By Jack Knocke
August 6, 2019
I knew we were in trouble when I asked the city manager, Dale Martin, to open the public restrooms in the evenings when the center street and downtown areas are busy. His response was that it is “matter of staffing and funding.” Uh-oh – funding? For such a simple request, we have to ask for funding.
So, I started looking at the proposed city budget and I attended the first meeting to approve the millage rate. Dale Martin presented the proposed budget on July 30th. I was astounded.
Here are a few facts that jumped out at me.
- Our population increased roughly 10% over the last 10 years
- Over the same 10 years, our property tax receipts have gone up 94% if the proposed budget is passed with a proposed 23.6% increase over last year.
- Due to property value increases this year, the 2020 Millage rate should be 4.8048 to hold total receipts flat year over year. The budget proposes to raise the rate to 5.8553 an effective 22% increase – the 4.8048 rate is called roll-back, but don’t be fooled, this is a tax increase. Our city commissioners just rubber stamped the approval of this increase as a first step in the process.
- In addition, the budget proposes a .5 millage rate increase to generate $1.2 million dollars next year to buy land for conservancy. There was also a clear indication from Dale Martin that he intends to propose a continuation of the .5 millage for the next 10 years to fund bonds or other mechanisms for funding. The 10 year plan may require a referendum. If we open the door to the .5 millage increase now it will likely continue for many years.
- The millage rate includes the .1683 rate to pay for debt service on Egans creek property (for another 2 years). Status quo-whew.
- The budget also includes revenue of $982,117 in beach parking fees. This is a tax/fee that visitors pay to cover the cost of beach maintenance. I thought this was voted down this year. Why would it be in the budget? Strange.
I was not popular at the meeting as I was the lone voice opposed to the .5 millage rate increase for 10 years to buy land in conservation. To be clear, I love our tree canopy, I love our open space, I love the beach – but I am not interested in having our city buy $24 million dollars worth of land for conservation. That is NOT the city’s role. A recent survey has been cited to support this action. The results were practically even – NOT overwhelmingly supportive.
After watching the Amelia Bluff saga, it is clear that our city is NOT exercising the fiduciary duty over the land use plan currently on the books. Enforce the rules on big developers and REQUIRE conservation areas for every major development. In this case, the city does not buy land, but exercises their ability to control development and conserve green space.
The city owns the land for two golf courses. Should that be conservation property? Or should they allow a developer to turn it into a racetrack, hotels, or other. Let’s manage owned property before buying more.
With all this talk about affordable housing, our city is pricing people out of the market by raising taxes to support their knee jerk reaction for MORE MONEY to accommodate just about any request – even leaving the bathrooms unlocked for a few more hours in the evening.
Let your city commissioners know that you do not want more taxes!
Jack Knocke
Editor’s Note: Jack Knocke is a business consultant supporting the deployment of connected solutions and Internet of Things (IoT). Knocke is a 30-year veteran of the telecom industry and is currently an Adjunct Professor in the School of Business at FSCJ.
It is worth watching this video about how Conservation is done right. http://www.vineyardconservation.org
I have no trouble with our city commissioners as individuals and in their earnestness. The concern is that several seem to be one issue focused, again not a bad thing, but are they interested in governing? This includes long-term thinking which is in high-need on the island and in Nassau County due to the accelerating growth here, and ensuing issues. As well, the running of city operations efficiently, and minding the store. And, yes, the writer is correct in stating that any local government should stay in its swim lane and not overreach. Work with developers to harness growth with the most positive outcomes possible. Take the lead, and don’t stay in the defensive position we are in.
Good thoughts. Think the city can manage existing property AND acquire new at the same time. With current zoning, not sure the city can work with developers to manage growth. Developers always seem to have the upper hand. I don’t mind paying higher taxes to acquire more land if it’s the price we must pay to preserve our way of life on the island. Agree acquisition must to done efficiently and with much thought.
Without planning and foresight, Fernandina Beach, like most small cities with limited resources and the continuous pressure of developing interests that will always exploit the success of good policy, will always have to make hard choices. See the litigation money pit with no certainty of outcome, folks that hate all kinds of regulations, folks that hate all kinds of tax increases – no matter what the purpose, folks that don’t understand that magic doesn’t happen by itself, folks that just want City government to make their subjective vision a reality on the backs of their neighbors, the common complainer, and on and on.
We have an excellent group of informed City Commissioners, backed up by a solid and well trained staff (with occasional screw ups). A City Commission decision to buy conservation land in conjunction with the Florida Land Trust is a useful tool that is more reliable than protracted court battles – albeigh it costs some money, and a tax increase. It’s an investment that will pay great dividends long term for all who live here. Good work, Commissioners.
This type of tax increase for the purpose of purchasing conservation properties should be by a referendum for a bond issue the same as was done for purchasing the green way properties.
The author of this article omits and misstates relevant facts. North Florida Land Trust announced at the city commission meeting that they are ready to partner with the city and provide a $4 million dollar grant to help the city reserve land for the purpose of conservation. The caveat is, as is customary for NFLT, that the city will need to match that funding. The current 0.5 millage is designed to generate an initial $1.2 million in the 2019-2020 budget year. City budgets are a one-year adoption only!!! Any additional funding for conservation via a millage would have to be approved as a part of similar discussions this same time next year. Otherwise, the current millage will just go away. What the city manager suggested was a bond for the remainder $3.8 million that would be paid back over time (10 years was a suggestion). $24 million is nothing more than a scare tactic. With less than 800 acres of undeveloped land inside the city limits (and dwindling daily), we need to recognize that the wheels of government turn very slowly. Zoning changes to mitigate the pace of development would be difficult at best and likely too late to be effective for the task at hand. Of the remaining 800 acres, not all of it is even suitable for conservation. After much pubic discussion and many readings of same, the commissioners adopted an ordinance to be proactive about land conservation in the city. (Where was Mr. Knocke then?) At this point in time, they need to identify a funding mechanism for the mandate they set. They adopted the ordinance because they recognize we are at a tipping point. Our commissioners understand that when the remaining land is gone, it is gone for good. Gone with it will be much of the natural infrastructure (trees, wetlands, etc.) that keeps us all safe during storms. Also wiped out for all our lifetimes will be more of the great beauty that makes our city special as well as the wildlife that inhabits these pockets of nature. My father taught me that when someone gives you a gift, you say a gracious and heart-felt thank you and carry on. As city residents we should be thankful for the very great “gift” we are being given by NFLT and do what we can to preserve what is left that with their very generous assistance. The term for this entire endeavor is “stewardship”. I, for one, want to thank our commissioners for stepping up to the many challenges the task of stewardship presents. Nothing worthwhile is every easy.
Agreed. Thanks, Betsie.
If we want to continue to have quality of life on this island, if we want to be able to enjoy temperatures that are as moderate as possible, if we want to avoid flooding without installing highly expensive engineered stormwater management systems, if we want optimized protection from storm winds and surges, if we want to avoid being a concrete jungle overrun by development, we must plan carefully for the future of the island and we must conserve as much land as possible, especially forested land and wetlands. Because of the very rapid pace of development, we have very little time to accomplish this–perhaps just a couple of years. All of us need to participate in this in as many ways as we can: through the City, through the County, through nonprofits and on a personal level. This barrier island is our home, and we are responsible for its future. Land conservation is what FEMA and NOAA advise. It is what the research recommends. And, it is what the experiences of other cities around the county tell us. I have full confidence that the residents of Amelia Island will rise to the occasion and support land conservation.
Mr. Knocke makes some valid points. I don’t see anything in his commentary that argues against land conservation. He simply questions the methodologies and the cities ability to carry out such a plan.
If the city is so intent on conservation, why, as Mr Knocke points out, is the city not commiting to conserving land that it already own?
With respect Betsie’s indication that the rate increase is temporary, rarely are tax increases temporary in the real world. Good intent often turns into long term tax increases. More importantly, long term planning, should be funded by long term financing; the idea of using a bond that matches the term of the plan makes more financial sense and provides the best chance of achieving the long term conservation objectives.
You are more than happy to spend MY money on your pet project…instead, why don’t you start a “go fund me” page so all those who share your views can donate THEIR money!!
I think land conservation is fine. But let those who want it organize a private funding campaign. Conservation trusts funded by private entities are a common way to accomplish land preservation–even the IRS recognizes these trusts and grants tax credits to those who fund them.
Why we need the city to do this work is beyond me. The City Manager is already indicating this tax revenue will become a permanent “slush fund” – bad news.
Why not just dump Dale Martin who seems to want to
tax every thing and start over with a new city manager.
Maybe a new manager could handle all this new growth
without taxing everybody to death.
I have always looked to the Fernandina observer for accurate news.
This “opinion” piece Headline states 24% increase in taxes… not true, and irresponsible on the part of the author and the Fernandina observer.
Please see Dale Martin‘s “City Notes“ in the August 9 News Leader for a proper explanation.
Keep emotions in check. The City is doing something good for all of us who live and work here. Takes time, thought, patience, and hard work.
Jack. Fernandina Beach is on the right course. It takes thought, and a vision of the future. Fernandina Beach has such a vision. Conservation has made this eclectic Island the unique place that it is. Doing nothing about nurturing our Conservation niche is doing something – turning over the Island’s remaining limited and critical natural resources to the highest bidder – whose choices for future use involve all of us.