[music] [music] [music] [music] Mike. [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music]
[music] [music] [music] [music] >> Hey. >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. >> [music] [music]
[music] [music] [music] [music] >> Okay, good morning and welcome to July 21st, 2026 budget workshop. Want to call the workshop to order. This is kind of a new setup which feels like it's going to work really well. Everybody comfortable?
>> Good. Everybody ready for a fun long brutal brutal day? No. Okay. All right. Um I I just uh before we kind of start and I'm going to let city manager say a couple opening remarks as well. Um
actually, do we do we do your remarks after the lesson, Jean? >> No. >> Okay. Well, I have it the reverse. So, okay. So, um no, I just wanted to say I was talking to the city manager yesterday just to understand our goals
for the day and we have a lot to do. Uh, but I think it's all done in in a sense of we haven't really we've seen the budget. We've all reviewed the budget, but we haven't met it all. So, it's about learning. It's about listening, get our questions answered. You know, I'm sure we'll have some some initial
thoughts, but um, a lot of our decision-m will really happen at the next budget workshop. And, um, so just to kind of set that tone, um, I'll turn it over to Jennifer. You want to add anything to that or did I get that right? >> You did. Yes. Okay. Good morning, mayor,
vice mayor, and commissioners. Some opening remarks. >> Okay. So, just some opening remarks for the day, and thank you for setting uh the expectation for the day, and I want to elaborate on that a little bit more if I if I may, mayor. Um, first of all, this is the proposed budget. It is a
draft budget. It will change before it it is adopted. Hopefully, not in major ways, but there will be some changes as we go through the um workshops and the public hearing process. Right now, this is a balanced budget and it will be a balanced budget with a 17.8% reserve. So, we're very proud of
the budget that that we have placed before you. A lot of hard work went into this. Um, kudos to the finance team and to all the department directors as well. We have reduced operating um expenses and we have moved out some capital projects in order to reach the the balance budget and and the level of
reserve uh that we're presenting to you today. and Les is going to elaborate upon a lot of that as well as we go through the general fund. Um today, as the mayor said, is informational. We're not expecting decisions. Uh we're looking for direction though maybe on
some uh if you have comments or questions on the budget. Uh again, this is the city manager's budget presented to the city commission, but ultimately it is your budget uh to be adopted. And so we'll respond to any questions or comments that you have. Um this is the deepest dive that the city commission is
going to do into our budget. We're going to look at new initiatives and init and CIP projects and we don't have that many to present to you. We're going to look at uh and we're going to take your direction on any initiatives you'd like to see or direction on those initiatives. We're going to look at property tax reform and the projected
budget shortfall uh moving forward. So, we're going to touch upon that and the plan uh for a contingency budget as well. Uh we're going to look at storm related expenses and reimbursement. You've asked for that throughout the year uh to to understand where we stand with the storm reimbursement. And then we're going to go into revenue
expenditures and projections across all funds. And that's the deepest dive, as I said, that you're going to do uh throughout this process. Um and then the uh personnel request for 2027. Uh as you all know during our gender briefings, um we are recommending no new positions,
but there are some reclasses. Health benefits fund discussion because we need to talk about that and we'll talk about that at the second workshop as well. And then the city commission direction and discussion at the very end of the meeting. So, um we are scheduled to go till 4:00. Um and we may just do that
because there is obviously a lot to cover. This is a very challenging year uh for all of us uh in local government as you very well know. And so um the we do have a quick turnaround. I'm trying to get to the to the next series of budget meetings. We have a quick
turnaround as you know uh to August 4th for the second budget meeting budget workshop. um at that budget workshop August 4th and I'm just trying to frame this for where this ship is going. We'll look for final direction on that tenative budget. Uh we'll have the board of finance report for all of you and
then we'll do the aid to organizations discussion as well. And then September 3rd will be your first public hearing on the tenative budget and then September 17th will be your final public hearing. Um and um again we're going to be talking about the contingency budget we'll be looking at in October. So with
that, mayor, without anything further from the commission, I would hand this over to less than if that's all right. >> Yeah. I just wanted to say on the contingency budget, I mean, obviously, and I'm, you know, I'm just speaking to my colleagues here. Um, you know, how we kind of lead in that way, I think, is is
up to us at the end of the day. Um and um you know I personally think it is important to let the voters have an idea of of what the tradeoffs are if they decide um to vote for or against the referendum. You know, it's it's always
nice to be out there and at least and you know, like these are the things that are actually going to happen because I think um there are some people that think nothing it it'll be business as usual, which it won't and we know that and u by being able to discuss some of those things and understand what the
true impacts will be u before the actual vote to me is going to be really important. So, but in the meantime, we all knew we're going to have a tight budget as it was anyway, and I know staff's done a lot of work already to make sure this budget comes in um with with some significant um cutbacks as
well. Um and it'll be up to us to see if there's more that we want to do with that. So, um Okay. Yeah. So, I'll turn it to uh Les and Jean. >> Great. Good morning, mayor, vice commissioners. Less Tyler, the finance director. I'm here with Gan, our budget manager. Um, first section we'd like to
go through today is we have some new initiatives and CIP projects in the 27 budget and we'd like to walk through those by department and we'll start with the city manager department and then the plan is for each director to give a brief update for each project and answer any questions you may have and I'll turn
it over to the city manager. >> So actually the E which is education exploration program is starting is graduating today right? Where is that graduation? right here. So, we don't have to move very far. Uh, well done. I think that's been a very uh
advantageous program for a business community. And then the fire assessment. I think you're up to up to date on the fire assessment you far as moving forward with advertising for the request for proposal. >> So, I'm thinking sorry um you know we'll go through these and and at any given
time during uh each of the departments if there's any questions just let me know and we can jump in. So, uh, cuz I don't want to at each time ask, "Hey, any questions about that unless it's a long list, but so but but that being said, >> did you say?" >> Uh, no. I mean, as you go, if you've got
something on one of the lists, I mean, I'll just kind of turn any questions and just speak quickly. Otherwise, we're going to move on. >> Okay. All good. Okay. Okay. Next. Fire rescue. >> Does the the
>> new initiatives and CIP projects. >> Okay, so the new initiative >> sorry >> Bob Bob's up. Yeah, >> I'm ahead of it. >> Okay, thank you. Bob Iron Smith, economic development director. Uh we got a few new initiatives here. They're all CRA related. They are not general fund.
Uh one of the most important ones to us is to update our CRA master plan. This master plan here that you've seen and it's on the web. This was done in 2011. It is time to get a new CRA master plan. Uh this CRA master plan will include uh public input, sharetses, meetings with
merchants, data analysis and so forth. We've done a creative partnership here recognizing cost or or a big consideration. We went ahead and are going to utilize Ford Penllis is going to help us do this. Uh our uh stake in this is as you see about 49 or $50,000.
This would be for an economic study. uh they're going to put in $50,000 for a landscape architect to help with graphics and then they're going ahead and going to provide all their time. So this whole stud is probably about a quarter of a million but our contribution is only about 50,000 but it is time to get a new CRA master plan in
play. The one we have is very old and dated. We need to make sure that we start to get unity with all the downtown all the merchants to look at things kind of holistically. So uh that's the first one. The second one there is north 19 entranceway improvements. This is for a
concept plan. Uh this is over by uh Skinner and Alt 19, the the West End, that whole area. We've always done very well when we've gone ahead and enhanced and made our downtown look a little bit better. And the Northway into our downtown needs uh some additional uh
work in there. So, this would include a concept plan showing streetscaping, median improvements, landscaping, and things of that nature. Uh the last one, Virginia and Milwaukee right here next to city hall. We currently uh because that's a a one-way strip and we want to make sure that people don't come in there. That's why you see those do not
enter signs. Currently, what's out there is what we call plastic ballards. It doesn't really have that sense of place that we like. What we want to see is a concrete curving, landscaping, irrigation, and things of that nature. It's what we do in the rest of downtown, creating a sense of place. And that's
the other uh initiative. Be happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> Any questions for Bob? >> Mayor May. >> Sure. Thank you, Bob. Sure. >> Um, on for the master plan, right, you
said that it was uh what you held up was from 2011. >> Yes. >> And so it's been 15 years since we've updated the master plan. >> Correct. >> The CRA is only going to last another six. And is it worth the money investment in
updating the the new to a new plan when we're already at the tail end of the CRA? Certainly great question, Commissioner. I I think yes, because we're going to see the CRA maybe continue on maybe just not with the county component, might just be a city initiated. We need to
make sure the downtown stays strong. So, we're going to need a master plan that still maintains and enhances the downtown even after the 2033 sunset date. So, that's why it's important to do it. Yes. >> Okay. And on the Virginia and Milwaukee ballout improvements,
uh, for $75,000, I'm I'm looking at the sense of place. And I'm wondering how that's defined versus what's wrong with it now. It seems to be functioning. It seems to be working. We're hearing from
the residents that we're they're questioning the way we spend our money. And so I think it takes we should at least be stepping back going, is this really something that's [clears throat] worth it? Especially when it it's not going to add any it's not going to make it safer than it
it apparently already is. I Well, I haven't heard of any issues at that intersection. And [snorts] so we're going to spend 75,000 to make it prettier. >> Well, I think it's function. Oh, I'm sorry. >> No. and and and that and that's kind of it without disregard to I understand we want a pretty downtown and have it
welcoming but you know >> there actually is an issue isn't there with the bicycles bicycles >> yeah through it's both there is a set of considerations trying to understand what you're saying commissioner uh there's also a function component yes we have the do not enter signs plastic pards but when you actually have a physical curb
it's much more of a barrier it's something that's much more a physical presence to say do not come down this way on on a oneway there's been a lot of concern that motorists still could sneak through that area. And when you have more of a physical presence, it's a barrier, but it also makes it easier for pedestrians
to walk across. It's just a safer area. The plastic balls don't really give the safe passage for a pedestrian walking across uh the street. So, it's kind of both. And it is CRA dollars, and that's pretty much what part of our plan is to create sense of place, safety, and a strong uh entrance way into our
downtown. So, it's all those things, you know. >> Okay. >> Are you done? You good? Okay. >> Yeah. >> And looking at that 75,000, is that something that we would contract or could our city staff [clears throat] >> do that? And you know, I guess I'd like to have a little more explanation of
what obviously it's right here. What what what what would this look like in the future? >> Yeah. Yeah. Both those things. And this could come in less. Remember, this is just a little bit of a placeholder. I've talked quite a bit with with Clay or Engineer. I don't want to speak for Clay, but I think this is something that could be designed inhouse. It is rather
simple. So I think we can save certainly on the design but certainly deferred to clay but I think it's something we talked about that could be done in house and as far as the rest of it it's just concrete landscape and irrigation it probably come in less but it's just hard for us to know today you know exactly till we go out with a contractor what
we'd probably try to do is to tie it into another project okay >> for mobilization to get the scale down and the cost >> that's all I had mayor thank you >> Mr. What? >> Vice Mayor, sorry. >> Related to Commissioner Ga's question on
the CI master plan supplement. Um, so if I understand correctly, the county share of that is $250,000. Excuse me, Vice. No. Uh, the countyy's going to put in 50,000 and all the rest is their staff time, which could amount to about $150,000.
So, it's a pretty big shot for them. >> Okay. >> So, it's probably easily a quarter of a million dollar type study. and their contribution is 50 and we're putting in 50 as leverage. >> Is there any sort of requirement in the CRA process for this other than our
desire and need to update our master plan? >> No, certainly something on the, you know, on the statutes that you should be looking to update your master plan to make sure you're hitting all the goals on your vision. So, it is a pretty important item. It is pretty much the blueprint or framework for the downtown is what gets included. And I think over
the years, you know, the visions change, uh, stakeholders change, merchants change, obviously, uh, something new that just came up obviously was a wet zone. So, I think a lot of different things need to be looked at with this master plan. And I think the important thing is our downtown is an economic
engine. You know, it's not only just property tax revenue, it's penny for panelis, it's utility, it's a whole dynamic. And I think it's very important that we have something that will run with us even after the sunset. So maybe it's just a city CRA at that point in
time, which is which is fine. You don't want to see it deteriorate. It's kind of like working out and exercising. You know, you get to a certain point, if you just shut it down, things start to degrade, and we certainly don't want to see that. >> Okay. So, basically, the the vision in the plan itself will go well past the
sunsetting of the CRA. In my mind, yes, vice mayor. I think it's very important and I I have had discussions with city manager Jennifer Brantley here that there needs to be some type of tool uh for a city CRA and a city revenue source to that downtown because if we don't
take care of it over the years, just like our homes, whatever we do, you need to continue to invest in it. And this is a very strong economic engine, especially when the city is pretty much residential, right? We only have 5% commercial. So, we want to make sure that we keep this going. >> Okay.
>> Oh, that's great. Thank you. >> Follow up. >> Sure. Go ahead. >> Bob, just because I heard it twice when you were talking about the ball bouts. >> Yes. >> Uh, you said concrete twice. >> And so, I know this isn't about design or anything, but do you just have some sort of I don't know if this is the
appropriate time, but I would like something other than concrete. I look at the improvements the DOT is doing on alternate 19 going up to Curu and you just see it's just a sea of concrete going down >> and it's just to me that is not sense of place.
>> Commissioner, I I I agree commissioner if I if I could it probably I'm assuming it would not be very dissimilar than what you're seeing at the roundabouts >> that were done on those approaches. It's it's concrete curbing but there's landscaping in the middle. >> Yes. I I probably didn't articulate that
clear enough, Commissioner. It's a concrete curb as as Jorge mentioned with landscaping and irrigation and mulch and things like that. So yeah, I probably didn't uh portray that good enough, but yes. >> Well, that and I'm probably a little sensitive to it as well.
>> No, I I'm glad you are. >> Well, there's a there's a joke there for sure. You think [laughter] >> I'm glad I'm glad you are. >> Thank you, Bob. >> Yep. >> Commissioner Gowen concrete. Yes. Sensitive issue. Yes. As as it should be. Um, uh, Bob, I had one question.
[snorts] >> The, uh, enhance enhancement. >> Yes. >> Cuz you're trying to do one at New York, too. As that's on, is that on some list? New York and Maine. >> In the future, it is, mayor. In the future years, we would look at some type of maybe median improvement there to the
east of our current intersection would pass there. Yeah. >> And the entrance way feature that you'd be looking at in Alt 19 though. >> Yeah. >> Would be would it be actually right where the CRA begins, which is what, Howard or what? What street is this? >> No. This uh actually uh it's Jackson Street is kind of our north boundary,
but no, this would be right around that Skinner area would be part of our delineation. When you look at it with some critical eyes, there's an awful lot of DOT striping and gore areas and things of that nature that I think we could really tidy up with some landscaping and make it a real feature
when you come into our downtown. And anytime we demarcate or delineate our downtown, uh we we get a a pretty good push out of that. So, we're pretty sensitive to that. >> Well, I kind of like the idea just because second main street I think Skinner is going to be the second main street, but
>> that's a comment, so I'm not going to get that started. >> No, I No, I I agree. That was the whole goal was that was by forgetting or downtown. So, yep. >> Okay. All right. We're going to move on then. Um, next. [snorts] >> Good morning. Michael Handoga, fire
chief. um here to talk about two projects for fiscal year 27 that are uh replacing uh existing uh equipment as part of a just updating our our equipment for the department. First one is uh replacing the bunker gear extractor. The uh current uh bunker gear
extractor and that is basically a specialized cleaning device uh for our bunker gear that goes into the fire uh the the firefighters wear into the fires. The current one is 28 years old. it has reached end of service life. Uh getting parts for it is uh very
difficult and we had a significant uh out of service time with it in fiscal year 25 uh because we could not get parts for it. So uh we have uh applied for a grant or we are applying in the process of applying for a grant through the state uh to pay for either a portion
or all of that. So uh we put the money in here as a placeholder uh if we do not receive the grant. Second is the replacement of the extrication equipment. Uh we actually broke this up over two fiscal years to try to uh smooth some of the costs. Um
the we have contracted some of the uh the extrication equipment. We had it on uh additional apparatus. Uh kind of our new model is that we're bringing all the extrication equipment to our two specialized units which is uh squad 62 and truck 62 out on Belchure. And uh the
current equipment is reaching end of life. The the equipment that we're going to be replacing it with is uh the the newest technology saltwater submersible um battery powered and uh typically has a service life of about 5 to 6 years.
This too we are applying for a grant through firehouse subs. So uh hopefully we will be able to get a portion of this paid through uh through firehouse. The maximum amount that they'll allow for a grant is about $40,000. So, uh we would not get all of it uh covered, but we
would get a portion of it in fiscal year 27. >> Great. Okay. Um any questions on fire? >> So, is [clears throat] this a day we had an incident with an an airplane out on the causeway? >> Were we geared or do we have the equipment that we could have went in
that salt water if we had to cut those people out? >> Yes. So, and that's actually a great this is a perfect example of why we have the saltwater submersible equipment. Um, the older equipment we would not have been able to to operate in that that type of environment. Uh, older equipment
is hydraulic based and it has a hydraulic pump essentially. Uh, it it looks like a small little pump that you have to take with you and it has a gas power. It doesn't it would not operate in those conditions. Okay. >> The the the newest technology is saltwater submersible. So it would
absolutely work in those conditions and it's battery powered so it can be basically taken either from the shore out there or there was a plan to put it onto the boat if needed. So we had additional in that situation we had additional resources coming. >> So on that on that day we were prepared
if we needed to cut that plane apart. >> Absolutely. >> Good. Thank you Mike. That's all I had. Mayor, >> anybody else? >> Okay, we'll go to uh next one. [clears throat] Good morning, mayor, vice mayor, commissioners. Michael Nai, director of IT services. This uh project involves
the installation and setup of a new door access control system in the fire administration building and all the fire stations. It would be done in phases. Um phase one would be fire administration and uh fire station 60 and then the following year in FY28 uh the remaining
fire stations. Uh the new new system we will be programmable um into the existing Honeywell system we use here at city hall and the EOC. Um so basically it's just a a door access control system and the reason why is the
the I don't know if it's sieges and and chief can answer that but they have to have protection for the medical supplies that are in the building >> fire station is >> I don't remember the acronym >> so is the uh criminal justice
information system and essentially if um if there is any sieges protected uh information and also just the HIPPA protected information which is the the health information. So if we have information uh on a screen where there
is a call with an address and kind of what the call is related to um that could be a violation potentially of HIPPA. So one way to to control that is we just control access right to the building. So it protects some of the um the city from some potential violations
in that that respect. >> Okay. >> In the future goal is to get all city buildings on the door access control system so employees would use a badge instead of keys and we could regulate administer who has access when they have access. This is a start because of the
uh requirements that sus has that we want to start with the fire administration and fire stations. So we actually in violation now. >> So um
>> we have to be careful how I >> want to answer that question. >> Yeah, I don't want to answer. No, we're >> okay. Got it. >> Yeah, >> let's not answer that question then. Okay. Uh any other questions? >> Uh yes, I do. Mayor, um of course I'm sure you had more requests than this.
Could you help me understand the process that we're seeing now as a result of this? what other projects might have been eliminated in IT, that kind of thing. Or is this the only one that came forward? This is the only one that came forward because I think we've done a tremendous job citywide in so many other
IT initiatives to make us more secure that we are maintaining things instead of just keep adding more projects. So, this will enhance our security for our buildings. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I would imagine that on other areas of capital
investment that we probably had other projects that have been eliminated before it got here. So, just have that as a standard question as we go forward. Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Okay, move on.
>> Good morning, mayor, vice mayor, and commission. Uh, Tony Mali, parks and recreation director. uh have a few projects to kind of go over through for the fiscal year 2027 budget. The first is the uh Denita Marina ferry dock
reconstruction. That is the grant-f funded project uh with PSTA on uh upgrading the ferry connection uh that came through um Congresswoman Luna's office. Uh the second item is the Highland Highlander pool resurfacing.
[clears throat] This $280,000 request is uh to continue operations at the pool until the full rebuild can begin. This involves uh resurfacing of the liner of the pool as well as the pool deck to meet health and
uh safety guidelines for our licensing. Uh the third that I want to discuss is the memorial dedication study to uh inventory and review all our memorials uh memorial benches, memorial trees, memorial rocks. We have a lot of
different features throughout the parks uh to get an inventory uh kind of a history on that and to determine some strategies moving forward on whether to pursue a replacement program. And then uh the third or the final uh for fiscal
year 2027 is the initial stages to pursue uh CAPRA accreditation. CAPRA is the commission of accreditation of parks and recreation agencies through the national recreation and park association. uh it is a uh structured program that kind of ensures that the
agency is is utilizing resources and engaging the community in the most effective and efficient way possible. Uh that is uh of course it's going to be a couple year uh project. The initial year would essentially be internal efforts to kind of gather the materials that are
necessary to prove accreditation uh organized and then the uh fiscal year 2028 is the initial assessment which involves a site visit from um accreditation visitors as well as a review of all the standards that are required to achieve that. I'm happy to answer any questions on any of those.
>> Questions? >> Yes, mayor. Um I'll note here the Highland Park uh pool reservicing. Um what is that telling us about the overall uh pool project and is this an intermediate or what are we doing here?
>> This is a intermediate step in keeping the pool functional. The the um request I I believe uh and I I'll defer to finance a little bit on the structure of the financing of the pool renovation. The initial numbers for the pool renovation came in higher than expected.
Uh so we were reviewing those plans. We are close to 90% plans on the renovation. Uh with some of those considerations in place. So the timeline even if we wanted to um pursue the pool uh sooner, we would have to take some
steps to be able to continue operations of the the current pool out there. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any questions? Um >> yeah, related to the Highland uh pool, Highlander pool. Um >> did we look So the resurfacing is really
about the decks, right? >> It's about the deck and the interior of the pool. So the Okay. the the gunnite and and the finish on there. Um you see some areas that are peeling off and and things like that just from the age of the surface. >> Okay. Yeah. Good. Okay. That's good to
hear. The second question is um did did you all look at um any other types of capital improvement that may kind of extend that and and the the life since we're moving out the uh the actual
renovation of it? Um like pumps. Um did you guys look at that as a possible capital improvement plan? because I my understanding is is that a lot of the the water quality issues we've had at the pool has been due just to inadequate
circulation and the pump, you know, obsolete pumps and all that kind of stuff. >> So, that that's uh accurate assessment on that. Uh part of that is also um loss of water at the pool whether through cracking or or other elements and part
of the surfacing does address some of that to it's not a permanent fix and and there will hopefully not within the lifespan of this pool be a failure but um the pumps we have had to address this current fiscal year just because of a failure of those systems. Uh that was
the delay in getting the pool open this year. I'm happy to report that it is open and we are in full use. Uh but the those pumps that that we did install have have solved that problem >> and I appreciate that too and I I do this for the good of the order here. Um
I I know that there's been a lot of collaboration between city of Deneden and Clearwater because I utilize the the Clearwater pools. Um and uh I that's awesome. I they you I actually want to just put a
shout out that um you know they city of Clearwater parks and recck very much enjoys working with your team Tony. >> We appreciate that and our aquatics team has has gone far beyond to try and put the band-aids and the duct tape in place to keep this thing running.
>> That uh additional 27,000. How does that mesh with the money that we received from Luna's office? Is this an additional 200,000? >> So there there was a match requirement and uh less if you want to provide any details on on the match on that, but the
the um uh Representative Luna uh had secured a appropriation for 600,000. >> I thought that I thought it was 800,000 that day that was brought in. >> I think it was 800 800,00 basically basically a 20% match and
that's our that 207 would be our contribution. >> Okay. And the other one was on that [clears throat] real quick. What is that wall recover? Where's that? Where's this partition wall at? >> So that's at the community center. There's three rooms that have partitions in there or three partitions in a couple
different rooms that you can see if you're looking at the surface, the fabric's peeling off of them and it's kind of unsightly and opening up to the material underneath. This is to refinish those. >> Okay. and the memorial dedications, you know, does that include those trees that
have plaques along the trail? Is will that include that or is that the counties? >> We we anticipate trying to capture those because we're trying to learn about all the programs that put those in place. Uh I believe like some of the areas up in uh the trailside oasis north of Kuru. Uh
that spot there was initiated and implemented by the city. some of those even though that's uh state land and we we operate under agreement and we have some of those along the trails. So, it's a mix and that's part of the study to figure out who's responsible for what. >> Okay. And I know I'm I'm sure I'm not the only one up here that had uh
families contact us after the hurricanes about some benches out on the causeway. Is that will you look into that also at the same time? >> We've actually uh have some background on that. We are missing I believe 11 of the dedicated benches. Uh there are others that we have in storage that we can't reinstall until we meet some
standards that the county has has put in place for us and we're investigating how we can move that forward. >> Thank you Tony. That's it mayor. >> Sure. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> Mayor me. >> I think. >> Yes. Um so in essence >> and then Commissioner G after Commissioner. >> Do you want to go first? >> No. [snorts] Okay. All right. So what
we're seeing here is only a city portion of a project, [laughter] not the entire project. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. So that is why the tennis project's not on here. Oh, hopefully the tennis projects will be initiated and encumbered by the end of this fiscal year. >> Okay. Thank you,
>> Mr. G. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh Tony, in reference to the memorial dedication or city manager, is this I've been talking about a a sidewalk study or a bench study, is this part of that or
>> Yeah, it would be. And it's it really uh this this started as a result of that that discussion that we had and what's happening on the causeway as far as dedicated benches. And so what we're really trying to do is capture all the different memorial programs that we have and put them all together in one program.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. I I got a couple questions. Um, so but at some point we're going to get a full view full-on view of the pool cost benefit, how long we can keep it going cuz you know we we know we're going to
put off the building of the pool. So um if you know for a lot of different reasons, but uh but how long can we what's it going to cost us and how long of a life are we going to get out of the current pool? >> That that's correct, mayor. We're working on that right now. We we hope to have that to you very soon. >> When you will we see that during the budget process or
>> uh Yes. Yes, [snorts] we will. Okay, that's awesome. And then um I'm going to ask you, city manager, this question on the the ferry dock. Um it's a little more complicated in the sense that whether or not the referendum passes in November could mean different things
about the ferry PT PSTA, whether the ferry makes sense for us to spend for. So talk talk about that just for a second. So, first of all, we do have some time uh to take into consideration what's going to happen in November because the appropriation uh we're not
even going to see the appropriation till next year apparently. And so, we have not entered into agreement with PSTA. Um and we've we've uh there was a discussion with I believe Jorge and Nicole and PSTA and Jennifer Cowan as well as far as the timing goes and everybody agreed that we need to wait
till after November. We spend $120,000 a year uh supporting that ferry. it's well worth it given the wrership and what it's bringing to downtown. Uh but given that PSTA is also going to be impacted if the referendum is approved, we're not sure what kind of fairy service they're going to continue to provide in support.
And so we need to kind of put this one um uh in our in our back pocket until we can figure out what's going to happen in November. >> Mayor, if I could elaborate, we just received a word yesterday from PSTA. Um there was some discussion internally between ourselves and PSTA as to how
we'd move forward, whether the city would engage the consultant to do the design work and then um contract the work thereafter. Uh there was a final determination made given some concerns that Jen Cohen had raised on how we do that and making sure that whatever
consultant is engaged meets all the federal requirements to do so and our GEC contracts don't currently have that language embedded. So, the decision has been made that PSTA will be the lead agency as far as procuring the design consultant and then advertising the
contract for construction. And as Jennifer mentioned, Jen Cohen's advice is let's go ahead and proceed forward, get an interlocal agreement in place and then wait and see what happens with funding. >> Good. Thank you. That's good clarification. Um, okay. Um, no other questions. I want to move on. I think
public works is next. >> Good morning. Sue Bartlett, public works director. Um, as to the question asked earlier, we have an extensive CIP. This just happens to be the only one showing up on your new initiatives. And, um, as
you probably know, we have a Gabian repair replacement program. Uh, but this particular item is showing up as the, um, funding source as the state allocation for 850,000. So, it is an ongoing program um that
we've gotten a grant for uh for from uh for around $2 million and that work is ongoing through our engineering department. >> Okay, no questions. We'll keep going to utilities and engineering. >> Good morning, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, Clayton Watkins,
Utilities and Engineering. Uh the two projects we have today, um the first one is for the survey. It's for an in-house design to replace a segment of reclaimed water line between Harrison Drive and Sarah Road. That failed on us a few times last year. So, this is survey the
survey will pay for that as in house design with construction in the following year. Um the second project is basic is us as utilities getting on the U maintar service to help with work orders and and project maintenance is as our current systems are are on an access
baits that are failing and we we just need a new software system. So we're joining public works using the main mainstar system excuse me. >> Okay any questions? >> May I? >> Sure. Go ahead.
>> Thank you. Um what is the impact of these new projects on uh the utility fees? >> Currently there will these will not have any changes. We're still having our our proposed incre excuse me increase in
October the 15% per the study. >> Okay. And so this is under that threshold. I just and it's not even for next year but as a result of this I don't want three years from now. Oh, we have to change those percentage increases that we talked
about even more because of [snorts] I want to make sure that the long-term plan we are fine with our rate study and we're not going to impact the residents on this. Well, so as as as you can see here, we're looking to do another rate study in next year in fiscal year 28.
And a lot of that has to do with if and there are there have been recent state statutes that are unfunded and and specifically the biosid statement you see for fiscal year 29 and 30 that is stuff that was handed down to us last year that may actually affect that rate study. Correct. >> Okay. And and I understand then right if
we're getting a mandate from the state Yeah. that that we [clears throat] can't account for that until until it hits us. I just want to make sure the things that we can control we are controlling. >> Yes sir. >> Okay. >> And I think that's where that software some of that will help us do maintenance and you know control making sure we are
um turning valves and doing maintenance stuff that will help us you know keep the system up and running. >> Right. Thank you. >> Anybody else? I mean, I just I I just had the conversation yesterday with city manager, but I mean, it seemed like we just did a utility rate study, and I get
I get the rate studies, but I remember when we had Bolton years ago, and they gave us the big software program, and we just had to put in some numbers, update, and voila, we didn't need $100,000, a whole new study. So, I just put that in you guys' claw. I mean, it sometimes it
does feel like we're over, you know, overpaying for over for lots of studies. So [clears throat] >> um >> so that will be 3 years from the previous study in 2028. Um and I we're probably estimating a little high on that feed. So >> Okay. Okay. All right.
>> Question mayor. >> Sure. >> Uh Clay, when we look at these rate studies, they are traditionally around are we able to cover the enterprise fund that they're associated with. What happens if the opposite is true that we're having a surplus of revenue?
we would adjust the rates accordingly. I just want to be sure of that. Thank you. >> Sure. Go ahead. >> Just in terms of it, it does seem that the rate studies come up fast and furious. Um and and I hear you on the $100,000. We'll we'll staff will look at what we can do. Um as far as getting
that cost down, but we did commit to the city commission that we would bring these rate studies back to you every three years. Traditionally, it was five years. We decided in this dynamic economy, we can't do that anymore. And so, it seems like we just did it. It really does. But it's 3 years, right? And I and I and I I get that and I
appreciate that. I just just feels like if it's every 3 years, you know, less changes, maybe costs change, but I don't know. It seems like a lot. So, >> okay. I got you >> real quick for that. >> Right here. >> Oh, sorry.
>> I'm using another microphone. >> Is that the >> Yeah, I'm not sure where [laughter] Seems like the flu bug is hit. Um >> Yeah. I don't blame you at all. >> I'm trying. [laughter] We both got it. >> Uh, yeah. Um,
>> you know, I'm not real nuts about >> perfectly fine. [laughter] >> Yeah, I feel great. I was >> Where you guys been? Um, you know that, uh, I'm not real nuts about studies and consultants for $100,000. Can any of that be handled by
city staff, Board of Finance, Lust's office? Can we bring some of that in-house rather than those costs? >> Just want to mention our we've discussed that uh the next one that's coming up is the storm water that needs to be looked
at uh again in the near future. And the plan was for staff myself working with Sue Sue's team to take a look at the model they had, do our own forecast, and see what we're finding. And if we're finding that we're okay, we may push that study off for a year or two. And if
we find we think there's challenges, we we probably need to do the study. So staff is planning on giving it a first look if that makes sense. >> Good. That's very similar to what I wanted to hear. Thank you. >> Yeah, that's a great answer. [snorts] >> Because I I it does kind of feel like even to us, I think sometimes it's like
because I get it. I get that you don't have staff time to get into it, but you know, every time you turn around, it's like 100,000 for this study and 100,000 for that. Um, but I get it. Good question, Steve. Um, okay. one.
>> Okay, this is uh the left portion of this slide are projects that were uh proposing that we remove as project pages in in the budget. These projects are uh implemented or ongoing uh initiatives and the first one is Tyler
Technologies fire prevention software and the next is Panella solar co-op solar united neighbors and then and the last is ready for 100 and on the right side these this is a project removed from the business plan being proposed to be removed from the business plan that is inactive or canceled and that's the
uh paid time off initiative and if you have any questions uh happy to answer questions here. >> Mayor, may I thank you. Under the projects removed from the business plan, these are projects that we've had that
are ongoing. And so what what's the what's the result of this? If we stop those business initiatives on the Peneliser Co-op or Ready for 100, what does that mean to stop those? >> Yeah, the the ones on the left, we're not stopping. Those projects are continuing. The only thing we're
proposing is we have project pages that track all these and we're just proposing that they're already ongoing and we do them every year. So, we're thinking we don't need a project page anymore. We we look we look at that every year, >> right? It's just standard operating now. >> Right. Okay. >> Correct. Yeah.
>> Okay. Anything else? Okay. I personally love paid time off, but if there's no uh you know, nobody wants it, I'm not going to push it. Um, [clears throat] okay. So, uh, it is expensive transition though. Um, okay. So, now we're going to move to city
commission discussion on initiatives and CIP projects. So, lesson and Gene, I guess you're going to guide us through that a little bit. >> Yeah, this is just really an opportunity for for the commission to uh uh are there any any projects that that you want to propose in 20 27 budget or or
mention that we haven't just walked through? >> Okay. So, um, anybody have a project that that's on the ongoing list that, uh, you have a concern with or or you have something new to bring up.
And since we don't have any money, be careful with anything new. >> Mayor, if I may. >> Uh, yeah, let's just go around the table on that. Go ahead. I'll start with you, Commissioner G. >> Uh, thank you. Yeah, I just recently brought up two projects. One of them was the sidewalk plan, which sounds like it
has been, but I also it talked about >> putting >> under the memorial >> Oh, yeah. Okay. >> study. >> Okay. >> Uh and my other one was uh somehow pulling or combining all of our Scottish
arts under one [snorts] bucket so that it's manageable. >> Nicole, you want to answer that? >> Get yourself a microphone. There we go. the healthy mic. The unhealthy mic >> and I've seen something in the presentations but not this morning. So,
>> yes, we did pull all of the Scottish uh related cultural funding under one uh BPI um in the plan. So, you will see it there. Um everything's listed. Um there's still the some of the items are still budgeted within the different
departments, but now within the one BPI, you'll see everything that goes towards that that funding. We we should have included this here and we did not, but it's about 130,000 I think for all of the programs together >> in one place. >> Wonderful. Thank you. >> And and just for umformational purposes,
I didn't include it because we kind of merged it with the sister city pro project already. So because we kind of renamed it and merged it into one, so it wasn't technically brand new, >> right? Is that okay? >> Yeah, because I I did see it in in the updates. I we didn't talk about it this
morning. So just wanted to clarify. I saw what I saw. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, mayor. >> Um, you had a question about that but just left my head. Okay. So, we'll go to Commissioner Dard. >> Nothing to add. Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh, vice mayor, [snorts] >> you want me to pass you for a minute or? >> Yeah, go to Steve. >> Okay, Commissioner Tamber, >> I have really nothing to add, Mayor. >> Okay. Um, so in looking at I'm going to
the budget page because that's where I originally looked at him, but um, a couple things. Uh, strategic planning. So, uh, we were going to have data boards. Um, is that do we have data boards now or I forget the name for the
I'm thinking missing the >> dashboards. Thank you. This wasn't coming to me. >> Yeah, we do have a live dashboard uh page. Uh, we just are doing a little bit of tweaking. We haven't published it or kind of shared it, but it is out there. Uh we just have a couple couple final
tweaks to do and then we'll probably do a post in the Dun Eden news and then share it all with you. >> Are we going to get a demo at the commission level or >> Sure. >> Yeah. I mean [laughter] this was the the hype. So it' be great to get a demo and
show us all the you know how it all go and >> Yeah. >> Okay. So will that be more than once it's there it'll be front and center people can go right to the dashboard for key stuff. Yeah, we we have discussed where to put it on the front page of the website. So, you'll be able to see the dashboard and go directly to the to the
dashboard from the front page. >> Okay. Well, >> yeah. >> Um [clears throat] the uh secession career planning path $5,300. I know it's a little amount. I was just curious what is that? >> Good morning, Mayor, Vice Mayor. Theresa
Smalling, director of HR and risk management for the city. Uh this the amount that was put there was just a a placeholder if you will. Uh basically we've been doing most of the work inhouse. So we're working with
departments on uh career ladders and succession planning for the senior staff. Uh so it's in its um the career pathing has been go ongoing for a while but the succession planning we're still
uh trying to get underway with that. There's been some informal discussion but [music] nothing to set down as a plan just yet. >> Okay. Um I think that's I think that's all my on the only other one. You know
Midtown parking facility is a I guess no that's that's more of a capital improvement project. Oh, never mind. Um, [snorts] okay. Anybody else have a followup? >> Very quickly, um, so I see the Denedian boat club and Sailing Center, um, is on
there for fiscal year 28. Um, question I have is regarding the shaded line item there that has 25,000 in ARPA funding. Um, is that funding still there or
>> Yeah, that's still there. Yeah. >> All right. I was just curious because I thought ARPA was done. >> Yeah, ARPARE ARPA uh needs to be spent by December 31st, 2026. >> Okay. >> Uh but but the funding is still there. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And we'll be we will be bringing
back to commission just bringing up ARPA uh probably in August, September uh sort of uh some some revisions to the ARPA plan to make sure we spend all the dollars before that timeline. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to clarify it's interest
earnings that is attached to the um boat club. So interest earnings can be spent at any time. It's not tied to the December 31st, 2026 deadline for the grant funding. >> Perfect. Yeah. Good. Thank you for that clarification. >> And based on that, I mean, uh because it
seemed like what's in the ARPA money right now is like 300,000 reserve or something like that. Um, is that is that money we can just roll that into the general fund, right? >> Yes, we can. Yeah. >> Okay. So, it's not a problem to spend it. It's just so >> Right. Correct. Yeah.
>> So, again, my thoughts are we don't need to look for a way to spend it. We can just let it help us in our regular stuff here. But that's just my thought. Um, okay. Um, anybody else? [snorts] >> Okay. >> Sure. Go ahead.
And I know city manager, you talked about it right at the beginning, but uh beep and we're have graduation day today and I know it's not a whole lot of money each year, [snorts] but did did we find at least this first session, does it have value? Are we
getting are the business owners getting anything out of it? Is it reaching the goals that we wanted to reach in the implementation of it and the purpose? >> Go ahead, Nicole. Yes. Um we're actually really pleased uh
with the response and the interactions that we have. Um I do send a a recap after each session. Um and I hear back from a lot of the participants saying how much they how much they value it, how how much they've gotten out of it. Um we've had people who have been in the
community for a really long time. Uh people like, you know, Janette Donahghue from the chamber who said, "I had no idea that's how that worked." So, um I think it has been a really great uh asset for these individuals. And interestingly, um the participants that we had, while I thought we'd draw a lot
of downtown, we have representatives from all across the city, and I think that's what has made it even better. >> Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Actually, I guess uh I was going to say something about Midtown parking and it is on the initiative list, but um [snorts] you know that's something we're
not doing anything with Midtown parking uh building until after referendum. Right. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. [clears throat] Um All right. We'll go to the next item. [snorts]
Okay. This is some information on our on our property tax reform we'd like to share. And uh starting with uh just some highlights, the the it increases a homestead exemption on non-school taxes beginning in fiscal year 28. Uh it
increases the exemption to uh 150 and 28 and then result that results in a $4 million loss of a valarium for that year. And that's an estimate that these these numbers are sort of moving around with the county and also the state with our actual loss, but four million is a pretty close number. And for the second
year, it increases to $250,000 in 29 in future years. And that results in approximately a six $6 million loss in uh abarmor every year. >> So, mayor, if I may, I just want to elaborate on that. So, um
and we're the mayor and I are going to do some presentations tomorrow and then we have forums next week as well on the property tax. And these numbers uh we just got different numbers from the county than originally and from FCCMA as well. And so it is a very dynamic culture that we're in right now as we
you know it that's indicative of the fact that that we really don't know the impact as we have you know every organization trying to figure out exactly what that impact is. So if you see these numbers move around a little bit it's because we're we're we're using the county numbers. I think that they're
the best numbers for us to use uh moving forward. but we need to pick one and stick with it. Um, so, so as we get closer to the referendum, I'm sure we'll do that. But, but I just want to put out there that these numbers are different than than the original forums than and and so on and so forth. So,
>> well, my one question is, is it is it lower than 4 million or 6 million or is it higher and and again because >> Yeah. >> Right. I mean, I don't want to Yeah. Anyway, go ahead. >> I'm going to lose my halo here. Um the so the yeah we're at 3.9% the first year
and this is from the let's see >> uh revenue estimating conference right the rec so 3.9 the first year and then um subsequently 6.8 eight. So it's less the first year but more the second year.
So and that impacts that impacts us. So um you know I just want to be careful with with the numbers that we bandandy about. They're not absolute and we know we're working all with all agencies to try to get there. >> Um I'm just going to ask this. No
obviously as when we finish you can go forward but this does not reflect the roll down effect of EMS. >> Correct. It does not. >> We did get that. We have gotten those numbers from the county is what that would mean or >> yeah we have we have the impacts we we know EMS would be reduced by 33% revenue
stream. Uh >> well we don't know what that means to us except we can prorrate it. Have they given us the >> Yeah. Yeah. We can prorrate that and and come [clears throat] up with basically for EMS we would our revenue would go down from about two about 3 million a year to about 2.1 million a year roughly. >> 3 million to 2.1.
>> Yeah. Roughly. Yeah. >> And how about library cooperative? library cooperative is decreasing I believe by about 30% and that that would be a reduction of probably about uh 200,000 a year because we get about 680,000 now >> roughly
>> and um and anything else that comes to mind >> the only other thing would be the uh our the county pays 12% of our um our regular fire services and that revenue stream is going down by another 35 38% so they pay us about just over a million
now. So that would be reduced probably to about 650,000 or 700,000. >> So about 300 >> about 300,000 reduction. 350 probably reduction. >> Yeah. The CRA also of course. >> Yeah, that's right. So >> has an impact too. Small
>> 100 Yeah. 150,000 in 28 and I think we're around 250 270 and 29. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But uh I think some of that can be offset with some of the new development that could occur such as the Main Street Exchange, you know. >> Right. >> Yes. Um, no, it's a good point though,
but I guess that's my point. I we need to really make sure we've got a good sheet on all the rollover effects because I think that's part of the education plan, too. Um, you know, I mean, we can get crazy and just, you know, PSTA is going to get impacted for people that use buses, but that's going to be their job to educate. Um, you
know, but anything that directly impacts us, is that all you guys can think of? I mean, I ask everybody that question. >> That's all I know of right now. Yes, it directly impacts. Yeah. Okay. And we have we gotten any communication from the county? >> No, not actually, mayor. Okay. And I I
think also my understanding is that the county is going to um immediately look to law enforcement to the sheriff's office for decreases and so that's going to impact us as well. We're the largest contract city of the sheriff's department and so and we sign a yearly
contract as you know with them. So I think that we're going to be impacted there as well. We're going to be looking at decreases of levels of service uh for law enforcement as well. >> They're going to bring that down. They're not going to swallow that. So, >> or increases of cost. >> Right. >> Right.
>> No, I think that's that's that's a good one. >> Right. Well, and and really I mean I think that our position there needs to be and we're in a workshop is that there'll be increase in costs which is not uh tenable for us. It's not something that we can absorb. So, we need to say to them, okay, so where can
we decrease? I mean we have the CPO program right we have uh the special details we have the events and those types of things so it we need to approach it in a multiaceted way >> I'd very much appreciate a fact sheet summarizing what we just discussed
>> thank you >> no I I think that's what we need right >> what >> not yet [clears throat] >> okay um do do you have more to finish before we go general questions or >> did you want to finish your thought process and then we'll take questions or >> uh we got a couple more slides. Sorry.
>> Yeah. Okay. Then we'll go to go to questions. >> Um [clears throat] so for in in the 27 budget right now, we'll go through the general fund in in a few moments, but our estimated shortfall in the outer years is about 5.65 million uh from 28 to 32. Uh during
the 27 budget process early on, we asked all the departments to reduce their controllable operating costs by 20%. uh we did that citywide but focusing on the general fund for a moment without reducing service levels uh we we we asked everyone to look at that u in addition uh general fund departments are
asked to review all their contracts. We looked at all contracts professional services and and and agreements to are there potentials to for reductions and eliminations. We had a few minor reductions but uh but very few again not really affecting service levels. Uh the
city also evaluated savings, potential savings in the risk insurance area, health insurance and general fund fleet operations. We've looked at those to determine do we have uh fleet vehicles in parks and wreck for example we don't need uh and and and looking at those different areas. Uh find a little bit of
savings in those areas to date not a whole lot. And even even with these measures, additional budget reductions are needed and and they will result at this point. We feel that they will result in in service level reductions or imp or impacts. And our contingency plan are that we've
discussed a little bit is we are working on it now. U finance staff and the city manager have met with departments and we've uh discussed, you know, sort of giving them a number to work towards. Uh, and our goal is to have a reduction of $3 million that would go into effect
on January 1st, 2027. It would basically be nine months of of 27 fiscal year, but it go into effect on January 1st. If the vote passes in early November, it would be fully implemented on January 1st, 2027. If the vote does not pass, it would still be implemented. Our goal is
to implement it still, but at a slower pace uh through attrition over time. And down below are the departments that are are are being asked to do reductions. Uh there's, you know, quite a list there. The support departments are on the far right. support [snorts] departments include city commission, city attorney,
city clerk, city manager, finance, human resources, and then we're working with community development, uh, economic development, uh, and housing facilities, IT services, and we're including facilities and IT services because those are internal service funds that over
half their costs go to the general fund. So, they have a major impact on the general fund. also the library, parks and recreation and streets and you know and al obviously we we the the reduction can be an increase in fees and we've asked departments to look at that especially uh Tony and parks and wreck
increasing fees or or or reducing expenditures a combination of both. So that's our our plan is to bring that forward uh and have that we're asking the departments to have it completed by uh August 10th and our goal will be to
uh bring it to your commission uh in early September uh uh to go over a draft and then bring it back uh in either late September or or or early October for approval. >> Any question? >> Question. >> Yeah. Uh, so I'm going to do a round
table on questions and I'm going to do this. I'm going to do a little differently because it's very meaty even though it's three slides. Um, chance to ask questions and then maybe some commentary on kind of the the whole theory that's being put out to us. So start with vice >> add to just to what less. >> Sure. Absolutely. And then but then
we'll go to vice mayor. So I I want to be very clear that we will place a plan before the city commission to execute immediately but effective on January 1st if the referendum passes. I think it's it's our responsibility to
present to the city commission and for the city commission to adopt that plan moving forward so the public is fully cognizant of of what that plan entails. Um and it will include decreases in levels of service. It will include addressing some of the law enforcement
issues. It will include all of those things. And I met with a member of the public who was known to some of you, a very uh educated, intelligent member of the public. And and his whole um question, if you will, and some emails [clears throat] back and forth was, "Do
we have a plan?" And so we will have a plan before all of you. And it will take the form of a budget amendment. We can't adopt two separate budgets. We adopt one budget. This is our proposal subject to changes through this process and then put before you in October a uh the
contingency plan which would be a budget amendment with all of this uh included with within the budget amendment to be effective on January 1. >> And it would be nice if we knew and that is the county working towards a plan because so much of what they do is going
to roll down to us. So my understanding is uh the county is not working on the plan in the detail that we are. The county also has a structural budget deficit. They are working on that structural budget deficit um and and will address this referendum should it
be approved. That was what I heard um in the last meeting that we had. >> Yeah. I mean I'm just going to say this and then I'll open up questions. I I know there's some thinking of from some cities. Well, why are you going through all that till you know if it passes? Um, and really some of the same people that
said, "Why would you do early education things before?" Because it's not going to be on the ballot. It's not going to happen. They're not going to do it. They told us they weren't going to do it. And guess what? It's on the ballot. So, I think uh this is definitely the responsible way. Questions? Uh, Vice Mayor, >> thank you, mayor. Uh, that third
bullet's not clear to me. Um, if the vote doesn't pass, it'll be what will be implemented at a slower pace? Well, we would still we would still plan on uh implementing the reductions if if the reductions were related to positions. Uh
then we would we would uh impact those through attrition. We would we would not be freezing positions or or or doing anything else to try to get the labor savings. The labor savings would take longer and it' be more of a gradual uh for for for non labor cost. Most of
that would take place right away, but for labor cost, some of that would be slower because we do it through attrition rather than freezing or freezing and things like that. >> No, that makes perfect sense. Thank you. >> I was just a little confused on the that first bullet point, developing a
contingency plan to account for $3 million budget reduction. So, it's it has been set up. If this if this passes, we're ready to go. >> We're we're working on the plan now. you know, we we've we've met with departments and we're continuing to meet with them and they're they're right now,
you know, going through figuring out the most efficient way to do this. You know, uh the different departments and uh and we we've got more meetings ahead. But the goal is to have hopefully uh their plan by o August 10th so we so finance
can work through it with the city manager and make sure we're we're all comfortable with what we've got as far as will this will the savings work? do the numbers make sense? And then once we have it fine-tuned, uh we would hopefully bring it to commission in
draft form in in September, early September, and then uh get input and then bring it back to commission uh probably early October uh for your input again and and hopeful approval. >> And there were several homes that were damaged that received some pretty
significant reductions in their property tax. Has that been built back in now? because I would assume the majority of them are back paying the full price. Is that factored into any of our decisions here? >> Yeah, some of those have come back and uh and we're actually we've asked the
county for detailed list of that and we should have that we we're show we'll share that with your commission when we receive it. But uh some of them come have come back not all of them but some some have come back on the tax roll and we've asked for more information on uh our new construction numbers about about
a 60 or $70 million number and we know at least half that more than probably more than half that are are the damage ones coming back but we've asked for detail to share to to share that with the commission. Uh but but some of but but there's still there's still some that are not back on the tax ro for sure. And doesn't each year your taxable
amount on your home increase by a certain percentage? Is it like three or 4% per year? >> Yeah. If you're homesteaded, it could it can be no more than 3%. >> Okay. And have we fac >> CPI? Yeah. >> Okay. And and that's been factored into our numbers that's been baked into what we're doing here. Okay.
>> Yeah, that's been baked that's been baked into our 27 budget. Our our our property tax number we have right now in our 27 budget is is is from the assessor's office. It's it's it's what they their values uh on the tax roll as of January 1st of of this year. So, and
that's that's how it works. So, our 27 numbers are really firm. Our future year estimates are are just estimates, but 27's really firm. Yeah. >> Thank you, Les. That's it. Mayor, >> thank you. Okay, Commissioner C. >> Thank you, Mayor. uh the contingency
plan, right? If I understood that this is in addition to the 20% reduction that we're seeing in the 27 budget. >> Yeah, that's correct. Yes, it's in addition to >> and within the 27 budget and that 20% reduction, is there anything in that 20%
that is visible to the public? >> Uh you know, the only >> levels of service. >> Uh good question. the I'm going to turn the only department that had potential service level small potential service level reductions was was parks and wreck and Tony and I I'll turn that over to
Tony. Tony, can you think of any that impact with the 20%. >> Sure. Uh Tony Mali, parks and recreation director. Uh the uh items and I think we'll probably go into detail on this uh as we proceed. Um, we're looking at
deferring some activities that we had originally planned in the the budgets that carry over year to year. So, slowing down maintenance of certain items, um, reduction of contracted services, uh, things of that nature. Um, as far as the public impact, I I would
hope it'd be minimal, but it would be a service level reduction. Okay. >> Thank you. And actually, I would like it the opposite. I'd like to have a greatest impact on the public as possible. And because we're we're in an educating period and if they just it's
just numbers to them if that's all they see is this and they won't even see the 20%. But they'll see that the community center is closed. They'll see the programs we used to have aren't available anymore. And this is just the tip of the iceberg on what is coming if
you want to vote for this property tax. And so if there is some visual aid that we can show the public your tax money at work, this is what you want. this is what you're going to get. I think the more we educate the public, the better. >> Thank you, Commissioner. If I if I can add one detail, our contingency plan
will show that level of detail and those impacts. >> And I can't disagree with that, but if we can show that anywhere and anytime we can. Thank you. >> Yeah, Commissioner Dar. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I agree with my colleague, which I usually do,
Commissioner Gal. Um, we're doing an excellent job of managing a very difficult situation. I like the presentation. I like everything about it. But from my standpoint, I'm a communicator back to the community
about what the impact's going to be. And I'm sorry, I'd like to run out of this building with my hair on fire and say this is what we're going to lose. For instance, somebody give me a quantifiable number on what response times are going to be in the future for our fire and police
because I know those are going to be degraded. And by the way, 2 minutes is life and death for older people on both fronts. If I don't have that kind of information, I can't say this is the gain that you're going to get, which is a little bit more money in your pocket,
and this is the loss you're going to experience on the other side of that. And that's the communication we have to have. And I'm I don't and maybe I'm in the wrong place. Maybe this is not the right place for that comment. But I know that right place is somewhere and I just need to know where it is. Thanks.
>> I would if I may, mayor. >> Sure. Go ahead. [clears throat] >> I would say, Commissioner, that's a point very well taken and that is exactly what we're working on now to to provide you with those facts. But obviously it it needs to be based upon the research that we do and because you're going to be conveying this to the public, we can educate, not advocate. So
they had to be a facts based upon all the information that we have and we are working very hard to provide you with that [clears throat] information. >> Yeah. I mean [clears throat] my concern with not um having the public see any immediate result and I get what
you're doing. I understand it. But at the same time, when you talk about, and I have se several places in here, I can't find them right now, but where I'd put, you know, are we just deferring the obvious expense? I mean, in my own [clears throat] home, there's things I
can defer a little while, not forever, and some things it's not smart to defer for very long. Um, and um, I'm, you know, again, I don't want to push us into something that we, I mean, we're just kidding ourselves because we're not
wanting to show impact of service levels now. So, let's just defer this stuff, even though we know that's a recipe for disaster at the end. Um, and and then when uh the time comes, we're we're doing the cut back after the fact. Um, but I get what you're doing. I'm
confused by the number 20%. 20% reduction in what? >> Well, that we didn't reach the 20%. 20% was what we were shooting for, right? Some some got it, some did not. And >> Right. >> So, so >> because I I don't want to use that number that we've done that because we haven't done that. >> $500,000. >> $500,000.
>> Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. >> And and and again, would you say most of that is if it's not service level? Because obviously if I'm a citizen and you tell me we cut $500,000, no impact on you. I'm like, then why were you spending $500,000, right? Because why why you then you were
over spending the money and what I'm hearing [clears throat] you say is a lot of that is deferred maintenance, deferred things that can reasonably be put off somewhat. >> Mayor, if I can elaborate. Yeah. Um it is a difficult um response given the
fluidity of of the the target, right? >> But there's deferred maintenance. >> There's deferral on filling positions which has an impact. um some of it short-term, some of it's a little bit longer term, but you've got employees that are looking at what's happening and
they're considering should I just move to the private sector because I used to have some degree of security working in the public sector, but now I don't. So, there are those impacts as far as we're going to lose some good employees that are looking around wondering what's going on and what what's going to happen
post November. Um, so it's not entirely quantifiable right now, but there there are impacts that are going to occur because we're not filling um certain positions to hit that 20% target. And so there is a ripple effect associated with the level of service that that's going
to be experienced. >> Yeah. I mean, um, actually, [clears throat] um, County Commissioner Kathleen Peters made some great statements about what she thought the impact of this referendum could be on the labor force and wanting to come to Florida and wanting to exit Florida. Um, I was also,
while I'm thinking about it, I'm going to bring this up because yesterday I read um, Washington Post had an editorial board opinion titled Ronda [clears throat] Santz is trying to cut taxes the wrong way. They actually, you know, say he's done some good things, but this is the
outgoing governor is pushing a ballot measure that could wreck local finances. And I'll tell you what, um, it's I mean, look it up because it's it's well done. They did their research. They talk about the 3% cap that homesteader properties have. They talk about the burden that's
going to get pushed to um, you know, to commercial, etc. I mean, I'd love to put something like that on our website, but I know because it's advocating. I mean, it's basically saying and we we're not allowed to advocate, but in terms of really hitting a lot of issues of concern, um, it really does it. So, um,
but anyway, >> comment comment on that because, you know, I like that idea. Um, and I I don't believe that, uh, >> well, this may be a very fine line between advocacy and educating. Uh but
you know, can we make that possibly part of our communication plan with the public via social media? >> Uh when you say that, what do you >> Well, the editorial, for instance, >> well, I don't think we can because I think it's it's it's clearly advocating
and um and um I just bring it up because it's it's obviously a side that I see a lot of, but we're not allowed to advocate. um and we have to kind of stay in the middle and and again at the end of the day it's a taxpayers's decision. Um and we're just trying to make sure they understand what what could happen.
But it is it is certainly some of these editorials are someone's point of view that but it's clearly they did a lot of research too. So you want to clarify on what we can and can't do or >> Well and and most certainly >> that's scary. Anything I say we you know we go through the attorney because we do
have to be careful right now. >> Right. the and and as the mayor said, everything we put out goes through the attorney first. So, um even and she's, as you know, she's very conservative on this subject. Um and we can certainly run it by her and see what she says, but I think I know what she's going to say.
>> Yeah. So, yeah. >> Right. And and uh I think we're doing a great job of communicating as we go along uh with the public. uh um you know as far as as I hear I I know exactly what you're saying is that we have cinched our belt quite a bit uh you know
we're we've decreased our operating expenditures which is will have a ripple effect for years and years because you know first of all we we will not be keeping up with inflation and on and on and um without showing demonstrating a decrease in levels of service how do
they know but the quandry is the u we have a balanced budget with a reserve here and and then we close down the community center or decrease the hours, you know, the public is going to be outraged to begin with uh given that we have a balanced budget and we we'll be accused of scare tactics. And so I'd
rather be able to communicate and say this is what we will do. This is what we must do. This is a fact um and this is the plan moving forward. Um and and and make that as clear as possible. And what I'm saying to you is that we need time to do that. It it it takes time. on
August 10th, we'll have a better idea and then we'll be able to present something to all of you and get that done as quickly as possible. >> Yeah. I and I get that because I I I remember back I was a staff person and we had to make big cuts in the budget and every all the departments had to do
their cuts and the first cut that uh Wreck and Parks put out there this is 25 years ago and uh was uh oh we'll cut the before and after school program and of course that would send every parent crazy you know and and and everybody saw it as really really you're going to put
that first because you know that's just going to tick off the most people. So yeah, I think we have to be really careful of that, too. So, um, yeah, I just want to be make sure that we're in line with the timing of the referendum so that, you know, we have time to communicate what the reality is,
>> right? >> Absolutely. >> Which is which is our job. And and so, um, Vice Mayor, sorry. I mean, with the editorial, I don't even know to what extent. There's a lot of editorials, a lot of different opinions. It's one I read, but we we're in uh such a position
where we're we're out to educate and we got to walk that line. >> And one one more quick thing I just I know we've mentioned this before, but it's not in the slides is just uh if this if the vote passes the impact on cities and counties credit ratings. A lot a lot of concern about that. >> That's a great one, too. >> Wanted to mention that. Yeah.
>> And and I think that goes back to Commissioner Degard about the fact sheet. I think some things like that there there just there's probably just a one pager >> or two pager that really could hit some of those big items. So those are good. >> Mayor. >> Yeah.
>> Um I also share u some concern about the third third bullet point because I'm not sure it's specific enough to communicate what we're trying to say there. Um I'd like it instead of the proposition of of the word it. the plan will be
implemented at a slower pace, but over time it's also a very ambiguous term. What does that mean? And I just don't know what that means. Thank you, mayor. >> Okay, >> mayor, if I may. >> Oh, go ahead. >> And I know I'm only speaking for myself,
but I I really want to smudge the line between education and advocacy, and this is a forever change in the way our city will will govern itself financially. And so we need to make that clear. And the some of the residents
will certainly label anything we do as a scare tactic, but it's education. It's not scary. It's like this is what will happen. If you want to be you want to label it scare tactic, you want to see that we're grandstanding, whatever you want to say as far as the public
concerned is fine, but that doesn't mean it's not factual. These this is what's going to happen. And I think that's part of the education program because again a lot of the times that they don't understand it or they think well oh we'll be fine when
if you have to show them it's again my example of the 20%. You know we have to be able to identify this is what's going to happen. This is education and I don't think there's any problem with causing a little bit of uh good trouble. So thank you.
Um, I'm going to allow this side to to say something, but I I just want to say to you, I think we're striking the right balance. I think if we do something too soon that we really don't have to do, we're we'll get we'll get criticized for that and in a way that might might not
might backfire. And I think that um by having a plan, it's going to be voted on. It's going to be imp if that passes, it will be implemented on January 1st. these are the cuts. I can go out there and people say, "Oh, it's all going to be the same." I'm say, "Well, the reality is
it's not. This is exactly what's going to happen. We have the plan. This is the services you'll see go away. This is exactly what's going to close. This is what's happening." I think that that puts us in just the right place. I really do. And I think that we'll be able to say it with with u you know,
sincerity and it will be factual because we will have voted that this is the plan. This is what we're doing. And I but I do think that I mean that's $3 million. We got to get to six. So we don't just need to understand what
the contingency plan do. It's like there's a whole another cliff that we're falling off after that. [snorts] So I think that is something you need to think about. I want to give this side a chance to chime in. >> You know I I absolutely agree with you, mayor. Um, you know, just like there's a fine line between advocacy and
education, there's a fine line between scare tactics and pragmatism. And we need to be in a position where we are communicating in a pragmatic fashion. Um, because
at the end of the day, you know, that is the reality. And uh, anyway, but no, I absolutely agree. I I I like where we're at right now with in terms of the communication um you know and and the next step in
this is if it does pass is this is what it means. So thank you. >> I I guess I'm just very optimistic that this is going to work. I even if it does pass I mean the Dundian economy is strong. I hope that the five of us can
lead the city to where it needs to be. And uh you know I I I I just I I find it hard to go out and when because I get to ask all the time what do you think and you know educate advocate and yeah it's you know there's going to be a reduction
in services but it's just going to force us to become more creative and everyone keeps throwing out and I'm not sure where this started between 2020 and 2026 this is these have have increased in this city staff
spending revenues. You know what? What what whatever that means, we're just going to have to take it upon ourselves to figure it out. And obviously, we are. We've started to figure it out. And it just it feels like it's always that the sky is falling. And it's not.
We will survive. Maybe a little different look, maybe a little leaner, but I've lived here 44 years and this city will survive. And because of the people sitting at this table, I feel very confident that we will survive. That's all. Mayor,
>> just a comment. I Yeah, I totally agree with you and I actually think that there the out the really the silver lining in this is is that this is this is this is causing us to take a very healthy look
at the budget. And no. Yeah, I agree with you. >> But I I will add that the conversation that you just made is exactly why we can't just show the $3 million cliff.
We've got to show the $6 million cliff because this is really we will survive. And this commission will make decisions to protect every part of of public safety first, which will be will put at
risk a lot of our quality of life stuff with more quality of life city. Um, and we will survive. I don't think it will be the same city that a lot of people came here for. And I think that's we have to make sure they understand so that they can make that
choice themselves because ultimately it will be their choice. But but that's where we can't just show the $3 million cliff because it's a $6 million cliff and it's not just a $6 million cliff. By the time you add the county stuff on it's basically eight or$9 million cliff. >> And so um
you know we need to show that because we'll survive but we will look a lot different. And that's what we want people to make the decision on and then we'll we'll go from there. >> You're right. >> Thank you. [snorts]
>> It is difficult for me to take seriously the prohibition on advocacy when the bill is stated in the way it is. The term excessive spending is advocacy within the very piece of action the referendum is proposing.
Therefore, I have to ask myself some tough questions. I know as a city commissioner, I can't do certain things. But as a citizen, I haven't lost any of my rights. And if they try to prosecute me on that
basis, let them have it because that's what I'm supposed to do as a person. As far as the plan is concerned, I agree with my colleagues. We'll find a way through this. That's what we do. But that's like telling the passengers on
the Titanic, "Some of you are going to make it." [laughter] >> I love that question. >> Um, so it's not exactly where we want to be and it's not in the best interest of our citizens. Let's remember what's gone on in the
last three, four years. We've used this term waste, fraud, and abuse, and we've labeled every government that way. They attempted that and they came back with poor pickings. When they came back with their report, they had to make stuff up
to find the true waste, fraud, and abuse. Now, I'm not saying every city in this state is run at high optimum levels. I'm just not [snorts] saying that. But I am saying that they weren't able to find as much as they thought they were going to find. So, I don't
think there's a there there. And we're not talking about that. We're going to be cutting meat. Yeah, some people will argue what the fat is, but we're going to be cutting meat and it means a lot of good things in this community will go away. Thank you, Mayor.
>> Mr. G, I guess you get the last word. >> Thank you very much, Mayor. Um, I'm having a real hard time with the concept of whatever happens, we'll survive, we'll manage. I I I don't know what that means. People said that during
the depression, I'm sure the big potato famine, like, oh well, we'll we'll just get through this. But how do you balance that with the quality of life that Bob talked about earlier with these ball belts, right? And that sense of place, and we talk about that all the time, but
yet it seems to me like we might be losing energy in our focus on, well, whatever happens, we'll just have to deal with it. I I think that is obvious because we have no other choice. But as long as we have a choice that is a better choice, we should be fighting for
that. Thank you, mayor. >> Well, the mayor always gets the last word. So, >> well, that's our task, right? Our task is to educate and and the biggest takeaway from this discussion for me is we we need to show the whole cliff. Um because the whole cliff is big and it
will not be the same community we live in today. It won't. It just won't. And so and but again everybody gets to vote and u we and our job is to educate to make clear of what those trade-offs are. That's our job. That's our business job
because I don't want to have to just survive. I don't that's not why I live here. It's not why I stayed here. But we've got to put forward our case to show in our city this is this is what we've done. This is what we built and
this is what will go away. and you decide. Unfortunately, I I I do have more confidence in our city than some of the rest of the parts of the state, but that's that's you know, we can't control that. So, okay, what's next? Should we take a quick break?
>> Break. >> Good timing. >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music]
[music] >> [music] [music] >> everybody. [music] He >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]
[music] >> Heat. Heat. N. [music] [music] >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat. Heat. N.
[music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
[music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music]
[music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. Heat. Heat. [music] [music] [music]
>> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]
[music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] >> start the budget workshop and I think our next item is storm related expenses
and reimbursement and I'll go to staff presentation by less and gan. >> Okay, I'll turn it over to Gene to go over the next few slides. Thank you. >> Hi, Gene Hawkwater, budget manager. Uh so uh as we know we have incurred
significant related >> excuse me but um as we're moving along are you tracking what we've asked for you know like the fact sheet and things like that. >> You got all that. Okay. Awesome. >> Very good. Okay. I like it. >> Okay. Good. All right. I like it. Okay.
Sorry Jean. Didn't mean to wrap. That's okay. >> Just want to make sure our city manager is on top of it over here. >> We're taking notes, too. >> Okay. Good. Thank you. No problem. >> All right. So, as we know, we have incurred uh significant storm related expenses um in fiscal year 26 and 27 in
the budgets um because of hurricanes Selene and Milton. Uh we're providing an overview of the storm related expenses and anticipated reimbursements in the general fund along with other relevant financial information to give a clearer picture of their impact on the city's
budget. All right. So this first slide is the estimated city match for storm damages. This is showing uh only actual storm expenses and it is showing for the general fund which includes our de
disaster recovery fund and the marina fund. So the total estimated cost for the storms um for the general fund and the marina fund is 17.4 4 million which is shown in the far left column
and um then the expected FEMA and state reimbursement is shown in the other columns with our city match showing in the far right. I want to point out that FEMA expected reimbursement is 4.5 million total and
of that we have received uh 2.3 million of that last year uh with expedited payment for debris removal. We've also received some small project reimbursements as well over the past year. We are hopeful that we will receive the remaining 3.2 2 million of
debris removal funding from FEMA by September 30th of this year. For other storm projects, we're anticipating FEMA will reimburse most of the costs over the next two or three years. Our city match is estimated at about 528,000 in
the general fund and 894,000 in the marina fund with the total estimated city match to be 1.4 million which you can see at the bottom of the far right. Total anticipated draws for the storm line of credit um as reflected in the 27
bud proposed budget will be about 4.1 million in the general fund and 7 million in the marina fund. We expect the FEMA reimbursements to be received and the line of credit to be paid off in two to three years. The Marina Fund line
of credit draw will likely be decreased by $3 million due to the state appropriation for the Marina storm repairs which was approved by uh the governor uh with the state's 26 to 27
budget. Uh and then just so we all know that happened after we uh published our proposed budget. We will evaluate the need for the line of credit funding as projects continue to be obligated in FEMA reimbursements to be received. This storm damage has added work and
complexity to the fiscal year 26 and 27 budget processes. These numbers and the numbers listed here may change in the months ahead, but this is the best information we have as of uh June 30th. All right, this next slide, this is a
general fund storm activity slide. Um, and one thing to note on this slide as opposed to the last is this slide um does include um information on FEMA reimbursements timing of that those and the interfund
loan from Fleet that the general fund had had taken um and we're showing the reimbursements of that. So this sh slide shows activity from fiscal year 25 to this fiscal year 29 uh with most of the activity showing in
fiscal year 25 through fiscal year 27. We want to mention that a key point in reading this slide is that in fiscal year 25 it has a positive 2.7 million at the total on the bottom and that means
the expenses are 27 million more than revenue for that year. that activity decreases the general fund balance avail general fund available balance in 25 and then in fiscal year 27 you can see that
it's the opposite effect and revenues are more than expenses in the amount of 1.93 million. Um, we also want to point out that in fiscal year 26, we will be drawing down the line of credit. Um, as discussed,
um, and it's estimated about will be about 2.1 million. As of today, we have not drawn down any funds on this line of credit, but expect we will in the in the months ahead. Overall for the five-year period, the total number on the far
right of 1,21,000 is a net expense to the general fund. Um, one thing we wanted to note, we noted it last year as well, um, that in the fiscal year 25 budget prior to the hurricanes, we had the fishing pier
project that was in the budget at about 1.6 million. So, in comparing with that, the general fund is actually a little bit better off comparing the uh 1 million of expenses versus what we thought we would be spending of 1.6. So,
that's a $500,000 savings over that four-year time period. Um, it's also important to note that these figures assume the city will receive the full reimbursement of 75% from FEMA and 12.5% from the state of Florida.
Okay. Uh before I move on, did anybody have any questions? >> So [clears throat] if you go back maybe one more screen. >> Is it safe to say that Helen Milton and Debbie cost the city
17,421,000? Is that that simple? Those are the expenses and that's really just for um Helen and Milton. There's a small amount for Debbie, but most of this is Helen and Milton.
>> Okay, so that 17,421,000 is that's the estimated cost for those two storms. >> Of that 17,Ama 421, how much of it we've been reimbursed by FEMA? So far, we've gotten about the 2.3
million just just um that we we've identified. There might have been some smaller amounts um sometimes we get FEMA other other money from FEMA for the safer grant and they're actually clearing up some older storms. So, um I
will be doing a full reconciliation of what we've received for um from FEMA, the small small amounts we are hoping to get. um a few bunch of things have been um obligated that we're hoping to receive before the end of the year. And
so we will be doing a full reconciliation and there might be some changes to this in the tentative budget to make sure we're really showing a full accurate level of where we're at. >> Do we stay in regular contact with FEMA? I mean, is there someone in the building here that calls them weekly and ask
where our money is? Yeah, we uh we >> it's not over complicate this. >> Pretty much true. Yeah, that Yeah, we email them on a daily basis. They're asking questions every day and we're responding to those questions and we're working with Tetratech, our consultant who helps us with they're very involved
in this. >> Okay. >> So, we meet with Tet every week >> and we uh formal meeting and then we also meet with Tetratech and the FEMA reps about every two or three weeks. But as Gene mentioned, I' I'd say roughly we received about $3 million for those two storms to date. We've had small
projects, roughly three million, no more than that. They are really looking they're looking closely and asking a bunch of questions on our debris removal. We have 3.2 million that they owe us for debris removal [clears throat] and that's moving now. They they they had it for 290 days and didn't do anything [music] with it and they started about three three weeks ago
looking at it. So, we're hopeful that moves through and we get that funding within the next two or three months. That's a big dollar amount, but that's kind of what we're >> You said in two two or three more months. >> Yeah, probably two or three more months before they obligated and pay it. Yeah, that's that's our estimate. Yeah. >> And have we obtained every nickels worth
of property insurance that we were entitled to? >> Yeah, we received the insurance that we believe we're entitled to. And uh you know, FEMA's uh asking us lots of questions right now. I mean they are FEMA was pretty dormant for a while there because the federal shutdown and different things and they they didn't
get they didn't get much done for three or four months you know uh on Florida clients that's what Tet has told me but they are they are focusing a lot on our projects now which is good >> I didn't mean to cut you off and uh otherwise I could go for an hour on that topic so I'm sorry Jean
>> okay no worries and I did want to also mention for this um number that's our total expense um like for certain projects we have not spent all of the budgeted money yet so like the fishing pier, you know, we we're working on design, but construction has not been
spent, but we have the full amount budget in there. And for the larger dollar amounts on anything we received from FEMA um or for for insurance, like there was I think a $300,000 insurance payment that we are you showing as offsetting the fishing pier project
because we did get that as insurance proceeds. We have some smaller dollar amounts that we want to do some final uh reconciliation on. Um, but this is showing some of the big dollar amounts that we've gotten. >> So, question, if you go to the next slide real quick. [clears throat]
[snorts] >> So, I just want to make sure I understand this. Uh, the line of credit proceeds. So, basically this year we took $2 million line of credit and we're planning on taking another 21 or 2.1
million next year, right? That's the plan. Um so for the 2 million almost 2.1 million this year we have not taken it yet. We are anticipating um but uh less is trying we are trying to not take
funding if we don't need to. So that 2.1 million is basically for uh more for some smaller projects that we're hoping will run through the pipeline and get reimbursed sooner rather than later. So, if we don't need to take that whole two
2.1 million this year, we won't. The 2.1 million next year is um more for when we're expecting we might need to take a draw down on the fishing pier since we're thinking a lot of that spend will be next year. You know, we're not we're not 100% sure, but we wanted to have a
little um um estimate in our budget based on when we think funds will be spent and when we might be getting reimbursements from FEMA. These are all estimated numbers. >> Okay. No, I I appreciate that. Um and then uh to Commissioner Samberen's line
of questioning um you know I I guess uh you know it is I I think you know we all understand the government shutdown and the impact of that but we also have you know tetrate you know in a advocacy role for us to or
you know I don't know whatever you want to call it but they're they're supposed to be helping and uh then of course the Florida Department of emergency management. Uh I I mean it's it is it is concerning to look at those numbers
realizing that of the $17 million in storm damage, we've only received 2.3. And that I just I guess the question I have on that is you know historically what has it take taken and it sounds to me like it's
taken quite a while if we're now just seeing FEMA reimbursements for storms before Helen and Milton. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct. We just are now getting the the the final dollars from from her from Debbie Hurricane Debbie.
So yeah, it it's normally at least a three-year process. Vice Mayor, if I could elaborate, if you recall Irma, it took us four years to get reimbursement on that. So that's why carrying the reserve is critical. And I would like to point out if you're looking at the one
slide, I think it's if you go back one, um, you know, it shows the state and the city match. Uh, we've already been notified that going forward those percentages will drop, which means our the match the FEMA portion is going to be less than 75% going forward. So our
match will be that much more. So it is critical as far as essentially carrying these costs, utilizing reserves to pay these funds and understanding that when we deal with with FEMA and DEM and all those, most of the time we're dealing
with contract employees and they change throughout the process that you get to re-educate them um along the way. So the four-year time frame is arduous and painful but not uncommon. >> Yeah, that's and you brought up another
point because I I'd heard along the basically that 75% the FEMA piece of that was going down. Um and I've heard some pretty drastic numbers, but I'm just curious as to what you've heard with regards to where
>> Yeah, there's drafts out there now. uh they're it's it depends on uh they're go they're looking at going to a different methodology but also for debris removal uh they're you know debris removal is 100% now be FEMA made this 100% for this
storm but a lot but normally it's 75% but they made this 100% but they're dropping that that 100% to the max 75% so that would that would that difference would fall on us. Uh I don't I don't the state I don't think will pick up any you never know but I doubt the state picks
up the difference but they they could pick up some of the difference and they're also going to a method where uh rather than really getting to the true cost and you know one of the things we work through now is you know we've got we've got engineer estimates for all these different projects and FEMA's and it's a negotiation process for them to
us to come up with you know what's the period really going to cost and come up with an agreed number as an example but they're they're going to be going to more of a metric system and the metric system will be uh how long is the pier uh what's under the pier and it'll be some mathematical calculation and from
tstack's perspective some places will win and some will lose because it will not be what the actual cost are will be more of a mathematical calculation of of uh of of of what you lost based on metrics and things like that so there that's in the draft too but but definitely uh I I would expect our match
will our match with what we're seeing right now would would at least probably double from what what we would in this storm for example we paid 12.5 what we're seeing we probably paying at least twice that much you know if this continues to go through the way the draft is written now maybe more
>> yeah but thank you >> so looking at for example that Crowder golf $5.2 2 million. Does FEMA pay them or do we pay them when we're reimbursed? >> Yeah, we paid them and then FEMA reimburses us. Yeah.
>> Did we pay them already? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> And I'll bet you that means uh >> we pay them a lot. Yeah. >> Tetratech. So they we've put all that money out. >> Yeah. And that's the you know we we paid the 5.2. >> I I guess I didn't realize it. I'm too new in government to understand that.
>> Yeah. We paid that and then they [music] paid us back 2.3 of that expedited and now we're waiting for the other 3 million. Yeah. Currently. >> Wow. Yeah. >> I hope the citizens were listening when that Okay. >> So, so when people wonder why we carry a reserve, that's why we carry a reserve. >> I have no idea.
>> Yeah. And it's going to get harder. Um questions over here. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh yeah. What is the difference between the disaster recovery fund and the general fund? And where does the money come from in the disaster recovery?
>> Uh the disaster recovery fund I believe was set up to um as a way to track all disaster recovery disaster uh or storm related expenses and it rolls up into the general fund. So the money there does come from the general fund. >> Okay. So the general fund, right? Is
that what I heard? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh and I noticed [clears throat] that the Weaver Park Pier is there. I don't see the marina pier on there. Is there a reason? And it could be. I'm just not seeing it. But
>> the marina pier. >> The fishing pier. >> The fish. It's called the fishing pier. >> See, I didn't see it. Okay. >> We differentiate a little bit in the name partially because um the general use that happens at that fishing pier. We we try to differentiate it from the
marina itself because it does not get paid for out of the marina funds. >> Right. Okay. Yeah. Again, I just wanted to make sure it was there because the residents have been screaming for a while that they want their beer back. So, okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I have.
>> Commissioner Dart, [clears throat] >> very well done. First of all, my questions not to do with this. It has to do with the next storm and our ability to respond to it. What have we been
advised from FEMA as far as how we're going to get recovery in future storms? >> Well, currently, you know, FEMA's guidelines are still the same as they were a year or two ago. This proposed this proposed initiative that that Hy
mentioned is is in a draft form and the current administration is going to roll it out at some point in the near future. Uh don't know exactly when yet. Once that's rolled out, then it'll be that'll be major changes to to uh to the you know what FEMA is agreeing to
and what we're agreeing to. But right right now, if we for the storm for the storm season we're in right now, we're under the same guidelines that we're we're really in with Alina Milton until anything's formally formally changed by legislation. >> Here's my point. We're being asked to
cut back substantially on our expenses. We're being advised that in the future FEMA may all go through the state as a block grant. >> If that were to happen, it's going to be more necessary for municipalities to self-fund for disaster because we can
see the results. We will have actually the least possible capacity to do that because of the referendum and the in essence we're going to get caught in the middle. >> No, that's a good point. As a matter of fact, one of the things that we were going to mention later in the
presentation is the city manager and I have have talked about want to discuss with the commission. We think we it would be because of what you just said uh set up a catastrophic reserve and start building that up over time to start having more dollars to set aside for for match needs. But you're right,
it's all the more challenging with what's with with with the referendum and everything. But we do think that we need to figure out a way to cobble more dollars for for future storms and future match needs. If you live on the coast in this state, look out. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Well, first I was just going to say and I just got my flood insurance bill for this year and eek did it jump. So insurance continues to be huge. Uh go ahead, Commissioner G. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh Jorge, you had
mentioned that the importance [clears throat] of the reserve on maintaining this. So if we had something equally as catastrophic as the the two hurricanes in our current state, do we have are we in a good position?
What kind of damage would this do to the reserves? >> I mean, I I'll let Les elaborate, but obviously we'd have to rely on our line of credit that much more, right? If we start to consume our our reserve in order to pay current storms that we had to front the cost on and it takes four
years to get reimbursed and you get hit with another storm during that four-year period, then you're fronting that money on top of the one you already fronted. So yeah, the referendum has a significant [clears throat] impact because as they mentioned, the general fund is what supports that and if we set
up a catastrophic fund that's fed by the general fund as well, but I'll let Les elaborate. Yeah, I I agree 100% with what the horror just said. Yeah, it it would be much more challenging. You know, one of the challenges we have now is we borrowed 5 million from the fleet fund and we we we pay back 2.3. So, we
still owe them that other that difference of 2.7 and and we can't pay that back really until we get the remainder of that debris removal that we mentioned we hope to get in the next three or four months. And you know, and we want that paid back because if we have a storm again this year, we would need to draw from either that fund or
another one uh and line of credit to be able to uh come up with immediate dollars for debris removal and then long-term dollars for for restoration. >> Thank you. >> Um okay, so sorry I've been asking this
probably for about the 10th time that everybody's asked it. Okay, so our total loss 17.4 million. We've received 2 what? >> We we received about uh in total 2.3, but we also received probably another
400 4 or500,000 on small projects. So probably $2.93 million you received so far. >> And then we got insurance money separate from that. >> Insurance money separate from that. >> And how much was that? >> I'm going to turn it over to Teresa. [laughter] >> Okay.
Getting bored over here. >> [laughter] >> Okay. >> Unfortunately, I don't have that number on the tip of my fingers, but I will get that number for you. >> Yeah, if you could get it sometime today, >> maybe at lunch. Okay. Okay. >> Cuz I'd be Is it like more than a
million or >> Um, pretty sure. Yes. >> More than two million. >> I mean, that's important. That's huge. That's a huge thing. >> We'll get that number for you specifically, Mayor. But what I do want to add is that what insurance paid FEMA will not. >> Right. I understand that. I'm just
looking about making us whole. That's all I care about. And but but you guys feel com well relatively confident we're going to end up getting all this money from FEMA someday. >> Yeah. Relatively. Yes. >> A far away land. >> Yeah. Could be a long period of time. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Um, so [clears throat] and the question I get and I still can't answer it very well is well first let me ask this of the 17 million does that include floating docks for the marina? >> Yes. Our our current budget has our
estimate of the cost for floating docks. Yes. >> And we think we're going to get that back from FEMA too. And how does it drive with state appropriation? Well, the state appropriation is we'll be we'll revise this because the good news is we'll we've got $3 million less dollars relying on FEMA. So, the
positive thing is our we've got $3 million that >> or is it $4 million? Cuz I thought we got a million dollars and then $3 million. >> It was three for the marina. Yeah. Three for the marina. Yeah. >> But didn't in a prior year >> we got Yeah, we got we got 1.5 last year. Excuse me. >> Okay. So, it's actually four and a half. Okay.
>> And that's already in here. Yeah. The 1.5 we got last year is already factored into this, >> but the three million we just received is not factored into this yet. So, so it will two things. It will reduce the reliance on FEMA and it will also reduce our match because on that $3 million
we're paying a 12.5% match. So, we're going to be able to reduce our match by about 375,000 with that $3 million grant. >> So, that's what I think we need is a little bit of a 17.4 million >> FEMA so far appropriations.
um insurance like building oursel back to wholeness I guess is the issue. >> So I just wanted to clarify that that $17 million number is going to go up because we have already offset by 300,000 on the fishing pier project.
I've already taken that out because FEMA will not be reimbursing us. We've already got that. So the fishing pier project is showing up I think it's 71.7 million. It's actually $300,000 more than that. But you're talking about insurance >> insurance. And then on the on the uh
appropriation side for the bulkhead, we're showing that 1.5 million already taken out. So we can re we'll do the numbers with the full actual cost. >> I mean, it would just be helpful to have kind of a running little fact sheet that hey, here here's where we're at. 17 million and here's where we're okay.
Have it expect it from you know, just so we kind of know. I'm working on a reconciliation for that, a larger, more detailed one. But I'll create something uh fact sheet type for you guys >> again because in my mind, right, we're 17.4, we've got 2.7 or eight or nine and
we're we've got four and a half. I mean, we've got one one and a half in the bank, 3 million pretty secure that we'll get that. So, it starts to, you know, at least trigger that number down. So, okay. Um, let's see.
I think yeah, I think that's my only my only question. And uh yeah, and again, I think this goes to the heart of the fact sheet on the property tax referendum. I mean, especially if FEMA is going to change its rules and state, you know,
we're again recovery is hard. So, okay. Um [clears throat] Okay. So, we we're going to go on to uh all funds is next, right, >> Les? [snorts] >> Revenue, expenditures, projections, all funds. Should we get started with that? And what time are we planning lunch?
Noon. >> Okay. So, if we want to go ahead and we'll start with our the different funds. Does that sound good? >> We're going to do the baseline information. >> That's what is that what's next? >> Yes. Y >> give you the baseline that we based our uh predict projections upon.
And um I I don't know if anybody else did this, but in the budget, like if we're following you in the budget by funds, what page does that start on? >> Um when we get to the We're not quite there yet. This is Oh, we're not there
yet. This is just some some So >> you guys tell me because I that's where I put my question. So I don't I got to make sure I get back to that. So >> yeah, we'll let you know and the slides will mention when we get to the each individual fund what pages in the in the budget in the appendix.
[snorts] [clears throat] >> All right. So um for advalorum revenue in uh the 27 proposed budget, this is based on the estimate we received from uh Penllis
County as of May 29th, 2026. Um the total total taxable value increase in 20 fiscal year 27 [clears throat] over fiscal year 26 was 4.52% for our uh for Deneden. Um and we want
to mention that after the budget was was published we got the final certification from the county on July 1st and the AV growth was up a slight amount to 4.53. Um, and that will bring us an additional
$1,200 in our budget in the tentative. [laughter] >> That's the smallest jump I've seen. We we always mention the increase between the the tentative or the proposed and the tentative and this year it's a very small increase. >> Just a followup real quick on something
Commissioner Samberg asked. I mean, wouldn't they when they give us that percentage, wouldn't they have already included anybody that's back on the tax roll after the storm? Yeah, everybody. >> So, I mean, we shouldn't expect >> I mean anything huge coming other than that.
>> Yeah, that would be uh that number for 27 that's everybody on the tax roll January 1st of 2026. That's their cut off date. So, whoever is back on the tax roll as of January 1st would be in in these numbers and whoever's not back would may fall into next year, but we
think most of them are back, but I'm not sure all of them are. Well, but we'll get more information >> just editorially. I think of my street and uh some are still being built, some are being sold, which I have no doubt will be torn down and built. >> So, yeah. So, next year I'll probably
really tag it in maybe or a year after actually. >> Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Go ahead. Oh, that's okay. >> Um the net taxable value um to in talking about the new construction, the net net taxable value for new
construction in the 27 uh according to the estimate we received on May uh May 29th was uh 79 million. Um and I think that jumped up to 80 million when we got
the final roll on July 1st. Um, and we have, as Les said, we have an email out to the county to get us a breakdown of what that new construction is, how much is actual new construction, how much is um, storm damage houses coming back on
the tax roll. Okay. Um, the taxable value revenue for TIFF for the CRA fund increase over uh, fiscal year for fiscal year 27 um, was also 4.52%. Um, in as of the July 1st estimate, uh,
preliminary tax rule, the county came in at slightly higher at 4.66%. And that increased revenue in CRA by 1750. Another small minor increase, but um, uh, it was better than the opposite effect.
>> So, I'm sorry, se 1,750. Sorry, [snorts] it it wasn't quite that small, but um sorry. [laughter] The um fiscal year 27 proposed budget is based on a 4.1345
millage rate, which the city has held since fiscal year 2016. A proposed maximum millage rate of 4.1345 uh for fiscal year 27 will be presented to commission at the July 23rd commission meeting. That's item 3D. Uh,
and obviously we're keeping the same uh estimate. Sorry. All right. This is our slide um to show the ME millage rate effect on the advalorum tax revenue. Um, this shows
the millage rate over the period of 2015 to 2027, 13-year period. Um and it also shows in yellow the property tax revenue for each year. We have a steady AV growth for several years but growth has tapered off
some in fiscal year 27 and uh 26 and 27. Moving on to uh the summary of revenues comparing the 20 fiscal year 27 budget to the fiscal year 26 budget. general fund uh other taxes revenue
increased in fiscal year 27 by 3.7% or 215,000 compared to fiscal year 26. This category includes electricity service taxes and communication services taxes uh cable television, satellite
television, video streaming and telephone services. The electric services taxes from Duke Energy was the main reason for the increase in fiscal year 27 compared to the 26 budget. In the penny fund, um penny sales tax
decreased by 6.1% compared to the fiscal year 26 budget. This is due to House Bill 7 7031 um from last year, which eliminated the 2% sales tax on rent and leases of commercial property. and that went into
effect on 10125. There will be more discussion on penny revenue later in the presentation today. County tax gas tax revenue are budgeted at negative 3.5% or another decrease compared to fiscal year 26.
The fiscal year 26 actual revenues are actually trending 4% under budget and the fiscal year 27 budget is consistent with the most recent county of panelis estimates. Uh there will also be more discussion on that uh when we get to
that fund later today. For the enterprise funds solid waste um the increase in revenue charges for services is 15.61% 61% in fiscal year 26
budget uh as compared to fiscal year 26 budget and there that is effective on April 1st 2027. It's a little different than our normal rate increases which start on 101 of the of the fiscal year. Uh that's because
the 26 um rate increase happened midyear. So the second um uh for for the second year the increase will also be midyear and and that is ordinance 2601 um and that was approved I believe in
March of this year for wastewater utility rate increases is of 15% in fiscal year 27 over 26 and that is um in ordinance 254 which was reprove approved
on June 5th 2025 five by commission and um that sets the rates through fiscal year 30. Storm water utility rate increase is this year in fiscical year 27 is 18.6% over fiscal year 26. The storm water
utility ordinance 2415 was approved by commission on July 11th, 2024. Um and that set the rates for the next three years. Fiscal year 27 expenditures. The fiscical year 27 budget includes a
3.5% merit increase for all employees except fire union employees that are covered under a collective bargaining agreement with the city. There is no changes to range or minimums or maximums in [clears throat] this budget.
uh benefits. Um the the benefit increase is about 15.9% in the proposed budget mainly due to an increase in health insurance costs over fiscal year 26 budget. We are working with Terresa
Smalling, human resources and risk management director and the Garing uh group, our consultants. And based on most re most recent information from them, this may be reduced some and we are still fine-tuning the numbers. We will have more detailed information on
the health benefits costs in the bud and second budget workshop on August 4th. operating costs. Um, in prior years, um, and as we discussed earlier, we have requested, uh, the city departments to reduce
controllable operating expenses in fiscal year 27. And as a result, most departments did achieve a decrease in their expenses um, with the following exceptions. the building fund there. They had an increase of 37% or $103,000
due increase in uh plans review services and inspection contractual services of 50,000 and an annual IT license increase of also of 50,000 for new flood plane management software
county gas tax. the um budget increase by 7.3% due to a $25,000 increase in the city sidewalk inspection and maintenance program budget. Wastewater fund water wastewater fund
had an increase of 4.4% due mainly to an increase in the bioolids hauling contract at the wastewater treatment plant. The Marina Fund had an increase of 23% or 26% or 24,950
due to an increase in repair and maintenance costs for the harbor master building repair project. All right. Health benefits fund um has the 15.9% increase due to the increase in projected increase in medical claims and
health costs in fiscal year 27. As discussed, this is still under review and may decrease some. We'll present the detailed information for this fund on August 4th. CRA uh there is a 2.5% or 10% increase
due to an increase of $32,500 in professional services for the uh CRA master plan supplement which is also in uh offset by a decrease in rents and leases by $21,400.
Um and that's related to the Ocean Optics parking lot lease which we are budgeting um for only half a year this year. based on the development of that property. Okay, >> now we're moving to the long range projections and the uh the
[clears throat] first >> um let's stop there and just make sure there's no questions on what we just saw. Um anybody? Okay. >> I noted on your utility rates that they were based on the increase that we had
uh made this last year. Have we seen any elasticity in demand that might make those numbers a little less? >> No, I would say at this point in time, not from what the projects we've have on in in the budget. Um and then also the other the additional of mandates that we
have to make sure and just staying in compliance. >> Well, we have seen some behavioral differences relative to um >> Oh, I'm sorry. Reusable water. >> Uh that that's had an effect. I wondered what our water um volume has been doing
because if we're assuming equal volume, I think we're making an assumption that's false. >> I'm trying to >> We've raised the rates. Yes, the market tends to respond to a raised rate by reducing consumption. Have we seen any
reduced consumption? >> I'd have to get back with you on that. >> Okay, >> great question. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> Uh let's I think it's I think it's slide 25, the the penny fund
and it is down 6%. >> Mhm. And the primary reason it's down was because of a state law that reduced commercial by 2%. >> Yeah. Commercial uh rent leases were 2% uh sales tax and then they they eliminated that completely on October
2025. So all of 2026 we felt that impact. The state estimated about a 5 percent four or five percent decrease, but we're we're trending more like seven or eight. I mean, I think seven and a half percent decrease to date for the first six months of this year, but uh
we're just trueing up that adjustment to what we what we anticipate receiving this year and then a small increase next year uh for a little bit of growth in 27. >> Okay. And so again, this is a a result of the state law and the impact on
commercial as opposed to just we've had a reduction in sales, tourism isn't here, blah blah blah blah blah. >> Correct. Correct. >> Okay. And so when we talk about what options are if this referendum passes in
November is we can still increase our millillage um for those that for nonowner occupied residences or on the commercial side. And so we could also see then if that's the
case and we if everything falls in line and we happen to do that the state can also get its hands by just saying okay we'll reduce commercial by even that to try and so the state will still have a role in any revenue that that we bring in. Yeah, that that's true. And and also
just want to mention regarding commercial and and and not homestead, the if the votes approved in November, the other thing that that all cities would face, including us, is that the the growth factors in future years would would be definitely less because the max
the maximum amount goes from 10% to 5%. So future growth would definitely be reduced uh during during good during good economy times because of that reduction. >> Okay. And the county gas tax here there was a reduction of 3.2. What was the reason for that?
>> Uh gas tax has has been challenging the past three or four years. It's just it's based on it's based on uh consumption. Uh it's not not the price but the consumption. And and uh and for a number of years we've seen it either flat or
slightly go down. So it's just kind of last couple years have been a trend with it slightly going down. >> Okay. It probably be a combination of electric vehicles andor the high gas prices. People aren't driving as much yumming. Okay. And so how do we square that with the reduction in the county
gas tax with we had an right on the next slide? I think when it comes to expenses gas tax increased by 12% was it? >> Yeah, we we increased the >> 7.3. I'm sorry. Yeah, we did increase the sidewalk maintenance, but when we
get to the gas tax fund, we'll we can go over this in more detail, but we the gas tax fund is is very challenged and we we we also moved money out of the we moved dollars for payment management out of the gas tax fund into the penny fund to help kind of cover cover this expense.
The GA gas tax gas tax fund is very challenged right now and we'll walk through more more of that when we walk through that fund. But we had this increase. We had other decreases in addition to that to offset the revenue decrease. >> Okay. And we'll be talking about the the gas tax fund later. >> Yes. Yeah.
>> Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. That's all that I have. Just wanted clarification. Thank you. >> Questions on this side? >> I don't have any questions. >> Jean, you went real quick through the other taxes. Could you go through those again? Just that's had a question about
all those. I just want to make sure I'm reading it right. All right. So the other taxes include um electricity services taxes and communications taxes and that could include cable, satellite television,
video streaming, telephone services and in this instance the electric services taxes from Duke this year was the main reason for the increase in this category. >> So let's take u something that we all have cellular phones.
Do they dictate to us what they're going to pay Dun Eden or can we go to them and say we would like a little more tax revenue from them? >> Uh that revenue stream is is passed down from the state and so >> we have very little control over that.
Yeah. In other words, it's it's a it's a formula and and that that that particular revenue stream's been pretty flat the last five years. it it's gone gone up a little bit probably 2% growth maybe overall over the last five years but but uh but we don't we don't have
much flexibility in in in in what what we receive or other cities receive from the state >> so what we're looking if we're looking to increase revenue that's not a place to look >> I think that be I don't think that is going to going to do much now >> and you know we looked at those enterprise funds with those rate increases are those funds solvent and
stable profitable now >> the enterprise funds when we we'll go through them a little this after or today, but overall they they they they look they're in pretty good shape. You know, uh a lot of moving parts on the water wastewater fund that we'll talk about because of Clay have mentioned
some of the the regulations we have to follow and that are down the pipeline, but but overall they uh they've improved a lot from uh a year ago. They have. Yeah, >> that's all I had. Mayor, the um solid waste wa uh water,
wastewater, storm water. I mean, who who up here voted for that? I didn't. I'm just kidding. Um wow. That that I kind of hit you, you know. And of course, that's the power too of the punch of the percentage versus a dollar figure too at times, but we know we kind
of hit it hard on all of them and we're we don't want to do that again. Um but the outy years declined significantly. Do you know the outy years on those? Like in each one of those cases, the first year was the heavy-hitted year.
Yeah. Well, each one's different, but uh the outer years in most of these funds that we'll go through later are uh actually, you know, right now appear to be above above the reserve targets, which is good. In other words, they're they're uh and and some quite a bit
above and we we'll walk through that later, but uh the solid waste fund is uh is the one that just just had the increase. It's it's in sort of a a pretty tight position through 27, but then 28 in future years, it it builds it's building up reserves very nicely in
our in our forecast. >> And you're right, we're going to talk about those. I will say ahead of time on the benefits it looked like we've doubled our cost from like 4 million something to 8 million something now in the last three years which is completely
unsustainable. >> Mhm. >> Well, yeah. >> Um which is reflective of the national issues too. Um uh my one question was because I think that when we talk about some other state laws that
have impacted revenue decreases or increases fairly um I think we should make sure those are included in our kind of compilation of facts. And one thing I wanted to double check this because I think we had didn't we have a large increase in the fire pension cost?
>> Yes, we did. Yeah. >> And and how much was that? >> About 25% year-over-year, >> which is how much? about uh $290,000. >> And and why was that? >> You know, I'd have to get back. It's it's it's an actuarial calculation. And I'd have to get back to you with with
with the specific reasons whether because what goes into that is more more you know, every year they look at mortality, it's mortality rates, it's uh the investment returns uh that that they receive that year and and some other things. So to give you a good answer, I I can research and get back. And my main
my main part of the question is those the uh the criteria the benefit criteria is driven by state. >> Yes. >> And a lot of those are put on us and I want to make sure we're clear on that because again state's taken wants to take away but the state puts all these
unfunded mandates on us >> that we have to do and I just think that's another example. So any example like that that's driven by state, I just think we need to make sure we're including. So >> okay, >> that people understand, you know, don't look at us for a lot of some of this stuff, too.
>> Um I think that's all my questions. Um >> could I follow up on one of those? >> Sure. Go right ahead. >> Thank you. Is the fire pension fund defined contribution or defined benefit? >> Defined benefit. FRS defined benefit. >> That's what drives cost. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. And I was going to say because the
sheriff would be the same thing. Sheriff's under Florida retirement system. So under special risk class. So you know any any kind of law that might have impacted that might be impacting us on that cost side as well. >> Yeah. >> Cool. Um okay.
>> So everybody's good. We'll keep moving. >> Okay. Our uh long range projections now. And our first is the general fund. Um general fund is the city's main operating operating fund. It includes many city departments. Uh some brief background on the general fund. In the
proposed [clears throat] budget for fiscal year 27, as the city manager mentioned earlier, uh we we have uh our available fund balance is at 17.8% and above our target uh goal of 15%. In 2028 and future years, there is a projected
uh budget shortfall of 5.6 million. Uh in the general fund, the shortfall was very close to the same number as [clears throat] we had in the 26 final adopted budget. The shortfall represents the excess of expenditures over revenues over the five-year time frame in the general fund. And we'll go over the
general fund long range plan in more in a few slides. Uh for some highlights in the general fund for property taxes, uh as Gene mentioned earlier, we had 4.3% growth uh in revenue at $775,000.
And that's due to the AV increase that we had in 27 over 26. For the intergovernmental revenues, uh we increased by $774,000 in 27 compared to 26 budget. And that's due mainly to an increase expected FEMA
reimbursement of of 1,46,000 and with an offsetting decrease of $75,000 in revenue sharing proceeds from the state and a decrease of 240,000 in the state and local half cent sales tax. Uh and that again is due to the
commercial rent. Same thing. Our penny fund was impacted and our half cent sales tax was also reduced by about 240,000 as a result of that HB731. um charges for services increased by 8 $820,000 or 8.1% in 27 due primarily to
an increased reimbursement of 223,000 from the uh county of Panellis for the firefighter and EMS cost reimbursement for 2027. Also an increase in the administrative fee uh from the enterprise funds for in the general fund
from 27 compared to 26 and that's due uh related to the increases in storm water uh and wastewater and solid waste uh year-over-year. And for the expenditures, the operating cost increased 7 point decreased, excuse me, 7.1%
uh or 1.5 million in 27 compared to 26. And that is due uh to a couple things. Uh first, our our ISF for uh for property insurance is decreased by $782,000. And that's due to the fact that in 2026,
our budget was more than needed. Uh the actual cost in 2026 for property insurance was much less than we budgeted. We talked about this a little bit in our BA a few months ago, but we budgeted a certain amount. It came in lower after the budget was adopted. It was good news in 26, but uh so so uh and
also all departments in the general fund were asked to reduce their controllable operating costs. We talked about that a little earlier and that that resulted in approximately $500,000 in savings in uh in the general fund departments
for the capital decrease of uh $4.9 million. We had a change year-over-year from 27 to 26 and that was due primarily to uh the Highlander aquatic complex uh decreased by 1.9 million in 27. Weaver Park uh pure renovation decreased by
400,000. The fishing pair and day docks decreased by two million and the library lighting decreased by 152,000 in 27 compared to 26. That's what makes up most of that $4.9 million reduction. And for debt service, we had an increase of
873,000 in 27 compared to 26 budget. And that's due to an increase in debt service [snorts] in the 20 in 27 for the storm line of credit of $935,000. That's an estimate of course, but that's what we have in the in the budget. And
also a decrease in the aquatic complex financing cost for cost of issuance that was in 26 and was not in 27. And the net of those two make up the 873. And moving to the uh the assumptions in
the general fund, uh we have our our projected 4.2 increase that we received from the county at the end of May. and that will be that that ended up being 5 4.53. Then we have estimates from 28 through 32. Uh these estimates are consistent
with county's estimated growth last year uh at 4%. Then we do we do reduce it to 3% in 32. We did make an adjustment in uh in 2028 for some new construction that we knew was coming in the pipeline.
So we did make that that adjustment in 28 in these numbers as well. Also uh other tax revenue is from 28 to 32 estimated 2% growth. Intergovernment re revenue is 2% growth and charges for
services is uh 2.2% growth from 28 to 32. and also salaries and benefits in from 28 to 32 are our 3.5% merit increase uh uh in our assumptions and for the
benefits increase is 6% uh estimate in 28 to 32 and operating cost is a 2.5% estimate from 28 to 32 and non- capital is a small increase of 1%. And we had some changes uh to the 27
budget. Um we began the process with the budget in January of this year 2026. Uh we met with the city manager in finance uh met with all departments in early in April and early May to review all the department's budgets by line item. We
started with over a $ 1.5 million shortfall in in the 27 budget before those meetings to have uh and to have the budget cut. We we we we met we reduced these projects before you to get us, you know, uh back to a a budget
that's over our 15% target. Want to mention because staff only added essential new projects to the general fund in 27. Balancing the budget required moving these projects uh on this list from uh 27 to 28. And we we moved out a solar energy improvement
project for 550,000. We pushed it to 28. We had a Waybridge Woods project. Um we pushed from 27 to 28 for 800,000. Dunen Boat Club selling center we moved to 28 for 886,000.
And the citywide door access controls was split between 27 and 28 at 64,000. So the total of those was $1.6 million. And so this is our long range plan. This is in the proposed budget book on page
uh 50 502 to 507. That's at the top of the slide there as a reference. Um as mentioned the 27 proposed budget is balanced. The available reserve amount in the 27 year is projected to be 15 17.8% well above our target. Uh the
general fund alarm range plan uh similar to prior last few years uh presents the budget shop the shortfall not being addressed first and then it then it is being addressed at the bottom with the two yellow highlighted rows you see towards the bottom on this slide towards
the bottom I want to point out there are red font numbers uh towards the middle rows that says revenue overunder expenses like the fourth line from the bottom uh that's that's out 20 8 to 32. Want to mention the red numbers mean
that the expenses are more than the are more than the revenues. That's what that is showing. The first highlighted row represents the estimated available fund balance at the end of the year. And as you can see in 2027, it's 17.8% and above our target. In 2028 2028, it drops
to 7.4% and then it reduces uh each year after that as you can see in the uh in the model at 32. The bottom row highlighted is the same information with the budget shortfall. Again, it's an estimate being addressed
and and the estimate average shortfall over the 5-year period 28 to 32 is approximately 5.6 million. Uh and that's towards the bottom. Um the estimated budget shortfall can be addressed with reductions in service or or or reduction
in expenditures or with uh revenue increases or a combination of both both methods. uh the budget for 2027 we have before you and we have a balanced budget due partially to we are projecting a fund balance carryover uh in 2026 of
16.1 million that's under the estimated 2026 column slightly more than our our reserve which is rolling over uh to 2027 the estimated shortfall amount uh you know we we are addressing we have been as mentioned the uh the staff's been addressing it uh over the last eight
months with some of the things we talked about uh there's many ways to address it. Uh [snorts] and we have uh discussed some of those earlier today. The estimated shortfall is very close to the amount it was last year. Uh in the final budget document last year, the shortfall
was uh very close to this number. However, I want to mention just a few changes that have happened between this long range plan and and and the adopted long-range plan in 2026 budget for revenues. Uh big picture uh over the
5-year time frame 2028 to 32. uh our revenues are are less than prior year over that over that uh time frame by of by about 1.8 million. Uh not a huge reduction but it has gone down some. The assessed value estimates for property taxes are very close to the same as
prior year in the long range plan. Uh very very close there. uh but a couple of other revenue sources such as the halfsent sales tax I mentioned earlier uh which was which has been reduced by about 240,000 and also the electrical service tax has also been reduced some
so between those two the reduction is about 340,000 a year and and that 340 is sort of the average over the 5-year period. So uh overall a slight reduction in revenue uh over the 5-year time frame compared to last year. And on the
expenditure side, personnel costs have increased uh from 27 to 20 to 32 in in this in this uh proposed budget compared to last year's budget. And for for and the increase is about $2.7 million in
total. and and the average is about 530 about $530,000 more labor this year than in the long range plan last year. And that's mainly due to uh health cost increase of 16% which is was more than
our estimate last year in 27 uh 16 much more than our estimate. And also we mentioned the pension benefits. The the our pension costs mainly due to fire are about $310,000 more this year compared to prior year. So, uh, labor's up a little higher than last year. Now, on
the operating cost, uh, operating costs have decreased, uh, as mentioned, they've decreased about $5.3 million over the 5-year period, and the reduction is about a million dollars a year. So, that that's been helpful in this in this long range plan. U approximately half of this
reduction was due to the efforts that we discussed. We we asked all the departments to cut up the 20% and the resulting savings of that was $500,000 and that's ongoing every year in in in our estimates. Uh also electricity costs were reduced. Uh our we were had been
over budget a couple years in a row with with utilities and so we reduced utilities by about $245,000 in 27. Uh hope hopefully uh that that works with Duke's increases, but we were running over, so we did adjust that
$245,000 down. Uh and also we had a $475,000 reduction for IT services allocation uh in in this year and and and that is expected to also flow throughout the model. So operating costs decreased with
those items about 1 million a year uh in in the model compared to prior year. for the capital costs. We we've had increases in capital costs. You know, we we encourage our departments to put in their needs and wants because one of the things we want to make sure we know what's in front of us obviously, you know, we want to make sure we know what
our state of good repair needs are and other needs. So, we do encourage them to put things in in and outer years and so we can plan for them. Uh so capital's increased by 5 point 5 point there's 5.1 million more dollars of capital projects
in this in this uh forecast than there was in in the budget last year and that's about a million dollars a year more in projects each year and uh so some of the projects that were added and this is some of the larger dollar ones. Fishial little league complex lights
increase $450,000 over the 5year time frame. A fireboat uh replacement is was added uh uh at for $700,000 out in 2032. An SCBA bottle air fill station for the fire department was
added out in the later years of 750,000. Dun Marina Ferry dock recon construction of 27,000. That and that was our match we discussed earlier for the uh the federal grant. the Hollander pool resurfacing of $280,000 was uh was added that was discussed some
earlier. New fire apparatus equipment and outfitting a new project for 210,000 and solar energy improvements project was added for 750,000. So those are the larger dollar ones that are in the outer years this year were not and were not in the outer years in in last year's
budget. Uh want to mention also the Higher Aquatics Complex project. The total cost in the 27 budget is uh is is out. We moved it we proposing to move it out in fiscal year 29. Uh and the cost is $8.1 million in the general fund. Uh
the plan would be to issue a 10-year bank loan. I want to mention that if penny 5 is approved by the voters in November of 28, this amount of 8.1 million in the general fund would move to the penny fund and the penny fund would pay the debt service in 29 through
2038 time frame. Assuming penny 5 is approved by the voters, uh we would move that debt service out of the general fund into the penny fund. If penny 5 w is not approved or not successful, the general fund would make all the debt service payments over the over that
10-year time frame. Um, also want to mention that debt service uh was decreased some by about by by about about a million dollars in total or about 200,000 a year year-over-year. So the total impact of these these when you
net all these out, you know, they actually net out to about a $625 increase. It's very close in total. There's there's changes. There's increases in labor. There's decreases in operating. There's increases in capital. But the net change, it changes, you know, about $100,000 average decrease
every year. And our proposed our estimated shortfall today is 5.650 million. And in the final adopted budget last year, it was 5,525,000. Just very, very close. Uh, but I want to point out some of the differences to the
commission. Uh, >> mayor, >> can I frame that up for a second? >> Sure. >> So, um, and one of the things that that that I hear in the community, uh, as a result of the budget workshops and then adoption of of our budget is, um, that
we essentially have a deficit budget and that the city commission is adopting a deficit budget. We in much the same way the federal government does, right? If it's a deficit and it builds every year, it's just just increases the debt year to year to year. That's not happening
here. This is a balanced budget. We are not permitted to adopt a deficit budget. We are projecting a shortfall in future years if everything remains the same as it is this year. But as less had said, we
can't allow it to remain the same in the outlying years. And so every year we come to you um with ways to to address to balance the budget this year, not really addressing the budget deficit in future years. So the budget that we have
for you now addresses that. We start to address that without the contingency budget in case a referendum passes, but we're starting to to make inroads there to eventually address that in its entirety over a a period of time. Um but I do have people after nine years I
finally realized what people were asking me that that that it it thinking it's similar to the to the federal government. It is not. We have a balanced budget this year. That's our responsibility to present to you your responsibility to adopt and then in future years we need to attack to address that deficit in a number of
different ways. >> No, it's a good comment. Thank you. I'm glad because I get that too. So it's good. >> Yeah. Want to mention one more one more item. If if [clears throat] you look at uh 2027 uh column uh or yeah and you go
down and and you see uh there's uh the revenue over under expenditures and it shows $442,000 uh about the fourth line from the bottom and then and then you go to the next column next column in 2028 it's it's a negative 4.5 million. So we go from
pretty much a a balanced revenue expense amount and then we go to a negative 4.5. I want to I want to mention a few a few items that that that that's causing that basically. So the the first the first item is uh the changes in 28 compared to
27 that are that are driving that that that negative number is first uh in in in 2028 we added we added back we had all this we had all this operating savings from the insurance and it's a onetime thing in 2027. So, we added back
$1.1 million in the general fund in 2028 because we knew that the savings we had in 2027 was a onetime thing in general. So, 1.1 of operating costs were increased in 2028 to take that into account. Also, we had $1.6 million
increase in projects. The projects in the total projects in 2028 are about $1.6 million more than they are in 27. We also have in 2027 in that storm slide we looked at earlier.
It's uh 2027 is a net uh has a net revenue increase of 1.9 million uh due due to storm activity. So so that that revenue in 2027 is $ 1.9 million more due due to storm activity. In 2028
that's not happening. So, when you take and when you take the 1.1 added operating expenses, the $1.6 million increase in capital cost year-over-year and and also the storm activity revenue in 27 and not in 28 that uh that gets
you to about $4.6 million and very close to the difference between those two numbers. So, I just want to give give you an idea of kind of what's driving that. >> So, you know, just one one example, I guess you said 1.6 6 million in capital projects. And of course, we've we now
seem where we pushed a lot over to 2028. >> Mhm. >> But again, I can look in 2028 and see that there's things I would push >> push again. >> I'd push again. >> Sure. >> You know, I'm not convinced on some of them. So that's so that's a number. It's, you know, in a perfect world,
whatever that we'd go to, but we have flexibility by the time we get there. And >> Right. But again, >> that really speaks to how we balance the budget year to year. [snorts] >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. It is because I again, you know, it's so funny. I've looked at this budget forever. It's the first time it really thought to me, yeah, we pushed all these projects out. But again, I'm looking and then because a lot of times
we justify a capital right at that year and we push it off and it it doesn't doesn't get the same level of vetting that it gets to stay there. >> It's a place, but it doesn't mean it's ever going to happen, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Got it. >> Can I ask a fundamental question? >> Yeah. Are we are we good? Are we ready
to go to district questions on general funds? >> Vice Mayor, I'll start with you. Uh just a fundamental question because it's the I I know you do this somehow but I'm not making the numbers I can't get the numbers to add up. Um when we see an ending unassigned fund balance
how much of that do we carry forward into the next year? Well, the Indian the Indiana fund balance is is, you know, a point in time, you know, at the end of, for instance, 2026, we're estimating in the fund balance to be 7.3 million as an
example. At the bottom, the yellow, what we carry over is we carry over the the whole the entire fund balance. Uh the the if you look at 2026 estimate, the 7.3 million, you go up two lines, u we
carry over the 11.2 2 million into the next year, which is the total fund balance, not just the available. And the difference is we've got restricted funds in the general fund that are that are not available. And that's kind of that's the difference between the 11.9 and the
7.3. So that 11.9 million number under 20 estimate 26 rolls up to the top line in 27 year. Uh if you look at the very top line in 2027 budget, you'll see that 11.9 million and then each year sort of follows that same
format. And if you go to if you go to 27 at the bottom, the total ending fund balance in 27 budget is 12.3 million. And then if you go to the top of 28, you'll see that that fund balance of 12.3 million roll
forward to 28. >> Okay? And so it's all not it's not incorporating any specific line item. I'm just trying to get the numbers to >> Yeah. Yeah. For for for flowing purposes, I would look at the ending fund balance, which is the third line from the bottom there, ending fund
balance, and then those numbers are the total fund balance in the in the fund and and those roll up to the next year and then and then and continually we we that's what rolls from one year to the next. >> Okay. All right. Well, I question that's
good. Um yeah and I just uh just to just to comment I mean you know just to put this in perspective last year when we did this you know we were looking at this big cliff in 26 27
about it was in that time frame and you know and but when to make that distinction between you know a deficit budget and basically you know the balancing the budget and identifying the
shortfalls in the budget. You know, that that's a year-to-year thing. And, you know, just for anybody who might be listening now in the public, um, you've got a you got a pretty good track record here of managing that shortfall. So, this is this is why we're here. This
is why we are in this this and talking about this because um you know that is our job to manage that shortfall and we the track record is good. That's all I've got. Thank you. >> Okay. Um Commissioner Sam
>> the uh in that personnel number. Is it safe then that approximately 50% of our expenditures are personnel? Am I reading that right? >> Yeah, that's correct. Uh yeah. Or or a little Yeah, pretty close to that. Yeah.
>> And that's wages >> and benefits and the health insurance benefits are in that. >> Yeah. Everything's included. Yeah. Health and benefits are in there, too. Yes. >> Okay. And why do we carry such a large beginning fund balance? It seems like that's an
awful It's a pretty pretty substantial heavy number. Is that on purpose? Well, our our reserve, you know, we our fund balance is is is one number. Then we have restricted funds that we really can't access. So that so the the
available is is what we try to follow closely because that that's what we can that's what's available to to without any restrictions or commitments. So those numbers at the bottom uh such as the under 26 budget the 13.3 million uh or actually maybe estimated call is
better estimated 26 16.1 that 7.3 is sounds like a big number uh but that's that's 16.1% of our of our of our personnel and operating cost and our our reserve our reserve target is that that that percentage would be 15% or more.
So, so we we our reserve target is have our our available amount at 15% or more of the operating which would be personnel and operating. So 16.1 is a little bit higher than that but but that's that's really what our target is. >> May I mayor?
>> Yes. And and also um you know the reserve some cities carry a I think Tarpon carries a 35% reserve which in my mind well I won't comment but anyway that's a huge reserve. Um and also He just backed off of that one. Backed off of that one. I love Tarpon Springs.
They're wonderful. But anyway, so um um but actually when we're surveiled, when we do issue debt and we're surveiled, the reserve is is a very large subject in terms of are we maintaining our minimum reserve. Le and I for a number of years have been really trying to build it up as much as we can. The average over this period of time is
about 23% which is a good reserve. It really is. Um but to Jorge's point earlier um that that's our checkbook in case of emergency and every fund carries its own reserve. >> Okay. Okay. That's all I had. Mayor >> Mr. G.
>> Thank you mayor. If I understand this correctly less under uh protection 2028 uh the revenue over under right now it's a negative 4.5. >> Correct. >> Right. And so >> estimate estimated. Yeah.
>> If the referendum passes, right, and it's $3 million, is it safe to say that that will change from 4.5 to 7.5? >> Yeah. If that passed and we did nothing else, that number would that negative number would go up by about 3.9 million.
>> Okay. And then in 29, it would go up another six. >> That's right. In 29 would be 6 million. 6.2. I'm going to correct because add on the EMS issue deficit we get passed down. Add on cooperative uh library
cooperative add on Yeah. So I knew where you were going. I thought it >> so we're looking in 2029 of 1516 million. >> Right. Okay. That's all. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh Commissioner Good.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'm looking at our trend relative to total expenditures. In 2024, it was 38.9 million and this year estimate is 57 million, which is a $20 million increase. Help me understand why
it jumped so much. Which one is that? >> Oh, okay. Well, in 2026 is has a lot of storm activity in it and that's that that's that's a lot of what's going on there. There's a lot of storm activity in 2026 and some in 2027 too.
>> Uh our our ours are our our storm activity is how much in 20 in 26 roughly estimate? >> Yeah, just one second here. Well, even if you look from 24 to 25
that doesn't have any storm activity, it jumps $14 million. So, I'm kind of curious as what caused that jump. >> Yeah, 2025 had storm cost to 2025 had two about $2.5 million roughly in storm
cost. Uh and it we also had uh that large increase in operating too. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There were also increases in 2025 starting with the health health fund and the risk fund started increasing their
operating cost. We can we can do an analysis. >> Yeah. To give you a good analysis, we we'll follow up with that to give you a detailed analysis. I'd rather do that than you kind of peck through it. Yeah. >> Well, on a like note, if you take a look at the budget for 2027, we're looking at
49 and that does include some capital in it. even in the non- capital, but if you go in the non non- capital budget, it stays relatively flat for the next [cough] four years. So, you know, I'm I'm just there are two different stories here. One of some
increases that I'd like to understand and how we're possibly going to stay flat for the next four years. >> Yeah. you know, well, the ne, you know, the next four years, you know, one of the challenges we have in this in this estimate is if you go out to 28 to
32 and you look at u the revenue, the total revenue in 20 no actually look at 2030 revenue, it shows 49.5 million. Uh and if you if you take that number and
then you uh if you look at personnel and operating cost only you know that personnel and operating you know completely cover all of the uh all the revenues >> okay >> that's a challenge you know that that's
what I mean capital is part of the challenge but and that's why the one of the things we have on the next slide is a a no capital scenario. do >> uh that I think might show some of that but uh but we will get information for 24 actual and 25 actual to you because
to to break it all out. >> Yeah, that's just just such a large jump and then showing uh no increases almost it's not even inflationary for the next four years as well. So I understand we're doing some cost savings and and reductions but still that's pretty
impressive. Thank you very much. Um, I don't think I have any questions. Um, yeah, I don't think I have any questions right now. Um, some of my questions are wreck and park questions and we'll get to we'll be talking about that separate,
right? Or not. >> Actually, you probably want to do that now if you want to because that general fund. Yeah. >> Um, >> yeah. So, um, when we look at some of these ongoing costs in Recken Park, athletic field renovation, uh, we've got the lighting here, the,
uh, um, Fiser Little League and Jerry Lake complex lighting. Um, what what is, um, how how do we assess that? And, uh, and yeah, so why why what are we going to spend $120,000 on, and why aren't we
putting that off? >> Uh, thank you, Mayor. Uh Tony Moy, parks and recreation. Uh we are uh proceeding with uh invest. We're trying to procure the lights. We we did go out to bid to try and start that replacement. We're seeing failures. We're seeing standards
that are compromising the safety and pay playability of of our fields. Uh but we're approaching this with uh a several approach. One um what would upgrades do to our maintenance costs? Can we reduce our maintenance costs through newer
equipment? newer technology has efficiencies. So, can we reduce our electrical and utility costs? Uh the control systems on the new lighting, uh more efficient for staff time and being able to program things. And then also the new technology and designs uh impact
neighborhoods less through light splash and and just kind of control of the lighting. So, we're approaching it with some type of offset, but we are seeing failures to these systems that are impacting the play at these fields. Uh uh and and this isn't just Fiser, this is Jerry Jerry Lake as well is included
in the outy years. Um so we're investigating some some approaches where we can kind of uh maybe make a little larger impact sooner and realize those cost savings as we pay it off. So >> what percentage of uh of games are played, you may not know this, but what
percentage of games are actually played at night? >> Uh during the school year, all of them except for the weekends. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And um I mean I mean what's a big deal if a few lights are out? >> Uh could could be a kid not seeing the ball, could be, you know, somebody not
seeing a hazard on the field. It it it's a important to have the right lighting. >> I mean I'm asking it rhetorically. It goes right to the heart of liability. It does. >> I mean we we'll So yeah, I mean really if we don't keep them up, we got to shut them down. >> And I think these are 30 years old, right?
>> Yeah. They're 30 [clears throat] years old. But wouldn't it be true if we if we if we don't keep them up, we should just shut the field down, >> right? >> Because it's not safe. >> Mayor, if I may, >> we'll just get sued. >> Correct. And >> oh, somebody will be hurt. That's the worst part. Correct. >> And then as as you look at cost cutting
measures moving forward, right? Then you may just have to close any nighttime activities. So aside from closing facilities, you you reduce the level of service that you're providing. >> Well, fencing out there is the same, right? I mean, matter of fact, I can think of a lawsuit we since I've been on
the commission, we settled was probably eight years ago and it was a fence issue and it wasn't a it wasn't a cheap claim. Um anyway, so um so all those seem like easy things to pass off, playgrounds seemed like, oh, but again, if you can't keep a playground up, you got to shut it
down. >> Yeah. Too many too many ways to get hurt. >> Can I ask one thing about that? Does [clears throat] that include the poles or just the the lights? the the poles are sound. So, this is just the fixtures up on the poles. >> Are all the poles out there concrete now? >> They are. >> Okay. Because years and years ago, we
had problems that they were they were wood. >> Yeah. >> And uh when one took a tumble into the middle center field. So, okay. That's all. I'm I'm good. Mayor, sorry to interrupt you. >> No, it's okay. I guess my my last question for you is I know that you're doing a real um detailed kind of cost
benefit usage and all our centers usage of our programs. when are we when will we see that? >> So, >> because that goes to the heart of >> and and I'm I'm doing that in conjunction with preparing our contingency budget. So, I I should have that early August,
>> right? Because obviously you got the >> Yeah, you got a tough job there and it's going to be interesting to see how that all plays out. >> Absolutely. >> And the impact. So, um [clears throat] >> Okay. Uh anybody else have any questions because then we're going to go to lunch. >> Yeah. Mayor, may I? >> Yep. >> Okay. Uh
>> oh, Jeff. between us and lunch. >> Yep. Jeff standing between us and lunch. Look out. >> Oh my goodness. Uh yeah, just real quickly back to the overall I'll start with just the overall general fund and right that all the staff we reduced everything by 20%.
>> That was the goal. >> That was the goal. >> We found our goal was a bit over ambitious as far as that goes. >> Even more interesting. Okay. Over ambitious. We couldn't get to 20%. Um and so and but if we were where that figure shows up is under operating. Is
that a true statement? >> Correct. >> Okay. And so when we go from uh the 26 estimated to the 27 budget that reduction of 21 to 18 is the reduction that staff was able to do and
that is 2.8 million. >> Yeah. But well there were there was that but there was also other adjustments that came into play. I mentioned we had a a really large adjustment because of insurance that the insurance went down dramatically in 20 in 2027 because we
had overbudgeted in 26. Budget to budget went down because our our uh our 2026 budget for property was was much more than needed. Our actual costs are much less. So our budget was almost about a million dollars lower in 27 compared to 26. So, there were a few things that
came into play to get that operating number, but but part of it was 500. Yeah. >> Okay. And then again, back to if that referendum passes and we're looking at 3 million. We found it very hard to get 2.8 and we're not done with there. It
would be another three and then another six. Correct. And that's not taking into consideration what the mayor talked about. And so following up on my earlier my comments earlier this morning and the lights at the little league, I would
propose not doing the lights and cutting night games now. >> Show show the citizens this is what will happen and this is serious. >> Mhm. >> And then if they say no, we want the lights then okay, it's on them. They
told us they wanted the lights. >> His insurance [laughter] you know I you know I it's that anyway those those are leaguers >> well and and that's I'm actually trying to be in support of little league >> I know
>> um in all of our youth sports uh at Sterling but >> they're my concern is they're going to vote yes for this not understanding the impacts that we're going to be stuck with the impacts they're going to be screaming that we don't have the services that we've come to enjoy in
Dunen and what do we do with that what do we do other than Yeah. Sorry. Anyway, >> so those are my comments >> and if I could um we have a very end of the of the day, we have a a uh comm city commission direction and so if there's
anything that anybody wants to put out in terms of a different direction that we're going, I think that's the time >> and we'll we can all kind of come to consensus. >> And mayor, thank you for that. It's a discussion the commission needs to have on that that issue. Staff has no comment on that. We can't comment on that path
moving forward. I think it's a decision of the city commission. >> Very good. Well done. It reminds me, and this is the last comment before lunch, when they finally made the vote to disband the police department and go to the sheriff, it was the only time that former city attorney John Huard had
nothing to say. They turned and they said, "Mr. Huard, would you like to give an opinion on this?" And he said, "I have no comment." And it was the only time because he always provided comments. So, I get it. You know, it's like sometimes that that's for us to decide. So, >> okay, sounds good. All right, we are
adjourned for lunch. [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Hey. Hey. >> [music]
[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]
>> Heat. Heat. [music] [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> 19. [music] Heat. [music] [music]
Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music] [music] >> [music] [music] >> Heat. [music] Heat. >> [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] [music]
[music] Hey. Hey. Hey. [music] [music] [music] >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]
[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]
[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> here. >> [music] [music] [music] [music]
[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] [music] [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]
[music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] [music] [music] >> [music] [music] [music] >> Hey. Hey. Hey. >> [music] [music]
[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] [music]
>> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] [music] >> [music]
[music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] [music] >> That's pretty. [music] [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Hey. >> [music]
[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]
[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] [music] >> open our budget workshop session and I think we're on the stadium fund. Uh we
did have if you want we we had a uh general fund no capital scenario we could go through if you'd like or if you or we can go to the stadium it's up to the commission. We can >> Okay. Well the commission you want to go do the no capital general fund thing or >> um I think
>> it's similar to last year. >> I mean I looked at it I I kind of get it. >> Yeah. We see how the numbers >> you managed to blend it out well >> but it's great to have as a perspective early. >> That's what we thought. Yeah. We thought we'd share it. Yeah. Yeah. So, okay. Stadium fund.
>> Great. Okay. Starting with the highlights in the stadium fund. Uh charges for services decreased uh by $10,000 in 27 compared to 26 budget and that was uh an adjustment to true up to actual
revenues. The naming right revenue was uh being slightly under budget. So, we we sort of tried up to actuals in 2027. Uh, also in the miscellaneous revenues, we had a small decrease of $10,000 and that was for a an estimated reduction in
interest income in 27 compared to 26. And we had a uh a decrease in operating expenses of 303,000 and that was due to the property and liability insurance ISF charges uh due to lower than budgeted premiums in fiscal year 26. The excess fund balance
in 26 and the ISF fund was used to reduce the risk ISF allocation to the stadium fund in fiscal year 27. Similar to the general fund we talked about. Also want to mention uh staff is still fine-tuning the property and liability amounts and allocations for the stadium
fund and all funds working with the uh with Teresa the director of HR and bridge management. for the assumptions in the stadium fund. Uh we have $550,000 allocated per year from the general fund for for operations and that's mainly for
uh for insurance uh uh property insurance uh in the stadium fund and operating costs are 3% increase from 28 to 32. And for the overview in the stadium fund, this is on pages uh 508 and 509.
uh fiscal year 27 budget includes uh normal operating uh cost in the stadium fund. We show at the bottom of the page the reserve for capital in 2027. That reserve is for future major repairs at the stadium as outlined in the agreement with the city and the Blue Jays. The
capital reserve is 3.4 million uh at the end of 27 and that's the second number from the bottom row there 3.4 4 million in 27 and Indian available fund balance is over our target u in 2027 in future years.
>> Okay, questions. >> Okay, I have a question. Um I just want to make sure I understand the what's actually coming in here. Um so the intergovernmental million dollars is from where? That is that is the payment we receive annually from the from the
state to make the the bond payment every year. It's about they pay about a million dollars a year. The state pays us 883, 333 a month and then we collect that and then we make the debt service payments. >> Okay. And then the 348,000 is what?
that is uh combination of uh naming rights and uh and uh there's a there's a few couple different revenue sources in there naming rights and also I believe the uh uh Jean's going to check that he's confirming that right now but
there's there's another one that I'll I'll I'll get to >> that's probably the biggie though naming rights. >> Yeah. And then >> and the miscellaneous is what >> that is uh that is represents uh most of that is the Blue Jays uh pay us twice a
year for their debt service payment for the bonds. >> Gotcha. >> Uh and that's about 1.3 million or slightly more than that. They pay us twice a year in advance of our debt service payments every six months. >> Gotcha. >> Uh that's what the majority of that is. And also some a little bit of interest
income too in there. and the 550,000 that we transfer in from the general fund. I mean, I kind of remember is that like it's towards kind of the capital improvement fund, but we only have to do it so many years or >> Yeah, the the five the 550 transfer in
that is transfer from the general fund and that uh that covers uh mainly in the agreement. We're responsible for property insurance and that that that covers property insurance uh payments every year and also a little bit of
property tax. The the club pays most of the property tax but uh we pay a little but they pay most of it. >> Okay. Um yeah, go ahead. We're sure. >> Is there any uh income to the city? Any revenue from ticket sales? I thought we
got a percentage of every ticket. Yeah, we we do the the it's collected and we do receive the uh ticket sale activity from the club, but that but that is that money that when we receive it uh goes into that reserve balance that I
mentioned earlier. Uh the ticket sales uh the money comes to us but we're we're required per the agreement to reserve that in that capital reserve for future future repairs and maintenance and things at the stadium. >> Okay, that's all. Thank you, Lesman. So that's probably part of the 348,000.
>> That that's part of it. Yeah, that's true. Yeah. >> Gotcha. >> Mayor, may I >> uh first Commissioner G? No. Commissioner G then Vice Mayor. >> And so um unless the budget uh 2027 the
reserve is 211%. Is that what I'm reading? >> Mhm. >> Yep. 211% right now. Yeah. >> Okay. What would it be if we did not do that transfer in from the general fund? >> Well, are [snorts] we allowed to do that? And what would the impact be on
the reserve? >> Well, we could reduce the transfer in if we wanted to. Uh, you know, property uh insurance is running about 550 600,000 a year right now roughly, you know, in that fund or real close to that. we
could reduce it some uh you know and it would it would go down. One of the things as you see if you look out to 2031 or actually 2032 uh we're at one we're at 1.3 million. One of the other things that that comes
into play here is uh the the cut off the cut off at year end [snorts] uh as far as a cut off every six months as far as when when the the funds come in for from the state to make those debt service payments. But we could reduce it to 400450 uh for the next few years and uh
and and probably be okay. We could do that. I mean I I think uh I I could do a little more analysis to to see if there's any issues with this going to 450 and see if if there's any concerns in the in the outer years in the in the short term. Uh we have plenty of fund balance for that.
>> I was going to ask let me just ask because I'm I just want to make sure. So but we have to pay what the actual cost of property insurance is. >> Yeah, we have to pay the No, because everything else is required by the contract, I believe, to go to capital money that's going to help the stadium when it needs capital. So, ultimately,
we got to pay the fight. >> That's right. We have to pay we have to pay the insurance and and uh and like you said, everything that we receive uh we receive some money from the Blue Jays, the the ticket sales for example, and that and those all roll into that reserve. You can see that reserve
growing every year, you know, uh based on those estimated ticket sales. Yeah. Okay. And so that 550 from the general fund that basically covers what the mayor was talking about. >> Yeah, it covers that and and and and
could be could be ancillary cost too. We don't see that very often because that reserve is intended for those type of things and they've only used the reserve I think a couple times since [clears throat] the new stadium. Uh but we could look in I will look into seeing if we if we can challenge it and maybe
reduce that 550 some uh and get back to you >> because I know was it's been a couple years but u we started a concertive concerted effort on reducing the reserve and all of these funds that some of them were getting kind of out of hand [clears throat]
>> and at 211%. That just seems pretty high. >> Yeah. And it as you can see it is going down over time in the projection uh you know it's down to 1.3 uh later on but I
can uh we'll take a look at it and we can we can respond back and see if we can reduce it just to some lower number and get back to you. >> Thank you go to you but can I just finish that one thought? Um so uh but just to be clear if it's if the cost of
the property insurance or yeah the is it property insurance or property taxes? >> Property insurance. insurance is 450,000. >> We adjust that. We get that money back to the general fund >> later. We don't just leave it there. Right. >> Say it again. Now I
>> So if if we're we project 550,000 for property insurance, >> it actually the bill comes in as 450,000. >> We take back the hundred,000 to the general. >> Well, we we don't really do that. I mean, we could do that, but we don't do that. That's that's why I think I'll look at it because we may be able to for
at least a few years uh reduce that contribution uh to to chew up some of this fund balance and and and so we don't we don't tr it up every year to answer your question. No, we don't. In other words, >> well, my concern less is and and again, I'll let you go off to do it, but is
we're required to do the property insurance. Whatever that cost is is ours. >> That's right. The other pieces that are in here are required to build up a capital account for when we know big things will start to happen at the new stadium. Exactly. Already not that new.
So I'm not as concerned about the fund balance as we don't want to give any more to the fund than we have to. >> Right. No, good point. Yeah, good point. Yeah. >> Let me let me ask the question another way here because um >> yeah, this is along the same lines of discussion, but
>> actually there's two parts to this. So first of all, is there anything prohibiting us from doing a transfer out say to the general fund? >> Uh prohibiting? No, I would but I I would I
would advise if we're going to do anything lower the contribution over the next couple years. You know, if we feel we have extra room, lower the contribution the next few years. Uh but uh but there's nothing prohibiting that. No. And then [clears throat] the second part, >> I'm sorry because I think we better look at the contract because I'm not sure
that's I could be wrong, but >> I'm not sure that's addressing >> I think the contract says we have to build the separate capital fund. So >> yeah. No. Yeah, the capital fund for sure we have to build 100%. Yeah, that those numbers down below uh we we have
to track that and and we have that set aside in our financials too and as a as a reserve. >> I'll just be quiet. >> That wraps. So, [clears throat] you know, this almost kind of looks and feels like something that would an enterprise fund would lend itself well
to. Um, you know, I take a look at the revenues coming in. Now, obviously, the the the major revenue piece of this would be ticket sales. Um,
I don't know what that number looks like for us, but is there any thought on that? And if it's not, you know, and it may not it may be prohibitive in some particular fashion. >> Well, well, ticket sales uh Tony may know the answer to that, but ticket
sales uh change a little bit every year. Uh I don't recall the exact number, but but ticket sales definitely it it's just for us it's just a flow through. If we get 180,000, that number is flowing right down to that reserve at the end of the year. Uh and you know, because that that's in the agreement. So it's just
that's money we we receive from the club but it's required to go in that reserve capital reserve number. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I'll just just to share the comment that everybody else is making um
that you know we we we keep that that fund balance is a percent of the operating budgets pretty big. >> Yeah. Bigger than most. And then so I wonder is that reserved for capital piece of it, you know, do we need to
carry that much? >> Yeah. Uh I'll I'll take a look at the fund and I'll get back with the commission and let you know if if if if we if I think that we could either reduce the contribution some if the next few years or or do a or do a one time
transfer, whatever the commission would like. You know, I'll take a look at it. Yeah. [snorts] Just real quick, that building is owned by the city of Duneden and I can never remember the reason that we have to pay property taxes even though it's owned by the city. Can you clarify that?
>> Yeah, it's it's owned by the city, but [laughter] both the the stadium is is uh the taxes are are less than they would have been because we're we're a government agency. So, but but it's it it's public private, so we do pay we do pay taxes. the the property taxes are
paid primarily uh the first 150 I believe is paid for by the club and then the and then anything above that is split. So they're the club's paying most of the property taxes. We pay a little bit but the insurance is the city's responsibility
and the insurance happens to be a much bigger number than the property taxes. So, if I may, so any governmental entity that uses property um for a commercial activity such as the stadium and say, for example, we lease something out to a commercial activity, then we had to pay taxes on.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. Good. That's all I had. Thank you, Les. >> And and less, [clears throat] I'm sorry because I think I was going down a rabbit hole, but what you're saying is that reserve for capital number is our contractual obligation to hold on to. So, the other is in question. We have to
keep that much more. So, >> right. Exactly. That that other number is what is what we'll take a look at. Yeah. Right. Yeah. >> Okay. If I may, mayor, that when we take a look at it, we will be conservative to make sure that reserve for capital is has >> Well, we have to because you know that stadium's going to get tired. You know,
I remember with the other stadium before the renovation, it was getting tired and you know, you don't want it to you want to we want to be proud of it, but obviously you want to be responsible with the money. >> True. >> Uh question, mayor. We're looking at reserves here of in
excess right now of two of 3.4 million. >> No, that's the reserve for capital. The 2 million is the >> Okay, we're we're looking for I'm looking at that reserve, but I don't see interest income up in revenues. So, I pres I presume we would make interest off that it goes right back into it.
>> Yeah, the interest income is in the is in the miscellaneous line item. It's included in there. Yeah, the the the interest the the now the the reserve the reserve for capital does earn interest too. In other words, we we track interest and we do pay we do allocate
interest to that reserve every year as well. >> Just as a comment, that's an awful large miscellaneous when your total is 3.4 and you've got 1.5 in miscellaneous. Might want to be breaking that out in the future. >> Yeah, we could show a breakdown. Most of that most of that miscellaneous is uh
I'd say 1.350 of it is uh the debt service payments that the Blue Jays pay to us that we that we turn around and make the debt service payment. That's what most of it is. >> Yeah, I figured that. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Yes, we beat that one down. >> Good questions. Yeah.
>> All right. Uh okay. [clears throat] >> Okay. Impact fee fund. Uh some highlights of the impact fee fund. uh increase in license and permit fee revenue of 212,000 in 2027 for a projected increase in Parkland impact
fees due to development and offset by a small decrease in the multimmoal fire and law enforcement impact fees. Um, we've got some developments that we've estimated that uh that will be coming through uh uh 265 Cosway
Boulevard and we've got Azul Avenue vacation homes and uh Sunrise Town Homes are three of the ones that we've included in in our estimates uh for this these impact fees. the the operating expenses uh decreased by $15,000 in 2027
and that's due to Beltry's ADA improvements project that was budgeted in 26 and not in 27 and the capital expenses decreased by $230,000 in fiscal year 27 due to uh multimotar way woods design of $150,000
and law enforcement public safety mitigation for safety barriers of 80,000 that was in 2026 but not in 2027 budget. And for the assumptions in the fund, uh the revenues are estimated just, you know, based on estimates of of known or
estimated developments each year. And this is the uh long range plan. This is this is an overview uh combined of our four impact fees. And this is on page 510 511 in the in the budget document. This shows the estimated revenue and expenses for the total
impact fees which includes the multimodal, the parkland fee, the fire fee, and the law enforcement impact fees. Uh, and the following slides will go over. We have a slide uh for each impact fee. Starting with the multimodal
impact fee. U, this is the revenue estimate is based on estimated development. As mentioned, the 27 budget has the pedestrian safety crossing improvements uh for various locations project for $30,000 and the same amount in future years as well as you can see
in the capital line item uh in this slide. And moving to the Parkland impact fee, um same thing. Uh the estimate is based on development. I mentioned in 2027 that is a higher number. We we we've
anticipated these those uh projects I mentioned being developed and uh and bringing in uh more in this fund for the for the Parkland fee. Uh there's no projected expenses in 2027 and after currently uh or no projects in future
years. Uh the funds uh is projected to have a $1 million fund balance as you can see at uh bot at the bottom on in 2027 and growing uh over that time some over the time frame out to 32. And the next is the fire impact fee and
there's no projected expenses in this uh at this time and the fund balance in the fire impact fee is projected to be 135,000 in 2027. We are we are working with uh the fire chief to look at uh a c a capital
project to to spend some of these dollars. So we're looking at that to see if we can do it in 27 or 28 to see if we can find a project that we can move here and out of the general fund since we've we've got a balance of 135,000 getting to the point where we could do something with that. So we're looking at that now.
uh the law enforcement uh impact fee. Um there's [snorts] no projects uh planned uh in 27 or future years, but we what and the balance is now at an estimated $12,000. But I want to mention that we in 2026, current year, we budgeted
$80,000 in 2026 to uh for the uh public safety mitigation project for purchase of safety barriers. And uh so we'll be spending that in 2026. and to we did that to draw some of these funds down too. So now we've got about 12,000 uh moving forward. [snorts]
Are there any questions on any of the impact fees? >> Anybody have questions? Commissioner Samber. >> Um how is that law enforcement impact fund? How is where does that uh revenue come from? the licensing and the miscellaneous >> the licensing comes from development and
uh you know certain certain projects fall under the that fee to have to pay pay that fee when they when they develop can you add that George at all or >> so so I don't know what the exact numbers are but anytime somebody comes in for a building permit so for instance like uh I think you mentioned sunrise a
zul when they come in for a building permit that impact fee will be assessed at that time for whatever that rate is per unit. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> What was the first impact fee before uh parking?
>> Uh multimotal is the first one. Yeah, that one. >> Thank you. >> Anybody over here? [snorts] >> Um so, uh the uh the barriers that we're doing downtown, I know I noticed somewhere in the budget, was it in general fund we were
going to pay 40 $40,000 for more of them? Mhm. >> So, we're taking that out of general fund. >> No, I think that's coming out of risk. >> Yes. It was a It was a combination of the law enforcement impact fee and risk safety. >> Okay.
>> Since it was deemed as a safety protective measure. >> Okay. Got it. Okay. Good. [snorts] I don't have anything else. >> Okay. We'll move on. >> Thank you. Next is the building fund. Oh, >> public card. Excuse me. Okay,
>> I'm jumping around here. The public art fund uh highlights uh the operating costs decreased uh 24,500 and that was due to um the public art master plan implementation cost to
adjust to available funding. We reduced it. Our funding stream is we we'll see in a minute is low in that in this particular fund and uh due to very little revenues uh expected from future development projects that pay into this fund in fiscal year 27 in future years.
And for the assumptions uh it's it's again based on estimated developments that would that would pay this fee public art fee. And uh the overview is this is on page 512 513 in the budget document. Uh staff expects
development projects electing to deposit the uh 0.5% of project cost into the public art fund will improve and the actual revenue received and provide positive fund balance uh at some point in the in the future. And as you can see in 27 through 32, we've have $2,500 uh
estimated for non-reoccurring operating and expenses each year. And we'll monitor that depending on revenues received each year. It's very looks like a stable amount. What are we paying for there? >> Well, I'll bet Nicole can answer this,
but better than me probably. Yeah, >> I don't know about that less, but uh so I we we you know try to estimate for the development that is going to pay into the public art fund, which is a little hard. Um so we we have that just as a
stable um you know figure in there as an estimate. It fluctuates depending on when things actually get built and when things uh actually pay into the public art fund. So, um we tr, you know, we see differences year-over-year. Um you know, we have several applications that have
come in but likely will not be built for, you know, two to three years to be completed. So, we try to maintain some stability, but really there's a lot of fluctuations. >> I think I understand what you said. [laughter] It depends.
>> Anybody else have public art? >> Okay, let's keep going. >> Okay, next is the building fund. Uh we have for the highlights uh transfer in uh decreased in 2027 compared to 26 and that was uh the final year of an
internal loan. There was an internal loan between the building fund and the public art fund and the last year payback was 2026. Uh so there's no no payments in 2027. and operating costs increased $72,000
or 12% in 2027. And this is due to an increase in contract service for inspection services of $50,000 and an increase in annual IT licenses for a flood plane management program of $50,000 in 2027 compared to 2026.
And also there's a reduction in the ITISF allocation of $33,000 to offset those increases. And for capital costs, there was a decrease of $32,000 in 27 compared to 26. And that was due to the uh Digi Plan
software implementation that took place in 2026 and is not in 2027. And that software is to be used for reviewing plans. And for highlights in the building fund, excuse me, for uh the uh next one,
>> the assumptions on the wrong slide. I was on the wrong mouse. >> That's fine. Thank you. The assumptions uh we have projected um an increase in 2029 and 2030 in building permit revenue if needed. Wanted to point that out. If you look at 2029,
we've got a potential 34% increase and then another another increase in 2030. And uh and that's and we're doing that because we reduced the fees by 33% back in 2021 time frame. And we did that to work towards being in compliance with
Senate Bill 553.80 which was uh to they have requirements of what your fund balance can be in in the building fund for the state of Florida. Uh our fees may need to be adjusted in the future as and and we continue to monitor each the fund each
year as we always do. Uh also um want to mention uh the expenditures are projected to be salaries 3.5% benefits 6% and operating costs 2%. And uh the the other years are pretty pretty standard but we had those two
years of increases. Uh because you look at the long range plan here this is on pages 514 and 515 in the budget document. the available reserves uh in 2027 are projected to be just under 2.1 million at the bottom there. Uh and um
and I mentioned uh we the reduction in fees which was ordinance 20 21-12 that took place in March of 21. It was done uh with the goal of working towards following the state code I mentioned which is 553.80 80 which allows for for no more fund balance carried forward in
the average of it op of your operating budget for the previous four fiscal years. So uh staff has been working towards getting our our fund balance is currently higher than that. Our fund balance has gone down over the last two years. So we have made improvements but ideally our fund balance would would
want need to be about 1.4 million to be in compliance with that. So we're still working towards that. Um and uh we're we're projecting as you can see here that uh that uh in 2028 uh which is this
which shows 1.334 million that that's pretty close to the number that that is that four-year average of budget. And we'll we'll continue to monitor revenues and expenditures in the fund and in order to stay in compliance and also also watch and and because we may get to
the point where our fund balance is as you can see here if if this projection holds true our fund balance is getting below that is getting below uh you know out in 2032 it's almost zero. So at some point uh we would need to look at you know increasing those fees back to
something. you know, we reduce by 33. There may need to be an adjustment at some point to get it back up to to pay for the ongoing cost. >> Uh we got a question. >> Yes. Are are these fees uh and permits based on a currently static rate and
you're anticipating growth or is that an increased rate? Well, the the the fee the fees are static in general and our estimated revenues are are the estimated development that will happen that year. >> Okay. >> Uh
>> so we're stable. Our fees are pretty set and we're seeing development grow like that. Yes. Do you think we should re-examine the fee basis that we're currently charging because of the projections we have? Well, you know, we we lowered it by 33% and uh and and we
we have made ground. We've made ground because that that reserve of 2 million was well over 3 million a few years ago. So, we are heading in the right direction. Uh at some point u you know uh our 2026 revenue is trending a little
higher than our budget. So, it's been sort of a balancing act. We we had lots of development like you said recently. So that has increased the fees and uh we we since we're heading in the right direction, George and I have to talk about this from time to time, you know,
but we we think right now we're heading on a path to get to get us there. The good news is the states, our auditors look at this and and and they talk, they ask us every year and we have a conversation and they do see we're making ground and uh fortunately the states not uh really uh at up to this
point paid a lot of attention to this this requirement and uh so we're we're making ground and we think we're heading in a decent direction. >> Uh but you know if we lowered it again, we may have to turn around and raise it raise it back up a lot two years from now. I can think of no better time than now to raise a fee if we're having these
kind of projections. >> Yeah, >> just as a thought. >> Sure. No, it's it's a good it's a good comment. Yeah, good comment. >> Thank you. >> True. >> Okay. Anything else on the building fund or anybody questions? >> Okay, I [snorts] think we keep going.
>> Okay. The county gas tax fund. Uh the [clears throat] uh gas tax revenues are budgeted at 3.2% uh decrease in 2027 compared to current year 26 and uh and mention mentioned ear earlier that gas tax revenues are
trending they're coming in right now less than budget for 2026 by about 3 and a half 4%. Uh and our 27 budget is assuming no growth uh and relatively flat and we're budgeting $450,000 in 2027 uh for gas tax uh revenues and this
is consistent with the county panel's projections last year. I've not seen their projections this year yet. >> Mayor, if I'm any excuse me, am I okay? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um I think you're optimistic here. I I think these numbers are going to grow.
What you're finding is the consumer is moving to more electric vehicles because of the current cost of gasoline and we've seen that globally, not just in the United States. So, I think you're going to see a continued decline at about the rate you've got there in 27. >> Thank you.
>> Good point. >> Yeah. Well, on that note, can I just ask um is there any legislation at all talking about offsetting with the electrical vehic electric vehicle usage, you know, on the roads? I know there's
been talk of it, but never anything that's really jelling. Yeah, there was nothing last year, the previous session, there was a bill that was filed by actually by Senator Hooper um in regards to um including basically a fee during the registration process if you have an
electric vehicle to offset the what we're seeing happen to the to the tax fund. Um but as of right now, we we haven't nothing's been successful. So >> Nicole, was that going to the state or was that going to go to local? >> That's at the state. That was at the
state level. Yeah, I don't think that's going to help us. I think that's going to help the state, but I don't think that tax because it's it's it's in the guise of a sales tax as I recall. >> Um I mean less how I mean I assume that the the way that the tax that the the
fuel tax or is is structured comes from the state. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It comes from the state. Uh this funding stream is is passed passed to us through the state. Yeah. We get it is passed to us through the state and it is based on consumption like like we mentioned. >> Yeah, it would operate the same way.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Mayor Mayor. >> Yes, please. >> I was just happy because my jacket's coming. So, thank you. [laughter] >> I appreciate Uh, under the expenses, are there any expenses that the city
incurs that isn't funded that goes to what might be considered gas tax expense, but the gas tax fund can't handle it? So, it's paid through other funds. >> Well, yes. Uh, yeah, that's that is
happening. Uh, and we'll talk about that at the next slide, but yeah, we the gas tax fund is financially constrained and and uh and I and I will look at the county's estimates when the budget comes out and and see see what they're estimating in future years. Uh, but it
is constrained. were this year, for example, we moved uh it uh we moved $20,000 of payment management to the penny fund because this you can see there that was an if you look at capital there that $200,000 the last line that $200,000 is for payment management and
we reduced it by 20,000 because this fund can't afford it. So we we Penny could afford it so we moved it to Penny. Uh also in future years we're moving uh remind me >> uh this the sidewalk maintenance project
uh we are moving that out of the county gas tax into the risk fund. >> Yeah. So the we're moving we're moving the about $100,000$125,000 a year out of gas tax into the risk fund for uh in 28 and future years to be able
to to cover those >> cover those expenses. Yeah. And also this year we added $100,000 in the streets general fund budget for um pavement striping and ADA curb um work that's needed um for the sidewalks and
stuff. >> So that is an increase to the general fund this year because we cannot put it in the uh county guest tax. >> Thank you. Yeah. And I just wanted to make this point just in general. Uh that was the purpose of why this was even created was it was designed to help take
care of our roads. But regardless of our transition to electric vehicles, we just and not just Dun Eden but the entire country is outspending that gas tax. >> And so we just build more roads and build more roads, build more roads without any concept of the funding
that's supposed to um supply th those expenses. So anyway, just wanted to make that comment. Thank you. Well, so my side comment to that is that's under the fact sheet failure to act >> when it's obvious what >> Yeah. And and the county Jennifer Hy
County back before [clears throat] right before CO was looking at uh doing really addressing the challenge that uh the whole county has with gas tax and it's a county thing and they were looking at uh uh referendum whatever it was going to be to try to you know shore up shore up
the needs but nothing's happened. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Of course. Let's shore up that gas tax for more roads, but let's not build more bike lanes or sidewalks or walking paths. Genius at work. Thank you, >> Mayor. If I may along those lines, the
gas tax also is as uh as less mentioned and and Jean, you know, we're also u leveraging the risk fund because obviously we need to maintain those sidewalks that we have. Otherwise, we cut our nose spider cut our nose off the
spider face because then we have trip and fall claims because we haven't maintained the sidewalks that we have. Uh to Nicole's point earlier, as you speak to your colleagues in Tallahassee, you know, if if you can't do this one-time charge when you register an
electronic or an electric vehicle, what you could do is add something to the annual registration for your tag renewal. So, those EVs would contribute to the the usage of of the roadways and sidewalks. >> And I think if you talk to any EV owner,
they'd be more than willing to do that. >> I don't know. Yeah, [laughter] >> I knew that was >> ready to do that. Uh, but and not not for this, but I would love to know what the linear feet cost is on repairing a road versus repairing a sidewalk. Love
to know that cost differential. >> Okay, there you go. Okay, well, we're really getting in the >> good questions. >> Um, oh, good. Uh, so but I think what the county was doing was uh going to add a uh a penny to for gas tax, right? Which still defies the reasoning of you
need to get the electric vehicles in the game. >> So true. Anyway, >> true. >> But either way, >> because I don't they don't have the ability to do that. I think the state has to do that probably, right? Yeah. >> Um, anybody else on this one? >> And and just I'm [clears throat] wondering, mayor, this is just cuz I don't know. Um cuz cuz that is important
about the the electric vehicles. Would that include golf carts? >> Oo. >> Yeah, [laughter] >> I'm vehemently against that. >> Thank you very much. [laughter]
>> Yeah, >> that's a terrible idea. Um a really terrible [clears throat] idea. Um, >> all right. >> Going in the wrong direction. Okay. So, uh, we're done with that. We're going to go to the penny fund. >> Uh, just the next slide. Forget that one. Next slide. I just want to briefly
mention that, uh, >> oh, okay. >> Just be real quick. This, this is the fund overview. It's on page 516, 517. Just wanted to mention that our fund balance at the end of 27 is projected to be $66,000. uh you know in in the gas tax fund and
uh and it's it's you know uh above currently above our 15% target but barely and uh and like I said we've shifted lots of dollars uh to uh the risk fund and also you know that 20,000 to the penny fund because this this fund can't afford it. though. And I will I
will check again with the county what their estimates are in future years too to see if we're we optimistic or too optimistic. Uh penny fund for the penny fund uh highlights the uh the other taxes which
is uh that's the sales tax the penny sir tax is estimated to be a $342,000 reduction uh or 6.1% decrease compared to our 26 budget. The 26 actual revenue is projected to be approximately close to 7 and a half% we think less than the
budget due to that HB uh 7031 I mentioned regarding uh the elimination of commercial rents effective October 1st 2025. The 27 budget is projecting 2% growth above that above that estimate in 26 uh in actual projections. So that and
that's how we based our our revenue number of 5.237 237 million for 2027. Uh miscellaneous revenue has decreased uh $250,000 in 27 and that's due to u $250,000 for
the Highlander aquatic complex therapy pool contribution that was budgeted in fiscal year 26 and not in fiscal year 27. Uh the actual donation in 26 was $100,000 with the with the expectation that the remaining $150,000 will be paid
in 2029. And with and and once that final payment is made in 2029, that would be the full $1 million for the therapy pool uh uh received by the city. The debt proceeds have decreased uh 4.6 million in 27 compared to uh 26. And
that's due uh to moving the financing for the Highlander Aquatic Complex out to 29 uh uh in the proposed budget and and it was in 26. The capital costs u have decreased 2.7 million compared to 26 due primarily to
uh again the decrease in the Highland Recquatic Complex of 2.6 million in 27 compared to 26. And debt service has also decreased by 743,000 u due to a decrease of 676,000 for community for the community center
loan that was paid off uh in 2026 and not in and not in 2027. Not no payments in 2027 and also a decrease in the cost of issuance of $66,000 for the aquatic complex that was in 26 but not in 27.
And for the assumptions in the penny fund mentioned earlier that we're uh the the uh the estimated decrease in 2027 6% because of the changes uh with the uh HP731 and then we've got 3% growth uh in 28
and 29 then then 1.5% in 30 2030 is really only three months of the fiscal year uh because penny 4 expires in December 31st of 2029. Uh, also we I mentioned the donation uh earlier and then we also have transfers in every
year from the water sewer fund of $468,000 for their debt service payments for the city hall and those will their last payment will be uh in 2029 as long as well as our debt service payment last payment will be in 2029.
And for the overview, uh, you know, want to point out that, uh, at the end of 2030, which is penny 4 timeline, we've got on the bottom row, we've got $1.4 million, $1.5 million of of uh of fund
balance there that's uncommitted, you know, that could be uh uh could be, you know, spent on uh other projects or whatever. So, we we have that for the next three years. Uh and also I want to mention that the estimated cost of the aquatic complex uh the estimated costs
are include everything but it it it is without the lazy river it's the same project we had before with the slides and the total budget for Highlander aquatic complex right now for construction and and right now it's in penny fund and general fund I mentioned earlier but it's 23.5 million u and
there's also a new project I want to point out in in uh the penny fund That's the Buuna Vista Drive drainage improvements uh in fiscal year 28 and 29 at a total cost of $500,000 for brick street repair and replacement for that
project. And also in the outer years uh we do have uh replacement of fleet services building project in 28 and 20 in 29 and 30 excuse me 29 and 30 for design work and that's a placeholder for now. uh you know it is a requested
project in penny 5 revenue stream but uh it's a placeholder at this point as we work through the penny 5 plan with with this with the city commission. Are there any questions on Penny? >> Just to make sure that we're all on the same page here. Penny fund is used
primarily for infrastructure projects, city Okay. >> Yeah. capital >> and I hear over and over about all the taxpayer money that went into this building. Is it true that but a big chunk of this building was paid for by
Penny Fund? >> Yeah. Uh Penny Fund paid the the total project was 23 million, right? And Penny Fund paid roughly uh I'd say 17.5 million of that. 17 million of that roughly. >> So 17 out of the 23 million. It's all
been said now because I still hear about how much money was spent for a city our size on this building. I knew the answer. I just wanted it to be said open on on these microphones today so that everyone heard that. So, thank you. >> If I may, mayor, >> you're probably
>> the building itself is $18 million, >> right? And and so the storm water storage and the parking lot and the entire project was just north of 23 million, >> right? Yeah. With with design, right? Sorry. But still 17 million came that's what I heard from for from Penny. Good.
I just wanted that clarified once and for all. >> Where did the other six million come from? >> It came from the uh uh building fund and the water fund with the with these payments we just mentioned. Yeah. >> Right. >> Because they're enterprise funds and they pay for their use. >> That's right. And pay for the use here. Correct. >> That's what I thought you were.
>> And when will that debt uh from the city hall be paid? >> October 2029 is the last payment. >> 2029. This the residents in Benin will own this free and clear. >> That's right. No, >> good use of funds. Uh, and I do have a question. Sorry. Right. Just kind of to
piggyback on uh, Commissioner Samberen that the purpose of the penny fund is for infrastructure or capital projects. And we have a line item there that pavement management program. And it seems to me a capital project
would be a one-time building, city hall, a pool or something. The management program sounds ongoing. >> Yeah. But >> so are you almost using it like an operating fund? >> Yeah. The pavement management has a uh
when when when they're redone, they have way over sevenyear life, which is sort of the time frame they look at when they when they redo a road. So that's why it's eligible. Uh and us like many other cities uh you know penny fund is is really for most cities around us I think
the majority of their ability to do payment management because gas tax provides very little as you mentioned and then we we put a little bit in storm water but that's kind of just you know a couple hundred thousand a year for storm water related stuff but you know uh pavement management has has when when
they're redone has has a life of well over seven years so that's why it makes it eligible you want to add to that >> yeah commissioner f I think what Les is alluding to is there's restrictions on on what you can use infrastructure sales tax for. So if you can extend the the life of any particular asset beyond
seven years, then it's eligible for for um use as a for the infrastructure sales tax. So >> it's considered capital. >> It's considered capital. So you know otherwise you would be using operating dollars and and we'll do that for some of the the work that streets does for street patches and things like that. But
once you're resurfacing and uh refurbishing a roadway and you can extend its service service life beyond seven years, then it's eligible for penny expenditures. And so uh to the other point that less made is we also use some storm water uh funds for that.
It's it's a much smaller portion of the overall budget, but that's for curbing repairs, under drain, and those kind of things, but the majority is coming out of the penny fund. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> One more. Okay.
>> Yeah. May I don't think I misunderstood, but I want you to say it again. A [snorts] projected cost of the pool did did you say is it approaching 24 million? >> 23 Tony. >> And what was the cost of this building and the land? >> 23.
>> Isn't that incredible that the price of that pool is the price of just the land and this building just by the the way that we just can't catch up to the cost of that pool. I mean, it's beautiful. We want it. We need it. But it just it's like it's like trying to catch your shadow to narrow down the price on that
pool. >> And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when I first came on the commission, [snorts] what we had budgeted was 600,000 >> for what? >> For the pool. >> Right around that time, 2018 is around 4 million budget. >> Was it 4 million? Stay corrected.
>> Yeah. But I mean, that goes to show. But that I remember uh what was uh when did we build this building? 2020 >> so it became an issue during the 2020 election
>> and and about waiting don't wait and let me tell you we would have never got this building if we'd waited >> because it would be at least twice as much >> it would have been crazy probably would have who knows we'd still be in Grand Oak Park that's what we be doing that's where we' be [laughter] um I had a
couple questions um first of all the uh just out of curiosity the Buenov Vista Drive one so there's another project on Santa Barbara. Is that [snorts] like how do those what are those are they the same issue down on the the north end of
>> I was going I was I was [laughter] no I was thinking yeah there as the storm water projects those were both pipe replacements as there's each of each one of those roads has a has a pipe that sort of connects the system and leads out to the to the bay and those are
replacement replacing those pipes. So they're on the north side though. Even on Santa Barbara, it's the north side of Okay. >> Yes. >> Because I know there's an issue on the south side, too, but >> Yeah, they are on They're on the northern part. >> I'm just curious if I both of these projects were in the storm water study. >> Gotcha. >> And recommended.
>> Okay, sounds good. [snorts] >> Um and then um uh so yeah, so my question goes back to the pool. Um so if I look at the penny 2026, we spent 2.6 million. No,
>> we budgeted. >> But that's design. But that's okay. That's all going to be spent. That 2.6 million. >> Yeah. Well, the design the design costs are in are are are ongoing. Uh but but the construction will not begin till 2029 in here now. Yeah.
>> Okay. Well, I guess what I'm trying to say, anything in here, is it the 15 million448 that would roll over into the next penny or how much will roll over to the next penny? >> Signs income. I I think it's about 16 million. When we
had presented the penny five um uh we had >> to roll over to be >> into the next penny. And just to clarify the the the budget in penny that's in 26 will not be spent because that would be for construction. The design piece is in
the ARPA fund for the pool. >> Gotcha. >> And we're Oh, wait. Say that again. Say that again. >> The the the design costs for >> are in ARPA. Okay. In I didn't realize that. Okay. [snorts] >> Um, so for those that say, you know,
[snorts] we're not conservative enough, I just I'm just going to just pull up a little history. Um, before the um would have been the 2000 or 2010 maybe referendum um when the community center was so bad, the decision was made by the
commission at the time to move forward anyway, even though it didn't have a guarantee it was going to win. And we've made the decision, we're not doing that. we're not going to expect it to win. Now, I'm not saying I would have had anything different because Community Center was in such dire need, but I
mean, um, there's a lot of conservative principles at play with us that haven't always been true in the past. So, >> just saying we should get a little credit. That's all. Um, okay. Um, let's see if I had another question.
I think that's it. >> I got a question. [snorts] >> Okay. Vice Mayor, >> so for the Coca-Cola property adaptive reuse, um, is that going to be pushed out to 2028? Is that what I'm seeing here?
>> Yeah, based on, if I may, vice mayor, based on Coca-Cola schedule, and we stay close contact with them, they still have not gotten a D clearance. So, we push that out and more to correlate with what we expect that to go on the market for. >> Okay. still very much committed to it. Still staying on top of it. Still
fielding calls from developers, but uh CO is just >> Is that a study or what is that? >> The the the $30,000 >> the 300 the >> adapt No, the the the the penny money which was over two years is for infrastructure improvements in the rideway to enhance things to the
Coca-Cola property as an incentive to bring the right project really to the city. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Anything else? And the and the referendum will be 2028. November 2028. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. Um
Okay. So, yeah. Next. >> Okay. Next is the ARPA fund. The U have a small decrease in miscellaneous revenue and that's just a a reduction estimated for interest earnings because the cash balance is going down in the fund. uh capital
budget is uh decreasing by 25,000 in 2027 and that's due to uh we bud in 2026 we budgeted the boat club selling center and it's not budgeted in 2027 uh this project we pushed out to 2028
now for the assumptions uh the the total grant uh for ARPA was 18.3 million if you if you recall that we we received over the uh two different installments ments. Um 6.4 million of
that 18 million has been accounted for in the general fund for revenue recovery and governmental services and 3 million of that was accounted for in the golf operations fund for the ARPA funds allocated uh towards the golf course restoration project and and and the
remainder obviously is in this ARPA fund. uh want to point that out and high level uh on the the fund itself. This is on page 520521 in your uh in your budget book. Uh the ARPA estimated fund balance at the end
of 27 is $389,000. And as G mentioned, this is interest only. This is nothing that the grant is is not included in this balance. This is we we have had interest earnings on this funding since we received it. Uh and the good thing about it is the interest earnings uh is to do what we want which
is great. It's not part of the grant and and it's we can spend those funds how we we want to. Um uh the and the u now the this can be used for contingency and and these funds are uh the grant needs to be spent as I mentioned earlier by December
2026. Uh we'll be bringing an update uh to commission probably in August, September to uh just overall provide an update and make some recommendations for probably some movement. We have some projects that we know are not going to spend this money by December and we want to move the funds to the general fund to
make sure we we uh we have we have flexibility to move the funds to different places to governmental services and we'll do that to make sure we can draw the grant funds down and don't have any any any dollars left on the grant. uh one uh uh one one item
that uh I mentioned a little bit earlier was [laughter] was we are going to recommend uh sometime in 26 or 27 to transfer the balance to the general fund and uh and uh one of the things that CM I we discussed some I mentioned a little bit
earlier was uh potentially moving this to the general fund and taking some of that money maybe $100,000 I'm just picking a number to start a cat catastrophic reserve that we we would like to set up at some point in the future to build start building dollars for for some of those future match dollars that
we may have to come up with later for future storms. So that's just something to wanted to mention. Uh we would like to eventually set up a catastrophic reserve if the commission would agrees and just thinking some seed money for that. That's all potentially you know uh
but we want to discuss that more with the commission. Yeah. If I can add, mayor, I this is really the first time that you've you've heard about um our discussions regarding the catastrophic reserve and I think that it's fair to give you some time to think about it, but especially given the environment
that we're in right now, but just generally um the we have the reserve at all the funds which we could use uh to address a catastrophe, but we uh would like to have a little bit more uh set aside uh when we know that that I'm not knocking on wood here, but we know that
in the future You know, we've had a good year last year, but we know that in the future, what we're we're most likely facing. And we could set it up depending upon what the city commission would like to do moving forward that it it can't be touched except via resolution of the city commission. It may be five other people, you know, on the day at that
time. Uh when they need it, they need to and a lot of times during a storm, you have a special meeting. When they need it, they can tap into it. But, you know, uh it also obviously would be subject to to future commissions as far as using it for something other than a catastrophe. but it needs to be protected in the
budget if we establish it moving forward. So, um we can talk about it more if you'd like and we can tease out tease it out a little bit more for your next budget workshop and that type of a thing. But, um and certainly anything that we're putting in right now would would be, you know, a mere ripple as far
as addressing a catastrophe, but we've got to start somewhere, we feel. So, >> anything else on ARPA? No, >> got a question. >> Okay. Yeah, question. the uh so basically what ends up getting spent by the end of this year is that ending fund
balance. >> Yeah, th this uh this ending fund balance is uh sort of unobligated right now in 2026. It's not showing here. There are there are projects with that are that are that have budgets on them that we are spending funds on and those
those projects are the ones some those some of those are on the grant and those are the ones we want to bring back to commission to walk through and make sure that we we we are uh if if we've got projects that have funding on them that we we are not positive we're going to spend by December. We want to move them to the general fund and put them in a
flexible space so we can draw the grant down. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner >> C. Thank you mayor. um the downtown pavers that are not part of the budget, but they're the estimated in 2026 for
187,000.8. Uh have we spent that money yet? And is there a reason why and I'm sure there was and we probably even had the conversation. I understand that, but why it's coming out of ARPA and not out of the CRA?
>> Assuming it's for a CRA, it >> it is Commissioner. This was uh originally had that money uh budgeted for that parking lot over there across from Calonia and we had some savings in there and we really wanted to do a streetscape project on on Main Street.
Uh we were looking to do it this year but we were running into the winter season with tourists. We didn't want to disturb it especially with Skinner going on. So we have it planned for next spring but that is part of CRA money and the AR in order to do that streetscape project but it was originally for the parking area. We came in a little better
cost than what we had expected. >> Right. And so >> question is why is it ARPA and not? >> Yes. >> You know why is it coming from ARPA? >> Yeah, we just had fund limitations in the CRA also. So it was really just a partnership type deal kind of similar even what we're doing with Grando Park.
You know we have penny money. We have CRA. I mean CRA has limitations on the budget too. So this was a a partnership type move. >> Thank [snorts] you mayor. >> Any other questions? Mr. Dard. Oh yes.
>> In the world of competing interests, uh is the ARPA fund restricted to downtown area or could it have been gone to the pool? >> ARPA can be anything. Yeah, it could have been any project. >> Did it have to be capital? >> Oh yeah. Yeah. I mean it it couldn't be
any project, but ARPA could be spent on, you know, any [clears throat] area in the city. We we've got there's a list of projects but there is flexibility in general government in the general fund that we've but so you know but uh but it's pretty broad as far as where it can
be spent in the city. >> I have nothing against the paper project at all. I don't want to be misinterpreted. I'm just trying to understand the world of competing interest as you guys decided this budget. That's all. Thank you. >> If I might add to the commissioner, we were facing a pretty good reduction also
from the county to the CRA. remember they're just going to match our millillage. Their millage was always quite a bit higher. So we were also feeding having that uh reduction in revenue. So this looked like a good opportunity to do it and it was a pretty small amount in the overall ARPA fund.
>> I could e e easily argue either interest. So it's I'm not I'm sure I have a strong disposition. Thank you. >> Yes. And I love to argue with Bob. So yeah. [laughter] So, [clears throat] um, uh, the golf course money, the 3
million. So, and I'm trying I'm just trying to relive history here. Some of what we went to the golf course was a was money that was not coming back to us. Another was a loan, >> right? >> So, can you refresh me on that? Yeah, we
the ARPA money we just mentioned and then we we got a $2.5 million loan in the golf fund and the golf fund's paying that off over 10 years >> and the golf So the $2.5 million loan came from the general fund. >> No, no, the golf golf enterprise fund issued we issued the debt and the golf
enterprise fund is paying off all the debt for that loan. All the debt. >> So you did an outside loan. >> Yeah. It wasn't an internal loan. >> Oh yeah, we did a bank loan. Sorry. Yeah, we did 10 year bank loan. >> So, make sure so the the $3 million
is a given like we just gave it to them. >> Mhm. >> Yes. >> Contribution project >> because originally we were giving them two >> and I guess it jumped to three. >> Yes. >> The total project cost I think was 5.5 million. >> Sounds about right. >> And then the the the loan the outside
loan is being repaid through greens fees and and the members fees >> out of the enterprise fund only. Yeah. Yeah, but I think when that thing gets profitable, we need to remember this because that could be general fund
money, you know, like that that it's an enterprise fund. I'm just saying if we start to dig back a little bit of money from them eventually, it's because they got more than they were supposed to get. They were going to get 2 million out of our, but they got three million. >> That's all I'm saying. I'm putting a marker down.
>> Mhm. >> Because I do believe that thing's going to make good money. Right, Blair? Where's Blair? >> Well, we'll we'll go through that, too. Yeah, I know. I know we will. I'm just putting my marker down. [snorts] Um because it did, let's face it, it jumped ahead of a bunch of projects, including the poll. Um and uh and and we needed to
do it, but but you know, it they they grew into more than they were going to get. So, >> um Okay, first things first, though. Okay. Um and I have a thought about catastrophic, but I'll wait till the end. No, I'll say it
now. I mean, I I I guess I'd have to be convinced that makes sense versus just raising the level of our reserves and categorizing it somehow and what's everybody else doing. >> Um because I think you always, you know, look in the face of you got all these
reserves and now you just created one more reserve. >> Um so what are they really for? >> And you know, so but you know, I'm not saying I'm close-minded. I'm just just need to understand it better. So, >> right. and and I'm sure there'll be further discussion about that at the end of the meeting, but that is a very valid
question and it can be answered, but what I'd like to do is just get your questions and then we can answer it in our next budget meeting. >> Okay, fair enough. >> Well, we can we can people can make comments at the end too about that. Okay, anybody? No. Anybody else? Okay.
>> Okay. Next is CRA fund and u the first is the property tax revenue, the the tiff revenue and an increase of 4.8% 8% $108,000 and that was due to the the uh 4.5% AV growth in our in our proposed budget.
For the expenses, uh other expenses increased $300,000 uh in 2027 due to an increase in incentive tools for the affordable housing project. Uh the new bud the new budget for this year continues to be 50,000 per year as as it's been over the
past several years. In 2027, we are rebudgeting the project instead of using carry forward the carry forward process to move the budget from one year to the next. The $50,000 will continue to be added to this project each year and it will be it will be accumulated until a
suitable project is found. For the assumptions, we've got our uh the same as consistent with our general fund. got 4% growth in 28 through 31 and then 3% growth in 32. And we do have a couple of uh same
similar to prior year, we moved them a little bit uh estimated new construction for out in 29 and 30 for ocean optics uh and gateway uh in there as well. And for the overview which is on page
522 and 523 in the budget document um under under the revenues uh in fiscal year 27 we show uh $9.1 million in debt proceeds for the Midtown parking garage project and that's to fully fund the project uh and provide cash flow for the
project. The CRA fund is projected to have a $943,000 available fund balance and that's at the very bottom the yellow highlighted uh row. um and it increases in the outer years and is 4.3 million in 2032 to be used for future projects and
and initiatives in the CRA fund. And that's the yellow highlighted row again. In 2027, also budgeted $150,000 for underground utilities and and 75,000 for Virginia and Milwaukee bulb out improvements to help with wrong rate
wrongway traffic on Virginia at city hall. Any questions on the CRA fund? questions. No questions. Oh, come on, Bob. We got to go at him. We got to get him, you know, you know. Okay. Well, >> oh, I got Oh, I have a question.
>> Okay, good. Let's get him. Come on. >> All right. This is maybe very fundamental and rudimentary and probably a bit naive, but u >> All right. Midtown parking facility, 9.1 million. And as I'm looking across
the the lines in terms of our ending available fund balance now those those are some pretty significant reserves of course affordable housing. >> Okay.
Okay. All right. Well, that uh that that you so you can actually as long as we stay within the parameters of the percentage of fund balance to operating. Um >> sure. Absolutely. >> You that that's essentially where you're
drawing your major capital expenditures basically. >> Yeah, we we are I mean ours does go up and down. And of course, we'll build up some reserves in order to do some future planned projects. And so it can go pretty quickly, frankly. But yeah, it is significant. As far as the uh the
Midtown parking garage, vice mayor and the mayor commission, what we're going to do is go out for an RFP, but we're going to hold off until we see what happens with the property tax relief here in in November. And that's a discussion I had with the city manager Jennifer there and less. Okay. So, but we still want to continue on with it,
but we certainly recognize, you know, what impact it could have. Of course, with that Midtown parking garage, a good portion is paid for with CRA dollars, but it does sunset in 2033. So, >> 203. So, >> yeah, >> the So, what you've got in the capital line under expenditures is 9.7 million
and then the parking garage is 9.1 million. Where where's the other six? I'm sorry. 600,000. Public math here. 600,000 five. >> 600,000. >> 605,000.
>> Let's see. Less. You have a thought on that one? I'm trying to think. Is that the Is that the leases and the Gatsby or is that >> That's a project. Okay. Take a look here. >> All right. So we have um 300 out of that
number 350,000 is for downtown pavers which is new budget in 27 and then we have um 30,000 for the north um alternate 19 entrance enhancements 150,000 for um underground utilities in
the downtown area and then 75,000 for the Virginia and Milwaukee bulb out that makes sense. Yeah. Then, um, so what basically related to this, do we have a a general idea of how much we're going to have to finance for the parking
garage or? >> We do. We do. I like less talk about it, but our debt debt service is going to be like $840,000 a year. I think we're looking to finance pretty the most of that. U, of course, it would run to the CRA in 2033. Then we'd go to the general fund. But one of the things to make sure
that we all keep in mind is when the general when the uh CRA sunsets 1.5 1.6 million will come to the general fund and will continue to increase over the years. So it'll go up to over 2 million probably about three or four years. >> Okay. >> So that will help pay for that debt service. >> So we would um immediately um set aside
that funding to pay the debt service after the CRA sunsets. >> Yeah. Right. >> To the general fund, >> right? >> For how many years? Uh the probably if it's a 10 year then >> I want to say 15 but I'm going to defer less >> 15 year loan we're thinking >> 15 year loan. Yeah. So eight or nine.
Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Other questions mayor. Mayor. >> Yep. >> Okay. Um I noticed that we have the 350,000 for downtown pavers walkability enhancements
>> for this year. Uh, so downtown pavers through the CRA, but yet the ARPA we have the 187 for downtown pavers. So why aren't they all coming from the same fund? >> Yeah, I'll let finance the actual project cost for the streetscape. This
is Main Street from the trail to Broadway is somewhere around the million dollar figure and it's a culmination of some different uh allocations. changed. Yep. >> I I think the the main reason was that the funding was allocated to ARPA for the uh parking lot across from Calonia
when that project came in under budget. Um and at that point, I think we were needing a little bit more uh money for the project in the CRA to be able to do what we needed to do. It was originally uh reallocated a year or so ago. So at
that point the CRA didn't have I think there was a little bit more of a funding constraint to add that and leave it in the CRA in leave it in the economic development project instead of putting it back to another project was I think
the reason at the time. Um so you know we you know we are willing obviously to to do whatever the commission you know requests. I'm just seeing uh in 2032 at the end balance is going to be 4.3
million >> and it just seems to me that there should be plenty of room uh in the CRA fund for that. But that's that's my comments. >> Well, I did want to say Jean, I love how
thorough you are with your answers. It's amazing. You're you're so on top of it. >> Um and less nothing not taking away from you because you're great, too. She's awesome. [laughter] >> So, I mean, but it's just I love like the detail that Jean gives, you know? I've seen her in action in the finance
board, too, and they they they love it. So, it's it's that kudos to you. >> It's awesome. [snorts] Um, so I mean, everybody's looking at that 4 million, but again, like we could put that into the parking garage and reduce the level of the amount of loan we take
and >> certainly >> a lot of things could be done with that. and and I continue I've had this conversation with you. I've said it on the diet like I just worry because that downtown in some areas >> is tired and um we got to we don't want
to fall behind it. We want to stay with it. So >> yeah. No, it's it's it's tired and dated. That's why we need to get a new CRA metro plan involved. We need to make sure we get a new vision and we need to continue to invest in it. It is an economic engine and the dollars that come out of there aren't just property tax. As I said, it's penny, it's
utility, it's franchise, it's it's part of the heart, you know, along with many other things for the city. So, >> right. I mean, no matter what happens with that referendum, we want a strong downtown. So, um so um was I next or did I jump in? I forget. I
think I jump in. >> Did I jump in? Okay, go. >> No, I'm done. I was done, man. >> Okay. All right. Um so, Monroe uh the Monroe garage lease when that that is over what? 2033 or >> Yes. What do we pay for that? >> Yeah, we pay uh approximately $113,000
each year for that lease and then we also have a maintenance charge. I think it's 57,000 or 60,000 somewhere thereabout. So, yeah, it's a pretty good sum. >> I mean, are you worried about that? >> Uh, you know, it's it's it's interesting. Obviously, we have the
private parking garage going on Douglas right now and and some of that's going to be paid. So, we can kind of use that as a as a prototype to see how that gets used. We still have some capacity in that Monroe garage, but yes, once that goes away, we really need our own downtown parking garage to control our
future. You know, we what we did is we took advantage of the Great Recession and we leased all these lots and now it's time that we need to make sure that we have our own and that's what that Monroe represents. Uh, excuse me. >> Is it your vision to not stay there or is it your vision at least we have
leverage to leverage reasonable? We have leverage, >> which that would be my thought, too. >> You know, whether he could adaptively reuse that, which might be tough because of his ceiling height, >> but yeah, it gives us leverage. >> Okay. Is it? Yeah, it's a great garage. >> Um,
yeah, I think that's all I have. I'd like to heckle you, but I just can't come up with something good enough. >> There's still time, mayor. There's still time. >> Yes, there is. You're right. You're right. >> There's still time. >> Okay, everybody's good, right? Okay, we'll go to solid waste. [snorts] >> Okay, solid waste. uh intergovernment
revenues increased by $800,000 in 27 compared to 26 due to an FT diesel emissions mitigation program for two solid waste class 8 vehicles. Another grant was awarded midyear in 2026 for class 7 vehicle. This grant was not
budgeted but it uh is shown in the estimated column for 2026. Uh a note related to the purchase of the vehicles. Uh the the class 7 vehicle which is being funded by a grant was already in the 26 budget and was ordered with the fleet replacements in March 26 due to
the timing concerns and lead time needed to order the class 8 vehicles. These two vehicles replacements are being ordered in in fiscal year 2026 current year with the budget amendment. This will ensure the city receives the vehicles before the grant uh timelines and deadlines.
Uh for charges for services uh increase $1.7 million, 25.2% in 27. This was due to the rate increase of 28.52% effective April 1st, 2026. And there will also be a rate increase scheduled
for for April 1st, 2027 of 15.61%. Ordinance 2601 was approved at the second reading on uh March 19, 2026. In addition in addition to the April 1st rate increase in 2026 and 27, it stipulates an increase of of a 3% or or
CPI, whichever is greater from October 1st, 28 through fiscal year 2030. Uh debt proceeds have decreased $492,000 in 2027 compared to current year due to
grants covering the cost of vehicles in 2027 year and no need for financing vehicles in 2027. That service is also not needed for for the class 7 vehicle purchase with the grant in fiscal year 2026. want to point out these grants are very helpful in the solid waste fund and
uh saving us financing cost and uh and also uh cost of issuance as well. Uh for the expenses, the operating costs have gone down 1525 $53,000 uh compared in 2027. This is due mainly
to a decrease of 104,000 in refuge disposal and 245,000 in fleet overhead cost. This was offset by a 203,000 increase in administrative cost allocation and also other contracts and ISF charges in fiscal year 27 compared
to fiscical year 26 budget. The decrease in the in the refuge disposal was due to stopping the service for the enclaves for the solid waste fund and the capital costs have decreased 492,000 in 2027 and that is because uh no fleet
no fleet vehicles are scheduled for fiscal year 27 as I mentioned solid waste has ordered three vehicles in 2026 the total cost of those vehicles is 1.1 million and the grant funding will be $1,50,000 with 800,000 budgeted did in 2027. The
net expense to the fund for the vehicles would be $75,000. So, so the fund will pay 75 of the 1 million50 $1 million and the vehicles purchased in 2026 are a rear loader, a side winder and a front loader.
And for the assumptions, I mentioned the rate increases uh that we have uh uh the in 27 or 28 and then the CPI in 29 through 30. Salary is uh is 3.5% merit increase per year.
Benefits are 6% and operating is 2%. And fund overview this is on page 24 and p 524 and 525 of your budget document. Uh the estimated 26 column alarm range plan in the proposed budget shows uh a
negative fund balance and uh that's in the book, not in the slide today. But I want to mention that that's for the that was for $875,000 for those two class 8 vehicles. Uh and it's and is currently shown as a capital expense in fiscal year 26. Since the
vehicle will not will not be received until fiscical year 27, the incumbrance for this will carry over uh into 27 and the vehicle will will be actually be paid for in 27, not 26. This purchase will not affect the 26 year and available in net position or available
fund balance, but we need to make sure we had the funding there for the PO to to order the order the vehicles. Any questions on the solid waste fund? >> Question solid waste or comment? Go ahead. uh at the beginning the the first slide I think it was like 1.77 million
increase in revenue. Yeah. Is that because of the rate increase? >> Yes. >> Is that where that came from? >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And that also obviously took into consideration the number of units that we withdrew service from the Well, you you
enclaves. Yeah, that's right. It it took that into consideration. Right. Correct. >> All right. Thank you. Other questions? Yes, >> if I can. Mr. >> G. >> Uh, yeah. Just le I'm looking at that negative 10.2 reserve >> and you had mentioned uh that that's
because of the purchase of the vehicles. >> Mhm. >> Yes. >> And that we haven't received those vehicles yet. We won't receive them until 27. [clears throat] And so the -10.2 is erroneous. Will that >> at the end of 26? Is that going to be the reserve level?
>> No. Well, that's a good question. It it is it's it's we for budget purposes we need to show it, but we know that we're going to be carrying over that that uh $800,000 carrying over $800,000 and'll we'll be carrying $800,000 over into
next year to pay for those. So, we're we're comfortable that we'll have a positive fund balance. It'll be a tight fund balance and and it we knew it was going to be tight already because of just that before we put the rate increases in, but that those vehicles that PO will be will for sure be carried
over into 27 and and that budget will move to we'll move to 27. Mayor, if I may, I just want to remind the commission that thanks to Camille back there, those purchases [clears throat] are being advanced and we're getting two vehicles worth about $800,000 for a net
cost to the city of about 7075,000. >> And I had kudos to Camille written down, so you just jumped ahead of me a little bit. Okay. Kudos. >> Very good. And and so since we are this is all about the 27 budget,
the 4% that is now there isn't a real number, right? That's going to change as well. The 4% for budget year 2027 4%. >> We currently have it 4%. >> Yeah, it I mean it should because what
will happen is the the ending fund balance for 26 will be higher than we're showing. So it's all going to flow in properly. So that 4% in at the end of 27 will will still still be the same. >> Change. Okay. >> That makes sense. That makes sense.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's all I had. Thank you, ma'am. >> Okay. Who else? Anybody else? Good. I um Commissioner Dard, you're good. Um I just >> voice as much as I can. um regardless of um of you know the
increase um the the the rates that our citizens are now paying are they competitive? >> Yeah, they were competitive. The rate studies show they were competitive. Yes. >> No. And I I mean I know the answer to that. They were actually a little better
than competitive. So, um I think it's important that and that's what makes it important to keep up with it because but inflation got so ahead of everybody, you know, we we've got to catch up. I once in a while I get asked the question about can we go back to uh uh two day a
week pickup. >> Yeah. Would it like do we know how much that would actually jump the rate? I mean, I'm going back to right around when I started here in 2014, but when the city decided to go from two-day
collections to one day, it was a significant impact to the rate had we not done so. >> So, it would have gone it'll jump back the other way. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You you can't um increase that service level without adding equipment and people. >> So, those are real dollars.
>> Yep. Okay. Good. Um, and and I'll ask the obvious question too because of the grants that Camille continues to get. Um, if this if we're getting ahead of this and it looks like we've got more money coming in and we're growing, which
at some point we start to grow. Um, at at you know, we won't wait till too long before we get rate relief. Like we're not going to sit there with flush money >> when it's growing. We we we know when to trigger it back as well. >> Yes. The city manager has requested that
we keep her totally up to date on where we are in that so she can bring it back to commission should there need to be an adjustment and that rate change either way. >> Okay, good. >> Okay. Yep. That's all the questions I had. Anybody? [snorts] >> Okay.
Okay. Next is uh water wastewater um intergovernmental revenues have increased by $361,000 in 27 due to um HMGP grants on list stations 20 and 32 rehab projects.
Um charges for services have increased by $4 million or 15% compared to 26. Um the rate increase was approved by city commission on with ordinance 254 on June 5th, 2025 at a 15% increase in 2026 and
27. Um the debt proceeds have decreased by 3.4 million in fiscal year 27 compared to 26 and that is related to uh SRF loans on wastewater SCADA and electrical upgrade projects. Also uh bank loan was
moved to 2027 that was in 2026 and the bank loan has been reduced. The bank loan is now projected to be 7.5 million. It was uh close to 15 million last year. So we've scoped that out working with with Clay and his team. Uh and these are
for critical projects in the water wastewater fund which include the water wastewater treatment plant u eight fil uh facility eight filter media and basin rehab the wastewater treatment plant raz pump replacements production well
facilities and uh willowwood water man replacement. So those are the plan projects for that uh funding and and that will be a bank loan that will be move probably moving forward to forward with the commission sometime in the next 12 months. Um for expenses uh capital
costs have increased 6.4 million in 2027 uh due mainly to $3 million for green sand filter project 2.9 million for facility 8 filter media project and base water main project of $500,000. These projects were all budgeted in 27 but not
in 26. And for other expenses, we have a decrease of 3.3 million in 2027 compared to 26. And that was uh a an FOT project for the utility relocation at Kuru that was budgeted in 26 and is not budgeted
in 27. For the assumptions, we have uh for revenue, we have our a rate increase in in in 27 or 15%. Then 28 to 30 uh 3% uh increases, and then then there's no no
increases in in the long range plan in 31 and 32. The ordinance only goes out to 30. Um the expenditures are uh merit increase of 3.5%, benefits of 6% and operating costs at 2%. and mentioned here the other side of uh these the city
hall there's a transfer out to the penny fund for the uh contribution to the city hall every year of 468,700 and that will that will go through October of 2029 for the overview this is on page 526 and 5 through 529 in the budget document the
uh the available net position uh at the bottom uh in 2027 is 42% uh and about $9.8 million uh and it's above our target of 25%. Um as mentioned, we have a projected debt
issue of 7.5 million in 2027. And then another we we we also look out in 2030 uh under debt proceeds. You can see there's another 7.5 million in 2030. We're estimating we'll have another need for financing out in 2030. And the timing of that debt issue will be
consistent. uh and and both of these debt issues that were uh in in 27 and 30 were in the rate study. The rate study anticipated either a bank loan or SRF loans. We're expecting the loan in 27 to be a bank loan. We're hopeful, Clay and
I talked to Clay a lot about this. The goal is to try to package uh some wastewater projects for the one in 2030 where hopefully we can make some of that if not all of that SRF an SRF loan. Uh uh that'll be the goal. Um the loan in
27 as I mentioned will be a bank loan and uh we will we will we will monitor the timing of the issue of the of the financing. Uh I'm uh we'll be staff will be bringing to your commission uh in August or September a reimbursement
resolution for this financing uh for the water wastewater fund and that's not that's no there's no commitment to issue the financing but it allows us to reimburse ourselves for costs that are incurred uh because our goal will not will be to not issue the financing until we have to thinking that may be sometime in between
uh January and June of next year but still still rough numbers on that as far as timing. Uh the city has received and is pursuing grants on certain projects in this wastewater fund which include bay shore water man replacement 1.5 million appropriation approved in 26 uh
2627 state budget. Also the city has applied for a federal aortionment on this project. The WWTP admin hardening reinforcement of walls uh hazard mitigation grant application is in process. The project total is 1.175
million with a 75% reimbursement if the grant is awarded. The application has passed the state review and is under uh review by FEMA now. And that concludes uh the water wastewater fund. >> Okay. Questions on water wastewater
knowing that you might want to ask water and stay away from wastewater. Following Tom's theme now anybody? >> You sure? was a pretty extensive u operating number that 12 million what were some an example of some of the
expenses was do we have some construction or modernizations I can't remember >> operation >> um there there's constantly um a lot of construction and stuff on these pro on these in this fund with water and
wastewater the operating budget con um is a lot of chemicals for water and wastewater to Um there's also an increase this year I want to say how much >> 500,000 for the bioolids hauling which
that that contract alone is probably like a million or so at least a million each year um and you know I can pull more information there's there's just a lot of lot of chemicals a lot of equipment uh a lot of parts
>> and then another one's sorry excuse me so another one's electricity That's what that's >> I would on estimate the wastewater treatment plants spends about a million dollars in power just alone. >> Okay. >> Okay. That's what Thank you.
>> Okay. Any other questions? >> Okay. M >> as I recall as we were doing the rate increases, there was a significant expense in ground infusion. In what years that experienced? So after we're having some further conversation with with D and trying to
meet the the 64 the Senate bill 64 and then some concern with the PAS going on that's currently moved out of the pro out of the out of the program the long term. You'll probably we'll be adding in a future year you'll see probably more reclaim storage to offset that. >> Okay. Will that affect [snorts] our
rates at some point because that was about a third of our rate increase as I recall. It was it was approximately $7.5 million. We'll be adding you'll see the other there in in there. Another one project is for additional reclaim of about 5 million for 5 million gallons. We'll be probably doubling that to go to
10 million gallons of storage instead of doing the infiltration. >> I'll seek an interpretation of that later with you. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Okay. And and just one one second. And I think the other thing to mention is because we don't have that project early
on in the planning schedule, we are able to only do the se we can do a $7.5 million loan instead of the $15 million loan we were thinking of. So it's it's going to help us on the uh debt servicing side by by doing that >> at least short term.
>> Short term. Yes. >> Okay. Any I think nothing else we can go to storm water then I think after storm water we'll take like 10 minute break. >> Okay. stormwater um intergovernmental revenues uh increase of $985,000 in in
2027 for uh USDA emergency uh watershed protection EWP grants of 2.7 million net increase in 2027. We also had an increase in uh FD appropriation for
gabians of $850,000 in 2027. An increase of 2.8 8 million for HMGP grant for Gabians in 2027 that is still pending. U revenues charges for service uh increase in 2027 over the 26 budget by $1.2
million uh or 183% for the rate change in fiscal year 27 in the stormwater fund. For the expenses, the operating uh cost decreased by 1.8 8 million or 41% in 2027 compared to 26 budget due primarily
to a decrease in ditch maintenance, the US DA EWP project of 1.2 2 million in fiscal year 27 and a decrease in stormwater pipelining project of $750,000 in 27 compared to fiscal year 26 and
capital cost decrease 3.5 million uh in 2027 compared to 26 due to a decrease in Gibian's USDA EWP grant project of 1.2 2 million an offsetting increase in Gibbeian's non-grant project of 3 million and an increase in
infrastructure replacement and repair project of 1.7 million. And for the assumptions um the rate increase in 18.6 six uh beyond uh it's zero after 28
uh based on the ordinance expenditures are uh merit increase of 3 and a half% uh benefits of 6% and operating of 2%. And the uh overview for the stormwater fund is on page uh 530 and 531 in the budget document.
And the stormwater fund has an estimated available fund balance of 2.3 million in 2027. Uh in fisc year 28, we will likely need to issue financing uh to provide cash flow for projects and we'll be evaluating that uh with with staff uh
over the next year. We'll work with public works team to determine the timing and sizing of of financing uh if needed. >> Any questions on the storm water fund? Okay. Questions? Questions?
>> So, I'm just kind of curious going back to the reserve. Um, >> what I mean, is the reserve built up to address any specific thing or what what's the plan for that?
>> Well, the reserve is projected to be 42% and then and then then uh in 20 then in 2029 the the target's 25%. So we would like it to be at 25 or higher. It does the rate increases
uh do not continue as you can see. So without without any future rate increases, you know, by by 2029 we would uh we would start to fall below actually that's a dip. We actually are okay. I take that back out to 2032
with this with these current current estimates and current projects uh that we have in here today. Yeah. I mean that those projects may change, the the costing of the projects may change, but what we have under today, we we appear to be okay out to 2032. >> So we Yeah, we just voted to raise the
rates on this storm water, too, right? >> That was a couple years ago. We >> yeah we we the ordinance we put forward was for the three years and then we said we would come back which we have on the agenda to come back and tell you how
we've done and then um ask for the a similar um increase based on CPI or 3% um so we can remain stable. >> Yeah. Vice Mayor if I could at the library just if you recall to Sue's point the rate study was for a
three-year period because we were in the middle of the vulnerability assessment which ident would identify additional capital projects. So I think that speaks to why we're building that reserve because we're assuming that we'll be successful in getting some grants but if we're not then we're going to have to utilize that reserve to implement those
capital projects. >> Yeah, that's good. I I think it's important that we we have the endgame there. Thank you. Yes, this leveling out has taken place through moving those projects around based on their priority and based on our funding.
>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Well, because in reality when it comes to storm water, there's no end to the projects. >> That is correct. Okay. Yeah. Just to be clear. Um [snorts] Okay. Um I don't have any questions. Anybody else? Or we good? Okay. Going to take a 10-minute break.
Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]
>> anybody. [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> everybody.
>> [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. [music] [music] Hey. Hey. Hey. >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] [music] [music] >> [music] [music]
[music] >> Heat. >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]
[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Hey. >> [music] [music] >> back in session and we uh are I think right at the marina >> marina fund. Yeah. Okay. Marina fund uh
intergovernmental revenues have increased 1.8 8 million in fiscal year 27 compared to 26 and that is mainly due to anticipated FEMA reimbursements in 2027 and that's for the marina ballcap project and the shore pedestal project
those two miscellaneous revenues uh which includes slip renter income and Dunen fish and company lease revenue has increased by $101,000 in 2027 compared to 2026 budget. This is due to a projected increase in slip boat rental
income. U the actual uh the actual revenue projected to be received in 2026 is more than budget. We were conservative in our budget for 2026 of of $52,000 but we are projecting revenue in 2026 to
be approximately 560,000. Uh the 2027 budget includes is proposing a 7% increase in sliprunner income in 2027 which was in the projections last year for the marina fund. Uh debt proceeds have decreased 3.5
million in 2027 compared to 26. Uh the marina ballcap project is 3.1 million and the doc design costs were 437,000 that was budgeted in 26 and not in 2027. And for expenses, uh personnel costs
decreased by 20,000 or 9% uh in 27. The decrease is related to uh a split that we've done in 2027 in the marina personnel between general fund and marina fund. The split is uh approximately 25% general fund and 75%
marina fund. The split is based on how each employees workload is allocated between the marina fund and the general fund for boat ramp and fishing pier uh type work. The capital pro uh project costs have decreased 3.4 million uh in
2027. That's due to the marina bulchead project and dock a and b design cost being budgeted in 26 and not in 27. The construction for dock A and B has been moved to fiscal year 28 in the marina fund. The debt service costs have uh
increased in 27 by uh $1.7 million which is due to the payoff of the storm line of credit after the receipt of the FEMA reimbursement for the marina bulchead project which is expected to be received uh and the line
of credit paid off in early 2027 is the goal. This partially offsets the intergovernmental revenue. And for assumptions, um, we've got miscellaneous revenue I mentioned includes slip renter income and that's [snorts] a proposed 7%
increase in 2027. And then, uh, and then 3% actually 7% increase proposed from 2027 through 2031. 7% each year. That's consistent with last year as well. We were at 10% uh, prior to the storms. We
are currently at 7% for the next next few years. And those uh that list what's in that line item is slip runner income. Uh transient boat slip rentals which is a fairly small number. Interest revenue and the Dunen fish lease fish company
lease expenditures. Uh our salaries are 3.5% merit and benefits are 6% and operating costs are 2%. And for the fund overview uh on pages 532 and 533 in the budget uh the marina
fund has an available fund balance uh at the end of 2027 at at the bottom the yellow highlighted of 1.4 million in 2027 as mentioned uh we we proposed a 7% increase in the slip revenue in fiscal
year 27 budget and then 7% increase in 28 through 31. This assumes FEMA This assumes FEMA pays us back 87.5% of the marina ball cab replacement and uh dock A and B project cost. And I mentioned doc A and B uh project cost
are the cost of of of floating floating docks. We recently received a state appropriation uh from the state of Florida of $3 million that was mentioned earlier. We'll be making adjustments to this fund for the tenative budget. Uh the state funding will replace FEMA funding uh for storm damage, but we we
should also see some reduction in match needed uh for FEMA, which should reduce the match requirements by approximately $375,000 because there's no match required for the state grant. And that concludes the overview of the Marina
fund. >> Questions on the Marina fund? Um uh you want to start on this side? Yes. Uh, thank you, mayor. Um, what are our assumptions about occupancy in the marina? I know that we're not fully occupied right now. What are you assuming as we're looking at this?
>> Uh, we're the assumption in 27 is it will stay the occupancy will be uh pretty much the same as it was in 26. Once the boats came back, we're assuming about the the same amount. I as far as exactly where they're at, I I believe they're at uh I believe 80 80% 85%, but
I have to get back to you on exact as far as as far as occupancy now. But we're assuming pretty much the same occupancy next year as we've as we had this year in 26 once the votes all came back. >> That's all I have for now, mayor. Thank you. >> Okay. Anyone else?
>> I was I'm shocked, Vice Mayor. I just thought you'd have no questions. Okay. So confirming and I [laughter] I think you uh had mentioned this but that 4.5 million for capital is that just docs A and B replacement?
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um and then just also this is really to confirm here but all of the slip rental proceeds go into miscellaneous. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> That's correct. >> Does that also include boat ramp? Uh
>> no boat ramp uh revenues have been moved to the general fund now. >> That's right. Okay. I knew that. >> Um the debt proceeds the So where does that 3.9 come from? Are we financing that? I'm I'm assuming.
Is that >> Yeah. Yeah. Debt proceeds in 28. Yeah. That's uh that's uh funding coming in for the line the line of credit the line of credit to pay for uh doc A and B for example. >> Okay. >> That project.
>> Um and uh Jennifer when are we when are we going to get the master plan back and talk about the docks again? So, we're actually we have the tour locations right now and
we're setting up the tours individually. We'll do those. >> Okay, perfect. >> Okay. >> Later. [laughter] >> How much later? >> So, I guess I should repeat that, Vice Mayor, if you don't mind, since the microphone was off. Um, we have the
locations of the floating docks where we're going to take the city commission. You need to go individually, as you know. Um and staff will be with you, various staff members. And then once we you have the floating dock information that you need, we'll bring the master plan back to all of you uh for you to adopt. >> Okay, perfect. Okay, those are all those
are all the questions I have. >> Anybody? >> So, >> okay, I've got Commissioner Sber and I'll come back to you. >> That's fine. >> So, the miscellaneous goes from 604 to 650. Is that based on that same 80% occupancy?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Basically, yeah, we you can see we do we do assume in 29 that uh that the it's it's back to full again. You know, that's an assumption. Now, we're kind of assuming in 2728 it stays near the same capacity it is now. And
right now in 29, we're assuming that it will go up some because it'll it be it'd be full at that point ideally. Yeah, >> I understand. Thank you, Les. >> Okay, Commissioner Gordon. >> Yes. Was the transfer of the ramp um to the general fund a temporary or is that
a permanent condition? >> It was proposed to be permanent. Uh we we it was moved in 26. This year we you know because boat ramp you know the thought was uh we we we get revenue for the boat ramp or or we normally do. we
haven't in the last few years, but but but we will again in the near future. And uh that that would move to the general fund. And the thought was the ramp the ramp is really not for the slip runners, it's for the public. And so we uh we decided to move the the ramp
expenditures and offsetting revenue to the general fund. We thought it made more sense there rather than because it really don't think it benefits the slip runners that much. It's more it's more for the public. >> Okay. Thank you. Anybody
else before I Okay. Um, so going back to that and I mean obviously we made the decision and I don't really recall what where my mind was at at the time because with the boat ramp revenue now it just makes me feel like we have an enterprise fund and then we're scattering off the
boat ramp to the general fund. um you know and then does the revenue for the fish company is that that's part of the revenue for marina fund right why would we give the marina that I mean I I'm trying to figure that out because
enterprise fund should be an enterprise fund should be an enterprise fund and I would I would I would just wonder if anywhere else where there's a marina they say oh no we're we're going to we're not going to include that in our total enterprise >> and just whatever the rates end up to
for each other. They figure that out. They don't separate them. But maybe I'm wrong. >> Yeah. I I I'd have to research that as far as what how other marinas do that. I'm not sure, you know. Uh but our our thought was that, you know, the the pier is more public than more more for the
public than than than the slip runners as an example. And >> I get the pier. >> Yeah. >> 100% I get the pier. >> And the boat ramp uh you know, we we thought it made more sense to go to the general fund. uh you know after talking through it um just because of again we you know it didn't in talking to Lori
not many it seemed like not many slip runners needed to use it or used it and it was more for you know general public. >> Mayor if I could I'm working off >> it just feels like other enterprise funds we could sparse apart different little things in it and say well this is
the people that have memberships at the golf club but this is separate so we'll just I don't know. Yeah. And just I'm working off memory here, but I I think uh to to Les's point and and you mentioned the the pier itself that supports the downtown and the businesses, so that's why that's
allocated to the general fund as opposed to the marina fund. I think the lease for uh Walt's business there, the thought process there was [cough and clears throat] absent that, then there could be some slips in that
location. And so that's why that those funds go back into the marina fund as opposed to the general fund. And again, the the ramp is primarily in support of uh the public accessing the basin to get out to the sound as opposed to the slip runners themselves. And I think there's
also an allocation associated with the parking that's immediately adjacent to the marina for the slip runners. And so that that repaving and that that type of work gets allocated to the marina fund where the balance of the parking goes to the park itself. Working off memory, but
I think that that was the thought process whether it needs revisiting or not. >> Yeah. I mean, I was just saying other marinas it doesn't seem like they'd parse that out, but maybe vice mayor has an opinion >> or maybe you don't. I don't I don't put you on the spot, but I guess I did.
[laughter] Well, I I I hadn't heard any anything about that, so I'm not sure that I know anything more. >> So, if I may, mayor, we'll be happy to give you um an idea of how much revenue
is generated. >> Well, I know I know it's not a lot of revenue, >> but it is going to be some cost, >> right? Yes, absolutely. And and what other enterprise funds are doing. Um it it it it was in the fiscal year 2026 budget and the whole rationale was that
it's used more by the general public. So >> that was it. >> But we're we're fine. We'll give you a report and and we can make kind of I don't want to parse off too much when it's an enterprise fund. Quite honestly, this is going to sound really bad, but you know, the fund [clears throat] is,
this is a case where it seems to me, you guys, that is better off after the storm because I didn't know how we were going to fund those floating docks. >> Mhm. >> And now we're going to be able to make a more sustainable, better marina than we had before. And we're going to have to pay for it. So,
>> yes, that is true. >> Okay. All right. >> Well, the So, back to the M. >> Now, I got your attention. >> [laughter] >> And then no, Commissioner Darw says, "I'm good." >> Yeah. I'm sorry. [laughter] I I I saw a squirrel. Um
>> I knew I could do it. Yeah. Um, but I this is why the the timing of the master plan is is critical because I just based on a lot of feedback I've received. Um, there there definitely is,
wait for it, some opinions on on how this should be worked, but it it's not what you think and I don't want to derail this discussion with that discussion because that'll come up during the master plan part. But uh I'll just say this. I I think everybody
recognizes that the cost of the floating docks is significant. >> Yes. >> And I'll just leave it at that and we can talk more about that later. >> Okay. And Commissioner Dard, do you have something else to add? >> The only thing I want to ensure is that a Marina slip owner would not find
himself paying for use of the ramp because it's now two separate funds. I just need to put that uh out because suddenly we might see people saying, "Oh, we need to charge people in the marina because it's not part of the marina." Do you understand what I'm saying? >> Yeah, I do.
>> Okay. Just want to be sure that can't happen. >> Yes. And that's a very good point. >> Yeah. Good question. >> But that brings up if they are using the ramp, why isn't it just part of the enterprise fund? Right. >> I wouldn't argue with you at all. >> Yeah. Um, but that's just a discussion
topic for anybody out there watching with the marina. [snorts] Um, and then, uh, my other thing I just want to clarify. So, uh, so the the increases to the rates are automatic. We've put that in place and that automatically is happening. >> No, actually that the the marina the
marina rate increase will be be a resolution that will be brought to your commission in September uh, for to make that adjustment. Yeah, it's not this this particular one is done annually. It's not we've not done a three or four year thing. We could look into doing that, but it's been done annually the last couple years
>> probably because it was a moving target and it's certainly a better moving target even now. But okay, true. >> Yeah. Okay, that's fine. Just so I just kind of wanted to know um and >> Oh, did we lose a lot of people because of the storm
moving out actually moving out of the marina? >> Uh Tony, >> I mean it didn't come back. Um there there was a number that have not come back because we obviously have a significant number of open slips and we've had some replacement through the weight list. Um I couldn't tell you the
exact number but uh we did have some that we lost and we had >> but not a significant turnover. >> No >> couldn't answer that. >> I don't think so >> accurately but I don't think so either. I think most came back. >> Okay. And [clears throat]
well that led into another question but Oh yes. So, how long's our waiting list? >> It depends on what size boat. The small boats, we have openings. The larger boats, we have weights. >> Long wait. >> A and B, do >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Is long weights.
>> They have weights. Yeah. >> Okay. So, I mean, yeah, I I just think all those things are important as we move forward. So, Okay. >> Well, Mary, I do have a question. Sorry, just piggybacking on that because I think earlier we talked about the
occupancy rate was about 80%. And so are you telling me that of that that 20% we're missing is all the uh small boats. It's actually the larger or excuse me, it's
probably more so the larger vessels because we haven't been able to fill all those spaces because of the proximity of the bulkhead project on A and B. So, we haven't been able to rent those and that's why there's vacancies. Um, moving forward as those bulkheads complete,
we're going to look at a strategy to try and fill those even on a temporary basis before we start the buildouts to try and close that gap a little bit. But um if if I had to say I I think most of them are in the larger slip category. >> Okay. So and again those vacancies are
result of construction not be lack of desire. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Have no other questions? We'll go to golf operations. >> Okay. Golf operations. Uh charges [laughter]
charges for services are uh are down $159,000 in 2027 compared to 26. This decrease is due to an increase in members dues of $181,000 in 27, which
is offset by a $367,000 decrease in public green fees. The increase in members dues is related to the end of the grandfather rates for members who paid during the restoration project. Effective January 2027, members rates will be normalized across all
categories. Uh and the decrease in public rounds played in 2027 budget is based on a full year or more of of history at the golf course. Now with with the restoration under the new pricing at the golf course, the estimated rounds in fiscal year 27 are
approximately 47,000 rounds which is about 9% less rounds projected in 2026 year. Uh for expenses, the uh operating costs have decreased $26,000 in 2027 compared to 26. [clears throat] This is due to an
increase in uh sewer sanitation uh mainly reclaimed water uh in 2027 of $115,000 with offsetting decreases in facilities ISF and insurance ISF of $188,000. also a decrease in electricity and
repairs and maintenance of $63,000 and reduction of operating supplies of $37,000. U and for capital costs, they've increased by 60,000 in 27 and that's due to $100,000 increase for uh the Dundian
locker room remodel project with an offset uh of 40,000 decrease for the rain and starter shelters that were budgeted in 26 and not in 27. And for the assumptions in the golf course, uh, as I mentioned,
uh, the the revenue increase is is about a 4% reduction and then we've got an estimate of 3% and 28 increase and then, uh, 2% 29 through 32 uh, increase in in uh, revenues and and in expenditures are
3.5% merit and 6% benefit and then 2% operating. And this this is on page 534 and 535 in the budget book. Um the estimated fund balance at the end of fiscal year 27 is is $19,400.
Uh it the golf operations fund and restoration project at the golf course are both fairly new to the city. It will take time to build up available net position and working capital in the golf enterprise fund. The 27 budget is showing revenues more than expenses of
194,000. If you look at the 27 column and go down to the third line from the bottom, you can see uh revenues over expenditures and that's $194,000 uh profit or or revenues over expenditures. The 26 estimate estimated net working position or working capital
is a negative number of $175,000. And what that means is it means current assets less current liabilities. Uh and so current liabilities are are more than current assets. There is available cash in in the fund in fiscal year 25 and
cash today uh in the golf funds about $250,000 in the golf fund today. There is a there's there's a grant part of the the negative fund balance or a negative net position. I mentioned the current assets that's current liability at the end of 26 uh is related to the there was a
$500,000 restoration grant that we that the golf course had had received. It was actually before we even uh you know worked out and and took over the golf course. It was 500,000 for that project and uh and 375,000 of that has not been
paid to this paid to the city to date by the state of Florida. Staff's been working with the city attorney and and Blair and his team and uh and and and the state to try to rectify and satisfy all the requirements of the grant. the available the available balance in the
outer years. Uh if you look out in the outer years out to 2032, you know, the projection is that we that we will have profits over the o over those years. We and you can see the fund balance out in 2032 is is estimated to be $700,000 and
a 20% reserve. We have we have projects that are uh that are planned in here uh throughout throughout the model and you know those projects may maybe may be deferred based on based on funding availability but um but that's kind of what we uh big picture where the
enterprise fund is. Any questions? Let me know. Thank you. >> Okay, questions. Uh oh, Vice Mayor. Well, I I just want to I mean [clears throat] I don't I don't have any questions per se, but I I am pretty happy with the operating expenses going
down as they did. I think that shows efficiencies and so >> Okay. I think Commissioner Samberg and you. >> So, I'm I'm not sure this is for you or or for Blair. Is there a waiting list to add more
members? >> Yes. >> Yes. And would it be financially worthwhile to add permanent members to increase our revenue or is there a reason why we want to leave it as is? >> I'm I'm going to let I know the answer to that, but I'm going to let Blair
answer it. Blair >> Blair, he was comfortable, too. Go ahead. [laughter] >> He's a subject matter expert. God, he was just going to sit back there. >> My favorite thing hiding behind a Bor. >> You can have Borhees peanuts, too.
Peanuts there. >> [laughter] >> Uh yes, there is there is a a waiting list. Uh we have approximately 225 names on it right now and we have 275
memberships right now. um the most the greater share of the revenue comes from outside play versus member play. >> Okay. >> Uh that doesn't mean we aren't trying to
lessen the gap between the average price per round per outsider versus member. We're trying to get the member up closer to the outside rate. Um, but right now there's a pretty big discrepancy.
So if it if it remained as it is right now, it actually would not be to our benefit. >> Okay. >> To add more members. >> Okay. >> Um, that may change in the future. >> And did I hear that that's 47,000 rounds
that were played up [music] there? >> That's what we're hoping to do. >> Okay. Um, that's what we're forecasting for 27. That's what we're hoping to do for 26. >> All right. In our in the revenue portion, that that includes the the pro
shop. And do we have a situation up there where we receive a monthly rent from the restaurant? >> We have a contract with the restaurant, but there's rent abatement for the improvements they did uh in the
clubhouse. Okay. So, the monthly rent we're getting right now would actually be zero, >> but we will eventually. >> I was going to say I didn't know that. So, when will the abatement be >> I'd have to look at the abatement for exactly when they start paying rent. >> Okay. Okay. >> No, I guess that that's it. Thank you, Blair. Didn't mean to get too
comfortable back there. >> This side I think it stay >> any anybody over here? >> Um I I have been told and now that you're up here, Blair, uh that one of the things that would help our course in a number of ways is an improved driving range. What are your thoughts on that?
>> Um, our we have after the restoration, we have a nice golf course and it's in good shape right now and we have people traveling from up to an hour away to play it on our a little more than that. We have a group from Wesley Chapel plays
every weekend just because they think it's a great deal. Um, >> you can >> our our driving range, >> that's exactly what I asked, [laughter] >> does not match the quality of the golf
course in my opinion. Um, it hinders us. We We have a golf course where we could do some decent tournaments and we just did the Florida State Golf Association Pub Links Championship. Um, but that was tea times
and the we can get about 10 people on the range at a time. If you want to do a big shotgun tournament and we do the chamber of commerce, but that's a fun tournament. If we're talking about a competitive tournament, we just don't have the room, the facility. Um, it's
not a long a big enough range for how far golfers today hit it. Uh, it's fine for me. It's fine for a lot of ladies and juniors. Some juniors like 12 and under, but
it's just not big enough. >> If I can add to that, it's something that's something that Blair and I have talked about quite a bit. Um, you don't see it anywhere in the capital improvement program. >> Yeah, I think I I agree with Blair. need to address it and I think that there
might be some um some uh kind of intermingling with Sterling Links as well. Um so we need to to to sit and figure that all out um to get those those big tournaments in there, but we we need to address it moving forward. Yeah.
>> Thank you. >> Anything else, [laughter] Mayor? >> If I may. >> Yep. >> Yeah. And this is just to clarify more for the the public. You talked about the restaurant and the abatement and why we're not receiving anything at this time, but just to clarify that the restaurant is not part of the golf
course. >> Correct. We have our own contract. >> Yes. >> And so that's why we're not seeing any finances regarding the restaurant. That's correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. That's it. So, so the abatement along those lines, the
restaurant tour uh invested uh over $500,000 in capital improvements to the restaurant and part of our agreement with the restaurant tour, the city invested nothing. So the part of our agreement is that um essentially their
rent is abated to a certain date which should or a certain num amount of their capital improvement um so that they can recoup some of their investment because the city owns all of those capital improvements. So >> So we own the kitchen equipment?
>> Yes. >> Good. Okay, that's good. Because I want to say it's four-year agreement, wasn't it? A four-year agreement. Am I wrong on that? >> Was it? >> Yeah. I'd have to look. I haven't >> I thought it was four. So, yeah. So, yeah, that'd be great to know what that what that is. Okay, I'm going to ask questions unless somebody else has
another one. Um um so, um Jennifer, this might be to you. Th this grant, the $370,000 sounds like it's in um you know, political Hades or whatever. I
don't know. It's in between life and death. >> Uh and it doesn't seem to can be coming off that. It almost seems like a political solution is the only thing that's ever going to get it out of the metal. I mean, yeah. I mean, thoughts. >> Yes. And Jennifer Cowan is actively uh
pursuing that ground. >> She's feed she filled me in, but >> Right. >> But I I don't know without somebody blinking, which seems to be between the federal government and the state government, we're the losers. >> Right. Exactly. And it it looks at this point as as though the federal
government is not is not blinking. the state is allowing us additional time. So, we have additional time to work on this on getting the grant funding, but it may well be a political solution moving forward. So, so we need to think about who has the best contacts
federally to try to move the move it because um I don't think it's going to move otherwise. I just think we're at a total standill. That's my view, but we'll get an update from Jennifer Cohen, but it just seems like, you know, one of us needs to step try to at least move some get some help from the federal
government, one of our representatives. So, >> I'm sorry for the C students. [laughter] >> I'm being a little bit vague on purpose. I don't know that we want, but >> what was the topic of the grant? So um the grant was a um was taken out
by the previous operator of the golf course and it's a PPP uh grant as that was taken out during COVID. The um federal government uh tagged that particular grant and many grants that golf courses had had uh received and
said that it's not eligible for PPP funding. Um and the city given that the city is ultimately the owner and we're still working with the you know the board of directors has not been completely uh dissolved. We still have they're in place so that they can because the grant funding would go to
the board of directors and then come to us >> by our agreement. The federal government is saying no, you're not eligible to receive that that funding. Um and uh we have Jennifer Cowan working with the federal government. Um, and the state government is kind enough to give us a a
a period of time in order to uh because because we got a a historic preservation grant from them, right? So, and they're saying that if you owe them, we're not going to give you, >> right? Exactly. So, so they're saying essentially what the federal government is saying is that the state grant they have they're in first position on the
state grant. Right. >> Um, so so it's it's really the three of these parties negotiating um uh in regards to getting repayment of the grant. So, so they're saying that the city's not in f the board of directors is not in first position. The federal government is >> and you know and the and the problem is
and commissioner Duggard you said it when you look for waste fraud and abuse this isn't it and and unfortunately it's now we're stuck with needing that money really and uh having spent it really. So anyway um okay good that's great. Um so
we'll get a update and maybe just one of us can jump in on on that level. Um uh so the you're not increasing the cost of the public rounds >> for 2027.
>> Uhhuh. >> We are increasing slightly. We're going to what we've come up with is uh we had a rate of $140 peak season. >> Okay. We had certain months we had a
peak season, shoulder season and summer season. So we are increasing slightly the rounds. We're going to try uh Monday through Friday at or Monday through Thursday at 13 at 1:40 and then Friday, Saturday, Sunday at 150. We don't have
any trouble filling Friday. >> Yeah. I mean, and again, I'm Blair, I'm I'm I'm not getting into your business because it seems like we're doing well and uh and I fully support you. Um I I if I get one comment though, it's just concern from the average everyday
Duneden resident who, you know, feels it's high sometimes. Um >> they do get a 25% discount. >> Okay, good. That's good. I Yeah, I wasn't even rate. >> Okay, good. >> And they're not mistaken. The number one
topic among public course operators, not just municipal, but public courses, the fees are are going nuts. >> Yeah. And where does >> Yeah. >> The person where where would I play for example? >> Yeah. And I get that and I I I just I
know that as commission we all kind of said we won't you know price you out of your own course but at the same point number one it's got to make money. I mean it you know for the good of the whole city. It's the most important successful. >> I've heard that from >> Yes. It's got to be successful. So >> from the mayor.
>> There you go. So I Yeah. And and so and then so my last question really is um in your opinion [clears throat] because I do respect it. In your opinion, are we really going in a great direction? You feel like we're really headed pretty well like as we kick off
and get everything, you know, done >> there's a learning curve and and not no two places are identical, but yes, I believe we are going forward. I believe we are going the right way and doing the right things to accomplish what the city
needs us to accomplish. >> Well, I will say some of the same people I got emails from during the drought and oh, it's terrible. Every the sky is falling are some of the same people now that say, "Oh, it's fantastic. It's fantastic. It's such a great course." So, and again, and they all understand,
I think, as you've explained, it takes time to seed it in when you have a new course. And we're what? We're a year and a half into this, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Good. >> Mayor, could I add one thing? How are the um So, if somebody walks in, is there
notification of assigned 25% disc is 25 off? >> 25 for a resident. Okay. >> Business owner, land owner, um first responder, uh retired military or active military.
Do we ever is that on our like city social media? >> It's it's on it's on our website and there's a sign at the front counter. >> Okay. So, if someone walks in and they're a Dunian resident that it is made available to them. Good. >> Absolutely.
>> Okay. Thank you. Well, and I just would add, I mean, is there anything wrong with promoting the fact that you get a 25% discount on our social media? There a golf course and is that >> colliding? I mean, >> I mean, it's it's just to our citizens.
>> I mean, I'm not you guys, but >> I'm the the microphone police here. I just didn't want to have to talk to >> No, it's something uh actually we just talked to Tony about this the other day. Um you know when Blair mentioned the you
know seasonality possibly changes a little bit right now it's just not part of our our social media strategy but Tony and I are talking about it at this time. >> Anything? Yeah, we're we're working I I
know Blair's uh has his marketing um efforts that are going out to a wider audience and we're talking about some strategies to target the local community, especially city residents. >> Great. Well, I didn't know about 25% and trust me, I've had quite a few
opportunities to say back to a citizen, you get 25%. But I didn't really realize it, so I'm glad to know it. Um okay, any other questions? >> Okay. Thank you, Blair. Mayor, may I just on the golf course fund? Um
>> I'm really proud of this. I'm proud even making $1 on this golf course after what we've been through. >> Yeah. >> Um and uh you know in the operations of the golf course, the condition of the golf course. Um and we're showing profit moving forward in the golf course. Um
and traditionally, as you know, in years past, we'd be having a discussion about how much we needed to contribute to the golf course to keep it afloat. Keep it open. gave it a float, >> right? So, I'm really proud of the work that we've done and um I look forward to to to this golf course in the future. >> I think kudos to both of you.
>> Thank you. >> And and to Tony. >> Absolutely. Yeah. >> And to Vince if he's listening, you know, >> I'm sure he's not, but yeah, I'm [laughter] sure he's probably in a casino. I I'm relatively Thank you. Okay, great.
>> Okay. Uh fleet move along here right now. We're going to lose uh vice mayor at four, so we got to clip it along if we can. >> Okay. All right. The fleet fund um charges for services. We've got a
decrease of $24,000 com in 27 fiscal year 27 compared to 26. This is due to a mainly due to a decrease in fleet repair and overhead costs of 191,000. Um, and there's always a little bit of
up and down on on some of these costs, but that's basically um what what we're we have there. Uh, miscellaneous income, we have a decreased by 102,000 in fiscal year 27. And this is most likely mostly
due to the um decrease in investment earnings due to the reduction um due to the reduction of fund balance in fleet fund because of the um interfund loan with the general fund. So, um, we have paid back, uh, 2.3 million of that
effective fiscal year 25, and we still have that. We've talked about it, the the the rest of that, um, uh, 2.7 million of that interf'll bring the fund balance back up and the interest earnings will, um, incur at the
historic levels. Um we and again we are expecting to pay that off by the end of this year September 30th. Uh for expenses operating costs have decreased by 95,000 in fiscal year 27 compared to 26. This is due to a decrease in of
70,000 in repairs and maintenance and 33,000 in insurance ISF allocation costs. uh capital costs have decreased also by about 691,000 due to a decrease in fleet replacements and this is due to the fact just the
fact of when vehicles are scheduled for replacement. Um the largest decrease this year was in streets department which went down 622,000. Parks, recreation decreased 200,000, utilities decreased 138,000, but in
storm water there was an increase in in budget for vehicle purchases of 227,000. Fleet assumptions. Um the fleet fund uh wait hold on sorry the fleet uh fleet fund assumptions uh charges for services
are showing an increase of 1% between 28 to 32. Expenditures salaries are increasing 3.5% for the merit increase. benefit 6% and operating has a 2% operating
for the fleet fund overview. The uh if you look at five pages 536 and 537 in the budget that um oops sorry lost my place here. The fleet [clears throat] fund available net position is projected to be 10.2 2
million in fiscal year 27. And this is an accumulation of funds um that are to be used towards replacing the city vehicles in the fleet replacement plan. >> That's basically >> question. >> Questions?
Okay, seeing none, I'm going to We've talked about this fund a lot. So, um Okay, we'll move to facility maintenance fund. Okay. Facility maintenance highlights uh charges for services um or the allocations to the departments are
uh 7.7% less or 215,000 less than 26. Um we are using uh fund reserves to help uh with uh decrease the allocation to the departments and we are also uh had some
savings in the departments per our efforts to save across the board in 20%. Um so uh operating costs decreased by 21,000 in fiscal year 27. There was some ups and downs, some decreases in repair
and maintenance, professional services, electricity, and the risk insurance ISF, but they were also offset by an increase in um IT services um ISF to bring us to that net decrease of 21,000. uh capital costs had a decrease of
30,000 in fiscal year 27 compared uh to uh uh which was related to a capital project defense replacement in 26 that is not budgeted in 27 facility fund assumptions. Um the budget
is really based uh in the outer years projections based on the budget. Um and we normally for charters for services and for salaries we have the same assumptions that most funds have 3.5% increase for salaries 6% increase for
benefits and 2% increase for operating facility fund overview will is on pages 538 and 539 in the proposed budget. The facilities fund um available reserves is projected at the end of
fiscal year 27 to be 44% or 1.3 million uh which is more than the reserve target of 25%. We do have a roof replacement um in non-recurring capital section in fiscal year 27 of 16,666 and another roof replacement in fiscal
year 28 and 29 as well. I think these are all for different buildings at the facility public services um location. Any questions on the uh >> facilities? >> Questions on facilities?
>> Um I've noticed that what we're looking at is a fund balance that is well above the 25% even over time. Um is there a reason for that? Uh generally speaking, um if if there are um vacancies, which I believe we've
had in the facilities fund for a while, um and [clears throat] uh if all funds have not been spent in a specific category for whatever reason in terms of operating expenses, um any any savings get carried over in reserves um to the
next year and we will usually use a lot of those reserves to offset the current year. So savings we had from fiscal year 25 is built up in reserves and we are using that um to offset expenses in fiscal
year 27. [clears throat] >> You don't fall beneath 40% uh of your fund balance [clears throat] you're 439 434 >> seems a little rich. So, so what happens with these is generally the projections
out are are pretty stable based based on our on our um projections of expenses. So, we are increasing the charters for services based on where we are at for the expenses. So we are looking at fiscal year 27 which has the 44%
reserves and um we will we we've tried to be a little conservative because we know the custo custodial contract is going up in fiscal year 27. So we didn't want to run the reserves too light but less and I have also talked about possibly using some more reserves to
reduce the allocation to the department. So that's that's still in in the works. We're just trying to balance. >> You hate to lose your base, but maybe it can be just a one-time return and then you're back at your old >> and and we do this every year truthfully. We always have to reduce we
always use reserves to reduce the expenses in facilities because unfortunately they this is an ongoing issue in terms of of having enough staff. So they usually have salary savings that roll over and we [clears throat] already have used some reserves. We were trying to leave them a
little bit richer just in terms of not knowing what the custodial contract is going to do next year because that doesn't um come up for renewal until Sue. Do you know when that comes up? >> Comes up this year. I mean, right. We we actually got an extension um on the
contract. So, we'll have a couple more months into the new fiscal year before we put a new contract in place. And um we when Jean says that um it offsets the expenses, she means everybody who contributes to the ISF, their rate
actually reduced per square foot. >> So it gets spread back across um and helps you know that each individual budget. But if you look in the context of a roof replacement or uh some other catastrophic um AC even in city hall um
you know one or two ACs $1 million is not going to go very far. So it it's not just a percentage it's also a total amount because it's such a small budget overall. Um we would go to the general fund then if this reserve wasn't here. Okay.
>> Thank you. That's helpful. >> Any other questions? I just have one um and it just got alerted me again. What are the vacancies and are they still in the facility maintenance crew team and and and are we keeping up with taking care of our
facilities? >> Um we are actively keeping up with our facilities. Again, this city hall is a challenge. It's a lot of new technology. So, um we're really on the cusp there where we're starting to see things wear out and come off a warranty. So again
time will tell here. Um but yes we are actively maintaining it. We do have they are on the team those vacancies like we just lost another uh two three people actually. So, we kind of go up, we get a nice, you know, a couple people hired and then, um, I mentioned during the
break, one of our staff, not facilities, but, um, we lost another one to City of Tampa. Um, and it, the amount that they're paying is just we can't compare um to that charge, but we're still getting good people. In fact, we have one moving over to fire, so sometimes
we're losing them inside the city, which is a good thing. But yes, we still do have vacancies and getting skilled staff is um is difficult. >> Okay. Um could we get a list of current vacancies? And I know some of them you're actually holding on, but I'd like
to see what they are. We get that with our stuff. Okay. Any if there's no other questions, we'll move on. Risk safety fund. >> Okay. And we're gonna uh actually leave this up to you. We do not have all the numbers numbers finalized uh yet. We're still working uh through some last the
last minute uh changes we got for the risk fund. This usually happens um where we more have more information in the next um workshop. So um if you want we can go over this now or we can wait and go over it in the next workshop once the
numbers are a little more finalized. >> What do you recommend? >> Next workshop. >> Okay. Okay. So we'll wait on that for next workshop. >> Okay. and and also health is generally the same situation. We don't have the final numbers yet. Teresa will be talking to
you more about health once we move past the the fund updates and so we're not going to totally table health, but if if it's okay with you guys, we wait and talk about it till we actually have the final numbers. >> Got it. If I if I could though, um,
health is a particular area that I am concerned about because of its rate of growth and its rate of growth historically and our projections in the future. So, just know that I'm going to be really drilling down on that one on the next one. Thank you. >> Maybe you'll hear something from Teresa
that'll >> elevate your thinking, too. So, no, I think that's great. Um, okay. So in that case, you guys are done with that piece and we're going to actually move to >> just one more fun quick it is. >> Oh, sorry, Michael. >> Sorry.
>> That could be good news at this point, right? >> Yep. Um, [laughter] >> all right. So, highlights for the ITISF. Um, and I will say Michael did a wonderful job lowering his his expenses
this year. So we have a 12% decrease in charges for services and [clears throat] and just so everybody understands when we're decreasing the charges for services to the fund that is decreasing to the expense to the other departments and other funds. So he's helped out um
by lowering his budget. Um so uh the savings we have is about 354,000 um in the charges for services. um operating he part of how he [clears throat] got these savings in reduced charges for services he has
these operational savings of $243,000 um and that is mainly due to I annual IT license decreases decrease of 171,000 and repair and maintenance decreases um part of these these changes also
[clears throat] that we've been seeing some savings in the fund is we have moved away from having a two computer model per person um for per employee. We are now moving towards a one uh laptop model instead of having a desktop and a
laptop. That's going to save us a lot of money over the years. Uh Michael started it last year and we're continuing it. Um and another thing to mention is in the savings for annual IT licenses. Part of that savings is coming [clears throat]
from the fact that we're moving. We're not just discontinuing uh annual licenses that we need, but there was one that was moved about 90,000 I believe that was moved to the water wastewater fund out of it because we're we're very close to getting um utility billing off
of Avaline. So that was the one that was moved and that will be an ongoing savings for the IT fund. cap capital cost cost decreased by 80,000 compared to 26 um due to a decrease in network
equipment in um uh 50,000 and a decrease of um for the ERP fi phases five and six um capital uh improvements uh implementation costs of 20,000 um
all right it assumptions we have um again The charges for services are basically are based on the budget um for that given year. Uh [clears throat] salary increases of 3.5%, benefit increases of 6% and operating increases
of 2%. All right, the IT overview that's long range plan is on page 554 and sorry 544 and 545. And our available fund balance at the end of fiscal year 27 and is projected
to be 27%. And that remains that way in the outer years. [clears throat and cough] Does anybody have any questions? >> Any questions about it? >> I have one. >> Okay. >> With the um convergence of AI into society, how
does that affect us and what is that going to do to our costs? We're currently using AI in the GIS side and in the cyber security uh analyst side as
testing to see how it would work with the city. We're not fully implementing AI. We're we're seeing just very very basic costs. So basically right now it's only $40 a month for us to use the technology we need to see how it would help the city overall. Um down the road
we just don't know. We're we're monitoring what other cities, municipalities are doing. Um they're all in the infancy stages as well. Their budgets don't allow for uh positions or for elaborate systems. So they're kind
of following the trend of the federal government and the state to see what they're doing. So it's going to be wait and see right now. Um that's all I really know about how it would affect us. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions?
>> Okay. Sure. Go ahead. [cough] >> I [clears throat] don't see it on uh 93 or 94, 94, 95, whatever. >> But in one of the other pages, uh Teams, [cough] how often do we use Teams?
>> I'm sorry. >> No, no, how often do we use it? >> It's used every day by various staff. We're actually looking into eliminating some other uh systems to fully to go more with Teams. We're
paying a a huge cost for Microsoft 365 every year which includes Teams. We want people or staff to really use it. It's just a a large training curve for some people. Um it's something things you have to use every day, but um we are
using it. We use it for meetings. We use it for SharePoint, for sharing documents, [clears throat] for collaborating. >> Okay. So, it is part of the 365 package then. >> Yes. >> Cuz I thought I saw an extra expense for
Teams. >> I believe it's part of the 365 package. >> Okay. >> Um could Michael could it be that uh Teams uh uh switching to Teams phone system? >> Oh, in the future. 194,000 or something like that. >> Yes, that would be a future expense if
we decide to go with teams phone system. >> Okay. >> Um but that would be in the outer year. So yeah. >> All right. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Um I'm going to [clears throat] go ahead. So personnel requests [snorts] and I turn to Teresa for observe. >> Oh, sorry. Turn to Teresa for personnel
requests. City manager recommended. >> Good afternoon again uh mayor, vice mayor, commission. Theresa Smalling, director of HR and risk management. The first slide that you're looking at is our staffing history that uh we show
every year. Um as you can see, um there are as as Jennifer um mentioned this morning, there are no um requests for additional positions. However, um the reason why uh the note says FY27 to be
determined is because we are um working with some departments on possibly freezing or eliminating uh vacant positions. So, we didn't want to put a final number until we had uh finished walking through that. So, but right now
our um current FTEES remains the same at 405.93 of uh full-time and then below in the red is the variable on demand employees, our seasonal employees of 24.42 FTEES.
No questions. I'll move on to the next slide. >> Yep. Keep going. >> Uh so I [clears throat] just wanted to um just generally talk about these recommendations. So um a reclassification is a position in which
uh the duties have significantly increased with added responsibility thereby um justifying an increase in the current grade. So >> [clears throat] >> um these changes are requested by
departments um to um increase overall department effectiveness and to also you know help employees in some ways with uh retention in uh recognizing the additional responsibilities that they
are now um taking on. So, um, just to go over each one in the city manager's office, the, uh, senior administrative assistant to the city commission is, uh, being rec recommended to be reclassed to
administrative coordinator. That's a [snorts] one grade increase. uh in community development. The co community development technician who has um probably gotten quite a number of certifications and has increased in the
um her responsibilities in the department is um being recommended for senior community development technician. Then in utilities and engineering um the current engineer 2 is being recommended to uh be reclassed on engineer three uh
due to also added responsibilities and uh the fact that he meets the minimum qualifications for an engineer 3. The admin assistant in uh util in engineering in the utilities and engineering department is being re
recommended for reclassification due to her additional responsibilities um with some of the um the responsibilities that she is helping with uh permit review and uh other um
various responsibilities in [clears throat] the engineering department section. And then in wastewater uh the lift station lead is being recommended for reclass uh to a
foreman uh with the responsibility of uh overseeing the 43 uh lift stations as well as four employees. So added supervisory and um oversight responsibility. And those are the positions that are
being recommended for reclassification. >> Okay. Any questions? Anybody? Okay. If there's no questions, everybody good with these? Okay. Okay. Then let's move on. And [snorts] then just this the next
slide would show how the breakdown of how these um additional um monies would be would impact each fund. uh just over just under 105 for the general fund. Um
just over 7,000 for building and then about 31 just under 32,000 for the uh wa water wastewater fund. >> Yeah. No, I I think we're good. And um I mean and quite honestly like the county doesn't even micro these. It's
considered part of just being fair to the employees as they get more duties and things like this. So, I mean, I'm not saying I don't want to see them anymore, but um but they're they're it's good. So, okay. Um so, then we're going to go to the health benefits discussion.
>> As as uh Jean mentioned, uh we literally just got um scenarios and uh final numbers uh just before my meeting with the board of finance last Wednesday. So, I haven't even had a chance to discuss
with Jennifer. So, um the decision was made to hold off until uh August 4th so we could really bring the numbers to you. >> Okay. >> Um we have um as Gan also said work been working with uh Garing Group. We've um
taken some of the um recommendations suggestions from the board of finance and and we've looked at where we were in February to where we are now. And uh you know thankfully the the number did not
increase significantly between but we see areas that we can uh reduce the the amount and then work towards um a cost share with the employees on the premiums. So that's what we'll be
bringing to you in August. >> Okay. Um, in the interest of moving along, I was going to move along, but if anybody has a burning need to, we'll do that. I mean, anything you can give us, you know, far enough ahead, I think, before August 4th because that's kind of
decision time. Um, so we can be talking, thinking about it, talking about it, maybe talking to you, uh, talking to Teresa. I think that's probably helpful because it's a big nut and we need to, I think we have to be smart about that. [snorts] >> Mayor, just for a second. >> Sure. Go ahead. I just want to be sure
that this topic is earlier in the agenda so that we don't find ourselves shorting it. >> Yeah, I agree with that. >> Yeah, totally agree. >> Okay. Um, so now we're going to go to citizen input. Does anyone in the audience wish to come forward and speak on anything we talked about today?
Okay. I'm looking at the one citizen who's [clears throat] here. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, we're going to go to uh city commission. Well, first we're go to commission direction first and then you're going to do next steps, right? Okay. So, [snorts] um I guess uh and
Jennifer, when you do next steps, maybe you can do what what you've got as our follow-up stuff, but just is our time to kind of do any final comments and thoughts about overall strategy about what you need for the next time. Um so, this would be it. So, uh Vice Mayor, do
you want to start? Yeah. >> [snorts] >> Well, first of all, I want to thank everybody and all the hard work that went into this. Uh, you know, I I know that this is a big lift and uh you know, we all we all greatly appreciate it. Um,
you know, I uh I I think walking away with uh with with an impression today, I I think um you know, if it weren't for the referendum, I'd say we are in awesome shape. And uh but you know the
the real the real 60,000lb gorilla is looming and uh the the fact of the matter is is that I think we've got a good plan if it passes. I mean, I'm sorry if it fails, if the referendum fails, and uh
um I I really am looking forward to um if it does pass, getting that contingency plan in front of us as quickly as possible. Um and uh in terms of the takeaways, um you know, I I don't know that I really have
anything that that would be pressing except for what we've identified today of pieces of information need to come forward. I just I do want to um just emphasize the fact that the one thing that does scare me is health benefits.
Um because to me that's a black box. That's a big unknown. Um, [clears throat] and I'm encouraged to hear that maybe that the costs haven't risen as fast as as much as they are in other areas. Um,
and uh, I guess really those are my my thoughts. So, thank you, >> Commissioner Sam. >> No, I I think uh, great job by Eugene and by you, Les. You [clears throat] know, I guess like I said earlier about the what may happen
in this November election. You know, our economy here in town is strong. Our unemployment's less than the national average. I think we as a city commission always need to be on the lookout for what we can change. If it
means supporting our merchants, advertising, promoting our city, and make sure the downtown stays fresh and and clean looking. uh you know, we're one of the bigger employers in the city and uh I think we have an incredible
city staff. We're asking a lot of them, but now what was just announced a few minutes ago, we need to continue to do the best we can. Uh we uh I think we you know we lose track of
we're all concerned about a potential loss in homesteaded property. But remember we have the Main Street Exchange on the way. We have flats on Maine on the way. So we've taken the time to go out and find some large projects that will offset some of this.
And uh that's I think we're sitting in a good place. Uh you know going forward development needs to be smooth and seamless. so when developers come to town, we can get them on board, get the projects. You know, I've always been prodevelopment. Uh I think we're doing
the right things. We're headed the right direction and uh city commission needs to always look to improve and do the best for everyone involved. So, thank you. >> With that being said, thank you, >> Commissioner G.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Uh yes, certainly kudos to Les and Jeanie. Really fabulous. Um um I I think the uh what's coming in November is uh the potential for really really
really really dark place uh that's going to change the way we operate forever. And that's always my concern. It we once it passes, if it does, we can't go back. And so my line [clears throat] of thought is to do whatever we can to do
to protect the the future. I don't consider my own personal property tax as a tax. I think it's an investment in my community and every penny that I put towards my taxes I get back in services
and I'm and I'm very proud of that. Um I would I would like to see uh just small stuff the the papers that are in ARPA I would like to see that moved back to CRA. Uh it's a CRA project. It's all
goes handinhand with all the other PA projects. I it just makes sense to me and then that frees up that money to stay in ARPA and then can go to help support the general fund if it's necessary. I don't see a problem with
that. I >> Well, can we just Does everybody kind of agree with that? Because I don't have a problem with that. And I It's not that much money compared to what the >> what the uh um what what the reserve is in CRA. I I don't know. I didn't know how you want to handle that.
>> What I'd like to do actually is is to um have a look at what the impact of that would be on the CRA and bring that back [clears throat] to you >> um for decision- making on on August 4th. >> Sorry Bob, I didn't mean to be that quick about it. Also, also, >> yeah, don't be mad at me now forever.
>> Also, for consideration in August, uh is literally no night baseball or soccer, I guess, at that point, right? If we're we're talking about the lights for both baseball and soccer, it'd be for both places. Although, I know all of the training for soccer takes place at night. So, that that can be tough. I I
understand it, but it's short-term pain for long-term benefit. Um, and in that regard, we have the potential to lose uh certainly most of our property tax funding through this referendum. So, I wouldn't mind entertaining a roll back
in our millillage this year. I'd rather lose a little bit of money this year that might help protect the rest of the property tax funding in the future. I I understand that that that'll be hard. But I think it's at least worth taking a
look at instead of standing strong now and then because we're standing strong. The residents in November tell us differently. And so again, rather lose a little now than a lot later. Anyway, those are my comments.
>> Okay. Commissioner Degard. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, this was an accomplishment in a big way. A year ago, we were talking about the need to raise the millillage to make our budget work. We haven't done that.
Check that box. That's huge accomplishment. Um, were it not for the cloud that's over our heads right now, we would be dancing out of the building this afternoon.
This is a great budget. Um, by the way, it's a great budget because I understand it this year and I didn't have a clue last year. Um, but it was um a lot of work on the part of a lot of people and it has a ton of moving parts. Um,
[cough] [clears throat] one of the things, and I'm I'm I'm going to move away from the budget. I'm going to move to the referendum. We keep calling this a property tax. That's linguistically wrong. We're not charging a fee to our
residents for the amount of property they own. This is a service tax. That's one of the issues we have. It's misunderstood. The residents that are so much for that
roll back will actually, if they're under that $250,000 cap, be paying nothing for their streets, for their safety, for a number of things. They'll be freeloaders in essence being carried by
other people. And by the way, if you even do the math, if you just do the math on somebody that has a home that's, let's say, valued at $500,000, okay, they're they think that they're going to and and the property taxes on a $500,000
home is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 to 5,000. They think that's going to go to zero. They think that's what they're voting for. It's going to go down maybe $2,000 at the most and they're going to lose a lot more than $2,000 in services.
The benefit were as opposed to the cost is horrendous for them. It's a terrible deal. Them voting for this thing would be about the dumbest thing I can imagine. Not to mention what it's going to do to their property [clears throat] insurance. Not to mention the fact that
by the way, cities are going to be biased about what development they have because guess what? Anything under a certain level is a zero benefit to the city. What does that do to a city's mentality? Now, I don't think we would do that, but I'll bet you
a lot of others are out there thinking of future developments right now and saying, "Ah, they have to be over a hundred a million dollars before we'll even consider a development project per unit." So, this is a form of fraud at the
highest level in my opinion. I don't plan on being terribly quiet about that because I think that'sformational. I know I make a lot of people nervous, including our lawyer, but that's okay.
I want to thank you all for what you do on a daily basis and this feels like you're being very underappreciated to me. I'm grateful. Thank you, mayor. >> Okay. I [clears throat] um first of all,
I'm going to so I don't forget. Thank you, Les Jean, city manager, Jorge, all the staff. Um everybody was involved in this. Um, I just want to big thanks to that. Um, as usual, um, we just have a professional
group that handles this very professionally and it's appreciated because it makes our jobs a lot easier. [snorts] Um, you know, I've been around at times where it's like pulling teeth to, you know, to drive efficiencies and things like that, but um, you guys are
awesome. Um I um the one thing our job is education and um and if this occurs there's no amount of creativity that's not going to make it obvious and clear that our community
is different. Um and I think our job is to educate. And [clears throat] so what I just want to make sure that what we do now is we do a sheet that tells the whole story. And the whole story is that in 2029 we will have $6.8 million less
plus.9 million less in EMS plus.2 two uh so $200,000 countywide library system 100,0001 125,0001 150,000 CRA we will have $300,000 less in unincorporated
fire which is kind of that one's a little weird right chief because they've got to pay for us to do unincorporated areas otherwise we're not doing it so we have control on that side of it um [snorts] but either way those things come to around $ 8.3 million cut.
Well, at the same time, we have to dance around what you can actually use general funding money for, which is going to be somewhat of a shell game as well. And um and and do the things that our citizens have come to love about the quality of life in our city. Um
so I I want to look at all those things. I want to look at that entire amount so we're showing the whole the whole picture. I think that's going to be um painful. It's going to be painful to because I think you're working on $3 million. We
need to work on $8 million and that includes we need to understand what happens to fire. I mean, we don't have the MS money and I I don't know what it means for unincorporated. Um so, we need to understand those things and that's going to be painful and it's going to be
scary for every employee in our in our system. um because there's going to be some things put on the table that are are going to be frightening because 50% of our budget is personnel. So, and there's no I mean we'll be we'll
be having a lot of layoffs. So, I but I think that again and Jeeoff I appreciate your idea of turning lights off now, but I just want to get down to what will what will we really do with an $8 million loss? And I
want to communi communicate the heck out of that. This is the plan. You decide. Is this your Deneden or is this your Deneden? You get to decide. I I don't want anything to backfire that
we're shooting from the hip and no, we're going to show you because we're going to turn it all down now. I want to do it from a place of and not that you wouldn't, but a place of like look, I mean, we're not joking here and we could play games with you here, but this is just reality. I mean, we've gone through
this budget and [snorts] this is what the plan is. And if this is the plan you want, then you should vote to get the property tax cut. But I personally don't think this this city will want it. But it will be up to
them. But most people here didn't move here for that. They moved here because we're quality of life, which [snorts] has everything to do with our economic vitality and our businesses, by the way. It all is intertwined. The unintended consequences here are huge, including
the fact that the worst hit group for this thing is going to be people trying to buy a new house. So, do you want to try to come here for a new job or go to another state? Um, [snorts] so, uh, I think it's going to be interesting how it all plays out.
Um, but I I just wanted to kind of go after that and and I'm just, and this is my personal opinion as [snorts] you guys do this exercise, this $8.3 million exercise or whatever it turns out to be. [snorts] We've heard it today. We still have to compete for staff. Therefore, that means
we just have to lay off staff, not gut the staff we have and have and just like, you know, just make salaries that are crazy and and we won't have we got to have less quality people and and adjust our workload and adjust our
[snorts] services. Um, so that's just my my view. Um, let's see what else. Um, I I guess those are my my big things. Um, I I I I just uh I thank our staff ahead of
time because again, these are going to be tough exercises to do and and and it'll be tough for us up here. Um because let's face it, we can cut services. We just have to be as unemotionally attached as we can be to protect the things that will matter the
most and and cut the things that are are are probably quality of life issues. [snorts] Um and um but we've got to be honest uh about it and um but it'll be harder for the people that are sitting in the jobs to hear some of this. So um
I hope this thing is not going to pass, but we have to be ready if it is. And I think we're a better city for fully educating and helping our citizens understand this is what will happen. So those are my comments.
Um so on that note, uh I think uh you need to go to next steps and included in next steps if you could also >> maybe a two-page summary of the efficiency study costs and and savings that we've gotten out of that. I'd like that would be nice to have that as well. [snorts] Got it.
So, um and and thank you to the five of you, too. I know it's a long day for for all of you. Um I know you enjoyed it immensely, though, by the looks on your on your faces. I just want to run over uh what we're going to be working on in the intervening period between now and our next uh budget workshop on August
4th. Uh, so we are going to put together the fact sheet uh uh and we will use Sue and Les um and city managers uh office staff in order to put together a two-page fact sheet to get to the points uh as quickly as we possible. And that fact sheet will encompass the outlying
years if the referendum were to pass. So the the 4.2 to begin with and the 6 point, you know, 6.4 and on and on and what that looks like. Um, also the decreases in fire, EMS, and we're going to have to put little asterisk there, you know,
stating it hasn't been decided yet by the county how much of that. It might not be all of it, but we'll figure that out, right? So, um, and and [clears throat] the only word I've gotten, it's only from one commissioner, has been, we're just going to make the cuts, >> right? That I mean, so unless they tell us more, I don't know what else to do. I
think that uninorporated is a little more complicated because that's on them. We just won't cover it. Although it'll be >> worst case scenario, >> right? So, um, the other thing is, so that's the fact sheet and we have a clear understanding of of what it is that that you're expecting there. Um, the other thing is, uh, I I think we
need consensus direction from the city commission on the issue of the visual aid of of the impact of the referendum uh, before the referendum is voted upon. Commissioner Gao had used the example of closing community centers or not, you know, lighting fields at night. Mayor,
you said that you don't think that's a good idea. We need consensus direction because I don't I believe it's a policy question. I don't think staff needs to comment on that. >> I agree. Um so I I turn to commissioner >> for something right now. >> Yes.
There is no way in the world I would want those lights turned off at Dunian Little League. >> That's my opinion. >> Well then you better hope that it fails in November. >> Okay. Well, we're not getting a debate. I mean, but I get it and I I respect everybody respects your opinion. Mr.
Dard, >> this is a seminal moment for all of us and the city. Um, I I think that we probably need a principle of do no harm, but scare them to death because that's
what's coming. I mean, you just go down the list of things that they will lose if this passes. And as I said, their benefits would if they had to rep purchase them that they're getting ready to lose,
they would be willing to pay that amount of money for. They don't see that. That's the problem. They haven't got a visualization. The only visualization they have is that I'm going to save money if this passes. That's their only visualization. I don't know how to get
it across. I have sympathy for both views. I don't want to see us hurt our citizenry right now, but I don't want them to hurt themselves later. So, I'm I'm kind of there. >> So, uh allow me this then. We will provide the fact sheet and if that gets
us as far as far as Commissioner Guy would like us to go, um then then we should be good to go. But what I'm hearing right now is the fact sheet, provide the fact sheet, a very clear fact sheet, but not at this point impact them directly before the referendum.
>> But what are we what are we going to do with that fact sheet? We're going to try to get it to the public. >> So the fact sheet then yes, it would be something and it's especially important. It was something that we were planning on doing regardless. Um, you know, we we were having all the information from the departments. the
deadline was August uh 10th and you're asking for something by August 4th. Uh but we should have a pretty good run in it. Um but the fact sheet would be exactly that fact so that you could educate the the the public based upon what we will do as part of our contingency plan. >> Yeah, I think that's kind of to be
determined. But right now, I think we need the best fact sheet in our hands >> so we can know like this is we've voted on this. This is what's going to >> I understand. But I just I just don't like that feel of the sky is falling and the world is ending. We will come
through this. We don't know what we're going to be dealt in November >> and we're not going to have any choice. I mean, if it goes one way, we have to make moves. If it goes another way, then everything's in place. But I I just I just don't I don't like >> So, let me understand. Yeah.
>> I just want to understand what you're saying. Are you saying that we shouldn't go through the exercise to know what $8 million of things we would cut from the budget if it passes? >> Well, obviously I have to answer that question and say, "Of course we want to know." >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. I just You were scared of me.
>> No. No. I just >> Yeah. >> I just think with the the the the people in this room led by the people in that corner, we're we will we will still be done eating. We're just going to have a little leaner look. And I I I just don't want to scare the, you know, scare the
staff, scare the taxpayers, scare scare the resident owners. So, yes, the fact sheet would be great. We need to get it in front of as many people as we can. And obviously, we're limited on just down to a couple of weeks. So, I'm all in favor of that.
>> I just don't know how you educate other than that. I mean because otherwise really Stephen and you know I respect you but you're saying we'll be the same Deneden but we'll be leaner but if I'm voting on something I want to know what that means does that mean that there
will no be no more lighting on any of the fields in Deneden little league it might does that mean we will well we can't will we close some playgrounds because we can't keep them all up and we can't afford not to keep them up because then we get liability so I think I
actually think hopefully this thing is going to fail and we will have gone through an amazing exercise to be even better um than ever as we come out the other side. But to me, I don't know how you educate the citizens to go into a vote on this and know like, "Oh, I
didn't realize it meant that." >> You know what I mean? >> Well, of course. And remember some of you know if if somebody goes behind that I guess you don't go into a booth to vote very often anymore but you know we've never talked about the additional
money that'll be left in our citizens pockets. I mean I just feel like there will be some more stimulation of our economy and uh mainly our our our local uh our local economy. I hope but uh yeah I I I don't know where this is going to
go either. I mean, we've all heard different ideas and different polls, so I just don't want to be scared. >> I I I just go to um the outgoing Florida governor is pushing a ballot measure that could wreck local
finances. Okay, so my point is, and look, I who doesn't want a tax cut? And but how do you get there? Because some of the messaging of this is just that way. this the the it's the wrong way. It's the
wrong way because it guts so much of local government and it's us it's up to us to educate it. And um I I mean if I'm taking my personal opinion, my personal opinion is, you know, we're going to have the problem that we have now bigger
than ever. And that problem is I am one that's artificially low on taxes and actually think I'm getting a fantastic deal now. And there's a lot of residents in this community that have lived here a long time that are getting a great deal. And then you got the reset to the new
homeowner that gets crushed by the taxes. And so the real problem solution is I is what they were supposed to do next year in my opinion. I'm going to say my opinion which was to have an educated group of 25 people decide how
do we best um change the property tax structure for the good of everyone. I I because I'm not blind. I mean, obviously I want more money. Um but at the same time, you look at the fire assessment. There's a lot of people protected and having low taxes right now. They're
going to get they're going to get the fee. It's going to be a regressive fee. >> I think we're going to be shocked at what that fire assessment's actually going to cost us. I think the consultants or whoever we hire, I think it's just it's just going to it's going to be just numbing to see what what kind
of money we're expected for that. >> But I mean, look, I respect everybody's opinion up here. I we all care about individual our individual costs of services for our residents. And but again, our job is to educate. And right
now, if we're facing and if that ballot passes, we get an $8 million$ 8.3 million cut in money to do it with, it's wrong not to Well, it's the right thing to do is educate what that actually means. Actually,
>> I I want to go someplace else with this. I I keep coming back to the fairness doctrine. a number of people will be living in Dun Eden uh receiving our services and not paying a dime. Exactly how many those will be, I'll
have to get that calculus, but that's what we're offering these individuals by what we're putting here in front of them through this referendum. They won't pay anything for safety. They won't pay, unless we get the fire
assessment, anything for fire. Their streets will be right there for them. Sidewalks. Oh, and they'll sue us if they stumble on those sidewalks. So, all of those services are free. That's not appropriate.
It's simple as that. Now, does everybody like free? Yeah. But then again, expect the programs to be degraded. Expect the ambulance to take a little longer to get to your home when somebody's got a heart attack. Expect your fire might just take the
whole house instead of a portion of it. Imagine that you won't get swimming lessons for your kids in the future or the lights be on on the field. Now, yeah, I'm being a little harsh here, but if I'm not harsh here, somebody will turn to us and say, "You
should have warned us because that's what's on the other side." I promise you that's what's on the other side. Yes, government is always a question of how much would we pay for it, but then the next question is how much do we get to benefit from it?
And I don't think that equation has been calculated properly here. >> That's and I'm just going to add that I think I could be one of them that gets all those services for free
and that that's just to me that's just not right. And and on top of it, I'm still going to have 77% of the rest of my tax bill. >> Well, probably not because EMS will be gone. EMS will be gone. I mean, it'll be
hurt. PSTA will be injured. And I'll tell you, you talk about, you know, people complain about PSTA, but I used to be director of health and human services for four years at the county. And you know who needs that PSTA the most? people that are trying to get to work who don't have the money otherwise because they don't have a car.
So anyway, we [clears throat] could we could go on and on. Um but I just figured out what I'm paying for my Dunin services is $85, but it will it'll go to zero. Um and that goes to your point, Tom. I I
don't know. Again, our job is to educate and I just think we just have to do the best we can. And and and to your point, um Steve, I think that um that's what we count on the state to do. Thoughtful,
mindful property tax reform, and this isn't it. >> All right. Anybody else? >> So, go ahead. [laughter] Thank you, mayor. Thank >> Thank you, mayor. And and I know that
was a difficult discussion. Uh from my perspective, I knew through agenda briefings that I have two commissioners in separate uh places as far as that goes and and how we demonstrate the decreases in level of service. So, it's something that obviously needed to be needed to be discussed in public. And so, thank you. I have we have our
consens consensus direction. So, moving forward then, uh other items. >> Thanks for asking. Thanks a lot. [laughter] Sometimes it's part of the job. Um so so uh the fact sheet I've already
spoken about uh the we want um storm expenses running for sheet a here's a where that so I'll have to figure out what that was. [laughter] >> Um so uh [cough] have we seen reduced >> you know what it was? It was the 17
million and we got this much from FEMA and we got this much from the >> fact she for the storm expenses. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. Okay. >> Yes. Thank that was it. Thank you. >> Um have we seen a reduced consumption as a a result of the rate studies and that's water wastewater? Uh Commissioner Dard asked that and Clay will get that for us. Uh mayor wants us to add state
laws that have resulted in an increase or decrease in other taxes in the other tax category. Um some of the unfunded mandates and what what spurred some of those uh uh decreases. and uh mayor would like to know what has what drives increases in
the fire pension and examples of the increases that are driven by the state that are also unfunded mandates [clears throat] on the city. Um Commissioner Dardard general fund increases and expenditures for fiscal year 2024 wants us to detail that a little bit more some of the increases in
expenditures why so much and what contributed to that. Uh, Commissioner Gao would like to uh have us and the stadium fund look at uh reduce the transfers in and we need to check that reserve on whether or not we can reduce that reserve and and turn that over to the general fund and also
show a breakdown of the miscellaneous. It's a big number and and what contributes to that. I believe that was Commissioner Degard. Um and also uh Commissioner G would like to know the cost of repairing a road versus the cost of um replacing a sidewalk by lineal feet. uh and whether or not this
includes golf carts. So, um we had a good discussion on the boat ramp and the general fund. Uh we want to find out um what other marinas do and whether or not that's standard operating procedure and then make a recommendation to the city commission and also talk a little bit about revenue and expenditures. Um the
golf agreement for for the um for the uh restaurant, the restaurant tour. We need to talk to you a little bit about the term and when it is that they'll start paying rent. Um, we need a list of the current vacancies and personnel and we can provide that to you all almost well immediately. It's actually in the city
manager update I believe. Um, via separate uh, Teresa via se under separate cover. We'll just provide that to them. Um, the next workshop we're going to be talking about the risk safety fund. Uh we also are going to talk about health benefits fund and you want that information to you as soon as
possible so you can uh noodle that that around a bit uh prior to the uh August 4th meeting. Uh the pavers in our in American Rescue Plan Act funding uh we want to move that back to the CRA. We ask you for a little bit more time to find out what the impact is on those
pavers in the CRA and then make that recommendation. And then Commissioner Gao asked us to have a look at um a roll back in millillage. Look at some of the scenarios of what a roll back in millillage would look like. And and keep in mind that on Thursday evening you're looking at the maximum millage rate. So
roll back since you're looking at the maximum millage rate, we can still have that discussion as far as as looking at the scenarios for a roll back rate. So next steps then um we'll provide some of this information to you under separate cover. Um on August 4th, 2026 is our
next budget workshop. Uh it's going to be final direction on the tentative budget because we're going to move forward then on our uh first public hearing. We're going to have the board of finance report and we actually have uh kudos to the board of finance. We actually have their signed letter for you ready to go and we'll be sending
that out to you um this week. And then the aid to organization study the uh committee has met on the aid to organizations. We have our recommendations for you moving forward. Our first public hearing on the tenative budget uh and the millage rate is September 3rd of 2026. And our second
and final public hearing on final mill rate and and our adoption hearing hearing for the budget is September 17th, 2026. Thank you, mayor. >> Okay. Um I think >> I think that's it unless there's
something else good for the order. Okay. And I I hope when we go through our $8 million exercise that We'll be surprised and it won't feel as bad as I think it's going to be, but we'll go from there. Thank you. [music]
[music]