The most pressing topic of the meeting was the public’s concern over the county’s acquisition of residential properties and the transparency of these transactions. Resident Robert Branch questioned the council, asking, “Where is that in your budget?” He cited specific instances where properties were purchased, raising doubts about their valuations and the board’s transparency regarding its intentions for those properties. Branch referenced a public notice suggesting improvements for residential property, sparking skepticism about the appropriateness of such claims. This issue dominated the public comments.

Another issue was raised by Christy Maroy, representing the Panhandle Transparency Partnership. Maroy questioned the intra-fund transfers related to the golf course and expressed concern over the large amounts allocated for professional services. She sought clarification on whether the County Administrator drew a salary from multiple departments and asked about revenue from dirt removal at local fields. Maroy also pointed out a line item for a sports complex, questioning its relevance since there is no existing complex in the county. Her concerns extended to the high remuneration of the County Attorney and the significant travel budgets allocated for each commission district.

The session also addressed the tentative aggregate mill rate, announced as 6.2850. Miss Herring, a representative, detailed that this millage rate includes various categories: countywide at 5.9 mills, several dependent districts at 5 mills, and debt service rates for different areas. The budget reflected increases in tax revenue due to costs associated with the Sheriff’s Office, constitutional officers, property appraisal, insurance, and employee pay raises.

Miss Herring highlighted a need for a net increase of $22,275 in the general fund, stemming from cash carry forward estimates for Emergency Management. She also noted that the St. Joseph Fire Control District required a transfer of $29,000 due to revised estimates, with specific amounts allocated to different districts. Despite these adjustments, it was emphasized that they would not impact the overall budget totals. A motion to approve these budget details was made and passed without opposition.

A significant portion of the meeting focused on the golf course and its associated expenses. Discussions revealed that the primary funding sources for the golf course projects, including green projects and clubhouse renovations, came from golf course revenues, the Tourism Development Council (TDC), and donations from St. Joe. Revenue projections for the upcoming fiscal year were highlighted, with an anticipated total revenue of $2,268,390, including $625,000 from daily usage fees and $190,000 from membership dues. Concerns were raised about whether these revenues were sufficient to sustain the country club without drawing from other budgetary sources.

The allocation of unused travel funds, amounting to approximately $113,000, was another point of contention. One participant suggested that if travel funds were not being utilized, they should be redirected to parks or other areas rather than returned to the general fund. The speaker emphasized the importance of utilizing available resources effectively, stating, “don’t just sweep it back into general fund; put it somewhere where it’s to be used.”

The council also addressed the final adoption of various millage rates and budgets through a series of resolutions. Mr. Hammond expressed satisfaction with the progress of budgetary work, mentioning the successful reduction of taxes for four consecutive years. The budget, if adopted, would reflect a decrease in the millage rate from 7.1 to 5.9. He recommended proceeding with a roll call vote for adoption. The board members were encouraged to raise any questions or concerns, confirming that the rollover for parks would be included in the budget resolution expected in early December. All resolutions, including those for countywide millage, dependent special fire control districts, and voted debt service in municipal service taxing units, were passed unanimously following roll call votes.

The discussion also touched on the status of the sand pit fund, with a participant inquiring about the revenues generated from material sales. It was noted that the revenue from the sand pit was currently budgeted at zero due to a lack of contracts or estimates. Participants were encouraged to refer to audits available on the county website for historical revenue and expenditure information.