Mayor Schools called for a motion to approve the Special Permit for the Village Market.

Commissioner McElraft made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit for the Village Market and the board’s vote was unanimous, with a vote of 5-0.

PRESENTATION – FY 2002-2003 RECOMMENDED BUDGET

      Mr. Rush gave a summary of the recommended budget for the FY 2002-2003. He said a copy of the total budget is on file at Town Hall and at the Community Center and invited anyone who wished to review it to come by.  This budget is recommended to the Commissioners at this time.  Over the next six weeks or so, the board will be going into the budget in great detail.  There are a couple of workshops scheduled prior to June 30^th, which by law is the last day that the board has to approve the budget.

The total budget for next year is $7,710,379 .  This is higher than previous years because this includes the first year of special tax assessment and also the debt service for the beach nourishment project that will go into effect this next fiscal year.

On the Revenue side the bulk of the budget is the General Fund with $5,243,686.  Beach Nourishment Debt Service/Reserve Fund is $2,600,095.  Debt Service Fund of $516,892, Separation Allowance Fund $5,100 and the Special Drug Fund $3,650.  As required by Law the budget is balanced with matching expenditures.

The General Fund Budget is balanced at $5,243,686, which is a decrease from last years general fund budget.  The actual dollar amount is $148,274 less than what was adopted by the Board of Commissioners this past June. This is 2.75% decrease.

An overview of where the money comes from is as follows:

·        Property Tax – 51%.

·         Sales tax revenues – 16%,

·         Solid Waste User Fees – 15%.

·         Parks and Recreation Fees – 7%,

·         State-shared revenues – 7%,

·         Lease Purchase Proceeds – 1%,

·         Development Permit Fees – 3%,

·         Grant Revenues – 1%,

·         Interest Earnings – 1%

·        Other revenues – 1%.

    Where does the money go?  General Fund Expenditures , by function, are as follows:

·        Transfer to Debt Service Fund – 10%,

·         Powell Bill – 3%,

·         Transfer to Special Sep. Allowance Fund – 0%,

·         Transfer to Beach debt./Reserve Fund  - 3%,

·         Public Works – 6%,

·         Nondepartmental – 3%,

·         Parks and Recreation – 8%,

·         Legal – 0%,

·         Waste Management – 14%,

·         Administration – 7%,

·         Planning and Inspections – 5%,

·         Police – 22%,

·         Fire – 15%,

·         EMS – 3%

·         Governing Body – 1%.

Expenditures by Category are:

·        Benefits – 13%,

·         Salaries – 38%,

·         Operating – 35%,

·         Capital Outlay – 1%

·         Transfers to Other Funds – 13%.

Several issues have come together at one time to make it very difficult to avoid the tax increase.  The proposed tax increase $ .025 to to $ .20 and that includes $ .01 for beach nourishment.  The average tax value in Emerald Isle is $209,000 and when $ .025 is applied, the average impact comes out to about $52 per year taking into consideration that the beachfront lots have higher values and the interior lots have lesser values.

      Mr. Rush related that for this budget year it is not going to be possible for the town to appropriate a similar amount, as it did last year, from the Fund Balance.  This is about $319,000 the town has to make up either through expenditure reductions or additional revenues next year, which is equivalent to 2.3 cents of the tax rate.

      Another impact on the revenue side is declining Sales Tax Revenues in the amount of $112,000, that is equivalent to 0.8 cents.  This money has to be made up with some other revenues or decreased expenditures.

      Room Occupancy Tax has been earmarked for beach nourishement in the amount of $95,000 and that is equivalent of 0.7 cents of the tax rate.

      Anticipated withholding of municipal revenues in the amount of $65,500 is equivalent to 0.5 cents of the tax rate.  The Governor has withheld revenues this year from local governments and the budget next year is in some ways conservative and in some ways more risky.  This budget as presented does not include the Beer and Wine reimbursements next year nor the reimbursements that have been withheld.  This is an impact of about $65,500 on the budget next year.  On the revenue side the town is actually in the hole 4.3 cents on the tax rate that needs to be made up somewhere.

      On the expenditure side, significant impacts are the increased EMS full-year funding of $174,097, which is an increase of $74,097 next year from this year and this is equivalent to 0.5 on the tax rate. Modest salary increases have been included for the employees which amounts to an increase of $57,940 or 0.4 cents on the tax rate.  Employees insurance premiums will be an increase of $70,680 over the present year for an equivalence of 0.5 on the tax rate.

      Health Insurance rates have gone through the roof and we have worked diligently to find good health insurance coverage for employees but that will cost the town an additional $70,680 next year. 

Mr. Rush continued with what has been done to solve the problem.  Major action to address significant impacts are:  Revenue Enhancements  - Solid Waste Fees increased from $120 to $ 130 per year with a difference of $82,000, More accurate development Permit Fee Revenue estimates for a difference of $64,700, Anticipated additional sales tax – beach districts for a difference of $100,000 and Parks and Recreation Fee increases for a difference of $18,940.  These revenue enhancements amount to 1.9 cents on the tax rate.

Mr. Rush said at the full impact of the beach nourisment district after it is implemented, the town is expecting an additional $400,000 per year in sales tax revenues.  There is a nine month lag in the collection of those sales tax revenues because of the way the State contributes those so in this next fiscal year the town is only expecting an additional $100,000 sales tax coming from the beach nourishment districts.  The following year, it is expected to receive the full $400,000. 

      Expenditure reductions are as follows:  Operating – Town Departments for a difference of $36,927, capital Outlay – town departments for a difference of $121,092 and transfers to other funds for a total of $30,082.  This is equivalent to 3.3 cents on the tax rate.

      The Revenue enhancements plus the expenditures reductions equals a 3.3 cents that the town was able to address without raising property taxes.  To balance the budget,  a 2.5 cents property tax rate increase is proposed.  The board will be studying the budget and possibly make some changes.

      Mr. Rush said one of the key issues in this budget is that the town is trying to maintain, if not improve, the General Fund Undesignated Fund Balance.  At June 30, 2001 there was $1,361,934 million dollars.  At the end of this year, June 30, 2002, the projection is that the figure will increase slightly to $1,354,531 million dollars.  This is just an estimate at this time based on how it is thought the year will be finished out.  We did not want to decrease that Fund, therefore we did not take money out of the General Fund Balance to balance next years budget. 

Mr. Rush gave a summary of authorized positions with the town, full-time and part-time. In the current year we have authorized 58 full-time positions across all town departments.  One full-time permanent position has been eliminated for next year, which was in the public works department and had not been filled.  The part-time positions are about the same as last year. 

      Mr. Rush said he, as new Town Manager did not want to be here tonight recommending a tax increase and the town board did not want to receive that recommendation as well as the public.  He said based on all of the revenue factors, if the town wishes to maintain the services it currently provides, some tax rate increase is going to be necessary to accomplish that.  Any further reductions will probably result in some hard decisions on what services might be reduced, etc. 

      Mr. Rush said looking at the next 5 years he feels that the 20 cents tax rate can be held in tact at this point in time and that is taking into account a lot of different factors.  There are two important issues that make the difference of how this picture turns out next year and the following year.  One of them has to do with the beach nourishment districts because it is projected that we will receive $300,000 additional next year in Sales Tax Revenues as the result of the beach nourishment districts and this projection factors those revenues in to keep the rate at 20 cents.  The second biggest factor is that effective July 1^st of 2003, Carteret County is authorized to levy an additional ½ cents sales tax in Carteret County.  This is something that was approved by the General Assembly last year in exchange for formally taking back all of the reimbursements that have been talked about this year.  This projection assumes that the County Board of Commissioners will levy the additional Sales Tax.  Emerald Isle would be getting somewhere between $175,000 and $200,000 per year by levying the additional Sales Tax.  We would be giving back about $85,000 in revenues that the State would take back.  There is some possibility that would be amended.  Perhaps they would authorize the County to levy that Sales Tax a year earlier.  If that happens, that will help us this year.  They may decide not to allow us to do that and keep the additional ½ cents for themselves.  If that occurs, it will cause some problems for the town next year.  Right now, as far as the Sales Tax, the town is in pretty good shape.  Capital Outlay expenditures have been decreased next year almost to the bone and that is fine for short-term budget crises.  If this happens in following years, those Capital Outlay decreases catch up with you in higher maintenance costs or reduced services to citizens. 

      Mr. Rush gave an overview of the town’s debt.  As of July 1^st, the town will have about $1.1 million dollars of outstanding debt on the books.  That is basically allocated for a fire truck purchased several years ago, for the beach access adjacent to the Islander Motel purchased several years ago and also the storm water land purchased this month.  We have the $17 million dollars worth of bonds that will come on to the books later this fiscal year which will bring the amount to approximately $17.6 million dollars of general debt for the Town of Emerald Isle.  There is an accelerated debt service schedule for beach nourishment bonds so the debt level will decline rather rapidly.  Mr. Rush feels we are at a manageable and acceptable debt level with this and some of the future projects that are planned associated with the Coast Guard water project, which at this point is scheduled to come on in about 2 years.  Replacement of the fire pumper truck, which should have been included in the budget this year, but with the budget cuts could not be included, should be considered for next year.

      There are a lot of additional projects being worked on at present.  Mr. Rush recommended the town focus on the projects that are being worked on right now before consideration is given to additional ones.

      Mr. Rush gave an overview of what a resident gets for his tax dollar.  The total cost for Police Services, Parks & Recreational services, Emergency Medical Services, Fire Services, Public Works Services, General Government and Town Administration, Debt Service, Coast Guard Road Storm Water Project and General Contribution to Beach Nourishment Project is about $34.82 for the average tax payer per month. Planning and Inspections Department, Powell Bill, and Waste Management get $ 0 tax dollars.  Mr. Rush explained that is because when you factor in dedicated revenues such as solid waste fee, planning and building permit fees, etc., it does not take any tax dollars to run that department.

      Mr. John Wootten, 103 Eagles Nest commented that Mr. Rush gave a real good presentation and it is a very conservative budget.  He said there are a couple of points he would like the Commissioners to look at as they go into the budget workshops.  The big numbers that may be big impact numbers that need to be look at are (1) the increased Sales Tax Distribution because of the beach nourishment, or as Mr. Heatherly called it “windfall”, as the result of the special tax districts.  Mr. Rush has given an estimate of $400,000.  Mr. Wootten asked that the board look hard at that number because it could be $500,00 and it is a big swing.  (2) He asked that the board look at the 9-month lag and make sure it is verified because in his memory the Sales Tax payments comes in two basic payments during the year.  He can see a 6-month lag but he is not sure about the 9-month lag. Big dollars are being talked about as the results of that.  These are numbers we should be able to get very close to.

      Mr. Wootten commented he is not sure we are being forthright in the way it is being presented because we are talking 20 cents for the property tax plus 3 cents for the beach renourishment tax and that is fine but on the other side of the revenues we are including at a minimum of $100 thousand as the result of that same 3 cent revenue on the beach tax.  His point is that this budget would have been close to a 3.5 cents increase on just the tax rate if there had been no beach renourishment program at all.  Mr. Wootten said, “Let’s be straight up forward with the numbers".

      His second comment has to do with the Fund Balance.  There are three reasons in his mind for a Fund Balance that the town has.  One is to fund emergency operations in case things happen to the town like hurricanes, and we went through that experience; emergency town operations, and having to lay out money to get things fixed before you get any FEMA or State money or anything comes in.  The second reason for a town to have a Fund Balance is to fund emergency replacement of capital equipment.  Some towns have water systems and if they have a catastrophic failure, electric systems, some towns have major parks and recreation.  The Town of Emerald Isle does not have those things here.  Our biggest concern is replacing fire trucks.  You do not need a fund balance for that. The other reason to build equity to enhance the availability of future debt and he submitted to the board that no one in this town wants more debt.  He asked that in determining what a fund balance is, build it from the bottom up, to use the 1996 expenditure of what the cash requirements were for the hurricanes and he feels it will be found there are $2 million dollars including the State funds.  You get the undesignated balance, which is $1.3 million and another 8 per-cent in there that is designated, but it is still cash and is still available for emergency operations.  He cautioned the board not to fall into the trap of saying you should have 30 per-cent because that is what the Institute of Government says or someone outside of town says.  Build the requirement up from the bottom and know what is needed for cash operations.

Mr. Wootten made another comment saying “I am a little bit disturbed, when we talk about next year, holding a 20 cent figure already for next year, when built into the numbers is 3 cents more coming as a result of the beach renourishment.  If everything else were equal with 20 cents this year, we ought to be talking starting at 17 cents next year.  So at the outset, we are talking about a 3 cents increase already next year.  The mind-set bothers me a little bit.  These are things I have asked you to look at as you go through the budget workshops”.

Mrs. Paxon Holz , owner of property on Emerald Isle, asked “From the original fiscal year 01-02 budget showing the legal fees projected $17,500 to the projected amended final fiscal year budget for 01-02 showing legal fees at $34,664.  My question is are all the legal fees in these figures or have some been classified in other departments such as planning, etc. and I want to know the total amount we have spent on legal fees for 01-02 please”.

      Mr. Rush replied he did not have the exact figures available but he would be happy to find out and meet with Mrs. Holz anytime.  He did say that there are additional legal expenses related to beach nourishment project and the storm water project that are being charged against those reserves.  As far as the actual numbers, they are not available because they will come at a later date.  We have had some expenses associated with the bond referendum and also the easements and special tax districts.  We have had normal closing costs associated with the storm water land purchase.

      Mrs. Holz asked, “Are those the only classifications that are charged to other departments”?  Mr. Rush replied that any legal expenses would be in one of three places, those two places or the General Fund.  Mrs. Holz said she would be glad to come to Mr. Rush’ office at his convenience and review those bills.

      Commissioner McElraft asked if the $34,000 projected includes all legal fees associated with the Holz case and is the town complete with that case?  Mr. Rush replied that projection includes the expenditures related to that case. He said there has been no further legal action involved in that as of this date and he does not foresee any in the future.  Commissioner McElraft asked “And that would be approximately $14,000 for that case alone”?  Mr. Rush replied he does not have the figures in front of him and he would have to get them.  Commissioner Messer asked “Is there anything else pending that may result in some litigation with these individuals?  Mr. Rush replied “Not that I am aware of”.

      Commissioner Eckhardt questioned the $34,600 and asked if this includes those items for nourishment and storm water, are they included in there or have they been taken out?  Mr. Rush replied that they had already been taken out.

      Commissioner Farmer complemented Mr. Rush on his summary of the budget.  She hopes it will be on the web.  Mr. Rush said the whole document will be placed on the web.  Commissioner Farmer invited the public to come to the budget workshops as they are open to the public.

      Mr. Rush, in regard to the budget workshops, suggested to schedule one for May 20, 2002 at 9:30

      Mr. Rush suggested scheduling the next workshop on Thursday, May 30, 2002 at 9:00.  It will depend on how much area is covered on the 20^th as to how long this meeting will run.

Mr. Rush invited everyone interested to come by and take a look at the full document.  One is available at Town Hall and one is available at Parks & Recreation.  He would be happy to sit down with anyone and discuss any concerns anyone has.

Commissioner Messer commended Mr. Rush and Ms. Overman for the job they have done but at this point it is going to be hard for him to support a 20 cents tax rate that has been created by things he has voted against.  Hopefully it can be worked out.

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT FOR BOGUE INLET RELOCATION/ WESTERN NOURISHMENT PROJECT

A final copy of CP&E’s technical and cost proposal to the board as soon as these issues are resolved.  Mr. Rush will be discussing these issues via cell phone with Tom Campbell, CP&E President, and Tom Jarrett. 

Mr. Rush said these issues should be resolved and the proposal will be presented at the May 20^th meeting. 

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PRE-POSITIONED DISASTER DEBRIS REMOVAL CONTRACT

Background- The Board of Commissioners is asked to approve the attached resolution authorizing the Town Manager to execute a pre-positioned disaster debris removal contract with Phillips and Jordan, Inc., Wilmington, NC.  This contract would only be activated if a hurricane strikes and the Town needs outside assistance to remove storm debris. 

The Town is wise to enter into a pre-positioned contract for debris removal, as it fosters a quick response in the event that a storm does strike Emerald Isle.  It also allows the town to resolve contractual issues up-front, without the stress of responding in the immediate aftermath of a hurricane.  The Town entered into a pre-positioned contract last year, and thankfully did not have to activate it.

Barry Johnson, the Town’s FEMA consultant, and Mitsy Overman coordinated the bid process.  Bids were received from four firms, and after a thorough analysis, P & J is the low bidder.  They have significant experience with disaster debris removal nationwide and in North Carolina.  We are confident that P & J is capable of exceptional performance if their services are necessary. 

A copy of the bid tabulation is attached at the end of these Minutes, along with a memo from Mitsy Overman to the Town Manager explaining the process.  

Town Attorney Derek Taylor has been asked to review the contract language before executing the contract.

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER

TO EXECUTE A DISASTER DEBRIS CONTRACT FOR THE 2002 HURRICANE SEASON

Commissioner Farmer asked if we have something that says these people will do what they have said they will do?  Mr. Rush replied “Yes”, that Barry Johnson, The Town’s FEMA consultant has worked with these people in Wilmington and they were as effective as they said they would be.

Commissioner Marks asked if there was anything in the contract that would require them to cover the stuff hauled off the island?  Mr. Rush said he does not know the answer to that question as he does not have the actual contract document but that could probably be added. 

Commissioner Messer made a motion to approve the Resolution Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute a Disaster Debris Contract for the 2002 Hurricane Season with Phillips and Jordan of Wilmington, N.C.  The board’s vote was unanimous, 5-0.

Background - The Board of Commissioners approved the attached ordinance at the April 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 April 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.

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 that 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.

Three minor modifications have been made to the ordinance after initial approval by the Board in April.  First, the language specifying the standards for curb and gutter has been modified to match the language used by NCDOT.  The April version of the ordinance referred to the curb type as a “roll curb”, whereas the May version refers to the curb type as a “valley curb”.  A sketch of a “valley curb” is attached to this memo.  Second, the required right-of-way for a cul-de-sac has been increased from 50 feet in the April version to 55 feet in the May version.  This corrects an inadvertent oversight in the April version.  The cul-de-sac right-of-way should be 55 feet to match the right-of-way requirement for a regular street segment, as discussed above.  Third, the May version of the ordinance changes the minimum driveway width to 10 feet (as opposed to 16’ included in the April version) to be consistent with other Town ordinances.

Finally, the May version of the ordinance makes one substantive change in the language governing driveway construction.  The April version included a requirement that driveways slope away from the edge of the street pavement by 3/8” per foot over for a distance of 8 feet.  The intent of this language was to prevent storm water runoff from flowing into public streets.  After discussing this requirement further with staff, it is apparent that there are some extremely steep slopes where it will not be possible to achieve this rigid requirement without tearing away an entire dune or hillside.  I am suggesting that this language be removed, but that the language preventing storm water runoff from running into the street be retained.  This language expresses the same intent, but does provide some flexibility for situations involving steep slopes.  In most instances, the Inspections staff will require the 3/8” inch per foot back slope for an 8 foot distance; in those situations where this is not practical the applicant would be required to utilize some other mechanism to prevent the driveway runoff from accumulating on the public street.

Each of the suggested changes in the May version are minor compared to the overall policy intent of the ordinance, and the ordinance can be formally enacted by a simple majority vote at the May meeting.  That is, these changes would not constitute a new introduction and require a super-majority vote.  If the Board does not concur with the suggested changes, it should indicate this at this meeting and only the changes and version of the amendment that the Board supports will be recorded.

ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 (STREETS AND SIDEWALKS) OF

THE EMERALD ISLE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ADJUST THE

STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS

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 after August 12, 1980 shall be warranted by the developer / owner for a period of one (1) year from the date of acceptance by the Board of Commissioners. 

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 – 50 55 feet

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 valley 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 valley gutter as specified by NCDOT

8)     Intersection / turning radius- 30 feet

9)     Cul-de-sac right-of-way – 50 55 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 – 40 55 feet, with 5-foot utility easement on each side of the   

street.”

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 valley 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 valley gutter as specified by NCDOT

8)     Intersection / turning radius- 30 feet

9)     Cul-de-sac right-of-way – 50 55 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, six (6) inches below centerline grade.”

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 have been must be approved by the building inspector director of public works, to whom they shall be forwarded by the officer within a reasonable time after receipt thereof;

2)     The work shall be done according to the standard specifications of the town for public works of like character; , and shall slope away from the edge of existing pavement or curb and gutter at a rate of 3/8 inch per foot over a minimum distance of eight (8) feet.  All driveways shall be constructed to prevent storm water from running off from the driveway to the pavement of the existing public or private street.  All driveways shall have a minimum width of 16’ 10’ at the intersection with the public or private street.  

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

Commissioner Marks made a motion to 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 (2^nd reading) as amended.  The board’s vote was a split vote, 3-2 with Commissioners Marks, Eckhardt and Farmer voting for, Commissioners Messer and McElraft voting against.

Background:   The Board of Commissioners approved the attached ordinance at the April 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 April 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.

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

THE EMERALD ISLE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO CLARIFY THE USE OF PRIVATE STREETS AND TO ADJUST THE STANDARDS FOR INTERSECTIONS

2. Section 18-43 (2) (b), Approval of special developments, Commercial and business condominiums, Design and construction standards, is amended to read as follows: 

“Each condominium unit or townhouse shall front on a public street or commonly owned street or area that conforms to the standards for public streets in Section 17-32 of the Emerald Isle Code of Ordinances.

3. Section 18-61, Design standards, Generally, is amended by adding a new Subsection (1) entitled Use of Public and Private Streets, which shall to read as follows:

“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.”   

4. Existing Subsections 1 through 8 of Section 18-61, Design standards, Generally, are hereby renumbered 2 through 9 to accommodate the insertion of new Subsection 1 outlined above.  

5. Section 18-61, Design standards, Generally, Subsection (5) (Renumbered) Intersections is hereby amended as follows:

“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) forty-five (45) degrees.  No more than two (2) streets shall intersect at one point.”

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

DISCUSSION  - ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 – BEACH AND SHORE REGULATIONS – OF THE EMERALD ISLE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO REGULATE BEACH BULLDOZING ACTIVITIES

The Board is asked to consideration an ordinance amendment that would prohibit future beach bulldozing activities in Emerald Isle, except in situations in which the structure is imminently threatened.  This ordinance is presented in anticipation of the Emerald Isle beach nourishment project, which is scheduled to begin construction in November 2002.

CAMA authorizes beach bulldozing through a 3-year minor permit.  This permit authorizes beach bulldozing in areas experiencing erosion, but structures need not be imminently threatened.  (CAMA regulations are scheduled to change in August 2002, and beach bulldozing permits will then expire after 30 days.)  As of April 16, there were 156 currently authorized 3-year minor beach bulldozing permits in Emerald Isle, with the vast majority (123) of these set to expire on December 31, 2002.  With the beach nourishment project set to begin, there exists the possibility that oceanfront property owners will seek to bulldoze prior to the nourishment project, thereby increasing the necessary volume of sand on the berm and/or decreasing the overall effectiveness of the nourishment project.  The adoption of this ordinance would prevent this from occurring, except in situations in which the structure is imminently threatened.  The attached ordinance will also prevent the bulldozing of newly placed nourishment sand after the nourishment project is complete, and will help to ensure that the nourished beach maintains its design profile.  Although CAMA does permit beach bulldozing, the adoption of this ordinance would take precedent over the CAMA permit, as it would be more restrictive than CAMA regulations.  

The ordinance language is similar to an ordinance recently approved in Indian Beach, with two exceptions.  First, the Emerald Isle ordinance utilizes a different definition of “imminently threatened”.  The Emerald Isle ordinance relies on the CAMA definition, which classifies a structure as imminently, threatened if the foundation of the structure is within 20 feet of the toe of the erosion scarp.  Second, the Emerald Isle ordinance makes a violation of this ordinance a civil violation, with a $500 per day penalty until the beach is returned to its pre-bulldozing condition.  Town Attorney Taylor suggested this language to provide sufficient “teeth” in the ordinance to discourage violators who are willing to pay the penalty.  

In keeping with the Board’s established policy, this ordinance is presented for discussion purposes at the May 14 meeting.  Under established policy, it will return for formal consideration on the June 11 agenda. 

ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 – BEACH AND SHORE REGULATIONS – OF THE EMERALD ISLE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PROHIBIT BEACH BULLDOZING

WHEREAS, the Town of Emerald Isle is undertaking a project of ocean beach nourishment to widen the beach thereby protecting ocean front structures from erosion; and

WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the public welfare that restrictions be placed on the pushing of sand on the ocean beaches in order that a fair allocation of the nourishment sand can be made in the current and future nourishment projects; and

WHEREAS, to enhance qualification for Federal Emergency Management Act ("FEMA") benefits in the event of shoreline erosion resulting from natural disasters, it is prudent for the Town to maintain regulations and restrictions with respect to the moving of sand along the beach; and

WHEREAS, beach bulldozing and other movement of sand along the beach, unless carefully monitored and regulated, can destroy vegetation and other devices designed to stabilize the beach.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Emerald Isle as follows:

1.         Chapter 5 of the Emerald Isle Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding a new section which shall read as follows:

            ARTICLE V.      BEACH BULLDOZING RESTRICTED

                                    Sec 5-70.          Bulldozing Restrictions.  On the ocean beaches, bulldozing sand, pushing of sand by mechanical means, or other mechanical change to the topography is prohibited except in the following situations:

                                                (i)         When such work is performed as a part of a hurricane or erosion protection project or beach nourishment project sponsored by the Town of Emerald Isle or any local, state, or federal governmental agency;

                                                (ii)        When such work is performed at the direction of the Town of Emerald Isle for purpose of beach maintenance;

                                    (iii)       When such work is performed by any non-governmental person or entity to protect primary structures (not including walkways to the ocean beach, swimming pools, or accessory use structures), that are imminently threatened as a result of severe erosion of the ocean beaches or the sand dune structure, but only upon receipt of a permit for such work from the local CAMA permitting officer after a finding by such officer that the structure is imminently threatened ("imminently threatened" means that the foundation of the structure is less than 20 feet from the toe of the erosion scarp); or

                        (iv)       When such work is authorized by the issuance of a general waiver of this section by the Board of Commissioners following a natural disaster.

                                    Sec 5-71.          Penalties. Any person who violates this section shall be subject to a civil fine of $500.00, and each day that the property is not restored to its pre-bulldozed condition shall be a separate violation.  Collection and enforcement of this civil penalty shall be in accordance with Section 1-6 of the Town’s Code of Ordinances.

2.