Walton Budget: Will Commissioners Cut Taxes This Year?

In Brief:

  • 📉 Commissioners favor slight tax rate reduction to 3.575, down from 3.6.

    💰 $325M proposed budget includes 3% COLA and full employee health coverage.

    🚦 Board highlights need for major infrastructure spending, including 13 new traffic lights.

Share This Story!

Walton County Commissioners signaled their support this week for a slight rollback in the county’s property tax rate, while committing to fund employee pay raises and shield workers from rising health insurance costs. They continued shaping the $325 million proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2026 during a public workshop.

 The BCC heard from Melissa Thomason, Chief Financial Officer, on the tentatively proposed 3 percent Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA), which she said directly “corresponds to the rise in the cost-of-living for employees.”  

 

The Commissioners were also tasked with looking at the Employer/Employee Health Insurance Contribution rates by determining whether Walton County employees would be responsible for an “overall increase of 3 percent for the self-insured fund to maintain a good, healthy reserve in that fund.” The Commissioners were asked if they wanted to pass any of the increased insurance expense onto the insured (the employee) and, if so, what percentage.

 

With a proposed budget for FY 2025-26 of $325,009,168, Ms. Thomason indicated that the budget revenue increase over the prior year is $13.69 million due to Ad valorem tax levied on real estate and personal property. The CFO also stated that the budget presented was provided with a “flat mileage rate,” or the same rate applied to taxpayers in 2025.  

 

The current mileage rate (FY 2025)  for Walton County is 3.6, which is often the lowest of any county in the state.  

Commissioners Discuss Cutting the Millage Rate

The Commissioners spent time discussing the overall value and the pros and cons of cutting the mileage rate.  Commissioner Danny Glidewell (District 2) noted that Walton County currently has the second-lowest mileage rate in the state.  And he stressed that he would like to see the mileage rate under 3.0, but noted that Walton County is one of the fastest-growing counties in Florida, and he emphasized that “we need roads.”  He emphasized that there are capital projects that need to be completed and bottom line – “we need roads to drive on.”

 

Commissioner Donna Johns (District 4) expressed similar concerns, emphasizing the need not to cut the mileage rate due to the recent growth experienced in the county, the significant increase in traffic over the last five years, and the stormwater issues (requiring immediate attention) that necessitate repairs in the County.  Johns said, “I would hate to stop progress [referring to needed projects that have been on a ‘to-do’ list for years.] Things are getting done that need to be done – things that have been on the “books” [documented as a project needing to be completed] for a long time.”  She said primary concern is trying to prepare for the future of the County and the essential infrastructure required for Walton County citizens.  

 

Commissioner Dan Curry (District 1) showed his support for both the tax relief that would result from lowering the mileage rate to 3.575, as initially proposed by Commissioner Glidewell.  Curry also stated that the needs of infrastructure must be met as well.  

 

A reduction in the millage of .025 would reduce the property tax on an average home in Walton County by about $16.64 per year.  A reduction of a complete mill would reduce property tax on the average home in Walton County by about $66 per year. 

 

Later in the budget discussion, Curry inquired about the exorbitant amount that a traffic light (at an intersection) costs to install.  The estimated cost is one million dollars per light.  Curry stated that 13 new traffic lights are needed currently for anticipated projects.

 

Commissioner Brad Drake (District 3), who would like to see the mileage rate reduced to 3.5, stated, “There are two competing philosophies.  We [as the BCC] have to accept what our philosophy of government spending is…You can tax the citizens and spend their money, or you can allow people [citizens] that earn the money, that pay the taxes, to choose to spend the money how they see fit – for what is best for their family and their best interest.”  He continued, “ We have $13.69 million more in revenue collection than we had last year, and we are only going to return a million back to the people?  I think that is disingenuous.  It is absolutely not a conservative government.  We [the BCC] have to take a more measured approach.”

 

Commissioner Glidewell countered with the following: “We’re giving a million [dollars] back, but we are putting 10 million in[to] capital projects.” To which Commissioner Drake interrupted and said, “Spending.”  

 

Glidewell then began naming critically needed infrastructure projects in the County – none of which were in his district.  The Commissioner stated that there are projects that have been on the books for years and are not being completed because the budget does not permit the necessary improvements.  He added, “At some point, you have to address these needs…You can’t keep kicking the can down the road  – and these problems are going to get worse.”

 

The Commissioners, except Commissioner Drake, agreed that the mileage rate should be lowered from 3.575 to 3.25. The formal decision will be made at the BCC meeting when an official vote can be taken.  Because the meeting was a “Workshop,” the CFO was collecting the best information for the continued preparation of the FY 2026 budget.

 

The BCC appears to be in support of the three percent COLA increase for County employees.  And regarding health insurance, the total cost for the County will be approximately $605,000.  The BCC agreed that they did not want the employees to absorb any of the costs for the employee portion of the health benefits.  The County will absorb the $80,000 employee portion into the County expenses.  Commissioner Curry expressed that asking employees to pick up a portion of their health care costs was a “hard no” for him.  The County employees will most likely not have that expense for healthcare deducted from their paychecks.