We want to call this city council meeting to order. Today is Monday, June the 8th, 2026. And would you stand with us with the uh invocation pledge? Heavenly Father, we love you. We thank you for your love toward us, toward this city, toward this community, Father God,
and all that are involved. We we pray Lord for your leadership, your guidance tonight uh through this meeting that we would produce uh not just product but services God that would uh be pleasing to all. And so Father, we we we're so
grateful and we ask you Lord to um you know help us to make the best decisions we possibly can and enlighten us as we go. In Jesus mighty name we pray. Amen. >> Amen. >> Amen. I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, we got two uh proclamations I want to read, but one of them we
actually want to do a uh present the proclamation. We'll start with the U National Public Works. If I can pull that up, >> help me one.
>> Yeah, I appreciate that reminder. I want to make sure I turn my phone off. >> Yeah, same here. >> Okay. >> All right. There we go. Okay. Whereas public works professionals
focus on infrastructure, facilities and services that are vital importance to sustain sustainable and resilient communities and to the public health, high quality of life and well-being of the people of Fiank Springs. And whereas these infrastructures, facilities, and
services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts of our public works professionals who are engineers, managers, employees at all levels of government, and the private sector who are responsible for rebuilding, improving, and protecting our nation's transportation, water supply, water
treatment, solid waste systems, public buildings, and other structures and facilities essential for our citizens. And whereas it is the public interest for the citizens, civic leaders, the children of the city of Definiaak Springs to gain knowledge of and to maintain an ongoing interest and
understanding of the importance of public works and public works programs in these respective communities. And whereas the year 2026 marks the 66th annual National Public Works Week sponsored by the American Public Works Association. Now therefore, I, Bob
Campbell, by virtue, authority vested me as mayor of the city of Funiaak Springs, Florida, do hereby proclaim the week of May 17 through the 23rd, 2026 as National Public Works Week. Thank you very much. And I would, as a kind of a
reminder, we do Kobe is in October, we do government week. >> Yes, sir. in the month of October just kind of keep your eyes open because we what we try to do is display some things uh to where the public can they can actually see what we do. You know, you
hear about it all the time, but when you have your eyes seeing kind of what we do and we actually have some uh some we actually go to some of the schools and try to uh teach the students a little bit of what goes on in city government. So, um keep your eye open. It's very
interesting and it it it really helps the understanding between us you you to the city and the city to you. So be uh be on guard for that. Next I want to read a proclamation and uh
Sandra when I get done with this we'll come up and do a picture. Whereas Junth or Junth Independence Day commemorates the traditional observance of the end of slavery in the United States and is observed annually on June 19th. And whereas President Abraham
Lincoln declared that in giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free, honorable, alike, and what we give and what we preserve, we shall nobly save or mentally lose the last best hope of the earth. And whereas on January 1,
1863, President Lincoln issued an emancipation proclamation declaring that all persons held as slaves with any state or designated part of the state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States,
shall then forth and forever free. And whereas President Lincoln correctly believed slavery to be a violation of the principal declaration of independence and that it abolition represents a new birth of freedom for the United States. And whereas more than two years would pass before the news re
reached the African-American living in Texas. In 1865, Union General Gordon Granger and his regiment arrived in Galveston and spread the word that slavery had been abolished. And whereas the following year the official Junth celebration took
place in Texas and has continued across the United States throughout the years. And whereas emancipation in Florida was proclaimed in Tallahassee May 20th 1865. And for this reason, Fidian traditionally celebrate Emancipation Day on May the 20th. And whereas Junth is
the oldest national celebrated commemoration of the ending of slavery. And whereas Junth is an important opportunity to honor the principles of Declaration of Independence and celebrate the achievements and contributions African-Americans had made and continue to make in Florida and
across our nation. Now therefore, I Bob Campbell by virtue authority vested in me as mayor of the city of Phoenix Supreme Florida do hereby proclaim the day of June 19th, 2026 as Junth Independence Day. All right, Senator, you want to come and we'll do a real
quick photo? Okay. Come on, girls. These girls made it maybe this one here. We will squeeze in here with you. >> Squeeze. >> All right. Does that work? >> Yeah, we squeeze it. >> Okay. All right. That too personally.
>> All right. Go ahead. >> Okay. >> All right. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. We'll um start off with consent agenda and we would entertain a motion to approve as written or if you see something that needs to be pulled off
council uh please let us know at this time. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. Okay. Any comments or questions? And we are back to who? >> Me? I >> think so. >> I think it is. >> Yeah. >> I >> I
>> I got car. >> Okay. Now, let's move on to the uh regular agenda. Any additions or deletions? >> None, mayor. >> Okay. With uh entertain a motion to approve as written. >> So moved.
>> Okay. All right. A motion second and uh any questions or comments on on the agenda? >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I I. >> Eyes carry. Thank you very much. And we'll start with our city manager on 4C1.
>> Uh y'all okay? >> Go ahead. Go. >> Okay. Thank you, mayor. uh council. Um you all recall, you know, last year we did the vulnerability assessment through the Resilient Florida Grant Program through D. Uh and then a few months ago
we received a $198,000 grant through um Resilient Florida also. Okay. Um and so that is the adaptation plan and part of the adaptation plan is for a steering committee to be created that would help guide the consultants,
provide feedback um on the plan. And so ultimately my my my question is to the council, is this a committee the council wants to create or would you be willing to let the mayor and I work together to create the committee uh for this grant? The committee only lasts as long as the grant does when the grant's over uh you know it it goes away. So that that's the
ask. My recommendation is to let the mayor and I work together, find a couple staff members, some citizens and some professional industry professionals uh to put together for the committee, but we're open to whatever y'all would like to see done. Motion to approve the mayor and the city manager form in this committee. >> Second.
>> We have a motion second. Questions, comments from anyone. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Eyes carry. Thank you very much. Go. We'll go to C2. >> Thank you, mayor. >> Study.
>> RFP 20262CM, fire and police impact fee study and analysis. Uh we bid this out um to have our police and fire impact fees updated. Um we received five responses. Those five responses were uh MGT
raft raftellis uh get my number here. Willan DTA and Besh. Um we met uh the the committee for this based on the bid documents was myself, the city marshall
and the fire chief. We've met, went through all of these, looked at the scope, looked at the approach, um, references, their relation to Florida work, um, and then also the fee associated. And as we went through that and did it, uh, we we come to a consensus and we recommended the council
that we award RFP 20262 CM to Raft Ellis in the amount of $49,750. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion to second. Questions, comments from anyone? All in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. Eyes. Carrie. Thank you very much. >> We will work to uh get a contract together. Get Mr. Atinson to approve and bring that back. Uh based on the bids, uh this looks to be about a six-month process. So, we will get that started as soon as we can.
>> All right. We'll go to C3, which is the airport apron. >> Thank you, mayor. So, uh the apron expansion project, we at 90% design on that. And so I believe Garver is on the phone. I think you have him muted. >> Yeah, I think so. Let's see if I Let's see if I can cut him off.
All right. You there? Who am I speaking with? David Gordon. Well, I thought it did. >> There he is. >> You put your thing, Mayor. >> I'm sorry. >> Your microphone. You'll stick over the top of it.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh, okay, David. We're on number three, the airport terminal apron expansion project, 90% design, if you wouldn't mind uh giving that to the council. >> Sure. You said for the the apron. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um yeah, let me pull up the presentation real quick. >> All right. So if you go to the the first slide, project scope. So this outlines here what the project um is that we put
our design together for. So what you're looking at on screen um in blue is the existing terminal building. So just to the south and west of that, that gray area is going to be an expansion of the existing parking apron. So it's a existing it's a just a sawed area right
now. There's a little bit of drainage infrastructure in there. So, we're we're going to basically fill in that area, leaving space for what's planned to be a a future building adjacent to the terminal at some point. Um, which is right near that fire hydrant that's
going to stay out there. So, we'll expand the asphalt apron u matching the existing pavement section out there. And the idea is just to provide more parking space for aircraft out there. Um, as far as, you know, some ancillary work. So, we'll modify couple drainage inlets that
are out there. We'll have to bring those up to grade so they match the new pavement elevation. So, we'll do that. We're also going to do remarking of the entire apron. So, all the the aircraft taxi lane center lines as well as parking positions, those little T-shaped markings towards the the bottom of the
existing apron. We're going to remark all of that. So, it'll be all all fresh markings out there. Um, and then as as far as cost goes, we're we're currently sitting with our estimate about 700,000 in construction
is our estimate. That includes a $50,000 allowance um that the city could use during construction that would be built into the con construction contract if necessary um to address any, you know, additional work or unforeseen conditions. Um so total looking at about
900 990,000 that's with including um all design permitting CA fees. So a little bit of money left from from what's available in funding. And so we're looking at some options right now to try and take advantage of using the rest of that money with a bid alternate. Um and
so we're just running a couple numbers with some things that we can potentially add to the project as an alternate um and try and use up that funding. And so if you go to the the next slide, the phasing plan, this kind of just shows how we're going to to lay out the project. So the bulk of the project will
be done in that purple phase. That will just be some some minor impacts to the existing apron, but the existing apron will remain open during those 60 days for aircraft to to taxi, still use parking positions, get up to the terminal building. All that access will be maintained.
And then towards the second half of construction, um we have a 30-day closure for work adjacent to one of the existing hangers. So because of the proximity to that taxi way, we'll have to close down um that taxi lane, so access to that east side of that tea
hanger um won't be available during that 30 days. So we're projecting to to try and line this up with the runway closure. So um to minimize impacts to tenants and try and overlap that. So that's that's going to be our goal. Try to minimize um those impacts as much as
possible. Then the next slide uh just kind of gives you the schedule. So we're looking at releasing bid documents tomorrow. Uh we'll have a pre-bid meeting later this month. And then after our second advertisement, um 30-day bidding window
gets us to a bid opening around Tuesday, July 14th. Uh we'll pro provide a recommendation of award uh based on the bids received, plan to take that to council on the July 27th meeting and then once council approves that recommendation, come back
with a construction contract two weeks later on August 10th and then hopefully start construction shortly after that. And then based on our construction duration, we would have completion of construction around mid November.
And so that that was what I have for the the April and I'll happy to answer any questions. >> General, >> it's not so much of a question as I just wanted to clarify for everyone listening that this was a $1 million appropriation
by Congressman Neil Dunn. and it was one of the very few projects that he actually received funding for at a federal level and actually brought back to uh Northwest Florida. So, want to say thank you to Congressman Dunn for advocating for our area and I think that
this is a uh uh an example of when Definia leaves an impression on somebody, we win. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions? >> All right. We're just looking mayor for approval of
90% design uh and to issue bid documents. We have the bid documents. Those are prepared to go out and we have received um all the design uh and to this to date for this project. We received that from Garver. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> I have a motion second. Any other
questions or comments? Yes, ma'am. >> No, I didn't. >> You didn't have Okay. All right. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. I >> car. Thank you very much. And thank you, David. We appreciate it. >> We're going to leave him on the line, mayor. >> Oh, you going to leave him? >> Yeah. Don't hang them up just yet.
>> All right, we'll leave you right there. All right, we'll move to the next uh number four. >> Okay, mayor. This is runway 927 project schedule and phasing update. So, Garver's put together a presentation about, you know, where we're at now, where we expect to be over the next few months to get this done by the end of
the calendar year. Um, and so they'll go through that. And then we have uh Matt called me today. They have an updated phasing schedule um based on their conversations with the with the contractor. So they had provided us the wrong one last week. We worked they worked with us. We got that updated and so they have that to us tonight and I
think I think it's going to be pretty good. So we'll let them go through it and go over that phasing for us. >> Yep. >> So so just to catch everyone up with where we're at right now. So, we had uh the construction notice to proceed issued to the contractor ECSC back on
May 11th. So, we're about three weeks uh right now into our 30-day mobilization period before actual constructor begins. So, right now, we've just been working through some middles, lining up um operational procedures with the airport, coordination, getting our guys on site,
just getting everything lined up before construction actually starts. So, we're we're in that period right now. Um, and so kind of just to to catch up everyone with where we're at, you know, as far as what the project, you know, as a reminder, it's a extension of the runway, right? Widening of the runway,
extension of the the taxi way, it's new runway electrical, um, some nav aids that will be going in. So, those are, you know, navigational aids for pilots. We'll be replacing those as well as installing some new ones that are not currently at the airport. um doing some
work in the electrical vault, remarking the entire runway, doing some reconstruction of the runway to correct the line of sight. That was the um the hump issue that I think a lot of you are familiar with. Uh we'll be doing some work to address FTO compliance concerns.
So that's going to be movement of the airport perimeter fence, uh relocation of a realignment of a portion of Gene Hurley Road as well as Air Park Road. all that is to address those FTO compliance issues. And so on this next screen here, this just kind of gives an
overview um of those elements on the airfield. So I guess to to give another little background, we we had a meeting with the tenants about two or three weeks ago. This was a presentation I walked through with them. Um and I'll kind of touch on that in a second here once we get to schedule. That's kind of
this was what tenants were presented a couple weeks ago. So, so what's on screen is all the airfield components I described. And on the next slide, it just shows a little bit of the the landside or the roadway work that'll be occurring. And then the next slide just kind of
gives a a scale of the project. Um, and again, this was really for the tenants to give them an idea of, you know, what what size of the project we're, you know, they're up against to get done here by end of the year and how much work. We're talking, you know, a significant amount of pavement, earth work, um, new fencing, new electrical,
just a ton of work that we're looking to get done. So, really kind of puts it in perspective for everyone. Well, the next slide is is something that we've been looking at and we're discussing with the contractor right now is adding some some more work to the
project based on the favorable bid prices that came in. Um, we were looking at opportunities to try and utilize more of that funding. And so what we came up with were a couple different things all shown here on the screen in orange. The main ones being resurfacing of the
runway. So previously we had just been doing a seal coat which is a surface treatment which typically lasts you know three to five years before it kind of wears off. So what we'd like to do now is a is a resurfacing of the runway where we mill out an inch of that pavement, come back with a 2 in. So,
it's both going to resurface the runway as well as strengthen it um and make it, you know, add an extra inch to it. So, we have that in there. We have um an increase in the pavement thickness for all the proposed asphalt that we're doing on the airfield. So, if we're going to, you know, add an inch to the
existing runway, we we said, let's go ahead and add an inch to the rest of the the runway extension and the taxiway pavement. So, um, that kind of goes to the some of the discussions we've had about just strengthening the the runway pavements out there to support, you know, larger aircraft or a heavier fleet
mix. And so, that's that's what that effort is in support of. In addition to the the pavement work on the runway, we will be replacing all of the taxiway lighting system. So, basically everything that wasn't already in the project for electrical is going to be included. So, this is replacement of
taxiway edge lights, cable, conduit, counterpoise, um, all that stuff. So basically a completely new airfield electrical system by the time we're we're done out there. And then the last one is just a additional realignment of Gene Hurly
Road around the runway end. That's to um accommodate a future airspace surface and just kind of futurep proof the the runway for a future condition um for the ALP. Um, and so like I mentioned on that project scope slide, I just kind of put
some in words, but that's really just what I described on the the previous slide. And then next up just kind of gives uh an overview of the constraints or considerations that we're we're looking at with the the overall construction schedule. So like I mentioned, notice to proceed was issued
on May 11th. that sets the the completion deadline for the contractor is December 12th. Um, which is right up against the end of the year, which is the deadline to expend all the funding associated with the project. So, it's it's a you know, we got a lot of work to do and not not a lot of buffer space
there at the end. So, um, definitely working working diligently with that. And, you know, as far as schedule goes, um, you know, there's a lot of work that that cannot be done while the runways closed. And so I I kind of list the list of that up here really for the the tenants to understand, you know, how
much work has to be done while that runway is closed. Both reconstruction, resurfacing, widening, anything within safety areas, um taxiway work, lighting work, all that kind of stuff uh needs to be done while the runway is closed. So
um you know, I really want to appreciate ECSC, the work that they've been doing. you know, they they fully understand the timeline that the city is up against here. Um they're they're working very hard with us to to try and get this work done, find ways to expedite it, minimize
impacts to tenants. Um you know, so like I said, we we had a a good meeting with the tenants. I think about 15 or 20 of them showed up at our meeting where we walked through this presentation. Uh we got some really good feedback from them on, you know, what what their concerns
are, what their needs are. And so we're we're working with the contractor right now to, you know, put together a change order for this additional work to understand what it is in terms of dollars. But part of that discussion is also going to be what does that mean in terms of the runway closure? And so
we're we're taking into account that feedback that we got from tenants trying to find ways to minimize impacts to them and their businesses um as much as possible. And so if you go to the the next slide here, this is just a a proposed phasing approach that that
we're looking at right now. So as we stand here today, the plan is to shut down the runway next week. This will be to temporarily displace the thresholds. That's just going to shorten the runway. um which is going to open up the
extended area for the contractor to get in and do most of the work. So, we're we're planning for a five-day closure beginning next Monday for the contractor to get out there. They're going to remark the runway. They're going to move some lights around, get some things closed, and then get that runway back
open in a shortened condition. That's going to make it available to tenants while the contractor works um in a large portion of the extension area. So there would be a temporarily shortened runway. Um that's that's shown up on the screen in that light orange bar. So that's why
they're doing a lot of the extension work. They'll start doing new roadway work. And then later this this year we'll look at doing a full closure for the runway. So currently that plan is 30 days, but with the additional work we are expecting that to to be longer. um
tenatively thinking it's probably about two months, but we're we're actively working with the contractor to to try and nail that down and then we communicate that to tenants and make sure everyone's got enough notice. But we're looking at um a full closure probably happening in the fall sometime
towards the end two months of the project. And then at the end of that closure, the project would be complete. they would reopen the completely extended runway, the taxi way, basically the the full project to um to tenants and aircraft and be available for um for
everyone to use and then we be closing out the project. So that's currently what we're looking at for schedule. Um like I said, the highlight right now is next week is just a five-day closure to displace the runway. Um get it open as quickly as possible so we can kind of
minimize those impacts to tenants. And the last slide there was just kind of the the key takeaways that I had for, you know, the the gist of the project and and what we're looking to provide here, what we're looking to get done, and just kind of, you know, wrap it up with what we're, you know, what we're
looking to accomplish here. So, with that, um, that's, like I said, that's what we presented to tenants. I think it was it was a good meeting with them. I I value the feedback that we got from a lot of them. The contractor is very receptive to it. So, we're, like I said, we're we're working diligently to try and figure out how we can get this
work done both within the time frame we have to get it done, but also understanding the impacts to to those tenants and their businesses and keep those as minimal as possible. >> With that, I'll open it up to any questions. >> Questions?
Start with the D up here. Any particular questions you guys have? Okay. Anyone else? >> All right, Kevin, what you want to do, Mr. Mayor? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Come on up.
>> Hi, my name is Brian Mullen. I'm a tenant at the airport, but also a business owner for the maintenance shop on field. And I appreciate David's comments here. We met with him earlier, and that was a very productive meeting. They've done a great job. Um, our concern was full closure of the airport
and of the runway. So, I'd like to lend my support for any additional costs to keep the runway open as much as possible. Um, my question for David is actually I heard 30 to 60 days based on the additional work and if you could just add color on what additional work
between the 30 and the 60-day full closure. >> You hear that, Dave? >> Yeah. Yep. So, so yeah, the the 30 days is what is originally in the contract, which is what we have what the contractor's under contract for right now, which is primarily widening of the
runway as well as some safety area improvements. Um, that that's the work that's driving the the 30-day closure that's originally in the contract right now. And then the 60 days would be resurfacing of the runway, doing some additional work with the taxiway,
lighting, and signage. Um, and as well some work on the taxiways. But yeah, that's that would be what's additionally impacting the runway closure. There's there's additional safety area work that we're looking to do.
>> Okay. Thank you. O obviously our business has to stay closed anytime the airport's closed. So planes can't get in or leave. We lose business. We'll likely lose some future business if people don't want to come here even ahead of time for fear that their planes might
get stuck if the runways closed. So trying to have specific dates and very targeted completion is quite important for us. Thank you. >> Certainly appreciate your concern. We're we got so many timelines we're under that we we could lose a ton of money if
we don't get this done, you know, by the end of the year. >> Well, I would just echo that. It's not about losing the money. It's about losing the potential for a great runway. Yeah. >> So, we're equally excited for >> a great runway. It's longer. It's going to be resurfaced. So, we're very excited
for that. Um, at the same time, how do we stay in business? >> Yeah. >> So, go ahead, >> Mayor. Go ahead. >> This is obviously going to affect you financially, your business. Um, is there anything that the city could do to
ease the pain a little bit concerning the rent? >> Could we wave their rent while it's closed down? >> I think Kobe has been engaged in that a little bit. >> We haven't on the rent side. We we we've kind of factored the fuel side of it. Um, I mean, ultimately that's that's
council's discussion to be had. Um, I think as we go through the timeline is probably more prudent at a later date. What I would say though is we'll make I'll make sure Andre I think he's prepared to do this to at least at a minimum a monthly update out to tenants based on his they should have bi-weekly meetings with the contractor and Garver
he will uh to go over project time I think that so we'll make sure he's at least putting out by monthly at the least to all of you to kind of make sure the timeline's on track and if anything changes that way everyone's aware of it we we'll definitely do that >> that'd be very helpful and any help on rent obviously and just our fixed costs
while that runway is closed would be very much appreciated and um frankly maybe a matter of survival. So >> So that was a yes, Kobe. >> No, sir. My my response to your question was that's a council discussion to be had. Um that's >> is now the time to do that >> policy decision.
>> I don't think right now is the appropriate time. I think we going to need to come back if that's something we wanted to consider. Uh right now is more so an update on the schedule of the project. Um where we're headed and the timeline we have to get this thing done. So, I think if that's something you do want to consider, we can bring that back um and understand what that looks like
because to be fair, uh Brian, your last name is skipping my mind right now. >> Mullen. >> Mullen. Mr. Mullen's one of 40 plus tenants. So, there's a lot to be considered versus just just one at this moment. So, I think that's something needs some discussion. >> I just wanted to provide a little bit of
additional information. Uh we were recently advised by DOT um that the they foresee in the future the funding for say a runway repaving project was that was actually going to go down. Uh so if we don't seize on this
opportunity while the bids have come in lower to address the taxiways to address the additional 1-in asphalt on the runway itself. This literally may not be the this may be the only time we ever have an opportunity in the foreseeable future because DOT came to our airport a
couple months ago and said we don't see dollars going up, we see dollars going down when it comes to those type of projects because basically uh most of the airports uh that DOT covers in South Florida are going to be occupying those
dollars which would leave very very little for us and most of our pavement um was already at a very high percentage of being consumed. In other words, it was it was time for us to replace the the pavement. So, um you know, I
certainly understand what what it's like to be closed for for several months. Um remember remember that during CO for vividly for us as a small business. Um but at the same time, if we don't seize on this opportunity, this we may not ever have it again.
>> Mayor, >> yes. I'm not suggesting that we do anything to slow this down. Uh if if anything full speed ahead, we have customers whose business are being hurt because of this, we're the
landlord. And if now is not the time, I'd like to put this on the next agenda to try and soften the blow uh for the financial hit they're going to be taking. So, if now's not the time to do it, >> Yeah. put on the next agenda.
>> I'll put it on the next agenda, sir. >> Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. And to be clear, I'm in full support of the project. >> Yes, sir. I think we all are. >> I think you're fixing to see a 50 vote. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you, >> Madison. Madison, if you'll go ahead and put that one down.
>> All right, Cubby. So, this is just an update. >> Yes, sir. No action, sir. >> Okay. All right. All right, we'll move to number five then, which is >> We didn't vote on that. >> This was just an update. >> Nothing to vote on. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah, I'm fine.
>> Thank you, mayor. Um, task order 20265, Hugh Adams Road water main replacement. So, uh, in this budget cycle, uh, staff, we budgeted to initially to replace Hu the the water man along Hugh Adams Road. And we'll skip through all that. Go to the very last one real quick, Jesse. The
very last, uh, thing. And so, um, we budgeted 21,000. Um, ultimately we've got to the point to where, um, you know, we have some positions to fill, time, uh, and on top of that, uh, some permitting. So, you can stay on the very last one. Um, and so we have
number six of the PDF. Thank you. Um, and so we've we brought that funding. We've looked at another project that we budgeted in water that isn't necessarily a need. And so we we we've elected to hopefully postpone that to bring that money forward. Um so the task force is in the amount of 49,450
um to do design and permitting of the project. And the project would be from the intersection of business park road and Hugh Adams Road. Um that orange line you see running south uh it currently dead ends there before you get to the
winery. And so the design would be to replace that stretch, but also to go ahead and extend it and tie in to what you see behind the winery to create a loop feed rather than two dead ends, which is good for maintenance, reduces flushing, reduces sediment buildup. And so ultimately looking for approval of
the task order in the amount of 49,450 um to design and permit for this project. >> So moved. >> Second. >> I have a motion second. I have questions. >> And then we will budget construction in fiscal year 27. Okay. Or comments
from anyone. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Eyes carried. Thank you very much. We'll go to number six. >> Mayor. Task order 2026 lift station one force main replacement. Uh this would be for anchor to do
design, permitting, and CI. And so on the very last slide, you'll see the kind of the layout of the line. So, it's this purple line you see starting in the bottom left corner. That is where lift station one is located. And so, the purple line you see runs east, hits Hubard, runs north, and then runs west
on Bruce just past Colquit. Uh that is the line to be replaced. And so, we budgeted um 95,700 in this fiscal year. The task order is in the amount of 65,3 360. And so we're asking for approval of task order 2026 in the amount of
$65,360. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Go ahead. >> Kobe, remind me where is this at the start. >> Uh the bottom left that is lift station one. So it's down there at the end of South 11th Street.
>> South 11. Okay. Thank you. >> And so again, we will budget in fiscal year 27 for construction. Any other questions, comments from anyone? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I.
>> Eyes carry. Thank you very much. We'll move to number seven, which is a Twin Lakes Drive. >> Yes, sir. Uh, council, we had a discussion a while back about Twin Lakes Drive and, you know, potentially doing core samples, looking at the utilities, bringing all that into the big picture. And so, we have worked with our
engineers. We brought three notch and anchor together in the same room, went over the project to understand, you know, what that looks like. And so we received a couple things. Um, we received task order 20268 from Three Notch to perform core samples and testing for us to understand the base,
what condition it's in. That task order is in the amount of $6,530. Uh, the next one was to look at the gas line. The gas line uh is in need of replacement and so to design that would be $26,000. And then we would budget for
construction in fiscal year 27. Um the third is the AC water man. So Twin Lakes Drive has an AC water man. It's a part of the larger AC water main project particularly under design right now. Um that area of town is phase three. Uh we've met with anchor there. They're going to go ahead and pull that out
individually and go ahead and design it. It doesn't cost us anymore because we're already paying for that design. Um they would get bring that out, give it to three knots. Three knots would include that in their bid package as part of the project. And again, we would budget for construction in fiscal year 27. One thing we hope to do, so we'll keep the
proper records and project management. Uh we can't guarantee it. We would hope that uh as we go and apply for construction dollars through SRF for AC water main project that hopefully we would get credit for that from a grant perspective. Um can't guarantee it, but we're at the point to where we're also
not ready for construction dollars yet either. Um that we hope to be going to to submitting that for the November meeting of D. Um, and so we we'll keep close eye on that as well. And then lastly was the sewer main. So the sewer main down Twin Lakes Drive is all PVC.
Uh staff has came it. They reviewed it a couple times now. Um it does not require replacement or repair. Um and then also, you know, talking about uh taps or tie-ins. So staff went through watched the video again based on the number of tie-ins they see on the line. Uh all the
all the taps are there. There are a number that are not being used, meaning they're not hooked up yet, but the taps are there currently based on the number of parcels that we have along each side of the road. And so, uh, that'll be for a later time. The taps are there. If something was to come up at a later date
that either, you know, it's un not utilized, then we hook it up. U we run into an issue where a new ladder needs to be put in. Those laterals are 6 in tie-ins, so they're big enough to have laterals connected to them. So, we're prepared for that as well. So ultimately at this time that's kind of where we're
at. Um if we can get approvals on the two task orders then we can move forward with those core samples that design work to get all that put in a bid package and then eventually we'll be coming to the council for 90% design to then put out for construction. So we can take it in one we can take it in two different ones
or one solid one. But ultimately, I'm looking for approval of task order 20268 in the amount of $6,530 and task order 202607 in the amount of $26,000. >> So moved. >> Second. >> I have a motion and second. Questions,
comments, >> mayor. >> Yeah. >> Um, does this include the removal of asbestous pipes or are they a question here? >> No, sir. That was number three. That was the AC water main. So yes, it would all be
>> replaced. And when people tie in to the existing taps that are already in place, it's not going to require tearing up the road. >> No. So the the water man is on the edge of the road. A large portion of it is outside is is not underneath it. Some of it is. So that would have to be
corrected as we do resurfacing and everything else. Anyways, um but all the water taps that are there, they'll get retapped. If you're talking about sewer, like I talked about the number of parcels that are each side of the road, we have that number of taps to the line currently. The main and like I said, if something were to come up some
unforeseen circumstance, all the taps on Tw are 6 in taps coming out. So, they're big enough to have additional connections if necessary. It wouldn't take it would have enough capacity in the tap to do that. >> Would we tear up a new road or can we do it without tearing up a new road? >> The goal is not to not tear it up at
all. Yeah. with the existing infrastructure that the understanding is no. >> Okay. >> Can't account for you know miscellaneous breaks things that but >> anyone else. >> All in favor say >> I >> I >> I >> I
carry Thank you very much. We'll go to eight for the amend the policy. >> Thank you mayor. Um uh we've had so had conversations about this and uh this is kind of in relation to a prior item we had. Um we've done this a couple times now council you've seen over the last
two years we'll have items on the consent agenda about hiring new staff whether they be you know 2% or 5% or 10% or whatever above the minimum. Um so um we're pulling this one out right now in hopes that this also helps um with with staffing getting people turned in more
faster on boarding things of that nature. We will ultimately be coming forward with a full update to the personnel policy. But this particular section um which is compensation plan subsection 4.2 starting wages for new employees. Um currently it is written
that any employee hired above the minimum must come to city council for approval. Um I'm asking that we amend that to allow me to authorize up to 10% and then anything above 10% must come to the council for approval. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> I have a motion second. comments or
questions? >> Go ahead, Don. >> So, I I I discussed this with with Kobe and I have a little bit of a different different take on this. Um, I believe as a council, our mechanism
for this is the budget. And so from my perspective, as long as Kobe is operating with or I'm sorry, the city manager is operating within the budget that we have approved and we monitor, if he wants to hire somebody at a
certain rate because he feels like that's appropriate. As long as he's within the budget, that's his discretion. That's the way I interpret the charter. Uh and so for me, that is the that is the way I think it should operate. and and so to me I would almost
eliminate this from the personnel policy of if it's up to a certain percentage and then it comes back to us for approval. However, I would caveat that I do think that there needs to be when we talk about budget, there needs to be a firewall in between money spent for just
general expenses and money spent on recurring expenses like personnel. And what I what I'm talking about is a scenario where Kobe needs to fill a position and Kobe looks at the budget and says, "I'm $5,000 short to fill this position for
what I want to pay pay this employee." What I don't want to have happen is for them to say, "Well, there's an extra $5,000 in office supplies that we haven't used. I'm going to move that over and I'm going to call it good and not inform the council because buying
$5,000 worth of office supplies is is an elective decision. Basically, that's something we can decide very much like earlier he decided not to do one of the projects, forego one of the other water projects and instead we're going to do this project out there uh on Hugh Adams Road.
To me, that's completely within his purview. but crossing over into FTE dollars, for lack of a better term, that to me needs to be something that the council needs to be aware of and and approves. So, as long as it's within the
current budget, for example, we haven't filled the finance director position, so there's all that money. Theoretically, Kobe could say, "I'm going to hire a finance director, and I've got enough money to pay them a certain rate through the end of the year." But what I don't want to do is
Kobe to then say, "Well, within the finance department, there's another $10,000 for an audit expense that I don't think we're going to need." And for him to then move that back over into the employment side, the employee side, >> then he would need board approval.
>> Correct. So, so to me, I would rather change if we're going to change the policy, I would rather change the policy to say if you're operating within your approved budget, you don't need to come to us for approval. We approve the budget and we monitor the budget throughout the year, >> but if you want to move it around, bring it to council
>> if you correct. >> Gotcha. >> So, so that's my take on it. And and Kobe and I have had discussion and >> and feel like there's there's an agreement that he he told me and correct me if I'm wrong in saying this. >> Explain what you >> sir. Do what? >> Okay. Um that
it's his and Danielle's policy that they would never do that. And I said, "Well, that's great because I trust you, but unfortunately, we need to make sure that that is codified somewhere, that it's not just living in his head and living in Danielle's head that we promise we're
never going to do this." So, that that's why I'm bringing that up. I think we should I think we should codify that versus just simply tweaking this policy as as presented. >> And and kind of go further conversation Council B and I had, we got to talking about this and we got talking about budget amendments. How do we handle
budget amendments? So for us there's two different types of budget amendments. You've got a formal budget amendment that requires public notice requires all those things. That is when one thing really one thing main occurs is when you bring money into the budget that wasn't there previously. You've you've increased or decreased the overall
approved budget. The other one is an internal staff amendment. So um and again like you said we have things that we feel is appropriate and we don't cross that line. So I think what the council is getting is is working on a budget amendment policy that kind of solidifies and codifies some of that. For example, um if you know we we have a
piece of equipment and between the time the budget was approved and the time we go to buy it, it's increased $1,000. Um we will make a budget amendment out of another line in the department that could cover the cost. So it's an internal budget. We don't jump from one budget to another that will cause
another property. And so we keep within that. We also do not take uh a one-time expense, take that money to cover a recurring expense. We get into a deficit issue. So we do those things just out of practice, out of best practice. So I think he's looking at was bring back some codify that so future people have
the understanding of this is how this works. Um and so that's that's kind of how we come about that conversation. >> Yeah. If in the beginning when you set your budget, you know, for let's just say you're setting salaries for a particular department and some departments only have four or five
people or whatever, some have 15 or 20, whatever. Uh what does that does that mean? every year you're going to have to probably exaggerate that even more what that budget is going to be in case you have a situation like we have now
that you have employees that probably going to cost a little bit more. >> Um yes and I mean no. I would say ultimately no. I don't think we need to get into put fluff in those lines. We try to be as accurate as possible during the budget process with who's currently
employed, what's vacant, if it is vacant, what's the approved minimum and also keeping in fact consideration of the health care, retirement, um you know, life, dental, things of those nature. So I think ultimately what if we were to go down that route we start to look at this we would then have to take
do an examination of the current operating the current personnel budget and each department's been approved and determine okay has things changed through the year that we're not going to use all that on a recurring basis and that was a conversation that came up well if you if I if that oper if that personnel budget for we're going to say
finance our example was it was $600,000 and then no one's left nothing's changed the same is occurring and we add some bring went on at, you know, 5% above the minimum, right? You got salary, FICA, retirement, all that changes as well. So, let's say that's $3,000. We have got
to find the $3,000 that's going to be recurring next year. Like, it's just not going to go away. So, um, that's that's how that would work. >> Okay. >> So, when Kobe called in reference to what was on the consent agenda, there was somebody he was trying to pay. I I
just asked this question. This is how it came up for me. So, and I said, you know, other governments allow their top administrative personnel to make these decisions upwards of 10%. And I thought that was a good standard. And I said, is
this more or less? Because I didn't want to hold up him hiring somebody and wait uh because we didn't have a meeting and then it was going to be almost a whole month. Yeah. >> And I said, >> Kobe, I'm okay with it. Um, but you need to make sure they understand it's
contingent upon everything else coming back approved. And um, so that's how it came up for me. I didn't desire him to have to call me every time he wants to hire somebody, especially when it's in such a small threshold. And you know it
looks like industrywide from governments that you know most of them do have a policy where uh their top uh hire hiring authority uh can go upwards of 10%. So for me I think we need a policy. I think
it needs to be direction. I don't have any problem with Kobe either but Kobe's not always going to be here and I don't think that the council should have to change the policy every time a city ad you know a city management turns over. So for me, that's why I'd like for it to
be at his level. And um above that, I would want it to come back, you know, uh above a 10% then, you know, there might be other circumstances that I think might be at our level. >> Well, Clay, what can you do? So, if we
have to bring this back to get policy or ordinance changed, I guess it'd be a policy. >> It's a policy, not an ordinance. >> Yeah. and um but so that he go ahead and move forward uh without >> I mean it's it's up to the council. I mean I think if the council's position
is to amend the policy to actually state what council beer bomb said they can do that right here tonight and we'll simply just we'll treat that as part of that possibly be amended by motion. Yes, we'll present back in the actual written verbiage of it just for your review, but
we can adopt whichever version of it you want tonight. I will say I read the authority given to the manager roughly years ago to be that he hires and fires all budgeted positions of the city. So within that budgeted range, if you give
him x number of dollars total budget, it's up to him to move it around as he sees fits. How I've always viewed it. This personnel policy definitely limits that, but that personnel policy is not an ordinance. I mean, I find there to be an inconsistency in the two. I think he has
more authority than this policy gives him, but he's trying to do it the right way. Brings it to you. >> So, what's the pleasure of the council here? >> I don't want it to be I mean, my Sorry. >> Go ahead, Clint. Well, I just think the latitude to hire somebody with
experience uh has to be acted upon quickly >> and and and you know, um and I I would like him to have and he's he's responsible for for budgeting and staying with within that. But when you hire somebody that has experienced in
the job we're hiring them for, somebody else has given them that experience. They they have paid for that experience and they're coming to us with it already. So, we might be paying them more coming in, but we're actually saving some money as well because they're going to spread the knowledge
they have to their co-workers on staff and and so there's there's another way to look at it. You know, you get somebody with experience, you're saving some money even though you might be paying them 10% more or whatever. >> Uh so, I would like him to have that latitude um to hire somebody as quickly
as possible. We have like 10 openings right now, >> give or take. >> So, Okay, I'm Go ahead, Amy. >> I I just want to say uh my only concern about just just a blanket policy and not a cap like 10% would be inconsistencies
or somebody coming forward to complain after he did it. And I I'm just trying to avoid all that 10% that's that's reasonable. That's manageable. Uh he knows what the pay scale is. if he can, you know, if he thinks it's going to be an issue in advance, for example, like
the finance director position, then we we've had all these times up to this point to talk about it. So, anyway, I'd like to see the cap. >> All right, we're looking for some direction here from the council,
>> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes. I kind of like um I I can understand that, but he is the CEO of the city. So someone else could complain about him raising it for one
but not the other. But are are we going to engage in that practice of questioning that for everyone? Because some certain employees may get ticked off either way. I mean that that's but he's looking at that experience level. Um,
so for me, I could see doing it with the with the cap, but then again, I could see doing it without it. And he's responsible for that budget, so allow him to work within his budget. So, that being said, I'd like to withdraw my second. >> What was the first? Was there a motion?
>> It was the 10%. I'm actually in favor of of letting it or increasing his authority level at this point and as long as he functions within that budget. So long as he doesn't cross the boundary lines of the FTEES and his operating expenses, I really don't have a problem
with it because he knows what what he has to work with throughout the rest of the year. >> Mayor. >> Yes, sir. >> That sounds good as long as we got >> Kobe. >> Yeah. >> But what if we get somebody like we've had in the past
>> and they're not trustworthy and they take advantage of it? So we need some guard rails. So >> yeah. Well, and and I'll tell you, we've we always had a gamble. Sometime it was worse because you know, you would much
rather the manager making the call than the city council. It's not I'm not saying that's the way it is today, but it has been that way. And so that can go back and forth forever, you know, making the best call. sort certainly a little safer uh with the council having a final
call, but boy does it it takes time, a lot of pain and agony. Yes, sir. >> So, my proposal is very much born out of the out of those concerns and those actual experiences. And I and I'll give you an example. the street painting, the infamous street painting out here on
Ballway on Baldwin. I mean, uh >> that that money to do that was moved from a completely separate budget into the council's executive line item, >> right, >> at the direction of the city manager by
the by the the chief finance officer. >> I remember >> I do too. So, what I'm what I'm proposing is to give Kobe that operational flexibility as long as he's living within his actual budget and if if he wants to go above and beyond that
budget, he's then got to follow the process of bringing in an amendment or or advising the council. But as if he's living within the budget that we have already approved and that we're monitoring monthto monthth and throughout the year, I don't want to get in the way of his operational flexibility of being able to hire
somebody if and and this this part of the discussion we had. He's like, Todd, I need to be able to pull the trigger on some of these people and I can't because I have to put it on the consent agenda and it takes 30 days and all of that. And again, my my answer to him was, "If you're living within your budget and you're not moving funds outside of the
budget, then I'm okay with it." He says, "Well, we already do that. That's that's just in our head." And I said, "Okay, then let's codify that." And that that's where we are is that's what I'm proposing is that we codify what he and Danielle are already living by. >> Mr. Mayor.
>> Yeah. Go ahead. My only issue with what the example that you just used has nothing to do with the starting salaries and him authorizing people to get uh start above that the minimum pay scale which is what the policy says. That's the only policy I thought was brought
forward. So the example you're using with the street paint has nothing to do with that. I know that there's some other inner workings that need to be considered when he's making a decision, but for this particular policy, unless I'm misunderstanding it, isn't this only
authorizing you to uh hire 10% above what the normal pay scale would be? >> Correct. This particular one. Yes. >> Okay. >> But I'm but I'm proposing basically a a different take on that. I'm proposing that there not be any sort of cap. He can hire who he needs to hire as long as
he's living within his budget. And the protection is he doesn't get to move money around between budgets >> as a way to safeguard it going off the rails. So >> go ahead. >> Again, as long as Kobe's here, we can do
that. So if we want to move forward on this and we want to give him the authority to hire somebody 10% above the posted salary and he's not robbing from Peter to pay
Paul. Can we go forward with giving him that authority? And you withdrew your motion. So you were Were you making the motion? Amy had the primary, I had the secondary. >> Okay. Could Could I second it and let's
move forward on this? >> Yes. >> The 10% or the full? >> He can second whatever motion is on the table. >> Yeah. >> I'd like which was the 10%. >> I'd like to second the 10%. Him understanding that he doesn't rob from pay Peter to pay Paul. And if it's
above 10%, the council takes care of it. And that's to save future uh council members from future city managers that may not be like Kobe.
>> Mr. Mayor, >> yes. Go ahead. I would like to make a substitute motion that we authorize Kobe to be able to hire anybody that he sees fit as long as it's within the budget and then that we codify the the various rules about protecting the transfers
between funds uh that that's been discussed. >> I'll second that. >> All right. Motion second. Um All right. Now, which one we got to hold and do first? It's okay. >> All right. So, back to this.
All right. So, I think we've effectively debated them. So, unless the council wishes to debate them more, um, that'll be up to you, mayor. But, I'd say you debate them at the same time. Your first vote is on whether to substitute the substitute motion for the primary. If that passes, you then vote yes or no. If
it fails, then you vote yes or no on the original motion. So, two votes. First vote is does it substitute in? >> All right. Well, we'll do the substitute motion first. Uh, I >> no
>> I >> no I >> All righty eyes carry >> substitute motion is the primary motion you move straight to a vote on that >> okay all right >> you want to call for public comment >> we can uh so we're uh we're on the not
the 10% uh best way I can describe it but any comments questions or comments about the motion from anyone Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. >> No. >> All right. >> No. >> I carried. >> All right.
>> Thank you very much. Okay. Kobe >> mayor. This is the Jacobs by month report and I believe Kyle's here. >> All right. Great. Come on, Kyle. >> Good evening, Mayor Council. >> Good evening. All right. for the month of March and
April. Um, sitting on the water side first, for the three months combined, we did 143 million gallons. February we did 43, March we did 47, and April we did 51. On the wastewater side, we're still
trending pretty good. Um, right around that 56 or uh.56 on your flow. So, we're sitting right around 560,000 gallons. So, we're, as you can see on the trend, it's it's uh staying pretty pretty level to where
we're at now that we've compiled most of the yearly on data. So, hadn't seen a whole lot change. Now, we did see some change over the last couple of weeks due to the rain. Um, but that that's to come through. So, um, for February, we >> stop you there real quick. >> Yeah, absolutely. Has that uh has that
improved any didn't we fix some of that? >> From all the work on the INI study that y'all have done in the past from the first time that I got here from now it is significantly improved. Roughly we do about like I said about 560,000 gallons a day. >> Yeah.
>> This rain event we're averaging right around 8 to 900,000 where a couple of years ago we've been right about 1.1 1.2 million. >> Okay. you know, so I I've seen about a decrease of about 300,000. >> Great. >> Yeah. So, it's been a huge improvement. It really honestly has.
>> It actually helped us out in this this case, though. We needed the rain um with dealing with some of the other issues that we had to deal with. Um so, the rain was actually much needed. >> Um so, February, we did about 15 million. In March, we did about 17 million. On the plant capacity, we're
still sitting right around that 38 39%. So we're still doing good there. Um bioolids for the month of March we ended up doing high loads and then uh April we did five loads on total on the fan press production of bioolids removed we're at
1.7 million gallons um so far um for SCADA still waiting on lift station 9 I haven't got any direction from Mr. Mont when they're going to be hooking up the power from that. Um, so one as soon as they do, um, the SCADA service is ready
to hook up. I also got the new boxes in today, um, for the new, uh, additions to the lift station, I believe, out on Springs and then lift station 3. Um, so those components came in. We're doing the startup process tomorrow and Thursday or Wednesday. Yes, sir.
>> Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah, go ahead. So, do I understand that you're you're not going to bring the SCADA online until we get lift station 9 online or >> Well, there's no power there yet, >> right? >> Just the one lift station. The rest is operating. Yeah, exactly. I'm just waiting for power to get hooked up. >> Just making sure.
>> Yes, sir. >> Um I do have a question about one of the one of the stations whenever you get down to that page. >> Okay. Just stop me when you're ready. >> Yes, sir. >> Um we did, you know, we did have a spill lift station 9. Uh the new bypass that we ended up hooking up there for the
contractor have a little bit different float systems than what we're used to. A little lighter and we ended up it ended up getting on some uh debris inside of the lift station and it raised the float with the level. It wasn't anything to do with mechanical. It's just the floats were a little bit
lighter than what we're used to and it floated with the top. Um since we corrected that issue, we hadn't had any issues with that. Um I did add to your report this time um some of the CMMS uh information on the corrective maintenance side that we do.
Um so that is now added and hopefully you did get the information Amy for lift station 9. Hopefully that's what you wanted. Was that what you were looking for? >> I haven't been able to go all the way through it but thank you. >> Yeah I was trying to it all down. I just I provided every little detail that I physically had. So hopefully that
worked. Um all right for on the projects skation 9 still waiting on it. Um we ended up performing all of your triannual samples. I provided an SOC waiver to the state. I actually got the approval last week to wave the additional sampling
because all of your first sets of sampling came back with undetects. So that waved the second set of sampling for the SOC's. Um we ended up installing a new flow meter. Uh, well one, it's all hooked up and ready. It's It's working. Um,
serviced all of your well motors, changed oil, all the grease fittings and things of that nature. Um, list station 31 or 33 and one during a storm event. The panel actually blew blew over one of them thunderstorms that
came by. So, we ended up rebolting it. Luckily, everything stayed intact, all the electrical equipment. So, all we had to do is put new supports on it. Um, this station 26, one of the older pumps that were in that station, we had to get sent off. It was over amperaging, so they had to repair some of their
windings in that one. Um, lift station 7. Uh, got the new B or the reinstalled bypass installed back at lift station 7. Basically, we took the unit from Dorsy and List Station 7 and made a whole new
unit out of it because there were some parts and pieces out of one of the other bypasses that we couldn't get parts for for anymore. So, they ended up piecing together and made one old unit. So, it's back at the station 7. Um, I'm working with Randall on getting some quotes on some sprinkler heads for out at the
sprayfield for zone six. I don't have a whole lot of history on zone six out at the sprayfield, but what I've been told has been down for quite some time. I ended up replacing the valve out there. The only last component that we have is to replace some of the spray heads. The farmers that you have out there
throughout the years have been taking the spray heads out of that zone and repairing some of some of the other zones that were actually working. Um, so they're a little bit more expensive than I thought they were, but >> yeah, not I was going to make they're very expensive. So, >> yeah, they're almost the spray heads.
You don't pick them up at Walmart. Yeah. And I've and I tried to outsource and see about different brands or different models that would meet the same spec specifications that you have out there and I haven't been able to find any. The cheapest I've been able to find them is about $857 a piece.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, it's a little expensive. Um >> Yeah. Yeah. So, on down to lift station 8. We ended up that one's complete now. We ended up sending out both them motors off and got them rebuilt and some electrical components inside that cabinet redone. Um I spoke with the
contractor um that has ordered the parts for lift station 22, 26, 28, and 31. They should be in in two weeks, I believe. I already have all the disconnects. I have the electrician wired up or lined up and they should be as soon as them panels are here. They'll be getting installed.
Um ended up vacuing out some of your main stations. The city helped us with that. So, thank you for that, >> Mr. Kyle. >> Yes, sir. >> Uh, what is your typical uh rotation on vacuuming out the stations, the wet wells? >> It all depends on the station. Like,
say, you know, like Best Western, it gets built up pretty good. Um, the winery, um, Simol, Apache, um, with Station 9, we try to hit those main areas at least on a quarterly basis.
>> Okay. Um, and the city of, you know, we do have y'all's older Backtron now. And I mean, it works. But it does what it needs to do. But the city's really honestly a great asset for us. When we need it, they they jump right on it. So, I thank y'all for that. So, when we need
it, they help us. >> And other than that, on the wastewater plant, um, I installed a new walkway for the auto sampler. Um, installed a new clarifier motor that burned up. um completed all the generators. Um I am
working on that now. Obviously, it's hurricane season. All of your electrical generators are up up and running. Um so if in need of a storm, we should be good to go. Shouldn't have any issues there. Um other than that, um that's
essentially what we've been been working on. We did have an issue. I'm sure Kobe has enlightened you with the sheriff's department on the on the dumping. So I've been working dealing with that. It seems to be mitigated now. Um, hadn't had any more issues at the plant, but so >> good.
>> Hope I'm glad we identified that. I think that's been happening for far too long. So, other than that, if y'all have any questions. Yes, sir. >> So, um, on the next page of the report, I guess it's page 10, you got outstanding to be purchased, pumps, panels, bypass pumps, fences.
>> So, shoot, probably over a year ago now, this council spent an extended amount of time talking about you know, the various states of all of our lift stations and where do we stand with them? >> Um, are we to use that as kind of a bellweather for where we are and making
progress on addressing all of that? >> Yeah, this is a living document. When I upgrade pumps or I upgrade panels, I take it off of the pumps and panels and bypasses and fences. Okay. >> And, you know, going through the budgetary process working with Randall, we're kind of forecasting some of these out throughout the years. Really,
honestly, your lift stations are in fantastic shape. >> Sure. I mean, I don't cringe when the rain event happens anymore, you know. So, it's a good day when you don't get called out at 2 a.m. >> The second question I had was that you have uh lift station number 17, which is Best Western, kind of highlighted here
in gray, and it's marked uh with poor. Um, you know, I remember we we spent a lot of money as a city out there at that station. From what I was told by a previous engineer, um, you know, that lift station was like there >> was like a super lift station that could
almost outpump the actual. Are >> you talking about the new one or the old one? >> There's two separate. >> So 17 is the old one and the new one is what number is that one? 42. >> 42. Okay. >> So 42 is the new big one that got put in as part of the initial PDP out there. >> Okay. >> 17's the old one. That's about what 10
foot to the west. >> Yeah, it's not far. And it's got a real shallow wet well and that is one of your older stations too and currently it is not operational right now. I have it bypassed. >> So essentially it's a holding tank for 42 and I was just kind of waiting on I'm
working with Randall now to figure out what we need to do with it because >> talking I think this was back in Deubberry's time they were here and they're like hey you you know you got to reamp that because of the future development down 331. We we kept that one here for a reason and so we're we're
working with getting that one out. >> Yeah. And that that's kind of where I was tracking with it was my understanding was all the flow is going to be diverted to the new one, but then we were going to use that other one as basically like a backup slash additional capacity. So >> all right. So you you have a plan to kind of rehab it, but it's it's further
out. Okay. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. Mayor, >> um, do you have the money to fix the problems that you currently uh have with the pump stations or is that need to be in the next budget or
>> we me and me and Randall are working diligently on the budget cycle and we are going to knock out I believe I don't have the paper in front of me but like some of the fences I believe we slated to do half of them this fiscal year and then and forecast out the other half.
some of the other lift station pumps and panels we are going to forecast for this physical year, you know, fiscal year 2027 to get them. Basically, what mine and Randall's plan are is, hey, let's get all these pumps and panels. Let's get them all fixed and then we can start throughout the budgetary process through
the years. Let's start getting some, you know, pumps on hand, you know, let's start getting an inventory. So, to answer your question, yes, the city is funding everything that I need in time. I I mean it can't all be done right now, but over time I believe Randall and Kobe
has a has a really good trajectory on the future ahead. >> What's the what's the top thing on the need list >> on the lift stations? >> Yeah. >> Really? Really? I mean >> are they in that >> the biggest Well, the biggest need right
now is probably a bypass at lift station 9 if I had you know really honestly. >> Which ordered >> Huh? >> which has been ordered. >> Right. Exactly. and that's been ordered. So other than four and five which is your oldest stations which are can station and list station four or five.
Yeah, five is getting potentially rehab by the school board. Now four is owned by us. So that would have to be under construction of the city but that is your oldest one. It's old can station. It's brick and mortar. I would say that would probably be my next one after
after that. >> Is it operational right now? >> It's operational. Yeah, it's absolutely operational. It's just built in 1954. >> Okay. >> And the longevity of it is about to wear out and the safety aspect of a can station in today's standards just isn't
safe anymore for individuals to go down to make necessity repairs that are needed. >> Kobe, do we have the money in this year's budget for that pump? >> I haven't got around to utilities yet. Utilities is one of the last ones in the budget process. It's so big. Um, so
that's one. Two. It also be should to be identified in the master plan which we should hope to get a draft here soon on. >> Absolutely. >> Any other questions? >> Kyle, if we could, can we add um moving forward, could we put a U for the water
plant just similar to how you do the wastewater plant for like graphs? >> Sure. >> Can we do that for the water plant? Capacity. >> You want capacity? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah, I can most certainly do it. Well, thank you so much. >> All right. Y'all have a good evening. >> Thank you, Kyle. Great work. >> Okay. All right.
We'll go to uh Mr. Wallace and D1 with city development wastewater impact presentation. Good evening. So, tying right in here to what Kyle was speaking about, but hopefully providing
some additional details for everyone. So this is our what we put together here is our current flows through the plant versus what we have paid or we'll call
them vested erus and then what we have that has been approved by the council that has not paid their fees yet. So to start off on a real high level, NERU is a equivalent residential usage which is
280 gallons per day established by the state of Florida. So the formula we use, if you build a single family home, you're paying one ERU. If you build a retail store, that's based on your square footage and there's a a sort of a
multiplier on that that will give the ERUs. Whereas a gas station is based on the number of bathrooms within it. So it varies from use to use based on this usage. Um
and that that's our number. Now does it mean they're going to use 280 gallons per day? We don't know. A lot of times they don't. There's probably some that do. Um, but that was adopted by the council back
in 20 took effect October 1st of 2021 based on the rate study that we had done. So, what we have now, we've got a 1.5 million gallon per day wastewater plant.
Talk about the number of how an ERU is calculated and then we'll move on to currently at 37 38%. We're hovering around 550. I know Kyle
brings it down to 525. That number of course fluctuates um with water, but the the 550 is the number that I got um doing the math there. So remaining capacity, we've got about 950,000 gallons per day or about 63% of
our plant capacity remaining at this point. So currently we have 1,082 additional erus
that are paid that the city has received a check for. So they are vested meaning that we have committed our resources to providing them sewer at which point that they come online.
Some of those are under construction, some have not, but we have a,082. And if we add all those in, that's going to bring our current daily usage
up to about 50, what I got 57%. So, at that point, we're above half of our uh >> capacity at the plan. We have an additional 934
that has been approved by the city council. Some of these include subdivisions, um, apartments, things like that that have not paid yet. And I'm not saying
all 943 of those projects are actually going to come to fruition. I'm more confident in some than I am in others. But if we use that number, that brings us to if everybody if every one of those
was to pay tomorrow, we'd be vested at 74%. Give or take. Um, which means we're running out of room at the plant. And I know we've got several projects that are
down the road that we haven't even looked at yet. M >> so that number is only going to begin to grow over time. Um and I believe I'm not sure when you start getting letters from D and I think
Kyle stepped out but we're getting real close >> three months. So at the at the threemon daily average of 50%. So once you once you hit the level of you go three straight months with a daily average of 50% capacity usage that's when you have
to you start the initiation process planning for plan upgrades >> and you have to be committed to move forward I believe it's 70 now so you have to be under design permitting at that phase >> question >> with everything that's currently in the
pipeline >> with everything that's in play. >> It makes it sound like we're getting close to critical. Is that correct? >> Close. >> I don't want to say that. >> It's It's not the It's not the red flag
uh bells and whistles now, but how much time have we got? >> Well, just take in consideration, Chris. I think you're you're currently vested is a little over a thousand. It's going to take it'll take four or five more or more years to get a thousand units online. That's that's a
lot to be built out really quick. And that only gets at that point. It gets us to about 57 58%. >> So then we're definitely right at the time when DP is going to want to see us start submit reports, start planning um moving forward.
>> So to be proactive, should we start planning now? can't or we can't. >> So that's also what the master plan's for again when that comes online when that comes to us that should have a lot of this stuff factored in there considering the growth they work with
Chris on these development projects understand the same exact stuff you see today. So >> uh capacity then is what I'm hearing is math related. Um, so I'm curious, you said 1,082 erus are already paid for,
but they're not necessarily online. So what I want to understand in my mind is how do we estimate when they get online or if they ever will get online? Uh, and how long have we been sitting on the, you know, when do I pay it versus when
do I build it out? >> Well, generally they like to wait till the last minute to pay it. >> Okay. Um, so take for instance Bay Springs phase one. They've paid theirs are under construction. They've still got another >> Are they in the,082? >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> So they've got another 70 homes out there that will eventually come online. Um, the Bay Springs Town Homes. That's another 112 units. >> So of that, 182, I guess I'm looking for the split. How many of those are really going to come to fruition versus
>> Well, if they paid their fees, those are not necessarily refundable and maybe Mr. Atson can >> so I I think I if your question councilwoman is going to the issue of when do we go past 37% or when do we
start increasing as they come online 37% includes all of those u tied in now or not Chris >> that includes everything that is currently running into the system it does not account for >> the82 that's what I think we need to we need to break down so the 1082 will get you
to what 74% or Does that take >> No, that's uh 57%. >> All right. So to get that that's the number Mr. Townsen said reasonable expectation to bring a thousand units online you're looking at somewhere 40 to 60 months ballpark years.
>> Three and a half to five years. >> So five year. Yeah. So >> yeah and you know there's 412 I believe up on the corner >> island cat island >> that have been paid. They haven't started construction out there yet, but
they have paid. They are vested. >> They're in the 900 you were talking about. >> No, those are in the,082. >> The,080 that are so 400 of those are >> I'm sorry. Okay, I got it. >> And that's not going to be taken down all at once. We know that. So I mean that's a great example. You could take
four you could take 40% off of the,082 right now >> and know that that's going to be a five plus year build out probably longer. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> I'm sorry. I uh Josh, I had he's been on.
>> Go ahead. Go ahead. >> I just wanted to touch on something real quick. Uh that this is something we're that's not new. I'm glad you're bringing this data forward to us because this is exactly what we want to know. Um but it's not something that that we're not looking at already. as well. There's
been some land acquisition already taking place around the existing wastewater treatment plant in order to look at a couple of options that we were looking at what two three two years ago, three years ago when we thought we were at critical capacity then and it was we
had to have the population and we had to have the the the capacity issues in order to justify the funding and and to get the permitting for it. And at the time they were telling us you don't have the the populace to justify this capacity. So I like the fact that
Tacobia is already looking at how can we expand the existing plant because back then we were looking at how much is it going to cost us to build a new sewer plant and if I remember right it went anywhere from 70 to90 million or something. So, but if we have the the
land mass to expand existing uh plant and if it's capable of doing so, it's far cheaper to go that route. So, realistically, a lot of the things that Kobe's already researching now is in preparation for when that time comes and the acquisitions that are taking place at this moment.
>> Thank you, Mr. May. >> Yes, Chris. on the uh 943 that are approved but unpaid, do we have I don't I have no idea where those are, but do we have basically infrastructure in place already, water and sewer in
those areas where those would be? >> They would have and I'm I'm thinking there's a few of those that would have to put in >> uh their own lift station. >> Scroll down, Jesse, to page like 14, 15. This is Chris's your list
>> ultimately. Yes, though. So, for them to have gotten approved, you that would have came to all of you and if it was the city taking infrastructure, this council would have approved the acceptance of that infrastructure or if it didn't require you to accept the infrastructure, you probably didn't approve it anyways because it's part of the land development code process. >> Okay. So, some of some of those
would be residential, some of them would be commercial. And I know it's hard to put a dollar on it, but roughly how many how much in capacity fees are we looking at for those unapproved you suppose? Just a >> roughly 10,000 B. Are you Chris? >> Yeah. 10,000 11,000. That includes
police and fire, but yeah. >> Yeah, I'm talking about both. >> So $10 million. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> And now that that's just a straight eru. I mean, if we do the calculation on I can't do the commercial off the top of my head. So >> Right. Yeah. done. Thank you.
>> So, couple thoughts. Uh first off, uh in my tenure on the council, this is the first uh comprehensive report that I've seen that's digestible that's that's good for conversation. So, I want to commend you, Chris, as well as Kobe for for presenting this because this is the
kind of information that the council needs to be a breast of on a regular basis. Um, as someone that sat through the the previous time when we thought we were over 50% and what that looks like, uh, Councilman Cosen, this kind of goes to what I was saying a minute ago. What
I learned through that process was a lot of this is our hands are tied and and Councilman Skier kind of touched on this. uh we we felt like we were over 50%, we needed to pursue a new plant and just like Councilman Coninger said the the cost went from 40 million to 60
million to it was hovering right around between 80 and 90 million by the time they we we quit talking about it. Um one of the things that came out of that was we had our engineers telling us you need to go to a 3 million gallon per day plant and it's going to be 80 to90
million to do that. But then we had the state telling us, "You don't have the numbers for that. So, we're not going to approve a three million gallon per day plant. We're only going to pro approve a 2.1 million gallon per day plant." And it's like, well, well, that's only an extra 600,000. And we've got all this on the
books. And what we what I learned through that was the state doesn't care what speculation is. They only care about what's actually paid invested. So if there is a number to actually pay attention to and track here, it's the vested erus that are not necessarily
utilized because when they've paid, we're obligated to provide them a hookup. If they haven't paid, we have no obligation to them. And so from a council perspective, it it is scary to sit here and look at these numbers and think, oh my goodness, you know, if if
all of this were to happen, we'd be at 70 76%. uh >> 74%. >> So that's scary to think about because the other thing I learned through this was from the moment you say go on a new plant, you're talking about a minimum of
5 years and that's if the the everything goes well. So and what we ran into was we wanted to build a 3 million gallon per day plant and the state was said no, you can't do that. So then we were hung up on the permitting side of things before we could even get to design. So
there there's a lot to consider here. It it can be scary when you hear some of these numbers, but just keep in mind vested erus are where we need to actually kind of keep keep our eye on the ball. >> Amy, >> I'm curious, how long do we have to give
those eru owners who have paid uh to build out for hookup what they're going to >> they're vested. They're in the system. >> Okay. But if it's been six years, let's say, and they've done nothing, what? >> So the question is, the question is,
have they So if they've literally done nothing, their DO expires. Just that simple. If they wish to reactivate the DO, they would have to come back in and do it. At that point, they would be required to gross it up if our fees have changed. And if not, they're fully vested.
>> Is it um Clay, is it 24 months or what is the normal? Well, so our rule is you have 12 months >> 12 months >> for which a any kind of permit building permit development order otherwise is active but as long as you're making substantial progress towards completion
you stay active. So if somebody's actually making progress and takes them five years because that's the nature of their progress then it could be five years but you would think in that point in time they'd be bringing houses on in phases or something we'd be seeing something towards end
>> and then just one more question what is uh who measures the substantial progress >> city >> so we don't issue okay so once the DO's given what comes after that I mean are there you go how do you measure >> you look for building permits, you look
for infrastructure completion, you look for those kind of situations. >> Yeah. I mean, I would I would use that >> phase springs phase one is a good example. >> They paid for what was it here? 90 134 lots. >> Well, like looking at your list, who's
the oldest one who hasn't done anything? >> Eagle Springs. >> Huh? >> Well, Bay Springs Phase 2, Bay Springs Phase three >> and they Yeah, but they're making >> Eagles Yeah, Eagle Springs would be or Eagles Crossing. law. >> Veterans I was just Uhhuh.
>> How long's that been sitting with no action? >> They paid circuit 29 2020. >> 2020. Yeah. >> 2020 is when they paid. So they're s they're about six years in give or take >> and I know we extended that. The last time was for like six months if I believe. >> That's a I know that's come and gone
already >> because I brought it up to the city manager >> and they're in communication with Mr. um Wallace right at this moment. How many erus are associated with that development >> with Eagle's Crossing? Um >> if that's Veterans Lodge, is that what you call it? Eagles Crossing.
>> Well, Eagles Crossing is the PDP. Veterans Lodge is one project within the PDP. >> Okay. >> So, so what one caveat there, they paid prior to capacity fees. >> Okay. >> So, they have impact fees. They are vested, but they have under the
ordinance, they have a hard five-year window to move forward from the date. Was it 21 when they paid or 20? Chris, >> it was September 30th, 21, I think, right before the ordinance changed. >> There you go. So, it's 21, not 2020. I apologize. So, they have until the end
of this year. So, they have that fiveyear window. They're grandfathered in at those old impact fees. The moment they go past even with the extensions we're getting, the moment they go by September and haven't put them in use, they're in a position where they're have to gross up to our current rates, which
are substantially higher. >> Which about se What would it be, Chris? I mean, it's more than double. >> Oh, yeah. >> Two and a half times. >> Close. Yeah. Close to three times as much. >> How many eras are we talking about? >> The problem, the reason I can't give you that number, and I apologize, I'm not
trying to be evasive. Our impact fees were calculated in an ERC model which is slightly different than an ERU model. So it's not a onetoone conversion. It is very close but it's not the same. Roughly am I wrong 1300 or am I less? They didn't invest
all of them. I know 1300 was the original estimate but how many was it? 350 give or take. >> Well it wasn't specific to anything individual other than part of that went towards Veterans Lodge. So >> yeah, that's the only part we actually
>> what they were intending to use that the money they prepaid towards >> towards commercial versus residential is what he's saying. So you can't say it's one ERC versus one ERU. >> Yeah. >> No. Well, first of all, >> if they gave it to houses, they could build roughly, my recollection six years
ago now, >> roughly 300 or so houses. What that would entitle them to? >> Yeah. Now that would have been that >> that sound about right, mayor? I mean, I know we went back and forth on this. That would have been impacts with no taps. Correct. >> That is correct. Cuz they didn't pay the whole thing.
>> And so had it been the two of them together um >> that paid double. >> That paid double. And then it's about triple now. Right. >> And it's now triple that. So yeah, but it was about am I wrong? It was about 340 houses about what it broke down to. >> It's just shifted so many times, you
know, I can't keep up with. >> The problem is they then want to allocate some to they did pay tax on veterans law. >> So that one is best. >> Okay. But it is the other part that hasn't. And we'd have to pull that number and do the math again >> because remember we never approved the
developers agreement which should have had that number in it. They never gave us something to approve. >> Yeah. >> And that's that number would have been that was one of our big contentions was committing to the number they were securing commercial versus residential. >> And then just one followup would be uh
can you clarify Clay please? Uh you said at the year end are you talking at the end of September then or >> September 31? 26. So it's literally they have 60 months from the date they make the payment. >> Okay. >> Which was at right in the last day. So that's why
>> so it may be September 29th. I'd have to look at the day the money got wired. >> Understood. I just wanted to make sure from what >> it will be the end of this September. They will have had to pay the remaining tap fees to get their vest or they just get to apply the amount of impact fees
they paid towards the new capacity fees. So >> they have to start all over again. >> No, no, they just have they just have to pay the more money and they just lose the guarantee of the cheaper rate. >> Whole lot more money. >> So they've done they've made progress then up until
>> under the So because so understand when we're talking about capacity fees. That's where we were talking about substantial completion because it's tied to the development because it was under the impact fee model when we prepaid. We're under the ordinance model. That's an older version. Thank you,
>> mayor. >> Go ahead, Dan. >> Um, a comment and a couple of questions. The reason I keep asking questions about the capacity and the uh water treatment plant is because
the idea to bring our uh airport into the 21st century began about 10 years ago. So, >> uh, when you say it's going to take about time, uh, five years to to build one out like it's supposed to be, well, experience tells us double that. So,
that's why I keep bringing it up. I don't want it to come up and, you know, like, oh my god, we need to do something. So, just have patience with me on that. Next, Cat Cat Island. Uh, >> how many houses coming online there approximately? 4. >> We've got uh 416 is what I
>> And they all have city water. >> Yes, that is part of our franchise. >> Do they have city sewer? >> Yes. >> All of them have city sewer, >> I think. >> Okay. And our capacity fees are incomp uh compatible with uh surrounding cities or
>> Yeah, probably about like regional utilities. >> It depends. I mean, I think our actual capacity right now are a little lower than free ports. um when they went into effect they were a little higher but uh part of that is our capacity fees.
Understand? >> I'm just wondering if we're leaving any money on the table. >> Uh right now we're not. I can say that to you because but >> question answered. That's >> but but I do but we do need to say this and if I don't say on the record it always gets lost. That's why I'm I'm give me just 30 to 45 seconds on this.
Everybody else charges impact fees. We did away with impact fees. We saw the state's encroachment into impact fee regulation and usage. So the city took the proactive step of moving it away as other local governments around the state have done. We do not have very many comparators to a true capacity fee model
with the exception of Freeport near us. Freeport did that because Freeport determined that there was no way to set an impact fee high enough to fully offset the impact of new development on new growth from its residents. They were growing too fast. They outstripped all
curves. So a capacity fee is the legitimate cost of connection. When we did this, we actually had reports that said we were much closer to capacity in the plant. That's the only reason we were able to move to it. Fort Walton Beach is another example that did it. They there's a little different. They
have a believe they call it a is it capacity? I forget what they call it. It's a similar term. The concept is what you're paying when you pay a capacity fee is not an impact fee. It's not a tap fee. It is the literal cost to get one eru in our plant. What does it cost us
to provide it? What does it cost you to buy it? So it's a onetoone connection. So when you ask are we comparable to other places an impact fee vest absolutely zero capacity in a plant and there are places that have impact fees far greater than us. So dollar for dollar if somebody wants to develop here
yeah we're comparable. But if they say, "Well, but I don't have to do this. I don't have to do that." Impact fees are, they're right. Ours are different. But when they pay us, the moment they say cut the water on, we got to cut it on. So understand that is a fundamental difference. The impact fee not the case.
They're nowhere close to getting water cut on just because they pay an impact fee. >> Let me just say something too about the cost. Uh cuz we were talking about completely going to a whole new location to build a wastewater treatment plant and that is
extremely high. I understand it is considerably cheaper to build it in our present location. So I don't think it's going to be you know quite as high as we we've been talking >> and uh and we do have Dan we have
Freeport to look at. So, you know, guessing it's going to be 70, 80, whatever, you know, whatever the millions of dollars it's going to cost. Just look at Freeport. They're they're they're in the process of their second new one. They already had one in place. >> Yes.
>> And they built uh how many million >> two MGDs now? We went to one and a half and we just added an extra half MGD. So, we're at two. >> Okay. So, but so we're watching them phase in brand new. >> Well, that that's the current one. They're expanding. brand new based on
>> well there is a brand new one they're also looking at that the council just authorized >> that one is going to be larger we're looking at roughly $75 million day one on it but that's from the ground up >> yeah that's starting is that moving across town >> that's the one on Bulldog road up off 331 north of
>> TW okay all right but anyway so we do have one to look at it's not like we're just taking numbers out of the sky >> ballpark 5 years from 50% just so you can mark it in your mind when we get to 50 because you have the design and permitting phase is going to take time. You're going to be somewhere 14 to 24
months on that construction. I can tell you, we've gone through this enough in Freeport, we've got in, you're looking at 36 months from the day you break ground to the day it's actually able to process. And you don't bet a day less. We had that contract at 18 months and ended up
being 34. >> Yeah. >> Everything that went wrong could have that one. But anyway, it's any way you look at it's a big deal and it's sneaking up on us quickly. >> Yep. >> Kobe, >> that's it. Mayor,
>> no action on that. Just >> Okay, Chris, you you got something else up here, don't you? Yeah, that segus nicely into my next item, which is the acceptance of the sewer line for Habitat for Humanity up
on Van Avenue and Third Street. So, they put a new 8 in sewer line in. They already had existing water that they're tying into. So, looking for acceptance of that 8 in sewer line. It's been inspected. It's a
gravity sewer line. So, no lift stations associated with that. So, it's been tested, inspected, everything came back fine. And there's also a draft sewer easement that's attached to
this as well because when they got into tied into the manhole that was at the intersection of Cook and Third, there were a lot more utilities there than they had realized. So, in order to keep separation between that sewer line and those other
utilities, they were able to get an agreement for an easement from an adjoining property owner to let them cut through a portion. There's a map of that, I believe, attached here um in order to accommodate our sewer line. So, that would give us access at any point in the future if we had to actually do
some sort of maintenance on it. So, I'm looking for approval and acceptance of the sewer line and acceptance of the easement. >> So, moved. Second. Second. >> All right. We have a motion and a second. Any questions or comments from council
>> from anyone? >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. Carrie. Thank you, Chris. Okay. Thank you. >> Mayor, would you be would you will entertain a a quick break? You >> on a break? Mhm. >> Yep. >> Yes, sir. I do. All right.
>> We're going to take these next two items together as well. So, that's probably true. >> All right. Let's uh Yeah, let's be back at no later than 10 till I say five minutes, but y'all never get back in five minutes. So, we're going to make it 10. It does absolutely nothing other than
create the master assessment availability. Really what matters more than anything though is A52 resolution 2026 presumptively 08 initial assessment resolution for the non-abalorum fire
service assessment. You will have to adopt two rate resolutions minimum. Sometimes we'll end up getting to a third with an amended or restated one, but you always have to adopt two. So you have this very lengthy resolution in front of you that the consultant and I, Mr. Townsen, have been working on for
you. That resolution is what sets the initial assessment. Just like you hear me say every year with the Avalorum, you can go down once you set it that initial assessment. Going up's really hard. So I remember and I'm very clear what the council told us, they wanted a range. So
they wanted our actual final assessment resolution we put into effect to have a range where we could then pick the specific mark within that range. To accomplish that, the high end of the range, which was 60%, is the amount that has to go into this initial assessment.
We can come back and put the range into effect, but right now on page 12, your preliminary fire assessment rate is marked in at 60%. That does not mean we're not doing a range. Want to be very clear. It does not mean we're tied and
we can only do 60%. But whatever number goes in there in here as our assessed rate, that number is the max your range can be. So this is the key. This is the document that matters. This lets us
start doing the advertisement, mailing notices, and complying with everything else. That being said, you have to adopt the ordinance before you can adopt the resolution. If you don't have the ordinance in effect, there is no resolution to adopt. However, if for some reason, and that's why I'm
asking you to discuss amongst yourselves here at the dis resolution. If for some reason this resolution does not meet your approval and you do not intend to adopt it tonight because you wish to make further changes to it, I am only asking you to go ahead and tell me that before we actually pass the ordinance
because it's possible you could change something in the resolution between now and whenever it comes back that requires me to redo the ordinance, which puts us another month out. So right now we're way ahead of time. A month from now in July, we're starting
to get really tight on advertising. So, all I'm asking you to do is discuss this. If this meets your approval, we'll go in order ordinance than resolution. But if anybody up here says, "I've got some concerns. I want to change this. Want to add this, take that out of this resolution." Let's go ahead and discuss
it tonight so we can bring it back to you at your next meeting and we'll bring the ordinance back then, too. It's all I'm So, it's up to you how you want to go about it. >> Mr. Go ahead, >> Kobe. Before we even get started on a discussion, can somebody please put up the
uh the comparison side by sides like the 32 and a half% up to this 238, please, so I can see it all in one. >> Okay, take just a second. Let me forward. >> Thank you. >> While he's doing that, Mayor. >> Yeah. >> Would you mind if I asked uh Go right ahead, >> council a question?
>> Well, actually, so this Fire assessment was not designed to provide the fire department with 100% of their needs. We're going to as a city, we're going to keep supporting and funding the fire department. Correct.
>> That's what you told us. Yes. >> That Okay, good. That's >> But but what you have to understand is what percentage of their needs do you intend to fund and what is that range? >> That's that's what the first question is so we can get our notices out of the maximum possible assessment. >> Okay.
Now when you said once that ordinance set um what's the time frame for you can do anything different in other words you've had your low and your high >> annual you you can adjust on an annual basis unless you want to change the height if unless you want to change the
range you want to expand the range we've got more efforts to go back through resetting it >> but on an annual basis once we set the range at the end of this year as part of this budget process >> once that happens every year it's a resol resolution and any number within
that range after notice is allowed >> up to >> up to the maximum number of the range. >> So if your range right now is 60% question that's so right now it's 60% is your max number. >> Okay, >> there you go. >> Can somebody make it larger? Sorry, I got older eyes.
>> Two more please. >> Where did we start y'all? At 37 was it at the 150 or >> I think this 45 to 60. >> Yeah. did the so the council we brought back 37.8 875 and then y'all set the rate between 50 and 60
>> which is effectively uh 199. Okay. So we started at when we left our last conversation we set the range at 199 to the 238. >> That's the direction you gave us of how to prepare these documents. Yes. You technically you have to set the range until you start doing these adoptions.
>> But that's what you've asked us to prepare. >> Yes sir. Thank you. 199 was 50%. Okay. Can I start? >> I would ask to have council discussion without a motion. I think it's to help us get >> Yeah, let's roll. Go ahead.
>> Um, so I want to be very careful because this is the first year we we this is going to kind of going to be a benchmark for us. I don't want to set it so high that that we burden the tax, you know, the the taxpayer. Yeah. Uh so I want to
be very careful and I do understand that it's not going to raise the level that what we're wanting. It's not going to be close to, you know, funding the entire thing, but that's not I don't think our goal, right? >> Um and I know so I want to stay on the
lower lower range of what we're doing >> with with the option that later years down the road if we have >> later years yes >> we we need to establish the maximum that we could go to without having to go through the readvertisement process in
other words >> well I think that's what this range what we're going to do now right today >> that's right so what I need what I need to know is the top end of the range is it 60 is it a different number right now it's written in as 60 >> and that would save us the 40 grand every year of mailing out and putting
notices to everybody is that accurate >> providing You don't go above 60%. Yes. >> Well, provided we don't go above whatever we set the range to be. Correct. Because you're asking us to set the range. I >> I'm asking you to set the top end of the range tonight, which is 60%. So,
assuming you don't go against that number, you don't have to go back through that whole process. If you go above that number, we got to start over. >> And when you say start over, are we talking about Well, don't we have to do this uh assessment every five years anyway? Well, you have to adopt the
assessment every year. You're going to annually announce the assessed rate every year. And you're going to do a study to update and revise it. I believe we said every five years. Is that correct, Kobe? You talked to Sandra on that issue, I think. >> Yes. >> I And the only reason I'm asking,
>> there she is. All right. >> The person right there leaned over. Thank you, ma'am. I couldn't see her for a second. So, five years is when we'd be revising what the numbers would take to operate the department. So, what I'm hearing is whatever we set
is going to be good for five years. >> That's what I'm hearing. >> But we're not going to necessarily >> be asking for that full amount. >> Yes. >> We got the option to go
>> up. >> No. No. >> As long as it doesn't exceed 60%. Correct. >> So, for for tonight, let me back up. Yes. to what you're saying and I I understand your question and yes is the answer to your question but I want to make sure everybody else is also hearing the other part what for the initial
assessment resolution the range isn't what matters it's the top number the initial assessment is the top number of your range so when we're talking about it we're not talking about 50 we're talking about based on what you said 60 if you want to have the ability to go
higher than 60 within that five years you need to set your initial number higher right now. If you're sure you're never gonna want to go above what is that one that is 238. >> Yeah. >> So, if you don't ever want to go above 238, you're fine. But if you ever wanted
to go up to that next level, then you're in a position where you need to go ahead and set it at 65% or whatever other number is as far as the top end of your range. And then we can bracket it in. >> And this number is good for five years. >> The range is good for five years.
>> Okay. and the number attached there too. Yes. >> Go ahead. >> Uh Kobe, the current fire station budget in 2026 is 1.9ish. >> Yes. >> Now that's at 100%. We have to remember we she told us we have to back out the
EMTs or those did did we have a range on what was that 20% of the 1.9? It was roughly it was 19 and some change for the EMS about 19% was the EMS component of our round up >> and EMS is excluded from this assessment resolution just to be clear based on
council >> what we raise I just want you to answer your question because you had asked this earlier we're always going to have to fund that 20% through some other means because the fire station's going to need it to operate. So >> and remember that we said that we were
going to wave some of these fees down here at the bottom. So that's always going to come out of our coffers too, >> right? >> It won't come out of the what we generate. >> But my concern is scaring people. >> Make that >> Well, we're not going to hit them.
>> No, I know. But I just want to make that very clear. I mean, I don't want to set the range at 100% because again, >> right, >> in five years, it's going to change. We're going to have a baseline of what it is the city needs, what what what actually happened. we're going to know what growth we've had because right now
everything's based on estimates and preliminaries and unknowns. So, I just want to be careful. >> Yeah. >> Me personally, I'd rather not charge him anything. And we certainly have that
golden opportunity. >> Even if we set a range, do we have to do the minimum? Clay, >> ask that again. I'm not sure I understand it. Um, so let's say whatever we do, we set the range and we all agree and it's going to be from here to here.
>> Do we still have the option to say zero when it comes to this year's when we have to set the actual rate? >> You so >> or does it have to be 199? >> Well, the floor is the floor. 199 is what you have to impose if you do an
assessment. You can choose not to do the assessment at all >> every year. >> Once you let it lapse, I believe it is going to be lapsed permanently the way we've written the ordinance, but that would be something we would have to arise because we've written it where you're going to have a continuing and ongoing levy. That's the way we've
structured it. >> So, >> we can go lower. You're right. We can do that, but our question is to go to zero. If you get rid of it for one year, >> there you go. Without getting rid of it. >> Call her up. But why don't the podium Sandra? So if we get rid of it, you
don't get to go all the way down to that nominal what will be called a nominal non-evolum assessment and then bounce back up. You're going to have a problem unless you want to get rid of it all together. So I guess that's really the question is are you asking can we deviate below the floor? Yes, we can always go below the floor. Nobody's
you're not get in trouble for breaking the floor. You get in trouble for breaking the cap. >> Okay. So the 190 just so I'm clear the 50% is what kind of what we've said 50 does the 60 let's say but if we wanted to when we when it comes down to it if
we chose the 37% instead we could >> you could >> thank you that's what I needed to understand >> but but you can't drop it to zero is what we're saying without >> know it's not set within the range because I want to make sure that we set the we have to set the range >> yeah we're not talking about the range like just the max that's what she's
trying to say >> okay thank you >> we're not setting what the citizens are going to be paying tonight. We're >> we're setting the max that could be so we can give notice and if anything I mean I don't want to scare them either, but my recommendation would be
make sure you put a number that you could have the ability to go to if you need it, >> but we can change it every 12 months. >> Every year it's an annual decision as to what rate you want to impose within that range. >> Well, or you have to renotice everybody, >> which is the $40,000 range.
No, no, no, no, no. That though it's not it's not the full restudy if that's what you're your $40,000 is them. >> But we're talking about you have the full mailers. There is a huge process to go through just to understand on city staff. That's why we're asking you to
>> give us the give us the high-end range. You want to say it high-end number and then let's figure that range we operate in year to year if we're going to do this. And it is the city staff that does this and not the property appraiser >> tax collector. >> No, the property appraiser doesn't do any of this. They're ministerial. They
they give us the data. They will not do that. So it's all city that we'll do >> this year. This first year. >> Yeah. You're helping us the first year, but in m in subsequent years >> we'll have to hire. We'll have to hire somebody to help us. >> Well, so then you might be talking about 40,000. >> Yeah. We don't have the ability to mail
out almost 5,000 >> 40,000. No, not a couple thousand. >> Refresh my memory. Can it be taken from these fees? >> Yes. Paid through. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, are we ready to make a motion? >> It's up to y'all.
>> So, I mean, I just need to know. I mean, are we set that we're going to set a cap of we're going to set a high-end range of 60% tonight, >> which is 199. >> No, it's 28 38 is the high. We can go down, but we cannot go above 238 after this. >> That's what I want to make sure y'all
are comfortable that that's the case and that EMS is excluded. If that's the case, we can start forward. I believe Mr. Conurs was trying to get >> Yeah. Go ahead, Mr. Cons. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, there's a lot to understand about this, but we muddy this up and then that's where the
citizens are really going to get mad at us when they start getting us information. What he's saying is, how high can this go? Period. and then you can charge less. So if beyond this year unforeseen events
because who knows what the Florida legislature is going to do and those things I've talked about over the past year about they're trying to pass this bill that's going to impact our ability to charge higher utility rates outside the municipal boundaries. They're trying to pass a bill to restrict our ability
to transfer funds from enterprise to general to fund fire. You need to really pay attention to those things because that's your ability to fund fire. So, when we're doing this, you may as well cap this at 100%.
And let the public know we're not charging you 100% right now, but that's as high as it could go under this study. >> So, we're going to we need to set it at 100%. And then we figure out what are we really going to charge them later. And
that's what you were that's what you're trying to get us to understand. Is that not right, Mr. Atinson? >> Same way I do with the mill rate. I'm never going to tell you to adopt a 10 mil cap, but if you ever thought there's a chance you'd go to 10 mil in your budget process, you might as well say that. I mean, if there's ever a thought that you're going to need, and this is a
five-year run. >> And I I will tell you this. I'm going to say it so Kobe won't I'm going to take up for him on this. Mr. Townson's not speaking ill of staff when he says staff's not able to handle the 5,000 mailers. What I can tell you
is we've attempted to do mailers in this city through our technology Tyler and otherwise with water bills and things of that nature because not every property assessed by the city that is going to be levied on as a water bill. We don't have the institutional ability to do it. We're going to have to hire someone to
do it and that's going to require an RFP or an RFQ to get somebody on staff. So, we're going to be having to take this issue up starting in March of each year. And if y'all come to us in June or July, say, "Well, we need a little bit more, guys." We're going to be way too late.
So, I I'm not trying to say we're incapable. I'm just saying our processes are not going to be >> finished. And and one other thing to remember about this, that bottom line, that number on the bottom is what we're collecting for the fire service through this assessment. So, do we not think
that prices are going to go up over the next 5 to 10 years? I know we're only looking at five here, but they will. Do we not think that our personnel costs are going to go up over the next 5 years? They will. And this is how much we're collecting for the fire service through the fire assessment. We're still
going to have transfer and that's what you were saying, but I want you to understand whatever number we go to at the bottom. So, say we set it at 60, that's as high as you're going to collect over the next 5 years at all. So, we may as well go to 100% and then
we only charge what percentage we actually want to do when we uh levy that at this year. So, I agree with the 60% because I think that's only going to fund half of the fire service. But the thing is we can go up next year.
>> If we if we set it at 60, we can either stay at 60 or go down. We're never going to go up. So, if you haven't priced a fire ladder versus a regular ladder, those NFPA standards, you're paying a whole lot more. If you haven't looked at the cost of hose and everything else,
it's higher. I don't care what it is because it's got NFPA standards on it, it's going to be higher. But that So, when you look at this, that's what I'm going to be voting on tonight is how high could this possibly ever go, not where I'm wanting to set it, but if we try and set it too low, I'm gonna vote no.
>> Thank you, Mayor. So, I agree those all those decisions are going to be need to be factored in, but it's going to have to be factored in every year when we do this process to kind of combat what Kobe's issue might be in the future with
mailers. Um, I strongly believe we ought to do an RFP right now so that we just like we got five engineering, you know, and they rotate out. I think we need to do that so that we're never behind the eight-ball on that. But yes, personnel is going to change in
fire, but to be honest with you, all those decisions that you're talking about, what the legislaturator's doing, it's going to impact the citywide financials, not just the fire uh division. So, we need to keep that in mind. And he's going to lose people there. People will start, you know, it
it it always fluctuates up and down both directions. Um, and I know we've got some goals on what we want to plan in five years to purchase, but at the same time, my main goal is going to be establish a baseline, but also at the
minimal cost to the residents uh over and above what they're already paying in property taxes. So, I'm I'm I'm trying to do the fine balance of >> Okay. >> I don't want to see it at 75% or, you know, I don't want to see it clear down to the 37%.
>> But somewhere in the middle is where I'm going to be. >> Do you have your hand up? >> Yeah. >> Is that your ceiling? >> Is that your ceiling though? >> The 60%. >> Yeah, that >> for five years I think it would be. Yeah.
>> So, I tend to agree with Josh. I don't I don't think 60 is going to be high enough uh for us. And and here's what people need to understand. Just like you said about Tallahass, what the legislaturator is going to do with property taxes, homestead exemption, we
don't we don't know that, but we have decisions to make between now and the time they make theirs and voters make theirs. We know what's on the ballot, right? Or will be on the ballot in November. Uh but we don't know how the public is going to vote for that. Everybody just jumps to the gun to vote
to lower their taxes. But they have not offered any uh any answers as to how this money is going to be replaced. If property taxes are reduced, there's there's there's nothing there's been no alternative
offered to communities. We're not the only community in the state of Florida facing this >> and but so what we have the responsibility to do here is ensure that we can provide the services that we need to provide
in hopes that you know things change uh in November with the the the property taxes or whatever or we find other sources of revenue or or whatever. There's there's a way to do it, but I just think
we're tying our hands severely by by setting this too low. And again, this is not what we're going to start this assessment at. This is this is the ceiling. And if we don't establish that ceiling, that could be well down the road, right?
>> We could be we could be in trouble. >> While you're talking, let me and this if it's a problem for you, uh, Mr. McBrroom, let me know. But could you come up here and answer a couple questions? >> As a current employee asking, >> Mr. Mayor, could you ask Mr. Harrison
what his ceiling would be? >> I will. >> I'll try. Mayor, what can I ask for? Hopefully. >> I don't want to get you in trouble, put you on the spot, but he's been working for the tax collector for God knows and I I know the appraisers know a little bit more about these numbers than you
probably do. I don't know. Uh but in the city of Defunia Act uh right now they got a proposal of $150,000 exemption and then next year a $250,000 exemption on uh homestead property.
>> Yeah. We know that a lot of counties and even south of our county is a lot of properties not homestead and so it probably won't have that big of an impact on losing tax dollars uh down south walton but here in the
fiac springs uh most of the appraisals are pretty conservative you know in other words most of most everybody's going to fall under that $250,000 threshold So, I don't know if you have any idea
what percentage of homes in this area fit that model. >> Well, I can say and I don't know about directly in the city limits. Let me just I didn't break it out like that, but I can tell you we've got like 20,800
and a few dollars of uh few more say 20,000 835 I think the number was of actual homesteaded properties in Walton County period. Top to bottom. >> Wow. >> Uh of those, it's almost split down the
middle. I think it's 10,300 are under 250,000 valued right now. the other 10,000 and 500 are valued over 250,000. But so that would possibly take some of those outside of the nonabalorum
assessments off the tax role. But at the same time, if you've got a $400,000 home, it just went to $150,000 of taxable value now on the roll. >> So that's going to be impacted as well because they're still getting that
$250,000 exemption. it's just their home just happened to be more. So, it's going to impact that as well. That's across the county. Uh I don't know the exact number. I want to think it's a little over 3,3500. I'm sure y'all got the number. How many actual residential properties are inside the city limits?
Is it 3500 or 3,800? Something like that. I >> think he's got a number, but you can get a number. But in terms of uh values, I I reached out to uh Miss O'Neal with the property appraisers office. We're going to talk about this next Monday. Um properties currently in this at this
moment that have a value of 250,000 or less taxable value. So if the exemption went in, that equates to roughly $81 million of taxable value, which you do the math, that's about $450,000 in tax revenue >> in the first year. >> Well, that's 250. So that's >> that's only 250 the second year,
>> the second year. So that's the >> that's your max loss. >> That's the ultimate hit if you were to do that today. >> Okay. >> So Sandra and I just talked. I think one thing we could do is if the council um thinks there is a higher assessment that they want to do in the future, but
there's a discussion about year one, not scaring the public off, we could reddraft a portionous resolution to basically say that in the first year the res the rate will not exceed 60%. And in future years, it shall not exceed
a greater percent within that charge. So we could do that. So that that would be your proposal if that's something you wanted to do. >> That before I let him go, any other questions from the council, Mr. McBring? He's our tax collector. >> Yeah. And for us, just remember, we
collect. We don't come up with any of these numbers. We only collect it, account it, and distribute it. We do not come up with these numbers. >> As long as you've been there, I knew you had a pretty good idea. >> Yeah. But that Okay. Well, I hope that helped some way. If not, I'll be here for a little while longer. >> All right. Thank you. What would that help kind of the concern between having
a higher range in future if need be but not sticker shocking the public day one >> trying to middle ground. >> So here's what I'd ask. I don't want the you to tell me tonight
on the spur of the moment what that top range for your next number is unless we can get agreement tonight on that for those future years. But we will bring this back. We will ask we will ask
motion to continue the public hearing second reading excuse me the second reading public hearing adoption for the ordinance and the public hearing adoption of the resolution until July 13th after 5:00 p.m. here at your regular city council meeting. But I will need to know by then what this council's
intention is for the max range for years 2 3 4 5. That can be announced and we can talk about that at your next city council meeting on June 22nd if you so desire. But we will need that to write that in. So year one would be 60% max.
The next years would be up to whatever the new max is. >> We can go up to 100%. Obviously >> my concern is I'm going to be absent for the next meeting. I won't be here and I don't want to hold up. But this is a really important >> Well, we won't actually be adopting any
of this until July the 13th. So it won't be the one you're missing. >> Be two meetings from now. >> It's two meetings from now, not the next one. Okay, >> you're covered on that sense. But do y'all want us to put what? 100% 75% is the possible max for years two through five.
>> I say 100. >> Okay. >> And do y'all have a preference tonight, council? I mean, I just we if you can give it to me tonight, it would make our life easier. >> Okay. Can I get a word in edgewise? Go >> ahead. >> Okay. All right. So, there's no lack of
opinions at this DAS and um and and and that includes me. So, I'm just going to tell you some things that's going through my mind. Doesn't mean it's true or not. Is some concerns that I have, but
I think that wanting to put 100% on this is a scare tactic. Um, and the reason that this scare tactic is being presented, in my opinion, is that there's still a very
strong move to want to turn our fire department over to the county. Um, if that's what we want to do is turn it over to the county, well then I think like uh maybe 50 or 60 years ago, Duval
County led the way on consolidating countywide. And that's when their police department got new badges that said Jacksonville Police Department offer office of the sheriff. The city limits of Jacksonville
is the borders of Duval County. And they chose to eliminate their city government so that they could have one government, the county. So if you want to give away our fire department, what else are we going to
give away? Public works, um, the police department, what? So that's what Duval County did. and our citizens have spoken loud and clear that they love our fire department and
have sent us a clear message. We want to keep our fire department. So, I think that this is where this what this cheerleading about going maximum is headed. And what I would like
to warn my fellow council members about in the near future is um we really need to think long and hard about what we do with the taxpayers money that is to run this city
before we give it away to other entities. So, it looks like to me the other entities are more important than the needs of the city. Just my opinion. So, I'm not for the scare tactic of putting
100% on there. Uh I think it was uh we said the maximum was going to be 60%. And I asked in a previous meeting, this does not mean we're going to stop supporting our fire department. uh
financially when this goes through and I got to unequivocally no we're not we're going to keep supporting our fire department. So that's where I'm I'm want to I want to keep it like we originally talked about
and we might not dial in on it perfect the the first time. We've got an opportunity to reassess at certain certain areas and we we don't need to give our fire
department away or try to convince that's the best thing to do if our citizens are are making it clear that's not what they want. So, um that's that's where I stand on it. And uh do you have enough information from
me? Uh Amy, if you'd like to make a motion. >> Mr. Mayor, could I >> go ahead? >> I just would like to hear what Mr. Harrison has to say, what his thoughts are on the maximum, what he believes.
>> Well, you know, people, we sit here have this conversation. I'm sure people look at us and think we're crazy. But what's what's crazy is we don't know what's coming out of Tallahassee as far as revenue. We don't know whether they're going to stop us from transfer using utility transfers to pay for fire. We
don't know any of that. So, a lot of this is backed up on us and every city in this state having to make these decisions without the information from as to the outcome of what's going to happen in November and afterwards as far
as whether we can utilize uh utility transfers to pay for things like this. I mean, this city has paid for the fire department out of the general fund >> throughout its history forever. And so
we we we found out and and all agree that we can't sustain that with general fund. And now Tallahassee, you know, is putting on the the ballot uh for referendum for a reduction in property taxes for goodness sakes. That's what's
been funding all this stuff. See, so with no alternative for replacement funding. So we're in a tight. We're having to make tough decisions. And what we have to do here is allow some insurance for ourselves to be able to cover this. If they eliminate property taxes altogether,
well, you know, I hate to replace one tax with another, but we have to have fire coverage. And I and there's a certainty no matter who cover who who handles our fire department whether it's the county I mean sheriff's department or whatever um they're facing the same
problem. They're going to have a reduction of property taxes. They're going to have they're going to have to increase their fire assessment. They're going to have to find the money somewhere just like we are. So we're not uh we don't have horns here today. We're just trying to figure out the best path and give ourselves an insurance policy
that if we do in fact get less and less money from Tallahassee in the future that we can still fund our fire. So, as far as my range, uh, um, Miss Evelyn is, um, I'm okay with a, you know, the starting point, I guess, for
the first year, but, you know, 100%'s right at 400 bucks, you know, and I just cannot foresee us having to use this to 100% to fund our fire department. I just don't see that happening. I don't think the public will
stand for it um, in in in the future. So, you know, I don't I don't know, 75% 80 somewhere in that neighborhood, you know, would be I mean, none of that's to tolerable. I mean, I I don't like to think of that
number, but you got to look at the bottom what we're going to be at 75%. We're looking at $1.89 million. We have we have our fire expenses planned out to 20 what 20 how far did we go? 2050 >> for the enhanced services. part of this
uh we did the fiveyear accessible budget and also >> That's right. Yeah. So, you know, there's other things. For example, you we have on the agenda tonight of a fire uh fire and police impact uh study that
we approved to do that helps offset some of these these uh capital expenditures for uh fire equipment and what have you. So, we're we are looking at getting things in place to help offset this. There's nobody sitting here that wants to see a high number for our citizens.
Nobody wants to do that. Um I I I promise you nobody sitting up here wants it to be that max. We never wanted to see it reach that max. And we'll work we'll work hard to prevent that. >> Amen. >> And again, we don't have to say 100 for
future years. You can say 75 for future years. You can say 80. You can pick what range you what the top end percentage is for those future years if that's but what I need to I mean if you do this tonight your max for those five years without going back through the full
mailing and readvertising notice is going to be 60 and you cannot exceed it. Otherwise I just need to know what your future years after year one not exceeding 60 might look like if you do want that. And then the only other comment is this does not include EMS.
Last week we had a major change with knowing what's going on the ballot. So if that's something y'all want us to consider, do we wish to fund EMS out of this? Then the resolution has to reflect >> the study >> cannot. Okay. >> Cannot at all. There you go, >> Josh.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So my comment about put the ceiling at 100% has nothing to do with cheerleading or any other tactics. This council decided to keep the fire service. I support that. We We made a decision that we're going
to keep the fire service under direction of city staff. We have to fund it. I'm looking at the things that are going on in Tallahassee that impact this city as well because you have systems that impact systems. The rhetoric about
accusing people of well, it could be because they're they didn't support of keeping the fire department to start with. That's garbage. All that's over with. We decided to keep the fire department. We have to find ways to fund the city government. This is a way to
fund pieces of the fire department. If you look at the bottom line, we're not going to collect 100% of what the fire services cost us under this study. Even at 100%, we're not going to collect what the fire services of this city cost
us. So when I say that, understand one thing. This has nothing to do with politics. I don't play that game. I'm not going to bring up things in the past that I may have been against that this council voted for and say, "See, we should have done this or we should have done that or if we'd have done this, it
wouldn't have been this way." I'm not like that. So, my my comments tonight are based on truth. I want to be very clear to the public. Even at 100%, we will not collect what it cost us to fund fire services today.
At 60%, we won't. And I think that that's what we actually need to start with as far as the fire assessment, but we have to be realistic about that ceiling. We do not know what's coming tomorrow. You don't want to say, well, it I only charged we only build out at
60%, but we need to go to 70, but the only way we can do that now is go back and remove the study or or go out and perform another study so we can come back and do all this again. We've got to be realistic and we got to be truthful with our citizens. The only thing I'm saying is that cap, that top
end number should be higher than what we actually intend on today because it may cost more tomorrow. Nothing more, nothing less. No politics, no cheerleading. I'm not trying to get rid of the fire department today. That's
over with. All that was was looking at a scenario in the past. This council voted to keep the fire department. I support the fire department. We got to fund the fire department. So, let's do it. Amen. Miss Brown. >> So, of course, none of us have a future crystal ball.
>> We don't know. There's a lot of whatifs, what ifs, a lot of things are happening that's going to be we're going to have to make decisions either before those other decisions that that are going to impact what we uh decide uh after we've already made it. I'd
rather pay the small fee of having to do another mailer than I would to scare the taxpayers by a higher rate. I'd rather keep it for five years at the cap at 60%. And God forbid
our estimates are wrong and some of these things don't pan out the way we believe that they will, which is we're going to raise uh more money in uh different ways, whether it be the impact fee, whether it be growth. Um I just don't think that uh any of those values
upwards of the 60% is tolerable for our taxpayers. So for me, I'm just I'd like to see us stay at 60% at a max for the 5 years. And you know, heaven forbid we have to change it, but I think the fee
of paying for a secondary mailer is minuscule compared to the the mindset that we would be setting for our taxpayers. >> Would you like to make a motion?
Maybe once all the discussion's done. >> Clay, it's written right now. The your ordinance right now at the max is 60%. >> Correct. >> So yeah, I make a motion to keep it as is. >> So the motion would be if you're going to do that, then the motion would be to
hold second reading and to adopt the ordinance. >> That's what I would say. >> That's your first motion. >> Second. >> All right. Have a motion. Second. Um, any other questions or comments? >> It is a public hearing where
>> Okay. >> So, I've sat here tonight and listened to a lot of discussion on this and my position is much like Councilman Skongers. We voted to keep a fire department. We're going to keep a fire
department. We're going to fund a fire department properly. um any sort of half measure is no measure at all. >> And so if we're not willing to fund it and fund it properly and to say, well,
you know, we may or may not add personnel, we may or may not buy trucks, we may or may not do this, that, or the other. Again, to me, that's a half measure. We're we're not doing what we promised to do, which was properly fund and keep
a fire department and and offer a viable service to our citizens. So, I can't support a half measure that doesn't completely and correctly fund our fire department. I I can't get
behind saying, "Well, we're only going to do like, you know, this number and then we'll raise it later." That that's the that's the frog in the boiling pot of water theory. Just slowly turn up the heat and let them boil and then you know
we don't have we don't have to deal with it because this is five and six years down the road. I don't think it's fair to the city to to take the easy route and say, "Well, we're going to keep it low this year and then we'll we'll we'll up it in subsequent years." We have the five-year
plus the 10-year in black and white in this study that shows us it's going to do nothing but a hockey stick. We know that that that's and and that's setting aside all the the hand ringing about what Tallahassee may
or may not do. So there's never been a question about whether we through this assessment we were going to not support the fire department. This is part of supporting the fire department through and through. So I I can't get behind
any sort of measure that is a a a percent of a percent that we're not going all in on. This is only 80% and then we're saying we're only going to fund 60% of that 80%. So it effectively is more like 40 to 50%.
That puts that paints us into a corner a tremendously bad corner going forward with the rest of the city. So what much like Councilman Skongers mentioned a minute ago, systems affect
other systems and and I I can't get behind that. If if we're not willing to fund this properly, I cannot get behind it. >> Mr. Mayor >> Amy, I'm sorry. I didn't see. >> Oh no, no, you good. You're good. >> Uh,
listen, I wholeheartedly supported the fire department from the beginning and I am not going to stop now. But at the same time, I've got to in my mind and in my conscience have a reasonable amount. So regardless of what we do, we said
we're going to keep the fire department. We're going to fund it and we're going to figure it out and we're going to have to figure it out together. None of us have a crystal ball. I don't agree with the theory of you can't get behind it. That's fine that you don't want to get behind it, but I have a hard time
getting behind estimated future. This is what we project. Two fire stations, South I 10. We uh uh whatever it was in personnel, we don't know what's going to happen until we have a baseline set until we
know actuals. And it's going to be yearbyear. So, I'm not saying half-heartedly do this. I'm all in. The fire department, the citizens to me spoke loud and clear. They want to keep the fire department. I think we all agreed up here. We're going to figure it
out. We're having our next budget meeting when in another week or so uh to where we can start the process and none of us are going to know the answer. But at the same time, I just cannot I just cannot think that any of those above
those levels are even tolerable for our taxpayers. So I I can't support the higher number. And you know what? We're raising it. So let's just say that we adopt the 60%. At least we're putting $950,000 we didn't have before into the mixture
to try to offset all of the city government. Because if you recall properly, our discussions about budget time was adorum doesn't even co uh doesn't even cover the cost of what it costs to run the fire department. So to me,
we're we're as a group, we're going to have to figure it out. But I I just don't want to do the scare tactics route. >> Well, you know, and that's what I was about to comment on. I you know to scare the public I I I just don't
this sounds bad but I'm not really worried about scaring the public. The public needs to be scared of what's happening uh at the state level with our funding. And there's where the frightening thing is and and we don't know how to deal with it. So, we have to
set a a number that protects us and ensures protection of fire services for people in this city. And we have to do that. I mean, it's it's like not buying enough health insurance. You know, when the catastrophe hits, you're in trouble.
And we have to have this insurance that we have flexibility in case funding dries up, literally. I mean, there's there's talk of uh counties consolidating back into like they were in the 1800s for goodness sakes because
cities are going to have trouble surviving. That's a serious conversation. So, that's scary. That's what's scary. So, we have to we have a responsibility to protect ourselves and our citizens through fire service and police and
everything else that's vital. Um, and I just I just think we we we need to set this thing good enough and and you know, I'm I'm okay. We don't have to set the starting point at this meeting tonight, right? We just have to set our our range. >> Set the cap. >> That's right. Set the cap. Okay. Um, so,
you know, I'm for setting it, you know, high enough that we we have some insurance. And again, I can't emphasize enough, we do not want to put in a high fire assessment. If we can find al find find alternative funding over the years,
this has effect flexibility to go down. If we start low and we implement a 60% and then we have to go up the next year, guess who's the bad guys, right? And and ladies, we we we're we're going to be really frowned upon having to do that. So, we need to start it at an adequate
amount to cover our services while we still have some funds that Tallahassee hasn't cut out from our use of utilities uh and general fund that might not pass on the ballot. But people need to understand >> how their vote affects
your home. I mean, people need to understand this. We have had a conversation about a penny sales tax in this county being used for fire and police. If that were put on a ballot for the voters, we wouldn't be talking about these numbers right here. Tourists,
three to four million a year would be helping to pay for these services, >> not just the residents of the of Definiac Springs, >> right? >> So, that's the kind of thing that I'm talking about possibly future funding if we go after it and we have a
conversation with the county for fire and police. that helps the county fire uh sheriff's department, the the Walton Fire and Rescue. It helps the Phoenix Springs Police, Phoenix Springs Fire. That is the kind of things we need to seriously consider voting for if there's
going to be a referendum. Uh but right now, we have to set this at where where we know we can protect our citizens. >> Dan, >> okay. Um, we'd already talked before about what are we currently what's the city
currently supporting the fire department with Kobe uh on a yearly basis? Round numbers. >> Okay, we continue that. Now that Glenn's gone to Tallahassee, got with uh
with Shane, we're eligible for grants. We we're not even thinking about or talking about grants. That opened a huge door. Another thing is is we've asked Liberty Partners to jump in and weigh in
on this and and help us with it. right now. I understand their hands are full with that airport and beating a deadline, but Liberty Partners has worked wonders and they they're going to help us find some more money, too. So, um there's an old saying as far as how
you spend your money and and and what you do with your money. Uh and it's an old saying, but it it rings crystal clear today, and that is charity begins at home. Before we give away our city money, we need to take care of city
services and city people. And this is taking care of home. We've got the funds to do it. We've got the support of the citizens and I honestly believe that we can make
this happen. >> Okay, we have a motion second on the floor. Y'all ready to vote? Mary, you got to ask public comment, of course. >> All I want to see make sure this bunch is ready. All right. Any other comments from the floor?
>> I have a question. >> Come on. If you for example set it at 60% and you say we're going to bring in 947,000 plus dollars, how many people in this city are going
to claim hardship because they can't afford it? And I guarantee you over 20 to 25% of the people that live in the city limits can't afford any of that up there. So, they're going to get a hardship and that
$900 and something thousand dollars is going to hit the bottom line. And I'm sorry, I hate to disagree with you, Mr. Cosen, but I guar dang tell you that the legislature and the city the citizens in this state are going to pass the
property tax. This city is not going to be able to pay the light bill >> when that happens unless you have a one- cent sales tax or you implement some other form of tax. You may take away the property tax, but you're not going to be able to pay the bill. You're not going
to be able to pay the salaries. You're not going to be able to keep the lights on. You're not going to be able to to fund the the roads. I had a meeting last month, last week, excuse me, with Shane Abbott was there.
He gave the most outstanding um scenario of what this is going to be. For example, Holmes County will no longer exist. Holmes County will be gone. They will either be become part of Walton County
or we will become part of Okaloosa County. That's how severe this is. And I can guarantee you everybody's I don't want to pay any more property tax. I'm 80 years old. I'd love to not, but I want my roads paved. I want my fire chief back there.
I, you know, I want these services, but people are not going to, they look only right here. They don't look out here. And y'all are have going to have one heck of a decisions to make when this happens. Where you going to get the
money? So, when you're calculating um the lower number, and I understand, I mean, I don't want to pay 60% or 50%, but when my house is on fire, I'd love to have somebody show up. >> Yeah. >> You know, but um because I was in office
for over 12 years, I understand that setting a a cap high doesn't mean you're going to do it. It means you don't have to come back to the table and advertise because I'm sorry, it will cost money. when you ain't got no money, it's gonna cost money to do the advertising again.
So to set something high and it comes in, y'all advertise it. Y'all make people understand this is a topic. It's not going to happen. But we have to by law. Make people understand you have to do it by law. You're just not doing it because you want to. But I'm concerned
about those 20 25% plus people that aren't going to be able to pay a dime, much less 50%. Yeah. Thank you. Anyone else? >> Okay. All in favor? >> Mayor, hold on one second. >> Okay.
>> My only comment I'm going to make before we vote. I've listened around the table and I get the strong impression that we're if we pass this ordinance, we're about to talk about this resolution and there's going to be a discussion of a number other
than 60% of the resolution and possibly more than 60 60% being year one and possibly more than that in year two or more than 60% in general. I'll go back to my first comments. If we're going to change around the ordinance, we're going to change around the resolution, we
should continue the whole thing to what would be the actual meeting date would be July 13th so that we can do this right. Because if we lock up on if we pass this ordinance right now and you lock up on this resolution on the second
vote, we got a problem. And I don't want there to be a problem because now we're going to have to we're going to be on a tight advertising frame. But to do this right, for us to have this number adopted on August 24th, your last meeting in August before we get into our budget hearings,
we've got to have them mailed out by August 4th. To do that, we need to be adopting both of these no later than July 13th. Understand Councilman Evan won't be here next meeting in June. So that's where we're looking at. That's where we would go. I'm just asking you if there's any chance you're not going
to adopt this resolution as presented, please continue on both. Don't take a chance we foul up the advertising on the ordinance and have to restart it. We can continue to a date certain and not have to readvertise the ordinance. >> All right, >> Mr. Mayor, I'd like to offer substitute
motion that we continue this discussion to the next city council meeting. >> July 13. >> Okay. Can we continue the advertising specifically to July 13th so that we know that's when the advertisement is for the ordinance and the resolution and then we can discuss anything you want at the next meeting but the actual vote would be the 13th. That's when the
advertisement would be. >> That's my motion. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second? Uh any comments on that motion? >> Because we have a repeat of what the original motion was. it would be to adopt the ordinance, but that means
you're going to adopt the resolution afterwards at 60% cap. Okay? If you want to change that cap in any way, shape, or form, if you want to do 60% up to 60% year one and then above it you and up to a greater number in
years 2, three, four, five, the flexible option that Sandra and I talked about a few little while ago. We have to rewrite that resolution. We can't let you adopt what's on here. If you want a higher number just right now that will last all five years, we have to rewrite that. To do that, I don't know what you're going
to tell me after this. But that's why I'm asking us to do it all together so that we don't foul the process in any way, shape, or form. >> So, if we pass Amy's motion, we don't have to do all that. >> No. If we pass Amy's motion, y'all are going to have to vote on this resolution. And if you don't pass this
resolution, we got a mess. I'm asking you not to pass the ordinance if we're not ready to adopt the resolution and I'm hearing a lot of uncertainty on that, >> but it may pass as written. >> Okay. So, I'm going to vote on substitute first.
>> Yes, sir. >> And that is to >> to to move the resolution of the ordinance public hearings to July 13th at city at our regularly scheduled city council meeting. >> All in favor say I. >> I. Can I make a comment about that?
>> Now, what time what time restraint does that put us in? >> We're that that is we just did the math over here. Sandra and I did. What that means is on July 13th, it's adopted. She needs roughly three weeks. That gets her
to August 3rd. Our advertising mailout date is August 4th. So, she's good. That's what she needs. August 24th would be your adoption of the final rate. That would be before your two budget hearings in September. So that date actually works perfectly. I can't go another I
cannot go one more meeting, but I can go to July 13th. >> And there's no chance of an agreement tonight as to the ceiling. >> I think there is, but >> well, if there is, we still would need to if the ceiling is great is different than 60%, we would still need this
motion to continue. So that and we can keep talking about it either at this meeting or the next, but we're going to have to rewrite things is what I'm getting at. This is why I started this combined discussion for fear of this exact scenario. >> And if we pass it like Amy, >> then you but then you have to adopt the
resolution >> and you don't have to rewrite anything. >> Correct. But the council has to pass that. If they don't, we've got a problem. And I'm not sure. I hear the council saying they're going to pass it a guaranteed 60 >> be 22 is what I'm hearing right now. Oh, and somebody's going to be
>> I think you you're hearing the same thing I am, but I'm just starting to stress about revertising an ordinance and >> listen for a second to think this through because >> well, you can think on it for uh four weeks if you want to.
>> I don't know that I want to. >> I'm'll be honest with you. I hear I hear exactly I don't hear two two. What I hear is this one's going to possibly I could be wrong. It could be 32 one way or the other. I think if we changed it to where I did a substitute motion to
seal it at 100%, we're gonna have two two. It's gonna be no all the way around. So, I think that the continuence is probably the best measure. But that's just my feelings. >> Since we're talking about feelings, I think it's just kicking the can down the road. >> We've said that a thousand times at this
lot of things with infrastructure and this. >> Exactly. >> I'm just asking that we make sure we do it right. >> Let's vote. >> Yeah. All right, let's start over again. All in favor say I. >> This one the substitute >> the substitute to continue. >> I
no. >> I carried. >> That now takes precedent. I need a vote to officially move it to those dates. >> So, same thing, but now that's the primary motion. We go straight to voting to the continuence. Madame clerk, for the record, it would be a motion to
continue to a date certain resolution tendly numbered 20268 and ordinance tentatively numbered 993 to July 13th after 5:00 pm here at city hall
for second reading and public hearing for adoption. Mayor, if you would be so kind as to call for the vote. >> Did we get a motion on the >> That that motion just prevailed. Now we have to vote on it. >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. >> No. >> I. >> No.
>> I carry. Thank you very much. >> All right. So, we're done with that. >> Unless y'all want to talk more about what the cap should be. >> And and I know I know everybody's tired, but if I may take the opportunity, it's probably worthwhile having a little bit of that conversation tonight because
you're going to give me the direction. And I would say in deference to Councilwoman Evelyn, she's let us know she's not going to be here in June. So if your plan was to talk about it at your next meeting, you're going to be talking about it with a four member board. >> And while I don't love to count votes, I
know this five can't split two, four can. So >> just maybe go ahead and give me the direction of where you want that cap to be year one or whether year one's cap is one thing and the rest are a different. >> Yeah. would love to know that tonight so we could get it done.
>> Well, and to make it more complicated, I've got a very dear friend that lives several states away. He's not doing good, and um I'm going to be going to his funeral. I don't know when it's going to happen, but it won't be long.
>> Okay. Okay. Uh let us let's play with this just a little bit. All right, Josh, you're kind of first on a roll tonight. What's your what's your top number, >> mayor? I'm at 160. Either way, this goes 100 in is the ceiling. I
>> My personal thoughts on this already are we need to set the rate at 60%. So, that was that $199 figure we factored. That's for 12 months. You have to come up with $200 >> to help to help make this more appealing to the public in year one. Would you be
willing to allow us to advertise a cap of 60 in the first year going up to 100 maximum in these subsequent years? >> Is that how we can structure this? I was thinking you wanted it different than that. >> No, she and I have talked about that that we can make that happen if you want
to set the first year cap at 60. So, we're not giving sticker shock and we're trying to show the public we're working with them. But that further years after that would be if you were to do that. In fact, I'm going to tell you right now, I would not go all the way to the max cap year one. >> Mm-m.
>> Because right now, what you're basically saying is we're we may have to go above it later once the property tax reform passes or fails. Year one's just going to be for the budget we already know is in place >> and we don't have to go to the max. >> Correct. So, that's what I'm saying. set the set the first year that you're
telling the public it won't be above 60 and then future years if you want to say it not above 100 not above 80 I don't care the number I'm just saying but I think that is a better model than just saying it's going to be no more than 100 period >> I just want to be truthful with the public at this year the first year my
max is 60 but I don't want to lie to them and say we don't have to go up higher than the subsequent years because there are so that's how I'm proposing you advertise it so when this comes out to the public. Josh Conurs is not for 100% year one. I'm saying we got to go
at 60%. But I don't want to lie to you and say that the next year we won't need more. >> That's how it will be advertised. >> What's your number? >> My high. >> Yeah. >> Or tell us anything you want to tell us. As long as it has >> I'm just I'm pondering it right now.
Mayor, come back to me. We >> All right. >> We don't we don't have a number what 90 or anything like that looks like. Well, >> yeah, that's what she's here for. Give her a second. >> Um, >> oh, you can't give it right now. Okay. Sorry. Kobe might be able to. >> It was on our last
>> sheet, right? >> One second. >> I don't I don't >> I didn't see it either, but I know they have it. >> Yeah, I think Kobe did though, didn't you? >> No, I'm just not going to. Give me a second. >> I can tell you in a minute. Google.
>> Nope. We do not have anything between 75 and 100. That's the last range. >> Okay. >> Who said 400? Somebody said 400. >> That's according to that old sheet that we >> old sheet that the first time we met. >> Yeah. It's like $397.
>> I don't know. >> Well, 50%'s$1.99. Then 100% would be >> 5%. >> Roughly $20 for every 5%. >> I see that. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's your step. >> What was that top end number? 298. >> The top end of six. The top end of the 100 is 397.
>> 397. >> What did you say your max was, Josh? >> My max is my my max. >> You're going to the 100 >> for five years. >> 60 year one. >> Year one's 60%. >> And then after 100 >> 90% of $397 is $357.30
versus 400. >> 357 at 90. >> That's 90%. Yes. Clay, I recall distinctively asking and I thought you said that we couldn't do it like why we wouldn't set the range 50. Okay, 50% to 100%.
>> And your answer was no, you cannot do that. It either it was too. >> My answer is you can't go from five to 100, but you still have to set. But for today, we're setting the cap. When it comes time to set the range, you cannot set it that broadly. But for our advertisement, all we're doing is advertising the maximum. We're not
setting a range tonight. I want to be clear. >> Well, okay. But maybe that's what I'm >> but but 60 to 100 I don't see an issue with I would see an issue 25 to 100. I don't think that would be fair notice or appraisal of the public. But I'm hearing Mr. Scaner say he thinks it should be at 60 not as a max but that's what the year
one needs to be. >> So I mean if the number if the range is 60 to 100 that's where you end up. >> Isn't one of these documents that you're asking us to adopt has the range within it that it's going to say year one you're going to change the will. the resolution will
>> 60% for year one but then >> up to 100% or 90% or whatever it is for years 2 3 four five >> or at an undetermined period in the future. >> No, it has to be that 5year window. >> So, so what the notice would say, what each property owner would get is it
would say for fiscal year 2627 the maximum rate that can be charged is and if you're doing it at that 60% is $238. In future years without further notice, it could go up to if we're going to the
100% it could go up to $397. So that first class notice will say this is the maximum it can go up to this year and in future years without further notice it could go up to and I don't think the 100% is on there because that
wasn't one you guys asked me for. >> No, but he said it was 397. >> Yeah, that was on 397. So what is it an acceptable range? You said it can't be like from zero to 100. Of course, right? >> 60 to 100 reason. I think you're scaling. I mean, you're talking about about a hund. So you're talking about
top to bottom. You're looking at basically >> 250 >> $150. >> I mean, yeah, $150. >> You're talking about $150 of a range. That's >> a$ 160. So that's that's about right. I mean, you start going down to where you're talking $75 to$400.
You got to give the public a fair appraisal of what it may come out to without notice. And that's where due process comes in. I think your 6040 I think your 40% your 60 to 100 is right there. In fact, when we talked about it the other day, I think I told y'all, you know, anywhere on that chart, you were
pretty good. 45 to 65, that kind of range looked fine. But if you want to go all the way up to that max number, I think >> we can do that. But again, today we're just talking about what the max in future years would be. It may well be that your range in future years is not 60 to 100. It may be 70 to 100 when we
have this discussion, but it's tonight. It's the topend number that we're worried about. So, there's a different discussion than you have before. >> Gotcha. >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah. >> Walton County. Refresh my memory. 75, >> but they can go up to double that 150. 75 to 15.
>> Okay. So if we double it, that's basically the same concept as what the counties >> and it doesn't require you to go up to it in future years. It's an annual decision range where we can all agree or majority can agree to >> I'm good with 100.
>> Okay, Dan, >> the average citizen is going to look at that and they're not going to understand the intric details. How about that? uh of this scale.
They're just going to see, you know, a a huge figure and say, you know, have they lost their mind? They're not going to understand that. >> I agree. I agree with you, but but they don't know that. They don't know what you know. >> Danny, did you say what yours was? >> Unfortunately, we closed public hearing.
So, I'm sorry. >> He's working on >> Oh, he's thinking. Great. >> But we would have to readvertise if we do all this. public's already the numbers. >> That is a fair point. They the public's already seen all these numbers I think is what the audience was interjecting. They've already seen all of these
possible numbers. >> Yeah. >> So, okay. Can we could we do this tonight and move forward if uh if there's some compromise here? >> This is >> Well, we've already continued the public
hearing to July 13. That's when it's need to know the cap number. It's not even voted on, but this is so that when we pick back up, >> you have documents to adopt without any further question. >> So, we need to know what your cap would be if you're willing to tell us what
>> and and you're okay with this max cap. >> I'm still pondering it, but I mean there's good and bad to it and it's just it's what the public's perception is going to be. >> That's what I'm concerned about. And Clay, when is it that we'll actually pick the actual dollar amount? I know we
said 60 is going to be the cap, but >> the adoption August 24th. >> Okay. So, we still then after all of this is said and done between July 13th and that August date 24, you will vote to pick it. That is the public hearing to pick the rate. >> Okay?
>> You'll set the dollar amount hard number right then and there. Period. So, this is just setting the high-end number just like when you start your millage rate high and you work your way down. >> Step out on the water there, Dan. >> Excuse me.
>> Step out on the water. >> We can't make a decision tonight anyway, right? >> That's right, >> Councilman. I'm asking very politely, please, if you will, if I know that I've got three or four votes consensus towards something, that's the number we're going to put in this and it's
going to make life a lot easier on the 13th. It's going to let us be a lot more transparent to the public. Otherwise, we're going to be have the same conversation on the 13th and have no and then if you get into lock jaw, we don't do anything and that's not an option anymore.
you want to keep this fire department, we got to do this. >> I just throw out a point of optimism here for a second. You know, we're talking about airport, how much money we've put into that airport. And we're obligated with the grant
requirements to produce 500 jobs in this city, right? Not just at the airport, but within the city. um that are related to the airport. There could be some supply business here that supplies a manufacturer that's at
the airport in the future or whatever. So we have to re we have to produce 500 jobs. That is new jobs. That's not imported jobs by these companies that are coming here. That's new jobs here. And if you look at just $65,000 a year as a salary, which many of those
are going to be 80, 90, maybe $100,000 a year jobs, that's going to inject somewhere between 30 and $50 million of potential income. Not not all of everybody's income comes to the city of Funia. We know that. But a good portion
of that kind of income is going to be spent in this city. the houses is that that all that's taking place right now to house additional labor force. Our school district is working on educating that labor force. U Emerald Coast Tech,
they're they're all working on it. Northwest Florida is going to be working on it, I'm sure. So, there is a lot of optimism here that we can look at that's that's coming. Good things and and good good money coming in that's going to increase revenue of this city to help pay for these things. So, you talking
about an increased tax base that's moving in that would help us out? >> Well, just a lot of additional revenue, just sales tax generated money alone, uh, water, sewer, all of that, uh, is going to increase revenue for the city.
Um, and I know that's optimistic, but but not so much. We're locked into that. We have to do that. Keep that grant money. you along with hundreds of others have got a huge interest in our infrastructure and what Mr. Beerbomb has been preaching
about for the last few years about transfers. Well, that reason so much of that's not getting done is it's being spent on police and fire, you know, so to keep doing what we're doing is going
about kicking the can down the road, you know. I think the culprit here, and everybody's got an opinion, is if we just quit giving our money away and spend it where it needs to be on our
city. I think everybody's, >> you know, they have different opinions on what it needs to be, but I think that they're all looking out for the good of the city. >> I mean, some would just like to just keep air flowing and that's it. You know, not have any perfume, not have any
color, not have any, you know what I'm saying? Just keep everybody alive. You know, this we got a lot more to do than just infrastructure, you know, but you got to have it. and uh and you're not going to make a whole lot if you if you
keep having to spread the enterprise funds everywhere else. It's hard to ever get a lot done, you know. >> Well, everybody at this board knows I'm a subject matter expert person. >> Yeah.
And when it comes to it, when it comes to business, I listen to them. And this is a numbers thing. >> It is. >> So, my go-to person when it comes to
numbers and finance is Amy. >> Mhm. But as a council person, you were elected to stand on your own two feet. >> I was elected to do what the city citizens want me to do. I don't do what I want to do. >> Mhm.
>> And I would do things different, but I made a promise. I'm going to represent the people, >> right? and I'm doing my best to protect them from high rates. Um, transparency. >> Where you at on this, Amy?
>> 75. >> That's my answer, >> Mr. Bemont. >> 60 60 to 100. >> 60 to 100. Okay. I see three. That's what I'm going to write of that. That's what will be here on July 13th. Mayor, thank you. >> All right, let's move on. Good lord. I
>> Thank you. >> Let's see. Hang on, man. >> 1 hour and 20 minutes on that particular item. >> Mayor, all these times I've said I've had nothing. Just fell. I just ate up all my pl >> one hour and 20 minutes. Okay. Uh let's
go to Valor Community Communities LLC on the Walton Point capacity fees. That was much of a wait, was it? >> Just a little bit. Thank you. Hopefully, we won't take another hour.
>> My name is Mark Johnson. I'm the division president for Valor. We're happy to be here uh in Defini. Uh we are purchasing the Walton Point subdivision there on the corner of 83 and Walton Road.
>> Uh we're excited about it. good. >> Um, we're hoping to that this goes very well. Yeah. >> For us and for the city. We hope to bring a lot of revenue to your city. Um, what we are proposing tonight is that uh
I think it was brought up that we would pay a lot of the 33 I think was the initial um assessment that we would pay the capacity fees for 33 of the lots. We have only purchased nine of the first batch of lots. We have purchased nine.
Uh a third party owns 24 and the developer still owns 32. So we are just proposing that we are able to we've already purchased the first nine. We've already paid those >> and we're proposing that we buy the next
batch in six increments of six over each quarter moving forward as we're taking down lots. And just on another note, we hope that that the value of our homes are going to sell in the range of the 320s to up. So
hopefully that will help the city as well. >> Yeah. now. So, so going forward, you're looking at trying to do this in units of six, >> correct? Each quarter >> and you're doing nine now. >> We've already paid those. Yes. >> Go ahead.
>> Can you Can you put a school bus stop out there for us? Correct. Can you work with a school district? Can we Can we get that taken care of while we're doing this? >> I think there actually is a school bus. The developer put that chief >> on Walton Road. >> Yeah. >> I don't want to say why. I don't want to
get us in trouble. Let's just leave that alone. Yeah. Yeah. >> That's good. >> All right. So, >> yes, there is a school bus stop right there. Yes. >> All right. So, you already got nine. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. So, what are you asking for tonight? >> We're asking that we are able to take
down in increments of six going forward each quarter. >> Okay. Council, what do you think? >> Are you asking us to subsidize your >> purchasing? Is that what I'm hearing? >> No, he's just trying to do just trying to >> He's doing a little short shaking his head. Yes, he knows what I'm
headed to >> and I and I do and I will go ahead and add this in. The mayor, Mr. Townson, myself, and Mr. Wallace had a phone call with the developer. We said there's a very easy solution. Your ordinance says you'll pay it when you get your DO. The DO is for all of these lots. They have a
valid DO right now. So, we're supposed to collect the full amount. If they want to conform their takedown schedule and want us to conform our payment schedule, their takedown, the way I've done it in Freeport, the way I've done it elsewhere, very easy. Ask
us to amend the DO to phase the DO so that their phase do matches their takedown schedule. In which case, they want nine lots. Phase one is nine lots. Phase two can be six lots. Phase three, phase four. It's all they got to do. That was our proposal to them. they
apparently wanted to come ask the council to take a different approach um so that they could go forward with this. I would simply note that once you let them start building, we puts a lot of pressure on staff to make sure they're collecting those
capacity fees and if they get ahead of us, we don't have the ability to withhold their D permits or otherwise at this point because we've already issued the DO. So, it is if the council wants to look at their capacity fee ordinance and say, you know, we think it's in the best interest of the city and we find
that it serves the interest, I believe the language is that upon a showing of good cause and it's in the best interest of the city and necessary for the development, then you can take this as a prepayment and work out a utility service agreement to let them make
payments. But our suggestion was they just need to phase their development like anybody else can do. In all fairness, we are not the developer. >> Okay. >> We're buying lots. >> I wasn't quite finished yet. Mayor, >> go ahead. Sorry. >> Uh,
>> so you have nine, >> correct? >> Are you under contract for all the rest of them? Because otherwise, >> we are. >> Yes. >> Oh, you are. >> We are under contract. Yes. >> For all 33. >> For all 65. >> So, all they have to do is apply for an amended development order if they have the rights.
>> And then we don't have to be involved at all. >> That's right. We would do this in administratively. >> All right. So, um, Mayor, >> go ahead. >> This sounds like it's going to be real simple, but whatever we decide, we're setting a precedent.
>> Actually, I'm kind of saying I don't think the council needs to decide anything if they go through the phase development. >> So, subject matter expert. It worked for Freeport. >> I've done it multiple times over that issue. So,
what's the problem there with what the council is suggesting? Is that amendable to you? >> Well, is that having to go through the developer? Again, we are not the developer. We're purchasing lots. >> But you're But you but you're the one that's developing the property. >> No. >> Okay. I guess I now I meant really
confused. >> We're building the houses. >> Correct. We're building the houses and we're proposing that we pay those capacity fees because apparently the developer did not pay the capacity fees. developer is passing the fees onto them. Correct. Getting stuck holding the bag on the fees. >> Correct.
>> Now, our position is we believe the developer probably did >> take money out to pay these fees, but they haven't paid them. So, that's between them. That to me seems like a civil issue kind of on their end. My thought is we've had plenty of people come in with an affidavit of the owner
saying, "Hey, they're under contract." And we give them authority to amend the development order to conform to the contract and takeown schedule. You see that all the time. Would the developer need to give them the right to do it? Sure. But if the developer wants to sell his property, I don't know why he wouldn't do that.
>> The developer is selling his property. >> What does he care about how he develops it? >> And does he already have a development order from the city? >> Yes. >> The big the >> the overall thing is a development order. >> He's stuck because he's got nine lots and he can't uh >> that's the that's why we need to amend
the DO to conform to their takedown schedule. So there's there's two two 56 of the lots are owned by two other parties, correct? >> I believe that's correct. >> That's two other developers.
>> Well, I don't know. >> But two separate entities that are not the gentleman. >> So you own the nine and then the the remaining 56 are owned by two different parties. >> That's true. So if you do, this was my concern, you know, I was like, you know,
uh, 56 lots divided by three months, you know, is 9.3 quarters, right? Which is 28 months. So we do these a handful of homes at a time, you know, that that strings out to like two years to get this development
done. I don't know if that's normal and not have been in this business long enough to know that, but um is is that pretty normal for 65 homes to take two years? >> It can be. Depends on the absorption rate. >> Yeah. So, >> um Well, okay.
>> Clay, you say you've done this. >> We've structured amended phase dos. We've gone to phase subphase and sub subphases. >> Yeah. >> Down there in free. I I just I mean even if he would just get us a amended deal
for the first nine >> that will make our life a lot easier. That just shows that's phase one. Our point is he's he's already telling us >> and and I and I think we have to take him at face value. I don't think this gentleman is saying anything that's untrue to you. >> He doesn't know if he's going to buy all
those lots. He's under contract. I'm not asking him how much earnest money he's got, if he's got any. But it may be financially he walks from the deal. So fair enough. If the developer is not going to give him full control to let him amend a full phase DOU, my point is we have one DO that is a master DO
for the whole site. Once we let them start pulling permits, we got no reason to stop letting them pull permits because the question is who's going to have to pay the fees? Our view of it is we'll gladly take the nine, but we need this nine to be a phase one. And if he's already bought those, he can apply for
that. What do you need us to do to get you there? >> I just I mean I think he's asking you to not accept that and just give him relief at your level. Deny the relief and say follow through and get us an amended do. >> We already have the first nine permits. >> Okay. And then you need a phase do.
That's all we're asking. Same thing we talked about on the phone a couple weeks ago. >> I wasn't privy to that, so I apologize. >> So So on a phone call with the mayor, Kobe, Mr. Wallace, we said all we need is a phase do. give us a phase do that shows that we're going to phase this in
in and if you're able to give us a phase do on your takedown schedule, all the better. If the develop if valor doesn't end up buying the homes, just to be very clear, valor does not end up buying all the lots and building all the homes. The developer can come back and say, "Hey, we don't want to do this phased anymore. We want to go right back to the original
DOU." We'd let them amend it right back to that. It's no skin off our back to amend that DOU either way. We just have to be able to release the lots into the DO by phase consistent with the payment schedule you want to make. So all we need is a phase DOU and
we don't have to have the council approve it >> and he gets that from the developer. Correct. >> If the developer gives us the permission, if the developer gives him the permission to do it, we'll do it at Chris's level. It doesn't even go back before the plan. >> Motion that that's what we do. >> Second >> staff direction, right? >> That's staff direction, but you can make it as a motion. I don't care. Well,
either way, >> I mean, you got I mean, co that's basically what I talked about on the call. >> Yeah. >> And if you and I know if you weren't privy to that call, if you'll get with Mr. Towns and I, tomorrow is not going to be a great day for me, but any other day this week, we'll make time to make it happen. >> So, is that acceptable to you? I heard a
motion. Okay, we have a motion. >> We'll get this thing moving quickly. >> And uh questions on D or from anyone else? >> Well, I think we're just going to take staff action. >> Okay, that's all. All right. You guys second
>> orders. >> Okay. If you guys good with Let's roll with it. >> Yeah. >> Miss uh Miss Gabbard's in the back. She'll catch you on the way out and just give her your contact info and she give you mine. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Appreciate what you're doing. Yeah. Thank you. >> All righty.
Okay. So, now we're at excessive noise. Miss Henderson. >> Thanks, >> Mr. Mayor, council members, and staff, um we're here and you've seen our concerns in your packet about noise
pollution or noise blight. We attended the code review meeting and we were treated very courteously. There we found out two things. First, they have finally hammered out uh um an enforcable noise
ordinance and we would urge you to pass it even though we haven't seen it when it comes before you because it is critical. Second thing we found out is some of the examples that we gave we the police should have been called and that
wasn't done. Um however with the increased usage of our churches, the amphitheater, the shiakequa building for performances, services and conferences as well as increased traffic generally and boombox
traffic generally and after market mufflers increasing. We think that signs should be posted that say quiet zone wherever it is appropriate. And uh there are others who wish to
speak to this issue, but I would be happy to answer any questions or give you some other examples if you have questions after that. >> I'd like to make a comment on that. >> Go ahead. somewhere in the neighborhood of u 1980
uh a very similar complaint uh came up in the state of Florida um many cities and the problem the reason law enforcement couldn't um enforce it is because they had to have a
statutes a statute on decibb. So, progressive law enforcement agencies had to get uh decibel devices the best decibel measuring devices and get training on how to use it in order
to enforce the Florida statute. Uh and and that made it legal. Just saying, "Hey, your your muffler's too loud or you're playing your radio too loud." That that didn't pass the litmus test in court. So, this has been in uh in existence since
around 1980. And um that's probably why local law enforcement hasn't been able to do anything. And all it would require
is um do they still do you know, James? >> I'm let I'm let them speak and I'll give you the facts here. >> Okay. Okay. So, I'm quite aware of the problem because I experience it too.
Um, >> right. So, I spend a lot of time on the lakeyard. I enjoy it just like everybody else. So, I can sympathize with the problem. So, after everybody has their little piece to say, I'd like to hear
what the chief has to say. >> We hadn't opened it up, but go right ahead. I'm Tracy Jones and my husband and I bought the house at 132 Circle Drive in April. We'd been remodeling it and I thought that I had moved to Mayberry. Um, and it's such a lovely
place. Such lovely such lovely people. >> Uh, but we've been spending a lot of time there. We haven't moved in because we're remodeling it, but we've been spending a lot of time there during the day. And I have to say that one part of Mayberry has shocked me and that is
really the the aftermarket mufflers. There are a lot of people uh during the day and I haven't been here at night so I don't know how it is at night but during the day they you know the whole circle is basically a parking lot because you can park on either side of
the street at any time you want to. And there are a lot of people who indeed do and enjoy their lunch or whatever it is that they're doing with their aftermarket mufflers. And I thought that that law had evolved to more of a common
sense kind of thing. and and uh I don't know if it has or not but I do know that it is um it has been such that if if there can be no enforcement of it,
it just is what it is. I I don't know that we can keep the house. I mean that's how how jarring it has been. uh particularly during the day because people will stay there for an hour or two hours at the time and it's I'm pretty sure that it's at 80 dB. Um and
there definitely are repeat offenders, but it's not exclusive because the whole circle is a parking lot basically and it's the crown jewel of the city. And so as Mindy suggests, you know, if and it
it you know, signs would probably be more of a suggestion than anything to for it to be a quiet zone, but it's it's such a lovely area. And you know, the church bells, the chimes, even the the train is not a problem. But these loud
trucks that park out there that are absolutely illegal mufflers um are just stealing a lot of enjoyment from people, tourists and what have you. So I would ask you to seriously consider when they
the ordinance group brings you whatever they're going to bring you um to take it seriously. >> Thank you. Good morning. It's after midnight, isn't it?
Mark Ham, the resident of Punak Springs. I just like to echo what Dr. Henderson and Miss Mr. Jones had said. Um, I've noticed in my visit to the library several times during the day, a lot of these mufflers going on. Also, people driving in their motorcycles with boom
boxes. seems to be very popular to have boom boxes which no earplugs very loudly. I've asked a couple people, could you please tune that down? Hey boo, I can do that. You know, enjoy your day. There's no place for this. It's very difficult, I think, for the police to to to enforce this, but I think
there's an opportunity to put something on on the books where we can get a handle on this is to all of our advantage. I think putting some signs up too would be also a positive step. So, I urge you to take that advisement. Thank you very much.
>> My name is Marilyn Whitney and I'm a resident of the city and I'm also the chairman of the board of trustees at First Methodist Church and the house that the Joneses have purchased is right next to our parking lot. So, um I'm sure everybody knows that our
parking lot belongs to the church, but we've opened it up to the city or the public or anybody all the time, anytime. And that's kind of led to this concern because the parking lot has a fence between it and and their property. And
these and I've heard this truck, there's one in particular. I mean, I've heard a lot of them now that it's come to my attention. Now, we don't hear all the noise in the church, and I'm not there all the time, but I'm there a lot. And I have heard this truck, and it's the loudest pickup I've ever heard. And so,
these vehicles will pull up backed into these parking spaces right next to their property, either their porch or their uh backyard. Or they also do it, this particular truck does it at the Chakaco building and will idle for an hour and
and then go and then do it again and then and when he pulls off it's even worse. And I think he understands maybe that uh people are dissatisfied with his truck maybe. So I think he's really
u wants to make a lot of noise. So, um, the church can't really enforce a lot. I mean, if we put up, please do not idle here. I mean, I'd like to add, please do not park your horse vans here. Please do not park your semi-trailers here, do not litter. But, I mean, the enforcement of
it is kind of beyond what the church can do. We want to be welcoming. Our sign says First Methodist Church, welcome on the parking lot. M >> so we don't want to discourage people from I mean any event you have in the lakeyard or the Titaka building people
use our parking lot and that's fine we're fine with that but truly it has gotten to where it's going to make it inhospitable for people that live on the circle is just getting worse. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Oops. >> And it's not just the circle. Okay,
we were eating out in front of Sweet Southern Comfort. This young man came by with his boom box on his shoulder. He went by once. Didn't think much about it. You know, he came by four times and we got up and left before.
>> Chief, it's your turn. >> Yeah, right. >> They can't do anything. So, as one of our other prominent folks in our community says, we trust in God, but others we bring data. So, I brought
some data for you. Um, and I am sympathetic to 100% what you're saying. I I completely understand your concern, but the the problem I'm having is the data. So, I pulled our numbers
for the last six months. um our new system that we got through a grant through fibers. Um I'm able to pull our call history and put keywords in and it pulls out every call we've had that has that keyword in it. So I even ran my name. I'm thinking why do I have 30
something calls with my name? Well, security checks at Gene Hurley. So that's kind of how it works for perspective. So I put two words in. I put exhaust and I put muffler and I got 21 total calls of service. All right. So >> over what period of time? >> Over the last 6 months.
>> Okay. >> So from what I understand is we're not enforcing these certain things, right? So out of those 21 calls, 16 of those were self-generated traffic stops for loud exhaust, right? Five calls were
from citizens. One of them was in the historic district. Okay. Um the first call that we got from um a citizen was he found an exhaust pipe in his trash can and
thought it was in like abnormal. All right. The second one was on East Maine and it was his cousin's son who was in his yard that was beating on metal and had loud exhaust on his truck. The third car was a guy that was slumped
over his steering wheel. We found that he was exhausted. All right. The other two complaints we got were from the sheriff's office reference a silver silver Pontiac. One time was northbound from Clyde's Bridge
that was reckless driving. It was described how loud exhaust. The second one was he was north of Freeport that was evading a deputy and it was described as a silver Pontiac with loud exhaust. The data doesn't show that we have these
issues. I I sat here through this whole meeting in 8:14. A train came by and that's the only outside noise that I actually heard. That train's been coming through here from the beginning of time. It would be like us saying, "Hey train, we need this quiet zone here. We need
you to quit blowing your horn." But he blows that horn to make sure people have attention. They're not going to get run over. So, as far as enforcement, yes, we have statutes that allow us. We have had judges in the past that there's two statutes. There's a decel reading
statute and then there's a modified exhaust. One is your vehicle can't operate after over so many decals. The other one is you can't modify your exhaust at all from factory. Right? So, there are statutes that we we can play
with. And of course, we do have a a code coming out for loud music. We did I did run the loud music numbers, too. We only had one of those in the historic district in the last six months, and I think there was roughly about the same amount of calls, but they were scattered throughout the city. So, that's the
problem I'm having is we're not getting calls. If it's if it's that legitimate of an issue and we're having that many problems, you have to call. We can't do nothing about it if we don't know it. There's a lot more to this city than a
certain demographic area that is perturbed by certain sounds. We've got all kinds of stuff going throughout the rest of the city that that we deal with on a daily basis. Christy wanted to come by and take pictures today. We had some lady held up in her closet thinking her ex-boyfriend was at our house. To me,
that's stuff we got to be dealing with instead of trying to figure out who's parked in the Methodist parking lot. um to that thing is that is private property. If you don't want them there, you tell us. We trespass him. He's not allowed to come back. But that that's
>> trespass. >> That that's up to y'all. So, we can't enforce things on private property. So, we will do what we need to do to to address your issue. But, if we're going to say, "Well, we're going to start hammering everybody that's got a modified exhaust." There's people that
are in this room that have modified exhaust on their their personal vehicles right now in this parking lot. So, >> and that would be illegal, right? >> By Florida statute. It's a modified exhaust system, >> but we have to call you. >> Well, if if that's where how we're going
to get is we're going to start writing everybody that has a catback system or or whatever on their vehicle. You know, once again, I listen to our citizens and I and I do listen. I'm listening to you and I understand there are times where certain vehicles will come through, they
got loud music or they got exhaust, but if that's going to be our main focus, we we're doing good as a city. >> You know, you say you're not getting calls, but if you get a call, what will happen? I guess >> well, we're going to come out there. >> We'll come out there, but once again, in
your instance, if he's backed up to your fence, he's on private property. We can't write him a ticket until he pulls out there on the road. So that that kind of ties our hands on that. But minute he gets on that road, we're good. >> You would like to get calls for people
anywhere on the circle that are continuing. >> If if that you're a citizen, you got the right to make a call regardless of what it is. And we will if it's something we can investigate, we'll investigate. But understand that there's other priority calls that are happening on a
daily basis >> that trump somebody with a loud exhaust or loud music. So >> the danger is retaliation. >> Well, you know, it's and I even covered this in our our last meeting. We've
gotten to a point as a society we don't respect each other as neighbors, as as fellow citizens. It's like we just I don't know where this world has gotten off of that, but if we kind of held to our Christian values and treated our neighbors like our family, we'd be a lot
better off. So, you know, but as far as calls of service, we ain't getting them. >> You can come on up, man. Come on up. >> Yeah. Hey. Well, I walk around the lake
every day at various times and what I've not and what I've noticed the last what week or so more police presence >> driving around. Um, >> come on up near the mic. >> But one of the issues that I have are
these trucks and like muscle cars that are loud, but they speed. They're speeding and there's like dead ducks and and especially around the library. I mean, there's kids getting, you know,
and it just um it's annoying and it's it's it's annoying and I know exactly what everyone is saying. Um the noise is annoying. It's a park-like setting. When I first um drove up to tour the
city uh from Niceville, I thought I was in a jewelbox and now I mean I was looking at the lake and I was like I had never seen anything like it >> and now I mean it's just annoying, >> right?
>> So I happy about the police presence driving because I've noticed it. I'm like, "Wow." You know, but these trucks and cars are loud and they they go fast and and it's dangerous, >> right? >> So, thanks for listening to me.
>> Well, I think one thing, you know, if you call in, if there's a pattern and at certain times, you know, when they come and they go, that's going to help the PD. Well, I'll call from my cell phone. >> You know, just not just haphazardly, but if you see a pattern, this guy's here almost every day or every other day, and
this is where he goes, and it's about what time. All that would be very helpful. You know, >> they they they drive they speed they speed around the library. It's it I think it really is an issue. >> Yeah. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. And this is very important to the council. >> Thank you, >> Mayor. >> Yeah. Okay. Um I'm thinking of our slogan that we voted for. Um
historic beauty, quiet charm, you know, and and I live in the historic district and you know, there's people at tennis courts all the time with very loud music. I hear it inside my house over my television and gets annoying. And I think everybody here, we're pretty
nice people and we're we're tolerant, you know, we're tolerant to a point. And then you get people that are just repeatedly doing these things. Um and and all you can do is call, you know, and if you if there's an ordinance right now,
we just go by the county noise ordinance, right? Um but you know, if we had something, I don't know, but you know, there's a lot of things going on in the city and and and Chief is right. But, you know, people, one thing we value about our city is the quality of
life. And and part of that is, you know, it's not going to be quiet all the time, but if you got people just purposely being >> noisy and reckless and like that, they have to be addressed. But those guys don't know about it unless we call them,
right? They don't know. And and and they can't necessarily address each phone call immediately because they're doing other things. But um so but it but it is something that you know we can Yeah, >> I don't know about sign, Chief. I was
curious. Do Do you all have um like a decel reader? >> I I do actually have one in my vehicle right now for this particular thing. Yeah, >> cuz uh apparently the guys over there at 11:00 every day. I've been there twice this weekend or last week and Hank caught him there. But yes, I was I was going to measure his vehicle and see
what exactly what it read. But I will say signage is is great for most things. pulling up for littering and see what happens. Everybody that comes by there will throw a Snickers wrapper or a cup out. And I think it's the same thing with >> a noise sign. I think people are going
to >> come by it and give it what they got. Boogity boogy. >> So, but I'd be willing to try it. Y'all want to put a sign up says quiet zone? Put it up there and let's see what see what kind of noise you get. But
>> there should be a a a state statute on this because FHP was doing it in the 80s. >> Well, there there is. But but what I'm saying is, you know, yeah, you got a modified exhaust in your truck, Councilman. I'm not trying to pinpoint you out there, but
you want me to be you want to be the first one gets written a ticket. I'll do it when you hit ball. I guess >> I've got I've got a diesel, >> but it it's a different sounding exhaust. It wasn't like that three months ago. You put something different probably to help performance.
>> I wasn't going to call you out. I wasn't going to call you out, but you know, it is what it is. By statute, it is a modified exhaust. >> Okay. >> I think we can tonight. >> So, >> yeah. >> If not, I we'll do an inspections on
leaving the parking lot. We'll see. But I don't you know, how far do we want to go with this? I I completely some of these trucks that have just straight piped and you hear that that is completely asinine 100%. I'm with you.
But if we're going to do start going down that road, we you know >> they just wouldn't park and idle their vehicle for an hour. >> Yeah. Well, and so that's where to me it's on private property. So, our private property owner needs to
>> I mean right in front of my house. >> Well, that's public street can address. You got the right to use street. >> Okay. Well, you're going to try and reel it back in. >> It is 10 minutes till 9.
>> Yeah, it is. Let me ask Mr. Verb, >> y'all trying to address this >> on the uh >> code >> code level. What What is your thoughts at this time? So what what I what I expressed at at the meeting when this
was brought to our attention was that we have made concrete efforts at the code review and land use committee that have then translated to the the council level uh for enforcement action. We have rewritten the the noise ordinance. We have addressed the uh code compliance
portion of it. We have instituted a magistrate. We have done a lot of things to give the citizens tools to address some of their concerns. So my encouragement at that meeting was utilize the tools that we have before us before we look at piling on additional
regulation. >> Well, and like I said, it all boils down to we can't fix it if we don't know. >> All right. Well, we just need to encourage people around circle. >> We will we will definitely give it our best effort to to to solve
anybody's issues, >> right? So, but we just got to know. That's what it really was down to. We got to know. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Chief. >> All right. Do we need to take any action on this? >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. We'll come back to that.
Let's go to citizen comments. Um, if you have any comments, give you three minutes to address the council and, uh, please state your name and if you're representing organization. All right. Cent comments.
You got one. >> When I talked about retaliation, like if I were >> Come on up here. >> Up here. >> If the church were to put up signs in the parking lot, you know, >> no idling, no this, no that. You know, we don't want to
>> alienate anybody. And I don't want to brick through a stained grass glass window. That's what I talk about when I talk about retaliation. >> Yeah. Probably the best thing we can do for that whole neighborhood over there is put up signs about beware of children, you know. Uh even a bad guy has a little bit of respect >> like slow children,
>> you know. Yeah, I know. I used to be a bad guy. >> I know you can't believe that. >> Okay. Uh other citizen comments. All right, we're going to move on. Uh Clay, you good? >> I am.
>> Okay. Council member Harrison, digital electronic sign. >> I I can do this quickly, I think. Um I've I've mentioned this before and you know, we've we've been considering selling the city hall property and what have you, you know, and and and no problem with that, but once we do it,
it's it's done. And I just I just believe so much about a a sign, anformational sign there on that corner and how useful it could be to the community, how useful it could be in hurricane evacuations and um local
information and and events, uh red flag warnings to people coming through on the way to the beach. It could be used for some very very good purposes. Um, and so I I wanted us to consider, you know, maybe um
looking into you you see the agenda item. Um, let me just read that. Direct staff to investigate the FD dot right away. First off, we find out there's enough room to do it either on DOT right away, which I don't think would be
ideal, uh, or if there's room inside on that corner to survey out, um, an area and maintain city ownership of that a piece of that corner large enough to make a sign that's visible coming from the west, coming from the south, coming
from the east, um, for for people to see. Um I I I've said this in the past. I think it there's there's funding that might potentially be available because it is a US highway. So there's potentially some federal funding. It's an evacuation route. Uh there's
potential state funding. There's potential county funding and there's potential city funding. So um and you know there's there's always possibility of grants, I suppose. But I just wanted to know if if you guys would be willing to consider that or you know I have no
idea how much it would devalue the entire property if we were selling it or how much we're talking about here or if it's even feasable feasible and we won't really know that unless staff investigates it. >> Um so I'm kind of asking if you guys are
willing to have staff look at that. um they don't need a motion or anything, but just just see if they're willing to uh investigate where the rightway is, the DOT rightway. Um and and possibly consider this. >> Yeah. Let me on the west side of that
property. We had notched out, I think, a little 20 by 40. >> Uhhuh. >> Uh that's before we owned this property. Uh but we when the first couple times we had the property sold, we were going to be moving downtown Funia.
>> Mhm. And so we saved a little 20 by 40 on the very right. It was on 90 but it was on the west side uh because for signage reasons only which means you got to have power there. >> Right. Right. >> And now there you know of course you've seen what Cresfield's done there on 90. >> Mhm.
>> Uh and close to 85. Um something like that be great. I my thoughts was what is this going to do to the potential buyer? >> You know they're going to need big advertising. Go ahead Amy. >> How about right across the street? straight across from that intersection instead of doing it on city property. We
own don't we own that property right there? >> We do. >> So I was thinking, hey, why don't you just put it right there? Your problem might be I don't know how you would angle it so east and west traffic would see it, but that north south right there is going to see it. >> You're talking about the old wayside park. >> Yeah. >> Uhhuh. >> Okay. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Whatever is in that yellow >> where that tree is right look at they can look at all those options. >> Yeah. I had I had a note as that I mean I'm not just open to it. I just think it would be fantastic for this city to have a sign. >> Um and hurt that property for
>> that could very well be an option there. But >> uh so I don't know are we open to having staff look at those those things. Um >> and I'd like to add something to that. You know those big super big American flags they've got at um Camping World
stores. I'd love to have one of those right there at that old wayside park. Yeah. >> You know that's >> What are you thinking? A digital sign. >> Or like what'sever they put out there >> to constantly update the events that are
going on. That's what he's talking about. >> Like out like >> Yeah. >> prescription place is what I'm thinking of. They put that big >> right >> digital and they got one over by the window. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay.
>> Something similar. >> Two years ago. >> Yeah. >> And do we have any ordinances that would prevent it that a tall one or >> Okay. So, Kobe, is that good enough just for our staff even on the Wayside Park side to look at that?
>> Yep. We'll take a look at now your letter of support. in and the flag pole. >> Oh yes, sir. Um yeah, come. Okay. For um item 92, letter of support for regional sports complex, the the county uh
put some Facebook post out here a couple weeks ago about they're they're going to have uh public workshops on recreational needs, right, in in the county. And you know, we we know the board of county commissioners has bought 380 some odd acres here. uh in the city limits to
build a sports complex. They have committed they just spent like $2 and half million dollars for that property. Um they have basically I think already approved something to the tune of $6 million or so. I I may be wrong, but I I
think they have the money to pretty much go ahead with this thing. >> Um we are the the geographic center of the county. I think it's an excellent location for a regional sports complex. Um I I have just very briefly um
zip codes 32433 and 32435 which basically defuniac and north end >> about 26% of the population here are under 18 years old. That's higher than the overall average uh in the state of
Florida which is around 19% under 18. Uh so you know we have a lot of PE and and our younger population is is growing uh here actually and we are long overdue. We have four little league fields. Um and the county has maintained those for
years but we we've outgrown that kind of thing. and re regional uh regional sports complex to between somewhere between 13 and fields of 13 and 15 fields or so uh can generate a tremendous amount of revenue.
The public sports complex in uh Panama City generates over $2.5 million annually from operations and event income and sponsorships. $2 and half million dollars a year. The overall economic impact down there is $73 million a year.
uh and over $115 million in total regional in economic impact. Uh the the south side of Dothan uh uh complex down there, the John Oats John Oats Sports Complex,
>> it's it's a it's not a for-profit sports complex. um but they don't publish their gate and operational revenue figures but it they estimate that it generates an economic in income in Dothan of about $4
million a year. So this is a tremendous could be a tremendous asset to us. >> Uh sales tax generation, hotel stays, increase in bed tax, all those things. So, um I'm just asking if if if I don't know, mayor, if if this would be
presented at BCC meeting or at the public workshop, which is Wednesday, by the way, at the at the courthouse boardroom here in Defunia at 5:00. >> Um so, they will be addressing and and and requesting uh input from the public on recreational needs. So, I just
thought we'd try to be ahead of the game a little bit if we are as a council in support of that u to be located here that we could get ahead of it with a letter of support. >> Yeah. Well, >> I totally support that. >> I agree with it. >> Yeah. You know that um they got they got
some big plans for a massive sports complex in Freeport coming up. U so I think we kind of have to get ahead of that. You know, one thing about it is that we we got the transportation transportation hub, not Freeport. You know, we've got the airport, not
Freeport. We've got the hotels and motel, not Freeport. You know, I said, so we got a lot of things going for us. Everybody, they have they've had some big tournaments in Freeport, but everybody that came in from out of state, they either stayed in Niceville or Sandest.
>> They had nowhere for them to stay. So, we have a lot in place that would make us real viable there. So, um I'd say let's go for it. I'll try my best to make rank be there Wednesday at least to make a comment. Yeah. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. So, any comments? >> Need a motion to approve? >> Yeah, please make that informal motion. >> Uh I'll make a motion to approve the letter of support. >> Second motion second. And uh uh any comments?
All in favor say Well, go ahead, Mark. >> All in support of that. That's a great idea. >> Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. All right. >> Eyes carry. Thank you very much. >> So, we will do what we usually do. The mayor mayor will sign it and then we'll send that over to Chairman Drake and
county admin so they'll have it as well. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> What? Uh Kobe, >> I can save it. Mayor, >> you can save it. >> I can. Yes. Bless you. >> Okay. >> All right. We'll go to council member Josh.
>> Amy, >> no. >> I'm good. >> Is this a record six plus hours? >> Is this a record? >> We're getting as bad as the BCC. >> But it has been pretty meetings in one though. Councilman, >> CR plus. >> All right.
>> Yeah. We'll call this meeting a journ. >> Good night everybody. >> Good night. >> Good night. Good night.