- May 2, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
+ Stormwater tax is unfair and needs to be scrapped
Dear Editor:
Very soon, the city of Palm Coast intends to add a 6% franchise fee to residential electric bills, with a caveat that the City Council can add another 2% later. This is to offset costs associated with the stormwater maintenance system. In my opinion, the City Council missed the mark when it developed its formula for implementing the fee, and I think the proposal and agreement should be scrapped altogether.
This current proposal, which has already passed the first reading, sets a tax against a utility not associated with the purpose of the fund. It effectively hides this tax, which can easily be overlooked by the consumer.
Let’s be real: It’s a land tax.
Implementation ignores equality among property owners. The City Council suggested, in one of your reports, that consumers would pay a mere $6.36 a month per household. To that end, the FP&L agreement calls for an initial fee of 6% on aggregate charges.
Previously, a couple living modestly in their own home could easily keep electric charges below $70 per month, which equates to a tax of only $4.20. Larger families who may consume 2,400 kilowatt-hours monthly rather than the city-projected 1,200 kwh, would pay a tax of $12.72 a month.
I see no equality in this per-household formula. Of course all state, federal, county, city and school buildings are exempt. In addition, if you do own property but have no electricity, you don’t have to pay your fair share to support the citywide stormwater maintenance system, either.
Sadly, the agreement with FP&L isn’t just a one-shot deal; it is a 30-year contract. As is noted, this hidden tax could also go up by another 2% very soon, so the prospect for an 8% tax increase for the next 30 years is very real.
I also don’t believe the City Council accurately projected tax revenue in its proposal. Palm Coast has 34,499 housing units. Using the city formula of $6.36 a month, or $76.32 per customer per year, one would think the city would make $2,632,964 in that billing period. Unfortunately, 5,433 homes are vacant, and bare land parcels pay no fee. That basically means only 29,066 homes are paying the monthly fee. This reduces the expected revenue to $2,218,317, which means the tax already fails to adequately fund the system.
No one can argue the fact that the City Council is obligated to exercise care, custody and control of properties within its boundaries. In instance the council seems to have overlooked some things. This city-owned stormwater control system requires perpetual maintenance, a solid sustainable funding source, and an equal assessment to all residents for its support, and not just those living here who pay electric bills.
Let’s face it: If the cost of this system can’t be distributed to one and all fairly and with a clear conscience, the City Council needs to try again.
Gregory White
Palm Coast
+ Stormwater repairs are merely Band-aids; what’s the real solution?
Dear Editor:
A 30-year-old stormwater system should not collapse during a severe storm. There are cities where the stormwater systems are more than 100 years old and do not have problems.
I am sure the residents would want to know what caused the failure?
Are we in an ongoing Band-aid mode of stormwater repairs? Was there ever a camera inspection of the entire stormwater system made? If not, why not? The residents of Palm Coast want to know how much is it going to cost to bring the stormwater system up to standards. We are tired of hearing about the stormwater tax assessment that is being pushed on us.
Walter Albano
Palm Coast
— Send letters of general interest about local issues to [email protected]. Include first and last name, as well as city of residence.
