[0:05] [laughter]

[0:07] Good morning everyone and welcome. Uh this the regular July 1 meeting of the

[0:12] Nag Board of Commissioners is hereby call to order. If you will please first

[0:16] join me in a few moments of silence.

[0:28] And now if uh as you're able, if you'll please stand and join me in the pledge

[0:32] of allegiance.

[0:44] to the republic for which it stands. [clears throat] One nation under God,

[0:49] indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [cough]

[0:54] [clears throat]

[1:00] » Before we begin our work this morning, I want to recognize [clears throat] in the

[1:04] audience our former mayor Bob Mueller is with us this morning and former

[1:08] commissioner Webb Fuller is also with us this morning.

[1:11] » And Susie >> and Su I'm sorry. [laughter]

[1:14] and former commissioner since you snuck in on me. Former commissioner Susie

[1:17] Walters is also here. Welcome to all of you. Always glad to have you at our

[1:21] meetings. Um the next item on our agenda is the

[1:26] adoption of the agenda and we have a [clears throat] modification which will

[1:30] be to move the 25-year recognition for Robera Thuman to the August 5 meeting.

[1:37] So a motion to approve the amended agenda would be in order.

[1:42] » So move. >> Second. I have a motion and a second.

[1:44] All in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Thank you.

[1:48] » Uh that brings us to recognitions and we'll begin with our annual introduction

[1:52] of lifeguards and Chad. >> Hey, good morning everybody. Uh it's my

[1:57] privilege to be here again this summer. Uh it's my 26th year working for uh Max

[2:03] Ocean Rescue Lifeguard on the beaches here. Uh have our staff here. Uh we went

[2:08] through two training sessions, one in May and one in June to be uh fully

[2:13] upstaffed by June 20th. And so uh without further ado, we'll bring these

[2:19] guys up to the microphone and introduce themselves here uh one at a time. And

[2:24] yeah, thank you for your time and thank you for your support of the

[2:27] organization. Thank you.

[2:30] » Hello everybody. Uh my name is Ryar Gilbertson.

[2:35] Hey Mr. Garmin. [laughter] This is my year four dags head and

[2:41] [clears throat] uh originally I'm from Arizona. Great state.

[2:47] [clears throat] >> Hey y'all. Uh my name is Jacob Gilbo.

[2:51] I'm from Montreal, Canada, and this is my sixth summer with Nags Head.

[2:57] » Hello, I am Michael. Uh this is my sixth year. I'm from Maryland. [laughter]

[3:06] Hi, my name is Jacob Baitman. I come from Plymouth, North Carolina, and this

[3:11] is my first year.

[3:16] » Hello, my name is Anthony Ftado. I'm from South Florida, and this is my first

[3:20] year.

[3:24] » Hello, I'm uh Christopher Kelly. I'm originally from Northern Virginia, but

[3:29] this is also my first year. [clears throat]

[3:33] I'm uh Lachlan Kerr from Australia and this is my first year.

[3:38] » Cool.

[3:41] » Hi. Uh I'm Bryce Luncher. Uh I'm from Arlington, Virginia and this is my first

[3:47] year.

[3:50] » Good morning. Mitchell Jackson, first year from Florida.

[3:57] » Good morning. My name is Vinnie. This is my first year lifeguarding and I'm from

[4:02] Kittyok, North Carolina.

[4:06] » Hello, my name is Caleb Hooper from Wies. This is my fourth year with NASA

[4:10] Ocean Rescue.

[4:16] [laughter] >> Hello, my name is Scendel Castle. I'm

[4:18] from Raleigh, North Carolina, and this is my third summer here.

[4:25] » Hello, my name is Sophie Vancesy. I'm from Mano, North Carolina and this is my

[4:29] fourth year here. [clears throat]

[4:32] » Hi, I'm Rosie. I'm from Montreal, Canada, and this is going to be my

[4:36] fourth summer working for Naget Ocean.

[4:41] » Good morning. My name is Evan Hayes. I'm from Murphy'sboro, Tennessee. And this

[4:44] is my first year with Nag. >> Hi, I'm Justine. I'm from Montreal,

[4:49] Canada, and this is my first year with Nag Ocean Rescue.

[4:55] » Good morning. My name is Mila. I'm from Quebec as well and this is my

[4:59] [clears throat] first year with Naged Ocean Rescue.

[5:05] » Good morning. I'm from uh Quebec, Canada. My name is Victor and this is

[5:08] going to be my second year with Naget Ocean Rescue.

[5:14] » Morning. My name is Mason Linds. I'm from Kuruck, North Carolina, and this is

[5:18] my fourth year with Naget Ocean Rescue. >> Good morning. Uh my name is Ronnie. It's

[5:24] my second year with Nagit Ocean Rescue and I'm from Montreal, Canada.

[5:31] » Hi, my name is No Vanam from Richmond, Virginia. This is my third season with

[5:36] Nagide Ocean Rescue.

[5:41] » Hi, my name is Ta Neel Patterson. I'm also from Quebec, Canada, and this is my

[5:45] first year.

[5:49] » Hi, I'm Luke Leage. I'm from Kittyhawk, North Carolina. And this is my fourth

[5:54] year with Knack Ocean Rescue.

[5:59] » Hi, I'm Justine. I'm from Montreal and this is my second year with Naga Ocean

[6:03] Rescue. >> Hi, I'm Arian and this is my second year

[6:08] working with Naga Ocean Rescue and I'm from Canada as well.

[6:13] » Hi, my name is Florence. I'm from Quebec and it's my first year working for Nag.

[6:20] Hi, my name is Rosali. I'm from Kick and this is my first year working as an

[6:24] ocean. [clears throat]

[6:27] » Hello, my name is Drew Baitman and this is my first year working for Nags at

[6:31] Ocean Rescue. I'm from Plymouth, North Carolina.

[6:36] » Hey y'all, my name is Jesse Baitman. I'm from Plymouth, North Carolina and this

[6:41] is my first year at NXT Ocean Rescue.

[6:45] » Hey, my name is Corbin Alt. I'm from Wesville, North Carolina. This is my

[6:49] first year as well. [clears throat]

[6:52] » Hello, I'm Jesse Hall. Uh, this is my second year with Nexo Ocean Rescue. I'm

[6:56] from Murphy, North Carolina.

[7:00] » Good morning. I'm Kenneth Little and I'm from San Diego, California. And this is

[7:04] my first year ocean rescue.

[7:09] » My name is Coleman Flynn. I've worked for the town for nine years.

[7:17] Hey there, I'm Andy Simmerson. Uh, this is my 10th year with Nagad Ocean Rescue

[7:20] and I live up in KDH. >> Good morning. My name is Sean Kenny. I

[7:26] was born and raised in Nagad. Uh, this is my 16th year.

[7:29] » Good. Awesome.

[7:33] [applause]

[7:38] [applause]

[7:41] » Thank you guys again. appreciate the town and your commitment to the

[7:45] organization and your support. >> Good. Well, welcome and be be in venue

[7:50] to uh all of all of you, the first years, those who are returning from near

[7:55] and far away. We appreciate what you do uh out there. You're the face of the

[8:00] public on the beach for the town for the summer. Um and your job is challenging

[8:05] and we appreciate that and uh we wish you a safe uh healthy happy summer.

[8:10] Thank you. Thanks.

[8:13] » Add a little [applause]

[8:20] » add a little plug. We have our uh local competition series, our final uh final

[8:25] event tonight is in KDH and we got a tight race competition. So, anybody in

[8:31] the public wants to come out and see what these guys do. Um we're doing all

[8:34] the rescue race events there tonight and it should be a fun uh a good show

[8:39] tonight. So, seven o'clock Ocean Bay and KDH for for that tonight,

[8:42] » right? >> Um, I'm gonna get all you guys. Start

[8:45] with Sean. You'll file out the door and if I can get everybody to meet out front

[8:49] on the ramp, we'll do a little staff photo out front with everybody before we

[8:52] head out. Okay. All right. Thank you guys again.

[8:55] » Thank you.

[9:07] » Hi. Thanks for coming.

[9:10] » Not 15. Something stronger than 15.

[9:16] » Please. >> Yeah. They get younger.

[9:21] [laughter]

[9:24] » Bye. >> Been here for seven years. Get younger

[9:27] every year. >> Mr.

[9:30] Mr.

[9:34] [clears throat] >> Great. So, uh we will continue uh with

[9:38] introduction of a new employee and Nancy.

[9:47] » Good morning, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. I'd like to introduce

[9:50] Matt Hennessik. Matt comes from us with comes to us with over 10 years of

[9:55] experience in water and wastewater. He worked in the water distribution for

[10:00] Kildo. He worked in water distribution for

[10:04] Curry Tuck County and with Dare County at the Sky Co water plant.

[10:09] [clears throat] He later transferred to Dare County's water and wastewater

[10:12] plants in Stumpy Point. Matt lives in Man's Harbor with his wife Morgan. They

[10:17] have two children, Ethan, 20, and Abigail, 13. He enjoys golfing, bowling,

[10:24] and fishing in his spare time. And we're glad to have him.

[10:27] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[10:30] » [applause]

[10:36] » Welcome aboard.

[10:47] [clears throat]

[10:54] That brings us now to public comment and I'll turn this over to Mr. Lighty.

[10:58] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. At this time, the board of commissioners welcomes members

[11:02] of the public to provide comment on matters of interest or concern to the

[11:06] public. This is not an opportunity for dialogue and the board rarely responds

[11:10] to uh public comment. But for anyone who wishes to address the board, this is

[11:15] your chance to do so. if you'll please uh go to the podium and start by telling

[11:18] us your name and where you live. Um and then I will let you know when your five

[11:22] minutes is just about up.

[11:32] » Good morning, mayor and commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak

[11:35] to you today. I would like to My name is Susie Walters said 415 Race View Court.

[11:41] Um, I would like to thank the town manager, Andy Garmin, and staff and the

[11:45] board for working with the community to support our first amendment rights to

[11:50] freedom of speech and assembly. The ordinance [clears throat]

[11:54] proposed today addresses these rights and responsibilities of all parties with

[11:58] regard to safety and mutual respect. As always, communication is the key between

[12:04] those gathering and those protecting our community. I commend everyone involved.

[12:09] I have one comment regarding the definition of spontaneous demonstration

[12:14] in section 4.51. It states, "Spontaneous demonstration

[12:20] means a demonstration that arises in immediate response to a recent

[12:24] [clears throat] unforeseen event that was not planned or organized in advance

[12:28] of the event and that was not promoted or publicly advertised prior to the

[12:32] occurrence of the demonstration. I find the last part of this definition

[12:37] to be ambiguous and problematic. The deaths of Renee Good and Alex Prey

[12:43] were unforeseen and shocked the nation. There was no local organized event.

[12:48] However, several gathered regarding the issue largely because people communicate

[12:53] via social media. Um, attempting to regulate speech on social media is not

[13:00] possible by any one person or entity. I hope you'll look at this definition and

[13:06] consider uh placing a period at the end of the word event to avoid subjectivity

[13:11] potent and potential conflicts. Thank you for your uh dedication to preserve

[13:17] our citizens rights while also serving and [clears throat] protecting our

[13:21] community. >> Thank you, Miss Walters.

[13:36] Good morning everyone. Uh my name is Skip Saunders. Um I live in Kittyhawk

[13:42] for whatever worth that has in this room. Um I moved here uh in 1975 to

[13:48] Nag's Head uh explicitly to surf and so here I am. I'm still here. [laughter]

[13:55] Um, what I have to say to the board and to everyone in this room, you do not

[14:01] need me to know this. And we all know what's going on in our

[14:09] country right now. The very reason that you're visiting your ordinances

[14:15] regarding public demonstration has to do with something else. [snorts]

[14:21] [clears throat] And I I don't want anyone to forget

[14:24] that. Um when I was about 11 or 12 years old, um I asked my father who was a

[14:30] career naval officer, there were a lot of things going on,

[14:35] civil rights protest and all kinds of upheaval, social upheaval at that time.

[14:40] And he was a a career naval officer. I asked him, "How do you how do you

[14:47] support the president or why do you or why not do you are you not supporting

[14:52] the president?" He was being quiet and he said, "Well, Skip, as an officer, the

[14:58] officer corps in the military in the US takes an oath to support the office of

[15:04] the president. We do not take an oath to support a person."

[15:10] And that's [clears throat] that was the moment that I actually started to

[15:14] understand the nuance in politics and the things that were based on our

[15:19] constitution. And so I'm here

[15:24] to to do one thing and that's to remind all of us that we need to defend the

[15:32] Constitution. I've served on public boards in Dare

[15:36] County, on board of elections, on and and on the uh board of education. I've

[15:42] taken the same oath that you've taken four times.

[15:46] That oath meant something to me. I have direct line of ancestors who

[15:51] lifted musketss and fought British, the battle of Camden, the battle of Guilford

[15:56] Courthouse, and a 14-year-old fourth greatgrandfather

[16:00] who served from age 14 to 18 in the Western Montgomery County Militia in

[16:06] Maryland. And I'm not going to let those people down.

[16:10] So, I'm here to remind you that you took an oath

[16:14] to our Constitution and the rights that it affords us both in law and our

[16:21] natural rights and how important those are because no matter what government

[16:26] would come in the future in this country, we're going to have to invent

[16:30] something that's going to be just like it. And so I'm really concerned pe

[16:37] people in our community are fearful of their government.

[16:43] They're fe fearful to express their opinions.

[16:47] And I've never seen anything like this in my life in the US.

[16:53] And local government is where everything starts. I'm a deep believer in that. And

[16:57] I love our community. That includes Nags Head, all the towns in our county. I

[17:02] love living here. I have many friends in this room right now. And I hope that you

[17:09] all when you have your moment that you'll remember the Constitution

[17:14] and you'll stand up for it because there's a lot of fear out there

[17:19] that people are folding up and we can't do that. We have to take a

[17:24] stand. So that's basically all I have to say and I hope you understand

[17:30] why I wanted to come out and say something like this. These ordinance

[17:34] that you're discussing, the things that you're discussing and that you're

[17:37] revisiting continues the enlightened tradition in Dare County and in our

[17:42] towns of looking over what we're actually doing and trying so hard to

[17:48] make it fair and safe for everybody involved.

[17:52] And I applaud that. you all are doing a great job and I think it's I think it's

[17:57] a credit to the streak of fairness and everything that runs

[18:03] through our county that we all are trying to do the best we can. We try to

[18:07] look at what people's concerns are and we try to answer them. So, I just want

[18:11] you to remember the reason that you're revisiting those ordinances.

[18:16] And we wouldn't be dithering over ordinances right now if we had a

[18:20] different person in the White House and we had a different government in the

[18:24] White House and we had less people who would accept this.

[18:30] But I don't want anybody to be confused that I will continue to stand up

[18:36] and I'm not going to back down and I hope many of you are with us. Okay.

[18:40] Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.

[18:43] » Thank you, Mr. Saunders.

[18:47] [clears throat]

[18:56] » Good morning, mayor, commissioners, Mr. Garmin, Mr. lighting and members of the

[19:01] town staff. My name is Randy Cartwright. I've been a resident of Nags Head for 19

[19:06] years and a resident of the Outer Banks for 52 years.

[19:11] I first came before this board in February because I believe the town

[19:15] could better balance the protection of public safety with the First Amendment

[19:20] rights of peaceful demonstrators. Over the past months, I've had the

[19:25] opportunity to work with Mr. Garmin through many emails, proposed revisions,

[19:30] and discussions. I want to thank him, Mr. Lighty, the town staff, and the

[19:36] board for the respect and consideration shown throughout that process.

[19:42] The process itself has been a success. One of the most significant improvements

[19:48] in that demonstrations are now recognized as fundamentally different

[19:53] from ordinary crowd gatherings. Rather than being regulated under the

[19:58] town's crowd gathering permit provisions, demonstrations now have

[20:03] their own permitting and notification system designed specifically for First

[20:09] Amendment activities. Other important improvements include

[20:14] explicit recognition of spontaneous demonstrations,

[20:18] recognition of good faith attendance estimates,

[20:23] stronger emphasis on First Amendment protections, and many clarifications

[20:27] that should make the ordinance easier for both citizens and law enforcement to

[20:32] understand and apply. My personal preference has always been

[20:38] for an ordinance more like Chapel Hills because I believe simplicity promotes

[20:43] both understanding and voluntary compliance.

[20:47] While this ordinance remains more detailed than I would have preferred, I

[20:52] believe the work over the past five months has reflected a sincere effort to

[20:57] balance public safety with the constitutional rights provided by the

[21:01] First Amendment. I continue to have several concerns with

[21:07] several provisions, including participant liability and the 10-foot

[21:12] setback where no sidewalk exists. But I will not spend time on those this

[21:16] morning. Instead, I want to mention two substantive revisions that were added to

[21:23] the ordinance yesterday afternoon and that I have not had an adequate

[21:27] opportunity to discuss. The first removes a proposed language

[21:33] providing that an organizer would not be deemed in violation solely because

[21:39] actual attendance exceeded a good faith attendance estimate.

[21:45] Throughout this process, we have recognized that attendance estimates are

[21:49] just that, good faith estimates. I respectfully ask the board to consider

[21:56] whether that protection should remain in the ordinance.

[22:01] The second narrows the spontaneous demonstration provision by requiring

[22:07] that a spontaneous demonstration arise without advanced coordination or notice

[22:13] to potential participants. I am concerned that this language may

[22:19] unintentionally limit the very type of spontaneous demonstration the ordinance

[22:24] is intended to protect. because people ordinarily learn about

[22:30] spontaneous demonstrations through communication with one another.

[22:35] I appreciate Susie Walter's comments and I agree with her proposed revisions

[22:41] wholly.

[22:48] The freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly are among our nation's oldest

[22:53] and most cherished constitutional traditions.

[22:58] They deserve ordinances that protect public safety while respecting those

[23:02] constitutional rights. I hope the collaborative process we have

[23:07] experienced over the past five months will serve as a model for other

[23:11] communities facing the same challenge. Finally,

[23:17] this process has demonstrated something that is every bit as important as the

[23:21] ordinance itself. It has shown that citizens and local government can work

[23:26] together respectfully, listen to one another, and produce better public

[23:31] policy than either could have produced alone. I think that is something

[23:36] everyone involved can be proud of. I appreciate the opportunity to comment

[23:41] this morning and I look forward to listening to the board's discussion

[23:45] later today. Thank you. [clears throat] >> Thank you, Mr. Cartright.

[23:51] » Anybody else? Mr. Muller.

[24:02] » All right. Well, at this time, we will conclude the public comment session.

[24:06] [clears throat] >> Thank you very much. Thank you to all of

[24:08] our speakers this morning. Uh the next item on our agenda is the consent agenda

[24:12] which you have before you with 12 items and a motion would be in order.

[24:17] » So move. >> I have a motion to approve. Is there a

[24:20] second? >> Have a motion and a second. All in favor

[24:23] signify by saying I. >> I opposed. Thank [clears throat] you.

[24:28] » Uh that brings us to reports and recommendations from the planning board

[24:32] and the planning director and Kelly. [snorts]

[24:37] » [clears throat]

[24:52] » Good morning, mayor and commissioners. Um, thank you so much. I will, um, run

[24:58] through this report pretty quickly and as always, if you have any questions,

[25:02] just let me know. Um the planning board met on June 16th and unanimously

[25:08] recommended approval of a proposed text amendment related to um water dependent

[25:14] recreational uses being allowed within commercial mixeduse developments. Um

[25:20] there was some conversation regarding concerns such as parking um

[25:26] traffic circulation, equipment storage, fueling um and compatibility with a

[25:32] shopping center in general. But um it was agreed that that would all be better

[25:36] addressed through the special use permit process and not as part of the text

[25:40] amendment process. Um looking ahead to the July planning board meeting, um the

[25:46] planning board is expected to um discuss a proposed amendment related to um

[25:52] cottage court requirements. And I don't know if you recall, but we

[25:57] um the last time we talked about cottage courts, we created a graduated scale for

[26:02] the size of the cottage court, um stories, architectural design, etc. So,

[26:07] it would be um not a change to that, but some flexibility in that. So, um that's

[26:14] what they will hear at their upcoming meeting. As far as the board of

[26:18] adjustment goes, um we did not have a meeting in June, but we do have one

[26:24] coming up on July 9th and uh that's going to be an appeal from an

[26:28] administrative decision um that I made regarding a property on Pelican Street.

[26:34] Um and so that will be going out to our board of adjustment members on Friday in

[26:39] advance of our Thursday meeting. Um for the decentralized wastewater

[26:45] management plan and the septic health advisory committee. Um staff continues

[26:49] to make progress um with all of our initiatives that we have going on. Uh we

[26:54] have updated some educational materials as you know the flyer. Uh we've also

[26:59] redesigned an older septic magnet that we had which hopefully we'll have ready

[27:03] for you at our next meeting. Um and we continue outreach through the Dowy Park

[27:07] Farmers Market. Um and that has been really beneficial thus far. Um we just

[27:13] received our funding offer for the 0% interest DWI loan. So those targeted

[27:19] letters will um start going out probably early next week.

[27:24] Estran shoreline management plan. Um, we have our deputy planning director, Joe

[27:29] Costello, giving a more detailed update on that um, following this conversation.

[27:35] So, I won't go um, into that. Um, Dowy Park and our art and culture committee

[27:41] um, summer programming at Dowy Park has exceeded expectations tremendously.

[27:46] Paige continues to report that our um, May and June numbers have been like

[27:51] July. So, a lot of participation. Um, fitness classes continue to draw

[27:57] tremendous participation. Uh, family fun programs have all been well attended.

[28:02] The farmers market um remains very strong and our summer concert series has

[28:07] gotten off to a great start. We have a concert tonight which is Soul One. Um,

[28:12] and that's going to be at Dowy Park. Um I did I've mentioned this previously but

[28:18] I wanted to kind of highlight and um give thanks to a couple of community

[28:25] members. So Kate Jones um connected us with a grant opportunity with the um

[28:32] safe monarch program to help native pollinators be planted within the town.

[28:38] Um Kate pointed that out to us and then we collaborated with Rachel Vil with

[28:43] North Carolina Aquariums. Um she helped us get the grant. It's a $2,000 grant.

[28:48] Um they're currently growing those native plants over in Mano now. Um and

[28:53] come fall we will have an event where we plant those. And um this time next year

[28:58] we should have a thriving pollinator garden out at Dowy Park. So wanted to

[29:03] recognize those people and mention that. Um, and that's all I have unless you

[29:09] have questions for me. >> Questions?

[29:13] » No questions. >> Thank you.

[29:16] » Thanks, Kelly. >> Thanks, Kelly.

[29:20] » That brings us now to an update on the estine shoreline management plan. And

[29:25] Joe

[29:37] One moment.

[30:01] Okay.

[30:10] Hello. Good morning, mayor and commissioners. Um going to give a brief

[30:14] update on the estuary and shoreline management plan progress. I'm going to

[30:17] start south to north. I'm going to skip the Harvey site because I'm going to

[30:20] talk more about that. Um the southern um most point that we're doing a project or

[30:26] looking to start is the catfish farms um living shoreline. Uh water quality

[30:32] testing and SAV mapping has has begun. So we're beginning that preliminary data

[30:38] collection process. Um [clears throat] and then skipping Harvey for now up to

[30:43] Soundside Road. We have an initial um stakeholder meeting scheduled for

[30:48] Tuesday, July 7th. um property owners have been notified and look forward to

[30:54] that. And then at the Villa Dunes Drive site um that's not um grant funded

[31:00] anymore, but just Monday night there was a initial stakeholder meeting um to get

[31:06] preliminary feedback on a new path forward.

[31:10] So now to sort of delve more into the Harvey site, [snorts] um I thought it

[31:15] would be helpful to sort of look at where we had begun with the design and

[31:20] that is for you. This was sort of the initial design before we had any sort of

[31:26] real engagement with with the public or with the um user groups. And you can see

[31:31] there's sort of a series of offshore breakwaters and um you know sort of

[31:38] north of the gazebo and then they're in between the Harvey Sound access and the

[31:43] gazebo. That was what was presented and

[31:46] proposed. But once we talked with the users, they really said, you know, that

[31:52] little those two sort of skinny accesses that you kind of see drawn in the um

[31:58] sort of um trivial pursuit piece shape and then that rectangle shape wasn't

[32:03] really um you know advantageous for users and and they requested that those

[32:09] offshore breakaters between the two um were removed. um especially for people

[32:14] who are learning to to um do water sports, you know, those were real

[32:18] hazards. And so, you know, this is a markup that basically shows that input

[32:24] um maybe extending that marill tighter to the shoreline.

[32:28] Um a further which which here is, you know, now a more concrete [snorts]

[32:33] drawing. Um and and this is actually where we landed. So you can kind of see

[32:39] that sill was even further reduced um based on more feedback. And so what you

[32:46] have here is is a at the Harvey site the the most southern portion is a

[32:51] renourished beach. Um camel won't let you do that unless you've historically

[32:55] had a sandy beach there. And so the the Google imagery um suggests that there

[33:00] was um going back. So we'll see if they allow us to do that. But um proposing

[33:06] that new um sort of u um access that was built as part of the boardwalk process

[33:13] to the Harvey access would be a renourished sandy beach. Then there

[33:17] would be some marsh sills um that are about 9 ft wide and two feet tall there

[33:24] um that kind of wrap behind the gazebo. And then there's some offshore when I

[33:30] say offshore they're at right at about the twoft contour. So they're really um

[33:34] in a place that you know most I would say boers wouldn't want to be unless

[33:38] you're in like a skip or something. Um so we tried to be conscientious about

[33:42] how people are using the site and to design um to um provide protection to

[33:48] the SAV and the shoreline but also support public use.

[33:54] And here is um sort of the side profile of the offshore breakaters as well as

[34:00] the sill. And I don't know if you can see, but if you look I zoom in, but it

[34:06] might get worse. Um, you see that MHW mean high water line. So most of this

[34:12] will be underwater. This whole structure won't sort of be sticking out, you know,

[34:16] if if if this kind of goes across. It'll look more, you know, just sort of like

[34:20] the top. Um, and then the sills were are even um

[34:26] thinner. And so Whoops. And this is kind of the

[34:32] um artistic graphic showing that um hopefully how how the site functions

[34:37] where we've sort of respected the um public access area that we're promoting

[34:42] people to use and get to the sound and not trample through the marsh in and

[34:46] around the boardwalk and you know provide a soft entry and some sandy

[34:50] beach there. Then you know some interior sills that protect further erosion back

[34:57] behind the boardwalk of that marsh land. and then the larger offshore again

[35:03] offshore at the twoft um contour there protecting the SAV and the marsh behind

[35:09] it. So I just thought that would be helpful to go over and then um where

[35:15] we're at with this project right now. We've received back and forth comments

[35:19] from DCM. We've had you know submitted our permit application. They needed um

[35:24] additional um wetlands surveying. So, we resubmitted that. Um, now they've

[35:30] requested a couple sort of additional changes to the plan set. So, we are

[35:34] going back and forth with them. Um, and then we are looking to get a um

[35:41] conservation easement recorded um in working with NCLWF. That's our grant

[35:47] source. They require a conservation easement um of a 50- foot buffer from

[35:52] that mean high waterland inward um to you know just to ensure that that marsh

[35:59] is protected. That's sort of what they're investing in and um you know the

[36:03] the town has been sort of working with the tourism board and um NCLWF to make

[36:09] sure that the tourism board's interests are captured in that easement. So that

[36:13] process is ongoing and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

[36:19] » Questions?

[36:22] Andy, do you want to add anything to that?

[36:25] » Yeah, I'd like to talk a little bit about the easement process. Um, you

[36:30] know, obviously this is something that we we've been working on um with the

[36:34] tourism board. um you know they've got some pretty specific interests in in

[36:38] wanting to maintain certain rights to use the property and there was some

[36:43] concern about what the easement would do. Um you know going back to the the

[36:49] initial beginning of this project

[36:51] [clears throat] um we had communicated with uh Lee

[36:56] Nettles and Diane Bognich about the easement. we got a letter of support

[36:59] from them um recognizing that we would need a conservation easement to be able

[37:04] to use the land and water fund grant funds and so that was sort of

[37:08] acknowledged them in the beginning of the process. Um and so uh the easement

[37:15] is a requirement of the land and water fund. You know, it's not not something

[37:18] the town is doing, you know, outside of that. We're we're not we don't have an

[37:23] interest in doing that other than meeting the grant requirement. Um

[37:29] so uh in good faith I think Joe and and Amy started working with the staff of

[37:33] the land and water fund to explore you know how to get the easement process

[37:38] completed and they engaged Robert Hobbs with Hornthal Riley Allison Mail John's

[37:44] partner uh he has a lot of experience drafting easement especially with land

[37:49] and water fund they they were working uh towards getting a draft document um that

[37:55] they could then present to the tourism board for their approval. Obviously, uh

[38:00] any easement that is recorded on this property would have to be approved by

[38:04] the owners of the property being the tourism board and the town of Nags Head.

[38:09] And so, um you know, at some point I think uh communication got a little

[38:15] crossed up. You know, I think that they thought perhaps we were further along

[38:19] than we were. Um I think they became concerned about um what we were doing.

[38:25] Um since then we've communicated on um how we going we're going about trying to

[38:33] settle the easement document itself. Um we've asked their attorney Jay Wheelis

[38:40] to sort of take over the process of engaging land and water fund staff on

[38:45] determining what language both parties would accept. Um they have much more

[38:50] specific uh things they want to see in the easement than I'd say the town does.

[38:55] And so that that's where it stands now. I think I think Jay Wheelis has

[38:59] communicated with uh the land and water fund staff several times as I think

[39:04] Megan Bond has reported out and maybe you could speak to that.

[39:07] » Um but um what I've heard is that there's optimism that they're going to

[39:13] be able to get something that everyone will accept and then the project can

[39:17] move forward. And so all these things are are happening simultaneously.

[39:22] design, the permit application, the easement, all in in advance of hoping to

[39:27] get this thing out to bid and underway sometime this off season. So, that's our

[39:32] goal. You know, this is something that was part of our shoreline plan from the

[39:38] beginning. This was a pilot site and, you know, we wanted to work together

[39:42] with the tourism board to come up with a way to protect this valuable asset in

[39:48] Naget. It's public property. it's co-owned and it would be a perfect

[39:52] demonstration project for the public to see and hopefully with it would

[39:57] accomplish the goal of protecting the assets that they've invested there uh

[40:02] and also providing an educational tool for the public. So, um, we're hopeful

[40:07] that we can we can work together to get all this done. And, um, you know, I

[40:13] don't know if John could maybe weigh in a little bit on on what the process is

[40:17] to, um, actually record an easement and then also some of the communications

[40:23] that you're aware of between perhaps Robert and J.

[40:27] » Uh, yes, Mr. um, Mr. Garmin, the um you know, one of the conditions of receiving

[40:32] the grant will be placing the affected property under a conservation easement

[40:37] on terms that are satisfactory to the land and water fund. And I know that um

[40:42] staff and Robert Hobbes have been working on a version of that. I think um

[40:47] I'm looking at an email that um Robert had written earlier in which he said

[40:52] that um he's reviewed the initial proposal and he he believes having

[40:58] worked with the land and water fund and its predecessor uh for a long time he

[41:02] knows it's if you vary too far from their template without adequate

[41:05] justification it's probably not going to be approved and so he's tried to stick

[41:09] to their form as much as possible and he's tried to develop something along

[41:13] those lines. I think he was working on something at the same time that Mr.

[41:16] Wheelers was working on some a similar document for the tourism authority. Um,

[41:21] and I don't know that either of those two lawyers were aware that the other

[41:25] was working on something at the same time. Um, and um, but Robert has done a

[41:29] comparison of the two and um, I don't know that there's anything that's

[41:33] insurmountable, but I believe the idea is to come up with a a conservation

[41:38] easement that is likely to be approved so that the grant can be provided. But

[41:43] no easement is going to be effective unless it's signed by all the property

[41:47] owners or the owners of the properties that are going to be affected by the

[41:51] conservation easement. So I think that's still something that's in proh process.

[41:56] I don't know I can't give you any estimate as to when that will be

[41:58] completed. Um there's just a lot of moving parts to getting that completed.

[42:02] But um that's basically what I I know about it.

[42:07] Before I call on Commissioner Vaughn um and her role as the designated U member

[42:14] of the visitors bureau, I I do have a question because we're talking about

[42:17] primarily about the easement that the visitors bureau would sign. There are

[42:22] two there's one project and two pieces of property. Will there be two

[42:27] potentially different easements or >> I would expect the easements to be the

[42:31] same? I would expect that there there to be I I can't say there'll be one

[42:35] easement on two properties, but that's a possibility. But there could be one

[42:38] easement in identical terms on each property. Okay.

[42:41] » As well. >> All right. Thank you for clearing that

[42:42] up. Commissioner Ball, do you want >> uh I can report from the last um meeting

[42:46] of the visitors bureau that it it does seem I think you use the term

[42:50] optimistic. U Mr. Willis reported that um he was in contact several times with

[42:56] the um land and water fund and that they were making progress. They had several

[43:00] very specific um concerns. Um perpetuity was one of

[43:05] them and I think they felt really positive about being able to figure that

[43:10] out. It's not going to go away, but they can they can do what they want moving

[43:13] forward. But there was four or five other uses that they were specifically

[43:17] interested in that are not part of the template. This is my understanding of it

[43:21] anyway. But Mr. Wheelis did report um in June that they were making good progress

[43:27] and that he had taken over the discussions regarding the easement. So

[43:31] they should, you know, they're they're working on it and should be able to come

[43:34] up with something that everybody can >> Okay.

[43:36] » you know, be satisfied with. >> Very good.

[43:39] » All right. So now, um board members, any questions of any of the parties? Um to

[43:45] Joe, to the attorney, any questions? Commissioner,

[43:49] » the the renourishment of the sand on this side was is that new in this

[43:52] project or have I just missed that? >> Um that's that's been a pretty constant

[43:57] it's um shifted a little bit in that um based on the new wetlands survey I want

[44:03] to say instead of 280 linear feet it's like 250. So there's been small

[44:08] adjustments but um the idea has has been consistent. Um I think from the

[44:13] consultant's perspective there's you know just concern on whether or not it

[44:17] will will get through camera permitting but um it does sort of meet that initial

[44:22] criteria of was there historically a sandy beach there and the Google imagery

[44:26] um and historical imagery does back that up.

[44:28] » Okay. >> Could I just say a few more things? I'm

[44:32] sorry. Sure. [laughter] Well, so we have been contacted recently

[44:37] by several users of the site with concerns about the uh design and what it

[44:43] does to recreational use. And um as Joe mentioned, we had some engagement with

[44:49] those folks a few months ago and talked through some iterations of the design

[44:54] and came up with the design that Joe showed earlier. So, um, we've scheduled

[45:00] a meeting with some of those folks tomorrow,

[45:03] » okay? >> And we plan to show them the design

[45:05] changes that we made and hopefully get some additional input if they're still

[45:09] concerned. We're not quite sure that they're they're aware of the final

[45:13] design changes. >> Yes, I don't think so.

[45:15] » And so, what we're hoping is that that once they see this, you know, they'll

[45:18] have more comfort with it, but obviously our goal is not to impede recreational

[45:23] use of the site. And so, um, Once we have that meeting, you know, I'll sort

[45:28] of report back on what we find out and see what we need to do. But we continue

[45:33] to be engaged with folks and want to come up with something that's useful for

[45:38] protecting the shoreline, but also preserving what people are trying to do

[45:42] out there. So, >> thank you.

[45:45] » Thank you. I think um I sure hope it all works out because I

[45:50] know there's been a lot of work on both sides that you know trying to get this

[45:54] thing done. But I think you know I want to thank staff for working so hard with

[45:59] the public once again because I think the new design is really nice and I

[46:02] think it it'll really work out for everybody. It looks a lot more

[46:06] recreational friendly than it did when it first started. So yeah, I appreciate

[46:10] all the work on that. Thank you. >> Yes,

[46:13] » Commissioner Labor. Um, just echo what Commissioner Sanders said. I appreciate

[46:17] all the staff's hard work. Um, definitely a lot of work has gone into

[46:20] us, but after hearing from town manager Garmin and Commissioner Vaughn and our

[46:24] town attorney, it sounds like that we are on the way to seeing this come to

[46:27] pass. So, I appreciate all the work. >> Great. All right. Thank you very much.

[46:32] Thank you, Joe, Andy, John. Yes, sir.

[46:39] » [clears throat] >> Uh that brings us next to item G, old

[46:42] business, uh tabled from previous meetings. And this will be a discussion

[46:46] of the um crowd gathering activities and group demonstrations. And um I believe

[46:52] the manager and the um attorney are going to frame this discussion for us

[46:57] before we begin. >> Do our best.

[47:03] » [laughter] >> Um well, so you heard it public comment

[47:07] from several folks about the process we've been through and [clears throat] I

[47:10] just want to say I do appreciate the input that we've received and sort of

[47:14] the back and forth. I think it's it's really been collaborative and respectful

[47:20] and certainly insightful. you know, you've got folks that are sort of the

[47:25] users of of the ordinance and when you have that, they have a different

[47:29] perspective on things and they can sort of drill down on on the little things

[47:34] that we may not have thought about and that that's been evident in the process

[47:37] and so I've appreciated a lot of the comments. It sort of helped me think

[47:41] about it and so I do think it's been valuable and I just wanted to say that.

[47:46] Um but you know really what we're looking at today what we've got here are

[47:51] are two um sort of parallel efforts. You know one would be looking at our group

[47:57] demonstrations ordinance and those are the conversations I've I've been having

[48:01] primarily with with Randy Cartwright and um we've got some changes there. We've

[48:06] also been discussing our crowd gathering ordinance with the staff and members of

[48:12] the Dair County Tourism Board. And in May, uh, Mayor Cahoun, Commissioner

[48:19] Vaughn, myself met with Lee Nettles and Diane Bognich, and also the chairman of

[48:25] the tourism board, Dennis Robinson, and sort of went over some concerns about

[48:30] the crowd gathering permit process and the ordinance that sort of resulted out

[48:35] of the Roden Custom Festival permit process. And so one of the things that

[48:42] uh we suggested in that meeting is that they provide us with some suggested

[48:46] changes to the ordinance that they would like to see to hopefully

[48:51] resolve some of their concerns. And so they did provide some comments to us and

[48:56] I've put those in the packet. And so that's a separate piece that involves

[49:00] [clears throat] the crowd gathering ordinance. It's really separate from the

[49:03] group demonstrations ordinance. So, um, I'll just, uh, quickly talk about the

[49:08] group demonstrations ordinance, and a lot of this is in your packet, but

[49:14] as Mr. Cartright stated, you know, a a lot of this, we were looking at um,

[49:19] trying to define what a spontaneous demonstration was and accounting for

[49:24] that uh, in our ordinance. And, you know, we it's a very difficult thing to

[49:29] manage. Like, I mean, the, you know, the idea that you're going to have public

[49:35] want to come out and speak and exercise their first amendment rights and how

[49:39] we're going to react to these situations. It's creates a lot of

[49:42] anxiety, >> you know, and and how how you're going

[49:46] to you can you can write an ordinance, but how you're going to deal with these

[49:49] situations effectively is extremely complicated. And and so, you know, we we

[49:56] need to think about this ordinance carefully. We need we need to come up

[49:59] with language that we feel like is going to sort of, I would say, on the rights

[50:04] of speech but still provide the things the town needs to protect public safety.

[50:10] And so, you know, I feel like we've come up with a good balance here. Um, but the

[50:16] spontaneous demonstration, you know, that that is something we're trying to

[50:19] acknowledge with the ordinance. You know, it's really difficult to define

[50:24] what is a spontaneous demonstration in my opinion. you know, and I think

[50:29] what one of the comments we received in the beginning in in public comment was

[50:33] about, you know, the publicly advertised or promoted piece. That's sort of what

[50:38] staff had had come up with to state what is sort of the line between what's a

[50:42] spontaneous and not a spontaneous demonstration.

[50:46] And um I think that the comment we received was

[50:51] that we wouldn't keep that piece in there. Um, but I I'm I'm not sure of

[50:55] another way to to make that distinction. And um, you know, that's that's one

[51:01] thing I'll point out initially. Um, but beyond that, you know, we we're trying

[51:05] to acknowledge that there there will be potentially u the need to have a

[51:10] spontaneous demonstration due to unforeseen events. We've written

[51:14] something into the ordinance that deals with that. We we've stated in the

[51:18] ordinance that we're going to try to be mindful of that that line and be

[51:22] [clears throat] accommodating. Um I think in most situations, you know, when

[51:27] when there is a demonstration, the last thing we want to do is, you know, revoke

[51:33] a permit or, you know, tell people to disperse. That's a very difficult

[51:38] situation to be in. So I think having something in the ordinance that

[51:42] acknowledges spontaneous demonstration helps us deal with that.

[51:46] Um the other big piece that we've come up with is previously

[51:52] um for groups of 30 or less that weren't required to get any permits from the

[51:56] town for a demonstration. Um and then if 30 or more had to get a permit, we've

[52:03] come up with an interim tier that says between 30 and 100, we would ask for a

[52:09] notification 48 hours. But you wouldn't have to provide or be wouldn't have to

[52:14] receive a permit from the town. We just want the notification and we feel like

[52:19] that would cover a lot of um what we see in recent months where folks are

[52:26] gathering and and protesting, but it's not really large groups. And so it

[52:30] provides another layer of u protection for the town to get some sort

[52:36] of notification and to get the ability to react and have staff potentially

[52:41] available to monitor the situation, but it's not as comprehensive or l lengthy

[52:49] as a permit. So, I feel like that is sort of a good middle ground, provides

[52:53] another layer of um protecting speech, but also giving us what we need. Um

[52:59] beyond that, there's some other nuance things we've put into this ordinance. Um

[53:04] as we've as was acknowledged in the beginning,

[53:08] you know, there's a about the um good faith estimates. That's something I

[53:14] think we need to talk a little bit more about. I'll ask John to weigh in on that

[53:18] in a minute. We we've come up with some different criteria for how far folks can

[53:24] be from the right of way from the edge of pavement and we went back and forth

[53:28] on this quite a bit. Um but I think what we settled on, at least from a staff

[53:33] standpoint, is sort of mirroring some of the rules we've been dealing with with

[53:37] DOT. When you're I go back to construct a sidewalk. Typically on on 158, you

[53:44] know, they're asking us to set back the sidewalk 10 feet from the edge of

[53:48] pavement when there's no curb. And that's to provide an adequate clear

[53:52] space. And then if there's a curb, it's typically had to be four feet. I know

[53:56] Dave's looking at me right now. It's [laughter] had to be four feet from the

[54:00] edge of pavement if there's a curb. And so, you know, using sort of that

[54:04] standard, you know, that's sort of how they define what's a safe separation

[54:08] from the roadway for pedestrians on the sidewalk. And so, we've tried to mirror

[54:12] that in this ordinance when we're talking about 158 or 64 being on more of

[54:18] a high-speed roadway. And then for the other town streets that are posted at 35

[54:23] or less, you know, having a smaller separation of four feet. And one of the

[54:28] concerns brought up was, you know, we didn't want the requirement to push

[54:31] people onto private property and effectively, you know, eliminate the

[54:36] ability to have a demonstration. And given the rightway widths, you know, of

[54:41] our higher speed roadways, which are pretty significant, we feel like this

[54:45] this is a good compromise that, you know, addresses that concern.

[54:51] Um, let's see. You know, we we had a

[54:55] provision in here about separation from commercial establishments and financial

[55:00] institutions. It was a 100 foot separation requirement. We've talked

[55:05] about reducing that to 50 ft and also putting an exception in that if you're

[55:10] on a public sidewalk, which is I guess considered a traditional public forum,

[55:14] that you would always be allowed to demonstrate in those areas as long as

[55:19] you didn't block access to a driveway or entrance. So, Another piece we added to

[55:24] the ordinance, um there is a a section that we added on

[55:31] the permit itself. Um previously for a large event, you had to get a crowd

[55:37] gathering permit and under the the section dealing with crowd gathering

[55:41] permits. As the board knows, you know, some some of the language in there

[55:44] requires a lot more information. And in this situation, what we've done

[55:48] is we've created a separate permit for the group demonstration that that really

[55:53] only requires the information necessary to deal with with that particular

[55:56] activity. And I think it's it's more streamlined and more clear for someone

[56:02] who's trying to read the ordinance to understand what the requirements are. So

[56:06] that's another change that's part of this. Um, finally, there's a new section

[56:11] that we included regarding the revocation and appeal of permits. Um I

[56:17] think actually Mr. Cartwright had suggested some language which we largely

[56:21] adopted into this draft although I think John

[56:25] has some comments on this particular piece as well. And so um that's

[56:31] essentially an overview of of what we've done to the ordinance. Um,

[56:38] as as mentioned, John provided us with some additional comments um late last

[56:45] week and then provided a draft to me and I think I forwarded that to the

[56:52] commissioners or at least whenever with the board and I also forwarded it Mr.

[56:56] Cartright so he could see it and um I can bring that up on the screen real

[57:02] quick if if John you'd like to go over some of that.

[57:05] Just one second. [snorts]

[57:33] So I guess the first piece that John had noted was about the good faith

[57:38] attendance estimates and on the screen here are some of the suggestions. So

[57:43] maybe you could go over that now. Yeah, if I may, uh, Mr. Mayor, uh,

[57:48] commissioners, Mr. Garmin, uh, the, you know, just as some background, we talked

[57:53] about this, uh, when we embarked on this process of revising the town's

[57:57] ordinances to allow for, um, a more clear uh, and cohesive group

[58:02] demonstrations type of ordinance. the [clears throat]

[58:05] town's not required to have such an ordinance, but without an ordinance, you

[58:09] have no ability to provide any advanced controls or regulations, and you're left

[58:14] with having to deal with public assemblies um and any public safety uh

[58:21] or disruptive effects from those that might occur after the toothpaste is out

[58:26] of the tube. And so the idea here is to try to um impose some regulations and

[58:32] controls uh that would allow the town to be, you know, um more confident in its

[58:37] ability to properly manage and address what might happen in a demonstration um

[58:42] or a large gathering of of folks. Um the you know I'll also say this it's it's a

[58:48] bit unusual for uh the town to uh get an opportunity to collaborate in developing

[58:54] this kind of ordinance with folks who are going to be uh engaged in activities

[58:58] that will be subject to that ordinance. That's a great thing. It's great to have

[59:01] that kind of collaboration and partnership. But you have to develop the

[59:05] ordinance with the idea in mind that some people you you you'll need to have

[59:10] controls and regulations in place for groups that don't want to collaborate

[59:13] with the town and don't want to collaborate or cooperate with law

[59:16] enforcement. Uh and so, you know, taking that sort of pessimistic worst case

[59:20] scenario approach is how we uh try to uh develop these kinds of ordinances. With

[59:26] that in mind, I think what the what the town has um uh gotten to uh at this

[59:32] point is is a very workable ordinance that is contains less controls and less

[59:38] uh restrictions than would be permissible under the first amendment

[59:42] and first amendment juristp prudence from our courts. Um one thing I think

[59:46] that's very important to keep in mind and and that is you know we're guided in

[59:50] in in large part by the case law that uh has been developed in this area. There's

[59:54] a case from the from our our circuit court of appeals for the federal circuit

[59:59] involving the city of Charleston in which there was a small group exception

[1:00:04] of 75 people that was upheld in that case. And I think in drafting this and

[1:00:09] in thinking about the kinds of things that have been upheld, I think it's

[1:00:12] important to keep in mind that Nags Head is not Charleston. You know, we don't

[1:00:17] have the same kind of law enforcement department. We don't have the same size.

[1:00:21] We don't have the same kind of population. We don't have the same kinds

[1:00:24] of locations where these kinds of demonstrations can be held. Essentially,

[1:00:28] most of these demonstrations would be held in an area adjacent to the bypass,

[1:00:32] it seems to me. And that creates its own public safety concerns, I believe. Um,

[1:00:37] you know, you have that, you know, you have a town with a year-round population

[1:00:41] that's very small and that mushrooms in in the tourist season. I think those

[1:00:46] factors all are worth thinking about as we think about the types of provisions

[1:00:50] we have in the ordinance. So with all that in mind, um the the things that

[1:00:55] I've uh provided to sort of tweak the latest version of the ordinance, um

[1:01:00] first dealing with the good faith estimates, I think that's I think it is

[1:01:03] important to um to provide that the applicant will provide an estimate that

[1:01:09] must be provided in good faith. We know that they can't always give you the

[1:01:12] exact number. That's going to be very difficult. But I think it's also

[1:01:15] incumbent on the organizer to act in good faith and to provide that estimate

[1:01:21] in good faith. And I don't think we should create a presumption that any

[1:01:24] estimate that's given is provided in good faith because some folks may not be

[1:01:28] acting in good faith. And so um not saying that about anybody who's been

[1:01:33] operating uh or engaging in assemblies under this ordinance or under the recent

[1:01:38] ordinance this past year, but we have to be prepared for what might happen down

[1:01:42] the road. So that's why we revised paragraph C as reflected there. Um

[1:01:48] spontaneous demonstrations again um the uh I I know that there's been a lot of

[1:01:54] discussion about this provision. Our position is you don't have to have a

[1:01:58] spontaneous demonstration provision explicitly contained in the ordinance,

[1:02:02] but you have to allow for a small group exception um and something that may

[1:02:06] arise without advanced notification. But here it's it's actually codified in the

[1:02:12] ordinance which I think is fine. But we've simply you know clarified the

[1:02:16] definition of what is a spontaneous demonstration. And I think again you

[1:02:20] know Miss Commissioner Walters had a very good point. You know that the kinds

[1:02:23] of things we're talking about are those things that I think arise without anyone

[1:02:27] anticipating them happening in advance. I can absolutely foresee a situation

[1:02:32] where there's a number of people who all at the same time are uh interested in

[1:02:37] and um um motivated by a recent event to go and assemble without any advanced

[1:02:43] coordination any advanced planning and that needs to be permitted you know in

[1:02:48] some fashion u but at the same time I think you know if if if we don't make it

[1:02:54] clear that it has to be something that's done without any advanced organization

[1:02:57] or planning it's pretty easy to provide some simple advanced planning and

[1:03:01] organization without giving the town notice of an assembly that might fall

[1:03:06] within the notice provisions and so or even into the uh one the the the the

[1:03:10] large crowd gathering. So I just think that tightening that definition is is

[1:03:15] important. Um and I think I had one other or maybe two other provisions.

[1:03:22] Yeah, the um oh the appeal process. So, um it is important that since the town

[1:03:27] has a permitting process for what I'm going to call large groups, uh groups of

[1:03:31] 100 people or more. Um it's important that you have an appeal process so that

[1:03:35] if someone applies for a permit and they're denied, they have the ability to

[1:03:38] challenge that. And I think there's an internal appeals process that can be

[1:03:42] managed. But at the same time, uh as currently written, the ordinance would

[1:03:46] allow for the event to go forward during the pendency of the appeal. And my view

[1:03:51] is if you allow that, the appeal becomes moot. you know, you you you really need

[1:03:55] to not allow the matter to go forward pending the appeal. Um otherwise,

[1:04:00] there's no point in the appeal. Um and and but similarly, where a permit has

[1:04:05] been um has been revoked during an ongoing demonstration, I think it is

[1:04:11] important that um you know that law enforcement be allowed to and expected

[1:04:16] to take um necessary steps to preserve public safety and welfare. uh that may

[1:04:22] but may not always uh allow them to um allow expressive activity to continue to

[1:04:28] the greatest extent possible. So I don't think it's it's it's it's a good policy

[1:04:33] to guarantee that in the ordinances. So that's why I've stricken that last uh

[1:04:37] phrase there um just above at the very end of section 4-57.

[1:04:43] One of the things that John and I talked about with with this section is that,

[1:04:48] you know, unlike the um crowd gathering ordinance where the appeal comes to the

[1:04:52] board of commissioners, this refers to the appeal being handled by staff and

[1:04:57] and it only applies to a permit and the permit is for groups of 100 or more and

[1:05:03] that that requires a 15-day uh notice. So John's point is that because it's an

[1:05:09] appeal to staff, it's most likely that we we would have the time to adjudicate

[1:05:14] that matter, you know, before the date of the event,

[1:05:18] » you know, and so I think that's should should help with that concern is that,

[1:05:24] you know, we would we would make every effort to have the appeal and and render

[1:05:30] a decision before the actual date of the event.

[1:05:41] Thank you. That's I agree with that. And those are my my comments. I'll be glad

[1:05:45] to answer any questions though or to elaborate on anything you would like.

[1:05:50] » And I did I did want to I didn't go over the crowd gathering piece yet. And so

[1:05:55] whether the board wants me to cover that now or wait is up to up to you. Um I

[1:06:02] think it seems to me it would be productive to have this conversation in

[1:06:07] two parts. Um and so why don't we rather than introduce that part at this point,

[1:06:15] let's deal with this uh the spontaneous demonstration part first.

[1:06:20] » Very good. >> And um and then go from there. Um,

[1:06:26] so commissioners, I'll start. Um, I started this end. I'll start here.

[1:06:32] Commissioner Vaughn, do you have any thoughts about the language?

[1:06:37] » Well, I have a question and it's, you know, following up on um John's comments

[1:06:41] recently about the and about comments made um by the public.

[1:06:47] Um while I understand the changes regarding um

[1:06:53] the um hang on a second I want to get my

[1:06:57] thoughts um the spontaneous demonstration and the

[1:07:02] need to def I think we have a there's a difference between this section where

[1:07:07] where you just made a change regarding you know how they're handled and then

[1:07:12] the definition itself and I think you made the comment that Somebody was

[1:07:17] asking to delete the definition or to change the definition, but I think I'm

[1:07:22] thinking that the the gray area here is the idea of how much promotion has been

[1:07:27] done. You know, that last sentence. I think Miss Walters recommended that we

[1:07:31] just stop before that. And I guess maybe I think that would be worth us talking

[1:07:36] about. I'm not advocating either way, but that does get into a pretty

[1:07:40] subjective situation in in the definition that if we say it's not

[1:07:45] spontaneous, if somebody went on Facebook and said, "I'm out here,

[1:07:49] » you know, protesting or whatever exercising my right to free speech," is

[1:07:53] that does that make it sp, you know, no longer a spontaneous demonstration?

[1:08:00] So I sort of have that question comment >> and I and I pulled the definition up on

[1:08:04] the screen and that that is that that's separate from the change that John had

[1:08:10] suggested. The definition is is up further in the ordinance. But you know I

[1:08:15] think what Miss Walters said was she asked that a period be added after the

[1:08:19] word event. And so deleting that section about that was not promoted or publicly

[1:08:25] advertised prior to the occurrence of the demonstration. And Then I guess we

[1:08:29] just have to figure out like how would we how would we draw the line between

[1:08:34] what's a spontaneous demonstration and what's not.

[1:08:37] » It's worthy of talking about but you know that's kind of what we had come up

[1:08:41] with to be able to do that. Um so >> yeah. Oh I understand. Can anybody weigh

[1:08:48] in on what we're thinking about like timewise? You know, there's a difference

[1:08:53] between obviously taking out ads and promoting something for a long period of

[1:08:56] time and again a group text message or you know social media goes off. I don't

[1:09:03] know if there was >> I mean

[1:09:06] » what anybody was thinking with regards to that.

[1:09:08] » Yeah. I mean, how do you see it? I mean, they they have to have some they're

[1:09:12] going to put something out with at least 24 to 48 hours and nobody's going to be

[1:09:17] there. So, I mean, it's I don't know.

[1:09:20] » Or maybe even less. I mean the way the definition is now any

[1:09:24] » um public advertising or >> especially for a demonstration because I

[1:09:29] I would assume that not every single person there knows everyone's phone

[1:09:32] number. So they might be using Facebook or social media to communicate because

[1:09:37] they're not >> right.

[1:09:38] » So I mean I also understand that if somebody's, you know, going at this for

[1:09:42] days or weeks in advance, it's no longer a spontaneous demonstration.

[1:09:46] So I don't I don't know how to parse that but

[1:09:53] » well in my mind

[1:09:58] it's arising an in immediate response to an event

[1:10:05] is something in my mind that happens the same day. If it happens the next day

[1:10:11] after an event, that's not a spontaneous event. that a spontaneous event is one

[1:10:17] that that activates people to get up from their seats and essentially

[1:10:24] charge to the public plaza. Um, and which in our case means also getting in

[1:10:30] your car and driving somewhere, but but because we don't we're not configured

[1:10:34] because we're not configured that way. But it it is an immediate sort of

[1:10:37] visceral response to something that happened. And um and if it if it's any

[1:10:44] longer than that then you know it would suggest that there's some planning to

[1:10:50] it. Uh and um you know I would not in this

[1:10:56] definition in that context of something that

[1:11:00] happened immediately where people are on the move and begin to chatter among

[1:11:06] themselves about where they're going and what they're doing. I would not I would

[1:11:11] not rate that as public advertising or planning um or or uh promotion. I would

[1:11:19] not rate that that chatter as promotion or advertising. Um you are in the course

[1:11:24] of the event at at that point. Um and I don't know if there's a way to clarify

[1:11:31] that. I mean, I I'm not I'm not a lawyer, but I was sitting here thinking

[1:11:35] that um you know, if if you said immediate

[1:11:41] response to a recent or unforeseen event, semicolon, and everything after

[1:11:46] that goes together. It wasn't planned or organized in advance, was not proed,

[1:11:50] promoted, or advertised. All of that is one phrase. It's one, you

[1:11:56] know, it wasn't promoted, wasn't I mean, none, however you want to say that it

[1:12:01] wasn't planned, promoted, advertised in advance, that's one phrase together that

[1:12:06] sort of defines what is spontaneous. Kind of helps define spontaneous.

[1:12:11] Commissioner Lambert, I'm sorry. You want to know the only like in listening

[1:12:15] to that that makes sense to me on its face, but then like well,

[1:12:18] [clears throat] when I think about any of the demonstrations, I don't think

[1:12:21] there's one that happened the same day probably. I mean, Mr. Cartrite might be

[1:12:25] able to speak to that, but >> I I just can't believe that any of those

[1:12:29] did them the same day. So then that would mean by definition none of them

[1:12:32] can be spontaneous or would be considered spontaneous. And

[1:12:36] I worry I mean a day's planning. If something happens today and if they're

[1:12:42] not marching out there today, it's not spontaneous. That feels a little

[1:12:46] » curb. Like what if they want to go out two days later? I'd still consider that.

[1:12:50] » But that's times they give you time to notify the tanks.

[1:12:54] the thing. >> That's true.

[1:12:55] » I mean, you know, >> well, if it's going to be a

[1:12:58] demonstration, you're going to have to have some time to

[1:13:02] » get everybody together or you're going to be out there with two or three

[1:13:05] people. It's not really going to be a demonstration.

[1:13:09] » If I may, Mr. >> Yeah, it's hardly.

[1:13:12] » These are all great points. And to and to to follow up on what the mayor was

[1:13:16] saying, I think you can parse this provision into several components.

[1:13:22] The definition is a demonstration that arises in immediate response

[1:13:29] to a recent or unforeseen event. Okay, those are all those are all three

[1:13:33] different criteria. Um that uh it must not have been planned or organized in

[1:13:38] advance of the event and it was not promoted or publicly advertised prior to

[1:13:44] the occurrence of the demonstration. So you have all those criteria that must be

[1:13:48] met in order to fall within this exception to the notice requirement,

[1:13:52] right? So this is not an exception to the permitting requirement. It's an

[1:13:56] exception to the notice requirement unless there's going to be more than 100

[1:13:59] people reasonably anticipated to be present. So you know I I see

[1:14:05] I see um the possibility for for a number of things to fall within this.

[1:14:09] One of which is you have an individual or a small group of individuals, three

[1:14:14] people gathered somewhere who are um who are, you know, by themselves

[1:14:21] demonstrating something they have. I mean, they just went out or something

[1:14:24] happens to them and people see it on social media and people decide to go and

[1:14:28] protest what's just happened right then and there. That's spontaneous. I mean,

[1:14:33] in my view, even they have to get in the car and drive out there, it's still

[1:14:35] spontaneous because it wasn't it was it was in response to a recent or infre

[1:14:40] event. It wasn't planned or organized and it wasn't promoted. It just happens

[1:14:44] organically, you know. So that is the kind of thing that I think falls within

[1:14:48] that as well as the idea that I'm sitting at home and I'm watching

[1:14:52] something on the news and I see something that happens that was not

[1:14:55] necessarily that day but it was recent and um it was unforeseen and I decide I

[1:15:00] want to go out and I want to make my voice heard about that particular matter

[1:15:03] and I show up and there's several other people doing the same thing. Again,

[1:15:06] that's a spontaneous um demonstration of my view. So you have

[1:15:10] and those aren't the only things but I think there's a variety of things that

[1:15:13] fall within this. So, I don't think this is too restrictive. I think it's just

[1:15:16] more about defining what is going to be exempted from any advanced notice

[1:15:22] requirement or permanent requirement. That's that's why I think this this

[1:15:25] works well the way it's drafted now.

[1:15:31] » Can we define immediate as the day of? >> Well,

[1:15:41] it's a tough one.

[1:15:47] say less than 48 hours. So it's under I mean it's there's a window we're trying

[1:15:52] to fill here that's before they have to actually do the

[1:15:55] » but all it is is a notification requirement even still. Yeah. It's not a

[1:15:59] per >> I think that's what I'm understanding

[1:16:01] John to say. So it's not as if it's kicking in some big heavy duty

[1:16:06] requirement just like give us a heads up if you think you're going to have

[1:16:10] » if you have time to post it on Facebook. give us a call

[1:16:14] » or send us email >> because that process is pretty simple

[1:16:17] now, right? >> It's designed to be 48 hours and just I

[1:16:23] mean I don't know if we would create a form or accept an email but it's just

[1:16:27] location number of people. >> It does solve the I mean not solve but

[1:16:32] there's the safety concern is making sure that our police are aware that this

[1:16:35] is going on and it's to keep the demonstrators safe. So,

[1:16:39] » right. >> And also, it's only we're only talking

[1:16:42] about more if it's less than 30 people who come out of their house

[1:16:46] spontaneously, >> then it doesn't even apply to them

[1:16:49] because they can come anyway. It's like you don't have to have you don't have to

[1:16:52] give notice for less 30 or less. >> You can just go out of your home

[1:16:56] » for notice or permit, >> right? So it's really only if it was

[1:17:00] more than 30 people who spontaneously came out of their homes [laughter] in

[1:17:04] response to >> and I think that's you have to provide

[1:17:07] for that because I do think that's conceivable but I think it's not going

[1:17:10] to be the common event but I think it's conceivable

[1:17:13] » but I mean so then at that point it's more than 30 less than 100 you have to

[1:17:20] notify us 48 hours ahead of time time place location who's the organizer um

[1:17:27] you know I Guess if something happens and you don't have 48 hours, you know,

[1:17:33] something happens, you want to go out tomorrow and do it. I would imagine best

[1:17:38] practice would be to just provide the same notice that you would have provided

[1:17:42] if you had 48 hours. >> We'll do our best. Yeah. I mean, I think

[1:17:48] that's kind of what it says. >> Yeah. Okay. I mean, I think our staff

[1:17:52] definitely needs notice, >> but I mean, you know, it's like, you

[1:17:56] know, what what you're trying to I guess

[1:17:59] control is somebody wants to plan a big event and you know it's going to bring a

[1:18:05] lot of people it's going to require a lot of resources and then they don't

[1:18:09] apply for a permit and then they try to use the spontaneous you know definition

[1:18:13] a way to say they didn't need to do anything right

[1:18:16] » that's what we're trying to make sure it doesn't happen

[1:18:20] » yeah and we think this prevents that >> yes okay

[1:18:25] » I think so to the our ability. >> Yeah.

[1:18:28] » And and again to to John's point, you know,

[1:18:36] » people like Randy and others are going to do their best.

[1:18:43] » They're they're going to make their best effort. I mean, they're they're not

[1:18:46] going out there to make themselves and their friends and put themselves in an

[1:18:51] unsafe situation or do any of these other things that are unreasonable. The

[1:18:56] thing is that that's not everybody and we don't we don't

[1:19:01] um you know we just don't know. I mean it's all laws are for unreasonable

[1:19:08] people. I mean the only reason we have laws is because some people will not

[1:19:12] apply their common sense. >> That's true. and and um

[1:19:17] and so that's why we have to have this and it and it you really I think you I

[1:19:21] think John's point is well taken that you have to be thinking about the

[1:19:25] unreasonable people as you read this think about what they may do.

[1:19:31] They they still have free speech rights even if they're unreasonable. But again,

[1:19:37] we have to have the opportunity to make that a safe situation.

[1:19:45] It's our responsibility to make it >> to make it a safe situation. I think the

[1:19:50] fact that we reference um response to a recent and unforeseen event is pretty

[1:19:54] clear, too. So, you just can't go out there and decide. You know, everybody

[1:19:57] knew this was coming. Now, we're going to say this was spontaneous. Right.

[1:20:00] » Um, >> you know, so that's pretty specific

[1:20:04] » and I think we would assume that >> everybody would use good judgment on

[1:20:08] deciding whether this is, you know, if it was yesterday something happened and

[1:20:11] people went out today, we're going to say, okay, that's immediate.

[1:20:16] » That's why I think 24 hours or something that tight is probably difficult. But

[1:20:21] you're you're going to have somebody who is going to be out there protesting an

[1:20:26] event

[1:20:30] later than the standard and they're going to reference something within the

[1:20:36] time frame. They're going to say, "I'm not out here. I'm not out here

[1:20:39] protesting that event. I'm out here protesting what this commentator said

[1:20:44] six hours ago >> about that event. that that's why I'm

[1:20:48] here. You know, it just you can't foresee

[1:20:52] » right every circumstance.

[1:20:57] » So, so what is the >> and up on the screen? So, we talked

[1:21:03] about the definition of spontaneous demonstration and then this is the

[1:21:07] section um that sort of defines the rules and these are the changes that

[1:21:12] John made. Now, if you look at the first change,

[1:21:17] John has added without advanced coordination or notice of potential

[1:21:20] participants. I think that really just aligns with the definition because the

[1:21:25] definition currently has that kind of language. And then the only other change

[1:21:29] John suggested is remove this last sentence. I think what it implies in the

[1:21:34] sentences before that is that, you know, you shall make a good faith effort to

[1:21:40] notify us as soon as practicable. What that implies is that we're going to

[1:21:46] be accommodating. And so, do we need to say it in the next

[1:21:49] sentence that we're going to be accommodating?

[1:21:52] And so, I think that was John's point is that while the town I'm sure the town

[1:21:57] will try to be accommodating, that it's a matter of removing too much our

[1:22:02] authority to deal with the situations that we may not want.

[1:22:07] » Yeah. And I think on that point, I mean, I believe the town has a legal

[1:22:10] obligation to not violate the rights of folks who engage in a demonstration, a

[1:22:16] spontaneous demonstration pursuant to this ordinance. There are there are some

[1:22:20] things that that law enforcement can do if matters get out of hand. But absent

[1:22:24] that, there's very little that can be done. And so I don't I think all that

[1:22:28] sentence that sentence I think imposes a duty that goes beyond the town's legal

[1:22:32] duty. But the town has a legal duty as it is to essentially um allow this kind

[1:22:38] of thing subject to controls necessary for public safety if public safety gets

[1:22:42] implement uh gets implicated by the activity.

[1:22:48] Just just to circle back, I mean, you know, from a broader view of where we

[1:22:53] started, I mean, last year we had an ordinance that required a permit for any

[1:22:58] any number of people, and it said 72 hours, and it was a

[1:23:02] permit that you had to receive. Now, we have an ordinance that says 30 or less,

[1:23:07] no permit, up to 100, just notification, 48 hours, and then a permit above 100. a

[1:23:13] lot of the standards have been modified and so I feel like we have tried to come

[1:23:19] up with something that recognizes all those things and then the spontaneous

[1:23:23] demonstration piece is brand new. I mean the the process has has demonstrated

[1:23:28] reasonleness. If you put that in there if you put a

[1:23:34] reasonable effort an unreasonable person is going to come in and argue

[1:23:40] » that your determination was not reasonable. It it g it gives you

[1:23:43] something to argue about in terms of a measurement. [laughter]

[1:23:46] » And if you you leave it out, >> right?

[1:23:49] » You know, it's being reasonable >> as does good faith. But

[1:23:53] » yeah, [laughter] that's another >> right.

[1:23:58] » Okay. >> So, what is the board's pleasure on

[1:24:03] these uh revisions? It sounds like we're basically leaving it as the markup.

[1:24:12] Um well, one person I don't know who commented about the the line about

[1:24:19] the organizer shall not be deemed in violation of this article solely because

[1:24:23] actual attendance exceeds estimated attendance, but I don't know if that was

[1:24:27] Randy or Susie who brought that up. >> Um

[1:24:33] » it was Randy. Yeah. Are we going to um

[1:24:39] what what the violation if some if the attendance is more than we plan or than

[1:24:45] the organizer planned? Are we holding that one person in

[1:24:50] violation and what does that violation entail?

[1:24:55] » I think the the the violation is if they if they provide an estimate that's not

[1:25:00] provided in good faith. That's where the violation occurs. So, as long as the um

[1:25:05] uh where an estimate is required, as long as the applicant um provides an

[1:25:10] estimate that they provide in good faith based on information reasonably

[1:25:13] available to them at the time the notice or application is submitted, they're

[1:25:18] going to be fine. You know, it's only it's only when the town and I think it's

[1:25:23] incumbent on the town if it's going to take some kind of enforcement action to

[1:25:26] demonstrate that the estimate was not provided in good faith. But the way this

[1:25:31] um last sentence reads, I just I feel like that imposes a further restriction

[1:25:36] than the town should uh should should impose on itself.

[1:25:43] » I think it's true. Just because the estimate exceeds or the number of

[1:25:47] attendees exceeds the estimate doesn't mean it wasn't provided in good faith.

[1:25:51] So long as the estimate was provided in good faith based upon information

[1:25:55] reasonably available to the organizer at the time

[1:25:58] » and the burden would be on the town. >> That's correct.

[1:26:00] » Yeah. >> I mean I get I'm assuming this is sort

[1:26:03] of an extreme situation where someone tells us there's going to be 50 people

[1:26:08] and then they do all this promotion and there's 500 people.

[1:26:12] » Okay. You see 500 comments from >> as opposed to, you know, someone who

[1:26:16] organizes an event and says there's going to be 40 and there's 60,

[1:26:20] » right? Yeah, my my biggest concern is the first sentence here where I think

[1:26:23] that could be construed to mean whatever estimate is provided by the um organizer

[1:26:29] is deemed to be in good faith and I don't think we should have that

[1:26:31] presumption incorporated into the into the ordinance.

[1:26:35] » Right.

[1:26:39] » Okay. So, the violation would just be to shut the event down because there's too

[1:26:42] many people that there were more. It could be, but that wouldn't I I

[1:26:48] imagine the chief is going to say that they wouldn't necessarily shut something

[1:26:51] down just because they feel that they were not told the right number. I think

[1:26:55] they would first look to see if they had trouble managing the situation um before

[1:27:00] they took that action. And I think I'm going to ask the chief a

[1:27:05] question if I may. >> Sure. [laughter]

[1:27:08] » But so the consequence you're saying would just be careful examination of the

[1:27:12] next permit. >> Could be could also be, you know, some

[1:27:15] [snorts] some Well, I think it's going to depend on what happens when there are

[1:27:20] more people that show up than were estimated to be there. And again, in

[1:27:24] some ways, I imagine the chief's law enforcement's position may be as long as

[1:27:28] it's not creating a problem, we're not going to do anything about it. It's only

[1:27:30] when a problem is created. That was my question. You have

[1:27:34] » You just answered. >> What what what I mean talk talk to us a

[1:27:36] little bit about the process that you'll have to go through when you when you

[1:27:39] find a demonstration either that you weren't anticipating or that you were

[1:27:43] aware of, but it seems it seems to be different than you anticipated.

[1:27:47] » I try to prepare for everything that goes on. Um public safety is my number

[1:27:51] one concern. Um beside the fact of spontaneous and

[1:27:57] stuff, um we've seen where people advertise

[1:28:02] months, weeks in advance. Um and then if somebody

[1:28:08] is advertising and there's where you only have to have a notification between

[1:28:12] 30 and 100. If they are expecting in good faith 75 people,

[1:28:19] no problems. If they're expecting 75 and 50 show up. I'm not going out there to

[1:28:25] just start shutting it down because more people could start showing up just

[1:28:29] riding by and seeing the event and want to see what's going on.

[1:28:35] » Um, but if that same person is advertising and there's 6,000 comments

[1:28:39] that we're coming, what can we bring? That's a whole different ballgame. Now,

[1:28:44] does that mean I'm still going to go out there and just shut it down right then

[1:28:46] and there? Absolutely not. I've got to figure out how much staff I have on

[1:28:50] hand. Can I do it? Is it going to cause more of an issue if we try to shut it

[1:28:54] down than if we deal with it after the fact? Anything can be dealt with after

[1:28:58] the fact that they've been in a violation. Um, we could still issue a a

[1:29:02] citation or they'll get a warrant or anything if something has been violated

[1:29:07] criminally after the fact instead of causing a more of a disturbance scene

[1:29:13] right then and there on the side of the road. The First Amendment is very thin

[1:29:16] line. We can make national news in a a split second with the First Amendment.

[1:29:21] And also what people have to understand with the first amendment is just because

[1:29:24] somebody has a different view from you doesn't mean that their rights get

[1:29:29] violated when somebody comes out there as long as they're not doing anything

[1:29:33] insightful creating retaliation or so forth. Um because they've got the

[1:29:39] right to be there just as much as the the original people, especially in a

[1:29:43] public place. Um so by no means would we just go shut something down because they

[1:29:48] have 102 people. I'm not counting them. I've got better things to do than sit

[1:29:52] there and count 102 people to see if they went over. Now, if they're

[1:29:55] expecting there's 2,000 out there, we're going to probably reach out to the

[1:29:59] organizer, just see what's going on, monitor it. Anytime that we know of an

[1:30:03] event, I mean, we have two people that that hold protests regularly. They meet

[1:30:09] with us. They fill out the permits. We sit down with them for afteractions.

[1:30:14] They ask if we have any suggestions. Um, we give them suggestions. We talk it

[1:30:18] out. we have a a very good working relationship with this group.

[1:30:21] » Um so they're always looking to see what can be done better. Um any suggestions,

[1:30:27] you know, parking becomes a big issue with everything, but that doesn't mean

[1:30:30] we're going out there because when people park on other lots, that's not

[1:30:34] for us to tow. That will be up to the business owner or the property owner

[1:30:37] there to tow. Now, what we have done in the past is go out there and let the

[1:30:41] protesters know that, hey, they don't want you parking here. They might tow

[1:30:45] your vehicle. Now, they don't have choice. kind words for us during these

[1:30:49] incidents because they think it's us, but we're there as a matter of the

[1:30:53] property owner, etc. We're not looking for any conflict, confrontation, or

[1:30:56] anything. I'm just trying to make sure that the people that are protesting are

[1:31:00] are safe, the motoring public is safe, and then there's going to be no other

[1:31:06] incidents going on that's going to create problems for the for the

[1:31:10] department. >> Right.

[1:31:12] » Hopefully that answered your question. >> Yes, sir. Thank you very much.

[1:31:16] And if I may just very briefly I I appreciate you know the fact that we

[1:31:21] have a a chief who thinks this way but >> it's also

[1:31:28] you are you are framing what you do in the context of one responding to the

[1:31:35] constitutional rights that the people have and two public [snorts] safety

[1:31:41] which is your responsibility. any chief would be responsible for those

[1:31:47] two things. I mean whether whether it's you as a very reasonable person or

[1:31:51] whether it's anybody else, those responsibilities reside in the chief of

[1:31:55] police. So okay,

[1:31:59] » so you would not be make you would would not be on the spot ever making a

[1:32:03] decision about what was done in good faith or not. I mean I hear you to say

[1:32:06] that too. Like these things could be addressed after the event.

[1:32:10] » That's my intention. I mean, you're not going to go out there and say

[1:32:13] » if we had counterprotesters show up and and everybody is just have different

[1:32:18] views, and we've had this recently. >> We can't make those people leave.

[1:32:21] » No. >> Um because they're in a public space as

[1:32:24] well. Um just because they have that different view doesn't mean that you

[1:32:28] can't be here. Um, so if I don't want to do anything right then

[1:32:35] and there, if they're there in each other trying to grab signs, that's

[1:32:39] that's a violation. That can entice or incite violence. If you're sitting there

[1:32:45] using vulgar language specifically addressed at someone, that could incite

[1:32:49] violence. And then we have a disorderly conduct um violation that we could

[1:32:54] remove that person. um if a large group shows up, we would monitor to see if we

[1:33:00] would try to separate them. Now, our ordinance has an in place that if two

[1:33:05] people apply, you know, at the same time, um then it gives the chief of

[1:33:10] police the authority to regulate time and place equally to each each group. I

[1:33:17] hope we don't ever get into that because that will be hard, you know, that will

[1:33:20] be basically a nightmare. But if if other people come up and we see that

[1:33:25] it's going to get to a point that we could have issues, I'm going to ask the

[1:33:30] other people, can we separate, y'all? Go to the other side of the street. But as

[1:33:34] far as doing something right then and there, it's going to have to be some

[1:33:37] sort of I mean, pretty good violation to to go on where somebody's getting ready

[1:33:41] to to fight or you can tell that people I mean,

[1:33:45] » you can tell you can read people and and know when something's getting ready to

[1:33:48] happen. So, but we also have to be very >> very cautious when we're dealing with

[1:33:53] the First Amendment. >> I don't want to be on the news.

[1:33:58] » Don't. Thank you. >> Very good. And I'll just add to that the

[1:34:03] um you know, the town has experienced and has seen situations where groups

[1:34:09] come and they try to provoke action that's unlawful. And that's their their

[1:34:16] mission. That's their raise on dete. and we have to be prepared through this kind

[1:34:20] of an ordinance to address those kinds of things. That's why I think these

[1:34:23] regulations are important. Um, but I think it's all about it's all about

[1:34:28] regulation on the front end and good sense and good judgment in regulation

[1:34:34] and um enforcing the ordinance on the other.

[1:34:41] » Thank you.

[1:34:44] I think this gives us a pretty good framework for that.

[1:34:47] » It does. >> You know,

[1:34:50] um, let me ask the board because this is not a public hearing and I'll ask John.

[1:34:54] Um, I see that Randy would like to add something. Is the board amanable to

[1:34:59] that? >> Okay, Randy.

[1:35:11] » Thank you for that. But I recognize the privilege. Okay. Um, as you know, I'm

[1:35:17] usually up here prepared remarks. I'm not very good on my feet, but I have to

[1:35:22] be right now. So, excuse me if I say some wrong things, but

[1:35:28] this whole process has been a complete process. And we've looked and it's like

[1:35:35] the spontaneous demonstration section was a safety valve

[1:35:41] for small demonstrations. We're not having any notice for 30 of others from

[1:35:47] 30 to to 100. We're having notification which is wonderful. You know, in one of

[1:35:54] our earlier conversation, I said this is the model that I want. I want us to be

[1:35:58] able to call up and say we're going to do this, you know, and um and then for

[1:36:04] in our exper now, this is also specific to a town the size of Max's head. These

[1:36:10] regulations wouldn't work in Charleston because 30 or 75 would be nothing. But

[1:36:17] for our town, it works. And once we get to 100

[1:36:23] um then the process that's been going on has been fine. You know they're

[1:36:28] generally larger demonstrations that are organized in advance a lot of times in

[1:36:33] connection with national demonstrations and there's plenty of time for the

[1:36:37] organ. In fact I think we're going 15 days and you make a decision in 72

[1:36:42] hours. Well most of the time I think they're talking to you six weeks in

[1:36:46] advance. And so the only thing that left was when we had a situation like when

[1:36:52] ICE killed two people within two weeks and people said we have to do something

[1:36:57] and we can't wait for two weeks. That was where the spontaneous demonstration.

[1:37:04] It's a safety valve that fits in with all of this.

[1:37:08] And um I feel I I'm afraid that the combination of the restrictions on both

[1:37:17] the um um

[1:37:24] the good faith estimates combined with the um extra language on the spontaneous

[1:37:30] de demonstration might unintentionally prevent these

[1:37:36] spontaneous demonstrations that we're trying to protect

[1:37:41] um the back to Suz's um and I think there's

[1:37:47] one other issue. It's like what is spontaneous? I don't think spontaneous

[1:37:52] is the same day. I think spontaneous I mean if you think about the way things

[1:37:56] work I mean we're talking three or four days at least from the time something

[1:38:01] happens to things really get rolling. Um, and I don't think you can just say

[1:38:06] it's got to be that day or the next day because if it happens that afternoon,

[1:38:13] you got to have time to get people together and want to do something about

[1:38:16] it. And that brings me to the point about notification. I'm afraid that this

[1:38:22] is overly broad. It's like in the definition, I think the

[1:38:26] problem is spontaneous demonstration means a

[1:38:30] demonstration that arises in immediate response to a recent or unforeseen event

[1:38:36] that was not planned or organized in advance of the event.

[1:38:42] And Susie said that's where we should put the period. And I think for a

[1:38:46] definition that's perfect because the rest of it is what

[1:38:51] makes it not work. that was not promoted or publicly advertised prior to the

[1:38:56] occurrence of it doesn't say the event, it says a demonstration. So that means

[1:39:01] between the time we have an event happen and a demonstration, we can't promote

[1:39:07] that we're going to be out there demonstrating. I don't think that works

[1:39:12] when we're not going to just spontaneously have a hundred people show

[1:39:15] up here. People receive notice from talking to people, Facebook or whatever

[1:39:19] it is. I I think that I think that that makes the definition clearer if you do

[1:39:26] what she recommended and put the period there and then deal with the results of

[1:39:30] it in the rest of it. Um, as far as the good faith estimates,

[1:39:36] uh, it was mentioned that people like me, you're not going to have problems

[1:39:41] with people like me follow rules. I'm a rule breaker if you want to know

[1:39:47] the truth about it for other people I'm associated with and um these people look

[1:39:52] at these rules and it just really puts a restriction on them when you say oh I

[1:39:57] might get in trouble because I went over this estimate

[1:40:01] and that's my feeling why they have to be

[1:40:06] guaranteed that if it's a good faith estimate

[1:40:09] they won't they won't have anything to worry about and then

[1:40:14] you know as As far as trying to decide what spontaneous is, um I mean it's

[1:40:21] difficult, but my main the period of time between an event and

[1:40:29] the demonstration, I just don't see how you can restrict promotion of the

[1:40:34] demonstration because if it's truly a spontaneous event, we don't have 15 days

[1:40:40] to wait and try to get a permit.

[1:40:45] So Randy, you're saying that you you need time to gather people together

[1:40:51] for a spontaneous event. >> Yes. It's going to take I mean if if

[1:40:56] something happens today, it's probably not going to happen for a couple of

[1:41:00] days, tomorrow at the earliest. And somehow, you know, there there are

[1:41:04] groups out there that we let people know what we're doing. And people that feel

[1:41:08] the same way, but they don't know where to go.

[1:41:12] And that's part of our freedom is the freedom to assemble.

[1:41:16] » And the communication to get that freedom to assemble is also

[1:41:20] guaranteed. >> So, but you would also have time to

[1:41:23] notify if you're if you have time to notify

[1:41:26] people to come together, then you would have time to notify the police. Just the

[1:41:29] notification of what you're doing. >> Is isn't that still in the spontaneous

[1:41:33] demonstration that we would notify? um

[1:41:39] it that shall make good faith effort to notify the police chief or the designate

[1:41:43] as soon as possible. >> So yeah, so that that short such cuts

[1:41:49] the 48 hour for small groups or the 15-day application for a large group but

[1:41:55] it gives a notification. >> Is it just the numbers that you're

[1:41:59] because it it's under a hundred it would just a notification is fine for under

[1:42:04] 100. Are you saying that you want spontaneous to be more than 100? An

[1:42:07] exception for more than 100? >> Well, in the um 30 to 100, we as it's

[1:42:14] proposed, we would have to [clears throat] give 48 hour notice.

[1:42:18] Well, with the spontaneous exception, we just would ignore notify you as soon as

[1:42:22] pos. We may want to be out there the next day.

[1:42:25] » Okay. >> And we we you know, if it happened

[1:42:27] today, we want to be out there tomorrow. We don't and it may be a big enough deal

[1:42:31] that's going to be more than 30 people. And it may be a big enough event that

[1:42:37] we're going to have more than 100. >> Spontaneously.

[1:42:41] » Yes.

[1:42:45] And spontaneously meaning in three to four days possibly.

[1:42:49] But my biggest

[1:42:53] um I just don't like the idea that between

[1:42:59] the time of the event and a demonstration there is language in there

[1:43:04] says it can't be promoted that that makes it not spontaneous.

[1:43:11] You know, it's like if it's if if somebody has planned an event and and an

[1:43:18] event happens, another event happens. Yes, that's a

[1:43:22] pre-planned event. Doesn't have anything to do with that. But in a situation when

[1:43:26] it's a truly spontaneous event, we need a safety valve and we don't need to be

[1:43:33] restricting whether people can promote it

[1:43:38] with other people. And that's my difficulty with the language that was

[1:43:42] added

[1:43:46] » because like you say, you have to tell them a place to go and a time to be

[1:43:51] there. >> Yeah.

[1:43:52] » So you have to give them some sort of notification.

[1:43:54] » That language is so broad that it sounds like if I get on Facebook and say, "Are

[1:43:58] you mad about this happening? Show up at Dowy Park." Then that's not a

[1:44:03] spontaneous event. >> What if we said less than seven days?

[1:44:09] spontaneous. >> Well, then you have time to get a 48

[1:44:12] hour permit. >> I know.

[1:44:14] » Yeah. >> I mean, what it's almost like what I'm

[1:44:17] hearing is that there are no spontaneous events

[1:44:21] » that that all the events that the events are being planned

[1:44:25] » to some degree >> to some degree. They're being planned,

[1:44:28] » which means there's the opportunity for notification.

[1:44:30] » Right. >> So, Mr. rate. Do you if you say

[1:44:36] something happens and you want to have a spontaneous event, but it's going to

[1:44:39] take you 3 days to plan and you know it could go over 100, do you have a

[1:44:43] problem? Is it do you not want to have to do a permit then and you'd prefer to

[1:44:47] be able to do it under the notice?

[1:44:51] I'm trying to figure out what the Well, it seems like

[1:44:54] » I I think the two the two areas that the spontaneous exception cover are when you

[1:45:02] want to be out there with a crowd greater than 30 people, less than 100,

[1:45:07] but you don't have 48 hours.

[1:45:12] » That That's the first one. And the second one is when you've got a really

[1:45:16] big crowd over a hundred that would normally take you a 15-day in advance

[1:45:22] permit. You can't do that.

[1:45:29] » So the concern is twofold is you might want to have a semi-spontaneous

[1:45:33] demonstration that could be over a hundred and it's just not possible

[1:45:38] » with the 15day permit. >> Is that say it again? The concern is if

[1:45:43] you do want to have over a hundred, the 15 day is also restricting.

[1:45:48] » Yes. >> Yeah.

[1:45:49] » Yes. >> Okay. That's separate.

[1:45:52] » But our our concern has to be the response.

[1:45:56] » You know, what kind of >> for safety,

[1:45:58] » right? Safety response. We're able to, you know,

[1:46:01] » right? Obviously, I think we all hope it in a way we hope it doesn't happen, but

[1:46:06] we in a town this size, as you were saying, we have to we have to be poised

[1:46:11] to respond to something that large and doing so with no information would be

[1:46:16] really difficult, right, Chief? [laughter]

[1:46:20] » Yeah. I mean, I just think >> I look at spontaneous.

[1:46:26] » Spontaneous is an impulse. If the power went out today and Dominion Power cut

[1:46:30] the power out to the whole outer base and everybody gets mad and wants to go

[1:46:33] out there and yell on the side of the street and they start Facebooking

[1:46:36] everybody, that's spontaneous. If Nagad had a soccer team and we won

[1:46:41] the World Cup, everybody goes out there to celebrate. That's spontaneous. But

[1:46:46] when I get out there, I can be like, "Man, we're out here celebrating

[1:46:49] » or we're out here protesting that Dominion cut the power off. Come join

[1:46:53] us." That's still spontaneous because I'm right then and there. Mhm.

[1:46:59] » When I advertise to meet me in three or four days, that's not spontaneous.

[1:47:02] » That's not a spontaneous event, >> right?

[1:47:09] » I'm afraid that it would negate our ordinance if we said you had three or

[1:47:14] four days. I mean, who people could say [clears throat] that event was

[1:47:17] spontaneous when it was planned? >> Planned.

[1:47:28] But I want to allow for spontaneous events because I I do that.

[1:47:33] » I mean, ever since we've started working this, we've never restricted spontaneous

[1:47:37] » demonstrations, protests, whatever you want to call them. Um, now we've never

[1:47:41] had them like we have them today, but to me spontaneous being an impulse is if

[1:47:49] I decide to go out there right now and start doing it and I start texting my

[1:47:54] friends I'm out here, that's spontaneous.

[1:47:56] If I tell you, you know, Sunday, let's go out there at Audi Park and stand on

[1:48:03] side road with signs, that's not spontaneous. If I've got time to get

[1:48:08] some people together, I've got time to send an email or make a phone call to

[1:48:15] let somebody know what's going on because public safety is my number one,

[1:48:19] » right? >> I mean, if something is going on, I've

[1:48:24] always looked at any event in town that we don't pull from our duty crew.

[1:48:31] So if something is going on and there are 200 people out there that did not

[1:48:35] want to let us know and say they have counterprotesters, they have something

[1:48:40] else, an issue to come up and I've got my duty crew working rerecks, working

[1:48:46] laries, working domestics, guess what they're doing? They're going to have to

[1:48:50] sit there and deal with themselves until we clear up. With these events, I

[1:48:54] personally am out there. I bring two or three extra officers out

[1:48:59] and when I have to tell them the day before, I might not have nobody out

[1:49:04] there. But when we know in advance, the group

[1:49:09] that we meet with, they put 700 people on their demonstration permit. They had

[1:49:14] 70. But because of they were expecting it, I knew in advance and we sat down

[1:49:19] and met with them over this. I had three officers come out there along with

[1:49:23] myself. So we're we're not sitting in the middle of them. We're sitting in

[1:49:27] parking lots watching to make sure nobody's riding by throwing bottles at

[1:49:30] them to make sure that nobody's doing anything. And if we see violations, we

[1:49:34] deal with it. I can't have my duty crew taken away from the rest of the town

[1:49:41] » to go sit and monitor an event. >> If we know of a smaller one and they

[1:49:46] call up and say, "Hey, we might have 30 people out there. We might have 15

[1:49:49] people." Now, will I tell my duty crew to monitor it if something happens? You

[1:49:52] know, call me and let me know. That's something that they can ride by on

[1:49:56] normal patrols. But when you start getting into large numbers, that's what

[1:49:59] I worry with that it doesn't take but an instant for somebody to change their air

[1:50:04] conditioner radio to look down and then they I mean people can't drive down here

[1:50:07] anyway and then they run off the road. Um so we have to look at it as a whole.

[1:50:12] And if we have a large crowd on the side of the the the bypass, that's going to

[1:50:18] cause a distraction no matter what view you have because you're going to want

[1:50:22] human natures to look to see what's going on.

[1:50:25] » Even with things at the event site where we're down there, you know, directing

[1:50:29] traffic, people look to see what's going on.

[1:50:31] » So, I try to be prepared for everything. >> Thank you.

[1:50:38] » Okay. Thank Are there any immediate questions for the chief or anybody else

[1:50:44] here? I I want to make a suggestion if I may and that [snorts] would be um that

[1:50:50] we take a fivem minute recess >> uh that we then come back and talk about

[1:50:55] the other part of the ordinance that we need to deal with. Let our subconscious

[1:50:59] minds chew on this a little bit and then circle back to this and maybe uh be

[1:51:04] prepared to >> Thank you. uh make a motion um at that

[1:51:07] point or to to do whatever it is to is the is the board's pleasure. Um so I'm

[1:51:14] going to uh call for the board to be in a 5 to 10 minute recess.

[1:51:19] » Okay.

[1:51:25] Right. The board's returned from its break. Um, are we still of a mind to uh

[1:51:30] go to the other part of the language we need to deal with and then circle back?

[1:51:35] » Okay, then. Um, Andy, remind us of what what we're looking at in this other uh

[1:51:41] little piece of the language. This is section

[1:51:45] 413, I think we were going to talk about.

[1:51:48] » Well, let me um let me go through this real quick. And so as I mentioned in the

[1:51:53] beginning of the presentation, we did have a meeting with the tourism board

[1:51:59] representatives talk about the crowd gathering permit process and u we asked

[1:52:04] them to send us some suggestions for alleviating their concerns regarding uh

[1:52:10] the ordinance. And so they sent those to us and essentially what is reflected in

[1:52:15] what you received in your packet is what they provided. And in in the first

[1:52:20] section, section 4-2, uh as you can see, their biggest concern

[1:52:25] was um the fact that the ordinance says nobody can advertise an event until a

[1:52:31] permit is received or issued. And so, um in a practical sense, that never

[1:52:40] happens. you know, most of their events are large and they're planned a year

[1:52:43] ahead of time and most of the permits aren't issued until, you know, 30 days

[1:52:48] ahead of the event or something like that. So, it's really never been

[1:52:52] enforced to be honest with you. Um, and I'm not sure the the legality or the

[1:52:57] practicality of being able to enforce that. And so, we don't necessarily have

[1:53:02] an issue with removing that language. Um in the second piece section 4-7

[1:53:09] um they talk about it talks about review of the application and they were sort of

[1:53:14] concerned about um it said that um any deviation from the terms and conditions

[1:53:20] of the permit um or misstatement of fact uh

[1:53:26] shall be grounds for immediate re revocation at any time by the town

[1:53:31] manager. And I think that that just gave them a little bit of heartburn that it

[1:53:36] forced us to revoke the permit and removed our our discretion there to make

[1:53:41] a decision um based on the circumstances. So we don't have a

[1:53:47] problem with this language where they just change shall to may and then remove

[1:53:50] the word at any time. Seems to make sense. Mhm.

[1:53:54] » Um the biggest piece that they provided to us was the idea that we would create

[1:53:58] a new step in the process. Essentially a conditional approval for events at the

[1:54:04] event site. And right now we have a crowd gathering permit we issue and it's

[1:54:09] based on tiers. And the really large events they have to apply for the permit

[1:54:14] 90 days in advance of the event. But the ordinance says they can apply for the

[1:54:19] permit up to a year in advance of an event. And so, you know, we would say,

[1:54:23] well, why do the conditional approval when you can apply for a permit up to a

[1:54:27] year in advance of an event? And I think the counter point they would make is,

[1:54:31] well, they don't necessarily have all the detailed information at that time, a

[1:54:36] year in advance. And some some people organizing event an event don't want to

[1:54:41] go through the trouble of organizing the entire event, not knowing whether they

[1:54:45] they could even receive a permit. So the conditional approval gives them some

[1:54:50] reassurance that they're sort of on the right track and I think that's that's

[1:54:55] the the notion for suggesting this step in the process. Um so they provided us

[1:55:02] language essentially is an A and B and and and

[1:55:06] um C. We added the section in D which basically says that you know this

[1:55:14] conditional approval is not your permit and it doesn't give you anything really.

[1:55:19] I mean it gives you something that okay well you're you're on the right track

[1:55:23] but you still have to apply for a permit still have to go through the whole

[1:55:26] process. There's no guarantees. You don't doesn't vest you with anything.

[1:55:31] And so essentially you're acknowledging that it's not your permit

[1:55:35] » and they would have to sign a disclaimer. I mean, I think there's

[1:55:38] still some concern that this sort of sets this up a little bit, right?

[1:55:42] » You know, that giving them a conditional approval gives them a false sense of

[1:55:47] security >> and is that the right way to go with

[1:55:51] this? And so, um, you know, that's uh I think that's what's going to be

[1:55:57] discussed today. And I think there's some other ways to deal with this, you

[1:56:01] know, and we can talk about that, but I'll just pause there right now and let

[1:56:06] the board talk about it. >> So, if the concern is about the amount

[1:56:11] of work that they have to do before they know whether they can do the

[1:56:16] event, they still have to provide a lot of information under this conditional

[1:56:21] framework. So, I guess I would circle back and say, why not just do the permit

[1:56:27] application and everybody acknowledge what's not complete yet and that has to

[1:56:32] be provided by a certain date rather than create a separate process.

[1:56:38] » Well, you essentially just said what I was going to say.

[1:56:41] » Okay. [laughter] I mean, I think I was looking at the

[1:56:46] ordinance again this morning and there's some things in there, you know, that

[1:56:51] people may not have but may not be necessary, you know, to submit

[1:56:56] completely, you know, a year ahead of time. Like for instance, the detailed

[1:57:01] site plan. So if you're at the event site and you have to provide a detailed

[1:57:04] site plan, which typically is somebody hand sketches a drawing that shows tents

[1:57:10] and vendor locations and you know traffic flow and all that. Well, do we

[1:57:17] really need to have that much detailed information? I mean, in most cases,

[1:57:22] they're going to be able to provide a site plan that meets a requirement

[1:57:26] because there's not a whole lot of specific requirements on how they lay

[1:57:29] out their site. And the other big thing would be like

[1:57:31] parking and transportation. You know, if we know it's a certain size

[1:57:36] event, [clears throat] we know we kind of have a sense of how much parking is

[1:57:40] going to be needed off site and and we can tell them, you know, you're going to

[1:57:44] need to provide x [snorts] number of off-site spaces or or shuttle system or

[1:57:48] transportation. So, you know, could we give them some more time to submit that

[1:57:55] information, you know, after they submit their

[1:57:58] application? most likely. And so maybe a step we could take is to go back to

[1:58:04] tourism board staff and just say maybe we can work with you on some of these

[1:58:08] things and modify some of these provisions. So it it makes it less

[1:58:14] cumbersome to submit the application and give them more detail later. And and um

[1:58:19] and I think that [snorts] that's something we could easily do if the

[1:58:22] board agrees. And the other thing we sort of that's come up in some of these

[1:58:28] conversations is, you know, the board went through a process uh during the

[1:58:34] appeal to put conditions on the permit. Um and we felt like those conditions

[1:58:40] were warranted based on the circumstances.

[1:58:43] Um you know, the ordinance speaks to providing conditions on a permit. Um,

[1:58:51] but it doesn't provide much detail about that, you know. So, from a staff

[1:58:56] standpoint, I guess there's some question about how far we can go with

[1:59:00] putting conditions on a permit from an administrative standpoint. And maybe

[1:59:04] that would be an additional tool that would be useful to staff if we could

[1:59:08] provide conditions on a permit um to to ensure a better outcome.

[1:59:14] I mean, possibly might [snorts] result in, you know, not having to deny a

[1:59:19] permit if you can >> give give more conditions that give you

[1:59:23] more security. And so, I think we could go back and look at adding some language

[1:59:29] in there about, you know, putting conditions on permits, how you can do

[1:59:34] that, under what circumstances, and and be somewhat [cough] specific. And that's

[1:59:38] where I think I need John's help here. But, you know, I think it can't be

[1:59:43] totally arbitrary. I mean, we can't just do anything we want. So, the ordinance

[1:59:46] is going to have to define that a little bit. Mhm.

[1:59:51] » concerns about safety and or whatever we deem would need

[1:59:56] » like if we were if we were um you know dealing with an event that we felt like

[2:00:01] it needed to have some additional police presence

[2:00:05] » and similar to the condition the board put on the rod and custom festival. You

[2:00:09] know, could we put something in the ordinance that gives us the ability to

[2:00:13] do that instead of, you know, having what happened? And so us being staff in

[2:00:19] other words. >> Yes. Staff, right? Like from an

[2:00:22] administrative standpoint instead of having

[2:00:24] » having it go to another. >> If I may, I think the manager hit sort

[2:00:29] of the key point there, which is that tool would allow administration to

[2:00:34] approve something with conditions as opposed to just denying it and then and

[2:00:37] then coming to the board would who would then provide those conditions. So I

[2:00:41] think that helps streamline the process and would probably help avoid a lot of

[2:00:44] frustration from applicants too. >> I think I would think.

[2:00:47] » Yes. Yes, agreed. >> Commissioner Pal as the real quickly as

[2:00:52] our representatives. Uh do you have comments on this?

[2:00:55] » I I think of course as long as I agree with John that it would help the

[2:00:59] applicants as well. We'd want to make sure we have a timeline so that [snorts]

[2:01:02] we're not hearing about how all this was so last minute and it certainly is never

[2:01:06] arbitrary. I've never noticed to do anything arbitrarily. [clears throat] So

[2:01:11] I think if we can find a way to work it into our ordinance so that there's a

[2:01:17] mechanism because right now there's no mechanism except denial and then you

[2:01:21] know the the appeal process >> to add conditions. So I would think

[2:01:26] it would be helpful. Commissioner Lambert, you

[2:01:29] » I do want to touch on this a little bit and it's kind of been a recurring theme

[2:01:32] this morning where we've talked a lot, safety comes up constantly and one thing

[2:01:37] that's kind of been bugging me a little bit lately and I want to make sure with

[2:01:40] all the discussions we've had about public events recently and then during

[2:01:44] the quasi judicial hearing that we had for the custom um car rod show um there

[2:01:50] was lots of sentiment and comments about being concerned not being more concerned

[2:01:54] about the business that these events ing to our town and I think that those are

[2:01:59] really important. But as a member of the Nags Head board and our town, our role

[2:02:04] is to view these events, the events that are being hosted through the lens of the

[2:02:08] town's respect responsibility to protect the safety and the welfare of our

[2:02:12] residents and our visitors. Um, I recently listened to a tourism board

[2:02:17] meeting from their main meeting and there was a comment that said that we

[2:02:21] care about public that we care about public safety and our citizens or

[2:02:24] whatever. And when I heard that, that really stuck with me because in many

[2:02:28] ways it's true and it should be. That's one of our primary responsibilities. And

[2:02:32] I don't think that we can have a sliding scale for public safety based on what

[2:02:37] economic impact these events have because these events bring money to

[2:02:40] Nagad, but they also bring money to Kittyhawk. They bring money to Kildville

[2:02:44] Hills. They bring money throughout Dair County as we heard at the quasi judicial

[2:02:47] hearing from representatives from all over the county. Um, and as a business

[2:02:51] owner, I certainly appreciate that and I absolutely recognize how important these

[2:02:55] events are to our local economy. But we also have to be good stewards to our

[2:03:00] taxpayers and their dollars. And these events, if they incur extra costs with

[2:03:04] our police to keep them safe, >> we need to look at what we can do with

[2:03:08] those. And I don't think it should be at the burden of our taxpayers. And that's

[2:03:11] how we keep the balance of having these events safely

[2:03:15] » and repeatedly. And I think that we need to really look at that public safety

[2:03:21] planning process not as obstacles but actually as ways to ensure that these

[2:03:26] events can continue to go on because they are so important to Dare County.

[2:03:29] » That's a very good point. >> But for the town, the safety has to be

[2:03:32] of the utmost importance. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you.

[2:03:35] Appreciate that. >> Um while I'm down, Commissioner

[2:03:39] Harrison, >> um I I believe that we should table

[2:03:42] this. Um I agree with what Commissioner Lambert said. Um, and I I think I'm

[2:03:47] hearing Andy pretty clearly that we have some a little bit more work to do that

[2:03:50] we could do to make this process easier for the applicant as well as the town.

[2:03:54] » Okay. >> Thank you, Bob.

[2:04:00] » So, so I just wanted to clarify like um >> 4-13

[2:04:05] is the section we're talking about potentially, right?

[2:04:08] » Yes. Just this section right here. or or not tableabling

[2:04:13] » removing >> to remove approving without that

[2:04:16] section. >> Okay.

[2:04:17] » Is [clears throat] a possibility. I mean yes tableabling the whole thing

[2:04:20] » well >> is one possibility but also approving

[2:04:24] the ordinance without that section and letting staff work on the conditional

[2:04:29] part >> and cleaning up that process.

[2:04:32] » Yes. Tableing this section or removing it for now and putting it back in.

[2:04:36] » Yes. >> Okay. Yes. Could we also ask staff to

[2:04:39] look into what and and I'm sure they probably already would be planning this,

[2:04:42] but looking at what other municipalities do. I know that Kittyhawk killed a

[2:04:46] holes, they don't have large event sites, but other municipalities that do

[2:04:49] have large event sites and how then how they've been able to partner and work

[2:04:53] together so that they can have successful safe events and how they

[2:04:56] handle the fees and stuff like that for extra police and whatnot because I'd be

[2:05:00] curious what they do. fees

[2:05:05] » like fees adding conditions, sorry, like for a police fee or whatnot, like how

[2:05:10] other towns handle that when they have an event. Who pays for the police? Is it

[2:05:13] the event organizer? Is it the town, the taxpayers? How does that work and what

[2:05:18] other towns do with it? >> Because it definitely is my

[2:05:21] understanding that they want to continue to host as many events as possible.

[2:05:24] Sure. >> And that's, as you said, a great thing.

[2:05:27] » Yeah. But we need to be looking forward and considering the impact the overall

[2:05:31] impact on our town and our citizens. >> And that is their concern.

[2:05:35] » Yeah. >> Anything else that is their or their

[2:05:38] criteria or their criteria, but [cough and clears throat] ours is

[2:05:41] health, safety, and welfare. >> Full stop.

[2:05:45] » Um, okay. So, let's go back then. if we're

[2:05:49] talking about potentially um adopting the ordinance

[2:05:54] minus section 4-13. Let's go back to the language discussion that we've had. Um

[2:06:01] what is the board's pleasure in terms of um either either um moving forward the

[2:06:07] markup or making language changes at this point?

[2:06:13] » Entire ordinance. >> Yeah.

[2:06:14] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[2:06:18] I can work this way. >> Well, from what I've heard today, I do

[2:06:20] believe that the spontaneous definition still allows

[2:06:26] for groups to communicate amongst themselves about any spontaneous

[2:06:32] event they're going to have. So, we're not precluding them from texting each

[2:06:35] other or calling each other or talking to their neighbors. I feel like that is

[2:06:38] a spontaneous way to gather in the street. when it becomes not spontaneous

[2:06:43] is when it's promoted on Facebook or promoted advertised.

[2:06:49] » I mean maybe even Facebook if it's a small group is not is still contained

[2:06:54] and that's not advertised but if it's if it's very public advertising

[2:06:58] I think we're still allowing for people to communicate and have a spontaneous

[2:07:02] demonstration. So I would I would like to leave the definition

[2:07:07] as we have it here now. Still recognizing that that allows people to

[2:07:13] gather spontaneously and communicating amongst themselves.

[2:07:18] Okay, >> I'm comfortable with that. And then as

[2:07:20] far as taking out the language about you may have to come hang on one second

[2:07:27] about um not holding the person accountable

[2:07:32] who who gave the good faith estimate. Um I think taking that language out is fine

[2:07:37] because we're not adding in the language that we are going to hold them

[2:07:40] accountable. We're just taking it out. And our our police chief has already

[2:07:44] said he's very lenient about holding people accountable. So, I feel like

[2:07:49] taking that language out is not going to really be harmful to any organizer who

[2:07:55] in good faith provided an estimate of people and then more people showed up. I

[2:07:59] don't think anybody is going to go to jail for that or anything

[2:08:02] or or not be able to gather again as long as the we can assume that the

[2:08:07] estimate was in good faith.

[2:08:12] » Those are my comments. Love to hear your feedback. Commissioner Labor, [laughter]

[2:08:16] » I agree with Commissioner Harrison. Um, I think this is a really hard one

[2:08:21] because >> you [snorts] want to make sure

[2:08:23] everyone's happy, especially when we're talking about free speech. Um,

[2:08:27] but I agree. I I think that it's going to be hard to get it perfect. Um, but I

[2:08:33] do agree with your comments and I think that I would support this without 413.

[2:08:38] » Okay. >> Right. Thank you, Mr. Sanders.

[2:08:44] can support it as well. I don't know about the good faith part. I think the

[2:08:49] attorney made a good point about leaving that in. Um,

[2:08:54] and I mean, you do have the 48 hours if it's promoted.

[2:09:01] That one's a tough one for me. I'm not sure about that one.

[2:09:04] But >> are you Which one are you talking about?

[2:09:08] » Um, the definition and the part that said it's not promoted or publicly

[2:09:12] advertised. I mean, I could leave out publicly advertised, but I think you

[2:09:15] have to do some sort of promotion. I think you have to at least tell people

[2:09:19] where you're what time and where you're meeting.

[2:09:23] » Seems like our two challenges are defining spontaneous because that leaves

[2:09:26] a lot of room and promotion >> because it's communication. [cough]

[2:09:31] » I kind of have a little bit of trouble with that definition as well. I mean,

[2:09:36] you do have the 48 hours. I mean, and you're not like, from what I understand

[2:09:42] from the town manager and from the chief, it's not going to be like a

[2:09:46] strict enforcement. So, there is a little bit of gray area there. So,

[2:09:53] yeah, that's kind of where I'm at. >> Okay.

[2:09:56] I mean I could go and

[2:10:03] it's publicly advertised is one thing but I think it has to be promoted to

[2:10:08] some point. So >> which we are allowing for

[2:10:12] interpersonal promotion with this definition. I feel like

[2:10:19] » commission. >> Um I think that we that this ordinance

[2:10:25] minus 14, you know, which we've already I think pretty much concur on strikes a

[2:10:29] really good balance. It's not going to be perfect, but I do think it allows for

[2:10:33] spontaneous demonstrations. Um, and I I think we all understand that

[2:10:38] there's going to be some communication, but if somebody's got time to to really,

[2:10:44] you know, really start networking for several days at a time, then there's

[2:10:47] time to give notification as well to us. >> And, um, I I really appreciate Ry's

[2:10:52] comments and all the people that have been involved in staff working so hard

[2:10:56] to to try to come up with something. John said, we don't even have to have

[2:10:59] this type of ordinance. I'm proud that we do and I definitely think as Andy

[2:11:04] said that we, you know, are airing on the side of um freedom of speech

[2:11:09] whenever possible, but again, we've got to consider being prepared for what

[2:11:14] might come along and and looking after folks and um our officers being ready

[2:11:19] and all the rest. So, >> I'm I'm in favor of of the markups.

[2:11:24] » Okay. So, as I understand it, then the likely

[2:11:28] motion is to adopt the ordinance as presented with the modifications

[2:11:36] minus 413. >> Yes.

[2:11:39] » Okay. Then if somebody will make that motion.

[2:11:43] » I'll make that motion. >> Okay. And do I have a second?

[2:11:46] » Second. >> Have a motion. A second. Is there any

[2:11:49] further discussion? been a lot of discussion and there will probably be

[2:11:53] some more um at some point but uh I I also uh commend the public um the the

[2:12:02] folks who got involved um there's been a lot of discussion about collaboration

[2:12:08] this morning u both in this ordinance and in the design of the um the

[2:12:13] shoreline and um that's something that I'm [clears throat] very proud that

[2:12:18] Nagad does Um uh we're we're not as you say arbitrary. Um we we do things um uh

[2:12:27] uh in good order and uh I really appreciate that. So hearing no having a

[2:12:33] motion and a second and no further discussion. All those in favor signify

[2:12:36] by saying I >> I opposed. Thank you.

[2:12:45] » All right. Um that brings us to new business. Um, and that would be

[2:12:50] committee reports. And I'm going to start down here with um, Commissioner

[2:12:56] Harrison. And I know you're going to have something for us a little bit later

[2:13:00] on the agenda. >> Yes. Um, so that's not under my

[2:13:03] committee report. Okay. Committee report. We are um with Current TV just

[2:13:08] we are not meeting until a week or so from now, but um, I know that Roberta

[2:13:13] has some things in the works and one of them is a beach nourishment video kind

[2:13:17] of recapping our project. So, that's our next video coming out.

[2:13:19] » Yeah. Very good. Thank you, Commissioner Lambert.

[2:13:22] » Um, Miss Wyatt gave an excellent septic health update. Uh, we do have our next

[2:13:26] meeting, I think July 27th, she said. And I'm really excited to hear about our

[2:13:31] zero interest loans starting to roll out, getting [clears throat] that going.

[2:13:35] It's >> a lot of work.

[2:13:36] » All right. >> Um, Janette's peer advisory committee,

[2:13:40] we did meet. Um, Commissioner Harrison and Commissioner Lambert were both there

[2:13:45] in attendance. Um, we got a nice tour of the of the facility. Um, all of the

[2:13:51] improvements there. Um, and it was actually it was pretty cool experience.

[2:13:55] It was pretty neat. Um, and there was some um there was some additional

[2:14:00] discussion about um education and and some other opportunities um and some

[2:14:06] networking opportunities and and that's great. That's the that's the benefit of

[2:14:10] being engaged in that kind of thing. Um, so it looks good and if you haven't been

[2:14:14] there to see the new decking and everything, I encourage you to to go

[2:14:17] take a look. Commissioner Sanders, the >> ambient lighting out there looks

[2:14:22] amazing, too. If anybody seen that, >> it's really cool.

[2:14:26] » Yeah, it's really nice. um the DAR Housing Fan Foundation. Um they're still

[2:14:33] seeking opportunities for year-round workforce housing and they're also doing

[2:14:38] some community outreach and uh fundraising events such as castles for a

[2:14:42] cause which you can find on their website which is a summer castle

[2:14:46] building contest and they have a new contest each week and so that's raising

[2:14:50] a little bit of money as well. So >> cool. Very good.

[2:14:54] » Commissioner B. Uh well, we covered probably the highlight for us regarding

[2:14:59] the um visitors bureau, which was the discussion about the easement and all

[2:15:02] that. We're making good progress on that and um nothing else big to report from

[2:15:07] them. >> Thank you.

[2:15:11] Uh that brings us to the town attorney, Mr. Lighty. Anything that's not already

[2:15:15] in the um close session? >> I I think I've already uh provided my my

[2:15:20] my >> We got our money's worth today, did we?

[2:15:23] Did we not? [laughter] He'll have nothing else at this time.

[2:15:26] » All right. Great. Thank Thank you very much. Uh and the town manager. Um so we

[2:15:32] will have a 2026 beach nourishment update. David,

[2:15:40] while he's setting up, I will note that um several board members did visit the

[2:15:46] uh cutterhead dredge uh last week, and that was a a really great um experience

[2:15:51] to see how that how that works. Um, and it it was really it was really nice

[2:15:56] because it it uh I think it gives you a sense of the scale of the operation, not

[2:16:01] just the boat itself, but all of the staff um the logistics, everything that

[2:16:06] goes into that is uh is pretty remarkable and it was it was neat to

[2:16:10] see. [clears throat] >> Yeah, I was surfing yesterday and

[2:16:13] surfing by the little dredge, but looking at the big one, it definitely

[2:16:17] put in perspective because you can see it way out there. It doesn't look like

[2:16:19] much, but when you're on it, it does. Like so much going on out there.

[2:16:23] » Yeah. >> And on the beach, too.

[2:16:26] » David, >> uh good morning, mayor and

[2:16:28] commissioners. Um you're going to have to bear with me here. Uh my computer

[2:16:33] just decided that it was going to reset. >> So, of course, it did have to rely on

[2:16:38] Katie to go ahead and come come with a backup here.

[2:16:42] » Okay. But um as uh as the mayor had mentioned,

[2:16:47] you know, a project of this scale is really a collaborative effort between

[2:16:51] the consulting engineer, the contractor and and town staff. And um especially

[2:16:56] over the past several weeks, we've had a lot of communication taking place as a

[2:17:01] result of some of the critical areas that they've been working on in this

[2:17:04] project. um especially down in uh South Nags Head um finishing up that stretch

[2:17:10] and then here in the main uh part of town uh just because of the impact and

[2:17:16] the time of year um that we have uh that it's uh it's been a real challenge um

[2:17:22] but it's been it's been a pleasure um working collectively as a group to be

[2:17:27] able to go ahead and resolve a lot of these issues.

[2:17:32] So, uh, currently we've there's been a lot of progress that has been made over

[2:17:38] the, um, past month, uh, when we gave our last update, uh, in the northern

[2:17:45] section of town. Um, where we start at Bonnet Street Bath House, uh, we have

[2:17:51] completed all the way down to about Forb Street. Um, and the the hopper dredge is

[2:17:59] working that section of town. And they've got about another thousand feet

[2:18:03] or so to go ahead and complete that section before they pull off and they

[2:18:09] start working south of there at Harrove Street, which is the next subline um

[2:18:16] connection that um they will be working off of. Um, as the mayor had mentioned,

[2:18:22] the board members made a site visit last week to the dredge and you got a

[2:18:26] firsthand look at all the moving parts that go into it. Um, unfortunately um

[2:18:32] some of those issues were realized this past weekend when um the RS weeks, the

[2:18:37] hydraulic dredge or the cutterhead dredge lost power. And so they were

[2:18:42] working just south of the Outer Banks Pier and they had it took them about 18

[2:18:48] to 24 hours to be able to restore power. They still had sand in that subline. So

[2:18:54] they had to purge that and they've made a decision to go ahead and pull that

[2:18:58] dredge off and demobilize that part of the operation. So they've been able to

[2:19:03] go ahead and adapt and uh the hopper dredge the RB weeks will then move

[2:19:10] southward and they will go ahead and continue for the remainder of the

[2:19:14] project. Uh even with all that occurring um we're still looking at maintaining

[2:19:21] the schedule. The last schedule that was given was completion on or around July

[2:19:28] 19th. So that's actually moved up a little bit um from from our last update

[2:19:33] and you know that will vary um based upon mechanical issues or weather

[2:19:37] related issues or whether they have to go refuel. So uh it is a very fluid and

[2:19:43] dynamic process. Uh but um they've they've been making some very good

[2:19:48] progress with the hopper dredge. They're um on a daily basis. It's anywhere

[2:19:54] between 700 to 1,000 ft of beach that they are nourishing on a daily basis.

[2:19:59] And uh if they maintain that schedule, we anticipate that uh you know they'll

[2:20:04] be able to go ahead and finish up mid July. Um when they do move down to the

[2:20:10] next subline, which is at Hard Grove Street, they will first go in a

[2:20:14] southerntherly direction. So, they will go ahead and finish off and tie into

[2:20:19] where the cutterhead dredge left off um at the Islington Street Beach access and

[2:20:26] then they will go ahead and flip and work northward. Um that will lessen the

[2:20:33] impact especially around Janette's Pier during the Fourth of July holiday by

[2:20:38] going ahead and maintaining that sequence. So that was a discussion that

[2:20:41] we had with the contractor that they were able to go ahead and adapt and be

[2:20:46] able to go ahead and work with us. Uh just noting um some of the issues that

[2:20:52] uh we've seen in the past especially working around a lot of the peers. Um

[2:20:58] with that I'll I'll answer any questions that you have.

[2:21:04] » Anyone? So, it doesn't sound like we're going to

[2:21:07] lose any time because we're losing a dredge. Like, we're still maintaining a

[2:21:12] pretty good schedule. >> No, because the original goal was to

[2:21:18] work up to the Outer Banks Pier with the cutterhead dredge

[2:21:22] » and they fell just shy of that. >> Okay.

[2:21:25] » So, so the

[2:21:27] » the hopper dredge was going to go ahead and finish off that work. Now, they've

[2:21:31] just got a little extra length to have to go through the pier to be able to tie

[2:21:34] that in. >> Okay. Pretty

[2:21:38] good. All right. Thank you, David. >> All right. Thank you.

[2:21:41] » Glad they lose power while we were out there.

[2:21:44] » Just a saying. I'm glad they didn't lose power when we were there. [laughter]

[2:21:47] » Yeah. Uh David, you're going to stay there and give us a update on the

[2:21:52] multi-use path. >> Okay. Um, if I can ask if I can put this

[2:21:58] off until next month because I've got some exhibits that I want to show and

[2:22:03] with my computer in the current status that uh I won't be able to go ahead and

[2:22:09] show that. >> Absolutely. No problem.

[2:22:12] » All right. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, David.

[2:22:14] » Thank you, David. >> All right. And Andy, um you're gonna

[2:22:18] give us an update on the um funding offer from DEEQ.

[2:22:24] » Sure. And Amy's going to get up and and go over this and um Kelly mentioned this

[2:22:28] during her presentation, but we did receive the funding offer finally for

[2:22:33] the 0% interest loan program for our septic health program. And uh Amy's been

[2:22:39] working on this and we need the board to approve something. So let her just go

[2:22:44] over that briefly.

[2:23:10] I was worried my Oh, my computer did the same thing as his did. Okay.

[2:23:14] » So, I g I sent it to um Katie, so we're good. Um

[2:23:20] sorry about that. Sometimes when I move my computer, it does this.

[2:23:26] There you go. Um, yes. So, this was not published and I apologize because I just

[2:23:31] got this on Monday like at 3 o'clock. And this is just kind of the last piece

[2:23:37] that we need to formalize this septic health, the 0% septic health residential

[2:23:43] loan program, the $500,000 we received from DEEQ.

[2:23:48] um they just need uh a resolution

[2:23:53] from the board to accept the the loan. Um and again, this is the last piece of

[2:24:00] being able to start moving forward forward with offering the loan. So what

[2:24:05] they need is um the resolution adopted by the board and within that resolution

[2:24:11] it authorizes both Andy and myself to execute any contractual documents

[2:24:18] um for the town. So you're giving us that authority to do that in this

[2:24:21] resolution. But um yeah, we we didn't think we would want to wait another

[2:24:26] month to get moving on this >> right

[2:24:29] » because it's it's been a while in the making. So, um, apologies for it not

[2:24:35] being published, but we think it's a good thing and and, um, getting this

[2:24:39] moving a little bit faster. >> All right. Thank you, Amy. And we do

[2:24:45] appreciate being able to to move ahead with this.

[2:24:49] » Um, so, commissioners, any questions of Amy

[2:24:53] first before we >> proceed? All right. Um, in that case, a

[2:24:58] motion to adopt the resolution would be in order. I'll make that motion.

[2:25:02] » Okay. Is there a second? I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?

[2:25:06] Hearing none. All in favor signify by saying I. I.

[2:25:09] » I. Opposed. Right. >> Great. Thank you very much.

[2:25:13] » Very excited about that. >> Uh that brings us to the board of

[2:25:17] commissioners agenda and commissioner Harrison.

[2:25:21] » Okay. Okay. So, with Current TV, this is a a video that was made um it's it's not

[2:25:29] one of our regularly scheduled videos. They are always looking for new ideas.

[2:25:32] Um and they're willing to the current TV staff is willing to um make videos

[2:25:38] basically, you know, as part of our contribution about anything in the town

[2:25:43] that is interesting and they it will air on current TV. And so, Roberta knew that

[2:25:47] these researchers were coming to town to look at our shipwreck that's right out

[2:25:50] here in the yard. And so she alerted them and Chad came and Casey came and

[2:25:55] made this video about our shipwreck. So we can I just thought it would be fun if

[2:25:59] we could watch these videos from time to time to know what the that's happening

[2:26:02] with the government access channel. >> Sure.

[2:26:06] » So roll it Katie. [laughter]

[2:26:21] Mom over there.

[2:26:47] While she's trying to figure that out, I will say that um we are always looking

[2:26:52] for ideas. So, if if you come across anything that you think that the

[2:26:55] community would like to know about wi within maged. Um I know she's working on

[2:26:59] one now about beach accesses and kind of the life of a beach access. I working on

[2:27:04] one about beach nourishment. I think the mayor was interviewed for that one. Is

[2:27:07] that right? So, if you know any ideas that people are willing to share, we'd

[2:27:11] love to hear them and could possibly get it made into a little video.

[2:27:16] » Actually, I was interviewed for the beach access.

[2:27:18] » You were? Oh, okay. You were for that one as well.

[2:27:21] » Yeah. Okay. So, >> I'm excited to see

[2:27:24] » I don't know when those are coming out. I know he was working on production of

[2:27:27] the beach nourishment one. >> Okay.

[2:27:30] » Just this week. Okay. >> Yeah. Good.

[2:27:32] » Yeah.

[2:27:40] This was 1978. Before that,

[2:28:05] 197

[2:28:25] and they're going to record within particular narrative in relation

[2:28:32] to which the US service report

[2:28:51] a number of years ago we had a student do an assignment on this and we can look

[2:28:55] at the different

[2:28:58] canlate

[2:29:03] insurance

[2:29:12] 500 to 900

[2:29:26] back in 2016. We

[2:29:38] and you're walking around.

[2:29:54] The purpose of it is

[2:30:00] that

[2:30:05] we have a drill that

[2:30:10] shows us how well

[2:30:23] this a whole series of benefits. I mean, how do you get to

[2:30:30] North Carolina?

[2:30:52] By the way,

[2:31:05] looking at it now

[2:31:20] making it really difficult. talking about

[2:31:46] curious

[2:31:50] experiment. to come up with

[2:32:03] you have

[2:32:13] United States

[2:32:20] of Virginia.

[2:32:28] » Yeah. >> Not a funding request. [laughter]

[2:32:33] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[2:32:36] » Yeah. Very good. Thank you. Anything else?

[2:32:42] » Not for me. >> Okay, Commissioner Lambert.

[2:32:45] » Oh, I'm so sorry. I am happy 4th of July to everyone this weekend, especially our

[2:32:49] EMS and public works, police, fire, you guys are all working, so a lot of people

[2:32:54] can be off. So, thank you so much. >> Yeah, absolutely.

[2:32:56] » Absolutely. Commissioner Sanders. >> Yeah, it's great.

[2:32:59] » Nothing else. >> Okay, great.

[2:33:02] Uh, that brings us to the mayor's agenda. Um, and there was nothing listed

[2:33:06] in the published agenda, but I did want to um to say a couple of things. Um, one

[2:33:12] I want to u add to, uh, Commissioner Lambert's wish for a safe and happy

[2:33:18] fourth on everyone's part. Um, so, um, I want to give a legislative

[2:33:24] update. Um we've reported several times on activities of the legislature um and

[2:33:31] the town's efforts to um have some policy impact on a couple of

[2:33:36] things. Um as well as some appropriations requests that the town

[2:33:41] had. Um you're probably aware if you read the news that the state finally um

[2:33:47] has presented a budget uh a final budget. Um and uh I understand that they

[2:33:54] hope to vote on that today. Um and so uh the town had several appropriations

[2:34:01] request um in um one of those is in the budget which is $400,000 for um uh our

[2:34:12] um public safety command center. Um and uh so that's that's good news. Um

[2:34:18] assuming that budget gets passed and and um

[2:34:23] there is the opportunity uh for additional appropriations uh going

[2:34:28] forward. Uh the understanding from our consultants in Raleigh that um possibly

[2:34:34] even in August they may come and um and uh adopt some riders to the budget. And

[2:34:41] so there's still hope for our waterline replacement and some other things. Um

[2:34:46] but nonetheless, um $400,000 is a is a significant win for the for the town. Um

[2:34:53] we also had a a couple of policy uh wins. Um [clears throat] one that I'll

[2:34:58] site um and that was House Bill 162, which um was also uh voted on by the

[2:35:06] Senate and is going to the governor for signature. Um that was the one that was

[2:35:12] the bill that would have stripped away our um ability to set parking standards

[2:35:18] uh in the town. Um we uh this was a focus of one of our visits to the

[2:35:24] legislature. Um we talked to the bill sponsors. Uh we talked to our senator

[2:35:30] Bobby Hannig um about this and ultimately with a lot of back and forth

[2:35:36] between our consultants and the board and the staff um there was an amendment

[2:35:42] to that bill which exempted the KA counties. Um I guess on the basis that

[2:35:47] the KA counties are where the resort communities are which are very much like

[2:35:51] ours and have the issues that we describe to them. Uh, nonetheless,

[2:35:56] regardless of how they decided uh uh on that uh we are exempted from that those

[2:36:03] those um that and we will maintain our parking standards which is which is

[2:36:08] good. Um there was another bill um that we worked on that would have mandated a

[2:36:16] number of things um like um accessory dwelling units and others. um that bill

[2:36:23] was modified and we worked on that um with a population threshold that we

[2:36:29] would be exempted from. I'm not sure the status of that bill. I don't I'm not

[2:36:33] sure that that one has been voted on uh yet. Um but assuming that our amendment

[2:36:38] uh stays in place, then we would also um so um I uh yesterday um Whitney

[2:36:46] Christensen, her her lobbyist, uh called me. she was running between meetings and

[2:36:52] she said she'd be sending the email later, which she did. Um, but she wanted

[2:36:57] to let us know that she'd seen the budget uh yesterday morning and that her

[2:37:02] $400,000 was in there and she was very excited about that. And so so in a brief

[2:37:06] call, but um uh she was very complimentary of the

[2:37:11] town of Nags Head and our board and our staff. Um you know, she said that all of

[2:37:18] their clients get the same issues flagged for them. Um but Nagad rolls up

[2:37:25] its sleeves and goes to work and believes that the town can have an

[2:37:29] impact. Um and it does. And so um to the extent that Nagsad has success, it is

[2:37:37] due in part to uh the work that they do but also the work that we do. Um and

[2:37:44] this board has been very engaged in this. And so that's and that's that's

[2:37:48] great. Um and it paid off. So I just wanted to I just wanted to pass that on.

[2:37:55] Um that brings us to uh close sessions and um I I think we uh need to amend

[2:38:04] this. U we were going to talk about a piece of property John as well. I

[2:38:08] believe in in this. So if you will give us the right reference um for that

[2:38:16] » that one is um this is it's subsection A5.

[2:38:21] » Okay. So, I make a motion that the board enter into close session um to um

[2:38:29] discuss close session minutes and their deposition pursuant to general statute

[2:38:34] 143-318.11a1

[2:38:37] and um to discuss a piece of property which I don't have the address for

[2:38:44] um but it's it's adjacent to our parking lot across from the Epstein beach access

[2:38:52] and um in accordance with general statute 143-318.11a5.

[2:38:58] Um so I make that motion. Is there a second?

[2:39:01] » Second. >> Have a motion and a second. All in favor

[2:39:03] signify by saying I. >> I opposed. All right. Board will be in

[2:39:07] close session.

[2:39:13] Okay. The board has returned to open session. Mr. Lighty, will you please

[2:39:17] report on the close session? >> Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, the board did

[2:39:20] approve close session minutes and took action to open certain ones and to keep

[2:39:23] others sealed in accordance with the disposition schedule, but no other

[2:39:27] actions were taken. >> Okay, very good. Uh, is there any other

[2:39:30] business to come before the board?

[2:39:35] Uh, in that case, a and we do not need a midmon meeting. So, a motion to adjurnn

[2:39:39] would be in order. >> So, moved. I

[2:39:41] » have a motion and a is there a second? >> Second.

[2:39:44] » I have a motion and a second. All in favor say I.

[2:39:47] » I opposed. Thank you.

Board of Commissioners Meeting

Agenda

Transcript