Good evening. >> The time is now 6:01. I'm a minute late. Regrets. And uh I call to order the town council workshop of uh Thursday, June 18th. We have roll call, please. Mayor Kitsky >> here. >> Councelor Delaney
>> here. >> Councelor Gisinger >> here. >> Councelor Sunundstrom >> here. Town manager Kitsero >> here. >> Are there any citizen comments? >> No sir. >> Seeing none, move on to the uh one agenda item, discussion of the proposed
operating budget. Turn it over to staff. Good evening, mayor and council. Scott Reynolds, CFO for the town of Jupiter. Uh this evening we are here to discuss the proposed operating budget uh for fiscal year 2027. So one thing uh just a matter of
housekeeping uh just to um make sure that the the council's aware uh we will with the property reform discussion that's been happening. Uh I just wanted to remind you that we will be having a a scheduling a special workshop to discuss
that very item uh in July, maybe early August. So that is coming. I know that'll probably be part of the all the discussions surrounding the budget, but we do plan on having a special workshop just for that one item. So I wanted to uh make sure that everybody's aware of
that. Uh so uh with the highlights of the FY27 budget and some of the assumptions that went into it um again you know here in June uh we're still early in the process. Uh we're still receiving estimates uh coming in from the state. We're waiting on the property
appraiser to release their uh July one estimates uh for the taxable values. So we're this is still a living working document. I want to make sure everybody's aware of that. But uh just uh we'll jump right in. So continuing to structure the budget and organize to
live within our means. The town's always been very lean. Uh we're all aware of that. Uh we live it every day and uh making sure that we're good stewards of the public's uh funds. Uh we're supporting the first year of fire operations with a significantly lower
replacement millage rate. Uh that's being proposed. Uh, also we're not proposing indexing of water or storm water uh within the budget for next year. Uh, investing in public safety. We've all been talking about that over the last 3 years. We're set to go live
October 1, 2026 with Jupiter Fire Rescue. Uh, also this budget continues to invest in town employees to attract and retain the best and brightest. Uh, trying to be competitive in the area market and I think we've been very successful in doing that over the last
few years. And I'm uh this budget reflects that we would like to continue that trend uh meeting and continuing to achieve service levels to meet the needs of the community uh regards into uh relating to public safety, public works, uh public information, infrastructure
maintenance and focusing on organizational enhancements and improvements uh for operational efficiency by leveraging technology. We can give you some actual examples of that if you wish. uh we've been very successful in leveraging uh technology throughout the organization. Overall
expenditures reflecting investments in fire and police services, community improvement projects, and infrastructure enhancement. So, one of the things that we wanted to highlight here, uh, just for the reason that we actually started the Jupiter Fire Rescue, we're in the last quarter
here going in, uh, of a three-year long process of implementing the Jupiter Fire Rescue. But uh just to go back prior to uh the council uh making the decision to proceed forward, the original ask uh was
for the countywide millage uh that everybody else pays if they contract with Jupiter Fire Rescue. Uh the millage rate of 3.4581. If we calculated it going into the uh uh the values that we've estimated for
FY27, that'd be a $64 million uh cost to the taxpayer. So, we wanted to reflect that here and just uh remind everybody why we even started the whole process. Can I uh just want to add to that? And I add this just for the benefit of uh the
two council members that were not involved on that, councelor Gisinger and Vice Mayor uh who's not here. And um so, you know, as we were trying to negotiate a contract
and there was two members of the five that were fine with going full millage, right? So, we negotiated. There's a timeline for this. I'm just saying approximate, but we negotiated for an entire year where they were trying to get the third vote
and uh to where they decided to go ahead and agree to something different. So just everybody really needs to understand and I'm not talking to my colleagues that were there. I say this for the public and the newer members. This is this is real. Uh and begrudgingly they agreed to something
lower. Uh but even at that they as I spoke the other night they had built-in adders that were going to hit us. But I just want to make sure everybody understands this is real and it was very clear to us that this was going to be the last contract that we were going to
proceed and it took us a year to get there with anything less than full millage. I asked my two colleagues that were there. Is that correct? >> Yes. It's great point. >> 100% >> 100%. Okay. Great point. So, thank you, mayor, for the clarification because uh it was
initially a very uh u uh difficult uh discussion to have. Uh and then like you stated, we ultimately did wind up with a contract. Uh we saw that the other night when we talked about the non-avalorm assessment uh even with their estimate of the $35 million uh we have the 10
million uh estimated savings going into 27. But ultimately the real reason we started talking about this was the countywide millage rate uh that was uh trying to be imposed on us which uh you could see there would be $64 million based on the taxable value estimate that we have >> and I had implied this on Tuesday but
just for the public. So Palm Beach County has purchased a piece of property in Palm Beach Country Estates. We knew they intended to build a fire station and they had built into our contract that we're going to be paying for it. Correct. based on the number of Jupiter service calls from that station in a
year one in service. So, we knew quite frankly we're going to be paying for 80% of a station in the contract. Well, we might as well build one of our own. That's what we did. But I just wanted to emphasize that. I'm sorry. I just want to, you know, for the public, we're hearing people suggest things and I just want to
continue all of us to correct the record. I know you know it. I'm not speaking to you, Mr. Ran. You live through it. >> Well, thank you, Mayor. Uh continuing on with the budgetary highlights and assumptions. Uh one of the main focuses is the Avalorum taxes.
Uh early Avalorum uh taxable value. So we're seeing an anticipated growth of 5.99%. Uh again, what I stated earlier, we're still waiting on the property appraisers to release their July 1 estimate. Uh we had originally thought it was going to be around 6%. Uh we're still very close.
That was the estimates that's in our our uh um uh cash flow. Uh right now we're sitting at the 5.99. I think when we get the July 1st estimate, I think it's actually be around 6%, maybe a little bit more. Uh they always try to be conservative early on. Uh we're
estimating no general fund operating millage uh increase uh for the 2.3894. Uh expected gross increase in the uh general fund operating at $2.3 million for FY27. The gross amount excludes the CRA tax allocation. Uh distribution of
the advalorum uh between community investment program and uh uh the general fund operating at an 8515 split. Uh anticipated JFRD operating millillage of 1.2023 uh will fund 21.6 million replacing the
county's fire MSTU uh being charged on the uh tax bill. Uh now one thing I want to point out and this was discussed uh on Tuesday uh those two numbers uh will be rolled up into one number uh and we'll discuss that as we actually get into the millillage uh discussion. Uh no
indexing of water or storm water uh being projected for FY27. Uh the building permit uh revenues remain somewhat static. There is a slight increase there. uh fire nonavvalorm assessment to fund uh the Jupiter debt 2.1 million after discounts and I can
talk about the discounts if you like. Uh EMS transport revenue uh estimated at $1.5 million. >> Just one item if I may to add again for the benefit of my colleagues um and the public. So the 8515 split >> has been used for decades
uh and therein it somewhat worked for decades. There were times in difficult uh when revenues really declined and some bad times when we we adjusted that. But I say that so while that's an adjustment I more wanted to say that
traditionally based on the number of improvement projects the public asked for >> it has somewhat worked for us 8515 but it's a lever that we've we have used before. >> We have >> Yep. we had uh during the recession uh
the housing recession uh we we did throttle back on that uh and it's a tool uh to be used uh and especially during recessionary periods >> and I wasn't suggesting in this year we do it I just wanted to make sure as we're looking forward everybody knows the tools that we have already deployed
>> so uh this slide here just uh we we talk about it every year the the values and how it's affecting each of the funds and what the historical valuation looks like And you can see the peaks and valleys. Uh and to to hit home on what the mayor was even hinting to is that you know you
have these peaks and valleys uh that occur with the taxable values. Uh you can see there in 23 and 24 uh we had uh some exponential growth uh during uh co or shortly thereafter. Uh and then there's been the steady decline back to
what considered to be somewhat of a normal uh uh pace for for the town of Jupiter. But jumping right back into the slide, uh early estimates indicate a $1.1 billion valuation increase or the 5.99. Uh we're still waiting for the
July 1st. Um the overall estimated uh Avalor tax revenue increase for all funds including uh the CRA uh and first year JFRD is uh just over 24 uh.8 8 uh over the previous year bringing the
total to over just over 66 almost 69 or sorry $67 million. You can see how it gets broken down to each of the operating funds uh 36.5 uh million uh in the general fund operating or a $ 1.9 million increase
over FY26. Uh the CIP, we talked about the 8515 split uh $6.4 million or $350,000 increase over FY26. the CRA uh $2.1 million or an $891,000
uh increase. They are seeing the benefit of the increase in the uh millage rate uh that's being discussed due to JFRD uh and then JFRD at uh $21.6 $6 million uh which will be the first year of the operating the total millage uh for the
uh town I just want to reemphasize this those millages are rolled up they'll see it on their tax bill the citizens will be uh will be 3 uh 5917 that's based on these early estimates uh that most likely will change a little bit as we receive our new values
so uh looking forward with the with the increase in the millillage we want to uh we always look to see how we pair with others uh in the in the jurisdiction. Uh even with that increase for the JFRD, uh you can still see here that uh uh
jurisdictions that uh use Palm Beach County Fire uh that contract, we're number one on the list as far as the lowest uh municipalities that have their own fire department. Uh we're we're at number four. Uh I do anticipate that some municipalities will be uh adjusting
their millillage, but we'll see. But right now as it stands based on what was reported uh at the end of uh fiscal year uh 25 uh we're at number four. And then uh municipalities that have their own fire and use nonavalorm assessment to
help augment their uh uh advalor. We're still we're number four on that list are actually the lowest. So the revenue assumptions I I like to point this out. Uh we talk about this every year. We're still waiting on the state. I think they've just started to do their state uh revenue conferences.
Uh they started late. Uh nothing unusual. Uh we are anticipating the the estimates to start coming in in July. They've been coming in later and later every year. Um I hope to get them early, but uh I can't rush the state. But
overall increase in the general fund revenues in uh including Avalor taxes of 4.4 4 million uh excluding uh reserve balances when you look at the uh the summary sheets uh slight increase in FPNL uh utility services tax uh interest
earnings uh we've talked about interest uh we've it's kind of a double-edged sword uh when the interest uh is high uh primarily due to inflation we're going to see larger amounts or stable stability in the interest earnings uh when the interest rates are low uh it's
good for borrowing which we're uh going going to be talking about uh later in the summer. Uh continuing to watch revenue forecast including state shared sales tax interesting and projected reductions in water search charcharge fee due to statutory changes. Uh you all
on Tuesday approved a water rate study uh for the water. Uh there is some been some statutory changes in which the uh search charge uh for outside city residents uh is uh rejected to go away next uh July. So, we've lost a quarter
of our estimated search charge for next year. We usually bring in about $1.4 million in search charge revenue uh into the general fund. So, we've we've lost about a quarter of that, but the the study should be able to replace uh some of that. >> Um can I just ask a question about that?
>> Sure. >> Um the um but weren't the rules and what it could be used for changing? Where was the searchcharge funds going before? They were coming into the general fund. >> Right. >> And now they're stating that they have to be rolled into the into the utility
rate. >> Right. >> Right. >> So I just want to make sure everybody understands what he was just saying here. And I just had the benefit he had explained it to me. For all I know, you already heard it, but if in case you hadn't. So this is another one of those
uh changes that our friends in legislature did is so we used to use this for like we all know that our parks 50% are outside of the town. So we we were able to use this search charge you know to fund those kind of things. It
was one mechanism to collect. Now even though it can continue and there's a study being done and there is a cost to the water utility. So there's no doubt uh that that's valid. Um but I'm just suggesting so while we look at this as a
loss, the real loss I look at is is it's going to go away next year. >> Um and therein we really got hit with >> a 1.4 after after >> million hit. >> We're only seeing
a quarter of it, but it's never going to come back to the general fund. Thank you, legislators. Go ahead. Well, >> I just want to make sure we all understand. >> I'd like to add one more thing to that, too. Town residents pay the 6% utility fee for
water. That will not apply to unincorporated Palm Beach County residents. So, town residents could potentially be paying more for water than what unincorporated areas do until we get through the study. Is that correct? >> That is correct. That's the point. That's the other point that that when we
read the legislation is that then now you're going to have a disparity between inside and outside city residents or rateayers, I'm sorry. Uh that uh you would have outside city uh users that could be paying less uh than inside city residents. Now the the residents are the
taxpayer of of the town is the stakeholder in the utility. They they're on the hook for the utility. they they are the stakeholder of the utility, which that would never happen in our in our circumstance with our utility, but some jurisdictions have financial problems. And if that were to occur,
who's really on the hook for the the solveny of the utility? It's the taxpayer, uh not the outside city residents. Uh and that was the whole point years ago when they implemented the the search charge or the availability was to level the playing field of responsibility for for that
utility. uh and now they're taking away from it like the mayor said uh and then there could be some disparity but hence we're going to make sure that uh when we do the study uh that that is recaptured >> but it won't be recaptured ever for general fund >> for the general fund. Correct.
>> So that's a significant loss and I just can't overemphasize that. So I'm already knowing we're in the hole with even if the other referendum doesn't pass. Um, and it's, you know, really kind of disappointing the legislators don't check with us before they really And we're there's a small group of
municipalities that are impacted by this. The county sure isn't, right? And a lot of municipalities don't have, you know, and therefore and only the big ones like the gardens and bokeh and Wellington and Jupiter are the ones that, you know, cover parks and wrecks
for unincorporated areas. So, you know, this hits us more than it hits anybody else. But go ahead. Can I just >> can I ask one more question? So that you said 3 months July, August, September. So that 25% of the year has been removed from the water fund for next year. >> Well, it's been removed from the general
fund and not made up anywhere else because we haven't we haven't went through the study yet. That'll be for the FY28. >> Okay. >> Or earlier if we can enact the the rates earlier. >> Well, and that's your goal. Your goal is to complete the study so we can do something effective July 1. So when this terminates, we have the other one go
into place. >> Correct. That is that is correct. And then, you know, the other thing that goes along with that piece of legislation is there's a bunch of administrative uh aspects to it as well. That's really going to cost the town money as far as not just time and effort, but now we have to report to the
public service commission. Uh we also have to go and meet with other jurisdictions that utilize our water, Dquesta, Juno, the county. Uh we uh Amanda and I would have to go to their uh each of those jurisdictions, justify our rates, have public meetings. So
there's a whole other uh aspect to it that's going to cost the town or the utility money uh to do these presentations and do educational campaigns. So there's part of that too. Uh continuing on uh the budgetary highlights and assumptions uh
expenditures of 1.1 million budget increase over all the funds in 2026. Primary drivers of that very simple you can see it here on the slide. You can see uh 11.9 million reduction in the general fund. That's primarily the
driver from uh the JFRD transfer that we did from the general fund over to fund the uh uh this year's operating of JFRD. And then you can see JFRD going live. Uh so you can see the increase of uh $8.6 million there. So that's that those are
the primary drivers for these increases. Uh and then you should start once they go live in the following years, you should see some leveling out there. Uh general fund revenues overall increase of $4.3 million. Uh we've talked about some of these already. Uh
the incre the estimated increase in the abalorum revenue uh due to the taxable values. We'll see a little shift in that once we get past July 1st. uh intergovern over intergovernmental revenue increases of $433 uh,000 to the sales tax and state shared revenues.
Again, uh we'll see what uh the uh estimates coming in from the state, but we feel pretty confident with those early estimates. Um the increase of $233,000 in charges for service. What makes up our charges for service is solid waste charges. Now, that's an
in-n-out. Uh you'll see a revenue line item, then you'll see an expense line item. So, it's an in-n-out number. Also, the searchcharge revenue and allocation cost. Uh, actually, you'll see some allocation costs actually go down uh for some of the enterprise funds because of
the allocation with JFRD. Um, interest earnings. We are anticipating that uh the trend that we're seeing here in the summer is going to continue with the interest earnings. The the Feds are are are indicating that they're not really keen on reducing the rates any further. uh we've been
watching that very vigorously. So, right now with these early estimates, we're uh anticipating an increase uh in those uh revenue streams. Uh and then also the $ 1.5 million uh use of uh fund balance. Now, I say here I want to clarify I say
uh splash pad that's only one of the elements that make up the total of 1.5. Uh the that portion the splash pad itself is $600,000. There's $450,000 that was programmed in the CIP for fine park for some
equipment. Uh also, I believe it was $25,000 uh for uh uh design work. And then there's an additional amount which was FFN funding for station 16. I believe it's now station 13. Uh but there's some
FFN funding uh that was programmed in the current year uh CIP to start October 1 next year. Can I uh comment on this that this particular topic here? >> So, first of all, I had the benefit uh of having worked with or finance uh
chief financial officer um with a presentation of League of Women Voters earlier this year. And uh at that time, you know, there was conversation about this referendum, but and so one of the slides we did was how
would we in mitigator impacts, you know, after I presented a bunch of other stuff. Uh and I just want to read this because the order um because really tonight in our very first workshop which is the first time we start giving
some policy directions or thoughts or whatever we don't finalize them per se but so first I said and realized the audience I said step one is to understand the scope of state mandates and restrictions upon local governments. I said, 'We do that every year. You know, I was making sure they understand,
no, this isn't new. This happens every year. So, that's a step one, understand. That's why we're going to be understanding more what the legislation was, but that could happen or the referendum in November. But then spending reductions, cancel all
discretionary capital improvement projects and expenditures, and pursue spending approvals by voter referendums for new capital debt. I want to pause at that point because I've lived this in my other career and um that's the first
thing you do if something is a discretionary you you put a pause on it and I want to make sure that uh my comments going forth are not misheard in because notice I said pursue spending approval by voter referendums for new
capital debt. Hey, we just heard a couple of meetings ago the county was considering a referendum, you know, for libraries and parks and wrecks and we would too. And I believe we've had a good history that the things that we do, the public typically wants and supports
legislature and the governor maybe don't understand that, but that's the way it is. So, um, you know, we I believe we have to at this moment in time as we go into this budget, I'm going to be advocating for not doing any project
that could be considered discretionary. Uh, and uh, and for example, that'd be the splash pad, right? >> Uh, that doesn't mean I'm not supportive of it. We all had agreed to it, but the timing isn't now because we could end up next year with a significant budget
shortfall. that project probably wouldn't even be finished. But I don't think we should be proceeding with projects like that. And then even more importantly, and you know, Mr. Reynolds reminded us of that in this presentation um that you know, I went back the CIP
last year already had it included that is being funded from reserves. So a decision we made last year unknown about all these other things that that are going to happen and could happen,
right? I think retro I would hope that the consensus would be here we would change that push it off, right? But I would not want to use any uh general fund reserve
to cover any shortfall this year, right? I think we should hold on to it. So I'm just kind of you know this is operational but they really go hand in hand here because he's showing a million and a half you know roughly in revenues from general reser the funds balance and
I'm suggesting that a guidance should be that should be zero this year right and we're not saying we're not going to do these projects we're just saying you know until we find out what happens in November it doesn't and not to mention the optics of proceeding with something like that right
So would you suggest then that we would do a referendum on like a parks? >> Well, that's >> similar to what the county did but for the recreation program. >> Well, if look, if the referendum passes, right, we're going to lose so much money we're not going to be able to do the projects that the public would support.
>> Um, so I'm hoping we have the right to do a referendum, right? But don't know all that, right? But yeah, I mean because the Anyway, I just wanted to make sure what I'm saying is not misinterpreted by people that gee Jim, you're cutting
parks. No, I'm not. I still think they need to be done, but I think a a uh enhancement that we never had. You can't I don't think I'm not going to be able to support where I where maybe I was okay with it last year, right? But the world's so different. Um, so I just
wanted to that as a guidance here that my guidance and hopefully we agree tonight's not CIP. It just happens to show up here and was flagged by Mr. Reynolds. Great. Thank you. Now we get a chance to say, gee, when we go
through the CIP, we're going to be looking at things differently on what's going to what could be done in fiscal year 27, right? Um, you know, we may move things out like that would be an example of one. We may choose to keep it in the five-year
plan but push it out but then not be consuming. So our general fund reserve is a million.4 higher as you're projecting it, right? And these are the type of projects that are I would call non- essential that are
going to be, you know, put on hold or cut down the road if this goes through >> or or again I want to emphasize that's where you go with a voter referendum. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think I mean we're discussing this at a very conceptual level. We don't have the CIP in front of us. We don't have all these projects. In
theory, it sounds, >> but and I'm only I only brought this up because it shows up on here in our general fund revenues because the way it works, we were going to be consuming 1.45 million. >> Mhm. >> And I'm saying let's eliminate the
consumption of it because that's all capital projects that we'll have to fund. Either we'll defer them or in the case of the Abico station, we'll have to figure that out when we do the CIP. Right. Well, again, you know, like we stated earlier, we have a couple of more workshops coming. One of them
specifically to talk about uh the the legislation uh that's that's just recently passed and then the CIP budget workshop as well. Uh that way everybody's seeing the numbers and uh seeing the impacts of what could come
and be able to uh help the council uh look at the some of the projects that we currently have budgeted and some of the updates to some of the numbers because that's what we're doing right now. Uh we're going through we're updating the CIP and preparing it uh with updated numbers. And this being the first just
to be clear here to be this is the first workshop you're hearing maybe stuff I thought more about till now and you probably have thought more about stuff I haven't and we throw it out we don't have to reach agreement but we want to coalesce to get to that point and so that's why I was just raising that I
wanted to kind of explain my logic and saying no I don't want to use fund balance and uh and then the way we avoid doing it is those projects that were consuming it that were already were the irony here is or what was unique is it was already in last year's 5-year budget plan.
>> We wanted it so bad we were going to use but we weren't in this situation we are in now, right? >> So I like to believe people would have done differently if now now knowing that >> but again you could weigh in now or it doesn't have to be but we're all given a
chance to give kind of items to consider as it's continue to be worked >> and this includes other items including the station 13. I assume that's a temporary station. So I wouldn't >> the station 13 the >> correct yeah that's not discretionary so I don't want to lump it into here and
say that so but the general concept of looking at those types of projects absolutely I think CIP is going to be a really interesting exercise this year >> uh so looking at reserves that's actually the next slide uh we talk about this every year during the budget process of what
our reserve balances are uh what they look like going forward um you can see at the beginning uh balance Johnson FY25. We started at $62.5 million. Uh this was part of our funding plan for JFRD. Uh and then we've utilized uh uh
over 20 million of that of those dollars uh rolling forward uh for the funding of this year's JFRD. Um uh but one thing that we we uh we talk about every year is um we look at the 3 months of worth of operating that we want to have
available uh for uh storm type activity or catastrophic activity. I want to I want to talk about that for a second. Uh you can see there at the bottom we have a note uh in 2004 2005 hurricane season
uh there was uh some events that uh hurricane events that cost the town $11 million. Now we did recapture that money but it took a long time to do it. Uh rolling forward, what would that be with uh current dollars? You can see here it's $18.7 million uh is what it would
cost the town in today's dollars uh for those same type of events. But what's important is that FEMA is is looking to start pulling back. Uh meaning that they're going to start raising their levels of what they're will consider for
reimbursement. Uh right now, for example, the this they'll uh raise the limits. Uh think of it as a deductible on your car. Uh they're going to raise those deductibles uh for what's allowable to be considered an event in the state of Florida uh for
reimbursement. they'll d it'll go down to the local level as well for at the county level uh of what's acceptable and what's otherwise there could be some instances where the town may not be able to apply uh for or seek reimbursement
based on localized events depends on the the dollar value. Uh and also the other thing that they're looking at right now FEMA uh will pay 75% of those costs uh if it's allowable uh they're looking to reduce that to 50%. Uh so those things
as we start looking at our reserves uh we think in terms of natural disasters and being able to have cash available uh to make sure our citizens are taken care of because in those instances we don't want to be waiting on the state. We don't want to be waiting on the federal government. uh we want to make sure that
uh here locally uh we're uh making sure our citizens are taken taken care of. So that's kind of important. We're watching that uh go through. It hasn't happened yet. Uh but there is discussions and uh it's real important when we start looking at our reserve balances. Uh
looking at the the the reserves uh uh projecting forward into next year, the $1.4 million that we just discussed, you can see that coming out in 27. we still wound up with uh $40.3 million in our reserves. That's that's a decent reserve
for a community of our size. Uh I would say it's it's uh pretty accurate of where we probably should be. Uh I would always like to have more. Uh but I understand that we have to be cautious of the taxpayers money and just have only what we need available. But the
main purpose is uh we like to talk about this in in regards to unexpected things that come our way. being able to react to them. Uh we've done a great job specifically over the last 3 years and uh utilizing the reserves when needed. Uh and we're still have a very healthy
fund balance at the end of uh the implementation of JFRD. So uh kudos to to the town uh and the council on that. >> I have a on this slide here before you turn deck um and just want to reinforce and you can confirm here. So those costs
that we incurred, I think it took us two or three years to get reimbursed. Correct. >> It did. It took >> make sure that's understood. It's like it was multi. So like so it's real. You have to have some money because even though you're going to recover it, it's not it took several years. It's kind of
stunning. Um and uh so like you say inflating it, it's $20 million. So it's the these are these are real risks that could happen. And then um you know we ought to table these uh put you know in some kind of table all these items that
are future impacts to us um so we can uh make sure we're advocating for that because what you just said here is in the future local governments you know would need more money to cover for events. you
know, that's a basis for some uh taxation on home homesteaded properties, right? I mean, it adds >> it happens the way I'm I'm hearing come down from the feds and and the legislature. >> Yeah, I'm making note of it. And then secondly, so that's why when I saw this
one and we I we talked about in the previous page, but I was just bothered by the balance going down and that's why you could see then it wouldn't go down. And then the other one is I think we should add it at least for more awareness is the pending sale of the 9
acre town property. And I understand that is I just want to make sure we know that goes in here. Now each one of us I'm sure have some thought of what and as well as staff and the town manager what some of that money could be used for. So, it's not to suggest it
definitely would end up in there, but just want to realize that I would for no other at least for housekeeping purposes at this phase of the budgeting thing, it ought to be I think it should be added there because it's likely if it's not consumed, it's likely to add to the
year- ending 2027, you know, balance. uh then we feel a little bit better about if there's some need you know to do something because we now we know we have more cushion there right but I think that should be flagged >> okay
so looking on the expenditure side of the house for the general fund u proposed FY27 budget uh over on the right hand column you can see there uh the items that are uh creating the $5.1
million increase uh primarily uh the the main drivers are salary and benefits. I mean the 58% of the of the general fund budget is uh employee related. Uh so that makes sense. Uh we see a
contingency uh balance increase uh over last year. Uh we also see the transfer to the to this uh to the capital fund. We just discussed that at length. Uh so you can see what's driving a lot of these increases and decreases. uh in uh
uh in the general fund. >> I just on this one because I don't think this would be the time to talk about it anyway. Uh but from a departmental standpoint and I would advocate that you know we we get together oneon one if you
have any questions on that you want to follow up on. But I just I certainly have some and I just I always use a process where I just look at the percent change which I have and uh it's this is just first meeting but I don't want to go by the page to suggest I'm okay with all
this. I may be but I have questions on some of it. >> Okay. Now keep in mind when you're looking at these increases and decreases here we're we're taking out the fire rescue portion to so you can compare apples to apples. I want to make sure that that's that's
clear. I state that up here at the top. >> Yeah. >> So, speaking of Jupiter Fire Rescue, uh this is the first year uh of operating. Uh you can see here we're estimating the Avalor to sustain the Jupiter Fire Rescue would be at 1.2023
uh equating to 20 transport fees at $1.5 million. If you looked early on in some of our estimates, we had uh $2 million. Uh the chief and I have been looking at call data uh and we've revised our estimate down uh based on some of the call data that we've been seeing. Uh the
non-avor assessment amount that you see here uh the $1.9 million is to help pay for the debt service. We've talked about that at length. Uh fire prevention revenue. What that actually is is that's the permit fee and the plan review fee uh that you all approved on Tuesday for
to to do the study. Uh we should have that study back before October 1. Uh and then the annual inspection fee uh where we actually go out and we inspect the businesses uh annually for uh fire safety. Uh that's also the the chief has
assured me that uh we'll have that uh uh rate as well before the council before October 1. >> Is that mainly for commercial properties? >> I'm sorry. >> Is that mainly commercial properties? >> Commercial properties. And usually what you would see with that is it would be uh uh attached to the business license
tax or the business license permit. Uh and then whenever they go to renew that permit or they come in for a new one, uh the fire department would go out and also do an inspection. Uh but we don't have that here. Uh so they will be doing it on their own. >> Um but uh $25.4 uh million. Now I will
uh want to emphasize that these are early estimates. Uh we've been hiring 92 firefighters. Uh and this estimate include whenever we include vacant positions when we produce this budget, those vacancies, we produce it with a
family uh uh plan for benefits, which is the most expensive benefit package that you can get because we have no idea what they're going to elect. Uh now that we've started hiring, they've started electing their benefits. uh I feel that this number is actually going to go down based on uh those benefit elections. So,
I wanted to point that out >> before you change the page. And humor me on this one, everybody, but I would prefer if from now on, every time we see operational in October one, we put a comma or earlier >> or
>> because Yeah, because we're going to be ready earlier. We keep offering it to the county. if we were to have a hurricane, god forbid, you know, in September and whatever, hope the county would would take advantage of our staff. So, just just >> I know I've heard from our chief and I
know that they're going to be ready early. So, the only thing holding us up from going earlier is the county. So, why not just say operational on October one or earlier? >> May I get that? >> I I'm I'm I wrote it down.
>> Thank you. I'm I'm I'm smiling because I'm smiling because I've been out to the to the stations. Uh my wife wanted to see it when we went out there and I will tell you they they're ready to serve. >> Oh, I know they are. I know they are. >> Um the Jupiter Fire Debt Service, we've
talked about this at length as well. The town is very, very healthy. AAA rating. Um we we we still feel even with the rates that we've been watching, we still feel we're going to get a competitive rate in the market. Uh we've got to pay off the commercial uh paper that we use
to construct the two new stations. Uh that'll be coming before you guys uh before the end of the summer uh to seek permission to go out and and go out on the market. So uh feeling pretty good about it uh and feeling we're going to come in on target.
the water fund. Uh we talked about this early on as well. Uh no rate indexing uh being needed at this point. We are doing a water rate study. Uh we hope to uh complete that early. Uh probably before December is what we're hoping for, but uh we'll see. Uh also what's included in
the water fund is a 5% salary increase. That's with all funds. Uh reduction in debt service, chemical cost adjustments uh due to bids in late June. Uh we haven't I don't believe we've received those yet. Have we? No. Uh utility
service decrease. Uh and we've been working with FPNL refining our uh estimates uh annual estimates for FPNL. Uh so we feel like the decrease is warranted. Uh water. >> I'm sorry on the I try to wait till
you're done with the slide. Just just on this one and I'm not asking for an explanation here but before next time. Um so the increase in service revenues for services is 1.8%.
And in December we had approved the 2-year implementation plan for the replacing the water meters that was estimated to uh recover missed revenue of 1.3 million annually which is 4%. So, I would hope that the average, you know,
we're already well along this. You I've asked that question. No need for an explanation. It's going to be what it's going to be. And if it's been going uh slower than they thought, well, then it's a lower number. But if they pick it up, we're supposed to get a 4.4%
increase out of that. >> That's all going to be reviewed uh during the rate analysis. It definitely is. >> No, I understand. But when we sit here in the budget, it's also we talk about that, too. I mean that was based on something the that seems to be the easiest number to base it on is what percentage of the meters have been done
by October one and then how much it can be done during the year and you kind of paper it in. But um I don't want to belabor that. I just that's a logical calc. >> Okay. While while you're there, I have one question on the chemicals. You know, a couple months ago, we had the 48%
increase in sulfuric acid, and I went back and looked at all the chemicals line items. It's average about 14% increase in cost for chemicals. Do we think that's adequate for this year, or we think that may be adjusted significantly based upon the bids coming in in June?
>> It always gets adjusted when the bids come in. >> So, at this point in time, they use what they have. >> Right now, we got 14%. So >> is that based on history or >> we based the increase from 26 to 27 on the CPI? Well, not the CPI but the PPI
the producer index for chemicals >> um from last last year's increase. We are receiving bids for the rest the remainder of the chemicals next Tuesday. >> Okay. >> So we will know >> but they always we always award that like before the end of the fis this
fiscal year. So then we always normalize whatever the number is. >> Yes. We and we'll we always adjust the budget based on the bid pricing. >> I was mainly looking what was the basis for the 14% average right now. So reset PPI. Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Moving on to the storm water fund. Uh no rate indexing being requested for the storm water fund as well. Uh we show $580,000 uh coming from uh retained earnings. uh projected RNR contribution at $52,000.
Uh one of the things I wanted to point out as an expense in the storm water is actually being shared with water is the purchase of a new vac truck. Uh they currently have a vac trailer uh that's quite old uh and needing replacement. Uh so they're actually going to uh invest
in a VAC truck of $435,000, but that cost is being split between water and storm water. So an enhancement of service. Uh the Jupiter River estate nonavalorm assessment you can see this is a non-trimming year. Uh so minimal impact
there. The building f permit uh or I'm sorry the building fund uh you can see there's an increase of $350,000 related to uh the permit revenue. But again we're doing a study on that as well. uh they
in fact this the legislature they changed the methodology uh that these rate uh permits can be based on the fees uh so uh we need to we are expediting that that process interest earnings we're seeing a decrease there and I want to point out why we're seeing a decrease
in the interest earnings uh if you remember right we just purchased the building we just spent $9 million in cash uh we had approximately $18 million uh in reserves uh we still have uh uh legally uh available over $5 million in
reserves for operating. Uh the remainder of it uh through the uh mid-year budget process. Uh you've reserved the remainder of those dollars for uh uh technology and training enhancements which are outlined in the statute that it's allowable for. Uh we will
definitely be looking to invest some of those dollars out at the new facility uh that's been purchased and those will be coming forward uh later in the summer to the council. uh slight increase in departmental expenses. Uh contractual services, you're aware uh we uh have uh
contractors that we use for plan review uh and also inspections. Uh I believe it's at the next meeting you'll actually be asked uh to approve uh three new contracts uh for those services. So, we're anticipating an increase of $77,000.
Increase in uh $277,000 for the cost allocation to the general fund. Uh what uh is not the whole driver, but part of that driver of that increase is due to code and compliance. Code and compliance, they work handinhand with uh the building department. Uh we research uh every year
as far as how much they've actually been working for the building fund. Uh so there's been a slight increase based on uh how much they've been assisting the fund itself. Health insurance fund. This is always something we talk about uh multiple times a year now because of the premium
holidays. Uh we're still right now anticipating to keep our $10 million. We're going to re-evaluate that going into next year uh based on JFRD coming online. Uh we had 96 new firefighters coming on board. Uh, is the $10 million
uh adequate? Should we go up in that? Should we reduce the premiums? What should we do? Or continue on with the premium holidays? We want to see how the uh uh insurance claims go next year with the added bodies. I will tell you, uh, looking at the firefighters we've been
hiring, they all seem very healthy. Uh, which is good. Uh and that's the primary driver for a lot of these uh uh the buildup of the reserves is we're as uh the town goes we're a very healthy community. What does fire increase the uh population of our um employee bases?
About 20% increase in employees. >> Increased it to 113 uh positions including command staff. >> What increase? >> 30 to 415. Okay. So that's significant. >> Sorry, I didn't know that off the top of my head.
>> Okay. Oh, that that's fine. I may maybe down the road look at increasing the the balance the 10,000. I don't know. >> It it may be necessary. Uh and that's why I'm saying we we we need to keep an eye on it and we report out on it every quarter. >> Uh and uh we will definitely be coming
to the council if we feel that there's uh something occurring. The main thing we need to watch with this is the claims cost. claims cost is the driver of the fund >> and uh if it remains low uh with the addition of the of the people there uh
and we may not need to do anything but it's based on historical >> right >> uh but the increase in personnel it may require to get to the 10 million plus and it was it's that was a great goal to meet but if we need to increase it we should look at it but may not have to but it's just
keep it solid right you know >> the the the the goal when we first set the the reserves was based primarily on the claims cost. Yeah. >> And looking at the claims cost because that's how the state looks at it when they look at your reserve balance. >> Okay. >> Can I on this one before you turn the
page? So, um, you know, I remember before we had this and, uh, the way it would work is we'd have one year where the insurance company didn't make us much money cuz we had a couple events,
significant events on an employee and then they would jack up the rates. Of course, you never get the money back. And uh so we realized that gee, you know, instead of and we we cut into it when we thought we knew we were going to be likely to be lower. But the point is
I do remember could be two or three events and you can consume millions of dollars. >> Yeah. >> And the only reason I'm just saying this, I just want to kind of on this one um I'm going to ask that
I don't want to do a I mean I supported the premium holidays. That's a fair way to do it. But you say that we're going to re-evaluate the reserve goals in late 27 28 and I'm just going to say that I'm not supportive of a premium holiday
until we do that right till we see what that is. So maybe we weren't going to do a premium holiday anyway and you're waiting to see that happen. But I just want to say that because if if it turns out we felt, you know, we needed a higher reserve and I don't I I haven't made a decision about I don't have any I
haven't >> either. >> So uh but I'm just saying maybe ought to just say that we'll revaluate him. If we think we're at a point of offering a you know a premium holiday then we should evaluate it before we do that. >> One of the things just to make make sure it's clear u when you talk about
catastrophic events we say that we're partially self-insured. Yeah, I understand. >> And it's because we have uh stop-loss insurance >> for these catastrophic >> brilliant. Brilliant. >> You know, I can't believe I mean knowing what life was and knowing how the rest
of the free world is with medical, it is stunning that we've been able to keep it constant for so long. It really is. This really paid off. But that was my point of bringing it up. It's like, you know, congratulations. I mean, it was a great program and it's just it's just such a
solid fund. So they'll just keep it that way. That's that was all my point. So >> but in saying that is I'm prepared for it to go down a year or two. I mean because that that's why you you build a reserve, right? And that's built in. >> I'm not going to get excited when it happens one time, but I'm going to just realize I'm not We just added, you know,
a significant population of additional employees. And it may warrant looking at that, at least thinking about it, right? >> Uh before we maintain it at right now because right now it's suggesting we're going to end up even higher. >> Mhm.
>> Right. So we're not worried, you know, we're going to be above it. Anyway, enough said. I just wanted to >> I have one question on the employees. I tallied up the two sheets under the general fund. One was the 303.75 versus the uh 112 for fire. Is that complete? Are we 100% staffed or we got
more folks we're bringing on this year or next year? >> 18 open positions. >> Do we know? >> We're not 100 We are not at 100% staffing at the moment >> because when I looked at those staffing for each department, everything, it didn't show anything being open. >> Yeah, we're not at We're not at full
staffing at the moment. We've had to defer some of the hiring process to um to get the JFRD staff fully on board and now we're circling back. We have no new positions. There's some critical uh uh hires that
we need to make and we've put things on hold for a little bit. I guess what I'm looking at is those critical hires open positions that we either get in before the end of this fiscal year or next. How are they they're not are they bookkeep in here or they >> what what you're seeing in here is the
position control basically positions that have been authorized. It doesn't indicate whether it's filled or it's not. >> Okay. >> That's that's >> that's what I was looking at. I didn't see anything was still open or not filled. So >> So everything's filled. Nothing's been cut. They're just open positions that are being held that they'll be filled eventually.
>> If if we have a vacancy, we we are actively trying to recruit those currently. >> Yeah. And but is that salary included in >> they are if it's a vacancy like what I was talking about earlier with the fire department when we budgeted this we hadn't hired all those new firefighters
that we just swore in. So we knew that the positions were going to become avail were available based on what was budgeted and we budget for the full salary and uh full benefits. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> So that's what's in here. But the
reality is is you never can be full staff because people are leaving things happen always >> and then you know so the right thing to do is have included it in the budget but we end up the year with some amount that goes to general to the reserve fund
balance. Uh but that's the approach but what we're hearing is there's no new positions requested. >> That's significant. Yeah. >> When's the last time we had that? I've never seen Was it last year that we had none? We had some. >> I thought we had one. Usually we have a couple.
>> Yeah. It's I don't remember a time when we had zero. >> Same. >> Yeah. >> So, I think that's meaningful. I think we need to just make sure people understand that we're not trying to grow. >> And I think it's an appropriate approach. >> Agreed. >> With the high uncertainty this year that
we're not adding, right? >> Requesting an ad. So with that, this is a conclusion of of our presentation this evening. Uh what are some of the next steps? Uh July 1st. We I mentioned this throughout the presentation. Uh anxiously awaiting the
property appraiser uh tax role. Uh also uh we're going to be setting the the trim uh which is July 21st. Uh be setting the the millage rate which also includes the JFRD rate. uh a August 13th
is the second budget workshop. Uh we will be trying to fit a workshop between the the 21st and the 13th to talk about the uh impending or the legislation that's passed recently uh that for the constitutional amendments. Uh and then the first and second reading in
September on uh September 8th and September 22nd for second and final reading of the FY27 uh operating and CIP budgets. With that, that that concludes my presentation for this evening. Mr. Mayor, >> um, councelor
Delaney, do you have any questions or any comments you want? >> No, I I met this morning with with with staff on this. Um, I think we anything we he covered everything for now. You know, we still waiting for some numbers to come in. So, but I'm I'm good with everything. That was a great presentation as usual. So, >> councelor Sanskr,
>> I do want to say we've taken a lot of efforts to be conservative looking ahead. We always have. I think fire rescue continues to be a success story that we have to highlight and I'm glad that you took some time to share the history on that mayor and um we become operational this next fiscal year. It's
our first year where Jupiter residents will be able to realize the savings we've talked about it planned for it but it's a real significant milestone for us. So don't want to lose touch with that. Um it is conceptual it is early. I tend to save comments for the end, not
during presentation. But uh it's interesting conceptually because this is our first chance to think about how we're going to address what's coming or what could come and in talking about the NAV, you know, we try not to plan like it's going to happen 100%. Um but we
have to present a plan and we will in the workshop. So we are going to have a workshop specifically addressing the property tax item in July. But it's interesting to me the voter referendum and and you have experience with that, but I don't, you know, I don't have um
kind of general obligation debt or voter approval for projects like that. So, I'm curious about how it's structured. Um I think a lot of municipalities are being creative, but there's a lot I need to learn about that and how, you know, it could be presented. Um, and then just in
the CIP, I know we're gonna really scrub that this year. And and I would look at discretionary, too. I've had conversations with staff where, you know, I've been promoting recreation for a very long time, but we have a number of playgrounds in place now, and a lot of it can be shifted out to focus on
other priorities depending on cuts. But we need to think about what the criteria are for CIP and what we want to preserve. I think the splash pad had a ton of support. It's been in phases. So, I mean, we've talked about it for years. It's the final phase to complete a park.
I'm hesitant to um I'd like to find space for it if possible, and I'm willing to give up a lot of other things to protect it because I know how important it is and how much discussion has been had on it. So, um you know, that's going to come later. Again, this
is all early. Um but I want to think about, you know, we need local match there. We still have appropriations before the state. Some of those are for seemingly discretionary items like recreation and require a local match. Some of these things are in our strategic plan. Some are not. Some have
been discussed for years in many public meetings with a lot of public support. Some are newer and don't have the same. And so I'm just trying to find my logic on the CIP. Um but certainly agree with a lot of what the mayor is
saying. I think it's, you know, a pretty sound approach, but I again I have a lot to learn perhaps as a newer member of council on on all of this restructuring and all the different options available to us. And I know that those options will be presented in a meeting. So, it sounds good, but I want to know the
details. And those are types of criteria I would be looking at in a CIP to weigh, you know, what we want to get done this year because it may not happen, right? and we have a CIP this year and we have residents that expect services and um
and projects that they've been talking about for years from us this year. >> So I don't want to disappoint them by asking everything and then it doesn't you know it doesn't happen or there's legal issues. So >> you know it could but it may not. We talked about that with the nav. We
should talk about it here. We should sort a set of criteria present our logic um in the CIP. Council, is that it? >> Just had a couple questions, Scott. On that other contractual service for fire
fund, that one little over $1 million, what would you say that was for again? >> The um I'll tell you what, I'll I'll let the deputy chief talk about that. >> Okay. >> The uh $1 million that was in the other contractual was for uh dispatch services.
>> Okay. All right. That's with Northcom. >> Correct. Okay. All right. And my last question is, and I don't have an answer. I looked for I couldn't find it, but where are the renovation costs bookkeep? Well, it's right now fire station 16 is
going to be firehouse 13. >> Right. Cuz we got to start that in J in October. Right. >> Right. That'll that'll be part of the CIP discussion. Uh we're currently going to be we're going to be budgeting that in uh the CIP. >> Okay. >> That'll take effect October 1. Okay. So, that'll be a CIP project.
>> That is correct. >> All right. >> All right. That's all I had then. Thank you. Hey, nice job everybody for putting this presentation together. It's very informative and I particularly like the uh the um the manual. That was really helpful. >> I was going to point out >> revenue manual.
>> Everybody seems to like the manual. >> I have a few items uh just quickly. Um and so first let me talk about and again I don't know nor do you know what each one of us knows. So this is a time to
get it out. But JFR JFRD incremental ad valorum, you know, we all saw it reported uh the estimate of the town impact uh of the referendum in year 1 and year two and just call it six and 10 million.
But that didn't take into account because they didn't know about it the impact from the JRFRD incremental advalorum. >> It was estimated it was estimated based on the current base advalorum. >> Correct. And I just want to make sure
that my colleagues understand that the impact when you looked at why we were different from the gardens, half of the gardens >> partly is because they're getting hit on their portion of Adabore for fire rescue and ours didn't exist before. >> What what you need to take into account
though is when you're looking at the numbers that came over from the property appraiser when they're showing the impact, they're basing that on you got to take the uh actual $50,000 that's already >> No, I understand. you. And once you take that off, it drops down to about $8
million, but once you add in JFRD, uh, it does go up to the total impact of $16 million. >> I just want everybody to understand. So, the hit is worse than we thought, right? >> Um, thank God that we, you know, if we doesn't help us, but it helps our public
that we proceeded with this initiative to save significant money. It's ironic, you know, we're saving just from this initiative that the team here did as much as the referendum would get. Uh but no credit for that. Uh but I just wanted
to make sure that's why to me it's dire. The other thing is that when that when and I'm just repeating what Mr. Reynolds taught me and making sure that if I didn't learn it right, you can correct me. But so this isn't my discovery, but
um when the county was doing the MSTU for us, they were able to take the MSTU for fire rescue that was in the CRA area, correct? >> And we're not. So that's kind of a loss,
if you will, that we have to recognize, you know, when you're doing the cut in. And there's so many little nuance complications that you know our finance department keeps that into account. But just want to make sure that that's that you know we get less than we would
otherwise get back to the general fund because you got to adjust for that. Correct. >> That is exactly correct. >> And that's roughly 600 500,000 something. It's not an insignificant number. >> That's correct. >> And and that's just the way the legislation was. So we so it helps the
CRA but it doesn't help the general fund >> right >> and it is what it is you um so that's that on that then um I just want to say on the splash pad and I'm not debating it this is our first we're talking about
it um but number one is when we when we get into CIP we'll look at everything and we'll decide what is really a really a nice city to have versus what we really I mean I think we've neglected field renovations you know I advocated
that so we'll just have to balance that but when we talk about referendum so I just pitch to that I'm just still pitching why in my mind I've kind of concluded only because I'm going to be very disciplined for this one coming year because I also don't want to be
made an example of I don't want somebody to say oh look what they're doing over here right um and u and I'm I tell you what I'm having been through referendums may I know that the public wants these amenities. We've been able to do it with
the lowest advalorum tax rate but um but it's not recognized that a local if this referendum goes through that local government won't have the options that we had before to do these things. So we're going to be handcuffed at least for a while. And the irony is about the referendum and this is just an
open-ended question and I don't expect you to answer it uh Mr. Reynolds, but I'm wondering if this goes through. Um, and I'll just throw out a number. And there's 30% of the homeowners that don't
pay any taxes. I'm not sure what's going to happen to referendums because then voters are going to be voting on a referendum >> that they >> that they have not a dollar stake in it. >> No. No. But these are all valid questions, right? that I'm I'd be curious if people have thought through
these logistics here or whatever cuz I'm convinced certainly if no one's paying for it that's going to be a given vote as silly as that is right I think they support it anyway but historically look we all know we've heard like you say people weren't dispersed so they'd be
willing typically in the referendum at least our record has been 100% right >> you make a good point in terms of it's not just the cost of things it's changing how local government fundamentally works Absolutely. >> And when you look at the county, the county's actually got it >> even worse because not only are they
going to face cuts as a local government, but they're if we have solveny issues with municipalities across this county, how are you going to transition fire police services? If they have to take that service on, how are they going to do that and protect public
safety in any transition period? I don't that's a local control and a public safety issue. So I mean they they have potentially greater scale and scope being pushed on them because they have a responsibility to do so as a county to
take over those. Um but then they're also being cut at the same time. So the I don't understand how the structure of local government is going to represent people effectively. >> You can't >> under this and that's all costs aside.
That's just representation and fairness. I don't understand how that will work, >> but I was just sharing on the referendum an opinion. While I can say that we've been successful over the years doing it
um and reasonably be confident, that's what I Mr. Reynolds and I expressed to the League of Women Voters. We were confident about it. But I just wonder whether or not there could be a future legal challenge that has never happened
before if a situation exists that you have a large number of voters that have absolutely zero stake in voting for an >> advalorum. >> I mean to me that seems like a legitimate issue. So I'm not I'm just trying to represent up here. I'm worried about
that. So until we get further along in understanding >> um you know I don't even know if that's going to be an option as had been in the past. >> But all of that's going to have to be researched for this workshop. I mean the scope of this >> but some of the and it it may be and
will be but still of it some of it's going to be subject to litigation. Um so you know we're kind of um on a ride here. We don't we don't control roller coaster ride. We don't fully control it, but we have to
navigate it. And then just lastly, um, and I want to say every time I see this revenue manual, you know, we had I don't even remember. I think one or two people had asked for this revenue manual, but oh my gosh, staff created something I I I'd be shocked if any other lo local
government has it. Don't tell me. Doesn't matter. My opinion is I can't believe I can't believe anybody else has it. Right? That's just an opinion, right? is my perception and whatever and it gets updated. It's phenomenal because it is a useful tool. >> I mean, I pulled it out because you
update, you know, what the the financials were for each one of these things. And this is not an easy effort. Thank you. But with that, I just want to ask is uh and I don't want to belabor the point. I'm just going to make the ask. I think on the non-advalorum
ad that uh it talks about the current rate. I think we need to be transparent and uh because that's the way the consultant designed it. talking about total square footage. It's only use only applies to single family homes. And I
think we need to be transparent that town homes and condos that have a total it isn't being used because that's the way what we came up with the study gave us as the only option. I don't want that. I think that needs to be corrected. But I just won't belabor it
anymore because it implies everybody pays pays on total. And the 15 neighborhoods I did went to the property appraiser site and all 15 be condos or town homes have a total total not being used only the air
conditioned. Anyway, that's just a change in here. Nobody will notice but it won't be forgotten. And uh I don't have any other Mr. >> No. Okay. Thank you. Time is now 7:13. who will adjourn the meeting. >> Thanks, Scott.
>> Thank you, Scott. >> Thank you. >> And consider people wonder whe What should they do?