Hey. Hey. Hey.
[Music]
Heat. Heat. [Music] All right, commissioners um and uh folks gathered. We're going to uh kick off our special meeting. If you guys wouldn't mind, we're going to start with a pledge
of allegiance. I don't think we have an invocation, but we'll do a pledge of allegiance. Please rise. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Uh, commissioners, I'm going to go to the county administrator. Well, we have anything on no awards or presentations. Uh, Mr. Administrator, do
we want to do we have any citizens to be heard on non-aggenda items? We do, Mr. Chairman. We've got u citizens to be heard but on the items uh that are before you today. So, Mr. Chairman, it would be up to you whether you want to hear the presentation first.
Yep. Okay. We'll wait on the speakers until we get to the items um and we'll go to you, Mr. County Administrator, for the presentations. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, commissioners, and welcome to your uh special meeting to consider two important issues impacting the development of the 2026
preliminary budget. First, commissioners, I just want to thank you for your flexibility in scheduling today's meeting. Uh as we've discussed during your briefings, commissioners, the county practices multi-year fiscal planning and a very conservative uh
fiscally conservative approach to budgeting. And when we set out over the last few years to review the county's enterprise operations, in particular the solid waste fund and the fees that support it, it was never in the planning to bring you two fee issues uh in the same year.
However, uh while we're uh while we were planning to have the solid waste fee for your consideration this year, as you know, the city identified the need to review the 5-year assessment rates uh uh for fire due to increased expenditures.
We'll get into that in some detail in just a moment, commissioners, to be followed by the discussion on solid waste. It's important to note though, commissioners, at the outset here, uh that while today's meeting is limited to fire and solid waste assessments, your
June 17th workshop will include uh the full impacts of the legislative session, which is tenatively scheduled to end uh June 6th, and I know you've all been watching that very closely. uh we'll have the official June 1st revenue
estimates from the property appraiser at the time as well as the recommended departmental and constitutional officer budget um recommendations and much more. That said, commissioners, I still want to start off uh today with with a highlevel overview of the current uh
economic and and legislative climate because uh it provides an important context uh for today's discussions as well. And so briefly, commissioners, I I'll I'll do that uh here. Uh, as you know, commissioners, each year presents
uh new and unique budget challenges, and this year certainly uh is no exception. As we face um an uncertain economic outlook with national forecast projecting um economic growth to slow labor shortages in certain industries uh
in continued price instability of goods and services which impact the capital uh budget of the county as well as inform uh budget develop the budget development process in general. These challenges, commissioners, are further complicated
by the very significant recurring threats uh from the Florida legislature to impose unfunded mandates, constrain local government property tax revenue, and further restrict uh the board's home rule authority to realize additional
revenues. Uh in addition to that, uh legislation totaling over $100 million in potential fiscal impacts to the county uh was filed this year and that $100 million is would have been the impact to Leyon County alone. Again,
based on the aggregate legislation filed and and as I mentioned, uh you know, that process uh is still occurring as we speak today. Uh but commissioners, it's very important to point out that while we are a very efficient uh and lean
organization and perhaps better stated because we are, these threats make us more vulnerable, ironically because of the judicious use uh of fees uh that we've undertaken. And this is something that
the House Select Committee on Property Taxes noted last week when they identified Lyon County as among the top 10 counties that are most reliant on property taxes. Uh and the reason I say that commissioners to bring that up here today is because we'll be discussing in
much more detail later in the meeting scenarios to reduce our reliance on general revenue to support solid waste disposal services by adjusting the solid waste assessment for the first time in over 30 years. Uh, as I mentioned previously, commissioners, we have two
important issues to cover today. A and I'll begin with an overview of the fire assessment. And again, commissioners, this will be a broad overview. I'll just hit the high points. Uh we've got staff uh that you see here available assembled at the table uh
along with our consultant uh Sandy Newbar um from Accenture and and then after I'm done here with a a brief overview commission, I'll hand I'll hand it back to the chairman to facilitate uh board discussion and and the direction that you may have for us today. But
commissioners, as I've said previously, uh considering the board's long-standing practice of delaying fees or taxes, tax increases of any kind, uh for as long as possible, uh it was never my intention to bring both solid waste and fire to you this year. But as you know, the city
identified the need to raise the current 5-year fire services fee to pay for increased costs, requiring an increase for the remaining 3 years to pay for these increased costs. As you'll remember, commissioners, um after first learning of this, both the county
attorney and I informed you, we met with our city counterparts to ensure that we went through the proper processes and procedures in relation to our interlocal agreement. I want to first give you a high level of overview of the fee and then we'll dive into the issues. By way of background, commissioners, uh for
many decades, the county has provided fire services protection uh in the unincorporated area by contracting with the city of Tallahassee. Fire rescue services are funded through a fire rescue assessment charged to property owners based on the cost of the service
and the benefit to the property. This method of assessment ensures funding transparency to the taxpayer and is consistent with Florida statutes. The funding of fire rescue services through a dedicated assessment is a common approach in Florida used by numerous uh
cities and counties. This funding method directly ties the cost of service to the property benefiting from the service. Residential properties are categorized as zone one or zone 2 with most residents in the unincorporated area living in zone 2 and paying a little
less than those living in zone one again based on uh prior protection uh availability where they live. Non-residential properties are also categorized by two zones and by square footage and by call volume. It's also and but it's particularly important to
note commissioners as you know all of the fire rescue assessment revenue collected by the county is remitted to the city uh except for a very small portion of funding for our volunteer fire departments. The current fire assessment rates
commissioners were put in place to cover the costs for 5 years uh from FY2024 to FY 2028 based on a fire assessment rate study completed in 2023. These f this this these five-year
rate studies commissioners are and you'll hear more about this today are methodologically very thorough processes which which incorporate cost estimates for all personnel equipment and capital improvements anticipated to
be needed to provide fire services within the city limits and the unincorporated area. Again, if you want to go um if you want to know more about the methodology or factors impacting the fee, we can go into as much detail as you like, commissioners, but all the information is provided in your agenda
materials. And I, as I mentioned, our consultant is with us again uh here today. As we've discussed, commissioners, the rates were determined by the city's estimated expenditures for a 5-year period of time. Uh earlier this year, however, the city informed us that
the current 5-year fee and the existing reserve for fire services within the fee are insufficient to support the remaining 3 years based on their identified costs. The city identified both cost increases for items that were planned in
the 5-year period and new costs which were not contemplated in the 5-year fee study. To guide your discussion today, commissioners, I want to just go over a couple of key points uh on how changing costs are reconciled over the 5-year
period. At a high level, commissioners, the interlocal agreements, the interlocal agreement provides for a process for the county administrator to approve inflationary adjustments and expenditures beyond those included in the fee. It authorizes the city's use of
the reserve account uh dedicated to fire services or again it requires agreement on the use of that reserve account and uh requires uh um agreement on engaging the consultant to determine accessessible costs. Um however commissioners as you've heard the
expenditures identified by the city uh exceed inflationary adjustments. they um exceed the capacity that's available in the uh the existing reserve account. So, the independent consultant was hired to review and validate the city's new budget projections and determine if
costs were accessessible. Uh accessessible meaning that they're legally allowed under the fee. The consultant has completed that review and the results are provided to you today for your consideration. As noted in the agenda, materials commissioners, to fully cover the costs identified by the
city, uh fire assessment rates would need to increase by 22% for all properties for the remaining 3 years of the 5-year study period. for residential uh rates. Commissioners, this equates to a $55 increase or
$4.58 for residents in zone 1, which are mostly city residents, and a $49 annual increase or $48 a month for residents in zone 2, which includes most of the unincorporated area. As a reminder,
commissioners, the fee, this fee was supposed to remain constant for 5 years as all cost estimates for labor, equipment, and the stations anticipated over that period of time were contemplated in the fee. Again, just to reiterate, uh the city, however, has
identified cost increases uh for labor union negotiations, um which as we talk in the item were not um uh completed uh at at the time when we uh conducted the last fee assessment. So, we recognize that. But they've included they've
identified significant cost increases for for the labor union negotiations uh construction costs as well as new costs that were not contemplated in the fire services fee. Commissioners, as we uh discussed in detail during your briefings, if the board does not agree
to the increased costs identified by the city, the agreement provides options for the county to initiate a conflict resolution process. Again, all of the steps and timelines regarding this process are included in your agenda materials. In summary, commissioners, the interlocal
agreement provides that the agrieved party, in this case the county, uh to begin that process by offering a good faith resolution, which is provided in your materials and I'll review in just a moment. We've provided four options for the board's consideration today. Option one would accept all of the expenditure
increases identified by the city and provide direction to prepare an updated rate resolution to reflect the increases in the fire assessment fee. Options two and three uh seek your direction to issue the statutory required mailers and to conduct the required public hearings
to adopt the new rates and revise the interlocal agreements. Option number four, commissioner provides a goodfaith resolution uh should the board wish to initiate the conflict resolution process. The elements of which uh are as follows for your consideration and I'll
just run through them point by point here in in wrapping this up. uh option 4 A again all of these uh are associated with option four to initiate the good faith resolution uh uh step in
the in the conflict resolution process 4 A the county agrees to the use of the city's fire services reserve fund to support increased costs resulting from the latest collective bargaining agreement at current staffing levels this point commissioners acknowledges uh
that we understood that the city had not reached an agreement on the collective bargaining agreement At the time the 5-year rate study was adopted, an estimate was used for labor and the collective bargaining agreement exceeded that estimate. Point two, the county does not agree to the additional does
not agree to additional personnel cost increases due to any future labor renegotiations within the current 5-year fee study. This point, Commissioner, um is um important because the city is scheduled to renegotiate um its labor
agreement in 2027, while our current fee uh study goes through 28. This will clarify to the city that the county will not entertain additional rate adjustments within the 5-year fee study, the current 5-year fee study. 4 C. The
county disputes any new expenditures associated with enhancing the city's ISO rating which were not contemplated in the current 5-year fee study. Uh while this is a laudable goal, commissioners, this is a new initiative by the city and was not contemplated in the 5-year uh
rate study. 4 D. the county disputes uh the 2023 debt refinancing um that was not contemplated in the exist in the current 5-year fee study. While this refinancing commissioner may commissioners may provide for long-term
savings, uh it too was not included in the 5-year fee study and resulted in a $500,000 a year of unanticipated costs. Finally, commissioners 4E, uh, the county requests the city to explore all options to reduce increased costs
associated with construction and staffing for fire station 17 and 15, both of which were contemplated in the 5-year study period. However, commissioners, construction costs for these projects will be significantly more than anticipated, as well as
recurring costs for new staff to support these stations. Under this option, commissioners, we propose uh to work with the city to identify opportunities to reduce or delay these cost to mitigate uh further rate increases uh if the if the board's in favor of this
option um in order to again uh reduce this fee increase. Commissioners, that's believe it or not hitting the high points. Um uh I know that was a little longer introduction uh than I usually uh take but I wanted to cover all those
important aspects for you uh just to get you in a posture uh again to to have your discussion. Uh as I mentioned earlier staff is around the table uh to answer any questions you have. Uh Sandy uh Newbart is here from Accenture. Sandy, thank you for being with us. The
county attorney, my help, myself, we're all happy to answer any questions that you might have commissioners. And I will mention, Mr. Chairman, that you do have three speaker cards. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Uh, let's go ahead and hear the speakers and then we'll get into discussion. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. First speaker, John Gibby. Uh, good afternoon. We have some materials coming out. Mr. Gibby, could you give your name and address for the record, please? Uh, my name is John Gibby. I live at 4887 Gum Gum Road, Tallahassee, Florida.
Thank you, sir. You have three minutes. Once that light turns green on you, if is it going to turn green? Right there on the podium, Mr. Gibby, it should turn green. There you go. Three minutes. Do you all have your data? It's making its way around, sir. Go ahead.
Thank you. Uh, just really brief on this item. Uh, good afternoon. I wanted to inform you that pollution has been found on fire station number four on Appleard. I
don't see any mention of this pollution and this cost analysis. Um, probably not anything we'll really discuss today, but you can see the letter I've given you is notification that DP has informed somebody at the
city of Tallahassee about the pollution and the map will give you an idea that the pollution is migrating and so there's going to be a bunch of
unanticipated loss and if you're going to ask the city for information might be helpful if they're aware of the contamination. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Gibby. Next speaker, Mr. Administrator.
The next speaker, Chief Brian Carroll. Welcome, Chief. Name and address for the record if you can. I don't know if you're Yeah. 13800 moccasin Gap and then our property is 15013 for our fire station. Thank you, sir. You got three minutes once that light turns green. Awesome. Or you can go ahead and get you
an extra few. Yeah, there you go. Uh my name is Chief Ryan Carroll. I'm Chief of Measuki Volunteer Fire Rescue. Uh I wanted to start with saying I'm not here to sit there and go, the city doesn't need to pay their firefighters and we don't need to have better fire service within the county. Um, matter of fact,
our department, we worked with uh Chief Sanders when he took over for the first ISO and due to us reinstating a 1986 GMC truck that uh couldn't run, didn't have lights on it, uh, the county ISO came
down to 3X. My biggest concern with what I've read over so far, and this is what I want to put in your minds as well, is I did see a lot of the city ISO, they'd like to drop it to a two. I'm all for that. I'd love to see a drop to it too cuz it just makes us all look better.
But the county ISO is a 3x partly due to that GMC truck. But the biggest thing is will these fees help the residents of Lyon County see a change in the county
ISO? So, that's the biggest discussion uh that's kind of been met with some confusion is how are we bringing the 3x down to uh to either a three or a lower score. So, I know the VFDs get a
portion of this. Um I also know that the VFD system can we could tweak some things about that too to make us more effective. Uh but as you guys look at this budget, I want you guys to think about that. Station 17, how many of the county residents does it impact? Uh Mr.
Long, you did a great job. Uh one of the things that you read off was exactly what popped into my mind. It was very glaring is that we have it's legally supported. It's legally defensible this fire assessment tax as long as it has a direct impact on the properties it
impacts. So the question as you all look around at your districts, is this fire assessment fee going to have an impact? I'm just telling you, being a chief of VFD, I've already heard so many people complain about the fire service, the first
increase. We're about to go for a second one. If I could tell them, hey, we've got some stuff in the plans, too, to bring down your hopefully your county insurance money. I think they're going to be more for it. I'm just wondering if that's really a thought in the discussion. So, reading over the
materials, that was my question. That's my challenge to you. Our county assessment is 3x. Are we bringing it down? It's not the two the three to two, but I'm all for that as well. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Chief. Next speaker. Mr. Chairman, that includes your speaker. The final speaker is on the
next item on solid waste. Okay, perfect. Commissioners, we're in discussion now on um this item. I've got Commissioner Maddox and Commissioner Proctor in the queue. Please get in the queue if you would like to speak on it. We'll start with Commissioner Maddox. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a motion for us, but
we're in a regular meeting, which means the motion has to come before discussion. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I would ask if I could because I want to put some narrative around my motion before I make it. Uh, and I make a motion that we wave the rules for this for the purposes of this special meeting. Second. All
those in favor of Commissioner Maddox's motion signify by saying I. I. I. None opposed. I I think it's appropriate. Commissioner Maddox, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Commissioners, I'd like to offer a compromise motion to see to see if we can reconcile our differences with the city prior to us
initiating a formal conflict resolution process by avoiding this process. Commissioners, yes, we will save time. We will save money uh on mediation and arbitration. But more importantly, I believe that we will avoid unnecessary
additional conflict and anguish not only with our colleagues at the city, but in our community. I don't know about you, but I I think our community has had enough and dealing with enough of emotional conflict and enough of the uh anguish
that I'm talking about here. If I'm learning anything in my time here, I've learned that um that moments like these sometimes call for us to recognize that the fight uh to fight is our impulse, but uh it's much better for us to be see the bigger picture in what we're trying
to do here. Before I make my motion, I would like to state a few things very clearly for the record. And I will be reading these. First, I would like to state that I believe this board is is unanimous in our in opposition to raising this fee on residents in the
middle of a fi of our fiveyear fee. I don't think any of us disagree that we may we had an agreement with the city. We we full well expected to for those 5 years to to run out before we had to have this conversation again. So, I think we're all in agreement there. I would like to reiterate what you heard
today from staff that every 5 years the city uh the city, the county, and our outside consultant with us here today engages in a highly thorough process to develop the 5-year fee to cover the city's anticipated costs for the next 5
years. Based on this process, the county commission adopted the rate the rate that we have now. We did that almost 20 months ago. We're talking about 5 years. We did it 20 months ago and we're sitting here having a discussion about increasing our fee. I would like to
emphasize for the public that while the county imposes this fee in the incorporated area except for a very small amount that will go to our VF uh volunteer fire departments. All of the fees pro all of the fee proceeds go to
the city for fire services. None of it is retained by the county for any reason. I think our our volunteer fire department chief had a very important question and if we're 3X, how does the ISO piece really help us elevate if they're trying to elevate themselves?
And I do think that's a good selling point for our for our folks that may be if we're considering raising that fee. So, thank you so much for sharing that, Chief. I also want to emphasize uh and while all of this is true, commissioners, I think it is important that we acknowledge that something else
that is true, too. We could all sit up here and make a very impassion political statement by fight about fighting the fee increase proposed by the city in in in its entirety. However, we need to acknowledge that doing so not uh does
not reflect the increased cost of the city of items contemplated in our 5-year uh including the most recent uh union negotiations with the uh firefighters association that they just finished with uh that many of us
publicly supported and the escalating cost of construction and expansion of two fire stations For these reasons, I am making a motion that we approve options one through three as amended to impose and collect the fire services
assessment rate increase based on the additional cost identified by the city excluding all costs related to the ISO uh ratings as I believe the the the volunteer chief spoke about it. That rating isn't something that we agree with one and two, we don't know how it
would affect our county residents. Again, the initiative was not completed in the development of the five-year fee that we're talking about that we just approved. And this would this would result in a $ 8.5 million reduction from the requested increase over the next
three years, providing at least $10 savings to proposed $50 increase uh to to cover all of the city's identified increase cost. In further good faith, this motion is also authorizing authorizes the use of the
fire services reserves fund to support the increase cost in FY2025. However, this motion explicitly prohibits any additional increases to the fire services assessment and fees within an within the current 5-year
study period and directs this the county attorney uh qualify this as an amendment to the agreement. In addition, as reflected in options two and three, it ref it directs the county administrator to proceed with options number two and
option number three, which provides for the for the required mailings and the schedulings of the public hearing in July and amend the fire services interlocal agreement. All of this is all conditioned upon the city commission agreement to these conditions at its
June 11th, 2025 meeting with no again, no substantive changes to the agreement that we're sending over. Finally, commissioners, if the city does not approve these conditions and seek to make substantive changes, this motion includes directing the the county
administrator to proceed proceed with initiating the formal comfort resolution process as provided in option four of this agenda. If this motion passes, all of this would be communicated in letter to the mayor and the city commission with the formal request that this be
agenda for their consideration at the June 11th city commission meeting. Again, I think this gives us a compromise where we're moving forward on some of it, but we're we're we're objecting to the things that we're objecting to. We're giving them an opportunity to come to the table to have
a conversation about it. And I'm with you guys. if they don't want to compromise with us, cuz I'm I'm a full believer in I learned this early on as a commissioner. There's what I want, there's what you want, and there's somewhere in the middle that makes it right for everybody. I should hurt a little bit, you should hurt a little
bit, but we should all come together in the middle that that that makes for a good compromise. And so, Mr. Chair, that would be my motion. And I'm hoping that you guys can have faith in me moving forward on this because I really believe this gives us a way to to send something across the street that we believe we
could do, but at the same time uh protect the county's interest in some of the things that we did not agree to and that we would like to to see changed uh in the agreement that that the uh the city has sent over. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Maddox. We got a motion for staff recommendation
options 1, 2, and three to move forward with the increase excluding the ISO piece, which is an approximate $8.5 million deduction from the overall assessment of the uh of the new assessment if I if I understand that
correctly. Over the next three years, the remaining three years of the 5-year term. Um, do we have also in in that motion, don't forget uh the uh codifying the amendment with the county attorney that there will be no more increases in the next 5 years and remaining three years. Yeah, the
remaining three years that we have and uh the piece that talks about authorizing the fire services reserve fund to be used to uh increase for increase call cost in 2025. Got you. Mr. Chairman, I'll second the motion uh for discussion. Okay, perfect. We are in a discussion posture. We've got a motion
from Commissioner Maddox and a second from Commissioner Miner. Commissioner Proctor, are you still in the queue? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. You are up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioners, uh I don't know why we came here. Uh this is a waste of time. Uh if Commissioner uh Maddox's motion uh carries forward, we
shouldn't even um we could have just bowed down at the mercy seat and uh genulect to the city. Uh but what brings us here today is option four. So uh what one two and
three is asking just uh kiss the ring of the city or if we have any objections to that which is one two and three package and if we have any objections to just uh cart blanc laying down kissing the city's ring uh then if we want uh our
our staff to stand up to uh the city's uh rolling over us then we might consider option four. along with option four. And uh I wouldn't even come down here if I thought one, two, and three would just bow down and do what
Commissioner Maddox is talking about. Uh first of all, I've got problems. Uh the city has been transferring uh the county. What is the county's uh take on on fire services fee? What amount uh have we been taking up in in the last uh
iteration of our taxing the unincorporated area for fire service fee? Commissioner, right now we collect about 11.5 million in the unincorporated area. What is the amount that the city is transferring from its total collection
of file services? Uh amounts of money, what volume of money do they transfer to the general fund? I think it was around 11 million. Okay. So all of the money which the county is currently raising and has raised over the last few years uh for
five services that total amount is taken from the pockets of those who live in the unincorporated area and it's transferred directly into the city's general fund. Um I I think I think um um
some some piece of that does go to the volunteer firefighters firefighter department. Mr. Can you clarify? Yes. Um, so approximately 450,000 of that goes to the VFDs. Okay. So out of 11 million, a little change does go to the Is that what y'all
trying to satisfy? $400,000 worth of change, not even a million, not even a tenth of what we collect uh do the volunteers receive. I'm glad you amplified that. That's an extraordinary point to make because the question thus
raises itself out of the the new monies that we're supposed to raise. What projection projected amount would the city transfer from the people who are paying this fee in a good county? These people are the county. I'm not willing
to do anything without um I think the American Revolution and Commissioner Welch, you teach civics, you know better than I, but taxation, without uh representation and we're going up on additional taxes and people still can't
vote in municipal elections. Why are we raising taxes? This is consistent with um activities of the blueprint staff. we have uh under projected uh we're getting these bills that come back to say well
oops oops somebody's bad and here we have uh we're 2 three years into an agreement and it's falling apart because uh somebody is undercalculated on top of that um station 17 which had been on the
book it been smoked over it been talked about is all talk and no walk it been eight nine years that this you And because it's a southside station, the city have just played games. It's just rhetoric. And we've not got that station
yet over on Lake Bradford Road. Even though we got the woods, the trees over there, the uh spears, uh seafood have closed down. I guess the city finally gave them a price that they could go with. Um but it's foot dragon. Foot
dragging. I ain't doing nothing. I'm not supporting anything. I can't get a station on that side of town. People paying the same rate on that side of town as the other sides of towns. And we don't have that service in let's see 8 n
years. I can't think of anything. I don't see anything that's going to change the reality of what has been overpromised and totally underdelivered. This $1 million, what do they do with that? I think that the
money is in $11 million for which we raise, which we generate, which except for $400,000 of it, it goes to pay for big city staff uh payraises. It pays for the big payraises of this, this, and the
fifth, everything else. But we had one fire, one fire in the um um unincorporated area. It wasn't a million dollars worth of damage. At some point,
for as few fires as we have, we are It's like paying a premium. It's like paying a $11 million a year and maybe one uh uh claim for 700,000 800,000. We're
overpaying the premium in terms of the actual acrual of damage in fire uh engagements. There are not that many fire engagements. It ought to be a reduction on premium based on the actual
number of fire engagements that occur in the incorporated area. This is dumb. We about to get played well and possibly laid for additional money. As if I'm if we're serious if staff is accurate in
4C. Uh, Commissioner Maddox, uh, the county disputes the new expenditures associated with enhancing TFD's ISO rating. Chief just said, "How will the fees help the county's ISO?" That's not
clear to me. The consultant is sitting here. The consultant is part of the cons same consultant that gave us this number that didn't stand up, ain't standing up, claims the city. But I need to know where's the $11 million. I need to know
what of this amount is going to the personnel. Uh the firemen been trying to get the fireman to start at $60,000 as a starting rate. That didn't occur. They got beat down, waited out, and they accepted an agreement that was
forced pretty much upon them. And I don't think that uh our job up here is to look like that we ain't the bad guys. and and and and we're trying to be uh to get along and all like that. No, we're trying to save the county people money. I don't care about the emotions of this
right here and how emotional anybody get. What I care about is the money and the value and return on the money people are getting. And I'm saying to you, I offer to negotiate this. I went deep into this area uh the other year about
uh firemen and in and the union and all of that. I don't see how we're we're winners at all. And I don't think we have a responsibility to um to look pretty up here and look like we're statesmen. I think we have a responsibility to save money for the
people. And I don't know how the consultant can sit here with a straight face and have us to sign on to something and then their numbers are not compliant to what they said and then to come here and ask us without any statement from
the consult. I need to hear from the consultant. This is really disappointing. This is heartwrenching. And commissioners, I'm urging us uh in fact, I'm making the motion uh substitute motion number four. Thank you very much. All right, Commissioner Pro's made a
substitute motion for uh option number four. Are there is there a second to the substitute motion? I'll second. We've got a second from Commissioner Kaban. We are now on discussion on the substitute motion number four. I've got Commissioner Miner in the queue followed by Commissioner Cummings and
Commissioner O'Kee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Um let me start with a quick question uh to the county administrator or or to uh to anybody else. Has the city shared with us any information on how the $ 8.5 million
investment in the ISO rating would improve the county's ISO rating per um per chief's uh per Chief Carol's comments just a few minutes ago. I don't believe that that's been quantified, Commissioner. I think they're using an estimate of what they believe it would
take in terms of improved personnel and equipment to get them from a three to a two. And that 8.5 represents an estimate uh of that. But beyond that, I'm not sure we have any additional information. I would defer to staff if we have anything more. They didn't have any data
for the city or the county. Okay. Okay. All right. Um listen, I mean the the county has a history of working with the city of Tallahassee on on things that improve this community. We have a we have a history of that. We disagree with them at times. um the way that we do
things and the way that they do things are are different. Uh but we do have a a a working relationship that that serves the community at large. That being said, we need to do everything we can to keep costs down for Lyon County residents in the unincorporated area. We worked with the
city to plan out a 5-year period, and it was agreed by both the city and the county on those rates. That being said, you know, some unexpected increases are understandable, uh, like the collective bargaining agreement. Some of those things are
understandable. Um, but others weren't required. Some of those were were were not required for the operation of the fire department during the 5-year period. And the ISO rating is the best example of that.
Um the the city shortly after we had the 5-year agreement approved by both the city and the county, the city basically then raised the ISO rating investment um and decided to spend the 8.5 million. Now I understand the need for
it. You know, if you improve the ISO rating, you have better service to uh to the neighborhoods. And uh the idea is that that could incre could reduce insurance premiums. But here's the problem. There's no guarantee that the
city's investment toward ISO rating 2 is going to lead to ISO rating 2. They have to invite ISO to come audit the fire department and then ISO determines whether or not that investment is worthy of rating
two. So that's a problem. We we we know what the cost is, $ 8.5 million, but we don't know what the benefit is to tax to to rateayers. We don't know what the benefit is to rateayers in the unincorporated area. And also, we we
don't know how that how much that benefit would be. Um the city has not yet been able to provide us an estimate on how much those insurance premiums would decrease in the unincorporated area. So again, we're being asked to pay a cost, but we don't know what the
benefit is. And then the sorry the when I when I read this agenda item, I I I look at it and think, well, a normal person would would side with us. I mean, you know, the the ISO
investment, 8.5 million, was initiated after the 5-year agreement was made and adopted by both the city and the county. Um, and now they're asking us to pay for it. We don't know if the benefit is going to help uninorporated residents. We don't know how much that benefit will
be. We don't know if it's even there's no guarantee that we're going to get an ISO rating, too. So, I think Commissioner Maddox's motion, I know the one on the table is for option four, but uh I support the original motion on the table because of the items here, some of
them are, you know, these are unexpected expenses. You know, Commissioner Proctor and I, we supported the firefighters having a collective bargaining agreement that was a resolution and and that came to pass. Um I think we, you know, we I think many of us agreed with that. Um,
but there are some pieces in here, ISO being the number one, that is not required for the safe operation of the fire department over the 5-year period. And so I I think it it stands to reason that um, you know, in mitigation, hopefully the mitigator would basically
view that as as something that would be favorable to us. Now, there's no guarantee on on what mitigation is going to result from. you know, people that uh that preside over these mitigation processes are are like judges, right? You just you can't predict exactly what
what what's going to happen. Um but uh but I think it makes sense. I'm I'm going to oppose the substitute motion on the floor. I'm going to support Commissioner Maddox's original motion when we come back to that, assuming we can. uh because I I think we've got to stand up for the unincorporated
residents of Leyon County uh and and make sure that this cost is something that should have been brought up either at the beginning of this 5-year cycle or held until we renegotiate in fiscal year 28 for the next 5year cycle. to to go
mid-stream and and and and try to impose this cost on us uh without knowing the benefits to the unincorporated residents of Lyon County I think doesn't hold water. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Miner, if I could for a second just to get some clarity for discussion sake, the option on the table
would have mediation. The option that Commissioner Maddox had would not have mediation. That's not correct. Yeah. My my understanding is that the proposal from just formatics offers the city to accept our terms which is options one, two, and three excluding the ISO rating
investment. If I might explain, Mr. Chair, um I'm a little confused. Yeah. Yeah. The ISO piece is what what Commissioner Miners talked about, Commissioner Cart talked about, what our volunteer chief has talked about. Uh that's the piece that we are saying that we want that piece out and that's the
8.5 million that I'm saying that we I understand that. Madam County, if they do not agree to that any if they if they do not agree to any terms that we send over, we go to mediation. Okay, I got you. Does that make sense? Okay. And that's my understanding, too. Okay, perfect, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Sorry
for the misunderstanding. Um, Commissioner Cummings, you are in the queue. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. U, I appreciate the discussion from the commissioners. I certainly appreciate the overview and the analysis that staff has prepared as well as the
county administrators emphasis from a high point. But getting back to the the ISO, uh based on the analysis with the proposal that has been sent to us uh by
the city staff, um there was an estimation that each property owner would experience an increase of about $40, what is it? $40 per month. $4 per
month $4 per month. $55 per year, right? So, if we take that ISO piece out, what are we talking about? Have do we know what those numbers would look like? $10. Yes, ma'am. Commissioners, instead of a
$49 increase for zone 2, it would be $38. So, we're looking at about a $10 difference between the two. So, it's about a $38 increase. And then based on we're really the substitute motion and
commissioner Maddox's motion both uh incorporate option number four which is the medi the mediation piece of it if the county under commissioner um Madison's proposal if the city
doesn't accept the county's counter then we move into uh mediation, which is really not not a given. But uh Mr. Chair, if I can ask the county attorney
um about that particular process, if we um were forced to or chose to go that conflict resolution route from the county standpoint, what would be the the cause of action? I mean is our cause of
action breach of contract? Uh they are doing something that exceed the scope of the agreement. What what would be our cause of action before the mediator, the arbitrator? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Uh so it's not a cause of action per se.
This is just a contractual dispute resolution process because we're both parties to the agreement. We have a dispute. They want to increase the rates by a certain amount. If the county commission does not agree, no increase can be unilateral. Both parties have to
agree. So that would initiate the dispute resolution process which includes but is not necessarily limited to mediation. It's staff level, then county administrator, city manager level, then mediation. And if you reach impass mediation, it goes to binding
arbitration. Okay. So the underlying theme appears to be breach of contract. and sort to speak. I mean, we've got a person who is the mediator. So, in presenting our case to the mediator,
what is the standard of proof from the county standpoint so that the arbitrator, the mediator can make a decision? Well, there there's no there's no breach at this point. There's just a disagreement about what is the appropriate amount, if any, to increase
the rates. Right. And so that would be the scope of any negotiations and non-binding mediation to try to get the parties to agree. And if that doesn't happen, the city lays out its case for the arbitrator, the county lays out its
case for the arbitrator, and the arbitrator issues a determination and an award. There there's no breach, per se. It's just literally a dispute about rates. That's it. So let let me ask you this. So we're moving beyond the breach,
but if we're in arbitration, we got an arbitrator and the county has to set forth its best foot, its position, the city has to do the same. So my question is what what's the standard that we as
the county has to present? And and let me say this from what I can see based on what I've read in the consultants report the city has the consultants report which has basically um gone through all the various costs
and has included all of those costs ISO cost increase in personnel um fire station 17 15 renovation um maintenance the whole nine yards. The consultant has included all those costs
in the report and has basically said that those costs are substantiated. So the city has that report. My question is what would the county have other than we are saying those cost ISO clearly was not contemplated or
anticipated but we agree that personnel cost new FTE um renovation to fire station what 15 uh 17 all of those were anticipated. So it
it looks like arbitration would really be one-sided. So that that's my question. What would be the standard of proof? Because it looks like all the cards would be on the table for the city going into arbitration. It sounds like we are really the underdog. These are
policy determinations. The consultant only determines what's accessible. She doesn't make determinations about policy. whether it's appropriate that they did this midcycle, whether it's necessary for the operation of the fire stations or
anything like that. All the consultant does is plug in the numbers given to her by the city and come up with a rate. That's under according to the methodology. That is it. That's all that report does. So, we would be arguing as staff has articulated here and is in the
agenda items that these were in part uh not anticipated and they're not appropriate for a midcycle rate change. That was that's what we would argue. That's what we would put before the arbitrator. Will we prevail on that? There's no guarantee, but that's what
we're looking at. Those would be our arguments. Uh oh. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. County Attorney. And I guess my position is I'm trying to just evaluate the strength and the weakness of of the county's position. I I believe in
mediation, you know, arbitration. I believe in trying to uh reach a compromise. Uh but I'm trying to look at how strong the county's uh position is going into
um binding arbitration, you know, uh and it looks like um we want to do the right thing. We want to protect uh the taxpayers, but if we're looking at 10 cents on the
dollar if we prevail or maybe less if we if we don't don't prevail. Um I'm I'm not sure that that would be the best step to take on on the part of the county. So that that's that's why my line of questioning about what is the
standard of proof at this level uh you know with the with the arbitrator if it's the you know preponderance of the evidence they've got the consultants we've got our people saying this was not
anticipated and this is wrong whether or not that would be considered strong or not you know I I don't know. But that's basically what you're telling me that we have. We can look at the our previous agreement, the parameters of it, and
clearly, I guess, point out that these other items were not costs that were anticipated. Plus, we're not even two years into that agreement. Correct. That part. And I might have some more, Mr. um Mr. Chair, but I want to hear
some of the other commission's concerns as well. I will circle back to you as soon as you ask me. M uh madame former chair. Um all right, Commissioner uh Maddox, you are next, but I'm going to if you don't mind, I'd like to hear from Commissioner O'Keefe, Commissioner Kaban, and we'll come back to you and give them a bite at it. Um and then I'll
I'll say something. Uh and then Well, then you can go, Commissioner Maddox. Commissioner O'Keefe, you're up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Um I have some questions. uh and you can direct them uh as you um see
appropriate. Um can someone tell me does initiating the dispute resolution process prevent us from continuing to cooperate and try to negotiate with the city? Um or is it you know is it just a structure and timeline to resolve the disagreements?
Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. You go. No, that process is all about negotiating and trying to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. Let me just add to one one quick thing that however if you do trigger the
conflict resolution process today that has very specific timelines and steps in the process that we will follow at that point. Now those are time limits. Uh so that means it limits how long this takes. If we were to not enter this process and
just try to negotiate outside of it, is there any time limit? Go ahead. Sure. Uh, no. But realistically, we have the issue of you we use the UN4 method of collection to collect the assessments. So, we have to
have a public hearing no later than September 15th and adopt a rate to put on everyone's tax bill for the upcoming fiscal year. But that's not a legal obligation on their part. Correct. Gotcha. And then and because that's my
concern is if we don't start the agreed agreed upon process that we signed on to in this agreement then we just start delaying and delaying delaying and and I trust staff has already been working with the city staff throughout this whole process to try to get towards an
agreed amount and we we just haven't gotten there yet. Um, so and then if if for process if Commissioner Maddox's motion were to go where we don't where
we ask you to work with the city but we don't tell you to trigger the dispute resolution process. Now if negotiation fails, would you already have our approval to go into dispute resolution or would you have to come back for a
vote? Go ahead. Uh my understanding of the motion is that we would present our proposal to the city for them to consider at their June meeting. If they agree to that, then we would codify that in an
amendment to the existing agreement. Uh if they do not agree to that in all substantive respects, it automatically then triggers the dispute resolution process. Okay. That is that correct? Yes. Okay. And if we enter the dispute process
today, could they still accept choose on on their meeting to accept what we're proposing? Yeah. I mean, it would come back to this board for consideration and if it was timely at the June meeting. Okay. However, if I
could just add to that Sure, Commissioner, that However, it wouldn't be formally presented to them for their consideration, but they have the internet in the news and we're in contact. That's true, but it would not be formally presented to them because we
would be engaged in the in the process. Okay. Um All right. Uh talking about sending notices. So, can you can you just confirm what you kind of already said, but so we we have it clear. If we if we were to vote to send notices of an increase today, that doesn't actually
adopt the increase, correct? Yes, ma'am. You can speak freely. Um, no, it does not. The board has to hold a public hearing, but what would what we would have to include in those notices is a a proposed amount to be impo uh to
charge and we could not exceed that amount at the public hearing. You can always lower it, but then you you can't increase it over what you put in the notice. So, we can't we could lower it at the public hearing. Yes, you could o
over what you put in the notice. That's correct. Okay. Um back to the increases, you know. So, it's my understanding, uh, you correct me if I'm wrong, that none of these increases that are being requested were contemplated in 2023. And
my question is, what made these costs unforeseeable two years ago? We're talking about staff increase, construction costs. It's surprising these are what what makes these unforeseeable that we have a surprise. I can give it a shot. Mr. chairman. Uh I
think uh commissioner, one of the things that we acknowledge is that the city was not completed with their collective bargaining agreement uh during the development of the 5-year fee. So we acknowledge that they weren't done. We utilized a cost estimate as I said for that and we've indicated here the extent
to which that cost estimate was under uh relative to the finalization of their collective bargaining agreement. Other things that were not known um would include the construction costs at the time. Again, we utilized an estimate from 23. Again, I'm not going to put a
value statement on that, but it's again, those were estimates that we utilized in 23 and and the city has identified increased cost estimates based on um construction documents with respect to station 17, which they now have, and uh
they do not have on 15 yet. So that's still an unknown number. And then as we've mentioned, commissioner, new costs, costs that were not contemplated in the agreement, which include ISO and the debt refinancing. Those were new costs. So those were not known to us or
to the consultant in the development uh of the current 5-year fee. Gotcha. Now um the construction costs have you they're doubled, right? the 2023 estimate the city had, they didn't have the final construction
documents. So, they initially had a $17 million estimate for the fire station 17. Now, they have their construction documents finalized. They're about to go out to bid and that price has doubled for that station. Okay. Um, did we have any input on what went in their bid or
anything like that? I mean, we're putting up a lot of money towards it. We discussed opportunities to delay uh but the city is ready to move forward at least with 17 at this point. 15 appears to be about a year away if not more.
Okay. What prevents this from happening again? We had a 5-year agreement to give um you know to give stability. It's been two years in. What prevents this from happening two more years? one more, you know, with one year left in the contract.
Go ahead, Madam Attorney. Uh, under the original motion, it would be codified in the agreement. Um, could they still come back and ask though? They could. I mean, no matter what we put in an agreement, um, there is otherwise no uh, insurance
that they will not come back again and they'd have to agree to that to codified into the agreement. Correct. Of course, not to go to Gotcha. Okay. And then can we if we were to if we were to to send notices to protect our ability
to not have a budget deficit should the increase go through, can we include a letter that explains what's happening, what's the source of this, and what we're doing and try to limit it so citizens know that this might be an up to and that we are working hard to make
it appropriate. Yes, ma'am. Um, we can put language in the first class notices that uh provides context for why there is a potential proposed rate increase. Um, we have we have some
flexibility in the language we can include in the notices. Yes. Okay. Um, so you know where I'm at is I don't like that we had a 5-year agreement two years and it's changing. Um, but I do support maintaining fire services. We have to have this and this
is what it costs. it it we have to um do that. So we have to have service people can rely on but we shouldn't absorb new costs without clear input or control and it's not clear to me that these all costs are justified and they're justified now.
Um, so what I would like to do and I also I understand the desire to avoid unnecessary conflict. Um, and and I support us fully working with the city, but I don't want us to give up the process. That is mediation. That is
arbitration. That is in the agreement. Um, you know, we're not suing anybody or anything like that. we're entering an agreed upon process to try to arbitrate and uh get to a middle ground and I think that's the way to go. Um so the
the other thing here is my concern is budget impact and so uh I I support Commissioner Proctor's substitute amendment. Um, but the thing I want to I want to to to you know clarify is if an increase
goes through after arbitration, which some increase looks like it's going through and even the proposed uh the the the proposed counter includes an increase. It's going to take time and we're probably not going to be able to get to vote in notice and time to increase that for this fiscal year and
it could put a multi-million dollar hole in our general revenue budget. um which we are always very careful about. And so um I think what I'd like to do is offer a friendly amendment to Commissioner
Proctor to add that we notice the proposed increase amount with a letter explaining that this is caused from a request from the city. We are entering a dispute process to minimize the increase
and this fee could be voted on as is or lower in the future. Yes, sir. Commissioner Proctor, um I have to say no to that. We should not uh notice the county residents about a tax
increase for which the city is forcing us to fall to our knees to do. No, we're not going to do that. We don't want to notice and pray to everybody that that's what we're doing. This is not our failure and we do not want you're going
to have everybody irked off to put a notice out. Don't do that. Now, if we go to arbitration and get the snot beat out and we get whipped down, then we say we got whipped down in arbitration, but we were standing up for your pocket, but we
stood for you. But the judge, the arbitrator told us that's when you do that. But you don't just volunteer sign a tax increase. Everybody going to be up here pissed off. We don't want to do that. So go to arbitration and let the arbitration man tell you. Then send the
public a letter that we got whipped standing up for you and the arbitrator told we got to do this. That's what I'm trying to suggest the sequence should be. Thank you. Thank you. So no, I don't accept that. I appreciate it. I agree. I understand the sentiment. My my issue here is we already even in that motion
and going to arbitration, we're already conceding an increase. So, we know there's going to be an increase. The issue is whether it's $35, $39 instead of uh or $30 instead of $40 or $50. So, I don't think it's responsible to not do
what we need to do to cover even the the increase we are conceding to um and saying we found reasonable. point of information. Can general counsel explain that going to arbitration does not concede that you've lost something that you're going in there that you're going
to that's not true. I mean that's not my understanding that to go to arbitration it means that by going there you automatically going to give up something. I I think that the city has to approve something. Option four. Um four agrees to the collect. Yeah, I get
that. But that don't mean before you get into reserve funds for the first year. No, it doesn't. It's it's not a a long um intervene here. County attorney uh Commissioner O'Keeffe has made the statement that by our uh triggering to
go to arbitration that automatically we're going to concede. We're agreeing to concede something. was just a matter how much is that true? So, so, so the nuance here is that if we concede
that that the cost associated with the renegotiated or new union agreements is permissible. The reserve fund doesn't get us through the entire 5-year period. It would get us through this year
because they already have a deficit for those costs. it will get you through fiscal year 2026. You would still have to have some increase in the rates in years 2027 and 2028 just to cover that portion of the cost.
So, Mr. Chairman, I'm I'm I'm I'm just trying to say here that uh um we should not trigger to the county citizens a letter of increase. We're a good commission. We have a good
reputation and unless we're forced and our backs are put on the wall, we need to take Custard's last stand. And when we send a triggering letter cuz folk don't really get it that much. Call me going up on the T. This city is not going to take any loss. It's us who got
to go and and and and look bad and stupid like we don't know what we're doing. Then we have the consultant who has immunity. Why ain't the consultant bonded? Why ain't the consultant insured? Why does this fall on the poor little county and the consultant gets
away scot-free? And the first thing here tells us um um based on all of the expenditure increases identified by the city and the accessible rates provided in the consultant study. This between
the city and the consultant done this and we asking to pick up where they fell short. That's wrong. I ain't going to do that. Uh we should have more pride and dignity than to uh do fall for the okie do and be back at the status quo.
You go with one, two, and three, you have fallen for the and we going to have to go and notice people. City ain't taking no heat. We going to look like crazy folk doing that. That's wrong. Commissioner O'Keeffe has the has the floor. Thank you. Commissioner Proctor,
your your own motion number four puts in it that we accept and fund the increases to personnel cost, which I'm for, but it does not say we we're not approving any increase in cost. Now, let me say this.
I am fully behind the dispute resolution, and I don't know if that's where everybody's standing, but I really want to see us do that. I really do. But I I am uncomfortable getting behind,
not giving ourselves the opportunity to do a minimum of protection for a a smaller modified amount of uh fee increase notice that we may not ultimately improve approve, but that would blow a hole in our budget. Um, so
it's a as with all votes, it's it's a tough spot. Let me ask this. What is the drop if we were going to increase a fee uh by the last day deadline and we could schedule any meetings you need us to schedule? What is the drop dead date to
send a notice for a fee increase? Madam Attorney, September 15th. Oh, okay. Oh, wait. To send a notice, we have to hold the public hearing by se September 15th. So, the notices would have to go out like at least 20 days before that. So, is this a trim notice you're talking
about? Is this a notice you don't want to put out? This is this is special notice. Mr. Carter, let the county attorney answer, please. This is a mailed first class notice letter that goes out to to everybody when you increase rates. We we would have to do
that for a smaller portion this year anyway because there are some properties that are coming online for the first time, right? Uh and so you we have to provide notice to the first time uh properties that will be assessed. So
like late August it sounds like. Is there is there any I also don't want to scare people but I like I said I don't want to blow in a hole in our budget and I know we need to fight to make sure we only do pass on cost we have to. Is there any what's what's
the possibility that we could have a resolution through the process in time to know what an increase would need to be for an August 15th event or an August 15th notice to a September uh meeting or we have a September meeting, don't we?
We do before that deadline. No, no, it's after the deadline. After Okay. So, you could try to accelerate it and get through mediation prior to July 22nd, which I've been told is the last drop dead date. We could send that
20-day mailed notice before we would August. Yeah, August 22nd, before we would have to hold the public hearing on the very last day we can possibly do that, which is September 15th. Um, would you get all the way through and through binding arbitration? No, you would not.
Commissioner Maddox, why are we talking about sending out notices right now? When will we have we won't have to send out notices until we approve a fee? Correct. So this comes down to if you are going to move to increase the rate for fiscal
year 2026 above what is currently being charged, you will have to provide the first class mail notice to everybody. Okay, one more question before we get before. There is no way that in any kind
of contemplation that there's no increase. there's going to be an increase which means that eventually we're going to have to send out a letter. Correct. It's a question of when potentially, right? It it could be this year, it could be 2027. But okay, in the
motion that I placed forward, what I said that that we will use reserves to cover 2025. When will we have to send out an increase notice? If everything's agreed to. So, if if you're just uh if you're just
approving the union agreement costs and nothing more, staff has determined and I'll let them talk and validate that that the reserve fund money would cover through fiscal year 2026. Right? So, you would
still need to be coming back next year to adopt a rate increase to cover years 2027 and 2028. So that notice wouldn't go out until next year. Well, Commissioner um options one
through three accepts all the cost your option excluding ISO. So that means we're accepting the cost also for station 17 and 15. The reserves do not cover are not sufficient to cover those increases. So we would still have to
increase in again as we as we mentioned before your cost in excluding the ISO increase cost would take the increase down approximately $10 a month. That would be a year. Sorry about that. That
would be um that would be um the minimum we would do because there are other components here like the exploring additional alternatives on construction and that included in 4E which could drive that cost down lower than that.
But again uh I'm sorry your motion was just to sorry about that. Your motion was just to exclude the ISO rating which again would bring it down uh approximately $10 a month. My final final question I think is getting to what David is talking about
is coming out of this meeting today or out of this situation that we're in this fiscal year whether we go to dispute resolution or whether we go to um or we go my motion there will be some increase
in cost unless the board took a position to dispute all costs and we're not taking item four does not take the position to dispute all costs, does it? It does not. Either way, go or send out because we're required to do a good faith resolution. Yeah. But isn't that what number four? Number four, we don't concede any money.
We we the our what option four does. Let let me be clear about this. Consistent with the interlocal agreement, the interlocal agreement requires the gre the agrieved party, which would be us, to put forward a good faith resolution to the issue. So part of our good faith
resolution there in 4 A through E would be to accept certain things and dispute certain things. Either way go there increase. Yes. Yes. Either way go there's an increase. You still need to put up a fight and not lay down and four gives you more of that fighting chance and and uh Mr. Chairman if I may. Mr.
Proctor, can we get back on track? I'm sorry. I just want to clarify that that's the one that got you off the track. I've been with you. I know. We're now we're going further off track and Commissioner Caban still has to talk and Commissioner O'Keefe still is trying to make a point. So I think we've clarified that your motion would concede and also
put up a fight. So Commissioner O'Keefe, please go ahead. Sure. I'll close I'll close with this. I think we got out everything I was trying to get out to clarify the substitute motion does increase expenses to some extent that if we wanted to cover we'd have to
increase. And I think it's not responsible fiscally to not be prepared to cover those costs and to eat the budget. I mean to eat it in the budget, whatever that may be. But he's absolutely right. We got to fight this now. Fighting it and forcing ourselves
to fund it from a whatever we get to deficit from the budget is not good. I mean, I can't support either of what we're talking about now because we've got to get into the process to stand up for our citizens and we've got to be ready to do accurate financial budgeting for our citizens even if it's decreased.
Thank you. That's all. Let's um commissioners, Commissioner Caban is going to go, then I'm going to go and then we can circle back to Commissioner Cummings, Commissioner Proctor, Commissioner, but we got to we're still on the substitute motion, so we might want to dispense of the substitute motion one way or the other as soon as we can. So, Commissioner Kan, thank you
for your patience. carry on. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, commissioners. I appreciate so far the uh the dialogue and conversations. Um in regards to the initial motion, the substitute motion, uh you know, Commissioner Maddox, I appreciate, you
know, the spirit of collegiality and, you know, where you're trying to go and kind of push the ball forward. And Commissioner Proctor, I also appreciate, you know, the fire and you always want to stand up for, you know, our our southside and southwest uh residents of Mon County.
you know, this whole entire um situation that we're in, it it doesn't it doesn't feel right and and it doesn't really sit right with me. And particularly because we had an agreement with the city um that both
bodies signed. It was a five-year agreement and we don't manage we don't manage uh the fire department. Um so it's not really our place to get in the weeds and critique how they operate.
However, how they are operating has put us in a financial deficit which has uh forced them to come to us and put us in this predicament. And I want to be clear, you
know, this is a fire services fee, but what we're talking about is a tax increase. Exactly. And it's a tax increase for our neighbors in the unincorporated Leyon
County who cannot vote for for city elected officials. And this bothers me because we don't have any leverage in this situation.
Um this is no different than the sewage in utilities in which we've granted um the city of Tallahassee exclusive franchise agreements for the unincorporated Leyon County where they can charge up to
50% sir charge on our unincorporated uninccorporated Leyon County residents and I don't like this um it's it's it's frustrating and it's not in the best interest of our residents
and in Leyon County. Um I do have a couple questions that I would like to ask um Mr. County Administrator staff. Um actually it's just one question, maybe two. The the new fire stations that are being built, who will own those fire
stations? City of Tallahassee. Okay. Is it the fire department or the city of Tallahassee? City of Tallahassee. Okay. So, we are taking Leyon County unincorporated area fees and we're passing it to the
city of Tallahassee to pay for a city of Tallahassee asset. So, we're taking folks who choose to live in unincorporated Leyon County who choose to not pay mutable taxes to pay for a city of Tallahassee
asset. um that we are essentially going to go lease back from them for services. Mhm. I I don't like this entire structure and I don't think that this is in the best interest um for residents in
Leon County. Um however, I do have a proposal that I believe could put us in a position where there's no fee or no increase. Um, what is something that we all share
in common with the city of Tallahassee and Leyon County? It's our 1% sales tax. Why are we not asking or why are we not discussing
taking these two proposed fire stations and paying for them through the Blueprint Intergovernmental Agency? what we're talking about. That is our biggest line item from what I see on this the next three years on the fire
services fee or on our agreement. You know, we collectively as a board and commissioner Maddox, I think what we should do is include in our proposal like we have we're half of the intergovernmental agency board right here. Let's include in our proposal that
we would agree to paying for the fire stations from blueprint. And with that there's no increase if I mean correct me if I'm wrong but there will be no increase on the fire services
fee. Am I wrong? Okay. That doesn't account for the personnel cost associated with collective bargaining the ISO the So how much is the what is the percent from my understanding the the fire the two fire
stations are the largest sum line item. So what is that what does that look like if we pay for the fire we've got the breakdown of the cost these guys can can do that also what does that reduce it down to as well So, um, according to the city's latest
documents, um, there's an additional 17 million for fire station number 17, which is bringing that total um, to $34 million to fully um, construct and staff and equipment for that um, station um
for fire station number 15. Um we don't believe those costs are um final yet, but right now they're going to go they're going to go up. Yeah. So right now there's a $10 million um estimate for that expansion. So we're talking amongst the two fire stations combined,
what is the total cost of that amount? 44 million. 44. And what is the And what is the amount that is proposed that we pay over the next three years? $11 million, I believe. Additional 11. An additional $11 million. I think
that's annually, isn't it? No. No. It's $2 and a half million. 11 is what we pay now. I think we go up to 14. 14? Yeah. 14 total. So, we have three years left in our agreement. Commissioner, let's use the sales tax agency. Everyone in Lyon County are already paying into that. We can we can
we can offer this as a friendly amendment to the city. we're we're half the board and in the negotiations include that and then see how that affects the fire services fee cost and then come back to us. But listen, this is this is the way we shouldn't be
talking about a fire services fee increase when we have a billion dollar agency that everyone pays into already. And it frustrates me to sit here and act like we don't have any money. We need to increase taxes. No, we have a billion dollar agency that's made for
infrastructure improvements to benefit all of Leyon County. So, let's include that in there and and see run an analysis and see where it comes back. I received that as a friendly amendment, Mr. Chairman, if that's offered as a friendly amendment. Well, Mr. Yes. Well, well, okay. Well,
um, Commissioner Proctor, what I was going to say is would that align, I believe, with Commissioner Maddox's motion because it it that's what I believe because what it would do is it would say we're offering
friendly amendments. Okay. So it would say hey include this in it doesn't go with me. So um point of order you have to you can't make an amendment to the original motion right now but you could have I was telling commissioner proctor
so it would take if you're on board of that withdrawing your motion. I can withdraw the second and we include that to commissioner Maddox's motion. Commissioner command or vice chair command let what which is the right posture for what commissioner command is trying to do? Is it the substitute motion the original motion?
The substitute motion is just to go to dispute resolution. If if what Commissioner Caban is talking about is tacking on this modification to a proposal to go over to the city for them to consider at their June meeting, that would be an amendment to the to the
original motion, not the substitute motion. In good faith though, before Commissioner Proctor would resend his motion, I would have some questions for staff because I don't want you to if you were if you were inclined to go his way, I don't want you to resend your motion and I say no. So I I actually have some
questions for staff before if you're looking for that amendment. Commissioner Proctor, is that a motion that you would you said you would consider that friendly. So that would trigger an addition to your motion, but staff is saying that that's not the best place for it. So Commissioner Maddox, you want to ask staff some questions so that
Commissioner Proctor does not resend his motion yet so that you can get some clarity. And that's a championship form, Commissioner Maddox. But before I need to ask um uh attorney Olstein before we go down the road. Go ahead. Can we um
the projects in blueprint, it's been my thinking were voted on by the voters, right? Can we thus add to the list of voted upon projects to include fire stations if we so chose? Can we do that?
Go ahead. I can't give you any advice about what Blueprint can or can't do under Blueprint's governing documents because you have Susan Dawson as your attorney. So I I can't answer that question for you simply because I don't know and I can't give you advice about your
blueprint hat. I can't I don't go ahead. So those comments create the hesitancy of uh my thought has always been that when it comes to penny sales tax project list that those things are put on the ballot
the community approve them and I forget the amendment process it's a super if you allow me chair go ahead and explain it's a super it takes a super majority in order for us to commissioner just went through this process with north ro it takes a supermajority a public
hearing or two and then it comes back to us. It's a couple of steps to get there. It's not as easy as us just voting it up. It's it's it's a process there, but it's possible. I'm open and what he's talking about is brick and mortar, but what Mr. Mars has reminded is that it's not personnel. It's not the agreement,
it's not ISO. So, those continuing uh operating costs and overhead is not, but he's only talking about brick and mort. I could go there. So, Commissioner Proctor, we got a dispense of your substitute motion unless you withdraw it. What order? Sure. Go ahead. I believe. Well, he wanted some questions.
Yeah. Yeah, he has some questions. Yeah. Um, this would be considered that would be considered an infrastructure project, correct? If it if it went to blueprint, it would be an infrastructure project. Let me see. It would be uh and I was correct in the uh I think it would it would be a um
substantive change. What was it called? Substantial amendment. Substantial amendment. It would be a new project likely new project, right? Which which is a which is a lengthy process. I I you know, I could take advantage of of the process here, but I'm not I mean I I I
like to operate in good faith with you guys. To be honest with you, I don't think if this is where you're trying to go, it's not a good idea because I I don't believe I meaning meaning there's no guarantee that when it gets to blueprint that it's going to go the
way you want it to go. And we got a meeting. When's our next meeting? June 11th. and the it would have to go through um the the processes that you talked about, Commissioner Maddox. And just again for so everybody knows lay of the land the um then any interlocal
agreement would have to be approved by both the city and the county commissions but but again not to say that it's it's not impossible but there's a lot of processes there before and I don't think we got that kind of timeline given I I just I know Go ahead, Commissioner Van. It's back it's back to you. I I disagree
with that. This is the only option that potentially can leave us with not not having a significant increase. And if you look at our blueprint projects, I mean, hell, they're all they're they're perfectly in line with this cuz they're all double in budget. So, if you're throwing if you're throwing projects
that are double in budget, it might as well tack this on, too. But what I'm but really what I'm getting at is we're half the board. I comm Commissioner Maddox, what I'm trying to propose is include this in the in the conversation. Who knows, maybe the city
will want to do it because it it prevents them from having a larger increase as well. And everyone's paying into this. All Leon County taxpayers are paying into this fund for infrastructure. It's worth an analysis because the we have the potential to not
even affect any of the other projects. If you look our blueprint budget, it's the the revenue has increased year-over-year. And what I'm trying to do is is think outside the box here that offers another alternative for us having to have this conversation. And it's um
it's within the realm. It's an infrastructure project. You know, we have half the board here and I think it would be at least we're saying, hey, in good of faith, we're proposing this. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Uh Commissioner Commissioner Maddox, chew on that for a minute. I'm going to
say a few things and then uh we can circle back. But we are still on the substitute motion which is Commissioner Proctor's motion. Um I agree with everybody. This is super
frustrating. Um Commissioner Proctor, I agree with you like 100% basically on this. Um, and I think it's very important for the people out in the world
listening that we understand very clearly what's going on. Okay? We do not run the city of Tallahassy's fire department. We do not set its priorities or its budget. They ask every 5 years, I believe, is it per statute, Madame
Attorney, or is it just just interlocal agreement? Just our process. They ask us to agree and walk with them every 5 years and what it's going to cost to run the fire department. And we as the county commission simply pass that fee for
service along to our unincorporated area. We have no control over what they want to charge, how they want to charge it, what kind of things they want, how many employees they want, what kind of extravagances they want, how many new
stations they want. We have no control over that. We do not run the city's fire department. So, the suggestion that we are considering a 22% increase in the fire services fee is patently wrong. We are we are contemplating the city's
request at a 22% increase in the cost of running their fire department. Now, I think that must be made very very clear and our process states that we have 5-year agreements for which we are 20 months
into and now they are coming back and asking for more. And I get the context around why that is. They were not through with their negotiations with the firefighters. costs have gone up on their on their on their stations. But I
think this is so bad in terms of form. People have got to understand this is the definition of moving the goalposts. All right? To put it in terms that everybody can understand, the city is moving the goalpost on what they
think it's going to cost to run the fire department. And 75% of my district is in the city. and I have a large number of constituents who do not get to vote in the city yet have to pay this fee. So, all the points up here are very well
taken. And I think that it is very frustrating to think that we are setting a precedent now of why do we even have a 5-year agreement? I mean, I think that's a fair question to our staff and our administration. Why do we have 5-year
agreements? Station 15, which is contemplated in here, is in my district near Somerbrook, and it's currently at $10 million. What's to say they don't come back in 3 years and go, we need another $15 million in assessments to finish that station? What's the point of
even including it? We don't know if the I feel like it's important that we stick to the 5-year agreement. We agreed and just raised the assessment, which is really a pass through tax that we are handing down to our constituents. And I think Commissioner Proctor is spot on.
We have a duty to protect our constituents and at least fight for them where we can in standing up for them. I'm just trying to say what I think they would say in this situation. Now, to Commissioner Maddox's motion, I don't
know how it's that much different from option four, if I'm being honest. And perhaps the county attorney can answer that for me. How is Commissioner Maddox's motion different? Is it just that we're going to I mean,
we're still sending over an idea and if they reject it, which they very well may, we're right back to option four, right? Whether we t and I I'll get on to the blueprint part in a second, but is that correct? So, uh, Commissioner Maddox's motion is
substantively different in that basically you agree to increase all costs except for the ISO. I mean, that is a very substantive difference. How is that different from number four? Four is you only agree to use the fire
services reserve funds to support the increased personnel based on the latest collective bargaining agreement. But there there is no provision uh to not agree to the additional well that is part of his um we don't we we are disputing those. We we do we would not
dispute under his motion the 2023 debt refinance free debt refinancing payments and we would agree to the increased cost of the construction and staffing of fire station 17 and fire station 15. Is that correct? Okay. So that's a substant
difference too. his agreement. Mr. Chairman, also uh again articulates that there would be no additional uh increases within the existing term, including a potential renegotiation of labor in uh 27. And and Mr. Chairman,
I'd just like to emphasize uh too, and just important to note, even with Commissioner Maddox's motion, the city may very well not agree with this, and we may end up then going to to the conflict resolution process. Okay. So, I
I as always appreciate Commissioner Maddox's attempt to to sort of create something that everybody can agree with. And I appreciate this one. And I would I would feel better about it if it excluded the debt refinancing cuz
I don't think that's necessary right off the bat either. Um, but this is I I think that our all of our frustration and sentiment here is shared in that this is so such a bad
process that we have put been put in this position that we've been put in in an environment where we are become hyper criticized for what we charge the taxpayers to provide services. Um, and so I I think
that I really want hard to just outright support Commissioner Proctor's option four because I'm frustrated. And I think Commissioner Proctor, he is he voices that well and I really want to just be there with him and stand with him and
say, "I man, this is so frustrating. What are we doing? Why are we just laying down?" But I do think that Commissioner Maddox's idea is valiant. I think it is courageous. I think it is it is it is
statesmanlike and all those things and and I appreciate that. And so and I and I also think the city's going to turn around and flat out reject it. So I think that um which is going to further Oh, bless it. Thank you. which
is going to further frustrate us. But um I am inclined to walk with Commissioner Maddox because I know his heart's in the right place and he he is equally frustrated by this and he wants us to to say, you know, to to sort of meet in the
middle and he is captain compromise and I appreciate that so much about him. And so, um, as it sits right now, I I would very much, although I want to support the substitute motion, I would be more inclined to support Commissioner
Maddox's motion. Now, to the blueprint piece of it, I think Commissioner Caban also, we're all been painted into this corner where we're trying to be creative and come up with some kind of accommodation, and I admire that. And I think that that probably should have been considered years ago, right, when
when the city was projecting these costs because I do think that's a that is a shared pot of money where we all agree. But, you know, blueprint is what it is. We prioritize projects. We we those costs are gone up. I don't know where the money would come from for these things. But, um, I I do think that if we
were in a different time and space, that would have been the right place to have this conversation. But I think right now the timing is just too comb discombobulated for that to work. And I'm I would be okay with adding it Commissioner Maddox to your as a suggestion. Hey, why don't we look at
this? I don't know if the timing works out right. I think the city would probably outright reject that too. I don't think but if we're sending things over there that we think are Hail Marys um in good faith, uh I think number option number four is good faith. That
is a good faith attempt. And I I think we're the ones acting in good faith. And it's frustrating, right? Because we're the ones kind of getting told what to do here and we're the ones acting in good faith. So, I don't know if it's good faith or better faith to do yours,
Commissioner Maddox or Commissioner Proctors, but I just want to reiterate that I am so frustrated and I want people out there to know that this is the city's fire department. They are running and they are asking us to pass this fee along to our constituents. It
is simple as that. We did and we have to make those decisions. So, um I just want to I'll circle back to you guys. I just want to state again that I'm I I love Commissioner Proctor's passion for number four, but I'm more inclined to support Commissioner Maddox. Okay. Commissioner Cummings was back in the loop. Uh Commissioner Maddox is back in
the loop. Commissioner Proctor back in the loop. So, Commissioner Cummings, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, I just wanted to uh go back and look at uh Commissioner Caban's suggestion and I don't know, Madame County Attorney, if there's anything that would
prohibit us from raising that at our blueprint meeting and if it's agreeable, you know, with the majority of the blueprint, which would include uh the city of Tallahassee. I think anything that we do as far as this interlocal agreement with
the city and county could always be amended to pick up that pick up that cost. So I think that's thinking outside of the box, thinking about, you know, something innovative. It probably would take a substantial amendment to do that.
But I think it's something that's workable, but I think this is not the right forum to consider that consider that right now. Um, in the interest of time, can can I just ask staff uh, Mr. County
Administrator, of the different assessments that the county has proposed that increases the rate for our county uh, for our citizens that live in the unincorporated areas. Um, just for
clarification, what of those costs other than the ISO? I know we don't we don't agree with but of the other costs do we basically agree with we might not agree with the excessive rate but what of those costs that that we pretty much
agreement agree with going into mediation if we get to that point that pretty much are not disputed other than I guess the level of the cost. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. In the in option four,
which would be to um initiate the conflict resolution process, again, it it says that we agree um to uh the the utilization of the fire reserve uh funds to support uh the increased cost from
the latest collective bargaining agreement at the current staffing level. So, we'd have to back into what all of these costs are. It a it says that we uh do not agree to any additional again any additional labor renegotiation during this period. It says that we dispute all
ISOs. So there's $8.5 million if we're if we're successful $ 8.5 million over the next 3 years that we would avoid if we were successful. We dispute again under that scenario. We would dispute the debt refinancing which again is an
additional couple of million dollars and then we would request uh uh uh the uh the consideration to uh reduce the cost associated with the fire stations. Again, it would depend on how this is this is ultimately arbitrated to
determine what those cost savings would be and you'd have to make some assumptions based on which of these would be successful and and which would not be in that process. I think Commissioner Maddox's motion on the other hand is pretty definitive. It says
we'll back out the the ISO ratings. That'll save $8.5 million. We don't go we don't again have to go through the dispute resolution process if the city agrees to that. And again, that's that's a that's a big if. That's up to the city of Tallahassee. So, so just to follow
up, so the additional proposed FTEES for the new fire station and renovating other fire station would be something that we from the county would be okay with if we could come to a resolution and not have to go to mediation. Am I correct?
You want to address that? Yeah. The additional FTE that's under option four. We would seek to look for a delay in the staffing and the construction of those fire stations. We've done that in the past previously with um fire station 16
where we had minimal staffing once once it had opened until we entered a new 5-year period and we could appropriate the right fees to support it to defer the cost for the most part. That would be our goal. Okay. All right. That that's all I have. Mr. Yes, ma'am.
Commissioner Maddox, did you want to follow up? Thank you, Mr. chair. So, I want to explain what I'm trying to do here. What you're trying to do there? Um, Mr. Administrator, I got a few questions. The things that you said
staff uh does not agree with in item number four that we would go arbitration for. Um, I it would just be a guess that you've always expressed those things prior to us getting to those to this point with the city manager. We have
not. I would not preempt the board in that way. Again, I this is to determine which direction the board wants to head in. Once we get those marching orders, we're marching, but I wouldn't preempt uh the board in every way. So, so you haven't had a conversation with the city yet at all about it. We be putting this
in the hands of the of arbitrator and seeing where they what they would what they would think. Um we Commissioner P, you asked to hear from our uh consultant. Uh I saw your face. I'm going to give you an opportunity to speak cuz I have a few questions for you on mind.
Um I keep hearing that the the question the increases were based off of the fact that there were no set numbers for construction nor the agreement uh agreement with the firefighters association prior to the 5year before.
Correct. Correct. So, so when you when you made the estimate prior to the estimate that you were making were based not were based off of what you predicted those numbers could look like in a couple years. It it was based off what the city predicted the numbers to look
like. I did not make the numbers up. I used what the city gave me. Uhhuh. And so, um, construction costs went up considerably and so that that contributed to the construction cost. The labor cost they undersshot. Correct. Fair to say, right? Uh, so when you
looked at what the city presented to you today pri and I'm I'm sure you looked at also what they had before. Um, I'm guessing that I don't want putting words in your mouth that that you saw that as being reasonable reasonable based off of cost
of labor and construction today. I I don't make a judgment on whether they're reasonable or not or whether they need them or not. I take the numbers. I apply the methodology that we've developed and I calculate rates. I determine what portion is accessible versus what
portion is not. I do not determine whether they're reasonable. Okay. What method? Tell me about the methodology again. Method. The methodology that we developed with the two zones and and aortioning the cost to the government and then zone one and zone two and then
developing the rates. We also don't use the entire budget, the fire department budget. um we only use the accessible portion because you can't fund the EMS component. So I take their budget, I determine what is accessible. Then I say what portion gets funded by government,
what portion gets funded by zone one, what portion gets funded by zone 2 and then break down the rates within zone one and zone two to each rate category, residential and then the tiers for the non-residential. Thank you. That's very helpful. On item four, the construction
piece in particular, we are attempting to delay. We're not saying that we don't need those stations. Correct, Ken? That would be our efforts to delay under 4E. Yes. And that and and and I think you said, Mr. Chair, 17 is near near
your 15. 15. Where's 17 located? Lake Bradford Road, just south of Famway. Okay. Okay. Pure Seafood. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Both of those would would would dramatically increase u services within the or or the attempt for services
within the unincorporated area. They're both very close to the unincorporated area. So yes. Right. Right. Right. Okay. So here's the thing, Mr. Chair. I was I was pretty upset, too, cuz I believe in in agreements and
if we got agreements, that's what we're going to move forward with. Uh but I read a book a while back and it talked about uh the more a man feels the less he thinks. And so I I I I tried to stop feeling and start thinking. Um and when
I got to the part where I was actually thinking, there were two points that I thought were very important here. The ISO piece amounts for $10 off about $10 a little bit more off of the fee that we're that that we're we're
attempting to propose. That is by far the largest piece besides construction that would be uh that would go against what we're trying to save for our for our constituents. Now, we could we could send this to the arbitrator. The arbitrator could say, "This is this is
very reasonable. Why wouldn't you want to go from a from uh wherever we are to a two? This is something that's going to increase increase the uh the services for the city of Tallahassee, not caring much about how how it might affect the county, but there's an opportunity they would say, "Yeah, why not?" Um I don't I
think when I'm looking at it, I don't want to take that chance. I think if I can get them to agree to getting rid of that now, I would rather the city say, "Hey, we'll go ahead and take that off if you can agree to the rest of it." Cuz there going to be some
kind of increase regardless of if we go to arbitration or if we or if we or if they agree to us our bargaining here. That's the first part. The second part, Mr. Administrator, when does the city go back to to negotiate with the uh
firefighters association? It's scheduled for 2027. Uhhuh. When is when is the end of this five five years? 2028. Uh-huh. And so we quite frankly could be looking at an increase prior another increase attempt prior to if if they so see it
as, you know, the increase cuz they they're likely going to talk about want raises. The increase is warranted. They're going to send something back across the street and want to do another study because of labor. Correct. or or you you could you could assume so possible depending on the duration of the of the collective bargaining process
right we all well I won't say we all the city has run a fire department within that fire department is a union that they deal with there were some commissioners on this board that supported an increase in pay that the city was negotiating with the
firefighters association in my mind during the time I'm thinking to myself if there is an increase that's above of what they projected to be in the cost study. We were going to have to share in that. No doubt about we are going to have to share in that. And because of
that, I think it's fair that we pay something increase something over what was what was agreed if they negotiated beyond what they had put in the original study. They're coming back in
2027. If I can get them to agree today that an understanding through our uh thing the county attorney what we call codify through through the piece our county attorney put together that we won't have any more increase between now
and end of that study. I'm going to take that opportunity. Yeah, I I'll pay the rest of it. I'll pay I'll pay the rest of it that you have here today. I want that I want the ISO going because I can't guarantee how it's going to help my counties. go ahead and build 15 to 17 cuz that's going to help my that's going
to help my constituents in the unincorporated area. I can't say that's a bad idea that you guys did the increase that you did with the firefighter association. So yeah, it's fair that we should pay a little more if you pay a little more than you anticipated. All the things that I'm looking at that that we would we would
we would uh and even the debt service. Wow. $4 million for the debt service piece. It will help them. Okay. If I can get all of that, if I can get everything I'm asking for and I give them what I'm giving them, but then I'm coming back to
them and they agree that if they do have a negotiation that goes beyond what they've put in this agreement that they can't come back to us and ask us for an agreed cost, I mean increased cost, I'm going to take that all day.
And on top of that, if they agree, if they don't agree to any piece of what we send over, then we're going to arbitration. So, are negotiation. You ask for the world. You send it over. In
response, we send something back over that's a little less than the world, but we ask for something we need, too. If they agree, we move forward. If they don't, then we then we're at the impass. We're not going to agree. Then we go to arbitration. If they can agree to what
we're talking about right here today and we don't go to arbitration, we save money. Madam attorney, arbitration costs money. Correct. Yep. Cost of mediation arbitration would be shared by the parties. So yes, there's a cost. Yeah. Right. So we could go to arbitration, lose everything. They
win everything. We get the cost of of of arbitration half of it, they get the other half. But they were right. And they got this study uh that says that, hey, this is this is the way that I would do it. Not justifying the cost, but just saying how they would do it.
All I want is to give us the ability to control our own faith before we go to an arbitrator and say, "Hey, we can agree to these things that you've put in here." 15 and 17 helps the county because it's near the unincorporated area. Commissioner Party, you said
you've been waiting for that that that place for a long time. Not to mention, if we delay 15 and 17, because we obviously it's been delayed already. Let's say we delay it by three years. You can't tell me that the cost of construction will not go up. And if the cost of construction goes up, guess
what's going to happen? They're going to ask us for an increase in our fees for that cost of construction that's going up in in in fire stations that are closer to the unincorporated area. I say all this to say I just want us to take an attempt to
send over to to really just take a step back. I know we're all upset. I'll be upset too. I'm upset too. take a step back from the emotion that we feel and think logically and reasonably through this and try to get something out of it that would really really really put us
in a position not to be here in 2027 again when they have to renegotiate with the firefighters association one more time one and two that allows us to to think through all the things that we would be
disputing and how it might actually help us now now Mr. there. You talked about the debt service. That's the one thing that actually Yeah. I mean, if if I was to add anything, which I don't want to, I would probably add the debt service because that's something they can wait.
But but 15 and 17, I go ahead and do it. Go ahead and do it. The more we waiting, the more the higher the cost is going to be. The the the the personnel cost. Yeah. We we we have some folks over here saying getting people their money. So if we if we're telling them to give them people their money, then we ought to go
ahead and charge our our constituents for the fact that we said give them people their money. Even the ones that are up here that that didn't speak out, the facts are we are where we are. So I'm going to vote against the the substitute motion and I'm going to attempt again. You tal we talked about
statesmanship, we talked about diplomacy, we talked about trying to show some some sense of decorum and negotiation and working with each other. That's what we do here at the county. If there's an opportunity for us to work something out without us going to to the far lengths of fighting, then that's
what we do here. Now, if you're not willing to be reasonable with us, then we'll take a fight all day. But why not take a swipe and we being reasonable first? So, I'm going to vote against substitute motion and I'm going to support my motion and keep it as is.
Now, m Mr. uh I'm sorry, Mr. Madam attorney, you said that if we if we went down this road, we agreed we had to send out the notices, we would put in there the $38 increase or the fee was $38
increase. You said that we could go lower, but we couldn't go higher. Correct. In terms of what you assess this year, that is correct. Now, if you go through the entire dispute resolution process,
you end up with an arbitration award that exceeds what you approve, the amount you approved in your public hearing, you could tack it on next year and go back and assess it after the fact to collect the balance. So, let's say, hypothetically speaking, uh the
blueprint thing happens, right? and let's say we don't make a department agreement, but next blue blueprint meeting is brought up, it's voted on, we go through the processes, we're able to get that into the blueprint budget. That would that would decrease the amount of construction for that piece that we're
talking about. Correct. If not taken away all together. Yes. So, so how would that affect us agreeing to that piece? The piece that we talked about specifically about construction, staff would have to run the numbers with
the consultant to back out those costs associated with just the construction, the brickandmortar piece, and come back with whatever that revised rate number would look like and it would be lower. Correct. Theoretically, and we could go lower. So my my point is I'm not going to put it in agreement, but if you want
to bring up a blueprint, we can bring bring it up, have a discussion all day, and then if it if it passes going through all the processes, then we can still decrease, but we can't increase. So I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I will say at some point with
infrastructure, the way that thing works, we at some point we're going to have to consider taking some things out in order to get some things done if we're putting new things in. And this wasn't something, as Commissioner Proctor said, the voters voters voted on. So, I'm not I'm not I'm not too keen
on continuing to take costs that we that we're supposed to have as government and placing it in blueprint when the when the voters didn't vote on it. The la final final last thing I got, we keep calling this a tax. We're going to tax our people. We're going to tax our people. This is a fee. Madam Attorney,
can you describe the difference between a a fee and a tax? Well, technically this is actually for non-governmental entities and assessment. There is a special test that you that you can only charge a property commensurate with the benefit received
by that particular property which is why you have different categories for zone one, zone 2, for residential, for industrial, commercial, etc. A tax is entirely different legally. Now, is there a charge? Yes. But legally those
are different things. Exactly. I just I just want to understand within the county we have enterprise funds and those enterprise funds are fees that we charge that are supposed to be Mr. County Administrator if I'm correct self- sustaining. Correct.
Yes. Our enterprise funds are right. So so so some of which is the solid waste fee that we're about to talk about in a minute. Correct. Correct. Supposed enterprise supposed to be self- sustaining. I would imagine that this fee this fee that we're talking about with with the fire services fee is
something that is a charge that we that our citizens pay to the city of Tallahassee for fire services that that that changes from time to time based on the level of services that they're that they are that they are giving to us uh as a city fire department. Again, I just
want us all to be on the same page here. I'm not just laying down and this is not this is not my consent to say that I agree with everything on the sheet that that that that that I disagree with everything that's in item number four. This is my attempt to negotiate with the
city through us sending over what we believe before we get to mediation because once we get to mediation arbitration now everything's in that arbitrator's hands and we don't know what that arbitrator may come back with. If I can get I I can we can control our
own destiny here by sending over this agreement. And the two biggest things I think I want and I think we should want one is the ISO piece which the volunteer of the fire department said they can't justify to say that they're going to get an increase in service and we can't and
and we didn't agree to and two no more increases within this 5year study. Those two things I believe are worth the others that we may give away. Thank you Mr. Chair. All right, Commissioner Maddox, we got Commissioner Miner and Commissioner Kaban and we're going to vote on the substitute motion if that's
okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it. Chairman, you took me out out of order. I thought you were already I thought you spoke. Commissioner Proctor, you can go after Commissioner Kaban if that's all right. If you can wrap us up and then we'll vote on your motion. Very good. Commissioner Miner, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. Uh, quick point of information to clarify. You know, we've been talking
about the 8.5 million for ISO. We've been talking about the 44 million for the stations. Uh, the 4.3 for um for the collective bargaining agreement. All of those are the total costs. So, and I had to clarify this during the briefing, but so when we talk about like 8.5 for ISO,
for example, 8.5 million, that's the total cost for both the city and the unincorporated area. This the unincorporated areas share is about 23%. And that's across the board. So, when we talk about 44 million for the cost of the stations, the the cost borne by the unincorporated folks is 23% of that. Is
that correct? Okay. And that also applies with the debt refinancing as well as the collective bargaining. Okay. I just want to make sure we all knew that because it wasn't clear for me when I when I first read the agenda item. Second thing, um, let's say that Commission Commissioner Maddox's
motion prevails. We send the letter, the city agrees to it. We then um the the city is increasing the the the cost of labor because of the collective bargaining agreement. Um, we've taken ISO out. uh we have um debt
financing in that but let's say so we we do the cost for that costs are going to increase for the uncorporated area because of what the city has done now I know the fire services reserve fund will will cover a large portion of that it will cover probably the first year of
the collective bargaining increase right the uh that amount but what happens next year when we have to calculate the increase borne by the unincorporated area um for fiscal year 27 7. Do they get another notice next summer about an increase that's different because the
fire reserve fund didn't cover the collective bargaining amount as it did in fiscal year 26? Go ahead. So if you put in your resolution a maximum rate, you can say for fiscal year 2526 the rate will be this. And if you
notice people that way and for future fiscal years it can go up to this without further notice, then you cover yourself because you're um telling them we can increase it up to a certain point without sending another notice. It's very expensive to send those notices out
and to send them out two years in a row is very expensive. So if you put that in there, say we anticipate the rate for fiscal year 25 26 at X and in future years we can go up to um another rate without further notice, then you're back
on track only noticing newly affected properties. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And so uh Mr. Chairman, quick question of the county minister. So that's essentially what we would do. Let's say Commissioner Maddox's um motion prevails. We get that agreement from the city or we go into conflict
resolution and the res the result is the same. We would have a one first class notice that goes out this summer projecting for the next 3 years. That's correct. So one single first class notice. We could do it that way. Yes. Okay. Um Okay, sounds good. Um and then
final point I wanted to make. I know we need to wrap this up. I'm not going to support the substitute motion on the floor. I am going to support Commissioner Maddox's motion should we get to that point. And here's the reason why. Um, it is the statesmanlike thing to do. I I think
we should always try to find a compromise before we start getting into conflict resolution and and all of that. I think the city may go with Maddox's motion. And the reason why is because it's it's better substantively than us
going into a conflict resolution. You know, we with with Maddox's plan, we actually we we don't contest the debt fight refinancing. If we go into dispute, which is option four, we then bring that into the mix. So there's no guarantee that we're going to have a favorable resolution during conflict
resolution for option four. But all things being equal, I think the city will see the benefit of this proposal here that's done by letter first uh as opposed to then uh going to contract resolution when we include debt refinancing as another thing that we dispute. So because of that, I think
it's got some merit. uh we've got some leverage here and because of that reason I I think it's smart for us to uh uh to support Commissioner Maddox's motion should we get to that point. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for uh conducting your your effort on this agenda item. It's been a tough one.
Thank you, Commissioner Miner. Commissioner Kaban, take as much time as you want and then Commissioner Proctor, we'll give it to you to close on your substitute motion. Go ahead, Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this is going to be my last uh my last few points I say about
this commissioners. I think there's a time um when it's important for us to be colleial and statesmanlike. But this is not it. Okay, this is we can call it what we want. A fee, tax,
whatever. I don't care. This is a cost of living fee or tax that we are basically being forced to impose on our residents.
I don't care about being collegial statesmen when we have no say and we're being forced to increase the cost of living. I don't care. And I hear the argument about taxpayers
and and in and blueprint did not vote on this. Well, they didn't vote on affordable housing and that's a constant push in blueprint. And no one is sitting here saying that we need to take away or or remove one of the projects that
taxpayers voted on. Taxpayers did vote on infrastructure projects that benefit all of Leyon County. If this isn't the time to bring it up, when is we have 50% of the IMC sitting at the head of this table who controls the agenda of Blueprint? If we included
this as a friendly amendment to the city, they could vote on it in June, the chair of Blueprint is the mayor prom of the city who could call a special meeting and we could have this wrapped up by July 1.
So, when we talk about timing and procedure, guys, like this is what we're paid to do as elected officials. And um I'm going to withdraw my second on the original on the substitute motion, Commissioner Proctor, cuz I feel like where the board's going, but I will be
voting no on the original motion on the floor. And I'm going to vote no because I can't in good faith vote on a fee without exhausting all options. And it doesn't sit well with me knowing that we have a billion dollar
budget made for infrastructure projects and this is an infrastructure project and we're sitting here saying that we don't have money for it. So we need to go increase the fee for the for fire services across Lyon County. I don't think that's us being honest with taxpayers and I don't think it's a good
use of funds and I don't like this position period. So I will be voting no and thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you commissioner Mr. Vice Chair. U Commissioner Proctor if you could thank thank you Mr. Chair. Well Commissioner Proctor I think you lost your second on your substitute motion so we're going to
need to find one for your substitute motion or we'll have to dismiss it. Um is there a second on Commissioner Proctor's substitute motion? Seeing none, it dies for lack of second. So, Commissioner Proctor, you can um
speak if you want, but we are back on the original motion, which is Commissioner Miners, seconded by I'm sorry, Commissioner Maddox is seconded by Commissioner Miner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I concur with so much what has been said, and it shifts my u
comments. Um um feeling the cold wind uh on my back without a second. Uh this study sounds like collusion. Um I uh had read um under
option number one that this thing um direct our county administrative prepare a rate resolution to adopt fire rescue assessments and services fees based on all of the expenditure increases identified by the city and the
assessible rates provided in the consultant study. But I say collusion because I just heard the consultant say uh these are not her rates. She said the city gave her the numbers to punch in. I don't know what y'all listening
to. The city has used her license, her consultancy name, and punched in the very numbers they wanted. Whereas we are led to believe this was arrived at by reasonable minds independent one of the other and that somehow the city trusted
the advanced uh genius of their consultant. Their consultant just said these we they gave us the numbers. H that's like what what are you hearing? This is the city all the way. I I'm glad you I'm glad you withdrew your
second. Thank you. because I need to say some things a little different than I had planned to. The one area that we know the city is hostile to is the fire department. And it's substantiated by the fact that everybody in the city, all
units, all departments got a 5% increase. Say for the fire department. If there's one unit in the city that they go hard against, it's the fire department. That that's shown, it's demonstrated. So, our sense that they're
coming over here to play psy with us, not with the fire department. They don't give a damn about the fire department. Don't you understand that? You've been watching anything? This is the one unit that they will not flex. They're not going to flex for the fire department. That ain't my fault
that the fireman union took the wrong direction in the mayoral direction. I'm glad you withdrew this, um, Commissioner Caban, so I could just talk freely about some things. And ever since they failed to endorse the right person for mayor, they have caught hell, unique and
different, treated different with disparity from other units of city government. That's the dynamic here and they a hard road. Now your first question today, Commissioner Miner said, "What do we get for In fact,
I think I I wrote it down. I wrote your words down. How will the ISO of 8 million affect county the county's rating? And you said we don't know the benefit uh what the benefit is for the
rate um payers. I still don't know. We still don't know. She don't know. And what she does is get f she's balling told what to put down. And you're thinking it's a third party independent idea. We just
heard the lady said no. no such thing. And we're still going in this direction. But um I would suggest to you to you all that um that um the city don't like his fire department and they show it. They're
disinterested in what the request of the fire department is. They're indifferent to it. And the only time that they came up with a little compromise with the fire department was a few days before the last election. They hung them out over the banister, dangled them for
months, for weeks. Wives crying before the city commission. Um, begging for increases, the statement of how their loved ones had to get second and third jobs to make ends meet, and they still didn't get the
$60,000 starting pay for emergency uh person. Now, when they get to the scene, let's talk about caring and how we see the fire department. Um, some of these folk need uh have PSTD because of what they see as the first people arriving to
look at scenes that you and I we we couldn't look at, don't want to look at, but they are treated differently and they have no political immunity or their first amendment notions of who to support in city elections. Y'all think
the the y'all think the the Fantastic 3 at the city is going to going to bulge or flex. That's why we go straight to arbitration because I mean if you think a little horizontally this horizontal broaden up a little bit. It's
because of the very issue and the nature of the interaction that the fire department has with the city that we ain't got to fart around with them. Go straight on to mediation that we don't go there. is not going to be no flexing. Y'all don't get that. But that's okay.
So, my idea to us today, um, recognizing that you got number two, option two is sitting up in here. Man, I don't I don't want to be associated with us being voluntto and bent down on our knees by
the city to mail off first class notices to property owners regarding proposed changes to the fire rescue assessment and authorizing and all of that. I still say we supposed to stand up for the county resident. This ain't
the city going to get a blackout from the public. this y'all going to get a blackout from the public. I don't know who running from up here, but we have always been guarded in the city, the county's position to be very very
careful in triggering these tax notices uh trim notice increases uh is never good. But you you'll see the fallout uh shortly. Now, one of the things which we're not on that motion now, uh, the substitute motion, but it would have
been nice had the letter read per the adjustments directed by a conflict resolution arbitrator hearing. We note the increase in fire service increases. That's what the letter should have started off if we
going to get jacked. But you done put the thing in the wrong posture that we have no cover. We don't have no cover going the way Maddox is talking about. So I ain't walking with y'all. I like y'all, but uh I got people's pocketbooks
to defend. And I need to have uh I need to have the the the dignity to say in that opening letter per the arbitrators hearing, we going up on y'all. right now we ain't got that to say. We may not end
up with that. So I don't know what y'all thinking about. Um this was a waste of time to come down here today just to go with what is on the table. So chairman uh thanking you. Um that I won't ask this dumb question and I just want to do
it for the record. Will the new increases give firefighters a pay raise a $60,000 base? And since we are referencing the negotiated fire agreement, why can't we add to its
verbiage? Why can't we rearrange its language? If we're going up, why can't we have something to say about but all we do is pay the cost of which the city uh dictate and we get volunte what to
pay. And not only do do our citizens not get the right to vote in municipal elections, but we also paying for a fire service agreement that's referenced here that we ain't got no voice to protect not one fireman to get a 10-cent raise
over next year. And that's a damn shame. That's what we sitting up here giving away. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Commissioner Proctor. Commissioner Maddox, would you like to restate your motion so we can have a vote? That thing was too long to restate, man. Don't read that big old.
That was the longest motion in history. Yeah, it's coming. Um, options one through three amended to impose and collect a fire services assessment rate increase based on the additional cost identified by the city excluding the ISO
rating. Uh, the initiative was not contemplated in the development of the 5-year fee and it reduces it by 8.5 million. Um in good faith, we will go ahead and authorize the use of the fire services uh res reserve funds. Um but
however, this motion explicitly uh prohibits an additional any additional cost increases to the fire services assessment fees within the current 5-year study period and directs the county attorney to codify this in an amendment to the agreement. And I
believe um options two and three direct county administrator to provide to proceed with options two and three which provides the required mailings that we have to do um schedule the public hearing in July and amend the fire services interlocal agreement. Mr. Mr.
Chair I was hoping for the cliff's notes version uh commissioner O'Keeffe is in basically it's options one through three with the with no ISL excuse me uh commissioner Mr. administrator and then very very importantly all of which is conditioned on the city's agreement at
their June 11th meeting and if they do not agree or make substantive changes then I'm authorized to immediately engage in the conflict resolution process per uh option four I was trying to shorten it for you point of information listen as a as I'm a I like
short things point of information yes um Mr. County administrator. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Commissioner O'Keefe, can I hold off on that? Commissioner O'Keefe was in the queue and I'll come back to you on that point of information. We do have We We're trying to close it out. Go ahead real quick. M two questions just to make sure
I understand the motion. If the city does not agree to excluding ISO and including the clause that is ironclad of no more increases, then that if if they don't agree to any of those two, then we
go to dispute. Yes. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Command. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, when do when do we get an update back? Like is it will be will there will there be an agenda item coming back to us with an update? Will be an email update? Will there will you need further board direction or how does
that look? If the um if the city either way, if the city agrees or not, we will advise you immediately upon their action on June 11th. All right, we've got a motion and a second. Uh commissioners, all those in
favor signify by saying I. I. I. All opposed. I nay. Okay. So, passes four to three with Commissioner Caban, Commissioner O'Keefe, and Commissioner Proctor. Um in what would be the word? No.
Descent. Descent. Thank you. All right, commissioners. Um we are now uh and and thank you. I just want to say thank you to our commissioners for that robust discussion. Um, and now we're on a very similar item. So, uh, I look forward to more discussion. Uh, Mr. Administrator,
can you do number two for Thank Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioners, I will. Um, again, commissioners, consistent with the county's fiscal policies and our multi-fiscal year planning to reduce and eliminate general revenue subsidies for uh, the enterprise
programs. Uh this item seeks the board acceptance of the solid waste assessment rate study and report and approval to implement um a phased approach of uh the solid waste assessment over the next 5 years or to receive any direction that
the board uh has for us here. As I said earlier uh and in your briefings uh solid waste was the only assessment in increase planned for this year. Um and uh again the the agenda materials demonstrate that the board has been very
prudent in mitigating any tax or fee increases until such time that that that that all other approaches have been exhausted. This item details the county's history of subsidizing solid waste. Uh again an enterprise program which is intended to to uh pay for
itself uh through um user fees. Um and uh the assessment uh commissioners as you know has remained constant since it was put in place in 1994 at $40. Um again, it's important for enterprise uh
operations to be self-supporting to best position the county with the res with uh the resources and a maximum financial flexibility to meet current foreseeable and unforeseeable uh challenges facing the community including the economic uncertainty and the legislative uh updates that I
provided to you earlier. Again, as part of the 26 budget development process, uh the county uh engaged Accenture to calculate the assessment rates and the results of this study. Uh today, uh commissioners again, uh Sandy, uh Newbar
is available today. Uh we're ready with a presentation. However, uh again, I I know we've had uh extensive uh uh briefings and you've got a lot of information in your agenda materials. I think, Mr. Chairman, I'll hand it back to you. We're happy to answer any
questions that the board may have, but I did want to mention that you do have one speaker on this item, John Gibby. Okay. Um, yeah. Yes, sir. Mr. What's the last name? Gibby. Gib Giddy. Gibby. Gibby. Mr. Gibby, would you like to speak? Come
on up. Yeah. Yeah. It's your time. 180 seconds. Uh, yes, sir. I think that's correct. Maybe a few extra if you start early. Name and address for the record, please. Mr. Gibby,
get the phone out. Oh, it's coming. You go ahead. Step up to the microphone. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is John Gibby, Gibbby, and I live at 4887 Gum Road.
to the Lyon County Board of Commissioners. As a Lyon County resident who lives directly across the street from the Lyon County Transfer Station, I follow solid waste issues closely. The newly released solid waste
assessment study proposes that a fee increase is necessary, and that may be true. But isn't it the commissioner's obligations to ensure that any increase comes through
transparent, fair, and an accountable process? This study was anticipated during fiscal year 2025. Instead, it was quietly included in a 92page agenda item and released
just days before the schedule vote. making meaningful public engagement difficult. Transparency is also at stake. A recent public records request
for December 20 24 scale house data was fulfilled with no charge. That suggests there is no reason the past 5 years of scale data shouldn't be made public,
especially if system usage is being used to justify the fees. Meanwhile, the county signed a sole source agreement to divert solid waste from fuel to biochar production.
a major operational shift with no competitive process and limited public discussion. This change is happening on the same landfill site that's supposedly nearing closure.
And when a $260 deposit is required just to access emails between county staff and Maran Recycling, it raises a broader
concern. Are key decisions being made out of public view before raising the rates on every household in the county? One question must be asked. Has the public been shown
the full picture? Thank you for your time and your consideration. Thank you, Mr. Gibby. Thank you, Mr. Gibby. Uh Libby Libby, but Gibby Gibby Libby Gibby Gibby. Thank you,
folks. Thank you, Mr. Gibby. Um all right, commissioners, are did you introduce? Are we ready to rock and roll? Mr. Chairman, you're ready. We're also ready here if you want. Mr. Miner, you're in the queue. Followed by Commissioner Maddox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, it's been a long day. I I I understand
the the reason for this request from our staff. Uh, you know, I if you read through the agenda item, it's it's clear that um I would read the rules, right? Rules on motion. Uh, he hasn't had a chance yet to even make a motion. Um, so meaning we're supposed to make a motion
before I was waiting to move to race for it all. Oh, no. I I think you weren't even yet to his making of the motion. He was interested. So, yeah, go ahead and um carry on, Commissioner. Okay. So, um yeah, that was the wind up. Well, okay, listen. Uh let me make a motion then for
um options five and six and then I'll explain why if there's a So, what option five would do would be uh to accept the updated transportation tipping fee resolution as as documented. And then number six would be to maintain the general revenue subsidy to the solid
waste enterprise funds. In other words, no increase. And here's if there's a motion I can explain why I'm go ahead. I mean a second. I mean um Okay. We've got a motion for options five and six. Is there a second? I'll second for
uh Mr. Miner. Here's the reason why. Um we don't have control over the city's increases to the fire service fee. We just don't. And we had a long discussion about that already. We have complete control over the solid waste assessment. This is this is us. Um I understand the
reason why we're doing it. We had, you know, during the briefings we talked about, you know, this is financial management, good financial management to reduce the subsidy because we know that the state legislature could be having a huge impact on um local government revenues either this year or next. We
know that's coming. And so it's it's smart for us to to take this measure so that we have more room to uh be able to fund essential services should we need that uh those funds. Given the discussion we just had on fire services and it looks like we're going to have a
a a fairly sizable increase to our unincorporated area residents. It's not us, it's the fire service fee that's increasing and we're being asked by the city to adopt those changes. It's likely we'll have some increase. We I think we acknowledged all that. Um, in my discussions with with our our county
staff, and correct me if I'm if I've misinterpreted this at all, but I think we do have the ability to forego this for this year, especially in light of what the fire service fee increase may be for unincorporated residents. I think it makes sense. Uh, now, if our county administrator and and our staff here
disagree with him on this, um, maybe I misunderstood the discussions we had in our briefings, and if so, that's okay. But I I do believe that if you're an unincorporated resident right now living in Lyon County, later this summer, you're likely to get a notice in the
mail about an increase because of the fire service. We all hear from our residents on on what that does to them or they're living on tight budgets. Prices are increasing everywhere. Um, I think this would show folks living in our unincorporated
neighborhoods that this is something we're very sensitive to and that we are willing to to to go this year and and maintain the subsidy for another year uh to give them uh to to recognize that this is something that that we
understand. Um, so I my question for our staff is, you know, obviously this request was not made lightly. you know, the the the phasing out of the subsidy is is financially the right thing for us to do. But my question for the county
administrator and our staff is how how severe will the implications be if we if we do pass option six today? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Thank you, Commissioner Miner. Yeah, this is Commissioner. I hate
to to equivocate at all. This is purely a policy decision. As long as you all and again this is you all have to consider everything every decision you make on the budget you know has an impact on the options you have available to you say in the next year and again
those things are all interconnected I I know the board's doing it you know eyes wide open you'll be making your determinations eyes wide open we wanted to present all the information to you and um uh again so long as you do that um uh we'll follow that direction thank
And that's that's a fair answer. Listen, we we know that the legislature is likely to do something about local government revenues. We know that. We know it's coming. The magnitude of those changes could be in the tens of millions or even greater. You know, county administrator mentions that earlier about the $und00 million uh impact on
Lyon County. Uh that was a bill that was filed that would have impacted us by $100 million. This is four. This is 4 point. It's it's four or five or something like that. That's what we're being asked to subsidize. That's what we're subsidizing now for for people living in unincorporated areas. The
magnitude there, I think, is such that it it sends a signal to the folks living in the unincorporated areas that we're sensitive to what they're going through. Um, if we hear from the legislature either this sess session or next, we're likely to be here talking about a very
hard discussion of what we're going to do for our budget, losing tens of millions of dollars. That's a discussion we'll need to have. What I'd like to do though is now tonight show our unincorporated residents that we got their back, that we're doing everything we can right now
to make it easier for them. Um, we'll have this tough discussion uh when we know what the legislature is doing to our local governments. We'll have that discussion. I think tonight though, it makes sense for us to take this measure on behalf of our residents. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner
Miner. I've got Commissioner O'Keefe, Commissioner Cummings, Commissioner Proctor, and Commissioner Maddox in that order. Commissioner O'Keefe, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and thank you, Commissioner Miner. Um, this is uh uh I guess that's what you get for
making expectations. This is not where I expected us to go. I like it though. I think this is the right thing to do, especially considering what we just voted on. Um it does not it by holding by holding the tipping fee increase correct for the cost of things that's
not paid for by uninccorporated citizens in in a fee then we are making clear that we're not going to subsidize another government's uh disposal costs. But by for this year, keeping it uh general revenue
supporting this and not increasing fees on on residents and citizens um in Leon County, it does continue to subsidize from the general revenue budget, which is something to be fair to staff. In the past, the board has strategically said we want to look at these, but with
everything else being increased um at the behest of the city for the fire service fee and other things, I don't think this is the year to impose it. Um and I it would be hard to convince me of why this year is the year to impose it. So, I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner O'Keefe. Commissioner
Cummings, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I think we're all sensitive to assessments and to increases. Any increases that's going to uh
increase the assessments and the taxes on our on our residents in the unincorporated area um would impact all of us. So, we are sensitive to that. Um, I appreciate
um the motion that has been made uh for no increase this year, but quite frankly, when I looked at the proposal for scenario uh three that recommended every other year, I
thought that was being very consistent and uh conservative as far as our county employees are concerned. Um, we're looking at the first increase next year, 2026, based on scenario number
three. No assessment 2027, go back 2028. Uh and quite frankly with this assessment beginning in 2026, Commissioner Max, we should know I would think uh next
year what the legislature will do, what the legislature will have done. Uh so that was my analysis and my thinking when I looked at the recommendation uh from staff and from the county administrator.
I'm I'm not going to um outright oppose uh your motion, uh Commissioner Maddox, but uh Minor, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Commissioner Miner. Uh
but but I think staff did a great job in the explanation uh that we have and I think was very sensitive uh to our incorporate unincorporated residents by recommending every other year and that's the gradual
um the gradualness of the cost and the assessment on our county employees and I also uh considered the fact For over 30 years, the county has subsidized from
general revenue uh specifically so that our uh residents in the unincorporated area didn't have to pay this uh solid rate assessment. Anticipating that there will probably be
some budget changes uh next year, I think is important. uh that we are conservative and that we look at probably maintaining as much as of our general revenue as we can so that the services that we generally provide
to residents if we are forced to make some budget cuts if we are forced to receive less in general revenue than we we normally do that we have sufficient funds uh in our coffers to make up for
those services and to make sure that those services uh are not lacking for our for our for our citizens. So, I'm I'm ambivalent about it. I think that that it shows that we are concerned that we're
sensitive to increases um in assessments for our uh for our citizens. But uh I I listened to some of the other commissioners, but I thought that recommendation uh was was a good recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Thank
you, Commissioner Cummings, Commissioner Proctor, then Commissioner Maddox. [Music] Uh this feels so crazy. Uh, our staff, Leon County, has made a
recommendation or makes recommendation to alert us to the need that we potentially uh increase these rates for our uh tipping fees, waste assessment, and all of that.
Um, Commissioner Miner says that he he wants to have our our counties members of the county county residents. He wants to have their back. It seems today that we're um not wanting to take the
medicine, swallow the medicine of increases for waste which originates which is under the oposes and control of the county. But we somehow the Joneses called
in and said we got to have some more money. This is a shakeddown and we did not stand Commissioner Mer in my opinion. We didn't have the backs when we voted to shake down the county and to bow down to
the city hall, but we refused to support our own staff recommendation. Just a tip to those who would be county administrators in the future, always vote and put your own issue first just in case somebody shakes down
the money your commission don't want to do two potential increases in the same year and look that way. So I feel pretty um uh awkward because there is no doubt
um Mr. administrator, how long has this this agreement been in place? How many the rate at the current level has been in place since 1994? and that we feel and we're so
congelled and we're so in agreement that a 1994 rate we can suffer paying uh the difference and we're willing to make that difference but we charge them
for fire is in congruent is very inongruent. Um Mr. administrator. I remember uh Mr. Gibby indicating he lived out on on Gum Road. Haven't we had um workshops before
um on the uh these kinds of issues uh waste solid waste and blah blah blah. I just remember a whole lot of public meetings, workshops on the gum road transfer station or was that another set of problems? of how am I mixing the two
and to the request that somebody made uh Mr. Gibby made about transparency which we had a whole lot at one point maybe around 200 8 7 8 something like that Mr. Chairman. Uh yes, Commissioner Proctor,
you're recalling uh lots of workshops and public meetings that we did with the construction of the transfer station. A lot of things have happened over the last, you know, 30 years um including the uh the closure of the landfill and a
lot of certainly a lot has changed uh over that time. Um and I'm I'm trying to hold back from saying except for the amount of the fee. So the but again you you were calling workshops primarily I believe over the transfer station. Okay.
All I'm trying to say is that commissioners we have denied our own pockets our own selves for 31 years. 31 years we've been willing to total line offset the difference and all of that in
this area. But the city has an agreement with us that runs for two years. Two, one, two. And we we're willing to not allow them to feel pain, but we feel pain in our
own game with the same residents. Something is in congruent that we suffer ourselves and deny our coffers the coverage for 31 straight years, but the city feels a little discomfort and says,
"Hey, we need y'all to auntie up. This is unreal." Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Commissioner Maddox, you're up. Commissioner Party, you you said it well. Um 31 years of the same thing. I think Mr. Minister, I've been here for a
couple of those workshops. One of which is where we talked about, as you mentioned, uh closing all our rural wor rural waste service centers. God rest her soul. Commissioner Sauls at the time spoke up for Fort Braden. Uh and we
decided not to move in any direction cuz she spoke so strongly. And if anybody has been watching our meetings for a while, you know, uh if there's anything that Commissioner Saul spoke out against strongly, it was us closing those centers. Uh and so I do remember those
conversations that we have had that we had in the past. Um and I think that was the first time I was introduced to Mr. Gibby. He came and spoke to us a couple times. So good to see you. And when you walked up, I was like, I had seen that face in a long time, but it's good to see. I hope all is well.
Um, I'm looking at I'm looking at these I'm looking I'm looking at table two and that is mindblowing. We are absolute the lowest of 10 counties
by 58 bucks. Even if we went up to 84 this year, we would still be the lowest of those 10 counties. Is Hernando like size? Mr. Administrator. Very close. Yeah. And getting bigger every day. Uh Madison's not Madison is a
little smaller in it. Yes. This was a comparison of operations, not population. I know. I understand that. I I I I think for for for the record what I'm trying to get across here is that what we've done in the past is we've been able to subsidize those costs now for 31 years as as Commissioner Proer
and Commissioner Commissioner uh Miner as well as uh Commissioner Cumins brought up, but we we we are $100 or so less than what we should be recommended
in this study. And that will still put us in the bottom third of this 10 uh this of this 10 county city list that we're talking about. You know, when I think about
it, eventually we're going to have to deal with this. This is not something that we can continue to do. Commissioner Proctor said it right. you know, is it a pitting one against the other? If we do fire, we can't do the uh solid waste
that we that we that we that we absolutely need to do. Um I remember one year some years back, Commissioner Proctor, we were and and Mr. Administrator, you may remember this, we had some fees, about two or three of them we had
to deal with. I think we we actually went with two and then I think solid waste was one we pushed down the road, I believe. Is that correct? You remember? Um, this is a hard one cuz, you know, I want I do want to be considerate of our of our uninccorporated
um constituents. But at the same time, I I I also know if it's not this year, it's next year. It's not next year, it's the year after. What is our reserve? What does our reserve look like? How how long can it sustain us?
It's Rajan. Please Rashan, I would defer to you. It's it's not a matter of reserve. It's a general revenue subsidy. It's general revenue subsidy. Yeah. I'll um I'll take a shot in the dark. I don't think it'll pass. But I make I'm going to make a motion for staff recommendation.
Not because I want to because but because I think it's what we I think it's reasonable and it's what we have to do to be budgeted right. I would love to be able to sit up here and
say that I'm going to go with Commissioner M. I will go with Commissioner Miner's uh motion if if this fails, but I I can't I can't sit here with a good conscience and watch us continue to
All I'm doing Well, let me say it this way. All I'm doing is passing this this to us next year or the year after or commissions to come. But eventually, somebody's going to have to touch this.
Somebody's going to have to. And I I do think the $84 over the over the next I think it's not next fiscal it's this fiscal year that we skip one is 84 the next I believe correct um until we get to 134 which will be how many years off
2030 2030 um it's the best I think it's the best and the longer we wait the more we got to deal with it I'll go ahead and make a substitute motion for staff recommendation all right we have a substitute motion for staff recommendation. Is there a second? Second from Commissioner
Cummings. We are in discussion. Um, Commissioner Proctor, you're in the queue. Just as Commissioner Maddox has said it very very hard, it's hard to jam uh and to send out two different um trim notices or tax
notifications of increases or fee, whatever you want to call it. And the people call it taxes. and that we're now um scheduling ourselves to take that risk um of putting two different notices on the street. Um that's not a good
report card. We get that. Um but it's hard to support another man's house and and don't support your own. Um that's so for years and years uh our staff we've balanced the budget at
times. We have balanced our budget uh coming in knowing that we're running a deficit in this area. Uh there used to be another area I think that we decided and made a policy resolution and county attorney could
tell you more specifically that in the area of um permitting that became an area that we said it had to sustain itself, pay for itself and come up with its own money.
But in this particular area, we have policies that we force one department within the county's government to self- sustain. And then we've got this this waste area where they don't have to come up with nothing. We just kick the can
down the street. Uh that is a disparit uh standard of governance that is not equal, is not even Steven in my opinion across the board. So to um
um it it it it it seems that to allow the imbalance of a budget that's not balanced, is not even meeting quota. And as Commissioner Maddox has pointed out, that we're light years
behind counties of our area um reasonably and we do all that we can all the time. But one of the things that policym elected officials do and the t-word um as much as we don't want to be associated with it, but it's a part of
the reality and taxes and fees is a part of governing. And I think that Commissioner Maddox's motion um he's not just fair uh in trying to support fire services that they balance across the street, but he's also trying to be fair
to the needs of what Leyon County itself needs. um on our own street at at 30 301 uh South Monroe. So, I'll be supporting the motion. It ain't popular, ain't pretty, but 31 years kicking this can
down the street. Um I'm willing to walk with um Commissioner Maddox. Thank you, Commissioner Proctor. Commissioner or Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um [Music] This has been a very frustrating meeting
for me, guys. I don't know how um as a board we sit here and talk about affordable housing over and over again and then we sit up here and are voting to increase the cost of living for residents across Lyon County.
Um we don't have to increase the rate this year. We don't know what the next budget season looks like, but we don't have to do it this year. And um guys, this is just very
frustrating. Um we know the fire services fee is going to come back with an increase. Property values are, I'm assuming, are going to come up higher than they were last year. And we talk about over and over
again affordable housing, affordable housing, affordable housing. Well, this is a an increase the cost of of people's cost of living in their housing. So is the fire services fee. So we're I'm going to vote no on the substitute motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Um commissioners, I appreciate all of both motions. Um, I think that we we live in significantly uncertain budgeting times.
Uh, and I think that Commissioner, everybody's right. Uh, Commissioner Miner, I think your sentiment is is right. It's a timing issue. It's not great considering the fire services fee which as we discussed at length we're
kind of handcuffed in regards to. I also agree with Commissioner Maddox and I think that the public needs to know that this is going to have to be addressed at some point. The should we rip the band-aid
off now and get it over with? I think the phased approach that staff has presented is reasonable and responsible. Uh 31 years, I mean really we should be celebrating the management of Lyon County right now. Whether we talk about
em EMS uh MST MSTUs that we had to raise last year after 20 years and uh um you know what what other stuff have we delayed for a long time and un underwritten by with other things with general revenue. I
mean, we have prolonged some of these things for as long as humanly possible, but to the vice chair's point and to Commissioner Miner's point, these kinds of things increase people's cost of living.
And I it's not unreasonable to think that after the legislature figures out what they're going to do with property taxes that we're not back here having to cut this whole program flat out with or raise this fee. Um and so I
think you have to sort of pivot in the environment that you're in. Uh and if you're if you're in an environment where things are happening quickly and the the the trickle effect, the drip drip effect
of fees and assessments and taxes again, I would assume that our our assessments are going to come back with an increase this year. I think that it's probably not a bad idea to kick the can one more time, but
I think that we as commissioners need to also articulate to our communities, this is going to have to happen. And next year is probably the year it's going to have to happen. I don't think you're going to have any uh any more certainty from the legislature next year than you
have this year. Maybe we will, but I mean either we go to a user fee model where it's simply you pay for the services that you use um outside of the tipping fee, right? The the solid waste
site fee or you just acknowledge that we will we are at $40 a year. Is that correct? Correct. $40 a year. And you look at these other counties that assess the same thing the same way. We are so far behind it's unbelievable.
It's almost irresponsible. So I think it's important for the public to understand that this is one of those things going to have to happen. And and I think if it was my own household, I would just go ahead and and endure it. But I I think that we have
this unfort thing, we would probably unanimously be just let's get it over with. But the fire services fee being uncertain in of itself how much it's even I mean I mean I guess we know how much it's going to be but how much the city is going to agree to acquies. We don't know. So I just think that it's
prudent to to hold off on this one uh and wait until next year. But I I'm going to say now that assuming this comes back next year. I'm probably going to have to roll with it um down, you know, and approve it. So uh Commissioner Maddox, you want to close this out? Well, Commissioner Miner's in
the queue. Commissioner Maddox, can you I'm I'm going to go ahead and reveal my motion. I I I'm I'm persuaded by your argument, Commissioner Kaban's argument. I I just look, I I want us to understand that and I want the general public to understand we got to deal with this at some point. We we absolutely have to. If
if it's not this year, it's next year. It's not next year, it's the year after. But we we we have to deal with it. Um, it just it it puts me at a very I try I try to make very responsible decisions and honestly I I don't feel
good about this one because I know budgetwise for as long as we've kicked it it doesn't seem responsible but I agree I agree our folks may need some relief um given what we've had to do for the fire services fee but if they need
relief this year they're going to really they're going to need relief next year too because no telling what this legislator is going to do to us. So I I I'll go ahead and I I'll withdraw my motion and and see what happens with the original motion. I just I don't feel good about it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Commissioner Maddox. Commissioner Miner, we're back on your motion and your second was me, so I'll go right ahead. Sounds good. Yeah, I think I can just wrap this up really quickly. First of all, all the points you've raised are really good ones. You know, I I I agree with probably 95% of
everything that all of you have said. Um, I don't feel good about it, Commissioner Maddox. You know, it's it's not the best financial management practice is to continue to do this. I totally agree with that. Um, quick question for Commissioner Sure. Quick question. For how long have we been
paying the subsidy? It's been at least 15 years, but for how long have we been paying the subsidy over the $40 fee? Early 2000s. Early 2000s. So, maybe maybe maybe 20 years, right? um which is, you know, for each of those
20 years, we've been doing that because we didn't want to put a burden upon our our residents. Um and I I get it. You know, we we should start to phase out the subsidy. We've all agreed I think we all agree on that. It's the prudent thing to do. It's the financially responsible thing to do. We've been
kicking the can for 20 years. We've been basically reducing the burden on our unincorporated residents for 20 years. We're living in incredibly uncertain times right now. Not just for us as a local government, but also for for everyday people. Every f, you know, for every every family out there has no idea
what the future holds. Inflation is going high. You know, the uncertainty is at a level higher than I bet it has been for the last 20 years when we have had the subsidy. So, I agree with what you're saying. We need to phase this out. What my motion is all about is not
now. you know, let's find out exactly what the fire service increase is going to be. Again, we have no control over the city's increases. We have complete control over this. So, let's wait one more year. Let's get let's hopefully the storm clouds will clear up a little bit. Maybe they won't. We may have a better
idea of where we stand in terms of the fire service fee increase as well as what the legislature might do to us and other local governments. So, that's that's the spirit of my motion and um I'd appreciate your support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner Miner, Commissioner Proctor. Mr. Chairman, whose motion is on the table?
Yours, Commissioner Miners. Commissioner Mer. All right. What was the motion? What's your motion? Five and six. Five and six. Okay. Well, I'm you know, how we get to your motion? I thought we had a substitute. Okay. Good, good, good. Um I I appreciate that and I did no
disrespect to the county's administrator. Uh but I went to our budget director and I wanted to know how much money as we if we kick the can down the road, how much um uh by our not imposing an increase uh how much are we
making up that difference? The subsidy is projected to be $3.8 million next year. All right. Um, now I'm willing to to to go this way because I also want to know and you know, forgive me
for going thunder and lightning. Um, how much do it cost to give our county employees a raise? How much is that? What percentage? Commissioner, what we gave last time was 5%. 5% last year was about 2 and a.5
million. All right. So, what I'm trying to say is that I'm I'm willing to kick the thing down the road, Commissioner Ma, but um this is a special meeting for the budget and since we are in a budget meeting, but I do and believe that um
how much is it? Three how much three how much we subsidizing? 3.8 million. All right. And then 2.5 will pay for 5% I'd like to take that 2.5 uh and and and and and and consider
commissioners a call for a 5% increase for our employees uh this year. And and I think that what what we do in doing that is that um it's a humanitarian call um and it gives us some leeway to
address the need to help uh the families that struggle and work very hard. So, Commissioner um um Maddox, I was going to walk with you, and I know you withdrew, but what I'd like to do with
that savings of 3.8. Uh well, anyway, you heard me. So, I I want to take that difference and and put it on 5% for employee. Um and I make that as a recommendation. Um do I need a motion or something like that? I'm a little confused. Mich, could you explain again
what he's trying to do? I don't understand. Well, the motion on the floor is for option number five and six, right? Um, not to implement the new fees. So, there won't be any savings in 26 now.
Correct. So, there's no savings. We're not employing the fee. We're still subsidizing to the tune of three $3.8 million. Right. And in my
Republican mindset, that still gives us plenty of room for the 5%. Um, my best So, the motion on the floor is uh five, which I it has to be done, and six is to hold off on uh the
assessment. So, I think if you want to make an amendment, you'd have to ask Commissioner Miner if he accepts your amendment. But but in this special budget meeting, is this the place to to ask for the placeholder of the 5% to come back? I think probably that'd be for the workshop or that we pass that
time or at the in commissioner time at our next meeting, but we don't have commission. You need a motion for that. Vince, the motion preliminary budget will be coming back to you commissioners. And again, we've got a lot to balance in between now and then. But should the
board wish I will tell you what if it's direction of the board certainly that number will be considered uh will be presented to you for the board's balancing at the June 17th workshop. If if you directed that that scenario is presented for you all to take action on one way or another, we'll be sure to
present it. All right. Well, I didn't want the garbage man, the fire man, and everybody gets some but our employees. I I I like to see that come back as we continue the uh budgeting for 206 and 27
20 25 and 20. Okay. Well, I don't know what posture we're in the we're trying to dispense of this one. There was no commissioner time on the agenda. So, I mean, can we dispense of this? And it it sounds like we're good. It sounds like Vince said he's going to have the
number at the meeting if we want. I mean, I think they were going to contemplate that anyway, probably. Good. Um, okay. Commissioner Miner, we've got a motion. Uh, you've got a motion seconded by me. Is there any more discussion? All right. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. All
opposed. Passes unanimously. Thank you commissioners for a great meeting. I appreciate it. Uh, Commissioner O'Keefe, did you want to add something real quick? Um it's uh we forgot we missed it in May, but can in time for June, can we get a proclamation representing June is Pride
Month to be presented in June like we do every year? Yeah, we got a motion uh for proclamation. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Passes unanimously. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I want to um ask um my aid to pass out to each of you all a
um proposed um uh idea and um she's sharing that with you real fast before you adjourn. And I can bring this up clearly at the next meeting. Um but just to share with you my um primitive thoughts.
Um just just primitive thinking here and I won't even put it in the public domain just you know for your brains off the and um I'd like to see if we could agenda that for these things for a discussion item. They're two different thoughts. That's okay. All
right. Do I need a motion for it to be agenda? Uh, it probably needs to be in a regular meeting. I mean, we just did pro we just did agenda proclamation uh for June. So, I mean, I would it definitely needs to be an agenda item, I would think, Commissioner Proctor. So,
if you want to ask for an agenda item, I would entertain it. Okay. I'd like to motion an agenda item to address the um what I've put before you. Okay. Okay, we've got a motion um for the establishment of a citizens council in each commission district. Commissioner
Proctor's idea staff. Uh are there any major hiccups with an item coming back in regards to this? Can you analyze that? Just that we we'd be happy to formalize any of this, bring it back for board's consideration and agenda item. looks to
me at first blush that any individual commissioner could do number one if they wanted to at any time unless there's a um any kind of a a budget associated with it. And um and certainly we could bring back recommended solutions, but
loitering is currently a crime and currently has a set of of of um of penalties set out in statute to deal with, but we could bring this all back. Happy to do it. Super. All right, we've got a motion uh and a second for Commissioner Proctor's idea here in regards to citizens councils and
loitering. All those in favor signify by saying I I passes item will come back with all the deets. Commissioner Kaban motion to adjurnn. All right, we have a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor? I we are adjourned. Thank you.
[Music]