Former Apopka City Administrator Jacob Smith.
By Reggie Connell, Managing Editor
In Summary:
Jacob Smith told the City Council in 2024 that Apopka had reached a financial crossover point, with expenses overtaking revenue and reserves supporting operations. The commission raised the millage rate to 4.6876 but reduced it by a quarter-mill the following year. Its new tentative rate of 4.6761 restores nearly all of that reduction but does not recover two years of lost revenue or address Apopka’s long-term structural needs.
*****
Two years ago, the Apopka City Council got a wake-up call... and no, not a soothing iPhone melody that could be mistaken for a lullaby, but a 1970s alarm clock rattling the nightstand and demanding attention.
In 2024, then-City Administrator Jacob Smith told the commission that Apopka had reached a financial turning point. Revenue was no longer keeping pace with expenses. Public-safety costs were growing faster than the city’s primary revenue sources. Reserves were supporting operations, departments were inadequately funded, and millions of dollars in potential labor costs were not included in the budget.
Related: Apopka City Commission breaks budget deadlock, approves tentative millage rate.
Smith did not bury the warning in a spreadsheet, but rather presented it to the Council (now called the Commission) during a budget workshop.
Asked whether the proposed budget provided everything the city needed in personnel and supplies, he said, “No, it’s not enough.”
Which areas were inadequately funded?
“Every single one.”
Those two answers should have ended any illusion that Apopka’s low millage rate and large reserve balance, by themselves, proved the city was financially healthy.
Smith showed the commission why. From 2021 to 2022, Apopka’s major revenues increased by approximately $1.8 million while public-safety operating and personnel expenses rose $3.5 million. Over the next two years, revenue increased by roughly $9.5 million while public-safety spending climbed approximately $14.1 million.
“So you can see the trend there,” Smith said.
Public safety represented approximately 60% of the city’s budget, and the revenue supporting it was falling behind.
“So there’s a trend here, and now we’ve hit that point where we’ve crossed over, where we’ve been using reserves,” Smith said. “Expenses have caught up to that revenue line, and now it’s crossing. And that’s the issue we have here.”
That was the wake-up call: Growth, rising property values and shared tax revenue could no longer be expected to absorb the increasing cost of running Apopka. The city had begun using savings to bridge a structural gap.
Smith recommended raising the millage rate from 4.1876 to at least 4.4376, a quarter-mill increase expected to generate approximately $1.7 million. Even then, he warned the commission not to mistake that step for a solution.
“Now, that won’t help us catch up with our revenue, but at least it will keep us where we’re at right now,” he said.
Then-Commissioner Alexander Smith proposed going farther, recommending a half-mill increase to 4.6876. The commission adopted that rate, with Commissioners Nick Nesta, Nadia Anderson and Diane Velazquez among those supporting it.
Apopka was on its way to fiscal recovery, right? Wrong. Instead, Apopka hit the snooze button.
Less than a year later, then-Mayor Bryan Nelson fired Jacob Smith before he could lead another budget cycle. The commission then cut the millage rate by a quarter-mill, returning it to 4.4376—the minimum Jacob Smith said would only hold the city in place.
It did not help Apopka catch up.
Back to the starting line
Nelson lost the 2026 election, and Nesta became mayor after campaigning in part on a more transparent budget process and closer scrutiny of city reserves. But after two deadlocked meetings, the new commission tentatively approved a millage rate of 4.6761—just 0.0115 mill below the 4.6876 rate adopted two years earlier.
After two years of inflation and accumulating needs, Apopka has returned almost exactly to the rate it adopted after Jacob Smith sounded the alarm. Unfortunately, that's not catching up; it's returning to the starting line after the race has already begun.
The tentative rate restores most of the cut approved during Nelson’s final budget cycle. It does not recover two years of lost recurring revenue, pay for everything postponed, or reverse the trend Smith identified.
“The truth of the matter is, we’ve got these increased costs, personnel costs,” Smith said. “You know, the inflation has been through the roof, and our revenue has not followed that same trajectory.”
If that was true in 2024, restoring approximately the same millage rate in 2026 cannot reasonably be presented as a complete answer.
Nesta, Anderson and Velazquez supported the 4.6876 rate two years ago. They heard that expenses had crossed the revenue line, reserves were supporting operations and “every single” department needed more.
What changed financially to justify stepping backward the following year? And after another year of rising costs, why should residents believe nearly restoring the old rate is now sufficient?
Reserves are not a financial strategy
For years, Apopka emphasized a low millage rate and a growing reserve balance. Both can reflect responsible government. Neither guarantees it. Reserves are appropriate for emergencies, one-time projects and temporary shortfalls. They cannot sustainably pay routine expenses year after year.
Smith acknowledged that the 2024 budget was technically balanced, then explained what that balance concealed.
“Now, you see, we have a balanced budget, but we’re using quite a bit of reserves,” he said.
A budget is not structurally balanced when savings pay recurring bills. It is balanced on paper by pushing the problem into another year.
The Apopka Voice previously urged the commission to “Stop building reserves and start building Apopka.” That meant establishing a defensible reserve target and investing money above it—not spending recklessly or leaving Apopka unprepared. Instead, Apopka carried approximately $30 million in reserves while departments needed personnel, aging equipment awaited replacement and infrastructure projects grew more urgent and expensive.
Financial strength cannot be measured only by money in the bank. It must also reflect the condition of Apopka’s staffing, equipment, infrastructure and services. If “every single” department was inadequately funded, the large reserve balance was not solely evidence of prudence. It was also evidence of unmet needs.
Deferred costs do not disappear
The first budget workshop of the Nesta administration exposed the scale of Apopka’s staffing, compensation, equipment and infrastructure needs. They did not appear when Nesta took office. They accumulated over years.
A delayed road, fire station, water main or vehicle will probably cost more later. Understaffing burdens employees, slows services and increases turnover.
The commission should scrutinize every expense. Positions and salaries must be justified, efficiencies pursued, and projects ranked by urgency and public benefit.
A millage increase is not a blank check.
But scrutiny cannot become another excuse to postpone decisions. The 4.6761 rate should be treated as an immediate response—not a declaration that Apopka’s financial problems are solved.
Before adopting the final budget, the commission should produce a multiyear plan showing projected recurring revenue and expenses, staffing requirements, labor costs, capital needs and reserve levels. It should present realistic millage scenarios for at least five years and adopt a reserve policy defining an emergency minimum, a reasonable operating range and a process for investing money above it. Without that roadmap, commissioners will return to the same debate every summer, arguing over one millage number while earlier decisions continue narrowing their choices.
Jacob Smith identified the crossover point two years ago: “Expenses have caught up to that revenue line, and now it’s crossing.”
His recommended increase, he cautioned, would not help Apopka catch up. It would only keep the city where it was. The commission initially went farther, then retreated. Now, after two years of rising costs, deferred investments and lost recurring revenue, it has nearly returned to the same millage rate—and wants residents to believe the city has moved forward.
It has not.
The alarm Smith sounded in 2024 never stopped ringing. Cutting the millage rate may have quieted it politically, but it did not repair the imbalance, hire the employees, replace the equipment or build the infrastructure Apopka needed.
The commission can hit snooze once more and awaken next summer to the same warning—only louder, costlier and more difficult to answer. Or it can finally adopt a long-term financial plan and begin building the Apopka its growing population requires.
Because returning to the rate Apopka adopted two years ago is not progress. It is two lost years—and, as Smith warned from the beginning, even that starting point was “not enough.”
Key Points:
- Jacob Smith warned in 2024 that Apopka’s expenses had caught up with its revenue.
- Smith said the proposed budget was insufficient for “every single” city department.
- The commission adopted a 4.6876 millage rate before reducing it to 4.4376 the following year.
- The tentative 2026 rate of 4.6761 nearly returns Apopka to where it started two years ago.
- The editorial calls for a five-year financial plan and a clearly defined reserve policy.
