Source: https://lousviews.com/2018/11/22/11-town-meeting/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:22:51+00:00

Document:
The best data and science available show that when a terminal groin is built, one side wins and the other side loses. OIB terminal groin will negatively impact the west end of Holden Beach. Clark questioned whether we want to get involved in the pending litigation. If we do, now would be the time to do it. He recommends that the Town give it serious consideration. The first step should be to decide what are concerns are. In a rather long sales pitch he suggested a desired course of action for us to take. Since we should have concerns, the best option and most cost-effective way is to participate and file as a friend of court brief (Amicus Brief). This is time-sensitive so they will need to decide rather quickly. He gave a back of the envelope cost estimate of between $9,000 to $19,000 to do the work.
The lawsuit claims that the Corps approved the multi-million-dollar project without fairly considering other alternatives that would be cheaper for the town’s taxpayers, would adequately protect vulnerable properties, and maintain wildlife habitat on the east end of Ocean Isle.
1) I have spoken with the federal court regarding the logistics of filing motions, making a notice of appearance, etc. – no surprises or unanticipated hurdles there.
2) I continue to advise against the Town moving to intervene as a party in the OIB litigation.
3) With regard to the potential filing of a “friend of the court” or amicus brief, I continue to recommend that the Board give such serious consideration. In that regard, I offer the following additional information/clarification. The filing of an amicus brief by the Town represents a “one shot” action. It does not obligate the Town to take any further action of any kind. It does not make the Town a party to the lawsuit. It also does not require the Town to adopt any of the positions being argued by the Plaintiff National Audubon Society or its legal counsel, the Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”).
4) One of the standard legal and factual arguments made by a person or organization seeking leave from the Court to file an amicus brief is to present facts, issues and legal arguments to the Court showing interests distinct and separate from those being advocated the existing parties to the lawsuit. It is my belief that the Town of Holden Beach has significant, relevant factual and legal interests separate and distinct from those of any of the existing parties to the OIB litigation.
5) Chief among such distinctions is the fact that, unlike at the time that the USACE conducted its scoping meetings, public hearing and open public comment period for the proposed OIB terminal groin project, the Town of Holden Beach now has enacted a binding Board Resolution withdrawing the Town’s own terminal groin application to the Corps, and expressing significant concerns regarding potential adverse impacts from such hardened structures, the economic viability of such structures when properly evaluated, and a strong preference for “softer” shoreline protection measures. As of now, nothing in the record of the federal OIB case allows the Court to be aware of this material, changed circumstances – and the filing of an amicus brief is the most cost-effective, targeted means by which to correct this arguably material deficiency in the record of proceedings in that case.
6) What is the desired end result to the benefit of Holden Beach? As I see it, the desired end result is to advocate for the Court in the OIB lawsuit to find that the CURRENT ROD decision made by the Corps (along with the Corp’s concurrent issuance of federal Section 10 and Section 404 permits) violate the governing provisions of the federal Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) such that the federal court should reverse the current ROD/permitting decisions and remand the matter back to the agency for further proceedings that DO properly comply with governing legal requirements to (among other things); (a) properly assess, evaluate and disclose the potentially significant shoreline erosion impacts to the west end of Holden Beach; (b) properly assess, evaluate and disclose the accurate economic costs and benefits of the proposed terminal groin project relative to other softer shoreline protection methods (note professor Coburn’s analysis here, among other points); (c) do a MUCH better job of assessing, evaluating and disclosing the full range of impacts tied to potential changes in the alignment and configuration of the Shallotte Inlet channel; (d) evaluate whether some of the sand materials dredged from this inlet should, on occasion, be deposited on the west end of Holden Beach when that area experiences significant erosion; (e) update the now outdated modeling and data regarding the shoreline configurations on both sides of Shallotte Inlet; (f) provide a much better assessment, evaluation and disclosure of potential high energy (reflected wave energy) impacts to surrounding areas from major storm events, such as Hurricane Florence and Hurricane Michael – two very different storm events; and (g) – perhaps most importantly – provide the Town of Holden Beach with a much more robust opportunity to be involved in any renewed scoping, alternatives analysis, public hearing, public comment and permitting process associated with any revised, proposed OIB terminal groin project after remand to the agency by the federal court, should that result occur. In summary, the end result of an APA challenge to a federal agency decision is invalidation of that particular decision/decisions, with a remand to the agency to “try and get it right the next time” if the permit applicant decides to revise its application package in an attempt to meet the stated concerns of the federal judge. In such circumstance, the Town of Holden Beach and its Board could play a much more active role.
7) It is my belief that an amicus brief can advocate the distinct interests of the Town of Holden Beach in such a way as to make a substantial impact on the federal judge hearing the case – especially in light of the material change in direction taken by the Board earlier this year when it voted unanimously to withdraw the Town’s terminal groin permit application. From my perspective, the universe of reasons underlying that decision by this Board apply with equal, if not greater, force to the OIB proposed terminal groin, and – further – that NOT taking this opportunity to express such issues and concerns could lead the USACE towards greater and greater preference for hardened shoreline solutions over a more sustainable shift to softer shoreline protection methods.
8) Finally, given that Figure 8 Island continues to evaluate softer shoreline solutions in light of the economic realities faced by that association of property owners, and that the Bald Head Island project involves very different circumstances, the OIB proposed terminal groin may assume greater importance in terms of setting the [very narrowly focused, and economically flawed] standards by which future such projects are judged.
I would like to close by making what I consider to be the simplest, most common sense point – it defies logic to say, on the one hand, that a town needs a terminal groin to trap sand for the benefit of the property owners located on the up-drift side of the structure, and to justify the project by saying that less dredging of the associated inlet will be needed, with less re-nourishment on that up-drift side – while at the same time and in the same breath assuring everyone located on the DOWN-drift side that all these fancy sounding mitigation measures should assure them that there will not be any negative impacts to those property owners – including the Holden Beach’s valuable west end public beaches, property owners and wildlife resources. As NC SB 151 makes clear, this is – in the end – a grand experiment – conducted at the peril of down-drift property owners and resources, no matter how fancy the language in the documents gets describing so-called “mitigation measures” – and no matter the undeniable voodoo economics of the Corp’s financial analysis, as so eloquently described in Professor Andy Coburn’s white paper.
Clark made a pretty coherent case for why we should file an Amicus Brief. So, I really thought moving forward with the Amicus Brief was a fait accompli. But it was not to be so. The Board all agreed that we should be concerned with the impact of building a terminal groin on the east end of OIB would have on the west end of Holden Beach. Mayor Pro Tem Sullivan took the tact that it did not make either economic or political sense for us to proceed with the brief. Commissioner Kwiatkowski felt that our concerns were addressed in the permitting process; that is that monitoring, and mitigation plans were established with OIB being financially responsible. Mayor Holden took the Board to task for having the chutzpah to think they know what’s best and to interfere with what he considered to be OIB business not ours. Oh, and by the way, Alan then took the Board to the woodshed. Commissioner Cook, Representative Iler and OIB Mayor Smith basically told us to mind our business and in no uncertain terms threatened consequences for our actions if we filed the Amicus Brief. Bottom-line is that the consensus view was we shouldn’t get involved in our neighbor’s business; that we would all be better off if we worked together to address our common issues and concerns without any litigation (Kumbaya). It’s all well and good to talk about maintaining relationships with our neighbors but I can tell you that Oak Island is not playing by the same rules. Commissioner Fletcher made a motion to decline the opportunity to file the Amicus Brief.
Holden Beach commissioners decided not to involve the town in a lawsuit over Ocean Isle Beach’s planned east end terminal groin.
The Southern Environmental Law Center filed the lawsuit on behalf of the National Audubon Society on Aug. 16, 2017, in U.S. District Court, challenging the Army Corps of Engineers’ permit authorizing Ocean Isle Beach to build the groin. The suit claims building the 1,050-foot rock wall at the east end of Ocean Isle Beach near Shallotte extending from the dunes, across the beach and into the ocean would only protect buildings immediately west of the structure. “As a result of stabilizing that small portion of beach, the groin will erode the beach east of the structure and destroy existing recreational beach and wildlife habitat,” the lawsuit reads.
Holden Beach’s environmental lawyer, Clark Wright of New Bern, spoke to commissioners about the possibility of filing an amicus brief on behalf of the town at their regular monthly meeting Oct. 23, but no action or discussion followed. Amicus briefs are typically filed on behalf of an entity that is not a party to a case of broad public interest. Commissioners held a special meeting Nov. 1 to address the matter. Wright did not attend.
Mayor Pro Tem Mike Sullivan made a motion to allow the public to speak during the meeting. It failed by a 3-2 vote, with he and commissioner Pat Kwiatkowski in favor and commissioners Peter Freer, Joe Butler and John Fletcher dissenting.
Freer told Sullivan said he wanted the town to file the brief, so Holden Beach’s position would be on record if the corps redoes the Ocean Isle Beach environmental impact study for the OIB groin. “The permit has been issued. They’re in litigation, right?” Sullivan asked. “What you want them to do is stop the process and start it all over again in Ocean Isle Beach?” “That’s correct,” Freer said. Sullivan said it would not benefit Holden Beach to get into a “contentious” situation with Ocean Isle Beach. “I appreciate everything (Wright) did. I’m glad he keeps us apprised of the issues. I just disagree with his conclusion,” he said. “We are now supposed to take what we believe to be right on this island and extrapolate that to Ocean Isle Beach and tell those commissioners that they’re not right in deciding how to spend their money. “I wouldn’t want the …Ocean Isle people telling Mike Sullivan that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about or know what he was doing.” Sullivan also asked why the town of Holden Beach would want to pay attorney fees for Ocean Isle Beach’s lawsuit.
Kwiatkowski said the town never solicited Wright’s opinion but called it generous. She said at the Oct. 23 meeting no commissioner made any comment or held any discussion about Wright’s proposal when the public could have commented on the issue and when Town Attorney Noel Fox was present. “The town of Holden Beach Board of Commissioners is here to pass judgment on the town of Holden Beach circumstances, not Ocean Isle,” she said.
Butler said he favored filing the brief, citing the number of unknowns.
Fletcher said he doesn’t want to tell Ocean Isle Beach it doesn’t have a right to the groin, but favored filing the brief because “the court, if they don’t have it in front of them, they can’t consider it. I would like the court to consider our views, our current views, now,” he said.
Kwiatkowski suggested the town hear from Fran Way, coastal engineer with Applied Technology & Management, about his opinion on the existing monitoring and mitigation plans for Ocean Isle Beach’s terminal groin. Freer said Way is not an expert. “He is our expert,” Sullivan said. “Not with terminal groins,” Freer said.
Following a five-minute break, Fletcher moved to approve a waiver of commissioners’ earlier decision against allowing members of the public to speak at the meeting. Commissioners unanimously approved it.
State Rep. Frank Iler of Oak Island said a decision to interfere in the decision of another municipality might isolate Holden Beach.
Ocean Isle Beach Mayor Debbie Smith, Town Administrator Daisy Ivey and Todd Roessler of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP of Raleigh also attended the special meeting, all three sitting in the front row.
Fletcher made a motion to decline the opportunity to file an amicus brief about the terminal groin project in Ocean Isle Beach. Kwiatkowski seconded, the board approved it unanimously and the meeting adjourned.
“We’ve invited them to sit down and talk any time,” Smith said immediately afterward.
Frankly I’m not sure which part they don’t get, you need to be put items on the agenda before the meeting. Generally, I can’t argue with Mike and Pat’s position that items should be submitted with background material prior to the meeting. However, in this case Joe simply wanted to add language that allowed public comments at special meetings and all five Commissioners indicated that they wanted the change. So instead of working through this we spent twenty minutes discussing, didn’t make the change, and will have it on next month’s meeting agenda. Ironically after Mike and Pat stood on principle that the process needs to be followed both of them had an agenda item without any supporting background material. You can’t make this stuff up!
Annual monitoring has occurred since 2001. We have an engineered beach – which means it has been nourished and is being monitored.
They have completed the annual survey of the beach strand. Currently they are compiling information and preparing a report. Primarily they make sure the beach is healthy. Since Hurricane Matthew we have put 1.5 million cubic yards of material on the beach strand. Most sections of the beach strand are stable and had accretion. Beach equilibration has occurred, projects are designed to include a volume of sand that the waves and currents will transport offshore to fill in the lower parts of the beach profile. Some of the sand lost off shore has been come back with a gain of 400,000 cubic yards back in to the system. East end is the only area that lost material, will need more attention than the rest of the beach strand.
We should all be concerned that the sand from the inlet dredging could possibly go somewhere else. There are a lot of articles in the papers that sand from inlet dredging will go to Oak Island. Also, discussion of Oak Island taking material from the borrow area we identified. We need to stay on top of this. Town of Holden Beach should be given priority. We have been the recipient of the dredging sand from there for the better part of the last thirty (30) years.
The Holden Beach shoreline has historically exhibited moderate erosion rates (with the exception of the inlets). As a result, the Town has instituted a nourishment and beach management program to offset this erosion. Dating back to January 2000 (approximately 18 years), the Town and the USACE have placed an average of approximately 200,000 cy/year on the beach. This rate of sand placement has been effective at keeping pace with background erosion.
Holden Beach suffered significant erosion and damage to the upper beach and dune systems from Hurricane Matthew in October 2016. Similar to “engineered beach” mitigation projects following Hurricanes Hanna (2008) and Irene (2011), FEMA assistance was implemented following Matthew, and helped reimburse the cost of 131,000 cy included in the Central Reach Project. In addition to 131,000 cy of Matthew erosion mitigation, FEMA also participated in dredge mobilization/demobilization and dune fencing/vegetation costs.
Fortunately, this past year (mid-2017 to mid-2018) was relatively mild in terms of extreme weather events and the beach has experienced some recovery while the newly constructed dunes and vegetation are establishing well (although Hurricanes Florence and Michael have recently setback this process). The majority of shoreline has benefitted from the equilibration of the substantial nourishments of the 2017 Central Reach Project and the LWFIX / Town Eastern Reach Project, which helped restore and widen significant portions of beachfront.
The most recent annual shoreline survey occurred in April 2018. In comparing this survey to the April 2017 survey, the entire island experienced a net gain of approximately 440,000 cy. This gain was unexpected since no nourishment activities has occurred over this time. This gain is due to onshore movement of material from deeper water (>12 feet) and represents a recovery from Hurricane Matthew erosion. The Central Reach Project and the LWFIX Eastern Reach Project brought a much-needed addition of material into the Holden Beach littoral system in 2017. The equilibration and both eastward and westward spreading of this material was observed contributing to beach growth for much of the Holden Beach shoreline as well.
Historical annual losses have been documented at about 100,000 to 200,000 cy/year for Holden Beach and the losses from Hurricane Matthew alone in 2016 were right on par with this erosional trend. This past year indicates a recovering, accretional beach as sand carried offshore during Matthew appears to now be migrating shoreward, contributing to added volumes observed in the nearshore. Additionally, the two 2017 nourishment projects came at a very valuable time to offset the erosion of Hurricane Matthew and future beach surveys will continue to monitor the progress, equilibration, and spreading of these nourishments.
From a shoreline contour perspective, the center ~5 miles of island (Central Reach STA 40+00 to 290+00) exhibited an average MHW erosion of -47 ft between surveys. This upper beach loss is not unexpected as the 2017 nourishment sand continues to equilibrate from a constructed profile to a natural profile. The MHW erosion indicating this movement was most notable for the stations within the project footprint and in general MHW accretion was observed to both the east and west due to spreading effects. The toe-of-dune (TOD) line within the Central Reach was generally much more accretional and exhibited an average accretion of approximately 14 ft, largely due to the establishment and growth of the starter dunes constructed as part of the Central Reach Project. Significant sand fencing and dune vegetation planting occurred following the nourishment projects which have helped mature and enhance these dunes over the past year. More prominent accretion of the TOD was observed along the far west end and near Shallotte Inlet. Erosion of the TOD line and MHW shoreline occurred in the West Area. This area features a wide dune buffer and did experience a net gain in sand based on the volumetric analyses. Although this portion of shoreline has historically been stable to accretional, it has been mostly erosional in recent years warranting close monitoring and proactive measures may be recommended (such as dune enhancement through mature vegetation plantings) to mitigate potential future concerns. In comparing the April 2018 survey with the January 2000 survey (18-year span), the MHW shoreline exhibits approximately 120 ft of accretion, in part due to the recent 2017 large-scale nourishment activities. The Central Reach Project and other future planned projects of this scale are designed to enhance the beach and dune system which will result in protective, ecological, recreational, and economic benefits.
The Central Reach nourishment project, completed in March of 2017, represents the largest nourishment project on Holden Beach (approximately twice the size of the 2001-2002 USACE 933 project). The purpose of the project, which is a component of the Town’s comprehensive beach management program, is to provide beach restoration along eroding sections of shoreline sufficient to maintain the island’s restored protective and recreational beachfront and natural dune system. The 2018 survey represents the one-year post-project survey of the nourishment, and continued monitoring will assess the equilibration and movement of the project sand.
The 2017 LWFIX / Town Eastern Reach Project was similar to the 2014 piggyback project, and it came at an opportune time to supplement the Central Reach nourishment. Due to the close proximity to LWF Inlet, the east end is relatively dynamic, and some erosional hotspots have been observed over the years. The 2018 survey showed that the additional 120,000 cy from the Eastern Reach Project has created a wide recreational beach and storm buffer to abate future erosion along this stretch of shoreline. It is recommended that the Town continue to evaluate the potential piggybacking and/or use of the 400-ft bend widener for any future USACE LWFIX projects that do not fully utilize the LWFIX borrow area (which is expected to happen most of the time due to USACE funding limitations).
The NCDEQ Shallow Draft Inlet (SDI) program has provided the Town with permits to dredge the inner and outer portions of LWF Inlet. These permits essentially allow the Town, with potential help from the County and State, to perform the same inlet maintenance activities that the USACE currently performs (i.e., LWFIX dredging, outer channel sidecasting). The State has established an annual funding source for these projects with the new State Shallow Draft Navigation Channel and Aquatic Weed Fund, which has shown growth and stability since its inception.
In summary, the 2016 North Carolina Beaches and Inlets Management Plan (NC BIMP) report estimated the 2013/2014 Beach Recreation Annual Total Impact Output for Holden Beach at $80.4 million, which accounted for 942 jobs. Additionally, the NC BIMP conducted a study of losses attributed to 50 percent beach width loss and found that, for Holden Beach, the 2013/2014 estimated annual loss (including output/sales/business activity) would be $12.6 million. The Town’s beach management and maintenance program strives to maintain and enhance this important economic and environmental benefit.
Specific needs in regard to ongoing beach management in the near future are related to 1) Oak Island receiving LWFIX sand that has traditionally been placed on Holden’s east end, 2) Brunswick County’s proposal to dredge the LWF outer ebb shoal and 3) the research and location of another offshore borrow area.
Holden Beach is the most affected and most vulnerable to LWF Inlet processes (including any man-made changes to this system). Town and ATM staff will continue to actively engage in these projects and monitor their potential effects.
The Offshore Borrow Area of the Central Reach project was delineated based on the need for enough sand for at least 2 nourishments. Following the 2017 Central Reach project, it is 4-5 GNV/2017/081687A/11/1/18 estimated that at least 500,000 cy of material is still available for future nourishments however it is recommended that additional offshore borrow area reconnaissance occurs. Especially since the Town of Oak Island has expressed an interest in using the Central Reach offshore borrow area.
Beach nourishment is a commonly implemented solution to mitigate long-term erosion, provide habitat, and reduce storm-damage to coastal communities. During a beach nourishment project, large volumes of sand (with similar properties as the native sand) are added to the beach from upland, offshore, or nearby inlet sources to establish a designed level of protection and/or restore sand that has eroded. During the construction of a beach nourishment project, sand is brought to the beach by dredges or truck hauling to widen the beach. Bulldozers are then used to grade the sand into a pre-determined construction template. Nourishment projects are designed and constructed to take advantage of the natural forces, such as waves and currents, to move sand offshore. This process results in a natural sloping beach within the littoral zone and is referred to as profile equilibration (or profile adjustment). The process of profile equilibration, which typically occurs within 12 months following sand placement (depending on storms), dramatically decreases the width of dry beach from the very wide beach observed immediately after nourishment. This decrease in beach width (profile equilibration) is often misunderstood by some of the public as the failure of the beach nourishment project because they perceive “all the sand washed away.” The objective of this paper is to explain the process of profile equilibration in in a non-technical way to inform coastal communities and increase public understanding of how beach nourishment works.
The island experienced a net gain of approximately 440,000 cubic yards. Most of the beach strand had accretion, which is really good and a little surprising. We don’t normally see that without executing a nourishment project. Overall our beach management actions have been very successful.
Commissioner Freer did not feel that the report adequately included pertinent information about the terminal groin project and requested it be more robust.
Status of the Beach and Inlets Post-Florence and Michael: Staff provided an overview of conditions and issues relative to the beach strand and inlets in the aftermath of Hurricanes Florence and Michael. The Central Reach Project again fulfilled its job as a shoreline protection project during hurricane Michael, but did incur some damages. The preliminary post­ storm beach survey has been completed and the results have been sent to ATM for analysis. The Town has submitted estimated losses to FEMA for Florence and losses for Michael are pending. ATM’s report on Florence should be complete next week and the report for Michael a couple of weeks later. Current damage assessments show Central Reach lost 201,564cy of material.
Storm Related Events: Town management will provide the emergency response document for the IBPB to review.
Status of Lockwood Folly Inlet Dredging Issues: The Board discussed the status of the LWF inlet dredging projects. The Merritt is now scheduled for November. The bids for the inlet pipeline project will be opened on Tuesday.
Mission Statement: The Board adopted a Mission Statement to summarize and guide their work (attached).
Meetings: Members of the Board attended the Brunswick Shoreline Protection Consortium and made plans to attend the NC Beach, Inlet and Waterway Association and Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway Association Meetings.
Proposed Ocean Isle Groin: The group agreed to raise concerns to the BOC about the tight timeline to see if they need assistance from the IBPB.
The Holden Beach Inlet and Beach Protection Board (IBPB) is an advisory board set up by the Holden Beach Town Commissioners to provide recommendations to the board on beach strand and inlet management issues. These recommendations will be based on the IBPB’s research and analysis from collecting data and information for all phases of maintaining healthy and environmentally sound beaches and inlets. The IBPB will strive to provide recommendations for long and short-range plans and projects to include beach re-nourishment, inlet maintenance, vegetation plans, with estimations of costs relating to these projects. The IBPB will work with the Town’s Management and consultants to obtain input for the projects. The IBPB will strive to keep the Holden Beach Board of Commissioners informed of any new federal, state, or local funding sources and laws. The IBPB will be an active participant in attendance at coastal and inlet management related meetings and seminars.
(D) The Chair of the Inlet and Beach Protection Board shall submit a report in writing of any suggestions, plans, recommendations, and the like to the Town Clerk following each meeting of the Inlet and Beach Protection Board for inclusion in the following month’s Board of Commissioners agenda packets.
Why is the Beach Board the only Board required to submit these reports?
Wally announced that Sergeant Mike Hamilton retired after thirty (30) years of service. The Town had a retirement celebration in honor of Sergeant Mike Hamilton earlier today. They have already started the process to hire his replacement. He expects that they should have the new officer on board by the middle of next month.
(A) There is hereby established an Audit Committee of the BOC, which shall be comprised of a Chairman of the BOC Audit Committee and not fewer than two, nor more than four Public members, as determined by the BOC at the first regular Board of Commissioners meeting in January. The Chairman of the BOC Audit Committee, an elected Commissioner, and each of the Public Members shall have a normal term of one year and shall serve at the pleasure of the BOC. The Chairman of the BOC Audit Committee shall be elected by the BOC at the first regular meeting in January. The Public Members shall be appointed by the Chairman of the BOC Audit Committee, subject to confirmation by the BOC.
1. To assist and advise the BOC in its oversight responsibilities for the town’s financial reporting process, systems of internal financial controls and the external audit rocess.
2. To recommend to the BOC the selection of the independent external audit firm to conduct the annual external audit.
3. To evaluate the performance of the external audit firm as it relates to the annual audit of the Town of Holden Beach and its self-insurance policies.
4. Review, advise and make recommendations to the BOC with respect to the town’s treasury management function and its risk management policies and procedures, including without limitation, the town’s insurance and self-insurance policies.
5. Ensure the Town’s internal control systems are in place and implemented, including information technology security and control.
6. Ensure Town management implements audit report recommendations.
7.Continually evaluate the independence of the external auditors; to audit findings and forward findings to the Board of Commissioners.
8. Review the Town’s CAFR, management letter and management’s response.
9.Review and reassess the adequacy of this Charter at least every two years, with any revision submitted to the Board of Commissioners for approval.
10.The Audit Committee will provide an avenue of communication among the Board of Commissioners, Town Management and the external independent auditors.
11.Other functions from time to time as shall be delegated or assigned to it by the BOC.
1. The Chair and two members of the Audit Committee constitute a quorum for voting purposes.
2. When deemed appropriate by the Chair, two members of the Committee may meet in private with members of the staff or with the external auditors as necessary to carry out an Audit Committee function.
4. All Committee members are expected to attend every meeting.
5. The Committee may invite members of management, auditors or others to attend the meetings and provide pertinent information, as necessary.
6. The Chair may call additional meetings as deemed necessary in fulfillment of the role of the Committee.
7. Each meeting agenda will contain at a minimum an agenda item “approval of prior meeting (s) minutes”, the subject for the primary purpose (s} of the meeting and an agenda item for “new business.
Commissioner Fletcher felt there was a gap between the Board’s intention and what has actually come to pass based on the Town’s staff interpretation. John as Chair of the Audit Committee requested that the Board clarify what functions they wanted the Audit Committee to perform. The Board advised him that the Audit Committee must adopt their bylaws and then bring it back to the Board for discussion and approval.
Commissioner Fletcher submitted the bylaws that the Audit Committee unanimously approved. Noel Fox the Town Attorney took issue with several items. They will have to submit an amended / revised version for approval again. Who knew this could be so complicated? The Board did manage to authorize the Audit Committee to schedule a meeting with the firm conducting the internal control review. The Board does not want to wait for a final report and requested an interim status update as soon as it can be made available.
This was on the agenda in July, August and September. They anticipate having document that has been approved by the Town Attorney and the Audit Committee for the BOC’s Regular Meeting in November.
Well this did not go well. Once again, it was not approved as submitted. Mike and Pat took umbrage to some verbiage. The Town attorney said that the document submitted tonight is not what she recommended and submitted to the Audit Committee. In December of 2015 Resolution 15.17 established the Audit Committee. Three years later we still do not have bylaws or charter. Seriously how tough is this to get right? It was sent back to the Audit Committee one more time.
Mayor Holden remarked that he was “begging the Board to give it their full consideration” he then prodded them into asking for a written proposal from the firm.
Mayor Holden has been selling this consulting gig for at least the last three years. It is his opinion that we are wasting our time, that nothing gets done in government without having people working for you behind the scenes. Ostensibly we are trying to punch above our weight and make sure we are able to impact things in our favor. I’m of the mindset that it doesn’t matter how much we spend for a consultant; the bottom-line is that we only have approximately six hundred voters which is not enough to make any impact and get things done. It makes more sense to me to work with the other coastal communities where the cost is shared, and the number of voters does matter. We were a member of the group formally known as the Brunswick Beaches Consortium which rechristened itself as Brunswick Shoreline Protection in the wake of the scandal of Caswell Beach Mayor Harry Simmons’ financial dealings while in charge of the group. Holden Beach contributed $143,038 the amount prosecutor’s claim Simmons embezzled is $94,418. After the Brunswick Beach Consortium debacle, I can understand their reluctance to go down that path again. Don’t disagree that we can use assistance in government relations to get things done. That said, I question the need to hire such a prestigious white-shoe firm to do that for us.
Mayor Holden said what he was hearing is that they are not enthusiastic about moving forward with consulting services. Alan said he is so dejected, he has been pleading with them for three (3) years now. Bottomline is whether we hire this firm or not, that we have got to do something now!
Joe reviewed and compared what was supposed to be done and what has been done. A number of issues had been discussed that were not incorporated in Phase I. Board sent this to the Planning & Zoning Board with instructions to reinstate Citizen advisory Parking Committee to identify work to be done in Phase II.
2.Develop a list of town owned properties that can potentially provide additional visitor parking if determined to be needed. Cost to develop, location and proximity to residential properties should be considered.
3. Investigate the possible use of paid parking with the use of Kiosk technology, as other municipalities have already started to use.
The Board agreed at their August meeting to update the Town’s Code of Ordinances, Section 50: Solid Waste. Attached is the first version of a draft revised ordinance, prepared by Commissioner Kwiatkowski. The Board and residents have the opportunity to comment on the draft at the October meeting or can send emails to me at heather@hbtownhall.com with their suggestions. Once feedback is reviewed and any changes are incorporated, another draft will be prepared for the Board’s consideration.
(1) Garbage will be kept only in contractor-owned and provided standard, 90-gallon capacity roll-out containers. Each residence is authorized one container; however, additional containers are available from the town for a set monthly fee.
(2) Property owners are responsible to assure they have sufficient 90-gallon containers to properly contain refuse prior to collection. Garbage placed on top of or beside the container(s) will not be placed in non-standard containers.
(2) Short term rentals, particularly those that are rented as part of the summer rental season, are subject to high numbers of guests resulting in abnormally large volumes of garbage and refuse. This type of occupancy presents a significantly higher impact than homes not used for short term rentals. In interest of public health and sanitation and environmental concerns, all short-term rentals shall have a minimum of one garbage can per two bedrooms. Homes with an odd number of bedrooms shall round up 9for example one to two bedrooms – one trash can; three to four bedrooms – two trash cans; five to six bedrooms – three trash cans; and the like). For purposes of this section, a bedroom is any room which provides a facility for sleeping, including but not limited to, day beds (or other convertibles), sleeper sofas, hide-a-beds, cots or roll away beds.
(3) Property owners are responsible to assure they have sufficient 90-gallon garbage containers to properly contain refuse prior to collection. Garbage or refuse placed on top of or beside the container(s) will not be picked up by waste collection and will be considered a littering offense as outlined in (_?).
(a) Recyclable refuse can be disposed of in standard garbage containers. Alternatively, 90-gallon capacity containers for recyclable materials only are available by contract through the town for a set annual fee. They will be provided to a property in addition to, not in replacement of, the required number of garbage containers.
(A) All garbage and household refuse shall be kept in proper containers as required by this chapter and it shall be unlawful for any person to permit garbage to accumulate or remain on any premises longer than is reasonably necessary for its removal. Containers will be located at curbside by the property owner or their representative on designated collection days, and then should be returned to the normal house-side storage location by 6:00 p.m. the day after collection. See subsection (B) for an alternative storage location.
(B) It is the intent of the town that all 90-gallon containers be secured in such a manner either next to non-elevated or underneath elevated houses, except on collection days when they are to be placed at curbside, so that the town street right-of-way remains clear of empty containers, and so that containers are not damaged or overturned by high winds or other occurrences. For those property owners who cannot make arrangements to have their container placed at or removed from curbside, an alternate non-collection day storage arrangement is as follows: A sturdy, wooden three-sided rack of sufficient size to just hold the required container(s) may be constructed by the owner. The rack must be constructed so the opening allows for the easy removal of the 90-gallon container(s) by the collector on collection days; e.g. the container must roll in and roll out of the rack without having to be lifted. The racks shall not be placed more than five feet from the street right-of-way and shall not be placed within the area of the street right-of-way. The rack shall be maintained in a sound and presentable condition. Container(s), on corner lots, will be located so as not to violate §§ 157.060(D)(9) and 157.061(D)(8), Corner Visibility, of the Town Code of Ordinances.
(E) Property owners who are consistently found incapable of properly securing their garbage containers as prescribed above, may receive written notice from the town that they are in violation of town ordinance in that regard. Those so affected will be asked to correct the situation, so they come into compliance with the code or receive a civil fine of $50 per day per offense.
(A) All garbage and household refuse shall be kept in proper containers as required by this chapter and it shall be unlawful for any person to permit garbage to accumulate or remain on any premises longer than is reasonably necessary for its removal. During the summer rental season (defined for these purposes as the period of time that the garbage collection occurs twice weekly, being mid-May through September). Containers will be located at curbside by the property owner or their representative no earlier than 6pm the evening before designated collection days, and then must be returned to the normal house-side or under house storage location by 6:00 p.m. the day of collection. For the rest of the year, containers will be located at curbside no more than 48 hours before designated collection and then must be returned to the normal storage location by 6:00pm the day after collection.
(B) It is the intent of the town that all 90-gallon containers be secured in such a manner either next to non-elevated or underneath elevated houses, except on collection days when they are to be placed at curbside, so that the town street right-of-way remains clear of empty containers, and so that containers are not damaged or overturned by high winds or other occurrences.
(E) Property owners who are consistently found incapable of properly securing their garbage containers as prescribed in Parts (A) and (B) above, shall after no more than 3 violations receive written notice from the town that they are in violation of town ordinance in that regard. Those so affected will be asked to correct the situation, so they come into compliance with the code or receive a civil fine of $50 per day per offense.
(A) Rental homes, as defined in Chapter 157, that are rented as part of the summer rental season, are subject to high numbers of guests, resulting in abnormally large volumes of trash. This type of occupancy use presents a significantly higher impact than homes not used for summer rentals. In interest of public health and sanitation and environmental concerns, all rental home shall have a minimum of one trash can per two bedrooms. Homes with an odd number of bedrooms shall round up (for examples one to two bedrooms – one trash can; three to four bedrooms – two trash cans; five – six bedrooms – three trash cans, and the like).
(B) The effective date for all properties referenced in division (A) above shall be March 1, 2008.
(C) Any property found in violation of division (A) above shall be subject to the penalties listed in § 50.99.
(A) Short-term rental homes, are subject to high numbers of guests, resulting in abnormally large volumes of trash. Therefore, all rental home shall have a minimum of one trash can per two bedrooms. Homes with an odd number of bedrooms shall round up (for examples one to two bedrooms – one trash can; three to four bedrooms – two trash cans; five – six bedrooms – three trash cans, and the like).
(B) The effective date for all properties referenced in division (A) above shall be March 1, 2019.
(C) Any property found in violation of division (A) above shall be subject to civil fine of $50 per week per offense.
(A) Criminal. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter, shall be subject to the penalty provided in § 10.99(A) of this code of ordinances.
(B) Civil. In accordance with § 10.99(B) of this code of ordinances, the civil fine for violation of any provision of this chapter, with the exception of § 50.04, shall be $25 per offense.
(A) Criminal. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter, with the exception of § 50.04, for which no penalty is otherwise provided shall be subject to the penalty provided in § 10.99(A) of this code of ordinances.
(B) Civil. In accordance with § 10.99(B) of this code of ordinances, the civil fine for violation of any provision of this chapter, shall be $50 per offense.
Agree that we have a number of issues that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, I don’t think that there are any simple solutions. A number of the proposed changes create a whole series of unintended consequences. Really feel we need to work through this with a series of workshops that include all stakeholders. The self-imposed deadline to complete project before rental companies do their brochures is simply not going to happen. In order to avoid the brouhaha that we just had with the System Development Fees the public needs to actively participate in the process. The Board is asking that all stakeholders review the information and give constructive input. Any changes are bound to have ramifications; you need to know what that means to you. This ordinance if adopted as written is going to have significant negative repercussions for many property owners. In order to be familiar with all of the proposed changes I strongly recommend that you read pages 70 through 74 in the Agenda Packet.
BUILDING MATERIAL SCRAP. All scrap material from the construction, reconstruction, remodeling or repair of a building, walkway, driveway, sign or other structure, including, but not limited to, excavated earth, tree stumps, rocks, gravel, bricks, plaster, concrete, lumber, insulation, fixtures (e.g., commodes, sinks) or wrappings for materials or any other materials necessary for the construction, reconstruction, remodeling or repair of a building.
GARBAGE. All animal, fruit and vegetable matter, all small cans, glassware, crockery, bags, and other small containers in which matter has been left or stored.
LARGE HOUSEHOLD ITEMS. Accessories or fittings for a particular use inside, outside or around a house including but not limited to tables and chairs; sofas and recliners; bed frames; dressers; mattresses and box springs; small electronics such as computers and televisions; refrigerators; ovens and microwave ovens; washing and drying machines.
PUTRESClBLE WASTE. Solid waste that contains organic matter capable of being decomposed by microorganisms and of such a character and proportion as to cause obnoxious odors and to be capable of attracting or providing food for birds or animals.
REFUSE. All other types and kinds of materials intended to be discarded, scrapped, or otherwise disposed of.
RECYCLABLE REFUSE. Types and kinds of materials intended to be discarded, scrapped or otherwise disposed of that are defined as recyclable material under the current waste collection contract, e.g., cardboard; newspaper; magazines; small metal and glass containers and certain type of plastic containers in which matter has been stored and possibly residues left.
SUMMER RENTAL SEASON. The period of time that garbage collection occurs twice weekly per town contract.
YARD WASTE. All wastes pertaining to a landscaped/managed property, including but not limited to tree limbs, leaves, shrubbery, weeds, plants or grass.
(1) Garbage will be kept only in contractor-owned and provided standard, 90- gallon capacity roll-out containers. Each residence is authorized one container; however, additional containers are available for a set monthly fee.
(2) Recyclable refuse can be disposed of in standard garbage containers. Alternatively, 90-gallon capacity containers for recyclable materials only are available by contract through the town for a set annual fee. They will be provided to a property in addition to, not in replacement of, the required number of garbage containers.
(3) Property owners are responsible to assure they have sufficient 90-gallon containers to properly contain refuse prior to collection. Garbage placed on top of or beside the container(s) will not be picked up by the contractor, nor will garbage placed in non-standard containers.
(1) All commercial establishments catering to the public in such a manner as to create refuse shall be required to place an adequate number of refuse containers in such positions and locations as to encourage their use.
(2) All such commercial related containers shall be maintained in a sound and presentable condition.
(C) No person shall throw, place, or deposit any garbage or refuse of any kind, in any place or in any public or private property, except in approved containers or as otherwise provided in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(D) Containers on town-owned property and other public areas are for the use of the town and for the general use of residents and visitors using the public areas. It shall be unlawful for anyone otherwise to place commercial or residential waste or refuse into such containers.
§50.03 BURNING OR BURYING OF GARBAGE REGULATED.
It shall be unlawful to bum or bury garbage or trash for the purpose of disposal unless a special permit has been issued by the Town Police Department.
(A) All garbage and household refuse shall be kept in proper containers as required by this chapter and it shall be unlawful for any person to permit garbage to accumulate or remain on any premises longer than is reasonably necessary for its removal. It is the intent of the town that all containers be secured in such a manner either next to non-elevated or underneath elevated houses, except on collection days when they are to be placed at curbside, so that the town street right-of-way remains clear of empty containers, and so that containers are not damaged or overturned by high winds or other occurrences. Containers will be located at curbside no earlier than 6:00p.m. the evening before designated collection days during the summer rental season. For the rest of the year containers will be located at curbside no more than 48 hours before the designated collection. All containers should be returned to the normal house-side storage location by 6:00 p.m. the day after collection.
(B) It shall be the duty of every owner or occupant of every building or premises where garbage or refuse exists, to reasonably and regularly clean the 90-gallon containers and other legal refuse collection containers.
(C) The owners, occupants and lessees of all property, jointly and severally, are required to control all refuse, placing such refuse in proper containers and/or arranging for collection or other disposal disposition in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
(D) Garbage and household refuse will be collected and removed from the aforesaid containers or cans in accordance with the schedule set forth in the garbage collection service contract, executed independently from this chapter.
(E) This chapter shall be enforced by the town either by civil proceedings or by removing and disposing of litter according to the provisions and procedures for abatement of litter as provided in this chapter and as prescribed by G.S. 160A-174, 160A-175, 160A-192, 160A-193, and 160A-303.1, including the provisions for notice and hearings provided or referred to therein.
All matter, refuse, and materials such as industrial refuse, building materials and scraps, tree trimmings, walkway scraps, or any other refuse from building or remodeling, large containers, or large household items shall not be accepted or picked up as part of the regular garbage collection service contract.
Yard waste will be accepted under certain conditions and at defined times under a contract separate from the standard waste collection contract. Permissible yard waste must not be placed at roadside for collection more than one week prior to a scheduled collection. Property owners who are consistently found in violation may receive written notice from the town that they are in violation of town ordinance in that regard. Those so affected will be asked to correct the situation so they come into compliance with the code or receive a civil fine of $50 per day per offense.
§50.07 TRANSPORTING WASTE MATERIALS; COVERING DURING TRANSPORT.
All persons transporting waste material, construction material, or any manner of loose materials over the public or private roadways in the town shall insure that such materials are not lost or scattered on or along the rights-of-way of such roadways. These materials shall be securely covered during transit in such manner as to prevent the loss thereof from the transporting vehicle.
(A) Rental homes, as defined in Chapter 157, that are rented as part of the summer rental season, are subject to high numbers of guests, resulting in abnormally large volumes of trash. This type of occupancy use presents a significantly higher impact than homes not used for summer rentals. In interest of public health and sanitation and environmental concerns, all rental home shall have a minimum of one trash can per two bedrooms. Homes with an odd number of bedrooms shall round up (for examples one to two bedrooms – one trash can; three to four bedrooms – two trash cans; five- six bedrooms- three trash cans, and the like).
(B) Any property found in violation of division (A) above shall be subject to the penalties listed in § 50.99.
(A) Criminal. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be subject to the penalty provided in § 10.99(A) of this code of ordinances.
(B) Civil. In accordance with § 10.99(B) of this code of ordinances, the civil fine for violation of any provision of this chapter shall be $50 per offense.
Commissioner Kwiatkowski worked with both the town staff and the town attorney to put together a final draft version of the amended Ordinance. They attempted to be clear, concise, and have an enforceable ordinance. Final version will be presented at the next meeting. If adopted, enforcement will begin on May of 2019.
The Board agreed to have a Solid Waste Workshop before the next BOC’s Regular Meeting in December. The Board is asking that all stakeholders actively participate in the process by reviewing the information and giving them constructive input.
Why do we do this for some properties but not others?
Why are we not charging to provide this service?
The Board agreed to have a Solid Waste Workshop before the next BOC’s Regular Meeting in December.
Make your municipality’s voice heard during the Advocacy Goals Conference, where cities and towns from across North Carolina convene to debate and decided upon what issues will be prioritized when talking to and lobbying the NC General Assembly and other state government policy makers for the next two years. As the state’s largest federation of municipalities, the League’s municipal advocacy goals represent what cities and towns collectively desire when it comes to state legislative affairs.
(G) Perform such other duties within or related to the general purview of the Inlet and Beach Protection Board which may assigned to it from time-to-time by the Board of Commissioners.
Pat requested a kickoff meeting with the newly created Board. They are attempting to schedule a joint meeting with the BOC’s before the end of the month. The Commissioners all indicated that they want to get this Board on track and to begin functioning as soon as possible.
Mayor Pro Tem Sullivan felt that the Board still needs some additional direction. The Ordinance is pretty clear, but he questioned whether it was being adhered to. Commissioner Freer felt that they had spent a lot of time creating this Advisory Board. No additional direction should be needed since it was codified, pretty specifically, what they were charged with doing. Vicki Myers the Chair of the IBPB stated unequivocally that both she and the Board understood their role and did not need any additional direction; thank you very much.
Really?! We have had to have had this discussion at least a half a dozen times already. They are just an Advisory Board. The BOC’s are under no obligation to implement any recommendations made by this Board. Obviously, it’s the BOC’s call. So why all the drama?
At the request of the Town Manager, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) recently examined the races that are held at Holden Beach. This was due to the increase in requests from organizations to hold events. The PRAB made the following recommendations for fees based on a review of what other towns in the series do.
Motion by Vice Chair Wi/Us to charge a special event fee of $1,500 in which the Town has the discretion to waive the fee for non-profits and if the number of police officers exceeds five, an additional fee will be charged; second by Member Tucker; approved by unanimous vote.
The staff would recommend the adoption of the above motion to charge a special event fee of $1,500 in which the Town has the discretion to waive the fee for non-profits, and if the number of police officers exceeds five, an additional fee will be charged. If the board chooses to adopt the fee, it will need to be added to the fee schedule at the December meeting to take effect in January.
Currently we are not getting any revenue from these events, but we do incur significant costs. Essentially, we are looking to charge the event sponsor enough to offset the costs. It will be back on the agenda next month with an adjustment to our fee schedule.
Since most Golf carts are purchased and a bill of sale is given to the buyer, the owner must apply for a title through the NC License Plate Office. In order to receive a title through this agency, you must have a notarized bill of sale and proof of liability insurance. If the golf cart is purchased from a dealer, you must also have the certificate of origin for the vehicle.
All of the streets in the Town (including the side streets) are considered streets or public vehicular areas according to the State Law. This means that to operate a golf cart anywhere on the island, you must meet the standards above. Also, golf carts may not be operated on streets with posted speed limit greater than 35 mph.
It was Commissioner Kwiatkowski that originally requested, we publicize golf cart requirements. Briefly what that means is that golf carts are considered a motor vehicle and subject to all laws, rules and regulations that govern motor vehicles. The only exception to our parking ordinance now is that all parking on the stub streets Ranger and Elizabeth have designated parking areas for vehicles, golf carts, bikes and beach equipment. Unlike the stub streets, allowing golf carts to park in designated parking areas on the rest of the island is problematic. Pat asked that the town staff assess the situation and see if there are any areas near a beach access that could have designated parking for golf carts. That pretty much narrows it down to a few canal streets that on one side of the street have marsh side parking.
Terri Huffstetler – as executrix of the John Huffstetler Estate- has contacted the Town via the Holden Beach Beautification Club and offered to donate the subject property to the Town to be used for beautification projects. The residential lot is located off island in Sea Aire Estates. I have discussed the potential gift with Terri and the HBBC President. Due to the specifics of the site and its’ neighborhood covenants I believe the prudent measure (if the board is so inclined) is to accept the gift, liquidate the asset as may be optimally timed and then appropriate any net proceeds for use by the HBBC on Town beautification/landscaping projects and programs. Terri has indicated her desire to close with the Town ASAP in order to settle the Estate and concurs with my perspective.
To accept the gift and authorize the Town Manager and Town Attorney to execute the necessary documents for deed transfer.
The purpose of the vehicle replacement policy is to propose a plan for the Town to follow annually. It will serve as a guideline for department heads each year to review their assets and plan accordingly through the budget process. Having this policy will help to control overall cost and acquisition of new vehicles, as well as assess the quality and usability of the Town’s current fleet.
The purpose of this Equipment Replacement Policy is to propose a vehicle replacement plan for the Town to follow. This policy will create an equipment replacement plan that will serve as a guide in providing direction to meet the needs of the Town. This document will be modified and updated annually to reflect changes in the Town’s needs as related to equipment and new vehicles. Annual appropriations for operations, maintenance, repair and fueling for Police, Recreation, Inspection, Administration and Public Works vehicles and equipment will be budgeted accordingly each fiscal year.
This policy shall apply to all vehicles of the Town of Holden Beach.
The primary objectives of the Town is to control the overall cost of operating and maintaining the fleet of vehicles and equipment, to control the growth size of the fleet, and to accurately budget for maintenance and repair costs. All new purchases for vehicles and equipment are part of the budget cycle and are coordinated through the Town Manager for recommendation.
The goal of the Town’s acquisition practices is to obtain the lowest possible price and the highest possible quality for vehicles and equipment. All purchases will follow the applicable purchasing codes. Annually, before the Town’s budget, department heads will review their assets and plan for the acquisition of replacement vehicles and equipment. Any request for new equipment must be cost justified by department heads to the Town Manager and Board of Commissioners.
Each Department head will annually inventory existing vehicles and equipment that will be used as the basis for planning for replacements through the Town’s budget. The guidelines for vehicles considered for replacement are based on vehicles meeting predetermined age and/or mileage criteria (70,000 miles or 7 years). Depending on the availability of funds, vehicles and equipment will be replaced when they are at the end of their economic life, no longer safe to operate, not reliable enough to perform their intended function, or there is a demonstrated cost saving to the Town.
. • Awaiting Federal Beach Technical Advisor to complete required Project Worksheet.
Auditor’s report is due by October 31st and is normally is given at the October meeting. Report was not given at the October meeting and it wasn’t scheduled at the November meeting. Town Manager reported at the October meeting that the two storm events have delayed the annual audit process. The field work by the external auditor won’t be completed till mid-November. The auditor Rives & Associates has advised the Local Government Commission.
The Town Managers performance review was supposed to be done on the anniversary date of his hire which is in February. Once again it was not done in a timely manner.
Do you enjoy this newsletter? Then please forward it to a friend!
In the past the Town did a self-assessment of its emergency actions and responses before, during and after the storm event. Public input was considered a valued component of efforts to evaluate the Towns performance and they asked us: How did we do? Apparently, that is no longer the case.

References: § 50
 § 10
 § 10
 § 50
 § 50
 § 10
 § 10

§50

§50
 § 50
 § 10
 § 10