Note: This is the first of two articles today on Thursday evening’s hearing before the County Commission on next year’s property tax rate, budget and special taxing district. The second article, an overview of the hearing, will publish later today.
Speaking to a capacity crowd at a budget hearing Thursday evening, Flagler County Commissioner Kim Carney, who has complained of misinformation getting peddled around about county business, dispensed false and misleading information of her own on a central issue dividing the commission: the imposition of an additional sales surtax to help pay for a long-term beach-protection plan.
Carney was speaking at the first of two hearings setting next year’s property tax rate and approving the county budget, as well as a special taxing district for the barrier island. (The taxing district is a placeholder: no actual tax was proposed.) Carney claimed Flagler County could not impose the new sales tax without the cities’ agreement. Under state law, it very much can and has. She also claimed misleadingly that she could not vote for a sales tax increase that would dictate to future commissions how revenue would be spent.
Carney’s misinformation was consequential because she appeared to be using it at least in part to defend her decision not to support the half-cent sales tax increase proposed earlier this year. That increase was to be a key part of the funding mechanism for the county’s long-term beach-management program.
Commissioners Pam Richardson, Leann Pennington and Carney oppose the sales tax approach. Their opposition means the county’s long-term beach-management plan is comatose for now, barely surviving on a cobble of disparate sources of money and fortuitous federal and state grants that, in the longer run, fall far short of needed revenue if the beaches are to be rebuilt and protected.
Carney has opposed the sales tax increase on other grounds as well, namely, by suggesting that there are other ways to pay for the program. She has not come up with any. She wanted the county administration to do so. The administration believes the sales tax is the least painful way to get the most revenue. All other sources provide nowhere near the amounts necessary to make up for sales tax revenue. (Carney was correct when she said the county cannot impose a special taxing district, such as a Municipal Benefit Taxing District, or MSBU, without the cities’ approval. But conflating that with the sales tax, as she did, was inaccurate.)
Thursday evening’s misinformation further muddied the commission’s effort to find a solution, making a correction to Carney’s claims necessary.
There were two specific claims from Carney, one false, one misleading.
“We cannot set laws, even on the half-cent sales tax. We cannot act on behalf of any other municipality. They either come to us as the county and ask us to help, or we enter into an interlocal agreement with them,” Carney said. “We can’t go to their citizens and ask them these questions or present these things. They have to do that on their own. It’s the law.”
That is false.
“When I chose not to vote for the half cent, it was a lot of the same reasons,” Carney said. “I could not see it being an infrastructure tax, I could not see where we could say to future boards, you have to put $4 million a year in the beach based on the half-cent sales tax. I can’t do that. Not that I don’t want to do it. I can’t do it.”
That is misleading.
Regarding that second claim: local boards routinely and by necessity appropriate money from recurring sources, including the sales tax, to designated projects. It does not enjoin future boards from changing the allocation. But it can be difficult for future boards to do so. The 2012 County Commission approved a sales tax increase to pay for the expansion of the new jail. It would have been unthinkable for a subsequent commission to change course. None did. At the same time, revenue from the same sales tax has been allocated to projects the 2012 commission had not imagined–such as the beach.
Carney’s claim that “I can’t do it”–meaning she can’t approve a new sales tax and dictate its revenue spending in her capacity as a commissioner today–is not only misleading. It is disingenuous. The budget she voted to approve Thursday evening includes sales tax allocations, along with other allocations from other tax revenue. She had no problem lending her vote to those. A vote for a sales tax dedicated to the beach would be no different. It won’t stop future commissions from changing course.
Carney’s claim that “I can’t” in essence absurdly grants those future boards a veto on her vote today. It is more pretext than logic–a contorted and misleading way for Carney to justify her opposition to the sales tax.
As for her false claim that the commission cannot impose the sales tax:
The County Commission has the authority under state law unilaterally to raise the sales tax, with or without the cities’ agreement. The Flagler County Commission did exactly that in 2002. That halfpenny is still on the books, and will be at least through 2032.
The county has two options to impose a sales surtax. It may do so by referendum. The advantage of that approach is that the money may be bonded, and the revenue may be used to finance the bonds. The disadvantage is that voters’ will is unpredictable.
The commission may also impose the sales surtax by an extraordinary, or super-majority, vote, with at least four of its five members approving.
With either approach, the commission and the cities could enter into joint agreements defining how the revenue would be split, and how it would be used. If the commission were to choose the unilateral, super-majority vote approach, however, joint agreements are optional beyond formal ratification documents required by law. The county could decide to move ahead without worrying about such agreements, the terms of which may be imposed on the cities by the county, according to state law.
In 2002, the county and the cities agreed to go to a referendum for a half-cent surtax. On Sept. 10, 2002, at that year’s primary election, 62 percent of voters countywide approved a 10-year sales surtax to “fund infrastructure improvements.” Palm Coast would get 64 percent of the revenue. Flagler County would get 29 percent. The smaller cities would get the remaining 7 percent.
The sales tax was due for renewal in 2012. The County Commission wanted to change the split to 50 percent for Palm Coast and 45 percent for the county. That would have been the split set out in state law, absent joint agreements dictating otherwise.
Palm Coast and Flagler Beach said hell no. Both cities pulled their support for a referendum on those terms. Without their support, the referendum was certain to fail.
The county was desperate for a funding mechanism to pay for an expansion of the county jail–just as it is, or ought to be, desperate for a funding mechanism to protect the county’s beaches today.
So the county Commission in 2012 did what the law authorizes it to do: impose the sales tax on its terms, not through a referendum, but through a super-majority vote of the County Commission. Then-Commissioners Barbara Revels, Alan Peterson, Nate McLaughlin and George Hanns voted for it, Milissa Holland voted against (she was not happy with the split).
The money would be split according to the formula set out in state law, the formula the county had originally proposed to Palm Coast. That worked out to roughly 45 percent of the revenue going to the county.
There were no joint agreements with the cities once the county imposed the sales tax unilaterally. There were no consultations with the cities, permission requests to raise the tax, or any other interactions between the county and the cities. There was not even an education campaign or a gradual imposition of the new sales tax formula over five years, as Revels had originally wanted. The county imposed the tax, applied the revenue formula, and that was the end of it.
The County Commission set the term of that sales tax at 20 years. It expires in 2032. It was originally intended to finance the construction of the expansion of the Flagler County jail. It has been used for many other infrastructure projects since. A portion is now being used for beach management.
The County Commission has the authority to repeat the very same process for an additional half-cent sales tax. It may place the proposal on the ballot for a referendum. It may also, by a super majority vote of at least four commissioners, unilaterally enact the sales tax whenever it chooses to do so, without asking for cities’ permission, without entering into joining (or interlocal) agreements.
In the event, the county was preparing such interlocal agreements with Palm Coast, Bunnell and Flagler Beach regarding the new half-cent sales tax, if the commission were to enact it. In this case, the county needed the cities’ agreements on the proposed split, and in that sense, of course, the cities would have to sign off. The cities were prepared to do just that. Flagler Beach announced it would unequivocally. So did Beverly Beach. Palm Coast was less sure, but had the three votes to do so. Bunnell was leaning that way.
The agreements called for Flagler Beach and Beverly Beach to turn over all their revenue from the new tax for beach management. The agreements also called for Palm Coast and Bunnell to turn over half their revenue to the county. But after the first year, any increase in revenue would accrue to Palm Coast and Bunnell rather than continue to be split 50-50, giving the two cities further incentive to sign on.
The agreements were ready to go.
The ratification of those agreements was halted when its majority continued to oppose moving toward a sales tax increase. But those agreements may be revived at will, and the sales tax proposal revived, any time two of the three opponents change their mind. For now, none of them appear willing to do so.
john stove says
Do you want to know why citizens of Flagler County and the City of Palm Coast pretty much will shoot any new tax or fund gathering initiative down?…..
Its because we cant trust any of our elected officials or staff. The lying, the back stabbing among officials and the non-effective mis-management of our tax dollars cannot be believed. I have been involved in City. County and State government for 30 years and the level of moronic buffooneries cannot be believed!!!
Ed P says
Thanks for exposing the truth and shining the spot light on the double talk that we all listened to last night.
Ron says
I spoke at the commission meeting last night. Very respectful.
Was this commissioner aware that the county can implement the 1/2 cent sales tax without consent of the other municipalities? Why did the staff not correct the improper statement or at least the chair?
I say stop kicking the can down the street. Put the sales tax vote back on the agenda and get it done ASAP! Enough is enough. Stop worrying about votes and start making sound decisions based on facts provided by your staff.
After reading this article it’s a common sense approach. Why put it to a vote which will not happen until November 26? Besides all the time and money that will be wasted with no guarantees .
Increase the sales tax now!!!
Duncan says
County Commissioner who is ignorant of the basic laws that govern her conduct is, by that very fact, unfit to hold office.
Moreover, a Commissioner who lies directly to the faces of her constituents has betrayed the public trust and should be subject to impeachment.
It’s not like other coastal counties have not figured it out. Flagler County is the only coastal counties without an approved & funded beach management plan.
Joe D says
Congratulations FlaglerLive for the comprehensive summary of the Beach maintenance plan situation.
Clear documentation shows the beach is NOT just used by FlaglerLive Beach owners (cell tower data shows 4 out of 5 beach users are from Palm Coast). Parking and other pieced together fees, are not going to solve the full problem. Foisting the cost on the sole shoulders of Flagler Beach owners is outrageously unfair!
The Reality is if there is no beach funding for our maintenance “match,” the Army Corps of Engineers won’t do THEIR part of the beach replenishment.
As one Flagler Beach City Commissioner already commented on this site: that the BEACH generates $900 million annually for Flagler County ( hotel and rental taxes, fees, and jobs for local residents).
If you don’t want a minimal 1/2 % added sales tax ( not even on EVERYTHING)…how would you like to come up with the $900 million FLAGLER COUNTY BUDGET GAP, if we lose the tourist money due to our beach!?! You think the County roads and emergency services are difficult to afford now…wait until there is no beach to help FUND IT FOR YOU!!!
Bo Peep says
Nothing new there
marvin clegg says
I also sat through the meeting and was struck by two things concerning this beach preservation funding: 1. Everyone seemed to assume that throwing more money at Mother Nature will be a good investment of public funds. This is a terrible assumption, given the weather extremes we are witnessing, which is why some of us sold our beachside homes some time back. No one wants to discuss things like “managed retreat” as the Univ. of Calif. SB describes it, while many authorities call “nourishment” programs a short-term band-aid, given the possibilities of rising oceans, icebergs calving, more frequent hurricane strikes, etc.
2. One public commenter was candid enough to urge the county commissioners to just force the half-penny sales tax on all county residents and avoid a voter referendum of taxpayers “because we all know it will fail to pass.” Wow. That sure sounds like taxation without representation, urging our commissioners to do something they believe the voters they represent would oppose. Meanwhile, other speakers, nearly all of whom seemed to live near the coast, urged commissioners to “listen to their voters.”
So, in reading this article and some of the comments above, we shouldn’t be so quick to judge our commissioners. It is clearly not decided what voters want here. But the larger question is whether this is the best use of a limited pool of money, to fight Mother Nature. Fifteen years ago, before an earlier administration decided to disband Flagler County’s Long Range Planning Board because it frequently questioned staff opinions, that citizen board heard FDOT suggest we will need to take at least one lane of Highway A1A and move it inland one block as the coast erodes. We also heard conflicting recommendations for whether offshore buried obstacles, or seawalls, or wavebreaks, or dumping sand were the best methods for trying to combat erosion. There were no clear solutions by the experts. Meanwhile, we’ve seen unprecedented (in our puny record-keeping years) flooding of areas like Lambert Ave. along the Intracoastal Waterway, repeated cuts through the barrier island near Washington Oaks, or Summer Haven, and record high-water marks in west Flagler lakes connected to the St. Johns River. Farmers have known for centuries that the weather will nearly always win.
So when a commissioner says that a half-cent sales tax initiated today by the commissioners without referendum might have its targeted benefit changed by future commissioners once weather research or renourishment studies or political pressures, or something else changes drastically, this is believable. After all, we’ve seen our past county commissions reverse their predecessor votes easily, and we just saw the paving priority of one westside county dirt road bump down from 18th ranking to 30th on the totem pole, so priorities definitely change, but we would all be stuck with a higher tax meanwhile, at a time when the vast majority of voters seem to want tax cuts, not increases.
Let’s give the new commission, which didn’t create this problem and which was not the first commission to have a chance to deal with this tough question, a little slack here. We’ve all seen the aftermath of nasty rhetoric and name-calling and many of these people would not last a week in a public position. The position pay has improved, but money’s not everything, and likewise, money won’t necessarily beat the forces of nature.