TOWN OF NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 4, 2007
7:00 P.M.
PRESENT:
Mayor W. Rodney Knowles, Mayor Pro-tem Larry Hardison, Aldermen Richard Farley, Fred Handy, Richard Peters and Daniel Tuman, Bradley Smith, Town Manager, Loraine Carbone, Town Clerk, Robert Kilroy, Attorney
QUORUM:
Mayor Knowles called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the North Topsail Beach meeting room and declared a quorum present.
INVOCATION:
Rev. Tom Greener, of the Faith Harbor United Methodist Church, gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Board of Aldermen and citizens present recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Manager Smith requested to remove budget amendment #1 since a salary had been coded in the wrong line item. Alderman Farley noted that we are increasing salaries and we need to look at how that occurred. Manager Smith said he would explore that more and get documentation. The zoning map will be removed since we didn’t have the workshop.
Alderman Handy moved, seconded by Alderman Tuman approval of the Agenda as amended. The motion passed unanimously.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Beach Nourishment – Dick Macartney
Although our Beach Nourishment Committee did not meet in December, the process of beach nourishment did make some significant progress through a couple of important meetings. In addition, I am pleased to report that the grant application for state funds in the amount of $10,200,000 for beach nourishment was prepared and submitted by Ms. Cox to the NC Division of Water Resources.
On December 18th Mayor Pro Tem Hardison, Shelia Cox, and I attended a briefing of the Alternative Formulation by the Wilmington District of the US Army Corps of Engineers to the regional and Washington DC headquarters of the Corps of Engineers. The two hour presentation which included remarks by the local towns was well received by the superior offices and we are pleased that this step went so well. What was involved was that the plan outlined to construct a sand dune 15 feet high fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above sea level for 52,150 linear feet for all of Surf City and 3.85 miles of North Topsail Beach was accepted. The next phase will be to release the plan for public comment probably sometime in April. Also the Wilmington Office was directed to begin the coordination with State and Federal Agencies for preparing the Environmental Impact Statement.
First costs of this federally cost shared project are currently estimated at $75,724,000 with renourishment cost at 4 year intervals at a cost of $11,109,000 each time for a fifty year period. With maintenance the annual cost annual over this time is estimated at $7,704,000. With expected annual benefits of $35,719,000 of which $16,246,000 are hurricane and storm damage and $16,000,000 are recreation benefits, the project benefit-cost ratio is 4.6 to 1.
With expected progress this project will be constructed over 4 years beginning in 2012. Of course there are still many hurdles to be cleared but it appears there are sufficient funds allocated federally and cost shared by this town and Surf City to sustain the project through September 30, 2007.
Three years ago the three towns on the island established the Topsail Island Shore Protection Commission. The purpose of this group is to pursue beach nourishment for the entire Island working together along with county officials from Pender and Onslow Counties. The group meets monthly and monitors the lobbying efforts of the Washington firm of Marlowe and Associates which helps secure the federal funding required to keep both Topsail Beach’s federal project and our joint project with Surf City on track.
At the Commission’s December meeting, the group elected a new chair and vice chair allowing Mike Curley of Surf City to take a break from the leadership he has shouldered the past two years. Ms. Mary Meece of Topsail Beach is the new chair and our, Mr. Hardison, is the vice chair, in line to become Chair in 2008. With a change of the political control of Congress today the status of our beach nourishment project can be affected. Presently, according to our lobbying contact, things still look good but they stress that we should schedule our annual Congressional lobbying trip to Washington this spring. Last year Mr. Hardison went and the year before Mr. Handy was part of the Island town’s joint effort.
The next meeting of the Beach Nourishment Committee is scheduled for Wednesday January 17th at 6:30 PM. However, I understand that later this evening the board will discuss if they desire to disband the committee.
Hopefully the decision will be in favor of continuing the difficult process of maintaining and improving the shoreline of the town’s most significant asset. Regardless, I want to compliment the members of the board and the Mayor for the steadfast way they have supported the efforts of the beach nourishment committee over the past several years and especially this past year in which I have served as chair.
Planning Board – Mike Yawn, Chairman:
The Planning Board held our regular meeting on December 14. Actions:
Septic Moratorium – The Planning Board unanimously recommends:
1. To encourage our Board of Aldermen to pressure North Topsail Utilities to meet their commitments.
2. To explore other alternatives for sewer service for our Town.
3. That the Planning Board recognizes that septic tanks are a public safety and health issue.
4. The Planning Board urges the Board of Aldermen to work with the Town Attorney and the League of Government to see if it is possible to have a moratorium on septic systems and create the required verbiage.
Bridge Ordinance
We have concluded that no changes to our ordinances are required. Ms. Hill stated that she will do some research and would write up some procedures and reference the state statutes. Ms. Hill also stated that she would contact DOT and see what the recommendation is as far as having bridges inspected on a regular basis.
Duplexes and PRDs
Our direction is that we should not make any changes until Ms. Booker, the new consultant, reviews the Town Ordinance for inconsistencies and 2006 General Assembly-required changes.
Zoning Map
Mr. Riggs had some concerns about the two access easements serving islands at the north end. These have been added to the map. He also has issues about the zoning districts and accreted land at Sanford Island. As these now reflect the BOA motion of August 2005, to change these would require a challenge. Mr. Riggs understands that.
Other concerns:
1. The zoning of lots on and near Goldsboro Lane. These were rezoned in 2003.
2. There is one small piece of property in North Topsail Beach that is on the other side of the New River Inlet, as the inlet has shifted south. The zoning map may need to reflect that.
3. Rezoned properties with mixed zones (buildable zoning and Con-D) that were 100% rezoned as a buildable zone by Boards of Aldermen....possibly not intentionally, but none the less done so by the wording of the rezoning motions. There are about 6 of these areas. My recommendation (which was Mr. Richter's recommendation, and agrees with the August 2005 BOA motion) is that the most legal way to proceed is to adopt them as 100% rezoned, then if we want to re-zone the portions that really were intended to be left as Con-D, follow the normal process. Mr. Charles Riggs had a question on this. He stated that when he puts a rezoning package together, he includes a legal description of the property. He asked that when there has been discussion on whether a portion or entire tract of land was intended to be rezoned, does the property description in the legal advertisement have any bearing on the interpretation of the Board’s motion. This is a good question for our Town Attorney. Attorney Kilroy noted that the statutes of limitations run out on that.
Mr. Riggs also stated that he is concerned about conservation districts. Mr. Riggs had a copy of the 1991 Land Use Plan. He stated that the original Land Use Plan and ordinances for North Topsail Beach allowed for one dwelling for every 3 acres of Con-D. He asked when Con-D zoning was changed to not allow any dwelling except for accessory uses. Mr. Riggs also stated that the 1994 Land Use Plan shows one dwelling for every 3 acres in Con-D. Mr. Riggs stated that since we are looking at the zoning map he also thinks it is important to look at the conservation district rules and if and when they changed. Since then, I have done some research and this was changed in the mid 1990’s. The 1998 ordinances on municode on Con-D are the same as the ones we have now.
Also, we have a new opening on the Planning Board, and an opening for a new alternate. The next Land Use Plan meeting is going to be held 1/11 at 5:30 pm. Next Planning Board is 1/11 at 6:30 pm. Flo Archambault is unable to serve and Damon Savas’ term will expire in February and we have an opening for an alternate too.
Mr. Yawn questioned the six month period of time to allow challenges and Attorney Kilroy said that the statute of limitations is two months which was formally nine months.
The Zoning Map Joint Workshop was re-scheduled to Friday, January 12th at 10:00 am. Alderman Tuman felt that an aerial would be good to show the mean high water mark and Mr. Yawn said that it could be a lay over on the map. Alderman Farley felt that they would be running the risk of tying ourselves to a high water mark and Manager Smith said it would be just as an overlay and not part of the official zoning map.
Alderman Farley questioned Goldsboro Lane being rezoned in 2004 and Mr. Yawn corrected his earlier statement and said it was adopted in July of 2003.
Alderman Farley questioned if the easements were private why do we need those easements on our maps. Mr. Yawn stated that these were on the 1992 maps and THEY wanted to be consistent.
Recreation & Appearance Committee – Bill Horstmann
The committee held their regularly scheduled monthly meeting on Tuesday, December 12th at the home of Rose Peters. Yard of the month was awarded to Patricia Moylan at 231 Seashore Dr, for their extensive display of Christmas decorations.
The major topics of discussion
were:
1. The Snowflake decorations were praised: for the enhancement
they add to the
beauty of our town. A recommendation was made and strongly
supported that we
ask that the snowflakes remain up for an extended period of time
past the holiday
season.
2. The committee is very interested in considering some type of
community spirited
activity. Some ideas were brought up; however it was felt that
more discussion and
brain-storming should take place at our January meeting. It is
our goal to have
some type of regularly scheduled activity to gather the people
of the town together
in hopes of building friendships and a community spirit.
We are open to ideas and suggestions from the Board and hope
that in working
together we can make a difference in making improvements in the
quality of life for
all of NTB's residents.
The committee continues to seek new members to participate in sharing ideas on how to improve the appearance of our town and improve recreational activities. Meeting on 2nd Tuesday of each month at 7:00 PM in Town Hall. Please support our committee by purchasing Dining Guides (Crystal Coast & Carolina Coast) - T shirts or Cash Donations.
Alderman Farley asked if his committee mad a request for some funds and Mr. Horstmann said yes, we put items down that we wanted, for example, plants, lighting, more Christmas decorations at the park, lighting up the walk way on the Gazebo.
MANAGER’S REPORT:
- Lydia King, finance Officer, will be out of Town on Wednesdays for the next 6 weeks. Gregg Whitehead, Richland’s Manager, called and has requested assistance in the finance area. His clerk Eva is having surgery and will be out for 6 weeks. Lydia will run their accounts payables and payroll for them. We are doing this in the spirit of cooperation with another town. I feel that when we need assistance, Gregg will help us out.
- I have spoken to Ginger Booker with the Piedmont Triad COG concerning the revisions of our Zoning ordinance. Ginger has reviewed Chapter 7 and is willing to work with us. We will be scheduling at least 4 workshops with the P&Z Board along with the public as we go through this process. I feel confident that Ginger will give us a quality product.
- I did not attend the Topsail Island Shoreline Protection Meeting due to injury of my back. I will let Larry Hardison update the Board on this matter.
- Planning and Zoning met and made several recommendations on the septic tank issue. This is an agenda item. Also they did their final review of the zoning map and any questions or concerns should have been answered at the joint workshop held this afternoon.
- Board of Adjustment training was held for all members by Robert Kilroy. This was invaluable training to the members. There were two that could not make the meeting and I will have a follow up training with them in the very near future.
- Of course we held the Town’s Christmas dinner and appreciation dinner for our volunteers at the Atlantis Restaurant. I feel that everyone had a great time and enjoyed themselves. The Town also held a staff Christmas party at Loraine’s on the 21st. Again a good time was had by all in attendance.
- I will be attending the NC City County Managers Association annual meeting in the Triad between February 7-9.
- The Board needs to set a date for the annual retreat. Available dates at this time are Tuesday, February 6th or Tuesday the 13th starting at 9:00 a.m. Items that need to be discussed are beach nourishment, land use issues and anything else that any member of the Board would like to see discussed. Please get with me immediately so that I may set the agenda for the retreat and get a moderator for the meeting. This needs to be set in February before I and staff begin the 2007-2008 budget process. 6th and 13th retreat. 10:00 am start. Farley, suggest, keep budget off of this.
- I want to commend Lydia King for her hard work and dedication to the Toys for Tots drive. She headed it up and constantly worked to obtain donations or either money or new toys. We had a very successful toy drive and made a brighter Christmas for many needy children in the area.
- I met with Bill Horstmann from the recreation and appearance committee to discuss an annual event to help bring the Town together and start obtaining a sense of community. We discussed a possible annual fall festival with a Bar B Q cook-off theme. We will start organizing this almost immediately and would love your feedback in what you would like to see in this area.
- The next 4 Town Meeting is set for Thursday, January 18th at 6:30 p.m. in Surf City. Information has not been sent out yet regarding location – please mark your calendars.
- Fire Department is having a volunteer drive on Saturday, January 6, 2007 and we will have a cook-out and we encourage you to stop by.
Alderman Farley asked if staff could look at ordinances of other towns that address large holes on the beach. The holes could be a problem for turtle watchers who walk the beach when it is dark.
OPEN FORUM:
Gary Rowland, 127 South Permuda Wynd, asked if there was a consideration for abandoning the beach nourishment committee. He noted that in the Town Survey that was taken, the number one issue was the beach and sand issue and he wanted to remind the Board of that. He suggested to the Aldermen and Mayor that we also have trouble getting citizens involved on committees. We have divergent groups as far as view points are concerned. To even consider abandoning that group now with beach nourishment being our main issue would be unconscionable. Mr. Rowland said that they would pull our representation from the Shoreline Protection Commission too if they did this. We should use the survey to develop its strategic plan so we have an idea of where we are going.
Mike Yawn noted that topics for the Retreat could be NTB implementing recycling, bike path extension and keeping green space for the Town. We have a lot of green space on the sound side and we could do something with the county. Mosquito control on the sound side is a bigger issue and is a health issue.
Dr. Chiang, 3634 Island Drive, said he wanted to reiterate that he didn’t think the bond referendum was a manifesto of the owners and voters of NTB. The survey was the exact opposite, but most of the homeowners could not vote and they couldn’t change their registration in order to vote. There was no mention of cost sharing. The southern district was only getting 40% of sand and he was uncomfortable as to how to vote, but he did vote for it to protect the future of NTB. We are the only beach that hasn’t been renourished. We are going to let the beach die and not do anything about it. The main reason we are undervalued is because if there is no beach no one will come here. If he knew this he would have bought somewhere else, but he enjoys coming here. He said he was surprised we want to undo what we have spent so far. We need more ideas on how to do it. He said he is a doctor and when he tells patients they have cancer he can tell them there are some treatments. He said he hadn’t heard good alternatives for beach nourishment. Dr. Chiang asked the Board to be more sensible in this new year. He said he would like to meet all of the Board members on a personal level.
Bob Hale, Old Village Lane said that the people voted the bond down. The committee agreed unless there is outside funding we will not package this project. The ocean district voted it down substantially. He said that he valued everyone’s opinion and this is how we voted. He said unless you come up with funding, there is no way retirees like he could afford to pay for this. The bottom line is people voted 79% to vote it down.
CONSENT AGENDA:
The consent agenda consisted of the December 7, 2006 Board Meeting minutes, Department Head Reports, Benefit Accrual Report and Budget vs. Actual.
Alderman Tuman moved, seconded by Alderman Handy approval of the Consent Agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
a. Septic Tank Moratorium
Manager Smith noted that the public hearing was not held last month. Instead the P&Z Board discussed this item at their December meeting. They have recognized that septic tanks are detrimental to the health and welfare of the Town particularly during major storm events. They also recommend that the Town move forward with pressuring NTU, Inc. to stay on schedule or even to expedite their proposed expansion schedule. They also recommend that the Town research alternative ways to get sewer capacity for the Town. Finally, P&Z recommend that the Town staff and Town attorney work in conjunction with the League legal staff and the School of Government to draft a moratorium resolution that would stand up to legal challenges. Attorney Kilroy recommend that the P&Z Board conduct a formal well advertised public hearing to obtain both citizen and developer input as well as put into the record of problems caused by these systems. Manager Smith said he knows that this is not fast tracking this issue, but it is a complex legal issue and he knows that no one on the Board wants to intentionally put the Town in a lawsuit that we would lose.
Manager Smith said that the real problem is the above ground systems and a compromise could be if an owner would sign an agreement that when a main line sewer system is in place they would tie in at that time. The attorney should draft a resolution. Mayor Knowles questioned regular septic tanks vs. new peat systems and asked if there was some way we could handle that differently. Alderman Handy noted that those systems are vented and any water would fill them with water so the weight would not let it come out of ground. It is supposed to be safer than the older systems. We need to come up with a moratorium with the exception that a developer make it part of the covenant that the home be hooked up to sewer when it is available.
Alderman Farley stated that the resolution presented at the last meeting said it would be in effect until June 2007 and he assumed we would use that date and asked if that was tied into North Topsail Utilities (NTU) and Alderman Tuman said no. Alderman Farley noted that at their last meeting they approved building ten duplexes where they will pump sewer under the ground; where are we going with this? Manager Smith said that they would tie in. Alderman Farley said that they have been given this assurance before and they have limited application. Septic doesn’t allow them to build as big of a home. If we have a long term moratorium then we could look at this.
Alderman Handy stated that when he suggested this he said he wanted staff to draw up a proposal, but they gave it to the Planning Board before he could see it. He said he wanted a permanent moratorium. He suggested that whoever is building property, they should make it a part of their covenant and part of the sale’s contract that they will agree when sewer taps are available they will hook up. Mr. Denittis questioned at what cost and would it be fair and Alderman Handy said that when a tap is available they have to hook up. Mayor Knowles said that sewer has a franchise area. Alderman Farley noted that it may be cheaper for someone to fine us in court than to get a tap. Allowing septic tanks and forcing people to hook up later on, we could have an event that would cause waste to run through our streets.
Alderman Handy noted that our problem is if someone wants to build with a septic system the county will approve it if it is an approved system. Alderman Tuman said that our ordinance requires you meet minimum lot size. Mayor Knowles noted that in Nags Head they have nothing but septic and they make it look attractive. Manager Smith suggested that they appoint a committee of a couple of Aldermen along with Mike Yawn, staff and the attorney to review this. Mr. Yawn said that one thing you have to do is you have to hold a public hearing and you should set one for your next meeting. Mayor Knowles said that they would have to clarify legal ramifications.
Alderman Peters asked if they could use this to get some leverage over the utility company or as an alternative could they work with Surf City? Alderman Tuman noted that NTU has a very aggressive plan which is twice as aggressive as Swansboro. We need to bring them back here to our next meeting or the March meeting and let them state where they are in this process. Their last report had nothing new to report since they were still in the design phase then, but they should be looking at contracts now. Surf City is expanding its capacity on waste water treatment, but how do we get our collection lines to Surf City since it is a million dollar a mile now and who will pay the fees when they are connected to a service that is serving them. Alderman Tuman said that he has suggested that Stump Sound has needs unsatisfied and we need a strategy whereas we use the expansion for their purpose and take our lines and ship them to Surf City, but we can’t have both. Collection lines have been paid down by owners of NTB. Manager Smith said we could start our own system today and take their lines and pay for what we took. If we put in a town system we could cut out everyone else. Alderman Tuman noted that the new owners are sincere at NTU. Mayor Knowles asked if there was any incentive to guarantee them customers. Attorney Kilroy said to phase out septic tanks over time. Mayor Knowles said to demand hook-ups and give them the incentive.
Mr. Horstmann said that he had an understanding that NTU would correct the odor at the pump station and he asked if the Town had any response from them. Manager Smith noted that he wrote them a letter last month to respond to us on that. They need to pump it more frequently. Alderman Tuman said that he would just have to make a phone call and ask them to respond to him and we can appeal to the Utilities Commission. We should post the Commission’s number on the website. (The number for Consumer Complaints Information is Toll Free 1-866-380-9816 and the website is www.ncuc.commerce.state.nc.us)
b. Beach Nourishment Committee Status
Manager Smith said that this item was originally on the agenda and then pulled because he thought it was about beach nourishment and not specifically about the committee status. Mr. Farley has added this to the agenda for discussion and decision. Does the Board want to keep in place the committee or does the Board feel that the Board of Aldermen can handle this without the aid of a committee. Mr. Smith apologized for any problems that adding this may cause. He has reviewed the Suggested Rules of Procedure for a City Council from Fleming Bell that the Board adopted previously. This is a separate issue and not reconsideration of an already voted on motion.
Alderman Farley said that he personally felt that we have gotten past the point that we need this committee. This committee was set up to respond to citizen’s desire to have beach nourishment. After that vote it is not as aggressive as we anticipated and we should place this issue back into the hands of the Board of Aldermen. We get summaries from the committee and he didn’t think there was anything in that report that an alderman could provide. He was happy to hear that Mayor Pro Tem Hardison would be Vice Chair of the Shoreline Protection Commission. We have staff to monitor the CBRA project and if the Town continues beach nourishment, the Board can make that decision.
Alderman Farley said that he sees a lack of citizen participation for Beach nourishment and people are not interested. He noted that when the Board holds a meeting they fill this place up and have standing room only when we take an action. There are problems just filling the committee itself and he said he was aware of many who have resigned from this committee and he questioned if they didn’t like the way the committee functions. They are not enthusiastic and past members voted against the bond referendum and most are non ocean front. Voters voted against it and the Board of Aldermen should start making decisions exclusively. We could always revive the committee at some point, but he felt there was no benefit of an extra layer of government since they have the expertise. We can either move forward or not and we pay plenty of money to engineers.
Alderman Handy said that he disagreed. Until we get to the point where we could afford it we need to have a Beach Nourishment Committee. Highway 210 has been washed away and the original one is out in the surf. We are losing footage and something needs to be done. Nourishment has been proven to work. Alderman Farley said that is not the issue – does the committee serve any purpose to encourage citizens to support it. The committee only received 75 positive votes and there is no benefit at this point. Alderman Farley said if this committee is just for public relations, he was not interested in that kind of committee. Alderman Handy said if you talk with Mr. Macartney it is more than that.
Alderman Tuman said that he shared Alderman Handy’s thoughts. We have had a committee as far back as 1992 to address beach and dune maintenance. It involved from pushes and maintenance from storms of 1996 to getting ready for beach restoration from a committee level. A Board of Alderman member once chaired this committee and since then it has been on a citizen level and they did a great job to get us ready for the referendum. It wasn’t the committee that failed and the bond would have had a better chance if we went with the committee’s recommendations instead of the Board’s. Alderman Tuman said that he is an alderman, but he didn’t consider himself more important than anyone else and he supports the Beach Nourishment Committee.
Alderman Peters noted that the real issue is how we use the committee and what direction do they go in or what direction do they give back to us. The big issue is who is giving the direction to the committee. As a Board we advocated oversight. Alderman Peters noted that he has gone to many meetings and he hasn’t seen other Board members there. He said he has not agreed with everything the committee has done, but we need to explore other alternatives and the Board needs to be more proactive. This Committee serves as an escape valve for this Board.
Alderman Peters moved to defer any action on this issue until we have a workshop/retreat regarding the subject of beach nourishment and how we are going to get there and what we are going to do.
Alderman Peters said that the consensus of the survey is that the Town does want beach nourishment. He said he knows the vote, but he felt that until we had it out amongst ourselves, we should not take a motion to dissolve this committee and especially it sets a very poor precedent to the citizens that we don’t need it.
Mayor Pro Tem Hardison said that it was unfortunate that we are at this point to disband this committee. He said he was disappointed that it has come this far in order to begin to talk about issues regarding the referendum and regarding the causes for people voting the way they did and causes of how things were done. He said that he felt that he wasn’t in the loop in terms of communication by the chairperson of beach nourishment. He said there were times that he heard the Board had agreed to something and he hadn’t experienced that. Much of what people felt was that they were led around with the expediency of getting things done without raising questions. He said he could appreciate the amount of work various committee members put in and he wouldn’t want this proposal as being viewed as a matter of not appreciating it, but we need to take the time to discuss amongst ourselves and determine where we are going to go from here. If it means disbanding the committee, then do so and start again.
Alderman Farley noted that someone said our survey indicated that the number one issue was beach nourishment and that is not so. The idea that there is a divergent group on this committee is nonsense and he was here to take the flack. He disagreed on the idea that it would be a poor precedent to ignore the citizen survey, since wouldn’t it be poor to ignore the vote? He questioned the committee being in place since 92 since nothing was brought forward from then. Before the committee was formed in 2000, it was chaired by an alderman and it never got off the ground and then former Alderman Flynn got it off the ground.
Alderman Farley said the plan was not the committee’s plan - it was Alderman Tuman’s plan. He suggested that the difference between .12 and .10 was the key and he didn’t think the vote indicated that.
Alderman Tuman said that he liked Alderman Peter’s recommendation that in fact we had a referendum and it failed and we need to decide where to go from here and we will do that at a workshop. How do we want the committee to serve the town, how do we help them know what the Board’s sentiments are? He said that he suspected the committee would welcome support from the manager, Mayor and Board to help them do their job. Like any other plan it changes over time – like a terminal groin in concert with legislature. There may be merit in buying a little dredge to do maintenance, but let the committee and staff explore options since it is derelict not to do anything.
Alderman Handy said a main concern is one of outward appearance. He said that he has received emails that they agreed with beach nourishment but they didn’t agree with the funding. It will send out negative signals to outside agencies if we voted down this committee. We need to send out the message that we are not opposed to beach nourishment. It is not good for public relations.
Alderman Peters said that each individual needs to set priorities on how to accomplish beach nourishment and we need an agenda. The first item should be how we are going to approach public officials to finance beach nourishment. In this meeting we have to outline priorities and financing should be the number one objective. If we don’t get funding we don’t go anywhere and he proposed that they meet next week on this. Alderman Farley questioned Alderman Peters making a motion to postpone it and he said they should vote on it. You are telling the public that you are going to disregard their vote.
Alderman Tuman said that we have a big challenge and the path we were on led us to failure. We need to establish a dollar amount that is affordable and compare it against the total cost of the project and then determine a diplomatic approach to get that amount. We need to define a plan that the Town will support
Alderman Farley moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hardison to disband the Beach Nourishment Committee and to move all activity to the Board of Aldermen.
The motion did not pass with Aldermen Handy, Tuman and Peters voting nay.
OPEN FORUM:
Tom Leonard, 218 Coastal Drive noted that the two cents on beach nourishment was misinterpreting the vote since we didn’t vote down renourishing but just how we would pay for it.
Jerry Convy, 20 Porpoise Place said that this vote was not against tax districts or beach nourishment but it was the money. He said that the Mayor and Board did not solicit funds and he felt that Mr. Macartney did a great job. Our elected officials have not gone to the state or county. Get us funds before it becomes a viable bond referendum. He noted that his wife sent an email to them regarding CBRA zones and they need to address that at their Board Retreat. Mayor Knowles stated that they had CBRA representatives here last year and there is something positive going on and we have contacted our legislators. Mr. Convy felt that nothing was being presented by the Board and said that we need the money first. Alderman Tuman said that they had initiated an effort under former Manager Don Betz and Alderman Godwin and he suggested that they resurrect that. He said that they had appealed to Fish and Wildlife on the CBRA designation on River Road and we need to follow up on that. Alderman Farley said that they have gone to the state and to the county and they are in contact with them. The idea that no one has done anything is not true. Mr. Convy said that hearing about this grant was the first time he knew we were working with the state and Alderman Farley said that they went to the state last year and met with the Department of Water Quality.
Alderman Tuman noted that they also went to the county and made a presentation and we were looking for a return on the tax dollars that we provide. We received $200,000.00 with the promise that they will respond to our requests and needs once this Town takes a position that it wants beach nourishment. He thought that they needed to discuss how to overcome that next time. We took the initiative to ask for a change in the way that the sales tax is distributed and to do it on an advalorem basis. Alderman Tuman said that this Town won’t go anywhere unless our manager is in concert with the Mayor to take the initiative.
Alderman Handy said if they receive citizen’s opinions they will know what they need to get their vote, but they need to do the ground work first. This has been done over and over again. The county has said numerous times that they would give us money if the Town does beach nourishment. Jerry Convy said that they need commitments from the state and county.
Mike Yawn said that he agreed with Bob Hale in regard to outside funding and with Dr. Chiang that they treat every area of the beach fairly. His concern was that we are delaying decisions on going forward on spending money now with consultants and town employees. CPE said we have 6 to 9 months to delay the project and we wouldn’t lose the money, but we have to stop spending now. Manager Smith noted that they are not spending money on any new projects or new expenditures.
Dr. Chiang asked how did Emerald Isle do it, they got funding from the state and federal and why were they able to do it and he was told because they are not in a CBRA zone. Alderman Farley said that they did not get funding for their first project and they funded it themselves. They did get some state money when they went over budget. Dr. Chiang noted that Hawaii is willing to pay to renourish their beaches and the state is willing to pay for tourism there. Congressman Walter B. Jones should help us. He said he couldn’t believe that Savannah got Congressman Jones to help them and he can’t help us.
Gary Rowland, 127 S. Permuda Wynd asked why could Topsail Beach and Surf City get more support from the state and he was told that they are in a different county. Alderman Farley noted that Surf City is not in a CBRA zone. Alderman Tuman said that Topsail Beach did get some money from the state.
Terry Leonard, 218 Coastal Drive asked if there was a permanent solution to water line breaks on their street since Coastal Drive has had six repairs. Alderman Tuman said that they have had rapid responses from ONWASA, but if they have an overload it will run. We have a very primitive water system and problems with shifting sands and tubing cuts and it’s a service problem. There are no plans to redo the redistribution line. Alderman Tuman said that he has a workshop next week and he will challenge the service department. Mrs. Leonard said that the other problem is the way they repair the road with irregular patches and Manager Smith said that they would look into that.
ATTORNEY’S REPORT:
Attorney Kilroy had nothing to report
MAYOR’S REPORT:
Mayor Knowles wished everyone a Happy New Year and he was looking forward to a better year.
ALDERMEN’S REPORT:
Alderman Handy said if they wanted an answer to their tax problems they could vote that all the land that is empty be put in commercial, if not, they need to figure some way to work around the taxes.
Alderman Tuman, Peters and Mayor Pro Tem Hardison wished everyone a Happy New Year.
ADJOURNMENT:
Alderman Handy moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hardison to adjourn the meeting at 9:14 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Minutes prepared and submitted by Loraine M. Carbone, CMC, Town Clerk.