We want to call the city council meeting to order. Today is Monday, January the 12th, 2026. Ask you would you stand with the invocation, the pledge of allegiance. Heavenly Father, we thank you for your love towards us. God, we love you. We
thank you, God, for your leadership. We thank you for your anointing. We pray God that uh you give us wisdom and discretion everything we do tonight God that it be done decently in order and Lord God that we'd be looking at the big picture not just uh what happens next
month and next year but Father we' plan for this city's future and Lord God that it be quality decisions and and and la and not everlasting but for very lasting in Jesus name we pray. 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. >> Okay. I was just going to remind
council, pull your mics up so you can be heard. All right. We're going to start off with the consent agenda. We'd certainly entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as written or if you see something that needs to be moved to the
regular agenda, you can let us know at this time. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion second. Any questions? And who's next? >> Mr. Harrison. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I.
>> I. >> Eyes carry. Thank you very much. All right. We go to the regular agenda. Kobe, is there any ads or I think there's one ad in there? >> Yes, sir. Mayor, if we if we could we could add um under me and Mr. Atkins,
can we just move one through seven down and now order one through eight? >> Yes. >> If we could, mayor, we'll move this to be 3C1 and then we will subsequently change one. Yes, sir. We'll change what is currently 1 through 7 to 2 through eight. Uh that item will be approval of
project design and phasing as presented for project for runway 927 extension and widening project. >> Okay. All right. Uh any other changes?
All right. Uh we need to approve this with that one addition. >> Motion to approve with additions. >> Second. >> All right. Motion second. Um all in favor. What was what was that item number going to be there? I'm sorry. >> 3C1. >> Yes, >> it'll be 3C1. Then we will shift what is
currently one through seven down to two through eight. >> Gotcha. I good. All of you got it. I All right, Dan. >> I >> I >> I carry. Thank you very much. All right, Kobe, we'll go to 3C1. >> Thank you, mayor. Um so after obviously
the presentation just given um something we will continue to do moving forward with large projects and most projects if they require such um we get to the 90% FA phase of design for projects we will have those come for the council engineers will provide that overview of the project so you can all see it uh and
approve it moving forward so we're all on the same page. So just asking for approval of the project design and the phasing as presented by Garber. >> So move second. >> We have a motion second. Uh any question? Yes, ma'am. >> Uh Kobe, can or or fellow council
members, can we add that we would ask Jennifer and Tim's group to go seek the additional $1 million that might be on the table too within the same >> Sure. Uh >> definitely problem with it. >> I'll amend my second. >> Amend first. >> Thank you. >> Okay.
Uh any other questions or comments on that motion uh from the public? This is about our approving uh the engineers design up to 90%. All right. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. I.
>> I. >> I. >> Eyes carry. Thank you very much. >> All right. Kobe. We'll go to C2 which is way finding signage standards project. I believe Miss Winterberg is here. Miss Winterberg's the chair of the city tree
board and so I'll let her u take over. >> Hi ladies and gentlemen. I may be deferring to Kobe on this one. Uh so we were uh recently on a Zoom call uh discussing putting together a comprehensive way to come up with some wayfinding signs including uh having a
task force created under our board uh similar to what we did with the dog uh dog park task force. So that we would include uh members of the public uh as well as excuse members from the CRA uh Main Street and other organizations such as
that so that we can come together with uh ideas of exactly what we would like this to look like uh where they need to go uh what they need to be uh and if you could give us uh your blessing on that we would appreciate it and then we can bring that back to the board uh for your consideration.
Are you talking about bringing back a a board to be approved? >> A recommendation? >> A recommendation to create the board. Um and then once we have that recommendation from you all, uh we'll press forward, come together with some ideas and a a general plan and then
we'll bring back bring that back to you as as the council >> tonight. The recommendation, is that correct? >> Pardon? >> You're saying the recommendation is what you're asking right now? >> Yes. To create the board. >> All right. May. >> Yes. >> So, just want to kind of be thoughtful
about this. Is would like to ask Clay, is the best way to go about this approving them forming another subcommittee which then subjects all of those members to sunshine or should we maybe bless the tree committee uh or tree and beautifification board forming their own committee which I think gives
them a little more flexibility. What's the best way to proceed with that Clay? >> Well, it depends on if we want it to be a sunshine board and if it's going to make recommendations. I think we're looking for the same structure as a dog park. >> Basically a working group. Yes, >> a working group. So that it would be a a
a task force, so to speak, underneath. >> I don't think you need to create anything. I think you let the tree beautifification board form their own working group, see how they want to do it. >> And then that won't subject any of those people that are on that task force >> as long as they're not making recommendations. Understand? That's the whole key. They cannot make a
recommendation. They make a recommendation, it's subject to sunshine. Mhm. >> So, how would that um function under bringing something back to the board then to the council? >> So, could the the tree and beautifification board make the recommendation and that allow them?
>> So, so what is the purpose? The question that Florida law is going to look to is what is the purpose of the working group? Is it to develop a recommendation and advise? If so, it's advisory in nature and subject to sunshine. If it is factf finding, gathering facts, you know, conducting studies, presenting
that information to another board, it is factf finding in nature, therefore not advisory. So, I think it comes down to what you're trying to set up here. The tree and beautifification board is definitively an advisory board and therefore subject to sunshine law. If what they want is a working group that's
going to obtain facts, information, bring it back to the tree board, and it's not made up of these same exact members, then that's something that can be done. >> But it's it's not a matter of what we call it. It's a matter of what it does. >> I I think and Kobe, you can correct me
if I'm wrong, what we had discussed was coming back with um ideas here. Here's some ideas for where they would be, what they would look like. um maybe not necessarily as a recommendation um but bringing that back to the
beautifification and tree board uh and then us presenting that to you all for your consideration. >> Mayor, go ahead. >> So, in other words, this isn't uh you're not advising, you're providing information. >> Yeah, it sounds like she wants her working group to provide information
back to their board, at which case their board will then take that information, consider it in a public meeting, and make a recommendation off of it. >> Correct. So, do we need a motion? >> No, I think they can set up their own working group and do that as they see fit.
>> Thank you. >> As long as that's, you know, what you all would be in favor of. >> Does that create any kind of an issue with two people from Main Street or two people from >> We we will limit that. So, there will not be dual members of a single board on
there. Um, it won't be members of the CRA board. It'll be Mr. Hamilton as executive director. Okay. Myself as a city manager and then other staff members. It will not be elected officials. So we don't run into any of that. >> Okay. Well, I think you got game plan.
>> Do I have a blessing? >> You I'm good with that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I think that worked well with the dog park. They brought you ideas that they've seen around the country in different areas and you know decided where to go from there, you know.
>> Yeah. They assembled a variety of ideas. Didn't present them with any kind of ranking or any kind of impremature of we like this, we don't like that. The tree and beautifification board put that together and brought that to the council. So that's acceptable. >> Okay. Thank you all very much. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right.
All right, Mr. Kobe. We'll go to C3. >> This mayor, I spoke to Sumpner last uh this past Monday. Um at that time they had 17 applicants. Um, so they were working and hopefully get that to us the first of this week and they're going to tier those applicants one, two, and
three. Um, from there I'll provide that to all of you. Myself, Miss Chance will go through that as well. If we have any questions, you can provide those back to me. I'll talk to them about that. But ultimately, they will do preliminary interviews with the tier one applicants. After that, they will provide to us a report of that. The ones they believe
should receive final interviews, the ones they believe should not. We'll bring that down on a public meeting, let you decide, and we can set interviews from there. If we get through this process of preliminary, you know, they don't find any that's worthy or this council doesn't find any that they want to interview, we go back through um open
up relications again. So, that's ultimately where we're at and I'll keep us a breast move forward. >> Okay. All right. Everybody good on that one? >> Just to avoid a learning curve. Um,
are we looking for people with experience in according to the state of Florida statutes or we going outside the state? >> The consultants are using the job description that was approved that is in there. So, they're going to do that. Again, when you see tier one, two, and three, if you see applicants in there
you feel you feel meet it but isn't in there, provide that comment to me. I'll speak to them. Uh, but at this moment, they're going off of the approved job description requirements, >> which is nationwide. Well, well, yes. And but also spec has specific knowledge to the Florida Standard Accountings. So,
they're gonna they're going to provide back to us feedback on probably what they see out there in terms of the applicants, what we may run into as a challenge or opportunity. Um, so you you'll see that coming as well when they get through this tiered process and preliminaries. >> Thank you. >> And you got a proposed time frame for
that? >> Uh, no sir, I I can have that back next time. I didn't ask him the time frame on the interviews. Like I said, they should by this week have to us that tier structure when they're going to move forward and obviously they'll schedule with the applicants that follow in tier one. >> All right. All right. Thank you very
much. We move on. >> Ready? >> All right. Well, let's go C4. >> C4. Now, council um city when we have trees, we typically uh go one of three ways. So, if a hazardous tree um falls on the private property, uh it's it's
the responsibility of the owner. falls in the city right ofway is the city's responsibility and if it splits down the middle which we've had multiple times uh since I've been here I know um we will work with the property owner and we'll do one of two things we will either remove it um or we'll hire a consultant to come in remove the tree and then we
split the cost with that property owner um and so it just so happens this time I am the property owner so um I will not I won't have staff in my front yard doing work unless you all approve it if you disagree that's fine I'll have it removed um but it's worth the ask that we do do that for every other citizen
Um, but it's up to this council and Mr. Atinson's advisor. >> In some I believe this is consistent with what the city has done in a variety of other cases and would typically never come before the council because the city manager has the authority to order it so done. However, you'll be ordering it so
done for himself. So, I've asked him to present it here in public. So, if anyone wants to raise that issue, speak on that issue or otherwise talk about it, they have that opportunity both at the council or public level. But candidly, I don't see how you can discriminate against Mr. Townson merely because he is the CI city manager and not given the
same benefit conferred on any other citizen, which would similarly be for each of you. >> Yeah. Who who in or what department do you if it was a choice between us doing it and a uh contractor >> streets and storm water? So, the public
works department, streets storm water division will go out and look at it and they'll decide if that's something we can do or not. So will the public works director. Uh, and then if we can, they'll remove it on they'll put on their schedule and they'll remove it as time permits. If they can't, then we hire a contractor to come remove it and then split the cost. >> Okay. Go ahead.
>> Have they already gone out and looked at it, Kobe? >> Mr. Strong, Mr. Strong's typically our first line. So, he'll go out and he'll tell us if it falls within line or not. Um, and then he'll be usually the one to recommend to public works if he considers it to be dead or not. If we see that it isn't dead for some reason, then we usually bring in Mr. Goodchild,
who is formerly the extension director. It's dead. But we >> Is that it? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, does our Did our staff say they could do it? >> No, I haven't went that far yet. Okay. >> I'm not getting I was just g to show you. It's in the middle. If y'all approve it, we'll have them decide. If not, then I'll do my
>> I'll give an alternative in your motion. Yeah. >> Either or. >> Motion to proceed as we have with everyone else. >> Second. >> Pretty simple. Uh any other questions from anyone? from anyone. All in favor
say I. >> I. I. >> I I >> I. >> I I >> eyes carry. Thank you very much. All right. We'll go to C5. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh this is the approval of amendment number one to the interlocal agreement with Walton County for solid waste disposal. So this is what we talked about a few months ago
about working to get an amendment. This uh I know this has been a com topic conversation for a few years now. Uh and so ultimately this interlocal is how the 1 cent sales tax in this county for sanitation is distributed. Um and I can Mr. Act if he has anything to say we can go through the nuances of it but
ultimately what's going to happen is the old process that we currently have which is uh tasking on staff. It's a nightmare at the end of the year and ultimately it is a cash flow problem to the city. It really hurts us in that aspect. this way. Um, we'll change it to when do
gives sends to us our portion of sales tax collected in the city for a given month, we will then turn around and cut the check, cut a check to Walton County Board of County Commissioners for one-third of that amount. We will do that every month. Uh, and then at the end of the year, we will provide to the clerk of court's office um the billing
from Waste Management, our current provider, and the clerk's office will take that, they will true that up, and they will determine whether we've paid too much to the county or we've paid too little. and then we will make the difference up one way or the other. U so ultimately the biggest thing in this is the cash flow problem. So currently uh
you know we go a full year budgeting that we will have $1.9 million u transferred from sanitation to the general fund to pay bills but the way we sit now we give every bit of that dollar to the county. We don't receive until after the fiscal year. So you're running off IUS until the fiscal year ends. This
will fix that. You no longer will have that problem. So, um, ultimately ask for an approval of amendment number one to the interlocal agreement. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> I have a motion in a second. Questions? Yes. Go ahead, >> Kobe. There's no re uh is there we refresh my memory as to why we can't
keep it all and just have the true up since the countyy's got plenty of cash flow. Why don't we keep it and try to do >> just at the end of the year? >> That was my initial t uh position when I went to have the meetings with Miss Miss Thomasson, the CFO of the county. And then when we had our individual meetings with the commissioners uh Miss
Thomasson's position was that that would then put kind of kind of shift the burden to the county um and the fact that they would now have to cover 100% of that cost to the year until we reconciled. So her recommendation to the to the commissioners was the one-third option u and ultimately that's what they
approved. So I went in with the with the whole amount. Um that was her position with the county and so that's what the county did. Again, it it still worked out for us, but that is where that one-third came from. >> And then perhaps at the end of the year then, depending on what the true up really is, then we need to reanalyze
this so that >> if it doesn't put them in a >> harsh position, it would put us in a better cash flow position if we could keep it 100%. So, >> we can do I mean, yeah, that needs to work. Ultimately, I know like you and I discussed, I mean, we we are responsible
ultimately in the year anyways for a portion of landfill operations. So, even if we didn't provide the county a one-third portion, it would be my recommendation. I would tell the finance director they need to set x amount back every month, prepare for that so that we don't run into the middle of year we overspent money and now we're we're in a
shortfall. >> So, that's right. Thank you. >> Anyone else? Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, >> go ahead. I I just want to say that I think this is a um fantastic development. This is something that the council has requested since we originally signed the waste management
contract, which ironically the next agenda item is to go back to out to bid on that or consider that. U but this has been a long time coming. This has been a request the the council since we signed the original contract almost 5 years ago and it's I'm I'm glad to see this
finally pushed over the the finish line. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Yeah, go ahead. This vote's not deciding if we're going to uh put the contract out for bid. This is strictly Gotcha. >> Yeah. Anyone else? Anyone else? Any
comments on it? >> All right. I have a motion to second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. I. >> I. >> I. This uh this will be on the board of county commissioners consent agenda for tomorrow. So hopefully we'll get approved tomorrow and then we'll go into effect and this will help us out. So
>> all right. Now we'll move to six. >> Thank you mayor. Uh discussion direction on sanitation i.e. garbage services. So in 2021 uh the city council entered into agreement waste management for garbage services. That contract expires September 30th of this calendar year
2026. Uh waste management I believe on January 5th provided notice to the mayor of their intent to exercise their option of renewal under the agreement. uh we they had to do that 180 days prior to um expiration. We now are required to
provide a response within 60 days of that if we we wish to enter into negotiations or not. So uh ultimately for direction we're looking do we want to reenter into negotiations with waste management or go straight to uh bidding for garbage services. So that is what's
on the table and what we're looking for tonight. >> Go ahead. So, this was a five-year contract. >> So, five years ago, we did it in house. And that was our first time out, right, to go to waste management. >> When we went out to bid then, did we
have any other people that were interested or even close to what Waste Management could provide us? >> I wasn't um >> time. >> I don't recall that we did, Mayor. >> I don't either. >> I don't recall either. >> I think I'm almost positive we only got
the response from Waste Management. Yeah, >> that was my recollection. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And have you had any issues with waste management? I thought they were doing a good job. >> From from staff experience, uh we we have not I have not uh received anything from utility billing who handles that
customer intake and coordination with waste management on the billing side. Uh when I when I first was appointed, myself, Miss McDaniel sat down, Mr. Rainer went over some uh some data issues we were having getting information we needed to make sure that accounts were reconciled and that we were charging properly. Uh they quickly
provided that to us now. So we receive that detailed report every month so the utility billing supervisor can be checking to make sure that our accounts match with their billing. Um other than that we have not had any major issues with current provider. >> Yeah. >> And do we have a process where when we
get new people online they add them to our account and >> correct. So that's that's that's the data I'm talking about. Uh when they >> new accounts come on with whatever that looks like, we communicate between waste man utility billing. We make sure that waste management is aware cans are provided and then we we put that in the
billing system uh for that customer. >> Okay. >> I know on the uh one comment I wanted to make because you know I I I was wondering how hard it was going to be for us to police all the bags and boxes that we used to have on the side road. I
I can say that it has been a great uh step up uh aesthetically in our city, not seeing bags and boxes outside of everybody's house. I know it's a little more difficult on those that got used to doing that. But uh now, of course, it's
that's another subject, but now we we've got to do something about our knuckle boom because we got some issues there. it. But I'm going to say as far as the garbage, it is 10 to one better than it used to be as far as aesthetics. >> Yeah.
>> Uh I'd like like to make a motion to direct uh the city manager to begin negotiations with uh waste management on a renewal. >> Second. >> I have a motion, a second. Questions, comments? Yeah, Dan. Does this mean we're not going to explore options to
see what's out there? >> Well, if they have a problem in their bargaining with them, it can still go out, right? >> So, what I would So, what Yes. So, what I would recommend is that the mayor and I meet with Waste Management, have that negotiation, that conversation. We won't
drag this out. We'll make this very quick and we'll bring something back to the council hopefully within the next two meetings or so. At that point, you would have the option to either renew or you'll say, "This isn't good enough." We put it out. But at least you do have that option. >> Yeah. >> With with this motion. >> Go ahead. >> When you bring it back, will you please
bring back what happened the last time? Was there a competitor? >> Gotcha. >> Please look that up because it was only five years ago. It should still be pretty fresh somewhere. >> Well, we don't even know if anybody's been interested until we put it out. Is that correct? >> That officially, yes, that's correct.
Yeah. We uh as as people that snoop around, but I'm not sure until until they submit. Okay. >> Go ahead. Go ahead, Dan. Um about
the first couple of weeks um I was sworn in, I got four phone calls from residents about either having a can with no wheels or no lid or anything like that. And it wasn't because of waste management. It was because they just
didn't know who to call what, you know, the phone number. They knew that it wasn't the city, but it is the city. And so, um, I went down to Freeport and I spoke to one of the gentlemen, I believe, that's in
the room tonight and he fixed it that quick. Now, as far as waste management goes, it's a Cadillac company. Uh, and it and it means a lot not to get any phone calls and for uh if there is a problem that they jump right on it. And
that's the experience that I had. Having said that, everything we do to try and be good stewards of taxpayers money, we put it out for bid >> because we don't know what's out there and what's available >> until we do put it out for bid. Um,
right now people don't even know that our contract's up for bid. So >> just to try and see what is available out there, I'm just going to plant this seed that we need to consider options.
We wouldn't build a sewage treatment plant or we wouldn't build an airport runway or anything like that without getting bids. >> And I'm saying that this should be handled the same way. >> Yes. >> Just uh so so the taxpayers get the most bang for their buck. >> Certainly. And you can of course a whole
lot of options to weigh. You know, it's not just about who comes in with the bottom dollar. Uh I know that the fact that you're not getting a lot of phone calls means a heck lot to all of us. Go ahead. >> Yeah, I was just going to say I wasn't aware that they we only had one bid and
I got Do we know that to be the case? >> We'll have to figure that's what we're looking right now. We'll have by the time >> but you know to me that that says a whole lot. They if they were the only bidder and they got this >> opportunity for plenty of time for anybody to get in. >> That's right. And and they've done a
good job. It was first round. This is the end of the first round of contracts with them. They they've done a good job. We we have a lot of fish to fry. We know that. And and opening up for for bids. Uh we we might get somebody better. We might not. We don't know. But I know if
I'm satisfied with somebody in my private life and they've done work for me before, there's no reason for me to change that. Um, yes, we could we could compare prices, but we have a whole another set of issues to deal with with cans like the county went through when
they went out for bids. Um, so, you know, we could uh I'm I'm pretty satisfied with what they've done >> and I also agree with that. I think it, you know, you got to look at your options and uh but you know, you got to
look at more than price, a lot more than price. Go ahead. >> Mr. Mayor, I I agree with the thought process behind what Councilman Cosen was saying. Um, however, it it was really recent that the county went back out for
bids on this. And I watched that entire process and saw who they brought back or who actually placed bids on that. And it seems like most of the companies were going to have to build infrastructure up within this region in order to meet the needs of the county then. And they were
looking at a much larger customer base for the county and still going to have to bring in that infrastructure to meet those needs. I can only kind of imagine what they would do with us as well. So, based on what Councilman um Harrison said, I I agree. I I feel comfortable
with the service that we're being provided from Waste Management. >> One of the things they did is uh right out of the shoot, they went and bought about I don't know 600 67 $800 truck, thousand truck, brand new truck when they took us on.
And so that we were fixing to have to do that because we were we were handling our own garbage and we were fixing to have to buy another truck and our second truck wouldn't have been much further behind it. So that was a tremendous amount of money.
>> Okay. So before we vote, are we we're not voting to not put this out for bid. We're just voting to >> rein. Well, this this would be in other words, if this satisfies everything, it wouldn't go out for bid.
>> But if it's for some reason looks like it's needs to go out for bid, then we have that opportunity. >> So, what what will happen procedurally is you're directing staff to negotiate with Waste Management what a continuation of their contract looks like. Staff will bring that back to you
in a council meeting. You'll say that looks good to me or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you put it out to bed. >> Thank you. >> All right, we got a motion and a second. Any other questions? >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. I.
>> I. >> I. >> Eyes carry. Thank you very much. And Kobe, I guess we'll go to number seven. Yes, number seven. Information requested for processed and nonavorum
assessment for fire services. So, we're going to we're going to walk through this. It's going to take a minute. So, you need to stop. Bear with us. >> You need to stop me and ask questions. You're going to need to do it because it's about to be a lot. So, um Jesse and I gonna have to work pretty pretty in sync here. So, let's start out on uh
page three of the PDF. And Jesse, yours is a little uh Sorry. Go. Yeah. Go back up. Yours is going to be a little out of whack of mine because you have a bunch of blank pages, which is my fault. So, first let's start right here um with the assessment. and Mr. Atkins can step in as needed. So, first off, when the
council directed me to bring this back, I reached out to both Walton County and the city of Panama City to get some information, understand a little bit of how how this works. And, uh, ultimately after that, they both sent me to a consultant. Uh, coincidentally, the
county and Panama City uses the same consultant. Um, and so in that, I talked to the consultant. They provided this uh this schedule and ultimately a proposal. the proposal we'll get to after all of this. Um, and so in this between the
months of January and May, we need to start to conduct and develop rates. Um, that's something that not only do you have this forward facing things that need to be done, you've got behind the scenes, it's going to take time of staff to get information for them to be able to create this study um, and projects.
Then before March 1st, we have to adopt a resolution of intent and secure agreements. The resolution of intent does not force the city to do this. It simply allows you to go through the process. At any point beyond that, you can still stop if this is something the council doesn't want to go forward with.
Uh after that um one note I'll make though in that is if you do move forward resolution intent and you do secure agreements with the property appraiser and tax cler which I've already met with and they are both amanable to this for the city. Um this consultant fee is a lump sum fee. So once we have agreed to
we move forward you'll pay it whether we stop or not. Just that's just something to be everyone aware of. Um if we do move forward um we have to advertise four weeks consecutive prior to February 23rd in which we would hold a public hearing on that resolution of intent.
Um either way um this has to all this has to be adopted and approved prior to March 1st and then by March 10th we need to communicate all that to the tax collector property appraiser and the state of Florida. Okay, Jesse.
Next, between April and June, the city will need to adopt a home rule ordinance that authorizes city to impose a fire assessment, provides procedures to follow uh to impose that assessment. Between May and July, we'll need to adopt an initial assessment resolution that will point the methodology. Um
it'll set the rates for the upcoming fiscal year, and it'll set the public hearings for adoption. Between the months of June and August, that's when we will do the mailings and the notices and the paper and the mailings of property owners. I'm going stop there for a second. The consultant fee is a is
a two-phase approach which totals $31,000 for what's been provided to us. Um the mailings are a separate cost. They are a cost per mailing to each property. So in essence, I would I would tell the council to be conservative that you're looking at $40,000 give or take
to do this. Um speaking to Mr. Atinson, we cannot pay for this with fire impact fees. So this will need to be come out of the general fund. I have an item for next meeting for for that for a bunch of money that needs to be brought together and redistributed by the council. So, I'll tell you there's $40,000 to cover this cost. So, that's the way we want to
go. Um, you can slide down to the next one. Adopt a final assessment resolution. This will occur between July and September. It'll set the uh rates for the upcoming fiscal year for properties. By September 15th, we provide that
certified final assessment to the tax collector and then that will be included on every parcel in the city's November 2026 tax bill. Make sure I'm not missing anything real fast. So, real quick on the study, uh, Mr. Atkins has more experience than I do
in this, but the methodology is the uniform collection method. It's the formula in which can vary. So we are familiar with Walton Countyy's formula which is rooftops and commercial square footage. Um the city of Panama City they do it by door. So they have a flat fee per door in the city. So the formula
could be a number of different what things. The methodology is uniform collection. It's the formula which the study will create based off of what they see the city has provided to them as projects future cost levels of service
XYZ. So we will move down and we will the next thing thing is the provided quote from the consultant. I'm not asking you right now to go through and consider it. I will say because this is the same consultant W County uses. If we do move forward, I'm going to recommend that to you under a single source
purchase u because they are familiar with our county, our private appraiser and our tax collector. I don't know that we'll find a better consultant to perform the study. That's what we want to do. But we will go over that for now. >> And I would also note in the time in which you're asking it to be done. Correct. I would agree.
>> That would be the core issue is the timing. >> So Jesse, take us to page 13 of the PDF. >> Thank you. All right. So after last meeting when you when directed me to go and get this information, we also talked about funding and options related there
too. Option A was, you know, the the amount that would be generated if we um the county assessed it at their rates, which is $500,000. Am I getting that correct? Okay. Option B was the amount needed to cover the cost of all the items listed in the five to year five to
10 year plan. The fire chief and I sat down, went through this. There's actually been a few things added to that plan. It will be included in this, but that is what B was is if we wanted an assessment just to cover the the additional cost for fire service, what does that look like? So we will see that option C was the amount needed to cover
the entire cost of fire services. So that's new cost incurrent. What does that look like moving forward for the city? Um couple things before we go in this. An important determination that I would tell you need to keep in mind as we run through this is what's the intended use? Um is the use to cover to
offset current operating personnel on debt cost? Is it to offset future debt and personnel cost? Or is a combination of both? Um, that's that's a big distinction what we're talking about here because if you're going to use it to offset future debt, we currently don't budget future debt, right? So, in
terms of what we're looking at today and the general fund in this position, you will not make a difference in that. But if you combine the two and you offset current personnel with future or current debt with future debt, then you start getting into that. But that's something you need to keep in mind as we go through this and you see the cost and
why we are doing this or why we're considering to do this. A couple assumptions. Um, you're going to see in here a base. So, the base budget, you're going to see it's going to grow. That's because there's a 75% annual increase factored into that. Again, these numbers
are assumptions. We didn't run through a full financial analysis. I'm not I'm not expert in that, and we didn't have time to hire someone to do it. Um, engines are on 15-year notes. Uh, new fire stations on 30-year notes, and then additional personnel have an annual increase of 3%. You'll see additional
personnel line. Another thing I'm going to I'm going to note as we go in here, you're going to see in the year 2040 a new fire truck being bought at the same annual debt service price as a truck in 2027. Is that realistic? Probably not. But if I go in here and I was to put
increase escalation for every single line item, we're going to have a lot of stuff run off the page. And I don't think that's a core mission right now. Our core mission is to understand what we're looking at and where we're headed. So that's just something to keep in mind. So on page 14, you're going to see a list. So this is effectively option B.
The items you see between fiscal year and annual total, those are items to be purchased um for fire service, things that the fire chief and I have identified through the plan and additionally to factor for replacement of engines, um the building of new
stations, fire station renovations, and additional personnel. So I'm going to walk through this just briefly because the next slide is what really pulls it all together. you're going to see in 2027. Um, well, I'm going to pause here. Let me just pause
for a second because we're gonna Let's just do this. Any questions on the slide or here? Because the next one is one that's really going to bring it all together so we don't have to reduplicate what I'm about to say. >> Everybody good so far where we're at. All right. So, let's we're scroll down
to uh sheet 29, page 29 of the PDF, Jesse, thank you. So, we're going to zoom in just a little bit. All right. So, you're going to see the top line fire budget base of fiscal year 26 at $1.8 million
in column 2 2027. Our current budget is 1.9 million. That says 1.8 because 100,000 that is debt service. And you see right below it the continuous that debt service. I wasn't going to factor the $100,000 twice. Um so, in 2027, you
see um what expect to be a budget of $2.3 million. You're going to see fire station renovations at 425. If you go back and you look at the five to 10 year plan, you're going to see a range of 300,000 to $1.4 million. I took and I said, "What's the what's average of that?" It's $850. Um, we assume we are
not going to buy a ladder truck until we have a building that can fit in, right? Let's save money. Let's not let's not extend the current station to fit that. Let's wait. So, I haveed it again. Again, it's an assumption. So, we got 425 uh to make those renovations. Going into 2028, you're going to see that that that fire station in basic cost falls
off. That's a onetime cost. Um you're but you're going to add a person. Adding that one position is going to take us back to a full three fiveman shift with the with the chief and the assistant chief. Okay, that green column, the reason it's highlighted green is because that's the year in which we need to
start designing station south of I 10. Um the next two years 2029 2030 you're going to see there's no there is one more person added each year 2031 you're going to see the base budget you're going to see the engine debt
you're then going to see that the station south of I 10 is now being paid for typically you don't pay for something debt service till it's done you're in it so we're in it by 2031 we buy the ladder truck to go in there right because it now can fit it and then by 2031 we now have uh four new fire
personnel. That's a significant number because when that time comes to man that station, you're going to split that six-man staff, six-man crew in half. Three north, three south. So by 2031, you have three sixmen shift and staff both. You're going to have to split
them. All right. In 2031, you're going to see there's two engines we pay debt on, right? Those two engines will be your primaries. One will be the primary in the north, one will be the primary in the south. and then you'll have two backups and you'll continue that trend for a number of years. This remains
consistent right on up until 2038. 2038 you're going to see two numbers. You're going to see another truck being purchased um there on the third row. And then down on the additional employee row, you're going to see that number double. So you're going to go from a
six-man shift to a sevenman shift. So you're going to go from three sixes to three sevens. Again, it's significant because in 2038, the fire chiefs identified at that point, you need three primary trucks. You need three of them that are moving, one backup. So, you need seven people per shift. Keep those rolling. Again, you're going to split
those shifts between north and south. 2039, again, you're going to see a green column. That means we need to start designing for a station north on north side of town. Right. Um, this this building we currently are in, we make the renovations, the building's already 40 to 50 years old. It's already getting
close to meeting its life. So once we do this, we're now in 2039. We're 12 years from next year. So we start designing to build a new one. At that point, you would move staff when it's being constructed. We at this moment we're thinking you built the same spot just for
and so you move staff down, build a new building, go into it in 2042. But I'm going to back up 20 240. 2040. You see that on row four that truck is in it useful life. You need another one. So now we have four trucks. Um you have
three primaries and a backup. And then 2042 is highlighted blue for two reasons. One, that's the year in which you start paying you would pay debt on the new station north of I 10. And that is also the year in which I we stopped adding you know new things to
this outlook. It's just you'll see below it goes to 2050 to kind of show you the continuation of that debt cycle. Um, so that's the new things. That's the projected cost the fire department and provide that fire service uh to the city. Now I'm going to jump down a
little bit. I want to scroll down before we get into the actual assessment part. I'm going to scroll down to the very last page of the PDF. Chess 44. So do a little looking around the state. um those those cities you see there, those seven um try to pull some comps to
understand, you know, of these of these cities that have a fire service, what percentage of their fire budget are they covering with a revenue with a fire revenue assessment, not a long assessment. Milton's an outlier. Um I had not had time to reach out to Mr. Spear is a manager over there to understand why. But as you can see the
other six on average they are roughly about 49% of their fire budget they collect in a non-avarm assessment. Right. Um the down below that this is just a visual representation of of the county's current rates and how that would look for us as we provided. um 12
cents a square foot commercial, $75 a house, and then $75 per other, which is some build, which generates nearly $500,000 off their rates. So, is everyone on the same page that the average that I have here is 49%. Then we're we're good so far because we'll go
back up to where we just were. Okay, we're going to use a round number. We're going to say 50 as a round number. Um so, we don't have to get into 49. You're going to see back on page 29 of the PDF, Jesse. Okay. You'll see down there, you'll see
where it say it says fire NAVA and difference. We're going to stick in the fire NAVA column because we're using 50% they mirror. No need to say it twice. The orange represents if we were to collect a non-avalor assessment 50% of the projected fire budget for that year.
Right? So if you look at annual total for 2027, you see 2,319,681. 50% of that's 1,159,840. Right? So you'll see this progressing through the years. All right. Um
right now the current county's current rates is $500,000. The city wants to generate 1 $1,160,000 in a fire assessment. you effectively need to double what the county's rates are in the current formula. You can change the formula to some different um
but if you still want that amount of money, someone's got to pay it. So ultimately, you would take uh residential buildings to $155 per year and then commercial would go up to 30 cents a square foot to put you around that $1.1 million number. Okay. Now,
something else needs to be considered. You'll if you're looking at that orange block, we now currently are at $1.9 million annual budget. That orange block is 1,160,000. That means there's a delta there to the general fund, right? There's a delta
about $750,000 difference from what we're paying to what we will have to pay. Um, and you'll see that trend continue all the way till roughly 2034. You'll see that difference. That difference equates to about $3.6 million in this example. That 3.6 6 million
could be or each year that that surplus could be given back to the general fund. It could be saved um set aside um for you know debt. We may want to buy a truck rather than debt the truck. We may want to pay half the building rather than take the full debt service out on the building. Um but that's something to
be cognizant of as we move through those years have a difference. Um, I'm going to before I say my last, I'm going to pop back up real quick to um the option B that kind of shows the fire the county's current rates and projected um equipment we have on here.
So, page 14 again, you're going to see there under annual total where I got fire NAVA 2% annual growth. I took the counties 500,000 I put 2% in. I don't know the number. It's just to have a visualization of what that looks like. Um but as but what you will see is
annual total shows you our increased annual total of new cost. This particular sheet here option B does not include current operating personnel costs that we have. So it's it's less $1.8 million, right? That's what option C sold. So if you were to stick to what
the county had or use the same formula, um you're going to start to see that those first few years, yeah, you're going to you're going to be in a green, right? Because you have less. But as we move forward into 2031 and beyond, you're going to start seeing those parentheses. That means short. That means you don't you didn't generate enough to cover that debt service. Okay?
So that's something to be mindful of as we we move forward with the formula, the method, all of that on what we're looking at. So I'm going to hop back down real quick to my last statement before we get into discussion. um on page 29 days on we talked about it be
whether we do it or not is not position staff but I'll tell you this is like insulin once you start we continue the only way we stop is in five years from now you cut the difference out of something right so if we get into year 2031 and we no longer want to do this it's $ 1.6 6 million that we got to cut
from somewhere. You gota it's got to come back because this is a regenerating recurring revenue. So once you if you stop it or you reduce it, you got to make the difference up somewhere. So I'm not not telling you good, bad or different. I'm just giving you a heads up that's something to be aware of as we move forward through this of how back to
that termination of what this is for. So that was a lot to pack right there. Um, so any questions that you may have, we can go through those, but that's a lot to swallow. >> I think I think a general question everybody want to know particularly in this room is
>> Hey, there you is that what would this look like to the resident in five years? >> What would they be paying? Well, that and again the formula could could dictate that. Um, you know, but in this current example, if you if you say the
city wants to collect 50% of that service next year, and our expectation is $2.3 million budget, we need to generate $1,160,000 in revenue. If you use the county's current formula, which is rooftops and commercial square footage, you need to effectively double it um to to collect
$1.16 million, which is $155. what they do because we don't do it, right? >> We don't do it currently. >> Okay. So, so >> 155 a house >> and 30 cents a square foot >> for commercial. Yeah.
>> Who in the county is charging that? >> That is the Walton County Board of County Commissioners fire assessment. Non AON fire assessment. That's the rates >> for all North Walton. >> For North only North Walton, >> correct? South Walton Fire District is a special district that has its own levy >> and Liberty Argo are separate as well
>> and they have their own assessment. This is correct. Correct. This is the city of Freeport. This is the city of Freeport and every other unincorporated area. Walton County not Yeah. Not covered by Liberty Argy or South Walton. >> Correct. >> No. >> Mr. Mayor Kobe, what would it take? We
we ran through these figures the other day, but what was the assessment fee to cover all fire safety costs today? When we ran that same formula, wasn't it like $28 a household and like 52 cent a square foot for commercial?
>> Yeah. So, if we project, we're basing off what we expect 2027 to look like 2.3 million. Um, I had that here somewhere. Give me a minute. Let me recreate it real fast. Okay, he's got it right here. council does um >> if you if what I calculated was keeping
all the percentages the same. So the current just to kind of break this down the current county fire assessment 60 66% of that revenue comes from the commercial component. >> So I kept that the same to go over.
Right. Same thing with the residential the two residential numbers. They represented 32% and 2% that adds up to 100%. So to keep those numbers in line, same percentages, I came to50 cents a square foot on the commercial side and
$275 on the residential side. >> And that's for the fiscal year 26 budget 1.9 million. >> That's what it would cost today. >> If we were Yeah, if we would have done it for this fiscal year, that would have been the rates. >> That's that's to cover all of the That's to generate $1.84 million in in revenue. That's not
covering the anticipated cost increased over the next 10 to 20 years that we're seeing on this timeline. >> That's correct. >> And that would double if not triple to continue to cover this >> and that's every rooftop including churches and everything else. That correct? >> Everyone's included in um
>> including people who have abort exemptions. >> Correct. >> We would not have any new business brought into this city at those rates. They would all go outside of the incorporated areas. Mayor, >> go ahead. Dan,
>> so you and the chief sat down and y'all decided that it would be in the best interest of the fire department and our city protection if per household was 155. >> No. So, let me real quick. We didn't we did not decide on the assessment. That's
not something the fire chief and I have an opinion on where the other that's funny. What we did is what you see in here is components of the plan. So engine replacement stations, personnel, that's what we brought forward to say these are the things that are going to be necessary to provide a high level of
fire service to the city. Terms of the assessment, those are just figures and numbers. We are not we don't have a position on that. That's a revenue source the council is going to have to determine if they want to tap into or not. So what's what's Liberty's assessment per year per household?
>> It's either 100 or 125. One of those two. >> 125. >> It's something like that. >> Argyle. >> It's again, one of them's 100, I think, one's 125, give or take. >> And South Walton, >> it's not even Yeah, it's based off of
property values. >> I think it's okay. And Walton County was 75 >> per rooftop. Okay. And where am I getting this 155 figure? >> So, I was saying was if we wanted to
collect in 2027 1,160,000, we would need to effectively charge $155 a house per or rooftop and 30 cents a square foot. That's where you're getting the 155 number. >> Okay. >> That's to collect half of the fire service cost.
>> Go ahead. >> How many rooftops? Uh 200 >> there are 2,323 based on the information we've been given. 2023. >> No, sorry. 2323 rooftops and then 145
other. >> Okay. Now, that's for your 2027 column. >> And as you went through the years, how did those increase or decrease? >> We didn't we didn't touch so we didn't
go through the formula because the formula can be anything. It could be it could be split >> and I'm okay with that. I just I want to make sure I understand everything that you got in here. So >> that number never changes. You use that throughout all your columns. >> So that number is not even factored into
the column. So all you see here is I said okay of the annual total projected for the fire department and I busted it down to 10 20 30 40 50 60% of that cost. So if the council look consultant said we want to collect generate around 50% of our cost that's what you're looking
at. If you change that to 20 that's the row you're looking at. So that needs to be broken down backwards to how many rooftops versus how many. >> Well, that's what the consultant would do because the formula could be >> Exactly. But I'm just I want to make sure I'm clear in what you're trying to present. >> Correct.
>> Okay. How many new fire stations between now and the end of your wherever you went to? What year did you end in? >> Uh it technically ends in 2050, but we stopped adding things in 2042. >> Okay. 2042. So, so in 27, how many new
things did you add? Whether it was a fire truck, whether it was people >> the 2027 had a fire engine to replace uh engine 405 and then it was a fire station renovation, which is a one time, and then 2028. >> And that fire station renovation, is
that based on us getting the uh the state to provide us where they currently are located? >> Uh I mean, no. I mean, it's unrelated to us getting the property or not. It's if we even if we don't own the property, we can still make the rent. >> But I mean, when you say you factored in
costs to increase the station, that's the station you're correct. You you had in mind when you're doing the >> the current fire station. >> Okay. All right. And that includes whatever it would be to get rid of that mold remediation and everything else that they're currently facing.
>> That's a total shot in the dark. His number is a total shot in the dart because keep in mind that the CRA had two different engineers look at it and they said start a new building. Don't even touch the existing building. So the
425 is a rosecolored glasses type of number. >> I know. And that's why I want to make sure I'm clear on what this is presenting as well as allow the audience to understand what what this really is. >> Yeah. >> You know that we're that we're looking at. >> Yeah. I mean the other thing which we
don't know now right but the >> you if you continue with the 50% the rates may fluctuate up they may fluctuate down as time moves on as new houses are built more commercials built um so it could fluctuate one way or the other they'll have to be looked at uh
annually to see what that is because if we get to a point to where because every year you're looking about a $100,000 increase in what needs to be generated in revenue from 2031 on. Well, if we get to 2034 and developments slow down, the market crashes, interest rates, whatever, if that slows down, we still
need to collect 50% of the service. So, we need to review the rates and they probably need to be increased for to cover the $100,000 difference. Um, if more rooftops are built in commercial, you're probably going to see a gap there because commercial is more valuable in terms of generation than rooftops are. So, it's going to have to be reviewed uh
over and over again to make sure we're not getting out of balance. >> Mr. Mayor, I had a couple more. Okay. The fire engine, you said replacement. So that's replacing something that's already used and worn down. So that's really not progressing. Correct. >> We're just replacing
>> keep it. Is it still is it still functional? >> No, we would. So in terms of 2027, you'll take the number three engine, which is the backup, and it will go away. We'll take the the older of the two engines in the fire station today. It'll move to the backup. You'll have a new primary, and then you'll have a new
secondary. the primary will become secondary. >> So in terms of total number of engines, no, but we will get a much newer fleet. man. >> So, yeah, projecting,
you know, assessments of of substantial amount of money, you know, that people are not used to because I don't know that this has ever been really discussed, but I I would imagine there's very few communities our size that do not have
some type of fire assessment to help help pay for fire uh fire and police assessments. We're one of the few um so you know look for regardless of what h if the CRA
continues like it is I'm not bringing up the CRA discussion at this point however it sunsets in 2033 all debt paid right if they if they take out bonds 2033 we have a surge of money that had been going to the CRA that comes into our
coffers substantial amount of money right So at 2033, we begin to see a shift in our revenue to help fund our fire department. >> Correct. >> I'm going to say yes, but I mean there's other factors into that. I mean, other
departments are going to grow, right? The need for >> true police presence, public works, XYZ, planning, permitting, >> and and that's my point. Everything grows. Our revenues will grow. Our expenses will go grow. Um there's
different ways to look at these assessments. You know, you and I have talked about whether it's rooftops, whether it's square footage for commercial, uh whether it's by number of doors in a building. There's a huge difference in a hospital, uh or some
other type or hotels, whatever that were have no exterior doors except, you know, a few emergency doors, but all interior doors, that's a different fight. the fire takes a lot more personnel equipment to do that kind of thing. So if we can look at assessments for you
know u big box stores they're open Walmart Publix whatever comes that's a lot different firefight in there and resources needed to do that versus in a enclosed hotel or hospital with hundreds of doors you see so can we consider what
that would look like with a door assessment I don't know if we can break assessment fire assessments down that way uh commercially have some by square footage, some by number of doors, but that that seems like a different source of revenue. Um, impact fees, for
example, impact fees have not been increased. Our budget shows for this year just under $13,000 in fire impact fees. It's not much money and they haven't been there was an impact fee study done in 2122. It was presented to
the council in February 22 and it it it was tabled and a special meeting was called for. That meeting was never had. So there's been no conversation about how to pay for this fire department. Uh the the conversation
about increase in impact fees disappeared a few years back. So this look at fire assessments. Yeah, it's painful to think about how do we pay for this? But we've been fortunate that the city has been able to fund fire department for over a
hundred years out of general fund or well I don't know how they did it 100 years ago but but whatever you know we've been continuing trying to fund it out of general fund that is not possible to sustain that with our slow growth in revenue because we're trying to operate
CRA as well. That's okay. If if if that all works we'll make it work. But a fire assessment shouldn't be something that scares people. If this fire department can be funded appropriately and reduce our fire rating, it reduces insurance premiums and that cost to these these
homeowners and businesses is offset by reduced insurance premiums. That's kind of what we should be pursuing. Um so, you know, there there's other things to look at in in all this forecast and um it it looks impossible. I I get it. But
we we got to remember that particular impact fee study showed the growth. Now that study was done for fire and police at a combined 21,000 square foot building. That's that's off the table. But what I got out of looking at that study was the growth
projected. And by 2030 2030 they gave a 10-year projection. We're five years in nearly right. We're five years into it. And we're probably surpassing their growth projections at this point. They projected there was
2,000 uh I forget the number have it written somewhere but wrong. Um they projected a growth of 2700 I believe uh dwellings right by 2030. They gradu uh projected
there was 3 million 3.4 4 million I believe or maybe it was 3 million square feet of non-dwelling space, right? Square square square footage. They projected by 2030 it'd be more than double that. So that is
tremendous tremendous growth. um in population population um expected to be somewhere around 20,000 to 25,000 um by the end of that 10-year projection
they did. So we are looking at tremendous revenue growth in in this city after 2033 right in our coffers and I think that has to be something that cons to be considered here and
Personally, I'm optimistic about that that you know if if we we really look at this hard and we we try to figure it out and and we we we anticipate those revenues, we keep it realistic, you know, we we stay positive, think this this economy, it stays like it is and
thus far it has. Thus far it has. So, you know, that that's the kind of things that I'm I'm looking at and and I've said it in past meetings when this has come up this topic. I just feel like um
we we should we have work to do to try to figure it figure it out. I I think we we owe the citizens um um the the effort to try to figure out how to fund it. I I don't think it's impossible. Other cities are doing it. You know that,
right? Other cities are doing it with these strategies that that we're talking about. Um, so but I I think we probably find very few cities that are doing it on general fund alone, funding their fire departments. So, you know, we can take the easy route and go, okay, well,
let's just turn it over to county. That's the easy thing. But that has its uncertainties as well down the road. Not because of our current sheriff, but because of future sheriffs or whatever. We don't know what what people will do in the future. I don't know that. There's a lot of uncertainty. But if we
have to look at uncertainty, let's look at it all the way around. And the uncertainty here is we're not looking at federal grants. If that property is turned over to this city, that opens us up for potential grants to help take care for some of those properties like that fire department,
whatever it can be done to it, community center, that those types of things. We we know that it could open us up to federal appropriations to build an entire station. That that has been done as well. Um, last year, was it last year that we
asked the the Senate, did we send something to the Senate for a million dollars for a fire station? What What happened to that? I don't recall. >> We we have not um >> we did not I'm not aware. >> No, it was I think >> I think it was last year. Maybe last
year was but yeah, maybe within the last couple of years. >> Not since I've been employed with the city. So, that's 2022. >> Okay. All right. Well, that that's the thing. There are cities around the state that that are getting those types of appropriations and not just state. It could be federal appro appropriations as
well, but we have to determine and do the work and go after those types of things. And I know we've got u Liberty Partners that fully capable of doing that for us. And you know, if we get us ourselves in a position to consider appropriations for fire engines, right, we're looking at paying for these things
and financing them, right, which cost us a lot more money. we get appropriation at some point for that kind of thing can that that can certainly help us. We get appropriation to build fire stations. There are communities that are succeeding at doing that. So anyway,
mayor, if I can just touch on the impact fees. So you're right, ultimately the council chose not to pursue the impact fees when they came up for a variety of reasons. one was the 2020 and into 2021 statutory changes to the Florida Impact
Fee Act that further adjusted how we can use and implement those. Um, as Chief Hurley, if he's here, you know, every time the word impact fee comes up, he wants to throw something at me because as a general rule, you can't fund your existing salaries and you can't fund your existing operational cost. It has
to be used to offset new growth and so at most a percentage of some things can be used. So unfortunately at the time both chiefs and looking at their impact fees what good do these do me the attitude was what good these do me if we collect them and we have this large pot of money
but we can't spend them can't pledge them towards existing debt service if you go and say we need to up we need to replace a firet truck or replacement's not good enough. It's got to be a new something you have to justify what percentage of that is. So ultimately it
was not providing the need and the discussion became looking at other assessments and other opportunity for both fire and police. That's been pretty well consistent. I know Councilman Beerbomb is probably the only one that's been here for that whole time, but I believe that's been the consistent position is there's not been a desire to
change those impact fees. There's not been the belief that it would solve the issues for what the departments looking for. They weren't looking for new growth expansion. They were looking for replacement and operational cost. And that is one of the challenges. But I will tell you, um, I'm glad it's
mentioned tonight because that is something that has been sitting for quite a while. Um, if we wish to keep collecting those, we need to update those at some point regardless of what we do here if we're going to have fire and police. But it's not going to be a budgetary solution, unfortunately. >> And that's just a one time.
>> It's a one-time payment by new growth as it comes in. >> And you have to establish the dual rational nexus. And unfortunately ultimately if we aren't able to expend the money on that new growth in a certain amount of time we are set up potential refund. The other thing that substantially changed in the statutes
over the past five years is the now u codified ability in legislative act that inind contributions can offset that. So if they want to come in and say we put in additional fire suppression or we put in additional this, they get to tell us
they did it. If they did it, they get the credit. So there's less negotiation back and forth. My example of that, I always use Freeport um upon approval of a development down on the water that had boat fuel sales, one of the probably only ones in the county, at least north
of the bay, requested a fireboat. and they negotiated fire impact fees to get a fireboat brought in because their concern was what happens if there's a fire on the water and we can't access it. We couldn't ever do that under this scheme. >> The the current schema of the legislature is not possible. So that's a
little bit of the history of why that was never brought back. But certainly it is something that council wishes to do. We can have it updated and frankly the company doing the type of analysis and study work Kobe's speaking of is the type of company you'd bring in to do those kind of analysis. And I would
frankly recommend um the groups Kobe are talking about well before we go back to the prior entity. I don't think either chief was very happy with the coordination and collaboration from the initial study group back in 2020. >> And real quick, Mayor Tim, help me out.
Councilman, in 2024, there was a submission um for fire station, but that was a year in which appropriations were not given. >> Correct, Tim? So, my bad. I correction on that. Mayor, >> go ahead. Now,
>> so I've, as I've been trying to figure this out and do my homework, I was wondering, why do we need a ladder truck? We don't even have a building that's four stories. And I was talking to the chief and he said, there's a checklist on what you have to have to
get the residents insurance lower, and that's one of the things that they need on this checklist. So, he's trying to get our insurance rates down. Um, I had some concern, uh, Josh about businesses not wanting to come here.
That's that's an important point. Um, as far as, um, the subject matter expert on this, Birmingham, Alabama is in the same category as cities like Jacksonville,
Tampa, Orlando, Miami. It's big league. And that's where Chief Sheffield comes from. It would really go a long ways with me if I knew what Chief Sheffield was
recommending, what he would what he thinks is best. Um, council, is that permissible to have him come up here? >> Well, that's up to the mayor ask the mayor. >> I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever. If chief wants to come up,
don't want to put you on the spot, chief. I'm not the one to put you on the spot now. That's Dan. >> I'm gonna give him the same disclaimer we gave a few weeks ago. And fire chief and I on the same page on this. Fire chief and I have a position on the equipment needed to ser to provide effective service. But on this fire
assessment, we don't have an opinion. This is the council's decision to be made on a revenue source to fund it. It it's not our decision to to insert this or not. So we're we don't have an opinion whether this is a good or bad idea, but in terms of the equipment that you see here and the need, he can definitely give you everything you need
on that. But in terms of this assessment and the and whether we should or should not, we don't have an opinion for >> Okay. Based on the equipment that you need, chief. >> Yes, sir. What would be a fair assessment to the citizens? >> I I like city manager said, you know,
this right here is something that we put before y'all to make a decision on how how y'all want to use it. >> Okay. I hear you. I stated that basically this this before you is basically we put together so y'all can make a decision on how y'all
want to fund this fire department. >> Unfortunately, you're the subject matter expert >> on equipment we need to go ahead and move our city forward to protect our citizens and keep up with growth. >> And what type of assessment in order to accomplish that would you recommend?
>> That's going to be up to y'all to make that decision. >> The consultant's going to provide that to you. The council's ultimately going to have to determine when that pro we do that process what it is you want to see funded how much of what level how much to be collected the consultant's going to provide to you what needs to be done.
>> Okay. So um I'm just a lot of these numbers as you say were arbitrary. >> So I'm going to throw an arbitrary number out there. Um, I understood you to say that it would be a good starting point
uh for a $155 a uh a year residential assessment. >> No, sir. So what I what I meant was I was showing you an example of if you wanted to collect 50% of the projected fire budget for 2027 for what we've
shown and you want to use the same formula in which Walton County Board of County Commissioners uses which is commercial square footage and rooftops you would need to effectively double their current rate of $75 a house and 12 cents a square foot. We would need to be at $155 a house and 30 cents a square
foot. So not telling you that's good or bad. I'm just telling you that if you're looking to collect 50% of the projected, that's the rates under their formula you would be looking at. >> Okay. My question to our to my fellow uh councilman and you, Mayor,
>> do you all think that's fair? >> No. >> Because >> because that's a 40% increase on small businesses and and I can go down the list because I I ran the numbers this weekend. I sat here with my laptop and I looked up
everybody's square footage downtown and I I ran the numbers. So, let's talk about enforcement firearms. He'll see 106% increase in his taxes. Triangle Chevrolet will see a 19% increase in
their taxes. Iron and Grape 33%. Katy Bess, a small boutique with two employees, 52% increase in their taxes. Um, >> okay, I get it. I get it. Thank you. Fishers Fischer Pharmacy Fischer Pharmacy 69% increase in taxes.
>> I can keep going on. It's not fair to place the the the large majority of the burden for fire services on our commercial entities. They're the ones that actually provide the lifeblood for this city.
But in far as projections, I mean, you expect to see some four four plus story buildings in this town not too far future, I would imagine. >> A possibility, >> Mr. Mayor. I had a question for the chief. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, >> Chief. Um, I know you and and the city
manager worked uh to to come up with this assessment. Um, can you tell me what this will result in for our our ISO rating if we adopt this and these new these engine replacements, these new fire stations, these
additional personnel? What will be our ultimate ISO rating? What are you aiming for for an ISO rating >> right now? I would like to see this city. I would like to see at least a four. We're at at a five right now. I'd like to see a four, but I would like to
go ahead and see if we can get down closer to a three. >> Can you tell us what you need? Obviously, you've got like the physical capital investments here in this plan, but I understand that the ISO uh rating system looks at more than just than just
the physical, right? It looks at training, it looks at staffing, it looks at all of these other metrics in in addition. So, can you tell me is there anything else that we need to put on this list? Is it is it additional training hours? you know, is it, you know, what what is it that we can do that we know if we're going to if we're
going to agree to a tax on people that we know we can get to a four or we can get to a three, if we do the capital improvements plus the other soft improvements, whether it's additional personnel, whether it's training, whether it's whatever the case may be. Can you tell us that
>> these resources would help us? It can help us reduce our ISO rating. Okay. We we got training, we got everything training in place. I have a meeting Wednesday with ISO to go ahead and we start our process. So is that's what we
got right now that we would be looked at if it's what we got right now. So >> So can you say with confidence that that adopting this is going to lower our ISO rating? >> I I I would say it would it would help. Now will it get us down? Um I I think it
would. I think it would to tell you it'll go down to a four or even a three or go to a three. You know, it it all depends on how they assess us and I think, you know, we can get we can lower our ISO rate. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor, um you and I were
having a discussion >> and you you brought up a good point and it was a point that I actually used to repeat all the time to people. Um you know, early on in my tenure, Dr. Mcnite was very adamant about annexation and one of the things that we used to be
able to say was come into Definiac Springs our ISO rating is better than the counties. >> It was >> but that's not that that's not the case. >> That's not the case now. >> And and that's why I'm asking the chief and being very adamant about I want to
to stay competitive. If we're going to invest all this money, then I I want I want the council to know and I want the citizens citizens to know that we're going to stay competitive. >> I mean, this this is a lot to contemplate. And to me, it's not just about buying fire trucks and and
buildings. It's about making sure that >> we got worse. I think that the county got better. >> I agree. And I'm I'm not saying that we got worse, but what I'm saying is to me, this is about safety. Are we are we providing our firemen the proper equipment, the proper training, the
proper housing, everything that that they can safely do their job and at the same time it reflects in an ISO rating that we don't control. It's it's an independent third party. Let me ask you. >> So, as far as our training, far as our
training for this, this right here is the second year in a row. We use fire rescue one for our training. Two years in a row, they said that's an excellent rating for our training.
So, if we can we can lower our ISO to a three, I don't know. I can work with the assessor when he come down Wednesday. He'll tell me about what what I need to uh rest of stuff I need to put together and we'll work together to go and try to lower it as far as we can. The county is
is a four. They're better than us. We can we can lower our ISO rating. >> So, have you >> this right here? These are tools to help us do that. >> So, have you had conversations in the past with them about lowering our ISET rating >> with ISO? >> Yes, sir. >> Yes, I have. >> Okay. because I I'm believe it at a
previous meeting it was told to the council that if we added people we would lower our ISO and that hasn't happened. So what what happened in that in the interim there we didn't lower our ISO rating. >> Okay. If you're talking about what I said Dr. Mcnite when I first came here
talking about get I saw an ISO1 and I had to explain to him ISO is directly related to the funds you get to your budget. You get a budget that can support everything that ISO require. Yeah, you'll get a one. Is the city willing to give that to me?
>> I mean, we doubled your budget, >> mayor. Yes, sir. >> I'm finished, sir. >> Go ahead. Chief, what type of infrastructure things could lead to because I don't know the answer
to this. could could lead to a better ISO rating. Like, you know, when we talked about um Veterans Lodge and increasing the pipe diameter to 16 inches out there, is that water delivery have anything to do the number of hydrants, the physical things that we
can do with funds >> to help you get that ISO rating down? What kind of things are there that affects that IOA rating other than training? our water department. >> I'm sorry. >> Our water department, they look at at our water department, they look at the tanks, they look at the wells, they want that information to add into the ISO
rating also. So, so then, uh, you know, hydrants, hydrant location, you know, if it's a hydrant, um, every hydrant in our city must be on a 6 inch main. It is. So, we're good with that. So, add more hydrants. I think we're good at on our
hydrants. We test our hydrants. And I think, you know, if we're allowed to go ahead and get the resources we need, we should be able to lower our ISO rating. >> So, so there's there's other factors that that our our water department and
and other departments can >> they contribute. They they look at training, they look at our apparatus, uh they they're going to look at our fires we have, >> they they're going to um look at uh fire prevention. It's multiple things that they're gonna be looking at at what we do on a day-to-day basis.
>> So, here's my thing. If the rating used to be better and it's not quite as good now, you know, from from what I've learned from talking to a lot of people, this conversation about, you know, letting the fire department go to the county, it's been going on for 20 years. >> That's not true.
>> Occasionally, well, that's it's from what I've been told by people that I value their opinions. Some of them been involved with the fire department for a long time. they've heard this conversation for that length of time. So, I I take that uh to to be the the
truth. So, that's what I'm basing this on is is the fact that councils before us. This is no fault. I am not faulting anyone. This city has gotten along funding this fire department on general fund. Somebody saw that coming at some point,
right? Years ago, they saw it coming. And so, But the conversation's never been dealt with enough to try to figure it out. So, it's almost as if we've thought, well, we got this ace in the hole here. We'll just let it go at some point when we
can't handle it anymore. Well, you know, had had this conversation about fire assessments taken place in the past, raising impact fees in the past, that cushion would not have been $155 a household or x number of cents per square foot back then. But we would we
would be way ahead of the game now had that conversation been had. But it but it seemed like the conversation didn't want to be had. And and that's because people don't like taxes. I get it. Nobody likes taxes. Nobody wanted infrastructure penny sales tax either. And we're still trying to figure that
out. How to pay for infrastructure. So here here here we are. this conversation is our is in our lap, but it's been building for a long long time and and we're having to deal with it, you know, and there's there's there's tension. There's tension in the room. There's
tension up here and and but that's my thing. It I have confidence I I don't know of anything that these guys can't do. I don't know of anything they can't do at our fire department. Um we can do some improvements in medical response and different vehicles to do that with.
We've had those conversations, right? But I think our community is pretty confident in the in the skill that we have in our fire department and the response time. I've been there when they've responded. It's it's mind-blowing how quick they get out of there sometimes and how quick they get to the scene uh and and save lives and
get people transport and those types of things that they have to do. Um, but anyway, I I just I just think that with with the confidence that we have in in Chief's leadership, if if if we really look at this thing and and get it
shaped up, we can handle it. But, you know, I just I just have a hard time, you know, thinking that, oh, now we're at the part where we're talking $150, $55 a household or 285 or whatever number we throw out here.
>> That's because it hasn't been talked about and we haven't figured it out before. And so that that's that's why I'm just so so baffled by where we are here and still unwilling to to talk about this and have confidence in
ourselves that we can figure this out. >> Go ahead. I I appreciate what you said and I want to find a way that we can um keep the fire department, but at the same time I have a hard time with this particular
assessment because I think it's pre again I think it's premature. We haven't even decided are we going to keep the fire department because if we are which is what I would like to see for our city is then we move forward with figuring
out how we're going to do it. But I don't want to see us give this management of the fire department away to a third party and still tax our citizens. I I do not want to see that. And at all costs, I want to keep and and
make these improvements that we can, but I don't I I think until we make a decision on what is it that we're going to do, we're going to commit to keeping them and then we commit to all of these things. So, I have a question. this
particular assessment that's on the agenda for tonight. If we don't agree with this tonight and we have to push it until we make a decision on what we're going to do in totality, >> uh, is this just so that you can have it by
September? Is that the goal of what this is? Because that 40 grand is a lot that's not budgeted. We're gonna have to figure out where that's going to come from. >> Correct. So, um, the time frame provided this, we would need to tonight, tonight or within the next few days, we have to have a special meeting, I assume. But if
tonight, we're going to need direction. If we're going to do try to even contemplate this and go through this process to look at fiscal year 27 to impose this nonvorum, we need to have this done done by March 1st. There are four weeks that consecutive advertising
has to occur before that. So, >> otherwise, we're just going to have to suffer through and figure it out until the 28th cycle. Correct. >> Correct. March February 23rd is the expected date you do a hearing. So you effectively got between 23rd of February and I would assume the last day of March to adopt it and get agreement signed. So
you can meet that time frame. If you don't meet the time frame, you miss the ability to assess this in fiscal year 27. Um and you have to you can bring this back up and try it again next year. >> So and for me that's that's a problematic because it's just a rush. We're trying to rush rush rush. We're
not thinking this all through. or not. And and I think this is a potential solution. I think some other things that are coming up in front of us are also potential solutions to how are we going to fund this should we decide as a group to keep the division. >> Mr. Mayb,
>> Mr. Mayor, I I would like to ask Kobe a question. Um, Kobe, as the chief executive of the city, what is your recommendation on the fire department?
Well, as we've all talked about and the fire chief and I had the same conversation, as a person who manages the city and runs the day-to-day and the finances of it, 99% of the time, I'm going to recommend to you that if someone's willing to perform a service at a better I can't we don't know if that's true or not until you see the
service performed and at a cheaper rate, I'm going to recommend that to you. Right? That is that's the fidiciary duty of this role to the city council. Um, but ultimately it's up to y'all if y'all feel that that service can be better. Um, but and that's ultimately what I'm going to tell you. Um, we've had that
conversation. If some you've got an offer that something can be provided at a higher rate of service and can be provided cheaper, that's my recommendation to you. >> Council, this goes into a much bigger question than just what's before us tonight. And
that that's why I was asking for the budget here, the budget workshop and everything else with it. It's our responsibility to the entire city to fund every department. And again, when all this first come up, it was how the thoughts that I have was how can we continue to provide the same and
effective service to our citizens and and save their lives and keep moving forward without cutting any service that's available to them. I don't want a fire station to move. I don't want the people to go anywhere. But how can we fund it and how we can we continue to
provide that service? Mr. Harrison, to your credit, what you were saying was people had to see this coming earlier. They have for years. They have transferred money out of water and sewer and they paid for general fund the entire time. And until this council set up, and I I don't know that someone else
hasn't done it, but I can tell you we have from day one, it's been how can we minimize those transfers. Why is that important? for the same thing you were talking about with water and with sewer and I see some business owners here tonight too to talk about business. We've got other liabilities
throughout the city to contend with as well. How can we continue to provide these services to our citizens and ensure that we're being fiscally responsive responsible and that we're able to make budget and to provide for
not only our citizens but our employees as well. I I don't know any other way to put some of this. If if our employees went to management control by the county and that let's say that's where it is the
county, they get a 15 to 25% pay raise across the board immediately. That's what we've been told. So if that's the case, why aren't we doing better for our employees there? Will those same employees provide the same services for our citizens that are doing today? I believe that answer is
yes. Will that fire station get renovated? And we don't have to sit here and dig through this budget to say, "How are we going to be able to repair our infrastructure and still provide for fire services and take care of our employees there?" Why wouldn't we do it
for our citizens? That the fire assessment fee that we're saying that we're going to have to impose on our citizens is if we take on that total burden of providing fire services for our citizens. But if the county is willing to do it at
half the cost of what that is, I I could care less. And they're willing to take on the renovation cost for the fire department and for continued the increase that we see going across the board there as we continuously have to buy new engines. We have to buy bigger engines. We have to fund another station
south of town to keep up with what growth may come while we're looking at tax cuts on homesteaded properties. And then our ability to continue to attract business to come in this community to help fund the rest of public safety that's sitting at like $4 million in the
general fund. Why wouldn't we do it? We're not cutting their level of service. I don't believe that one bit. I've been in public safety my entire career. I don't believe that. And if another sheriff comes in and says, "I don't want it." Under Sparta
statute, it's the responsibility of the county to provide fire service. It does not say that about the sizzy, but it does for the county. So, they can't just drop it. When we look at Liberty and Argo, we look at two volunteer departments, and I would be willing to say that
you're still seeing that full-time fire uh engine going to aid them the same way that we do. We all provide mutual aid or automatic aid, excuse me, what, however you want to call it. We're providing aid to our brothers and sisters throughout this county. I know during the time that I was in law
enforcement, I worked for the sheriff and I was a deputy sheriff. But do you know where we spent at least two hours out of the night at? At least two hours a night was right here in the city. And it was because the city couldn't afford to have as many police officers patrolling everything. We wanted to make sure they
were safe. So the things I brought up to you has no meaning whatsoever about who I work for during day. It's about how can we provide for our citizens and our employees. And if you don't believe me on that, I'm sorry, but that's the truth.
This is an offer that's a huge savings star taxpayers and we should take it. >> Mr. Mayor, >> let me clarify one thing, Mayor. I said, >> um, as a matter of law, county governments in Florida do not have to
provide, they are not mandated fire suppression services. However, if they do endeavor to provide those, they have to establish a minimum level of service that's consistent with the Florida Fire Suppression Code. So, to be clear, if we did not have that have a fire department
and the county was providing North Walton Fire Services to Mr. Scott's point >> under 1251, >> 1251 says they may. It says something they're entitled to do does not mean they mean they have to. So what it means is if Walton County ultimately did away with fire service in the north end of
the county, yes, theoretically we could be without fire service. So I don't want it to be we can't dump it on the county beyond what they've already chosen to do. So the fact the county does do it means there would be continued service, but no county in Florida nor city is
mandated to provide fire services. It is the government's discretion to do so. Does it say fire protection? >> Yes, sir. And the attorney general says, although clearly a governmental function, neither the Florida Constitution nor the Florida statute mandates a county to provide fire suppression services or emergency
medical services for its citizens in the unincorporated area or any municipality within a county. And that's the attorney general's opinion um in an opinion to Columbia County related to the interpretation of 12501
which indicates that the county has the authority to which means it can provide fire protection including the enforcement of Florida fire prevention code. But that is something that all of those items under 12501 are things a county can choose to provide. They are
not mandated to provide. Okay, while we have the chief here, if y'all have any question for him or if you want to make a statement, chief, we'd love for you to do it while you're there. >> Okay. Any questions for chief? >> All right. Thank you so much.
>> Go ahead. >> Um I just wanted to respond to what was just said because as a council, unanimously we can vote to defund or eliminate uh the police uh I'm sorry, not police, the the fire division. But
the way that we're approaching this, as I see it, is we're not. We're going to still tax the taxpayer and yet just transfer the management to a third party, aka the county, the sheriff, whoever you want to call it, but we're
still taxing the we're still taxing our city residents, whereas if we would just eliminate it, we would just eliminate that $2 million out of our budget. And you know, that's my problem. And I think that's the problem. People been calling me and and talking and discussing this
saying, "Look, if it's the county, if you're going to turn it over to the county, quit taxing us on our city tax bill." And that's that's the biggest problem that I've been hearing a lot from our city residents. So, I just wanted to share that because that's not what we're doing. What we're doing is
we're still going to tax the city residents. We're going to collect the tax. All we're doing is just eliminating the management of the fire station, which I don't think that, you know, >> all that's to be negotiated. Go ahead. >> Well, yeah. And that's if the assessment
was done to to raise that million dollars that the fire department, the the county wants us to pay them. They want to pay they want us to pay a million dollars a year, right? Where we get that from, whether it's out of general fund or whether it's through an assessment,
that's to be decided, right? So, um, but one, you know, if a future sheriff decided that they didn't want to continue this, I for one don't want minimal service. That's all the statute requires them to provide us the county if we can no longer fund a fire
department. We we want exceptional service, which I think we have, but and and I think it can get better. So if we get to that point down the road and the future sheriff doesn't want to do this, they're only required to repot to to provide minimal service. What does that
look like, right? We we don't know that. >> And that's that's a big gamble. Um the the other thing something uh Councilman Conra said I I don't know what remember what it was there uh Councilman but um the other thing that they they asked for
in their proposal to us individually was for the CRA to pay for renovation of the fire station. >> I haven't heard that part. >> I'm sorry. >> I haven't heard that. >> Oh, I haven't heard that part. I'm sorry. >> It's on that paper they gave us.
What what if they came back and said they did it, they would do it for the same thing that they're doing for the rest of the county in unincorporated areas. >> I I don't know because they haven't presented anything to us other than than individual meetings. Um so, you know,
the public doesn't know what they've presented. We we we know and we have shared that. Uh but one of those things was for the CRA to pay for the renovation um of the fire department. Now, the CRA would had talked about
doing that, but they took that rollover money and appropriated it to another project now. So, that's not going to the fire department. So, you know, that's that's kind of the the reason why the the next agenda item, you know, comes up
is is how how can we make all this work? CRA, fire department, everything. Because it is all connected whether we like it or not, it is. And we didn't get it there. It it got here over over two decades obviously. Uh so thank you.
>> I think you want to respond your com. >> Yeah. Thanks. Go ahead. >> Uh we put we did have rollover we put into a separate fund but that does no impact on whether or not we've got the money to fix the fire department. That decision is waiting on this council to make a decision about whether or not the city's going to keep it. The money is
sitting there waiting. You guys just got to tell us you want us to go ahead. >> So cash on hand to do that. >> What's that? cash on hand to do that. >> We're ready. We've got money sitting in accounts that we can move around so we can start that project. >> Yeah. >> However, the issue that we had again was we had two engineers, structural
engineers, tell us that trying to fix that building would not be worth it, >> right? >> So, what we talked about doing was waiting the three years that we have to wait to for it to come off of the capital improvement plan and be able to build a new fire department, which we'll get to that conversation next when we start talking about funding the CRA.
That ability to do that is still there if our funding stays intact. >> When the council has to authorize the use of the funds for a fire department and the county would have to also >> Right. We just have to get approval from the taxing authority. That's the only thing we're waiting for. But back >> starts with this one. >> Yeah.
>> That go ahead Kenan. >> I wanted to ask the chief a question. We we talked about ISO. >> Kenan Pow. >> Yeah. If you don't know me, Kenan Powell, the chief talked about the ISO ratings. Let's say on a house $300,000.
If we're at a five and we go to a four or we go to a three, what does that save us in our fire insurance? Have you got any rule or any thoughts on that? >> That what? >> Mr. Mayor, he needs to address you. >> You're gonna have to come up front. I
>> Yeah, hold on. Come on up and we won't let everybody hear this. >> Yeah. and um Keen and Direct questions to us and then we'll >> Okay, that's fine. >> So, multiple the houses have different insurance companies. So, it depends on your your insurance company how they
look at the data that we have and what actually what our rating would be and their their dictate rates as far as savings I can tell you off the top of my head. >> Okay. What what what I'm getting to is if if I have to pay an extra $155 a year
and my fire insurance portion only goes down $25 a year, >> I don't think that 155 that I paid really that well spent. >> I'd rather pay 75 to the county. >> I agree. >> So that that was the question, but he he
kept bringing up the ISO ratings. >> And I know on my house uh they've got it valued at right at 600,000. They told me because I'm paying7,000 a year in hurricane or wind coverage right now. I'm paying 2,600 in fire.
>> That wind coverage is about this is the last year I'm paying it. I'm only going to have fire if I can find a company to do it. >> Yeah. But if you go up on me $155 and and we make a three >> and I only save $25, I guarantee you
next time I come down here, I'm not going to be smiling. >> Well, think of this, Ken. That that person that owns that $40,000 house. And there's some around here. >> Yeah. >> They're going to pay the same thing you pay. >> Well, I know, but gentlemen, >> I know. I know. It's It's crazy. I don't think people can do it.
>> I don't either. And a business. I mean, goodness gracious. I was I was talking to somebody this week that his assessment would be almost $10,000. >> $10,000 out of a business in downtown Defunia is a heap of money.
>> It is. >> It's terrible. >> All right. Can he repeat that? What did he say? $10,000 for what? >> Assessment on a building. >> Oh, assessment. Okay. >> Yeah. >> I mean, that's every year. Why Why are
people moving from South Walton up here? Because they woke up one day and said, "My taxes are $2,500 a month." And the county wants that whether I like it or not. My mortgage is $5,000 a month. So, they're letting other people enjoy that.
And they're coming up here and it's kind of messing me up because every time I turn around, things are going up. Mhm. >> I really would love to see my $600,000 house, which I paid 91,000 for in 1991, I'd like to see it go down to about 200,000.
>> I really would. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, >> Kim. smart because I'm I have a couple of maybe dumb questions. If uh my my uh taxes that I'm paying to the county, am
I paying the same rate, non-school taxes, as say Mr. Woodham who lives outside the county? >> I can answer that can. No, you're paying different rates. You're paying more. You're paying the county's rate, which I believe is 3.6 mills. >> 3.6 >> and you're paying additional 5.5 mills
within the city limits, which does not pay. >> But I'm paying 3.6 six and he's paying 3.6 to the county >> and you're paying additional 5.5. >> You are not and you are not paying any non-abbor county assessment, >> right? >> So, but the city and the citizens aren't getting any money for the county for
fire services. >> Is that right? >> Not like Freeport. Correct. >> Correct. I'm just asking because if we're paying the exact same thing and he's getting fire services and I'm getting zero, >> this does not make sense.
>> The county does prov The county does provide fire services in the city limits. I believe we all have mutual aid. >> But we have a fire department that we're paying for, so they shouldn't have to. That should be an emergency. >> They still do. >> But my question is, have we talked to
the county? >> No. Yeah, we have not. >> Well, the county contract is held by the sheriff at this point. The county does not administer fire rescue. They contract their services to Walton County Sheriff's Office. >> They find it. >> But I think you're you're getting my point.
>> We're paying the same thing, but we're not getting the same thing. The citizens of Defunia are are getting shorted. >> We're getting shorted. >> We're paying the exact same thing, but we're not getting the exact same thing. And I guess my next question is why was
the fire department why why did they become the redheaded stepchild? I'm just curious. >> It's >> who's him? >> Well, the one reason is going to be because you got someone who's willing to provide us to take over a service um at
a cheaper rate than others. So, I have not seen anyone come forth yet to provide any other service to the city at a cheaper rate than what we already provide that service in. But I mean, what other departments could be taken over? >> Streets. Streets. >> We've never been. No one's
>> Don't shoot me, Chief. >> She's got an answer. >> You're You're right. >> I'm just saying it seems that the fire department has been under fire. Sorry, bad pun. Um, and I'm just trying to figure out some some
other way because I think as a general rule, the citizens have been very pleased with the services and we want to keep it. Obviously, we do not want higher taxes. I have commercial and residential buildings. I don't want to see my taxes go up, but I also don't
want to see us in a position where, like I said, we're we're all paying the same thing, but we're not getting the same thing. So, I would be curious why we can't start a conversation with the county commission and talk to them about giving some money back to us since the
citizens are paying the exact same things. the citizens of the city are paying the is are paying the exact same taxes as those that are in the county, but we're not getting those services. >> Or we could let the county provide fire services and it's the net same thing >> and we don't have to worry about the
increase. >> I don't know that I agree with that. But um again, if the conversation isn't had, you don't get if you don't ask. And we haven't heard anything formally from the county at all.
Donna Arnold, I actually have um asked a county commissioner that very same thing about giving some money back and I was told that they've never been asked. So, I don't know why they've never been asked, but that was what they told me and I've spoke to every one of them.
>> Correct. And I can clarify this council has never sent me I don't know about prior managers to ever asked the board of county commissioners to negotiate or potentially provide additional funding sources to the city. I have I was sleeping. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Yeah. So that's what I'm saying. That's why I have never approached board of county commissioners for that because
the council never sent me. If that's something as we've talked about in the five to 10 year plan to approach the board of county commissioners for additional funding sources, then we can move forward and do that. But up to this date that has not occurred >> probably for good reason. >> Like Mr. Harrison said those are things we need to look into as far as funding
goes. Actually too, the county fire district, Walton County Fire Rescue has asked in a budget meeting for an increase and are looking to up their fire assessment to $150. So then everybody would be paying that too. You're not going to be charging
them anything that the county would. Now we you are going to tax your citizens still but have no control over where that money goes. I'm sure that the citizens of Defunia would rather the city council be in charge of what's going on with their tax money than the
entire county. They want that money spent inside the city limits protecting them and their buildings and their homes, not generalized over the entire county. And how can we talk about this if we have no idea how much money you're thinking that the county is going to
save us? We do need to find funding outside of just moving it from water. Everybody agrees to that, but Mr. Harrison was spot on. We have got to decide to keep it and then we got to decide how to fund it. And I don't believe that the county can save us that
much money because the board of county commissioners have not agreed to pay for the city and the addedon expense. Have not haven't been asked. Have not agreed. And from what I've heard from them really don't want that the the board.
So there's that to consider. So then they're not willing to pay. >> Well, the the bottom line is that the contract is going to be who you negotiate the contract with. You're not negotiating contract with the board of county commissioners. You negotiate it. Let's take the sheriff out of it for a second. Say you called South Walton Fire
District up. Hey, what can you provide services for? They make that decision. You pay them X, they provide you service. There's no third party you go to in that scenario. So no different than the sheriff. sheriff says, "I'll provide
service X for price Y." That's your contract. It's not a matter of does the board of county commissioners vote to do this or not do this. The proposal is what will any third party do. If you want to go call Argy or Liberty and ask them, hey, you can contract with them,
but they don't have to go back and say, "Okay, well, let's ask our citizens what we're doing there." No, it's them providing you a service independent of anything else they're doing. It is standalone contracts. Multiple vendors have multiple contracts at any given time. And that's what you're talking
about. >> But the board of county commissioners funds Walton County Fire Rescue because they contract for that service. >> Right. And I asked for clarification on that. So they fund it. If they if the sheriff or W County Fire Rescue takes on an additional thing, either you're going
to have to pay them >> to to take on that additional >> if you can pay them to take on that additional, then you can do it yourselves. And if not, then Walton County Board of County Commissioners would have to step in and take up the slack. That just that's 1 plus 1 equals
two. Clay. >> Well, ma'am, I believe Kevby, what was the proposal for the cost of the city? The >> dollar the draft provided to staff was a million dollars a year. >> So that would be the city funding all fire service for $1 million a year. Correct.
>> Correct. >> How much is our current budget? >> 1.9 million. >> There's your savings. I think we just asked. It's a $900,000. >> How long is that million good for? Just one year or more? >> That would be something provided in the in the term sheet.
>> Exactly. We don't know the answer. >> We don't know that number. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Mayor. >> Okay. >> Well, if the if the council would ask us to, we'd be glad to bring something back and negotiate a term sheet. >> We'll do what the council tells us, but the council's not direct us to do that. >> And the council needs to ask for what
Walton County could be willing to contribute to us keeping our own fire department. >> Sure. >> Go ahead. So, back to Miss Winterberg, uh, the county has not been asked in in
in the past, you know, uh, whether they would provide any money to us for that, but, you know, not only do they provide and and assist our fire department sometimes in the city limit, right, but we go outside city limits as well, right? Is that uh is that a five mile
radius? Is that correct? >> Or is it could it be anywhere? Sorry. >> And for for the record, I've had conversation I've not asked them, would you give us a money? But for the last 12 years, I have told them I've had that
conversation about Freeport, Florida for more than 12 years. How come you you cleared them they they cleared them a debt of $1.5 million and then be and then took over the fire service? I said, why can't you do something like
that for the funeral, you know? But I never have done a formal request for money, you know. >> Go ahead, Chief. >> So, so my question was when you got when the uh county fire department needs assistance, how far outside the city do you all respond to help them?
>> We go anywhere they ask us to go. >> Anywhere. >> Anywhere they ask. >> Anywhere in the county. >> Anywhere in the county. >> So, you see it it's it's a dual thing. I mean, they help us. So, you know, we and we help them as well. >> We all work we all we all work good together. Great. That's what all the fire departments are in in this county.
So, >> okay. >> But at the same time, he you keep a crew here though too for the city. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> All right. Do you want to use up your 28 seconds? >> I do. Um if if you continue to tax the
higher rate for the city, which is understandable, and then you give over this, you get this fire tax and you pay that little bit to Walton County Fire Rescue. What is the additional taxes that we're paying to the city going to provide?
>> Go ahead. >> Well, that's that's not just a quick answer. Uh I could I could give you a long laundry list of what you get for those taxes. Go ahead, Mr. Jean. >> Give them your name, please. >> Jean Robinson.
Pine shores resident real good taxpayer more than I like. Uh does this 40,000 for this consultant uh include the mailing? Yeah. I thought you had a 31 and then a
40 and I couldn't tell. >> I think it did >> if that 40 included that 31. >> 10. >> Correct. So the are you talking about the fee for the consultant that were so it was a base fee for the service of around $31,000 and >> and then there was mailings to be had.
So total cost probably about $40,000. >> Okay. So about nine for the mailing >> correct give or take >> if it gets there. Uh I understand that Freeport uh uh contracts with the county
to provide fire and rescue service and have a good rating and uh it's $75 per household. It's just something that I've heard. Second, >> they pay the same fire assessment anyone else in the county does and they pay no
additional fees on top of that. >> All right. I've I've heard this this number for this nonvalor non I'm a rookie nonad voluor uh taxes
is that all being paid now out of advalorum taxes all that co if if that cost wasn't uh being picked up through nonadvalor would be coming out of >> a company
>> it comes out of it comes out of the general fund without a we don't we don't designate uh specific taxes to cover a spec specific percentage >> combination of combination. >> All right, but it would be taken out of the general fund if it was picked up
through this nonadville tax. Okay, then you could reduce the tax the uh general fund budget, right? >> That'll be a council question and that's what you would do.
be >> and and maybe it could lower the millage rate. >> Sorry, Mr. Rob. That's >> I don't forunately I don't like that one. >> Well, that that sounds, you know, yeah, >> reasonable to me. I was pretty good in algebra. If you take it away here, you
can take it away over there. >> Yeah, >> that's an option is what they're saying. >> Yeah. Well, there's a lot of things we're trying to do to to increase revenue, including bringing more business population here. >> Well, but I I talked to a lot of people
and a lot of people tell me they they don't like the concept of turning it over to the u to the county but yet paying the pay paying the the tax. But if that's just the $75 like everybody
else in the county pays, they I think they would probably find that pretty reasonable. And then we could really reduce a whole bunch of stuff out of the general budget >> in the military. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Dan. >> Okay. So, we're not going to resolve
this tonight, but I would like to throw some information out there just for us to be thinking about. One of the biggest takeaways that I've got on this uh um how we're going to come up with the fund is
>> what would be reasonable. Right now the the suggestion for um our businesses in defiac springs is completely in the unreasonable category. Totally unreasonable. So between now and the
next time we discuss this um tell me I'd like to hear what you think would be reasonable. And since I always go to subject matter experts um I believe you're the only business owner on the dis. Okay,
I'm giving you your homework assignment. >> I own a business, too. >> That's right. That's right. Uh I'd like to know, you know, we need to find out what's reasonable and and what would be fair. Right now, it is not reasonable and it's not fair. Uh the next thing is,
um this is some old information, but one of our last meetings in calendar year 2025, uh Commissioner Glidewell was here and he was approached by two of our citizens. Um, and they asked him about the county taking this over and he said,
"I don't think they've got the money to be able to do that." He said, "Right now, the county is strapped just like everybody else and with all the tax cuts that's coming with the adalorum and uh the the um elimination of homeowners
um taxes. Home >> homestead exemption. >> Homestead exemption. Um he he said he said the countyy's fighting a financial battle just like we are. So um without calling any names and I don't
want this to u get ugly but let's just hypothetically say that the county is in the running uh to take this over. uh the moral decay that was discussed earlier u about a pos a person in the position
over uh emergency services. Would the sheriff be willing to uh do you think the county would would visit uh eliminating a source that has been uh that has been
caused problems as far as our courts go with lawsuits against the county? Do you think that he would consider eliminating that moral decay? >> Ask our attorney to cue that one.
>> That's a question for the sheriff. I can't speak to the sheriff. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Well, I think he I think he'll >> that would be I mean if the question I think the I think to your point last time who oversees fire services in the city of Phoenix
Springs would be negotiable any contract. I would highly encourage the city that that's the route you go that we retain as much authority. You go to a liaison a dedicated local fire chief um that would work with sheriff's department. There are a variety of ways
to be done to make sure that we have the utmost responsiveness, okay, >> to our needs under a contract. >> Okay. >> But I think that's you got to ask that. >> I don't think we've made that ask at this time. >> Okay. And um the last thing I want to say, uh I'm
going to dig up um Robert Mcnite. I asked him when I a long time ago before I ever fathomed I would be sitting in this seat. I'd say and and and I have, you know, I was raised by a
state trooper and I was grew up all over the state of Florida and I know municipalities that the sheriff runs. It's not uncommon for the sheriff to run uh everything as far as law enforcement and fire. It's not unheard of. It's been
going on for years. Um, so I asked Mcnite, I said, "Why do does the city have the fire department?" And and his answer was, "Because that's
what responsible, progressive cities do for their citizens." And I thought that was a pretty good answer. So, we got a lot of things to think about. Uh, how can we make this
more palatable for not just the the homeowners but the businesses? Um, double check with Commissioner Glidewell about the county really doesn't have the
money and as far as he I understood him to say they haven't even been approached about this. Now, this is old information based on the last time he was in this room, but I think it's worth asking.
>> Thank you, >> Mr. Naylor. Go ahead, Bruce. >> Thank you. Uh, my name is Bruce Naylor, uh, business owner, commercial building owner, and, uh, and have been very active in bringing business to the Funiac Springs.
from a business owner point of view. Uh if I heard uh the increase in my uh is it's not a tax what would be >> assessment
>> an assessment would be uh 30 cents uh per square foot. And so strictly from a business point of view, I would hope that you would at least check with the county, check with
the sheriff and if he can provide the same service or better service at 50% the cost for 15 cents. Seems like that would be a smart thing
to do. and the countyy's at 12 >> 12. So that would be a tremendous savings. I also think from a home uh from a a someone who owns a home in the
Funiac Springs, if the service was the same or better and again a reduced price based on what we're going to have to assess, then I think that makes perfect sense to one find out if that's true.
two, if the service is the same or better, then we save business owners 50% or more and a homeowner 50% or more. So, uh, and I know to raise, for instance, my building, uh, insurance, I mean, t
uh, assessment, $3,000 is a lot for one year. And then we have businesses with tenants. So it could be very difficult to attract business to attract new tenants and take advantage of the wonderful growth that we've that
we've seen. So, uh, I appreciate, uh, all the time, effort, and energy you all put into your job and serving us, and I hope you take that into consideration, the cost, and then the benefit that we
can receive if we can save our citizens and our business, property owners some money. Thanks. >> One quick comment. real quick. >> Seems to me that you ought to ask the the county for
a proposal. Everybody start talking about if what if they did this or what if they did? Ask them. >> They've made us one. >> Oh, you we've got one. >> It's not formal yet, >> but does it have the cost in it? >> Yeah, we're going to save about a million dollars a year. >> And and and what would it be? 20 12
cents. Would it be 12 cents a square foot and $75 a year for residents? >> No, we haven't even got into assessments. >> Well, we get why don't you get into that >> assessment being applied? >> That's right. >> Absolutely. No assessment. >> And there was no mandate for an
assessment, but it will probably it probably mandate one eventually. >> But I think you ought to start talking hard numbers and >> instead of this and that and what if this and what if that. >> M. Mayor,
>> I'd like to propose two things. If it needs >> Mr. Mayor, I'd like to propose two things. If it needs to be in the form of a motion, I can do that. If not, I'd rather just do staff direction at this point because we've all kind of agreed to this. So, send a city manager back to get something in writing, something
that's formal from the sheriff. And furthermore, based on the discussions tonight, sending to BCC and see if they'll fund our fire department at the 1.9 million that we got today that we're proposing or what would they give us to help fund our fire department. So, if that's something we need to know, then
let's get the answers for it. >> If I can get by. If not, then I I'll raise a motion and then we >> staff direction to let go get that information. >> Mayor. >> Yeah. My concern would be that timeline
to get the uh if if we proceed with an assessment. >> Can't hear you. >> If we proceed with an assessment, what would that timeline be by by going to the county to do these things? Ask them how can they help us? They've never been asked how okay,
you know, how much does that set us back with this timeline to get to get this done? you know, we we we can continue to give direction and and we've talked about this for so long. Um, and we need to know these things. And
that's that's my whole thing. Why have these things not been asked in the past o over years? I'm not blaming anybody. I'm just saying why in the world? Because probably because they thought we could continue to fund it under general fund. They didn't foresee the tremendous growth we're having and and and here it
is. We're having to deal with it. I have a couple things. One, that 30 cent assessment for commercial 155 of residents or 285 or whatever we want to go to with these these numbers, um those are still assuming that we do
not pursue and obtain any type of appropriations. What's what's funny about that? I had a conversation with someone in Tallahassee >> but but without a long explanation because it's my time right now but you interrupted me by laughing.
>> I had a conversation with someone in Tallahassee that said in the next two years they expect at least a billion dollar shortfall and appropriations and assessments will be the appropriations and grant programs will be the first thing to go much like what was indicated previously with the when we requested it
and it didn't get funded. Nothing got funded. >> But f but but those appropriations are happening across the state. They have happened. We just haven't landed one yet because you know what? We have we have other responsibilities like a $9 million affluent line to figure out. So we have
to ask for those. We put off I compromise on instead of looking at a a financing another fire engine asking for an appropriation for one. But I realized the importance of a fluent line. I didn't even bring it up. didn't even bring it up in a council meeting to
pursue that as one of our two legislative approach appropriations from the state for a fire engine. Didn't even ask for that because the common sense is we've got that affluent line take care of. We all know that, right? But we're we're making the assumption with with these projections here that we are not
going to obtain any grants. We're not going to obtain any appropriations and that's not realistic. So, we're looking at other ways to offset these expenses. Um, so I think we have to consider that. We
have to ask the county if we have time to do so about that. My but my other question here I meant to ask earlier and I didn't. It Clay is is it possible to do an incremental implementation if we did if we agreed on a fire
assessment? Can it start off at $75 and over period of years go up to uh something when we see these big expenditures coming or something like that as I mentioned? >> Absolutely. Because you have to reassess that that non-evolum assessment every
single year. So you can just go up every year on it if that's what you see fit. >> Okay. >> But but I would say this based on Kobe's numbers and based on the stud based on the study information. If you're told you need X number of dollars year one and you short fund year
one, when you do go up, it is going to be an exponential, not a linear increase. >> Just be that would be the So, let's say you don't want to go up 50 cents and you say, "All right, we're going to do it at the half mark and we go up um the 30 cent proposal." If you ultimately have
to catch that up, it's going to be a lot larger step up. The send this is the same thing we talked about with water rates after we um got rid of capacity fees and tap fees all those years mayor. >> But if we implement it incrementally,
right, these assessments, then we have a better picture down the road or ahead of D-Day when these things come up and you we we see we're going to have a shortfall. We can head those things off by by then having a better uh
view of our increased revenue, our growth. If that growth stops, right, because of economy problems or whatever, we we make we make adjustments instead of full board implementing something this huge and this impactful on residents and businesses.
doing something incrementally and looking at it from that perspective, working then to find funding, grants and appropriations, those types of things, we might not see these these these types of assessments
if we approach it from that direction. Let me just respond to that real quick. Um the uh I've been here coming up on 13 years and uh there have been several several years to where nobody none of these
cities and particularly the smaller ones were getting a million dollars in a year that were getting maybe $500 $600,000. That's what they got you totally. I mean I don't care how you break it up. and and now we've had some years where we've gotten millions of dollars in one year.
Uh I just don't want but you know because you haven't been through those dry times. I don't want you to get to feeling comfortable with these uh all this grant money that we have been witnessing. >> Tim, I don't know how long you've been in the business, but I'm tell you there
have been some years you couldn't get a deadly squat, you know. Uh and I associate with a lot of cities. But I'm not talking about what happens in Phoenix Springs. And so, uh, I don't know when it's going to dry up again. God may be on to something. I
don't know. But it will dry up. And, uh, you're going to have some years you can't hardly get nothing, you know. And, uh, we've taken good advantage of these past three years that, uh, or four or we've gotten a lot of money. Uh, I hope I'd like to stay optimistic that it
continue happen, but something about being 75 years old tells me different. But, uh, anyway, go ahead. >> Um, I certainly don't have the answers, but looking at the number of things
we've turned over to the county, we're turning over ourselves out of business. And you all worry that if you raise taxes that you're not going to get reelected and you won't have a job. Well, let me tell you, if we keep turning over departments, we're not
going to have a city. We're going to be Metro Walton. Now, if we want that and we see that that's cheaper, uh maybe that's how we should be thinking instead of like the gentleman
said, singling out one department. >> Thank you. Mayor, if I may, a couple things. Um, so one on the sheriff's on the on what we've been provided from the sheriff's office. So, uh, you know, my communications with the chief of emergency services and my call today
with Sheriff Atinson, um, this what was brought to us was information. It wasn't a proposal. It's in draft form. And but for me personally, I don't see how I could possibly bring you something in a draft form and ask you to act on it. That that would be irresponsible of me. So, um, the things that were in that
provided to all of you, um, were guaranteed by the sheriff on that and and how that would be done. But in terms of that coming before you, I don't have anything for you to vote on. So, I can't ask you to vote on some of the draft that isn't formal wet signature from him. Second timeline u in terms of the
timeline for this year to be able to look at this assess assessment to even be able to go through this process the latest in which you all would need to tell tell us by staff to advertise would most be January 23rd because we will need to advertise in the 28th paper and
he's run four consecutive weeks before we get to February 23rd. Now that can also be shifted if we do it closer to March one. Um but you're probably talking a week there. So, we're we're closing in on the time in which we need to make a decision if we're going to or not going to this fiscal year. Um, go
through that process. And then in terms of the process, particularly on the funding, the study is built around the capital improvement projects, the personnel cost, the funding needed to operate the fire. So, that study, the things come out here today, some point within the next few months or with the
next few weeks is going to have to be formalized. It's going to have to be formalized, have to be accepted that these are the projects for the fire department. that's what they're going to build the backbone of the study off of. So these things will have to be adopted because that's what that's what you're going to get your money for. So that's
just keeping that in mind as we go forward. That's how the study's created. >> Mayor, >> go ahead. >> I just want to make an observation. You know, if How much did you say the budget was for the fire? 1.9 >> this fiscal year 26.
>> Okay. And somebody a third party's coming to us and telling us I can do it for a million. There's something wrong with that. I I just want to caution us all to really really think about that. How can And it's only good for one year. It's not multiple years where this is
going to be to where we can really figure out. I just want to caution us to think about that. >> Amen. >> Okay. The most uh the most important appointed the most important thing factor
about our fire department is that the county is not going to come in in here and be able to beat their response time. Their response time is just over the top fantastic. Um the reason I say
that is because I based on what uh the aforementioned county commissioner said, um the county selling tickets that can't cash. They're promising these things, uh, all these wonderful things, but don't even have the money to be able to
build a firehouse. They they're already stretched out. As a matter of fact, he elaborated by saying, "We have firehouses now that are below standards that we need to take care of for our own county." So, I really question the validity of a lot of things that uh,
information that the county is putting out here. Um the county has mandatory overtime for their firefighters because they have such a shortage of firefighters. Um
they're make they're making firefighters go to other stations and work because of their shortages. Um, the last thing is, and this doesn't apply to everyone here, but this applies to me. Uh, we're elected to be the voice of the
people. Uh, and our citizens want to keep our fire department. And the people you said that you spoke to, you're getting information and you believe it. And the people that I speak to, the citizens of this town that I've
spoke to, want to keep the fire department. And I believe that. And I didn't run for office to do what Danny Cosen wanted to do. I ran for office to do what the citizens wanted to do. And I'm going to back our fire chief. And I'm going to back our citizens.
>> So, how you going to pay for it? >> You're going to figure it out. We all get to be politicians and just say we're going to save a fire department and not actually produce a plan. >> Okay. Okay. Well, we've we've talked about ways to raise money.
Um the 155 household assessment was an arbitrary number. As our uh as our city manager stated, it's an arbitrary number. We've already determined that the rate increase on our
um businesses is ridiculous, but we're talking about ways to raise the money and we're having a conversation about it. And as stated earlier, we're not going to start we're not going to solve this tonight, but at least we've got a
starting point. And if y'all want to jump in, jump in because I'm all ears. >> Yeah. M Go ahead. >> Can we get a formalized uh offer from the sheriff in writing and then can we send our city manager to the county commissioners to find out if they're willing to fund this? Because the
numbers that you're talking about there are still only at 47% of the costs and that's like 1 $1 million. We still got to come up with other funding levels. We're going to have to fund the fire department for next year. That's the reason why I'm wanting these answers now is because
grants require match monies. Legislation appropriations require them giving it to us and then it's going to take time for all that to take place and it won't fund those salaries on going. Those are to fix the cost for the fire department and the engines and everything else. I'm
good with it. But let's let's start having the conversations. If that's the case, send him to go get these answers for us and let's be done with because not any individual one of us can. It requires a voice of an entire council. So send him to let him get these answers for us. Please. >> Didn't we do this a month ago?
>> Yes. >> I'm saying send him and tell him we want the formal the formal letter rather than a draft. And then go to the county commissioners and let's get the answers on are they willing to give us funding for our fire department. They do for Liberty and Argal. So let's see if they'll give us some too and how much because those are volunteer departments.
This is a full-time paid department around the clock. So let's see what they're willing to fund if that's the case. Pam, I don't need you speaking from the chair there. >> Can we agree on that, please? >> So, go ahead. I'm sorry. You're >> uh Kobe,
>> could you please share with us? Didn't you what what was your response to me when I asked you, did you have a formal, >> you know, the last time we spoke about this was the first meeting in December, >> and I said, from then until tonight, what has transpired and have we gotten
anything solid? And what was your answer? >> My answer is no. We I all I have the document I provided to all of you. >> But did you also tell me he was not willing to give you anything informal more than what he's already given you? >> So my conversation with the sheriff's office this week, they provided to the city everything they're going to provide
to the city. And the next step is if the city wishes for us to enter into term sheet negotiations and y'all can send me over to do that. That's the direction from the W County Sheriff's Office. >> Okay. In other words, if the council wants to bring back a formalized negotiation, it needs to task Kobe with
doing that because I mean, there are questions about who's going to do what, how many years. Those are term sheet negotiations. Do you want that million for one year? Do you want it for five years? What do you want it to be? Those are things you got to go back and forth with. Mhm. >> So, what I don't want to see is a misses
deadline for Kobe, what was that date you said for for the county to tell us how they can help us >> without them taking it over necessarily, right? >> What can they do? What What's the soonest that could So, >> if we're looking the assessment, you
could theoretically you could push it back. So, if at the latest y'all were to advise staff to push out the notices at the 26th meeting, regular council meeting, it was an item and y'all decided to do that, we would probably most likely not be in time for Wednesday
the 28th. Um, so we would run the first ad on the 4th, the second on 11th, third on the 18th, the fourth on the 25th, and then we could have a special meeting uh the 25th, 26th, or 27th. I'd advise the 26th Thursday. Um that's effectively
four days before or two day three days before the deadline >> and that's without us trying to go to the daily news and fit out any other dates. Just keeping it consistent. >> Is what you're talking about this >> the assessment? >> Yes. >> Yes. So so for you to go to them and and and ask about them what can they do to
help fund our fire department without the takeover thing or whatever >> which has never been asked evidently. Um >> the >> so you would have to go to them at what meeting of theirs and then come back to us at what meeting of ours before this
fire assessment could possibly be >> bord commissioners uh that would be well tomorrow not on the agenda for that. Um so the next board of county commissioner meeting would be the 27th of January. Um the 26th y'all would tell us advertise it. I'd have to go to the board on the 27th and then your advertisement would
start rolling the 4th, 11th, 18th and 25th. Grantite, you know, we come back on February 9th, I give you the information, you say, "Stop it." Then we just stop advertising. Then we we've missed the window. >> Then we've missed the window. So yeah, it would be January 27th. I'd have to ask county administration to put me on
the agenda for January 27th would be the soonest. >> Okay. >> They have their meetings are structured the same way ours are. At the beginning of the meeting, they say, um, is there anything anybody wants to add or delete from the consent agenda? Is there
anything anybody wants to add or delete from the regular agenda? Do you want to get ahead of it tomorrow and see if you can be added? >> That's up to the commissioners to add them. The citizen can't ask to be added. >> Yeah. I mean, that Yeah, I wouldn't recommend that either. Anyways, councilman, I would recommend we go and put that formal request in and we run
through the process. So, they're formally advised of what we're asking. >> Okay. >> Help me out. Why are we asking the county for this? because the county's got the money and they uh >> the sheriff's office gets the money from >> we're not asking council I don't think they're they're not asking to go to the
county to assess the to do the assessment they're going to the county to ask for funding um similar to what they provide the Liberty and our golf fire district. Okay. >> Yeah, that's different. >> Okay. So, you're going to just follow up with come up with a proposal or you need a vote.
>> I mean, if there's no one here objecting to it, then we go get it. I say I say Sandy. >> No. Will they be able to do it in that amount of time? You think >> the Walton County Sheriff's Office? >> Yes. >> To negotiate a term sheet.
>> Is that what you're That's what you're asking. >> Let's just make a motion out of this form because we're >> Yeah. Because I don't understand it once. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Because he's got Let me say this. There's some substantial amount of documentation. We're going to start preparing just to have this 26th ready
to go on this. So, we're hitting all your time frames. So, I'd ask a motion. >> Yes. >> To direct staff to negotiate a term sheet with Walton County Sheriff's Office and return it to the city council regarding their management operation of the fire department. Two, for Mr.
Townson to approach the board of county commissioners to ask what funding, if any, is able to be provided for the operation of the fire department. and three, begin the process for a special assessment to be levied inside the city of Phoenix Springs for the purposes of
fire protection services. >> Need to break them all out because I'm going to be different. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, then go. >> I'd like to make a motion to send Kobe to uh to negotiate the term sheet to start with. >> Second. Motion. Second. >> That's what the county
>> share first and then we'll go to the rest. >> Yeah. Any questions, comments? All in favor say I. >> I. >> There's no harm >> in information. >> I >> I >> I >> No.
>> Second. I'd like to raise a motion to send Kobe to the board of county commissioners to see what funding that they would provide for us for fire for fire services for the city of Deina. >> Second. >> I mot questions >> again >> at the next available meeting.
>> All in favor say I. Was we going to have discussion? >> I just asked you. >> I said yes, sir. >> You got Oh, I'm sorry. >> Okay. I'm not opposed to getting information. I'm skeptical as to
how solid this information is, but I'm not against getting information. >> I'm a little skeptical. I >> Mr. Har. >> Did you?
>> I I did not. Um my bad. >> As long as they can give us an answer by the deadline, we need to start the assessment process. if they cannot meet that deadline, if they can't get it on their agenda, they can't resolve it, they can't give us an answer, um
any of the next three board meetings, technically any of the next three board meetings after tomorrow will get you an answer in time. So, it can be the second meeting in January, the first meeting in February, or technically the second meeting in February, which would be the 24th. Any
of those meetings will get you an answer before you have to actually vote at the presumptive. And I guess we haven't gotten a third motion yet, but the presumptive special meeting that would be sometime the end of February, which we're tenatively requesting permission to set.
So yeah, you have three opportunities. >> Sure. >> Yeah. I don't know how. I mean, if they don't want to, they don't want to, but you'll be on one of their agendas. >> You have two south end meetings, one north end meeting. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'll say again, all in favor? I
>> I >> I >> I >> This one's for the funding, right? >> Yeah. >> Yes. I >> I thank you very much. >> Assume the third one was to go ahead and advertise for public hearing. >> We would if we're going to do it, I suggest we do it as far out as we can so
as much time as possible, which would be the whole public hearing on Thursday, >> February 26 and advertise. >> Just go ahead and start advertising and we'll figure out the dates. >> Are you talking about the special assessment? >> Correct. >> Okay. set here. We had to do four weeks advertising.
>> Schedule a public meeting for February 26 at 5:01 p.m. to and you advertise according there. Somebody would be so willing to make that motion. >> What you got? I I can't in good conscience vote for to spend $40,000 on
an assessment that we don't even know whether we're going to go forward with or not >> because once once we pull >> commit to that >> once we pull the trigger on that that's $40,000 that's potentially down the drain. >> It is down the drain because he said there's no going back once we commit.
>> The contract is a lump sum contract. Two phases. one is 22,000 or it's 215 the other one's 8,500 that some needs to be decided because that consultant has to come on and start collecting data put together to study
the rates >> and and what happens when they come back and they say it needs to be 60 cents a square foot and $300 a house and we don't like that answer that's $40,000 gone. Well, it wouldn't be the first time
that that money that that that money has been spent on like that impact study and then it was not carried forward. It it got no movement. But 30 some odd thousand dollars was spent on that impact fee study in 2122.
So it wouldn't be the first time that we spent money to take a gamble, see if we could fix it ourselves and and and move it forward. Um, >> and that was paid for with impact fees. That wasn't paid for with general fund fees. >> Well, it's still money spent, wasted.
Correct. >> Pretty much. >> I mean, >> technically, you're required to do that study whether you implemented it or not. You're required to do you're required to do routine updates of your impact fees. >> Well, and we should feel like we're
required to figure this out, but you know, that that has not been done. Uh, and and we just I just want to do that. I just want to try to do it. >> Amy, >> it's a serious matter. I didn't mean to laugh, but you it it just
>> it was a little giggle and and it is the truth. So, I'm sorry I laughed. >> They jumped to conclusions as to what I was talking about. But anyway, >> yeah. Sorry. >> Yeah. All right. So, we're going we're going to go to vote. All in favor say I.
>> All right. There's a >> Who made the motion? motion. Okay. >> Clarify what we're voting on. >> There's no there's no motion on the table. >> Oh, I thought it was the assessment. >> Nobody made a motion. >> Oh, >> the assessment's been voted on or the
assessment has not been it's not been motioned. >> That's right. >> So, we're going to see if they can help us anyway. Right. The county >> that's been voted on. >> That's been voted on. >> Great.
No motion, mayor. Once >> again said if no motion. >> No, there's no motion. Then I believe that can be taken up at a later date, right? >> Yes, sir. >> But he's got a deadline, right? >> The 26th will be your last opportunity theoretical, but we could have that on that meeting.
>> All right, let's do that. We got some of the business take care of real quick. Mayor, >> would you be willing to allow us a break? >> Yeah. All right, let's do a real quick fivem minute break everybody and we're gonna Shouldn't be long. Finish up. Okay.
>> Okay. >> All right. Council, come on back. >> Here it comes. >> Sorry. on by. >> All right, here we go. >> We're going to call this meeting back to order. We had left on We're going to 3A.
Is that correct, Kobe? >> Yes, mayor. >> 38. >> So, mayor, I'm going to I'm going to go through each of these kind of high level and then I'll let Mr. Atkinson, if he has any further explanation or details, do that. So this is uh the last council meeting in December. Same as the fire information. Uh y'all directed me to
bring back information on CRA what it would take to reduce the rate or look at that. And then same thing with the map. And so kind of put that together for you to kind of see. So on starting on PDF page two, um that starts the rate reduction process. So this one's pretty
straightforward. Uh the rate appears in the city's ordinance that that established the CRA. it does not appear in the CRA's master plan. Therefore, it doesn't require a master plan amendment. Um, so ultimately this one is you draft an amending ordinance, you provide
notice to the affected tax authorities, you hold the two public hearings um required for ordinance pass, and then you file with the state. So that was pretty straightforward and simple. Um, and then page four of this PDF, we'll skip that for now. We can go back if requested, but let's go on down to
the next one. So the next one's a map production process. Um because of the structure of our CRA board, um a map production would require uh recommendation from the CRA uh to amend the map. So two options. One, let's say they say yes. Um we move into having to
verify debt and contract obligations. There is no debt at the moment. Um we provide notice to taxing authorities. We hold the public hearings as required, one and two, and then we file with the state. Um just the same. This would also require a map amendment to uh would
require amendment to the CRA master plan because the map is in the plan. So that is an extra step uh that would have to be done as well. Um so again then if we go we go back we say option two CRA does not recommend to the city council to reduce the map or amend it then we
effectively have come to a halt. Um and I can let Mr. Atinson explain there's any alternatives to that but you've effectively come to an halt when it comes to the map. So relatively straightforward u with a couple nuances in there. If there's any questions either one of these, we can go over that. If there's any questions of page
four, which is the calculations for trim, we can go through that as well. So >> Mr. Johnson summed it very well. Um we've already voted on the reductions this year. So and those are already in effect.
Not so with um we've already voted on the reductions for this year. Those are not available at this time. that have to come up next year or before next year's budget. But with the map amendment, um with the map being part of the plan, Mr. Townsen's right, the statute is clear. A
change to the plan has to be initiated by recommendation of the CRA. And in the absence of that, the council lacks the authority to commit a plan amendment. Reducing the rate does not amend the plan itself. It just reduces the amount of money available for the plan. That's
why there's a distinction. >> Mr. Mayor, >> go ahead. >> Could you please clarify what you said with the reduction because we didn't reduce anything. They got their whole 95%. Correct. >> Correct. You voted on you voted on those issues seeking a reduction. So since that's been voted on,
>> so you're saying when we were during the budget process. Thank you. >> So you have to bring up as part of next year's budget process. >> Okay. Thank you. I just >> the map cannot be done absent CRA making that recommendation to you. >> Okay. >> They have to initiate it. Is that what you're saying? They have to make they
have to initiate and make a recommendation to you that they would like to amend the map because it is part of their plan. >> Okay. Do they have to do that at a board meeting? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, that won't be denied. >> No. >> Okay. >> And if they don't ever do it, as Mr.
Townson said, you never get to take it up. >> Okay. >> Okay. That's what I want. Okay. >> So, as far as our options go, >> and I don't want want to get ahead of you. Do you want to that. >> Do you have anything else here?
>> No, sir. >> Okay. So, let me ask you. Um, I'm going to throw an idea out here for the council to think about. And if you like the idea, maybe we can make a motion. If you don't
like the idea, no harm, no foul. I would say that our our city is in a financial crisis. Our city manager and Danielle both
briefed each and every one of us up here that if we gave the CRA 95% of the advalorum tax and the 1.2 2 million that we've given them this
year. We're going to have to go into um city services cuts, reduce employees, and we've got infrastructure that needs work.
We're trying to figure out ways to fund our fire department. Would the council consider eliminating the CRA? And if they did, if if we did that, counselor,
would the city be able to absorb that almost $4 million, 3.8, an eight whatever it is >> the money that's already been paid into the trust fund as I understand it would have to continue to be used for the
purposes of the trust fund itself it's not something once you've allocated over there you don't just get to take it back so I mean your decision to dissolve the CRA would basically to say we're not going to collect any more money finish out your project spend the money and that's it >> there are some steps for return that are
much more complicated but you can't do either one of those tonight because it's a repeal of an ordinance You would have to formally repeal the ordinance in effect. >> Go ahead. >> But but you could refund whatever's in there if it was eliminated. Is that accurate what you just said?
>> I said there are steps that would have to be taken to do that and it's not automatic. >> Okay. >> It's not. But I mean that is an option. >> It it it is possible. I won't tell you it's guaranteed though. And if >> they have monies that are allocated first off, so to be very clear, if they
have allocated any of those monies anywhere, you're not going to get those back >> if we hypothetically speaking, if we eliminated the CRA with a majority vote, once we get through this crisis
situation, could we stand the CRA back up? No, without going through a full new process to restart a CRA. >> Okay. But the answer is yes. >> Well, no, you don't get to stand them back up. I mean, when you say when
>> you'd have to recreate the entire entity and it would start its clock over. It would start everything over. It would reset. >> So, to me, stand them back up means put them back up and you're basically just pausing the CR. You don't get to do that. >> No, we're not doing that. That's not what I'm suggesting. Well, so you would have to it would start the new baseline
of the new tax funding year. It would be a full redo of the CRA assuming they still exist in legislative entities. >> Okay. >> Is that something that the council would be willing to consider? >> Go ahead, man.
Well, >> my thoughts on the CRA are just like they were with the fire department. You know, I asked for that information be brought back so we could look at look at information. And I I asked for the CRA information be brought back, what it
would look like with a map reduction versus a a percentage reduction, which we cannot do this year. So, that doesn't help us. um conversation last year on this topic of reducing the map. We we talked about it briefly and then it went
out the door because it was complicated and timeconuming to get that accomplished. Had we pursued that it would be done by now and we might be looking at different things. Uh now CRA is ready to go here.
I didn't finish my thought. I have the same thought about CRA as I do fire department. I want to find a way to keep it. Make it work. Make the keep the fire department. Make it work. Find the solutions to it. Make it all work. That's why we put all this effort to create these things. Same same for Main
Street. Make it work and and and get this city hitting on all cylinders. So to to me the fire department discussion is is part of this discussion in in in my view because we start looking at revenue sources. I mentioned in the last
conversation on on the uh assessment topic, you know, grant money, all these other sources, increase Avalor taxes from growth and all those things that are going to be helping us down the road. Sunset of the CRA in 2033. It's
going to be an influx of of revenue into the city coffers. We we know that our employees don't want to wonder whether they're going to have raises between now and 2033. I can tell you that. and and we we have to figure these things out. 121 lives that we are responsible for.
More than that, they're families, right? They're households. 2.9 households in in Definitia Springs is the average, right? Uh so that's a lot of people that we're responsible uh for keeping them having some job security. These firemen, they've been laying awake at night.
They've been stressing over whether they're going to have a job, whether they're gonna, you know, they just been under stress. Everybody's under stress. We got to figure this out. So to me, we're on the precipice of the CRA possibly taking out $5 million in bonds.
Well, at that point, we have no choices from now to 2033. We have no choices. We're locked in. We can't reduce the rate. We can't reduce the map at that point, but we're $5 million in. And you go, well, those are worthwhile projects,
maybe, right? But we have no feasibility study for an amphitheater. We have don't know whether the residents in the historic district are going to tolerate concerts. We don't know how the parking downtown is going to impact businesses which we heard from for from the farmers
market being extended into December and closed on Friday street closed on Friday night and all day Saturday. Right? So what if you got two or three thousand people at a concert? Where are they parking? Downtown. How does it affect businesses? same way, right? So, none of
that's been looked at. So, I I I question whether we're getting the cart way before the horse. And yes, we've spent money. The CRA has spent money and got it invested in in the concept and and and all this stuff. Tell me if I'm wrong, somebody 180 some
odd thousand dollars. Right. >> That's right. >> Yes. So, into that. I respect that, man. That's that's but it's not 4 million for an amphitheater when we're having to figure out possibly depending on what comes back from the county. We're having to figure out whether how we can keep
our fire department if we want to keep the fire department can't afford to keep it how we can give raises how we can hire more employees for for the growth that we're going to experience. So I think the CRA is part of this question whether we want to commit to uh those
bonds and that amount uh or consider prioritizing between those two major projects. Alleyway project which in my view is absolute necessity for our downtown businesses that are flooding when their sewer backs up or storm water seeps into their buildings. That's
that's something that that has to be taken care of. Can the amphitheater possibly be sheld uh and and done at in the future? I don't know. I don't like wasting money any more than anybody else here doing a study and then not getting
anything from it. I get it. Um but I I think we're at a time where if we're going to answer these problems without taking, you know, the easy obvious mathematical thing like turn it over the fire department or whatever um or keep
the CRA going. But we we don't know what's coming out of Tallahassee. We don't know what they're going to do with property taxes. And so how is the city we're we're flatlined basically with our revenue portion. CRA revenues climbing
rapidly and will continue to do so with south of I 10 growth and development. And that's not blighted area. That's new development. That's cream of the crop for the CRA which gets 95% of that
Abalora and and we know that and and that's that's great, right? But over here we're worried about how to give raises. We we we're able to budget raises this year. How many years are we going to do that? You know, we can't keep employees at that rate. So that's
why I want to see and explore, you know, possibly a map reduction. Does that mean maybe not going out for both projects? It might, but you know, I was on the tree board when the the amphitheater conversation started and I was excited
about it like everybody else and but but here we are. We haven't been able to give raises and we're talking about getting rid of our fire department. So, that conversation changed with those two factors right there. That conversation about that amphitheater has has has now changed for me.
I make part of my living at concerts at Seascape with our kettle corn. I get it. It's wonderful, right? And but I can't see us having concerts here every weekend or every month, possibly every quarter, but how are our residents in the historic district? It's smack in the
middle of a residential area. How how are they going to handle that? And and I don't have answers for that myself that haven't been provided to us. Uh, so I think biting off that bullet for $5 million or not five million whatever
three to four million dollars for that amphitheater is a is a big bite right now when we're looking at all these other things. So I would like to look at what it looks like. I I I'm not saying I I don't want to eliminate the CRA. I think the CRA can do wonderful things for us. I believe in it. I didn't vote
against the the the percentage reduction. Y'all recall that. But now we have a different conversation because of the fire department thing and no raises. So that's what I'd like to see look at.
>> So for clarification, are we going to decide whether the CR uh sign off on a a million plus dollar bond tonight? >> No, that's next meeting and that's advertised. We can't we cannot talk about that tonight. That is advertised for appropriate public.
>> Okay. >> So let's don't cross up that. All right. So, at this point, I would support reducing the map. >> We We can't take that up without a CRA recommendation.
You can't You cannot do it at your level. CRA has to recommend it to >> Could the CRA voluntarily reduce their 95% they're taking from the increased capital? That's already set. >> Okay.
>> Next budget cycle they can when we start our next budget cycle that you could reduce the >> you could they don't set their >> you could vote we up here can vote to reduce it if that's what your question is. But what's set is set right now. They've we've already done that. It's
gone. >> Okay. Uh, but I just wanted to make a point. I heard you say something, Councilman Harrison, that I've been here for two years asking, and this is the first time tonight that I've heard that
it has to be initiated by the CRA to change the map. I've never once heard that in the two budget cycles that Mr. Valley was always asking, you know, maybe we could do this. I was always for let's just reduce it. I was always trying to go from 95 down to 50. I am
shocked to hear tonight that now we can't even initiate it. It has to be and I don't foresee them initiating cutting themselves out of the picture. So I see as a group here that our potential only option is to reduce
future funding or if you're going to make a motion, you should make a motion. >> Eliminate it. So, I I think it's I think it's important to if if we're we're looking at the whole the whole ball of wax,
I think it's important to to talk about what was brought up earlier this year. There was there was a order given by the council to the city manager to look at a way to reduce the the $2.8 8 million that we're
transferring and the recommendation that came back was a very large elimination of positions. And so I feel like that is 100% tied to the CRA discussion and to the fire
department discussion and the budget in general. And for me, when when I look at this, I see a CRA that was established even before I came on the council.
And it it should be incumbent on the council to basically say this is the money that we're getting and this is how we we we divvy it up. I think we need to be careful about how we proceed with all of these these
various avenues that we're uh looking at because there is a very likely scenario where we tell our city manager through various siloed decisions to
have to eliminate people but at the same time bring us a balanced budget. And when we want to consider his job and his retention, are we setting him up for failure by making some of these decisions by placing him in an impossible
position? We don't want to get rid of this. We don't want to get rid of that, but we want to cut transfers. Well, he's already done the work for us on that, and he's given us a proposal on that. I I was having a discussion last week with somebody and I had to remind them
that 74% of the general fund is salaries and and I've had conversations with him last week as a matter of fact and I said, "Kobe, what's left to cut?" He said, "Maybe $200,000." Maybe.
So when when the question gets asked, why are we picking on the fire department? because the city manager looked at the budget as the chief executive officer and said, "This is a duplication of services. This is something we need to consider." Nobody's picking on the fire department.
Nobody has nobody nobody has said that the fire department's not doing their job. Nobody has said that they're bad. What we have always contemplated up here is how are we going to pay for it? How are we going to provide them with the
equipment, with the fire stations, with the payraises, and all of that stuff? How are we going to do that? But what I'm worried about is we're going to make all of these various decisions to a certain extent in a little bit of isolation and we're going to look back
in six months ago, well, we didn't want to do the assessment because, you know, it we couldn't figure out a number that that we all agreed on and we need to cut transfers and we don't want to do it this way and we don't want to do it that way. And then all of a sudden it's Kobe reduced the budget. And he goes, "Well, the only way to reduce the budget is to
eliminate people." And then it's like, "Well, no, we don't want to eliminate people." So we're we're we're asking him we're setting him up for failure if we're not careful. We're setting him up him up for failure to the point where he's like, "Hey, next person comes
along, I'm out. I'm pulling the rip cord." That's what we've got to be careful of moving forward. Okay. So, everybody at this dis got the same briefing I did when Kobe and Danielle
and set set us down and they told us the repercussions that were going to come by giving the CRA this much money. >> I don't remember that conversation.
Did you give all the council members the same briefing you did me, you and Danielle? >> I did. Everyone got the same briefing. There wasn't that the repercussions of it. The conversation was what we expected to be a shortfall because of carry forward. That was the that was what we talked about that we expected
the shortfall to be. At the time I think I can remember my our estimate was $600,000. That was a round number we threw out as an idea. Come to find out it was $600,000. Um that was a conversation was about we expect this to occur to be aware of it before we move forward. And I think everybody remember
my our same conversation was it's about priorities and whatever the council chooses to do is what we'll figure out how to make it work and that's what we did. >> Okay. So the amount of money that we're giving the CRA that we decided to give do you think that the message I got
would we would be handicapping the city? That's the message I got is that >> well the question you asked us even in this meeting was well we had to cut services. We didn't have to cut services this year. We may have slowed them down some. We removed positions.
>> Okay. >> The the money from the CRA represents I' I've run it several times. The money from the CRA represents a change of about five and a half to 6%. >> Okay. five and a half to six percent.
So if we if we were to wave a magic wand tonight and eliminate the CRA that represents putting back 5 and a half to 6% into the general fund because the abalorum the total collection on abalorum is only about $4
million. It's the the abalorum is not running the city. We spend $6 million today on public safety as it sits today. Everybody's wrapped around the axle about Abalorum, but the reality is it
doesn't it barely re registers on our budget. When you look at the graphs, it's down at the bottom. It's this big. The red flag that I'm getting is that when we get these warnings
from our city manager and we don't heed to recommendations made by our financial chief and our city manager, a ripple effect that I've observed
in the position that we've put Koben, we've got our three of our top city administrators, the city manager, our HR director, and our acting uh finance director, Danielle.
>> No, M. Mr. McDaniels, I am the acting finance director. Those three people right there have already started submitting their applications elsewhere because >> they're not the only ones either. Councilman, there's more.
>> Our city manager is looking for another job. Our HR director's looking for another job and Danielle's looking for another job because they haven't been getting the help from us that they need. and despite their recommendation,
we went against it. So that's that's my red flag that I'm seeing. >> But his recommendation, he's the one that approached me about the fire department. His recommendation is if they can offer service cheaper and better, go with it. Okay? >> His recommendation to me has been that
we should consider giving up the fire department. That's his recommendation. I'm talking about the the the briefing that he and Danielle set us all down on. They they warned us of the repercussions
and that's how I interpreted it. Um that's all I've got to say. Toby, how did we arbitrarily pick the fire department versus another division uh within the city that for example
streets uh can could the county do that cheaper than we can? I mean, how did we automatically just pick the fire station? Help me understand that, please. That are that cost us more to run than
just >> fire and public safety. Well, the streets division alone doesn't I mean, you have to go there and pull out grants, but in essence, um the since I've worked here for the city, and I'm sure every year there's always been the conversation of the fire department. Do
we take the sheriff's office, do we continue to perform that fire service? What's the cause back and forth in that? And we're here now, so we'll just go ahead and do it. I think everyone here remembers and is very clear. I was very clear whenever before this council appointed me to this position. I had four things I wanted to be done here in
the cities. I seem to be a hold back on our progress here and this was one of them. I think everyone can agree that that's exactly the conversation we had. And so we're doing this because it's necessary because when I took the job and went to the fire department, I came to everyone. We talked about the condition of that station. We talked
about the condition and what in the service we provide. What's the expectation of fire department? And to me, that decision have you made. And so that's why we're here today because if you're not willing to prioritize that, I'm not saying you're not, but if that's your priority, you put the money behind it and we make it happen for you. That's
where I'm head. So, we can we continue to go around the in carousels on things. I think that's been the to me when I worked here and I think that's been the the complaint of council members in the past that staff's just continuously going in circles. We're not we're not hitting things. We're not getting them done. Well, this is going to get it done. You're either going to tell us you're going to do you want to do it or you don't want us to do it and we're
going to move on. But I'm here to get things done. And I think every one of you here are and I think we've shown over the last almost two years now, me and my staff, that we're going to do whatever you ask us to do. We're going to do the best of our ability or we're just not going to do it at all. That's we keep going back and forth. that's what we're here for and that's what I'm going to do. I'm not here to not do
anything. So, that's how the fire department came up. Conversation's been had. We either decide on it or we don't. But I I'm not going to go back and forth on it. We're either going to we're either going to contract it or we're not. And then we're going to put the resources to provide that service. >> Well, that helps me to understand that piece of the puzzle. I also want to
mention that um I think it was Mr. Beerbomb that had just said 75% is on average what it cost all cities, the majority of cities to run. So, I'm not afraid of that particular number because personnel cost is 75% of the majority of the budgets if you look at uh the cities
around Florida. Um, and the 2.8 8 million that were trans the the transfers that we're wanting to cut that is so that we could that that was kind of arbitrary from us too because we kind of wanted to start setting that money aside for the infrastructure
improvements that we need to uh and right now I know it does fund for our general fund that you know we are transferring those things but you know if we have to somehow compromise to get us to that 2033 period or whatever then
we might still have to use those transfers from the utility funds to fund what we're doing, but it is going to get tighter and tighter. >> My point with the this 75% was the recommendation that came back from
him was 27 positions 27 or 28 if >> but we also eliminated five vacant and >> it was 21 total and then we this budget cycle we eliminated eight. >> Okay. >> So 21 total. So we we still have over 10 positions that need to be
eliminated or we can not duplicate a service. All of those people get a job. They have a job. They will have a job. They will have a job with anywhere from 15 to 25% increase in pay. Half of the cost of
medical expenses, better equipment, better training, better everything. And then and then we don't have to lay off >> another 10 to 15 people. >> But that but that's just one option.
>> We've got to we've got to figure out >> what what other option is there besides not laying off 15 people. >> Well, look at other look at other services that might be duplicated. We've not looked at anybody except for the fire department. Yeah, there's there's places we could
look at to to save money, but my concern is all the new growth, all the new development south of I 10 that we know we know is going to take place, that's where the growth is going to be. Um, we're not getting much of that in in in
the future. But that but that's we we have a hard dollar figure on that. That hard dollar figure this year is $1.1 million. So we we know what that is. And and and if you
were to say to me, hey, look, the growth equals what we need to plug the hole for the fire department, everything else. I'd say, yep, you're right. Let's get rid of the CRA because that plugs that hole. >> But but my calculation is it doesn't
plug the hole. >> Well, let me clarify. I'm not saying eliminate the CRA. I'm eliminating districts where they're capitalizing on all new development and their revenues going up on new development instead of increasing the assessed value of
blighted properties, which is what a CRA is supposed to do. >> And my question is, why is a city not capitalizing on new development, new groundbreaking, and structures going up? Why are we not getting that revenue? and we're making a decision between an
amphitheater or a fire department 27 lives, right? Or or however many's left talking about laying off. That is not a conversation that I want to have in our budget workshops is laying people off. And yes, they employees make up roughly
70 75% of any businesses, most any business, their every business people right here. They can tell you their biggest expense is employees. >> That's just natural. It's not we're not exceptional because of that. But my goodness, we have a responsibility to keep people working and provide services
at a level that makes our citizens happy and feel like their taxes are are are well spent. And we're we're going to we're going to enjoy this growth, this tremendous growth that's projected for for this city. And I mean, you're
talking about double housing, double commercial, uh, double population within just a few more years before the CRA sunsets. So, I mean, to wait till
2033 and with $5 million in debt to pay for a structure that we're not even sure whether the community is going to tolerate it in the historic district, um, our amphitheater generated $1,000 last year. We said, why? I mean,
practicality of talking about laying people off or handing our fire department over to build a $4 million structure that we have no plan in place of how it's going to generate revenue for the city. That doesn't make sense to me at this
this point. People matter. Uh and and our employees matter and if we're going to have those kind of expenditures, they should benefit this city somehow or another. And the only way I see to do it is is is that approach to a map
reduction and get our our C not to the CRA to give still give them enough revenue to do a major project that's in the redevelopment plan. for example, the alleyway and let's get that down so that the city is taking in all
the new development that that's coming, the new structures, the new businesses, business square footage is going to more than double according to the projections of that impact study, right? And we're seeing it. I mean, we're seeing it. We're living it. It's not guesswork at
this point. We've already seen some of that growth and it's probably ahead of what their projections were. So that's that's that's something that we have to really think about. You know, getting that map toned down to areas where
real improvements in blighted properties can lead to reassessments and increased property values. That is exactly what a CRA is supposed to do and that is the purpose that was created in the first place. >> But why the entire city limits is encompassed in the CRA district, I do
not understand. uh with and maybe they didn't foresee the growth the tremendous growth that we're seeing. I don't know. Maybe that's why the entire city limits was created as the boundary. I don't know. But we're seeing that growth now. And now I question whether and why we would want to give up all of that uh
revenue for a structure. I love music. I love outdoor. I love concert. I love all that. And it it would be great to have it, but we don't even know if it's the right place for the community to tolerate it at this point. Um, and the noise, you know, and and how we would
manage it, what that would look like. Um, so yeah, >> and it only brings in, from what I heard, $1,000 a year. >> God, the infrastructure, >> current one. >> Does anybody not remember the Shiaka festival?
I mean, we we we >> okay, >> we we seem to be forgetting that there was a time where that that lakeyard was packed out with tens of thousands of people. Nobody complained. Everybody loved it. As a matter of fact, mayor,
I've even I've even heard you allude to it and that is that Lakefest is is a attempt to revive the Shiitaka Festival. The Shot Taco Festival when I was a kid growing up in Defiac Springs brought tens of thousands of people to the
lakeyard and and pumped in probably hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of economic vitality to our downtown. And and as I think about it, you can you can just about pin the decline of our downtown to when when
that festival stopped every year. >> Now Walmart's responsible for that. Well, some of it. >> Okay. So, if I could get my >> Go ahead. >> comment here. >> Counselor, did I understand you to say that we
can't reduce the lines that the CRA But the CRA can do that? >> No, I said you can't do it unless the CRA first recommends it. If they fail to recommend it, you cannot do it. >> Okay? It starts with a recommendation
from the CRA to >> Would it be would it be allowable to ask if the CRA would be willing to do that? >> Mr. Hamilton is standing right there. He can present it to his board, but if they say no, that's the end of the discussion. So, I mean, you can present to your
board if you want, Mr. Came up at the council meeting. I I So, all right, let me just start. Uh, I sent out a bunch of emails before this meeting, like four or five. I got responses from
Kobe, Todd, Josh, Mayor Bob, and Mr. Harrison. Two of you decided it wasn't worth your time to get all the information before this meeting, which kind of upsets me. But since we want to talk about the amphitheater, my latest meeting I had with Buffalo Rock, which is Pepsi, uh we
sat down and came to an agreement where they're willing to just for the amphitheater part of it, we're willing to give us $500,000 over 10 years. There's 50,000 a year. So there's your 50,000 a year that you're only getting a from the amphitheater now. So let me just say that they've also agreed to contribute to the alleyway project. So,
in total, we're looking at like $700,000 or more just from one person, one group that I've gotten to talk to since I've been in place. There are tons of people left to talk to, but all of them have said the same thing. If the city is not
going to invest in the CRA, why should they? If you're going to cut our funding, why should they offer any money to help? So realistically having this conversation, you know, cutting the percentage, looking at whatever percentage you guys decide to
throw at us next because we've already been through this twice, or eliminating it, which I know I've said this before and it upset people. That is so shortsighted it's not even funny. Um, you're giving up not not just the money from the county that you're going to give up because they give us 780
some odd thousand this year. Uh, and that goes up as yours goes up. Uh, but you're also giving up private investment. And again, it's so shortsighted. Um, now, as far as the map, and I'm
going to calm down a little bit. The reason I like the map being the size it is is that means I can help anybody inside of that map. If we start cutting the map, the problem with that is, let's say, for example, I don't know, the fire department doesn't fall into a neighborhood that has blight. Guess who
we can't help anymore? The fire department. If it's outside the map, we can't touch it. So, the reason I like keeping the map big is because we can help more people. What I can say is I've already had conversations with most of my board about the idea of cutting the map, and
all of them are very against it. However, Glenn brought up a good point with like the new development. So, that might be something I can go back and look at. You know, what areas do we have on that map? Like, you know, south of I 10, perfect
example that we maybe we can cut areas that there's going to be big new development because we're not going to be helping people in that area anyway. They've got brand new houses. They're not going to need our help. So, that might be a compromise we can have. But this is why it's important and you and I have talked about this probably at least
seven times about having workshops. I finally got a message from Kobe to set up a public workshop. So that's in the work where we can have a a joint workshop with the CRA and the city council. You have to be willing to have hard conversations.
That means when citizens are sending you emails or giving you phone calls, you answer them. That means when the executive director of the CRA is sending you information showing you why it's beneficial to keep the CRA, showing you that the properties that we've improved
have increased 5% more than the properties we haven't touched. Showing you where, you know, on average we're giving, I think it was like $3,500 per grant, but you're getting back 21,000 or 24,000
in increased taxes. All this information I've already sent you. This is stuff that we could have had conversations about before this meeting. We wouldn't be here till what is it almost 9:00 now? 8:30. Having the same conversations we had months ago trying to cut the CRA.
There's so much left to do. We're finally in a position where we can actually do something where we have the budget to do something and you want to cut it off. And since you brought the alleyway project, the reason that's important is it's the infrastructure all of you guys have been talking about doing. It's also keeping you from
multiple lawsuits because businesses are getting pretty upset that they got sewage backing into their building every month. That's not a that's not a a million-dollar lawsuit. That's multiple million dollar lawsuits against the city that can be prevented by spending that
money on the alleyway. And I know that's the one project I think you said you agree with. >> Correct. >> Because you sat in my office and said if it's not about the alleyway, you don't want to talk about it. >> Pretty much. >> Thank you. So again, back to the point, if you can't have those hard conversations, maybe you shouldn't be sitting up here.
>> Thank you. >> Again, thank you guys, gals, for all you're doing. Uh, of course you know I was when we first brought up the uh amphitheater, I was uh here to talk about that and share my excitement, my
enthusiasm towards uh an opportunity that you as a city council could do something as unique as building a worldclass amphitheater that would not only benefit our town today, but for
years, literally 50 years from now and and actually reinvigorate and help this whole renaissance that we're experiencing in Defunia right now. It's like Defunia, this beautiful lady is coming back to life. And we've got activity. We've got people talking about
our town, moving to our town. And here's an opportunity for you to build an amphitheater and tie in with the history of Defunia where at one time there were thousands of people coming to our city for uh for its entertainment, for the
Shiakwa movement. And here we are again, maybe once in a lifetime. Once in a lifetime where you as a council could say, "Yes, I true. We have we have hard
concrete decisions that you as uh a leadership body have to make. sewer uh employees uh uh taxes. Granted, but there is also a time and a
moment where as elected officials, you could say, you know, we do have an opportunity to do something for art, for music that could last beyond our lifetimes and reminds people of who
DeFuniac Springs is and what established this town. So you have that opportunity to make that decision to carry through and see that happen. Now possibly the CRA uh can uh relocate some of the money
for the different uh government uh uh needs, but please consider and I hope to encourage you to make the decision to fund the amphitheater. Thank you. Thank you.
Jean, >> I talked to a lot of people and other than downtown interest and speculators, they're not for the amphitheater. They're just not. And and I don't think an employee of the RC
or CRA ought to stand up here and insult our city council. I just think that's obnoxious. Um, and as I understand it, Pine Shores, where I live, is in the
district that is taxed by CRA, but we're not eligible to get any of the money from the CRA. Is that correct? >> I don't believe so. >> It does. >> Conor is not in the CR map. >> That's why there's no money available.
>> Well, that's good. You're just checking. >> You know, one of the things that you have to do when it comes time to making hard decisions and um and and I'm actually going to quote Winston Churchill on this uh when
he was trying to figure out how they were going to pay for World War II and somebody said, "Well, we we need to cut the arts." And he said, "If it wasn't for the arts, where are we fighting for?" That's Winston Churchill. So, I'm not anti-arts,
but when you when you have to make hard decisions, arts is a luxury. It's a want. Who doesn't want the arts? But it's not a need. It's not
infrastructure. It's not getting rid of these hundred-y old sewer pipes. It's not enhancing our fire department. It's not enhancing public safety. You take care of your needs before you take care of
your wants. That's the way we live our personal lives. But we get up here at the DAS and for some reason it becomes the opposite. We vote for wants over needs or at least not all of us but in some cases. And it's and and when you
talk about making hard decisions, it's hard to take these wants and push them aside aside and and do the needs. So that's all I'm going to say on the arts. I'm not anti- art. I'm just pro what we need first.
>> Thank you. >> Um I'm always saying, show me the research. I only found one study uh a study of seven CRAAS in one large
county, five small towns, one medium-sized town, and one large town was done from 208 to 2013. 19.5 million of CRA funds leveraged 372
million in private funding and supplied 2,147 jobs. Collectively, these seven CRAAS invested approximately 137 million in TIFF funded
infrastructure. >> Thank you. Yes, ma'am. >> I have asked Mr. CRA here. Can't remember his name. Hamilton. And he says that they're willing to do a great part of helping
keep the fire department. They just y'all just have to make that decision and they have the money available and can help with that. I don't think cutting them out completely is the answer. I think you have to work with them to help get accomplished what we
need to do inside the city. I do agree with the alleyway being fixed and getting all that done, but the amphitheater can be put on hold. I wouldn't say that it necessarily has to go, but sometimes we don't get what we want. We don't get the nicities like that until we take care of all our
priorities. So, if you could work with him on getting that kind of stuff lined up, why not work with them to This is city money that he gets and we need to see if we can get it back into the city and what
the city needs and prioritize them. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor. I I would say on the on the map you you mentioned that the if the fire department were not in the CRA district you couldn't help them but that
map would be created by this by this council right and that corridor could include the fire department. I mean, if you go east side to west side, there's a quarter down 90 north and south of 90
that are blighted areas that that need CRA help, you know, uh with increasing property values. Well, fire department's right smack in the middle of that. Um so we, you know, a map could be created to still include that,
>> right? So my concern though is depending on how much of the map you cut or what percentage you cut, any reduction in the funds that we get means most if not all of the capital improvement projects including the alleyway that I think we
all agree on would end up being cut. So that's where we have to be careful with what we're cutting, how much we're cutting. I'm I love the amphitheater, but if that's the one thing holding you guys up from keeping the CRA, then table it and we can move the money elsewhere. I don't think cutting the funding in
general is the answer to that. I think having those public workshops where we can talk more about where we want the money to go is the answer. But just coming up here and saying, "Oh, we're killing the CRA or we're going to cut the funding or let's shrink the map to where we cut the funding to a point where we're no longer effective." Then
that's where we have to be careful. That's that's my other concern. I actually agree with almost everything Miss Arnold said earlier. Um I that's part of my the reason why I support the CRA and spoken Mr. Roth. He's finding
alternative means to fund the amphitheater. He's not saying I want to put all that money in there. Um one of the biggest concerns that I had was the alleyways with the sewage backing up in the businesses and with the litigation that can come from that. the liability that we place on the city if we don't
accomplish that and get it fixed. They're prioritizing that. They're willing to help fund the repairs for the fire department. None of that's ever been doubted, I don't think. So, that that's something that I actually like about it. So, he's doing the right thing. He's searching alternative means
for the amphitheater to keep that going, too. But, at the same time, he sees where the priorities should be, and his board does as well. And I think that they're doing a really good job, and I support them in that fact. Yeah. >> Yeah. Kim Winterberg, >> everybody get a shot at.
>> I uh I had planned on before the meeting encouraging workshopping this out because what I love is that everybody that I'm that's behind me and in front of me, your heart is for the city. Um I I can see that. Um and I I think you can
feel that from those of us out here in the audience. Um, it it's not going to be easy, of course. Um, but I I love that we're that that's already Is it on the schedule, Kobe? Is that right? Do we have a date? >> Not at the moment. We're trying to work
through January 1st. >> Okay. All right. Um, but I love that we're doing that. Um, I love the CRA. I would love to see the dog park come to fruition. You guys know that was that was our baby, right? Um I
you know I want to see the amphitheater happen. I want to see the the um the the alleyways come together and lots of other projects. Um uh Todd you had mentioned earlier so genuine question you had said that the advalorum taxes
only come to a small amount um four five 6%. So um how how is the city funding its growth? Excuse me. Um, this is not anti-CRA. This is not for CRA. I'm asking a
question. How is the city funding the growth for water and sewer and all the improvements that the city needs um with as we are growing if the money is going to the CRA? >> That's right. >> Water and sewer is funded out of water
and sew >> other other things that the city provides. We provide more than water and sewer. >> You ask how water and sewer is being funded. I said and other things that that was just an example. >> So enterprise
>> so so for me the the the money that is going to the CRA represents let's just say let's round it up 6%. And if we put that back into the general fund, my my question's always been, what's the
plan for that money? Because I don't want to see that money go into the general fund and just disappear into the general fund providing general fund services. But when it comes to funding growth, there's no simple answer to that. like we're we're
managing just just as an example over the last four or five years we have seen the CRA um significantly increase in its funding and that is an indication of growth and we sit here tonight and we we we're
managing that growth. I I have yet to have anybody explain to me how $1 million fixes everything. That that's that's my problem is how does how does returning $1 million to the general fund solve our problems
>> because I I don't disagree. You know, when I think about my you you when you tithe to the church, it goes to the general fund, right? Your special um you know, giving goes to something specific and it can get lost in the general fund.
But, and this is what I'm hearing and I'm I'm genuinely questioning is if yeah, it's $1 million this year, but if it's 95% of the adorum, how that's compounding, >> it's 95% of the change,
>> right, of the new of the new adorum of the new. >> So, but so you can see that it's increased from I think it was 30 or 40,000 from the first year and now um we're at nearly 2 million. So it's growing very quickly. So just from a
citizen standpoint of genuinely wanting to understand um again I am pro I I want to keep the CRA but trying to find a compromise in the mix right of what what we can do where we can still keep our CRA we can still fund the projects that
we want to fund but just understand it from my perspective and and of the millions of dollars that are going to be coming in in the next few years and let's say we've got a fire department shortage of 0.9 million for this year.
Um that million dollars would be able to take care of that. So that that's I I'm just trying to understand how we're managing the growth from a financial standpoint while we can still support the CRA and just trying to find a middle
ground on that. Um, and I know we're going to workshop that, but um, my my thoughts >> the >> So, >> the million dollars and and let's just say it goes to $2 million. Everything else is growing along with it, right?
Our are receipts from water and sewer grow along with that that same amount of growth, right? Because more people are coming in, more people are in houses that are are paying a water and sewer bill, etc. But when you look at the composition of our budget,
that's where I go back to. Currently, the the general the advalorum taxes that go into the general fund represent 9% of the total general fund budget, only 9%. If we take the the CRA and put it back into the general fund, it goes up to
15%. So, it's it's roughly 6%. The rest of that money, the other the other 85% is from transfers. It's from sales tax revenue. It's from local option option
gas tax. It's from inter other intergovernmental revenue like the the interlocal that we talked about today for the sanitation. All that is in the the general fund. So there there's not unfortunately it's not a simple answer
but the the general concept is you know as the city grows as more people come into the city they're they're paying into all these various places that we then turn around and provide services out of. But we're spending again, we're spending
$6 million on public safety when our ABLE receipts in total don't even come to $6 million. Our our Adalorum receipts in total with the CRA included is only like $4 million. 2.6
>> two I'm sorry, 2.6 even even worse. >> And what happens when those tax cuts come? how much of that 95% growth is now shaved off and what did we actually benefit from that? Um, part of the reasons why when I first got here, I was
all pro, let's annex in more properties. Let's get them in here. Whatever we got to sell them, let's do it to get them to get them on the tax roles. At this point, I'm not for that any longer, knowing that we will generate far more from utilities in the future than we
would from tax avalor. So, it it's looking at the whole picture. Um, I'm not anti- fire department by no means. Um, but in looking at the total picture, what's the best benefit for the citizens of this city? How do we keep it all moving
forward? How do we make it work in the future? Not just today, next year, the year after that. We would eat this. We would eat any generated revenues that come in from this CRA. I would beg to say within the next two to three years. And then we're back in that red wondering how we're going to generate
further revenues at this point. And that's why I stress so much about how can we continue to provide the same services that our citizens have become accustomed to but without losing anything else. >> Fair enough. I'm genuinely trying to
understand for once. I'm not coming up here with my opinion. We had to take on uh the map and the rates and we found out we can't do either or tonight. >> Uh >> I had one more question.
>> All right. Real quick. >> Um so if we uh adjust the map, let's say the CRA uh Rob goes to the board says, "Hey, we've got this corridor, this corridor. We can keep that, but we'll get rid of that." Um and then you come back. Uh, Clay, is is it then the
council to to ratify that or is it just done by the CRA? >> No, no, no. It's a the statute requires the CRA board to make a recommendation because it's part of their plan. They would make that recommendation. The city council would then make that approval going through the appropriate steps.
>> Okay? And so then let's say um five years down the road we find that there's a fire department in just outside, can they amend the map again? >> They can ask. They can ask, but then you're gonna have to go get the county's permission. It's gonna become adding to
your map is a lot harder than reducing your map is the short answer. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, >> so what all we want what all how far are we going to take this discussion? >> Okay, let's say one one thing here. We won't know until July what the
legislaturator is going to do with property tax. Correct. >> Correct. >> It's going to be it's going to be July. So, and not knowing that is why I wanted to have this conversation. We we can't bank on anything. We don't know what's going to happen. We don't, you know,
Josh, you're right. You know, we don't we don't know what to expect with Advorum. It may not increase a whole lot, but especially if they they cut cut property taxes. And that's why I think we have to look at this because we have to keep employees. There we have
to keep employees. We have to be able to give them raises. We have to reduce their workload. We have people in this city hall that doing more than they were hired to do. Is that correct? >> Across the entire city. I won't just leave it at just city hall. >> Okay. Well, I know I know for a fact
here because I'm in and out here quite often, but but rest of it. See, so there's there's people doing multiple jobs that they weren't hired for. You know how that is when you get hired to do one thing and then you're crossing over the next day to have to do something else. And that's frustrating and that's what we're dealing with. That
leads to turnover and the cost of that we can't see on paper. But we will certainly feel it in the quality of services if we don't figure out how to address it and pay for this and treat our people like they should be treated like we would be want to be treated as employees
and and and that and this is a hard conversation you know and and I don't know that this you know the the amphitheater it will absolutely be an economic stimulus if it is doing things to generate a population here even though temporarily and spending money in
our community. I question at this point is that the particular is that the correct location for it that's going to involve demo, right? That's part of the cost of building a new one. Would we be better off to buy a piece of property, put it somewhere more appropriate where there's
no complaints from historic district residents? That's the thing we haven't talked about or or or looked at as far as the feasibility of it. So, that's why I brought this stuff up is just to figure it out. I want to see the CRA thrive and and continue to do things and get things done. That alleyway project
is vital to get done. I I agree. But, you know, that that's where I want us to have this conversation. >> Okay. Well, I guess CRA will just wait to hear back from them and what your thoughts are on the map. Okay. All right. Anything else that just got
to be said about CRA? I don't know what you got left, but anyways. All right. All right, we're going to move on then to the uh uh planning part 4 A1. >> Thank you, mayor. As Mr. Wallace approaches, these next two items, 4 A1
and 4 A2 are quasi judicial matters. Anyone wishing to speak on these items, including staff and the applicant, members of the public offering to wish testimony, ask questions or otherwise comment need to be sworn at this time. You wish to speak on items 4 A1 or two,
please stand. Raise your right hand. Repeat after me. I do hereby swear or affirm. >> I do hereby swear or affirm >> say the testimony I present >> that the testimony I present >> will be the truth >> the truth. >> The whole truth >> the whole truth >> and nothing but the truth. >> And nothing but the truth. >> Thank you, mayor. Staff and the
applicant and his engineer have been sworn. No public sworn. >> Yeah. So this is the second reading of a small scale map amendment uh for Nolan Baker on behalf of Elijah Smith requesting a amendment to the future land use map from agricultural to medium
density residential and this is on the corner of North 20th Street and Wbash Avenue. >> Motion to hold second reading and approve. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. Any questions, comments?
All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Carrie. >> All right. This is ordinance number 990. It's an ordinance adopting a small scale land use map amendment of the city defuniac springs conference of plan changing the land use classifications
repealing all ordinances and conflict herewith providing for severability and conflicts providing for codification and providing for an effective date. >> Thank you. >> Now we need a motion on the resol. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. I have a motion second on the reszoning. Any questions,
>> comments? >> For the record, show that as a motion to hold second reading and adopt. Yes, sir. >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. I. >> I. >> I. Carrie. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. >> Okay. Ordinance number 991. It's an ordinance adopting a zoning map
amendment of the city define springs land development code changing the zoning designation repealing all ordinances in conflict here with providing for sever building conflicts providing for codification and providing for an effective date. >> All right, let's go to your text
amendment. >> This is the legislatively required planning procedure adoption. >> Motion to approve. Second. >> I have a motion and second. Any questions or comment? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I.
>> I. >> Eyes carry. Thank you very much. >> Okay. This is ordinance number 992. It's an ordinance adopting an amendment of the land development code of the Phoenix Springs, Florida, chapter 18-29, providing for adoption, providing for severability, and providing an effective
date. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> We open the floor for any citizen comments. Don't let your eyes glaze over. Pay attention. Um the historic preservation
101 will have another workshop at the Shiakqua building on the 22nd of January and it's about saving our history and um the first speaker will be from the University of West Florida Historic Trust and it will be Ross Pera and he
will talk about implementing historic standards economically. The second speaker will be Robert Daniel who's a local historian. He has 171 slides about early defunc. He showed just a few of them last time. I have a
handout that would catch you up if you want to come and see some more of them. We'd appreciate you coming. >> Thank you very much. >> And by the way, the CRA is funding part. So is the National Historic Trust and so is the University of West Florida and so
is Forward Defia. >> All right. Thank you very public comment. >> All right. We'll close for public comment. Uh Clay, anything? >> No, sir. >> Kobe, >> just three things real quick. Mayor, um first u in December, late December in
the holiday, the city was awarded a $198,000 no match grant um through the resilient Florida program to create an adaptation plan that we applied for. Um so we will be getting that contract back to y'all for too long and get that process moving. So that's that's good.
Um secondly, we did not receive any bids on the Chicago Hall Brotherhood um ITB. So I'll be working with Mr. Atinson to find maybe a a a solution to to a problem we we may have. So we'll be working on that and bringing that back forward to everyone. Uh number three, we
do have related to the airport, we do have the apron expansion project out to bid. U if you remember that's $1.1 million that was awarded from Congress through Congressman Dunn's efforts and so that is out for bid and we'll be coming forth for too long with some bids hopefully. Thank you, mayor.
>> Thank you. All right, Bill, just uh go straight to the council comments starting with >> Cody. Thank you and your staff for bringing all this information to us for tonight. I know that was a lot of work. Uh appreciate that. Uh Arbor Day tree
planting is Friday in in Lakeyard. Anybody wants to do it, I think it's going to be somewhere near the Chris uh the uh fountain. >> It's going to be on the fence side or over the playground? >> Uh well, somewhere in that area. My good job said somewhere in that area. rough fountain playground somewhere planting
long leaf. But uh appreciate y'all. >> My neighbor keeps having plumbing problems. Uh he had uh private uh two private plumbing companies come out and they said, "Your side's clear. It's the city side." He didn't know that you
could call the police department after hours on a weekend. Uh he was out there distressed. I said, "Can I help you?" and he said, "Yeah, I I guess I'll have to wait till Monday. Sewer's backing up in my house, though."
And I said, "Uh, well, anyway, I called the police department. Public works was there." And the guy from public works said, "This problem's going to go away. It just depends on how many people flush
their toilets at one time, but it will eventually get on through." So, having said that, is there any plans to replace the um the sewer pipe there on Live Oak Avenue East and right there
in front of my house and toward the >> uh four-way intersection of 11th and Live Oak. >> I when they did that repair there at the corner of Live East Live Oak and Crescent, uh that helped alleviate some of the problem, >> right? >> But ultimately, it's going to be a part of the sewer master plan that we're
going through right now with the engineers. So when they come back, which is hopefully here in the next five or 6 months, I believe we'll start seeing some information back. Then we start we'll see where those needs are and what they find out. But >> okay, >> that'll be some of it. And then ultimately over time, we will be doing the CCTV to identify, you know, certain
areas of town, what needs to be done, and we'll budget off that. But >> with the sewage backing up in homes, is there uh is there any emergency thing you could do? >> Well, I mean, staff has went out and seen it. I mean, if they had it, if they had to where it needed to be fixed immediately, they would do that. Um Mr. Holden would would make that happen or
get with me about that, but I haven't spoke. He has spoke to me about it yet, so I'm assuming they've corrected the issue. >> Could you follow up on that? >> Mhm. >> I'd appreciate it. >> Go ahead. >> And um it's been a long night.
>> That's all I got. >> None, sir. >> Amy. >> No. >> Okay. All right. We'll call this meeting a journ. >> It is 1:00.