Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
December 3, 2015 2:00 p.m.
At the last Joint Land Planning Agency meeting between the City Commission (FBCC) and the Board of County Commissioners of Nassau County (BOCC), both boards agreed to pursue adoption of a Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) to fund beach renourishment and related services for years to come. (See previous articles http://fernandinaobserver.org/2015/10/08/creating-a-municipal-services-taxing-unit-mstu-to-fund-beach-renourishment/ and http://fernandinaobserver.org/2015/03/23/mstu-changes-in-store-for-nassau-county-municipalities/ for more information and background.)
At its December 1, 2015 Regular Meeting the FBCC approved on a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Pat Gass dissenting) Ordinance 2015-34 consenting to the inclusion of the city in the proposed MSTU. The city’s second and final reading of the ordinance has been scheduled for December 15, 2015. The language in the city ordinance mirrors that of the county’s, according to City Attorney Tammi Bach, who added that the BOCC will hear this item on December 28, following the city’s adoption of its ordinance. Bach stressed that while the ordinance gives the city’s consent to adopting the taxing unit, it includes nothing about the millage rate or how it will be set. She said that the city and the county do not anticipate any construction costs for the next two years. She also added that if the city approves this ordinance but finds in the future that the MSTU is not working as anticipated, it could withdraw support.
The BOCC proposed to establish the Amelia Island Beach Renourishment MSTU for the entire unincorporated area of Nassau County lying on Amelia Island (excluding that portion already funding beach renourishment via the South Amelia Island Shore Stabilization Agency, or SAISSA) and the entire incorporated area of the city of Fernandina Beach to provide beach renourishment, restoration, erosion control, storm protection and other related services, facilities, improvement and program services.
Two members of the public spoke to this item: Lynn Williams and Louis Goldman.
Williams raised concerns over how the money raised via the MSTU will be used, claiming that initially it was to be used only for beach renourishment while language of the ordinance appears to broaden potential use. He suggested that the ordinance as written was providing the county with an open checkbook. He asked that the uses be limited strictly to beach renourishment.
Goldman expressed his opinion that the county derives much income from the benefits of the beach on Amelia Island. From that perspective he suggested that the west side of the county benefits as much from the beach as the island itself. He said, “It would be more fair if everybody [in the county] paid their fair share [of beach renourishment costs]. He suggested that the way to do that would be to create a Nassau County Beach Authority through the state legislature. That would place a line item on everybody’s tax bill, and that’s the way I think it should be.”
Commissioner Pat Gass expressed her concerns about handing the county “a blank check.” She claimed that in 2006, the city did something similar to that when it signed on to a joint beach renourishment program with the federal government with an understanding that the county would commit to half of the local cost share. However, the county never signed off on that agreement. “So sometimes I don’t trust my county commissioners,” Gass said. “But I’m just not going to let history repeat itself. So as far as this ordinance is concerned, not just no, but absolutely not.”
Gass went on to say that at the last joint meeting the understanding was that the county was going to reduce everything to writing before the city voted a consent ordinance. Because that hasn’t been done, Gass said, “I just can’t do it. Vote it down and try again next year. Give them a whole year to put something together. The beach doesn’t need renourishing [today] and we’ve got some money set aside. There are many questions that remain to be answered. So, no: I cannot vote for this.”
Vice Mayor Johnny Miller asked about the possible creation of a beach authority. Bach replied that such an authority would have an independent board. Miller also asked about the “add-ons” that could be funded under the proposed ordinance, such as personnel costs. Bach replied that anything funded by the MSTU would have to be related to beach renourishment. It might include beach monitoring, but not lifeguards. Bach also reassured Miller that the city’s consent could be withdrawn. However, legally leveled taxes for the current year would still be collected.
Commissioner Poynter reminded Miller and the audience that legally the tax cannot be levied off the island and that the use of the funds collected are strictly outlined. He added that the tax might not be collected each year, because it would only be needed when the beach needs renourishing.
Poynter said that one of the reasons the county has suggested the MSTU is to address the problem that Gass identified of needing to kick in their share of beach renourishment costs. “They really are on the hook,” Poynter said, “and they recognize that. They are trying to develop a system to fund that. The south end of the island has their own funding mechanism [SAISSA] to fund beach renourishment and a couple of years ago they spent $12M on that project. … The reason I am going to support this is we need to have a funding source, and this is for all of the island, not just the city of Fernandina Beach.” Poynter explained that currently the city residents foot the entire local cost share. “We are getting double hit,” Poynter said, “and county residents on the island [not covered by SAISSA] get a walk. That is why I am going to support this ordinance. It is a more palatable and a more common sense way of funding the most important asset that this island has, and that is its beaches.”
Commissioner Robin Lentz reminded Goldman and audience members that there is an MSTU on the west side of the county for Callahan to fund its own stormwater system that Fernandina Beach does not pay into. She believed that attempting to include the entire county in the proposed MSTU would produce “a serious lawsuit.”
“I’m voting in support of it,” Lentz said, “because it is a long term funding mechanism, so that we are not all scrambling every time we need to renourish the beach.” Lentz also reminded the audience that beach renourishment protects the entire island in the event of a hurricane. With respect to costs, she said that she had used the parameters provided by the consultant and examined her own tax bill. She determined that her Mosquito Control District tax would be higher than that charged for the beach renourishment MSTU.
Mayor Ed Boner stressed that the other associated costs provided for in the ordinance only applied to activities that are part of beach renourishment functions. Miller said that the problem of finding funds for the next 50 years would be resolved with this ordinance and remove the contentiousness from dealing with the county over periodic funding needs. Gass continued to express her opposition because of the absence of written commitments from the county.
When the vote was called, all commissioners except Gass supported the measure.
Editor’s Note: Suanne Z. Thamm is a native of Chautauqua County, NY, who moved to Fernandina Beach from Alexandria,VA, in 1994. As a long time city resident and city watcher, she provides interesting insight into the many issues that impact our city. We are grateful for Suanne’s many contributions to the Fernandina Observer.
While this is a good overall solution, Pat is spot on to a degree when she refers to the County Commission backing out of their agreement with the City to share in 50% of the cost. My reading of the agreement and from my conversation with some of the third parties involved in the agreement discussion, the County was agreeing to this funding split over the long term and not just for the initial renourishment as they now claim.
The MSTU is suppose to show there is a direct benefit. So how does a elderly person who say lives on 17th street, never goes to the beach benefits from the “beach tax” any more or any less than someone who lives off the island? I am not sure they have made the argument for an MSTU or shown how people on the Island who do not actually live on or close to the beach benefit.
Doug, you are correct: no one cared to show who benefits.
The plan here is let’s get an open ended re-nourishment program up and running. Does it benefit those individuals and businesses with direct beach access, of course. Others, not so much. Worse, there seems little regard for exact parameters of “re-nourishment” nor some limit on the level taxation. Lastly, I fathom it will need some level “administration” which to me means another layer of bureaucracy.
The fact that the island is less than 2 miles wide, any property owner is going to have increased value of their property due to the beach accessibility – especially since there is such convenient access. The closer to the beach, the greater value of their property (and the more they will pay in MSTU). The beach renourishment agreement with the Army Corp of Engineers is spelled out in detail. Part of that agreement is an ongoing monitoring program that has been in effect since the first renourishment under the agreement and is handled under contract by Olsen Associates.
So Dave, help me understand how an elderly person who lives on 17th street, does not go to the beach and has limited access to the beach “benefits” any more than someone who lives off the Island? The point is that there must be a “direct benefit” to that person. We know that the beach attracts many people from all parts of the county for fishing, swimming and surfing and while there is a benefit only those that live in a defined geographic area are determined to be getting a “direct benefit” from the MSTU. I can see the “direct benefit” for those that live along the beach but for the elderly person on 17th street I do not see the direct benefit any greater or less than a person who does not live on the Island.
Some data to keep in mind.
The funding for the 2008 Nassau County Shore Protection was 79% Federal, 11.5% State and 5,25% each County and Fernandina Beach. The Federal and State funding sources will remain. A lot of people are paying for our beach re-nourishment.
There are numerous questions to be answered relative to the scope and actual administration of the projects.
I will be addressing these issues at the second reading on 15 Dec 2015.
Is it not true that all of us do not always benefit from various Island perks? or so called different benefits we now have in our city – lets remember where we live! i.e. skate park but it does benefit our youth. To say we don’t need beach re-nourishment- look at the waves recently.