Nags Head puts sand petition on a fast track
With a goal to start pumping sand by next spring, Nags Head is moving ahead quickly with a petition drive to raise money for its 10-mile beach nourishment project.
Town staffers plan to have the petition ready by the end of this week. It will ask property owners east of N.C. 12 and Old Oregon Inlet Road if they are willing to cover $10 million of the $36 million cost.
If 50 percent of the owners representing 66 percent of the total value of property in the district agree, Nags Head will consider an assessment of 98 cents per $100 of value spread out over five years.
The town, with $32.8 million worth of oceanfront property at its beach accesses, is eligible for the assessment and would pay a little over $64,000 a year.
A timeline calls for the petition to be circulated for 75 days with a target date of Nov. 16 to have them all returned. The petition will be mailed out and will also be available for downloading on the town website. The town is also developing a brochure to provide a graphic explanation
The town clerk would then certify the petition. That is scheduled to take two weeks and will probably require help with title research from the town attorney.
“It’s going to be a very, very involved process,” said Town Attorney John Leidy.
Leidy said that multiple owners of a single property will each be allowed to sign a petition. An owner of multiple properties would be allowed only one signature. So the town would be allotted a single signature rather than one for each of its 35 beach properties.
If a property is owned by an LLC or corporation, that would be considered a single owner eligible for one signature. Leidy said case law has determined who qualifies as a signatory.
Town Manager Cliff Ogburn said mailings and returns would be tracked in a computer data base with a running tally posted on the town’s website. The website also has a calculator that will find a property and figure out the assessment.
Next would be an announcement Nov. 18 of a preliminary resolution to undertake the assessment. The hearing would be Dec. 15, when the Board of Commissioners could also consider a resolution to start the project or parts of it.
A preliminary estimate of the project’s costs and a roll of assessments would be prepared by Dec. 22 followed by a 90-day period to allow for any challenges.
Under the timeline, the petition process would be done by Feb. 16. Assessments would start at the normal time tax bills are sent out after the beginning of the July 1 fiscal year.
The $10 million from the assessments would be added to another $10 million from an additional 1 percent of the occupancy tax to retire an $18 million debt over five years. The other $18 million would come from the Dare County Shoreline Management Fund.
The Dare County Board of Commissioners still has to approve imposing the additional 1 percent of the occupancy tax, which would bring it the maximum of 6 percent. Chairman Warren Judge has said said the board would consider the tax when Nags Head has its funding plan fully in place.
Nags Head is still waiting for approval of an U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. If it receives the permit in time, dredges could start pumping sand from offshore by the spring.
Commissioners signed off on the timeline at their meeting Wednesday.
They also agreed to pay financial adviser DEC Associates of Charlotte $25,000 for various services, including contracts, revenue options for repayment of debts and the town’s financing needs. The fee would increase to $40,000 to cover additional work in the case of a public offering of debt.
The adviser wouldn’t be paid until the project is funded.
A previously approved one percent of the occupancy tax has gone into building the shoreline management fund.
Nags Head still has to figure out how it will finance maintenance after the initial project. FEMA requires a financing plan before it will consider covering losses of nourishment sand from a named storm.
See what people are saying:
Join the discussion:
Katie says:
“An owner of multiple properties would be allowed only one signature.”
This doesn’t seem fair since they are taxed on each property.
ekim says:
We had small blow this summer, came right up to the dunes, took a lot of sand, the tourists just laid on the dunes. Pumping sand from point A to B, by the time the pump makes it to point F, all the sand at A B C will be GONE! Then what? THIS is a huge waste . . .
Ray says:
OK…so you and your wife own an oceanfront lot/cottage worth $1 million. Neither of you agree to sign the petition.
Next door two couples own a similar lot/cottage worth $1 million. One couple is estranged/unhappy. Three of the four sign the petition.
Now, are we to assume that one lots got three votes and $1million into the 66% pot, essentially overriding you and your spouse? What’s fair about this?
This project is to protect “property” right? (like yeah), not people and their pocketbooks. So, if it’s to “protect property” why shouldn’t each property, regardless of the number of owners have but ONE SIGNATURE ON THE PETITION. Leave it up the the multiple owners to decide, in their own way, whether to sign that “one signature” or not. Let them fight it out. Have you read the court case that NH attorney Leidy cites? In my opinion, they might as well as cite the O.J. Simpson murder case for their backup, for the glove sure as he$$ doesn’t fit here either.
Jake says:
I agree with ekim and was very vocal about my opposition in the beginning, but have come around to support it fully. I really cannot wait for the dredges…
1. It’s not my money, the tourists are often very rude the way they treat us and the islands, so fine, stick it to them.
2. Oceanfront out of area homeowners are often not better. They are just “tourists with lockoff closets”. I’m glad this is going to cost them too.
3. It’ll never work. That “incompatible sand” excuse is BS from before. It washed away, we all know, because the ocean rules our beach.
So, therefore, this is going to be an ABSOLUTE BLAST to watch fail. Really fun stuff. I honestly plan to make a bowl of popcorn, buy a case of brew, and the first time a good storm comes up I’m taking a lawn chair down there to watch the carnage.
Let’s get behind this. It’s like free entertainment. If they were imploding/collapsing a giant building, we’d ALL go watch, that stuff rocks. And so will this.
JR says:
It would be much cheaper and smarter to buy out these properties. Not at their inflated value but at the value of properties about to fall into the sea. Cut your losses, people. Not a drop of tax money should be spent on this boondoggle.
Ron Edwards says:
Silly question: If they pump sand on to lots that have been condemed and taken by the County, do the lots revert back to the rightful owners? I think I already know the answer.
Charlie says:
So the oceanfront owners and occupancy taxes pay for the first waste of money. When it needs to be done again because it all washed into the ocean I suppose our taxes will double or triple. I guarantee none of the Commissioners will fess up to this though.
A single owner with multiple properties gets 1 vote, but a single property with multiple owners get ??? however many votes they want. I’m not sure, but as usual, that seems a little bassawkards to me.
Last but not least, THE TOWN OF NAGS HEAD does not pay taxes —- WE THE PEOPLE DO!!!
Bob O says:
Since there is established case law on signatures for special assessment petitions, it makes sense to try to follow what the court decided. To do otherwise is asking for trouble.
The State already owns the property east of the mean high tide. As the mean high tide line moves west, a lot becomes unbuildable, and eventually is on State property. Since the properties are in Nags Head, the town is fighting to remove the homes that are in the surf, east of the mean high tide line, because they are on public property now. If your lot is alrady east of the mean high tide, you don’t get it back after sand is added by the public.
The town has reached agreements with a number of property owners to remove their homes from the public trust land. Other property owners have not responded, or filed lawsuits. So old, broken septic tanks sit on our public beaches while the lawyers file briefs for a year or two.
South Nags Head is a preview for the rest of the beaches. There is very little room available for another move back from the ocean in front of Jockeys Ridge. The problem may be a generation away for many properties, but it is inevitable if we do nothing. Same problem if you buy out washouts – eventually, you get to the road.
The time to protect the roads and other infrastructure, as well as the tax revenue from the oceanfront, is while the tax base along the oceanfront is still there.
If you’re here for the long run, it makes sense to invest in beach nourishment. The alternatives are grim.
It is up to the property owners now to file a petition and ask the Town to assess them. The petition has to meet both of the tests for number of owners and property value to be valid. I encourage property owners to consider it carefully – it is a good value for the property owners, and I believe it will create the best possible future for our community.
Bobby says:
Congrats to the Nags Head Commissioners for their actions. Since the beach is what we have, it’s the beach that needs to be enourished. Enjoy your popcorn and your finger pointing mates. Get used to change folks regardless of your opposition. Obviously the naysayers are the minority and the pro beach preservationists have decided to ignore your remarks. Oh yes, the future of the Outer Banks is good.
Professor Frink says:
It’s amazing how, even as educated adults, we still so want to believe… Santa, the Tooth Fairy, Jesus, Muhammad, Beach Nourishment.
Science is laughing at us.
ekim says:
BOB O, all the tax money in the world will not stop the ocean. And when we realize it’s not working are we going to end the tax? DOUBT IT!!
Bobby says:
Isn’t it strange that engineered beach renourishment works all over the world with a high degree of success? Oh, I know, the Outer Banks is different, lol. And Professor, at least you can continue your SC and TF fantasies and not expect that they will ever be the truth. But the other three are no laughing matter. Just the truth. Progress is painful and I sense your lack of belief in anything other than keeping things the same. Good luck with that fantasy because change is the only thing for certain. Who focuses on the past anyway since the only thing that matters is today and the future. If the draw to the Outer Banks is what brings the visitors in, then lets concentrate on conserving and preserving what drives our economy. The beaches!!
SaneOutlook says:
I was wondering…what will those in opposition say when the beach nourishment is a success? Will we hear from you? Will you sell your property because of this imposed tax even though your property value increased due to a stable, beautiful beach? Can you tell me which beaches are successfully nourished and maintained on the east coast? No? That’s because they are not politically controversial and are a joy to visit and live near. What if Myrtle Beach decided to eliminate their beach monitoring and maintenance plan? True the ocean “rules” the beach which is why you must monitor and maintenance it on a regular basis. Yes, it costs money. NEWSFLASH! It costs to live on the beach.
Jeff says:
Being an actual beachfront owner and not someone talking about a subject they know nothing about other than the fact they may have to pay more in some capacity the next time they go to Nags Head, the town simply needs to have this done. I live in MD and we pump sand both on the Maryland Beaches and the Delaware beaches. Say what you want, but it has kept our homes here from falling into the drink and help to maintain a real estate evaluation base for resale. Depressed housing sales reduces taxes, which effects all properties sales and town services across the board. I recently paid for my fifth or sixth sand push. I don’t like it, but it is effective for the short term. Adding 140′ in front of my house would no doubt last longer, potentially for years.
Bobby says:
Hey, tax the west side of the beach road. I am willing to do my part to save our beaches! And for the record…I am in an area of accretion! I am just willing to do the right thing to preserve our beaches. But then again, I work hard (not in the service or tourism trade) and don’t have a lien free home or fat pension that isn’t taxed in NC. I feel like I have a vested interest as a resident to promote what attracts visitors to our are….the beaches. I would be happy to distribute a petition to our visitors that show their concern for beach preservation. I would bet that I can get more signatures than the naysayers for sure!
Bob Samuels says:
Beach Lovers Unite!!
This isn’t the rest of the world. Hurricanes, nor’easters and natural forces have ruled these islands forever. I’m with Jake, I’ll watch our tax monies waste away (reluctantly) during the next storm as the sand is torn away from our beaches by the raging surf and currents. Now, I’m sure our politicians have a cure for this; “With our plan, blah, blah, blah.”
Imagine how beautiful our beaches will look. Fishing eddies/sloughs good-bye; decent surf breaks, you kiddin’ me; hunting for beach glass or shells, see ya.
Dune restoration and enhancement is where we should be focusing our efforts.
lolly says:
I am one of those evil out of state oceanfront homeowners. My husband and I worked hard and saved for years to make the downpayment and 11 years ago our dream came true when we purchased our home. We are in our 70′s and of modest means. We rent our home but love our time there in the spring and fall. Our home has brought many tax dollars into the area. We praise local restaurants and shops on our website and through ads left in our home for guests. We always use local suppliers and workers in our home. What will happen to these businesses if the beaches are gone.
Thank you Bob Oakes for your work for beach nourishment. We will be very willing to pay extra taxes so that all can enjoy the benefits of the beaches.
Marshall says:
Wow. I see many opposed posts have been deleted.
Just when I was starting to like this site & comment discussions.
Hmmm?
Good thing the owners can’t delete facebook posts.
Consider the word on this sad practice spread.
Sha Sha says:
Has anyone considered a toll at the Bridge coming on the island? I think this would have less ouch on all of us!