The Polk County Board of County Commissioners debated a request from the Polk County School Board to put a referendum on the 2026 general election ballot asking voters to approve an additional 1 mill in property tax for school operating purposes. Staff told the board that state law and court decisions make the board’s role ministerial — that the BOCC must place a school‑board referendum on the ballot when requested by the school board.

Commissioners pressed for more information on how the funds would be used and worried about public perception that the county was the originator of the tax increase. Commissioner Santiago said the public would likely “blame us” even though the board has little discretion to block the measure. Commissioner Scott urged greater transparency, noting the measure would affect thousands of households and that the public deserves clear information about what the additional mill would fund.

County staff told commissioners a failure to forward the referendum could prompt litigation; staff cited prior appellate rulings in Hillsborough County interpreting the statute as giving the BOCC no discretion. After prolonged discussion, a commissioner withdrew an earlier motion and proposed continuing the item to the first board meeting in January to give the school board an opportunity to appear and provide substantive information for the public. The motion to continue carried.

Discussion vs. decision: Commissioners did not adopt the resolution to call the referendum at this meeting. The board’s formal action was to continue the agenda item to the first meeting in January for additional information and presentation by the school board. Staff characterized the BOCC’s role as legally ministerial in transmitting a school‑board referendum to the supervisor of elections, meaning the board asserted it lacked discretion to prevent placement on the ballot if the school board directs it.

What was said on the record: Commissioners raised timing and communications concerns, asked whether the school board could collect petition signatures instead, and debated whether the county should issue a press release explaining the board’s limited role. No quantified vote tally by name was recorded in the transcript for the continuation motion; the chair announced the motion carried.

Why it matters: The referendum would increase school operating property taxes by about one mill, which staff and speakers estimated would raise tens of millions of dollars annually (figures discussed during the meeting ranged near $77–80 million in new revenue for the school board). Commissioners emphasized the need for the school board to lead outreach and to explain how the money would be spent so that voters can make an informed choice.

Provenance: Topic introduction at 00:15:12 (staff presentation requesting the board adopt a resolution calling for the school‑board referendum). Topic last discussed and continued at 00:37:17 when the board voted to continue the item to the first meeting in January.