Monday night when we were had this on our agenda discussion of a potential reduction of uh the u percentages on the CRA funding which is taken off of our advert taxes. Uh Kobe, you want to weigh
in on this? Uh mayor, I just same thing. So it's just up to the council discussion and staff's here provide any information y'all may need. We'll go from there. All right. Um, anybody before I get Josh up here, anybody want to address it from
the podium? I mean, Mr. Mayor, yeah, I've got a letter I'd like to read into the record. All right, go ahead. So, this is a this is a letter from uh Reynolds Henderson, who is the uh chair of the CRA. I wanted to write you today
in my absence. I would like to state on the record that I respectfully disagree with the idea of reducing the percentage of the CRA tax increment funding percentage. As you all know, the CRA was established by the city council in 2017. Councilman Bob Mcnite created the area
for the CRA and he made it a made it big so that it would capture a sizable revenue. The city council was our initial board and turned the CRA over to an appointed board. I feel that our board and our staff has done a great job of stewardship with the people's money.
In the beginning, there was a small amount of funding. However, in the past couple years, our increment financing has grown to a level that allows us the opportunity to design and execute on both small and large catalyst projects. To get these completed in a timely manner, we will have to look at bond
financing, which is available to the CRA, but I understand is a fi is a financing option that is unavailable to the city. The CRA director, our board attorney, and I spoke with bond council two weeks ago. We've not even had a chance to allow our board to vote on
moving forward with bond financing. If allowed to remain in existence, the CRA will design and build such projects like the amphitheater redesign already engaged affirmed, the alleyways redevelopment, already engaged, affirmed, a cultural arts complex for
the CIA, own the building, and have an engaged and engineer streetscapes, restore railroad crossings, the complete streets of Highway 90, trails, and many other great projects. Our attorney has informed us that if all taxing authorities agree, we can also do other
projects like the renovation of the Dufiniac Springs Fire Department, which sounds like it is badly needed. I strongly urge you not to change the percentage. Any change in the percentage will result in a 40% non-reoverable decrease in funding. The CRA receives
60% of its funding from the city and 40% from the county. As an example, for the fiscal year 2026, the increment amount based on the current military from only the county is $722,569. It would be horrible business decision
to change the percentage because the county money will go away. All that would do is take revenues away from Defuniac Springs. You are in the business of running the city and the CRA was created by you. We are not elected officials. We serve at your leisure.
Please give us a chance to continue doing our job. We have eight more years before the CRA will need to be renewed. If you are unhappy with the progress, please take over the CRA or ended. It is unfair to waste every board members, staff member, etc.'s time and e and
effort by continuously talking about defunding our organization. If we are allowed to continue, I I think you and the citizens of Definiac Springs will be more happy with the results. Thank you for your time and attention on this matter. Respectfully, Reynolds Henderson.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a few things I'd like to say. Okay, go ahead. All right. So, tonight, you know, we're going to be asked to approve a massive 95% versus a different percentage. But
really what happened Monday night, we're going to be talking about the CRA debt that they're going to um borrow $10 million. I think that is financially, ethically a strategic mistake. Property taxes may soon be gone. The
funding will vanish. So, as we all know, we talked about this a few weeks ago. Governor Dannis even when I met with him a few weeks ago uh has projected a statewide constitutional referendum in November 26 which is going to abolish property taxes which means advalorum
taxes are the lifeblood of the city and the CRA funding. Now if we borrow $10 million now we're betting on funding sources that may disappear in less than two years. Taxpayers are going to be trapped in a repayment crisis. The state's not going
to forgive that debt if they borrow. CRA funds cannot legally be used to cover core city operations, which is the fire department and the policing. Repayments. We're going to come from the residents through either fee hikes, cuts, or emergency reallocations,
which means they're going to be saddled with public. We're going to saddle the public with debt that they didn't approve and may not legally or practically be able to repay. The law prohibits us from using CRA fundings to fire core s to to fund core services
like fire and police. And the CRA plan has adopted their plan and those aren't even in their plan. So the CRA funds cannot be used for general government operations like fire and police including building staff or equipment.
Our own CRA plan doesn't adopt the fire or police improvements. So even if they were allowed, it has never been adopted by that board. In short, you can't use that money for what the public assumes that we can. The alleyway project raises
some concerns for the public. We're proposing to spend CRA money on an alleyway project that benefits properties owned by decision makers on this board. The project was never adopted into that CRA plan of improvements. We're asking the public to
incur debt for private benefit outside of the plan that conflicts which conflicts uh with these interests. This is bad governance. It will not withstand public scrutiny or state oversight.
We're undermining our leverage with the state. Our own legislative representative can help us acquire that city property that where the fire station sits. that's owned by the state right now for very little to no money. But why would they help us if we appear
to be dismantling the essential services like the fire department or handing off responsibilities to another agency through vendoring? Why would he fight for us if we can't manage what we have now or we misuse what we're given? I think we're weakening our bargaining
power here and in Tallahassee. I strongly suggest that we stop and think about this. We got a potential disappearance of advalorum tax dollars, revenue sources, when that referendum goes before the public next year. A
prohibition using state the CRA fundings for the fire and police projects, especially core services. A plan that emits the very projects that we're funding. a conflict with the building uh owned in that alleyway and a message to
Tallahassee that we can't be trusted with what we have. To me, this is financially fiscally reckless. It's flawed. It's politically foolish. And I really suggest and hope that we vote no on the 95% funding. And I hope that we
protect this city and the public's trust by not putting them and strapping them with the debt of a $10 million borrowing. And the AGO, by the way, has there's several uh AGO opinions that are
out there that says the CRA trust fund may not be used to pay for police services that are the general responsibilities of the municipality. The fundings of municipal services such as police and fire protection from the community redevelopment trust fund is not authorized by law. Now these are
coming from AGO opinions 200142. The other one was from 8565. Uh and I strongly hope that we would reconsider what we're doing and think of all these things
before we make this vote. Thank you. Mayor, can I address the legalities there for a second? Sure. Councilwoman Evelyn has discussed is 100% correct. You can't pay for general fire and police services, but CRA statutes are abundantly clear as well
that you can pay for community policing innovations. That is specifically written in the Florida statute. The project that Chief Hurley spoke about at the other meeting um dealing with camera systems is virtually identical to that
that Margate Florida did in June of this year and as well been approved. So in that situation, community policing innovations are well within the authority in terms of the fire department, police department cannot pay for staffing, can't use it for substitute for impact fees. We can't
substitute general services the CRA. However, the Florida statute also specifically allows with the consent of the other taxing districts subject to the CRA tip, which would be the county in this case, the ability to use the
money for public facilities, including administrative buildings, police departments, and fire departments. police departments if they are designed as part of a police uh community policing innovation can be funded even without the blessing of the county. Now,
um I take probably the majority view of that from around the state that you're safer to go ahead and get the permission of the other taxing district and not try to classify something as an innovation or not when it comes to a building. But broadly, um, I don't know of any reason
that, um, we would even begin to attempt to fund general operations of the police or fire department. I've not seen that asked. I completely agree with Councilwoman Evelyn. But in terms of the request for the renovation of a fire department, that falls well within the
ability of that provided we receive the appropriate approvals from the county under Florida statute. Additionally, uh I would note that the CRA cannot construct a new fire department at this point in time. That doesn't address the renovation. The reason for that is that
the construction of a new fire department has been in the city's capital improvement plan currently. Currently, it's in there right now and it's been in there because of that amount of that allocation that the city intends to do that. It has to be removed for three years from our capital improvement plan before it's eligible to
be considered by the CRA. Now that does not mean CRA could not consider it in the future. So legally difference between the community policing innovations like Chief Hurley talked about and the improvement of public facilities uh including the police
department, fire department, technically even administrative building of city hall provided we get county approval. Lastly, I would note that um there have been a lot of questions I've fielded from a variety of council members and members of CRA
about what happens to the debt service if you take out debt, whether it's $1,10 million and CRA is abolished or if the funding sources are abolished. Simple reality, the United States Constitution, just like the Florida Constitution, prohibits the impairment of contracts,
which in include the impairment of contracts for debt. So every time a legislative bill has come up talking about abolishing the CRA, there's always been language in there that is read until the life of any obligations are satisfied. Um I will tell you I know
there is absolutely a very real probability that there is a constitutional amendment that may be put before the people. But I can tell you that I have seen nothing that indicates that even if that passes that the effective date of that memo can
supersede unless it specifically includes an amendment to the Florida Constitution that law can now be passed to impair private contracts that would put us into a position where that would eliminate the repayment of debts that are already pledged under valid Avalorum debts. There are cities in Canada around
the state that have gone through the referendum process and validly levied the debts. So to the extent that that's the funding source, while that is a concern, I would note that that is not traditionally how a change to the Florida Constitution or statute would work, there is the inability
constitutionally to impair contracts or debts. Thank you, Mayor. Go ahead. Um and um if the CRA bars are bonds out
$10 million and the citizens this is going to be as far as losing the adalorum tax, the homestead exemption the people the property taxes
um that's what's on the chopping block, Right. And is that going to be on is that going to be for the citizens to vote for? As I understand it, that's what's going to happen next November that a referendum will be put onto the ballot
that will potentially eliminate property adorum taxes, which is the funding mechanism to from us to the CRA. So, okay, if they get 10 million now, there will be no money to pay back to pay the debt of the unless we use
other sources and it's going to fall upon the taxpayers to pay it. It's not going to be forgiven. And the statute says that if they do bond out and you know, we were talking about the CRA would end in 2033. That statute says no, they will continue in until whenever
2039. they actually use a September of 2039, but until that debt is repaid. So, but how are we going to repay it when there's no Adalorum tax dollars? So, this is going to be on the ballot for the citizens to vote on, that's that's what we talked about a couple weeks ago in our budget session
that we should start thinking about how we're going to fund our stuff because the property taxes are most likely going to go away, which is the funding mechanism for this repayment. So, so I'm concerned that we're strapping this is a bad decision. I can't think of anybody that would vote
against uh eliminating eliminating more taxes. So, I think we need to psychologically prepare oursel that we're not going to have property taxes. And if that happens,
which I think there's a really good chance of that passing, who's responsible for that 10 million, those $10 million bonds? The statute says we are. It would. The CRA would continue. No, the CRA would continue to be in CRA would be responsible. No, ma'am. The city's not going to be signing any debt
covenant unless the city signs a debt covenant. There's no ability. Mr. Mayor, point of order. He is not the elected official that's making the discussion. city attorney ma'am and you're sitting the council advice and you have a conflict of interest representing the CRA and then trying to sit up here and represent
represent the CR this council's request so you can request that that's not accurate so well you weren't here when the CRA was created councilwoman he can assure you the city council asked me to assign at that time you have a conflict of interest and you should be quiet you should be neutral
and spoke when when we have a legal question if you would like me to give you the actual legal answer to your obl obligation question. I'll be glad to do so, but Councilwoman Evelyn is not providing you a correct legal analysis on that point. And he's omitting certain information. Please tell me what I'm omitting. I
would love to ask I asked Mr. Mayor that he's not the elected official. So, we're going to let we're going to give a chance everybody speak. Miss Hein, you cannot bog at the table. All right. Do you want to do you want him to answer that question for you? What I'd like to ask um Kobe
is how that's how is this going to affect the city's operations. If we give the city the CRA 1 point if whatever the million dollar plus or minus figure is, how is that going to affect the operations of this city? Are
we going to have to lay people off? It'll I mean once we finish up the budget, we bring those to you. We would know then. I mean, as we talked about the utility transfer reduction, that's already been a a conversation we've had as the whole board has had, we've kind of discussed and looked at a plan. Um,
as Danielle and I have met with everyone this week about uh some other concerns. Uh there are some things that we're going to have to deal with when the time comes. Um end of the day, whatever the council decides to do, we'll make it happen. Now, what that looks like and the form looks like um I'll provide a recommendation to all of you and you all
can agree to it or you tell me to revise revise that and I'll bring it back. Um but um yeah, if we're looking just basic looking at utility transfer $500,000 a year that causes a difference to city's operations. Yes. Are we going to have to do more utility transfers which means continue to rob
water and sewer? I can't tell you we will or we won't. Again, that'll be up to the council. If the council says we don't make another dime until transfers, we cut expenses. Well, didn't we just have a meeting about reducing the transfers so that we could get a hold on the the
infrastructure of this city and put more money into the infrastructure? Yes. I'm going to I'm going to bring you a budget that shows that, but when that budget comes, the council's not comfortable with that, we'll make the adjustments accordingly. Okay. So do you have a model right now
to show us that if we do if we continue the 95% of the increased advalorum tax that the CRA is getting and we've only we're only getting 5% of that to try and upgrade our decaying
infrastructure as far as the budget goes that we're heading toward. Are we going to be able to keep our budget? Are we going to have to Are we going to have to
cut positions and cut services? Short answer, yes. We have to have a balanced budget. So, if the revenue is not there, we cut expenses or we find other sources of revenue. But short answer, yes, we will have a balanced budget. We're required by law to have one. and I'll present one to you. Um,
now what it looks like and whether you're comfortable with that or not is a different question. Are you going to bring that out in this meeting? No, sir. We don't have it in at this moment. Um, well then we don't have enough information to make a good decision. That may be the case.
Let me just make a couple things clear real quick. Now, when we talk about 5%. Uh, the 95% is over and above what it was at the time CRA started. So, we're not getting 5% of the taxes. We're getting 5%
of the increase of the increase. Got it. Right. So, I just don't want people thinking city only gets 5% of the taxes. We only we get 5% of the increase pay. Go ahead. Right. Yeah. One of the big questions I think of a lot of us is about the debt
service. So, um, and that's one of my biggest questions. So, Clay, that that's a concern. Um, Kobe and I talked about this just before the meeting and I asked him the same question. So, I do have that question as to what we're um what
we would be expected to pay or have to pay if if the CRA were ended or whatever in the future. Would you please explain that? Certainly. So, with regard to that, it's very straightforward. We do have an ongoing obligation, always will, that as
long as the CRA is in existence and we choose to keep it in existence, we're obligated to fund the trust fund. And if they borrow money, we're obligated to continue funding them at a level that would satisfy their bonds and obligations. So if for instance you cut
their funding back in a future year after they did this, you would have to cut it back to a level that allow them to pay their debt or alternatively do what we call a limited finding of necessity that the CRA would need to be extended until the period of time the debt could be paid off. Now,
what has been discussed with the city's financial advisor who consulted the CRA on this would be to only establish debt service that would expire before the end of the life of the organization. So, it would be a very short repayment, maybe a very high annual repayment amount, but
it would be a very short fuse for repayment. That also necessarily limits the total amount of money that can be done. It limits also the way debt service works, the the nature of the projects that can be done because they necessarily have to be completed within that time. So, let's say the CRA is
ultimately sunset. Well, if you ultimately choose to sunset it and they still have money left outstanding, you're going to have to give them a runway to close that out. But, for instance, if you were to allow them to borrow money by keeping them in existence and they go out and pledge, I
think Mr. Irvin said 5 million26 5 million27 was his proposal. That's going to create a debt service obligation to those years. I'm not going to get into all various forms of private or public bond financing tonight. I think that's probably too far in the weeds. But simply to say, there are
options that allow you to select a payment schedule that best fits the allocation mechanisms. If they've done that and let's say they have a million5 in debt service that they have to fund a year, nothing would stop this city though. And this is kind of the other
side of the coin I think that you're asking about how this works. Well, if next year they're due to get $2 million and they only need a million5 to cover debt, it would be within this council's prerogative to scale and shave off the top levels of those percentages to leave
them enough money to pay the debt and recoup and claw back that additional abilorum gain into your budget. You couldn't short them without extending their time to do so. Um, as to the broader question of what happens if the method and obligation of repayment goes
away, if that is done to a state constitutional amendment, I am of the opinion that here and everywhere else would be faced with the same issue that that could not be sunset in full until such time as all existing obligations
are satisfied because from a practical standpoint, the state city can't either cannot impair contracts already entered into. So, we've seen issues where revenue bonds have been issued off a sales tax, for instance, and that sales tax was legally declared invalid later
due to a constitutional infirmity. In those cases, they were allowed to continue to pay the debt service from that obligation until they were fully sunset. Now, that doesn't mean you get to expand it, add to it. No, it becomes
a hard window and payoff window. Okay? So that that would be my expectation, but I don't know what the constitutional amendment would read. It could say nope, all obligations are hereby done away with. That would avoid the impairment of the contract. There'd
be a lot of unhappy banks and lenders, but I don't know. I can't predict that. So follow, you know. So first off, I want to put on the record. I want to be very, very clear about this. The city is not insolvent.
I'm gonna say it again. The city is not insolvent. The city's not in any kind of financial stress. There's $24 million sitting in our various accounts. Okay. I I hear the little chuckle. I
understand some of that is restricted, but the city is not insolvent and we're not about to go broke anytime soon. Okay. As a fiscal conservative, I think it is incumbent upon us to make sure that we are spending what we're collecting and
not more. I have been I have been after this since I got elected and realized this in 2019. I realized in 2019 that we were transferring money out of the water department, out of the sewer department, which meant there was less money in that those accounts to deal with
infrastructure upgrades. I knew that there would come a day when we needed a bigger plan, when we needed to do pipes, etc. I' I've been on the record. You can go back and look through minutes. You can go back and look through agenda items. It's there. the the conversations that we're having
tonight that we've had Monday that we've had even previously in our workshops in the last two months. This is this council wrestling and grappling with a re a strategic rep prioritization of our finances. Again,
we're not broke. This is about shifting where we put our money, where we put our dollars. I I I'm sorry, but I I don't buy into this fear-mongering about what may or
may not be on a ballot in November because as Clay has explained, whatever we do today, we're protected by the Constitution. If if debt is issued, we're good. And I and I can also say this,
even if that is put on the the ballot, there's going to be some really really hard conversations that need to be had because it's not just this money from the CRA that's going to disappear. You're talking about $3 million that funds pretty much all of our public
safety that will disappear. So, people will have to think long and hard about whether they want to get rid of property taxes or not because it will mean a reduction in those specific services. period. So I my big question is if hypothetically
we were to reduce the CRA funding, what and I want it on the record tonight, what would those dollars specifically go towards? And it better not be, well, we're just plopping it back into the general fund so we don't have to cut the general fund and make tough choices. It better be that it is
to do actual projects that we're basically taking away from the CRA because the CRA grants us a very very unique opportunity to get things done that I never thought we would be able to
see done in this city. as an example. Give me any time in the last 20 years when this city would have been able to put millions of dollars into that amphitheater. As a kid growing up, I can remember tens of thousands of people packing out that amphitheater for the
Shiitaka Festival. [Applause] But show me in the next 10 to 20 years where we will have millions of dollars that we can just grab out of the city's budget. Grab out of the city's budget and say, you know what, we're not going
to spend it on that. We're going to go spend it on the amphitheater. We won't. The answer is never. So, let's not mess with a good thing. Let's let's continue to fund the CRA at its present levels. Let's give them an opportunity to shape defuning accident
in in 10 to 15 years. We can drive around here because I' I've driven around here all my life and I can drive around here along with everybody else in this this city and say, "Man, there's some amazing improvements to this city. We're not stuck in 1995."
That's what I'm talking about. Mayor, if I may read 163387 sub5 into the record. I think this satisfies or should resolve every question on this about obligation. 163 387 sub5 in community redevelopment
trust funds. Revenue bonds issued under the provisions of this part shall not be deemed to constitute a debt, liability, or obligation of the public body or of the state or any political subdivision
thereof, or a pledge of the faith and credit of the public body or state or any political subdivision thereof, but shall be payable solely from the revenues provided. Therefore, that's redevelopment trust fund. All such
revenue bonds shall contain on the face thereof a statement to the effect that the agency shall not be obligated to pay the same or interest there from them. meaning the CRA cannot be obligated to pay except from the revenues of the CRA
held for that specific purpose and that neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the governing body or of the state or any political subdivision that includes the county thereof is pledged for the payment of the principal or interest on such bonds. That is the
current Florida statute. It is abundantly clear we are absolved if they are allowed to issue debt. In fact, the bonds themselves on their face, whoever issues those has to say they can't come after not just us, the state, the
county, or anyone else. It can only come out of the CRA. So would would that apply if later down the road the percentage was was reduced? But if they put $10 million, for example, on hold with a bond and you
mention, okay, they go a project and they put $2 million, but by the end of their sunset, maybe they haven't done the $10 million or whatever. So, so the debt is only going to be what they've actually pulled from that $10 million bond. That's how I would recommend it be done. Absolutely. I would not recommend taking
I would never recommend to any government agency to take the full amount of a we call it a line of credit even though that's not the actual phraseology here. I would never recommend you draw your full line of credit and sit in the bank and start paying interest on it. And by the way, when you do public financing, to be
clear, the lenders, whoever does it, whether it's a bank qualified financing, a private bond, or a public financing issue, they're going to require that the money be spent towards specific identifiable project. So, when we did bank qualified financing to acquire this
building, the $2 million the city borrowed was specifically related to this and this acquisition alone. We didn't get two million to do whatever we wanted with it. had to be for this specific acquisition. So then if that percentage were were cut,
we start off at if we leave it at 95%. They take these bonds out and at some point down the road, a year or two now, uh from now or whatever, the percentage is cut to 75, 50, what whatever the case might be, we have just cuffed their
ability to repay that bond. Correct. Are we at any point after that point liable for it? No. To pay that debt? No. It's your obligation though. You're not liable for the debt, but is your obligation to make sure they are funded to complete the purpose their mission.
So what you would do is you would reduce Yes, you're not going to be able to come back and reduce them to where they become insolvent at that point in time. But certainly if they are only in need of a million a half dollars and they're drawing in 2.5 million, you can cut that million off the top,
you can reduce the percentage down to leave the debt service in effect and claw the rest back into your budget. You have that ability as long as you don't render them insolvent. You're just legally prohibited from making them insolvent. You don't become obligated to. So it sounds like we're pretty much
locked into that 95% or something if they take out those bonds. I I would say you're locked into the dollar amount necessary to cover debt service, right? Because 95% today yields the million three we're talking about out of the city. Let's leave the county out for a
minute. Yeah. Well, what's next year? Well, if you have linear growth again, like we had before, it could be two million. Well, at that point, if they only need a million and it goes to two, you're not locked into 95%. Got you're locked into making sure the percentage hits the debt service level.
And what I would say is this. If we are legitimately talking about this being a discussion, well, you can't dictate to the CRA the projects. That's probably a conversation that should be had at this D tonight with CRA
that look if this is we're giving you that blessing. We want the projects that you're going to include to be something that you collaborate with us on so we make sure we understand what that is. You don't have to give them an open checkbook. you have authority over their redevelopment plan. So if they're going to put these in and that's become the
scope of their redevelopment plan, you have the ability to look at it and approve it. You use that as your power combined with your ability to cut the funding would be that was my big question. You know, how much say do we have nowhere say if they're going to go
$10 million, we say make that five, you know, just just using a number. But well, you can tell them you're not going to allow them to amend their plan to include stuff that goes outside that would take more money than that, right? Absolutely. Okay.
Thank you. Go ahead. So, we don't know how 95% is going to affect the operations of this city or
layoffs or the loss of infrastructure projects in which the CRA can't do infrastructure, can they? Well, it depends on what kind of infrastructure. Give give me an example. I'll try to do my best on hypothetical. Okay. We're doing patchwork on these 100
plus year old plate sewer pipes. There's a plan to fix them all, but we don't have the money to do that. So, we just patchwork all over the city digging up the streets because we don't have the money to do
it. So is that so if we lock oursel in, we're not going to be able to do basic needs and maintenance for the citizens of this city. Well, you're not going to be able to do pay for it out of CRA. I agree there,
Mr. Town. So the clay line replacement is that is in our capital improvement plan at this point in time. And that's just one Well, I'm just asking just as an example, use this. I mean this I don't so AC so AC water main is a project that work that is in our capital improvement
plan which is the water side the sewer side I have to look back through it I we don't have some broad project I don't believe the sewer side is the water side may be so yes let's just hypothetically assume we at least have that clearance that it's not in our capital improvement plan and we're not dealing with a three-year
window okay the CRA can Mr. goes and they are absolutely within their authority if it is an ancillary part of a project they are doing. I get it. Like the alley. Exactly right. And and the alley is a short distance
compared to this this city. And it's not just and and it's not just the clay pipes, you know. We've got neighborhoods that are pitch black at night because there's no street lights. There's no CRA can fund that easily. You know, can they can they can they fund the
sidewalks to keep the kids ab 100%. They've talked about comm they've talked about connecting communities grants and dollar leveraging. So So they just can't do the the water and sewage. It's the nuts and bolts maintenance. It's the general obligations of the city. They can't take home,
but they can do things associated with water and sewer to the extent it's ancillary to a blight remediation or other identifiable project. So, there's a lot of places in this city that have these old pipes that need to be replaced that are ticking time bombs
that aren't necessarily um that don't qualify for this. That's right. That that is they certainly are not going to be able to replace all the pipes on our system. They can't replace our affluent line. Can they replace or help us replace or at least bear some of the cost of replacement as part of that alleyway
project? 100% they're able to do that. Okay. So here here's what's got here's the sticking point for me. If we continue at 95%. Are we going to be able to maintain
normal operations of this city? And we don't have a model for that yet. Sure we do. It's called the last six years. I just asked Kobe and you said no fiscal year 26 budget
that's what we're talking about so if we keep giving them 95% of the increased ad balorum for the 26 budget are we going to be able to continue normal operations and
not lay off people I can guarantee you that if you if you did this right because it's the council's decision. End of the day, we're talking about utility transfers. I'm talking about hard numbers until until we plug it until we put it in and it pops out that number either in deficit or in a surplus before transfer
after transfers. We don't know. Okay. When would you know at the end of the budget season? No, we'll know in the next week, week and a half. Okay. So, that's that's very important. But we've had such varying conversation over the last two months. I would I
would not be able to provide you a budget at all you could settle on over the conversations we've had the last two months between cutting $500,000 out of utility transfers conversation with the CRA the drastic change in operations it would cause those two conversations
it varies from Tallahassee to Pensacola I can't provide you a a vision on that because I I don't have the number yet. Okay. Well, isn't that important? I'd say so. Yes. I think we've got the cart before the horse.
If I can be convinced that this city won't skip a beat and we won't have to lay off any employees and resume normal operations and increase fixing our infrastructure.
That's the $64 question. Well, he couldn't give you that guarantee if we were getting all the tax money. And we just had a meeting not too long ago about we're trying to reduce the transfers. And I didn't know this when I was sitting out there before I
was sitting up here. The word transfer means in layman terms we're robbing out of water and sewer to pay for other things instead of the infrastructure that it was designed to fix. So, I'm
wondering now this all this money that we talked about, we're not going to take out of the water and sewer or the enterprise funds anymore. And we even got in an argument, are we going to do this in three years or we going to do it in five years?
Mhm. It seems to me like if this goes I know if if we just kind of shoot in the dark and if this thing goes south and you've got to you've got to hope for the best but plan for the worst and we've got to
we've got to think realistically there is a really good chance that we're going to lose property tax because Dantis has held in on it. Okay, you done?
I just think we need we don't have enough data to make a good sound decision right now. I think this meeting needs to occur after we have a budget and that would because let's just say hypothetically we reduce it down to
where the CRA gets 75%. Mhm. so that we get a little bit more to for some basic quality of life amenities for our citizens. Is that the magic number? Would we be able to resume normal operations then
without laying anybody off and up our game on infrastructure or is it 55%. Or is it 50%. We don't know. Go ahead, Don. So, I'm going to give this analogy and and this is just my interpretation on
it, but imagine we are beer bomb household and it's 2019 and we take a loan out on a new house and we're we've got a job and we've got income. We rock along and we spend a little bit
here, spend a little bit there, and all of a sudden we get six years down the road and we realize, well, I really want this new boat over here, but I can't afford it. So, I'm gonna go back over here to my employer and say, "Give me a raise. Give me a raise. I want this money over here that I see. Give me a
raise." That's that's the analogy that I that I see right now. We're we're we're willing to rob out of the CRA to put into the general fund because we rob out of the CRA. Yes, we're wanting to cut the CRA
and return that money to the general fund, but we don't have a clear exa a clear plan just yet that's been 100% agreed upon to reduce our transfers out of the enterprise funds. We're we're
muddying two distinct problems. And and the other thing that I think we need to be aware of in this situation is I Mr. Cosen, I agree with you. We don't have enough true information in this moment
right now to make a decision, but I do think that we get further along in the budget process and we could make a decision. Exactly. We can agree on that on what we want to do next year. Unfortunately, this is one of those situations where we have to make
decisions that are well in advance. Calling a meeting on the Friday or the Thursday before we have to submit it for a deadline to make a decision that impacts the city in this kind of way. I agree with you. We don't have the information and I think it is on us to do the hard work over the next couple
months to get our house in order and get our finances in order and and come to to to an agreement among all of us on what our priorities are in terms of transfers and what we want to do within the city and then that will help us make a decision on how we want to continue to
fund the CRA in subsequent years. We're halfway there, Todd. Amy. Okay. I've been asking since April to reduce this funding. Uh this is not my first time asking. I tried last year and I've started talking about this since
March or April of current year that we need to talk about this. We need to put the county on notice. CRA needs to make plans on doing this. So I don't go for this putting this on the agenda the Friday before it's due. That is our fault. That is nobody's fault but
management. Okay. So, the next thing, Mr. Cosen, on the CRA's adopted plan on page 88, what they can and cannot do with these monies. Okay? And I want you to understand, it says CRAAS cannot use
funds for anything not covered in this plan. I don't see the alleyway in there. And uh I don't see that new building that they purchased. Uh I think that was for a farmers market, but that's going to be, you know, they're going to change their mind. I think they did to what
they're going to use that for. Anyway, this is a guide. This is the adoption. But I want to talk about the $10 million in budgeting. If there's only seven years between now and the time that they sunset, that payment at 0% borrowing
interest rate would be more close to $1.5 million a year. We'd have to fund them. But next year, let's just hypothetically say advalorum taxes are going to go away. Well, that's the source, the mechanism that we use that
increase to fund them. Okay. So, right now it's a million, but their payment o for 10 million at seven years is 1 and a.5 million that they're going to have. That's at 0%. I think they were looking at a 5% borrowing rate. I want to talk
about the infrastructure in the alleyway. What's the return on investment? I'm a city business owner. I'm also a city taxpayer. I'm not going to see a a benefit from that project. Okay. What are the citizens going to get
from us doing that? I have a problem because there are three decision makers that have a say in this or influence over this and I don't think they should be allowed to vote on this particular uh item. So, with that being said, again, I
think this is ethically wrong what we're doing. I do agree. I don't think that we have enough information in front of us, but unfortunately they're correct. This has to be submitted to the taxing authority to the property appraiser uh
by Monday. And I've been trying to have this conversation since April. So I don't I think bad on us. So Glenn, um, first off, you know, the talk out of Tallahassee about reducing the property
taxes at this point is talk. I mean, you know, I suggested, you know, we're going to do this in the coming months. You know, we've got ideas. You mentioned one Monday night requires investment sewage collection. Da da, right? there sources of revenue that that we know that we
might could implement in the coming months, but we can't budget on that because that bird's not in our hand. So, we can't budget accurately on the idea that advalorum taxes are going to be, you know, voted down. I've
heard nothing as to how what the substitute for funding is going to be across this state for public schools or anything else if they cut at the lower taxes. So what is the plan? It it just it just just seems odd to me that here we are making a decision about the
existence continuing existence of a CRA. Um and and you know there was talk in Tallahassee during the legislative session of ending CRAAS and here we are talking about ending CRAAS you see or cutting the percentage. So, I don't know
about Avalor taxes actually being being lowered, you know, whether that would pass or not because I hope people have enough sense to know we got to fund our schools, right? And and and and cities. So, I don't know if that'll pass, but people do vote for lower taxes without thinking of the consequences of that.
So, you know, we're our pants are not on fire. You know, we talk about it 22% uh of of of cutting transfers. We need to do that. Auditors pointed that out. we need to do that. Do we have to do it immediately when we're unsure of how
that referendum might turn out if it makes the ballot? No. I I don't think we'd be wise to start laying people off and cutting back severely to reduce our transfers if the potential we don't know where our money's going to come be coming from. So all these things are ifs and scenarios,
but but I've been told before, you know, we can't put that in the bud. We can't budget for something that we don't have going yet. But we know that we're going to increase our revenue in certain ways and we can make adjustments to the budget in our departments. It's been
discussed and those are hard calls, but we can we can make some savings here. My concern about the CRA is, you know, you go out for these bonds. You know, I at this point I I need some assurance. What we need CRA to do in my view is to get
projects done. I mean, they're great. Amphitheater is great. But my question is every project is how does it save this city money that we can use that money to do those sewer lines and those infrastructure that we got to find money to pay for. So, you know, doing
projects, the CRA taking on projects that are are beneficial to us in in when things are tight. We want to reduce transfers. We don't know of we're not insured of our future funding because of property tax uh cuts or whatever. You
know, we just we just have to we have to have some assurance. I person I have to have some assurance that these money is going to be wisely. We're not going to overbond it. We're not going to overspend on things that we could if we got to cut back here. If if I'm considering whether we're going to have
our fire department and whether we keep our employees, that's easy for me. It's easy. So, I need some assurance from the CRA that these projects are going to be wise projects that help us keep these things in place that are important to the people of this town.
And I would like to have some assurance that before we decide about the CRA and what percentage we're going to be giving them of our taxpayers money, I'd like to I'd
like to have some assurance that no matter what the number is, do multi do multiple models. If we continue giving them 95%. What if we scaled it back to 75%. Could this city continue normal
operations and not skip a beat and not lay off people? Could the citizens continue to get the service they've been having? Or will they there be services interrupted? or if we drop it back all the way to 50% or 55% or whatever the legal uh bottom line is,
are we even going to be able to continue normal operations and not lay off people if we reduced it to 55%. three basic models and I know that you
and Danielle are sharp cookies and you can give us that information and I think we need that information before we decide what we're going to do. I had a lot but I don't know how to organize it all. Well, thank you. So, a lot of the things
that I want to talk about, this isn't the proper venue, but because it is out of order a little bit, but there's Hey guys, hold on chatter. Good. Go ahead. There's there's systems that impact systems. Um, so I agree with some of everything that everybody has said here
tonight. Um, I like I mean the council put together the CRA and put them in existence years ago before many of us got here and they can do great things. The one complaint that I've heard in conversations with
with some has been, well, well, they're great at getting the money and starting these projects, but have they finished any of them? We're putting them in buckets. and and I understand how that's organized. So, I'm not knocking y'all on it. But what I'm getting to is I think the general consensus is here if we want
to see the CRA in existence, we want to see things done. So, it it's and I and I'm not knocking you guys at all over that. I'm just because I know how long it's gonna how long it takes the the bureau bureaucratic process is ridiculous
because it takes us so long to get things done and it's because you have to have a meeting to establish something. You have to have a meeting to set it and pace. You have to have a meeting to say all right you can spend us money to get a design. You have to have a meeting to say all let's review the design. You have to have a meeting to say all right
we want to move forward and get estimates on construction. You have to have a meeting to say all right let's begin construction. That crap takes time. It's at least two weeks for any of us up here. And Kobe and Josh, they have to lead these meetings and go back and get answers for everything that occurred
in those meetings over a two-eek process. So, their plates are full, too. Then you've got to deal with the contractors and the construction workers and everybody else. And if anybody's in business and and working anywhere, you all see the same things. We're all
challenged with the fact that help's not getting better, it's getting worse a lot of times. So, it's trying to find people to do the work and knock it out. So, when I say that I'm not knocking, I'm not because I I'm looking at the whole process. At the same token, I'm also
looking at the debt and not so much what you guys can incur through bonds and everything else. I am worried about Appalorum taxes being cut, but I'm more so worried about that when it comes to how are we going to fund public safety because there's $6 million either way
you look at this and this is not the proper venue for this conversation. But I've got to say it, there's $6 million that we have to fund for fire and law every year. And all of us in here want fire and law in the city. I I've made the conversation about well
what would it look like if we had someone else do um management and control of a of a service. It wasn't that I want to get rid of fire for that comment. It's let's look at can we continue the same efficient service for less money. And there's some people that hate the sheriff and they don't want it
to go that route just because they hate the sheriff. But they like the fact the infrastructure that's there and the people are to work in there. So, it's hypocritical for us to say that in certain aspects, but I'm not gonna knock them either. I'm just saying that there's a lot of hard decisions that
have to be made amongst us. And it it's not going to be popular with everybody. We're going to tick people off and we're going to make some happy. But the biggest thing that we've got to decide on is with this meeting is how the CRA is going to impact what we can do moving
forward with continuing the city moving in the right direction. I like bite remediation. That's what it's created for. I think that we've got things that are coming up with um Oh, Lord, I even saw it on here with the
um not so much the property acquisition, but the fact to get flipping the properties and getting them back on the market for taxable revenues so that there is money's coming back into the the city. Again, I apologize. I stuttered there for a minute. But but
the the thing is the CRA can do great things if we allow them to, but then we do have to look at these other things and get some assurances as to how we're going to fund fire and law if property tax are removed. Mr. Cosen's absolutely right. And the one thing that I looked
at from the very first moment that I got on the council was that our pipes are in dire condition. It it it's horrible. It's been that way throughout my entire life. So, how are we going to replace all of this? It it requires a ton of money. Is state legislature going to
work with us? Are we going to get grants? How are we going to match those grants? There's systems that impact systems. So, I honestly at this point I still don't know how I'm going to vote. Let me just do comment. I think just so we keep talking about we're not going to
at this point there is not a proposal to completely eliminate abalorum tax is to eliminate abalorum taxation on homesteaded properties which is consistent with the governor's $1,000 rebate. That's been the call thus far is for an elimination on property tax on
homesteaded properties. Now, there's no doubt that will be substantial, but homestead properties already have fairly large exemptions attached when you look at our average home values in the city. That's why we've seen the League of Cities fight for that to not happen every year and why they oppose those
constitutional amendments because cities that don't have very high dollar home values, a $50,000 exemption can take whole roles off that. But right now, the proposal is only for it. So your commercial buildings right now there's not a current proposal anywhere to
eliminate all property tax for homeowners specifically. What the one comment I got about it though, Clay, and it's not even that home even elimination of all property taxes in the city wouldn't help us with the $6 million because it only equates
to $2.8 million and we got a $6 million debt that we're covering with transfers. So that that's the truth of the matter is how are we going to continue to fund all these things. One question on the uh water and sewer particularly the uh
maintenance and repair. What sources can we pay for that item? Water general fund your bills that come in every month. Same f way for sewer. You have capacity fees. Where I'm going capacity fees are 100%
eligible for that. They are not limited like impact fees are. We have some impact fees left, I guess, still that we're slowly burning down. Those are more limited than that. Um, it in terms of a replacement and an upsize at the same time, you can do that. You can't
just do standard upgrade repair, but the capacity fee is not by any means restricted the way the impact fee is because it is a connection charge, not an impact fee. all our county hookups, the new ones are fixing to happen. We still get the full
100% same all the all the money that's coming in. So there is going to be a considerable amount of money that we have not ever seen before fixing to happen. You know, the CR couple things to point out. The CRA is carrying over what's the
number? 800 840 give or take. $840,000 this year. you know, and then we we look at what they're going to have next year in additional uh uh revenue, and it it looks like a lot, but the fact is they're going to spend that money. I
mean, it's not like they're just banking it, you know, and the more that their hands have been somewhat tied in the past, you know, and they're they're they've been making progress and coming
into themselves just like we have as a council and which reminds me of that whole team concept. you know, I I used to coach and and we we are we should be operating as a team to figure out things and we do we do a good job of that and uh but we're also a team with CRA and
and I've said before we we started having workshops and to to figure each other out, figure out how we can help each other clearly identify those things. And I think that's where we are at this point. We didn't set the the tiff deadline, right? Uh August the 4th.
We just so we have no we have no choice but to hash this out now. So do we have all the information? No. We have still we have two months of spending left in our fiscal year. So we're not there for that uh there but that that accumulation of money it looks like they're not doing
anything and it might be shaped up to us that we're not seeing the projects done that we need the help with and we and and we realize that. Um, but one reason CRA was created in the first place, one of the advantages, I've heard this over and over and over was their ability to
bond money when the city can't, right? And that gives them CRAAS a unique ability to accomplish projects that the city can't can't get done. All we need is for them to get done. And and I I
would like to think and I hope we hear from them tonight. I um I I would like to think that we can do that. We're at the point I think it's serious enough that we we we need to hear that. But yes, may I? Go ahead. Okay.
I want to clear something up so that there's no um miscommunication. As far as um as far as our alleyway goes, it looks like a murder scene out of law
and order. I mean, it is terrible. And I would love to see it with all the bells and whistles. I'm a one and done guy. Do it right the first time. Don't be cheap. do it first class because it's going to
have to last for the next 50 years. We're not going to get another opportunity like this. Infrastructure is going to be taken care of in a very short distance along the alleyway.
The amphitheater is in bad need. But my interpretation of what we're doing sitting here is we have to prioritize. And
the way I interpret prioritizing is the needs of the citizens of Defunia Springs first. All the citizens,
the business owners and our staff and our staff is not expendable. If the numbers come back that we've got to cut services and we've got to cut staff in order to
have all this stuff. I want all this stuff, too. But the top priorities is everybody in this city, our business owners and our staff. And
I've got no assurance that we're not that we're not going to lose city services and city employees off this. And there's too many unknowns. And I would like to know why we waited
until the midnight hour to do this when we don't have the data. One of the things I've always admired about you, Todd, and I know me and you bump heads all the time, but you're a data driven driven guy.
You make decisions on data. We don't have it. And to say that the we're we we don't need to worry about losing property taxes. Who wouldn't vote for lower taxes? And just like Glenn said, they don't
understand the consequences, but everybody's going to vote for less taxes. So, we don't have enough data. Why did this get scheduled? Why did Why are we doing this at the 11th hour without the right data? Can
somebody answer me that question on the agenda? Who put it on the agenda? Why didn't they put it on? Hold on. Hold on. Oh, good question. Um, I'd just like to say, you know, if the city we up here, we're going to have to make
this tough call today at the end of the before we leave because I know that it is due on Monday and you know, we're going to have to make some hard choices and cut back. But you know, my thing is we need to share this burden with the CRA. So
bottom line is they need to share in this burden that we're faced with in my opinion because we cannot after after this decision is made. All the taxing authorities have to agree, the school board, the board of county commissioners, us, the water management
district. So before they can borrow money. Uh so keep that in mind too. What's your definition of sharing the burden? I I want to go back to the comments that have been made about concerns about layoffs and and employees.
Um I I completely agree. My number one priority is to the citizens of Definiac Springs. That's my number one priority. And what drives that priority is making sure that we have a fiscally responsible government.
I I owe it to the citizens, not the employees, to have a solvent government. If I have to choose between an employee position and the city and the citizens, I'm choosing the citizens.
That may sound harsh. In my 25 year career as an IT person, I've been laid off three times. I've been a number on a spreadsheet that was below a certain line, and I got laid off. And guess what? I'm still here. are still kicking. Layoffs are are are not what any of us want to do. I don't want to do layoffs.
Let me be clear about that. I don't want to do layoffs. But if I have to choose between a responsible, balanced government and individual employees, I'm sorry. I swore an oath to the city. So,
let me say this. To answer your question about layoffs, the the data has already been presented to us. We can take the easy way out. We can smack the easy button right now and we can take the easy way out and we can basically just keep rocking on the way we've been rocking on. Transfer $2.8 million,
take the increase and rock on and nobody loses a job, nobody loses sleep. Everything keeps going and we kick the can down the field. That that is what we can do. We could easily do that. But that is going to catch up to us. That's what I have been pounding this diet
since 2019 about that. There's going to come a time when we need infrastructure on the water sewer side that we can't afford. We can't bond out because our revenues don't match. And so what they're going to tell us to do is guess what? Your $100 water bill now becomes
150 or 200. I don't want to do that. And again, I'm making these decisions because I care about everybody's water bill, not about one or two positions. I care about everybody's water bill. Those are the kind of decisions. That's where
I'm coming from with this is I want to make sure that we're solvent and that we're responsible with these decisions. And and I I want to answer one more thing. There seems to be a little bit of indignation about us discussing this at the at the last hour,
but the reality is our meetings occur on the second Monday and the fourth Monday of every single month with a with just a few exceptions. And all five of us sitting at this actually six of us sitting at this table had the ability to put something on
every single agenda of every single meeting. So I I don't get the the righteous indignation about why are we making this decision at the last minute. We've all had the capability of putting it on the agenda. [Music]
When when I think of losing staff, that's synonymous with losing services. So it's not just warm bodies that I'm concerned about. when we lose those warm bodies, we're going to be taking services away from
our citizens. So, that's my concern there. I I understand, but in in 2017, there was eight people on my team, the the the company that I work for, it was eight people on my team plus a manager. You know how many people there are now? Me and one other guy.
And we're managing it for all of North America. And guess what? We're still providing all the same services. So, I don't I I'm sorry. I disagree with the with the idea that if we cut a position because we simply have allowed
ourselves to outgrow the income, I don't see that as a reduction in service. Is there a possibility of it being a reduction in service? Yes. And that is unfortunate. But again, I swore an allegiance to all of the citizens. Not to not to all five of us did.
Not to the 123 employees that we have. I swore to the 5,500 employee, 5,500 citizens we have. I did too. Mr. Mayor, it may be out of order. Can we get Josh to come to the D and Yeah, we'll allow certainly allow Josh
until we have a a vote, at least a motion. Josh, you want to address? The main thing I'm concerned about is some asurances on these projects and stuff. Good evening, mayor, council, member of
the public. You know, this this is not an easy decision. It's not an easy decision for y'all and it's certainly not an easy decision for the community. But what I can tell you is that in 2022, October of 2022,
I took this job because the first time, for the first time in my lifetime, I saw an opportunity for an organization that was created by this council to spend money in ways that the council had never been able to, nor probably would ever be
able to, to improve some of the infrastructure and improve some of the facilities that we have that we've all enjoyed, some of which we wish we could have enjoyed better. So, I I stand here today with the hope
and the excitement to move a lot of these things forward to help improve the infrastructure for the city while leveraging not only the city's dollars, but also the county's dollars. That's a pretty unique position that I think we
find ourselves in. For every dollar that we collect through the city, we collect 60 cents from the county. We get to use that money directly here in the city. There's been a lot of discussion about serving the public. We certainly serve
the public as well. That's our first and foremost commitment is to be good stewards of this money and to serve the public. Back in 2022, one of the things that we discovered early on, we weren't collecting all of our revenues. that
county portion that that I just mentioned. Unfortunately, we weren't collecting it. Our budget that at that time was about $377,000. They hired me in that fiscal year. I took up a good percentage of that. The money that had not been spent in those
previous fiscal years, the board allocated a large percentage of that to update our redevelopment plan, the one we've talked about tonight, that cost us about $96,000. We had a lot of community engagement to get to this redevelopment plan. Is the
plan perfect? Absolutely not. Am I excited that we had the redevelopment plan? Absolutely. Because the plan that we had was put together as a way to satisfy some of the statutory requirements, but it lacked the depth and the knowledge and the resources to
really address not only the future, but the current needs. In this redevelopment plan, there's a capital improvement list, very limited. Um, but it also encompasses a lot of the things that we've talked about here tonight. I would like everyone to take a look at pages six and seven of the redevelopment plan
that identifies our goals and objectives. On pages six and seven, you'll find that we have quite broad allowances in this redevelopment plan for infrastructure for the improvement of the well-being of the community. That's where we get the guidance and the allowance to do some of the things that
have been mentioned here tonight. Been a lot of discussion about carry forward. What I can tell you is we're finally at a place with our revenues now to quit talking about one day. When we get enough revenue, we can do these. Back in uh June of last year, this board
approved two task orders. One for the comprehensive design of the Alloway project, the other for the conceptual design programming feasibility for the amphitheater. In addition to that, they approved the purchase order for architectural design at our 27 Crescent
Drive building that we purchased. There's been a lot of discussion about debt issuance. We have not as a board decided or as an organization decided to issue any debt. It's certainly a mechanism that exists. And the reason that it exists is the time that it takes
to generate the revenues required to fund a lot of these projects. It allows us to have access to capital that we would otherwise have to wait several years to get. With some of the carry forward allocation that we have received uh over the last couple of budget cycles, we now
have enough funding in the amphitheater account and the alleyway account to hire these consultants to do a comprehensive design to look at all things improvements. We started this conversation with the aerial uh utilities that needed to be
undergrounded. I think through our joint workshop it was made very clear to me and to uh this organization that we needed to address more than that. So we did our board decided to hire Ankor Engineering which is one of the the continuing services engineering
consultants the city has hired. They're putting together right now as we speak a comprehensive design that will not only include the undergrounding of the aerial utilities. It will address the storm water collection conveyance and treatment which to this day does not exist. It was raining what? Monday,
Tuesday. As I got out of my vehicle to walk to my office, I had to high step because water was pouring over my feet, getting my socks wet. That made me too happy. As I walk down those alleyways every day, I see low hanging utilities. I see inadequate road elevations. I see
a lot of uh things that need to be improved. I'm very excited that we have hired an engineering consultant that is more than capable of addressing all of those things. It is my hope that through that design that we'll be able to determine a cost-effective way to
address all of those. That is certainly an infrastructure improvement. Underneath that alleyway is a 4-in clay pipe. I think if you walk up and down that alleyway, you'll see the many times or that clay pot has leaked, has been
cut, the the pavement that is. So, while we're looking at all this, we're going to address that clay pot. We're going to address the water line that's there. Is it large enough? Is it not large enough? We're going to address lighting. We're hopefully going to collect, convey, and treat that storm water in a way that
does not exist today. And lastly, we're going to remove those lowhanging aerial utilities so that we can have delivery vehicles that go up and down that alleyway instead of putting them on the main roads or the sidewalks. I think these are great examples of how
we can share that burden, how we can remove some of that responsibility from the city's balance sheet. Although it may not exist there today, it will eventually end up there. I will say this, in my short time that I have worked here, I have climbed out of
a lot of holes. I have, you know, fought battles, some of which probably weren't worth fighting, some of which were. I think the the term that my wife uses often when I come home and and complain about
the day is, Josh, you're being refined. And there's a lot of truth to that. Over the last couple of days, I've I've had a lot of conversations with members of the public, you all, my board, and anyone that's willing to to pick up the phone and call me. My door is always open and
will continue to be open as you come to my office at 694 Ballin Avenue. That's exactly what you'll find, a wide open door. That's how I operate. One thing I will say is that we have a lot to be thankful for in our short tenure. Keep in mind, this council created this
organization 2018. That first year, nothing was collected. That second year, I think it was $50,000. The next year, 186,000. The year they hired me, 377,000. We're now sitting here arguing or
debating, my apologies, over having a a revenue problem for the CRA. I think that's a dang good thing. I think we're now at a place where we can leverage this tiff and we can start doing things. You're exactly right. I want to see results. I want to go cut
ribbons with you guys. And I want like Todd to drive around this community in 10 and 15 years and celebrate all of our successes. Our meaning the entire community, council, CRA, all of us. And instead, I think what we're doing now is
is we're we're debating about how we go about accomplishing those. Unfortunately, I think if we were to get in a vehicle now and drive around, I think there'd be a lot of disappointment. So, as they say in the early ages, let's turn those frowns
upside down. Lastly, I want to just highlight some of the things that we've been able to accomplish in our short tenure. certainly my short tenure. Fiscal year 23, we mentioned a little bit about this. Uh we uh issued the task order to Matrix Design who did our redevelopment
plan. We also established the growth and development assistance program for the first time. We issued 14 grants. We invested $40,24 in this community, business owners, property owners, residential property owners. Fiscal year 24, we purchased 27 Crescent Drive in
the amount of 275,000. the one that we just mentioned about the design improvements for a potential art center. We purchased 111 North Sixth Street for $30,000. We purchased 129 North Sixth Street, arguably the most blighted structure in
this entire city limits that had accumulated a fine amount of over $200,000. we drive to either of those two parcels right now, you'll find that they're free and clear of all blight and they're in the hands of the county that will hopefully use those for parking for whatever they want to do.
Addition to that, we sold those two properties to the county and in that exchange, we sold them at the cost we had in it with the inind contribution of the demolition. So, we were able to leverage our position and remove that blight. Fiscal year 25,
we've spent so far $121,000 across 33 grants. We've invested $130,000 in alleyway design. We've invested $180,000 in amphitheater concept design.
We've invested $26,250 in that 27 Crescent Drive building. and we invested $46,373 in the parking study, one that we talked about for a long time. Those are just a small that is just a small snapshot in some of the things that we've
accomplished. I think at the end of the day, we have a good plan, have a great board, and I see a lot of opportunities not only for our organization, but for this community to prosper for many years. Thank you, John.
I have any questions for John? I got one for Clay. We're got Josh right now. I think Mr. Har I would like you. You mentioned the alleyway project, you know, and people might not be aware of how many
layers of asphalt there are in there, which has changed the flow of storm water. It's running in stores. It is running in businesses. And I couldn't tell you who owns those properties, but does it matter? If water is running off our city streets
into someone's building, it needs to be addressed regardless of who it is. I I don't I don't know whose building those are. Could not tell you, but I've heard there are several several buildings that has to that has to be addressed. So, um
that's all. Anyone else? Thank you, Josh. Go ahead. One of the One of the uh things that lawyers are famous for is continuences. Is there any way you could get permission and request
that this be postponed until we can get some hard data? No, sir. Not this year. I mean, if you postpone it, you can bring it up next year, but unfortunately, we've got to have this submitt. Okay. I wish we could, but no, this is a we if we do this, depending on what all you
do, this is the window. We still have certain times after this and additional actions we would have to take even after this date. And while we would have a little bit of flexibility on those dates, the DR420 designation is statewide.
Um, Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we reduce the CRA funding to 50% because they need to share in the burden and we don't have all the data and we should have had all the data. We've had plenty of time to uh come up. I don't agree. This was a strategic move. I I I even
asked the attorney a way back. I didn't want to wait till the last minute. Uh we can go back and check the record, but that's my motion. Second. I have a motion in a second. Um any question? Excuse me. Yeah. Read the motion.
Say again. You want to hear the motion? No, sir. I I have some questions. All right. Hang on a minute. I'm I'm gonna give you opportunity, but Okay. So, I just want to make sure you heard the motion and that uh hers was to
reduce the um 95% down to 50%. Uh and we have a second. So, let me go to the DAS first and I'll let you come to the podium. I never seen how the sausage is made. Okay. All right. All right. That's fine. That's fine. Um any questions or
comments from the DIS? Uh go ahead. Okay. Go ahead, Glenn. Sure. Um, my concern about a reduction is the loss of county revenue as well.
And I don't feel like, and I have it on pretty good authority, I I don't I I don't feel like if we reduce it, the county is going to be in support of of going back up at some point. And so
at at that point in time, you know, then we're we're really not accomplishing a whole lot. We're we're only going to save uh somebody help me with this amount. 500 26 526 26 526,000
um coming to the city if we reduce to to 50%. That could be one one project. It could be a fraction of one project. Um, so I I have concerns about that. Um, for that reason and the fact that
if county commission is not willing to go back up at some point in the future, our CRA is not going to be accomplish what they have the potential to accomplish. That's my concern with that. Dan. Okay. So, $526,000.
That's a complete renovation from top to bottom for the firehouse. So that's significant. Um so um Chief, is that about right? Hold on. Hold on there. I The chief can
come to the front. Let's just don't be uh regional draw. It was my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you could harden that building and do a major uh renovation and improvement. Point of order, Mr. Mayor. Sorry. What? We should not be calling
employees that are under the city manager to the podium. If anything, we should ask the city manager if either he wants to answer or if he wants to call his employees. What do you think, Clay? I'll defer to Kobe on that one. But yeah, technically Kobe can answer the question.
If Chief wants to answer, Chief, you're welcome to. I'm That's between these two guys. We don't short answer, we don't have a number to tell you what it costs to renovate the station. So, I not I don't think we're comfortable giving you a number that we can't guarantee. Okay. Did I uh did your chief
throw the number of a half a million dollars out there would be what he needed? Have has that conversation come to your ears? That comment? We never had a number. We've talked about varying ways in which you can you could rehab building. Okay. But
All right. The next next point, we don't know if bringing this down to 50% will completely protect the citizens of Definiac Springs from loss of services.
We don't know that. But I think this is an excellent compromise so that we can continue on the infrastructure and everything else and up our game and not have to even think about robbing water and sewer to make up the
difference. We've already got some of the highest water and sewer rates in the state and we don't need to be taking any money any money any more money out of there than we already are. So,
this is a good compromise. This is a working compromise. The city gets a chance to do things we weren't previously able to afford and the CRA gets to go forward. I think this is an excellent
compromise. Amy, I I know that this isn't uh the easy decision. Uh, but I have a real concern strapping the taxpayers for $10 million or more, whatever leverage they can use
to bond this money. I do think the county has always been a great partner with us. I really think if we reduce it, I think they'll work with us because, as you all are pointing out, perhaps, you know, leveraging their cash, I mean, I think they've been a good partner all these years with us and I don't I don't
see that stopping. So, I do think the county will participate. So this saying that the county probably will ne it'll never go back up. I don't believe that. I think the county has been very good with us and work with us and you know we have a lot of interlocal agreements with
them. So um but I do have a problem if we keep this at 95% then we're strapping the taxpayers for the maximum amount that they can borrow against and I I have a problem with that. So okay go ahead. Well, I don't I don't
mean to speak on the county's behalf, but you know, we don't know what they will do anymore than we know whether Advilum will be on the ballot. Um, so then let's take care of the taxpayers.
That's my thing. Let's not strap the taxpayers for 10 million if that's the case. All right. You good? Yes. All right. I'm I'll allow I think it was you. All right. Come on. Okay. I have a couple of questions to ask
about this. First of all, if we have an empty lot in the city, okay, Sharon Grenade, resident, they all really know me. Um, if we have an empty lot in the city and they build a house, does the CRA get 95% of the adorum tax
and the city gets five? If it's goes from zero to a house, in other words, if it was worth nothing, if it was if was it's an empty lot. So, an empty lot's worth $10,000 and now I put a house on it and it's worth 300,000. I'm just making up numbers like
we all do. What happens? Sorry. What happens is that 300,000 and y'all only get 5% of it or is it the 300,000 and then if they change it after that that you get that amount of money.
So when they're talking about increase, is it increase from zero? It's increase over the initial base year, the CRA. So if there's a property valued at $10,000 today, you build a house and the assessment comes in that
the total house plus property is $300,000. There's been a $290,000 increase. 95% of that taxable value will go to the CRA. 5% will go to the city if it is within the CRA boundary. And most
of the city is there are two or three areas that are not that are not also. That's what I needed to know. Okay. Because that's when we're when we keep saying increase value and we're so we're getting all these new houses then most of the money is going to go on. Yeah. Well, yeah. And there'll be some tax exempt.
Okay. Well, just trying to figure out Yeah. my little accounting self that I did. Okay. I love the CRA. If you don't think that the city should be able to get $10 million, but if they can get bonds,
instead of reducing their fees to 55%, why don't you say we don't want you borrowing over $5 million? Because the other thing that I know is that when I'm old, 401ks did not exist when I went to work at State Farm.
401ks got into existence and I had a supervisor and they were trying to explain all this stuff to us about 401ks. You could put your money in, but you could lose it or you could get it. So there's uncertainty just like dad Orum taxes. And Danny, I will never vote
to end taxes. If you want to have a balanced budget, you've got to have income. So I'm sorry. What are you talking about? You said that nobody would say that they didn't want to have taxes on their houses. I would always want to pay tax on my house because I want services.
Yeah. Things aren't free. But when again with the 401k, then he said, 'Well, you have to put this amount of money. Well, I needed my $300. I was not making that much money to say that I was going to put it somewhere else and hold it like you've told you talked about that the
other night, Todd. If we want to do this, this isn't for you right now, Sharon. This is going to be for there, and you need to put this in because if you put this amount of money in, State Farm will match it. Why are you going to not have money given to you? That's how
I feel about the county money right now. Why am I going to say I don't want this money? And no, I'm talking now, Danny. I'll listen to you. Hold on. Come on. So, if I've got this money, well, now I have a house that's paid for. I have
retirement income. But I don't think we should get rid of it. And I don't really like the amphitheater for $5 million. I say put a cover over it. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Come on. Can I ask you a question? Can I ask Sharon a question? Sure. Go ahead. Sharon.
So, do you think that it's going to take a while? No. Sharon. Do you think the city and the CRA should split it 50/50? No. I think this should say exactly what it was because finally it's doing the job that they put in.
Okay. All right. Hi, my name is Bruce Naylor. I'm owner of Naylor Realy and I'm on the board for Scenic Walton. Mhm. Uh it's been I guess 2017 2018 since the
uh CRA started and it sure is an exciting time now because we finally got enough funds where we can bond some uh projects that I want to speak about that I support and I think it's important
tonight. I appreciate uh our attorney Clay's input on the cost and what would happen and uh on the bonding and I think he was uh very informative that if in fact we do some of these projects that
the si that there's a guarantee that they will be paid and it's not going to be a burden to the city because I know that was addressed at the very beginning. I think Clay handled that effectively. the three projects that
could be lost if we change the CRA program as we know it right now. Uh the the new state-of-the-art amphitheater. I mean, this is a building. This is a
spot that every citizen in the city of the Funiac Springs and Walton County enjoys. Every citizen. And we have an opportunity right now to build a state-of-the-art amphitheater
and that is at your door right now. The new cultural art uh uh uh complex again uh city the city of Defunia Springs. We've got a history of music and art. We're experiencing a renaissance in this
town. We have worldclass musicians and artists moving here as we speak. Our theater is booming uh with worldclass talent. This is right now at your desk tonight to make happen. This could
happen in a town where we have for myself for 38 years, some for your whole life have waited for something just like this to take place cuz we knew this town. We saw the beauty of this this
lady called the Funiac Springs that's now experiencing a renaissance. She's back and she's looking good and we're going to make her look even better tonight if you make the right decision. the alley redevelopment plan. Uh I I
remember when there was a time where where uh uh Baldwin Avenue was a desert was was dead and my little building was there and and maybe the Teuniac Herald and nobody nobody was parking. Nothing. Now look at
it. It's alive. The best greatest problem we can have as a city is you can't find a place to park. You want to know why? because we got places that people want to go and those businesses need sewer, water, and electricity. So,
I am encouraging you to vote yes. Don't change the CRA. Let's get these three projects done so we can say we did something. Hello, Mackenzie Brown, employee of the University of West Florida Historic Trust. And I want to speak to something
that hasn't come up yet today, which is our history. There's one organization in Defuniac that has, since I've been working on preservation in this town, funded historic preservation, and that's the CRA. I'd like them to continue to be
able to do that. I want to see us have some version of the historic standards that came the previous month. I want us to see more houses keep their roofs, keep their porches, keep their historic features, keep our entire neighborhood,
our historic district, residential, commercial. I want all of that to stay. I want all of it to be preserved. And if there's any money coming to it, it's from the CRA. Unless all of those infrastructure projects can give us just
a little bit of money for preservation, but I think the city has other responsibilities. Let's leave it to the CRA. Thank you. Yes, sir. Uh my name is Rob Hamilton. I am on the board for the CRA. Um, unfortunately I'm not as refined as Josh is, so I'm going
to apologize in advance. Um, this is so shortsighted, it's ridiculous. We get money from the county that if you cut that percentage down, we're going to lose. I promise you, the county is not going to vote to spend it in Phoenix Springs after it leaves. You also have all, every single one of you has
appointed somebody to this board or is about to appoint somebody to the board. Let us do the job that you appointed us to do. We're finally at a point where we can get stuff done. We're finally at a point where we can bond so we can get projects done faster and you want to cut
it out. We're finally at a point where I can put on the agenda for Wednesday at 5:00 for those that want to show up for us to help the fire department get what they need because we can do that. It is in our plan to do that. And the only thing we need is for the county to sign
off on it. And I can't speak for the county, but I can almost guarantee you they're not going to stand up there and be like, "Screw your fire department. We're keeping our money. They're going to they're going to sign off on it. So, in short, again, not as refined. I think this is extremely shortsighted. You need to let us keep doing our job.
Mr. Mayor, can I get a question? Go ahead. Mr. Hamilton, you said that it is in your plan to help the fire department out. That's correct. Yes. Okay. Thank you. It's in it's in the infra where we're allowed to do infrastructure. That's one of those exceptions where we have to get the county to sign off on it. Okay. Go ahead, man.
Thank you. Melinda Henderson, resident. I don't understand finances, but the way I look at this is that there's money in one right-hand pocket and there's money in the other. There's the budget and
there's CRA, but guess what? It all belongs to the city. And sometimes if you take money, too much out of this pocket and put it in this one, you can't pay the rent. Tourists are valuable to us.
They are the ones that can fund the items that can bring us more tourists. Thank you, [Applause] Randy Lightner. Li ght ne. I was at home trying to leave everybody alone. Somebody made me put my Crocs on and
come up here. Um, so I'm going to do the best I can. I was just jotting down some notes. If I understood things correctly, it sounds like you guys are ready to gamble $10 million that in the state of Florida, we won't vote to eliminate property tax. Y'all betting on the
horse. Um, that's just my opinion. Fidians, especially the south end, I know a lot of people down there, they're ready for these property taxes to go away. The people that have the money can make these things happen want them gone. It's it's coming. Um, and if I understand correctly, once they do these
bonds, you may not be able to cut the CRA back in the future if that becomes a need. I'm trying to go quick because I got three minutes. So, that's just my thoughts on that. Um, Mr. Harrison said when I left the last meeting that at 5% of an increase, funding would still grow
because the city's growing. Well, that's true, but as the city grows, so does the need for water, for sewer, for road infrastructure. So, I said it before and I'll say it again. When you're only getting 5%, especially after the question this lady just asked and got
answered, the city is stagnant. Um, Councilman Beerbomb stated that we're robbing from the CRA because there's no clear plan. I don't even keep up with these meetings very well, but I can clearly hear the plan is for infrastructure, infrastructure,
infrastructure, fire department, and police. Um, so I I know there's been some buildings bought with no clear use in mind, but that was not the council. Um, the last thing I'm going to say, and
sadly, sorry, Mr. Sconurs, this is what got me mad and made me slip my Crocs on and come running. We don't hate the sheriff. We hate the job that the sheriff is doing. We don't know if it's his fault or if it's just the state of things right now. But what
I hate is 15 to 20 minute waits on an ambulance when we're in dire need. What I hate is the sheriff didn't have enough staff to save my son's life. If you break up all of these entities and you you get down you take them all away and
you get down to one, everybody budget cuts. But when there's only one budget cut and there's nobody coming to help. And all of you people clapping and cheering in the audience for an amphitheater. I hope and pray that you've ne that you never in your life had the dire situation that I had and
needed those life-saving measures. I can't believe we're even talking about this with the things that this city needs. But at the very least, and you can't even do this, at the very least, I would love to see the CRA put on the hook to 100% before we do anything else.
We're going to get this fire department in the shape that it needs to be in, and not another thing will be done. Until that is done, I'm not going away until that happens. Thank you, Mr. Yes, ma'am. I I just want to make a comment. I've
never isolated Miss Lightner with that comment, even though I didn't say me. I said even though we've had conversations. But I do want to make one thing very clear because a lot of people do not understand this and I and I know it from conversations with them. EMS is a
contract that's that's handed out by the board of county commissioners. Currently, the sheriff holds the EMS contract for Walton County and has for years. So even with our local fire department present here, the city of
Defuniaak Springs is not providing EMS service. It's done through Walt County Fire. Mr. Mayor, hold on. No, no, no. If you're addressing Mr. Mayor, that's not right. No, you listen to me. That's not right. You listen to me. Okay. Okay. Sit down. Sit down.
Okay. I'll I'll address it in other ways. Okay. Thank you. Yes. All right. Go right ahead. Wow. How do I not feel popular today? Okay. So, I'm going to tell y'all I'm 50/50. I've talked to several of y'all.
I see both sides of the issue. I'm not I'm obviously on an island here myself. But let me say this. I visited that fire station this week because of this meeting. And I will tell you that that fire station, I don't know if they have two, but I know one of those ice machines doesn't work. We're sending our
firefighters out to look for ice. They need to be on a truck so they can stay hydrated. I would hope that the city had funds to repair and maintenance the things we already got. And that's very hard for me to swallow the condition that our fire department is in and sleeping in because
I'm not sure it pass code to be honest with you for our city, our state, or our county. On that other hand, I see the other side of bonding some of the money. I don't think we can worry about what we don't know. I agree with that. But I wouldn't
want to be in your shoes. Y'all have to make a decision that's in the betterment of of all of us. Not one of us, not two of us, not the majority of us, but the betterment of the city. If we can get this fire station, whether it's a repair or it's a build or whatever it is done,
but one of the things that I learned, and I don't know if any of y'all know this, if we had deed land that I believe the CRA can buy, we can work with Eglund and get a station built. Our sheriff did it. We're seven miles from Meglin. They're
flying over here. We can get a fire station built. We aren't We are not being good stewards of our money. That's why we're talking about this. And if we have $24 million, get over there and fix that. This is This is absolutely ridiculous. Everybody up here is responsible for how those
fire staff is living and dealing. Every one of you is responsible. And we are we as people are responsible for not putting the pressure on you to do something about it. So whether it comes from the CRA or it comes from that DAS on maintenance,
things have to change. Things have to go in a different direction because we had policemen over here in a moldy building. I believe y'all are in a moldy building if I'm not mistaken. But we have issues on our feet
that have to be addressed. And if the CRA can't address those major needs, we got to look for different avenues. If the CRA can, and that's what's got to be decided tonight, what are the top three projects? How are they to be dealt with? And how are they to be funded?
But we can't leave our fire department, the ones who come to save us when we are in need. And I've had to call them. All of you, I bet, have had to call them at some point in time for your family. And that's what I'm angry about. I'm not angry about whether we have a better amphitheater or not. I'm angry that our
fire department is in ruin. I'm angry that they're in a leaky building. They don't have an ice machine. There's literally an air filter screwed to the wall not blowing dust on somebody. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. The very Well, come on and we'll
catch you. Joe Johnson, for the record, and I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today. I know that it is a tough decision that you have before you. Everyone knows that I was on the CRA up till I think November and the last
meeting and I think the October or September meeting and then the last meeting I requested that the fire department would be funded to build the structure. It's my understanding since this is in the uh general funds is that
what you call it improvement fund that a new building cannot be built that the funds can be improved the one that you have. What I like would see the three years as my understanding if you take the new
structure out of the general fund to beat the capital improvement fund then you could build a structure. Mhm. I think it's time to think about having a fire department on the south side of town and have one on the north side of town. It took a year later to finally get to
this conversation. I've not always been fond of the CRA. the the funding seems to to uh went in more to studies and I'm glad to see now that I've changed my perspective as far
as the bond because I understand without this bond you will not get the structure and the main thing is the fire department I believe is crucial for the city. If you do away with it or cut it it would jeopardize it. I've changed
positions miss different times, but I would like to see that the fire department to be built and I would like to see an oversight by the council. I don't think you should turn over $10 million to the CRA. I think it should be
a joint effort that the council, the county commissioners, and the CRA works together and funding it or taking projects and funding them. I think that Clay has made it clear that any money that is left over after debt service,
that money will be reduced from the CRA fund. Seven years, the CRA will go away. I think that's a good structure. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Honorable Mayor Donald L. Graham, pro businessman here in the city of the
Funac Springs. And I want to uh just let you know that and I'm letting all the council know if you come after the uh police department and the fire department, you're going to have a serious problem with me because uh that that represents the historic the springs. That's a you know that's a
unique name and that's a brand that we fought for in the 80s when Chief Hooks they was trying to give it to the county. He came up here and it was uh it was about a ride over at the old city hall because that's that's our bread and butter. the Phoenix brains when they ride around the fire department. Now, we
was over at the uh fire department, but we was on the uh bottom floor and it was old and contaminated then in the 80s, mid 80s. I was when we was over there, the police department and the fire department was there. So, it's just, you know, it's just unacceptable that we
cannot get uh professional uh up upgraded model fire department for our firefighters. You know, I was glad to see the police department move out to Chelco, you know, the place over there. That was that was an upgrade. It could have been better. I was just hoping we
could have got a public safety building. We're all in one. Yeah. But like I said, it's uh it's time to move on. The uh wheel is not broke. Why try to fix it? Uh the CRA just laid it laid the plan out. I mean, they laid it
out perfectly. So, what's the problem? You know, it's it's a lot of negativity. Oh, the sky is going to fall. I walk out of maybe I see a UFO. It's coming from two city council people. I ain't going to call the name, but it's just like what ifs. What ifs. When you're in business, you got to take a chance. You
know what I'm saying? When you're in business, that's what banks is for a borrowing, you know? So, like I said, we got to move forward. We got big businesses coming in, jobs for the kids. We got things that's needed here in the city. Let's don't sell the city out. What? We going to go unincorporated
again? We gonna lose the city limits because of two city council. Come on, let's it's time to wake up. But I got my eyes on. Thank you, Donna L. Graham. Love the city of Phoenix. Yes, ma'am. Good evening. I'm Tammy Henderson with
Sweet Southern Comfort Restaurant here in town. I assume all of y'all know that we had a choice for several years to bring our restaurant to this town and rode around this community over and over.
Jimmy would drive me up here. We'd make this circle and I was concerned about how dysfunctional the whole downtown area looked. We finally had an opportunity to move our business to here. We were in
Freeport for right at 10 years. We came here because we love the way that Defunia seemed to be doing forward thinking that it was growing. It was cleaning up. There was projects looking brighter for the future
of Defunia. As these projects come aboard, it doesn't just bring things for us here. It brings things for tourists to come into here. It brings things for South Walton to come up here and enjoy.
Not just us as locals. Now, we have been on board with the CRA. I've been going to meetings with them looking for we're we have gotten reports of people complaining about our delivery
trucks having to park on the side roads um saying that it's a a hazard. Well, our trucks can't get down the alley because of the overhead utilities. I don't have a choice.
And I sat for 30 minutes discussing with officers why our trucks had to park where they parked. And literally, Chief Hurley came to me and said, "We will work this out. Don't
worry about it. We'll make it happen. We can't get down these alleys. We do not have a choice. We need something done. Um, we're looking to grow our business and that's only going to add more delivery trucks and
we need the community to come together, support these projects, support the arts. We're super excited about Cultural Alliance. We're super excited about the amphitheater. It brings more people to feed into the
businesses down here and we just hope that you guys stay forward thinking and not back up on these projects. That's all I have. Thank you. [Applause] Guys, I'm not as well spoken as my wife.
I'm Jimmy Henderson. and I'm with Sweet Southern Comfort also. Well, on average we pay about $1,500 a month for water, sewer, and gas. And that's just part of doing business. But we've been here on 19 months, give
or take. And in those 19 months, we've had to have someone from the city come out because we have to close because we can't get sewer out of our building. it. And when that happens, it it it interrupts. Well, look, we don't have a
lot whole lot of uh of a profit margin. I don't know if any of you guys ever been around the restaurant business. There's other folks here that knows for a fact. Uh when we when when a plate cost you x amount of dollars, we're not getting all that money. There's so many
hands that's in that plate that that it's it's unreal. We love this community. We really do. Uh we see a lot of uh lot lot of things that's happened just in the little short time we've been here. My wife said it
the best. We we we've come up here and look and look and uh one of the council members said something that about the whoever owns the property should not be dealing out or or having any say. So I
think that's wrong. that that person has pretty much single-handedly put Main Street back on the map there. There's no doubt about it. He uh he he's a great guy. Uh I don't go hang out with him, shoot, play golf, drink
beer, none of that kind of stuff. But he has been an excellent excellent landlord to us. And and I don't think of I can find anyone that could say any different. It's just that whenever the the sewer's down, we're down. And that
actually takes away from 20 employees we have. I have to pay them out of our pocket or either they have to go home. A lot of them are are ladies with single women with children. Some of them, I mean, not all. Some of them married, but they depend on that income. Everybody
depends on that income. There's uh we depend on that income. We're wanting to build something here for years to come. Not just not for today. Our son is involved in this. Uh he's a lot younger. I'm getting a lot older and I'm not
going to be able to keep it up. Not not like it's going to have to be because we do want to expand, but we really really do need that sewer system fixed in the back. It's not just us. It's it's everyone up and down there. If you go back and look at your records, uh I'm
going to say you'll see uh city workers out there overtime after after hours two or three times a you know uh and at least three times on a quarter. Let's put it that way. It's probably more than that, but thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay. You want to ask a question? Yes. I'm sorry. How many times did you say you had to shut down because your sewer wasn't working? Four times in 19 months. Four times in 19 months. Yes, ma'am.
Has the city re come out and Yes, ma'am. issue because that's our core service to do that. Yes, ma'am. They've come out and uh they were able to fix our or not fix ours, they was able to get us back up and going. But the dentist office right next
door to us, they had to cut the cut the payment out and fix theirs because they could not get sewer out. Is it fixed now? I mean, is it gonna happen? Ours is ours works, but I mean, we don't know from I may get there right now and and we're saying, "Oh, God, we got a problem."
But they came immediately. They They come immediately, but it may be uh 10:00 at night. And I I'm just saying that overtime uh I don't know what those guys did or We understand. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify. Thank you very much.
Yes, ma'am. has a question. Okay, go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah. Can I make a comment first? You know, he mentioned restrooms. Another thing these downtown business, especially restaurant, Pearl, Sweet Southern, um, all of them. The public
uses their restrooms when we have events downtown and that overt taxes their system. It runs their water and sewage bills up. So, this is the type of thing that I'm assuming and I'm I'm hoping because we people are requesting downtown public restrooms and the the
visitor center is about to open, but that's across the tracks. Reality is somebody's at an event, they're not walking across the tracks. They're going in pearles or they're going in Sweet Southern, whatever. So, that's a little bit unfair to our businesses that we're trying to get survive and thrive uh to
have to endure these very high. We understand the the water and sewage bills that the public brings on them during um our downtown events. So, it's a little unfair. It's something that I hope CR can CRA can help address that in
some way to relieve that pressure on these businesses. Go ahead. Good evening, Naen Bacon. Um happy to be here uh hear this discussion. I apologize I wasn't here on Monday to
find out why this agenda item was placed uh for a special meeting when we don't even have the data to make a sound decision. I realize that we're at the last minute to make a decision about the
about the the budget, but gee whiz guys, why are we talking about this without knowing what the impact on the overall budget will be, whether we stay at 95% or go to 50%. Okay, enough for that. Let
me just say that I am a great proponent for CRA. We h we can see the positive results. Um as the president of forward defuniac working under Dr. Henderson, we've seen
the help that they've given us to help us with uh historical preservation and and forbased code. We see the improvement in blight situations. We can see that they have a forward plan
that is going to make our city look better. Why in the heck would you kick that dog at this point? I mean, we are we are seeing positive results. And I urge you to retain the
95%. We can't work on whatifs just as the gentleman said, we have to work on facts. And we know the CRA is working for us and it's making our community look much better. Thank you. Thank you very much.
All right, we're gonna we're gonna go ahead and go to vote. Well, I can only give you one shot at it. U now who is this back here? I would like to speak if I have a moment. All right, real quick.
Real quick. Real quick. Um I get a little stage fright, so I'm going to read directly from my notes. I hope you don't mind. Um so my name is Kelly Meisner. My husband and I bought um are the proud owners actually of 660 Baldwin Avenue. So we have Iron and Grape. Mhm. Uh we acquired the property in January
of this year and we were really fortunate to retain all the staff from bogeies, the previous bogeies and proud to say that we've expanded our team to over 30 people. Wow. Um our as new business owners in the historic district, we made it a priority to invest locally. So we bake at CBB, we
source our china from Nook and Cranny. We um support our neighboring restaurants and we actively give back through donations of both time and service to other organizations in the local community. Um we're greatly um incredibly grateful for the warm welcome we've received from everyone in this
community um and support springs community any way we can. Uh, so I'm here today not only as a property owner and a business owner, but as an engaged member of this community to voice my strong support for our CRA and its current projects, which we believe are going to essential to the growth and
long-term prosperity of our downtown district. The initiatives that we are particularly excited about and speak to our staff and customers on a daily basis when they come into our restaurant is the new amphitheater concept, the improved lighting throughout the district, which is a major concern for
us because we encourage our staff to park across the tracks in front of the church where it's incredibly dark at night. Uh the CAA art program at 27 Crescent Drive. uh the Baldwin Avenue restriping which will allow 12 to 14 more parking spots in on seventh and
eighth street as well as um specifically the downtown alleyway improvement project. Uh many of these projects have already received city funding and are well underway. Reducing or eliminating the funding now would not only undermine your previous city council approvals but
would also waste valuable resources already committed. While the CRA is still in its early stages, I think it's very important to note the success of established CRAAS in our neighboring communities such as Niceville, Fort Walton Beach, and Panama City, each of which has driven
significant economic development and community revitalization. We understand that the city is also facing urgent needs such as the firehouse funding and job creation. However, we believe that alternative sources such as grant opportunities should be explored to meet those needs
rather than disrupting the CRA's dedicated budget that was approved by this council. We also recognize the challenges you face in making these decisions and the weight of your responsibility in balancing city priorities. However, I urge you to consider the long-term impact of your
vote today. A reduction in CRA funding or the closure of the program altogether uh will not go unnoticed by the community. Residents, merchants, and visitors alike will be watching very closely to see how previously approved investments are carried forward or
abandoned. Uh thank you for your time, your leadership, and continued commitment to the community. Thank you very much. All right. Um we have a motion and a second on the floor. You know what the motion is? The motion's to reduce the funding to
50%. Correct. All right. All right. I'm ready to vote. Okay. Well, you're first. No. The CRA is still going to exist. The projects aren't going away. It's just a sharing of this burden and it's going to limit the amount that they can borrow. My vote is yes.
No. As previously stated, I'm all about the CRA. I'm excited about these projects, but there's a lack of balance here. The CRA is getting 95%. We're getting 5%.
That's way out of balance. We need to operate the city. I'm not against the CRA. If this does not pass, I'm totally on board. I'm putting it behind me. I just want more balance.
Your vote. I don't even remember now. What are we voting on? voting on your motion. You're voting to uh cut the 95 down to 50%. Yay. Nay. Okay. All right. Nose carry. Uh
motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjourn. All right. Now, so Clay, there's they're saying motion to adjurnn. They still have to set the Does it stay the same? It stays the same. Yes. Okay, Mr. Mayor. No, the military set. Can I say something before we done?
Okay, good. All right. So, good. We're good. All right. All right. Make it quick. I I will because it it is it is quick. You know, I've heard the the phrase I heard the phrase shortsighted a few times tonight,
and I can tell you that this this council is anything but shortsighted. Mhm. And this meeting and this discussion was done with good hearts and good intentions. And if you want to see the visions of this council, how far-sighted
they are, I would invite you to attend the ribbon cutting at the airport terminal tomorrow. Um, and the jobs coming with that and good paying jobs. And so this this council is looking very far ahead. But and and the reason this hasn't been
discussed in the past is because we wouldn't have any more information then. In fact, we would have had less um earlier in the year had we we discussed this. So, there's some things that, you know, that just aren't the case. This is not a council that is shortsighted.
We're thinking way ahead and I hope our our city realizes that and appreciates that. I'll say one more thing on on the cost of infrastructure. There was a referendum a while back for a penny sales tax increase for what? Infrastructure. And it did not pass in
this county. And here we are discussing how we're going to pay for infrastructure. So nothing is free. So I want everybody to realize that we put on gas. All right. We thank you guys. We thank you. All right. That's the meeting is is over. We'll call this meeting
journ. Thank you.