City of Stuart discusses millage cut, staffing and service trade-offs during budget workshop

City of Stuart leaders spent a budget workshop reviewing a roughly $3.9 million structural shortfall and weighing whether to reduce the ad valorem millage by 0.25 mill, a change staff said would require cuts to personnel, services or other revenue adjustments.

The shortfall and possible fixes were the focus of a three‑hour workshop where finance staff walked commissioners through revenue scenarios, service-level impacts and specific line items such as overtime, enterprise fund staffing and interlocal contract costs. Jolie, the city’s budget director, told commissioners: "At 09/30/2024, General Fund had a year to date expense of 1,031,000 in overtime." Jolie presented staff projections showing the city would still face a remaining budget gap under both the 5.0‑mill and the 4.75‑millage scenarios.

Why it matters: lowering the millage would return tax dollars to property owners but requires the city to identify roughly equivalent savings or new revenues. Commissioners and staff framed the choice as a tradeoff between reducing the tax rate and preserving current service levels for public safety, parks, sanitation and other municipal functions.

Most important facts - Staff said the city faces about a $3,900,000 shortfall in the coming budget cycle. Jolie presented scenarios showing a remaining shortfall of roughly $1.0 million at a 5.0‑mill rate and a larger shortfall under lower millage scenarios. - Commissioners discussed options including attrition, targeted position eliminations, temporary hiring freezes and changes to overtime scheduling; staff cautioned some positions cannot be removed without immediate operational impacts (for example, garbage collection and minimum staffing requirements for police and fire). - City staff and elected officials discussed the city’s contract with Sewell's Point for fire services; the contract is a multi‑year service agreement that staff said would create a budget hole if Sewell's Point were moved to an alternative provider without negotiation because the city would owe termination-related differences under the agreement. - Staff explained constraints on using certain funds: the budget director referenced a state statute limiting the use of a permanent permit reserve to permit‑related expenses and not to offset taxes or millage.

Details and context Commissioners repeatedly returned to overtime as a pressure point. Jolie said overtime is concentrated in public safety and utilities: "...Fire is at $525,000 in overtime. Police is sure to be close to $300,000 in overtime," she said, and added that overtime totals do not include associated fringe benefits. Staff explained some overtime is driven by minimum staffing rules, long shift schedules for firefighters and short‑term absences (workers’ compensation, military leave or FMLA) that must be filled.

Commissioners and the city manager discussed potential ways to reduce overtime and other costs through scheduling changes, attrition and selective non‑replacement of positions. Staff cautioned that some previously cut positions later had to be rehired at higher market rates, which increased costs in past years.

Sewell's Point contract and fire coverage Staff described the Sewell's Point agreement as a readiness/service contract (a base readiness fee plus per‑call charges) rather than a per‑call billing arrangement. The manager explained the original Sewell's Point contract was negotiated as a 10‑year service agreement to allow equipment purchases and that early withdrawal could require payments to Sewell's Point equal to the difference between current payments and what Sewell's Point would pay Martin County — creating a potential budget exposure if the city tried to force a switch.

Impact fees, CRA and revenue constraints The presentation covered limits on impact fees (they fund capacity increases, not routine maintenance), and noted that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) share of ad valorem receipts contains statutory or contractual constraints that affect how much the general fund can rely on. Staff also flagged uncertainty in state revenue lines and interest earnings; the budget director said she had reduced interest earnings in the proposed budget to reflect conservative expectations.

Public comments and service concerns Several residents and stakeholders spoke during public comment. Travis Decker, legislative vice president for Stuart Firefighters Local 2411, urged the commission to avoid cuts that would further degrade fire department readiness and equipment, noting the department has aging apparatus and equipment needs. Helen McBride, a longtime resident, appealed to commissioners to consider the "little people," including seniors and working families who rely on city services. Mark Breckbill suggested temporary, targeted subsidies (for example, to utilities) rather than a permanent cut to millage.

Commissioner direction and next steps During the workshop a commissioner gave staff direction to pursue the budget option labeled "4B" with a 0.25‑mill reduction as the target and return with detailed options to reach that target. Staff said they would prepare a refined set of expenditure cuts, wants‑and‑needs lists, and updated revenue schedules and post a tentative budget following the formal tentative millage adoption timeline.

Ending note Staff emphasized that some costs (union contracts, stormwater regulatory changes, and multi‑year service agreements) could affect future budgets and that the commission’s millage decision will shape where staff looks for reductions. Staff asked commissioners for as much direction as possible so managers can prepare a balanced tentative budget for the public hearings required by state law.