All right, ladies and gentlemen, we are uh going to bring this special meeting of the Leon County Board of County Commissioners uh to adjournment. We're going to start with the pledge of allegiance. Mr. Administrator, please stand. 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. >> All right. Uh, thank you commissioners for your um
willingness to come to this special meeting. I appreciate your flexibility in that regard. Um we are obviously under some time constraints with this item and so that's what uh justified the calling of the meeting. So with that
being said, we just have one item. Uh I imagine we'll have some discussion about that, but I'm going to turn it over to the county administrator and the county attorney to get into the details of what we are going to be discussing. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh commissioners, again, let me echo the chairman's thanks uh to you for your
availability for attending uh this special meeting today on fire rescue services assessments and fees. Uh the chairman called this special meeting uh to provide the board with an important update um and to seek the board's direction on the dispute resolution
process with the city uh regarding the city's request to increase the fire services rates. Commissioners, as you recall, uh, and as directed by the board, the county initiated the dispute resolution process with the city. Um, and, uh, in a moment, Chassity will
bring the board up to speed on where we stand, and we will be seeking some timely, uh, direction needed, uh, for the county to proceed. I want to first provide just a quick refresher on the last 7 months, commissioners, leading up to this meeting. As you know, uh earlier
this year, uh on January 14th, the city informed us that the current 5-year fire services fee, um an existing reserve, uh for fire services were insufficient to support the remaining 3 years of the
5-year term. We were only 15 months um commissioners into the 5-year term when the city identified both cost increases for items that were contemplated in the development of the 5-year fee as well as new costs which were not contemplated in
the development of the 5-year fee. Um, the city's position was then and and and remains that these new costs and cost increases necessitate a 22% increase for all property categories uh
effective October 1st, 2025. As you'll remember, commissioners, um after learning of this, both the county attorney and myself informed uh commissioners and we met with our city counterparts to ensure that we went through the proper uh processes and
procedures uh in relation to the interlocal agreement uh for fire services. Uh while the interlocal agreement provides several processes for the county administrator and the city manager to address modest fluctuations
uh in revenues and/or expenditures during the current 5-year term, the fire uh services reserve fund uh again was insufficient to support uh the millions of dollars of additional costs identified by the city. Again, I know the board's well aware of that, but
bringing you back up to speed uh since that time. Again, we've followed that process set forward in our interlocal agreement. Uh including on the board, including the board on May 27th, uh making a good faith compromise offer to
the city. Again, that's contemplated in our interlocal agreement if we get to a position like this that the agrieved party, which was the county, uh would offer um the city uh again an offer to uh to um a good
faith compro compromise offer that would have resulted in a smaller fee increase and would have avoided a lengthy uh dispute resolution process provided in the interlocal agreement. However, commissioners at the b at the uh budget workshop on June 11th of the city
commission, uh the city rejected the county's good faith compromise and voted to increase the rates at the full amount uh initially requested by the city. Uh once the city rejected the county's good faith compromise, staff initiated based on the board's previous direction the dispute resolution process provided in
the interlocal agreement as directed by the board on May 27th. Um, in just a moment, Commissioners Chassity will uh explain the dispute resolution process, um, which, uh, quickly moved to the seating of a of an arbitration panel,
uh, which the county attorney's office has determined, uh, does not have the authority to compel the board to increase rates. That's very important. Chassis will talk about that in just a moment. Uh I I need to say commissioners at the outset here and just wrapping up
sort of the recap of all this uh that that our county attorney has done uh an exceptional job. She'll go in uh uh with more detail on the arbit on the arbitration process and the agenda item before you today, including the three recommendations related to the dispute
resolution process and the issuance of first class mail notices for the board to establish the FY26 uh fire services uh rates next month. Again, at the current uh rate. That being said, uh, commissioners, I know
it's not lost on on any commissioner that this, um, is a critical provision of service to our community. Uh, the fire services fee and assessment model, while not perfect, um, is exceptionally robust and, uh, technically uh, and
technical in setting fair rates across all properties. Um, we were hopeful that we would have been able to resolve this matter before getting to this point, commissioners, and we remain hopeful uh in working with our uh city counterparts into the future, but in a way that
reflects both the spirit uh and the letter of our current agreement. Um, and we're happy to answer any questions you might have received the direction that you have for us today. And with that, I'm going to hand it off to Chassity Ostein. Chassity, go ahead. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank
you Vince. So, uh, after the board's direction and the subsequent rejection by the city, uh, in communication with the city attorney after initiating the dispute resolution process, uh, both parties agreed to accelerate
the dispute resolution process mainly because there was a feeling that the rates needed to increase uh, in the new fiscal year. But we use the uniform method to collect those uh rates. Uh and we have a deadline to send in the tax
the tax role and also to adopt any potential rate increase. So uh moved very very quickly. Uh I will say the city attorney's office was uh very uh helpful in doing so. We did retain an arbitration panel and we started digging
into documents and requesting answers and uh preparing for an arbitration hearing in early September. In the course of uh researching things, we also looked at uh the issue of rate increases
and made have made a determination that for two reasons. Uh no arbitration panel uh could compel the city or the county to increase rates and in any given amount for two reasons in this specific
instance. one uh whether to adopt rates then if so in what amount as long as it's done legally is a purely legislative function uh and a court cannot make and an arbitration panel cannot make that policy judgment for a legislative body such as city commission
or the board of county commissioners. The other thing is our agreement with the count the city is very very clear that both parties have to agree to a rate increase and no judge and no arbitration panel can amend or modify
the express term of an agreement which is basically what an arbitration panel would be doing if it were to try to compel the parties to increase rates and if so try to dictate an amount. Uh that is the county's position. We feel very comfortable and confident in that
position. Uh the county has not publicly or the city has not stated publicly it agrees with that position. But given that that is our position, we want authority from the board and that's what option one would do to basically resend
that issue from any potential arbitration that might occur. Uh there's no need to. I mean, if our sense is they can't give us any relief anyway, it would be an unnecessary cost and expense to proceed with that. So, uh we would staff would recommend that the board
authorized staff to rescend um any uh that issue from any potential arbitration proceeding. Um so that's a time-sensitive issue because right now we do have an arbitration hearing on the books. Okay. Um two,
uh the notice, the first class notice that we have to provide uh to constituents uh to let them know of any potential rate increase uh in advance of our September 15th meeting public
hearing. Uh previous direction from the board was to include an amount to contemplate a potential increase in those notices. But if our position is we don't have to increase rates and the board's position is it's not going to,
we need to know that that is the language that you want in the first class notices that are going to be mailed out next week. So that's option two is to direct staff to only notice people who uh will receive or
potentially receive uh uh a tax bill for the assessment for the first time. Okay. So we would not be mailing any first class notices under option two uh contemplating any potential rate increase. Okay. To any constituents in
the unincorporated area. So that's option two. Option three uh is policy call by the board of course. Um in the course of preparing for arbitration and digging into these issues, we've identified based on documentation and
communications with uh the city areas where we believe that the city uh expended money without authorization in violation of the interlocal agreement. uh and also underfunded by under
collecting. Uh as it was required to do under the interlocal agreement. We've identified three specific instances of that. Um we did ask two of them we can validate today. The other one we have asked for
confirmation from the city whether in fact they tred up if you will uh and they have not responded or provided any documentation to date. So option three, if it's the board direction, would direct staff to retain a financial
consultant uh and move forward to uh further uh investigate those if so and if necessary to initiate the dispute resolution process uh to address any of those issues uh which could at some
point ultimately include and result in binding arbitration. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions the board might have. Um, but that is staff recommendation is options one, two, and three. >> Thank you, Madam Attorney. All right,
Commissioners. Um, Commissioner Maddox, Commissioner Miner, and Commissioner O'Keeffe are in the uh queue in that order. We will start the discussion with Commissioner Maddox. >> Are any speakers, Mr. Chair? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, Mr. uh Mr. Do we have any speakers on the on the item? >> Sorry. >> Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. Uh, we
have one speaker, Stanley Sims. >> Mr. Sims, name and address for the record, please. >> My name is um Stanley Sims. I'm at um 1320 Aenddale Way.
First thing that has motivated me to come down here is Miss Chassity. I wanted again to look you and your staff in your face
and tell you what a good job in providing information to this board. You did not give them aformational commercial.
You did not argue one way or the other. You gave them a legal summary of where poor little taxpayers like me
in the county stand, who don't have a voting right and me with my current legal situations, not even a voice with a legal municipality.
It was assuring. It was empowerful. And it was validation for what I fight for every day is that our local elected officials will be accountable for me.
So to you I tell you, thank you. Commissioner Caban, my grandmama had a eighth grade education, but she always told me that if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
I'm not rich. I can't even fake it. But I don't live in the city. But I pay service fees in the house I live on. I have another
piece of property that's developed and another piece of property that's developed with current utilities. I don't like it when people just can tell me arbitrarily without a explanation, without any information.
And and and this is not something that just started. Commissioner Proctor, how many meetings have we attended when we watch our firefighters, their wives?
For the record, my son's a firefighter. So, it's not that I don't believe in supporting fire. I want to make sure, but I can't understand how
can we have unleal levy taxes and our firefighters are the poorest paid. It's more than that, but I'm going to respect my time. You know, it ain't looking good. I don't want no problems at her.
>> Thank you, Mr. Sims. We have one more speaker, I think. >> Uh Dorothy Enman Johnson, >> Miss Enman Johnson. Name and address for the record, please. >> Darthy Enman Johnson. >> Okay. >> Do I need to give my address?
>> Uh I mean, it's okay. I think we know who you are. Good, good afternoon. Uh, I am here to speak on the fire service fee increase
and ask you to do the right thing about all of the citizens. I've been talking about this for over a year and a half, making it clear that I oppose
a fire service fee on citizens utility bills. Not just churches and reimbursing churches, but the people who are really overburdened by this are average
residents of this community. People who are living in poverty and I think the rate is about 20%. people, elderly, who are on fixed
incomes, who struggle every month to pay their utility bill. And when you plop a fire service fee on their utility bill
and then turn around and increase it by up to 25%. It is a regressive tax that overburdens the people who are least able to pay and they will be
pouring into our nonprofit agencies begging for help to keep their utilities on in the hottest summers and the coldest winters. I ask you to
oppose the 25% increase on the fire service fee. There is no need for the fee. And I'm here as CEO
of Citizens for Government Accountability. And we are in discussions right now uh on representation to file a lawsuit
to prevent this unconstitutional fee on our citizens. And I ask you to think about the people who can't pay, who struggle to pay.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Next speaker, please. >> Final speaker card on this item. Mike Nelson. >> Mr. Nelson. Name and address for the record, please. >> U Mike Nelson, 532 Oakland Avenue. Um, I was just coming up here to uh let you
guys know that we have a serious problem in family law with the judges that are assigned to it. Most of them don't have the family law training which is required. A lot of them are acting in a conspiracy
um enterprise to extract and extort money out of people. I've had my signatures forged, government documents altered here at the courthouse and eight judges have uh all participated in that. That does fall under RICO act. Also, we
do need to get this under control because it's having a devastating effect on the children mostly. Um when we have a magistrate who's on a case who then ends up representing another party in that case, then there's a problem. the
financial fraud that's being allowed is is uh falls under RICO. Also, we really need to do this. This isn't just a Tallahassee problem. This is a statewide, nationwide, worldwide problem. And uh family law needs to be
changed. But we do need to have some RICO investigations happening here at this courthouse with several judges. Judge Marsh, Judge Richardson, Judge Hobbs, uh Amanda Wall when she was a magistrate, Judge
Wheeler, Judge Hawks, and currently Judge um Miller. All of them have participated in this extortion, this RICO act. I have all the records, testimony, recordings, audio, video. We need to get something done about this.
>> All right. Um, all right, commissioners. We are back on the item Commissioner Maddox has the floor. You are recognized, sir. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, in order for me to be in right order, I'll make a motion for options one and two. My motion.
>> All right. We've got a motion for options one and two. Is there a second? >> All right. D second. Oh, >> somebody did second. >> You second. >> Okay, >> I did. Yes. >> Okay. for discussion. We've got a second on options one and two. Um, Commissioner
Maddox, go for it. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so, um, we started this conversation a while back fighting for a compromise because we didn't believe that the city was in
the right posture to be able to raise the raises and we wanted them to honor the contract that we had already agreed to a couple years ago. I want us to really focus on the facts of this and not participate in bashing
the city or anyone individual because believe it or not, no matter what happens today, 2028 or maybe even sooner, we'll have to work with the city to come up with a compromise on what how we move forward with our services. I believe it would be very difficult for
us to stand those up by ourselves. And so I want us to keep in mind though today we walk away saying that we don't want to raise the fees that ultimately it is the Tallahassee fire department uh
run by the city of Tallahassee and we will have to figure out how we continue to work together and I've always been the one to try to be diplomatic in the way we handle our our our affairs with our partners and city of Tallahassee has been a partner of ours. when it comes to
fire services for years now. I don't believe that we would have been having the conversation about the fire services fee had the increase not been a factor. I believe that we would have finished that contract out and then we would have renegotiated a contract in
28. And so for that reason, that's the reason I made the options one and two. But instead, what what was h what has happened is a can of worms have been up opened up because the city after negotiations with the fire department as well as uh numbers coming in at how much
the fires uh fire uh sorry the fires union numbers coming in on how much new stations will cost sent over an increase of about 22%. Now we're looking at unfunded uh underfunding
uh and spending that wasn't authorized and a whole bunch of other stuff that we can dig into while also trying to understand the fact that we have just made it affirmative that there will be
no raise in the feet. What I ask today is is that we focus on there will be no raise in the fee and stay with uh the current of what we have going on and renegotiate everything including these things that we're
talking about in option three when it comes uh in 2028 we can make whatever nec changes necessary then again I want to focus on the fact that if there had been no conversation about
the increase, we wouldn't even be having this conversation today about all the other stuff that may have come as a result of the increase. And so all I'm asking is one and two is that we get to finish out the remainder of this
contract, which we asked them, what do we ask them from the beginning? We have a contract in place and we ask that you honor that contract. We have a system in place that's working and we ask that you honor that system. We asked for no changes to anything. That's what we wanted. Then we sent over
a compromise that allowed for some changes, some increase in the fees, but it didn't change anything about the system. It just asked for some increases in the fees. And so again, what I'm asking for with options one and two, and I appreciate uh Commissioner Cunning
seconding and me pass seconding my motion, is that we just let's finish this contract just like we asked them to finish the contract. And when 28 comes, we have all these conversations. We can make whatever changes necessary and we can we can move into our new contract
with the city knowing we have we stand on good grounds of negotiation cuz we did exactly what we asked them to do in honoring the way we do business right now. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Commissioner Maddox. Commissioner Miner, you're up followed by Commissioner O'Keeffe.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, first of all, thank you very much uh uh our to our county attorney and her office for preparing this agenda item. This is excellent, excellent work. It's a very complex topic. Um, I had to read over certain passages multiple times,
but uh uh but it's extremely well done and the research work that you and your team did is is uh is commendable. Um, and Commissioner Maddox, thank you very much for your motion of options one and two. I had been thinking about also uh
adding option three and I may choose to do that through a substitute amendment at some point. Maybe one of my colleagues might too. But I've been listening very carefully to what you're saying. Um what our county attorney explained to us um in the agenda item and just a few minutes ago was that we have a a 5-year
agreement with the city. That's a binding contract and that contract can't be changed unless both parties agree to those changes. And what that means is that any increase in the fire service fees can't be made unless both parties,
both the city and the county, agree to change that contract. That's a binding 5-year contract. We are just 15 18 months at the very beginning of that 5-year contract. On May 27th, we discussed the city's
proposal for a fire for a fire service fee increase. Um, we disagreed with with some of those increases and so we offered a what what I thought was a good faith compromise and I think everyone here probably agrees with that. They they declined that compromise and uh
that's why we are now in uh in dispute resolution. Um, this board based on comments I heard from the last meeting disagrees with many of those reasons for the cost increases. Uh, me personally, I I disagree with some of the increases
because they are they are voluntary, meaning that the city has incurred these increases within the 5-year term voluntarily. It wasn't required. Um I think that uh given the fact that that both the city and the county must agree
to any changes to the fire service fee agreement um we don't agree with all those proposed increases. We had a good faith effort to to try to make a compromise but but the city didn't want to go that way because we don't agree with all the
increases and the reasons for those. Uh I definitely support options one and two. Um, I want to hear from some other people here on the on the on the board about option three. And the reason why option three is something that I think we need to consider is because our county attorney's office has identified
things that could be um well, some things I I think are are are very clear where the fire service fee has not been consistently applied or imposed. Uh those are ways where we could increase revenue for the fire service fee um and take some of the burden off of
rateayers. Um, I want to make sure that that that we do our due diligence, that the city does, that that this community does to make sure that those reasons are are are carefully thought through. Uh, because if there if the fire service fee is not been imposed correctly and
there's money on the table in certain areas, that's a disservice to all the rateayers across the county and the city. Um, I want to hear what my my my colleagues say about that item, but but that's one thing I'm I'm concerned about. I support options one and two, but I want to hear from some of my colleagues about option three. Uh, thank
you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Commissioner Miner. Commissioner O'Keefe, followed by Commissioner Kaban. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, first I want to thank the county attorney's office um county attorney and her staff and also all the uh Vince and all all our other
staff working on this a very complicated issue that we did not expect to be working on this year. um and your work has allowed us to be at this position where we're we can choose not to increase fees um for our citizens and that that means a lot. Um I have some
questions. Uh what was if you can remind us what was the total cost of the requested increase and how much of that was related to firefighter pay increases? >> Go ahead. I can jump in. the the increase about $2.5 million to the
county per year. I don't have a breakdown of exactly what the share of personnel costs. We could probably get that to you. No, >> I mean, wasn't the total total increase request 22% like $50 million?
>> 22 uh% 14 million total we'd pay. It was a $7.5 million increase for the remaining three years. >> Gotcha. 7 and a half. And uh only part of that was uh related to pay. Okay. Um and so since we sent our counter offer,
our offer in June, the city declined it. Did were y'all able to have meetings with the city administration to see if they had any uh counter offer or anything like that? >> We did um at the request of the city
manager commissioner. We had um uh the county attorney and I had a a quick meeting where um we articulated our legal position, the one that's before you today, uh without um variation uh from that. And um um certainly uh it was
discussed that um we could um provide a uh if there was a another compromised offer uh you know offered by the city, we we we certainly could bring that. I think again I think we were pretty clear
that that position uh needed to include um no additional um uh rate increases over a 5-year term. Um and um it had to be um I would say at least as good as the compromise offer offered by this
commission. Um and at that time there was no offer made by the city. >> Okay. And then what we've learned through through your hard work is that we cannot be compelled during terms agreement to increase the fee from the county.
Can you confirm my understanding that the city can can also not increase their fee on city residents if we don't agree under this term? >> That's correct. Neither the city nor the county can unilaterally increase their rates. If they do, it will breach the
interlocal agreement. It will not be consistent with the third-term rate study that's currently in effect. >> Okay. And then um we all love the MC's. We have another MC, the AMC, um, which is county administrator and the city manager. And how did we find or how is
it that the reserve fund was accessed and additional expenditures were incurred without joint approval that's in the contract? All that we can um tell you is that um there there was no agreement official
agreement on the utilization of the reserve fund um to this point in the existing term >> and had you forgive me if it sounds like I'm uh uh uh putting you on the stand um but you hold all the information here um
had you been made aware of uh access to use of the reserve funds uh prior to this issue coming up and looking into it? >> No. >> Okay. >> Um and then we uh are considering hiring a financial consultant to look into the
records to um make sure that each side of this uh agreement is funding as they're obligated to and only spending as they're authorized to. How is this financial consultant, should we approve it, different than what the financial
consultant did in the work before on the rate study? >> So, uh the the consultant who developed the rate study was jointly retained by both the city and the county. Uh the
methodology that's used in the study was developed years ago. Most recently what they did was they simply plugged in numbers that the city provided to them related to increased cost and developed it's mathematical
what those rates would look like to fund the increase in costs. What would be envisioned if the board approves option three is the county would retain its own consultant who uh would not be retained by the city who
would review the city's documentation to validate and quantify uh the amount of any underfunding. uh validate whether they trudeed up, validate uh the amount they should have
imposed under the flat rate but haven't um since they adopted the resolution in 2023 um and would do those sorts of things. So the engagement would be strictly on behalf of the county. And would that
work is that work all uh allowable and part of the agreement that we've made with the city for to be able for each party to do that. >> The work the consultant the the work that we're asking we would ask the consultant to do is that all part of what we're able to do under this
agreement that's not a new separate action. It >> it's not prohibited. It would be something we would do under the dispute resolution provision in the interlocal agreement. So it is permitted. Right. >> Okay. Um and then here's the important
question for us. Uh if uh we are are you comfortable that we uh in all our books and records have met all of our funding obligations to this point of the agreement? We're going to if we're going to look on that side, we need to make
sure our side is good. Um there is one area where arguably the county did underfund related to Arbor Landing. You may have seen an article in the paper about that. That was recently
identified. Um I believe uh the county administrator also sent supplemental information to the board about that. Uh if we determined that there was underfunding by the county, there would also be an obligation of the county to true that up as well. >> Excellent. which which I I would expect
we would do at the appropriate time for that. Thank you very much. Um and so first um I support firefighters and pay increases that they that are welld deserved for them. But when we look at
this 22% increase request, it is mostly not for firefighter pay. Um which is important. Um now once we know what money might actually be coming in and out from the city funding and expenditures um and where the money
actually stands, we can I think then start looking at this is a basis for if there needs to be more money after all of that review and due diligence is done. That's a reasonable conversation to have, but that's not where we are right now. Um, we need we have an
agreement and we need to make sure that the other party is paying their fair share and following the terms of the agreement just like we pay our fair share and are and when we find out if that's not the case, we will resolve it um and honor our terms of the agreement. We are equal parties to this agreement.
Um, we don't want to inc I don't want to increase fire service fees on citizens when we have a five-year agreement with the city that would we were able to tell our citizens that that will stay flat. And um that rate may not be the source
of the shortage as we found out. It may be issues of uh is the correct funding being put in by by the other party and our expenses only what's being allowed under the contract. Um, we are an equal party to this agreement and we represent
citizens in the unincorporated and incorporated, but in this case unincorporated area that rely on this critical service and pay for this critical service. And we have a duty to hold ourselves accountable to the agreements we make and we have a duty to hold our other parties to our agreements
to the agreements they make. That's why they're there. I think if something similar happened with a corporate board and they had a midterm 22% fee expense increase request from a vendor outside of the terms of
their contract, I think that corporate board would do everything to verify and dig in and make sure it was a valid and necessary request and required under the agreement, which we are trying to do now. It sounds like we have to. And I and they would do that because they owe a duty to their shareholders and we owe
that same duty to our citizens. Um we have already found possible errors by the city not meeting their funding obligations um and not honoring expense limitations. And I think we just need to verify everything before we go and
change 2 years into a 5-year flat fee agreement. Once everything is reviewed and verified by a financial consultant and if an increase is warranted and we find that the the balance of the fund is where it needs to be because everyone's paid their fair share, that's the time
to discuss what a reasonable necessary increase might be if there is one. But we are not there now and we are not there this year. And so um that's where my thinking is on this. Um, and I am again, we are just verifying that we're
honoring the agreement and that our colleagues are honoring the agreement because that's our job. That's what we sign up to do. Um, so I make a substitute motion for options 1, two, and three. >> Second. >> All right. We've got a substitute motion for options one, two, and three.
Seconded by Commissioner Caban. Still in discussion. If you got anything else. >> I'm done. >> Okay. Commissioner Caban, you're up. >> Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioners, uh, I have a handful of questions for the county attorney. Um, but prior to that, I do want to say a
few quick things. One, I want to echo some of the sentiments that have been shared by our colleagues, and I want to commend the county attorney for her diligent work on this issue. I think not only has she represented our board very well, but I think that madam maternity,
you represented the constituents and our taxpayers in Leyon County very well. And this agenda item was detailed. It laid out the facts. It gives, I believe, three options that benefit residents not
only in Lyon County, but also in city limits that we also represent. And I think it's important to remember that as we go through some of this process is that we're county commissioners and we represent folks in the unincorporated and in the incorporated.
Next, I want to firmly say now more than ever that is important that we have adequate funding to make sure that the brave men and women in our fire department are compensated fairly and have the resources available to them to do their jobs at the best, highest, and
professional ability. And I think this issue is truly about making sure that we are prioritizing public safety while also maintaining fiscal responsibility and trust for our taxpayers. Um, Madam Attorney, I have a few
questions that, um, you know, I want to discuss with you, and I know we went through this in our briefing, and the purpose of these questions, commissioners, is there's been a lot of misinformation in the media about this issue. And I think it's important that we just cut straight to the facts and so
for folks who are listening and folks on the record can understand like what's fact and what's not. >> Mr. Chair, may I address the mad mad attorney? Madam Attorney, in our main meeting, did the county make a good faith effort to accept a reduced rate? >> Yes. >> Did the city decline?
>> Yes. >> From my understanding, I think it was said earlier in this meeting, the city cannot unilaterally raise the fire services assessment rate just as we cannot raise it without their acceptance. >> That's correct. >> The third term rate study was mutually
approved by both the county and the city. The city then issued $10 million more in debt than they were initially authorized. If the county administrator does not approve that, it's not permissible. Is that correct? >> That's a violation of the interlocal
agreement. That's correct. >> Is it possible that the city spent additional funds outside of the third term rate study that were not approved? >> It's possible. We just don't know. And is it correct that state law requires properties must be assessed in an amount that correlates to the benefit
received fair, reasonable, and uniform? >> Fair and reasonably aortioned. That's accurate. >> And some churches are paying the fire services fee assessment and some are currently not paying. >> That is my understanding. Is it correct that the city of
Tallahassee has a resolution requiring them to true up for properties that receive fire services yet are not collecting due to the sessation of utilities? >> That is what the resolution says. >> And have we asked the city if they are
trueing up on these properties that are not receiving um that are not paying into the fire services assessment? >> We have. >> And have they responded? >> No. Is it also true that the city of Tallahassee does not collect fire services assessment from accessible
properties both unoccupied and occupied that do not have an active utility account? >> I'm so sorry. Can you repeat that for me? >> Is it true that the city does not collect the fire services assessment from accessible properties both occupied
or unoccupied that do not have an active utility account? That is my understanding. >> And that has been confirmed by a city staff member to in the meeting with you and the county administrator. >> That was a statement that was made. Yes. >> And the city of Tallahassee has did not
impose the rates established in the third term rate study. >> That is correct. >> So the city build an incorrect rate over the last few years that is a lower amount than what was agreed upon agreed upon in the third term rate study.
>> Yes. So this means that the city has underfunded their portion of the fire fire assessment reserve account >> to date. That's correct. >> And if they are not chewing up their missing fees or underfunding the
account, does that effectively penalize county residents by implementing a rate hike? >> You could draw that conclusion. And then on the option three, I want to um I think option three is important.
We currently do not know the true answer or depth of how much the city has underfunded the reserve account. And this option would just give you direction to use your office budget which is already already in budget to hire financial consultant to see how much the city has underfunded the
reserve account. >> That's correct. Okay, commissioners, I I wanted to ask those questions and um and we discussed this in in our in our briefing because I think it's it's an it's more important now than
ever that we dig into this issue. Sure. Um, you know, we are seeing and we were asked by the city to blindly rubber stamp that a 22% increase on our residents across Lyon County.
This board made a good faith effort to say, "Hey, we're not going to push back. We'll we'll meet you in the middle." Um, I think that was a collegial move. I think it was a statesman move. Um, I wasn't for it because I I firmly believe that what's happening is wrong.
Commissioner Proctor, I know you weren't for that either. Um, there are big issues with this fire services assessment is my opinion and that what we're seeing is that this is not being imposed
fairly. I would argue that what's happening is we are sticking taxpayers, hardworking families, and residents with the bulk of this bill.
Meanwhile, other folks are not paying. It's not fair, and it's not uniform. Additionally, the city claims that there's not enough money to fund fire services, yet they are billing the incorrect amount.
They are not collecting the fee from cities from from properties in city limits uniformly. They are overspending on capital improvements without the county's approval. That in itself is a violation
of our agreement. And I think it's important for us to remember, as I mentioned earlier, we represent Leyon County. Folks within city limits are our constituents, too.
And I think it's wrong to blindly try to increase this fee or acrew costs when we have an agreement and not seeking approval by the county administrator and our board. Um, I think the only way forward in my
opinion is to have true closure on this issue is for us to dig deeper. And listen, if our board, you know, Mr. County Administrator, if we underfunded portions of this account, we deserve to true up as well. I don't I think it's wrong for us to go to the city and say,
"You need to true up." We owe it to taxpayers to true up. I I know the city of Tallahassee has a ginormous reserve account that they're sitting on and I think that we need to dig deeper into this issue. I think we owe it to taxpayers. We need to find what the delta is from the city and the county
and we need to make this account whole because I think it's wrong to increase a fee on on residents 22% without managing this fee properly. And I think that is what's been asked of us. And um I'm proud the fact that we're at
this point in pushing back and u commissioners I hope that and that I trust that we can get to a point where you know we have unanimous approval on options one two and three. Thank you Mr. Chair. >> Thank you Mr. Vice Chair. Commissioner Cummings you uh are recognized.
>> Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair. I appreciate the comments from my fellow uh commissioners as well and I certainly want to thank our county commissioner, our county attorney rather for the legal
analysis that she has provided uh to us as far as the status of uh this dispute resolution as it relates to the rate increases. I think it's is very clear. uh certainly thank our county
administrator and staff for the written analysis that they have provided and of course given us uh the options that we have. But I I'm ambivalent commissioners and I I think I take a a little
different look at this and a little different approach to what we have before us. uh as Commissioner Miner pretty much reintegrated in the county administrator as well, the history of what got us here.
And what what brought us here was the city putting us on notice that we needed to raise the fire services fee by between 22 and 25 25%.
There's a motion on the floor to accept options one to a substitute motion. Options one, two, and three. Okay. If we accept the substitute motion or
even the initial motion, it calls for us to authorize staff to resend the dispute resolution process as it relates to the rate increase and I think it'll probably pass unanimous. Okay. And it also option
two directs uh staff to go on and send the statutory notices that we will be um retaining the same rate for the next
fiscal year as the current 2025 rate. So in my opinion, if the if options one and two passes, we've already resolved the issue that
the that the city has raised. Now, mind you, staff has done a great job in looking at the city's articulated reasons for the increase. Okay. And in
the process, staff has also uncovered some areas that we believe leaves the city vulnerable. But at this point, I'm not clear and I'm not sure whether or not our taxpayers will be at an
advantage or disadvantage on a couple of these. Uh initially one of the uh primary issues is the allegation that the city um underfunded the fire services by
really um not assessing properly under assessment. If that issue goes before the arbitrating panel,
hypothetically they could find that yes, the city has underassessed and my concern is whether or not the arbitrators could go back in order to city the city to recap that under
assessment. That wouldn't be good for our taxpayers in in my opinion if arbitrators have the authority and which I understand they could to go back and require the city to collect
those areas that have been underfunded which could very well include our very tax taxpayers that that we are trying to protect uh right now. Um,
South also uncovered an area where they believe the city did not supplement properly for those properties that didn't have utility accounts. And I believe under the
agreement uh the city was to supplement the fire services fee with non city fire services fee or from from a a different budget resource.
They didn't do that. But if they found have been found to have violated that provision at this point we don't know how much that would be whether it's a diminous amount whether it's a significant
a significant amount I mean we we don't know we could be going down down um a rabbit hole. Now, one of the things I believe the county administrators say we know definitively is that money was taken from the reserve
fund without approval of the administrative management team and I think perhaps that could be that could be uh be refunded. Um but at this point
there are parameters that the arbitrators could take in my opinion that might not be beneficial to our taxpayers. And I think ultimately we as a board, we look at taking actions
that's going to uh benefit our constituents and our taxpayers and make sure the fees are what we agreed upon. So if we vote for option
one and two, we are we we have assured that the taxpayers are going to be build the fee that we agreed upon. Okay.
And whether or not we as a board, okay, we would have done that. Our contract is satisfied. So my question is, do we want to go further and dig into these other areas which I
believe have been legitimately raised by our staff. It's question marks to me whether it would be beneficial to the taxpayers or not. But I think today keeping the rate where
it is based on what we have agreed upon in this five-year agreement with the city, I think we would have done our job and we would have protected the taxpayers. Now, I
as a sitting commissioner, I would hope and pray that these two governmental entities could work cooperatively, could get along, do what we can for the benefit
of the taxpayers. And I and I think if if we do that, it it doesn't require that we ask the arbitrators to scrutinize
what has taken place the last last couple of years. as long as we're protecting our end of the contract and that's taxing our county citizens at the level that
that that we agreed upon. I I just think that beyond that is is setting a a policy from this
board. it it it might might take us down a rabbit hole and we don't know what's at the end end of that rabbit hole. And I'm saying this just so that we can we can think about what what we're saying so that we can think about the actions
that we want to take today. I came here today to make sure that taxpayers are protected. We did that two years ago when we signed this agreement with the city. And if we in fact vote for options one and two, we would have done that
option three. Uh, and I appreciate staff. I appreciate their uh their ingenuity. I I appreciate their their ability to look at issues that we could raise that we could
go to arbitration about, but that has nothing to do with the rate that we would we agreeing to tax the county taxpayers.
It's the rate we agreed upon. And I think as the county administrator said when he um gave his an analysis initially, this is only a 5-year uh contract and is subject to two one-year renewals. So, at
some point, we will have to be at the negotiating table with the city for the provision of fire services. The county does not have these these uh fire fire departments. We
rely upon the city and they're paid to provide that protection to our county to our county citizens. So, um, I I want us to be in a strong position
for for our citizens, but and and I want us to be diligent, but I think perhaps we might be going beyond where we need to go If we move forward and and and
try to negate the reasons the city has indicated that he wants to increase. I mean they can say every anything they want but we I believe are going to agree to keep the rate as it is. And I'm saying we would have done our job. we would have
enforced what we agreed to two years ago with the city. These issues I think would be raised soon enough perhaps uh when we negotiate new rates and that will be done
hopefully after a study just like a study was done uh when we entered this contract with the city um two years ago. But my point is, why raise a fight
when we don't know what the outcome is going to be? I don't know if it would be beneficial for for the citizens that that I represent. And right now I think that um a decision to maintain maintain status
quo and I think we would have uh done a great job in doing that with all the analysis that we have um with with all the information that came from the city to substantiate why the rate should be
increased with the research that the city can't unilaterally raise the rates. It has to be uh an agreement between both parties. I think we would have done we we have
done a lot to arrive uh at this point to say status quo. We're going to protect our citizens and I think we should keep it there and negotiations will come soon enough. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Cummings. Commissioner Proctor, you have >> Thank Mr. Chairman. Yes. Uh, Commissioner Cummings raised a question. Why would we go beyond the point of going beyond what we need to go beyond? Uh, for me it's simple. Uh, and it is that wrong will remain on the throne as
long as right refuses to fight. Uh, the city's been wrong in fire services fees, its assessments, its rates. And um I suspect that in this particular room um the only person who's read more um
county commission uh agenda items than myself is Vince Long. Um I've read a few of these things before is what I'm trying to say. Um, I have never seen our staff tell us as poignantly that wrong is occurring in the city's rates
assessments, leveraging and the very different um methodologies that are being applied. So for me, we go further than status quo because the bells are ringing. Our staff has never been as
pointed in saying this is bad. So to former mayor uh uh Mrs. Johnson who said to us uh something about uh the firemen uh the struggles with the firemen and being paid and though we cite and
reference firemen pay. And I want to also begin my discussion with um the letter uh attachment to that uh our chairman sent to the mayor and the city commission on May 29th. And I also want
to limit my um uh initial thoughts to attachment three, which was Mayor Daly's response on June 12th to our chairman's letter uh to him after our board uh extended a compromise uh less than the
20 uh 23% uh that they sought to raise. But in the area of Commissioner Cummings of when it comes to the city and fire, uh you're aware uh it's taken the city years to get a fire extension. You're aware that
um everyone in the city got a 5% across the board except the firemen. Um you you also aware uh that you read 3 4 weeks ago that the churches some are exempt
and waved from fees and some are not. Uh you were sitting here as we were when in the middle of uh after 15 months the city offers to mandate that we and we wouldn't be here today had we just shrug our shoulders and went with the status
court and said that our heavenly father the u city government has told us to allow them to pillage and rape uh citizens of this community undeservedly of pill being paged or raped. And um our
staff has told us there's a problem. I mean false in a way that is screaming. And I can't ignore that in based upon uh the history of the conservative manner and politically correct that this staff
has been over the years for them to put something to us this this um absolutely clear and we would not go further. So I want to answer that question. and it helps me to feel good. Madame attorney or or um Mr. might be the chairman's ask
response here in the third paragraph of the May 29th letter. Uh Mr. Chairman, you said that uh in January of 2025 uh that we received a letter from the city and it indicated uh that there was
sufficient funds remaining to carry out the contract um to fulfill what was needed and the need quoting the need to adjust the rates due to nonpayment for services by Leyon County Schools and the adoption of a new collective bargaining
agreement for firefighters. again pay I heard um I believe you were referencing table six uh Mr. O'Keefe and you indicated that based on uh that study and I had it in my notes to ask you um
on that table was uh any of this stuff valid stuff table six's calculation uh that talks about accessessible costs for 2324
um and these accessessible costs uh some of them I'm not an countered, but you mentioned it and that you satisfied my curiosity that these ain't no accessessible cost, but it's thrown up in here.
But we were told um um or that we recited, Mr. chairman, in your letter to the mayor that in 2025, the mayor said to you that there was a need to adjust uh our their rates for fire because of
Lean County Schools and because of a new uh bargain agreement. Your letter further goes to say that you we retain a censure, a third party uh consultant. Well, it's also been brought to our attention
in later days that fire station number 17 uh has been since we've returned down this uh off of the city for 20ome%. Now we have at us an additional variable
and that is uh 27 $28 million for fire station number 17 which was not even cited in the initial uh re recapturing of what initially was brought to our attention in January. Mr. Chairman, I'm still looking at your letter, Mr.
Chairman. Um it indicates that uh we would agree with the city uh if in fact term number one that uh if we if they would agree that the adjusted rate for fire service assessment and fees uh for
the remainder 5-year assessment period will blacken exclude all costs related to ISO ratings. And as I look at the mayor's um simple letter to you, a complicated letter
you've sent and the simple 1 2 3 uh four paragraphs and it's closing uh response to you of June 12th. Um I find something additionally coming out now. The mayor
says that the ISO rating would um would lower let me quote um first of all in this letter the mayor says that um the city commission voted
at their June 11th budget workshop. They voted unanimously to follow the recommendation of the fire chief and move forward with investments in the fire services to increase its level of service and response. That's not what
originally he said to increase the level of service and response. We got a letter from him. Your letter to him, Mr. chairman says that they were going up on the bills because they of the Leon County schools which
had not paid their bill and he said that they're going up on the cost because of the collective bargaining agreements for firefighters. But then in June, the mayor comes back and says that he is
following the fire the fire chief the fire chief to increase its level of service and response. Now, I I'm not the smartest guy uh in Tallahassee, but I know two different rationale when
I when I read them. I don't always heal well, but I I know it when I read it. And I'm trying to say that the mayor has thrown and made a scapegoat out of the fire chief, then throwed him under the bus. And I know nothing that a fire
chief sets rates and assessments and does financial studies that the city commission follows and adopts as its rate standard for fire recovery. That's just too hard for me to reconcile.
We we might be running a little low and a little slow at the city, but I don't think that we've just boiled down to just soup and bones. just we ain't that low that the fire chief is setting rates to determine his response to so I'm I'm
conflicted in my understanding now uh Mr. Chairman, your letter indicated that we would get a censure and if uh if I'm correct, a censure has stated that instead of a 22%
uh their assessment was for a 17% uh increase, but the mayor and the city commission would not compromise and meet us at we didn't PF uh TA, we didn't
pluck this from thin mayor. We got a consultant and based on that consultant, we extended an olive branch at what that consultant found to be a a number that might work. And the mayor slammed the
door uh in our faces and said, "Nah." So, we're here today because had they walked on the 17%. We wouldn't need to be here in the middle of August on vacation coming off to be here to talk about this.
Well, the ISO um um county attorney come to you. The mayor has said here um while to you commissioners to all of us members of the county commission while your May
29th uh 2025 letter ties this investment to ISO ratings in reality the investment is to implement the chief's plan to increase the level of service to our community. Po chief got his back bent
over and mayor is riding hell out of him again. It's crazy. In the history of Tallahassee, no poor fire chief has ever had to bend over and get his back ridden for something that he's not responsible for at all. But it's a metaphor and we
get that. I want to ask you, county attorney, this is critical. Uh he's going to follow the chief to increase the level of service. um all before in January he needed to
make the adjustment because of Leyon County schools and because of the collective bargain agreement. But in June he's just going to follow the chief. I'm not going to think. I'm just going to follow my chief which we
are confident will result in a higher ISO rating. A higher ILSO rating in turn can lead to reduced property insurance rates for resident and businesses.
Madame uh attorney, can you tell this board this letter that we've got? Can we lean on this and and confidently say that we've that this there is truth to that? What relationship is the ISO that
the mayor is wanting us to go for? uh in its relationship to reducing uh premiums for property. >> Uh so commissioners in the course of uh preparing for arbitration I did contact the office of insurance regulation which
is the regulator for insurance companies. uh I asked them to look at whether in fact an ISO rating change uh would have any impact if the ISO rating was a 3 to a two. Uh based on their
review of the filings of the top five insurance companies specific to Lyon County, there would be a 0% saving in insurance premiums when there is a change in the ISO rating from a three to a two.
So, I can't rely on the mayor's third paragraph to us is what what you're telling me is my counsel. >> I can validate based on the insurance regular information that there would be no cost savings to constituents.
>> Okay. So, the mayor's letter to all of us from June 12th uh indicates that the um second paragraph that this investment will only cost residents about $1 a month. It is unquestionably an
investment worth making. Um Miss Long, can you tell us that this 22% equals a $1? Uh is it is it a $1 per month? uh ask or can we rely on that paragraph
>> if anybody knows in the house? >> I believe that was roughly what it came out to. >> Again, the city bills monthly on the utility bill. So, it's about $30 um >> annually. >> Annually, a little less. >> Okay. So, if it's $30 uh O'Keefe, how
much that is? Uh $30 annually, but the mayor says it'll be about $1 a month. Is that I'm just asking Mr. O'Keefe his expertise. >> 250 a month. >> It's about $150 short a month. >> Okay. I just want to know if I can count on it. Can't I can't count on it. So,
I'm just looking here at the final comment that the mayor made to us June 12th. Uh the city recognizes the long history of Tallahassy Fire Department servicing all the uncount. We believe that this relationship will continue to
ensure all the benefits from this increased level of service. But he said, "Your letter talking about you, Mr. Welch, asked the city to agree not to seek any future increases to the five service assessments, and he says
the city cannot guarantee that adjustments for unanticipated changes in costs will not be recovered. So even if we bend over and go with this increase, the mayor has
told us in our faces, we cannot guarantee that adjustments were unanticipated. And see, the city's always got unanticipated. That's unanticipated. That's why we had that lady to sit down here at this table
and she presumably was the the independent party working with the city. But the truth is when I asked that lady, "Where do you get your numbers from?" That lady said, "The city gave them to
me." Well, this is a game and I think that the first uh recommendations of one, two, and three uh are if we do not stand up for this community as I look around and see ministers on the back wall. A
meeting was held in this community last night with respect to um churches. um some being assessed uh I guess at a flat rate and others being assessed with
a mixed variable of uh executed uh methodologies. And what we found from the literature here is that flat rate uh do account at some and we have a mixed variable uh
combination of other dynamics applied to others. And this is a very interesting thing that attachment one on page 2444 it talks about exemptions and impact of exemptions.
And I found this interesting, ministers, that in our far world, the crafting of an exemption must be founded upon a legitimate public purpose and not on state or federal
constitutional concepts of equal protection and constitutional prohibitions against the establishment of religion. are the use of public treasury directly or indirectly to aid religious
institutions. I know that um something is wrong. This language is wrong and the practice is not consistent even though it cites equal protection but it is not
equal protection when some are flatrated and others attacks on something else multi-tered something. This is why Commissioner Cummings
uh your walk with us on this 123 option is important and your grasp and understanding of constitutionality and equal protection for all of our citizens in this problem. And I've got so many other uh thought
frames, but I'm I'm starting from the back, working forward, and I'm not going to go all the way because Florida case law prohibits the shifting of the fiscal cost of any special
assessment from exempt land owners to other non-exempt land owners. In other words, this is critical, chassis. In other words, I'm reading from this thingy. The funding for an exemption from a special assessment must come from
a legally available external revenue source such as the city and county's general funds. I pull up right there. So, to the underfundingness of it, the
city has to pay or the county has to pay. I don't need anything further than to read to see that to note that the underfunding has to be covered by the city or the county. All of these
exemptions, all of these waiverss, um I'm just reading the law and what needs to occur. So it concludes funding for fire assessment exemptions cannot come from the proceeds derived
directly from the imposition of special assessments for fire services and facilities because any exemption must be funded by an external funding source. And that's the problem here. So to
Commissioner O'Keefe's ask, his initial ask was first of all these categories accessible, but even if they were accessible and waiverss in the under asking for funds, that's going to have
to come out of the of city's coffers. But I know that Commissioner Cummings has rightly recognized and restated for us that that word mutual agreement that it takes our surrender to the ask of the
city in order for them to um um sheer county sheep and we get none of the proceeds. So, we have the opportunity to stand tall, to stand for what's right. And again, I believe that right will
stay on the throne as long as right refuses to fight and as long as I'm a county commissioner on this desk, I'm willing to fight for right in particular when wrong is on the throne. So, I encourage all of us to support the
options one, two, and three. We will get a second round of um we get a second I yield. >> Thank you, Commissioner Proctor. Uh Commissioners, I've got basically everybody in the queue again. >> All right. Uh I'm going to take my turn
and then we'll go around again. I got Commissioner Maddox, Minor, O'Keeffe, and Cabaner in that order. Um for the second round, uh first and foremost, Commissioners, um I know the city commission is listening to us right now. I mean, I
assume they are. Um, and I hate that this has become adversarial in that nature. And I texted the mayor yesterday and told him, uh, you know, it was I thought his service was admirable and, you know, thanked him for
8 years. Uh, and and I think that it's it's humble to walk away and, you know, to take that upon yourself and make that decision. And so I want them to hear that and I want us to sort of put ourselves in that frame of mind. I admire anybody that's in the arena
having these conversations. They're not personal. Uh I don't want to attack the city commissioners or the mayor or the city. Um I want to be as like rational and pragmatic about this as I can. And uh as I look at this issue,
I you know my inclination was to frustration and I was like this is you the city's telling us they just telling us what to do. You know we need money from you to run the fire services and we want to do this, we want to do that and I think I said something to the effect last time that you know we don't get to
ch we don't get to choose. Uh the city runs the fire department and I think that's important for us to to understand. The city uh or to recognize the city runs the fire department and we dance with them. I told my students, we started school this week. I said, "Look, you know, notetaking in class, it's like
a dance. I'm going to give you some information. I want you to ask questions and then we want to dance. If I'm just up here talking, we're not dancing and I'm just going to leave and you can just read the book and write. I want to dance with you." Well, that requires two,
right? It takes two to tango. Well, when Commissioner Maddox proposed a compromise at the last meeting, if you guys recall, or the last time we talked about this, I was kind of hung up on it, right? I'm like, man, I don't really know which way to go. I was I was
frustrated with the city and this imposition halfway through an agreement of more fees that we have to then pass along to our constituents. And I went with Commissioner Maddox's compromise. And I would say it was well dismissed by the city. I'd say probably with prejudice. You know, we're kind of told
we don't know what we're talking about. You know, um and that is a sort of another kind of slap in the face to the county and this idea that, you know, just let leave us alone, little government. We'll do what we want to do
with our fire department and you just come along with us and don't have a choice. And so I feel like we through this process we've accomplished a couple of very important things which we've all acknowledged which is we have we have
established that the city cannot just arbitrarily raise the fire services fee not even for themselves inside the city limits. They have to have our approval because we are dancing partners. Now, when I think about that analogy, I
think to myself, you know, the city is Johnny in Dirty Dancing and we're baby. All right, we can say we're the same, but we're not the same. They're Johnny and we're baby. But we know from that movie, nobody puts baby in the corner,
right? And so I feel like we are obligated to some extent to go with option three. Staff has given us that option and said they recommend that for
us. I think that although I represent one little corner of the county, I represent 100% of the people in my district. 75% of those people live in the city and I represent 100% of them too. Um, and I think that
we have a duty really to at least say, hey, look, this is not we want to provide the best services possible to all of our constituents. And we are no different in that way than the city. We also want to make sure that we're doing it in the
most fairly applicable way possible for the least cost possible. And I have supported the fire services fee increases in the past because obviously we want to support first responders. We want to support our firefighters.
But the drip drop of fees and expenses and taxes and all these things on the cost of living to our constituents is such that at this point in time to come back 18 months into an agreement and ask
for not really ask for demand, >> right? They're not asking us, they're demanding that we increase the fee another 22%. I think that it warrants us as a dance partner to go, "Hey, hey, you're stepping on my toes." It's okay
to tell your dance partner, "You're stepping on my toes. I'm trying to do the best job I can for the people we're dancing for and you're stepping on my toes." And I think that there's nothing wrong with us saying, "Look, and and again, in good faith, I don't think
we're being antagonistic here. We were put in this position. We're not being antagonistic by saying look there there may be some applicability issues here. The uniformity of the rates application is not evident to us.
Not only that, you're spending money that you haven't asked us to agree to you spending. I think there's some I think we have some responsibility there actuarily uh account you know from a just from a oversight perspective as
dancing partners to make sure um if I come home with a Corvette my wife's going to say where did that come from right I can't just go a I I just borrowed money to buy it without your permission that's going to cause
problems in our relationship so she has a duty to go, well, you you really shouldn't make those kinds of decisions. You needed to return that. Um, we'll look at that in 3 years and see what our finances are like then. Well, that's why we have a 5-year fire services fee agreement to to take into account what's
needed all the way through. Um, and then we'll commit to that and I will likely commit to that in the future. Um it definitely adds to the frustration that we uh you know we know that not all of this increase is going towards uh
salaries and that that's just a portion of it. I think we all support increasing the salaries of firefighters. I think that the city supports that too. Um I think another thing about option three that we're not hasn't been discussed is
the idea that um part three will also ensure that we are funding the fire services fee to the capacity that it needs. Um because right now we don't really know. We're kind of lost in the dark. So as a part of taking a deeper look at it,
we're going to find out maybe we do have to do some more. Right? We've already sort of acknowledged on this board that there are things that have happened in the fire services in the cost of fire services that the city could not anticipate like the negotiated new contract. Right? I think that um a
bigger portion of the concern are the cost of some of the equipment, the ISO rating, the cost of some of the facilities and you know we keep getting more information like the ISO rating change is is not necessarily going to impact
rates for our for our constituents. So I think there's this mass of information that we have gotten that just as a responsible uh advocate for our constituents, you know, we owe them that analysis of that.
Um just as stewards of that money, we're we're asking them to pay that money. We should ensure that it's necessary before we do that. Um, and I think that the function here is to do that to find out what exactly are the costs, what exactly has been collected, what hasn't been
collected, and can we do it better? And again, it's not meant to be adversarial to the city. It's meant to be uh accountable to voters and constituents, which all of us want to be. Uh, our city partners as well, they want that as well. So, in that vein,
I tend to want to support options one, two, and three. Um, again, I I just want us to be I wish we could be less adversarial, uh, less provocative towards our city colleagues. It's frustrating to me, trust me,
because I've tried to lift out the hand of compromise and it kind of got slapped back at me. Uh, but that doesn't mean that uh, we give up on that idea. But I feel like number three is not as I I totally understand where
Commissioner Maddox and Commissioner Cummings are coming from. Um we have really accomplished a lot by just establishing that we don't have we have to agree to any rate increases. But look, sometimes when you're when you're searching for one thing, you find
another. Doesn't mean you turn your back on the thing you found, right? uh if you're looking for one missing puppy in the woods and you find a whole litter, are you still obligated to take the rest of them back to the pound? You can't grab the one you're looking for and roll out. So, I could come up with those things all day. I'm just saying that's
the point I'm trying to make. So, I hope that's salient to you guys. Um but that's the way I feel about it. And again, I don't think it's adversarial. I think it's advocacy. We are looking at it and we're going, "Hey, I know we're the smaller dance partner,
but help us make you better." All right. baby made Johnny better, right? And that's the way dancing should be. Everybody should be helping each other. So, that's where I'm at on it, commissioners, for uh at this point. And I've literally got everybody back in the
loop. So, if that's cool with y'all, we'll go around again. Commissioner Maddox, you are up. >> Thank you. Um, Mr. Administrator and Madam Attorney, when we started this conversation, what what was the basis of the conversation?
Uh, I'm talking about we started to issue a fire services fee. What was the basis of it? What we were what were we discussing? What were we trying to uh compromise and fight against? >> Can you answer that question? >> Yeah. I'm sorry, Commissioner Maddox. Can you just repeat? >> When we started the conversation, when
we started the issue about fire services and the fee, >> what was the issue in of itself that we were battling with with the city? >> Our position was and is very simple. Of course, Jassity can elaborate and provide way more details, but our
position is that a 5-year fee is a 5-year fee is a 5-year fee. >> That's all I need. >> Would you would you agree that was Madam Attorney? That was before we started. >> I believe that was an accurate reflection of the position. Yeah. >> Thank you. Um, my best friend has this
quote that he uh likes to use concerning feces. I'm going to attempt to be a little more articulate. Um there's two miles of thought in my head. Uh one is modeled by Oscar Wild where he says
moderation is fatal. It's a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess. Um quite frankly given where we started I believe that the issue that we fought for was to be
no increase in the fire services fee. I would say option one and two uh does exactly that and we can call that a win. Anything over that would be excess
and but to some excess is not necessarily a bad thing. Um other frame of thought is one I've been given from Shakespeare. talks about gilding refined gold and painting the
lily. Uh throwing perfume on a violet. When you win, you win. Again, we've asked for the city to honor this fire services fee for the extent of the contract
that would that was put in place. Um, a lot of the argument that I heard around the table today for option number three was, well, we need to go ahead and look at this before we justify an increase. We need to make sure that we're doing everything we can before we
look at an increase. There will be no increase. We're not even discussing an increase. Everything that happened before today about an increase does not even matter. The letter that came from us, which was a burden to hand to the city that they said no to, is
irrelevant. Now, the reply that we got back from the mayor who said that they needed to increase, again, irrelevant. What we fought for, we got today through the good hard work of the county attorney and our county administrator in that the contract says that the city
cannot increase the fee without us saying okay to it. We can continue to dig. We can go with option three. But but quite frankly, I think nobody articulated better, not even myself, than my immediate past chair and and and at large better half
when she said, are we protecting our constituents with number three because that's that's what we're here to do. And if there is underfunding, who's going to have do you you believe that that we're going to take out of our coffers or the city is
going to take out of their coffers to do the underfunding when we just talked about a 22 to 25% increase? No. Those fees are going to be passed on to our constituents because we were underfunded, which means they should have paid more. Now the issue about
about the uh reserve account being used and county administrator said he had no idea what being it was being used. Uh I would I would I would venture to say that if it was reasonable what they were asking for the reserve account to be used for that we probably say yes
we probably would have. I mean it's a reserve. They have the money. How many times have we used our reserve to cover things we had to cover so we wouldn't have to go increase our fees. So I would I would imagine that we probably say yes to. So to me, okay, moving forward, city, I would ask that she didn't do
that again. But odds are again, we would have said yes. So now we're talking about the underfunding. Underfunding, we don't know. We don't know how much that would hurt, how much that would hurt our constituents, how much that would increase their fees or or what would happen there. But what I do know today that option one and option two
puts it puts us in a position to do nothing to our constituents to not increase any fees on them to to keep the status quo and keep moving forward until we finish this contract and we can look at what we may need to change moving
forward. Again, I just I just don't see us I don't see a I don't see a reason for us to refine gold. I don't see liies are beautiful in and of itself. Why are we painting them? Why? Why are we having this conversation? Again, everything I'm hearing, well, we got to do this before
we raise the fee. The beautiful thing that's happening today is we're saying that they can't raise the fee. Even more beautiful that than that was we sent over a compromise that would have given the city the opportunity to
raise the fee that they shouldn't have been able to raise anyway, but they said no. And now we sit here and we get to say back, you had that burden to hand compromise. You said no. Now we're saying that you can't raise the fee at all because this contract gives us the
authority to say whether or not you raise the fee. But what we want to do now is we want to go a step further and we still going to arbitrate. We're still going to look at other things that with within this this this system that we're talking about that nobody would have complained about. Nobody would have complained about
had the increase not come from the city. So that's what we're going to do. That's what we're going to do. But like I said, in 28, we may have the position of power now, but in 28, we have to go back to the
city. And in 28, we're going to ask the city, hey, we want to renegotiate and work with you all on the fire services fee and we want to see if we can come up and fix all the problems that we had and all that kind of stuff. In 28, that's what's going to happen.
In 28, just right around the corner. Or let's say, let's say they say, "Hey, you want to increase the fee?" Then we'll just go ahead and we'll just cancel the whole contract. We got to give you 18 months. At least I got 18 months sitting steady at where we at. And then at 27, we can do the same thing. But what we're
talking about here is going to arbitration and looking at this and looking at that and underfunding and maybe even having to pass those those those cost on to the people who are underfunded whether it be business or or it be a residential and and all that
good stuff. I I just again why are we trying to paint a living? Let's just take the victory man. If we if we if we really look at this, what we what we started with was again I'm going say it one more time was there is no justification and we have a contract we have a contract in
place that needs to be honored and that contract should be honored until the end of this 5-year period. That's what we started with and today we get exactly what we wanted with actually with with act with options one and two and we getting the city um honoring that
contract and us doing the same. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Commissioner Maddox. Commissioner Miner. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Commissioner Maddox, very, very good comments. Thank you. Um, first of all, I've got some good news. If you've been paying attention to what we've been
saying on the DAS here, I think it's pretty clear that this county commission will be voting to keep our fire service fees the same uh for the next year. That's the good news. No increase. Um, but as we've all talked about, the question still remains about option three. Should we proceed to continue
with our dispute resolution process? Um, Commissioners Maddox, Cummings, Welch, I think are striking the the perfect tone here. Um, you know, for 37 years, the city and the county have had an agreement on fire service, and it it hasn't been perfect. Uh, but but but
residents within the entire county and the city have um have benefited by having fire protection. This community works best when the county and city work together in good faith to serve the people who live here. Um, but at the same time, we have to
take a look at what our obligation is for option number three. And so, I have a question for the county attorney. Um, you know, Commissioner Matics had talked about how what the impact might be. Should we have option three passed and we go through that analysis of the items
you've identified, the three items here? um and possibly others. How would that work? If we if we did pass option three, the dispute resolution process would continue. You and your staff would hire the financial consultant. You would work
with the city on these three items and possibly other items and you identified savings. How would those savings be applied, if at all, to rateayers? I think that is an open question. Uh
certainly for the debt that was issued uh without the authority of the county in any other expenditures that were done in that manner. Uh the argument would be that wasn't included in the rates, that
wasn't authorized, that was a breach of the agreement. it was inconsistent with the rate study and the city needs to pay for that from other other sources. Um, if you're talking about uh they imposed the wrong rates, uh, I think
they would have options. Could they go back and try to claw that back from their utility customers? Um, they could, although I think that would probably be an administrative nightmare for them, but they could do it. I don't I don't know. that would be up to them whether to true that up from another source or
whether to go back and capture that from constituents who didn't pay the full rate. Um, if you're talking about the issue, if they haven't already tred up, that would have to come from another source
because that's what they're obligated to do under their resolution. They would not be able to go back and pass that on to other constituents. uh and they made a determination it wouldn't be cost-effective for them to try to go back to those properties and
collect that money that was underfunded. Uh so they would have to use some other source for that. That would not be something that the constituents would pay through the rates. >> So to me this is the key question, right? This is the key question on whether or not we support option three
or not is what benefit is there to county rateayers by passing option three? And m Madam County attorney, it sounds like it's it's an open-ended question, but that the chances of our rateayers benefiting by going through
the dispute resolution process is is good. In other words, we're looking at how the fire service fee has been applied. We're working uh we're taking a look at um uh following the interlocal agreement and making sure that that on both counts
those are done fairly and and uniformly. Correct. So would it would it be could we assume the chances are good that Lyon County rateayers would benefit by going through the dispute resolution process and looking at these items more closely >> to the extent the city would have to pay
those things out of other funds then then the people who pay the rates would not be impacted adversely by that I think that there's the chance that at least for some of those that would be the case. >> Okay. you know. >> No, sorry. Commissioner Maddox, go
ahead. >> Commissioner Maddox, you have want to add something. >> No, I was just wondering, you said that they would benefit. They just would they would be held harmless. They wouldn't benefit, per se. They just would be held harmless. Correct. >> They would benefit to the extent that monies that should have been in the fire
services fund or in the fire services reserve fund were actually recouped. >> Right. >> Okay. So, the answer is yes. the the the potential is yes, right? >> The potential is yes. >> Yeah. Okay. To me, that's the key question. And and and like commissioners
Maddox and Cummings and Welch have said very well. You know, I I have no animosity to the city. This is not uh uh a way to to to strike back or anything like that. I'm looking at this from a very dispassionate point of view, which is how we need to look at it. Uh you
know, we we work with the city. Um it's uh we need to continue to work with the city and in 2028 we need to work with them on whatever the next agreement is going to be for fire services. Uh so I I recognize all that and and I know for our folks who might be watching on the city side I I don't think
I don't think anyone here has animosity toward the city. I hope not because we we need to work with you and we need to work well with you. When we work together our citizens and the entire community benefit and we need to maintain that. Um, so I'm going to support option three because I I do
think that that the county commission has an obligation to to look at these more closely. Uh, it's not a anything other than that. I think that because um because we have the interlocal agreement even though these are city functions, we
have an obligation and a responsibility in in my opinion. I respect those who might disagree with me, but but uh for me, this is an idea of of making sure that rateayers are being treated fairly and that the interlocal agreement is being followed entirely. So, I'm going to support the substitute motion for
options one, two, and three. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Commissioner Miner. Commissioner O'Keefe. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I got a couple questions um and then comments. So, um my question is focus around our volunteer firefighter departments. So,
we have volunteer firefighter departments across the county, mostly serving unincorporated areas. And these are staffed or or volunteered by citizen volunteers who for free volunteer to be fire service first responders for those
communities. Um, they get some funding from the county and out of the fire service fee and they also seek other donations. Um, but I don't know how much that really contributes to it. So keeping
in any of this discussion is the amount that is budgeted for county volunteer firefighter departments going up or down? >> No. >> Okay. And we know that our agreement
with the city, we've been talking about the official paid city fire department. Neither county or city without joint approval can increase fire service rates. Does that not allow us to if we chose to independently increase funding
for fire volunteer fire departments or are we still allowed to do that? >> Not if it affects the rate. >> We would have to do it out of a general fund or something. It couldn't be paid by fire sheriff's fee. >> Correct. But we are okay at the current
amount we are giving them out of the fire service fee. >> We are >> okay. Do and maybe it won't go to Ken, maybe it'll be Vince. Do you know how much that total is each year for all the county money to the volunteer fire departments?
>> A little under 500,000. >> Little under $500,000. Okay. What I would um just like to plant a seed here is that as we go forward in future years, I think that if after validation and verification and agreement, if we
find that the cost of fighting fires by the fire department is actually going up, I think it's important we remember to come back and consider is the cost of volunteer departments fighting fires going up and that we remember that they still need to be funded to operate in those unincorporated areas, especially
that those folks are volunteering um for that service for their community. Um back to the I just don't want us to forget that it may be a small amount in a large budget item, but it is no small impact to the people volunteering and to the people who get responded to by those
volunteers. Um so back to the main issue here, there is no winner and loser in this discussion. This is not a competition. This is a dispute between two parties who are partners in an agreement of one of many serving our
community. We aren't successful going alone without the city and the city isn't successful going alone without us. That is these are our partners. Now, I may not be super familiar with the movie Dirty Dancing, but um I understand the
concept of partners. Um so, you know, let's go back to where we really started here. We got here when we were notified by our partner that the fire service fund fee, the facts that they gave us were it will run out of money if there's not more money going
into it. And we haven't heard any change in that fact from them. What we have learned is that we cannot be forced to increase what we charge customers if they cannot increase what they charge customers unless we agree.
That is good news. And to reiterate Commissioner Miner's point, no ma no matter which motion we vote on today, the county is going to vote today to send notices next week that we will not be increasing fire service fees for our
citizens. Period. Now, if the fact stands that the fire service fee fund will not have enough money to operate, we have to find out how that is. If it's not, if it's not because the fees aren't enough, if it's because
unauthorized expenses have gone out or both parties, one or the other, haven't put enough money they're supposed to in, that's the point of option number three is to address the fact that we have been told by our partners that there's not enough money in the fund. We've
addressed the fact that we can't be forced to raise a fee, but we still have to address the fact that there needs to be money to fund a fire service and a fire department. and we want to find out why it's not enough and go from there. Since we're doing quotes, a former
president said trust but verify. That is why we are doing option three. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner O'Keefe. Commissioner Kan, Mr. Vice Chair. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Commissioner O'Keefe, that was very, very well stated. Very well stated. Trying to get my
laptop up. There it is. Commissioners, it looks like um option three is is going to carry forward. And so I I just want to be very brief and close with this. This isn't about winning to me. This is
about transparency and what's right. Sometimes when you open a door, you see something you didn't expect to see. And in this case, we didn't choose to
open the door. The city chose to open the door by turning down our collegial attempt at meeting them in the in the middle. Throughout the process, our staff did their homework and they did a damn good job. Yeah.
And we saw some stuff that we didn't know was going on. And so this isn't about us being adversarial. It's about digging deeper because I think we owe it to taxpayers. What just happened
or attempted to happen was the city tried to impose a 22% on residents in Lyon County and in the city of Tallahassee. Meanwhile, they're underfunded the account. They're
spending money they weren't supposed to. They're not trueing up on fees on assessments that they are not collecting. It says that in the resolution and it says that in our agreement. And to be clear, I support a financial consultant looking
through our books because I think we also owe it to taxpayers. If Leon County is not doing their job and our job, I think we should true up. It's only fair. And right now, but before we go ever asking taxpayers to pay anything, we
need to do our homework. And so I um I I appreciate the sentiment of our colleagues and I'm looking forward to seeing what a financial consultant comes up with and shining more light on this issue. And I think that is the true and
honest way to put this issue to bed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Mr. vice chair. Uh, kind of administrator has some clarity, I think, >> and then you can put on point. >> Just one quick thing. Again, the board's put due emphasis on the um this issue on
on option three, all of which you take no issue with. Um, and and there there absolutely could be costs there that we need to true up. All of which has been stated. Um, but it's kind of the the smaller issue. The bigger issue again just to be very clear those paying
attention are the added costs that the city incre the added costs of ISO big costs the added cost of labor it's the big cost the added cost of the refining we've articulated this in the past those are the big big costs these are very important too but I just wanted to make
sure I put that in context thank you >> thank you Mr. Administrator uh on point Mr. Commissioner Maddox, then we're going to go to Commissioner Cummings and Commissioner Proctor. >> Thank you. I think um Madame Attorney, it's an issue of timing for me. I'm not saying I disagree with option three
totally. What I'm saying is that option three will happen eventually regardless whether it happens now or it happens when we renegotiate, it's going to happen. Madam Attorney, um, if we go with option three, how will it play out in the way it's
addressed in the timing of when it's addressed? >> I'm going to give you an answer and if and if it's if it's not responded to your question, please restate your question. Mhm. >> Uh if the board does not move forward on option three, does not move forward on
option three. We will completely dismiss the arbitration, we will not look into the issues that have been raised any further. We will staff will not do anything else uh until further directed by the board at some time in the future.
>> Right. So So you stop there. So what you're saying is we could do option three now or we could we could do option three to look at these things when we're going through the renegotiation in 28 or no >> the board has that discretion at any
time as long as you're still in this third term and you still have a valid interlocal agreement. That's correct. >> Timing uh m Mr. chair, the timing of if we did option three now, madam attorney, the timing longterm of when, let's say
the the consultant comes back, consultant tells us whatever the numbers are. Um, what would be the timing of of when the consultant will come back? >> Well, that's going to depend on a couple of things. Uh, we're going to have to request certain documentation from the
city. It will just depend on how cooperative the city is in producing those records. If we have questions about those in what is in those records, it will depend on how cooperative they are in providing answers to those questions and it really depends on how far in the dispute resolution process we
would have to go. Um the initial review by the consultant would take a while. I mean so we would not be looking at proceeding to any mediation certainly any mediation let alone a a formal arbitration proceeding for quite some
time. And that's very different from what we were looking at initially because we thought we were under the gun for a potential rate increase in fiscal year 2026. We don't have that time constraint issue anymore. >> So again looking at this just timing
wise if let's say again this is something that we were have if we were going to address we could address it now. We could address it later. If we were addressing and addressing it in preparation for our renegotiation in 28, we could also do it that way and still accomplish the same thing. I mean, we've
uncovered the issue. We have a right within within our contract to to bring these things out. Is that correct? >> You Yes. You would want to give yourself plenty of lead time. Now, keep in mind if they're going if they were to trigger
the termination provision, they'd have to do that no later than early 2027. Any renegotiation of this agreement, I would anticipate, will take quite some time. Uh, as well, it's not something that's going to happen in a month or two. Uh, and if you have outstanding
issues associated with any issues, again, I would give yourself plenty of time to get those fully and adequately addressed before you were to enter into any renegotiated agreement. >> What what happens while while we're figuring all this out if we if we go
with option three, it just remains things just remain satisfied as is >> as ter in terms of rates. That's correct. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, Commissioner Cummings, then Commissioner Proctor, and then >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I I don't want
to, I guess, beat a dead horse or prolong it, but just just a couple of follow-up questions. Uh, Mr. chair uh as far as the dispute uh resolution process and option three madam chair and you all have done your research and you have
found and basically told us that in order to increase the rates it has to be an agreement with with both parties. Okay. So, by that same token, in adopting option three and going through
analysis and asking for documents and what have you, can the rate be can the fees be reduced without an agreement from both parties? In other words, can can the arbitrators
look at it? >> No. >> And reg. So what's what's good at the top as far as increasing the same thing at the bottom the rates cannot be reduced. So it doesn't matter if we go forward with three doesn't matter what we find underfunding
failing to supplement from non uh fire services sources. Uh overinflated rate for fire station 1715 um rates can't be reduced unless both parties agree.
>> That's correct. Okay. All right. And then my other question is uh proceeding uh with option three in in this process. Could the policies of the city be changed as it
relates to I mean we've talked about exemptions exemptions uh for um for churches. Um there have been some concerns about
whether or not it's fairly um applied to all interested parties. Would could this dispute resolution process address that or change the city's policies without I guess
agreement of the city? >> Mr. Chair, can she answer? >> Yes. Go. You you can speak freely. So, and Commissioner Proctor touched on this a little bit before. Um, so
property of religious institutions is accessible. Okay, it's not like under our current methodology where vacant land and agricultural land are not accessible. Okay. So to the extent the city were to
modify its policy uh or change how it applies it, it would need to do so uniformly. It could supplement that and make up whatever
assessments it's not collecting from that exempt but otherwise accessible property from its own other revenue sources. The county could do the same,
but it all depends on but the but the reality doesn't change that that property is accessible and whether it's in the city or the county, someone other than other rateayers has to pay for that benefit that's received by those
properties. Uh, Madame County Attorney, do do you anticipate if we go forward with the dispute resolution that that will be one of the issues that will be raised um by your office with the city? >> I think it would be very hard to
arbitrate that particular issue. And I'll tell you why. Because even if an exemption is provided for, it only covers certain property of a religious institution
under the statute. Uh so there's a case for example that says uh administrative uh properties used for administrative purposes uh don't qualify as places of worship. Okay. So
when an exemption is being applied, it's going to be a case-bycase determination because you know, you've seen the the tiny Cinder block church where really it's just a sanctuary and that's all there is. Well, they would get a full
exemption for that if an exemption is in place for places of worship for religious institutions. Now you have different churches that perform other functions that have other amenities and things like that. Would
that qualify for that exemption? That's always determined on a case-byase basis. And with the number of churches you have in the incorporated and unincorporated areas, I think it would be really hard to
collectively try to arbitrate every specific instance related to that type of an exemption. Does that make sense? >> It does. Okay. It does. Thank you. So, so bottom line is moving forward with
the dispute dispute uh resolution process at this time. uh might uncover some issues
that uh between the city and the county uh that I guess could be subjects of compromise or what have you, but it won't affect the rate that our citizens are paying um unless the two
parties agree. number one. And number two, hopefully we are bound by the contract that we have now with the city throughout the duration of the five years. And if the parties agreed to the
two one-year extensions, it could be throughout two extra. So, so I guess my bottom line question is what do we want to accomplish commissioners with option three
if it's not going to benefit our citizens? this is not going to benefit uh the taxpayers and if there's an agreement with the parties at the end of this contractual period to enter into another agreement I
think prior to that I believe the parties will agree like they did before to have a study have a study done of the actual cost for fire services uh fees and the actual you know personnel cost the whole list that we have in our
information today. I think it would be prudent >> for both parties to have that done and then we would have more accurate costs and that way we would feel I would feel better with the assessment that we would agree to for our for our county
constituents. But otherwise, I it just appears to be exercising futility in in my opinion with staff time. uh the county administrator already indicated it's
going to cost um the county offers which I understand from an administrative standpoint but I like to um to take step that's going to benefit our constituents and I think like
Commissioner Maddox indicated maybe this would be more beneficial a couple of years down the road, right? Uh close to time when we would either negotiate uh with the city or extend this
contract. Um but at this point, it it just appears to me that it would be um an exercise just an exercise in futility and that's it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Cummings, Commissioner Proctor, and uh Commissioner Maddox. And after that, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. This has just been a u a wonderful um day, and um I'm appreciative for you all allowing me to be a part of your wonderful day. Um I'll
recap um your beautiful letter uh Mr. Chairman, and you indicated that collective bargain agreement was a factor. Leyon County schools was a factor. I still don't know why if the Leyon County schools u ain't paying what
they posed to pay, why we would levy 22% increase. Uh that need to be duked out by the city and school board. Uh not just given to us silently to say, "Well, we'll let them go. Shrug our shoulders
and no, the county ain't they dumb enough to do it. let them do we we'll get we'll recover. Um it's crazy. We we can't pay everybody who don't pay their bills. Okay. Um I appreciate the letter
you sent and I appreciate his tone uh Mr. chairman, but I also look in him disappointed with um Mayor Dal's response and saying that the level of service and response
he wanted to increase. He did not answer what chairman sent him and um evasive didn't talk about the ISO uh rating increase. Higher ISO rating could lead to a reduced property
insurance rates for residents and businesses. Our county attorney says it ain't got no relation to nothing. And y'all seen a a a wet mullet flip-flopping on the ground. Um and then
the city uh in conclusion cannot guarantee that adjustments for unanticipated changes in cost uh will not be recovered. So we're told to swallow this uh after 18 months, but we can't guarantee that we going to come
and do it again. Really? Okay. So, I'm comfortable with option three, but there were three bombs dropped uh on page 8, which I didn't get a chance to indicate. Uh the county
staff has concluded that the city did not impose the correct fire rescue services rates in 2324 and 2425. That's probably how we got here. Because
of uh male feasants or incompetence, the city ain't done their job. And our staff said that it was required uh in the third term rate study. But let us not be um dissuaded from our intuition
and our instincts. There is no third party consultant. That's the shell because the city gives the third party consultant its own numbers. The consultant is just getting a check and
can't validate or verify their numbers are authentic. It's just their name signed to a sheet of paper. I'm glad we're smarter than uh than that. Our staff tells us that the flat
rate uh has been negated. Uh it's been inconsistent. staff told us. Um I I was impressed by the next or rather depressed by the next uh area
that um city resolution 23rd 19 article three some more words. Uh the provision obligates the city to supplement the file services budget from sources other than the file service assessments with
amounts necessary to provide file services facilities and programs to such property. So why is if they are required through their own resolution, what is they down here in our face for?
Okay, policy tells them what to do. They just don't want to follow. And it's that spirit of um um being intractably uh indifferent, aloof, haughty. They got directions on what to do and they're
acting like uh our staff would not uh read. Our staff has asked for um county staff has requested confirmation from city staff whether in fact the city has complied with its obligations to true up
monies that it has not collected on property with structures that are unoccupied or where utility service have been. As of the publication, this publication of this agenda, the city has not provided a response or any
supporting documentation. And if if we can't get a response and we are partner in an agreement, I mean, if your wife can't get a response out the husband and he's in the marriage agreement, I mean, ain't no other woman going to get no
response. I mean they are a partner and we can't in good faith get a response. How can a citizen how can them people's church find out what's going on and why they not why they don't have a waiver?
We can't get it. And then um the last bum here um is that um we're told uh county staff has confirmed that the city has already incurred costs that were not
included in the third term rate. Really? What they talking about? As the board is aware, the current rates include $17 million to construct fire station 17 without obtaining
the approval of the AMC, which is Vince and Ree, notification to or approval by the county or the development of a new rate study to incorporate the additional cost and to increase rates. In 2024, the
city issued debt in the amount of 27 million for the construction of fire station 17, which is 10 million more than was contemplated in the rate study. Ladies and gentlemen, I will pull up
from there. I've read enough uh enough alarms are going off. Our staff is trying to get our attention. We're party to and partners with ochre not acting in good faith and there was no contemplation
that uh debt would be issue and that debt has already began to be serviced from monies collected from the fire service. I've asked numerous times where does the $1 million that we collect uh
from county residents for the fire fund for the city where does it go? They don't know. Um, we don't know. But we collect 11.4 million and the city transfers 11.7
million from the fire fund fees to the general fund. That means 100% of the money we take up, it goes to undergur city services, which makes this taxation without representation. Because
these people paying this tax, this rate, this assessment, this fee, whatever the word is, they don't get to vote on the people who are going up on their fee, their rate, their assessment. So, we're doing the right thing today because the
people who are paying and being asked to pay 22% more still won't be able to vote for the people who are charging them public money. And so I'm delighted today uh that we have a more than a lap dog
county attorney. And I I have no interest uh in going to lunch, dinner, being friends with nobody at the city commission. That's not what I'm here for. And I'm not interested in going to lunch or dinner with either of you either.
My concern is that I represent citizens and as uh commissioner and mayor U. dot has indicated u this is regressive and when it's a regressive um uh alignment against citizens of this
community I get it hit the hardest if it's regressive because I've got the poorest citizen and something like this it it it it hits us very hard. So I'm really happy
today uh for the citizens for this issue for our staff having a backbone and um helping all of us to understand and I would like to say to them continue to be diligent uh to represent the interests
of even those of us who are already paying the the taxes to the city or utilities. We can't even get sewer pipes uh to relieve our yards. What we have to place in them these things and other things like utilities. I hope that in
the uh uh what's that word? Um um the citizen group that we're bringing together to look at the charter review. What needs to occur is that the county needs to take over utilities. Period. And the city is operating without a citizens utility review board. And I
don't know why people are paying for utilities and can't get equal service, equal protection for having sewer pipes. Um, and we got two different health standards abiding in this community. And when you start talking about the
utility, all of it is um separate and unequal and it's the services are gerrymandered and people are excluded out uh and carved out of the city so that they won't vote to protect themselves against
>> Proctor. Could you I hate to interrupt you, but could you wrap it up? I got to go to the school board meeting and present some proclamations real soon. >> I yield, sir. I'm sorry. >> Thank you, Commissioner Proctor. Commissioner Maddox, you guys still in the queue? Yes, sir. Mr. Chry, quick out. >> Yeah, thank you. I've been uh I appreciate Commissioner Meyer's
argument. Uh we came back around some of the things that were talked about. I appreciate the the focus uh as you say the benefit to our constituents. I I almost I think I've convinced myself to go option three. Um but it's an issue
more of the renegotiation. We need to be in the right place for the renegotiation. And that's not about the current fee. It's about the renegotiation. And I almost when you you talked about the timing, I thought maybe we may be able to to do this a little bit later, but county
attorney, you said that we're going to need some time with this. I would almost like for this to to to indicate our interest in negotiating in 28 more so than um looking at the issues
that we found as a result of um this rate increase that we're talking about now. So to make it make sense, what's the timing that we would need to start having our our um financial consultant look at it so that we can be
in the right posture to bring these things up in 28 to be a while where we're talking about what the new contract looks like in negotiations and what the rate should be taking into consideration these issues that we're talking about in option number three. Madam Chron,
>> I can't give you a definitive time frame only because I without because I had not received board direction yet. I have not talked with uh the financial consultant about uh scope and what what her other
you know obligations are. I mean we won't be the only entity she's doing work for. Uh also there are other factors the city's going to have to provide documentation. They're going to have to answer questions. All of that is kind of outside of the control of us or a consultant, but I can guarantee you it
will take months to do that work. >> Commissioner O'Keefe, it's a matter, but I like it. If if for option three um we could rephrase it to
be to go for moving uh on this espiratory uh to hire a financial consultant to look at um where spending may have uh where we where we're under underfunded or where um underfunded or
where monies were spent. Um that will put us in posture to be at the right rate in the correct uh the right rates and the correct funding sources for our 28 negotiation.
>> Commissioner, I can't do that because >> what number three does is >> you don't have to explain it. >> No, but I get to though. >> Chairman, you're going to the school board. So >> we already finished what I said. I thought he had to go to school board. cut me off. >> I I can't I can't do that because what
number three does is ask to verify the agreement we are in is being followed. I see no sense in waiting until the agreement's over to see if the agreement is being followed. >> It's not waiting until it's over. It would still happen. >> All right, commissioners. We got >> to open it. It's okay. >> All right. So, we've got a motion. I
think it's from Commissioner O'Keeffe. Seconded by Commissioner Caban for options one, two, and three. Staff recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying I. I >> I all opposed >> I >> I so two passes 5 to2 two in opposition
Commissioner Cummings and Commissioner Maddox. Thank you commissioners. I think that was a a nice robust conversation. Um I appreciate the respect and um I'll see you guys here in a month. >> Just want to thank everybody for the
creative metaphors to tonight's meeting. >> Lot of metaphor and baby puppies and all that. All right. Uh, with that we are adjourned. Thank you. >> Hey, can can you Heat. Heat. Heat up here.