Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the MSTU And Public Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legal briefing on municipal service taxing units presents MSTU as a tool to fund law enforcement and specific services
Summary
An outside attorney briefed the Levy County commission on municipal service taxing units (MSTUs), explaining how they enable counties to levy ad valorem millage in a defined geographic area without a referendum, the municipal consent rules if cities are included, and the practical implications for funding sheriff budgets, with commissioners expressing concern about equity and timing if state property‑tax reforms proceed.
At the Levy County Board meeting an outside attorney presented a detailed legal briefing on municipal service taxing units (MSTUs), their statutory basis, deadlines for creation and how they have been used in other Florida counties to fund specific services such as law enforcement.
The presenter, identified in the record as Melissa of the consulting/legal team supporting the county packet, told commissioners that an MSTU is created by county ordinance and "is not a special district, so you do not need a referendum to approve millage within MSTU." She walked the board through constitutional limitations on taxation, the two separate 10‑mill allocations for county and municipal purposes under Article VII of the Florida Constitution, and the statutory rules that affect how an MSTU’s millage is counted against aggregate county millage caps.
Melissa said an MSTU can be a tool to fund a county service in a defined area and noted municipal consent is required when a city would be included because joining an MSTU reduces the city’s available mills. "If you did a, for law enforcement, it would say Levy County law enforcement, village," she said, describing how an MSTU would appear on tax bills and TRIM notices.
Commissioners probed equity questions and how to apportion costs if not all municipalities participate. The sheriff and EMS chief described operational realities — long response zones, contracted municipal coverage in some towns, and staffing pressures — and underscored the county’s fiscal constraints. One commissioner said the county is "teetering" toward the county's millage capacity for core services and wants options for sustainable funding.
The presenter noted statutory creation deadlines (January 1 for newly created portions, July 1 for including preexisting taxing units) and the administrative work required to code properties and prepare TRIM notices; she also flagged that any MSTU levy is aggregated under section 200.065 when calculating rollback and voter‑approval thresholds.
Board members asked for additional information and analysis, including studies other counties used to split sheriff budgets where municipalities did not opt in. The presenter offered to provide sample studies and said staff would return with options for analysis. No formal action to create an MSTU was taken at the meeting; the briefing was advisory and intended to inform future board consideration.
Because MSTU formation affects property tax allocation, municipal consent and voter‑approval thresholds, commissioners asked staff for detailed cost‑allocation scenarios before moving forward.
