Bill specifies added tax for beach nourishment
A bill to authorize a 1-percent increase in the local occupancy tax to fund beach nourishment was filed in the state House of Representatives Monday.
The bill, posted on the General Assembly’s website, says that the county “shall use the net proceeds of the tax levied under this section for beach nourishment.”
Sponsored by state Rep. Tim Spear, D-Creswell, it would give the county permission to increase the tax. If it is passed by the General Assembly, the increase would still have to be approved by the county Board of Commissioners.
A resolution requesting authorization was unanimously approved by the Board of Commissioners May 3. It said that the money should be used “for shoreline nourishment, for endangered structure relocation, for demolition assistance grants, for any other shoreline erosion response technique permitted or authorized in North Carolina now or in the future and for the payment of debt service for any indebtedness incurred for such authorized purposes.”
The bill specifies beach nourishment, but the definition is broad under previously approved legislation. (Link here for the specific language.)
The 1 percent would be in addition to the 1 percent already in place for beach nourishment, which has raised about $22 million for the county’s beach nourishment fund. It would increase the occupancy tax to 6 percent, the maximum, in Dare County.
Discussion has centered on using the additional one percent to give Nags Head $2 million a year for five years to retire a debt on its project and to set aside another $1 million for Kill Devil Hills if it pursues a plan it has discussed. Estimates on how much the extra 1 percent would raise has ranged from $3 million to $3.4 million a year.
Under the proposal, Nags Head would receive $18 million from the existing shoreline fund. That would leave about $8 million left to cover the $36 million estimated total. The town has discussed setting up a special assessment district along the oceanfront to raise the money.
Join the discussion: