Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Deficit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lee County supervisors consider 75¢ tax rate, split billing and ARPA to close $3.4M shortfall
Summary
Supervisors reviewed a projected $3.4 million shortfall and weighed a proposed 75¢ real‑estate tax rate and twice‑yearly billing to generate a one‑time cash boost; staff warned the measures largely replace ARPA money and will leave reserves thin going into the next fiscal year.
Lee County Board of Supervisors reviewed details of a projected $3.4 million general‑fund shortfall and discussed a package of measures that would include a proposed real‑estate tax increase (a 75¢ per $100 estimate was discussed) and a move to split property tax billing into two payments to create a one‑time cash inflow.
Staff member said the updated budget printouts show "a current deficit of just under 3,400,000.0," and explained that the proposed rate increase and a modest personal‑property bump are estimated to produce about $1.4 million. Staff also described a split‑billing scenario in which billing property twice a year (May and October) would bring an immediate cash windfall in the implementation year, roughly enough to cover the remaining shortfall if combined with the tax change.
The board was repeatedly warned that the proposed combination is primarily a timing fix. "That affords you a what's deemed a cash windfall within this next budget year," the staff member said, but cautioned the board that "after that, you still gotta deal with your numbers" because the split billing merely accelerates revenue and would not create a sustainable increase in revenue each year. Staff emphasized that using an estimated $1.4 million of ARPA funds to reduce this year’s visible deficit means the county would have less reserve cash available going forward.
Members asked about alternative responses and implementation logistics. One supervisor asked the treasurer's office to estimate the extra workload of split billing and report whether part‑time help would be required; staff recommended consulting counties that already use split billing and returning with a cash‑flow projection. Board members also discussed reassessment timing and the practical difficulty of setting a tax rate while reassessment and board‑of‑equalization adjustments remain uncertain.
Why it matters: The board must adopt a budget by July 1 to keep county operations funded. The staff presentation made clear the choices will either use one‑time measures and reserves to bridge the next year or require larger, recurring changes (higher rates or deeper program cuts) later.
What’s next: Staff will advertise a proposed budget and tax rate for public hearing (the tax hearing will be scheduled to meet legal notice requirements) and the board will continue to refine numbers before adoption. The public hearing timeline and a treasurer briefing on implementation impacts were scheduled in follow‑up.
