Election Results

Holden Beach Election Results

Through the Years …


2023
Candidate                             Position                   Term                Votes
Alan Holden                           Mayor                        Ninth               230

Tom Myers                             Commissioner          First                  267
Tracey Thomas                      Commissioner          First                  218
Page Dyer                               Commissioner          Second              181

Rick Paarfus                          Commissioner           First                  193

2021
Candidate                             Position                   Term                 Votes
Alan Holden                           Mayor                        Eighth               71        (unopposed)

Page Dyer                               Commissioner          First                   77        (unopposed)
Rick Smith                              Commissioner          First                   63        (unopposed)
Patricia Kwiatkowski           Commissioner          Third                 60        (unopposed)

2019
Candidate
                           Position                    Term                  Votes
Alan Holden                          Mayor                        Seventh               241      
(unopposed)

Gerald Brown                       Commissioner           Second                246
Woody Tyner                        Commissioner           First                    230
Brian Murdock                     Commissioner           First                   225
Mike Sullivan                        Commissioner           Second               182
Patricia Kwiatkowski          Commissioner           Second               168

2017
Candidate
                            Position                     Term                 Votes
Alan Holden                          Mayor                          Sixth                  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

BOC’s – Scorecard

Board of Commissioners’ – Scorecard

NYC Mayor Koch used to ask – How am I doing?

 Imagine if the BOC’s asked youHow’d they do?

The goal of government is to make citizens better off.


Action Taken – 2022

January
Ordinance 22-01, revisions to outside lights
Ordinance 22-03, public-rights-of way
Adoption Resolution 22-02, personnel policy
Adoption Resolution 22-03, recognition GFWC 15th anniversary
Adoption Resolution 22-04, pier Plan Version #2
February
Adoption Resolution 22-01, changes to fee schedule to add paid parking
Ordinance 22-02, Traffic Code, designated paid parking program
Ordinance 22-04, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#10)
.
Budget appropriation of $92,204 (funding on-street and off-street parking)
Ordinance 22-05, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#11)
.
Budget appropriation of $43,000 (transfer funds between accounts)
Adoption Resolution 22-05, pier financing contract
Ordinance 22-06, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#12)
.
Budget appropriation of $100,000 (additional funding for the Seagull paving contract)
April
Ordinance 22-07, Traffic Code, revisions to designated paid parking program
Ordinance 22-08, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#13)
.
Budget reduction of $21,336 (reduced number of days charging for parking)
Ordinance 22-09, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#14)
.
Budget appropriation of $57,150 (increased borrowing due to costs of closing)
Ordinance 22-10, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#15)
.
Budget appropriation of $1,000,000 (initial portion of funding to purchase Block Q)
Ordinance 22-11, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#16)
.
Budget appropriation of $16,775 (transfer funds between accounts)
Ordinance 22-12, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#17)
.
Budget appropriation of $1,029,880 (provide funds for Ocean Boulevard bike path)
Adoption Resolution 22-06, request state assistance for Vacuum Sewer Pump Station
May
NA
June
Ordinance 22-13, Chapter 92: Nuisances
.
Outside Lights
Ordinance 22-14, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance  / Budget Ordinance
.
Approved the town’s $96.6 million-dollar Budget Ordinance
Ordinance 22-15, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#18)
.
Budget appropriation of $102,461 (transfer funds between accounts)
Ordinance 22-16, Traffic Code, revisions to designated paid parking program
July
Ordinance 22-17, Amending the Code of Ordinances
.
Chapter 112: Peddlers
Ordinance 22-18, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#19)
.
Development Fees Revenue / $141,210
Adoption Resolution 22-07, permanently close portion of Carolina Avenue
August
Ordinance 22-19, Chapter 71: Traffic Schedules
.
Lowering the speed limit on Ocean Boulevard to 35 miles per hour year-round
September
Ordinance 22-20, permanently close a portion of Carolina Avenue
Ordinance 22-21, Amending the Code of Ordinances
.
Requirements of Chapter 160D NC General Statutes
Ordinance 22-22, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#1)
. • Budget appropriation of $425,609
.
Move outstanding appropriations from fiscal year 2022 to the current fiscal year
Adoption Resolution 22-08, Truist Signature Card
October
Accepted the PARTF  $500,000 grant and approved the contract for the pier properties project
November
Ordinance 22-23, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#2)
.
Budget appropriation of $38,000 (provide funds for Block Q contract)
Ordinance 22-24, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#3)
.
Budget appropriation of $35,000 (provide funds for Pier Properties contract)
Ordinance 22-25, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#4)
.
Budget appropriation of $44,900 (provide funds for Federal Advocacy contract)
Ordinance 22-26, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#5)
.
Budget appropriation of $27,448 (transfer funds between accounts, CAMA Grant )
Ordinance 22-27, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#6)
.
Create separate interest accounts
December
Ordinance 22-28, Amending the Code of Ordinances
.
Frontal Dune Policy and Regulations
Ordinance 22-29, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#7)
.
Budget appropriation of $37,112 ( insurance claim funds for Public Works truck)
Ordinance 22-30, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#8)
.
Budget appropriation of $5,000 (provide funds for Pier Properties repair)
Resolution 22-09, Recycling Fee Schedule 


Action Taken – 2021

January
NA
February
Ordinance 21-01, Amending the Code of Ordinances
.
Frontal Dune Policy and Regulations
Ordinance 21-03, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#6)
.
Budget appropriation of $337,204 (increase in accommodations tax revenue)
Adoption Resolution 21-01, Adopting NC Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
Adoption Resolution 21-02, Adopted the Town’s CAMA Land Use Plan
Adoption Resolution 21-03, Vactor Truck Lease Agreement $332,687
March
Ordinance 21-02, Chapter 157: Zoning Code
.
Height Measuring Point
Adoption Resolution 21-04, paving roadway on Seagull Drive
Adoption Resolution 21-05, Condemnation action to acquire perpetual easements
April
Ordinance 21-04, Chapter 50: Solid Waste
.
Approved just two (2) changes
Ordinance 21-05, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#7)
.
Capital Projects
Ordinance 21-06, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#8)
.
Isaias
Ordinance 21-07, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#9)
.
Inspections Department
Ordinance 21-08, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#10)
.
Recycling
Ordinance 21-09, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#11)
.
Coastal Storm Risk Management Study budget appropriation $500,000
Adoption Resolution 21-06, Roadway on Seagull Drive
.
Directing the paving project to be undertaken
Adoption Resolution 21-07, Water Rate
Adoption Resolution 21-08, SB 349/HB 401
.
Oppose state zoning legislation
Adoption Resolution 21-09, Special Obligation Bond
Ordinance 21-11, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#12)
.
Isaias
Ordinance 21-12, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#13)
. • Grant of $6,000
June
Ordinance 21-13, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance / Budget Ordinance
.
Approved the town’s $66.1 million-dollar Budget Ordinance
Adoption Resolution 21-10, Issuance of Special Obligation Bonds
Adoption Resolution 21-11, System Development Fees Report
Ordinance 21-10, Amending the Code of Ordinances
.
Requirements of Chapter 160D NC General Statutes
Ordinance 21-14, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#14)
.
Sewer Use Charge
Ordinance 21-15, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#15)
.
Water Use Charge
Ordinance 21-16, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#16)
.
Recycling
Ordinance 21-17, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#17)
.
Sewer Capacity Charge
Approval of Contract for Central Reach Nourishment
.
Weeks Marine was awarded the $27.7 million contract
July
Ordinance 21-18, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#18)
.
Isaias Cat Z / $198,386.73
Ordinance 21-19, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#19)
.
Accommodations tax budget adjustment / $362,648
Ordinance 21-20, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#20)
.
Lease purchases accounting change / $323,851.95
Ordinance 21-21, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#1)
.
Pier properties purchase funds / $3,259,000
Ordinance 21-22, Chapter 35
.
IBPB Board deleted in its entirety
Ordinance 21-23, Chapter 34
.
Takes parts from IBPB and brings it over to Parks and Recreation
August
Ordinance 21-24, Chapter 157
.
Zoning – pools
Ordinance 21-25, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#21)
.
Reclassify the down payment for the Vac truck
Ordinance 21-26, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#2)
.
Beach nourishment project loan adjustments
Adoption Resolution 21-12, Installment Financing Contracts
Ordinance 21-27, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#3)
.
Pier properties inspection / $25,000
September
Ordinance 21-28, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#4)
.
Pier properties inspection / $45,000
Ordinance 21-29, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#5)
.
American Recovery Plan funding adjustment / $17,615
Ordinance 21-30, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#6)
.
Sand Fence and Vegetation / $168,090
Adoption Resolution 21-13, Installment Financing Contracts
.
Utilities Project / $5,200,000
.
Pier Acquisition / $3,300,00
Adoption Resolution 21-14, Amending Fee Schedule / System Development Fees
October
Adoption Resolution 21-15, Amending Installment Financing Contract
November
Adoption Resolution 21-16, COVID-19 Staff Performance Bonuses
Ordinance 21-31, skipped over number
Ordinance 21-32, Adopting Amendments to Chapter 30 / Town Government and Officials  .
• 
§30.26
/ Audit Committee
Ordinance 21-33, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#7)
.
Increase line item for property acquisition / $850,000
Ordinance 21-34, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#8)
.
Decrease line item since we didn’t end up purchasing any properties / $850,000
December
Adoption Resolution 21-17, Pier Property Plan
Adoption Resolution 21-18, Installment Financing Contract
Adoption Resolution 21-19, Recycling Fee Schedule
Ordinance 21-35, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#9)
.
Increase in Occupancy Tax Revenue allocated funds


Action Taken – 2020
January
Ordinance 20-01, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#7)
. • Approval of Contract for Sewer Pump Station Number 3 for $1,622,500
. • Budget appropriation of $407,088
Adoption Resolution 20-01, Process and Format Advisory Boards / Committees Recommendations
Ordinance 20-02, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#8)
. • Provides $51,351 of funding for the new pay plan
Ordinance 20-03, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#9)
. • Poyner Spruill Consulting Service contract for $4,500
February
NA
March
Ordinance 20-05, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#10)
. • Reimbursement funds allocated for expenses $296,264
Approval of Contract for Roadway Work
. • Highland Paving was awarded the $111,250 contract
Ordinance 20-06, Amending the Code of Ordinances
. • Eliminates the Executive Secretary position
Approval of Contract to Conduct Town’s Audit
. • Martin Starnes was awarded the $17,250 contract
. • First year
Ordinance 20-08, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#11)
. • Required to budget each storm event separately
. •Moved funds of $15,861,220 and $8,547,506
Adoption Resolution 20-02, Amending the Fee Schedule
. • Amend the fee schedule to reflect the new recycling fee of $93.29
April
Ordinance 20-09, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#12)
. • FEMA – Required to budget each storm event separately
. • Florence and Michael Project Cat Z-Management Costs
. • Dorian Cat B
Adoption Resolution 20-03, Designation of Applicant’s Agent
May
NA
June
Ordinance 20-07, Amending the Code of Ordinances
. • Terms of Office; Filling of Vacancies
Ordinance 20-10, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance / Budget Ordinance
. • Approved the town’s $42.1 million-dollar Budget Ordinance
July
Adoption Resolution 20-04, Amending the Fee Schedule
. • Fees for facility rentals and programs
Adoption Resolution 20-05, Criteria for Engineering Firm Selection
. • FEMA projects
August
Ordinance 20-12, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#1)
Activate contract for removal of disaster debris allocated $267,000 for the projected expenses
Ordinance 20-13, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#2)
Debris removal tip to tip on the beach strand at a cost of $42,000
Ordinance 20-14, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#3)
Restore the dunes with sand fencing and vegetation to damaged areas island wide at a cost of $629,000
Adoption Resolution 20-06, Recognition of Woman Winning the Right to Vote
Adoption Resolution 20-07, BB&T Signature Card
September
Ordinance 20-11, Amending the Code of Ordinances
. • Land Usage Pertaining to Construction and Flood Management
Ordinance 20-04, Chapter 157: Zoning Code
. • Residential Dwellings
Adoption Resolution 20-08, Selection of ATM as our Coastal Engineering Firm
Ordinance 20-15, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#4)
. • Landscaping Maintenance Contract, additional cost of $26,680
Financial firm Raftelis selected to complete a System Development Fee Study, awarded $23,858 contract
October
Resolution 20-09, Policy for Disaster Debris
Adoption Resolution 20-10, Opposition to FEMA’s Policies for Disaster Debris in Gated Communities
Adoption Resolution 20-11, Capital Improvement Plan, Fire Hydrant Replacement Policy
Adoption Resolution 20-12, Reimburse Ourselves for Capital Expenditures Once We Obtain Financing
November
Adoption Resolution 20-13, Designation of Applicant’s Agent
December
Ordinance 20-16, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#5)
. • Adjustment to the BPART Fund $633,868
Adoption Resolution 20-14, Coastal Storm Damage Mitigation Grant


Action Taken – 2019
January
Ordinance 19-01, Chapter 151: Building and Housing Regulations
Remove Sections in
§151
.  
a) Removal of impact fees verbiage / session law 2018-34
Adoption Resolution 19-01,
.    a) Condemnation action at the east end to acquire perpetual easements
February
Adoption Resolution 19-02, Advertisement by electronic means for formal bidding
Adoption Resolution 19-03, Designation of Applicant’s Agent
Ordinance 19-02, Chapter 50: Solid Waste
.      
No Action Taken
March
Ordinance 19-03,
Chapter 50: Solid Waste
Ordinance 19-04, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#5)
.   a)
Provide funds to find a new sand source for beach nourishment
.       • approved
$170,000
Ordinance 19-05, Chapter 157: Zoning Code
.       No Action Taken
April
Ordinance 19-06, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#6)
.   a)
FEMA Florence reimbursement check, appropriation of the funds – $96,562.57
Ordinance 19-07, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#7)
.   a)
Development of a cost justified water and wastewater system
    
Development Fees Report – approved $10,000
May
Ordinance 19-08, Adopting a Supplement to the Code of Ordinances
  a)
Codifies the ordinances the Board approved since the last supplement
June
Ordinance 19-09, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#8)
.   a)
Provide funds for LWF inlet dredging – approved $388,295
Ordinance 19-10, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance / Budget Ordinance
 
.      • Approved the town’s $17.3 million-dollar Budget Ordinance
Approval of Contract for Sewer System Engineering Services
.   a)
Structural and Mechanical Modifications to Vacuum Sewer Pump Station Number 3
.       •
Green Engineering was awarded the $311,805 contract
July
Ordinance 19-11, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#1)
.       •
Amended Audit Contract modified fee – approved $10,000
August
Ordinance 19-12, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#2)
.       •
Provide additional funds for Audit Contract – approved $16,976
Ordinance 19-13, Chapter 91: Fire Prevention
Ordinance 19-14, Chapter 154: Flood Damage Prevention
September
Adoption Resolution 19-04, Inventory Assessment Grant Application
Ordinance 19-15, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#3)
.       •
Provide funds for purchase of property at 796 OBW – approved $349,000
October
Adoption Resolution 19-05, Designation of Applicant’s Agent
Adoption Resolution 19-05, Honor of Veterans Day
Ordinance 19-16, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#4)
.       •
Sand search approved $17,565
Ordinance 19-17, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#5)
.       •
Provide funds of $51,000 for new pay plan – Not approved


Action Taken – 2018
January
Adoption Resolution 18-01, Approval of BB&T Signature Card
February
Ordinance 18-01, Chapter 30: Town Government and Officials / Amendment to § 30.25
.       •
Removal of “or sibling” verbiage
Ordinance 18-04, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#1)
.       •
Beach Strand Dune Stabilization – approved $50,000 in April of 2017
.       •
Approved additional $29,375 for vegetation west of the Central Reach Project
Ordinance 18-05, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#2)
.       •
Pointe West stormwater repair project approved $9,000
Ordinance 18-06, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#3)
.       • Water Resources Development Grant ($1,439,922)
.       •
Canal maintenance dredging matching funds
March
NA
April
Resolution 11-02, Revoked Terminal Groin Application
Adoption Resolution 18-02, Withdraw Terminal Groin Permit Application
Ordinance 18-02, Establishing the Inlet and Beach Protection Board
Ordinance 18-03, Amending Chapter 34: Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
Ordinance 18-07, Amending Chapter 72: Parking Regulations
Ordinance 18-08, Amending Chapter 95: Streets
Approval of Contract for Roadway Work
.       •
Highland Paving Asphalt was awarded the $92,050 contract
May
Ordinance 18-09, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#4)
.       •
Sewer System Upgrade approved $283,000
June
Resolution 18-03, Amending the Official Zoning Map
Adoption Resolution 18-04, Adopting System Development Fees Report
Adoption Resolution 18-05, Amending Fee Schedule
Ordinance 18-10, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance / Budget Ordinance
.       •
Approved the town’s $20.9 million-dollar Budget Ordinance
Adoption Resolution 18-06, Designating July as Park & Recreation Month
Ordinance 18-11, Amending Chapter 154: Flood Damage Prevention
July
Adoption Resolution 18-07, Adopting Rules of Procedure
Authorized updating CAMA Land Use Plan
.       •
Approved $30,000
Approval of Contract to Conduct Town’s Internal Control Review
.       •
RSM was awarded the $20,000 contract
Ordinance 18-12, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#5)
.       • Internal Audit Contract approved $20,000
Approval of Contract to Conduct Town’s Audit
.       • Rives & Associates was awarded the $14,784 contract
.       •
First year
Adoption Resolution 18-08, Amending Fund Balance Policy
August
Adoption Resolution 18-09, Amending the Official Zoning Map
Ordinance 18-13, Amending Chapter 154: Flood Damage Prevention
Repeal and Replace Development Fee Schedule
September
Meeting Cancelled
October
App roval of Contract for Canal Maintenance Dredging
.       • King Dredging was awarded the $840,000 contract
Adoption Resolution 18-10, Position on Lockwood Folly Inlet Maintenance
Ordinance 18-14, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#2)
.       • ATM modeling and analysis LWF contract approved $47,000
Ordinance 18-15, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#3)
.       •
Curbside Recycling amended contract approved $9,883
Adoption Resolution 18-12,
.       •
Amend the fee schedule to reflect the new recycling fee of $67.56
November
NA
December
Ordinance 18-16, Solid Waste / Amendment to § 50.00
Adoption Resolution 18-13,
.       •
Amend the fee schedule to reflect the new recycling fee of $82.48
Adoption Resolution 18-14,
.       •
Amend the fee schedule to reflect the new Special Event Fees
Ordinance 18-17, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance (#4)
.       •
Poyner Spruill Consulting Service contract for $41,850
Ordinance 18-18, Adopting Amendments to Chapter 30 / Town Government and Officials
.       •
§ 30.26 / Audit Committee
Amending Resolution 18-07, Rules of Procedure
.       • Encourage public participation / Public Comments
.       •
Agenda items require significant supporting documentation


Action Taken – 2017
January
Approval of Canal ten-year dredge cycles and an annual property owner assessment
February
Adoption Resolution 17-01, Urging Action on the FEMA Flood Map Process
Ordinance 17-01, Adopting a Supplement to the Code of Ordinances
        • C
odifies the ordinances the Board approved since the last supplement
Approval of Solid Waste Contract with Waste Industries
Adoption Resolution 17-02, Supporting the BC Greenway, Bike Routes and Trail Plan
Ordinance 17-02, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.     a)
Lockwood Folly Dredging Piggyback Project
.         •
Approved $76,000 a share of the local portion for maintenance dredging
March
Ordinance 17-03, FEMA Matthew PW-152 Grant
.         •
Moved funds of $5,996,227 from Revenue account to Expense account
Ordinance 17-04, Beach Regulations / Amendment to § 94.03 / Frontal Dune Policies
.         •
May install a walkway past the frontal dune to the last stable line of vegetation
Adoption Resolution 17-03, Supporting Seasonal Population Adjustment Factor
Adoption Resolution 17-04, Supporting Dedicated Funding Sources for Beach Nourishment
Adoption Resolution 17-05, Amending the Fee Schedule for storm vehicle decals
April
Approval of Contract for Roadway Work
        •
Southern Asphalt was awarded the $80,215 contract
Approval of Contract to Conduct Town’s Audit
.         •
Thompson, Price, Scott, Adams and Co. was awarded the $12,750 contract
        • Sixth year
.         • Additional $3,500 fee, since we require separate audit for FEMA grant funds
Ordinance 17-05, Beach Regulations / Amendment to § 94.03 / Frontal Dune Policies
.         • Changed walkway verbiage to a maximum of four feet
Ordinance 17-06, Solid Waste / Amendment to § 50.04 /Accumulation and Collection
.         •
Waste Industries will no longer remove cans from homeowners’ racks
Approval of Contract for Yard Waste Collection
.         •
Coastal Transplants was awarded the $14,610 contract
May
Beach Strand Dune Stabilization
.         •
Sand fencing & vegetation west of the Central Reach Project – Approved $50,000
Holden Beach Promotion
.         • Beach Ambassador / Park Ranger positions for beach patrol – Approved $40,000
Lockwood Folly Dredging
        •
Administrative not dredging – Approved $50,000
Ordinance 17-07, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Lockwood Folly Inlet – Approved $35,000 local portion for maintenance dredging
.         •
Eastern Reach – Approved $15,000 for sand fence project
June
Ordinance 17-08, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance / Budget Ordinance
.         • Approved the town’s $19.6 million-dollar Budget Ordinance
Adoption Resolution 17-06, Support of the Brunswick County Opioid Task Force
Adoption Resolution 17-07, Implement Four-Year Staggered Terms for BOC’s
Adoption Resolution 17-08, Amending the Fee Schedule for storm vehicle decals
Established Community Advisory Committee to Address Parking
Ordinance 17-09, Amending Title VII: Traffic Code
.         •
§ 72.03 Parking Prohibited at All Times
        •
Change Elizabeth Street to No Parking
.         • Never Passed Ordinance
July
Ordinance 17-10, Implement Four-Year Staggered Terms for the BOC’s
Adoption Resolution 17-09, Calling for a Special Election Vote on Staggered Terms
Update of Contract to Conduct Town’s Audit
.         • An additional $2,500 fee will be charged to have an attest engagement performed
August
Approval Police Mutual Assistance Agreement with Brunswick County
September
Ordinance 17-11, Beach Regulations / Amendment to § 94.03 / Frontal Dune Policies
.         • Changed verbiage to say the Town’s Local Certified CAMA Official
October
NA
November
Meeting Canceled
December
Approval of Contract for Sewer System Engineering Services
        •
Modifications to Vacuum Sewer Pump Station Number 4
        •
Green Engineering was awarded the $158,000 contract
        • Budget appropriation of $1,413,000 for total programmatic expenses
Adoption Resolution 17-10, Support of Water Resources Development Grant
.         •
Canal Maintenance Dredging in the amount of $1,439,922
Adoption Resolution 17-11, Action of Hiring Special Environmental Counsel


Action Taken – 2016
January
Ordinance 16-01, Amending Chapter 90: Animals
.         •
Added dangerous dogs verbiage to the definition of Exotic Animals
Established Sewer Vulnerability Community Advisory Committee
Sewer System Vulnerability
.         •
2015 budgeted $40,000 for engineer study of storm preparation
Changes Made in Ordinance 15-10, Chapter 30: Town Government and Officials § 30.25
        •
You can’t exclude a specific job, profession or title from serving
.         • It’s discriminatory, motion was made to remove restrictions
Ordinance 16-02, adopting Amendments to Chapter 30
.         •
Establishment of an Audit Committee § 30.26
Ordinance 16-03, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Rothschild & Davis Park $25,000
Adoption Resolution 16-01, Approval BB&T Signature Card
Bridgeview Park
        • Approved Spending $256,884 from BPART Account
Ordinance 16-04, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
USFWS / DENR BIG $51,000
        •
Ordinance 16-04A, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
DEQ Marine Sewage Grant / DENR BIG $26,040
Ordinance 16-05, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         • PARTF PROJECT 797 $366,744
February
Approval of Hiring New Town Attorney
.         •
Noel Fox of Craige & Fox was selected
Amendment to Rules of Procedure § 30.19
.        • Rule 5 / Public Address to the Board
.         •
Rule 28b / Public Comment Periods
Approval Police Mutual Assistance Agreement with Ocean Isle Beach
Ordinance 16-06, Amending Chapter 90: Animals / Dangerous Dogs
        •
Impose stricter regulations on dogs deemed dangerous
        • NC General Statutes 67, Article IA
.         • Amendment changed verbiage to § 90.24 / Dangerous Dogs
Ordinance 16-08, Amending Chapter 30: Town Government and Officials
.         •
§ 30.26 / Audit Committee
Approval of Contract to Conduct Town’s Audit
.         •
Thompson, Price, Scott, Adams and Co. was awarded the $12,750 contract
.         • Fifth year
Adoption Resolution 16-02, Regulations Governing Invited Speakers and Spokespersons
.         • Rule 5 of the BOC Rules of Procedure § 30.19
Adoption Resolution 16-03, Regulations Governing Public Comment Periods
.         • Rule 28(b) of the BOC Rules of Procedure § 30.19
March
Adoption Resolution 16-04, Support of Constructing the Central Reach Project
Approval of Contract for Roadway Work
.         •
Southern Asphalt was awarded the $105,800 contract
.         • 2015 budgeted $115,459 for paving streets and street condition survey report
Ordinance 16-07, Amending Chapter 30: Town Government and Officials § 30.25
.         • Adopted the amendment in ordinance form; simply a housekeeping item
April
Adoption Resolution 16-05, Regulations Governing Public Comment Periods, Rule 28b
.         • Amendment to § 30.19 / Rules of Procedure
Adoption Resolution 16-06, Adopted Southeastern NC Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
May
Adoption Resolution 16-07, Regulations Governing Public Comment Periods, Rule 28b
        • Amendment to § 30.19 / Rules of Procedure
Ordinance 16-09, Amending Chapter 92: Nuisances
        •
Amendment to § 92.20 – § 92.27 / Noise Ordinance
Approval of Town / County Interlocal Financing Agreement for the Central Reach Project
Adoption Resolution 16-08, Supporting Oyster Farming
June
Approval of Disaster Debris Management and Monitoring Contracts
Ordinance 16-10, Amending Chapter VII: Traffic Code
.     a)
§ 72.03 Parking Prohibited at All Times
.         • Designated parking areas on Ranger
Ordinance 16-11, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         • Lockwood Folly Inlet – Approved $12,500 local portion for maintenance dredging
Approval of Town / County Interlocal Financing Agreement for the Central Reach Project
Scheduled Date to Hold a Public Hearing to Establish a Municipal Service District
Ordinance 16-12, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance / Budget Ordinance
.         •
Approved the town’s $30.2 million-dollar Budget Ordinance
        •
Tax Rate – Raised the tax rate by 7.0 cents to $.220
July
Supported Joint Amicus Brief – Emerald Isle
Termination of Recycling Center bulk recycling service after Labor Day
Enforcement of Ordinance § 157.087, Building Numbers
        •
Managed process, done for safety reasons
August
Ordinance 16-13, Amending Chapter VII: Traffic Code
    a)
§ 72.03 Parking Prohibited at All Times
.         • Parking Prohibited – Chapel
Ordinance 16-14, Creating Municipal Service District for Central Reach Project
Adoption Resolution 16-09, Filing of Condemnation Actions to Acquire Perpetual Easements for Central Reach Project
Adoption Resolution 16-10, Application to Local Government Commission for Special Obligation Bonds
September
Ordinance 16-15, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         • Increase budget expense by $447,960
.         • Bond Order, Authorizing the Issuance of Special Obligation Bonds
Adoption Resolution 16-11, Issuance of $12,000,000 Special Obligation Bonds\
Approval of Contract for Central Reach Project
.         • Weeks Marine was awarded the $14,551,110 contract
October
Acceptance of Donation of Property by Devaney Properties parcel ID# 246AE07303
Selection of Engineer to Review Sewer System Vulnerability
       • Compass Pointe Engineering was only response for our request for proposal
Ordinance 16-16, Amending Chapter VII: Traffic Code
.     a)
§ 72.03 Parking Prohibited at All Times
.         • Parking Prohibited –
Pointe West
        • Not Approved
November
Adoption Resolution 16-12, Designation of Applicant’s Agent (Hurricane Matthew)
        •
Part of the process to establish an official point of contact to process FEMA reimbursement request
December

Ordinance 16-17, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
Approval of Contract for Engineer to Review Sewer System Vulnerability
.         • Compass Pointe Engineering was awarded the $43,700 contract

.         • Money is coming from the Water & Sewer Fund Balance
Ordinance 16-18, Amending Title VII: Traffic Code
.     a)
§ 72.03 Parking Prohibited at All Times

        • Designated parking areas on Elizabeth
Ordinance 16-19, Amending Chapter 91: Fire Prevention
.         • Amendment to § 91.17 / Fire Prevention


Action Taken – 2015
January
Ordinance 15-01, Amending Chapter 157: Zoning – Changed method of measuring building height
Ordinance 15-02, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Refinancing EOC loans
.         •
Never Passed Ordinance
SKA Fishing TournamentApproved $5,000 contribution from BPART account
Approval of Contract to Conduct Town’s Audit
        •
Thompson, Price, Scott, Adams and Co. was awarded the $12,750 contract
.         • Fourth year
Adoption Resolution 15-01, Amending Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Adoption Resolution 15-02, Annex Property at Turkey Trap Road
Approved making $10,000 matching contribution for Marker Fifty-Five storm water drainage issues
February
Ordinance 15-02, Approved Annexation of Property Owned by the Town (Kirby Site / Turkey Trap Road)
.         •
Duplicate Ordinance # January
Adoption Resolution 15-03, Approval of a Financing Agreement for EOC
Selected refinancing option with BB&T
          1) Reduced terms from twenty (20) years to ten (10) years

.           2) Reduced interest rate from 4.25% to 2.42%
Adoption Resolution 15-04, Approving Financing Terms for EOC
Ordinance 15-03, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Approved receiving $9,676 grant funding from Brunswick County Soil & Water Conservation
March
Approval of Financial Advisory Services Agreement – financial consulting fee of $25,000
Adoption Resolution 15-05, Establishing the Official Dates of the SEARCH 5K
Adoption Resolution 15-06, Recognizing April 22, 2015 as Earth Day
Unveiling of New Town Social Media Tool – Red Shark App
April
Ordinance 15-04, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Beach Strand Emergency Access – Starfish
.         • Approved purchase for $67,500 which will come from BPART account
Ordinance 15-05, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Recognizes money received for the sale of assets on GovDeals
.         • Approved $37,500 for second portable generator for Sewer System Permit Compliance
May
NA
June
Ordinance 15-06, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance / Budget Ordinance
.         • Approved the town’s $10.4 million-dollar Budget Ordinance
NC Department of Transportation Landscaping Project for the Mainland Side of the Holden Beach Bridge
.         •
Bridge Enhancement Project
.         • Approved $15,000 annual maintenance expense which will come from BPART account
July
Tax Rate – Raised the tax rate by 2.3 cents ($.023)
Seasonal Public Restroom Facilities and Services – Budgeted $10,000 to cover the costs
Sewer System Lift Station – Budgeted $40,000 for engineer study of storm preparation
Streets – Budgeted $115,459 for paving streets and to update street condition survey report
Employee Compensation – Budgeted $80,821 to make market salary adjustments
Police Department – Created two (2) part-time administrative positions
August
Adoption Resolution 15-07, Authorizing Participation in the State Health Insurance Plan
September
Adoption Resolution 15-08, Recognizing the 25th Anniversary of the Holden Beach Beautification Club
Approval of Indemnification between the County and the Town HB Bridge Beautification Project
Adoption Resolution 15-09, Opposition to Offshore Gas and Oil Exploration and Drilling Off NC Coast
October
Adoption Resolution 15-10, Approving Terms of Sewer Refinancing Agreement
November
Adoption Resolution 15-11, Honor of Veteran’s Day
Ordinance 15-07, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
        • Captain Jack’s apartments demolition of the building
.         • Appropriating funds from insurance bond settlement of $34,000
Adoption Resolution 15-12, Amending the Fee Schedule for Curbside Recycling
December
Establishing a Memorial for Tom Decker Dedicating the PAR Course in His Memory
Adoption Resolution 15-13, Replacement of the Town Attorney
Adoption Resolution 15-14, Adopting Rules of Procedure
Adoption Resolution 15-15, Establishment of a Community Advisory Committee
.         • Under the Planning & Zoning Board
        • Sanitary Sewer Vulnerability Community Advisory Committee
Resolution 15-16, Amendments to Chapter 92, Providing for Noise Control
        •
Amendment to § 92.20, § 92.21through § 92.27
Resolution 15-17, Amendments to …
.         • Amendment to § 30.05, Mayor Pro Tempore and Executive Secretary
.         • Amendment to § 30.17, Official Record of Proceedings Required
.         • Amendment to § 30.25, Commissions, Boards, Agencies and Authorities
.         • Amendment to § 30.26, Establishment of Audit Committee
.         • Amendment to § 30.27, Hiring of Lawyers, Consultants or Other Service Providers
Resolution 15-18, Amendments to Chapter 155, Procedural Reforms for Planning and Zoning Board
        • Amendment to § 155.12, Officers; Rules; Meetings
.         • Amendment to § 155.15, Community Advisory Committees
Adoption Resolution 15-19 / Special Meeting of the BOC’s
.         • Amendment to § 30.05
.         • Amendment to § 30.17
        • Amendment to § 30.25
        • Amendment to § 30.26
.         • Amendment to § 30.27
.         • Amendment to § 92.20, § 92.21, § 92.27
.         • Amendment to § 155.12
.         • Amendment to
§ 155.15


Action Taken – 2014
January
Adoption Resolution 14-01, Supporting Parks & Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF) Grant Application
Adoption Resolution 14-02, Approval of BB&T Signature Card
Adoption Resolution 14-03, Opposing Homeowners Policy Rate Hike
Adoption Resolution 14-04, Letter Opposing Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW-12)
February
Meeting Canceled
.       a) Regular Meeting scheduled for February 9th was canceled
.       b)
Special Meeting on February 16th
Ordinance 14-01, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Lockwood Folly Dredging $797,600
March
Ordinance 14-02, Amending Chapter 155: Planning
.       a)
§ 155.12 Officers; Rules; Meetings
Ordinance 14-03, Amending Chapter 151: Building and Housing Regulations
      b) (
§ 155.21 Permit Fees
Ordinance 14-04, Amending 51: Water
.       a)
§ 51.03 Rate Schedule
Adoption Resolution 14-05, Amending the Fee Schedule – Tap Fees
Ordinance 14-05, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 72: Parking Schedules
.         •
Never Passed Ordinance
Apply for Permit to Contract for the Maintenance of the Lockwood Folly Inlet ($37,500)
Southwind Construction piggyback dredging operations of the Lockwood Folly Inlet Crossing ($900,000)
April
Adoption Resolution 14-06, Supporting the Advisory Referendum to Levy County Sales and Use Tax
Ordinance 14-05, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
        •
Creating a Dog Park on Town owned property at Scotch Bonnet Drive
.         •
Approved spending $19,000 from BPART account
.         •
Duplicate Ordinance # March
Adoption Resolution 14-07, Establishing a Dog Park
Letter to Brunswick County Requesting the Town be Added to Their Hazard Mitigation Plan
 May
Adoption Resolution 14-08, Consent to Transfer Control (Time Warner / Comcast)
June
Adoption Resolution 14-09, Accepting the Loan of a Civil War Artifact Found on Holden Beach
Adoption Resolution 14-10, Adopting the Brunswick County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
Ordinance 14-06, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance / Budget Ordinance
.         • Approved the town’s $9.9 million-dollar Budget Ordinance
Ordinance 14-07, Amending Chapter 90: Animals
.         •
Add § 90.27 Dog Park Regulations
July
Approval of Contract to Conduct Town’s Audit
        •
Thompson, Price, Scott, Adams and Co. was awarded the $12,750 contract
.         •
Third year
Ordinance 14-08, Amending Chapter 34: Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
.     a)
§ 34.03 Appointment, Terms
August
Approval of Town / County Animal Control Interlocal Agreement
Ordinance 14-09, Amending Title VII: Traffic Code / Parking
.         •
§ 72.02 Parking Regulated on Public Rights-of-Way
September
Ordinance 14-10, Amending Chapter 157: Zoning Code (§ 157.085 & § 157.146)
Ordinance 14-11, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         • Approved purchasing lot at 806 OBW for $17,850 which will come from BPART account
Ordinance 14-12, Approval of Funding for PARTF Portion of Water Tower Park Site
        •
Agreed to partially fund Bridgeview Park
.         • Approved Spending $161,000 from BPART Account
October
Adoption Resolution 14-11, Tax Foreclosure Policy
November
Ordinance 14-13, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         • Police Department vehicle
.         • Receipts insurance reimbursements $36,440 appropriates same for vehicle replacement purchase
Approval of a Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan – Joined Regional Plan
December
Ordinance 14-14, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
        •
Accepted National Boating Infrastructure Grant Program
        • Approved matching Town portion of $105,575 which will come from the BPART account
Adoption Resolution 14-12, Submittal of a Parks & Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF) Grant Application
Ordinance 14-15, Amending Chapter 90: Animals
.         •
Amended § 90.03
Ordinance 14-16, Adopting a Supplement to the Code of Ordinances
        • The supplement codifies the ordinances the Board approved since the last supplement
Approval of Easement Agreement Between Gil Bass and the Town
.         •
Fishing Pier / Campground Public Access
Ordinance 14-17, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         • Donation from the Holden Beach Greater Women’s Club
        • Town accepted the donation of $250 to purchase beach vegetation


Action Taken – 2013
January
Adoption Resolution 13-01, Increase the Maximum Time Allowed for Accrual of Dredging Funds
Adoption Resolution 13-02, Solid Waste Management Plan of 2022 for Brunswick County
Adoption Resolution 13-03, Support of North Carolina Coastal Caucus
Adoption Resolution 13-04, Establish User Fees for All Holden Beach Facilities
February
NA
March
Adoption Resolution 13-05, Grand Strand Area Transportation Study Memorandum of Understanding
April
Ordinance 13-01, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Water System Asset Management Plan
.         • Took $775,000 from reserves to address our water infrastructure needs
Adoption Resolution 13-06, Application for Boating Infrastructure Grant (BIG)
Obtained Deed of Easement as a Donation Deal Drive Public Access between the properties at 1085 and 1089 OBW
May
Ordinance 13-02, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         • Property Acquisition $375,000
Approval of Contract to Conduct Town’s Audit
        • Thompson, Price, Scott, Adams and Co. was awarded the $12,750 contract
.         •
Second year
Adoption Resolution 13-07, Opposing Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Loggerhead Sea Turtle
.         •
United States Fish & Wildlife Service’s
June
Ordinance 13-03, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance / Budget Ordinance
.         •
Approved the town’s $10.2 million-dollar Budget Ordinance
July
Ordinance 13-04, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
        • Bridgeview Playground approved $10,852 which will come from the BPART account
Approval of North Carolina’s Mutual Aid Agreement
August
Adoption Resolution 13-08, Amend the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012
Ordinance 13-05, Demolish the Structure at 109 OBW
        • Captain Jack’s apartments demolition of the building
.         • Never Passed Ordinance
September
Adoption Resolution 13-09, Opposing Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Loggerhead Sea Turtle
.         •
National Marine Fisheries Service’s
Approval of Constitution Week Proclamation
Ordinance 13-05, Amending Chapter 51: Water
.         •
Protect the potable water supply from cross contamination
.         • Duplicate Ordinance # August
October
Approval of Contract for Canal dredging Project
.         • King Dredging was awarded the $445,000 contract
Ordinance 13-06, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Storm Water Plan and Install Bulkhead for Bridgeview Park
.         •
Estimated cost is now $156,000 which will come from the BPART account
Adoption Resolution 13-10, Application for NCDOT’s 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Grant Initiative
Ordinance 13-07, Amending Chapter § 157.064 (B), Special Entertainment § 157.064
November
Approval Police Mutual Assistance Agreement with Ocean Isle Beach
Ordinance 13-08, Sale and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages Prohibited § 130.03
December
NA


Action Taken – 2012
January
Adoption Resolution 12-01, Supporting the 2012 Shipwreck Triathlon
Approval of Contract to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
.         •
Determining the viability of constructing a terminal groin on the east end of Holden Beach
        • Dial Cordy & Associates was awarded the contract
Ordinance 12-01, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Estimated cost is $300,000
.         • Funding is coming from Occupancy tax specifically from the BPART account
February
Adoption Resolution 12-02, Opposing the Proposed Early Start Time for Brunswick County Schools
March
Adoption Resolution 12-03, Policy for Mutual Assistance with Other Law Enforcement Agencies
Adoption Resolution 12-04, Designating Chris Clemmons as Official of Mosquito Control
        •
Authorized and empowered to sign and execute all papers and documents
Adoption Resolution 12-05, Approval of BB&T Signature Card
Ordinance 12-02, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
FEMA grant reimbursements
          1)
FEMA Irene PW – 584, $189,474 for sand fencing and vegetation
          2)
FEMA Irene PW – 559, $447,960 for beach strand nourishment
Ratification of Contract for EIS for the East End Shoreline Protection Project / Terminal Groin
.         •
Estimated cost is now $520,000 which will come from the BPART account
April
Approval of Contract to Conduct Town’s Audit
        •
Thompson, Price, Scott, Adams and Co. was awarded the $12,750 contract
        •
First year
May
Ordinance 12-03, Amending Chapter 90: Animals
    a) § 90.99, Penalty
.         • Increase the fine for not having your pet on a leash to $500 per offense
Ordinance 12-04, Amending Chapter 95: Streets
.     a)
§ 95.05, Street Rights-of-Way
        •
Approved products allowed in the ten feet of rights-of-way
June
Ordinance 12-05, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance / Budget Ordinance
.         • Approved the town’s $9.2 million-dollar Budget Ordinance
July
NA
August
Adoption Resolution 12-06, Fire Department Specifications
.         •
Substation located at the corner of Starfish and OBW
.         •
The Town is responsible for building maintenance
        •
Approved spending $40,000 for renovations
Adoption Resolution 12-07, License Plates
.         •
Create a specialized THB license plate
Participate in creating Municipal Advocacy Goals for the North Carolina League of Municipalities
September
Approval of Contract for Fire Department Substation at 572 OBW Renovations
.         •
Richard Jones Builders was awarded the $29,845 contract
October
Adoption Resolution 12-08, Amending Recycling Fee Schedule
Adoption Resolution 12-09, Endorsing the Cooperative Urban Transportation Planning Process
.         •
Conducted by the Grand Strand Area Transportation Study (GSATS)
Ordinance 12-06, Demolish the Dwelling at 115 Canal Drive
        •
Mace’s on the waterway is located at 115 Canal Drive
November
Ordinance 12-07, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
HBPOA will raise funds for the purchase of playground equipment for Bridgeview Park
December
NA


Action Taken – 2011
January
Adoption Resolution 11-01, Amending the Termination Date of the Agreement for Terminal Groins
Approval of Contract to Conduct Town’s Audit
.         •
Martin Starnes and Associates was awarded the $19,000 contract
        •
Third year
Adoption Resolution 11-02, Accepting and Endorsing the Solid Waste Management Plan of 2019
Update Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
Approval of Amended Contract between the Town and Waste Industries
        •
Amendment extends the terms of the current contract for three years with no changes
Adoption Resolution 11-03, Amending Property Tax Exemptions for Certain Homeowner Association Property
.         •
Attempt to influence legislation to eliminate tax exemption for Beach Club Houses
February
Ordinance 11-01, Amending Chapter 91: Fire Prevention
.         •
Brings us up to date on statutory requirements
Adoption Resolution 11-04, Establishing Policy on Fire Inspections
.         •
Applies to commercial buildings only
Ordinance 11-02, Amending Ordinance 10-07, the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Installment Financing Agreements
.         •
Refinancing existing loan terms with BB&T
.         •
Reduce interest rate from 3.79% to 3.27%
Adoption Resolution 11-05, Approving Terms of Re-financing
.         •
Refinancing existing loan terms with BB&T

Adoption Resolution 11-06, Support of a Triathlon at Holden Beach
March
Adoption Resolution 11-07, Designating Chris Clemmons as Official of Mosquito Control
        •
Authorized and empowered to sign and execute all papers and documents
Ordinance 11-03, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Appropriates funds to acquire properties, $93,600 which will come from the BPART account
Approval of Contract between the THB and Holden Beach Enterprises for the Purchase of Property
.         •
Purchase of eighteen properties
April
Ordinance 11-04, Amending Chapter 157: Zoning Code
    a)
§ 157.025 Bulkheads on Canal Lots
        •
Amends requirements for bulkheads

Ordinance 11-05, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Housekeeping item, recommended by town auditors
Ordinance 11-06, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Property Acquisition $84,900
May
Ordinance 11-07, Amending Chapter 90: Animals
.     a)
§ 90.03, Keeping or Using Livestock Prohibited
.         • Added only one-word poultry
Resolution 11-08, Adopt-A-Trail Program Grant Application
June
Adoption Resolution 11-09, Approval of BB&T Signature Card
Ordinance 11-08, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
        •
Town Hall Capital Project Fund $357,429
Ordinance 11-09, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance / Budget Ordinance
.         • Approved the town’s $7.9 million-dollar Budget Ordinance
.         •
Revenue neutral tax rate – calculated to provide the same amount of ad valorem tax revenues
.         a)  Previous property valuation of $2.2 billion
.         b)  Current property revaluation of $1.2 billion
        • Ad valorem tax rate will change from 6.9 cents to 12.7 cents per $100 of property valuation
July
NA
August
Adoption Resolution 11-10, Accepting the Artwork Entitled “Spirit Turtle’s Tears”
.         • Donated by Ms. Phyllis Noah
Approval of Fee Schedule for the HB Pavilion and Emergency Operations Center
.         •
Recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Approval of the Proposed Plan to Install a Par Course (Fitness Stations)
.         • Recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
.         •
Quarter mile stretch, north side of OBW between Greensboro and Scotch Bonnet
.         • Project cost of $20,000 which will come from the BPART account
Adoption Resolution 11-11, Policy for Membership and Appointment to the Various Town Boards
.         •
Only change is to limit any individual’s membership to only one board at a time
Ordinance 11-10, Adopting a Supplement to the Code of Ordinances
.         •
The supplement codifies the ordinances the Board approved since the last supplement
September
Adoption Resolution 11-12, Terminal Groin Permit Application
October
Adoption Resolution 11-13, Designation of Applicant’s Agent (Hurricane Irene)
        •
Part of the process to establish an official point of contact to process FEMA reimbursement request
Adoption Resolution 11-14, Bicycle Facilities Planning Grant Application
November
NA
December
NA


Action Taken – 2010
January
Adoption Resolution 10-01, Asking FEMA’s NFIP cover Damages from Gradual Coastal Erosion
Create Mutual Facilities Agreement between the Town and the Chapel
.         •
Document to recognize our current standing agreement
February
Adoption Resolution 10-02, Designating Chris Clemmons as Official of Mosquito Control
.         •
Authorized and empowered to sign and execute all papers and documents
Approval of Contract for Paving Projects
.         •
Wayne’s Backhoe was awarded the contract
Ordinance 10-01, Chapter 157: Zoning Code
    a)
§ 157.025 Bulkheads on Canal Lots
.         •
The proposed ordinance would establish new requirements for bulkheads on canal lots
Ordinance 10-02, Chapter 157: Zoning Code
.     a)
§ 157.079, Sign Regulations
.         •
Amends regulations for real estate signs
Ordinance 10-03, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
USDA loan / Capital Outlay EOC $71,042
Ordinance 10-04, Chapter 151: Building & Housing Regulations (Minimum Housing Code)
.         • Currently have condemnation stage only; this establishes intermediate steps
March
Adoption Resolution 10-03, Protect the Room Occupancy Tax (BPART)
        •
Occupancy Tax Funds Beach Preservation / Access & Recreation / Tourism Fund (
.         • Property owners renting independently are not paying occupancy tax
April
Ordinance 10-05, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
        •
Canal Dredging Project $323,080
Adoption Resolution 10-04, adopting an Official Town Beach and sediment Management Plan
Adoption Resolution 10-05, In Favor of Terminal Groin Legislation
        •
Fight for a change in the legislature regarding the current ban on terminal groins
        •
The Brunswick Beaches Consortium estimates total cost of $75,000
.         •
Agreed to contribute another $10,000 which will come from the BPART account
Approval of Contract to Conduct Town’s Audit
        •
Martin Starnes and Associates was awarded the $19,000 contract
.         •
Second year
May
Ordinance 10-06, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Water & Sewer Fund $464,479
Adoption Resolution 10-06, Preliminary Assessment Roll for the Improvement of Blockade Runner
.         • The project cost $57,751; Assessment based on lot frontage @$16 a foot
Approval of Mayor’s Release of Letter Supporting the GRANDUC Model a
.         •
Local Risk/ Benefit Analysis Model for the General Revaluation Report
        •
Used for acquiring sources of sand
June
Adoption Resolution 10-07, Assessment Roll and Levying Assessments on Blockade Runner Owners
Ordinance 10-07, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance / Budget Ordinance
.         •
Approved the town’s $12.3 million-dollar Budget Ordinance
July
Adoption Resolution 10-08, Adopting a Canal Dredging Master Plan
.         •
Cost was split between canal subdivisions
Adoption Resolution 10-09, Designating Mayor as Official to Execute All Administrative Tasks
        • Turkey Trap Sand Mine
.         •
NCDOT requires bond
.         •
Bond agreement with Hartford at a cost of $2,068
August
NA
September
Adoption Resolution 10-10, Approving the THB Water Shortage Response Plan
Adoption Resolution 10-11, Opposition to Enlarge Designated Inlet Hazard Areas
Ordinance 10-08, Amending Chapter 94: Beach Regulations
.         •
All unattended beach equipment must be removed from the beach daily
Approval Mayor and/or Town Manager as the Authorized Agent to Execute Documents
.         • Settlement between the THB and Associated Industrial Contractors
        •
The contractor filed for bankruptcy before the Emergency Operations Center was finished
October
Approval of Contract for Roadway Work at Turkey Trap Road
.         •
Wayne’s Backhoe was awarded the $103,336 contract
Ordinance 10-09, Demolish the Dwelling at 127 OBW
.         •
127 OBW – eyesore (grey building) that you see when you come over the bridge
Adoption Resolution 10-12, Organization, Functions, Composition and Terms of Various Town Committees
Ordinance 10-10, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
.         •
Resolution to disband both committees and combine them into board passed
.         •
Shore Line Protection Committee – sea
.         •
Public Area Improvement Committee – land
Ordinance 10-11, Amending Ordinance the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Insurance settlement of $35,000 from the Emergency Operations Center
Approval of Contract for HB Pavilion Structural Renovations and Improvements
.         •
Robinson Home Improvement was awarded the $80,000 contract
November
Adoption Resolution 10-13, Honoring Veteran’s Day
.         •
Recognized contributions of our veterans
Adoption Resolution 10-14, Adopting a Code of Ethics for the Board of Commissioners
.         •
C.G.S. 160A-86 requires local governing boards to adopt a code of ethics by 01/01/11
        •
Mandatory – state requirement
Approval of Land Acquisition Contract between the Town and Holden Beach Enterprises
.         •
Six properties are being offered to us for one million dollars
.         •
Tax assessment value of approximately three million dollars

Ordinance 10-12, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Puts the million dollars ($1,000,000) on the table
.         •
Money is in place if we want to purchase the land
December
Approval of Land Acquisition Contract between the Town and Holden Beach Enterprises
———————————————————————————————————————————— Action Taken – 2009
January
Resolution 09-01, Preliminary Assessment to Improve of Blockade Runner
Ordinance 09-01, Amending Chapter 154: Flood Damage Prevention
.         •
Amends window requirements
Ordinance 09-02, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Harbor Capital Project Fund $100,000
February
Ordinance 09-03, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Harbor Capital Project Fund $16,480
Resolution 09-02, Support of a Community Bicycle Training Ride
Approval of Sewer Lift Stations Landscaping
        •
Funds of $1,150 approved which will come from the BPART account
March
Adoption Resolution 09-03, Assessment Resolution to Improve Blockade Runner
Adoption Resolution 09-04, Extending Term of Brunswick Beaches Consortium
.         •
Extends the term for an additional ten years until April 30, 2019.
Approval of Agreement for Interlocal Undertaking (Terminal Groins)
.         • Affect changes to current policy as it pertains to beach sediment management at ocean inlets
.         •
Previously approved funding
Adoption Resolution 09-05, Petition support the Designation of the Coastal Waters as a No Discharge Zone
Adoption Resolution 09-06, Remove Property Tax Exemptions for Certain Homeowner Association Property
.         •
Close loophole by removing exemption for beach club houses
Brunswick County sent a letter requesting that the Town contribute $5,000 to pursue the claim to slow or forestall the imposition of the increases in insurance premiums and deductibles. Approval of a Contribution of $5,000
Adoption Resolution 09-07, Permission to Hold the Bark at the Beach
.         • Fundraiser to Benefit Easter Seals
Ordinance 09-04, Amending the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
.         •
Authorizes all appropriations and expenditures for the FEMA Beach Nourishment Project
.         • Restoration project has $2.225 million dollars
Approval of Memorandum of Agreement between the NCDOT and the Town
.         •
Debris removal during a federally declared event
Ordinance 09-05, Amending Chapter 154: Flood Damage Prevention
April
Inaugural BOC’s meeting in the new Town Hall
Ordinance 09-06, Capital Project Ordinance – Blockade Runner Paving Project
.         •
Budget amendment pertaining to the costs associated with paving Blockade Runner.
Adoption Resolution 09-08, Elder Abuse Awareness
        • Recognizes the month of June as awareness month
Adoption Resolution 09-09, Against Senate Bill 1004 and House Bill 1252, Level Playing Field Act
.         •
Not in our best interest, hinders local governments from providing broadband services
Approval of Contract to Conduct Town’s Audit
        •
Martin Starnes and Associates was awarded the $19,000 contract
.         •
First year
May
Adoption Resolution 09-10, Adopting the Town’s CAMA Core Land Use Plan
Adoption Resolution 09-11, Adopt HB Pavilion Rules of Operation
June
Approval of Professional Services Contract – Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan
        • Proposal to hire consultant to develop a master plan
        • Funds of $9,800 will come from the BPART account
Ordinance 09-07, Amending Ordinance the Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance
        •
Transfer $80,000 from Town Hall Capital Project Fund to Water and Sewer Fund
Ordinance 09-08, The Revenues and Appropriations Ordinance / Budget Ordinance
.         • Approved the town’s $12.3 million-dollar Budget Ordinance
July
NA
August
Adoption Resolution 09-12, THB Hazard Mitigation Plan
.         • First in North Carolina to be in compliance with Federal standards
September
Adoption Resolution 09-13, Support of a Community Bicycle Training Ride
October
Ordinance 09-09, Adopting a Supplement to the Code of Ordinances
.         •
The supplement codifies the ordinances the Board approved since the last supplement
Selection of Contractor to Perform RPZ Testing and Repair
.         •
Onsite was awarded the contract
.         •
Property owners with second water meter will be charged $30.00 per year
November
Recommendations Made by the Planning & Zoning Board for Amendments to Ordinances§ 94.03, Frontal Dune Policies and Regulation§ 157.064, Special Entertainment Uses – Video Gaming Machines
.         •
§ 157.079, Sign Regulations
December
NA


 

Terminal Groin Project

Terminal Groin Project

Re: SAW-2011-01914 Holden Beach East End Shore Protection Project
Please accept these comments on behalf of the National AuduTerminal 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 illustration for the Simpsons

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 conclusionsThe 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.
need is something you have to have.
.          • It’s something you can’t do without.
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/bon 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

Hurricane Matthew

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.

Update –  January 2018
Presentation by Clark Wright of Davis Hartman Wright,
Legal Advisor to the Board with Respect to Beach Protection and Other Environmental Issues

Holden Beach Terminal Groin – Fact / Status Sheet
January 16, 2018

  • Town involved in various evaluation, legislation and permitting efforts for 10+ years
  • 2009 CAMA LUP contains language supporting investigating feasibility of HBTG
  • Town provided lobbying funds, political and staff support for State enabling legislation (SB110)
  • BOC enacted Resolution to seek CAMA permit in 2011 (Resolution 11-12, dated 09-13-11
  • BOC effectively reaffirmed support in 2016 (see Minutes of January 2016 BOC Meeting)
  • Town expenditures to-date total to at least $637,161.00 (source: David Hewett)
    • $ 20,000                     “Save our Sand” Lobbyist
    • $401,332                    Dial Cordy – EIS drafting task – USACE 3rd Party Contractor
    • $ 16,889                     Surveying
    • $103,334                    Outside Legal Counsel Services Supporting Process
    • $ 93,305                     ATM – Engineer of Record
    • $ 2,301                      – (data collection; advertising; transcripts)
  • Actions to-date: 
    • USACE – lead federal agency – Section 10/404 Federal Permits – Responsible for EIS process, working with 3rd Party Contractor, Town and other stakeholders; process has covered 6+ years
    • USACE Scoping Meeting – Public Notice issued 02-28-12
    • USACE Public Notice of issuance of Draft EIS was issued on 08-28-15 (in connection with the Town’s Application for Section 10/404 Federal Permits authorizing TG)
    • “Inlet Management Plan” is included as part of Draft EIS
    • “Economic Analysis” addressing various alternatives included in the Draft EIS
    • USACE has provided final comments to Dial Cordy; issuance of the Final EIS is expected within 30 days; FEIS is expected to support preferred alternative for TG
  • Anticipated Future Actions (assumes process continues to move forward):
    • Issuance of the Final EIS within 30 days; FEIS will be published in Federal Register with a notice asking for final comments before USACE writes and publishes final “Record of Decision (“ROD”).”
    • The USACE ROD may be to adopt any of the alternatives described in the FEIS, including the “no action” alternative. It is anticipated that the USACE ROD will endorse the “preferred alternative” described in the DEIS/FEIS (i.e., recommend issuance of Federal Section 10 and Section 404 Permits authorizing construction and operation of a terminal groin at Lockwood Folly Inlet.)
    • Once the FEIS and ROD are published, the Town then can formally submit a Major Development CAMA Permit Application to the NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM). In addition to compliance with all CAMA rules and provisions, the CAMA Permit Application Package must comply with any mitigation measures described in the FEIS, as well as requirements as set forth in SB110, as amended – including financial assurances package that must receive review/approval from the NC Local Government Commission.  [NOTE:  The Town and its contractors have worked on a draft CAMA Permit Application Package; additional work remains to be done to address FEIS requirements; the “financial assurances” package has not been prepared, even in draft form; the Town Manager has obtained copies of packages submitted by several other TG applicants.]
    • Real Property Easements will have to be obtained by the Town from oceanfront property owners owning land where the proposed terminal groin comes ashore, as well as all areas where any physical portions of the structure would be located above mean high water. (Note that terminal groin structures run several hundred feet landward of the mean high-water mark.)
    • In addition to real property easements for the location of TG structures, it is likely that DCM will require the Town to identify and obtain easements from ocean front property owners located within the “service area” of the TG where beach nourishment activities are an integral part of the anticipated “beneficial” functioning of the TG. No easement legal work specific to the TG project has been undertaken by the Town Attorney to-date; parcel information regarding those ocean front property owners recently was provided to the Town Attorney by the Town Manager.  There appears to be overlap of these parcels with those tied to the TG project.  Potentially affected landowners have not received any formal notices or communications from the Town regarding these matters.
  • Related potentially relevant activities include:
    • Ongoing federal litigation filed by NC Audubon and SELC against USACE and OIB
    • Status of Figure Eight Island TG process, currently on hold
    • Status of Federal reauthorization of the NFIP
    • Existing SDI5 Permit, and potential modifications/renewal
    • Town Eastern Reach nourishment project(s)
    • Future repeats of Central Reach Project
    • Potential actions by Brunswick County (Jetty? Purchase of dredge? Other?)
    • Relationship with Oak Island?
    • Relationship with General Assembly?
    • Relationship with NC State Government?
    • Status of endangered species, including sea turtles and sea bird species?
    • Relationships with commercial/recreational fishing interests?
    • Relationships with oceanfront property owners?
    • Potential legal challenges naming Town as a party
    • Potential to cooperate with various NGO’s
    • Establishment of permanent beach and inlet management standing committee or board

My Two Cents - CR IIWe already invested over six hundred and thirty-seven thousand dollars ($637,111) so far. We either continue to support moving forward or cut our losses and pull the plug. We should have already gotten the permit. Once we have the permit in hand, we will have to decide whether to fund it or not. I anticipate an unexpected denouement.

Update – February 2018

What’s next?

The next steps include the following:
.    
1) USACE final EIS published by February 23rd
.     2 ) Public comment period begins – 30 days
    3) USACE Record of Decision (ROD)
.     4) CAMA application completed
    5) Federal and State permit issuance / Permits expire in five (5) years

Breaking News –
All content related assembly of the master document has occurred. Files are being formatted for publishing in the federal register. Anticipate an early March publishing date in the federal register.

Update – March 2018

Holden Beach awaits permits for terminal groin project
Holden Beach’s proposed terminal groin remains mired in the permitting process, six years after town officials approved moving forward with the project. Though the terminal groin project has been going through the permitting process for the past several years, Hewett said the environmental-impact statement (EIS) for the project has nearly been completed and should be posted to the federal register in the coming days. After the project is posted, there will be a 30-day comment period followed by a “record of decision” by the Army Corps of Engineers. If the corps’ decision is favorable, Hewett said the town still has to obtain a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit for the project from the N.C. Division of Coastal Management (DCM). If the town obtains all the permits necessary, Hewett said it will be up to the town’s commissioners on whether to fund construction.
Read more » click here

The USACE on March 15th released the FEIS for the Holden Beach East End Shore Protection Project.The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wilmington District Commander -Colonel Clark- has signed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).  Dial Cordy and the Corps program manager are finalizing the digitization of the document for Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) publishing. The USACE on March 15th released the FEIS for the Holden Beach East End Shore Protection Project.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement  can be found on the USACE website

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

The Public Notice can be found on the USACE website

SAW-2011-01914 – 3/15/2018: The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) received an application from the Town of Holden Beach (Town) seeking Department of the Army authorization to discharge fill material into waters of the United States, associated with the construction of a 700-ft-long terminal groin with a 300-ft shore anchorage system and associated long-term beach nourishment component, in order to address erosion and protect infrastructure, roads, homes, beaches, dunes and wildlife habitat in Holden Beach, Brunswick County, North Carolina. Specific plans and location information are described below and shown on the attached plans. This notice serves to announce the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Holden Beach East End Shore Protection Project in accordance with 33 CFR 325 Appendix B, and 40 CFR 1502.19 – 1506.10. Comments will be received for 30 days, with an end comment period date of April 16, 2018. Comments received from the FEIS will be used in the development of a Record of Decision (ROD) for this project.
Expiration date: 4/16/2018
For more information » click here

My Two Cents illustration for the SimpsonsThe Town, prior to the report, indicated it Preferred Alternative 6: Intermediate Terminal Groin with Beach Nourishment. Any form of engagement with those preparing the report influences the independence, objectivity, integrity and credibility of the research.  It appears that the report is designed to provide a justification for the applicant’s preferred alternative.

A Fiscal Analysis of Shifting Inlets and Terminal Groins in NC
By Andrew Coburn Associate Director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University
Based on this study, PSDS has determined that:
.     1) Assessed value does not reflect the potential fiscal impacts of shifting inlets to the state or local governments from erosion due to shifting inlets,
.    2) The fiscal benefits of protecting property at-risk to shifting inlets are small compared to the costs of protection,
    3) The use of terminal groins would provide limited fiscal and economic benefits to state taxpayers and local communities an
   
4) Long-term costs of a terminal groin exceed potential long-term benefits at every developed NC inlet. This analysis indicates that, even ignoring environmental concerns, terminal groins are not a fiscally-sound strategy for dealing with coastal property at-risk to shifting inlets and, due to their limited fiscal benefits, the expenditure of state funds for groin construction/maintenance is bad public policy.
For more information » click here

My Two Cents illustration for the SimpsonsAlthough the report is dated Coburn’s position is that terminal groins simply do not make financial sense for municipalities.

 

Terminal groin expansion worries environmental groups
The town of Holden Beach and other coastal towns continue to explore the option of putting a terminal groin along their shore, which has environmental groups like the North Carolina Coastal Federation upset. The Army Corps of Engineers released their final environmental impact statement for the Holden Beach project on March 15 and outlines the specifics of the proposed plan. Tracy Skrabal, with the North Carolina Coastal Federation, said Bald Head Island is the only beach to currently have terminal groins in the area, but Ocean Isle Beach, Figure 8 Island, and Holden beach all have permits in for consideration after a ban was overturned in 2011. “When you start to see larger storms of intensity and duration, as we already see, then we will see people get fairly desperate for ways to protect their properties,” said Skrabal. “Harden structures are often looked at as a potential solution, which we do not agree with.” Skrabal said terminal groins are often made of stone and rock and placed at the end of beaches in an effort to stop erosion, which she said could be harmful to the ecosystem.  “These really have the potential because of their size and location to damage really critical habitats,” she said. “What we also see is that they don’t really function for their purpose. They may protect 10, 12, maybe 20 properties, but they can also cause erosion down stream.” The Coastal Federation hopes towns will look into more environmentally friendly methods of conservation.  “Beach nourishment, which is happening right now at Wrightsville Beach is a tried and true method of basically buying time on these dynamic systems,” said Skrabal. It functions as intended, which is to move the shoreline out and allow the storms to buffer if you will.” The public can comment in writing on the project through April 16. Skrabal said she hopes the community educates themselves what ever side of the issue they fall. “At Holden Beach, maybe you get protection for 10 to 20 properties on the east side of the island at an expense of 30 to 40 million dollars over the next 30 years with no guarantees,” she said. “There is potential for harm to the natural ecosystem, to our natural beach access as property owners and visitors, and for erosion on the other side of the inlet.” WECT reached out to Holden Beach leaders for a comment on the project but have not heard back.
Read more » click here

BOC’s SPECIAL MEETING / March 21, 2018    
    1)
Direct Attorney Clark Wright to Submit a Request for a 30-Day Extension to the Comment Period Related to the Terminal Groin Final Environmental Impact Study
.     2)
Direct All Town Officials and Staff to Suspend All Efforts Towards Gaining the Federal and CAMA Permits Related to the Terminal Groin Project Until After a Board Decision is Made, No Sooner Than April 6th

Holden Beach Calls ‘Time Out’ on Groin Plan
The town board of commissioners has voted to put on hold all work toward getting a permit to build terminal groin and to seek more time for public comment on the proposed structure. The action comes just days after the Army Corps of Engineers released the final environmental study for the project that’s been in the works for the past two and a half years.

The board voted Wednesday during a special meeting to direct attorney Clark Wright to submit a request for a 30-day extension to the comment period related to the final environmental impact study, or FEIS, for the town’s proposed terminal groin. The Corps released the study March 15. Public comments were to be received for 30 days, or until April 16.

The board also approved in a unanimous vote a motion that no town employee, agent, contractor, subcontractor or person representing the town before any federal or state agency shall take action that advances or terminates the current application process related to the terminal groin prior to a vote of the board of commissioners that restores such authority. The motion excludes work by Wright, the attorney who is working as a consultant to the town on the project.

The project was proposed to address chronic erosion at the eastern end of the 8.1-mile-long barrier island. Erosion has led to dune breaching and flooding along the east end of town and has resulted in the loss of about 27 oceanfront properties since 1993. Average long-term erosion rates along the most affected area ranges from a loss of 3 to 8 feet per year, among the highest in the state, according to the study.

The town had sought a permit to build a 700-foot-long terminal groin with a 300-foot shore anchorage system to be supplemented with a long-term plan for beach re-nourishment. The structure would also include a 120-foot-long “T-head” segment centered on the seaward end of the main stem to help minimize potential rip currents and sand losses during extreme wave conditions.

Critics have said the $34.4 million project would benefit only 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 farther down the beach.

Town Manager David Hewett said the board’s action was a reflection of public concerns with the project. Three of the five town commissioners, Sullivan, Kwiatkowski and Commissioner Joseph Butler, were elected to their first terms in November in a race in which the terminal groin plan was at issue. “It’s a matter of record that a number of folks ran on that platform,” Hewett told Coastal Review Online Thursday. “The fact that they’re providing an extended period to gather more information is part of a larger desire to serve the public will. Calling a time out in the middle of a game is evidence that something is important.”
Read more » click here

NC Department of Environmental Quality Division of Coastal Management
Terminal groins do have an impact on the natural ocean and inlet shoreline position; they may be successful in slowing erosion or may cause adverse impacts on the downdrift shoreline due to interruption of the natural sediment transport system.  

Terminal groin expansion worries environmental groups
The town of Holden Beach and other coastal towns continue to explore the option of putting a terminal groin along their shore, which has environmental groups like the North Carolina Coastal Federation upset. The Army Corps of Engineers released their final environmental impact statement for the Holden Beach project on March 15 and outlines the specifics of the proposed plan. 

Tracy Skrabal, with the North Carolina Coastal Federation, said Bald Head Island is the only beach to currently have terminal groins in the area, but Ocean Isle Beach, Figure 8 Island, and Holden beach all have permits in for consideration after a ban was overturned in 2011. “When you start to see larger storms of intensity and duration, as we already see, then we will see people get fairly desperate for ways to protect their properties,” said Skrabal. “Harden structures are often looked at as a potential solution, which we do not agree with.”

Skrabal said terminal groins are often made of stone and rock and placed at the end of beaches in an effort to stop erosion, which she said could be harmful to the ecosystem. “These really have the potential because of their size and location to damage really critical habitats,” she said. “What we also see is that they don’t really function for their purpose. They may protect 10, 12, maybe 20 properties, but they can also cause erosion downstream.”

The Coastal Federation hopes towns will look into more environmentally friendly methods of conservation. “Beach nourishment, which is happening right now at Wrightsville Beach is a tried and true method of basically buying time on these dynamic systems,” said Skrabal. It functions as intended, which is to move the shoreline out and allow the storms to buffer if you will.”

The public can comment in writing on the project through April 16. Skrabal said she hopes the community educates themselves whatever side of the issue they fall. “At Holden Beach, maybe you get protection for 10 to 20 properties on the east side of the island at an expense of 30 to 40 million dollars over the next 30 years with no guarantees,” she said. “There is potential for harm to the natural ecosystem, to our natural beach access as property owners and visitors, and for erosion on the other side of the inlet.”
Read more » click here

Holden Beach extends comment period for terminal groin project
Those who want to provide public comment on Holden Beach’s proposed terminal groin project received a 30-day extension to do so following a unanimous decision by Commissioners March 21.

Commissioners directed Clark Wright, environmental lawyer with Davis Hartman Wright in New Bern and a consultant for the town, to submit a request to the Army Corps of Engineers for the extension to the comment period on the Terminal Groin Final Environmental Impact Study (FEIS). The corps released its final environmental impact statement for the project March 15, with public comments originally accepted until April 16.

“This is a very detail-oriented FEIS. We need multiple scheduled meetings in order to inform everyone, answer questions, get public comment,” commissioner Pat Kwiatkowski said during the meeting. “So, a 30-day extension actually gives us three previously scheduled town meetings in order to thoroughly vet and get comments.”

Mayor Pro Tem Mike Sullivan made a motion that no employee, agent, contractor, subcontractor or person representing the town before any federal or state agency shall take any action or file any motion which advances or terminates the current application process related to the terminal groin before a vote by the board of commissioners. Commissioner John Fletcher seconded. Sullivan said they needed to add that this excludes any of Wright’s work, and Fletcher agreed with the amendment.

Holden Beach intends to build a 700-foot-long terminal groin with a 300-foot shore anchorage system and associated long-term beach nourishment component on the east end of the island, according to a public notice released by the corps. The purpose is to establish a shoreline protection program under Holden Beach’s authority, which will help to restore and maintain the east end of the island. The groin will help with short- and long-term protection of residential and town infrastructures and recreational areas, helping to stabilize the beach as well as preventing erosion.  

Following the end of the comment period, there will be a record of decision by the corps. If the corps favors the groin, the town still has to get a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit for the project from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. Once all permits are in hand, commissioners will vote on whether to fund the groin’s construction.
Read more » click here


Update – April2018

BOC’s REGULAR MEETING / April 6, 2018    

Clark Wright briefly described where we are at in the process
EIS is not a decision document, it is the basis for USACE permit decision
Record of Decision (ROD) is the USACE decision document
Permit Issuance is the federal authorization to implement the project

. a. Spencer Rodgers, North Carolina Sea Grant
North Carolina Sea Grant provides unbiased, science-based information to enhance the sustainable use and conservation of ocean and coastal resources to benefit communities, the economy and the environment.
For more information » click here

Beachfill alone is not cost effective in high erosion areas, typical of unstabilized inlets. Downdrift erosion has serious significant negative impact. Simply stated, one side of the terminal groin benefits and the other side doesn’t. In general, he recommends terminal groins are a reasonable option.

Position – PRO

. b. Fran Way, Applied Technology and Management (ATM)
*
Presentation in Agenda Packet
ATM is a coastal engineering and consulting firm hired by the town
For more information » click here

Almost half of the east coast inlets have some hard structure there. A terminal groin will increase beach nourishment longevity from two (2) to four (4) years. The project will save twelve (12) million dollars over thirty (30) years, compared to nourishment only alternative. The model projects no downdraft effects to the Central Reach Project shoreline. ATM recommends that we continue to move the process forward and get permit. We do not necessarily have to build the terminal groin now, but we would have the option to do so in the future.

Position – PRO

. c. Steve Dial, Dial Cordy & Associates
*
Presentation in Agenda Packet
Dial Cordy and Associates provides comprehensive ecological assessment, environmental planning, and regulatory compliance services.

Position – PRO

My Two Cents illustration for the Simpsons

No Show. Frankly I was disappointed that they were not in attendance. We have already invested over six hundred and thirty-seven thousand dollars ($637,111) so far. The bulk of that money went to Dial Cordy. You’d think for the money we spent with them that they could have managed to send someone to make a presentation of the work we contracted them to do for us.

. d. Professor Andy Coburn, Western Carolina University
Associate Director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines (PSDS)
PSDS – Science. Policy. Education. Outreach. Coastal.
For more information » click here

Coburn was unable to be at the meeting but sent his written comments that Clark read
Terminal groin will not achieve stated objectives
The cost to build and maintain groin will exceed any benefits
It’s fiscally irresponsible to use public funds to build the groin
A terminal groin does not make fiscal sense

Position – CON

. e. Geoff Gisler, Southern Environmental Law Center
A nonprofit organization that works to create, strengthen, and enforce the laws and policies that determine the beauty and health of our environment.
For more information » click here

National Environmental Policy Act is a environmental law that promotes the enhancement of the environment. Presentation was what’s to be gained or not gained by building the groin.

Considered three alternatives
. 1)
Alt#1 – do what we have been doing
. 2) Alt#2 – do absolutely nothing
. 3)
Alt#6 – do groin project

The groin as modeled saved just ten (10) more properties then the other alternatives. Very little to be gained at a huge financial and environmental cost. Debunked the alleged twelve (12) million-dollar savings by building the groin. Geoff demonstrated that it was a seriously flawed economic analysis. The modelling did not remotely reflect the reality of what we have experienced here. His recommendation is to withdraw the application request for a permit. A better path forward would be to continue to do what we have been doing.

Position – CON

. f. Mike Giles, North Carolina Coastal Federation
The North Carolina Coastal Federation is a member-supported 501(c)3 that is focused on protecting and restoring the North Carolina coast.
For more information » click here

NCCF objected to building the terminal groin
Mike reiterated that there were better ways to address the issue
He put us on notice – if CAMA permit is issued then they will legally challenge it in court
In other words, he all but guaranteed litigation

Position – CON

. g. Jay Holden of Dunescape Property Owners Association
Dunescape is a private gated community on the east end of the island. They support continued nourishment at the east end of the island. But they oppose the construction of the groin. A terminal groin has limited and uncertain effectiveness and is a slippery slope. Jay stressed the importance of also keeping the inlet orientation south-southwest as a critical nourishment piece. Their position is for us to just continue to do what we have been since that’s working.

Position – CON

. h. John Witten of Holden Beach Property Owners Association
*
Presentation in Agenda Packet
The Holden Beach Property Owners Association is a voluntary organization whose mission is to represent the property owners of Holden Beach as a unified voice regarding issues that affect their common interests and concerns.
For more information » click here

USACE by working at a glacial pace did us a favor. We got to see what actually happened at the east end vs. what the modelling projected. The justification for the project is strictly about economics. The evidence provided appears to be just made up numbers that don’t reflect our actual experiences. The proposed terminal groin is a pilot project, an experiment if you will, that is too big a risk to take. This is a thirty-year commitment, with big fixed future costs. We cannot afford to take this risk with our limited resources. Instead we should continue doing what we have been doing and remain flexible keeping our options open. This is the moment of truth – there is no more information to be had and there is the threat of costly litigation. It’s time to move on!

HBPOA Resolution
RESOLVED, that the membership of the HBPOA urges the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Holden Beach to: (i) continue with the same very successful and very cost-effective east end beach nourishment and Lockwood Folly Inlet strategies as have been in place for the past 15 years; (ii) stop spending the Town’s money and resources in pursuit of the Terminal Groin Project; and (iii) withdraw the Town’s pending Federal permit application and not apply for State permits (reserving the ability to reapply at a later date, subject to USACE consent).

Position – CON

My Two Cents illustration for the Simpsons

Terminal Groins if properly designed and sited can work with minimum negative adverse conservational impact. That said, the question then becomes does it make sense economically. No doubt there are many and conflicting opinions (Pros vs. Cons) but a dearth of economic analysis with nothing even remotely resembling a cost-benefit analysis. Even assuming that it made sense to build the HB terminal groin, one must ask how will we pay for it? The state law says we can’t use special obligation bonds, non-voted general obligation bonds or financing contracts. We could use BPART funds except we have been spending most of the money that we take in annually. In addition, we have committed to take an additional $500,000 annually from BPART account fund to pay down the Central Reach Project debt, which will further deplete the BPART account funds. The BPART fund balance has less than two (2) million dollars in it. But wait, there’s more! The Board has established a goal of setting aside one (1) million dollars a year for beach nourishment in a Capital Reserve Fund that is to be taken from the BPART fund account too. That leaves only tax increases. So, a tax increase will be required to pay for the initial construction and ongoing maintenance, monitoring and nourishment. Back of the envelope calculation, taxes the first year would have an additional cost of $1,898 for a $500,000 home. The costs averaged over the thirty (30) years would result in an increase of $.096 per year. In other words, given a property with an assessed value of $500,000 your property taxes will increase by $14,400 over the thirty (30) year time horizon. Just to be clear, these numbers are based on the most optimistic financial scenarios. That is expenses are in today’s dollars, the borrowing costs or loan rate is ridiculously low and with no projected cost overruns.


Public Weighs In on Holden Beach Groin
This town would be better off sticking with beach re-nourishment projects and forego the prospect of building a terminal groin, a structure that critics say is too costly a risk with an uncertain outcome. A majority of those who spoke Friday during a town meeting about the nearly 1,900-page final environmental impact study, or FEIS, which identifies a terminal groin as the preferred erosion control method at the island’s east end, urged town commissioners to drop pursuing the permits to build one.

“Now we’ve come to a moment of truth,” said John Witten, treasurer of the Holden Beach Property Owners Association. “This is too big a risk. There’s a reason the (state) statute calls this a pilot project. We’re the guinea pigs here.” Witten, one of about a half-dozen people asked to formally address commissioners at the meeting Friday night, was referring to the 2011 state law amendment that ended a decades-old ban on coastal hardened structures.

When legislators initially repealed the ban, the statute allowed for the construction of up to four terminal groins on the North Carolina coast. That number has since been bumped to six terminal groins. Terminal groins are wall-like structures built perpendicular to the shore at inlets to contain sand in areas of high erosion.

Erosion rates on beaches near inlets are often higher than that of other beach areas because of the way inlets naturally oscillate. That natural movement of the Lockwood Folly Inlet, which separates Holden Beach and Oak Island, has resulted in long-term erosion on the east end of Holden Beach. For 50 years, sand has routinely been pumped onto the eastern end of the 8.1-mile-long barrier island. Sandbags have also been placed along the shore throughout the years as a temporary means to protect homes and properties. By 1993, 28 properties and structures had been destroyed as a result of erosion.

Some in the town, including longtime Mayor Alan Holden, believe a terminal groin is a long-term solution to protecting properties and infrastructure on the east end shore.

The FEIS, a document that examines potential shoreline erosion control alternatives created by an engineering firm hired by the town, was released last month by the Army Corps of Engineers. The public comment period on the document ends April 16. The preferred alternative is a 700-foot-long terminal groin with a 300-foot shore anchorage system. The proposed structure would also include a 120-foot-long “T-head” segment centered on the seaward end of the main stem to help minimize the potential rip currents and sand losses during extreme wave conditions. The estimated $34.4 million project would include a long-term beach re-nourishment plan to supplement the structure.

Commissioners announced during a prior meeting that they would not be taking action Friday.

Coastal engineer and geologist Spencer Rogers with North Carolina Sea Grant said maintaining sand in near-inlet areas like the east end of Holden Beach is challenging because of the high erosion rates in those areas. “Beach nourishment in some areas clearly is not going to work,” Rogers said. In high-erosion areas, including near-inlet areas, re-nourishment is not cost-effective, he said, and therefore would benefit from “properly designed” terminal groins, he said. Rogers, a member of the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission Science Panel and CRC Advisory Council, said he’s recommending terminal groins be included in the CRC’s permitting kit.

Fran Way, a senior coastal engineer with Applied Technology and Management Inc., the firm that drafted the EIS for the town, said the town would save $12 million over 30 years if it builds a terminal groin. “The design is increasing the beach nourishment longevity from two years to four years,” he said. “To increase that longevity means that you’re saving money.” He encouraged commissioners, who last month voted to put on hold pursuing federal and state permits to build a terminal groin, to move ahead with obtaining the permits. Then, he said, the town would have that tool in their pocket should commissioners decide a few years from now to build a groin.

If the town moves ahead with the permitting process, officials there could expect a legal challenge, said Mike Giles, who recently retired as a coastal advocate with the North Carolina Coastal Federation. “There are better ways,” Giles said. “Look at the beach now. It cost you very little and you have a better beach now than you would if you construct a terminal groin.”

Neighboring Ocean Isle Beach’s plans to build a terminal groin were put on hold last August when a lawsuit was filed on behalf of Audubon North Carolina. The lawsuit, filed by the Southern Environmental Law Center, challenges the Corps’ analysis of the project.

Critics of terminal groins argue the hardened structures come with too big a price tag – both fiscally and environmentally – to justify what they argue benefits a small number of homes.

Andy Coburn, associate director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University, said in a written statement to Holden Beach commissioners that a terminal groin does not make fiscal sense. Coburn wrote, “it is my professional opinion that the public cost of building and maintaining a terminal groin at Lockwood Folly Inlet will exceed public benefits by a factor of ten over the project’s 30-year planning horizon, and any benefits that do accrue will be grossly inequitable in their distribution.” Funding the construction, maintenance, monitoring and re-nourishment associated with the structure, Coburn wrote, “is fiscally irresponsible and could well be viewed as a breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of the decision makers responsible for the health, safety and public welfare of (the) Town of Holden Beach, its citizens and the many thousands more who visit – often for the primary purpose of using and enjoying the public beaches on Holden Beach.” If a terminal groin does prevent damage to every property for 30 years after construction, the associated costs would “still be ten times greater than the maximum possible return ($1.8 million) the town can possibly hope to recoup,” Coburn wrote. Worst-case scenario, he wrote, the groin fails, leaving the town with nothing in return and legal challenges “that will inevitably arise.” “Even though the actual outcome is likely to fall somewhere between the two extremes, it is clear that the cost of building and maintaining a terminal groin at Lockwood Folly Inlet will exceed maximum potential benefits IN EVERY SINGLE CASE – even if the proposed project works exactly as project proponents and consulting engineers hope AND without one single detrimental environmental impact,” Coburn wrote. The town should, instead, continue to re-nourish the beach, a method that has been proven beneficial in Holden Beach, proponents of that alternative argued.

Jay Holden, a member of the board of directors of the Dunescape Property Owners’ Association, said the town has not lost a home to erosion since 2001. “We oppose the groin because it has a very limited and uncertain effectiveness that is far outweighed by the risk and the cost,” Holden said. The association supports dredging the inlet, nourishing the beach and urging the Corps to keep the inlet ebb channel at a south-southwest orientation.

Geoff Gisler, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, also suggested the town continue to re-nourish the beach rather than build a groin. The modeling in the FEIS is based on 10-year-old data, is misleading and inaccurate, he said. Last year, about 120,000 cubic yards of sand was placed on the east end of the island, Gisler said. The state paid a significant share of the cost, leaving the town to pick up about $76,000 of the $465,000 price tag. “We also have the beach and we have seen what nourishment over the last 10 years has done to the beach,” Gisler said. “The beach is significantly wider than it was in 2008. It’s in very good shape.”

The town’s most recent re-nourishment project put about 1.3 million cubic yards of sand along about a 4-mile stretch of oceanfront in the middle of the island. The first phase of the $15 million Central Reach project wrapped in March 2017. That project is protecting about 450 to 500 homes, Witten said, a far greater number than the 2,500 feet of beach at the east end. “You, the taxpayers of Holden Beach are picking up the bill for the terminal groin,” he said. “We don’t have the money. We cannot afford to take this kind of risk with our limited resources.” He reminded commissioners that they all said they opposed a terminal groin in a candidate questionnaire they filled out last fall prior to the town elections. “We’ve spent $630,000 and what we’ve got is a big stack of books,” Witten said. “It’s a terrible shame that we’ve lost that amount of money. We can’t keep doing this year after year. The time to call into question is now. Now it’s time to move on and protect the east end of the island and keep doing what we’re doing in the channel.”
Read more » click here

Speakers oppose terminal groin for Holden Beach
Most of the people who spoke about Holden Beach’s proposed terminal groin voiced opposition to it during commissioners’ regular meeting April 6.

Holden Beach intends to build a 700-foot-long terminal groin with a 300-foot shore anchorage system and associated long-term beach nourishment component on the east end of the island, according to a public notice released by Army Corps of Engineers. The purpose is to establish a shoreline protection program under Holden Beach’s authority, which will help to restore and maintain the east end of the island. The groin will help with short- and long-term protection of residential and town infrastructures and recreational areas, helping to stabilize the beach as well as preventing erosion.

Friday’s meeting was informational, with commissioners taking no action.

Spencer Rodgers of North Carolina Sea Grant said an analysis shows beach nourishment alone is not cost effective and a terminal groin is the more sensible option.

Fran Way of Applied Technology and Management also spoke in favor of the project. Way said data show a terminal groin can save the town $12 million over a 30-year period.

Dial Cordy & Associates provided commissioners with a presentation in their agenda packet with informational slides about the terminal groin.

The remainder of the speakers opposed the project.

Clark Wright, legal advisor to the board on beach protection and environmental issues, volunteered to read a statement from Andy Coburn, associate director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University:

“In a hypothetical best-case scenario in which construction of a terminal groin prevents damage for every structure/property for 30 years, the net present value cost of (the terminal groin project) ($19 million) is still 10 times greater than the maximum possible return ($1.8 million) the town can possibly hope to recoup from its investment,” Coburn’s statement read. “An alternative … is for Holden Beach to increase its municipal tax rate by approximately one-third of 1 percent. Doing so will offset all lost revenue over 30 years, and cost the owner of a median-value occupied house an average of about $6 a year. “Conversely, in a hypothetical, worst-case scenario, Holden Beach spends $19 million, the groin fails, the town receives absolutely nothing in return and has to deal with a number of legal challenges that inevitably will arise. Even though the actual outcome is likely to fall somewhere between the two extremes, it is clear that the cost of the building and maintaining a terminal groin at Lockwood Folly Inlet will exceed maximum potential benefits in every single case — even if the proposed project works exactly as project proponents and consulting engineers hope and without one single detrimental environmental impact.”

Geoff Gisler represented the Southern Environmental Law Center, an organization that champions a healthy environment, and discussed the National Environmental Policy Act, which promotes the enhancement of the environment. Gisler encouraged the board to withdraw its application request for a permit for a project, and continue beach renourishment as it has in the past. He cited the final environmental impact statement from the corps, which shows the town has little to gain from a terminal groin project versus the beach nourishment it undertakes now.

Mike Giles, representing the North Carolina Coastal Federation, told commissioners if the Coastal Area Management Act permit is issued to the town to proceed with the terminal groin, the federation will challenge it in court. He said the beach nourishment the town is already doing is more cost effective and has a better environmental impact. “There’s a better way,” Giles said.

Jay Holden represented the property owners’ association for Dunescape, a gated private community on Holden Beach’s east end, and said its board favors renourishing the beach, but disagrees with the town on “the best way to achieve it.” Holden said the POA board supports the continued dredging of Lockwood Folly Inlet for renourishment, and emphasized the importance of keeping the orientation of the inlet south by southwest, “maintaining the historical width and depth,” and is a “favorable orientation for limiting erosion.” He said dredging of the inlet has led to no houses being lost to erosion since 2001. “We believe in continuing what has worked for the last 17 years,” he said.

The last to speak for the evening was John Witten, representing the Holden Beach Property Owners Association. Witten, a member of the property owners association committee to evaluate the terminal groin and Tom Myers, president of the property owners association, both said before Friday’s meeting the terminal groin is far too costly. Witten compared a potential terminal groin to the town’s Central Reach Project, which placed up to 1.31 million cubic yards of sand along 4.1 miles of Holden Beach shoreline, from 240 Ocean Blvd. E. to 781 Ocean Blvd. W. Town Manager David Hewett previously said the design life on the recently completed project is 10 to 15 years. “One of the main points people have made is, you’re protecting 4.1 miles of beach nourishment at a cost that works out to be about $1 million a year,” Witten said. “Terminal groin, same cost, 2,500 feet of beach. Central Reach (protecting) almost 500 houses, terminal groin (protecting) 30 houses. So that is a big issue … why are we putting so many resources into one small area?” “The beach is better now than it was 15 years ago,” Myers said. “Before 2001 they weren’t doing any sort of nourishment. So that’s when houses were being lost … since 2001, 2002 ,it’s in better shape now. And it’s really not much money because the state will pay two-thirds; we split the other third. “When you look at what we’ve spent and what we’ve got, it’s like, why mess with something that’s working?”
Read more » click here

USACE PUBLIC NOTICE

Issue Date:  April 13, 2018
Comment Deadline: May 4, 2018
Corps Action ID: SAW-2011-01914

All interested parties are hereby advised that the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) is extending the commenting period on the permit application request made by the Town of Holden Beach for the Town’s plan to implement a shoreline protection project along the east end of the island, which consist of the construction of a terminal groin along the Lockwood Folly Inlet, in Brunswick County, North Carolina.  This notice amends our March 15, 2018 Public Notice seeking comments on the Town’s permit request and extends that notice’s commenting period to May 4, 2018.
For more information » click here


BOC’s REGULAR MEETING / April 6, 2018 

RESOLUTION 18-02 / Withdrawal of All Applications for Terminal Groin

WHEREAS, on September 13, 2011 The Board of Commissioners adopted Resolution 11-12, directing the Town Manager “to make application to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management/Coastal Resources Commission for a permit to construct a Terminal Groin on the east end of Holden Beach adjacent to the Lockwood Folly Inlet;” and

WHEREAS, thereafter the Town Manager executed various contracts and agreements with, among others, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Dial Cordy & Associates, a surveying company, outside legal counsel, and others for the purpose of applying to the USACE for Section 10 and Section 404 permits, and preparing the associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation; and

WHEREAS, various public scoping meetings and interagency team meetings have been conducted, and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) produced, with the FEIS signed on March 8, 2018, and officially noticed to the public on March 15, 2018, thereby commencing a final 30-day comment period, after which the USACE normally would draft, sign and publicly notice its final Record of Decision (ROD) document, constituting the agency’s final decision on the Town’s pending federal permit applications; and

WHEREAS, the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) previously informed the Town that no permit applications for a terminal groin may be made to that agency until the aforementioned federal NEPA process associated with the Town’s pending Section 10 and Section 404 permit applications is complete; and

WHEREAS, the Town has noticed and conducted special and regular meetings of the Board of Commissioners, including a Regular Meeting held on April 6, 2018, where the entire meeting agenda was devoted to obtaining information from a number of experts, engineers, environmental interest groups, property owner associations, property owners and other interested members of the public; and

WHEREAS, on December 19, 2017, the Town retained special outside environmental counsel to advise the Board and Town Attorney on issues related to shoreline protection, specifically including assessment of the pending Lockwood Folly Inlet Terminal Groin project; and

WHEREAS, the federal permit process described above was commenced by the Town without any meaningful cost benefit analysis or stated plan in place for the required 30-year (and longer) funding of the long-term costs of the project, obtaining necessary easements or permissions from private property owners directly affected by the proposed construction of the terminal groin or funding for any of the necessary financial instruments required to maintain the terminal groin; and

WHEREAS, the analyses contained in the DEIS and FEIS of the positive and negative physical impacts of the terminal groin on beach front properties it is intended to protect, on other beach front properties and on the involved inlet are based on computer models done based upon out-ofdate data and without regard to more recent coastline and inlet changes, and is not modified to consider material issues from the perspective of a local unit of government, such as the Town of Holden Beach, or its governing Board of Commissioners, who are charged by law to act only in the best interests of ALL of the Town’s citizens and residents, and ALL guests who come to use and enjoy the Town’s ocean beaches and other amenities; and

WHEREAS, over the past two years, the Town has completed the Central Reach Project to the west of the beach areas proposed to be affected by the terminal groin project, and the Town has engaged in significant beach nourishment on the East End, including beach nourishment utilizing low cost sand available as a by-product of the continued dredging of the Lockwood Folly Inlet at costs orders of magnitude lower than costs utilized by the USACE in the DEIS and FEIS; and

WHEREAS, a number of leading coastal scientists, including Dr. Stan Riggs and Dr. Len Pietrafesa, have expressed serious concerns and opposition to the use of terminal groins generally, and the proposed Lockwood Folly Inlet Terminal Groin in particular; and

WHEREAS, Professor Andrew Coburn of Western Carolina University, Associate Director of the Program For the Study of Developed Shorelines has written the Town a letter, dated April 5, 2018, in which Professor Coburn states that the Town’s proposed Terminal Groin project “will not achieve any of the town’s aforementioned objectives” (emphasis in original) and that it is his professional opinion that this project “is fiscally irresponsible and a breach of fiduciary duty” for the Board of Commissioners to support; and

WHEREAS, each Member of the Holden Beach Board of Commissioners has carefully reviewed not only the DEIS and FEIS, but also many hundreds of pages of relevant data, information, published articles, and other published environmental documents, including the confidential report and public notebooks prepared for each Member of the Board by its special environmental counsel, as well as the environmental documents associated with the Ocean Isle Beach terminal groin project, the Bald Head Island terminal groin project, the Figure Eight Island terminal groin project and the recently published FEIS for the Bogue Banks 50 year renourishment project (in which document a terminal groin alternative was discussed in detail and rejected); and

WHEREAS, during its April 6, 2018 Regular Meeting devoted to review of the proposed Lockwood Folly Inlet Terminal Groin project, the Board of Commissioners was informed by officials representing the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) and the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF) that issuance of the pending federal permits and any subsequent issuance of a CAMA Permit by DCM – would result in federal and state litigation challenging such permits and associated NEPA documentation; and

WHEREAS, while the Board of Commissioners does not consider the threat of such litigation as a material or substantive basis for the making of its decisions, the Board does consider such information relevant to the Board’s overall duty to evaluate the costs and benefits of the proposed Lockwood Folly Inlet Terminal Groin project; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has concluded that, in carrying out its duties to equitably and fairly protect the health, safety and welfare interests of all of its citizens, as well as the thousands of guests who come to visit the Town of Holden Beach each year, the total costs to the Town, its citizens and visitors of the proposed Lockwood Folly Inlet Terminal Groin greatly outweigh the potential benefits thereto, both financially and otherwise.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Holden Beach Board of Commissioners hereby revoke Resolution 11-12, Terminal Groin Permit Application; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Commissioners does direct that Clark Wright, Special Environmental Counsel to the Town of Holden Beach immediately communicate with the USACE electronically, followed by the sending of a formal letter via certified mail, the decision by the Board of Commissioners to withdraw fully and cease any and all further processing of, or action on, the Town’s currently pending Section 10 and Section 404 Permit Applications and associated NEPA documents–USACE Action ID No. SAW-2011-01914.


Ana Zivanovic-Nenadovic with the NC Coastal Federation said the organization supports the withdrawal of a terminal groin permit application:

“We are pleased that the town has realized how bad an idea this terminal groin is. In general, terminal groins have many unintended consequences – they cause unintended downdrift erosion, harm natural habitat for birds and turtles and impede public access to the beach. They are also extremely expensive. In the case of Holden Beach, a detailed analysis of the Army Corps of Engineers’ Final Environmental Impact Statement revealed a terminal groin might protect just a few more properties compared to those protected by the current nourishment method. We believe that the current nourishment system in the East End works well for the town. It is less costly and it does the job. Additionally, the 2017 Holden Beach Annual Beach Monitoring Report said the nourishment at the East End was successful, reiterating that current nourishment and erosion control methods work for the town.”

Holden Beach terminal groin proposal withdrawn
A permit application for a terminal groin in Holden Beach was withdrawn at Tuesday’s Board of Commissioners meeting. Mayor J. Alan Holden and a Holden Beach commissioner confirmed via text message that all applications for a terminal groin — a barrier of stone blocks extended into the ocean — in Holden Beach are revoked. All three agenda items related to permanent withdrawal of terminal groin permits passed unanimously, the commissioner said via text. The commissioner also said a new board was created “to work with the Board of Commissioners and town staff to pursue renourishment.”
Read more » click here

Holden Beach ends pursuit of a terminal groin
Officials dropped the proposal for the east end of the island after facing opposition from residents and environmentalists

Pursuit of a possible terminal groin project for Holden Beach has come to an end, six years after town leaders approved moving forward with pursuing the project. During their regular meeting Tuesday night, Holden Beach Commissioners decided to withdraw the town’s terminal groin application after finding that the project was “fiscally irresponsible,” according to a news release from the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC). “We commend the Holden Beach Board of Commissioners for doing the right thing for its beaches, its residents, and its budget,” Geoff Gisler, SELC senior attorney, said in the release. “The groin would have been an environmental and fiscal disaster. Ending the project after years of study – which ultimately demonstrated the groin’s futility – was the right decision.”

The town had pursued permits to build a 700-foot-long terminal groin near the Lockwood Folly Inlet at the eastern end of the island at a cost of more than $2 million. The project aimed to stabilize the beach and slow erosion, but faced backlash from residents and many environmentalists, including the N.C. Coastal Federation. “It is great news that the town will not be pursuing this destructive process,” Todd Miller, the federation’s executive director said in a news release. “Town officials have been receptive in listening to the negative impacts of a terminal groin, which are extremely expensive and not guaranteed to work.”

Terminal groins are long walls, often made of stone, designed to mitigate shoreline erosion by extending into the water perpendicular to the coast, to trap drifting sand. They are smaller and have a lower profile than the jetties on either side of Masonboro Inlet at the south end of Wrightsville Beach. Environmentalists oppose them in part because they believe they don’t solve erosion woes, but simply move them to another location along the oceanfront. Proponents see terminal groins as offering a solution to chronic erosion woes where there are few other options, such as near inherently unstable inlets.
Read more » click here

Holden Beach Says ‘No’ to Terminal Groin
Holden Beach commissioners are withdrawing the town’s permit application to build a terminal groin at the east end of the barrier island. During their regular meeting Tuesday night, board members unanimously voted to permanently revoke the town’s application with the Army Corps of Engineers. Commissioners have concluded that, “the total costs to the Town, its citizens and visitors of the proposed Lockwood Folly Inlet Terminal Groin greatly outweigh the potential benefits thereto, both financially and otherwise,” according to a resolution they unanimously adopted following their vote to revoke the application. Commissioners directed attorney Clark Wright, a special environmental lawyer hired last December by the board, to notify the Corps of Engineers of the board’s decision to “withdraw fully and cease any and all further processing of, or action on” the permit applications and associated National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, documentation.

The town has spent nearly seven years and more than $600,000 on studies examining various ways to mitigate severe erosion at the Lockwood Folly Inlet. The final Environmental Impact Statement, or FEIS, a study prepared by coastal engineers hired by the town and released by the Corps last month, identified a 1,000-foot-long terminal groin as the preferred erosion-control method. Terminal groins are wall-like structures built perpendicular to the shore at inlets to contain sand in areas of high erosion, like that of beaches at inlets.

What’s Best for the Town

Board members did not discuss why they chose to revoke the permit application before casting their votes, but the two-and-a-half-page resolution states that the analyses in the draft EIS and FEIS use out-of-date data, “without regard to more recent coastline and inlet changes.” At the close of the meeting, Commissioner John Fletcher said everyone on the board thoroughly researched the environmental studies before making the decision to revoke the permit application. “I think everybody made the decision on what they felt was best for the town individually,” Fletcher said. “My view is to keep the nine miles of beach beautiful.”

Engineers with Applied Technology and Management Inc., or ATM, identified a 700-foot-long terminal groin with a 300-foot-long shore anchorage system as the preferred alternative to shoreline erosion control at the island’s east end. Fran Way, a senior coastal engineer with ATM, said earlier this month that the town would save $12 million over 30 years if it builds a terminal groin. During that April 6 meeting, Way encouraged commissioners to move ahead with obtaining the permits.

Better Off Re-Nourishing

Opponents of the terminal groin have argued that the estimated $34.4 million cost associated with construction, maintenance and routine sand injections needed to supplement the structure over 30 years is too high a price tag to protect what would equate to protection of a handful of homes at the east end. Several people who spoke during the April 6 meeting about the FEIS said the town would be better off re-nourishing the beach. The town has been routinely pumping sand onto the eastern end of the 8.1-mile-long barrier island for 50 years. Sandbags have also been placed along the shore throughout the years as a temporary means to protect homes and properties. About a year ago, the town completed the first phase of its $15 million Central Reach project, which pumped about 1.3 million cubic yards of sand along about a 4-mile stretch of oceanfront in the middle of the island. The resolution commissioners adopted Tuesday acknowledged the Central Reach project and “significant beach nourishment on the East End, including beach nourishment utilizing low cost sand available as a by-product of the continued dredging of the Lockwood Folly Inlet at costs orders of magnitude lower than costs utilized by the USACE in the DEIS and FEIS.”

First to Back Out

Holden Beach is the first North Carolina beach town to formally revoke its permit application to construct a terminal groin since the General Assembly in 2011 repealed a decades’ old law banning coastal hardened erosion control structures. The law allows for the construction of up to six terminal groins along the coast. Bald Head Island is the only beach town in the state to build a groin since the 2011 repeal.
Read more » click here

EDITORIAL: Holden Beach makes rock-solid decision
Terminal groins are tempting, but ultimately they are a bad, costly endeavor

Holden Beach Commissioners acted wisely Tuesday night when they voted unanimously to back off from plans to build a terminal groin on the town’s coastline. From all appearances, the project was a white elephant that would have cost the town and the environment plenty.

A “groin,” in this case, is any sort of hardened structure built out from the shoreline to trap sand and/or prevent erosion. Groins work much like jetties, but do not extend out as far. For beach towns faced with disappearing beaches, it’s a tempting proposition. A half-century of experience, however, shows that groins are generally a bad idea. Coastal geologists tell us that sand naturally flows along an ocean beach. A groin can halt erosion, at least for a while, on a particular stretch of shore. It might even protect some beach houses. Time and again, however, groins have actually worsened erosion on the shorelines behind them — robbing Peter’s Beach, in effect, to build up Paul’s.

For decades, North Carolina had a firm rule against groins, seawalls or any other kind of “hardened structures” to protect coastal buildings. In 2011, however, developers and beachfront property owners managed to persuade the General Assembly to ease the ban, allowing “test groins” to be built at Holden Beach, as well as Bald Head Island, Figure Eight Island and Ocean Isle Beach. In 2015, Topsail Island was added to the list. So far, only Bald Head Island has followed through, and it’s not hard to see why. For one thing, groins are expensive. The initial price tag for the proposed 700-foot Holden Beach groin, to be erected near Lockwood Folly Inlet, was around $2 million. Soon, however, a low-ball estimate from the Army Corps of Engineers put the cost closer to $30 million — and that didn’t include maintenance costs, which Holden Beach would be expected to cover.

Putting up a terminal groin, moreover, would likely have led to a sort of coastal arms race. As erosion speeded up, other towns would be forced to put up groins of their own. (As one jokester put it, groins are like potato chips: No one can have just one.) And who’s going to pay for this? Inland North Carolinians wouldn’t let the state keep footing the ever-increasing bill. The burden would fall, ever more heavily, on beach residents. Add in the fact that groins aren’t very pretty. They’re the sort of things that folks used to move to North Carolina to get away from.

Holden Beach’s leaders added up the costs and the benefits, and the costs just seemed too high. With groups like the N.C. Coastal Federation cheering from the sidelines, commissioners voted to pull out of the permit process. They looked at the big picture and longterm impact and made a wise decision. Good for them. Let’s hope more coastal communities come to their senses.
Read more » click here

USACE PUBLIC NOTICE

Issue Date:  April 19, 2018
Corps Action ID: SAW-2011-01914

All interested parties are hereby advised that the Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps), at the request of the Town of Holden Beach, is withdrawing the permit application to implement a shoreline protection project along the east end of the island, including t he construction of a terminal groin along the Lockwoods Folly Inlet, in Brunswick County, North Carolina. The Corps is no longer seeking comments and has ceased our permit review for the Town’s proposal.
Read more » click here

A Look Back: Holden Beach’s (Un)Done Deal
A terminal groin at the east end of Holden Beach was a given.
Read more » click here

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 illustration for the Simpsons.jpg

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 illustration for the Simpsons.jpgThis 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 illustration for the Simpsons.jpg

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 sefor the purpose of beach erosion control and flood and hurricane protection works; andvices 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 havehttps://lousviews.com/wp-admin/admin.php?page=wpseo_dashboard 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
20181,200,000
20191,200,000
20201,200,000
20211,200,000
20221,200,000
20231,200,000
20241,200,000
20251,200,000
20261,200,000

*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 Commission, lo execute and authenticate the Bond and deliver the same to the Purchaser.

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

The original anticipated initial sand placement of December 15th has been delayed to a more realistic start date of December 28th due

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

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

RN Weeks

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

Dredging officially began on Wednesday, January 4th.

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.

02-21-17

Holden Beach Central Reach Project replenishes shore, creates opportunities
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.