Baker County reopens fuel-tax debate to pay for road crews, pay raises and drainage work

Commissioner Benny Bennett opened a public workshop Wednesday asking Baker County staff to lay out options for a local fuel tax to raise money for road maintenance, drainage and staff pay.

Bennett said he believes a fuel tax is fair because “the only one paying it is the one that’s driving the road and buying the gas,” and because it captures purchases made by visitors and nonresidents who buy fuel inside the county.

Staff briefed commissioners on the county’s existing local fuel levies, how those funds are split with nearby municipalities and what additional pennies per gallon could yield. Sarah, a county public‑works staffer, told the board the county currently collects a 6¢ local option gas tax established by an interlocal agreement (updated in 2005) and a separate 1¢ county‑only levy. She said the interlocal agreement that governs the 6¢ allocation expires in June 2025 and that the county receives the majority of that revenue, while smaller shares go to Glen St. Mary and the City of Macclenny. Sarah explained new, additional local option dollars (1–5¢ per gallon) would be 100% county revenue if adopted by ordinance and submitted to the state by Oct. 1, 2025; any new county levy approved by that deadline would begin being collected Jan. 1, 2026.

Staff presented a “down‑and‑dirty” projection of an additional 1–5¢ motor‑fuel levy using 2014–2023 motor‑fuel gallons. At a full 5¢ the county’s estimate ranged from roughly $765,000 to $977,000 in a year depending on gallons sold, with an average in the neighborhood of $850,000 annually. Bennett and staff repeatedly cautioned these are estimates tied to gallons consumed (not price) and will vary year‑to‑year.

The workshop focused on how the county could spend that scale of funding if the board moved forward. Public‑works staff laid out four high‑priority crew additions and associated equipment costs: (1) expanded pipe/ditch crews to clear cross‑drains and outfalls (ranked highest by staff), (2) a right‑of‑way brush/tree crew with a tracked brush unit, (3) a ground crew to handle hand trimming/weed‑eating around signs and bridges, and (4) an additional mowing crew and tractor/trailers. Staff showed how those crews would be staffed (truck driver, operator, laborers), described one‑time capital purchases (e.g., heavy equipment, mowers) versus annual personnel costs (loaded wage rates including FICA, insurance and retirement), and emphasized crew mix affects ongoing maintenance and equipment recapitalization needs.

Bennett and other commissioners pressed staff on two linked issues: retention and pay. Bennett asked staff to model what a $1–$5 hourly increase across current road employees would cost once loaded with benefits, and to model costs for adding the proposed crews at those pay levels. Sarah confirmed the county’s budget model has the formulas to roll loaded costs (salary + FICA + insurance + retirement + workers’ comp) through the total employer cost.

Commissioners and staff also discussed legal and administrative constraints: the separate 6¢ interlocal agreement and the county’s 1¢ county‑only levy, how revenue splits were established (mileages and street mileage formulas from the 1995/2005 interlocal), and the Department of Revenue’s role in acknowledging interlocal agreements. Sarah said she will contact the Department of Revenue to confirm what happens to interlocal allocations if the agreement expires without renewal. She also explained that an additional 1–5¢ local option tax would be adopted by ordinance, requires two public hearings, and must be submitted to the state by Oct. 1, 2025 for a Jan. 1, 2026 effective date.

On next steps the board agreed to keep the discussion moving rather than take tax action Wednesday. The commission scheduled a follow‑up board workshop for Feb. 18 to review refined cost estimates, salary scenarios and draft ordinance language; staff was directed to produce: (a) loaded cost estimates for 1–5¢ scenarios, (b) the fiscal impact of the proposed crews (capital and recurring), (c) options for reserve/recapitalization set‑asides, and (d) draft ordinance language and a public‑hearing timeline. Bennett said he would prefer moving forward only if the revenue and project mix are sufficient to fund meaningful, durable improvements and competitive pay to retain crews.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly said the levy, if adopted, should be used only for transportation‑eligible purposes (roads, bridges, drainage and infrastructure‑related staffing) and not for general fund items such as solid‑waste personnel. The board did not adopt a tax Wednesday and did not set a final rate; the Feb. 18 workshop will be the forum for detailed budget numbers and a decision‑ready ordinance packet for later public hearings.

What’s next: staff will return to the board with the salary and crew cost scenarios requested, draft ordinance language, and a proposed public‑hearing schedule for any preferred tax level. Commissioners asked staff to include conservative reserve planning (for equipment recapitalization) in any proposals so the county does not spend all new revenue immediately and is prepared for future equipment replacements.

(Quotation notes: direct quotes attributed in this report come from meeting participants and reflect the transcript of the Jan. 7, 2025 Baker County Board of County Commissioners meeting.)