Tired of County’s Internal Conflicts and ‘Politics,’ Flagler Beach Is Ready to Raise Its Property Tax for Beach Protection

Flagler Beach Is ready to raise its property tax and dedicate the new revenue to beach protection in the city as a blunt message to the county: We’re doing our part. Now do yours.

The city is ready to increase its property tax rate from $5.45 per $1,000 in taxable value to almost $6, and pledge every penny of the expected $715,000 annual revenue to beach protection. A house with a taxable value of $300,000 with a $50,000 homestead exemption would end up paying $125 a year. 

Flagler Beach commissioners, at Commissioner Eric Cooley’s suggestion, directed City Manager Dale Martin to develop a plan that would turn that pledge into reality by next year. Cooley proposed the plan at last night’s meeting of the commission, both to reassert the city’s commitment to beach protection within its borders and to send a message to the county: that the city is ready to do its part, but not to be held hostage to the County Commission’s confusing politics. 

The move is not in defiance of the county so much as a challenge to it to get its management plan in order and to stop using Flagler Beach as a scapegoat to veil its own internal conflicts.

“The main thing is getting it on the table and saying: Are we willing to move forward with what we already agreed to formally and get that going?” Cooley said. The commission’s answer was a decisive yes. Commissioner Rick Belhumeur, who was not at the meeting, called the approach “brilliant” after listening to the segment. 

The committment is not a change in policy: the Flagler Beach City Commission had jumped on board of the county’s comprehensive beach-protection plan last March, explicitly stating as a commission that it was ready to approve an increase in the sales tax, give away all its share of the sales tax revenue, or close to $300,000 a year, so the county could put it toward beach protection. 

Flagler Beach was also prepared to approve a new special taxing district on its residents that would have imposed a $160 fee per property. The $160 fee was the county’s figure and the county’s idea. It would have generated $715,000 in Flagler Beach. That money would have been pledged to beach protection. The Flagler Beach City Commission approved that, too, in that March meeting when Cooley encapsulated the city’s commitment with two words: “all in.” 

The county administration and some members of the County Commission were briefly jubilant. It looked like the county would finally have a comprehensive beach management plan. 

Then it all went to pieces–not in Flagler Beach, but at the County Commission. Commissioners Kim Carney, Pam Richardson and Leann Pennington killed the beach-management plan, because they were opposed to a sales tax increase. The county has been hunting for a replacement plan since–and hounding Flagler Beach to “do its part.” 

To Flagler Beach commissioners, the city was always ready to do its part. It’s the county that’s confused, confusing, and “politicizing” the issue, in Cooley’s view. For months, and at the urging of Carney, the county has been seeking a joint meeting with the city to work out a plan for a special taxing district there, either an MSBU or an MSTU. 

Under an MSBU, or a Municipal Service Benefit Unit, the tax is a flat rate. A $200,000 house would be charged the same fee as a $4 million house. Under an MSTU, or a Municipal Service Taxing Unit, the levy is based on the property value. The higher the value, the higher the levy. The approach Cooley proposed Thursday is an MSTU–a taxing district that would proportionally tax properties. 

On Oct. 17, County Administrator Heidi Petito, who’s survived whiplash from her commission’s zigzagging and contorted directions (when there’s been direction), sent a letter to Flagler Beach City Manager Dale Martin and the city commission. She again asked for a joint meeting. She laid out a tight timeline for establishing a special taxing district, with one deadline as soon as December. 

Cooley took the initiative Thursday evening. He proposed that the city move ahead with a special taxing district on its own to show it is committed. 

“What I would propose is we say yes, we’re in. We want to have ownership of what we already agreed we would do, and we are interested in helping out. We are playing ball, and we move forward with what we agreed on.” That, Cooley said, would stop the back and forth between the city and the county, with the county chasing after Flagler Beach and Flagler Beach not having a clear position. “Then at least county knows: Here’s where Flagler Beach stands. And if there’s any gap in funding, then they can look at alternate sources to bridge that gap. But it pulls us out, because we’ve now done our part, and we said, here’s what we’re in for, which was the original agreed amount. And we move forward with that.”

Cooley prefers the MSTU approach because he says it’s more equitable. The tax rate would be set at whatever would raise the needed $715,000. The county, Petito wrote in her letter, is seeking $1.4 million from the city, double what Flagler Beach is prepared to provide. But that $1.4 million includes money that would once have been generated by the new sales tax–which Flagler Beach was ready to hand over. Now that the county has killed the sales tax, Flagler Beach is not interested in making up that gap on its own. It only wants to stick to its original commitment. If there is a gap to bridge, it’s the county’s bridge to build, the city commission says. 

“What I get concerned about is this is turning into a highly political issue, because there are other elected officials out there who want different numbers than what we already agreed to,” Cooley said. “Well, that’s all fine, dandy. They can want all they want. But we agree to a particular number.” 

“I agree with that 100 percent,” Flagler Beach Commissioner Scott Spradley said, “because we would be making our commitment, and I would think that the county would have no issue with how we differentiate amongst ourselves, is how that number comes to be. That’s our business. It’s not their business if the number is the same. So I think in order to accomplish that, we would just need to do a little reverse computation and see what, mill rate [or property tax rate] it would take to result at that number, and then discuss it from there. But to me, I would think that the county would have no opinion on that.”

Spradley, too, considers the special taxing district based on property values more equitable than a flat fee. 

“I’m on board with that, too,” Commissioner John Cunningham said. 

“I would not think the county would even have a comment on how we get there. The main thing is that we’re there, and us getting there, that is the important thing,” Cooley said. The taxing district would apply to all properties in the city limits, universally. He rejected the notion that houses closer to the beach should pay a higher rate.

City Attorney Drew Smith said the city can craft its taxing district first by writing a letter to the county outlining its plan. The other approach is to request a special taxing district through the county, which would have to approve that district by resolution. 

Martin, the city manager, had an even bolder approach: draft the special taxing district resolution now. Increase the tax rate by the required half-mill. Escrow the revenue. “Then when it comes time to pay the piper or pay the county, we can at least demonstrate that we have the money and we maintain the flexibility of that,” Martin said. “So you’re agreeing to an additional half a mill on everybody’s tax bill, but it’s strictly under our control. Because I know you expressed some concerns, like, Okay, this money goes to the county. It’s strictly under their control. What sort of lockbox and we put it into?” If the money is in the city’s hands, it’s dedicated to beach protection, lockbox fashion, pledged to the county. 

Smith calls it “a way of sweetening the deal on the political angle,” even though it’s outside the statutory process of getting to a special taxing district. But Smith had no issue with Martin’s proposal. Eventually, the city and the county would have to have matching ordinances. 

“This was all very straightforward with us. It was presented, we agreed to it, we support it,” Cooley said. The county has politicized it, he said, with its own internal dissension on what to do next, and how. “It’s not that I don’t trust County, I just don’t trust anybody.” 

As for the disparity between the $715,000 Flagler Beach is ready to provide and the $1.4 million the county is looking for from the city, Spradley said: “We committed to the $700,000 when approached by the County originally, which is the commitment that was requested. That’s where we still stand,” Spradley said. 

Belhumeur put it almost identically, though he was interviewed separately: “We didn’t take that off the table, the county did,” he said of the sales tax, which would have generated additional revenue. “We will be giving them exactly what they asked for and we agreed to.” 

“This is all about being fair and equitable,” Spradley said. “While the stretch of beach within the city limits is obviously located within Flagler Beach, it is used by all. In fact, the town and the beach of Flagler Beach are highly and successfully marketed by the County and by Palm Coast as they increase their own growth. Having them contribute fairly and equitably to maintain this critical County asset is proper, since the overwhelming majority of beachgoers are from outside the Flagler Beach city limits.”

But with mention of Palm Coast, Spradley was veering toward the issue’s third rail.