Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff flags $11 million projected general-fund shortfall and plan to rebuild reserves after storms
Summary
Pinellas County budget staff said May 15 that preliminary planning assumptions generate about an $11 million operating gap for next year; commissioners were briefed on storm-related reserve use, FEMA reimbursement timing and potential fee increases as staff prepare budget hearings this summer.
County budget staff presented a preliminary forecast May 15 that shows an estimated roughly $11 million shortfall in the general fund under planning assumptions for fiscal 2026, and outlined constraints staff will bring to the upcoming budget hearings.
Chris Rose of the Office of Management and Budget told commissioners staff used working assumptions — a 4% property-tax roll growth and a 3% salary increase for planning — and noted that the county has obligated about $78 million related to three recent hurricanes. Rose said much of that hurricane spending is expected to be reimbursed by FEMA over multiple years, but the timing is uncertain and the county is building a multiyear plan to restore reserves.
Why it matters: reserves and recurring costs. The presentation emphasized the distinction between recurring and one-time funding and warned against using one‑time revenues to cover ongoing expenses. Staff briefed the commission that the recommended target reserve level (previously discussed policy target) remains above current projected reserves and that recovery of storm-related reimbursements will be gradual.
Revenue and cost drivers. Staff highlighted key revenue uncertainties: an estimated 4% property-tax roll growth scenario (the Property Appraiser’s final roll is due June 1) and volatile sales-tax receipts; sales tax was shown as highly variable in recent years. On cost side, departments face higher fixed costs in certain areas (sheriff’s office retirement and health-care cost increases were cited), inflationary pressure on contracts and professional services, and deferred maintenance needs in county facilities.
Proposed approach and near-term steps. Rose and County Administrator Barry (present) described a multi-pronged approach: prioritize high‑priority decision packages; maintain critical dedicated millage rates; propose fee updates for specific services (surface-water fees, building fees and permit surcharges, airport and solid‑waste fees) and plan to rebuild reserves gradually; schedule BIS (budget issues sessions) through June and July and release a proposed 2026 budget in late July.
Commissioner questions and staff follow-up. Commissioners asked about FEMA reimbursement amounts and timing, internal borrowing capacity and whether one-time storm costs would be required to be repaid to reserves when federal funds arrive. Clerk/finance staff later provided details on internal borrowing capacity and fund-specific restrictions; staff promised more granular figures and to return to the Board with additional modeling during the BIS meetings.
Ending: staff said BIS sessions are scheduled for late May–June and the proposed 2026 budget will be published July 22; public hearings are planned for September.
