Area of Jink’s Creek approved for dredge cost study

The board’s decision does not guarantee that the dredging will occur, but the proposals will give property owners an estimated cost, with additional information, if dredging were able to be done. The town must receive three copies of engineers RFQ’s by 2:00 p.m. on Monday, June 5.

Prior to the board’s decision, there was a proposal sent to Town Administrator Daisy Ivey that was sent by “Undersigned Property Owners along Jinks Creek” on April 24.

In the proposal, the reasons for pursuing the dredging project were to enjoy deep-water access activities like boating and kayaking, and to stop and reverse the filling in of silt and muck within Jinks Creek.

“The dredging we propose would provide for a reasonable navigable channel [as determined by an engineer] in the creek, so that there would still be shallow water at low tide for wildlife and birds to feed and no impact on the existing marsh grass and vegetation that we all enjoy,” the property owners proposal stated.

Weatherspoon told the board how passionate she is about paddleboarding and said that the fill in has limited her ability to paddleboard.

“Over the years, Jinks Creek has continued to fill in,” she said at the meeting. “I mean, almost drastically over the last few years.”

Weatherspoon and Simmons told the board that the scope of the dredging project would involve approximately 97 parcels. They noted the dredging would also include three canals between Duneside Drive and Asheville Street.

“Something else that we do know is that deep water access can enhance property values and increase marketability of properties,” Weatherspoon said.

She explained that the project had been looked at before and that she wanted to see for herself what property owners wanted, so she took matters into her own hands.

“I personally wanted to know how people felt about this project,” she said.

Weatherspoon brought together a group and started talking to property owners about the dredging project.

“...Some of us mailed out surveys, some of us emailed surveys, some of us went door to door [and] delivered surveys,” she said. “Any way that we possibly could to try and saturate the market and get the best response that we possible could.”

Weatherspoon said out of the 97 surveys given out, one to each parcel affected, they received 76 back. She said that 62 respondents were in favor of the project. Some felt very strongly about the project, she added, while others just wanted more information or weren’t able to swing the costs at the moment.

“What those surveys don’t tell you is how enthusiastic some of these property owners are about this project,” she said.

Twelve of the responses showed opposition to the project, however, six of those 12 own what are considered “non-buildable” lots. It was noted in the survey results that one lot is owned by someone who owns several of the “non-buildable” lots.

The proposal also pointed out that there are six vacant parcels along the east side of Driftwood Drive that are considered “non-buildable” and would be impacted by the project.

“Our group does not believe that there would be any value added to these lots by the dredging project and, as such, these lots should be exempted from assessment for any project costs (per NCGS Section 160A218(3),” the proposal states.

“Provided these owners are willing to execute a restriction on development, lifts, etc. going forward. All impacted lots would be assessed by the amount of frontage abutting the project (per NCGS Section 160A-218(1)),” the proposal continued.

If commissioners agree to exempt those six lots, the owners of the lots have told the other property owners that they would show support for the project. That would put 68 of the 97 survey respondents in favor of the dredging, Weatherspoon said.

“Eventually you have to pay for it all,” Mayor Pro-Tem Dean Walters reminded the property owners.

Walters noted there will also be maintenance and upkeep.

The property owners expect the cost of the project to range anywhere from $4,000,000 to $6,000,000. They also said that the project could qualify for partial funding through the State of North Carolina Shallow Draft Navigation Fund.

“This would be eligible for the Shallow Draft Fund, which would pay two-thirds if accrued then the property owners would pay a third of that cost,” Ivey said.

To receive that funding, Ivey explained that the town will have to hire an engineer to look at the area, design the project and put it out for bid to get an estimated cost. If the project was doable and cost were to exceed that $6 million, the property owners could decide not to do the project, she said.

She said the cost, according to an engineer she spoke with, to have the engineer design, assess and price estimate the project could be about $75,000, however that is not a firm price.

The town would have to pay the cost of the engineer and their work if the property owners backed out, but if they were to agree to the cost and do the project, the town would be reimbursed by the affected property owners.

The project has not been looked at by an engineer yet.

Prior to the items discussion and vote, Commissioner Wayne Rowell disclosed that he lives on Asheville Street and offered to recuse himself from the vote due to conflict of interest. Mayor Debbie Smith, who lives on Duneside Drive, and Commissioner Tom Athey said they may have to also recuse themselves from voting because of a similar situation.

Town Attorney Brian Edes told the board that since the project is at such an early stage, he said that this specific vote taken would not put any of them in a direct conflict of interest because they aren’t sure if the project will even be a possibility.

“I don’t believe at this stage on this vote you would have a direct financial conflict of interest,” Edes said.

He explained that if the assessment is done, if the dredging is a possibility and if they were to vote on if to go forward or not with the project, then there would be a conflict of interest and some board members may need to be recused.

“At this point, for lack of a better phrase, it’s a scoping type of thing just to see if it’s feasible,” he said.

He did tell Rowell that he still had the option to request for recusal for this vote, however, it was not needed. Rowell stayed with the board and voted.

The project overview, as well as information on the submittal process can be found directly at https://oibgov.com/files/documents/RFQforEngineeringDesignServicesFulbid2961 316051123-120437PMa.pdf

For any questions regarding the proposed project, email Town Administrator Daisy Ivey at daisy@oibgov.com.