Santa Rosa commissioners reject two proposed MSTUs, approve stormwater MSBU amid funding debate

Santa Rosa County commissioners on Thursday voted down two proposed municipal service taxing units (MSTUs) — one for public safety and another for roadway improvements — and unanimously approved a stormwater maintenance municipal service benefit unit (MSBU), after hours of discussion about funding tools, grant opportunities and the county's growing list of unfunded road projects.

The MSTU votes were part of a set of public hearings that county staff said were intended "to establish the tools for the toolbox, not to set the rates for them," a point County Administrator Brad emphasized when he opened the presentations. "We're not looking to get in rates," he told the board, adding that millage rates would be set later at the June 23 budget meeting.

The results were: the public-safety MSTU failed on a 3-2 roll call; the roadway-improvement MSTU failed on a 3-2 roll call; the stormwater maintenance MSBU passed unanimously.

Why it mattered: County staff and several commissioners said the measures were designed to provide transparency on the property tax bill and to create dedicated lines for services such as emergency medical services, lifeguards, stormwater maintenance and paved roadway projects. Opponents argued placing new taxing units on the property-tax notice could be misread by the public as a future tax increase and worried about legacy obligations for future boards.

County Administrator Brad said the proposed public-safety example (a reallocation scenario of 0.32 mills) would generate roughly $5.4 million and that the purpose of the hearings was to describe options. "The hearings today are really to establish the tools for the toolbox, not to set the rates for them," he said.

Commissioner concerns and context Commissioners who opposed creating the new MSTUs said they feared future boards could use the mechanisms to raise tax burdens and that the county should avoid appearing to open the door to higher property taxes. "My concern with creating any new taxing unit is while I trust every member on this board and our current staff ... my concern and what I'm still not comfortable with are future boards," Commissioner (unnamed) told colleagues.

Other commissioners and staff pushed back that the county already has existing tools and limits. County Attorney responded during the meeting that the combined cap for all MSTUs is 10 mills; adding units does not raise that statutory cap but makes line-item allocations visible on TRIM notices. Sabrina, a county finance official, reminded the board that the county has lowered millage several times in the last 30 years and that establishing MSTUs was intended to show taxpayers how money is being directed.

Road projects and funding gap The debate overlapped with blunt staff comments about massive unfunded roadway needs. Staff presented project cost figures to underscore the shortfall: the design for Berry Hill Road Phase 1 was cited as $1.9 million, with construction estimates of roughly $45 million for Phase 1 and tens of millions more for later phases; an intersection project at "Five Points" was described as a roughly $26 million project with only $10 million identified. County staff said the county has roughly $475 million in desired or planned roadway improvements but lacks funding to build most of them.

"If we don't have the funding sources, we're not widening Chemica Highway. We're not widening Berry Hill Road," a commissioner said. Another commissioner framed the issue as balancing long-term planning with honesty to the public about available money.

Stormwater MSBU approved The board approved a stormwater maintenance MSBU that staff described as a phased maintenance program. Procurement documents released for the plan covered roughly 60 subdivisions and about 100 ponds comprising approximately 3,415 parcels (staff said these are the initial-phase figures). A sealed bid opening for the contract was due June 13; staff said they would return to the board with bids and cost comparisons to hiring county crews.

Sabrina, the finance director, said the MSBU approach targets routine pond maintenance (mowing, monthly visits for trash collection and other work) and is not intended to create county staffing or benefit costs. "We are not hiring staff. We are not buying equipment," Sabrina said. "That was the concept of that, and then we would add new public subdivisions annually."

Public comment and broader concerns Members of the public who spoke at the hearings urged clarity and objected to perceived mixed signals. Several residents said they fear new taxes amid rising costs for homeowners and retirees on fixed incomes. Others urged pursuing grants and state or federal matching funds. Commissioners repeatedly noted the pending local-option sales tax renewal and said the county must guard that revenue source.

What the board did (formal actions) - Public-safety MSTU: Motion to approve (failed, tally yes 2 / no 3). The motion would have established an MSTU for public-safety-related expenditures; board discussion emphasized that rates would later be set at the June 23 budget meeting. Outcome: failed. - Roadway-improvement MSTU: Motion to approve (failed, tally yes 2 / no 3). Outcome: failed. - Stormwater maintenance MSBU: Motion to approve (passed unanimously). Staff will review sealed bids (bid opening June 13) and return with cost data and options for in-house vs. contracted work.

What remains Staff will return June 23 with finalized revenue numbers, the draft budget and specific millage recommendations if the board directs them to use any of the tools discussed. Commissioners said they will continue to debate priorities: whether to preserve the half-cent local option sales tax, pursue grants and state/federal assistance, or use property tax reallocation tools to fund projects.

Ending note County officials said the hearings were intended to improve transparency on the tax notice and budget process, but the close votes reflected the board's divided view about how best to fund growth-related infrastructure and protect residents on fixed incomes.