Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. all this budget workshop into order. It is 10:01 a.m. Before we get started, uh, Commissioner Cummings, will you lead us uh for the Pledge of Allegiance, please? >> Yes. Will we all stand for the pledge?
>> 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. Thank you, Commissioner
Cummings. Good morning, everyone. It's great to see you. Great to see so many faces in in the chambers. Commissioners, before we get started, I know this is typically practice that we like to do. Um, I'm looking for a motion to just wave the the rules to be able to discuss items freely on this workshop. If
someone like move Okay, great. Thank you. Uh, we have a motion to wave the rules for by the vice chairman, second by Commissioner Miner. Any discussion? All All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Passes unanimously. Thank you. Uh gentlemen, commissioners. So, listen
here here's how I want to uh kind of I don't want to lay some ground rules, but I want to kind of framework of how this will go. I believe staff has a couple brief presentations. Um during that time, I'll open the floor up for commissioners to ask questions.
Um pref I prefer to refrain from any debate during the question period. And then once the board has has ceased asking questions, then we'll get into conversation and debates and I'm I would like every commissioner to kind of engage and know one commissioner kind of dominate the conversation so that way we
can we can keep the board workshop flowing and then at that point once I feel like every commissioner's had adequate time to to you know make their debate and we've been able to conversate I will be looking for a motion. Sound good everyone? >> Awesome. Looking forward to a great
workshop. Mr. County Administrator, take us from here. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, commissioners, uh, and welcome to your workshop on the FY27 budget. We've set aside all the time you'll need and probably a little more to review the preliminarily balanced budget, the
materials before you, and to receive any additional direction for the board, and to answer any questions you might have. Of course, Mr. chairman. Uh following the overview, uh we have a budget discussion item on models for the administration of cultural grants. And the final budget discussion item is the
annual setting of the maximum millage rates for the tenative budget uh pursuant to statutes. Commissioners, to begin, uh, as you often hear me say, the development of the annual budget is not something we engage in once a year, but it is a year-round continuous process
that reflects the board's longerterm fiscal policies and priorities for the community. Uh, as we've discussed throughout your budget materials and during briefings, commissioners, the FY27 budget serves as a transition year to larger structural and financial
considerations to county services and the organization as we prepare for the significant revenue loss pending the outcome of the property tax reform amendment on the ballot. commissioners. In recent years, uh we've budgeted our way through uh a great recession, global
pandemic, record high inflation, and more natural disasters than we can count. Uh so there's not a whole lot that we haven't seen and we haven't been able to address effectively uh efficiently and responsibly. At your workshop next month, we'll go into much
greater depth and analysis on the constitutional amendment, its impact on the delivery of services, and a timeline for the board to engage in a very structured and systematic financial and organizational restructuring process to address the potential uh fiscal cliff uh
to make informed decisions and deliberate decisions along the way and early in the budget development process for the FY28 budget. Commissioners, though, the preliminary budget before you today was developed as a transition budget uh in anticipation of 28 and
beyond. And as a transition budget, it maintains core services. It supports constitutional offices. It fully funds discretionary programs. Uh what you'll see in the materials and in the presentation today are intentional measures to be taken now in anticipation of the property tax reform amendment.
The preliminary budget, commissioners, is a very conservative transition year budget, which reflects a 4.8% uh increase over last year. Uh it's 4.1% when you exclude constitutionals and self-supporting funds, which is lower
than government inflation. Uh it limits operating increases to the smallest necessary levels. It restructures our capital program to focus on maintaining infrastructure. Uh and it reflects an extraordinary cooperation, extraordinary level of cooperation with our constitutional
officers to limit their budget growth this year. Commissioners, in addition to your preliminary budget, I'm recommending several immediate stop gap measures to be implemented in the current year, which I'll talk more about in just a moment. But with that being said, uh I'll get the ball rolling with
a quick overview of the FY uh 27 preliminarily balanced budget. Rashonda and Ken will uh provide detailed presentation of the budget. uh commissioners uh on the screen before you uh you should note that uh after taking all the final budget balancing
into consideration direction of the board uh the preliminary uh budget remains both fiscally conservative and highly responsible. It sustains a current level of quality uh service delivery to the community as demonstrated by the following. And I'm just going to hit on a couple of these
for emphasis commissioners. Um again in terms of the highlights of the preliminarily balanced budget, there are no changes in the millage rate uh for the 15th consecutive year. Uh this is particularly um significant here
in Lyon County with all of our property taxes off the rolls and uh of course with our uh limited fees in our sort of our revenue profile. Um again for the 15th consecutive year uh is is is uh is
certainly something to underscore. Again as I mentioned commissioners not counting constitutional officers and self-supporting funds. This budget is an increase of 4.13% um over last year's budget which is less than government CPI.
The balanced budget uh is balanced with no general revenue with no general fund uh balance uh and um while maintaining reserves which are going to be necessary down the road. Uh again it funds the constitutional judicial officers who meet your statutory requirements. Uh it
funds inflationary contractual obligations, meets your statemandated service requirements, uh and um uh provides level funding for all outside agencies including CHSP and primary healthcare. There's only one general revenue supported position in the budget
that's associated with the opening of the new Northeast Park. Again, to give you an idea of just how lean uh the budget is, uh there is an additional crew for EMS to address increased call volumes, but those are that that crew is paid for, of course, out of dedicated
EMS revenues. Uh again, in terms of capital commissioners, we maintain strategic, efficient, long-term investments in our existing infrastructure. And lastly, commissioners, the budget reflects our commitment to ensuring a high performing workforce with pay with fair pay and
equitable practices with a modest 3% average performance pay increase for employees. Finally, uh my favorite news to share, commissioners, as we bring you, uh each year before the budget, I like to say we bring this to you before we bring you anything else to consider,
uh is the results of our uh high performing employees and our yearround organizationwide innovations and efficiency efforts that realized an additional $1 million in savings this year, commissioners. But here here's the big news. This is the first time you're hearing this. in the
FY27 budget. When we began that program in 2013, this $1 million in the FY uh 27 budget savings brings our total savings to over hund00 million uh since 2013 due to our countywide uh employeeled
organizationwide efficiency and innovation efforts. Commissioners, I mentioned very quickly the stop gap measures uh that are a part of of this uh and uh they're included in your materials and and as we discussed in in your briefings, given the magnitude again of the projected property tax
reductions, I'm proposing that the county implement immediate stop gap measures in the current fiscal year to best position the county for the difficult decisions to be made in the coming months. As reflected in your materials, this includes a hiring freeze for all non-essential personnel, a freeze on non-essential travel and
training not required to maintain certifications and licenses, a freeze on discretionary community event sponsorships, uh not including uh those line items approved in March in your budget. uh commissioners very clearly these measures are designed to mitigate
uh layoffs to the greatest extent possible by leaving vacant positions unfilled to realize uh cost savings if it can be used to delay service level reductions and to redirect uh funding to one-time capital projects. Additionally, commissioners, I'm also recommending that you authorize me to request that
the constitutional officers participate in the hiring, travel, and training freeze for their employees as the constitutionals account for nearly 60% of property tax revenues and their participation uh to mitigate in these reductions would be uh very helpful. These immediate stop gap measures
commissioners are important uh to put in place now uh to provide maximum flexibility to the board uh 6 months or so from now as we begin uh that decision-m process through that very systematic and structured budgetary and re uh and organizational restructuring
process that I spoke of also commissioners has provided uh in the revenue diversification study presented to you today uh I'm recommending appropriate appropriating available funding to begin fee rate studies for storm water and uh uh development services environmental management fees
in the current budget. Both programs are subsidized with property tax revenue which may no longer be viable uh going forward. Uh initiating those legally required studies now will provide the board with the cost recovery options to consider in the 28 process to mitigate cuts and millage rate increases to the
greatest extent possible. uh as we prepare for that. Just to hit very quickly, commissioners, a little a little look uh ahead to July and to the July workshop as as we've discussed in your materials, it's not too soon to begin planning for FY28
um and the fundamental changes that will need to be made for the county's organization and the services we provide. uh at your July workshop, we will present again a very structured and systematic decision-making framework to facilitate the board's organizational uh and budgetary restructuring process for
the development of the 28 budget. Again, you won't be performing that uh uh exercise in July. Uh but it'll be a road map that'll be presented to you and staff will begin uh conducting uh all of the analysis and evaluations necessary to have the information available to you
at that time. That'll include an evaluation of main levels. This will distinguish between responsible to uh and obligated to provide versus those services that are not. Uh and it will also include uh revenue structure modeling uh including general revenue, special purpose funds and enterprise
funds. It'll include revenue cost recovery uh which will determine the proportion of operating costs the county recovers through charges for services and identify strategies to provide full cost recovery. Importantly, it'll look at functional consolidations and efficiencies uh throughout the county.
Uh that'll be very comprehensive. The exercise will involve uh identifying program areas within the county, organizations that could be merged. Uh and again, it'll be very very comprehensive and a whole lot more. Again, just to show you the sort of the uh the the tip of the iceberg here. Um
again, it will also include uh a service level reduction analysis. um will evaluate every service the county provides and its utilization uh to identify service level reductions to close the revenue deficit gap. We'll also be including for you at that time a voluntary uh separation incentive
program. Uh the program will provide a structured method to create vacancies in the organization to align with the board's service level decisions. Again, it'll f further mitigate uh any terminations that may be required in this process. Again, just to to give you an idea of the process and all that it
will entail. Uh again, commissioners following the workshop in July based on the board's direction, staff will systematically uh initiate the necessary financial and organizational evaluations and analysis. We'll engage county departments, constitutional officers, will provide the board with all the
information uh needed early in the budget uh development process to make organizational budgetary decisions for next year. Uh and again commissioners uh that's just a highlevel uh look ahead. Uh commissioners you also asked at your last meeting uh and you would expect us
to do so and and of course uh we expect that of ourselves as well but to to lead uh uh on this issue. Um and you noted this at your last meeting and so I just want to give you a snapshot. We've already prepared uh and we're finalizing
a peer resource guide that I intend to share in fact next week. uh with for other county managers um who might not have um the experience of our staff managing through again great recessions and and and natural disasters and all that we've been through with the longevity of the staff that we've we
have here. We intend to share it's going to be particularly helpful for small counties uh to facilitate a process like this in a very structured uh way. And so I just wanted to give you a glimpse of that. Uh again the I the this guide outlines these steps uh for a structured
sequenced framework to facilitate the evaluation of decision- making um and organizational restructurings that may be necessary under a process like this. Um as promised commissioners you'll get a full presentation at the workshop uh next month. Uh commissioners as I wrap
up the overview comments I want to emphasize uh the extraordinary uh effort and scrutiny that's gone into the preparation of the budget. Uh it's been immense uh as you would expect as fiscal stewards. Uh don't let our our brevity here today uh belly that. Um and on that
note, commissioners, uh while I have the floor, I want to just take the opportunity uh to thank all of our county staff uh including Rashonda uh our budget director and the OM team for their dedication, their work. I'd like to also again just underscore acknowledge as I do uh each year at this
time the work of our constitutional officers for their spirit of cooperation uh in preparing their budget submissions. Again, there were there were no new positions requested uh by any of our constitutional officers this year. So again, needless to say, they have a significant impact on our budget
and that excellent working relationship uh really benefits the entire community. Finally, commissioners, I want to thank you for your policy direction, your consistent leadership leading up to today and your continued commitment to ensure that the county remains highly efficient, operationally effective, and
responsible stewards uh of of county resources. And I want to commend you for that. Rashan and Ken will now provide um a more detailed overview of the preliminary budget. After that, Mr. Chairman, we'll hand it back to you. will be available to answer any questions you might have uh before we
proceed with the separate budget discussion items. Uh Ken Rashonda, given my long- winded um overview, I'm going to ask you all to be brief. The board has had obviously we've provided lots of materials. We've had uh extensive briefings. So, with that, Rashonda, I'll
hand it over to you. >> All right. Good morning, commissioners, and thank you, Vince. Um, I'm going to give just a quick highle overview of the budget and then pass it off to Ken to hit some highlights of the revenue diversification study. Um, just first to
underscore the county administrator's points. As we begin to transition to the larger financial and organizational restructuring for county government that will be required if the constitutional amendment passes, we first approached the fiscal year 27 budget process with
an intended focus on constraining expenditures. Um, at this point in the process, commissioners, um, OMB and the county administrator, we reviewed all departmental and constitutional officer budget requests, and we provided final recommendations for operating and
capital budgets in attachments number one and two. As I'll demonstrate in just a moment, operate increases were constrained to the smallest extent possible, and the development of the capital improvement budget was restructured to focus on maintaining our
existing infrastructure. As we discussed with you in your briefings, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of all of our capital projects to determine whether they added capacity versus provided core maintenance. Um, instead of increasing capacity, those
dollars were redirected towards maintaining and repairing our existing infrastructure. And we provided examples of that um strategy in your materials. Commissioners, before I get into um the details of the budget, um as me Vince
mentioned, I first want to just talk about our year-round efforts. Consistent with our league structure and direction from the county administrator, employees are empowered to seek and implement cost savings measures throughout the organization. And of course, these recommendations are brought to you
before we come with any recommendations of new taxes, fees, or positions. And these efforts aren't isolated to the budget process. It's a deliberate process and approach that occurs throughout the year through some of your targeted programs such as the I squared awards. And as Vince mentioned, this
year we realized $1 million in savings and is worth repeating 100 million since we began tracking. Commissioners now transition to the overall budget. Um the fiscical year 27 budget of approximately 420 million is
preliminarily balanced. This equates to a $19 million increase from FY26. And the overall changes are included in your materials, but what you're seeing on the screen is a summary of the projected revenue and expenditures for your general revenues. It's important to
review these revenues and expenditures in isolation that are primarily supported by your property tax revenue and your state shared revenues. Other revenues of course such as your building inspection fees, EMS are restricted and can only be used on those dedicated
programs. I'm just going to hit a few of the highlights of the budget and of course we can answer any questions that you may have as reflected. Um general revenues are projected to increase a little over 7 million, excuse me, $12 million. Um,
based on June 1st numbers from the property appraiser, property taxes are expected to increase a little over 5%, which will generate an additional 11 million. Last year, you'll recall, values increased by 7.87%.
We're continuing to see a decline in year-over-year growth, especially in new construction, which declined over 200 million this year from the previous year. Um, we anticipate modest increases in your other major general revenues such as the public service tax and gas
taxes and we're cons continuing to see fluctuations in your state shared revenues which are largely based on um sales tax um collections. Um, switching over to expenditures, you'll see what the additional 12 million in revenue supports. The largest
increase in general revenue expenses as reflected in on this screen are related to the sher's budget at $7 million. These increases are primarily personnel costs which is the largest component of the sheriff's budget at nearly 80%. And
one of the largest drivers of these costs are the special risk FRS classification for for deputies. Um, other increases are for inmate medical calls and food calls to operate the detention facility. Um, as the county administrator mentioned
previously, in in anticipation of property tax reform, the sheriff and the other constitutional officers did not request any new positions in this budget. um nominal personnel and operating increases for the other constitutional offices were offset by a reduction in
the SOE's budget which fluctuates year-over-year depending on the election cycle. Um next, county government personnel costs um increases include your normal health care FRS and the budget also contemplates a 3% u
performance pay raise. Other increases are related to your annual um inflationary increases for contracts um utilities and statemandated payments. Also, commissioners, I'll just mention um briefly um these increases are offset
by a reduction in general revenue support for solid waste through your increase of the solid waste fee this year and continued um payment of our of our debt. Um those reductions allowed for a general revenue increased general revenue support for our capital program
to address again those critical maintenance needs. Also, as provided in your materials, the budget also includes the use of one-time reserves to also support the capital program. Um this year's capital program is a total of 34 million and we include a summary of the
entire recommended capital budget in attachment number two. Um before I move on from this slide, commissioners, um in respect to our major general revenues, I just want to underscore again how significant the property tax amendment is to our budget. For the most part, as
demonstrated here, we've been able to rely on that year-over-year growth in these revenues to maintain current service levels. However, as we've discussed, you know, throughout your agenda materials and in your briefings, if the amendment passes, significant revenue enhancements and service
reductions will be required to mitigate that revenue loss. As the county administrator laid out at your July workshop, we'll be presenting that structured financial and organizational process to best position the board to make those decisions.
As I wrap up, commissioners, I want to share just a couple of my favorite slides, which allows us to show how we compare to our like-sized Florida counties. When it comes to our budget, we continue to benchmark favorably as we have the lowest net budget among our
peers and also as demonstrated here, the lowest budget per county resident among our like-siz counties and we also have the second lowest number of employees per capita. These benchmarks, they further demonstrate how efficient we are
in providing all the essential services our community expects year after year, but doing it with very limited resources. Um, next, commissioners, I'm going to turn it over to Ken to again hit some of the highlights of the revenue diversification study um you approved on
your current year budget and then walk you through the next steps in the budget development process. Commissioners, the next couple of slides provide the findings and recommendations of the revenue diversification study which is provided in your materials as attachment number three. During the
budget development process last year and in light of all the property tax reform discussions at the capital, the board recognized the need for greater financial diversification uh of their revenue base to lessen the county's reliance on property tax revenues. At the time, the board authorized a consultant study of the
county's fiscal structure. Over the past year, we've worked with Guidehouse Consulting, an industry leader in public sector finance and revenue strategy to conduct the study. And as presented in your materials today, the study includes an assessment of the county's current revenue structure in comparison or
appears. We examine the reliability of alternative revenue sources that may align with the county's operational needs, understanding that not all local governments are the same. And we identified trends among other Florida local governments that have diversified their revenue base in recent years.
Overall, the study found that the county is more reliant on property tax revenue than the typical Florida county with about 60% of our budget relying on property tax revenue. Uh that exceeds both the statewide average and statewide median. Conversely, the county receives
significantly less revenue in charges for services for enterprise fund operations. guide house was able to quantify for that uh for us about annually $300 less per capita is collected uh among Lyon County residents than the statewide average. So all the
enterprise funds uh statewide were about $300 less per capita each year. We also uh determined that Lyon County is an outlier when it comes to the use of impact fees. 43 of the 67 counties use impact fees to support capital
project funding. Most of the counties that don't are fiscally constrained or low growth counties. And last but not least, no single re and revenue generation provided by property taxes because property taxes can support any
county service. It's reliable to borrow against and the board can generally increase or decrease the revenue on an annual basis. That isn't the case with other revenue sources. That's why the county administrator keeps referring to the fundamental restructuring of county government. Counties were designed to be
reliant on property tax revenues until that became taboo. So based on these findings, at a very high level, the study recommends that the county fully recover the cost for enterprise programs, modernize fee schedules to reduce general revenue
subsidies in other program areas, and it offers longerterm strategies that don't necessarily provide a benefit in time for the projected FY28 revenue cliff, but long-term have policy and financial implications that the board may want to consider. Uh for today, there's only a
couple of recommendations included in your packet that we're seeking action on. I'll cover those as we go through. Um just to go through a few of the specific fees and charges listed on the slide. The solid waste nonadvalorum assessment was a recommendation in the study. The board already took action on
that in May and approved a 5-year phasing in increase of that fee to cover the cost for services. Another one similarly is the storm water non-envelor assessment that is part of option number two today to advance a required rate study.
Diesome fees for permitting for development and environmental. A few years ago the board updated the building inspection fees. So those are pretty current. Um but our diesome fees are continue to be subsidized by general revenue and need updating. That's also part of option number two.
One of the fees that the county doesn't charge that that guide house identified as a as a potential revenue source is for emergency management and the mandated reviews of healthcare facility emergency plans. Emergency management does about 70 of them a year. Florida
statute again requires it and they provide a uh a fee structure that the county may levy. We don't today. Um, Guide House is estimated that could generate between 20 and $30,000 on an annual basis, but that'll continue to grow as as healthcare continues to grow
in our community. Some of the other fees that we're going to look at in the next 6 months uh include the balancing of the probation pre-trial supervision fee structure. So, of course, you got to be careful there. It's subsidized by general revenue. You
don't want people um having to pay fees or go to jail. Uh there there's an affordability factor with pre-trial release and supervision programs. Um other counties do rely more on fees than we do. Um and of course, even from the
the county's own perspective, if you're looking at it just from a a financial provision, um obviously if if people can't be out and be productive and be on release, uh and they're in the jail, it's going to cost the county more either way. So, of course, there's a careful balance we'd want to look at and
bring back to you. Parks and recreation, very similarly, uh very different fee structures across the state, whether you're talking about the the fee structure to uh use a field, rent a pavilion, or versus a community center. Uh county has very low fee fee structure
really just to open and close the doors, take out the trash. Other counties are charging looking ahead at the long-term maintenance of the building and the facility. uh sort of a a real usage charge. And then another one, commissioners, if if you've been to um the tax collector's
office recently and you've you've renewed your driver's license or gotten a passport, you you put it on your credit card, there's a fee that's passed on the to the consumer. Uh county departments aren't charging that fee. We're absorbing those fees for uh permits and uh usage fees. So, that's
something we'd want to look at. Again, some of these are are small impacts, five, six figure impacts, but all worth looking at bringing back uh as part of your financial restructuring. Longerterm strategies. Again, I mentioned uh impact fees earlier. Uh if
you recall, there was legislation in 2025 uh followed by emergency declarations associated with hurricanes. Uh we can't even look at imposing an impact fee uh until FY28. So that's why earlier I said this there's some longerterm strategies
that won't necessarily help you right now. And also the the consultant looked at the available discretionary sales taxes. Uh some of you may recall 20 years ago we looked at indigen healthcare. Uh not something we're recommending. It it it
doesn't really align with operational uh costs for the county today. It it it wouldn't replace uh existing revenues or it' be too much if you did a sales tax. There's other taxes. A charter county transportation sir tax. Only three counties levy it, but you can use it for
sidewalks, roads, bridges, uh paving private dirt roads. Again, longer term issues you might want to look at in the future. The only action being requested today related to the study is option two, which provides funding for the required rate studies for storm water
nonadvalorum and the decent permitting fees. All of this will come back to you in early 2027 as part of your cost recovery analyses uh to provide the board as much flexibility as possible for the financial restructuring that'll be needed for FY28.
For today, commissioners and and the next steps with your FY27 budget. Of course, in July 1st, we'll receive the final propraer. Each year, there's very minor tweaks. They can go positive and negative, but it's very small. We'll bring back any changes to you in
the ratific financial and organizational restructuring. Um, and then for uh the rest of FY27, you move into your public hearings in September and starting October 1. It's it's a new fiscal year.
With that, commissioners, these are the recommendations provided in your materials. Happy to turn it back to the county administrator or chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Ken. And and Mr. Mr. Chairman, again very quickly, commissioners, transition year, as we noted. Um, very conservative but highly responsible
budget. Uh, a lot of important work ahead. Let me just say for our audience members too who may be here for the co K cocoa item. Let me just uh give you the punch line there. No, no, this the property tax reform efforts that we're talking about don't directly impact that's dedicated revenue source.
Obviously, the same fiscal oversight and stewardship applies, but not the direct impact on that revenue source. it's protected, if you will, from uh the property tax uh reform efforts that we've talked about today. With that, Mr. Chairman, let me hand it over to you. >> Thank you, Mr. County Administrator, and
thank you, staff, for for the great uh presentation. I have Commissioner Proctor, and then the vice chairman in the queue. Commissioner Proctor, floor is yours. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um commissioners, good morning to one and all. Thanks staff for outstanding uh presentation overview
uh our budget um matters including um multiple tables u that's too small for the human eye to see but nevertheless uh Mr. Cummings no matter what I may have to use your glasses a little bit but we
thank them. Um my first question simply is um fundamentally statutoily uh are we duty bound uh county attorney to uh do we truly have to have a uh
balanced budget and definitionally uh what is this commission compelled to do? uh how much leeway and getaway space uh can we
uh lean a little bit out of bounds? Help us to understand first and foremost. Do we really have to balance the budget as in having enough money uh to pay for whatever it is we
agree to pay for? I I need a some clarity because my sense of budgeting has been flipped upside down. I just need to know what is a so-called balanced budget and is it still required
by law? >> Mr. Chairman, >> um good morning, commissioners. Um I thought that question might come up, so I actually pulled a statute that talks about this uh section 129.07 07 of the
Florida statutes says is says it is unlawful to exceed the budget. And that provision, it's pretty short, it's been around for a long time, says the board of county commissioners may not expend or enter into a contract requiring
expenditures in any fiscal year for more than the amount of appropriations in each funds budget except as provided in chapter 129. And the total appropriations of any budget may not be exceeded except as you guessed it
provided otherwise by statute. Any indebtedness contracted for any purpose against either of the funds enumerated in this chapter or for any purpose which is chargeable to either of the funds is null and void and no suit may be
prosecuted in any court in the state for the collection of such indebtedness. And it does also conclude by saying the members of the board of county commissioners voting and contracting for such indebtedness are liable for any
excess indebtedness contracted for. >> Okay. So um Mr. Chairman, if I might follow up um Thank you, Richard. Um if I might follow u um my sense of uh
that when it comes to this word budget is that a term exclusively reserved for the seven elected people on this day are the word budget u in voicing and the u decision making about
the responsibility for which we might be held liable. How wide a tent is the budgeting authority uh afforded to citizen grant? >> Commissioner Proctor, if I could. Um your your county administrator, I'm
statutoily required to provide you with a preliminarily balanced budget this time of year. And then we certainly have some legal requirements for trim. That's why you have a you have a um an item before you today on setting the maximum milit rates. Uh but again um you all
could provide any additional direction prior to the adoption of the budget and give give us the direction to to to balance it prior to your uh public hearings in September. >> So the money which I think Rashonda said last year we it was a 7% uh property uh
value increase and I think she said was it four or five this year? >> Five this year. So that trim notice is what bounds us to expected uh revenue
and it's that notice uh to us as for the projected potential income that we might receive that we're duty bound to honor and stay within its limits. Is that accurate? >> Yes. And and Mr. Chairman and
Commissioner Proctor, uh the maximum millage rate, emphasis added, um uh is the maximum you could go at any point during the budget process until final adoption. The board could always um reduce that amount but not increase it. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um those are
the parameters which I was seeking to understand. >> Thank you, Commissioner Pra, Mr. Vice Chair. First, uh, thank you, Rashonda, and thank you, Ken, and everyone on your team for doing a lot of work um on this. The annual budget is not already a lot. It's not just a lot of work already, but
this is uh this is a lot. Thank you. Um, can you we're proposing a hiring freeze for non-essential. Um, can you describe the positions that would be considered essential? Generally speaking, >> generally speaking, commissioner, those would be um positions associated with a
constitutional or statutory obligation. Um those u positions would also be consistent with maintaining um a minimum level of standard and level of service provided by the board's previous action. We would certainly abide by uh by that.
Um and again there would be some judgment exercised in that as well in terms of maintaining uh the required staffing to perform the duties of the county. >> Excellent. And would the supervisor elections still have the capacity to hire seasonal workers to perform the
election to the standards we expect? >> Yes, he would. >> Okay. Um, how would our ability uh a current budget I'm sure is solid, but as we plan for perhaps a a massive change, how does our ability to service
our existing debt service into the future get impacted? And what's the term of our current outstanding debt service? >> Yeah, e relatively easy question for us to answer because we have such little debt uh at the county. We're almost for
all intents and purposes almost debtree. We've been over the last um decade or so very aggressive about paying down the debt reflected in our our very high bond ratings as well. In terms of a very specific answer for that, I I would uh pivot to to Rashonda who could probably
give us some detail, but it is contemplated in our balanced budget in terms of debt service. Fairly. >> Yes. So, commissioners, we have about uh 15 million in outstanding debt and um we'll pay off one of those in 2029 and
then the remaining um debt service will be paid off in 2036 and that's about um 13 million. >> Wow. Wow. Thank you for putting us in that position. Seriously. And to the prior commission for putting us in that position. That's excellent. Um I want to
confirm my understanding. You described quickly in very technical terms that we are already deferring or delaying capital projects and expenditures, certain capital projects and expenditures and minimizing things we
were planning to expand and build in response to just this possibly happening. Is that accurate? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, commissioners, is a general approach that you see reflected in this budget. There's a distinct shift in the balance budget that we've
provided to the board um to uh to limit uh any capacity adding projects and again focus on the maintenance of existing infrastructure and that's typically a move that you make dur at these times um specifically before the board has the opportunity to address
larger uh structural financial and organizational structures. Look, you may address those in ways that that that get us to, you know, to to a to a level prior to that, but before you do it, it's important that we contemplate that to give you maximum flexibility in that process.
>> Thank you. Um, going to the sheriff's office budget, um, which I know we um, work very well with them and it this amount compared to prior years, I can see they worked very well with us to keep the increase as minimal as possible, but it is the largest as always. It's usually the largest. How
does this percentage increase in the sheriff's office budget compare to law enforcement and detention facilities on average or across the state? >> I'll let Rashonda speak to that. And by no means am I uh was I intended to do a
commercial for the sheriff here, but let me just say that we we enjoy a >> uh a really special relationship. Uh one really uh not necessarily common throughout the state of Florida. Uh, as you know, the sheriff has the ability to to appeal uh his budget and the sheriff
um comes and he's has limited requirements in terms of participated in in the budget fully. There's several deliverables that he has to make, but the sheriff's office um really participates fully in our process uh and our reviews and that sort of thing. His
his um uh his year-over-year growth u I'll have to defer to Rashonda on, but it's been very conservative. Yeah, year-over-year um typically is around the same percentage increase as the property tax um change year-over-year. I think what
you'll see around the state for all counties is that the sheriff's office budget is typically the largest expense, but for our sheriff, I would say I think it's probably average around the state. And like I said during my remarks, the
biggest driver um for them are collected bargaining, um salary negotiations, and then that special risk category for F FRS, which typically has higher higher rates. >> And on the detention center budget recently for we we we outsource uh
inmate uh healthcare and recently we had the contractor Yes Care go bankrupt and y'all did a fantastic job. hurrying and getting an emergency bid and getting CFG in. Has any uh are the costs increasing
based on that new bid going forward or how does that impact our budget or is it already factored in what we see? >> Yeah, let let me let me defer to Ken. Ken was heavily involved in all the logistics related to that working with the sheriff's office. >> We're expecting the budget to increase.
We're expecting there to be increase in this fiscal year because again this was a sudden withdrawal or or termination of the contract. Um the contract has not been finalized. I think we're expecting it today. Um so we're anticipating that but you could see a budget amendment in September for the current fiscal year
and then we'll adjust for 27. >> And if that amount is significant enough are we going to see any consideration of a different structure? >> I'm sorry I missed the question. >> Sure. If that amount is a significant amount in uh increase, is there any possibility of evaluating a different
structure for providing that care or is it pretty much this is the best we best we have and and we doing as best we can industry-wise? >> My understanding as part of the solicitation process for this again because it was part of an emergency move, uh it's a short-term solution for
the time being uh the sheriff's office could end up doing a longer term rebid to to get additional responses. >> Excellent. Again, thank you to the team and the team at the sheriff's office for doing so well, minimizing a gap in care. That's our responsibility. Um, I have
questions on the diversification revenue diversification uh study. You mentioned this, Ken, but I want to emphasize it. Um, one possibility is to consider minimizing the amount that we budget from the general fund for pre-trial and probation diversion. And I just want to emphasize
that when we get to calculating that that we calculate >> yes >> if we're saving this amount in staff and pre-trial diversion and fees but it's increasing nights in detention that we truly do what costs less. We don't just look at one which looks like you're on
you're smarter than me on this both of you and all of you. So I see you're doing it. Um the other thing is I'd like to know how we're are we making sure we remember we had a study recently um about minimizing the need for capacity increases at the detention center so
that we wouldn't have to build a new detention center. And a big part of the solution was putting in resources and processes and collaboration to speed up processing of cases with court administration to get people out of the system. Is are we still protecting that
goal? uh as far as when we think about cutting resources and staff and stuff like that in the future. >> Well, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, that's the biggie, right? In terms of um deferring uh to the greatest extent possible um an expansion because that's
where the cost really uh begin to be felt. Um and the sheriff uh uh along with with the county, we've done an excellent job in in managing the jail's population. I I'll just remind the board that you have um a couple of 100% county
funded positions who are dedicated fully to um reviewing uh the the jail population and and and and u sort of quarterbacking with other agencies and other programs in terms of we have one full-time person that does nothing but
mental health evaluations uh for diversion purposes um and any number I think a dozen or so uh specific diversion programs and dockets It's dedicated to the same purpose. So along with your PS uh CC, which which
Commissioner Proctor uh is a member of, which uh it's kind of their full-time job as well, uh to keep a close eye on that. And so yes, we have u all the resources dedicated uh to ensure that that that we um uh forstall that for as
for as long as possible and effectively managing that that population. Thank you all for being proactive and not just waiting to see what happens um to keep us in in as best position as possible. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Uh Commissioner Cummings, then Commissioner
Miner, and then uh back to Commissioner Proer. >> Uh uh thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I want to thank the county administrator uh and his staff and the presenters for all the hard work you guys have done
to prepare the information for this workshop. Uh today, I'm especially proud, Mr. County Administrator, that we can say that from a county standpoint, the millage rate has not been raised for the last 14 going on going on 15 years.
And I'm also um excited when I read all the material looking at the stop gap measures and the results of the diversification uh study that we are protecting our employees that it does not include
any layoffs for any of the the county employees and that we'll use um other measures to protect those individuals that are good what we we refer to our county employees as great great county
employees. But I just want to ask a couple of questions um about the stop gap gap measures that were are recommended. Uh Mr. chair. >> Of course, >> I understand. Of course, freezing
new hires and and it's recommending that that begin immediately. Okay. And then the the freeze on discretionary funding is that to begin the new fiscal year or is this are these
immediate or we are recommending the new fiscal year? It it is it is uh to be implemented immediately with with parameters that would guide again u decision making that may provide exceptions. >> Okay. But any sponsorships that we have
um already we will honor those. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Oh okay. Now, the diversification uh study was very interesting. There's several areas, many areas compared to other counties um that we in Leyon
County does not um tax our our citizens or our developers or our businesses on. But in many areas according to that study we have to have number one a study
done impact study done and then number two in some of those areas we have to have a vote of the citizens. Now we're not projecting um to have studies done or vote um this
election year. Am I correct? We're projecting this for the future. >> That's correct. M the vote only refers to the discretion term strategies. Um again, none quite fit uh the the situation that we're dealing with in the foreseeable future, but the the study
did highlight some of those. But in terms of the u the referendum issues, again, those are much longer in nature. And again, we don't foresee it in our immediate horizon. >> The impact fees is, I guess, what I was looking at. Uh there were several areas
where it recommended a study on the impact fees and then some of those would have to be uh submitted for vote. >> Let me ask Ken to address that. >> Impact fee does require a feasibility
study. It doesn't require a referendum. But again, Leyon County and and several of our neighbors were specifically prohibited um right now from pursuing an impact fee. Uh it's tied to Senate Bill 180 from 2025
and uh declarations by the governor. It was tied to um hurricanes that had come through and bad weather that had come through. If there was an emergency declaration, it put a pause on uh imposing any new impact fees. So again, it's a tolling period. So we we can't
implement anything until FY28 at the earliest. that could also get further delayed if we have additional bad weather, bad storms or emergencies this summer. So, it's a bit of a holding pattern. That's why we we move. >> Did you say until 2028? >> FY28.
>> 2028. Yes. But the recommendation would be to perhaps go on and conduct it the uh the study. >> We would bring back uh additional information to you in the next 6 months as part of the process for FY28. um we
we would know then whether we're it's availed to us whether we can pursue the impact fee study for implementation or if we've been further delayed post hurricane season. >> Okay. Awesome. So I think it's great uh Mr. Chair, Mr. County Administrator that we are projecting and looking toward
whether or not um the citizens are going to vote on the reduction in Avalorum property taxes. And in the event that they do, I think these measures are putting us in a good position so that we can face um the
reduction in taxes but still be able to have a certain amount of revenue so that we can um provide the essential services that our citizens of Mon County need. So I thank you all for for the summary. I thank you for the projection and putting
us in a good light so that we have uh a road map of where we need to go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Commissioner Cummings. Commissioner Miner. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, if you all
give me just a a a quick 30 second um deviation from the topic at hand, I wanted to uh congratulate May Sergeant of WTXL for uh spending three great years with us here in in Lyon County in this community. Uh she joined us about 3 years ago. Uh has done a great job
covering stories um uh and and getting a lot of the great policy discussions out there, but she's leaving for other pastors with Tampa Bay uh next week on June 23rd. Commission Commissioner Miner. Commissioner Miner, unless there's a motion by the board to deny her ability.
>> Well, I was I was just going to say I thought I saw her post and you were a little bit too excited about >> um she's done a great job covering some really great stories uh in Lyon County and Tallahassee. Just wanted to wish her well. We're going to miss you.
Um I I want to start by thanking staff. Uh you all have done an incredible job as you always do. Um I you know I got the sense I think many of us did that you were burning the midnight oil uh over the weekends on evenings prepping for today and for the July workshop
coming up. Um and I just wanted to thank uh Rashonda, you and your team and and everybody that has worked so hard uh to get to today and then for the coming weeks. This is going to be a very difficult budget year, but uh I want to I want to thank all of you for your efforts. It it matters. Um you can tell
after reading the agenda item and with the presentation here, this is a transitional year. I can't think of a better way to describe it. Um if significant revenue decreases are coming, and they very well may, uh we need to prepare for it and this budget
proposal does it responsibly. Um some of the recommendations just to to point out some of the examples. Uh you're talking about reducing uh the general revenue subsidies, talking about having enterprise funds fully recover costs. Um those are some very smart things that we need to do as well as the capital
projects focusing on maintenance uh as opposed to capacity building. Those are three good examples of the type of work that we need to really seriously consider going into this budget year. Um a couple of questions. Uh we talked about this a little bit during our
briefing uh Vince, but um we had a little bit of discussion on the voluntary separation incentive program and um you know I know the city did something like this very similar months ago. I I want to make sure that um you know our county staff is some of the
best I've ever seen. I I did a lot of work as a consultant working for other governments, you know, state, local, and some federal. Uh the employees we have here in Lyon County are among the very best. they really are. Uh I want to make sure um I know you all are, but I'd like to have you explain it. I want to make
sure that if we roll out the voluntary separation program that we do it in a way where we don't lose so many of those key performers that uh that keep Leyon County running. And uh Vince, when we talked about it during our briefing, you you mentioned how um there are there are
ways to encourage some of the folks that are near retirement uh as a way to commit be maybe um considering that type of program. But are there other things that you can do? I I I want to make sure I think we all do that um uh we don't
lose key personnel uh in our departments because if the revenue reductions are coming, we may rely on them to really um have Lyon County operating on all cylinders. So, could you expand on that a little bit more? What what type of things can we do with the voluntary separation program to uh um to to get
the financial savings that we need without losing some of the key personnel? >> Hey, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, the uh that analysis is ongoing now and again it will be prepared for you and and provided to you at the July uh workshop, but yes, it will reflect a lot of what you talked about. It'll be very
specific. There'll be very specific criteria. It'll also be very intentional. um it it'll have a goal in in mind ultimately in terms of what we're doing. But that criteria is very important to to identify uh those that that again um uh may be the most um uh
helpful in a transition like this. And a lot of times it is geared toward um employees who are either in drop or have entered retirement uh the drop program or nearing the drop program. and you generally uh tend to to to see those
folks availing themselves more of voluntary separation programs uh than than perhaps others. So uh but again it's going to have a lot of criteria. All of that will be provided to you in July. >> Okay. Thank you. And then um most of my questions were addressed during the the briefing that we had which was great.
But I did have a follow-up question. Commissioner Cummings I think you talked about impact fees. And just to springboard off of that, um, we know that that Leyon County is prohibited from, uh, enacting impact fees until 2028. Correct. Um, I think I know the
answer to this, but just to be sure, so when 2022 28 comes, provided it's not extended by the governor, um, impact fees like most the other counties in the state, we would be allowed to, uh, levy impact fees. um
that is because that that executive order from the governor applied to us uh and with Senate Bill 180 when that when that disaster happened and we were basically one of those counties that was named as a moratorium on impact fees um when that moratorum is over we don't
revert back to what impact fees we had pre- disaster is that correct >> automatically >> and and let me just go that we we've um we haven't had impact fees in place prior to that. So again, that in that particular circumstance, we and that
that as as Ken mentioned, that puts us in in um in a very unique category of counties. Uh and again, that's been intentional. It's been an intentional thing for the board to to limit both impact fees as well as other fees uh in the budget. That's that that's been a very intentional thing that the board
has has done. So when a when a revenue study identifies that as sort of an anomaly, it was anomaly. It's intentional and so but of course uh and consistent with with the board's um uh delaying any fees until they're absolutely necessary. Obviously, as you
all well know, we have a very very long history uh of that. But again, in our case, um it it wouldn't rever but you're right, uh commissioner to to identify that because some counties are in that situation. >> Yeah, thank you very much for clarifying that. You know, I I I I um within the
Florida Association of Counties, we we talk very frequently with with other counties around the state and um they rely heavily on impact fees. Uh even in areas where you've got um um um a lot of activity that that's actually a very large source of some of their revenue.
Uh I I I I like the fact that Lyon County has a history of of not um charging them because it's it helps foster uh the local economy. So, I appreciate that. And um that's a discussion we'll have for a later time. But uh I really do appreciate the stance
that Leyon County has taken over these last several years even before the moratorum. So um again, most of my questions were addressed during the briefings. I'm u I'm good to go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Uh Commissioner Proctor, I mean uh Commissioner Miner. Commission
M, before I uh I go to Commissioner Proctor, would you like to uh make a motion to request a proclamation for Miss Maya Sergeant uh for her three years of service to be on county? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would love to. So moved. >> Okay. And we have a motion on the floor
moved by uh Commissioner U. Miner, second by Commissioner Cummings to recognize Miss Mayor Sergeant for her three years of service to educating the public of Lyon County. Any debate? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I.
>> Passes unanimously. We will miss you. >> Commissioner Proctor, the floor is yours. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mayor Sergeant, I I hate her asking me questions. just so reminds me when I lived in Boston and um I could just hear how southern I talked, you know, and I lived in Boston
trying to, you know, communicate. And when she asked your question on on on camera, um she she makes me feel like I'm talking very southern. Uh again, that's how I felt in Boston all the time. Um chairman, I have a couple
questions. um given the question that was raised about um our debt. Um how are we looking at restructuring our debt and how much fluidity
can we flex if um revenue reductions are imposed upon us? Can we uh rearrange restructure uh debt that if we're paying $3 million and we've been reduced by 80
some million dollar can we uh seek new payments renegotiated payments reorganized payments uh commensurate to the percentage of loss which we no longer would have as income. >> Mr. chairman, >> of course.
>> And uh certainly I would in invite u Rashan or Georgette or Ken to jump in anywhere. The the um we have a a financial adviser on on retainer uh who regularly evaluates our debt structure and the markets to determine if there's ever a time when it's when it's
advantageous for us to do so that we'll we'll enter the marketplace to to to do that. And so again, you um uh shouldn't be surprised uh again if the market conditions uh uh are favorable to us that we will be taking advantage of those opportunities.
>> When we do that, does it impact our our credit rating for the county? >> We we wouldn't do it in a way that that negatively impacted our our our our ratings um uh at the county. Uh and so again we would we would we would ensure
that we did that in a way that that that kept our ratings high. That's very important. >> So one of the things I had not contemplated before today is not only our um our um u loss of income. But
before we even take on uh continuing obligations that we also carrying this amount of debt that we have that part doesn't change. So it too um it it it takes away
it subtracts from um our income and it's fixed and we have to anticipate it. There is one thing that um we used to do years ago. Um in this week of budget hearings, Vince, we would see the constitutional officers and we would see
the whites of their eyeballs and they would tell this board um their one, two, three, and if I can't have one and two, then give me three and four, whatever. We don't have that process because we
don't do this in four days any longer. um we do it in a jify but our administrator now is less between us and constitutional officers. One of the things that I do as a commissioner um I
monitor, I look at, I observe um the performance of clerks, the courts, um property appraiser, tax collector. I keep an eye because we uh are stewards for all of those agencies
and our staff indicates that commissioners that there is no uh quest from any of our constitutionals for new FTEES. But commissioners, I'm I'm asking your
support. Uh that respectfully the clerk of courts got kicked in the butt and her performance uh was questioned to the extent that the chief judge of the second judicial
circuit filed a formal notice to the state supreme court to take actions relative to his perceptions of her job performance. I confess that when that occurred, as a long observer of the interactions
between the court, the clerk, uh we're in the courthouse and when stuff happens in the courthouse, uh we we seek harmony. We seek to know uh uh calmness and
favorable interactions and collegiality. But I dare say that we won't get the chance to look the clerk in the eye, nor the courts, nor the other constitutions. We have to trust what staff has said.
I can't believe that all is well and no FTEEs are needed for the clerk of courts. And that's why when I'm asking requesting that uh the Supreme Court did not take uh actions per se because they
had no jurisdiction over clerk of court. That's not their responsibility. But the chief judge is disgruntal. Help is needed. And just in my uh hearing these recommendations of which
I've never seen no requests for new FTEES, but I'm just begging that you all go back and look at the headlines, reread the articles, and I'm not a budget analyst. I'm just a observer of what goes on among constitutions. But I
would like Vince for you to go back and talk to Gwen Marshall and make sure that none of our constitutions are getting kicked in the butt um for the want the want of not having adequate personnel. Now, if competence is an issue, I don't
know what to do with that. But it's the absence of having enough people to process uh the court issues and this board gives delegates me to represent it as its chairman of public service um I'm sorry public safety coordinating council
and our role is to make sure that we keep to a minimum people who stay in jail but if the clerk don't have who they need in place to move the court process and the chief judge said he needs some
help from the Supreme Court. I say that we need to find out what it is because at $136 per day when the clerk don't function, somebody is sitting out there charging all these people in here $136, it makes sense
and it lowers the cost and it moves the docket along. I'm just asking that as one concern that I saw enough turbulence uh from Judge Alman and I'm asking that we please go back and and double check.
I don't know how y'all talk, but go back and see cuz I don't want to see that again next year. I would think it was our fault for not supplying what was needed for adequate court process which when it clogs up it it's it it
clogs up the jail who gets out Sunday Sunday I get a citizen request for someone who's picked up in South Florida and uh it's an old warrant
and coordinating the jail of South Florida with the jail of Leyon to make sure the information passed along so that you could get the person out of jail in South Florida for something that happened in Lyon. Uh is a quagmire and I
I want staff to go back, Mr. Mr. chairman because I like our our clerk of courts, but she can't function and she should have to look bad cuz we ain't gave her enough money to do what Judge Alman expects and the rest of those
people downstairs. So, that would be in terms of uh what has been presented to us. That's the one area I feel um I have second thoughts about. Not saying staff don't know it, but I just have second thoughts and I can't believe the clerk
took all them blows this year and ain't ask us for some help. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Commissioner B. Commissioner Maddox. >> Thank you. Um, a lot of good questions were asked at the DIS today and I think I just want to make a comment. Um, first I want to tell
staff great job on putting together this budget uh and um preparing for what we have to come. I think I think what we have to recognize here is this the last time we'll see a budget that looks like this. this is the last time that we'll
be able to to operate uh in a form of government that we've operated in for so long when it comes to budgeting because come November there'll be a vote taken and I I'm just going to be transparent about I fully expect it to pass. I don't
know anybody that wouldn't vote to put money back in their pockets. And I think we're in a very good position to deal with the worst position to be in. I think that's because we have capable staff. Um we also have a capable
commission. um that that in the years when we were seeing increases, we did not u grow our numbers of staff to a point that when this came, we couldn't sustain. There was a graph that was put
up that showed us as the lowest uh in like-siz counties when it comes to per capita employees. Is that correct, Mr. Administrator? Um we we we we sure could have going back to the numbers that we had. uh shoot I would say pre uh great
recession that's when we started to make those cuts to get to where we are but staff had the wherethall to know that that's not a wise idea given the temp given the environment that we're in and as we had our increases we did the right thing
led us a couple times and making sure that we gave our employees that were left here uh greater raises so they could do more because we were asking them to do more even though we had less. Um, we also started to to invest in
innovations, go back and and do capital improvement plans that we needed to do. We restocked our our fund balances. All things that were good budgeting practices that would lead us to a point that when this day came, uh, we would be prepared and not in some of the panic
that other jurisdictions, other counties are in. I want to also say that we have great partners. What most people don't recognize is that we take in the money. We dish it out to our constitutionals.
We keep a piece of it so we can do our jobs. Those constitutionals send us budgets every year. When we were down during the Great Recession, we asked them to cut 5%. Was there any constitutionals that did not participate? Mr. administrator. There
were no constitutionals that need that did not participate. They could have said no. They could have they could have gone ahead and and and sent what they needed and more than what they needed and and we we would have had to deal with funding them, but they didn't. And
I would expect that as we as we do what we have to do this year and even in this budget, what you'll find is there our partners are working with us. The sheriff has asked for no positions. Is that correct, Mr. Administrator? When's the last time the sheriff's asked for
asked us for no positions? It's >> been a very long time. >> Exactly. That is an indication of where we are. And so I I don't think this moment passes without us also thanking our partners for being um good helpers, good good partners with us as we deal
with what we're going to have to deal with over the next few years. Um this is going to be a group effort, but it's not just going to be your local government that's going to have to be involved in this effort. I want you to understand that we're going to need your help as our constituents to understand that
again the way government operates will never be the same. We're looking at how how long have we carried our enterprise funds? Mr. Administrator >> at the current levels. So 30 40 years depending on which one
>> we subsidize our enterprise funds for 30 or 40 years. Our enterprise funds are funds that are supposed to run uh at cost. We have carried those funds to for 30 years. And what we're going to be asking of our of our of our partners,
which are you guys, is to understand that as we come to you and say we can no longer carry those funds, that you be understanding of the fact that we can no longer carry those funds. those fees, we're going to have to contemplate them going up to levels that would allow our
enterprise funds to to sustain themselves. Um, we we we did one over a matter of years with solid waste. >> Yeah, solid waste we did this year over a matter of years, but but there's what, three, four more.
There's a couple more that we might have to deal with and I know what those conversations are going to be like. I understand what those what what we're going to hear from you all as our constituents. But understand we are no longer in a
position as local government to do the things that we've done in the past. We have to absolutely have to. It's imperative that we start thinking about how we move forward. continue to provide you with the stellar services that you have so
um patiently watched us build over time um so that you're satisfied with them and also continue to be the great partners with our nonprofits and our arts agencies that we've been in the past. It's it's it's it's going to be
different. It's going to be different. But what I will say, even though it's going to be different, as I said before, you have a capable staff, you have a capable commission, that though it may be different, your level of service will sustain. We will do what we have to do
to make sure that we are still leading in the state of Florida when it comes to levels of service in the way we do our jobs. the county administrator won't say it out loud and uh he probably won't want me to say it on record, but when our county administrator is leading the
conversation with county administrators across the state of Florida to talk about how we're going to do this, he's not a part of the conversation. He's leading the conversation. And what they're saying to him back is we're just going to wait to see what Leyon County does. That means you all are in good hands.
That means you are absolutely in good hands. And so this this budget today uh commission is going to be one that that uh we we we're lucky to have a a gap year to prepare for what we got to deal with next year. But as we make our decisions today, let's make our
decisions today, understanding what we're going to have to deal with a year from now and um and understanding the position that Leyon County, not just the commission, not just the constitutionals, but Lyon County in a whole when we have to deal with those
those uh cost savings that we're giving our constituents, but also that gap in our budget that we'll have to deal with for a couple years. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Maddox. All right, Commissioner. So, here's where we're at. Uh, I gave every
commissioner opportunity to ask staff questions. Um, I would like to have a motion on this. Yes. >> Okay, we have an option by Commissioner Cummings to move options one through six. Is there a second? >> Second by the vice chairman, commissioners. Any debate? Anybody else
want to want to talk on these items? Mr. Mr. Chairman, would you um um prefer to allow each commissioner to weigh in if we sequentially came down to desk or what? >> Yeah. Yeah. So, right now we have a motion on the floor for options 1
through six. We ask questions. So, if you want to debate, just jump in the queue. >> We're on item number one. >> Okay. M chairman. Uh you just >> Yeah, go ahead. Okay. you're in the you're the only >> I um wanted to note, Mr. Chairman,
uh I wanted to note, Mr. Chairman, that um the fees, if we maxed out on the fees, all of the fees that we have, solid waste, uh environmental permit, building permit,
pre-trial probation, ambulance fees, etc. Um, we we would only generate if we maxed out from if if I remember Rashonda telling me nine additional million there's $9 million if we maxed out and
if we increased our um sales tax um just took it to the max uh we could find few more pennies about $9 million. So, uh, if we maxed out on all options right
now, we, um, Am I right about I'm in the ballpark of remembering if we maxed out all of our fence, could you give Shondaanda permission to respond? >> Yeah, we're in case you see our hesitancy, it's just what we're we're in the throws of that analysis right now,
but but take it take a shot, Rashonda. Yeah, I was going to say we're going to go through that process on our cost recovery analysis, but just talking in general right now we subsidized the storm water program by about $3 million.
Um the decent program um $3 million um solid waste was $4 million and for um an additional $4 million. So, we're going to go through that entire um analysis of all of those fees um benchmarking against other counties and then we'll be
bringing that back to you as part of the um phased in process that we have. >> Okay. Um those things being said, Nick, I need you to understand that we is underwater period. So, from what you projected, the
picture you painted, uh when Ronda knows get through with the calculator, their best scenario. We steal is underwater when we max out on all of our potential options of what is at our disposal. Um I believe in terms of FTE
response, I'd like for staff to please consider uh us hiring. We need to hire a team of um of um grant writer experts. We we need people who can generate and
uh their salaries. They going to bring enough money to pay for them and others. And I think that even though it's not like selling Girl Scout cookies, there's a tangible and how many boxes generate this amount. And we can't really project
what a excellent grant writer can generate. But certainly uh a new team, a new department, a new thrust toward grant writers. People can write on a sheet of paper and that sheet of paper goes out and it brings money back
to us. That is a um innovative u notion uh that I'm asking staff to please include in the next iteration uh when you when you come back. Also, uh, commissioners, I'd like to see, um, I recognize the school board. Um, well,
they get a chance to they they they take it no no harm. I know that they're going to put their own um um measure for u referendum on the ballot in November, and they're asking for teachers to get a
raise. I'm asking for um us to at least meet what the city of Tallahass has publicly said they would do for their employees. and that's a 4%. I'm hopeful that in the next iteration uh of the budget that staff brings back
before the final yellow ribbon that we would also include uh a 4.1 uh% raise for our employees here. Um and then finally, um chairman, commissioners,
um I'd like to note in the final the next iteration if we maxed out on sales tax, um spacing, bed tax. show this commission, show us uh what the maximum
uh implementations across the board would look like and where all of the potential revenue uh sources might come from if we maxed out. I I I ask for that presentation and the information that we receive um the next iteration. Thank
you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Proctor. All right, commissioners. We >> Yes, ma'am. >> Yes. Just point of clarification. I know we're in a budget workshop today. We have the second part in July. In July is
that when we was specifically uh Mr. County Administrator vote on raises, percentage raises and things like that. I mean, today we're just adopting the doc information that's presented to us in this workshop. Correct. >> Mr. Chairman, commissioners, that that
direction is is really sought today. If you see anything in the preliminarily budget balanced budget that you want to >> um provide us additional direction on the best time to do that would be today. >> July would be again and because you set your maximum millage rates today as well
which we don't anticipate will change regardless of of what you action you take. Uh but again that that uh would be um beneficial for us to receive if you had any additional direction at this time. >> But we would actually vote in July to
adopt. Yes. Yes, ma'am. >> Budget. >> Yes, ma'am. Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> All right, commissioners. I take a vote on this item. We have a motion moved by Commissioner Cummings to accept options 1 through six, seconded by the vice chairman. All those in favor of the
motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> Passes unanimously. We are on item number two. Mr. County Administrator. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Uh the item before you today seeks uh
your direction on how the county's tourism development tax funds uh are utilized for arts and culture and administered specifically our regranting process. Um I I'll keep my introduction high level commissioners Matt Cavell and
Carrie Post and we'll follow with with a discussion of the three models and of course um Matt Carrie and Kathleen Spayer who who's joining us at the table today will be available to answer any questions you might have. Let me just commissioners bring us back up to speed
if I could. Uh in September of 25, the board approved a one-year extension to the county's agreement with Koka and directed a comprehensive review of the county's funding for arts and culture uh during the FY27 budget process. Uh the agreement expires on September 30th uh
and and that is scheduled um or as scheduled is being presented uh to you and was presented to you back in uh May. Uh and I'll walk through a little bit about uh uh uh the the deliberation that occurred in May. Uh again, commissioners, there was a budget
deliberation u uh and as you've heard, our our budget deliberation process um will will carefully uh examine everything we do at the county and how we do it uh to ensure fiscal uh uh careful fiscal stewardship control and
to realize possible efficiencies and maximize uh impacts to the community. Uh I know the board uh has even a greater appreciation for when I said that back all the way back on May 12th. Um so commissioners um on May 12th, you will
recall that staff presented its initial analysis of alternative structured structures and the board directed uh that this structural decision come back to the board as part of today's workshop. Quick reminder uh commissioners in terms of key
considerations um uh uh in staff's analysis from back in May. Under the current structure uh the board does not exercise its typical fiduciary responsibility over these u uh funds. Uh you don't set the amount. It
isn't considered in your annual budget process. The funding grows automatically by uh by whatever uh the penny generates. uh nearly $2 million at this point with rising collections and certainly that that has risen considerably over the years. Uh at that
time the board was also presented with an in-house model structure for the board's consideration that gave the board the opportunity to realize available efficiencies and additional opportunities to align with the significant capacities um of of the
county organization um including professional administrative legal IT purchasing operations and and and all of that capacity along with different additional opportunities to align with marketing strategic planning budget budget budgeting and community
priorities established by the board at that time. We presented a path to such a transition, a transition of that model should the board choose to do so that was very sensitive in its transition uh in a way that did not negatively impact uh culture grant recipients. Uh however
uh the board at the May meeting chose not to take action on that day. you directed us to sit down with KOKA and to discuss other models and that's exactly what we did and the materials uh that um that are before you today commissioners um does provide the board the
consideration of another model like the in-house model this service and advisory model is used by other counties uh those counties which utilize an arts agency as a key component of their grants and engagement process. So there's certainly
nothing novel about that. There's nothing untested about that model, model two, and there's certainly nothing scary about that model. Uh so, commissioners, I wanted to uh before I hand it off to uh uh to to to Matt, um let me just say
that we appreciate uh the county's uh the community's deep support for arts and culture. Um like the board, um uh I I heard uh I've heard about polls that have been taken. Um, I think the county's I wasn't surprised in the
results of the polls and I don't think anybody was. And I think the county's commitment and investment year after year that now totals $2.1 million spread throughout the uh the community probably has more than a little something to do uh with the results of those polls. So,
it's not a question commissioners of whether county funds arts and culture. uh all of the models that are presented uh to you due uh that I feel like the the message unfortunately uh clouded uh the messages out there have
unfortunately clouded a very reasonable and a very responsible consideration by this board of financial oversight who sets annual funding levels whether there are greater efficiencies greater leveraging opportunities and perhaps even more effective collaborative models
that can serve the community even better. So, to recap, commissioners, uh, as I hand it over to Matt, um, I'd like to, um, just give you the rundown again of the three models that are presented. You have the the in-house model, again, before you for consideration. The
service advisory model that I talked about, again, very common in counties who utilize an arts agency. that that service and advisory model um would be one where the board sets the budget and that uh KOKA would administer uh the grant program under a service agreement
very much like today. Uh each of these uh and of course you have the status quo. Each of these uh models have different consideration for board authority cost transition and of course uh staff will walk through each of these models objectively. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I'll hand it over to Matt and Carrie for a brief presentation. And of course, we're all available to any answer any questions that you might have, including uh Mrs. Spehar, who's here with us today. So with that, Mr. Chairman, let me hand it off to Matt Cavl. >> Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Commissioners, good morning. Uh so
before I turn to structure, I want to frame what is before you. Some of it's going to echo the administrator's recent remarks. Our community's deep support for arts and culture reflects decades of significant deliberate county investment. and a commitment that now totals approximately $2.1 million every
year for cultural programming. As part of developing any budget, staff reviews how any programs are administered to be sure public dollars deliver the greatest effectiveness possible. And that review is what brings this item before you today. We are presenting three structural models for the cultural grant
and programming program. Every one of them maintains grant funding to cultural organizations and everyone preserves KOKA as the independent nonprofit it has been since 1985. The question before you is one of financial oversight and whether a more efficient and more collaborative delivery model can serve
this community even better. You may have also seen the news coverage that the administrator has said about a poll that PO KOKA had released and I want to speak to it directly because it highlights the board's considerations today. The poll framed a binary choice, a keep koka or hand the work to county government. And
commissioners, that's not the choice that is in front of you today. One of those models you'll see before you today, model two, that service and advisory model, keeps KOKA's professionals doing the grant work, the review. It keeps them scoring and recommending awards through community
review. And while the board sets the funding level, approves the guidelines and holds the public dollars. The poll did not put that option to voters and to poll respondents. And here's the finding we're sitting with. Asked who would make these decisions, more than threequarters of voters said independents, art
professionals with expertise should make cultural programming decisions. That was never in dispute. Under every model, experts in the arts continue to make recommendations just as they do today. read fairly. The public is not asking you to choose is um not asking you to
choose between the arts and oversight. It is asking you to keep the expertise in the day-to-day work that Koka does while the board provides fiscal stewardship. So, the poll did not ask the full question this board actually faces today. So, let me ask it here. Uh
would you support keeping arts professionals at the table, scoring and recommending the grants and leading the county's arts and cultural marketing while the public dollars behind those grants and activities are reviewed annually by the commissioners you elect
the same way they review every other program of this size? I think most people would say yes and that is the model in front of you with model two amongst the considerations of 1, two and three. So the question today is more specific and more important than the
poll's headline. The question is who sets the annual amount, who approves the guidelines, and who holds the public funds, and how does the county uh continue to make substantial investments in arts and culture in the years ahead? That is a question of board authority,
authority that the board does not currently have. With that, let me begin with what does not change. So this is a very important table and across all three models, the things people have been most worried about losing are
preserved. Koka continues as the independent nonprofit it's been since 1985. It keeps its local arts agency designation under state law, which keeps it eligible for state, federal, and private dollars. Consistent with state law and county policy, the TDC still gives the final approval on every grant
award exactly as it does today. The grant funding to our cultural organizations are maintained. 1.9 million next year and then the year following that. Current grantees stay eligible under the same community reviewed process and grants are still
paid upfront and that is under every model for the organizations on the receiving end. A small theater, a youth arts program, a volunteer-run festival operating on a tight budget that detail like that matters. They receive the funding to do the work rather than spending their own first and waiting to
be reimbursed. And that holds true under every model. I want to be direct about this because there has been a real worry in the community. No model on this slide ends KOKA strips its designation, cuts the funding arts to to uh culture organizations or changes how grantees are paid. Those are constant. What
differs between the models is specific and we will get to that. One other item though deserves a very close look because it has drawn the most concern. KOKA's standing with its federal and national funders. So Koka has said that
changing the current structure could put its national funding at risk, specifically its grants from the National Endowment for the Arts. And that is a serious concern. And we treated it as one. As we researched the service and advisory model, as we met with Koka, and most especially over the
past several days, rather than characterized the federal rules secondhand, we went to the source. We described the exact proposal that uh model 2 to the National Endowment for the Arts, the county holding the funds, and Koka continuing to administer the program and being reimbursed for its grant awards. And we asked two very
precise questions. Does it matter who holds the funds? And does it matter who approves the grant award guidelines? Eleanor Billington, the civic partnerships manager in the NEA's partnership division, answered both of those in writing. on who on who holds those funds. The NEA wrote that in their
own words, okay, if the match, it is okay if the matching funds are held by another organization or agency as long as they are available to the NEA grantee during the grant period, which I will talk more in just a second on. On who approves the guidelines, the NEA wrote that its terms and conditions do not specify what entity must approve the
guidelines. I got real technical there. One second. In plain terms, the county holding the funds does not affect Koko's eligibility for NEA grants, its scoring, or its award amount, and the NEA does not require any particular body to approve the guidelines. The two things the NEA actually rewards, KOKA's
designation as the local arts agency and its record of grant making stay with KOKA under every model in front of you. And we did not stop with the endowment's own staff. We contracted three Florida arts councils that already operate the same way under a service and advisory
model would where the county holds the funds and the council administers the program. St. John's, Orange, Palm Beach, all confirmed that county custody has not affected their NEA grant standing and all three keep winning NEA grants. St. John's has recently received one
this month. There is one practical consideration in the NEA's answer and it's part of the Kok's materials that has been distributed before you and we will absolutely honor it and work towards it which is that funds that serve as KOKA's federal match must remain available to KOKA during its grant period. Any service agreement that
would be written under service uh 2 is so that the match stays committed and available to KOKA throughout the life of its federal award. That does not prevent it from applying. uh but it would say that that money is available for match. That is a drafting matter within our own
control that we can do with the county in partnership with KOKA and we will ensure that it exists within model 2 should the board give that direction. So this concern which we took seriously is answered by the funer itself and by the councils already doing it. Koka's standing with the National Endowment of
the Arts is not at risk in this decision and it should not be the question that decides the structural consideration before this board. With that addressed, the next question is the dollars themselves, where they come from, and what the law allows them to fund. And
for that, I'll ask Carrie Post, our director of tourism, to take you through that TDT. >> Good morning. I'm just going to do a kind of a just a quick refresher on the county's tourist
development tax. Chapter 1250104 of Florida statutes authorizes counties in Florida to leverage a tourist development tax often called TDT or you hear it sometimes as the bed tax for the purpose of increasing tourism in a
specific county. So, of the five pennies that that are collected from every dollar in Lyon County, one penny, 20% of those fi of those p of those five pennies um is dedicated to arts and cultural programming, which is the among
the highest percentage in the state. And over the past 10 years, the tourism economy has grown significantly. And the value of one penny of TDT has nearly doubled where it was about $1 million in
2015 whereas in 20125 one penny was worth $2 million in 2025. So again one penny of TDT is allocated to KOKA in which it's primarily primarily utilized for subgranting of course to local arts and cultural
organizations. A percentage of the TDT goes to eligible staff salaries to administer the TDT funded programs and it must be used or also for marketing communications. By statute, TDT funding
must be used to market the destination to increase tourism, generate overnight stays and visitor spending. It's important to note that TDT funds cannot be used to fund local afterchool arts programs, cannot be used to fund arts
education activities because these events, while they're certainly worthwhile and meaningful in our community, they do not have tourism as a main purpose and therefore are not eligible uses of TDT. So of the remaining four pennies of the five
pennies that Lyon County collects um it is dedicated to funding the division of tourism um as we are operate as the destination marketing organization for Lyon County. So TDT is the dedicated funding source that again funds our
operations all of our regional, state, national marketing, advertising, PR, digital campaign, sports tourism, the visitor information center at the Cascades Park and also soon again at the
Amtrak station here hopefully soon. So visitor centers are very important in the destination. Um, TDT funds support our direct sales efforts in recruiting meetings and conferences to be held here and of course the tourism event grant
programs. >> Thank you, Carrie. I'm going to run through these very quick commissioners. Um, so this is the one cent dedicated to arts and culture over the past decade. So by ordinance formula it raise it rises with collections without any annual board action. So in fiscal year
2015 the first year of the dedication it generated about $997,000 in fiscal year 25 about 1.9 million which is a 91% increase again fixed by ordinance and you can see the co dip in there and then the rise following in 10
years this commitment has nearly doubled and not once did it come to this board for a vote on that funding level. It grew by formula not by decision and that is the core issue of what the board should consider today. a public investment of this size growing automatically outside the annual budget
process in which you would evaluate every other program of comparable scale and those much smaller and how it compares with the programs you do set and review each year. I'm going to show you on this next slide. Um for this slide, let me be very clear and upfront what this chart is and what it is not.
These are not interchangeable dollars that you see before you. The cocoa line is uh the tourist development tax which they received by 20% fixed which by state law can only be spent to remote tourism as carriage covered plus the $150,000 in general revenue. The other
two lines are the board's direct funding of primary healthcare and the human services partnership, community human services partnership which are general revenue programs. And what they share just as important and every single one of them is county dollars. And this board is accountable for how all of them
are used and overseen. So what the chart shows is the difference in that accountability in practice. The general revenue programs are set by this board every year and that is not done in the abstract. Every year you this board weigh out what a primary care visit is worth for an uninsured resident, what a
night in a shelter bed is worth against everything else the county funds and you decide. That deliberation is your oversight at work and it is how you answer to the residents you depend on who depend on those dollars. So across five years you have held those programs essentially flat and the county's total
funding to COA grew about 74% which is again arts and culture programming fixed by ordinance over the same conversation. The contrast is not about which program matters more. It is not about which dollars you actively it is about which dollars you actively govern and which
ones operate on their own without your governance. So pardon me um that is why uh part of it is why now. So as collections climb the commitment keeps growing on its own. So as you weigh the models that is the
question this chart puts to you. Should a commitment this large keep sitting on its own level or should it come through the same annual review process as everything else? What was included in your materials also is a comparison of Koko revenue by source and this is uh this compares where the KCO support comes from in fiscal year 2014 which was
before the 1 cent dedication um and then in fiscal year 25. So total support grew from about 935,000 to about 2.68 million and almost all of that growth is the county on the books. Our tourist attacks and also general revenue support went
from about 654k to about 2.38 million. So the county share of Kok's total funding rose from roughly about 70% of that to roughly about art license plate foundations memberships that stayed relatively level as well. So as the county share climbed those other sources
they held steady which means that the growth in Koko's budget has been overwhelmingly public dollars and let me be abundantly clear specifically county dollars. The tourist tax grant program in particular has become the predominant source of Kokus funding. Uh, put
plainly, about nine of every 10 of those dollars in Kokus's budget is now county public money paid by county residents and visitors who pay that tax. Um, and the decision then in this case is again setting it against as the public's become the overwhelming source of funding, so is the case for the public
setting its level and reviewing it each year through the board-driven process. One thing that I want to drive in now is last for me commissioners is before I hand it back to Carrie. This is simply how other counties handle the same function. Uh the administrator had talked about how uh across Florida
counties, look, they do this one of two ways. Some administer the program inhouse through a county department with county peerreview panels. That's very consistent with the model one that's in your packet. Uh Miami Dade does this at the largest scale, more than a thousand organizations along with Alatcha and Broward and Hillsboro and others. Others
keep the funds in the budget authority with the county while a nonprofit administers the program. Sarasota, Orange, Palm Beach, Dupal, Penllis, Seol operate in that way and two of them have moved such recently. And and here's what matters most to the concern we've heard in in every one of these counties. The
arts are not just surviving under that oversight. They are thriving in those areas of oversight. Oversight and a vibrant arts community are not in tension. Oversight and arts communities coexist in Florida. The takeaway is
simple. Oversight has not put the arts at risk anywhere and it is the norm in many places where arts are the strongest. Leon does it a third way alone. And so far that a statewide reviews it's 20% of the tourist tax transfers over to a nonprofit that holds
that money, writes and adopts its own guidelines and signs its own grant agreements with the amount fixed by ordinance. This is not to disparage KOKA. It is to simply say that an ordinance is fixed and growing and that oversight and vibrancy can exist
together. I'm going to turn over to Carrie to really blow through the last few slides as quick as she can and then uh we'll turn it over to the administrator. >> Okay, thank you Matt. Um this this slide really allows you to consider the three
different models side by side kind of at a glance and I'm going to go through it quickly again. The top line you can see as far as setting the TDT funding level models one and two of course the in-house and the the service model that would be set by the board um again as
part of the annual budget process with up to 20% of the TDT revenues and again the status quo keeps the automatic allocation of the 20% um to directly to to Kok um also who develops and approves the
grant guidelines the the TDT funded grant guidelines models number one and two. Um, these would be developed in collaboration with KOKA but approved by the board via the TDC as the the TDC
also reviews the the tourism grant guidelines every year. Um, status quo option number three continues again with KOKA unilaterally developing the grant guidelines with no county input whatsoever. custody of funds um again on
the status quo option would keep the the 20% automatically being paid to KOKA quarterly. So they would retain custody of the TDT and which is also which the TDT funds are accumulating in KOKA's reserve both in encumbered funds and
surplus reserves throughout the year which also earns KOKA interest on the TDT funds in reserve annually. Option number one, um the TDT um funding, the custody would remain with the county tourism budget. Option number two,
again, the service hybrid model would be exactly the same. um that in order to continue to pay the grantees 50% of their grant award upfront, which is something that we would want to continue to do, the county would provide a float or a hold of, you know, a certain amount
of money to KOKA, um say maybe a million dollars that again to so they can pay that out and then invoice the remaining 50% of the TDT funding that's payable to the grantees again upon the successful completion of the grantees mid-year report. It is really important to stress
under the service and advisory model that to the grantees the payment process will be exactly as it is today that all the other changes would just be in the back of the house. The grantees themselves would not see any difference.
Um and again with the total amount of arts and cultural funding set annually with this method that it also allows again the board to have some additional oversight and transparencies on TDT is uh expenses as well as per that um we
would receive backup documentation on the additional expenditures of TDT the savings um there's only modest savings have been identified in the in-house model um And lastly, and this is important, the any amendment to the
current tourism plan um requires an ordinance change. Um and frankly, the tourism plan um that is in the ordinance is from 2014, and frankly, the industry has evolved and moved on since then. So, I will say it needs to be updated
anyway. Um but option one and two would require an ordinance change which does require a public hearing and a supermajority of five of seven votes. And again the status quo opt um relationship exactly the same only a new agreement um would need to be put in
place and I understand that the arts and cultural community has faced cuts and stayed in funding levels. So everyone is really worried about the funding. So, as Matt said, this is in every scenario. The the funding levels again were, you know, are are going to remain
approximately the same. And so, I I would envision in every model presented here that strengthening the communication and collaboration between KOKA and the county and the arts and and cultural grantees. There are so many
opportunities for us to increase the promotion of arts and culture in the destination to work together to increase the visibility and ticket buyers frankly to these cultural organizations. So of all the opportunities I see we only have
an opportunity to move ahead stronger. I'm just going to clip through these these next ones again. I'll just hit on this was just kind of summarizes in the in-house model. Um, as I've kind of covered on a lot of these, this would make it more like the four distinct
grant programs that tourism already administers. This would be a fifth one specifically dedicated on arts and culture. Um, again, you see all the performance here. It is important to note on the in-house and I think even going forward that currently um there
are no performance measures in KOKA's TDT funded grant programs where there are performance measures in the KOKA tourism grants. So again, definitely the in-house model. Um there would be that additional distinction, same with all of our other tourism grant programs, but
obviously modified some for the arts and cultural community. Um next, we had talked about this is kind of the hybrid model, the service and advisory as we've covered. This is the newly added model um since the meeting on May 12th. Um,
and we have met both Matt and I with Kathleen and her board chair um, three times over the last few weeks to try to achieve a consensus driven framework and a model um, that accomplishes both organizations priorities and while also
providing additional oversight. Um so and also in addition to the three meetings that um I attended, KOKA held a workshop prep meeting that was um convened for the KOKA board and the grantees to discuss a path forward. I went to the meeting specifically to
listen to listen to the KOKA board to listen to the KOKA grantees to further understand their concerns. I came away very optimistic that uh a hybrid model could work or this you know service advisory model that is used in other areas around the state could still help
work to accomplish everybody's goals. Um it and so again what I think it's it's very important under this model too that for the county and tourism to have input in developing the grant guidelines. So
we would work together on the service and advisory model to develop the the grant guidelines and again one that fully supports supports the arts and cultural community but also supports county and tourism goals. For the last decade as I shared earlier KOKA has
unilaterally developed the grant guidelines without any input from the county meaning that the county's priorities are not considered or included in this county funded grant program. So under this model again that this gives us the most flexibility I
believe to have a more collaborative model so we can work together to accomplish the goals. And last status quo we know here this is obviously the the simplest um step to renewal. Um, and we've kind of covered
again on on the the bottom line with this, but the 26th amendment, if it w if this option was chosen, um, it would be similar to the current one-year agreement in place with the amendments and the caps would continue.
And that is it. And then the options that you have before you. Thank you. >> Thank you so much, staff. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Anything else? >> I will hand it back to you, sir. >> Okay, great. Commissioners, here's how we're going to do this. Staff, first of all, thank you all so much for a great presentation. Um, I have most
commissioners in the queue. Opportunity for you guys ask questions. Um, if you want to, we will kind of open up to a little debate as well at the same time because we have talked about this already in a in our county commission meeting. I believe a lot of folks are well versed. So, this will be the time
for questions, debate. If the commissioner does want to make a motion, the floor is open for uh a motion as well. Everyone all good with that? Awesome. Commissioner Cummings, you are first in the queue. >> Uh thank you uh Mr. Chair. I'd like to move
option two, which is the ser service and advisory option. And I know we're in a workshop, so wait for a second. >> No, it's okay. So, we have a motion moved by Commissioner Cummings for option two. Is there a second? Second.
>> Okay, we have motion moved by option uh option two by Commissioner Cummings, second by uh the immediate past chairman. We're in discussion now. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I want to thank the county administrator
uh for this in-depth analysis uh the contributions of staff. I want to thank Matt Cavell and Carrie Post uh for their very indepth uh present presentation today and just for the material that we have for the charts
where we're able to uh do our analysis because they've done an inep in-depth analysis. Now, I've read the material. I've studied their analysis and I've looked at all the the models, model one, two, and three. And of course, I move
for um option two because I think it captures a lot about Lyon County. It captures a lot about Koka. It uh I think it demonstrates who we are as a county. And I think it clearly indicates that
over the last couple of months we have sat here uh and we have listened to citizens. We've received uh many many emails in support of the work that Koka has
done. Uh, and I think it shows that we as a county, as staff, um, we've embraced art and culture and we respect and we represent
um, res respect and this option too represents, I think, the good work that Kok has done uh, over the years. But in my opinion, it also allows the county to work closer with Koka to have a a
closer relationship with Koka and its staff with our county and its staff. And and just bottom line, Mr. Chair, to me, it's just a win-win uh situation for for all sides. I
believe um this board expressed some concerns about oversight of the t of the funds. Um, we've the emails and and correspondence
haven't been totally one-sided because we have gotten uh emails not only for status quo, but we've gotten communication from individuals that say there needs to be some county oversight.
And I think we we're are listening uh to the to that. Um I think allowing uh Koka to be involved which model 2 allows um
I think it's a testament to the great work that they have done in this community in the area of arts and culture for years uh and years. um they've brought us some top-notch
programs and we know that we have some on the horizon that's already scheduled uh for this year and it it it's great to expose our community and especially our children to uh arts and and culture. So it's it's a benefit
uh for the community to continue with this model to have Koka involved. We have the benefit of their experience uh their expertise uh commissioners with this model. Um,
and not only that, Koka has experienced arts and culture statewide and national through the National Endowments uh of the arts uh as well. I um I appreciate
uh Mr. Caval uh pointing out that with this particular model, it does not adversely affect um the ability or the standing of Coker
to apply for um any type of endowment. uh it doesn't adversely affect them by the fact that the county would hold the funds and allocate the funds as needed.
And I um appreciate the fact that it would not affect those service providers, those contractors that contract through Koka. they would still be um paid in the same uh manner
that they are that they are paid now. And so when you look at the pros and you you look at the cons again, I just believe that it's it's win-win because it also allows the county to exercise it stewardship
over these funds, over these taxpayers funds. and it allows us to have input into the structure, input into the budgeting uh and just to work in conjunction
um with KOA. I guess overall the win-win for me is that you know the payment process remains the same and what is the big I guess benefit is that we retain the benefit of all the
expertise that Koka has and that this model allows them to continue basically in the mode that they're operating now except for the way the monies are allocated uh to them. They don't go directly to them. They allow the county
to have a certain amount of oversight so that so that the county can be accountable uh to the citizens and to uh and to Koka as well. So I I'm not going to go on and on, Mr. Chair, uh because I feel
strongly about model two. I think it shows that we're able to sit down and reason and compromise and come to a position that's just beneficial for all parties. So, thank you very much. Uh,
Mr. Mr. Co co-chair. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, commissioners, my apologies. I was not here to discuss this with you at our I guess it would have been May meeting so please indulge me a little bit of time
to flesh this out. Um obviously I think we we're all pretty wellversed on the issue at this point. Uh, I met with Kathleen yesterday and I have some questions for staff, but really and and
the reason I seconded the motion is because I do think that the advisory model is a good compromise um on its face. Now, I understand Koko does not agree with that and and ultimately I think
this is a board decision obviously and I will support the consensus. I mean, if if somebody makes a substitute motion and it's the will of the board to go in a different direction, that's fine. I will support that. But I do have some fundamental uh questions, issues, concerns, thoughts
on this situation. I think that um the hysteria that's been created over this issue is unfortunate. As I told Kathleen yesterday, I think that the uh the I think there's been some misinformation
in the community. I think that the idea that we're cutting arts funding, we're gutting KOKA, I think those terms are inflammatory. They are incorrect. I think they are misleading
and just outright unfortunate. Um, as I told Kathleen yesterday, my understanding, KO has been around for 40 years and they've been receiving this money for 12. So, the other 28, I guess, Koko was gutted. Uh, it doesn't make
sense to me. Uh, I think that the the barrage of op-eds from former commissioners who put this model in place, I think, is also inflammatory and unfortunate and in incorrect, untrue. Um,
I think that it's a issue of principle for us as policy makers. Oversight is not philosophical. It is a principle and some of the data that was just given to us I have had not seen prior. I think
it it it illustrates my point. The idea that um that this will jeopardize grant money, endowment matches and things like that. I told you yesterday I didn't think that was true. You said I didn't believe you. But they're saying that's not true. And that would be my gut
instinct is that like we can still qualify for NEA grants and any other matches that are required even as the custodian of the money. I think to find out that KOKA collects interest on county money that they're holding that's
that's money that this money does not belong to Koka. This is money that belongs to the taxpayers of Lyon County and is entrusted in us as the as the recipient of the money to provide oversight of that money. So again, I say oversight is a principle. It is not just
like we just like it. If you look at the rates of increase of CHSP, imagine if there was an escalator in CHSP in which the money just year-over-year went up on a percentage that was put into place arbitrarily 12 years ago, which our our
analysis also indicates is a massive outlier, the fact that we dedicate 20% of our TDT strictly to cocoa. But again, I come back to um the idea that we're gutting COC, we're eliminating funding, we're or grantees are not going to have
access to their money and all these things. I think that's not true. I mean, and and to the extent that that it is, it's not like it's not going to be governed by a body of elected officials or a TDC that is a, you know, a part of
the county's umbrella. So here are my questions that kind of are designed to help sort of either erode or under undermine my own foundation of belief here. Right. Um and this is for staff
Matt I don't know whoever Vince um what percentage of Kok's grant money comes from the county like in totally. So the total funding in the last fiscal year 25 was 89% of that is county TDT and
general revenue money. Okay. Um in in general the grants range in recent years from 1.7 to 2 million or so >> but as a succinctly as a percentage 89% >> 89% of revenue. >> What was it year before that? About the same.
>> It has been growing steadily by percentage points but about the same. >> Okay. So I'm looking at Kok's website and your function on the website says number two here under function um encourage the facil encourage and facilitate greater and more efficient
use of governmental and private resources for the development and support of arts. What percentage of Kok's grant funding is coming from private resources? If it's if if 89% is public, then the assumption is the other 11% is private
or I guess 89% is the county. >> Correct. >> Thank you for the question. So when you're looking at Koka's grant program, we need to look at pass through and then we also have operational. So, our operational funds in there are around
600 to $700,000 and those um are a combination of the uh that's just that's that's our um general revenue. The rest of the money is the pass through. That pass through can be anywhere from 80 to 83% of what our
budget is and then the remainder are grants um the the support from city and county. So, that that's what it looks like. 89% is what uh TDT we rep that we receive and then that's how much we actually give out to the community.
However, um the this year it's it's more it's 94%. Because 6% then is being used for administrative costs. And so it is varied yeartoyear depending on our budget, how much money we're receiving in from other sources and actually you
know how the uh the tax dollar is is um performing. >> Okay. and and 93% of what we we take in we give out to the community. >> Okay. Again, thank you, Kathleen. But I mean, is there a quick and dirty percentage of money that comes through
Koka that is not public money? >> Private money? >> Yeah. >> Says I'm just I'm going off of the >> Are you referencing donations? >> Yeah. Money that goes through CO. What what what money is given to KO that is private? that that can range from anywhere from uh usually around uh uh
can be um anywhere when you look at operational it's usually around 40%. If you look at what is uh again when you put the the TDT in there then you're looking at something that's going to be more in the like 16 to 18% range. >> Commission Commission Walsh one second Matt Matt wants to >> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. Let me I can speak to what was presented here in your materials. I just want to talk about the analysis and what was in the presentation. So, um, if we're saying county revenue sources for fiscal year 25, for instance, it's about 89%. >> Then you tack on another 192,000 from the city, the remainder of other stuff
is about 100K. >> Now, could you repeat that? I could I could slow down a little bit. I could I could um let me walk back to >> that. >> So, from the revenue source, so revenue by source, about 2.4 million of that is
is county TDT and general revenue monies. That's fiscal year 25 from the audited financial statements. About 192 of that, that orange band is the city's general revenue commitment. And then that 109,000 I'm I'm not going to pull that apart for you, but I think that's specific to your question. Is that's
other stuff. >> Gotcha. Okay. That's all I needed. >> Yep. >> I didn't I'm not trying to open up a can of worms. I'm just trying to get through this. >> Yes, please. >> Is that is that 109 the NEA money? Uh some of that from fiscal year 25 is is a
separate NEA grant. Um but Kathleen would have to speak to what was in the fiscal year 25 for federal monies. But >> how much of it is the NEA grant? >> So our NEA grant has grown significantly. So um anyway we're talking about um for FY25 that would be 45,000 and then for this year it's 90.
>> Commissioner Walsh I'm going to go right back to you but real quick I'm sorry. >> Um Kathleen how did you get to 40%. >> Pardon me. That would be for so we when we look at our budget we look at what is passed through which a lot of the you know the TDT the majority is passed through and then the other uh is
operating and then those vary every year depending on the external um funding that we get every year. So that's where I came up with the the 60 and 40 >> and that's for operating. >> Yeah, I know. I'm just trying to understand because the question that comm uh commissioner Walsh asked was what was the total amount of outside
funding that was private into COA? Matt, go back to that slide, please. >> Happy to. >> Mhm. >> And so he's asking the total budget. And what I'm seeing here is the the total budget is what for the year last fiscal year. >> So when you look at pass through and um
when you put pass through and um non-pass through together, then depending on how much non-passrough we get, then some it like it can vary. And so right now when you put the pass through and the non-pass through together, it's about 80 to 83% is passed through and then the remainder is
non-pass through. >> Okay, commission. Thank you. I was just was trying to follow. >> No, you're fine. I was just simply trying to illustrate the point that in the in the sort of mission statement as best I can find it on Kok's website. It's supposed to be governmental and private resources. It seems it's fairly heavily governmental resources.
And so the cocoa um 20% es has has grown substantially right and um and it grows formulaically automatically and I think that is as I mentioned to you yesterday that that is
one one sort of pivot point of this this debate about this decision is you know should that model persist and So, I used the analogy with Kathleen
yesterday of like if I put $100,000 in the bank with a financial adviser or I give it to a obligation as the owner of the money, a fiduciary responsibility to go to my financial adviser and say, "Hey, what exactly is my million dollars doing? What exactly is my million
dollars going to do? Can I bring in somebody else to take a look at it?" It it's we have an obligation as an elected board that collects public money to have direct oversight of that money. And I
know now we have indirect oversight of that money, but this is simply aligning us with what is best practice. I think what is fiduciarily responsible. Clearly, we support the arts in Lyon County. We've established that this will not
jeopardize grants. We've established that the the hysteria surrounding this has been unfortunate tourism and for whatever reason 12 years ago the sentiment on this board was to to
establish this situation. I did not know until yesterday in our meeting that that that was initially kind of intended to build a performing arts center and then that has not come to fruition. But yet the the amount of money has continued to climb. And
it is unfortunate that grantees in the community are are mad and upset with the elected officials in the community about receiving money that comes from
this board, comes from the attacks collected and managed and obligated to be that way by this board. uh Koka is a partner with this board with that money. Koka is the vendor, if you will, the third party administrator
of that money and this and this model is not this compromise model from my understanding is not changing that. It's about custody. It's about who is the legal custodian of the money, who collects interest on the money.
That to me is incredibly important. We have not, like I said, not only a not only an obligation to do that, but we have a responsibility to do that. We can and should do that.
It should not be controversial that a board of elected officials wants to have custodial oversight over money that we are responsible for fiscally. Uh, in light of also saying we're nobody's
cutting grants. Nobody's gutting Koka. I mean, honestly, it's disappointing. I was disappointed at the push back on the compromise. I feel like that's a good compromise. I think that's fair. I think
that's, you know, pragmatic. Um, so my position on it is, as I told Kathleen yesterday, I I was going to ask, you know, and I I do still have this last question, but I mean, my position on it is ultimately just we
have a management responsibility to to do this. I mean, at a minimum, okay, I I think that full in-house of it in the original option was probably also justified, but given the the fear that's
been stoked in the community about losing grants and organizations and and you know, this is I think a fair step in in a direction of giving kind of everybody what they want. uh Kok you know remains uh involved in the grant
process and and judging the grantees and participating in all of that while we are the fiscal we are the really responsible fiscal agent of the money. Um my last question is can someone again succinctly tell me
the difference and I know you put up a chart but can you do it just sum it up for me in closing the difference in the status quo and the compromise model. >> Sure happy to >> just quickly and that's my last question. >> I will do it very quickly. >> Can you put up the chart while you do that please? >> Uh sure. Okay. Um so the difference here
succinctly is that under the status quo the board does not establish the funding level for arts and culture programming annually. Arts stop you don't under service model you would you would establish annually. Right now the board does not approve the guidelines for how
arts and culture programming grants are administered and um right now you you would under service 2. Um and then you would make an amendment change about the escalator growth of the 20% so that it would align with the board's ability to
establish um level funding each year. >> Last question, Mr. Chair. That is exactly that's what CHSP is, right? More or less. >> Sure. More more or less. >> Like we set a funding level for CHSP. We look at it every what two years?
>> Two years now. Yeah. If it's I mean to the general public listening and and people who are concerned about if it's good for human services, we're talking about life and death stuff. Why would that model not be good for our
arts funding? I mean maximum discretionary levels and all of this. Please keep in mind to the public listening and the and the advocates in the audience or people out there. This is all occurring in the shadow of what we just talked about previously in this
workshop in the shadow of the the term discretionary funding is about to go away. Okay? We're not going to have any discretionary funding in in county government or local government. And so it is only appropriate for us to have
this conversation number one and number two to provide more oversight over the application of this money. Um it's just it's just only reasonable and that's all I want to be is reasonable and that's my my take on it. So uh again look it's a
cons we're a board. I I told them this yesterday. I'm not one person. We're seven people. Whatever this board wants to do I'll support. Um, I'd hope we, you know, could have a consensus vote, but maybe not. Um, but I would support and
support an option to the compromise. Thank you. Thank you for the time. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mediate, past chairman. I have Commissioner Proctor, the vice chairman, and then uh Miner in the queue. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. uh county attorney
um 66 Florida counties uh retain control over their funding to arts council aboard our arts body.
Leon County is an anomaly. We're just all out by ourselves. Uh I've heard the commissioner indicate that uh the Koko takes the public dollars that they have and uh monies
roll over additional years and uh that there is a interest uh making on our monies and I um ask is it legal that private entities
retain 100% % control over public dollars and the county hands over its legislative authority and um oversight and knowingly, willfully informed allow
for dollars to roll over year after year and to be in an independent process in terms of accountability and um for interest to be acrewing to to a private entity and which practices
that the county itself uh may not be u permitted. >> Mr. Chairman, may I respond? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Um the county as a charter county has a lot of home rule authority but has authority to contract. Um it adopted an
ordinance that provided for this basically delegation and outsourcing of this function to a private nonprofit entity on its face is that legal? Um it's never been challenged to to my knowledge it is. Now has under the plan
and the agreement KOA complied with all of the requirements for the full utilization of that money? That has not been reviewed or explored. uh I don't believe the plan or the uh agreement themselves get into the granular detail
about uh the use or any interest that occurs on the monies that Koko receives uh and administers under the current plan. Um these are all things that irrespective of which model you go with unless it's the full in-house model if it's service and advisory or status quo
the current contract ends at the end of this fiscal year. Um, so those are issues and concerns that this board could address in an ongoing well a future agreement with KOKA based
on whatever model. >> Okay. Thank you. But I recognize that I'm I'm not on the ballot in a couple months. Um and maybe that affects um my thinking uh without any strings attached
to who's offended, but thinking along the avenue of what is um right. Um I'm able to agree with Commissioner Welch. Um and I lack a comfort level with the motion that's been made.
um um 66 counties don't do their doing this. And I recognize too that uh with respect to the origin of um how did we get here and
our county administrator would never tell you this though he knows that the origin of our getting here uh is built around the confluence of DOE doer
and this for not willing to abide by previous year's principles. So you say it existed 40 years 13 years ago it adopted a new framework. Um the influence of the three Ds the
three Ds D's D's Doure Daily and Deloge um sort of strong arm a new paradigm uh shift to
a penny being dedicated a whole penny to Koka County administrator knows this to be true. But of course u in a courthouse he he he can take the fifth.
The origin the origin. How did we get outside of 66 other counties? It's the doer and it's the doer leading the koka and the doer on this day as a county
commissioner. I said confluence, the merging together of two influences blended. That's how we got here. The record ain't lying to you, but whether or not you want to modify and
correct and place us in an orbit with 66 other counties. You hold that. Again, some of you may be on the ballot this year, and this is not the year for you to, you know, come
clear, but I'm just sharing what I know to be the truth of the origin. We wouldn't even be here now, but for what I've shared with you happened 13 years ago.
I think that we're in a moment where central control, central control, central control and the consolidated uh oversight of monies is
compelled by the storm clouds on the fiscal horizons that we're facing. And we're going to be fiscally challenged in the coming days.
And from my understanding of what Matt has presented today, it's cheaper to hire the employees uh of Koka and to
save $1.8 million for which only God knows we may need. Um I serve on the tourist development council and it is a dynamic and it is um
relevant in this discussion and has been ongoing and in every article conversation tourist development council. um this board affords me to be uh its member on the tourist development
council. And from that vantage point, um Carrie Post is well equipped as a former state of Florida cultural director. She is Florida's cultural director.
And I've recognized um from the closer vantage point that I've enjoyed that Carrie Post uh not only can orchestrate world class um cross country events
um from earth wind and fire to the most country singing singer all of that um she orchestrated. Um but I think that her most brilliant lights were shown when she led our
community's bicesentennial um celebration. What I'm trying to say is that if there's anybody in town that I would have confidence to manage Koka or we could include and
have great confidence in their ability. That's Carrie Post. And I'm not saying that because she's sitting here, but it's the record that she's established over time.
And time over performance is the best evaluative instrument that anybody can use to say what can this person what is their capability? What have they proven?
Carrie has simply demonstrated that. and the her little touch. I heard the man over the world cross country come to Tallahassee and say that
this was the very best of a world cross country championship ever they've ever experienced that came out of the director's mouth and other people and they wanted to languish here
stay and bring it back see that anyway I I know who Carrie Post is and I rest well if if this instrument Koka is placed under her leadership and we're
able to save uh 1.8 million hire those three people down at Koka and know that we have the state's cultural director Carrie Post in charge. I also uh Commissioner, I recognize your
commitment to um letting there be peace in the valley. Um but there's a difference between peace and quiet. And what we're really achieving here is
quiet. Peace is built upon that which is structured and built right. Correct. ethically, morally correct,
and peace is established off of option one. Quiet will derive possibly on option two. I hated this model. Hell, when it first
came about, I didn't think that it was correct, but I was bulldozed and run over and have just lived with what has occurred. These are the reasons, commissioners, that um I'm going to offer a substitute
motion for option one. um that we would have peace and that we would have our legal house in order and that we take ourselves outside of a solo orbit
and an anomaly uh juxtapose against the behavior, the arrangement, and the approaches of other governments. That's not to say that our county attorney can't go downstairs and fight like hell and win. If she's
challenged to defend our thinking, our thoughts, our arrangement, I believe she going to fight good. It's just that she has no other weight of authority out of another county to lean on to call to the
witness stand that favors the arrangement she would be forced to defend. Luckily, um the agreement of this board to support Koka and give them a whole one cent
year after year. If any other private entity in this community could get a hold of a whole penny from this board, I I don't know what manner of relationship anybody else could get a
dedicated penny. a private entity, not bidding for it without uh RFP being put out, but go back to the 3DS. Go back to the doers and you will
understand how we've arrived here. We can be weak little sisters here and follow the old jacked up order or we can be statesmen and women and do the right
thing. And that's why Mr. um Mr. Chairman I will offer substitute motion option one and as I have lived continuously under the old arrangement Mr. chairman and it may continue.
I'll live to face tomorrow and the next day notwithstanding. But those are my thoughts. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Substantiating my motion. >> Commissioners, we have a substitute motion moved by Commissioner Proctor for option one. Is there a second on the
motion? I will second the motion for discussion purposes. And right now we have a so we have a substitute motion for option one moved by commissioner proctor second by myself. I have the vice chairman in the queue.
>> Thank you Mr. Chair. Um my first question is we talk about $1.9 million and it was mentioned gaining flexibility as we face uh perhaps budget
crisises. Can you clarify if under any of these options that $1.9 million can only be used for tourism related expenses? It cannot be used for other non-ourism purposes under any circumstances. >> Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, that's correct.
>> Okay. Um and then uh briefly um I'd like to know from Koka if number two addresses the major concerns from May
even though we're not on that motion but >> from what >> from our May meeting. There were major concerns with what option one is and we have what is probably a compromise option for number two. We have a report from staff and I just wanted to know if generally speaking if number two addresses the major concerns.
>> Yeah, Mr. Bear you have you can answer the question. >> Um so option two uh the service and advisory um model is a is a model that um that takes that
that is um uh you know kind of a uh it's an advisory model. So right now we h we are an arts and culture partner with the county and have authority and with the county with a lot of oversight. We have over 11 points of oversight already in
place. Uh we also have um a contract in place that controls the amount of money we give up to 20% and puts in all the checks and balances that we use to authorize that and and um administrate
that money. So the current contract has all of that as part of it and uh the service model. What what changes about that is that we are um a partner right now with the county and have the arts and culture expertise and the arts and
culture authority over some of the um uh creation of the grants. It's the the grant program itself is in the um applications and the guidelines and then we take them and they are uh they are then um looked upon and reviewed by the
county. There are several county points or about six county points that um before you even get the grant out the door. So those kinds of things are already in place. Um what the service model does is it it takes that that away. it it changes KOKA's relationship
with the county to a vendor status instead of a partner status. Um, and that is that impacts um us that impacts us as an organization with the um I understand that the the um the the uh
NEA has already been brought up, but that would impact us with the with the NEA and that's part particular status. So, those kinds of things are still out on the table. We also are really unclear in in this agenda agenda item number two exactly what um how much would come to
KOKA whether we would have staffing uh covered because uh there's $150,000 in here for general revenue, but we're using $133,000 right now of TDT for our grants program
and our marketing. Um and that is again all allowable under our current contract. So our our questions about two u we still have a lot of questions about >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You said you said there's 150,000 in there, but you're using 133,000.
>> There's 150,000 for the um arts for the um uh the um local arts agency work. So it covers a whole variety of services. Um so because we're the local arts agency, so we get that support for that particular those particular programs.
And then there's um about 133,000 this year that's being used for um a a grants manager um our marketing manager and for marketing costs. And that right now is not in this this agenda item. >> 150 is more than 133. I'm I'm lost.
>> And there's 150,000 of general revenue and then 133,000 of TDT that we use. And so >> it's 283 total. >> Mhm. Yeah. Between the two of them. And so that's not um that is not in this agenda item. You know, the agenda item gives a lot of framework and what I'm
talking about is in the weeds, but those are the concerns that we have with two right now that we would love to have a chance to flesh out. We would love to have a chance to come up with a uh kind of a revised what I would consider more of like a 2.5 model of of this and of
this uh agenda item. >> Mr. Commissioner, do you want to jump in, sir? >> Sure. Sure. We tried to be very clear about this. Let me state it clearly. Um the amount of funding of TDT doesn't change under the proposed models. Uh and
the amount of general revenue going to uh under model 2 going to KOKA does not change. >> So as you understand that they'll still receive that that same 283,000 >> the total general re Go ahead Matt. Would you want to clarify?
>> Yeah. Um, happy to say happy to clear up a few questions here too also that we had discussed in meetings with Kok real simple quick. So they would receive 1.9 million in TDT and $150,000 in general revenue just a little bit north of 2 million. They would be able to as a
services and contract person with expertise be able to charge an administrative amount as we had talked about in the meetings of Kok. So they would get a percentage of the money of TDT to be able to administer the program. So and then >> that's an option too. That's an option. That's under model 2. Yes. So under
model 2. So that would be an amount of the TDT money to administer the program which makes sense which is currently in the existing status quo contract and that there is an amount that they receive to administer the program. In addition, they would receive an amount of money to do arts and culture marketing to solicit outside visitors to
Lyon County which isn't in the existing status quo contract. So there would be TDT money to do the arts and culture marketing, TDT money to administer that program, and then there would still be TDT money to go to arts and culture agencies as well. Um, but then the board oversight and the approval of the
guidelines is the significant change. >> Thank you. I believe the vice chairman have the floor. So commissioners, I'm going to go back to him. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um, let's see. Then the it seems to me the
goals of the proposed change uh are additional compliance or oversight and accountability and cost efficiency savings on the $213,000. Are there other goals that uh objectives that that trigger the the this option?
>> Are we talking about model one >> two? I believe you're talking about are you talking about model one or >> let's talk about model one because realistically we're really we're really going model one or model 3 and model two is a mis mismatch >> I I was going to make the recommendation Mr. Sure. If you would just specify which model the question is so we could follow.
>> What's the goals of model one? Is it those two goals or additional goals? >> So the additional oversight of the board establishing the budget and then the cost savings is the annual operating savings. Those are the primary goals. Yes. >> Okay. Was there a fraud or malfeence or
abuse instance that triggered this consideration? >> So no uh there was not any malfeence. However, as part of any budget development process, in addition to the conclusion of a vendor's contract, we have the reviews to bring back to the board about your budgetary authorities
and oversight as as we do very many of the vendor contracts you see from mowing the lawn to other things like that. And so, this is $2 million and should necessitate the same conversation. >> Okay. And then um
in my understanding is that in option one and option two the fundamental funding change becomes instead of automatically allocating 20% which can go up or down each year. We
are setting our budget each year at the board discretion at 20% or lower of the TDT if we go with option one or two. >> That would be the intent is that as you fund county tourism grant programs as a line item as recommended by the TDC,
this would be that same way. And if collections go up of the total TDT year after year and we keep budgeting under the a new change 1.9 more of those total collections go to the visit Tallahassee
tourism department and not Koka the culture and program. So those additional monies, if we say that collections increase, are still the board's discretion to budget as part of the annual process that may be that you make the decision that they are arts and
culture related funding. You could apply them in any number of ways should the board choose, such as the strategic initiative that was recently established in the January board retreat for a film incentive program, clearly aligned in the arts and culture program. So if you wanted to keep it even in that ballpark or that alignment, it would be the
discretion of the board as part of the annual process to do such. >> That's a very long answer. I'm going to ask it simpler for my for my my mind. Um this gives us the one or two gives the board the discretion to give less under
culture and art and give more to the other tourism department budget. It gives you the discretion to fund those amounts as the board would do on an annual process. >> To the extent to the extent we fund the
culture and arts less than 20% if we choose to difference would go into the tourism and marketing department budget. It could not go anywhere else in our budget. It goes somewhere. What >> what I'm having a hard time following your question.
>> Sure. Okay. This is this is the total tourism budget. This is 20% of that budget. And right now, if we make no changes year over year over year, that 20% is going to go to culture and artic. If we make no
changes, we we good so far. If we change either one or two, we can choose to lower the amount that we give culture and arts and if we choose to do that, that additional amount has to stay in
tourism and therefore goes to our general tourism budget. >> On point. >> Yes. >> As I understand it and unless your recollection of it changed, uh, Kok's understanding is that we could change it anyway. We can change it now in under
the current rules under the current contract. >> Is that so could that be? >> Let's let us provide clarification there. Matt's te >> Yeah, please can you restate that question for me so I correctly? I met with the representatives from Kok
yesterday and they said as the as it reads right now as the ordinance reads the board has the discretion every year >> to change the percentage in which we give cocoa now I've asked I asked them if they reviewed that with the county
attorney but I would like clarification from the county attorney as it read >> I would pass that to >> do we have that flexibility >> the plan currently provides for 20% so could the board change the plan. Yes, that's within the board's discretion to do that, but without changing the plan.
No, >> without changing the ordinance or the plan. >> The plan that's adopted in your ordinance. So, it would require a change to your ordinance regardless. >> Thank you, Madam. >> Thank you. That answers my question on
that one. Um, okay. We have um so the rest of my questions are about looking at the whole TDT which in our fiscal 26 adopted budget was 9.7
million right of which uh 1.9 or so under the current system goes to Koka. Um it looks like the majority of that budget um otherwise goes to advertisements like paid advertisements,
TV, digital, all that and then an a an outside agency to do work. Can you describe how much money goes to paid advertising and how much money goes to outside our outside agency? >> Well, as we as a division of tourism, we
are the destination marketing organization. So it is about marketing Lyon County and Tallahassee outside of the area. So obviously our marketing um which is and that's marketing all of our products whether it's outdoor arts and
culture everything. Um it comprises our advertising is over a million dollars. Um our agency fees are capped at 25%. Um so they can't it cannot go higher
than that but we advertise every asset in the destination and so again whether it's I mean broadcast digital um PR leveraging media all of that um every like I said advantage we have here I
mean and it's sports it's again outdoor arts and culture everything >> respectfully I know what marketing is I was asking for the amount >> right >> thank you and So, I'm looking at a budget item for marketing that's $4.5 million. So, you just described 1
million and 25%. What makes up the rest of the $4.5 million for marketing under our TDT program? >> That is what what is considered in the marketing budget includes sports, includes meetings and conventions. So,
advertising is one discipline within that. It's operating the visitor centers. It's direct sales. It is everything else that it comprises of the tourism operation. >> Okay. So, we spend about a million
dollars on advertising. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Little more. And then >> Commissioner, one one point. Don't we engage with a you know a pretty much a worldwide marketing third party agency that we have a continuation contract with? That is the Zimmerman agency.
They're a local firm here in town and so yes, we engage with them. Um the contract I said is a little over a million dollars and their fees are capped at 25%. Exactly to your point. It is for regional, state, national, international marketing.
>> Okay. I just continue just wanted you were talking about marketing. So >> thank you. And so they have a million roughly million dollar contract and 25% of their ad buys. No, they're non-commissional advice.
>> So, so 25% of what is of their fees. It's all of their fees and services, their staff time that they do supporting the marketing. There's production, there's planning, there's all the things that go into the final creative assets.
>> How much did we pay to that firm last year? >> About a million dollars. the budget has been consistent each year >> about a million dollars. Okay. And so my question is the the the the argument for bringing one of
the two functional arguments for bringing Koka functions inhouse is we can do it cheaper and more effectively to save a couple hundred,000. There's the oversight piece as well, but we don't have like a we don't need one to
increase oversight. We don't have like a triggering incident, but in our same $10 million tourism budget, we pay others a million dollar a year to do work, to do marketing work, to do PR work, to do ad buys, to do design, all that. Have we
considered bringing that in-house and saving a million dollars or whatever the difference is? >> Yes. And what what was the savings going to be or where is what why aren't we seeing that proposal as well? >> Well, that goes I'm sorry that goes back
a number of years. We have brought some marketing services in house such as digital and we do that because every year we'll look and see can what makes sense what services can we bring in house that would be cheaper than outsourcing. We now have a contract with
Zimmerman to do X functions. But we look at that every year and do propose as warranted when we see there is an opportunity in the way the industry is evolving to bring some services in house because we can do it better, faster, and cheaper. >> Um, over the past few years then, how
much have we brought in house and how much have we saved by bringing in-house those agency services? It's I'd have to go back to give you the exact, but the only one we've brought in back because we've had a very long-standing relationship with our agency and which we've again been trying to bring more
services back in house in the last couple years. The only service we've brought in house is the digital and the social. We leverage with the agency on SEO and SEM. So, we again use their buying power for that. But we brought all of our digital social in-house which
has resulted in not just again savings and again it was a one staff person basically um but we were paying so much more to have the agency do it where like I said we do it better faster and cheaper >> and so if that's one staff person is
that also we saved about 200 grand a year by doing that >> no not with not for our I mean what we did was then put the savings into programs >> okay all right how much did we pay Zimmerman before we
brought digital in house and how much do we pay Zimmerman after we brought digital in house? >> Hey, Mr. Vice Chair, could you try to tailor it a little bit because I'm going to go to I still got everyone back in the >> This is I'm trying to get >> I can come back to you again as also if I need to. >> This goes back a number of years,
Commissioner. So, in order to be accurate, I would have to go back and provide you look that up to provide you that information because it's been a number of years and I would want to be accurate in what was provided. >> And are there any outside vendors that do work for us uh that get paid more
than $100,000 out of this budget? >> Yes. Um there is the Downs and St. Germaine Research, which is again we are very data driven and and so Downs and St. Germaine Research is our tourism research firm of record that again
provides us all of the economic impact of the visitor economy, visitor spending, etc. It is a the contract is a little more than $100,000 a year. >> Okay. Thank you. And so my my point to that is what the reason I oppose the the
change is because the way I see it, the current program is working. Um, the way I see it, we're only we're risking a program for a savings of a worthwhile savings of roughly $200,000. But I don't know why we're targeting only this program when we have other outside work
that we are not choosing to consider bringing inhouse uh to save money that actually costs more than what we're saving here. Um, the other thing is, and I'm kind of in a way I'm kind of glad we're either on number one or number
three because if the argument for number one was cost savings, you only get the cost savings in number one. You don't in number two and number three. If the argument is oversight, you get a little more oversight in number two, but you don't get more oversight number three.
And so the middle, you really don't get the cost savings, and you really just add a bureaucratic layer of approval on number two. And and with number one, I just oppose it because it the program is working. We have so many major issues to face. We're talking about saving about
$200,000 when to me if we're paying outside agencies million dollars. We ought to be considering how to in-house those. And so, thank you. Um that answers all my questions and debate. >> Thank you, Commissioner Miner. Commissioners, right now I have Commissioner Miner, Commissioner Maddox,
Commissioner I see you back in the queue. Um and then uh >> thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Um okay so for me regarding the whole KOKA discussion we've had for the last several weeks things I this discussion
were about one is that um our drive what that means is that KOKA needs to continue with KO over the years on different projects and I've seen how KCO works. I've seen the connection between Koka and the arts community. That's a healthy relationship. um you know um
artists and musicians did a great job of working with them culture events in the community been the two things I've been I've been seeking I'm going to keep the rest of my comments related to model one because that's the motion on the floor if we have another motion that comes up later I'll I'll have some other comments but
commission thank you for that >> yeah yeah so regarding model one in my opinion this is the least desirable of the of the three uh for the reasons that I just stated um I I don't think model one will allow the arts and culture community to thrive. Uh nor do I think
that it'll allow Koka to thrive. Under model one, all the funding goes to the county. All the administration of arts and culture grants go to the county. So that means the county manages the arts and culture grants. Uh the county pays
the grantees. the county decides how or whether to market arts and culture events that currently are being marketed by KOKA. And if model one prevails here,
I think Kok will probably die in a few years. Now, I know Commissioner Welch has said some of those fears are unfounded and and I, you know, he's entitled to his opinion, but the reason why we've heard some of those fears out there is because with a model like number one, you're basically stripping
KOKA out of what 89% of its funding and you're also taking away the eligibility for KOKA to apply for the nonTDT grants that it's currently applying for and receiving. So for that reason, model one is is the least effective in my opinion
of preserving the arts and culture community here, hosting arts and culture events and ensuring that Koka survives. So I I respectfully urge my colleagues to to vote against the motion on the table. Let's talk about what we'll do after that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Thank you. So I have Commissioner Maddox in the queue. He's outside the chamber. So, what I'm going to do, I'm going to I'm going to go ahead and and speak on I was going to come back. I was going to speak. Okay, go ahead. >> Commissioner M. >> Yeah. Thank you.
>> I'm sorry I got cold. I don't cold. I'm freezing. Give me a jacket. All right. So, first things first. I think facts matter, right? So, um, 2015, taking it back, um, a motion was made by myself during a public hearing
and that because I'm going to make sure I get it right. Uh, I made a motion to for us to um move funding from the performing arts center that we were talking about back to
Oh, there we go. Much better. Here we go. All right. So, the motion that was made and Commissioner P, you were there. Um uh I made a motion and Commissioner Doge seconded it that uh amended and then uh
Commissioner Doer amended that motion and the motion was for staff recommendation 1, two, and three uh to uh move our funding from what was a performing arts center that we were doing then to u the amphitheater uh well
back to Cocoa. Okay. The way it happened was the amphitheater piece of it came in because Commissioner Doer wanted us to have a workshop on the cultural plan. Okay. When we had that workshop on the cultural plan, the city wouldn't agree to the move unless we moved a penny to
KOA. We moved that penny co to Koka, which then that's when we stopped using general revenue to go to KOKA for for them to fund arts agencies and we just used the penny. Okay. So, so that's that's where we are. I I wanted I wanted to frame it so we understood where we
were, how we got here. And that was 2015 when we got here. Um, now, Commissioner Proctor, I think I wanted us to to get on the same page about how we got here because again, I think facts matter in that we were looking for we
wanted a performing arts center. We could not get the funding for it. We needed a match funding. We couldn't get it for it. and Commissioner Doer had the idea of, okay, well, we're building Cascades. We can create an amphitheater that could kind of act as a performing
arts uh center. We can use this funding, some of this funding to go towards that. And then the rest of it, we can we can give to Koka for our our planning. So, I I wanted I wanted to make sure I gave my recollection of how that happened. The second thing I wanted to talk about, I had a couple questions.
Miami Dade. Um, what model do they use? >> In-house model. >> Okay. So, that would be number one. >> That'd be number one. Yeah. >> Just gonna be one, two, or three. Uh, Broward. >> I can go back to We go back here just to make sure that I'm >> All right. Just right off the top of your head, memory, you know.
>> Hey, man. Palm Beach. >> Um, inhouse is Broward. >> Say it again. >> In-house Broward. >> In-house Broward. Palm Beach. >> Uh, Palm Beach is service. >> Okay. Orange. Uh, two. >> Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh, Hillsboro. >> Uh, one.
>> Penelis. >> And that's two. >> Sarasota. >> Uh, Sarasota's two. >> Uh-huh. Alatcha. >> Ala's one. >> I know. I I I want this on record. I I want I want to hear this be said. Uh, Leon. >> Uh, Leon is of its status quo right now.
So, it' be Model 3. >> Monroe. >> Uh, Monroe is not off the top of my head. Not on the solution. So, >> not up there. Here's why I ask. Okay, those organizations in 2025 received NEA
funding. Now, as I understand it, and I want you to explain it to me, um, for our cocoa director, there were there were a few of those that were operating under the second
model. But your your problem with the second model is that the second model will prevent you from being able to access the NEA funds. I'm trying to reconcile that. Please help me with that. >> Happy to. So the kind of grant that we
get is specifically for local arts agencies for regranting. You know, NEA gives a lot of different kinds of grants, but that's one very specific grant. And uh the reason the the problem here is that we need to be the pass
through. Um so that that's one but the you know when you look at the match then the match needs to be part of our um our uh the TDT is being used as match. So then that needs to be part of our budget and then so what happens is if the match
is um the match is one to one non-federal sources from TDT. Okay. So, Coco, >> wait, wait, wait. I understand all of that. I get all that. You told me that. >> What I'm trying to figure out is Sarasota was one of the uh the places we talked about yesterday that was hard to get funding, but they're but they're
receiving NEA funding. I'm trying to figure out I'm trying to reconcile how they receive NEA funding if they're this hybrid model that we're talking about. So, you know what we talked about yesterday, my main concern is I don't want to lose access to NEA funding. Absolutely. >> Okay. Absolutely. And if if if there's a
way, let me and let me be very clear here. I'm not going to vote for one. I'm not going to vote for three. I want a hybrid of two that that that that gives a little bit of both sides and that we're able to move forward with. We're able to get the grants. KO is able to be
funded at a at a at a at a staff level that's sufficient, which it sounds like it's going to continue that way. And and and everybody gives a little bit. >> Nobody gets exactly what they want. When I get in situations like this, this is exactly where I end up. Everybody gives
a little bit. We got a compromise. We can move forward, but nobody's hurt too bad to where it's not working as for for our community. So, I'm just trying to figure out my where I'm sitting right now is on NEA funding and and how Sarasota, who I thought couldn't get NEA
funding because of the way it's structured, is getting NEA funding. So, I'm not sure, Matt, who you spoke with, but I spoke to the executive director of Sarasota. He's a colleague of mine. And >> I wasn't talking to Matt about it. I actually I actually went online and looked it up, and in 2025, it said that
Sarasota received NEA funding. >> So, the executive director told me that they weren't they did not qualify for this program. >> Okay. >> So, you can get NEA funding like we could go ahead and get NEA funding. If we weren't getting the specific LAA program, we could get a general grant.
Absolutely. You know, and we've so that that's possible to do, but this local arts agency program has very very specific um criteria to it. And so that's what makes it unique. >> And we've been and we are committed to
continuing to give grants out when TDT uh when when um there are applicants that just don't, you know, their programs just don't qualify for TDT as you know, Carrie's talked about before, right? Not everybody does. So, we are able to fill in that gap and that's what this this funding does. And there is
actually a an artist in the in the house today that that has talked about how it's really built up her career. So, we're really committed to doing that. Um, but that is that's one of the reasons why is that that match is um onetoone non-federal, but then the match requirement is um is real. It's required
and it's TDT sourced. So then that TDT source has to come through um our you know we we are the what's what's called the the um pass through um entity the PTE um so in order to qualify for the pass through entity then we need to absolutely have not only be local arts
agency but the program has to belong to us as in it needs to um it needs to be KOA approved not a county program that Koko advises on but a KOKA program that actually comes from KOA like it does right now and then those pass through funds need to go through our budget. We
need to be that pass through organization. So the match will fail um in right now in the way that the um that our our understanding at least of how number two is structured. >> So >> that that that's where we're at right
now and and our our conclusions are just based on this agenda item because that's what we've gotten in writing so far. >> Right. So in 2025 2026, I'm looking at it right here. Mhm. >> Um, you said it's a different grant, but Sarasota, the applicant is Embracing Our
Differences Incorporated. >> Mhm. >> And Sarasota County. >> Okay. >> It's a GPS visual arts type of grant. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, their their score was 100 actually. Uh, they received 100 they
requested $145,675. The panel recommendation was that amount 145 675. Now it's is is that how is that's a past. So as I understand it that's a organization
that's in Sarasota >> that went through a grants process that that's receiving $145,000 from the NEA grant right to that organization whether it's whether it's passing through Sarasota County or or or
whoever, right? So we don't know exactly who gave them that grant. Did that go directly from the NEA to that organization because NEA does that or whether that was through a grants program that was um that the Sarasota
actually sponsors. And so our our um our our LAA um program means that that this um this NEA money flows through the cultural grant program that we already have in existence. So that's that, you
know, I I it sounds like that it it um I I I don't want to speak for Sarasota, but the way that we do it is that we have a grants program and we we run that NEA through the existing grants program. >> I I understand, but again, my my my
concern is to make sure that Lyon County can still access NEA funds. >> Yeah. in the model that I'm trying to support here, which is model number two. I'm I'm more so concerned about that. I I mean, again, I think a compromise is
best here. But >> if if if somebody could have proven to me that NEA NEA funds could not be supported through number two, then I I might have been in a a bit of a different place. So, I'm I'm trying to figure out because here's here's what I
don't want. If if I if we go with option number two, let's say it passes today, right? in a year from now we can't get any a grants, Nick Madison is not going to be a very nice man because I don't want to take any money off the table
when it comes to us receiving money for the arts. Okay, I'm willing to I I don't want to take any money off the table when it comes to that. So, that part is very very important to me and I I want to make that very clear to staff and to
Koka. Yes, sir. >> Chairman, could you real quick? So, the what you're referring to is is is an on the books requirement. Um, we've not been able to find anything that ties NEA grant funding on any of their grants to
an onthebooks requirement, meaning that it had the money has to be on their books. Even if it does, we can structure our service agreement in a way where we very clearly demonstrate the commitment of these funds to KOKA to satisfy any grant requirements. So again, I just
want to answer your question as completely I think we already did and we we we may be able to provide additional detail, but I want to be very clear about that. >> So as I understand the staff is is is saying that the money would be frontloaded, correct? >> So so so that you would go ahead. Yeah,
let me just say so we heard the board loud and clear about being competitive in the space for national funding, including National Endowment of the Arts. Here's the simple bit of it. You can apply for any project, National Endowment of the Arts, without the money on the books. Once that project has been awarded, you need to have that line item
in there that you're going to have the match money. So, if it's 40K, you got to have 40K in the budget. That happens right now because Koka maintains the TDT money. Under model 2, that doesn't change. We say it under a service agreement. We say that there's a competitive match component in there
that if you pursue NEA, federal monies, whatever that the TDT money currently used to match as it is right now today is under that service contract still used to match. So you're still eligible for the application of that money.
>> How do you understand it be different? >> I I understand that um from what you're describing um it would be great to have that written out. So um but that you know to to take a look at how that would work. I think the the thing with the um
with that model is that we know that the the that the having the money come through um our as us as a pass through. We want to make sure that we have our pass through status and I don't know I I'm not familiar whether what you're describing right now Matt is you know
would work for that or not. I mean I I'm hoping that we can just find that out. >> Yeah. um you know it can definitely be >> you know kind of look at that. The other part of this is the authority of the grants program itself. So this isn't going to be able to fund a county >> program. It it can fund a koka program
like a cocoa program that's that is um uh where the authority is with the um uh with the um agency. And so, you know, oversight over this in regards to what the county can do would absolutely be
part of that and could be increased on that. >> Um, >> so as I understand it be a two-step process. Let's say today we go with option number two. Okay. >> If we go with option number two, then next step would be uh to start working on the ordinance. The ordinance would include all the details of which is
under two. Correct. So there would there would be time for staff to work with Koka to come back with what that agreement would look like. So it could look like that. It could not look like that. >> It's mostly going to look like that. >> Mostly going to look like that.
>> Yeah. It's that's that's the best approach for what other nonprofits and um arts and culture areas do across the county across the state of Florida. So, I will say when we had our conversation here about the um Penllis, can you from
Penelis remember that Rick when we talking about the affordable housing thing? I'm not tied to what other people are doing. I don't I I feel like we can build a model here that other people can imitate. So, I want to be like so I more so want to come back for what works for our community, not necessarily what
other people are doing. And I think you understand my my my my desire is to be a balance, okay, between what one is and what three is. It gets us to a place that that our arts organization and our arts uh our arts
organization in KOKA and arts organizations organizations that they fund may not be totally happy with where we're going, but they can see they can see a way where they're not going to be hurting from where we're going. Okay. Now the service contract piece of it the
administration Kok would administrate under service contract. Correct. Now but the guidelines would be board adopted with with KOA collaboration. So correct. >> So would it be a situation where and this would this would this be spelled out in the ordinance where Kok would
send us over what what they would recommend as the board I mean as the guidelines and then we would we would quote unquote approve that or or would we send something to them and have them approve? How would that work? That would be handled at the staff level. But in the ordinance to be very clear too to
also position KOKA for continued NEA funding as they are named right now in the ordinance which is a requirement of national endowment agencies to have either a very very specific service agreement and or an ordinance and we would have both. Um so in the ordinance it would name Koka as the qualified
service provider and then we would administer all of that with the service contract. So yes, that would happen. >> Okay. Um, Commissioner O'Keefe, this isn't about savings. This has nothing to do with savings. I think I think when I'm I don't even know why that's up
there. The $213,000, we abandoned that that thought when we said we were going with number two. So, I don't think this is about savings. I think this is about structure. We had a deal that we put together in 2015 that hasn't changed. And I think, you know, 10, 11 years with the increase of the amount that's
increased, this is a good time to have the conversation. We're not limping along year by year. we're able to have something multi-year that we can see if it actually works for our community. And that's what this conversation is about. And so, uh, I again, I I, um, I'm not
going to go with one. I'm not going to go with three. I I think two is where we need to be. If there's some if there's some conversations around what two looks like, I even think that if we say two, we still have room to modify two during the public hearing piece of it because u
when the ordinance comes back, it would be we will get to read through that, make whatever modifications that we need to make to um that that would that would kind of put us in a place where everybody's feeling a little bit better about it. So, I think this is the start of a two-step process that gets us to a
a balanced place. Um, and and for those organizations that that are here and and have advocated, we we're I appreciate I don't nobody else, but I appreciate the emails and I appreciate the the the the analysis and the I did meet with the
chair yesterday and I also met with with our with our executive director yesterday and I and I hope that I've represented what I told you I would represent yesterday. I I was not going to come in here and try to be something I'm not. Uh everything that I've said up here today, I said to them yesterday. So they there's no surprises from them and
I hope they told y'all. Uh but again two is where I where I'm going to be. I'm not I'm I'm I'm looking at the detail. I'm not as concerned about the details. Some of them I am, but a lot of them I'm going to be some concerned about when it
comes back from the public hearing. What I would ask is that if we go with two that we work closely with Koka to make sure to be sure that we're that we're that we're doing the least amount of harm as possible that we can to that organization. The piece about the the
the the money I'm glad you said that that's clarified. Again, they will receive the $283,000 they've received before. So that that's not going to be that's not going to be an issue. Staffing levels would be able your money will be protected there. The only thing I see really changing is in the
allocation. Now, they asked me yesterday what what would I have done? What I said I would have done is I would have I would have just, you know, frozen, you know, the the amount for a certain amount of time. So, let's say if we're at 2 million, we stay at 2 million for a three-year period and we assess over three year after 3 years
if it goes up if we need to add more. We don't even have to be there. Okay? I just I don't want this to be as adversarial adversarial as it become. I think we both have to recognize that changes are going to be made. Okay? We're going to make changes to this
agreement. What that looks like needs to be able to work for everybody. If it doesn't work for everybody, I'm not going to be able to agree with it. So, I'm going to support option number two. And uh I look forward to if option number two passes to what that agreement in the uh in the ordinance looks like
when it comes back. That's where I'll be looking for more of the detail that mirrors what's in option number two. Thank you, Mr. Yeah, thank you. Uh, real briefly, I know Commissioner Cummings, you're in the queue. I was going to speak, but I'll defer to you really briefly, Commissioner Cummings. And >> just in the interest of time, thank
thank you, Mr. Chair. I just um want to reiterate that I supported option two. I know option one is on the table. I am not in favor of option one. And what I will do, Mr. chair just adopt
Commissioner Miner's uh comments uh about option one as my comments. >> Okay. >> In interest of time. Thank you. >> Thank you. Just um I I'll come I'll come back to that. Commissioners, I haven't spoke yet on this item and so bear with
me. I have some I have a handful of questions. I have some uh general statements. But before I get to my my questions, I do want to thank our staff. I want to thank Koka. I want to thank Kokus chair um for taking the time to really kind of work through this the
last few weeks. I was I was a big vocal proponent in the last meeting about this workshop. Kathleen, you and I spoke in the hallway about this workshop because I felt that it was necessary. We've been on this item for two hours.
Okay. And so, um, last last meeting I was pushing for the workshop because we had a long agenda and I knew that there was going to be we we wanted more time to really debate this and ask questions. And I think that we're talking about $2
million of our budget. We're talking about um an organization and in a in a a um arts and culture that is clearly love our community. And there's no debating that. There's no no one's I don't think
anyone's up here argued against that. I think every commissioner up here said how important arts and culture is. I think this really comes down to a a structure as far as what is best for taxpayers and what is best to administer
funds related to arts and culture. So that being said, Mr. Behart, I have some questions um that that I'll just I'll begin with I probably have a handful of questions, so just bear with me. But my question is, what what share of Koko's total annual
budget comes from county tourist development tax dollars, including the $150,000 administration contract? >> The total budget for the whole entire year, >> the total percent budget, what is the total annual budget that comes from
county tax dollars? So, county tax dollars um well, general revenue is from property tax and so the the remainder is from um is the uh tourism development tax. So, usually that with the two of them together and that's going to fall
more in the you know 80 80 to 85 percentile. >> What is the exact dollar amount for those two combined >> with the with the two? Because that's the pass through which is the TDT and then there's the the general revenue that >> Matt, do you have that dollar amount by chance? Could you help her out? What is
that? >> Fiscal year 25 was about 2.3 or 2.4 million in county. That's revenue uh for that year. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Could you repeat that please? >> 2 2.4 million. He said >> about if we're comparing again to what was in the materials. It was about 2.4
million in revenue uh that the county um had that was part of Kok's budget. >> Okay. >> So the last five years I believe this 20% and commissioners I hate calling it a penny. It's like what we do with blueprint. I hate calling it a penny sales tax. I hate calling this a
penny. It's 20% of TDT funding, right? So this 20% of TDT funding has doubled over the last 5 years. How much has Koka grown its revenue from other sources than the county?
>> Um that has depended on because there is stimulus during that time. But usually, you know, um when we look at again just the uh general, if you if you take out the pass through and just look at our operating, then that's going to um be
maybe like a 6040 or a 7030. So, what has tended to happen is um we've had specific funders that have stayed with us um like the NEA and Knight Foundation and so on and so forth and now Levit. Um and then we've had stimulus and we've
had other opportunities that um are kind of one-time funding opportunities. And so that again is kind of in that percentage of that like maybe 15 to 18% of of um our total budget our total like if you include pass through
and operating. So, I'm not bear with me because I I know you keep referring to the pass through, >> but let's look at it as a whole, right? Like our county government, for example, we're like we >> a lot of most of what we do is a pass
through. We get money comes to us, it goes right out to our constitutional offices and services, etc. When we budget our our fiscal year budget, it's a whole. So as a whole, how much has how much has Koka grown its revenue from other sources, whether it
be other agencies, donations, etc. >> Yeah, it's usually gone in anywhere from about 150 to 250,000. >> So on an annual on an annual basis, it kind of is dependent on the year because there are co years in here. So um
>> so every year you guys have gained an additional 150,000 from outside. No, I'm talking about the the year yeartoyear what we've been able to maintain. So the gains are depend on the year and it depends on when the money has come in to us. But when you're looking at gains,
you know, year over year over year, we've tended to um to to stabilize more in like the 200 to um 300,000 range depending on the year. >> Okay. Having a hard time following you, but I'm going to go to the next one. >> Consistent trying to give you a range. So, but we have stabilized that.
>> Okay. Um, is there a plan to reduce reliance on the the one county revenue stream over the next 3 to 5 years? Because I agree with a lot of what's been said.
My my my frustration is Commissioner Welch brings a hu I mean a very very important point. Koka has been around for over 40 years. um the last 12 years it's received county funding and it appears to me when
I look at the financials that Koka has become extremely reliant on county funding. And so my question is is there a plan to diversify to reduce the the being reliant on county funding over the next few years?
>> The Cocoa board has been addressing that. We have a a uh a policy in place is it's a non-compete with our community and that's been in place for over 40 years. It's because of the nature of this community uh doesn't have a whole lot of fund of uh foundations and some
of the kind of more typical places that you could draw from. So um we we've purposfully not pursued that and been more of the government funded uh entity. Um, we that's changed in the last few years since I've been in the driver's
seat at KOKA. And so that's where we've made some really significant increases in in the amount of funding and especially stabilize that amount of of of uh of non um non TDT and kind of non-government funding. Um and our our
goal would be to continue to increase that through whatever means that we can um without being um competitive and we're really sensitive to that. So that's our plan right now. We've we've been talking about that with our board this year already. >> Okay. How many donations did you guys
receive last fiscal year? Dollar >> uh individual donations >> like donor >> is >> and again we don't have a program for this. Um and we don't pursue that. Yeah. But we don't have a donor program there because uh again we're not we're in a non-compete kind of situation. So you know on average that you know
dollar-wise is is in the 30 to $35,000 $40,000 range. >> Okay. >> Mhm. Um, in in our briefing that we've had, uh, you and the chair um, explained to me that if the county took over the
funding or if if the county had more oversight or basically if it was anything other than option three that it would jeopardize the NEA funding. And um, our staff is saying that they have in writing that that's not true. So, I just want to get some clarity on that
particularly because that's news to me this morning and I want to make sure that everyone's under the same page. So, is that the NEA funding? Did you reach out to the NEA about that funding? >> Yeah. Yeah, I did. And thank you for your question. Um, can can I u one of the things I want to make sure this
really really clear is that we are all about oversight. We already have 11 points of oversight in our current programs and that has never been an issue. We actually have other um ideas and and suggestions and ways that we can, you know, talk to Carrie and Matt about, you know, other things that we
could do with oversight. So, oversight has never been an issue. Um we actually had a a uh cultural facilities grant program when that existed. That oversight ended with the board of county commissioners. So, you know, we we've functioned in that that uh kind of model
before. Um, so you know, when you're talking about the National Endowment for the Arts, it's the very specific regranting program that we have. So, you know, you can get any kind of of grant from the NEA. Um, but what we're specifically looking at is the local
arts agency grant because we subrant out that money and that that's where our our concern came from. >> Gotcha. I'm I want to pin down like just to answer the question, Matt. So, you reached out to the NEA, >> correct? Could you could you just exp expand on the dialogue on that?
>> Yeah, so the conversation again uh was with Eleanor Billington from the National Endowment of the Arts and it was specific to the subgranting component uh and who would hold and administer the funds. We were clear about um an established budget if it's
not the nonprofit. Is that does that jeopardize NEA? No. Um we were clear about who approved the guidelines about how the grant is administered. Does that jeopardize NEA funding? No. Does that money need to be on the books at the uh
time of the application? No. Um, can you provide line item funding in the service agreement to answer that question of match so that they're able to do their work? Yes. Um, so so fundamentally those were the specific conversations that we
had had with the National Endowment of the Arts to confirm where we're at now and what we've presented to you. >> Yeah. Go ahead. He has a on point question. >> On point. They keep saying it's two different pots. Explain. You said you talked to them. Explain that. It's just they're saying it's different pot of money. Can you >> It's a different NEA has several
different programs. Um one of it is about subgranting to local agencies to in to support arts expertise and art merit. And that's what um KOKA has been successful in pursuing over the past several years and received again significant and important federal
funding which we do not deny. um that goes to agencies um to help produce arts here locally and it's matched with county TDT money and if programmed through a service agreement it can continue to match so that we can bring
down one to one those federal dollars. So we we would not lose what through your assessment we would not lose access to those dollars. This specific program we will not lose access to. >> That is what the National Endowment of the Arts had shared with us when we asked that specific question about those
programs. >> Thank you for the followup, Commissioner Maddox. Uh I'm going to go to some just oversight and reporting. Um Mr. Spear. So beyond participation counts, what performance measures are attached to the cultural grants at the county our event grants
through tourism? We require like projected room nights and out of area marketing. What is the equivalent of of KOK's measurement for this? >> So Kok's currently um KOKA has u a midyear and final report. >> I'm sorry. Could you >> uh Yeah. Can you hear me? Okay.
>> Yes. Um so uh currently KOKA has a midyear and final report that uh flows through for grantees and so the you know once they sign their contract they're they're they have a first payment then they have to do a mid-year report that um includes um some you know various
data points and then uh when that um is approved then they go to a final. So when you look at the final report um they're looking at visitors um we're looking at audience attendance um total um economic impact um hotel rooms are being tracked u now that was a data
point that was requested from the county this year and so that that's being tracked tracked and again this is all for year round programming this is not just like event toe event to event which is what uh visit Tallahassee uh does so this is for several programs that are
happening during the year But data points like that are are part of the um the reporting that happens and that it's been happening for years. >> Okay. Thank you. So when you guys give out grant money, do you lay out in your
contracts measurable outcomes in the grant agreement >> already? Yes, we do. And then and you know we have just particular expectations um that go along with that and and measure measurable um and um made sure that it you know reviewed it made sure that everything in there was okay for the
>> contract could you guys opine on that is that consistent >> for for contracts um yeah you know >> no I'm going to Matt and Carrie I was just going to have them is that consistent so in the with grant agreement that they have certain metric and measurable outcomes and Carrie you
review those >> I do Not I've not seen a Koka grant contract I don't think ever. >> Okay. >> No, go ahead Kathleen because you you just said >> I've seen application but not a contract that where there's I mean they have reporting requirements. >> Okay, Katherine because you said she
>> we did we did a review of it a couple years ago but that's okay. Yeah. It's all right. It's all right. >> I've never seen >> um but anyways. >> Okay. So I'm just there's a there's a disconnect. So I just want to I want >> Yeah. Yeah. We'll we'll we'll figure that out. >> Okay. So right now county staff has not reviewed those. So, so that's correct.
May maybe my my point being that any kind of those um any uh gr anything that's grant related actually any kind of document whether it's a a contract whether it's the um the guidelines or the application I mean all that has is
um can be reviewed by frequency can increase you know whatever whatever the request ends up being but it's all reviewed by um you know it's given to uh to carry um and with the with the um guidelines and the application, it's given to Carrie and the county attorney
um for courtesy review. Things like that are already in place. >> Okay. >> Mhm. >> Carrie, I'm trying to confirm what she is saying. So, is that current practice currently in place? >> We review every single Koka grant application. >> Okay. Not contract.
>> Correct. that comes in just and and we do the application uh we do an eligibility verification to ensure the grant project complies with statute because every year for the last five plus years
there have been grant applications that are ineligible to be funded with TDT. So we put that verification process in 5 years ago and every year we have still and because of that process have ensured
that no ineligible projects have been funded. >> Got it. Madam attorney, are you involved in this process? The county attorney's office has been involved in communications about um
uh differing opinions about eligibility for use of TDD funds at times. Um but we have never been involved in the Koka contract process. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Miss Bard, there seems to be a little bit of a disconnect. So, I just feel like that
there's got to be we got to figure this out moving forward. No matter what option we vote on today, whether it's one, two, or three, we just we got to be able to have everyone on the same page. No matter what option have, because there seems to be just a disconnect. But I'm I'm going to I'm going to move on a little bit. Um,
so every TDD grant programs brings its budget and guidelines essentially to this board for approval. So in your words, if you were just kind of giving your I guess your your stump speech for Koka, right? What is the sticking point where you feel like it
the option three needs to maintain? So the option three in the con the current contract where that comes from um is just that that a lot of the there's a lot of um oversight already in the contract and and that the oversight has been added um you know as as
contracts or like the like last year when the amendment was was uh renewed um or a new excuse me when the contract ended and a new um amendment was put into place there were more um uh there was just more put in there as far as oversight And so, you know, we're we're
handling that now. Um, so the the current contract allows that to happen and um and that's and any kind of oversight that is desired by the board could go into that particular contract. Um, and number two, there you know, I'm
learning a lot today, which is great. Um, but there just wasn't the same kind of um framework and and guidance that we could understand and kind of sink our teeth into. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, just so that you understand that. >> Thank you.
>> Tourism. So, TDT dollars commissioners, we know they're all required by statute to promote tourism. Um, Mr. Behart, of the $2 million last year, how many outofcount visitors did the arts and culture grants generate? >> In FY25, um, there were 559,000 visitors
of that. About 129,000 almost 130,000 were um were visitors. >> Could you repeat that? about 129 a little over 129,000 were visitors. >> 129,000 visitors outside of Leon County >> outside of Lean County of of about
559,000 total attendants and that was for about 35 different pro um uh grantees and that was around um 200 a little over 200 events. >> What what measure what metric are we
using to to monitor the out of out of town visitors? Oh, the the metrics are are uh generated by grantees and so it could go anywhere from um survey surveys are being used um emails um uh other um
other kind of metrics um the metrics are being um those kinds of methods are being used to track >> Matt how do we or Carrie either one speak freely what what metric do we use when we host a TDT event what metric do we use to to estimate county visitors
and economic IC impact >> typically I had mentioned earlier um downs and St. Germaine Research is our research. >> Okay, you're on about that. Um Downs and St. Germaine Research is our research firm of record. >> Okay. >> And so we utilize them largely for our
largest events. Um and again they do visitor intercept surveys and things like so again we use our that's why we retain a tourism research firm on record. So we have you know standard methodology and scientifically valid data >> and cocoa what is there anything similar
to that or we just kind of taking the granting >> we use a6 which is arts and economic uh prosperity so that's from the um from uh the uh Americans for the arts and so when we did our our surveys back in 2022
2023 of the entire um uh industry here uh we went ahead and and had a calculator done. So that calculator is put into our grants guidelines and um that's what the uh grantees can use. >> But after the event or after the grantees, what metric are we using to to confirm economic impact and out of town
visitors? >> That that that calculator is being is being used to generate that and then uh the the grantees take all of those metrics and they report them out to us in their final report. >> Okay. And do you do you communicate
those metrics to staff? Um, so those are all in our final reports and our mid-year reports. So yes, and those those reports are given to the staff. >> Okay. Matt, could you apply? >> It's correct that they're included in midyear reports and final year and reports. Correct. The numbers
>> that is correct. It typically reports visitors like it does the AE60 or whatever it is. Um those numbers have been repeated in the quarterly reports but they so there's not been updated each year per se. Um but in each of
their reports they do report what the out ofount visitors number of attendees that the grants report. So they are reporting the activity of you know the the elements of the grants but not the economic impact per
se each year. like we saw that $22 million in what when um back in May that y'all had shared. That's the first time we'd ever heard that number before >> when >> in May last month. We've never heard that like the first time I'm hearing there's an event calculator.
>> Um >> that's the today's the first time you're hearing that. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Ju just an aside on that. So that just that information is in our grant guidelines and that information is just is in the reports. So So >> Mr. Chair, can can we ask that? Has it
ever been specifically requested that information? >> Go ahead. What was Go ahead. >> You can ask the question. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. We're happy to generate whatever reports in whatever format, you know, just whenever what we're doing right now. Um, if we need to take that
to the next level, absolutely, we're happy to do that. >> But that's never been specifically requested as part of your reporting, you know, >> absolutely it is. Yep. So, and our grantees. >> Very glad. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That information has been requested at the tourist development council meetings
several of them and just in in asking about what is the impact events the economic impact and there have not been any follow-up report from Koko but it has been asked at the TDC level. >> Okay. Thank you commissioners. Mard thank you so much for answering the
questions. I appreciate I appreciate the dialogue. Um commissioners this is where I'm at. I I tend to lean to option one, but I think it's clear that the the votes aren't there for option one. I can
support option two, Commissioner Cummings. I it's my opinion that we we as a board need to have more oversight here. Um the vice chair, you you brought up some great points and I I love the mindset about if it's not broke, we
don't need to fix it. However, I feel like there are issues, underlying issues from asking questions and hearing responses. There's a disconnect. I think we treat these dollars in tourism different than we treat other tourism dollars. I feel like we treat these
dollars for KOKA or different than we treat CHSP dollars. And I say this because I try to be consistent and I No one up here is is talking about cutting arts and culture funding. In fact, I think our staff has done a phenomenal
job answering questions. I think you guys have been sharp. I I think that Leon County staff could do a fine job, just like other counties do a fine job administering arts and culture. I visit Miami often.
Leon County is not Miami. Never will be Miami. Don't want it to be Miami. However, some of those counties I've seen up there have a very, very, very popular arts and culture scene. And so, I think when we look at what some of
these other communities are doing, they're doing it very, very well. I think Leon County staff can do it very, very well. To me, this is about transparency and being consistent with public dollars. That's purely what it is
about. So, Commissioner Cummings, with that being said, you know, I I would I I want to be somewhere. I don't think this is going to be an unanimous vote, no matter how we cut it up. Um, but I would like to be
somewhere that has option two, but gives the county a little bit more, you know, sticking point. I don't know what that looks like. You know, Commissioner Maddox, I know you you were saying that, you know, you want to be somewhere with option two. This was the purpose of a workshop, guys.
>> Yeah, we had the opportunity. >> Yeah, for sure. So, I know I want to This is why I'm happy you weren't a workshop because we can have more conversation about it, right? >> Um I think we all can agree no one's looking at at cutting arts and culture funding, but when you look at option one, it removes it removes some, you
know, excess waste and spending. I think we're all buckling our belts right now when it when we're looking at what's coming in the fall. And so I think when we're looking at the big picture oversight, I think there no matter what happens
today, we're going to provide a great arts and culture program, whether it's with KOKA, whether it's the county, none of those programs are getting cut. I think that's important to understand for folks in the room or folks listening and watching. I think
this is about oversight. Um, I also think we have we have a duty to be fair and consistent of how we manage funds for everyone else because listen, what's preventing CHSP to come in here and saying, "Well, this is what you guys do with Koka. We want more
money. We we want to have more control of this." So, I think it's important for us to maintain some level of consistency. So, um, Commissioner Proctor, we don't have the votes for option one. I recommend you withdraw your motion and we go to option two with an amendment. Go ahead. Okay. Well, the chairman has
volunttoled me to withdraw my motion and u being volunttoled and being dutiful to the chairman, I would withdraw withdraw my motion. uh with the um if the chairman would allow me to capture uh
his concerns for accountability and ask um the maker of option two that um your motion would carry uh accountability, transparency, and those other big words that he used um that would make us come
up to Miami. That's what I want to do. >> Okay. But what I may do if it's okay, Commissioner Cummings, unless any commissioner here has an idea that they want to kind of throw in the mix to this motion. I was I was going to ask staff if they have, you know, any recommendations. Yeah. >> Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman,
commissioners. I think, uh, again, if we're discussing option two now or model two, we've got all the direction we need. Again, the fiduciary oversight, it's clear that's where that needs to be. the restructuring that needs to take place in the ordinance very clear in
terms of the service advisory model uh agreement with Koko. We think we have everything we need to to do that and to do it in a way that keeps Koka very involved in all the things that they're that they're doing today. So with that, I'm just going to ask Matt Carrie any
additional direction you need at all? >> No, Mr. Administrator. >> All right. Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. Commissioner Maddox wants to >> point on point. I I think again when I was speaking I think we're putting the cart before the horse. I think if we're going to go with number two, it has to come back. The ordinance has to come
back. Correct, Mr. Administrator? >> Correct posture, Mr. Chairman? >> Yeah. So, if it's going to come back, the details won't be I mean, nothing changes until we So, >> you know, we we'll get a first run at it, look at it, and if if there's some things we want to change with what staff and has done, then we can change it at
that point and it can come back for another public hearing. I don't think we have to earn out all the details, right? >> But Mr. Chair, on point, I think ma'am, all of our concerns would be captured or could be captured in the contractual language. Yeah. >> So, I don't think we need to beat it now. I think staff is able to do that. >> Commissioners, Commissioner Miner has
been patiently waiting. So, I appreciate your patience, Commission Miner. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Um, so it it still doesn't seem like it's really fully reconciled between uh eligibility for non TDT grants. This morning I was prepared to come and vote
um for model 3 because for me a central question has been eligibility of KOKA to apply for NEA grants, Levid Foundation, etc. Um and earlier it was stated that shifting the funds away from KOKA and taking the grant guidelines away from
KOKA would um would prevent KOKA's ability to apply for those grants. Um Mr. Cavell has a a has a written statement from NEA itself saying that those concerns are not are not applicable that model 2 would sustain um
Kok's ability to apply for NEA grants and and Mahar if you could have you seen the the written statement from NEA that Mr. Cabel has gotten? >> I have not. >> Okay. Um but as you've heard him describe it twice now. Do you have any concerns about what
he has said? that it seems pretty clear to me is that model 2 would suffice for NA grants and >> going by the information from the NEA and from their their guidelines and and I understand that there's a conversation. Um so we uh we would we
our uh our program officer we have a a meeting with her tomorrow um so that we will clarify this but right now where it stands you know we're we're uh we respect what has been said and what has been shared but that's not the same information that we have so we just we
need to you know >> and Mr. Cavll your your your questions to the NA representative were specific to the grant program that Koka currently is getting funds for. Is that correct? That's correct. >> Okay. Okay. So, this will come back again for us to review. Uh, and in the
meantime, I I I think the two of you can or the three of you can can can corroborate on this. She can see the written statement. If there are any issues with that, we'll hear about that the next time. >> Absolutely. >> I don't think we have the votes for for model 3. I think it's pretty clear. Um, I do think we have enough
>> I know. I know we're we're talking about model 2, the the original motion on the floor, but uh I just I'm just saying I I don't believe we there would be enough votes for model 3 if that was a motion on the on the floor. Um so I I do think we have it's pretty clear that we've got enough votes for model 2. What I'd like
to do is um I'm going to support model 2. I I want to do a couple of suggestions. One is to to codify what Mr. Mr. Cavll said before which is that the match requirement assuming that Koka is eligible to apply for NEA grants
under model 2 which which Mr. Cavll has written statements that that's the case that we codify this part of the motion would would explicitly say uh in the agenda item would come back in the in the agreement that um the county would provide for the match requirement and
other grant requirements uh to assist Koko with applying for nonTDT grants. So, who's the original motion? Um, >> Commissioner Cummings. >> Would you accept that as a friendly amendment? >> I'd like to hear from the county administrator. That's >> Repeat the question. Commissioner,
>> this is basically codifying what I think is already implied in in the motion, which is that um the county will work with KOKA in the language that comes back to us. The county will work with KOKA to provide the matching grant request required under under NEA grant
um requirements um and other grant grids, I believe. um and and providing that match so that Koko would be eligible to apply for those grants. >> Okay. And is that okay? >> I I have a question. >> I accept that. >> I have a I have a question for staff commission. I'll come back to you on that amendment.
When you said provide a match requirement, is that additional funding the county would have to provide? >> Not additional. It would come from the existing aotment of the TDT budget. So the 1.9 million for instance, it would be that an amount of that for each year
could be dedicated to match on a grant because you can apply for the grant without the money on the books. >> But once you've gotten the grant, then a portion of that can be set aside, which makes all the sense because it doubles the money based. >> But would it exceed the 20%. >> Uh it would not because it would take whatever the line item funding was for
that year and a portion of that would be the match. And because it's a subgrant, very much like Kathleen's already said that the National Endowment of the Arts does, it's the same essential function. >> And Mr. Chairman, the the nature the that part of the TDT funds that are serving as the match for the NEA grant,
the the nature of those funds doesn't change. Those funds are required by law to still be focused on tourist related activities. Absolutely. >> Um but what we're doing is we're we're we're um expanding our opportunity to buy to to have more money not restricted by TDT statutes to uh for for arts and
cultural events. >> Correct. It just a little bit of definition in this one and you you'd see it come back before the board, but it would be that it is a defined amount of money that is upon county approval when submitting for grants and and all that. It's it's not just that the county would
agree to match any grant going forward no matter there would be again collaboration consistent and approval. Um but that would come back to you again as part of the service level agreement. >> And then and then the final thing and then I'm done is um I'd also like to entertain Commissioner Cummings. I'd like to see
if you'd entertain the idea that we we talked about grant guidelines under model 2. Um under model two um the the the basically the grant guidelines are drafted by division of tourism I believe cooperatively >> we're collaborative
>> this is maybe semantics this is maybe semantics but um what I' what I'd like it would I think it would reassure people within the arts community is if koka just had the first draft and then you two corroborate the whatever you know input is provided by the division
of tourism and then ultimately those grant guidelines have to be approved by a board. But I think it just it helps I think maybe reassure some of the arts community if if Koka had the first draft of that then start working with you on that. >> We can't tell nobody how to talk to each other. >> I just I'm trying to work with with
everybody here. Commissioner Commissioners, commissioners, commissioners, commissioners, commissioner Proctor, Commissioner Proctor, let's bring it in. Commissioner Miner has the floor and I'll come back to every commissioner. Commissioner Miner, >> listen. I don't mean to blavorver the point. If it's something that Commissioner Cummings might accept, it be I think it'd be helpful. I think it
would reassure the arts community that uh uh KOKA still has a great deal of input in this process. Whatever whatever gets um finalized by both division of tourism and KOKA has to come to us anyway >> with input from the division of tourism
on on on the condition of that of that grant guidelines document. >> Yeah. I I don't feel comfortable being that specific in this particular motion. I think the overall agenda says in conjunction with the tourist development council. Okay.
>> They're going to work together. I I I don't want to accept that specific uh amendment to the motion. I think it's understood. They're going to work together. >> I understand what you're saying and and that makes that makes sense to me. Um okay. Well, listen. I think I said I think I called the arts community wy a
wy bunch and that was the wrong word. I meant uh rambunctious in a good way. So, I just want to put that on the record. But um I just want to make sure I don't get emails. Um that Mr. Chairman, I think is it. I am ready to vote. Um very
long debate. Thank you to everybody for being here. I really appreciate it. This is important. Um this is not perfect. Uh but I think it's what we have the votes for. I think it's what we have the votes for in the majority and then it will come back to us as another agenda item in the future and we can discuss that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Real quick, I have a cl point of clarification. Um, Mr. County Administrator, with the motion on the floor, I want to I'm a visual person, right? So, what I'm envisioning based on what this guidance would look like is that every year,
similar similar to CHSP, we would have an agenda item that lays out the funding for our board. Is that am I understanding kind of what that looks like >> with the recommendation >> with a recommendation from from staff and KO? This would this would be subject
and we can clarify some of that going forward, but this would be subject to the board's annual approval going forward. The budget the budget amount. Anything else to add to that, Matt or Carrie, with with in terms of specifics? >> Commissioner Cummings, do you mind making sure we're being clear? So that's
included in your motion because what I would like to have, this is what I care about as oversight and I can be on board, too. Again, I'm one vote. I'm one vote. I think you got the votes, but I just I think we need to have an annual agenda item similar to CHSP that's comes from a recommendation from our our team
that for us to just vote on a recommendation of the levels of funding. That's what I'm envisioning as far as the board's oversight >> and that that's not at all too prescriptive for us. That works. >> Okay. If it's accepted at account administrator, I accept it. >> Okay. Awesome. Thank you. Who's a second the motion? >> Will I believe?
>> Yeah. Do you maintain that second? >> Sure. Okay. Great. Um, Commissioner Proctor, close us out. We're voting. I feel good. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask how many employees comprise the U. Koka staff. >> How many employees on Koka staff? We have six full-time employees.
>> So, six people um um to um 2400, but that is the per capita income is very very high if I'm not mistaken. Michel, you're walking with me on this.
Stamp $2.4 million for six staff people. Is that full-time? Six full-time. >> So, we have we have five staff members that are full-time. We have one that's about um three quarters and then we have a couple of contractors. >> So, that's about what five or six00,000 per employee. And I don't think we have
that kind of >> except it's dedicated. >> But y'all who what's the question? >> Guys, come on. Guys, guys, Commissioner Commissioner, >> who's your ask? Who's your question to Commissioner Proer? to Commissioner O'Keefe. He has this calculator built and I was trying to see with five to six
employees for 2.4 million, how much is that per meaning employee to revenue that they they control. I was just >> that's not usually like a ratio that would be part of a budgeting. I'd leave
it to staff to to >> I think I think the better question is you said about 700,000 $600 to $700,000 is operational. >> What what percentage of of the budget is operational >> for each employee? How much operational cash they got? >> They got $700,000 of operational cash.
>> So that's a pretty going forward looking at the future. Um, and I'm not sure if we've discussed reeling this organization in if in fact we face that 80 some million dollar um um failure of
income for the county. Um, and that would be a very high ratio in the future to consider um six or seven people existing off of um 2.4 million u dollars. Um, >> Mr. You proposing an amendment?
>> No. >> Okay, >> y'all see that? You can see it just like I do. Um, >> that's about that's about just just for respect. That's about >> um 11.5% of Oh, I'm sorry. That's 11.5% of the
dollars or operational dollars. Now, Commissioner Proder, I would tell you that I'm a nonprofit profit executive, and I like to say about anywhere about 18% is where 18 to 20% is where we like for our operational dollars to be. So,
they're they're to the like middle to to low end on that. So, that that if you're looking strictly as operational dollars. >> All right. Thank you. Um on the NEA Matt
um what is the percent of that the NEA dollar um is of Kok's funding? >> Well, that's going to be so it's 90,000 for two years, right? The NEA grant. >> It's an annual. So >> So
>> yeah, annual I would say 90 90,000 for one year. >> I say 90,000 for one year. Okay. So it's 90 for one year. It's 90,000 of two and a half million from the fiscal year 25. 5%. >> I was listening. >> So, we spent a lot of time talking about
um the eligibility of Kok to receive uh 5% of its budget. And um far as I'm concerned, Leon County um brings home the lion's share. >> Actually, 3% 4% >> 4%. Okay. That's the amount of raise I'd
like to see us. U Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. Nick just made me remind >> Commission Proctor. Let's let's kind of let's keep it on this. Commissioners, I want to get to a vote on this and go to the next item. >> All right. I'll shut up right then, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Commissioner, appreciate you, Commissioner Proctor. We got um a motion
moved by Commissioner Cummings U for option two as amended as we discussed. Does everyone understand the motion on the floor? It was second by the immediate past chairman. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any any opposed? >> I. >> Okay. So, passes 61 with Commissioner
Proctor and descent. Commissioners, listen, I don't need a break. If anyone feels like they need a 5-minute break, >> yes, >> you want to Okay, we'll take a 10-minute recess. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. meeting back in order. It is 2:19 p.m. We are on establishing the mill rate for the
fiscal year 2027 tenative structure. Um Mr. County Administrator, would you like to introduce the item? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is your final item pursuant to Florida statutes. The item seeks the board's consideration to establish the millage rate rates for utilization in the truth and millillage process. The millage rates established
today and ratified by at the board's July 14th meeting will be used by the property appraiser for the upcoming trim notices in your public hearings in September. In most years, uh this is a generally uh generally a procedural vote uh by the board to align the county's uh EMS millage rates uh and the countywide
millage rate with the tenative budget. But this year requires just a little bit of an explanation um in terms of the upcoming statutory changes to this process. Commissioners, during the special session on property tax reform earlier this month, the legislature modified how the maximum millage rate
will be determined starting in in in this budget year. Uh the new language removes a very important inflationary adjustment from the maximum millage rate calculation. Uh the intent is to restrict the amount of revenue that can be collected by a simple majority vote
of the board uh to the rolled back rate. uh the rate would generate uh the roll back rate of course is the rate that generates the exact same amount of property tax revenue as the previous year uh plus uh revenue generated by new construction. This means that a supermajority vote may be necessary to
adopt a millage rate that uh generates very little property revenue beyond that roll back rate and that recalculated roll back rate. The new voting thresholds will apply uh to your September public hearings and not to the vote uh today. Uh but I did want to uh
uh point out to the board and to make you aware that the changes uh expected to take place once the governor receives and takes action on the new legislation. Uh even for this conservative transition year budget, OM's preliminary calculations anticipate that maintaining
the current mill rate will require a supermajority vote in September. Uh if not for this legislative change, uh the board uh could maintain the current millage rate with a simple majority vote. As always, commissioners, during the September public hearings on the budget, the millage rates uh can only be
decreased at that time, and the millage rates cannot be increased once they're noticed through the trim process. The item recommends maintaining the current countywide and EMS MS countywide millage rate and EMSTU. Those are options one and two. And with that, uh thank you,
Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you recommendation. >> Thank you, uh Mr. County, Mr. Commissioners. What I'm going to do is I'm going to take these up options one and two, uh separate motions. So, so I see a motion for option one. >> Option one. >> Okay. Option moved by uh Commissioner Maddox, seconded by Commissioner
Commissioner Proctor. Any discussion? >> Mr. Proer. >> Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Um, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to uh ask county uh staff to please bring back uh an iteration and included in this motion uh
to the maker of 4% uh employee raise for county employees across the board uh for fiscal year 27. >> Okay. Uh Commissioner Parker's asking for an amendment to an amendment to >> amendment to the motion, Commissioner Maddox. >> That's fine. >> Do you accept amendment? >> Mhm.
>> Okay. Um Commissioner Park, I'm assuming you maintain your second. Um, any other discussion? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. All right. Commissioner Proer, if you I see where this is quickly going to go. If you're if it's what I would like to do again, if okay
with the make of the motion, can we vote on these two items and I'll come back to you to make that motion. >> Hold on. I think I don't I want us all to understand it's not a part it would come back as a part as an option as a part of the budget. It wouldn't come back as a part of the budget. So, he's
asking for the numbers of what it would look like. >> No, >> no, >> no. >> That's not what he asked. >> That's not >> Yeah. I think you'd be giving direction to include it in your preliminarily balanced budget. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, Commissioner Per, I'll come to you and you can make a motion if you'd like. It's okay. >> Yes, sir. >> So, back to the original motion for
option one, Commissioner Maddox. >> And Commissioners, any discussion? >> Commissioner Cummings, you're still in the queue. >> Oh, no. I'm sorry. >> Okay. All those in favor for option one signify by saying I. >> I. Pass the 61 with myself for now. Option two. >> Option two.
>> Option two moved by Commissioner Maddox, seconded by the vice chair. All those in any discussion? >> All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Passes unanimously. >> All right, commissioners. We're done with the workshop. I wasn't going to have commissioner discussion.
Commissioner Proctor. >> Mr. Chairman, >> since you're the the veteran on the board, >> you're good, ma'am. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move the board for staff bring back a 4% uh raise incorporated in option one. >> Option one's already been voted on so we
can't include it in option one. It would have to be a standalone motion. So you're saying you want we have restate the motion. So that that is >> chairman. I move a raise of 4% for our employees for fiscal year 27. >> Okay. So we have a motion asking for 4%
raise for employees as Okay. Yes. So, we have a motion moved by Commissioner Proctor to bring back a 4% raise for employees. Second by Commissioner Cummings. Any discussion? >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Commissioner Cummings and Fear Q. >> Yes, sir. >> I'm in the queue. >> Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. >> Now, I'd just like to uh amend his
motion uh to include all employees, including those that are at the top of their pay scale. >> Okay. So, you want it to be countywide, all I mean county, Leon County government, every employee. >> Okay. You accept that amendment?
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Yep. >> I have uh I have Do you want to be in the queue? Commissioner Matics, I have >> Yes, please. I was going to ask that we amend the motion to to bring back um also what a cost of living would look like as well. So So really, yes, I want
the numbers for cost of living and and numbers 4%. >> Okay. So you just want to include it basically an analysis. Yes. >> Okay, great. Got that, Commissioner. Okay. Um, vice chairman and and commissioner miner. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um,
our employees are fantastic and they certainly deserve that and more. Um, I I won't be supporting this because we already have an average of 3% built into the budget that can be 0 to 5%. And we are I am trying to explain to
constituents and citizens across Florida how responsible we are with their property taxes knowing that we're facing structural changes. We're trying to avoid layoffs. We're trying to avoid staffing cuts. And so I think it's prudent to stay with our standard
policy. Um even though without constraints I our staff certainly deserve more. Thank you. Thank >> minor. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um, question for the originator of the motion or or for our staff. How much would a 4% across the board increase for
all employees in Lyon County cost? >> Great question, Commissioner Miner. Is there some >> including constitutional officers? It's going to be about another 800,000. >> How much? >> 800 >> 800,000 >> additional taking you mean?
>> Yes. >> Taking additional on top what's budgeted? Okay. Yes. Yeah. And and that's just for the first year. I mean, you know, salary increases, I mean, they go in perpetuity. Uh is I know the answer is yes, but that's correct, right?
Um so I I I agree with Commissioner O'Keeffe on this. Um we are potentially facing uh some of the most um uh transformational changes to our county budget in the history of this county, I believe. Um certainly in modern in
modern times. And um listen, our staff are the best. I said earlier during the workshop, you know, I've worked for other governments as a consultant both at the local, state, and federal level. I I've never seen a group of employees uh more talented, more dedicated, and
more capable of of doing their jobs than than the folks here at Lyon County. I mean that. I say that often. But we are facing again what could be uh a very uh profound change in the way this county government operates and I I can't good
conscience support um this when we are facing that level of uncertainty and should this prevail should we have a 4% across the board I I what that means is those those salaries continue to increase over time and if we
have to get to the point where the ballot initiative passes and we have to cut employees, we have to reduce the number of FTEEs, we're going to be having to cut further because of this right now. So, um I support I understand what Commissioner Proctor's doing. He he
feels the same way about Leyon County's employees that I do. Um they deserve more than 4%. Uh but I I can't good conscience support this uh in the in when I take a look at what's to come. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Commissioner
Miner. Commissioner Walch. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just quickly, I'll reiterate what I've said the past couple years. For the same reasons as Commissioner Miner, Commissioner O'Keefe, I can't support 4% across the board. I uh for the same reasons literally I said two or three years ago about this fiscal
cliff and the shadow of these cuts and all these things. And I I sort of equate this to the city of Tallahassee asking hundreds of people to take a buyout to leave their employment and then turning around and doing a 5% across the board pay raise that almost equates
somewhat equates I don't understand that like why would we give people raises that could potentially contribute to us laying people off? Uh I don't understand that. Um and I think that's bad fiscal policy. I understand the nature of it. It's almost a million extra dollars in
our budget. That's that's only what $12 million increase, right? In terms of a general revenue or property tax. Uh we don't have a lot of discretionary areas and this is one where we could exercise discretion. So, um again, I think it's shortsighted. I think it could
potentially lead to problems where in a year we're doing the exact same thing. We're going to be sitting here contemplating a 3%. We're going to be sitting here contemplating no raise and cutting people instead of even having a discussion about a average or an across the board. So I will say no again. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Uh Mr. Medi past Chairman Commissioner Maddox, >> Mr. Administrator, uh what did the city give this year? >> 4%. >> What what did the state give? >> Not sure about the state. Just can't be sure. Nothing. >> They give anything. Okay.
>> So here's here's I got a bit of a different approach here. So, I I think you're right. We may be here, we may be looking at cutting staff and looking at different departments and not not renewing. And I think we did this a lot, Mr. Administrator, last time we just we just did not hire positions that were
open and and left and just took those positions off the books. But the way I see it is this may be the last year we were able to give our employees a raise for a while. And when you think about it, if we are going to have to cut employees, if we're going to have to cut
staff, departments, we're going to be asking them to do more with more with less, we're going to be asking them to do more with less. And those if we do voluntary separation, whatever we decide to do, we're going to be asking people to do more with less. And understanding that this again may be the last time we get an opportunity to do this for our
employees and and understanding what we have to what we're tr entrusting to doing in and the load that we're going to put on those who are still here. I think I'm going to go ahead and give the opportunity for us to look at not just the cost of living but also 4% and be able to evaluate how we move forward on
it. So, Commissioner Proctor, I think the foresight that you have to understand uh the the strain that we're going to put on employee on our employees goes back to to your your your experience of being here through multiple uh recessions and and hard times for the county and watching us cut
staff member after staff member after staff member. But look at the ones that are left here and asking them and telling them, not even asking them, telling them you're going to have to do more or less and we're not going to be able to give you nothing for you to do more or less. And so I'm I'm cool with going ahead and supporting moving
forward with this. >> Thank you. Um, Commissioner Cumins, I see you and Commissioner Proctor in the queue. I'm going to just chime in on this real quick. Um, since I haven't spoken on this item, Commissioner Proctor, I can support the agenda item. I can support the analysis. Okay.
very unlikely this comes back. I will not support a voluntary layoff and a 4% raise. Okay. I think that's that's counter I think that's counterintuitive for us to lay to basically give a raise and lay people off. I think it's I think
it's uh poor judgment on behalf of the city who just did a voluntary layoff and then go give everyone raises. I think that's just the the cat chasing its tail. I can't support the analysis because I think it's it's awesome. You
know, I'm forced staff bring it back to us to look at it. If we're able to avoid having to have voluntary layoffs and do and avoid having the voluntary layoffs, I can support this, right? But I want to have a balanced budget where we don't have to go into our reserves. But it's
counterintuitive intuitive for us to do both. That being said, Commissioner Cummings, you want to talk on this item again? >> Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe I did second I second second that motion. >> Yes ma'am. >> Uh okay. And in support of the motion we
have a myriad of issues that are facing us. None we can avoid at this point. I think the biggest one is the the cut in Ealor taxes. But for this year we are anticipating it. We're preparing.
We're doing everything that we can do, including voluntary layoffs, which the county administrators and staff is going to bring that back to us. But right now, I think we might be in a a position that we might not find ourselves in in the
near future if the Avalorum tax cuts apply. And so I think we've got the best employees that you could look for in state government. They work hard. They come to our our meetings
twice a month, three times a month, minimum of every month. They sit here hours and hours while we discuss items, pontificate a lot. Uh but they're here. They prepare the agenda items. They're
here to answer questions and it's no question that we have topnotch employees. I'm just afraid uh Mr. chair that if we don't take this action this year on behalf of our employees that we
might not when we talk about non-fiscal responsibility uh we really might not have opportunity to do so in the future with the major uh cuts that we're anticipating. Uh inflation
through the roof. The gas prices have gone up. Grocery prices have tripled. Why? Triple. And we all feel it. I I feel it. Our employees uh feel it. And
the nature of the beast is when you give a raise, you don't take it back. All of us enjoy raises, but you don't get a raise one year and it's pulled back the next year. it is in perpetuity purposeless.
So, that's the nature of the beast. So, I don't have a problem uh with giving our great county employees a raise across the board, recognizing that we need to budget that
for the next year and for the next year. and and I believe that we're in a position where we can do what we need to do in the future to uh to support our employees and to substantiate giving
them um across the board raise this year. It really might be the last time that we can do it for a few years. So, I totally support uh Commissioner Proctor's motion and I think it would demonstrate that we as a board we sit up
here and we talk about how great our employees are, the good agenda items that come back. They stayed up half the night preparing the budget. Uh there is a lot of time and effort that they put into uh allowing us to do what we do as
administrators of of county government that goes unnoticed that does that don't get compensated for. And so I think we as a governing body recognize that. And I think one of the ways from a tangible
standpoint that we can recognize that this year is to um give them a raise and and I I certainly uh support it. If it doesn't pass then I think we need to look at some alternatives as well. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Park to close us out. Mr. >> Chairman, thank you. Um, if loving our staff is wrong, I don't want to be right. And I love our staff. And that love comes with as God sends the the rain
down above our heads. Likewise, we want to see food uh placed on their tables and not evaporated. And I know that year after year I'm the butthole among commissioners who takes a step to honor
uh our um our employees every year. But I'm willing to beat that but hole to uh extend to them because we we we are like we're their advocates. We're their defenders. We they count on us to protect them to push and provide for
them. and they give usund and more than that percent of what their capacity. They make sacrifices that we don't know anything about. We don't have a clue of what it takes for them to start at 8:00 a.m. morning. Um we don't know the
heartache that they carry home at 5:01 p.m. But whatever those minations might be, um I respect uh their efforts. And if they and I won't call the name of the grocery store that I attend, um but if
they go to my grocery store, um $100 don't do what $100 u would would do. Secondly, I um say that not only do I love our employees, um we gave Koka
u $2.5 million um today. Um and um I certainly think that those circumstances uh uh not as clear in our giving as would be a
raise for employees uh of whom we have uh job descriptions and we have job performance evaluations and we have um measures in place to note
um their value and whether they have warranted continuation uh as employees of the county. Uh that's in place. We don't have that with Koka dollars and his performance and all of that. That's what we heard. So given
those reigns um I think that's re ei g ns reigns of uh accountability I'm very comfortable because we know who this money uh portends to go to and then I I'm very comfortable commissioners
because I believe that uh Rashonda that likely will be some money in the budget that may not have been available last year But last year, I'm sorry, last week, uh
this board uh voted to um accept the termination of the women and minority business enterprise program. That's millions of dollars that is against the law to give to people who last year and years before receive contracted dollars.
that money uh ain't accounted for and that money is left on the table and that money is going to bleed out to some significant role. But who ain't going to get that money is um black businesses
and uh women businesses that's illegal. So the termination of that money juxtaposed to the continuation of of a of a cocoa money. I mean I can't reconcile it and and I'm straight pissed
off about it. But um to some life continues and goes on and for others uh there's a termination and annihilation of u their existence at all unusual space but
life goes on for those who are fortunate and have the right color skin and the state comes down with decrees as to who can't and who can't be participants um in receiving the public dollars. followers. We ain't talk about that
today, but um my feelings have been expressed several times. So, we're grateful uh if this the majority of this commission supports the love and respect uh that we will show our employees with
4%. And um as has been pointed out by Commissioner Maddox and and Commissioner Cummings, uh it may be the last time, but we don't know. uh but at least we want to take a stand
uh to go down swinging for those that serve this family. Then finally, Mr. Chairman, um if we uh live to see another day and those lawsuits, I think we got county attorney, I'm not sure. I think I've
read that there is a a suit that has been filed that challenges the language of u and says that deceitful of the ballot that currently has been established in 75 words but if it fails
certainly it can be modified and corrected and gone before the public. Um but for whatever reasons um and our ship goes down um I want the ship to go down that we love our people till the end.
And one thing is clear, Commissioner Miner, you you heard it said earlier and it's going to come back to us that even if we maxed out every available funding source and means, even
if we refinance debt and brought it down lower interest rate, lower terms, we still don't have enough sources to draw from to make that huge gap, that ravine of difference. And so, hell, if we going
down, let's go down with everybody got a cup in the hand and not an empty cup. Let's go down on the Titanic with our cups raised to life. And what a joy it was. And that's what we're going to achieve here. Uh, with our cups raised,
u, I asked, Mr. chairman, my final final um and I wanted to know did it need a separate motion for staff to um meet with u um clerk win Marshall uh to re
discuss the FTE issue that Mr. Alman chief judge was um um complaining about to the Supreme Court. Did does that need a new motion um y'all or what? help. >> Commissioner, does that even need a motion? Commission, M Comm Mr. Cam,
Mishu, can you just meet with the clerk? >> We're we're happy just to meet. I would just remind the board that you you funded new positions last year in the budget. I don't believe there was a request this year. the initial request she did ask for a position but
as we meet with all departments and all constitutionals as we're going through the budget development process we talk about where we are with revenues same for LCSO initial discussions they had a position in but as we went through the budget development process and had
conversations about where we were with property tax reform the clerk withdrew her request for a position this here. I understand all that rhetoric and even with all of what you just said. >> Commissioner Proctor, you want if you want to fund Commissioner Pro, if you want to
>> Okay. Yes. She asked position initially. >> Commissioner Potter, if you want to make a motion, make a motion. >> Okay. I got a motion for 4% and I need to make a motion afterwards. >> We already voted on that, did we? >> Yes, sir. >> Yeah. No, wait. We didn't vote on that. Yeah. >> Let's vote. Let's vote on the motion on the floor, Commissioner Proctor, which
was the um >> You get a second? >> Yes. Yeah. the 4% of the agenda item analysis coming back. Commissioner second it. All those in favor of Commissioner Proctor's motion to bring the bat the next meeting signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any oppose? >> I. >> Passes 43. Commissioner Proctor, would
you make a motion for uh staff to go back and talk to the clerk to review her original request? >> Okay. So, we have a motion for staff to go back to and meet with the clerk to review her original request. Is there a second? >> Second by Commissioner Maddox. And may I
>> Oh, hold on. Do we you need >> There's a motion on the floor. Let's just Let's just dialogue. The reason I'm making that motion. >> Okay. Make that >> And the reason that I have made this motion is because among the
constitutional office that we we support help to sustain that her office face the most difficulty and public scrutiny for its failure to meet whatever metrics. And I think that um if she initially
asked for that and she is got to stand in front of the Supreme Court, can we help to mitigate against the um dysfunction? Yes, that's great. We got a motion moved by Commissioner Proctor to have staff meet with the um the clerk um
and bring some some material back to us. Seconded by Commissioner Maddox. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? No. >> Okay. passes 61 with Commissioner Welch in descent. Commissioner Proper, let's wrap it up. That's it. >> Chairman, I move that I'm sorry. I move
that a toast to staff, a toast to you, and a toast to Leon County and its employees for a beautiful meeting. You did a great job. And u I move our closure. >> Thank you, Commissioner Proctor. You know, started you said you said God was uh sending the rain when you started talking. I was worried he was going to send the locust next because he won't
stop talking. >> Yes, sir. Mr. County Administrator, great meeting. County Attorney, great meeting to Leon County staff. Who Who's up? Yes, ma'am. >> I have I have something. >> You have an item? >> Yes. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Uh uh Mr. Chair, the Legal Services of
North Florida, who was my first employer. >> The who? >> When I graduated law school. >> Legal services. >> Legal services of North Florida is celebrating 50 years. And I'd like to request a proclamation. >> Okay, great. I'll second that motion. >> Thank you. All those in favor of the proclamation, Commissioner Cummings
requested, signify by saying I. >> I. >> Okay, great. Commissioners, I want to I want to I want to before we journ, just want to say staff, great job. Those of you up here today, great job. I feel like every question was answered very thoroughly. Um, everyone was very well prepared. I appreciate everyone's patience. We're going to get out of here
by 3:00. So, we stand adjourned.