Can Oakes’ plan succeed?

With beach nourishment once again taking center stage, opponents will likely fall into two camps and two distinct subgroups.

The two camps include those who reject it for environmental reasons and those who feel local projects fail the economic smell test.

Those who question the economics further split into two groups: folks who think the sand will wash away before it’s paid for and folks who believe pumping sand on the beach benefits only those who own oceanfront property.

In either case, the economic opponents don’t want any of the costs to come out of their pockets.

Mayor Bob Oakes has listened to the voters and surmised that the bulk of nourishment opposition stems from permanent residents who think someone else should pay. The obvious funding sources remaining are those who use the beach — tourists — and those whose property benefits directly from pumping sand on it (oceanfront owners).

And so Oakes presented a plan to the board aimed at silencing much of the opposition. Part one of his plan calls for taking $20 million of the $24 million fund balance in the Dare County nourishment fund. That money is collected from a 1 percent occupancy tax that rides atop the county’s 4 percent tax on visiting renters.

While critics might call this plan a disproportional money grab by Nags Head (all six municipalities and Dare County contribute to the fund), Oakes counters by proposing the occupancy tax be raised to 6 percent, thus dedicating 2 percent of all collections to the fund balance.

Under this concept, Oakes’ plan argues, the fund replaces Nags Head’s take by 2013, and over five years, the fund balance grows far more quickly than under the current setup. Nags Head officials also contend that only Nags Head is close to a shovel-ready project, with permits expected by spring.

No other town is far enough along to be able to access the funds before the new tax has replenished the balance. And the occupancy tax still would not be out of line: Currituck County already assesses a 6 percent occupancy tax, and our giant competitor to the north, Virginia Beach, levies an 8.5 percent lodging tax plus a flat tax of $1 per night.

The rest of the project would be paid for by a proposed assessment of $100 per linear foot of oceanfront property, payable over five years. So a 75-foot-wide oceanfront lot would be assessed $7,500 in five annual installments of $1,500.

Finally, Oakes contends the county has been accumulating funds while debating the efficacy of nourishment without trying it. Now he feels a project can be implemented at zero cost to local residents, and the town can finally determine if nourishment will perform as proponents claim.

Time will tell if Oakes’ plan wins the support of the other towns, which must agree to the $20 million withdrawal, the General Assembly, which must approve the occupancy tax hike, and oceanfront property owners.

On the surface, his plan should satisfy all but those whose opposition to nourishment lies in the environmental arena and their belief that such plans interfere with the natural processes of barrier island beaches.

There has never been a vote on beach nourishment itself in Dare County. The only two times voters went to the polls with sand as the issue they were asked to raise their own taxes to pay for some or all of a project. Both referendums failed.

But the citizens have never been asked to vote on the subject itself. If some other benefactor, say Uncle Sam, offered to pick up the entire tab, would opposition to nourishment then evaporate to a small minority?