Chris Rose, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and County Administrator Barry Burton (referred to throughout the meeting as Barry) briefed commissioners on Aug. 14 about general-fund reserve levels, targeted reductions in certain reserves, and the policy tradeoffs between one-time and ongoing funding as the county prepares the fiscal 2026 budget.

Rose explained that the county’s unrestricted general-fund reserve after storm-year spending stands near $111.1 million (about 12% of total revenues) and that next year’s budget assumes FEMA reimbursements of about $19.8 million; with that assumption the projected reserve level would be roughly 17.9% of revenues. Rose said the Government Finance Officers Association recommends a minimum reserve of two months of operating revenue, and Pinellas’ current ordinance target is 20.8% (roughly two-and-a-half months).

Staff recommended several targeted reserve adjustments that together could free approximately $4.9 million as recurring budget relief: a $2.11 million reduction in a risk-fund reserve (based on actuarial review and historical payouts), about $1.0 million reduction in fleet replacement funding aligned with slower vehicle replacement needs, and nearly $980,000 reduction in a payroll reserve that has not been tapped in five years; staff also noted a $714,490 downward adjustment to the state juvenile-detention match after final state figures were received. The staff package also identified a proposed cut or reprioritization of lifeguard funding at certain county beaches (a policy question tied to TDC funding and beach safety), which would yield additional savings if the board chose that option; staff and commissioners agreed Fort De Soto lifeguard funding should remain.

Commissioners discussed policy constraints: staff and commissioners repeatedly emphasized the county’s policy against funding ongoing operating costs from one-time dollars. They discussed alternatives such as phased or limited multi-year uses of one-time funds for capital or backlog items (sidewalk repairs were cited as a prior one-time use), and asked staff to prepare options that show the multi-year implications of using one-time money to provide temporary relief. Several commissioners asked for further salary-market and position-by-position analyses of staffing and pay adjustments; staff said human resources reviews and ad-hoc audits of vacant positions are ongoing and department-level analyses are available on request.

Personnel item: Commissioner Nowicki proposed eliminating the Fifth Floor Specialist position (a role that handles incoming public calls, walk-ins and proclamations for the commissioners’ offices), arguing the role is underutilized and its duties could be reassigned. Several commissioners asked that staff ensure a placement path for any employee affected; staff confirmed positions are regularly reviewed and vacant lines scrutinized during budget development.

Ending: Commissioners indicated support for using identified reserve adjustments to translate savings into a millage reduction while directing staff to return with more detailed analyses on staffing, the fiscal effects of using one-time money for multi-year items, and public-safety implications of any proposed cuts (notably lifeguards). The board set a follow-up for budget decisions leading to the official millage discussion and potential adoption later in the fall.