On the agenda: Surf City 10/15/2026 - October 15, 2026 — flock camera (Oct 15)

TOWN OF SURF CITY
October 15, 2026
WORK SESSION AGENDA

Agenda
6:00PM / Thursday, October 15, 2026
Surf City Municipal Complex, 214 W. Florence Way
Watch Virtually: www.youtube.com/townofsurfcity
Council Present:
Teresa B. Batts, Mayor
Hugh Cannady, Mayor ProTem
John Koloski, Councilman
Alicia Hawley, Councilwoman
Andy Pleil, Councilman
Trudy Solomon, Councilwoman
Staff Present:
Kyle Breuer, Town Manager
Brett DeSelms, Town Attorney
Carla Citarelli, Town Clerk
Bill Nas, Police Chief
Chris Houser, Police Captain
Heath Collins, Fire Battalion Chief
Jeremy Smith, Community Development Director
Chris Wright, IT Specialist
Melissa Moore, Finance Director
Frank Sidoti, Parks, Recreation and Tourism Director
Bella Larson, Parks, Recreation and Tourism Deputy Director
Call to Order – Mayor Batts
Invocation – Councilwoman Solomon
Pledge- Councilman Koloski
Introductions & Welcome – Mayor Batts
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA – Motion to adopt the agenda was made by Mr. Koloski,

seconded by Ms. Solomon, all in favor, motion carried.
MAYOR'S REMARKS We ask that all in attendance please set your cell phones to silent or vibrate mode. The Council offers
the public an opportunity to speak during the meeting. Speakers will be acknowledged in the order in
which they sign up to speak Groups of individuals speaking on the same topic will need to pick an
individual speaker to represent the group as a whole. Speakers will address the Council from the
speaker’s podium and will begin their remarks by stating their name and address. The public comment
period is designed so that The Council can hear from you. The public comment period is not a time for
individuals to address matters that the Board does not have control over. In order to maintain
decorum, the following rules will be strictly enforced:
1.
Citizens will address all comments to the Board as a whole and not one individual
councilmember
2.
Each speaker or group representative is limited to 3 minutes. At the end of the 3 minutes, you
should stop speaking and return to your seat.
3.
Discussions between citizen speakers and members of the audience will not be allowed. Likewise,
public comment is not intended to require the Board to answer any questions. Your questions, if there
are any, may be addressed at the end of the meeting by the council during their closing comments or the
matter may be referred to the Town Manager for follow-up.
4.
Members of the public are prohibited from engaging in applause, hooting, hissing or other loud
exchanges.
5.
Any comments where the primary purpose is intended to promote a business or candidacy are not
allowed.
These rules are necessary to maintain decorum in this meeting and are based on the Council's adopted
Rules of Procedure.

PUBLIC COMMENTS - Citizens have an opportunity to address the Council for no more
than three minutes per speaker.
Melissa Brandt, CEO of Onslow Coastal Alliance. She thanked the Town. She moved here from
North Dakota and loves it here, especially the community. She wanted to speak about their
mission and strategic plan. There is a lot of work to be done. They have launched a new website
which she built. There are 6 municipalities in the county. Healthy growth and development is
important and she is asking to help the Town. She came to introduce herself and would like to
speak to each member individually.
Andrew Lemancks, 204 W. Craftsman Way – He thanked Mr. Pleil for responding to their
petition. He and his wife were hoping for a temporary ability to continue their market until the
text amendment went through. They were not happy with the meeting with Mr. Smith last month.
They would like to find a way to operate temporarily. In addition, he has sent a report via email
regarding flock cameras. He believes that Chief Nas misled the council as the technology is not
secure. All companies care about is getting their money. In the contracts, Towns and police are
not allowed to take them down. He urged the council to go back and review the contract.
Town Council Work Plan Items:
1.

Facilities Expansion Project Update – Kyle Breuer, Town Manager, give an update on the
Public Utilities Building, phase 2, which will house utility equipment and operations.
Tomorrow, they will begin preparation for the building pads, A & B. On October 30,

concrete is scheduled for the buildings. The week of November 9, the steel should begin
erection. Underground utilities installation is scheduled for the week of November 16. That
same week, the concrete pad for building C will be in. They will continue coordination
through Thanksgiving for further utility installation. Final billing for Station 25 and the
Public Utilities Building, phase one will be submitted in the next week. They have done
some preliminary work on the community center update but have more design to consider.
2.

NC Department of Transportation Update – Trevor Carroll and Michelle Howe from NC
DOT gave a presentation to update the Town on current traffic conditions and those
planned. He began with a Division 3 overview, on behalf of board member Landon
Zimmer, who is very involved in the community. Division 3 serves 6 counties. The longterm goals are to reduce congestion on the island from north and south, relocate
pedestrian facilities within the roundabout.
They have created Projects Near Me on their website so the public can search and view
projects. R5899, the project at Watts Landing design is almost complete, and they are
planning to receive bids on it April 2027, with the project complete by the summer of 2029.
Another important project is R5900 at NC 50 & 210. It ties into another study to see what
they can do to improve the conditions at this intersection. They have received the Town’s
request to accelerate a portion of the project which would extend the turn lane.
HS2603 is a project they were able to use safety funds for.
The Surf City Roundabout Feasibility Study, concentrating on the island side roundabout.
There was conversation about removing the pedestrian crosswalks from the circle. He have
statistics and data on the average daily traffic, as it continues to grow every year. The
ramp metering did not score in statewide or regional tiers but may in the division. He gave
information about the study and the information they found.
Ms. Batts said the Town appreciates the relationship with Division 3, as they are very
responsive. She asked if NCDOT will move forward with permanent fencing for the island
roundabout. The cattle gate there now has helped eliminate that safety concern. She also
said maybe the Town would be willing to put in the sidewalk along N. Topsail Dr. if that
would help make that decision. Mr. Carroll said they would take that into consideration
and respond soon.
Ms. Batts also mentioned the flagging and asked if there were any benefits from it. Mr.
Cannady said he did not see any benefit from it. Mr. Breuer said they only have subjective
reviews that varied greatly.
Regarding the traffic light on the bridge, Mr. Carroll said the test was a good idea, but
they did not see any benefit from it, and they do not recommend continuing that. They
received mixed reviews.
Mr. Pleil said the limitation was that it was a static model that didn’t take into account the
volume. It also had an impact on those traveling south as it also stopped that traffic. He
also said there is a point in which nothing we can do will help which is about 1195 cars an
hour. He doesn’t believe the idea of putting a through lane going from south to north at the
roundabout will work because the traffic starts at the Y intersection where S. Shore and S.
Topsail meet.
The DOT will continue to collaborate. However, they are in agreement there is a tipping
point in which nothing can help.
Ms. Hawley asked about the timeline of expediting the left turn lane from Hwy. 210 to Hwy.

50. Mr. Carroll is hoping by January or February he can answer the question.
Ms. Batts asked about the bridge sweeping contract that is expiring. Mr. Carroll said it is
paused until they come up with a solution. Mr. Breuer asked if the Town can continue the
consideration of the current contract in which the Town continues to sweep the bridge
twice a week and the NC DOT reimburses the Town approximately 15k per year. Ms. Batts
and Ms. Hawley reiterated the safety of keeping the bridge clean.
Ms. Batts asked about the possibility of having pedestrians yield to cars on the mainland
side by adding a pedestrian activated signal or something similar. The NCDOT will
consider it.
3.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee Update – Jeremy Smith, Community Development
Director gave an update on the plans. The survey closed recently with a 6% return of
response. The consultant has the results and will have it ready for the open house on 10/29.
The steering committee will meet again on 10/28. Roundabout recommendations will come
out as part of the update.

4.

Multiuse Path and Electric Bicycle Regulations- Mr. Breuer gave an update on the
ordinance that will be presented to council. The Town hosted an open house at the end of
September which had a good turnout. The purpose of the meeting was to get feedback from
citizens. He went over what was covered in the meeting and gave the council that
information that was received from participants. Next steps include presenting the council
with the draft ordinance.
Ms. Batts thanked Mr. Breuer for the meeting and also the MUP committee, including Mr.
Damien Buchanan, the chair.
Ms. Hawley asked how fast a regular bike can go. Mr. Breuer said it doesn’t matter what
device you’re on; you’ll still be limited by speed. It was noted that most expert riders will
still ride in the traffic lane.
Mr. Cannady said they may need to determine some of the slower areas once the path is in
place.
There was more discussion about education, especially for children about safety.
Mr. Pleil said he believes bridge enforcement will be the biggest obstacle. He also
mentioned the danger of skateboarding. He wants to continue to encourage bike riders to
use the bike lanes rather than the multiuse path.
Mr. Buchanan spoke and thanked the council for the feedback. He is hoping that this may
help change behavior because the ordinance will limit speed and some do want to go
faster.
The council all agreed we are moving in the right direction. They will get the draft
ordinance prior to the work session in which it will be presented.

5.

Temporary Uses Discussion – Mr. Smith presented. At the request of Town Council, staff
have placed this item on the agenda to discuss the Town’s current regulations governing
temporary uses and temporary events. The discussion is intended to provide Council an
opportunity to review how temporary uses are currently regulated under the Zoning
Ordinance, including permitting requirements, duration and frequency, location, and
distinctions between Town-sponsored events and privately operated temporary uses.
Not all temporary uses require a permit, such as a seasonal pumpkin patch, Christmas
Tree lot, or a storage container on a private lot, although there are standards for those

uses. There are a number of temporary uses that do require permitting. An application is
submitted through a portal. Types of uses that do require a permit and are identified in the
ordinance include commercial circuses, carnivals and fairs. Those are limited to 2
consecutive weeks in a calendar year. Other things such as a car show or RV sale would be
limited to 3 consecutive days twice per calendar year. Outdoor displays such as seasonal
displays by Walmart or Lowes do not require permits but are monitored for safety.
Mr. Smith said they do not catch all temporary uses, and some get through without a
permit. Many are temporary in nature and happen quickly. Those are zoning violations.
They do get complaints and address them but if the code enforcement officer does not see it
in action, he cannot issue violation. The department has received a text amendment
application to propose farmer’s market use. They will present that to the planning board in
November, which would then be before the council in December. Currently, we do not have
any accommodations in the ordinance for a traditional weekly vendor’s market. The
administrator can assess and allow a one-off situation in certain circumstances.
Mr. Pleil asked for clarification of what is proposed. As proposed, Mr. Smith said it would
be an annual permit that would allow weekly setup. He has explored how other
communities handle temporary uses in their ordinances. This would be a variation on 5.14
or add it to the use table.
Mr. Smith added that the Town special events are exempt from the permitting. There was
discussion about the process of going through the Technical Review Committee.
He spoke about the factors to be considered for temporary uses, such as safety, parking,
adjacent businesses affected, site compliance. It was also clarified that currently, The
Technical Review Committee has the authority to approve a permit, and the Community
Development Department has the authority to enforce.
Mr. Breuer added clarification that the Special Event Committee is not the same as the
Technical Review Committee.
Mr. Pleil asked about the fee for the permit, which was said to be $55.
Ms. Hawley asked if in the case of a strip mall environment, the owner of the business
would be applying on behalf of a farmer’s market? Her concern was to determine who is
responsible in case something happens. Who carries the insurance that would cover an
incident? Also, are we getting a guarantee from the property owner since many businesses
lease their space? Mr. Smith noted that we require owner acknowledgement via email or
letter. If an owner gives permission, the burden ultimately lies on them. If there is a
violation, it is sent to the property owner.
Mr. Cannady questioned the use of the term farmer’s market. As it is written, 25% of the
vendors must sell a product from agricultural uses. He feels it is unrealistic to expect
someone to enforce that. He asked if there is a clear path to permit these things. Mr. Smith
said there is confusion around it, and staff would like it to be clarified.
Mr. Pleil said looking through 5.14, there are variables. He’d like to consider consistency
regarding occasions and durations. He would like to see some added rationale as to the
uses. Mr. Smith said he agreed and would be looking at the entire section of that ordinance
to determine if it needs updating.
6.

Committee Appointments – Carla Citarelli, Town Clerk explained there is one opening on
the Beautification & Enhancement Committee. The Council has been sent the 3
applications that were submitted and are being asked to appoint a new member.

Unanimously, by ballot, the council chose to appoint Lacy McFadden. This will be added
to the November 3 consent agenda for a vote.
7.

Jones Onslow EMC Land Trade – Kyle Breuer, Town Manager presented. As a part of the
Ph. 2 utility subsurface irrigation project, a land transfer was negotiated with the JonesOnslow Electric Membership Corporation for the Town to receive land adjacent to the
mainland lift station along Aldrich Blvd for the conveyance of land located at town-owned
property at Juniper Swamp. The parcel located at Juniper Swamp is approximately 2.9
acres, is located adjacent to NC50, and will include an easement between the parcel and
the existing Carolina Power and Light 100' easement (DB 208 PG 20 - Onslow County
Registry). Both parties agree to perform the transfer and there is no monetary exchange
involved. Staff are requesting Council Approval to authorize the Town Manager to execute
the necessary deed and plat for conveyance.
The land at Juniper Swamp is not intended for future use. Mr. Pleil asked if there is any
timber on the Juniper Swamp area and there is not.
Specific Action Requested: It is requested that the Town Council consider approval of the
trade as presented. A motion to approve the trade was made by Mr. Koloski, seconded by
Ms. Hawley, all in favor, motion carried.

8.

Coastal Storm Risk Management Appraisal Services – Mr. Breuer explained. Following the
execution of the Project Partnership Agreement for the Surf City Coastal Storm Risk
Management project, easement acquisition by the Town is required to follow federal
standards (Uniform Appraisal Standards for Land Acquisition). A Request for Proposals
was issued on August 31, 2026, and proposals were received by October 2, 2026. Two
proposals were submitted based on the request with one being disqualified due to it being
submitted late. The qualifications of the submitted proposal were provided to the US Army
Corps of Engineers and preliminarily have been approved. The Corps is developing a
Statement of Work which will be used to provide guidance to the appraiser. Due to the
sensitivity of timing for this process, he is requesting that the Council authorize him to
execute a contract, subject to staff and attorney review, for this professional service.
According to the purchasing policy, Council must approve any service contract that
exceeds $90,000.00. Based on pricing and the total amount of appraisals that will need to
be obtained (38), the total amount is anticipated to exceed the purchasing threshold. The
total if they had to get 38 appraisals would be $247,000. It would be credited to the total
obligation that the Town has.
Specific Action Requested: It is requested that the Town Council consider approval of the
contract service as presented. Motion to approve the contract service was made by Mr.
Cannady, seconded by Mr. Koloski, all in favor, motion carried.

9.

Budget Ordinance Amendment Fund 81 – Melissa Moore, Finance Director presented
items 9 and 10. The Budget Ordinance Amendment is to transfer funds from Fund 81 into
Fund 57 - Beach Nourishment Project Fund. Fund 57 was created solely for the Coastal
Storm Risk Management project. Currently, certain pre-construction expenditures are
necessary to prepare the Town of Surf City to perform in accordance with the Project
Partnership Agreement. These include pre-project design costs, real estate (easement)
acquisition, legal, and other expenditures. At this time, the projected amount will cover
these expenses to the best of our knowledge based on communication with the US Army
Corps of Engineers. Future expenditure needs will be planned, and a transfer will need to
occur, it is expected that this will need to happen closer to contract solicitation.

Specific Action Requested: It is requested that the Town Council consider approval of the
budget ordinance amendment as presented. Motion to approve the budget ordinance
amendment made by Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Hawley, all in favor, motion carried.
10. Budget Ordinance Amendment Fund 57- The fund which will receive the funds from 81.
This fund was created solely to accommodate the Coastal Storm Risk Management Project.
Specific Action Requested: It is requested that the Town Council consider approval of the
budget ordinance amendment as presented. Motion to approve the budget ordinance
amendment made by Mr. Koloski, seconded by Ms. Solomon, all in favor, motion carried.
11. Budget Ordinance Amendment Fund 80 – This will now be changed to Fund 43 after
advisement from the UNC School of Government. Ms. Moore said the Town is proceeding
with the purchase of a new ladder fire truck for the Fire Department at a total cost of
$2,385,610. The truck is currently anticipated to be completed and delivered in
approximately 18 months. In order to issue a purchase order and properly encumber the
funds for this purchase, a budget amendment is necessary to appropriate the $2,385,610
within the current fiscal year budget. The appropriation will allow Finance to issue the
required purchase order and establish the encumbrance for the purchase. Respectively
request approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $2,385,610 to provide the
necessary budgetary authority to issue the purchase order for the ladder fire truck.
Mr. Pleil about the signed contract that had nothing in it about a purchase order. Mr.
Breuer said they have requested the purchase order to accompany the contract. However,
the purchasing policy does require it for pre audit purposes. At this time, it will be
following through our own process but also accommodating a verbal request from the
vendor. Absent their request, we would still do this.
Mr. Pleil said we have not decided on how to fund it, but it will go into Fund 43. We are
creating this as a budget line so that when we do need it, we will have the BOA to move it.
Council gave consensus.
12. Athletic Facility Use Policy – Frank Sidoti, Parks, Recreation and Tourism Director
presented. Staff are requesting the ability to reserve outdoor Athletic Facilities to the
public and outside organizations. Staff recommends a $40.00 per hour (each) charge for
our current Athletic Fields, $20.00 per hour (each) for our Sand Volleyball Courts and
$10.00 per hour (each) for our Tennis Courts and outdoor Basketball Court. Staff will
continue to prioritize TOSC programming and special events, followed by resident use. The
PR&T Department anticipates the need to hire more staff as more fields come online and
the Town increases their quality of athletic amenities. Community Center - Grass Field per
hour - $40.00; Sand Volleyball Court per hour - $20.00; Tennis Court per hour - $10.00;
Rescheduling Fee - $5.00
Council gave consensus to move forward.
13. Chapter 17 Ordinance Update – Mr. Breuer explained. Certain provisions within Chapter
17 of the Municipal Code direct the regulation of parking. Specifically, parking within
town rights of way are not permissible unless designated on the official parking map. The
Town Manager can modify the parking map from time to time as conditions become
present to make said modifications. Recently, it was brought up through public comments
that restricted areas outside of the paid parking season may be desirable parking locations
for recreational activities such as fishing. The intent of the ordinance revision would be to
allow the Town Manager to designate certain restrictions, through signage, for

appropriate parking allowances. It would be the intent to post signage describing the
parameters to said allowances only through defined times. It is requested that Council
consider adding language to Chapter 17 to direct the Town Manager to effectuate certain
rules and document these through the Town's official parking map.
Mr. Pleil asked if this would fall under 17.103 as temporary relief. Mr. Breuer said yes that
is the idea. We would not create paid parking spaces. There would be signage outlining the
exceptions. If it becomes an issue, we still have mechanisms to remove the allowances.
Consensus was given.
14. Legislative Priorities – Mr. Breuer updated the council on the legislative priorities.
Annually, the Town develops legislative priorities to communicate with state and federal
delegates. Having a concise and agreed upon list assists in directing legislation and
funding for the Town of Surf City. Certain items may come off the list and additional items
may be added. It is requested that Town Council review the DRAFT list of priorities for
both levels. This list is not exhaustive and is developed through general operational needs,
direct allocation requests, and prior Council directives.
Mr. Pleil mentioned AI Data Farms and the Flock cameras and the role of local
governments.
Mr. Breuer asked if that is something council would like him to investigate. Mr. Pleil said
there is research ongoing to inform decisions at the state level with the role local
governments will have to zone regarding that development. The flock cameras are also at
that level so we should monitor that.
Consensus to move forward.
15. September Financial Update – Ms. Moore gave the update for the statement of revenues
and expenditures. The Finance Department requested it be incorporated into the minutes.
Mr. Pleil asked in her opinion, “Was she comfortable how we are tracking over the first
quarter?” She said yes. Mr. Breuer said there has been some concern given to department
heads regarding fuel budgets. Mr. Pleil also asked about overtime that had been reduced in
the budget. Mr. Breuer said they will be moving money for both the Fire Department and
Police Department to cover overtime. Ms. Moore said both had closely consumed what was
budgeted.
16. Council Meeting Time – Ms. Citarelli stated that she had been asked to bring this back to
the council for an evaluation and discussion on the possibility of making changes to
meeting times.
Ms. Batts said she has heard remarks in favor of moving the work session to an earlier time
in the day and leaving the regular meeting at 6pm.
Mr. Cannady said he feels we have 2 formal meetings a month at this time and he is in
favor of changing the time of the work session.
Ms. Hawley said mornings would be an issue for a couple of council members, but we
could perhaps move it to early afternoon.
Mr. Koloski said the reason the council moved the meetings was that the public has more of
an opportunity to attend. However, the people are not here now. He would prefer it to go
back to what they were before.
Ms. Solomon suggested trying to keep one in the evening and one during the day.

Mr. Pleil would like to leave it the way it is now as he doesn’t think it makes any difference.
Ms. Hawley said she would propose leaving the Tuesday meeting at 6pm and the work
session at 4pm. She could also do 3pm.
Mr. Pleil said parents will likely be busy, as well as those who work 9-5. Ms. Solomon said
senior citizens are likely to attend during daylight hours.
Ms. Hawley said there is not a good time to accommodate parents.
Final decision was to keep the first Tuesday council meeting at 6pm, change the work
session to 3pm on the third Thursday.
ADJOURNMENT - Motion to adjourn made by Ms. Hawley, seconded by Mr. Koloski, all in
favor, motion carried. 8:51PM

E-Bike Regulations
and
MUP Ordinance
Community
Meeting
RESULTS
BUILDING CONNECTIONS. SHARING THEM SAFELY.

ATTENDEES: 45-50
SUBMISSIONS: 44

Community Meeting Overview
Permitted Devices: Which devices should be allowed on the MUP?
Speed Limits: What speeds are appropriate, and where should
reduced-speed zones be considered?
Rules of the Path: Which operating rules and signage should be
prioritized?
Education and Enforcement: What behaviors warrant education,
warnings, or enforcement?
Appropriate Facilities: Where should different devices operate on
the MUP, sidewalk, bike lane, or street?
Open Feedback: What additional concerns, recommendations,
or opportunities should the Town consider?

Station 1:
Who can use the MUP?

Station 2: How fast?

Did seeing the speeds
change your opinion?

20mph

Yes- I would choose a
HIGHER speed.

10mph

2

15mph

20 No- My opinion stayed
the same.

8

Yes- I would choose a
LOWER speed.

Station 3:
Who has the Right
of Way?

Station 4:
Safe Use & Enforcement

SCENARIO A
A rider is traveling 17 mph on an open path with no one
nearby. The posted speed limit is 10 mph.

17 out of 39 suggested
Education / Warning

SCENARIO B
A rider passes a family at high speed without warning.

28 out of 40 suggested
Warning to Strong enforcement
needed

SCENARIO C
A rider travels 23 mph on an empty MUP. The posted
speed limit is 20mph.

17 out of 39 suggested
No enforcement needed

SCENARIO D
A first-time user doesn't know that an audible warning is
required before passing.

21 out of 37 suggested
Mostly education needed

SCENARIO E
A rider repeatedly ignores a posted lower-speed safety
zone.

24 out of 38 suggested
Strong enforcement needed

Station 5:
Where Does Each
Device Belong?

Station 6:
What Did We Miss?

What Did We Miss?

KEEP IT
CHANGE IT
WE MISSED IT
MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS...

Next Steps

Key Themes
Establish Permitted Devices — Regulating E-Bikes by speed and not class.
Evaluate Speed Limits — Consider an appropriate maximum speed of 20mph and
establish lower-speed safety zones at the bridge, Island Town Center, Sidewalks &
Congested Areas.
Develop Clear Pathway Rules — Prioritize pedestrian right-of-way, safe passing practices,
and consistent expectations for all users.
Create an Education and Signage Plan — Develop clear, easy-to-understand signage
and educational materials to communicate pathway rules.
Establish an Enforcement Approach — Consider how to address first-time violations,
unsafe behavior, and repeat offenses using a graduated enforcement penalty system.
Review Identified Safety Concerns — Evaluate locations marked during the mapping
activity and identify potential improvements.
Review Manufacturer Safety Recommendations — Use manufacturer guidelines for
safety seats, helmets, and other equipment to help inform safe operation and potential
MUP regulations.

E-Bike Regulations
and
MUP Ordinance
Community
Meeting
BUILDING CONNECTIONS. SHARING THEM SAFELY.