County seeks sand consensus

Rob Morris | February 15, 2010

Kill Devill Hills wants federal payback for beach sand

Kill Devil Hills has become a player in the quest for money to rebuild Dare County’s beaches.

Mayor Ray Sturza offered a different approach to beach nourishment on Tuesday, one that would shift a large part of the financial responsibility back to the federal government.

“We’re not prepared to let Uncle Sam off the hook,” Sturza told the Dare County Shoreline Management Commission.
full story »

Mayor Bob Oakes

County commissioners appeared united Monday on the need for rebuilding the beaches but were not yet ready to make any promises on a plan presented by Nags Head leaders.

They also voiced concerns about federal permitting.

Discussion centered on plans by Kill Devil Hills for its own beach nourishment project and on the possibility that money would also be needed for Hatteras Island as well as Roanoke Island and Stumpy Point.

All are vying for a piece of the county’s $24 million Shoreline Management Fund.

Three county commissioners, led by Chairman Warren Judge, will work with Nags Head Mayor Bob Oakes and leaders of other Dare towns to try to reach consensus on how to distribute the money.

“We’re prepared to work with you,” Judge said after presentations by Oakes and Nags Head Commissioner Anna Sadler.

Nags Head, which is farther along in its planning than the other towns, wants $20 million from the fund. Oakes said that a 1 percent increase in the 5-cent occupancy tax would easily replenish it. The first five years of the increase, however, would go toward retiring a $16 million loan that the town will need for the balance of its $36 million project.

“We need your help and the help of our neighboring towns,” Oakes told the commissioners.

Federal permitting can get complicated

Judge expressed concerns about permitting for the project, which the town has said could be issued soon. Commissioner Allen Burrus said that federal permitting can be long and complicated when multiple agencies are involved.

“It is not a clear-cut thing,” Burrus said. “I don’t want to use a lot of rhetoric, but it’s just difficult.”

Last month, the National Marine Fisheries Commission raised questions about the beach nourishment project, saying it would oppose it unless it was undertaken between Nov. 15 and April 1, when marine-life activity is minimal. That period is considered unworkable because offshore dredges would have to operate during stormy winter months.

The agency has since said it would defer to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers if it was determined that winter dredging was too dangerous. The corps is the lead federal agency in the permitting process.

In her presentation, Sadler included a request for support in resurrecting the disputed 1 percent sales tax for beach nourishment that was rescinded after a referendum in 2006. Oakes did not mention the sales tax in his presentation. He voted against the idea when it was put on the table by Nags Head commissioners.

“I’m not crazy about that,” said county Commissioner Richard Johnson.

“I personally don’t think that would work,” said Commissioner Max Dutton.

Johnson brought up Kill Devil Hills’ beach nourishment needs and said he also wanted assurance money would be considered for the flood-prone S-curve on N.C. 12 at Rodanthe.

Burrus made it clear that his constituents needed to be in the mix. Smiling, he said, “I’m here to tell you now, you better represent Hatteras Island” when Judge volunteered to represent the county board in discussions with town leaders.

Basnight will wait until May session gets closer before any action

The General Assembly must authorize a 1 percent addition to the occupancy tax and 1 percent local sales tax add-on. It will probably be near or into the summer before either could be considered. The short session, which is limited primarily to money matters, starts in May and will probably run through August, said Schorr Johnson, communications director for state Senate President Marc Basnight, D-Dare.

“Sen. Basnight will review and consider funding options that would require legislative action,” Johnson said in an e-mail Monday. “As it gets closer to the legislative session that begins in May, he will work with Rep. Tim Spear to assess any legislative proposals, especially those endorsed in resolutions by local governments.”

Nags Head also wants $5 million from the state, saying North Carolina has a stake in the health of the tourism industry.

Beach nourishment has never been tried on the northern Outer Banks on the scale proposed by Nags Head. It has been put to use on the southern coastline of North Carolina. But unknown is whether it can succeed long-term on the erosion-prone and vulnerable Dare County beaches. Oakes has acknowledged that it is unproven but insists that putting it to the test is a risk worth taking.

Opponents have challenged the use of $36 million for the initial project and the millions more it will take to manage it. They argue that other possibilities have not be adequately considered, and some contend it is not necessary at all except to save a relatively limited number of houses in South Nags Head.

Beach nourishment was authorized by Congress years ago, but funding has never been included in a federal budget. After a 1 percent sales tax was rescinded in a referendum in 2006, Nags Head determined that it had to move ahead on its own.

The latest plan was put together to avoid another bond referendum like the one that was rejected by town voters three years ago.

› Sales tax is back in play
› No more beach referendums, commissioners say

Related Commentary:

› Can Oakes’ plan succeed?
› A visual commentary
› Maybe a warranty isn’t a bad idea

See what people are saying:

newjake says:

Personally, I find it fascinating.
If you look at it from the sports perspective, it’s a lot like you’ve lost the last three games (attempts), but your coach is still calling the same plays. (Same tax, same blinders etc.)
So from strategy, it’s a blast to watch. Why not a new game plan? There would be a dozen ways to safeguard those houses with a new playbook.
Bob Oakes comes across as a very honest, smart guy, but now, two months into office, and over a week he’s tied so much of his street cred to one of the most unpopular topics ever to be raised on the island(s).
If I were his political adviser, I sure would have gone about it different. Perhaps not letting the penny tax back in the discussion, or running a test nourishment with only the portion of money that is rightfully the town’s.
In any case, he’s now the poster child for an inflammatory subject. If he didn’t have the RE ties, too, his opponents would think his only motivation was his office, and it probably is, but it’s too bad that Village Realty is in the discussion now.
. . . Realizing that, the way to go about this was to not overreach and try to win the game in the first quarter. It would be to play solid now, wisely use what is in the fund, and not line up the sides against you so quickly.
The last thing we need is a divided community on this, and I have little doubt that KH, KDH, Duck, SS and Hatteras are going to feel a little “disrespected” to hear that one town wants the whole pie.
But, this is my opinion still, I think there’s a solution. A way to save the houses AND not overreach/overspend. It’s just that someone in some meeting has got their heels dug in about 36 million dollars we don’t have being the only solution.

on February 15, 2010 @ 12:57 pm

Glenn K says:

Move the houses already! You idiots don’t learn! The Park Service moved the Lighthouse at Hatteras over 10 years ago because they realized just throwing millions into the Atlantic at that location wasn’t WORKING! Give the hom owners the $$ and rip their houses down and let them buy somewhere else. You’ll save a pile in the long run!!

on February 15, 2010 @ 4:42 pm

Bobby says:

Personally I don’t think that Bob or Anna or any of the NH BOC care about anything other than preserving our beaches and restoring our economy. The politics simply do not matter, only the salvation of our beaches and our town. I am proud of them and support them. The naysayers leave out one important aspect of “repaving” our beaches. And that is the visitors who come here for the BEACHES! And the abundant businesses that benefit from their stay and passion for our homeland. They skew the benefactors to support their cause. Almost like their own lobbyist group. Such behavior has placed our entire nation in peril. We must overcome and move forward. Bravo Bob and Anna, although I vote with Bob on the taxation issue and take a business approach to the situation. Involve the home and landowners some way to ensure success as they are ready to speak!

on February 15, 2010 @ 10:20 pm

Katie says:

Does anyone have definitive evidence why artificial reefs are not an option? I’ve seen brief mention of them in discussions, but have never heard why this is not even a possibility for Dare county.
Will it not work in this area? Are the current regulations preventing it? Is it cost prohibitive? Could it do permanent harm to the shoreline?
And aren’t all of these concerns also true for beach nourishment?

on February 16, 2010 @ 7:12 am

Ray says:

Here is a simple, no-cost solution to the problem.
Require the homeowners with cottages sitting on public beach to remove them at their own cost. Then, allow the beach to heal itself. I promise you, we will have a beach long after that is done. And, it won’t cost $36 million. (wonder how long it would take for those old cottages to generate a $36 million ‘revenue stream’.
It’s kinda like blowing $36 million on next week’s lottery, in my opinion. If you had $36 million, would you take that chance?

on February 16, 2010 @ 8:02 am

Tim says:

Buying property and ripping houses down is much more expensive than beach nourishment. I agree with you Bobby. We have to maintain the beaches. Great job Bob and Anna!

on February 16, 2010 @ 10:30 am

Earl says:

I think that most would agree that the folks in favor of the current proposal sincerely believe that they are doing the right thing for the community.
While their intent may be good, the current proposal is not good for economic and for environmental reasons.
Economics — Covering or “repaving” the beaches with non native sand, rocks and mud is not going to attract visitors. This will make bad photos (threatened houses, septic lines, etc) of troubled areas worse (threatened houses, septic lines, PLUS dredges, pipes, mud and rocks).
Economics — If the owners of Nags Head want to pay for the sand on their own, this debate would be different. Pine Island owners have an effective dune building program that works and they do not ask for public money or want to increase taxes.
Economics — Occupancy and sales taxes unfairly burden the poor in our county and owners and guests who chose safer locations to rent or own. Despite what others say, 1% does make a difference into our guests. The Outer Banks’ affordability is key to our success and many of our guests have a budget. An additional 1% can affect how much a guest is willing to pay in rent, where they stay, or whether or not they go out to eat while here. It’s not free money and raising the tax makes other resorts more attractive to guests with a budget.
Economics — Nourishing a beach that is eroding at 10 feet plus per year will not work and will waste precious tax dollars.
Environment — There are more than a few examples of other beaches that have been degraded by pumping dredged sand. Disrupting natural systems — plants, animals, and geologic processes — will have negative impacts, and none of us can predict with certainty how much damage will be done.
Environment — Building dunes is more cos- effective, more likely to work, and less damaging to the environment. This is not a new technology and it can continue to work in some areas.
Environment — It’s a challenge, but if we could look at offshore reefs, they hold more promise to actually “save” the beaches with fewer negative impacts on the experience of our visitors. Reefs are currently illegal, but if we are ever going to change that rule and look into this technology, now would be the time. In some spots of the beach, shipwrecks seem to be keeping erosion at bay.

on February 16, 2010 @ 11:30 am

Louise says:

As a visitor, I learned the beach and dunes are constantly moving. Go see the display at the Aquarium. Beachfront owners accept the RISK when they build there. Now that I live here, I know their risk is NOT my risk. I don’t want to pay to preserve their homes. The beach will always be there.

on February 16, 2010 @ 3:17 pm

Ralph says:

Look hard at the people who are commissioners and whose property they are trying to save. Wake up! They want you to spend your money to save their beachfront rentals and they just keep on making money at your expense. Sounds like our politicians are just taking advantage of us all to benefit themselves

on February 17, 2010 @ 8:05 pm

newjake says:

Ralph is right. How about if the Outer Banks Voice does a story on the main proponents and lays out their RE interests? It’s not like anyone has anything to hide.

It’s time for some transparency, and none of our other media outlets will do it.

Go Mr. Morris!

on February 18, 2010 @ 7:35 am

Ray says:

I’ll tell you what hasn’t been discussed or researched in any meaningful way by anyone in political power here in the county.
And, that is . . . whether or not the majority of Outer Banks residents really feel that beach nourishment, (1) will work, (2) will be cost-effective.
Proponents want everyone to believe that the only reason it keeps getting voted down is because no one wants to be “taxed” for it. They refuse to acknowledge that the majority don’t believe it is worth the money because they know it cannot be successful on the high energy Outer Banks beaches. Proponents have blinders on when it comes to this. All they want to keep shouting is “without our beaches, we would be nothing!” . . . They refuse to acknowledge we cannot fight Mother Nature in this fashion. Why? Because every single one of them has a greater financial interest in the matter than the average citizen who makes up the majority here in the county.
Try getting them to take a survey along this line and see if you can get them to do it. Of course not. They already know the answer.

on February 18, 2010 @ 7:43 pm

Rick says:

What is the pushback in regard to rock jetties? See them up and down the South Carolina coast.

on February 18, 2010 @ 8:22 pm

Join the discussion: