--------- for. Yeah, we got $23,945. Um, general government 16,000. Are are you following me? Is everybody everybody following me? >> On page 61. So, yes, Mayor, we did get it. We didn't spend those because that's what this money is going in our
investment accounts. And if you look on the sheet that comes on your monthlies, you will see the balances in those investment accounts. And those things have grown. >> Okay. So it was what it would show is there was 589,000. >> Mhm. >> So where does that show up on this
spreadsheet? I guess >> it's not going to it's it that this this is a uh this compilation doesn't mean that it was spent. This this um >> well it's just the general fund is the spreadsheet. Is that >> right? And these are revenues. So what
I'm saying is to cross reference where this money is sitting is in the investment accounts. No, >> we haven't spent it. >> There's nothing to spend it on. So that's >> Does that Does that make sense to everybody? >> It's 1,600,000
in 2022 on the on page 61 under transportation fees. It has nothing in there for 2022. >> So I'm just trying to >> Well, yeah. page 15 of the spreadsheet
that they uh provided us with today, the big one, >> there's the impact fee fund 107 that is referencing page 61. And I think that that became a new line item. And if we were to fill in those blanks with those
gaps when you're looking at the five-year, yeah, we would put 600,000 probably twice. >> Yes. because then that would affect the average. >> Yeah. >> And would probably bring it up. >> Um >> so we are
>> realizing that revenue whenever the county pays, >> right? And at this point, the only thing we're spending this year is the 1.2 million on our projects. Everything else is sitting in the investment account just acrewing interest. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> Got it. Um one other question. Uh, and I know you all talked about this at the last meeting and I was trying to follow it. My question is about the local option gas tax, how that went down. And
then if you look down further on this spreadsheet, >> it has um municipal gas tax. >> Why is there two? And how did it I mean I understand that they take a general calculation or whatever but
have they seen the gas lines and round here >> with chips and seven 10,000 people here on >> I know it's based but it's based on computations that are specific from the state and from the consumption of gas and based on the gas prices and um yeah
sometimes it's hard to figure if the price of gas goes up. Why doesn't the entitlement go up? It's it's a little bit tricky. You know, the state used to print a a book when I got here in 2012 and 13, and you could look in that book,
and it would tell you how all this stuff was computed, and then it's interesting that the state doesn't provide that book every year. I I can't remember the last time the state did that, which would be more clear because council could look at it and say, "Well, this is how the local
option gas tax works." But um that's not readily available. So what happens is sometimes we get these uh reports from the state and it'll say all the cities are uh loaded and it'll say Cape Canaveral
estimate that 261,000 you know whatever. But you got to really look behind that to see how they're computing that. So that's not real straightforward and it could be confusing. But the fluctuation of gas prices definitely and surely would um
you know affect what the rate is overall, >> right? And the difference between the local and the local option gas and a municipal gas tax. Why >> why is there two >> one's based on a sales tax and the other
one the municipal gas tax I believe and I might have them invert it then might be based on consumption. So there's two different things going on there. >> Well, I think that's brings up the point that there's an increase
in the municipal gas tax, but there's a big decrease in the local option gas tax. So I mean that might be the way it works if they're based on two different but >> Oh, they're based on different. is a big drop and I think I hope that that's not
true and there's a chance that I mean these are predictions >> uh that that local option gas tax which has steady been over 300,000 350,000 will not fall $100,000 um
>> decrease and I think we're seeing an increase in the municipal gas tax so maybe that It is the municipal gas tax for uh tax on gas services to people's homes and
local option gas tax for sales tax on the purchase of gas. Is that what we're looking at, John? >> It's motor fuel sales and it's a local tax imposed by the county on municipal. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Okay. That that's all I have for right now. I just wanted to get that straight in my head. Thank you. >> So, does that I have one question on that as you answer that city manager. So, if both of these are lo are related to
petroleum, let's say, do we have a tax on gas? Because we do have a franchise fee for or a franchise agreement for gas provider. Do we charge a tax for that? I don't believe so, but I would look
into that and get back to you. So, your question specifically is do we charge an additional tax on top of the the county imposed fuel tax? >> Well, if the that's what I'm trying to determine is the county um fuel tax on
petroleum or natural gas that's provided to a home that has gas in it. >> No, it's it's for motor vehicles. >> Okay. So if we don't have that um if if it is not to people's homes >> for person you know residential use
let's say um we do have a a franchise agreement on gas >> uh services for our city. So is there a tax on that gas coming to the city >> like we have on electric
>> on electric on communications as far as phone business on cell phone service on all those the taxes are built in. So if we don't have a tax on that gas then we're missing an opportunity there. Bottled gas utility tax.
>> I'm sorry. Be bottled gas. >> Bottle. Bottle. Are you speaking of bottled gas? >> Gas to the home. Anybody loads their tank. >> Natural gas to the home. >> Natural gas. >> Like a gas >> to the home. >> Yeah. Like you have a gas or gas dryer.
>> You know what? Uh, a lot of this is tangled in uh to each other. Um, >> we'll take a note take a note down and we'll we'll >> we'll take a look at that. I don't think so. >> Another issue, mayor. >> But >> but we have Florida or the gas. Yeah. >> And here's the reason that I asked,
mayor, as you're saying that, >> almost every hot tub in this city that is in a condo complex has gas. >> That could be the municipal gas tax >> and they pay for that gas. >> Yeah. So well if if city manager correct
saying that's for petroleum services like I go fill up a car and the municipal gas tax is at as well as a local tax on that which could be what I would like to know is do we have a tax on municipal gas service that we have a
franchise fee >> to >> or or hotels or these >> because they have gas stoves I think >> I think those those nicer kitchens like you see the lady ladybird and the high, >> they're going to have high-end kitchen
>> local option. >> So that if we're not if we don't have a tax on that, we're missing that opportunity because we're providing the service for it. >> Yeah. Well, we'll we could we could validate that, but there's I mean there's multiple. You have your local
option gas tax, you have your municipal, and then you have your local halfsent sales tax. So, um let us look into that and then we'll be able to to definitely uh find out >> that we're receiving something for that.
I can't believe we don't get anything for that either. I'm a little bit I'm a little bit >> bottled gas tax though is a state imposed on LPG liqufied petroleum, right? That's your propane. >> That is what that is. Are you suggesting a city imposed tax on top of that?
>> No, I'm I'm proposing that the city impose a tax or propo put a tax on ga na liquid gas delivered to those restaurants. Yeah. >> The hotels that have gas stoves. Um, anyone that ha that's a commercial
property has a ga a gas heated hot tub or pool. >> Isn't that propane or LPG? >> Not all of them. >> Okay. >> So, it's with the franchise agreement of our gas vendor like FPL the franchise fee. >> Absolutely. >> And that gas vendor is we just redid
their contract when I first got on and so it's it's due to be renewed in like 2026. But everywhere that I've lived had a tax for the natural gas service to your home or to your business or
residence if you were if you had gas appliances. >> And John, you know, when if you go to Cocoa or wherever and get gas, which is 50 cents cheaper than it is on the beach. >> Yeah. Um, there's a sticker on the gas
tanks that says city of Cocoa tax. We don't have that here. Is there another tax that they're the city itself is putting on the I mean, as far as looking for revenue, these are places that we >> might want to find out about. Aside from
the three sources that we're looking at here, I don't know of any, but I'll get I'll get a definition um based on what council member um Jackson I have to look at the name sometimes because I you know I got a lot
on my mind. But anyway, um Council Member Jackson asked and we'll see if um we'll see where that where that is. >> And I just asked AI >> Chesapeake Utilities. Yeah, it is Chesapeake. >> Thank you. Chesapeake >> the ches we do have a chess well
Chesapeake is >> natural gas >> the >> we do get chess no Chesapeake's a revenue yeah >> a municipal gas tax is a charge imposed by local governments on gasoline purchases so that's gasoline purchase
>> filling up at the pump >> municipal is the the Cumberlands the chevrons the race track >> and the local gas tax varies uh by state and locality. In Bvard County, the
current gas tax is 6 cents per gallon. Um and let's see, it just tells how it impacts the consumer there. So, it definitely be worth looking at that. What is that local gas tax? Because it is definitely
at the pump. So, it looks like we don't have a gas tax for our uh liquid natural gas service through Chesapeake. >> Council member Willis, what were you gonna say about Chesapeake? Because they changed, it gets a little confusing because it wasn't always Chesapeake.
They changed the name a few years back and >> they were acquired. >> Chesapeake Utilities >> franchise >> franchise franchise. So, >> Chesapeake Utilities is gas. >> Is gas. Okay. So, that may be where the answer is. So yeah, well that's that's
>> yeah where the natural gas is being collected, >> right? And we that when I got on is when they changed because that was one of the first things I voted on with you guys was that change of uh franchise from
Florida City Gas to Ches Peak. You know, the municipal gas too, as it refers, it's a natural gas supplied and distributed by a utility system that's owned and operated by a municipality as opposed to a private investorowned company. These public gas systems serve
residential, commercial, and industrial customers within their local communities offering acting. Oh, that's Alfieactin is a nonprofit entity accountable to citizens >> like a marina you see sometimes. But >> yeah, so >> okay. Well, I think I am fully aligned
with the revenue. Are there any other comments on that? >> Well, just back to the municipal gas tax. Wouldn't it be up to this council to impose that? If you wanted to have a tax on gas sales within the city, that would be up to this body, would it not? >> I the the the Florida law regulates
taxation. So, the city can only impose taxes that the Florida legislature says the city can impose. And under 166, this the legislature gives the city the authority to impose certain types of c uh taxes on like electricity, meated or
bottled gas, natural or liqufied petroleum or manufactured, water service, fuel, oil, and of course telecommunication services. So the city has enacted a public service tax under section 70.26 of the code. So the city's
already doing that. where that money ends up in your budget. I have no earthly idea. Um but it seems to be uh this the city code appears to be consistent with um the provision under the home rule section under 166 of the
Florida statutes about the limitations of taxes. So that's all in there. There appears to be a fuel tax not to exceed which is 4 cents per gallon for fuel oil, whatever that fuel oil um is. And
that seems to be consistent with the Florida statute that max says the maximum fuel oil tax is 4 cents per gallon. So you may want to look into it that the city's probably already doing it where it goes in your budget. Again, I have no earthly idea.
>> I'll get >> Yes, absolutely. Thank you. >> Okay. Yes. Thank you. uh to everyone in city attorney as well if if we're utilizing it under state law if there's room to
increase I think you've heard a willingness to consider that and u yeah our city attorney's guidance on anything we're not doing maybe that state of law would allow could open up new revenue streams. >> Yeah, absolutely. and definitely need to
make sure that it's in on par with any other taxes for services like electricity and communications tax if it has make sure that the increases that we've seen there you know that it's >> Mhm. >> barely in line because we may not have
looked at that in a while. >> It's excellent. Okay, we're working through it. We're at 4:15 p.m. Uh, our CRA meeting is at 5:30 p.m. Uh, if everyone's
I think we focused on some of the the revenue. U if we could jump to some of the yellow highlighted costs. Uh, the first one on page three, legislative
cuts. Let's see uh $20,680. Um, I think that the proposed amount originally was $86,000. $86,690. The average was 50,000.
And so we said, you know, I proposed 60,000 which is over the average 10,000 over and it when I'm reading I guess that's the total. Oh, I see. So the city staff I
think went and looked at this. They saw the elections and highlighted it at 20,680 and stated there will be no election. So, this was able to be taken out. So, if I'm reading this correctly, um this
would be an example of $20,000 that our city staff has looked at for that specific line item and said we could reduce this >> 20,000 680, >> right? And as we go through these, mayor, I I don't know if because maybe
you don't want to have to go back, but if council when council's talking about this, it's because we're going to have to adjust this budget completely once we know what all the cuts are. So if at this time when if council, you know,
agrees, you could be telling us as we go along that you're okay with us taking out the 2680. So, um, because there's no election, we need to know that because tomorrow we will go in and adjust this
budget. What whether there's 150,000 of cuts or 100,000 or whatever it is. Uh, but we need to know that going along because we're not going to have time to be going back saying, well, did you really want to take that out? So, I think we need that guidance in this workshop. So in that one there was um
yes I think I if there's no election I think that striking that down would be good and whether or not >> what we do with that if we take it out of the budget if we move it I think but >> we would naturally think that
>> that's not needed there. So for the sake of efficiency during this meeting, if we can just get a majority consensus approved, cut that, we'll list it and we'll be able to modify the budget after this day is over. Yep. So is there consensus on that? >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Yes. Council, the $20,680. >> Any opposed? Hearing none. I hear consensus. So, uh, just above it there, I think the other side of that is this is one
that city staff and agreed could be removed, but the other ones like uh travel and PDM and equipment maintenance and office supplies, when I looked at the averages
uh, We average 5,300 in travel perdm. Now it's 14,000. We average 10,000 in equipment maintenance. Oh, that actually reduced 2500. Um, okay.
I I think that's 500. That's insignificant. And then yeah the the travel in PDM it's there's no desire to staff is not recommending to reduce that.
>> That's correct. Uh mayor and council travel and pdeium is directly in conjunction with training opportunities and we value training very highly here. It's what evolves our employees in their fields and we just really don't want to cut any training and travel that and
pretty affiliated with that unless council really would like to direct that. >> Got it. And I think this is a lot of our this is legislative. This is Florida legacy. >> Oh, that's for legislative. Okay. >> And so um
let's uh we're talking about we got 20,000 I think we've all agreed on. And I wanted to jump back to those green highlighted as well. Let's go to the next one that city staff if we if we could go to
page five building cuts. It am I seeing I think 1700 uh which where did where would the 1700 come from? the the memberships and training
proposed was 9500. >> Yeah. I did not even recommend really anything. I I think I said $1,000 by cutting office supplies by 500 and motor fuel and lubricants by 500. Is are
there any recommended cuts here from city staff? I mean, that's what that department uh came with up with, you know, that they felt like if they were going to cut something >> that could be cut. Um, >> that's okay.
>> It's not something we want to really >> It's small. I And I didn't Okay. >> Think so. I mean, unless council I want to just go to the next yellow. Let's go to page six. >> All right. >> And actually, they total up page six. on
page seven. So I'm seeing in the infrastructure maintenance budgeted expenditures there was uh proposed 3,261,000. Uh the average has been a million. So it
was 1 point or 2.2 2 million more in infrastructure maintenance this year than the 5-year average. So I in I went through and found 3.2 2 basically 122,000 there that green that
was totaled up and those items are all I think noted in here and if I understand this the department went in and said yes we can do it but largely uh if expenditures exceed the budget it will require a transfer to contingency
and as our city manager I think has explained and so with these I when I looked at what's being ex
I I think we are taking a budget that's averaged a million dollars and we're saying hey here's 3.1 million. So it's not a reduction in the budget. It it was
requested to have 3.2 2 million. And so I think if we can find get comfortable with the 122 thou or the 109,000, it looks like there was a few that they did not highlight in yellow and made comments on. I'm fine, I think,
with that. The risk of contingency. The one comment I'll say on that is we don't want to do I think the projects even if they're easy wins. I think the higher priority projects first so that if we get down to the end of the road and one of them's over budget I'd rather not get
a smaller lower priority project done and use the funds so that they don't have to borrow from contingency. But uh that might be easier said than done. Council, what do we think about that? uh page six and 7 those IM
totaling 109,250. >> I would be good with that. >> Any anything that we can do to not touch contingency? >> Okay. >> My preference. >> I'm I'm a little confused on the the message here. What is it you're
recommending? Um, >> so the total IM cuts uh in yellow on page 7 says 109,320. >> Correct. >> I had originally put 122,000, but they made statements and and
obviously having the knowledge of the department and the city. I did not recommend them. I think council member Willis the first to chime in said he's okay with the cutting the 109,250 out of the 3 3,261,000
the total budget will be 3,139,000 which is 2.2 million higher than the average but we are getting consensus on 109,250. >> Thank you. Now, if we want to spec specify those, uh, you know, as
highlighted, uh, it's the building grounds maintenance. I'm sorry, overtime. It was the first one, $3,111 up at the top. I'll let the um, the reason why is it's average $978
in overtime and this year we had $5,100. But there might have been some some good reasons for that. Maybe uh it's expected. I hope we don't have to have we've done a great job from what I can see managing overtime, but the budget would be $2,000 instead of 4,100, which
is double than what we've averaged. Um not a lot of money, but well, it's 3,100. Then the 33,000 on building grounds and maintenance. Uh obviously we can see
it's 118,000. We're suggesting 85,000. So that would be $33,925. Um, city staff's provided that the same response here
will implement the recommendation of expenditures exceed budget will require transfer from contingency. And going down, equipment maintenance 8939, office supplies, 147. And every single one of these are
higher budgets increases from the average. So we're not reducing. I know I've said that a few times. We're just uh taking it down to not be as high of an increase. Uh the streets, sidewalks,
mobility, traffic light repair. We've got I think good budgets there. Street lights, we've averaged $12,000. The request was $71,000. We're giving 50,000, which is five times the amount
of money we've averaged. The street signs 4,100 is what we've averaged. we got $10,000 as opposed to the $44 uh,000. So that's a significant $34,000 reduction. You add all that up, you end
up with 109,000. And the motor, fuel, and lubricants and small tools, it looks like um city staff does not recommend to cut those. Kind of in the middle there. And I'll let any comments if we're >> No, that's that's good. And the way I
understand it is you'll be recommending the 109,000 uh the specific cuts that we identified. So if we need consensus on that and then >> and I think it's better to do the department in a batch and not read every line item but as highlighted noted.
Okay, >> city manager, I know you may I was not being clear. Is that >> Oh, oh, it does. It just, you know, staff is recommending those cuts, but it comes with that condition of those highlighted in red in those specific
line items. Yeah, I think we have to work really hard to not go over budget and if a surprise comes, uh I think the best way to handle it is, you know, consist consistent communication and give the
council a chance to maybe get in front of it and uh transfer outside of departments if that's recommended by our finance and our city manager thinks it's a good idea. But um
Council Member Jackson, >> no, I'm agreeing with you. And you know, like I'm thinking of these street signs and looking at that budget and I do see where we've cut that is that is good, but still some of them are really high
big increases. So, um, you know, once again, I'm wondering, you know, because we had talked about maybe putting an inflationary increase on the majority of them and use that as a calculation. So, I'm not sure on some
of them, you know, why they need to go up that much. Um, but I do agree with you on >> Well, if we take the 109,250, which it sounds like you're okay with that, you're questioning potentially
others, plus the 20,680. I think we can come back to this if we need to. >> Um, Mayor Jim Clark is here. If you want any perspective on any of those items, you know, you're talking street signs,
uh, you know, what's the rationale behind the amount for that particular item. There was a comment about sidewalks in a previous meeting. You know, just reminding you that she's here if you or and all the department heads are here if you'd like to seek their input.
>> Thank you very much. I think it would be best that we jump to the next big department and come back to IM and take advantage of that for the sake of time. I'd rather kind of instead of digging too deep in one department, we've got our city staff saying here
here's a hundred too, but comes with some risk and uh council member Jackson's if if we want to circle back, we can. But do I have any >> opposition or consensus on the 109,250?
>> Yes, consensus. >> We have consensus hearing none. So I think that'd be the second uh number. We finished legislative. We've agreed to not touch uh building departments. We've uh
accepted the infrastructure maintenance. And now I think we need to go to page um >> eight. >> Well, yeah, I see page nine
>> and it looks like the there's the it does not recommend any cuts. So, uh, on if I if I'm reading that correctly, on page 10 begins the perka
parks, recreation, community affairs. The first one, uh, the 14,000 for professional services. Um I I'm not going to go through each one of these, but the total
uh on page 11, and we can certainly go back. The average has been 1.1 million. We heard from our director last time about some changes and reasons why there were some increases. The proposed is 1.8 million.
My recommendation was to cut 79,000 and take it from 1.1,840,000 to 1,760,000. Staff had a chance to review that. And it looks like I don't know if it's a little over, but uh we would have to go
through and read and we obviously have directors here to explain that. But the highlighted yellow uh items, it's easier to say the ones they did not recommend. The building grounds and maintenance or 5700
uh office supplies, operating supplies, athletic leak supplies, uh those they did not recommend, but looks like they added in capital infrastructure $225 and then the batting cage for $10,100.
So four or five they did not recommend and provided their explanations but uh they added a little over $10,000 with largely the batting cage and pitching machine to make up
80,651. So I think we would need to go through these and um make sure we're okay. I think starting with the yellow first and as council member Jackson said and I am we could do the same here if if we think
that's good. City manager did I capture that section and finance director? >> Maybe not perfectly but >> no you did well. The largest one is the PAL program expenses
and that actually was a so offered though in this is you know the PAL program which was discussed last meeting and in conjunction with that was the reindeer run potentially not doing that uh moving forward. That's a 15,000
expense and requires you know volunteers um that were originally a affiliated with the PAL program. We can certainly absorb some of that, but there would be we would have to make a concerted effort as a city to gain support from the community, contributions and things of
that nature if this uh run were to continue. >> Thank you. I want to take uh the promotional activities. It's in the middle there. Um do we see that one? It's $6,000 in
yellow, kind of in the middle of the pack. >> So, this one we've averaged 3500 >> in the past. The first green number, the requested amount is 18,000. >> So, just as a reminder, mayor, I think computing that there's a couple of COVID
years in there uh that really skew that number on promotional activities. >> That's helpful. Yes, I do remember that. I want to >> and that applies to other activities that that that department conducted to
2020, 2021 and 2022 are all affected by CO. >> So those are good points and I 1152 I just want to get lined up. I've got the same version uh Mayor Perim Kellum that shows
all the columns to point out what our city manager was saying promotion or >> same same with special events same comment >> promotional activities 0 and you know 20 or 190 obviously March of 2020 all the
way through 21 there was no expenditures for promotional activities things started ramping up a little under 2,000 I I guess that'd be in 23 then next year and then 7,024
and I think this year we've spent 8700 or maybe I could be wrong because I don't have my column headers and the requested amount is $18. 18,000
and so the recommended no 23 well I'm jumping now boy um 18,000 I was correct promotional activities and then
last year though is the number I'm trying to figure out for promotional activities. >> Well, if we just compute the average of those two years, >> yeah, >> 6981 plus 8715, >> um,
that might be a better figure to go by, >> I think. So, so >> 7,800 is the average. >> Okay. 7,800. Thank you, Council Member
Willis. And is the average and we've got 15,000 proposed. So that's double the average. The recommendation was to bring it down. Oh, uh the recommendation was to bring it down.
>> Not at all. I just said keep it at 18,000. So they're coming in saying, "Hey, this is one that they can do fewer promotional activities." But I guess my comment here is we've averaged 7,800.
So I'm not saying you necessarily do less. Um I think we could do 7800. Um, and when I apply that down I think that's
if we can do 6,000 I I think that's great, but I would not want to reduce reduce if we don't have to, especially if we're disproportionately This is a good example of why going back to maybe I am is most of these budgets
increase. Uh while it is reduced from what was proposed, uh this is one that promotion's important. Uh council member Jackson. >> Yes, I have a question. Okay. So, as I'm
looking at this, we were looking originally at um pro well, we're talking about promotional activities. And then in our last meeting, we were looking at um let me see
what's it. Yeah, special event expenses. And in both cases, they're just saying we'll just reduce this, right? which I understand you'd have to if you're looking at trying to reduce, but the special events expenses, we were told
that was Fridayf Fest bands and the crosswalk, right? I don't know if um John may be here. I'm not sure. Hi, John. Okay. Is there anything else in that, John? Besides,
>> yeah, for special events expenses. >> Uh yes, ma'am. Uh John Mayberry, deputy director parka. Uh we've got uh everything that's rolled up in Say Friday Fest. Uh for example, the band is a big one. The uh crosswalk, we have uh
portaotties that we provide for people to use out there. Um then supplies for the special events like the trunk or treat um and the holiday in the city event that we incorporated into the Friday fest in
December. >> Okay. >> We've got Yes, ma'am. >> There's uh courses, excuse me, choirs that we have come out. Um we rent some effects to try to create a sense of Christmas in Florida, which is not an
easy task. All right. But >> exactly. >> Okay. Then on the promotional activities, >> um Okay. So that's expenses related to Friday fest supplies for those special events, the Christmas uh event, the
trunker treat and any of those things. So on promotional activities, and I'm asking this because I was in marketing, so I'm trying to just understand >> um or I took marketing. So on it on the
promotional um what events are we promoting and what type of expenses do we have in this category? >> Well things are starting to increase u C5 we're starting to uh have more programs come along uh basketball more
things for the youth the summer camp um Sam off the top of my head what are some of the promotional >> if I'm not putting you on the spot the videos that were done like state of the city is that >> and
>> come to the front please. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> It takes two or three of us to make up for mom. >> She's a walking. >> Well, and that's understandable. >> I got a lot going on. >> Hi. >> Hi. Thank you.
>> Um sorry. Yeah. So there's a lot that comes out of the budget book itself as what how we keep a log. >> Um so Amy does a lot of promoting and there's also um as you were seeing um she now that I'm up here
>> right there there's a lot we can pull it up for you if you if you need just so you have like a a brief overview of all the expenses. I keep a log that's okay. So, so you keep the log. So, you might know some questions here for me or
that some answers for questions. So, um I know that when we promote things, we promote them here on our board. >> We do it on our website. What other ways do we use >> to promote it? >> It also takes care of the Adobe
programs. Um it also takes care of our email programs that we use. >> Um >> surveys. >> Surveys. There's a there's a a lot that's in depth. >> Okay. And see that's for me is good to know because otherwise it looks like
this big hole >> and our rec desk program as well which has increased. >> Oh your rec desk. Yes ma'am. >> Okay. >> That helps me. Thank you. And then uh so really you know it's it's got software in there. We've got you know the things
to support all those things. Um, is there any paid advertising and magazines or >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Explore. >> Explore. Yep. And then there's one every six months. >> Okay. Canal explore too. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. >> See that that helps me understand and makes it more real for me. So then the other one uh for special events um deputy director it jumped from 18 to an
estimate of 50,000. >> Is that 18? Excuse me ma'am. Is that based on the 5-year average? Is that the >> Yeah, that was the 5year average >> as a city manager alluded to. Uh Molly gave me some notes before she left. Um
and it a lot of that is due directly to the COVID period. Uh we did not there was no reporting of uh or it didn't include expenditures in the uh 19 and 20 budget. >> So that okay was not even accounted for.
>> So it that average is a downtrend right >> due to not having the activities during that pandemic. >> Right. It was like 2023 when we started ramping back up coming back to a full-time or attempted to come back to a full-time status. >> Okay, that would definitely
>> So those those numbers from those like three years there are not really accurate. >> Okay. Well, you just let me know. I'll sing it Friday for free. >> Okay. >> Everyone will run screaming. We'll we'll cut the check and have it
for you as soon as the last note rings out >> with the big zero. >> Okay. Thank you. That's what I had. >> So, I think yeah, you know, promotional activities if that includes or gives uh we we've average I think seven or
$8,000. It was at 18 instead of taking it to six. I you know if it if it makes sense to keep that even half it'll be more than last year say 9,000 you know that'd be the one of the little
changes and the the vehicle replacement I know I talked about this last time and we talked about uh the models I think 40,000 yeah cars are expensive but if
you go down to that EcoBoost four cylinder. I mean, it's showing $30,000. >> No, we agree. Uh we believe we can get a decent vehicle for 30,000. Um I would just reiterate to this council that vehicle is necessary for this department
and uh we really don't want to see it cut or reduce below 30,000 if we can avoid that. This department's done a pretty good job offering in excess of what was proposed or recommended. I'll be just about $700 more, but they they've really taken, you know, the the
mission to cut seriously. >> So, I think that on this Thank you, city manager. That's the last line item on this spreadsheet. Uh vehicle replacement total and uh 40,000 was the original request, cut
half at 20. We're saying third reduce it by $10,000 instead of and I think we would need to add that >> to the total cuz that was not one that was I think recommended
and let's take that one by itself. Are we okay with reducing the vehicle replacement from $40,000 to $30,000? >> I am, >> which would be $10,000. And then I'm just going to jump up at
the top and so we can try to knock out parka the first one. 14,000 professional services. I think the requested amount is 23,000. Instead of 23,000, we said 20,000 and I'm seeing 14,000 here.
And it says the art projects in the lecture series have been removed. The allotment for the artist residency program has been reduced from 10,000 5,000. Artist residency programs are designed to subsidize art programs to increase accessibility to programs for those unable to afford them. They also
provide an opportunity for working artists. So is this 14,000 here minus the 23,000? Is that what it's saying, guys? So I got a question on this one. is city staff
recommending or not recommending but saying highlighting that that new amount would be 14,000 or no it would be reduced by 14,000. >> Yes, that'd be reduced by 14,000. >> So it was 23,550
minus 14,000. She's reducing $14,000 out of that line item. That's what she's doing. >> Okay, >> that's her final number. Yep. >> Like 11,5. I think we're going to need to get make confirm that total. I'm
doing it old school up here, but I think sounds like it's going to need to be Well, if it's 14,000, we understand council that new amount isn't showing here, but it would be Yeah, about 9 10,000 roughly.
>> 9,000 9500. >> Yes. Council member Jackson. >> And I'm so sorry because this one's for John again. Have we has anyone used the kiln that we purchased one time even other than firing it up to
>> ma'am to my knowledge they have it has not other than the runup to make sure everything was working in it I know they're working on trying to uh bring our part-time employee Brandon over there >> is uh he may have started I know he's planning on taking instruction to be
able to uh operate and uh have some classes generated there. >> How much was that? Do you remember? I do not either, but I know that's an expensive item. >> It's sitting idle. Yeah. >> So, do we need a kiln
>> that's not being used? Yes, I know. And I actually like pottery, but if it's not being used, and that was put on when I first came on, >> I'd say it'd be prudent to look at all the city as their city managers getting settled in and work with the department
directors and think about, you know, things maybe with assets and there's a process for that. Okay, >> those are Sorry to interrupt. No, that's uh kind of after the fact things that if I support and are sometimes
uh a good idea. So, I think that's helpful. That professional services item at 20 Thank you, John. $23,550. If my math is correct, the
recommendation is reduce it by $14,000, which means the new item would be $9,550 to council. The budget factoring COVID what we learned and how that impacted really this department arguably greater
than any other. Uh 5,200 is what the average was. Instead of the 23,000, we're saying 9500, which is a little less than doubled and maybe less than and thank you for the explanation,
but that's still the first item totals 14,000 if we're going to vote on a total number. Um, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, sir. Council member, >> if we were to go ahead and add up what staff has recommended,
>> plus dropping that auto purchase by 10,000, >> we're looking at 90,651. >> Mhm. Okay. Thank you. 90,651. Factoring this >> added up added up every yellow item plus the 10,000. >> Are you you're not speaking of the total
cuts? We've talked throughout the meeting. >> No, >> no, just just this department. >> Okay. Yeah, because we are we're >> we're at 200,000 right now. Taking out the 10,000. So, >> yes, that math that's what I see and as
well. Mayor Pam Kellum, >> um the original uh cuts are 80,651. Is that correct? And that's taking out the batting cage. >> Well, yeah. They I did not recommend
removing the batting cage. Well, I think if we're cutting the professional services, >> why can't we keep the batting cage? >> That's what I was going to go. I'd like to do that >> and then we'd still be around the
80,000. >> Yeah, I think that would be or and we received some emails. We've had public comment from Mr. PL. Appreciate those. Those have been submitted. Uh if not, we'll make sure they are in the
city clerk and in the record. But the improvements on those athletic fields, >> you know, at a minimum, if we did not even want to do the batting cage, that those funds could be used for at least
improving the field to get it to that standard. I'm saying it's not as much about the batting cage as it is investing um in the ball fields. I think batting cage is a great idea. Uh but mayor pro Tim
>> well is there consensus on that batting cage >> basically that would take we're just council do we have consensus that another way to say it is we're reducing the vehicle from 40,000 to 10. I think we all agreed
on that. Mayor Pertim Kellum says instead of reducing it to get the number council member Willis said, we're going to basically keep it at 80,651 because we want to do the batting cage. >> Okay.
>> Hey, I thought the batting cage is in there. >> It is. >> It is. So, you're really taking it down even 10,000 more because you were at 80, you did the 10,000 for the car, you're at 70, and then you
just said you want We already have the 10 coming out for the batting cage. Now you want to put it back in. So, now you're at 60. >> No, I think those numbers go to Yep. >> Yeah. You're just switching the two. You're reducing the car by 10,000 and you're keeping the batting cage for just
over 10. So, it's almost a wash. So we're we're reducing your number by $100. 80,000. >> Correct. >> Net $100 less. >> Yeah. If we wanted to make the M. That's what I have.
>> You're putting 10 back in. And you're >> the car >> for the car. >> I mean, we could reduce 10,100 for the vehicle is another way. But that's >> So we're budgeting 30,000 for the vehicle. >> Right. >> Right. >> And not And
>> so you're not taking out 20,000, you're taking out 10,000. >> Yes. >> So that um >> you were at 79,000. So now you're only going to take out 10,000. >> So that pulls you back up to 89,000 and
you took the the 10 out for the batting cage to get you back to 80. Is that how you're looking at it? >> Yeah. The total amount is the yellow 80,651. >> We're reducing it. >> That includes >> the pitching machine. Council member Willis.
>> Right. Well, if we're putting the >> batting cage back into the budget, the total PRCA cuts Yes. >> are 80,000 551. Right. >> Correct. >> Uh what? >> No.
>> No. 70,551 >> minus the 10 for the car, >> but then you put the car back in and you bring it back to the number you just said. Yes. >> $80,551. >> All right, we're good. >> It's back and forth and in and out and
>> same same. >> Keep the batting cage. Take 10,000 off the the vehicle. We've got a number of 80,551. >> Yes. >> And you reduced the professional services too, right? that's already equated in there.
>> That 14,000 I just would wanted to point out what the budget would be, how much they would have. >> Um, >> yeah, and then 954 442 I think uh the the printing it looks like is the only
one uh that >> seemed very high, but again I know how CO would impact that. Uh but that's uh $5,000 reduced. Those uh reductions and then the summer wreck program, I
guess the PAL and summer wreck, the last two or any of those really that that we have not discussed. Are there any issues or concerns there? Council member Willis, just for the number that you have again, is it 80,551? >> Yes. If we're leaving U promotional
activities at 6,000, that's what it would be. >> City manager. And is that >> Yeah, that's the math. I would just ask uh John uh because you went way low on the promotional activities, well beyond what was being suggested. If you're good
with that number, then the council is going to accept it. But what I discussed with her yesterday. >> Okay, then we're good. >> I would most definitely like to see the reindeer run stay in >> that that Yes, that stays in. >> Yeah, it doesn't look like we're
removing that. That was just an item for discussion. >> These cuts will not impact or will not take away reindeer run funding. >> Um, >> the reindeer runs that
Right. >> But it's not >> where is it at >> recommendation for that u not having it this year just taking the one year off to rebrand. Um normally uh Miss Benny was responsible for going out and
getting the sponsorships, the donations and all that. And the city handled the logistics of everything. uh traffic control uh getting the facility set up. Um but you know she decided that she was going to retire and she always started
that portion the financial end of it back in June or early July. So we lost months there it would not be to the standard that it had been if we did it this year. That that's our opinion and we'd like a year >> and then come back. But but I do stand
correct that it is slated to be removed total totally removed >> because the total the total 28030 is equal to the proposed and that's what's being recommended for cut. So the reindeer run would have to put 15,000 back in there. So 28,00030
minus 15,000. >> May I >> assuming that is all reindeer run expenditures. All the 28,000 >> 15 request >> PRCA. Would you get me what the cost would have been >> to do the reindeer run
>> just to physically logistically put it on? Yes, sir. You >> I agree. I'd like to whatever that cost is keep if it's the 15 or >> I don't >> well well 15 is being earmarked so again it's being offered as a cut within the
28,000 >> well I can certainly understand the logistical issues you're going to have now >> t-shirts medals those type things that are included in it for >> you've got you've got basically two months to pull that off
>> and in that time we're also putting on Monster Mash. Uh >> yeah, >> getting preparing for holiday in the city. Um so it's our busiest time of the year. >> Well, I know there's going to be groups that are going to be very disappointed
that it's not running >> this year, but that will also emphasize the fact get involved with it. >> Right. >> This is a um an important issue to discuss for sure. They they have very limited time given what they're doing.
uh to do it to put it on. If the council wants it, then they're going to have to really work hard to make it happen. And the council we we've asked earlier well in individual meetings about assisting with you know raising sponsorship and so forth. So taking a year off is a viable
suggestion >> if there's like council member Willis says obviously there going to be people the runners that are going to be uh percentage of them are going to be disappointed but if we go out now it's not going to be the quality that has
been. We're just we're starting too late. We won't be at the same level and they're going to be more disappointed to my mind when they show up expecting it to be what it's been every year. And it it most likely will not be if we try to do it now.
>> But those funds for this year were already passed last year. >> No, >> we're talking about the 2026 here moving forward. >> Oh, it's in >> this will be 2026 because it's October 1st. >> Next year's budget >> next year's budget to be done in 20
>> October >> next year, but it'll be done in two weeks. >> Yeah. It's the same as the election in November that we cut because we don't need it in November. We're saying we He's recommending not doing this in December, this December.
>> And I'm I'm going to throw my two cents worth in here because it's not just the runners um that'll be disappointed. This is a huge event for our city. Um bigger than trunk or treat and that type of thing. It's one of the biggest things uh
for our city and we've always had it and I personally uh I'm like, "Oh no, I'm going to have this huge budget for parks and wreck and we can't pull off reindeer run." Although I understand what you're
saying. Okay. So, um, my question, Deputy Director, is Miss Betty, when she was doing the coordinating, um, and you said she got donations
and what other things were she did was she doing because I know it would put a hardship on staff, but I'm wondering if we could >> She handled she handled dealing with the local businesses and uh, personal uh, relationship. She had people that
donated. She coordinated with the I believe it's the running company that's your running zone that comes out with the uh clock and um and everything and but yes, she has the board set up. She gets uh she deals with universal just
all kinds of people and gets tickets and we have there's a raffle at the end of the race. Um >> you know we're just we won't be able to to do the quality. it won't be the same quality as what it's been >> to as far as the physical u act of going
out there and setting up cones blocking doing the traffic control uh coordinate with the fire department for Santa Claus to come all that stuff we can do for sure but you're talking about t-shirts and these things people that that's the things that are important to people the t-shirts the medals those type things
and you know we're coming in here now 2 months to start we didn't know that she was going to retire that this was not something that had been announced and uh planned months a you know ahead of time where we could have started preparing. >> I understand and I understand that it
would be difficult for you guys by yourself. I'm trying to think of creative ways that we could pull this off as a team all of us. >> What about um the running zone? What about a private company, you know, a promoter
>> and see that's that's a possibility too. So I think we all see the struggle that the reality of when the race is the big production, the the fact that Mary Jane handled so much of that and our city staff stayed busy in in other ways with
it to add that on. I get that. Um, I do like the idea of maybe if we don't have too much burden on staff thinking outside the box or it would be better to do it less without I mean just we can
only do what we can do and have a watered down version to not do it at all. Yeah. And it isn't just the runners. We do this goofy Ridgewood reindeer. We stand on the sides and we started getting people in Ridgewood to come out.
>> And one year I passed a city attorney on this race. The the picture camera came up and I decided I was going to run fast and I'm going right by him. But then he >> he ended up getting me. But no, the um I don't know if we're going to figure it
out tonight, but I think we are definitely going to >> try and do something even if it looks a little different if we can. Amy, did you I saw you come up. I'm sorry. >> Well, I just wanted to let you know that I was involved I've been involved in PAL
since it was since it was instituted >> um under the sheriff's office. I started out on the PAL board when we created one for Canaval. So I've been involved with that organization and the run for quite some time.
>> Um Mary Jane had talked about retiring, but I thought she would at least get through. She'd be able to get through, but she has some medical issues and so I understand. Um the problem is just not just logistics, but this is our busy
season. the medals are going to come from China. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to get them in time for a run. Um, she did a lot of um talking to companies to provide us with funds, things like
water, bananas, little things that people don't talk about, trash cans. It's it's a big event. And in order for us to do it really well, because if we do it bad, nobody's going to come next year. It would be great if we had the year to regroup to figure out who she
talked to and identify those places that we can go and maybe reach out to community partners to help us get this done in order to put on a great event. >> When did Mary Jane let you know she was
retiring? It was it was as uh Amy said, it was something that she would throw out occasionally, but then >> she changed her mind. And >> but I mean, when did she say, "Guess what, guys? I'm not doing this." >> It was end of August. Yeah.
>> But it's pretty We had about three three weeks of >> I met with her about a week or so ago, >> right? >> About it. >> Wow. >> We'd already been in budget talks. You know, mayor, you mentioned we're not be may not be able to decide tonight or past, you know, tonight's the night for
the budget. We're we're getting this meeting has to end at 5:30. And if if you haven't if you still need more time in the form of a workshop, then it may have to continue during the council meeting during public comment phase. And I just, you know, wanted to throw that
out there. Uh but also suggest that I mean staff is staff's done this for years. I would defer to their expertise on the logistics behind this run. I understand the importance of it and I'm not going to say it's not important. Um, you know, if the council wants to see it
continue despite what, you know, the staff is saying could potentially happen, then then a budget decision would be necessary tonight. Um, I'm I'm You're saying 15,000. Is that the figure to put the run on? And and so if that's
the council's desire, then we'd have to amend the 28,30 by cutting 1330 and leaving the 15,000 in. >> Okay. >> Um that that can potentially be done as a contingency for now with the
understanding that we can revisit this issue on whether or not we're going to do the run. Um because, you know, there's two things to decide really. the the budget tonight and if we're going to do this run um tonight and they've you know staff has given the council I think
a lot to think about. So that number that you shared, thank you city manager. It was 13,000. What would the remaining Oh, will you just leave 15,000 out of >> Leave? Yeah, leave 15 in and cut 13030. John, check my math. I think that's right.
>> We got the 80,551 which included 28,000. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, can we figure that math? >> Sure. >> And um >> you know, we're we're presenting a lean budget. this department has already cut
lower than or more than what was suggested. >> If council doesn't doesn't have an issue with 15,000 in there as a placeholder for a run, that may or may not happen with a decision sometime after tonight. At least you have the revenue in there and you're
not, you know, you're not having to make that decision right now to cut or keep. >> And that was my thing was if we're on the fence, let's keep it. And uh the cost is should >> that'll take us down to 6551 then
>> and what was the total amount is it 13,030? >> Yes. >> Yeah. We were >> okay. So 80,551 minus the 30,30 is that right? >> No. No. 80,000 minus the 15,000 that we want to keep in >> to keep us at 65551.
>> Yeah. >> No, the the way I understand the budget was 28,000. 30. >> That's what was getting cut, but now we're keeping 15 in for that event. >> No, it was proposed 28,000. >> Well, that's for that whole line pallet,
>> right? And so we reduce that by 13,30. >> No, by 15. >> No, we leave 15,000 in it. >> Yes. >> Right. So you >> we're leaving 15 in it, but in essence, we're only cutting 13,000. Right. >> Right. 80,551US
13,030. >> Yeah. >> Gives us the 6. I have 67,521. Is that >> Well, it was we were at 80. We were at 8551. >> Yep. That's what I did. Minus the 13,30. >> No, we're we're putting 15,000 back into
the budget. So, you have to subtract 15,000, >> right? You got to give 15,000 back. >> Mhm. >> Instead of 28, you're giving 15. So you're at 65551. >> The way you're doing it, you're actually >> Well, these columns were used differently. That other department did
it. I think the the way that and I knew this might have been confusing. Okay. If we're it's not as important, I think. Well, okay. I don't think I fully understand but um
>> so if it's helpful instead of looking at 28,00030 then you look the number would be 13,00030 correct that's the amount that would be cut because the yellow the numbers in yellow represent the proposed cut
>> oh I see >> yeah so instead of 2830 the proposed cut is 1330 >> my now I look at it and I feel I feel silly cuz I it just got to that point in the meeting. I agree. I think we can keep that council. Do we have any issue
with uh reducing the down to the number by keeping Palin in that number one more time? Final >> the cut would be 13,030,30. The total is >> and John the total 6551
from the department. Okay. So, >> go ahead. >> And so, what council has done to this point uh has agreed to cut $195,481. >> Okay. >> That's where we're at right now based on
what council has talked about throughout the whole meeting. >> Council, uh we've kind of taken each department total. We've come to this total now of parka originally was 80,651.
We got there how we got there, but our new number is to actually not cut as much out of that department. And are we all in agreement? Any opposed to the 65,551
as discussed? that keeps reindeer run. Hopefully, well, it keeps the possibility of reindeer running. I'm thinking >> if it can't be if it if we can't find outside, it may not be a good idea. So, but no matter what, it's going to impact
I think the city staff at some level. >> And if there's a solution, great. Okay. I think I got consensus city manager on that portion to equate the total or finance director just provided. >> Yes. Yep. So the last um
>> I think that was >> the last one was was there any other the difference the well there's a >> non-EP departmental should be the last left I think for your consideration
>> that's recommended cuts is 16529 >> okay that's professional services codification going from 3500 down to So >> pointing everyone to um the 6,500 under
non-EP departmental promotional activities that is in reference to the volunteer board appreciation dinner. Um and we had discussed that outside of this meeting one-on-one. Um that's a topic for your discussion. And I believe
>> uh the non the pro promotional activities >> correct about halfway down the 6500. >> Yeah. >> So that total proposed was 40,475. We asked if 30,225 would work, which would be a 20
Yeah. $10,000 reduction. What's the 6500 represent? The 6,500 is the >> reduction from the 40,000 >> your volunteer appreciation >> but the are we saying uh the original proposed right now the budget as it
stands is at 40,475 for promotional activities what is the number the new budget number that do we subtract 6500 from the 40,000 >> yes >> yes >> okay so council do we and which would
leave a budget of roughly 34 4 335. So we're taking the budget from 40,000 to that line item. There's still 33,000. >> The new proposed amount of 30,225.
>> Well, that was my confusion. No, that was the number that I originally wrote. Basically the 40,000475 was what was originally proposed and we asked could we make 30,000 work and
that's why a question it should show $10,000 reduction. >> Yeah. >> And does this but I think our city manager confirmed that's they're saying we'll we can reduce the 40,000 by 6500. So that new number
40,475 minus 6500 if that's in fact would be >> 33975. >> Yep. Thank you. 33,975 >> for that line item. >> Yes. Which is double the average. But again COVID I think especially on this
too. >> Yes. on that one. That's the the larger or one of the larger ones. Council >> Mayor Pertim, >> last year we did 25,592. >> You have that sheet. Is that what it
shows? >> Yes. >> Promotional activities and non-EP departmental. Uh >> so the average between 2020 and 2024 is 16,948.
Um, >> and they proposed 40,475. >> Why can't we go to the 30,225? >> So, Mayor Prom, just to clarify, if we're if we're looking at those first three years, those were COVID years. Um, and if we're taking the average of the last two years, then you're looking at
uh 23,650 as opposed to the 5-year average of 16,948. Um and that's that's a similar approach to those other COVID related um items. >> So perhaps a more accurate average would
be the 23,650 and the proposed was 40. The suggested was 30 and the city staff is propos is countering that with 33,975
which is just about 4,000 more than the proposed amount at the last council meeting. >> Yeah. And those notes in there, the $6,500 appreciation dinner, the 2,000 for floral arrangements, the 3500
employee gift cards, that totaled >> 12,000. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. 12,000. And I said just in my math, you know, you don't get to eliminate floral arrangements, but it was I saw there were some increases in there.
>> Uh, >> right. That just made up the diff. That's where the 10,000 came from. It just made up the difference. So when staff looked at it and said, "Well, what can we cut of that 10,000, the 6,500 is what staff landed on for the um
volunteer. There was no intention to cut floral arrangements or whatever cuz >> and I mean >> I mean people continue to, you know, >> I'm still looking at it. I'm like, "Okay, we're cutting these things, which are pretty big things. What are we
spending the $33,975,000 on?" Just like when when we were talking about the other one with PRCA when you're taking out the thing like the appreciation dinner and those these what
is it covering now? >> Mhm. Well, I think the workbooks, you know, uh, showed >> showed the worksbooks we gave you a few weeks ago showed that. And so when we were tasked with this, we're going in and and the only thing we saw there
based on the whole list of things that happened under promotional was the 6500s. And that and that that is the decision of council. If council wants to keep the 6,500, we keep the 6500 and we press forward with the uh appreciation dinner. But that was just these are
things we identified and so if council decides otherwise just tell us and then we won't um affect that line item. I'm fine for the sake of this meeting and we're not going to I think the only thing we're doing is really just getting
general consensus but we can we're going to actually vote on this in the public hearing and respect you know the time in between this and the CRA meeting we're at 5:22 I think the questions are around can we do more right now and understanding what these reductions are
and we have a total of 6500 it was being questioned why we can't do 10 and understanding how those funds I actually have that tab that workbook. Um but we are short I think on time. I
guess I would be in support of these reductions. Um and that that volunteer appreciation dinner is also something that would you know reindeer run. We have other things
that we're doing sometimes that happen. So I think do we have any opposition to reducing the 16,529? >> Okay. And uh the biggest one in there is the RNR replenishment if any. I mean
that in itself um for for a future topic but I think if we can get agreement on that that'll be the last one and I think before we can get a total going into this hearing >> so there's a there's a consensus then to
go with the proposed recommended cut of 16,529. >> I'm seeking that now. Yeah. Any opposed? Do we have consensus? So, John, what >> what does that bring the total cuts to >> for the council?
>> Yeah. >> Okay, hang on a second. So, we're going to now we're we were at 1954.81 and 16529. >> Mhm. >> And we'll do it the oldfashioned way by
hand. >> 11 16. >> So it' be 211 010 >> $211 >> 211,010. >> Okay.
>> So that's where we're at. And my question based on my what I'm I'm tasked with here is the things we just identified. >> Mhm. >> Is what when we move into the other meeting? There may be other things you
want to talk about, but this are we locking in this 2110. So every we we have Cheryl's annotated everything you've talked about. So when we go to update the budget the rest of this week, you know, get the new book for you or whatever, that's what we're going to adjust exactly what you told
us. So is the 211 010 unchangeable from now until we get into the the council meeting or is that going to is that number going to change because we're going to change our minds or what? I'm firm on I don't think >> the mayor's firm on this as the rest of
the council. >> That's exactly what we just did was so that >> we can say these are the specific ones and yes $211,10 >> $211,10 $10.
>> Okay. >> City manager is that >> Go ahead. We could we could say if we were to apply that the millage rate would drop the 3.1434 >> from the proposed what >> from the um >> that's combined
>> from the millillage of the 3.2474. >> So we're going from 3.2474 to 3.1434. >> That's where we're at right now. >> The 3.2474 was the roll back rate. Right. >> That's correct. So now we're going down
to 3.1434. >> 3.1434. >> 3.1434. >> Yep. >> Okay. And that is we we're going to take this up in the hearing. It would be good to know the percentage decrease from the
roll back rate. Um, >> and that >> yeah, >> not urgent, but if you >> Yeah, you could just divide 3.3 point >> and right there. >> Did it come across? >> Oh, it came across. It's That would be another 3.31%.
>> Yeah, Joey would have had it already. >> So, a 3.3%. >> Joey would have had it already. >> Actually, this is Joey's sheet. I'm looking at it popped right up. >> Oh, come on. >> I was very schooled before he left. He schooled me before. >> You guys are doing great. So roughly 3.3%
reduction below the roll back >> and we're calling Peru to make sure Joey's going to confirm that. Um >> which is very similar to last year. >> Yeah. >> So 3.3. Yeah. >> Council that is the workshop. I think we identified you know the areas that that
staff pointed out. We actually didn't agree with I think two of them. Not agree it's just the risk has been explained and We know our numbers now to head into this meeting. If there's not anything else, unfortunately, uh if the community
uh can stick around during our public comment, if you did intend to speak, we will make sure that you're heard. So, council, if we can go ahead and adjourn, we have to shift gears to a CRA board meeting. >> Let's go ahead. Meeting adjourned.
Right back. >> Thank you'all. Part: 2
All right, good evening everyone. It is 5:45 p.m. It is September 16th, 2025. The City of Cape Canaveral Community Redevelopment Agency CRA regular board meeting. We are at 100 Pulk Avenue in Cape
Canaveral, Florida. I call this meeting to order. With that, Vice Chair Callum, would you please lead us in the pledge 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. >> Sorry for blocking the flag. I'm feel like I'm Okay.
>> City clerk, please call the role. >> Board member Davis. Board member Jackson >> here. >> Vice Chairperson Kellum >> here. >> Chairperson Morrison >> here. >> And board member Willis >> here.
>> Okay, we got four out of the five board members have a quorum. Thank you for being here and all the supporting staff for this agency. Uh this time we can approve the agenda as written or amendments or with amendments. Board, >> I'll make a motion we approve the agenda
as written. >> Second. >> Got a motion by Vice Chair Kellum, second by board member Willis. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, city clerk. >> Okay. Sorry. Board member Jackson. >> Four. Vice Chairperson Kellum.
>> Four. Chairperson Morrison >> four >> and board member Willis >> four. >> Excellent. Approval as written passes 40. We're now on to public participation. I don't have any cards here, but if anyone intends to speak, please let me know and raise your hand
or just come on forward. Anyone intend to speak during the public participation for the CRA board meeting? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public participation. We now have the consent agenda item which is item six
uh represented by the approval of the minutes item 6.1 the approving of the meeting schedule and financial reporting requirements item 6.2 two. That's all on the consent agenda item. There was a revised section that came out and I
believe that the change was uh striking May 20th, 2025 special CRA and and inserting June 17, 2025 or keeping June 17th. So, it would just read uh with the
one uh the one date approve or correct the June 17, 2025 regular CRA minutes. Just want to note that change. Uh we did get distributed to us in the meeting
schedule. Council, the consent agenda. >> Make a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> I'll second >> as written with the amendment. Got a motion by board member Willis, a second by board
member Jackson to approve >> the consent agenda with the revised amendments. Council me or board member Willis, I believe that's what you said there. >> Yes. >> And that was your second board me Jackson. Okay. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, city clerk. Board member Jackson, >> four. >> Vice Chairperson Kellum, >> four. >> Chairperson Morrison, >> four. >> And board member Willis, >> four. >> All right. Agenda, consent agenda item
6.1 and 6.2, pass 40. We are now on to item number seven, action items. We have one action item 7.1, resolution number CRA 14, adopting the CRA budget fiscal year 25 and 26. Uh, city staff's looking
for a motion to consider the adoption of the resolution number CR12, the substance of which is as follows. But just before going to that motion, so we don't have to amend it, I want to refer to our city manager and director departments. Uh, is there anything we
should know here on this resolution? We have our Oh, thank you. Oh, yeah. Sorry. Community and economic development director Hams and Bell. Um uh there's our CRA is uh is uh currently just over $3 million. And then our um capital expenditures are for um
Canaveral Park redevelopment. Uh the presidential streets master plan um implementation phase. Fillmore will be the first street to start getting improved. We've had um expenditures towards the um design phase and now we're actually starting to implement some of that project. Um and then the
financial incentives program for residents and uh businesses uh which was increased from 50,000 to 75,000 and then the Nancy Hansen um renovations uh for just short of 300,000. >> Thank you very much.
or community and economic development director council or board. I believe we've heard here the overview. Um my one comment just upfront would be you know one year I remember we passed the
CRA we're passing the budget and then we go into the regular budget and there was something that was approved because it kind of went like this and went fast. Then when we got into the budget, we were trying to, you know, question that and it was like, well, we've already
adopted it and that created some confusion and certainly understandable. But I just want to say if we get is there's nothing in here that would conflict, I think, as I heard with with that. >> Correct. And then all of these are separate improvement items from uh from
the city's general budget. And if there was a line item in the CRA that any of this board wanted to just say presidential streets as an example, a very large number usually um and we wanted to repurpose a portion of
those funds for something. There's ways to do that and comply with state law. >> There are the um the 1.2 million uh encompasses the entire project. Um however the design phase was I believe
somewhere around 20 250 225 and then and then that we've already spent towards it. Fillmore will be the first part to implement and we have an entire design phase that is pretty comprehensive and we're going to be implementing scaled down versions of that to to um to
address flooding in those areas. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Board. >> So may I ask I'm sorry. Um so um Tamson on the presidential master street plan we had we had talked before when it was
at full development with the the you know projected project when it was full-blown um it was over a million. So this one the 1.2 is you said it's the total but it is the scaled back
>> part. Well, it's the total and then we have um the phases that go out for bid. And so um Tim uh I believe we start going out for bid for construction. So we'll be in the construction phase. So I think the we won't be using that entire amount this year. >> Okay.
>> Right. And yeah, it's going to be >> it's just your market. >> It's going to be it's going to be all on how much we get done and how far along we get because we do know that if the budget doesn't get used, the good thing about the CRA is you just we obligated
it into next year so we don't uh lose it and that's a continuous thing. That's money in the bank that you don't lose. You know, the budget's one thing, but this this thing this is actually cash we have. So, >> okay. But this was the full proposal and
it could end up being less. >> Correct. >> Um, and then I have one other question. Um, Miss Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, >> please. um on the Nancy Hansen Rex uh office
complex renovations. Can I get details on what that's going to be because it kind of changed when we were doing the roof and the and the electrical per the CIP before. So I just want to make sure I understand what are we doing with this.
>> Yeah. So, by looking at the um the CIP that applies to the Nancy Hansen Council, I believe you have a a budget that was printed for you. If you could just turn to >> that page because I may not have that
>> as >> this meeting look page. >> Yeah, look look at your you can look at the project. No, go ahead and look at the actual CIP because it'll tell you >> 124 is the page number I got to for this the CRA.
>> Thank you. >> And the budget >> and then then we're going to go to uh CR4 so you could see >> what's actually being >> page 128. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> There you go. And then
you can see where um it gives you the project cost with the uh interior upgrades, electrical upgrades, the paint exterior, um the shuffleboard court, the install. Uh, I'm sorry. I I'm I'm speaking of um
I'm speaking of everything in that line, but all you're concerned about this year is the modifications, the electrical upgrades, the paint exterior, and then of course the whatever else the roof didn't get done or whatever. So, the reason why this >> this will say 295. Is it saying 295 in
the budget you have? I want to know if that was updated. Okay. Because I didn't get >> That's why I didn't understand because >> and then that's the roof. So, >> yeah, because we did 150 I believe or 115 the year before for the roof and
that's not done >> right >> and we didn't talk about doing the electrical at that time but now we need to do it um and I'm concerned about the roof because I want a roof on there so it's not getting wet inside but um I was
wanting to understand the project so this >> so that's that's yeah those four items the three there and the one you mentioned about the roof not being done you had that together and that's where you come up with the 295. >> So on the money that we had allotted for
the roof last year was that CRA money as well I believe it was and so it was used for or is it sitting in a reserve >> forward this carrying forward? Okay. And so
150 on upgrades interior. I mean, I'd like to understand more about that project, but I'm good with it because we need to get it going. But I'd like to know what kind of interior upgrades we're we're putting it on. And
this roof installation is not going to be 100 because we I I have a bid where it's not unless you have trusses. >> So if you want to really drill down specific >> the drill down in the specifics, you're going to be when Molly gets back, you're going to be wanting to talk to Molly
because yeah, she'll know all the specifics. >> Okay. All right. I think the CRA is a little easier because any maybe costs that are less or maybe things we don't know about that are more any reductions in there. >> You know, we're we're going to be
setting the tax rate. It's going to obviously impact the tiff revenues CRA, but >> flooding is such a big issue that the funds could be it wouldn't be necessarily taking it out as much as potentially repurposing the CRA money.
But um yeah, I think we could have that opportunity for board member Jackson to go through maybe understand those. And >> and the good thing, mayor, about what you talked about, the flooding or whatever, if you have a if it's a CRA
item and you're you're coming in lower on your other costs, you know, we could use that money directly on a in the capital initiatives line in this budget and all we got to do is tell council we're using it in the capital initial.
There's not a lot of because the money's right there. you're just moving it within the same fund. So that's the thing that's nice about the CRA, too, is because >> the money in the CRA is real money. >> I know that sounds funny, but I think I think >> Well, and that's I think you know what
I'm talking about as opposed to a budget. >> Yeah, that's why I was trying to figure out where did it go from last year when we haven't spent it yet. >> So part of that >> that is part of this CRA money. This is
new money coming into that same CRA fund. So now what we didn't spend last year is accumulating and this is adding in on top. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Wanted to make sure. >> Okay. We've reached I think you're welcome. Yes. >> Or I'm sorry,
>> Vice Chair Kellum. >> Um I just have a question about the um presidential streets master plan. You say that we're going to do a scaled down version of >> the beautiful plans we had until we saw the price tag.
>> Um, do we has the council seen the scaledown version of >> Well, I believe it's just a phased approach where we start with one street at a time, >> right? And I think this is of course um uh Tim
Carlilele will be back um in another week and as we move forward with this he's going to be able to show you exactly what those phases are and what the approach is. You know it'll show the specifics too. You know like maybe in the beginning we thought we were going
to have all these little tree things with these five foot sidewalks all this other stuff. and he's going to explain to you specifically how this stuff might have been scaled down and maybe it won't cost 4 million. It might only cost 2 million, but we'll have to see because I
don't I don't know at this point because I don't know what the plan is yet. But >> Right. And I just, you know, with the with all that's happening with CRA money and the county and, you know, it's if we start with one street, it, you know, are
we going to be able to do the rest? Um, and I just want to make sure that we can reappropriate funds. >> Yes. >> As needed in the CRA. >> That's what's good about the CRA is that if you don't use a million dollars this year, I'm just going to obligate that money to next year and it'll be sitting
there uh obligated and if it needs to be used in the next year, then we'll use it. But if it doesn't, it could just keep carrying forward. So, >> thank you. >> I think the council woman's question is going to be reappropriated for another purpose if the council >> um that could be. Yes, that could be done
>> as long as it's within the CRA boundary. >> CRA boundary. Yeah, it's Yeah, thank you. >> Thank you, Anthony. >> We need a motion. >> And that was similar to my question. Yep. I think that's it. Yes, we would. Uh, the motion is proposed, written
here. If we're ready, >> make a motion to approve resolution CR14. >> I'll second. Got a motion by board member Willis, a second by vice chair Callum
to approve resolution number CRA 14, which is adopting the CRA budget for fiscal year 2526. Any further discussion? Seeing none, city clerk, >> board member Jackson,
>> four, >> vice chairperson Kellum, >> four, >> chairperson Morrison >> four >> and board member Willis >> four. >> Resolution number CRA 14 adopting the CRA budget fiscal year 2526 passes 40.
That is item for action 7.1 which is the end. We have no unfinished business, no new business. So with that council, we'll go ahead and adjourn. All right. We obviously have our meeting uh at 6. Let's just take uh got to
change the tags and I think move. Let's try to take