Knight expresses concern about use of approximately $23 million in county reserves to balance budget, as well as high rise in Sheriff’s Office budget
Having expressed his concerns about the proposed Sarasota County 2026 fiscal year budget — especially following two days of comprehensive workshops in July — Commissioner Tom Knight this week cast his second “No” vote on the budget.
That action came during the board’s final hearing on the FY 2026 spending plan, which was conducted the evening of Sept. 24 in Sarasota.
Knight first announced his opposition to the budget on Sept. 10, during the initial required hearing.
Both times, he expressed his opposition to the need to take about $23 million out of the county’s reserves to balance the spending plan for the next fiscal year, which will begin on Oct. 1. He called that “a dangerous precedent.”
And, both times, he voiced disapproval of the fact that the proposed budget for the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office was rising again. (A former three-term sheriff of the county, Knight won no support from his commission colleagues during their Aug. 19 budget workshop when he called for reducing the county’s funding for the Sheriff’s Office in the next fiscal year.)
Further, during the Sept. 24 public hearing, Knight pointed out that the county’s tentative budget for FY 2026 would be over 8% higher than the FY 2025 budget.
The resolution that his colleagues approved this week said that Section 1 of the final 2026 fiscal year budget adds up to $2,003,687,394. As explained in the Sarasota County Charter, that section contains four parts: the Operating Fund, the Debt Service Fund, the Capital Improvement Fund, and the Intergovernmental Fund.
Section 2 contains “a part for each Special District, Municipal Service Taxing Unit and Municipal Service Benefit Unit,” the Charter adds in Section 5.2.
As he made his remarks on Sept. 24, Knight also pointed to the budget’s increase based on operating expenses for new buildings. For five structures, he noted — without naming them — that extra expense in FY 2026 will be $4.04 million.
Knight did vote to approve the county’s millage rates for the 2026 fiscal year. However, he voted “No” on the county’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for Fiscal Years 2026 through 2030. That is the program that entails new construction of county facilities.
Over the years, county staff has explained that, typically, only the projects slated for the first year of the five-year CIP are pursued as planned. For the later years, it is not uncommon for staff to propose changes in the project lists — or for the commissioners themselves to set new priorities.
During his first board meeting after his November 2024 election, Knight suggested that he and his colleagues halt plans for new county buildings that were not close to the construction phase.
Then, during the board’s meeting on Jan. 15, he explained that, in November 2024, he requested a staff report on all county capital projects, including their status. The 66 already underway, he said, presented total spending of more than $936 million in the CIP budget, including the $100-million County Administration Center that is being built off Fruitville Road, near the Celery Fields. He proposed a board discussion about what he characterized as “the priority ladder,” in regard to the CIP for the next five years.
Following his Jan. 21 remarks, Commissioner Teresa Mast, who, like Knight, won election to the board in November 2024, responded that she just wanted to be certain that Knight was not suggesting the delay of anything “already approved or … in the hopper. … But I am extremely supportive,” she continued, of discussing future projects.
Such a discussion has not taken place, to the knowledge of The Sarasota News Leader.
On Sept. 24, Commissioner Mark Smith made the motion in favor of the millage rates for FY 2026, and Mast seconded it. The vote tally was 4-0, as Commissioner Ron Cutsinger was absent from the hearing.
Knight ended up making the motion to approve the final budget, even though he had stated that he would vote against it. That vote tally ended up at 3-1.
Cutsinger joined the other three commissioners in approving the budget following the Sept. 10 public hearing.
‘Very difficult discussions’ ahead
During the earlier hearing, County Administrator Jonathan Lewis noted the board’s Aug. 19 direction to him to schedule a budget workshop with all of the county’s constitutional officers — such as the sheriff and the tax collector — in February 2026, to ensure they understand the commissioners’ decision to hold the General Fund increase to just 1.6% for the 2027 fiscal year.
The General Fund pays for operations of departments and agencies that generate no funds — or insufficient funds — of their own. It is the repository of the county’s property tax revenue and other revenue, such as money shared by the state. It also is the fund to which the commissioners can turn to cover unexpected expenses as a fiscal year is underway.
Lewis showed the board members a slide on the evening of Sept. 20 that provided figures reflecting the 1.6% limit for FY 2027, in comparison to the approved budgets for the constitutional officers for FY 2026. Further, he reminded the board members that he had sent a letter to all of the “other agencies,” as they had directed, about that decision.
Along with the operations of the constitutional officers, the General Fund supports the budgets of Court Administration for the 12th Judicial Circuit Court, the District 12 Medical Examiner’s Office, and the Guardian Ad Litem program; the leaders of those agencies are not elected.
Only one member of the public addressed the proposed 2026 fiscal year county budget during the Sept. 10 hearing — Martin Hyde, a Republican who for years has chastised local government representatives for their spending.
That evening, Hyde asked the county commissioners “to reflect … a little bit more on an existential basis.”
He asked rhetorically, “Who does [the budget] affect? … It affects older people. It affects people on fixed income.”
He added, “I’m no bleeding heart … liberal, but I’m a member of the community.”
Then Hyde told the board members, “It’s terribly easy for department heads to turn up and say, ‘We’d like 7-grand radios,’ ” for example. He was referring to Sheriff Kurt Hoffman’s statements during the commission’s July 2 budget workshop about the necessity of replacing the Motorola radios that the agency’s personnel uses. The company’s decision to cease providing support for the equipment by the end of this year was the reason for that request. Hoffman put the price per new radio at $7,142.
Hyde also referenced the decision of former Commissioner and new Tax Collector Mike Moran to upgrade technology for his offices.
Hyde stressed that when people with constrained finances receive their Truth in Millage (TRIM) notices in August, they wonder how they will pay their tax bills. Perhaps they will have to cut back on medications, he continued, or stop sending money to grandchildren.
“Think about [the budget] just from that perspective,” Hyde encouraged the commissioners.
Nearing the conclusion of his remarks, Hyde said, “What you could and should have done this year, you absolutely have to do next year, [which is] to tell people … ‘No, no, we’re not going to impact that person on a fixed income. No, we’re not going to give you extra benefits,’ because that [money] comes out of somebody else’s pocket.”
He proposed that the commissioners tell the county’s department directors, the constitutional officers and the leaders of the other agencies the county funds that they can seek an increase no higher than the rise in inflation.
The same evening, before calling for a motion on the proposed FY 2026 budget, Chair Joe Neunder offered his own remarks, as none of his colleagues had asked for time to speak.
“I think we have all had a very interesting time — unique this year — going through our budget. I think this board made it clear, from my recollection,” he said, “that next year is absolutely going to be a different story. Belts are going to be tightened. We are going to be looking at every efficiency” to protect the taxpayers, especially those on fixed incomes, Neunder stressed.
“Next year, we will be having very difficult conversations, as far as one commissioner is concerned.”
No members of the public showed up to address the board members during the Sept. 24 hearing.
The millage rates
The primary millage rates that the commissioners have approved for the 2026 fiscal year are as follows, as shown in materials in the Sept. 24 hearing’s agenda packet:
Among other rates they approved were those for specific districts across the county, most of them involving community payments for lighting.
However, that list also includes the Siesta Key Public Improvement District, which covers the area where a county beautification project was completed in early 2009. The owners of the property in that district pay annual taxes for maintenance of that district. The 2026 fiscal year millage rate for them is 2.4647, which is up 0.03%, compared to the FY 2025 figure.
However, the property owners in the Siesta Key Lighting District will see a 31.03% decrease in their millage rate. The new figure will be 0.0040.
One millage rate on that list pertains to the county’s Navigable Waterways Maintenance Program, which was the focus of attention this year during discussions of overdue stormwater work in the county.
As Spencer Anderson, director of what was the Public Works Department but which has become the county’s Transportation Department, explained during the commission’s May 21 Stormwater Workshop that that program was created to assess just property owners who live on waterways, to generate funding to keep creeks and streams navigable.
That Navigable Waterways Maintenance Municipal Service Taxing Unit millage rate is climbing 2.74% for FY 2026, to 0.0300.