Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Tax Sales topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Citrus County hears steering committee report on 1% sales tax; majority of survey respondents support a referendum
Summary
A county-appointed steering committee and Chamber-led survey found 59.1% of respondents would consider voting for a local 1% sales surtax; commissioners agreed to return the topic to the next agenda to consider ordinance language, timelines and required state steps toward a referendum.
The Citrus County Board of County Commissioners received a presentation from the sales tax steering committee and the county chamber summarizing public input on a possible local 1% option sales surtax.
Trish Thomas presented the steering committee’s findings, prepared under chair Don Taylor’s leadership, and described in-person town halls and an online survey. Key survey findings included 509 total responses (90 in-person, 419 online), 59.1% indicating a willingness to vote for a local option sales tax, 29% opposed and 13% undecided. If imposed, the penny tax was estimated to raise approximately $25 million per year with an estimated 25% of the revenue borne by visitors.
Top priorities and preferences Steering committee results showed the most popular uses for the revenues were road resurfacing/resurfacing projects, road widening and stormwater drainage. Respondents favored a 10-year term for a 1% surtax (a sunset period that would permit bondability for capital projects). Other common concerns expressed in the town halls included transparency on how proceeds would be allocated, affordability for fixed-income residents, and a desire for specific referendum language and oversight (for example a citizens'advisory committee).
Statutory and timeline notes Staff explained statutory requirements for a local option surtax: any referendum ordinance must specify use of funds and would be submitted to OPPAGA (Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability) for review before being sent to the supervisor of elections. Staff and the board discussed potential timelines for placing the measure on a 2026 ballot and the need to return with an ordinance, explicit findings and a recommended sunset or bonding structure.
Board direction Commissioners thanked the steering committee and expressed differing views about the preferred uses and whether the board should move forward. The board agreed to bring the topic back on the next agenda for further direction and potential ordinance language; staff indicated that an ordinance could be drafted and set for public hearing within the timetable described if the board provided direction.
Public and stakeholder comments Several commissioners and business representatives said they supported additional public outreach; the Chamber offered to reopen the steering committee survey for additional responses if the board wished more data. Commissioners emphasized that clear, narrow ballot language and a specific project list (a capital-improvement program) would help voter understanding.
Ending The board directed staff to prepare materials and return with an ordinance option and schedule for public hearings to meet state deadlines if the board wants the measure on the 2026 ballot.
