12 – Town Meeting

Lou’s Views

“Unofficial” Minutes & Comments


BOC’s Special Meeting 11/29/22

Board of Commissioners’ Agenda Packet » click here NA

Audio Recording » click here NA


1.   Executive Session Pursuant to NC General Statute 143-318.11(a)(6), Personnel – Commissioners Murdock and Kwiatkowski

No decision was made – No action taken


BOC’s Regular Meeting 12/20/22

Board of Commissioners’ Agenda Packet click here

Audio Recording » click here


1.  Discussion and Possible Action on Pinnacle Architecture’s Draft Master Site Plan for Block Q – Randy Baker, Pinnacle Architecture (Town Manager Hewett)

Agenda Packet – pages 21 – 22

Randy Baker from Pinnacle Architecture plans on attending the meeting to discuss his rough draft of the master site plan for Block Q.

Previously reported – October 2022
The Board selected the following firms:
Pier / Bowman Murray Hemingway Architects
Block Q / Pinnacle Architecture         
David will request a proposal from each firm with contract terms
The next step would be to enter in a contractual agreement with them

Previously reported – November 2022
During our onsite visit, the scope of work for Block Q will be defined in phases and will be divided up by the extent of cost of each phase of construction. The phases discussed will be as follows:

    • Phase 1 – Overall Masterplan of Block Q (this phase will include researching the Local and Government regulations that will impact the design and construction of this area, a site plan showing the proposed layout of the parking area and new ADA and NCSBC compliant restrooms and a rendering of the site.
    • Phase II – Provide design and permit drawings to close a portion Carolina Avenue designated as Tract 1 on the survey from Coastal geomatics, dated 07-06-2022 (approximately 12,215 square feet of roadway). This phase will include a TIA (Traffic Impact Analysis) study of this area.
    • Phase Ill – This phase will consist of a complete set construction and bid documents for Block Q that will be derived by :1 determined scope of work by the Board of Commissioners after reviewing Phase I (Overall Masterplan) and the  potential  cost  of work for construction

Pinnacle Architecture, P.A. fee proposal for Architectural and Engineering design of the proposed Phases listed above are as follows:

    • Phase I Overall Masterplan – Proposed Design Fee                      $20,000
    • Phase II Road Closure -Proposed Design fee                                  $18,000
    • Phase III Construction and Bid documents                                    To Be Determined

Budget Amendment – Block Q
The attached budget amendment in the amount of $38,000 is a necessary preaudit component of the Pinnacle /Block Q contract consideration. A new budget expense line item is proposed to be established titled Block Q Professional Services and funded via a revenue appropriation of BPART Fund Balance.

Suggested Motion: Approval of Budget Amendment

Moved funds of $38,000
From Revenue account #50.0399.0000 to Expense account#50.0710.6003

Randy the representative from Pinnacle addressed the BOC’s questions. The first two (2) phases are dependent on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) study. Expects it will take approximately three (3) to four (4) weeks to get that done and  creating the documents will take approximately two (2) to three (3) months. The motion was made to approve the proposal and the budget amendment  as submitted to the Board.
A decision was made – Approved unanimously

Update –
Randy made a brief presentation of the initial proposed site plan. Randy asked for feedback and comments from the Board. There was some discussion about adding more green space initially but that could be converted to additional parking as it is needed. Additional discussions included vehicle access, boat parking, handicap parking, and better access to the restrooms for the handicapped. The Board allowed the public to participate in the discussion. He will be back with a modified site plan incorporating their wish list.

Block Q Site Plan » click here 


2.   Discussion and Possible Action on Bowman Murray Hemingway Architecture’s Draft Master Site Plan for Pier Property –  Chip Hemingway

BOC’s Supplemental Agenda Packet » click here

Previously reported – October 2022
The Board selected the following firms:
Pier / Bowman Murray Hemingway Architects     
Block Q / Pinnacle Architecture
David will request a proposal from each firm with contract terms
The next step would be to enter in a contractual agreement with them

Work Session with Firm Selected for Pier Project
Previously the Board selected Bowman Murray Hemingway Architects for the pier project. Chip a representative of the firm was present to discuss the Request for Qualifications (RFQ). He wanted to gather information so that the firm can make a proposal to the Board. In other words, he wanted to know what would they like to do with the property. Commissioner Kwiatkowski attempted to walk him through what they have discussed and considered so far. Commissioner Murdock went into a little more detail about some potential options for the property. Planning & Inspections Director Tim Evans went over the regulations that would apply to the building renovations. The architectural firm plans to have a dialogue with Timbo to make sure they understand all the potential regulations and restrictions that affect what they can do there. The firm will submit a proposal to develop a conceptual site plan for the Board to consider.

Previously reported – November 2022
We understand this project to be a master-planning drawing of the existing pier facility and conceptually illustrate proposed future building and site improvements. We will begin to identify steps needed as far as permitting and testing to prepare future designs for the pier and building.

The existing pier will be renovated. We understand the extremely deficient existing pier house will be modified to re-open and serve the pier once it is renovated.

A detailed property survey will be needed prior to creating the site master plan drawing.

The master plan site plan drawing will incorporate but not be limited to the following.
Future work will be noted or shown conceptually:

      1. Renovate existing fishing pier with a new wood ADA ramp
      2. Renovate existing pier house
        • Keep work under 50% of the appraised
        • Begin to identify phases that keep the work under 50%.
        • Incorporate exterior restrooms within the existing building.
        • Potential outdoor decks adjacent to existing pier
      3. Show an emergency vehicle cross over onto the beach strand from the pier parking area,
      4. Study the existing parking to maximize layout for the renovated
      5. Study camper parking layout for optimized efficiency and camping
      6. Showers to be located near the exterior accessed restrooms with the existing

A listing of site, pier and building improvements. We will also identify all known permits and testing that will need to occur in future design phases.

Budget Amendment – Pier
The attached budget amendment in the amount of $35,000 implements previous board direction to refine line-item expenses to detail developmental costs of the pier properties more succinctly. Approval will be necessary to satisfy the pre-audit requirements associated with the Bowman Murray Hemingway contract expenses in addition to providing for an additional survey, the facility’s operational expenses to date, and those expected to occur through the end of the FY.

Suggested Motion: Approval of budget amendment and authorize town manager to execute contract.

Moved funds of $35,000
From Revenue account #50.0710.6100
to Expense account#50.0710.6103 & #50.0710.6104

Chip the representative from BMH addressed the BOC’s questions. A detailed property survey will be needed prior to creating the site master plan drawing. From the time they get the survey it will take them approximately two (2) months to develop a master site plan. The discussion was primarily about budget restraints of what they can do and short term vs. long term plan of action there. The motion was made to approve the proposal and the budget amendment  as submitted to the Board.
 A decision was made – Approved unanimously

Update –
Chip made a presentation of the pier revitalization project. It is the preliminary plan, he discussed where they are now and where they are headed. Their structural engineer is scheduled to be at the site next week to evaluate the building and the pier structure. He reviewed their plan for rehab of the pier, which he felt was a manageable scope of work. Chip asked for feedback and comments from the Board. They bounced some ideas off each other and shared additional information for things that needs to be incorporated into the plan. He will be back with a modified plan. Regulations require that we can only do work that is less than 50% of the appraised value. Because the renovations far exceed the allowed amount, the work will need to be done in phases.

Pier Property Site Plan » click here


3.   Election of Mayor Pro Tempore – Town Clerk Finnell

Agenda Packet – pages 23 – 24

Per Section 30.05, Mayor Pro Tempore of the Holden Beach Code of Ordinances, the Board shall elect from one of its members a mayor pro tem. The normal term of office is one year, commencing with the December meeting.

If the Board chooses to elect a new mayor pro tem, you can vote by ballot or verbally, whichever is the Board’s preference. If the Board votes by ballot, please make sure to sign your ballot.

§30.05 MAYOR PRO TEMPORE.

(A) The BOC shall elect a Mayor Pro Tempore. The normal term of office of the Mayor Pro Tempore shall be one year, commencing at the first regular meeting in December; provide, however, that the member shall serve at the pleasure of the

(B) The Mayor Pro Tempore shall discharge the duties and exercise the powers and authority of Mayor in the absence, disability, disqualification of the Mayor and during a vacancy in the office of Mayor; provided his or her rights and duties as BOC shall remain unimpaired; except he or she shall receive the salary or expenses of Mayor when serving in that capacity. No additional oath of office shall be required of the Mayor Pro Tempore upon assuming the duties of the Mayor beyond that oath taken at the time of appointment to Mayor Pro

Update –
The Code of Ordinances reads that the Board shall elect a mayor pro tem from one of its members. Per the ordinance, the Board may choose to extend the current term of Mayor Pro Tem Brown or select another member to serve as the mayor pro tern. Commissioner Kwiatkowski made a motion to nominate Rick Smith for Mayor Pro Tem. Commissioner Smith was elected to continue to serve as Mayor Pro Tem again next year.

A decision was made – Approved unanimously


4.   Discussion and Possible Approval of 2023 Meeting Schedule – Town Clerk Finnell

Agenda Packet – pages 25 – 26

Enclosed is the proposed 2023 Board of Commissioners’ Regular Meeting Schedule. All dates, except for the March date, reflect the third Tuesday of the month. The proposed March date is for the second Tuesday of the month, due to scheduling conflicts.

Staff recommends approval.

2023 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS’ MEETING SCHEDULE
Regular Meetings are held at 5:00pm on the third Tuesday of each month

JANUARY 17th
FEBRUARY 21st
MARCH 14th     Second Tuesday
APRIL 18th
MAY 16th
JUNE 20th
JULY 18th 
AUGUST 15th
SEPTEMBER 19th
OCTOBER 17th
NOVEMBER 21st
DECEMBER 19th 

Update –
The monthly meeting schedule was adopted with no changes.

A decision was made – Approved unanimously

Commissioner Murdock requested that they schedule an additional four (4) quarterly special meeting dates. He feels that they are going to need them based on everything that they are working on now. David suggested they also schedule budget meetings. The decision was to discuss and establish a schedule at the next regular meeting.


5.   Discussion and Possible Action on Appointment of Cape Fear Council of Government Delegate and Alternate – Town Clerk Finnell

Agenda Packet – page 27

The Cape Fear Council of Governments (CFCOG) is requesting that the Board of Commissioners appoint a CFCOG delegate and alternate. Currently the delegate is Mayor Holden, and the alternate is Mayor Pro Tern Smith. The practice for selecting the delegate and alternate in the past has always been the mayor is appointed as the delegate and the mayor pro tern as the alternate.

The suggested motion is to appoint the mayor and mayor pro tern to serve as the delegate and alternate to the CFGOG.

Update –
The Board approved the suggested motion and appointed Mayor Holden as the Town’s delegate and Mayor Pro Tem Smith as the alternate to the Cape Fear Council of Governments.

A decision was made – Approved unanimously


6.   Police Report – Chief Jeremy Dixon

Agenda Packet – pages 28 – 31

Police Report » click here


Police Patch
Jeremy reviewed the actions that were taken by them last month

Business as usual for this time of the year


Public Service Announcement

Jeremy requested that we all use caution if driving during the holiday season. There is lots of traffic during the holiday and statistically the country has an average of 119 fatalities a day. Please drive safely!

Chief Dixon advised people that we are expecting cold weather starting at the end of the week and to remember that the bridge freezes before the road does. They are coordinating with NCDOT but indicated that the bridge could be closed because of unsafe conditions.


The police department currently has only eight (8) officers of the ten (10) they are budgeted to have. 

It’s that time of year, rental season ends, and break-in season officially starts
Requested that we all serve as the eyes and ears for law enforcement.

If you know something, hear something, or see something –
call 911 and let the police deal with it.


Neighborhood Watch

      • Need to look out for each other and report any suspicious activity
      • Call 911 if you see or hear anything suspicious
      • Fill out Keep Check Request Form if you will be out of town
      • Submit completed Property Registration Form
      • Pickup copy of Protecting Your Home

7.   Inspections Department Report – Inspections Director Evans

Agenda Packet – pages 32 – 34

Inspections Report » click here

Update –
Timbo briefly reviewed department activity last month. They are still very busy, work is trending away from new construction to more major renovations, which is typical for this time of year.


8.  Discussion and Possible Action on Ordinance 22-28, Ordinance Amending Holden Beach Code of Ordinances, Section 94.03 Frontal Dune Policies and Regulations – Inspections Director Evans

Agenda Packet – pages 35 – 37

As directed by the Board of Commissioners at the November meeting, staff has prepared a draft amendment to the Town’s Code of Ordinances, Section 94.03 Frontal Dune Policies and Regulations based on information provided by the Planning & Zoning Board.

If the Board agrees with the information, the suggested motion is to approve Ordinance 22-28, Ordinance Amending Holden Beach Code of Ordinances, Section 94.03 Frontal Dune Policies and Regulations.

Previously reported – June 2022
At the request of a resident, I have looked at the 1100 block dunes where the concern was raised about walkway restrictions keeping some homeowners from easily accessing the strand across multiple dunes although it is less than 300 ft as stipulated in the current ordinance 94.03, the distance and secondary dune sizes are not insignificant). I think ordinance 94.03 could benefit from a Planning and Zoning Board evaluation and possible suggestions for changes, particularly regarding walkway policies, taking into consideration what some other beach towns are doing. Feedback from P&Z at or before the October BOCM would be an appropriate timeframe. If the Board agrees, an appropriate action would be a motion for P&Z to evaluate and as appropriate propose improvements to ordinance 94.03, with particular attention to walkway restrictions, and also advise the BOCM whether Chapter 94.03 or portions thereof should be moved to Chapter 157 at or before the October BOCM.

They decided it could benefit from a Planning and Zoning Board evaluation and possible recommendations for any appropriate changes to the Ordinance. It was suggested that they should benchmark off of some of the surrounding island communities. Timbo recommended that a portion of the Ordinance should be moved to Chapter 157. A response was requested at or before the October BOCM. 

Previously reported – October 2022
Subject: Amendments to 94.03 specifically exceptions to walkways with over 300 feet to the last line of Natural Stable Vegetation.

The Board tasked the Planning Board with review of the 94.03, The TOHBPB reviewed and discussed Ordinance 94.03 and asked the staff to return  with options, Planning staff presented  5 options to the Planning Board at the next scheduled meeting. The Planning Board advertised the proposed changes to the public and then voted to send the approved changes forward to the Board.

Note: Town staff supports these changes.

The Planning & Zoning Board voted unanimously on September 27, 2022 to send forward option 5 (see attached), to the Board of Commissioners for approval.

Staff recommended changes to remain in 94.03

Staff input: Assistant Town Manager Christy Ferguson, Development service Officer Rhonda Wooten, Planning and Inspections Director Timothy Evans, and Public Works Director Chris Clemmons

§94.03 FRONTAL DUNE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS

 (2)   Frontal dune policy and restrictions.

         (a)   Whenever property owners elect to construct a walkway across the frontal dune on their property, to provide pedestrian access to the beach strand, the following specifications shall apply. (Note: the same criteria applies when property owners seek to apply for town approval of an encroachment agreement to construct a walkway over public property adjacent to their residence.)

    1. The walkway shall be constructed only of building materials approved by the North Carolina State Building Code North Carolina Building Code. The walking passageway shall be no wider than four feet. The underside of the walkway across the frontal dune shall be a minimum of 18 inches and a maximum of 36 inches above the crest of the sand. Exception: Town owned CAMA accessways may utilize a six-foot walkway.
    2. The first step down to the beach strand shall be placed no farther seaward than the beginning of the downward slope of the dune, or the existing line of escarpment determined by averaging the downward slope or escarpment line for the property in question and those properties directly adjacent.
    3. Steps shall be of open tread construction with a maximum riser height of eight and one-quarter inches and a minimum tread depth of nine inches and shall meet the requirements of the North Carolina State Building Code North Carolina Residential Building Code.
    4. In accordance with North Carolina State Division of Coastal Management’s enforcement of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), the walkway access to the beach strand over the frontal dune shall be conclusively presumed to entail negligible alteration of the dune. The walkway shall be raised on posts or pilings a minimum of two feet and a maximum of five feet depth into the dune. In no case shall the walkway be permitted if it will, in the opinion of the Local CAMA Permit Officer, diminish the dune’s capacity as a protective barrier against flooding and erosion.
    5. Except for handicap ramps, steps from the walkway to the beach strand shall be placed only perpendicular to the frontal dune line.
    6. No structure other than the one four-foot-wide wooden walkway shall be located south of the landward toe of the frontal dune. This applies to decks, gazebos, sitting areas and other additions that a property owner may desire to make to the allowed walkway. Structures (other than the four-foot walkway) that exist when this section is adopted may remain in place temporarily; however, all such structures must be removed no later than December 31, 2003, in order to be in compliance with this section. A building permit is required if there are any repairs needed to walkway load bearing surfaces, such as supporting posts. Adding additional lengths to supporting posts shall constitute a repair. Exception: town-owned CAMA accessways may utilize a six-foot walkway. Exception: property owners with lots that have more than 300 feet from the seaward toe of the frontal dune to the last line of natural stable vegetation, as determined by the local CAMA officer, may install a single walkway with a maximum width of four feet; the walkway shall be a minimum of three feet high with a maximum height not to exceed four feet; and shall terminate at the last line of natural stable vegetation. Walkways shall be permitted and built-in accordance with all federal, state and local building requirements. Exception: swimming pools may be located south of the town’s designated frontal dune; placement of pools and decking shall not extend more than 50 feet from the established seaward toe of designated frontal dune. This exception only applies when the CAMA dune is more seaward than the town’s frontal dune. 

Timbo reported that they considered five (5) options and selected this one. Text was amended and there were no substantial changes proposed. Commissioner Kwiatkowski asked him for more information on the Planning & Zoning Board’s response to the Board’s tasker. She didn’t just want their recommendation but also wanted to see how they came to that conclusion. By Board consensus they asked him to come back with support information for their position. He agreed to provide more information at the next scheduled meeting.

No decision was made – No action taken


It was my understanding that  they were supposed to be reviewing allowing walkways that were less than 300 feet as stipulated in the current ordinance. The proposed ordinance does not appear to address this issue. 

Previously reported – November 2022
Timbo stated that he was asked to bring this back with support information for their position. He provided the information which is included in the agenda packet. Bottomline is that they considered five (5) options and selected this one. He said that it seems that the general consensus including CAMA on protecting the beach strand is that they believe it is better not to have these structures going out to the frontal dunes. He thinks that the original concern was that people were cutting pathways through the dunes. He asked the question: Which is better to have people walk through the dunes or walkways that go all the way out. Apparently the staff and the Planning & Zoning Board feel not having walkways is better. They decided to put it on the next regular meeting agenda to consider adopting the text changes.

Update –
Staff has prepared a draft amendment based on information provided by the Planning & Zoning Board. After everything is said and done this resulted in simply being a housekeeping change but assists them in enforcement of that section. The Board approved the Ordinance as submitted.

A decision was made – Approved unanimously

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Whatevah!


9.   Update on Beach Mat Plan – Inspections Director Evans

Agenda Packet – page 38

THE BEACH MAT PROGRAM

      1. Existing Public Walkways
      2. Existing Areas for Beach Mats
      3. Areas Identified for Future Handicap Access
      4. Conditions
      5. CAMA Approvals & Variances
      6. Employee Responsibility & Physical Uncontrollable Conditions
      7. Budgeting & Costs
  1. Previously reported – September 2022
    Request for staff opinion on moving forward with planning for dry sand placement of mats at select THB public accesses to enhance handicap access to the beach based on information in the CRC-22-17 document (provided as background). Request for staff opinion to allow residential use of mats for beach walkways, including consideration as a potential solution to debris concerns arising from construction of long wooden walkways over multiple dunes.

Memo from North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Last year, the Commission amended the rules that established specific use standards  for structural pedestrian accessways (dune crossovers) that allow for public access to the beach. You will recall that the use standards previously limited these accessways to elevated, piled-supported structures terminating on the beach near the seaward toe of the frontal dune. Due to numerous local governments expressing interest in using synthetic or wooden roll-out matting as a handicap-accessible alternative for beach access, the accessway rules were amended to allow the use of these types of mats for public beach access. However, the use these materials was limited to State, federal or local governments due to concerns expressed by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NC WRC) and the U.S . Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) about potential adverse impacts on sea turtle habitat resulting from their use waterward of the frontal dune.

Since the amendments went into effect, Staff has had further discussion regarding the use of beach matting for residential applications as an alternative to structural accessways. As you are aware, during storms, dune crossovers (including stairways) can account for a great deal of the debris that wind up scattered across beaches and in waterways. Staff believes that by limiting matting to the same general standards that apply to structural accessways (six feet wide and no farther waterward than six feet from the toe of the dune), public access and wildlife protection goals will be met while reducing debris on the state’s beach during storm events. Residential application of matting material would adhere to the same standards previously approved including installation at grade and prohibiting extension onto the public trust beach.

In addition, in recent years the Commission has approved three petitions for variances from local governments (Carolina Beach, Topsail Beach and Kure Beach) seeking to install beach mats on the dry sand beach (seaward of the frontal or primary dune and vegetation line) in support of enhanced handicap accessibility. The Division and Commission have supported both variance petitions, and in both cases, efforts were taken to minimize risks to sea turtles, including changes in siteing, size, and orientation of the proposed structures. However, following the Commission’s variance and issuance of a CAMA Minor Permit to the Town for installation of beach mats, the Town still assumes some liability for any “takes” of threatened or endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act. For this reason, DCM has advised the Towns to consult directly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to resolve this situation, potentially through the development of “Habitat Conservation Plans” or other formal approvals that can be issued by the USFWS for non-federal entities in accordance with the Endangered Species Act.

Staff are proposing a change to 07H.0308(c)(2)(C) to potentially allow beach mats on the dry sand beach without the need for a variance from the Commission, where they are sponsored by a local government for the purpose of enhanced handicap accessibility and are subject to review by the NC WRC and USFWS. The proposed amendments to 07K .0207 would also add residential use of matting material to the exemption language for beach accessways.

Mobi-Mat » click here

Coastal Resources Commission expands exemptions for beach mats
The NC Coastal Resources Commission approved new guidelines on Thursday that allows beach mats to be used in more ways. In a memo from the NC Department of Environmental Quality, staff says towns like Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, and Topsail Beach have petitioned to install the mats closer to the water. Additionally, staff says they’ve also had several requests from oceanfront homeowners to install the mats for private beach access instead of a typical wooden walkway. The commission approved an amendment at its meeting in Wilmington on Thursday allowing mats sponsored by local governments to be installed on dry sand without a variance from the commission. The amendment also allows the residential use of the matting for beach walkways.
Read more » click here 

The NC Coastal Resources Commission approved new guidelines that allows beach mats to be used in more ways. Public Comments speaker pointed out that accessibility is a need not a want. Discussion to allow dry sand placement of mats at some public beach accesses for handicap use and possibly for residential walkways too. Commissioner Kwiatkowski would like to see this done for next season. The motion made was to have staff make recommendation where mats can be utilized.

A decision was made – Approved unanimously

Update –
Timbo made a presentation that considers both regulations and policies that needs to be considered in order to develop a plan. Staff made recommendations where mats could be utilized. Let’s just say that it’s a work in progress for now.


10.  Discussion and Possible Approval of Revision to Engineering Services Agreement for Pump Station #2 – Public Works Director Clemmons

Agenda Packet – pages 39 – 50

Green Engineering has prepared a revised contract for sewer lift station #2 engineering services that needs to be approved by the Board of Commissioners before we can proceed with the request for bids.

Original Charges / Additional Charges / Revised Charges / Paid to Date / Balance Due

Design Phase               $116,296 / $6,500    / $122,796  / $116,296 / $6,500
Bidding Phase             $9,308     / $2,000    / $11,308    / $9,308      / $2,000
Supervision Phase     $130,386 / $10,000  / $140,386  / $0.0          / $140,386
Total Compensation   $255,990 / $18,500 / $274,490  / $125,604  / $148,886

Previously reported – September 2021
Discussion and Possible Award of Contract for Vacuum Sewer System #2 Upgrade – Leo Green, Green Engineering (Public Works Director Clemmons)

Agenda Packet –

The bid opening for the Lift Station #2 upfit was held at 2:00p.m. on September 9th. There was only one bid submitted. Since three are required, Leo Green will rebid for opening on the 20th of September with the intent to present to the Board at the September 21st regular meeting.

David indicated that the project needed to be rebid. Leo said we still only had one bid from the vendor that did the other lift stations. He attempted to explain the driving forces for the significantly higher price.

Lift Station #4             2018                $1,205,000
Lift Station #3             2019                $1,622,000      @35% increase vs. lift station #4
Lift Station #2             2021                $2,664,000      @64% increase vs. lift station #3

Pat pointed out that we will need to go through another hurricane season before the project is completed. They discussed proceeding versus waiting, some of the variables that needed to be considered are the cost of materials, the cost of borrowing money, the availability of materials, and the potential increase of number of projects because of Federal Infrastructure money. Not saying that we are not going to do the project, but they prefer to hold off proceeding for the time being. They decided to put the project on hold.

A decision was made – Approved unanimously

Previously reported – October 2022
Discussion and Possible Action on the Upgrading of the Greensboro Street Lift Station – Public Works Director Clemmons

Agenda Packet – pages 28

I am seeking the Board of Commissioners’ approval for Green’s Engineering to advertise for bids on the Greensboro Street Pump Station #2 Upgrade Project.

Chris said he put it out there so they can figure out where we stand. This is one of the Congressional earmarks for $2,669,867 for the Greensboro Street Lift Station #2 Hazard Mitigation Project. The Board approved his request and will have Green Engineering advertise for bids on the Sewer Street Lift Station #2 Project.

A decision was made – Approved unanimously

Commissioner Kwiatkowski requested that Chris discuss the sewer system issues during the storm event. Chris said despite the raised stations the system doesn’t work when they are under a few feet of water caused by the storm surge. He admitted that there was not a quick fix but has some ideas on things they can do that might help. Pat suggested that they consider elevation of candy canes in low lying areas that are prone to flooding to minimize that water getting into the system.

Update –
Green Engineering has prepared a revised contract for sewer lift station #2 engineering services that needs to be approved by the Board of Commissioners before we can proceed with the request for bids. Mayor Holden pointed out that this is par for the course, and this was not a significant increase. Motion was made to approve the revised contract.

A decision was made – Approved unanimously


  • 11.  Discussion and Possible Approval of Ordinance 22-29, An Ordinance Amending Ordinance 22-14, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2022 – 2023 (Amendment No. 7) – Budget and Fiscal Analyst McRainey


    Agenda Packet –
    pages
    51 – 52

    This amendment is to realize the money received for the insurance claim on the Public Works’ truck that was flooded during Hurricane Ian. Approving this amendment will allow the town to move forward with acquiring a replacement truck for the Public Works Department.

    The recommended motion is to  approve  Ordinance  22-29,  An  Ordinance  Amending  Ordinance  22-14, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2022 – 2023 (Amendment No. 7).

    Moved funds of $37,112
    From Revenue account #30.0335.0100 to Expense account#30.0810.7403

    Update –
    Approved a budget amendment to realize the money received for the insurance claim on the Public Works’ truck that was damaged during Hurricane Ian.

    A decision was made – Approved unanimously


  • 12. Discussion and Possible Approval of Ordinance 22-30, An Ordinance Amending Ordinance 22-14, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2022 – 2023 (Amendment No. 8) – Budget and Fiscal Analyst McRainey

    Agenda Packet – pages 53 – 54

    This amendment is to encumber funds to the Pier Renovation and Repair line for the minor repairs that took place after hurricane Ian and for any upcoming minor repairs prior to the full renovation.

    The recommended motion is to approve Ordinance 22-30, An Ordinance Amending Ordinance  22-)4, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2022 – 2023 (Amendment No. 8).

    Moved funds of $5,000
    From Revenue account #50.0710.6102 to Expense account#50.0710.6100

    Update –
    Approved a budget amendment to encumber funds for the minor repairs that took place after Hurricane Ian and for any upcoming minor repairs prior to the full renovation project.

  • A decision was made – Approved unanimously

    13.  Discussion and Possible Action on Revising Discharge of Firearms Prohibited; Exceptions, Ordinance 130.01 – Commissioner Kwiatkowski

    Agenda Packet – page 55

    Background: following a presentation by Chief Dixon to HBWPOA on police department responsibilities and general practices, he and I briefly discussed the use of firearms within municipal limits. After separately reviewing the current ordinance 130.01 ( see below) we agreed it could be improved/modernized. Chief Dixon is prepared to bring a proposal for modification to the BOC if the BOC requests it.

    §130.01 DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS PROHIBITED; EXCEPTIONS.
    It shall be unlawful for a person to shoot or project any stone, rock, shot, or other hard substance by means of a slingshot. bean shooter, air rifle, popgun, bow, or other similar contrivance, or to fire any pistol, gun, or other firearms within the town except on archery ranges, firing ranges, or in legally­ established shooting galleries or ranges, or in the discharge of duty by law enforcement officers, provided that the use of firearms in the destruction of rodents, pigeons, squirrels, or similar animals or birds or reptiles that are considered to be a menace to public health or property may be permitted by special permission of the Chief of Police.

    Update –
    They decided that the ordinance as currently written is out of date. The Board directed Chief Dixon to look at revising the ordinance.  Jeremy will bring the revised ordinance to the February regular meeting.

    A decision was made – Approved unanimously


    14.  Discussion and Possible Action on How to Address Concerns with 796 Ocean Boulevard West – Mayor Pro Tem Smith

    Agenda Packet – page 56

    Discussion points:

    • Possibly direct the Town Manager to solicit bids for painting the outside of 796
    • Possibly direct the Town Manager to solicit bids to repair A/C platforms, steps and remove antenna from 796
    • Discuss the possibility of requesting bids from local realtors for possibly providing weekly rental

     

    Previously reported – September 2019
    Ordinance 19-15, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#3)
    .    1) Provide funds for purchase of property at 796 OBW – approved $349,000
       2)
    A significant portion of the cost of acquiring this property is offset by us no longer needing to do additional acoustical engineering.

    Previously reported – January 2022
    The Parks & Rec Master Plan lists a number of options for this facility. The Board is requesting that the Parks & Rec committee prioritizes them and recommend what they envision the building be used for. They would like a response from the committee by the BOC’s scheduled February meeting.

    Previously reported – February 2022
    PRAB Chair John McEntire made the presentation. He addressed the issues as the tasker required them to do. He went through the process that they took and briefly reviewed all considerations. They focused on the potential intended use of the property. They identified and explored several options. The PRAB determined that the property is optimally located to serve as a community center recreational facility as envisioned in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

    Previously reported – November 2022
    Joel homeowner at 798 OBW talked about the condition of 796 OBW a town owned property. He had a slide presentation; the pictures are in the agenda packet. A picture is worth a thousand words, it was an effective way to show how neglected the property is and that it currently is an eyesore. He is simply requesting that the Town of Holden Beach take actions to address the deteriorating conditions there. Commissioner Kwiatkowski reminded everyone that we purchased the building and need to keep it because of noise abatement issues with the adjacent lift station. Regardless of the plans for the building, basic maintenance needs to be performed periodically. Commissioner Dyer said that we need to revisit the master plan and decide what we are doing with that building. The staff is working to get an engineering analysis for the property  done. Christy said we don’t have funds allocated and it doesn’t make sense to spend any more money on the property until we decide what we are doing there. They agreed to clean it up, so it was presentable and not an eyesore without spending any significant funds. The Board asked staff to take care of any maintenance possible while the analysis is being completed .

    Update –
    The Board directed Town Manager Hewett to solicit bids to clean up 796 OBW. Work is to include bids for painting, HVAC platforms and back steps. They also would like to explore renting the property on a weekly basis throughout the summer until a permanent use is determined for the building.

    A decision was made – Approved unanimously

    Only last month, staff said that we don’t have funds allocated and it doesn’t make sense to spend any more money on the property until we decide what we are doing there. No decision has been made yet, but now we are getting estimates to do work there. Not to mention, that we already are in the marina and RV park business, and now we want to do weekly rentals too! What are they mashugana?



  • 15.  Discussion and Possible Direction to Town Manager to Review Information and Suggestions from Holden Beach Citizens on the First Year of Paid Parking and Return Staff Suggestions to the Board of Commissioners for the January Meeting – Mayor Pro Tem Smith

    Agenda Packet – page 57

    I would like to discuss possibly having the BOC direct the Town Manager to review this information and suggestions from citizens on the first year of paid parking and return staff suggestions to the BOC for the January BOC meeting.

    Below are the suggestions received to date:

    • Discuss making possible changes to the way we handle boat trailers with no tags. Possibly make contract
    • Discuss a possible 24-hour limit to authorize rights-of-way paid
    • Discuss possibly having free parking for the 2 festivals and in the area of any permitted
    • Discuss giving each homeowner (not empty lot owners) one free yearly pass and apply before April 1st of each year.
    • Discuss asking for a more detailed breakdown of the 1st year’s revenue. (annual and weekly passes, daily parking, ticket revenue and % of collections)
    • Discuss possibly increasing fees? ($4 per hour, $20 per day, $80 per week and $150 yearly)
    • Discuss possibly changing the paid parking dates of operation. (April 1st – Nov. 30th)
    • Discuss the possibility of having our parking contractor install signage where necessary to reduce confusion. (no parking signs on marsh streets and side streets and all areas where parking is not allowed)
    • Discuss eliminating all unauthorized rights-of-way
    • Discuss the possibility of having the parking contractor and town staff do a street-by-street review of parking and suggest sign


    Update –
    Commissioner Smith requested that the Town Manager Hewett and his staff review these suggestions and consider making changes to the paid parking program. They would like staff suggestions to be presented to the Board at their January meeting.

    A decision was made – Approved unanimously


  • 16.  Discussion and Possible Action on Resolution 22-09, Resolution Amending the Holden BeachFee Schedule (Recycling) – Town Clerk Finnell

Agenda Packet – pages 58 – 60

We have received the updated fees assessed by GFL Environmental for people who utilize the voluntary curbside recycling program.

The annual 2023 cost for people participating in the program will be $106.88 per bin. This is an  increase from the current rate of $86.37. The fee schedule needs to be amended to reflect the new amount.

Staff recommends the Board approve Resolution 22-09, Resolution Amending the Holden Beach Fee Schedule, if you wish to continue the curbside recycling program.

Update –
The Board amended the fee schedule to reflect the increased rate, from $86.37 to $106.88, for the curbside recycling program.

A decision was made – Approved unanimously


17.  Town Manager’s Report

FEMA storm damage repair project (CRP2)
Still awaiting the final inspection for the FEMA beach project. Six hundred thousand dollars ($600k) in eligible project expenses reimbursement is still pending until final inspection is completed. FEMA has just requested us to supply them with some very specific additional information. That request requires us to do a deep dive for the detailed information. Engineering services of Applied Technology & Management will be needed to assist us in providing a response. We still don’t know what the final timeline for reimbursement will be.

Ocean Boulevard Resurfacing/Bike Lane Project

DOT Bike Lane Report Presentation » click here

Previously reported – October 2021
OBW paving/bike path are still on track, but they were some eighteen (18) to twenty-four (24) months off.

Previously reported – July 2022
The NC Department of Transportation has informed the town that due to permitting issues raised during their review of the Ocean Boulevard Repaving/Bike Lane Project, construction will not begin in September as previously planned. Construction is now scheduled to start after the first of the year. The project will still have a completion date of Memorial Day.

Previously reported – October 2022
NCDOT has contacted the Town and informed us that there is an issue in getting the CAMA permit for the resurfacing/bike lane project. It will require additional work to get it reconciled and execute the contract. They are inconclusive on whether the project will happen this spring, though they are still hoping to complete it before Memorial Day. Not what we want to hear but what we have been told.

Previously reported – November 2022
Caitlin did a brief recap for the proposed bike lanes. The plan includes bike lanes of 5’ on each side of Ocean Boulevard. It will be an asymmetrical widening, that is 7’ on the south side and only 3’ on the north side where the sidewalk is.  They had some issues/challenges with permitting that have been resolved. They successfully got the permit issued on November 9th. In order to do so they agreed to monitor their work for any drainage issues and committed to address them after the project is completed. At the end of this month, they will advertise the project. One month later they will open bids and know what the actual prices for the contract are. At that time, they will decide whether or not to proceed with the project. The date of availability is at the end of January, with a finish date of Memorial Day.

Update –
Not good news. Recently had a conversation with the project engineer Caitlin. Only one (1) bid was received, which was 40% above their estimate. The bid was also above five (5) million dollars, which automatically triggered a review. The result was that the bid was rejected, and they will need to resolicit the bid. It is expected that the project will be pushed off for at least another year. The most likely scenario is that construction won’t start till the end of 2023. The project will then  have a completion date by Memorial Day 2024. Not what we want to hear!
 

796 OBW
Architect David Woods is working on the preparation of renderings for the Board’s consideration. He has already met with Christy and Timbo at the site for their input. It is expected that he will be able to present the plans at the January BOC’s regular meeting.

Pier Grant
Previously reported – July 2022
Based on the BOC’s direction to pursue grant opportunities to assist with the development of the pier properties, the staff submitted a pre-application to the Division of Coastal Management for the development of the 50-foot lot for beach access to include a Hatteras ramp and walkway for a total project cost of $63,535.00. The agency approved the pre-application, and the town has been asked to complete a final application that will come before the BOC in August. As part of the application, a public meeting or hearing is required, and the staff determined that a public hearing would demonstrate the town taking the most formal approach to submission requirements. If awarded the grant, the BOC would still have to choose to accept or decline funds.

Our preliminary request for funding of the Pier Access Improvements Public Beach Access by the Public Beach and Coastal Waterfront Access Grant Program has been reviewed by the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) and we are invited to submit a final application for further consideration in the 2022-23 grant cycle. As part of the application a Public Hearing is required, they scheduled it prior to the next BOC’s meeting.
A decision was made – Approved unanimously

Previously reported – August 2022
Based on the BOC’s direction to pursue grant opportunities to assist with the development of the pier properties, the staff submitted a pre-application to the Division of Coastal Management for the development of the 50-foot lot for beach access to include a Hatteras ramp and walkway for a total project cost of $63,535.00. The new estimate based on increased costs for construction is $66,985.00. The agency approved the pre-application, and the town has been asked to complete a final application. As part of the application, a public meeting or hearing is required, and the staff determined that a public hearing would demonstrate the town taking the most formal approach to submission requirements. If awarded the grant, the BOC would still have to choose to accept or decline funds. The application is in the packet for the public hearing and for possible action by the board on the agenda.

This application is for the development of the fifty-foot lot west of the pier building for beach access to include a Hatteras ramp and walkway. Commissioner Kwiatkowski recommended that all the parking on the lot be handicapped parking.  The board agreed to move forward with the application.
A decision was made – Approved unanimously

Update –
CAMA beach access grant for the development of the fifty-foot lot west of the pier building for beach access to include a Hatteras ramp and walkway was approved in the amount of $66,985. We will construct an ADA-compliant wooden walkover to provide easier access to the beach strand. This will require execution of standard contract to acknowledge receipt of the grant.

5 Brunswick waterfront towns receive funding for kayak launches, accessible walkways
Five Brunswick County towns will soon see various improvements and new amenities to their waterways. The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality awarded more than $1.7 million to nine local governments across the state to improve public access to coastal beaches and waters for the upcoming fiscal year. These grants were awarded through the department’s coastal management department. Of those funds, more than $775,000 was awarded to Brunswick County localities. Calabash received $250,000 to bring a canoe/kayak access, pier/dock area for fishing and a boardwalk to Calabash Waterfront Park. A picnic pavilion and restrooms will also be constructed. Sunset Beach received an equally sized grant to purchase the Majestic Oak property to be developed in the future to add a fishing pier, canoe/kayak launch and other park amenities. Three localities are using the funding to better support residents and tourists with mobility issues by creating ADA-compliant accesses to their waterways. Southport received $141,000 to fund the construction of an ADA-compliant canoe/kayak launch at the former wastewater treatment plant. Caswell Beach plans to rebuild an ADA-compliant beach access way at the Regional Access site with an $84,620 grant. Holden Beach received just over $50,000 to construct an ADA-compliant wooden walkover to provide easier access to pedestrians at the Holden Beach Pier beach access. In total, Brunswick County localities received $775,859 in funding for these projects. Across the Cape Fear River in New Hanover County, some waterfronts are also set to receive some improvements. Wilmington received more than $50,000 to support the installation of a pedestrian picnic area and a launch for non-motorized boats on Bradley Creek adjacent to the Oleander Drive bridge. More than $130,000 was awarded to Carolina Beach to fund the installation of a new gazebo, walkway and canoe/kayak launch at Starfish Lane. According to the DEQ, funding for the grant program comes from the North Carolina General Assembly. Projects may include walkways, dune crossovers, restrooms, parking areas, piers and more. Land acquisition or urban waterfront revitalization may also be considered for funding.
Read more » click here

PARTF Grant
Previously reported – April 2022
Based on the BOC’s direction to pursue grant opportunities to assist with land acquisition related to the pier properties, staff has prepared a PARTF application (Attachment 1). The application is  land acquisition only in the amount of $500,000. Staff applied for a waiver in the June timeframe of last year which affords the town two application cycles for this grant. Decisions are expected to be reached by the PARTF Commission in last summer/early fall. The Basic Facts and Assurances page requires that the application be approved by the local governing board.

Suggested Motion: Motion to submit a grant application in the amount of $500,000 to the NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund.

Christy did the slide show presentation that was presented yesterday at the Public Input Meeting for the NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF) grant project application for the pier property. The Board had concerns about an encumbrance with significant financial penalties if we ever plan to sell the property for any reason. In other words, you are basically giving up the land in perpetuity. They were informed that this restriction is attached to accepting all grants. The decision was made to wait for the report on the engineers report on the pier condition. At that time, they can decide whether to move forward with the grant application next year.

A decision was made – Not Approved (3-2)
Commissioner Brown and Dyer supported the motion

Previously reported – May 2022
Brittany the state coordinator for the PARTF was available by phone to elaborate on questions that were previously answered by Christy, but the Board still had some concerns about. It appeared that the Board were satisfied with her responses.

Pat pointed out that this encumbrance was never mentioned before. The Board should do what they said they were going to do. There was never any discussion about turning this into park land. The public should have an opportunity to weigh in on this decision. Brian passionately stated his position, that they never ever will sell this piece of property it is for the public to enjoy from now on. All of his questions were answered, but still would like some additional clarifications to ensure most of the proposed options are still on the table. He said that they have an obligation to make sure whatever they do doesn’t cost the taxpayers on this island anything. They made commitments and needed to do what they said to make it revenue neutral. He would prefer to have more time to make major decisions like this, but unfortunately they don’t.
A decision was made – Approved (4-1)
Commissioner Kwiatkowski opposed the motion

Update –
We were informed of an administrative requirement to get a second appraisal, which is currently underway.

Federal Budget
David expects the federal budget to be passed this week which includes 3.8 million earmarked for Holden Beach. The three earmarks are as follows: $1,00,000 for the General Reevaluation Report, $2,669,867 for the Greensboro Street Lift Station #2 Hazard Mitigation Project, and $100,000 for the Ocean Boulevard Stormwater Mitigation Project.

Seagull Street
Right Angle the Town’s engineer has certified the final payout to the contractor


In Case You Missed It –


Town Hall Holiday Schedule
Town Hall will be closed December 23rd, 26th, 27th and January 2nd in observance of the holidays.


National Flood Insurance Program: Reauthorization
Congress must periodically renew the NFIP’s statutory authority to operate. On December 23, 2022, the President signed legislation passed by Congress that extends the National Flood Insurance Program’s (NFIP’s) authorization to September 30, 2023.


                  Christmas Lights

Public Works have put up snow flake decorations on the boulevard light poles

Purple street lights are not part of the holiday decorations they are the LED’s failing



Impending Changes to Bonding Requirements for Finance Officers:
Prepare Now For January 1, 2023 and Beyond

Since 2005, the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act (“LGBFCA”) has required finance officers of units of local government and public authorities in North Carolina to provide to their respective entities a “faithful performance bond with sufficient sureties in an amount not less than fifty thousand dollars.”  G.S. § 159-29(a); S.L. 2005-238, Sec. 2.  Due to the General Assembly’s enactment of Section 9.(a) of S.L. 2022-53, that minimum coverage amount will increase as of January 1, 2023 for units of local government and public authorities with “annually budgeted funds” in excess of $500,000.

A new bulletin released today (Local Finance Bulletin #62: Impending Changes to Bonding Requirements for Finance Officers: Prepare Now for January 1, 2023, and Beyond) explains how units of local government and public authorities subject to the LGBFCA should prepare for this change.  This blog post summarizes several key points from the bulletin.

What is a Faithful Performance Bond?
A faithful performance bond is a surety bond that creates obligations between three parties: (1) a principal (e.g., a finance officer), (2) a surety (i.e., the bonding company), and (3) an obligee (e.g., a unit of local government or public authority).  If a finance officer fails to faithfully perform its duties, the surety assumes liability for the principal’s failure to properly perform.  For example, if a finance officer misappropriates public funds, a surety can be liable to the obligee for that loss.

Surety Bonds and Insurance Are Not Legally Equivalent in North Carolina
Surety bonds and insurance policies are not legally equivalent under North Carolina law.  See Gibbs v. Mayo, 591 S.E.2d 905, 916 (N.C. App. 2004) (“In North Carolina, insurance and suretyship are not synonymous terms, but rather involve different functions, relationships, rights, and obligations.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).  A unit of local government or public authority that only obtains an insurance policy to cover a finance officer’s failure to faithfully perform his or her duties (e.g., through embezzlement) will not comply with G.S. 159-29(a).

From the perspective of a local government or public authority, a faithful performance bond is largely identical to an insurance policy because it protects the local government (labeled the “obligee”) against loss arising from a named risk (i.e., a finance officer’s failure to fulfill its obligations).  But insurance policies and surety bonds bear important legal differences.

First, and perhaps most obviously, whereas an insurance policy typically creates obligations between two parties (i.e., the insurer and the insured), a surety bond creates obligations between three parties (i.e., a principal, surety, and obligee).

Second, whereas an insurer does not seek indemnification or reimbursement from its insured, a surety has a common law right to seek reimbursement from a principal that has failed to fulfill its obligations to an obligee.  For example, if a surety pays a unit of local government for losses arising from a finance officer’s misappropriation of funds, a surety could (and would) seek reimbursement from the finance officer.  In practice, most sureties do not rely solely upon this common law right, and instead typically condition their issuance of a surety bond upon a principal’s execution of an indemnification agreement providing the surety with a broad set of rights (including a right of reimbursement) against the principal.  Finance officers should be aware that they can be personally liable to sureties for losses that a surety incurs under the terms of a faithful performance bond.

What Does S.L. 2022-53, Section 9.(a) Change?
Prior to the enactment of S.L. 2022,53, North Carolina law required governing boards of units of local government and public authorities subject to the LGBFCA to fix the exact coverage amount of a finance officer’s faithful performance bond, subject to a mandatory minimum coverage amount of $50,000.  A board could fix the bond’s amount to require a higher coverage level (with no maximum cap), but many did not.

With the passage of S.L. 2022-53, Section 9.(a), the General Assembly raised the minimum coverage amount for units of local government and public authorities with “annually budgeted funds” exceeding $500,000.  Effective as of January 1, 2023, the governing board of a local government or public authority subject to G.S. 159-29(a) must fix the amount of a finance officer’s faithful performance bond to equal or exceed the greater of (1) $50,000, or (2) an amount equal to 10 percent of the unit or authority’s “annually budgeted funds,” up to a cap of $1,000,000.

Failure to Obtain the Required Bond – Consequences
The revisions to G.S. 159-29(a) make clear that a “person unable to obtain” the required faithful performance bond may not be appointed as finance officer of a unit of local government or public authority subject to the LGBFCA.  In underwriting a surety bond or increasing the coverage level of an existing bond, a bonding company likely will undertake some due diligence to determine whether an individual presents an unacceptable risk of default.  It may ask whether the individual has previously been convicted or accused of a crime, whether the individual has past experience as a finance officer, or other questions related to the individual’s ability to faithfully perform the duties of finance officer. It also may perform a check of the individual’s credit history.  According to several underwriters with whom I have spoken, this credit check is a “soft” check rather than a “hard” check.

If a surety is not satisfied with the responses to these questions or determines that the particular individual poses a high level of risk, it may either decline to issue the bond or instead charge a higher premium to compensate.  The revised version of G.S. 159-29(a) does not mandate that a particular surety provide a bond.  Therefore, if one surety declines to issue a bond, a unit of local government or public authority can seek out another surety.  Ultimately, though, an individual must tender a bond meeting the coverage amounts set forth in S.L. 2022-53, Section 9.(a) in order to serve as a finance officer.

Costs of Obtaining Increased Coverage
Units of local government and public authorities that must obtain an increase in coverage will pay a higher premium.  Pricing is not standardized across the industry and will necessarily differ based upon the particular individual to be bonded.  Anecdotally, finance officers have reported annual premium costs for a $1,000,000 bond that range from $1,500 to $6,000.

Some Finance Officers Not Affected by the New Requirements
S.L. 2022-53 modifies bonding requirements for finance officers of units of local government and public authorities subject to the LGBFCA (e.g., cities, counties, water-and-sewer authorities, sanitary districts, airport authorities, transportation authorities, councils of government, and tourism-development authorities)—but not all local governments are subject to the LGBFCA. For example, local school administrative units are subject to the School Budget and Fiscal Control Act (G.S. 115C, Art. 31) and the financial operations of ABC boards are subject to Article 7 of Chapter 18B of the General Statutes. The General Assembly has not amended the minimum coverage amounts for faithful performance bonds obtained by finance officers of school administrative units or ABC boards.

Implementation and Questions
Please feel free to contact me (ccrews@sog.unc.edu) if you have any questions about the revisions to G.S. 159-29(a) or would like to speak in more detail about Local Finance Bulletin #62.

Read more » click here


Upcoming Events –

NA


19. Executive Session Pursuant to NC General Statute 143-318.11(a)(3), Consult with the Attorney and NC General Statute 143-318.11(a)(6), Personnel

No decision was made – No action taken


  • General Comments –


    BOC’s Meeting

    The Board of Commissioners’ next Regular Meeting is scheduled on the third Tuesday of the month, January 17th

     


    .

      • Request for Qualifications (RFQ).     .     1) Block Q
            2) Pier Properties
        .     3) Water Tower
        .     4) Stormwater
        .     5) Sailfish Park
      •  

 


.


    • .

    • Hurricane Season
      For more information » click here.

      Be prepared – have a plan!

 


No matter what a storm outlook is for a given year,
vigilance and preparedness is urged.


Hurricane Season Ends, Marked by Quiet August and Deadly September
The six-month total of 14 named storms was about average. But two late-season hurricanes proved catastrophic in Florida and Puerto Rico.
An erratic North Atlantic hurricane season comes to an end this week, with an average number of storms, a rare quiet spell in August and destructive late-season activity, including the deadliest hurricane to hit the United States in nearly two decades. The six-month season, which officially began on June 1 and ends on Wednesday, had 14 named storms, eight of which strengthened to become hurricanes. Two of these, Fiona and Ian, were major hurricanes, with maximum sustained winds of at least 130 miles an hour. The totals are about average for a hurricane season. Some forecasters had expected an above-average season, although most predicted that the numbers for 2022 would remain below those for 2021, which had 21 named storms, and well below 2020, which set a record with 31. The total of 14 storms was at the low end of predictions by forecasters with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who said as late as August that there could be 14 to 20 named storms, including six to 10 hurricanes and three to five major ones. “We were one major hurricane short,” said the administration’s lead hurricane outlook forecaster, Matthew Rosencrans. They were also off in forecasting that the combined intensity of the entire season’s storms, a measure called accumulated cyclone energy, would be higher than it actually was. Mr. Rosencrans said in August that the presence of the climate pattern called La Niña, which is characterized by unusually cool water temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, could lead to greater hurricane activity. In the Atlantic during a La Niña there is often less wind shear, and that allows tropical storms and hurricanes to grow stronger. But Mr. Rosencrans said Tuesday that it appeared that there was significant wind shear during the season and especially in August, when no storms fully formed. Normally mid-August is the beginning of peak hurricane season, which lasts until mid-October. The quiet August “was the real forecast surprise of the season,” he said. A lack of moisture at high altitudes in the tropical Atlantic where storms begin their development may have played a role as well, he said. Recent hurricane seasons have been marked by the development of one or more storms before the official start of the season. But this year, for the first time since 2014, there were no storms before June 1. For two months, the season progressed slowly, with only three named storms by the end of July. This is not unusual; ocean waters are cooler and provide less of the energy that fuels storms. Hurricane activity picks up after the summer sun has warmed the ocean. After the August lull, activity accelerated in September, with four hurricanes, including the two major ones. In mid-September, Fiona slammed into Puerto Rico as a Category 4 storm. It dumped more than 30 inches of rain on parts of the island, leading to at least 25 deaths and further damaging infrastructure that had yet to be fully repaired after being damaged in Hurricane Maria five years before. Two weeks later, Ian, another Category 4 hurricane, struck Florida with winds as high as 150 m.p.h. Together with rain and wind-driven tidal surges, that led to at least 114 deaths, most of them in the southwestern part of the state. It was Florida’s deadliest storm in nearly a century, and the deadliest in the United States since Katrina killed more than 1,800 people in southern Louisiana in 2005. The season was notable in several other ways. Two storms crossed from the Atlantic basin to the Pacific, traversing Central America. The last time any storm did this was in 2016. “That is quite a rare phenomenon,” Mr. Rosencrans said. And earlier this month, the season’s last storm, Hurricane Nicole, became the first to strike Florida in November in nearly four decades. While at Category 1 it was not as strong Fiona or Ian, it hit in some of the areas severely damaged by Ian just six weeks before.
Read more » click here 



I respectfully submit My Xmas List

These are the items I would most like to see addressed this year.
. 1.
Beach
. a)
Support LWF Inlet waterway maintenance projects, keeping inlet navigable
. b)
Work together on beach protection issues with surrounding communities
. c)
Increase Beach Strand Ordinance Compliance & Enforcement
.

. 2.
Parking
. a)
Develop plans for a promenade on Jordan Boulevard
. b)
Utilize acquired properties for additional parking
. c)
Prohibit right-of-way parking

. 3. Trash Services
. a)
Offer a suite of services
. b)
Charge a user fee for those that want the service
. c)
Make policies both fair and consistent
. d) Town should address noncompliance issues


Lou’s Views –
The views expressed here are simply my opinion based on the facts as I understand them. I have no hidden agenda, no ax to grind, or any political ambition. I’m simply attempting to keep the community informed on what actually is going on here. I just tell it like it is and that is why people read the newsletter. After all it is called “Lou’s Views”! I welcome updates, clarifications or a correction to any fact I have stated which have changed or was inadvertently stated incorrectly.


Website policy –
We have had a number of inquiries about our website policies. We do not have an official policy per se. In general, we do not accept paid ads, associates or links for our website. Approved Vendor List as well as Advertisement – not paid for is based on my personal experience as a homeowner and as a property manager here on Holden Beach. Associates are simply personal friends that have a local business. Links are to websites that provide information that are of public significance. We invite you to share with us anything that you feel our readers would want to know too. We hope you find our website useful.


Request –
We encourage you to pass along this newsletter to anyone else you think would enjoy it. We would like to include other members of the community and are asking for your help in making that happen. To be added to our distribution list send an e-mail to Lousviews.hbpoin@gmail.com or subscribe on our website https://lousviews.com.

Thank you for subscribing!


Disclaimer –
. 1) Not official correspondence from the Town
. 2)
Not affiliated with Holden Beach Property Owners Association (HBPOA)


Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday!


Do you enjoy this newsletter?
Then please forward it to a friend!


Lou’s Views . HBPOIN

.                             • Gather and disseminate information
.                                  • Identify the issues and determine how they affect you

.                                  • Act as a watchdog
.                                  • Grass roots monthly newsletter since 2008

https://lousviews.com/