Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Canal Dredging District topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sunset Beach council tables canal dredging district after residents raise equity and procedure concerns
Summary
Council delayed action on a resolution to create a fee‑supported canal dredging and maintenance district after multiple residents argued the proposed single, parcel‑based assessment was unfair and that statutory steps and mapping should precede solicitations for engineering work.
The Town of Sunset Beach council on July 14 moved to table a resolution that would have established a fee‑supported canal dredging and maintenance district and authorized staff to solicit qualifications for engineering help, after an extended public outcry and council debate about assessment methodology and procedure.
Residents told the council the draft resolution is premature and inequitable. "The properties identified in the resolution are not contiguous and are not all on canals," said Dana Reid, who urged the council to follow state procedures including publishing a report, providing four weeks for public review and clearly delineating district boundaries. "Per parcel assessment . . . is certainly not appropriate for other areas listed in this resolution," Reid said.
Several other speakers echoed Reid, arguing the town should consider multiple districts and assess by linear feet (shoreline frontage) rather than per parcel. "Ocean Isle has three taxing districts and it appears that the dredging needs will be different for different parts of our town," said Kevin Armstrong.
Council members probed the draft language and debated whether the resolution as presented locked the town into a parcel‑based fee. Town attorney counseled that state statutes (as cited in the packet) reference assessments "per unit or per parcel" and can be read to include per linear foot; he advised the council could amend the resolution wording. Council discussion focused on striking redundant clauses that would specify parcel‑only assessments and leaving the fee methodology open pending engineering analysis.
After debate, a motion to table the resolution passed on a voice vote to allow staff and the town attorney to revise the language and return with a final document. The motion defers solicitation work and any specific fee adoption until the council has a revised resolution and the engineering scope that would inform district boundaries and apportionment.
The meeting record shows a strong public preference for clearly delineated districts and for apportioning costs by linear frontage where practicable; residents also cautioned the council that the town could face legal challenges if procedures spelled out in state law are not followed.
The council signaled it expects to revisit the item at the August meeting after staff and counsel prepare a revised resolution and a proposed process for public review.
