Flagler County split over how to fund beach management plan; staff asked to prepare unincorporated-option details

FLAGLER COUNTY, Fla. — Budget discussions at a May 28 workshop focused on the county’s unfinished beach management plan and how to pay for ongoing nourishment and maintenance after recent storms and temporary emergency work.

County Administrator Heidi Petito told commissioners that preliminary fiscal-year 2026 projections show a roughly 9.57% increase in property valuations, which staff estimate could translate to about $6.1 million in additional revenue on the county side of the budget. Petito said the county would need about 4%–5% of growth — roughly $3 million — to maintain existing operations (cost-of-living, retirement, insurance and similar recurring costs), leaving an additional 4%–5% potentially available for new decision units, capital projects or beach funding.

Budget and beach options presented: Petito laid out three funding approaches staff developed for the board’s direction:

• Option 1 — Countywide 18-mile plan: a comprehensive plan for the entire barrier island that includes a proposed new half-cent county sales tax to generate the local match for construction and the annual maintenance program; initial, illustrative MSBU estimates had been $160 per parcel if spread over the whole barrier island (staff said this figure would require recalculation during formal MSBU modeling and public hearings). The county attorney circulated a draft ordinance that could serve as the basis for interlocal agreements with municipalities if the commission favored this path.

• Option 2 — Unincorporated-only plan (northern ~10 miles): an MSBU/MSTU focused on unincorporated shorelines; staff estimated per-parcel costs would be higher than the countywide scenario and gave a broad ballpark of roughly $300 up to $2,000 per parcel depending on the chosen methodology. This approach would use portions of the existing half-cent sales tax for construction funding and require recalculation of project scopes and funding allocations.

• Option 3 — Reactive approach: no funding for a continuing nourishment plan; rely on emergency and ad-hoc repairs only.

Staff recommended the board consider Option 1 for the broadest protection, but Petito said that adopting an unincorporated-only program would require significant changes to construction plans and could shift existing construction money away from city projects. Petito also presented a list of departmental decision-unit requests (52 total decision units requested across county departments, $4.8 million in new asks), and recommended funding roughly $1.9 million of those requests largely for public safety from general revenues: the largest item was staffing to fully staff Rescue 25 and reduce overtime in Fire Rescue (16 positions, roughly $1.5 million), plus a partial-cost IT position tied to CAD/radio support and six library positions for a new Bunnell library/nexus facility.

Public comment and perspectives: Dozens of residents and applicants addressed commissioners during the public-comment portions. Several speakers who live on or near the beach urged immediate countywide action and supported a half-cent tax to create a reliable, recurring funding stream for maintenance and future nourishment. Hammock-area residents and homeowner associations said they had spent millions on temporary protections and urged county action now. Others, including some inland residents, objected to a sales-tax increase that would affect the whole county and said they were unwilling to subsidize a shoreline program if they do not use the beaches.

Technical timing and permits: Coastal Engineering Administrator Ainsley Renke told the board when the county goes to bid for the construction contract it intends to request two performance periods — one in 2025 and one in 2026 — because several dredging firms told staff they lacked availability to perform the work this year and that costs would be higher for immediate work. Renke said adding the southern section (Gamble Rogers area) would require additional regulatory steps and more time, so the dual‑period approach would allow time to adjust permits and leases with federal agencies.

Commissioner positions and interim steps: Commissioners were divided. Some said the county should pursue the countywide 18‑mile solution that staff and consultants have recommended; others opposed a new sales tax and preferred an unincorporated MSBU focused on the northern beach. Several commissioners and members of the public urged faster action, warning that delaying a maintenance program risks more private seawalls and property damage. The board asked staff to return with more detailed modeling for an unincorporated option and to show the budget impacts of funding that option in the FY26 budget process.

Budget decisions: For immediate budget guidance the commission reached informal agreement to fund the Fire Rescue staffing decision unit and the IT CAD/radio position described by staff; commissioners asked administration to return specifics on library staffing and any grant conditions tied to previously awarded library funding. Petito cautioned that some suggested budget cuts or transfers would be recurring and that constitutional officers’ budgets (due to the county June 1) also affect available discretionary revenue.

Why it matters: The county’s beaches drive regional tourism, local property values and a substantial share of the local economy; staff and consultants estimate a recurring local funding need to support the multi‑mile nourishment and maintenance program. Choosing a funding mechanism will determine whether the county protects all 18 miles as a single program (and what city partners contribute) or limits a program to unincorporated shorelines that rely on a locally assessed MSBU/MSTU.

Next steps: Staff will return with financial modeling for the unincorporated option, MSBU estimates recalculated for parcel-level assessments, and details on how construction funding and permits would be adjusted under the narrowed scope. The comprehensive-plan item on the agenda was postponed to allow time for additional review. Commissioners said they want to revisit the draft interlocal agreement language with municipal partners before voting on a countywide referendum or ordinance.

Ending: The board ended the workshop without a final vote on beach funding. Petito and coastal staff will bring back refined cost estimates, MSBU models and the implications for construction-phase funding as the FY26 budget process continues.