[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.