Sand plan banking on oceanfront owners
Oceanfront property owners may be the last hope for $10 million Nags Head still needs to move forward with its $36 million beach nourishment project.
Commissioners agreed Thursday to ask owners east of N.C. 12 and Old Oregon Inlet Road to pay a special assessment of 98 cents per $100 of value over five years to finance a loan to cover the funding shortfall.
The plan, however, still leaves open the question of how the town will pay for maintenance, or re-nourisment, after the initial 4.6 million cubic yards of sand are pumped onto 10 miles of beach from offshore.
A workshop Thursday intended to hash out three alternatives for a special assessment district turned into a question-and-answer session with about 25 property owners. Some questioned the fairness of the idea while others said they were ready to pay so the long-planned project can proceed.
One alternative was for oceanfront property owners to cover two thirds of a special assessment at 66 cents per $100 of assessed value spread out over five years. Owners west of Old Oregon Inlet Road and between the highways would cover the other third at 46.5 cents.
The second called for owners east of N.C. 12 and east and west of Old Oregon Road in South Nags Head to pay 82.5 cents.
Commissioners informally agreed on a third alternative that calls for oceanfront property owners to cover the entire shortfall at 98 cents per $100 of value over five years, or a little less than 20 cents a year. That would raise $10.1 million for debt payments. It would also more than double their tax payments. The property tax rate is 15.75 cents per $100 of value.
Examples provided by the town included an oceanfront property valued at $870,300 being assessed about $1,710 a year. The district would run from Blackman Street to Mccall Court.
Under expanded power provided by the General Assembly last year, towns can ask owners in special districts to volunteer to tax themselves for a project that could enhance the value of their property. At least half of the owners representing 66 percent of the total value in the district would have to sign petitions agreeing to the assessment.
The town can use the promise of revenue from the special assessment to take out a loan without a referendum. It is seen as the only alternative left since the rejection in 2007 of a bond referendum that would have raised property taxes town-wide to pay for beach nourishment.
“If they turn down this special assessment on themselves, it is over,” said Commissioner Anna Sadler.
Nags Head first proposed using $20 million from the Dare County Shoreline Management Fund and borrowing $16 million that would be paid back over five years with an additional 1 percent on the countywide occupancy tax.
Other towns balked at the idea of Nags Head nearly depleting the $22 million fund, which has been built up by an existing 1 percent of the occupancy tax. Eventually, the plan was pared down to a proposal for the county to fund half of Nags Heads project — $18 million — and half of any future project by Kill Devil Hills.
Out of an additional 1 percent on the occupancy tax, Nags Head would receive $2 million annually for five years to help retire debt and $1 million would be set aside for Kill Devil Hills. One percent of the occupancy tax is estimated to raise $3 million to $3.4 million a year.
Dare County commissioners have not formally approved the new financing plan nor have they voted on raising the occupancy tax another 1 percent to its legal maximum of 6 percent. The county was given the authority to add another 1 percent for beach nourishment by the General Assembly this year.
Even if they approve both, Nags Head will need another $8 million to $10 million. That is the shortfall that led to the special assessment proposal. Commissioners are likely to formally take up the assessment district proposal at their next meeting in August.
The town argues that an assessment district is fair because it gives out-of-town property owners a say in a project that affects them more directly. They can sign the petition. They cannot vote in a referendum.
Of the 1,089 oceanfront properties, 929 are owned by people from outside the area. Seventy-one of the owners live in Nags Head, so only a small fraction of oceanfront property owners could have been eligible to vote.
Left unanswered on Thursday is where money for maintenance will come from. Under an earlier proposal, a special district was suggested as a way to build a fund to cover the cost of re-nourishment in five years.
Mayor Bob Oakes said that based on historic erosion rates, the equivalent of 16 years of sand would be pumped onto the beach. It might be five to seven years before re-nourisment would have to be considered, he said.
“Those first five years we’re going to look at the project and see how it works,” he said.
Sadler said that commissioners have individually discussed the possibility that they would need to consider using town-wide property taxes to create a revenue stream for beach management.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency requires a monitoring program for the town to qualify for money to replace sand lost after a named storm, Oakes said. Money for monitoring is included in the funding plan, he said.
Mayor Pro Tem Wayne Gray said he would support creating the assessment district but repeated his doubts that any of the sand would stay put for five or even three years.
“This tax is going to be a never-ending tax,” he said.
For related stories on beach nourishment click here.
See what people are saying:
Join the discussion:
Allan Dooley says:
“Of the 1,089 oceanfront properties, 929 are owned by people from outside the area. Seventy- one of the owners live in Nags Head, so they had little say in the 2007 referendum.”
Well, there’s your problem, see?
Louise says:
If they want to assess the oceanfront owners, now we’ll see if they are willing to spend THEIR OWN money !
barry brockway says:
Does each person on the deed get a vote or is it one vote per house? In either case where do we go to vote a resounding yes for the tax increase and the long awaited beach nourishment project for Nags Head. My wife and I would also like to express our gratitude for the job well done by the Dare County Commissioners and to thank the Nags Head Commissioners for having foresight and perservering against all odds in getting the job done. We truly hope our opinion reflects the majority of oceanfront homeowners in Nags Head.
O says:
I’m not sure I understand what the article is saying. Who had little say, the 929 out of town owners, or the local 71 owners?
I would imagine that the 929 would have no say since only locals can vote.
MD says:
Allan Dooley = dead right.
That is exactly the problem.
All they are is tourists with lockoff closets …. raising a stink … and now we get to see if they are all talk or not.
Now it’s their money on the table.
KDH says:
So they will pay a huge amount of money, and that first summer, most of the beach will be unusable because of the dredge pipes and bulldozers? Everyone will rent elsewhere during the dredge months, right?
Then, best case scenario, they have to re-sand it every 2-3-4 years? And find a new way to pay for it each time?
Seems to me like this will completely trash their home values. If it were me, I’d want to own any place except there. Not to mention the chance that the sand will stink and be dead like so many report in nourishment zones.
ekim says:
You can pump all the sand you want; it’s not going to stop the ocean, SHE will take what she wants when she wants. If there were no houses on the beach this would’nt be a problem. I have often thought the beach was everyone’s not just a select few.
Bob O says:
Barry, it’s one vote per property, and actually, it’s not a vote, it’s a signature on a petition. It’s a proposed special assessment on all property east of the Beach Road and Old Oregon inlet Road (SNH). The cost is .98 per $100 of tax value, paid over five years. At least 50% of the number of property owners have to sign the petition (includes all property owners, no matter where they live), and at least 66% of the taxable value has to agree.
The nourishment project keeps moving down the beach when it happens. I think they’ll be north of you one day, in front of you one day, and heading south the third day. I’ve heard folks are on the beach in front and behind the dredging. It will affect a different section of beach each day.
I’d say resanding every 2-3-4 years is more worst case than most probable. We’re paying for it over 5 years, and there seems to be a reasonable chance, no guarantee, that there would be a significant amount of sand still in the system at the end of 5 years. There will be hot spots that will need attention, and a severe storm will affect the lifespan. But the storm damage that can be avoided by having the sand there as a buffer is significant.
Spencer Rogers, with NC SeaGrant, gave a brief presentation at the last Shoreline Commission meeting. The score on damaged and destroyed properties after Fran and Bertha: 976; damaged or destroyed homes behind a nourished beach (this was a southern NC event) – ZERO.
That sounds like a reason for improved property values to me.
Ray says:
Bob,
It’s certainly not reasonable to expect the dredging operation to be in front of a particular property for only a day. This project will affect the beach properties for weeks, with equipment and even more with cloudy water and noise from the operation. It will cost the cottage owners lost revenue, in addition to their assessments. I also find it interesting that your project engineer says the project will be good for 10 years and you are hoping for 5 years.
If this project does wash away in a year or two, with all those people in debt to the town, will a civil war develop? Will Nags Head end up in financial chaos? Not only is this the largest nourishment project ever undertaken in NC and the second largest in the US, it is the biggest FINANCIAL GAMBLE ever undertaken by a town the size of Nags Head. This is no time for smoke and mirrors; and, unfortunately, that’s the way this issue has promoted for the past ten years, by almost every elected leader in the county; as well as the obvious business groups.
Bob O says:
No to civil war. No to financial chaos. No to smoke and mirrors.
This has been an open process – all the EIS info and the project engineering is on the town website (www.townofnagshead.net). Core samples of the sand are available in the Town library. The bids for the project will be public info.
Life is filled with calculated risks, but there is a risk in doing nothing as well.
barry brockway says:
This is certainly not smoke and mirrors. Dare County and the town of Nags Head have been very transparent about where the 1% and now 2% occupancy tax must go. It must be spent on beach nourishment. I truly wish some people would read the legislation. As for the oceanfront homeowners in South Nags Head it is no longer a financial gamble but a FINANCIAL NECESSITY. I will gladly pay the extra .98 property tax increase to not only pay for the initial project but for future projects as well. Bob, what can be done to educate all of the owners eligible for petition signing? Or is it your guess that most of the oceanfront homeowners will be on board? If there is anything I can do please let me know.
The Taxpayer says:
I’m no fan of the Town’s beach nourishment plan, because I feel it’s unsustainable and far too costly; however the chance to stop it came during the last municipal election. Those of us opposed, that are Nags Head residents, had the chance to vote for Commissioners that wouldn’t support the current agenda, but very few voters’ bothered to go to the polls. Now we’re at the mercy of the current Board. I just hope the damage they do doesn’t match the economic destruction caused by the sitting President.
ekim says:
Well said taxpayer,I know this, the 30 years I’ve lived here all the taxes, all the sand and all the commissioners will not stop LADY OCEAN when she decides to RAGE. WHEN SHE rages she takes what she wants, THEN WHAT? More taxes, more sand? When LADY OCEAN takes a home my heart aches, but I also feel those area’s should be left ALONE!
SR says:
I agree with the rage lady ocean guy. I’ve surfed Hawaii, CA, and a bunch of other coasts, and the currents here are by far, far the worst. It’s not just those storms, the noreasters are devastating, but even a day like today you’ve got a northerly flow just carving out the beach. The problem is you’re going to build a protruding sort of “spit” out into the current. That’s like building one into a river. See ya, sand….
Tim Beacham says:
We, the taxpayers, spent hundreds of millions of dollars building infrastructure (bridges, roads, landfills, water plants, waterlines, government buildings, etc.) to transport people to Dare County and service them when they arrive. The biggest financial gamble would be not maintaining our most important asset. The Beach.
zach broughe says:
Taxpayer,
Just so we’re clear,
The “economic destruction” you speak of took place during eight years of the disastrous GW Bush “presidency”.
As for the election, how many votes did Ms Cahoon receive for commissioner?
Ray says:
Tim,
You are a successful businessman. Can you tell us how much money Dare County should invest into beach nourishment to see if it works? Is $40 million enough?
For example, if we spend $40 million to put sand on Nags Head’s beaches and it washes away in 2 years; should we do it over again? And, at what cost?
ekim says:
Tim you dont get it! You can’t stop big moma ocean; she will crush us like ants, but there will always be a BEACH! ZACH that’s the best you can come up with it’s BUSHES fault get REAL!
Tim Beacham says:
How much should we invest for a bridge, for a ferry, for maintaining a inlet, to build a landfill, to build a water plant, to pick up garbage, to run recycling centers?All of these are great assets and services. They exist because people want to come to the beach. We should maintain our beach properly. And I do get it. Probably better than most. Beach nourishment will work.
SaneOutlook says:
Tim is being realistic about the infrastructure which is already there. Changing that would cost more than building the beach to enjoy it. “There will always be a beach” is a true statement. Unfortunately, that beach is now riddled with condemned homes, eroding roads, septic tanks and countless debris. It would seem that the “do nothing” approach has become expensive. This is such an uneducated response. Some of the most beautiful and accessible beaches on the east coast are nourished and maintained. A MUCH cheaper and more responsible approach than letting it erode away while you all fight over who should pay for it. Isn’t it easier and less costly to keep your home maintained rather than let the wood rot away until it costs twice as much to fix? The saying goes…”everyone wants a job, but no one wants to work.” Everyone wants a beach home, but they want the government to pay for it. Guess what, you bought a beach front home, if you want people to pay to come use it, you’d better keep up the beach. Maintaining a beach is MUCH cheaper than letting it erode for years before taking action. Grow up people.
Ray says:
I repeat my question to Tim Beacham and others who support nourishment. Tim, if we spend $40 million to nourish Nags Head beaches and it washes away in 2 years, would you support doing it all over again; and, how quickly?
The Taxpayer says:
zach broughe:
We’ll see how many Americans agree with your assessment come November! Obama is spending nearly $10 billion per day and everything that comes out of Congress kills more and more jobs. …as for Ms. Cahoon, she’s a direct result of what happens when people don’t vote. I can guarantee she would not have been appointed to her current seat if Remaley and Sadler weren’t reelected.
SaneOutlook says:
Re: Ray’s comment. No I wouldn’t support $40 mil every two years but there is NOT an example project out there where that has happened. Where does that scenario come from? The Town of Nags Head has wasted to much time, effort and money on forcing more and more studies to “guarantee” the the people of a successful project. Read the EIS, EA, BA, historical EVIDENCE that nourished and maintained beaches are more cost effective in the long run. Information of studies done on all phases of nourished beaches and the after effects of them are the only real evidence you have to base your opinions on fact. Educate yourself on ACTUAL projects before creating false accusations and assumptions on what is going to happen. Otherwise, either STOP complaining about nourishment or quit going to the beaches that are.
GB says:
Please share your evidence that nourishment is more cost effective than retreat. The closest I have seen to an economic analysis was on Bob’s blog, but there were some big assumptions in that with which I do not agree and the comments have been removed.
Here is an older study about the longevity of nourished beaches that shows that only 12% of nourished beaches lasted more than 5 years: Link
Given the unique factors affecting Nags Head, it would be bold to assume that the proposed project would last 5 years.
zach broughe says:
NOT so S O…………….
Multi-Million Dollar Beach Washes Away
POSTED: Monday, November 6, 2006
BROWARD COUNTY, Fla. — The recent steady pounding from strong surf and high winds has caused significant erosion of South Florida beaches.
It was just a year ago that a beach renourishment project was completed, but now erosion has taken the beach back nearly to the treeline, leaving some wondering if it was worth the expense.
Last year’s renourishment project covered six miles from Hallandale Beach to Dania Beach and cost $45 million.
Officials say there was no way to have predicted the damage done by Hurricane Wilma.”
As usual, the ‘no one could have predicted’ line is straight BS.
Barbara says:
The problem is when a guest in SNH comes to visit their rental cottage which is falling down and there are dredge pipes mud, slurry and construction, they are going to associate that one experience with the ENTIRE Outer Banks, so then, it isnt just a SNH problem, its an entire area. So, therefore, our entire area will suffer the consequences of an ill-conceieved BN project. AND with 70+ miles of beach, we cannot, as a county EVER afford to nourish ALL beaches in Dare County so, why do it for ONE area and not the rest? Pretty soon Dare County will have 5 seperate BN projects and maintenance to pay for… how do you presume that will be paid for? You cannot let one Town have $30 mil of COUNTY money and not give the same to other Towns, Hatteras Island etc. As a county and tourist area we really need to use the current available funds, tools to assemble a sensible retreat PLAN. Not a BN Plan, but a Retreat Plan. If we trully do care about our quality of life (quality of beaches, quality of tourist experience, quality of wildlife’s life) we need to do that NOW. No mention of increased building set-backs, visitor notification, and other anti-erosion measures have been presented. But, we’re supposed to sit back (again, State didnt ASK us) throw $ at another pipe dream (dredge pipe) and cross our fingers its gonna work? Its not gonna work, BN requires CONSTANT renousishment, constant $ and costs which get higher and higher. No economy can ever support 70 miles of nourished beaches on the OBX. PERIOD. Not to mention our beaches will be forever ruined, there will still be falling down houses dangling and fighting the Town to keep hanging on, etc. I say use the $30+ million to develop a real plan to deal with this ongoing issue the right way. Give homeowners the tools to move homes which are threatened, protect our infrastructure, instead of lobbying beach nourishment we should be lobbying insurance companies to change the rules to allow homeowners to collect the $250k to remove homes and keep rest of $. And change the laws to prevent building that close to ocean! Obviously the setbacks are not far enough if homes are falling in, correct?
Barbara says:
PS: And I still doubt the Oceanfront Owners will agree to pay for this. They want everyone BUT them to foot the bill. amazing.
SaneOutlook says:
Retreat? Do that and we can all quit talking about NH because no one will be there (no one is there in the winter already). The cost of creating a ghost town is far greater than a BN and Maint project. Where does the Nags Head Beach area generate it’s income and tax base? THE BEACH! More importantly, the people who come there to STAY at the very houses that are “to close” to the beach. Where would they retreat to? How much would it cost to move all those houses? Talk about generating problems…wow! People always say “there will always be a beach”. True. Another true statement: “People will always lobby to build on them.” If you’re going to allow building beachfront, you’d better have a plan to keep it there.
Chill Out says:
Sane, you are talking about losing, according to historical rates, a row of houses about every 40 years. Erosion is slow, but the homeowners are loud whiners. Each has made millions off the rentals over the last 4 decades, but enough is never enough when greed is the bottom line.
You and the rest of the doomsday crowd needs to step up an pay for this yourself. Then you can watch it wash away overnight like the last two attempts and wonder if the millions you spent was worth having a bunch of bad sand for a few hours.
Chill Out says:
And, someone needs to make the rental homeowners in Duck, Hatteras, Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk and the rest understand that for every booking they get, 2% of the gross goes to NAGS HEAD only.
Let’s see what they all think about that little gem of a scam.
barry brockway says:
Each town is at least three to four years behind the Nags Head project. With the fund growing at 7 million a year there will be plenty of money to go around. I do not believe that the towns of Southern Shores and Duck will be eligible for the funds as they do not provide any public beach accesses for the county residents of Dare to use. Nags Head provides forty seven public beach accesses for every citizen of this country to use.
Zach Broughe says:
How long will it be before the oceanfront owners ask to move out onto the newly created “beach”?
Has anyone heard any mention of pre-project stipulations that would prevent that from happening?
Chill Out says:
Barry, that still does not mean that renters, and rental owners, in other towns should be asked to pay for local improvement projects in Nags Head.
The town of Duck did not bill Nags Head for their town hall. Southern Shores did not bill Nags Head for their canal project. Why does everyone on the island owe you, and the other absent rental homeowners, 36 million dollars?
Here comes the Nags Head boycott, I can feel it happening.
barry brockway says:
No, it simply means if they want their share of the pie when needed they must provide beach accesses for everyone to use. If they choose not to they should not be eligible for beach nourishment funding. By the way, the county is providing 18 million upfront and 10 million over 5 years. Out of that 28 million, Nags Head rentals will have probably generated somewhere between 14 to 20 million of that money.
Barbara says:
Then why is the county collecting tax $ for BN from Duck, So. Shores if they will never see a grain of sand on their beaches? If I were an oceanfront owner in Duck or SShores I’d be upset!
So, sand is supposed to last 5 years, you told us in 3-4 years KDH could start collecting their share of the $ for their beaches… isnt that right when Nags Head will be crying for more sand? I can see it now. What about Hatteras Island? Again, there is no economy or tax base which can support constant BN for 70+ miles of beaches and have it work. I also see a connection between the height limit being raised in KDH to allow taller hotels… more hotel rooms = more $ = more occupancy taxes to pay for more beach nourishment = more doomsday to try to ‘save” giant hotels which shadow the beach and shouldnt have been built there in the first place. Connect the dots people.
SaneOutlook says:
Chill, you need to read my post again. We’re in agreement.
Chill says:
Sane,
Perhaps, but I doubt it, you are taxing everyone in the county to sand 10 miles in just one town. What happens when, and this is fair, the other 60 miles of coast should get their due? You can’t go tax everyone again. This is a local project and should never have been given more than the fair share from the fund. Now, there’s really no way for anyone else to benefit, or to pay for another round, or to even pay for maintenance.
This is like going to Vegas with all your money, then borrowing even more, like say 10 million, and placing it all on your first bet at your first table.
Chill says:
Bob, I think you’re a good dude, (very misinformed by your engineer), but I really think the saddest part of this is that you are being cast as, as someone wrote, Nourishment’s Hood Ornament.
When, as I think, and I’m in that water all day year round, this thing goes bad, it blows that you’re going to get the blame.
I’d hate to see you saddled with the rep that you’re THE guy who trashed the beaches and spent every dime and really believed the traveling witchdoctor who said he could “make rain.”
You’re a man for standing up for this thing, everyone respects that, wrong, yes, history shows a totally unstable shoreline—-but I don’t think it’s fair that you’ll likely ending up being the one who takes the brunt of the criticism later on.
Bob O says:
Chill, you’re just wrong on your “2% of the gross goes to Nags Head only”. And it’s not losing one row of houses every 40 years, it’s faster and involves more properties. And all of those properties generate more in tax revenue than they use in services.
The 1% on occupancy has generated around $22 million since it was started (2002, I think). With the additional 1%, around $7 million per year will be collected. Only $2 million, for five years, of that $7 million per year is being requested.
Whatever response the community chooses to make to erosion, there will be a cost. Either nourishment or retreat comes with costs. These funds will be available for any community in Dare County, but South Nags Head is a situation that needs to be addressed soon, or we’ll lose that tax base and tax revenue forever.
Zach, the oceanfront property owners do not gain property with nourishment.
Chill says:
Bob O, you wrote on the other board that by doing this we will learn more about this process… that’s exactly what we said when we piled sand on the beach twice before, only to watch it wash away so quickly.
We got no return, and no protection from those projects. What did we learn? What did you learn?
This “incompatible” excuse is just that. Who really knows why it left? My guess, the ocean is stronger than any artificial pile of sand.
There are no successful nourishment projects anywhere in the world on any coast as exposed as ours. You know that.
And you can’t send a bunch of idiots like us to town hall to look at some sand and then we go, “oh, yes! this is so better! now I’m on board.”
We don’t know anything.
So, how many times do we have to do this to learn that it doesn’t work? 4 more after this? 3 more after this? It’s like fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on someone else. Fool me again this time, the third time, shame on someone else again. Fool me a fourth time, sure, why not.
Gail M. Jones says:
Barbara, I happen to think you are wrong about Oceanfront home owners wanting everyone to foot the bill for BN except themselves. Are you saying that with a half to 1 million dollars investment, they are not going to protect that investment with a mere assessment spread out over 5 years? AND HOW MANY OCEANFRONT HOMEOWNERS HAVE YOU SPOKEN WITH? I happen to be one and everyone I’ve talked to wants to pay the assessment so that we and others across the road, in Manteo, Wanchese, etc. can have a beautiful beach to enjoy like we had when I brought my property in 1977. Also, never rented.
I happen to be “A NUISANCE HOUSE” and considered a “WASH OUT” for tax purposes and the DEMO team will be at 121 E. SEA GULL DR. removing my home at my EXPENSE (no cost to you or the taxpayers) this week . . . . I plan to buy another Beach House but it will NOT be in the TOWN OF NAGS HEAD. They watched SURFSIDE wash away and did nothing, now GOOSE WING. Boy, are they scrambling now, but should have done so years ago when they were STUDYING, STUDYING and STUDYING the problem 15 years (or more) ago.
Thank the Lord, Va. Beach solved their problem when faced with it… Not 20 years later…..
barbara says:
Well, if these homes generate sooooo much tax revenue then why on earth is the entire county being taxed to prop them up? If they generate as much $ as you say they do then they should fund their own BN project. Right? To use the logic that they are entitled to $35 mil in Bn because they generate X amt of tax revenue vs sevices… wasnt surfside drive alone responsible for like 95% of Town’s road and water line expenditure? Use of services is the opposite. The Town has spent more $ on keeping that area in SNH open then any other area / road! I say should be Town project, period. Let Nags Head tax their property owners and rentals to fund this project.
barbara says:
Gail, I truly am sorry for your loss. However, I don’t think the taxpayers should foot the bill to move it. I do believe your insurance should cover that, I also believe the shoreline $ could be used to help someone in your situation as a buyout program, at least you would get help removing home or sell to town. And lot would never be buildable, dunes could be built there and other homes protected. Best of luck to you.
Jimmy says:
There is another possibility that no one has mentioned, one that could perhaps be implemented in conjunction with beach nourishment, that of artificial surfing reefs. ASR Ltd. has been developing these for about 15 years or so, with increasing success and currently has a project slated for Ventura, CA. In a nutshell, the reefs cause waves to break further out, thus dissipating much of the erosive energy before it reaches shore. This not only protects the beach and any beach nourishment, but actually allows sand to build up on its leeward side. Added benefits are that it creates specific and more permanent surf breaks and, further inside, calmer areas for swimmers (great way to bring in more tourism!). Beach nourishment is expensive and, no matter how long it lasts, only a temporary solution. Artificial surfing reefs cost only a fraction and offer a more permanent fix. Imagine this done in conjunction with beach nourishment!
I’m no oceanographer, physicist, or meteorologist, so I can’t say exactly how it would work on a barrier island. Afterall, barrier islands by nature move and shift and I would think that that aspect of what is a very dynamic environment would need to be investigated.
Just trying to spark a more creative dialogue in solving the issue at hand rather than simply pointing fingers and getting angry with one another…
Ken says:
It’s interesting to hear how a lot of people on here bash the out of state ocean front home owners. You state we want everything except to pay our fair share. I am one of those owners. I have been to several Nags Head Board meetings over the years – probably more than most citizens of Nags Head. I have paid tens of thousands in taxes during the time I have owned my home. And I have spent over $200K with local business in the past 5-6 years. My guests have probably spent many times that amount in local businesses during their stay. I never complained once…I love my property, spend a lot to keep it looking nice (its built in the old Nags Head style – cedar shingles, no vinyl siding), and am glad many people get to enjoy it. So stop bashing me, OK? Many locals would not have jobs if not for people like me.
That said, I don’t want my taxes to more than double. That’s nuts. This is the first decent rental season in 3 years. Nobody has been able to raise rents, and many other costs have gone up. Doubling taxes now would be crazy….it would ruin many homeowners, and cause property values to fall. The burden must be shared more evenly, because the economic benefits of the beach are shared evenly.
BTW – I do not make money on my house…it barely breaks even.
Barbara says:
This letter appeared in OBSentinel:
The Beach Nourishment funding efforts are in full swing again.
This time the Nags Head Town Council is only $10 million short because of the recent increase to the Occupancy Tax in Dare County. This $10 million is supposed to come from those who will benefit the most from the sand, the oceanfront properties, but that’s not the way it’s heading at breakneck speed.
We own and rent out a small cottage on Dare Court, fourth house from the ocean, at the corner of the highway. Four of the 13 cottages on the street are oceanfront, and all four are awaiting the next erosion event to be consumed by the ocean. The rental rates on those cottages are still three times what we collect, even though they are un-sellable and have low property values.
We wrote a letter to the Nags Head mayor, Bob Oakes, before the recent funding workshop, pleading for him to present the case that the tax needs to be either only for oceanfront properties or at least proportionate to the distance from the ocean to fairly assess taxes to the benefits of the sand.
Mr. Oakes did not share our concerns at the meeting. The Commissioners chose the simplest route, to assess the tax based solely on property assessments, not just for oceanfront properties. More significantly, all properties on the east side of the highway are subject to the tax. This approach brings in the money with a large proportion of the tax on the backs of those gaining minimal benefit. We obtained a spreadsheet for Dare Court showing the impact of the taxes annually over a five year period. Three of the four oceanfront properties would pay less than any other non-oceanfront properties on the street.
Mr. Oakes’ response was that our $690 annual tax increase, $3,453 total, is a “good value for the dollars spent,” and that it could not be “perfect fairness.” We urge you to look at this tax increase in another light. It more than doubles our Nags Head property tax, equals 10% of our net income from the property, and it adds to the 1% increase of the occupancy tax which our renters currently pay.
Supposedly, those owners, resident or not, on the east side of the highway will have a chance to sign a petition for this tax increase; 50 percent must sign, and it must be for 66 percent of the values. We strongly urge owners not to sign this petition and to pass this information on to other owners, because there is no mailing campaign to fight this petition. The last time a sand tax was proposed and voted down, there were mass mailings to non-resident owners urging them to register temporarily to vote for the tax. Should we expect the same sort of shenanigans this time around?
~Larry & Toni Franklin, Manteo
Bob O says:
Chill,
There is an enormous difference in putting a relatively small amount of sand on a half mile of beach, and putting 4.6 million cubic yards on ten miles of beach. The science says the longer the project, the longer the lifespan. The 4.6 million cubic yards is 16 times the average annual amount of sand we’ve lost over the past ten years. A short project (less than a mile) using channel spoil was a lousy bet.
And while I may disagree with you on nourishment, I think any of us can look at a core sample and get some idea of whether it’s fine silt or sand. There is size analysis of the sand on the town website, in the EIS, I beleive. The Town took core samples from the offshore borrow area and Oregon Inlet. Our core samples showed the offshore sand to be 10 times larger than the inlet sand.
I wish artificial reefs were one of the tools we could use, but the State prohibits these and any other hardened structures on the oceanfront.
The Franklin’s letter does not note that I apologized for my mistake, and that the Town offered the proposed assessments on Dare Court for their review. We had another opportunity for public comment yesterday (Wednesday, August 4), and we will have additional opportunities for public comment throughout the process.
In the end, the decision to move forward rests on the oceanfront and oceanside property owners. We’ve gotten tremendous support from Dare County in recognition of the urgency of the problem in South Nags Head. But if the oceanfront and oceanside are not willing to accept 25% of the total cost, I don’t see the project happening. This seems like a good value for oceanfront owners. And if I was oceanside in South Nags Head, I would see $700 a year a bargain. The alternative is the ocean moving steadily towards your house, and the property value declining until it reaches zero. The houses on the oceanfront in front of Mr. Franklin are at significant risk, and their property values are lower because of that. And when they fall in, at some point Mr. Franklin will be next in line, and with the rate of erosion in South Nags Head, that may not be too far in the future.
If you live oceanfront or oceanside in Nags Head, this is the best deal we can get. It’s time to fish or cut bait.
Ray says:
Bob, I disagree with your statement that…”we have gotten tremendous support from Dare County…”
The honest fact is, you have gotten tremendous support from Chairman Warren Judge who has taken control over the county board and the county shoreline commission. Judge does not speak for Dare County. He speaks for himself and others along the oceanfront. The people of Dare County have spoken, at the polls, on two occasions. In addition, every single independant poll that has been taken indicates that the people of Dare County want no part of beach nourishment . . .
Bob O says:
Ray, I should have said we’ve gotten support from the elected leadership in Dare County, not just the county but most of the towns.
Now, are you counting your blog’s beach nourishment polls as independent? I think the NC Shore and Beach Preservation could do an “independent” poll that showed support, but I think your blog and the Shore and Beach folks both attract readers who have a point of view already.
Yes, I respect what the citizens have said at the polls, and your leadership in overturning the sales tax, that’s why the current revenue sources have been proposed: occupancy tax and special assessment on oceanfront and oceanside properties. It’s as small an impact as you can have on our local residents.
J says:
petitions and poll results are simply methods to try to get around having the registered voters of nags head exercise their democratic right to vote. lets face the truth which is that the elected officials in nags head don’t trust their own voters and instead they have to resort to tricks and manuplitations to get their plans funded. what a sad state of democracy exists in nags head, nc
Bob O says:
J, there are many other stakeholders in Nags Head along with the voters. The special assessment process allows all property owners to participate in this decision. even if they don’t live here, I think it’s fair to say that property owners have something at stake. Lots of families have been property owners for years, but never had the chance to live here.
There aren’t any tricks and manipulations, it’s a straightforward process, and it’s been open to the public the whole time. As it should be.