When Volusia County officials protect and increase the sheriff’s budget while cutting elsewhere, taxpayers deserve to know what they are financing. That accounting should include a benefit employees governed under the County Charter do not receive: an employer paying their share of health insurance premiums.
It should also include scrutiny of the elected officials approving those expenditures, particularly when the sheriff has politically endorsed members of the Volusia County Council who are responsible for evaluating and approving his funding requests.
The September 2026 budget decisions bring both questions into focus.
The council’s votes—and its responsibility
At the September 3 preliminary budget hearing, the County Council voted 6–1 to adopt the proposed law-enforcement tax rate, with County Chair Jeff Brower alone opposed. According to the Ormond Beach Observer, county staff said the rate fully funded Chitwood’s requests for law-enforcement needs in unincorporated Volusia. Brower sought the lower rolled-back rate. [1]
The final September 22 compromise was different: it passed unanimously. The council preserved the proposed law-enforcement rate while lowering the general fund rate, reducing law library funding and drawing $4.8 million from economic development reserves. Brower’s earlier dissent should be recorded accurately alongside his participation in that final unanimous vote. [2]
Published accounts also differ on the sheriff’s overall budget total. The Florida Press reports roughly $150 million, while the Daytona Beach News-Journal reports approximately $168 million. Those figures require reconciliation against adopted county records before making precise claims about the current year’s increase. [2] [3]
But the underlying question remains: What recurring expenses did council members examine before supporting the sheriff’s request?
One deserves particular attention.
The same health plan. A different premium bill.
In a September 21, 2026, public-records request, VolusiaExposed.Com asked whether health insurance arrangements differed between employees governed under the County Charter and employees supervised by elected constitutional officers. (Clerk of the Court, Property Appraiser's Office, Tax Collector, Supervisor of Elections, and Sheriff's Office)
Source documents provided by the County Manager's Office indicate that the Clerk of the Court participates in a separate health care plan.
In response to our inquiry, the County Manager’s Office states that employees governed under the County Charter and participating constitutional officers’ employees receive the same copays, deductibles and prescription coverage. Employees governed under the County Charter and employees of the Supervisor of Elections contribute toward premiums. The county says that the Sheriff’s Office began paying both the employer and employee shares of health insurance premiums in January 2022.
Employees whose premiums are fully paid can still face deductibles and copays. Sheriff’s Office employees benefit because their employer pays the premium contributions they otherwise would owe. [4]
That choice increases public spending and places an additional cost on Volusia County taxpayers.
On page 74, the county’s 2023 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report attributes approximately $1.1 million in additional fiscal 2023 expenditures over fiscal 2022 to the sheriff’s decision to pay employees’ premium contributions. The report explains that the comparison reflects additional months of coverage and increased contribution rates.
That amount is neither the subsidy’s total annual cost nor an explanation of the latest budget increase. Other documented spending pressures included overtime, technology and expanded beach law-enforcement duties. [5]
Nevertheless, paying the employee share creates a recurring commitment. Premium increases and enrollment changes can raise its cost.
The sheriff is not alone. An August 2024 Property Appraiser’s Office email describes paying staff’s entire health, dental and vision premiums across individual and dependent coverage categories. The county identifies January 2025 as the start of full health-premium coverage. [4] [6]
An October 2025 Tax Collector’s Office email confirms a similar arrangement for health premiums beginning the following January, including family coverage but excluding elective insurance. [7]
These differences call for an explanation of total compensation across county government. Recruitment, retention, salaries and working conditions all matter. A premium subsidy may be defensible, but officials should demonstrate its value and explain why other employees must continue contributing.
That responsibility belongs to the council as well as the sheriff.
Political endorsements and independent oversight
According to Daytona Beach News-Journal reporting, Sheriff Chitwood endorsed County Councilman Matt Reinhart’s 2024 re-election bid. [8]
Florida Politics also reported Chitwood’s endorsement of council member Jake Johansson’s state Senate candidacy. [9]
According to a July 15, 2020 Facebook post - Sheriff Chitwood politically endorsed Councilman Danny Robins’ run for office. [10] Records indicate that Robins was a Daytona Beach police officer while Sheriff Chitwood was the Daytona Beach police chief.
Did those political endorsements influence how the recipients approached the sheriff’s budget request?
The available evidence does not answer that question. An endorsement and a favorable vote do not establish a political bargain, BUT it also does not rule it out.
Still, voters are entitled to ask how council members maintain independent oversight of an official who has supported their political careers. Councilmen Reinhart, Johansson and Robins should explain the financial analysis behind their votes, what spending alternatives they examined and whether they evaluated the employee-premium subsidy.
The November property-tax question
The upcoming November 2026 election makes that scrutiny more urgent.
Chitwood opposes Amendment 3, the property-tax proposal on the November 3, 2026, ballot. AskFlagler reported that he called it a “disaster in the making” and projected a $37 million hit to his office in 2027—an amount he equated with 241 deputy positions, or the entire 911 communications center plus 132 deputies. Those are his projections, not an adopted reduction or finalized layoff plan. [11]
The proposal would increase the homestead exemption applicable to non-school property taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, while lowering the annual assessment-growth cap for non-homestead property. It requires 60 percent approval. [12]
At an unchanged tax rate, a smaller taxable base produces less revenue than otherwise. The resulting effect on the sheriff’s appropriation would depend on funding decisions, replacement revenue, spending adjustments and any state assistance.
Chitwood’s warnings deserve examination, including the assumptions behind his projected losses and staffing consequences. The department’s payment of employees’ health insurance premiums also belongs in that analysis because it represents a recurring personnel expense.
Volusia taxpayers need to know the subsidy’s current annual cost, how that cost has changed from the previous year and how much it contributes to budget growth. They also deserve to know whether council members obtained those answers before voting.
Volusia County can support competitive compensation for public safety employees while demanding rigorous oversight. Political endorsements should never substitute for financial justification. The sheriff should explain the cost of his commitments, and County Council members should show how they independently determined that taxpayers should fund them.