Palm Bay budget workshop previews FY‑26 spending, council signals preference to maintain current millage rate

City of Palm Bay staff on Monday presented a preliminary FY‑26 budget and three tax‑rate options to the City Council, outlining roughly $36 million in general‑fund requests and a larger, citywide request portfolio concentrated in capital projects. Several council members said they favor maintaining this year’s millage rate while staff will file a proposed rate and the public‑hearing schedule at next week’s regular meeting.

The presentation combined a general‑fund overview, department priority requests, and scenarios tied to three rate options: the city’s current rate (6.7339), the statutory 3% cap rate (6.3658), and the rollback rate (6.4071). Angelica Collins, assistant finance director, and Shane Byrd, budget analyst, walked the council through revenues, recurring vs. one‑time uses of fund balance, and the projected “new net revenue” tied to each rate.

Why it matters: the council’s choice of a proposed millage rate will determine how much recurring revenue is available for high‑priority needs—chiefly public safety vehicles and station upgrades, parks and facilities projects, and utility and road infrastructure—and whether the city will rely on audited fund balance to cover one‑time needs.

City manager Mr. Morton framed the discussion as a choice between short‑term restraint and longer‑term maintenance needs: “Postponing necessary investments increases the risk of breakdowns, emergency repairs, and even total replacements,” he told council. Morton gave examples of deferred maintenance translating to higher long‑term costs, including a public‑works tractor bought for about $47,000 that has since required roughly $147,000 in repairs, and aging fire apparatus he said are 20–25 years old.

Staff summary of revenues and fund balance

- Shane Byrd said the FY‑26 preliminary budget assumes the 3% cap by default (6.3658) for planning purposes but showed revenue deltas for each rate option: roughly $4.6 million new net revenue at the 3% cap, about $5.0 million at the rollback rate, and about $8.3 million if the council maintained the current rate with no use of additional fund balance. Byrd confirmed the city’s recurring revenues are about 90% of total revenues; the remainder is one‑time or fund‑balance use. - Collins said FY‑25 closed with a net increase in fund balance of about $4.7 million and that FY‑25 included a large one‑time use of fund balance (about $29.2 million) tied to prior year roll‑forwards. For FY‑26 staff has tentatively included $13.5 million of fund‑balance use in the preliminary plan for items that are expected to roll into the new fiscal year.

Major requests and priorities

- Public safety: Fire requested roughly $13.2 million (about $11 million of that for three replacement engines and a heavy rescue); staffing, contract‑year 2 costs, and paramedic training carry recurring obligations (Morton and Collins noted a $12,500 annual incentive pay for certified paramedics that would create ongoing budget impact). Police requested about $2.7 million from the general fund for vehicle replacements (including three lost in crashes), Axon and taser contracts, equipment and a new project for CJIS hardening tied to a phased police‑headquarters project (pre‑engineering and design estimated at $370,000 in the staff presentation). Collins flagged vehicle replacements of roughly 21 units as part of police capital needs. - Parks & facilities: the largest general‑fund departmental request (just under $15 million) to cover Janitorial needs, vehicle and equipment replacements, lighting and shade improvements at parks, and build‑out costs tied to new buildings (Building E and Station 7). Staff said some funds for a new parks administration building would come from parks impact fees (the staff estimate shown was $2,370,000 in impact‑fee funding for that building). - Utilities/enterprise funds: most utility capital is paid from enterprise funds; staff said enterprise funds do “pay back” the general fund with interdepartmental chargebacks (labor allocations, facilities charges) and that utility‑tax receipts on customer bills are counted as general‑fund revenue. Staff stressed the utilities side is healthy, with operating income of roughly $11–12 million and a total net position near $240 million.

Rates, charter limits and next steps

Staff laid out the legal limits under state law and the city charter. Collins and staff explained that the city’s charter requires a super‑majority to exceed the 3% cap (for FY‑26 that would be four votes). Staff also walked through how the adjusted rollback rate and statutory ceilings are computed and noted the county and school‑board hearing calendars constrain available public‑hearing dates in September.

Council direction and schedule

Council members gave nonbinding direction tonight rather than taking a formal vote. Deputy Mayor Jaffe, Mayor Medina and other members spoken to during the meeting said they prefer maintaining the current rate (6.7339) to preserve public safety and capital investments. Staff said it will prepare an official agenda memo for next week’s regular council meeting to (a) set a proposed millage rate to publish and (b) certify two required public‑hearing dates in September; staff warned the proposed rate certified to the property appraiser limits how high the council may later raise the rate after certification.

Staff also committed to deliver the proposed, citywide budget package by July 31 so council can review it before an optional August 5 workshop. Staff noted it will publish the proposed budget online when completed and provide a detailed list of what would be funded under the chosen rate.

Discussion highlights and outstanding items

- Fire paramedic program: the fire chief described the “solo paramedic” training program and the recurring costs tied to paramedic incentive pay, and Council asked for more detail on program scope and ongoing costs. - Building E third‑floor build‑out: staff estimated a $1.2 million build‑out plus design and furniture for a total estimate presented at roughly $1.5 million; staff said Building E construction is funded primarily through enterprise and ARPA dollars and that ARPA interest could be applied to a Third‑Floor tenant build‑out if council chooses. - Impact fees: staff asked for council consensus to expedite an updated impact‑fee study (Stantec task order estimate ~$15,000) to determine whether fire or other impact fees can be increased in the near term. Several council members signaled support to investigate; staff will return with legal review and a timeline.

What’s next

Staff will prepare the formal proposed millage and a legislative memo for next week’s regular council meeting and will publish the proposed budget package by July 31. Council will be asked at the regular meeting to certify a proposed rate to the property appraiser and set the two legally required public‑hearing dates in September. If council wants to adopt a rate above the charter’s 3% cap, staff reiterated, a super‑majority vote of council is required.

Ending note

No formal votes were recorded at the workshop; the meeting closed with staff directed to return with a proposed rate, the proposed budget package, and a schedule for required public hearings.