WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=EUDsl4YsEXs

Part: 1

1
00:00:00.640 --> 00:00:17.600
Call a meeting to order. Uh I have no chair report. Um we'll ask for there's any additions, deletions, modifications to the agenda. >> No addition. >> No. All right. Uh let me move on to approval of the minutes from our April

2
00:00:17.600 --> 00:00:31.599
21st meeting. >> Move to approve as second. We have a second. Any comments? All right. All in favor of the motion. >> Any opposed? All right.

3
00:00:31.599 --> 00:00:47.520
Uh, ask for any public comments. >> No. >> Only one public we have here. All right. Moving on to old business. Uh, disaster recovery fund cash update. >> Good morning. >> Good morning.

4
00:00:47.520 --> 00:01:03.680
>> Thank you for being here. We have lots to accomplish today. So, I'll try and be as brief as I can. Stop me if you have questions along the way. Um these documents I have presented I've stapled them in packs here. So this one is

5
00:01:03.680 --> 00:01:23.200
number six. Um disaster recovery fund cash flow projection as of 62526. As of that date the disaster recovery fund was in a negative cash position of $225,000. Our

6
00:01:23.200 --> 00:01:40.880
anticipated accounts receivable balance from FEMA is now $286,000. That has diminished significantly and I'll explain that in a moment. The current budgeted outflows are the James Rogers Park for a million1

7
00:01:40.880 --> 00:01:55.680
$150,000 in miscellaneous projects and consulting fees in fiscal 26. the remaining debt service payment for fiscal 26 of 2.4 4 million and then the additional remaining debt service over the life of

8
00:01:55.680 --> 00:02:12.400
the bond of 22 million and change total outflow flows 25 million which means as of September 30 34 I've changed this date per your request we um we will be in a negative cash

9
00:02:12.400 --> 00:02:32.959
position of $25,850,000. Now, this has changed um because of the accounts receivable balance from FEMA. The next page with the bar chart in blue, you will see I I download this off of a website called

10
00:02:32.959 --> 00:02:50.400
Florida PA. Um they give us a synopsis of everything um FEMA related. And you'll see in the table on the far left the word unobligated and there's a pin about $4,890,000.

11
00:02:50.400 --> 00:03:06.640
Last time I reported this to you, this was 3 million and change. They continue to deob un excuse me, unobligate projects, which that translates into they're going to send us less money. >> So this is changed by an additional $2

12
00:03:06.640 --> 00:03:20.720
million. >> Million million and change. What I will caution you is they're not done. >> Aren't you a bright sunsh that way every day?

13
00:03:20.720 --> 00:03:37.680
>> I wish I had better news to give you. Um >> so the obligation review is that that 1721 189 is that what they're still looking to unobligate or more? >> Uh no, there could be more. >> Uh we'll tell you about a phone call in a few m moments.

14
00:03:37.680 --> 00:03:53.840
The next page um is a summary of the city hall costs. I've told you in the past that these numbers will change. They will continue to change based on what FEMA applies towards this project.

15
00:03:53.840 --> 00:04:11.599
The total grand total of this building has not changed. That's $18,65,000. What has changed is in the insurance recovery portion. FEMA in their infinite wisdom has increased that number to 4 million1

16
00:04:11.599 --> 00:04:29.040
which um looks good on paper means that the city is paying less money for this building 7 million1. However, I do not understand how FEMA is allocating the insurance and we are having continuing conversations with

17
00:04:29.040 --> 00:04:45.280
them about how they're going to do that. >> What What do we actually get in insurance proceeds? 18 million and a a half for everything the entire city >> and then FEMA >> and FEMA has

18
00:04:45.280 --> 00:05:01.360
>> goes in and they allocate where it should be correct placed >> and they've decided 4 million1 for this building. >> Okay. The next page is a similar analysis of the sports complex. I don't believe that I've reported this to you in the past. So, I'll take a moment to

19
00:05:01.360 --> 00:05:16.240
explain. The sports complex has been completed. The city did it in a number of phases. Um, the vertical, the horizontal, the gym, the concession stands and whatnot. All in demolition,

20
00:05:16.240 --> 00:05:34.080
design A&E, everything. $17,42,000. I've given you a timeline of how it went to the commission and what was discussed. That's the center block. The bottom block is the funding sources.

21
00:05:34.080 --> 00:05:52.320
FEMA originally um obligated 3.7 million. There are no no 428 projects to assign to the sports complex as the city determined all 428 money was going to go to the city hall building. So now the same explanation about the

22
00:05:52.320 --> 00:06:08.479
insurance recovery. FEMA in their infinite wisdom have has decided that 4.2 2 million of the money that we received is for the sports complex. So that means we have funding of 8 million and 25,000

23
00:06:08.479 --> 00:06:27.520
meaning the city's portion for the sports complex m 9,16,000. >> What what was the original city portion of it when y'all originally did this? Planning on the FEMA money insurance proceeds. What did you estimate that city portion to be?

24
00:06:27.520 --> 00:06:43.120
>> I just started this analysis now. This this was a far more complicated analysis than the city hall because it was so many phases and so many contractors and so many project numbers and and honestly I was so focused on giving you numbers about the city hall that I set this

25
00:06:43.120 --> 00:07:02.880
aside until it was done. Now it's done. All right. Um the last page, please um understand that this is a draft and I need to do some more work on this, but this seems to be helpful to the city manager. All of the revenues are listed on the top block. We have

26
00:07:02.880 --> 00:07:20.080
brought in to date $102 million. All of the expenditures are in the bottom block. To date, we spent $104 million. That means we're in a deficit of 2.5. And I've sorted these by dollar amounts.

27
00:07:20.080 --> 00:07:37.199
Now, >> is this since the hurricane? Is that what you're >> Everything to do with Hurricane Michael. >> Okay. >> Absolutely. Every penny that I have recorded in the general ed. >> The first listed item, contractual services.

28
00:07:37.199 --> 00:07:54.560
The previous administration instructed finance that if there was a contract, it was to be in uh recorded in contractual services. Didn't matter what the contract was for. If it had a contract, it was to be recorded in contractual services.

29
00:07:54.560 --> 00:08:11.440
But you'll see down a little four or five below it, it says professional services. I'm not sure what the determination of putting professional services was. Both of those numbers include debris hauling. So, some of the money went in that top line and some of the money went in the

30
00:08:11.440 --> 00:08:26.560
bottom line. debris hauling generally speaking somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 million split between those two line items as you see um city hall on the top $18 million sports

31
00:08:26.560 --> 00:08:42.479
complex 17 million then the debt reduction this is what we have paid for debt service thus far I've put this in bold um so that you can see that this applies towards the bold number above where it says bond proceeds the 31

32
00:08:42.479 --> 00:08:59.800
million and the Hancock line of credit the 2.5 million. So the in the bottom block under expenditures where it says debt reduction 12 million7 that applies to the two bold numbers above as does the interest expense.

33
00:09:00.000 --> 00:09:17.519
All right and I I will be spending more time on this but I wanted to get it to you today. What questions can I answer for you about this? So the debt reduction and interest expense they

34
00:09:17.519 --> 00:09:34.160
are additive to the bond pro to the >> no you take the bond proceeds you and the 2.5 and the heliloc and then you subtract out the two numbers below and that gives you the debt service uh the balance today

35
00:09:34.160 --> 00:09:58.399
should be in that area. They just allocated another $491 million of federal funds for the state of Florida disasters. Is there anything that could be allocated for us? Do we know anything about this? >> I have no knowledge of that. I've only seen the headlines. I >> From what I've read, I think that was

36
00:09:58.399 --> 00:10:16.480
the two hurricanes that hit last year. What was that? Um, >> Helen and I think there was another one right after Helen. There were two together. >> Maria, >> I don't remember that. But the two that that hit last year in Central Florida

37
00:10:16.480 --> 00:10:43.920
and then made their way up to the Carolinas. I'm already unobligating what we've been promised. I don't see that being very viable option worth looking at. Um, in addition to this, we have a

38
00:10:43.920 --> 00:10:58.160
couple of different phone calls that we have on a regular basis um with the Tetratech consultants and then um a group phone call between uh the state and FEMA representatives

39
00:10:58.160 --> 00:11:21.519
and HMGP were their the state's consultants and it's usually pretty fast and furious and hey where are we with the paperwork and what's next um they have sent to us two projects for close out

40
00:11:21.519 --> 00:11:41.680
that I have not signed yet based on the recommendations of the um tetrch consultant I had already signed off on a couple of projects and now they are sending invoices.

41
00:11:41.680 --> 00:12:03.839
We've received two invoices, one for 62,000 and change, one for 65,000 and change. And they um this the invoices state that they're doing and payable in 45 days. We had a phone call with the consultant.

42
00:12:03.839 --> 00:12:22.040
Uh he was very clear that we should wait. that in the consultant's words, the um state representatives were confused

43
00:12:22.560 --> 00:12:40.279
and that uh we should wait for the state to get more information before we decide if we're going to pay those two invoices or if they're going to take it out of that $286,000 in receivable money.

44
00:12:40.480 --> 00:12:59.519
I don't believe this is the last time I'm going to be telling you this. I believe there will be others. And it all hinges on how they allocate the insurance payments. >> What was our face value on our insurance

45
00:12:59.519 --> 00:13:15.040
policy? Total the total payout >> 23 and change I believe. >> I've heard 23 and 26, but I don't know that number for sure. Okay. >> But in actual cash, we received $18 million and a half. >> I know the background there. We've got

46
00:13:15.040 --> 00:13:30.959
all the insurance proceeds we're going to get. >> There's not one more nickel coming. >> Is the the money you have here, the 44.4 million from FEMA, is that what we've received or Okay. >> I mean, FEMA is more than likely going to allocate all of that insurance money.

47
00:13:30.959 --> 00:13:46.480
That that would be my guess. >> Yes. it base. I agree with you. You're correct. >> It's in their favor to allocate as much as they can because that's >> more we owe them back. >> Yeah. >> And it it depends on where they allocate

48
00:13:46.480 --> 00:14:03.920
it. The other the other problems that have come up recently is small projects. Small projects are less than 125,000. Don't quote me on that. Somewhere in that neighborhood. Anything that's determined to be a small project,

49
00:14:03.920 --> 00:14:19.920
they just basically say, "Okay, Linhaven, take care of it." And they write you a check. Once it goes over that threshold and becomes a large projects, that's when it kicks in where they need all the paperwork and the proof of payments and the contracts and the procurement and, you know, it

50
00:14:19.920 --> 00:14:36.240
becomes a a much larger um paperwork documentation kind of exercise. We've had two small projects that in their infinite wisdom they have now decided are large projects and here we are 7

51
00:14:36.240 --> 00:14:52.399
years 7 and 1/2 years later and now that means I have to go back and find all the documentation for those what we thought were small projects. I've got to find all the invoices and the procurement documents and cancelled checks and the

52
00:14:52.399 --> 00:15:07.839
contracts and anything associated with that to submit to be able to get to substantiate the money that we've already received. And my question to them was, can we just agree not to ask for any more money over

53
00:15:07.839 --> 00:15:26.079
the small project cap? Can you just forget the difference? No, we can't do that. It is now a large project project. You are required to submit the paperwork >> on these all insurance allocations. Are they do they give you an explanation or

54
00:15:26.079 --> 00:15:42.600
a methodology for how they come up with allocating those funds? >> They do not. >> They just give you a number. >> So it's kind of hard for you to argue when you don't even know how they're coming up with a number. So there was a document produced

55
00:15:44.639 --> 00:15:59.759
the original insurance company was Pidgeot Pidgeot. >> There was a document produced by Pidgeot >> Fment was the original then Pidgeot.

56
00:15:59.759 --> 00:16:16.639
>> Sorry too many insurance companies. The original insurance company produced a document and sent it to the previous city manager. In everybody's files, it's referred to as letter to Vicky Gainor. The feds call it that. The state calls it that. HMGP calls it that. The letter

57
00:16:16.639 --> 00:16:33.600
to Vicky Gainer. It's 125ish pages long. In that 125 pages, there are three or four that are the insurance allocation. And this was well before the settlement,

58
00:16:33.600 --> 00:16:51.759
well before we hired an attorney, well before any all the monies were received. That document was produced at the beginning stages. FEMA is using that as their guideline. We didn't receive the money that's on

59
00:16:51.759 --> 00:17:09.919
those four pages, but that's the document they're using to allocate the money the way that they're allocating. >> And it was based on total payout insurance, right? So I say FEMA does have they have

60
00:17:09.919 --> 00:17:26.799
insurance specialists basically that they they employ >> and um and they there should be something uh they allocated that somewhere and um I I've talked to city manager we I've have other clients with similar like issues and so I think we're

61
00:17:26.799 --> 00:17:42.559
going to try to get up to kind of look at everything with uh a lawyer that specializes in this kind of stuff. um and then maybe figure out exactly where the pressure points are that we can try to push back. I mean, you don't have a lot of push back from my understanding

62
00:17:42.559 --> 00:17:57.840
on how they decide to allocate it once they've done it, but there may be some appeal rights or something in there we can try to look at. And my question would be if if it was based on that original letter and the original letter was close to the face value or total payout of the insurance which we did not

63
00:17:57.840 --> 00:18:12.960
receive and then we had to spend lawyer fees to even get what we got from insurance. Our insurance settlement was less than what FEMA is going to try to allocate and that's what we need to try to >> it it should be based on actual cash received from the insurance company. It

64
00:18:12.960 --> 00:18:29.919
shouldn't be based on what the policy >> but if they're basing it on that letter >> Yeah. And that that's what we need to look we need to look at and see. >> And the insurance my guess is the insurance specialist did make an intermination early on in the process and maybe we need to get them re-engaged

65
00:18:29.919 --> 00:18:46.559
at the FEMA level to look at it again. I I just don't know. >> The other uh component to this conversation is all the players have changed. >> They're not the same FEMA people. They're not the same state people. They're not the same city people. I mean all the players have changed >> and the consultants

66
00:18:46.559 --> 00:19:02.640
>> they've changed numerous times >> recently we've for other clients we've had a lot of difficulty dealing with the consultants the state hired you are you all using KPMG is that who it is >> the state yeah they they have been very aggressive in in deobligating trying to

67
00:19:02.640 --> 00:19:20.320
deobate things requiring documentation um very aggressive about it and so we don't know what's changed it's always been it's been like the last six months is what I've seen and so I'm I get the impression or we get the impression that they're just tired of dealing with Michael. It's been a long time and you

68
00:19:20.320 --> 00:19:37.520
know uh Katrina went on like 15 years after and we're approaching you know we're at eight now. Is that where we are? And so I I think they're they're putting pressure where they can to get things closed out. So, >> you know, I guess we got we received

69
00:19:37.520 --> 00:19:53.280
what 18.8 8 million in insurance proceeds. >> Are they taking that and allocating it among various projects? >> Yes. >> And then is FEMA selecting on which they want to participate and not participate in

70
00:19:53.280 --> 00:20:08.400
>> as far as >> I don't think it's what they want to participate in, but it's they're saying now, oh, we thought you were only going to receive a million dollars in insurance proceeds for this project, but you actually received the 4.1 or whatever it was. And so now we're going

71
00:20:08.400 --> 00:20:24.799
to up the insurance >> allocation and reduce our right. >> It'll depend on what the insurance policy says too. The insurance I don't know are the build were the building separately insured or was it just one big one >> one big pot and so that gives FEMA a lot of flexibility

72
00:20:24.799 --> 00:20:39.760
>> to pick where they think they it should go. >> Yes. >> Versus if you have a policy that you know this is insured for $4 million and you put in $8 million well they'll deduct the four but they can't go anything beyond that. Right. >> I'll re I'll remind you of the other

73
00:20:39.760 --> 00:20:56.320
component to this is when the disaster strikes, they come in and they write a scope of work. They will only reimburse for that scope of work. So adding a break room to the public works building isn't covered.

74
00:20:56.320 --> 00:21:13.200
We are only entitled to replace what existed before the disaster. And in many instances, the city decided to upgrade facilities. >> Yeah, I recognize that's going to be a chunk of it. >> Yes. >> Obviously, what we have now is

75
00:21:13.200 --> 00:21:32.000
considerably more value than what it was 18. >> Yes. >> We certainly have a lot a larger asset base than we did. >> Any other questions? Um on the expenditures, what does NRCS

76
00:21:32.000 --> 00:21:46.320
stand for? >> It's the um Hang on. I looked it up the other day, but that was the grant where they cleaned the large waterways um the large ditches. That was through Tetrate Tech. Um that's $3 million. >> Yes, sir.

77
00:21:46.320 --> 00:22:14.080
>> There's there's revenue above that. That's in in NRCS in there. Okay. my search history somewhere. Natural resources conser conservation service. So long and short is it we're in the

78
00:22:14.080 --> 00:22:31.520
hole about 2.5 million and that the number could good could move. >> When all is said and done, it's going to be 25,850. This does not include their invoices for 160,000 sorry 130,000 that we've

79
00:22:31.520 --> 00:22:49.200
received or anything that may or may not arrive after. Now what we what we are still capable of deciding is you see that I've got the James Rogers Park listed there. It's a million one.

80
00:22:49.200 --> 00:23:04.799
We cannot apply for FEMA. That project is closed. One way or another, it's going to come out of the general fund. So that's up to the commission to decide if we're going to go forward with the James Rogers Park. If we take that out, then this becomes 24,700,000.

81
00:23:04.799 --> 00:23:20.480
>> And those bids are due July 9th. The in the original cost estimate was 1.1 million. Um but the way the bids are set up, you know, we could award the commission could choose to award $200,000 of that project or they could award the whole thing. Um, we do feel

82
00:23:20.480 --> 00:23:36.320
that the bids will come back in lower than the 1.1 million, but I highly doubt that the commission will approve to award any portion of that project unless it's the storm water pond portion to help with the neighborhood or possibly a smaller playground.

83
00:23:36.320 --> 00:23:54.240
But I fully anticipate that number reducing with what the commission has said um based on that bid. When will those be back? >> July 9th. and that they will be presented to the commission uh likely at the July 28th

84
00:23:54.240 --> 00:24:18.000
meeting. >> Number seven, >> number seven, we have uh you know, we've gone through the task order with Beth Telus through Bay County for our utility rate study. uh we have started that uh consultant has uploaded all of our model

85
00:24:18.000 --> 00:24:35.200
information and demands and that uh Miss Roman doesn't know it yet but after this meeting I have a huge RFI for her for refill to so she can upload a lot of financial sides um but they're working through that um and we got the RFI from them and just continuing to work through

86
00:24:35.200 --> 00:24:56.080
we hope to have something um what are we in July we hope to have something by October to at least present some preliminary numbers to the commission but that is not set in stone >> after this meeting RFI request for information.

87
00:24:56.080 --> 00:25:14.720
>> Yes sir for the um additional they need you know 24 through current budgets um staff projections number of accounts etc. Just want to make sure I understand that acronyms. >> All right.

88
00:25:14.720 --> 00:25:30.240
>> Number eight. So after the last meeting, um Steve made the comment of bringing in more parcels um you know for our tax base. So we went back and looked at the interlocal agreement that was signed back in 2023 by both parties. We've been

89
00:25:30.240 --> 00:25:46.640
doing some research on this to kind of see what it's cost the city. um because it in here it states that we will take care of the roads, we will take care of uh public safety, EMS and fire services. So trying to get a list of calls that

90
00:25:46.640 --> 00:26:03.520
the city has responded to since 2023 when this was executed for fire for police. Uh the roads, nothing has happened. The county was pretty good about paving roads before they handed them over to us. So the roads are in good shape. So we have discovered that you know we handle our own dispatch for

91
00:26:03.520 --> 00:26:19.039
police and house and Bay County handles dispatch for fire services. So we have learned that fire is not being dispatched first to these areas. The county is still being dispatched first and then we are responding in a mutual aid if needed. Um so it hasn't affected

92
00:26:19.039 --> 00:26:36.320
us in the fire service too much but it has affected us in the police uh calls. If you recall back in, I believe it was early 2024, I may have my dates wrong, but there was a homicide there on 37th Street that our police department had to work um still working that. So, we've

93
00:26:36.320 --> 00:26:53.200
got several a lot of money invested in this area. So, working on the number of calls for there. I am meeting with Mr. Schubert today with Bay County uh to discuss our interlocal and a couple other things. Um just one, hey, you know, do you want to go the full 5 years of this interlocal

94
00:26:53.200 --> 00:27:09.200
or would the county entertain the possibility of us getting out of it or we're going to present to the commission to wave the annexation fees uh for this area for these areas for 120 days or 180 days and see if we can get any of these parcels to annex in. We do have water

95
00:27:09.200 --> 00:27:25.440
and water but not sewer in some locations and sewer but not water in some. So it will vary, but just looking to see if the commission is interested in waving those fees to to annex some of those parcels in if they're interested. Will not be forced annexation. >> So most of these parcels are actually

96
00:27:25.440 --> 00:27:41.760
enclaves, aren't they? Yes. They're totally surrounded. >> Yes. And that's why this interlocal was approved back in 2023 was to kind of help eliminate those enclaves. So, if we if they do agree to annex and they say, let's say they don't have sewer, are we going to be obligated to run sewer to them or are they going to stay like

97
00:27:41.760 --> 00:27:58.240
>> So, eventually we will. Um, but we have plenty of places like on the west side that are on septic and not sewer currently. >> Same way. Yes, sir. >> That's why I was asking and the stuff on the west side there's no requirement for them to to hook up to the sewer system even though the taps are there for.

98
00:27:58.240 --> 00:28:14.880
>> Yeah. And one of the I think the biggest enticing things for them right now is we've had several residents call during elections where they've gone to vote and realized they're not in Haven so they can't vote in any of those elections. Um that may entice some um the garbage service, the police, the fire, you know,

99
00:28:14.880 --> 00:28:31.440
civil services. >> Y is there any advantage for someone to enter into the city? >> The just the services. Yep. And those that are paying uh utilities now, if they if they're on our water service, they would then quit paying the 25%

100
00:28:31.440 --> 00:28:48.880
search charge. Um, and I think, and I could be wrong here, but since they're in the county and not in the city, I think the county's fire rating is probably not as good as Linhavens is. They may see something on their insurance because of their fire rating. Correct. Their our ISO is two. The

101
00:28:48.880 --> 00:29:08.640
county has ISO rating of three. I think it's important if we're going to convince citizens to annex in the advantage to annex in, right? So, if if the commission does approve this um if we present to the commission and they approve it, we will create a flyer and

102
00:29:08.640 --> 00:29:26.320
send out to all of those and hey, this is currently the offer of waving the annexation fees and this is why it would be beneficial for you to Yes, sir. Well, you know, right now we currently give them all the benefits of being a taxpaying citizen of the we give them

103
00:29:26.320 --> 00:29:42.080
the ability to come up here and talk and speak at council meetings. So, they're given everything on a basically a free ride in a kind and supportive way. Right. Is that a good way to put it or wrong? Right. But they get all the

104
00:29:42.080 --> 00:30:00.159
benefits. So, do we need to make a motion to recommend these actions or whichever direction on this sheet or is that a commission action? >> No, I think we just had it. It is a commission action. Um, we had it on there because we talked about it the last meeting. I just kind of want to update you all um on where we were.

105
00:30:00.159 --> 00:30:14.799
>> There be anything wrong with this? >> I'm certainly in favor of way >> offering a just a recommendation, >> right? >> I don't think there would be anything wrong with this committee offering a recommendation to the commission. is 180 days longer. >> So, it's typically recommended from what

106
00:30:14.799 --> 00:30:30.880
I've read to do a 90-day, but we extended it just for the the time. You don't want to go on too long. You want to entice the people to do it as quickly as possible so they don't lose it, not just >> And what's our method of outreach? >> So, for this, it will be a public

107
00:30:30.880 --> 00:30:46.480
campaign. We will do a a flyer uh direct mail directly to all of these parcels. Um, and we potentially could do a workshop. Uh, so they could come in, staff could answer any questions on what the benefits would be as far as utilities, elections, garbage, storm

108
00:30:46.480 --> 00:31:02.559
water, water, sewer, and explain how their their taxes would be different as well. They would their county fire millillage go away. They would start having the Win Haven Mill on their tax bill at least until this. >> What's the difference between those two? So the current count county fire millage

109
00:31:02.559 --> 00:31:19.120
is 1.388 I believe mills. Um the county mill rate is 5 >> 56362 >> that they would continue to pay. >> They would no longer pay the 1.38 mills but then they would pay our millage rate which is currently 4.05.

110
00:31:19.120 --> 00:31:37.519
>> What if we hadn't reduced um you know the property appraisal rate? What if we gave them a reduction in what they're let's say they're currently getting taxed at 300,000 on the home

111
00:31:37.519 --> 00:31:56.320
value, right? And what if we gave them I don't know if it's possible or not where you could go in and >> like give them a reduction on their taxable value. I don't think you can do that. >> I don't think you can do that. >> I mean, you could set up I don't think you could reduce it. You could set up an MSTU and charge them more, but

112
00:31:56.320 --> 00:32:12.640
>> that's going to be attractive. Yeah. come on over and pay more to us. I'm saying is is that you know you if you know there would be something >> you could Yeah. You know, hey, you know, and your taxable value goes down by $25,000 because of the annex.

113
00:32:12.640 --> 00:32:28.480
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's along the lines of the conversation with the proposed property tax amendment where they're wanting to give a 5-year, you know, you have to live here for 5 years before you can qualify for it. And they're saying that's unconstitutional. I think that would kind of be along the same lines of

114
00:32:28.480 --> 00:32:44.399
>> you can't say, "Well, you get a discount, but you don't." >> Yeah. I don't know you can do that. >> That would be a can of worms for everybody. Everybody showing up. >> I get what you're saying. I mean, you'd like to offer some incentive for folks to to >> if you entice a business come, >> but it was zero. >> Okay.

115
00:32:44.399 --> 00:33:00.399
>> And the citizens of Lyn Haven have been absorbing the cost. What I'm saying is is that we've paid for all the services for these people to be able to go and enjoy and also have a city hall for them to be able to come

116
00:33:00.399 --> 00:33:16.640
out and do several other things. There's many, many, many, many, many, many, many benefits. There certainly are. And right now, I mean, to Linhaven residents, right? I mean, is there a differentiation between the two of them? No, there isn't. Right. So would any

117
00:33:16.640 --> 00:33:31.840
Linhaven resident care if there was some type of an away that they had a lowered like credit? Because >> something is better than nothing, right? >> And maybe it's a phase back in or it

118
00:33:31.840 --> 00:33:47.519
fades away. But I'm sure that there can be some type of a creative way to be able to um enhance participation. The only thing I can think of, and this may not be doable either, but as an enticement to do it

119
00:33:47.519 --> 00:34:04.080
now instead of later, would be maybe the city could wave the storm water assessment for a certain time that they join. >> It's got to be it's got to be something that the city's in charge of levy. So, it's the storm water assessment. It's

120
00:34:04.080 --> 00:34:19.520
what utility I mean something that we're that we have the purview over. So, it can't be it can't be homeowners uh a homestead exemption. It can't it can't be anything above us if there if there is the appetite to offer some sort of enticement.

121
00:34:19.520 --> 00:34:34.960
>> And keep in mind if we do that, so we're already per our inter local, we're now taking care of the storm water ditches, we're not collecting any revenue. So, do we want to actually wave that or do we want to kind of collect them? >> Yeah, it just depends. You're not collecting it now and you'll start collecting taxes from them. You wave it

122
00:34:34.960 --> 00:34:49.679
for a certain just a period. it may sunset which >> possibly have impact I mean impact fees would be something >> if they hook up to the system and there's >> um and then the annexation fees that's pretty I think that's pretty much it

123
00:34:49.679 --> 00:35:06.880
>> yeah the impact fees would be something these do we provide water or sewer to them now >> we provide water but several sewer nothing sewer some but most of these are just water only not sewer >> so the benefit there is they would go to

124
00:35:06.880 --> 00:35:24.560
our our water rates instead of the >> 25% 25% 25% savings, right? >> Does that offset the other expenses with the taxes? >> That would be a case by case basis >> depends on what they're regardless.

125
00:35:24.560 --> 00:35:41.280
>> I can't imagine them using enough water to compensate for >> I wouldn't think so taxes that >> it's a hard sale like to go ahead and annex into the city but you got to pay more. I mean >> it it will be a hard even waving these fees >> out those other things it's going to be a tough one to sell.

126
00:35:41.280 --> 00:35:58.920
>> Well everyone that you get is an increase right? >> True. >> True. >> So no matter which way you go and you take a look at it it's you know as we don't have any method of enticing people anymore other than the waving of these annexations.

127
00:35:59.680 --> 00:36:16.880
But is there anything different in the county laws or anything that also is a benefit being in >> in the city county? >> Yeah. Not much, I think. Right. Well, the county is a lot less strict, right?

128
00:36:16.880 --> 00:36:35.760
So they can have their their chickens and goats and and horses right there on 37th Street and be in the county and they would have no reason to annex in and lose that luxury. >> So >> So you incur impact fees when you hook

129
00:36:35.760 --> 00:36:50.320
up the sewer. >> Correct. >> Let's say that again. >> You incur impact fees when you >> correct. If you come on our system, you have to pay the impact fees. >> How much is that? It varies by parcel or by structure as based on fixed account ERC value.

130
00:36:50.320 --> 00:37:05.760
>> What be an average roughly you think is >> few,000,000? >> I'm just wondering if that's something that you that might entice. So, especially on the parcels that are

131
00:37:05.760 --> 00:37:22.400
>> that are already on our service, you could pay if if you add if you have water currently and then we run sewer um or we extend our sewer, we could wave the the sewage impact because you've already been a consumer, >> right? That's something that could be done. >> I mean, it's an incentive for somebody

132
00:37:22.400 --> 00:37:38.400
on an aging septic system, >> right? >> How much to replace a septic, >> right? Yeah, I would think that that might be a resident said that they spent about $16,000 recently on new septic tank, new drain field. Um,

133
00:37:38.400 --> 00:37:54.640
>> yeah. So, that's got to be part of the outreach. >> Yeah. >> Your septic system, it's ready to go unless you've replaced it soon, right? I mean, part of that is I mean, hey, here's the cost of a septic. >> Hook up to sewer and it saves you all that money. Now, if sewer is within 300

134
00:37:54.640 --> 00:38:10.240
feet, the health department will not even permit the septic tank replacement. You have to go into the city sewer, >> right? And I think that I think part of those laws should be sent out in our outreach or the workshop, right? I I think that

135
00:38:10.240 --> 00:38:26.240
I think that there can be a ton of benefits and in the long term, they could possibly save a lot of money should you have any type of a septic tank. And who knows what the APA is going to be like in

136
00:38:26.240 --> 00:38:42.560
let's say four or five years when there's on a federal type level, right? Who knows what happens with the laws that they come up with as far as regarding >> Yeah. Florida D tried to force the city many years ago to make those residents

137
00:38:42.560 --> 00:38:59.119
on the west side with septics connect to the city and um and we we didn't do it and they backed off, I think. But it was it was a little bit of a battle for a while cuz >> they basically gave the city an order. We had to do it and we we started the process and we had you know

138
00:38:59.119 --> 00:39:15.760
>> pitchforks and torches in the audience. >> Yeah. >> And um >> and and we didn't do it and they we told them come on to our meetings and you can explain why they need to sign up and pay the three or $4,000 in connection fees and and I don't know what's happened with that but that was that was probably

139
00:39:15.760 --> 00:39:30.560
about 10 years ago. And I >> sure that rule hasn't gone away. >> And at one time, you may remember this too, apparently the city waved or gave a discounted rate for paying your impact fees and connection fees once you were ready to. So there's been a few over the

140
00:39:30.560 --> 00:39:45.920
years that they did they paid the fees at the time, but they didn't connect. >> In the past year or two, their septic tank has failed and produced a document that hey, we paid and so then they connection. >> If you remember that the commission approve, I guess approved the waiver.

141
00:39:45.920 --> 00:40:03.680
>> Yeah. Yeah, the fees are discounted at that time. >> Well, I I would certainly want to recommend that the commission go ahead and wave the annexation fee at the least. >> Absolutely. I agree. >> Make a motion, Mr. Move that we advise

142
00:40:03.680 --> 00:40:20.079
the commission that we're in favor of waving the $200 application fee for period of 180 days. >> I'll second the motion. All right. Any other discussion, comments? I think we're good. >> All in favor by saying I.

143
00:40:20.079 --> 00:40:37.760
>> Any opposed? All right. Number nine, >> 27 budget. >> Um, we have had two meetings um with the commission

144
00:40:37.760 --> 00:40:56.000
with regard to the 27 budget. Um the first meeting was what I would refer to as a strat plan meeting, strategic planning meeting uh where the uh directors came and offered up their wish list.

145
00:40:56.000 --> 00:41:13.280
Um then we had budget meetings internally. We've um included many not all of those wish list items at which point the general fund was in a negative position of 6 and a half 6.6 million

146
00:41:13.280 --> 00:41:28.880
something along those lines. So I we took that to the commission and um asked the question, what do you want to include and what do you want to exclude and what is your use your word

147
00:41:28.880 --> 00:41:47.200
appetite for increasing the uh military? Uh we made some adjustments during that meeting. I started the computer out, started taking things out. Where are we now? Where are we now? Um

148
00:41:47.200 --> 00:42:04.880
uh and we made some progress. Clearly we didn't find the whole $6.5 million. Since then uh we have internally um developed some proposals for cost savings. U

149
00:42:04.880 --> 00:42:20.800
many of them are going to be farreaching. Many of them are going to affect personnel. Many of them are not going to um be

150
00:42:20.800 --> 00:42:37.200
universally embraced. >> Yeah. So, so far um we're at there will basically be zero capital um improvements in the general fund for fiscal year 27, which includes equipments, projects, uh vehicles, um any type of capital purchase. The only

151
00:42:37.200 --> 00:42:51.920
thing I think we have left in there is an $8,000 frier for the sports and wreck. It's for our concession. It will pay for itself with our concession improvement. So, we're not worried about the $8,000 frier. Um, however, there were several proposed um personnel

152
00:42:51.920 --> 00:43:08.800
increases for fiscal year 27 from the initial uh strategic meeting that we had with department heads. There will be no personnel additions um to the general fund. there will be going through the next 30 days or so and looking at personnel costs. Unfortunately, one of

153
00:43:08.800 --> 00:43:24.560
the most expensive things we have is people. Um it takes a lot to to run the city. Um so it is very likely that that there will be some personnel discussions um on how we >> timeline for that >> in the next 30 days. So, we have our next budget workshop with the commission

154
00:43:24.560 --> 00:43:40.800
July 9th at 300 p.m. 3:30 p.m. um to discuss where we're at now. And then the next workshop, we will decide a date at that time and that will be the personnel uh discussion of where we are in fiscal

155
00:43:40.800 --> 00:44:00.319
year 27 with with staffing. I think it should be kind of thrown out that you know to the budget or to the department managers that there should be a payroll freeze for a while >> as in a hiring freeze or both

156
00:44:00.319 --> 00:44:17.599
>> a pay a cost of living a cola. >> There will be no proposed cola for fiscal year 27. However, we did do a salary study um that is nearing completion and we do intend to hopefully in get the first phase of that implemented for fiscal year 27 and we

157
00:44:17.599 --> 00:44:33.839
have to I mean we have some of those people on the low end uh that we've got to increase those salaries and and go through there um but there will be no cola and no no other increases. >> So on a caseby case scenario somebody could get a raise. it will affect the majority of the of the lowering

158
00:44:33.839 --> 00:44:50.160
personnel. >> And in the model that I'm using currently, I've just smoothed that number out. We're taking a three-year approach and um the first year would be uh approximately a half a million dollars. So, I've included a half

159
00:44:50.160 --> 00:45:06.240
million dollar increase, but I've given it to everybody just for ease of calculation, but we all recognize that some folks will get increases and others will not. >> What was the cost of cola last year? >> I believe 3% last year,

160
00:45:06.240 --> 00:45:22.240
>> right? But what was the total value dollar amount? Do we know? >> I can tell you roughly doesn't matter to me. I'll close. >> Have we looked at um department by department on headc

161
00:45:22.240 --> 00:45:39.839
count to see if we have people have departments that might be overloaded or maybe that we can reduce an example I would give and I know this is enterprise to us but if I want to go up to and talk to the clerks for a water bill issue I

162
00:45:39.839 --> 00:45:55.200
can wait 10 or 15 minutes if I need to wait we've got some some people in there a lot of times when I go in there they're not there's nobody in there talking to Are we overstaffed in positions like that that we could make some adjustments? Yes, it's going to impact some city services and quickness

163
00:45:55.200 --> 00:46:11.839
customer service wise, but can we do that? >> Yeah, that will be part of our personnel discussions. I mean, we're going through and looking at, hey, you know, can we cut this position and still survive or can we move this person over here to help help cover it? Maybe take them out of the general fund and move them to an enterprise fund um so they don't lose

164
00:46:11.839 --> 00:46:28.880
their job, but we do help the general fund in their savings. Uh we will also look at the insurance uh coverage that the city provides and pays for employees and see if we need to restructure that. Would they need to pay a little more out of pocket for benefits to help with that cost savings as well? Um you want to

165
00:46:28.880 --> 00:46:47.760
answer >> fiscal 26 cola uh came in at $47,689.19. >> Are we looking at a hiring freeze? >> There is a hiring freeze. Yes, sir. So along those lines, uh I assume we're going to lose some people through

166
00:46:47.760 --> 00:47:03.760
attrition at some point. And when we do that with a hiring freeze and you lose them by attrition, you will see immediately if that department or that position plays a very integral part and can't be covered elsewhere. Does that make sense? So you might not look I

167
00:47:03.760 --> 00:47:19.760
wouldn't backfill any positions automatically at this point. >> Well, there are some that you have to backfill. Um it varies by position. For example, our garbage, again, not not general fund, enterprise fund, but we have three routes for our sanitation. So, if one of those were to leave and we

168
00:47:19.760 --> 00:47:35.119
couldn't fill it with another driver, we would have to reach out. But but there are some, you're right, there are some that we won't fill and we'll see how the department constructed. Um, but the commission also did approve a resolution um to investigate consolidation of services uh that

169
00:47:35.119 --> 00:47:51.760
throughout the city. Uh so we are looking at multiple things whether it's you know from public safety, animal control, um looking at outsourcing items. We had some bids do for asphalt repair uh for storm water culverts. U we've gotten some quotes on some janitorial services just to see is it

170
00:47:51.760 --> 00:48:07.680
cheaper to outsource some of our items versus having staff do it in house or is it better for the city to continue to do those services versus outsourcing. So there are multiple things that looking at to save any dollar we can for fiscal year 27.

171
00:48:07.680 --> 00:48:24.559
>> There's another component, another challenge to the fiscal 27 budget. I received this document when I took a a training with the auditors um few weeks back. At that time they said this is sitting on the governor's desk waiting to be signed. I'm told that

172
00:48:24.559 --> 00:48:41.280
it has been signed. Um and this changes the ability of the commission based on their vote of how much they can raise the millillage. So majority vote now which in our

173
00:48:41.280 --> 00:48:58.640
circumstances would be 32 can only go up to the roll back rate. The roll back rate for next year is 3.9707. means we if we have a 3-2 vote, we can't even stay at the 405. We have to go to

174
00:48:58.640 --> 00:49:24.640
3.9707. A super majority, which in our case is four out of five, can go up to 110%. Rate, 110% is 4.3677. So at 4.36ish 4:1 could approve that. We would need a

175
00:49:24.640 --> 00:49:48.400
unanimous vote to go above 4.3677. >> And the 4.3677 is where everything breaks even at. That's correct. >> No sir. for currently where we're at to break even was around a 5.7

176
00:49:48.400 --> 00:50:06.160
>> from our current model. >> So ifable at all if this passes >> that did pass that signed. >> So it's going in effect for this cycle July 1st I >> went into effect yesterday.

177
00:50:06.160 --> 00:50:29.359
>> Mhm. >> Yeah. That's Yeah. just say >> I'm not I'm I'm confused. So, what went into effect yesterday is this this part of it. >> I'm not sure when it went into when it

178
00:50:29.359 --> 00:50:46.240
went into effect, but yes, it it will affect us for the fiscal 27 budget. So when what and when you say required vote that's votes in the >> the commission >> commission >> commission meeting. Okay. Okay. Okay. So that's that's okay. >> The reason as long as it's within our control >> the reason is November has the property

179
00:50:46.240 --> 00:51:02.720
tax referendum. So the governor wanted to ensure that people didn't run out increase their millage rate. So they changed the rules to >> right to >> but we can still >> you still can with the unanimous vote commission voting with they still can do it. So, as the budget stands this

180
00:51:02.720 --> 00:51:17.359
moment, and this is beyond preliminary because I do not have medical um numbers yet. We don't have revenue numbers from the state. We're I'm just doing best estimates on many

181
00:51:17.359 --> 00:51:36.800
things. So, this is very fluid. Um to balance general fund in fiscal 27, we would need 5.4901. 4901. >> That's with no no further cuts, right? >> That's cut to the bone.

182
00:51:36.800 --> 00:51:53.119
>> Yeah, that's cut all the way. >> That's what we discussed with no none of the capital in the general fund, none of the cola that does implement the first year of the salary study. Um, and that is with some proposed >> staffing cuts that we've already discussed internally. >> What was that number again, Kiki? I'm

183
00:51:53.119 --> 00:52:23.520
sorry. >> 5.4901. What is our current military? >> 4.05. Does this military, Forgive me for possibly asking a dumb question, does this if if we were to recommend this,

184
00:52:23.520 --> 00:52:40.119
would that allow us to make the debt service payment without going into the reserves. >> Correct. >> Okay. Want to make sure that I understood that. >> Yes. That's to get us to zero. That makes the debt service payment. >> The one year's worth of debt service payment.

185
00:52:42.079 --> 00:52:58.880
>> In previous years, it's been the will of the commission to dip into the reserves to pay that. >> Yes. >> What is our current I guess what you're calling reserves? I don't know that that's an actual an actual definition. What I usually quote is the unassigned fund balance which we only publish

186
00:52:58.880 --> 00:53:16.480
annually at the end of fiscal 25. It was 15 million and change. Um if fiscal 26 budget plays out the way I believe it's going to end up at somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 million. >> When you say plays out like you believe,

187
00:53:16.480 --> 00:53:31.280
what's what do you believe? >> Well, sometimes projects don't finish. >> Okay. Sometimes things get delayed. You know that generally in January I go to the um commission and say we didn't use these purchase orders in the prior fiscal year.

188
00:53:31.280 --> 00:53:46.319
>> Yeah. So it's a timing thing. >> Yeah. >> But if if everything completes by September 30th, then when the next audit comes out, that number I estimate will be in the $12 million range.

189
00:53:46.319 --> 00:54:03.280
And that's December 31, >> September. >> September. Okay. >> September. >> And have you projected it out the following year as well? >> My account still does the commission decide to do as far

190
00:54:03.280 --> 00:54:19.680
as the millillage. Do they want to dip into the reserves one more year to pay or do they want to get the millillage to break even? >> It's the unassigned fund balance. >> Yeah. And I'm sorry for saying that, but People use that reserve and they think it's just a it's a pot of money sitting

191
00:54:19.680 --> 00:54:34.720
there, right? >> Um >> what is our what's the current >> refresh your memory of this number here? >> Yeah. What's the current um consensus or field on how much

192
00:54:34.720 --> 00:54:51.280
unassigned balance you need to carry the city forward as to hold back? Uh, Florida recommends, sorry, Florida requires three months of all cities. They recommend six months worth of money for coastal cities. In

193
00:54:51.280 --> 00:55:07.359
our case, that would be $10 million. Okay. So, if things play out the way the budget says that they'll play out, we'll have 12 million at the end of this year. We shouldn't touch the first 10 million.

194
00:55:07.359 --> 00:55:31.920
That means we only have really Excuse me. >> Which doesn't even cover the dead service. >> It does not. >> Cool. >> Sorry. Humor's my default. >> Appreciate it. >> Any other questions about that?

195
00:55:31.920 --> 00:55:47.119
As painful as it is, I just don't see any way they're not going to raise a millage rate or have that the city's going to have to raise a millage rate at some to some degree. >> Yeah. I don't got a choice. >> I don't know that they can stomach I don't know that the commission can stomach going all the way to 5.5.

196
00:55:47.119 --> 00:56:03.599
>> Yeah, I mean that's a 35% increase. >> That's pretty hefty. >> You'd have to tag a number on that. is something along the lines of what does the average Linhaven citizen pay and property tax for Lin Haven's portion of the military.

197
00:56:03.599 --> 00:56:25.280
Um, keep in mind this may all go away next year pretty much. We've got to find other alternate ways anyway if that passes. >> Number 10. We won't make we don't want to make any recommendations on that.

198
00:56:25.280 --> 00:56:42.160
>> Not at this time. >> I don't know that we have enough information. I mean, you're still do budget. There's a lot of other there's a lot of moving parts there. I don't know that you can really say. >> I guess all my only question is how do we feel about the budget not balancing about having not allocated as a group?

199
00:56:42.160 --> 00:56:57.839
>> The budget will have to balance. >> Well, yeah. But you mean dipping into the how do we feel about >> um not bringing in as much revenue as we're going to spend this year? >> That's our revenues less than our expenditures

200
00:56:57.839 --> 00:57:13.200
we feel about that. >> I don't think anybody feels great about it. >> No. >> Uh but the the easiest way for me to understand this very very complex is to try and relate it to my kitchen table. And if I

201
00:57:13.200 --> 00:57:28.720
have a large debt that I have to pay and I have some money sitting in savings even though it's you know allocate allocated designed has I have something else that I want to do with it when it comes time to make that

202
00:57:28.720 --> 00:57:44.720
decision no matter how unpleasant it is that's the decision we have to make. >> Okay. >> Um I but jumping at 35% I don't think anybody's going to >> Yeah. They're not they're not going to do that. >> And that's fan day. Even if you go up

203
00:57:44.720 --> 00:58:01.040
and they pass this tax incentive >> because we're going to be right back here next year, >> right? Doing the same thing trying to this other money. We got to cut as much as we can to decrease. >> Okay. So, >> I won't belong. >> So, let me give you an idea. If we

204
00:58:01.040 --> 00:58:24.000
got a 4-1 vote on raising the millillage. Yes. and we raised it to the maximum that a 4-1 vote would allow, we would still be in a deficit of a million 933. >> Good thing we've got $2 million.

205
00:58:24.000 --> 00:58:43.839
Just that's Sorry. >> So, may I make a suggestion? If this committee had the appetite to encourage the commission to um

206
00:58:43.839 --> 00:58:59.200
review the millillage and seriously consider an increase that would be helpful. I think that they having more support in that area would help us in the long run.

207
00:58:59.200 --> 00:59:14.319
Is that a decision that you need today or is that something that we can have at a future meeting after after more information? >> I'm suggesting that they could recommend considering an increase to the village, not put a number on it, just say we as a

208
00:59:14.319 --> 00:59:29.599
if this is your determination, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Um, but if it was your determination that we should think about increasing the millage, I think that they would welcome hearing that from you. When was the last time we increased the

209
00:59:29.599 --> 00:59:47.839
millillage? >> Three, four years ago. It's been a while. Do >> you remember from what to what? >> But it's always been a really tight band. >> It's it um not since I've been here. Let's do it that way.

210
00:59:47.839 --> 01:00:05.280
>> Uh we did discover some documents from the 70s when they were at five and change and they were talking about going to six and change. Apparently that never happened. Um, but since I've been here, it's always been in this very tight band somewhere in the four 405 410.

211
01:00:05.280 --> 01:00:21.440
>> What's the current military of Panama City? >> I was going to ask that question. What I mean, how do we compare to other cities? Panel City, Parker, Callaway, what have you. >> I think they're in five. I think somewhere somewhere else, but I don't >> I should know that, don't I've looked it up, but I don't

212
01:00:21.440 --> 01:00:38.960
stay in my head forever. Okay. Um, you know, I just don't know. I don't know that I've got enough information to make that call today. >> I would say that by the next time we meet with you all, we will have a better

213
01:00:38.960 --> 01:01:00.240
number of our complete cuts and where we would have to be to break even, what our millage would be proposed um with all of our cuts. I think I feel more comfortable with that information. And there's two components really, right? I mean, there's there's millage

214
01:01:00.240 --> 01:01:19.280
and there's taxable value. >> Yeah. >> I So a millage rate isn't necessarily indicative of exactly what the tax bill is. Meaning that a millage rate of five, if your taxable value is only 200,000, is

215
01:01:19.280 --> 01:01:37.200
different than 4.4 four with a $300,000 taxable >> we don't mean control over the taxable that's the difference in roll back right is what you're talking about what I mean is that requesting just a millage

216
01:01:37.200 --> 01:01:53.680
increase right now I agree with you on that you know I'm not ready to go in there and say I recommend >> raising the millage rate you know and >> Bay County taxes have been crazy as far as far as how much money that they've gone up over the years in the past few

217
01:01:53.680 --> 01:02:09.280
years. >> Now, Bay County hasn't raised their millage, >> right? But the amount on the bill, >> right, the tax I don't write a check with millage, right? I pay for it with cash. >> And the amount of cash that I wrote

218
01:02:09.280 --> 01:02:25.920
>> to the state your taxes with cash, we should talk. And I and I think your numbers include um the increase in the projected increase in >> this number has the taxable value that

219
01:02:25.920 --> 01:02:42.079
was published on uh the state or the department of revenue site. So I know the taxable value is correct >> as of >> yesterday. Yes. So it includes the appreciation 4.7999

220
01:02:42.079 --> 01:03:03.200
that's been most I mean I would be okay as a as a committee saying we would encourage the the com or the city to continue to look for cost-saving measures while the in the budget process with an eye of

221
01:03:03.200 --> 01:03:19.520
getting closer to a balance. but to a your revenues matching. >> Yeah, we certainly want to balance budget, >> right? You know, without having to dip in the reserves if possible with an eye that the possible military may be

222
01:03:19.520 --> 01:03:36.400
necessary, but you're right. If we've got another meeting we can do this at, it probably would be better to wait a little while. Believe me, I'll be bending some commissioner's ears between now and then, not as a committee meeting. So, if we follow our normal calendar, you wouldn't meet again until

223
01:03:36.400 --> 01:03:51.520
October 1st, and this would all be done. >> Yeah, we can't do that. >> This will be voted on at the uh second meeting in September, which tenatively will be September 22nd. Write that down yet because I don't have from Bay County

224
01:03:51.520 --> 01:04:08.240
what their count calendar looks like. We are not allowed to have our budget meetings the same time as the school district or Bay County. I've got the school district's calendar. I haven't received the Bay county's um calendar yet. If you all are willing and like to have a meeting with you all maybe the second third week of August. Um

225
01:04:08.240 --> 01:04:23.440
hopefully by that time too we will have a the fifth committee member uh filled by Commissioner Huggins >> um to be able to present our findings before the commission votes on them. >> Will that be I guess you know y'all are going What are the budget workshops? Are

226
01:04:23.440 --> 01:04:38.400
they scheduled? We've got the one July 9th and we will schedule the the fourth one um the at that workshop on the 9th but hopefully the last week of July or first week in August will be the next one. >> So if we don't make a recommendation

227
01:04:38.400 --> 01:04:54.640
today they won't see it this night July 9th. >> They're not going to see a millage recommendation the 9th anyway. It's going to be a discussion of where we are with our cut since the last meeting. I mean they'll see hey if if we had to vote today this is what the millillage would be. Uh, but we won't be making a recommendation on that until we have our

228
01:04:54.640 --> 01:05:11.520
personnel cuts discussion at the following workshop. >> I'm okay meeting August if you want to do that. I'd rather do that and and have all the information to make a decision or recommendation as opposed to doing something on the fly. >> I'm good with that, too. >> I agree with that.

229
01:05:11.520 --> 01:05:32.400
>> Check my account. >> Oh, my whole month August is good. Sorry. fishing. >> No, not with my foot. I can't do anything for six months. Six weeks. >> What's the latest date you that we can

230
01:05:32.400 --> 01:05:53.280
meet? >> I'm not sure what we're trying to get ahead. If we could have a meeting the week of August 17th, when is the the commission meeting will be? The 22nd >> 25th of August.

231
01:05:53.280 --> 01:06:09.760
>> 25th of August. That's right. Thursday. August. >> I can make Monday the 17th August. >> I'm open all every day. you.

232
01:06:09.760 --> 01:06:39.119
>> 17th at 8:00. Is that what I'm hearing? >> That's good, mate. >> What time? >> 8:00. >> Okay. All right. Number 10. Sorry. Yeah. Number 10. >> Yep. So um there has been a question

233
01:06:39.119 --> 01:06:53.760
about refunding the bond. This is your last packet that I've given you here. Um this is the current amortization schedule for the

234
01:06:53.760 --> 01:07:11.599
2019 disaster recovery fund. uh the red numbers uh the payments in the blue bar um that's highlighted in the middle of the page that's the payment that will be taken out of the bank account on um August 1st of this

235
01:07:11.599 --> 01:07:33.359
year. That' be $2,462,000 of which 2,170 is principal and $292 is interest. On August 2nd, that will leave a balance of $19,480,000. You see where I'm looking here?

236
01:07:33.359 --> 01:07:49.839
>> What's the next line mean? Like line 15, >> but the next payment is on February 1st, but it's only interest, >> which is a 267. Correct. Okay. >> The principal is only paid annually. The interest is paid twice yearly. >> Okay.

237
01:07:49.839 --> 01:08:07.359
>> So, um there was some discussion about whether refunding the bond was in our best interest. The second page, I've photocopied this out of the big bond book. I'm not sure if you've seen me with the big bond book, but when you ask me what's the rate on the bond, these

238
01:08:07.359 --> 01:08:23.120
are the rates. I use the term variable. I'm sure there's a better more accurate word, but they change every year. Having said that, they're fixed. They're fixed at the changing rate every year. So, in

239
01:08:23.120 --> 01:08:42.239
um these are calendar years, calendar year 26, we are paying 2.3%. So, we had a phone conversation with um uh Jay Moody came and we talked to Mark Usk name I can never pronounce correctly. Uh

240
01:08:42.239 --> 01:09:01.520
he helped us with the issuance of this bond. Um >> thank you. Um his recommendation is not to move on this now that the these rates are favorable to the city >> considerably. Um and that uh we should

241
01:09:01.520 --> 01:09:16.319
wait until after November. That was the consensus of the room after the at the end of the phone call that we wait until November. We'll have more information about property taxes in the future and uh how we will be rated and and the

242
01:09:16.319 --> 01:09:34.400
city's ability to repay the bond. >> Do you know if this is a tax-free bond that we have? >> Taxable. >> It's taxable. What makes it taxable? >> What makes it taxable? I can tell you why we how they described it to us. Why

243
01:09:34.400 --> 01:09:52.080
we chose to do a taxable bond. Taxable means >> Well, I know what it means. >> Okay. Sorry. Um, the city chose to go with a taxable bond because when the money came in, we could cycle it multiple times. If we had

244
01:09:52.080 --> 01:10:07.840
chosen a non uh tax-free municipal bond, then we could have only used it for the debris. Once the money went out, that was it. We were going to have to pay it back, and we couldn't recycle it and continue to use it. That money has been

245
01:10:07.840 --> 01:10:25.360
recycled multiple times through the fund um over the years. >> Okay. >> So, that was the rationale at the time that the bond was issued. >> You were around Were you around? >> I was not. He went around, >> but that's how it was explained to us on

246
01:10:25.360 --> 01:10:39.760
the phone call. >> Okay. >> Mark's a good bond council. So, he'll >> apparently he does every bond in this area. >> Yeah, we used to use somebody else for a while, but it's good to hear that use Mark 2019. >> Yeah, I would agree. I mean, if you're

247
01:10:39.760 --> 01:10:56.400
looking at a taxable bond, these rates, I mean, today's market, it's you're not anywhere close to that. I agree. it would not make sense to refi. >> So when I heard on 6 and a half years ago,

248
01:10:56.400 --> 01:11:11.760
the commission and the community's direction to us was reduce the debt, reduce the debt, reduce the debt. That was priority one, which we have done, and I I'm pretty proud of that. I think we've done a a good job of reducing the

249
01:11:11.760 --> 01:11:29.760
debt. The future will see us increase the debt. We've already signed an agreement with the state for 13 million and change for the headworks project at the sewer plant. So no matter what we do, our debt level is

250
01:11:29.760 --> 01:11:45.280
going to increase whether we stay here or we move up to Southport, it's going to increase by about that 13 million and then over and above whatever decision is made at the sewer plant. I just want to prepare you. the debt level

251
01:11:45.280 --> 01:12:02.000
is going to increase. I do not see how we can reduce this currently. When the debt level increases, the the people who issue the bonds are going to

252
01:12:02.000 --> 01:12:17.120
look at our commitments and they're going to determine our ability to pay. And if we lose um the advalorum or whatever is next coming down, it's going

253
01:12:17.120 --> 01:12:41.920
to reduce our ability to pay. I agree with you with where we are on rates. It doesn't make sense to I mean it'd be nice to get the payments lowered and and extend out that debt, but at the same time at the rate you've got it doesn't make sense to go out and refi.

254
01:12:41.920 --> 01:12:58.080
You're going to incur as you said a ton of cost closing and then your rate's going to be probably twice or more than that what you're paying now. >> Yeah. From >> hard to make that recommendation >> from a like a personal finance point of view. if I have X dollars of cash

255
01:12:58.080 --> 01:13:14.800
reserves in my bank account or savings account or what wherever um and my income looks okay, I'm pretty eligible to get a loan. But if all that goes away, when I really need it, I can't get it. >> Yeah. >> So, you have to stay ahead of that

256
01:13:14.800 --> 01:13:31.520
there. If you're going if you're going to do something, you have to do it while you're capable of making the payments and while you're while you've got cash reserves. Yeah. Banks always want you money when you have money, not when you don't have. Exactly. That's exactly right. And that's understand. >> Don't say anything wrong. Exactly right. And understandable. Um I

257
01:13:31.520 --> 01:13:47.120
don't know that it makes good sense to refund right now while we do have 12 million of unallocated funds. I just, you know, when we're at 10, then that's probably a good discussion to have in my that's my opinion. >> Well, we're at 15 right now. Correct.

258
01:13:47.120 --> 01:14:15.040
>> At last September 30th, we were at 15. At the end of this year, we're going to be >> something close to 12 >> end of this this this September. >> It's just what that what that number should be. >> I'm sorry. I said the commission's going

259
01:14:15.040 --> 01:14:31.360
to probably have to do something edum. It's just I have to figure out what that number should be. Yeah. They've not had a lot of stomach for that. >> Yeah, I understand. >> That's all I have for you. >> Thank you, Vicki. All right. Any other discussion,

260
01:14:31.360 --> 01:14:47.920
comments from anyone? >> Well, sure. We have our next meeting set at uh August 17th at 8. If nothing else, we will stand a journ. Thank y'all. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.