Consent Agenda

a.      Minutes of Regular Meeting – November 12, 2002  - Changes have been made by Town Clerk.

b.      Minutes of Special Meeting – November 4, 2002

c.      Tax Refunds / Releases

d.      Amendment to Personnel Policy Regarding Town Holidays

e.      Budget Amendment - Wellness Program

f.        Budget Amendment – FEMA Debris

g.      Resolution Accepting CAMA Grants for Reconstruction of

Lee Street and Seagull Drive Walkways

h.      Budget Amendment – CAMA Grants

Commissioner McElraft made a motion to accept the Consent Agenda with corrections as noted.  The board voted unanimously, with a vote of 5-0.  Motion Carried.

Public Comment

            Mr. James M. Willis, III from Atlantic Beach, said he does not usually come to other town's board meetings to make a comment but he thought this comment was needed.  Mr. Willis praised the Town of Emerald Isle’s web page on the internet.  He related pictures were taken this morning of the ground adding ceremony and by 4 PM those pictures were on the web site.  He also praised the agenda section where you can find anything you want to know about what Emerald Isle is doing, any proposed ordinance amendment, any resolution or any information you want.  He noted it doesn’t take a Forrest to supply the board with agenda items.  It is right on the web page. He felt honored and privileged to live on the same island with folks like these.  He thanked the folks for a job well done. 

            He was thanked for his comments, and it was noted that many individuals work to make the web site what it is. Mayor Schools along with former Commissioner Wootten worked to get the site started, and now Rhonda Ferebee and Town Manager Rush do most of the work to keep it updated. It is not just one person, but a lot of people that work on the website to keep the information current.

Eastern Phase Beach Nourishment Project                          

a.   Weeks Marine’s Request to Utilize Pipeline                    

     (Cutter-head) Dredge at 6 ft. Depth in Additional Areas  

      b.   Resolution Authorizing Purchase of Dune Plantings        

c.      Resolution Authorizing Contract Amendment for Dredge Monitoring Equipmen

            Mr. Rush noted that three items are presented to the board tonight on the Eastern Phase Beach Nourishment Project.  The first would authorize Weeks Marine to utilize a pipeline (Cutter-head) dredge at a 6 ft. depth in additional areas.  The board has previously approved sub-areas of the approved borrow area for Weeks Marine to go with a 6 ft. depth. That will yield about 400,000 cu yards and that is roughly 22% of the volume of sand that is needed to complete the project.  Weeks is now requesting permission to use other areas of the borrow site at a 6-foot depth.  That would basically generate 1.2 million to 1.5 million cu yards of sand for the project.  The board will consider whether or not the town will move forward with that.  Mr. Larry DaVico from Weeks Marine was present to address the board about the difference between Hopper dredges and Cutter-head dredges and how that impacts sediment quality as well as some other operational concerns that might be helpful in making a decision on this matter.

            The second thing that will be talked about are plans for revegetating roughly 9,000 linear feet of new dunes that will be constructed as part of the project and there is a Resolution for consideration for authorizing Mr. Rush as the Town Manager to move forward with that aspect of the project. 

            Finally, Mr. Tom White will explain some monitoring equipment that is proposed to help monitor the location of the Hopper dredge and the application of the Cutter-head dredge as well. 

            Mr. DaVico from Weeks Marine, addressed the concerns about the likelihood or the stories that have been told about the Cutter-head dredge, mainly that you would end up with a lot more mud or unfavorable materials on the beach when you are done.  Some people have some information and some knowledge about the Hoppers from seeing the job done in Pine Knoll Shores.  There has been no experience with the Cutter-head dredges.  The truth of the matter is that Hopper dredges do have a little bit of initial advantage with beach nourishment that you are filling the hopper on the dredge and you are getting some pre-washing as you are pumping the material into the hopper.  You fill the hopper to overflowing and you continue to fill the hopper with the heavier sediments, which is the sand that you want to keep and send to the beach sink to the bottom of the hopper.  Anything that is lighter or larger than silt gets stirred up and there is a lot of overflow over the side of the dredge.  The Hopper dredge would go to a location, hook up to a pipeline and send the sand to the beach, partially pre-washed.   There would still be some large confined sediments trapped in the sand but you would have a little pre-washing.  Of course this goes to the beach and some additional washing takes place as you pump the sediments onto the beach.  You do not have the advantage of pre-washing with a Cutter-head dredge but you do have the advantage that much more water is mixed with the sediments, and when you send it to the beach you get a much more complete washing on the beach than you would with a hopper.  There would be as clean or cleaner fill with the Cutter-head as you would have with the Hopper. There are little of no concerns with the turtle issues with a Cutter-head.  There are very few documented cases where a Cutter-head sucked up a turtle and pumped it to the beach and in the documented cases it was shown that the turtle was already dead and was on the bottom, was picked up and pumped to shore.  Another advantage with the Cutter-head is it allows you to more clearly define areas in the borrow where you have unsuitable material. As you are moving along with the Hopper dredge, and Mr. DaVico was not sure how many people had any information regarding Hoppers but it sails freely around in the borrow area with two “Vacuum cleaners” dropped along the side and they drag along the bottom and suck up the sediment and put it into the hopper. It moves at a very good clip, anywhere from 1 to 3 knotts through the borrow area and sucks up sand, mud and shell as it moves around.

            With the Cutter-head dredge is placed in one location and it swings in an arch, you know when you see material come out of the end of the pipe whether it is good or bad.  You know that the area where the Cutter-head dredge is located right now is where the material is coming from.  The Hopper covers 1 mile or more in a pass, it fills up in about one hour, comes in and pumps off.  If there is bad material in the Hopper, you know it came from somewhere within that mile trail.  It is next to impossible to isolate it to say it came from here or it came from here.  Another advantage with the Cutter-head is if you want to maximize the use of the material you have.  You want to get as much on the beach as you can from the borrow area that you have available to use, the permitted area, you want to make sure you get as much out of it as you can.  With the Cutter-head, if you get a bad material, you can call the dredge and say you are pumping mud or we are seeing a lot of shell and we do not want that.  You pick up the Cutter-head and move it ahead 50 feet and then try again.  If you get good material you continue to dig.  If you have not avoided the bad material, you move ahead another 50 feet or you have to skip the areas as you move ahead with the dredge in real time as you are trying to avoid the material.  As with the Hopper, all you can say is that we avoid the whole 1 mile.

            Mr. DaVico mentioned the concern with tires.  Whenever tires are sucked up, as per contract, there is a charge associated with that.  The Dredge gets paid per hour depending on how long it takes the dredge to get operational again.  It has been shown by history that Cutter-heads are much, much less impacted by tires than the Hoppers.  Hoppers have smaller pumps and small pipelines.  The Cutter-head dredges are much larger, pumps through a much larger pipeline.  Most of small truck tires, small car tires, will pass through a Cutter-head and you will never know it went through until you see it on the beach.  With the Hopper, you would have them trapped in the drag head, trapped in the pumps and you would have to shut down for 15 minutes to one-half hour and sometimes 1 hour to clean those out.  They would expect much less down time with a Cutter from the tires.

            Some people have been told that if you run a tire through the Cutter-head it would look as if you had run the tire through a shredder and what you end up with on the beach is fragments scattered everywhere. Again because of the size of the tires, pumps and pipeline, very rarely are the tires damaged passing through the system.  Occasionally they will be ripped or torn but that is about it.  You do not end up with shredded tires on the beach. 

            Mr. Rush added that within our permit, the town was permitted for very large borrow areas to a 4-foot depth and there were certain criteria associated with that content.  Shell content has been a very big issue with the Board of Commissioners.  At that level, basically, the town has been able to hold the shell content to 35% based on the Board taking the optional areas.  The permit has been modified to go down to the 6-foot level.  That increased the shell content up to about 42%.  Smaller areas have been identified with a 6-foot cut in which cases you can use a Cutter-head.  You cannot use a Cutter-head for a 4-foot depth.  Because the board is concerned with sediment quality, the town wants to try to maintain the 35% shell quality threshold and other similar characteristics. There is enough material, more than 1.8 million Cu.Yds., available within the 6-foot cut borrow area permitted by the Agency.  However, when that borrow area was being redefined to find the best attainable material at a 6-foot level it is down to about 1.2 to 1.5 million Cu.Yds.  What the board is considering tonight is whether or not to authorize Weeks to use that 1.2 to 1.5 million Cu.Yds of material with a 6-foot cut and therefore we would have almost the same identical material as in the 4 ft. areas.  The only difference would be the type of operation as far as the mud content on the beach.  That is the reason for the decision between the Hopper and Cutter-head dredges.

            Mr. DaVico agreed the things you do not want on the beach are mud, clay and large shells.  Weeks does not want that either. The town does not want it for aesthetic reasons and for Weeks it is because mud is not so difficult to pump but if you start pumping mud on the beach it washes away the sand placed on the beach.  It is extremely difficult to grade and hold in place.  Weeks does not like to see mud on the beach at all. As far as the shells and clay, they are both extremely hard to cut with the Cutter-head or Hopper. They are extremely hard to push through the pumping system.  Whenever they encounter clay or shell, production drops off substantially.  They would want to avoid shells, clay and mud just as the town wants to avoid them.  There would be no issues or advantage to Weeks to conceal they are pumping those items.

            In answer to a question about which dredge can work in the roughest weather?  Mr. DaVico replied that the Hopper was a little more effective when it comes to waves.  Whenever you have seas, they hit you broadside.  When you get hit broadside, both vessels would probably have to be shut down in similar sea conditions.  But if they are hitting you angular to the stern, the one that would be used here is a very large Cutter-head, and it can

work without much trouble in 4,5 or 6- foot.  Ground swells are worst for either type of dredge.  The Hopper can usually, without any difficulty work in 5 to 7 ft. and in some cases 6 to 8-foot seas.  It gets to the point where the digging of the Hopper is not as much a factor as coming to the mooring location and hooking up to the mooring.  There is a little bit of advantage there.  Mr. DaVico said, he thinks the picture is complete in that the production typically is much greater with the Cutter so even if the Cutter ends up working a smaller percentage of the time due to weather, the weather differential would have to be quite large for the Hopper to keep up with the current production line.

            Mr. Bill Reist asked if there were any advantages with the Hopper?  Mr. DaVico said, there are advantages to the Hopper and he explained.  Hopper dredges, this fall season, are far more behind on schedules than the Cutter-heads are.  There is a good chance it will cost more (cost to Weeks, not to Emerald Isle) to do the work here with the Cutter than it would with the Hopper but the Cutter is more readily available now than the Hoppers are.  In answer to Mr. Reist’s question Mr. DaVico said, some of the advantages of the Hoppers are the sea conditions where you can work in worse sea conditions.  The town has more protection from the type of weather expected in the winter than most areas along the eastern seaboard.  Another advantage is the Hopper can be productive in a much shallower digging phase than a cutter can which is one of the reasons all of the Cutter bids came higher than the Hopper bids because it is very difficult to be productive with a Cutter if you don’t have much depth of the material to dig because you end up sucking up more water than you do material.  That is why there is a need to get the depth enlarged to 6-feet for it to be favorable to use the Cutter to do more of the work here.

            You have a much smaller crew on the Hopper.  The Hopper is more mobile. You could end up having to hop from site to site a lot and in that situation the Hopper would be advantageous.  If all of the three borrow areas that are up for consideration of use by a Cutter, if they are all used the layout is very close to ideal for a Cutter to do the majority of the work

            Mr. Rush added that Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach only had a permit for a 4-foot depth and that required a Hopper dredge. 

            Mr. John Wootten, 103 Eagles Nest, stated the cost of the Cutter dredge was substantially greater than the Hopper dredge and that was a drive and consideration to leaning toward the Hopper dredge.  He asked if something had changed?  It sounds like something has changed.  Mr. Rush replied that the town received a bid from based on a 4-foot cut.  After the contract was reworked and it was said “We have a Cutter-head available we would like to bring it up here.  We will still charge you $5.00 per Cu Yd.  The board authorized 400,000 Cu. Yds for that.  It was initially thought the Cutter head would be less expensive with a cheaper rate per Cu. Yd. , however when the permits were written by the County and the town is was written for a 4-foot depth because it was believed at that time it would have had less impact on organisms.  The town went back and requested the additional permission to go to the 6-foot cut after all the turtle issues that occurred last year.  When bids were received, they were substantially higher on the Cutter-head than for the Hopper. 

            Mayor Schools made note of one thing that Mr. DaVico said at a meeting today was that if he had a 10-foot depth, a Cutter-head would be substantially less.

            Commissioner McElraft asked about when the southeast is shut down because of the turtles, does the Cutter continue to work and only the Hoppers are shut down?  Mr. DaVico said this was correct.

            Mr. Rush answered, to a question from Commissioner McElraft about the money set aside for turtle takes, that $75,000 for turtle down-time and $72,000 for tire down-time has been set aside.  Mr. Rush said during the turtle take at Pine Knoll Shores, they were down 11 days. 

            Mr. Rush also commented that if Emerald Isle takes one turtle, we have to stop temporarily and consult with the Corps of Engineers.  Based on the Corps correspondence and conversations that he has had it is not his belief that they would shut the town down after one turtle.  He really thinks that after a second turtle, they would require shut down for some period of time at which time, we would incur the $75,000 per day charge. 

            Mayor Schools made note that the Safety Officer for Weeks, Inc  lives in New Bern and was present for tonight’s meeting. 

            Mr. Tom White clarified a couple of things. CSE has never asked in the beginning of the EIS nor in this for substantially deeper cuts because the sediments are bad at the deeper levels. You simply don’t have at that depth the quality sediments that you need to build the beach.  They are all in the top 6-feet.  Once you go to about 6 ½ feet you see a serious segregation of sediment quality.  You have the borderline economics on the Hopper Vs. Cutter-head and it was still thought it was going to be a Hopper project. 

            Mr. White talked to the board about what CSE was going to be able to control.  There are three things that can be tracked visually, by the dredgers and CSE, and they are the clay, the hard mud, total amount of mud and the total number of very large shells larger than 1cm.  These are large materials, not calcium carbonate percentages. 

            Mr. Eckhardt mentioned the gravel.  He had interpertated that we would be able to get an idea of how much gravel there was on the beach.  Mr. White replied that both dredges have indications of that and visually it can be tracked as well. 

            Mr. Charles Vincent asked for clarification on the mud content.  Mr. Vincent said it has been said it is the same amount that would be taken by a Hopper and by Cutter but because of additional water, the Cutter would wash it out.  Even if it took more in the process, it would tend to flush it off at the beach.  Mr. White replied that was correct.

            Mr. White said it does not stay on the beach.  You will see a negative impact that is a temporary increase in turbidity in the surf because it is the higher percentage of mud that will increase the turbidity levels. 

            Commissioner McElraft asked if the beach itself would show any more mud and the answer was no.

            Mr. Harry Thompson, 1603 Ocean Drive, commented, “I have concerns, along with others in the town, that the majority of the board continues to present gloom and doom for the upcoming nourishment project in Emerald Isle.  He does not understand why the board would not accept the data these guys keep telling them about and their recommendations from these highly experienced professionals.  He does not understand why the board thinks they are more knowledgeable about the final outcome of this project than these professionals who have completed many similar projects.  The board members continue to say the project will not be delayed but will go forth.  No one will delay this project, etc. etc. but then they continue to also be totally negative whenever the opportunity arises.  This morning at the Ceremony that was held in this room (The board room) one of the three commissioners that did come showed no support for anyone who spoke except from a half-hearty applause when Mr. Rush spoke.  Regardless of what they say, the majority of the board does not support this project. Any action they take to move this project along is done begrudgingly and mainly because the Referendum requires it, and not because they support it.  The Jacksonville Daily News recently reported a board member saying that the Cutter-head would produce poor quality sand.  But how can you say that with your limited knowledge.  A quote was also reported in the news that a higher percentage of mud produced by the Cutter-head would result in poor quality sand, which we have learned it not true, but the difference in the percentage of mud between the Hopper and Cutter-head, from what I understand and have been reading, is a whopping 8/10^th of 1%.  Again, I cannot understand the board's extreme concern about this when three scientists, Tim Kana, Tom Jarrett and John Wells have all agreed that the samples show very similar sand to what is out there now.  Why can't the board not look at the experience Atlantic Beach had concerning mud.  I know a lady that works down there and watched Atlantic Beach widening being done. 

            She said the mud was pretty bad when it was pumped out, and it was, large balls, etc.  However, she said it was gone in a fairly short time.  Go take a look at Atlantic Beach now.  Mud is mud.  One of the great advantages of using a cutter-head, as we have learned, is that the turtle take will be less likely and why isn't the North Carolina Coastal Federation and their representatives here jumping at this chance to reduce turtle takes?  Is it because they are more concerned with putting sand on the beach than they are in saving turtles?  I just wonder.  One of our commissioners said the Cutter-head will cost Emerald Isle $75,000 per day for shut down if it has to be moved because of unwanted material.  This was also in the Jacksonville Daily News.  Is this a hint there will be complaints from the town about the quality of material, which could cause delays?  Do we already know these kind of complaints are coming?  I understand the board is prepared for a shut down period that would equate to 1 million dollars.  This could be required when using a Hopper dredge.  This cost could go into placing more sand on the beach if the town would continue using the Cutter-head dredge from what I hear, and it sounds to me like no turtle takes.  I do not believe that would be proper stewardship of citizens taxes when there is an acceptable alternative such as the Cutter-head.  Also it is my understanding that should we use the Cutter-head dredge for the entire project, our project would not be shut down even if another project in the Southeast is required to stop.  One of you stated in the Jacksonville Daily News that absentee property owners wanted only to save their structures while the town looses its natural sandy beaches. If you would just visit the beach area, 16^th Street and east of there, you will see that the town has already lost its natural sandy beaches”.

            “One final comment.  I have experienced the attitude of some of the board also.  I overheard one board member speaking to my wife, say that the best thing that could happen to the houses on the front row was for them all to wash into the ocean and that way the town would have plenty of parking spaces.  Thanks for your support.  This kind of talk and other negative comments is what makes many of those doubtful of a timely completion of this project and gives the most sand for our money.  I hope the board will do the right thing and allow the use of a Cutter-head dredge as long as possible.  Thank you.”

            Mayor Schools commented he hoped everyone in this room believes what the board says.  He has always said there is actually nothing that any board member has done  to make this project any slower.  We are ahead of schedule.  Right now we have it lined up about 20 to 30 percent of where we thought we would be on January 1.  All of the concerns have to be looked at.  He respects everything that is put in the newspaper but some of this stuff is taken out of context.  He just asked that people come ask him or ask any board member directly whenever they have a concern because some things are being misinterpreted.

            Commissioner Marks said she does not support nourishment but she vowed that whatever the vote was she would support that.  To her, the most important thing is to follow the material that is put on the beach.  It is not sand.  If you look at our beautiful Emerald Isle beaches, it is not what is going to be replaced.  It is going to be large shell content, very very tiny pieces of shell, gravel and it is not going to be an Emerald Isle beach anymore but it will save the houses and that is what it is all about.  She has never heard her two cohorts say they would stop this project.  They have been charged with that.  The board is trying to do the best for Emerald Isle.

            Mr. Tom Smith, 10545 Wyndtree Drive, took exception with Commissioner Marks.  Mayor Schools interrupted and asked not to get argumentative.  About 11 years ago repair was done to the beach.  In the beginning it seemed like it might be that way because the material was gray, it did have some shell in it and it had thousands of sharks teeth in it as well.  The winds blew as they always do and it rained and before long that beach was the most beautiful part of this whole stretch.  Very shortly after that renourishment, weddings were taking place in front of his house, funerals, photographers came and took pictures and they still do. They park in his and his daughter’s driveway as they come to do that.  It really happened.  He does not know exactly how they dredged it but he does know that they had that renourishment.  He urged the commissioners to make a very intelligent decision.  The two gentlemen present have inspired a great confidence in him and he hoped it will inspire confidence in the board.

            Mr. Lee Lipstiz, a resident, echoed that he hopes it will inspire some confidence.

            Commissioner Marks remarked it was not dredged from off the coast.

            John Wootten, 103 Eagles Nest, said, “whenever you get into a project like this one of the things you have to do is identify, quantify and rank the risks that are involved to get the project completed within the budget to meet the objective of the program.  The objective of this program is to put sand on the beach so that tourists will come, sit on the sand, and spend their money in the stores and to do it environmentally safe.  The second objective is moving the channel when that point is reached.  This is what taxpayers voted for.  That is why the voters increased their own taxes to do just that, to have tourists come sit on the sand.  Listening to these gentlemen, it was really educational, there is a quality risk here and the risk is the quality of the material being put on the beach and a Cutter-head does increase somewhat the possibility of a risk of quality, but I hear that risk is temporary.  A couple of people, including the piece from the scientists, from one month to one year, two years, and you look at the Pine Knoll Shores experience, that seems to be what has happened.  When it first came up out there it was terrible but now it is a fairly decent product and clearly it has changed the objective of tourists sitting on the sand. Scheduling costs risks now is another

story because now you are talking about a taxpayer money and you are talking about a check book. That can be permanent.  The amount of $75,000 per day, the idea of someone down in Florida shutting us down totally, that could get really serious in a heart beat.  That happened to Pine Knoll Shores. That risk can be avoided with a Cutter dredge. You avoid the risks of total shut down.  Please when you do deliberations remember the objectives, people sitting on the beach, and remember the taxpayers voted to increase their own taxes to get that done.  Let’s do it in the most cost efficient manner”.

            Commissioner Marks remarked that in the meeting with Frank and Larry today, they have heard more about Cutter-heads today than they have before and she hopes they have come up with a solution that will make all of the board happy.  We are going ahead with a Cutter to begin with and if it is feasible for us after 400,000 Cu Yds. of material has been pumped on the beach, we will revisit the situation and see if we will permanently go on with a Cutter-head.  We have seen what happened at Pine Knoll Shores with a Hopper.  We are saying, “Let’s start our project, look at what comes out on the beach and hopefully it will be much better, to see if that is actually the way to go.  We will give you an opportunity to look at it.  We will start with a Cutter-head and then evaluate what comes out on the beach.  You can come back and give us your advice again.  We will start, evaluate in a very short time and make a decision again”.

      Mr. Rush clarified for both the public and the board, one of the ideas that was discussed this afternoon, as you know there are three sub-areas within borrow area B2 that we have approved for 6-foot cuts.  Tim Kana has taken all of those three areas and reduced them to try to meet the 35% shell content with a similar characteristic that you would expect to see at a 4-foot cut.  Sub-area 1 generates about 400,000 Cu Yds. That is the area the board has previously authorized.  Sub-area 2 has about 550,000 Cu Yds in it and sub-area 3 has somewhere around 610,000 Cu Yds of material.  One idea that Commissioner Marks is trying to present for consideration is what if the board authorized the sub-areas 1 and 2 which would give the board an opportunity to see roughly a mile’s worth of the beach; Authorize that first 970,000 Cu Yds. of material, make a decision on sub-area 3 after you have had a chance to witness what is on the beach because the timing is such that Weeks Marine needs 10 to 14 days notice to decide whether or not they were going to need the Hopper dredge or Cutter dredge.  This approach that was recommended today was an effort really to try to move forward with the Cutter-head dredge.  It would provide some protection and provide an opportunity to see the quality on the beach and basically confirm that what Mr. DaVico is telling us holds true as far as the mud content.  Mr. Rush thinks in terms of the shell content, those happy with the shell content now are going to see the same material out there.  People who are not happy with the shell content are going to see the same material out there, give or take.  He feels it will not make a tremendous impact in that regard.  Hopefully with this process and the management process that is in place, we can avoid large concentration of larger shells, mud rollers, etc.  Mr. Rush does not want to tell anyone on the board or the audience that there is not going to be any shell because there is.  He thinks that what Commissioner Marks is trying to tell the audience is those ideas discussed this afternoon provides a reasonable compromise that the board might consider tonight.

            Mayor Schools said, Weeks Marine indicated that they are OK with the idea of going along with two of the sub-areas and decide on the third later on as long as we give at least two weeks notice so they can know what to do.

            Commissioner McElraft asked how long it would take to do 970,000 Cu Yds.  Mr. DaVico replied they would move along with an approximately date and with approximately 30,000 Yds. per day so you are looking at a month or a month and one-half.

            By the time they finish with area 1 they would want to know what is going to happen with area 3.

            Mr. Rush noted that about 1 mile, that would be the point in time we would have to tell them “Yes continue with the Cutter-head dredge in area 3 or send in the Hopper dredge”. It is to their advantage and ours, if we want to change to a Hopper, to have them come in when the Cutter is leaving.  They have to have about two weeks notice in order to make that happen.

            Commissioner McElraft asked what the criteria would be for the board to say stop and bring in a Hopper?  It is known the shell content is the same, the mud is pretty much the same or maybe a little cleaner.  If it is not we will have mud rollers.  It sounds to her like the amount of clay that in this project, there will not be any mud rollers like they had in Pine Knoll Shores.  What would be the criteria to say bring in the Hopper?

            Commissioner Marks said she wants the chance to look at the material.  The board has already seen what Hopper dredge did at Pine Knoll Shores It is feasible that the board looks at what goes on the beach.  If Pine Knoll Shores turns out to be better then at the end of that period we can say use the Hopper.

            Commissioner Messer commented it is his understanding that there is a negligible difference in what goes on the beach whether it is a Hopper or Cutter-head.  Mr. DaVico said it will be better.  This will give the board the opportunity to see without committing.

            Commissioner Messer said if someone does not like what goes on the 9-block area and we go to a Hopper dredge and there is no difference in material from the Hopper dredge then we have increased the turtle take potential.  He does not understand why the town would want to switch to that when the scientist have assured us that it will do the job, it will do the same thing as a Hopper, it will not take a turtle and they can do it quicker and get more volume of sand.

            Commissioner McElraft said in the borrow areas are almost exactly alike.  .8% mud, not .8% clay, but mud, silt, that will probably wash off.  To take the risk of bringing in a Hopper for any reason because we do not like the sediment on the beach. They did not like it in Pine Knoll Shores or Indian Beach, and she does not think they will like it here because it is the same sand.  To say that we are bringing a Hopper in with the possibility of paying $75,000 per day for a turtle take that could possibly take up to 10 days shut down like Indian Beach had, she thinks it is fiscally irresponsible and she does not think the board should even attempt at getting a Hopper in here.  For three commissioners to make a decision to bring a hopper at that time because they do not like the sediments on the beach is irresponsible.

            Commissioner Farmer asked, “We have already approved Area 1.  If we approve sub-area 2 now and tell you in a week that we want to switch to a Hopper, we would still continue and finish sub-area 2 and we would not have delayed you in anyway.  Am I right?”  Mr. DaVico said if they have two weeks notice it should not be a delay.

            Mr. Rush input that we did envision that if the board approved sub-areas 1 and 2, and they were happy with it, they would continue to work with a Cutter-head until they needed to bring the Hopper in.

            Commissioner Farmer said “Or at that time we would say it looks fine continue on with the Cutter-head?  The answer to her question was “Yes”.

            Commissioner Eckhardt was very impressed with Weeks approach to quality control.  He thought it was a little premature to think the whole project could be done with a Cutter-head anyway. Even if it were decided tonight that the town was going to do it, there is no guarantee that it can do it.  There is only 1.2 to 1.5 million Cu Yds. of sand identified by CSE that could even be used.  So the likelihood that the Cutter-head could be used for the whole project is something that has not even been decided. 

            Mr. White said it can be done.  That was the plan from the beginning.  Within the permitted areas, there is sufficient material to do the entire project. 

            Mr. Rush clarified that within the permitted borrow areas there is more than enough to do the 1.8 million Cu Yds. project.  Within the sub-borrow areas there is 1.2 to 1.5 million Cu. Yds. of material that would meet the board criteria.

            Mr. White said if the larger areas of the permitted 6-foot cuts were allowed in order to do this entire project with a Cutter-head, the one criteria that would have to be loosened is the 35% calcium carbonate.

            Commissioner Eckhardt said if we learned anything in Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach from their experience, it was that going into the unknown is risky business.  They learned that with turtles and tires and he feels that this is the same way.  We are going into an area that we don’t know anything about.  By going in and using these two areas as a sample, we are going to be able to find out where we want to go.  It seems to be the best of both worlds.  We get an idea of what is there.  The more important thing to Commissioner Eckhardt is that Weeks demonstrate, and they have already impressed him, that they can control quality within those areas.  When they get a vein of clay, they can move. When they hit large shell deposits, they can move. It is even more flexible than the Hopper dredge.  He thinks this is very impressive.  By using these two areas with the Cutter-head, getting a jump on the project, he thinks we have the best of both worlds.

            Commissioner McElraft commented that if it had not been for Commissioner Marks abstaining during the permitting process, we would not be able to look at the cutter right now.  She is very thankful for Commissioner Marks’ action by abstaining, which was a positive vote, and the town was able to go through the permitting modification that allows the town to do the project with a cutter.  Commissioner McElraft hopes that the town can continue with the cutter. She does not want to take a turtle because of the dollars.  If we have something like ½ % mud that we don’t like, and we know it is 35% calcium carbonate, in fact it is ½% less in a 6-foot cut of shell content than there is in a 4-foot cut.  If it is allowed to let commissioners make a decision that they don’t like the sediments on the beach, then you can go ahead and call the Hopper in at that time. In the Springtime when there is probably going to be warmer weather, there is a possibility to take turtles.  Someone else in the southeast can shut us down and if the Hopper is here, what is the chance.  You can say we will bring the Cutter back in and finish the project but the Cutter will be someplace else and not available.  The town is taking a big chance with your dollars.  It will be a pure nightmare if we take turtles and we are a turtle sanctuary here.  Commissioner Farmer has made several e-mail statements that we are a turtle sanctuary here, that we need to be very concerned about the turtles.  Commissioner McElraft does not see any concern for the turtles here when it comes to comparing it to ½% mud that would wash out.  Everybody commented about the way Atlantic Beach and Fort Macon looks and why can’t we have our beach look like that?  They had 11% mud on their beach, 11% that the Corps of Engineers dredged was put on those beaches and they were gone within a few months.  She had talked with Jerry Merrin out at Fort Macon and he said not one complaint was registered about the 11% mud content.  Commissioner McElraft is afraid that when the town has pumped 970,000 Cu yds. they are not going to like the sediment content because they did not like the sediment in Pine Knoll Shores and Indian Beach, so what is going to happen.  They will want to bring in the Hopper.  She just cannot go along with it because she doesn’t feel tax dollars need the towns protection in that way and she does not want to take a turtle.

            Commissioner McElraft made a motion that the board allows Weeks to utilize the additional 6-foot cut areas identified by CSE, all three of them.

            Commissioner Marks said she would like to see what goes on the beach and would like to see the town do the trial period suggested and if it is found it is great, that would be wonderful. She would be happy to stay with the Cutter. The chance of taking a turtle in January and February is just about nil.  She mentioned 4 turtles were taken which caused the 1^st shut down.  The 2^nd shut down was in April.  Commissioner Marks said, “Yes we are environmentalists and we care about turtles”.  She is not willing to commit right this minute to say that the town is going with a Cutter-head for the whole project. 

            Commissioner Eckhardt made a motion to amend Commissioner McElraft’s motion to extend the current contract to include only areas B1 and B2 at this present time.

            Attorney Taylor said you have to vote on the amendment first. 

            Mayor Schools repeated that the motion is to amend the motion to include only areas B1 and B2.

            Discussion took place on the type of dredge to be added as requested by Attorney Taylor and Mr. Tom White replied “No Sir” That is contrary to the contract.  You cannot specify the type of dredge.

            The vote for amending the motion was a split vote.  Commissioners Eckhardt, Farmer and Marks were for.  Messer and McElraft were opposed.  Motion passed.

            Mayor Schools clarified that the motion on the floor now is the amended motion to allow area 2 for dredging by Weeks, Inc. Area 1 has already been approved.  

            Commissioner McElraft asked how the board plans to make the decision or would this decision be made over the Internet?

     Mayor Schools clarified that the amended motion was to allow Weeks to use sub-area 2 to a 6-foot depth and the board is to notify the dredge after 5,000 feet if they are to proceed with a 6-foot cut in area 3. The board voted with a split vote of 3-2.  Voting for were Commissioners Eckhardt, Marks and Farmer.  Voting against were Commissioners Messer and McElraft. 

1. Resolution Authorizing Purchase of Dune Plantings

Commissioner McElraft questioned maybe trying to get a discount for citizens to encourage them to plant on the dunes.  Ms. Sanderson said she could ask for a discounted price.

b.     Resolution Authorizing Contract Amendment for Dredge Monitoring Equipment

            Mr. Rush explained this is computer equipment that will help track the location of the Hopper dredges that will ultimately be necessary to complete the project for $7,000.  In the meantime leading up to the Hopper dredge, it will be available for the Cutter-head dredge because the town will be purchasing this equipment.

            Commissioner Farmer asked if this was something the town does not need with a Cutter-head dredge.  Mr. White said if we knew now that the whole project was going to be Cutter-head, then you could go either way.  It is not that much of an expense but the data on the Cutter-head dredge is going to be pretty boring because it does not move much and then it jumps all of a sudden.  Visually their records can be verified as correct. If it were known this was all going to be Cutter-head, then Mr. White would say, “Let’s not bother with it”.  Mr. White would need some specific lead time in ordering some specialized equipment and some bugs are going to have to be worked out of it in order to get it operational.  He is not comfortable with knowing a week or so before a Hopper arrives that you want this done.  That is not enough notice.

            Commissioner Farmer asked for clarification of significant lead time.  Mr. White replied if they had to they could scramble.  He questions whether scrambling and all of that is necessary for this small amount of money because it does add something to the Cutter-head project.  It gives you your own independent real time confirmation of the Cutter-head location.  One thing it will help logistically on the Cutter-head project if they are going to get into the detailed assessments of “are we in some clay now or is the gravel percentage too high, do we need to skip from here to there?”  It is well worth these several thousand dollars to have that data real time so the engineers can be making that decision real type rather than having to wait for the next crew boat to come back with a disk in their pocket and give us that data so they can confirm they are saying all of that correctly.  Mr. DaVico got into that discussion today as he was getting into more details about how both the engineer and he together would decide “Yea, you are in bad stuff”.  You need to move from here to there”.

Mr. White does not know how to direct him if he does not have the real time data.  If it is thought it is going to be both Cutter-head and Hopper it is important to have this equipment.

            Mr. White said he would like to have the Resolution approved if they are going to have to make quick decisions on directing the Cutter-head.

     Commissioner McElraft made a motion to approve the Resolution Authorizing the Contract Amendment For Dredge Monitoring Equipment.  The board voted unanimously, 5-0.  Motion carried.

            After a break at 8:40 P.M. the board went back into session at 8:50 P.M.

Coast Guard Road Storm Water Project

      a.   Resolution Authorizing Award of Design Contract to       

            Moffatt & Nichol Engineers

      b.   Capital Project Ordinance Amendment                            

           Mr. Rush explained that for the board’s consideration there is the Design Contract for the storm water project.  It covers permitting activities, detailed design engineering activities and also construction administration activities.  It is expected that the preconstruction activities will probably run for 18 months while the construction activities will probably be 9 to 12 months.  Total amount of the Contract is $299,872, and is based on time and materials. The $299,872 is higher than was budgeted in the Capital Ordinance for this project.  There is a capital project budget for design and engineering of $158,549.  A budget amendment for consideration for $131,323 from the Contingency account for the storm water project for design, engineering and permitting fees.  Majority of that money, around $100,000, is associated with permitting, and activities.

            Mr. Tim Reid, Moffatt and Nichol, explained there are 4 Tasks.  The permit documentation and responding to agency comments constituted just about all of the overage over the original estimate for the construction documents.  What is being required is two concerns the agencies have come up with, (1) Shellfish Sanitation is requiring that the spreader bar not be engaged except when the sound is closed or during an emergency situation.  With that in mind, it is requiring Moffatt and Nichol to do some additional testing and some additional geotechnical work to make sure that the site does not impact the neighboring properties with what is going to be put on the site.  The best analysis and explanation for the audience is if you have a sponge to clean around the house and you put it back under the sink it dries out.  What we have is a dry sponge and when pumping water to a certain point, the water will begin to seep into that sponge but at the same time we will get some overland flow.  Because the spreader bar is not going to be engaged, they are not going to be able to take advantage of the water that is flowing across the surface and flowing out through the spreader bar.  They are going to effectively disperse all of that water and they are not going to get the benefit of that run off.  That is why additional geotechnical testing was required and why some of the additional engineering studies, which is where the other $30,000 come in, are coming into play in the additional cost.

          Commissioner McElraft asked when Mr. Reid says they are going to wall that off, is that the sheet piling that he is talking about?  Mr. Reid replied they were going to investigate the possibility of sheet piling and at the same time they will investigate the additional information exactly what are the limits or the impacts as the water is pumped to the site is to Osprey Ridge and Cape Emerald. 

            Mr. Reid continued that two things are involved.  (1) The sands are very good so they will accept a lot of water (2) the sands are very good so that they transmit the water very quickly.  We have to make sure that there is no impact to either of those properties.

            Commissioner McElraft asked if that impact was included in the $299,000.  Mr. Reid answered, “Yes”.  If Moffatt and Nichol can find a confining layer that will limit the transmission of that water beyond the sheet pile then that will force all of the water out one end at the site.   The other thing they will have to look at is that the sands may be good enough and they may transmit water in a break where they can put water in there and put a monitoring system in at certain points that would shut the system off and on.  It maybe can be done without the expense of the sheet wall.

            The second item that came in, and it surprised Moffatt and Nichol, was EPA came up with a requirement of additional testing of the waters to determine what the quality of the water that is being pumped is.  They are saying that Moffatt and Nichol have to meet a SA water quality.  They have also said that if the water that is collected is not of SA water quality, then the water will have to be pumped to the site and run additional models and find out as the material decays to a certain point where it meets SA water quality, then they are going to say that the area above that point has to be mitigated.  This is a big issue but in talking with the Corps of Engineers, this site is unique.  It is one of the last large natural tracts of land.  The mitigation of that site for the creation of wetlands would require the destruction of the natural area to create the lower areas for the wetlands.  Therefore, it is a practical scenario and if it is not practical and these items will come into play as far as the natural system and what has to be done to the site and what kind of construction will be required.  There is going to be some give and take there.  The EPA has required that so the additional water sampling that is in the first phase, which was a fair amount of expense is also included.

            Commissioner McElraft asked where were those water samples going to be taken from?  Are they going to be after a storm so you can see what the storm water truly is like?  Mr. Reid replied they are going to take samples both on the site and near the pick-up points where the pump stations are proposed after a storm.  Someone will place a small bucket in a ditch, as it rains and runs off someone will collect a grab sample.

            Commissioner McElraft also asked isn’t it almost impossible for that storm water to be at a 15 colliform level.  Mr. Reid answered, “Yes” but at the same time they are testing what is on the existing property and if it is not at 14, and they are thinking that because of the animals that inhabit the site, what they are pumping there may be cleaner than what is on the site currently.  That is why they are testing both sites.

            Commissioner McElraft noted the EPA will want to know if the storm water is 14 colliforms or less and Mr. Reid answered, “Yes”.  Commissioner McElraft continued with if it is not in this wetland area, until it becomes 14 or less, you are going to have to mitigate this part of the wetlands and asked if she was correct?  Mr. Reid replied that is what the EPA is suggesting.

            Commissioner McElraft asked if it concerns Mr. Reid at all that Tracy Rice from the Fish and Wildlife says those are unmitigatibly wetlands?  Mr. Reid said it does in that, he was concerned when they first talked to the EPA. However after talking to the Corps of Engineers, we come back to them with what is the best use for the site.  Mr. Reid thinks another thing to keep in mind is if they had the system, the town has been fortunate during the past 2 years, and he does not think there has been any flooding in October that would have required the system, other than some limited use of it. Commissioner McElraft confirmed the town did have limited use of it in October and Mr. Reid said those are the kinds of things that are going to come into play.  Use of the pump one time in two years is one of the things that will have to be weighed in talking with the Corps.  Those are the kinds of things they are going to place in the criteria as far as what is going to be required.  That is where the word “practical” is going to come into play.

            Commissioner McElraft asked how was Mr. Reid going to get Fish and Wildlife to go along on this project because they have said the wetlands are unmitigable, even though they are only used every two years or whatever?  Mr. Reid answered, they are going to have to rely on the Corps of Engineers as they are going to have the final say.  They are going to get the agencies comments and there will be some back and forth.  There will be some mitigation planning plans and some other things on site that they will gain some credits for.

            Commissioner McElraft asked about an Environmental Impact Statement.  Mr. Reid made note that they have not proposed doing any Environmental Impact Statement.  Moffatt and Nichol is going to submit all of the pertinent documents, like at the last meeting Mickey Sugg, DWQ and CAMA basically said submit the documents and let us make our comments and that is what Moffatt and Nichol is going to do in the first phase.

            Commissioner Farmer asked if Fish and Wildlife had made any comments since the last meeting and Mr. Rush said he does not recall.  Commissioner Farmer said after Tracy Rice said she was concerned about the unmitigable and about the fact the town was using that for storm water, at the last meeting she said Fish and Wildlife had no problems with the storm water.  Mr. Reid said the letter she sent where she used the strong wording in opposition was prior to the meeting.  Commissioner Farmer suggested calling Tracy and asking if Fish and Wildlife still had concerns.  Mr. Rush said he is not aware that any agency is requiring the Environmental Statement for this project.  Mr. Reid said he thinks Mrs. Rice thought this was going to serve as a storm water treatment every time it rained it would be pumped, but it is only an emergency retention system.  It is not really a storm water treatment facility.

            Commissioner Farmer suggested it being clarified with Ms. Rice because it is her understanding that Fish and Wildlife has no objections.  Commissioner McElraft noted she would like to see a letter from her stating that.

            Mr. Reid noted the next step is for them to complete the permit document and the Corps will distribute the permit documents for agency comments.

            Commissioner McElraft asked if the EPA concern has just come up and Mr. Reid informed the board that Moffatt and Nichol made some initial contacts in preparing the proposal and the SA water quality and the mitigation was never mentioned at the previous meetings.  Ms. Rice did ask for the water quality samples at the previous meeting but as far as requiring them to run a decay model and determine where the mitigation should start was not an issue.  Mr. Reid and Moffatt and Nichol do not have the time or the money for running a decay model. That is fairly elaborate so they are waiting until the get the samples back.  He is hoping the samples will be fairly consistent. 

            Commissioner McElraft said if they are 14 colliform then the town will have to run that and asked how much would that cost?  Mr. Reid said it would depend on her comments because there is also a mitigation cost of how much land do we have to go in and reconstruct and create wetlands.  The other option is to go in and just pump straight ground water from the site and that would alleviate her concerns.  There are monitor wells that will be installed at the pump locations and they will take samples from the ground water and we know those will meet whatever the water quality standards are.

            Commissioner McElraft commented, “But that is not true of what is going to be pumped into there is it?"  Mr. Reid said it would be if that is the only option there, then they will not take any surface water.

            Commissioner McElraft stated if we can’t get it to a 14 colliform count then the only thing that can be pumped is ground water isn’t it?  Mr. Reid answered, “Yes”.  Mr. Reid noted it is basically the same just not as efficient. The other thing is it will probably increase the construction costs some because Moffatt and Nichol will have to increase the size of the system that supplies water to the pumps because of the shore site.  This is the worst case scenario.

            Commissioner McElraft mentioned their coming back to the town for additional fee modifications.  Mr. Reid said the initial fee was at $420,000.  They cut a lot of things out like SUE (subsurface utility expiration surveying).  He is sorry to hear that Mr. Conrad is retiring but hopefully they can get him to come back to show them where some things are so that they do not impact the pipeline.  If you have an area where you have multiple crossings, we may have to get some of that done.  This was a very small cost ($6,500).  Moffatt and Nichol took out the decay model and they reduced the amount time for agency comments. What the permitting agencies require them to do will depend on the first phase.

            Commissioner McElraft, relating to the decay modeling, said if it is seen that it will not be feasible, there is no point in designing the system.  Mr. Reid said this would be done in Task 1, Task 2, Task 3 and Task 4.  Commissioner McElraft asked if authorization of all of the design should be done right now or should they pay for some design work that may have to be changed?  Mr. Rush interjected he believes you can. 

            Mr. Reid said they would not start any design until they had permits in hand.  Whether authorization for Task1 or Task 2 or 1, 2, and 3, until the permit documents are submitted, comments are received back and correspond to those. Once they have the permits, that will dictate what the final design will look like.  Mr. Rush interjected that if he does not give Mr. Reid permission to go on to Task 3, they cannot go on until he signs off on it.

            Mr. Reid said the additional costs are and why they are there, as far as an increase from the $168,000 up to the $191,000 that was basically investigation of the sheet pile system.  Again, depending on the system, that may not even be required and if it isn’t required, the time looking into that alternative goes away.

            Mr. Jack Siekman, 216 Sandfiddler Court, had a budget estimate on the project dated 2-20-2002 which says the detailed design and engineering is $129,181 and asked how did it get from there to where it is now?  Mr. Rush took a look at the paper Mr. Siekman had and it said the “preliminary” design.  Mr. Siekman said it is getting more and more expensive and he sympathizes with Mr. Reid’s situation trying to deposit water and to get rid of water toward the sound is going to be an extremely difficult problem because of the 14 colliform level.  He thinks we have a little problem.  Mr. Siekman talked about the EPA and set up a situation where there is a hurricane and there is flooding.  Mr. Reid has admitted we would have rain for 5 to 7 days.  It is known that in Lands End that the catch basin is going to be underwater and the water is going to come off the road into the catch basin, which is going to be in the neighborhood level of 2,000 colliform level according to the test run by the Shell Fish and Sanitation people during hurricanes.  Mr. Siekman said his point is taking a sample outside a hurricane environment or at least outside a hurricane environment would be non-representative of what EPA is looking for and the chances of any of that water being in the neighborhood of 14 colliform is extremely slim and it is not possible.  They are running tests every month in Lands End and they can get it down to 10 or 15, 25 in the ponds due to retention but anything off the road is going to be well beyond any of those numbers and hardly 14.  If this is the case, Moffatt and Nichol will have to run that model Mr. Reid has been talking about, which is an expensive situation.  Mr. Reid has a tough problem.  We are dealing with a system, which has never been tried, and most of it, he hates to say, is computer modeling but he has some limitations.  Mr. Seikmen informed the board that they have some real data in actually controlling floods and their numbers don’t actually come very close to Mr. Reid’s.  Mr. Reid is talking about 12 ½ inches of rain, which would produce 40 million gallons of water.  The town had about 10 to 12 inches about a month ago and there was not 40 million gallons of water.  Mr. Siekman noted that we (Lands End) pumped over 100 million gallons of water over the hurricanes they pumped in.  They feel like there is a whole lot more water involved and 40 million for 12 ½ inches of rain seems like it is a little out of whack.  The thing that bothers him about the computer-modeling situation is not only the difficulty in trying to solve this problem by going to the sound or any direction that way, but some geotechnical tests were run to find out how fast the water would run through the ground water system and the sponge was a good example of that.  It can be assumed that it will not go under the road but it sure could go to adjacent homes in adjacent developments.  What makes the assumption that it will go toward the sound and not in that direction and Mr. Reid has come to the conclusion that he will have to drive sheet piling to stop that.  Now we have water, instead of going in 4 different directions, is going one-way toward the sound.  Mr. Siekman could not imagine any geological structure that will keep it from going to the sound and not let it go the other way unless it has some steel in it. 

            Mr. Siekman stated he sees a lot of little things creeping into here much because this is an untried, untested procedure and the further they get into it the more problems they run into.  He just doesn’t see how they are going to get the EPA samples that mean anything and if that cannot be done, where do we go from here?

            Mr. Rush commented about the design, engineering budget. The board adopted the project ordinance on April 23.  It was $168,549 at that time.  We are adding $30,000 at this time for the design to keep the town within the budget and  $100,898 to permitting.

            Mr. Siekman revisited the original conception of this project.  Three years ago when Mr. Reid presented the preliminary estimated cost was $4.8 million dollars.  We are now at $5.2 million and growing.  Mr. Rush noted Mr. Siekman is correct it did start out at $4.8 when the grant application was put together.  It is now at $5,257,880.  Mr. Rush continued with his clarification, and pointed out to Mr. Siekman and the board that $180,000 of that amount was a donation from the landowner that was really an accounting technique but the town did not have to spend that much more money.  With that $180,000 it would be roughly $5,075,000. 

            Mr. Siekman said Mr. Reid has pointed out several things that are not included in this money is (1) driving the sheet piling, (2) another is the infrastructure for the generators. Mr. Rush asked that Mr. Reid answer Mr. Siekman’s questions on what was not included but Mr. Rush knows the sheet piling was not computated in the original because there was a contingency of $258,000.  Mr. Siekman interjected “it was but it is not anymore”.

            Mr. Siekman continued with his list that includes generator housings (4), the control system where we have 8 pumps running like mad during a hurricane pumping at 500 gallons a minute and all of a sudden the retention area starts filling up and flowing into the sound and you have to go turn it off or we have to develop an elaborate float control system to control the pumps. 

            Mayor Schools asked Mr. Siekman to talk to the board not the audience.  Mr. Siekman said he hopes the board will listen and Mayor Schools replied “They are”.  Mr. Siekman remarked so far he has not seen any sign of it.

            Mr. Siekman continued that this control system is not in the budget.  The design of the system is not in the budget, permit fees are not in the budget.  There are lots of things coming up here.  There is some modeling that it is not sure if we will need it or not that costs additional funds.  Mr. Siekman asked Mr. Reid to explain what is meant by mitigation if the town cannot meet the 14 colliform level at the pump site.

            Mr. Reid started with the sheet pile, or with some fill and use plastic, which is a lot cheaper.  They would use something like this or use a new thing that has come out.  The sand so course they may be able to take up a fairly large swatch with one tubing.  That would be a pressure injection of an impervious material down into the sands and that would basically form a wall.  The other thing is, imagine talking about your ground flow and your sponge and that sponge filling.  As you start pumping water it is going to spread out and expand.  It is known that if three sides are closed off and force all of the water out one end, there is enough area there to transmit the flow.  There is also a deep sponge that will accept a lot of water too. 

            Mr. Reid continued that what Mr. Siekman was talking about as far as the flows and what he has seen and the 10 to 12 inches you just had, that did not occur over a 12-hour window.  Mr. Siekman said there was 10 to 12 inches in two days.  Mr. Reid said if Mr. Siekman was talking about the amount of pumping he did it may have been a smaller amount than Mr. Reid anticipated but Mr. Siekman said it was a larger volume.  Mr. Reid went on and explained the process to Mr. Siekman. 

            Mr. Siekman stated it is his belief that Mr. Reid has under estimated with a week to 10 days and it is felt it will take longer than that. 

            Mr. Tom Colvin, Barracuda Court, was still deeply concerned about the viability and the potential cost of the budget itself.  He has been struggling with this for months and has finally realized what is being done wrong.  The single biggest problem with the project is that we are trying to handle all of the flood water on Coast Guard Road on 40 acres of land.  You cannot do it.  The land is not big enough.  Mr. Colvin thinks we should abandon the project as presently conceived as being too costly and unworkable.  In its place, we should adopt the technique that has already been demonstrated and that is to use holding ponds to degrade pollutants.  In addition the flood treatment should be split into three zones, the upper zone where the Doe Drive is, the middle zone where Lands End is and the Pointe.  In so doing you split the water up and don’t put all of these hundred of thousands of gallons pumping uphill to a 40 acre holding area which is not big enough.  The 40 acres that the town bought can still be used only for the upper zone and that would be the Doe Drive upper area, pumping from those areas up the street, pump the water to the 40 acres and Mr. Colvin feels it would work.  Specifically, he would create a holding pond in the 40 acres with drainage as proposed to the sound.  He would provide small pumps in the upper areas like Doe Drive to discharge into the 40-acre pond.  He is sure it will work. We would continue to use the 10 ponds in Lands End that proved successful, employ treating the water to remove all contaminates, in 1999 during Floyd at rates twice what the project is going for now.  Since the water can be pooled to meet standards, Mr. Colvin would then pump it into spray fields or into the ocean after it is pooled.  Down at the Pointe, pump the water with small pumps to large holding areas inside the dunes, something that has been done for years.  Significantly the only major expense to the whole proposal would be a pump for Doe Drive, a small pump for the Pointe, Lands End takes care of itself.  The water will flow down as it did during Floyd into the ponds and they can handle it.  He sees less than one-half of the project cost.  He strongly urged the board not to approve the design funds that is being proposed right now until you hear something more about what he is talking about because it is a solution.

            Mr. Ed Dowling, 404 Cape Emerald Court, revealed he lives next to the property and he thinks we are not talking about a water purification plant. He can see that, from engineering stand point, to bring your water up to the standards the State will allow to be pumped into the sound.  It is a very expensive proposition.  Water seeks its own level and in that particular trough there is a two foot deck of water and the water all drains in there.  You would just be pumping water forever.  In addition, to the four pumps you already have, nobody is addressing the 5^th pump, which is pump station number 10 in Deer Horn Dunes.  All your water from Deer Horn Dunes is pumped into # 10, goes across under the road into the Cape Emerald pond.  While it is drawing down water, you are going to be getting water across the street in that pond, you will never get rid of it with a two foot water level.  He has not heard all of these things being investigated from an engineering point.  Someone needs to address that. 

            Commissioner Farmer made a motion to approve the Resolution Authorizing Award of the Design Contract for the Coast Guard Road Storm Water Project to Moffatt and Nichol.

            Commissioner McElraft made a motion to amend the motion to only contract tonight for the work that needs to be done for the EPA and the accepting of the plan for the sheet piling, answer that first before we go any further with this thing, Task 1 only.

            Commissioner Farmer indicated her understanding is that you don’t proceed with Task 2 before you have completed Task 1 and Mr. Reid indicated that was correct.  He said Task 1 is actual preparation of the permit document and will include the geotechnical work.

            Mr. Rush input that Task 2 should be included also.  Mr. Reid said there would be a response back to the agencies.

            Commissioner McElraft asked about when the modeling would come into play for the EPA if the 14 Colliform was obtained and Mr. Reid said it would be after Task 1 and that would be something that Moffatt & Nichol would have to let the board know about  before Task 2 could be done.

            Commissioner McElraft indicated she thinks that Task 1 would need to be completed and find out at what point extra dollars would be added for the modeling and it would change the contract again for Task 2. 

            Mr. Rush indicated Task 2 is Moffatt & Nichol responding to the agencies and working with them on those kinds of issues.  He feels the board might want to consider authorizing Task 2 just to provide a recourse for Moffatt and Nichol to work on when negotiating back and forth with the agencies. 

            Commissioner McElraft agreed to add Task 2.

            Commissioner Eckhardt agreed that the town needs to go through Step 2. 

            Mayor Schools stated the motion  was – Commissioner McElraft has made a motion to amend the motion to only contract tonight for Tasks 1 and 2.The board voted with a split vote of 3-2 with Commissioner McElraft and Messer voting for and Commissioners Eckhardt, Farmer and Marks voting against.  Motion failed.

            Mayor Schools clarified that a Motion is on the floor to award the contract to Moffatt & Nichol , including Tasks 1, 2, 3, and 4.

            Commissioner Farmer noted that she does not see the sense in doing it Task by Task.  When you finish one task, you will go on to the next.

            Commissioner McElraft asked what was the point in giving authorization for something the board does not know they are going to do.  She does not see the point in that.  The contingency fund is already involved and to go into the General Fund….. Let’s just authorize what you will do with the first two pages and go from there.

      Commissioner Eckhardt noted that Mr. John Wootten said it earlier, when he said this is project management 101.  As far as going into Contingency, it is done on all projects.  If the town never goes into contingency, there are a lot of projects that will never get done.

      Commissioner McElraft answered the only thing about Contingency is the board has almost used up all of the Contingency for this proposal here and there are some functions that are not included such as the EPA report.

Mayor Schools asked Commissioner Farmer to restate her original motion. 

Commissioner Farmer made a motion that the board approve the Resolution authorizing the award of the design contract for the Coast Guard Road Storm Water Project to Moffatt and Nichol.

Commissioner McElraft reminded people that if they would like to look at all the things she has they are most welcome.  There are six places that note “Not Included.  We will be back for fee adjustments”.  She just wanted to let the public know that if the $5.2 ,million Is not where it is going to end up.

      Commissioner Farmer made a motion to adopt the Capital Projects Ordinance Amendment and the Board voted in a split vote with Commissioners Eckhardt, Farmer and Marks voting for and Commissioners McElraft and Messer voting against.  Motion carried.

Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 – Zoning – Dunes and Vegetation

a.      Public Hearing                                                                      

b.      Consideration of Ordinance

Commissioner Marks made a motion to open the Public Hearing and the board voted unanimously.  Motion carried.

Mr. Clint Routson wanted to go on record that he opposed the increase from 45% to 50% of natural area.

Commissioner McElraft wanted to make it clear that she is in favor of allowing the property owner to plant additional trees and/or shrubs in the natural area to count in the 5% of additional vegetation that is required.  This allows a small lot with less natural area available to plant to achieve more vegetation. She does not like the fact that a party may

Mr. Dowling, committee member, advised that if this scenario were to come about, she could go to the Board of Adjustment, and probably be able to go ahead with her plan.

Commissioner McElraft and Pat Patteson, Planning Board member, discussed the idea behind the inclusion of additional vegetation.  He stated it was the intent that the 5% was to plant in the disturbed area and to try to bring some beauty back to what was destroyed. If it were only done in the existing natural area then you are not bringing the entire lot to a natural looking property. Mr. Patteson said he is not discouraging the planting of any additional vegetation anywhere, they are encouraging revegetating areas that were disturbed. Mr. Patteson went on to add that 5% on an average lot is actually minimal and most  people are doing this anyway.  On a 12,500 sq. ft. lot the extra 5% comes to 625 sq. ft. of the lot.

Derek Taylor asked that 19-376 (b)(1) have sentence restructured for clarification to place or revegetated to follow ‘as natural area’.

Clint Routson also asked that 19-376(6) be clarified that a natural area cannot retain a canopy of 50-75 sq. ft. clusters if there are no trees to retain.  The way the change reads is that the canopy cannot be removed, so the lot would be unusable. Further discussion regarding the authority of the Dunes and Vegetation Protection Officer (DVPO).

Mr. Wm. Farrington, General Contractor, reminded the board that if the wastewater system is located in the natural area, the canopy of trees has to be removed.  This reflects no change from the previous ordinance.  He went on to advise that obtaining a building permit is becoming more and more confusing and complicated.

Commissioner Marks said that the Carteret County Health Dept. has the most influence on the vegetation in their placement of a wastewater system.  Further discussion went on between Ms. Marks and Clint Routson. Reference was made to 19-376(c)(1) that exempts wastewater systems in the natural area.

Mr. Routson asked if the DVPO has the authority to determine where the natural area will be on a lot?  Can the owner identify where he wants the natural area, possibly outside a canopy of trees?

Mr. Rush said he felt that the DVPO does have the right to tell an owner where the natural area will be.  A proposal must be submitted prior to visitation, and the DVPO will work with the applicant to satisfy the ordinance. He went on to state that his directive to the staff would be not to require a canopy of trees remain within the wastewater area. 

Derek Taylor, Town Attorney, added that a permit must be issued if the applicant meets all the standards of the ordinance. It could go to the Board of Adjustment, then possibly to Superior Court to make a determination.  The DVPO does have authority, but cannot be completely arbitrary. The spirit of cooperation is at the bottom of the issue.

Commissioner McElraft reminded Mr. Rush that the ultimate decision will be with a judge, not a town manager or a commissioner or a DVPO.  Mr. Rush said he agreed, but there is always interpretation and judgment calls that must be implemented.  Ms. McElraft said she wants the ordinance in black and white, not left to discretion of the DVPO.  Mr. Rush said he would hold any staff accountable should they make decisions that are inappropriate and not be inconsistent.

Ms. Angus said she did not see how any ordinance that is this complex can be black and white, there will be gray areas, especially with situations that come about that had not previously been brought to mind.

At this point of the consideration, Commissioner Farmer asked if they should not be voting on each change/addition as it has been discussed? Otherwise, it will be a very complicated motion to incorporate all of the issues. She said that should it go to another board meeting she did not want to have the same discussions again that are taking place this evening. We will need to move on.

Mr. Rick Farrington, developer, said that he had only the handout that has a summary of the ordinance and cannot read what the board is discussing.  He was informed that the entire ordinance is available on the web site, or can be picked up in town hall.  

Mr. James Heatherly, Woodcliff Drive, said he thought every property owner should have a copy of this ordinance for their comments.  Commissioner Marks said that would be 6,500 copies of a 22-page document, that is not practical.

Mr. Derek Taylor, Town Attorney, made the observation that if the board part and parceled this ordinance and changed sections, particularly one that is complex, having a relationship to some former part or some part to come in later on, you may change something in one spot not recognizing the ramifications of all the other parts.  We are sitting here a piece at a time.  The Planning Board spent a lot of time preparing this for tonight. If there are legitimate concerns that the board has after the public hearing, as to things it would like to see improved or changed in the ordinance, that is something you may want to see in a whole form as it comes back before you.   His recommendation was to decide what the board wants to get done conceptually and get the document altered and brought back to deal with later.  Piece by piece for discussion, but not try to edit it tonight. He felt that significant issues should be dealt with because the board may be hearing things they hadn’t heard before as a result of the public hearing. There are two choices, fix them “on the fly” or fix them before the final version comes for approval.  Those issues may effect other things in the ordinance. Example is that ‘natural area’ is used throughout the ordinance and may cause changes throughout.

Mr. Rush said that the Planning Board, and  the sub committee sat through all the meetings held with the Town Board.  They considered all those comments, taking that into consideration, some they incorporated, some they did not, and this is their recommendation at this point.  If there is anything that the Board of Commissioners wants to change they should provide the appropriate guidance to him and/or Ms. Angus to change them and present it to this board for the January meeting.  It is now at the town board level, the planning board has made their recommendations.

There was then discussion about the planting of 9-foot trees on a property when a 9 foot tree is not practical, nor will it live, on an oceanfront property.  It was determined to add language to exempt these properties from tree plantings and require suitable shrubbery.

Mr. Taylor advised the DVPO must be given standards to go by to make these decisions. One example, in natural areas, “where there is no reasonable alternative or placement of a canopy of trees as described in 19-376 may be reduced or removed to allow a wastewater system.” In this instance it gives flexibility to the DVPO to make these decisions.

Commissioner McElraft wanted clarification of 19-376(b) (4) to allow driveways, considered an improvement, in the buffered area. 

Commissioner Farmer said she would like for 25% natural to be required in all commercial zones. 

Commissioner McElraft said she had a problem with that if it prevented someone from being able to build the building they wanted on their commercial property. That’s a significant jump and would have an impact on what could be placed on a site.

Mr. Routson then added that if he owned B3 property and discovered it had been changed to 25% from 15% he would feel slighted.  To know nothing about it before tonight is quite a change.  Mr. Rush agreed and said that another public hearing would be called to make such a significant change.

Mr. Taylor said that is an example of why there should be another public hearing called. To get all the thoughts and comments on record tonight.

Ms. Angus said that because a landscaping plan is now required for commercial review, she felt that if we stay with 15% for B3 that you can see that 15% would be enough.  The main reason she wanted this point brought up is that parking is going to be at a premium, on some of the smaller commercial lots. To take out driveways, turning, wastewater, there is not a lot of room left for the parking.  She felt 25% would be a very hard percentage to deal with.

Mr. Patteson agreed with Ms. Angus’ overview of this issue.

Commissioner Farmer asked that bulkhead and rip rap be reversed in 19-376(8) to indicate that rip rap is the preferred method.

The CAMA area being left in it’s natural state created a lot of discussion with Commissioner McElraft stating that she felt people had a right to a back yard and a view of the water.

Commissioner Farmer reiterated that pruning is permitted within this area to allow a view. The purpose of keep the vegetation is to reduce erosion on the sound front.

Section 19-379 also caused considerable discussion regarding not being able to grade or clear a lot prior to construction, possibly for marketing.  Mr. Routson said a person will not buy a lot unless they are able to obtain a septic tank (wastewater) permit from the health department.  This prohibits a person from moving dirt to allow inspection by the health department.

Mr. Frank Erwin, planning board member, added that 19-378 specifies that minimal clearing for a walk through inspection passage or wastewater facilities inspection is allowed.

Ms. Angus added that it says “minimal clearing” which will allow this; however, not be permitted to arbitrarily grade the entire lot.  The DVPO will be aware of what is allowed for minimal clearing of that inspection.

Mr. Taylor asked that an addition be made to 19-379 (2) “Except as provided for in 19-378, a lot or parcel may not be graded until such time that the building permit is obtained.”  

Mr. Art Daniel, Planning Board chairman, made the following suggestion to 19-379 (2) “A lot or parcel may not be graded until such time the building permit is obtained, other than grading as specified by the Carteret County sanitarian.” This was agreed to by the committee members that were in attendance.

Mr. Routson was then concerned with getting the equipment from the road to the area to be considered.  Mr. Daniel said he did not think that the larger equipment would be necessary.

Mr. Wm. Farrington, homeowner, was concerned that he cannot clear his own lot adjacent to his property that he would like to clear for a larger yard with no intent to market it. He was informed that this would not be possible, only with minimal clearing.  This issue was not resolved.

Section 19-401 Compliance with provisions required.  It was discussed that $500.00/day is too high and that the fine should be $500.00 per incident. Mr. Patteson said his problem with this amount is that some people have enough money to go ahead and cut out any trees they want and pay the $500.00 and he has his view. Is there another way to address this problem?

Mr. Taylor added that he felt the planning board wanted to make this ordinance strict enough but not be unduly or unreasonable in the fine process.  There may need to be some grace period built into the ordinance. A lot of the ordinance is based around restoration and not just a penalty aspect. Problem with restoration is how you prove what was there before unless you take pictures of every tree and every shrub that is out there. Perhaps photos of the lot prior to construction would be a way to handle it.

Mr. Erwin said it would be best for an applicant to see that responsible people work for him or that he over see the work himself.

Commissioner Farmer said she felt this should be on the website or send out a flyer about the violations and what is expected.

Commissioner McElraft said she felt that the fine should not start until the applicant has received reasonable notice. If they don’t comply, then begin the $500.00/day after so many days notice.

Mr. Routson said that restoration does not say it removes the violation. You still have a violation because you cut it initially even with restoration.

Mr. Rush said that the most appropriate way to address this would be to charge $500.00 as a one time occurrence along with restoration.

There was no further discussion through the end of the ordinance.

Comment from public brought Mr. James Heatherly to the podium. His comments were that he is in total opposition to this ordinance. It is his property and he wants to do with it as he pleases. He personally owns one of the most wooded lots on Emerald Isle, and has no intention of stripping it.  However, he would like to have that privilege if he should so desire. He does not care for the Town manager having the option to make a decision as an exception. He took exception to the amount of detail he had available to him tonight. He thinks the entire town should be sent the entire ordinance and be able to voice his objections before it is put into practice. He advised that the public is not here to comment. He does not take the News-Times which meets the obligation, but there ought to be a better way.  He does not own a computer or take a newspaper. He’s not here often enough to have either one.

Motion to close public hearing was made by Commissioner Farmer, with unanimous approval.

Commissioner Farmer made a motion to reopen the public hearing, with unamimous approval.

Commissioner Eckhardt said he did not want to see this go to another meeting (January) and get into the same criss-cross we are in now. He wanted to resolve it before another public hearing.

Mr. Rush said he and Ms. Angus could make the changes discussed here this evening and circulate it as soon as possible to the members and to personally deliver a copy of that revision to Mr. Heatherly. However, he does not feel that this board is going to come up with anything that will satisfy everyone’s concern. At some point in time, a decision has to be made.

Mayor Schools said he felt another workshop session should be in order. Commissioner McElraft said she does not like a workshop format, she wants a public hearing.

Commissioner Farmer said she does not want another workshop. They agree or disagree and need to clean up the spots previously discussed and bring it to the January board meeting.

Mr. Rush reminded the members of the board that the point of increasing the natural vegetation in the business district is something that needs to be determined and he cannot just write it in without their guidance.

Mayor Schools asked that this be the last item on the agenda so that anyone waiting for their point on the agenda does not have to go through this again.

Mr. Routson reminded the board members that the public hearing was advertised for 7:00 P.M. and it did not get addressed at that time.  If you move it to the end of an agenda, have it advertised for 7:00, people expect to hear it at that time.

Mr. Taylor said that the board can do what the courts do and schedule a 7:00 PM public hearing or as soon as it can be heard after that time.  There is also a courtesy issue as well.

Mr. Routson said the public hearing does not have to be at the regular meeting, it could be separate. However, that would mean if the public hearing was not concluded by 7:00 then it would have to be rescheduled.

Mr. Rush asked if he is correct in assuming that there is to be no further meeting on this issue prior to the January 14, 2003 meeting and he and Ms. Angus will make the changes that were discussed and circulate the latest changes to the members.  He will not propose any change to the 15% or 25% natural area in commercial districts; it will be up to this board to make that decision.

Commissioner McElraft said she liked Ms. Angus’ comments earlier about the landscaping plans; to go along with that for a period and if it is not working, then we can look at it again.

Mr. Wm. Farrington added the comment that the height of the buildings was lowered, now you want less space on the land. What are you going to do next, make it 50%?  It may not be a ‘taking’, but it is a ‘chewing’.  If those who vote for this change should lead by example and give 10% more of their own property to the town.

It was decided to let the percentage remain at 15% for B-3, and bring the revisions before the board for the January 14, 2003 meeting.

Final Plat – Sunset Harbor #5                              

      The Planning Board has approved Sunset Harbor #5 and has forwarded it to the Board of Commissioners with their suggestion of approval from the Town Board.  All papers are in order.  Chief Wilson, Chief Walker, James Taylor, Robert Conrad and Ms. Angus have reviewed the final plat and were found to be in order.  At the Planning Board there was some concern about the legal aspects.  As the result of a meeting last night (December 9, 2002) those concerns have been resolved.  The engineer certification is present.  Lot #5 is recommended as being substantially complete.

            Commissioner Messer made a motion to approve Sunset Harbor #5 and the board voted unanimously.  Motion carried.                                                                                             

Consideration - Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 – Beach and Shore Regulations – Regarding Horses on the Beach

            An ordinance amending Chaper 5 – Beach and Shore Regulations – regarding horses on the beach is presented for the Board’s consideration.  This ordinance amendment has been revised based on comments at the November 12 meeting and subsequent correspondence from individual Board members.  A public hearing is not legally required, however, Mr. Rush is certain the Board will allow the public an opportunity to comment on the ordinance amendment at the appropriate time.

The primary intent of the attached ordinance amendment is to make the Town’s regulations regarding horses on the beach consistent with other town ordinances governing motor vehicles on the beach and removal of dog feces.  The language in the ordinance amendment would only allow horses on the beach during the period from September 30 until March 31, or the Thursday before Easter weekend, whichever comes first, which is the time period that motor vehicles are allowed. 

The ordinance amendment also addresses the issue of horse excrement on the beach strand, in an effort to be consistent with the Town’s “pooper-scooper” ordinance for dogs.  The ordinance amendment requires the use of a “diaper” to prevent the deposition of horse feces on the beach strand.  The Board should note that this provision has been added based on comments at the November 12 meeting.  The Board should also note that the availability of saddle-connected horse “diapers” appears to be somewhat limited.  The Southern States operation in Peletier does not market these items, nor is knowledgeable about where to obtain them.  Town Manager Rush was able to locate a few vendors of these saddle-connected “diapers” on the internet, but the number of vendors was limited, and some were in foreign countries.  Regardless, the proposed ordinance amendment has been written to require the “diapers”.  A horseback rider whose horse is not equipped with a “diaper” will be issued a citation if the Board adopts this ordinance amendment. 

The proposed ordinance amendment also formalizes some of the current practices in place regarding horses on the beach, including the designated access locations, a requirement for horses to stay off the dunes, a requirement for responsible riding on the beach, etc.  The attached ordinance amendment also converts a violation of this ordinance to a civil violation, which is consistent with our recent trend to utilize civil violations where practical. 

The Board should note that the proposed ordinance has been changed to prohibit the riding of horses on town street right-of-ways as a result of comments at the November 12 meeting.  This provision means that horseback riders will be required to unload their horses at the two designated horse access locations, leave their horse with an attendant at the access location, drive their vehicles and trailers to an approved parking area, and then walk back to the access location. 

There was also some discussion about implementing a permit system for horseback riding on the beach at the November 12 meeting.  Town Manager Rush has discussed this issue with Town staff, and it is their recommendation that the volume of horseback traffic does not warrant a permit program at this time.  The Town will take appropriate steps to inform the public about the new ordinance if it is approved, potentially including a mention in Emerald Tidings, posting on the web site, communications with rental companies, and appropriate signage.

            Mrs. Judy Williams, 327 Cape Fear Loop, who had several other people with her, spoke that she has some real problems with the idea of dropping the horses and having someone hold them until the trailer is parked in a parking lot.  That would not work and is a dangerous thing.  She suggested that this be constructive.  The place where she goes is Salter Path and there seems to be a parking area there.  She would like to see very few restrictions put on the animals.  She said they have to obey the rules for vehicles and dogs.  They pick up their poop on the beach. 

            Others who commented on the issue of horses on the beach, control, some have received permission to park trailers on private lots and has no problem with it.

            A resident of Lee Avenue has been told he has broken the law because he rides his horse from Lee down Black Skimmer and onto the beach.  He noted that the ordinance had been changed to say that you could not ride a horse on the edge of the street.  Mayor Schools interjected that it has always been that way.  Mr. Rush said it now says that you cannot ride on town streets according to comments made at the November 12 meeting.

            After a short discussion on this subject Commissioner Marks made a motion to table the Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 – regarding horses on the beach for further research and the board voted unanimously.  Motion carried.

14. Consideration - Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 – Fire Prevention and Protection – Prohibiting Burning in the Town Limits

            Fire Chief Walker commented that the ordinance the Town has at this point, Chapter 8, Article 1 starts out saying you cannot do any burning whatsoever and then goes into without a permit.  The State Administrative Code states if you have pick-up available to your lot, it would be illegal to have outside burning on your lot.  The Town does have pick-up and the Town Manager did authorize the stopping of burning as of 1 July 2002, which has been done.  This ordinance amending Chapter 8 – Fire Prevention and Protection – is just a formality taking away the part about the permits which leaves the ordinance in line with the State Law that no burning can take place.

      Mr. Jim Heatherly, Woodcliffe Drive, asked about how many burning permits had been issued this year.  Chief Walker answered between 500 and 1,000.  There has been about 5 that the EPA has been called on for about $5,000 and that is a pretty good take.  Mr. Heatherly said, it is his understanding that the reason for this amendment is because the town picks up the stuff.  The garbage people are picking it up and he has watched his garbage fees increase from $65.00 to $130.00 and when he questioned the $65.00 the then Town Manager told him “We can charge anything we want to.”  Mr. Heatherly is sure the garbage people are not picking up this yard debris for free and questioned if there was going to be another garbage increase again for lack of 500 burning permits per year that could be issued as long as the city provides pick-up.  If the city does not provide the pick-up then you can issue them.  Mr. Heatherly thinks it is a hidden tax increase.  He noted he paid more garbage fees on his trailer lot than he paid in taxes on it and he does not even use the service.  Mr. Heatherly saved his stuff to burn for a whole year and now cannot burn it.

            Commissioner Marks asked how many times fires have gotten out of control and the fire department had to be called?  Mr. Heatherly answered 5.  Chief Walker interjected that was 5 that the EPA was called on. 

            Someone in the audience asked about having open fires on the beach and Chief Walker said they are done but if the Fire Department is called they are going to extinguish it.  There is supposed to be no open fires on the beach at any time.  The same person asked about fireworks.  Chief Walker said the State Law basically says if it flies or goes boom, it is illegal in the State of North Carolina. Chief Walker said if you have public displays of fireworks you can get a permit, which he has been issuing to Ms. Sanderson, Parks and Recreation Director and they follow EPA Standards setting the parameter of what can be shot and where they can shoot.  You also have to be a licensed operator to shoot them.

            Mr. Bill Reist, Woodcliffe Drive, commented that this lady has brought a good point and it is something that should be addressed now and not in July, of how are you going to deal with that.  Someone is going to get hurt on the beach.  It is something for the Board to think about now along with the Police Department and Fire Department.  They should be together and come with some type of plan to address the issue.

            Commissioner Eckhardt asked to put this issue on another agenda and get back to the fact that the town is paying to pick-up Mr. Heatherly’s trash.  This is against the law.  He didn’t quite understand what was being talked about.

            Commissioner Eckhardt made a motion to approve the Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 – Fire Prevention and Protection – To Prohibit Burning In the Town Limits of Emerald Isle and the board voted unanimously.  Motion carried.

Discussion - Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 – Zoning - Regarding Building Offsets and Roof Lines

Ms. Carol Angus, Inspections Department Head explained that this amendment to Section 19-74.1 comes to the board as a result of several issues that have come up during plan review by the Planning Board later to be dealt with by the Town Board.  The intent is to more specifically define the intent of requirements for offsets and use of architectural roof lines. The town does not want the “warehouse” look along the highway or commercial areas and wants to implement a sense of architectural design that will provide aesthetically pleasing construction throughout the commercial district.  The intent is to prohibit high towers and nonfunctional structures but to allow the construction of buildings that will have appealing roof lines.  These amendments to existing wording hopefully will clarify the intent of achieving these goals. The biggest change is each 20’ of a wall will require a 8’x4’ offset and that a projecting porch, gable or other similar structure may serve as such offset. Perhaps, at the discretion of the board, the last paragraph should be altered to allow the town board or other entity to determine that an architectural concept is acceptable should it not fall into the criteria as described by the ordinance. Recommendation for approval is, therefore, at the discretion of the town board members.

            Commissioner Farmer thanked the committee for coming up with 20 feet instead of 40 feet. 

            Town Manager Rush said the content of the ordinance and policies are certainly admirabe in the language used in the ordinance. Mr. Rush had some concerns about the phrase “Provided the town board is authorized to vary the terms hereof or allow architectural features,” etc.  The planning board pulled that language from another existing ordinance in the town code.  Mr. Rush does not believe that the kind of language is legal.  He feels that if some flexibility in the architectural features, an appropriate way should be devised, because this is not the way to do it.  He advised against including that language.

            Attorney Derek Taylor said, “It needs to be a little more specific than what is there.  This offers too much wide discretion. That kind of latitude can be done but not this way.  There are other options available that would work."  He would tighten up the language a little bit and have, as has been discussed earlier, some kind of standards by which you will make a determination that someone sitting in the audience can refer to  There should be some standards set up and there are none.

            Mr. Rush mentioned that at the Board’s pleasure, that the language could be changed and it could be brought up at the January 14^th meeting for a Public Hearing and consideration of the Ordinance and was directed to do so by the board.

            Mr. Patteson mentioned the Planning Board was trying to come up with a way of allowing somebody, and he used Mr. Larry Watson’s Sea Oats for an example. He (Mr. Watson) came in to the Planning Board with what the Planning Board thought was a fine looking design and because there was a wall that went above the main wall and roof, then as a Planning Board they had to vote unanimously to not allow it.  They did not like that and so what they were trying to do here was allow that type of plan to be able to come in.  That if it is a continuous look of the structure and it moves along, the Planning Board is saying it would be allowed but still could not total but 4 feet, but this was not meant to be spires and waves and etc.  Where they were planning on doing the restaurant, the A-frame he had all the way across the front, when he got down to the restaurant part, he went up higher and it was proportionately correct with everything else he did, but because it went up higher, they could not agree with it and they felt it should be. 

            Commissioner Farmer asked about the shape and if it carried all the way down?  Mr. Patteson replied they were the decorative A’s.  There was a porch. Mr. Patteson said because there was an overhang out on the front portion and it had the breaks in the roof like that, then the Planning Board was considering that as the aesthetic break in the buildings.

            Commissioner Farmer would not like to see those breaks in the roof and nothing down below. 

            Mr. Patteson said what they came up with is that there is language already in the ordinances that allows the Commissioners the ability to waive something if they felt it was OK and Attorney Taylor is saying the Planning Board was just stabbing in the dark.  Mr. Patteson asked that the board charge the Planning Board with coming up with another method of being able to have an architectural control without having it turn into  being a committee.  There should be a way to implement this without coming up with “Different Strokes for Different Folks”.

Appointment – Board of Adjustment Alternate #2

            Mayor Schools called for nominations.

            Commissioner Farmer nominated Jerry Smith to fill the position of Alternate 2 on the Board of Adjustment and the board voted unanimously.  Motion carried.         

Comments from Town Clerk, Town Attorney, and Town Manager

            There were no comments from the Town Clerk.

            Town Attorney Derek Taylor wished everyone a Merry Christmas and said “Let’s Go Home”.

            Mr. Rush reported on the status of the possible Amendment to Town Charter Requiring Elected Officials to Be Permanent Residents.  He had initially planned to include an item on this December 10 agenda to initiate this action, however, it was recently learned that the Board of Commissioners does not have the authority to enact such an amendment.  The General Statutes specify several charter amendments that the Board of Commissioners does have authority to enact on its own, but the requirement regarding permanent residents is not one of them.  The only method to amend the charter to clarify this is to request the NC General Assembly to enact a local bill amending the Town’s Charter.  If it’s the Board’s pleasure, Mr. Rush offered to certainly prepare a request to our local legislators for the Board to review.

Mr. Rush also consulted with David Lawrence, an attorney at the UNC Institute of Government, about this issue.  He informed Mr. Rush that the State Constitution specifies that an elected official must be a registered voter of the jurisdiction in which he or she serves.  The Board of Elections is charged with verifying the eligibility of registered voters, and any concerns about the true permanent residence of an elected official should be directed to the Board of Elections.

Update – NC 58 Sidewalk Project - EDA-Morehead, the Town’s engineer, is currently working on the design of the NC 58 sidewalk project. Mr. Rush is also working with EDA-Morehead and affected business owners to explore the possibility of eliminating some of the existing curb cuts on NC 58, and will advise the Board of his progress.

Design work should be completed in January, and the project is expected to go out to bid shortly thereafter.  The Town intends to have the project completed before Easter weekend to avoid any disruption during tourist season. 

Upcoming Agenda Items - The following agenda items, are being prepared which will appear on an upcoming Board of Commissioners agenda:

• Town-wide no parking ordinance
• Prohibition of campaign signs / guidelines for polling place
• Solid waste program revisions
• Public beach access and parking
• Grant application for Coast Guard Road park
• Personnel policy revisions
• Budget calendar
• Recommendations Report from NC 58 Committee.

Comments from Board of Commissioners and Mayor

            There were no comments from Commissioners Farmer, McElraft, Farmer, Marks, Eckhardt and Messer.

Adjourn