Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

The street lighting assessment areas are set out in the proposed resolution. And the county attorney's office recommends the board adopt the proposed final rate resolution for the 2627 street lighting assessment areas.

Madam Chair, motion for approval?

We open up the public hearing. Public hearing.

So at this time, I open the public hearing for anyone wishing to speak on the 2627 street lighting assessment. Seeing no one, I close the public hearing and we go to A2.

We need a motion at this time.

Motion for everyone. Okay, so now Commissioner Wilson, go ahead. Madam Chair, motion for approval.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries.

Item A2 is the request for the Board to adopt the final rate resolution for the Master Inwood Street Lighting, MSBU, for fiscal year 2026-27. The MSBU was created to reimburse the cost of capital improvements, electric, maintenance, and administrative costs for street lighting in the Master Inwood Assessment Area. The costs are apportioned on a per equivalent residential unit basis. The Master Inwood area is comprised of the former Southwest Inwood MSBU, Central Inwood MSBU, and the third Northern Inwood MSBU that was established alongside the Master Inwood District. Each district has a separate ERU during the period of paying off the initial capital costs. Each district will have the same ERU cost after the period of paying off the initial capital cost is completed. The proposed assessment for a single family residence in the MSBU is Southwest will be $36, Central Inwood will be $46.12, and Northern Inwood will be $44.09. And the County Attorney's Office recommends that the Board adopt the proposed final assessment resolution for the Master Inwood Street Landing MSBU for fiscal year 2026-27.

I open the public hearing for fiscal year 26-27, Master Inwood Street Lightning Municipal Service Benefit Unit, MSBU. If anybody wish to speak, you have three minutes. Seeing none, I close the public hearing.

Motion for approval. Second.

I have a motion, I have a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. A3.

Item A3 is to request the Board adopt the final rate resolution for the Skyview Utility Municipal Service Benefit Unit, or MSBU, for fiscal year 2026-27. The MSBU was created to reimburse the costs over a 20-year period for the capital improvements made to the portable water and wastewater systems for the Skyview area so they may be incorporated into the City of Lakeland utility systems in accordance with a court order. The costs of the capital improvements are apportioned on a per-equivalent residential connection basis, and the proposed assessment for a single-family residence is $95.28, and the County Attorney's Office recommends the Board adopt the proposed final assessment resolution for the Skyview Utility MSBU for fiscal year 2026-27.

I open the public hearing for fiscal year 26-27, Skyview Utility Municipal Service Benefit Unit, MSBU. If you wish to speak on this, please, you have three minutes. Seeing none, I close the public hearing and bring it back to the board.

Motion for approval. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. A4.

Item A4 is to request the board adopt the final rate resolution for the Island Club West utility MSBU for fiscal year 2026-27. The MSBU was created to reimburse the cost over a 30-year period for the capital improvements to the portable water, reclaimed water, and wastewater systems for the Island Club West development so that they may be incorporated into the county systems in accordance with a court order. The proposed assessment for each parcel is $280.88, and the County Attorney's Office recommends the Board adopt the proposed final assessment resolution for the Island Club West Utility MSBU for fiscal year 2026-27.

I open the public hearing for fiscal year 2026-27, Island Club West Utility Municipal Service Benefit Unit, MSBU. If anyone wishing to speak on this, you have three minutes. Seeing none, I close the public hearing and bring it back to the board.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. A5.

Item A5 is to request the board adopt the final rate resolution for the East Bimini Bay Utility MSBU for fiscal year 2026-27. The MSBU is created to reimburse the costs over a 30-year period for the capital improvements to the portable water, reclaimed water, and wastewater systems for the development portion of the Bimini Bay development so that they may be incorporated in the county systems in accordance with the court order. The proposed assessment for each parcel is $319.82, and the county attorney's office recommends the board adopt the proposed final assessment resolution for the East Bimini Bay Utility MSBU for fiscal year 2026-27.

I open the public hearing for fiscal year 2026-27, East Bimini Bay Utility Municipal Service Benefit Unit, MSBU. If you wish to speak on this, you have three minutes. Seeing none, I close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.

Item A6 is to request the board adopt the final rate resolution for fiscal year 2026-27 fire services assessments. The assessments levied fund the fire rescue budget and allow Polk County to provide essential fire rescue services to the citizens within the fire service district. The recommended rates for the 2026-27 fire service assessments are set out in the proposed resolution. The proposed rates are based on a single family residence assessment of $385. And the county attorney's office recommends the board adopt the proposed final rate resolution for the 2026-27 fire services assessments.

I open the public hearing for fiscal year 26-27 fire services non ad valorem assessment. If you wish to speak on this, you have three minutes. Please come forward. State your name and address. You have three minutes.

Excuse me. Good evening. Thank you, first of all, for the opportunity to speak. I appreciate the board doing this. My name is Fred Rolando. I'm a trustee for the Nowcrest Retirement Community in Lake Wales, Florida. We are a 501c4 nonprofit retirement community. We love Lake Wales. We love Polk County. We have a county fire station on our property. I've never been to one of these hearings before, but the reason I wanted to come here was I wanted to address the proposed increase in the non ad valorem assessment for fire services Going back a couple of years, we've had, you know, very nominal increases in 2023, 2024, maybe 5%. Last year we had a huge increase of 40% in the assessment. And then this year we're proposing approximately for us to 15% increase, which, you know, going back two years, that's a 62%, 62% increase. And, We're really just wondering what necessitates that large of increase. And I really just wanted to speak to ask you to reconsider the proposed increase, or if not, to possibly, if we could have a review of the specifics of our particular increases so we better understand that we can explain to our board. So again, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Okay, seeing none, I close the public hearing for A6 and bring it back to the board.

Move for approval. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion?

Madam Chair, if I may?

Yes.

Specific to Amber, can we see if we can get a meeting set up with the Nailcrest community just so they understand some of the... I know how it was built up, but for them to understand as a community where we are now and where we're going to go as far as requirements for our fire and EMS services?

Yes, sir, absolutely.

Commissioner, I was going to say something about that afterwards. I was just going to say if you could meet with him and then work through how he can get that information, that would be great. Any other questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. A7?

Item A7 is to request the board adopt the final rate resolution for the 2026-27 residential waste program services assessments. The assessments collected fund residential waste program services and the recommended rates for fiscal year 2026-27 are $299.18 for collection and $67.62 for disposal of the first cart and the county attorney's office recommends the board adopt the final rate resolution for fiscal year 2026-27.

I open the public hearing for residential waste program services final assessment resolution and setting the assessment rate for fiscal year 26-27. If you wish to speak on this matter, please come forward. You have three minutes. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board.

Move for approval. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Item A8 is to request the board adopt the final assessment resolution for nuisance abatement assessments for fiscal year 2026-27. Pursuant to Polk County Ordinance 08-047, Polk County has undertaken a program to improve various properties throughout the unincorporated area of the county by requiring the abatement of certain nuisances and for the property owner to reimburse the county for the cost of abatement. The parcels on the proposed role are for those parcels in which property owners have failed to reimburse the county and the county attorney's office recommends the board adopt the proposed final assessment resolution for the nuisance abatement assessments for fiscal year 2026-27.

I open the public hearing for fiscal year 26-27 nuisance abatement assessment. If you wish to speak on this matter, please come forward. You have three minutes. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries.

Item A9 is to request the board adopt the final assessment resolution for excessive bulk waste assessments for fiscal year 2026-27. Pursuing to Polk County Ordinance 18-016, Polk County has undertaken a program to collect excessive bulk waste after giving notice to the property owner. The parcels on the proposed role are for those parcels in which the property owner has failed to reimburse the county for the cost of collection and disposal of excessive bulk waste. And the county attorney's office recommends the board adopt the proposed final assessment resolution for excessive bulk waste assessments for fiscal year 2026-27.

I open the public hearing for fiscal year 2026-27, excessive bulk waste assessment. If you wish to speak on this matter, please come forward. You've got three minutes. Seeing none, I close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Opposed? Motion carries.

The final item, A-10, does not require a public hearing. The item is to request the board designate me, Noah Milov, an assistant county attorney, to certify the 2026-27 final assessment roles to be tax collector. The certification is required by September 15th, pursuant to section 197.3632 Florida statutes. Move for approval. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That's all the special assessments. No, before you, Mr. Orlando, if you will meet Mr. Milo in the back, he'll get your name and number so we can follow up with you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I will move to item B for me to state the purpose of the public hearing. The hearings are primarily for the purpose of explaining the budget, proposed tax levy, and any proposed amendments, as well as affording the public the opportunity to participate in the budget process. At this time, Madam Chair, I will turn it over to Mr. Bill Beasley, County Manager, to do the budget introduction.

Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the board, members of the viewing audience, two things real quick. I can't say enough about the faces in the audience, especially the staff perspective. This is kind of a sweet but bitter approach because this is the last opportunity that I'll have in my tenure with Polk County to present this budget message. The past 12 months continue to present challenging growth dynamics within Polk County. The added uncertainty of potential statewide property tax reform places unfortunate strain on already burdened local governments. Despite such challenges, I believe Polk County continues to be a stabilizing factor and a beacon of leadership in providing core services to businesses, citizens, and visitors of Polk County. I wanted to express my sincere appreciation to the men and women of our staff, the constitutional officers, and the state court systems, as well as the medical examiner's office. All of these entities have again worked cooperatively over the past several months, helping to prepare their respective portions of the proposed FY26-27 budget. Let me also say thanks to those citizens who have directly and indirectly participated in helping to shape this budget. By serving on citizens' advisory committees, participating in public hearings, making phone calls, sending emails, and other social media contacts, I assure you those voices have been heard. Preparing Polk's cautious and conservative budget, a budget that truly reflects our community's needs and board-directed priorities, is a challenging process under normal circumstances. However, these are anything but normal times. Even with significant property tax reform looming, this budget continues to address the demands brought on by population growth. public safety priorities, regulatory burdens, infrastructure demands, community health challenges, environmental preservation desires, affordable housing pressures, and economic development goals. The common denominator in this budget is that it serves the businesses, the citizens, and the visitors of Polk County. And that focus has not and will not be diminished. The proposed FY26-27 budget this evening totals $3,911,064,517. This budget maintains the current countywide general fund millage rates. This budget reflects receipt of and continued community distribution of various federal and state funds associated with Polk's Community Development Block Grant Program, our Emergency Solutions Grant Funds, the home investment partnership funds the remaining portions of the federal american rescue plan investment funds and the state housing investment partnership funds this budget maintains the board's commitment to public safety community health infrastructure technology tourism and community support by adding critical positions and maintaining not expanding current priority programs and services Consistent with the board policy, this budget maintains the general fund operating reserves at current levels, which continues to be a positive reflection on our fiscal solvency and financial health. This budget continues to make investments in technology upgrades and associated staffing in order to strengthen security protocols, improve operational efficiencies, streamline workflows, and maximize resource output. This budget maintains the board's commitment to needed capital investments to support public safety, public health, public water supplies, transportation capacity, and intersection improvements, stormwater management, water quality improvements, and habitat restorations, as well as environmental stewardship. This budget continues to address quality of life issues related to community health care, behavioral health, and opioid abatement. Also related to recreation and leisure services, economic development, affordable housing, and Medicaid contributions. This budget continues an annual cost indexing of select fees for services and special assessments in order to avoid larger periodic increases. Subject to the outcome of property tax reform, this budget will allocate approximately $67 million of one-time funds to address capital project needs directed towards public safety, transportation, drainage, and related facilities. And finally, but equally important, this budget continues to invest in our employees by way of a 4% phased salary increase beginning in October. Also for employees participating in our health insurance programs, THERE WILL BE NO INCREASE IN PARTICIPATING EMPLOYEE PROGRAMS FOR THE FIFTH CONSECUTIVE YEAR. MADAM CHAIR, MS. CHRISTIA JOHNSON WHO IS THE HEAD OF OUR BUDGET MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR, SHE'S GOING TO GIVE A BRIEF POWERPOINT PRESENTATION THAT I THINK WILL HELP EXPLAIN THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS THAT MAKE UP THIS BUDGET. I THINK SOME OF THE FACTORS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH ACCOUNTING FOR THE REVENUES AND THE EXPENSES. and to include some prior year comparison data. And upon completion of her quick presentation, before we get into the second part of the public hearing process, I'll say a few closing comments on the proposed budget. Ms. Christia, please.

Good evening, commissioners. I wanna start off with just some of the high level key takeaways of the budget. As Mr. Beasley stated, the total fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative budget is 3.911 billion, which is a 12.9% increase over the current year adopted budget. The total general fund is 764.1 million, which is a 5.3% increase over the current year adopted general fund budget. Countywide, our property values increased 4.83% and the unincorporated area property values increased by 2.95%. That is the lowest property value growth rate that we've seen since fiscal year 13-14. That year it was 3.64% and that was our first positive growth year following five consecutive years of negative growth. And just incidentally, the average countywide property value growth over the 1990s was 4.3%. Some of the key board decision points that were made, there was no change to the millage rate from the current year. The solid waste residential assessment to Polk County solid waste customers continues to index at approximately 5%. The single family fire assessment actually decreased slightly based on the results of the fire assessment study that was completed earlier this year. The consultant analyzed incident data and classified call volume by type of call and set the fees accordingly. And finally, this budget includes the continuation of a 6% increase to Polk County Utilities customers' water and wastewater rates. On July 17th, we held a board work session on one-time funding. This year, the projects were classified as either a priority one or a priority two project. The priority one projects were set at 41.8 million and allocated within this budget. The priority two projects were allocated but put on hold pending the results of the election, I'm sorry, the referendum in November on Amendment 3 and the property tax reform. If Amendment 3 passes, those funds will be used to replace some of the general fund ad valorem revenue reduction that's anticipated in fiscal year 27-28. If the amendment fails, we will come to the board with a CIP amendment and allocate those funds to the projects that were already determined by the board for those funding, this funding. We show this chart multiple times throughout the year. This is a comparison of the current year ad valorem revenue, the fiscal year 25-26 adopted budget, and compares that to the fiscal year 26-27 July 1 valuations, statutorily. We use those valuations to build the budget. And also, statutorily, we have to budget our revenues at 95% of anticipated income. So these numbers are reflected at 95%. You can see on the right-hand side in the gray column, this is the difference between current year adopted and fiscal year 26-27. In total, the ad valorem revenue will increase by $22.9 million, which is a 4.7% increase in total. The total proposed budget is made up of six major fund groups, all balanced revenue to expense. The largest of those at over 1.5 billion and about 40% of the total budget is special revenue funds. These are revenues that come from specific sources that are required to be expended for specific uses. A quarter of that is transportation related. We have 14% in impact fee funds, 13% in the local provider participation fund, 12% in the indigent healthcare fund. All the rest of that is made up of multiple other funds. This includes grants, the MSTUs, tourism tax funds, and that's just to name a few. The enterprise funds are made up of solid waste and utilities at 43% and 57% respectively. These are funds that are financed and function like private business. They provide goods and services to external customers and receive payment from those customers that covers the cost of providing the goods and services. Internal service funds are fleet, IT, and the employee health insurance fund. These are funds that provide goods and services to internal customers in exchange for payment from the funds that are receiving those goods and services. Capital funds are where we account for many of our general capital projects in accordance with our CIP policy and the debt service funds are where we account for longterm debt that is not payable from the utility from the enterprise funds. Finally, the general fund is where we account for everything that doesn't fall into any of these other categories. And then we'll talk a little bit more about the general fund in a few moments. On July 17th, Mr. Beasley presented his proposed balance budget and this is a summary of what changed between then and now. Some years we do have a number of adjustments. New information is received and we do make adjustments, but that is not the case this year. The total change across all funds was .01%. The general fund makes up about 20% of the total budget and that is a pretty normal percentage. It ranges between about 20 and 25%. So this is a completely normal allocation. So to better understand the general fund, we wanna back out the transfers and the reserves. These are funds that are already representing existing obligations. And so that brings us down to the operating budget. That is what we actually anticipate spending and have budgeted to spend. So when we back those out, the total general fund operating budget is about 588.3 million. So the chart on the right breaks down the allocation of the general fund operating budget, and then the chart on the left breaks down the revenues that cover those expenses. On the expense side, about 61% funds the elected officials. We have about 8% that covers a number of items that are considered mandates. That includes inmate outside medical, the municipal CRA payments, the county audit, and the medical examiner, just to name a few. The remaining 31% covers BOCC divisions that are fully or partially funded by the general fund. Of the BOCC slice, about 37% of that is allocated to public safety. 16% covers general county administration and 15% covers facilities management. The remainder is split between 15 other divisions or programs. On the revenues pie, the ad valorem is by far the largest source of revenue for the general fund at 61%. We have other taxes that include sales tax, public service tax, communication services tax, state revenue sharing, and local business tax. We also receive some charges and fees or offsetting revenues for services that are provided. About 70% of that is attributed to ambulance fees. But we do have a variety of other sources, such as code enforcement fines, sheriff and court fees, inspections, and probationer fees. Finally, other revenue is everything else. This is everything miscellaneous. This is interest. This is the indirects that are paid by other funds into the general fund, scrap sales, investment earnings, and everything else that is considered miscellaneous. this is always good news item for the sixth consecutive year we have maintained the general fund operating reserves at full funding. Under the policy at 45 days. The general fund operating reserves cover about 85% of the total reserves that are within the general fund and this is what we would have available and unrestricted should we have an emergency. Historically, when we have a hurricane, this isn't where we would go to pay for debris. We've gone to the waste reserves in the past, but this is the money that we would use for business continuity. If the roof blows off this building, we've got to keep working, and this is how we would be able to fund that continuation in the meantime. This shows good fiscal stewardship and planning. It indicates excellent financial solvency and that we're ready for uncertainty. This is good governance and stability. This is also something that rating agencies look at. So when we go out to borrow, they're going to look at this and we're going to get more favorable borrow rates as a result of factors like this. Moving on to the Community Investment Program or CIP. We held a CIP board work session on August 4th and this chart summarizes the five-year CIP by division. The total five-year plan totals nearly 1.9 billion and of that 781.4 million is what's included in the 26-27 budget. The fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative budget contains 54 new positions. The majority of those are in the area of public safety and public and environmental health. There are 21 positions that are being added under fire rescue, but 18 of those are headcount only additions for 26-27. The funding does not appear until 27-28. 15 positions are within the infrastructure category, and then there are four within support services and other. Our current position count is 2,667, which includes a mid-year increase of 50 fire positions that were approved as part of a new safer grant. The fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative budget brings that up to 2,721 total positions. We have a history of measured growth, as you can see from the slope of the chart. We rely on partnerships. We leverage technology where we can. We're not growing government unnecessarily. We aren't adding positions we don't need that are not supported by a strong business case and a demonstrated need. At the same time, population growth has far outpaced our headcount growth. In fiscal year 07-08, the employees per 1,000 residents was 3.92%. Population since then has grown almost 50%, but headcount growth has grown less than 20% over that same period. And with this budget, the employees per thousand residents is only 3.14. So that's a reduction of where we were in fiscal year 07-08. And incidentally, if headcount growth paced the population growth, we would have almost 3,400 employees rather than 2,700. So just to summarize, the total fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative budget, as Mr. Beasley said, $3,911,064,517. And that concludes my portion of the presentation, and I will hand it back over to Mr. Beasley.

Thank you, Christia. Madam Chair, let me just say a couple of closing comments about the proposed budget. The staff sees what the citizens see every day. Polk County continues to change. While the 26-27 proposed budget represents a substantial investment on the part of the citizens and the businesses of Polk County, I think it's truly a direct reflection of the demands for services generated by a significantly growing population and the increased cost of goods and services. These increased demands will continue to remain a significant challenge in the future, even in the face of potential property tax reform. This budget is expanding in direct relation to the various service demands generated by a growing population. This reaction to growth has been what I consider our key focus over the last four years. Some of our traditional rural landscapes of the past continue to transition into the more urban, suburban environments. This growth dynamic continues to drive citizen and business expectations regarding the types of service we provide, the quality of those services, and the cost of those services, and that dynamic will not change should property tax reform become a reality. Finally, I wanted to thank the board for providing needed policy guidance and for allowing staff to think creatively in developing this budget. I'd also like to thank the board for having the confidence in staff to rise to the occasion during what I think is unprecedented growth challenges seldom experienced, if ever, in Polk's history. The FY26-27 proposed budget is put forth as a reasonably conservative budget intended to address reasonable citizen and business expectations along with long-term board values and priorities. The proposed budget is a formal expression of our plans, goals, and objectives for the upcoming year and is a true reflection of the services that we promise to our citizens. So Madam Chair, members of the board, on behalf of the county staff, the constitutional officers, and a host of other related agencies, it is our honor and privilege to present to you the FY proposed 26-27 balanced budget. The next part of this is the public hearing discussions that are required by statutory.

So per statute, there are a number of items that I do have to read into the record. So please bear with me, especially through the two items that are under section C. I do have to cover this data. Also, while we break out the countywide millage rate into four components for internal board discussion, um, what I report to the state is only the total millage rates. So for C1, I can abbreviate that a little bit and just read the totals. But, um, in the MSTU section, each MSTU is considered a separate taxing authority. So I do have to read each one separately. and the detail that goes with that. Item C, discuss proposed tentative millage rates for fiscal year 26-27. C1, discuss the fiscal year 26-27 Board of County Commissioners proposed tentative operating millage rate. The fiscal year 25-26 current year adopted millage rate countywide is 6.6348 mills. The fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative millage rate is 6.6348. There is no change. The fiscal year 26-27 rolled back rate The rollback rate is the millage rate that we would have to adopt in fiscal year 26-27 in order to bring in the same revenue as 25-26. So the fiscal year 26-27 rollback rate countywide is 6.5200 mills. The fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative millage rate is 6.6348. That is a difference of 0.1148 mils, which is a 1.8% increase from the rollback rate. And I mentioned it a little earlier. Usually when I talk about ad valorem revenue, I'm talking about the budgeted revenue at 95%. But because this is part of the statutory truth and millage process, the revenue chart that you're going to see is based on the 100% calculation as reflected on the DR420 forms, which are filed with the state. So these figures aren't going to tie to the revenue charts that you saw in the presentation. The total rolled back rate revenue generated by the countywide millage rate is $493,333,093. The total, I'm sorry, did I say, the total rolled back rate revenue The total revenue generated by the proposed tentative millage rate is $502,019,388. That's a difference of $8,686,295, which is an increase of 1.8%. The increase over the rollback rate is necessary to maintain services within the funds this levy applies to. Item C2, discuss the fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative millage rate for the Polk County Parks Municipal Services Taxing Unit, or MSTU, the Polk County Library MSTU, the Polk County Stormwater MSTU, and the Polk County Rancho Benito MSTU. The fiscal year 25-26 adopted millage rate for the parks MSTU is 0.5286 mills. The fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative millage rate is 0.5286 mills. There is no difference. The fiscal year 25-26 adopted millage rate for the library MSTU is 0.1985 mills. The fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative millage rate is 0.1985 mills. There is no difference. The fiscal year 25-26 adopted millage rate for the stormwater MSTU is 0.0941 mils. The fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative millage rate is 0.0941 mils. There is no difference. The total MSTUs that cover the unincorporated area of the county are The fiscal year 25-26 adopted millage rate is 0.8212 mils. The fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative millage rate total for the unincorporated MSTUs is 0.8212 mils. There is no difference. The fiscal year 25-26 adopted millage rate for the Rancho Benito area is 9.1272 mils. The fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative millage rate for the Rancho Benito area is 9.1272 mils. There is no difference. The total for all MSTUs... The fiscal year 25-26 adopted millage rate total for all MSTUs is 9.9484 mils. The fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative millage rate is 9.9484 mils, and there is no difference. The rolled back rate for the parks MSTU is is 0.5218. The fiscal year 2627 proposed tentative millage rate for the parks MSTU is 0.5286. That is a difference of 0.0068 mills. And that is a 1.3% increase from the rollback rate. The rollback rate for the library MSTU is 0.1959 mils. The fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative millage rate is 0.1985 mils, which is a difference of 0.0026 mils, which is a 1.3% increase from the rollback rate. The rollback rate for the stormwater MSTU is 0.0929 mils. The fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative millage rate is 0.0941 mils. That's a difference of 0.0012 mils, which is a 1.3% increase from the rollback rate. So the total for all of the unincorporated MSTUs, the rolled back rate is 0.8106 mils. The fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative millage rate is 0.8212 mils. That is a difference of 0.0106 mils, which is a 1.3% increase from the rolled back rate. The rollback rate for the Rancho Benito area MSTU is 9.0638 mils. The fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative millage rate is 9.1272 mils. That is a difference of 0.0634 mils, which is a 0.7% increase from the rollback rate. The total for all MSTUs, the rolled back rate is 9.8744 mils. The fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative millage rate is 9.9484 mils. That's a difference of 0.0740 mils, which is a .084 Let me try that again. A 0.7% increase from the rolled back rate. The total rolled back rate generated from the Parks MSTU is $22,116,331. The total revenue generated by the proposed tentative millage rate is $22,404,546. That's a difference of $288,215, which is a 1.3% increase from the rolled back rate. The total rollback rate revenue for the library MSTU is $8,303,160. The total revenue generated by the proposed tentative millage rate is $8,413,361. That's a difference of $110,201, which is a 1.3% increase from the rollback rate. The total rollback rate revenue generated by the Stormwater MSTU is $3,937,538. The total revenue generated by the proposed tentative millage rate is $3,988,399. That's a difference of $50,861, which is a 1.3% increase from the rollback rate. The unincorporated total, total rollback rate revenue is $34,357,029. The total revenue generated by the proposed tentative millage rate is $34,806,306. That's a difference of $449,277, which is a 1.3% increase from the rollback rate. For the Rancho Benito area, the total rollback rate revenue is $9,582. The total revenue generated by the proposed tentative millage rate is $9,649, which is a difference of $67, which is a 0.7% increase from the rollback rate. totaling all of the MSTUs, the total rolled back rate revenue is $34,366,611. The total revenue generated by the proposed tentative millage rate is $34,815,955. That's a difference of $449,356. I'm sorry, $449,344. That's a 1.3% increase from the rollback rate.

Christia, before we move on, just, I want to make sure on your total increase for a rollback rate for the millage rate you have at the very bottom 0.07%. And on this one's down, what you just read is 1.3%. Is that, that's normally different?

That is the total for all.

Okay, so those numbers are good? Yes. Thank you.

The increase over the rollback rate is necessary to maintain services within the Parks, Library, and Rancho Benito MSTU funds and to fund upcoming water quality projects and other services related to the NPDES permit as mandated by the Federal Clean Water Act in the Stormwater MSTU.

So that's right.

Item D, discuss the proposed tentative budget for fiscal year 26-27. Item D1, discuss the fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative budget totaling $3,911,064,517. Item D2, discuss the fiscal year 26-27 Polk County Parks MSTU proposed tentative budget totaling $48,995,923. The Polk County Library MSTU proposed tentative budget totaling $13,453,894. The Polk County Stormwater MSTU proposed tentative budget totaling $17,238,517. And the Polk County Rancho Benito MSTU proposed tentative budget totaling $78,146.

You do a great job with all those numbers, Christy, I don't know. I'm surprised that you're not getting more of those mixed up than usual, so great job. We're gonna move now on to E, which is public hearing. So I'm requesting for public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak regarding the fiscal year 26-27 proposed tentative operating budget and Militarates, which includes the Parks MSTU, Library MSTU, Stormwater MSTU, and Rancho Bonito MSTU. Please come forward, and you have three minutes.

Amber, do we have anyone?

Yes, I believe we have three signed up.

Yes, ma'am, we do. The first one signed up is Emily Hills.

Emily Hills, if you're on. She's coming. Okay, good. Thank you. You have said your name and your address and clarify what topic you're going to be speaking on, please.

Of course. Emily Hills, 345 North Crooked Lake Drive, Babson Park, Florida, 33827. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Emily. A few weeks ago, I stood before you and asked you to work with Sheriff Grady Judd on the removal of flock cameras. And if he was unwilling to, please consider cutting his budget accordingly. After witnessing the sheriff's continued hostility to the voluntary removal of flock LPRs and his agency's refusal to provide reasonable transparency, I now stand before you today at this budget hearing required by section 200.065 of Florida statutes to request you use the authority under Florida statute section 30.49 subsection 4 to cut substantial funding from the major object code within the sheriff's budget where flock funding resides. I wish I could tell you how much to cut, but unfortunately, the Sheriff's Office spent the better part of the last year denying or heavily redacting most public records requests on the subject, opting instead to apply a tenuous application of a public records exemption for their rationale. Please see tab one of the research binder I prepared for you to see PCSO's flock safety contract blocked out and then sent through their scanner, likely older than I am, and documents freely provided unredacted by FDOT and other Florida law enforcement agencies. FDOT confirmed PCSO requested 42 cameras installed between 2023 and April 2025. This lack of transparency spans the entirety of PCSO's partnership with Flock. With PCSO signing their initial contract in February of 2021, PCSO has had the option to launch a public transparency portal since June of 2021, but has opted not to engage. Since PCSO joined Flock, audits, two-factor authentication to prevent password sharing, and limits for users to choose who has access to our community's data were optional tools. available at their disposal. FLOC only made audits and password protection mandatory to access their system last month, and prior to 2025, FLOC's nationwide lookup feature was a common default configuration. If PCSOs have the option to conduct internal audits and implement guardrails all along, why won't they confirm they exist as part of their operations? The rest of the binder I provided for you includes information to support my prior remarks and a current argument to cut the sheriff's funding for FLOC LPRs in Polk County, representing a fraction of the information I could provide overall. Please pay particular attention to Tab 2C, which provides examples of information Flock gives law enforcement to sell Flock to you and the community. Some of the lines may sound familiar. Lastly, Commissioners, please understand LPRs like Flock are rapidly becoming a political poison pill, and for good reasons. Rights violations, data collection, and cameras being used to stalk innocent people are not something many elected officials want to stake their reputation or a campaign on. Flock's vision to eliminate all crime in America sells law enforcement and communities on surveillance as a solution to make communities safer instead of focusing on the mix of biological, psychological, social, and economic factors that contribute to crime. Larry Ellison, CTO of a company that contributed to China's current mass surveillance system, also supports LPRs because, quote, they will keep people on their best behavior, unquote. China is blanketed with an estimated 700 million cameras, roughly one camera for every two people. Surveillance is a symptom of an angry, disempowered, and untrusting society that wants armed forces and police to solve problems when perhaps the problem was something else entirely, or perhaps the problem wasn't even there. It's not just about what Flock is doing now, but what they are capable of and where they want to go in the future. Honestly, the last time I can remember a private company selling communities on an impossible pipe dream at the expense of our safety, moving at this rapid of a pace, and pushing this level of extensive corporate propaganda was when the Sackler family introduced their actual poison pills into our community. If the sheriff will not voluntarily protect our right to privacy or our location data, it's up to you to do it for us as part of this budget hearing process. Thank you.

Thank you. What do we have next, Amber?

Next up, Mr. Rolando, did you want to speak again?

I think he may have left. He may have left, yeah.

Then next up is Dawson Bowman.

Okay. Okay.

Hello there. I'm Dawson. I'm a student who goes to Florida Polytechnic, not too far away from here. My address is 2373 Isabella Court. I'm a renter. I would like to say that I am here today to speak to you all about flock cameras. I am also very much against these cameras for a number of reasons, including their main selling point. Why might you ask are these cameras so much more implemented than other cameras or why are communities opting to use them instead of others? It's because they are accessible by any means. You don't have to have any reason. You don't have to have a warrant. You can just check it for any reason, which includes unfortunately watching ex-partners, which is what happened in Haines City, local. This is a local thing that happened and the police officer was arrested for it. The extent of info collected is invasive. You might not know how much they track of you. They use something called vehicle fingerprinting. They don't just track your license plate. They track your vehicle size, your vehicle's color. More surprisingly, they track any roof racks or stickers you have on your car. And even more surprising than that is that they track cars that travel with you. If you travel with a car often, It will log that and it will have that in its database for anyone to see for any reason, as long as they have access to the database, of course. Also, I would like to say I don't like the behavior and attitude of Flock as a company in general. They publicly lie very often in lies that aren't even difficult to see that they're lies because you can just look at other sources. They have reinstalled cameras after communities ordered their removal, going as far as some communities having to tape up the cameras after because they're unable to remove them. And the last and most important one that I would like to mention is that they are very vulnerable to hacking. Anybody can get into these cameras. It's as simple as pressing a button on the back for, well, it's not specified how long you have to press or the series of presses, but there is a sequence that you can do to manually reset these cameras and then you can get into them. They have 50 plus known vulnerabilities and feeds have been found on the open internet just for anybody to use, just simple Google search, and you can access them. They avoid the bare minimums of security, as stated earlier. They don't have two-factor authentication, which is the thing you use to log in with Netflix. So they could be doing so much, but they're not doing anything at all for public security reasons. And while I'm still here, I would also like to express my disapproval of data center construction, and I would like some more wildlife protections whenever possible. Thank you.

Please refrain from clapping. Thank you. Anybody else? Amber?

Yes, ma'am. The last one is Blaise Castillo.

Blaise? Blaise Castillo? No? Okay. That's it?

Those are the only names signed up, ma'am. Okay.

Madam Chair, I believe we...

Your blaze? Your blaze? No, not blaze.

I did not get the list out of the back. Okay. Madam Chair, I believe we was on opening up for anyone who has not signed up to speak at this time is the plan.

sign up for the speaking.

No, no, that we will go ahead and open it up for anyone. Okay.

Well, I'll open it up for anyone that wants to address the board. Yes. You have three minutes and state your name and address.

My name is Magdalene Dupree. I live in Lakeland, Florida, 33801. I also want to express concern about the amount of funding that is being put towards AI surveillance technology or surveillance technology in general. I have a huge concern that this is an invasive technology. overreach into our Fourth Amendment rights to be secure from unreasonable searches and unreasonable seizures. Flock is just one type of surveillance brand. There's other ones like Axon. I know the big focus is on Flock, but they're not the only company in that space. The governor has taken measures to ask for flock cameras to be taken off of state roads. And what I also want to ask is that you consider cutting the budget into the following year for this type of surveillance. One of the concerns about these surveillance cameras and systems, like somebody mentioned, they don't just record license plate. They can record damage on your vehicle. There's research into facial recognition and to gait recognition. These are things that the companies are actively trying to develop, being able to identify you you're not even in the car, you're walking on the street by how you walk your gate. The other concern is that as residents, we've had little input into these being putting up in our communities. And I also want to remind you guys, you often, as commissioners, remind us not to put political signs or yard signs in the right-of-way, and yet a lot of these flat camera poles are being put into public right-of-ways. So you wouldn't allow a two-foot yard sign in that area because it's dangerous for... and obscures views, then why are we allowing these 15-foot poles that are not safe for drivers that can contribute to damage on the cars for people that do... end up in a car crash, those poles could cause damage. And those are much bigger and stronger than those little yard signs. Also, it changes the way we think about crime. These cameras and surveillance, they record you before a crime has ever been committed. So it's not actually a crime prevention device. It's pre-crime monitoring. your life gets recorded before anybody has ever reported a crime, before a crime has ever existed, you're being searched. So please consider cutting budget for these specific tools going into the next year until we have guardrails and regulations in place to control how they're being used on our people. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?

Sir?

Good evening. My name is Sam Romaine. I live in Lakeland. Grady Judd has said these license plate readers help solve crimes and find missing people. But honestly, I'm not sure why we should listen to the best sheriff in America when I can just trust somebody in the Facebook comments who has probably almost watched an entire video on the subject. Now, hypothetically, let's just say a stranger comes by and kidnaps my kids. A camera might record their car and deputies have somewhere to start looking. Quite frankly, I say, that's a terrible idea. I think we were doing very well with, maybe they went that way. A witness sees a shooting and a car leaving a scene. The police ask the witness, do you remember the license plate? They say they don't remember. I think the cops should just say, try remembering harder. There are reasons to use technology like this. However, there are not excuses for what happened in Haines City. According to the arrest affidavit, that officer searched for his estranged wife's vehicle over 700 times. Investigators have also said that there was not even a criminal investigation. Now, my question was, was there even an audit scheduled for that? Was there going to be cake at the audit party? If convicted of that abuse, deliberate abuse, that officer should face the maximum prison sentence the law allows. Strengthen the penalties if necessary. The taxpayers did not buy him a divorce investigator. But why should his alleged misconduct cost an honest deputy a powerful tool? We understand this premise with guns. Prosecute the person who does the crime. Don't demand every responsible gun owner surrender theirs. A Glock... is a gun. A flock reads license plates. Hold the person who abuses either one of those tools accountable. Personal responsibility, which is apparently a very controversial topic in America. Government surveillance should have enforceable limits, require a legitimate purpose for these searches, verify that, Restrict the sharing of your data. Delete routine records promptly. Don't hold onto that forever. Audit the access and publish compliance records. We have a policy, sounds great on the news, but show us what those policies are and who enforces them. Let deputies use lawfully placed cameras to find missing people, stolen children, and solve crimes and make the safeguards mandatory, make deliberate abuse carry serious prison time. But a deputy searching for a missing child should have a useful tool and an officer tracking his spouse should have a very good reason to fear touching that keyboard. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and we will bring it back now to set the tentative military rate for fiscal year 26-27. Christia.

For the next three sections, I will read the staff recommendation and then I'll stand for the board to make a motion and approval. Item F, set the tentative millage rates for fiscal year 2627. F1, staff recommends that the board adopt the resolution establishing the fiscal year 2627 tentative operating millage rate of 6.6348 mils, which is a 1.8% increase over the rollback rate of 6.5200 mils. The tentative millage rate of 0.5286 mils for the Polk County Parks MSTU, which is a 1.3% increase over the rolled back rate of 0.5218 mils. The tentative millage rate of 0.1985 mils for the Polk County Library MSTU. which is a 1.3% increase over the rolled back rate of 0.1959 mils. The tentative millage rate of 0.0941 mils for the Polk County Stormwater MSTU, which is a 1.3% increase over the rolled back rate of 0.0929 mils. and the tentative millage rate of 9.1272 mils for the Polk County Rancho Benito MSTU, which is a 0.7% increase over the rolled back rate of 9.0638 mils. Bring it to the board.

Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries.

Item G, set the tentative budget for fiscal year 2627. G1, staff recommends that the board adopt the resolution adopting the fiscal year 2627 tentative budget of $3,911,064,517. The fiscal year 2627 tentative budget of $48,995,923 for the Polk County Parks MSTU. The fiscal year 26-27 tentative budget of $13,453,894 for the Polk County Library MSTU The fiscal year 26-27 tentative budget of $17,238,517 for the Polk County Stormwater MSTU. And the fiscal year 26-27 tentative budget of $78,146 for the Polk County Rancho Benito MSTU. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion?

Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. And the last one.

Item H, set the fiscal year 26-27 second public hearing date and time. H1, staff recommends that the board set the date, time, and place for the public hearing to adopt a final millage rate and budget on September 21, 2026 at 6 p.m. in the commission boardroom.

Second. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Christia, and we are adjourned.