Flagler County’s Hammock residents applaud the county’s efforts to devise a permanent method to pay for the $8 million a year it needs to manage the county’s beaches against constant erosion.
But today, even though all but $1.7 million of the beach-management money would come from county coffers, Hammock residents told the County Commission that the special taxing district the county is planning for the Hammock and other portions of the barrier island, but not Flagler Beach and not anywhere on the mainland, is unfair. They don’t question the plan’s benefits. But they see it as targeting Hammock residents rather than spreading the taxing responsibility among all those who enjoy the beaches, the majority of them from Flagler County’s mainland.
The public response once again puts in doubt the plan the county administration worked hard to develop in the second half of the year, after a previous plan that would have spread the taxing responsibility across the county was rejected outright by Palm Coast, Flagler Beach and even some members of the County Commission.
The county’s plan as currently devised would use $2 million in tourism tax revenue, $3 million in sales tax revenue, $1.5 million in general fund revenue–all of which is paid for by residents across the county–plus $1.7 million in a special assessment, or tax, paid for by Hammock and barrier island residents. “So the lion’s share, or $6.5 million of the $8.2 was proposed to come from people other than the barrier island,” County Administrator Heidi Petito said.
For the county, there is urgency in putting a solid funding plan in place. In some ways the county is already in catch-up mode. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ celebrated, $27 million beach-renourishment project, completed at the end of summer, lost a substantial portion of its new sand to Hurricane Milton. That will be replenished by the federal government, at the federal government’s expense. But portions of the renourishment project the county tacked on will not get federal dollars. The county has to pay for those portions. The county also has to pay for all 11 miles of remaining beach that needs new sand and dunes. And Flagler Beach has to pay to maintain the Army Corps project, year after year, though Flagler Beach has allocated zero dollars to that end.
Today, the County Commission approved the method of collecting a beach-management levy from the barrier island, but not the levy itself. It’s a procedural step the commission must take by law, if it intends subsequently to implement an actual tax. As Petito described it, “it’s not approving the levying of an amount. It’s just providing a tool.” (The procedural step gets technical. It is required by law if the county elects to impose what’s called a “municipal service benefit unit,” or MSBU, which would be an assessment or a fee separate from the property tax. An MSTU is a municipal service taxing unit levied through the property tax.)
The two newest members of the commission motioned and seconded: Kim Carney and Pam Richardson. The commission approved the resolution unanimously. But it did so after hearing considerable support for a management plan paired with criticism and reservations about this plan.
Kathleen Doyle, a former finance director at Flagler Beach government who is conversant with government taxing and revenue, wanted a list of the steps ahead, such as when the public would get to weigh in on a proposed levy. She is opposed: “I don’t think it’s fair,” she said, noting that only a portion of barrier island residents, around 60 percent in her estimation, would pay the tax. “This is a county thing,” she said. “If one-tenth of a mil raises $1.5 million,” she said, referring to the property tax, which is measured by millage, “why can’t we just increase the mill rate and restrict that money? I mean, you’re talking $10 for $100,000 of taxable property value. I think that’s more equitable. It would be more of a unifying thing for our county.”
Jim Ulsamer, a Hammock resident well know to commissioners (he chairs the county’s Library Board of Trustees, though he was not speaking in that capacity today), complimented the county’s approach. He summarized the various ways all local residents are paying for beach management. “I think it might be more of a principle of the thing than the actual cost, that’s why you’re hearing a lot of the squabbling,” Ulsamer said.
The political landscape has also changed, he said, with three members of the Palm Coast City Council, which had resisted any kind of beach-management tax, now gone from the council, making it an appropriate time to restart conversations with the city. He is also supportive of a dedicated property tax allocation as a fairer approach, especially if future beach-management costs increase. That, in fact, is inevitable. As the plan is structured today, it the increased burden would fall substantially on barrier island property owners. That would not be the case if the county dedicated a portion of the property tax.
Richard Hamilton, a resident of “one of the barrier islands,” as he put it (there are more than one), has followed and analyzed the county’s work on the beach management plan all year, frequently addressing the commission–always with constructive criticism rather than antagonism. While he, too, is concerned with the fairness of the current approach in its details, he is supportive of the principle of levying a special tax on those who would benefit most from beach protection. But he cautioned: “This resolution, as I read, the wording, does not say that it might change,” he said, while both the administration and the commission are interpreting the resolution, or the tool it puts in place, as a work in progress. “Are you happy that this wording still gives you the flexibility to change your mind as we go on through the year,” Hamilton asked.
Cheryl Wisenbaker, a one-year resident in the Hammock (along with several extended family members), is opposed to the special tax on principle: the barrier island is a playground for people who are not Hammock residents, and “there are multiple revenue options other than double taxing residents who already pay high real estate prices, high tax values and exorbitant insurance rates and expensive maintenance,” Wisenbaker said. “These are realities that we face to live there, and it’s a choice, and we gladly do it. But this is a principle issue. We do not mind paying our fair share of a general tax increase distributed amongst all users. These can be general tax, bridge toll increases, boat launch fees, park access fees, park passes. There are ways to create revenue without targeting just the residents. It just feels really unfair.”
Petito, the county administrator, said discussions with the public, workshops and meetings with the cities will follow.
“Today’s discussion about the approval or consideration of the intent. This is just a tool. We have plenty of time to continue to talk about this, looking at doing a joint, you know, workshop with the municipality, sometimes beginning of the year. No doubt there will be more community outreach from now until probably July of next year to continue to work through this following the budget process. But there isn’t really a final determination or decision to be made today.”
