Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waterways Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council removes proposed permit for commercial guides from waterways ordinance after sustained public pushback
Summary
Following testimony from local charter captains and tourism stakeholders, council voted 7–4 to remove a newly proposed user permit and insurance requirement that would have applied to commercial users at public boat landings; the ordinance passed as amended.
Beaufort County Council on June 22 amended and then approved a revision to the county’s waterways code after a lengthy public hearing during which local charter boat operators and commercial waterway users objected to a proposed user permit and a requirement that the county be named as an additional insured on operators’ liability policies.
Multiple charter captains said the permit was redundant with existing business‑license requirements and expressed concern that it could be used later to impose fees or limits on their operations. Tony Welch, a local fishing guide, singled out two concerns: the permit requirement itself and a clause requiring commercial operators to list the county as an additional insured on a $1,000,000 liability policy. He told council that carriers reported either that $1,000,000 limits were not available to many new operators or that the coverage is prohibitively expensive.
Several speakers, including Tuck Scott and Robert Alexander, asked council to remove section 102‑136 (the permit provision) and rely on existing licensing and enforcement tools instead. Staff clarified the intended permit would be issued contemporaneously with the business license, would carry no additional fee and was intended as a visual marker for code officers to confirm a commercial operator held the required business license and proof of insurance.
Amendment and outcome: Councilmember Paula Brown moved to remove the permit requirement entirely; the amendment passed 7–4. The ordinance was then approved as amended by roll‑call vote. Several council members stressed enforcement — rather than new permits — as a priority and said they favored a minimal, non‑fee decal system if any visual confirmation of licensure were necessary.
What was decided: Section 102‑136 (the commercial user permit) was removed from the waterways ordinance. The ordinance otherwise updated public‑use rules, penalties and clarifications related to public ridership and safety.
Next steps: Staff said they will implement the ordinance as amended and provide guidance on enforcement. Councilmembers asked staff to coordinate with DNR and local licensing authorities to ensure existing tools are used effectively before considering new permit layers.
