April 9, 2002
Agenda
April 9, 2002
Minutes
|
ACTION AGENDA |
|
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SCHEDULED MONTHLY MEETING ADOPTION OF AGENDAMayor Schools announced a slight change to the agenda moving the Public Hearing to (a) and renumber the rest of this Item. Commissioner Marks made a motion to adopt the Agenda as presented. The Board’s vote was unanimous with a vote of 5-0. Motion carried.ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDAa. Minutes of Regular Meeting – March 12, 2002 b. Tax Refunds / Releases c. Audit Contract with Bell and Company CPAs Commissioner
McElraft made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. The
Board’s vote was unanimous with a vote of 5-0. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTNone.PRESENTATION – CARTERET COUNTY BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBMrs. Nita Smith, Executive Director of The Carteret County Boys and Girls Club, and other representatives have requested approximately 10 minutes to make a presentation to the Board about the Boys and Girls Club’s efforts to expand their programs and services to western Carteret County. Mrs. Marlene Anderson, Co-Chairman of Fund Raising, spoke about the services of the Boys and Girls Club and the fact that they have been active in Beaufort for 2 years and in that 2 years, the children’s scores in both elementary schools have increased dramatically. People from Havelock, Swansboro, and Newport have requested that the Boys and Girls Club come to their area. They have been approached by a benefactor in the western end of Carteret County about donating land for building a club here. She said the representatives were here just to raise the awareness of what the Boys and Girls Club does and the impact it makes on the community. She said with the world the way it is today, if a safer environment can be provided for the children it needs to be done. Mr. Allen Leary, Board President, said that White Oak Elementary and Bogue Sound Elementary Principals have approached them about children who need help. Not just certain sections of children but all children can use the help of the club. Some would be surprised at some of the poverty levels of the schools, the free lunches, the assistance that is needed and some of the programs actually do make a difference. Mr. Leary said the staff is trained where a lot of money is not put into bricks and motor but into people who do help to make a difference. He asked that the community support the club with fundsCONSIDERATION OF COAT GUARD ROAD STORM WATER PROJECT LAND PURCHASE BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Town’s deadline to make a final decision on the land purchase for the storm water project is April 10, 2002. There are four items to be considered relative to this issue by the Board. They are as follows:(1) Discussion of Petition for Referendum
At the March meeting, the Board received a petition requesting a referendum on the proposed Coast Guard Road storm water project. The Board decided not to discuss that issue at the March meeting, but did agree to discuss it at the April meeting. Town Clerk Carolyn Custy reviewed the petition, and has verified the names of 436 registered voters on the petition. There is no legal requirement to conduct a referendum on the project in response to a petition, nor is it legal to hold a referendum simply on the merits of the project. The only referendum authorized is a general obligation bond referendum, if the Board chooses to finance the project with General Obligation bonds. Should the Board decide to proceed with a bond referendum, the timetable would be approximately 3 months to take all of the necessary procedural actions. Additionally, the Town would need to consider the schedule of the upcoming national and state primary elections in setting a date. Should the Board decide to conduct a bond referendum, the Town would cancel the existing contract and forfeit its $15,000 earnest money deposit on the property. The Board would also risk the possibility that the seller would sell the property to another buyer or no longer be willing to deal with the Town. It should be noted that a referendum is not required to borrow the necessary funds for the proposed storm water project. Many local governments choose to utilize installment-financing agreements for capital projects, and these financing mechanisms do not require voter approval and many also choose to utilize general obligation bonds for these types of projects. The Board has the sole discretion about whether or not to proceed with the project and about how to finance it. If the Board feels confident that there is ample public support for the project and believes that the project is a priority, it is reasonable to utilize an installment financing agreement. If the Board is not certain of the public support for the project, a general obligation bond referendum provides the most accurate gauge of the level of public support. There is very little cost difference between an installment financing agreement and general obligation bonds. Current interest rates for shorter-term installment financing agreements are actually slightly lower than some recent general obligation bond issues. Installment financing agreements also have limited fees associated with their use, whereas general obligation bonds would result in additional expenses to hold the election and retain bond counsel. (2) Final Decision on Land Purchase
A final decision on the land purchase will need to be made at the April 9 meeting. The Town entered into the contract to purchase the land so that the Town could secure a 90-day window to evaluate the utility of the property for the storm water project and that 90-day window will end on April 10. Moffatt & Nichol has completed the desired geotechnical investigations, and has stated that they believe the property will accommodate the necessary volume of storm water runoff for a viable flood relief project, as outlined in their initial study for the Town. At our special meeting on March 11, the geotechnical results appeared to be well received by the various environmental agencies, and no agency has identified any “show-stoppers” for the project. The Town does not yet have the necessary permits in hand, and will not have the permits in hand prior to closing on the property. Based on the comments at the March 11 meeting, Moffatt & Nichol is confident that permits will be issued for a viable project. The Board will need to consider the environmental agencies’ reactions at the March 11 meeting and consider Moffatt & Nichol’s comments to determine if the Board is confident that the Town will receive the necessary permits. If the decision is made to purchase the property, a closing date no later than May 10, 2002 will be worked toward. If the Board should decide to delay purchase of the property at this time, a written notice canceling the contract will be hand delivered to the seller on April 10, 2002. (3) Public Hearing on Installment Financing Agreements for Land Purchase and To Refinance Existing Debts If the Board decides to purchase the property (and does not utilize general obligation bonds) for the agreed-upon net sale price of $3.28 million, the Town will need to enter into an installment financing agreement to borrow $500,000 to fully fund this purchase. This installment financing agreement would supplement the $2.4 million Clean Water Management Trust Fund grant and a planned $380,000 contribution from the Town’s Storm Water Reserve Fund. In order to utilize an installment financing agreement, the Board must first hold a public hearing. As required by NCGS 160A-20, a public hearing has been scheduled for the April 9 meeting. A copy of the advertisement for the public hearing is attached. The Board should note that the scope of the proposed borrowing also includes the refinancing of 3 currently outstanding debts. The public hearing has been advertised with language to alert the public of this possibility and advise them that they can also comment on this issue at the April 9 meeting. (4) Resolution Authorizing Installment Financing Agreements
Following the public hearing, the Board must approve the attached resolution to authorize the installment financing agreements for the storm water land purchase and the refinancing of the 3 currently outstanding debts. The Town solicited proposals from 3 private lending institutions to finance the $500,000 for the storm water land purchase. BB&T offered the lowest rate over the 2-year term that the Town requested – 3.47 percent. The annual payment on this installment financing agreement will be approximately $259,000 per year for two years, which is slightly less than the amount generated by the 2 cents earmarked for the storm water project (approximately $270,000 estimated for next year). After the Town received BB&T’s proposal, I approached BB&T about the possibility of refinancing 3 currently outstanding debts that have a higher interest rate. BB&T offered a 3.92 percent rate to refinance up to $550,000 over a 3-year term. The currently outstanding debts that would be refinanced are 1) the remaining balance on the 1999 installment financing agreement for the purchase of the Western Ocean Regional Access land (4.7% rate), 2) the remaining balance on the 1998 installment financing agreement for the ladder fire truck (4.85% rate), and 3) the remaining balance on the 2001 installment financing agreement for the purchase of several town vehicles (3.996% rate). Under the current schedules, the first two debts indicated above will be fully retired in 4 years, while the third debt will be fully retired in 2 years. The combination of these 3 debts into one will enable the Town to enjoy slight savings in total interest charges over the term of the debts, enable the Town to eliminate the fourth year of remaining payments on the ocean access and fire ladder truck, and will also enable the Town to keep its annual debt service payments approximately equal for the next couple of years. The refinancing would enable the Town to utilize the Western Ocean Regional Access land as collateral for all four debts, and greatly simplifies the financing process with BB&T and the Clean Water Management Trust Fund grant. The use of the storm water land as collateral would have required an amendment to the Clean Water Management Trust Fund grant agreement. Next Steps
Should the Board approve the purchase, and the installment financing agreement, the necessary actions to close on the property within the next 30 days would be taken. After the property purchase has been completed, solicitation of a proposal from Moffatt & Nichol to begin detailed design work and the official permit process later this summer would be requested. For planning purposes, it has been assumed that the Town would fully retire the 2-year debt on the land purchase before incurring any additional debt for the construction of the related infrastructure for the storm water project. It has also been assumed that the Town would finance the related infrastructure over a 10-year term, with payments timed to begin immediately after the land debt is retired. This approach will enable the Town to keep annual debt service expenditures within the proceeds generated by the 2 cents earmarked for the storm water project. This approach would provide the Town with ample time to complete detailed design and secure the necessary permits. Construction would begin in approximately 18 months. If the decision is made to pursue general obligation bonds for the entire project, the financing of the land purchase and related infrastructure could either be combined into one debt issue or the Board could still choose to finance the land with an installment financing agreement. Regardless of the debt instrument(s) utilized, the debt could be structured to remain within the proceeds generated by the 2 cents earmarked for the storm water project. The use of general obligation bonds would likely allow for a similar project schedule to that outlined above, with a few months delay in initiating the detailed design and permitting process.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLMENT
FINANCING AGREEMENTS
PUBLIC HEARING: Commissioner
Farmer made a motion to open the public hearing on consideration of Coast
Guard Road Storm Water Project Land Purchase.
The Board’s vote was unanimous with a vote of 5-0. Motion
carried. Mr. Seikman said his point is that the grant is for $2.4 million dollars, 50 percent of a $4.8 million dollar system. The system is rapidly approaching $6 million dollars. There seems to be a serious question as to whether the grant is related to the project. It seems there are some questions that have to be settled with the Clean Water Trust Fund before their funds of $2.4 million dollars is used. Mr. Seikman pointed out that if their $2.4 million dollars is used, the town has to go ahead with the whole $6 million dollar project. There is no other option unless the town wants to give the Clean Water Management Trust Fund money back to them. Mr. Seikman continued that it is anybody’s guess what this will cost. He is guessing that it will be well over $6 million because there are several things that are not included in the Moffatt and Nichol study. We don’t have a quote from anyone yet and there is no permit to do this. Mr. Seikman said he thinks that purchase of the land at this stage of the game is premature. Mr. Jerry Stockdale, 8521 Ocean View Drive, said he was both offended and alarmed by what he saw coming from three Commissioners Eckhardt, Farmer and Marks. Mr. Stockdale said, “It seems to me that the disregard of half of the electors for the people to vote on this issue is one of the most arrogant things that I can remember seeing in the town’s politics and I think that you should take that into consideration. For one thing, you only received 30 or 35 percent of the votes that were casts and now we are having half the people say lets have a referendum about this issue and I think that if you truly lived up to some of your commitments when you ran for office, you would represent the wishes of the people. You would go ahead and cancel the purchase of this land right now and go for a referendum like the voters of this town want”. Mr. Ronnie Watson, 9102 Coast Guard Road, said, “I swore I would stay out of this stuff and try not to come to these meetings, but you know when you see things happening in the town that you love, it really upsets me, the things that are happening here. I have never seen the wasteful spending that we are doing right now. Never seen it. I have been here 42 years and have never seen the wasteful spending we are doing right now. We have a “runaway train” here in my opinion and we need to buy that piece of land like I need to fly to the moon tomorrow! We need to think about what we are doing. We are talking about taxing the people more. I understand that we are talking about a $.05 increase in taxes this year. We cannot afford it. You are talking about borrowing the money to buy the piece of property. It does not make sense to me. We have had our flooding problems but nobody has died from it. It has been a little bit of inconvenience, yes we have had that and for how many years? In thirty-five years we never had a hurricane, but we will have another one and another one but who knows when that will be? We are talking about spending $6 million dollars? It does not end there. Then we are talking about a grant for a park? I love parks and nature. We are talking about getting another grant for $250,000 more matching funds from the town? Where does that money come from? It comes from us, the taxpayers. The State has problems, the County has problems, we have problems and every time you turn around what are we going to do? We don’t have the federal government to bail us out like New York City did. It is going to be the taxpayers. That is exactly where you are heading. You might not think you are but that is where you are heading. I am smart enough to know that. I am not too smart but if I ran my business the way this town spends money, I would be broke in 6 months. Another issue is if the Coastal Federation, and I understand they are behind this, if they want to buy the land – fine – let them buy it. Don’t let the taxpayers buy it. If the Coastal Federation wants it that is fine. Let them buy it. If they don’t want to see it developed that is fine too. If any of you are directly involved with the Coastal Federation, I would be very careful. I think you have a direct conflict of interest. I think that is a legal question. We don’t really need a Public Hearing because the decision has already been made. There it is right there in black and white that was sent out to all the voters of Emerald Isle”. (Mr. Watson referred to the letter from Eckhardt, Farmer and Marks attached at the end of these Minutes). “Why even have the meeting. The decision has already been made. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of letting it come to a voter referendum? What are you afraid of? Let the voters, if they want to see it fine and good. That is just the way it fell. I don’t want two or three of you up there saying you are going to obligate this town to this kind of money as hard as a lot of us work in this town to make things work and you are talking about doing something else again to us to raise our taxes. We cannot afford it. We had better start taking care of what we have got here first instead of starting wasting money” Attorney Richard Stanley, said he is representing some of the citizens that are seeking a referendum on merits of borrowing one half million dollars to purchase 41 acres. Mr. Stanley said, “Let me say to you at the beginning that I do not know any responsible person that would buy property for a dedicated purpose that you are talking about that did not have permits in hand and I am surprised that Commissioner Farmer would knowledge that she has environmental regulations would even start such a thing at this particular time. You may end up tomorrow buying this property and paying your $3.8 million dollars for it and find you cannot even use the property because you cannot get permits. I don’t understand why there is such a rush to judgment on this at this particular time. Your borrowing the $550,000 for this is just the tip of the iceberg. You are going to have to spend about $3 million dollars of the town’s money, the voters’ money, the landowners, in order to complete this project and once you buy this land and make your commitment tomorrow, you are forever committed to spending not less than $2.4 million on this in order to get back the Clean Water Grants”. “Now let’s talk about why the voters should have a referendum for just a few minutes. Your voters just passed the beach nourishment referendum that is going to result in at least, not less than a $ .03 increase on the non-ocean front owners. Your management has already recommended and has gone on record as proposing an additional $ .05 for the new budget year. That amounts to $ .08 or a 44% increase of the tax rate at this particular time and you are trying to add, with this project, another $ .02 that is going to increase your taxes over 55% in one year. I hope folks out here are aware of this because over 600 property owners and voters have petitioned for a referendum. I would like to examine for just a minute, the apparent reasons of three of the Commissioners for not turning to a referendum on this. By the way, I think the three need to be very careful with the Open Meeting Laws because it is obvious three of you are getting together to discuss. The news letter is from all three. It is obvious that the news letter is being prepared with a joint discussion and consent of that and I am simply saying that I would be very careful about what you are saying in that. You say that you will lose the purchase contract and the $15,000. Well I agree with Mr. Wootten “so what”? $15,000 when you are looking at a $3 million proposal? The town has the power of condemnation of imminent domain. After the vote is affirmative for this you can always go back and condemn the property and it is obvious the sellers would like to have the $3 million dollars because they are in agreement on the purchase price. Why not wait for the results of the referendum? Secondly, according to the newsletter, it says there is a three-year requirement to complete it. Ninety days is certainly going to kill a thirty-six month project. If you are really concerned about the project and you want it done, then you must be pretty scared about what the referendum is going to do because it appears that you are going to forego that and go ahead and proceed with it. I hope that is not true. My understanding is you have to go to the Local Government Commissioner to get approval of this installment financing. If you decide not to delay this tonight and to go ahead and vote to purchase the property and to do installment financing, I can assure you my group is going to go to the Local Government Commission and oppose this. We are also going to point out that the tax burden is getting extremely high on the owners and businesses here and they cannot handle the additional tax burden. I also want you to consider the fact that down the road, if this becomes a burden, they could withhold the $ .02 or that portion represented by the $ .02, from their tax payments and it is going to leave the town in quite a mess. Now I hope you will reverse your situation and decide to hold a referendum but if you don’t, I ask specifically that my comments be placed in the record of this meeting and that it be given to BB&T and your other lenders that are apparently interested in making this loan and that it also be given to the Local Government Commission”. Mr. Clint Routsen, 9721 Green Glen Drive, representing the sellers of the property said he would like to go through a list he has prepared in relation to the reasons why the town should proceed with the contract and also the reasons why the town should not move to a non-binding referendum. Mr. Routsen said, “$2.4 million of the $3.28 million dollar purchase price is being paid by the Clean Water Trust Fund Grant. That leaves the land cost to the town of approximately $900,000 for 41 acres of prime sound front property. That equates to approximately $22,000 an acre. I am sure there is not anyone who has been up to the podium who would not pay $22,000 per acre for a piece of prime water front property. If the town does not accept the $2.4 million grant it is not going to come back to our coiffeur. It is going to be spent by somebody else. It is not going to be us, but it is going to be spent by somebody else. With the current and future budget shortfalls that are anticipated at the State level, the likelihood of this funding coming back around is questionable. The subject property is the only viable alternative for this project. If the town passes up the current site, it may not be available in the future. Increasing regulations are going to force the property owners to develop that property because of the loss of value. Unlike mainland communities, we cannot simply go outside and expand our borders and pull other property in. This is the last site. The sellers have worked with the town on this project since 1999 with the exact understanding that the town would have to have outside funding to make the project feasible. We worked in good faith with the town. We worked with prior boards and with this board. This board approved the current contract. The contract inspection period was given to the town to allow the town to examine the property to see if it would do what everyone wanted it to do. Engineers have said it will. It is better than anticipated. This property provides the town the opportunity to take action to address the storm water problem, to provide a public park for the town residents and visitors that could not be established anywhere else in town and provide public sound access for canoeing and kayaking that is not available anywhere else in town. For those reasons, we support, and I support as a citizen, proceeding with the contract and not terminating it. With respect of the proposal to have a non-binding referendum, and it is important that you understand that we are talking about a non-binding referendum, non-binding referendums are not the way to go. The Institute of Government takes the position they are illegal and the town’s own attorney has indicated to you that he does not support them. If the town was going to have a referendum in this matter it should have been before the town spent $60,000 on the project – not now – not after we entered into the contract. The town board was elected to represent the town and to do what is in the best interest of the town and all of its citizens. That may or may not be what 51% of the voters at a referendum would do. If you put this issue to a referendum and the majority of the people approve of the project, then nothing is changed and the board has wasted the money. If you put it to a referendum and it is disapproved – nothing is changed and the decision is still the boards’ to do what is best for the citizens of this town. If the board put this issue to a referendum, I want to know what’s the next issue we are going to be addressing? Is it going to be hiring of town employees, is it going to be the towns budget process, is it going to be the trash collectors? When are we going to decide that we should stop that? As a citizen of Emerald Isle, I hope that the board will consider the future of the Island and what is best for the interest of the current and future citizens of Emerald Isle especially before we give away $2.4 million dollars and we change the way our government works in Emerald Isle”. Bill Reist, 8520 Woodcliff Drive, said he has been attending board meetings now for years and has also been attending meetings regarding storm water. He recalls even taking a tour down, looking at the properties at the lower end of the trough and a lot of the people who are speaking he does not know. He does not recall ever seeing any of them attend these meetings. As he tried to recall what transpired in all of these meetings, he never once recalled Mr. Wootten and Mr. Murphy talking about referendum. This never came up. He took the time to go through the Minutes of the Board Meeting for the past two years to try to see whether this issue was brought up. He could not find anything. Maybe there is something he missed but he could not find a thing discussing referendum. Again, he cannot understand why this issue that was so urgent and so important to Mr. Wootten and those who want to put this up to referendum, why this was never brought up before. It seems as though this is an effort, a last ditch effort, to try to scuttle this or maybe what we are dealing with is some damaged egos. Mr. Reist is not sure. Commissioner McElraft interjected that “this will not be allowed. You cannot talk about other citizens like that”. Mr. Reist said, “OK, in any case I find it interesting too that people who, I can’t definitely say this, but it was builders and developers who were chasing the bucks, that never took any interest in the storm water issue to begin with and that is why we have the problem. Now we see some of these, and again I am not sure whether these are the individuals, I am talking in generalities here, but people representing building and developing interest who are fighting this and yet this was all part of the problem because no one took any time or care to look at the properties to see if you fill in a wetland you are going to have water. So now, we are faced with the situation where it has to be corrected. Now it is interesting that the builders and developers are interested in this piece of property. I cannot say, and I am not accusing anyone of anything, but I wonder if they have an interest in this property. Is this scheduled, in their mind, for condos? I don’t know but I think anyone thinking about this would wonder why all of a sudden would they come out of the woodwork to fight this thing unless there is some financial interest? I don’t know. I am just speculating. In any case, I think the gentleman who spoke last was right on target. You have to make decisions. You were voted to make decisions. Make the decision! Let the injured egos fall where they may. It is just amazing to me that all of a sudden, at the last minute, this is brought up and people are trying to scuffle it at this point in time. I would encourage you to bite the bullet, show your guts, stand up and do what you have to do and I think the town will benefit. Mr. Harry Thompson, 1603 Ocean Drive, related to the gentleman who told about this being prime waterfront and said it looks like to him (Mr. Thompson) there are a lot of wetlands on the map and he cannot understand what is so prime about that. You cannot do much with it. Take all of the wetland out would drive the price per acre up but it will not be 41 acres of prime. Commissioner Eckhardt made a motion to close the Public Hearing. The board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0. Motion carried. Commissioner McElraft made a motion that the board allow the referendum to happen.Mr. Rush answered that Local Government Commission approval was not needed to borrow the money for the land purchase, the $500,000. The reason for that is it is less than a 59-month obligation. We talked about financing it over 2 years. Local Government Commission approval is not needed for that. We will need Local Government Commission approval for a 10-year installment financing agreement to do the pumps and piping. The plan that he outlined in the packets is a plan to finance the land for 2 years and then in 2 years from come back and do the 10-year installment financing agreement that would need Local Government Commissioner approval at that time. Attorney Taylor interjected, “Just for an update because I do not think the Commissioners knew this, Mr. Routsen and I have discussed our purchase agreement. The grant people require a Warranty Deed and Mr. Routsen has indicated that a General Warranty Deed will be provided. Commissioner McElraft asked Attorney Taylor if the board could pursue this as a General Obligation Bond Referendum? Attorney Taylor’s answer was “Certainly you could”. Commissioner McElraft asked, “Then why is it illegal? It is absolutely not illegal. It was requested by Mr. Wootten, the first time he brought this up at the last meeting, that it was a General Obligation Bond he was requesting. Another thing that Mr. Routsen mentioned was because of new regulations we have on this he is going to probably start developing that property. I would probably say that the property is not worth as much as it was last month after we came in with our new storm water ordinance. That property probably depreciated at least $15,000. If we go back after we get voter approval and renegotiate that property, we could probably save that $15,000. I believe that $15,000 was also part of doing that study to see if it is worth the money we are going to spend on it. The contract also did not call just for the Geotechnical work approval and then the contract approval. It said this had to be suitable for our needs. We don’t know that it is suitable because we do not have the permits for it. I think we have to step back from this, take a breather, listen to the voters and then go forward if that is what the public wants. Absolutely! If we don’t we are denying their right in the town. It is not just a few citizens; it is not 200 and some people who signed the Horse Referendum. Six hundred and thirty (630) of your citizens, more than at least three members of this board were voted in on. Almost more than I was. I had 45 more votes. None of us really have any reason to go against this petition at all. These are people who really feel strongly that this thing really needs to go to the citizens. Whichever way it comes out, it does not mean we are not going to continue to help our friends. We absolutely are. The $ .02 was not put in and that was not the vote for 10 years. That $ .02 was in there to get some studies done and to try to look at some options but we never said that $ .02 was obligated for 10 years. I would have never voted for that. In fact, I made a comment to Mr. Seikman when he said why are you doing this $ .02 before you know that the property is compatible or that it is going to be permitted and I said because citizens do need help with the storm water. We may have to buy a holding pond or retention pond somewhere and do some more studies or whatever. That is what the $ .02 is for. Not for a 10-year commitment and a 14-year commitment to buy property that citizens may or may not want to buy. If we ignore those voices we have done a disservice to citizens of this town. Commissioner Farmer said she would like to direct the Town Manager to put on the town website the Minutes from the Budget Workshop of June 22, 2001. In that the financing was laid out and it is indeed talking about this specific project and it is over 10 years. Commissioner McElraft said, “Would you please put my comments to Mr. Seikman and what I said to him. We need a little money to take care of the storm water in this town but this is not necessarily for this project. That comment was definitely made in those Minutes also”. Commissioner Marks commented she wanted to go back into history a little. She said, “This is part of the letter that I wrote to Mr. Wootten back in October 2000, long before I even dreamed of running for Commissioner and I said to him, “Storm water problems in Emerald Isle go back a long way. In April 1998, the following quote was printed in the Tideland News and it noted that 15 years ago,(which would have been 1983), a section of Emerald Isle property on Coast Guard Road, Blocks 45, 46 and 47 has severe drainage problems Jim Caldwell ( and I assume he was the Building Inspector) told the town commissioners. He said the commissioners need to consider both short and long term solutions for the storm water problems” Commissioner Marks related to another article printed in the Jacksonville Daily News on September 11, 1990 noted that Emerald Isle was having drainage problems and severe flooding on two streets. It quoted Commissioner Gordon McAdams as saying “It may take more than $1.2 million dollars to pay for solutions to those problems”. Those problems they were talking about then was Deer Horn Dunes, not all of Coast Guard Road. Now, in October 2000, 9 years later, we are still talking about a solution costing $ 3 to 5 million dollars because the problems were not addressed by previous boards. In fact over the years, the town boards ignored town ordinances and allowed wholesale clearing of new lots, creating new storm water problems in Lands End, Spinnakers Reach and Dolphin Ridge Subdivisions. The Corps of Engineers exacerbated the situation by allowing developers to fill wetlands and also allowing individual lot owners having less than an acre to fill wetlands without a permit. The problem with storm water is not going to go away. We need to address it now before this price tag doubles or triples again. If we applied for grants to help purchase the land or develop a project, we need to submit it where it will stand a good chance of being accepted”. Now that we have received the grant and we have a project in hand, let’s not turn our back on this again. The price tag is going no place but up. The other real great idea for this project it that we a get a sound front park which we do not have now. We have a small park at the end of Cedar Street that will park maybe 4 cars. This project will allow for canoeing area, parking, kayaking area, hiking trails and picnic shelters and I don’t see how we can turn it down. Commissioner Eckhardt said when he campaigned last year he supported this project as far as it had been laid out by the previous board. He quoted one thing that was in the paper on Sunday that one of the previous board members who now feels he should hold things up said. “I think it is the best solution we have”. Commissioner Eckhardt said he still thinks it is the best solution we have. He campaigned on that. All 14 candidates campaigned on this issue and said it is the best solution we have. There was only one caveat and that was that the Geotech studies some back positive. They came back better than positive. I cannot imagine picking up what we have done in the last two or three years and trashing it at this point. I just can’t, go against I think this is the best solution we have and I support it”. Commissioner McElraft said Mr. Wootten just stated he is for this project too but Mr. Wootten nor the Board is paying the total tax bill. The citizens will be paying it. You have citizens giving input that they want to let you know whether they want to pay this tax bill or not. Commissioner McElraft said, “It’s kind of funny because Commissioner Marks was quoting part of the Harmony group who were talking about taking $ 1 million dollars to a General Obligation Bond Referendum and we have $ 3 million dollars and we are not even going to let the people speak. That is sad! Commissioner McElraft made a motion that the board call for a General Obligation Bond Referendum on the funds for the Coast Guard Storm Water Project. The board voted, with a split vote of 3-2, against the motion. Voting for the Motion was Commissioner Messer and McElraft. Voting against the Motion was Commissioners Farmer, Eckhardt and Marks. Motion denied. Mr. Rush commented that a lot of this has been covered in the comments by the public and board. The only thing he would point out is that the bottom line cost of the project, without the park costs, is $ 5,135,846. The park project talked about at the last meeting was an additional $ 432,000. where 50% would be funded by a grant so that would bring the cost up to roughly $ 5.6 million dollars. Commissioner Farmer asked
Town Manager Rush to talk about the grant that
Ms. Sanderson presented at the last board meetingto get permission
from the board to make application to the Division of Water and
Conversation Fund for $ 492,000 park project, requesting $246,000 from the
LWCF in grant funds.
The deadline for the application was April 2, 2002.
We did not submit that application because after the March meeting
we learned there were some very stringent application requirements we were
unable to meet in time for the April 2 deadline.
If the board wants to pursue another LWCF grant, the next one will
be April 2003. There is also
a Parks and Recreation Trust Fund that will come up in January 2003 which
is also a 50/50 grant. One
other item that will come up later for approval tonight is a CAMA Grant to
do just a portion of the park from the conceptual plans.
Commissioner Eckhardt
asked for clarification from Mr. Rush that this just deals with the
application. Mr. Rush
confirmed it was. It would
give Mr. Rush the authority to make application.
Mayor Schools asked for a motion to move forward with the land
purchase.
Commissioner
Eckhardt made a motion to move forward with the land purchasing Contract.Mr. Reid said in the meeting with the permitting agencies, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, CAMA, Division of Water Quality all received the project. They all had good comments about it. It addressed all of their concerns they had from the first meeting where they were asked for input. Those concerns were addressed and they came back and are doing some things with nationwide permits. They are not going to treat this as a storm water project because it is only going to be used intermittently when there is flooding. It is not a constructed impoundment so it is not going to be permitted under that particular permit which is basically for constructed wetlands. This is basically going to be used as a holding pond. After the meeting, discussion of this was held with all of the individuals. The next step, which is getting the permits issued and taking the reports that have already been done and define those into a more concise document to be addressed. Commissioner Farmer said the agencies understand that the town is between a rock and a hard place. There are storm water problems and no place to put the storm water. It cannot be put on the beach until the flooding is just miserable for the people who are living in this trough so they are trying to work with the town. Commissioner McElraft said she has just heard that we have input from Fish and Wildlife, we have input from the Coastal Federation, we have input from DWQ and she asked, “Did we get input from the citizens”? No further comments were forthcoming on this subject. Mayor Schools said there is a Motion on the floor to go forward with the purchase of the land and he called for a vote. The board voted, with a split vote of 3-2 to approve the Land Purchase Contract and move forward with it. Voting for approval of the motion were Commissioners Farmer, Eckhardt and Marks. Voting Against the Motion was Commissioners McElraft and Messer. Motion carried. Mr.
Rush reminded
the Board that the Resolution Authorizing the Installment Financing
Agreement does two things. It
authorizes an Installment Finance Agreement of up to $ 550,000. for the
purchase of the land over a 2 year term and it also refinances three
existing debts the town has into a 3 year term would result in an amount
of savings anywhere between $2,500 and $10,000 over the life of the loan.
That is also part of the resolution that is being considered. Commissioner Eckhardt made a motion to approve the Resolution Authorizing the Installment Financing Agreement. Commissioner
Farmer
complimented Mr. Rush on how he has put all of this together. The board voted, with a split vote of 3-2, to approve the Resolution Authorizing the Installment Financing Agreement. Voting for the motion was Commissioners Farmer, Eckhardt and Marks. Voting again the motion was Commissioners McElraft and Messer. Motion carried. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANGER TO SUBMIT PUBLIC ACCESS GRANT APPLICATIONS BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Approval of the attached resolution authorizing three grant applications to the NC Division of Coastal Management (CAMA) for public water access projects is being requested. The total amount requested is $155,707. A total local match of $51,903 is required if these grants are awarded to the Town. The Town has historically utilized CAMA public access grant funds to expand, enhance, and maintain public access points in Emerald Isle. Due to the diligent work of Town staff, the Town has been fortunate to receive several CAMA grants in recent years. Recent projects funded with CAMA grant funds include the Western Ocean Regional Access (WORA) purchase, construction of visitor amenities at the WORA, the replacement of the Wyndtree Drive ocean walkway, and others. Deadline for 2002 CAMA grant applications is later this month. If the Board concurs, staff will prepare three grant applications for the following projects:
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER (1) The Town Manager is authorized to submit a grant application to the NC Division of Coastal Management for $10,987 to replace the existing wooden walkway at the Lee Street public ocean access. This grant, if awarded, will be matched with a $3,663 appropriation in the Town’s FY 02-03 General Fund budget. (2) The Town Manager is authorized to submit a grant application to the NC Division of Coastal Management for $14,325 to replace the existing wooden walkway at the Seagull Road public ocean access. This grant, if awarded, will be matched with a $4,775 appropriation in the Town’s FY 02-03 General Fund budget. (3) The Town Manager is authorized to submit a grant application to the NC Division of Coastal Management for $130,395 to develop a public sound access, a canoe / kayak launch area, parking, and access road at the proposed Coast Guard Road storm water project site. This grant, if awarded, will be matched with a $43,465 appropriation in the project budget for the Coast Guard Road Storm Water Project (4) The Town Manager is authorized to complete all required applications and make necessary assurances to the NC Division of Coastal Management relative to theses grant applications. __________________________ Arthur B. Schools, Jr., Mayor Alesia Sanderson, Parks and Recreation Director, presented the board with three (3) preliminary applications she has prepared for CAMA Funding and explained that CAMA is a two-part application process being that there is a preliminary application. Favorable projects are then asked to submit final applications. As of last year CAMA started rebuilding or reconstruction of deteriorating walkways. Wyndtree Drive is one grant that has been received in the first years of funding. Ms. Sanderson would like to see two additional walkways presented for this funding cycle and those are Lee Street and Sea Gull. Both of those are approximately 20 years old. The Lee Street walkway is the total project cost for removal and reconstruction of a handicapped accessible walkway with one handicapped parking space would be $14,650. The CAMA funding aspect of that would be $10,987. with the towns $3, 663. The Sea Gull walkway is a little more expensive because it is a little longer and there is room for two parking spaces with a total cost of $19,100. with $14,320. coming from CAMA and $ 4, 775. coming from the town. The improvements to the Coast Guard Road storm water site to include things that are fundable under CAMA funding which CAMA provides funding for water access. Ms. Sanderson presented the scaled down project that includes creating or building Amberjack Drive to a parking area that provides parking and an 8’ walkway to the sound with an observation deck and a canoe and kayak launching area. Total cost of that project is $173,860. with CAMA funding requesting $130,395. and the town financing $43,465. which is significantly down from the $242,000. originally requested. This is a preliminary grant due April 26 and she asked the board’s permission to proceed with obtaining $3.00 on the $1.00 for the Town of Emerald Isle. Commissioner Messer made a motion to approve the Resolution Authorizing the Town Manager to submit Public Access Grant Applications. Commissioner Messer asked how the accesses were at the Point? Ms. Sanderson said on the two that could be opened, the walkway would have to be build on those in order to make it accessible and that is due to the lay of the land and that is a decision the board will have to make because precedence has been set by the town that the town would not build the walkway, the community would build it and then the town would take it over and maintain it and replace it in the event it were destroyed. The Wyndtree walkway will be reconstructed within the next 5 to 6 weeks. Ms. Sanderson said these have to be three separate applications. This is not one application. If the final stage is reached, there would have to be a Resolution from the board on each one, not all three. The board voted unanimously to approve the Resolution Authorizing the Town Manager to submit Public Access Grant Applications with a vote of 5-0. EMERALD ISLE BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECTBACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Board of Commissioners is scheduled to consider three items pertaining to the Eastern Phase of the Emerald Isle beach nourishment project at this meeting. Resolution
Authorizing the Town Manager Enter into a Contract with Coastal Science
and Engineering for Beach Nourishment Design Services – Eastern Reach Coastal
Science and Engineering has submitted the attached technical proposal and
cost proposal to the Town for various tasks associated with the
nourishment of the eastern reach of Emerald Isle, which is scheduled to
begin in November 2002. CSE’s technical proposal outlines the scope of work and the
cost proposal establishes an estimated budget for each task to be
completed. Dr. Tim Kana, CSE,
is in attendance at this meeting to explain their proposals.
The
contract document will establish a maximum amount equal to the costs
outlined in CSE’s cost proposal. The
attached resolution authorizes the Town Manager to execute a contract with
CSE for this work. (The Town Attorney will review the language in the contract
prior to execution.) The
Board should note that the total estimated cost presented by CSE is
$497,220, and this cost covers all design work, bid process coordination,
construction administration, pre- and post- project surveys, and the
preparation of a final report on the project.
The Board should note that the attached resolution authorizes a
contract with a maximum amount of only $274,104 at this time.
This amount will cover tasks 1-7 in CSE’s proposal, which
represents all pre-construction activities.
I will present a subsequent resolution to the Board of
Commissioners later this year for all construction phase and
post-construction phase activities (construction administration, etc.).
It
is proposed to split CSE’s proposal into two segments in order to avoid
formal obligation of Town funds before they are actually needed.
The total nourishment project cost, including design, construction,
and other associated phases, will be financed with general obligation bond
proceeds. Because the Town will not actually sell the bonds until later
this year, it must “up-front” the money for any project expenses
incurred prior to the sale of the bonds.
The Town’s Beach Nourishment Fund currently has a balance of
approximately $285,000, and It is proposed to utilize this cash on hand to
fund the first segment of CSE’s proposal. Project
Budget Ordinances The
below attached project budget ordinances formally establish the budgets
for each phase of the overall nourishment project.
All expenditures associated with the various phases of the overall
project will be charged to these project budgets, which are separate from
the Town’s General Fund and the Beach Nourishment Fund. The
project budget ordinances are multi-year ordinances that will remain in
effect until the overall project is completed, and are not subject to the
fiscal year calendar that the General Fund follows. The
Board should note that these project budget ordinances are nearly
identical to the budget estimate submitted by CSE in January 2002.
However, some adjustments have been made to the budget line items
to 1) reflect some additional costs associated with the design of the
eastern reach, 2) eliminate the need to budget for turtle monitoring, as
this expense will be covered by the Carteret County Beach Commission, 3)
allocate the entire contingency, plus a small additional amount, to the
western reach due to the fact that there is more uncertainty surrounding
this phase, and 4) slightly reduce the construction budget for the eastern
reach to shift additional contingency to the western phase.
These
budget amounts represent the bottom lines for each phase of the project.
As noted above, there is some contingency allocated for the western
phase. There is no
contingency allocated for the eastern reach, and any cost overruns in any
line item will ultimately result in a smaller volume of sand placed on the
beach. It will be extremely
important for the Town and CSE to keep the costs of this project in line
with the budget amounts. The
Board should also note that this project budget ordinance is established
for the accounting of direct capital project revenues (bond proceeds) and
expenditures only. A separate
Capital Reserve Fund will be established to account for the receipt of
special district taxes, room occupancy taxes, etc. and the debt service
payments, etc. when the annual budget is adopted by the Board in June. Reimbursement
Resolution The
attached reimbursement resolution is merely a procedural resolution that
the Board must approve in order for the Town to reimburse itself (with
bond proceeds) for any project expenditures that are incurred prior to the
sale of the bonds. This will
enable the Town to replenish any reserve funds or fund balance that is
used prior to the sale of the bonds. TOWN
OF EMERALD ISLE Be
it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Emerald
Isle that, pursuant to NCGS 159-13.2, the following appropriations are
made to the Capital Projects Fund and that the following revenues are
anticipated to be available to meet these appropriations: Revenues General
Obligation Bond Proceeds $
10,165,000 TOTAL
$ 10,165,000
Expenditures Engineering
/ Design / Permitting $ 275,000 Legal
and Miscellaneous
65,000 Dredge
Mobilization 1,400,000 Construction
8,000,000 Construction
Administration 225,000 Turtle
Trawling
150,000 Tire
Recovery
50,000 TOTAL
$ 10,165,000 Copies
of this ordinance shall be filed with the Finance Officer, Budget Officer,
and Town Clerk, to be kept on file by them for their direction in the
disbursement of Town funds for this project. Adopted
this ______ day of _____________ , 2002.
___________________________
Arthur B. Schools, Jr., Mayor Attest: ________________________ TOWN
OF EMERALD ISLE Be
it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Emerald
Isle that, pursuant to NCGS 159-13.2, the following appropriations are
made to the Capital Projects Fund and that the following revenues are
anticipated to be available to meet these appropriations: Revenues General
Obligation Bond Proceeds $
450,000 TOTAL
$ 450,000
Expenditures Environmental
Monitoring $ 250,000 Beach
/ Sediment Surveys
200,000 TOTAL
$ 450,000 Copies
of this ordinance shall be filed with the Finance Officer, Budget Officer,
and Town Clerk, to be kept on file by them for their direction in the
disbursement of Town funds for this project. Adopted
this ______ day of _____________ , 2002.
___________________________
Arthur B. Schools, Jr., Mayor Attest: _____________________________ Carolyn
Custy, Certified Municipal Clerk TOWN
OF EMERALD ISLE Be
it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Emerald
Isle that, pursuant to NCGS 159-13.2, the following appropriations are
made to the Capital Projects Fund and that the following revenues are
anticipated to be available to meet these appropriations: Revenues General
Obligation Bond Proceeds $
6,385,000 TOTAL
$ 6,385,000 Expenditures Environmental
Studies / Permitting $ 180,000 Engineering
/ Design
245,000 Legal
and Miscellaneous
65,000 Dredge
Mobilization 1,200,000 Construction
4,140,000 Construction
Administration
75,000 Contingency
480,000 TOTAL
$ 6,385,000 Copies
of this ordinance shall be filed with the Finance Officer, Budget Officer,
and Town Clerk, to be kept on file by them for their direction in the
disbursement of Town funds for this project. Adopted
this ______ day of _____________ , 2002.
___________________________
Arthur B. Schools, Jr., Mayor Attest: _____________________________ Carolyn
Custy, Certified Municipal Clerk
Mr. Rush explained that the total amount to be authorized tonight
is $274,104.
At this point in time the town will have to upfront the money to
meet the obligation of the bonds until they are sold in the fall from the
beach nourishment fund and cash on hand.
The actual total is $497,000 that includes construction and
administration fees of the project. Additional
authorizations will be asked for later on in the summer for additional
funds.
There are three-project budget ordinances to be approved by the
board to establish separate budgets for the eastern phase, the western
phase and also the post project monitoring.
Again, this is all financed by the bond proceeds.
A Reimbursement Resolution is also included for approval that will
allow for the upfront monies the town has to lay out prior to the sale of
the bonds.
Mr. Tim Kana discussed a
technical proposal for what comes next and a cost proposal. The format of the technical proposal follows very closely the
format for Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach.
As the technical outline shows there are 9 tasks to be performed.
Seven is what the board is being asked to authorize.
Number 8 is construction administration and number 9 is the project
close-out and final report and recommendation for acceptance.
Task 1 – Initial
surveys which are required as part of the normal work for Emerald Isle.
Many surveys have already been done for Pine Knoll Shores , Indian Beach
and the County, but the borrow area has not been fully defined for the
stretch that goes along Emerald Isle.
By plan, two years ago, they anticipated doing additional borings.
Sixty (60) additional borings in the existing borrow area to better
define what is there now and also to go deeper than years before.
The purpose of that is to look at possible options and modify the
borrow areas possibly to get more cost effective and better quality
material.
Mr. Kana said one of the issues they are charged with is to address
certain environmental impacts. The
particular question that they are trying to address is what is the
turbidity at the borrow site and what is the level of the turbidity at the
beach. If the type of dredge
is changed, maybe using a cutter dredge instead of a hopper dredge, that
may impact the turbidity on the shore.
Mr. Kana suggested that the board and Mr. Rush set aside some time
to go through the scope of the detail because of lot of little technical
issues that they have to make sure they are going in the direction the
board wants them to go in.
Task 2 - Coastal Process Analysis and Modeling. This is just an analysis and is pretty straight forward.
Task 3 – Engineering
Design Report, which is a document that sums up what is done, why is it
done and outlines the various options and the engineering rationale.
This document becomes important after the fact if there is a big
storm and FEMA comes in. There
may be some reimbursement of a portion of the project damaged by that
particular major storm.
Task 4 – Permit
Coordination. We have a
permit in hand but there is no permit to dig deeper or modify the borrow
area that may be better for Emerald Isle. Mr. Kana said they wanted to
learn from the experiences at Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach so they
could attempt to do things better or differently to be more efficiently
and to give more sand for the money and hopefully to do it without killing
more turtles as was unfortunately done in Pine Knoll Shores.
Task 5 – Final Design
Survey and Environmental Monitoring Coordination.
Mr. Kana said just before they go to the street with the plan,
there has to be a survey of the condition of the beach.
Sort of a base line but much more detailed than anything that has
been done off-shore. That
survey needs to be completed by June at the latest.
Some requirements for environmental monitoring were issues.
Mr. Kana said they are required, under the permits, to do
environmental monitoring on a periodic basis so there is some position and
for follow up environmental monitoring coordination.
Task 6 – Final Plans,
Specifications, Contract Documents for the project.
These have to be prepared and make sure that they meet all State
procurement regulations, local ordinances that are on the books and plans
have to be clear and as detailed as possible.
You want to give the perspective contractors as much information as
possible so they do not come back with questions. Questions from
contractors usually come back at a higher cost.
Task 7 – Contract Bid
Coordination. This is
interviewing contractors, bringing them to the site so they can see it.
The more liaison there is between the contractor, the town and the
engineers, the more likelihood there will be an opportunity to get
fairly good results.
Mr. Kana presented the below listed Time Line which is critical if
this project is to be done in the next environmental window between late
November and early April of next year and particularly if we are going to
try to shrink the environmental window, perhaps postponing it until
December 1st instead of 16 November.
The plans are going to have to be gotten onto the street.
Mr. Kana said that all States have severe environmental
restrictions for dredging in the summer time. There are only 20 Hopper
dredges in the U.S. that sit idle in the summer months because of
environmental concerns. As a
result, a lot of the projects come due in the early fall. The more the
rush can be beat, the more chance there is for getting a contractor. If
the bids are put out in late July and get the bids back in late August,
that will give the contractor up to three months to plan his disposition
and that translates to savings.
The time Line is: §
April 02 – Initial Final Design §
May 02 – Supplement Offshore Borrow Survey §
April–May – Supplemental Coastal Process Survey and Analysis §
June 02 –
Submit Requests for minor modifications of the permits if
applicable. §
April – July – Final Design Analysis §
June 02 – Base Line Survey of Emerald Isle for Final Plan §
July 02 – Prepare plans and specs and contract documents §
August 02 – Bid Documents to Contractors §
Sept. 02 – Construction Bids Due §
Nov. 02 – Fourth Environmental Survey §
Dec 02 – March 03 - Construction §
April 03 – Contingency Construction period §
May 03 – Recommendation for acceptance
A critical decision to be made is to whether to proceed doing the
project the same way as in Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach with no
modifications or do you want to interject the possibility of getting sand
from a deeper section of the borrow area so that a savings of substantial
money might be accomplished.
Commissioner Eckhardt said he likes the idea of cheaper sand
because that means hopefully good sand at a cheaper price.
He is surprised that the cutter head dredge would be thrown in at
this time because it seems to him it could jeopardize the project in some
way. He asked Mr. Kana to comment on why that was not considered
at Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach.
Mr. Kana said it was considered but the reason they switched to the
Hopper dredge was the permitting agencies were encouraging them to do
shallow cuts. You cannot do a
shallow cut with a cutter head dredge.
You have to have at least a 5 or 6 foot section so there are
certain operational constraints. There
was a 5% chance with that scheme that a circle dust pan dredge ( like the
cutter head dredge but it is rigged up to cut a shallow cut) was a
possibility. That would be a direct pump to the beach. That was abandoned
when they started mixing the borrow areas A & B, having to exchange
back and forth, so that basically precluded a single dredge coming in and
just cutting a path through. Now
it is looking like there is an opportunity possibly to do a swat because A
actually runs into B. Your
situation is a little different and there is a little bit more
flexibility.
Commissioner Eckhardt said as long as it does not jeopardize the
project it is something we should look at.
Commissioner Marks asked what the effect would be on the shore from
the storms if the borrow is deepened?
Mr. Kana said the analysis was done from 4 different cuts and the
environmental impact statement for this permit, the calculations are in
there for those deeper cuts and they fulfill the same requirements as the
shallower cuts do. The agencies were objecting to the deeper cuts and
saying why don’t you do shallow cuts because they were not sure of the
biological impact. They were
thinking it would recover biologically if the shallower cuts were done.
Mr. Kana said the complications are shown in the EIS and they show
the same results as the shallower cuts.
Mr. Harry Thompson questioned the possibility of delaying the
project. He does not
understand why that would be done. Mr.
Kana answered one of the charges from the board, as he understands it, was
to see if there are other ways to have better or more environmental
protection. One of the ways of doing that is to do the project in the
coldest month of the year. The
further it is postponed, the colder the water gets to avoid the turtles.
They are around all year but when the temperatures drop to 57
degrees, the incident of turtles is way done.
Another question was asked about how much down time for the dredge
has been allowed? Mr. Kana
indicated down time has already been factored into the project.
Commissioner Farmer said the idea of starting late, even by a day,
makes her very nervous because you just don’t know what is coming.
She would rather start working on November 16.
Mayor Schools commented there is a need to look at the option of
starting late.
John Kilgore, 106 Bogue Court, said he does not see why you would
want to start late. Why is it
being considered to put the town in that situation?
He said, we would be crammed into a window and could probably do
nothing until next year. We
would have to pump as much sand as you could on a permit during that
window.
The question was asked of how down time for the dredge has been
allowed? There is a very
short window. Mr. Kana
replied the work could be done from November 16th to the 15th
of April. The only exception
would be if there was a little bit left to do and then they would go to
April 30. The down time has
been factored into the schedule.
Mr. Kana said he has 4 months for construction, December through
March. The permits give two
weeks on both ends so there are actually 5 months.
He agreed that as much time as possible is desirable however, he is
also responding from comments from the board that asks if there is anyway
to lessen the potential for an adverse environmental impact, being
turtles.
Commissioner Farmer felt that Mr. Kana was being put into the
position that he was actually encouraging doing this and that is not true.
It is for an option. Mr. Kana said, they are restrained by permits,
regardless of what they want to do.
The question was asked about how far west is the Phase I supposed
to go?
Mr. Kana said this question has to be answered in his part of the
work. The short answer is
“whatever is left over in Phase III has to be able to be done from the
Inlet shoals if a permit can be obtained for that and there are
limitations that you don’t want to pump more than 25,000 to 30,000 feet
from where the dredge is to the end of the pipeline.
Mr. Rush said the boundary they are working on now calls for about
23,000 linear feet for Phase II, the eastern phase, that will get to
around Mile Marker 15 ½ on Emerald Isle but there is some possibility
that the boundary could be extended further westward, perhaps around Mile
Marker 15 to 18. This needs
to be refined in the design process by the board.
Mr. Rush noted it would be past where the old Emerald Isle Pier
was. Mile Marker 15 ½ is somewhere around Cedar Tree Lane but it
could be moved further west.
Mayor Schools noted that RFQs have been requested for the Inlet
Relocation/Nourishment phase of the project.
Commissioner McElraft suggested having a workshop with Mr. Kana and
others to discuss concerns.
Commissioner Farmer said there is a concern about the sand quality.
Commissioner Marks said she and Commissioner Farmer walked the
beach this past weekend in Pine Knoll Shores and the sand quality was not
better at all.
Mr. Kana explained that with the exception of a 3,000 foot reach
right around the Iron Steamer Pier, and a little to the west, there is a
lot of rhymetic topography and so you have a concentration of shells. He also noted that most of the sand that is in the trough on
the outer bar is .2mm fine sand. Samples are collected on a daily basis
where a lot of information is obtained. Mr. Kana said with the use of a
Hopper it would slice up a shallow cutting where you might get the better
sand but with the next cut it would be shells.
If the Cutterhead is used, it would all be mixed right through the
process. He said they use a Hopper. The
advantage of the Cutterhead is that everything in the borrow area has to
load to the beach including mud.
Commissioner Marks asked if one dredge would have a higher impact
on turtles than the other? Mr.
Kana said Hopper’s are definitely more likely to get turtles without
question.
Mr. Lee Lipsitz commented he has had the opportunity to visit one
of the dredges and he feels it should be mandatory for the commissioners
to take the same trip. It would help them so much.
They would not focus on visual aspects of it in the beginning.
Commissioner Marks interjected; it is not about what the beach
looks like. It is not about
the color of the sand, but the quality. She said she does not need to go on a dredge to see what is
coming out on the beach. Mr.
Lipsitz said she needed to go to understand the sophistication of the
whole thing.
Commissioner Eckhardt said he thinks a work session is really
important. He has questions
that need to be addressed. He
asked that two things be brought to the work session (1) How can we
handle, the best way to handle, quality assurance and quality control?
Either Mr. Kana’s group or an outside group, whom ever handles
that, he wants to be assured that this is taken into consideration.
If the core samples that were given to the Corps would show that
the first two miles were shaky and after that you have good sand.
That is the sand we want.
Commissioner Eckhardt continued that the other thing he would like
is to look at the redundancies in the physical survey work that will be
done. He attended a meeting
where Chris Freeman went over the three-dimensional profiling he does. He sounded very reasonably priced and very effective.
Commissioner Eckhardt asked that Mr. Kana come to that meeting
knowing that this board does not want that redundancy.
It would like to save money by addressing that through the surveys
and what is being done in the Beach Commission.
Commissioner
Farmer made a motion to approve the Resolution Authorizing the Town
Manager to enter into a contract with Coastal Science and Engineering and
the approve the three Capital Project Budget Ordinances for the overall
beach nourishment and to approve the Reimbursement Resolution.
The board voted unanimous, with a vote of 5-0 for approval.
Motion carried. REVISIONS
TO TOWN SAFETY POLICY
The revisions were drafted by the Town’s Safety Committee, under
the leadership of Fire Chief/Safety Officer Bill Walker after a recent
voluntary inspection by OSHA. The
Town received high marks from this inspection; however, there was a need
for several improvements to better insure the safety of our employees.
The revisions of these policies should satisfactorily address
OSHA’s expressed concerns.
A summarization of the changes to the safety policies is: OSHA Standard
1903: ·
Mandates all required OSHA posters to be displayed in each
department ·
Changes the times OSHA form 300-A is to be displayed o
Used to be displayed during month of February only. o
Now must be displayed Feb. 1 through April 30th
each year. o
This form must now be certified each year by the Town
Manager OSHA Standard
1904: ·
Revised to meet OSHA’s new Recordkeeping rules.
Eliminates OSHA forms 100 and 200.
Implements OSHA form 300 and 300a (new forms). ·
Mandates a new form “Town of Emerald Isle Supplement to Form
19” be filled out with form 19 with each reported injury. Safety &
Health Policy: ·
Mandates each Department Head is responsible for maintaining their
departments required training each year. ·
Safety Committee to review all accidents and injuries each quarter,
Make recommendations back to department heads to prevent further injuries.
Department Heads then must forward back to the safety committee
documentation that these changes have been implemented for the safety
committee to follow up on. ·
Wrote out each departments Annual Required OSHA Classes ·
Changed personal names to Job Descriptions Hazard
Communications Policy: ·
Mandates each Department Head is responsible for maintaining their
departments: o
MSDS’s, keeping them updated and maintaining a
master list in the front of the book while forwarding one to the Fire
Chief. o
Required training each year ·
Changed personal names to Job Descriptions Exposure
Control Policy: ·
Added to the policy, the procedures for an employee who has become
exposed to bodily fluids, where and when to go to be tested at no expense
to the employee. Commissioner
McElraft made a motion to approve the revised Policies of the Towns Safety
Policy. The board voted
unanimous, with a vote of 5-0. Motion
carried. ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 19 – ZONING – OF THE EMERALD ISLE CODE OF ORDINANCES
TO REMOVE TOWNHOUSES AND CONDOMINIUMS FROM THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES IN
THE MH-1 DISTRICT (2ND READING) The Board of Commissioners is being asked to consider the attached ordinance for the second time. The ordinance, if approved, would no longer allow the construction of condominiums and townhouses in the Mobile Home – 1 zoning district. The ordinance was approved at the March meeting by a 3-2 vote. NC General Statutes require a 2/3 majority (in our case, 4-1 vote) to approve ordinance amendments on their first reading, and this majority was not achieved at the March meeting. In order to formally enact the ordinance amendment, the Board of Commissioners must conduct a second vote. On the second reading, only a simple majority is necessary to enact an ordinance. If the ordinance is again approved by a 3-2 vote, it will be officially adopted by the Town and will become effective immediately. It should be noted that the Planning Board discussed this issue at its December, January, and February meetings, and ultimately voted to recommend approval by a 4-3 vote. Supporting information on this item has been previously forwarded to the Board of Commissioners, and we ask that you please refer to that information if necessary or desired.
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 (ZONING) OF THE EMERALD ISLE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO REMOVE CONDOMINIUMS AND TOWNHOUSES FROM THE TABLE OF PERMITTED USES IN THE MH-1 DISTRICT Whereas, townhouses and
condominiums are currently permitted in the Mobile Home –1 (MH-1) zoning
district, and Whereas, the Emerald
Isle Board of Commissioners is concerned about compatibility and density
of development, and Whereas, the Planning
Board has recommended the approval of this ordinance amendment, Now, therefore, be it
resolved by the Emerald Isle Board of Commissioners that Chapter 19 –
Zoning is hereby amended as follows: Section
19-82 Tabulation of permitted and special uses shall be amended so that
“Dwellings, townhouses, and condominiums” shall not be listed as a
permitted use in the MH-1 district. This ordinance shall
become effective immediately upon its adoption.
If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of
any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Adopted this _____ day
of _____________ , 2002.
________________________
Arthur B. Schools, Jr., Mayor Attest: _________________________ Carolyn Custy, Town
Clerk ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 – STREETS AND SIDEWALKS – OF THE
EMERALD ISLE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ADJUST STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
STREETS Consideration
is being asked from the Board of Commissioners on the attached ordinance
that adjusts the standards for public and private streets. The
attached ordinance increases the required right-of-way for public streets
from 50 feet to 55 feet. The
ordinance also increases the required right-of-way for private streets
from 40 feet with 10 feet of utility easements to 55 feet with no utility
easements required. The
ordinance also establishes town standards for streets that utilize curb
and gutter. Developers will
still have the option of utilizing ditches or curb and gutter, but will be
required to meet the appropriate standards in either case.
The new standards for streets with curb and gutter are consistent
with NCDOT’s specifications. The
ordinance also decreases the required depth of ditches from 2 feet 6
inches to 2 feet, and establishes cul-de-sac standards.
The cul-de-sac standards are consistent with NCDOT’s
specifications. There are
also new requirements for driveway construction, including the
formalization of a driveway permit process that has been in use by the
Planning and Inspections Department since July 2001. The main
concepts of the attached ordinance were approved by a 7-0 vote of the
Planning Board at their February meeting.
The actual text of the attached ordinance was approved by a 5-0
vote of the Planning Board at their March meeting.
ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 17 (STREETS AND SIDEWALKS) OF 1. Section 17-32 (a) Minimum standards for the town streets, Generally, is amended to read as follows: “Generally. All streets
within the Town shall be dedicated to public use unless otherwise allowed
by the subdivision ordinance. The
use of private streets is specifically authorized only in residential
subdivisions, group housing developments and other special developments,
and planned unit developments that are authorized in accordance with
Chapter 18. The
procedures for dedication are specified in the subdivision ordinance as
defined in section 18-3. All public
streets dedicated 2. Section 17-32 (d) Minimum standards for the town streets, Minimum public street design standards, is amended to read as follows: “1)
Right-of-way – 2) Pavement width – 20 feet for streets utilizing ditches; a total of 27 feet of pavement (asphalt and concrete sections) from the back of the curb to the opposite back of the curb for streets utilizing curb and gutter; roll curbs are required 3) Base width – 26 feet, for streets utilizing ditches and / or curb and gutter 4) Shoulder width – 6 feet each side for streets utilizing ditches 5)
Ditch width – V-type – 3:1 side slopes, for streets
utilizing ditches 6) Fill slope – 3:1 side slopes minimum 7)
Curb and gutter – 2 feet gutter, 3 inch radius curb face, 6
inch curb, as specified by NCDOT 8) Intersection / turning radius- 30 feet 9)
Cul-de-sac right-of-way – 50 feet radius 10)
Cul-de-sac pavement width – 35 feet radius, for streets
utilizing ditches and / or curb and gutter” 3. Section 17-32 (e) (1) Minimum standards for the town streets, Minimum private street design standards, Right-of-way, is amended to read as follows:
“1) Right-of-way –
2) Pavement width – 20 feet for streets utilizing ditches; a total of 27 feet of pavement (asphalt and concrete sections) from the back of the curb to the opposite back of the curb for streets utilizing curb and gutter; roll curbs are required 3) Base width – 26 feet, for streets utilizing ditches and / or curb and gutter 4)
Shoulder width – 6 feet each side for streets utilizing
ditches 5) Ditch width – V-type – 3:1 side slopes, for streets utilizing ditches 6)
Fill slope – 3:1 side slopes minimum 7) Curb and gutter – 2 feet gutter, 3 inch radius curb face, 6 inch curb, as specified by NCDOT 8)
Intersection / turning radius- 30 feet 9)
Cul-de-sac right-of-way – 50 feet radius 10)
Cul-de-sac pavement width – 35 feet radius, for streets
utilizing ditches and / or curb and gutter” 4. Section 17-32 (f) Side ditches, is amended to read as follows: “Minimum
depth of side ditches shall be two (2) feet, 5. A new subsection (k) is added to Section 17-32, entitled Other street design standards, is hereby added and shall read as follows: “Other street design standards. Transverse slopes in pavement and shoulders, sight distance, grade, horizontal and vertical curves, and superelevation shall be in accordance with minimum construction standards for Local Residential Subdivision Roads or Residential Collector Roads as published in NC Department of Transportation, Subdivision Roads – Minimum Design Standards. 6. Section 17-57 Driveways, standards, is amended to read as follows: “All persons engaging in driveway construction, reconstruction, repair, and alteration must secure a permit from the building inspector and must meet the following specifications: 1)
The plans for the proposed operation 2)
The work shall be done according to the standard specifications of
the town 3) The operation will not reasonably interfere with vehicular and pedestrian traffic, the demand and necessity for parking spaces, and the means of egress to and from the property affected and adjacent properties, and 4) The health, welfare, and safety of the public will not be unreasonably impaired. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Adopted this _____ day of _______________ , 2002. ______________________________ Arthur B. Schools, Jr., Mayor Attest: _____________________________ Carolyn Custy, Town Clerk Commissioner
Farmer made a motion for approval that the board approve the Ordinance
Amending Chapter 17 (Streets and Sidewalks) of the Emerald Isle Code of
Ordinances to Adjust the Standards For Public and Private Streets and the
board voted, with a split vote of 3-2 for approval.
Commissioners Eckhardt, Farmer and Marks voted for and
Commissioners McElraft and Messer voted against the motion.
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 – SUBDIVISIONS – OF THE EMERALD ISLE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO CLARIFY THE USE OF PRIVATE STREETS AND ADJUST THE STANDARDS FOR INTERSECTIONS Consideration
of the attached ordinance that clarifies the use of private streets in new
subdivisions and adjusts the standards for intersections is being asked
from the Town Board. The
attached ordinance restricts the use of private streets to residential
subdivisions, group housing developments and other special developments,
and planned unit developments only. Private
streets would no longer be authorized in commercial subdivisions. The
ordinance also adjusts the angle of intersection for new streets.
The ordinance includes a requirement that no intersection shall
occur at an angle less than 75 degrees, as opposed to the 45 degrees
allowed in the current ordinance. This
change is consistent with NCDOT guidelines for intersections. The concept
of the attached ordinance was approved by a 4-3 vote of the Planning Board
at their February meeting. The
actual text of the attached ordinance was approved by a 5-0 vote of the
Planning Board at their March meeting.
ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 18 (SUBDIVISIONS) OF
“Each
condominium unit or townhouse shall front on a public street
“Use of Public and Private Streets. The use of private streets is specifically authorized in residential subdivisions, group housing developments and other special developments, and planned unit developments that are authorized in accordance with this chapter. All other subdivisions authorized in accordance with this chapter shall utilize public streets for access to subdivided lots.”
“Intersections. Street
intersections shall be as nearly at right angles as possible, and no
intersection shall be at an angle less than seventy-five (75) This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Adopted this _____ day of _______________ , 2002. ______________________________ Arthur B. Schools, Jr., Mayor Attest: _____________________________ Carolyn Custy, Town Clerk Commissioner McElraft asked for clarification of “Group Housing and other special developments”. Mr. Rush said this was like a townhouse project or condo project. These developments would be a combination of lower density and higher density projects. You could still have private streets in those projects. Commissioner Messer said he has always had a problem with a public street going into a private subdivision.Commissioner
Eckhardt made a motion for approval of the Ordinance Amending Chapter 18
– Subdivision – of the Emerald Isle Code of Ordinances to Clarify The
Use Of Private Streets and Adjust the Standards for Intersections.
The board voted, with a split vote of 3-2 for approval.
Voting for the motions was Commissioners Farmer, Eckhardt and
Marks. Voting against was
Commissioners McElraft and Messer. This item will come up before the board again in May for a second reading since it did not receive a 2/3 vote at the first reading. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO NC58 CORRIDOR COMMITTEEThe Town is in receipt of letters from several members of the community indicating their interest in serving on a new committee that will study the NC 58 corridor and make recommendations to improve the function and aesthetics of that area of town. The Board is scheduled to appoint the members of the new committee at this meeting. The Board should clearly define the parameters of the NC 58 Committee’s work prior to instructing the committee to begin work. Mr. Rush recommended to the Board the following: Geographic Area: Both sides of NC 58 from the base of the Cameron Langston bridge eastward to Town Hall; including Reed Drive and Loon Drive in commercial areas, a spur along Islander Drive south to the ocean, and a spur along Bogue Inlet Drive south to the pier Size: 12 – 15 members Reresentation: It is important to have equal representation among commercial interests and residential interests, however, there were a limited number of applications from the commercial sector. In light of this, Mayor Schools has recommended the following: 1 Town Commissioner 1 Planning Board member 3 members of the business community 1 Revegetation Committee member 6 citizens NCDOT representative (to be assigned by NCDOT) Scope of Study: Architectural standards for new businesses Incentives for existing businesses to improve their appearance Revegetation goals Public investment in pedestrian amenities Public investment in bicycle paths / sidewalks / etc. Landscaping requirements Public landscaping improvements Preservation of gateway area Areas to rezone for business use Needed safety improvements Other relevant issues as determined by the Town Board and/or the NC 58 Committee Coordination / Support: Ruth Leggett, Planner, NC Division of Community Assistance Susan Suggs, Planner, NC Division of Community Assistance Staff Participation: Alesia Sanderson, Carol Angus, Frank Rush, Bob Conrad as necessary or desired Final Product: Recommendations Report from the NC 58 Committee (based on committee input; drafts to be prepared by Ruth Leggett) These
are recommendations, and the Board should amend, add, or delete these
items as it deems appropriate. If
the Board approves the NC 58 Committee members at this meeting, Ruth
Leggett will be asked to organize the first meeting sometime in early or
mid-May. Commissioner Farmer made a motion that members for the Highway 58 Committee be, two commissioners – Doje Marks and herself (Emily Farmer); two Planning Board members – Pat Patteson and Ed Dowling; Two Revegetation Committee members – of their choice; from business – Ronnie Watson, Nita Hedreen, Fred Fremaux and Brad Fischer; residents – Mark Brennesholtz, Jerry huml, Nancy Williamson and Ed Johnson. It should be noted that a general discussion took place on who would be from the revegetation committee. Attorney Taylor suggested making the nomination two revegatation committee members to be named. The board voted, with a split vote of 3-2, with Commissioners Eckhardt, Farmer and Marks voting for and Commissioners Messer and McElraft voting against. Motion carried.COMMENTS FROM TOWN CLERK, TOWN ATTORNEY AND TOWN MANAGERThere were no comments from the Town Clerk. Town Attorney Taylor said the schedule he saw tonight was not the schedule he has to deal with. He will go ahead and let the board know that based on their recommendation, he did have a discussion with Neal Whitford. They discussed the ins and outs. Some of the things discussed tonight have a great deal to do with the contract that will be actually signed with the people that will be doing the pumping of the sand. There are some ramifications still existing of what happened at Pine Knoll Shores and how they had to deal with it on the fly with the contractors down there because of the tires, because of the turtles and many of the other things. Things that were unknown in the first circumstance are now known in this circumstance, which will change our position of rule. There is a principal of law that when someone gives you a bid and says “I am going to do it for this price” but nobody expected bedrock and he hits bedrock, it is an issue that factors into a contract but known things don’t generally factor into this situation. There is an issue with the easements that we have to get from the folks that are on the waterfront. Attorney Taylor has discussed with them what the Army Corps of Engineers problems are with the easements that they used at Pine Knoll Shores and he knows no way that the problem can be fixed. The reason is the time frame. If he could have a survey in hand where he could show where the fill line was going to be then he could point to that and say that is what we are working from and the Corps of Engineers would be happy. Because he does not have that now and according to the schedule, looks like it will be June or later, we are in the exactly the same position as Pine Knoll Shores and we are going to have to be “cute” with our description of those easements. He thinks that we will have legal effect but he does not believe it will pass muster with the Corps of Engineers. Attorney Taylor brings this up because if we try to get into the Corps of Engineers maintenance program later, we are going to have to do another survey and those surveys will have to show the line and each individual lot on the line and that has to go through the approval process and then we will have to get another batch of easements when the time comes. There is just no way to do it and get sand on the beach this winter. Attorney Taylor said Mr. Rush is in the process of discussing, with the Legislators, for the condemnation process. They will be required for those situations where they will be required. He can tell the board, as it turns out, no condemnations were necessary in Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach. It was close but in the end it worked out. The town is compiling a list. He is doing everything to keep it here in this place instead of over at his place to make it as cheap as possible. He can tell that if the full Corps of Engineers process was followed, it would be a HUGE price tag. Commissioner Messer asked about the condemnation process and if the town needed to proceed with it? Attorney Taylor said “We will always have that sitting back but we must try the voluntary mechanism first. The condemnation for purposes of beach renourishment is what is called a “Quick Condemnation Process” where you get a quick value that is associated with a condemnation, you put the money in the hands of the Clerk of Court with our filings and it is ours immediately. We will need some legislative help with that and for some reason we were not on their list of people under that Statute but it is understood that is something amendable. Commissioner Eckhardt said there seems, the way Attorney Taylor has thrown it out, to be a clinker. Why now? He does not understand why this has not come up before. Mr. Rush said Pine Knoll Shores presented easements with language that met the Corps requirements. Now they find out that the Corps has to take another look at that and they may not want to sign off on it. They have been operating up to this point that that was going to be acceptable. If they are not acceptable to the Corps, they do not slow this project down at all, it just requires that you get additional easements 7 years from now whenever that federal project is done. Actually there is still some possibility that the Corps may sign off on it. Attorney Taylor said, this group needs to know what they are dealing with. It has nothing to do with our purpose and our ability to go ahead and do the project – this is talking about the Corps coming in and maintaining our beaches at some point in the future and even if we had everything exactly as we were supposed to do it according to their rules and regulations, there is still no guarantee they would come under the money. Commissioner Eckhardt said that was all he needed to know because he thought Attorney Taylor was throwing in the clinker in on the project we are working on. Town Manager Rush he would like to call a meeting on Monday, April 22 at 10:00 A.M. give the board and update on the Budget process and get some input from the board. This date was not convenient for the board. The meeting was set for Tuesday, April 23, 2002 beginning at 9:00 A.M. The board expressed an interest in having a special meeting to discuss beach nourishment issues and asked when the board would like to do that. Also the proposals for Bogue Inlet are due back on April 19th. Mr. Rush has communicated to those interested firms that the board would review them on the following Monday and Tuesday, the 22nd and 23rd; and the 29th and 30th would be the interview dates. He said he would be interested in knowing how the board wanted to choose the ones to be interviewed. This will need to be done on Monday the 22nd or Tuesday the 23rd. Mr. Rush said the bids would be received by 5:00 P.M. on Friday and he would have someone deliver them to whoever would be involved in the selection process and have a meeting one-week later in order to keep the process moving. Hopefully a contract will be approved at the May meeting. After discussion, it was decided that a Special Meeting to select the Contracts to be interviewed for the Bogue Inlet Project would be held immediately following the conclusion of the Special Meeting for the Budget Workshop on Tuesday, April 23, 2002. The beach nourishment meeting inviting Dr. Kana was discussed and will be scheduled after contacting him for a good date. Mr. Rush informed the board that the contract for street resurfacing is now in effect.COMMENTS FROM MAYOR AND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSThere were no comments from Commissioners Messer, Farmer, and Eckhardt. Commissioner Marks thanked everyone who has stayed the entire meeting. Commissioner McElraft said she received the newsletter from some of the Commissioners this week and there was one misstatement made regarding Emerald Drive and she wanted to make clear she was not in favor of 5-laneing Emerald Drive. It said that she did vote down the motion, that the motion was a different motion than they started out with but they just turned down the Emerald Isle part of that and she just wanted to make it clear that she is not for 5-laneing Emerald Drive. Commissioner Eckhardt made a motion to go into Closed Session to discuss attorney-client privilege (Holz/Howe v. Town of Emerald Isle pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11 (a) (3) and the board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0. Motion carried.CLOSED SESSION – ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (HOLZ/HOWE v. TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE), PURSUANT TO NCGS 143-318.11 (a) (3). Respectfully submitted, Carolyn K. Custy, CMC |