WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=PhwSwqhvwJ0

Part: 1

1
00:00:01.309 --> 00:00:21.240
[clears throat] >> I'd like to call this meeting to order. This is a public workshop Wednesday, April 29th, 2026 at 5:00. We're going to start with the invocation followed by the pledge of allegiance. Father, we thank you for this day, Lord. We thank you for all your many

2
00:00:21.240 --> 00:00:37.760
blessings. We thank you, Lord, for the rain that we're getting today for the first time in forever. Um we pray to you, Lord, that you will guide our discussions tonight that you'll give us discernment to make the right decisions on a path to move forward, Lord, and how to fund our fire services and and do the best job that we

3
00:00:37.760 --> 00:00:52.840
can for our people and our first responders, Lord. Pray that you will be at with us, Lord, throughout this entire process. We ask these things in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

4
00:00:52.840 --> 00:01:13.640
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, welcome everybody. Kobe, if you'd like to start uh with the presentation. Uh we have Sandra

5
00:01:13.640 --> 00:01:29.120
Newbarth here from Accenture. Is that how you say it? Yes, ma'am. Uh so yes, Council, so this is the you all had your one-on-ones with Miss Sandra and so this is a the workshop presentation to go over what all you had discussed with her. Um let her go in a little bit more

6
00:01:29.120 --> 00:01:44.080
detail. Uh talk about the preliminary information they have up to this point, data, um and then ultimately as we work through that, we'll end up with like next steps. What is our schedule of events moving forward over the next few months uh if the Council decides to move forward

7
00:01:44.080 --> 00:02:01.320
um with this program. Um so it's up to it's all of you. I I we may be better served if we we allow her to go through the entire presentation and then to questions at the end. Um I think that might be a better bet. Um but I think ultimately uh Chairwoman uh Sandra's ready. I think we're ready.

8
00:02:01.320 --> 00:02:21.120
Welcome. Thank you, Miss Sandra. Is this one on? Yeah. Um good evening. Sandy Newbarth with uh Accenture. Um we all talked. Um we went through our one-on-ones, so I'm just going to kind of go through this presentation. You can go ahead and go to the first slide. Um so let me remind you what is a fire

9
00:02:21.120 --> 00:02:36.800
assessment. A fire assessment is a charge that's imposed against property to pay for fire protection services. It's a home rule revenue source, so it's case law driven, not statutorily driven. Um and the case law, there's two prongs that must be met. The first prong is

10
00:02:36.800 --> 00:02:53.280
that it has to benefit property. The courts have said fire protection services up to the level of first responder do benefit property. And the second is that it has to be fairly and reasonably apportioned to all the properties who would be paying. And that's where we come in. We come in to

11
00:02:53.280 --> 00:03:09.297
look and see what would be a fair and reasonable apportionment. You can go to the next. Um so what are the purpose and goals of having a fire assessment? First and foremost is to generate revenue to pay for fire protection services.

12
00:03:09.297 --> 00:03:23.840
>> [snorts] >> It provides diversification, so you're not as reliant on the general fund. Um it also provides an accountability because it's restricted funds can only be used for the fire department. And it provides equity in that we look at the

13
00:03:23.840 --> 00:03:41.360
services that are being provided and calculate rates based on that. Has nothing to do with taxable values. You can go to the next. So the methodology that we've developed for you is called the historical demand methodology. It's the tried and true

14
00:03:41.360 --> 00:03:56.880
methodology, court tested and approved, most widely adopted throughout the state of Florida. I would say 90 to 95% of the programs in the state of Florida do um some form of a historical demand methodology. And the reason it's called historical demand is because we look at

15
00:03:56.880 --> 00:04:12.280
the past and who's demanded the services to project out the future. This methodology, like I said, it's tried and true, court tested and approved. Was last challenged in the Desiderio versus Boynton Beach um case and in 2010, the

16
00:04:12.280 --> 00:04:28.800
Fourth District Court of Appeals upheld it and I don't know of any other challenges since then, so it's pretty rock solid. The next slide. So when we do our study, there's four primary components that we look at when um when we're developing the study. We first and foremost look at the service

17
00:04:28.800 --> 00:04:44.360
delivery. We want to know what level of service are you providing for fire protection. You have ALS without transport and what that tells me is it tells me that there is an EMS component. So that tells me we need to remove the EMS costs plus the calls in order to do

18
00:04:44.360 --> 00:05:01.600
our analysis. We also look at the fire flow and the um the available in your city based on your apparatus and your staffing. And based on that, you have about 52,500 square feet of capability. That being

19
00:05:01.600 --> 00:05:18.840
said, that doesn't mean that if some a building larger than that catches on fire that you're not going to be able to put the fire out. You'll get mutual aid, but for our study, we do it based on the city's resources. So what that says is any building that exceeds 52,500 square

20
00:05:18.840 --> 00:05:35.280
feet would be capped at that. Um you have eight buildings in the city that exceed that. Four of them are schools, one of them is a county, and then you have three commercial buildings. You've got the Lowe's, which is 126,000 square feet. You've got the Walmart,

21
00:05:35.280 --> 00:05:52.080
160,000 square feet. And you've got a strip mall off of 331, it's 931 331, and that's 55,000 square feet. So that one's not that bad. So um and then we look at your benefit area. Your benefit area is your entire

22
00:05:52.080 --> 00:06:09.200
city. Um so that's who would be charged in this. The second component is your fire department budget. We look at your fire department budget and then again, we um pull out the EMS costs um and then we develop a five-year average assessable budget based on um

23
00:06:09.200 --> 00:06:26.480
your budget. And then the third component is the cost apportionment. That's where we look at the call data to see how to apportion the cost. And the fourth component is we um develop a preliminary assessment roll. We look at all the parcels in the city and determine um what type of use they

24
00:06:26.480 --> 00:06:44.840
are and how many structures are on the property um to develop that roll. Next. So the five-year assessable budget. What we did is we started with your fiscal year 25-26 adopted budget and we removed the EMS from that. The

25
00:06:44.840 --> 00:07:01.360
methodology that we used to remove the EMS is the same methodology that we used in the uh Desiderio case. The Desiderio Boynton Beach Desiderio versus Boynton Beach case was a project that um we had developed and um when it got challenged,

26
00:07:01.360 --> 00:07:18.200
we were their expert witnesses. And so they went through all of the um processes that we used including how we split the budget. And and they blessed it. So what we did is what we did is the same methodology. We look at how you're staffing for fire versus how you're

27
00:07:18.200 --> 00:07:33.280
staffing for EMS. Um and then what we do is we apply annual increases to develop a pro forma budget, a five-year pro forma budget. What we did is we applied 5% to personnel, 3% to operating, and then the

28
00:07:33.280 --> 00:07:50.720
capital and enhanced services um we did actual projected. Um so those capital and enhanced services um were option B that the city provided and that includes a new engine, additional personnel starting in 2027,

29
00:07:50.720 --> 00:08:07.600
station renovations in 2026, a new ladder truck in 2030, and a new station in 2030. Um and so the split that we did, we determined that about budget could be funded from fire for the fire assessment

30
00:08:07.600 --> 00:08:24.280
and the 19.28% goes to EMS. Uh we use revenues to offset your expenditures, however, you don't have any fire protection revenue, so there's nothing to offset. We also added the collection costs. Whenever it goes on

31
00:08:24.280 --> 00:08:40.800
the tax bill, um they there's um there's a statutory discount, so if everybody pays in November, they'll get a 4% discount. So what we do is we usually apply a 5% discount, 4% for early payment, and 1% for under collection.

32
00:08:40.800 --> 00:08:57.240
Then the property appraiser and the tax collector can also charge you for assisting you in collecting this. So we added those costs uh to get a net assessable budget. So that five-year total average net assessable budget is

33
00:08:57.240 --> 00:09:17.320
$2,228,850. So the scenarios that I'm going to go through are based off of that $2.2 million. Next. The cost apportionment. This is the call data analysis. We looked at your calendar year 2025 call data, the most recent call data. And um

34
00:09:17.320 --> 00:09:33.200
when when they the fire department goes out on a call, they um they do an incident report. And one of the things that they mark off is what type of a property did I go what type of a call did I go on? And we look at those

35
00:09:33.200 --> 00:09:49.480
situation found codes to say is this an EMS call or is this a fire call? So based off of that, um out you had 2,256 calls in 2025. 1,764 were for EMS.

36
00:09:49.480 --> 00:10:05.800
The others um were for fire. And then what we do, another thing that the fire department does is they say what type of fixed property did I go to. So, what type of a call did I go to, what type of a property did I go to. And we look at

37
00:10:05.800 --> 00:10:22.200
that and we we say, okay, well, what's the demand? We remove the non-specific because the non-specific are roadways, waterways, things that don't uh tie back to a specific type of tax parcel. And then based off of the the 277 fire type

38
00:10:22.200 --> 00:10:39.480
calls that you went to last year, 46.57% was residential, 21.3% was commercial, .72% was industrial warehouse, 25.99% was institutional. Institutional are

39
00:10:39.480 --> 00:10:54.960
things that are considered like public purpose, government buildings, hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, things like that. And then land was 5.7%. So, this pie chart is key to your fair

40
00:10:54.960 --> 00:11:11.560
and reasonable apportionment methodology because whatever budget you would want to fund, whether it be $100,000 or the $2.2 million, it would need to be split into these pieces to be fair and reasonable. You can't say, okay, well, we like that rate for residential, but

41
00:11:11.560 --> 00:11:27.320
we we want to boost up commercial and industrial. You can't do that. It has to be split this way in order to keep it fair and reasonable. Next. Parcel apportionment. So, what are the billing units that we're going to assign to the different types of structures or

42
00:11:27.320 --> 00:11:44.400
types of parcels? So, for residential, we're going to do it on a per dwelling unit basis. For non-residential, we're going to do it on a per square foot basis. And again, capped at that 52,500 square feet. And then vacant land on a per parcel basis.

43
00:11:44.400 --> 00:12:02.320
So, next slide. Now that we have all the pieces, it becomes a math problem. So, if 46.57% of the calls went to residential, out of that $2.2 million budget, $1,037,984 gets funded from residential. Divided by

44
00:12:02.320 --> 00:12:17.560
the 2,619 dwelling units in your city to get a $397 per dwelling unit rate. Your commercial rate would be 25 cents a square foot. Your institutional I mean your industrial warehouse, 3 cents a square

45
00:12:17.560 --> 00:12:34.000
foot. Institutional, 63 cents a square foot. And your vacant land, $115 um a parcel. These are the maximum rates that you could go to. You can't go any higher than this because based on that budget, that 5-year average budget, this

46
00:12:34.000 --> 00:12:49.720
is the maximum that you could fund, otherwise you would be funding um the EMS component and you don't want to do that. So, then you have an exemption option. Um with property taxes, with um you don't have that option. Anybody who

47
00:12:49.720 --> 00:13:06.839
doesn't have a taxable value, they don't pay taxes, property taxes. With non-ad valorem, it becomes a policy decision as to there's certain types of exemptions that you can um you can apply. Now, the exemptions have to be a public purpose

48
00:13:06.839 --> 00:13:22.720
because of um any exemptions that you make that policy decision to exempt has to be funded from the general fund. And you can't just use the general fund for any purpose. There has to be a public purpose. So, these exemptions that I'm going to talk to you, they're they're

49
00:13:22.720 --> 00:13:39.560
are public purposes of and it so it would be a policy decision. Government um would be about $500,000 funding the two um $2.2 million. Um government, you cannot put on a tax bill. You can send them a separate bill. Um but there is a

50
00:13:39.560 --> 00:13:55.480
collection issue because if they don't want to pay you, the only enforcement you have is to sue them and and I wouldn't recommend that. Um institutional tax exempt, that is um a two-pronged test. So, what that is is

51
00:13:55.480 --> 00:14:12.120
that the property has to be wholly tax exempt. So, the property appraiser has already vetted it as being a nonprofit. And then the building has to be of institutional use. So, it has to be a kind of like a public purpose building. Um and so, but

52
00:14:12.120 --> 00:14:28.120
if the church has the church building on the property and then they have the pastor's house on the property, only the church building would be exempt because that is of institutional use. The pastor's house is residential use. Therefore, that would not be exempt. If

53
00:14:28.120 --> 00:14:45.240
you made that policy decision to exempt institutional tax exempt buildings, that would be $145,000. Now, the ag exemption, that's a statutory. You can't charge vacant ag land um for a fire assessment. The state has determined that. And so, that is not

54
00:14:45.240 --> 00:15:01.839
an option. So, that's $3,450. So, that would net you out of the $2.2 million, it would net you just under $1.6 million. That's the maximum rates. Don't think staff is going to recommend the maximum rates. So, we've done some alternate

55
00:15:01.839 --> 00:15:18.400
rate scenarios. The 50% rate scenario, the reason um I chose that one. No, that's not the reason. I just 50% half of it if you wanted to fund half of it. I'm I'm thinking of the 32.5 because

56
00:15:18.400 --> 00:15:35.120
it's a weird number. Um it's if you wanted to fund it at 50%, residential would be $199 per dwelling unit and that would generate about $785,000 net if you did um decide to make those policy decision to exempt government and

57
00:15:35.120 --> 00:15:51.120
institutional tax exempt. Now, another thing with institutional tax exempt, you don't have the collection issue like you do with the government. They can even if they pay no taxes, if you put a non-ad valorem um assessment on the tax parcel,

58
00:15:51.120 --> 00:16:07.040
they they would get a tax bill and they would have to pay it. A tax deed could be sold and and you would get your money. Um the 37.8% funding, $150 per dwelling unit, that is the maximum notice rate that the county

59
00:16:07.040 --> 00:16:24.400
has right now in place. Um and so, that's why that is in there. And that would generate the city. Now, of course, the non-residential rates are different because they're going to be based on your proportion. Um but it's 500 and would generate about $596,000.

60
00:16:24.440 --> 00:16:40.120
The 32.5% is based on the option B. If you chose just to fund the additional $500,000 for the option B enhanced services, that would be about $500,000,

61
00:16:40.120 --> 00:16:56.440
which would cost um about $129 per dwelling unit. Um $100 rate, if you decided that that would be something you would support, would generate about $391,000. And then the $75 rate, that is what the

62
00:16:56.440 --> 00:17:12.079
county charges right now. The county has had the $75 rate in place since 2013 when we last updated that study. Um when they sent the notices out, they noticed them for that year at $75, but

63
00:17:12.079 --> 00:17:28.760
they included a future year maximum rate. Every time you increase your rates once you start implementing it, every time you increase your rates, you would have to send property owners first class notices. Um and it can be costly. So, um the county determined that they were

64
00:17:28.760 --> 00:17:44.480
going to have a maximum rate. So, they in their notice, they said this year it'll be $75 and in future years, we can go up to $150 without further notice. This way, it allows them a little bit of room to increase the rates without incurring that additional cost for

65
00:17:44.480 --> 00:18:00.320
noticing all property owners. They it doesn't require them to go up to the $150. It just gives them that room to move without having to incur that additional cost. They have not increased the rates. They have been at $75 since

66
00:18:00.320 --> 00:18:17.679
2013. Um I don't know if they're going to increase them this year. Um we'll see. But if you were to decide that that was a good rate for you, it would generate just under $300,000. Ms. Sandy, before you go on, I I got

67
00:18:17.679 --> 00:18:33.800
lost a little bit when you were talking about the tax deeds and you could put something on the >> Okay, I'm sorry. Could you please go back to that cuz that was a little too quick for me to catch. So, so when we talked about the exemptions, I said government, you'd have a collection problem because they can't go on the tax bill.

68
00:18:33.800 --> 00:18:50.640
So, um most nonprofits don't get a tax bill unless there's non-ad valorem on there because they don't pay any taxes. If they don't pay any taxes, the tax collector's not going to waste their resources sending out tax bills. But, this you don't have that same collection

69
00:18:50.640 --> 00:19:06.760
issue with um nonprofits as you do with government. They can even though they're tax exempt, they can get a tax bill. Their property a tax deed can be sold on their property. Their property can be foreclosed on um at with a tax deed

70
00:19:06.760 --> 00:19:22.720
sale, whereas government, you can't. So, that's the difference. >> institutional tax line? Is that >> Correct. >> that >> why they're separate out from the government. >> Okay. Mhm. Anybody else have Could I do. Uh On the on the institutional, did was

71
00:19:22.720 --> 00:19:37.480
somebody else before me? No. On the institutional >> [clears throat] >> tax exempt, did you say that we did have the option to exempt them. To to to not charge them. To not charge them. Mhm. It would be a policy

72
00:19:37.480 --> 00:19:57.400
decision. You're not required to, but um it would be a policy decision. But whatever policy decision you made, so at the $75 uh rate, um you would have to fund the $27,635 from the general fund. Now,

73
00:19:57.400 --> 00:20:13.960
um so you understand, if you if you're not going to the 100% rate, you're already funding um through the general fund cuz you're subsidizing the fire department's budget. So it's already happening. Um so but it's just so that you know, it is going to impact the net

74
00:20:13.960 --> 00:20:30.880
revenue that you collect. So it's only this line, the 145,000 at the 100% line. Correct. >> That we would have to either put that up like we talked >> would have to do it with government, too. You would have to do it with all the exemptions. Okay, so we can't just

75
00:20:30.880 --> 00:20:46.720
choose one exemption. You either >> No, no, you can choose Those exemptions, except for stat ag, are policy decisions. You can >> the the institutional and the government. >> The government and the institutional are policy decisions. >> So that's one thing that we'll talk

76
00:20:46.720 --> 00:21:02.680
about today then is do we wish to exempt government versus institutional? >> Correct. >> Agricultural is not an option. >> And if you if you want to charge government properties, you can. You can send them a bill. Like I said, there is a collection issue cuz you can't lien their property, so you don't have much

77
00:21:02.680 --> 00:21:18.880
enforcement mechanism. You do have that enforcement mechanism with the institutional tax exemption. Most of our clients do not charge government or institutional tax exempt for the fire assessment. A lot of them will charge them for the storm water, though. Um but they don't charge them

78
00:21:18.880 --> 00:21:34.320
for the fire assessment. Madam Chair. Yes, go ahead. Um you work with uh Walton County Fire Rescue, correct? Correct. So, um

79
00:21:34.320 --> 00:21:54.200
they have a fire assessment a um What did you just call it? An exemption? They do. They have an exemption policy in place. >> Correct. So instead of sitting here struggling trying to figure out what we're going to exempt and what we're not going to exempt in the in the spirit of uh not reinventing the

80
00:21:54.200 --> 00:22:09.400
wheel, could you uh give me a a thumbnail Reader's Digest version on what they're doing? >> The exact same thing I put here. Okay. The exact same thing. Except for um so they they put their a land um so they started

81
00:22:09.400 --> 00:22:25.480
charging land. Remember, we we um we updated this in 2013. At that time, the ag statutory ag exemption did not go into effect until 2017. And at that time, they had a per acre because they're county, so they have

82
00:22:25.480 --> 00:22:40.280
larger land area, and they had a per acre land charge. Um and they made a decision to buy down the land category to 7 cents an an acre um

83
00:22:40.280 --> 00:22:57.800
because of that. Um they used the 7 cents because that's what they were um charging That's what the Division of Forestry was charging them um to offset their cost to fight fires for the land properties. So that's the only difference is that they did have that.

84
00:22:57.800 --> 00:23:14.679
Now, if we would have if we update it, I'm sure they're not going to buy it down because it wasn't um the smaller land parcels that were of the concern at that time. It was the larger land parcels. Thank you. Mhm. So,

85
00:23:14.679 --> 00:23:31.160
um the schedule. We're doing this workshop tonight for everybody to have open discussion to if if we do decide to move forward with it, again, it's a home rule revenue source, so you would have to adopt an ordinance. Since you're a city, you need two readings of that.

86
00:23:31.160 --> 00:23:48.320
That ordinance is um authorizes the city to impose these, um put some legislative determinations in there, and then it sets out the procedures that the city would have to follow if they wanted to move forward with implementing a fire assessment. If

87
00:23:48.320 --> 00:24:05.080
you adopted the ordinance and decided not to move forward with a fire assessment, that's fine, too. It doesn't require the city to move forward with it. It just authorizes you to. It doesn't have the methodology. It doesn't have any of the rates or anything like that. Provides authority for the city to

88
00:24:05.080 --> 00:24:20.920
impose a fire assessment, and then it also um sets out the procedures you have to follow if you do decide to move forward with the fire assessment. We have a lot of clients that have what's called a master ordinance, so that they it all encompasses over that one

89
00:24:20.920 --> 00:24:37.880
ordinance. Um so you would have to adopt an ordinance. Right now, the schedule is um and there's room for modification in this schedule. You'd have your first reading May 11th, and your second reading June 8th. After you adopted and had the second

90
00:24:37.880 --> 00:24:53.440
reading and actually adopted and put in place that ordinance, then you would adopt what's called an initial assessment resolution. That resolution sets the rates, puts the methodology, sets the exemptions, um sets a public

91
00:24:53.440 --> 00:25:09.440
hearing to um um to make the final decision. This is your preliminary decision. This is not the final decision. It doesn't put it It doesn't actually put the fire assessment in place. It starts the motion to put it in place, but it doesn't actually put it

92
00:25:09.440 --> 00:25:27.080
into place. Um It directs staff to mail first-class notices to every property owner. So every property owner who would be charged a fire assessment would get an individual letter saying, "The city is anticipating doing this. If they move forward with it, this is how much it's

93
00:25:27.080 --> 00:25:41.800
going to cost you." And it would be those maximum rates that you put in the initial assessment resolution. And it tells them when the public hearing is, when you're going to make your final decision, and invites them to provide comment. Those notices would have to go out at

94
00:25:41.800 --> 00:25:58.440
least 20 days before you have your public hearing. And um so they would be mailed out according to this schedule, July 6th, and you would also publish notice of it in the newspaper. Then on July 27th is when you'd have

95
00:25:58.440 --> 00:26:14.480
your final public hearing. That's when you would come back and you would make your final decision. So say if you noticed everybody at the $150, said, um you know, you're you want to go at the 150. That's the maximum rates you can go this year, just like when you set your

96
00:26:14.480 --> 00:26:30.960
trim. You set the maximum that you're going to go to in July, and then you can make adjustments down from there when you come back in September. Same thing here. When you adopt your initial assessment resolution, you set the maximum that you're anticipating going to. So if you

97
00:26:30.960 --> 00:26:48.000
were to set the $150, notice everybody for the $150, you could go down from there, but you can't go up. So you could say, "Okay, well, we're going to now go to the 75." Or you could not even move forward with it um after that. So it is until that

98
00:26:48.000 --> 00:27:03.840
final assessment resolution is adopted with the rates, you don't actually have a fire assessment in place. But once that fire assess final fire assessment resolution is adopted, and right now it's scheduled for July 27th, then you have a fire

99
00:27:03.840 --> 00:27:19.840
assessment in place. You would know what the rates are going to be and what the estimated revenue is that the city is going to generate from the fire assessment. >> [snorts] >> It won't go on the tax bill until November of 2026, and so you won't start getting that revenue from it until you

100
00:27:19.840 --> 00:27:35.800
start collecting all of your other um property tax revenue, but it'll be in place um and we certify the roll to the tax collector by September 15th so that they can merge it with the tax with the property tax bill and send out one

101
00:27:35.800 --> 00:27:52.920
notice um in November. Policy direction, I believe in order um to for staff and whether you do it tonight or whenever, but um discussion on Do you like this? Now that you've heard it, now that you you've seen it,

102
00:27:52.920 --> 00:28:13.520
is this still something you're interested in? So proceed with what rates um would you like to see in the initial assessment resolution? Um and also if you want to put a maximum rate in there. So if you wanted to do

103
00:28:13.520 --> 00:28:30.200
something similar to what the um county did and notice them, "This year we're going to go to $75, but in future years we could go up to 150 without further notice or 100." Um you That's your policy decision. This is your policy decision.

104
00:28:30.200 --> 00:28:47.360
Um [snorts] exemptions. Uh do you want to exempt government properties? Do you want to exempt the institutional tax um exempt buildings? And then anything else that you have. Um that's it for me. Um I'm here to answer any questions. Um

105
00:28:47.360 --> 00:29:03.960
Madam Chair. Yes. So the first thing we need to do, if I'm understanding this correctly, is we need to make a motion and decide if we want to go forward with this. Incorrect. That's This is a workshop, so this is only

106
00:29:03.960 --> 00:29:20.120
going to be discussion tonight. >> Okay. So all we're going to do is let's just start with the rate scenarios and select a rate that we think that we could all live with, and let's all discuss that first, and then we'll go to the exemption policies if that would be

107
00:29:20.120 --> 00:29:35.159
all right. Madam, can I can I do this a little bit? Would it be okay if I explain a little further before we get into discussion? Is that okay? >> Sure. Yes. Um so correct. Can't take action tonight. Ultimately, workshops would typically take direction out of So unless unless you all come all five

108
00:29:35.159 --> 00:29:50.080
of you come to a direction on the same page tonight, you're most likely to see an item on your next agenda for that type of direction for both the rate and for the exemption portion of it. Um so real quick, going over the schedule real quick to make sure we're all on the same page. You're effectively going to have

109
00:29:50.080 --> 00:30:06.800
four different hearings occur. Two on the rates directly, two on the ordinance. Cuz if you don't pass a home rule ordinance, you can't you can't implement the assessment, right? So, there's going to be four different times this is going to have to be passed. Um So, again, on May 11th, next meeting, we would have uh

110
00:30:06.800 --> 00:30:23.920
this policy direction from the council. Uh and then that would be up on the agenda. And then after that, you would have that first reading of the home rule ordinance, okay? Um you have your advertizer period, you have your adopt your ordinance initial resolution on June 8th, mailed notices on the 6th. And as she said, when those

111
00:30:23.920 --> 00:30:40.440
notices go out, you have set the maximum for the year, very similar to TRIM. Right? You can't go back up, you can only go down from that point. Um and then on July 27th, the adoption of that final resolution. What I'll tell you is at that same meeting, um that's that's where the same meeting the council will

112
00:30:40.440 --> 00:30:57.360
also set the the uh preliminary TRIM. Am I saying that word right? Is it prelim Something like that. Anyways, you'll set that first initial TRIM rate. That That'll be on July 27th. That's what we will base the city's ad valorem revenue off of, okay? Um Again, I'll tell you even at that point

113
00:30:57.360 --> 00:31:13.360
in time, July 27th, when we are going through the budget process in June and July and having workshops, I I can't confidently provide to you a draft budget with these revenue estimates in there cuz we don't know what they're going to be. So, in June and July, you're not going to see any of this in the budget.

114
00:31:13.360 --> 00:31:29.400
You won't see any of this in the budget until actually the 27th if if you were to adopt the assessment. Cuz by July 31st, I have to provide to you a draft budget, a final budget that will be balanced. So, we're either going to include this revenue or it isn't. So, that's something to just keep in mind as you're working through this.

115
00:31:29.400 --> 00:31:46.200
Until the day you adopt this assessment, you're not going to see these revenues in the budget. But you can hypothetically have them calculated and compared >> can we can talk about them and have prepared it. I just will not have it factored into the what I provide to you. Cuz I don't want I don't want to create false Let Let me ask the council. Does

116
00:31:46.200 --> 00:32:02.480
anybody have a problem with the calendar portion on page 11 that is set out? Does anybody have any comments or concerns in reference to that or can we all agree that we're in agreement with that? Yes, ma'am. I'm good. Yeah. The calendar, I'm I'm So, so I'm I'm good

117
00:32:02.480 --> 00:32:19.640
and work good with the calendar. So, now let's look at the next page would be page 10. Can we all look at page 10 and and share our concerns on the different various options that we have? Can I go back one um and >> Yes. Yes, ma'am. I'd like to go to the methodology just a

118
00:32:19.640 --> 00:32:35.600
minute. Okay. All right. What page? >> It's at the very beginning when we established the $2.2 million rate. All right. And I've got some questions to to and concerns to bring up. Are you talking about uh the 2.2 >> huh? Yeah, page six, I think.

119
00:32:35.600 --> 00:32:52.560
>> I'm getting back to it. The budget? So, one thing that I've noticed and we spoke about this in our one-on-one, the $2.28 million budget, that is just a fire budget for fiscal year the next fiscal year to come up to come

120
00:32:52.560 --> 00:33:07.600
>> average out of a five five-year pro forma budget. It's the average of all five years. >> So, we cannot budget any less than that if we adopt this study and take on the fire assessment, correct? So, here's the thing. It depends on what um what rates

121
00:33:07.600 --> 00:33:23.040
you're going to go at, you know, because if you're not funding it 100%, then you may not have enough revenue to do all of the enhanced services. So, you would be less. Would we have to budget to bring on all those enhanced services,

122
00:33:23.040 --> 00:33:39.679
though? So, what I'm getting to is that if we do not raise the $2.28 million from fire assessment revenues, we have to transfer the additional funds out of uh water and sewer to to bring it over to general to fund this, correct?

123
00:33:39.679 --> 00:33:55.440
>> would depend on if you're going to go forward with if you if you're making changes to your budget now and that and you're telling me that that wasn't a good budget that I developed it from, then I could recalculate rates based on a different budget if you have one. But

124
00:33:55.440 --> 00:34:10.760
right now, I'm assuming this is the budget that the city is going forward with. And the reason why I asked that is our current uh fiscal year budget is 1.9 million dollars, am I correct? Yeah. So, we would be and this is just fire cost. So, in addition to the fire

125
00:34:10.760 --> 00:34:26.760
cost, you got to add in the cost for uh ALS and the EM the ALS services that we provide as well. So, that's above >> um 19% 19.28%. Okay. Mhm. So, then

126
00:34:26.760 --> 00:34:45.040
that would bring us to a total of I'm going to put it >> What I'm going to put it Where would we be at? I'll pull it up. Mhm. And I asked that cuz we haven't gotten into budget discussions yet for the entire city budget. Well, now I have to change my password, so [laughter]

127
00:34:45.040 --> 00:35:01.120
Are you Are you asking if we [clears throat] adopt this, it basically sets a hard floor? Yes. That That's what I'm trying to figure out because if it does, then that means that we're going an additional 4 to 500,000 above what we were willing to budget for fire this

128
00:35:01.120 --> 00:35:17.280
year already. And then that That's what I'm trying to establish. Am I right in that assumption or is it >> So, if if you're telling me that those enhanced services, um cuz I think the engine is already in this year's budget, isn't it? Um if you're telling me that wasn't a good

129
00:35:17.280 --> 00:35:41.880
budget that I used, then we'd need to look at it again. And the only reason I'm bringing that up is because my concern's about what is state legislature going to do with all the other bills still. And we don't really know what what we can commit to at this time. Right. And that's why I'm

130
00:35:41.880 --> 00:35:56.920
asking those questions. I'm I'm just trying to make sure that I understand this completely that that 2.2 is really the four four fire and then anything above that >> more would be for EMS. >> Yep. Or ALS, yeah. So, wouldn't it be

131
00:35:56.920 --> 00:36:13.640
the 1.9 which ends up being 2.2? That 2.2's fire only. I Yeah, I only looked at fire. Now, that's That's including the assumption of the ladder and the the south station, they're correct? The ladder in 2030. So, it's only one

132
00:36:13.640 --> 00:36:28.760
payment for the ladder and one payment for the new station. >> Okay. Mhm. Do we It might be a little bit easier at least when we're talking about these numbers. I don't the um I know I'm received the 10-year projection. Do we

133
00:36:28.760 --> 00:36:45.880
have a copy of the five-year I'm looking at the 10-year one right now, but do we have a copy of even the five-year one that we can show on the screen? Uh I think it's Let me scroll down. Well, I don't know why that's not Oh, I know why it's not. Give me 1 second. I believe the 10-year you provided, it was up It was already the five-year and

134
00:36:45.880 --> 00:37:04.800
he just added five right years. It didn't >> Correct. So, can we can we either bring that one up or the five-year? Give me one. Right. Mhm. And I may have it right here. Yeah, I do. Cuz my understanding of what Josh is getting at when I'm looking at Mhm. the first five years,

135
00:37:04.800 --> 00:37:21.240
the 1.916 that says total expenditures, that's the 80% of the total budget that we can fund with the assessment. Correct. And then it ends up being 2.2 when you add on the 20% that we can't fund with the assessment. That's That's

136
00:37:21.240 --> 00:37:38.080
the way I'm interpreting No. No, uh-uh. So, so the total expenditures, the five-year average expenditures are $2 million. They're $2 million. So, we can only your collection cost for

137
00:37:38.080 --> 00:37:54.680
the tax collector and your statutory discount to get you the $2.2 million. So, that's all in and if >> this is the budget portion. And your option B is about um $293,000.

138
00:37:54.680 --> 00:38:09.680
Average. And this is just fire. >> [clears throat] >> But that's that's not what we're talking about. [snorts] I think what what Josh >> your whole budget because I don't care about the ALS. I'm just trying That's our point. And we I'm

139
00:38:09.680 --> 00:38:25.160
Yeah, that and that's what I'm getting to. If this we would have to budget for this and then add in the ALS cost and then any any difference between what we're doing today, that's additional funds that have to come out of enterprise funds in order

140
00:38:25.160 --> 00:38:41.000
to fund the fire services. So, So, for the current fire budget, uh for the fire current fire budget, Yeah, because you cannot fund EMS through the fire Yes. Based off of the pie chart provided, so 80 80.72% fire, 19.28%

141
00:38:41.000 --> 00:38:57.600
EMS. Of that pie chart, that 19.28 represents $367,289 in this year's fiscal budget. And what's the 80% again? That That represents >> Sorry. It's right here on this. Okay, sorry.

142
00:38:57.600 --> 00:39:14.080
So, let me let me pop back real fast. So, So, the the current fire budget is $1,905,031. That's this year's >> that 1916 she just had on that spreadsheet. That spreadsheet you just had up there

143
00:39:14.080 --> 00:39:30.480
on the 26th column, it had 1,916. Right. Right. That's fire. Again, she's removing the EMS, but she's added in So, let me just I just got to process for a second. Uh Kobe, so that 1916, she's took that from the

144
00:39:30.480 --> 00:39:46.640
budget information that we provided her. So, how much was that column? 20% higher is what you're saying? She's removed 19.28% from that. >> But then you got to think in in this column here she has included $340,000

145
00:39:46.640 --> 00:40:02.760
of what we considered option B, which was the truck the other enhancements. So what I'm saying is our fiscal year 26 fire budget is $1,905,031. If you take that and you apply it to the pie chart this 19.28%

146
00:40:02.760 --> 00:40:22.760
it represents $367,289 in our current fiscal year budget for fire. That is what has been pulled out. for ALS >> So she is working with at this moment. She's been working with $1,537,741. Mhm. 1537741

147
00:40:22.800 --> 00:40:39.080
Thank you. So my question was what I was trying to get to is if we adopt this assessment as is at 100% it well either way at 100% or at 25% is the floor of what we have to budget for fire services period based on this five-year

148
00:40:39.080 --> 00:40:54.400
study. $2.28 million is what we would have to budget for fire. No, that is the five-year average pro forma budget. It's not you're not required if you don't move forward with option B. So like if you decide we're not going to do all of

149
00:40:54.400 --> 00:41:10.360
option B, we're not going to fund it. I'm assuming you would still fund the $1.9 million. So I'm assuming the additional that you're talking about is like that average of um the miscellaneous for option B.

150
00:41:10.360 --> 00:41:25.480
of like about >> [snorts] >> 500,000 averaged based on that um the projection that you Okay. So I think ultimately Sandra I guess what what Councilman Getting at is if you were to move forward with what the five-year assessable budget you have provided

151
00:41:25.480 --> 00:41:42.040
given these additional enhanced these enhanced services down here, you're looking at a fire only budget. These are the fire only budgets would be for the next many years. Then you would need to add on top of that our existing ALS cost plus any additional we have moving forward with the increased expenses.

152
00:41:42.040 --> 00:41:57.560
Right. So your base would then become these if you did the enhanced option B services. >> All right. Now show us what that would look like, please, without option B. Let's say we didn't do anything option B, we just need to stay kind of steady. I think

153
00:41:57.560 --> 00:42:12.320
that's the total expenditure line. You would just subtract 340 from 19. And your miscellaneous assessment expenditures would go down slightly because of your um you're not paying as much to the tax collector cuz there's a percentage and then you're not having as much statutory discount.

154
00:42:12.320 --> 00:42:29.360
>> Correct. And for me, I was never under the assumption that we were going to do anything at 100%. I I mean, I didn't I didn't come to the table with that. Well, I don't this what Miss Sandra has provided this isn't this doesn't affect your funding rate at all. This doesn't this is she's

155
00:42:29.360 --> 00:42:44.320
just saying that based on the numbers of current fire operations and what she we have provided to her as enhanced services option B, this is what she sees the budget being and then it's up to the council to decide how much of that they want to fund. Okay, I got a question. One at a time.

156
00:42:44.320 --> 00:43:00.160
>> But I think what his question is if we move forward with imposing the fire assessment even if we only do it at $75, are we required to fully fund at this 2.2 a million dollars plus the 367? No, because if you don't move forward with

157
00:43:00.160 --> 00:43:15.360
those enhanced services, we would recalculate the rates based on >> Okay, that was what I was trying to figure out. So if you look at that enhanced services B option that's right there. 300 See it's 340,000 then it dips to

158
00:43:15.360 --> 00:43:32.760
63,000 goes up to 128, 196 then it jumps year five to 739. Now Kobe keep scrolling. Okay, to over? Yeah. Mhm. Now here's where we get to the real meat of the meat and potatoes. Look at look at the next several years. Now it's $784,000,

159
00:43:32.760 --> 00:43:49.960
$792,000, 801, 809, 818. So what what what what made it jump in in year 30? >> because your your station and ladder truck. Excuse me. I'm sorry. In year five is when we signed the debt service

160
00:43:49.960 --> 00:44:05.480
on fire trucks and stations and additional personnel. >> on doing that, but that that may not come to fruition, correct? That's just a hypo right now. It it technically is a hypo. How however you have a plan from your fire chief and

161
00:44:05.480 --> 00:44:21.040
your city manager that says this is what we need to do in the next five to 10 years to address the growth in the city, which is build a station south of town, staff it put trucks in there and I do want to make sure that we're all going into this eyes wide open.

162
00:44:21.040 --> 00:44:37.680
Even the staffing levels that are in here do not get us to the national fire protection standards of two in two out. We would technically be one person short short per shift to cover a two in two out scenario that we technically have covered right

163
00:44:37.680 --> 00:44:54.040
now. So in year five 2030, 2031 when we sign the notes on all of this stuff, which trucks are 15-year note is what he projected and the station is a 30-year note we're still short.

164
00:44:54.040 --> 00:45:10.880
And we would need the fire assessment to generate to just keep us on keel on even, we would need that fire assessment to start generating $739,000 in 2031, which means when you go to the rate scenario page

165
00:45:10.880 --> 00:45:28.960
you're looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of the 50% rate after the discounts and all the buy buy downs. The 50% rate is what we responsibly need to choose. If we're going to do it and and and and

166
00:45:28.960 --> 00:45:44.680
yes, it's technically a hypothetical. Yes, we don't technically have to do it. But when I voted to keep the fire department I voted to have a fire department that I can be proud of. To fund them properly and to give them the equipment that they need and give them the staffing that

167
00:45:44.680 --> 00:46:01.200
they need and give them the training that they need. And if we're not going to do that, then what are we doing? We have Walton County Fire Rescue that when I first started serving on the council was at a 7X ISO rating. Now they're about to be a three ISO

168
00:46:01.200 --> 00:46:16.400
rating. They will have moved in the same time that I've been on the council four positions out of a 10-point scale while we are still maintaining the same rating. Okay. Madam Chair

169
00:46:16.400 --> 00:46:36.960
Yes. I'm not aware of needing a brand new fire department on the south end on the south side of town was of utmost importance. I don't even

170
00:46:36.960 --> 00:46:57.600
think I've talked to so many people about this I can't even remember, but I don't even think our chief wants a fire department down on the south end. >> Then why did he put it in there? I don't know that he did. Well, we did. So as part of the data

171
00:46:57.600 --> 00:47:14.120
Could we could we ask him if he did? Well, instead of doing that, let why don't you just go ahead and finish your thoughts and comments? >> like all this money this 2.2 million that there's all kind of fluff and bells

172
00:47:14.120 --> 00:47:29.400
and whistles and wants and we'd like to have this as far as training goes. I'd match our training with the city against the county anytime. So training is not a question. We've got good training and we've got a lot of mutual training out at the

173
00:47:29.400 --> 00:47:44.760
uh the fire tower that the county gives us access to and all the training equipment they've got out there. So there's a good relationship there. Um we've got some improvements we need to do on the existing fire station, but having a fire station down on the south

174
00:47:44.760 --> 00:48:00.760
end is not critical. And that would be that's going to put us that's going to give us a lot more room to work with there. So as far as uh shooting for the stars and wanting all this

175
00:48:00.760 --> 00:48:17.120
you know we need to we we need to think about the budget and we need to think about the hardship that this is going to cause our citizens when we put this tax assessment on there. And I've got some ideas on the tax assessment.

176
00:48:17.120 --> 00:48:32.000
The county's been doing this for a long time. I mean, they're they're pros at this. And they've got a $75 fire assessment in place right now. I would recommend

177
00:48:32.000 --> 00:48:49.520
following their lead and at the suggestion of Miss Sandy that we include in that the option to go to 150 which coincidentally according to the grapevine the county's

178
00:48:49.520 --> 00:49:06.240
already thinking about doing that. So that would save us from having to jump through more hoops. She already said that if we agreed on the 75 and uh with the option to go up to 150

179
00:49:06.240 --> 00:49:22.680
years down the road sometime in at an undetermined time in the future that that would be uh that that would be hedging our bet pretty good. That would be the smart money. And we're not creating a hardship for our citizens

180
00:49:22.680 --> 00:49:39.240
and we don't have to break our back trying to figure out on the who gets exemptions. The county's already done that. We don't have to do this 2.2 million dollars. Am I correct, Ms. Sandy?

181
00:49:39.240 --> 00:49:54.280
We don't have to do that. I I think there's a lot of scare tactics here on if we don't do this, you know, you know, terrible things are going to happen and I don't think that's what any of us are saying. I think you're not listening. What I was trying to say was we're

182
00:49:54.280 --> 00:50:10.880
trying to understand that floor and to see if we had to fund that floor out of water and sewer >> [clears throat] >> if we chose any other option than 100%. Nobody's carrying it to the point that you are. We're trying to understand it and we're trying to do so civilly without getting emotion tied into it.

183
00:50:10.880 --> 00:50:26.960
It's just trying to understand where we're at today and where we're going forward cuz like you've said before in the past, you're an infrastructure guy. Well, guess what? So are we. We sit here and look at this infrastructure and see that it's depreciated to the point that it should have been replaced years ago on a lot of things. What the city

184
00:50:26.960 --> 00:50:42.880
manager and the fire chief have put together here is infrastructure for the future based on what their future growth predictions are and where they see the populace going. It's to try and get to that point so that we're not 40 years behind like we are right now. So I say

185
00:50:42.880 --> 00:50:59.320
that just trying to keep it down a little bit. I'm not None of us are being argumentative about it. We're just trying to say are we understanding that right that it has to be at 2.2 and obviously that's not it now. So then we take out those bells and whistles, where does it put us? But are we in a position

186
00:50:59.320 --> 00:51:14.280
at that point to Mr. Beerbaum's comments to where in 10 years from now, we're prepared for that growth and we're prepared to meet those needs or are we 10 to 20 years behind again? So that's why I was asking that. So

187
00:51:14.280 --> 00:51:32.960
based on what you just said instead of biting off this huge amount we take baby steps and we ease into this and we don't create a hardship for the taxpayers. So

188
00:51:33.680 --> 00:51:49.560
at what time can we consider the rate the 75 for now with the option to go to 150? At what At what point in the conversation do we talk about that? Well, I'd like to share something. So I

189
00:51:49.560 --> 00:52:05.840
think the whole budget is moving constantly, okay? And we got to look at budget versus reality. And we don't know what the growth is going to be. Yes, we've projected it what it's going to be in 10 years and that's where that jump comes in year five that

190
00:52:05.840 --> 00:52:22.840
Councilman Beerbaum's discussing, but you know, I brought forward the actuals, what we actually spent and kind of built in some various scenarios that I was concerned about uh when we got to this part. Now, I never realistically thought that we

191
00:52:22.840 --> 00:52:40.080
would fund 100%. I always thought that we're going to have to fund this this being one source, but at valorem or something else was going to have to fund a portion of it. My I What I like on this sheet is I like I would like to see us get maybe a

192
00:52:40.080 --> 00:52:56.960
maximum floor of 50% and the 37.8%. That's where I'm at on this information that Ms. Sandra brought forward, but um I want to hear what we all have to say so that I can take that into consideration to come up with the best solution. Mr. Harrison, you're

193
00:52:56.960 --> 00:53:13.600
recognized. Several >> [clears throat] >> several things. One you know, if we look at the 10-year projection, sure it it looks it looks ugly, but the budget, if you look through it, you know, it goes up and it goes down as these expenditures are made. And that's why she has the average over

194
00:53:13.600 --> 00:53:30.200
that five year that 2.2. It goes up and down. You can see it across there. Um so we're not considering and we have no way to project it, but we're not considering the increased revenue from this assessment through population increase

195
00:53:30.200 --> 00:53:45.480
number of rooftops increase, number of businesses that come to the city. So that's going to increase our revenue over over that same 10-year 10-year period. We're also not discussing, but we have in a council meeting, we all pretty much

196
00:53:45.480 --> 00:54:01.640
recognize and acknowledge the fact that we need a new fire impact study, fire and police impact uh fee study. That it That alone can provide more money for some of these major

197
00:54:01.640 --> 00:54:16.520
um option B purchases that we need to need to do. Whether it's a fire station, whether it's a new a ladder truck or what whatever it is. So, you know, [clears throat] we we have to we have to look at those impact fees have not been

198
00:54:16.520 --> 00:54:31.040
increased and talking about being behind, we we are most definitely behind where we need to be. Um this is a desirable place for businesses to locate. And we're investing millions of dollars in our

199
00:54:31.040 --> 00:54:47.040
airport to attract businesses here. Um those businesses that want to come here they are used to this all over the country, wherever they have different facilities they're used to impact fees. They're They're used to much larger impact fees than we have and I'm not saying

200
00:54:47.040 --> 00:55:02.400
astronomical, but I'm saying reasonable for for our needs. Not to discourage development, but to to help meet our needs and help us figure this out. Um we can't just look at this as coming from two sources, the fire assessment

201
00:55:02.400 --> 00:55:17.800
and you know, what whatever else we come up with, but um we know that population's going to increase, the assessment revenue's going to um increase [clears throat] because of the growth. The impact fees uh study we need to do, we need to seriously look at

202
00:55:17.800 --> 00:55:33.200
increasing those impact fees so they can help us. >> [clears throat] >> Our ISO ISO rating it has leveled off and stayed the same, but the reason it has is because we haven't been able to afford to increase our training.

203
00:55:33.200 --> 00:55:49.080
We have funded this fire department from the general fund. Period. All these years. So we can't expect it to improve when we're struggling to even fund it. Um so that I I'm I'm convinced we can improve our ISO

204
00:55:49.080 --> 00:56:03.600
rating. There There's things we can do to do that. I'm not an expert by any stretch, but I believe that we can certainly do that. Um the uh appropriate rate if we set this fire assessment at will allow us to

205
00:56:03.600 --> 00:56:20.440
um potentially early early on to put some of this assessment revenue into reserves. Doesn't have to be large amount. Any any amount because we're going to need matching grant funds now that we are eligible for grants or

206
00:56:20.440 --> 00:56:36.320
will be hopefully if the governor signs that bill uh grants for the fire station. So we we need some reserve funds that we can we'll have money that we don't have to pull from somewhere else to match some of these grant these these grant applications for these fire

207
00:56:36.320 --> 00:56:51.320
improvements. So we need to set an appropriate rate, not a bare-bones rate, I don't think. We We're trying to be progressive. We have been a progressive forward-looking council thus far and we're looking way into the future when we won't be sitting

208
00:56:51.320 --> 00:57:06.720
here anymore. These things will happen from these decisions we're making and have been making. So I think we need to put it in place for those that follow us. Um They They have something to work with and and they're not going through the struggle that we're going through right

209
00:57:06.720 --> 00:57:23.200
now. Go ahead. I just have one point of clarification. I Councilman Harrison, I wholeheartedly agree. Um back in 2020 and 2021 we raised Well, we technically went to a capacity fee model and got rid of the

210
00:57:23.200 --> 00:57:38.480
impact fee model because they hadn't been touched in 20 plus years. And we had to go up 600%. And that is my concern. History has taught us that if we set these things too low out

211
00:57:38.480 --> 00:57:54.640
the gate nobody's going to have the political will to come in and adjust them. And then they get left alone for 20 years and then all of a sudden someone says, "Okay, well, we got to bite the bullet and we got to go up 600%." That's what we had to do with the capacity fees.

212
00:57:54.640 --> 00:58:10.880
And I'm I'm desperately trying to avoid that same scenario with this. That's why I don't want us to do a bare-bones assessment and promise that we'll we'll ease everybody into it because when I look at these these spreadsheets

213
00:58:10.880 --> 00:58:27.840
year five and and forward, it's like a hockey stick. And it just goes up and up and up. And yes there there are a lot of other things to consider. My only caution with that is there there are plenty of opportunities and there's a lot of time in between now

214
00:58:27.840 --> 00:58:44.080
and then. I I I fully am aware of that. But when I look back I ran some of the numbers this city for the last I I believe it was six out of the last or I'm sorry, five out of the last six

215
00:58:44.080 --> 00:59:01.080
years technically experienced double-digit growth. It's unheard of. Typically, it's less than 5% and we were 12 to 14% some of those years. So I I I personally just cannot

216
00:59:01.080 --> 00:59:16.800
reconcile that growth is going to be an answer. Now, I I I get it. That's just one component of many. But I just want to caution that even even growth isn't going to to truly address it when we've seen and personally

217
00:59:16.800 --> 00:59:33.160
we all we all all experienced and and been the recipient of double-digit growth and it's not materializing in our budgets. Even, you know cuz I know it might come up even if you set aside the CRA and you put that CRA money back in

218
00:59:33.160 --> 00:59:49.040
it still doesn't solve our problem. Even with that. So that's why I'm I'm I agree with you. We've got to set this thing appropriately so that we're not having to come back in 5 years and say just kidding it's about to double again or just kidding it's

219
00:59:49.040 --> 01:00:06.640
about to go up 200% or 400%. Kobe Bryant Thank you. Just two things to keep in consideration. One Councilman Harrison you spoke about the airport. Understand that anything built out there on city property will not contribute to this. So there will have to be a separate way

220
01:00:06.640 --> 01:00:22.080
of getting that revenue and that's going from the airport to the general. That's a mess. So just keep in mind anything built there will not contribute to this because it'll be on government owned property. Go ahead. Are they going to be lease holds? Ground leases. Would Are they going to have to pay the taxes on those properties in the leases? They don't get taxed at the

221
01:00:22.080 --> 01:00:37.960
moment. They're city owned. Okay. A lot of our clients will with when they lease out government property that in the lease agreement they make them pay the taxes so they become a a government taxable property that will get a tax bill and so if that's the case

222
01:00:37.960 --> 01:00:53.440
then these they could pay the assessment. Okay. First time I've heard that so that might be a good option. Um second growth Councilman you talked about growth south of that 10. We just approved on Monday 112 water meters are going to get put in. Those are getting put in very soon.

223
01:00:53.440 --> 01:01:09.320
They've already been paid for. Um and then density. The houses being built south of that 10 are not the houses being built on the west end of town. These houses are 5 ft apart. These houses are 50 ft apart. So I'm I've never fought fire in my life but I'm going to assume that fire is going to jump and it's going to burn hot and it's

224
01:01:09.320 --> 01:01:26.480
going to burn fast. So response times are going to become a lot more important when you start building subdivisions when lot sizes are a lot more dense. So that's also something to keep in consideration. Mr. President Okay. So what we're doing here tonight is to

225
01:01:26.480 --> 01:01:44.840
build a template. We know we've got to go forward with this fire assessment. We just don't know where the guardrails are. So if we can all agree that we need to go forward with a fire assessment

226
01:01:44.840 --> 01:02:01.440
which I I'm getting the opinion that that's the case. We already have. Okay. So >> [snorts] >> the next step in this template building would be what are the guardrails and if we're going to talk about between

227
01:02:01.440 --> 01:02:19.240
the low end 75 which is what the county's doing. What would be a recommended high end and before before we get an answer to that question Miss Sandy, let me ask you this. The the clause when this goes out

228
01:02:19.240 --> 01:02:34.840
where you said we could start off with 75 and at an undetermined time in the in the future we could go up to 150 without having to jump through additional hoops. Mhm. Could we just as well go from uh start

229
01:02:34.840 --> 01:02:51.560
off with 75 now and say at an undetermined time in the future we would go to 199? Sure. You could. Um what I would caution you at is you don't want to go too high that you're not ever going to go there because then people would perceive it as a teaser rate. Even though this is an

230
01:02:51.560 --> 01:03:08.400
annual decision and you make this decision every year what the rates are going to be that year. Um but sometimes like if you were to do we're going to do 25 this year and we can go up to 397 in the future without further notice. People would perceive it as you're just going to try and pull the wool over our

231
01:03:08.400 --> 01:03:25.280
eyes. So I would caution you not to go too too high if you're not going to go there. If you have no intentions of ever going there, I would caution that. Okay. With your experience um would 50% be going too high?

232
01:03:25.760 --> 01:03:42.680
I I couldn't tell you for your property owners. You would know them more than I would. What I mean They're starting off now and then they can go up $125 without telling us is what they're going to say. So basically I can tell Mr. [clears throat] President

233
01:03:42.680 --> 01:03:59.000
I I think 75's too low. I don't think that is you look at what it's going to generate $293,000. We've got a $1.9 million budget right now. >> Okay. >> Okay. So I think I think we need to

234
01:03:59.000 --> 01:04:15.880
realistically look at the 37.8 and the 50% column. I don't want to go clear to the 100% that to to me I think that's just egregious and and even though it would generate that much revenue the 1.5 million. I just

235
01:04:15.880 --> 01:04:32.080
don't think that's I I think it's more reasonable to go look at the 50% and the 37%. >> Okay. So in my opinion. Well your opinion matters. I respect it. Um is that opinion shared?

236
01:04:32.080 --> 01:04:50.359
Can we at least say we've made that progress? I think that's I think that's a starting point. I I've I don't I agree not 100%. I agree but I think that there needs to be some sort of number beyond 50% that we probably advertise whether

237
01:04:50.359 --> 01:05:06.840
it's 60 whether it's 75. Be- because in my >> Can you generate that very fairly quickly in your work papers? Right now. Yes. my computer >> Oh. Oh okay. >> to dot that right now. >> and we can have it for our next meeting or before our next meeting but unless he

238
01:05:06.840 --> 01:05:22.120
has it uh up there. I I mean I have it but I don't know if that's how it works so I don't know if we should get into playing with it. If you um and that's okay. We I don't think I've gave you any other rates >> I mean I think ultimately our next meeting you're going to have to set that direction so I think if if there are specific rates that the council wants to

239
01:05:22.120 --> 01:05:41.640
see it's probably now time is a good time to tell us so we can provide those. You can either say I'm comfortable with the $250 rate or I'm we need to generate X amount of revenue. Is there a certain revenue that you're trying to get at? I mean I would say either 75 or 60 which

240
01:05:41.640 --> 01:05:57.400
whichever y'all are all comfortable >> if you wouldn't mind [clears throat] and then just do five increments downwards 50 to 75 please for us. To kind of help clean it up. Can we I think I think it would be good to have a range. Could we get a range so we can remove the ones that the council knows that they're not going to do so we don't

241
01:05:57.400 --> 01:06:11.760
have 15 different rates. >> I don't believe we should go below 37.8. >> So there's two. Does anybody else think that you we should go lower than that start at lower than that? >> I I don't. I'm with you. Okay. So it sounds like the majority

242
01:06:11.760 --> 01:06:31.280
we've got let's start at 37 and go up [clears throat] to 75. That's correct. That's correct. That's correct. Now let's talk about if we could for just a moment the the buy downs the government institutional and ag. Ag we

243
01:06:31.280 --> 01:06:47.320
already know we're going to need to fund so are we all in agreement there? Okay. Uh government There's no funding there's no If we charge them they may charge us more. Not not only that it's just yeah. That's not good business.

244
01:06:47.320 --> 01:07:03.640
It's not. So are we all in agreement that we're going to have to fund that ourselves? Okay. What about the institutional? That's really the only one that we really have leeway. I don't Is there any way somebody could tell us how many properties that was? Was that on one of the worksheets? Are schools considered

245
01:07:03.640 --> 01:07:20.440
institutional? Yes. Schools nonprofits churches Schools should be government. Oh schools government. I'm sorry. You're correct. It would be yours. Is schools government or is it institutional? If it's owned by a church it's institutional. If it's owned by the a school board it's government.

246
01:07:20.440 --> 01:07:35.680
Government. Okay. So >> for just a second. Let me look through. I think we may have had the parcel numbers. If we don't let's find them. Let me I don't want to have to run everybody through them. Okay. Thank you. Just a minute. He's going to take a look. I I do have a question about the institutional. If if we did not if if we

247
01:07:35.680 --> 01:07:52.160
chose not to exempt them now can we change that Sure. down the road? So that's that's similar to you can go down from there but you can't go up. You could notice them all and then change your mind at the final assessment resolution. Um

248
01:07:52.160 --> 01:08:09.840
I know some of our clients that have thought that they should should not exempt them. Um they've changed their mind when they come in for the public hearing. Um and and then also too these exemptions are not all or nothing. You can say 50%

249
01:08:09.840 --> 01:08:25.200
we're going to exempt them 50%. We're going to split it with you. Um uh just um some of the things that we hear is you know that they provide good to the community. They provide food pantries shelters things like that in

250
01:08:25.200 --> 01:08:41.600
the community that if you start charging them for the fire assessment they may not have as much funds to do those things. Um and that's what we hear when they do attempt to charge them. And take this into consideration at the 100%

251
01:08:41.600 --> 01:08:57.160
level it was $145,000 we're talking about. So uh Mr. Beerbaum you're recognized. Thank you Madam Chair. So Oh and Um on on that I forgot my question. Sorry. I did have a question that

252
01:08:57.160 --> 01:09:16.880
regarding how apartments are handled. They would be institutional. Renters don't pay do they? That would be commercial. I would like to ask her how apartments are handled because like I looked up the apartments on Shoemaker and it's listed as 10 units but I know for a fact there's more than 10

253
01:09:16.880 --> 01:09:32.640
apartments over there. So how how are apartments assessed? >> Each dwelling unit. It's each building correct not how many units are in Each dwelling unit. Each living area is a dwelling unit. So, if they have 10 apartments, they'll be charged times 10. If they have 20

254
01:09:32.640 --> 01:09:47.080
apartments, they'll be charged times 20. So, if I own a duplex Two. then I'm getting charged whatever it is twice. Okay. For example, Harbor go ahead. Sorry, how do you see that because I have like I have the Shoemaker apartments pulled up and it

255
01:09:47.080 --> 01:10:03.280
says 10 units. But then each unit has 24 bathrooms, 24 bedrooms. So, how does So, either we were able to get them or we had um somebody from the fire department go out and count doors. To count for the a number of

256
01:10:03.280 --> 01:10:19.560
dwelling units. And then I'm I remember my other question, Madam Chair. Um the his question about deciding when to assess that. Is that a yearly decision that we can make or is that a one-time upfront >> Annual. >> Okay. But with the exemption, so if you

257
01:10:19.560 --> 01:10:34.760
you could come down at the final public hearing. Well, I was more I guess asking not so much on the exemption side, but on the the governmental side. Like if we were to say and and maybe we were to have a conversation with Walton County and with the school district and say

258
01:10:34.760 --> 01:10:51.040
you know, this is something we're buying down, would you be willing to help us in that? And they were to be able to say we can work something out, could we adjust that rate? >> Okay. >> you can ask them if they're willing to pay. Most school boards will not pay. But the county may.

259
01:10:51.040 --> 01:11:06.520
You can ask them. Uh Carolyn. What what is the consensus on everybody in reference to the institutional? Would you be willing to assess it in the beginning and then we can take it off in the end in September when we whatever that last date. What's the last

260
01:11:06.520 --> 01:11:21.640
date? Calendar date. >> July. In July. So, we could say right now we could make a policy decision. We've already exempted government and ag. But now we have a choice. Do we want to exempt institutions

261
01:11:21.640 --> 01:11:38.480
or keep them on there until our last decision in July where we could remove it and Each one So, But we can never add it back if we don't decide that. >> There's there's 28 institutional buildings that are nonprofits. >> 28? 28. Okay. Let me ask you this. What does the

262
01:11:38.480 --> 01:11:55.640
county do because They exempt them. So so But remember, they're much bigger than us, Mr. Cozen. So, I I I like what you're doing, but I don't like to put us in their position cuz they've got a lot more than what we've got. And just for reference, Walton County collects about 1.4 million in

263
01:11:55.640 --> 01:12:10.640
their fire assessment. And we don't know their fire button, but I guarantee it's a lot better than 1.9 million dollars. They only collect 1.4 million. What are you about that? I have one other technical question. I noticed it said that the and you mentioned this earlier in your presentation that the square footage is

264
01:12:10.640 --> 01:12:27.160
capped at 525. Per building. For for the buildings, for commercial. So, on those I believe you said it was nine commercial buildings that were above the 525. Three. There was three. Okay. So, do we stop assessing at 525 or do we assess on the total area no matter what?

265
01:12:27.160 --> 01:12:43.360
525. So, there were eight >> It's not at a parcel level. It's at a building level. So, if there's four parcels on a building that are each 50,000 square feet each one of them would get charged. It's if it's one building under one

266
01:12:43.360 --> 01:12:59.000
>> Lowe's and Walmart are two two of the three. To a certain extent they're getting a discount. Yeah. And the other one only had 55,000 square feet, so it was just a little bit under the cap. Yeah, you had eight buildings that now exceed it and that four of those were schools, one was a county building and then the other three were Lowe's,

267
01:12:59.000 --> 01:13:13.760
Walmart, and I'm assuming this strip mall that was Winn-Dixie. Okay. And if you tell us what the third one was. >> [clears throat] >> I'm assuming When you increase your resources, when you add another engine your fire flow goes up, so we could

268
01:13:13.760 --> 01:13:30.640
adjust the square foot cap on that one. That's what I was wanting to say. >> But not until you get the other. To answer your question, Madam Chair. Um If we you said if we choose to not exempt them now, we can always wait till

269
01:13:30.640 --> 01:13:46.280
the very end to exempt them. Is that what you said? >> Yes. I'll go along with that. We can make that decision yearly. And we can make it again annually. But but we can't say Okay. >> On May 11th, we could not say, okay, we're going to leave them exempt and then change our mind and say you're not

270
01:13:46.280 --> 01:14:02.920
exempt, we're going to charge you later. We have to do it now, so that when the mailers go out, they're put on notice. So, have we just checked another box? Yes. Do we all agree on that? How Do you guys want to exempt or not exempt? How do you feel? We can always

271
01:14:02.920 --> 01:14:19.800
change it at the very end. Hey. I don't like the idea of it, but we do have some latitude to work with. We got time. We can always change our mind at the end. >> I don't I don't personally, I would rather go have conversations. I wouldn't want to poke the bear and and have them upset with us cuz we just assumed that

272
01:14:19.800 --> 01:14:35.800
and they get upset that we're going to charge them without having that conversation on the front end. Well, we don't have to talk with Remember, we don't to make a decision till May 11th. So, this is something that we're just talking about and thinking about. So, I think they said there was 28 on that list. So, let's all

273
01:14:35.800 --> 01:14:52.120
look. Kobe, can you put that list up 28 to us? We can just filter it right and it'll give us the And then just send that to all of us so we know who the 28 are? Yeah, we can filter it out and and send you the spreadsheet with the 28 that fall in the category. >> And then we can just make that final

274
01:14:52.120 --> 01:15:07.200
decision, I guess. Yeah. I To clarify cuz Yeah. Okay. To clarify, Madam Chair. What I was referring to in saying let's go talk to them, I was talking about the school board and the county buildings.

275
01:15:07.200 --> 01:15:24.120
Oh, so you want to not maybe exempt them either? >> I want to exempt them until we've had a conversation with them. I don't I don't want to assume and and say we're going to charge them and then pull it out and then make them mad because Well, could we do that on year two? And that way you could could Are you good with exempting them for year one?

276
01:15:24.120 --> 01:15:39.080
>> Yes, ma'am. And then we talk to them and then we might figure out, okay, we can all work together. I definitely want to exempt the nonprofits and the churches though. Okay. That's one for Yeah, I was going to ask what what all

277
01:15:39.080 --> 01:15:59.120
is included in the in the institutional? I believe most of them will be your churches. Most of them will be? They're churches and nonprofits. Okay. Well, my my concern is not I mean, I'd have to see see that list, but you know, in the future we don't know what's going to be

278
01:15:59.120 --> 01:16:15.680
here. That's why I was curious about can we do this later if we decided not to do it to start with because the institutional face in this city could change drastically. I mean, we're already taken you know, we are the county seat. We

279
01:16:15.680 --> 01:16:32.640
have government county offices here. We facilities, we have state facilities and offices here and we have the school district housed here. And so, that's a that's a big that's a big hit totally for us, you know, and so if

280
01:16:32.640 --> 01:16:48.160
if we get some large institutional types of things, yes, they do public good and what have you, but um that just adds to our uh wow, our our our fire burden, you know, and so that's why I was wondering if we could do this later at some if we

281
01:16:48.160 --> 01:17:06.920
decided to do that. I mean, that's a good point because on this assessment rate calculation page the there was 72 institutional calls which represented 25.99% of the budget allocation of $579,000. That's a chunk of change.

282
01:17:06.920 --> 01:17:23.720
So, all the institutional Okay, we're going to have uh the city manager is going to tell us who's in that institutional category for us, okay? So, there's 29 um So, there's 29 based off the filter. >> Okay. Two of those are nonprofits. Those nonprofits are Tri-County Community Council and the other one is Tivoli

283
01:17:23.720 --> 01:17:40.920
Historical Society. The other 27 are churches. I don't know if you want me to read all 27 churches. I can give you the list, but there are 27 >> send those to us, but uh Tivoli what? Historical? Uh Tri-County Community Council and Tivoli Historical Society.

284
01:17:40.920 --> 01:17:59.240
And we're looking for uh Again, keep in mind they have to meet that two-prong test. They have to be wholly tax exempt and they have to be an institutional building. So, if they don't have an institutional building on there, they might not qualify. We haven't looked at it. Okay. Well, good. But yeah. So, of the 29, 27 are

285
01:17:59.240 --> 01:18:15.000
churches, two are nonprofits based on the the filter. And I and I gave you the breakdown of the government, right? You Uh in terms of what percentage if you're at the 50% rate. Yes, I'll give you one second. 60.476%

286
01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:31.280
is your school board and 18.9% is the county of your government buy down. Mr. Harrison, you're recognized. >> So, one one more question. Um So, a lot of places don't do a fire assessment on on churches. A

287
01:18:31.280 --> 01:18:47.640
lot lot of communities don't, right? >> Most don't. >> That's much That's right. So, if if 27 of these are are churches, you know, that's that's kind of a concern. I have in mind, you know, other types of institutional types of things that come,

288
01:18:47.640 --> 01:19:03.120
but this is all about fairness. Every All this has to step statutorily has to be done fairly. So, if we >> can't just say you want to exempt churches cuz then you would be furthering religion with general fund money. Um you have to make legislative determinations in your legal documents

289
01:19:03.120 --> 01:19:19.640
that say non wholly tax exempt institutional buildings provide a public purpose that the city may otherwise have to provide if they weren't providing it and therefore it's fair and reasonable to use the general fund money to buy it down with. It's for homeless, food, that

290
01:19:19.640 --> 01:19:36.040
kind of stuff. There's your chart thing. This is the chart of the breakdown of the government and then the percentages there and if you're at a 50% funding rate. It's the percentage is probably the most important to them. >> right if we exempt them that is what you're saying, yeah. Correct. That's the breakdown.

291
01:19:36.040 --> 01:19:51.200
>> I want to go to this and Mr. Beerbaum brought a a very good point up on page nine, the 72 calls. Let's Can Can Can you drill down on the calls? No, I want to drill down on those 72. Were they all church calls or were they the Probably a

292
01:19:51.200 --> 01:20:07.880
lot of them are schools. The institutional one? Or or nursing homes. I think there was a lot of nursing home ones. >> So you got So the category of institution Yes, the category of institution includes government and non and and your typical exempt properties. And then that breaks down further into

293
01:20:07.880 --> 01:20:23.720
when you talk about uh down here you're getting the buy down. >> institutional that Right. We're buying down. >> No, no, institutional is a broad category and then you break down the buy down. >> Yeah, the buy down, yeah. >> if we looked at those 72 calls, those could not I think a lot of them are nursing homes if I recall correctly cuz

294
01:20:23.720 --> 01:20:39.760
I did look at >> talking over you. I'm sorry. Um I think a lot of them are nursing homes if I remember correctly. transport Um and they use a lot of your service. Thank you. Okay, so that institutional language there doesn't equate to the institutional that we're exempting on

295
01:20:39.760 --> 01:20:55.840
the other page. >> Unless they're Unless they're tax exempt. Oh, yeah, it just broke them out. Hold on though. So this combines them and then the then your breakdown here it separates out government and then institutional which is churches, nonprofits, things like that. >> It's not

296
01:20:55.840 --> 01:21:11.320
unusual for institutional to be high. Um Well, I just want to understand >> high, but it's your nursing homes that I believe were driving it. I was thinking when Mr. Beerbaum made the great point of

297
01:21:11.320 --> 01:21:27.960
26% is institutional calls, but they weren't really if the the nursing Where does the nursing home fall on >> institutional. Yeah, but we don't we don't transport. So we don't we shouldn't get called Sorry. Do we have Do we have 72 fire

298
01:21:27.960 --> 01:21:46.280
line calls? >> calls. Service calls. Joe fell out of the bed, he needs help. We need help getting him back in bed. Chief, what are your most of your calls? Does that track with what you know? You do a lot of service calls. Mhm. So So can Can someone tell us what cuz

299
01:21:46.280 --> 01:22:01.920
this is what I think Councilwoman Hevelin and I are trying to drill down on. What is the demand placed on us for your school districts and your county buildings? Cuz that's what I understood that institutional line for 72 calls to be.

300
01:22:01.920 --> 01:22:30.080
>> So what What is that demand? How many times do we get called to the school district? How many times do we get called to the county offices or state offices? What is What is that demand? Can you give us a ballpark, Chief? He'd have to pull those niffers. And the nursing home then is in the

301
01:22:30.080 --> 01:22:46.080
Can somebody go to page 10, Kobe, please? Down here in the middle line, the institutional tax, the 145,000, does that include the nursing home? If it's If the nursing home is a nonprofit and is not taxable, it would include the nursing home. And I'm not

302
01:22:46.080 --> 01:23:01.360
sure that it does because If your nursing home is taxable, it would not include it. This only includes two prong. has to be wholly tax exempt. The parcel has to be wholly tax exempt. Second prong, the building has to be of institutional use. Kobe, [clears throat]

303
01:23:01.360 --> 01:23:17.560
can you it's not tax exempt, it's not exempt. Kobe, is it on there on her on the parcel sheet, where does a nursing home fall? Under what category, please? exempt nonprofit exemptions. So it would have to fall under non-exempt parcels.

304
01:23:17.560 --> 01:23:31.880
>> If If you just >> Could you just control find it? sort with the Go over to the units or or the rate the charge under institutional. Okay, I'll do it. And just sort largest to smallest or just filter out the zeros for

305
01:23:31.880 --> 01:23:48.320
institutional, you can just see what the institutional is. What the column are you talking about? >> Um keep going over. Keep going over. Um back that one. Yeah, okay, right here. Oh. It's not showing. Um

306
01:23:48.320 --> 01:24:03.440
You have to go up to the top. It's not the It's not showing all of the information. Sorry, yeah. I just wanted to see where that nursing home falls. How they Do we have more than two? We just have two, don't we? Okay, go up to the I only knew one. Second one.

307
01:24:03.440 --> 01:24:18.520
There's assisted living. They receive the same property, right? It's the same parcel. We got one on Walton Road and we got one on That's an assisted living facility. Okay, you're talking about Sedalia? Yes. Yeah, that's a What do they call that? That's like pri-

308
01:24:18.520 --> 01:24:35.600
private residential Um if you That's like apartments inside of there. South Second Street So this all this writing that's in here is probably in white. So if you Oh, no, it's just just collapsed. No, if you highlight row two Mr. Beerbaum and then go up and say make it

309
01:24:35.600 --> 01:24:50.800
flat. There you go. That's what I was looking for. Okay, go over. Um Okay, no, um institutional right here. >> Uh-huh. Go filter Filter um yeah. [clears throat]

310
01:24:50.800 --> 01:25:08.680
Um so you're in the wrong the filter's at the wrong spot. The filter needs to come down here. Those are dollar amounts. Chief, do you want to talk at all? Do you have anything to add to us? Okay. And then just say okay. There's all your institutional and then

311
01:25:08.680 --> 01:25:27.640
so maybe collapse some of these. Okay. And you can see that owners. And maybe look at some of the Here, retirement community, that's one of them. Okay. Um It has a taxable value, so it's being charged.

312
01:25:27.640 --> 01:25:43.480
Um or you can I mean, but you wouldn't be able to tell. Sedalia is for >> There's another one that has a taxable value. Home for How many units inside of that >> There's another taxable value. That's a church with a taxable value. These two churches have taxable values. >> receive tax bills. So they're not

313
01:25:43.480 --> 01:25:59.360
Neither one There's only really two that would be that are taxable. >> like, yeah. Uh the the Sedalia one is listed as commercial. And do they have How many units are in there? >> take that out. It's just showing me square footage. Oh, that's right. There's schools,

314
01:25:59.360 --> 01:26:17.760
colleges. No, it's 23,000 non-square footage of needed area for Sedalia. We'll get back to Okay, right there. Um Did you hear that? I see South Second. That's got to be So this has to be the Sedalia one. So we're highlighting here on South Second. How's

315
01:26:17.760 --> 01:26:34.200
she have it categorized, commercial? >> And both of them are um both of No, these are the institutional. Um both of them are taxable. So they're both paying. So this one highlighted is on South Second and this one highlighted now is on Walton Road. So Sedalia >> is commercial. Todd just verified that one. And the other one? The other one

316
01:26:34.200 --> 01:26:50.080
says home aged according to for land information, but they're you're talking almost 50,000 square feet. So it's right at the limit. >> right at the Oh, they're And you know what? They weren't one of the three that she said that was capped. So they'd be under. 31,110 and 23 Cuz it's Sedalia

317
01:26:50.080 --> 01:27:07.680
36. Okay, thank you. Yes, Mr. So are the churches like the schools like First Christian Church at First Baptist, they would they're taxable and would be paying a fire assessment, right? Cuz it's they're using the building for a school. They're

318
01:27:07.680 --> 01:27:22.520
not taxable. Okay. They're owned by a church. They're not taxable. Okay. Even though they charge a tuition, they're still not taxable. And the same would apply for Pleasant Ridge on uh They're not in the city limits. Not in the city. Okay.

319
01:27:22.520 --> 01:27:38.760
How many schools have we got? It'd be It'd be your preschool over at the Methodist Church and your preschool at the Baptist Church would be the only ones you got to in the city. Well, then you got the four public schools. Okay. And both of those are taxable.

320
01:27:38.760 --> 01:27:54.719
No, she's saying that they are not taxable. >> They are not. Got you. Okay. And at the 100% rate, the institutional is 145,000. So I think that's where we're all got We've only got two schools. >> only two [clears throat] and 27, do we all agree just to we're going to have to

321
01:27:54.719 --> 01:28:09.840
fund that ourselves in year one? Yes. Okay, so there you have it. And uh Kobe, could you go to the page where the purpose was and let's see where we're at. I think it was the next to the last page of the Yeah, that one right there. Yes. So what

322
01:28:09.840 --> 01:28:25.440
I understand is we all agreed that she's we're going to update this little page 10 and eliminate 18%, 25%, 32%, and 100% and then we're going to start the low end at 37.8%

323
01:28:25.440 --> 01:28:40.600
and we're going to go up to 75. Is that correct? Those are the columns we're going to add? Does anybody have anything different or heard us to say anything different? For exemption policies, we're going to exempt government, institutional, and ag

324
01:28:40.600 --> 01:28:57.440
is not a question because it's required. Anyone else have any further comments? Anybody from the public want to participate? >> Chairwoman, the only thing was a hardship exemption. Was it a I believe I think it's worth probably discussing. >> Say it again. >> Hardship exemption. Does the council wish

325
01:28:57.440 --> 01:29:13.000
>> income limits up there for me? Do what? Do you want to put those HUD income limits up there? >> yeah. Okay. So um because this is going on the tax bill and if somebody does not pay it, um there could be a tax deed sold. Um a lot

326
01:29:13.000 --> 01:29:29.680
of our clients will have what we call as a hardship exemption. It's again a two-pronged test. So, the property has to be their primary residence. So, it would not be tenants getting a hardship exemption for the landlords. So, they have to own it the house and it has to

327
01:29:29.680 --> 01:29:46.800
be their primary residence. And then, um they would have to meet income limits. So, most likely if they have those income limits, they're paying little to no property taxes anyways, but they may. So, what it's saying is that we

328
01:29:46.800 --> 01:30:02.360
recognize there's some people that maybe can't afford it um and we do not want to have a tax deed sold on their property if they can't afford this fire assessment. Um so, if they they would have to do it's an annual application in

329
01:30:02.360 --> 01:30:16.560
case they win the lottery or something like that. So, it would be an annual application and they would apply for it um and they would provide um whatever you guys make that policy decision um and you make the policy decision as to

330
01:30:16.560 --> 01:30:34.000
what income limits you want. Do you want So, these are the HUD income limits. You could You If you have your own, you can use them, but most of our clients use the HUD. This is for Walton County. Um this is a some of our clients will use the extremely low or the very low.

331
01:30:34.000 --> 01:30:50.360
Um and if the property owner can show that they are um at or below whatever income limit that you set, um then you would not charge them the fire assessment. You would buy that down. And what does the What limit does the

332
01:30:50.360 --> 01:31:06.720
county set? I got it. I I want to say the extremely low, to be honest with you. They have maybe a handful. The problem is is a lot of times um when you're at this income, you don't um you don't own your own house. But, this is good for those

333
01:31:06.720 --> 01:31:21.240
seniors that have been living in their house for a long time. Their taxable [clears throat] value is very low. They're living on a very fixed income. Um and you don't want to see that their um property get get a tax deed sold just

334
01:31:21.240 --> 01:31:38.880
because of this $200 or 150 or whatever it is you end up with. Who do they apply Who does the taxpayer apply the application to? You. I mean, um not you personally. So, most of the cities I've seen with the exemption might It goes to the city clerk's office. It's from what I've seen

335
01:31:38.880 --> 01:31:54.560
on the policies. Okay. So, that that was going to be one of my just considerations as we talked through this. We do not know how many people fall in this category. That's number one. >> we don't. Number two is we don't know how many are going to come and apply for it. So, I'm not encouraging or discouraging one or the other. Just be mindful that if we run in and we have,

336
01:31:54.560 --> 01:32:10.640
you know, a thousand individuals that fall in this category and 300 come to apply, that's a lot of that's a lot of paperwork and administrative to be done on one person when we have one clerk. So, my question to you is can administrative costs associated with implementation of this be funded by the

337
01:32:10.640 --> 01:32:26.000
assessment? >> No. No, that's just one thing to keep in mind cuz Cuz you're going to have to fund these exemptions with general fund money, so I would like to understand better. How do we get the dem- demographics of who How many people within the city limits may fall into this category? How do we

338
01:32:26.000 --> 01:32:42.600
Is there any way that we can determine based on the We would probably have to reach out to We'd reach out to the state and I'm thinking either it's either going to be HUD or it's going to be probably Department of Commerce is probably going to have it. Or do you Do you Do you have a You have a water utility? No? Um do you have um any kind of exemptions on that that you know of?

339
01:32:42.600 --> 01:32:57.200
Mhm. Mhm. What about HUD? That's what we would reach out to HUD or DOC. No, no, no. I'm talking about the the local housing authority that That's fine. Tom Tom Baker >> Mr. Baker Could you start with him because I would like number one for you to share that. I

340
01:32:57.200 --> 01:33:12.560
can't make a decision today on that because I I would like to digest. Yeah, you're all set. Now, he's probably going to be working with a lot of tenants. So, he may know what the demographics is, but how many of them own their own property is going to be the second

341
01:33:12.560 --> 01:33:28.240
trigger. Yeah. That Well, that's the trigger I'm looking for. I'm not looking for anybody that just rents. Uh Well, they can't They wouldn't They wouldn't apply to them anyways is what you're saying. So, Oh, yeah, that's right because they wouldn't be HUD has HUD has vouchers in our county. Okay. >> Except for our housing authority here in

342
01:33:28.240 --> 01:33:44.600
town. It has its own. But, cuz I had to meet with Mr. Mr. Baker last week, so it's just coincidental that Is it for their own own money? Walton County HUD is a voucher-only program. They do not own property. Right. So, that's I think she's what she's But, they're renting. Yeah. Mhm. They're all tenants. Therefore, they wouldn't be able to apply for it cuz it would fall on the

343
01:33:44.600 --> 01:34:00.440
landlord. Mhm. What is the best way for us to understand That's what I would have to write write down. >> residential cuz she said it would only apply to residential properties. I'd have to reach out probably to DOC, Department of Commerce. They typically have this type of demographic. Okay. >> That's where I would start. I would need

344
01:34:00.440 --> 01:34:17.240
that information before I could make a sound decision, I think. I think Walton County has six. Six total. >> Oh. That's helpful. Uh Mr. Harrison >> to be looking at big numbers, but I mean, it may be that it's so low that they don't even um

345
01:34:17.240 --> 01:34:32.600
they don't apply. Is this something that can be reevaluated each year? >> Yes. Okay. The whole The whole thing is reevaluated each year. The rates, the exemptions, um and this would be an [clears throat] exemption, a hardship exemption.

346
01:34:32.600 --> 01:34:48.360
>> something we could measure on year one, uh Mr. City Manager, that this particular thing. So, uh maybe we don't include this in year one, collect the data ourselves to see uh who it hardships versus who it

347
01:34:48.360 --> 01:35:04.520
doesn't, who comes forward, who doesn't, and then implement it in year two. Most likely you're going to get a feel for um at the public hearing, the people that stand up and say we can't afford this. And we would encourage them to come forward and say that at that particular time, actually. That would be very

348
01:35:04.520 --> 01:35:19.600
helpful and beneficial to us. >> Now, whether they would fall under these HUD income limits or they're just at their limit budget limit, I don't know. Mhm. And what do they have to bring to the You You set that policy. Um

349
01:35:19.600 --> 01:35:35.480
Are you going to take their word for it and they sign this affidavit that says this is true and correct to my, you know, or you going to require them to provide Um >> tax return or something. I think I think [clears throat] something material >> policy limits. We would just reach out to other cities that already have it and we would just probably implement what

350
01:35:35.480 --> 01:35:50.120
they Could you do that anyway and see which cities might I mean, you can maybe call Mary King Call Mary King at at the county. She's the one that does the um She's who my contact is at the fire assessment. Um and see if she can put

351
01:35:50.120 --> 01:36:06.120
you in touch with whoever does theirs. Yeah. That would be [snorts] wonderful. Thank you. So, So, I'm kind of thinking about and I see what you're saying. Try it and then see Yes. But, I think about the people that first year that find they can't afford it and now we've got a lien

352
01:36:06.120 --> 01:36:21.760
on their property. How do we resolve that if we decide to you know, do away with it or >> So, I mean, we can we can actually We're going to reach out. We'll try to find this information. It may be you do the opposite the exact opposite. You include it the first year, see how it goes, and then you know, whatever that number is

353
01:36:21.760 --> 01:36:36.960
just the number we got to work around. It It's going to be a staffing time to process these applications cuz I think what he's Yeah. Could we Could we implement that first come, first serve up to $15,000 or Okay, no. Okay.

354
01:36:36.960 --> 01:36:52.040
So, I still I need to think about it. Go ahead. Yeah, I Yeah, I'm I'm I'm kind of thinking like like that. Just maybe implement it, see how it goes, see what the response there is, and we know what staff strain it creates, and

355
01:36:52.040 --> 01:37:07.120
and then we can reevaluate it the next year. That's just That's just me, though. I could be agreeable to [clears throat] that if we had something very Uh we'll try to have them on the next one. Okay. they really do only need a minimum. You know, I want something substantial

356
01:37:07.120 --> 01:37:24.120
to look at. One or two pieces of paper that says, "Okay, I really do meet these." And then I >> Or you could not impose it at the initial assessment resolution and wait until the final public hearing when you adopt and then say, "Okay, we've heard heard the comments. It can be added

357
01:37:24.120 --> 01:37:39.720
later. >> to have this hardship exemption. If you if you feel like you qualify, these are the steps that you would have to go through. You would apply for it. There's an application process. You'll have to submit the application by this date, and

358
01:37:39.720 --> 01:37:56.480
um and then if you qualify, I think the City Manager will have enough information for all of us to have uh Because everyone will have gotten their first class notice. People will call um with comments, and you can judge the comments. What we

359
01:37:56.480 --> 01:38:12.040
usually recommend is that you track the calls and and and the comments. Um and we can provide you with some materials. We call them our public education materials. Um because there will be a phone number on the on

360
01:38:12.040 --> 01:38:28.480
the notice if they have questions. If the property owners have questions, this is the number they call, not me. Um but this is the number that they call um and I can um help to train. >> [laughter] >> Um I mean, I know I've had some clients say, "Here, call Sandy. She knows about it." And I'm like, "No, we don't We are

361
01:38:28.480 --> 01:38:45.560
not a phone service." But, um anyways, um Uh but uh yeah. Um and and you can see what the comments are um and just track them. And I can do some training for whoever is going to be answering the phone for you if you want. Mr. Beerbaum, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam

362
01:38:45.560 --> 01:39:01.560
Chair. Not not to belabor the discussion, but I was just sitting here thinking like it Is there a different way to approach this to kind of get the answers that we're seeking? In other words, we want to kind of know how is this going to impact the the less fortunate in our community? Maybe from a data analysis perspective,

363
01:39:01.560 --> 01:39:17.200
we could look at pulling what people are paying in terms of property, what their value is, and what they're paying it on their current tax bill. And we it would probably be easy to then look and say okay if your property is basically less than

364
01:39:17.200 --> 01:39:32.720
the homestead exemption and so you're paying zero we're now imposing you know anywhere from a hundred and fifty dollar plus fee assessment that they weren't having to pay at least on the on the property value now they would still have to pay

365
01:39:32.720 --> 01:39:48.160
school board and all that other stuff but that that would at least be we would be able to kind of maybe through a reverse process look and say okay this ten percent of the the population might end up in a hardship and and be you know either with the the HUD

366
01:39:48.160 --> 01:40:04.880
situation or something else where you know they're they're paying three hundred dollars a year and then we're slapping another hundred fifty dollars on top of it and then that that would at least give us some sort of gauge for you know it's it's five percent it's ten percent it's two percent I don't I don't know without

367
01:40:04.880 --> 01:40:20.240
having that data but to me that's kind of a way to deduce what we think could be the people that are going to experience a hardship Kobe that spreadsheet that you have it has the market values of the houses and it has the taxable values and you can

368
01:40:20.240 --> 01:40:36.200
you can just kind of sort with the single family filter the DOR code with single family and or you can go over to the residential and just take all non non-residential out and then you can sort that I I will caution you though

369
01:40:36.200 --> 01:40:53.320
that doesn't necessarily mean how they can afford it because of depending on when they purchased their house and the save our homes and then there's other types of exemptions because I know my parents own two houses on next to each other they have their three thousand square foot house with the pool

370
01:40:53.320 --> 01:41:08.080
and this is in Palm Beach County not here and then they bought the house next door nine hundred square foot house and my sister lives in it because they didn't want neighbors and they're paying double the taxes on the house next door than they are I think

371
01:41:08.080 --> 01:41:24.200
the taxable value is one seventy for their big house and like three fifty four hundred for their small house >> right so it doesn't necessarily equate to what the person can afford because I know my parents could afford it but it is a good starting point it could

372
01:41:24.200 --> 01:41:42.160
be got you can I invite is there anyone in the public that would like to chime in on our discussions okay thank you anybody else any further discussion on at the dais I think the county's going to be a treasure trove of information

373
01:41:42.160 --> 01:41:58.440
is there any information that you think you still need to the thing that we're talking about the exemptions and how they work that and all that they've been doing this for years and it's apparently been working and and Kobe you're going to send that out to us all right before the May 11th

374
01:41:58.440 --> 01:42:14.680
exactly what again how the county might how your other cities may implement this I mean we could have we could just we would just I would just go to the ones we looked at already and I'll just pull their exemptions off of it and that's and share it with us before just so we can

375
01:42:14.680 --> 01:42:30.880
I'll share with you guys too the county does not exempt at a hundred percent for the hardship exemption they had a twenty five dollar per dwelling unit rate in place since the nineties until they updated in two thousand and thirteen and so it was their opinion that they've been paying that twenty

376
01:42:30.880 --> 01:42:46.280
five dollars this whole time they can afford it because they had no hardship exemption until that point and then they they so they said we will exempt anything over the twenty five dollars so just so you understand that

377
01:42:46.280 --> 01:43:03.280
because when you start calling she's going to probably say that so um >> [snorts] >> that's the only one of our clients that I know that has that that isn't exempting a hundred percent and like I said the the theory was you've been paying it for how many years so

378
01:43:03.400 --> 01:43:20.520
thank you so much for all the input and the hard work that you guys did for us here we really appreciate it and let I'll just go around let's start with Kobe any final comments say is we will you know now I don't know if it'll be right now it'll probably after the May 11th if the council moves forward

379
01:43:20.520 --> 01:43:36.360
with you know direction and moves forward with the first reading of the ordinance we will start a campaign right staff will put together the notices be put out on social media and the website we'll probably create a dedicated page to this work with IT to email and a phone number as we're saying to talk about to start putting that out where

380
01:43:36.360 --> 01:43:51.160
people can start because it's going to start coming so following and track down so you could probably start seeing that come forward so we can share schedule events with the public Mr Beerbaum any final comments Mr Scaniers I just got a couple of thoughts um one

381
01:43:51.160 --> 01:44:07.120
was one of our local citizens he he comes to a lot of the meetings and he he voices opinion very clearly with me and one thing that he wanted to make sure that we did was to emphasize the fact that we don't need to underfund this and he was part of the

382
01:44:07.120 --> 01:44:24.160
county's original assessment and um that was his major concern when the all this first started coming up second one is there there's a lot of people that don't want the fire assessment and um and then but these are just comments

383
01:44:24.160 --> 01:44:38.280
that have come to me from different people so I'd be remiss if I didn't put their input in here and finally there's still one penny left out there on the sales taxes for public safety one what one penny that's still available on the

384
01:44:38.280 --> 01:44:56.080
books for us for public safety and based off of previous years budgets that was close to the tune of three million dollars a year how much three million dollars a year for just the city our our anticipated revenue this year for sales tax was roughly three million dollars so

385
01:44:56.080 --> 01:45:13.880
that funding still available how do we how do we do that it goes up for referendum you got to ask the board of county commissioners to put it on referendum now because it's a county wide sales tax too late probably now isn't it for this year there's still hope for some of this because of what I feel and it's going to take all

386
01:45:13.880 --> 01:45:30.240
of us if we want to move forward with something like that and public buying a lot of public buying but I feel that if the county with the pressures that they're facing are the same as ours with the legislature and the different bills that are still left in limbo out there they're facing a

387
01:45:30.240 --> 01:45:45.640
possible thirty three million dollar cut so how could they make up some of that thirty three million dollars in revenues if in fact that does take place one of those would be to offset some of their costs with public safety by that one penny as well as what we could leverage

388
01:45:45.640 --> 01:46:01.320
that with which would enable them to take that funding back that they were previously committing there that they can't cut due to the proposed bills and then feed that back into their budgets as well so it may be desirable for them to pursue this as well as us it would

389
01:46:01.320 --> 01:46:17.640
just take a lot of us talking to our fellow commissioners and Mr Townsend speaking to Mr Killenberger about it as well and try and get county buying to see if we can move forward and how would this affect um yeah I can I can reach out to Ron the

390
01:46:17.640 --> 01:46:33.840
supervisor of elections Mr Mesker will be able to tell us when the deadline is for the county to add something yeah I I would how would that affect the public the public the last time they tried a one was it a half cent or one cent sales tax for infrastructure there was a lot

391
01:46:33.840 --> 01:46:49.040
of public distrust on the fact that they didn't believe whether or not that funding was being I remember I remember and and then there was big advocacy for hack hacks attacks then but realistically if they see what's going forward with this and the reason for our

392
01:46:49.040 --> 01:47:05.800
request they may you would have to solicit that buying from the public so it's all in messaging Mr Harrison you're recognized I'm glad you brought that up Josh that's that's a that's a very good point because this is our only avenue you know to fund

393
01:47:05.800 --> 01:47:21.280
our fire department I mean this is a major avenue to do it and what the public needs to understand well that one penny just like the the referendum that failed this one is vital because we don't know what Tallahassee's going to do with property taxes and how that affects our

394
01:47:21.280 --> 01:47:37.840
general general fund um and they need to understand there's millions of people coming through this town I guess millions there's a lot coming to this county to our beaches that are utilizing our services I pass through here they're having accidents

395
01:47:37.840 --> 01:47:53.640
they're having medical emergencies they're they're so this passes some of this burden on to people that are coming into our county wherever they are and and and spreads that and allows us to keep this assessment

396
01:47:53.640 --> 01:48:09.080
under control and and you know and and at lowest level possible once we once we do that I I think that would be a great thing to do county wide >> [clears throat] >> I think we checked a lot of boxes tonight made a lot of progress

397
01:48:09.080 --> 01:48:27.040
and we got a template pretty much set so this is one of the most productive meetings I've had the pleasure of being a part of thank you everybody mayor still on the phone no he he never got on yeah he had something with that being said I call this meeting adjourned

398
01:48:27.040 --> 01:48:29.880
thanks everybody