Submitted by Susan Hardee Steger
During Nassau County’s Board of Commissioners (BOCC) meeting on March 19, the commission soundly rejected a proposal made by City Manager Joe Gerrity suggesting the City, Nassau County, and the Tourism and Development Council (TDC) partner to fund the estimated 1.5 million dollar local cost for the City’s beach renourishment project scheduled for 2016. Although much of the discussion centered on TDC funding, Commissioner Leeper left the door slightly open for future county participation recognizing beaches are important for tourism. “We need to take care of our beaches. How we do that is to be determined,” said Leeper.
There is no willingness by the TDC to participate, remarked Leeper who serves on the TDC. “At the moment, even city commissioners who serve on the TDC board are not willing to go along with the recommendation from the City Manager,” said Leeper.
*Editor’s Note: When later questioned on his statement, Leeper informed the Fernandina Observer “he wasn’t speaking on their behalf but none of the City’s representatives on the board have indicated they are in favor as nothing has been discussed formally or informally on the issue.”
Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. According to City Manager Joe Gerrity, the City has until mid 2015 to show local funding sources are in place. “Ten percent of TDC funds are designated for ‘beach projects’,” said Gerrity. “The alternatives for the city are pretty limited if the County chooses not to participate.”
Commissioner Pat Edwards, spoke to the issue of TDC participation saying he is “against forcing the TDC to pay.” He cited the excellent work the TDC has done bringing people to Nassau County. Directing funding to beach renourishment he said, would be a “huge mistake.”
It is a bed tax that funds the TDC, and according to a TDC document, the revenue received is to “generate visitation.” But revenue for beach renourishment is also addressed. “In turn, those tax revenues may be used to improve the quality of life for the citizens of the community, provide support for beach renourishment, and ensure a viable hospitality industry.”
Since the BOCC has stated its position on TDC funding for the City’s renourishment project, “it is redundant for the TDC to respond,” said Gil Langley, President and CEO of the Amelia Island Convention and Visitors Bureau. “The TDC is a function of Nassau County Government reporting directly to BOCC.”
The big concern for Commissioner Steve Kelley in honoring Gerrity’s request is the Save Amelia Island Shore Stabilization Association (SAISSA) will more likely demand funding for the island’s south end renourishment projects from both the County and the TDC. According to the SAISSA website, unlike the City plan, SAISSA receives no federal dollars.
Ted Selby, county manager, wrote in his response to Gerrity that a suggestion from the Board is for the City to “look into an island-wide MSBU [Municipal Service Benefit Unit] similar to SAISSA.”
For City taxpayers, an MSBU would mean an additional tax to fund the City’s renourishment efforts. As previously reported in the Fernandina Observer, the City’s renourishment costs are funded by Federal funds at 80% compared to 60% received by most coastal communities. State funding is 46.44% of the cost not borne by the Federal government, leaving the remainder for local cost share.
Click here for previous Fernandina Observer article, “Beach renourishment costs mount.”
April 1, 2014 6:39 a.m.
The “unwillingness” of the TDC board to participate with beach renourishment does not stop the county commissioners from approving it. The TDC board is an appointed advisory board with no legislative power, they are not a legislative partner. (see state statute 125.0104 under tourist development tax) The mantra that the TDC waves “Don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg” is the same old rotten egg that has been waved many times. It was used in the past when an attempt was made by the taxpayers to reallocate percentages of funding revenues from the bed tax, so more could be used for beach related public needs. “Oh no” they screamed, “we need to use the money for advertising and marketing to bring more tourist to Amelia Island and once that’s done there will be plenty of bed tax money for public tax payer funded projects. We’ll the time has come, the goose has layed the golden egg. It’s time to use the bed tax money for what it was originally intended and sold to the voters to be used for, some twenty years ago. Oh, and by the way, the state statutes allow the voters of Amelia Island to repeal the bed tax by referendum.
125.0104 Tourist development tax; procedure for levying; authorized uses; referendum; enforcement.—
(1) SHORT TITLE.—This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Local Option Tourist Development Act.”
(2) APPLICATION; DEFINITIONS.—
(a) Application.—The provisions contained in chapter 212 apply to the administration of any tax levied pursuant to this section.
(b) Definitions.—For purposes of this section:
1. “Promotion” means marketing or advertising designed to increase tourist-related business activities.
2. “Tourist” means a person who participates in trade or recreation activities outside the county of his or her permanent residence or who rents or leases transient accommodations as described in paragraph (3)(a).
(d) In any case where a referendum levying and imposing the tax has been approved pursuant to this section and 15 percent of the electors in the county or 15 percent of the electors in the subcounty special district in which the tax is levied file a petition with the board of county commissioners for a referendum to repeal the tax, the board of county commissioners shall cause an election to be held for the repeal of the tax which election shall be subject only to the outstanding bonds for which the tax has been pledged.
5. To finance beach park facilities or beach improvement, maintenance, renourishment, restoration, and erosion control, including shoreline protection, enhancement, cleanup, or restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public access as those uses relate to the physical preservation of the beach, shoreline, or inland lake or river. However, any funds identified by a county as the local matching source for beach renourishment, restoration, or erosion control projects included in the long-range budget plan of the state’s Beach Management Plan, pursuant to s. 161.091, or funds contractually obligated by a county in the financial plan for a federally authorized shore protection project may not be used or loaned for any other purpose. In counties of fewer than 100,000 population, up to 10 percent of the revenues from the tourist development tax may be used for beach park facilities.
(e) The governing board of each county which levies and imposes a tourist development tax under this section shall appoint an advisory council to be known as the “ (name of county) Tourist Development Council.” The council shall be established by ordinance and composed of nine members who shall be appointed by the governing board.
I have a vehicle capable of driving on the beach and take advantage of it on an almost daily basis. There are posted signs that state beach driving requires a permit and that county residents are exempt. I see too many vehicles to count on any given weekend,( not to mention weekdays ) that are using our beaches and I think that almost none of them have a permit. I am not sure most ( including residents ) even know where you can buy a beach permit anymore. I can’t in my recent memory seem to recall seeing this enforced more than once in all the times I drive the beach. This seems to be a very easy source of revenue as once the vehicle is on the beach,enforcement of a posted ordinance would be a no-brainer. I am sure there would be a few officers that would be more than happy to patrol the drivable beaches every hour ( especially during Summer and Spring break hours ) or so inspecting vehicles for beach permits or lack thereof. The fine should be double that of a beach permit payable immediately upon citation and the receipt should allow the offender to provide the receipt and receive a permit for future use. This might initially upset some tourist but we are the only beach that is still drivable in NE Florida and it is very visibly posted. Driving on our beach is a privilege and one I think is worthy of paying a nominal fee to use. I would even have no problem with reinstating beach permits for county residents as long as the money was earmarked properly.
I guess the 50 year agreement by the BOCC to share in 50% of the costs, along with the City, for its share of the beach renourishment costs has no ethical/moral impact on the current BOCC? Their argument that their agreement to share in the costs only applied to the initial funding is so ridiculous.
I understand the TDC’s position as if they fund the City’s share it would only be fair that they participate in the SAISSA effort as well. TDC does fund by 100% the beach clean-up contract that covers both the City and County portion of the beach.