Port Richey — The Port Richey City Council adopted a tentative fiscal year 2025‑26 budget and set the city’s millage rate at 6.29 during a Sept. 4 budget hearing, and councilmembers raised no objection after city staff signed a short‑notice $187,000 stormwater grant application that requires a roughly $62,000 local match.

City Manager Andrew Butterfield opened the meeting’s budget discussion, noting the first reading was held “as required by state law,” and introduced Finance Director Adam Thompson’s presentation on revenues, reserves and spending. Butterfield said staff would accept council feedback before final adoption per TRIM procedures. “As required by state law, the first reading of the budget for fiscal year ’26,” Butterfield said.

The budget keeps the millage at 6.29, a reduction from figures discussed earlier in workshops and slightly below the rollback rate cited in the presentation (6.2976). Butterfield said the city’s reserves will remain above the council’s 30% policy target and that the tentative budget includes a 3% across‑the‑board pay increase for city employees, with a higher increase for police as required by the department’s union contract.

Thompson’s overview estimated ad valorem revenues at about $3,000,000; franchise and utility revenues near $411,000; building and permit fees around $415,000; and red‑light camera revenues in the neighborhood of $1.4 million to $1.45 million. The presentation showed transfers and allocations of about $780,000 and a CARA/TIF ad valorem allocation from the county of about $866,000. Thompson said capital improvements will be funded by county sales‑tax proceeds (Penny for Pasco), CRA funds, the city’s CIP and reserves. Major expenditures noted included police salaries (about $1.9 million), fire department costs (about $1.36 million), and debt service of roughly $373,000 for vehicles and equipment.

The council held two final votes by voice: one to set the millage at 6.29 and one to approve the tentative FY 2025‑26 budget for further public hearings. Both motions passed unanimously by voice vote.

Separately, Butterfield reported staff had received an unusually short application deadline from the county/state for a stormwater management grant and had signed and submitted the application so the city would meet the cutoff. Butterfield told the council, “I signed it yesterday just so you’d make the deadline,” and said the application requests $187,000 with a local match of approximately $62,000 (about 25%). He said the city would not be committed to spending the match unless the grant is awarded and that staff could withdraw the application if council directs.

In mayoral and council comments after the votes, Mayor John Eric Hoover and other members thanked staff for the work on the budget and highlighted infrastructure, public safety and CRA redevelopment priorities discussed in workshops. The mayor also provided a status update on a Point Distillery commemorative rum project tied to a planned October car show fundraiser and said proceeds from sales will be directed to a yet‑to‑be‑finalized charity distribution policy.

Votes at a glance

- Set millage rate at 6.29 — Motion passed (voice vote, unanimous). Tally: yes 5, no 0, abstain 0. (Tentative; vote recorded as a unanimous voice vote; individual roll call not recorded in minutes.)

- Approve tentative FY 2025‑26 budget — Motion passed (voice vote, unanimous). Tally: yes 5, no 0, abstain 0. (Tentative adoption; final adoption to follow required TRIM public hearings.)

What happens next

The council will accept feedback and hold a final public hearing and adoption under TRIM compliance. If awarded, the stormwater grant would require the city to obligate matching funds; Butterfield indicated staff would only commit local funds if the grant is awarded.

Sources and limitations

This account is based on the city council’s Sept. 4, 2025 budget hearing transcript. Where the transcript did not record a formal roll‑call vote, outcomes are reported as the meeting recorded them (voice votes described as unanimous). Specific line‑item details (for example exact contract terms for the police union or final contract numbers) were not provided in the transcript and are listed as not specified.