August 13, 2002
Agenda
August 13, 2002
Minutes
|
ACTION
AGENDA |
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING
OF THE EMERALD
ISLE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TUESDAY, AUGUST
13, 2002 – 7:00 P.M. – TOWN HALL
Mayor Art Schools called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Board members present were Mayor Schools, Commissioners
McElraft, Messer, Marks, Farmer, and Eckhardt.
Staff members present were Town Manager Frank Rush, Town Attorney Derek
Taylor, Town Clerk Carolyn Custy and Alesia Sanderson Parks and Recreation
Director.
PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE TO OUTGOING PLANNING BOARD MEMBER GEORGE MCLAUGHLIN
Mayor Schools presented a Certificate of Appreciation to George McLaughlin, an outgoing Planning Board Member. Mr. McLaughlin served on the Planning Board from January 2000 until June 30 2002. Mayor Schools thanked Mr. McLaughlin for his efforts while on the Planning Board.a. Minutes of Regular Meeting – July 9, 2002
b. Minutes of Special Meeting – May 20, 2002
c. Minutes of Special Meeting Reconvened – May 21, 2002
d. Minutes of Special Meeting – July 29, 2002
e. Minutes of Special Meeting – Budget – July 29, 2002
f. Resolution Authorizing Governor’s Highway Safety Grant
g. Approval of Contract with NCDENR for Administration of
CAMA Program in Emerald Isle
h. Approval of Resolution Authorizing Execution of CAMA
Planning Grant Contract.
i. Budget Amendment - Return FEMA Funds Remitted
To Town of Emerald Isle in Error
Mr. Rush noted that there was one change made to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of July 29, 2002 on the budget. That correction has been highlighted in “yellow”BACKGROUND INFO ON CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: (f.) The Board of Commissioners is asked to approve the attached resolution authorizing a grant application to the Governor’s Highway Safety Program. Grant funds will be used to purchase video cameras for two patrol cars and other miscellaneous police equipment. The total amount of the grant request is $3,250, which represents 25% of the total estimated project cost of $13,000.
The Police Department has received grant funding from the Governor’s Highway Safety Grant Program over the past several years. The grant application was due on August 6. Because the Board would not meet again until August 13, and because the Board approved matching funds in the FY 02-03 budget, Mr. Rush, Town Manager, authorized submission of the grant application and is requesting that the Board retroactively authorize the grant application at the August 13 Board meeting.
(g.) The Board of Commissioners is asked to approve a contract with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) for administration of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) program in Emerald Isle. Planning and Inspections Department staff review and authorize minor CAMA permits, general CAMA permits, and exemptions, and the Town is reimbursed by NCDENR for these services. The Town also retains CAMA permit application fees to cover the costs of administering this program.
Emerald Isle has partnered with NCDENR to enforce CAMA for the past several years. The Town receives $55 for each permit application processed, $40 for each follow-up inspection, and $25 for each exemption as compensation from NCDENR. The Town also receives $100 for each minor permit violation that is successfully resolved. The contract does establish a total cap of $4,500 annually for the reimbursements.
The Town issues approximately 50 CAMA permits annually, and because the Town also receives $100 for each permit application, the FY 02-03 budget anticipates approximately $8,000 in revenue from this contract.
Town Manager Rush recommends approval of the attached contract. (h.) The Board of Commissioners is asked to approve a resolution authorizing a contract with the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources for the recently awarded CAMA planning grant that will be used to update the Town’s land use plan.The Town has been awarded $18,750 in FY 02-03, which will be matched with $6,250 of Town funds to provide a total of $25,000 for the first phase of a two-phase project to update the land use plan. Sufficient funds are included in the FY 02-03 budget for this project. The Town will request the remaining $18,750 in FY 03-04, and it is anticipated that NCDENR will make those funds available at that time.
Mr. Bill Farris, the town’s planning consultant who prepared the grant application on the town’s behalf, will be asked to draft a contract between himself and the Town for his services associated with the land use plan update. Town Manager Rush hopes to have this contract on the Board’s September 10 agenda, along with a timeline and strategy for completing the land use plan update. Work on the land use plan update will begin sometime this fall, and will continue for approximately 18 months. Mr. Rush recommend approval of the resolution.
(i.) The Board of Commissioners is asked to approve the attached budget amendments to return a total of $21,763 to FEMA. These funds represent overpayments by FEMA in 1996 for the removal of debris after Hurricane Bertha. The attached August 6 memo from Mitsy Overman to me provides a further explanation of this issue.A budget amendment appropriates an additional $21,763 from General Fund balance to repay FEMA. Our latest estimates from the end of FY 01-02 indicate that the Town finished the fiscal year in slightly better shape than we anticipated in May and June, and this use of fund balance should be offset by higher than anticipated revenues and lower than anticipated expenditures at year-end. The town is still awaiting the receipt of FY 01-02 sales tax revenues, and staff will have a clearer picture of our General Fund balance levels later in August after this sales tax distribution is remitted. Even with this additional use of fund balance, it is expected that the General Fund balance to remain at approximately $1.4 million as of June 30, 2002.
Commissioner Marks made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the change noted by Town Manager Rush. The board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0. Motion Carried.BACKGROUND: The preliminary plat for Bell Cove Village subdivision is presented for the Board’s consideration. Bell Cove Village is an 8-lot subdivision located at the intersection of Coast Guard Road and NC 58, and comprises approximately 8 acres. In addition to the 8 lots, a separate common area is included in the subdivision, and this common area represents approximately 1.7 acres of the total 8 acres in the subdivision. A private road, Rose’s Path, occupies slightly less than 1 acre of the total 8 acres in the subdivision. The applicants are Ronnie Watson, Steve Mathews, and Randy Campbell, and their agents are Alan Bell and John McLean.
This subdivision further divides the two lots recently created under the Reed Drive Commercial Park subdivision, for which the final plat was approved in June 2002. The 8 new lots proposed in the Bell Cove Village subdivision range in size from approximately 17,000 sq. ft. to 63,000 sq. ft., with most in the 25,000 sq. ft. range. Each of the lots conform with the Town’s dimensional requirements for the B-3 zoning district, which is the zoning district that this property is located within.
The Planning Board discussed the approval of the preliminary plat for Bell Cove Village at its June 24 regular meeting, its June 26 map review committee meeting and its July 22 regular meeting. The Planning Board voted unanimously at its July 22 meeting to recommend approval of the preliminary plat.
In response to concerns raised by the Planning Board, the applicants and the agents have worked closely with Planning Board member Art Daniel to develop a storm water management plan that is consistent with the requirements of the Town’s new storm water management ordinance. After two revisions, Mr. Daniel, a licensed professional engineer, has approved the storm water management plan submitted by John McLean for this project. A copy of that storm water management plan is attached.
The Bell Cove Village subdivision does not involve the construction of new infrastructure, as the road and associated improvements were completed as part of the Reed Drive Commercial Park. The applicant has agreed to construct a short right-turn lane along Coast Guard Road into the private Rose’s Path near the NC 58 / Coast Guard Road intersection. The turn lane will be approximately 150 feet long, and will gradually taper from a maximum width of approximately 11 feet near Rose’s Path to the north to the edge of the existing pavement approaching the NC 58 / Coast Guard Road intersection. The new right-turn lane will not connect with NC 58.
One positive aspect of the subdivision is that the designated 1.7 acre common area is located at the northern tip of the property and is adjacent to the NC 58 “Gateway” area. The fact that this property will remain as common area will hopefully enable that area to remain in a primarily vegetated state. Although it has no bearing on the consideration of the preliminary plat, the applicants have informed me that they hope to use that area for a wastewater system for a restaurant on lot 3 of the subdivision.
The Board should note that the preliminary plat that was approved by the Planning Board includes a discrepancy regarding the configuration of the intersection of Rose’s Path near Reed Drive and Coast Guard Road. As the board is aware, the previously approved Reed Drive Commercial Park subdivision was limited to a right-in only feature at that intersection. The actual map of the Bell Cove Village subdivision indicates that this feature remains the same as approved for Reed Drive Commercial Park, however, the inset detail indicates that a right-turn out feature has been added. At the June 26 map review committee, the applicants did express an interest in adding this right-turn out feature, however, there was never any other discussion of this issue at subsequent Planning Board meetings. The issue simply did not arise, and I am not certain if the Planning Board members noticed this detail on the preliminary plat approved on July 22. As of August 5 Mr. Rush had not yet received clarification from the applicants whether or not this was an intended feature or simply an oversight. The Board should address this issue during the August 13 meeting if it is not resolved prior to the meeting. This issue was the subject of considerable Board debate when the preliminary plat for Reed Drive Commercial Park was approved in December 2001. There also was not clear consensus from the various traffic engineers consulted by the Town at that time.
This request for Preliminary Plat approval for Bell Cove Village has been deliberately placed the on the August 13 agenda so that it appears before the Board’s consideration of Item #9, which contains various amendments to the subdivision ordinance. The most significant provision in that amendment that affects Bell Cove Village is a requirement for sidewalks on one side of the street in all new commercial subdivisions. Because this ordinance amendment has been under consideration for the past few months, and because their staff nor the Planning Board have discussed these potential additional requirements with the applicants, it has been scheduled it on the agenda for consideration before the subdivision ordinance amendments are effective. If the Board believes that Bell Cove Village should be held to these new ordinance provisions, it may want to amend the agenda to consider that ordinance prior to Bell Cove Village.
Copies of the June 24 and July 22 Planning Board minutes have been provided for the board’s review. Also provided was a copy of a June 20 memo that Town Manager Rush wrote to the Planning Board. (All of the issues that were raised in the June 20 memo have been addressed by the Planning Board in its review.) Mr. Rush included another June 20 memo that was provided for the Planning Board that summarized the various traffic engineers’ recommendations regarding the NC 58 / Coast Guard Road / Reed Drive intersections.
DISCUSSION: Michael Harvey of Benchmark who is rendering Planning Assistance to the Town of Emerald Isle, said the town has a proposal submitted by Mr. Ronnie Watson and Mr. Steve Matthews to develop an 8-lot subdivision on an approximately 7-acre tract of property located on Coast Guard Road near Deer Creek Drive Extension. Work has been done on a road located on the plat designated as Rose’s Path, which is required to obtain final approval status. This property is owned by Paxon Holz and she has a contract with Mr. Watson and Mr. Matthews for development. Mr. Rush has presented a detailed Memorandum and proposal sheet on this project. What is being asked at this meeting is for the Board of Commissioners to approval the Preliminary Plat for Bell Cove Subdivision so additional work can be done to the site to bring it up for a final plat status. Mr. Rush has attached a very detailed Storm Water Management Master Plan that was prepared by Mr. John McLean and presented to the Planning Board at their last regular meeting. The Planning Board saw this to meet all the technical requirements outlined for the Emerald Isle Subdivision Ordinance and has recommended to the town board that this plat be approved. It is understood there needs to be a clarification with respect to the entrance of Rose’s path with respect to what appears to be a right turn out. Mr. Harvey has been informed by Mr. Rush that Mr. Matthews and Mr. Watson, the applicants, are going to withdraw the right turn out and accept this only as an entrance. The board can take action to approve the preliminary plat and Mr. Harvey suggested, it necessary, to put it in the motion on the understanding that the right turn out is to be removed. Mr. Harvey said in conducting his review, he can find no faults with the preliminary plat. It meets the spirit and letter of the town’s ordinance. He also recommended adoption. Mr. Alan Bell, a land surveyor, reiterated Mr. Harvey’s comments on the area of concern, which is the right, turn out. It was not realized that the right turn out was on the plat until yesterday and they will remove it from the plat. Commissioner Farmer commented it was wonderful to see the storm water plan which was very well thought out. She asked if it would be possible to put a note on the plat indicating the turn lane shown on the plat would not in fact go all the way to Highway 58? Mr. Allen agreed it could be done. The applicants are satisfied with it being removed. Commissioner Farmer also had a question about the storm water plan and asked Mr. Art Daniel about seeing no building site on lot 3, and there was not a septic field show. On lot 6 there was no septic field. She does not think this matters but for future projects and so the board is asking the same things from everyone she asked for clarification. Mr. Daniel said Lot 3 was very flexible and is located at the northern extremity of the site and it was not felt it to be necessary to fit the sanitary area nor the building site. There should be no difficulty in developing that lot. A sheet flow might be appropriate for that site and it may be necessary to trap some of that and run it into the inlet but a sheet flow would work on that location. Commissioner Farmer was concerned about directing the storm water into the wetlands but Mr. Rush has answered her question on that. According to the Corps and Division of Water Quality, it is OK to do that as long as you are going through a swale on the right. Mr. Daniel said it would need to be through a vegetative filter. There were no comments from the audience. Commissioner Messer made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for Bell Cove Village with the deletion of the right turn out being noted on the plat.ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 – SUBDIVISIONS – REGARDING SKETCH DESIGN PLANS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS
a. Public Hearing
b. Consideration of Ordinance
BACKGROUND: The Board of Commissioners is scheduled to consider several proposed amendments to the subdivision ordinance at the August 13 meeting. These ordinance amendments address several separate issues that are summarized with bullets below. The proposed amendments are indicated in the attached ordinance with the underline feature (identifying new language) and the strike-through feature (identifying deleted provisions).
The Board discussed this ordinance at the July 9 meeting. The attached ordinance reflects additional language to address some of the concerns raised at the July 9 meeting. An explanation of these changes is included in the summary bullets below. The Board should also note that a formal public hearing has been scheduled to receive public comment on the proposed ordinance. Town Attorney Derek Taylor recently informed us that state law requires a public hearing on all amendments to the subdivision ordinance, just as one is required for amendments to the zoning ordinance. It is Mr. Rush’ understanding that the Town has never advertised or conducted public hearings for subdivision ordinance amendments in the past, but the town will do so for all future amendments.
The specific revisions included in the attached ordinance amendment are as follows:
Following the public hearing, the Board may formally consider adoption of the proposed ordinance.
Because of the length of the Ordinance, a copy has been attached at the end of these Minutes.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Art Daniel went over the process relating to Sketch Designs. He said that regarding a comment from the public, the word “church” was changed to “place of worship” and in regard to not bringing a conditionally approved plat before the Board of Commissioners, but rather resolving that in the Planning Board previous to it being submitted, some changes have been made in that area. The Section 18-21 (bottom of page 8 and on page 9) was rephrased so that three copies would be sent on to the Board of Commissioners from the Planning Board with the appropriate signature from the Chairman of the Planning Board. On a plat that is granted on a conditional approval, the reasons for the conditional approval and the conditions to be met must be stated in writing and be submitted to the Planning Board as provided in paragraph (4), page 9. This is saying that the Planning Board has discretion to grant a conditional approval. That means that the plat is almost in compliance with the Ordinance, in order to save time and to move the process forward, the Planning Board would like the applicant to make those changes that were a condition to the approval and bring that revised plat to the Chairman of the Planning Board. It would then be reviewed to see if it was in compliance with the Ordinance and then it would be submitted to the Board of Commissioners. The Planning Board also would have the discretion to deny approval of a preliminary plat and in that process the applicant could make the necessary changes and resubmit it to the Planning Board for action.
Subparagraph (5) provides for the Board of Commissioners to approve or disapprove the preliminary plat. There are some side issues that fall into the legal arena as to whether this is a legislative review or a quasi-judicial review.
This ordinance grants the Planning Board more authority than it has had in the past and allows the Planning Board to make the decision as to whether that is appropriate or not and it could be conditionally approved or rejected. It eliminates someone bypassing the Planning Board and going directly to the Board of Commissioners.
Mr. Rush clarified that the town subdivision ordinance is primarily the approval of a subdivision and is an administrative exercise in that it only complies with that which is outlined in the subdivision ordinance. If the Planning Board does not approve it, then the town board should not approve it either.
Commissioner Farmer said the one change she sees is that the town board should not be getting plats in front of them that need conditional approvals. The Board of Commissioners is no longer giving conditional approval of plats. If there is a problem, they need to go back to the Planning Board. Mr. Rush indicated that was correct.
Mr. Rush said it also clarifies that plats received by the town board should represent any conditions that the Planning Board places upon it. It should be an updated version that comes before the town board.
Commissioner Marks asked for a correction in paragraph (5), Page 9 where is says one Board of Commissioners approved copy shall be, etc - - - she suggested it say “one copy approved by the Board of Commissioners - - - - “.
Mr. Daniel commented on the underground utilities, and said when he contacted CCEMC, they informed him they have required electric underground utilities for the last 5 years. Ninety-five per-cent of subdivisions have underground electric utilities in the past 5 years with the exception of two and both of those were in Emerald Isle.
Commissioner
McElraft made a motion to open the public hearing on this issue.
The board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0. Motion carried.
There were no public comments.
Commissioner
Farmer made a motion to close the public hearing and the board voted
unanimously, with a vote of 5-0. Motion carried.
Commissioner Farmer made a motion to adopt the Ordinance Amending Chapter
18 – Subdivisions – Regarding Sketch Design Plans and Other Miscellaneous
Amendments.
Commissioner McElraft had one problem with this ordinance in reference to the sidewalk issue. She thinks that sidewalks should be done as one rather than piece-meal it by different subdivisions because she thinks it will be a liability to the Town of Emerald Isle if someone is walking on a sidewalk and all of a sudden has to go out and walk on the street because there is no sidewalk. She is aware that the town is working on sidewalks in the commercial area but she is concerned that until sidewalks are installed in the whole commercial area, there are going to be problems with it.
Commissioner Farmer commented it would be nice to be able to do sidewalks in Emerald Isle all at once but it is going to be piece- meal for a while but the Highway 58 Committee is working for that grant right now. She feels if individual subdivisions put in sidewalks as they go, it would be less of a burden to taxpayers.
Commissioner Eckhardt said Art Daniels has pointed out that sidewalks seem to be step-children in any development but he thinks this is a start and he thinks the town needs to accept some small degree of liability in this case to get sidewalks started.
Commissioner McElraft said another problem she has is, when the Bell Cove project is looked at, if the sidewalks have not been put in at the time that road is, you take all the flexibility away from the people who are developing that. They may put an impervious sidewalk there and maybe the new developers would like to come in and put a sidewalk made out of wood. She feels that if the flexibility is taken away from the development of these properties by making sidewalks go in the same time as the road, true flexibility is taken away from good things that could happen with that property. She would not mind seeing the developer putting money in the town sidewalk program so it could all be done at one time. Making sidewalks go in at the same time as the roads in the subdivision ordinance is the wrong way to go about it.
Commissioner Marks commented it would be cheaper to go in at the same time of the roads. It does not say the sidewalks must be along beside the roadway. In Bell Cove, the developer will have the option of having sidewalks going in from one business to another. All it says is there will be a separate walkway for pedestrians, which is desperately needed.
Commissioner McElraft said if this part is taken out she will be all for it but for that one reason, she does not support it.
Mr. Rush clarified for Commissioner Marks, this ordinance requires construction of sidewalks in the right-of-ways. If there are additional sidewalks on the individual parcels, it is something that would be handled at the plan review date. This ordinance deals with sidewalks in the right-of-way. They could come back and put in additional sidewalks on individual parcels.
Commissioner McElraft said she would not mind passing it without the part requiring sidewalks and going back and working on that part.
Commissioner Farmer said there are people walking along side of the road now and she would rather them have a little stretch of sidewalk to walk on for a while and keep them on pavement. She is happy with it the way it is.
Commissioner Messer asked about the possibility later when the actual building starts if some of the sidewalks would have to be torn up to make some changes that were made or do a driveway? Mr. Rush thought that possibility exists and hopes the developers, when they do the individual lots, they would try to minimize the impact on their sidewalks. This provision is a fairly standard provision in a lot of communities.
Commissioner McElraft suggested that situation would have occurred in Bell Cove because of the way they have resubdivided the lots. Mr. Rush made note that they are still required in Bell Cove Subdivision to have sidewalks in the right-of-way. When they actually build a particular building on a lot, they would be expected to replace the sidewalk in a similar manner. The bottom line is they are required to have sidewalks in the rights-of-ways in subdivisions.
Mayor Schools called for a vote. Voting
to approve the Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 – Subdivisions – Regarding
Sketch Design Plans and Other Miscellaneous Amendments were Commissioners Marks,
Eckhardt and Farmer. Opposed were
Commissioners McElraft and Messer.
NOTE: This item will
appear on the September Agendas for a 2nd reading since the first
reading did not receive 4/5ths vote. A 3/2 vote will be necessary for the 2nd
reading to pass.
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 – ZONING – TO ALLOW DOG GROOMING AS A SPECIAL USE IN THE B-2 AND B-3 ZONES
a. Public Hearing
b. Consideration of Ordinance
BACKGROUND: The Board of Commissioners is scheduled to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 19 – Zoning – to allow dog grooming as a special use in the B-2 (Business-2) and B-3 (Business-3) zones. This ordinance amendment was requested by a citizen, Ms. Beverly Beasley, who hopes to open a dog grooming business in Emerald Isle in the coming months. A public hearing is required before the Board formally considers this ordinance amendment, and has been scheduled for the August 13 meeting.
Dog grooming operations are currently not authorized as either a permitted or special use in any zoning district in the Town of Emerald Isle. The attached ordinance would allow dog grooming operations in the B-2 and B-3 zones if the applicant complies with eight additional conditions. The most notable of these conditions are a prohibition on any overnight boarding activities, a prohibition on the storage of dogs outdoors, and a requirement to remove excrement from designated outdoor dog walking areas on the premises on a daily basis. In response to concerns expressed at the Board’s July 9 meeting, the attached ordinance now explicitly includes a condition mandating compliance with provisions in the Town’s animal ordinance that prohibit loud and habitual barking. The owners / employees of the dog grooming operation, and its customers, must also comply with all of the Town’s other animal ordinances, including leash laws, and the removal of excrement from public and private property. Repeated violation of the Town’s animal ordinances, and/or failure to remain in compliance with the special use permit conditions would result in a revocation of the special use permit by the Town, and the shut-down of the dog grooming business.
The concept of the attached ordinance, and designation of this use as a special use with conditions was developed by Carol Angus, Planning and Inspections Director, and approved by the Planning Board by a 4-1 vote at its June 25 meeting.
ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 19 - ZONING –
TO
ALLOW DOG GROOMING AS A SPECIAL USE IN B-2 AND B-3 ZONES
“All special use applications and special use permits for ‘dog grooming operations’ shall comply with the following conditions:
3.
The Town Clerk is authorized to number the section set forth above and
insert the same as appropriate in the Town Code.
4. 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.
DULY ADOPTED THIS _________ day of _____________, 2002 by a vote of
Commissioner(s)___________________________________________ voting for,
Commissioner(s) _______________________________ voting against and Commissioner(s)__________________________ absent.
Carolyn K. Custy, Town Clerk, CMC
Attorney Taylor called the
board’s attention to approve animals is recognizing horses, pigs, goats, etc. Commissioner
McElraft amended her motion to change the word “animal” to “dog”
grooming to bring it back to it’s original form.
The board voted unanimously with a vote of 5-0.
Motion carried.
BACKGROUND: Coastal Science and Engineering (CSE) is finalizing the bid packages and contract documents for the eastern phase of the beach nourishment project. There are several important issues associated with the bid packages / contract, and time has been included on the August 13 agenda for CSE, Town Attorney Derek Taylor, and Town Manager Frank Rush to explain these issues to the Board, and hopefully reach consensus on the strategies to address each of these issues, as well as any other issues identified by the Board.
Tim Kana, Tom White, Town Attorney Derek Taylor, and Town Manager Frank Rush have had numerous discussions about the bid packages and contract terms over the past 3 or 4 weeks. We have spent considerable time discussing various issues, most notably the following: the timing of the bid process, availability of bond funds, easement acquisition / condemnation process, the structure of the bids, deadlines, liquidated damages, cutter-head vs. hopper dredges, tires, turtles, sediment quality, progress quantities, and Indian Beach's request to tag-on to our project. Attorney Taylor and Mr. Rush have also consulted with other parties to solicit their knowledge and expertise about these issues, including USACE attorneys, Tom Campbell, Tom Jarrett, Neil Whitford (Pine Knoll Shores/Indian Beach Town Attorney), Buck Fugate, and Rudi Rudolph.
Mr. Kana, Mr. Campbell, Attorney Taylor, and Mr. Rush have all made a concerted effort to learn from the experiences of Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach last year so that Emerald Isle can have a successful project that is completed on time, on budget, and that will satisfy the community’s expectations.
Based on these discussions, and considering CSE's explanation of options and recommendations, Mr. Rush recommended the following strategies to address the various issues. Attorney Taylor concurs with Mr. Rush’s recommendations.
CSE is planning to mail the bid packages to dredging companies by mid-August, with a mid-September deadline for dredging companies to submit bids. That would then give CSE and the Town approximately 1 month to make a contract award and issue the notice-to-proceed (by mid-October), thus leaving approximately 1 month for the successful bidder to mobilize and begin work on November 16. The first payment, for mobilization of equipment would be due on or around December 1.
Town Manager Rush has been communicating with the NC Local Government Commission in recent days, and we have established October 15 as the sale date for approximately $9.5 million of the General Obligation Bonds authorized for this project. (The total budget for the eastern phase is approximately $10.2 million.) Bond proceeds will be available for drawdown approximately 3 weeks after the sale date, in time for the mobilization payment that is expected to be due on or around December 1. Mr. Rush is recommending that the Board delay issuance of the notice-to-proceed until after the bond sale on October 15 to insure that the bonds will be sold at a competitive interest rate. The balance of funds available for the eastern phase will be generated by the issuance of approximately $1,100,000 of bond-anticipation-notes in or around April of 2003, in time to make the final payments on the eastern phase and cover the engineering payments for the western phase / Bogue Inlet project.
Mr. Rush explained that the reason for this approach is to keep the Town’s total calendar year debt issues less than $10 million, which will result in a lower interest rate. Bond funds necessary to retire the April 2003 bond-anticipation-notes, provide funding for the construction of the western phase / Bogue Inlet project, and cover future environmental monitoring costs will be included in a second bond sale to be held in or around October 2003.
The Town is in the process of sending out the final reminder letter to the oceanfront property owners who have not yet returned the easements. If the town does not receive signed easements from these property owners by mid-September, the Board of Commissioners will be asked to approve the condemnation of the necessary easements. The process to condemn the easements is relatively simple. The Board must determine which properties will be condemned, the Town must send an official notice to the property owners at least 30 days prior to condemnation, and if the easements are not granted by the end of the 30 day period, the Town can condemn the easements simply by placing a deposit with the Clerk of Court. Because the nourishment project is expected to enhance property values, and the easement will not change the practical use of this property, a minimal or no deposit will be required, according to Derek Taylor. The Town will have to pay a $65 filing fee for each condemnation, and we would obviously seek to minimize this cost.
It is hopeful that nearly all property owners will return the necessary easements prior to any action to initiate condemnation. Attorney Derek Taylor and Mr. Rush will provide an update on our status at the August 13 meeting.
The bids would be structured such that the dredging contractor will be required to nourish a "base bid" amount of approximately 1.7 million cubic yards over a 4.4 mile stretch of beach from the Indian Beach town line west to approximately Matt Drive / Elizabeth Street. This "base bid" would have to be completed in the winter 02-03 dredging season, with completion occurring prior to April 1, 2003. The bids would be structured to include two alternate areas, the first of which might include a specified sand volume over approximately 2.1 additional miles west to approximately Craig Drive / Tracy Drive. The second alternate would move further to the west, perhaps as far as an additional 2 miles, but this is highly unlikely. The deadline for completion of the alternate(s) would be April 1, 2004, and the dredging contractor would have the option of completing the alternate(s) in the 02-03 or 03-04 dredging seasons. If the dredging contractor chose to finish the alternate(s) in 03-04, there would be no additional charge to the Town for mobilization / demobilization in 03-04. If the Town awards the alternate(s), there will need to be close coordination with Coastal Planning and Engineering (CPE) and the Bogue Inlet project to make sure that the boundaries of the two projects coincide in a cost-effective manner. It is advantageous to solicit bids for the alternate(s) because the further west that we can take the eastern phase, the easier it is likely to be to accomplish the western nourishment / Bogue Inlet project.
The dredging contractor would be responsible for completing the work on time, or would be liable for liquidated damages of $6 / cubic yard that is not placed by the deadline. (The Town also would not pay for the quantity that was not placed; i.e., the amount less than the 1.7 million cubic yards in the "base bid".) The Town would grant time extensions for certain valid reasons (turtle down-time, tire down-time, etc.), and these time extensions would first occur between April 1 and April 15, possibly between April 15 and April 30 (if allowed by the permitting agencies), and then would extend into the 03-04 dredging season, with no additional charge to the Town for mobilization / demobilization in 03-04.
The Town would request two sets of bids - one using cutter-head dredge(s) and one using hopper dredge(s). The town will not have the permit modification in hand prior to soliciting bids, and will therefore request bids for both types of equipment. CSE plans to submit the official permit modification request to the agencies within the next week. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with both approaches, and the Town will need to weigh these prior to awarding the contract. As mentioned above, the Town will need to award contracts by mid-October, so we'll need a relatively quick decision from the permitting agencies (within 2 months). Anecdotal comments from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NC Division of Coastal Management indicate that this modification should not be a major issue, however, we will not know what concerns will be raised until the formal permit modification request is submitted. Tim Kana will be in a better position to address the status of the permit modification issue at the August 13 meeting.
Mr. Rush made note during the regular board meeting that Coastal Science Engineers has, in fact, submitted the formal Permit Modification request to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Division of Coastal Management. It was submitted on August 9, 2002.
Tires are only likely to cause downtime if a hopper dredge is used. A cutter-head dredge is not likely to experience significant downtime if it encounters tires, however, the cutter-head dredge would likely leave chunks of tires on the beach. The cutter-head bids would require the contractor to remove the tire chunks from the beach.
For the hopper-dredge bids, CSE put forth two options for dealing with tire issues. One option is to have dredging companies submit a "cost per tire encountered" that results in down-time, and have the Town pay that per tire fee. This essentially places financial responsibility for tires on the Town, and would likely result in lower unit cost bid prices, because the dredging company would receive additional compensation for downtime caused by tires. CSE and the Town would certainly provide the best available information about the location and absence of tires in the borrow areas to attempt to prevent this from becoming a widespread problem.
The other option is to simply make any tire-related downtime non-compensable. This would eliminate the possibility of additional claims from the dredging contractor, but is likely to result in higher unit cost bid prices. Again, CSE and the Town would provide the best available information about the location and absence of tires in the borrow areas to attempt to prevent this from becoming a widespread problem. Hopefully this would give the dredging companies greater comfort and result in unit cost bid prices that are not quite as high as they might be with no advance information.
After considerable thought and discussions with others, it is Mr. Rush’s recommendation that the town make any tire-related downtime non-compensable. This puts all the responsibility on the contractor, and gives the Town greater certainty at the time the contract is awarded that we will not have to "ante up" additional funds and/or reduce the volume of sand pumped in the middle of the project because the town has to compensate the contractor for tire-related down-time. Town Manager Rush wants to make sure that we have nearly 100% certainty that at the time the town signs the dredging contracts that it actually gets the volume of sand indicated in the bids. If it winds up being less than we're hoping for, Mr. Rush had rather know that up-front so that the community has realistic expectations for the project.
To be fair to the dredging contractor, tire delays would be eligible for time extensions, and would push the deadline beyond April 1. This provision would limit the contractor's risk of paying liquidated damages. We'd need to establish a mechanism to determine that downtime was actually related to tires.
Tom White is considering the possibility of bidding the project out both ways so we can see what the cost differences would be. It may be too confusing to bid it both ways, but he is considering that approach, and should have a better idea about this before the August 13 meeting.
Cutter-head dredges are much less likely to take turtles, and if a cutter-head dredge is used this is not expected to be an issue. Downtime resulting from the taking of turtles with a cutter-head dredge would be non-compensable. This is not expected to have a significant impact on the unit cost bid prices because the chances of taking a turtle are slim.
For hopper dredges, downtime resulting from the taking of turtles would also be non-compensable. Essentially, turtles would be treated in the same manner as recommended for tires. The ramifications of this approach are similar; the dredging contractor is likely to increase his unit cost bid price to factor in this uncertainty, but the Town would avoid any future claims for downtime. Again, this would provide greater certainty for the Town at the beginning that we'll actually receive the amount of sand for which we award the contract. It would also keep the Town out of disagreements with the contractor over downtime compensation.
To be fair to the dredging contractor, turtle delays would be eligible for time extensions, and would push the deadline beyond April 1. This provision would limit the contractor's risk of paying liquidated damages.
There was some discussion about specifying that no dredging could occur when the water temperature exceeds 58 degrees. This was considered as a way to reduce the chances of a turtle-take, but after additional consideration, we believe that this could have the potential to severely limit the dredging window, and therefore do not recommend this approach.
Most everyone involved with the turtle trawling activities in Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach last year agree that the emergency turtle trawling was not beneficial or cost-effective, and our project would not include this activity. Tom White is, however, investigating the possibility of a more sophisticated computer-monitoring program that is used by the USACE that may provide valuable data that could help to avoid turtle-takes.
The quality of the sediment (percent mud and percent shell) will be monitored daily to identify any problem areas, and if necessary, make any modifications to achieve better sediment quality. The quantity of the material dredged and placed will be monitored daily to insure that production is meeting desired schedules. Tim Kana is still finalizing the results of the additional core samples, and can address the Board's sediment quality concerns at the August 13 meeting
The Board received a copy of a July 22 letter from Indian Beach (INDIAN BEACH) Mayor Buck Fugate from Mr. Rush requesting that Emerald Isle (EMERALD ISLE) include Indian Beach within the scope of its project this winter to complete an approximate 2000-2800 ft. section of beach that was not completed in Indian Beach last year. According to CSE's plan, pumping would begin at the Emerald Isle / Indian Beach town line, with an area directly west of the line (in Emerald Isle) nourished first. The pumping would then move the opposite direction (east of the Town line) into Indian Beach to finish that 2000-2800 ft section. The pump setup would then be moved further to the west in Emerald Isle, where a similar setup would occur, and so on. This would mean that Indian Beach would be nourished prior to most of Emerald Isle. Tom White has estimated that it would require approximately 150,000 to 200,000 cubic yards of sand to complete the nourishment of Indian Beach, and that the work could be done in about 7 or 8 days at full production. The risk of this approach to Emerald Isle is that 1) it would take valuable time that may be necessary to finish Emerald Isle later in the winter, and 2) there is a risk of taking turtles for the Indian Beach section that could have significant ramifications on the Emerald Isle project. The advantage to Emerald Isle is that Indian Beach would be finished up to the Emerald Isle border, and we would not have to taper our project, thus saving us some time and money and strengthening our project at the east end (no end losses because the Indian Beach section would act as a 'bookend' holding our sand in place).
If Indian Beach is not completed at the beginning, and the project begins at the Town line and moves west to nourish Emerald Isle first, then it might be possible to come back to Indian Beach at the end if there's enough time prior to the end of the dredging season. This would result in an additional mobilization cost of approximately $150,000 for Indian Beach that could be avoided under the approach described above.
If Indian Beach is not completed first, Emerald Isle would need to taper its project into Indian Beach for a distance of up to 1,000 feet, with an average of approximately 35 cubic yards of sand per linear foot. This would result in Emerald Isle pumping approximately 35,000 cubic yards of sand into Indian Beach that we would pay for (because Indian Beach offered to pay for the Emerald Isle taper into Emerald Isle last year), and this would cost us approximately $175,000 to do this. If Indian Beach completed its project after ours is finished, the fact that ours was tapered would reduce the Emerald Isle volume requirement and essentially save them an equivalent amount of money. These savings could offset Indian Beach's additional mobilization cost described above, so Indian Beach is facing the same cost regardless of the approach taken.
If Emerald Isle was willing to take the risk of Indian Beach taking a turtle or Indian Beach being done very slowly at the beginning, the Town could save approximately $175,000 because it would not have to taper; i.e., Indian Beach would pay for their own beach, and we'd begin to place 100% of our planned volume of sand at the Town line.
This is perhaps the most difficult issue that the Board will consider relative to the eastern phase of the nourishment project. On the one hand, Emerald Isle may not be wise to give up the time or take the risk of a turtle-take in Indian Beach; that we should insure the completion of our project first, and then allow the dredger to return to Indian Beach near the end of the dredging season. If Emerald Isle could be certain that Indian Beach would only take 7 or 8 days, and that they would not take any turtles, it would be my recommendation to direct the dredging company to complete Indian Beach near the beginning of the project. Unfortunately, there are no guarantees on the time or the turtle issue. On the other hand, completing Indian Beach will make our project stronger and reduce our tapering costs, and help our neighbor.
Regardless of the Town’s decision on Indian Beach’s request, both Town Attorney Derek Taylor and Mr. Rush would prefer that Indian Beach enter into a separate contract with the dredging company. If this proves to be too cumbersome and complicated, there should be an interlocal agreement between the two towns that is very favorable to Emerald Isle and relieves Emerald Isle of all liability associated with the Indian Beach section.
These are the recommendations for the major issues associated with the nourishment project. For your information, Mr. Rush has attached a copy of Tom White's July 26 correspondence to him outlining these issues, CSE’s initial recommendations, and the Emerald Isle assessment of the advantages and disadvantages associated with the various approaches. He has also attached a copy of Attorney Derek Taylor's comments (July 29), several of which are recommendations for additional protective language. Mr. Rush has also verbally discussed my recommendations contained in this email with Attorney Taylor, and he concurs with these recommendations.
Tim Kana and Tom White is in attendance at this meeting to explain these issues in more detail, answer any questions, and assist the Board in exploring other alternatives that you may want to consider. The Board can certainly decide to take a different approach on these issues if you believe there are better strategies. This is the largest project that the Town has ever undertaken, and possibly the largest that it ever will undertake, and it is important that the Board is comfortable with this approach to these issues.
It is hopeful that the Board will reach consensus on these issues at the August 13 meeting so that the bid packages can be revised accordingly and mailed to prospective bidders within 4-7 days after the August 13 meeting. If the Board is able to reach consensus, a motion to authorize the solicitation of bids is the appropriate Board action at the August 13 meeting.
DISCUSSION: Dr. Tim Kana, Project Director started by saying the first thing to do is to go over the big plan. He is here to address sediment issues and Mr. Tom White, Project Engineer is here to address the big plan.
Mr. White said he is going to cover several topics quickly. His preference is to give a very brief description as to how it stands and if there are questions on that topic he would take them then.
Mr. White indicated there is a base bid and two alternates that are in the plan. The base bid is considered to be the minimum that would need to be done. The base bid is specified to be done in this one dredging season this winter and ending April 1st, 2003. The two alternates are in there in case very attractive bids are received and it is desired to award more sand to cover more of the beach. The base bid is in there to a certain extent for the west and then the next alternate takes over and moves further to the west and then the second alternate takes over. Mr. White thought what people were going to be interested in is what streets these end at. The starting point will be at Indian Beach and proceed with 82.6 Cu Yds per foot until 23rd Street is reached. Then the plan is to drop back to 58 Cu Yds per foot and proceed past the Point where Ocean Drive starts to have a cross street – almost to Connie Street. After Connie Street it will be dropped to 35 Cu Yds per foot. This will be in the bids. There are iterations on the plans. It is not known what the bid prices are going to be so always there is a re-survey just before the project starts and then based on the bid price, how much money there is, how sand can be bought and the change in the beach between now and November, will get adjusted. The way these were arrived at is the same way it has been done for 2 years at Bogue Banks. This is a base volume that get each profile up to the size basically of Atlantic Beach, plus a 10-year advanced nourishment for 10 years of erosion, so that 10-years after the project if the weather behaves on an average basis Emerald Isle should be back to Atlantic Beach size.
Mr. Rush clarified the first phase of nourishment is approximately 4.4 miles, in the vicinity of Matt Drive roughly.
Mr. White said the next phase is between Fairfax and Clarke Street.
Dr. Kana emphasized the idea of having a base quantity is that it is related to how much is being demanded to be done at a minimum during the next environmental window. It is known from experience at Pine Knoll Shores that they cannot pump 3 Million yards, but they can pump 1.5 million yards comfortably. The alternates are added to that in the event that they luck out with the weather and have an efficient operation going on out there and the alternates would have a different set of penalities than the base would have.
Mayor Schools asked how many yards was that? Mr. White answered the base amount is about 1.5 million cubic yards and each of the alternates is about 230,000. The plan is to require that the base bid be done during this winter and the alternates could either be done this winter, if they have an efficient operation, or they are welcome to come back next winter.
Mayor Schools asked how much was pumped at Pine Knoll Shores and the answer was about 1.7 million.
Mr. White said another reason for the adjustments he made and why he was changing the cubic yards per foot was because he wanted to keep the base bid very reasonable so that the dredgers could see there is a very good chance they would finish the base bid. They would not worry about the liquidated damages so much.
Commissioner Farmer commented the only thing that concerns her, as she is particularly surprised about 23rd Street would be is it possible to do the rest of the beach next year? Mr. Rush answered the entire Phase I covers the area beginning at the town line up to Matt or Fairfax Street.
Commissioner Eckhardt asked if the latest estimates on volume, 1.5 and 1.7, is based on the full volume Mr. White just did? Mr. White confirmed it was. Mr. White said one big change has been made since the last time numbers were run, because they have recent survey data now. He has shifted the transition from the biggest until volume, the 86 Cubic Yds per foot and the next transition has both been shifted further east and the reason for that is that the central part of Emerald Isle is in better shape that it was 2 years ago when the profiles were measured.
Commissioner Eckhardt asked if Mr. White sees like he saw in 2000 when it was acreating since 1999, is it still continuing? Mr. White said there was two data points, 1999 and now. The central part has acreated some and is healthier than it was 2 years ago.
Mr. White moved to other aspects of the bid. Discussion has been had about what type of dredge and currently they are planning on saying the bidders can submit two types of bids. One for a shallow cut of sand in the ocean and one for a deep cut. He said they are trying to keep everything as flexible as possible so that nice bid prices are received so tentatively, and if the board does not agree Mr. White needs to know so, the type of dredge is not being specified because some may want to use a mix of dredges. They may have a hopper visit for a while but they have a cutter head here most of the time or something like that. If there are environmental reasons that the board just insists it wants near zero probability of a turtle take, then it will need to be specified that the deep cut has to be done with cutter heads and that is a cutter head only bid, Otherwise some bids for hoppers may be received.
Commissioner McElraft asked Mr. White if he has a “feel” for how the permitting is going for the cutters because that would definitely be her preference. It would be cheaper, it doesn’t take the turtles and it can be done quicker.
Commissioner Farmer said you have to worry about the sea temperature. Mr. White also said there are pros and cons that have been discussed. There will be mud and tire chunks on the beach with cutter heads.
Dr. Kana interjected he could not say for certain how the permitting is going to go but the folks at the Corps and CAMA have indicated they could probably do this with an informal consultation with the permitting agencies. Now that the geotechnical data is present and a specific plan in mind, he feels it is consistent with what has been talked about approximately two months ago. He hopes they don’t find any surprises. Hopefully there will be pleasant surprises. They are trying to keep it as simple as they can and provide enough detailed data that they (the permitting agencies) can make a decision.
Commissioner Farmer wants to make sure people understand that none of this is easy to do. It is all trade-offs. It is, if you go to the hopper dredge, holding off until the water temperature gets cool enough below 58 degrees, which could be December or January, or it is going with a cutter head and ending up with mud and tire chunks.
Commissioner McElraft commented hopefully a lot of the tires have been located so that tire chunks will not be as big a problem as they were for our neighbors down the road. She asked if a cutter was used and take a turtle, is the town exempt from the turtle taking of the southeast. If somebody else shuts down while using a cutter, would Emerald Isle be allowed to continue? Mr. White said that if they have cutter heads they are limited to the same number of 5 turtles, which should not be a problem with cutter heads. This is something that neither Mr. White nor Dr. Kana has an answer to. Commissioner McElraft said she would like for them to get an answer because if we are taking the turtle taking seriously here, yet somebody else is not and they shut us down like we shut the whole southeast down then even though we have chosen the right way using the cutter as much as we can – if we could get an answer to that would be better.
Glen McIntosh from the Wilmington District asked what was the question again? Dr. Kana restated the question. If cutter heads are being used on this project and still subject to the turtle take restriction but if someone else takes the turtles to the point where the southeast is shut down does that apply to Emerald Isle if it has a cutter head operation or does that just apply to hopper operations? Mr. McIntosh said it applies just to hoppers.
Commissioner McElraft said this is very important because we could have somebody else shut us down if we took that option. She said, as Commissioner Farmer had said before, there are trade-offs. You will have mud but that is what was pumped in using a cutter down at the Pointe and that mud washed away. The tire issue – she thinks the Beach Commission is looking at a way to get tire chunks picked up, a rake kind of thing so if they were cut up, it would pick them up.
Mr. White said if cutter heads put tire chunks on the beach they are going to be required, as they proceed in the project to be actively picking up the tire chunks. Again, at the very end of the project, they are supposed to do the whole beach because the profile adjusts so that something that was buried might resurface.
Dr. Kana said that tires have washed up on the beach during hurricanes and if you do enough digging you will find those tires periodically coming out of the sediments. There will be a question as to if the tires were from the project or tires that the hurricane dumped. If it is a chronic problem as a result of the tires you already have in there that is not really going to change as a result of this project. It might prolong the time those get unburied but you may have some new ones too.
Commissioner McElraft clarified that we would know if it was old tires because they would be cut up if done by a cutter. Dr. Kana’s answer was “most likely”.
Dr. Kana responded to a question from Mayor Schools about the depth of dredging. He said they are told 5 to 6 feet for an ocean certified dredge. Mr. White said hey can do a shallow cut but it is not cost effective. What they want is 5 to 6 feet.
Mr. White went back to his question about the bids and dredges. He noted that if they need to require that each type of bid use a certain type of dredge, the decision needs to be made. It sounds like there are some reasons this is being specified. If they brought in a mixture of cutter head and hopper, then again all of those turtle rules apply.
Commissioner McElraft stated usually cutters are cheaper. The work faster and they do not take the turtles. She feels the cutter should be used.
Commissioner Farmer commented she thinks a big issue is that they will be able to start the project at the beginning as soon as that window is open and not having to wait until the ocean temperature is cool enough.
Mr. White said they are not proposing that we wait. Commissioner Farmer noted there has been some discussion among the board about whether it really wants to be using a hopper dredge when the temperature is warmer than 58 degrees. Commissioner Farmer thinks it would be incredibly expensive and Mr. White agreed.
Commissioner Messer asked if it could be specified specifically hopper use and at their discretion they could use cutter head. Mr. White said if they are allowed to use their discretion, if the permit modification for allowing deep cuts is received and some dredger decides to do both types of dredges, if the southeast is shut down or if 5 turtles are taken by the hopper dredge, and you still have a cutter head, then they could continue the project.
Commissioner Farmer asked Mr. White to talk a little about the control over sand quality with hopper versus cutter head. Mr. White said in terms of what is placed, they have done proactive things and they will do reactive things. What they cannot do in either case is immediate changes. In either case, you are going to run into some bad spots. What they are proposing in terms of quality control is daily monitoring by CPE on what is coming out and of course the dredgers monitoring all the time. If they run into a bad spot they will move but there is going to be times when for one day it is in a bad spot. The proactive stuff will be discussed by Dr. Kana.
Commissioner Farmer indicated what she is trying to figure out is if they have more control over where the dredge is put with a hopper - - - Mr. White interjected that with a cutter head you have more control over where you put it but it is not known where exactly to put it because the sediment is so variably and varies over such short distances. He does not think they are going to be able to do that in this case. Commissioner Farmer said that is also the case with a hopper too.
Mr. Kana agreed and said the other problem with a hopper is that they are taking a long sweep fairly quickly, moving through the area so that it may run into a patch of bad material. Bad could be quality, bad could be too course in this case. When they run into a patch, by the time it gets to the beach, you do not know where that patch was. You have to dissect the track lines and they are just taking a narrow swat through there. It is a lot trickier to figure out where the hopper was when it ran into the material than a cutter head because with a cutter head you see it within 20 minutes after they have actually excavated. It takes about 10 to 15 minutes for it to get through the pipeline. There is always a lag. Commissioner Farmer stated “so you have a little more control over the material with a cutter head” and Dr. Kana answered “yes”. The dredges can be put in areas as a working area for a while until the granular is found to CPE’s satisfaction. The dredger wants to put material up that is stable. If patches of mud are encountered, which is the biggest concern, they don’t want clay balls rolling around on the beach because it does not do anything, this is why so many borings are taken for this particular project.
Commissioner Eckhardt stated Dr. Kana made a comment that the dredger likes to put stable material up. He asked who controls the quality; is it the dredger or is that CPE. Dr. Kana replied the dredger has to abide by the permit and the permit says where you can dredge. Commissioner Eckhardt said what he is saying is, for example on a daily basis, hourly or whatever that is, let’s say that you don’t like whomever it is that is making that decision, who is the quality control? Who has responsibility? Mr. White replied the immediate quality controller is the dredger. He is the one that is there all the time and sees what is coming out. Observers by CPE will see what comes out of the pipeline so if they do not like it, then the dredger is called.
Commissioner Eckhardt asked how does Emerald Isle preclude what happened at Pine Knoll Shores as far as doing two miles before someone noticed? Mr. White replied they are doing some things differently this time. They are going to be having more frequent daily reports from the dredger on the sediment quality. They are going to be checking what comes out more often. One other issue, which is going to get into later, is the board has asked them to do monitoring and what things they could do to make sure that Emerald Isle gets better quality sediment on the beach. Mr. White said there were four (4) different quality control mechanisms that were looked at. One of them is to put a monitoring system on board the dredge that hooks into all of their variables that CPE is interested in measuring and recording so that on a daily basis, it will be known whether he dug too deep, deeper than he was supposed to, or whether he was in a spot that CPE told him was muddy and he needs to stay away from, etc. Of the different quality control, monitoring mechanisms looked at, that was the one CPE recommended. Dr. Kana interjected it is a state-of-the-art system that the Corps has implemented in a number of their projects. Mr. White said the cost would be approximately $50,000.
Commissioner Eckhardt indicated in about 3 pages of notes and they are all on hopper. The cutter seems to be not applicable. He would think, that as a board, they need to possibly consider specifying the cutter head. Mr. White replied that a cutter head project could not be done at this time because there is no permit for it. Commissioner Eckhardt clarified he meant if the town had the permit.
Mayor Schools gave an example: i.e. say that you have a hopper dredge and and a cutter head, you could use the cutter head if you wanted but what happens if it comes in purely hopper? If there are no cutter head bids.
Mr. White said they are telling them they can submit a deep cut bid and a shallow cut but he agreed with Mayor Schools that there might not be any cutter head bids.
Commissioner McElraft asked a question about if the town has two bids, one by a cutter head in case the town gets the permit. Let them know that is what the town wants and then have one that the hopper could be used on and see how the prices come out on the two. This is not giving them the option. We are telling them they have to use the cutter head if we get the permit.
Dr. Kana said the only down side of that is the way the industry is at this time, is there is a limited amount of equipment and most of this project is having to be done in the winter time in a narrow window, so we are getting squeezed in the market by a limited amount of equipment to do more than the industry can handle. The more restriction is placed on the type of equipment, the worse off the town will be. Dr. Kana recommends the town to go ahead and ask for both bids. You don’t have to sign the contract until the 11th hour. Mr. White said Dr. Kana is saying get both bids but he thinks what Commissioner McElraft is pushing for is to specify that the deep cut bid be a cutter head project and that is something that needs to be decided.
Dr. Kana said some of the criticism that you get from that approach from industry is they are bearing the risk of having to put a cutter head out in a big swell and some of the dredgers may feel comfortable with it and others may feel that the cutter head is just too risky. A cutter head cannot operate if the ground swell gets too big. A cutter head cannot ride the swell if the waves are 5 feet or the wavelength is 8/10ths of a second. It would slam the dredge around and break the spuds. If the spuds break, you are back in the shop for 8 to 10 days. Five-second waves is not a problem. As soon as you get 8 second waves that are 6 foot high, there is too much slamming of the dredge and is dangerous.
Mr. White said if specification is given for a cutter head, then the dredgers options are restricted. It may be that both kinds of bids are received and it plays out the way they are saying but someone that thinks they will use a cutter head may not like the idea of all the bad weather and liquidated damages if he does not finish the project. Mr. White said they would like to have the option. If that doesn’t work and it cannot be done with a cutter head, you can still bring in a hopper to finish the project.
Mr. White thinks most of the issues are agreed on. He asked that the only issue left is if they would require the deep cuts to be done with cutter heads. Commissioner McElraft said she would like to see two separate bids and Mr. White said there would be two separate bids. There is a shallow cut bid and a deep cut bid. Commissioner McElraft asked about “cutter only deep cut”? Dr. Kana said the board could specify cutter only.
Dr. Kana said he would like to have the flexibility. He gave an example of in January they are running a little behind and they have a hopper that is available for three weeks. The temperature is so low that nothing is moving out there. That is one scenario where you would regret you did not allow a hopper to come in. One did come in on the Indian Beach Project and helped them get caught up. With a short pumping distance, Dr. Kana can see that scenario working once again.
Commissioner Eckhardt went over his “hopper” notes. He said Mr. White had recommended that the tires be compensable and Mr. Rush felt they should be noncompensable. Commissioner Eckhardt said his position is they should be compensable. He does not think the town should hold the dredge contractor liable for something he has no control over. The other thing, from Commissioner Eckhardts initial understanding, in Borrow Area B the tires are on the ocean side of that borrow area. He also understood that was better material there also. Mr. White said three things have been done to make tires less of a problem. One is they are going to keep the dredging deeper because they know that the tires are shallower. They know for a fact the tires densities are lower in B-2, which is what is offshore of Emerald Isle as opposed to B-1, and that may be related to the proximity of B-1 to where the tires were placed. The third thing is they have a very detailed report of exactly how many tires were recovered in each lane and exactly how many minutes of delay there were from which tires and what density of tires did not require delays and all of this is going into the bid packet so bidders are aware of it.
Commissioner Eckhardt said he would go along with Mr. White because he thinks this should be compensable but he does not know what the rest of the board thinks about it. Dr. Kana said there are arguments for and against but it is their feeling, you are gambling that you will not have this many tire problems this time reducing the risk of dredging if you do have tires. The problem is you have this certain unknown quantity out there. What if you run into 3,000 tires at a $100 each and all of sudden you have $300,000 you are spending on tires.
Mr. Rush asked Mr. White if his view is that the tires are concentrated on the shoreward side of borrow area B-2 and Mr. White answered yes. Mr. Rush asked if he was proposing to shift the boundaries of that borrow area to avoid those tires and Mr. White answered that was correct.
Commissioner Eckhardt has another question on temperature. He does not think they are in their right minds if they don’t consider temperature with a hopper dredge. Based on what was seen at Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach, we are putting not only the turtles at risk but we are putting the taxpayers at risk. Commissioner Eckhardt also feels that the turtles should be compensable but water temperature should be used in determining when to deredge, and when not to dredge.
Mr. White said that is a fair way to do it is to say if you are shut down because of water temperature, we will pay you for your shutdown time. That is going to get real expensive. Dr. Kana made a suggestion that for the bid for the deeper cut, they could specify or restrict use of a hopper to a particular temperature but allow the cutter head for the other dredging. This gives them the flexibility but at the same time hopefully reduces the chance of turtle taking. Mr. White said the problem is it is a huge difference in times between shutdowns for turtles and shutdowns for tires. For tires it is measured in minutes. You have to pay for so many minutes of delay. If they shutdown for every time the water is above 58 degrees, you could be paying for weeks of delays. You are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars for that. If you are not going to pay for it and it is in the dredgers risk, bid prices are going to double.
Dr. Kana said they are going to get to some point in the year where the temperature are clearly below some threshold and if they dredge January 15th, so be it. He said they let the dredgers know that they have the option to bring the hoppers when the temperatures fall into this category. Once it gets down to the low 50’s it is not likely it will jump back up to 57. Mr. White clarified that what Dr. Kana is saying is on the deep cut project that it be said hoppers are allowed to be used on the deep cut when it gets to a certain temperature.
Commissioner Farmer replied that makes sense. The idea of sitting and waiting for the project to start until the temperature gets cool enough does not make sense.
Mr. White had spoken of the one monitoring thing was the on-board computer and that is done on both cutter head and hopper projects. It can be done on any type of dredge. Different types of sieving mechanisms have been reviewed and he spoke to the board about some projects where hoppers have the on-board sieves where the stuff goes through the sieves and it catches tires and large shell. That raises the price considerably. It would be somewhere between 10% and 30% of the hopper bid to take care of that problem. There are different machines for fixing problems on the beach for sieving after it has been placed. There is one kind of machine that does very fine-tuning and is very slow. There is another machine that does the bid stuff. The fourth option was the giant cages that catch stuff on the beaches while it is being pumped but there are a lot of practical problems with that. Mr. White said they have tentatively rejected all three of these sieving choices. They are either impractable or expensive.
Mr. White went on to say that turtle monitoring on hoppers, on-board observers all months not just the months the southeast protocol calls for it, but no turtle trawler since CPE did not see that it was doing any good. Commissioner Eckhardt asked if the monitoring was 24 hours a day? Mr. White answered it was a daytime monitor because that is when the turtles get taken.
Commissioner Eckhardt made note that he sees where Mr. White referenced the Emerald Isle Sea Turtle Protection Program. Mr. White said someone asked what were they going to do with the turtles when they were caught and so he threw that in. Commissioner Eckhardt said he does not know if there are any volunteers but he has been in the back of a pick-up truck with a turtle and that is not the place you would want to be. Mr. White asked where did the board want the dredger to take him – to the hospital? Commissioner Eckhardt replied that would have to be worked out. He was not volunteering!
Mr. White went on to the next item, which was Indian Beach. The engineers made the recommendation that on the first pipe setup that Emerald Isle and the last approximately 2,000 feet of Indian Beach on that first setup since it can reach both areas and then move further west on the other setups. Recent feedback Mr. White has gotten back from Town Manager Rush is to start it a little ways into Indian Beach, taper it and not do the Indian Beach part first.
Commissioner McElraft said she has a problem with that because it will cost approximately $150,000 to taper into Indian Beach. She would like to see, if we are allowed to use the cutter and have the larger window and faster equipment there, rather than spend $150,000 to taper into Indian Beach, go ahead and let them do their project and we don’t have the possibility of turtle taking and all of those other things that would shut down a project. We can then finish and spend the $150,000 on Emerald Isle end. If the cutter is used, Commissioner McElraft would say to go ahead and do Indian Beach. It will not take but about 8 days if all goes well.
Dr. Kana implied it is a tough call to make. The board has CPE’s recommendation and they will certainly honor whichever way board goes.
Dr. Kana said if the board wants to hold off making the decision, but there is only so long you can hold off. Dr. Kana reminded the board that Indian Beach was going to pay for a taper into Emerald Isle. Now Emerald Isle has to pay for a taper into Indian Beach. If you do the taper and finish the rest of your project and then there is time for Indian Beach to come back, they will not have to put as much sand in but they will probably have to pay to tow the dredge back over to Indian Beach. All of this would probably come out as a wash at the end of the day. The board agreed it would come out as a wash for Indian Beach but not for Emerald Isle.
Commissioner McElraft said if the cutter can be used, she would like to save the taxpayers $150,000 for sand on Emerald Isle rather than Indian Beach but if the cutter cannot be used, then she says, “we have to do our project and then go back to theirs”.
Dr. Kana asked when could the decision be made as to when the bids could go out. Mr. White did not have an answer as it was getting complicated in structuring the bid. He said we are saying the size of this project, how much sand they are going to move, will depend on what kind of equipment they are using.
Commissioner Farmer noted she thinks what has been talked about all night is how many variables are entering into this whole thing that we have no control over and she is very sympathetic towards Indian Beach and the situation they are in. She hopes they can get use out of Emerald Isle’s dredge but she feels that the boards obligations are to Emerald Isle and they have to do ours first. It is not known what sort of weather there is going to be even with a cutter head. She is not comfortable and thinks the town will be better off doing the tapering into Indian Beach at $150,000. It is $150,000 but at least Emerald Isle gets their program going on time. At the end of the project, if they have some sort of contract with the dredger and they can work it out, Commissioner Farmer does not think Emerald Isle should be involved in that contract. She cannot understand why they would not be interested in finishing their contract when the dredge is right there.
Mr. White informed the board of one way to postpone this decision and still deal with it effectively if the board is considering allowing the cutter head to do Indian Beach first is when it comes close to the time for construction, the board could allow the dredger a delay in starting your project. Just tell him after he has placed the first bit at the very end of Emerald Isle that the board would allow him to leave Emerald Isle’s project for 10 days.
Commissioner Farmer commented if you have a crystal ball and could see the delays that are coming toward you, to know that it is OK to take 8 days off your job to do someone else’s that is fine but she does not think there is going to be any more knowledge at that point that is present now. We just don’t know what could go wrong.
Mr. White replied that we would know a lot more about how this project is going to be built. We will know the equipment and the restrictions on the equipment.
Dr. Kana commented they are planning to have a mandatory pre-bidding meeting before bids are due so discussion can be held on potential problems and the opportunities to be had. There is one thing the dredgers will want to know. It is how much sand will I be moving under this contract. Dr. Kana said they do not want to find out 3 months down the road after they have been here, “By the way, we have these alternates we would like you to look at” or “Oh by the way, Indian Beach is also thinking about ….” Dr. Kana said he feels they are going to be so booked up with other work they won’t have that flexibility since it is such a competitive market. Dr. Kana suggested at the pre-bid meeting to bring up these issues and find out the pros and cons from them and the bid package can be amended if necessary.
Mr. White said it sound like the decision is going to have to be made on what is more important, 10 days or $150,000.
Mayor Schools questioned using the hopper. Dr. Kana said you more than likely would use the cutter head so that you can get a whole scoop of work done in the corridor within the budget. Commissioner Farmer said her concern is if we end up having a lot of delays later on, we are talking about a lot more than $150,000.
Commissioner Eckhardt replied if this were a year ago, there would be no question. They would not even be talking about it. But based on what the board has seen, he thinks they are a little more cautious and a little more knowledgeable right now. Commissioner Eckhardt feels the town’s first priority is to the taxpayers of Emerald Isle. He realizes it is going to be $150,000 but that boils down to something like a fairly small amount of sand on a scale of 1.5 million cubic yards. He feels, again, the first priority has to be to Emerald Isle taxpayers.
Commissioner Eckhardt said if anyone in Indian Beach were told they could have that 8 days tacked on the front of their project, they would be done now. They know that. It is very difficult for him to consider that 8 to 10 days or whatever we are talking about on the front of our project. Based on what Commissioner Eckhardt knows he cannot accept that.
Commissioner Marks commented if the variables occur for Emerald Isle as they did for Pine Knoll Shores it would not be such a problem but the turtles are on the southeast coast and we have had extremely warm weather all summer long and the ocean temperature is much warmer than normal. Anybody in the southeast can take 5 turtles and we are up a creek.
Mr. White said the project on the table is for a cutter head project should a delay be allowed to do Indian Beach. Commissioner Marks said we are saying we are not sure. We may end up with a hopper. She absolutely agrees with Commissioner Eckhardt that Emerald Isle needs to be done first. Indian Beach was going to taper into Emerald Isle and we can taper into Indian Beach and start our project. If our project is completed and there is time to do Indian Beach, they should have a contract of their own.
Commissioner McElraft asked how does the extra sand fit into this project and would that help our bid also? That volume helps out bids overall and it is not just that $150,000 we will save, we probably will get a lower bid because we will be sharing some of the mobilization cost? Mr. White said it was not proposed to share mobilization cost. He said you should see a lower unit price because it is a bigger project. Mr. White said he is not talking dollars per cubic yard but it would not surprise him if it was like $ .20 and multiply that by 2 million cubic yards.
Commissioner McElraft commented it would help in a better price and would save $150,000. She related the town has such a large window for a small operation. The only thing she really is interested in is to go along with the cutter mainly. You would not have to worry about the turtles, the tires will not be chewed up and we should be able to finish our project very quickly.
Commissioner Farmer is not willing to take a risk of not knowing what the weather will be and whereby we start our project a week late or they run into trouble and we are two weeks late; then we have a whole slew of bad weather. Significantly more than $150,000 is being talked about.
Dr. Kana said Indian Beach is not on the bid sheets at this time. They would have to make up a couple of sheets and make some modifications. Mr. White said what would be easy to do would be to say that we understand Indian Beach intends to place some sand. It can be stated that we are going to allow a delay of so many days.
Commissioner Farmer reiterated that if she had a crystal ball and she knew everything was going to be fine, she would say by all means it would make sense since we are starting at the east end anyway to let them do it, but she does not have that crystal ball and there are just too many variables there.
Mr. White said if he had a beach house here, he might make the same choice.
Commissioner McElraft asked when the taper is done can it be done at the beginning of the project or could it be done at the end? Mr. White replied it requires another pipe setup and you have to pay a significant amount to bring the pipe back. Commissioner McElraft asked if Indian Beach decided to bring that pipe back over on their own and fill that space in, if there is time left in our permitting window, we would not have to taper then. Mr. White answered they are estimating 3 pipe setups so what you are suggesting is to leave the first pipe setup for last which means leaving the worst part of the beach to the last.
Commissioner McElraft reasoned that Indian Beach is going to have to come back anyway at the end of our project to do a pipe setup. Why does Emerald Isle have to pay for it, why couldn’t we save $150,000? Mr. White replied you could do all of your taper in Emerald Isle but if you do that the first block of houses are going to get next to nothing. Commissioner Farmer interjected those are the ones who need it the most.
Dr. Kana expanded on sediment quality. They are recommending after collecting additional borings is to do deep cuts in three areas of B-2. With 6 additional borings they got down to below 6 feet, the average borings in these three areas, and the sediment quality in those three areas are 1,2 and 3, which are in the central part of B-2, which he considers to be the best. Dr. Kana said they have submitted a request for modification to the Corps of Engineers. This request included sediment data and other statistics. They found in these areas, down 6 to 7 feet, that there is a lot of variations from core to core. You may see fine sand on the top in one area and right next to it you might see more granular material, shell ash course sand, etc and in the next you might see a mixture of sand and shell. In some places you even see seepy mud. The bottom line is when you integrate down to 6 feet, they come out remarkably similar and average out well when you look at the grain size curves, if you look at the mean grain size, if you look at the per-centage of shell, etc. All of this variability averages out pretty well, core to core. That is why these three areas selected as having sediments that on average some out very similar. They have similar mean grain size, similar compatibility with native beach and similar texture and property. Accordingly, the samples from Borrow Area A, clods were marked and as it turned out, in the new cores that were taken from B-2, some 50 +, 9 or so had clods. Most of the rest of the shell to be found were little donuts, etc. The cores that were taken in Borrow Area A, 11 out of 12 had clodheits. That would tell you right away, if you don’t want clodheits dodge A, but if you want more of the donates, A is the place to go.
The other concern is shell. It is known that Emerald Isle wants to keep the shell below 35% or 30%. This is averaging calcium carbonate of 40% but that is only half of the statistic. If you take a look at the per-centage of the material that courser than 2mm, 1/8 of an inch, which is the material that is of concern and it turns out that the per-centage of that material is less than 12%. That is a good indicator of how much course material there is. For those who like shell collecting on the beach, 10% out of 2 million yards will be plenty of good shell collecting without the overkill. Dr. Kana said they are pretty positive about that.
As far as mud content, some was found everywhere in some percentage so they are trying to find the lowest percentage in the aggregate. The mud they are really trying to avoid is the sticky clay and there was one boring, when they got down to about 5 feet they run into it. They are planning to take additional borings as they go if they have a cutter head operation. This is another quality control measure that is planned.
Dr. Kana went on to say that so far in B-2 100 borings have been taken in the borrow area and another 150 in the other areas. It is noted that these are conglomerately positioned about ¾ mile off shore and they are thinking about the cost. The town’s fiduciary responsibility is seeing that good sediments are gotten close by, move them the cheapest way, covering their tracks and hopefully let Mother Nature take over.
Commissioner Eckhart said the Corps had referenced a
carbonate percentage at 40% in Pine Knoll Shores and said it was too high.
He asked if this was what they were talking about or where they talking
about courser than 2mm. Dr. Kana replied he was not sure where they came up with that
criteria in that particular case . Commissioner
Eckhardt said it strikes him that all of the averages are greater than 40 and
they seemed to be shooting for 35. He
asked if that concerns Dr. Kana? Dr.
Kana replied that calcium carbonate that you test can be any sized material so
it could be lime mud. Much of the
mud out in the ocean is lime stoned based because it is broken down shell
material. You can have lime mud but
that is not going to be on your beach. Shell
ash that is smaller than 2mm makes up a huge part of it but shells greater than
1-inch diameter that is the big calcium carbonate material. Most of the material greater than 2mm is shell material. Of
that shell material, most are donat species.
They ran into coquina which is almost solid donates for a foot or two.
This is very characteristic of old tidal deposit
Commissioner Eckhardt asked if these numbers were sent to the Corps or to some of the permitting agencies, what would Dr. Kana expect back? Dr. Kana replied he would expect that they would accept it because of the mean grain size distribution is really the most important thing. The grain consistency desired is medium sand poorly sorted strongly course. This is very good sediment that is consistent with what you want to put on the beach. You want a course viewed deposit so that it has a mixture of some of the course materials for stability and you want medium sand because it is closer to what the native sand is.
Dr. Kana went on to say for the formation of the outer bar is the finer material moves off beyond the trough beyond the outer bar it is usually .2mm sand or finer. If you have a very uniform size distribution, almost all the same size, the profile would be uniform.
Mr. White said they never got an answer why they (the Corps) cared about the percent of calcium carbonate. Mr. White said they asked that and they came back with responses like but if the percent of a certain size is fairly low. It looked to Mr. White like auditors were going over the results versus the EIS. They were going from 35% and they had 42%. The response Mr. White received was why do you care? They never got an answer to that.
Commissioner Farmer said her concern is that sampling came from the area that she does not want on Emerald Isle’s beach. It was not really the full shells to her, it was the shell hash. It was not sand, it was shell.
Mr. White said that was larger shell. It was larger than 2mm. Commissioner Farmer confirmed this.
Commissioner McElraft asked, “so you are saying the calcium carbonate should not matter, we should look at shell size”. Dr. Kana said there are beaches in the world that are 100% calcium carbonate. Commissioner McElraft asked “But you cannot tell, right, because it is not huge shells”? Dr. Kana answered, “That is right”. Dr. Kana commented that shell make up a very important factor in the beaches here. One reason you do not see as much on the native beach, you see about 20% up on the dry berm, is because the port city is saying it’s stable for over a long period of time. Over decades or 10 years, the shell material is fine for beach nourishment projects.
Commissioner Farmer asked, “So other words, you are less likely to come across course material in the water when you are in the borrow areas. Dr. Kana answered, “Right”.
Mr. Rush said it would be helpful for himself and Attorney Taylor as well as others that what has been said be recapped so that they are clear on things.
Attorney Taylor said it was difficult to determine in those discussions where the concensus lies on certain issues. He suggested that the engineers asked the questions they need to have answered again and one by one get a vote to get a feel in which direction we should go at bid time. Attorney Taylor said the engineers can form the questions in terms of what they heard or it can be changed or whatever, but he probably has some idea of what was said.
§ Mr. White previously proposed a base bid volume and two alternates and indicated where those would end along the beach as now and those will change some in November. He asked if there were any objections to where that stands at that point. He did not really hear any objections to that.
Mayor
Schools asked for a vote and the board voted 5-0.
§ Mr. White proposed two bids, the only choice that was debated was “do we structure the two bids as shallow cut and deep cut or do we require that the deep cut be done with cutter heads”.
Commissioner McElraft said she would like the cutter head option with allowing the hoppers to come in in certain water temperatures for deep cut giving them a little flexibility.
Mayor Schools clarified “for deep cuts, it would be the cutter head dredge but the hoppers would be used for deep cuts in water temperature below 58 degrees”.
Mr. White said that eliminates some flexibility on the part of the dredger but it seems like a reasonable compromise.
Mayor Schools asked for a vote and the board voted with a vote of 5-0.
§ On a hopper project, turtle protections has been listed, observers every month. Mayor Schools interjected – every day? Mr. White said every day but in the protocol you do not have to do them some months. They are going to do them every month, every day of every month.
Mayor Schools said he agrees with not having the trawlers because he did not see that the turtle trawlers were of any benefit to the Pine Knoll Shores project. It looked like somebody riding around in a boat having a good time. Mr. White indicated the trawlers was something they agreed they would do in December to be allowed to resume dredging but it is not part of the permit. It is part of the letter of what needed to be done last season to resume dredging. Mr. White said it could also be done in pieces. No turtle trawler and they are suggesting, especially for hoppers, that there be an onboard monitoring system. Those three protections if it is a hopper project. Mr. Rush interjected it would cost somewhere in the range of $50,000. Mr. White said what he does not know about is whether to go after the monitoring system with a cutter head project but since we might get a hopper, he is going to proceed as he has contracting stuff he has to get arranged through Wilmington District. He has to start making investigations and get the ball rolling on the monitoring system so he will go ahead and do that since we might end up with a hopper project. At a later date, when it is close to dredging, if you have a cutter head project and you decided it is not worth the cost, you can drop that.
Mayor Schools called for a vote. The Board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0.
§ Sieving mechanisms have been proposed and have been rejected as too expensive or impractable.
Mayor Schools called for a vote. The Board voted 4 affirmative and 1 bias vote.
On Indian Beach, this project has been proposed for a taper of 524 feet. If Indian Beach wants to make it’s own arrangement with the dredger they can. In terms of how that would result in delays. Mr. White assured the board the dredgers are not allowed to disappear. He doesn’t get to choose to go to Indian Beach. He is kept on schedule. The proposal here is that Emerald Isle would be paying for some sand to go on the taper into Indian Beach.
Attorney Taylor clarified the encroaching areas, approximately $150,000 worth of sand to taper at the starting point of the Emerald Isle process, Emerald Isle going first and Indian Beach coming in at the end.
Commissioner Farmer commented, she would like, if there is some way, to encourage the dredger to also work with Indian Beach. She does not think Indian Beach should be on Emerald Isle’s contract.
Mr. White said Mr. Kana has proposed getting a letter from Indian Beach that can be sent to the dredgers, letting them know that they intend to have a project. Commissioner Farmer said that would be great. Something that could go in with Emerald Isle’s bid so they dredgers understand that there is actually another part of a project to be done in the same area. Mr. White said he has doubts that would be done before Emerald Isle goes out for bids but it can be an addendum.
Commissioner Messer said that dredgers would move three times during the project and Mr. White confirmed, their estimate is three setups. Commissioner Messer said what they would have to pay for would be for the dredgers to come back and reset the pipes for Indian Beach’s project, and Mr. White confirmed this was correct.
Commissioner McElraft asked if it would be clear that this be done after base project or after the alternate project? Dr. Kana said they assumed it would be done after the alternates are finished. Emerald Isle has to get its deal done and then – Mr. White interjected that is not the way the bid package is at this time. The bid package says they can come back next year and do the alternates.
Dr. Kana said the board could choose not to do an alternate so the decision will have to be made somewhere midway through. Mr. White asked if Dr. Kana was saying that this issue should be raised before alternates are awarded and Dr. Kana said he thinks it enters into it. He is assuming Emerald Isle would like to get both alternates finished as well this year if at all possible. The dredger is not going to be penalized if they are late. He will still have to come back at his own expense and finish up next year.
Attorney Taylor commented without changing the contract that is done now, they are going to want to finish alternate 1 and 2 rather than having to come back next year. They will want to go all the way through.
Commissioner Farmer said then it is hoped the town will get a cutter head dredge, the weather will be gorgeous, nothing will break, and they will zip right through the two alternates and be done ahead of time. It is also to the towns advantage for them to have a complete project that protects our own east end too so she does not need to be mean but we have our own taxpayers to protect. Commissioner McElraft said we are tapering in.
Mr. Rush asked if it is the intent that the alternates be awarded at the same time the base is awarded or would they be awarded in January or February? Mr. White replied his intention is they be awarded currently because it makes a bigger project for the dredger and makes him serious in terms of the equipment he brings here.
Mr. Rush gave an example of if the town signs a contract with the dredging contractor on October 15th, then they will choose to do the alternates would be the major decision. Mr. White replied, “No you would wait sometime for the alternates but the earlier the better”. Mr. Rush said the alternates would not necessarily need to have a decision made when the base bid contract is signed. Mr. White said confirmed this was correct. Mr. White also said if it were made at the same time, it would give the dredger better guidance about when he had to have what level of equipment here. You cannot wait a month to do that because he has to get his equipment setup. Mr. Rush indicated he would think they would need to know as quickly as possible. Mr. White said it sounds like the one issue, the thing you want to ask him, is OK, which are you going to do first, our alternates or Indian Beach and if he says Indian Beach it’s time to go away.
Commissioner Farmer sees the alternates as part of Emerald Isle’s project and they should be doing that before they move east.
Mr. Rush cautioned the board that there would be the additional consultation with CPE as the result of having to move back on the western phase of the project to make sure we have coordination between the two projects.
Commissioner McElraft asked if you are looking at this whole project and Indian Beach with a cutter, is that possible? The answer was “Yes”. Dr Kana said with an ocean going dredge to do that much work. Figuring 25,000 yards a day with a relative short pumping distance, that is not an outrageous stroke of work compared to comfortable sized projects. One of the things on the alternates is the way the bids have been structured, the dredgers have been given some flexibility to pick up and go away and then come back at their own expense. This scenario is not too uncommon these days. You get a situation where a federal project is going on and it has a certain deadline, a dredger is working that project as well at this one and all of a sudden he gets up against another environmental window or something that is more restrictive, he is making more money on that one, he may pull his equipment off and elect not to do all the alternates this year and just come back next year. It has not been set up to penalize him for that. We have done that so we will receive a more favorable bid. Dr. Kana thinks there is less need for restoring the western and central Emerald Isle to the point where we could possibly wait if we had to. We don’t want to but that is a scenario that is getting more and more complex.
Commissioner McElraft commented that the compatibility of the sand and possibility getting sand out of the inlet, gives the town a better stand too and the more we can do with it if it turns out to be a viable project, the better.
Commissioner Farmer said she thinks there will be restraints on the amount of sand that is going to be gotten from the inlet. In some ways Commissioner Farmer prefers the sand of Bogue Inlet but she had rather us get as far as possible since Bogue Inlet is so up in the air.
Mayor Schools clarified the question to is do Emerald Isle first including tapering into Indian Beach, and do the alternates before the dredger is allowed to go to Indian Beach. Mr. White said this could even be specified in the bid and if the board is sure that is what they want it should be specified in the bid package. He has to figure out how to do that because they are being told something they cannot do regarding some other contract that Emerald Isle is not involved in.
Commissioner Farmer reiterated again, with some sort of letter going with, if not our bid package, something indicating there is another project here on Bogue Banks to do just to let them know.
Mayor Schools called for a vote. The board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0.
For tires, all information on tires will be provided. It will be specified that they will bid a tire delay price. They will be compensated for delays that they record in doing the tires.
Mayor Schools called for a vote. The Board voted unanimously, with
a vote of 5-0.
Turtle delays have not really been talked about in terms of delays. Mr. White informed the board that in general they are noncompensable because the town has no control over the southeast protocol and the dredger is supposed to have some control about taking turtles. The only compensable area is they are going to be required to stop if they take one turtle. The protocol does not required that so we are going to be more restrictive. Up to 6 hours, while negotiations are going on as to when they are going to start again and what exactly did you do, first 6 hours is the dredgers problem. That will be another incentive for him not to take turtles. If, for some reason the town requires delays beyond 6 hours, the hours are compensable.
Mr. Rush interjected and said if the permitting agencies requires a turtle shutdown that is noncompensable. Mr. White agreed but said the flip side of the coin is in provoked tire and turtle delays you get a time extension.
Mr. White said they are planning to use the first half of April as available for any extensions and if there are more than 15 days of time extensions, theoretically, they can come back the next November before they start getting into liquidated damages.
The town’s engineer verifies the records and recommends to the board how many hours of time extension they are due.
Mayor Schools questioned the date of April 15th. Mr. White said it is his understanding that the time has changed in the permit from April 1st to April 15th and the extra piece is the 2nd half of April. Dr. Kana said they are trying to get the dredger to finish by April 1st with the first two weeks in April being for extensions. Dr. Kana implied they are trying to shift the whole thing back two weeks so not to get into the late April turtle swimming season. Mr. White said the last turtle at Indian Beach was taken in the first part of April.
Commissioner Eckhardt asked Mr. White to go over the 6 hours again as he was with him on this until Mr. Rush mentioned the permitting agencies. Mr. White replied there are three kinds of delays on the turtles. (1) The first 6 hours of delay is on the dredger – it’s his problem. (2) If an agency shuts the dredger down, that is the dredgers problem. That is not your problem other than you have to grant them a time extension. (3) If the town requires that he be shutdown longer than 6 hours but the agency is not shutting them down, then the town had to pay for it.
Dr. Kana said in some contracts you have stand down time, which is when they cannot work in bad weather. That is not in this bid document.
Mayor Schools called for vote. The board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0 for both the turtle and tire delays and compensation.
Mr. Rush asked that Mr. White go over the schedule that will be used in getting the bid documents out. It is as follows:
The schedule is set for the 15th of each month. Something is supposed to happen. Bid documents are due to go out by the 15th of August, Bids are due the 15th of September, October 15th is the deadline for awarding the contract, November 15th or 16th construction starts.
Commissioner Farmer asked, in reference to the sandbags at the Pointe, that verification be received from the Division of Coastal Management. It is her understanding that sandbags have to be removed if they don’t have vegetation. Just having sand on them is not enough.
Mr. Rush said it is his understanding that sandbags have to be removed if they are exposed. If they are covered with sand, they do not need to be removed. He gathered this from a conversation he had with officers from CAMA and also Division of Coastal Management but he has not had the opportunity to reverify that with them. Commissioner Farmer asked that this be reverified. Her concerns are that if the waves start getting near those sandbags, under the sand again, the town is going to lose a whole lot of sand. It was her understanding they had to be vegetated but maybe she is wrong.
Commissioner Farmer noted that she and Mr. Rush have talked about doing something about dune walkways. It is her guess that the dredgers are going to bulldoze up around them and then it is up to somebody to spread that sand. Dr. Kana noted normally they would leave extra sand around the walkways and then leave it up to the individuals to somehow get it under the walkways. One option would be for the city to control amplitude pile of sand. Tomorrow we are going to be driving to try to identify, which specific properties are in that situation. See how many are going to be involved whether or not to have the city coordinate that and maybe hire a small backhoe or something to work its way down.
Mr. Rush said the town would be trying to get a handle on the magnitude of that issue tomorrow and then an approach after that.
Commissioner Farmer commented her only other concern was that the dredging contract did say that no individual contracts with the property owners to bulldoze.
Mr. Rush gave an update on other issues of the beach nourishment project. He informed the board that he is arranging to release and sell the first installment of the bonds on October 15th. He is going to be talking to the Local Government Commission and try to move that date up October 7th and perhaps earlier than that to provide some greater comfort level so that we would have sold the bonds prior to awarding the contract for the beach nourishment project. Of the total 17 million dollars, we are looking at issuing approximately 9.5 million dollars this fall and sometime in the spring come up with an additional 1 million dollars to finish out the project, and issuing the remainder of the bonds for the nourishment project for the western phase in October 2003. This is the way the schedule is looking right now. This provides the most advantageous situation for the town. It is hopeful that we get the lowest rate possible.
The other issue is, as of today, we have actually received responses from a total of 344 property owners out of 483. Those individuals have signed easements. We are in the process of having to recontact some of the property owners for additional signatures of some additional owners of that property. Those letters are going into the mail this week. There is a balance of approximately 140 people that have not returned the easements yet. A final reminder letter to those property owners is to be mailed also this week simply indicating to the property owner that they need to return those easements within the next 30 days basically because if they do not they may face the possibility of condemnation.
Those properties that will need to be condemned, Mr. Rush anticipates a list of those properties to the board sometime in September at the regular meeting or at a Special Meeting in mid-September.
The town is continuing to work with the public on trying to secure those easements. Educational material has been put out to better explain what the easement does and what the easement does not do. In summary, the signature on the easement has not changed. We will not be constructing additional structures in the easement area. We will not be creating public access across property. We are seeking the right to place sand on that portion of private property that appears as a physical part of the beach strand that is used everyday by everyone who walks on the beach. The town will try to work with those property owners. Mr. Rush hopes there will be a very small amount of property that involves condemnation.
Commissioner McElraft asked if the 9 million dollars worth of bonds would be enough to take care of the two addendums to the base contract if the board elects to go with those? Mr. Rush replied said it would not. If alternates are awarded, the budget for the western phase would have to be amended. That is what he talked about earlier to make sure we have coordination with CPE on this project. We will then issue approximately 1 million dollars of bonds to cover the alternates if in fact they are awarded. It is to the towns advantage to keep the bond issue in any single calendar year under 10 million dollars. The additional cost associated with those bond expectations expects to be very minimal. In the long run, it will be cost saving to approach it that way.
A 10 minutes break was taken at 9:25 P.M.
The board went back into session at 9:45 P.M.
Mayor Schools noted that one item on beach nourishment that needed to be completed was the board’s authorization for the Town Manager to solicit bids for the eastern phase beach nourishment project.
Commissioner
McElraft made a motion to approve the Resolution authorizing the Town Manager to
solicit bids for the eastern beach nourishment project.
The board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0.
Motion carried.
DISCUSSION
– PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS / PARKING
Attached is an excerpt from the USACE’s regulations that discusses public access and parking. To summarize, a strict interpretation of USACE’s regulations calls for public access, with parking, to be provided every half-mile along the beach. This strict interpretation is a relatively recent development, and Bogue Banks is believed to be the first community to be judged against this rigid, high standard. There exists considerable difference of opinion about the interpretation of this ruling, and the USACE regulations are not clear. There is an alternative, historical interpretation that implies that the USACE regulations require public access every half mile, but do not necessarily require parking every half-mile; only parking sufficient to meet the demand. This alternative interpretation is explained clearly in another document included in your agenda packet entitled “Evaluation of Public Access Requirements – Bogue Banks, NC”, prepared by Tom Jarrett for the Carteret County Beach Commission. In this analysis, Tom Jarrett also compares public access and parking provided by other NC beach communities that have authorized Shore Protection Projects, and demonstrates that Bogue Banks would likely be held to the highest standard of any project in North Carolina.
A July 9 letter from the USACE to Town Manager Rush is included in the board’s packet, and indicates that only 9% of the Emerald Isle shoreline contains sufficient public access and parking to meet the requirements for full federal participation in the Shore Protection Project. This conclusion results from the strict interpretation of public beach access and parking requirements noted above. This letter is disappointing, especially in light of the significant improvements in public access and parking in Emerald Isle over the past decade, long before the Shore Protection Project Feasibility Study was underway. According to the attached spreadsheet prepared by Greg Rudolph, Carteret County Shore Protection Manager, Emerald Isle has a total of 505 free public oceanfront parking spaces at our 2 regional accesses and the 3rd St. neighborhood access. This represents an average of 41 spaces per mile, or 21 spaces per half-mile. The Town has invested nearly $2 million of state and local funds in public access and parking in the past decade, with the vast majority derived from Town taxpayers. In addition to the large regional accesses, Emerald Isle also has a total of 62 public access walkways, or an average of one every .2 miles along the beach. If the alternative, historical interpretation of the USACE’s regulations is applied, Emerald Isle would likely qualify very easily. Another factor that is important to consider is that Emerald Isle is servicing two distinct types of demand for beach access. First, the majority of our demand is for overnight visitors, and these people have adequate parking at their rental units and can access the beach at one of the 62 public walkways or one of the numerous private walkways. Second, the Town does have significant demand from day visitors, and the large regional accesses are available to service this demand.
The ramifications of the strict interpretation on the overall Shore Protection Project are severe. If 100% of the shoreline meets public access and parking standards, the estimated local cost of the initial nourishment for Bogue Banks is approximately $7 million. According to the USACE’s preliminary analysis (in which Emerald Isle is cited as 9% of the shoreline in compliance), the total local cost increases to nearly $67 million. Up to this point, several members of the other communities on Bogue Banks have expressed strong interest in working to thwart the strict interpretation of the USACE’s requirements, and an overall strategy has not yet been finalized.
At this point, Mr. Rush believes that the ultimate solution for Emerald Isle is two-fold:
1)
The Town should
continue to press the USACE to reconsider the strict interpretation, and
encourage the USACE to recognize Emerald Isle’s overall compliance with the
primary intent of their regulations – to insure adequate opportunity for the
public to gain convenient access to the beach.
Emerald Isle’s past and present strategy appears to meet the spirit and
intent of the regulations.
2)
The Town should
pursue additional opportunities for public access and parking, and make a good
faith effort to come closer to meeting the requirements of the strict
interpretation of USACE’s public beach access and parking requirements.
As noted earlier, there is considerable interest in the community and
among the Board in increasing access and parking, and additional efforts at this
time will help to address two community concerns at the same time.
Ms. Sanderson and Mr. Rush have been working in recent weeks to develop a strategy for providing additional public access and parking. The Board may want to consider all or some of the following strategies as we develop a plan to increase access and parking:
· Purchase additional oceanfront parcels and create additional parking areas. This strategy would obviously be costly. The Town would certainly seek grant funding to implement this strategy.
· Establish additional parking spaces within the public right-of-way along Ocean Drive and other streets within ¼ mile of the existing public beach accesses. This would be a fairly economical approach that would be easy to accomplish, however, some residents are likely to be concerned that this approach will alter the character of their neighborhoods.
· Convert sections of Ocean Drive to one-way and establish on-street parking on existing asphalt pavement. Pros and cons of this approach are similar to bullet #2 above, and also have traffic flow implications along Ocean Drive.
· Request that the USACE establish a clear accounting of the demand for day visitor parking, and strategically utilize a combination of the above strategies to provide the required number of parking spaces.
According to the USACE, the Town must have a plan to meet its public access and parking requirements in place prior to the completion of the Shore Protection Project Feasibility Study, which is scheduled to be complete in mid-2004. If so directed by the Board, Ms. Sanderson and Mr. Rush will initiate work on a plan for the Board and the community to consider at an upcoming meeting.
One area of Emerald Isle that will be difficult to meet the USACE’s requirements, regardless of the interpretation, is the 2.3 mile stretch from Dolphin Ridge west to Point Emerald Villas. At this point, it appears that these communities will have the following options:
The current layout of these communities presents a significant challenge, and I am not aware of other options beyond those identified above. It would be beneficial at some point to convene a special meeting with the leaders of these communities to discuss this issue and determine how to proceed.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Glen McIntosh, USACE (US Arms Corps of Engineers) along with Noel Clay who is a Lead Planner for the Bogue Banks Feasibility Report came forward to discuss public access. Ms. Clay is the one who will be compiling the technical data and making some sense out of it and putting it in the report and she will be the “lead” in formulating the project. Mr. McIntosh touched on the status of the Feasibility Study. The initiation of the Feasibility Study was done in February 2001. A structure inventory has been completed. They came up with surveyors and located all of the houses and surveyed in, GIS data base for the first floor elevations and XYZ coordinates, which will be used in the coastal analysis for the rates of erosion. Completion has been done on most of the subsurface work, which was done in July. Termination of the work had to be done after obtaining only 200 out of the proposed 250 samples (core borings) because the weather was delaying it. This is the time of year when you expect to have flat seas and they had a lot of swells and the drilling platform could not stay out in the ocean and operate. They may come back, when they get to the planning and specifications stage, and take some more borings. They got down as far as Emerald Isle. They did get some borings down in Bogue Inlet but they did not get the borings in the offshore area that they had anticipated getting. At this time, they plan to have a recommended plan of what is proposed to be built in January of 2003. At that point in time, they would be coming to the County with their recommendations which is called the Economic Development Plan; it has the most benefit for the costs and at that point they will be asking the County if they want to go forward with this, do they want a lesser plan or do they want something more? If something more is desired, then any new plan would be 100% non-federal cost. In part of the recommend plan, they will know the limits of the project in how far up Bogue Inlet it will go, how far down Bogue Inlet it would go. At this time it is not known if it will be a continuous project. There may be some statements in there that would benefit if they were not there if you don’t need it. That will not be known until the December-January time frame. Once a recommend plan is done and a draft EIS is submitted for public review in May, 2003 and after all the reviews and incorporation of comments are done, it is anticipated to have a completed approved Feasibility Report in July 2004. At that time, it would up to the professionals to get it authorized so construction could start. Mr. McIntosh indicated they have been dealing with the Morehead City Harbor, Section 933 project that has to do with public access. The rules and regulations that he has to abide by states that you must have public access every ½ mile. There is adequate parking required at beach accesses at least every half mile. The parking requirement is based on a beach capacity and that is figured on 75 square feet per person or peak island demand and you use the lesser of those two values. Right now that is not known. Mr. McIntosh said it would not be fair to tell the board that from the eastern limits of Emerald Isle to the western limits of Emerald Isle you have to have an access point every ½ mile because the extent of the project is not known yet. Once that is determined, then it can better be determined if Emerald Isle meets the access requirements. Based on what Mr. McIntosh sees right now, does each town on Bogue Banks to satisfy the requirements for every ½ mile and the answer is “No”. Each town has a different percentage they would have to pay if Mr. McIntosh was formulating a project. The bottom line is if the access requirements are not satisfied, there is no federal participation. The sponsor, Carteret County in this case, could choose to pay 100% of that portion that did not satisfy the beach access and treat it as a private beach. That is not to say it is private or restricted, but you don’t have the adequate access. They look at it basically for people who drive in during the days and have a place to park and get out to the beach. Commissioner McElraft commented on how many cars should be parked at a certain access according to how much beach is available at that point. Mr. McIntosh said they have come up with a parking requirement based on the lesser of two quantities; one being the maximum capacity of the beach and the chance of the town meeting that is slim to none. They have not run into, within the Corps, that you maximize every available space. They generally look at peak hours and that is usually July 4th on the beach. They will be doing recreation benefiting out and turnover rates, etc. to come up with a requirement. Generally speaking you have to have parking near the access. That can be overcome by shuttle service. An evaluation would have to be done on the frequency of doing that and the commitment of doing that to rationalize the project. It may be that one would satisfy the requirement but Mr. McIntosh doubts it. It could be that 5 or 10 additional sites would but he does not know that. That issue should be known within the next couple of months. Commissioner Farmer asked about the time of January? Mr. McIntosh said that is when they would have the plan but they would know the parking requirement before that time based on the peak demand. Commissioner Eckhardt asked about the mention of parking or reasonable alternative. Mr. McIntosh replied “reasonable alternative would be possibly when you get to the regional parking point and you have several access points close to them within ½ mile that you could not provide parking on a street or parking area, you could provide shuttle service. That is an option. Gregory Rudolph, Carteret County Shore Protection Manager, asked Dr. Kana a couple of questions that he had, if the cutter head pipeline dredge, how long would you expect any kind of rollers to have to stay on the beach? Dr. Kana replied the mud rollers would kind of squash the mud after one tidal cycle. After the next tidal cycle waves would come in and uncover that area and it would have to be squashed again. What they are trying to accomplish is to avoid the stiff clay areas, which create mud rollers. You could see them 5 to 6 years later. The best defense is to avoid those pockets of clay. It cannot be said with 100% certain there will be zero mud rollers on the beach. Mr. Rudolph asked another question about in general the cutter head or pipeline dredge like more turbidity in a surf zone. How long would turbidity last in general? Dr. Kana answered “a few days”. The third question was if a cutter head dredge was used, why not start at the western part and work toward the east? That way if there were enough time to finish the Indian Beach project, you would not have to relocate the pipes? Dr. Kana asked what happens if you get weathered out and do not finish? Commissioner McElraft commented you would leave the most venerable beach undone. Mr. Rudolph touched on some of the technical points of the USACE Shore Protection Project, the cost-sharing project and the ramifications if the conditions are not met.Mr. Rudolph said the County is anticipating a key project called the Urothermic Corps Shore Protection Project or professionally called the “50-year project”. The project study area goes from Western Bogue Inlet to Beaufort Inlet and includes a construction phase, which is a rather large template fill and a periodic renourishment on an approximate 5-year intervals. For the construction phase, an average Corps of Engineers template is approximately 125 cubic yards per linear foot and normally include a design fill and advanced maintenance that looks like overfill. This is done to (1) donate some sand into the foreshore area and (2) accommodate the background erosion rate until the periodic renourishment can occur again on the 5-year intervals. 125 cubic yards, to give a feel for what kind of beach that is, is the sand at Pine Knoll Shores / Indian Beach Project probably ranged somewhere between 40 and 54 cubic years per linear foot and it is known that some of the portions of the eastern end of Emerald Isle phase are designed somewhere in the area of 60 or 70 cubic yards per linear foot range. 125 cubic years, if this is what is received after all the studies, is a rather large project.
Currently they are in a feasibility (study) phase that includes infrastructure data base analysis, sampling sand resources and looks at parking and access issues.
Costs for different phases of this project are:
(1) Feasibility Study – 3.2 million dollar study phase depending on Congressional funding. Cost share is 50% federal and 50% nonfederal. The ratio is USACE 50%, State 25% and County 25%. After this phase, the project must be authorized by Congress and there is a smaller phase after this one called a PE Phase, which is an engineering phase where templates are finally designed and start getting bids ready.
(2) Construction Phase – 2nd event of the project. Cost is 65% federal and 35% nonfederal. The State has the ability to donate up to 75% of the nonfederal share. The Ratio is USACE 65%, State 26.25% and the County 8.75%. After the initial project is constructed the periodic restoration renourishment is begun.
(3) Periodic Restoration – is a 50% federal and 50% nonfederal share. The State again has the ability to donate up to 75% of the non-federal share. The ratio is USACE 50%, State 37.5% and County 12.5%.
With those costs share ratio in mind, the question of how is the County going to pay for this project? The County is planning to pay for this project by using Room Occupancy Tax proceeds. The Occupancy Tax Rate is 5%. 2.5% of the gross proceeds are given to the Tourism Bureau. The remaining 2.5% is put into a fund especially for beach restoration activities. The mindset is to let these funds accrue year after year so there will be a nice nest egg so when the renourishment phase comes along, there will be an ample supply of funding. Mr. Rudolph stated the Occupancy Tax and the parameters of this are delineated in State HB 66198. Also the Emerald Isle Restoration Project is stated in the same Bill. The County is to distribute a certain amount of money to each Bogue Banks municipality and for Emerald Isle this is $540,000 for the next 4 years equating to approximately 2.16 million dollars in total and he believes Emerald Isle is going to use part of this money to pay off part of the debt on the Emerald Isle restoration project. Mr. Rudolph used a Corps template for the Shore Protection Project Estimates – Construction Only. (1) 125 cubic yards per linear foot times 23 miles (the entire island gives a total estimated cubic yards of 15,180,000. (2) Estimated cost of $5.00 per cubic yard equals an estimated 76 million dollars. Applying the cost ratio of 65% federal, 26% State and 9% County it would be approximately 43 million dollars federal, 19 million dollars State and approximately 6.7 million County. This equates out to 288 thousand dollars per mile for the County. From the County’s perspective this is a very very good deal and a very viable project. Access and Parking Requirements were next to be discussed. Bogue Banks Restoration Project – The NC Division of Coastal Management requested that Pine Knoll Shores obtain 5 access points with 100 cumulative parking spaces. This is an independent requirement for the Shore Protection and 933 projects. The USACE has no set access parking requirements for “non Corps” projects. USACE Shore Protection and Section 933 Projects – The USACE has provisions regarding access and parking that are delineated in ER 1105-2-100 and ER 1165-2-130. To summarize access must be provided every one half mile and parking must be situated within a reasonable walking distance to the beach. If the federal is paying then the public should be able to access the beach. If these requirements are not met for either project, then the beach is considered a private beach and the non-federal sponsor is responsible for 100% of the costs to restore the beach. Also if parking and access requirements are not met there could be some very serious implications as far as the County’s contributions. Commissioner McElraft asked about the 125 cubic yards and if that was going to be placed where there is already a lot of beach? Mr. White said it is not known what the volume will be per linear foot. That will be determined shortly after the 933 efforts. You will take into consideration material that is already there and if you want to add to it. You will fill your local project 933 or grand island pumpout whichever is done without project conditions (conditions that existed before the project is put into place). They have all of the data. You will get an indirect benefit. You will protect what you already have there. Commissioner McElraft questioned the use of erosion rates and Mr. White replied they use the CAMA rates and State rates, historical tophography, etc. Commissioner Eckhardt asked if he saw that the 125 cubic yards equated to the number of feet to the berm, the length of the berm, on one of the charts? Mr. White answered, “Yes” but that was a rough estimate. Mr. Don Morris, Broad Creek Loop in Newport, thanked the Board for allowing him to speak. He spoke in regard to the public access requirements discussed tonight. The North Carolina Constitution proclaims that the ocean beaches are held in public trust for the citizens of the State. The Constitution also directs elected and appointed officials to defend the public trust rights of the people. North Carolina General Statute 113-134.3 further requires that reasonable public access to public trust waters and parking be provided for the people. Earlier this year Mr. Morris did a study on the beaches in Emerald Isle, he has fished here quite a bit as well, from 1st street to the Bogue Inlet. He found two Regional Access facilities and one small town parking area at 3rd street that had adequate public parking and access. Other than those sites, he found approximately 12 miles of quasi-private beaches in Emerald Isle. Yes, there are many public accesses going from 3rd street to the new western facility. Those sites are not intended for use by a resident from Stella, by a fisherman from Garner who only wishes to use an area for a few hours. Those sites are essentially private for area residents and tourists renting houses for vacation purposes. In order to maintain the quasi-private position, the town has installed NO PARKING TOW ZONE everywhere in the vicinity of the beach. The area from the western facility to the Pointe is even more blatantly private. Most of the area along Coast Guard Road is locked up by private gated communities. The Pointe has only two handicapped parking spaces at the end of Coast Guard Road. There is no public parking anywhere from the western facility to the Pointe. A non-resident day use citizen who wishes to fish, shell or swim at the Pointe has to walk almost 3 miles from the western facility. Now you are omitting local residents who wants the American taxpayers to pay for pumping sand on the local beach front to save their private property but they do not want those same US citizens to have parking and access to the beaches which belong to all of the people. Bogue Banks ocean front residents want to maintain the quasi-private status of all of the Bogue Banks beaches. All of the beach should be accessible to all the people at all times. The Army Corps of Engineers regulations requiring access and parking every ½ mile was instituted to prevent privatizing the beaches. Mr. Morris continued that when the Count submitted the Environmental Impact Statement for nourishing the Bogue Banks, they stated that a major project planning objective was “to provide an easily accessible recreational beach available to all citizens of the County”. The document also states in Section 51.5.1 “before construction begins the County will require that all Municipalities within the project limits meet Army Corps of Engineers Guidelines for public access”. Further the CAMA Permit requires that the commitment made by the County to provide public access is consistent with federal regulations and policies be adhered to. Mr. Morris said tonight, we have appearing before you is contingent upon the County Beach Commission, who wish to ignore all commitments made in the EIS, aborte the CAMA conditions, circumvent or attempt to change federal Army Corps Guidelines. To take such further actions further violates the Constitutional Rights of the people of North Carolina. The State Constitution states that the people have a right to all of the beach and Mr. Morris requested that the Town Commissioners of Emerald Isle to adhere to the North Carolina Constitution, uphold their Oath of Office and adhere to Army Corps of Engineers’ regulations for public access and parking. Commissioner McElraft clarified that the Beach Commission did not say go against Corps regulations. They said to work with the Corps. They asked us to get information from Tom Jarrett so that we could work with the Corps to find out exactly what they want and we want to comply. She clarified the Beach Commission is not against public access in line with the US Corps of Engineers. Mr. Rush clarified that the Beach Commission is not the group presenting before the board tonight. It was Mr. Rush’s request that Mr. Rudolph provide the information given. It is not necessarily from the Beach Commission. Mr. Rush said obviously there are some ramifications for Emerald Isle. As Mr. McIntosh pointed out, the Feasibility Plan will require an access plan to be in place by March 2003 which is roughly 8 months from now. Because of this complicated issue Mr. Rush is sure there will be a lot of interest and dialogue in the community about it, or to at least start the dialogue between the Commissioners and community and hopefully receive some directions from the board of how they feel on this issue. In the material provided previously to the Commissioners, Mr. Rush did outline four different options on how the town might provide additional access and parking. Mr. Rush summarized the different options as follows:One option obviously is to purchase additional ocean front properties and create regional accesses however it is costly. Another option would be to establish additional parking spaces within the existing right-of-way along Ocean Drive. This would be a very economical approach and would probably involve some expenditures for actually creating parking spaces. One other option is possibly consider making sections of Ocean Drive One-Way streets and adding additional parking spaces on the existing asphalt. This brings the consideration of traffic flow on Ocean Drive. Nevertheless, this is another option for consideration.
Mr. Rush noted he would continue to work with the Corps to nail down what exactly is necessary in the way of public access for the restoration project and really making a true faith effort to meet the Corps requirements. Emerald Isle has made an effort in the last decade to provide access to the tune of 2 million dollars and the majority of that funding came from the taxpayers of Emerald Isle to provide public access. The town should be proud of itself for providing such access. Commissioner McElraft commented that she feels the town had enough large access parking. There is a need for some along the beach at the walkway areas. She would like to see if some of those could be obtained where there are already walkways and try to comply with the ½ mile and get parking spaces there. She would like to see us get as many as we can get and work with the Corps on it. Commissioner McElraft also stated we had paid 2 million dollars for access. For those who really want to use walkways, she objects to ocean front property owners saying they do not want people to use the walkways. She would love to see public using the walkways. Mr. Rush asked for the board’s consent for him to come up with a more detailed specific plan for adding more public access in Emerald Isle and bring this to the board at some later date. He could get started on that process right now. Mr. Rush said the Feasibility Study is scheduled to be completed by July 2004. According to the information provided tonight at this meeting, the access plan must be completed by March 2003. Mr. McIntosh said they will need Feasibility Study out for review including how the County tends to satisfy the public access. It does not have to be in play and it does not have to be constructed. Mr. McIntosh said they could work with the town as long as they are making progress. They have to have some kind of commitment from the County of how they are going to handle this issue. Mr. Rush asked if the town should have the public access plan in place by 2003 or by July 2004? Mr. McIntosh said they would like to have it by March 2003 before they finalize the draft for the Feasibility Study. Commissioner Eckhardt, asked when do we get the requirement. Mr. McIntosh said when they have a recommended plan, they will know the extent of the project. That is when the County will know and it will filter down to the town of where the project will be built.Commissioner Eckhardt said it is pretty clear you either get the 50-year project and if you do not approach this in some fashion, we don’t get the 50-year project. He does not think there is any choice but to pursue the most reasonable alternatives.
Commissioner Farmer agreed with Commissioner McElraft in that she would be inclined to cross that number one right off. That is the regional accesses. They are extremely expensive and they are not satisfying the Corps requirement for opening up the whole beach. She does not see the point of spending the time to look at that. Commissioner Farmer said she thinks the least costly way of doing it is looking at the accesses and seeing if we can do something. Commissioner McElraft said people are ignoring the NO PARKING SIGNS anyway and she thinks they need to be taken down and start establishing some of those parking places at the access points even before we are required to do so. Commissioner Eckhardt noted something he would like to see the town do is to consider sound access as well as beach access. Mr. McIntosh said the plan at this time is to come up with a comprehensive county-wide map that shows all the public accesses. They can then tell the town where the shortfalls are. To satisfy the Corps, access needs to be provided every ½ mile requirement. Commissioner McElraft asked if they are considering that a lot of those people on the beach are in driveways in rented homes and some of those driveways holds 10 cars too. Ms. Clay replied actually it is not just the beach it shows a lot of the island. Certainly more than ½ mile so they actually looking at the parking spaces that is present if they are filled or not filled. Commissioner Farmer asked how do they count for, in areas and not necessarily Emerald Isle, for areas where there is no public parking. How do they account for people who would have been there if there had been parking? Ms. Clay answered you come up with a formula calculation for this. Gated communities were discussed and Mr. McIntosh said they would have to provide access themselves or open up their property. Commissioner McElraft said they may not even need nourishment right now. This could be addressed if they did need nourishment. Commissioner McElraft said if the citizens did decide to open their gated communities for access, the town would have to start maintaining all accesses. All of these facts need to be considered. A question from the audience (Jerry Stockdale) was if a beach of 200 to 300 foot wide is obtained with the nourishment, would it be feasible to think about opening the beach back up to driving and people could park anywhere there? There was a laugh forthcoming but no answer. Commissioner McElraft said she feels the town will need to comply as close as it can to the Corps requirements. A question was asked about parking other places than Ocean Drive in “your front yard”. Commissioner McElraft commented that the town owns 26 feet of everybody’s “front yard” for right-of-way. Commissioner McElraft said she thinks we have the solution. We need to do a little more research on it. Mr. Rush commented that conversation on what some of these parking spaces might be on Ocean Drive (a) to provide parking spaces within an area where there would be the least intrusion into the neighborhood, i.e. stay away from existing homes, go to areas where the town would not have to spend money on vegetation or landscaping, stay away from fire hydrants, stay away from areas where we have to level. The idea, as it has been talked around at this point, is really to limit the impact on the community and make efforts to make it attractive. Commissioner Marks commented on the fact that residents have to walk a distance to get to the beach and Commissioner Farmer remarked that she thinks the Corps has a limit for distance that you can walk. Alesia Sanderson Parks & Recreation Director said it was ¼ mile that is considered a reasonable distance. Merchant’s Park is ¼ mile but the nearest walkway that is ¼ mile is currently a private walkway so Merchant’s Park would not qualify. Mayor Schools said he does not think this is going to be solved tonight. Mr. Rush clarified that what he is hearing from the board is there is interest in exploring additional parking that might be located close to the accesses. With that guidance he will work on a more specific plan to be considered sometime in the future. Commissioner Eckhardt, said one other thing needs to be done. This is a very contingent issue, which the board just found out, and it is not going to be solved tonight. There has to be some way to solicit input from all the residents whether that be a survey or how it is done, but it needs to be considered. Mr. Rush said he too thinks it is very important to get public input on this issue.Commissioner Farmer has received quite a few calls on this issue and she was surprised on the number of people who knew, kind of in the back of her heads, that the town was going for the 50-year project, and were not aware that it entailed public access. She feels it is very important that the word be gotten out.
Mayor Schools moved on to the next item on the agenda. AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONE (AICUZ) PLANBACKGROUND: MCAS Cherry Point has completed the Air Installations Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) plan update, and recently released the document for public review. Lt Col Barry Fetzer and Lt Col Tom Gaskill from MCAS Cherry Point will attend the August 13 meeting and make a presentation on the AICUZ to the Board and the public, and will be available to answer any questions about the AICUZ. Following the presentation, they are requesting that the Board of Commissioners adopt the attached resolution indicating that the Town will consider the AICUZ study in its land use planning decisions.
The AICUZ is a military-sponsored planning document that is intended to promote compatibility between air installations and the surrounding communities. The purpose of the AICUZ is to prevent incompatible development in high noise exposure areas, to minimize public exposure to potential safety hazards associated with aircraft operations, and to protect the operational capacity of the air installation. The AICUZ includes explanations of operational procedures, identifies accident potential zones and high noise areas, and makes recommendations to local communities regarding compatible land use in these areas.
The AICUZ is a key planning tool that will be used by the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) Policy Committee (comprised of military and local government leaders in the area) and Technical Committee (comprised of military and local government staff members in the area) to develop the Eastern Carolina Joint Land Use Study, which is expected later this fall. The AICUZ represents the military’s explanation of the issues associated with the air installations, and contains their recommendations to local governments. The JLUS committees will consider this information and these recommendations to develop their own recommendations to local governments, and these recommendations may or may not be consistent with those outlined in the AICUZ. The final ECJLUS report will be presented to the Board later this fall.
The full AICUZ document is rather lengthy, and has been placed in the Mayor / Commissioners’ office for your review. I have included selected excerpts from the AICUZ document in your agenda packet in case you don’t have an opportunity to review the full plan prior to the meeting. The excerpts include the following:
· Executive Summary
· Goals and Objectives
· Background Information on the Cherry Point fleet and statistics on operations at Bogue Auxiliary Landing Field
· Background Information on noise complaints at Bogue Auxiliary Landing Field
· Maps of the updated noise contours, accident potential zones (APZs), and a composite that considers noise and APZs over Emerald Isle (I have asked Lt Col Fetzer to provide 8 x 11 color maps for distribution to the Board at the meeting.)
· A land use compatibility matrix that includes the military’s land use recommendations in noise and APZ areas
· Additional explanatory information on noise impacts.
Town Manager Rush has also attached other documents from Lt Col Fetzer and Lt Col Gaskill, including a pamphlet summarizing the AICUZ, and pamphlets outlining the regional and state economic impact of area military installations.
The AICUZ land use recommendations, if completely implemented for the remaining undeveloped lots or redeveloped lots in Emerald Isle, would have fairly significant impacts on properties located within the APZs and noise contour areas. As indicated on the attached map, the APZ-1 area occupies a small area along the Bogue Sound shoreline roughly between Emerald Plantation and Woodcliff Drive. Nearly all of the properties included in this APZ-1 area are actually split by the APZ-1 / APZ-2 boundary, and it is difficult to determine if the exact location of structures on these properties would fall into the APZ-1 zone or APZ-2 zone. The military recommends very limited development in the APZ-1 zone, primarily manufacturing or low impact retail uses, and does not recommend any residential use. In Emerald Isle, it will likely be difficult to prevent residential development of these properties, given their high value as a result of their waterfront location. Also, because the boundary line for the APZ-1 area is so close, the Town may want to simply consider these properties in the same light as the APZ-2 areas.
The APZ-2 area covers a larger area over central Emerald Isle from the sound to the ocean from Emerald Plantation to Archer’s Point. The APZ-2 land use recommendations include single-family residential uses, and recommend a maximum density of 1-2 dwelling units per acre, with increases in planned unit developments where total lot coverage does not exceed 20%. The recommendations also include a wider range of retail and institutional uses in the APZ-2 area. The majority of the already platted single-family and duplex lots in this area range from approximately 7,500 sq. ft. to 13,000 sq. ft., or a density of approximately 3 – 6 units per acre (if developed as single family only). It will obviously be impossible to amend existing lot lines to achieve this standard, but the Board may want to consider the AICUZ recommendations at some point in the future for any new subdivisions in the APZ-2 area.
There are similar land use restrictions for the various noise contours, and these are outlined on the attached matrix. The Board should note that the JLUS plan will include its own land use recommendations matrix that may or may not be consistent with the AICUZ recommendations. JLUS Policy Committee members Art Schools and Dick Eckhardt will have input on the JLUS recommendations when they are finalized later this fall. Aside from land use restrictions, the JLUS plan will also likely include recommendations regarding real estate disclosures and sound attenuation requirements for new construction, primarily to address the noise impacts of Bogue Auxiliary Landing Field.
The adoption of the attached resolution, indicating the Town’s acceptance of the AICUZ plan, does not bind the Town to implement the recommendations in the AICUZ. The resolution simply conveys the Town’s intent to consider the AICUZ in future land use planning decisions. One potential approach that the Town might take is to consider both the AICUZ and the JLUS recommendations during the upcoming CAMA Land Use Plan update, incorporate the desired recommendations into that plan, and then use that plan to craft a revised zoning and subdivision ordinance at some point in the future.
A
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE AIR INSTALLATIONS COMPATIBLE USE ZONE (AICUZ) STUDY
UPDATE FOR MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT
AND
MARINE CORPS AUXILLIARY LANDING FIELD BOGUE
WHEREAS, MCAS Cherry Point continues to provide a significant contribution to the region's economic health, and in the recently released Marine Corps Air Bases Eastern Area Economic Impact Report for FY 02, it is estimated that the economic impact to the State of North Carolina is $785,000,000 and exceeds $1 billion when considered on a national basis; and
WHEREAS, the Noise Control Act of 1972 requires Federal agencies and state and local governments to develop measures to control the harmful effects of noise on people; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Defense initiated the AICUZ Study Program to protect the public's health, safety and welfare and to prevent civilian encroachment from degrading the operational capability of military installations; and
WHEREAS, incompatible development, a form of encroachment, has become commonplace on privately-owned lands contiguous to military air installations, particularly Navy and Marine installations, many of which are in high growth coastal areas; and
WHEREAS, the AICUZ program recommends land uses which will be compatible with noise levels, accident potential and flight clearance requirements associated with MCALF Bogue; and
WHEREAS, the AICUZ Study Update has been completed, depicting the newly quantified noise and accident potential zones emanating from MCALF Bogue, and should be used by surrounding communities to develop noise and risk reduction strategies for impacted lands, should be used in the preparation of any land use plans for the impacted areas, and should be used for the development of strategies to promote compatible development of land within these areas; and
WHEREAS, Emerald Isle and MCAS Cherry Point have mutual needs, desires and obligations to improve our communities by protecting citizens’ health and welfare as well as the operational capabilities of MCAS Cherry Point and its outlying or auxiliary landing fields and ranges; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Emerald Isle and MCAS Cherry Point have developed a superb working relationship and teaming together in a partnership to continue our working relationship and improve our respective communities is good and necessary for the vitality of our civil-military communities.
NOW
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Emerald Isle Board of
Commissioners supports the 2001 AICUZ Study Update and shall agree to faithfully
use said document in consideration of land use planning, capital improvements
planning and budgeting that affect the development of property and, therefore,
subsequently affect land use compatibility, health, safety and welfare of
citizens living and working nearby, the operational capability of MCAS Cherry
Point, and therefore the region’s economic stability.
Adopted this ____ day of ________________ 2002.
______________________________
Arthur B. Schools, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Carolyn K. Custy, Certified Municipal Clerk
Lt. Col. Barry Fetzer introduced Lt. Col Thomas Gaskill who is his successor. Lt. Col. Fetzer is retiring from the Mariner Corps after 27 years. Lt. Col Fetzer came to talk about the Marine Corps Air Station at Cherry Point and the AICUZ Study, which has recently been completed. A copy of the economic impact on the local area was available for the public. Documents were provided for the board’s review as well. The economic impact statement is about 3.5 billion dollars by Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point and New River Air Station and they feel that is important because it impacts a whole region on what Cherry Point does. Lt. Col. Fetzer is here to talk about the Executive Summary of the AICUZ Study, why it was done, and then to ask the town to sign a Resolution that was also provided that basically says the town supports the AICUZ and you agree to accept it and then use it or consider it for Land Use Planning. The Goals are to protect the health and welfare of the public and to protect the investment the citizens have made in the base. The AICUZ has a long history at Cherry Point and at Bogue. In 1975 Bogue and Cherry Point were first approved for an AICUZ study all the way down to the one presented at this meeting tonight, the one Lt. Col. Fetzer is asking the town to consider for Land Use Planning. Col. Fetzer showed pictures taken of Bogue in 1943. The impact on the Military is their training values are reduced because of things like accommodating the public, its concern about the impact of noise and accident potential around areas they live and work in. The AICUZ program that is being briefed on this evening is based on cooperation. A very important fact is that AICUZ is advisory and he thinks the public knows this. It is merely recommendations that the town’s Land Use Planners may use to do the things that were mentioned by the goals – to protect the health and welfare of the public and protect the investment made in the Bases. Local Governments control all of these things. The Marine Corps understands that. The federal government does not control any of those things. That is why it is a cooperative program, because the towns, the municipalities, the counties and the federal government have to work together to make this work. Federal Government recognizes that its operations, aircraft noise and accident potential can affect the public and do affect the public. The study identified those impacted areas. It also identified suggestions, recommendations, on how those impacts might be reduced and all of those are documented in the study. APZ 1 is the most likely area where a potential accident might take place and APZ 2 is the least likely area. Noise zones, from the nosiest to the least noisy are documented as well. The accident potential zones are identified the way they are because that is the pattern the aircraft flies most often. Most of the mishaps that have occurred at Bogue Field have either occurred at APZ 1 in the clear zone, on the runway, or on the area surrounding the runway itself. There was one mishap right in the middle of Emerald Isle ( Emerald Plantation Shopping Center site) which occurred in the 1960’s. This area was completely undeveloped at that time. This is the only mishap that occurred outside of either an accident potential zone or on the airfield at Bogue. Noise zones are the most difficult thing to understand about the whole program. That is because the noise scripters are not done in decibels, which is what most people know about or think they know about in regards to how noise impacts are logged. A lot of constituents will go out and hold a microphone outside their home and then they may tell you an aircraft flew over and it was 120 decibels so when the Marine Corps is saying 65, they do not know what they are talking about. It is understandable why they will feel that way because it is a complicated process. The Federal Government, the Federal Aviation Administration, all federal agencies that are concerned about noise uses a program called DNL (day-night logrhythmic average) which is how they determine the impact of sound. It is an overage noise level of 24 hours. There is a 10-decibel penalty for operations at night, 10:00 O’clock at night to 7:00 O’clock in the morning is the definition for night for the purposes of this study. Col. Fetzer explained that if one aircraft flies over Mayor School’s house one time in the day time in a 24 hour period and the noise it is 100 decibels with a 30 second duration – that is a 65 DNL impact. There is no 10 decibels penalty because there is no flight at night. That is a 65 DNL rating which is a low impact with this study. If that same aircraft flew over your house 10 times, 100 decibels each time they flew over, 30 second duration during the day, and they did that 10 times during a 24 hour period, that would be a 75 DNL impact. You would be in a high impact or a severe impact noise zone in that case. This shows that as the frequency of aircraft operations or noise events occur, the DNL rating does in fact go up and there is a penalty for noise at night because the ambient noise at night is lower so people are bothered more by noise at night. That is the reason there is a 10-decibel penalty. This technique is a computer modeling technique, which also causes some of the constituents to suggest it doesn’t show the single event they hear. When the aircraft are developed, noise modeling studies are done and the studies are put into a computer mode which is how the DNL average sound rating for aircraft and how the noise footprint is determined. The footprints three impacts, Zone 1 is the least impact, down to Zone 3, which is 75 severe impacts. In the study there is a matrix of suggested compatible land uses that will help the town’s planners, should it agree to accept the study and use it for land use planning. It will help planners to determine what are the recommended or suggested compatible land uses for these various noise zones. Likewise, accident potential zones have a similar program. Accident potential zones don’t predict the probably of it actually occurring in the zone. All it is saying is that if a mishap were to occur, that zone is the likely place the aircraft would actually impact the ground. Only if an accident did occur, it would be the most likely place. That is what an APZ defines. The greatest potential is close to the runway. That is obvious because the most dangerous portion of a flight operation is taking off and landing. Closer to runway is where most mishaps occur and that bears out in the study. The determination of APZs are based on flight tracts and frequency of operations at the air field. The footprints are also matrix suggested compatible land uses for APZs just like they are for noise zones in the study. One thing Cherry Point has done to help a little with the situation is since 1981 the number of operations has been reduced from almost 30,000 to 17,000. The number of aircraft assigned to Cherry Point and the number of aircraft operated at Bogue Field have been reduced over the years. That policy is called a Net-Down Policy where the Marine Corps is determined to reduced the type model series of all of its aircraft to save the taxpayers some money and also help in Cherry Point in their maintenance of multiple type model series of aircraft. The aircraft takes off on runway 23 and make a left hand turn, fly parallel to the runway, start their descent and then make their approach to the runway that way. The Corps will say that they are supposed to stay over the water if they can. They often cannot because the wind is blowing in the right direction, it will push the aircraft toward Emerald Isle. Newer pilots are less inclined to want to raft the aircraft up into an angular bank. They will not turn the aircraft as tight or as hard so there is a wider pattern when they are flying Bogue Field. The Corps will say they are supposed to climb to 600 feet, if they can stay over water they can remain at 600 feet. If they cannot stay over the water, the Corps will say they climb to 1000 feet until they are again over the sound where they can descend to 600 feet. 600 feet is the pattern altitude pilots are required to fly when they actually go out and do this aboard ship. Pilots are trained to fly like they are going to do when they do it for real. When they do it for real, it is 600 feet. They do try to stay at 600 feet because they want to practice like they are going to have to do it for real. This is particularly important at night when it is very challenging and much more dangerous to fly particularly aboard ship. The chart for the 1981 study to the 2001 study shows how the zones have changed. In 1981 the noise line is larger because it were different aircraft. A6’s were flown at Bogue Field. They were a very large and noisy aircraft. The reason the zones have shrunk is the pattern for Bogue Field used to be both a right and left hand pattern. The vast majority of the operations today are field craft landing practice, which is always a left hand turn just like it will be on a ship. A chart is included in the study that generally gives an idea of what the recommended land uses are for various AICUZ Zones. Also talked about in the AICUZ are electronic interference, smoke duct or steam and “BASH” (bird strike hazard program). The effort is not a single effort on the community’s part. It is a combined effort. The Marine Corps continually reviews and adjusts as is possible, the flight patterns and altitudes. As late as the year 2000 that was done at Bogue Field. The Corps is very careful about night flight operations. When they are done flying at night they stop night flight. They do not go and do more flying because when they meet their judiciary requirements they stop particularly at Bogue Field because they understand the impact on citizens of Emerald Isle and the folks living around Bogue Field. They do their best to suppress the noise and the source, don’t do maintenance run ups at night and they also have bulkheads and other devices to help minimize the noise source. The Corps have always had a great partnership with Emerald Isle and other local governments in the local area and they will continue with that. They will continue their efforts as a part of this program and as part of the joint land use program, which is a different study. The AICUZ Study provides the data for the Joint Land Use Study. On the AICUZ Study, the local citizens do not have any input into it. The Joint Land Use Study on the other hand is managed and led by civilians. Some of the recommendations from the AICUZ may be recommended by the Joint Land Use Policy Committee to be instituted. There may be some other recommendations that are not in the AICUZ Study that the Joint Land Use Policy Committee may recommend. Also, the Joint Land Use Policy Committee will recommend that the Military do certain things as well. The AICUZ Study is merely the data that the Joint Land Use Study will use to make its recommendations to both the community and the Military. That study is a partnership between the local governments, the communities and the Military. The AICUZ Study provides land use recommendations. Some of the recommendations of the mission that can be done by the communities in association with the AICUZ are to recognize the challenges. The Corps understands that there are a lot of challenges in asking folks to approve their property being rezoned. Restudy comprehensive plan continuing. This is being done now with the process this evening as well as the Joint Land Use Study. There are other things listed including the disclosure statement requirements, adjusting subdivision regulation, etc. All of these things can be done as a partnership with the military and through the AICUZ program and the Land Use Study program to protect the health and welfare of citizens and the investments citizens have made at the Bases. This is not a study that goes on the shelf. All of the listed items need to be done. It is continually used and it is hoped that the town will agree that its planners should consider when land use planning is done in Emerald Isle. Lt. Col. Fetzer continued that the bottom line is teamwork, compromise, it’s a partnership, AICUZ provides merely the guidance and recommendations and the communities, local governments, are the ones who actually do the land use. With this, Lt. Col. Fetzer concluded his presentation and asked that if the town agrees that the Land Use Study provides recommendations that may be used, may be considered, by its land use planners, that it may help. It is not a study that is used to tear development down. It focuses on undeveloped property. It is understood that Emerald Isle is 80 plus percent developed so the focus on this is the 20 percent that is not developed and it is a recommendation on how land uses might be considered. He asked the board to consider signing the Resolution. Col. Fetzer answered a question from the audience regarding why the noise sounds intensified when the pilots are trying to stay at 600 feet over the water? There are a couple of criteria. One depends on the direction of the wind. If the wind were not blowing the sound toward the home, it would not sound as loud. The pilots are practicing at Bogue Field so they can prepare to go out to the ship. Some of their procedures require them to climb 600 feet if they can remain over the sound and if they cannot they climb to 1000 feet. The procedures are set up so you can try to minimize the noise if flight has to be done over dry land. If they try to stay over the sound and they roll the aircraft to a high indoor bank, they have the power up higher, the throttles are up higher, because the higher the indoor bank the more power you need to maintain it and in fact they are pointing their nozzles, which are not straight back, they are pointed somewhere from the position straight down to straight back. They are rolling the aircraft and pointing the noise right at some homes if people live right on the sound. The Corps tries to train their pilots to fly exactly the same ashore as they would do if they were going to fly it for real. That is why the pilots prefer to stay the 600 feet. Two and one-half years ago the procedure was changed to require them to climb to 1000 feet if they were going to fly over land and it was changed because the military was trying to help the citizens of Emerald Isle and other citizens who live around Bogue Field to lessen the noise impact. The unintended consequence is the pilots reved their aircraft up higher and tried to stay 600 feet and stay over the sound and the nozzles are pointed directly toward houses. If the procedure had been left as it was two and one-half years ago, the aircraft would have taken off and they would have flown at 600 feet and they would not have had to maintain a higher power and would have been able to turn their nozzles more quickly aft and increased their air speed more quickly. That is an issue that Lt. Col. Fetzer feels the Joint Land Use Study will look at or is looking at, on how maybe some of the procedures should be reconsidered for Emerald Isle and actually practice by having two jets come out, passes over a deck with someone standing on it assisting with the test, it stays 600 feet, reves it up and tries to stay over the water and see how noisy it is. The next jet comes over, stays 600 feet but doesn’t have to roll over quite as high as it would have had to if he were required to climb to 1,000 and crosses over the island. Another question concerning the Super Hornets and the possibility of increasing flight here was asked. Col. Fetzer said the Super Hornet is an aircraft based plane but the Navy has no intention to use Bogue Field for vague routine practices. Bogue field can trap planes like the Super Hornet but the runway is too short for the Super Hornet to be used at Bogue Field routinely. That does not mean that if there was an emergency with one of those aircraft if they are based at Cherry Point, the aircraft is operating at Camp Lejeune and that is the closest place for it to land and they can trap that they wouldn’t use that airfield rather than punching out over the ocean and sending a multimillion dollar aircraft to Davy Jones Locker. They would prefer it go into Bogue Field during an emergency situation. Col. Fetzer said there is no intent to use the Super Hornet at Bogue Field routinely. It is not designed for the Super Hornets, the Navy is going to build a field around Vanceboro or somewhere further North in North Carolina toward the Virginia border.
Lt. Col. Fetzer reiterated again the goal is to protect the health and welfare of the public from noise and from potential aircraft mishaps. It is also to protect the Bases. The DOD Study was about $200,000 and the Department of Defense realizes that people tend to want to move close to military bases largely because military bases are prime property, water front, built there years ago when they were rural areas. The only place for training right now is Bogue Field. Another field could be built but that is talking millions of dollars and talking environmental impact studies and it has not been quantitative for the Navy or Marine Corps to do that type of thing. Right now training is done at Bogue Field. The purpose of the study is to make sure the public is aware of where the noise areas are and the potential accident zones are to show land use planners some recommendations on how land might be used, how it might be zoned, how it might be planned for the future when redevelopment is done so that the Base can survive and can continue its operation.
Lt. Col. Gaskill, in reference to a question about the possibility of making a turn in the runway at Bogue in order to put the planes out over the sound more, said he is already doing some homework on this. Lt. Col. Fetzer said this is something that the Joint Land Use Policy might suggest that the military do as part of their requirements as partners in the Joint Land Use Study.
Mark Brennesholtz questioned the map that showed the pattern over the Island and not over the sound yet the standard procedure is they try to stay over the sound. He commented that what is being asked approval for or endorsement for is not exactly what they are trying to do. Lt. Col. Fetzer, said the pilots are to try to stay over water if possible because that is a noise abatement procedure. The AICUZ Study is based on what the normal pattern would be if you did not institute things like noise abatement procedures. If the aircraft takes off and that is the normal pattern, that is the pattern the AICUZ Study looked at.
Commissioner McElraft thanked Lt. Col. Fetzer for all he had done for this community and for the relationship that has developed between the community and the military. Commissioner McElraft made a motion to accept the Resolution, the revised version of the AICUZ. The board voted unanimously with a vote of 5-0. Motion carried.BACKGROUND: A group of citizens has submitted a petition calling for a referendum on the issue of staggered terms for the Board of Commissioners. The Town Clerk has verified the signatures of 314 registered voters, and this amount exceeds the minimum required to force a referendum on this issue, as per NCGS 160A-104. According to NCGS 160A-104, the Board of Commissioners must accept the petition and schedule a referendum on this issue. If a majority of those voting in the referendum vote YES, the Board of Commissioners will be required to adopt an amendment to the town charter implementing the new system at a regular meeting subsequent to the referendum. A resolution scheduling a referendum for November 5, 2002, with suggested ballot language, is attached for the Board’s review and approval.
The vast majority of the signatures on the petition were received on July 15, and additional signatures have been added up until August 5. A total of 389 signatures were submitted, but 75 of these signatures were either duplicate signatures or were not listed as registered voters on the Carteret County Board of Elections scroll, resulting in a total of 314 verified registered voters. NCGS 160A-104 requires the signatures of 10% of the registered voters in the town to force the referendum. A total of 2510 registered voters were listed on the scrolls obtained from the Carteret County Board of Elections on July 15. Town Clerk Carolyn Custy completed the initial review of the petitions, and the petitions will now be sent to the Carteret County Board of Elections for official verification.
The petition seeks a referendum on a system whereby the two candidates receiving the two highest vote totals in 2003 would serve for 4 years, and the remaining three would serve for 2 years. In 2005, three seats would be up for election, and the two candidates receiving the two highest vote totals would serve for 4 years, with the third serving for 2 years. In 2007, the two seats that just completed 4 year terms (elected in 2003) would be up, along with the 2 year term that was elected in 2005. In the 2007 election, the two candidates receiving the two highest vote totals would win 4 year terms, while the third one would serve a two year term. This cycle would perpetuate, and there would always be three seats up, with the two highest vote totals winning 4 year terms.
According to the Institute of Government publication “Forms of Government of North Carolina Cities 2002”, there are a total of 541 cities in North Carolina. Of these 541 cities, 187, 0r 35% of the cities have concurrent two-year terms for the elected board; the same system currently used in Emerald Isle. A total of 27, or 5%, of the cities have concurrent four-year terms. The most prevalent system in North Carolina, utilized by a total of 316, or 58%, of the cities, is the traditional four-year staggered term system. Under this system, a majority of the elected board is elected to four-year terms in one election, and two years later, a minority of the elected board is also elected to four-year terms. There are a total of only 11 cities, or 2%, that utilize a system similar to that which will be the subject of Emerald Isle’s referendum.
There may be a technical glitch in the actual language of the petition. NC GS 160A-104 (the statute dealing with initiative petitions) requires the petition to reference the pertinent provisions of NC GS 160A-101(amending the form of government), although the petition need not contain the precise text of the amendment desired. The version of the petition that was submitted to the Town does note the desired amendment (change terms of office to staggered terms), but does not make a stated reference to the actual statute - NC GS 160A-101 (4). According to the Institute of Government, the petition should include an explicit stated reference to the correct statute (NCGS 160A-101 (4)) in the language of the petition. In essence, the only thing missing in the petition is the phrase "as per NCGS 160A-101 (4)". Both Town Attorney Derek Taylor and Town Manager Frank Rush are of the opinion that this issue is irrelevant, but the Institute of Government noted that if the Board wanted to deny the petition on those grounds, that it technically could do so. The IOG also noted that the Board could choose to overlook that issue, but would be subject to a small risk of legal challenge.
Assuming that the Board overlooks this technical glitch, the Board must adopt a resolution calling for the referendum. The language for the ballot question should also be approved by the Board of Commissioners at the August 13 meeting, and the suggested language included in the resolution can be amended at that meeting if the Board so desires. In order to make the November general election ballot, the Board must decide on the ballot question language at the August 13 meeting.
SUGGESTED LANGUAGE FOR BALLOT QUESTION
STAGGERED TERMS FOR EMERALD ISLE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
General Election
November 5, 2002
( ) YES
( ) NO
Whereas, a group of interested citizens has circulated a petition calling for a referendum on the issue of staggered terms for the Emerald Isle Board of Commissioners, and
Whereas, NCGS 160A-104 requires that such a petition contain the signatures of 10% of the registered voters in order to force a referendum on the issue of staggered terms, and
Whereas, the Town Clerk has verified that a total of 314 registered voters in the Town of Emerald Isle have signed the petition, exceeding the 10% threshold, and
Whereas, the Board of Commissioners received this petition at its regular meeting on August 13, 2002, and
Whereas, NCGS 160A-104 requires such a referendum be held not less than 60 days nor more than 120 days after receipt of such a petition,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Emerald Isle Board of Commissioners hereby acknowledges receipt of the petition submitted in accordance with NCGS 160A-104 and schedules a referendum for Tuesday, November 5, 2002, with the following question submitted to the registered voters of the Town of Emerald Isle:
“Should
the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Emerald Isle amend the town’s
charter to establish a system for electing the Board of Commissioners whereby
elections would be held every two (2) years and the two (2) candidates receiving
the most votes would be elected to the Board of Commissioners for concurrent
four (4) year terms and the one (1) candidate receiving the most votes of the
remaining candidates would be elected for one two (2) year term?
(NOTE: In the first election
under the new system, the two (2) candidates receiving the most votes would be
elected to the Board of Commissioners for concurrent four (4) year terms and the
three (3) candidates receiving the most votes of the remaining candidates would
be elected for concurrent two (2) year terms.)”
( ) YES
( ) NO
Attorney Derek Taylor said the petition seems to qualify with some slight technical difficulties. He has been asked to inquire as to similar circumstances produced in other towns including Atlantic Beach because it has been heard they went through something similar. They also agreed to the technicalities “bedanged”. Let’s move on with the best rule of equal. Attorney Taylor suggested that based on the petition that has been received, it qualifies at least in every major aspect and that the board should proceed with going ahead and scheduling a special election, but it can occur during a general election and therefore put it on the November 5th ballot. He also suggested the board might want to make some small adjustments to the wording where it says “Now Therefore be it resolved that the Emerald Isle Board of Commissioners hereby acknowledges receipt of a petition submitted in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 168-104 and schedules a referendum and calls upon the Carteret County Board of Elections to conduct and publish a Referendum Election for Tuesday, November 5th. Attorney Taylor said it just ties it in with the Statute that calls for a Special Election. If this is done and it is decided the board wants to adopt the new language for the referendum, that is the way he would recommend.
The Board voted unanimously with a vote of 5-0.
Motion carried.
The Mayor and Board of Commissioners are asked to approve a proclamation declaring September 21, 2002 as Big Sweep / Litter Sweep Day in Emerald Isle. Emerald Isle will participate in the State’s Big Sweep (beach and sound cleanup) and Litter Sweep (roadside cleanup) by organizing a community cleanup day on September 21. The proclamation encourages our citizens to become involved in these efforts to keep our beach, soundside, and roadsides clean and beautiful.
Emerald Isle had a very successful cleanup day in the spring, and we are hoping to have even more people turn out for the September 21 event. Individuals as well as church, civic, and other groups are encouraged to participate, and should contact Mayor Schools or Alesia Sanderson, Parks and Recreation Director, to get involved.
The core volunteer group will be meeting at the Western Ocean Regional Access (next to the Islander Hotel) at 9 AM on Saturday, September 21. It is helpful if individuals and/or groups contact the Town initially to receive specific geographic assignments, however, interested individuals and groups can simply show-up on September 21 to volunteer. Hot dogs, chips, and drinks will be available at the completion of the event (about 11 or 12).
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina organizes a statewide waterway and roadside cleanup each fall to guarantee clean and beautiful waterways and roads throughout our State, and to preserve the environment for generations to come, and
WHEREAS, the fall Big Sweep / Litter Sweep 2002 campaign is scheduled for September 16-29, 2002 to give civic and professional organizations, government agencies, churches, schools, businesses, and concerned citizens the opportunity to partner with the State in its goal of clean and beautiful waterways and roadsides by organizing community cleanups in all 100 counties across the State, and
WHEREAS, Governor Michael F. Easley has proclaimed September 16-29, 2002 as Litter Sweep in North Carolina, and has encouraged all citizens to take an active role in making their communities cleaner and more beautiful, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Emerald Isle has organized a community cleanup day for Saturday, September 21, 2002 to participate in the 2002 Big Sweep / Litter Sweep,
NOW, THEREFORE, the Mayor and Board of Commissioners of Emerald Isle hereby proclaim September 21 as Big Sweep / Litter Sweep Day in Emerald Isle, and encourage all concerned groups and citizens to become involved and help to insure a clean and beautiful Emerald Isle. Concerned citizens can contact Mayor Art Schools or Alesia Sanderson, Parks and Recreation Director, to learn more and volunteer.
Proclaimed this _________ day of ___________ , 2002.
_____________________________
Arthur B. Schools, Jr., Mayor
Attest:
__________________________
Carolyn Custy, Town Clerk
Town Manager Frank Rush – has suggested a meeting date on August 19 at 10:00 A.M. with the Planning Board to talk about the Dunes and Vegetation Ordinance again.
Town Attorney Derek Taylor commented in reference to the easements. He thinks Mr. Rush made it clear in the letters going out. There is an official requirement that the town will have to get to sometime in September which is called a Notice of Condemnation. There has to be a 30 day time frame from the time the Notice is sent and the time he actually files action for the condemnations the town is going to do. Attorney Taylor will ask at the next board meeting or somewhere in that time frame that the authority be given to him to mail those out.Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn K. Custy
Certified Municipal Clerk