Thank you. We want to call this city council meeting to order this Monday, July 13, 2026. We'll ask Councilman Sconers to lead the invocation. We'll follow the pledge of allegiance. >> Thanks. >> Father, we thank you for this day and
all your blessings. Lord, we we thank you for blessing us individually and as a city as a whole. Lord, we pray that you will be with us tonight and that you will guide us and guide our conversations. Lord, let us carry out the course of our business civily and with the best interest of our citizens, God, and what you would have us do. We
ask these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. >> Amen. >> Amen. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Alrighty. Okay, we are at the consent agenda. We would uh entertain a motion to approve as written. If you want something pulled off of there, please let us know at this time. >> Motion to approve.
>> Second. >> All right, we have a motion. Second. I think we're Are we with Amy now? >> Yes. Okay. >> And u So all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I carried. Thank you very much. And now we'll go to the regular agenda. Are
there any additions or deletions, Mr. Kobe? >> None. Mayor. >> Motion to approve. >> All right. Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Uh any questions or comments about the regular agenda? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I.
>> I. >> Eyes carry. Thank you very much. And we'll go to Mr. Townsen with 4C1. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh council, this is uh resolution 202609. This is a resolution to uh kind of clean
up and streamline um our fees associated with code enforce particularly on the first offense for civil citation. So on the last page of this document is a current structure where we have uh a lot of the violations outlined with a different rate but they all refer back
to some section of the ordinance andor the resolution establishing of 201710. And so uh Mr. Strong got with me as we've been updating some of the ordinances that a code land use committee had brought forward and you know you know moved on. So he was asking
to update this we gave Mr. Atinson, he made some changes from the last meeting and so this would clean it up to where basically we're saying that all the violations listed so no need list them because they're already in the ordinance and so and then to change that to a seeing a flat $50 first violation fee uh
for everything and then it goes up from there for repetitive violations and then there are sections for violations that affect public health safety or welfare or serve or high-risk violations. So I'll let Mr. Atinson go further. Logistically, the reason you put your
fines in a resolution is it doesn't require the two public hearings, first and second reading that you always have to do for an ordinance. So, it gives you more nimleness on those. Um, because our fines have always been attached to violations. That's why we've never done that. So, after Mr. CR's work. What we
were able to update here is leaving the violations enumerated in the ordinance and just setting it an acrosstheboard fine per violation rather than doing different levels of fines for different violations. And you'll find that will be much more consistent with the state
around what you would see around the state. >> So asking for adoption of resolution 20269. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion and a second. Uh questions or comments
from anyone. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Eyes carried. Thank you very much. All right, Mr. Kobe. We'll go to 4C2. >> Thank you, mayor. This would be RFP 2026-01-PW, General Contractor Services. So,
Council, we all talked about this a little bit last year, especially after we have put out bid for the Chicago building on the exterior and didn't get any. Um, so the idea and the concept came up of looking to get one or more general contractors under contract with the city on an as needed basis. Very similar to how we do engineers from a
task order perspective. There's some difference in law there um in terms of levels and things of that nature. But the ultimate goal is this to put this bid out, get qualified general contractors to bid and hopefully city to put one or two on contract uh for maintenance activities andor
construction activities that we in house do not have the capability to do. And so that's the goal of this. And so we're just asking for approval to solicit RFP 20261PW. >> So moved. >> We'll take a Clay. One or two. All
right. It's not nothing mandatory about >> No, we So the way we've prepared this gives the option to select one or more >> okay >> various entities and we will then place them on a rotation if we do select more than one. >> Okay. Right. >> Same way we've done engineers in the past under an RFQ process. Any
questions, comments from the council? >> So, are you looking for a specific like one or two or could it be more than two? >> It can be more than two if that's what we need. I I don't think we necessarily probably going to need more than two. >> But if we get five different qualified agencies and the council wishes to do three of the five or four of the five,
then we can do that. Obviously, the rotation will be slower, right? By the time you get to the first one, it's the fourth one. >> Go ahead. Just out of curiosity, Kobe, what is the budget going to look like for these for this line item? >> So, right now, as we we talked about,
there's no specific budgeted line for the contractual service. We have that within either R&M or we have specific building improvement projects budgeted. And so as we give a guest on board, we were to instead of do that in house or bid that out competitively depending on the cost or anything else, uh we would
task that to that firm, that company, and then we could make the proper uh budget amendment if necessary to cover that cost, >> repairs and maintenance, >> either out of repairs and maintenance or building improvements. Probably if it's a building improvement, it probably will not be mended out because we have now made a capital uh enhancement to a
facility to track that. But yeah, at R&M and stuff, we could move that into professional services to capture that task order amount. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions, comments from anyone? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I.
>> Eyes carry. Thank you very much. Mr. Kobe, we'll go to 4C3. Okay. >> Thank you, mayor. So, this might take a minute. I'm going to let Mr. Atinson explained the letter here in a second, but uh ultimately if you all remember I believe back in February, Councilman Cosen had brought up an item about the
path and an update and I told you all that had conversations with FDOT's consultant and at some point we would be coming back because they needed a little they need they're going to need something when it comes to the park uh and particularly 4F. So FDOT uh believes that they will need they will end up
getting federal funding in the future to build this. And so to do that, if you're going to affect, go through, or either in any way uh do work within a park, federal way, federal money, you got to do a 4F. You got to go through NEPA. And so they're asking for the concurrence
letter. Um and again, I'll let him explain what it is and what it means in a minute. Um, but more so for why this is on here. Um, they've asked me to sign it and I could sign it, but I would like the council to have conversation about the project, put on a record where we kind of stand on, what we like, we don't like, so I can provide that back to the
consultant so they can take that information and consider it. So, I'm going to go through the scope here in just a second real quick. Um, but the first uh let's let's just start with the map first. So, let's scroll down to technically be page 13 of the PDF.
Yeah, 13 work. So, you'll see they came up with three alternatives. They began with um coming from 90 west, particularly starting at Woodyard Road, uh coming down 90 and then eventually ending up on First Street back on Highway 90. Uh obviously, you see the
blue and the green or not the blue and the green, the yellow and the green paths. um those effectively were kicked out from the consultant due to cost uh things of easements, things of that nature. And so the path that the consultant is going with or going to propose moving forward with and it's a
little different we here to have today is coming from Woodyard which is orange running down Highway 90 headed east till you get to the intersection of Shoemaker and 90 crossing that railroad track south to the golf course running along
the golf course particularly hole eight until you hit the opening at West Live Oak going through the West Live Oak median on the railroad track side running down the intersection at 331 South and Live Oak, crossing over to
East Live Oak Avenue, running down East Live Oak Avenue until you hit Circle Drive, darting into Chipley Park to the left of the library, following existing sidewalk paths. So, replacing the sidewalk with asphalt, um running down the left,
hitting the loop, coming around, and then before you were to get to the uh the round area there on the norththeast corner of the lakeyard, it would shoot up a new path. Basically, a new path up the hill, which point it would then run down East Main Avenue until it hit the
road crossing at Second and East Main, which point it would cross to the north. then it would run east along Bowwin Avenue until it tied back in to First Street on Highway 90. That is the proposed path. Um, so the reason the 4F letter is here is because they want to
run through Chipley Park. And so again, federal dollars are going to require 4F to be conducted and future potential impacts to a park specifically of significant importance, especially ours. Um and so that's the recommended path from the consultant based on uh you know
pricing easements to be to be received all those different things which is in this packet as well. Um so before we get to the letter and I'll let him explain that again we're looking for a little bit of conversation that we can take back to consultants and say here's where the city stands on your proposed path.
>> So if you want to hit on the letter >> I I'm going to actually let them talk because I think there's got a lot there are a few things y'all are going to have to decide before we even need to talk about doing this letter. So rather than me spend 20 minutes of my time perhaps, let's go ahead and let them have their conversations because they we know we've got to take some questions back and
comments. >> Okay, >> uh Kobe, who is this consultant you're referring to? >> Oh, um I'll have to find the the name of the consultant, but they are they're contracted by the Florida Department of Transportation. So, let me see if I can find the company. >> Okay. Now my next question is um is the
pathway negotiable by us to them or >> I yes and no again we are in planning. So they're in planning. So based on the email conversation they they had with me it seems that the funding has been awarded and approved through the state budget for the fiscal year 2031.
So we're still you know at this point four five four years out from uh even designing the path. then I would assume you're probably talking another two years after that before you ever got construction dollars to do it. So you're probably looking 2033 2034 by the time you actually went to construct it. Um so
again when we had the initial conversation with the consultant when they brought back alternatives that was my number one thing that there was a day this was coming you all were going to have input on this of what we how we see this going. Again the three alternatives you've seen them I don't think from shoemaker to woodyard is a big deal to
anyone. Um, I don't think from the golf course to uh 331 south going down West Live Oak. I think we all expected that one to occur, especially from West Live Oak. I don't think we initially thought was going to cross over to East Live Oak. Um, I think the initial assumption was going to go through downtown on
Ballwin Avenue. Um, again, as you go through this, if that's something council do, we can go to that and we've had different conversations that some council I'm sure will weigh in on a minute on alternative paths to get there. Um, but that's their that's their layout right now based on all the factors they have.
>> So, just for clarification, is that yes or no or maybe? >> It's a I would say it's a maybe. And it's in terms of your ability to dictate where it goes. I think it's very important that we put our opinion in because they're going to take that in consideration. >> Right. Okay. Thanks. >> Especially because our park. So,
>> but what you're talking about now is how it's going to affect Chipley Park. >> Yes. And no. I mean, yes, a Chile Park is one of them, but the other one is also just a general pathway. Again, I think the biggest one with the most interruption of the entire path is a section between 331 South and Circle Drive on East Live Oak. That's going to
be your biggest impact uh to residents because you're talking about a 12t wide path and you can expect DOT to want to do at least a two or three foot, I would assume, buffer on the size for right away. So Don, >> so it's my understanding that we we
pretty much need to kind of weigh in on either the brown, the magenta, or the blue line. Um because that that's where it's kind of deviating. I I'm definitely opposed to the blue line uh bringing that down through uh Live Oak and into
Chipley Park. I think it's going to be highly disruptive, especially it being a 12 foot wide path. Um, so I I really think that we need to just to to say stick with the original plan, which is the brown line, which is running it down beside the train tracks, crossing over
331. Either they can improve the existing road bridge that's there to accommodate the pedestrian traffic or the multi-use traffic, or what was originally discussed was building a a third bridge there to accommodate that multi-use trail. To me, that's what we
need to tell them we want to see happen. utilize that that space on the side of the the train tracks on either north or south side of the train tracks and put a multi-use path there. That to me is the most logical uh way to do this and and least disruptive.
>> Yeah. I condition that with a back uh god probably back in 200 16 or somewhere along in there. They had uh we were looking at taking four lane all the way into Floral, Alabama. And uh
and at that time they they were saying that uh 331 could be six lane. He said the only problem with uh the first portion between Highway 90 and Live Oak uh could not have a bike path nor a sidewalk, but
they could be routed one block away on either side. In other words, it wouldn't do away with the access with a bike pathway. It just would not. That first block would have to be detourred around. U so the point I'm making is that the
structure as it is right now would not hinder a six lane. Uh so you know with the conditions of whatever improvements they do but keep that in mind because you know Crest View they had 85 that they could not six lane and it's been a
nightmare for them for years. They're getting a bypass around there now but that's going to not be near as nice had they been able to six lane. But right now we can still six lane if we take care of it. So, I'm just saying if that becomes part of the map, uh, that needs
to be kind of locked down. Did you had your hand up? Okay, go ahead. >> So, um, Councilman Beerbomb, you're talking about a a pedestrian walkway on Bowwin. Is that what you're talking about? >> Correct. Over. >> You know, and Kobe and I talked about
this the other day, and I've mentioned this probably before. I I think that is the safest alternative because you know with 331 when that bridge was built it was built I'm sure with federal dollars and state dollars and I don't county I don't know I don't know how it's paid for but but it's a US highway is my
point and up top where pedestrians cross I was driving by there day we've had a conversation I've seen people in wheelchairs literally turn over on the crossing that bridge where it it slopes down where they go
have to go up to the actual bridge. It's got a bad slope on both sides of the bridge. And so I' I've witnessed that for years, you know, and today, in fact, I was on my way here uh for our four:00 meeting. There was a lady pushing a a
baby stroller and she was on this side of the bridge and she tipped just like that. Of course, I I don't think it was about to turn over, but had she not been paying attention or or been going too fast, >> that child could have spilled out right in front of me, but but I saw her and
and moved over, but it's an accident waiting to happen for somebody to be hurt right there. So, I doubt if that meets ADA compliance uh because the age of it. So, I think we have a strong case to get that corrected and have this bike
p this multi-use path go where we would like to see. was put in in ' 66. >> Wow. >> Wow. Yeah. >> Yeah. I had just got my driver's license. I remember it well. >> Yeah. And you're right on I'm sorry. >> No, go ahead. Go ahead. Finish.
>> In in the circle be very very destructive for 12oot path down through there. But if we have no other choice, I get it. East Live Oak is another question. 12 foot uh there there would have to be some trees removed there. We know >> for it to go through there.
If we is the reason that they wanted to run it down uh Live Oak East and Skirt the Lake Chipley Park is because then we would qualify for federal dollars, but on the original
route we wouldn't. >> No, no, no. So, um, they the reason they they shifted from going down Ballin Avenue to crossing at 331 from our conversation with the consultant that day was when the consultant for DOT, which by the way is VHB,
VHB is a consultant, um, when they had conversation with the railroad company about downtown. to Bowwin Avenue, particularly the parking, which is in railroad rightway, uh that the railroad had told them that that was a lease for parking and if the city was to do
anything other than parking that we may not get the lease back. So again, I'm just telling you what the consultant had a conversation with them about. Uh and that's why the consultant has changed the path based on that response from the railroad company. >> Okay. Can can Clay opine on the whole thing about the survey and what we
believe to be our area versus the railroads interpretation of rightway please so that we correct the record and make sure that that record is correct. We've looked at this many times. Our continued position has been that downtown the railroads right ofway stops at effectively where that wall is not on
the into the actual roadway. Um the railroad's entire right ofway they have if you look has meandered based on where the railroad has been situated over many many years. You can look at aerial going
back as far as the state maintains them and it's very clear that the railroad has not always been in the exact same location. They've adjusted those track locations various times um including in the downtown area when the actual crossings were put into effect. uh in
terms of improvements, but we believe from what we have looked at many times over that the actual right ofway of the railroad does not cross into Baldwin Avenue. Um if you center, if you take a 100 foot rideway and you put the
railroad track in the dead middle of it, yes, it does come into Baldwin Avenue. That is wholly inconsistent with where the 100 foot rideway would have been 70 years ago. There's not been anything that moves that north south. When you look at Circle Drive, we our position
and we've gone through this with both our title insurer and with a prior surveyor, we are very confident that the original Vancirk map depicts where Circle Drive is adjacent to downtown. That's what all of our property lines are based off of. And we know where the
railroad was relative to that. And we can see that and we can look at where Circle Drive was relative to the railroad. If you look at where those buildings sit, you have a very compressed amount of land to what would be the south side
of the railroad going up against Circle Drive. That is consistent with the 100 foot rideway not being centered on where the current tracks are, but having been further to the south originally. And I know the mayor is nodding and I think we talked to multiple people when we
started looking at this back in 16 or 18 who all had the same position that even where the depot is was a later addition after the tracks were relocated. So where the depot is is
probably more akin to where the tracks actually were closer to to start with because of where that offloading platform was. >> So that's our position. We remain of that. Um, I know the railroad may disagree with it, but I can tell you we definitely don't believe that this shoots all the way up and takes all the
parking off of B. If it crosses that wall, it's not crossing by 20 foot. It's minimal. And we've had at least one surveyor give us that same opinion. >> And that's not unusual. I mean the the when you look at the overlays >> particularly on our property appraisers
map uh >> a lot of inaccuracies and uh don't don't ever base everything off center line of street or railroad because a lot of them are very far off skew and I was a land surveyor for a while. I know that
personally. Yeah. And you know exactly what we have up here in this area where you have some of these lines that don't run equidistant with one another as you go east to west based on the north south call creates jogs and there areas north of the city where you actually have entire section lines shift just across
one track of land. But the biggest thing I'd point out to everybody, if you're ever looking at this map and you ever want to look at what you're dealing with here, just look at as you go down on this section, look at where the
railroad lies and the property that how far it sits further south. Look at where Maine runs before it comes into Bowwin is a good example over there around where the water tower is. You can see that it sits much much
further south is where Main Avenue should actually be, West Main Avenue. >> And that would not be have ever been platted that way. That's on the original map. That would have never been platted that way if the railroads right ofway ran 30 ft further north, which is what
the contention would have to be. And then you can see the geometric shapes on the property appraiser site actually shift as we come through there. But we have always believed based on what the surveyor's opinions were and otherwise that that's why you do see so much property on either side of the
railroads, they've always acknowledged it. I mean, there are large trees planted on the north side of Circle Drive south of that railroad when you get right down to it. And if that was by their view part of their rideway,
they would not have had that there. So we we're pretty consistent in what we have seen. We've taken that position going back many many years. Every time we've pushed back with our documentation while our initial response from the railroads been, well, we don't agree,
they've never been willing or able to respond with anything that contradicts it. And we've just said, "Show us what you're relying on. Certainly you have a survey somewhere. Certainly you have some pins or markers and we'll have our surveyor go back out and look at it." And the answer they've always given is
silence. So, I think this is one where we take the continued position that if nothing else, we know on Baldwin Avenue, the city's been responsible for that street. We've striped those parking places. People have parked there. The top part of that wall that's on the
city. The railroad doesn't come up there and maintain it. That's been true now for over 70 years. At a certain point in time, if they wanted to assert a claim of Bowwin Avenue, they probably should have come and done it. But I would also note that if you look at the um areas
around the actual railroad crossings and the areas that they have refused um I believe the notable one is there on 7th that has the big dip in it. They've never been willing the railroad has never been able to come improve that because they said that's on us. Well, why would that be on us if that was
their rightway? M >> so we've asked them for improvement on that going back the whole time I've been here >> 20 plus years. So that's our position. Don't know that that makes a huge difference for this today. I'll briefly just touch on the letter. So this is an
official with jurisdiction letter that we have to execute basically allowing them to proceed with the PD&E and moving forward. Um I believe we are going to still need um there've had been some a little bit of back and forth. The state historic preservation officer is considered a joint official with jurisdiction given the contributing
resource status of Chipley Park and the site there and the fact that it is listed within the Phoenix Spring Historic Place Registry number. So, but we're basically asking Kobe for the authority to sign it. I agree with Kobe having it presented tonight so you could talk about the
other thing is I'd have him sign the letter and transmit it along with the council's comments of its preference. >> Mayor. Yes, sir. >> So, is it the council's consensus that we maintain the brown line and that we
keep pushing for that pedestrian bridge uh on Bowwin that crosses 331? >> Yeah. >> Do we need a a motion for that or just >> make that form of the motion along with authorization to sign the currency letter? >> Let's let's let's make it even cleaner. Let's just take the map they have out
for that. Let's just use what they have. So it seems that you're referring to to what they have as west alternative A and east alternative A. The west alternative A is orange line. East alternative A is the brown line. Is that is that accurate? >> That way I can just confer something that's visual.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. It's hard. Anybody make out that brown line? >> Yeah, they all stack stack. >> It runs down. It's sandwiched in between the magenta and the blue line. >> With the red Yeah. >> and the blue. The brown would run from
West Live Oak all the way >> right between the red and the blue for those that can't make it out. >> So the brown will stay out of circle. >> Correct. The brown will go from West Live Oak all the way down ball until it ties back in on First Street. >> Can Can they zoom in on on the red and the blue line?
>> Blow it up. Yeah. >> A little more. >> A little more. >> Yeah. >> And then pull us over. >> Yeah. >> It is literally sandwiched in between. You can see the brown there where the magenta looks out. >> So, we're talking about orange and brown. That's west alternative A and
east alternative A. >> Okay. Your motion. >> I think he's got a comment before. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> So, it would I understand the block between seventh and eighth wider there. you know, multi-use,
not a big deal, but it continues east on Baldwin on the Fiser pharmacy block, which is much narrower >> all the way through until you get back to 90. >> So, they don't have a problem with that. >> They're going to run I mean, you're going to replace all the parking with
the path. >> Oh, so we lose all that parking on Fisher Pharmacy. >> Yeah. I because they never made the option, but I highly doubt they're going to run the path or stripe the path with any existing roadway, right? >> Because the whole point is to get them out of the roadway. >> Alternative transportation. So,
>> almost assuredly you're going to lose the South Park. >> It's going to run it all through South Park >> on all those blocks. >> Yes. >> Now, we do. >> Does that mean train stop where that little new business is? They're going to lose all their parking
>> to the south. On the north, >> not right next to their building. That's where most people park. >> But on the railroad side. >> Yeah. Southside of Bal. >> How many How many is that? Cuz they're jam-packed a lot when I >> That's That's over That's >> 70% of their parking.
>> Cuz there at least two handicap spots right there on the north side on the north side of that. >> Yeah. >> So, and they don't have that. They have what, three or four going back towards the lot, the where the old warehouse was.
I I say we we stick to the either the brown or the magenta line. Force them to develop that and show us what that's actually going to look like. >> We can always say no. >> Just >> refresh me again. What's the magenta line? What?
>> It's the same path. >> Oh, wait. Same path, but instead >> on the other side, >> it's the same path, but instead it would zigzag around the bridge >> right here and go down and then come back up. >> Yeah. But I I say we force them to develop that and show us what that's
actually going to look like. >> We can always say no. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion. Second. >> So to clarify, we are approving the me to sign this concurrent letter concurrence letter and then to provide
to FDOT the minutes of this meeting along with the council's preferred layout which is west alternative A and east alternative A. >> Yes, >> I believe that's the consensus. >> Is that the motion? There's your motion. >> Correct. >> Question to comments. >> Just clarification. So, which color is the one where we would lose the
southside parking? >> The brown and the magenta or purple? >> Both. >> Both. >> Both. >> And it looks like 19 spots would be lost in the area. >> The area you're talking >> there's one that's not really a spot everybody uses. So, 18 plus that one.
And then on the north side, they only have right now they have eight except for the food truck parks which is another three. So, And you we're only talking about that section. We're not talking about the entire section, entire street. >> I I really don't think that bicycle
traffic is going to replace car traffic for those businesses. >> Um I mean there's another alternative if we turned it back on 11th Street and then live boat to the library, but that puts us back in the lakeyard.
>> Yeah. So they they had initially they initially also was going to run the path rather than dipping it into the lakey yard. They were going to turn it left and stay on the what you consider what we all call the outer sidewalk of Circle Drive. >> Right. >> Right. Well, at that point you affect
more businesses and homes that are there than you do running through the park. So they that's when they shifted it again. >> Right. Right. >> So we're trying to stay out of the lakeard. >> That's what it seems like. Well, I mean, I'm thinking if we went around the lake, that would take care of your downtown problem. >> Yeah.
>> You wouldn't have all that parking go away. You know what I'm saying? Because >> Yeah. >> You go in on the west side of the lake, go around it, and now you're going to come out over there on the east side, and you won't mess up >> three blocks of parking
>> or four. Yes, ma'am. Is it possible on that main street that turns into part of Circle Drive there? Can the can that >> parking spaces that we lose, can those people park down there on the Presbyterian Street? >> I mean, it's all >> the main street that changes. I >> mean, it's technically all public
parking. We I think the council previously discussed putting in actual parking spaces. We haven't we never done that, but yeah, they could technically. Yes. >> Can you park both sides? Yes. >> Left and right. I mean, I see people doing it, but there's no marked. >> It's not strike, but yes. Yeah. >> Okay. Well, >> the safety net is this isn't in stone,
>> right? >> Mrs. >> is not in stone. >> Well, the the engineering is is for 2031, >> correct? Yeah, Miss Mindy. >> Um, after nine years, we're closer than ever ever before, but we're not finished
in terms of designating a national historic landmark, which would be a subset of um our historic district. it would be called um the campus the Shiakea campus.
If that comes to be the feds can't do anything within that area and that's the only restriction. You can homeowners can but the feds can't you know uh do anything there. Uh
I agree with Mr. beerbomb and I uh don't think the citizens have said they want more things to do in Chipley Park. We need not deny that. We need not deny
the veterans what they want. But what will we allow? I think that needs to be looked at. And I question if we could really jazz up our alleyway and run them down that and get some federal dollars to help us with that.
Thank you. Anyone else? I like that. Okay. So, you you did got a second on your motion, right? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. All right. So, we have a motion. Second. All in favor say I.
>> I. >> I. I. >> I. I. Carrie. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, mayor. Unfortunately for Miss Lewis, these will be verbatim. This >> section will be verbatim with amendments. Okay. Okay. All right. Um,
we are going to go to Mr. Wallace now. Are we correct there? Yeah. All right. Mr. Wallace, we are going to go to 4D D1, >> Alden Springs. >> Yep. Good evening, council. So, this is the Alen Springs subdivision. It's been under
construction for better part of at least a year and a half, maybe installing all the infrastructure. So, it is finally complete. The city has conducted all of our necessary inspections. Everything passes our specs.
And so they were requesting that the city accept um the ownership of the water line, sewer lines, the lift station, and the roads. Uh the detention ponds will remain under the ownership of the HOA,
but they are requesting that we accept uh all other infrastructure within this. And we have received a capacity fee payment for this phase of the project and we have a maintenance bond in hand now for the continued
maintenance of these utilities uh for one year. So they completed their obligation. >> Are these the guys that met all the DOT specs on that? >> Yes sir, they did. >> Okay. I know I'm thinking of several
projects but this one specifically they followed the guidelines. >> Yeah, they provided several core samples and all of them came >> at minimum level or I think most of them were above the minimum level. >> Okay.
>> In terms of pavement thickness motion to approve. >> Second. >> I have a motion second. Questions comments? Anyone? >> Yes, sir. >> Comments? Uh Chris, you remember I brought up the live oaks that they have on their landscape plan? >> Yes, sir.
>> And their their plan um as approved of course, but I have raised this before. >> Um calls for live oaks to be planted in a 10- foot wide section between sidewalks and curbing, street curb. Right.
>> Right. Now, we know from experience on Circle Drive what live oaks do to curbings, concrete pavement, and sidewalks. And we've spent thousands of dollars over the years uh straightening it out. Live boats were
beautiful. Used to be a tunnel before Hurricane, Elise, right? And uh but but they they're very slow growth, but they do a lot of damage. And we're being asked to take these streets. And long
after I'm gone and we're all gone from this council, this city will inherit a huge expense in this subdivision repairing the damage done by live oaks. >> Yeah. And so I I would wish that they
could choose another species appro approved, you know, that is more suitable for, you know, uh a taller canopy for one. So delivery trucks, UPS, all that kind of can get by and pedestrians can walk. But roots that
go down more so than uh than the liveboats do. live boat routes are are massive. Um, and they just do a lot of damage. So, I just think it's important to safeguard the city in the future from inheriting something that we we know is
going to cost us a lot of money. And by the way, on the inside of that 10 feet is where the water lines are because that's where the meter boxes are, right? So, we've got we've got large roots that could affect our water supply out there, which we're going to take responsibility
for. sewer, right? And the streets about we assuming sidewalks as well or just the >> Yeah, sidewalks would be included. >> So that that's a lot at risk from live oaks. It really is beautiful. Yes. But >> yeah, and we've had that conversation. I had a a private conversation with Mr.
Farhood who is here this evening. Uh-huh. >> Uh Kobe and I met with him uh recently to discuss that item and they are um more than willing to change out those live oaks for a tree that we would prefer.
>> Right. >> So, we're going to work with them to find a species of trees that will work, maybe provide a little bit more diversity. >> Yeah. >> Rather than having all live oaks. But yes, they are >> 100% on board with that idea. Um and we can make that a condition of the
approval if you like that they submit a new landscape plan. >> Um but yes, they have full intentions of redesigning that and planting other trees other than live oaks in within that area. >> Well, I know another landscape plan
would cost them money, right? Perhaps unnecessarily. Clay, you can tell us this. If a motion was made with a stipulation that live oaks would not be planted as the landscape plan calls for maybe possibly and another species would be substituted. I don't know. >> Well, I think it comes down to the issue
of the city's not prepared to accept the infrastructure if the live oaks are there due to the potential ongoing maintenance cost is what I'm hearing >> right now. And so the answer is I think we would couch the motion that if the developer wants to use the live oaks,
the city is glad to allow them provided the developer retains any additional maintenance or obligations related to those live oaks and any damage to infrastructure we inherit. So I don't know whether that's going to be under an owners association or otherwise that would need to be embedded in part of the approved DA.
>> Yeah. And I would say they are not locked in the live oaks. They just put them there. But it will be really easy to change the landscape plan to reflect other species. If the council would like for me to bring that back to the council because those will be planned at a later
date as construction continues. Um, >> and why don't we why don't we go ahead and just do that now since these are a placeholder. It sounds like that way we're not implicitly approving something with this concern. So >> why don't you have us bring back that plan with some other species?
>> We can do that. What you have, Don? >> So, I think Councilman Harrison's comments provide a good segue into a further discussion I think the council needs to have about the acceptance of of roads. Um, he he makes a fantastic point
that we're accepting roads that 20 25 years from now are going to be an actual burden on the city. Um, Kobe and I during our meeting kind of discussed this at length. You know, we have another subdivision here in town that um
had the opposite track. It was built and many many years later when that subdivision needed new new pavement, new roads, they weren't technically city streets and that subdivision came to the city and said, "Please repave our streets. We can't we can't do it ourselves." So, you know, it's a little
bit of a dang if you do, dang if you don't situation. But for me, you know, I I think at some point we need to possibly look at adopting the policy that u that Freeport has, which is they do not accept streets
>> for maintenance. >> For for maintenance. That's right. So, I really think we ought to evaluate that. I don't think it's fair to to to do a rug snatch on on someone that has >> Yeah, we can once the application's in. You can change the policy in the future, but everybody who's in the hopper now gets the credit for it. But I would say
that to Mr. Sher's point, if they want to submit a landscape plan that doesn't have the potential incursion issues of live oaks, let them do that. If not, the answer is whatever species of tree if you do place in those areas, it's going to be their
ongoing responsibility if we ever do accept those roads to provide the repairs for those. with with what we're facing with the city and the unknowns. Again, I'm always going back to the money and I'm just not in favor of increasing our cost into the
future uh for these items. So, I I agree. I just uh unfortunately, you know, the ones that are in the hopper, I mean, uh I don't agree with that either. I don't I don't think we should accept even the ones that are in the hopper for future, you know, beyond that year one
where you collected some funding, but not not ongoing forever. >> Well, we I think we put people kind of under the pretense if they'll meet these qualifications, you know, the city to take it over and they have done that. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Your your code provides for that. So, if they follow your code, you're
bound to follow your code, too. >> Even if it's going to even if it's going to uh harm the city financially. >> Yes, absolutely. You have a right to change your code whenever you want, but if you do choose to change your code, you can't change it in midstream for anybody that's in process.
>> It can't be retroactive. >> Correct. >> Gotcha. >> Yeah. Um well, I I would say we >> because we can put pre I apologize, council. I just want to clarify one more point there. You can put conditions right now,
Councilwoman, on these, like I was proposing to Councilman Harrison, that if you want to put something in that may cause a greater maintenance cost in the future, that will remain your obligation for us to accept those because our acceptance of the roads is just the standard of the road they're built to.
If they're building or installing collateral landscaping that could have that effect, we can do that. We can't just say we won't accept them for that reason, but we can put those conditions in place. So, we have methods of mitigating the financial harm to the city short of completely eliminating it.
That's why you don't have the authority right now. I apologize, Council. >> That's okay. I was just I was just going to say, you know, these folks have planned this development with a lot of things in mind, you know, and and I respect that. For example, their HOA cost. Um, correct me if I'm
wrong, the subdivision in Florida now has to have an HOA of some sort. Correct. >> All right. So, the price point on these homes um in in their hopes, I can't really speak for them, but this is the way I understand the way this kind of works,
the price point for these homes is to is such that they can have an affordable HOA uh fee, right? So if and at that price point and HOA fees, if they
maintain the roads and the sidewalks, their HOA fees would be way out of sight for them. So for the market that is here and the people that need these homes, they're in their zone. And and that that's why have they have designed this
thing as they have and and and that that is smart. So by us declining to take these streets after they have invested so much to get to this point um I think would be a an injustice to them uh
frankly uh because you know we can work with them. They're willing to work. They're willing to find some other species you know get this done and you know I didn't bring this up to drag this thing out for them. I'm sure they're ready to go to work. They've done a wonderful job out there. I don't know if everybody's driven out there yet but it
looks really good. Uh, and I'm sure they're going to do a great job with it. And uh, so I would like to see whatever the fastest route is to that they can proceed. That's what I would like to do, especially if they're willing to to do this. And and one other thing, if I'm not mistaken, uh, Chris, on on the
Walton Road frontage out there, did I see that they were going to do some live oaks along out there that would just be in a green space type thing? >> They would like to do some around the entrance sign there. Yeah, >> that's in their public space or in their private space, but >> sort of to hide that there's a
>> electrical utility substation there. >> Yeah. >> So, they'd like to to beautify that intersection to kind of >> spruce it up, right? And they're more than welcome to use live oaks there. That won't affect roads, sidewalks. >> That's what I was going to say. That'd be beautiful right there, actually. So, >> yeah.
>> So, I I think uh if the council's good with it, we can we can work to either have the next meeting, most likely the next meeting. That's what you want. uh an item about this and let you kind of hash it out and decide from there so we can get we start right you can make that decision then and as the meantime Chris and I can work on some pros and cons of
that and then Mr. Atinson can be prepared for you know what that looks like for a policy policy and policy >> for future policy changes. Yes. >> What do we do with this motion? >> It's motion to adopt motion to accept. >> Correct. >> But I thought I thought we were going to >> with the stipulation. >> Yeah. >> That if they're going to leave the live
oaks in place that they acknowledge that they're going to have to bear the cost of any damage that those live oak root systems ultimately do to the streets or they have the right to replace them. And I would note street tree locations are for site plan purposes only as noted on CO9 of the sheet set.
>> So you're going to >> that would be my amendment >> and we can do that right now. >> And I'll and I'll amend my second >> to include that. >> Okay. Very good. >> All right. >> Yep. >> We good. Anybody else? >> All in favor say I.
>> Nay. >> All right. Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi, >> Hi, Gary. Thank you very much. Uh, >> all right, Chris, while you're up there. >> Yep. Okay, so this is regarding the Bay
Springs commercial development. Um, most closely located to the Sunstop, which is on the south end of that that development. There is a retention pond. There's two parcels. There's a retention pond and there's a larger parcel behind
it that surrounds it that whenever this was developed I don't know four five years ago the retention pond was deed over to the city for our maintenance and anything
associated with with the retention pond. Mr. McCormack has requested that we deed that property back over to his company so that he would be responsible for the maintenance, the
upkeep of that pond. Um the reertifications that are required by the state. So this would really save the city the the burden of having to maintain these ponds that really serve no purpose for the city except they serve that development there. Mhm.
>> Um, so it's a benefit for the city. >> There there may be plans in the future where this pond could be relocated further south, opening up another commercial lot there. So I think it it saves the city money and it might actually at some point five years down the road
lead to future development that's currently occupied that space where the pond is. >> Motion to approve. Uh can we stipulate to that motion that along with that motion that the developer would be responsible for transferring any and all liabilities, obligations, and
responsibilities of the existing permits when he takes receipt of that. What I don't want is I know he's going to take care of everything in the future. I just want to make sure he's got any ongoing and current responsibilities of the permits that may be in our name. >> So move second. >> All right, we have a motion second. Uh
any questions or comments from anyone? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. And now we will go to our attorney with 5A1.
>> Yes sir. This is the first reading. You revised director of finance or finance direct ordinance if you prefer. This is first reading. I need a motion to hold first reading. Advertise for second reading. Public hearing and adoption. >> So moved. Second. >> Have a motion. Second. Any questions or
comments from anyone? >> All in favor say I. >> Nay. >> All right. >> You sure know how to triple >> going forward with uh advertising. >> Is that this is the first? So this is
first reading of the ordinance and we will advertise for the public hearing for adoption. This is not adoption. They just give me permission to advertise, hold the first reading, and bring it back for you to choose to adopt or not at a future meeting. >> Could I ask for some clarification for
your decision? >> It was just because as a close of business on Friday, it wasn't available and I've not read it and I don't feel comfortable reading something I've not had the opportunity to digest. You don't get a second shot at it, >> sir.
>> You'll get a second shot at it. In other words, it's got to go through a second reading. >> I I >> I carried. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, mayor. That is an ordinance to be numbered. An ordinance the city of Devank Springs, Florida, repealing and
replacing ordinances 534, 560, 576, 870, 877, 891, 904, and 989, thereby amending in its entirety chapter 2 administration, article 2, officers and employees, division 4, director of
finance of the code of ordinances, and providing for conflict, severability, and for an effective date. We will bring that back at your second meeting, I believe, is what we've tentatively set. Thank you very much. Now, if you'll just go ahead to 52.
>> Yes, sir. 5 A2 is going to be first reading of chapter 12. This is going to be the licenses, permits, and taxation, otherwise known as your occupational license or business license ordinance. This has gone through the code land use review committee. It was previously
presented to the council in April of this year. Staff thereafter was asked to bring back some cleanup. We have taken that cleanup. We have conformed it. Made some revisions for the agenda. Pulled out some parts that will go into ordinance format. So I am asking for permission to have first reading and
advertise for second reading public hearing and adoption. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. Motion second. Uh any questions, comments from D? Go ahead. >> Um I appreciate all the hard work that went into that. I just don't know that I'm convinced that it maximizes our
financial ability to raise the maximum level of revenues. >> Anyone else? >> All in favor say I. Oh, I'm sorry, Dan. Go ahead. >> Are we short changing the city? Amy, >> I I think there's
>> Yes, I I think there's more room to play, but we've already had that discussion. So >> I >> we have Mr. Harrison. >> Yes. I >> I >> I carry. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, mayor. That is an ordinance
to be numbered. An ordinance to city of Fing Springs, Florida, amending ordinances 410 and 630 in part, thereby amending chapter 12, article one of the code of ordinance to provide for updated terminology, clarified applicability, modernized administration of business tax receipts and enforcement provisions
providing for cotification, severability, conflicts, and an effective date. >> Mayor, >> thank you very much. All right, now >> I'll move on. This is actually going to be second reading. This is your master service assessment ordinance that you have had previously had first reading.
This would be ordinance 993. This is a public hearing, mayor, for this master service assessment ordinance. Um, so I would just ask the council to hold the public hearing and then we would need a motion to hold second reading and adopt.
>> All right. This is a public hearing, so >> we can do the public hearing before or after the motion. It's your call, mayor. >> All right. Go ahead. Somebody's got a motion. >> I'll make a motion. >> Make a motion. >> Yeah. Make a motion. Second reading. >> Second.
>> All right. I have a motion to second. Now, this is a public hearing. So, >> yes. >> The public is welcome to >> comment or question. >> Anyone else? All in favor say I. >> Yes. >> I
>> I nay. >> I carried. This is ordinance number 993. And please bear with me on this one. An ordinance relating to the provision of public services and facilities in the city of the Phoenix Springs, Florida, authorizing the imposition and collection of service assessments
against property within the incorporated municipal limits of the city of the Phoenix Springs, Florida. Providing certain definitions and defining the term service assessment, establishing the procedures for imposing service assessments, providing that service assessments constitute a lean on assessed property upon the adoption of
the assessment role. providing that the lean for a service assessment collected pursuant to sections 197.3632 and 197.3635 Florida statutes upon perfection shall attach to the property on the prior
January 1st the lean date for Avalor taxes providing that a perfected lean shall be equal in rank and indignity with the leans of all state county district or municipal taxes and assessments and superior in dignity to all other prior our leans, mortgages,
titles, and claims, providing procedures for collection of service assessments, providing a mechanism for the imposition of assessments on government property, and providing for an effective date. Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you very much. I just keep rolling with 584. >> Yes, sir. Mayor, this is resolution
20268. If adopted, it is in front of you. This is the service assessment that tracks along with the ordinance that sets the initial assessment for non-evalorum fire service assessments. >> I'd like to make a request, mayor, >> was that
>> I'd like to make a request. >> Mhm. >> We've been at this for an hour and there's going to be a lot of public comment. Could we take a 15minute break? >> 15? Yeah. How about 10? >> I'll take 10. >> All right. Y'all good with that? All
right. Here we go. 10 minutes. See? call this council meeting back to order. Uh we're we're just now beginning to take up uh let's see what number we are on. We are on >> we are on
>> 5 A4 >> did the initial assessment resolution mayor that I introduced before the break. This is the non-avalorum fire services assessment resolution to be number 202608 if adopted. Need council discussion and then upon approval motion
to approve. The only thing I would note is that please do find on page 15 section 15 subc. In all future years, the hardship assessment has to be turned in
by August 1st. Obviously, we won't even adopt the assessment until after August 1st this year. So, what will happen in year one is we will have a reimbursement methodology for those who qualify as provided they present something within 30 days of October one asking for that.
So, it just will be included on the tax roll. We'd have to remove it later or reimburse it. In all future years, it be by August one. But that's the only thing that's adjusted substantively due to our time frame where this is continued. >> It was just working. Okay. Now, what have we set so far? Do we set the amount
or still doing that? >> This is the initial assessment resolution. This does not set the actual assessment. >> Okay. >> Mr. Townson, do you want to walk through the revised numbers? >> Yeah, sure. So, mayor, from our um from our last, you know, not last meeting
before the council discussed it, uh the rates, we had three council members who showed direction of setting a range of 100% of assessable cost to 60% of assessable cost. And so what you see in here on there and what you have in front of you that just like we do with
property tax with the millage rate start high you can go low can't start low and go high. And so because y'all they there was direction of for the range of 1 to 100 to 60 that set the preliminary fire service assessment rates at $397
rate per dwelling unit, 25 cents per square foot for commercial, 3 cents per square foot for industrial warehouse, 63 cents per square foot for institutional, and then $115 per parcel for vacant land. And you all recall, you all agreed
to an exempt buy down which included um institutional governments is what that is and then also vacant land parcels in accordance with state law. And so um the estimated gross revenue for fiscal year 27 at 100% assessable cost rate is
2,228,850. The estimated exempt buy down is $646,194 and the estimated net re revenue is $1,582,6556. Ultimately, we need uh we need direction on the rate. Um and we need if if council's going to move forward. Again,
I can give the timeline real fast. If the council uh does not approve the resolution tonight, we effectively the assessment is effectively cannot move forward this fiscal year due to time frames. Um, if you do approve it tonight, uh, the consultant will issue out mailing to every property owner in
the city on August 3rd, at which point you would then at your second meeting in August, which is, just to be clear, August 24th, you would have the final assessment resolution. That point, if you do not pass the final assessment resolution, the assessment cannot go
forward this fiscal year. If you do pass final sess resolution, then that will be effective October 1 of 2026. Therefore, put on people's tax bills um November of 2026 for fiscal year 27. >> Questions? >> Go ahead.
>> We can adjust that highend right now. >> You can you can take it down to the we we set a low and a high, but the high is already set, right? >> And we cannot change that. Not today. Not without revertising
again. >> You understand what the high M? >> Yeah. You understand what the high-end means though, correct? That's not what we're going >> I'm sorry, my mic was off. The the high-end cost is not what we are going
to assess on our citizens this year. That high-end cost was how high can it go at any time. So it was this council decided to fund a fire service that that's not something that I wanted to
start with, but now we've got it. So this council sun decided to continue to manage our own fire service. So therefore, we have to fund this fire service. This study went out and this study looked at a lot of different data
and came back with the fact that hey, if you fund this at 100% you're going to collect $397 per residential household. You're going to collect this square footage amount at all all of our businesses and governments and you're going to come back at 2.2 million. And
then we decided, hey, we're going to cut out the government and the institutional because we know we're not going to collect on those. So realistically, our 100% is at like $1.6 million or so, give or take a couple hundred thousand. So
realistically, we're not collecting the entire cost that the fire service cost the city today, even with the the assessment at 100%. Now, the one thing that we all spoke about at the last meeting was we don't think that we need to be at 100% this first year, but we
also don't want to penalize the city moving forward 5, 10, 20 years down the road, wherever we're at. Um, because at some point that cost may have to increase. So, realistically, what was it at 60% Mr. Townsen? because I think
that's where we were pretty much in agreement on last. >> Speaking about what is the what were the rates out of 60% just shy of raising like 900 plus,000. >> One second. I got it right. >> I don't remember the rate. >> 60%. The residential residential will be
$238 per unit. Commercial would be 15 cents a square foot. In industrial warehouse will be 2 cents a square foot. Institutional 38 cents a square foot. vacant land $69 per parcel that would generate a gross revenue of1,337,310.
An exemption buy down for government institutional tax exempt and a exemption would be an amount of $389,771. And therefore, the net revenue at a 60% funding rate would be $947,539. And 100% uh
>> for residential is what per year? >> 397 what? >> 397. >> 397. >> But we still wouldn't raise the amount of money even at 60% to fund the fire service as to what the fire service cost
us today at 1.9 million. I I understand everything you're saying, but the general public is looking at this 397 figure a year and and is wondering from my intelligence on boots on the
ground is uh have y'all lost your mind because that's what they think it's going to be and they don't understand that that's worst case scenario. So now this is acting as uh a scare tactic to
me and I' and I've voiced that before because a lot of this stuff is speculation on the amount of uh residents and business and all this stuff and do we need another fire station right now? No, we don't. >> Uh and that that's somewhere in the
future. And when you say uh we want to take care of it for the next 20 years, this is adjustable. >> This is adjustable. We don't have to do this because right now the public thinks they're going to have to pay $400 a year
right at >> for fire assessment 397. Uh and that's not the case. It's misleading. And I'm wondering is there any room or any possibility to bring that figure down so that the the sticker
price and the scare of of it being this much we can take that off the table. >> I just I don't want to lie to the public though and I'm not saying that we fund this at 397. We've made this very clear. There's been several meetings that where
there's no scare tactics involved here. We have discussed this over and over and over again. We had the opportunity to save this city a ton of money by letting someone else manage it. We decided to keep our fire service and manage it ourselves. If we're going to keep it, we
have to fund it. But even at 60%, Councilman, and that that's what I want to emphasize here. Even if we collect 60%, which is what we kind of agreed on the last meeting, we're still not funding 100% of what the fire service cost us today. Not in the future. Today,
we're at $1.9 million. >> And this is fire only. This is not the ALS and medical. I apologize, Councilman Harrison. >> What is the What is the 60% rate? >> You want to read it again, Kobe? It was like $1 million after the deduction
>> per person per property, right? $238 per unit >> at what percentage did >> per resident per year. >> Yes. >> Household the the rooftop. >> Yeah. >> For household. >> Yeah. Go ahead.
>> Good. Um so, so this resolution is setting that range. We do not have time to get this done this year if we change that that range. We do not >> bring this resolution back. We cannot do it again.
>> We we do not have time. So this would be this would be dead. This council voted unanimously to save our fire department, keep our fire department. This council voted unanimously to initiate this fire assessment.
So um nothing's changed. It is still needed. We all recognize that. That's why we voted for it. So, so nothing has changed and I agree, you know, the that it might
not even cover if it was 100% which it will not be. If we get to the point where it's 100%. We can no longer afford it. >> Sure. >> This council will never meet 100%. I don't foresee that. What I do foresee is
continued growth in this city. So, um, so it it might not what we implement if we had to implement 100% today. It and you say it would not cover it and and and you're probably right. I haven't looked at that, but um
but that's not counting future growth and other sources of revenue, which we're going to have to look at and talk about. In fact, that that's coming up probably later, I'm sure, um, in this in this in this meeting and in our budget workshop
Thursday. So, we have to look at all that. But my my point is we we decided on a range and I went I went along with that. 100% scares me. I'm hone on it. I I live in I live in the city as well. I couldn't see myself paying $397. But what the public has to understand
and what the council should do since we all voted for this is we should educate and inform the public as to our intentions and and what we're doing with this and and and not get afraid at the last minute that well the public's going to turn against us and what the public
needs to understand is the fear is from Tallahassee. The fear is the the the property tax changes and the loss of revenue uh in our general fund and the countyy's general fund by the way. And by the way, the county, you know, we we
did have an opportunity. We looked hard at at at the sheriff's department taking the fire department. But guess what? There would be an assessment with them doing that as well. Uh would it be as high as ours? Probably not. But the there's a reason for that. their revenue
is a lot higher than ours is. They've got a lot more to work with than city defunct does. So we have safeguarded ourselves to be able to by doing this whatever happens in the future, we don't know the nature of politics in the future and what's going to happen with
property taxes that the legislature has not offered any alternative revenue uh any inkling of what's coming down the road. Will it be higher sales taxes statewide? It's got to come from somewhere. I don't know where it is, but
we don't have it. So, all we could do is give ourselves some insurance that in worst case scenario, we we could go up if we had to. But I can tell you, I for one do not want a higher fire assessment than we need to
have. I think we need to exhaust all other avenues of revenue uh before we make a determination to set this thing too high. And uh the ceiling to me at this point is irrelevant uh because I
don't see us ever getting there. I'll be the first to say we can no longer afford this if we have to do that. Um but thank you >> Amy >> Clay. Uh walk me through the process. How does
this which article in this says that we can reduce the rate? You just need this adopted because this says estimate. So I have that portion. But what is the because I think that would maybe help. So >> this is the initial assessment. So what
we do is we adopt an initial assessment. Everywhere in this document it says initial assessment. The city has set forth if you look specifically over to page 12 that is the determination of fire service assessed cost. the
establishment of initial fire service assessments and that's where it gives you your potential max range at 100% of assessible cost. So that is the maximum number what the initial assessment is sets that we go through this we have to
adopt the final assessment prior to October one of each fiscal year as Mr. council announced that would be all the notice would go out August 3rd and at your last meeting in August you would officially adopt what the actual rate would be and what is called the final assessment resolution.
>> Okay. So this is going to be replaced by a final this resolution. >> This allows us to move forward. Correct. >> And then when we're through the budget process that's when we can reduce it and we'll do this again at a final. >> You have to have a final >> that's the one that's we're going to be
stuck to. But it has to be high enough now so that we can lower it to where we after our discussions and a little bit more time has passed and so >> and if you need to go up in the future, right? In future years. That's what gives you the option. >> And we'll do this every year. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Does a resolution have to be adopted every year in order? Okay. >> Every single year there will be a rate resolution adopted. >> The only thing you will not do every year is a study. You will not have to redo the study every year >> or the ordinance. >> Or the ordinance. >> Understood. Thank you. >> You won't necessarily redo the initial
rate resolution either because that gives you the range. You'll do the final adopted resolution. >> John, >> thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I do want to point out as part of educating the public that we paid for a independent third party to come in and do this
study. They looked at our budget. They looked at the calls for service. They looked at all of the data. They looked at the parcels. And even at 100% that is only funding 80% of our expenses
much like Councilman Skingers was pointing out. So today the true cost per citizen or per household of our fire is $496 a dwelling unit because it's it's
100% of 80%. So when you walk that out to a full 100% that means right now today 2026 the cost per dwelling unit is $496 and north of 30 cents a square foot on commercial.
So as part of educating the public that that's part of it. this this it says 100% but it's 100% of the allowable percentage which was 80% because when they looked at our numbers they looked at our calls for service >> and how we were responding they said you
could only fund 80% of that you can't fund the full 100%. So I I want to I want to make that clear as part of the educating of the public. This $397 per dwelling unit it's really $496.
We're we're already eating some of that through the general fund. Well, as a matter of fact, right now we're eating 100% of that through the general fund. >> Mayor. >> Yes, sir. >> So, I've asked this question before and I
got an answer. I just want to make sure nobody's changed their mind and we're still on the same page. We're going to continue funding the fire department uh out of our general fund to the tune that we've been doing uh all along. Correct.
We're not going to back off on what we are currently giving the fire department. >> So, currently the fire department is 1.9 million, $70,000, give or take. >> And we're not backing off of that, are we? >> The fire department at this point, you can't fund it any less than 1.97 million
unless you go to making cuts in it. I And I I would assume if we pass an assessment to fund it, we will not make any cuts in the fire department. >> Okay. Um, so again, back to >> or not. I I I I really don't feel comfortable. >> Is this going to be in addition to what we already >> I get that's what I'm about to get at. That's what I've been that's what I've
been saying. Every time we have this conversation, we talk about the numbers. There's a question that has to be answered. As we talked about, what's the money for? Is the money to offset new cost, personnel, operating debt, or is it to do both? Help new cost and offset existing costs. There's a difference in
the two. And if you do this one, you're going to say, "We're going to fund the fire department at 1.97 million, and that's our new base for the general fund, and then move forward every additional dollars funded by the assessment, or you're going to say, we're going to take a portion percentage of the fire assessment, and we're going
to reimburse the general fund. We're going to offset cost of the general fund." Those are two avenues you have, and those are two avenues you got to determine. Okay, >> final question. Can the fire department get any CRA money? for the construction of a new fire
department with county consent. The answer is yes. Okay. >> Okay. Before it's too late. I'm going to say this one more time. I've said it numerous times, but it doesn't seem like it's getting received. I'm going I'll put as much lipstick on it as I know
how. Um, we can put $900,000 in our budget to spend however we want. We can give all our firemen a raise by making a
transfer. We can lower the premiums on everybody that owns property in the city of Funiac Springs by simply letting the county take us over. No assessments whatsoever. That sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
But we're down to about our last chance to get it done. I mean, I don't know what's so painful about that. And we're not talking about a 3 or 4% raise to our firemen. We're talking about a 15% raise. This fire department's been in existence
for since 1924. >> Yeah, that wouldn't change. And somehow another, the council has always kept a fire department here. >> Yeah. >> And what you're saying, mayor, makes
>> dollars and cents. I get it. >> All right. >> The uh the I'm trying to trying to make a lot of people happy. >> The information I'm getting is that the citizens want to keep their
fire department and we're bending over backwards to try and accommodate them. wants to keep it. When when they get this 397 or 2 >> 38 >> 38 when they get that, you you'll hear a different tune being played by our citizens. >> Okay.
>> And uh yeah, that they're not going to like that a whole lot. But uh anyway, this that option's fixed to run out, you know, if we go ahead with this. >> Go ahead. >> Well, you know, and I understand what you're saying,
Mayor. We we've debated this and talked about it and uh rationalized in various ways, but you know, with the state doing this with property taxes and the homestead exemption and reducing our advelum,
cities in this state are going to be more reliant on the state for funding. And what what will be the determining factors of who gets funding and who doesn't? how are they going to make those decisions? And they've offered
nothing uh to to relieve our anxiety. So, we could very well be more at the mercy of the state as a result of of their decisions on property taxes and reducing city revenue.
And if we turned our sh our fire department over to sheriff's, we lose even more of our control of of our city. So before you know it, we might as well not have a city if this trend continues to where we are more reliant on the
county. We're more reliant on the state and you know I don't know what we'd get paid for at that point. That's marketing. >> We do a little more than fire. Uh I love fire. I love our fire. I love our chief.
I love our firemen. I'm just trying this is to me this is business 101. I've spent most of my mature life as a business owner and manager and this makes great sense to me. Uh if we want tradition,
let's have tradition, but it's going to cost us a great big penny. Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. Can I just add from my perspective, there's many more factors and variables to the just the 900,000 and turning it
over because there's much more in my opinion that needs to be considered and taken. Um, and to Mr. Kosen's point, I'd like to see this supplement the fire department budget, not replace it. >> Correct. I thought that was the point to begin with.
>> I'm just telling you what my intent was when I voted on all of this. >> I'll go do what you need. I'm just >> Well, you've been told. Yeah, I would I and we've heard that message all along and I'm hearing it again. But this council has decided on this. And you
know, when I first started talking about this and and and wanted to uh keep our fire department, I remember saying we we had not the council had not done the work. Myself included the first year uh with my
training wheels on or or whatever. But and I still think we have a lot of work to do. Th this fire assessment is not intended to fully fund a fire department. There is no city in this state that does that. >> So it's unrealistic to think that it will and we can't set it at that maximum
and think it's going to fully fund it. That's that we can't Nobody's doing that. Nobody's doing that. What makes us so different? We're not doing that. This is going to supplement it and we're going to continue to to to pay the balance of it out of the general fund. I mean, this city has always always paid
for the fire department out of the general fund. So, it's not an uh an unreasonable thing to think that the that it we won't use general fund to still partially cover the balance of fire fire cost. Um, so, you know, I just
I just I just think we're we're we're we're way we're way outside the circle of the norm thinking that fire assessment is going to cover everything. It's not and it's not expected to anywhere. >> I'd like to make a motion. >> Is there a motion on the table?
>> Go ahead. >> I'd like to make a motion that we move forward. >> Second. >> Motion is to approve the resolution. >> Yes. >> Okay. Motion and a second. Comments, questions? Anyone? Anyone? Yes, ma'am. Come on.
I just wanted Donna Arnold, B O N A R N O L D. We were talking about educating the public and I just wanted to clarify something. Mayor Campbell said that if we had turned it over or if we go at this point turn it over to the county,
we won't have an assessment. We will um I believe their assessment is going to be $150. So it would be less by $75. But the thing about living in the city, you're taxed at a higher rate because you get enhanced services. I've done research on it ever since this first
came up. We provide enhanced services within the municipal city to our residents and they should be expected. They're going to pay a little bit more for it. They already pay more for what you provide for them. Police and fire and all the other things that you as a
city provide to them. They do pay more for about $75 more if you start at the 60%. And I was going to say what Mr. Harrison said. I've re researched it too. No city pays for their whole fire department out of their fire tax. But
they you can sub subsidize it, which is what we should do. But you would have an assessment. You would pay the million dollars that they asked us for for Walton County and your citizens will still pay 150. So, just to clarify, like
we said, we're educating the public. They would have one. It might be slightly lower, but they're guaranteed a truck inside the city limits as long as you own the fire truck. I mean, the fire department in the city, if it was countywide, we're not guaranteed that. So, remember those things and what
you're providing for them. >> Thank you. >> Just just again, >> we're good. Let's go for this. Okay. We uh anyone other comments? >> Yeah. >> Mayor and uh you know as a businessman I
I like to listen you propose u a sweet deal. >> That's Don Graham. >> Uh Don Graham businessman city and county property in the city and the county. So, I you know, both worlds,
but I'm looking at it uh three uh proposals that I would bring to the table with with the mayor and the city manager. First, if we do give it to the county, let's keep the city fire chief. >> Absolutely. >> Number two, let's keep the city
employees. >> And number three, let's keep that shield on the trucks. That's synonymous of the city, the residents, the HOAs. >> Uh that is a historic >> Yeah. >> marker. >> I think they negotiate with us. >> I mean, let's negotiate that. Okay.
Let's lo lose that shield, that sheriff seal >> because, you know, that's a little, you know, that's just >> a little bit out of the way. If we put a shield on it, let's put the FX springs shield on. >> Yeah. So look at options like that and see would the sheriff do that that I'll
be willing to you know sort of go in and support that because 15% raise that's a lot of money. >> It is >> that's a lot of money and that and almost a million dollars back in the coffers but them the three stipulations if we can keep that shield on these fire trucks keep our employees and especially
keep our fire >> chief something. Yeah. Think about it. >> Thank you. >> 30 years of making payroll. Anybody say that? Thank you. >> Yeah. Anyone else?
All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Nay. >> Nay. >> Carrie. Thank you very much. >> We will proceed. >> All right. Okay. I think we're down to city comments. Citizen comments. At this
time, if you have a comment, please come to the podium, state your name, and if you're representing organization, state that as well. Thank you. Hold it three minutes or less. Dr. Melinda Henderson representing um forward defunct. I would like to thank
each of you for your support and attention shown to Mr. Ruben Acasta who is chief Bureau of Historic Restor Resources from the Florida Department of State. He and the chair of the grant
section gave wonderful presentations on June the 25th at the historic preservation 101 workshop. Thank you all very very very very much.
>> Thank you. Yeah. >> Hello. >> Hey. Hey. >> I'm Shirley Gillery. I just have a question. Who keeps up the cemetery? Magnolia city does.
>> Um, okay. I'm not complaining, but I am complaining. >> He got right here. >> They used got trees growing up in them when you drive up there. I went to two funerals recently and the grass was too high. It just didn't look appropriate for our city. So, if we could just get
that tidied up a little bit, I'd be so happy. So, when we bury those people, those families will be happy. >> Yeah. >> That's all I have to say. >> Well, thank you. And I'm and I agree with you. We we public workers, we had that discussion a few days ago. Thank you.
>> Yes, ma'am. >> Anna Cogdale. My concern is the signage for the new medical facility we have on 331. >> I don't see any the emergency room or whatever it is. >> You talking about the the one by the interstate or
>> Yes, the one by the interstate. >> Okay. You >> I don't see any signs telling you how to get in, where it is, or anything. I've been there. It's a nice facility, but the signage is non-existent. >> Okay. Well, we can certainly notify the CEO over there. He's very workable guy.
Uh they do have a big sign, but it doesn't show you how to get in there. >> Uh but uh yeah, we'll see if they can maybe put something out by the road. >> It would be helpful. >> Of course, that'd be dot. We have to give him that permission. >> Okay. >> We can have Chris reach out.
>> Okay. All right. Of course, uh that's uh Todd Jackson's the CEO over there. >> Yes, sir. >> Donald L. Graham, local businessman, concerned citizen of the east side of the fac springs uh city government, city
uh mayor, I bring to you a receipt that uh I've been communicating with the city manager and uh me matter of fact, we are via email. We spoke today referenced the uh update on the uh uh needed uh city
park on the east side. Now, that corridor covers the south wall uh excuse me, South Norwood area, which is a little bit in the county, a little bit in the city, South Norwood, goes down to the Dorsy area, then it loops around to the historically
gym down to the uh Union Springs, which one of is one of the biggest black churches, predominant black. >> Yeah. >> Uh we have little, you know, members of of the of the of the race as well. We welcome everybody, but we definitely as
that area grows uh we come to you. You know, myself, uh Mr. Graham and you know, Mr. Hogan's out there. We're sort of uh spearheading and the leaders of that that community. Mhm. >> Uh so we we just like to you know keep a
update and and find out what is the intentions or what's going on because I you know we do read about you know all the city parks is getting uh money some uh uh devel new new development stuff like that but we desperately need some kind of park
>> for our growing area of kids constantly walking the streets sidewalks and stuff like that. So, uh, we just hear, you know, uh, to see, uh, >> have y'all talked about a location that >> location stuff like that? >> You got an idea where you want to do
that? >> Uh, well, we want to, you know, see what the city manager got to offer and then we can go from there. By all means, we here to help, too. But, >> you know, we go through the uh the the city government first. And, of course, I'm I've been talking with uh Danny
Glidewell, which that's his district over there. Yeah. in the uh South Norwood area. So, you know, we don't want to be for forgotten and not saying we are >> Yeah. area, but it's well needed. >> Okay. >> So, Mr. Graham did send an email. I did
respond to him today that you know CRA held a workshop over there at the Tivly Gym, get some input back on the grants and and on the project CRA is looking at. Um and then one of those that the board did look at and decide that that is a that will be a priority. uh it seems like going in next year is putting a park on the east side of town if I
remember correctly. Um and so the C board has put money into that line item of some neighborhood projects and so Chris Shawn and I have been looking at properties in the east side of town that are an opportunity to purchase or work with the landowner who may be having some issues with violations to kind of
work out a swap there uh to find some space to put one. So we are actively looking at that, working on it and the board is is putting some hopefully put some money behind that this year. >> Okay. Okay. All right. Well, I guess that that answers the question. Okay. Uh, one more thing. I still got 30
seconds now. Uh, >> don't waste it. >> City attorney or city man. Is this a city management government? >> Uh, it's run by the city. It runs by I mean daily operations are run by the city manager. That's correct. >> Y'all sign the checks. Y'all approve policy. Right.
>> Sure. Yeah. Now, when a city councilman goes to another agency, government agency, and speaks and directs himself as a city councilman, do we have to have authority and approval through the city government? >> Well, I mean, if you say on behalf of the city council, yes, you do.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> But they're speaking as their individual capacity. >> Yeah, they can do it individually. >> Well, they can't announce their city council and speaking in behalf of the city government. >> They can announce their city councilman. They can't represent. They're speaking on behalf of the city of Phoenix.
>> All right. Well, like I said, I I I listened to it and I you know, I heard the city councilman said the city is broke. $30 million in the red. Is that true, Mayor? >> I didn't say $30 million. I said $13
million. And before I went before the BCC, I cleared it through the city council >> and everything was greenlighted. So that's what I did. It's your definition of broke. In other words, >> okay. >> Having, you know, bit just because you
owe money doesn't mean you're broke. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, uh we'll we're a powerful city. You know, you know, we we represent well, but to say stuff like that, it makes the city look bad.
>> So, that's all I got to say. >> Thank you. Anyone else? All right. We'll close the floor for public comments and we will move to uh Miss Evelyn on 9A1. >> I think did you skip over attorney?
>> Uh he's covered I think all mine earlier. >> Yeah. Okay. I figured he got >> just didn't want to get out. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh what I was bringing up is I wanted to be proactive for the upcoming budget uh workshops and concerns and I
didn't want the time to run out for us to potentially adjust uh percentage funding with the CRA in a prior uh prior budget seasons. Uh the conversation occurred amongst us at the council but
it was too late to occur or make any uh impact on that year's budget. Clay, can you please refresh us all on what if any deadlines we must meet if we want to change the percentage of CRA?
I believe what we've said prior is that we would that you would need to do it no later than your first meeting in August because that's when you get your DR420 forms. That's when your initial assessment documents come in by the state. So it would need to be this month during the meetings in August. Theoretically, we
could probably do it at that last meeting in August, but we're putting a lot of pressure on staff if we wait that long. >> You will um the the plan is at your next council meeting, so in July, the second meeting in July, you all will set the tenative military. We have historically done that second meeting in July.
>> That would be the appropriate time if you want to address it. >> So, can we have the discussions now or do we do it through the budgets? You know, these >> You can do it right now based on your agenda item. >> I'm sorry. >> You can do it right now based on your agenda item. >> Okay. Because I'm just kind of curious
on uh what we intend to do if we want to lower that percentage rate in lie of maybe shifting a little bit of more funding back to the general fund use versus CRA. So >> yeah,
>> would somebody just share what your thoughts are on >> So >> if that's a potential >> when we had our when we have our pre-consil meetings with Kobe, when we talk about giving employees
raises, um, city services have not been eliminated. but they've been cut back on. And I'm hearing things from uh
our citizens about, you know, the yards, the the rightaways used to always look good. Now they've gotten out of control. And Kobe's words were, "As far as our budget goes, we've cut it back to the bone."
And we're trying to figure out how are we going to give our employees a raise this year. And I I have said from day one, the city comes first. And our most valuable assets as far as
keeping the machine oiled and keeping it running is our employees. And they've already gone through one year with no raise. And the speculation right now is that if
they get a raise this year, it's going to be peanuts. It's not going to be what they're worth. And we've already had people leave the city and the ones and there's more that's putting in applications.
And if you want to keep your best employees, we need to pay them what they're worth. and not say, "Well, you're just not loyal." They've got bills to pay. They've got a family. They've got kids.
They're trying to make a living. And I don't think we're putting the city employees first. And we're doing well. They're coming in second with this maximum 95% to the CRA.
And I asked at a previous meeting, not for a vote, could we uh please start thinking about and wrapping our head around how we're going to make this right? And my suggestion
would be the minimum the CRA can get is 50%. Is that right? Is it 50%? >> Yeah, that's the lowest. >> Okay. That would make a lot of difference. That would make a huge difference for
our employees. And so that's the direction I'm in. >> Go ahead. >> I just want to add, you know, we need new funding services in order to fund new expenses, and that will be new over and above what we already have going on,
raises. And as uh we learned earlier today, for every 1% it's going to cost us 65. Uh so I was just trying to figure out some new sources. This would be a new source into the general fund. Uh Kobe, do you know by any chance if we
just lowered it to say 70%. >> Or 75%. >> Yeah. So that's the chart we have attached that's in everyone. >> Have them blow it up. >> Yeah. If you'll just zoom in, Jesse, and just go to the We'll just go to 75. Um, >> how much would that raise? >> So, if you'll look in the 75 column,
>> if you look at the very top, it says proposed where he's got the mouse, got the millage, and it's got 75% >> tiff. >> So, that's the 75. It'll go down into the orange there. You see the numbers in orange. >> Uhhuh. >> The 1.695 million, that's how much the city would retain. And then the 962,000
is how much we would give to the CRA trust fund. And then the 617 is what the county would contribute to the trust fund. So right now I'm not that number you just said 617 >> right there. >> Oh okay I'm in the wrong column. >> So right now uh based on the on the
current tiff rate of 95% and then based on the millage rate that we are proposing to the council to go to roll back. Um if you're looking at that you see that green column >> the green column is the proposed that's of the existing they're all that's of the existing rate in the military. So if
you were to leave it as is and you look down the orange in fiscal year 27, the city would retain 1,438,000. We would contribute to the trust fund $1,219,000 and the county would contribute to the
trust fund $781,000. >> Can you just can you just tell me how much of that would be new to the city >> if you were to reduce from 95 to 75? >> Yeah. Or 7 Yes. 75. uh it would be approximately $256,000.
>> So we would raise we would by just reducing it from 95 to75 would generate new revenues to the general fund of 20 >> $56,000. >> Okay. Now what what about uh the 70
>> the 70 is the next one. So that would um 300 >> that would increase it increase to $320,000. >> Okay. go the opposite direct way because I don't want to take all the fun. >> If you went to 80% tiff, so a 15% reduction, the general fund would retain
an additional $192,000. >> So roughly a 3% pay increase would be 188,000 cost to the general fund. Is that what I've learned? >> Yeah, let me double Let me just double check again. Based off of today, right
now, yes, it would be $195,000 >> to the general fund. So I would propose that we go to the 75% which raises the 250. >> Well, that would be better than where we are now. >> Well, it would give us new funding
sources into the general fund that could, you know, we could allocate to >> and that piece of the puzzle would be look, we've taken our first priority is the retainage of >> our employees, >> a motivator, an incentive. That's my
goal. And if all that's going to do is pay for this year's pay raises, >> well, it's a little bit more because uh uh I think like I said, 3% would equal 100 roughly 188 and we're at that 75% that'd be 250
>> since we um since we didn't give the employees anything last year. >> Well, we did. >> We gave them a a 1500. >> I just want to clarify. It cost the city money. So, I want to make sure. >> All right. That it did nothing for their retirement. It did nothing for that. It
was just, you know, here's $1,500. Merry Christmas, and here's your turkey. >> Okay. Just making sure. >> Okay. >> Just put that. >> Well, for many of them, that was equivalent of 5% for that year. >> Okay. So, it doesn't help them when they retire.
>> You knew that. >> Any debate on that? >> Well, no, but it's but for for acting like it didn't help him. I mean, I think that's kind of ridiculous. It was it was something. >> Yes, it was something. It was a big deal for a lot of >> But it was Was it enough?
>> It's never enough. >> Okay. So, my question is, getting back to the original question since they got nothing last year, can we do better than 3% this year? >> Could we hold that discussion until our budget workshops? >> Yes.
>> I'm wondering. >> Yes. >> I'd like to propose just reducing it from 95 to 70%. And then will we have have an opportunity to reduce it more in the near future before the end? >> No. >> If you mo if you vote to set it tonight, you're set
>> for this for this budget year. >> For this budget year, he's ask we went through this how many times this last year, mayor? Three or four. I mean, at some point, you've got to set the rate and live with it. Um, and so if you're ready to do it tonight, take it up. But what I would say is that when
you set the rate, you set it. You don't keep going down because staff's gonna have to work with whatever you tell. >> I said 70%. I'd like to go to 75. >> And so what does that take away from the county? What do we lose from the county? >> If you if you reduce it from 95 to 75,
that would reduce the county's contribution to trust fund of 164,000. >> What? >> 164,000. And all these are rounded numbers. So, >> but it would also though generate 250 for the city. >> 256. Yes.
>> 256. Thank you. That's my proposal. >> Yeah. It would change it from one category to another. That's what it would do. It wouldn't generate. >> Well, yeah, it would. It would take it from CRA uh monies to back to advalorum tax dollars to the city. >> Yeah.
>> Go ahead, Glenn. So, well, we know we know the fire assessment is it can be used for salaries as far as fire department goes. And so, I I don't know where the 256 fits in, but um that could potentially do that. But my
question uh to Kobe is, you know, we have these projects. You know, I look back CRA, it was set at 95% back then. You know, uh, new ad valorum and
somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but, you know, we're talking about big projects such as the alleyway. They were talking about the amphitheater. We've kind of nixed that to the tune of $6 million or whatever it would have ended up being, but alleyway project still on our radar, you know. Um,
but before that time and that conversation before they the prior board started working on that, were were there any make me aware if I'm if I'm not aware of them. Were there any major projects that was done by the CRA in that seven years?
>> No, because effectively they didn't have they didn't have an executive director until October of 2022. >> Okay. So So 22 and and and it took a while to build to build money. Yeah. >> To build money up and and I realize that and and managed to roll over some and
what have you and I get all that. My concern though is the alleyway project we've identified as a priority for us. So um you know we talked about the bond issuance for the alleyway and the amphitheater. Turns out you know bond $5 million bond wouldn't covered uh nowhere
near both of those projects. But I'm not at this point unwilling if it if it's what it takes to get that alleyway project done uh to pursue a bond. But my question is at 75%.
Can we pay that off by sunset? Assuming that the next council down the road doesn't extend the CRA. Um >> again I mean you would have to you just do the math the do the math of determine how much is the revenue generation how much is the bond note you got to cover
the bond note you've got to cover required operating cost and then that effectively personnel depending on how you do that and then that leaves x amount of dollars for discretionary right discretionary projects so you'd have to back it out >> so I'm thinking it probably would
>> given the given the debt service presentation you have from PFM, you were pretty tight on those numbers with the 95. >> Mhm. On $5 million. >> Correct. >> Yes. But we we also have some money
already that's allocated to that. So, we wouldn't be talking necessarily $5 million. >> I think that was part of their consideration. I think it was the total amount needed though over to cover the debt service and that included expected increases in CRA monies. The only thing
I would note is they did not when they did any of that calculation for us take into any consideration what the decrease may be relative to the potential property tax amendment because that will change the number as well. >> And and just a thought back to the multi-use path. If that alleyway were
made the multi-use path now we've got some potential state revenue to help with the cost of that alleyway project. But that's down the road. That's I'm sorry. Yeah, that's too far down the road for that. But >> well any anyway
>> but but not necessarily and I've said this before at the TPO level. I watch it day in and day out. Almost every single meeting when you come to the table with money and hey, we've done X to help this project goes right up the list over and
over again. Oklahoma County does that over and over again. Oklahoma County post all the time. Here's your sales tax revenue at work paving this road. >> So, I watch it almost every single TPO meeting. They come in with money. The state says, "Yep, we'll move that up the
list." And then it gets funded. So that's a possibility there. Mayor. >> Yeah. >> I said at one of the recent CRA meetings or maybe it was a city council meeting on one or the other that the CRA is
sitting on slightly north of $5 million right now. And that's going to be about the cost of the alleyway. And I suggested, why don't we get laser focused on this
alleyway and use this $5 million and get this job done and put the same energy and focus on the alleyway as we did the airport. It's all the additional fluff above and beyond
the alleyway that's eaten into that $5 million. Do you understand? >> I'm not know I really don't. >> Okay, let's just say and these numbers are going to be somewhat close that out of the 5 million plus dollars that the CRA
has three thou three million of it is allocated to alleyway. $2 million is allocate is allocated to fluff. Nice to have things. Mm-m. Okay. >> If you combine the two and just get
laser focused on that alleyway, we could get that alleyway done in record time with the money they've got right now. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Amy, >> I just wanted to add um you know, this
can be modified each year also. and for the alleyway which has already been determined that that project is going to get done. It's not going to get done in one budget cycle. >> So I just want to say yes the money's been set aside but kind of think about you're not going to spend or you're not
going to accomplish the entire project in one year based on our prior discussions. So I'm just trying to come to a compromise as to how we can reallocate a portion of this back to the general. Mr. Mayor, >> go ahead.
>> So, the the CRA, as I've said in the past, the CRA is like a forced savings account. And as we have discussed tonight, the city is more than just one thing. The
city, just like tonight when we looked at Alden Springs, the city is more than just a fire service. The city is more than just the CRA. The city is determining what local regulations affect our citizens because we're the government closest to the people and
making sure that those are working for a new subdivision, that's the city. And so if we take and start defunding the CRA, which is a force savings account, if we can't live within our means of this force savings account where we're
supposed to be taking this CRA money and doing projects like the alleyway or like uh the the CRA director has suggested with copying Tallahassy's idea of redoing a block at a time and providing street lighting and sidewalks and new pavement and improvements to to
neighborhoods that are blighted. If we can't do that, then we're not doing our job. But if we keep taking and robbing Peter to pay Paul, we're never going to get anywhere. We've got to stick with some of this stuff. We can't just oh and you know, we're
going to we're going to take it to 75 this year and oh, by the way, we're probably going to drop it lower the next year. When once we drop it, that money's gone. There's no going back up on it. >> What What Where's Where's that at? >> Yeah. because we would have to get
approval again to go back up and the odds of us getting >> approve the county commission. >> But that's the only that's the only authority. >> This is this has been discussed numerous times. If we lower it, there are Vegas odds we will never get
it to go back up. So, just like was discussed earlier tonight, we're taking just by the one suggested rate, we're taking $160,000 off the table in this city that we could use to improve this city
to give back because a lot of the things that were referred to as fluff are actually the programs by the CRA giving the the citizens their tax dollars back in the form of hazardous tree removal, in the form of facade improvement. movements in the form of new roofs, in
the form of blight mitigation to help them clean up around their houses, which directly affects property values, which then helps the city and helps them. And we give that money back to them through those programs that are being labeled as fluff for for citizens to be able to directly
receive some of their tax dollars back as a direct benefit. I don't consider that fluff. But if we if we systematically year after year just keep cutting it back, we're never going to get anywhere. And and I do want to say
we're we're we're we're going to defund the CRA, but then we're going to raise revenue for an avalorum assessment, but we're not going to recognize that. We're going to somehow say that that's money over the top of the existing budget.
And then what are we going to do with that money? That money should be offsetting the general fund. And then there's your money to pay for the raises. If you've got a fire assessment coming in that's generating almost a million dollars, there's your money to pay the raises
right there. You don't have to cut the CRA. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Lyn. the CRA is supposed to reduce blight and increase property values and and that's great when that's when that's working
and and we know it's going to work and but but our legislature turns around and reduces aum taxes if if voters vote for it. So we continue to give 95% to the CRA as a council. I'm not talking about CRA
hat. I'm talking to the council hat right now. But we we we we give 95% while the state reduces avalorum taxes potentially. So we're defeating what we need is employees to provide services
just like the cemetery uh and things and we need to keep employees. We don't need to keep turning employees over or not be able to replace them in a timely way. of ser the level of services can be maintained to the public and you know the the bonus I
agree was helpful bonus is always helpful but there they are a a short-term and and they pay they pay the rent they buy the groceries they do all those things but this is a short-term resolution it's not an increase in salary year after year and we all know
that and um but the cost of living staggering We we all we all know that you and I may not feel it as much as a lot of our employees do because of the their their their salaries and and what
have you, but people are the struggle is real and and we all know that, but um we we talked in our four:00 session about turnover, different department, but we we talked about about turnover and there and turnover is extremely costly. Um,
and the continuity of services, the the the the the leaving of in institutional knowledge and knowhow on the job is extremely expensive. It's a hidden cost that that's constantly beating us up, you know, that we can't put our finger
on. But, um, I know a good bit about the cost of turnover, doing research for the school district and and and and negotiating and and what have you, but it it's incredibly expensive and and our employees, I think, um, we we need we need to give them a raise. and and if if
the legislature is not helping us out with with with alternative funding sources and and we're going to potentially endure adalorum tax reductions, then those reductions are going to
affect the CRA as well. And I I would I would and we can still get things done. We can still get things done. I've I've looked at this. I'm not I'm not going into this not naive and thinking all this, but I I'm confident. I I made the motion to keep the CRA. Remember that? I
made the motion to keep CRA because I believe it can do good and I believe it can still do good with somewhat of of a reduction uh in the percentage because our employees, our city manager or any city manager in
the future cannot get the job done without employees. And I'm sorry, but it it takes it takes a certain amount of money to keep employees, to be able to hire employees and compete with neighboring communities, and we have to be able to do that, and and bonuses
don't get that done. Um, anyway, thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah, I'll come to you, Dan. Go ahead. >> So, I I agree with everything you've been saying, Mr. Harrison, and and I agree with Councilman Beerbomb, but you've got to look at it. There's
another way to to skin this as well too. Earlier, Chief Hurley was asking if we could fund positions through the CRA. Um, >> let me go ahead. Uh, we don't want to discuss last meeting. >> Yeah, we do. I'll bring it up. We got >> this about anything to do with
collective bargain. >> No, no, not collective bargain. >> All right, go ahead. >> So, >> trying to keep everybody out of jail. >> So, the chief and I were having a conversation. >> I was waiting to see where it was going, but I was starting to get nervous here. So, >> let me clarify. the chief and I had a conversation about
funding positions for the CR or funding law enforcement positions out of the CRA. So I called council off to the side, not in the middle of that meeting and asking flat out, can we do that? Absolutely we can under certain circumstances. So realistically,
you're shifting responsibil funding responsibilities what you're doing. And you really need to open your eyes to that some here because any reduction means giving money back to the county that can be directly impacted in this city alone. So, and I'm not saying that because hey, we need to keep the CRA
alive or whatever else. I'm saying it because I'm trying not to lose money as much as the state's trying to swoop in and and stick us with stipulations and other unfunded mandates as well. We talk about fluff all the time, but yet we say we're infrastructure people. Every one
of us are infrastructure people because every one of us have the responsibility of replacing this infrastructure in this city. So the downtown alleyway project is one big one that we know we have to fund. Why would we give up funds that are coming in to fund that infrastructure project right now when
it's there? So, even if we're getting close to paying it off or being able to fund an entire project, you just heard that you can utilize CRA funding for some personnel positions. You've we've just sat here and talked
about the fire assessment and how to offset fire cost. What we're doing is relieving some of those transfers to an extent. so that we can save that money for infrastructure, which is what we've supposed to been doing all along and our predecessors who were here decades and
decades ago should have been doing all along as well. >> That's right. >> Then we wouldn't be put in this position that we're in today. But nevertheless, we are tasked with funding public safety and providing utilities and infrastructure and we have to continue
to move forward with that and replace that antiquated outdated infrastructure. So, I'm not for giving up any money at this point that we can shift responsibilities from one entity to another. You heard a citizen that stood
up here right before us a minute ago and said, "Hey, we want parks on the east side of town. I would like to see lighting all over the east side of town as well so that they can feel safe at night when they're walking around when they have to." There are a lot of people can't afford gas right now. So, they're
they're walking. We provided sidewalks. The multi-use pathways along Walton Road are great. You ought to see people moving up and down. We've still got to fund the piece on um TW not >> 20th over here from where the county left their responsibility and and now
it's ours to pick that up there. There are several infrastructure projects in this town that still need to be done. This funding goes to that. We can accomplish our goals with what you're wanting to do, Councilwoman Heftlin, and still retain this funding instead of giving it up. Thank you.
>> Mr. Mayor, can I made a proposal? Can we just call the question? >> You can make a motion. >> I did make a moted it. That's why we were having this discussion. >> I second it. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Have a motion in second.
>> Public comment there. >> Okay. All right. You ready to vote? >> Let me clarify. >> We do have to have public comment. >> I'm sorry. Yeah, we open up public comment on this particular thing. >> Donna Arnold, I have a question. You can
fund staffing for law enforcement, and I just asked Chief Hurley to set up it because it was done in there. Are there other ways that you can meet responsibilities in the city? Not just your projects, but things like that that will help to go to fund the general fund and other things.
So that helps take care of some of the fire the some of the costs that you pay out for firing. >> So the provision that we're citing in there is the the idea the concept of community policing innovations. >> The strict that's called out. It doesn't explain what that is in statute. Just
community policing innovations. Will it help >> the idea about other? >> Yes. Yes. But it comes with a program. It comes with reporting. It comes with a goals. Things have to be met. Um the idea of other other staff members be fun outside of C staff very limited. Yeah. >> Because we that's then we become the
governing entity. We >> can't fund code enforcement. >> No. But starting thing those additional police officers to help with crime prevention and things like that in the city will free up some money inside the budget inside the general fund to take care of other matter.
>> Let me clarify. You can add or you can convert. So for instance, Chief Early could add he could also convert a certain number of his existing officers into CRA based community >> police offic. it would pay all of their respective
cost. >> So then that would free up some more money in the general fund for other projects that we could use those and then take that money saved in in the general fund to use for other things, not just fire. I'm just saying that >> what she's describing is legally
permissible. >> Yeah. The fire, the infrastructure, and everything else. So you could still utilize that. And as since you now are the board for the CRA, y'all can determine whether the where those funds go to. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> So even though we still have it if we get the additional county funds, we have it. It's not taking you're not taking away city funds. you're not you're getting those county funds, but you have to say so if you will just use your
oversight to to determine where those go because I was all for cutting the CRA funds. I like the way Todd described the CRA a while ago and the benefits that it gives to the city and then when I heard that just then and thought about it, I
can see where you continue to get the additional funds from the county. You just going to have to be more proactive in what y'all are doing to use those funds and more physically responsible as individuals in charge of those funds to take care of what's important to take care of the alleyway to take care of all
this other stuff that's going to rest on your shoulders more than it ever did. But >> I still see where even getting that little bit of additional funding could be a good thing. just step up to the plate and say, "No, we're not gonna do this project that ain't really going to
amount to anything. We're gonna fix infrastructure. We're going to do the alleyway. We're going to do this to the police department so we can use some additional funding from that to pay our employees to give a raise to our employees because I agree that is your backbone. So, if if you can use those
fundings and you get the say so for that, I don't see why you'd have to cut it. But step up and do what you got to do with it. >> Can I ask for a question? >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> So, >> Miss Donna,
>> so are when you when you said the uh >> additional funds from the county, are you talking about outside of the CRA fund? >> The way I understood it, I >> I'm sorry. I've been listening the whole time and from the way I under Y'all thought y'all were through with me
because I've been gone, but I'm back. Um the way I understood it when everybody was talking by reducing the 95% we reduce the amount of money we get from Walton County. >> Yes. >> And if and I like I said I was all for we
need to cut that. But if we can still get that continued amount of money and use that money for different things like helping Chief Hurley meet his budget requirements and have the law officers that we need, that's going to save money
taking it out of CRA. It's going to take save money in your general fund. >> And then you can use those monies to go to help pay your employees. You can use those monies for the alleyway. you you have control of all that money still.
Now, I would I would definitely say cut it if we were still under the old CRA board and they didn't get to. But with you five sitting here in control of all of that money, you could you get to decide where you're going to spend it and what you're going to do with it. And
that makes sense. But if you're going to lose how much money they will you lose >> $160,000 $160,000 >> you're going to give let the county retain $160,000 if we cut it 160. Now what Amy had said
we would bring $250 over to our general fund but we if we're as bad off as y'all say and I don't have all the numbers I don't know but we don't need to give 160 to anybody that'll go a long way to paying employees. You just got to be the ones to stand up. I'm sorry.
>> Oh, no. You have to be the ones to stand up and say, "No, we're not giving we're not building something pretty or we're not doing that." What he's calling fluff. We're going to use that money to meet the needs of the city, the alleyway, and all these other things.
We're going to use that money. And like Todd said, that's giving money by meeting those needs, you're giving money back to your citizens. That's what we want from you is to take our money and use it to the best benefit. And no, I don't live in the city, but I have five
properties and a business and everything else that I'm paying taxes here. My time's up. >> Been up. >> Well, they called me back. I'm sorry. >> You're right. You're right. Go ahead, Amy. >> Can I just make a statement to what she was sharing with us is uh I'm looking into the future. Chief is going to need
to increase his police force into the future. All of that cannot be shifted to CRA. So, you know, we need to consider that, too. So, even if we shift four now, uh, you know, and he does some stuff so that that we do have 24-hour
coverage, I'm not against that, and I'm for that. I'm trying to come up with a solution to financial hardships that we're we're looking at right now with unknown variables. Well, the four positions in place
doesn't get us close to providing raises for 120 employees total and and and and the CRA I mean unless you're talking about um we can't the CRA funds cannot be used for
anything other than police, >> right? But you would pay for those positions that would serve a purpose for the CRA. Those are costs that you would no longer bear in the general fund. And then you would free up those funds for po a large portion of the pay raises
that you're sitting here worried about right now. Y that look at the bottom line that's a lot of money towards those payraises out of the general fund if you let the CRA fund those positions. >> But four employees with the police department >> 200,000
>> 250,000 >> 222 something. Are those new employees? No. >> That's what I wanted to clarify. So four positions in your department equate to what it would cost to give public
works and everybody raises. >> So so yes sir >> that is salaries insurance retiremental cost not cars not >> uniforms and all that. That's just straight the cost
>> employee salary related. Yeah. >> So, unless I'm mistaken, we were talking raises of what? 3% 4%. I think we looked at both >> 180 >> being
>> Yeah. being somewhere 200,000 plus, including all those other things. Correct. >> Yep. All in 180 to 220. >> If you fund those positions out of the CRA, you don't want to give that money back to the county.
>> Yeah. You're going to lose 63,000. >> You're going to lose,000. >> And that's that's another assumption we're making,000 and have to eat 603. >> We're making an assumption that if we give 160 whatever it wasund uh where'd
it go? $164,554 to be exact >> to the county. We're assuming that they will not help the city in some other way with that money. Don't count on him. >> Did they pay for the firefighters when
Kobe went up there? Did he Did they even blink it to give any any money? I think it was go back and develop a plan. This is a plan, >> but this is money they're getting they're getting back. I mean, >> they're not going to give it back to us. They're not giving that abundantly clear.
>> They've made that. >> I don't agree with that statement. >> They won't give it back. So, >> well, I mean, we're assuming they they they won't. I I don't know. I can't say
uh for them, but we're we're just we're just assuming that if we give it back, we're not going to we're not going to have some other benefit of it. Um I I think they realize the struggle that that we're having. We're re realize the struggle they're having as well. Um but
I'm I'm not I don't know. I I just >> can we call >> if we cut this our fun our struggles get harder. >> Sure. >> Well, you know, I I looked up a while ago, you know, how how many how many CRAAS in the state of Florida >> have the entire city limits as as a CRA
boundaries. >> 80% is the maximum that any city's allowed to have. And the ones that had that, they have done away with. >> That that's the most that any city has had. It's not the maximum allowable. We actually have less than the whole city, but we have a functional portion of the
city. >> We we have some areas exempted out of the boundary. Correct. Right. Wetlands or or whatever that kind of thing >> in certain neighborhoods. >> Yes. So, um but it's still I mean we might very well be the only one that has such a high percent.
>> We're one of the very we're one of the for a city with the for the land mass the geographic area of our size. We have more land in our city than anybody else would. Now, you do have certain other cities that are very small municipal townships, so to speak, that have
covered most of their area, but they have very, very small municipal boundaries. >> Miss He can call a question. So, >> well, the chief the chief has >> well, >> if he's at the podium, he does have the right >> cont before he ever got up here, but go ahead, chief. >> Okay, so just to be clear, this is not
four new positions. This is four current positions that we currently have. Um, knowing the constraints that we have, trying to figure out how to make this work for the city, um, I propose that we we fund four positions out of the CRA
that gives 24-hour coverage. And what that will do is we'll basically what we're doing now, but we'll have some more reporting where we will actually coordinate better with the CRA. will give you either monthly reports or quarterly reports about where we're having issues with blight, where we're
having issues with crime. Um if we've got abandoned houses that are have people live in it, that way we can coordinate with code enforcement and get those things. So, um it I think it ultimately fosters a better relationship with the police department and the rest of city government. Um you don't have to
give up any county money at this point. It's a we can run it for a year, see how it looks next budget. It gets us through the whole property referendums and it relieves some pressure off of y'all. Now, if you don't want to do that, that's on y'all. But I'm giving you an option to help you with some pressure.
>> Mayor, just since we're already talking about the legal permissibility of this chief, did you previously present community innovative community policing initiatives and innovations to the prior
CRA board that were not employee based? Uh, yes. Okay. >> Do you recall what those were off the top of your head? >> Uh, we had some funding out of flock cameras. Um, they were going to help us with some lighting, but that never came to fruition, but I think flock was about
the only thing to help us with on that. >> And you indicated that you had a list at that time that would be presented to the CRA in the next budget year of additional items that you intended to present. That would be coming to this budget year. >> Yes. >> At the time, I'll put on the record the CRA made the finding. Those were valid.
police community valid community policing innovation innovations and initiatives that will be permissible under the existing strategic plan and community redevelopment plan of the CRA. If the chief is representing these that these officers would further those
initiatives and would be consistent with what he's previously presented, then I can offer the legal opinion that is the case as well as these other budgetary issues he could present. I'm not going to say what they are until I see them. I'm not going to say you just have cart blunts, chief. I mean, argue with you over your impact fees. I'll argue with
over these probably, but just to be clear, he has put a case on the record that I say is legally sufficient for that. If that is the case, it would need to present a CRA meeting, but he can do that. >> We we got a call question. Mandy, you
might be able to speak here, man. I'm going to run through the council real quick. You've got to decide whether or not we're going to go to vote or continue discussion. All in favor of going to vote, say I. you >> I I have a statement I want to say.
>> So you want to continue discuss she's withdrawing her motion to vote. >> I know if that means I'm withdrawing then no I don't. >> Okay. Well that's what it mean >> because I want to >> All right. So we're voting on whether or not to vote >> voting on stopping debate. >> That's what you got to have the council's approval to do this.
>> Okay. >> So I I I would like to say something but y'all do what >> I want to continue the conversation. I'm sorry. I didn't understand what what >> go right here. >> We're not we're not stopping the proposal the motion in the second only
>> the question. >> Are we voting on the percentage? >> No, just whether or not to keep discussing or not. Go ahead. >> Can I say my name? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh before we do vote, I want to remind us all because it's my recollection that the board's biggest
issue when Kobe went before them, if everybody remembers correctly, there were several of us in the room that they said they thought they were contributing too much to the CRA and we needed to help ourselves first before they would help us. But they were amaniable to help us if we came up with a solution. for me
this is a solution and I believe as some others that they will help us in other ways. Uh and so I I wanted to share that with y'all >> and I will I will say this you know and it didn't occur to me till till just
now. I mean, if we if we do if we don't cut the percentage and we use CRA funds to fund the four police department positions, that money for those RA those raises will be there forever. That'll be a
salary forever. But in 2033, what happens if the CRA sunsets? There's no more CRA funds, right? And so h >> how >> you you would you would have all of that money back at that point in time. You would have the 2018 through 2030
collective rollover forward plus whatever is left in the trust fund would have to be expended while you cannot collect more money. Your trust fund would be depleted until there's nothing left. So like mo I will tell you what most cities have been confronted with that have done. Councilman, they have
determined have they created FTEEs, full-time employees, and if any FTEEs have been paid out of the CRA outside of the CRA positions in the director. So, for instance, police officers, the money left in the trust fund, we just continue paying that until
it goes down rather than funding projects. So, they don't have to lay people off. That is the most common scenario of what's left in the trust fund, but all of the money would come back to the general fund at that point in time. So you would have the money that you were getting would come back to the general fund and that would roll
right back into where those raises already are. >> And that's assuming that property tax isn't eliminated. Correct. >> No, property tax isn't going to be fully eliminated. We know even if this constitutional amendment passes just a homestead reduction, >> Mindy,
>> tell me if I'm being too simplistic. The pot of money is all yours. Part of it in the right pocket and part of it in the left. There are some restrictions on how you spend the money in the left pocket. >> But if you do things
of the left with the left pocket money that you can prevent using the right pocket money, you're still ahead. It's all your money. >> Thank you. All right. Anyone else want to go to
vote? >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I know how you feel. Okay. I'm concerned about how the the four police salaries measure up to the 256,665
that we would have in city coffers if if this 75% was reduced. >> You going through that? >> Yeah, might as well. The proposal is at a cost of $265,000.
So what the CRA would pick up is $265,000 based on the written proposal the chief gave you. >> That's in the written document that's on your table. >> The four the four salaries would be 26. >> That's the all-in cost the city has to pay for those four people right now
would be shifted to the CRA. Um I don't know what page that is on, but funding of four law enforcement officer positions at a cost of $265,000 >> is what the chief is presiding. Right. >> Chief, is that right? >> That's correct. >> That's the number you put on your
papers. I just want to confirm. >> There you go. >> Is that a reduction? >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. >> It comes out out of general fund and moves to the CR. >> No, but that's the question he asked. >> Yeah.
265 would be moved out of the city's budget and would be absorbed by the CRA for those four positions. >> And how much lost revenues? >> Well, what what I really prefer because we're wearing two
hats here and the CRA has to decide whether or not to pay those four salaries, not the council. And here we're about to make a decision that if we depending on how we vote, we can't bring it back up again. >> Right.
>> You're gonna have to you're have to vote at the CRA meeting. You're going to have to vote at the CRA meeting about that. If you're referring to the reducing it to 75%, I guess technically you have all the way until that meeting in August to discuss this,
but >> and that's a totally different discussion on what the CRA does versus what we're trying to do. They'll have to live within their means if this council >> Well, you are the CRA, so you'll have I mean, it's there's no >> they can't take action on the CRA, right?
>> Exactly. So, that's my point. >> But you are taking action that affects their budget. So, it's it's all the same discussion. >> Yeah. Yeah. You got a proposal that would offset cost of the general fund $265,000 from the CRA trust fund. This proposal is generic. We don't know the details of it. the CRA is going to have
to go through it and create goals and objectives that meet this and comply with statute. Okay. So again, effectively you've got an offset of cost or you've got you don't do this. That's where we're at. >> So my concern, so for example, if I vote no right now,
>> the number stays at 95% until it's officially set. If so if if if no wins his vote not to reduce the CRA >> not to reduce it 75% that's >> 75%.
Then the CRA commissioners, right, have to decide to allocate for those four salaries. >> And if that was voted down, you would still have your adorum set rate at your next July meeting to take up, which your
CRA meeting comes just before your next city council. >> Okay. So, we would have another council meeting. >> Correct. >> To do that. >> Yes, sir. >> To do what? But the no votes could not bring it back up. >> No votes could not bring up this exact motion. But you're going to have to motion to a stat to set the tenant of
military which includes that. So it's going to be taken up again when that comes up. Mr. Townson already told you you're effectively be dealing with this at your next meeting no matter what. >> Okay. So you voted I >> to reduce >> to reduce 95 to 75.
>> I and it can be brought back. >> It's going to you're going to hear hear it again if it's voted down and same way it could be heard again if it even if it didn't near 75. Councilman Coast could make a motion when we're set when we're up there for the tenant mill rate saying he wants to go to 50%. Because that's not being
voted on. The only item being voted on is a reduction from 95 to 75. >> All right. >> As much as that drives me up the wall, that's the process. >> Yeah. >> So, I'm I'm going to need some more information before those times come, those other meetings come. So, I'm nay. >> Hi.
>> Nay. Nay. >> All right. Nays have it. >> All right. Let's uh move on to executive comments. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh, first council, our grant application with the Florida
Wildlife Commission for the um Florida Boating Improvement Grant for Lake Stanley. Um, our grant did meet eligibility and we would have been awarded, but the grant ran out of money, so we will not receive that funding this year. We're too far down the list. Um, so we will go out there again next year.
Um, design bid for the hangers is out. Uh, apron construction bids are uh, due here soon. So, we'll hopefully be seeing that here soon, moving forward. Uh we hope to bring in August the 90% zan design plans for Twin Lakes Drive which includes resurfacing uh water line
replacement, gas and gas line replacement. Uh on next week staff has a meeting with FDOT to go over a number of different things we've discussed and other projects that are going to be going on Highway 90 here soon. This Takahal Brotherhood's moving forward. They're working on the floor this week. They hope to have electrical, plumbing,
and AC completed this week as well. And then uh just reminder, budget workshop this Thursday at four o'clock and we will be going over the general fund only. >> All right, we'll go to uh councilman comment. Start with Miss Amy. >> I have nothing there. Thank you.
>> Okay, Glenn, I will say this. You you all know I'm often in a position of of of trying to be as objective as I can and as fair as I can. We voted for this fire assessment unanimously. We've seen it all the way through and we
had two no votes tonight. And on this issue we just settled temporarily, I might add, because when the time comes, if I have to change my mind, I'm going to hammer down on it with the CRA thing. Right now, I want more information. But
I'll be fair, but when there's no votes on something, we have voted unanimously on without an explanation. And I have just expressed my fairness in this thing right here to take a harder look at it when it comes back up. My mind will be made up. Whether it's yay or nay is
nothing personal. It's what I feel like we need to do. So y'all expect me to be objective and you expect me to always be in the middle, which I am. And I can toad it. I can toad it. But I can also make a tough decision. But I I try to be
as certain as I can before I cast that vote. So Dan, >> nothing. >> Yeah. Todd, >> so um I just wanted to mention uh I was looking through some news articles today
and this headline caught my attention. It says, "America may soon be facing its largest labor shortage in history." Uh JP Morgan Chase warns that the largest labor shortage the country has ever seen, a pervasive talent deficit that constrains the nation's capacity to
build, compete, and protect its interests. There will be shortages in the tens, even hundreds of thousands of nurses, physicians, teachers, engineers, pharmacists, mental health counselors, construction workers, and airplane mechanics.
I thought the last two were interesting considering that uh the council has focused u on the airport of late or for several years. Uh you know, it's always been my hope that we uh can find some manufacturing or some repair and
overhaul type facilities to come in out there at the uh the airport. But I wanted to to highlight that because we partner with the EDA to address some of those very things and that when companies come to town and want to
locate things here, that's our avenue to to address those things. So we have someone kind of sending the shot across the bow when it comes to that and we have a mechanism to address some of that and be proactive and bring jobs to the
city. So I just wanted to mention that. I thought that was interesting. Um, and I I think that that solidifies for me the support of the EDA and the mission that the EDA is doing. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I would like to make a comment based on
what Todd just said. >> Um, >> this is one of those moments where I f fully concur and we've got a very valuable resource right here in our community. Dr. Glenn Bracken is um he's
famous for opening up mechanic schools, jet engine, stuff like that. I think it'd be worthwhile for the city to reach out to him. Do you know the gentleman? >> Uh the one suing the city right now. >> That is correct. Let's please don't talk about it.
>> Okay. >> All right, John. >> I'd just like to offer a little bit of clarity on one of the comments. Miss Mr. Harrison was talking about a minute ago cuz he's right. I didn't um fully explain my no vote on the fire
assessment fee in the end and that that is that we did vote to keep the fire department unanimously. You're right. But that was after the no vote from the vote before. And and it's not negative. It's just my
stance. I've heard for me personally out in the community, I've had more people ask me to be reflective of their vote that was a no vote on that one. Yours may be the opposite. So my vote tonight was a reflection of those conversations, not my personal feels on anything. It
was just the people that had asked me that. So thank you. All right. >> Thank you very much. And we will call this meeting a journ.