EVEREST June, 2013 - California Department of Boating and ...

Orange County Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan
and Beach Preservation Association, over half of all recent beach spending in the state was
financed from local funds. Florida uses a number of mechanisms to finance beach
nourishment. State law requires that at least $30 million of revenues from Florida’s real estate
documentary stamp tax (equivalent to California’s real estate transfer tax) must go for beach
nourishment projects and in many years the state funds more than the required minimum
(Flack, 2006).
Florida state law also requires that half of the non-federal funding for a nourishment project
must come from local sources. In cases where state land is involved, the state share is higher
(as much as 100 percent) and in some smaller projects the local share is higher. In Florida, the
local share of these projects is, in fact, higher than the state share and considerably higher than
the federal share.
In Florida, the primary means of financing the local share is the tourist development tax, which
is essentially the same as California’s TOT. In Florida, typically from one to three percent of the
tax is dedicated to beach nourishment. The typical tourist development tax (levied by individual
counties) is three percent. However, Florida also levies a six percent state sales tax on hotel
occupancy and some counties also add on up to a one percent local discretionary tax, so the
effective tax on tourists is generally nine to ten percent, not significantly different from the taxes
on hotel and transient housing in California, which is not subject to sales tax.
In some parts of Florida, voters have also approved a special assessment on property (as part
of the property tax). These assessments are generally higher for property closer to the beach
and lower for property farther away. One advantage of these assessments is that bonds can be
issued against them so that a nourishment project can proceed sooner than would be possible
with other taxes, where one must typically wait until the money has been collected.
In New York State, the local governments cost-share, with the state paying 70 percent and the
locals paying 30 percent of the non-federal cost of the project. In New Jersey, $25 million is
dedicated annually from the legislature for shore protection projects across the entire state.
These funds come from New Jersey’s real estate transfer tax. Most of this money goes to the
state share of federal projects with USACE. USACE generally funds 65 percent of these
nourishment projects; the remaining 35 percent of the project is split between the state and the
municipality. The state/local share in New Jersey is split 75 percent/25 percent, so it only costs
the municipality nine cents out of every dollar to finance beach nourishment. New Jersey is also
engaged in smaller state/local projects with no federal involvement, financed also at a 75
percent/25 percent state/local ratio. The municipalities typically raise bond revenues for their
portion and counties sometimes fund a portion to help defer the local costs (Kaiser, 2006; King,
2006).
Delaware has passed a Beach Act which specifies at least $1 million per year go to beach
nourishment and shoreline preservation. Delaware also finances shoreline protection and beach
nourishment through bond measures, plus it added a one percent state accommodations tax,
(essentially a TOT) dedicated to shoreline protection. According to Tony Pratt, who has been
involved in beach nourishment issues in Delaware for many years, the Delaware General
Everest International Consultants, Inc. 3.65