Martin County, Florida

Snapshot

Between FY2019 and FY2025, Martin County's population grew 7.8% and prices in the South region (CPI-U) rose 26.6%. Together they account for 36.5% growth in any figure that kept pace with the county. That is the baseline every figure below is compared to. "At the baseline" figures are what each amount would be if it had grown at exactly that rate since FY2019; "cumulative" sums the yearly difference between the actual figure and that path. They describe the arithmetic, not what the county could or should have done.

Where the money comes from

In FY2025 the county reported $511.4M of governmental-fund revenue before borrowing, transfers and special items. Property taxes were 60% of it.

By account line

The largest revenue lines in FY2025 (up to twenty, each at least $0.5M). Where the state renumbered lines in its 2021 chart of accounts — local option taxes including tourist and fuel taxes, sales surtaxes, communications taxes, permits and fees, state revenue sharing and the half-cent sales tax, state fuel taxes — the old and new codes are shown together as one family so the series is continuous. A line marked ↕ shifted between fund types in one year, which usually reflects a change in how the county reported it. Growth is not shown for lines under $0.25M in FY2019.

Property tax rates and the homeowner

The County Commission's countywide operating millage, from the Florida Department of Revenue's county profiles. Between FY2019 and FY2025 the county's taxable value grew 58.0%, from $22.04B to $34.83B. The adopted rate went from 6.5971 to 6.5776 mills (−0.3%). The operating levy — taxable value times rate — grew 57.6%, from $145.4M to $229.1M, against a 36.5% population-and-inflation baseline. At the baseline the FY2025 levy would be $198.5M, which on FY2025's taxable value is 5.6992 mills — the "baseline rate" below. The newest usable roll in the profiles (FY2026) carries an adopted rate of 6.5614 mills; the baseline rate is computed through FY2025, the last year with a reported population estimate.

Under Florida's Truth in Millage law (s. 200.065, F.S.), the rolled-back rate is the rate that would raise the same revenue as the year before from the same properties; a rate above it must be advertised as a tax increase. In all 6 years FY2020–FY2025, the adopted rate was above the rolled-back rate.

What that means for a homeowner

An illustration of the rates, not anyone's bill: the county operating levy on three homestead taxable values, at the rate the county adopted, at the rolled-back rate, and at the baseline rate. Three cautions. This is the County Commission's countywide operating levy only. In FY2025 it was 38% of all property taxes levied in the county; the school board, any cities, MSTUs and special districts levy the rest and are not included here. Taxable value is after exemptions, and Save Our Homes caps the yearly increase in a homestead's assessed value at 3% or the change in CPI, whichever is lower, so a long-held homestead's real bill often grew more slowly than the county levy. And the cumulative column holds the taxable value fixed across the years.

The financial sections above use the property tax revenue the county reported in its Annual Financial Report, $308.5M in FY2025, against the countywide operating levy of $229.1M computed here. The report's figure covers every county levy — MSTUs, dependent districts and voted debt as well as the operating levy — and is collections rather than the levy, so the two are different series; here the report's figure is 35% above the operating levy, so a large part of the county's property tax sits outside the operating rate described in this section. The 2025-roll profile (FY2026) prints a rolled-back rate computed from the prior year's maximum majority-vote rate rather than from the adopted rate, so it is not comparable with earlier years and is not shown; the FY2026 taxable value and adopted rate are.

Where the money goes

Operating spending (general, special revenue and permanent funds, by function, before transfers) was $411.5M in FY2025. Public safety was the largest area at 51%, followed by general government at 26%. Capital projects and debt service funds are shown separately because they move with individual projects and borrowings. Transfers out are shown because some counties fund constitutional officers or enterprise funds by transfer rather than as spending by function; "county outlays" counts those transfers so that counties can be compared on the same footing.

By account line

Every line of $1.0M or more in FY2019 or FY2025, or at least 1% of operating spending in any year shown, under its function. The filing's lines are the finest level the state publishes; it does not break spending into salaries, operating costs or capital outlay, and it does not name departments. A line marked ↔ moved against another line in the same function between FY2019 and FY2025 while the two together stayed near the baseline — lines inside a function are often recategorized between years, so read it with its pair or group, not alone. Growth is not shown for lines under $0.25M in FY2019.

What it costs per resident

County outlays per resident were $2,753 in FY2025, against $1,985 in FY2019. Adjusted to FY2019 prices, that is $2,175, a change of +9.6% in real terms. Operating spending by function was $2,475 per resident; property tax revenue was $1,855 per resident ($1,223 in FY2019).

Net change in fund balance

The state filing does not report fund balances directly; the county's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report does. The closest the filing gets is each year's net change: everything that came into the governmental funds (revenues, transfers in, bond proceeds) minus everything that went out (expenditures, transfers out, refunding escrow). A positive year adds to what the governmental funds hold; a negative year draws it down. Years with new bond proceeds show as additions until the proceeds are spent in later years.

Debt service and borrowing

Regular debt-service payments (principal and interest, account 517, all governmental funds) were $15.5M in FY2025, 3.4% of county outlays. The filing reports borrowing as "other sources" in the year it is received: new debt (account 384) separately from refunding bonds (account 385). Refunding proceeds either go to an escrow agent (account 585) or are paid out through the debt-service account; both are excluded from debt service and from county outlays. The years below are those in which the county reported $5.0M or more of either kind of proceeds.

• FY2015: $23.1M in refunding bond proceeds; regular debt-service payments $11.7M → $11.3M; $22.8M paid to a refunded-bond escrow agent.
• FY2018: $26.2M in new debt proceeds; regular debt-service payments $8.1M → $8.4M.
• FY2019: $45.0M in new debt proceeds; regular debt-service payments $8.4M → $12.9M.
• FY2021: $5.0M in new debt proceeds; regular debt-service payments $14.4M → $16.3M.
• FY2022: $11.9M in refunding bond proceeds; regular debt-service payments $16.3M → $21.0M; $11.9M of older debt retired through the debt-service account.

Compared with peer counties

Peers are the four counties closest in FY2024 population. All figures are FY2024, the most recent year every county has filed. "County outlays" is all governmental spending plus net transfers out (so a county that funds its sheriff by transfer is counted the same as one that reports it by function), excluding refunding escrow. Growth above baseline is property tax revenue growth since FY2019 minus the county's own population-and-inflation baseline, in percentage points. A dagger (†) marks a county whose page carries a data note affecting its FY2019, FY2023 or FY2024 figures.

Key observations

What the numbers support. Descriptive, not prescriptive.

1. Property tax revenue rose from $188.5M in FY2019 to $308.5M in FY2025, 63.6%. The population-and-inflation baseline was 36.5%: at that rate the FY2025 figure would be $257.4M, so FY2025 is $51.1M above the baseline. Over the 6 years FY2020–FY2025, property tax revenue ran a cumulative $125.7M above the baseline path. Per resident, it went from $1,223 to $1,855, which is $1,466 in FY2019 dollars.
2. Taxable value grew 58.0% between FY2019 and FY2025 while the county operating millage went from 6.5971 to 6.5776 mills; the adopted rate was above the rolled-back rate in 6 of the 6 years FY2020–FY2025. The baseline rate for FY2025 — the FY2019 operating levy grown by population and inflation, on FY2025's taxable value — is 5.6992 mills. As an illustration of the rates (the county operating levy only, at a fixed taxable value, not a tax bill): on a $300,000 taxable-value homestead that levy at the adopted rate is $1,973, $264 more than the $1,710 at the baseline rate; over FY2020–FY2025 the difference adds up to $491 more.
3. Operating spending rose 64.7% over the same period, above the baseline of 36.5%. County outlays rose 49.6%: at the baseline rate they would be $417.8M in FY2025; they are $457.8M, $40.0M above. Over FY2020–FY2025 outlays ran $123.4M above the baseline path in total.
4. The fastest-growing spending area was physical environment: $8.4M in FY2019 to $20.2M in FY2025 (140.8%, against a 36.5% baseline; at the baseline it would be $11.5M).
5. Public safety spending grew 58.8%, above the baseline, and is 51.2% of operating spending in FY2025.
6. Federal grant revenue went from $5.7M in FY2019 to a peak of $33.3M in FY2023, then fell to $14.8M in FY2025. Property tax revenue over the same years went from $188.5M to $308.5M.
7. In FY2022 the county reported $11.9M in refunding bond proceeds; regular debt-service payments (principal and interest) were $21.0M, compared with $16.3M the year before, and $11.9M of older debt was retired with the refunding proceeds.
8. Within general government, the line "Other General Government Services" (account 519) grew from $23.6M in FY2019 to $59.2M in FY2025, 151.0% against a 36.5% baseline; at the baseline it would be $32.2M, $27.0M less.
9. Within public safety, the line "Law Enforcement" (account 521) grew from $49.8M in FY2019 to $84.7M in FY2025, 70.1% against a 36.5% baseline; at the baseline it would be $68.0M, $16.7M less.
10. Among the 65 Florida counties with FY2024 property tax figures, Martin ranks #1 on property tax revenue per resident ($1,712; statewide median $666) and #34 on growth above the baseline since FY2019.

Questions this raises

Questions a county official could answer. The records show the change; they do not show the reason.

1. What drove physical environment spending from $8.4M to $20.2M between FY2019 and FY2025?
2. What drove the "other general government services" line from $23.6M to $59.2M between FY2019 and FY2025?
3. What drove the "law enforcement" line from $49.8M to $84.7M between FY2019 and FY2025?

Sources and method

• Martin County revenues by account code and fund type, FY2006–FY2025 — Florida EDR, compiled from the county's Annual Financial Reports to the Department of Financial Services (s. 218.32, F.S.)
• Martin County expenditures by account code and fund type, FY2005–FY2025 — Florida EDR, same source
• Florida EDR — County Government Revenues and Expenditures (all counties)
• CPI-U, All Items, South region (BLS series CUUR0300SA0), via FRED
• Florida Department of Revenue — County and Municipal Property Tax Data (county profiles, 2017–2025 tax rolls)

Figures are actual revenues and expenditures as reported by the county in its Annual Financial Report to the State of Florida, not adopted budgets, and this page is not an audit. Fiscal years run October 1 to September 30; "FY2025" is the year ended September 30, 2025. Governmental funds are the general, special revenue, debt service, capital projects and permanent funds; enterprise, internal service, fiduciary and component-unit columns are excluded. "Revenue" excludes transfers in, debt proceeds and special items (accounts 37x–39x). "Operating spending" is spending by function in the general, special revenue and permanent funds, excluding "other uses" (transfers out, escrow payments). "County outlays" is all governmental-fund spending including transfers out, minus transfers received from other governmental funds and minus payments to refunded-bond escrow. Debt-service payments are account 517. Population is the countywide estimate published with each year's filing. The filings' population estimates were rebased to the 2020 Census beginning with FY2021, so the FY2020-to-FY2021 step in the filings mixes real change with the rebase. For this page the real change that year is taken as the median of the county's other yearly changes in the filings over FY2016–FY2025 (+1.43%), and estimates for FY2020 and earlier are rescaled by −2.8% so that is the step; the rebase itself is not counted as growth or decline. The baseline grows the FY2019 figure by population and by CPI-U South (fiscal-year average). Per-resident figures divide by that year's population. Millage rates and taxable values are the County Commission's countywide operating figures from the Department of Revenue's annual county profiles, extracted from the published PDFs and checked for internal consistency (the valuation arithmetic and the rate labels; taxable value × rate is also compared with the reported county levy, which can legitimately exceed the operating levy where a county levies MSTUs or voted debt, so that comparison decides only whether the reported levy figures are quoted). A roll whose valuation or rate figures are inconsistent is left out with a note, and rates are not compared across a year in which the operating rate changed by 15% or more while the county's reported property tax revenue moved 20 or more points differently from the operating levy. The "baseline rate" is the FY2019 operating levy grown by population and inflation, divided by the year's taxable value, and the homeowner figures apply the rates to fixed taxable values as an illustration, not a bill. Some counties report a constitutional officer's budget as a transfer rather than as spending by function, and some change what their filing includes from year to year; where that visibly affects a figure, a data note says so. Prepared by Beachside Automation with software-assisted analysis and human review; this page describes what the public records show and makes no policy recommendation.