It was clear that St. Johns County residents desire beach restoration in the two and a half hours of public comment at the March 19 County Commission meeting. How the Tourist Development Tax (TDT) will help fund it, however, was divided by the Board of County Commissioners, and remains a hotly contested topic more than two weeks later.
A vast majority of residents and speakers told the commissioners they preferred raising the bed tax a percentage point to supplement the cost of the beach restoration projects in question. Agenda item 11 at the meeting was aimed at amending the current Tourist Development Plan to allocate the additional tax revenues for the renourishment projects. Despite their pleas, however, the commission voted against the increase in a 3-2 super majority vote, with James Johns of District 1 and Jeb Smith of District 2 dissenting. A collective sigh of disappointment was audible after the vote.
The Board did vote in favor of agenda item 10, however, which instead redistributed TDT dollars for the beach restoration projects by the creation of a fifth category within the plan. The new category, called “Tourism Assets,” may be utilized for a variety of projects that “support a healthy and diverse tourism industry.” Projects include beach restoration and access improvements, boat ramps, sports and arts facility improvements, and land acquisition and programming projects.
The new reallocation plan will help pay for the beach restoration plans, both the dune restoration and 50-year U.S Army Corps of Engineers project, immediately. The projects are in the South Ponte Vedra and Vilano areas, respectively. The Ponte Vedra Beach proper project may also receive funding, although the plan is still in its development phase. The new formula is designed to allocate the $2.3 million for fiscal year 2020 needed for both restoration projects. Smith was the only dissenting vote for both the Tourist Tax agenda items, with Johns voting favorably on agenda item 10.
Johns stated prior to the voting of the 5th cent agenda item, that he didn’t feel comfortable with the project partnership between the U.S Army Corps and St. Johns County.
“It is in summary — an open-ended check,” Johns said. “That we will be held liable for. Bottom line. In this document it states the specific cost of payment and funding and what’s expected, and the timing required to hold this contract. In short, all of these sources of funding will not achieve the goals that you are here begging us to achieve. That’s the bottom line. I can give you details to where it says, if the federal government determines this project will cost more, we have to come up with the difference.”
Both restoration projects require a local funding match that will be supplemented with state and federal money. Because the project requires this “funding match,” it was the crux of the three agenda items at the meeting, both the TDT agendas, as well as a vote on a proposed MSTU ordinance.
Commissioner Henry Dean of District 5 has been a longtime advocate of the renourishment project. He rebutted Johns’ allegations prior to the vote.
“If you remember (Jason Herrera of the Army Corps) told us at our last commission meeting, that we are not on the hook,” Dean said. “We are not going to be strung out to dry. He said that for if for some reason in the future, after the first construction, the second, or at any time, if we choose to not participate, they will simply not let the contract.”
In addition, Commissioner Jeremiah Blocker of District 4 refuted the claim.
“In life sometimes you’re not going to have a 100 percent solution, sometimes you’re going to have to work with a 70 or 80 percent solution,” Blocker said. “This is an option, and this is an opportunity for us address a problem. These renourishment projects happen all over the state and they are using the same legal framework we talked about. As a lawyer I’ve studied these frameworks before. With all due respect, I am going to have to disagree with you on that …This is a solution that will help address this problem.”
Despite many members of the tourism industry coming forward in favor of raising the bed tax, St. Johns County residents seemed to be able to concede to the less favorable agenda item, because beach restoration is what’s most important to them, regardless of how it’s done. Attendees at the meeting did express concern, however, that the reallocation could negatively impact other categories of the industry, such as marketing or arts.
Tara Meeks, the tourism and cultural development director for St. Johns County’s Tourist Development Council, told the Recorder she doesn’t expect that outcome whatsoever.
“We've seen pretty consistent growth for the last 10-plus years,” Meeks said. “It’s probably safe to assume that everything is not just going to go flat.”
In fact, Meeks said that the last time the bed tax ordinance was modified, in fiscal year 2012, the county collected $6.9 million. Currently, in fiscal year 2019, they expect to collect $13.2 million, over double since the last modification. That 12 percent growth enabled the county to reallocate the current 4 cent bed tax across each category, “without impacting the new revenue that those categories received,” she said.
“Both of the marketing contractors will see a 5 percent increase in their budget for next year in the draft budget,” Meeks said.
At the end of the day, St. Johns County is proceeding with its beach restoration projects, a cause that not one voice of public comment disagreed with.
One resident at the County Commission meeting compared the beach’s erosion issues to having a terminal illness.
“It’s like a person having a heart attack, you don’t decide if you’re going to get treatment,” he said. “You don’t decide if it costs this or it costs that. You just say, ‘Save my life.’”
