joining us here today. If you do intend to speak, we ask that you fill out a public participation card. Those are provided there in the front. We've got a few things on the agenda before we get to that, but want to let you know ahead of time. Thank you.
Ready? Ready to go. >> Good. [music] Good evening everyone. Today is August 3rd, 2026. It is 6:00 p.m. We are at the Cape Canaveral City Council special meeting. I call this meeting to order.
We're holding this meeting at 100 Pulk Avenue in Cape Canaveral, Florida in the city hall council chambers. And with that, >> Council Member King, would you please lead us in the pledge? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> City clerk, please call the role. >> Mayor PM Jackson, here. Council member
King here. Mayor Morrison >> here. >> Council member Sharia >> here. >> And council member Willis >> here. City Council, thank you all for being here. We have a full council, our city staff and members of the community. Again, thank you.
>> This time, >> city manager, >> city manager, >> floor is yours. Thank you, mayor, and thank you, council, for agreeing to meet this evening for your second of what will no doubt be several more budget workshops in advance of the budget adoption
process. Uh, and as you know, tonight we need to set a tenative military. Uh, before we get into the heart of the meeting, I do want to say that the agenda was updated to what was previously circulated to the public. We have several items under discussion which will be viewable to the screen and
to the folks that are watching from home. And I want to begin the meeting by uh issuing another statement uh similar to what I did on the 21st workshop. Um there it's important that we put to rest
some untruths that have been circulated in the community. And so I want to start by saying that since notifying the community about our budget deficit and subsequent requests for a law enforcement investigation during the city council's first city council's first budget workshop on July 21st, I
received several inquiries about why the Bvard County Sheriff's Office was asked to investigate and not the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Office of the State Attorney or the Florida Attorney General. It has been suggested that the city manager, it has also, I should say, been suggested that
the city manager does not have the authority in the city's charter to request such an investigation and that authority is vested only with the city council. As mentioned in my initial statement on the 21st, the purpose of requesting an independent investigation
into the financial operations of the city of Cape Canaveral is not to target any individual or presume that criminal activity or official misconduct has occurred. The objective is to establish the facts, identify any deficiencies in
financial practices or internal controls, and [snorts] determine if any violations of law, policy, or ethical standards occurred. Like all investigations, this one will follow the evidence wherever it leads and ultimately either substantiate or dispel
concerns. According to our charter, the city council quote may make investigations into the affairs of the city and conduct and and the conduct of any city department office or agency and for this purpose may subpoena witnesses,
administer oaths, take testimony, and require the production of evidence end quote. And this can be found in code section 2-09 2.09 labeled investigations. The operative word in this code is may
council may. The city council's primary role is to establish policy, adopt the budget, and provide legislative oversight of municipal government. While the council may direct administrative reviews, retain outside auditors, or exercise its oversight responsibilities
through public meetings. It is neither trained nor equipped to conduct a criminal investigation. Should that be where this inquiry leads? And that would be the same for any city council. In contrast, a city manager serves as
the chief's city's chief administrative officer and is responsible for the proper administration of municipal operations, safeguarding public resources, and addressing credible concerns involving the conduct of city business.
When information reasonably suggests that an independent law enforcement review is appropriate, the city manager has the administrative responsibility to refer the matter to the appropriate investigative agency rather than attempt to investigate potential
criminal conduct internally. The decision to request an independent law enforcement investigation was made in consultation with all council members. Among the available agencies, the Bvard County Sheriff's Office is
well positioned to conduct an initial independent investigation. As the county's primary local law enforcement agency, the sheriff's office has jurisdiction, experienced financial crimes investigators, and the ability to begin collecting evidence, interviewing
witnesses, and reviewing records promptly. Its local presence generally allows for a timelier response than agencies with statewide responsibilities. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement possesses substantial expertise in public corruption and
complex financial investigations, but typically focuses on matters involving statewide significance, multi-jurisdictional activity, or cases requiring specialized state resources. The office of the state attorney serves as the prosecuting authority, reviewing
evidence gathered by law enforcement and determining whether criminal charges are warranted rather than functioning as the primary investigative agency. While the office does employ trained investigators, locally they do not have any with the credentiing this
investigation would require. Finally, the Florida Auditor General conducts financial and complex audits to promote accountability and identify weaknesses in governmental operations, but it is not a criminal investigative agency.
For these reasons, requesting the Bvard County Sheriff's Office conduct an independent factf finding investigation is an appropriate and measured first step. If evidence ultimately reveals no wrongdoing, the investigation can restore public confidence by resolving
questions through an objective process. If violations of law or official misconduct are identified, the sheriff's office can coordinate with the state attorney, FDLE, or other appropriate agencies if necessary to ensure the matter is handled within their
respective authorities. On a personal note, for those who do not know my background, I have 36 years of law enforcement service at two Florida municipalities with nearly one-third of those years as a police chief. I have extensive experience working with local
sheriff's offices, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and the office of the state attorney. And I relied on that experience in conjunction with my knowledge of city finances when deciding to ask the Bvard County Sheriff's Office to investigate. I have
full confidence in their ability to conduct a thorough, fair, and impartial investigation and I certainly have the authority to ask them to do that. I would now like to address misinformation regarding truths entrusted to the management I'm sorry. I would now
like to address misinformation regarding funds entrusted to the management of past and present city of Cape Canaveral employees that is allegedly missing or unaccounted for. At no time has the city of Cape
Canaveral in any official capacity stated or concluded that any funds entrusted to the care, custody or management of any past or present employee are missing. I'm going to say that again. At no time has the city of Cape Canaveral in any
official capacity stated or concluded that any funds entrusted to the care, custody or management of any past or present employee are missing. That has never come from a city employee. What has been stated is the city of Cape Canaveral has engaged in deficit
spending for the last 15 years to the point where it has exhausted its reserves. Deficit spending occurs when expenditures, whether planned or unplanned, exceed recurring revenues. What has also been stated is the city of Cape Canaveral has projected a budget
deficit of approximately $4 million next fiscal year. The task before the city of Cape Canaveral is to balance its 2027 budget and implement a plan to restore its reserve fund balance to an ordinance
defined level. A deficit by itself is not evidence of any wrongdoing. But determining whether wrongdoing occurred requires an objective review of financial records, transactions, internal controls, applicable laws, and
the facts surrounding the city's financial decisions. An independent investigation should focus on establishing what happened, why it happened, whether laws or policies were violated, and whether any individuals are accountable based on the evidence.
Now, I make this statement knowing fully well that it doesn't sit well that we've asked law enforcement to investigate our finances. I understand that completely, and so does this council. But I hope this statement in conjunction with the statement that I made on the 21st puts
any issues to rest about why this invest this investigation is being conducted by our sheriff's office and that the fact that there's nothing been said about money missing. I encourage people to pursue the truth not search out social media for answers. You'll get your
information from this dis and from the office of the city manager. And with that, mayor, I yield to the next item. >> Thank you, Mr. City Manager. This time, uh, I don't have any cards for public participation, but if you do
intend to speak, do we have we got one there? >> I'm going to just, uh, go over a few things. Public participation, we we have three minutes here. uh the lights when they go green uh starts the clock and then when it's yellow there's about 30
seconds and we ask that you wrap up uh when the light goes red. We do ask that audience members please complete the speaking cards. Uh as we've said and then after I recognize you, we want you
to please speak at the podium into the microphone. [clears throat] Please speak clearly and state your address and all remarks directly to the council. We do ask you give your name uh clearly and
resident address so that we can capture that in the minutes. We do ask that you do not make any imperent or slanderous marks or become boisterous while addressing the council. And then citizens or interested parking
speaking or as an authorized representative are asked to advise the council of the name, person or group or business or organization being represented. And then please we ask that you be aware that council members or city manager,
city attorney and staff are not required to respond to persons addressing the council. But as you know, we've been we we as a council certainly can in the event we feel that it's important. Obviously, no fighting, yelling, uh or
anything that would constitute unprofessional. We do ask any audible electronic devices please uh be kept off and those noises are prohibited. We will enforce the rules um but also
remain flexible as we always have and we ask that you understand these are not preferences. These are our codes section 2-28 and 286. As you know uh the culture of this council we appreciate public participation. We encourage it and again
we are very thankful that you're here today. And so with that if I can the speaker card. Thank you. Mr. Steve Help. >> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Steve Pep. I live at 8730
Clara Elizabeth Lane. I want to start out by saying I love living in Cape Canaveral. I've owned property here for 22 years. Uh I have every respect respect for
people that are willing to serve on the council. I have every respect for city staff and anybody that's willing to volunteer to take on the challenges and the crap that we the citizens like to give you.
Uh, I've served on a condominium board for almost 30 years, both in Ohio and here in Florida. During that time, to put it in language that is more of the dollar levels I'm
used to, uh, the complex I live in now, only 20 units. We have an annual expense of about $120,000 a year. We've never been asked
by our manager to approve a budget that's 10 or 20% less than that and use reserves. We've never been asked to approve a budget of 120,000 even though that's our
expenses. We approve a budget with another 10 to 15% on top of that. We've always done that. And when a problem comes along, we have money left over. But u I just
wanted to remind you of a statement I remember a prominent Washington politician made said we in Congress don't have a spending problem. We have a paying for it problem. I'll paraphrase
that to say looks like the folks in Cape Canaveral have had a spending problem for the last 10 or 15 years and now we the citizens have a paying for it problem. But I
appreciate the efforts that you guys are going to make and I'm confident you can do a great job and maintain the the dig dignity and the prosperity of the city. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. H.
Believe we got another card. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. This is the last card I have and so if anyone does intend to speak, please come forward. Mr. James Casparrowski. Sir, >> thank you, James.
I was just uh I used to live here about 17 years ago. I just moved back and uh I noticed that the community center has uh like different structures with uh with the pay and everything like that. And
it's it's kind of like uh I feel like you could earn more money with that place by lowering it to get more people in like lowering the uh uh the cost of the membership. I feel like the tier thing really confuses people. And uh if
you guys get the programs to get more insuranceances accepted, you'll be able to make more money off it and you can offer more programs like boxing uh you know, a whole bunch of stuff. But uh I feel like also I don't know how
we'd go about doing this, but I don't know if it would be uh legal. Uh but if we could uh if there's any way like people could volunteer like to work like a couple shifts a month and that would take some money off to to get like uh
one of the memberships for Cape Canaveral residents. But that's all I really have to say. And like all that space out front, like all the space that's out in front in the park. Like I talked [clears throat] to my mom and she said you guys only use
that like once in a while. I feel like if you have more community events like maybe like a a festival, you could earn like easily easily couple hundred,000 off a nice event to have like uh what do
you call that? Ferris wheels and stuff like that. And I know you do the first of the month thing which is really cool but you know there's ways to we have the beach and people want to come from Merit Island. The more community events that
you have you could charge but the community center is like a big thing. I feel like the the pace the pay thing is is weird the way they have it split up and uh like I myself would be willing to
volunteer a couple shifts a month, you know, 8 hour shifts and that'll take money off to to get a membership. And I I think it'd be totally illegal if you fill out the application like you know what I mean trained on the system. But
uh just something to think about. I don't know. I appreciate you. >> Appreciate you. James, what was your address? I'm sorry. >> Appreciate you. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? That's all the cards again
that I have. And if not, we will go ahead and close public participation. And for those of you in the past, like I said, we welcome public participation if you stick with us tonight and you hear us talk. We we
do have uh to take action, but um perhaps if time permits at the end, we really expressed a desire to hear the public at our last meeting. And so sometimes after you hear us uh discuss and talk, things might come to mind. And
I just want you to rest assured that unless the council opposes at the end, we might have an opportunity to give us some comments and feedback. So, thank you again for being with us. So, with that, we'll go ahead and close public participation.
We are moving down to uh item number six, which is discussion. We've got a series here 6.1 through 6.4. This is our city manager. First one is titled update on the fiscal year 2627
budget calculations. Mr. City Manager. >> Thank you, Mayor. And we do have an updated PowerPoint presentation to give the council to go through these next four items uh to go over, you know, what has changed since our last workshop. So, you're armed with the current
information prior to making a decision under item seven, the proposed millage rate. So, I'm going to turn the microphone over to Joey and we'll go from there. >> Okay. Hello, council. We'll be going over um this presentation now.
So, throughout this presentation, we'll be going over four um primary things. We'll be going over the updates of the um upcoming fiscal year 27 U budget. We'll be going over an interfund loan, the possibility of one. We'll be going
over a um potential utility rate study. And lastly, we'll be going over our um unassigned fund balance restoration plan. Um so to summarize the the budget that we've put forward with um all of the
updates, um as you can see um we show each fund on the left, the revenues and expenses for each fund, and the difference on the right. As of now, the general fund um is showing more uh expenses than revenues
of 3,929,399. That number used to be 4,35,000. Um that number has come down roughly 106,000 since uh the last budget uh workshop we had and we will dive a little more into that number in a in a
further slide. Um, since the primary reason for this budget workshop is the general fund, I'll mainly just go over the general fund right now. So, I'll move on to the next slide. Um, this slide shows um the the reserve
requirements for the city. Um, the unassigned reserve policy for the general fund that we're shooting for is 20%. Um so here I show our audited unassigned fund balance um as of the end of our
fiscal year 2025, our projected unassigned fund balance for the end of the current fiscal year we're in which is the one ending in 2026 and um as of now our projected uh fund balance unassigned fund balances in the
future as well. Um we can see our unassigned required reserve. Um our updated number is 3.5 million. Rounding it's 3.6 million. Um so that will be our goal number um that we will shoot for.
So a summary of our general fund revenues. Our general fund has total revenues of $16 million. I will let council look at this slide and again at the end we can always come back to any of these slides.
I will go on to the next slide now. A summary of the general fund expenses in the bottom right. Um, you can see our general fund expenses are that 20,54,374 broken up by department and categories
such as personnel, operating capital and other. I'll keep going. Uh, this slide shows some of the changes since our last um preliminary budget. As you can see, the general fund uh deficit
went down from that previous 4 uh roughly 03 million to what's now about 3 um 3.93 million. That's a change of about 106,000 made up of um a number of factors. Um
uh and some of the other other funds changed as well. Um, please let me know if you'd like to spend any more time on this slide or I'll just keep going. >> Yeah, I think going through and then the council at the end we can come back to
any slide that works well for us. Thank you. >> Okay, so we're getting into the next portion of this uh presentation. The the part where we talk about the idea of an inner fund loan. We are proposing um a potential loan
from the stormwater fund which is um has a healthy fund balance um from the stormwater fund to the general fund um for uh about 20 years just annual principal plus interest. Um again that
we have some of the details. Um the whole purpose of this loan is to help rebuild the general fund um reserves specifically the unassigned reserves. So now we'll get into another section of this presentation where we'll talk about
uh utility studies. So back in 2022, the city of Cape Canaveral had a utility rate study. Um the scope of that utility rate study looked into wastewater prices um and some reclaimed water prices, but
not storm water um rates. Um the city of Cape Canaveral is looking into um a new utility rate study in the future which um we want to take a comprehensive review of our wastewater, storm water and reclaimed rates
so we can fund future capital projects and have a very sustainable uh future in those funds. So now we will we will be getting to the last portion of this presentation where we talk about the millage rates for compliance with the city's uh fund
balance policies. So pursuant to the city policy 2-210 the general funds required to maintain an unassigned fund balance of 20% of operating expenditures.
um city staff's calculating operating expenditures as personnel services and operating expenditures excluding capital expenditures and other financing uh finance uses and transfers.
So personnel plus operating expenditures add up to 17,922,000. So 20% of those operating expenditures is going to be 3.5 or $3.6 million.
So that is the um goal number for the city to be in compliance with the city's fund balance policy. So, in order for the city to be um in compliance with this fund balance policy, um the millage rates required
um over 2 years in order to be back in compliance over 2 years would be uh a millage rate of 7.0344 in the first year. And if amendment three, which would change the, uh, city's taxable value,
um, if that takes effect, um, the city would then have to accordingly, um, increase the miller's rate to get the same amount of revenue in the future. So that could potentially go up to 7.8358 the following year. The idea we're
trying to get across is um as the budget's proposed um in order to bridge the the budget gap which is currently 3.9 million and to make up that $3.6 um million in reserves that we need over
2 years. We would roughly need an additional revenue of 5.7 million each year. Therefore the mill required is 7.0344. 0344 in the upcoming year. I'll move on to the next slide.
So, we briefly mentioned the um amendment number three. The the effects of amendment number three um would bring down the city's um ability to generate revenue at the same mill rate. So if the
city loses um property tax value, the ability to tax on that that uh value, the city would therefore have to to gain the same revenue, would have to increase property taxes um in the future. And here are some estimates of uh the
impacts if amendment number three um passes. Bvard County has a um an estimation where in the first year they're going to lose uh or the city of Cape Canaveral could potentially lose $730,000 and then in the second year Bvard County
projects up to 920,000. Um there was a Florida revenue estimating conference where they also made an estimation um and they predict potential um even more losses um
for the city. So the point we're trying to get across here are the uh potential effects if amendment number three takes effect. Oh >> and um we'll go back to that slide. Oh,
and that was the second to last slide on this presentation. And the last slide on this presentation is a um a large table showing um the combined millage rates and the related
estimated additional revenue to the city. >> Can you go full screen on that? maybe down at the bottom. There you go. Um, we went over this slide in the previous um, budget workshop. Um and if you have any questions on this slide or
anything we've gone through so far um please ask them. This is the end of the presentation. Thank you very much. And so understanding this discussion item 6.1 2 3 and 4 is just the the sections of this
entire presentation that we receive. Excellent council. Um I think this is helpful. Obviously, a lot of numbers and information to work off of, but um and I think it's important to state we have a discussion item here. We needed to to
work through it. Uh the the reason for the special meeting uh is coming up. We we have our public hearing for resolution 20269, the proposed mill rate adoption. So this information plus I think all of us have
been working uh to prepare for this uh it's legally required. I believe tomorrow is the deadline for us to submit and uh then trim notices will go out. Want to emphasize there will be two uh more public hearings after that. That
is not a final mill rate that we'll be voting in. It's the proposed and um we can decrease from there. Uh if we were going to set a rate and went back and increase, we would have to my understanding is fund the trim the
mailing and postage of the trim notices. So tonight we're trying to understand where the numbers are, the budget, everything ties in to set this rate. And uh thank you so much Joey. No particular order. Any questions? We can go back to any slide, work through it.
>> I just want to clarify, Mr. Mayor, that amendment three, the reference to amendment three is the property tax um on homestead exemption. A lot of people aren't familiar with the term amendment three. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor.
>> Yes, Council Member Willis. Uh Joey, for every half million that we could reduce from expenditures, what would the impact be to the millage rate? >> Um I would need a second to calculate that.
>> Okay. All right. Your question, Council Member Royis, if you don't mind, state it again, is >> for every half million dollars, every 500,000 that we could reduce from expenditures >> Mhm. >> what would be the direct impact to the millage rate?
>> So, we're showing 20 million in expenses. If we went down to 19,500,000, >> Yeah. What would that be? >> I see. Thank you. Uh, that would take a little more than one minute to calculate. >> That's fine. That's fine. [laughter] I don't expect you to do it off the top
of your head. >> But just if you could get back to us at some point. >> Yes, Mayor Pro Tim Jackson. >> Um, thank you Joey for all you're doing for us with this. This is great information for us to have. I appreciate
you. Um on the slide that is the estimated calculation if uh based on 2year restoration if amendment three is adopted. Um and we've got that projected VA taxable value for this year. The next
slide shows us the effects ongoing year after year. And in the Florida revenue estimating conference for like FY 2028 29 2930
and I mean when we look at 2030 to 2031 it's almost doubling that amount. Um how are they how are they calculating that [clears throat] increase in the loss of re revenue that
we'd have? Unfortunately, I do not know off the top of my head. >> Okay. Because we would have to have a major shift in property values or a major amount of development and we're at 90% developed out in our city. So, I'm
curious what if they're plugging in numbers for us that are in a city that may be larger in those projections. So, I was just curious if you could you find out for us for the next budget meeting.
>> I could look into that definitely. Um, to that note, the Bvard County Property Appraiser specifically uh calculated those projections to the city of uh Cape Canaveral. >> Mhm. um >> and their numbers are lower or or for the second year
>> and so than the Florida's estimation and we don't have their numbers for 2029 and 2030, but they I think they're probably closer to being correct knowing our county better. Um because I'm not sure
that those numbers for Florida would be applicable for our area since we're 90% built out. So, >> no, it's a good question. Yeah, I think if we were able to to get into that that data and whatever
assumptions they were using would be helpful to know. You know, my thought is amendment three is real. I mean, it's going to be on the ballot u this November. It would not go into effect until uh the following fiscal year. So it
would be um the 2027 2028 budget which is needs to be adopted by September of 2027. So we're almost a year out. I uh
we we've got to keep our head out of the sand, eyes wide open, and understand this is a reality. But at the same time, I think uh I'm not sure if we should be setting a rate and and I think we're
going to have to cross that bridge if it happens at that time. That's just my initial thoughts, but it's crucial that we understand what's potentially coming. Council member Shorette comment.
>> Oh, that's fine. Thank you. Couple of questions. Uh the study that we uh as it relates to the yeah utility rate study. I don't know this slide.
It was 2022 we got that study completed and I don't think we took action on implementing any rate increases. Is that right? Um we actually did back in 2022.
Um it was a proposed rate change for the next 5 years. And the um the the conclusion that council at that time came to was we will set these rates now for the next 5 years. They'll change at a percentage each year over the next 5
years. And um also staff will bring um some analysis to to those rates each year. Um so to answer your question, yes we did implement a um a change in rates over the past five years for the wastewater utility rates.
>> Excellent. And so the need which is a line item budgeted in this year's is to get another study done to uh explore the storm water portion. Is that >> that is correct? to to explore um the
wastewater as well as the storm water and the reclaimed rates. Um over the past 5 years, we have not increased storm water or reclaimed rates. I think the reclaimed it was 10 years ago I probably even
longer. did a a resolution, maybe your city attorney might recall, that incrementally increased. It was like a 20-year forward looking that it would automatically increase, but it is very insignificant. >> I mean, I think we were at one point
reclaimed water was no charge. Then, uh they decided to to start uh charging the council at that time probably three or four dollars per month shows up on our water bills. And today I think it's almost to $10 per month. But it sounds
like if we wanted to go further uh the study could could benefit. And the big question is we cannot address the storm water rates unless we invest in a study. Is that correct?
>> That is the sound philosophy. Um a third party will do a uh indepth comprehensive analysis. >> Okay. um and take into account all types of expenses. And those our wastewater and storm water funds are enterprise funds. So they do have more of an
ability to to um match their their rates to afford the expenses to run those um funds. What did we uh have last year for reclaim water revenues? I think it was like $80,000 a
few years back. Um, is is that that's going to show up in the obviously the enterprise fund and city attorney. Am I on the right train of thought? Didn't something a resolution get passed or or an ordinance
of some sort because it is utility rates. I think it would have to be an ordinance being a utility rate. um that had like a 20-year incremental automatic increase.
Um I don't recall on that utility fund. No, I was trying to look something up on the code. I I can't find it at the moment, but I don't I don't recall. >> So, that's okay. I think that's good. uh when we make our projections this year,
I think we'll obviously want to know those numbers and there is a maximum allowable uh fee. Is it like 10%? I guess my question across wastewater, storm water and reclaim have we
are we up against any cap or maximum on those that we know about? >> There is a cap. Um, once the study is done, there's there's recommendations that are made for increases each year based on the
formulas that they follow to make those recommendations. I don't know if you would call that a cap or not, but that's the recommendation each year. And you either choose to execute that recommendation each fiscal year or not. Generally, utility rates have to be um
just and equitable under the under the statutory standards to establish reasonable rates for customers. >> City doesn't have any well really extra territorial like providing services outside its boundaries that it needs to
worry about. Those have specific caps. There are components of utility rates like impact fees that do have implementation caps. Um but the general consumption >> Mhm. rate is going to be just and equitable. It's going to be based on um
the various operational needs of the utility. >> Okay. I know local governments have you know restrictions around all the different revenue sources and um I think as we're looking at the point of this is exploring revenue
uh that would be of interest is obviously the study's required what are the limits there uh and and that would obviously be of interest um
and then as if it is one of those enterprise funds whether it's wastewater or storm water the interfund loan that we're going over here it looks like it's from the storm water fund is there an ability to loan from the wastewater fund
as well >> is there legal ability to do that yes >> okay and >> not unusual >> the amount at 500,000 in this presentation what went into I guess that Is there a limit or a cap?
>> That was due to um analysis that we've done where um the the storm water fund is about we're projecting it in um in the future years to be about $880,000 above um its required amount. So we we
thought um due to the volatility in the storm water um uh account projects come up that you don't plan for. >> We thought 500,000 of that available unassigned um 880,000 was a conservative healthy
amount to um to be able to lend to the general fund. >> Okay. So there's potential flexibility there. Obviously that fund has its own reserve requirements and and financial statements. uh that that that would make sense. But I have a much better
understanding of I guess those funds make u income with the rates and charges and those funds. Uh it looks like we we can loan from one of those enterprise funds to our general fund. As far as the
limits on that, obviously it'll depend on the the financial health of that fund. Okay. I didn't know if that was a 500,000 shall not exceed for any reason, but is that right? >> Yeah. Is in summary is due to the um the financial health of the storm water
fund, they were able to afford lending $500,000 >> whereas wastewater um is not in that um that situation >> in regards to the fund balance slide. Uh where was it? Let me see where uh
well, there was a couple. [clears throat] Let's go back to the one that 210 I think was the the section of the code that was quoted that uh that really governs this body and this council.
Then our general ordinance is It's really 210E, right? Uh that's where the and it's 17% there. Huh. >> Uh no, I'm sorry. It's 20% and it has a uh looks like an internal control that
if it falls below 17%, you know, there's specific actions we can take. We obviously spent a lot of time talking about that. But that's the unassigned fund as stated and we understand or at least I do is if we
meet 210 the other applicable section of code is 2-208 that that takes if we're at a 20% threshold on section 210 that's going by itself even if assigned
committed had no funds would would meet that other section of the code as well. Is that right? >> Yeah, correct. The um the the section 210 if we're in compliance with 210 >> Mhm. >> which would be calling for a reserve
level of roughly 3.6 million. Um whereas to compare that to the section 208, that number is roughly more around 3.3 million, I believe. So, if we're in compliance with the the larger number, then we're meeting both.
>> Okay. I had a chance council, I mean, I've spent a lot of time going back through history and watching the videos, and one of the things we talked about was, well, when did that code uh there was two different codes here. Uh, it was 2008.
I could not see anything prior but there was mention in the minutes of a policy and it's my understanding that uh with the uh GSA GSB standards at that time came out the
auditors finished their 2006 2007 audit for the city of Cape Canaveral and that audit uh I guess made a recommendation Uh the council then the following year
took action adopted the ordinance and that was really th this se the 210 and prior to that when reading through the the uh the recommendations I [clears throat] actually I think I might
have it somewhere you know the the rationale with a 20% reserve was really around having two months of operating expenditures, which makes total sense. Um, but it was
interesting. The recommendation said it it anywhere from five to 15%. I applaud the council at the time. They went with a 20% and then put this 17% threshold. I think that's fantastic. That sort of created [clears throat]
the the standard. And then after it was 2012, I guess the new go GAFA or the the new accounting principles came out and that's where we get uh 208
the other way around. I think >> it's 22 210 was um was adopted in 2012. 2-208 was 2008, >> which would make Okay, that makes sense. Excuse me. So 208 uh was [clears throat] really the first
reserve policy we had. 210 comes along and some of that terminology I think it was called uh Gatsby 54 >> but it was really just unreserved and reserved or un
designated and and designated. There was some confusion in there. the recommendations came in and then we added in but there was one number in our code with 208. It was the 20% with the 17% that if it falls below four years
later 2012 uh we get another code which added another number in a different place which is as our city attorney said 210 and that set a 20% threshold. So we had 20% in two places. This council through audits uh was
reminded that our policy exceeded the standard and uh the decision was to go with the uh 16.7% which is a two two months we adopted
that and today um it looking back it was very interesting what I couldn't find was the idea of two years again makes sense but these are recommend commendations that we we put in the code, but two years seem to be, you
know just a a really practical way to to recoup. Um, and at the end of the day, this is our code and we are trying to
to make sure first that that we are talking in the same sections and and working towards it and the unassigned the next slide where you showed the
table there. Um budget summary by fund or um which one? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Um it's titled fund balance reserve summary. Yes, this that was it right there. [clears throat] So, we're not seeing 16.7 on here
because the more strict code satisfies that. Uh, yes. In in other words, because um since we've gone below that um 17% threshold that the section 210 um talks about, um it says you have
to go back up to 20%. So that's why I put that 20% there um for the the purposes of that that calculation. >> Okay. Thank you. And so, so in other words, that 20% comes
from um it's that second number in the the 210 policy that says if you go below 17% um of your unassigned funds compared to operating expenditures
um then you must have 20% % um you must you must have you must have a ratio of 20% within those two years. So um since we've fallen under that uh 17% threshold we are now shooting for 20%.
Okay. So that is where I got that 20% from. And right on that uh first row titled general fund, the $3,584,461 is 20% of what you uh I think defined as operating expenditures. My question
there that was a slide as well. Can we go to that? Uh it's titled general fund expenses. There it is. Thank you. So, this is a breakdown of everything in the general fund
totaling $20,154,000 in projected expenses. The operating portion is 13,818,686. So, the 20% was based on that. So we so we are um interpretating interpreting um
the operating expenditures for the purpose of fund balance uh fund balance policy to >> what do you need dayto-day >> you need to pay people and to have your operating expenditures. So that is why we are adding personnel services that
4.1 million plus the operating expenditures of that 13.8 8 and those two combined is about 17.9 million. So that is how we're calculating our um operating
expenditures. That is great. And when we read the language of our code, it says operating, what we're classifying as operating. I don't think we have a definition on operating, but we use the uh the
accounting terminology. Uh it it could it was perceived that well police fire infrastructure maintenance, operating is going to be funded and all the other items that make up the 13.8 million. However, we have
another 4 million um of [snorts] I think everyone in this room >> and that that makes sense. Thank you for clarifying. So, we're basing it off that. We're basically removing capital and other uses, transfers. This
conversation is for another uh I think a budget workshop when we actually get in. I want to keep my eye on the goal tonight is to adopt a millage rate, but I want to share with the council like we did uh last year. Uh we got a chance to really go through the spreadsheets. I
think we went through them and I had a chance to do that as well. Um, and I've just flagged some of the expenditures in there that I need to, um, work through. I'm happy to to go through them tonight, but uh
we received a new updated budget, but in the general fund, it was roughly um 500,000. Now, keep in mind, I have not had a chance to to meet with our city staff on whether or not
these, but just questioning sort of looking at the five-year average, looking at what we budgeted last year, trying to read through the sheets and get an understanding of the justification. But if in fact 500,000
could be removed, it was like a 3 um I'm sorry, it was like three 350,000 in reductions, which is like a 1 and a.5% I think. uh reduction there uh based on the the items that I had. But on the
revenue side, one of the things that jumped out to me, um, and and I don't know, that's where the 500,000 it seemed to me that some of the revenue projections uh were lower. And so I mean it's great
to to be conservative but with an increase of 500,000 potentially in revenue if it happens and this is being conservative on historical trends and a reduction of potentially 350,000
that had a 850,000 impact. So, increasing revenue by 3 1/2%, decreasing expenses by 1.5%, reduced the projected deficit by 22%. It basically shaved almost a million off. Again, I haven't had a chance to to meet
with the city uh staff, but thankfully you were able to to send those over. Since our last meeting, we're a little over 4 million. Now, we're down below 3.9. And I think we're trying to understand these numbers so that we can set a rate
that's that's uh I think responsible. The first thing I want to say and and kind of take a step back and and I've spoken enough so I'm going to transition here is I am so proud of this city council and every one of our city staff
members and I deeply appreciate our city manager and for the comments. I went back through every meeting since 2024, multiple workshops, public hearings, and
that's what I'm proud of is that we worked so hard and went through line items and read and our city manager was just coming in and we took some of you
understand from the last is it is 2024 4 that fiscal year was was that budget was adopted in September of 2023. I think Council Member Willis and myself were the only two on that. I didn't
support that budget, but that's besides the point is it's tricky because September 2023 was the council that adopted the 23 what we call the 24 budget. Two months later,
Mayor Pro Tim Jackson is elected. And as we say, we sort of inherit a budget just like the budgets here. Council member Shoryak and Council Member King, we voted this budget in. You have not. You're approaching your first budget.
And then so 23, every year we have an election in Cape Canaveral. We had a council that a different council uh worked under, but it was not audited until 25. So,
it's 3 years. The decisions were made in late 23. The new council takes over in 24 and then it's audited. Keep in mind another election from 24 to 25. So some of the things and that the statements in
the community it can be very confusing about uh where the decisions were being made. But when I go from that uh 23
as we know it's besides the point that's not the budget I'm talking about that went through and ended in Octo or September of 24 and it was audited in February of 2025.
And as you might have heard uh in the past that meeting I went through and uh the the the presentations uh and most importantly the code when I follow 208210
and watch it step by step it's very clear that um when we had a the reserves decreased our code says after the audit and some of the language that was struck
from 28 2008 to 2012, it actually said during the budgeting process. So the the city manager who again was is not with us today at that time the audit was
uh presented to the council and uh there's nothing in that audit that that was was alarming right to to me. However, that's my opinion. That is not a position of the city and I encourage
everyone who is interested in this is to watch those meetings. we get through and as many of the timelines we've shared when we come into to 25 we realized and identified that a step was the city manager supposed to notify
and we we get into the 25 budget move forward and then at 26 is when we really found out March uh but we did not fully understand it and so I'm sharing this to
say when we look at this uh this budget. We have I think the right council to keep doing exactly what we were doing. We're aware of I
think with our with our city manager what we need to do um to make sure and what is being presented is that uh fund restoration plan. And so within 2 years uh
the rate that we are pursuing to tax because it was 2 years um and every budget book the c the code tells us that the council will determine compliance with 208 and 210 the council
will during the budgeting process. we are stating that we are not in compliance and then it's 2 years and so because there's two years I feel strongly that we should look at this as a mid more
long-term planning uh I do not think that we should set a tax rate that puts our reserve being restored in a short period of time on the backs of the
taxpayers. I don't think that's what what we should do. That's not uh that's not right. And as our city management and and and team has dug in, I'm not so sure
to the point of deficit spending was happening and very very unclear, but I'm not sure that that the unassigned going back was at the thresholds that we we thought it
was. And so we are learning today and I can tell you today financial stability is really important to this council. But when we set this rate the the intent that I got was you want
to keep operating. The first thing I do not think and I did not hear any discussions in the minutes going back nor do I think it's reasonable. We are not well I I don't think it makes sense to keep under an emergency where we would
need a reserve that this tax rate is based off of for us to keep all city functions running. That just doesn't make sense to me. We would keep critical services running, fire police uh
trash needs to be picked up going down the line, but I'm not sure we would keep the C5 operating our community center. I don't see why that would would make sense for that period of time. And I think that's the task that this
council should realistically look at is you have this two months. Well, we're not going to be spending some of the things budgeted here for two months are not realistic. I'm sharing this to not I hope we can keep all
things going, but I'm trying to look at it from a practical standpoint. First of all, it's never happened. Praise the Lord, that that we've never had to exercise our our reserve for an extenduating
circumstance. But as soon as I say that, tomorrow is a new day and we know how things go. So we we I think do need to act swiftly. But for us to bend over backwards
and put it on the taxpayers to do a full short-term restoration to fund all city functions does not make sense to me. Critical services. Um, we heard a gentleman today say he was willing to volunteer and I think his spirit is
largely representative to many of the residents under tough circumstances. And so the one thing if we had a policy improvement is to not change the percentage. I I believe that 20%. But we should define what critical operating
and personnel expenditures are and we should consider that so that we can set a tax rate to be realistic on what we want to continue funding. Um so that for today we're we're trying to set a cap rate that we're not going to exceed.
We're going to have time to get into that in the coming months. But but those are my comments um at this time. council. I've got some more uh in regards to to how we do this
and also some some other ideas. Uh and just to echo, I think we've all got a chance to look into the budget. One of the biggest issues, again, my opinion, but the math doesn't lie, is if you look at the operating expenditures of the city of Cape Canaveral over 10
years, we've seen a very large increases. Mr. He uh alluded to as part of of his statement, we've seen a a significant increase in overhead and operating expenditures. The uh parks and wreck and community
affairs department ran on about a half a million dollars for personnel operating and I think reasonable capital. Today it's tripled. And that that
the decisions that were made using funds to take on debt that was not properly assessed with the operating expenditures is the past. Uh we we had some very heated debates in
here about what operating expenditures were. At one time the community center showed a $3,000 a month operating expenditure. The electric bill alone I think is $70,000.
Then there was a $15,000 operating expenditure. And then there was a five. And the the big argument in 2017 and 18 was we're making large capital investments but we're not fully doing
the math on a a proforma forward looking in and in 21 those were built and today this is something heavy and so when we go out and want more taxes and it was said this is not going to increase your
taxes. Well, I think today we are living in it is that we've made statements about no one likes tax increases. I don't want a tax increase. But there's something deeper here. The majority, there was no
justification. People love the community center. They love our amenities. I do too. We we all enjoy them. But there was no justification to build it that big. And this very building we are sitting in is to date still one of the things that
says why did you go that big. So we had a spending problem and today we've got an overhead problem and our directors the directors at time were that that were pushing for this and that I respect
the council's decision. Seven straight budgets I voted against. I voted for the last two because we started focusing on the right side of the issue, but our staff inherited a massive obligation, our public work, our parks and recck
director. And I watched that and that's not what she chose either. I'm not up here making excuses. I'm ready to do something about it. We're going to have more budget workshops. We're going to have more time to get in. We've got the
best data we've ever had. It's really started last year and this year, thanks to our team, we understand the numbers. We have it in spreadsheets. It's not locked in a PDF where we're flipping pages and going in books. We can sort it and see it. That's what we did last
year. That's why I was proud of what we did. And I think if we continue to do that revenue, we've talked a little bit. We're going to continue to talk, but we've got a a spending challenge that is going to require some really tough
decisions. So, when we set our rate, I wanted you to know where my heart is, and I think it's consistent with the vast majority of the constituents we represent. Thank you. >> Any comments?
>> I just want to, Mr. Mayor, I just want to compliment you on expressing I think the sentiment that all of us feel. We all we love this city. We love its amenities, but yeah, we've over spent and it's time to pay the piper. Yeah. And it might take a little bit of um
discomfort to do it for a temporary amount of time, but you're right. We should not be putting this on the backs of the taxpayers. So, thank you for expressing that. you, >> Mr. Mayor.
>> Yes, Mayor Pro Tim. >> Um, thank you so much for your comment. I think that we were in such a habit in the past of of tax and spend and actually it was spend and and tax, you know, because we
literally were spending more than our reserves than our base was that we were getting for taxes and then drawing down on our reserves. And as we look at going forward, we have to look at what's more manageable for this for the city and how
do we uh come out of this on the right side having reserves. I'm sitting here looking at a document that Joey worked on for me. Um that is showing the cost per building for the new buildings that
we put in. And when you look at that, and I I had him include operating costs, um utility cost, plan maintenance, fire prevention, administrative costs, and um personnel costs. And when you look at
these things, uh you know, it's it's eyeopening. And where our parks department is not going to be a revenue generating source where it covers itself every month that's a service we offer to our citizens. It still has to be managed.
And I think when as you were saying with the size of the buildings and the way that the um buildings were planned and I think personally um that CRA money had a lot to do with that because it was a
drive and a push. You've got this money, you've got to spend it before it expires on this date. And you get that money by building. That's how you get that money is by building something, you know. So, we ended up with all these buildings
where that came in, but you got to consider how do we maintain that? Now, I have one question though that I wanted to ask. Um I was looking as you were um talking and giving your statement just a minute ago about the storm water
projects that we have and how many of those we can pull from the CRA fund because we have used CRA funds last year for storm water. So Joey, are we using every bit of our CRA that we can for
storm water projects? um in in general they are separate um separate funds that's the rule of thumb but in in general the the CRA is more of a geographic boundary it can pay for
some utility payments like storm water utility um so Tim uh might be able to answer a little a little better but in general we do put anything we're able to expense out of the CRA we expend and it out of the CRA.
>> Okay. >> As a rule of thumb, >> because as I was looking at the storm water budget, I'll just some things are ear uh earmarked from the CRA, but I want to make sure that we utilize that because I don't think the practicality
of building any new structures is there and we definitely want to get that money because it's one of the one sources that we can get money from the county on. And so I wanted to make sure that those CRA funds if ca if they can be utilized for any of our storm water projects are are
being utilized for that. I think that just want to to to put it in a metaphory [clears throat] debates, good tension, massive expansion on borrowed money, not clear uh understanding and
communication. the council and the majority moved forward quickly [clears throat] and I think at this time today we we sensed that there was a leak right it's like if you have a leak in your pool
we were told we need more revenue we need to increase taxes well you don't just keep pouring more water into your pool if you got a leak and what we did was we decreased taxes two years in a
And what we did not know is budgets were getting balanced with the heavy use of reserves. And this is the council that voted and as council member King said,
it has not been easy and tough, but we see it now. We see the the the leak and we've got the right team to build it back. And so, uh, when we look around and we see the comments and the climate and the
conversations that are happening, the the story, the timeline are verifiable facts. The budgets we were presented had challenges. We overcame those challenges with our team. We are policy. We adopted, we scrutinized, we
went through the numbers, and this March w was uh was not a fun uh month for anyone, but I have a great level of hope. I just
cannot turn around this year and say that we need to hit a a rate that's going to not only balance the budget but get all the reserves back in a quick time. So,
thank you. >> Mr. Mayor, can I ask you a question? >> Yes. >> Um, what are your thoughts? And I guess I I really want the all of council's opinion on this. What are what are our thoughts for the length of time that we want to look at for restoring our
reserves? Because that's I understand what you're saying. I don't agree with and I've said this before um to our city manager. Um I don't agree that this should be on the backs of the taxpayers. They didn't get us here.
>> Okay. Um so as we look at how do we restore what is the council's um emotional or or you know business acumen on how many years do we think would be
appropriate to restore these reserves? >> It's a great question city manager. So to facilitate that conversation, uh we do have some slides that show additional fund uh balance restoration plans that go beyond two years. We had those during
the initial presentation. Um they were not part of this presentation this evening because the the guidance more or less that we thought we heard from the council was focusing on ordinance compliance and a two-year restoration plan. Uh so two conversations need to
happen now. first would be to explore those other plans to see and and look at real numbers. What would the mill rate have to be moving forward? We're going to have to go back through uh if amendment three passes or not. So, you can see the differences there and you'll
have to have some discussion on how you uh do that given the current ordinance says that you will restore your fund balance in two years. And for that, we'll have to maybe get the attorney to weigh in, but Joey can put up a slide. uh from that presentation once he finds
it and you can look at real numbers maybe to facilitate that conversation >> and I think that's really good to look at because when you look at it it you know what do the extra years gain for us >> um regardless of where we go on how long it
takes to restore it we have to look at living within our means >> and that's the first first thing we have to address because we've been spend spending more than we've been bringing in and there's no business model in the world that will support that for very
long and so you know it's a difficult situation on all of it but I think seeing what do we gain if we went longer as far as um how much of a tax rate you know difference there would be and you
know what kind of financial impact >> and while we're searching that I think that the the the way that reserves were calculated changed over the years. So it's not fair to say that there was a percentage threshold but the governing body at that time we can say as a
percentage of operating expenses we saw levels of what would I think is the equivalent of unrestricted which includes assigned committed and and unassigned uh we saw 40 50 I saw uh years o over 50% and we're talking about
the period up to about 2008. Well, when you're that high, you have that much reserves in 2008. The code says you only do something if you fall below 17. And so what was happening, and this is why uh the the
budgets were getting passed, balanced, reserves were being depleted, and in defense, the code doesn't tell them to do anything, but we saw 40 uh% I mean is high in reduction. And it wasn't until
it got down that the the the drop that we saw in 2024 I think was uh was it 12% roughly? It went from or
was it 22 to to I mean what was presented was 10% but wasn't it like 8%. >> The reduction are you talking about the um um >> the unassigned observed decrease. in the in fiscal year 2024.
>> Yeah, for 2024 the the auditors called it approximately 10%. And internally we calculated about 8.4%. >> And that year prior that audit >> was it I think it was at 21 or 22% of the expenditures. >> Yeah, correct.
>> Slightly above 20. Yeah. And the council, not to interrupt, but the council was presented with a budget in that fiscal year of about 20.1% and the auditors found later it was approximately 10. We calculated 8.4.
>> Thank you. So it was roughly 14% right in that year. And I'm getting to to your question and then uh the remaining balance right was used. Now these are budgets that we passed that had contingencies built into them. If we
were uh you know passing budgets without contingencies, right, than than going into reserves and you know a lot of the projects and the capital expenditures had extra in each line item because hard quotes weren't given and so and then
there was renewal and replacement and some uh other revenue streams. So these budgets were not tight and and I think that we had not only that go but in addition
uh huge parts of the reserve and so my thought was well this didn't happen overnight right this been happening for 15 20 years it got to a threshold that our code says no no you can't do that we are taking action but if we looked at it
from one way is it reduced 12% right if we we say 17 is the threshold right I think it went from 17 to to 8 but the code says restore it to its 20% well there's 12%. So if we adopt
a budget this year, at a minimum, the most I think would be to try and recoup 12% over two years and then try to recoup the remaining 8% over the following two years. That's just an idea. Um and if we lower expenditures,
that threshold is not as um significant. And further uh we made a decision to not suspend our code. We would rather pursue it, be out of compliance, and work towards getting back into compliance. But I do think it would be wise between
now and the end of the year to potentially put a definition on what we are calling operating expenditures for a time of emergency. >> And that was is another idea. So the time well if we get a clear definition
on what we want to fund for for two 20% of what um not the whole bill uh I think you could do it in in four years um
and as a reality check we have intergo interlocal uh uh relationships um we've got uh contractors that we might need to have those hard conversations for. Bvard County Sheriff's Office. I mean, we don't have
our bone police department. We work with a big enterprise of the sheriff. They have resources. And one of the upsides, I think we're the one of the last cities that does not have is that and we have the right city manager to know that this is feasible is when the
biggest line item in our whole bill is our Bvard County Sheriff's Office contract. It's at like 4.2 2 million roughly. So, how do you fund that for two months? Well, maybe there there's an opportunity for them to have more resources to help Cape Canaver out in a
legitimate time. We are pursuing working to rebuild it. But I'm trying to say if something happened in a four to six or whatever this council decides, I would say it'd be wise to get some sort ofou or understanding that if this happens,
are they willing to help? The same would go with Canaveral Fire Rescue and potentially talking with the port. They fund the Canaveral. Well, you add those two up together, that's roughly $8.1 million alone. And then that would leave
the rest of it is purely internal. Um I think we could absolutely have enough funds to to fund the remaining balance of what we define as operating expenditures, but I'm not I don't think anyone's denying that those two are legitimate
operations. So I'm thinking four years. Uh, but that may not be the right way to look at it. And I'm not sure we need to maybe nail it down. I think what we have to do is say, what are we thinking? What are we open to so that we can set a tax
rate? If everyone in here goes, "No, we're going to restore it in one year." Well, then we're going to have to go with a really high rate. >> And Mr. Mayor, keeping in mind also that we've we've got looming over our heads the possibility of amendment three passing. Mhm.
>> So, h how do we how do we make allowances for if that happens, then what do we do? >> I almost think we're on two par two parallel tracks here. >> Well, and I honestly I'm I'm someone that I prepare for the worst and then if
if something better happens, it happens. But $730,000 should not be hard for us to find in year one. >> I'm sorry. I I can go through and and identify things right now that are not
have to have items. >> Um, absolutely. >> So, I think that we can work with that. And I think if we don't look at that as a possibility that we're almost being remiss about the
fact that I mean I'm I'm not a a young person and it's the first time in my life I've ever been able to vote for tax relief and I think a lot of people are going to vote for this. Now that's my own opinion.
If that's the case, wouldn't we prefer to be more prepared for that? I would personally >> I think we should >> and so I think we have to look at that for the first year especially um just in case that occurs. I don't
like uh and no offense Mr. Mayor but I I'm the kind that likes to plan for the the hardest scenario and then if it's better than that I go woohoo things are better than that. Um because
if this passes and and people are are struggling right now with increased cost of living in our state with increases in their property values, taxes, insurance, and everything else, they're looking
plus groceries and and all of that. They're looking for relief. So, I think we need to when we look at this restoration plan, I think we need to include the fact that we're going to have 730,000
estimated that we will not have in that number. >> Well, 3.2 million of it is coming out of our ad valorum to pay for Canaveral Fire Rescue. Okay. uh that city attorney uh West Melbourne
uh has a low uh millage rate, but we also know that West Melbourne's fire a significant portion of their bill which drains our general fund today is a I think believe special assessment that they on their uh tax bill they pay a fee
line item for fire. Um that to me would [clears throat] be something as swiftly as possible that this council could consider and that would uh shield it from amendment three as well. >> I like that. >> City city of Coco has had a fire special
assessment I think since 2008. >> Okay. Mel West Melbourne may have one as well, but uh we did that in Coco many many many years ago. I think currently it funds maybe about 40 don't quote me on this but 40 or so percent of the fire
budget >> timeline to to [clears throat] just from if this is day one estimated to implement something like that. >> Um it requires first of all it's going to require a a consultant to do um a
study right that um it's more than just a study. it comes up with a a methodology based on local local conditions on how to um >> assess right because it has to be meet the assessment test. >> So I mean the financial data and all the
number crunching is critical in creating a special assessment but the timeline to your question mayor um you know it's it's probably comfortably six six months >> wow >> to nine months. Keep in mind too that sp
If you have the right people that have the right experience, you can do it a lot faster. So, um what what you need to also consider is that um um what you like to have is the special assessment imposed as a non-advelorum line item on
the tax bill because that facilitates the collection. >> So, you because of that requirement, you're subject to statutory time frames to get your tax assessment roles to the tax collector. so it can be properly put
on the rolls. Um you would not have enough time this year to to do it on the upcoming role but certainly >> by the tax role for 2020 728. Am I in the right do I have the right years? >> Yes. >> Um absolutely enough time to do it.
>> Council, what do you I mean does that make sense? 3.2 >> I mean we have 8.1 with just police and fire. you add in administration and all the other uh critical uh functions of our city. Um waste collection uh those
that would that would take out 3.2 million. Uh now to be open and honest at the end of the day the taxpayer is going to see they're going to pay their fee. But, uh, that's
something I think that could really help us. And knowing that we could potentially have that in place, um, for the next, it' be September of next year if amendment three hits. And as we're
trying to plan a fund restoration planned, I think that could be a a a major shift that will help us get where we need to be. >> Mr. Mayor, do you think we have any The thing that sticks in my crawl with
fire services and BCSO, which I love them, both of them. We have the best service around with both groups. Um, so I don't want any kind of um degra degragation of any services,
>> but they're the biggest part of our increases >> annually. and they just keep going up and up and up. Now, meanwhile, our population has gone down down down to 21% of our addresses in our city. Mhm.
>> Um, so this tells us that anyone with common sense is going to say, okay, it's the tourists coming in, people staying in the city, um, increased traffic, you know, coming to the barrier island, which includes the
port, visitors, and things like that because less residents doesn't equate to a requirement for more services. Mhm. >> Doesn't I'm sorry I can't put my mind around that. >> So, do and I've um spoken to the city
manager about this. There has to be a way to negotiate this with both groups because for example, I spoke to a fire chief in another county and he said, "Ask for a heat map." heat
map shows exactly where within the city the most calls are coming in and all of that in a colorcoded map with an overlay on it. Um because I don't see our residences
and our 21% is increasing that. Now I I know we still need this because if the people are here and need service, I agree that they have to have services. I don't want our services to decline in any way, shape, or form, but maybe it's
time to go to the one of the TDC meetings and say, "Hey, hello." >> Um, we know y'all have wanted us to become this tourist destination. When you drive down 95, you see all the way down the
road from Virginia down come to Cocoa Beach. Well, they come through Cape Canaveral and many of them stay here, too. and where we know that that we're going to have this traffic, maybe it's time we go to the county and say, "Help
us >> because we the number of our full-time residences that live here has decreased and the cost is being thrown on to our taxpayers." And so there's got to be some kind of
way that we can negotiate this. It shouldn't be put back on the taxpayers in this city and and we have a lot of short-term rentals. So, you know, that's something as well, but there's got to be some kind of way to balance this if if
traffic is going to be driven to our area based on tourism development and tourism dollars coming in because we can't bear the brunt of it as our population declines.
Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, Council Member Willis. >> Let's not confuse the 21% homestead with 21% residents because we have a lot of residents that rent. So, to say that 21% pays for everything.
>> Yes, that's the homestead, but that uh that does not uh include all the people who rent who still need those services. Oh, and and I understand and I understand that we have tourists that come here that need the services as well. >> Right. Right. Well, I'm I've got it now.
Um, I think we need to be raising our short-term rental fees on registrations because I mean I think uh that would just be prudent to do because we're not
stemming the tide on short-term rentals because they're still coming. >> Oh, that opens up a subject I'd love to speak to. Mr. Mayor, will you give me one moment? >> Yes, but I I do want to say this. What we're talking about to keep our eye on the balls here is our confidence level
on the opportunities that we could pursue that would take the strain off the tax rate. And what is our confidence level? We've heard on fire a significant the largest second largest line item in our budget to to your in our out of our
general fund. uh dependent on a study 6 to9 months probably a year unreasonable to get it through this year but next year we could but we could potentially you have to fund you have to spend money to to earn or to to change your revenue
streams as just like the rate study but I think that's one I think we should absolutely talk with um police fire uh you know objective data and and GE uh and I think our partners there we can absolutely do it. Short-term rental
fees, I think we've seen our friends in Cocoa Beach go very uh high. Um and I think if we just keep going down the list, we would have to take action on these. But yes, I wanted to make sure we're staying that these this is exactly
what we should be talking about. And so, yes, Mayor Pro Tim. >> Hey, so Mr. Mayor, I know you were in the meeting where I believe you were on council in the meeting where ProChamps, the city council voted for ProChamps, correct? >> Yes. >> And what was the objective of ProChamp
software for the city? >> The now my I was in that meeting as well. >> Yeah. The the issue to to bring them on the issue of the day was that we had a 7-day minimum and our city was not enforcing it. We
drafted an ordinance that not only it enhanced the city's ability to enforce that provision, but also put a slew of other um regulations similar to what a hotel would would go through.
>> Understood. And I agree. they were going to register and enforce the seven compliance with many provisions, but it was the 7-day minimum that created I think that the initiation. And I totally agree. I was in that meeting. We even
put up a a lawsuit >> with the property in regards to them right renting nightly. Um and ProChamps was adopted for that. Now here we that was like in 20
I don't know, 2019 or 2020. >> Um, and here we are six years later and we are getting more people getting the licenses, but it is not catching anyone that is doing less than six night
rentals. I just I just investigated this. It is not being used. The software I'm not sure the soft and this is not on staff now. Okay, just right off the bat, I'm going to say that not a problem with
our staff now the soft there's been changes to Airbnb and VBO and the major sites for rentals. People are going around those sites to rent and just like this week, just yesterday had somebody in under me for two days with seven
people in a one-bedroom unit. So, I checked with staff and right now there's not enforcement and has not been any enforcement for less than six night minimum rentals. Now, we're spending
$50,000 $60,000 a year for that software. We're spending about the same for a staff member and this has become a tax to short-term rentals that are trying to be compliant. But if you do
not license your unit, you are getting away with it. Okay? So, it is not working. I would not pay for any more software that doesn't do its job. One of my constituents has worked with me over the
last week. We have identified one vendor, the largest short-term rental vendor in this area that was allowing two night rentals all all over with a ton of properties on it. >> Mhm. >> So, we did that just sitting on the
internet. I have spoken to to um our city manager about that and I will I'm going to be getting with that department and working with them, but I'm I'm against paying for software that doesn't do its job. >> Yeah, I think that's a good I mean, if
we're able to increase fees by a percentage and then decrease cost, we're working on both sides of it. And that's again uh >> but increasing fees when it's only impacting certain people >> that's that's uh selective enforcement
to me and I don't want to be any part of selective enforcement >> unless we can get it on every short-term rental in this city. >> I don't think we should be charging one of them. That's my opinion. >> I don't agree and do not say I don't want anyone this is me going on the
record. I do not want the minimum six nights changed. Okay? We need to keep that 7-day six night in there, but we need to spend money on how to make this work and not throw money out the window. If you think about that amount of money
for six years, we're talking $600,000 that hasn't worked. >> May I May I jump in here at this point, too? Yes, this is tantamount to the same um logic that says we should not be putting extra tax on the um residents
um you know to to get us out of this financial morass that we're in. I think that the same the same logic applies to the people who have uh Airbnbs or short-term rentals here in in the town um who are abiding by the rules and see
all the others who aren't registered. I mean, I've heard that there are at least twice the number of Airbnbs in this town that are not paying, not not even registered
with it's not ProChamps. It's it's what is it? I can't remember. >> Decard. I don't think I mean Decart to me that Decart's not doing its job and it falls on the backs of the people who have the Airbnbs that are paying that
are adhering to the to the rules. Not fair. That's it's hard to disagree with. I think if we go through and look at expensive software cost, especially when it's related to to to, you know, the the peace and safety of our city and there
is a revenue registration fee, this council, I think, is willing to go in and and look at those line item expenditures and and the revenue as well. That's what's important, I think, for today. Well, didn't we have a discussion, correct me if I'm wrong, didn't we have a discussion earlier
about um all you have to do is go to the business license, the state business license to do do the research that tells you who the Airbnbs or the short-term rentals are in the city. >> A lot of them, if they don't license
with us, they don't license with the state. They just rent. And that's where to find it and myself and my constituent due to a complaint that she was making and she called me.
We I spent an afternoon going through identified about 110 units with one property manager that was allowing a three-day two-day 3-day rental. She also identified other ones. That's what has
to happen. And I'm sorry, it's a manual process, but DA Decard isn't finding them on all these individual websites. So my my thing is if we're going to make compliance work, sometimes software may
not do it. And the software is failing the city of Cape Canaveral right now and our staff that are trying to do this if they're not getting the information from the software we're paying for. Now also the county has now um implemented
Decard. So there should be some way we should be able to work with the county and say who do you have Decard licenses for if someone licensed for their sales tax their um tourism development tax through the county. So we should be able
to go to them and maybe get a list or whatever. But ours is going to come down to manual compliance in my opinion to find these because we spent an afternoon going through them and found a multitude of them and we're not getting this from
Decard. And so if we're going to do just compliance to them licensing with the city, they are if they're a rental, they're supposed to be doing a business tax receipt. Maybe we need to look at
what that rate is for shortterm rentals. >> And and may I add one more thing? I I I wouldn't think it was would be fair to raise the the registration fee on the people who are adhering. >> Well, we could we could make up the
difference if we had everybody who is doing the short-term rental registered. And we've done that once and I was a single vote against it because I don't agree and taxing the ones trying to be compliant. >> Exactly. Exactly. >> And meanwhile, we're not catching them with the software. We So, we've got
improvements. And I'm not saying this to to bash whatever we're going to do with short-term rentals. I'm saying this as a point. Every software contract we sign, no matter what it is, should be
revisited after a certain amount of time. Just like with our EVs, you will find the results of those packages a year or two down the road to see. We shouldn't be waiting 6 years to see is
this working. We need to have a process of evaluation, but we need to go through and look at those contracts and that may get a rid of a lot of things that are not being utilized in a way that is good for us or not providing us with the information we need.
I think software and subscriptions is is a growing expense uh in people's lives for business is the world we live in and we absolutely need to go through if we were to add that up I do think we're talking um in total hundreds of thousands of dollars to enforce
short-term rentals also comes with prosecution and magistrate fees and and legal and staff time and so if you're charging $100 and there's 50 you're making $50,000 it's Not it's about enforcing safe community. Don't hear me
wrong. I don't view it as a major uh revenue center. It could be a major cost issue and I don't look at it for revenue as much. Ideally, you would be able to have a reasonable fee that could
potentially offset some of the direct uh just like permitting fees. And I think we want to be competitive with that rate. But we've got if we if we can figure out what we have the the desire I think
software not just that all the software there's a complete list um we we should take a hard look at um and get feedback from our staff and and think about a strategy there. I don't have enough information to say confidently because
some of this stuff is crucial for them to do their jobs. But um yes, I do think we need to look at at software tends to not only be repetit a reoccurring expense, but uh a it will typically increase year-over-year as well. So,
>> there's so much more to [laughter] this this whole issue of short-term rentals. Um, most my my understanding is that not a lot of people are particularly fond of having STRs right next door to them. But
the reality of it is is that the Cape Canaveral is no longer that little beach town anymore. It is a resort. It is a resort area and we have to deal with that and we we should take advantage of that you know really seize the seize the
carpedium sees the momentum and and turn it into okay if it's a resort then let's really put forth best effort to make sure that we are being fair about charging these people to do business in our neighborhoods and follow the rules
and make sure all of them are doing it not just a And I'll leave it at that. Oh, and by the way, wouldn't it be nice to get something from the hotels, too, [laughter] while we're on the topic, you know? >> Yeah. I think um there's revenue,
there's costs. They're both important. Like I said, a 1% uh increase in revenue and a 3% decrease in cost can can put a a substantial shift depending on what the line item
is. These are I think not some of the larger line items. The hotels pay significant impact fees. Um significant uh now does to in the millions if you were to add it up. Um and the city has received those
monies. They've been able to use it and the city's also been able to receive extra impact fees to improve some roads. But yes, they the the life of uh our city and the and the character of the city is certainly um a major concern to the residents. Uh I I don't want to
accept, you know, that we're resort. I hear you loud and clear. But uh today we can I think come away with the desire to look at all these opportunities. I think the biggest one
obviously um to get confidence to come out of here with whatever rate we decide there are multiple revenue streams some that counties some of them are carved out for specific cities but our city if you know the um the financial
handbook at the state website shows all the revenue sources we talked about you know lagoon tax and stuff I I think that the exercise is to not take one of them we've lked looked at the special assessment and our city attorney talked about the criteria, but is to go down the list. One of them I think that that
we could consider and and at least know is the franchise fees that are on FPNL on the bills. Um, do we know I think the maximum for a franchise fee there's a cap? Is it 10%.
And um if so, I'm not saying we should increase, but it would at least be good to know where we are with that and run some numbers um on how we compare, I guess. Um I and city attorney as a franchise fee, I
think it goes with the cocoa water as well utility. We already get I assume a portion on on both. It's a significant revenue stream to the city. Um just There's there's the franchise fee, but
there's also um >> the the utility tax. >> Okay. >> Utility tax has the the franchise fee is negotiated and is part of the franchise arrangement, right, with the utility. Yes. The utility tax on the other hand
is um enacted by the governing body and pairs on you know certain utility bills on you know based on consumption and I think I haven't looked at it but I think the city has maxed that out to
10%. I can look it up but >> that would be very helpful just to know. Yeah, let me let me look it up while you >> so utility tax applicable to FPNL. These are revenue side issues that um and then there are a lot of other opportunities.
We won't qualify for all of them, but we've had the we talked about this about this time last year as you said, Mayor Pertim, and uh the tourist development council, the county, obviously we've
talked about the port. I think for this year with this deadline tomorrow though, uh those confidence levels are just too unknown to say we've got a path there. Uh but I I you I think I can say with a
high level of confidence I'm willing to go, you know, push forward. We talked about it last year. time has came and went, but between now and then, I think those might be good conversations that I'm absolutely in and this whole council can maybe we have a joint meeting with
with them and discuss. It's not uh it has nothing to do with our reserves. That is that is a separate issue that we will solve on our own. has everything to do to know that our police and fire are
very important to this council. But it's there's no question and I know our city manager is is is aware of this to you saying Cocoa Beach there is a trend if you look at tourist related towns their per capita cost I think Cocoa Beach is the highest
last year at $1,000 per capita and they're roughly the that they paid just for might have been police and fire but police right we're at like $700 just to give you an idea that was a police department, but
when you compare us to the other 14 cities, we are up in that higher third and we're one of the smaller cities utilizing the county. And I and I think we would just have to come with really uh good data that shows geography of
activity obviously addresses that data is time of day, time of week as it relates to to to cruise and trips. And if we can identify a trend, I think we could make a case and I think we absolutely should. But um that to me,
we're we're one step away, I think, which it's sort of that may not require a big study, but we might want to do our own internal to see if we have enough to at least initiate the conversation. So, those revenue streams at the state, I think if we could explore which ones
that we could consider. Um, council, what do y'all think about that? There's some out there that like our the utility tax we're already taking advantage of today if we're not maxed out. What else is out there for us? >> And Mr. Mayor, when you're when you're
talking about utility tax, I was curious about the local option gas tax. >> That is a revenue. Yep. And that is really low. Is that uh for petroleum or is that for for >> um I'm sorry attorney.
>> So the local option gas tax, what type of gas is that for? petroleum or >> um the local option gas tax is um is a county imposed tax and the city would um the cities within the county would
receive a um a formulaic uh um share of the gas tax and it and it pertains to fuel fuel like for automobiles. >> Okay. >> But that's a county imposed tax. The municipality cannot impose it.
Okay. I was curious about that because that's really low >> and that's one of them if the county I believe already has it. So if it's showing up as a line item in your budget that's that's likely the city's share
of it and it's based on um um >> what they feel like giving us. [laughter] >> Yeah. It it's it's um it's based on a it's based on a statutory formula unless there's a in a local agreement with a different uh formula.
>> Understood. >> And it's been it's based on um I think the amount of roadways. >> Okay. And the I had another question, Anthony, that you may be the one that answers me on this one was another one
that is lower to me is the Chesapeake utilities franchise fees. So that one deals with utility as well, gas right? >> That would be a gas. I mean, I don't know the specific line item, but with
respect to Chesapeake, Chesapeake is the um the natural gas uh franchise e u in the city of Cape Canaveral. So, the city gets a franchise fee based on under the agreement gross revenues that
are um earned um in the in the city of Cape Canaveral. On top of that, to go to the mayor's point, there is also a utility tax. It's called a public uh public service tax. The city has enacted the public service tax section. If you
look at section 70-29 of the code, the city imposes the maximum statutory utility tax of 10%. >> And that is imposed on water, electric, phone, and gas. >> Okay. >> Not not automobile fuel, but natural
gas. So there's a public service tax line item, I'm assuming. Is there any others that we could would it apply to Waste Pro? We have a franchise agreement there, but is there another Are those all the utility tax opportunities? >> But for the public service tax,
>> I'm sorry, the public service tax. Yes. Thank you. >> Those are the utilities. >> Okay. And I think this is it is if we have an existing tax that we've implemented, what is what is the status of them? Thank you, city attorney. Those are the lowest hanging fruit to make sure. I'm not saying we're necessarily
going to raise them, but we are looking, I think, in the right direction there. And then the other opportunities that are out there that allowed by the state of Florida, I think, is would be really helpful because I can say this, I've identified
revenue questions and I'm ready to get into that at at I think a future meeting. Um, and then I've got a list of expenses that I'm ready to get into. And like I said, that has about a $800,000 impact. And that's just first glance. I
could half of it I might immediately go, "Oh, no. That's absolutely." Keep in mind this is high level going through not sharpening the pencil even, just flagging them with with questions based on historical averages. But guess member Willis? >> No.
>> Anybody else? I think I need to take a a quick break here if we don't mind, but I want to think about um Well, well, let's do that. Let's take a a 5 minute, 10-minute break, whatever is needed. Does that sound okay, council? We'll come back and I'd like to when we
come back talk about uh their uh the proposed rate before we leave. Can we see that the millage rate that is and it's not proposed? The council will decide what's proposed. But what is the um the slide? Let me see.
>> So the slide before the council right now, if we can go back. >> Yep. I think if we have that up, we can come back to that just to >> go back to the slide. >> Recalibrated. Um, >> and um, at this time I'd like to add uh, the answer to council member uh,
Willis's question is approximately how much does the millillage increase with each additional 500,000 revenue net revenue to the city's general fund. So each $500,000 revenues is the equivalent of 0.3343
>> 0.03433. It's >> 0 3343. >> Oh yes, roughly 1/3 but 3343. So that >> the original question was expenditure
reductions. >> Uh okay. >> But I mean I I would imagine it works the same way. >> Yeah. Just be subtracting it instead of adding [laughter] it >> two billion in property I think in Cape Canaveral. But basically 343 equals a
half a million dollar. >> Yes. Up or down $500,000 in the millillage is.3343. >> Okay. and the and where we were going to get into the resolution. Okay, so the slide titled
estimated millage calculation. It's the next one right after that. Oh no, I'm sorry. There it is. Okay. So, we've got $3.9 million budget gap. If assuming a two-year restoration period, the amount
each year would be roughly 1.8 8 million totaling the the amount >> that revenue of 5.7 million includes the reserve restoration. That seems low because we're at 6 and a
half. What is the 5.7 million represent? that is the um it's the the current budget gap of the 3.9 million. So we would potentially have that this year um and
next year. So that's the constant. And then each year in order to build up our total goal reserve of 3.6 million, we need to save 1.8 million each year. So if we save 1.8 million each year, we add
that amount on top of our budget gap. So the budget gap of 3.9 plus what we want to save each year 1.8 equals about the 5.7 number that we see there. But a millage
rate of 7.034 would yield what in total advalorum revenue wouldn't it be? Um I would assume it would be around double because if we're at 3.1 I mean more than double it would
be 134 million. Is that >> Yes. If you're looking at it from that point of view um without doing the calculation right now in front of me um that would calculate a different amount of uh of revenue. When I calculate these
numbers, um we take I take into account both the the revenue that comes to the city but also deduct um the CRA tiff money >> that as the revenue goes up um so does the portion or the amount of money we
give to the CRA. So it's not a oneto one um it's not based on pure revenue the city would get because as the mill rate goes up also goes up the amount of money we give to the CRA. I understand. I
think when we come back that would be really helpful to know because if I'm looking at the the the budget here, this budget revised, does this apply which rate in it? >> That has um the original proposed rate
of 32 >> uh 2085 >> which is a little over roll back or was that the new roll back? that is actually below roll back. >> Okay. >> And that's because that was my proposed number before we were given the actual numbers by the county,
>> which makes sense because it's about 6 and 12 million, which is uh almost exactly what we brought in last year with a like a 3.1. So if we if we can just confirm when we come back
that what that ad valorum line item would be an estimate um at the that seven rate I think we can work uh we that'll be a good way to frame the conversation now knowing that
seven would sounds like put us on assuming a two-year here. Um council, does that sound does that make sense? >> Basically, what would the projected number change to for the uh the revenue for ad valorum?
>> And um I quickly input those numbers. I have those >> say what they are. >> Yeah. >> So if we have a combined millage of 7.0344 0344. That would roughly give um a revenue to
the general fund of about 14 uh.5 million and um the CRA portion which we would deduct from that. >> Mhm. >> Would be about 4 million. We would reduce for
that's the portion that would go to the county estimated >> correct. >> So we would net 10 million >> um in that sense. Yes. >> Is that okay? >> Yeah. Pretty much >> there be a transfer out. So out of this 6 million at roll back is
that already assumed? Is that after the payment to the the county or will we have to deduct? I would assume we would have to deduct out of that as well. >> Correct. Yeah. So at where we're currently at slightly below rolled back
y at the 3 point um so the general fund um portion of it >> is um 3.165 >> and and again we're going to get into the the weeds of the the ad valer
because it's made up of both library and general fund. Um but for the general fund revenue portion um so at our total 32085 >> Mhm. >> 3.1675
is the general fund portion at that 3.1675 general fund portion. The revenue we're c we are calculating for the general fund is um and I'll round these numbers
6.5 million and the expense for the the CRA that we would transfer to the CRA would be about 1.8 million for a net general fund revenue of about
4.7 million. So that's roughly the the same number that we see here like on page eight and uh may not be the best uh in the budget book I got 6.5 million
knowing now you answer my question an expenditure I assume it would be transfer or >> include other includes transfers when I see that 2.4 million is that a part of
that is the CRA transfer out. >> Exactly. If you look at the screen in front that other use of a total of 1.8 that is made up primarily of that. Yeah. 1.8 million. >> That's helpful. I think we I can we can
work off of that. But any Thank you, Joey. Any questions before we take a break? that. All right, we'll reconvene here soon as we're all back. Thank you. Okay, call the meeting back to order. It
is 8:43 p.m. We are continuing really through the the discussion which is I think that the majority of the wait before taking action on the resolution. Again, this is a special meeting to uh meet the deadline for the submission of
the proposed millage rate, one uh of a few meetings at minimum uh that will allow us to meet uh state law and most importantly uh set the rate that's going to fund
uh a part of our our general fund and our CRA. And that's really uh kind of where we left off. We've talked just to do a recap about both sides of the issue. Um the the revenue side, the
expenditures side, if there's a desire for for expenditure reductions, um I I'm sensing from a few there is there's a desire for revenue. I think the confidence level on which ones are realistic. there's timelines we don't
have control over. Uh but there if there's a way we would want to I think set a rate that that is based on a a higher confidence level. And I do want to address the the big risk of you can't go lower when you set this tax rate. I
think there's deadlines. I'm sorry. You can't go higher. So, whatever the rate, the proposed rate that we sit, um, if we did, respecting deadlines, and I I don't want to do this, but we would have to
mail, I think roughly 6,000 addresses, 50 cents, probably dollar. I don't know what the cost would be to that be, but at a dollar six,000 probably closer to 10,000 cuz I don't know all the other costs that might go
along with the print and mail and time associated with it. Obviously, we don't want to have to do that, but under an emergency situation, uh there there is, I think, a path. However, today um we were just uh
leaving off looking at numbers. I think one of the things between now and the next meeting is to look at the revenue streams whether it's utility tax. Our city attorney has uh already gotten back to us on a few of those. Uh any
franchise agreements. Uh we've talked about short-term rentals, both sides of that, the cost and and the revenue. And any other thing I think that we can look at beyond what our city manager and staff already has
worked hard and looked at would be the quote unquote lowest hanging fruit. We have the most control over those from a cost standpoint as well about um
so both sides there. And then we really got into the the ad valorum side and we started to run some numbers. One of the questions council member Willis uh asked as regards to I think just doing kind of easy math is what would
the millillage reduction be to achieve $500,000 and it's roughly 343 >> 33 43 3343 mills 3343
so I'll just say yeah roughly like 334. Um, so another way to say that is 6686 would be a million dollars. Okay. Um, I had a chance to sit down
with our finance director Joey on the break there and he was showing some of the calculators to help us if we're talking on the spot to let the council know if we want to talk in dollars. uh if we as council member Willis asked
he can if we need a million dollars he can quickly calculate that we've obviously got it or we just want to look at millage rate and I think before going further there are some vote criteria on exceeding a certain threshold unanimous
vote requirements city attorney can you give us an overview I think our roll back rate is it 3 point Well, it actually went up this year above the rate we set, which which I think we did have a slight dip
in property values, so maybe that had something to do with it. But what the roll back rate is there on the screen. Thank you, council member. >> Um, I'd like to add something. Um, the
the um the combined roll back rate >> is 3.29. 2959. The roll back rate on the screen um has the library actually going below their roll back rate. Um
the the 10% and above 10% those rules pertain to just the general fund um roll back rate. So I just wanted to point that out. Um the the roll back rate that we see on the screen 3.2956 2956
that is the general fund roll back rate and the next one above it 110% that truly is the 110% of the general fund roll back rate. So not to cause any confusion on that. So it does not
include the library rate. Yes, the library rate is um is less than roll back. That is why it's a 0.00003 less than our total combined roll back
rate. But for the purposes of trim, they um they calculate the the general fund and library rate each at their own um percentages. So this is just the general
fund or government millage rate, not the library rate. this screen >> it it is both. >> Oh no, it's combined. Okay, >> it is both. >> Um the the total combined um roll back rate would be 3.2959.
>> Okay. With library. >> Yes. >> 3.2959 is that requires a majority vote to pass roll back like anything.
>> Mhm. What are the thresholds? Is there a super majority and a unanimous? Is it 10% over roll back rate requires a unanimous vote? I'm sorry to cause confusion. The the numbers on the the chart are accurate.
Um the the point I was making was the the library numbers in the combined li millillage is actually below the library um back. So for the purpose of what are the voting rules
that that uh majority vote roll back at 3.2956 >> yep >> that would require uh a majority vote 3 out of two above that to 10%
um above that would be the 3.6211 that anywhere above roll back to that 3.6211 6211 would require a um four out of five vote >> and anything above that would require
a unanimous vote. So the the difference so 3.29 29 majority all the way up to the highest threshold would be one point below
9.9% or 109.9 right is that so like a 3 61 just for easy math right that a majority would be able to >> the major the majority vote is only up to roll back if you want to if the council wanted to go above roll back but
no higher than 110% of roll back, then it requires a 4-fifth vote. Anything over 110% of roll back requires unanimous vote. Those voting rules only apply at the adoption hearing.
Those those um vote requirements do not apply at this hearing for the uh proposed. It does not apply during the tenative hearing process, but when you get to final adoption, those rules will apply.
>> Well, I think that's important to know. >> So, if we vote, if we elect to take the 10.00 tonight and then in when we're finished everything, we come up with, you know, 4.04, we'll have to have unanimous vote
to to take the 4.04 as the final rate. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, we're not obligated to between four and 10 if we vote for the 10 tonight. >> It it only requires a majority vote to vote to go to 10 tonight. >> Okay.
>> But if the council final has the final vote if you then you have to follow those voting rules. >> Okay. >> It's really >> there's been a lot of confusion about that, but it's been clarified by the department of revenue. I've seen the emails. So, city attorney, if we voted
for the 10% tonight just to have it set and then we did not get that unanimous vote to go to let's say 4% 4.0410 or 5.0410 at the next hearing. Then what does it
default to if we didn't get that? >> At the fi at the final hearing, not the next >> Okay, at the final hearing. So what would it default to if we didn't get that unan unanimous vote? It >> will default to whatever final millage rate you can adopt in accordance with these voting rules.
>> So does that mean the 10% that we voted on tonight? >> Tonight is just a an advertised rate. You're you're you're voting to advertise a possible millage rate and that that's going to go out on the tax rolls. Right.
>> Unders understood. But if in that final hearing we weren't a able to get that unanimous vote, >> right? >> And we needed to go higher than roll back and that unanimous vote failed, what would be the percentage?
>> We'd have to go above Yeah, you have to vote again, of course. But if you wanted to if you couldn't get a unanimous vote to go above 110% roll back. However, there were four of you that agreed to go to um nine 9% above roll back. Then four
council members is the four fifth vote necessary to go above roll back but not higher than 110%. Right >> or 10%. Above. So those are the rules. At the end of the day, the council can
only adopt a millage rate in accordance with these voting rules. If three of you did not want to go above roll back rate then and three of you wanted to go to roll back rate and that was it then that's the highest millage you could
adopt under the voting rules. >> Okay, that's what I want to >> Yeah, I think I've got it. Thank you. >> If I can if I can jump in. Um so if we if we voted unanimously this evening for
the 10 millillage um that gives us a ceiling and we can and in subsequent budget hearings we can then ultimately vote for anything under that ceiling as long as well let's say uh 4.0410
it was unanimous. That's my understanding of it. This gives us leverage to be able to negotiate where we want the millillage to be and we're not hampered by a a a ceiling that let's just say 6.04.
We go all the way to 10. We've got some wiggle room here. Is that my am I am I correct in that? >> I think you got wiggle. That would that would be a substantial amount of wickedness because because 10 10 mills
is the maximum statuto rate that the city can impose collectively. >> Okay. >> Yeah. This I'm I'm speaking theoretically. >> Theoretically yes I mean you would but that's only for noticing purposes. Right. >> Right. So >> understood. The mayor was kind of alluding to the point that you know
whatever the ceiling you set tonight >> you certainly can go below without renoticing. You go above then there's a renoticing requirement. The notices have to be sent out to the taxpayers. >> So whatever amount that you select tonight
gets sent to the to the tax collector. the tax collector will send the notices and in that notice it will reflect the 10% millage rate and what the and what the possible tax will be on the subject property. So they'll convert that 10 mil
into a taxable v a taxable potential amount on the notice, >> right? A lot of phone calls. Yeah. The people be freaking out >> maximum. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> They may not understand you're doing it
for maximum flexibility purposes. >> And then our our city manager will have to make another statement. [laughter] >> Yeah. Yeah. And I mean practically if you get a 3-2 vote to go to 10, just remember you got a 3-2 vote.
So the likelihood of m being a 5, right, going forward is is grim. Um, and I think there that's some of the wisdom in it is that we should really I think oh well does
everyone I think I it's almost easier to just talk in percentages from the vote standpoint as opposed to mills to know um are we going to go over 110 or we going to stay below 110 right I mean that's I think it's clear anything over
110 is going to require five people So if one person today even though four even three could send it out in the trim looking forward yes we could as you said council member king have the most flexibility but uh that makes my
stomach turn just thinking about it. >> So the the requirements of this slide as how many votes that is for the final rate that we adopt at the last meeting not tonight. >> Okay. And to talk revenue, uh, this 10 10
mills down there is, this is what Joey was working, our finance director, 10.1 million, right? And that is what we were calling the net. Well, no,
that's topline revenue or does that have the CRA portion reduced? That would be the net additional revenue to the general fund. >> Okay. So, what would be the topline
revenue that that would bring in? >> Is that the 14 million? No, I think 14 was like six mills. I think this would be a much higher number. I think we're talking 20 million because we got 2 billion in properties and so a mill is a dollar per thousand. So,
>> that is correct. So the the total revenue would be about 20 million and then the CRA portion that you would deduct would be 5 million. >> So that'd be around 15 million net for
the general fund. And comparing that 15 million compared to the current about four or 5 million, it would give the city an additional 10 million additional net 10 million. So,
so those um the estimated additional revenue to the city on the far right column is taking into account um the additional with the the additional revenue there's also additional um expenses.
I think for the sake of uh making a decision, I would rather look at the comparative number that we see in our like in our budget books, we see the roll back rate achieves 6.5
million top line. Um and to repeat back 10 mills would bring in 20 15 million or did you say 20 with five go
what was the top line revenue? Um so in in that sense the um the preliminary budget that would be about 4.7 million of of net revenue.
Well, I'm sorry. If we're if we're thinking just um general fund revenue, then the proposed is that 6.5, right? >> 6.5 million. >> Yeah. So that's based on the threep point pretty close to roll back rate
>> correct. >> What does that number change to when we go to 10? I think you said it and I >> that is up around 20.5 million. >> Okay. So that that would put us back in 1980s reserve
levels and you know probably too much money, right? We got to but I don't I don't know if we even >> when we talk about flexibility that's a that's quite a windfall that we really >> I'm not feeling that flexible cuz that
that's got to come out. It's great for the city, but that's going to pull 20 million out of the people as Mayor Pro Tim and we all know we're we're residents and the business. It's going to pull it out of them. And uh I think they they can spend their money better
than we can on most things. But with that being said, we've got it down to a $3.9 million deficit if we don't cut $1. That's on 20 million in expenditures. Can we go back to that slide? I at least now know the
ranges and I think does that make sense everyone? The max is 20 million. Roll back is just look at last year's revenue about 6.5 million maybe a little bit more. Right. >> Yes.
>> Okay. I can I can work with that. Um if we're comparing the the current budget um the net difference is about rounding at 4 million. Correct. So the current budget deficit is at 4 million.
>> Yes. >> And the slide we're looking at in order to make up that in order to make up 4.2 million if you look at the number on the right 4.235 million.
That is how you would increase and make up that difference. So the 6 if that's a that my eyes may not follow that line perfectly but 6.04 is the 4.2 million >> correct. >> Okay. And that is what is the top line
on that 4.2 will it be? That's the 14 million. And I think you said earlier we brought in 6 12 million. This would bring in 14. However, oh that doesn't work. Um I think there's
there's a lot of different calculations going on here. >> The one on the far right column is the net effect of everything else. Do we have the ability to to not show the net? And I think we can come back to this because
net matters espec um maybe you could do it on the calculator 6.04 it's a little less than doubling the rate we have today. So it's probably like 11 million >> correct about 12 12 million 11 12 million.
>> Okay. >> In in revenue and we only keep 4.2 of that in the general fund. Now when I say we keep the this a large the portion of it the the tax the tiff revenue the increment over the
base year rate. We keep that money in our CRA. It's just got strings attached and geographic limitations on it, but uh we got a general fund concern that we're trying to work
through. So that's the priority. Is there another slide that or do you have the ability to I mean if this had another column to to show which I know it's in PowerPoint but to like I'm so used to thinking in 3.2 2
gets a 6 and a half million. >> Um, if you give me a minute, I can send a document to the city clerk and we can um put on the screen. >> That would be great. >> Exactly what you would like to see. >> I think that would help.
I mean, net matters. Uh, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, please. >> While we're working on that, can we I make I have a suggestion to save about $291,000. that would be close the Cape Center and
close the C5 building. It's just these we didn't need these buildings and they're costing us a fortune. Uh the numbers that we had, they lost about $291,000 last year, the one year that we looked at it. So the CA the C5 has been open for four years. Just rough math, there's
$1.2 million we've thrown out the window. The Cape Center itself uh lost $116,593. >> Mhm. And I think the last time I heard in a meeting approximately six people a day visit it. If you calculate for the
Sundays that it's closed, the city spends for each person that walks through the door $62. That >> the first number you shared you said 250,000 >> $291,419. That's between the two buildings. >> That's avoided cost or is that like a
net? I guess how you >> that is the excess of expenses over revenue. That's the amount our expenses exceed the revenue on those two buildings. >> Loss, >> the net loss for the two buildings. >> Okay. >> Between those and sell the million-dollar parking lot, I don't
think we can do that just yet. We still have a couple more years. But those I believe >> the debt on the C5 and the Cape Center, we have one more year of payments on that and then we can dispose of those buildings if needed. When in the meantime, we could lease those buildings out.
>> Yeah. I'd love >> or outsource them and boom, there's, you know, $300,000 and that come equates to.19486 of militaryrate. >> One more time 9486
mills. That's the the Okay, the relief of that decision. Okay. And and another thing we have to look at with these buildings, uh this city hall is what what about eight years old? >> Yeah. >> And we're already looking at $300,000 to
replace the air conditioner. How much is it going to cost in a few years to replace the air conditioner on the C5, the other mechanical systems, the Cape Center? I mean, we're just a it's a money pit. Yeah, I think [clears throat] >> a beautiful building, but you know at
what expense to the to a a tiny population of the city that actually uses it. I I do not disagree that the return on an investment for the community in the users is uh a small
>> Yeah. I mean, we could buy the people that want to go to a museum, we can buy them a ticket to another museum for 25 bucks or whatever it is and still come out ahead. I mean, not that we're obligated to do that to people, but we're throwing money out out the window. And I, you know, me, I I'm not going to vote for any tax increase as long as
we're wasting our money. I'd rather see that money spent on Moby Mats, stuff that people actually would use in the city. No, I I think that it's been a heavy weight that the goal would be to figure out how to make it uh not losing money
and I know that you can't do that on all government. I mean, police and fire, right? But we I think we absolutely could with that building. I think like we said, but it's going to take time. Every day, to your point, it has a cost and you're not even calculating in the
6.2 two or $8 million >> the debt and the debt service that we're paying on that even though it's oh it's only 2% interest it's interest $6 million that we spend where you know people that doesn't come out of thin air >> no it's putting a major strain on the
general fund I think a community partner who could in a if I could wave a magic wand a health first the YMCA it's a beautiful building it's got equipment I think it would fit in their business model we collect a lease payment or do some sort sort of agreement with them.
you they agree to provide services to the community and they got a they can be an operator and you know we're we're even if we're not making lease money it'd be better than losing money because the one and or the overhead alone the
other thing I want to point out with the cost is that the way we budget and we structure our budget it has um correct me if I'm wrong all of the health insurance is in non-depal is That correct?
>> That is incorrect. The the uh the health insurance would be in the uh the personnel >> in nonepart can uh non-EP departmental I don't want to go too far down but one of the things I wanted to say is there any um culture and parks and recreation
culture and leisure services shared cost in there. I thought that I saw something because I want to make sure we're accurately looking at the cost. I'm going in the budget book to non-departmental.
It's the last page. It's on page 67. Oh, nope. It is on page uh Thank you for your patience. It is on page 41. And so non-dep departmental
over time when you look at the history we saw like 68 million and my understanding was that was a place where we um had transfers like transfer to wastewater storm water that you we did not want to budget that in an area and
put a cost. But there are reoccurring costs in departmental uh or is it strictly so like here here I'll just go down the line uh on page 41 audit when I well first here's my point the
total cost of non-EP departmental is $18 million and that's a lot of money for non-EP departmental I get asked what is non-EP departmental transfers as I can explain. But
this year we only got 23,000 in transfers. But if you go back two years ago, we had 2.6 million and the total was 4.8 million in non-EP departmental. It was like a big portion of our budget and people can't see where that's going.
But like audit that I understand that could go to financial services. is I know it's for the whole city or even uh to to to try and accurately show a better representation because non-EP departmental
doesn't really tell anything human resources related I think potentially could come out of administration um legal ads and recording legislative
or or legal the software civic plus You know, can we re uh categorize these funds? Insurance. There it is. Is that like property insurance? That's $411,000. >> Yes.
>> So, that's for all of the city's prop real property. >> Mhm. >> Okay. All right. Well, that would be I would imagine that this the property insurance on >> liability too, isn't it? Um it's
um I don't know what goes into absolutely all of it, but it's the the insurance the city has. [clears throat] Um I can't speak to what the the specifics of it. >> Okay. >> My point is it may include general liability, errors of omissions,
those cyber security >> like promotional activities, website. Couldn't that come out of culture? There there there are some like culture, leisure services, parks and recreation and stuff like there's more
costs potentially in here. Not just that department, but I think others that could be blended uh out and and we don't need to spend a lot of time on that. It's came down. Thank you. Because uh I think I've s seen some big changes in how that the budget is is presented that
really tells helps us make better decisions, tells a better picture. But the cost of the C5 council member Shoriaak and the cost of the Cape Center, the other thing was that a lot of those expenditures would show up in our CRA. And so when you would do a like
when we submit our financials to the state of Florida, the annual financial reports that's required expenditures, it was like specialty fund. And so when they would calculate the cost per capita
that we're spending on parks and wreck, it was not the the lion share like the $6.2 or $7 million did not even go into that categorization. And it's good accounting. I'm not saying it's bad because it came out of that fund. But if
we're going to do that math, the same thing with the acquisition of this property, the city went out and borrowed the money. the CRA is going to repay the general the city back but it's that's not going to prominade
typically showed up in CRA. So when you're calculating the cost, those are onetime expenditures, not re the reoccurring definitely. But any huge projects. >> Yeah. >> And we've spent a if you were to look at
a pie chart on on culture and leisure services from capital improvements and then look at it from ongoing. It is bigger than just what the general fund shows. That's that's all I'm saying. And I was going to ask council member Shoryak
because I talked about this document I put together because I got totals based with the cost to run that specific facility. So uh Mr. Mayor, this was not done with any accounting principles in mind, but
what is the actual cost to run the facility? So we had utilities, planned maintenance, fire prevention, administrative costs, fixed costs, which included staff, and then revenue generated by the facility.
>> Mhm. >> And then the difference is what I put in. Now, that doesn't have insurance in there, >> but it it has every all of the basic cost to run that facility. >> Mhm. And so in the document I'm looking
at that's might be where because I just shared that >> right this that I looked at that that is pretty much the same numbers we got a few months ago. >> Um I know and Joey had updated them for me a couple months back they came from the long spreadsheet that we got at the March meeting.
>> Yeah. So that that the numbers are pretty close. And from the numbers on the C5, uh I backed out the lawn maintenance, the mowing, the splash pad cost. And yeah, that was it. The mowing and the splash pad expense from that. And that
that's how we got to the 174,826 loss. I've just leaned towards restructuring because electric bills and those just try it differently over the short run. If we fund this, we also fund things for a year.
Well, why not consider funding it for 6 months which gives some runway and they go and then some of the city staff survey ideas was opening certain days of the week apartment remember that. But also, we I think volunteers, it takes a full-time well- paid person to lead a
volunteer program, but like a co-op, you know, you get a they pay gym membership, too. So, it's like if you volunteer so many hours, you you don't get a membership, but it would dramatically lower, you know, your overhead and and that stuff takes time
to sort through. But I I would rather try that um and you know agree to to fund it to a certain period of time but to take on it's I think it's 1.6 million all of it. >> Yeah. I mean we already spent millions
you know since the the building's opened up >> right >> I mean you look at it just run the numbers there's $1.2 million out the window. >> Yeah. The 1.6 is reoccurring. Yeah. my my culture and leisure services and I plan on sending this spreadsheet to everyone. It's very similar to the
one last year but it's got um right here. Now this does not shift the numbers from community affairs and um remember there was a consolidation of the departments >> customs culture and leisure services >> and also yeah culture and leisure
affairs but the trend right I think if we go we're looking at this year we adopted a budget for 1.7 million now there's some capital in there well not much vehicle
replacement, um some the city park upgrades, but current year-to-ate actuals, we've spent 1.3 million out of the 1.7 million. So, there's 429,000 that's between now and
and I think our city worked hard to to have some savings, but average it's like 1.5 million over six years. So, yeah, the the proposal this year is 1.6 million
and when I mentioned the cuts earlier, I I cut 70,000 out of that just strictly based on an average. I didn't even touch any of the the perka items. So, I want
to just say your math the when I said 500,000 earlier, it did not include th those items. Um, in fact, I found some of them that Molly and the team put together were very competitive compared
to historical trends. And so, I I could tell that that department worked hard uh to cut, but it does not take away from your point. It is a neverending reoccurring cost that >> it's only going to get worse as time goes on and the facilities age. There's
gonna be more and more stuff. We just spent a lot of money fixing up Nancy Hansen that was neglected for years while we built new properties. >> We've got the highest and now this changes year and if you divide per capita for per for parks and wreck, we
are like number one or number two in the county last year or the year before. And uh so when we you know it's like we have a a millage rate that's low but when you so you're trying to pinpoint the problem that's a big part of the pie
chart. I'm open for I explore creative ways. Um I I wouldn't want to do anything just immediate. I would try to get on board with given some runway and an opportunity to transition.
I think we should continue those ideas. Um, and I put it as a top priority, Council Member Shyak, like like top three. Um, I'd like to see Cape Center
utilize that property, the building, the parking lot that we purchased, the green space, take over Friday Fest, and they manage Friday Fest out of there. They rent that facility, they rent that parking lot and turn it into revenue and
it's like 6 months, but after that we can't continue and and try to give enough lead time to make it successful cuz I think we have beautiful property there. They could do food trucks, they could do uh weekend uh farmers markets, they could do Friday fest, maybe we do
two Friday fest, you could do live entertainment, all that and just look at those grounds. And then on the recreation side, those are culture out of the Cape Center. Right now, I think our wreck is running it. This is 100% administrative, but I'm talking to
everyone. Uh, and I've talked to city manager about this in the blur of our conversations. Totally a a decision. But over there on the rec side, focus not on Friday fest, focus on pickle ball rentals, tennis, the athletics, the
recreation stuff, whole tournaments. We could also get rid of them and turn them into taxpaying businesses on prime real estate on A1A and as people everybody will see them in our city. And because we tore down a building, we spent $1.2 million to tear down a building, put people out of work, and that building
paid taxes to the city. I mean, >> let's do the math. I don't I mean, >> yeah, I think we didn't need to do a lot of math on this, but I mean, it's pretty easy math. We're, you know, we've got $1.2 million sitting there and no no revenue coming from it. Yeah, that math >> and and we haven't done and that's been
five years or what four years it's been purchased that's been sitting there. >> Yeah, I'm saying the math on other ideas that that and compared against what I would agree is easy math. Cutting is easy math, but >> and I want to see the property value of
that lot now before we >> Oh, yeah. Okay. So, I'm going to add that to the list. uh selling assets. That's what you're really talking about. And liabilities, >> even just closing, locking the doors on Cape Center and the C5. There's $291,000
right there. >> That's a long-term plan B for like a C5 building. You close it. >> You find a find an operator that a gym operator or something that knows what they're doing that does this professionally. Because if you look at it or we don't have the staff to staff it like a normal business gym like you
go to a Planet Fitness or something, they're open 24 hours or 5:00. They open up to get people that want to work out before they go to work. We open at 8. So, we miss that whole market. >> Okay. >> I mean, we're just nothing against our staff and everything, but it's just they've been throwing a, you know, this thing to try and fix, and I don't think
it's really fixable with what we have. I mean, we could staff it forever and maybe get the business in there, but I don't I don't think the numbers are going to get any better. And I've had people tell me that they work at the space center and uh spa space force base and they're like by the time that we get
out there it's closed so we can't utilize the facility in the evening. >> It was just like a a folly. They throw all this money and now you know we're paying the piper for it. And I I really I hate to see the losses continue. >> I agree. I think parachuting out and I'm
willing to go aggressive with it um [laughter] is probably the best. If it's 90 days we hope to get to this point, 180 days we hope to be here and then we'll have to make some tough decisions. But I'm usually from the van of trying
to to make it's not 100% math, but I do believe that the math of cutting it, it's sitting there. It's going to still have costs. You still got to cut the grass. You still got to have a reduced electric bill. >> That I I accounted for that.
>> Yeah. >> That the grass cutting cost is back is not in those numbers. >> Yeah. And >> grass cutting and splash pad, they stay the same. >> And then there's going to be uh I mean, if that's a closed building, right? Uh that that's going to become >> we we have time, you know, we're not
going to be hammered in money while we figure out what we're going to do with it is my point. >> So, you wouldn't want to I would not want to sell that property. I don't think we can just yet >> because of the CRA and >> that's just always been a park. Always been a green space. It's always been >> No, I Yeah, but do something with that
building that will not lose us $175,000 every year. >> I think we're exercise classes at Nancy Hansen. We have them in the library. We have pickle ball at Nancy Hansen. The only thing that they're going to lose is the gym and you know do that. and we had the
indoor basketball courts, but we tore down basketball courts that kids could use any time to make them pay to go inside during certain hours. So, it just really doesn't make sense. >> It's really sad. And it is not anything with our city staff. It's just the demands of that building. We used to do
a lot of simple, easy, we're talking about reindeer run again, like these little simple things. And I don't even expect our city staff, they what they do, they do well and they've been able to maintain, but the little stuff that
people love like Reindeer Run, it's just it's we hear it. It's it's a lot on them and it's too much to ask and and I totally get it. They're running a fullblown operation over there. So my hope is we can figure out a way to make
it a success. But I will split it with you, Council Member Shyek, from my two cents is I'm willing to put a a a deadline on it. And you know, you have to say when is too far. [clears throat] We need 3.6 million. Well, it's been up
for about four years. Parks and wreck used to be $500, $600,000. I mean there's where uh why did the budget all not just talking about this last year have to
pull from reserves so much right >> because because we build all these buildings we didn't need >> prior councils can say we always had yeah but you didn't have to spill out >> yeah because I I mean I I asked a council member I think in 2019 at a
Friday fest >> whether I said building all these buildings Isn't that going to raise our taxes? Oh, no, no, no, no, nope. That's what I was told. So, >> oh, 100%. I've sat [laughter] in this room and it was this it was sold as the CRA. But again, I don't want to point backwards. I want to do something about
it and I really you have not said much council member, but when you speak uh you bring it. So, that's uh that's a tough tough decision. My hope would be again magic wand that every employee
could be uh kept, maintained, repurposed. Uh they might have ideas. I hope we do that. But the truth is we represent the the the residents of this community and I see the same data you
see. Um it's right by my house. I I can see the activity. They're working really hard. I just think it's set up due to the dynamics of it. >> It's guaranteed to lose money.
>> So, it's it's it's nothing. It's the >> mayor. >> Yes, sir. >> I I don't mean to interrupt. Uh I would just recommend that any conversation about what we do with anything dealing with our park happen with our director and staff here because they have done
some calculations on potential savings. I know council member Shoryak has definitely expressed certain numbers that are true and accurate, but there are some of the calculations to take into account doing away with personnel, doing away with the revenue that those facilities do bring in uh canceled out
by the cost of running those facilities. So, I think there's a bottom line number. We're potentially looking at maybe just a million in savings at this point when you add all of those factors into play, but I think it we might be better served uh talking about it at a future meeting when the people who
actually run those operations are here to participate. >> So, let's identify and label things we're interested in discussing at a future meeting. >> I'm one of five. I'm interested in talking about that further. Council member Shyag, >> is there number two?
Okay. And I think we've talked about revenue sources. We've obviously talked about uh beach parking. We've got data. And I think we're going to have to go here's 10 things we could do.
Here's timelines. Which ones do we do first? Which ones do we need to start today? Uh and and try to attack it from that. And Are there any other comments, Council Member Shoryak, or anyone that'd like to speak to what Council Member Shoryak has
initiated? I didn't want to steamroll it, but >> I think everything's on the table. >> Okay. Thank you, city manager. I appreciate it and agree. I think um did we schedule it on the 18th, our next
workshop? >> Okay. Well, having I think a list of things that can fit within the team's bandwidth. Um, that's one revenue sources is two with really two
focuses. One, which one are we already obviously tax rate we're taking care of. We're talking about uh increasing that, but what other ones can we potentially increase that we already have? I'm just going to say uh and then also new ones
like the restrument that's just really restructuring. I'm just going to say software that's I think the best way. It's not just pro tramps, but software obviously fees, uh, whether it's short-term rentals and the equity. I
mean, we're we're we're going to approach that um with the tax rate. The the amount of of funds that that I identified for I just want to share this
with the council not to take action. Again, this I might once I have a chance to talk with city staff say no, this is all makes sense. But like I said, it was roughly [clears throat] uh 567,000
in revenue potentially extra. And I've got roughly Nope, that's the wrong I apologize, council. I was on the wrong line item. There's some there's a roughly a half a million dollars in cuts. Um little less and then there
there's half a million in revenue which has a I think it was like 800,000 in positive. I think Mayor Pertim, [snorts] uh, Jackson, you had talked about seeing some things without getting into it that you would potentially reduce or
>> Yes, I had Well, I had questions about those taxes, the utility taxes. So, I've got all of these. Um, I would love to be able to look at heat maps for our
two largest contracts. Not that I want any of that reduced. Um, I was questioning whether we could um, do we have the option to increase the local halfsent sales tax? >> I think that fits in that local
government revenue bucket. But absolutely if there's anything >> because I I personally as somebody that lives here wouldn't mind paying a full cent, [laughter] you know, or two cents on something to help with our city and
that's a a lowhanging fruit. It doesn't have a whole lot of income in there and that could be increased. Um then of course I like you talked about all the contracts.
Um you know I wanted to make sure that we had our um waste pro contract was actually we're getting the revenue for that and it looks like we are that it's you know the revenue is
um okay is meeting what we're being built for it. um plan review. We had a CIP item with plan review um for software that was pushed out. So,
I was glad to see that. I don't think we need to spend on that right now. Um and I want to thank staff on what all they've done because they've done a lot to bring this down since we started this whole process. Um >> and in the current year that's been the
biggest challenge is it's the budget was passed. >> It's not balanced and city manager and team had to come in and >> figure this out and thankfully you know it's been with some sacrifices but
um we're we're looking ahead. Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> No problem. Now one question. This is my This is my enterprise background. So, I don't want BCSO or Chief Quinn to freak out. But with the amount that we're
paying for our services contracts with the fire department and BCSO, like we have firefighting equipment and $149,000 tag on some equipment that was needed
for this year. And with the amount we're paying, why are we paying for the equipment? >> Yep. I I went through those budgets, too. I think those are good questions. Uh and and some of this might be good
reasons why, but um again, partnerships and and working with us through the years. Um, yeah. And it's not that I'm saying cut them off forever, but as we look at trying to replenish our reserves, you know, whatever we can get
them to work with us on, but I'm like, when you're paying millions for something, normally you're not paying for the equipment for it. Whoever the contractor is that you're getting that service from pays for the equipment. So, that's um that's something I had
questions on. Let me see. I'm going through some of these. Mr. May, >> do we not how does that do we just split that 50/50 the fire department >> with the port? >> I mean, is it based because I'm wondering can we look at like how many calls for service? >> Yeah. >> See, that's why I [clears throat] was
saying I wanted to see a heat map >> and what the another fire chief had told me in another county is to look at the heat map because that'll tell you where the calls are coming from. And I've questioned this before. >> He's working on that. I've I've had a talk with city manager and he's already
got some data. I think my concern with these conversations though is they can happen in the you know coming months but when will they go into effect right will it happen by the end of this year maybe on some small things I think we're
really talking about uh [snorts] several months out but I believe without the that we will find um an increase the port pays 100% % of like if they get a new fire boat or
something for the fire department, they don't put that on the city of Cape Canaveral. Uh and and BCSO the demands from them to run the port, especially when the ships are in. Uh they they they allocate all that out. I think we got 34
deputies on and um >> I think we can go through those um >> and Mr. mayor and we should because that's getting in too much detail for tonight. But I will say >> with what we're looking at with the um
with setting the millage rate and you know and what we're proposing wanting to be on the higher end but potentially not being at 10%. I say we go somewhere in the middle of
the road between roll back and that 10% for tonight. because I don't believe that we're going to want to do 10% in the first place. >> No. >> Um I don't think there's one of us sitting up here that is in favor of doing that. And I think with the amount
of things that we've all looked at trying to identify um a way to minimize costs and run more efficiently and I'm with you, I don't really want employees impacted and things like that. Um, I
know how hard staff has worked to present this information and how much they've decreased this budget already. Um, but I believe there's ways that we can take care of some of these things as we move forward. So, I'm I propose that
we look at like a 6.04 or a 7.04 know for setting it for tonight that we can reduce as we look at how to bring those expenses down. >> Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim. This is the
new sheet our director put together since Okay. So, when you said between 10%, you're talking about the 10 mills. >> Yeah, 10 mills, >> not the 110%, >> right? >> Okay. >> And so, like I'm looking at it. I'm looking at the news sheet here. So, do
six or seven because we know we're I'm I'm not I'm unwilling to go to 10. So, if I go in between the roll back rate and 10 >> at a middle of the road uh rate, then >> for me, that's the way to to set it and
then we can go from there looking at how to further reduce and modify what we've got expenses wise. Mayor, if I may recommend, um, the ordinance says you have to have a resto
restoration plan in two years, and you might your starting point might want to take into account your two-year mill rate, so you can restore your plan in two years. >> Uh, you're bound by ordinance. So, we'll have to have a conversation of if you're
going to go to a four-year plan, how are you going to do that in relation to the ordinance? Can we see that slide that have the millage rates with the number of years? >> Yep. And again, just to reiterate, that's the
main issue. Your ordinance, you're bound by the ordinance to restore the unassigned fund balance within two years. And there is a set millage rate for that. So, you'll have to determine if you want to do something more than two years, how
do you and I and I want to choose my words carefully, but how do you take that into account with what the ordinance says? And the attorney may need to weigh in on that. >> And so, if you look on FY27, a 4-year plan, as we looked at that,
Whoops. Where'd it go? back one. >> Back two. >> Okay, there we go. Whoops. Okay, that works, too. Well, no, that's the Well, it [music] does. But if you look at the 4-year plan, it's 6.4352
mills. So, it's still somewhat in that range like I was talking about. But once again, we may have to vote to suspend our resolution or whatever the city attorney tells us. Although you told us
that in a prior meeting, but how many years did we want to look at, Mr. Mayor? I mean, you have mentioned four, and there's our example of what four would look like. >> I uh Oh, >> go ahead. >> No, please. I I I'm going to let a few
of the others talk and then I'll I'll let you know, Council Member Willis. >> Well, I I think that the four-year plan would be reasonable. It does bring down the millage rate. Of course, what we're seeing on screen right now doesn't
account for anything that we find that we can reduce, but it does put us in a position where we don't put a astronomical number out there in the public
>> and I agree on that. >> Any other comments? I'm happy to [clears throat] comment. No, I'm in agreement with that as well. >> Okay. Member Shory, are you commenting? I'm >> good. I guess to her point if we put out 10% 10 millage rate, we're going to, you
know, the headline's going to be well, even if we put six out on the trim notice, the headline is going to be Cape Canaveral doubles taxes. >> And I'd rather see that than triples taxes or, you know, four times. So, >> I could tell you if the the residents of Cape Canaveral are not paying attention
to our budget situation um right now, they ought to be and they should be paying attention to these conversations because when you determine a millage rate, you're you're definitely saying, you know, what's the equilibrium at that point going to look like? How
much more are we going to reduce our projected expenses in relation to what it is you anticipate bringing in also in relation to whatever fund restoration plan that you're going to implement. And I would just say the lower you go
tonight, despite how the residents may feel about a higher millage rate, the lower you go tonight, the more you you definitely will be focusing on reducing expenses as opposed to generating revenue. And I just don't know if you're
there yet. might just listening to your conversations. Um, I think you may need some more time to talk about how we can decrease our expenses. You've had a lot of big picture conversations tonight.
Okay. Council member Shet, did you have anything else? Is that >> Yeah. Okay. I think um let me just process this the number. Okay, let's start with the code because
that's the the code clearly stated what is supposed to happen. We've went through this over and over again. And then I found the old language that
got struck out that said, so so like we said after the audit, the city manager, not the council, shall not perfect language, notify the
council. Right? So there's two parties, really three. You got an auditor, the city manager. They did not expect the city council to go in and understand the audit. That's an administrative thing fully. The city
manager presents the audit. I think we understood everything we were presented in those meetings and then it said during the budgeting process, we'll take action. Tonight is the beginning. The
first vote for is significant 40% of our revenue for that and we know that this conversation should have been happening um last year. So we are carrying two
years. So I think it's a no-brainer to to answer the question two-year plan to me is is not reasonable. I also think we have got this is uh not this is very
specific the overhead cost. I would like I said I didn't want to suspend the code but I'm also not uh against taking more time to comply in good faith. This council has done everything I think the
residents wanted them to do. when you go back and you watch and we're at a moment here that we are going to carry the residents are going to carry something and so I don't want to do that the the amount of reserves that we actually need
I do not believe is is as high as the number we're shooting for. So that's the first thing I want to say. We're not cutting expenses. I'm saying if something happens to that level of severity,
the operational cost is not defined and I know GFOA says two two years or two months worth to me that is uh that's the first thing. So I'm questioning the amount of reserves without moving the
percentage and I think I get it. Council member Pzos, Mayor Rocky Randles, Council Member Hogue, Council Member and Dr. Shannon Roberts who is with us voted that in in not
tonight in 2008. We can talk to them. Our city attorney was in those meetings and I read the minutes and I'm like, what were they doing? There were they were just trying to have some sort of formalized cushion in there.
So, but they did not get into the level of uh I think the realistic needs and they never imagined that 2 years would have to make up 2 years. It would be four years. So, I'm on the four minimum and I'm also questioning the amount of
money that it would take to run essential services. Um, I'm very confident that we can cut out of the expenses today far easier than the things you were talking about, Council Member Shorak.
Again, a half a million dollars. I believe that out of the budget today. Do we have any indication on where we're going to end this year in expenses? Um I think that that the document that
we have shows our expenses the balance according to I know it's probably not all reconciled and up but I'm looking at current 44 24 million.
No, that can't be right. No, I'm sorry. That's incorrect. We're at 22 or 20 22 million, but we're under that, right? Well, we have to be. Do we have any estimation on where we're
going to be in total expenditures? Obviously, reoccurring cost um by the end of this year. If we had to take a best guess, what will our actuals be by the end of this year? Do we know where that is? >> Um, not this very second, not tonight,
but um, finance is working on getting the uh the the financials um, accurate and up to date. Um, so we can say if not sooner, we will have the the the latest monthly financials available. And once
we are we have those available, we can project the rest of the year accurately. >> Well, we budgeted 22 million. Do we know if we're going to if we reduced, we're not going to
probably pay out 22 million, right? I don't think we would. >> No. No. We've already not spent this year 1.5 million. >> Okay. So, but the difference there is about 70 750,800,000
in the green at the end of the fiscal year. But we can get a more accurate number as Joey is saying once we calculate the latest monthly. >> Well, if this is correct in 2425
the actuals are $18 million and that's not reoccurring cost. That's uh that's got outgoing transfers. It's got some capital improvements in there. I think those reoccurring cost that
operating overhead slide my my thing is right here page four. So, operating expenditures and personnel, that was the number you it was the 17.9 million, right? But we've got a half 400,000 in capital
and then another 1.8 in non-EP departmental. So, I'm looking at actually 20 million in general fund expenditures proposed for this year. Um that's not
really a reduction in expenditures over and we can get into this but our expenditure the the one way that I measure is is did we spend our population is not growing we're
shrinking did we spend more or less and I'm really interested in just the reoccurring and it's going up every year. So, we're growing and some of it might be for good reasons, but we can't afford to grow. And so I will I know
it's not apples to apples but I will say we have to reduce our operating expenditures over last year and the year before or at least the average um and for us to get on a sustainable path
before we go in on millage rates. And I know some of those might be tough cost CIPs one time, but we have some overhead cost that that we need to take on and not put that
on the taxpayers. If a vehicle does not get purchased or it's rusty or it's got a problem or we can sell a vehicle or we can do little things like that, that's great. if we can um
uh shrink our service contracts on on cutting grass and and uh employees want to help out with that and do that. That's great. Those are not major ones, but some of the the overhead, we will go through it on the 18th. I will try to
send this out to everyone prior, but I can tell you that I'm very confident we can and I'm more or less saying we have to uh reduce um because every year we end up spending
more and more and that's the problem. And council member Shriyak, you hit one of the bigger drivers that is harder to justify in every city. And so with that and with the work our city manager's already done on top of the
actual critical intent of the contingency to keep operations going with a policy we have I think we have the opportunity well I'll
I'll be open and honest as we're looking at the the thresholds. If we set it at 6 point 02, that's going to bring in >> Wait, where was that? I lost it. Is it
the U? Maybe this is 43. >> Oh, it was the other slide that said 6.02. >> Yeah. Can if we can go to that one, I I'll wrap up here. Uh that so the 6.0 04. >> Yeah. >> Requires a unanimous vote.
>> Wow. Not too much. >> I know it, but I'm giving a glimpse into the future. I will cut as much as I need to cut. I'm one vote before we go to that tax rate. So, I am not going to be
a part of that unanimous vote. I'm just giving some future. Now, that doesn't mean that the people voting for it tonight, and it might be me too, uh, that any of us are saying that. I'm not saying that. But I would rather feel
the pressure to to reduce expenditures further before, and that's just being realistic. The reserve, the ordinance, the policy is not the highest priority. the fund reserve.
The highest priority is to cut spending and then we will actually have some reserves. The problem is is we can reserve all we want, but there's going to be cost overruns. There's major cost. This city has got way beyond what the average Cape Canaveral resident wants
and desires. And I I I know our city here's [clears throat] the final thing and I'll let you talk, Council Member Shorty. I've said this in the past and it's always been something difficult. I would like to set a tax rate first
and then let's build a budget around that. And what we've done is baseline budgeting where we take last year's and we bump it up a little bit and we go. We've talked about zerobased budgeting which is similar but the the residents
are are first the constituents and yes this city I do not want to compromise and I do not believe we'll compromise any public safety or essential services. I think we can do it, but
I'm going I'm going to I've put hours into getting to this point and it's not for tonight's meeting. That's why I don't want to go into it cuz it'll just make our heads spin and I want to talk with our city manager before going into it. But we can we're going to have to
make some big cuts for me to support a unanimous tax increase at all. And I'm willing to have extremely tough conversations with our largest expense providers or our largest I'm willing to talk with Sheriff
Fire, but they've got jobs and I'm willing to make tough decisions for other departments. There is no desire and it's not anyone's fault other than at this point ourselves if we continue down this path. So that's all I have to
say and I want the council to know I got the sense that maybe we are not going to be able to cut much more so we're going to have to go. I am focused on cutting as much as possible and I do not want to give a tax increase
because well if we do if it happens cuz I am open to listen and change my mind that tax rate has to only be for to cover essential services. We cannot set a tax
rate that covers non-essential services. So I'll stop there. >> And Mr. Mayor, that wasn't my intention on saying 6.0 to dying. >> I'm just saying it that would require a unanimous in the future. >> So, I'm saying I I'm
>> I believe we have to look at cutting as well. Just letting you know. However, for tonight, >> I don't want to set a rate that is too low to where we end up incurring costs to have to mail everyone. Just being honest with you. That's why I'm looking
at it that way. Although I totally agree, we need to look at how we're spending this money. It's not going to happen tonight. That's why I say I said what I said on that on putting the millage halfway between because I don't want to have to mail
everyone. If the pressure came on to cut spending because we set a rate too low, I would rather do that. As our city manager said, is the pressure is going to go on cutting spending as opposed to revenue. I would rather have the pressure to cut spending and then turn
around and pay $6,000 to remail everyone if it was the wrong choice. That's the pressure this council in the P. You sat here with me, you did last year. We cut we I I brought 500,000 in and I think we ended up cutting like 250 or 300,000. Uh
I brought proposals to cut. Not all of them were cut. The council, the city staff, everyone worked together. I'm not saying I did anything. I was with council member Willis, Mayor Pro Tim. We worked [clears throat] really hard in that meeting and we walked away with a
little bit and it wasn't enough. So, >> point of order. We need to I need to make a motion to extend the meeting >> and I'm done. I don't want to keep us any later, but I did I feel like maybe I wasn't well I just wanted to be clear that
I don't want to do what we did last year and I was very proud of what we did last year but I've learned so much over these past few months and I it is really really upset me to see our council being
attacked and blamed on things and I went through every meeting and I watched how hard. We worked and we asked so many good questions and the reserve was brought up and we overcame that and the data we were presented did not represent
the reality. That's my opinion and the people don't I don't expect them to. There's a few out there that I can tell they've watched and they went back and they've said, "Well, let me see what they gave you. Let me see what the code says. Let me see this." That's my opinion. And
to think that it's gone and we don't like we passed budgets that were healthy as presented with contingencies with big projects. We gave handsome raises. We increased retirement
pensions. And frankly, I would have not done any of that knowing the circumstance. And I love our city staff. I would have not approved one increase to those. Uh and I was so excited to do
that. But that that was the most irresponsible thing. Hindsight looking is we did that to people that I I truly appreciate and love. It's not on it's not us. We're working together. I've said it. I want the highest paid
employees in the county and they do a really good job. And if we can have less that do a good job, that's great. It's not about pushing down on that. But that conversation, looking back, because you can see hindsight now, the timing that
those things were coming to us, we weren't presented information. And that really upsets me. Um, and so yes, I have got a a bit of fire in my eyes to move forward through this.
And I do not want to do anything other than what is necessary to not increase taxes one penny accepting we might. I do not accept we have to increase taxes. Now,
I might change my mind on that, but I'm going to go in full force with with everything that I have control over that I can look at a resident and say, "No, we did this, this, this, or we
had to increase taxes if that's the way, but look at what we did here." And so, if we want to go forward with the the middle of the road, that's fine. in the future. I'm gonna have a hard time saying I
would support that. And if I'm wrong, I would rather mail to to have the the the pressure that we absolutely need to have to to find the money and to cut wherever we can. And then we can talk about and
if revenue comes about all the stuff we're talking we're going to we can give the the the we can do exactly what we want within our within our city and that's all I got to say. Thank you.
>> I'll second the motion. >> Let's extend to 10:15 or do you want to extend to 10:30? >> Okay. I make a motion to extend to 10:15. I'll second. >> Got a motion by Did I just miss that earlier?
>> Did you make a motion and I just did I completely ignore you? >> You guys got to stop me for that. [laughter] >> I'm sorry. I really just I I glitched there. No, that's not right. I'm sorry about that. Um sorry. Uh
got a motion by Mayor Pro Tim Jackson and a second by Council Member Willis. Any further discussion? Hearing none, city clerk, >> Mayor Prom Jackson, >> four, >> council member King, >> four, mayor Morrison, >> four, >> council member, >> four,
>> and council member Willis, >> four. >> Okay, so that's all I have to say. Thank you again and I do apologize for doing that. That was not intentional. I was, I guess, uh, in a heavy train of thought there. Um, because this is heavy and it
and it really is is important. So with that, do we have an is it 6.04 is and I hear you loud and clear and I'm not saying that anyone's for this number. I get the rationale. I really do. Is that the number?
>> Well, that's what I had said, but I'm not making a motion on it. >> I will I will just to get this ball rolling. I move that we uh select the millillage of 7.0410 0410 uh as a ceiling uh for further
discussion on how we are going to balance the budget um moving forward. >> I'll second. >> Got a motion by Council Member King and a second by Council Member Willis on the uh the proposed rate, the 7.04.
Is that right, Council Member King? >> Yes, that is correct. >> 7.041 as written and presented in front of us here. >> Any discussion on the item? I do just want to go right down that line, make sure we know what we're looking at here. This is 5.7
million in additional revenue. I would imagine that the the total revenue before the so that's what impacts the the general fund right Joey 5.7 >> um yes one way to clarify this is to
bring up um another um uh document that we've prep uh we've prepared the one we made. >> Um, so this um I'm realizing this does not have the exact 7.0410, 0 410. But this will I I
believe will help um clear up a lot of confusion about the calculations that go into um the mil the the net that we've been talking about. So over on the left you have your proposed uh general fund
amount and then you will see your revenue related to your proposed general fund uh millillage. That's that first u box. That's your revenue. The second box is your CRA expense.
So you have your revenue and then your expense. >> But that money goes that is the CRA's money. We can spend that money in the CRA. >> Correct. Correct. >> Um so then you have your general fund net revenue. >> Mhm.
>> And I apologize for the small print, but that top number is 4.7 million. So that is the the net revenue to the general fund and then over on the right is the difference.
So as the um as you see as you go down those the the column um the difference gets higher. So those are >> all the numbers that go into the the net
difference which is the the net difference um presented on the the tax chart that we've been looking at before. So when you ask what is the general fund revenue, it's that first kind of box on
the left. That is what the general fund makes in revenue. >> Mhm. But as revenue increases, so does the expense. This is great. Thank you. This is exactly what I think we needed. So basically the the two
revenues uh what's called a CRA expense is also a CRA revenue. >> Correct. >> It's an expense to the general fund. >> Okay, I see. So, uh, the one we'll just say it's a little over, but the 7 mil would
be 14,450,000 to the general fund. Out of that 3.9 million would go into the CRA, which means 10.4 million would stay in
the general fund. That is correct. Okay. which is 5.7 million over the roll back rate. >> Yes. Yeah. 5.7 over achieve what we currently have proposed. >> Okay. >> So, we're at 6.5 million. This would be
14.4 million. What would that be as a percentage increase? Uh that >> I'm sorry, which which number exactly? >> If if like when we go out, we're going to have to write the the increase in taxes. I could uh
write maybe it's expenditures but I think yeah we every year the resolution would maybe that's on final just need to calculate the increase from
the the revenue 6.538 million to the 14,450,000 what percentage increase is that from 6.5 to 144. It's over double. Pretty close.
Think it's a little more but not. Yeah, I think >> 121%. >> 121%. Is that >> Yeah, just an estimate. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we are going to increase taxes because it's really about revenue. I don't like speaking in mills residents.
It's confusing. Roll back rate. I hate it. Revenue because that's what everyone understands as dollars. >> Mayor, may I say something? >> Absolutely. >> In the discussion, I just want to remind everybody that this is not what we're
voting on as their taxes. This is just the ceiling so that we can negotiate and talk more about maybe bringing those numbers down as we look at, as the city manager put it, equilibrium, what we what we what we what we no
longer provide in terms of services or whatever um compared with what we what we end up um keeping. >> Am I making sense to you? >> I know it like very well. And I and I'm
I'm I'm concerned that if people un whether we had picked six or seven or eight that people are going to interpret this as [gasps] my taxes are going. No, this is not about your taxes at this point. This is about just giving us a little bit of
leverage, a little bit of room to to begin the re continue the serious negotiations about what the final number is going to be. But it's mailed out to every person that pays taxes. >> I understand. I understand. But I want
it for the record. I want it for the record tonight. That that's not the tax base that that's not those that's not what they're going to be paying necessarily. We haven't voted on that. We're just voting on a ceiling right now. But but no, I think that what's
absolutely I I I am not even I I I don't think that it's necessarily the perception of the residents. It's the fact that we got 6.5 million and that's over double I and that would
completely restore the fund and and that's directly putting it on their backs. Now we're not voting this. I get that. But I can say, do you see how far that down is? Unanimous is at seven. >> Mhm.
>> Unanimous is at six. >> Mhm. >> Unanimous at five. >> Right. Right. >> This is there's a reason. >> You don't need unanimous to lower taxes, right? Or you or 100 if you lower taxes by 100. And there's a reason why. It's
because spending has gotten out of control in and and we're we're one of the better cities. I do believe in some of the stuff I read and see, but we've doubled in 10 years and now we're going to turn around and double the tax rate.
And the the message that I read in hindsight looking at is that we didn't increase taxes. This makes that statement in my opinion somewhat true. And it and it will absolutely fix the problem. It will fix
it. There's no debate. It's the easiest way to fix it. Little mill. Boop. 14 million rolls in. We got a reserve. We're good. That's not the problem. We still look, we still got 20 million here. And so I just can't even see
myself. We're three unanimous votes, four unanimous votes away. I'm I >> So you're talking about appearances. >> I'm just saying like that that that to me
that doesn't put that's there's no scenario I would support that. >> I understand >> there's no I understand >> as a final vote or a tenative vote. I mean >> as a final vote, >> right?
It doesn't have to be unanimous tonight. >> Yeah. But but I'm going to I'm going to be honest. I want to support tonight a little bit over what I could see myself supporting. I strictly look at at this as I mean
that's excessive. That is way too much. And I don't need the flexibility. Frankly, I don't want the flexibility. I want the pressure to get this down. >> That's what I'm really saying. >> I'm with you. I'm I'm gonna read the column from the trim notice.
>> Your tax rate and taxes this year if proposed budget change adopted. So, what that means to me if I got that in the mail, it's like, holy cow, my taxes are doubling this year. More than doubling. >> And I I really don't I would agree. I don't want to put something like that out.
>> All right. So, do I do I resend the motion at this point? >> No, it was a you got the conversation. I don't think you need to resend it. I think if it can just uh >> point of order. Yeah, we need to extend the meeting.
>> Hopefully, we learned a lesson last time. We did like six of these. >> Um I >> like just like the trim, you can give yourself a little bit more. >> I'm going to make a motion that we extend to 10:45. [laughter] >> Now we got some flexibility. I'll second
>> if if I may before we I'm sorry after you vote. >> I'm just going to get the motion. Do you want to >> Well, I go ahead. I can wait. We just want to talk about staff here for a moment. >> Got a motion by uh Mayor Pro Tim Jackson and a second by council member Willis. Is there any further discussion to
extend? Did we get the time? >> 10:45. >> 10:45. City clerk, >> Mayor Prom Jackson >> or >> Council Member King >> or >> Mayor Morrison >> or >> Council Member Shiaak >> or
>> and Council Member Willis >> four. >> Motion passes 50 to extend to 10:45. City manager. >> Uh thank you, mayor. I just wanted to confirm if the rest of the evening is going to be about the millage rate I and you're not going to need staff for anything else, I'd like to cut them
loose. >> I love that. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Please. Thank y'all except for Joey >> and [laughter] the clerks. Everyone else out there can go. [laughter] >> Thank y'all. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Yes. And thank you for that. Um yeah. So I don't want the flexibility uh to that level.
Um, >> let me resend the motion and let somebody else make a motion with a number that is more feasible, I guess. >> Yeah, maybe we just talk through it a little bit more and then we can I think
put a motion forward that we I think feel good about. At least if three people feel good about it, you know that that's all you need. If I'm over here grumping and groaning, y'all can still move forward. But, um,
a motion was made, a second was made. Uh, city attorney, uh, council member King wants to resend. Is that >> you can with unanimous consent of the council? >> I just take that up here. >> Yep. There's unanimous consent. We have
unanimous consent. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All opposed. >> Hearing none. Unanimous to resend the motion. >> There you go, Council Member King. [laughter] >> Um, make a motion to adopt a millage rate of
4.00. >> I will second that motion. >> All right. A motion in a second does not mean that you support. So for the sake of discussion, we got a motion by council member Shoryak and a second by Mayor Pro Tim Jackson this time. Any
discussion on the motion to adopt a proposed millage rate of 4.00 my consistent with the last one that's $8.2 million that's uh going to put 2.2 2 million out
of that eight into the CRA, an expense to the general fund. But we can spend $2.2 million in the CRA. We'll have that eight in the general fund. Uh which is the six 5.9 million left in
the in the general fund after that. [clears throat] And it's that's 1.2 million more than the roll back rate. Am I reading that correctly? Okay. >> Um, may I say something? >> Absolutely. [laughter] I would like to
point out um that a um uh military around four would give an additional revenue of about 1 um.2 million. And given that the budget is currently at roughly 4 million, um
then that difference would go from 4 million down to about um 2.8 million. So So to balance the budget, we would still have to cut an additional 2.8 million and then um plan how to restore
reserves. All right, Joey, that is very helpful. So one uh basically I heard the first part maybe just go through it one more time if you don't mind please. >> I want to make sure I got >> So so to put it in context the the
current budget we have is about $4 million um out of balance. So we need to make up uh $4 million to be to be in balance with this mill rate around four. We would be
making up around 1.2 2 million. Therefore, the the budget would still be out of balance by about $2.8 million. So, we would still have to balance the budget and find a way to make up another
$2.8 million just to balance the budget. And then we would have to worry about um rebuilding reserves on top of that. That's the equilibrium we've been talking about. Raising revenue 1.2, bringing it down 2
point whatever. Question for Jay. Where where did the money that built this building, the Cape Center community center, where'd that come from? Where did we borrow that from? >> The city hall building we're in, I'm not sure. But the um Cape Center and C5
um that was taken out uh debt was taken out of the CRA um to pay for those buildings and we're currently paying them back still. Last year is the last year of payment of that. >> Okay. So, we borrowed the money from the CRA's funds. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. >> Last year was the last debt service
payment for which one? >> I'm sorry. Uh, next year is going to be the last debt service payment of the the loan we took out. Uh, the about $6.5 million loan we took out to pay for the construction of the Cape Center and the C5. >> And that debt service payment annually
is going to relieve how much? >> About $680,000. >> So, we will basically uh free up 680,000 when that's paid off next year of annual cash flow. >> Correct. And the year prior, didn't we
just retire another 700,000? >> Um, I think two years or so ago. >> Okay. So, >> I guess why I asked that because we're sweating how to rebuild the reserves if something catastrophic happened tomorrow and right now we don't have any reserves. Can we borrow from the CRA?
City who's that? I'm not sure who asked about that. >> City attorney would be probably the best. Depends. I'd have I'd have to look carefully at that issue in terms of borrowing. The CRA on the other hand can't expend
fund for CRA purposes >> like say something happened and we can use CRA funds to fix whatever happened in the CRA geographic area >> in in rather than borrow money. The CRA could technically expend funds for CRA
purposes that may have been a general fund item and in a particular budget year. Some it's kind of an offset, but whether the CRA can actually loan money back to the city, um, that's
a real technical nuance question that I would have to look at because there are some spending uh requirements for CRAAS. They can't technically hold money. They have to expend it. >> Okay. >> I don't think there's I'm not sure there's a provision about loaning money
back to the city >> cuz then they already loan the money to the city for the buildings. >> They they agreed to pay for a CRA expenditure. The building was a CRA expenditure.
>> Okay. So, this city hall, it was a like a $4.2 million. No, the private it was a private lender. >> There was some private lending. I guess the CRA >> details revenue tiff that comes in.
I mean, the city has the creditworthiness right? >> I mean, that's I'm just kind of >> the pledge >> because I don't want people panicking, hey, we don't have any money. If you know, we get a storm or something. Can we borrow it from something somewhere if we ran into >> Well, that's what I was saying. And I mean just realistically like this
happened over they've been scraping from the reserves when it was high and it's we've saw big chunks taken out and no one knew and that to me was some of the the worst things that this I'm going back and killed a very healthy reserve and then we're we're trying to fix this
longstanding problem and and and the way we can fix it right I think is to approach it the way like let's be realistic here I will and and to know we have interlocal relationships and if
something was really happening bad that that impacted our community I'm talking about we want to have reserves and and tomorrow next year but if it was four or five years that we were maybe we didn't have we had a month's worth or we
we had 500,000 and we reached that the port Cocoa Beach all the neighboring communities the county. There's uh there's opportunities there. I don't want to be in that position and our code
tells us they don't want us to be in that position. So like >> but you're exactly right that I mean things are continuing. We're not in a circumstance, but we know as soon as we say that,
I'm not aware of any time in history where we needed to operate on two months of revenue. And and from what I can see, what I have seen is yes, there's hurricanes. I think 75 Matthew was I mean, I'm not
sure any of these broke a couple hundred,000. 50,000 I think was 180. Right. You're not you're talking about cleaning up debris and some other related expenses. FEMA is 100% on reimbursing. They just take years and years and years
to pay. But just from a like we expend the money, right? You're waiting on FEMA, you need more money. Well, that's where another interlocal government go. We know you got 200,000. I don't want to be doing that, but >> Right. And we have the 500,000
>> out of this instead of overnight, >> right? And we have the 500,000 we can borrow from storm water, >> I think. >> So, I mean, I I kind of want to take the pressure off a little bit. >> Yeah. And I think that's the the right way to think about it. I think that's the only way we can
do this right and then be the council that puts in the measures in the place largely just in my opinion read the code closely and and make sure uh that this never happens again and I we have that team on our city staff and council. I
believe that >> and I think to ensure this never happens again is maybe and this is not for this budget season or anything but maybe we look at putting something in our charter that if you're building a new facility or something over a certain amount you vote you put it to the voters so that
you know I'm sure how many I'm sure a $6 million expenditure would not have passed the voters if they had all the facts. >> It might have been a $2 million facility. It might have been a million. This might have been a a $2 million city hall, not a 4 million. You know, the tile might have looked a little
different. The moldings might not have been like this, right? It's nice. It better be. But here we are. And I think yes, $4 million. That's based on the $20 million overhead
annual. I've already Okay. So, so Joey just helped us understand the impact and you've established that the deficit would still be one 2.8. 8. You said >> uh correct. Yes. >> Okay. So that 4.0 mil leaves us with a
$2.8 million deficit in Z in no reserves. Right. That's that does not include reserves. >> So reserves are at zero. $2.8 million deficit. I'm going to say that 2.8 is based on
two months or no reserves are based on >> two months. That's your deficit 2.8. >> Yeah. I think the reserve target. >> Yep. Would be like 1.3.2 million roughly. It's like 1.6 million a month or
something. Uh I think 2.8 8 is actually closer to the reserve that we would need for critical services as opposed to the three. Um, but that's
okay. We can cross that bridge later. All right. Well, we got a motion on the floor. We've got 2.8 million. So, that can be closed on a couple of things. other revenues
obviously reductions. Mayor, regarding other revenues, I mean, we we've talked about what municipalities can and cannot raise, and we can go back and check again, but I think the the city of Cape Canaveral is bringing in the the amount of revenue
that it's lawfully allowed to bring in based on what we already have in place. >> Okay. We we'll we'll continue to look at that, but we have we have been digging into that. I I don't anticipate additional revenue streams unless you vote on them. Um paid parking is
potentially one, but that's not going to be realized for quite some time yet, and you're going to have to deal with the community's desire or lack thereof for paid parking and what that would bring. Um, if I may, I would just like to weigh in
on again on a higher millage rate to to be more prudent and not so, and I don't mean this negatively, but from an ideological standpoint, I think the community understands that this council does not want to raise taxes. I think they understand that from you,
mayor, but this council has never been in this situation before. And we simply in in your opinion as my opinion as your city manager is we still do not know enough about where we can and cannot cut
and to set the bar so low at this point at four mills and still and tomorrow then we still have to cut 2 point whatever million and I don't think anyone up at this dis knows where that's going to come from. I mean we can speculate, we can talk about leisure uh you know parka we can talk
about but it will involve personnel without question and um I I think from a millillage standpoint I don't know how dialed in the public really is and if they get a notice in their mail and I hate to view it from this perspective
but if they get a notice in the mail that shocks them then they will pay attention and and they will be then weigh in on what matters. to them. Since our last council meeting and in the last um uh coffee with the city manager, I
had multiple people tell me, "Raise our taxes. We don't want to lose the things that that we have." And those people exist. I don't think you've heard from them yet. So, I just feel like the the the community would and this is your
decision. I'll go back on to to a statement I said in my uh the initial workshop. My responsibility is not to recommend the easiest course of action, but the one that best positions this city for long-term financial success. And if it
means getting people to sit up straight and a higher millage rate that you'll end up talking down from there, because I know you will, then that's what it's going to take. I'm thinking long game for this city. I'm not thinking about the short-term number that the residents
are going to get in their millillage. And since we're so um hardressed to not spend money and trying to cut, I don't know what it would cost to spend money on a mail out to correct a number to go in higher. And I and I don't know how the council will be perceived by the
community at that point. So, um I just thought I would make one last effort uh to four is very low. It's incredibly low and that staff would staff will definitely have to they'll have to sharpen more to their pencils. I'll tell
you that right now. So, thank you for indulging me. Mayor and council, >> you sir are greatly appreciated and uh when I say uh the council I said that earlier um I what you have done and with
this city staff is one of the greatest things this city has ever went through. So I know you love this community and anything that you speak about I I respect and understand. I guess it's not so much from what the
residents think. It's what I believe and know to be true because the residents if they want to know I I believe and of course I've met residents that say they want to increase taxes. I think the the
wave um on the other side is is larger because the the sentiment is what the heck is going on these it started with the city hall it Cape
Canaveral changed its culture in 201516 and I'm thinking very long term I guess we might be just thinking about it from two different ways and I think they're both healthy and I
the short game has been I think been the focus. What's not sustainable to me in the long term is the path we're headed down. If the the two tax decreases, if the tax
increase would have went through last year, no one would have known about this. I believe that because it happened two years prior, the tax increase, I think this would have happened two years prior. It was 8 or 9%. Then you watch it
every or big loan money will come in and then that gets put in committed and it's it has been a shortterm fix. Get a tax increase, get a loan. ARPA ARPA was great because you can put that
stuff and to me it was all wrong and it was never the intent. It was all short-term focused. Different administration, different time. you are long-term focused and I do agree that re replenishing these needs today at this
is a long-term solution but I do not believe that I mean the residents if I sat down and I talked to a video camera for for it'd probably take me two hours and you're all like yeah well if you're saying that it's four hours
you're long-winded mayor no But it it w with two hours and I just gave the story. I think everyone in here right now, well, first of all, I think they'd be very mad.
And I'm still building the pieces of the story. And I am not going to say anything that I I don't have a high level of confidence, but I see this city from a different light. I've been in over 150 meetings. I've never missed a
regular city council meeting. I've obsessively watched historical meetings going back through the years and I'm like, "What happened? Where did the patterns changed?" I watched great men like Mayor Rocky Randles at the time and
Mayor Hogue completely be presented with information that I do not believe that they fully understood. And they were always conservative. They kept taxes low for years and when I came on we clashed
and it never felt right and now it all makes sense. So yes, I'm I'm upset because the hurdle we're trying to jump across if we got 6.5 million four brings
in 8.2 million. So that basically what what increase is that? And I'm not looking at at just strictly balancing the budget. I understand that rationale and I understand the reserve. But if I plug that in,
well, I think it'd be half. If it was 20%, it's probably a 10%. Tommy, you had the math fast last time. Um, old value times new value divided by old value. No. New value minus old value divided by
old value. Isn't that the formula? Testing my arithmetic here. Percentage change. Let me see. [clears throat] >> Yeah, the 8 million one. And I'm looking at revenue. >> And you did the revenue, not the rate. I guess
>> um did the general fund revenue. >> Okay. >> So, we're looking at from 4.0 to the prop to the 3.1675. Is that >> Yeah, the revenue the 8 million >> 8.2 million >> 257 to 6. Yeah, 26%. >> Increase. >> Well, how is that possible? I thought
the other one was 20%. >> 120%. >> Oh, okay. I'm I'm losing it. All right. So, 26%. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, 26% and I think would be the largest increase the city's ever seen.
So, I don't think we're short. I'm just trying to set the conversation. That's it. It'd be the biggest tax increase we've ever seen. >> Didn't we have a 20% at some point during >> 2016? >> 2016 was the largest >> I walked into that budget that was
adopted that like council member King and Chiaak, I was sitting where they were and a 20% increase in the residents were furious. >> Yeah. And it because it was part it was
non-essential. Streets were flooding problems were happening and it was too big too glamorous and it was the vision of a few people not the residents of this community >> right now [clears throat] and and I keep going back and forth
because I see I see what we see on this but going back at a two four year threeear plan I don't see that slide. So, can I see that slide again? Shall we? >> Well, I think the seven Oh, sorry. >> Wait. Well, um
>> I don't think that gives us any room for We still have a >> basically we got a $4 million deficit at the six. So, that would give us 2 million to reduce the deficit. We'd still have 2.8 million
left and that's no money in reserves. But yeah, this slide there would not be enough money to put in reserves, but we would have to cut 2.8 million just to break even at that rate or increase revenue in other areas
or or you know, it doesn't have to be cut. I hope it's not. Uh I think we absolutely will have to cut some. Um >> but that doesn't put any money in the reserves. Yeah.
>> Is that the slide, Mayor Prom? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Um, village rights for compliance. If amendment three passes, okay, and then FY28
on a one-year plan at 8.23 >> Mhm. >> it would be restored. Is that correct? What I'm saying? >> Okay. >> Mhm. or if we looked at 7
83. Just want to make sure I'm looking at this correctly because we keep flipping back and forth. So, if we had a 4-year plan that take to restore it, that takes us out to um FY31,
right? And what would our our millillage the first year would be 6.43, 43 the next year 7.111 and on down. >> Mhm. >> And then that would actually restore us
on the fifth year, not the fourth, even though it says four-year plan. At the end of that fourth year, we'd be restored. So, as we're looking at this rate,
why would this not be applicable when Oh, because we were looking at 4.40 or 4.04. >> It was just a straight 40. Um, but obviously
it that's probably not the the wisest we we should So once again, we're back to the original question that we had like 2 hours ago of how many years are we setting our >> Mhm. our re restoration plan because you
can't just look at that that roll back rate and all of that because we have to look at how are we going to reestablish right >> yeah I think we fund the reserves uh we don't we don't fund the reserves out of tax dollars in this year if we don't do
anything and if we have to in year two three or four fine but I don't think we try to do that I think we need to go in this uh and and talk to our neighbors and make sure we've got ourselves covered for 12 months. And then if we can get some revenue and some some
different things, um then then we're good. Next year, if that amendment passes, um I I think we we we have to get to the 20% as as reasonably fast as we can. Um
but I don't think it's as high. I I think we need about two and a half million to be verified at at the most. So uh >> Well, and that was the normal reserves back in the day anyway. >> And it was on a lower operating. No,
they had like four or five million and but they only needed but yeah. Yeah, there was um I think it's like 1.6 million a month. Is that right? Yeah, because that's 3.2. Maybe I'm off a little. Mayor, it's 10:45.
>> Yep. Okay. So, we are at 10:45 and I think um go back to the other slide just real fast. And uh do >> uh which one? >> The one that we had before and then you can go right back to this one because I
know we're looking at it. So, the no >> the one that had the mills of four It's >> the other white slide right there. >> Yep, that's the one. So, um, >> you going to entertain a motion, mayor?
>> They're 2 million apart. Okay. >> There's a motion on the floor. >> Who's got Oh, who made the motion? >> Tom. >> Tom did. >> Yeah. Mayor Pro Tim seconded. >> Got a motion by Council Member Shoryak and a second by Mayor Pro Tim Jackson. Thank you all. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, city clerk. >> Extend to what time? I'm sorry. >> No. >> No. This is on the >> This is on the call. >> I know. Yeah. About time. Sorry. The motion to extend to what time? >> No. >> No. No. Not on the >> Oh, you voted on the millage. I'm sorry. Okay. >> A wrong call. I I do apologize.
>> I'm confused. >> Tom called for >> the 400 mill rate vote. >> Um, >> but are we good with that? because we've done a lot of discussing and I didn't like >> Well, that's why we're taking the vote. Yeah, >> that's why we're going to take the vote, right? >> Well, we got to do the time extension no
matter what. I can see >> make a motion to extend the time to 11:00. [snorts] >> Second. >> Sorry about that. We got >> What are we voting on the time? >> Yeah, the time. Motion by council member Willis, second by Mayor Bertim Kellum. Any further discussion?
>> Well, [laughter] whoever this mayor pro tip is [clears throat] Boy, I'm sorry. I've served many years with her, but it is an honor to sit with you today. >> I'm sitting I'm sitting in the bright spot for that. So, I'm going to take
>> I'm sorry. Mayor Tim Jackson got a second by Mayor Pertim Jackson. Any further discussion? >> Uh, yes. I'd like to clarify. Um, is it a total combined of four? Is that time? [laughter] >> Just as bad as me, right?
>> We needed that. That was good. May pro Tim Jackson >> four. >> Council member King four. Mayor Morrison four. >> Council member Sharia four. And council member Moris >> four. >> All right. It extends. We do have a motion on the floor for the 4.0 millillage and a second by
>> Mayor Mayor Mayor Pro Jackson >> and you didn't call the question or anything, right? I think we did not. Okay. So, uh, I interrupted Mayor Proim Jackson's slide there, but what I wanted to confirm was between,
see, it goes from 3 and a half to four. Four is the lowest unanimous vote required, right? So, so if it's 3.9, we you don't need a 3.99, there's no unanimous vote needed, right? >> It would be unanimous. anything above
3.5 um >> oh >> 801 and and again this is just the general fund portion of the total millage. So the the total combined millage is going to be that number plus 0410. >> Okay.
>> So just I wanted to make that very clear. This is just the general fund portion of it. The total combined will include the library portion which is that small 0410 on top of it. Okay. So the 358
is a cap. Anything if it's 3.58 if it's that number four out of five, >> right? >> Super majority. So um up to that so so in between roll
back which is the 3.2546 2546. Anything above roll back to that 110% increase. >> Mhm. >> So, anything from 3.2546 to 3.5801 will require a four out of five vote.
>> Okay. So, 3.5802 would require unanimous. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> All right. So, we would still need unanimous. Just that's a very important point with the 4.0. we would have uh 26% more revenue
uh over 1.7 oh right there you did the math 1.2 2 million more on the far right. If the and then the increments are easy because they're even. That's just a weird jump, but they're basically about 2 million for every mill,
>> right? So, uh that's all I wanted to to confirm was was what the gaps were. I I'm ready to uh >> if we had to mail out
$6,000 because we wanted to go up a mill for $2 million. That's a that that'd be a worthy trade, right? I'm just saying a worst case scenario that >> What was that, Mr. Ry? Sorry. If we had to mail out,
if we're at four mills now and we go, "Oh my gosh, that was that was really dumb. Now we're going to have to mail the trim notices again." And if it cost 6,000 a dollar head, if there's 6,000
addresses roughly, I don't I'm just doing rough 12,000 to mail everyone citywide. But it meant two more million dollars, right? I'm just saying like the trick I don't want to spend a dollar on something that the the tax collector, but I'm saying if it was a dire
circumstance, right, there's it it's not going to stand in our way. Yes, city. >> Yeah. Can I I just want to color that just a little bit. You are correct that if the council were to establish a proposed millillage tonight of 4.0 Z
and then you get involved in the budget process further and you realize we can't deal with 4.0. It's going to have to be higher. You are correct. You have to renotice the taxpayers at the city's expense or the property appraiser
will or tax collector will notice at the city's expense. But you also need to keep in mind that you under you are under a statutory deadline >> to adopt the millillage. So if you determine that 4.0
is not sufficient and that's what you notice tonight to all the taxpayers then you're going to have to all lot enough time to send the notices out before you can even consider adopting a final millage. And if it's late in the
process, you may not be able to timely adopt the millillage by [clears throat] September 30th of this year, right? Which because October 1 is the new fiscal year. The notice period, as I understand, I think it's somewhere in the neighborhood of at least 10, no more
than 15 days, right? So, you got to build that into the notice. And the consequences of not adopting a millage rate on a timely basis could theoretically under the statute impact some of the revenues that come from the
state until such time as the city adopted um a final millage. That's that's some of the consequences. you know the consequence they can actually tax collector can and impound some of your adval taxes that are collected
until compliance with the trim statute um is achieved. So just I just want to keep in mind that there's a time period >> understood >> that you have to take into consideration. Obviously this is all council's choice here but I wanted to at
least mention that >> I don't want to have to do that. Um, but it it it's not as easy as mailing. There's deadlines, there's filing, there's consequences. I think we want to be able to get it get it right. Um,
I've said enough. We've I think we're facing long-term problems that uh we we we've we've the risk has been the risk is lowest today in my opinion than it's ever been.
I believe that I believe the the risk on the path we were headed down was absolutely uh unsustainable and too high. And so this to me is where we are we are turning a curb and we are going to head
in a in a healthy direction that I think can can make the best out of this and and and reclaim I think the identity that the Cape Canaveral uh community wants. And I do hope we can
protect the small town. Uh Council Member King, but I hear you loud and clear. It's It's spooky, especially when you start lo losing schools. We're at 4 mil. The motion, the second is on the table. That's going to achieve that uh $8.2 million.
Um I'm willing to go to bat for this and do my absolute best on the cost side. Um, I only have so much control, but I can make uh make good, I think, on some
things that we've talked about. And I'm not sure these things are far-fetched. I really don't believe so. Um, and if the rubber hits the road, uh, we we're going to have to look into our budget. Um, which I think we can and I
think we absolutely should. So, is there any further discussion on the motion of 4.0 mills? Is there I don't want to, you know, roll forward. Is there anything that anyone wants to say about a different one or
>> I believe we still have we we're still going to have to look at all the expenses and everything. But like I was saying, I hate spending $12,000 we don't need to spend. >> Yeah.
And that's why I'm willing to look at, you know, a rate that's higher because going back down from that is certainly better than adopting too low in my opinion. Them seeing it on their bill that their trim notice that it's
going to be that low and then having to go up. I >> want to do that. >> No. And I agree with you, Mr. Mayor, that we're going to have to look at budget. We've got to get past this and we've got to have a plan to restore. But
that's why I had said a little bit higher at first because I'd rather drop down. Um but I can live with the four O if we wanted to potentially. You know, we haven't gone to look at details yet.
Um or line items that we can actually take care of. So, just depends on whether you want to put a notice out there that's too low or high right? >> No, I don't want to have to remale. I
want to I know I've said that, right? Like it >> Well, and you're looking at documentation we haven't gotten to look at yet. And I fully expect that. I fully believe that what you're looking at, you know, you can. And I believe you can.
>> Yeah. It's it's I'm not saying there's 2.8 million here, but I think that there's absolutely to be verified with city manager and most importantly if he uh thinks it's something that's reasonable and good, this council will ultimately decide. Uh this is the
spreadsheet that Joey sent me and I just colored some columns and just ran some some, you know, numbers. Um, so yes, I think it I do see some opportunities.
>> Uh, but yes, thank you. I I think >> city attorney, can I amend my motion or do we withdraw it and do a new one? >> Well, that's up to the city council. You can you could attempt to u ask the council if you want to. I was going to say maybe split the baby, go with 4.5,
but so we're not too big of a we don't have numbers for h for half >> things, but yeah. And we have one minute left. >> Let's extend to I make a motion that we extend to 1:00 a.m.
>> Nope. [laughter] >> Too much flexibility. That was like a 10 mil. Okay, let's see if that will work to where we don't vote on this again. I bet you we finish earlier, don't y'all? [laughter]
>> All right. How about 1 or 11:30? >> I like that. And be out in two act like we got two minutes. How about that? >> I'll second. >> Got a motion by Mayor Pro Tim and a second by council member Willis. Any
further discussion on the time extension to 11:30 p.m. Hearing none, city clerk >> four. >> It's a procedural motion, so you can just ask. >> Oh,
all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Hearing none. City clerk, please let the record show you consensus. 11:30 p.m. All right. Council member Shuriak, you were you were talking about going to a 4 and a half mil uh which
would add thanks to I think council member Willis's question. Well, maybe it didn't. >> Well, hang on. I'll tell you the number in two seconds here. >> I mean, I have the number calculated. >> What is it? >> It would be 1.992 million
>> in addition. >> Yes. in in addition >> to the 8.2. >> No, >> I'm sorry. The total revenue >> would be >> you got 9 >> 9.3 million. >> Okay.
>> How much would the deficit be? >> Yeah. the so the deficit if it's currently at 4 million um by going to 4.5 general fund millillage would um take away 2 million of that deficit. So
we would still have a $2 million budget uh deficit and build reserves after that. >> So the deficit was 2.8 million before. Now it's 2 million. >> Uh correct. Yes. >> And this is 9.3 million total.
8.2 to 9.3 and this is a 4.5 mil. >> Yes. Okay. 4.5 general fund >> um millillage would give roughly $9.3 million in revenue. >> Say again, Joey. the the 4.5 general
fund millillage y >> would provide about $9.3 million in revenue to the general fund >> and that's 42% >> 42% increase If we keep inching it up by half
decimals, we're going to be here until 2:00 in the morning >> because I will tell you right now, I'm going to vote against this. >> That's helpful and it does save time. You obviously can disclose you don't have to do that, but it really does help. So, we can That's what the
discussion is for. If you're if you're going to raise it in increments like that, go for it and and go for the 7%. I agree with the city manager. Let's wake them up. They're, you know, they're not going to like it no matter what we do.
If we if we raise it by increments of half decimals, decimals, whatever, they're not going to like it. But they understand why we're doing it. And we're agonizing over it. We're agonizing over it. Mayor, I understand your heart. I know what
you're feeling. I I understand it. But you know what? Sometimes you just have to you just have to you got to give it all you got. And the and I think that the city manager with his experience and his knowledge about people understands that when you put
something out there like that, they snap up and they pay attention. And now you've got their attention. I wanted to see this room filled tonight. >> I was disappointed that there was just a handful of people. We want them to participate in this, don't we, city
manager? >> We do. >> So consequently, you're not going to get it by giving them little little bitty increments and then they're going to they're going to complain about that anyway. Give them something to talk about. >> Okay. So the room feel No, I I I see. I
don't see it that way. Respectfully, I get what you're saying. I understand. >> I think our job is to to do our best and and I don't uh I want their participation, but uh I think that
that's going to create a mess. If I had to pick any meeting, uh it's going to it's going to create a a noise and we and then we're working down and I understand I I'm >> we're in a mess. >> I think >> we're in a mess. I don't I think we're
in the the head the beginning of the bit a big big opportunity to correct. We've been in a mess for 15 years where we now got a team that's going to that's going we're getting out of the mess for the first time in 15 years in in my humble
opinion. It just kept going like this. And this is a 40 uh uh I like the first one better. Thank you for not making the motion. I I I think 4.0 I think we can absolutely cut 2.8 million or find re uh
revenue to replace it to make up the difference. And um that's that is if I had to say what is the problem, Council Member King, it's that our expenses are $20 million. >> I understand that. But but we're not voting on the tax rate tonight. We're
only voting on a ceiling and we need to be able to communicate. If people see that on their trim, they're Yeah, they're going to flip out. But this gives us an opportunity to explain to them, look, educate them. And that's >> that's the problem though.
>> Well, >> but I I I respect I understand. Listen, three, adopt it. I don't want to stand in the way. I would I feel that 43%
is that basically means we got a $2 million to the point. It's really hard to vote on this without getting into the numbers and unfortunately we were occupied with things that a lot of city councils did
not have to do and we were dealing with and I feel that uh some some major shifts will will put us in where we need to be. Um, and I think it's like
17 million overhead is is closer to where we need to be. Um, and if not, the revenue is out there, but the tax
I'm tunnel vision on a 40 that's just that's $10 million out of the community. The other one I hate $8 million. That one, the four I could actually see myself.
Okay, because that's actually police fire. And I agree with Mayor Pro Tim. Those are those have increased too >> and those are good arguments for when we do take the vote. Mr. Mayor, we're not
taking the vote tonight. I I I can't stress that enough. providing a ceiling and those are excellent arguments for when we do take the vote on the millillage. >> But this is a 26% increase. >> You know what? I will I will negotiate
with you and say okay six. >> No, you're going the wrong direction. >> No, no, no, no. I was at seven before. [laughter] >> Well, I think the motion's at four. >> There was a new motion made at four and a half. I don't think you made that cuz
we'll get that will get messy if you make a motion. We the motion on the table that I have >> or motion on the floors uh for even you were considering about increasing it. That's um it if if there's a desire uh
council member, how do you feel about four mills the original? Are you are you concerned? >> A little bit now. >> Okay. So that's what's going to pump it up a half a point. >> Okay. 4.5. Okay.
Any other comments on 4.5? If if that's what we want to do uh to we can move on. I would support that, but I want to hear all thoughts if you disagree. And I I think Council Member King has has made it clear she doesn't like that. And I want to
>> Well, I just don't think it makes sense. It's not that I don't like it. It's just I'm trying to be logical. >> Mr. Mayor, I would I would love to be at four, but I think to the city manager's point, I think we need to be a to start
a little higher. >> And again, we're not married to that number. And don't imagine the joy when we do decide on a millillage that isn't as high as we're setting a ceiling tonight.
This is only this is only short term. I >> and and and I'm up for election. I'm putting it on the line. >> I understand. I just don't look at it like that. But I understand the way you're looking at it. Um
and it you're you're not wrong. I am not we just look at it I think in different ways. But that's okay. I think we can uh Mayor Pro Tim, how how are you feeling? >> I'm good with 4.0 or or 4.5.
I'm not good with if we can't find the amount needed to cut that we end up having to spend 12,000 to mail something. I'm sorry, Adam, not for that. >> Agreed. Yeah, but if but if you think that we can find that um and and I do
agree that our expenses have gone off the charts in the last five six years. So that has to be for all of this to be fixed. It has to be addressed what we're spending.
>> The the attention needs to be the the jarring needs to be inward. Council Member King, it needs to be here. We've got They tked us, not out there. >> I understand. And I'm not I'm not I'm not offering that we
>> put a burden on them with with a high millage rate. I'm just trying to get to a ceiling tonight. >> I'm ready to go at four. I'm gritting my teeth at four and a half. >> You're I don't think in support of either one of those. >> No. And you need a unanimous vote. No,
we do not. >> For for tonight's purposes, we don't need a unanimous vote. >> No, a majority can vote in a 10. >> Oh, okay. All right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'm not polling, but if anybody we I just hope the motion goes through. There is one on the floor. Um but I want
to respect um Council Member Willis. I think you you had expressed I'd love to be at four. You just said >> be working for that. >> Yeah. >> Don't think I could support it at this point. I understand that four and a half
is what I think mayor pro Tim you said or four but you don't want to be mailing um may I ask may I ask a question >> always um what um along with this uh proposed
millillage what I think it's it's important for council to to have in mind the uh timeline for rebuilding reserves as in how many number of years. >> Yep. I just wanted to have have council
have that in mind as well. I my thought is we're not going to get this in one year, but we absolutely need to have an emergency plan if something happens within the year that looks a little different than coming out of our own bank accounts. because if it happens
tomorrow, we know our situation today. So, we are going to need to to talk with our largest um and then I think we need to move towards uh sustainably and reasonably replenishing
that reserve within four years. And I'm not sure the number is as large and so maybe I mean it could be done less but if we're going to go to that full 2 months of and call operating and personnel every department it might
look more like five years or even six years because again that's going to put it on the taxpayers to put to replenish what got eroded down across 15 20 years in in a couple of years. So that's my thought
Joey is uh four years is probably but that doesn't mean year 0 to one you have an emergency plan. Maybe we can have a little bit at this rate at these we absolutely won't but and by year two we start putting money in. Um
I'm not sure exactly what it looks like. It doesn't say that you have to be there in year one year two. we were willing to suspend them. So, I don't have a problem with just uh put putting an honest approach and and we're in uh
if we're in violation, we're in violation. That's only as as good as the people are upset with us. And I think uh that's my thought. Any other thoughts on Joey's question?
If it was 500,000 on four years and we had two and two million and that put us at 17%, I'd be happy with that. I think that could operate critical services for 2 months. Uh just for reference, um the
neighboring city of Coco, they have very strong um reserve policies. They have a a 3month policy where they assign money basically to not touch it and they compared to our two months, they have three months and they they reference
being um a coastal community where risk is a little higher for um a natural disaster. So just want to >> Cocoa Beach. >> I'm sorry. City of Coco. >> Coco. >> City of Coco. >> See, that's interesting. The GFOA, we as the city attorney pointed out, we have a
more restrictive policy where we allocate the unassigned. That's a whole another hurdle. Our reserve policy that that we were presented was combining the assigned and the unassigned. Unassigned was zero. Assigned was a number. So if
GFOA says the assigned is sufficient enough to run operations, don't we have some assigned today? >> Um, yes. >> Okay. So we're in compliance with GFOA and we're not in compliance with our very strict policy that is what I would
say a need to have since it's been a policy, but that it was based on the intent intent of a nice to have. It's a need to have. Don't hear me say anything else, but it's a nice need to have. If that means sense, if if crap at the fan or something bad happened, we have some
assigned money we could repurpose to to get through. >> That is correct. >> That's why we heard the GFOA, not this year. Every you guys are good. You have your two months. And so we are jumping on a big hurdle. That's why I don't feel this major
urgency to to do two years worth in in two years. >> To confirm, we have about $500,000 in um committed um money, >> but that's unrestricted. Does that go
into the the calculation of the 16.7? >> It would. >> Okay. Okay. So that it would be 500,000 divided by however large um our operating expenses are. >> Do you have any idea of what the 500,000 what we would have to give up of the
committed to like that doesn't okay I mean the committed um is that like ARPA money a little bit left over or
It is made up of um yeah about 50,000 in ARPA capital equipment renewal and replacement 385,000. So that is a trillion. >> Oh wow. >> Yeah. So that's >> that's um there uh recreation expansion
about 50,000 police expansion about 35,000. All that adds up to about 500,000 and that is committed money which is within uh city attorney please confirm the committed money is within
the the council's ability to re reassign basically >> it takes a higher legislative authority I think whoever basically committed it has the authority to uncommit it is my understanding of it >> can you elaborate on what the capital
equipment is the 300 and something thousand What does that specifically entail? >> That would go into any expenses where um to to really maintain to for renewal and replacement of a capital
um capital expenses, capital equipment throughout the city. See, that's that's why we heard positive tones, I think, from the auditors. Again, doesn't fix art. When I go back to 2008, I applaud them, but that was just a different time.
We're going to do it. We're going to do it. Uh, I like it. I think that there was wisdom in it. But to say we are not safe today or, you know, things are bankrupt or we're not, that's not what's happening. We are safe today. We actually got a little bit of cash,
500,000, which exceeds any hurricane expense we've ever had to my knowledge. Right there. That's the I went back through some of the FEMA. >> I don't know of any time. So, but if something bigger happens, >> god forbid a meteorite or rocket
explodes or something crazy here, a major tsunami, even though we're tsunami ready or something like that happens, right? >> You like we're going to have bigger problems. >> Don't we have insurance for such >> contingencies?
>> We want the 11,000 sign. >> Yeah. Yeah. And we got insurance. [clears throat] I'm just trying to say I don't I'm not approaching it like a wild hair burning pants on fire. Oh my gosh. Crazy, right? It's the 20% needs to be
restored. The code needs to be respected. But I think if the ones who voted that in were sitting here today, uh they could not deny that the the the committed funds and all that
was a part of the recommendation or the GFOA as well. And so either way, four years, Joey, I think uh and we are probably at the 17.6% 6% are getting well if we have we don't have any
assigned >> um no not not at this point but um >> okay >> um auditors can uh use committed in that calculation or I believe Gatsby um sorry if I'm confusing it's Gatsby or the GFOA
language they they call it uh restricted it's made up of committed assigned and unassigned >> yep >> so that committed is 500,000 about But that committed of or all of those which is 500,000 compared to what we're
calling our our operating expenditures roughly $18 million. Now that 500,000 divided by $18 million is about 3%. Okay. So we're about 13% off but we have
13.7% off from what was and it's midyear. It's a snapshot. They say you're supposed to determine compliance with this during the uh budgeting process, which is after the audit. So, we'll see where audit is, but we good to know that we do have control over
500,000. And um don't want to have to use that. We want to keep it committed. We um is there any other question, Joey, or does anybody else want to talk about that? >> I have a question. >> Yes, Council Member Willis. on all these
calculations you've just been giving us, we're not we're not factoring in the possible $500,000 loan. >> That is correct. >> Prize. Okay, >> good question.
[snorts] >> Absolutely. So knowing those resources, Joey, I think as you're looking at the finances at the city is over the next year, we got our other funds. We might have a
little cash. We hope to not have to spend one penny of it. Keep them committed. I'd like to keep waste water and waste water and use it. But the reality is is what it is today. And this will be the lowest point I think we've ever been. But it's the first time we
actually turned around and started heading in the right direction. And so I think it's going to go like this and and even no matter what happens with with the amendment, we are going to have to rethink I think how we how we fund cities as a whole.
But I'll be ready to to do that. I'll have one more budget to vote and I would be totally fine with um the millage rate that's on proposed. Um but if if if it's 4 and 1/2 that that
that gives us the comfort fine. Um I I I will I will support that if that's makes it feel better. I I don't think we should push ourselves too much
further. So, $2 million, $2.8 million deficit with the motion on the floor right now. I believe we can cut. We got a little bit of money. We got potentially a fund transfer. We can make some decisions
that were were brought up. We've got partners, we got fees, got internal ideas. Do we want to stay at the four? >> I just go to 4.5 just so we have a little cushion.
>> That sounds >> so will the council allow me to amend my motion to set the millage rate at 4.50 >> before going through those theatrics. Does that >> we don't have to have everyone. If you genuinely don't feel good about 4.5, you
should not support that. I am not thinking that. I think I I can totally live with that at this hour. Okay. So, I I amend my motion and the new motion is to adopt a millage rate of
4.50 for the general fund. Got a motion to amend. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Got a second. A motion by council member Shoryak to amend the main motion seconded by
Mayor Pro Tim Jackson. The main motion was 4.0. The amendment was 4.5. Any discussion on the amendment to the main motion? Seeing none, city clerk, please call the role on the amendment to the main
motion. >> Amendment. Mayor Prom Jackson >> for. >> Council member King >> against. >> Mayor Morrison >> for. Council member Sharia >> four
>> and council member Willis >> against >> the amendment to the main motion changing it from to the uh from 4 to 4.5 passes 3 to two and we're back to the main motion as amended. Is there any
further discussion on 4.5? City clerk, please call the role. >> Mayor Prom Jackson, >> four. >> Council member King, >> against. >> Mayor Morrison, >> four. >> Council member Shiaak, >> four. >> And council member Willis
>> against. >> The motion as amended passes. Three, >> two, >> two. Yes. Thank you. 4.5 even. >> Mayor, >> what about the library?
>> Yeah, just a little house cleaning. So, obviously the critical issue that took up most of the evening was establishing a proposed um millage rate for the general government millage rate. >> So, you you've have a preliminary
decision of 4.5 mil. So, what's up now is that the council um needs to adopt the resolution. There's a resolution number 2026-09 that needs to incorporate that 4.5
uh proposed millillage. And as you noted that with respect to the library, there was some discussion, but the resolution already contains a proposed millage of 0.0410 0410 and um I haven't heard any discussion
about changing that. So um Joey would just have to calculate the percent above the roll back rate with respect to the um 4.5 general millage rate. In addition, [clears throat] what you the council has
to do is also decide um and I think you've already decided but it's needs to be put on the record that uh the schedule for proceeding with the millage rate adoption process. um is set forth
in the agenda item and that schedule is the tenative millillage and tenative budget hearings are September 3rd, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. That's the first public hearing and the second public hearing which will appear on the notices to
taxpayers is uh scheduled for September 15, 2026 at 6 p.m. And that's for final adoption of the tenative uh final adoption of the millage and the budget. >> Okay. >> Get a motion from the council to approve
the resolution and confirm that that's going to be the uh schedule so Joey can submit this information to the tax collector. >> Okay. So I just want to make Oh, got it. Are those dates that you stited or cited already in the resolution?
>> Uh no, they're not in the resolution. >> Do they need to be? They usually are. Um, so I mean we can be put into the resolution. Just >> I'm not I'm if it's legally required. I'm not saying >> I prefer, frankly, I prefer to have it in the resolution because it's one
document, but you know, we could simply add another section to the resolution putting those uh hearing dates in there. Um, just so it's >> date and time. >> Yes, the date and time that's in the agenda item. It just needs to be I think copied into the resolution.
>> Agenda item. all the flurrying around. You get the actual resolution though. I I've miss I somehow fumbled myself up here. >> It's in the It's 2026-09. It's in the >> Oh, I got it. >> In the package there.
>> I think I got Yeah, I just misplaced it. Thank you. Okay, so this Well, okay, it's here in front of us. So before we uh make that motion to basically we we as the city attorney said we got to that rate that was just for the general. Joey, are you working
or do you need some more time to calculate what you want to do with the library rate? Are you going to proportionally increase it? >> Um I was planning on having the library rate at that uh 0410
and just keep it at that. >> Okay. And we did that one year. shows up weird on the appraiser. It's like one of them says the same. But it city attorney is calculation or will that work okay if we keep it? I
just need that number. 0410. >> Mhm. >> Section three of the resolution. >> Then I don't >> right there up on the screen. >> Okay. All right. Council. So, if we're paying attention, we got basically a couple of dates and confirming these
numbers and then we can I think in one motion adopt this whole resolution. Is that right, city attorney? >> Yes. With the changes that reflect the 4.5 general government millage rate and also section one's going to have to be changed because the total uh millage
would be 4.5 plus the library rate would be 4.5 410 right? >> Mhm. That would be the total millage that's being proposed and then the roll back rate Joey can calculate after the meeting and throw it into the
resolution. It's just a calculation. Okay. So, working from section one down that top section one 10 mills needs to go to 4.5410. Correct.
>> Section two needs to be amended to 450. >> Correct. >> Roll back rate. All that's fine. And then we're not messing with the section 3.0410. And that where do you want to incorporate the dates? >> And I would just put the dates in
section four and make section four number five. >> Yes. And those dates are September 3rd, 20. Is that right? >> September 3rd, 5:30 p.m. and September
15th at 6:00 p.m. >> All right, council. So, basically nothing new on the millillage. We just uh work that through. If we're okay with not changing the library rate, no changes there. We got the two dates,
September 3rd and the 15th. The 3rd is at 5:30. The 15th at six as stated by our city attorney. Are we okay with that? Those changes to this resolution and our city attorney can I think word it. Is that
If so, city attorney, can we just make a motion as discussed? >> Please. >> Looking for a motion. make a motion to adopt uh resolution number 2026-09 as revised. >> I'll second that motion.
>> Got a motion by council member Shoryak and a second by Mayor Pro Tim Jackson. Any further discussions on the adoption of the resolution 20269? City clerk, was all that clear? >> Yes, the resolution is amended. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Um, Mayor Prom Jackson or Council Member King >> or Council Member Mayor Morrison >> four. >> Council member Sharia >> four. >> And council member Willis >> four. >> All right. Resolution 202609 passes 50
as amended. And if that is it, I think we will have no push back on adjourning. I want to touch base. City manager. Is there anything before we do? >> Nothing further. Mayor, >> city attorney or city clerk?
>> Right. Dates in September. >> Yep. We got September 3rd, 2026, 5:30, and then September 15th at 6 p.m. >> Mhm. Yeah that's good.
Joey, thank you sticking with us dealing with our questions. Council, any reports? Anything? I know it's been a long one. >> Thank y'all. Appreciate you all. Okay, with that meeting adjourned. Joey, you're used to late nights, aren't
you? Mhm.