Election Results

Holden Beach Election Results

Through the Years …

2017
Candidate
                            Position                     Term                  Votes
Alan Holden                          Mayor                          Fifth                   201      (unopposed)

Mike Sullivan                        Commissioner            First                   228
Patricia Kwiatkowski          Commissioner            First                   177
Joseph Butler                         Commissioner           First                   168
John Fletcher                         Commissioner           Second               168
Peter Freer                             Commissioner           Second               168

2015
Candidate                             Position                     Term                 Votes
Alan Holden                           Mayor                          Fifth                  233      (unopposed)

Ashley Royal                          Commissioner            First                  236
Peter Freer                             C
ommissioner            First                  228
Kim Isenhour                        
Commissioner           First                   225
John Fletcher                         C
ommissioner            First                  213
Ken Keyser                             Commissioner            Fourth              133

2013
Candidate                             Position                    Term                 Votes
Alan Holden                           Mayor                         Fourth              118      (unopposed)

Ken Keyser                             Commissioner            Third                96
Sandy Miller                          Commissioner            Seventh            91

Sheila Young                          Commissioner            Third                88
Dennis Harrington               Commissioner            Second              86
Regina Gobble Martin          Commissioner            First                  77

2011
Candidate                            Position                       Term               Votes
Alan Holden                          Mayor                           Third                206      (unopposed)

Sheila Young                          Commissioner            Second              182
Don Glander                          Commissioner            Third                 181
Dennis Harrington               Commissioner            First                  168     
(write-in)
Sandy Miller                          Commissioner            Sixth                 154
Ray Lehr                                 Commissioner            Third                145

2009
Candidate                            Position                       Term               Votes
Alan Holden                          Mayor                           Second             233      (unopposed)

Don Glander                          Commissioner             Second             210
Ray Lehr                                 Commissioner             Second             208
Ken Keyser                             Commissioner             Second             201
Sandy Miller                          Commissioner             Fifth                 194
Sheila Young                          Commissioner             First                 183

2007
Candidate                            Position                      Term                Votes
Alan Holden                          Mayor                           First                 312

Sandy Miller                          Commissioner             Fourth             307
Ray Lehr                                Commissioner              First                305
Don Glander                         Commissioner              First                301
Ken Keyser                            Commissioner              First                263
Gary Staley                           Commissioner              Third               231

Central Reach Project

The Project –
.     1) Locally sponsored project
.     2) Included in our Beach Management Plan
      a)
Critical and primary component
.     3) Shoreline storm damage protection, habitat creation and environmental protection
.     4) Perpetuating and providing increased recreation and tourism related opportunities
.     5) Largest
beach nourishment project to date
.       a) Using offshore sand
      b) Project will place approximately 1.31 million cubic yards of sand on the beach strand
      c) Sand will be placed along 4.1 miles of shoreline
.         • Between 240 Ocean Boulevard East to 781 Ocean Boulevard West
.      
d)   Advances the Mean High Water Mark 60 to 80 feet
.     6) Permits are in hand, but they expire December 31, 2017
.       a) North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM)
        • Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
.       b) North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
      c) United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
.     7) Dredging window is restricted between November until April
    8) Town needs to obtain an
Easement Agreement from 486 property owners
.       a) Due to permit and financing requirements
.     9) Town needs to establish a Municipal Service District
.       a) Necessary in order to issue special obligation bonds
.     10) The estimated cost of the project is fifteen (15) million dollars
.       a) Financed with 10-year Special Obligation Bonds
.       b) Pay-go with BPART funds
.       c) FEMA Irene
PW-559 Grant
.       d)
No federal money is currently available
.    11) Town needs to plan on a major nourishment project every ten years

For additional information visit the Town of Holden Beach website » click here
http://www.hbtownhall.com/central-reach-project.html

My Two Cents - CR II

The Central Reach Project, which has been on the back burner for years, is a critical project and from my perspective a clear need. If we were to have a breach in that area, it would make everything west of the breach inaccessible and uninhabitable since no utilities would be provided there.

Know the difference between wants and needs?
One of the most basic concepts of economics is want vs. need.
A need is something you have to have.
. It’s something you can’t do without.
A want is something you would like to have.
.
It’s not absolutely necessary, but it would be a good thing to have.

JULY  2012
Major CAMA permit approved
CAMA Permit #14-02 is issued on July 10, 2012

OCTOBER 2012
Department of the Army Permit #SAW-2012-00286 is issued on October 8, 2012

MARCH 2015
Discussion and Possible Approval of Financial Advisory Services Agreement
Fran Way, Applied Technology and Management (ATM) which is a coastal engineering firm, previously indicated that the Central Reach Project will entail 1.31 million cubic yards of sand over 22,000 feet for the beach strand between 240 OBE to 781 OBW. To get an idea of the scope of the project a standard dump truck holds about 10 cubic yards; so that means we’re talking about 130,000 truckloads. The Town Manager said that the back of the envelope cost for this project would be in excess of thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000). The specialized financial consulting fee of DEC Associates (Defining Emerging Concepts) is $25,000. The funds to pay this fee were included in this year’s budget. The Town has never required this type of service before now. According to David, this is a large scale project and nourishment funding will need to be obtained. Basically if we want to figure out how to pay for this Central Reach Project then this is the way we need to go. Just so you know, this is independent of the costs for the proposed Terminal Groin Project.

A decision was made – Approved

SEPTEMBER 2015
Annual Beach Monitoring Analysis Report –
Fran Way, Applied Technology and Management (ATM)

ATM is a coastal engineering firm hired by the town to do the following:
.     1) Annual monitoring, data collection and reporting
    2) Assess sand erosion
    3) Evaluate nourishment
.     4) FEMA projects cost reimbursement support
.     5) Meet government regulatory permitting conditions

Central Reach Project – This is the BIG one. We already have the permits for the project which will entail 1.31 million cubic yards of sand over 22,000 feet for the beach strand between 240 OBE to 781 OBW. The back of the envelope cost for this project would be in excess of thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000). Just so you know, this is independent of the costs for the proposed Terminal Groin Project. Fran indicated that we should plan on a major nourishment project every ten years.

NOVEMBER 2015
Submitted renewal request for Central Reach Project permit

JANUARY 2016
CAMA Renewal Permit #14-02 is issued on January 19, 2016

FEBRUARY 2016
David requested Board direction and approval to move forward with actions necessary for the construction of the Central Reach Project. The CAMA permit for the Central Reach Project has an expiration date of 31, December 2017 which coincides with the expiration date of the USACE Federal permit. Dredging windows are restricted between November until April.   Permit expiration dates of 31 December 2017 will not allow for conduct of a project in the winter of 2017 – 2018 without obtaining permit extensions.  Permit extensions can be obtained but are not guaranteed nor are there assurances that additional permit conditions won’t be tacked on. If the Board chooses to pursue construction of a project during the winter of 2016 – 2017, the Town must get aggressive with required actions. Town Manager recommended that the Board conduct a Special Workshop in approximately two weeks in order to receive a comprehensive briefing from the Town’s Consulting Coastal Engineer (ATM) and its Financial Advisor (DEC). The Board approved moving forward, scheduling of a Special Meeting in two weeks in a workshop format with the goal of doing the project this November.

MARCH 2016
FEMA Irene PW-559 Grant
The plan is to roll the PW-559 Grant of $447,960 into the Central Reach Project

Board of Commissioners Special Meeting / Friday, March 11th
Central Reach Project Briefing

RESOLUTION 16 – 04
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CONSTRUCTING THE “CENTRAL REACH PROJECT”

WHEREAS, the Town of Holden Beach, North Carolina is primarily a barrier island community bounded by the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway to the north, the Atlantic Ocean to the South, the Shallotte Inlet to the West, and the Lockwood Folly Inlet to the East; and,

WHEREAS, the Town of Holden Beach is in possession of permits necessary to perform beach nourishment for that portion of the beach referred to in the Town’s Beach Management Plan as the Central Reach Project (the “Project”); and

WHEREAS, said permits’ expiration dates and requirements make it necessary to follow a timetable that will provide for beach nourishment during the winter of 2016/2017; and

WHEREAS, the “Project” will represent the largest beach fill project in Holden Beach history and will place up to 1.31 million cubic yards along 4.1 miles of shoreline from 240 Ocean Boulevard East to 781 Ocean Boulevard West; and

WHEREAS, the “Project” requires a series of interrelated, certain and expeditious actions be performed in order to achieve the desired outcome of placing sand on the beach during the requisite environmental window at a cost as yet to be fully determined; and

WHEREAS, actions required to enable placement of sand for the “Project” include but are not limited to development of final engineering designs and specifications, determination and approval of funding by the Holden Beach Board of Commissioners and the Local Government Commission, numerous bidding, contracting and negotiations with prospective contractors, coordination with state/federal agencies in addition to coordination of various relevant administrative actions necessary to make the “Project” a reality; and

WHEREAS, the Town of Holden Beach is desirous of constructing the “Project” for the purposes of storm damage protection, habitat creation and environmental protection in addition to perpetuating and providing increased recreation and tourism related opportunities; and

WHEREAS, the Town’s approved Beach Management Plan has articulated the “Project” as a critical and primary component of the Town of Holden Beach’s strand management strategies for many years; and

WHEREAS, based on current understanding of financial market conditions, geopolitical realities of the dredging industry, recent success of similar beach nourishment projects and low oil prices, it is believed that the timing of the “Project” may be optimal.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Holden Beach that it is in the best interest of the Town of Holden Beach to construct the” Project” as a matter of the highest priority and hereby directs the Town Manager to make all necessary arrangements and take required actions as appropriate by law for its successful completion.

This the 11th day of March, 2016.

An interesting dog and pony show

Christy Ferguson – Shoreline Protection & Recreation Programs Manager

Key takeaways:
    1) Locally sponsored project
    2) Shoreline storm damage protection, habitat creation and environmental protection
.     3) Perpetuating and providing increased recreation and tourism related opportunities
.     4) Largest
beach nourishment project to date
.       a) 31 million cubic yards of sand along 4.1 miles
.       b) B
each strand between 240 OBE to 781 OBW
    5) Included in our Beach Management Plan
.     6) Permits in hand, but they expire December 31, 2017
.     7) Costs are highly variable but projected cost of project is @$15,000,000
      a) Timing of project may be optimal in terms of reducing our costs
.     8) No federal money is currently available

Fran Way – Engineer of Applied Technology and Management (ATM)
ATM is the Town’s consulting coastal engineering firm

Key takeaways:
.     1) Need to maintain storm buffer
    2) Central Reach area is mildly erosional
.     3) Last time we did significant nourishment there was in 2001
    4) USACE data utilized for both the design and for sand sources
    5) Estimated cost of @$15,000,000 is based on a projected cost of @$11.50cy
.       a) The full cost range is from $8.00cy to $25.00cy
      b) Realistic number in the current market is $10.00cy to $15.00cy an all in price
    6) Need to start working on bid package immediately
.     7) Award contract sometime in August
    8) Start project construction sometime in November

Doug Carter –Owner of DEC Associates (Defining Emerging Concepts)
Engaged by the Town to assist in financial planning and raising capital funds for beach nourishment

Key takeaways:
    1) Statues provide limited means to finance beach nourishment
.     2) Presently have favorable conditions to minimize cost
.     3) Presented six (6) options
    4) The preferred option is a Special Obligation Bond
.       a) Most effective way to raise capital and get the project done
.       b) Does not require a voter referendum
.       c) State prescribes must use Municipal Service District (MSD)
.       d) Requires a pledge of taxes and/or fees not levied by the municipality
    5) We would need to have an Interlocal Agreement with the County
.       a) Method to meet state statue requirements
.       b) Revenues are not sufficient to cover debt service
.       c) Only way to bridge the gap of pledged revenues work is to have the County be partners with us
.       d) Interlocal Agreement essentially means that the County would cosign the loan
        • The County would not pay debt service
.     6)
A decision to move forward would have to be made by June

Andrew Carter –son of owner of DEC Associates

Key takeaways:
.     1) We would make down payment of $3,000,000 from BPART account fund
.     2) We would then need to borrow $12,000,000
      a) Ten (10) year loan, that matches the life of the project
.       b) Anticipate a 3.5% interest rate; interest alone would be $2,299,500
.     3) Annual tab would be @$1,665,000
.       a) $500,000 from BPART account fund

      b) @$1,165,000 from new revenue
.     4)
New revenue equates to 9.5 pennies
      a) One penny equals $115,459 this year
.       b) 9.5 X $115,459 = $1,096,861

Ann Hardy – Brunswick County Manager
County Commissioners have committed to assist the beach communities
It was the first time she saw this presentation but thought it was feasible

David Hewett – Town Manager
Combination of pay-go (down payment) and borrowed sources is the best project funding method and would be the soundest financial plan. County involvement will be necessary to accomplish this collateral package for Special Obligation Bond. This has not been done before for beach nourishment. Approach is unique and can be considered trailblazing. This approach requires Board approval to move forward with the actions necessary for the construction of the Central Reach Project. Time is running out which means the Town needs to get really aggressive with our program in order to pull off this project. A number of things need to get done simultaneously to move this project forward and make it happen.

List of actions required:
    1) Development of final engineering designs and specifications
.     2) Town will have to acquire some easements
    3) Execute Interlocal Agreement with the County
.     4) Develop budget to accommodate this project

Project requires a series of interrelated, certain and expeditious actions to be performed in order to achieve the desired outcome of placing sand on the beach during the requisite environmental window at a cost as yet to be fully determined. It is in the best interest of the Town to proceed with the project as a matter of the highest priority and they need to direct the Town Manager to make all necessary arrangements and take required actions for its successful completion.

A decision was made – Approved unanimously

All that means is that this was a vote confirming their intention to continue moving forward with the project. That’s all they agreed to right now. At this time, they have not made a decision whether or not to fund it.

 My Two Cents - CR IIThis is exactly the reason why people have been opposed to spending BPART account money for anything other than beach nourishment.

BPART Fund – Beach Preservation / Access & Recreation / Tourism
Accommodations tax / Occupancy tax generates $1,712,878 annually which funds this account
BPART account fund has @$5,500,000 in it

BPART account funds previously referred to as the “sand fund”
      a)
Many people felt that account was only to be used for sand nourishment
.       b) Apparently paying other expenses is now an acceptable practice
      c) Who knew?

Additional costs associated with seasonal tourism are now charged to the BPART account. The BPART fund has in excess of five (5) million dollars, which has remained fairly constant over the years. What that means is we are spending almost the entire annual income in the same year that it is collected. In other words, we have been depleting the BPART account “sand fund” for all kinds of expenses other than beach nourishment (sand).

The plan is to make a down payment of $3,000,000 with funds from the BPART account. That will reduce the BPART account fund from $5.5 million to only $2.5 million. Although $2.5 million is a lot of money it will go quickly if we have a major storm event.

We also plan to take an additional $500,000 annually from BPART account fund to pay down debt, which will further deplete the BPART funds. Right now we already spend what we take in. Unless we have a significant increase in occupancy tax revenue we do not have enough reserve funds. At the proposed withdrawal rate of $500,00 a year the fund would be completely depleted in less than six (6) years. I’m not an economist but I can balance a check book, the numbers just don’t add up.

Just so you know, this project is designed to only last for ten (10) to fifteen (15) years. So I suppose we would need to do another project then. YIKES!

What they didn’t say is how much this will cost you …

What does this mean to you?
If I understood what they said, then we are looking at a significant increase in our property tax rate
New revenue equates to 9.5 pennies which takes the current tax rate from $.150 to $.245
The tax increase varies based on individual property assessment

                                                            BEFORE                    AFTER
Property assessed value                  $500,000                 $500,000
Rate per $100 value                          $.150                       $.245
Taxes                                                   $750.00                   $1,225.00
Difference                                                                        +$475.00

 $245 per $100,000 of assessed value

 Let’s be perfectly clear about this,

I’m for this project but the numbers are scary!

APRIL 2016
Workshop for project briefing was held on Friday, March 11th. Beach nourishment project will place 1.3 million cubic yards of sand along 4.1 miles of shoreline for the beach strand between 240 OBE to 781 OBW. Project is underway in earnest. Due to permit and financing requirements the Town will need to obtain an Easement Agreement from >400 properties. He asked for assistance from the oceanfront property owners affected by asking them to contact the Town to expedite matters. Point of contact at the Town is Christy Ferguson / 910.842.6488.

FEMA Irene PW-559 Grant
We have obtained a formal extension so we can roll the PW-559 Grant of $447,960 into the Central Reach Project, creating economies of scale.

Holden Beach holds budget workshop meeting
The Holden Beach Board of Commissioners held a special meeting Friday, April 8 regarding the budget workshop for the upcoming fiscal year. Town Manager David Hewett presented board members with a PowerPoint presentation highlighting both the town’s current and upcoming projects and finances.

Hewett said the town is on the cusp of getting funding for the Central Reach Project, a beach nourishment project that will place 1.3 million cubic yards of sand on the beach from about 240 Ocean Blvd. E. to 781 Ocean Blvd. W. on the island — roughly four miles, Hewett said. The town is in the process of working out the details associated with getting the financing, with the projected placement window between Nov. 15 and April 1, 2017. Hewett said the project is $15 million, and that the project will also have funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which the town received after damages to the 600 block of Holden Beach during Hurricane Irene in 2011. The town has been able to get the FEMA project extended so that it can be incorporated into the general Central Reach Project. Hewett reminded the board that in order to procure funding for the Central Reach Project, a municipal district must be established, which must be done before the town can complete the application for financial approval from the Local Government Commission.
Read more » click here
http://www.brunswickbeacon.com/content/holden-beach-holds-budget-workshop-meeting

MAY 2016 
Discussion and Possible Approval of Town/ County Interlocal Financing Agreement for the Central Reach Project – Town Manager Hewett  

Shoreline Protection & Recreation Programs Manager Christy Ferguson made presentation

This memo seeks BOC approval of the attached Interlocal Agreement between Brunswick County and the Town of Holden Beach for the Central Reach Shoreline Protection Project.   This Interlocal Agreement between the Town and the County is needed in order to create the collateral package that a bank would accept for the financing of the project. It is scheduled to be on the Brunswick County Board of Commissioners’ agenda Monday evening, May 16, 2016.

The Town of Holden Beach does not have enough tax/fee revenue from sources it does not levy to pledge as a collateral package for project financing.   The Town levies its own occupancy tax and therefore it cannot be pledged by the Town under the Special Obligations statute.

This Interlocal Agreement between the Town and the County would create a financial backstop against the Town failing to make a debt service payment on the Special Obligation financing.    Without this agreement, the project cannot move forward.

Hold on thar, Baba Looey! The Brunswick County BOC’s have not approved the Interlocal agreement yet. They have several concerns that they want addressed before approving this agreement. This is the first time for this type of arrangement in this County so they want to be cautious and use it as a template moving forward.  Town Manager recommended holding off and wait until the County approves it first.

No decision was made – No action taken

David was cautiously optimistic because the Local Government Commission has oversight and imposes budget controls insuring that we repay any debt obligations first over any other budget considerations.

The Local Government Commission or LGC, established by G.S. 159-3, provides assistance to local governments and public authorities in North Carolina. It is staffed by the Department of State Treasurer and approves the issuance of debt for all units of local government and assists those units with fiscal management.

The primary mission of the LGC is focused in three areas of responsibility and authority. First, a unit of government must seek LGC approval before it can borrow money. In reviewing each proposed borrowing, the LGC examines whether the amount being borrowed is adequate and reasonable for the projects and is an amount the unit can reasonably afford to repay. Second, once a borrowing is approved, the LGC is responsible for selling the debt (or bonds) on the unit’s behalf. While state agencies in some other states are charged with approving local government debt; it is the combination of the power of approval with the power of sale that makes the LGC unique in the nation. Third, the LGC staff regulates annual financial reporting by oversight of the annual independent auditing of local governments, by monitoring the fiscal health of local governments and by offering broad assistance in financial administration to local governments.

JUNE 2016 
Central Reach Capital Project
This winter’s proposed Central Reach Beach Nourishment is the largest sand placement project in the history of Holden Beach. It is scoped to place up to one million three hundred thousand cubic yards of sand along four miles of ocean front from 240 Ocean Boulevard East to 781Ocean Boulevard West and advance the shoreline sixty to eighty feet seaward by doing so. Costs of the project are estimated to total fifteen million dollars with four hundred forty-eight thousand dollars of the cost being paid for by a previously approved FEMA storm damage project. The remaining largest portion of the costs accounted for in the Central Reach Project Ordinance is proposed to be funded by three million dollars of BPART funds and an eleven million five hundred fifty-two thousand dollars privately placed issue of special obligation bonds. The Town currently does not have the necessary revenues statutorily authorized (those not levied by Town) for the requisite credit pledge but will use an Interlocal agreement with the Brunswick County as the means to bridge the gap of pledged revenues. This Interlocal Agreement would not be used to pay debt service; however, the equivalent of the anticipated highest debt service payment will be required up front collateral to be held by Brunswick County and subsequently drawn down/refunded to the Town as debt service payments decrease in the out year amortization schedule. The debt service payments are proposed to be made from the BPART fund.

Discussion and Possible Approval of Town/ County Interlocal Financing Agreement for the Central Reach Project – Shoreline Protection & Recreation Manager Christy Ferguson  

The Interlocal agreement for the Central Reach Project was briefed to the county commissioners last night. Shoreline Protection and Recreation Manager Ferguson explained that the county seemed receptive to the agreement, but they wanted until the end of the month to review it. They want to make sure the county is covered in the event the Town defaults on the loan, which the local Government Commission (LGC) will not let the Town do. Town Manager Hewett added that the first requirement in the Local Government and Fiscal Control Act is that you have to accommodate your debt service. If you do not, the LGC would take over. Assuming we work out the agreement, we are looking at going to the LGC in July. He will set the tax rate assuming the agreement will be approved.

Update –
This memo seeks Holden Beach Board of Commissioners’ approval of the attached Central Reach Project Interlocal Agreement with Brunswick County. The agreement was approved unanimously by the Brunswick County Commissioners at their 31 May 2016 meeting and is a requisite element of the collateral package needed to obtain NC Local Government Commission approval and lending institution backing.

The agreement:
.     1) Identifies Special Obligation Bonds as the expected source of project financing.
.     2) Provides a backstop by Brunswick County for creditors thus guaranteeing debt .          service payments.
.     3) Anticipates a tern of 10 years with amount and rate to be determined as may .          be subsequently approved by Holden Beach Board of Commissioners.
.     4) Memorializes town’s debt service obligations and County refunding protocol as .          payment levels decrease and interest accruals occur annually.

 A decision was made – Approved unanimously

Holden Beach asks county to ‘co-sign’ financing
Holden Beach is seeking Brunswick County’s help to receive financing for a multi-million-dollar beach management project. The town’s Central Reach beach project would place up to 1.31 million cubic yards of sand along 4.1 miles of Holden Beach shoreline, stretching from 240 Ocean Blvd. E. to 781 Ocean Blvd. W.

Holden Beach Town Manager David Hewett told county commissioners May 16 the town needs their help to start the beach renourishment project by the end of the year. The town has received the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management’s Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit and North Carolina Division of Water Quality and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits for the project, but the permits have an expiration date of Dec. 31, 2017. “The reason we need to make the project come off is our permits expire in December 2017,” Hewett said. “If we do a project, we need to do it this winter. We are calibrating how to make that happen.” Hewett explained the problem with the December expiration date is that sand dredging for a beach project is only allowed from November to April. The project was being considered for November or December of 2017, but they would not have enough time to complete the work before the permits expire.

Hewett told county commissioners Holden Beach must use special obligation bonds to meet the available timetable. Special obligation bonds don’t require the bonds to go to the public for a vote, but Holden Beach would need an Interlocal agreement with Brunswick County to meet statutory requirements for their use. Hewett told commissioners the county would not put up any money for the project. “It requires the Interlocal agreement that is in front of you,” he said. “We are not asking for cash. We are asking for the equivalent of co-signing a loan, like co-signing on a car for your teenager.” The project hinges on the county approving an Interlocal agreement.

Holden Beach officials met March 11 to learn about the cost of taking on the project and met with Doug and Andrew Carter of DEC Associates, financial advisors from Charlotte who specialize in coastal project financing. The consultants said the project is estimated to cost $15 million and recommended using special obligation bonds (SOB) for funding. While other options, like general obligation bonds, are available, they require a referendum to approve their use. To finance the project, Holden Beach would pay about $3 million of the beach project from a $5 million Beach, Parks, Access and Recreation Tourism (BPART) fund paid into with tourism taxes. Holden Beach would have to borrow another $12 million if the project comes in at the $15 million cost. He said the town anticipates bids for the project will come in the first week in July when it will have a better idea of the project cost. Hewett said a town-wide property tax increase would be used to take care of the debt. Financing a $15 million project would require nine cents in new taxes.

The town’s plan is to seek a 10-year loan, the anticipated life of the project, at about 3.5 percent to repay the debt from 2017 to 2027. The annual payments would be made with $500,000 from occupancy taxes and $1.1 million in revenues from the property tax increase. Hewett said the Interlocal agreement must be approved by his town board and the county board, contract bids have to go out and a bidder has to be approved, North Carolina’s Local Government Commission, which is tasked with ensuring towns don’t fail to pay their debts, will have to approve the project as well. Hewett told the board the Local Government Commission is aware of the town plan for funding the project and is OK with the arrangement. He said the project provides all the protections the county needs, but Holden Beach would also provide the county with one year of debt service in case of an emergency.

The Holden Beach town board approved a resolution endorsing the project in March and directed staff to get started on the next steps, which brought Hewett to the May 16 county meeting. “We have to discuss it,” county commission chairman Scott Phillips said. “Signing on for a municipality is new water for us.” “If this works, others will be interested in it,” commissioner Randy Thompson said.

County commissioners will hold special called budget meetings at 1 p.m. Tuesday, May 31, and 3 p.m. Tuesday, June 14, before their regular June meeting. They could decide on the Interlocal agreement at any of those meetings.
Read more »
click here
http://www.brunswickbeacon.com/content/holden-beach-asks-county-%E2%80%98co-sign%E2%80%99-financing

Commissioners co-sign Holden Beach project
Brunswick County commissioners unanimously approved Tuesday a precedent-setting agreement to co-sign Holden Beach’s financing for a multi-million-dollar beach management project.

Holden Beach Town Manager David Hewett brought the financing proposal to commissioners at their May 16 meeting and the board brought it back for discussion at Tuesday’s budget workshop. Holden Beach is planning for a Central Reach beach project to place up to 1.31 million cubic yards of sand along 4.1 miles of Holden Beach shoreline, stretching from 240 Ocean Boulevard E. to 781 Ocean Boulevard W., but the town officials learned in February they need to start the beach renourishment project by the end of the year. The town received the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management’s Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit and North Carolina Division of Water Quality and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits for the project, but the permits have an expiration date of Dec. 31, 2017.

Hewett explained to the county at the May 16 meeting the problem with the December expiration date is that sand dredging for a beach project is only allowed from November to April. The project was being considered for November or December 2017, but the town would not have enough time to complete the work before the permits expire. Hewett told county commissioners Holden Beach must use special obligation bonds to meet the available timetable. Special obligation bonds don’t require the bonds go to the public for a vote, but Holden Beach needed an Interlocal agreement with Brunswick County to meet statutory requirements for their use. Hewett compared the county agreement to co-signing a loan, saying the county would not have to put up any money for the project. The county would essentially guarantee payments should the town fail to make debt payments.

At the May 31 workshop, County Manager Ann Hardy told county commissioners the agreement prepared for their review had all the elements in place for it to be a reasonable proposition “if everything goes as intended.” “And safeguards are in place if it doesn’t?” chairman Scott Phillips asked. He also asked whether the only liability to Brunswick County would be if Holden Beach is unable to pay the debt service. “Unable or unwilling,” Hardy said. After the meeting, Hardy clarified her comment was only meant to emphasize the county has to look at all possible occurrences. “Our concern would be if future elected boards would not want to keep the tax rate,” she said. Hardy said there has been no indication any Holden Beach officials would be unwilling to pay the debt service. Hewett also clarified the unwilling comment was the county having to consider the worst situation that could come from the agreement.

Holden Beach town board members approved the Interlocal agreement unanimously in March. “It’s important to note the Holden Beach board unanimously approved the agreement, because it could be the basis of the future funding method for other towns in Brunswick County,” Hewett said after Tuesday’s workshop. Hewett also reminded county commissioners Holden Beach will put up $1.5 million for the county to put in reserve before the project begins. Hardy said during the workshop there is very little impact on the county if the deal works as structured.

Central Reach financing
Holden Beach officials met March 11 to learn about the cost of taking on the project and met with Doug and Andrew Carter of DEC Associates, financial advisors from Charlotte who specialize in coastal project financing. The consultants said the project is estimated to cost $15 million and recommended using special obligation bonds (SOB) for funding. While other options, like general obligation bonds, are available, they require a referendum to approve their use.

To finance the project, Holden Beach would pay about $3 million of the beach project from a $5 million Beach, Parks, Access and Recreation Tourism (BPART) fund paid into with tourism taxes. Holden Beach would have to borrow another $12 million if the project comes in at the $15 million cost. Hewett said a town-wide property tax increase would be used to take care of the debt. Nine cents in new taxes would be needed to pay for financing a $15 million project. The town’s plan is to seek a 10-year loan, the anticipated life of the project, at about 3.5 percent to repay the debt from 2017-2027. The annual payments would be made with $500,000 from occupancy taxes and $1.1 million in revenues from the property tax increase.

Hewett said now that the town and county boards approved the Interlocal agreement, contract bids have to go out, a bidder has to be approved and the North Carolina’s Local Government Commission, which is tasked with ensuring towns don’t fail to pay their debts, will have to approve the project. He said the Local Government Commission is aware of the town plan for funding the project and is OK with the arrangement. Hewett said the project provides all the protections the county needs but Holden Beach would also provide the county with one year of debt service in case of an emergency.
Read more »
click here
http://www.brunswickbeacon.com/content/commissioners-co-sign-holden-beach-project

HBPOA / Central Reach Project – Easement Update
Attorney Clark Wright has finished his review of the draft easement. Mr. Wright is not representing any particular landowner, but rather is providing general advice to the HBPOA, at its request. The fundamental purpose of the easement has not changed – namely, to satisfy the requirements of state and federal permits so that the Central Reach. The amended easement terms address many of the concerns raised by HBPOA property owners. He does believe that the terms of the revised easement are such that all affected owners should give serious consideration to quickly signing and returning it, once received from the Town Attorney. Mr. Wright concluded his recommendations by observing that time is of the essence in order to preserve the Town’s ability to move forward with the Central Reach Project.
Read more »
click here
http://holdenbeachpoa.com/

Discussion and Possible Scheduling of a Date to Hold a Public Hearing to Establish a Municipal Service District – Shoreline Protection & Recreation Manger Christy Ferguson 

This memo requests the Board of Commissioners set a public hearing for the regular meeting of August 16, 2016 to consider establishing a Municipal Service District for the Central Reach Project. In order to issue special obligation bonds the town will need to establish a Municipal Service District that includes the area in which the beach nourishment project will occur. The proposed 16 August public hearing is the first of two required meetings to be held before an ordinance defining the Municipal Service District may be adopted.  The ordinance must be approved at both meetings by majority vote.

A decision was made – Approved unanimously

Budget
.     1) Increase in tax rate
.       a) Rate will go from 15.0 cents to 22.0 cents per $100 of property valuation
.         • An ad valorem tax is based on the value of real estate
        • An increase of 7.0 cents
per $100 of property valuation

Ad Valorem Tax
Estimated 2016 tax base is $1,195,487,150 with tax rate of $.220 per $100 of assessed value
.       a) $1,195,487,150 X $.220 = $2,630,072
      b) $2,630,072 X 97.78 = $2,571,684
        • Tax collection rate of 97.78%

A penny generates $116,895 of tax revenue
We are talking about a 7.0 cent increase all used for sand for the CRP

Proposed tax rate of $.220 generates @$2,571,690
       
• 15 cents = $1,753,425
.         • 7.0 cents = $818,265 /
Additional Revenue Generated by Tax Increase

What does this mean to you?
The tax increase varies based on individual property assessment

                                                               BEFORE                   AFTER
Property assessed value                        $500,000                     $500,000
Rate per $100 value                               $.150                            $.220
Taxes                                                        $750.00                        $1,100.00
Difference                                                                                   +$350.00

 $220 per $100,000 of assessed value

My Two Cents - CR II

And you may ask yourself
Well … How did we get here?

 

The need for a Central Reach Project has been known for quite some time now; yet no reserve funds were set aside to address this projects cost. It’s not like they didn’t know about it! Rather than taking any property tax increase on their watch the BOC’s went with a just kick-the-can down the road approach. Just to be clear the previous Boards chose not to address either the Central Reach Project or the Fund Balance Available issue. They simply did not plan ahead. So instead of a small incremental property tax increase we are looking at a rather large increase of 7 cents. Worse yet, this doesn’t begin to address a number of other significant costs we will incur moving forward. Frankly I think we can expect to see significant additional property tax increases in future budgets.

JULY 2016
The big three beach nourishment contractors were expected to bid on the project. Only one firm submitted a bid which was for $16,750,000. Obviously this significantly exceeded our budget of $15,000,000 and caught everyone off guard since all three contractors had indicated their intent to participate in the bid process. The submitted bid does not meet the contracting requirements so we will need to rebid the project. We will not have the bids back till sometime in August; at which time the Board can consider awarding the bid.

Executive Session Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 143-318.11(a)(3), To Consult with the Attorney Employed by the Public Body in Order to Preserve the Attorney Client Privilege Between the Attorney and the Public Body 

Board of Commissioners Special Meeting
The Board of Commissioners have scheduled a Special Meeting to be held on Monday, August 1st at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Public Assembly. The purpose of the meeting is to consider a resolution authorizing the filing of condemnation actions to acquire perpetual easements for the Town’s Central Reach Shore Protection Project.

The Town due to permit and financing requirements will need to obtain an Easement Agreement from >400 properties. We have obtained 157 so far. The Executive Session was to ascertain how do we get this done? The plan is to have a Special Meeting, then the next step is to send letters to property owners that have not signed the agreement; which begins the legal process of condemnation. Due to the time and cost of that process they are counting on the letter to be a catalyst in obtaining more easement agreements.   Again I ask, why wasn’t this done before?

HB commissioners to consider resolution regarding perpetual easements

Holden Beach commissioners will have a special meeting Monday, Aug. 1, at 7 p.m. at Holden Beach Town Hall to consider a resolution authorizing the filing of condemnation actions to acquire perpetual easements for the town’s Central Reach Project.

Town Manager David Hewett said a perpetual easement is a document that property owners sign giving the town permission to complete the town’s Central Reach Project along the shoreline of their respective properties. Hewett said the town is able to ask for an easement from property owners because the area where the project will be completed, while technically belonging to homeowners, is already considered public space, given that public beachgoers are allowed to use it.

Both the Army Corps of Engineers and CAMA require all affected property owners to return their signed easements to town officials before the project can begin, Hewett said. Of the more than 400 easements sent to property owners, he said, only about half have been returned to the town. If approved Aug. 1, the condemnation resolution would allow Town Attorney Noel Fox of Wilmington to send out a courtesy notice letting those who have not turned in their easements know they have a 30-day grace period. If after that 30 days property owners have not returned their signed easement to town officials, Fox will file condemnation actions, meaning the town has given itself permission to continue with the project on the owners’ property without the property owners’ approval.

Hewett encouraged any property owners who had not returned their easements to do so immediately, explaining the $15 million allocated for the project covers all aspects of it; whatever funding is used for grace period notices is subtracted from the funding for the project itself. “I would rather use the money to pump sand instead of filing paperwork,” he said.
Read more »
click here
http://www.brunswickbeacon.com/content/holden-beach-commissioners-consider-resolution-regarding-perpetual-easements

AUGUST 2016
Board of Commissioners Special Meeting / Monday, August 1st

        RESOLUTION 16-09
RESOLUTION OF TOWN OF HOLDEN BEACH AUTHORIZING FILING OF
CONDEMNATION ACTIONS TO ACQUIRE PERPETUAL EASEMENTS FOR THE
TOWN’S CENTRAL REACH SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT

WITNESSETH

WHEREAS, the Town of Holden Beach (THB) is embarking upon its Central Reach Shore Protection Project (CRSPP), in order to engage in acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, extending or otherwise building or improving beach erosion control or flood and hurricane protection works; and

WHEREAS, the project work under the CRSPP necessarily requires the Town to obtain easements applicable to those portions of the ocean beaches in front of ocean front properties more particularly described as that part of the beach which is seaward of the following locations, whichever is most landward: the Vegetation Line, the toe of the Frontal Dune or Primary Dune or the Erosion Escarpment of the Frontal Dune or Primary Dune, as the same shall be determined by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (“the portion of the property being the “Easement Area”).

WHEREAS, the project work necessary to engage in acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, extending or otherwise building or improving beach erosion control or flood and hurricane protection works (the “Project”) includes evaluating, surveying, inspecting, constructing, preserving, patrolling, protecting, operating, maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating and replacing a public beach, a dune system, and other similar, permitted erosion control and storm damage reduction measures together with appurtenances thereto, specifically including the right to deposit sand together with the right of public use and access over such deposited sand; accomplishing any alterations of contours within the Easement Area; constructing berms and dunes; planting vegetation on berms and dunes; erecting, maintaining and removing silt screens and sand fences; facilitating preservation of dunes and vegetation through limitation of public access to dune areas; trimming, cutting, felling and removing from said Easement Area all trees, underbrush, debris, obstructions, and any other vegetation, structures and obstacles within said Easement Area; periodically nourishing and renourishing the wet and dry sand beaches within said Easement Area; and performing any other work necessary and incident to the construction, periodic renourishment and maintenance of the Town’s Central Reach Shore Protection Project (DEQ permit # 14-02 and USACE permit SAW -2012 -00286, including any amendments thereto and/or additional related project permits), and to include future renewals and extensions of such project or similar projects of the same nature ( “Activities”); and

WHEREAS, THB is specifically authorized to conduct the project under N.C.G.S. §§160A-4 and –  240.1; and

WHEREAS, THB is specifically authorized under N.C.G.S. § 40A-3(bl) (10) to possess and exercise the power of eminent domain for the purpose of “Engaging in or participating with other governmental entities in acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, extending or otherwise building or improving beach erosion control or flood and hurricane protection works, including but not limited to, the acquisition of any property that may be required as a source for beach nourishment”

WHEREAS, exercising the power of eminent domain to acquire easements in order to accomplish the Project falls within the scope of N.C.G.S. § 40A-3 (b l) (IO} above; and

WHEREAS, the THB Board of Commissioners (“Board”) has approved the Project, and has directed various Town Officials, Officers, Staff and employees to take all necessary actions to obtain the Permits, embark upon, and accomplish the Project; and

WHEREAS, the Board has authorized the obtaining of all Permits and executing agreements in order to accomplish and complete the Project; and

WHEREAS, the Town has made requests to those ocean front property owners known to the Town to execute a Deed of Easement authorizing Project work on the Easement Area at locations in which the Owners may or may not have an ownership interest and has sent said easement to them for execution; and

WHEREAS, not all persons who have been sent a Deed of Easement have returned the same fully executed in a timely manner; and

WHEREAS, with respect to those beach front property owners who have not delivered to the Town an executed Deed of Easement, the Town authorizes herein the serving of a NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER UPON LANDS AND TO FILE EMINENT DOMAIN/CONDEMNATION ACTION [N.C.G.S. §§40A-11 & 40) TO  ACQUIRE  EASEMENT  FOR  BEACH  RENOURISHMENT PROJECT (“Notice of Intent”) in the form and manner required by law, and in the discretion of Town staff, another copy of the Deed of Easement document which the Town previously sent to said applicable owners with a request for the applicable owners to execute same, which would render the filing of an eminent domain action unnecessary as to the owners executing the easement; and

WHEREAS, with respect to owners who have not signed the Deed of Easement and who have been sent the Notice of Intent, then it would be in the public interest for the Town, upon more than 30 days having elapsed since mailing the Notice of Intent to the particular owners and no injunctive relief having been entered during that 30 day period restricting the filing of an eminent domain action against applicable owners, to file an eminent domain action against applicable owners to acquire the needed easement interest in order to fulfill the public purpose of the Project;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:

  1. The Town of Holden Beach shall acquire by condemnation a perpetual easement and right of way in, on, over and across the Easement Area, for the purposes of the Project and use by the Town of Holden Beach, North Carolina, its representatives, agents, employees, officials, engineers, consultants, surveyors, contractors, subcontractors, permittees, invitees and assigns, to enter the Easement Area in order to carry out the Project and to perform the Activities
  1. The owners of ocean front properties with Easement Areas to be condemned who as of the date of this Resolution have not delivered to the Town a Deed of Easement are to be sent in the manner required by Chapter 40A of the North Carolina General Statutes a Notice of Intent.
  1. The attorneys representing the Town of Holden Beach are directed to institute the necessary proceedings under Chapter 40A of the North Carolina General Statutes on August 12th to acquire the required easement interests in the Easement Area.

Adopted this the 1st day of August 2016, by the unanimous vote of the Commissioners during a duly noticed special meeting held on that date.

Holden Beach commissioners approve easements resolution
Holden Beach commissioners unanimously approved a resolution Monday night authorizing the filing of condemnation actions to acquire perpetual easements for the town’s Central Reach Project.

 Hewett said a perpetual easement is a document property owners sign giving the town permission to complete the town’s Central Reach Project along the shoreline of their respective properties. He said the town is able to ask for an easement from property owners because the area where the project will be completed, while technically belonging to homeowners, is already considered public space, given that public beachgoers are allowed to use it. Both the Army Corps of Engineers and CAMA require all affected property owners to return their signed easements to town officials before the project can begin, Hewett said.

The condemnation resolution approved during commissioners’ special meeting Aug. 1 night allows Town Attorney Noel Fox of Wilmington to send out a courtesy notice letting those who have not turned in their easements know they have a 30-day grace period. If property owners have not returned their signed and stamped easement to town officials after those 30 days, Fox will file condemnation actions, meaning the town has given itself permission to continue with the project on the owners’ property without the owners’ approval.

Fox told commissioners Monday a courtesy notice will be sent out Aug. 12 to those who have not yet turned in their easements. She also told residents that easements turned in must be recordable, meaning they have been signed by the property owner and signed and stamped by a notary public.

Fox said 486 total easements have been sent out to property owners, and as of noon Monday, 280 recordable easements had been turned into the town. By sending out the grace period letter Aug. 12 instead of Tuesday, Aug. 2, Fox said, those who have signed their easement but have not visited a notary public will be able to do so as soon as possible. “We need to have the clock ticking,” she said.

Hewett said he encourages any property owners who had not returned their easements to do so immediately, explaining the $15 million allocated for the project covers all aspects of it; whatever funding is used for grace period notices is subtracted from the funding for the project itself.
Read more »
click here
http://www.brunswickbeacon.com/content/holden-beach-commissioners-approve-easements-resolution

Holden Beach plans $15 million beach nourishment project
Holden Beach is finalizing plans for its largest beach nourishment project ever funded by local money. As part of the plans, the town will initiate condemnation proceedings against beachfront landowners who have not yet given the town a permanent easement on dry-sand property between the dune line and the high-tide mark. The town needs the easements as part of the permitting process for the central reach project, a $15 million undertaking that will put about 1.3 million cubic yards of sand on about 4 miles of mid-island beachfront, creating, according to town officials, new and improved coastal habitats for wildlife and tourism opportunities.
Read more »
click here
http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20160812/holden-beach-plans-15-million-beach-nourishment-project

We need to obtain an Easement Agreement from 486 properties. So far we have only obtained 280 recordable easements or approximately fifty-eight (58) percent. Since the Special Meeting was announced they have seen a large uptick in the number of easements being returned. So, bottom line is the Town will send a “Notice of Intent” letter to anyone who has not returned the easements letting them know that they will file the letter on August 12th and then property owners will have just thirty (30) days to get the signed easement returned.  At that point the Town will file an eminent domain action against the property owner.The Town needs to get easement commitments in hand in time for the October 4th meeting of the Local Government Commission, which must sign off on the general obligation bonds that will pay for the project.

Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting / Tuesday, August 16th

PUBLIC HEARING: Creation of a Municipal Service District 

Previously reported –
Shoreline Protection & Recreation Manger Christy Ferguson

This memo requests the Board of Commissioners set a public hearing for the regular meeting of August 16, 2016 to consider establishing a Municipal Service District for the Central Reach Project. In order to issue special obligation bonds the town will need to establish a Municipal Service District that includes the area in which the beach nourishment project will occur. The proposed 16 August public hearing is the first of two required meetings to be held before an ordinance defining the Municipal Service District may be adopted.  The ordinance must be approved at both meetings by majority vote.

Update –
Presentation was made by Town Manager David Hewett
.     1) Project Background
.     2) Financing / Budget
    3) Municipal Service District (MSD)
    4) Map

Opened discussion to the floor for questions and comments

It appears that there are some serious concerns regarding the ability of the Town to assess additional Ad Valorem property taxes on the properties located within the district.

Key Takeaways:
MSD is a special taxing district
MSD includes the oceanfront properties located within the CRP
boundaries of 240 OBE to 781 OBW
It is a financing mechanism that allows the Town to tax these properties at a higher tax rate
.       a) Term of bonds are for ten years so that is the time frame here too
We have the flexibility and are permitted to add additional properties and expand the district
Unfortunately, the district cannot be expanded at this time without delaying the entire project
Technically there is an additional tax liability for properties in this district
Board said that is not their intent to pay for this project with a special assessment to this district
.         • See paragraph added to Ordinance 16-14
Currently project is funded by a seven cent increase of
Ad Valorem property taxes
.       a) Payments will be made from the General Fund of the Town’s budget

Have questions about the municipal service district? We’ve got answers
What is a municipal service district?
A municipal service district, commonly referred to as a Business Improvement District, is a financing mechanism used to provide revenue for a variety of services that enhance, not replace, existing city services. State law passed in 1973 allows cities to establish this type of district.
Read more »
click here
http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20110305/have-questions-about-the-municipal-service-district-weve-got-answers

A Guide to Business Improvement Districts in North Carolina
G.S. Ch. 160A, Art. 23
(Municipal Service District Act), implements Section 2(4) of Article 5 of the North Carolina Constitution, which authorizes a local government to define special areas (districts) in order to assess additional ad valorem property taxes on properties located within the districts to fund projects and services in the districts.
Read more »
click here
http://canons.sog.unc.edu/a-guide-to-business-improvement-districts-in-north-carolina/

NC General Statutes – Chapter 160A
Article 23 / Municipal Service Districts
§160A – 535. Title; effective date.
This Article may be cited as “The Municipal Service District Act of 1973,” and is enacted pursuant to Article V, Sec. 2(4) of the Constitution of North Carolina, effective July 1, 1973.

§160A – 536. Purposes for which districts may be established.
.   (a) Purposes. –
The city council of any city may define any number of service districts in order to finance, provide, or maintain for the districts one or more of the following services, facilities, or functions in addition to or to a greater extent than those financed, provided or maintained for the entire city:
.               (1) Beach erosion control and flood and hurricane protection works.

Discussion and Possible First Adoption of Ordinance 16-14, An Ordinance Establishing and Creating a Town of Holden Beach Municipal Service District for Central Reach Project – Town Manager Hewett & Shoreline Protection & Recreation Manager Ferguson 

Establishment of a municipal service district (MSD) is a requirement for the issuance of special obligation bonds. Recent legislation requires approval of an ordinance establishing a MSD at two meetings. The August 16, 2016 public hearing and subsequent consideration is the first of the two required meetings.  A second meeting will need to be scheduled; at which time the Board may consider adopting the ordinance in its final form.

Beach Nourishment Project Report
Establishment
of a Municipal Service District
For Beach Erosion Control and Flood and Hurricane Protection
In Accordance with NCGS 160A 535- 160A 544

. 1. The attached map identifies the proposed Municipal Service District (MSD).
This project allows for placement of up to 1.31million cubic yards along 4.1miles (22,000 feet) of shoreline, with boundaries of 240 Ocean Boulevard East to 781 Ocean Boulevard West.

. 2. Statement showing that the proposed district meets standards set out in NCGS 160A-537(a):
The Town is committed to a comprehensive beach management and maintenance program to protect and enhance the beach system. This beach management plan identifies areas within the MSD as being subject to significant and chronic erosion. Properties in the MSD will benefit from a beach nourishment project by the direct protection of these properties from damage to structures that result from erosion and storm damage. The beach nourishment project is designed to limit damage from erosion and storms, thus protecting structures from this damage.   Beach nourishment provides a wide recreation beach which protects structures of historic significance; maintains a tax and economic base; and protects town infrastructure and facilities including public beach access areas.

The proposed district is in need of this project to a demonstrably greater extent than the remainder of the town in order to meet the needs and goals set forth above.

. 3. Plan for providing proposed services in the Municipal Service District:
The Town’s permitted Central Reach Nourishment Project represents the largest beach fill project to date on Holden Beach. The project includes dredging and placement of up to 1.31million cubic yards, along 4.1miles (22,000 ft.) of shoreline. The project boundaries are 240 Ocean Boulevard East to 781Ocean Boulevard West. The sand will be dredged from an approved borrow area offshore. The MSD is at greater risk of damage as evidenced by historical erosion trends in this area as compared to the remainder of the Town.

ORDINANCE 16-14
ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHING AND CREATING A TOWN OF HOLDEN BEACH
MUNICIPAL
SERVICE DISTRICT

WHEREAS, Chapter 160A, Article 23 of the North Carolina General Statues authorizes towns within North Carolina to define service districts to finance, provide, or maintain for such districts one or more services, facilities, or functions in addition to or to a greater extent than those financed, provided or maintained for the entire city; and

WHEREAS, said statutes further provide that the town may define a service district for the purpose of beach erosion control and flood and hurricane protection works; and

WHEREAS, acting in response to a need for action in order to protect the tax and economic base and protect town Infrastructure Including facilities for public recreational access, the Board of Commissioners for the Town of Holden Beach has determined that the creation of a municipal service district for erosion control and hurricane protection works will be for the benefit of those properties located within the service district boundaries; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners for the Town of Holden Beach further finds that the proposed district is in need of projects and programs to the standards of G.S. 160A-537(a) to demonstrably greater extent than the remainder of the town to meet the needs and goals set forth above; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners for the Town of Holden Beach intends to secure funding through special obligation bonds for the Municipal Service District for the purposes of erosion control and hurricane protection.  Payment of principal and interest toward the special obligation bonds will be through a specific line item from the General Fund of the budget of the Town of Holden Beach, and not through a special assessment of the property owners within the proposed boundaries of the Municipal Services District.

WHEREAS, pursuant to such determinations and in accordance with applicable provision of the General Statutes, the Board of Commissioners for the Town of Holden Beach has defined such a district, and does determine, as a fact, that the proposed district is in need of one or more of the services, facilities, or functions listed in G.S. 160A-536(a) to a demonstrably greater extent than the remainder of the town; and,

WHEREAS, a map of the proposed district showing proposed boundaries, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, a statement showing that the proposed district meets the standards set out in G.S. l60A-537(a), and a plan for providing in the district one or more of the services listed in G.S. 160A-536 has been created; all of which has been incorporated into a report which has been available for public Inspection in the office of the Town Clerk for four (4) weeks prior to the public hearing on the matter of the establishment of the service district; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners for the Town of Holden Beach has caused a notice of such hearing to be duly published in the Brunswick Beacon, a newspaper having general circulation in the Town of Holden Beach and Brunswick County, said hearing having been conducted on August 16, 2016, and the Town Clerk has certified to the Board of Commissioners that the mailing of notice of hearing has been completed, all in conformity to G.S.160A-537(c).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE TOWN OF HOLDEN BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA that:

  1. The Town of Holden Beach has fully complied with each and every requirement of Chapter 160A, Article 23 of the North Carolina General Statutes and determines and finds same as a fact.
  1. The Holden Beach Erosion Control and Flood and Hurricane Protection Works Municipal Service District for erosion control  and   flood   and hurricane protection works is hereby established and created in accordance with the following description:

Proposed District:  Contained within the boundaries of the Atlantic Ocean to the South, State Road 1116 and Ocean Boulevard East to the North; tax parcels 232MM005 and 232MM011 Inclusive and containing that portion of Brunswick Street lying between and adjacent to said parcels, to the East; 781 Ocean Boulevard West Inclusive to the West; and more particularly being the property as shown within the boundaries set forth on that certain map attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and Incorporated herein by reference, to which reference is made for a more complete and accurate description of the boundaries of the Holden Beach Erosion Control and Flood and Hurricane Works Municipal Service District.

  1. Special obligation bonds are anticipated to be authorized for beach erosion control and hurricane protection works within the Municipal Service District and therefore this ordinance shall be effective Immediately upon its adoption.

Mayor Pro Tem Ashley Royal based on feedback from the last meeting appended the Ordinance by adding the following paragraph:

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners for the Town of Holden Beach intends to secure funding through special obligation bonds for the Municipal Service District for the purposes of erosion control and hurricane protection.  Payment of principal and interest toward the special obligation bonds will be through a specific line item from the General Fund of the budget of the Town of Holden Beach, and not through a special assessment of the property owners within the proposed boundaries of the Municipal Services District.

Ashley wanted to document the intent of this Board is not to pay for this project with a special assessment to this newly created district.

A decision was made – Approved unanimously

Holden Beach says service district won’t raise taxes
The Holden Beach Board of Commissioners has offered initial approval to create a municipal service district. There was some discussion in the public hearing before the recent vote, with most of those making comments concerned with the potential taxing authority a municipal service district endows. To assuage those fears, the commissioners amended the language of the resolution to include notation that in passing the resolution, the board vowed not to raise taxes on this subset of taxpayers.
Read more »
click here
http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20160819/holden-beach-says-service-district-wont-raise-taxes


Discussion and Possible Scheduling of a Date to Hold a Special Meeting for Final Adoption of Ordinance 16-14, An Ordinance Establishing and Creating a Town of Holden Beach Municipal Service District for the Central Reach Project and to Consider Adoption of Resolution 16-10, Resolution Directing the Application to the Local Government Commission for Approval of Special Obligation Bonds – Town Manager Hewett & Shoreline Protection & Recreation Manager Ferguson

Establishment of a municipal service district (MSD) is a requirement for the issuance of special obligation bonds. Recent legislation requires approval of an ordinance establishing a MSD at two meetings. The August 16, 2016 public hearing and subsequent consideration is the first of the two required meetings.  A second meeting will need to be scheduled; at which time the Board may consider adopting the ordinance in its final form.

I recommend scheduling the special meeting on Monday, August 22nd at 9:00a.m.

A decision was made – Approved unanimously

Board of Commissioners Special Meeting / Monday, August 22nd

                                             RESOLUTION 16-10
RESOLUTION
OF THE TOWN OF HOLDEN BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA, DIRECTING THE APPLICATION   TO THE   LOCAL GOVERNMENT  COMMISSION   FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIAL OBLIGATION BONDS; REQUESTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE TOWN’S SPECIAL OBLIGATION BONDS; AND CERTAIN RELATED MATTERS

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners (the “Board”’) of the Town of Holden Beach, North Carolina (the “Town”) hereby determines that it is necessary to provide beach nourishment for the purpose of beach erosion control and flood and hurricane protection works (the “Project”);

WHEREAS, the Town has created a Municipal Service District (the “MSD “), in accordance with Article 23 of Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes, in which the Project will be located;

WHEREAS, the Board is considering the issuance of a special obligation bond (the “2016 Bond”) in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $12,000,000 to finance the Project and pay the costs of issuing the 2016 Bond;

WHEREAS, the Town has retained (A) Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, as bond counsel for the 2016 Bond and (B) DEC Associates Inc., as financial advisor for the 2016 Bond;

WHEREAS, the  Board  wants the  Town  Manager  (1)  to file  with  the  North Carolina  Local Government Commission (the “Commission”) an application for its approval of the 2016 Bond, on a form prescribed  by the Commission,  (2) to request in such  application  that the Commission  approve (a) the negotiation of the sale of the 2016 Bond to a financial institution (the “Purchaser”)  to be determined by the Authorized Officers, as defined herein, through a private placement and (b) the financing team for the 2016 Bond, (3) to state in such application such facts and to attach thereto such exhibits in regard to the 2016 Bond and to the Town and its financial condition, as may be required by the Commission, and (4) to take all other action necessary for the issuance of the 2016 Bond.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HOLDEN BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA, AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1.     That the 2016 Bond is to be issued by the Town for the purpose of providing funds (1) to finance the costs of the Project and (2) to pay the costs of issuing the 2016 Bond, as set out fully in the documents attached to the Town’s application to the Commission.  The use of the proceeds of the 2016 Bond, as described, is necessary in order to provide for beach erosion control and flood and hurricane protection works in the MSD.

Section 2.    That the Mayor and the Town Manager (the “Authorized Officers”) are hereby authorized, directed and designated to file an application with the Commission for its approval of the issuance of the 2016 Bond and are hereby authorized to request bids from financial institutions for the purchase of the 2016 Bond.

Section 3.        In addition to the bond counsel and the financial advisor, the Authorized Officers are each hereby authorized to retain the services of other professionals as they deem necessary and appropriate to complete the transactions contemplated by this Resolution.

Section 4.      The Town Manager, with advice from the Town Attorney, bond counsel and the financial advisor, is hereby authorized, directed and designated to file an application with the North Carolina Local Government Commission for its approval of the issuance of the 2016 Bond.

Section 5.         The Board finds and determines and asks the Commission to find and determine from the Town’s application and supporting documentation:

(a)        that the issuance of the 2016 Bond is necessary or expedient;

(b)        that the not to exceed stated principal amount of the 2016 Bond will be                     .            sufficient but is not excessive, when added to other moneys available to the         .                   Town, for the proposed Project;

(c)        that the Town’s debt management procedure and policies are good; and.  

(d)       that the 2016 Bond can be marketed at a reasonable interest cost to the Town.

Section 6.          The Mayor, the Town Manager, the Shoreline Protection & Recreation Manager, the Town Attorney and the Town Clerk are hereby authorized, individually and collectively, to do any and all other things necessary to complete the steps necessary for the issuance of the 20 J 6 Bond.

Section 7.          This Resolution is effective on the date of its adoption.

This the 22nd day of August, 2016.

Holden Beach commissioners approve municipal service district
Town commissioners read and approved a second time an ordinance establishing and creating the Holden Beach Erosion Control and Flood and Hurricane Protection Works Municipal Service District. The latest action came during a special meeting Monday, Aug. 22.

Holden Beach Town Manager David Hewett said this municipal district encompasses the shoreline between 240 Ocean Blvd. E and 781 Ocean Blvd. W., where the town will complete its Central Reach Project.

The beach project would place up to 1.31 million cubic yards of sand along 4.1 miles of Holden Beach shoreline, stretching from 240 Ocean Blvd. E. to 781 Ocean Blvd. W.

The town has received the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management’s Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit and North Carolina Division of Water Quality and Army Corps of Engineers permits for the project. The sand for the project will come from a site two miles offshore and will be dispersed along the stretch of beach using a hopper dredge. The project is not the first of its kind in terms of putting sand on the beach from offshore with dredges, but Hewett said it is the first of its kind in terms of its magnitude and financial requirements from outside sources.

He said the CAMA permit was recently granted an extension, but its expiration date is Dec. 31, 2017, same as the USACE permit.

The town also has an Interlocal agreement with Brunswick County to meet statutory requirements for their use, which Hewett in May compared to co-signing a loan, saying the county would not have to put up any money for the project. The county would essentially guarantee payments should the town fail to make debt payments.

Hewett said approval of the district is a prerequisite in order to file the application to the Local Government Commission to receive the special obligation bonds — or loan — of $12 million for the project.

Following approval of the first ordinance, commissioners at their Aug. 16 meeting added a paragraph that states the special obligation bonds will be through a specific line item and from the general fund for Holden Beach, not through a special assessment of property owners who live within district boundaries. Language was also changed for the second ordinance reading that states creation of the new district does not mean the new district will be taxed separately to pay for the project.
Read more »
click here
http://www.brunswickbeacon.com/content/holden-beach-commissioners-approve-municipal-service-district

Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting / Tuesday, September 20th

Bond Order Authorizing the Issuance of Special Obligation Bonds of the
Town of Holden Beach, North Carolina

Whereas, the Board of Commissioners (the “Board of Commissioners”) of the Town of Holden Beach, North Carolina (the “Town”) has determined to construct certain beach erosion control and flood and hurricane protection works now and from time to time in the future, and may also finance in the future any other project permitted to be financed under Section 159I-30 of the General Statutes of North Carolina (collectively, the “Projects”);

Whereas, the Board of Commissioners has determined there is a present need to issue its Special Obligation Bonds pursuant to Section 159I-30 of the General Statutes of North Carolina for a Project to be constructed in a municipal service district in the Town (the “Current Project”);

Whereas, an application has been filed with the Secretary (the “Secretary”) of the Local Government Commission of North Carolina (the “Commission”) requesting Commission approval of an initial series of special obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $12,000,000 to be used for the Current Project as required by Section 159I-30(i) of the General Statutes of North Carolina, and the Secretary has notified the Board of Commissioners that the application has been accepted for submission to the Commission; and

Whereas, notwithstanding the current need to issue not to exceed $12,000,000 special obligation bonds for the Current Project, the Board of Commissioners has determined that the aggregate principal amount of special obligation bonds for future projects is not known at this time and therefore wishes to provide for the issuance of special obligation bonds from time to time in amounts to be determined at the time of issuance and subject to Commission approval at such time.

Now, Therefore, Be It Ordered by the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Holden Beach, North Carolina (the “Town”) as follows:

Section 1. The Board of Commissioners has determined to construct the Current Project and from time to time in the future may also finance other Projects.

Section 2. To raise the money required to pay the costs of the Projects as set forth above, Special Obligation Bonds of the Town are hereby authorized and shall be issued pursuant to Section 159I-30 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.  The maximum aggregate principal amount of such Special Obligation Bonds authorized by this bond order shall be unlimited.

Section 3. The Special Obligation Bonds shall be special obligations of the Town and the principal of, and interest and premium on, all such Special Obligation Bonds shall be on parity and shall be secured solely by the following sources:

.       (a)    that portion of the 1% local option sales and use tax levied by the County of Brunswick, North Carolina (the “County”) pursuant to Article 39 of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes of North Carolina which are distributed to the Town;

      (b)    that portion of the 1/2% local option sales and use tax levied by the County pursuant to Article 40 of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes of North Carolina which are distributed to the Town;

      (c)    that portion of the two 1/2% local option sales and use tax levied by the County pursuant to Article 42 of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes of North Carolina which are distributed to the Town;

.       (d)    that portion of the proceeds pursuant to the Local Government Hold Harmless Provisions in Article 44 of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes of North Carolina which are distributed to the Town;

.       (e)    certain taxes levied and collected by the State of North Carolina in lieu of local franchise and sales taxes pursuant to Chapter 105 of the General Statutes of North Carolina which are distributed to the Town, specifically the amounts derived from electricity sales, piped natural gas sales, telecommunication sales, local video programming sales and beer and wine sales;

.       (f)     fees charged by the Town in accordance with the General Statutes of North Carolina to obtain building permits;

.       (g)    amounts paid to the Town from the County pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement dated May 31, 2016 between the Town and the County; and

      (h)    one or more additional sources of funds identified by the Board of Commissioners in future proceedings of the Board of Commissioners, so long as (i) the pledge of such sources does not constitute a pledge of the taxing power of the Town and (ii) the pledge of such sources is first approved by the Local Government Commission of North Carolina as set forth in Section 159I-30(i) of the General Statutes of North Carolina.

Section 4. The sources of payment identified in Section 3 so pledged and then held or hereafter received by the Town or any fiduciary thereof shall immediately be subject to the lien of the pledge without any physical delivery of the sources or further act.

Section 5. Neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Town are pledged for the payment of the principal of, or interest or any premium on, any Special Obligation Bonds, and no owner of such Special Obligation Bonds has the right to compel the exercise of the taxing power of the Town in connection with any default thereon.  The uses of the sources set forth in Section 3 do not constitute a pledge of the Town’s taxing power and the Town is not obligated to pay the principal of, or interest or any premium on, any Special Obligation Bonds except from the sources set forth in Section 3.

Section 6. The issuance and details of any such Special Obligation Bonds shall be set forth in one or more separate proceedings of the Board of Commissioners.  The initial series of Special Obligation Bonds shall not exceed $12,000,000 and is being issued pursuant to a separate resolution.  Future issues or series of Special Obligation Bonds shall be issued only by separate proceedings of the Board of Commissioners and with approval from the Local Government Commission of North Carolina as may be required by law.

Section 7. This bond order shall take effect on its adoption.

RESOLUTION 16-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE TOWN OF HOLDEN BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF $12,000,000 SPECIAL OBLIGATION BOND, SERIES 2016

WHEREAS, the Town of Holden Beach, North Carolina (the “Town”) is authorized by Section 1591-30 of the General Statutes of North Carolina (the “Applicable Statute”) to issue its special obligation bonds for beach erosion control and flood and hurricane works provided in a municipal service district; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the Town (the “Board of Commissioners”) has created a Municipal Service District (the “District), in accordance with Article 23 of Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes, in which the Town has determined to construct certain beach erosion control and flood and hurricane protection works (the “Current Project”); and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners on September 20, 2016 adopted a Bond Order (the “Bond Order”) providing for the issuance of Special Obligations Bonds to be secured by the sources set forth in the Bond Order; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has determined that it is necessary and advisable at this time to issue the Town’s Special Obligation Bond, Series 2016 (the “Bond’) in the aggregate principal amount of $12,000,000 to (I) pay the costs of the Current Project and (2) pay the costs of issuing the Bond; and

WHEREAS, PNC Bank, National Association (referred to herein as the “Purchaser”), has agreed to purchase the Bond as set forth in its Term Sheet, dated August 30, 2016 (the “Term Sheet”); and

WHEREAS, the Town has applied to the Local Government Commission of North Carolina (the “Commission”) for approval of its application relating to the Bond as required by Section 1591-30(i) of the Applicable Statute and of the issuance and private sale of the Bond, which approval is expected to be granted at the Commission’s meeting on October 4, 2016 (the “Commission Approval’); and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners now desires to provide for the terms, form and issuance of the Bond in the amount of $12,000,000; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners desires to incorporate in this Resolution, to the extent applicable and unless manifestly inappropriate, the provisions of the Bond Order, including definitions;

NOW.THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of   the Town, in accordance with the final Commission Approval as set forth above and any conditions, terms and other contingencies that may be set forth therein, as follows:

Section 1.  Acceptance of Term Sheet, Issuance of Bond. The Town hereby accepts and approves the Term Sheet offered by the Purchaser; provided, however, such Term Sheet shall not represent the final terms of the transaction, which shall be only this Resolution, the Bond and any closing documents. The Term Sheet is not incorporated herein. The Town shall issue in accordance with and pursuant to the Applicable Statute, the Bond Order, and this Resolution, its Bond in the aggregate principal amount of $12,000,000 for the purpose of providing funds, together with other available funds, to (I) pay the costs of the Current Project and (2) pay the costs of issuing the Bond. The period of usefulness of the capital projects to be financed by the issuance of the Bond is not less than ten years, computed from the date of the issuance of the Bond.   The Board finds and determines and asks the Commission to find and determine from the Town’s application and supporting documentation that the proposed Current Project is feasible.

Section 2Form of Bond.  The Bond shall be issued in fully registered form.  The Bond shall be issued as a single bond, shall be substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, with such appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are permitted or required by this Resolution. The Town Manager is hereby appointed to be the registrar of the Bond (the “Registrar”) and is hereby directed to maintain the appropriate registration records with respect thereto.

Section 3Details of Bond. (a) The Bond shall be dated the date of its issuance, shall bear interest at a fixed rate of 2.18% per annum until its payment and shall be stated to mature (subject to the right of prior redemption) on or about October 12, 2026.

If at any time there is a Determination of Taxability or Event of Taxability, as such terms are hereinafter defined, the fixed rate of interest shall be increased to and be calculated at the rate which will provide to the Purchaser the effective yield which it would have received if there had not been a Determination of Taxability or an Event of Taxability, such rate to be determined by the Purchaser (the “Alternative Rate of Interest” ), and shall be payable from the Date of Taxability to such time as the Bond is paid in full. In such event, the Town also shall be required to pay to the Purchaser all amounts, if any, which may be necessary to reimburse the Purchaser for any interest, penalties or other charges assessed by the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Revenue of the State of North Carolina against the Purchaser by reason of the Purchaser’s failure to include the interest on the Bond i n its gross income for income tax purposes. The Town shall pay to the Purchaser the above mentioned Alternative Rate of Interest notwithstanding any transfer by the Purchaser or payment or prepayment by the Town prior to the date such Determination of Taxability was made.

Event of Taxability” shall mean any event, occurrence or situation, resulting from an action, or failure to act, by the Town, the effect of which is to cause the interest on the Bond to be includible in the gross income of the Purchaser for federal income tax purposes. A Determination of Taxability shall mean a determination that the interest on the Bond is included in gross income of the Purchaser for federal income tax purposes, which determination shall be deemed to have been made upon the occurrence of the first to occur of the following: (a) the date on which the Purchaser is advised in writing by the Commissioner or any District Director of the Internal Revenue Service that, as a consequence of an Event of Taxability, the interest on the Bond is included in the gross income of the Purchaser for federal income tax purposes; (b) the date on which the Town receives notice from the Purchaser that the Purchaser has been advised in writing that the Internal Revenue Service has issued a statutory notice of deficiency or similar notice to the Purchaser which asserts, in effect, that interest on the Bond received by the Purchaser is included in the gross income of the Purchaser for federal income tax purposes, as a result of an Event of Taxability; (c) the day on which the Town is advised in writing by the Commissioner or any District Director of the Internal Revenue Service that there has been issued a public or private ruling of the Internal Revenue Service that the interest on the Bond is included in the gross income of the Purchaser for federal income tax purposes as a result of an Event of Taxability; or (d) the day on which the Town is advised in writing by counsel to the Purchaser that a final determination, from which no further right of appeal exists, has been made by a court of competent jurisdiction in the United States of America in a proceeding with respect to which the Town  has been given written notice and an opportunity to participate and defend that interest on the Bond is included in the gross income of the Purchaser for federal income tax purposes, as a result of an Event of Taxability.

“Date of Taxability” shall mean the first date upon which interest on the Bond is included in the gross income of the Purchaser for federal income tax purposes as a result of an Event of Taxability or a Determination of Taxability.

      (b) The Bond is subject to mandatory redemption before maturity in part at the redemption price of I00% of the principal amount to be redeemed, without premium, on each October 12 in the years and in the amounts as follows:

PAYMENT DATE (OCTOBER 12)                                                      PRINCIPAL PAYMENT

2017 $1,200,000
2018 1,200,000
2019 1,200,000
2020 1,200,000
2021 1,200,000
2022 1,200,000
2023 1,200,000
2024 1,200,000
2025 1,200,000
2026 1,200,000

*Maturity

      (c) The Bond shall also be subject to optional redemption prior to its stated maturity at the option of the Town in whole (but not in part) on any date upon giving the Purchaser not less than 30 Business Days prior written notice thereof. The redemption price of such Bond shall be equal to I00% of the principal amount of the Bond, plus interest accrued to the redemption date, plus, if so required by the Purchaser as compensation for the costs of the Bond being prepaid, an amount equal to the Cost of Prepayment. “Cost of Prepayment” means an amount equal  to the present value, if positive,  of the product of (a) the difference between (i) the yield, on the beginning date of the applicable interest period, of a U.S. Treasury obligation with a maturity similar to the applicable interest period, minus (ii) the yield on the prepayment date, of a U.S. Treasury obligation with a maturity similar to the remaining maturity of the applicable interest period, and (b) the principal amount to be prepaid, and (c) the number of years, including fractional years, from the prepayment date to the end of the applicable interest period. The yield on any U.S. Treasury obligation shall be determined by reference to Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15 (519) “Selected Interest Rates.” For purposes of making present value calculations, the yield to maturity of a similar maturity U.S. Treasury obligation on the prepayment date shall be deemed the discount rate. A ”Business Day” shall mean any day other than a Saturday or Sunday or a legal holiday on which commercial lenders are authorized or required to be closed for business in Raleigh, North Carolina.

The Purchaser shall provide the Town with a written statement explaining the calculation of the Cost of Prepayment due, if any, which statement shall, in absence of manifest error, be conclusive and binding on the Town.

.       (d) Interest on the outstanding principal amount Bond shall be payable on April 12, 2017 and on each April 12 and October 12 thereafter until maturity. Interest on the Bond shall be calculated on the basis of a 360-day year consisting of twelve 30-day months. In the event of a late payment, interest shall continue to accrue on the principal balance outstanding at the interest rate applicable to the Bond; provided that, if such payment is more than five days late, then interest shall accrue at the Default Rate as described in subsection (f) below.

      (e) Principal of, premium, if any. and interest on the Bond shall be payable to the registered owner appearing on the registration records of the Registrar by wire transfer or by check, mailed to such registered owner at its address as it appears on such registration books and shall be received by the registered owner on the date such payment is due.

.       (f) If the Town defaults on its obligation to pay principal of and interest on the Bond, all amounts due on the Bond will bear interest at the Default Rate. The “Default Rate” shall be the greater of (i) 12% per annum or (ii) the Base Rate plus 3.00%; provided that in no event shall the Default Rate exceed 20% per annum. “Base Rate” means the greater of (A) the interest rate per annum announced from time to time by the Purchaser as its then prime rate, which rate may not be the lowest rate then being charged commercial Towns by the Purchaser, or, (ii) the Federal Funds Open Rate plus 0.5% per annum. “Federal Funds Open Rate” means, for any day, the rate per annum determined by the Purchaser in accordance with its usual procedures (which determination  shall be conclusive absent manifest error) to be the “Open Rate” for federal funds transactions as of the opening of business for federal funds transactions among members of the Federal Reserve System arranged by federal funds brokers on such day; provided, however, that if such day is not a Business Day, the Federal Funds Open Rate for such day shall be the Open Rate on the immediately preceding Business Day, or if no such rate shall be quoted by a federal funds broker at such time, such other rate as selected by the Purchaser in accordance with its usual procedures. Any rate of interest based on the Federal Funds Open Rate shall be adjusted as of each Business Day based on changes in the Federal Funds Open Rate without notice to the Town.

Section 4Security for the Bond.  The Bond shall be a special obligation of the Town and the principal of, prepayment premium and interest on the Bond shall be payable solely from the sources identified in the Bond Order and as set forth in the Bond. The uses of the sources set forth in the Bond Order and the Bond do not constitute a pledge of the Town’s taxing power and the Town is not obligated to pay the principal of, or interest or any premium on, the Bond except from the sources in the Bond Order and the Bond.

NEITHER THE FAITH AND CREDIT NOR THE TAXING POWER OF THE TOWN A RE PLEDGED FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF, OR INTEREST OR ANY PREMIUM ON, THE BOND, AND NO OWNER OF THE BOND HAS THE RIGHT TO COMPEL THE EXERCISE OF THE TAXING POWER OF THE TOWN IN CONNECTION WITH ANY DEFAULT THEREON.

Section 5Application of the Bond Proceeds. On the date of the initial issuance of the Bond, the Purchaser shall delivery the Bond proceeds to any account identified by the Town and the Town shall invest, or cause to be invested, such proceeds until used only in investments authorized by Section 159-30 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. Such Bond proceeds shall be applied solely as follows: (1) as soon as practicable, for the costs of the Current Project, and (2) within 60 days of the date of initial issuance, for payment of the issuance costs.

Section 6Execution of the Bond.  The Bond, issued as a single bond, shall be executed in the name of the Town by facsimile or manual signatures of the Town’s Mayor and Town Clerk and there shall be affixed thereto or imprinted thereon the seal of the Town, and the Certificate of Approval of the Commission shall bear a facsimile or manual signature of the Secretary of the Commission or his designated assistant.  The Town Manager shall manually authenticate the Bond.

Section 7Private Sale of Bond. The Bond shall be sold to the Purchaser at private sale without advertisement in the form of a single registered bond bearing interest at 2.18% per annum and containing such provisions as set forth above and in the Bond Purchase Agreement, to be dated the delivery of the Bond (the “BPA”), between the Commission and the Purchaser and approved the Town. The Town hereby approves the draft of the BPA presented at this meeting and hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and Town Manager, individually or collectively, as appropriate, to execute and delivery such BPA in such final form that they, with the advice of counsel, deem appropriate.

Section 8Authorization for Delivery of Bond.   The Mayor, the Town Manager and the Town Clerk, individually or collectively, are hereby authorized and directed to cause the Bond to be prepared and, when it shall have been duly sold by the Commission, lo execute and authenticate the Bond and deliver the same to the Purchaser.

Section 9Arbitrage and Tax Covenants.  The Town covenants  that  it will  not take or permit, or omit to take or cause to be taken, any action that would adversely affect the exclusion from gross income of the recipient thereof for federal income tax purposes of interest on the Bond and, if it should take or permit, or omit to take or cause to be taken, any such action, the Town will take or cause to be taken all lawful actions within its power necessary to rescind or correct such actions or omissions promptly upon having knowledge thereof . The Town acknowledges that the continued exclusion of the Bond from the owner’s gross income for federal income tax purposes depends, in part, on compliance with the arbitrage limitations imposed by Section 148 of the Code.

The Town covenants that it will comply with all the requirements of Section 148 of the Code, including the rebate requirements, and that it will not permit at any time any of the proceeds of the Bond or other funds under its control to be used, directly or indirectly, to acquire any asset or obligation, the acquisition of which would cause the Bond to be “arbitrage bonds” for purposes of Section 148 of the Code. The Town covenants that it will comply with the investment instructions in the Arbitrage and Tax Regulatory Certificate executed and delivered on the date hereof with respect to the Bond.

Section 10Authorization for Other Acts. The Mayor, Town Clerk, Town Manager, the Town Clerk and the Town Attorney, individually or collectively, are further authorized and directed to take such action and to execute and deliver any such documents, deeds, certificates, undertakings, agreements or other instruments as they, with the advice of counsel, may deem necessary and appropriate to effect the transactions contemplated by the Bond Order and this Resolution. Such officers are hereby directed to take all actions necessary to effectuate the transaction set forth above, including taking any such actions or making any such changes as may be required by the Commission Approval.

Section 11.  Transfer Restrictions. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Bond Order or this Resolution to the contrary, the Bond shall not be transferred to any person other than a bank, insurance company or similar financial institution unless such transfer has been previously approved by the Commission.

The Purchaser or its assignees may assign or reassign all or any part of the Bond, including the assignment or reassignment of any partial interest through the use of certificates evidencing participation interests in the Bond, or making the Bond part of a pool of obligations without the consent of the Commission, so long as such assignment or reassignment is to (i) a bank, insurance company or similar institution or any other entity approved by the Commission; or (ii) a trustee  for the purpose of issuing certificates of participation or other forms of certificates evidencing an undivided interest  in the Bond, provided such certificates are sold only to a bank, insurance company or similar financial institution or other entity approved by the Commission.

The provisions of this paragraph may not be amended without the prior written consent of the Commission.

Section 12Reporting Requirements for the Town. The Town hereby covenants to provide to the Purchaser at the same time the Town provides its annual audited financial statements to the Commission, but in no event later than 210 days after the end of the Town’s fiscal year, the Town’s annual audited financial statements. The Town shall also provide such other financial information and operating reports as may be reasonably requested by the Purchaser.

Section 13Supplemental Resolutions; Additional Parity Indebtedness. The Town may adopt resolutions supplemental hereto; provided, however, the Purchaser’s prior written consent shall be required for any supplemental resolution that affects the terms or tax treatment of the Bond. The Town may issue indebtedness that is on parity with the Bond with the Purchaser’s prior written consent.

Section 14Repealer. All orders and resolutions and parts of orders and resolutions in conflict with this Resolution, if any, excluding the Bond Order, shall be and the same are hereby repealed lo the extent the conflict exists.

Section15Effectiveness of Resolution. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption by the Board of Commissioners.

12-20-16

Staff and ATM have held the permit required pre-project consultation with USACE, CAMA and Weeks Marine.  Everything is set to go, preparations are well under way for the beginning of beach nourishment at Holden Beach. The original anticipated initial sand placement of December 15th has been delayed to a more realistic start date of December 28th due to contractor’s logistical considerations with the ocean tow of the pipe raft from Charleston.  The Weeks’ Marine shore crew is on site near the foot of the bridge prepping the heavy equipment needed for beach work. Sand placement will initially occur on the easternmost leg of the project between Jordan Boulevard and 240 Ocean Boulevard East. Subsequently; sand will be placed moving to the west. They anticipate that this will be a sixty (60) day project with work being done with a 24/7 schedule. Residents and visitors should be aware that this is a highly industrial operation replete with numerous danger zones on the beach strand during the nourishment activities. Please stay out of designated danger zones!

 01-17-17

BE Lindholm
For more information
» click here
http://www.weeksmarine.com/equipment-division/equipment-details/be-lindholm

RN Weeks
For more information
» click here
http://www.weeksmarine.com/equipment-division/equipment-details/w450-rn-weeks

Placement of a five-section submerged line that brings the sand from the ocean transfer point to the beach strand was completed. The two hopper dredges the BE Lindholm and RN Weeks are both on site and dedicated to the Central Reach Project. Dredging officially began on Wednesday, January 4th. They anticipate that this will be a sixty (60) day project with work being done with a 24/7 schedule. The plan is to cycle the two dredges, one digging sand at the borrow site and one pumping sand to the starter pad at 140 OBE. They will continue to place sand on the beach strand as they transition down the beach moving to the west. When visiting the beach, please remember to stay clear of the work zone area as identified by orange fencing on the beach.

They are approximately twenty (20) percent into completion of the project. The contractor is putting around twenty (20) thousand cubic yards of sand on the beach daily. That translates into the size of a football field at a depth of six (6) to eight (8) feet. David is attempting to add the hundred thousand (100,000) cubic yard sand loss from Hurricane Matthew into our current CRP effort.   Holden Beach currently has an engineered beach and as such qualifies for Category G FEMA reimbursements. The Town has enough flexibility in its existing permit to add the hundred thousand (100,000) cubic yards if we can get FEMA to approve a Category G Project Worksheet in a timely manner. We have a sixty (60) day contract with the vendor and our permits expire March 31st. At the current pace, they should complete the project with three (3) weeks left on the permit. It makes perfect sense to piggyback on this mobilization and avoid additional mobilization costs later. There is a very small window of opportunity but he plans on making a hard run at it.

Category G: Parks, Recreational Facilities, Other – Repair and restoration of parks, playgrounds, pools, cemeteries and beaches;

Eligible work is documented on a Project Worksheet (PW). The PW is used to record a detailed description, the scope of eligible work, estimated or actual cost, and special considerations associated with the project.

02-21-17Beach Nourishment IV - CR
Holden Beach Central Reach Project replenishes shore, creates opportunities
The $15 million project, called the Central Reach Project, is designed to refortify the beach by taking sand from the ocean floor and pumping it onto the shore. The time-consuming process will take four to six weeks to complete, despite the fact that the equipment runs all day, every day.

Town Manager David Hewett says that the project is vital for the island in more ways than one. “The purpose of the project is three-fold. First, to protect property values here at the beach. As you can see, there’s about 100 feet of new beach in front of the homes,” he said. “Next, it will increase recreational opportunities for the public at large. And thirdly, to improve the natural environment and create opportunities for things like shore birds and turtles.”

The project was funded by a $12 million Special Obligation bond and a $3 million contribution from the town of Holden Beach.
Read more »
click here
http://www.wwaytv3.com/2017/01/27/holden-beach-central-reach/

Holden Beach Central Reach Project may finish ahead of schedule
Should the Central Reach Project be completed early, Holden Beach may be able to use the dredges in place to replace 100 cubic yards of sand lost as a result of Hurricane Matthew. Town Manager David Hewett said the town is sharing information with the Federal Emergency Management Agency about the Central Reach Project and the possibility of replacing sand lost in the hurricane. FEMA must approve the sand replacement. “What we have here is the opportunity to possibly get our FEMA damages on the strand taken care of by using those dredges that are currently in place, a shovel-ready project, and instead of having to pay extra to have those shipped to come back, they’re already here and for,” he said. “We’ve got the permits in hand, and I just need the feds to cooperate in making that happen.”
Read more »
click here
http://www.brunswickbeacon.com/content/holden-beach-central-reach-project-may-finish-ahead-schedule

Central Reach Project may finish mid-March
Holden Beach is still awaiting absolute confirmation it can use the dredges in place to add the 100-cubic yard sand loss from Hurricane Matthew into the current Central Reach Project effort. Town Manager David Hewett said the Federal Emergency Management Agency has given the town a verbal OK for the addition, but said the request is in the Office of Legislative Affairs for further review

Crews are placing about 20,000 cubic yards of sand a day for the project, or the equivalent of a football field in length and six feet deep. Hewett said he estimates the project will be completed mid-March. If the placement of an additional 100,000 yards is approved, Hewett said, crews could still be finished before March 31, when the project window ends. “(We could) take advantage of the fact that the dredge is already here, which would save about $3 million,” he said. “It would be the same operation, and the idea is to do it at the same time, so it’ll take a bit longer than mid-March, but those guys have been averaging 200,000 cubic yards a day. Another 100,000 yards is another week’s work.”

Once the project is completed, Hewett said, the town must work to stabilize the new dunes with sand fencing and vegetation, which will be a planting operation beginning in mid-March and lasting about 10 weeks. The town must also monitor the amount of benthic macroinvertebrates, like sand fleas and coquina shells, and record their impact on the beach over a three-year period.
Read more »
click here
http://www.brunswickbeacon.com/content/central-reach-project-may-finish-mid-march

Who should pay for beach nourishment?
State plan makes the case for $25 million annual pot to help maintain beaches, one of North Carolina’s largest tourism draws
Read more »
click here
http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20170224/who-should-pay-for-beach-nourishment

02-21-17

Few weeks left in Holden Beach renourishment program
Since the new year, Holden Beach has been working to get their coastline into tip top shape before the upcoming tourism season. This $15 million project called the Central Reach Project is designed to take sand from the ocean floor and pump it onto shore.

Town Manager David Hewett said dredging will add storm damage protection, create habitats and increase the recreation area. While the area was already in need of renourishment, Hewett said they lost even more sand during Hurricane Matthew making this project a must. “We did experience some erosion from Hurricane Matthew,” Hewett said. “We have quantified about 100,000, approximately 100,000 cubic yards of sand loss and some vegetation, damage to the dunes, that kind of thing.”

The project is expected to be done within the next two to three weeks, just in time for the tourism season but more importantly turtle season. “In all reality, it’s the turtle season that permit windows that drives the actual dredging of the nearby areas,” Hewett said.

The town is also dredging near Lockwood Folly Inlet. It’s called the Eastern Reach Project. The purpose is to improve navigation in the Intracoastal Waterway which should be completed by the end of March.

Hewett says this warm and relatively quiet weather has worked in their favor to getting the work done on time.
Read more »
click here
http://www.wwaytv3.com/2017/02/27/few-weeks-left-in-holden-beach-renourishment-program/

Central Reach Project (03/18/17)
This morning saw the last offload of dredged material from the R.N. Weeks. Both hopper dredges have now departed the Holden Beach area. Shore crews will be conducting fine grading of the berm near the project’s terminus at 781 OBW over the next 24 hours or so. On Monday, demobilization should begin with the shore pipes being staged for overland shipment. I anticipate the beach being mostly devoid of construction related machinery and equipment within a week or so; although the submerged line that is beached just east of the pier may take a little longer due needing repairs prior to towing it away offshore.

Be advised that even though active sand pumping operations have ceased, demobilization activities occurring this coming week in and along the entire four miles of the project area will be just as dangerous (if not more) because heavy equipment will be moving throughout the project area intent on vacating as quickly as possible. Please remain vigilant if you visit the strand.


HBPOA

.
HBPOA website has videos taken from a drone to show you the progress being made on the Central Reach Project.

For more information » click here
http://holdenbeachpoa.com/

.
You can watch YouTube drone video flying west over the project here and moving east here 


The Central Reach Project placement of sand and demobilization stage have been completed. The next phase of the project is to meet the dune stabilization requirement which includes sand fencing and vegetation which is currently underway.

Terminal Groin Project

Terminal Groin Project

Terminal groins are structures that run perpendicular to the shore and close to a tidal inlet to catch sand and keep the shoreline intact. Towns position is that a terminal groin could be a vital part of our beach nourishment program; providing stability in the most erosion prone areas of the island.

Town Beach Management Plan includes submitting an application for a terminal groin structure at the island’s east end adjacent to Lockwood Folly Inlet to stabilize the area.

Holden Beach Terminal Groin Draft Engineer Report was completed August 2013
    1) Preferred Alternative includes three components
.       a) Terminal Groin
.       b) Beach nourishment
.       c) Monitoring
.     2) Proposed intermediate groin structure @1,000’ total length
.       a) @700’ groin length
.       b) @300’ anchor section length that will be buried
.       c) Cost estimated at approximately $2,5000,000
    3) Program is estimated to result in substantial savings over the long term

For additional information visit the Town of Holden Beach website » click here
http://www.hbtownhall.com/terminal-groins.html

PUBLIC HEARING:
The US Army Corps of Engineers a federal agency held a public hearing on September 24th to receive public comments on the draft environmental impact statement for Holden Beach’s proposed terminal groin project.

Holden Beach Terminal Groin – Corps ID # SAW-2011-01914
This request is from the Town of Holden Beach for a terminal groin and beach fill project in waters of the US.  The proposed terminal groin is one component of the Town of Holden Beach’s ongoing comprehensive beach management program, described in the Holden Beach 2009 Beach Management Plan. A terminal groin structure on the eastern end of Holden Beach is an alternative that is being considered as the preferred method to reduce the high erosion losses that have historically occurred at the east end of Holden Beach, in addition to proactive sand management of Lockwoods Folly Inlet.
For more information »
click here
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/MajorProjects.aspx

Holden Beach East End Shore Protection Project
Final Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) / Publication of the Notice of Availability

The Town’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative 6 – Intermediate Terminal Groin with Beach Nourishment) would assume responsibility for East End shore protection through the construction of a terminal groin that would include a 700-ft-long segment extending seaward from the toe of the primary dune and a ~300-ft anchor segment extending landward from the toe of the primary dune.  The groin would also include a 120-ft-long shore parallel T-Head segment centered on the seaward terminus of the main stem. 

Under Alternative 6, construction and maintenance costs would include those associated with construction and maintenance of the intermediate groin and periodic beach nourishment; including the costs of beach fill and groin materials, mobilization/demobilization, monitoring, surveying and permitting.  Additional costs would be associated with risk to properties and infrastructure, loss of recreational opportunities, loss of habitat, and environmental impacts associated with the groin and periodic nourishment and dredging activities.  Over a 30-year planning horizon, assuming $2.5 million for initial groin construction and nourishment of the East End Beach with approximately 150,000 CY of sand every four years, and an annual four percent increase in fill costs, Alternative 6 is expected to involve total construction costs of approximately $34.41 million.
For more information »
click here
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/MajorProjects/HBDEIS.aspx

My Two Cents - CR II

I am on the fence, at this point I am neither for nor against the proposed terminal groin. I’m not convinced that this is a need but rather just another want. The report appears to be written in such a way that it takes a position that the Towns preferred alternative is the best choice and then proceeds to justify that position.  Despite the size of the DEIS they don’t have a cost vs. benefit analysis that shows this is the best course of action for the island. It also does not give any insight into how we plan to pay the estimated thirty-four (34) million dollars for this project. Most disconcerting are the two disclaimers that I have shown below that severely undermine the study’s conclusions. The combination of the estimated cost and the uncertainty of the outcome make me reluctant to endorse this project. On the other hand the Central Reach Project which has been on the back burner is a critical project and from my perspective a clear need and my preferred course of action. If we were to have a breach in that area it would make everything west of the breach inaccessible and uninhabitable since no utilities would be provided there. Frankly I don’t see how we can pay for both. So I’m leaning with making the Central Reach Project the priority over the proposed Terminal Groin Project.

Know the difference between wants and needs?
One of the most basic concepts of economics is want vs. need.
A need is something you have to have.
.          • It’s something you can’t do without.
A want is something you would like to have.
         •
It’s not absolutely necessary, but it would be a good thing to have.

Disclaimers –
DEIS 4.8.1 Economic Benefits
This section describes the potential scope of these values for each of the six alternative actions under consideration for the Holden Beach East End Shore Protection Project. Monetary measures are provided for values that are readily identifiable and measurable based on existing data, such as construction and maintenance costs for the alternatives that involve nourishment or a terminal groin, as well as assessed tax values for properties at-risk to loss from erosion. These values should not be considered definitive and should not be used as the sole basis for choice or ranking of alternatives.

This section should not be considered a formal cost-benefit analysis; it is not an attempt to monetize all aspects of the range of market and non-market costs and benefits that are associated with the alternative actions. Costs and benefits associated with changes in aesthetic appeal, opportunities for recreation, or services provided by the affected natural environment constitute real economic costs but are not monetized as part of this report. Based on results in the published and peer-reviewed literature as described in Appendix M, these values are known to be substantial. However, the precise magnitude, distribution, and timing of these values will remain unknown. As such, the select monetary values that are provided herein should be considered general approximations and not representations of the true economic worth associated with the alternatives. Given the inherent uncertainties regarding specific performance of alternatives over a 30-year project planning horizon, providing an estimate of total costs, total benefits, or net gains is not practical. As a result, ranking of the alternatives based on their relative economic values is not performed.

DEIS 5.2.1 Direct and Indirect Impact Analysis
It is not possible to accurately predict all of the complex environmental variables that influence changes in coastal morphology. In fact, some anthropogenic activities, such as AIWW navigation dredging, were purposely excluded from the modeling runs to minimize the potential for masking of project-induced changes. Consequently, the model-projected changes should not be interpreted as a precise estimate of future conditions in the Permit Area.

Update –
NCCF
North Carolina Coastal Federation
.

Since its grassroots formation in 1982 the federation is the state’s only 501(c) (3) non-profit organization that focuses exclusively on protecting and restoring the coast of North Carolina through education, advocacy and habitat preservation and restoration.
For more information » click here
http://www.nccoast.org/about-us/

Protect Oceanfront and Inlet Beaches for Public Uses and Maintain Their Natural Functions
North Carolina’s beaches and inlets are some of our coast’s most valuable environmental and economic assets. Our ability to use the beach and inlets is a basic public trust right that we all share. The state’s constitution specifically states that preserving our beaches is part of our common heritage and the responsibility of state government (N.C. Constitution, Article XIV, Section 5).

In recent years, public access and use of our beaches and inlets have become increasingly hampered as some oceanfront property owners push to install hardened structures, such as sand bags and terminal groins, to protect their seaside investments from possible erosion- all at a great cost financially and environmentally.

In an effort to preserve the natural functions of our beaches and inlets and people’s access to these areas, we promote and support alternative ways to address erosion issues at a much lower financial, social and environmental cost. We are also diligently working to prevent hardened structures that are currently proposed along our coast.

Overview
The east end of Holden Beach has historically experienced high erosion rates as a result of the natural fluctuations of Lockwood Folly Inlet. The issue confronting the Town of Holden Beach is how best to address the effect of that historic and ongoing erosion on properties in the “East End Project Area” in a manner that is economically sound, maintains the Town’s recreational beach, and can be implemented. On August 28, 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a draft environmental impact statement that analyzed alternatives for responding to the East End erosion over a four-year time span. The alternatives ranged from allowing the erosion to occur naturally to installing an “intermediate” length terminal groin. Based on the analysis presented in the environmental impact statement, three things are clear:

  • Some properties will be lost under any alternative
  • Relocating affected houses is the only alternative that maintains a recreational beach long term
  • Relocating affected houses is the only long-term, cost-effective response. 

The proposed terminal groin and other nourishment alternatives are estimated to cost more than $36 million. In addition to the $2.5 million initial construction cost of the proposed terminal groin, the Town would have to renourish the beach every four years. The 30-year tax revenue from all properties within the 30-year risk area as designated in the Coastal Resources Commission’s 2010 Terminal Groin Study is less than $1.25 million. Based on historical data, a limited number of those properties would be affected, meaning that the lost tax revenue to the Town could be substantially less.

Audubon North Carolina
Members of Audubon North Carolina’s ten local chapters embody the simple enjoyment of birds and the projects that help preserve them.
For more information » click here

http://nc.audubon.org/

Re: SAW-2011-01914 Holden Beach East End Shore Protection Project
Please accept these comments on behalf of the National Audubon Society’s North Carolina State Office regarding the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the project known as “Holden Beach East End Shore Protection Project.”

The DEIS omits the vast majority of the ample body of scientific literature that is available to describe the well-known and accepted physical impacts of terminal groins and beach fill. It then fails to accurately describe the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that these activities would have on biological resources within Lockwood Folly Inlet…

Alternative 2, as presented in the DEIS, is the only alternative in the DEIS that can and should be considered We urge the Corps to reject all other alternatives presented in the DEIS and consider non-destructive, long-term and economically feasible solutions for the Town of Holden Beach.

Figure 5.4. Holden Beach – Model-Projected YR4 MHW Lines for all Alternatives
Model of all Alternatives II - CR
My Two Cents - CR II

I have now attended two community meetings with representatives from the North Carolina Coastal Federation. Both meetings were interactive discussion groups unlike the meeting for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Model Lines for all Alternatives picture shown above is the DEIS modelling after four years. Modelling has all the alternate lines reasonably close together regardless of which alternative we select including not doing anything at all. Their doesn’t appear to be any substantial change in the erosion on the east end of the island despite spending thirty-four (34) million dollars for a terminal groin. Also upon further review it seems that the DEIS minimized the cost ($34 million) of alternate six and has exaggerated the costs ($46 million) of alternate one maintaining the status quo. The projections they made regarding the cubic yards required in the annual sand nourishment numbers are not even remotely close to the historical data provided in the Beach Nourishment Report. I am really struggling to form an opinion, positive or negative, so I’m still on the fence. However I’m slowly becoming more and more convinced that a terminal groin is neither economically sound nor in our best interest.

IMPACTS OF TERMINAL GROINS ON NORTH CAROLINA’S COASTS
Results show that faced with rising sea levels, terminal groins are likely to cause more harm than good.
For more information » click here
http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/5182/Knapp_Whitney_MP.pdf?sequence=1

Terminal Groin – Save Rich Inlet Public Forum
Meeting was held on Saturday, March 5th in Wilmington, NC
Forum was to allow contact and interaction with people that have direct expertise on the subject

Forum takeaways –
Danish physicist Niels Bohr –
“Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”
Even if we assume the models accurately represent all the variables
Nobody knows what’s really going to happen
Because of this, ultimately the answer is imperfect
Analysis with that level of uncertainty is an exercise in futility

We need to do both a cost benefit analysis and a risk benefit analysis
Project is high risk with a high probability that it will not work
Just doesn’t add up – they cannot support constructing a terminal groin

Coastal Scientist Statement on Groin Impacts
Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines
Western Carolina University 

The United States Army Corps of Engineers’ Coastal Engineering Manual describes groins as: “…probably the most misused and improperly designed of all coastal structures…

There is no debate: A structure placed at the terminus of a barrier island, near an inlet, will interrupt the natural sand bypass system, deprive the ebb and flood tide deltas of sand and cause negative impacts to adjacent Islands. 

Using groins in conjunction with beach nourishment projects is of dubious value as well.

The localized and temporary up drift benefits afforded by groins and jetties rarely, if ever, justify the down drift damage caused by increased erosion.

Property Owners’ Understanding of Erosion Control on Holden Beach
Executive Summary
The environmental and socioeconomic implications of terminal groins have been debated nationally and become largely controversial, especially along the North Carolina coast. Coastal communities have recently witnessed the effects of beach erosion on their coastlines, and beachfront properties have already been lost to the sea. These issues are particularly severe on barrier islands and near inlets, both of which are extremely dynamic. Locals often disagree on the best way to control erosion, and town governments struggle to find a balance between safeguarding development on beaches and bearing the economic, environmental, and social costs of erosion intervention options. Terminal groins are one option to slow the impacts of beach erosion or to supplement beach nourishment efforts, despite varied evidence on their level of effectiveness.

The Town of Holden Beach has proposed a terminal groin to save properties that are threatened by beach erosion on the eastern portion of the island. In order to assess homeowners’ understanding of beach erosion and the effects of terminal groins, as well as to understand their preferences for erosion intervention alternatives, a web survey was developed for our client, the Southern Environment al Law Center, to be distributed by the Holden Beach Property Owners’ Association (POA). The POA circulated the survey to their email list of 1096 addresses, and respondents had two weeks to complete the survey.

Results of this study indicate a mixed level of understanding of beach erosion and the impacts of terminal groins, but respondents were very interested in learning more about what the proposed terminal groin would mean for Holden Beach. There was a nearly identical number of responses from those clearly in support of the proposed groin and clearly against the proposed groin (101 and 100 individuals, respectively). Both cost and environmental impacts were deemed to be very important determinants of whether or not respondents supported the proposed groin. According to our study, there is a need for further dissemination of educational materials on impacts of groins and clearer statements of costs for the proposed erosion intervention alternatives. Respondents expressed a strong desire to be included in decision-making processes regarding erosion intervention on Holden Beach.
For more information »
click here
http://holdenbeachpoa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Holden-Beach-Final-Report.pdf

Save Lockwood Folly Inlet Website
The Holden Beach proposed terminal groin draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is flawed. It fails to comply with federal law. It does not provide required data and it includes flawed financial analysis of the project.
For more information » click here
http://www.savelockwoodfollyinlet.org/

Same Tune, Different Players at Holden
Building a wall to curb erosion as this beach town now wants to do on the east end of island is an idea that’s been around for decades. The town’s first mayor, John F. Holden, put up a series of small, wooden walls at the east end sometime in the 1960s, according to his son and the town’s current mayor, Alan Holden. He installed some small groins down at the old pavilion down in the 100 block of Ocean Boulevard East that proved to work very well,” Alan Holden said. “As the current drifted over them the sand would fall on the backside. He had to take them out as they got older.” In the 1970s, John F. Holden worked with the state’s governor to place sandbag groins in the same area where the wooden structures once stood. “They proved to work very well, but we had a problem with people taking knives to them,” Alan Holden said. John F. Holden eventually sought construction of a jetty at Lockwood Folly Inlet by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps, though, decided to build a jetty farther south at Little River Inlet in South Carolina in the early 1980s.

In 1985 North Carolina banned hard structures, including terminal groins and jetties, as erosion control methods on the along the beachfront. There are technical differences between jetties and terminal groins. Jetties are typically bigger and longer than groins, built at navigable inlets to reduce shoaling. Terminal groins are usually built on straight stretches of beach and are perpendicular to the coast. They are designed to trap sand.

John F. Holden would not get to fulfill his pursuit to install a terminal groin or jetty on the east end. He died in 2000, 11 years before the N.C. General Assembly repealed the ban. Now Holden Beach is closer than it’s ever been to the possibility of installing a terminal groin on the east end. The Corps last fall released a draft environmental study on the proposed project. As Holden Beach waits for the agency to release a final environmental impact statement, some town leaders and property owners are seeking answers about whether or not the proposed project will work effectively, is worth the long-term costs and potential environmental impacts.

They will get the opportunity to hear more about terminal groins at a public forum today sponsored by the N.C. Coastal Federation, the Holden Beach Property Owners Association and the Southern Environmental Law Center. “What we’re trying to do is offer a chance to people who are interested to ask questions of the experts and hear the other side of the story as far as what this proposal could to do the town,” said Mike Giles, a coastal advocate with the federation. Tom Myers, president of the Holden Beach Property Owners Association, said a survey the association conducted last August revealed a majority of property owners that responded needed more information about future beach projects. “We’re trying to look at everybody and get a broad understanding of what the opinions are,” Myers said. “Our EIS draft went out and I think there was a lot of frustration there because it was a one-way dialogue. You couldn’t really get into a Q&A session. I think that’s what people really want.”

The federation and Audubon North Carolina have gone on record opposing the proposed project, which would include construction of a roughly 1,000-foot-long terminal groin and subsequent beach re-nourishing that would place anywhere from about 120,000 to 180,000 cubic yards of sand on the beach, according to the draft EIS. Re-nourishment would occur about every four years. Over a 30-year period the project would cost upwards of $35 million. Giles said, economically, the town may be better off if a handful of homes at the east end are relocated. “The entire island is not under threat of erosion from the inlet,” he said. “We think erosion could be controlled by proper dredging of the inlet, when it’s dredged, and beach nourishment.” The proposed project, according to the draft study, would be built on public and private properties, Giles said. He said town officials have not discussed the location with property owners whose land would be affected. “That’s one of the things that is being hashed out as we go forward with the permit process,” Alan Holden said. He supports construction of a terminal groin on the east end, where he said dozens of homes have been lost during his lifetime as a result of erosion. “We look around the world and it’s generally understood that [terminal groins] are a good thing,” he said. John Fletcher, a Holden Beach commissioner, said the jury’s still out for him and other board members as to whether a terminal groin is the best alternative for the town. “We’re waiting for more information,” he said. “We’re hungry for more information. The commissioners have been hoping something like [the public forum] would happen. I’m sure there are cases where terminal groins have worked and cases where terminal groins have not worked.”

The forum will be 6:30 – 9 p.m. at the Holden Beach Chapel Fellowship Hall. Panelists include Stan Riggs, a coastal geologist and distinguished research professor at East Carolina University; Andy Coburn, deputy director of Western Carolina University’s Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines; Doug Wakeman, a retired professor of economics at Meredith College’s School of Business; and Geoff Gisler, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. Town officials and representatives with Dial Cordy and Associates, the contractor that wrote the EIS, have declined an invitation to the forum saying it is inappropriate for them to participate, Myers said. “We’re not trying to interfere in any way with the process,” he said. “We want someone to summarize these big, thick documents. There’s a lot of confusion, a lot of misinformation about what it’s all about. My goal is, if we all agree on all the facts then we’ll come to the same conclusion and there won’t be that much debate.”

State law requires that local voters must approve funding to build a terminal groin. Myers said he hopes the town’s registered voters and property owners, a majority of whom are not year-round residents, have a clear understanding of the proposed project by the time it’s put to a vote.

Holden Beach is among a handful of towns seeking permits to build terminal groins. The Village of Bald Head Island is the first in the state to build a terminal groin since the law was changed in 2011 to allow up to four projects. In 2015, the law was changed again to allow another two groins to be built.  Ocean Isle Beach in Brunswick County and Figure Eight Island, a private barrier island in New Hanover County, are in various stages of the process to obtain permits.

Learn More

For more information » click here
http://www.coastalreview.org/2016/04/14175/

Holden Beach Terminal Groin Public Forum
Meeting was held on Friday, April 29th at Holden Beach Chapel by the Sea
Forum was to allow contact and interaction with people that have direct expertise on the subject

Over one hundred (100) members of the community were in attendance. Everyone agrees that the beach strand is our most valuable asset. Both the HBPOA and Duke University surveys determined that there should be further dissemination of educational material. I applaud the four “Preserve Our Family Beach” Commissioners that attended in an effort to educate themselves so that they can make an informed decision based on the facts. Despite the good attendance it was as interesting to note who was not there. Town officials and representatives with Dial Cordy and Associates, Applied Technology and Management the contractor that wrote the EIS, declined to join the discussion. A number of members of the community that have already decided that they are for the terminal groin were not in attendance apparently they don’t need hearing the opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately, both the Mayor and Commissioner Kyser chose not to attend either.

If you think a terminal groin is a panacea, you were misinformed.

Forum takeaways –
Inherent bias of the speakers towards conservation

Significant disagreement with EIS
.      a) EIS developed to support building a terminal groin
.      b) Overstated benefits, most optimistic assumptions
.      c) Overestimated erosion, not close to historical data
.      d) Underestimated costs, NO telling what actual cost will be but most probably they will be higher
     e) Ripe with uncertainty, which is not dealt with at all
.      f) Long term project, modelling is for just four years
     g) Storms are a critical piece, yet they are not included in modeling

Model - Issue CR

Fiscal analysis – looked at the two end points
.    1) Worst case – Alternate #2, Relocation / Retreat
.    2) Best case – Alternate #6, Intermediate Groin

The Issue: By the Numbers

Parcels Affected:
Alternate #2                 28 total            19 improved
Alternate #6                 16 total            11 improved

Assessed Value:
Alternate #2                 $5.18M
Alternate #6                 $2.10M

Cost:
Alternate #2                 $0
Alternate #6                 $34.43m

None of the alternatives protect every house
Beach nourishment is not significantly different for either alternatives
Difference between worst case and best case is only eight (8) houses
Only a $3.08M difference in the loss of revenue, the contribution at risk is minimal

The question becomes: Is it worth it?

Critics: Terminal Groins Don’t Stop Erosion
A terminal groin would benefit a handful of homes, protect less than $1.2 million in tax revenue over 30 years and push chronic erosion at the east end of Holden Beach to spots further down the barrier island, according to coastal and economic experts. Fiscal and environmental perspectives of the town’s proposed $34.4 million terminal groin project were presented during a public forum attended by nearly 100 property owners at the Holden Beach Chapel last Friday night.

The draft Environmental Impact Statement – a study put together by a consultant firm hired by the town – makes optimistic assumptions, minimizes project costs and does not address uncertainties of the proposed project, said Doug Wakeman, a retired professor of economics at Meredith College in Raleigh. “Anticipate that the benefits will be lower, the costs will be higher and the uncertainty will largely be ignored,” he said.

The study, which was released for public review last fall, states that 150 properties are at risk along the ocean shoreline in Holden Beach. Andy Coburn, the associate director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University, calculates that number to be much lower. “A terminal groin, if it’s built and if it does exactly what it’s supposed to do, which it won’t, is supposed to protect all 150 properties,” he said. Those properties are seaward of a state-delineated 30-year imminent risk line, and a terminal groin, he said, will not protect all 150 properties, if any at all. By his calculations, the benefits of a terminal groin may accrue to only 32 properties classified as imminent risk.

Over a 30-year period, the projected life of the proposed project, those 32 properties would result in a net present value tax revenue loss of less than $1.2 million, Coburn said. The net present value tax revenue loss over a 30-year period for all 150 properties is about $5.3 million, he said. The preferred project alternative in the study would expand 1,000 feet at the Lockwood Folly Inlet with 300 feet anchored on a portion of the large sand spit at the east end and the remaining 700 feet offshore.

The project’s proponents say a terminal groin would offer a long-term solution to chronic, severe erosion on the east end. Over time, the encroaching Atlantic has claimed numerous homes. Houses that were once second-row homes along McCrary Street are now beachfront properties. Town Mayor Alan Holden, who did not attend the forum, said in a previous interview that dozens of homes on the east end have been lost to erosion.

The town’s consultants on the proposed project, the town manager and the company that conducts the town’s annual beach monitoring reports were invited to be part of the forum. They either declined or did not respond, according to Tom Myers, the president of the Holden Beach Property Owners Association. Myers said the forum, hosted by his group, the N.C. Coastal Federation and the Southern Environmental Law Center, was held in response to a survey conducted last fall that revealed nearly half of property owners said they needed more information about the proposed project. A similar Duke University survey, released late last week, reached the same conclusion. That survey states that there is a “mixed level of understanding of beach erosion and the impacts of terminal groins” and that property owners wanted to know more.

Decisions about terminal groins are being made in towns throughout the southern N.C. coast after the N.C. General Assembly in 2011 repealed a nearly 30-year-old ban on hardened beach erosion control structures. Legislators changed the law in 2015 to allow for up to six terminal groins. Holden Beach, the neighboring barrier island of Ocean Isle Beach in Brunswick County and Figure Eight Island, a private barrier island in New Hanover County, are in various stages of the process of obtaining permits to build terminal groins at their inlets. Construction of a terminal groin at Bald Head Island, another Brunswick County barrier island, is well underway.

Stan Riggs, a coastal geologist and distinguished research professor at East Carolina University, said that the trouble with building terminal groins is that their potential effects are not isolated to one area, but rather the state’s entire coast. “This is not only an incredible coastal system, it’s an incredibly complex coastal system,” Riggs said. “The problem is everybody zeros in on one inlet. That’s like looking at one tree in the forest.” Holden Beach is part of a barrier island system in which 75 percent of the islands are considered “simple” barrier islands. These are low, narrow, sediment-poor islands Riggs calls “mobile piles of sand” and “energy absorbing sponges for the ocean.” The challenge with building structures on these islands is that people are putting “absolutes” on land that shifts and changes, he said. “Those islands have been changing forever and they’re going to continue to change,” Riggs said. “They’re storm dependent.” Storm surge creates the inlets at these islands. Inlets are like safety valves in that they act as outlets, allowing water pushed by powerful storms over and around barrier islands toward the mainland by storms to flow back out to sea. Lockwood Folly Inlet is one of the more stable inlets along the N.C. coast, Riggs said. “If you close it and lock it down the storm surge can’t use that as a safety valve,” he said. There are nine hardened erosion control structures along the state’s coast. Riggs showed how two of those structures, both terminal groins, have worked over the decades. The terminal groin built in the early 1960s in Beaufort Inlet at Fort Macon has shifted the erosion downstream, requiring regular dredging and pumping of sand onto Bogue Banks, Riggs said. A terminal groin built in the late 1980s at Oregon Inlet to protect the southern approach to the bridge over the inlet has created a sort-of erosion domino effect, Riggs said. “The rest of the island is collapsing all the way down to Rodanthe,” Riggs said. “Every example we have has never solved an erosion problem. It just pushes it down the island.” His prediction for Holden Beach is that the same will happen if a terminal groin is built at Lockwood Folly Inlet. “We need to let the natural system work a little bit,” Riggs said. He asked property owners to think about how they can live and move with the island. “We moved a lighthouse,” he said, referring to the 1999 relocation of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. The lighthouse, facing an encroaching ocean, was moved 2,900 feet inland from where it had stood since 1870. “We can move anything,” Riggs said. “I want you to think about that because it’s more than just about that one little structure and a few houses.”

Some property owners and town commissioners already have raised concerns about how a terminal groin may affect the town’s proposed “central reach” project. This $15 million beach re-nourishment project would be the largest in the town’s history, placing up to 1.31 million cubic yards of sand along four miles of shoreline. The town board is currently discussing how to pay for the proposed project, which would be funded through a property tax rate increase. Commissioners have not discussed how the town would pay for a terminal groin.

Geoff Gisler, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said, if you assume the four-year modeling in the draft study is correct, a terminal groin would protect only about five or six houses at the east end. “If you read (the study) you might think of this as an existential threat of the whole island,” he said. “The model does not consider storm impacts. They’re only looking at chronic erosion. Although it describes ongoing and chronic erosion, the historical rates at the east end of the island are five to seven feet at the end of the year.” The model in the study creates a much higher rate of erosion – 20 feet a year. “None of the alternatives protect all of the houses,” Gisler said.

Town Commissioner John Fletcher said he is not yet prepared to state whether or not he supports the proposed project. “I think we still have a lot more to learn about,” he said. It is unclear when the Army Corps of Engineers will release the final EIS.
For more information »
click here
http://www.coastalreview.org/2016/05/14217/

My Two Cents - CR II

I have now attended three (3) community meetings with representatives from the North Carolina Coastal Federation. They made a pretty convincing argument against building a terminal groin at Holden Beach. The island is part of a dynamic coastal environment, and is prone to natural movement and change. Even assuming that the EIS model is correct, building a terminal groin will only provide limited protection to very few houses. Meanwhile for the rest of the island it creates greater risk of down drift damage caused by increased erosion further down the beach strand putting other property owners at risk. There are softer alternatives that will allow for natural processes to continue and for the natural habitat to keep evolving as it always has. Based on the presentation, only people who own oceanfront property at the east end of the island would support building a terminal groin here. The comparison of benefits between the various alternatives shows little added protection coming from a terminal groin with a price tag exceeding $35 million dollars. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that it does not make much sense to spend $35M to save $3M. Numbers almost look like they are a misprint, it’s not a misprint those are the numbers. That did it for me. The taxpayers of Holden Beach will be asked to pay for this structure. You need to ask – What’s it really going to get us? Nobody with even the most rudimentary knowledge of economics, would think that this makes sense. As far as I’m concerned there is nothing to talk about, the fiscal analysis sealed the deal for me. I am no longer on the fence, I CAN NOT SUPPORT building a terminal groin.

You cant always get what you want,
but if
you try sometimes, you might find,
you get what you need.


HBPOA


HBPOA recorded all the presentations for those who could not attend. 

You can view the slides and listen to the presentations on their website.

For more information » click here
http://holdenbeachpoa.com/beach-nourishment-2/terminal-groin/groin-information-session/


Update – October 2016

Timelapse is a zoomable video
See how the ends of Holden Beach and the inlets has changed over the past 32 years.

Having trouble viewing » click here
https://earthengine.google.com/timelapse/#v=33.9185,-78.3125,11.973,latLng&t=2.21

After Hurricane Matthew, Ocean Isle Beach awaits terminal groin
Read more » click here

It’s a mystery to me –

 

 

OIB 750-foot terminal groin with an estimated construction cost of $5.7 million / @$7,600 foot

HB 1,000-foot terminal groin with an estimated construction cost of $2.5 million / @$2,500 foot

We plan on building a terminal groin that is 250’ longer but will cost $3.2 million less?
Granted that the plans may not be identical
But seriously, they are only going to be approximately ten miles apart
How different could they be?
Let me get this straight –
We plan to build for just 33% of the OIB estimated construction cost?
Terminal groin project is a boondoggle
Project will saddle Holden Beach taxpayers with a huge debt load.

What’s next?

The next steps include the following:
. 1)
Review Final EIS with USACE – November 2016
. 2) Publish final EIS – December 2016
. 3) Submit CAMA permit for review – December 2016
. 4) Public Hearing – January 2017
. 5) USACE record of decision – February 2017
. 6) Federal and State permit issuance – Spring 2017

My Two Cents - CR II

At the October meeting Dial Cordy, an independent environmental consulting firm that works for USACE, gave a presentation on the status of the proposed Terminal Groin. Dawn York gave a brief overview of the Holden Beach East End Shore Protection Project, reviewed the tasks that were completed to date and outlined timeline of what and when next steps were to be completed. As it stands right now, they have yet to publish the Final Environmental Impact Statement therefore they can’t proceed to the remaining steps. So apparently, everything else scheduled after that has been placed on indefinite hold.

Environmental group sues over Ocean Isle Beach terminal groin
Southern Environmental Law Center alleges U.S.A.C.E. did not consider alternatives.

It has been in the works for years, and Ocean Isle Beach officials were hopeful that a terminal groin project would get underway later this year, but the project planned for the Brunswick County barrier island has now run aground against another obstacle, at least temporarily.

On Monday and on behalf of Audubon North Carolina, the Southern Environmental Law Center filed suit in federal court challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ approval of the project. The lawsuit claims that the corps failed to objectively evaluate alternatives to the terminal groin, including those that would be less costly to local taxpayers and less destructive to the coast.
Read more » click here

National Audubon Society sues to stop OIB terminal groin
The National Audubon Society has challenged the Ocean Isle Beach terminal groin project by filing a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Read more » click here

Update – October 2017
Terminal Groin presentation was made on October of 2016, a year ago. We have had no communications from the Town regarding the status of our application. All the next step completion dates have come and gone. It would be nice if they kept us informed of the status of the tasks that still need to be completed.

Update – November 2017

HBPOA Meet the Candidates Night – Candidate Responses

Terminal Groin
Since 2011, the Town has pursued permits for a long-term East End beach nourishment Project that includes a Terminal Groin intended to slow downshore erosion along a portion of that beach. The Town’s draft Environmental Impact Statement necessary for the permits was first released in August 2015 and has been pending with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. According to the Town’s draft EIS, the Town’s long-term funding commitment for the project would be $30+ million. Please indicate which best describes your position on the Project.

Joe Butler 
FAVOR CONTINUATION OF BEACH NOURISHMENT USING SAND FROM DREDGING LOCKWOOD FOLLY INLET, AND OPPOSE BUILDING TERMINAL GROIN

John Fletcher –
FAVOR CONTINUATION OF BEACH NOURISHMENT USING SAND FROM DREDGING LOCKWOOD FOLLY INLET, AND OPPOSE BUILDING TERMINAL GROIN

Peter Freer
FAVOR CONTINUATION OF BEACH NOURISHMENT USING SAND FROM DREDGING LOCKWOOD FOLLY INLET, AND OPPOSE BUILDING TERMINAL GROIN

Pat Kwiatkowski –
FAVOR CONTINUATION OF BEACH NOURISHMENT USING SAND FROM DREDGING LOCKWOOD FOLLY INLET, AND OPPOSE BUILDING TERMINAL GROIN

 Mike Sullivan –
FAVOR CONTINUATION OF BEACH NOURISHMENT USING SAND FROM DREDGING LOCKWOOD FOLLY INLET, AND OPPOSE BUILDING TERMINAL GROIN

HBPOA Survey Results
Question #11

What should the Town do to combat chronic erosion on the East End of the island?
Regularly renourish the East End by dredging the inlet. / 185
Construct and maintain a terminal groin. / 95
Do nothing. / 54

There does not appear to be a lot of support for a terminal groin. With 239 out of 334 that chose an action, @72% of those responding DO NOT support building a terminal groin.

My Two Cents - CR II

I have been cogitating on the question of where we’re heading vis a vis building a terminal groin here. The combination of the HBPOA survey and the recent election results appear to point to us not moving forward with this project.