DeBary council adopts 3.65 millage rate and final 2025–26 budget; discusses interlocal HB 479 and procurement thresholds

The City of DeBary City Council on Sept. 16 approved a final ad valorem millage rate of 3.65 and adopted the city’s final operating budget for fiscal year 2025–26, after presentations from city staff and brief council discussion.

City Manager Carmen (last name not specified in transcript) told council the 3.65-mill rate represents a roughly $52 annual increase (about $4 a month) for a home with a taxable value of $199,000 and is 10.82% above the computed rollback rate of 3.2935. The manager said the city’s proposal reflects revenue updates and adjustments since the tentative budget, including new estimates for communications services tax and local option gas tax revenue. The manager recommended the final millage and budget, citing higher personnel costs (a proposed 3% increase), legal and public‑safety contract cost increases, Alexander Island start‑up costs, and capital needs including a deposit for a fire truck.

The council voted unanimously to adopt Resolution 2025‑15 setting the final millage rate at 3.65 (motion by Mayor Chazet; second by Council Member Papalardo; roll call: Vice Mayor Butland yes, Papalardo yes, Sells yes, Stevenson yes, Mayor Chazet yes). The council then unanimously adopted Resolution 2025‑16 adopting the final annual operating budget for fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2025 and ending Sept. 30, 2026 (motion by Vice Mayor Butland; second by Council Member Papalardo; unanimous roll call).

Why it mattered: City staff said DeBary remains one of the lowest‑taxed communities in West Volusia and emphasized that public safety contracts — notably the sheriff’s contract, which the manager said will rise by about $350,000 to $4.67 million — and fire services are the largest budget pressures. The manager told council the city is close to being debt‑free in two to three years and that the deposit for a new fire truck (about $200,000 from general fund reserves) was intended to avoid borrowing.

Interlocal agreement under HB 479 (Dirksen Drive mobility fees)

Council took up a separate item on an interlocal agreement with Volusia County required by House Bill 479 to coordinate transportation‑impact fees in mobility plan areas. The city manager explained the state law requires cities and counties that both charge transportation fees in the same area to execute an interlocal agreement that prevents duplicate fees and establishes a plan‑based methodology for fees inside mobility plan areas. DeBary’s position is that, because the city has an adopted mobility plan that includes Dirksen Drive, fees collected for projects within the DeBary mobility area should be administered by the city and assigned to the projects in the mobility plan. The county, by contrast, proposed keeping control of the funds in the county budget and using a zone‑based methodology.

Staff outlined three primary points of contention with the county draft: (1) who administers and controls the Dirksen Mobility Fund (city wants the funds in city coffers and administered to Dirksen projects; county wants the funds under county control); (2) payment and reimbursement processing for engineering and project draws (city proposed paying approved vendor invoices directly to avoid requiring the county to “carry” the funds); and (3) time frame and spending limits (state law and case law implicate a seven‑year expenditure window for impact fees and the parties seek extension and nexus protections).

City staff warned that if no interlocal agreement is executed by Oct. 1, 2025 (the statutory deadline), the statute requires fees to be allocated on the developer’s traffic‑impact study or an applicable mobility plan and mandates a 10% reduction in the calculated fee in some cases. The manager said the county approved its form of the agreement on Sept. 16 and authorized the county manager to make minor changes. Because of unresolved differences, the city manager recommended not approving the county draft and to continue negotiations. Council voted unanimously to table the item until Oct. 1 so staff could continue negotiations (motion by Council Member Sill; second by Council Member Stevenson; unanimous roll call).

Procurement thresholds and purchasing process guidance

Council discussed a proposal to adjust purchasing thresholds and the number of required quotes to improve efficiency. The city manager said current practice requires manager approval for every expenditure over $1,000 and three written quotes for purchases between $5,000 and $35,000, with formal solicitation for higher amounts. Staff noted delays occur when multiple quotes are required for routine repairs and maintenance (for example, HVAC work) and proposed raising the single‑quote threshold and widening the multi‑quote tier to speed repairs while maintaining internal controls.

Council provided direction to draft a revised policy with the following tiered guidance (to be returned as a resolution): keep $0–$1,000 as existing (manager oversight), $1,001–$12,000: one written quote approved by the city manager; $12,001–$50,000: two or more written quotes approved by the city manager (council clarified the intent is to restore a three‑quote standard where previously required, but to permit two or more in that mid tier); $50,001 and above: formal solicitation. Council members also requested anti‑nepotism/conflict checks remain explicit in the procurement policy and asked staff to include a policy review provision to be triggered when a new city manager is appointed. Staff will prepare a formal resolution for council consideration.

Other notes

Council and staff discussed the city’s long‑term capital projects, grants pursued for stormwater upgrades (including an $800,000 DEP grant to update Bill Keller pumping station), and recent investments such as pump station work at James Pond completed in June 2025. The manager described west‑side (Berry Plantation/Dirksen Drive) and east‑side stormwater strategies, including permits, regional coordination with FDOT and St. Johns River Water Management District, and options to route water toward less populated areas or burrow pits. The council also reviewed the city’s background on recent land‑use changes and code updates when later considering Senate Bill 180 (see separate article in this package).

Ending

Council concluded the special meeting after member reports and several procedural items. The budget and millage votes and the tabling of the HB 479 interlocal agreement were the meeting’s principal formal outcomes.