BRADENTON — The Manatee County Commission narrowly approved a .15 millage reduction during the first FY2025 budget hearing on Thursday evening. The 4-2 vote came after two additional votes for larger mill reductions failed.
The millage rate cut was anything but simple or concise during the budget hearing, with Commissioners George Kruse and Ray Turner expressing concern about future financial responsibilities and planning.
Commissioner Jason Bearden made an initial motion to cut the millage rate by .3 mill, arguing that the action was needed to bring relief to area taxpayers who are struggling due to inflation and the cost of living.
Bearden’s motion received the support of Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge, who provided a second. However, after feedback from Manatee County’s Chief Financial Officer Shelia McLean—who expressed concerns about where a $21 million budget cut would come from—and subsequent commissioner discussion, Bearden’s motion failed 4-2.
Van Ostenbridge then made a second attempt at a millage reduction, motioning to cut the rate by .2 mill—Bearden seconded Van Ostenbridge’s lesser reduction proposal. Van Ostenbridge’s motion was able to persuade the support of Commissioner Mike Rahn, who joined Van Ostenbridge and Bearden in support, but the second motion failed with a 3-3 tie vote of the board.
When that motion also failed, Van Ostenbridge moved again, this time offering a lesser .15 mill cut. Commissioner Amanda Ballard was moved to join Commissioner Rahn and Bearden in supporting the motion. The measure passed in a 4-2 vote.
Commissioner Kruse, who expressed a shared desire to decrease citizens’ tax burden, was the most vocally opposed to commissioners making any rash decisions without a clear understanding of how revenue decreases might impact services.
“We’re all on the same page, with a global idea of wanting to save people money,” Kruse said before the final vote. “But we also need to make sure we are taking care of things.”
Kruse listed some of the anticipated costs over the next fiscal year, including investments in studies to help address flooding and stormwater management and infrastructure investments.
Kruse also encouraged his fellow board members to consider potential future impacts on the revenue that may be available to the county, including Amendment 5, which, if approved, will create an annual inflation adjustment to the amount of assessed value that is exempt from property tax—meaning lesser tax revenues collected by the county.
Kruse emphasized that reductions in tax revenue—whether through a significant mill cut or other outside factors—could result in cuts to services or quality of services to the public.
Commissioner Turner offered similar words of caution during the meeting’s discussion, stating his opinion that any proposed rate reduction should have been raised and analyzed sooner in the budget process.
“I agree with Commissioner Kruse,” said Turner, “critical services could be impacted. We know the CIP would be impacted, and we’ve got all kinds of infrastructure challenges right now already.”
Through each motion of proposed decreases, Kruse and Turner remained in opposition.
Millage is a tax rate defined as the dollars assessed for each $1,000 of value; one mill is one dollar per $1,000 of assessed value of taxable property.
A mill rate reduction of .15 would be equal to an average assessed home value in Manatee County of $450,000 being levied roughly $67.00 less in annual property tax—a savings equal to about $5.50 per month.
On the county’s side, a .15 mill cut will decrease annual revenues by about $10.5 million.
The next budget hearing is scheduled for September 17. At this hearing, commissioners will hold a final vote to approve the FY2025 budget and tentative .15 millage reduction.
7 comments on this item
Only paid subscribers can comment
Please log in to comment by clicking here.
Dave
Here’s an idea, start making developers pay the full cost to taxpayers for infrastructure their projects need.
4 days ago Report this
sandy
I don't live in a $450,000 house (many in the county don't). I'll be lucky if my annual savings will buy me a candy bar. If Amendment 5 passes, then between 50,000-75,000 assessed value will provide additional tax exemption. Most residential will fall in the category to get the additional exemption. I won't because I live in an older manufactured home (and I do own the land). I only paid $94 last year in property tax to the county because of the original exemption and widows exemption and without a reduction in millage I will pay $109. The biggest part of my tax payment is for the recreation district assessment not covered under the millage or any exemptions that the county collects and then remits back to the park and then fire district fees. The second exemption will greatly impact revenue to the county. The savings realized for a cut in the millage on a house assessed at $450,000 is $5.50 per month and it won't even pay for a container of coffee or an annual cut of $67.00 pay for a meal for 2 at a sit-down restaurant. Leave it as it is and start now planning for the possible loss of revenue if Amendment 5 passes.
4 days ago Report this
sandy
Dave,
We have 4 years before 100% impact fees be collected and on numbers reflective of that year, not back dated to 2015.
4 days ago Report this
Dave
Sandy, Yes I know, KVO and friends' outgoing gift to developers. I'm just venting.
4 days ago Report this
sandy
Since 2020 when KVO and others were elected to the board, claiming they wanted smaller government, its gone from 1,996 employees to 2,376 employees as of July 2024. And during that time 600+ employees have left through retirement, resignation, or firing. And NOW they are going to lower employee numbers through attrition and give up 27 proposed positions to come up with some not all of the money needed to cover the lowering of the millage. Here's a thought, Give up some of the top heavy positions. Is the chief of staff (a new position since 10/2023), multiple deputy administrators, and multiple deputy directors in various departments really necessary?
4 days ago Report this
GCDUBBAU
Another “ready-fire-aim”’proposal and a patently obvious attempt by the BOCC to look like they are “doing something responsible”. How can any vote like this be made without knowing to some reasonable degree the expected financial impacts, by department, to County operations ? Sure, we want mileage rate reductions. Knowing precisely where operation and maintenance reductions would be taken is paramount in the process of determine how a rate decrease could be effected. This is silly. And, $67 on $450K, is insulting.
2 days ago Report this
Debann
67.00....whole dollars..WAHOO..give me a break. PATHETIC
Yesterday at 7:16 PM Report this