments from the Board on the two districts. Commissioner McElraft said she was on the Beach Nourishment Committee and she agrees that a 16 to 1 ratio is very unfair. But . . . if we want to take care of our beaches and protect our tax base here, this is the only way we are going to get nourishment. She goes every Saturday morning to a Bogue Banks Beach Preservation Association meeting. There have been people who have gone to Washington, to Raleigh. We have an occupancy tax now that will help us pay for this with having our tourists pay for this. We have gone to the county and tried to get help there—we are not going to get help there. The section 111 shows no responsibility—that is not a dead issue, and they are working to get the Corps of Engineers to admit that they are responsible for this and quit dumping 135 million cubic yards of sand at sea instead of putting them on these beaches. The only way we are going to take care of these beaches here, and the people in houses from 1st to 30th Street are in dire need, their houses are about to fall into the water, these are our neighbors. This is the tax base that brings our tourist industry here and our low taxes. We have the lowest taxes in the state of North Carolina for the amount of services we have. We just had a survey and looked at those tax rates, and for the amount of services we have, we have the lowest tax rate. She agrees that a 16 to 1 ratio is not fair, but if we want to protect these beaches, this is the only way we will get this passed. Commissioner Murphy, Commissioner Farmer, and Commissioner Trainham had no comment. Commissioner Wootten said this is obviously a very divisive subject that has a lot of complexities to it, one the ratio of the oceanfront versus the other property owners, whether this will work or not. There are a lot of personal opinions on the subject. The only way to solve the issue is to take it to each individual voter in the form of a referendum so therefore he would support the move to continue towards the referendum. Commissioner Farmer said the whole purpose of this is to take this decision to the voters. We are talking about $17 million, and that is a decision she does not want to make. She thinks it is totally appropriate for the voters to make this decision whether we do this or not. Commissioner Wootten made a motion
that the Board approve both resolutions to create the Primary Benefit Municipal
Service District and the Secondary Benefit Municipal Service District.
Commissioner McElraft seconded the motion.
Vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.
Motion carried. Commissioner McElraft made a
motion to approve the resolution authorizing the application to the NC Local
Government Commission for general obligation bonds for beach nourishment.
Commissioner Murphy seconded the motion.
Vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.
Motion carried. Commissioner Trainham said he knew it was out of order, but he wanted to make an announcement before everybody left. Commissioner Farmer said it was appropriate. Commissioner Trainham said he thought they needed to make the announcement that the League of Women Voters will be having their session at the gym on October 2 at 7:00 P.M., and it is appropriate that everybody know that is the night that prospective persons who are running for office will be present, and we will be listening to what they have to say. The Board took a 10-minute break. 10.
DISCUSSION – ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE EMERALD ISLE CODE
OF ORDINANCES (ZONING) TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE REGARDING BUILDING FACE AND ROOF
LINES. Commissioner Farmer said one of the concerns that they were talking about the Reel Outdoors was the 40-foot length without an offset of a building face by a minimum of 4 feet in depth or a minimum of 8 feet in length. The concern was that one offset would look really ugly, and she wondered if they could make a change that would require a change to at least two. Mrs. Angus said maybe they would have a concept that one would not look odd, and then you would force them to have two. Commissioner Murphy said he was pretty sure that when you have an offset in a building, they have to sacrifice retail area. If they have a 4-foot offset, they will have to sacrifice 4 feet of their retail area. Mrs. Angus said they could look at that at the Planning Board stage. They had agreed at the Planning Board that the offset of 4 feet would have looked pretty bad, so if they came up with a bay window . . . Commissioner Farmer asked if it would help to say “at least one”, and that way the Planning Board has a little more discretion. The concern was that they were willing to try to meet the ordinance by tacking on a 4-foot offset at the end of the building, which they all agreed would look not great. If whoever is proposing the plan could come up with one offset that looks great or makes sense, that is fine, but she wondered whether the Planning Board could give that kind of discretion. Town Attorney Derek Taylor said generally not. If you say you have to have at least one and they have one, they meet the requirement of the ordinance. It will be rather difficult drafting it. If they want the Planning Board to come up with some recommendations to deal with the problem they are discussing, give them a little time to think about that. Tonight all they are doing is setting up a public hearing. If the Board of Commissioners gives the Planning Board a little time to come back with something based on their direction, they should see what the Planning Board comes up with. Commissioner Farmer said the whole reason they did this was aesthetics. They were trying to get rid of a warehouse look, and if by having an offset in the wrong place is going to make it worse, they have defeated the purpose of the aesthetics. She is hesitant to pass this on to a public hearing when it is not quite doing the job. Commissioner Wootten said he thought the problem was the definition of what a façade is. He didn’t see it as both. He saw it in the Reel Outdoors issue that the side of the building equals a façade. Commissioner Farmer said there was some discussion in the Planning Board meeting about the 4-foot offset at the end of the building. Mrs. Angus said it was both ways. Commissioner Wootten said this is what the Planning Board forwarded to the Board of Commissioners. They had an opportunity to discuss it. Mrs. Angus said that in the portion that Commissioner Farmer is
talking about is number 5, and the only thing they were looking for tonight was
the omission of the word “not.” The
Planning Board had never discussed that one for tonight.
They only did façade, the placement of towers and spires, and the
addition of the word “not.” Commissioner Wootten suggested approving what the Planning Board sent to them or get ready to call for the public hearing next month and if the Planning Board feels they have additional work to do on something, let them go ahead and bring it up again. Commissioner Farmer said it seemed silly to go to two public hearings on something that can be settled in one Planning Board meeting. Mrs. Saunders said the word “not” was left out, and that is what confused everybody when they got it. Mrs. Angus said they would have to talk about this Monday night and take care of it Monday night in order to have it as a recommendation at Monday night’s meeting to come back for this October public hearing. Mayor Harris asked the rest of the Board if they questioned this as Commissioner Farmer does. Commissioner McElraft asked if the Planning Board had worked it out with the Reel Outdoors so that it looks nice now. Mrs. Saunders said instead of using the offset, they let them put up shrubs because they thought the shrubs they looked up were better than the offset. Commissioner McElraft said they used their discretion not to use an offset. Mrs. Saunders said it could be handled on a case-by-case basis, but she thinks they need something in the ordinance or a guideline for the Planning Board to go with. Commissioner Farmer said the reason why the Reel Outdoors, as she recalls it, did not have to comply with the offset is that it was determined at that point that the façade was defined by the part of the building that faced Hwy 58. Mrs. Saunders said that was their understanding. Commissioner Farmer said that it was not a question of the Planning Board having discretion to put in shrubs, that was not felt to be the façade as they understood it, and as this Board understood. We still have this problem with the 40 feet and one offset, which she believes the current ordinance itself identifies properly; it is just that the language didn’t get back to us. Commissioner Wootten said if it was a problem for the Planning Board, how come it wasn’t put into this package right now. Commissioner Farmer said her understanding was that they were focusing on the word “not” being missing. Mrs. Angus said she did not think it was going to be an issue from this point, because once you have said the façade, or the face or portion of the building that faces any street, has to have . . . . That will go in conjunction with number 5. Commissioner Farmer said what that means is if this were in effect for the Reel Outdoors, they would have that ugly 4-foot bump out at the end of the building. Mrs. Angus replied that they could come up with something else that was not the ugly bump out. Commissioner Farmer said if they do not see that this is a problem, it is fine. Mrs. Angus said that is something the engineers or architects or draftsmen can work out if they know they have to. The only reason this came up is because the county came along at the end of the project, and all of a sudden they discovered they had a side that needs the 4-foot cut in it. Commissioner McElraft made a
motion to direct the Town Clerk to schedule a public hearing on the proposed
ordinance amendment for the October meeting.
Commissioner Murphy seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.
Motion carried. 11.
PROCLAMATION – NCDOT LITTER SWEEP 2001 Mayor Harris said the Litter Sweep is September 17–30 in Emerald Isle, and asked the people to pass the word that anyone interested in doing this call the Newport office. The numbers are on the bulletin board. Beach Sweep is September 15. Mr. Rush said anyone interested should contact the Cooperative Extension Office to get involved. There is a group that will cover the beach from the Islander down to the Point and another group that will cover the Coast Guard station at the west end of the beach. The number to call is 222-6359. Commissioner Murphy made a motion
to approve the Proclamation for NCDOT Litter Sweep 2001.
Commissioner McElraft seconded the motion.
Vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.
Motion carried. 12.
PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Frank Vance, resident of 2302 Ocean Drive, said he had sat here and listened to people make comments about replenishing the beach. He is for beach nourishment, but there are questions in his mind. First, what kind of maintenance plan does the Board have? He understands that in about three years, they have to replenish the beach or the beaches need replenishing. And he heard a comment about bulldozing. Maybe bulldozing is not a good thing, and he knows for a fact that a lot of that sand was pushed up on private property. In fact, the taxpayers paid $65,000, FEMA paid $65,000, and that is our tax money. If the Board is going to ask us to pay $17 million for beach renourishment, there should be a maintenance plan. If they looked on TV today, they showed one of the beaches in Maryland, and they were moving sand around, so they are replenishing their beach. Whether it is a bulldozer or a front-end loader or whatever, work has to be done on that beach. He is conservative, and when his money goes out for something like that and we don’t have any guarantee it will stay there six months… He does not think we will get the help from FEMA. He heard Charlie Vincent tell the people that FEMA would put that sand back. Mr. Vance had talked with Walter Jones about it, and he said FEMA is not going to put that sand back. If the Board is going to ask us to go to the polls and vote for this, we need some kind of maintenance plan. He would like to see something come up at least at the next meeting. Mr. Rush explained that this nourishment project is perceived as a one-time nourishment project that the town will pay for. The hope is that the town will eventually become part of the federal shore protection project, but that is probably at least six to eight years away. The town right now is in the feasibility study phase of that project, and that should be done in 2004, at which time Congress will make a decision as to whether or not Emerald Isle beach, all 12 miles of it or 10 miles of it or 9 miles of it or what have you, will be nourished as part of the long-term Corps project for 15 years. Everybody is certainly hopeful that Congress will authorize that project at that time. In terms of maintenance efforts for this beach nourishment project, it is true that FEMA requires you to have a maintenance program in place if you want to claim public assistance after a hurricane disaster has caused erosion. There is money set aside in the county’s beach nourishment fund that would be created by the room tax proceeds for annual beach profile surveys, annual environmental monitoring, (1) to monitor whether or not this beach project is working, what kind of erosion we are experiencing after the nourishment project, not only in Emerald Isle but in other places on Bogue Banks, (2) to monitor the impact on wildlife, especially sea turtles, that might occur as a result of the nourishment project. The hope is that the federal government will come along and provide the long-term shore protection project. If they do not, or if they determine that only a portion of Emerald Isle is eligible for that, at that particular point in time both the county beach commission that is going to have a reserve pot of money set aside for the long term project will have to make a decision about using those funds for future nourishment in Emerald Isle and Pine Knoll Shores and elsewhere on Bogue Banks or the town would have to consider doing this again at that time. But as far as a maintenance program for this, the plan is that this is a one-time project and the Corps will come along hopefully within six to eight years and provide that throughout. That is the plan at this point in time. Mr. Vance said that is too long. When they are going to have the beach replenished, what date, if this thing passes in March, are they planning on giving the sand contract. Mr. Rush replied that the plan right now looks like there would be sand on the eastern part of town next winter (’02-’03), and then the western part in ’03-’04. Mr. Vance asked what if we got a hurricane season come along the following year and it washes it out. What are we going to do? Are we going to wait four or five more years? He pays taxes on three houses, and he is paying right much of this beach nourishment. Mr. Rush said according to the code of federal regulations, FEMA will pay to put sand back for an engineered beach project, as long as you have a maintenance program in place for that. Mr. Rush thinks if the worst happens two years from now, a hurricane comes along and takes 50 percent of the sand that was placed on the beach, it would be in the best interests of the town to make a case with FEMA that we did this nourishment project, it was an engineered project, we have a maintenance plan in place, we are monitoring the beach each year, we are taking surveys, we are setting aside money from our room occupancy tax to deal with future nourishment, we are trying to get help from a federal project. The code of federal regulations say that it may be eligible for defense from any emergency. Certainly the town would hope that that would happen, but there are no guarantees. Commissioner Wootten said Mr. Vance had asked a good question, and we have until March to answer the information. Mr. Vance said he had been to the committee meetings, his wife is on there, and he had come tonight, and they have not considered a maintenance program. Commissioner McElraft said CSE Baird did the Myrtle Beach project that did, after Hugo, wash partially away. FEMA did come in and replenish that beach for them. So there is precedence set for this. Her understanding is that they have a five-year window to start the maintenance program, so we are trying to research that a little more right now. We have been considering that. Commissioner Farmer said that right now, FEMA is saying that no, they will not reimburse. Mrs. Hilda Wilson, resident of 1502 Ocean Drive, said she is not oceanfront, and she lives here part-time. She is not looking at the ocean all day when she is here. She gets the privilege of looking at the trash. She does not know what discussions have been had about the trash, but she can say that when she arrives on Friday afternoons or Thursday nights, and she leaves on Sunday afternoon, it is disgraceful. She has also seen more rats than she has ever seen in her life crossing driveways and crossing the streets, and she knows some of it the renters’ fault. The homeowners have trash cans, probably every color in the rainbow and every color that has ever been made, sitting at the street. At one time, before Fran hit, they sent a little thing around to go purchase for $75 a green pushcart. This was going to be mandatory. Since it was going to be mandatory, she bought one. Then they decided they would not make that mandatory anymore. She gets so tired of looking at the trash all around her that she has offered to buy the trash can for her neighbors across the street who have the other trash cans. The trash men pick up the trash, and it is literally everywhere. Why a person would rent here she has no idea. If you drive up and down Ocean Drive on the weekend, and they come in Saturday to Saturday or Sunday to Sunday, why they would not turn around and head out in the other direction is beyond her comprehension. She is almost ready to sell because of the trash. The trash men take the little trash cans out and drop them and turn them upside down, and the renters don’t even turn the trash cans right back up, they just stack the trash on top of it and on the side of it, and it’s all in the road. A couple of places she knows has four or five bedrooms because they rent one weekend, 76 people were in that one condo, the Recovery Rumor in the 14th block. She counted 76 people coming out of there one weekend. They have two trashcans for each side of that building. This is ridiculous. She thinks the trash men should count and say the people don’t have enough trashcans. What happened to putting the green pushcarts out there with the lids closed where the cats can’t get in them, the rats can’t get in them, the birds can’t get in them. Why can’t we do something with this? Mayor Harris said since this is her first meeting, the problem has been solved. There was a committee, the notes and letters went out to the rental agencies, and we have solved the problem, 30 gallon per each bedroom, and 90 gallon for those who want to roll it back and forth. We are in the process of enforcing it. Mrs. Wilson asked about the 30-gallon trash can. Why would they even think that a trash can that could be any color sitting out at the side of the road is prettier or nicer looking or even safe than a green push-out that would take care of the trash that has a lid on it that will stay on it and the wind won’t blow it off. She doesn’t understand that either. Mayor Harris said we are enforcing it, and that is all we can do. Commissioner McElraft said she was on the trash committee, and what we are going to do is make them put racks for the big green ones and also for the small ones so they won’t be turned over or rolling around in the street. After we require them to have plenty of them, this hopefully will solve the problem. Mrs. Wilson said they all have racks. When she bought the house, it had been on the rental market, and it said one 30-gallon trash can per bedroom. Commissioner Wootten suggested Mrs. Wilson meet with the Town Manager and find out what ordinance changes were passed in the last 90 days and the impact of those. Mr. Rush said he would be happy to meet with Mrs. Wilson at any time, and added that they are meeting with all the rental companies Thursday, September 13, at 10:00 A.M. to explain the new ordinance to them that requires 30 gallons of containment per bedroom. Hopefully we will come up with a program jointly, cooperatively, with them where they will assist in purchasing additional trash cans and pass the cost on to the owners of those homes. We are working on it. We passed the ordinance in June, and it did not have much of an opportunity to make an impact on this rental season; but we are hoping to solve the problem. Mr. Bernie Russell, resident of 112 Bluewater Drive, said one thing that bothers him about the beach nourishment is the 48/3 split. He thinks it’s a bad split. He’s willing to volunteer a dime, maybe even 15 cents. But he doesn’t like it hanging up without the figures set in stone before the referendum is passed. About the trash, having to be picked up after the tourists; When he walks down to the beach, he picks up trash. When Alma walks the beach, she has a plastic bag and she picks up after tourists. You don’t like the trash? Pick it up. Mr. Tommy Wagoner, resident of 107 Janell Lane, asked when it goes to a vote, will there be two votes, one for the nourishment for the bond and one for the tax districts. Are there two votes or one straight? Mayor Harris said it will be one vote. Mr. Wagoner verified that it would be for the bond and the tax districts together. Commissioner Murphy said he would be voting yes or no for beach nourishment. Commissioner McElraft said there is a sunset clause that those tax districts, once put in place, will dissolve if this does not pass. Mr. Rush said legally the voters are voting on whether or not the town should issue $17 million in bonds for beach nourishment. As a practical matter, because of that sunset clause in the tax districts, if the bond referendum fails, the tax districts are immediately abolished. If the bond referendum passes, the tax districts continue until the bond is repaid, and then they are abolished. Legally the vote is on the issuing of $17 million in bonds. Mr. Wagoner said about the comment that was just made, he does think was very unfair. The comment was very real in that they think this will pass, but if you take the burden and put it on those people who are not represented by a vote, they have 2 percent of the people that they will be putting the burden on that vote, and 98 percent do not. It is a very unfair taxation without representation. 13.
COMMENTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS Parks and Recreation – Ms. Sanderson said the town has been awarded additional funding from CAMA for a couple of projects. One of those projects is the reconstruction of the Wyndtree walkway in the Coast Guard Road area and the addition of a handicap parking spot at that walkway. The total cost is approximately $18,000, and 75 percent, or $13,500 is provided by CAMA, $4,500 provided by the town. We are also proposing to grade and rock the northern 600 by 200 foot section of the property in front of the bath house and make that suitable for parking. We are also continuing to seek additional monies for public land preservation. Fire Department – Chief Walker gave a reminder that Fire Prevention Week is the first full week of October. They will be busy next month doing fire prevention at the fire station and at different schools. We broke their all-time record of 82 calls in a month last month, with a new total of 90. The biggest thing right now is that water rescues have skyrocketed. They had 18 calls last month versus 2 in August of last year. They are getting more calls and are taking care of them. Police Department – Chief Wilson said they had been asked by the Carteret County school system to re-implement the DARE program at White Oak Elementary School. Mayor Harris said she noticed that they made 22 stray animal calls; assisted 14 citizens, which is commendable; enforced 21 of our ordinances. Planning Board – Ms. Saunders had no comment other than to say she would like to sign up Chief Wilson for the Planning Board if he had done all that. Public Works – Mr. Conrad had no comment. Mayor Harris said he had repaired 35 vehicles and equipment, repaired 15 building situations, and repaired and replaced 13 signs, plus the 125 miles of mowing to be done. Inspections – Mrs. Angus said monthly construction value that the department wrote was $1,633,000, and year-to-date is $2,856,570. Things have slowed down, but we are still not dead. Also, Chief Walker is drawing up an amendment to the Carteret County Hazard Mitigation Plan to incorporate those portions as relative only to Emerald Isle. The plan cost $98,000 for the county, and this amendment could also be quite costly, but we have joined with the East Carolina Council of Government, and it is going to entail mostly our man- hours, so we have saved that. This plan will then be adopted next August, so that we will be in conjunction with the Carteret County Hazard Mitigation Plan. 14. COMMENTS FROM TOWN CLERK, TOWN ATTORNEY, TOWN MANAGER Town Clerk – Mrs.
Custy had no comment. Town Attorney – Mr. Taylor had no comment. Town Manager – Mr. Rush followed up on what Mrs. Angus said about the Hazard Mitigation Plan. He thanked Chief Walker and Mrs. Angus, and also the East Carolina Council of Government for their help. It was a big cost savings. They have also been helpful in providing maps for the town for beach nourishment and other projects we are working on. If the town does not adopt a plan by August of 2002, we could be ineligible for any FEMA public assistance, so it is very important. Mr. Rush said that after receiving comments from everybody, he had gone ahead and set up a Board of Commissioners workshop for Monday, September 24, 2001 at 9:30 A.M. This is something we are planning to continue on the fourth Monday of every month, to have a more informal workshop meeting to talk a little more long term about things and prepare for the upcoming meeting agenda. The public is welcome to attend that meeting. 15. COMMENTS FROM TOWN BOARD, MAYOR Commissioner McElraft had no comment. Commissioner Murphy said that everybody is aware of the tragedy that happened in our country today. We kept this meeting in place because we will not let cowards dictate to us how we are going to run our country. His heart goes out to all the victims, but we are America and the strongest country in the entire world, and we will not ever let something like this get us down and keep us down. Commissioner Farmer had no comment. Commissioner Trainham had no comment. Commissioner Wootten had no comment. Mayor Harris said there was a staff meeting this morning, and it was discovered that most of the people are leaving when the department heads give their monthly report, just like tonight. These folks do not know that there were 90 and 2 structural fires. Would it be alright if we change our monthly agenda and have department head comments after number 3, Mayor’s Comments? They would like this, and she thinks they deserve to let the public know what they are doing. Commissioner Murphy said he agreed and thinks that after the department heads have made their comments and we have gotten their reports, they should be excused from the meeting for the rest of the evening. Mayor Harris said after the roll call and mayor’s comments, the department heads will go next. Mayor Harris said the attorney had informed them that the closed session was not necessary this evening, so they would not be going into closed session. Commissioner Wootten moved that the meeting be adjourned. Commissioner Murphy seconded the motion. Vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn K. Custy, Town Clerk |