Okay, [clears throat] today is July 28, 2026. It is now 5:00 p.m. We'll go ahead and call this special meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency to order. If you will, please stand for the invocation and pledge. Father, we thank you for this day and
all your many blessings. Lord, we pray that you will be with us throughout this meeting. Lord, let us make rational and and logical decisions, God, that follow the best will of our the people and that which falls in line with your will, God. >> We thank you for everything, Father, and pray that you'll be with us throughout
all this time. In Jesus name we pray. Amen. >> Amen. [clears throat] >> 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, madame clerk, please uh recognize we have all five members in attendance and we will go ahead and hand this off to the executive director for the regular agenda. >> Mr. Chair, ma'am, could we add one item to the agenda
>> before we start? >> The what item are you wanting to add? >> Uh possibly changing the regular routine meeting to 5:00 from 3. >> Not today. It It's not on the agenda. It wasn't noticed. We'll bring it up at the next meeting. >> But wasn't I was told yesterday I
thought this replacement meeting was for the one that was cancelled yesterday. And all of a sudden now we're not meeting on anything except for budget. >> This meeting is a special meeting called strictly for budget because the budget has to be approved and turned in by July the 30th. So that was the purpose of
this meeting for today. And by what rules can we not add or take a vote on >> adding the this to the >> We can call it to a vote, but you're going to have to have all five members agree on. >> Well, you need a majority to add or delete. >> It's always a majority to do additions, >> which means three. Correct.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Uh >> so if she wishes to make a motion to add that, she gets a second. Third vote, it's added. >> Motion. >> I make the motion. I need a second. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. What was the motion? >> Uh she
>> add one item to this agenda which would be to consider reconsider uh meeting at 3:00 and change it back to 5:00. >> Considering it's an administrative decision of the board, I think board wants to add it, you're within your right to do so.
>> Okay. >> Do we have any public com any comment from the board? Any public comment? Okay. Typically, we go all at one time. So, all those in favor say signify by saying
I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> All oppose. Nay. So, it's four to one. It passes. >> That's just to add it, right? >> Oh, to add it. I'm sorry. Yes, ma'am. That's to add it. Okay. All right. We We'll add that on and it will become 2B.
I apologize. I was mixing that up. >> No worries. I just didn't want you to think of this. >> Okay. Yes, ma'am. Apologize. I should have called that in. All right, Mr. Executive Director. >> Okay, chairman, uh, commission, the, uh, we'll go we can go through this. The only two changes since our last meeting,
uh, we added, uh, there's been, so two things added. One is this, uh, 515 3110. This is a legal fee line. Um, this was obviously for Mr. Atinson invoices. That's what this line would be for. Um the next one, uh Miss McDaniel worked
and got us numbers together what she anticipates our account, the trust fund to earn in interest over the fiscal year. Uh estimated about $100,000. I took that $100,000 and again the board can move it around how we like. Uh 50,000 of that went toward the downtown
redevelopment line. Another 50 went toward the neighborhood district redevelopment and then 25 thou I'm sorry, 25,000 went to that. Uh and 25,000 went to parks redevelopment. Uh the reason for that was based on the conversation we had about looking at a
park on the east side and some other stuff $150,000 you're looking at a park between you know we got bl property acquisition line equipment things of that nature you're getting close to that so we can take that back down and leave it there if you want but that was the reason behind that and then the parks
redevelopment went from 50 to 75 that line right now is intended solely for wayside park for the turn of a dog park again thinking about fencing thinking out um if we make any staff do some city staff do some parking there with asphalt if we're looking at potentially doing
some stuff with painting and buildings of that nature waterers water lines so that's why I put that up there uh to 75 from the 50 thinking about all the components that may go into that so again from the last meeting that agenda we had this on those are the two changes uh that we've made
>> okay so what's your ask of the board >> like ultimately If there's any discussion, we can go through that and answer any questions. I think but like said end of the day, we need to have a budget approved before to the city council to include in the annual budget and obviously any changes prior, you
know, subsequent to this that may cause us to have to change, we'll have to bring it back again. Uh but right now, we're looking to send this to the city council for inclusion in the city's annual budget. I know for for me I would like to see and the rest of the board may may feel the same or not but um the
amphitheater project I see that that line item is 500,000. I think that's way too much for for what I know I'd like to see done down there now. Um so I'd like to see that item cut back some to accommodate for the four positions that
the chief was asking for. And here there any issues with that counselor? This is what is a budget. So, whatever you prefer. >> All right. So, that's me. Uh, anyone else? Miss Heftlin. >> Um, Kobe, could you please help me? You
know, yesterday we were talking and in our general city budgets, uh, talking about a reduction of 95 to 50% and or 95 to 75%. So, in the revenue section, the 754 from the county, is that at 95%
right now? Yes. >> What would that number become if we dropped it to 50%. >> Approximately half. >> Yeah. Give or take. So you um uh let's see.
411. >> 4. Okay. So, it'll go from 754 to 411. And if it went to 75 >> 617 >> 617. Okay. Now, uh
I got this right. What would the 1219 become at both of those levels then? Because it's going to be a reduction also. Correct. >> Yes. Hold on one second. Councilwoman um updated that. So the current the county contribution should not be uh 754. It
should be 781. >> So I'm I'm update this real quick. So this should be 7816. >> That's the new 5.488. >> Yeah. So the county's contribution wouldn't affect our our mill rate will not affect the county's contribution. Their contribution is based on their
mill rate. >> Oh, their mill rate. >> Their millage rate. So, if their mill rate goes down, their contribution is the go. >> They set theirs. >> Did they set theirs today? >> They discussed going to the roll back rate today. They did not set their tenative millage, but it appears they going at least to the roll back.
>> What is the discussion? >> What is when's their decision have to be made? >> Within the next two to three weeks. They usually do it the first week of August, >> but we're all on the same deadline, right? Set in millillage.
>> Yeah, we still have to all have public hearings in September. >> That's not my question. The mill has to be set in July. >> That is a tenative tenative mill. >> You have to have a tenative mill turned in as part of your DR420 >> and the county didn't have to do that yet. >> They have not done it yet. No,
>> I'd refer to the county finance director on those. I don't necessarily handle as much but typically no they've said that is their intention to go to the to the roll back rate so those are their budgets based on >> all they have was a workshop today they did not set it during their board meeting
>> and so what rate was that that you used then to collaborate the 781 >> 35 I'm sure >> yeah I believe so I believe it's the 3.5190 believe that's the county's current mill rate >> okay so so the 754 is a mistake, but it will drop to
>> No, so I just updated. So it's 781632. 781 632 is the county's contribution at a county's current millage rate. >> Okay. But it's going to drop to 411 if we make a decision to go to 50%. >> If you were to change the tiff contribution rate, yes, it would drop down to 411.
>> Okay. And the 617 for the 75%. >> Correct. >> Okay. Now, how much will the 1219 change to for those two values, please? Uh at 75% the city's contribution would go down to 962,000. >> Okay?
>> And at 50% it would go down to 641,000 rounded. >> Okay? >> So if we went to 75% then we would be losing >> uh you'd lose roughly $421,000
to the trust fund. The trust fund would lose $421,000. >> Okay. I agree with Mr. Sconeers. The one thing I have noted on here is um I will not approve this particular budget if that amphitheater uh for half a million
stays in there. I thought that discussion was already had that meeting I was here in April. Uh >> so in this in the past fiscal year in this current fiscal year they had budgeted 954,000 and so >> the amphitheater >> and so prior meetings the prior meetings
we cut that the board moved that down in general direction we moved that to 500,000. So the 300 and so difference we moved to downtown uh as part of what we calcul rolled up into prior year carry forward which is what we have here. Um, so 324,000
we anticipate not to be that would be moved from amphitheater to downtown and we left 500,000 in there for now. But again, if y'all want to change it, then we change it. >> You know, I have to ask a question because I'd asked this several months ago, probably February, January or February. Where
were the legal fees put before? You just said you added a new line item for 20,00 >> but we do have legal invoices. So where was the expenses posted? >> They weren't. They weren't the city was how the city had booked them previously. >> The city was just booking it all out of general fund. They told me to send that.
>> So, are we saying the CRA owes the city a reimbursement for legal fees that have been paid in the past? >> I have to get with I get with Danielle. I'm pretty sure Danielle went ahead and done that. >> So, she could do that. >> Yeah, I'll double check with Danielle. But previously, Sarah budgets did not have that line item. We will now have
that line item. >> Yeah. It's not additional money. It's just breaking out where it gets paid from. >> Correct. >> And then where will we add? The chief has come forward in previous meetings and he has shared with us and we have I've heard the discussion that we could
add community policing which is a good thing if it would be incorporated here. Um, I believe that was >> uh, Chief, can you just give us a rounded number that you had shared with us the night before? Was it 480 something? >> I can I can let me
>> let me pass these out to you. >> So, while he's passing it out, Councilwoman, right now, if the board want to do in this budget, then we need to allocate the funds and then we determine what line items are we going to reduce to cover the allocation. >> Okay. >> So, right now it's not in here currently. And Chief, could you just
tell me that number real quick so I can just do some math real quick while you're talking? >> We've got a a couple different numbers and there's a couple different options to look at if you want to fund four salary positions um
with education and training. That is 314 about $316,000. >> Thank you. >> 316 >> with with benefits. >> That's with benefits. That's cost to employ >> sending them to the septed training paying their PDM for that school and
$250 each in uniform. >> So we would take 316 away from the general fund and put it to this fund. Is that what I'm hearing us say that we would allocate? >> I can I'll let you speak. >> No, you the CRA very similar to the um
admin fee we play pay to the city. Um you have a line in there for community policing innovations. it would be 316. That would be a transfer from the CRA to the general fund to offset that cost. So, [snorts] you take it from the trust fund and to the general fund. So, there
there's there's a couple options that I've given you if you wanted to fund more. There's more things you could fund out of it. Um, just need some direction where you want to go. So, >> refresh us as to what the options were. The first
paper I gave you that has subject and purpose. That was kind of the outline of the idea I had how we make this work as far as community policing initiative. [snorts] The other page that is estimated cost spreadsheet. Um I kind [clears throat] of broke down and
justified each thing that was in there. Um of course starting from the top you've got I'm assuming that we want four positions covered out of that. That gives you 24-hour coverage by one person in in the city all all the time in the
CRA district >> 24/7. >> Yep. But if you >> one person round the clock. >> So, but you know that's what I'm assuming that that you want is is that u >> I need to kind of I'm going to let him
finish with Miss Heft then I need to go Mr. Beerbomb. He's been asking for a few minutes now. Then, um, you know, if you wanted to fund vehicles out of it, we could fund vehicles out of them. Um, I gave you a quote for the F-150, which is a truck,
which would allow us to remove certain things like you if you have debris or bikes or, you know, whatever else they come across throughout the night instead of trying to throw it in a sedan. Um, there there are certain things you could do there. And that is outfitted,
striped, packaged, everything. Um, and then depending on how much you wanted to, if you wanted to buy four of them, you want to buy one of them, two of them, however you wanted to do. That's just kind of where I need some direction to put some numbers together. >> Will you refresh my memory? Do your officers have each have a vehicle?
>> Yes. >> Already. So, they already have one assigned. It's not like, >> yes, >> we're going to have to purchase another one because whoever gets assigned to this is going to go with their vehicle. So whatever whoever is assigned in this
position to cover that CRA um >> responsibilities and duties would be assigned one of these vehicles if this is what we paid for it out of. >> Mr. Rear Bomb. >> So I I just want to express my support
for reducing the um amphitheater line item. I in my opinion, we just take that entire $500,000 amount, put it towards this policing innovative innovation as well as whatever else we need. It looks like option one for officers here on the
spreadsheet is 573319. So, we could take money from the blighted parcel acquisition line item, which is right above that. Uh we could take 73,000 from that and that would completely fund four officers, four
vehicles, education, training, uniforms, uh which would be a $573,000 relief to the general fund uh that we we then no longer have to spend. So I'm I'm in support of that. >> Where'd you say to get the additional 73 from?
>> From the line item right above, which is the blighted parcel acquisition line item. >> Okay. Or we could take the $100,000 that was the interest income that Kobe had spread around and we could simply allocate that to this. That would bring
us to $600,000. >> So there's >> I did want to ask Chief um with these four vehicles, is that fully equipping the vehicle with a tough book, radio >> cages? >> That is radio cages. Not the tough books.
>> Not the what? tough book, our computers, our laptops. >> Okay, >> we we've got we've got them right the second. You know, if it's something that you wanted us to budget in there, I I I just need some direction on what >> my kind of >> my advice to you has always been that
just like vehicles because the typical life of a vehicle, especially here at the city, tends to coincide pretty nicely with the life of a laptop, five to five to seven years. Um, and so I I would advise that we adopt a policy of
when we replace the vehicle, we replace the laptop, and that's typically five to seven years. And I think that's more than reasonable for a for a laptop. Um, so >> get a quote unless one of y'all know exactly what a tough book's costing right this minute. I don't
>> about 5700. So, I don't know if you know if we want to just budget 5,700 6,000 a rough number there to to get us through today. >> Well, if you did that, that that would pretty much put you at the 600 that I'm that I'm moving around between the the
amphitheater line item and then the $100,000 interest. Um that that pretty much would put you at four officers, four vehicles, tough books, education, uniforms, all that. That really really close within a few few thousand dollars.
Um continuing on there, you'll see um laser radar and a speed trailer. Um that is we have a we have one laser radar right now. It's a little bit older, but the problem so looking at speed
enforcement and justifying it in CRA and all that. Um, I've written you a little paragraph there that that justifies the use of and how reducing speed helps pedestrian traffic and and stuff like
that. But, um, I think if there's something you want to look at, a laser radar, there's a speed trailer. I've been wanting a speed trailer for quite a while anyway. Um, >> what is a speed trailer? >> So, it's when you drive down the road, there's a little trailer. It's got a um
speed limit sign that, you know, tells you how fast you're going, what the actual speed limit is. We had one um it went down right before I took office and was non-repairable. Um I got two free ones from Egglund, but they weren't
worth a ding. So, they're basically scrap. But, um having those and putting them in some of these areas and neighborhoods to reduce [clears throat] speed and and bring attention, I think would be beneficial, too. Like I said, I don't know exactly what the budget looks like or what what y'all are wanting or
willing to spend, but that's kind of the things that I put together to to show you. I did want to make one final comment and that was again I'm fully committed to this 600,000 that I've mentioned here but I did want to just note that the
previous CRA as well as it's still my position as a commissioner on the CRA is that we need to find just like we're finding ways to use uh the CRA dollars to support law enforcement, we need to find ways to support the fire department. And I don't see anything in
this budget about addressing the fire department. So I don't know if that's something that is we want to have a discussion about or if we want to wait and address that next year. But I know that we need to spend,
you know, I think Kobe had said he they estimate almost half a million dollars on renovations. And I don't know if there if there's a unique and innovative way that we could do that with the fire department, but I I did want to call that out. The clear thing with the fire
department as opposed to policing is the fire department itself building. We don't have the luxury of these other opportunities with the fire department. So if you're looking for a fire department expenditure, it's got to be the rehab of the existing building. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think the only ch No, not say challenge. Only thing there is approval
from the board of county commissioners. Correct. >> You would need the board of county commissioners approval. That is true >> because the funds are >> Mr. Co statute. >> Do any of these figures include pay increase? >> No, sir. That that's our current rate at the moment. >> Well, can't we do something about that while we're doing this?
>> Well, that's something the general fund would handle. >> Yeah, we're freeing up $600,000 into the general fund, then that's something that we turn around and address. >> That's that's one of my things. And I think it's carting a horse and trying to get them in the right right line. Um
I'm not trying to push you. I'm not trying to be a bully, not trying to be not I'm not not trying to be that guy at all. But, you know, we are taking on some extra responsibilities and duties as a department. Um, the PBA did put together a what I I felt this year was a
fair proposal for increases for police department. I would like to see that funded out of what is transferred over. Um, of course, I think we need to get through this part first before we get there, but that's that's what I would like to see. Do you mean what's being
returned to the general fund? >> Yes. And and and based on my calculations, you're still at $350,000 that you give to other employees, do whatever else you needed to with it. That's that was my I'm not a
mathematician though. But >> at the closed union meeting, I remember two um >> options. One of them was the step pay plan >> and the other one >> we are talking about something that was said only in executive session. Right. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> So we probably need to back off of that. >> And the other one was just a percentage number. >> Right. >> So >> to me the percentage number is obtainable by doing this. And what do you consider reasonable
>> compared to the other surrounding agencies and >> 5% >> whether um I'd have to double check and figure out exactly what percentage it was. It it was based on years of experience and other stuff like that too. So each not every person's going to
get the exact same thing. It's based on your fixing that pay compression within the police department. Miss Elyn. >> Uh, Chief, I appreciate all the options that you're giving us. I'm not for all
the extras at this point only because >> I think the whole goal from my perspective is um community policing. Let's see how it works. Let's see how it shifts. Now, I am for four officers so that we have one
person that works 247 around the clock uh coverage. I am for that, but for your radars and all the little extras, I'd prefer not to do that in year one. I mean, we can always revisit that in year two, but I would like to support.
>> Yeah, I'm just giving you some options. I don't like >> exactly the temperature. I don't know what exactly my perspective is so that we can all have the same discussion and >> maybe come up with a combined answer solution.
>> Mr. Harris, we got you know, um what this would look like, you know, obviously I don't have time to read this right now in in the moment, but what
would this look like that's different than how we police now because the entire city limits is the CRA district. So, I'm wondering what what are we going to do? Because we're talking $600,000 now out of operating of CRA.
When we had conversations about reducing the percentage, we were talking about uh $430 some odd,000 out of CRA trust. Um because we would lose 164,000 of county
money. we would transfer 256 or whatever general fund not transfer but it would be saved in the general fund uh to give raises if the percentage was reduced I think the number was 75% that we talked about in that one
meeting. So, so I just need a picture in my head, chief, is is what are we going to be doing differently that we're not already doing in the in the entire CRA district because in my mind, we have to be very cautious about
justifying what we're doing with this money. And we add on and we give these equipments and and I know you need all this stuff. You could use this stuff every day. You could use it right now the way you please now. You could use all this stuff. >> Yes. And I get it. I understand that. And and and you know, and I'm in no no
way for reducing public safety. I hope everybody understands that. Um but I just I just am struggling to see what it what it looks like this community policing thing because it's been there all along and we are just now to the
point in this city where we're looking at doing that and we're talking $600,000 to do it. And I understand that we would save the general fund 600 whatever that number is $600,000. Mr. Chen, what kind of things would we do with that money in the general fund?
>> Yes. >> Well, so I mean again, like Marshall and I met earlier, it's a math problem first off. So you wouldn't see the full benefit of the $600,000 in there. That's just being complete. You see a very large portion of it. Um, but in terms of that, I think the council's been very
clear about this and majority of you here about raises in the general fund with this offset. And outside of that, I think that money, I think the marshall just talked about uh what he would like to see done at the police department according to the PBA. Um, and then the difference in that, I mean, you either find a good use for it or you put it
back for future capital projects. We know we going going into next year, uh, the city's got street projects to be done that right now, as we there's no funding for that next year. that that that account will be burned up this year. We'll burn that up. So, we're gonna have to find the money to pave those roads next year. So, that would be
the first initial movement of the money. >> Okay. >> What roads are you what what account are you talking about will be depleted? >> There was a there's been a I say a standalone, there's been a a standalone local option gas tax account. So, years
ago, yeah, years ago, I guess the city was putting money in that local option gas tax dollars in there. then they just came to a halt and it's just been sitting there. And so we've used that money for some grant matches. We've used it for some equipment and in fiscal year 27 we're budging to use the remaining of that and equipment and to do the fiscal
year 27 action plan streets by almost $400,000 in the streets. So that that that money in that account will be gone. That was money that wasn't reoccurring. >> So to to answer your question with how
does this work? All right. Um, I've got a a vision that that we outlined here that I kind of proceed going. To me, this is going to be [laughter] I don't think this needs to be a reoccurring thought process at this moment, like
this is how we're going to operate from here to eternity. I think it needs to be we're going to we're going to play this out kind of as a pilot program for a year, re-evaluate, adjust, redo some things as as we see fit
throughout the year. Next year it g number one, it gives us a little breathing room for we don't know the Avalor pack stuff, all this kind of stuff. It kind of gives us some breathing room towards the end. Um, number two is with the training and the other stuff
that we're going to send them to. It's been my goal from taking office to have our officers out in the public meeting business owners, meeting citizens, making contact. When we do this and send them to this training, it's going to get
to me. My goal is it's going to change these individual officers perspectives from just out riding around patrolling trying to do stuff, but they're actually going to be more involved in the community. They're going that's going to be some of the requirements to actually
gather vehicle, make contact with these people when the night shift when they're on, they're they're going to we're going to have to create forms. We're going to have to create some things to make this work, some reports and stuff like that. Um, and it's going to it's going to be trial and error for a little bit, but I think we can probably pull from other
agencies and figure out what they use as far as for some of the reporting. But when they're out and they see street lights out, they can get out, write the poll number down, we can forward that information to Florida Power and Light Chelco, get these lights fixed. um if we are
having issues at a a house that doesn't have power and we're having drug activity, we're having domestics, we're having all these issues, we can therefore generate a report and get it to code enforcement to trigger some of that side. I think the more I think it's going to trigger more working together
with city departments, other other entities to try to fix some of the the issues that the CRA covers as far as blight crime prevention. Prevention is a is a huge one. Um, I think that that's how we're going to
see probably some difference in what we're doing currently because a lot of what we're doing is patrolling and then that's still going to be the primary focus of of these officers because we're not adding four positions. for rejuvenating,
re repurposing and and focusing for officers to change their mindset on policing to the comm environmental and community type policing. Does that make sense? >> So, we're shifting their duty. So, they're going to have more responsibilities in these areas or
whatever. And I realize there's areas we need to concentrate on, right? Even though the CRA district is pretty much entire city. Um, and I get that. So, if if they're doing these additional duties, which is great. I mean, I I think our entire police force should be
be be doing that, but there's not time in every day to do that, and we all realize that. So if we have a concentrated effort to do it, my next question is are you going to request into into
is it going to necessitate hiring more officers to take up that? I >> I don't I don't see it at this point. And and that's one of the things to me is not locking ourselves saying that, hey, we're going to do this for the next 5 years. Like to me, I don't think we we
should do that. But using this as a a moment number one, catch our breath in the the general fund, but then evaluate as we go throughout the months and figure out what's working, what's not working. You know, um there's there's a
lot of agencies that have just and their CRA district is not as as large as ours by no means, but I've got a good friend in Palaca. Uh they've got three different CRA districts within their city and they've got two full-time positions that are paid out CRA on top
of what their regular police forces and sounds like a great gig. You work they work 8 to 5 and you know if there's a festival on the weekend they work that. But like that's their whole job is to be in that district. Um we're unique because our district is is fairly large
right now. So, um I I think it's just a lot of it is going to be seeing what works and and and adapting and and making it the best thing that we can with resources we have. And I think bridging some of them
communication gaps that we have. We don't talk to code enforcement on a daily basis. We don't we don't update them on we go in a drug house and ain't got no power, ain't got no water, ain't got, you know, it's got whatever problems, you know. But I think creating these reports and doing some of that I think will help it. The problem that I
do see is we might overload their wagon or whoever's wagon we're reporting to pretty quick. So, you know, if we're reporting this stuff, we're putting it together, compiling the data and they're not able to process it and address the issues.
How do we keep from just piling stuff up where we're we're reporting stuff but nothing really gets accomplished at the end of the day? That's that's one of the hurdles that I see that we need to figure out how to address as as we move forward too. >> Let's have one.
>> I have a question for Kobe on a line item. Kobe on the um prior year carryover 2.9 million. Is that 100% bringing that over? >> Um that's uh that's it's going to be
close. I don't I don't know that exact number. When I talked to Miss McDaniel, we went over that a little more the other day. She thinks they're probably about another 150,000 right there. I would recommend we do not put that in here. I would recommend let's let the year in close out, let the books reconcile, and then when the auditors
come back, if there's 100,000, then we have to sign it. >> Okay. So, here's my here's here's my real question. So, the downtown, we're all talking about the alleyway. It's down at the bottom, the 3.4 million. Is that the alleyway? So, downtown redevelopment that encompasses alleyway,
railroad, pedestrian crossings, and um street and the striping, park the streetscape stuff. >> Okay, break. Can you break that 3.4 out just a little bit for me? How much of that is alley? >> Give me just one second here.
>> So, you said alley, railroad, and >> pedestrian cross. >> Pedestrian. >> Yeah, the railroad. Yeah. Well, alley railroad and then the streetscapes. So, like the right now right now it's the parking. So, at this moment, um I don't have I don't have the funds in here. Let's see. We just do this
right here. Give me just a second. I'll have a number for you. >> Yeah, thank you. >> I'm just going to do the whole number now. I'm not going to break them out. So, you're looking at 3.4. As of right now, these are the known costs for the alleyway, right? So,
>> what's the total, buddy? 226 this but this is >> 226 >> this is just known cost right now which is design CI not construction >> that's my whole point is I want to have a conversation about why are we budgeting $3.4 $4 million in this fiscal year when really in reality all we're
going to be able to accomplish is maybe $250,000. >> Well, the main reason is the CRAAS at the end of every fiscal year if there are funds that are unspent. They have to be one of three things. They have to either be used to cover debt service, they have to either be um you they be carried forward for a specific purpose
or you have to give them back to the taxing authority. Is that accurate? Well, well, it has designated by by your board, but it doesn't have to be brought forward in the budget. That's not what, >> you know, designating it to. You're you're correct. I agree with it. Has to
be designated for a specific purpose, which we have. It's designated specifically for that alleyway. That doesn't mean it has to come over into the budget. It just sits in fund balance until you're ready to bring it forward and spend the money. But we're far I guess it's I'm going back to April the
last meeting that I was here was and the discussions I had with um the old CRA and public works and >> yeah I just I I see this as being the cleanest most transparent way to show what the trust fund has. So I think we had a conversation a little bit the
other day about the loans and stuff. If you don't put the 3.4 4 million or the carry forward in total for this for this budget is as of right now it's two it's almost $3 million that's alleyway that stuff right so if you move this money around so if you don't put
this in here there's $3 million that'll be in the trust fund that you won't see in the budget that that's what happens when you don't carry it forward right it just it sits in the it sits in the fund balance >> which also means we're not going to spend it >> correct I'm just I'm just saying from from be able to visualize how much money's in the fund balance this is how
you do it doesn't hurt thing it being in here. But if we don't want to put it, that's fine. I'm just I'm just saying I want you to see I want you to visualize how much was in the trust fund. >> I think it needs to be reported. >> That was the reason.
>> You said a couple of times, one man on duty 247. >> There are times when we've got one single solitary police officer out there on duty with no backup. >> No. No. >> What did you mean by one? >> No, what I'm saying is so typically we have three to four officers on each
shift, right? At any given time. This will just this so we run 12-hour shifts. So 6P to 6A, 6A to 6P. >> If we assign one officer from each shift these duties, that will give you
coverage. >> Gotcha. for the 24-hour period >> and the piling up on the deficiencies. Um that's going to come to the uh public works department. >> So So once again, I think that's some
stuff that we're going to have to figure out. Um to me, my vision is there. There's a lot more to my vision. So to me, this is giving officers an opportunity to
progress their professional development. You know, the it's going to give them the opportunity to come here and present a report to y'all and and have a conversation with y'all each month. It's going to be they're, you know, if they put on a presentation with a PowerPoint,
it's going to to allow them to gain that ability to get up here and speak in front of public. Right. is professional development way I look at it too. Um but as far as reporting to me I think
quarterly monthly I don't know how we do it yet. I don't know how much you want to see but you know we we we give the CRA board kind of you know we we found 25 lights out around town. I don't I don't know what all you want to see but we'll have you know take for instance.
So, um, as far as, you know, we have violations that are code violations that code enforcement, I think we need to develop a a little report that says, you know, where it occurred, what occurred, you know, this, this, and this, and then we
can forward to them to process how they need to, stuff like that. if if we do have street lights out, you know, maybe once a month, once a week, we have a list of poll numbers and locations so
utility companies can come address lights that are out. You know, there there's a lot of different things we can do. And that's what I'm saying. It's it's going to develop over time, but I think we can structure it and tailor it how how we want.
Do you foresee this uh funding coming from CRA or coming from the city or >> funding for >> the to correct the deficiencies? >> Well, so you know, it just depends, you know, if if if you want us to start identifying potholes and all this other
kind of stuff, we can do that. To me, that's a public works function. That would come out of public works to to fix it. Um if it's utility companies, they're charged with fixing lights. That's going to come out of theirs. They want the power on. they want the usage. So, um,
yeah, I think it just depends what department's getting it, you know. >> And I'm wondering, I like all this. >> It all sounds good and it sounds like it's a step in the right direction. I'm just wondering if while we're going through this budget season, if um there is a category to put to specifically
earmark to correct these deficiencies. And if we don't have them, uh, we can put it in there for the next physical year starting in what, October 1st. >> So, so basically you're saying if we identified 10 potholes, the CRA fund could cover public works.
Are >> the Mr. Towns let Mr. Towns the chief is correct. So I think I think so let me answer this in three parts. I think the first part is tonight we're more so looking at what level of funding is a board wanting to assign in this budget and over the next probably the next two
month months chief and I get together put the plan together what's the metrics what's the goals what are we going to what are we trying to accomplish bring that back and you would adopt that plan that program for the fiscal year uh that that be one second would be in terms of reporting I think the best way to do it is obviously you're going to have got
four officers someone's going to be the lead of the group it would be best for them to just communicate directly with Chris Stron a program manager for CRA they can talk about it got code issues, he corrects code issues as part of his general duties. If it goes beyond that to the utility company or or public works, he gives that to the appropriate
department heads and then they work that way through it. So y'all's role is to go out see it, formulate into a report, whether we do that weekly, month by week or whatever. He gives that to Chris, program manager, and then Chris will take it from there and handle he'll get with me and we'll handle the issue. terms of paying for it. Again, once it's
passed on, the city's departments will do that general maintenance as part of we've already got them budgeted. So, that stuff we would take care of in the general maintenance. I we I don't think we can necessarily fund it out of this because again, we get to a limit to where you've got you're doing the the government's general maintenance versus enhancing or upgrading something,
redeveloping it. So, that's that's how I would do it. We get together, bring you a plan back. We'll you know, those individuals will work with Chris directly on all this stuff. But tonight we're really looking for the funding level so we can put in the budget. >> So
go ahead, Mr. Pierce. >> So just on that, it just seems like we're kind of going backwards here, you know, without seeing a plan first. We're budgeting $600,000 plus. um if we saw the plan
and that to look this this this concerns me because we have to justify these expenditures to the state or you know I I don't want to sit before grand I I don't I don't want us to get in trouble
over any any way we're spending CRA money. So I know from being in education when we were going to put in implement programs in the school system or at the high school level whatever there were there were baseline data points uh test
scores that kind of thing that we measured our progress by and when we implement new things at we we then we then justify the implementation of those things no matter how much they spent to the school board to implement them. we
had to justify that we are achieving our objectives and those objectives were clear before we ever started. And so I I'm that that's my background talking there as far as needing to know kind of what these baseline data points would
be. If it's potholes, if it's lights or whatever, you know, will the state look at that and go, "Well, are you not doing that already as you drive around?" Right? So I want to see if and we can justify it to them if we have some baseline starting points like okay we
used to report X number I I don't know I I'm just saying go through all that but I think you get my drift. I think it's important that we protect ourselves here to make sure that we have some measurable objectives and
you have to decide what difference is this actually going to make to justify a $600,000 expenditure. So I think uh obviously you you push the budget now if something changes between now and before the budget hearings we have to make those changes here and then
the city you know we have to make we have to make the changes on the general fund side. Um, so I mean at that point if we work together and get something back by the end of August for our August meeting, >> if if you set a number tonight, let's just in theory you set a number tonight and you come back in August say well we don't want to do four, we want to do
three because of these reasons, you reduce it and then we that way because the city council has got a meeting coming end of August that's going to drastically change the budget one way or the other, right? >> So changes are already going to have to be made. >> I'll come back to you in just a second. >> So you're saying
budget this total amount and potentially change it later if we if we need to or budget less. >> Okay. >> We can have the plan before they end it back by August. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Fairbomb, >> my my understanding is I I understand
your concern about, you know, we seem to be kind of the cart before the horse, you know, budgeting before we actually know what the plan is. But my understanding is we're not reinventing the wheel. We're we're basing a lot of this off of other police departments in the state that are already funding their
functions. Oops. Out of out of a CRA. So, we we're just to a certain extent rinsing and repeating what they're doing. And obviously, if they're doing it and and Clay is willing to defend it, then to me that's that's where I'm comfortable with it. if if we're copying
somebody else and Clay's willing to defend it and says it's defensible, then we can we can hammer out those details. So that I that's what alleviates my concern about the the out of order process that we find ourselves in in this particular because we're we're unfortunately having to do this kind of
right now versus being able to, you know, do this over the course of a couple months. And for me, I I talked to the chief the other day when he presented this document to us early on, a couple weeks ago, I think it was. At first, I didn't
read through it right away, but I went back and read through it after I was kind of giving him some advice on something. He said, "I've already done that. I've already done that." You you've laid out a pretty good plan uh your goals, your mission statement for what you would utilize those officers for here. I I do get what Mr. Harrison's
saying, though. If as we're dedicating officers commitment to these programs, then are there other areas that would suffer from that to where we you might would have to replace other officers? But >> um I see this as just uh further
clarification and documentation of different things while they're out there working. >> Miss Heftlin, >> I'm sorry. >> Okay. Um thank you. I I need to understand something, Kobe. What is the rush that this has to be adopted tonight?
>> CRA bylaws, the CRA bylaws say that the CRA shall adopt and forward to the city council a budget by July 30th. >> Okay. Is the is the council allowed to extend that since it's their bylaws? >> No, it is this board's >> this board's bylaws.
>> And so you're bound by them until such time as you change them, but you can't change them immediately. >> What's the deadline? >> July 30th. >> July 30th. Okay. That's what we talking about last night. Either today or tomorrow or Thursday was the two days. >> Okay. Now, um I just got a few more
things I want to share with everybody and then I'm done with this. Um the 600,000 which is being proposed, I said I'd like a lesser one, but I'm okay with what we're talking about. Doesn't even
include raises. My other big concern is um I'm not Kobia comfortable at all with the way this is done and the fund balance and what we're budgeting because we're just budgeting just to throw it all out there. You're saying it's for
transparency and but I'm not based on my profession. I'm not comfortable the way that's done. it as long as it's designated and we say it sits in there, that's what it's used for and it's even put in your audited financial statements that way under a restricted fund balance. It cannot be spent for anything
except for alleyway. So >> that's another one of my I just want to share >> all that. If you're comfortable with it, we'll take it out. >> But it's a group but it's a group effort. I'm just sharing with everybody because we're talking. Um, the other thing I'm uncomfortable about is even though this is a temporary solution,
what happens when the CRA goes away? We, again, we're kicking the ball down the road. We're kicking the can because it doesn't solve really the problem that we're truly faced with is where are we going to get the money every year? Because we're still going to need your four people.
>> Yeah. Well, yeah, I got them right now. I don't think we're losing anything. So, I think to answer that question, Kobe, you can >> go ahead. Well, and I'm just throwing this out there so everybody knows >> if CRA was to go away, then all that money goes back to the general fund anyway. So, it's basically a wash.
>> It's the whole Mindy Henderson. You got money in this pocket, this pocket, same pot. But >> which one are you pulling it from? >> Well, not exactly because the county portion, the seven the close to a million dollars that's going to be there in a couple years is not going to be
there. So, I'm trying to figure out >> how to do it. but by not kicking the can down the road. But and I like I like proposing. Please don't trust me. But I hope get you that that's y'all got to work out. I I can't I can't >> I just want to share I'm so
uncomfortable with some of these things that are in here that I'm not I'm not going to be a a yes to this proposed budget. >> So council, just answer the last question. >> Yes, sir. >> The city's so our contribution the city's contribution to trust fund this upcoming fiscal year will be 1.2 million
of new dollars. So that means if let's if you were to do the >> 600 600 if we do the >> 600 then it'd be 600,000 difference even if you reduced it these are new dollars. So all prior year dollars we're putting toward capital expenditures they will not be it can't be used for recurring expenses.
>> So again well my other one to mention is in this budget we're going to use $300,000 to help community with grants. I'm uncomfortable with that. I want to feed my people first.
>> Well, I'm saying I'm trying to think temporarily. You're correct, Chief. I'm But I'm thinking longer years down the road, you know, because this problem's not going to go away. It's only going to grow >> until this group can >> well, so >> address the main issue.
>> 257,000 out of the total 573 and like the option one, that's a one-time purchase. you you won't have that reoccurring next year unless you want to add more to the program >> that >> so the vehicles vehicles we're not going
to buy four vehicles every year for >> oh so that that would and back to Kobe's we're >> we got a million dollars that we're putting towards the CRA that's going to come back so >> right but and just so everybody understands where I'm coming from I'm
not just thinking CRA I'm thinking the fire department's got this building's got $750,000 worth of repairs we I'm thinking the fire department, they got another half a million which really wasn't evaluated by the appropriate people. I understand it needs to, you
know, be re evaluated. >> So So let's clean these lines up some though and stick the CRA instead of city, >> but it's all you're right, but you have also there's other arguments to make on that one. >> You're already paying out of the general fund $310,000 for the officers right
now. So you you've got that covered in what you budget already and you have for the last decade probably. >> So let's try and rein some of this in to an extent. I think every one of us feel that we should fund some of the chief's
officers out of here or maybe we don't. But can we kind of state where we're at on this as far as what funding level you feel that we should do this with police positions or if you feel that we shouldn't. and I'm gonna run down the line. Come We'll start with Mr. Cosen actually.
>> Okay. So, um I've been an advocate from day one on putting uh the needs of our staff and the city first. Kind of like when you're a student, and I'm going to just use high school as an example. You got your uh your core curriculums and
then you got your extracurricular activities, you know, which is usually something like sports or band or something like that. Before you can get into any extracurricular activities, you got to make sure the students making the grades first and all those bases are covered
before you do anything extra. Well, [snorts] the as far as this conversation goes, the city and our employees are the core and we need to take care of that first before we start taking care of anything else. And
I'm if if if we're going to do this and we're going to do it right and we're going to put our and and we're serious about putting our our staff, our employees, our city first. [clears throat] I'm not really sure we could do that if
we cut it back to 70%. >> Forget the percentage cuts in this conversation right now. Where do you stand as far as if you agree with funding police positions? What number are you kind of stuck on or option? What do you feel there? >> Well, if if if this is a budget hearing,
>> it's to pass the budget here, but not cutting percentages today. So, where are you at on the police officer positions? >> What do you want, Chief? Well, to to me it's it's helping you in other ways. I'm I'm
if if we didn't have this, I I'll do with what our regular general fund does. I I'm presenting this to kind of help alleviate the pressure on some of the other stuff that we're having to deal with and having to face through the next year so we can we don't feel as, you know, like volatile trying to get where
we need to be. This gives you a little bit of breathing room, a little time to to figure out what's going to happen. So to me, I if you're relieving money out of the general fund and you're spending out of the CRA, which you haven't spent a whole lot on any kind of major
projects since its inception, to me, I I I say you fund it. But >> So where you at, Mr. Coen? the financial expert that's sitting up here
>> is not comfortable with it. So, >> am I get am I catching your drift right, Amy? >> You're not comfortable with this. >> I'm not comfortable. That's what I just shared with everybody. And I when it's my turn to speak, I'm going to speak again. >> Okay.
So, do you want to allocate any funding from the CRA budget to fund the officer positions that Chief's presented? >> No. >> No. Mr. Berbone, >> full $600,000. >> Full 600. Mr. Harrison, >> and I I do want to add two things real quick. Sorry.
>> Yes, sir. >> Number one, if we fund the full $600,000, we are then able to take care of our employees. We only need what? Three what? For the 4% raise. >> 260. Mr. General, >> you only need 4%.
>> For a 4% raise, you only need $260,000. And he's helping us free up almost $600,000. Now, I want to take it one step further and and throw this out there, food for thought. We have $400,000 in the budget to deplete that one fund for paving.
Now, Kobe has mentioned before that Tallahassee has a block redevelopment program where they go and they pave streets and redevelop a block. What if you married up that with the paving program and you then didn't have to spend $400,000 out of that that fund?
You're now at almost a million dollar that we could spend out of the CRA that we're not having to spend out of the general fund. There there are ways to help us out with this and not neuter the CRA. It it is it is simple as money's in my
right pocket now it needs to be in my left pocket and this is the way you do it Mr. Harrison. uh one the the 600,000 are are are we round in this discussion are we rounding up that 573 319 to 600,000 or is that
including >> for the laptops >> the laser radar and stalker radar and speed trailer. >> So the what I would see is >> I I would if we're going to go with
additional equipment I would say we buy one rad laser radar. I just put the two kind of quotes to kind of show you ballpark where they are. And then as far as the speed trailer, you could go anywhere depending on how robust we want. If we wanted to have a message
board on top of just doing speed, you could have it, you know, say event parking or whatever. You you could multi-use it, I guess, is what I'm trying to tell you. If you had an event downtown, you could put it move it down there and it' have your message board. So, you could go from a basic to uh god,
my eyesight's getting terrible. You know, 6,900 to you could go up to 18 18,000. I don't know what I'm just trying to give you some ideas of where what the cost range is. Now, I did take the 18,000 and then the 20
basically 2,800 and add it to the 573 and that's where we're in the ballpark of 7 or 6,000. But if we wanted to offset some of that and put some of the laptops in there, we could do that, too. Like, it's totally this is the CRA's decision
on what they want to spend money on. I'm just trying to write something >> you know and I and I understand the need for all this stuff and that I go back to my you know justification that we have to show and whether we can amend a budget later if it was decided to add
you know these things or uh or what now we establish uh you miss you you asked about the vehicles so we have patrol cars for every officer at the point at this point in So, I'm I'm not in favor of purchasing
four new vehicles. Um, you know, unless you were you planning to replace any vehicles in the force anyway? >> Yes, you were. >> We we we currently had two. We really need three at this point. Um, we need we need two patrol and one administrative.
Um, depending on this is how I make some of that work. So, um, you know, like I said, I need just trying to find out what options and what you're wanting to spend and that kind of figures out how what or we what we do or what we do not purchase >> through our regular budget. Does that
make sense? >> Yeah. I wasn't wasn't sure we're talking about four additional vehicles in addition what we have and would keep >> or or not. So, this is a replacement thing, >> right? All right. Um, I I I I still struggling with the
how how we're going to show justification for this. And now there won't be any money spent out of this until October 1. Correct. Or after October one. >> Correct. It'll be after the 1st of October. So, [snorts] prior to October one, we would have
something in place as to how we'll have measurable objectives to justify any expenditures that we do for police. >> Correct. Correct. >> Correct. >> And I've looked at the chief and I have talked probably what, three times now
[snorts] >> since he last presented this, going over a lot of this. Nothing I say is going to surprise him. He's going to disagree with some of what I'm about to say. I'll go ahead and tell him he knows. But um comparisonwise, I'll tell you getting
new stalker radars, lasers, things like that. I'm struggling to see how we're going to make that something that works. On the other hand, he knows my position on the um radar
trailer, the radar cart, so to speak. That's digital signage. if it has a dual purpose for the police department or for our ability to use it and post it around Christmas reflections to address when we have to change the street around or to address slowing down things like that.
That seems to be the dual purpose use that is really going to be right in the meat meat and potatoes of this. So honestly, I'd rather see you spend 18 to 20 there than six to eight on the lower version if you're doing it because what's the purpose of that trailer, so
to speak, if it is just the speed measuring. But those are things that we would need to look at if the money's in the budget, the best way to do it. He and I have talked a lot about the officers and one of the things I've told him about vehicles is ever since he's been the chief, we've talked about vehicles, whether it's
impact fees, general fund, debt service, whether lease, whether it's, um, where we can go get them from. >> So, um, this is one where I think I probably shocked him. I actually told him I think there's I probably agree from this after having reviewed what a
lot of other police departments in Florida have done. One of the things they've looked at is that the standard patrol cars utilized, whatever model that may be, you put your community policing officers in a different type of vehicle. Maybe
it's a smaller, lower profile SUV. If you've got a Tahoe like the Chief, you put them in a Ford Explorer. You put them in something that's a little easier to get in and around the community that looks different, that calls the attention out, may blend in more with the community. beach. You see in beach communities all the time, they'll do
four-wheel drives or they can go on the beach, for instance. So, one of the things I point out to him is the gear, equipment, and things like that. It needs to be something other than just what his standard officers have. If you're going to have an officer who's going to be walking up and down the city
blocks more than they're going to be riding around their car in the air conditioning, well, they may need to be in a polo shirt like Mr. Cosen is over there rather than full tactical gear. Chief and I talked about the difference between wearing a full tactical vest and having some of the lower profile body
armor that they utilize. The type of gear they put on their belt, weapons, defense mechanisms, things of that nature may need to be something different. And so one of the things that when we talked through all this,
I said, "Look, give us what you've got, but you're going to need to build this plan out. Just because it gets in the budget doesn't mean it's going to get spent. You're going to have to build that plan out and show us. Don't tell us, "Hey, I'm going to do all that, then order four standard uniforms, four standard
sets of equipment, four more standard cars." Don't do that. Bring us something that shows why this is different and what how you're going to integrate this in to the overall policing initiative. You know, I think he's shown you some things here. And I think to my position
from a legal standpoint, we can justify what he's doing provided [clears throat] he spends the money like he says he's going to do. And I'm not questioning. I want everybody to understand. I'm not saying the chief would do a bait and switch. But that is where people have
gotten in trouble. There people just written check. They here just take a check to the police department. We can't do that. um chief called me and asked me said, "Hey, what what would my opportunity be to spread some of the CRA money out across all of my departments and say, "Hey,
everybody's going to have an increased responsibility." I said, "Well, I don't think you can do that. I understand. I don't think we can just spread a pay raise across this whole department out from the CRA's budget." But I said, "If I let you do it the first year, my problem is how do I justify it the second year?" Because
what's their ongoing responsibility? the immediate administrative cost of implementing this program might touch every officer, but it's going to be very hard to say that. So, he and I've gone through a lot of this. I think he understands as hard as
he's had to work for impact fees that he's going to have to work equally hard to get this. Um, but the real question ultimately comes to this board as a policy decision of do you wish to include this in your budget?
understanding that you may not end up funding all of it or any of it. It does I mean I think your salaries are your probably your automatics. You you might as well plan if you're doing this you're going to ship those salaries but the rest of it's going to be an ongoing discussion between the chief Mr. Townson
is the CRA director about the best way to deploy that budget. And just like I mean it's almost a reimbursement chief. I think I talked to you about it's a lot more akin to reimbursement than it is just here's more money for your budget. Yeah. >> So he shows us he spends it correct.
It's just like the sheriff gets a reimbursement from the TDC for extra employees in that sense. And if we follow that model, while the statute doesn't say it has to be reimbursement, if we treat it closer to that than not, the likelihood we're going to be in trouble is significantly reduced.
>> Mr. Chair, >> hold just a second. We're making a round. So with the expenditure of the money and the council being responsible for that expenditure even though it is basically in the police chief's
hands as to how he spends it and let's take you out of scenario years down the road if this is still in place and there's a different police chief. How does the council at that time, whether it's us or somebody else, how can they
hold an elected official responsible for spending the money the way they intended it to be spent? >> So, I'm going to answer that probably three different ways, but the simplest way is what's happening right here. If while there is a CRA, he's got
to come to you and show you that what he's actually doing is putting money into community policing innovations and initiatives. And as long as it matches up to your plan, you can choose whether to fund it or not. And he's got to demonstrate that after you put the money in your budget before he gets the money,
he has done it to a satisfactory level for you as a trustee board member because that's what you are. So that's the short answer. The longer answer is going to be this. There's been a push statewide. Police, city police departments have not fallen
under this. But um for quite some time, there's been the ability of sheriffs at the county level to basically say this is my budget. The county doesn't like it. Too bad. I get to appeal to the governor. And for those of you who are not familiar,
that has happened many time quite a few more times than most people would think. But I'll let anybody up here take a guess how many times a county has won that appeal over the sheriff. The answer is zero. The governor, no governor of the state has ever overturned a sheriff.
>> But that doesn't apply to cities. >> Well, that's where I was going. The legislature took action after a Supreme Court case between the sheriff of Elatchua County and Elatchua County. The sheriff basically said, "You're questioning my budget by getting
into the line items." and I'm telling you this is what I need the money for. You don't get to mess with my line items. You don't get to say we'll give you a hundred,000 for this, but we ain't going to give it to you for that, Sheriff. So, they litigated um Elro County took it all the way to
the Florida Supreme Court. Florida Supreme Court read that to basically say that the sheriff didn't have to give him anything more than one simple number if that's all he wanted. The legislature took action over the Florida Association of Counties, but acting in line with the FSA, which is Florida Sheriff's
Association, to write some law about the minimal the minimum requirements the sheriff has to give, which are very low. In I believe it is three of the last five sessions, there's been a push to have that extended to all law
enforcement in the state of Florida. And in fact, in one of those years, and maybe two, I'd have to go back and look, there was a push for that to be for all life safety fire service. Now, I can't predict what's going to happen, but what I would tell you is you're about, if this property tax amendment passes, we
know there's going to be requirements to not decrease funding of law enforcement and fire safety, or at least not to take that as your topline decreases. So, if you're asking how you maintain control, looking at what the state has done with the sheriffs and giving the heads of
these agencies more control and chief, I mean, I'm sure you talked to the other city marshals. Is that not something that gets pushed every year of having more autonomous control like the sheriff's give? >> It is. >> I mean, I mean, he's not going to lie to you because that's one of their priority legislative initiatives. I think one
thing you do while you're at the CRA is you make him special purpose this money. It's not just about giving him the money. Make him show you what he's using it for. Because at the city council level, you're likely going to start losing control, especially if the property tax amendment passes. And if that legislation ever extends to city
marshalss, I'm going to go ahead and tell you, you better hope you have a chief [clears throat] that's willing to come put this on paper because after a man from the circuit, from the Supreme Court of Florida, that's exactly
what the Elra sheriff did. came in, they said, "What's your budget?" He had literally handed them one number on a sheet of paper and said, "I didn't need to waste a letterhead based on the Supreme Court. So, you're going to give it to me, aren't you?" They threatened to they voted by a bare majority to give it to
him. And that statute is incredibly negative to local government. And I will tell you some of the initial things and Tim's not here to talk to us, but if Tim were here, I think he'd tell you that's some of the initial discussion of what Governor DeSantis wants if this passes
session to come back to start looking at how to do that implementation language to protect law enforcement. So, what I'd tell you is if you're looking at hedging against this in the future, do what you're doing right now. Chief, what is that patrol vehicle versus what is your
training versus supplemental uniforms? Tell me how you're going to do it. Do what Councilwoman Heinland's been doing over there, which is saying, "Hey, I'm I could get behind this, but I can't get behind this part, this part, this part." As long as he's coming to ask like this to a CRA, that's how you have the
ability to control it because it's not going to be his control at city manager level outside of these these meetings. As a council, city council, you just don't have that kind of leverage. >> Well, I think our purchasing policies and everything still apply in this realm, right? Like I still would
need to get approval probably at least from y'all to purchase say ride on one, you know, hey, we're going to put the quote together. we get everything. This is what it's going to cost us >> and y'all still have to approve that. >> Yeah, I think the personnel expenses will be an auto right there on Matic and then
>> but everything else you got to come >> anything else over 10 grand or whatever it is would have to Yeah, that to me that's >> and I would specifically want us to do that and is my recommendation as your attorney that you do that because you are serving concurrently as both boards even though you have separate board
meetings. I want there to be something where this board took action to approve money that flows out of this into the city's commerce. >> Yeah. >> So, with all that said, Mr. Harrison, have you got a number or where you
>> I I would I would be at option two. >> Option two. >> Option two. >> 444. >> 444 503. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> How many vehicles is that, Mr. Harrison? >> Two. >> Two. >> That That is That is two. Um,
and if you need more vehicles, I mean, we've been paid for those things. >> Yeah. This whole this whole thing is to figure out where where we at and how much y'all want to spend and >> it's basically where the money is going to come from. Exactly. Right. So, if you need four vehicles to come from General
Front or whatever. Um, you know, and because I, you know, I I realize >> we are cutting into operating money for the CRA. Everybody realizes that, right? And we were concerned when the discussion was about reducing the CRA
percentage and we were looking at something like uh whatever that number was too much on me. Um roughly total of course with the millage change it's going to be more but we were
looking at a total loss of CRA fund of $421,000. But I think you said it was 430 something now with that change. >> So where's it at? >> 421. >> 421. Um Oh, I thought it would be higher with the change in the millillage.
>> No, no, no. So the millage it would propose a roll back of 5.488. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. But uh No, it would be it would be a 44 421. >> Okay. So So 421. So, we were we were we're not willing to lose $421,000
basically out of the CRA uh trust fund to in that discussion of things. So, my my rationale is I mean what you know we're talking about losing $600,000 dollars now. So, I think we
need to find a way um and and still have those measurable objectives. >> I agree with you. I'm on option two. Councilman, Councilwoman Heftlin, where are you at? [snorts] >> Before I say where I'm at, Chief, let me ask you something. CRA goes away.
>> I'm kind of like where Mr. Harrison is. I'm really struggling because there's no justification. You shouldn't be able to keep those because they were doing something special. You know, that and I'm thinking from a you know, everybody can rationalize this in a whole bunch of different ways. I'm just trying to think
of the long term. Well, as far as and this is Kobe and Clay and as far as my knowledge, if CRA ended tomorrow, the >> balance whatever is going to the T is going back to county and the rest of us going back this anyway. So, >> I understand that, but you know, if the
council wanted they could probably still use that to do the alleyway and you know, who knows how much that's going to cost the the 3.4. >> Well, if you have $5 million in the bank, >> okay, I don't want to I'm not here to debate it. I'm just sharing my thought
process of common sense would say if CRA goes away then these police officers that are doing something special in that area for the district would also go away. I I I just I'm just throwing that out. >> I I would say there are extra duties
that were putting on would go away, not the actual positions, >> right? >> Does that make sense? But does but does that equal $600,000, >> you know, and does that anyway that I'm just sharing with my >> It's a lot to wrap your head around. Trust me.
>> Exactly. So with the metrics [clears throat] that Mr. Harrison was saying and the justification, I'm not there yet. But just so everybody is on the same page, public safety is my number one concern. So I'm always going to fight to figure out how to put public
safety in our budget because to me that's what our citizens want. >> So this to me budgeting and and I might be completely off. This is this is what my thought is and what based on what I know. The more you can spend out of this
is the more it frees up the general fund to fund our raises for the rest of the department to to the fire department to to all >> I can appreciate that. I'm just not on that. >> I get it. That >> that's how I see it. But >> all right. So, where are you at?
>> Okay. So, based on everything I said before and my not being comfortable, >> I will find a way to present to my fellow council members how to possibly overcome this, but it's not through this program, pilot program that we're
suggesting. And >> so, you're saying zero? >> I'm saying zero. Okay. Yes. >> And Mr. Cosen, you were at zero. >> Excuse me. You were at zero. >> Uh, correct. Uh, I do have a question. >> Yes, sir. >> So, then I'll quit bringing it up. When can we discuss the percentages?
>> That's at a city council meeting, not the CRA meeting. [snorts] >> Myself and Councilman Harrison or Commissioner Harrison are at option two. Would you be willing to negotiate down to option two instead of the first one? >> No. Now, keep in mind we're we are
taking on extra responsibility. We understand that >> and and I understand the the master plan is not divulged yet as far as how it all >> I think you did a good job with this first off. I'll be honest with you. >> But the ultimate goal of this and me
trying to put this to you is to free that money up for raises for our employees. >> And by us taking extra responsibility, I I I want to see the police department taken care of. And that's I think that's my goal. I just want to be clear. I'm
not not trying to bully, not trying to but that's I I'm just trying to be as transparent and open as I can. Does that make sense? >> So, Commissioner Beerbomb, you you would like to see the funding come from the amphitheater project? >> Yes, sir. >> And Coun or Commissioner Harrison, would
which line item do you feel that that funding should come from or that you would like to see reduced the fund option to? Move up. >> Yes sir. >> And while I'm while I'm doing that uh
chief and for everybody's benefit just in conversation the like this option too that you know I said I would support the salaries for the officers you'd be paying anyway. They're there that would be an expense for the city anyway. Two
vehicles you'd be purchasing anyway be out the general fund. Mhm. >> Education and training that might be different types of training. So that that would be >> Yeah. Maybe some new training. >> Uniforms would be there anyway. So all these things would be there anyway. I just want to clarify that. >> Yes.
>> Now where's the line? Let me find that so you see it. >> You're saying those uh expenses would be in the general fund. >> Yes, that's right. Um, which one or more? Yes. What you're asking me?
What was your question? >> Just which where to pull the funding from that we're posing with option two because we're suggesting 444,5340 >> and you're talking about from the >> round up even that's okay. >> Yes sir. 444
having me have me hang out tomorrow by bringing pennies. >> Wow. >> Yes sir. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, >> keep in mind that Kobe spread $100,000 of interest money around in those line items as well, right? >> Correct.
>> Mhm. >> Yeah. Like in parks development, right? >> Right. Correct. I think it was 25 in that one. [snorts] >> Yeah. >> And where was the other 50? >> So, I believe uh there was we added 50 to the neighborhood development, 25 to the parks redevelopment, and then 25
into downtown. That's where the 100,000 was broken up to. >> I don't want to mess with the the parks. Um, honestly, I think we could I think we can trim our alleyway project. Not excessively, but I can think I think we can we can we can cut some money
there. And um I kind of agree with um Miss Evelyn about the amphitheater why it's appearing now and and and I get it. I understand uh you Mr. Townson on that but we won't be expending $500,000
probably in in the coming year unless I'm wrong. Do you foresee we might >> It would it would depend on I think she was more so on the alleyway project. amphitheater. Again, it's about how fast what what we want to do determines the scope. >> Yeah. Okay. I I would say, you know, some some from
not totally from the amphitheater project. I don't want to see that scrapped totally. The public would like to see that. >> What if we um what if we took uh 400,000 from the amphitheater and 50,000 from the neighborhood district redevelopment? So the neighborhood district development was initially 150 50,000 of that was
that interest and then the amphitheater that $100,000 because based on what I think we've all talked about here if we're looking at just doing some uh redoing like going in maintenes looking at painting uh looking at shading stuff we want to go to TDC
$100,000 goes a long way we're talking about that type of stuff we're not talking about structural changes >> that's a neighborhood district redevelopment >> so no so that would go down to 150 from 200 in the amphitheater project for 500 go to 100 that'd be 450 even.
>> So you're basing that that $400,000 cut to the amphitheater on it not being expended in the coming year or >> No, I'm saying only do $100,000 worth of work, not $500,000 worth. >> I don't think that'll get us very far in
my mind anyway. Um, yeah. I I'm I'm I'm still I'm still I'm still looking at ways to save some money on that on that alleyway. >> So, what's the what's the what's the number of empty that everybody wants to put in there? Let's work from there. >> I'm I'm good with the 100 because I think we can get it from grants and we
can get some TDC money, too. And then we'd have the match monies at that point >> on the Yes, sir. How much do we intend to be? >> Okay, I'm going to run an exercise while as we're going through this.
Okay, there's 300,000. I I would suggest taking Let's just take 50 out of this. That's 350,000. >> Um, >> I'm sorry. I didn't see where that 50 was >> from the neighborhood districts redevelopment. >> Okay,
>> it's 350. Um, if we're looking at I, you know, going through here, it can come out of So, this year in the downtown, uh, you again, we have a carry forward of 2.4 million. Okay, 2.4. This is what
makes up the 2.4. these numbers here that le and that means the new contribution for this fiscal year to the downtown development projects is $1 million. So if you were to go in here and take
out the rest of the so we would be at uh 95,000. All right, there's 445,000. And that leaves 3.3 million in the downtown redevelopment fund read. Yeah. Line.
>> Okay. >> All right. So, what would um So, how much are we short to making the >> We have the 445 now >> at four. Say that again. I reduced the amphitheater project from 500 to 200.
That's 300,000. We reduced neighborhood district redevelopment from 200 to 150. That's then that gave us the um 350,000. And then we reduced downtown redevelopment by $95,000. That gave us an even $445,000, >> which is what option two is.
>> Okay. >> Did you reduce the revenues at the top >> or you just those are those are still >> I'm just showing right now. So right now they would stay the revenues would stay the same. This 445 we will put that into a expense line. >> Is that something you're meaningable
too? >> Okay. So I think we've got a agreement at least amongst the majority of the council. So we'll entertain a motion to approve as written. >> So moved. Do we have a second? >> Second. All right.
>> And so >> we have motion in a second. >> Chairman, to clarify with those changes, the uh the budget to be sent to the city council is in the amount of $5,79,749. Okay. [snorts] >> Do we have any public comment?
>> Come forward, please. Okay, I just saw that Michelle K. I just saw that and I am glad to see y'all all working together because I was the person who spent six years of my life. He can add to this getting rid of a
former chief. When that former chief, I already knew because officers came and told me how bad our police department was. When I say bad, I mean I was giving a trespassing warning to a place I had never been or called because I attended.
>> Is that the PB? >> Is that microphone? >> The PBA. >> Is your Is your microphone on, Miss Kitch? I don't know. Yeah, there you go. >> Okay. Um, and harassed by police officers was an understatement just for attending meetings and speaking up on things I didn't like. Our police
department has changed since James Hurley has been in there. And I will tell you, not only that, I can admit to this day, I did not know how bad it was. Did y'all know there were freezers and refrigerators that were no longer working and crimes had to be let go of because evidence was
destroyed while our chief sat at his house and told people he was there when he wasn't cuz I know I checked. So, I want to see our public safety 100% funded and I want to find ways. I'm not
saying he gets everything he wants, but I'm saying we work and we accomplish goals. The second thing is I know that this CRA and I know this is the wrong meeting, but as you can see, I am busy and um that's just one of three this
summer. So, um I don't want to see it defunded. I don't want to see the 95% and I really hate that I have to say this in public, but for the fact that I have to agree with Mindy Henderson for once in my life is very sad because we couldn't be on two
further pages. But Mindy Henderson's right. You got all the money. You just got to move it around and make it work. I also don't know why to increase these raises, blight would be potholes, right?
Nobody's got any comment about potholes or dumpy roads. >> What did you say about >> potholes? I'm sorry. I didn't know any I mean everybody can always hear me. Um potholes. Is that blight to you? Is that
>> I would say if it's a road full of potholes, I would think that one pothole is a blight. Kind of the interpretation. >> So I listen to most of the meetings whether I can attend or not. and uh y'all had a piece of equipment for road construction. Y'all are worried about having giving raises. Don't give that
money back to the county. They're never going to give it back. And I'm going to tell you, I texted somebody in this meeting and begged them to go up there and get my three minutes because I couldn't be here. I have called everybody but Tony Anderson, who has never returned my phone call. And every one of those commissioners told me, "We
aren't getting any more money. They just want theirs back." Every one of them to me. And I am as to the carpet as I am with any of y'all. And that is what they told me. That is not hearsay. That is in this ear and out
this mouth. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> I'm sorry. I'm I'm done. Okay. Bye. >> Thank you. Any further public comment? >> Yes, sir. >> Mr. Robert Raymond. And yes, I actually
agree that doing the community policing is a great idea. I think there should I would like to see bikes. So, it's truly they are out of their car and they're walking around or pedaling around the community. I am uh I think I brought that up to you
quite a long time ago actually. No, I don't [laughter] want but I do have a couple questions that some of which will carry over a little bit to just the regular um board meeting that but I would like them addressed.
Number one, on your downtown district, are you including the entire downtown district or just Main Street? because there seems to be a overwhelming uh focus on a very small area of the
city and I think it's time to expand that. If the entire downtown district is in it, then you have some streetscape issues with connecting sidewalks through the health department, the county commission building, main
street. there there are a lot of opportunities that are not just in Main Street or the circle. So I would like very much to have a little bit wider scope of where the money goes policing wise. I think that
is a good idea. And secondly with this crosses a little bit, how many jobs have we created for the airport as of now? because whatever the jobs are, which I personally would like to get a listing of because there will be people that
will probably sponsor some scholarships. Whatever the jobs are, they don't start at the airport. They're going to start online. They're going to start on classrooms, books, etc. I would like a little better class clarification. My
voice gives out in the day. I would like a little better clarification on exactly what we're going to do to produce those jobs because it's not free money. The city council may not have to pay it, but I can promise you that lenders are
coming after their money, which means it's going to go from here to the citizens. So, knowing how to avoid that is critical in my opinion. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir.
Any further public comment? Chairman, >> you want me to just answer the first question about >> Yes, sir. You can. >> So, uh, Mr. Raymond, I can get with you about the airport afterwards just because this isn't the this board's I'll get with you after. But on the downtown thing, so right now the scope of the three downtown projects. So, alleyway,
railroad crossings, um, and like streetscapes right now exist, uh, is really focusing between 11th and 5th, 90, and and Baldwin at the moment. Um, so we're look we're going to be looking on Monday. We'll look at our next meeting about expanding the scope of some of the task force a little bit. Right now it doesn't cross night at the
moment. And I think the main reason for that is is because when the city council adopted to uh create a new zoning amendment for a downtown district, it got repealed because of Senate Bill 180. So right now we only see downtown as being between 11th and 5th 90 to Baltimore >> which is Main Street.
>> Correct. So what what I'm saying is is we need to spread our wings a little bit out from Main Street in the circle that we have a big city and putting all our eggs in a very small part of it which in
in the alleyway which I'm totally for. How many of the owners who own property in the alleyway have already agreed for what is coming for everything with underground utilities? We're going they they are going to have to share some of
that burden. How many of them have agreed to do that? For example, you have different areas on the not the south side, they're going to be fine, but the east side, the west side, the north side that would be able
to increase revenue to the city. The alleyway, it's going to be an awesome thing. However, how much revenue is the city going to actually see from that? Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Thank you. No. All >> right.
>> Oh, wait. Let me let me refresh. [laughter] I'm just kidding. The um Thank you. >> He doesn't want me to wear >> SP my my bike thing comes off if if Chief is riding unless uh he's at night. [laughter] >> Okay, we have We'll go ahead and close
the floor for public comment. We have a motion and a second. We'll move on to voting. All those in favor of the motion signify by stating I. >> I. >> I. >> All those opposed signify by saying nay. >> Nay. >> Nay. >> The motion passes three to two. All
right. We'll move on to item 2B. And that would be Miss Hip. So I I appreciate the opportunity to say this and for the board to decide again. Hopefully the third time's a charm. But
back in April when I attended our first CRA meeting as a group, I requested as a small business owner, I was having some difficulty. I took on a project. It's not going to be done until right around the end of September. And I shared that and I couldn't be here at 3:00. Would
you please reconsider changing it to five o'clock? And the answer was no. I asked the city manager again, bring it up at the next one for me because I can't attend and I didn't attend. And Mr. Harrison, you brought it up yesterday. I think you were very
frustrated as to why I I can't speak for Mr. Kosen. I don't think he was ever absent, but I hadn't been to the CRA meetings except for that very first one when we became a board after it changed from the old group to us. I'm asking
again if we are for small business. I'm a small business owner. I am a twoman I was a twoman shop and unfortunately the woman who worked with me has since passed away and it has made it very more difficult for me to attend these meetings at a time. I don't have the
luxury of getting a PTO when my obligations are are uh before me. I have to perform those for the customers who are relying on me to do their uh work that they hired me to do. So again, I I
know that we say that we're for small businesses. Well, here here it is. I'm not only a small business, but I'm elected peers with all of you and I'm asking you. I've talked to other small business owners in town. And I'll give you a few examples. One of them was Evans Carpet, and they asked me, "Why
did you all change your meetings? I I would like to come to some of those." Um, and I don't know that it was ever discussed as to why exactly we changed from 5:00 to 3:00 that very first time. I asked the city manager at one point.
He shared an answer with me. Um, again, I have to go with the majority. I'm not going to uh, you know, bark after this, but I don't think that we represent small businesses when you're excluding some of us from attending because I
would like to be here. I'm an elected official. I would like to participate. Um, I might not agree with everything the board does, but I would still like to represent those who put me in this elected position. So, I'm requesting one more time, would you please reconsider
changing the CRA meetings from 3:00 to 5:00? >> Are you making a motion? >> Yes. >> Second. >> All right. We got a motion and a second. And um I'd like to comment on that again for I don't know the third or fourth time for me. I have I have appointments
to take care of as well. It's not always about one person on this board. It's about everybody and and all of the staff as well. And I went back I've watched the CRA meetings ever since I've been on the city council. I've watched the the the number in the crowds. Um I've seen
the support for the CRA. I I believe that the numbers are actually larger to be honest with you before five than after five from what I've seen. I'm not going to say it's by much, but the participation is about the same. Um there are personal reasons dealing with
medical stuff as to why we may or may not want to talk about things out here before this dies. I'll be happy to talk to you outside of it, but I have to commit some time to my children in addition to the boards that I'm a part of, which is the city council, the CRA, the TDC, and the code review committee,
all as a part of my official duties as an elected official with this city council. So, trying to make that time between my full-time job during the day, meet all these commitments outside of there, and then still some time to take my kids to the sports that they participate in. it. Sometimes we have to
look at everybody else's schedule as well. So that that's just mine. Um I know for the staff's perspective at speaking with the executive director, city manager and and people around, they prefer to start a little earlier so they
can get home at night too. And then we don't have to pay overtime or flex where they won't be in the office the next day. So it's kind of a win-win for them as well. I I did hear what you're saying about through September today and the last time. I think those are really the first times I've actually heard that. So
I apologize if I missed it before, but I mean even then at that point if you jump in in September and come forward that's great then but we've met that obligation. Mr. Harrison, >> um >> yeah, [clears throat] I I I mentioned yesterday that you know I I think we
need to look at it a different time and and we and we should have done it before now. Um, honestly, a as a board, we we should have looked at that and and talked about it and tried to make it more [clears throat] accommodating. My frustration was a position that I'm put in by it.
And it's not all your fault. Like I just said, we should have looked at this long before now and found a more accommodating time that works. And there are things to consider. I think the conversation, I may be wrong, but I it seemed like the conversation when we
said that was it made sense at the time to knock it out before the city council meeting, you know, on the same day. It's one less day that we have to find time for uh in the month, you know, and what have you. And and that's that's what I I recall.
But, you know, every decision we make doesn't necessarily work out for the best. And like as I said last night in my frustration, it's you know if if two people are missing whether it's you and I or whatever that's 40% of the input
for the council or the commission to consider uh before they cast a vote on on something. And so I I think we need we need to find the time that we can have more people here. four people in attendance um can lead to so many two
two votes potentially depending on what the issue is and nothing gets accomplished and that defeats the purpose and it wastes everybody's time. So, I think we have to find the time here that we we we we can we can meet and have uh five people here more
consistently. Uh because my frustration was I I I can't continue to be put in a position where I can never win a vote if I feel strongly about something if there's only three people there. And um that's just
that's just uh that's a waste of my time and energy. And I think we have to find a time here to to to meet. >> Mr. Verba. >> Nothing. >> Mr. Cosen. >> Uh
I'd like to see her. She's got a lot of valuable information and skills that we don't have. She's the financial expert at the dis and I'd like to see her here at 5:00 to weigh in on this. What if we put it at the end of the city
council meeting? >> Oh, [clears throat] >> you know, I start my day at 4:00 a.m. every day. >> I do too. >> That [clears throat] would be a lot. >> And letting dogs out, getting kids ready for stuff, getting ready manager try to accommodate. >> Can I make a suggestion?
>> Just a second. Let's finish this first and then we'll come back to you. >> I mean, we have a list of dates. We want to look at dates. We have a list of dates. So, we already have, you know, one, two, three, four, five. We've got seven meetings a month that happen on different dates. So we we know what those are. So there are, you know, there's there's a Monday, there's a t
there's two Tuesdays or all Wednesdays are available. We don't have any recurring meetings on those at the moment. >> I'm asking for two there's only two more before the September 30th. There's only two more meetings. If we only meet once a month, I'm asking for two accommodations. Could we find a two dates that would
accommodate all of us or the majority of us so that >> what's everybody's feeling about the Wednesdays because every Wednesday is open. I know it's church day for many people. >> Wednesday and Thursdays are bad for me but I'm good on Tuesdays. >> Tuesdays we the city would be uh the
second or fourth Tuesday of the month. >> How does that affect the county? >> I'm okay with the day. Well, those are the kid BCC on Tuesdays. I just can't do it. >> I think that's what she's >> asking. Are those the county days? >> They are.
>> Yeah, that doesn't work. >> That would be We would be working with his schedule. >> Yeah. >> So, >> well, and I'm not worried about mine because I mean I I made it here today. I think what she's commenting on, which is the same thing that I had to deal with um when Freeport talked about this
because there's do match up with the counties quite often with second Tuesday is members of the public wanting to go to one or both or not being able to go to both because of overlap. >> Well, now you're talking about adding Freeport to it too, >> Mr. Chair. >> Well, that's in the morning. >> Oh, Mr. >> Second Tuesday in the morning. What I would say is the county meeting
>> talking to me >> for Defunia, the county's meeting in North Walton is on the second Tuesday of the month. Just an FYI. So if public up here wanted to attend, they'd be able to do both or at least be closer.
>> While y'all are thinking, can I just make a small suggestion? >> Let Mr. Bearb I recognized him just a second ago, so [clears throat] let me let him talk real quick first, then I'll come back. Having been on served on the city council for seven years,
having served on the charter review committee and having served on other various committees, I understand both sides of if it's at this time, so and so can participate. If it's at this time, then we get more public
engagement. But I tend to agree with Councilman Sconers. I saw this with the charter review committee. They were having their meetings prior to myself and Dr. Mcnite and a citizen being appointed to that committee. They were
having them at 5:00. We had them at 5:00 and then some days we had them at 3:00 and attendance was identical. It was typically one person. Um, same thing early on when I got elected. Uh, Councilman Crystal wanted us to have
9:00 a.m. meetings. So, we mirrored the BCC and had some 9:00 a.m. meetings for a little while. Attendance didn't change. So, from my perspective, it doesn't matter what time we pick. I think it needs to be the time that that accommodates everybody at this dis. And
thanks to the the wonders of YouTube, everybody can join on their phone and on Facebook and on YouTube if they if they can't physically be here. And we we need to find a time that works for for the five members at this DAS. Yes, ma'am.
>> Can we make a policy that says one of us can we can attend by YouTube and and vote? I've asked that one. >> Will you help me, Clay? Just help me understand what prohibits that? What exact statute? What exactly? >> The governor, the attorney general, Florida statute. Um, there was an
opinion issued back during CO that disallowed it expressly for purposes of satisfying quorum, meaning physical presence was required. The governor passed an executive order providing a limited exemption to telecommunication appearances during the window of CO and
thereafter expressly rescended that executive order restoring us to us. It's not a sunshine issue but is absolutely a quorum issue. It has to be physical presence. >> But that was just for CO correct. >> He did away with it until back to the old way. >> The [clears throat] exception was only
for CO and now it is back to the way it was. You have to be here in person. So there's no other exception to the rule. >> Florida's been adamant a >> an official body to adopt that kind of rule.
>> Correct. The legislature would have to give you the authority and it has not done so. >> Can I clarify real quick? So M, you're talking about two meetings we're looking for and then September, are you okay with the Monday meeting?
>> Yeah. Yeah, my obligations that are preventing me from being here will be completed at the end of September. >> So after that, >> I should not have that same. >> So the 3:00 Monday meetings would be okay after that point. Okay. >> At that point, >> I just want to understand.
>> Can we just then there's only one meeting left between now and September and September. >> Okay. >> And September. Why don't you just give Mr. the authority to find a window based on the dates he's got here? circulate it out in your calendar to see when you can
fit in a five o'clock for those two meetings. >> What about the last Monday of the month? >> Just from now through September at five o'clock. >> Well, that's your >> That's your council meeting on the fourth month. >> Oh, how about the third then? >> Third doesn't The third the third Monday doesn't have anything.
>> The third Monday is always >> Are you good with that? >> Are you from now through September? >> I will make myself just as long as you're here >> and then we can go then you're good going back to the single day and knocking it out then. Okay. So in August we would be looking at August 17th
>> and September 21st >> which >> pause on that city council has a budget hearing on the 21st of September. So let's just get through August. Let's get through August and then we will we'll get with y'all individually. We'll find September >> August. Let's have a motion for the August meeting because I think I have
something why I'm >> we've got a motion in a second already too. So we got to fix this. You have to go to public comment >> time that instead of setting it in stone tonight I can withdraw your motion and withdraw your second >> withdraw. >> I'm gonna come to public comment right
behind this. >> But we all agree that we're going through direction but your motion September if you're good with that. I'm good with August September >> if you're good. >> I am >> Mr. Be. >> Mhm. >> Okay. All right. Then the motion and the
second withdrawn. >> Yes. And then now we'll move on to citizens comments. Miss Kit. >> Thanks. >> Thank you, ma'am. Sorry. >> Okay. So, he's got conflicts for it being five. You got conflicts for it being three. We have two meetings left.
If I understand what you're saying. I really respect the divide. But one of you attend August and one of you attends September and then we go back to the three the five:00 meeting. That that helps everybody. But that's not playing
favoritism to anybody. That's not you find a if September's better for her or whatever. But if this is a conflict, don't don't side with either one of them. Pick one month one goes and one month the other one goes. But business must go on if you have a quorum. That
that that is very upsetting that somebody decides not to go to a meeting not to have quorum. So, I I would say everybody's entitled to a vacation. And if you know he's got a vacation coming up, you don't do police
business on that day or you at least give him a heads up so he can change his vacation. That's just respect 101. So, uh, don't back door him. I He's here every time I come here. I think he's missed I know he missed that one. Maybe [gasps]
one other meeting. I don't know. Do you know how many meetings you've missed? >> Very few. >> Very few. So, I don't like seeing that on him not being here personally. Um, I agree with some of the things he said, which isn't a part of this meeting, but I do have 50 seconds, so I'm going to use it. Um,
Kobe doesn't run his department. Give him the respect he deserves. And, um, let's all respect each other. So, I'm going to carry that throughout all of you because we all can get an attitude. Me
included. We can all get an attitude, but I I think from this point on, they both need to be respected. And if the five o'clock doesn't work for both months for him, then you respect him and you respect her and they each get a month.
Seems like it solves the problem. Thank you. >> If I can clarify now, I didn't I'm not sure that you understand why that quorum was broken and I won't go into it in here. >> No, we can talk personally. I don't we don't need to do this in public. >> Okay.
>> I just want to say that I I do want to see that agenda items for the police department be when he's available. If he's taking vacation, let's respect that. >> Thank you, Miss Kitch. Do we have any further citizens comments? Seeing none, we'll close the table and I
will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> All right. Meetings adjourned. Stone