Tentative Millage Rates for Truth in Millage (TRIM) Notices and First Public Hearing – Fiscal Year 2027 Budget – No Funding Required – To Be Distributed
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
DispositionApproved
Approved motion number three.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Jul 14, 2026
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Jul 14, 2026
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
OMB-26-0056 in full →Heard once. OMB-26-0056 appears on no other agenda in the archive.
- Jul 14, 2026BoardR78▶Approvedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 30m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 74% of 149 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. We're gonna move back to our R items. And if we could, I'd like to go right to R78 first.
Yep.
Hello, Amy Farrell, Budget Director with the Office of Management and Budget. I'm here with item R seventy-eight or OMB 260056.
So while the presentation is being pulled up, um so high level, the purpose of this item is for the board to approve proposed millage rates for the trim millages that will go out on property tax notices and also set the date, time and location for our first public hearing. We did two very in-depth workshops, one in June and one in July. So the content for today is going to be a high-level summary and recap of those meetings and then moving to the meat and
potatoes of the presentation, which is setting those milletriates. And again when we set the millage rates today, we are setting the ceiling on those millage rates. When we come back in September for the first and final public hearing, those tr uh millage rates can come down. They just can't come up from what the board sets today.
All right, so I'm gonna move us through. Um so we have had a pretty extensive budget cycle up to this point. In January we looked at strategic plan prioritization and officially kicked off our budget cycle internally. In February we did updates on major revenue projections and we briefed the board on all of the ad valorem funded services and resource allocations. Yeah. March through May we were refining our budgets with all of our departments internally. In June and July, again,
we did some thorough workshops. It included constitutional officer budget workshops and then the board side operating capital and we reviewed our debt portfolio. Today we'll be setting trim and then in September we're gonna come back for the first and final public hearing to adopt the budget.
And here you can see the budget that we that the county administrator is proposing is based on board direction and is responsive to executing the board's strategic plan while also ensuring strong fiscal stewardship.
Uh no, no. We have building fees.
All right, so the underlying pinnings and assumptions of this budget, we are assuming no change in the operating military, in the fire MSTU military, in the road rehabilitation MSTU military, or the parks military. Also no change in the stormwater assessment and no change in the solid waste rates and the water and wastewater rates are increased per the approved rate study.
And there are some pressures that are impacting the budget that's in front of you right now. We've got property tax reform pending in November on how that ballot initiative shakes out. We are looking at addressing structural imbalance in the general fund, making sure that our recurring revenue can sustain our recurring expenses while also maintaining our reserve levels. We've got public safety staff. Wage of benefits, that's always kind of a pressure that's out there. General inflation. We have public facilities
that we must maintain. We've got Wesley Chapel Library coming online soon. We've got villages of Pacity in the Hills, Nature and Bike Park, and then of course Medicaid rates that come from the state each year.
All right, so in June we got preliminary taxable assessed values, and you can see for the general fund we were looking at 6.3% increase, and then the final numbers did come in for July, and it's at 6.8%. To put this into some context, our growth last year was at 11.2%, and then this year you see how that growth is coming down, and we're at 6.8%.
So now let's talk a little bit about that structural balance in the general fund. So here's the general fund at the 50,000-foot view. So we've got a starting, estimated beginning fund balance of next year of just under 89 million, with 5 almost 83 million in revenue coming in and 586 million going out in expenses. Our recurring revenue is a little bit above our recurring expenses. And you can see from the non-recurring line that we're putting some of that recurring revenue back into
reserves and we're able to meet the GFOA recommendation of 60 days by doing that.
Alright, so here's a pie chart that just illustrates how the general fund expenses are allocated with more than 50% going to public safety. That includes the sheriff, corrections, emergency management, juvenile detention, the medical examiner, things like that. If we just follow clockwise, then you see that reserves. Again, we're hovering around that 60-day target. And then if you keep going, we're looking at mandated an internal support service. So mandated support. When we start talking about services
that the state mandates for us to provide and maybe it comes with a r funding source and maybe it doesn't, having open meetings like this today That's a state mandate, we're mandated to do it, but there is no funding associated. How we fund that is through ad valorem taxes. Or nine one one call center. That also gets a subsidy out of the general fund. That's a mandated service, and the funding tied to that is not enough to cover. And then maintaining our public facilities. You can see here in that blue, that's roughly $35 million for us to
maintain beautiful buildings like this. And if we keep coming that red chart, that's our other constitutionals minus the sheriff and our six judicial circuit partners. And then if you keep moving to that green bit, that's our outward facing. And then you can see over in the table, that's our parks, community services, libraries, misdemeanor probation. We had a resolution with them here this morning. Our veteran services also falls into that piece of the pie chart.
All right, so what are some of the things that we need to be funding out of our general fund? So we're looking at 3% wage increase. We've got retirement rates back from the state. We are expanding the jail. Um Wesley Chapel Library, we're looking at some operational expenses, one time startup costs in 27, and then fully funding the personnel in 28. Medicaid, you can see here, was a six percent. increase over last year. We've got some one-time operating costs to stand up, the VOPH nature and bike
park ops, and then the union wages are still in negotiation, so we don't know what that's gonna end up shaking up to be.
Alright, so um last week we did a really deep dive into the change in our major fund. So I'm just gonna hit some highlights here today. So, general fund, some of the major increases there, we've got shares budget, corrections for the expansion staffing, contracts for inmate health care and food services. And then we also have some decreases in there where we're taking the rescue-related services out of the general fund and moving those into the FIRE MSTU fund so you can see how that one is increasing.
And also embedded in that increase is staffing for station four and an additional fires fire truck at station twenty-four. I think I got those numbers right.
Mm-hmm.
All right. And we spent a lot of time last week also talking about Is that echoing? I'm sorry, that c
That was weird.
I know. Okay. That was a glitch in the Matrix. Alright, getting back to task. All right. So we spent a lot of time last week doing a deep dive into our five year capital plan. And so again, I'll hit some highlights just as a friendly reminder today. So looking at the um the fire bit, we've got two stations that they're planning to build in the next five years, station 31 and 42. For parks, one of the major projects there is the Conerton District Park. If you move
down a little bit with me to public works, that line right there is the capital plan funded by the Road MSTU. Um, moving down for solid waste, one of the big components of their CIP is maintaining their waste to energy plant. And utilities, they've got things like wastewater treatment plan expansions, the east and west maintenance facilities, and then Lake Bridge transmission lines.
All right, so then if we look at the big summary of our transportation capital plan, we're looking at roughly 376 million of capacity projects, 68 million in sidewalks and trails, about 39 million in signal projects over the next five years.
All right, so now we're at our millage rate slide, and so this is really the I'll call it the meat and potatoes of what the board's taking action on today, and it is setting those proposed millage rates. And again, those are the millage rates that are going to go out on property tax notices next month. It is the ceiling. of of what the millage rates will end up being. We can always come down at the final public hearing. We just cannot come up. And so this table represents the county administrator's proposed millage rates compared to our current year actual adopted
millage. And so you can see right now there's no change. Being proposed. Now, when you look at the general obligation bonds, so these are these millage rates are set to generate just enough revenue to pay annual debt service for those different obligations. And so you can see that the growth in the county that we're experiencing translates into lower payments per parcel to end up accumulating the same revenue we need to for debt service.
Now this um next slide and it's my I think it's my second to last slide, um this is how property tax notices would go out with these proposed millages. The state requires us to compare those to the rolled back rate.
Alright, so board.
Do we have any discussion around our proposed military?
Well this one. Oh
another one after that?
I thought we had the the addendum.
I didn't bring my notes from my meeting. I have an exciting
proposal for Commissioner Mariano. I'm interested. Go ahead, Commissioner Weightman.
Shall we pull up supplemental slides? Yes. Thank you, Gina.
All right.
Do we have it? So based on the fire STU, so parks is out of it. And as you know, I've been Advocating, and we've been incrementally restructuring our budget where MSTUs at zero take five votes. With an MST that's existing You can move it with four votes. But I don't necessarily want to get into a s a squabble But if we do an incremental
uh reduction, so for the fire MST U moving rescue. We can move Essentially fifty percent like the like for like discussion the like for like move so If we were to move, what's the full millage rate for rescue that we were talking about before that we had in our
It's changed a little bit from your briefings with the final calculations. It was around point three, but I think right now it's about point one nine nine.
So point mo point this is this is with
So this would assume the maximum amount that we would need the fire MSTU millage rate to be to fully absorb rescue without any half cent sales tax subsidy from the general fund. And so based off our July final taxable assessed value, that millage rate would shake out to be two point three, two two two four, which is an increase of point one nine nine nine mills, which would require five votes at the final public hearing in September.
So Irregardless, we'll have to do this exercise for the fire. But if we'll if it's a concern um to incrementally get us there We can move about half or fifty percent of that millage and cut that fifty percent from the general operating, which would show a decrease in the general operating like for like for the fire M STU and then move fifty percent and show an increase in the fire M STU even though it's a wash. It's just a restructuring of the budget like
But you and I know it's a wash, but will the public know it's a wash.
Either way we're gonna have to go through this exercise, whether it's today Yeah. Or next year. So If we do it now, my opinion is, is it locks in at least even fifty percent of that full millage rate and it cuts the difference of of what we're doing. Whether property whether the property tax issue passes or not, what it does is it helps to codify that funding, it helps to grow that fund By what was it, Mike? Because it compounds over the
next twelve months, it'll help grow that fund and pad the fire fund for those services versus the general operating fund being padded, growing by with interest. I'm probably using the wrong vernacular here, but the compounding interest effect will go into the fire fund versus the general operating fund, which will benefit the fire MSTU. Mm-hmm. And so I know the concern based around the parks knows that commission being sensitive to Commissioner Mariano's point was too much
movement in the general operating millage, but I viewed this as If we were able to do fifty percent, hypothetically which you can do that with four votes instead of five. That it would it would help get the fire fund to work need to to get rescue whole and then do the other the remaining balance next year. Either way, we're going to have to go through this. But if we do it sooner than later, betting, if you're betting or planning that the property tax issue
passes, you're padding that fire rescue fund, which my opinion builds it. And then it's less to potentially have to worry about for net's budget cycle. Now this is just all Seth theory here. Um Amy and Mike could probably help articulate it a little bit better, but I was just looking at ways of compounding funds and interest while still working to try to do like for like and restructure the budget without getting too complicated. But no matter what, this is the exercise that this board is gonna have to follow. Whether
it's this budget cycle or next budget cycle. So
I mean next year.
Yes.
Yeah.
So it doesn't really matter. I mean whether people are going to see a decrease in general operating mills and an increase in the fire rescue M STU.
These are the the mechanisms and then the methodologies we have to follow, so it doesn't matter when they see it. It'll they're going to see it no matter what. So but I'm I'm of the mindset of let's keep incrementa incrementac incrementally restructuring the budget and at least going through and getting the the the fire MSTU work done. That we don't have to worry about it. Well only
be half of it.
Well that's with four votes. If Commissioner Mariano comes on and supports it, that's five votes. So I'm saying with four votes because it's
only saying to move half of the
Right. That's that's if Commissioner Oriano says, no, I don't want to do anything with the MSTU. Because MSTU is funded, if a fund if an MSTU is funded, the Board can make
with four votes and it's roughly fifty percent of what it would get to with the five votes.
But are are you suggesting to move half of it or a section of it over this year? And the other section of the
Essentially half of it, but I want to pitch it out there to see if Commissioner Oriano, because he was uncomfortable with a number of different things. Um
You can go to a hundred and ten percent with four votes under the new law.
Well we don't need to do that.
Yeah, but I'd like to see the board be unified and make sure everybody's get comfortable as we're going through this exercise because 110% of
rollback. Of rollback, right. Which is why the numbers are a little wonky. They're they're a little lower actually than what we did. So actually you're moving it. A little more than fifty percent. What the commissioner is suggesting here is is an incremental approach to it. I mean this was the path that the board was on prior to workshop discussions um and then property tax reform, which which kind of complicated things. The path was was to take uh go go to scenario go to motion Let me just walk through this real quick.
Because no matter what, we're funding rescue out the general fund budget and we're gonna have to do that again. So it it's just
a story.
It's contrary to what the fire rescue MSTU is for. So
let me let me walk through it real quick, just some options because we've kinda laid laid this out in a way that uh hopefully will be easier for the board to consider. Amy, next slide. So motion one would be no change to the operating millage. This is what we took away from from the workshop, right? After after all the conversations that were had. This is this was the direction that uh that we took from that, and this is what's been presented to you today. Motion two
Is the path that we were on prior, really prior to the workshop at the beginning of the year, we were looking less less a PARCS MSTU, right? Parks is still set at zero under this scenario. But the original board direction was let's let's move rescue out of the general fund into the fire fund. And so that's actually the number uh that that is is the right number, 0.1999. It's it's that's much, it's lower than what we had originally intended. Anticipated. You'll see the parks is zero, but the originally we were looking at cutting parks by a like amount. At the end of
our workshop, it was discussed that there's a lot going on, and and maybe that's that's complicated. And so if you start showing a cut and a reduction in different places on the uh on the trim notice, that could create confusion. Motion now the difference here is that we are showing this now in In the context of the voting requirements that are needed for each of these at the final public hearing. This hearing for Trim only requires simple majority vote, but when we get to the final public
hearing, this motion, especially for the fire and rescue MSTU, would require uh unanimous consent of the board in order to do that. The operating millage would require four. consenting votes in order to to make that happen. Motion three is is sort of the hybrid of what what Commissioner Weightman is is referring to. It's in line uh and it's in line with what We've discussed previously, um, but provides consideration for a four-vote
requirement. Um so basically, as as Commissioner Weightman says, you're you're sort of taking a bite at the apple, um, but you would have to take another bite at the apple next year as well. And so uh I I think the point he's trying to make is well we're we're we're gonna make some incremental proc progress. Um ultimately it's a policy call. We've solved the technical issues related to the budget with with it this year with half cent sales tax. So we've been able to it's we've been able to balance it. I would say that next year Regardless of what you do here, you
would either need to finish the job or do the whole job next
year. So Commissioner, I I think I'm in agreement with with you.
Thank you.
That feels good.
It does take a little more conversation with the public to let them know that we're building our MSTUs in important arenas where the growth will stay with them and kind of protect them in the future. And I think that's the way that what we want to do and that's how we explain it. Um And I on the big picture I'll tell you where I am. So You know, if if we weren't having this Debate on property tax Craziness like we are. I would
Let's just roll that nose back just a little bit like we have done for the last three years, four years.
Last three years.
Yeah. And so um Today I think we need to stay where we are, but maybe do that fire MSTU. And um I mean rescue? But I think um At our final budget here aboard you know, when we have to do our final one? Is that October?
So at the end of September you would have your final your final budget uh your budget adoption hearing and that is where you will vote on the final on the final villages. So if you reduce village to 7.2593, we will need four votes in the affirmative to solidify that. Or I would not
do that. If
you wanted to cut it, you you could do that too. But you would also need four votes in the affirmative to make the two point two
If you had less than that, then you would be stuck at 2.1225 or some other number in between.
So my suggestion is is is I wish it was October, not September, but I guess yeah we start October 1st. But we need to see where the polling is. Because I uh uh on the amendment passing and then we have to make a j uh uh Then we you know then we say Hail Mary uh you know
Uh I got one poll to do right now though.
What?
I want to do one poll right now. Okay. Commissioner Yeager.
Um
I'm for I am I'm for I I'm for the seven two uh five nine three military. Is that the rollback rate?
Oh that's the fire.
No, that would be the reduction in the general operating cost two. Yeah, yeah. Right. So you are increasing the fire rescue MSTU by a like amount.
Right. So but you were saying that you were keeping you w wanted to keep it the same, which would be seven percent. Well no, I
I would s I would do what Seth is talking about today. Um, but it keeps us the same amount of money right now. It's just a a little bit has moved into a different category. So the peop people will see on the total It's the same. It's just that Part of that millage has moved into the rescue MSTU. Um So if so then if we look So in September if it looks like that amendment isn't isn't gonna pass
I would continue our slight rollback in our military that we have been doing for the last three, four years. Just just incremental, just a little bit. Yeah. Well
we get an argument here.
I know. Well I've I've said that every year. All right, so let me sometimes you just want too big a you want to go bald and I just want a little haircut.
All
right, so
so Commissioner Yeager. This this one here we're taking the the millage back down from the operating We're adding into the fire rescue. The bottom line number the people are going to pay is the same. You okay with that?
Definitely.
When I may not get it and all of a sudden it changes and now we're putting ourselves in a bad position. So with that, I'm okay with this motion three.
Yeah, it's a it's it's continuous.
I think we can tell the story
of restructuring and it's look, we've moved rescue in, this is your designated money, and when people understand look this fund can't be robbed and your fire and rescue services are protected. I've not come across anybody who opposes it. In fact they prefer it because they can see it.
Putting the money into the fire and rescue is an easier sell, should be an easier sell to the public. With the corresponding cut to the general operating.
I mean if the boards I'd rather I mean I'd I'd do the whole thing now. I mean either way we're gonna have to go through this exercise. So this is fifty percent of what needs to happen. I'd be willing to do the full hundred percent, then that that fire rescue MSU is done. It is done. Then
we do parts next year.
And then it's no more work to be done and it's the same premise whether you do fifty percent or the five oh and do the full. And then that restructuring of that fund is finished. What's that
number?
Like we are We are we are there and then we can go and work other.
I just don't want to put because you never know what's gonna happen. I don't put anything on where I have to have five votes for any part of it. This four this four is a great idea. I'm sensitive to that.
So I think that works good. We get the millage cut we want, but there's still perfecting fire rescue. We only need four votes, and I feel very strongly that we're going to get that done. I don't want to go through one through the first year. Battling this here I think is something that's it's good for everybody. I think it's uh it it shows well for the commission cutting again at the same time protecting fire rescue, which is what we need to do to keep the service up where people want it. Because now let's talk let's talk about the overall polling with the property tax. So from everything that's out there, and I guess
the last three have failed, but this is a different time. This is affordability time. So I think when people see what we've done here and people look at what the county actually does when we look at the parks, uh when they look at the libraries, when they look at the public safety things around it. When they look at social services, I think people are gonna look to say, you know what? We're not changing the Public safety benefit. We're protecting schools. That's 75%. So all this big hullabaloo is almost 25%.
And what we saw today. From Sean. Matter of fact I have the numbers here. From twenty twenty-one to twenty twenty-five. The state government budget went up fifty percent.
Yes.
What was our number? I don't think we're much different. So they're gonna tell us how to go cut, how to go run the county, when they just did the same thing in the state and they w couldn't even get a cut on on their sales tax. They talk about a quarter percent. And when I look at Florida Tax Watch, where they gotta they would have to go to offset all these things that are out there, they gotta go from six percent to fifteen percent in the sales tax. That would kill the panhandle and all those small counties, and with the declining revenues coming. I mean, I think they're opening up a can of worms. I think people are going to wake up
and say, you know what? We don't like this idea. We like the way Florida's running. We like what we're doing. We like what quality of life is. And I think this board can be proud of everything we've done over the years and the and where we're going for direction-wise. So I I I think that number at 64%, the first polls I saw, is going down. And I and I saw USA Today who did a poll. They used three percent more Democrats than Republicans, but that number showed it dropping and losing at 50%. And I mean fifty-four percent supported not not doing it. So they
only got forty-six. So I I think You know, between protecting schools, protecting public safety, are they peop protec what are gonna want to protect their quality of life? That's important.
I think we've got a good first step to we we got something that looks good to the public and I think that when they look at the numbers at the bottom of the line of the tax bill, I think we're gonna be happy.
Oh do half a roll.
Okay, is that a motion?
So I wanna clarify be I wanna clarify so there's two things that um we'll be making a motion on and so it sounds like it would be motion three for the proposed millage rates and then also setting the first public hearing for Wednesday, September ninth, twenty twenty six, at five fifteen PM here in Dade City in this room.
So question chair? So we would
So The maximum general operating mills on the trib notice would go out as seven point two five nine three. Yes. Okay.
So I draw a motion.
Uh the motion that everybody seemed to like.
Which would be number motion number three.
Adam for
the first public hearing.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Um
can we can we point out um that I just just asked why is Mr. Monopoly um sitting in the audience?
Today's a
day. So he lost a bet. I just just want everyone to to know. He's
winning a bet, one of those.
It's a cross between a bet and a dare.
All right, so I'm gonna pass the gavel to Commissioner Weightman. I'm gonna I've got a flight I gotta connect to go to NACO, so I'm leaving a little bit early for the presentations. Thank you all very much. All right. Thank you, Jack. Have a safe trip. Be safe.
Give
uh Seth the hammer. Yeah.
I don't really need it, but all right. Committee reports. Commissioner Oakley. Actually,
sir,
we have one more regular item still. Oh we do. Oh, see, already messing up. Huh?
What's
wrong with that?
I mean, how can you not see that? Uh