Third Times the Charm? After two delays, Apopka’s millage debate reaches a legal, financial, and critical crossroads

In Summary:

Apopka commissioners remain divided over whether to preserve the proposed 5.1876-mill rate while continuing to reduce the preliminary budget or establish a lower rate immediately. Approving the higher preliminary rate would not require the City to levy it in September, but missing the state deadline would eliminate every option above the rolled-back rate—including maintaining the current 4.4376 mills. Thursday’s meeting could determine whether commissioners retain several budget choices or face a legally imposed revenue ceiling.

*****

After twice postponing a decision on Apopka’s proposed property-tax rate, the City Commission will return to City Hall Thursday evening with less room for delay and potentially millions of dollars at stake.

Related: Commissioner Anderson: Apopka cannot afford to keep postponing essential investments.

The special meeting, scheduled for 5:15 pm on Thursday, will mark the commission’s third attempt to establish a proposed millage rate for the fiscal year beginning October 1. The commission first tabled the matter July 15 after failing to reach the unanimous support needed for the City staff's recommended 0.75-mill increase. They delayed it again July 27 when that consensus remained elusive.

The proposed rate would rise from the current 4.4376 mills to 5.1876 mills. One mill equals $1 in property taxes for every $1,000 of taxable property value.

The commission is not adopting its final tax rate Thursday. But the vote is more consequential than a preliminary procedural step because Florida’s Truth in Millage law requires Apopka to submit its proposed rate, rolled-back rate and tentative budget-hearing information to the Orange County Property Appraiser by August 4.

If the City misses that deadline, state law would prohibit it from levying more than its rolled-back rate of 4.2510 mills for the coming year.

That would eliminate not only the proposed increase but also the option of maintaining Apopka’s current 4.4376-mill rate. In other words, the commission can continue debating how high the proposed rate should be. It cannot postpone that debate indefinitely without allowing state law to make part of the decision for it.

Two meetings, one unresolved disagreement

The stalemate centers largely on Commissioner Nadia Anderson’s opposition to the proposed 0.75-mill increase.

Because the proposed 5.1876 rate is more than 110% of the rolled-back rate, it requires a unanimous 5-0 vote. All four of the other commission members have indicated a willingness to move forward with the higher preliminary rate, while Anderson has argued that the City should first remove nonessential expenses and prepare for the possibility of significant state-imposed property-tax changes.

“I just think right now it’s wasteful spending,” Anderson said during the July 15 meeting. “I don’t think it’s conservative.”

Anderson pointed to proposed new positions and compensation expenses and said other Florida municipalities were considering hiring freezes and spending reductions in anticipation of potential property-tax changes.

Mayor Nick Nesta has countered that the preliminary budget is not the final spending plan. Their position is that setting the rate at 5.1876 mills preserves the commission’s ability to work downward as it reviews departments, positions, capital projects and reserves. Nesta has said his goal would be to identify enough reductions to lower the eventual increase, potentially to 0.50 mill, before final adoption.

That distinction is important. Approving 5.1876 mills Thursday would not obligate the commission to levy that rate in September. It would establish the rate used to prepare the Notice of Proposed Property Taxes sent to property owners. The commission could subsequently lower the rate during the budget process.

The proposed rate therefore acts as a practical ceiling, although not an absolute one until the September tentative hearing.

The case for approving the higher preliminary rate

In an open letter to Anderson, Apopka resident Rod Olsen argued that decades of deferred needs make this the wrong time to narrow the city’s options prematurely.

Olsen, a frequent speaker at commission meetings, thanked Anderson for asking questions during the July 15 and July 27 meetings but questioned what had changed since the commission reached an earlier consensus to proceed with the 0.75-mill increase.

“Based on the discussion at the last two meetings, I was left wondering whether additional information or concerns have since come to light that influenced your position,” Olsen wrote. “While no homeowner welcomes a tax increase, it is important to view the proposal in the context of the City’s long history of deferred infrastructure and operational needs.”

His argument reflects the central case for setting the higher proposed rate: Apopka has aging roads, utility-system demands, staffing shortages and other infrastructure needs that will not become less expensive by waiting.

Supporters also contend that commissioners will retain almost two months to reduce the budget and lower the millage before final adoption. From that perspective, approving the higher rate does not settle the tax increase; it prevents the commission from surrendering options before the detailed budget review is completed.

But Anderson’s argument presents the other side of the same question. If the commission has already identified millions of dollars in proposed expenses that may not survive the final budget, she questions why residents should be notified of a potential tax increase before those expenditures are more thoroughly examined.

The disagreement is therefore about more than whether Apopka needs additional revenue. It is also about sequencing: Should the City first preserve the maximum revenue available and then make cuts, or should it first demonstrate that proposed spending is essential before asking taxpayers to absorb a higher rate?

What the numbers show

Apopka’s certified taxable value increased from approximately $8.22 billion to $9.28 billion, a gain of 12.8%. Because of that growth, maintaining the current 4.4376-mill rate would generate approximately $4.45 million more in budgeted property-tax revenue than the city received this year.

The proposed 5.1876-mill rate would generate approximately $45.7 million in budgeted property-tax revenue—about $6.61 million more than maintaining the present rate and approximately $11.06 million more than the current-year budget.

That is why two different percentages have appeared in the debate.

The rate itself would rise approximately 16.9%, from 4.4376 to 5.1876 mills. But because Apopka’s taxable property base also grew, budgeted property-tax revenue would increase by approximately 31.9%.

Under Florida’s TRIM calculations, the proposed rate is 22.03% above the rolled-back rate. The rolled-back rate is designed to produce roughly the same revenue from existing property as the previous year, excluding new construction and certain other changes.

For a property with $250,000 in taxable value, the 0.75-mill increase would add approximately $187.50 to the city portion of the annual tax bill. That calculation does not include changes in assessed value or taxes imposed by Orange County, the School Board and other taxing authorities.

Even the proposed increase would not balance the preliminary General Fund budget without additional changes.

At 5.1876 mills, the city projects approximately $104.5 million in General Fund revenue against approximately $121.1 million in preliminary expenditures. Staff estimates that Apopka would still need approximately $11.4 million in adjustments to maintain a 20% reserve or $17.4 million to maintain a 25% reserve.

The alternatives presented by staff are:

The table reveals a critical point for Thursday: Failure to secure five votes for 5.1876 mills leaves the commission with only the choices of tabling the matter or adopting the rolled-back rate.

A rate of 4.6761 mills or the current 4.4376 mills could be approved with four votes. The rolled-back rate could be approved by a three-vote majority.

The political compromise line may therefore fall between 4.6761 and 4.6876 mills. The difference between those rates is only 0.0115 mill, but according to the city’s calculations, it changes the required vote from four commissioners to all five.

What happens if the commission fails again?

A failed vote Thursday would not immediately violate state law because Apopka’s submission deadline is August 4. The commission could call another properly noticed special meeting before then, but the available calendar would become extremely tight.

Section 200.065(2)(b), Florida Statutes, requires a taxing authority to notify the property appraiser of its proposed millage rate, rolled-back rate and tentative hearing information within 35 days after taxable values are certified. The statute also establishes the consequence for failing to provide that information on time: The municipality “shall be prohibited from levying a millage rate greater than the rolled-back rate” for the coming fiscal year.

For Apopka, that would impose a ceiling of 4.2510 mills.

Based on the City’s figures, the rolled-back rate would produce approximately $8.25 million less in General Fund revenue than the proposed 5.1876 rate. It would also produce approximately $1.64 million less than maintaining the current rate.

The City would still have to adopt a balanced budget. Missing the deadline would not shut down City Hall or automatically prevent Apopka from collecting property taxes. It would, however, force commissioners to balance the budget within a substantially lower property-tax ceiling.

More extensive TRIM violations—such as failing to conduct properly noticed hearings or failing to certify compliance—could expose the city to corrective hearings, escrow of improperly levied revenue or withholding of state revenue-sharing funds. Those more severe consequences would not arise merely because one motion failed Thursday, but they illustrate why the city cannot allow the process to remain unresolved.

Thursday’s decision is about preserving—or limiting—choices

The proposed increase has exposed a genuine policy divide.

Anderson is asking the commission to demonstrate greater restraint before placing a higher possible tax rate before residents. Olsen and supporters of the increase argue that Apopka has postponed infrastructure and operational investments for too long and should not voluntarily surrender revenue options before completing its budget review.

Both positions ultimately confront the same numbers: Even at the highest proposed rate, the preliminary budget still requires at least $11.4 million in adjustments to maintain a 20% reserve.

Approving 5.1876 mills would not answer which positions, programs or projects survive that review. Adopting a lower rate would simply require commissioners to find more reductions, accept a smaller reserve or identify other available revenue.

What has changed after two postponed votes is the significance of another delay.

On July 15, tabling the matter bought the commission additional time. On July 27, it bought three more days. If commissioners leave Thursday without approving any proposed rate, they will be approaching a statutory deadline that could replace their range of choices with one state-imposed ceiling.

The City Commission will meet at 5:15 pm. Thursday, July 30, in the Apopka City Hall Commission Chambers, 120 E. Main St. The meeting will also be livestreamed on the City’s YouTube channel.