Pasco commissioners back staff work on parks municipal taxing unit, public-safety funding options

Pasco County commissioners on March 11 directed county staff to prepare ordinance language and a strategic funding package to create or expand a municipal services taxing unit (MSTU) for parks — an action meant to isolate park operations and maintenance funding and make long-term park spending more transparent. County budget staff also briefed commissioners on related long-term capital needs for public safety and possible funding tools including impact fees and voter-approved bonds.

The matter took up the bulk of a lengthy budget briefing led by Amy Farrell, Pasco County budget director, who told the board an MSTU must be established by ordinance and fit the county’s TRIM timeline so any changes must be finalized by May to appear on tax notices by July 1. Farrell called the MSTU “noncompetitive funding” that can provide a one-to-one line between a millage and a program, and said creation requires five votes while maintenance typically requires four. "If we have a current ordinance that we'd like to revise, the target date to do that would be by May so we can make sure that we can include it in this year's TRIM process," Farrell said.

Why it matters: Commissioners said parks are underfunded for routine maintenance and for newly opened facilities, and they sought a funding mechanism that protects parks revenue from being reallocated within the general fund. Farrell illustrated the trade-offs: moving the parks operating budget (about $23.7 million in the example used) into an MSTU would isolate that spending but would also cause a dollar-for-dollar reduction in general-fund millage. The MSTU example also showed a compounding revenue effect: if the board left the millage unchanged, the parks fund could organically generate additional revenue over five years (Farrell used a projection of roughly $28.9 million of additional program revenue across five years under the assumptions shown).

Commissioners pressed staff on details they said will determine public acceptance: whether cities will opt in and share costs, how much revenue the cities currently contribute, how any perceived tax change would be explained to taxpayers, and whether surcharges or usage fees could be used for nonresident or out-of-jurisdiction users. "If the cities don't adopt an ordinance, it could lead to increased costs for cities," Farrell warned; later staff estimated the gap if cities do not participate at about $2,180,000 in the parks example. Commissioners asked staff to model scenarios with and without city participation and to estimate any surcharge or fee structure that could reduce the county-only burden.

Board direction and next steps: Commissioners expressed substantial interest in pursuing an "all-in" parks MSTU while instructing staff to work with municipalities and refine the package. Multiple commissioners said they prefer to set the legal framework this budget cycle so the board can act in the 2025 budget process; several asked staff to return with ordinance language and interlocal options. Farrell summarized the direction: prepare ordinance amendments and a strategic package for the board to consider, and return with recommended language and revenue scenarios.

Public-safety funding and sheriff MSTU: The briefing also covered larger capital needs — a new criminal courthouse, a public-safety operations center and related projects — and funding options including a public-safety impact fee and voter referendum (general obligation bond). Farrell said a referendum could be placed on the 2026 ballot and, if approved, funding would become available in 2027. The commission discussed whether a separate MSTU for the sheriff's operations is feasible; Farrell listed Florida counties that use an MSTU for law enforcement (Alachua, Clay, DeSoto, Escambia, Glades, Marion, Pinellas, St. Lucie and Volusia) and advised staff would return with more research. Pasco Sheriff's Office undersheriff Chase Daniels said the sheriff’s office regularly assists smaller municipal agencies and that city participation would be a significant consideration for any public-safety MSTU.

Concerns and safeguards: Several commissioners said the item should not be presented in a way that looks like a tax increase; staff repeatedly noted a properly structured MSTU can be set neutral to taxpayers by adjusting the general-fund millage at the same time, though the appearance on the tax bill will show a separate line for the MSTU. Commissioners also asked staff to quantify secondary effects (for example, impacts to Community Redevelopment Area distributions tied to general-fund calculations) and to model the effect of any proposed changes on the board’s current intergovernmental agreements.

No formal ordinance vote was taken March 11. The board’s action was to direct staff to draft ordinance language, work with cities on interlocal participation and return with specific revenue scenarios, timing, and a recommended implementation plan for future hearings and budget decisions.