Sunset Beach council directs staff to begin collection of dredging assessment after contentious public hearing

The Town of Sunset Beach on June 13, 2025 held a special meeting and public hearing on the collection of a special assessment tied to the town’s recent navigational dredging project. After more than three hours of public comment — much of it sharply critical — the council moved to confirm the assessment roll and directed staff to begin collection under the method the town had previously adopted.

The hearing opened with a staff legal overview. Town attorney Grady Richardson reviewed the statutory framework the town relies on (including N.C. Gen. Stat. 168‑238 and subsequent session laws that added Sunset Beach to a list of towns authorized to impose dredging fees). Richardson told the council the state statutes permit assessments to be set either by the frontage abutting a project (linear footage) or by parcel and that, under the session laws the town cited, the council had discretion to choose its assessment method.

Why the hearing mattered: dozens of canal homeowners told council the dredging work either did not restore promised access to docks at low tide or made conditions worse in places; many speakers said charging only 320 canal properties while excluding town park frontages and other parcels was unfair and inconsistent with language in the state grant application that described town‑wide benefits. Multiple speakers urged the council to postpone the vote and to recalculate assessments on a linear‑foot basis rather than the per‑parcel method the town had adopted in 2020.

Residents’ statements and concerns included: “I don’t have a problem paying,” said Steve Brit of Stokes Drive, “but if I’m going to pay for dredging, I want dredging where I can use my canal,” criticizing the apparent lack of contractor oversight. Tim Newton said he was willing to pay his share but questioned who supervised and accepted the contractor’s work. Several speakers, including representatives of the Sunset Beach Taxpayers Association, highlighted the town’s large general‑fund balance and asked whether the town could cover a larger share of costs.

Technical and historical testimony also featured in the hearing. Consulting engineer Gary Green said the delivered channel widths and depths in some places were substantially narrower than those presented during planning; other commenters cited prior dredges and permitting limits that helped shape the final design. Joe Canton and other speakers cited statutory language and argued the town could not retroactively impose special assessments before establishing a dredging district; the town attorney disputed that interpretation and advised the council the town had followed applicable law as he read it.

Council action: after extended discussion about permitting constraints, the differences between a navigational versus maintenance dredge, and the equity of per‑parcel versus linear‑foot assessments, a council member moved to confirm the assessment roll and direct staff to begin collection under the town’s established procedure. The motion was seconded and, by voice vote, the council directed staff to proceed.

Votes at a glance - Resolution to close the dredging fund and appropriate remaining funds as noted (staff recommended $725,125 to Majestic Oak capital match and the remainder to capital reserve for pending capital expenditures): adopted (motion and second recorded; council voted in favor). - FY2024–25 budget amendment to appropriate additional funds for vehicle repairs and public infrastructure (staff proposed approx. $27,000 for fire truck repairs and other items): adopted. - Professional services agreement with Anchor Point Planning LLC (planning services for FY25–26; contract reviewed subject to attorney review): adopted (approved subject to attorney review and execution by town administrator). - Confirmation of the shallow draft navigational project assessment roll and direction to staff to begin collection: council voted to proceed (motion made and seconded; council directed staff to begin collection). - Resolution confirming town ownership of an area west of the West Main Street and 40th Street intersection: adopted. - Resolution opposing exploration/production of petroleum resources off the North Carolina coast (updated comment supporting opposition sent given an upcoming federal deadline): adopted.

What remains unresolved: Many residents say they plan to press the town for a recalculation or to pursue legal remedies, arguing the assessment basis is inconsistent with grant language and statute; residents also asked the council to investigate contractor performance, review engineering decisions and oversight, and clarify whether dredging produced the navigation benefits described in grant materials. The council acknowledged those concerns during discussion and staff said it would continue follow‑up work on future maintenance planning, possible establishment of a maintenance district and timing for subsequent dredges.

Next steps and context: staff and council discussed the possibility of creating an annual maintenance district and returning to dredging cycles (every three to five years was mentioned by residents and engineers as typical). The council also moved to close the dredging fund and reallocate remaining funds as part of the town’s capital planning.

The public hearing and vote do not end the dispute; several residents said they would seek further review of whether the assessment method should change and whether additional town contributions are appropriate. The council adjourned after approving the items on its agenda and considering a potential closed session but found none was necessary.