From Staff Reports
In Summary:
The Apopka City Commission did not approve a proposed 0.75-mill property tax increase after Commissioner Nadia Anderson opposed the measure, which will require the city to revisit the issue before the end of July. Anderson argued the proposed budget contains nonessential spending and should better prepare for the possible effects of a statewide property tax amendment, while Mayor Nick Nesta and other commissioners said setting a higher preliminary rate preserves flexibility as the budget is refined. The commission must establish a preliminary millage rate to continue the TRIM process before final budget hearings begin in September.
*****
The Apopka City Commission postponed a vote on its preliminary property tax rate on Wednesday after a proposed 0.75-mill increase failed to gain the unanimous support required for approval.
The commission had been asked to establish a proposed operating millage rate of 5.1876 mills for the 2026-27 fiscal year, up from the current rate of 4.4376 mills. The increase would generate an estimated $6.6 million in additional property tax revenue, according to Finance Director Blanche Sherman.
Instead, commissioners ended the discussion without setting a rate and agreed that another meeting would have to be held before the end of July to comply with Florida’s Truth in Millage process.
The proposed rate was not the final tax rate. Under the TRIM process, the commission may lower the rate during subsequent budget hearings but generally cannot raise it above the preliminary ceiling once notices are sent to property owners.
Commissioner Nadia Anderson said she could not support the 0.75-mill increase because she believed the proposed spending plan contained nonessential positions and did not adequately prepare the city for the possible effects of a statewide property tax amendment expected to appear before voters in November.
“I feel that the budget that’s presented is not fiscally sound or responsible,” Anderson said. “I think right now a lot of the items that are proposed in the budget are something that is not essential.”
Anderson said other Florida cities were considering hiring freezes, spending reductions, and other preparations for a potential loss of property tax revenue. She argued that Apopka should more closely examine new positions and administrative expenses before asking residents to pay a higher tax rate.
Her primary objections centered on proposed additions within the mayor’s office and other administrative departments, including a chief of staff, communications officer, executive assistants, and administrative support positions.
“I just think right now it’s wasteful spending,” Anderson said. “I don’t think it’s conservative.”
Mayor Nick Nesta defended the budget process, emphasizing that neither the spending plan nor the proposed millage rate was final. He said department heads had already been asked to find additional operational savings, delay capital projects, and reconsider proposed personnel expenses.
“This was never presented as a final budget,” Nesta said. “This is not final at all.”
Nesta said his goal remained to lower the eventual increase to approximately one-half mill before the budget is adopted. However, he argued that the city should initially establish a higher ceiling to preserve flexibility while officials continue refining the budget. He said Apopka has delayed infrastructure projects, operated departments with insufficient staffing, and failed to increase revenues gradually as the city grew.
“We are at that tipping point where it’s got to be done,” Nesta said. “This is only going to get worse the more we push this off.”
Several commissioners expressed support for setting the rate at 5.1876 mills while continuing to reduce spending before the final hearings.
Commissioner Yesenia Baron said she could support the proposed increase, but only if department directors justify each requested position and the city continues separating essential expenses from those that can be delayed.
“Either we’re going to pay on the front end, or we’re going to pay on the back end,” Barron said. “We have to really start looking at the budget, skimming the things that we haven’t skimmed in the past.”
Baron said her support was based largely on the city’s infrastructure needs, particularly Golden Gem and other projects that previous commissions had postponed.
Anderson said she supported funding roads, pipes, pump stations, and other infrastructure, but did not believe administrative positions would directly address those needs.
“I don’t have any issue with repaving roads, redoing pipes,” she said. “I don’t see how these added positions, for one, are essential positions, and for two, how they would assist with infrastructure.”
The discussion became increasingly tense as commissioners pressed Anderson to identify a rate she could support.
Anderson initially said she needed additional time to review the budget, but later proposed limiting the increase to one-half mill. That would establish a preliminary rate of 4.9376 mills.
Nesta noted that a half-mill increase was already his stated target for the final budget but said starting at that level would remove roughly $2.2 million in potential revenue from the ceiling before additional cuts had been fully identified.
Sherman said the city’s current rate was reduced last year and warned that a 0.25-mill increase would return the city only to approximately its previous rate while producing relatively little new revenue. She also said development-related revenue was slowing and could no longer be relied upon to cover recurring expenses.
“The growth is slowing down,” Sherman said. “The building permits and those planning fees can no longer cover some of that recurring cost.”
Sherman said she had spoken with finance directors in other cities that were also considering millage increases, particularly as property values and potential state tax changes create uncertainty for local governments.
Because the proposed rate exceeded the statutory threshold requiring unanimous approval, Anderson’s opposition prevented the commission from moving forward.
Nesta expressed frustration that commissioners had appeared to reach a tentative consensus on the 0.75-mill increase during an earlier budget meeting.
“Well, then this was a colossal waste of time,” Nesta said after it became clear the vote would not be unanimous.
Anderson rejected that characterization, saying the meeting allowed her to voice concerns raised by residents who contacted her about the tax increase.
“My job is not to be the most popular, to be favored and go along with the group,” she said. “My job is to make decisions, to say things even if it’s not popular.”
The commission did not immediately select a date for the next meeting. Once a preliminary rate is approved, the city will continue revising the budget before its first tentative budget hearing, scheduled for September 3.
Key Points:
- The commission postponed its preliminary millage-rate vote after failing to achieve the unanimous support required for the proposed 0.75-mill increase.
- Commissioner Nadia Anderson said she could not support the proposal because she believes the budget includes nonessential positions and does not adequately prepare for possible property tax reform.
- Mayor Nick Nesta emphasized that the proposed rate is only a ceiling under the TRIM process and can be reduced before the final budget is adopted.
- Commissioners discussed major infrastructure needs, including multimillion-dollar improvements at the Golden Gem pump station and other long-delayed capital projects.
- The commission will hold another meeting before the end of July to establish a preliminary millage rate and keep the city's budget process on schedule.
Editor's Note: This developing story will be updated in future editions of The Apopka Voice.
