Thursday, February 26, 2026. It's 5 o'clock. Um if we can call it to order. We're going to have an invocation by Chief Hurley followed by the pledge of allegiance. >> Dear Lord, thank you for this beautiful weather today. We just pray over this meeting. We pray that we uh make good
decisions for the city and we have cool and collected heads. And Lord, we just uh pray for our community that that we all come together as one and uh further your kingdom. Amen. Amen. 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. >> Okay. Mr. City Manager, will you introduce the item for us? >> Yes, ma'am. Uh, so this is resolution
2026-03. Uh this is a resolution of the city of Phoenix Springs, Florida, electing to use the uniform method of collecting non-avorum special assessments levied within the incorporated area of the city stating a need for such a levy providing for the mailing of this resolution
providing for an effective date. So this is a resolution of intent. Um this is we're at the point to where if council wishes to go through the study uh and development of rate process with the consultant uh then if you approve this resolution or adopt it, we move forward in that process. And any point between
now uh and the end of the fiscal year we get into public hearings for adoption the council has opportunity to stop this process. Right? If we come back fact consultant comes back and or things change along the way. Uh if you do not adopt this resolution tonight, this process effectively stops uh because our
our deadline is March 1st to to adopt this resolution. And then March by March 10th, we have to have the resolution and the adjoining uh paper advertisement uh consent of time extension from the Walton County property appraiser and tax collector. Uh we had to get that to the state. So we have received those
extensions of time from both property appraiser and tax collector. So I'll let Mr. practice and go into the legalities of of the process. >> Very simply, we your non-avalorm assessments are governed by 19731 of Florida statute. We are electing to use
the uniform method of assessment. I'll explain the differences of uniform and non-uniform in a moment. But the primary reason we use the uniform method of assessment and fall under 1973632 is that if you do not do so then the tax
collector and the property appraiser are not required to perform the services provided by Florida law that they would help us with putting it on the tax bills collecting the money and remitting it to us. So there's a huge benefit to us just by going with the 3632 uniform method or
not. Now what's the distinction? Your avalorum tax is based on the millage rate you set against the value of the property assigned by the property appraiser. A non-avalorm assessment is unrelated to the value of the buildings. It is based on some other nature.
Uniform assessments are done on a basis rate where it provides a uniform benefit to all properties. So it's going to be the same rate to all classes of properties. Perhaps residential is a flat rate, commercial is a square footage, things like that can vary, but everybody gets the same benefit proportional to every commercial
business is going to pay the same rate, every residential is going to pay the same rate. It is collected on the tax bill, but it remains constant and it does not adjust based on the value or the amount of usage. So in this case, we're doing the fire assessment. Somebody's a fire assessment is not
going to go up under a uniform assessment because they have five calls in a year versus zero. Same way it's not going to go down if they have less than an average. It broadly applies across the entire city. So that's why it's uniform. A nonuniform basis, you have to
show a proportional benefit to specific parcels. So number of calls you says, okay, you have more than five calls, you're going to pay us. Um you bill it directly to the customer. It doesn't go out on the tax bill typically and it will vary. The rate will vary based on
the service or based on other issues. The idea there is you target it to specific areas. You see the nonablorum assessment be done in a nonuniform manner most often by counties or special districts where they are assessing
something in a defined area of the county. Take the county we're in right now, Walton County. The unincorporated part of the county covers everywhere but Freeport, Paxton, and Defunia. I think it's all fair to say that Southoun has a very different geographic makeup than
the area surrounding Paxton. So the county might want to look at doing different things and that's why counties do it differently. Broadly where we are is we are at a point in the process where we have to adopt this by the 1 of March if we wish for this to be available to us to go into effect next
fiscal year. If we miss that opportunity, it will not be into effect in FY2627. it would have to take all the way to the next year. So that's the high level overview of it. It is a public hearing. Public comment is welcome to be
solicited and accepted in advance of any motion. We cannot have council discussion without a motion, but I'll defer that to Madam Chair. >> So how would the board like to do this? Do I have a motion for discussion?
>> Or you can take public comment, Madam Chair, if you so see fit. I'd like to hear what the public says. >> Likewise. >> Anyone from the public would like to speak on this item? >> Thank you. Uh appreciate all your
service and commitment and time to do what's best for our city. My name is Bruce Naylor and I own Naylor Realy and I own 776 Baldwin Avenue. And uh we have an opportunity here again
to make a decision and to uh set up an estimated assessment and a tax for uh a fire department and the improvement of such.
from what I've been told. And again, that's why I believe you're going to hire someone to determine what the assessment will be, but I've heard it's been estimated to be anywhere from $200 to $300 a house and uh up to $1 a square
foot for a commercial building. Well, my building is $4,525 square ft. So, if that would be the case, my increased uh tax would be $4,525.
That's a lot of money. As well as the $2,300 for an individual uh and some of our uh neighbors in the city defunct springs, that could be a an electric bill. That could be uh a utility bill. So, that kind of money can make an
impact on all of us. And uh again, I may be too late in the game, but uh I'm hoping there's still a way we could stop the process that we're in right now and at least take a look and see if we can't
get a second bid. If I was going to get my house painted or you were to get your house painted, you would get a licensed contractor to make a bid. But the smart individual would also get a second bid
to see uh the difference in the two and if the service would be better. I believe uh that the possibility to get the Walton County Fire and EMT rescue
service could be a benefit to our city, could be a benefit to the citizens, could save money, and could be in fact better service. We don't know unless we get that second bid. The city of Freeport, for example,
allowed the the uh sheriff and county to take over their fire department. Freeport's three times the size of Defunia Springs. The citizens love it. I've talked to some of the people in def in Freeport.
They love it. And it was a financial win for the city. The uh from what I understand, the sheriff was never even asked to make a bid. So, uh, I appreciate the opportunity to share and I hope we can
reconsider and get a second bid to see if in fact we can get a better price and better service. Thanks a lot. >> Thank you. Anyone else, Miss Randy? >> I was not going to speak because I'm not
going to be paying this. So, it's really kind of not my business, but I believe the public has largely spoken that they want to keep the Phoenix Springs Fire Department. So, kind of going out for another bid. I I don't know that that's the right move to make,
but also those numbers do sound a little outrageous. So, I can certainly understand the concerns of a business owner. Um, one thing I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but one one local fire department had kind of kicked
around the idea at one point in time of doing a square footage, and Clay could answer if if this is even legal or not of of doing an assessment by square footage over on homes over a certain amount.
>> Your study data just has to support. So, that would be up to the consultant to give you that recommendation. So that might would be a way, you know, to lower kind of lower the price for everyone but still bring a little bit more in because if I were looking at a dollar a square foot, I'd be upset too. Cannot deny
that. And the other thing is with those high dollar amounts, I spoke with Clay. I think he was going to ask this question, but I'm going to beat him to it at this point. Are you looking to fully try to fully fund the fire department on these taxes or are you
planning to still fund at the 1.9 or or some amount of money or do you guys know that yet? >> I don't believe we know that yet. I think this study is what's going to determine how much the residential people will have to pay, how much
commercial will have to pay. They need to look at all of our data before we can even Okay. >> I I would hate to even share those numbers because right now those are just out. >> Okay. Well, that's my two cents then. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else from the public?
>> My name is Marilyn Whitney. I've lived here about 17 years. Um, I'm here mostly because I heard about this assessment and I'm belong to the uh First Methodist church up on the circle. So, I heard
about the square footage that might be used to calculate this amount of assessment which would be very considerable for the church. So, I'm not saying we don't want to pay or we don't want to do do our fair share, but just keep in mind if this is going to apply
to the churches that that can be a big chunk of money if it's for square footage. And I was also wondering, I just this is just, you know, in addition to uh protecting buildings and properties, the fire department has to put out brush fires and such too. And
should undeveloped property owners have to pay something towards, you know, that kind of service because they do get a lot of brush fires. That's all I have. >> Thank you. Anyone else? >> Julie White, citizen. Um, I'm just um I
don't I'm kind of in between. I I totally support the fire department. I mean, who who wouldn't? I mean, they come to our help. They're our assistants. We couldn't do without our first responders. But what I want to know, will these numbers come back to us
as citizens before you take a vote on what's to do or will you immediately respond when the report comes? I mean, what's going to be the timeline or do you know how the timeline's going to run on that? There will be another process
similar to this after that study comes back >> so that the public can make a decision >> before you decide your amounts or what they recommend. That's correct. Perfect. Thank you. >> Anyone else? Okay. >> I have a question.
>> I'll close it to the public comment. And >> I have a question, Madam Chair. Mhm. >> We've already paid for this study. Is that correct? >> The council has approved the contract. We have kickoff meeting March 17th with the consultant. Okay.
>> And I have been gathering data, but our kickoff is March 17th. So, we haven't incurred an invoice yet. We have approved the contract. >> Okay. Well, this is for information purposes and whatever they come back with, we are not bound to go with it. Um, this is a
requirement of Florida statutes from what I understand that we go through this process before we um decide to either go with or not go with a fire assessment. >> Are you asking about the vendor, >> ma'am? >> Are you asking about the vendor? Like
they're going to do this study and they're going to come back and recommend based on the information that we provide to them based on that information they're going to say, well, this is what that would equate to in dollars and cents. So, I'm
I'm wondering if they're going to come back with this is what we recommend to fully fund the fire department without coming from the city budget. Um, I don't think it's that's in the best interest
of the residents or the business people. >> I don't I don't agree with what you just said. It is not to fund the entire department. >> Right. I wanted to make that clear that it's not to fund the defi uh entire department that it's to supplement what
we use to fund them with. >> We technically if you've got questions for Kobe, questions for staff, that's acceptable, but enter in council discussion, we need a motion. >> I'd like a motion that we continue with the funding uh with the um with the
track we're on to go forward to consider. >> That would be a motion to approve the resolution. then. >> Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. >> Do I have a second? >> I I'll second it at this point. >> All right. Now, we can continue with discussion at this point. >> Okay. >> Did you finish your comment or
questions? >> I just wanted to make it clear to the public that um whatever recommendation they come back with, if they come back with a figure to fully fund the fire department, we don't have
to take that. We don't have to accept it. We can. Correct. >> Okay. So >> now now you can't just pick another number out of thin air though. You've got to go off a number they provide you. That's the one thing that is true. >> Mr. Harrison, >> you can do nothing. >> Before we move forward,
uh Kobe, you said this is going to kick off March 17th. Is that vendor, are you instructing that vendor to come back with funding fully funding the fire department or am I missing something? because I didn't understand that's where
we were start >> they'll uh they'll start to create the study and develop the rates uh the at some point during the process when they come to the council with so for example uh sometime between April and June the council is going to have to adopt a home
rule ordinance that's going to take two separate hearings to do such and then sometime between May and July depending on those ordinance is adopted, there will be an adoption of initial assessment resolution. That's going to give you the methodology. It's going to set the maximum fire assessment rates for the next fiscal year, any exemptions
if you put any in there. Uh it's going to set the public hearing uh date for the final assessment resolution. Uh and it's going to direct staff to mail this out. So sometime before end of July, uh there will be a resolution to the council with that initial assessment with those rates uh and the exact
formula which you're going to you would conduct this in. So, there's going to be ample opportunity through this process for you all to have input on that. But like Mr. Atinson said, I think you can weigh in on what they provide back to you and the formula they use, but your ability to just pick and choose a number is going to be limited. You're going to have to stay within what the guide rails
they've given they're going to give the city based on what we are looking at from a personnel, equipment, facilities standpoint. >> So, for clarity, help me understand and so the public is clear on this. What if any further input from this council will be necessary before that vendor comes
back with all the data? >> I'm I'm not I have not talked we haven't gotten that far with them yet. Our kickoff is March 17th. So once we have kickoff >> with that vendor are we going to partake? >> No, that'll be staff level. That'll be myself and the fire chief. >> Technically there is nothing >> fire chief and then Okay. Yeah. All
right. So are we all clear on that process? >> Yeah, >> Mr. comparison. >> I'm not clear on the uniform method, Clay. Uh you said residents and businesses or commercial will all pay
the same rate. >> You can split it up by class, but so all residential homes would pay the same rate under a uniform method. Um depending on what the method of assessment is. So if it's based on square footage of residential home, it's
got to be 10 cent a square foot, a dollar a square, whatever it is, it's got to be uniform cost that entire class, right? Then commercial could be its own thing as well. You can distinguish the two, but everybody within a class has to pay the same thing. So I just want to be sure that
commercial because when you said that I thought well there's I mean I get you know trying to distribute cost right among more people but I could not see and would not agree to a big box store
paying the same rate as a residence. Um so that's what I wanted to clarify was not the case. Um and I and and and personally, you know, as far as these exorbitant uh rates like Mr. Taylor Naylor was talking about, you know, a dollar a square foot or whatever, um
I've done some looking at at at other assessment fees across the state. And um they're all really similar, especially with residences. And what I'm seeing is more and more because of a lot of what's going on in Tallahassee, there's more
and more cities and counties looking to doing just what we're talking about doing right here because of the uncertainty with what's going to happen with property taxes and how they're going to continue to fund the fire department. Dec's been fortunate all these years of being able to fund it
through the general fund alone, but that is not sustainable and I think we all agree uh with that. So some level of an assessment in in my opinion is is is vital that we do it. Um we are one of
the few probably that do not uh in towns our size but uh but we have some things to decide you know just like the churches and what have you. Um square footage amount if we do it by square footage or doors or whatever. heard all these various methods of doing uh
something that's fair and abs, you know, chief is very familiar with this kind of stuff. I'm sure he's going to be part of your staff, you know, looking at how to how to do this in a fair way. And I wanted I want it to be done in a fair way, but not excessively, not not punitive, but in a way that can help us
fund this fire department. Um, yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> I have somebody else. Just a moment. Mr. Cosen, uh, Clay. >> Yes, ma'am. At at what point in the process will this take place? I was thinking based on what Mr. Harrison just said. I thought I heard you say it would
be proportionate which would be whether it's 10 cents a square foot or is that what that means or does it mean a flat fee? >> It just it could be either. That's what I can't answer. >> Okay. So, we're going to choose that based on the stud based on the results of the study.
>> The consultant will give you suggestions and you will pick between those suggestions. >> Okay. So that won't come back to us then in this process. That's going to be you and the fire chief and then they're going to come back with that. >> Yeah. Like I said, we can have that kickoff meeting with them. They'll give
us a better idea of the timelines and the, you know, the milestones of this process. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Beerbomb. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I want to be clear. >> I want to be clear. We have voted to support and and keep
the fire department. We are now at the juncture of figuring out how to fund said fire department. I am 100% in support of going out for this study on the assessment
where I'm having heartburn and what I'm hearing from citizens when I have conversations with them is just like some of the conversation that has already occurred at this dis in the last five minutes the timing is problematic for me. I would much rather
see us vote to continue with the study, but we don't continue with the public hearings for the adoption portion because what's going to happen is we are about to get pinched from a timing perspective where the assessment study
comes back. We've got to make a decision to adopt it instantly and there's very little time for anybody on any side to react at that point especially given light of what got passed in the house. I think it is
prudent for us to do the assessment, do the study, not implement it, and let's figure out what our advorum tax revenue is going to be before we jump off in this because the last thing I want to do is implement an assessment. And then next year or the
year after, oh by the way, because our feet got kicked out from underneath us by the changes in Tallahassee, we've now got to go way back up on the assessment. I want to make it clear, the fire
department's fully funded. We can continue funding the fire department just like we always have. The fire department was fully funded this year. It's always been fully funded. It'll be fully funded next year, but I think we're going to set ourselves
up for a lot of pain if we adopt and simultaneously adopt this thing at when the study comes back. And there's very little time for anybody to chew on this and figure this out. It puts us, it paints us into a corner from a timing perspective.
So, I want to be clear. I'm all for figuring out how to fund the fire department, but but slamming this assessment in at the last second of this year when we don't know what next year looks like from an Avalor perspective, I think we
are we're painting ourselves into a very dangerous corner. >> Mr. So, hypothetically, let's say this um this study comes back and it says
residents will pay X and business will be will pay X. Well, in order to make a quick decision, the county has been doing a really good job at this and been doing it a lot longer than we have. And I don't really
see the necessity in reinventing the wheel once they come back with their findings. Counselor, would it be would it be acceptable if we said, "Okay, the county's doing uh $75 a year
for residential and they're doing X for um commercial and we simply adopt what they had and not reinvent the wheel." That would be unlawful if that is not what your consultant recommended because your uniform assessment would not be based on study data localized to your
city. >> So are you telling me we're locked into what the study brings back? >> I'm telling you if you want that's why you're doing a study. You can't just pick the number out of thin air. >> We're not we're patterning after the county. >> That's the county is not you.
>> No, but it's >> the county has its own study, Mr. Cosen. That's why they have to have a study done that has set their original rate. years back. >> They've got a pretty good template and it's working. >> They they may, but it will be like you saying the city of Freeport can you're
going to charge the same water rates that they charge. It's just not the same. You have to go off of localized data. >> Our geography is going to be different than the countywide. So, I think that's what the attorney is trying to explain. Our geography is different. the vendor's going to come in and look at our geography, look at our numbers that that
are going to be provided to them to come up with I'm going to guess more than one recommendation. >> I I'm sure you can expect >> more than one option. I'm >> I would assume they've been through this, but like you said, the uniform method is a very broad method. It could be rooftops, it could be doors. I I don't know. It could be a hundred
different things. That'll be up for the consultant to provide to this for the council for options. So, so I think they're going to bring back options that we're going to have to choose from. But no, you don't get to set the dollar amount you want to do. We've got to take their data and their study and one of
their recommendations and either adopt or reject. >> And what if that creates an an unduly hardship on our residents and business owners? >> Then that's reject. >> Well, then we could reject it. >> Is that accurate? Can we reject what
they bring back? >> Absolutely. Yes. You're going to have you're going to have at you're going to have at least four public hearings, but technically it's six if you count the budget adoption hearings because you get both
of those. So, you're going to have between four and six public hearings about this where there are plenty of opportunities to reject. But the conversation you're having right now is exactly what you should be having at the time of this resolution. The conversation about what is this intended to fund? what options do you want? So
when Mr. Townson and Chief Sheffield have a chance to meet with his consultant, they can tell them. Don't bring us an option that says fund 5% of the fire department or one that just says fund the whole city or do that. Tell them what you want and tell
them to give the city the best range of options. And so the consultant's going to put more detail in, but you want more choices. When we did our fire and police impact fee, that's exactly what the city council said back in 2007. They did not want just come back and
give me a fee. They said, "Give us options to look at how this would work. How can we effectively offset the cost of our fire and police based on new growth, but don't just come give us one number like we get with water and sewer. That's not what we're looking for." And
so they saw quite a few examples then. >> Let him talk. >> I think it was three and five, but that's been 20 years ago. Are you good? >> So, if we go forward with this and vote to
move toward an assessment, we are not locked into what they say. We are getting information. >> We're locked into spending the money that we set aside to spend for the study, but we don't have to take their recommendation or adopt. Is that correct? We have until six.
>> We have six hearings between now and the final adoption to see what these people bring back to us. >> Okay. So, in that case, I would be in favor of moving forward. Do I do my colleagues feel the same way? >> We still comment. We're still making
some discussion. So, Mr. Beerbomb. >> So, so there's there's two simultaneous actions and I I feel like they're maybe getting co-mingled here. We have the action of the adoption which is what this resolution is about. The the action of adoption for this resolution. That is
what is being set up tonight. That is what we're voting on tonight. That is setting us up so that when the when the study is returned, we have the option at that point to adopt >> or reject >> or reject. However, what I'm asking for
is to pause this, pause tonight, continue with the study, ask them to bring back options, but then we don't paint ourselves into a corner to where in August and September, we're suddenly having to have multiple meetings to
decide whether we want to adopt this or not because we know our abilorum rate is going to change next year based on what they voted in the House, a complete and total elimination of property taxes. It's silly for us to suddenly try to
slam this thing in this year and then we get our feet kicked out from underneath us next year when that when this goes on the ballot gets adopted in November and then all of a sudden it's oh by the way that that assessment that we adopted this year
just kidding we're going to have to go up on it again already in less than a year. Again I'm all for funding the fire department. The fire department's fully funded. I'm all for the assessment, the the study for the assessment. Continue with that. >> Spend the money. Let's do the assessment
study. >> I'm just going to add to that time is of the essence. And I don't agree with Mr. Beerbomb because that pushes us back into 2028. And I think this assessment, regardless of what happens at our budget hearings, an assessment still needs to
be >> considered and and and forward. So, Mr. Harrison. >> Yeah. Um the uh we we did fully fund the fire department, but in in doing that we did
not fully fund raises for our employees. Um so this conversation is related to that. And so I mean we can we can continue to fund and not be able to do anything to renovate or or whatever
potentially. Um, you know, all this will be affected by what happens in Tallahassee, but realistically, I don't I don't think we're going to be facing what uh what they're it is they're put being pushed through right now. Um I
just from I just I just don't see that that happening. And I'm not banking on that that that it will not happen to that degree, but um that's that still has to be agreed on in the other half of of of
the legislature. Uh so but be prepared. Should we be caught off guard? Absolutely not. But we've had conversations. Uh Mr. Town gave us a chart that showed choice B's, choice C, whether we wanted a fire assessment just
to control or or to uh uh maintain current fire department expenses or future uh expenses or both, right? To some degree. And we had a conversation in here as to I mean realistically it
has to be both. If we're only funding current and we're not worried about future, we're already in trouble before we start. Um, so we we need an assessment that is sufficient enough combined with other sources of revenue that we can
find and will find. Um, we we can soften that that assessment at at that that point when we when we plug these holes, when we know what the legislaturator is going to do with property taxes. So, as this goes goes on, we're going to know more. We're also
going to have to be working uh time to be working on other sources of revenue, which which I I believe is a possibility. But we have to do this thing so that this assessment covers enough for the fire department that that
gives relief that we can uh give our employee raises and and and hire personnel when when when Mr. found needs to hire personnel uh to provide the services for the city. Um so I just don't want to see this be just a bare
minimum funding of the fire department and continue. We we you know we can fund them out of general fund but we've also had conversations about reducing transfers. So if we're going to do all of this we have to have some additional revenue from somewhere from somewhere.
Um, and and this is one of those places that I see is reasonable across the state of Florida to get that. You know, unexpected, new, sure, people don't like new. They don't like any increases. I get it. Um, but they also like to be able to sleep at night knowing that if
the fire catches, their home catches on fire that somebody will be there quickly to put it out. Um, and we know what our department can do. >> Are you good? I I am. Mr. Fer, you you you familiar with what I'm talking about? Do y'all remember what I was
talking about with the chart, the the BC choices and what have you that you showed us? >> No, I thought I saw that. Recognize that look there. >> Yeah, it was on the the agenda on the 26th of January. >> That was the fire assessment with the >> Yes. >> the new potential debt and then adding in the current operating.
>> Right. >> There's a spreadsheet. >> Yeah. You had the long spreadsheet out to 2050 or whatever. And then you had a chart spreadsheet. You got a chart that showed >> estimates. >> Yeah. >> Into the future. >> That's right. That's right. >> That was on the agenda about the fire
assessment >> and what the assessment should cover. We had choice of only current cost or whatever. You know, >> I mean, even with the sheriff's department taking the fire department, there was a conversation of doing an assessment. You know, nothing's free in
this day and age. Nothing nothing is free. And so, uh, we were either going to pay them the million dollars that they said they wanted from the city to take over the fire department. We were either going to pay a million dollars out of general fund and continue to do
that, or we were going to have to implement a fire assessment, right, to help recover some of the cost of that million dollars that we were going to have to pay to the sheriff's department. So, a fire assessment, my view, is been pretty much in inevitable here lately.
>> So, the the Oh, go ahead. >> Sorry. >> Go ahead. >> The spreadsheet that the city manager handed me that that you're referring to in 2050 >> shows an annual total of 11,424,185 >> projected for the fire department.
And that that that's a lot of money. That's a lot of money when we're struggling to to fund it at $2 million. And the the thing that I don't understand is
some of the very impetus for doing this and having this meeting tonight was we don't know what's going to happen with the the state abal tax stuff. So we've got to do this. Well, now I'm hearing the opposite. Now I'm hearing it's all going to be okay. We're
going to find all these other resources. I I'm having a hard time with that because >> I'm sure >> because we had Liberty Partners tell us that two years ago we had a request for a firet truck that got denied as a as a
an appropriation and the city managers told me that we've applied at least three times if not more for firet truck grants that have been denied. So I I'm having a hard time understanding where this other funding is going to come from.
And and I I I don't understand the the switch because originally it was we got to do this because the abalorum is going to get kicked out from underneath us and so we've got to do this because this is this is a way to kind of make up for that. But now I'm hearing
the opposite of that. I don't I don't understand. I'm I'm worried about the fact that you're you're looking at again $11 million in annual operating expenses in 2050
and 50% of that would be 5,712,093 and we're you know Councilman Cosen brought up the the county assessment that county assessment only generates half a million dollars. So, you would need to 5x that, if not more. No, you need to 10x that
to get to a 50% funding ratio. Those are the numbers that scare me. And and even even if we were rewind the clock and we look at, you know, 2030,
you're still talking $1.2 2 million that we've got to find just by 2030. >> Okay. Can I >> because it's three million I'm sorry because it's $3 million or 2.5 2.575 in 2030
and it accelerates from there because in 2031 we have two new trucks and a new fire station coming online. And so we're going to have to start debt payments on that of almost 300 a little almost $400,000. And then you've got additional personnel
kicking in there for an additional $331,000. So it it it's like a hockey stick. That that's what troubles me. >> Okay. So >> So may I go please? >> Yes. Go ahead. Then I have a
>> the um you know you know as well as I do and you all do those projections are not counting any additional money. They're not counting any legislative appropriations. They're they're not counting a lot of
things. They're not counting growth. Uh 2030 fast approaching. Um the U-Haul trucks are as well. You know with people people moving in here and and and growth occurring. I'm not saying that growth will take care of all of it, but we have to factor in we have to factor into
potential growth. This place is not going to die off. And um you know, I'm going to continue to be optimistic uh and confident. Now, you know,
there hasn't been anything brought to this dis about funding the fire department. All we've talked about is getting rid of it. I've been on this council for two years and the only thing that's been brought forward is what happened in Tallahassee yesterday. And that was through my
working with with Representative Abbott to try to find some funding sources through ownership of that property that could help us offset some of those costs that we know are going to come. They are coming that you're right about that. Will they be that high? Will we we don't
know. But see, that is so that is just as uncertain counting on that and those projections as it's uncertain what Tallahassee is going to do with property taxes and how it's going to affect us. All I'm saying
is if we make a decision to run something and keep something, we we have a responsibility that that that bill yesterday went through three committees unanimously. It went unanimous on the House floor.
Those folks have a lot of confidence in what we're doing and they're supporting our fire department and that is that is speaks volumes volumes. And we don't know what political capital that Representative Abbott might have had to sacrifice to get that through so well. I
don't know that he has. We have not had that conversation. But that's the way things work in government. And but he got that done for this city. He got that done for for us. And and he the first thing he said to us when he came out,
you remember this uh Councilman Conders, he said that we have to we have to go to work and and figure out how to fund our fire department. Didn't he say that? >> And so they're expecting they're giving us every bit of help they can give us in
this way. Gave us se over seven acres of state land. uh to to help us out. So, I have no choice but to say I'm going to do everything I can, but I hope I'm that everybody joins in let's trying to
figure this out and find it. I don't want an assessment. I've said this that that hurts people. I just want a reasonable assessment that helps us deal with our fire department, fund our fire department, allow us some some some leftover money to to be able to give
raises and and treat our employees the way they should be able to. Bonuses don't cut it. Bonuses don't cut it. So funding needs to be adequate all the way through. And we just have to do the work to get there. And I'm not being critical of anybody in particular in the in the
in the in the past that I'm just they were able to do it because the city's expenses were not as high all those years in the past as they are right now. Wages are up, the cost of everything is up. It's a different world and we cannot
continue to sustain this. Uh and and I would be embarrassed embarrassed if if we do not go ahead with this and and and figure out how to fund this now after what has been done for us in Tallahassee
over this property and you know to to to get this property and then have a fire department build on it and and the sheriff's department take it over. Wow. I don't know. That's that's that wasn't the intent here for for this to be done. So, I think we have an obligation to to
figure out how to do this. And, you know, I'm not going to apologize for for being optimistic and we're going to find all this this money and and all that. I I take that I take offense to those kind of comments. I'm sorry. I do. Um I I've always been an optimist and I've always
tried to figure things out and make things work. Um and I will continue to do so. I just hope to have your help. >> Thank you, Mr. Harrison. I've got a comment then I'm going to go to Mr. Scars and then back to you, Mr. Cosen. Um, I'd like to just say that um, we
have to fund the entire city budget, the general operating, not just the fire department. I know that's what we're talking about right now, but um, I too, I think I shared this at the um, little workshop that we did, the five-year strategic plan that um, we might have to
fund things through the water and sewer, but that that's, you know, that's how we've done it. But to until we know this is a fluid document, the budgeting cycle is fluid. We're going to have to change maybe on a dime when certain things happen or don't happen. And you know, we
we can't just stop this process uh and think that um it's not this is going to assist us in funding the fire department, but which will free up some other monies to fund other departments. But I agree with you, Mr. Harrison. We
need to figure out a long-term solution. We've got to in that solution, we've got to come up with how are we going to fund employee raises. We can't expect our people to work for uh little to no increases from year to year. Um we've got some difficult decisions to make.
The futures, all of those projections, that's just what they are. They're projections. They're futures. But, you know, depending on what resources we have, we're going to have to make decisions at that moment to move us forward. So, um, we'll have to shift as
reality dictates. And, you know, if the fundings are cut short, we, you know, there there's all kinds of whatifs, but I don't live on whatifs. I, too, you just got to deal with, uh, what it is, and we'll get through it step by step, but I don't think we should stop this
process. Uh, Mr. SC, your turn. Thank you, ma'am. Um, so a lot's came out so far and I've got a couple of questions, but I got a few comments as well. Um, one of the questions I got is for Councilman Berbomb real quick. U and, and it deals
with the assessment and whether or not we continue to go forward with the public hearings at this point or if we just stop that piece and go forward with the assessment. Um, at any point, I think the negative outcome of trying that one way or the other would be the
fact that we've invested 40 or $30,000 in an assessment with the public hearings or we invest $30,000 without the public hearings. So, on either side of the coin, if we decide not to accept the outcome of the study, we've wasted
we've we have expensed $30,000. And should we decide that we want to move back in this direction again later, we're going to have to expense the funding again for another study. Counselor, is that assumption correct?
It could be. I can't tell you that because again, we're not far enough into the study. If I'd had any conversations with the consultant after they'd started it, they could have told me by now, are we looking at a three-year or fiveyear time frame? What is the lifetime of what
we're expecting? What are the assumptions they're using in terms of our finances? So, I I will say this. Yes, it's a fair assumption. It's would also be equally fair to say that our study may not be worth the paper it's printed on if they don't take into
consideration the elimination of homestead abalorum taxes and that changes. >> So without knowing what their methodology is and seeing that document in front of you, I can't give you the legal opinion today. Yes, this is good for another year or not. This is not an impact piece
study though. I want to be very clear about that. The reason that that is so important to understand is impact fee studies have to be done within the last 12 months before they're enacted under state statute. So there has to be a recency. So even if somebody gives you an impact fee study that's got to last
for a three or five year window based on your capital improvements, you can't adopt it three or four years later. It's just not the same. But this assessment is something that perceptively should last a fund or should fund the needs of
the fire department for a lasting period of time. They should be able to tell you what the horizon of this is. So if this council engages in this study or continues to move forward with this study and it comes back that hey the the assumptions are as equally as high as
what Councilman Beerbomb's believing they could be could be and then but they're nowhere near what Councilman Cosen would like for them to be and this council says no we're going to reject this. There's no way that we could move forward with what Councilman Cosen's recommendations are without another an
additional study that may formulate or however it does to come back to those assumptions. Is that fair or is >> Well, yeah. If if his if what you're saying he's saying is to pick a number out of thin air, you're right. You can't do that, >> right? >> Um if you're asking I didn't do that, counselor. >> No, I know. But he was hypothetically
saying >> I think what he was suggesting was the number comes back not as bad as Mr. beer bomb says, "But they don't come in a number you like. Can we just take a number?" The answer is no. They've got to give you a range. What is the lifetime and the viability of that
study? Is a question we'll have to talk with the consultant about. >> Okay. And Councilman Cosen, I'm not wanting you to think that I was I was just taking two scales is why I was using yours as an example because >> direct clarification. >> Basically, you can't pick the middle is what he was asking. the way I interpreted that
>> because I wanted to see for myself if I wanted to go down the road that Councilman Beerbomb's suggesting here with that um I feel just like Councilman Harrison does that regardless I knew that even if we had went the management control avenue with the Walton County
Sheriff's Office and Fire Rescue I knew that they were going to want to implement a fire assessment fee. So with that being said, it it would have probably been the same as the rest of the county because they can adopt that same assessment. But for us, we have to go out for our own assessment if we did
not adopt that same assessment. So that's why I was asking that question. Um there's we have to obviously because one thing that councilman uh Harrison said a second or second ago was correct and and I don't quite agree with
something that coun mayor promp said is that for years we paid it out of water and sewer and that is the truth every council has for years but one of the statements that um representative Abbott made to us when he came out there was a brief moment for me to ask a few
questions. questions that I' I've been wanting to hit for a while and that's where's the legislature going with the utility bills that are out there today. And I don't want to go too far off topic here, but one of the impacts is that the legislaturator is looking statewide at
all localities to say that you need to stop moving funds from enterprise funds to non-utility funds. And that's how we're funding our general fund currently. So, one thing that we as a council have looked at in the last budget cycle for sure very heavily and
that we're going to have to continue to look for in the future is the fact that we have been robbing that fund to pay this fund and now that the council has decided to keep our fire department and I support that. We have to come up with
innovative ideas on how to fund a general fund at this point moving forward or we're going to have to scale back on certain areas. For me personally, I'm not for sure that that outlook from 20 years from now that I would agree with that because of the scale and scope of what that's where
that's going. On the flip side of that, to be optimistic as Councilman Harrison is about growth, if the growth comes, you have to fund it. I am I I look and I I listen to public comment about the uh refer possible
referendum dealing with homestead property tax cuts. And I feel that it's going to go there. And so I'm thinking constantly about how can we do without $480,000 next year that we have today. I realize
with what Councilman Berbomb was saying that's a year down the road even if it is adopted. So at this point in the venture, yes, we've got another year. The year after that, we're not promised. So how even even looking optimistically, how can we how are we going to come up
with innovative ideas of funding that general fund? This can only f this study can only focus on fire unless I'm wrong. This deals with what is the impact of of um or the needs of our community for fire service and how do we fund that. So yes, the pay raises for the
firefighters, firefighters in there, but no, we can't look at the rest of the city with that. That is just the fire service. So th those are my thoughts. I feel that we should probably continue to move forward if we can reject this either way. Um but I do understand that
if we do that that we're going to have to expense additional funds for another fire study should we go down that road again in the future. Thank you, ma'am. >> You're welcome. Um I got two quick questions, Mr. Kos, and then your turn, Kobe. Did that vendor tell you how long the life of this study was good for?
Because I remember when Mr. Atkinson was telling us this several meetings ago that uh to to Mr. SCR's point. If this is if this doesn't have a shelf life of five or six years to where we could just pull
it off the shelf and implement one of the choices that they've given us without having to go back to pay for an additional study is is is that what's do you know how long this life of that? >> I have not had the that question from
the consultant. >> Okay. because to me that's a basic that would have been a basic thing for us to know before uh tonight but unfortunately we're going to have to make a decision based on the information that we have in front of us. So, uh,
could you please regardless of what happens tonight, you get with them and see how is that something that we have the opportunity to I guess I'm thinking that we tell them how long we want this study to if you're
if you're projecting clear out to 2050 as part of the expenditures then >> so I think I think you're you're referring to two separate timelines. I think you're referring to one of when it's created, how long do you have before you have to implement it to where it becomes ineffective or it's not any longer uh eligible to be used. Two, if
you do adopt it, how long is it is it in place for you to do it again? So, there's two separate ones. Uh I'm assuming the second the latter of how long is it is it good for? Um I'm going to assume that's in state statute on how often you have to redo studies. >> Well, it depends on the methodology used
in the study. If the study says, "Look, we've taken a look at I'm going to use some hypotheticals. Again, I'm not the guy doing the study, so I apologize that this is putting us into very char." But let's say they said, "Well, we looked at the 10-year needs of the fire department, and we believe that this is
the amount of money you need to levy to handle the 10-year needs of the fire department." >> So, >> it may it may very well be a reasonable assumption that you don't levy at year one, but you can levy at year two. Now, I need to read the qualifying language. I'd read need to read any disclaimers,
but they could do it. If they say this is good for the first three years of the fire department and you don't do anything in three years and you come back in year five, you know, that's not going to be any good. So, I mean, I'm just trying to give you two examples where I could say one could work, one could. >> Do we negotiate that upfront as the city to the vendor?
>> Well, I think you can ask them what they think they can do. They're going have to tell you what their methodology will support and what it won't. I I will say to you right now, I'm going to be very surprised based on other rate studies I am involved with elsewhere that you get
anybody to give you a long-term hold rate right now based on the uncertainty of Avalor right now. That's just that is what I believe. You're not going to get a very long-term hold on one of these. How >> uh Kobe, remind me that Mr. Beer Bomb's
got that budget in front of him. How many years out is that? >> It goes from >> 50. >> Goes from 2027 to 2050. >> Okay. So when when you and the chief and what other personnel sit down with these people, how many years are you are you
realistically looking at >> for them to evaluate? We have that kickoff meeting with them. Will the devil we're talking about that because I've got this strong feeling that the items that we identified the five to 10 year plan and is in that the trucks building that's never been formally adopted. This council's never
said we're going to do this. Exactly. >> Well, that's going to have to at some point be adopted to establish a study. >> So, we provided them the preliminary information they've requested of us and one of the items is the CIP. There are no fire department related items on the CIP at this exact moment. So, that's going to have to occur at some point.
here. >> Yes. >> Before March 17th. >> Not before March 17th, but you're going to have to establish at some point what are the items, number of people, the facilities, equipment that this council wants to fund with those dollars on top
of uh the existing operating cost of fire department. >> Well, wouldn't the vendor need to know those whatifs before they start this study and get way? >> That's what the kickoff meeting is for. We've never been through this, so I don't know what at all they need, how they're going to I don't know that yet. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cosen.
>> My biggest takeaway, and I appreciate some um explanation here, is that whatever they decide, we're not handcuffed into going with exactly what they say. We're going to decide what's best for the city. So, based on that, um
I'm very comfortable with going forward with a vote and let's get this done. >> Okay. Before we do that, I saw two hands. Mr. Naylor, did you have something? I'm sorry. Uhhuh. Just one moment. Uh, yes. >> I I do.
>> I thought you closed public comment, Madam Chair. >> I I did, but I saw that they were raising their hand, so I wanted to give them one more opportunity since they heard all of us speak. >> Well, I haven't finished speaking yet. >> Okay. Would you like to let me let them speak once and then you can follow or
>> go ahead, Miss Lightner? Mr. Naylor, you said no. Okay. >> I I just have a few questions after all the all the discussion. Clay, are you saying that it's against the law and illegal to do anything less than what the consultant tells you to do? Is that
what I understood? >> It is when you commission a study and you have to base your rate on a study, you just can't pick a number out of thin air. So I So without seeing the study, I can't say what you just said is accurate. It could be. So for example,
if they say I'll just use one phrase, the minimum assessment needed to do this is this and you go below it, you have no basis to do it because they told you there was a minimum. If they say the maximum assessment is X, >> okay, >> then you might have the ability to go
bottom up. But it's going to all depend on what their study says. >> What is your punishment if you go below the minimum? >> It can be invalidated. any citizen who has any citizen who has a obligation to pay it would have the right to challenge it in court. And if it's not properly adopted under the Florida statutes, they set the whole thing aside.
>> Okay. >> Just like an impact fee. >> Okay. And what if you didn't use a consultant right now and you just said for the time being we're going to go $75 a house and $250 of business. >> You don't have anything to base that on. You're just pulling numbers out of thin
air. So your numbers presumptively unreasonable. >> Okay. Understood. So the So you're saying that you could if it's if they say like $300 a household is the minimum, >> then you need to charge $300 a minimum
if you enact it. >> But if they say $150 is the minimum, you could go up. You just can't go below their minimum. Right. >> That that would be correct. And same way if they say the maximum, you go up to it. One of the things that I hope Mr. Townson and the fire chief talk about with them is
is there going to be consideration if this is a multi-year consideration of our capital improvement plan. Is this something that can be phased in? And I'm going saying that on the record and I look I don't get to make this call. The five of you do. But every time we've had
a water rate study in this city, in the 20 plus years I've sat up here and in every other government I've sat at, that's always been the question. Well, that's a big number. Can we maybe phase it in over a couple years? And instead of $100 this year, can we start at 70 and then go to a hundred? We got
to have the study data that says yes, this can be phased in. or if you phase it in, these are the required steps because if they're saying you need $150 a house minimum every year for the next 10 years to cover it and you charge $100 the first year, you're minus $50 a
house. How are you going to catch it up? That becomes the problem. How do you supplement that and how do you not negate the whole purpose? But that's a question to ask the consultant. That's a question for the chief to talk about. It's something that we need the chief certainly to weigh in on.
Here's my wish list. Here are the minimums. Let's get in between the two. I mean, this is >> this is why you pay these consultants. And by the way, >> I've seen these studies range from a couple thousand dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I don't know
why the prices vary that much, but this is why you pay it. So you get that data to support it so that you don't ever have that challenge. >> And I understand that. But are you saying that you you have to go with a consultant? You guys can't look at some numbers yourself. It's absolutely got to
be. >> You got to have some Let me say this. You have to have some professionalized number. If the chief sits down and says, >> "This is our cost of providing service. This is what we're doing." I mean, there are ways that you can do it in house. I will tell you, I don't think the city
can do it because I don't think right now we don't have a finance director. With all due respect to Danielle, I think if you ask her to put together a number that's outside of her expertise, we're putting her in a terrible spot. The chief knows what he needs to run the department. But what is the right charge
per house? What are the structure ages? There's a lot of different information that I don't know that we have. Now, you go down to Orlando, Miami Dade, they may have enough in-house resources to tell you what the average age of the structure, how many structures have fire suppression systems. I'm just going
through a few things I read to try to think about what this would be. Um, you know, if a certain number of your buildings predate fire code, the amount of your assessment is likely going to be higher because the risk to those structures and adjacent structures is going to be higher than later.
>> Okay? >> So, same way, by the way, these are the same type of assessments people are dealing with for condos post Surfside and they're finding out there's a huge difference between a condo built prehurricane Michael, pre- Florida building code and later. So, those are the type of things that we're going to
be talking about. And these people love this stuff. They eat it up. They know these numbers backwards and forwards. Nobody up here, I think, has any expertise in that. I've read too many of them, but I don't know anything about how to do them. >> Okay. And I keep hearing this 10 and 11 million a year number thrown out. Are
you saying that that's going to be the cost to run the fire department every year? >> Yep. >> Right here in black and white. >> That that was moving out to the future, Miss That just estimates. >> Okay. But go to Bay County. >> Yeah. But bay county.gov, they're
unincorporated. Bay County has 13 fire departments, 250 plus employees that and 175,000 people that they service on a $20 million budget. So I think we're talking like maybe 3268
the that year that we're going to get to that amount. It's going to be a long time there. right now there's not even enough room to have enough people here to need that kind of a budget. Um, and then the last thing that I want to say is remember your fire department is actually not fully funded right now
because the pay that your firefighters are getting are embarrassing. And I'm not I'm not making a judgment call on on that. I know you're doing the best you can, but you can't call it fully funded when you're paying them what you're paying. So, please just keep that in mind when you're making your decisions. Thank you. Thank Thank you, Miss Miss
Whitney and Miss White. Either one of you want to have any more comment before I close for the final time. >> Um, I just think you need to really think of the whole picture because you're talking not only citizens and commercial, but you have renters that
will receive the brunt the end if if uh let's say commercial renter. uh that person ain't going to take the the increase. They're going to pass it on down to the everyday man. So, just be sure you look at the whole picture. Not
only that, but even rental houses, it's going to be passed down to the everyday citizen. And um you know, I I get what Clay is saying about time and money. And I don't know, we're all you know, we're all they're going to take away one fee
and we're all breathing. Okay, we're going to get a relief on the um homestead exemptions, but then you come whammy us with another and you can't get a breath. You know, it's it's everybody feels that. Y'all do. We do. And it's
just a lot to consider. And um I just hope and pray that each of y'all talk to a variety of different people, not just the people that you're used to talking to, but go out and talk to somebody different. go out and talk one-on-one with the people in the east end like
Donald Graham says. Go talk to the people in the west end. You know, go not only the people in your I don't know how to say this, but in your realm of >> Yeah. In your realm of who you associate with. Go to other areas and talk to them
and see how they feel. Thank you. >> Thank Thank you, Miss Whitney. >> Okay. Public comments. >> Go ahead, Chief. Um, so one thing just sitting here thinking, you know, about the assessments if if they do go forward that I I don't know I think a lot of the
concern maybe is how much input is the council going to have with this consultant or is it just going to be Kobe and the chief? In every one of these I've ever done, chief, it starts with staff and we then and we have
always asked the consultant to be willing to meet with the council members individually to answer their questions. >> Right there. >> What I would tell the council on that is please do not attempt to tell them how to do their job in terms of I want this
number. That's the one thing you can't do. But go in there and ask questions. Let them give you answers. Offer your observations. Hey, I'd like this to be good for more than one year and we can, you know, but just don't tell them what to do because I have had impact fee
studies be dee I've seen at least where impact fee studies been validated where council members said look it better not be this number and the consultant literally puts that in the report. We were told not to come in above this number, but we don't find that it could be. Well, they just defeated themselves. And even though it
resulted in a lower number on the rest of the citizen, the first developer that had to pay it, filed suit, that city lost their impact fees. So, just don't do that. But I see no reason they can't talk to the county. >> Well, and so, and I guess one of the things like I I've got a question just being from my previous job to see, you
know, that deals with businesses and stuff. Um, a lot of these places will add on to their existing structure, whether that's undercovered roof or not undercovered roof. And when that does happen, are we going to wait for the property appraiser to come back out
three, four lers years later to reassess it? >> Yes, sir. You do. >> Is there any mechanisms you can do that says, well, you added this much square foot this year? >> We have the luxury as a city of notifying them when the building permits pulled that we need a reassessment done. So, we can ask for But to me, I'd like
to see some mechanism like that where if somebody does add or even take away from their square footage >> that that's an internal planning control. >> So definitely. Thank you, >> Mr. Beerbomb. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So this spreadsheet that's in front of me was
generated by our city manager and our fire chief. There are four fire engines and two stations. There are four engines on here and there are two stations. This isn't
let's go just wild with with the checkbook. This is exactly what staff is telling us we need. We've asked them several times. This is what they produced. I personally don't think it's fair
to then dismiss out of hand this as well. It's just projections. That number is not real. This is Cody. Did you not make the best effort you have available to you to to put these numbers and these are the best numbers you can come up with? >> Yes.
>> So, you feel like these are honest and accurate assessments >> and we have talked about it. We have talked about it. Um they're as good as we can get them. I think the fire chief and I sat down went through all of this. Um, again, we talked about in the meeting. You'll see that some of those
future debt cost are the same as current year debt costs. We we know there's going to be more in the future. We talked about that at the time. Again, we didn't get into all trying to have, you know, 15 different assumptions on cost, but I would say this is probably a very conservative from what we have put together from a price perspective.
>> So, it's it's a very conservative number. In other words, this isn't going wild. This is basically taking some of the exact same numbers and just repeating them out there. We know those those expenses are going to be more. We know that a fire engine today, the fire
engine that we bought three four years ago, 5 years ago is now more expensive today. And we've got a projection on replacing the current fire station that everybody is having a a fit about. That doesn't happen for another 15 years.
2042. We're going to put $425,000 into it in 2027 and then we're not going to touch it until 2042. And the debt service on I mean I appreciate that everyone's listening to
me, but the debt service alone on the the four engines and the two the two stations is over $10 million in debt service costs and interest payments. And that's again just based on what he's estimating on
the low end, on the conservative end. So, I am not opposed to proceeding with the study. I'm opposed to having this hearing, adopting this, and then all of a sudden, we're going to slam this thing
in come September, October, whenever that whenever that that time comes. And yes, I acknowledge we have the opportunity to to reject it, but why are we forcing our hand on this? I I keep hearing we're going to go out and get
funding. Well, then let's do it. Show up with a plan and let's do it. I keep hearing that, but no one's ever ever showed up with anything other than this is what we need. Oh, well, that's just projection. Never mind. That doesn't fit our narrative. I I'm I'm I'm
opposed to this. We're we're about to strap the citizens of this city with an immeasur an almost immeasurable amount of debt and we're we're just we're just racing to it 100 miles an hour. >> Thank you. I've got a comment and then
I'm going to go to Mr. Harrison. Uh Kobe inside of that. What year is the next what's the first year of of that spreadsheet? next year. How much in next year did you
give the uh people for a raise? >> And how much for uh benefits? >> This took so this took the fiscal year 26 current fiscal year took the base operating which is roughly $1.8 million. Our budget is right around 1.9 but that
also includes the debt service for the truck that now paid off. So if we get we get another truck next year and then it's $100,000 debt service. So and then the 425 for the renovation cost. So you're looking at 2.3 million. >> So help me out because you're not
answering my question. My question was how much for raises and benefits because that's 75% of the cost for >> so factored into the fiscal to the um base cost 1.8 8 million not in 27 but going into 2028 we have factored a 75%
increase every year to cover those fringe benefits those uh increased cost utilities XYZ >> 75% >> 75% >> so less than 1% you're giving you're giving raises of less than 1%
this is just general it could include that in the 75 >> okay is there any raises based on that inside of that >> starting in 2028, the city we have put in there to add an additional firefighter in fiscal year 2028. We do
another one every year up until 2031. That would be four additional personnel by 2031. That gets up to us up to three shifts of six. From 2031 all the way until 2038, there's a 3% increase factored into those four employee cost
to cover raises, benefit, you name it. Now, with those with those assumptions that you put in there or didn't put in there, how much for the growth of the city in each one of those years starting at year one, >> not the year that we're in was used in your assumption?
>> Again, the assumptions again based on the base budget, there's a 75% annual increase in there. Um, the engines are on 15ear notes, station on 30-year notes, and the additional personnel have an annual increase of 3%. No, I don't have numbers based on growth and what
that may relate to assessment. This is expend. This is expenditure, not >> Yeah. >> Well, well, that's my point because he Mr. Beerbomb's concerned, but he's concerned because I'm making the statement that these are assumptions we're going to have to change all of this up every single year when we come
to budget. And it's not going to be $11 million. if if we find ourselves in two years from now that our growth has exploded and we need a new firet truck, well then maybe we'll look at putting that into place. But right now, until we know that for sure and what funding
sources we have, we might have to forego that. We might have to forego certain things. That's why I'm saying this is a fluid document. This is a fluid process and we are going to have to make on a dime. we're going to have to switch
switch it up for what resources we have to utilize in order to come up with that years. So, I appreciate the the long term, but it is what it is. Mr. Harrison, you're up. Then we're going to go to a vote. >> Okay. Um Clay, you mentioned gradual
implementation or incremental, whatever. That's a possibility. We've talked about it before. Um >> and we want to make sure the consultant gives us that opportunity, but it can be. Yes. and and I had I had mentioned that in the previous uh meeting. So >> that's why I brought it up here >> and there that's right and and so
there's a lot of possibilities here. Um you know county assessments if there is talk about them going up and increasing their assessments. They're facing the same thing we are. What what is different about their scenario as far
as advalorum taxes than ours? So if if from what I hear they need to build four fire stations, how do they get where where is that money coming from? So what what is their plan? They might be forced to to increase their fire assessments.
There will have to be a fire assessment. If if this were turned over to the sheriff's department, there would have to be. So or let me just ask now, would would we be planning to pay that million dollars out of general fund? Would we
continue to do that? >> Can I ask who's in in favor of doing that? Would be willing to do that >> to to continue to pay it without a a a fire assessment? >> There there would be a fire assessment. It might >> There would be and and that fire
assessment, if they do in fact increase their fire assessment, our our city residents are going to be paying it. So, who who's the bad guys? Who's going to be the bad guys? I mean, if they have to do it, uh, or we have to do it, there's
still going to be a fire assessment, um, to help offset that cost if the sheriff's department were to take it over or if we if we do it. So, there there's I just want people to keep that that in mind. There there's there's most likely
going to be a fire assessment one way or another. Um, so if if if we I just want to clarify, you know, if we're successful in finding some money to find the fire department, we can always reduce the assessment at some point in the future. Is that correct, Clay? I
think you've already said this, but I just want to say it again. >> Based on the study data you have that would permit it, Yes, sir. You could you couldn't just arbitrarily lower it. There's going to have to be a basis to justify going below. >> That's right. So if we if we found
additional funds, other funds for the fire department and we didn't see the need continuing for whatever fire assessment we implemented, >> you would likely implement another study to confirm that is no longer needed and then you could go down just like you do
with impact fees. >> But but that is definitely an option. Um, and you know, I I you know, I don't I don't like to say things like this, and I wouldn't ordinarily, but you know, Councilman Verbomb, you you just you just challenged us to bring something
forward, but I would ask you, what have you brought forward as far as funding ideas for the fire department? I have to ask that because you just put me on the spot and these other council members to come forward with something. I have done that. I have done that. So,
I would just ask, you know, I can't allow it to stand that you're kind of implying that that we haven't brought anything forward. I can say that I have and I'm I and I have stated earlier that I'm going to continue to do that. I'm going to I'm going to work hard to do it
because it has come this far and I feel like we have an obligation. So, I mean, what have you brought forward in in in the way of funding the fire department? You don't have to answer, but I I I would like an answer. Um, if if you you
know, if you put us on the spot about we we haven't brought something forward, bring something forward. And and and I personally have. So, we're either want to keep it or we want to turn it over. And if we haven't done the work to
keep it, that's been my that's been my heartburn with this whole thing from going back to last year. Even as part of the council, I felt like we had not done anything to figure out how to fund the fire department. And then it came to this
question of how do we continue it? Well, we can't. If we reduce transfers, we can't. And now it's adorum taxes. if they do this, if they do that, and those projections, I'm not saying those projections are false. I'm saying they're not considering any other potential sources of revenue to cover
those projections. That's that's what I'm saying about the projections. So, if I didn't make that clear earlier, I hope it is now. Thank you. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Mr. Cosen, you're the first to go uh the vote for starting with voting tonight.
>> I'd like to go forward with fire assessment. Yay. >> Nay. >> I >> I >> I >> motion passes 4 to one. >> I call this uh meeting adjourned.