9.3.25 Pasco Board of County Commissioners Budget Hearing

Gota watch us close.

You gota watch us close.

All right. I think we're ready.

I don't You don't need the rest.

Okay. So, we're going to start our 5:15 um budget meeting. You can call the role.

Yes, ma'am. District 1, Commissioner Oakley,

here.

District two, Commissioner Weightman,

present.

District four, Commissioner Joerger,

here.

District five, Commissioner Mariano,

present.

District three, Chairman Starky. up here. Okay. I just I just have two of these now. So, do you need one? Yes. Thank you.

Okay. So, this is the first public hearing to adopt the fiscal year 2026 budget for the Mortic County Commissioners of Pasco County, Florida.

Citizens will be be provided an opportunity to speak during the public comment portion of the hearing. Miss Frell, do we have proof of notice? Do we have proof of notice of this meeting? Chairman and members of the board, notification for this meeting was provided in the trim or truth and millillage notices mailed to each property owner.

Okay. Um, Miss Frell, please provide a presentation overview of the tenative budget we will be deciding upon this evening.

Okay. So, this evening we're going to cover the Florida state statutes and what brought us here, our purpose for being here. We'll get everyone reggrounded in the strategic goals and priorities that the board has asked us to address as part of this adopted budget. We'll go through the highle budget assumptions and the overall tenative budget. We'll do a dive into the general fund and a high level overview of capital and then we'll get to the rest of the hearing where we're looking to approve the tenative millage rates and the budget. Um so any questions before I get started? Anybody have any questions?

No. Okay.

All right. So, hearing none.

So, back in January, we started our budget cycle where we met with the board and we did a workshop looking at the five-year strategic plan and what bits of that strategic plan we wanted to start focusing on in year one. And from then on, the county has worked very diligently behind the scenes and some publicly to put together a budget package for you that we're going to discuss in further detail tonight. And those included um revenue projection meeting in early spring. We came back and we had some in-length discussions around municipal service taxing units and the parks one in particular and restructuring that. We held a board workshop um with the constitutional officers and the chief judge to get some early insight into their budget needs for the upcoming year. And then we had a another workshop in June where we had preliminary taxable assessed values and then we started to take a look at how the general fund was shaking out. We came back in July and we set the trim um for our tenative or our proposed millage rates and budget. And now we are at the first public hearing to uh approve tenative millage rates and a budget. Okay. All right. So for the purpose of the hearings, Florida statute requires that we have two public hearings to adopt millage rates and budget allowing for public comment. Today is our first public hearing for the tenative mill rates and budget. And what we're presenting today are the same mill rates that the board adopted in July and we must adopt the tenative millage rates and the budget by way of resolution.

All right. back in January and throughout this budget cycle, the board has focused a lot of their attention on community resilience and sustainability, reducing homelessness, providing access and availability to cultural, educational, recreational, and societal impacts for all, meeting affordable and attainable housing needs, focusing on our stressed communities, and supporting small businesses and entrepreneurship. And so our high level budget assumptions going into um into the budget that we are talking about, we right now have are proposing no change to our operating millillage, no change to the fire MSTU millillage, no change to the road rehabilitation millillage, no change to the parks MSTU millillage, no change in the storm water assessment. Earlier today, the U water utility rates were adopted and so those will get folded into the budget for the final public hearing, but so they are not in the numbers that you will see today, but we'll package those up for the final. And then we also discussed the solidway 7 for7 plan. All right. So our tenative budget as it stands today net of inner fund transfers is broken out here by operating capital debt service and reserves. And so for situational awareness th this is the overall county budget. So funds for all of our operations from road maintenance to capital projects to our water utility, our solid waste utility, fire rescue, the sheriff, all of the constitutional officers are all encompassed in these numbers you see right here. Now, some of us are more visual. So we wanted to make sure that we also included this in a pictorial form in a pie chart so you can see the relationship of the different pieces to each other. and you will see that operating or maintaining our daily operations is the biggest piece of the pie of the budget that's getting um considered tonight. And now that reserve piece of the pie um tends to be a little bit confusing when you look at it at this high this high level number. So what we wanted to do was break it out by type of reserve. And so what this pie chart shows you is we've got the general fund reserves is that small blue piece coming here on the bottom right. Our support services is that smaller darker green right above that. Special revenue, those are everything from the fire MSTU to um what other funds are in there that might sound cool? Uh

gas tax, right? So, um, operating our road maintenance and all of that is in there. All of our MSG, so road rehabilitation, MSG is in there. And then you'll notice there's a small sliver for capital projects. And you might say, Amy, why would we have a small sliver for capital projects? And I would say, great question, because really our intent is to fully spend and execute all of those capital dollars and put them to work. However, some of our capital revenue streams we have to build up over time. And then you'll see that where we've got some higher uh budgets in FY26 because we've let some of those capital dollars roll over and now we can execute. So technically we'd like that to be zero but it's not always uh feasible. And then over here in the enterprise so those reserves get to be a little bit interesting because in there are some bond covenants that give us some required reserve levels. And so those are for the solid waste utility, the water utility. And so there's um kind of we'll call it special rules that govern what we need to hold in reserves there. Any questions before I move on?

Sure.

Yes. So, so in the reserve bucket,

all the special revenue, capital projects, enterprise, and internal services, even though it's in the reserves, basically is every single one of these dollars encumbered. Obviously, the general funds, you know, as general, it can be we can touch that if we need to, but in these other buckets, they're pretty much locked in because they're obligated to one thing or another. Restricted

restricted spend. Yes.

Yeah. The majority of what you're seeing here are restricted funds.

Okay.

Um what percentage of total you know are we at the 16%? What what percent are we at?

So are you going to show that somewhere here?

So that depends on what particular fund you're looking at. But now if I go back to this slide and I look at what is the total reserve for all of this? What is that percent for our total budget? were hovering around 20% in reserves.

Amy, I think she's referring more to the general fund,

but right, but our general fund is sitting at 12.7%. And now, so recommend and best practice is 16.7% which equals 60 days of operating. And so our general fund reserve forward is where I wanted to go. That's 65.9. And I will touch on this in um further detail as well, but that puts us at roughly 47 days of operating. So, 13 shy of that 60-day target, which is helpful when things like storms and other emergencies roll through.

Madam Chair,

sorry, in in one of these, would would the waste energy plant the reserves for that be put in there?

Yep. That's going to be in the enterprise bucket, that 178.2.

Okay. That's money we collected for seven years. Okay.

Yep.

So, in Yep. So, that's a great point, Commissioner Mariano, because in that enterprise is

I thought that I know, right? Me too. Is um so we have bond covenant type reserve requirements but we also look in order to balance what those fees are to the citizens. We look at a balance of financing through debt service and some pay as you go. So you will see the enterprise reserves kind of eb and flow as we're trying to build up to to cash fund some of those projects like the waste to energy plan expansion that was um multiaceted approach to financing with some cash pay as you go as well as some bond deals and financing and so you'll see kind of a blend of that in those funds. Commissioner W.

Thank you chair. So in this 65.9 that's not including the seven and a half that FEMA owes the county in reimbursement.

It does not.

So what would our

So had fun as you know I have fun during budget time. So with the 7 12 million that we were owed in FEMA reimbursement that would that would give us move from 47 days to 53 days in the coffers. But what we also learned is I was like well can we borrow against because you never know

when we going to get your FEMA reimbursement. So, a question was, can we leverage that money and and essentially borrow against it versus having to look at increased taxes and fees or whatever? And Eric said, "No, we can't." But I'm not necessarily satisfied with that that answer. Um, so create creative budgeting here, but it was that was an interesting novelty that came out of this exercise. So, um, I told you yesterday I was on a statewide call with Florida Association of Counties listening to the ideas coming out of different counties and Bay County, which is P, you know, uh, Panama City Beach and up in there. They're trying to see if they can sweep they they want to propose sweeping dock stamps to pay for the debt that they have incurred from the hurricane that um because they have not been paid back in 10 years from I think it's hurricane Michael

Michael

10 years

and they they have all this debt from that hurricane they're paying interest on it. So who knows when the heck we're going to get that money. It's rid. That's something we need to work on.

Well, that's why it's vitally important that uh you know, and I I I would probably put to task and Eric to talk more about it, but you know, our our ability to get reimbursed where paperwork is very tight. We keep very close tabs on, you know, how we do our reimbursements and making sure that we we check all the boxes to to ensure a more swift reimbursement. We also participate in uh in a program that allows us to collect some of our monies early on. FROCK, I think is is what it's called. And so we're able to get 50% up from

Yes.

which is

that helps, but who knows when we're going to get the other 50.

Correct.

Look how long it took us to get the money from um some of those past hurricanes. Took a decade. So something we need to talk to our legislators about. State hands holds on to a lot it for a long time because they get it and I waste it sit on it. But that that needs to get down to the counties much quicker. Would it when you're talking about FIC would it be say so Pasco's owed 7 and a half million that would put us at 53 days 7 days shy of our 60-day best management practice. you has there been conversation if this if the state would say give the county 7 and a half million or a portion of that and then hold the debt until the fed passes it down to give counties a break on their budget cycles because when you look at obviously this we can't figure here but just legislate if if the state were to do that I think it would alleviate a lot of the burden especially with the property tax talk because if if if if boards, commissions, and city councils knew they had that flexibility, they could potentially, you know, manage their millage rates differently, especially, you know, the Bay counties of the of the world. Has that been discussed or at any level?

No, Commissioner, not not that I'm aware of. Maybe at the staff level. I can I can tell you at the staff level we we have a struggle even with the state um particular issue in solid waste over you know reimbursements of state assets that have come to help us where the state wants us to take on the reimbursement liability which we've refused. So I think the state's just as much in the hole as as local governments would be. I mean we have not had that conversation. I'm happy to ask Mr. Guthrie or or those that are in a position. But I I would suspect that the state's in the same hole that we are in terms of reimbursements from the feds as well since we're arguing.

Theoretically, you think it'd be easier accounting than the Fed just write one check to the state of Florida versus 67 checks to 67 counties and however many.

But they hold on to it.

There's cash flow. And like I said, reimbursements reimbursement of and documentation is of such vital importance to the federal government. That's why we harp on them with our departments and we have pretty good processes in place or our reimbursement packages are pretty tight. Um, so I mean I feel good about what we submit. I can't speak for Bay County or other places, but we're just following the rules. Your points are well made, Commissioner, and and they're probably conversations that we should broadly have um when when it comes to you know you know how to help counties.

Um I need to clarify something. Bay County did not want to do the dock stamps. That was someone else. What Bay County wanted to do was um take their building department fees because they did not wave them like we did um and take that re revenue bump that they had after the hurricane, take that money and pay down their hurricane debt. That's what they're trying to get the state to do. I just I don't want to misrepresent. Okay.

Are any further reserve conversation?

All right. So now we wanted to take the revenue coming into this total budget and try to break it out in a way that might make some sense to somebody who doesn't work in my office. Um so that that top purple piece of the pie is what is coming in for property taxes. So then your next question is okay Amy well what makes up those property taxes? So, if you look over to the first table, you'll see the general fund or the general revenue tax that comes in makes up about 426 million of that. Our fire MSTU is aboutund just a little shy of 119 million of that. The road MSTU is just shy of 22 million. And then voter approved loans. So, these are those general obligation bonds that our voters voted on to uh renovate our libraries, to handle some of our deferred parks maintenance, to expand the jail, and to rehab and build some new fire stations. And so, the revenue coming in for those is 12.6 million. So, fun fact on those, because I love fun fact Wednesdays, um the millage rates that we set for those general obligation bonds are designed to only collect what we need to pay for debt service. So, when the county is in a growth situation, which we are right now, um the same millage rate applied to more households and more properties will generate more money. So, we're actually seeing a reduction in the general obligation millage rates as a result of the growth in the county. So, you can get the same money coming in, charging everyone a little bit less because it's spread out over more households and properties. All right, so that's we'll move on. I'm sure I'll have more fun fact Wednesday for you. Um, so the next piece of the pie, if we just go that's clockwise, um, is our beginning balance or our reserves. So think of that as last year's leftover over reserves coming into the next year as our starting off point. On the revenue side of things, we call it beginning balance because we like to keep you on your toes. And then if we slide down to the next piece of the pie. So these are charges for service fees and assessments. So for these, think of um there's a transactional thing that I get when I pay something. I pay this thing, I get a service, I pay this thing, I get a product. So think a permit um things like that right it's very transactional based now if we keep going across to the last wedge where it says other sources think of these as more kind of pulled resources that get divvied out into programs. So in there we've got penny for Pasco as a good example or fuel taxes where you pay in and then there's rules that divvy out how those things are allowed to get expensed. So I hope that makes sense. Are there any questions on the total revenues coming in? All right. All right. So, now we're going to take a dive into the general fund. So, our final taxable assessed values yielded 11.2% growth over the previous year. And so, here we'll show you how um how that

new money kind of gets divvied up, for lack of better words, right? So, the sheriff's allocation at 17.43 43. It is important to note that this is $2 million less than what we had agreed upon because the sheriff gave us back a little over $2 million. That way, we could reallocate those resources over to fund some maintenance for our parks team. So, we've been able to um bolster that maintenance budget up by three million in part because the sheriff gave us back that 2 million.

To chair.

Yeah.

To to Paul's I think Chase is here. Is he here? Chase Daniels.

Yeah. I I can't express my appreciation to you guys enough, especially when we're trying to balance the park for sheriff to come in and work with us on his budget and then cut, you know, reallocate to me and for the parks department. That's a big deal. And um I think we all know that. So, thank you.

Yep. We all agree. We're very agree.

All right. And then um because the payments to the community community redevelopment areas and the tax increment finance areas are based off of um that same taxable assessed value from the base year till now. There's a little bit of extra money that's getting funneled over to each of those components. When we drop down to the fire municipal service taxing unit, they realized 11.7% growth over the prior year, which is roughly 12.5 million more in revenue. And then when you drop down to the road rehabilitation MSTU, that yielded 11.2% growth, which is roughly $2.2 million that the team's been able to um put back into that road program. All right. But now it's important to note that our general fund is a big compilation of many many things and property tax revenue while it's the biggest piece of the pie it is just one piece of the pie. So now when we look at our overall general fund and how that's sitting, um these numbers are a little bit different than when we met back in July. The state did their true up on some of those major revenues that come through to us and we realized more money than we had been anticipating. And so we in that we've been able to bump up our reserve which on here is called ending fund balance because I love nothing more than to keep everyone on their toes. So, last time we looked at that, that was right around hovering the $48 million mark, which was 34 days in reserve. Now that we're sitting at just shy of 66 million, that does bump us up to the 47 days that we talked about a little bit earlier.

That's how we got to the 47 days.

Yes. And it made our um structural imbalance when you go to the next line where revenue coming in and expenses coming out on an annual basis that kind of closed the gap and it put us um a little bit better from a structural standpoint too. So it was this is why the team keeps refining those estimates as we go through this process. All right. So we looked at the revenue side of the house. So now let's look at how those general fund expenses break out. So the biggest piece of the pie is um dedicated to public safety. So on here um we've broken out what makes up public safety. So we have the sheriff's allocation, corrections, fire rescue, and other. And again, it is important to note that um when you go to the outward facing, the last time I showed you this parks was sitting at around $20 million. And now because um of the sheriff's contribution, they've been able we've been able to bump that up to 23 million. And so really just the kind of the big muscle movement since the last time that we looked at this presentation together. Now in the general fund, we also have a um a grouping of uh what we're calling state mandates. So anything that is bold and italicized, we are statemanded to pay. And then anything on this chart that is not bold or italicized is at the board's discretion. Um these numbers have not changed since the last time we saw them because we did have all of those state numbers like Medicaid already um they were already sent to us and incorporated.

Amy, I think I think it's fair to put on the record that the the 14.2 million and the unfunded mandates, that's a very conservative that's a pretty conservative number. Wouldn't you agree as we

Yes. the more that we've explored where we have um either unfunded or underfunded state mandates, they do spread uh by and large beyond the general fund and it is a much larger I don't have that number off the top of my head, but it is vastly larger than what you're seeing.

Yes. So, as we as we've gone through this this project and understanding the unfunded or underfunded state mandates in our budget, as we compile the list and refine it, um especially at session and as the state moves forward with, you know, the potential property tax discussion and referendum,

we have something t tangible that we can show our state leaders and say, "Hey, here's the impact of your decisions. We would love to take this 14.2 2 million and reallocate it or give a nice tax break to our taxpayers. But as as to help them go through their thought process uh on what they on what they may decide to do with local governments, I think it's a really important piece because it's all scalable of the 67 counties is probably virtually a percentage of every every budget. Um, and so I'm just really grateful that y'all y'all taken this exercise seriously and not found it too too annoying or burdensome, but uh it's it's been pretty pretty eye opening. Um, so thank you for your work on on this.

You're welcome. It's been an an enlightening and educational side quest.

Commissioner Mariano,

uh, Madam Chair, I really like that idea, Commissioner W.

That would be something they can look at. It's a start where they can go after stuff to help us and contingent upon we do cut our budget down by X number of dollars.

Return it to the tax.

Great idea.

Yeah.

All right. So, um, our constitutional officer budget request. So again, these are by and large the same. And I know I'm foot stomping it, but really the only change from the last time you saw this is the $2 million reduction from the sheriff. And so the last time we saw this, we had added the records clerk for the clerk and controller. We just wanted to keep that note up there that was associated with the anticipated increase work around the value adjustment board.

Yep. A Amy in uh back to slide 14 with the burials.

Yes.

Didn't Didn't we just What did we approve recently? The the fees for cremations.

Yeah, we just

Was there a was that not accurate? And was that update reflected in?

Uh that's

this what we just approved.

Yeah. You had a three-year contract for roughly $600,000. So that more or less tracks those numbers.

Yeah. Okay. Can you um please silence your phones?

Thank you.

One thing maybe Amy just point out um for the public that the reason the supervisor of elections is a little higher is because it's an election year. Correct.

Yes. Correct. So the supervisor of elections budget will eb and flow. Um whether it's a big election year or an off election year on the off cycles he does reduce his budget substantially. All right. So, our capital improvement plan is uh $1.8 billion over the next five years. Um we show a five-year plan, but the board really is only adopting that first year. So, earlier we talked about um capital reserves and how sometimes we'll be building up those capital dollars until we have enough in the bank to be able to perform some work. And so this is a great chart that illustrates where that's happening. So if I take you to parks for example, um there's the Conerton District Park is slated in 26. And so that's been money we've been building up over the years. And so then you'll see how that drops down in 27 because we've spent kind of that reserve we've been building up over the years. All right. And so here our transportation line um that is kind of a beefy program. So we like to break that out by categories. And then for point of reference um the fiscal year 26 and some of the beyond no we've listed the 26 capacity projects. So, we're looking at Ridge Road, Sunlike to um US 41. Two phases of Sunlike Boulevard and Starky Boulevard um slated to begin in 26. All right.

Oh, I'm sorry, Amy. Wasn't the cubulus on there before? And did you look did you look into that that it was already funded?

I did. I did. So that's in an out year, not So these are the ones starting in 26. Dubulus was slated for I think it was 29.

What? I thought we were starting

I thought we were starting really

27. This is why I checked my fact checker.

27. Let the record show 27. All right. All right. So now we're on our tenative millage rate slides. And so these are the ones that we will begin discussing individually. So, um, chair, if you'd like to go back to the bottom of the first page of the script note.

Okay. Um, last

Okay. In accordance with Florida statute 2000.65, the first issue to be discussed is the recommended millage rates and the percentage changes from the roll back rates. Chairman, members of the board, the aggregate millage rate as advertised on the trim notices was 9.8683 mills, which represents a 1.37% increase from the aggregate rolled back rate of 9.7350 mills. The reason the aggregate mill rate is higher is because the total taxable value increased between last year and this year, generating additional revenue levied for the same mill rate. Table one in your handout shows the millage rates for the various county levies and a comparison of the recommended rel millage rates to the rolled back rates in the prior year adopted millage rates. Rather than read this chart into the record, we have provided copies to each commissioner board records and members of the audience. Tonight, I would like to ask the commission to adopt the tenative millage rates and total budget. The millage rates adopted tonight are the maximum allowed by Florida law without mailing each property owner an additional notice. The board can reduce the millage rates tonight through the final hearing on September 16th. However, the millage rate cannot be increased later in the meeting should the commission wish to modify the budget. We ask that staff be directed to return on September 16th at the final public hearing with the desired amendments. I'd like to give a summary of the general fund and the transportation trust fund budgets. stating the tenative millage rates, the percentage change from the rolled back rate and the reasons for such a change. The tenative millage rate for the general fund is 7.4292 mills, which is a 3.92% increase from the rolled back rate of 7.1489. The tenative millage rate is the same as last year's adopted millage rate. The county realized an 11.2% increase in taxable assessed values over the past year. The increase in property values results in an additional 43.6 million in property tax revenue. The additional revenue will in part be used to increase the funding for parks capital maintenance, renovate the Hudson Library, provide operational resources for the expanded detention center, and provide wage increases for all employees. Prior action by the Florida legislature elimmited eliminated the requirement for mandatory transportation advalorum tax. No transportation millillage was levied last year and we propose no millillage be assessed this year for the transportation trust fund. I would ask that the board accept public comment and then vote on the general fund and the transportation trust fund millage rates and associated budgets. The minimum vote requirement to levy the general fund millage rate is a simple majority or

three votes according to maximum millage rate calculations. Um, okay. I'm sorry. I have a question for you and I thought it was Dubulus, but I need to go back to this transportation engineering capital. I have two questions for you. Starky Boulevards from Marsha Drive to south of Wiregrass Road. Um, I thought the developer was paying for that instead of putting in a turnling. That's question number one. And then number two on my presentation last time rangeand was on here and now it's not on here. What? So what happened to rangeand on the c major capacity projects?

Rangeland was online to the tune of $54 million I think and now it's gone. Rangeland

while not listed up there is in the 26

is it is in there for 26. Rangeland confirmed

but you don't have it there.

We might have ran out of space.

Okay. Just my concern.

If you could address the first one that'd be awesome.

Good evening county commissioners. David Allen, assistant county administrator for development services. Um Chair Starky. Uh the the Starky Boulevard expansion from my understanding is is the county's contribution um for being able to to to complete that entire widening. The developer had a requirement to do the the turn lane as you mentioned into into the project. However, um the offset of the cost doesn't cover the full cost of of the expansion.

Is David Goldstein here?

No.

Okay. I really have a question on this because I was in on these and I'm pretty sure

it was either a turn lane at Starky and 54

or widening that part of Starky Boulevard.

So I I I do recall what you're discussing. What we'll do is um prior to the final hearing, I'll confirm that with your office. Um I don't have county engineer or you know here to to confirm that specifically but uh as well as the rangeland question

right

she thinks rangeand just got cut cut off there but they've confirmed that it's in there so rangeand is in there um but I do have this question on Starky Boulevard. Okay, thank you. So we're on page four.

You're right here.

Right. So

for public comment,

page four. Sorry, I was looking at my notes. I'm trying to remember what I had seen before. Okay. Um now, does anyone wish to speak to the board regarding the general fund and transportation fund?

So chair, we have some individuals signed up. It is not clear which one. So, I'm going to call their names and then they can let us know if they want to speak to this one. So, Julio Gdoy. No. Oh, okay. Luther Goodwin. Luther Goodwin. Sir, when you come with you'll give your name and address for the record and then you have your three minutes.

Thank you. My name is Luther Goodwin, 11451 Sally Road, Dade City, Florida. I'd like to say good evening commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity to present my opinion. Sheriff. Um, first of all, um, I come before you today to, uh, update you on my experiences and concerns about the road that we live on, that being Sally Road here in Date City. Sally Road is 65 plus years old and it is original in its pavement. We live on the very north end of the street and we have traveled daily its full extent for some 55 years. I've called public works many times throughout the years for pothole fills and overlays in certain areas and I have been very satisfied with the response times on the work done usually two to three days at the most. This year, however, things have changed somewhat for some reason. We currently have an open work order number 82483 pending as of August 28th, 2025. Public works just today has told me that they are running two to three weeks in this type of repair. Back on April 15th, 2025, work order number 78557 was generated for the same type of repair. A crew came and did part of the street but did not do all of it. I called them back a couple of weeks later and I got no response from that call. A couple of weeks later, my neighbor called and to generate a work order and we got no response. So, we now wait to see if the current request is fulfilled. In one area, the road is practically dirt. My second concern, and probably the most important one, is as follows. In July of 2024, your team jubilantly, as per your video, introduced the new road program, MSTU, replacing PBAS, as a new system that would be better and fairer for each property owner owner in the county for the foreseeable future. We were excited as well until some months later, we learned that Sally Road was not on the three-year list of repaving. So that didn't set very well with us. There are 683 roads listed on the list initially. We want to learn of some method methodology that was used to factor in the repaving on a priority level. It appears that we were overlooked in the initial process and since we have assessed have been assessed for the n for the 2024 and 2025 taxes we are in great hopes that we would be added to the list very shortly respectfully submitted Luther Goodwin and I'd like this to be a part of the record. Thank you.

Receive file.

Second.

All in favor? I I did just uh look at your road and I can tell from Google Earth it's quite quite messed up and I did just go down and look at the three-year list um that you can um communicate with them and they will come out and do the road test on your road. There is a

Oh,

there's someone behind there that can explain that to you. So, we'll move on and he can explain it to you.

Mr. How long have y'all lived on Sally? How long did you say you lived on South?

We've been there 60 years probably.

Something something to to think about because of the time you live there is look into our senior tax exemption for next round. We passed this two budget cycles ago and um so call Mike Wells property appraiser office. They have a whole team and you may qualify for an additional $50,000 uh for a homestead exemption since you live there so long based on some financials and other things. Um so it's worth a phone call over to Mike Will's office tomorrow to see if you can't qualify for the additional tax exemption. Um I know that's not your road, but that might be able to save you some money.

Be great. Thank you. And there's someone behind you that if you go outside this door, he'll explain the process for you to make sure some comes out and retests your road. I think there's because I've heard them do this to other roads because it's all uh and where your road lands on this matrix. So, um but we'll be coming out with a new road list in October.

Yes.

So,

um but here's Brford and he'll he'll help you.

Thank you very much.

Y it looks bad from Google. Okay. All right. And then the next person who has signed up is Christy Zimmer.

Good evening, Christy Zimmer, 3615 Pine Cone Court, Land of Lakes. I'm ask I'm here to ask for clarification and fairness regarding my property assessment. Thank you for the opportunity for allowing us to be here. Last year, my property just values was listed at 313,874. This year the number actually decreased slightly to 310540. However, during that same time the assessed value went up from 1286 last year to 132530 this year. There have been no improvements made to the property. No repaved roads, no extra features. In fact, it has gotten to be impossible to even travel safely around the county without the improper infrastructure with all the growth we're facing. In 2023, my just value went up 15,000 and my assessed value also went up 37.50. The only thing I can figure is that you that the taxes went up by the 3% regardless that the value goes down. I have a problem with that math. I find it confusing and concerning that while the just value went down, the assessed value went up leading to a higher tax burden on a lower valued property. I respectfully ask the board to explain how this can be justified. This is not the year to increase taxes on homeowners. With the inflation, insurance cost, and the rising cost of the cost of living without the equal rise in wages, homeowners association fees, CDD fees, ISD fees, which I know you can't do anything about, but the higher taxes, which you can, are causing families that are already under tremendous pressure to pro possibly lose their homes. And with the substantial growth in Pasco County is experiencing, the tax base is already expanding. So revenue should not have to come from the ra right from raising the burden on individual homeowners. In fact, the growth should allow for tax relief, not increases. The industrial and commercial growth was promised to bring more taxes, but where is the relief for the property owners? These increasing tax burdens in and insurance costs are forcing homeowners out. most experienced and in a have experienced a shortage in their escrow accounts last year and are having to pay more to cover that shortage plus more and hope there won't be a shortage for next year. Otherwise, it will be a never-ending bad cycle. It's time to tighten the belts like we all have to do to try to survive. Did you know that there's 43 properties in the clerk's calendar for foreclosure sales this month? This number is increasing every month. I work with the banks to assess the values for them to determine whether they're going to do a short sale or a foreclosure. And those requests for reports are multiplying daily. People are forced out of their homes because they simply can't afford the American dream anymore. Don't be a part of that problem. Let's be a part of the solution. All I'm asking for is fairness. I respectfully request that the board reconsider not just mine but all properties assessed values and ensure it reflects both reduction and just value and the reality that this is

not the right time to increase taxes on property county residents struggling to keep their homes. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Can I just can I get your address real quick because I'm going to I'm going to I want to look into Yep. Y

3615 Pine Cone Court Land Lake.

What is the street?

30 Pine Cone Pine. one word.

Did you want me to touch on that,

Mr. Chair? So, the example that what's occurred on Miss Zimmer's trim notice, there's other real life examples of that going on in this county. So, I don't know what the process is, Mike, if if if those come in.

County attorney explain.

That's So, you don't do the assessments. That's the property appraisal. Correct. is I'm asking about the process.

So the process is is I believe the trim notices all say you have to appeal to the VAB the value adjustment board and that proc that state law process the will sometimes the property appraiser adjusts before those hearings. They can do that independently but the to preserve your right for that adjustment you have to petition for a evaluation.

Is there a deadline for folks?

Yes. And I believe it's on the trim notice.

Mike, did you want to say something?

Because the only dates that have shown here are for this meeting, the school board meeting which is on the 9th, the swift mud meeting on the 9th which is in Tampa, and the mosquito control on the 4th. Those are the only dates and notices I have on this. I I I thought this was the value adjustment board to be honest with you.

I have no idea.

It's not the value adjustment board.

Please tell me how.

So So while that's happening, I I will say that I believe what Miss Zimmerman is pointing out is that her

property value was whatever it was her property value was actually lowered, but her assessed value was still increased at 3%.

Is that the Save Our Homes annual 3%? Well, I I I would have to say I I looked at some other trim notices and did some math. I will have a conversation with the property appraiser tomorrow and then perhaps we can bring some answers back at the next and I'll I'll reach out personally if if need be if this if the value adjustment board is is the right way to go. But it certainly intuitively

I understand what her point is.

Yeah.

And chair also

what's that got to do with the value adjustment board? Well, that's that's that's my question.

It's not the valuation the number the actual value of the property decreased in just value yet the assessed value increased. And I think that's your point.

Yeah.

So,

and

I I wonder is it by 3%. Did you look Did you do the math?

I didn't do the math. I just calculated the numbers.

It was saying yes.

I'm thinking that that is the

but if the value of the house it goes down. This is what I'm thinking and I'm not an accountant so I might say this weird but I'm thinking that with Save Our Homes everybody's

if there wasn't Save Our Homes you would your increase would have been up here.

I have a non-h homesteaded property with the exact same

I have I have non-h homesteaded and homesteaded property sadly. Um

but I'm thinking that that it's just a 3% increase that you get from Save Our Homes.

But if your value goes down, shouldn't your tax go down? But it's artificially lower than it's supposed to be because of save our homes. So I just think there's probably a three this we'll be

but this is a question for the property.

Yeah, we'll find out. But that's my guess.

Chair,

I have an idea, but I want to confirm

and then chair another there's another So we're hearing this in in the legislature. Some of the members are talking about issues with CDDs and HOAs around the state and ask that you grant Miss Zimmer another three minutes based on the independent uh districts and the fees that are associated with it. I think it's important that she speak to that and it's a represent. It's not something that we hear about often,

but it's often that people

confuse those fees on top of our fees and they get and they get blended. But there's some disc seemingly some discrepancies that so I ask you granter another three minutes to talk about that specific issue.

Probably won't even take any

Lake Padet Estates is the only ISD community in P in Pasco County which is an independent special district. So, we had a bill passed in 2006. In that bill, it says that if they increase our fees, they're supposed to do it by referendum vote. They've never done that. Rosetta is our current property manager. Four years ago, it came to my attention, one of the line items in the budget that they were charging us for was $5,48 for assessment role fees. So, I called Mike Fisano and Mike Wells and asked them, "What does what where are these fees coming from?" Because in Rosetta's statement, they say the district will contract with the firm to prepare, maintain, and certify the assessment roles and annually levy a non-advelorum assessment for operating and debt service expenses. Interestingly enough, according to Mike Wells, they don't do Rosetta does nothing with our tax roles. That comes 100% from Mike Wells office, the property appraisers office. He sends it over to Mike Fisano who charges us 2% to process all our tax roles to collect all our money and then give it back and he gives us a rebate back on top of that. He does not charge that fee either. And he said they are ripping you off.

I've been fighting it for four years this year. We finally have board members that want to take it to the head. I am here to say I am not in favor of the ISD amount. I don't know how that works with you guys because I know that's legislative. But I want you guys to be aware of what they're doing because Mike Fasano and Mike Wells both agreed that this was a a thievery on res the property management company's part, Rosetta's part in charging us those fees.

Is that only for independent special districts

or does that happen in C?

They're charging the ISD and it shouldn't be for an ISD at all. They do nothing with our tax rules but one sheet of paper that Mike Vasanu sends to him to sign and put the number that they're going to assess us that they approved on our budget. That's all they do.

That's on the nonadalorum assessment portion of your tax bill or your trim notice.

Five.

So that's so that's the fees that are levied by the independent special district. They're transmitted to the property appraiser just like you do. and then they are put on the non-adorm. So, so the remedy and that's why all those different dates and times are listed on your term notice is

to them.

What's not under them?

There's no nobody that they the number that they give is the management company. That's who I'm supposed to complain to.

So, so they they have to have a meeting just like this one.

They had a budget meeting

and that was was brought up and the attorney said he wanted to call Mike Fisano and find out. So, I got a message from uh the attorney Tim Hayes. I sent him an email and asked him and he said he was waiting for a written reply from the management company and would be in touch with Mike Pasano. But I'm here to say don't approve that $7323.

So, this board has no jurisdiction to not approve any of the nonadvalorum assessments that are not their own. But be awareist

things are happening at the local level and unfortunately it's not anything that I think you guys can do anything about.

Yeah.

But be aware to bring it to attention to people.

So county attorney so their go their governing board can vote to reduce these these level of fees theoretically. Is that what you're saying? Their governing body.

Yes they can.

That's your path. And that's what we've got to work on is getting three of the supervisors in there to vote it vote it down and change management.

My recollection is that Lake Badget is in is a separately elected body just like CDD. Okay.

Yes. But it's not a CDD. So it's a little bit different than

Yeah. CD.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Well, it's got a it they did a special act before anybody was using 190 and that's which is the CDD statute. And so they're classified as an independent special district, which a CDD is also. They just don't track the chapter 190 that CDDs are under.

All right. Thank you. That was interesting. Um, you can do a recall uh six 51 51% I think of your people. You can recall your elected officials on your board. We can talk about that later.

Okay.

I'm not so sure unless their special act has that built into. Let me just recalled my HOA board.

They're not an HOA. They don't travel under that statute.

Okay. All right. Uh is there anyone else who wishes to speak to us about this?

Okay. Um any discussion by the board?

Well, I'll save it for the last day, but you know what I'm going to be advocating for. Um Mike, I know we discussed trying to figure out at least looking at reduced millage by a dimminimous 0.01. Have we had any refinement on that possibility? So I'm going to be board board discussion on that. We did discuss with the board uh you know potentially looking at at that kind of reduction. Uh 0.01 101 I certainly um you know have have staff look at that make the necessary adjustments you know to the budget

that's equivalent to about a half a million dollars.

Yes sir.

So it's not not a crazy amount but something

and I wouldn't doubt that every member sitting up here wants to do something right. So it's just um we and we have the last three or four years done been rolling back

steadily last two in a row in his past past three years the board is Amy what what was the 76

76076 then it went to 7.57 and now 7.4292 4292.

Yes. So, and I think, you know, we're not funding everything to the highest level, but we're also being respectful of

I would be I would be happy to bring something back at your regular meeting on the 16th to for for the board to discuss if you would like that.

Yeah.

Yes. Yes. Okay.

So, just so the public knows we if we you know stay stay here, but it's the next meeting where we do the

the magic.

So, I know it would look good. Oh, we put we cut the military. But if it if it is going to be that amount, which I'm not I don't even think we need to do in the sense of with 7.5 in the whole compared what we were with the state. Um I've got roads and we just heard about this gentleman here. He's not even on a three three year road treasure. We didn't increase the MSTU for the roads. We didn't put one in for parks.

And I get demands out there that people want to get the services done.

So it it may sound good to just drop it down 01. And frankly,

I I just don't see what the real point is. I'm just just looking to say, well, we did cut it a little bit.

Well, I think we should cut something.

I I disagree with that.

This is not about optics. This is truly giving people their money back. And there's over $55,000 just right off the top in port projects. And there's also other things that it'd be difficult conversations to have, but I don't think it it's ready yet on on restructuring this budget in any piece of millillage that we can cut. I'm I'm going to advocate to do it. I don't care if it's one penny.

Um that's what we're elected to do. Uh it's our number one job. We differ on that opinion, which makes this fantastic and fun every year the last couple of years. But uh this isn't this isn't sound bites for me. I truly uh believe and I think I've shown in advocating for this effort. It's a mission of mine. So

I I did have a question. Did you want to go ahead?

Make a motion.

Well, I I No, I have a question before. Um I wanted to ask you because we had a big discussion about the parks maintenance budget and we all said at that meeting and Commissioner, I'm sorry I didn't see your hand so I'll get to you in a second. Go ahead. um that we all we all had a discussion that um we wanted to do something on the parks maintenance budget and we agreed in our budget workshop that we were going to give him a certain amount.

Yes.

And I want to be sure we're funding him at what we said because I see deficiencies all over the county that are just a shame.

If if the board elects, you know, the current example of 0.01 1 mills roughly half a million dollars. I would seek to cut that from recurring spending and if it's this board's desire to because of the condition of the parks budget to leave that off limits, I certainly will not touch that.

Well, what I'm asking you is what number are you giving it?

$3 million is is what we agreed to with uh the addition

plus the other one?

Yes.

Yes. So, in the parks budget already was one roughly 1.23 23 million and we've added another 3 million on top of that to for a total of roughly 4.23.

You will recall that Mr. annual deficit was somewhere around 7 to 8 million.

Eight. Yeah. So he's getting half the half of half of the parks are going to get fixed. Um but I understand we're taking a baby step. Um but I I will you know I I wanted to fund them whole. I wanted to do whatever it was we were going to do the last year but and we funded the MSTU at zero but I will be okay at with that number for state that number

okay commissioner

thank you uh I think if you remember was it two years ago we we tweaked the millillage

well we've done it last two years we had the fire MSTU and we were

Oh I know but I'm talking about the one that We did. It was a very small percentage of money, but it like for the sheriff, it hit his budget, $600,000, which he will never

And if you listen to the outcry of the citizens,

more and more want the sheriff to be able to do more,

but you cutting his budget with a tweak. And I mean, we didn't really believe that it would do that to his budget, but $600,000 in the sheriff's budget goes a long way. So, I have a problem with tweaking millage. U even even with that, you have to take away a lot of money to affect all the homeowners to be able to see a decrease in their taxes. I don't know how much it would take to really for them to get a benefit out of those taxes coming down. So,

Madam Chair,

yeah,

I mean, I don't think it matters much, but I'm willing to make a motion at 7.4291 with the stipulation you take it out of reserves and leave everything every other budget the same. Sheriff's budget, everyone else stays the same.

Now, what what number are you talking about? I'm going going down that 0.001 mills. So 7 my motion is 7.4291.

Well, we can do that for today and then

No, it was 0.01.

He's just making this motion for today,

which is a decrease from today.

Was a good start.

You don't want to say compounded for

we'll see what happens.

I would entertain a second on that.

I'll second that.

Good.

It's a start. Just

if you lower it tonight,

you can't get it back at the next hearing.

Yeah.

So,

just I mean, and the administrator has a has asked you

to wait

to wait. So, it would be and I appreciate the the zeal and and with that if if we do that now, that's fine. We I will have to ask for a recess so we can recalculate the remaining numbers that are here currently in in this in the script. I think I've already committed to you of bringing back a number from this board at at 0.01. We can wait, but it's entirely the board's prerogative. I'm just

I'm good. I'll recall my motion. I'll make another motion of approval of the general fund mill of 7.4292.

I'll second.

I have discussion.

Okay. So, we have a for motion and a second under discussion. I would rather than change it tonight. I would rather us look at the fact of what it means to the sheriff's office.

We're not changing it tonight. The motion was to keep it the same.

I'll keep it the same for now.

We have a motion and a second.

I'm okay with that, but I'd like to come back

and I can address your comment when the board is ready. Yeah, Madam Chair,

just as it's just to clarify, Commissioner Oakley, what I had said was in doing the millage to do the drop, don't affect the sheriff's budget or all the other budgets. Take it out of the reserves and let them go work that internally so it won't affect the drop the others.

But we're not going to do the drop tonight, but that's that's where they could do it. They don't affect any of that.

I don't mind cutting taxes. I just want them to to be going to the right people the cuts and not hurting the different constitutionals that we hurt before by not looking into it further.

And if I I can provide clarity to that and I'm sorry I didn't state it in my original conversation. Yeah, I had no no intention of of impacting the sheriff's budget. The sheriff already, you know, reduced what this board would normally have given him uh by $2 million. So, right,

that that was off the table. Um, you know, we'll leave the rest of the constitutionals out. I will find that within the general county government.

Well, to chair for and to clear up the the the 600,000 sheriff,

we found we found the fine. We found the money to make them whole special, you know, thanks to the hard work of Mike Fisano and what he he returns. And it was just an example of we can make moves. There is money out there. It's just how we think about how we use these funds and how to direct these funds. So, I thought that was a fun night for me, my first time. But, um

I just don't want but uh the sheriff the sheriff he he did he didn't take he didn't take the hit. The sheriff was was made whole thanks to the the team effort and hard work of of uh of uh tax collector's office while you know finding a way to save the taxpayer a little bit of money. So

that's that's that's what happened.

Yep.

Um I understand that and he was made whole that time, but that doesn't guarantee that he can be made whole the next time because we were lucky enough to have money come back to us and that was very fortunate. So we didn't make that up. But every year after that, we're not making up that 600. It's gone. It's not coming back in his budget. That 600 is gone even though you made it up that one year.

Yep. Okay. So, I have a motion and a second.

Um,

what was the motion?

The motion is keep the millage out the same the same for tonight. So, they don't have to go back and do math and we'll

So, the general fund would be funded at the numbers that went out on the trip. Correct.

That is

Yes.

7.4292. 4292.

Okay. Is this a roll call vote?

Yeah.

Okay. All All in favor?

I opposed.

Okay. Uh is there a motion to adopt the tenative millage rate for the transportation trust fund of zero mills?

Approve.

Second.

I'll Okay. Under discussion. I'm just going to throw this out there. um you know we're talking about a regional MO and um that's going to have some we may have some responsibilities so just nothing right now but just something to think about that we start building a very very small kitty commission

what you have with that regional and I'm I'm okay with a regional the fact of it is you got to have a quorum every time you meet and you're talking about a board of in 26 or so individuals.

I think it's going to be a very important board and I think people are going to show up.

Well, I think it is too, but I'm I'm not sure I'm showing up because we have meetings with just our few and it's hard sometimes hard to get five or six or seven people to show up. So,

just got some large number creates an issue.

Yeah, people want it bigger, people want smaller. Um, okay. So, we had motion and a second. All in favor? I Um, okay. On to you.

I will now provide a summary of the fire municipal service taxing unit budget stating the tenative military, the percentage change from the roll back rate and the reasons for the change. The fire municipal service taxing unit fund has a recommended tax levy of 2.1225 mills. This represents a 5.62% increase from the roll back rate of 2.0096. Taxable values for this municipal service taxing unit increased 11.7%. The increase in property value results in an additional 12.5 million in property tax revenue. The additional revenue will be used to fund wage increases for the firefighter union, four additional emergency medical services supervisors, and four additional fire arson investigators. I would ask the board to accept public comment and then vote on the fire municipal service taxing unit fund military and associated budget. The minimum vote for this tenative hearing is a simple majority or three votes. However, it will be a minimum of four votes for the final public hearing.

Okay. Does anyone wish to speak to the board regarding the fire municipal service taxing unit known as an MSTU?

I do not have anyone signed up specifically for that one.

All right. Is there a motion to adopt a military

question here?

Sure.

So, uh, my is this one rescues rolled up into this?

So, no, not yet. So, the the intention is is before the end of this year is to bring back to the board uh changes in the current MSTU language to allow for rescue to roll up as well as the board directed to bring back a law enforcement MST language as well. So, we would bring both of those back. we're targeting about the November time frame for that. Um, so that the short answer to your question is no, it does not. But next year when the board comes through and we do law enforcement, we do first responders, we then can make global changes into how taxes are structured.

Chair, so what change are you looking to make with fire that fire MSTU? fire would allow for the rescue component uh to be uh included in the MSTU. Uh right now currently it comes from your the difference is made up it's about a 6535 split. So the fire budget comes from the general fund because your fire MS

the rescue portion right from

I'm sorry the rescue portion comes from the general fund. So if we include it in the fire MSTU, it's basically a fire rescue MSTU and encompasses all services that the fire rescue department covers. So it's no longer coming from two funding sources. The intent would be, I believe it's the board's intent, would be to make the a commensurate reduction in the general operating millage to account for that movement and then the fire rescue department will live in its own MSTU fund. Similarly, this board's direction was to come back with a law enforcement MSTU to handle the sheriff's budget and we it would be the same the same concept.

Isn't there and I might be getting confused with something else, but on their their rescue side, don't they they lose money on

Yes. So that'd be actually taking money away from

our as as aggressive as our team is, we we um you know, the public safety branch has our ambulance billing division which seeks reimbursement mostly from insurance for

So why would we combine that? I I'm I'm lost.

It's not 100%. We we maybe cover a third of those costs uh through through our bill recovery. So there's still um there's still makeup money that comes from the general fund currently for those operations. They're not holy they're not they're not fully um

yeah I'm not a fan of that just for the for the

not a fan of moving

of combining them.

Okay. I mean currently it's subsidized through the general fund or it would be subsidized through the MSTU um which which puts pressure on your general fund.

Okay. Well, I don't know. I just because she's not

This doesn't have anything to do. That's why

just because she's feeling that way doesn't mean I need a lot more discussion on that.

Oh, yeah. That's that's why we're we're separating this. We want to bring this to you guys in November to have a discussion when all things MSTU. So, it' be law enforcement, MSTU, and fire. And we can we can list out the pros and cons, commissioner, so you can make an informed decision on which direction.

We would all want pros and cons. Yeah.

Is there a motion? Um, did did I already ask if anyone want to speak to this?

Yes, you did. Okay. Did anyone get a give me a motion?

It was You need to Is there a motion to adopt?

Yeah. Is there a motion to adopt 2.1225 mills for the fire MSTU?

So moved.

Second.

All in favor? I

opposed.

I will now provide a summary of the other two municipal service taxing unit MSTU budgets stating the tenative millage rates. the percentage change from the roll back rate and the reasons for the change. No millage was levied last year and we propose no millage be assessed this year for the parks capital maintenance municipal service taxing unit fund. I would ask the board to accept public comment and then vote on the parks capital maintenance municipal service taxing unit military and associated budget. Since no levy is being proposed the minimum vote for this tenative hearing is a simple majority or three votes.

Okay. Hey, does anyone here wish to speak to the parks MSTU? You know, I was a I was a it was four to one on this last time, but I I can't do that this time. I wish I could, but um I'm not going to have you try and talk my fellow board members into funding parks better and send out another trim notice, which is what would happen.

So,

huh,

we can't go up

only if we send out another trim notice. So, I won't do that. Um, so I will vote for it, but

I just on record I think we're underfunded.

To be fair, I would have voted for it too if the structure of the language was different in the MSTU.

Well,

if we're going to vote for a new tax, you better have the language the right way to have a true generational impact in my opinion. So, it's not that I'm against parks. I was against the language and the structure of this tax.

Yeah. And you depending what they do in Talazo, we have to do a lot of

Yeah. The language the language is now updated but I think as we discussed in our workshop there were some structural changes with the remainder of the budget that needed to happen first uh before we had that subsequent conversation namely around public safety and expenses of the general fund.

Okay. Um there was no public comment.

Correct.

So I'll take a motion.

Move move approval.

Second

for zero mills. I'm taking a motion for zero mills for the parks capital maintenance MSTU. Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor? I

opposed. Okay.

The roads rehabilitation municipal service taxing unit fund has a recommended tax levy of452 mills. This represents a 5.3% increase from the roll back rate of 0.3848. This millage rate will generate 21.6 million in property tax revenue to maintain the county's roadway network. I would ask the board to accept public comment and then vote on the roads rehabilitation municipal service taxing unit military and associated budget. The minimum vote for this tenative hearing is a simple majority or three votes. However, it will be a minimum of four votes for the final hearing.

Chair,

yes.

Is Jason Mikl here? Anybody from his team?

Brford. You know, I have to admit I was I voted for it,

but internally I was reluctant.

Oh.

On its shocker of its

doing the happy things

of it success. Uh of its success. And I just want to commend you and your team on the speed and ex and and how ex expeditiously you all have moved to capture contracts and and get work done. You know, we take money from folks that expect us to spend it, spend it diligently and quickly and to see results. So, um it surprised me and um you know I good work good work there to you know Amy and everybody who was involved. um in in putting this together and and to make it go to work as quick as it did. So, um thank you.

Thank you too. Thank you all of you.

Uh we should have done it years ago.

Commissioner Oakley,

I'd like to add to that. Ranford and his team came through and did a great job with the funds they were given for that MSDU for the roads. Um, I've had people that tell me all the wrong things that the commission does from time to time stand up to me and tell me that that was one of the best moves we ever made when we changed from PAVAS system to the new system with the MSTU for roads. And y'all have done a great job moved through. You have a little more money this year, but y'all y'all went through a lot of roads u last year quicker than I could ever dreame. So we ran out of money before the end of the year he did. So

um on what date will you post the new list? Is that October 1st or

October after October?

October when

um I just don't have that particular date.

Anxiously await

but I'll make sure like to know.

I'm sure I'll get on Jason on vacation.

We need to talk.

We can never retire remember. Madam Chair,

uh, Commissioner Mariano.

Yeah, I just see Bradford, your team.

Yeah,

your team did do a phenomenal job with it. Um, I was hoping that we're going to increase it because you can hear and I'm sure we've all heard all the people who didn't make the list want to get on the list. That's going to go on for a long time. I think we're better off looking at for next year. We'll study a little bit closer, but the sooner you raise it up and the more roads you get done, you can then stabilize it later on. But we are still behind as far as the road conditions. But great job.

Thank you.

Okay. Um,

is there anyone here who wants to speak to the roads rehabilitation MST?

Do we have anyone online?

No.

Okay. Is there a motion to adopt a millage rate of second

4052 mills for the roads rehabilitation MSTU?

Move approved. Second.

All in favor? I

opposed.

Okay.

I will now provide a summary of the nine voter approved debt service millage rates. These mill rates are levied to repay the debt service for the general obligation bonds to include two tranches each for the jail project, the parks and recreation projects and the libraries projects as well as three tanches for the fire rescue projects. The nine individual millrates are listed on table one in your handout. Rather than read this chart into the record, we have provided copies to each commissioner, board records, and members of the audience. I ask the board to accept public comment and then vote on each debt service military. There is no vote requirement for these millates. So a simple majority or three votes is needed. Okay, let's put my spit. Does anyone wish to speak to the board regarding any of the nine bond militaries?

Chair.

Okay. Anyone?

Jeff and Amy. These these are these are going down every every year that we vote for these.

While the county is in a growth period. Yes.

They're they they've decreased this year into

Is that because there's it's shared by more people? Yeah.

Correct.

Okay. I understand.

Okay. Um is there a motion to adopt a millage rate of 0.0229 mills for the 2019 a jail facility bond?

Approval. Second. All in favor? I opposed.

Is there a motion to adopt a millage rate of 0.0182 mills for the 2019 B fire rescue bond?

Approval. Second.

All in favor? I

opposed. Is there a motion to adopt a millage rate of 0.0086 mills for the 2019 C parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Bond?

Approval. Second.

All in favor? I. Opposed. Is there a motion to adopt a millage rate of 0.0081 mills for the 2019 D libraries bond?

Approval. Second.

All in favor? I opposed.

Is there a motion to adopt a millage rate of 0.0364 mills for the 2020 fire rescue bond?

Approval. Second.

All in favor? I opposed. Is there a motion to adopt a millage rate of 0.0077 mills for the 2021A libraries bond?

Approval. Second.

All in favor? I opposed. None.

Is there a motion to adopt a millage rate for 0.0953 mills for the 2021B jail bond?

Approval. Second.

All in favor? I oppose.

Is there a motion to adopt a millage rate of 0.116 mills for

0.0?

Oh, you're right. 0.0116 0116 mills for the 2022 a parks recreation and natural resources bond.

Approval second.

All in favor? I

opposed. Is there a motion to adopt a millage rate of 0.01000 mills for the 2024A fire rescue bond?

Approved.

Second.

All in favor? I opposed.

I will now provide a summary of the remainder of the budget. If you refer to table two in your handout, you will see the revenue sources and allocations identified by type without regard to individual funds as stated prior to any any action taken by the board tonight. The budget totals 2 bill233,927,313 net of interfund transfers. I would ask the board to accept public comment then vote on the tenative budget. There is no vote requirements for the budget, so a simple majority or three votes is needed. Okay, we'll now receive public comment on the tenative budget.

There's no one signed up and no one online

because we're doing an awesome job. That's why. Um, okay. We'll I will entertain a motion to adopt the budget as outlined by staff.

So move.

Second.

All in favor?

I opposed. All right. The actions you have taken today has set the tenative aggregate millillage at 9.8683 mills which reflects an increase of 1.37% above the rolled back rate. I will now read the resolution adopting the millage rates by title only. A resolution of the board of county commissioners of the Pasco County Florida adopting the tenative levying of advalorum taxes for Pasco County for fiscal year 2026 providing for an effective date.

Okay. Is there a motion for approval of the resolution adopting the tenative levying of advalorum taxes for Pasco County for fiscal year 2026?

So move second.

All in favor? I opposed.

I will now read the resolution adopting the budget by title only. A resolution of the board of county commissioners of Pasco County, Florida adopting the tenative budget for fiscal year 2026 providing for an effective date. Is there a motion for approval of the resolution adopting the tenative budget for Pasco County for fiscal year 2026?

So move second. All

in favor?

I opposed. Thank you.

Any changes made between now and the final public hearing will be detailed in a memorandum which will be provided to you with your agenda for the regular meeting of September 16th. The final public hearing will occur on Tuesday, September se 16, 2025 at 5:15 in Newport Richie. This concludes the public hearing on the proposed military and tenative budget. I got there. All right. Thanks everybody.