Note: some older items are left
The South Carolina Department of Insurance will participate in a
Hurricane Matthew Town Hall Meeting
on Edisto Island, SC, Monday, October 24, 2016
click here to read press release for further information
Due to internet interruptions during the disaster we have found it necessary to largely coomunicate via e-mail. It has been impossible for our web master to update on a regular basis or even an irregular one. Your membership committee continues to experience internet outages and we apologize if you have tried to reach us and could not. Continue to monitor the Town's website and we will work to return to normal as quickly as possible.
Edisto Beach Renourishment & Groin Lengthening Project Public Information Presentation, 9-30-16
The meeting was held at the Civic Center and was well attended.
Steven Trayman of Coastal Science and Engineering made a detailed 1 1/2 hour presentation including questions. His charts will be forwarded to you when available.
Significant points were as follows:
· There have been two renourishments in the past:
1. 1954/1955 in which marsh mud was used that dissipated very quickly leaving heavy shell deposits. Wood structures were used for groins.
2. 2006 in which rock was used for groin repair. Sand offshore was used for renourishment. Overall approximately 50% of the sand remains today. Sand loss varies widely with the north end losing the most.
· The upcoming renourishment will require approximately 835,000 cubic yards of sand. There will be 1,765 feet of groin lengthening which is intended to preserve more sand than the current configuration.
· The projected start date is 11-1-16 but is only a planning and scheduling target. We will not know what the detailed schedule is until the contractor develops it. Note that the contract is being bid now. Again, the schedule is his call. He also decides the sequence including where he starts (north end or south end). However, every effort will be made to give consideration to the worst areas.
· Sand will be pumped onto the beach from offshore. Trucks will not be used for sand distribution.
· Groin work will be a separate contract but will be done concurrently with the renourishment. Trucks will be required to haul the rock.
· 300' - 500' of beach will be covered each day. The contractor will work 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Typically, the renourishment work should not be in front of a given house any more than 1 or 2 days.
· There will be some difference in the sand colors initially but that will dissipate.
There will be localized beach closures but these will be brief.
· Major expected complaint will be the noise. Most complaints have been from the "beep, beep" of bulldozers backing up. This, however, can't be avoided because of Federal safety regulations.
· Coastal Science & Engineering will have a representative on-site each day with a daily report generated. A more detailed report will be prepared at the end of each week. These reports will be furnished to the Town as they are prepared.
Thank you for your support.
The Town of Edisto Beach and MEDUCARE have partnered for the benefit of you, our town property owners. Property owners transported from Colleton or Charleston Counties by MEDUCARE, or any AirMedCare Network Provider, who are insured at the time of transport, will only be billed the Medicare Allowable Rate. You will not be billed for the balance which could be upwards of $10,000. For property owners who are insured, MEDUCARE will only bill your insurance company and not bill you for the balance. Those who are uninsured will be billed the Medicare allowable rate. MEDUCARE has been sending out information about upgrades. There is no requirement to upgrade unless you decide you need to.
Significant issues identified in these meetings are as follows:
Water & Sewer Committee Meeting 8-30-16
The Committee considered two options for funding the $7.2M capital investment cost of the new RO plant ($3.3M), the required infrastructure upgrades ($3.3) and the inflation estimate ($300K):
1. General Obligation Bonds funded with property tax increases
2. Revenue Bonds funded with increases in water rates
In both cases the additional annual operating and maintenance costs (estimated at $225K per year) will be paid with increases in water rates.
After lengthy discussions, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend revenue bonds without a referendum. Revenue bonds were deemed the fairest because everyone will pay whether in the Town or outside the Town. The only exceptions are the vacant lots in the Town which number 353 at this point.
Subsequent to the 8-30-16 meeting, some of the Town's leaders suggested that the Committee consider the 3rd option that the Town Council is currently focused on. This option proposes that the $7.2M capital investment cost be divided into $2.1M in General Obligation Bonds ($2.1M is the upper limit before a referendum is required) and $5.1M in Revenue Bonds.
Water & Sewer Committee meeting of 9-7-16
The Committee opened the discussions focused on whether to change their previous decision to recommend Revenue Bonds for the $7.2M capital investment cost or change the recommendation to the Hybrid Option Town Council was focused on for the $7.2M. Note that the Committee previously had also recommended that a referendum not be required.
Iris Hill, Edisto Beach Town Administrator, went over a set of charts explaining the available options. The Hybrid option potentially could result in lower interest rates than with the Revenue Bonds. Also it would be fairer because it would "touch" everyone including the 353 vacant lot owners in the Town. Utilizing all Revenue Bonds could potentially impact the Town's ability to utilize additional Revenue Bonds in the future.
Several Committee members alternatively argued that Revenue Bonds are the fairer option because the property owner's additional cost is based solely on how much water they use beyond the minimum cost every water user pays.
The question of whether the Town's ability to utilize Revenue Bonds in the future would be affected by the $7.2M in Revenue Bonds was posed by Iris Hill to the Town's bonding agent. He indicated that this would only be a problem if the increased water rates required to cover the bond payments for any additional revenue bonds in the future were considered unaffordable by Standard & Poor's. He indicated the new rates projected by the $7.2M bonds does not result in unaffordable rates. Rather the new rates are still competitive with other water system rates in our area.
Committee members expressed a strong preference for Revenue Bonds because the property owners cost would be based only on the water they use and not on any part of the cost being based on property values.
The Committee voted unaniously not to change their previous recommendation to fund the $7.2M in Revenue Bonds without a referendum.
One final point. The preliminary estimate of the percentage increases in water rates each year from 2017 to 2024 are projected as follows for the $7.2M in Revenue Bonds and the additional operating and maintenance costs for the new system:
Attached is the supporting chart provided by the Town on these rate increases. Note that both the cost of servicing the $7.2M in Revenue Bonds and the annual additional operating and maintenance costs of the new system are included.
These are subject to change as the facilities design and cost estimates are finalized.
Town Council Meetings of 9-6-16 & 9-8-16
1. Passed second reading of Ordinance No. 2016-18 to include provisions for Outdoor Entertainment on Thrusday, Sunday and National Holidays including evening hours subject to certain limitations.
2. Passed second reading of Ordinance No 2016-16 which authorizes the transfer of certain Town of Edisto real property consisting of three lots on Jungle Road authorizing the execution and delivery of a limited warranty deed and other documents related to the transfer of the property authorizing a property agreement with Park Sterling Bank and documents related thereto and other matters relating thereto. Park Sterling Bank is exchanging Track M in Wyndam for the three Jungle Road lots offered by the Town of Edisto Beach. The Town has indicated this is being done so that the waste pond in Track M is put under the ownership and control of the Town.
3. Town Council considered the recommendation of the Water & Sewer Committee to fund the proposed water system upgrade with Revenue Bonds. Further the Committee recommended that the Town proceed with going forward with the new system without a referendum. Town Council had previously indicated a preference for the Hybrid proposal which would have $2.1M in General Obligation Bonds and $5.1M in Revenue Bonds for the $7.2M capital investment cost. However, Mayor Darby indicated that the Water & Sewer Committee had studied the available options in two separate extensive meetings resulting in two unanimous votes to recommend the Revenue Bond option. Based on this she indicated she would not go against their recommendations. After further discussion, Town Council voted unamiously to proceed with the Revenue Bond option without a referendum. The preliminary attached water rate analysis documents the cost impact on the water rates over the next 8 years.
After the vote, Mayor Darby added that the ongoing litigation involving the Town property near the Town Hall complex and nearby property owners could potentially delay the RO plant construction which is planned to be built on this property. Certainly it is hoped that this will not be the case.
4. Town Council unanimously approved a request from TruValue Hardware to park a storage container at the Civic Center for a fee of $35 per month. It will not be visible from the street according to the request.
Town of Edisto Beach
Mosquitoes are horrendous. The Town is spraying twice weekly as weather permits.
Posted by Iris Wednesday, September 14, 2016 7:11:00 AM
Water Improvement Project
Town Council approved funding in the amount of $7.2 Million to address the Town's critical lack of water supply and capacity. Along with the addition of larger wells and storage, a reverse osmosis facility is planned. The project will be funded with revenue bonds payable through water rates. Stay tuned-more details to come
Posted by Iris Wednesday, September 14, 2016 7:01:00 AM
Town of Edisto Beach Receives Recognition
Attached is a copy of the agenda for the subject meeting. There were several items of note for us:
1.) Water System Upgrade Referendum
The Town Administrator, Iris Hill, announced that Town Council has tentatively set April 4, 2017, for an approval referendum on whether to go forward with the $7.2M water system upgrade which was recommended by the Water & Sewer Committee. This would also be approval for Town Council's current plans to utilize general obligation bonds to finance the upgrades. The Town Council believes that the "general obligation bond" approach will have more favorable rates that the "revenue bond" approach and the cost to the property owner will be tax deductible. Reference the next item for more discussion on general obligation bonds versus revenue bonds.
2.) General Obligation Bonds versus Revenue Bonds
General obligation bond repayment of principal and interest is paid through property tax increases. Because it is based on the funding from property tax increases, (versus the funding from water rate revenues with revenue bonds) the interest rates are expected to be more favorable. Also, the cost will be tax deductible for the property owner's portion. Finally, the available borrowing capacity of revenue bonds is preserved.
Revenue bond repayment of principal and interest is through water rate increases. The amount paid by a property owner is based on how much water they use.
Unlike general obligation bonds, revenue bond repayment fees are independent of the owner's property tax assessment. Finally, the "revenue bond" approach will encourage water conservation because how much they use will be the only determining factor in how much they pay.
3.) Proposed Ordinance on a Temporary Moratorium on Issuing & Approving Water Irrigation Taps & Meters
The Town is considering an ordinance that will establish a temporary moratorium on the issuance and approval of new irrigation taps and meters until further notice. This is due to water supply and equipment over use concerns and in order for the Town to study the issues. Separate taps and meters for those on the Town's sewer provides a way for the property owners to avoid sewage charges for the irrigation water utilized.
Bob Doub was asked how many of these taps and meters have been approved in the last year. Mr. Doub indicated there were maybe 3 or 4. Based on this, the Committee did not feel this is a justified step for the Town based on past use of this option.
The Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Town not proceed with this ordinance.
For the members that were unable to attend the annual meeting or those who did attend and would like to see the presentation again, the 2 attachments were discussed at the meeting by Lindy Cummins, Environmental Department Manager, Thomas & Hutton. Please advise if you have questions.
Click here for link 2
Today the South Atlantic Coast (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina & Georgia) was
YOUR LATEST NEWSLETTER
EBPOA Year-End Review Critical Carryover Iems for 2016
There are three critical issues we believe the Town is facing in 2016:
The first two issues are internal to the Town of Edisto Beach and are the most urgent at this time. The need for a beach renourishment project is the highest priority of the two simply because many homes in the 100, 200, 300 and 400 block are seriously threatened by the severe erosion with several of them dangerously close to falling into the sea. Clearly water quality/quantity issues are a major concern for the majority of our residents/property owners and will need to be addressed. The obvious question then is why not do both.
The following hopefully will help answer that question. Currently the Town has $7M committed of the minimum of $12M needed for the 2016 beach renourishment with a resulting shortfall of $5M. The Town is aggressively going after all potential sources for the $5M with the SC State Legislature being the most promising.
On the water system upgrade needed to correct the water quality/quantity issues, the Town’s selected contractor team in a November presentation to the Town’s Water & Sewer Committee on the 2016 Water System Improvement options matrix recommended that only Options 5A& 5B out of a total of eight options would ensure the Town does not run out of water during the heaviest residential usage while at the same time fighting house fires. The Water & Sewer Committee concurred and voted unanimously to recommend Option 5, modified with a clear well which would add additional water storage capacity, to the Town Council. Town Council is expected to consider this in the January 12, 2016, Town Council meeting. The total capital investment required is estimated by the contractor team to be $7.2M plus any interest charges incurred with bonding costs. The additional annual operating & maintenance (O&M) cost for the system is estimated at $222,136 with a projected 30 year (expected life of plant) cost of $6,664,080. Therefore, the total financial commitment is $13,864,080 ($7,200,000 plus $6,664,080) not including any interest charges on the capital investment costs.
Bottom-line, to do both based on currently available renourishment funds, the initial cost would be a total of $12.2M ($5M renourishment and $7.2M water system upgrade) plus any interest charges and a total O&M cost of $6.664M for the expected 30 year plant life. Therefore, the total commitment is for $18,864M plus any interest charges. Securing the remaining $5M needed for renourishment would significantly lower the initial funding needed to go forward with both. Clearly, Town Council has some difficult calls to make.
The third item is the potential negative impact on our Island and our Town from the Spring Grove Development already approved by Charleston County. This development with a build-out population estimated at 20,000 people only 10 miles away from Edisto Island will undoubtedly have a significant “spill over” effect on Edisto. Based on this what should we collectively do (the Island and the Town)? Already several of the Island organizations including the EBPOA and the Town have moved forward to form a coalition to seek additional protection for the current density standards already in place. More information on this will be forthcoming in the near-term. Also it is important to note that well over half of the island is under some form of protection (land trust conservation easements on private property, State Park property, DNR property and other State and Federal property). The Spring Grove Development has intensified the efforts of area land trusts to secure additional conservation easements. The recent action in Congress which approved making the temporary tax break permanent on conservation easements will significantly enhance the land trusts’ ability to attract new property (please see http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20151227/PC1002/151229526 or the attached article).
We encourage everyone to familiarize yourselves with this development and get involved where you can. As indicated earlier more information is coming near-term.
From the EBPOA Board: Have a Happy and Healthy New Year and we hope to see you at the annual meeting on April 15, 2016 @ the Lions Club 4 PM.
Thank you for your continued support.
More on Spring Grove
On Oct. 14, 2015, we forwarded to you a copy of the letter Lloyd Bray, the Chair of the Edisto Island Preservation Alliance, sent to the Charleston County Council on the Spring Grove Development.
On November 1, 2015, a letter to the Editor of the Charleston Post & Courier was published from Nick Lindsay, President of the Edisto Island Community Assoc., which expressed similar concerns to those expressed in Lloyd Bray’s letter. There are two key points noted in Nick’s letter. The letter can be viewed at
1) This development is a threat to the rural character of Edisto Island and has not been addressed in the Spring Grove Project deliberations
2) "Absent a rock-solid binding commitment from Charleston County Council to hold sacrosanct our existing density standards, variance petitioners will ultimately seek County approval of high densities in the name of some identified good or benefactor."
In response to the strong sentiment of these two organizations in support of asking Charleston County Council for more protection for our density standards, the leadership of both are working to form an Island and Beach coalition of all our Island and Town organizations committed to protecting our Island with aggressive preservation of these density standards. The coalition will necessarily have to work through both of the two county councils (Charleston & Colleton).
We believe this coalition coupled with support from the Coastal Conservation League is our best hope of getting the additional protection for our current density standards.
Several of you have indicated your support for doing all we can to protect this special place and asking what you can do to help. In response to this, we first of all urge you to write or email the members of the Charleston & Colleton County Councils urging them to provide a significant commitment to maximize the protection for our current density standards. Attached is a contact list for the two Councils. Additionally, you may want to consider joining either or both of these organizations and getting involved with their efforts.
We will keep you advised.
|Sun, Oct 4, 2015 11:31 pm|
In the last several days, we were made aware of an Associated Press news release in the Union News in Grass Valley, CA. You may want to view the release http://www.theunion.com/news/18433263-113/cities-across-the-country-bear-rising-cost-of .
The release covers drinking water concerns across the continental US. In the last two paragraphs, Edisto Beach water quality issues are addressed by one of our local residents.
We do believe it is necessary and appropriate to add more information and clarification to this descriptive material so that it accurately represents what was proposed in the 2013 referendum and what is being done now. To this end, the following addresses these needs:
The description material in the news release states, “Voters narrowly rejected a proposal two years ago that would have doubled water rates to pay for an $8.5M
reverse osmosis filtering system”. The $8.5M cost is presented in a way that could be interpreted that it is the cost for the complete system. Actually, the $8.5M is only the capital cost (initial cost) to construct the RO facility and the supporting infrastructure. The $8.5M covers only the following:
Total Estimated Project Cost
Project Description Total Cost_
Middendorf Supply Well (1,700 gpm) $ 2,506,250
Reverse Osmosis Facility (1.2 MGD) $ 3,891,250
ASR Well (State Park) (350 gpm) $ 1,021,250
Distribution (Force Main and Blanding Water Supply $ 1,043,500__________
Total Project Cost $ 8,462,250
However, it does not cover the additional operating& maintenance costs for the system which the designer (URS) lists as $383K per year over the 30 year life of the Town’s bond indebtedness (total of $11.490M). Therefore, the total cost over the 30 years will approximate $20M.
As indicated the June 25, 2013, referendum proposal was rejected by the Town voters.
The current Town Council initiated plans to move forward with a reverse osmosis plant in the past year to resolve the water quality concerns. Currently, the design/build contractor is finalizing its initial design analysis. Clearly, the intent is to move forward with the system while assuring it is the minimum needed to resolve the problems. Bottom-line, we want to see the water quality issue resolved but in a cost effective way.
Finally, the salty taste of our water has been there for many decades. A review of the Town’s compliance with the applicable Water Standards documents shows that little has changed over the last decade or more. The point is it is a problem but it certainly didn’t just develop. Damaging pipes, appliances, etc. also has been around for a long time. It does seem to vary based on where you are on the beach.
Update Spring Grove
My wife and I attended the Public Hearing portion of the County Council meeting last evening. Also, in attendance were Lloyd Bray, Edisto Island Preservation Alliance Chair and Fred Palm and his wife representing the Edisto Island Community Association.
The recommendation of the Planning Commission from their 9-28-15 meeting was presented. This recommends approval with conditions of the Development of County Significance, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Zoning Map Amendment/Form Based Zoning District applications. Notably more definitive traffic circulation patterns and restrictions have been added. Much of what has been addressed is the result of comments and concerns expressed by citizens in the 9-16-15 Special Meeting Workshop in Ravenel. To view the documents from the 9-29-15 Public Hearing, go to http://www.charlestoncounty.org/departments/zoning-planning/files/9-29-15-Spring-Grove-PH-Staff-Presentation.pdf.
There were half dozen attendees who spoke during the comment period. Support was near unanimous in support of the Project with economic benefits (jobs, improved services, etc.) as the primary reasons. There were two exceptions:
1.) Rep. Robert Brown of the SC Legislature made an impassioned statement that this is what the folks of St. Paul Parish need. Councilman Darby asked are we just repeating what we saw happen on Hilton Head and Daniel Island where the long standing occupants of the land would be pushed out by the development.
2.) A representative of the Mayor of Hollywood cited current concerns with low drinking water pressure and sewer service and questioned what additional negative effects Spring Grove will have on this.
At this point, it certainly appears that this project is headed for approval. A great deal of safeguards have or are being put in place but the fact remains that we are totally dependent on the Charleston Co. politicians to keep their commitments. Our strongest defense? The Island land already in some form of protection (conservation easements and government owned property which includes the State Park & DNR holdings) which is over 50% of the Island is a strong deferent. We need to encourage more of this. Also, we have a strong ally in the Coastal Conservation League which has endorsed Spring Grove but only if the agreed to zoning restrictions are followed. Their representative reiterated this in a statement last night. This is critically important to us in protecting our Island.
Finally, we need to carefully follow all developments in Spring Grove as well as developments between the edge of Spring Grove and our Island.
We’ll keep you advised.
Proposed Spring Grove Development Special Charleston Co. Planning Commission Meeting/Workshop Sept. 16, 2015 EB Ellington School Ravenel Summary
The meeting was well attended with an estimated 150-200 in attendance which included attendees from Edisto Island.
The proposed development was presented in far more detail than we had heard previously. The project covers 14,508 acres and consists of 8,849 acres of high ground and 5,569 acres of fresh water wetlands. The applicant proposes the project be developed over 50 years with initial implementation over an initial 5 years period and extending beyond that at 10 or more year periods. Allowable densities very from zero to one density unit per 25 acres (75% or 10,144 acres of the project area) with the remaining 3,564 acres to be developed at greater densities. Note a density unit is not just homes but includes office, commercial, industrial, etc.
The proposed project extends generally along either side of US Hwy. 17 from SC Hwy. 165 on the north end to SC Hwy. 174 on the south end. Commercial development principally is planned on the “railroad track” side of 17 and residential and commercial on the opposite side of US Hwy. 17.
When all the projected development units are considered, the result is a town with an estimated 20,000 residents. Obviously, this is long term but worth noting.
The following are the remaining meetings through November 10:
We believe this development can be viewed as an ultimate threat to our island and beach. A massive development area less than 20 miles from our island could overwhelm this special place unless we can get a strong commitment from Charleston County Council and the Charleston County Planning Commission to provide our island with the additional protection needed to assure the preservation of Edisto Island as it is today.
Regardless how you may feel on this we would urge you to familiarize yourself with the details of this project. You may view these at http://www.charlestoncounty.org/departments/zoning-planning/projects-sgd.php at the lower half of the page under “Related Documents”. We will continue to follow this and keep you advised.
Please advise if you have questions. Thank you for your support.
Recently we have identified the Spring Grove development along Hwy. 174 from Ravenel to the intersection of SC Hwy. 174 and US Hwy. 17. The attached announcement gives each of us the opportunity to learn more about this project.
Spring Grove: Proposed Development At Our Door Step
Mead Westvaco (MWV) announced the Spring Grove development area of East Edisto several years ago. The initial information release was issued in June of 2013 (http://www.eastedisto.com/news/june-26-community-meeting-presentation ). You will note that this development has been proposed for an area near US 17 South just south of SC Hwy. 165 in Ravenel. The ultimate development would extend along US 17 South to an area which includes the intersection of SC Hwy. 174 which is a favorite entry point to our island. You will also note the charts show points of interest including King’s Market on Edisto Island. Both commercial and residential development are planned.
Two new updated links:
This development as currently proposed is a “game changer” for our island and our commitment to preserve what we have on Edisto. We need to follow closely as this moves towards implementation. It also suggests that we keep a strong focus on continuing our efforts to put as much property as possible under some form of protection.
The Edisto …. Our Threatened River?
The Edisto River is one of South Carolina’s most popular rivers for paddling, fishing, and outdoor fun. It’s also the state’s most heavily used river for irrigation, and excessive agricultural water withdrawals are threatening wildlife, recreation, and the water supplies of other uses.
While the state’s permitting process requires industrial and municipal water users to meet requirements to safeguard river health and clean water, large agribusinesses do not. Legislation is desperately needed to end this unfair exemption so that the Edisto, and all of the state’s rivers, can continue to provide sustainable water supplies for all, while supporting river health and recreation.
The longest free flowing blackwater river in the US, the Edisto winds from spring-fed headwaters in the Sandhills of central SC, through the heart of floodplain forests in the Coastal Plain, to the rich estuary of the Ashepoo/Combahee/Edisto (ACE) Basin. It is an intimate river along most of its length – a place where paddlers enjoy solitude and close-up views of diverse plants and wildlife. No dams block the Edisto’s flow; migratory fish are free to run its entire 250 mile length, from ocean to headwaters.
In the heart of the ACE Basin, freshwater arteries sustain one of the most acclaimed natural areas found on the East Coast, where more than 130,000 acres of land have been protected through public/private partnerships. While the river’s character changes along its path, there is one constant – the tannin-stained Edisto waters – the lifeblood of this unique region.
This year’s listing of the Edisto River follows South Fork of the Edisto’s appearance in the 2014 America’s Most Endangered Rivers report. Excessive agricultural water withdrawals continue to be a major threat to the Edisto and other rivers across the state. While municipal and industrial water users are required to get withdrawal permits, SC’s surface water law does not require permits for agricultural water users – this means that the state cannot regulate water use during drought periods to protect the river, water quality, small farmers, and downstream users.
When the South Carolina Surface Water Withdrawal, Permitting, Use, and Reporting Act was passed in 2010, the agricultural exemption from state permitting was a victory for industrial-scale – not traditional – farms in SC. At the time, lawmakers were led to believe that the relaxed measures would help traditional SC farmers. No one envisioned the agricultural exemption from permitting would be exploited by industrial-scale, out-of-state agribusinesses that would use enough water to supply a medium-sized city. However, that’s what is happening, increasing uncertainty for downstream water users, and putting the Edisto and other rivers at increased risk.
This year, a bipartisan group of cosponsors introduced H.3564 in the SC Legislature – a bill that would have ended the exemption of large agricultural water withdrawals from permitting. The bill would have protected SC farmers by allowing existing agricultural registrations to remain in effect, and it would have required new industrial-scale agricultural water users to receive withdrawal permits like all other users.
We urge you to tell our legislators to amend the state’s surface water law to make it fair for all water users and to protect the health and integrity of the state’s rivers for future generations including our Edisto.
Thank you for your support!
As we indicated in several recent emails, the Town of Edisto Beach sponsored the subject seminar this past Thursday at the Civic Center. The Town will get credit for sponsoring this seminar. The seminar was conducted by Paul Abrams representing Smart Vent Products, Inc. Mr. Abrams began by describing their team of certified flood plain managers that have been assembled to evaluate individual private property configurations against the latest NFIP changes dictated by the Biggert-Waters Act and the Grimm-Waters Act. If an individual property owner requests that his property be evaluated then the Team will perform the evaluation and inform the owner of the results in a written report detailing any recommended mitigation options that could reduce the premium cost on you. Potential mitigation options include grandfathering options that can have your property rated at an earlier FEMA Map, LOMA options that could eliminate the mandatory requirement for Flood Insurance and other physical modifications which may include adding flood vents to lower your premium. There is no charge for the evaluations and there is no implied obligation for the property owner to react to the recommendations. Further this is not connected in any way with FEMA or a Federal agency. Obviously, the vendor in this case is hoping that the evaluations will, in some cases, result in “Smart Vent” sales but this seminar was not presented as a sales pitch for their vents.
As indicated in the link below, an individual property owner can request an evaluation by following the instructions outlined. Again, there is no obligation to utilize the results from an evaluation or buy a particular product.
Please advise if you have questions and/or concerns.
Thank you for your support!
Good News on Insurance Rates
A member recently asked if there were any updates on beach renourishment for 2015. Below, for your information, is our response and the latest “critical path” schedule is attached.
In response to your question, I have attached the latest version of the "critical path" schedule for the subject renourishment. The start of construction is identified as November, 2016, with a construction completion date in March, 2017. Groin upgrades would start in January, 2017, and conclude in April, 2017. The start of renourishment in 2016 is consistent with the projected payout date in 2016 for the Edisto Beach portion of the one cent sales tax increase which will be decided by the referendum this November.
This is an aggressive schedule from the standpoint of finding the total funding needed.
If these schedule projection change, we will advise.
Thank you for your support.
Procedures for voting by absentee ballot:
Qualified voters may vote absentee in person or by mail.
In Person - Visit your county voter registration office , complete an application, and cast your ballot. You may vote absentee in person up until 5:00 p.m. on the day before the election. Rules for photo ID required to vote at the polling place apply.
By Mail - Follow these steps to vote absentee by mail. Photo ID is not required to vote absentee by mail.
Step 1: Get an absentee application in one of two ways:
Step 2: You've now printed your application online or received your application in the mail. You must now complete and sign the application and return it to your county voter registration office. You should return the application as soon as possible but no later than 5:00 p.m. on the 4th day prior to the election (the 4th day is Friday for all Tuesday elections). You may return the application by mail, email, fax, or personal delivery.
Step 3: You will be mailed an absentee ballot.
Step 4: Vote the ballot following ballot instructions and return it to your county voter registration office by 7:00 p.m. on the day of the election. You may return the ballot personally or by mail. You may also have another person return the ballot for you, but you must first complete an authorization to return absentee ballot form, available from your county voter registration office.
Deadline to request absentee ballot – June 21st
Early voting at the Walterboro office only to start around June 10th…call number below to make sure of date.
115-A Benson Street
P.O. Box 97
Walterboro, SC 29488
Phone: (843) 549-2842
Office Hours: Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM
7AM-7PM Election Days
Thank you for your support,
For your future use:
Patti Smyer firstname.lastname@example.org
Jerome Kizer email@example.com
Crawford Moore firstname.lastname@example.org
MayorJane Darby email@example.com 843-869-4306
Susan Hornsby firstname.lastname@example.org
All councilmen can receive mail at c/o Town Hall, 2414 Murray St, Edisto Beach, SC 29438
If you want to be kept informed on developments on Edisto Beach, join the Edisto Beach Property Owners Association by filling out the form below and sending the annual dues of $30.00 to the return address above. Membership entitles you to two tickets to the Annual Meeting complete with BBQ dinner and cocktails.
Edisto Beach Property Address_____________________________________________________
Our thanks to Mike & Nancy Salas who repainted our Scenic Byway sign.
Click here to visit the Edisto Island National Scenic Byway
SC allows a tax credit against income tax for primary residences. If your insurance premiums exceed
5% of your income you can claim the excess as a credit against SC income tax up to a maximum of $1,250.
To get the form click here and select form TC 44.
|To Contact Us:
P.O. Box 147
Edisto Island, SC 29438
or e mail
Bob Sandifer President