Citrus County adopts tentative 2025-26 budget and millage rates; adds one‑time road resurfacing funds

The Citrus County Board of County Commissioners on a 4‑1 vote adopted a tentative county budget for fiscal 2025–26 and set tentative millage rates after a public hearing in which dozens of residents urged more money for road resurfacing and relief from rising property taxes.

The board approved a proposed tentative county budget of $505,866,078 and a proposed tentative aggregate countywide millage rate of 8.8733 mills, which the county budget staff said is 5.01% above the aggregate rollback rate. Commissioners also approved line‑item millage rates (general fund, transportation, library, health, fire MSTU and stormwater MSTU) and directed staff to proceed to a final budget hearing as required by statute.

The tentative budget hearing drew more than a dozen public commenters who focused largely on road conditions, perceived mismatch between development and infrastructure, and library materials funding. Multiple speakers described long ambulance response times, pothole and unpaved roads, and the number of newly built but unsold homes. Several residents criticized a $3,300 annual BookPage subscription in the library budget and asked the commission to remove the line item.

County budget staff and commissioners described how they restored funding for resurfacing relative to earlier proposals by using a combination of recurring revenues (ad valorem and gas tax) and one‑time sources. Staff said ad valorem and gas tax receipts will produce roughly $450,000 more than the prior year for transportation, and the county identified about $6.1 million in one‑time funds available this year for road resurfacing (compared with about $6.5 million the prior year). Commissioners and the budget office cautioned those one‑time funds do not represent a recurring revenue stream and that sustaining the current resurfacing level will require future policy decisions.

Resident Mark Zvezka told commissioners the county is still far short of the estimated annual need for road maintenance and resurfacing, which he cited from the county’s All About Roads presentation as exceeding $40 million per year. Zvezka said the tentative resurfacing allocation is roughly $23.7 million below that estimated need and urged the board to increase spending in real dollars rather than rely on headline percentage increases.

Commissioners said they have already taken several steps this year to shift costs to growth, including a recent increase in impact fees and a contract to refresh the county comprehensive plan; they said additional action is being planned to address right‑of‑way acquisition and future widening projects. Commissioners also noted statutory limits on ad valorem levy capacity and discussed the tradeoffs of MSBUs and other localized funding tools.

Votes at a glance - General fund millage (6.9898 mills): approved 5–0 (motion moved by Commissioner Diana Finnegan; second Commissioner Janet Barrick). This vote adopted the line for the county general fund as presented. - Transportation millage (0.9860 mills): approved 5–0 (moved by Commissioner Finnegan; second Commissioner Barrick). - Health Department millage (0.0564 mills): approved 4–1 (motion moved by Commissioner Holly Davis; second Commissioner Barrick). The board discussed that a rollback for the health department would reduce reserves by $22,837 but would not reduce the department’s operating budget. - Library services millage (0.3147 mills): approved 3–2 (motion moved by Commissioner Holly Davis; second Commissioner Jeff Kennard). Commissioners debated cutting the BookPage subscription line item vs. drawing from library reserves; library staff described reserve uses and the consequences of drawing them down. - Fire taxing district (0.0000 mills): approved 5–0. - Fire MSTU (0.578 mills): approved 5–0. - Stormwater MSTU (0.0000 mills): approved 5–0. - Tentative budget adoption (total proposed tentative budget of $505,866,078): approved 4–1 (motion to adopt tentative budget and authorize the chair to execute the resolution).

Discussion vs. decision Discussion: Residents repeatedly pressed for larger, recurring funding for roads, questioned whether developers are bearing appropriate costs for road impacts, and criticized recent property‑value increases and library content. Commissioners and staff described one‑time versus recurring funding sources, the limits imposed by Florida millage caps, and recent actions already taken (impact fee increases, comp‑plan refresh contract). Direction: Commissioners directed staff to proceed with the final budget hearing on the date announced and to continue work on long‑term road funding options (including updating impact fee studies to include right‑of‑way acquisition). Decision: The board set tentative millage rates and adopted the tentative budget as recorded above; these actions move the budget to the final hearing for formal adoption.

Context and next steps Budget staff noted the proposed tentative ad valorem revenue of $143,075,355 and described fund‑balance and one‑time sources used to restore resurfacing funding to the level of the previous year. Staff emphasized that last year’s carryforward allowed higher one‑time allocations and that sustaining the current level of resurfacing will require either recurring revenue or repeated use of one‑time balances. The final budget hearing date and location were announced and will be the formal adoption opportunity required under Florida law.