What? Everybody looking at your money. Can't remember if we had a chance to talk but you see my email about >> are you doing >> I'm uh >> yeah I hate I really hate to say it it's the primary thing I have to evaluate
>> you standing >> excuse me >> I'm gonna I'm gonna either way what I yeah I guess you know what I can stand and then I can come sit back down for question maybe >> whatever works for you >> very have my seat.
>> You don't want >> I knocked off my Yeah. Okay. >> So, That's interesting. Never heard that. Have you heard this? What's that? >> You know this, right? Everybody knows this.
>> Oh, man. Do you know this? >> I You know that one? >> Miss Miss Susie had a baby. She named him Tiny Tim. She put him >> I don't know that I've heard it since I was a kid. But [laughter] >> I know who Tiny Tim was. >> Yeah, that's what it's about.
>> Why did this come up? >> I don't know. My nieces do this number. >> You just like flashed my brain back to Boston. I feel like my cousin >> How are you doing? Okay. >> I think that
>> No, we put them up on the >> Oh, >> we could also bring a mic. He said this out of a hat or something really >> tall. She say
I'll take it. time it gets 5:30 on here. [laughter] >> Does anybody Why are you holding those? >> They were in this bag. >> Oh, they're they're in the box. Oh, okay. >> I get one of those bags.
>> No neighbors. >> Oh, all right. >> Well, fine. >> Neighbors. >> Are we good online? Yeah. >> Good. All right. Welcome to Oto City
Council Chambers. Uh we have all members of council present. So, we're just going to get right into our work session here. So, we're going to start with public comment. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to address council at this time? >> Yes, please. >> Uh please come up to the podium up here.
if you could just state your name and then it is the floor is yours. Karen Harriet 106 Corbin Court in Ovito and my comment is that I received the um the wording of
the proposed addition to the city charter review amendments and I like this amendment. So, I hope that you will all decide to put the additional um language on the ballot.
Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address council this evening? Hearing none, I will close public comment and we will go on to our second order of business, which is our property tax update. And we are going to start with our property tax collector, Mr.
David Johnson. Thank you. Well, thank you very much. I'm David Johnson, your Siml County property praiser. It's great to be out here in Ovido. Every time I come out here, I live in Lake Mary, but every time I come out here, it's like I've got the navigation system on because I'm not sure where I'm at. So much growth. So,
good job with all that. Um what we're going to do tonight is we're going to go through the proposed um constitutional amendment that's going to be on the November ballot. And my understanding it's going to be amendment three. It's now officially kind of named. Uh went
through the legislative process as HJR 1F, but we're going to call it amendment three. And what I want to try to do as a goal is kind of give you a a idea about what it does, some of the potential impacts to you as a city, and then I know your staff is going to follow up
with additional comments about that. So, we'll go ahead and get started with um the actual language of the ballot. Um it's the title of the ballot is save our homes from excessive property taxes. Now, I will tell you that is already
being challenged. Your city attorney, I'm sure, can give you an update on that. That process is moving through. Um, there's concern that that may be a little bit prejuditial language. Uh, the title of the amendment, we'll see what
the courts say. It's my understanding if they do find that that's not exactly keeping the film off the scale, um, that the attorney general gets to write it. So, we'll see what that looks like uh potentially going forward. Be careful
what you wish for sometimes. But anyway, it gets a couple shots at it and then we'll go from there. But anyway, what it does, this is the language that the the voter will actually see on the ballot. And um the main thrust here is that if
this passes as of January 1, I mean November, uh it would take effect January 1, 2027 for the first time. And it's a tiered approach. Uh the first piece of the action is the homestead exemption moves from basically $51,000
to $150,000 January 1, 2027. Then it moves up to $250,000 on January the 1st, 2028. And then there's this language that's sitting out there that says requires through general law a schedule to for
full elimination of property taxes on homestead. That's done so that this does not have to come back before. This gives the legislature the authority to create a schedule, whatever that looks like, to eventually eliminate uh property taxes
on homesteaded properties. So that's the crux of it. Um, it goes on to talk about when you do all that, we're going to make sure that we're core services are protected. And it kind of goes on to illuminate what those core services are.
Um, the other thing that it does is it under current law, um, for non-homesteaded properties, the assessment cap is 10%. In other words, the values cannot go up more than 10% a year under current law. This amendment
takes it down to 5%. We'll tell you that has longer term effects, but the initial uh huge impact is obviously increasing the homestead exemption from 50 to $250,000 in a two-year period of time.
And so we'll move to the next slide. Uh this just kind of summarizes what we were just talking about. Um it's for homesteaded properties only. Uh the 5% cap. The one thing that I want everybody to kind of understand
is it does not eliminate property taxes in totality for homesteaded properties. Um because you will continue to get a tax bill whether you have if you have a homesteaded piece of property for school taxes. This has no impact whatsoever on
the school portion of your property tax. And in Simol County, that's about 40% of the total tax bill goes to the school system. So, um, the narrative that was out there initially from the governor that he's going to eliminate all property taxes on homesteaded
properties, that was his concept. That is not what the legislature ended up putting on the ballot because um they were quite concerned about how did they fund the public school system in the state of Florida which is about 20some
billion dollars. So if you eliminate that that becomes problematic and they did not want to deal with that at that this time we talked about 2027 goes the homestead goes to 150 2028 it goes to 250 this must pass by 60% of the voters
were changing the constitution the property tax system in the state of Florida is embedded in the state constitution under article 7 only the voters can change that and it has to pass by a super majority of %. So the folks here in Oido and Seminal County
can think this is not such a swell idea and if the folks in South Florida when you know larger population centers are think it's great as it passes 60% statewide uh it becomes law January 1, 2027.
So we'll go to the next slide. So this is what Oto's current tax role uh advalorum tax role looks like. It's about 4 almost5 billion 4.78 billion
uh made up about 24 yeah 20 14,315 parcels and the total estimated ador taxes generated from those properties for ODO about 27 million bucks. Okay,
that's the whole entire tax role. If you pull out the homesteaded properties, about 2.38 of that 4.7 billion is uh homesteaded properties. Almost 50% of of your tax ro uh is made up of homesteaded
properties. About 9,500 of of the 14,000 parcels are homesteaded. So that's 60 plus percent. Um and the homesteaded portion of the advalorum tax generation is about $14 million or almost 51% of
your total advalorum uh taxes. So um that's real money at some level and I know you're you and your staff are grappling with that and we'll continue to have that conversation. I will say um I know you're in the current throws of
working on your 26 27 fiscal year budget. This obviously has no impact. This proposed amendment has no impact under that budget. But obviously you're looking at it. You're seeing it. Um this is why I'm here. This is why you're
having work sessions because you know you have to start planning in case this does in fact pass. And again, this just kind does a a timeline uh for well where the homestead is current exemption is 51,411
150 goes in 2027, 250 in 2028. And then at 250 plus+ that's whatever the legislature comes up with as far as a schedule goes. Or maybe they don't come up with a schedule. I mean it it doesn't say they must. It just gives the them
the authority to do that. And again, as we talked about in the beginning, this does not, no matter what happens, whether this amendment does not pass or does pass, does not in fact school millage. Fun fact, um when we last raised the homestead exemption back in
2008, um the homestead exemption was $25,000. It went to 50,000. The reason it's 51,411, that weird number is because it does go up by uh the inflation rate. Uh but even Back in 2008, the legislature
struggled with the concept of how do we fund this public school system for the state of Florida. Let's leave the homestead exemption at $25,000. Let's not move it to $50,000. So, the homestead exemption has been at 50 $25,000 since 2008 and will remain at
$25,000 uh moving forward. So, this is um what We have projected uh for some potential tax uh revenue loss uh if this amendment passes and um over
the over the next two-year period of time. So for 2027 28 uh fiscal year, your general fund would lose about $5.1 million. You have a CRA um which is about $170,000
loss in revenue. Uh when the exemption moves to $250,000 in 2028 2029, uh your revenue loss goes to 9.2 on the general fund and uh 200,000
two almost $300,000 on your CRA. So for a total impact over that two-year period of time, I'm going to round to about $15 million. Okay. Now one caveat that we will put in there just because it was
done for it's easier to do this analysis and um the one thing that we have not factored in is any kind of growth in your tax role from new construction or value increases. Uh, for example, for
20207 2026 2027, the tax ro that you are the budget that you're currently working on, we certified to you last week that your tax role went up about 4.7% almost 4.8%. Um, and of course that changes from year
to year depending on how much new construction and how much the values are going up from year to year. So this is assuming the flat tax roles are flat, which they will not be. Um, but the huge there will be a huge impact just because of increasing the exemption. And so um
we're going to say $15 million over that initial two-year period of time. In the amendment, it talks about, you know, you need to prioritize your spending. Now, just because your revenues have dropped doesn't mean that your expenses have dropped. And
certainly the amendment does not contemplate you doing anything with core services. So this is kind of a illustrative idea about what what the legislature is is considering a core service. Um obviously the first one is
public safety. As you and your staff know public safety is the biggest component of your adorum taxes where that is spent. um goes on to talk about um not that this impacts you but funding
of public education. Uh finance and refinancing of infrastructure um finance of finance finance or refinance of natural resources including flood control, those types of things. Issuing of local
bonds for uses for consistent payment of those bonds. um paying your obligations into to the Florida retirement system for your employees. I want you to prioritize that. And then this C kind of catchall language, fund the operations and administrative
uh administration of county officers and commissions and every that's kind of like everything else. You can't not fund, you know, some of the other stuff. So again, just because your revenues have declined under this particular amendment doesn't mean you can, you
know, jettison the responsibility of paying for these core services. That's up to you to kind of figure out how to to fill that gap. And then this is kind of an interesting statistic and your staff asked for a bigger breakdown, but this is kind of what we've done for each of the seven
cities in the county to kind of show you break points about where the exemption takes effect and where it does not. So you can see folks over $250,000 in assessed value.
you in the city of Ovito, you have about 5,500 parcels, homes that meet that test. So almost 57% 50 almost 58% of your tax role uh is homesteaded is still over 250,000. that we talked about. Even
if this amendment passes, the 250 comes into play, they're going to get a tax bill no matter what. If you're over $250,000, you're going to see dollars in there for your services and for uh the county water management district, etc.
Um and as we talked about several times already, school taxes. You can see how the rest of that falls out. Um you as a city have a relatively robust tax role. Uh, in other words, it's a fairly highend residential tax role. I will
tell you there are places in the state um that will probably cities that will probably not continue to exist because they do not have um 5,500 houses over $250,000 uh for sure. So, uh, in this county and
in this and certainly here in Novito, uh, our residential housing stock is relatively valuable. And even with the $250,000 exemption, they're still going to be paying some level of city and county taxes. And this is our contact information. And
I'm really just here the rest of the time for your questions that you may have moving forward either now or >> I think we're going to go through the next presentation and then open up. >> Sounds great. Sounds great. Very good. Thank you. >> Um so I'm going to hand it over to Miss
Kelly over here and see if we can uh do our staff presentation. >> Good evening, mayor and city council members. So just a followup to Mr. Johnson's presentation. We've gone into just a little bit more detail as far as how these the property tax legislation
could affect the city directly. This is just a brief overview of the few items that we want to discuss with you here this evening. And any of the information that Mr. Johnson's already touched on, I'll I'll just kind of go through a little more briefly.
So, as he explained, these are the projected impacts to the city for both um 2728 and 2829. And the 5.1 million would be the first $150,000 homestead exemption. And then the 9.2
would be the uh $250,000 exemption. Um as Mr. Johnson stated, um these estimates were based on current values within the city. So any increase in property tax uh any increase in the taxable values over the next few years
or changes in millillage can can have an impact as far as what these values will be in the future. So this is the HDR1F and as um he stated it's now amendment three. So for 2026
the city's taxable value is $4.7 billion. So what we were trying to to show here is if if you look at the 26 27 taxable value, we we tried to show a scenario over time. So um we took the
taxable values and we just we increase them by the 2%. Because that's pretty conservative for here. Um we took the dollar value of what the HJ1 HR1 impact would be. So in 2728 you see that $879
million reduction in our taxable values. That would be the $150,000 exemption to the uh homestead of residents within the city. Um if you stay with um 2728 you can see what our adjusted values would
be and then again our revenue loss and we tried to project that going forward. Um it again it takes into account a 2% taxable value increase. Um and it's it's it's based on the millage rate staying
the same. But we wanted to see how this plays out into the future for 2930. Right now the bill states the $250,000 will be increased by a CPI index. So the interesting thing here is that
um save our homes caps your increase every year to the lesser of CPI or 3%. What's interesting so far and from what we've read is the save our homes is adjusting at the same rate as the
homestead exemption. So they're they're using the same index right now and you'll see that a little better going forward. So what we tried to do is we took a home under the 250 and kind of played out the scenario for taxes. Um you can see the
value of the home increases 2% every year. Um under the taxable value line you can see in the exemption um you can see the current year exemption at 2627 is at 51,000 and then going forward it goes from the 150 to
the 250 and so forth. But eventually this home after 2829 the value of the home the exemption is going to be greater than the value of the home. So as far as property taxes the only taxes
this home will pay going forward is the school property taxes. They will no longer pay the city, the county, St. John's or any other taxes going forward. Um the interesting thing is the taxable value even though they're growing at the
same CPI index in 2930 the taxable value will grow at a smaller dollar value than the exemption because if you use if you if you say in 2930 that the save our homes is a 2% increase and then the
exemption is a 2% increase. the exemption grows at a higher dollar amount. Does that make sense? >> So, are you saying basically if it's 250 or higher, they would grow at the if it's 250 on the button, it would grow the exact same,
>> but if it's lower, then it's going to basically >> So 2% of 250 is greater than 2% of 240. So you you kind of get this gap. So you've got the exemptions growing at a same percent but a difference. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. So we we tried to take that
and we tried to do the same thing for a taxable value of a home over 250. Um so we did the same scenario but what you can see is if you look at the top line if you look at the taxable value you'll see when you go from um from 28 to 29
the I have the house is actually growing at 8,000 a year where the exemption line grows at 5,000 a year. So eventually their taxes will begin to increase again. So if nothing else is done after 2930, if there's no other legislation passed and we're strictly growing by
CPI, anyone with a home over 250, their taxes will begin to increase because the value of their home will increase faster than the exemption will. So we just thought that was an interesting scenario to to show um how this it will impact any residents in the
city. And again, we use 2% growth in both of these scenarios. And this again assumes um it assumes the millage rate has stayed the same as it is today. The other legislation that was just passed by the governor last week was
CSSB4F and what it does is it is uh changing the way that we calculate the maximum millage rate. So we tried to give uh the explanation here. So um currently when we calculate
the roll back rate for the city um we take the roll back rate and then we are able to increase it by the change in the per capita Florida personal income. So it takes of the roll back rate it increases it by some percentage and that is the amount that is allowed from a
majority vote of our council which is three out of five. So what this amendment is going to do is it it's strictly the roll back rate. So anything the roll back rate and under we can do a majority vote for three-fifths. Anything
over the roll back rate up to 10% actually now requires a 2/3 vote. And so 2/3 for our council is actually four out of the five members. So, anything in excess of 110% over the roll back rate would require a unanimous vote or
referendum. So, this bill is now also going to just restrict it will make it harder um as far as the military goes every year. >> Quick question on the logistics of the last one. So, three people could vote to have a referendum,
>> but how would the timing of that work? You'd have to almost know a year >> and 15. You like you'd have to know 15 months in advance presumably or >> it's not supposed to work. >> It's not. Yeah, I think it's not supposed to work. But that is, you know,
I wonder. >> Yeah. The second the second I it was brought up. I pulled up 200.065 the relevant statute. Um and yeah, I've never experienced a jurisdiction going the referendum. You have a referendum route for general obligation bonds
obviously, but never a referendum route to approve over 110%. So I need to take a look at how that's actually supposed to work. >> So this slide just I'm sorry this slide just do you have a question? All right. This just shows the the the millage
rates how they would be. So the current column I it's taking our 5.8610 8610 which is our our current um general fund mill rate for operations and it's showing you how it would currently go. So we would take the 5.8610
it increases by the um personal income uh percentage and [clears throat] that is your majority vote. Um in the new scenario it's actually going to go back to the roll back rate and that's that's all the majority vote can approve.
um the twothirds column in the current situation um it would take the roll back rate plus the personal income adjustment um and then another 10%. So that's where you get that 6.5
um in the proposed or in the the scenario that has been approved it's just the roll back rate plus 10%. So you can see how under the new uh CSFB4F it does lower the maximum millages that are eligible to be approved by the
council. So that will impact uh then that's effective immediately. So that does go into effect for the 2627 budget year. Um the department of revenue is still working on all of the tax forms.
So we don't even have them yet. Um, so this is our best scenario on how it's supposed to work, but once we get those forms, um, we'll be able to plug those in and get exact numbers for this fiscal year. >> That was something, Miss Jones, that
council with since we don't have the forms yet, the uh, what Miss Jones is showing as the roll back rate is our best estimate that we can come up with using using the various formulas. Uh, once the forms come in, that number may go up, may go down. We're not really
sure. >> You mean the millillage for that's only a majority? Okay. >> Yes. >> So, just some other impacts to the city outside of the general fund. So, as Mr. Johnson stated, we do contribute to the city's CRA. Um, right now the projected
revenues for 2627 are just over a million dollars. Um, 2728, uh, we don't contribute to the CRA at 100%. So um it's estimated we will lose 168,000 but we only contribute 50% of
the tax of the advalorum back to the CRA. So based on that their revenues um for 2728 would reduce by about 83,000 taking their revenue down to 934 and then in 2829 it would reduce by
about 150,000 taking it down to 869. So the same impact would apply to Simino County's contribution to the CRA. Um it would probably get uh their millage rate is slightly lower than the cities. So they they pay just they contribute just a little less than we do, but the
reductions would be very close. So um they would lose about $160,000 in 2728 and about 300,000 in 2829. The other thing that would be affected right now would be the impact to the geo
bonds. So every year our geo bond rate is set to cover our annual debt service. Um for 2526 our millage rate was.140 mills and for this upcoming budget year we're actually um projecting to decrease
that slightly. If the property taxable values in the city are reduced um by any amount that will drive up the millage rate on the geo bonds um with less less of a taxable
values um able to apply that to we would have to increase the millage rate on the the taxable values remaining in order to recover the same amount of money to pay that debt service cost. Now the maximum
millage rate the city can charge um is 0.9 mills. So we would not get close to that. Um but we would have to increase it in order to recover enough funds to pay the debt service. >> Does that have the same rules requiring like a super majority to do that or is
that separate for >> No, this is completely separate from the general. Yeah, we could this is voter approved. So we can set the military to cover the debt service. So with all this going on, the city is actively looking at just various ways to
kind of combat uh what the future holds both as far as um some revenue replacements and also um ways to reduce our expenditures. And I'm going to turn that over to Mr. Cobb and he's going to walk through this slide. >> Okay. Thank you, M. Jones. Uh, council,
one one of the things we wanted to ask you tonight, we we've been working on you you uh believe it was when when this thing first was first adopted, uh, you asked us to put together a plan. And so, we've been working on that. And one of the things we've been doing, we've been looking at both revenue replacement, but
as well as rethinking how we do things and where can we find savings and where can we reduce costs. And what we wanted to do tonight was to ask make sure that we're going down the right path that if there was something that as far as if
there was revenue replacement that you said no don't don't consider that that's something that we would like to know. Uh if as far as expenditure reduction you can see these are the highle things that we're looking at. Uh as far as like the
millage rate adjustment, those millage rates are what would be to capture what is what is proposed, our proposed uh revenue, abdorum revenue using our existing millage rate to make the to accomplish the $25 million that is
projected. Uh we're not saying go to that that would just be do that would you wouldn't do anything else. You would just go to that. But that's not what we're saying. We're saying that we're asking that can military adjustments be something that we can consider as part
of our re revenue replacement. Obviously, back in 2022, we established a fire district. Uh actually implementing the fire fee. Uh we will have to do a new technical study obviously, but uh that is something that we're we would like to we're recommending that we would do. Uh if you
remember back in 2025, we had a presentation on uh sidewalk uh uh non-advelor districts and but there are other way other districts out there that we could be pursuing as well that are non-advelor in nature. Uh so those are something that we were looking at as
well as uh establishing administrative looking at our administrative fees and determining how we could set them to do 100% cost recovery. And these aren't just our recck fees. Obviously our recck fees are part of it. We have a policy that you know with our recreation programs of 30% cost recovery. It would
be looking at going to 100% cost recovery. But we also have fees for like development services. We have fees for fire. We have fees for police. Now I will say that the state does limit us on what we can do for uh for when we're responding to public records or for
making copies. We're sort of limited from that perspective. But we do have a in looking at our administrative fee schedule and looking at how we can do that. I can tell you we did something back in 2006 similar [snorts] in development services. Council said they wanted the uh at the time council
wanted the development to pay for itself. And so we actually went in and we took each each application. We looked at each person who would be reviewing that application. We determined what their rates were. We got a benefit percentage uh uh to add on to it. And
then we calculated how many hours it would take to review. and then we came up with a cost. If it required a city attorney review, we added that cost in. If it required a consultant review, we added that cost in. We came up with our fees. So, we're looking at same doing
the same thing. But one of the things as well is that when you look at and the of course the last one was the ambulance fees. Uh right now we're not uh we're not we're not anywhere near 100%. So, um, but in looking, we're also looking at how we, like I said before,
rethinking what we're doing and how we do that. Something that you'll see when we present the budget, uh, our budget update for June is paying off our general fund debt. We have two issuances right now that uh if we can pay that off this year uh will have great benefits
and actually would be the first uh expense reduction in far as moving forward and not having those two uh debt service on the books when the 150 sets in that's a that's a savings of close to $700,000. So, that's something. And one
of the things that I've noticed that a lot of folks will look at expenses because if when you when we get over to the the uh budget presentation, you'll see that our actual operating expenses aren't that great. They're not very large. But in this case, when you're talking about, as Mr. Johnson said, up
to $15 million possibly, we're counting pennies. Every penny counts. And so rethinking how we do things, obviously eliminating uh freezing vacant positions, looking at reductions in service, actually also looking at re how we do the actual
services. Is there a different way that we can provide those services? So, but and then we are a service organization and so our largest expense is our people and so when we're looking at these reductions in services, there's going to be reductions in workforce as well. I
remember having to go through it and when we had the recession and in development services we lost a third of the department and it was tough. We were having many meetings where we would sit down and say we're going to lose this person. How do we who's going to take on that different uh those those various um
duties? So that's another one. Then also outsourcing uh we're looking at ways that we can if outsourcing provides a a savings to us that we can then reduce the budget then we we're also taking those into account. So like I said we're looking at everything that we can think of. If there's something that you see
that oh yeah you could do this as well. Uh we're definitely open to it. Uh but main thing was we wanted to make sure that we were going down the right path with the revenue replacement. Uh we think that it should be balanced as far as the methodology that we do. there should be some form of revenue
replacement, but it also as well as looking at expenditures. So, that's that's where we are. Like I said, tonight we just wanted to make sure that we're going down the right path and get your direction for that. Uh, actually, I'd like to ask Mr. Johnson to come join us again uh for um for questions, any
type of discussion. And I thought it would be wonderful to have him here as a uh as a a technical expert to, you know, answer any questions council may have as well as Miss M. Miss. Jones has done a tremendous amount of work uh on on this these two bills and learning about them
and as well as Mr. Boop and Mr. Door. So, uh they're they're all here tonight to address your questions and uh hopefully have a have a fruitful discussion. So, Deputy Mayor, I'll give it back to you. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Cobb, and thank you, Miss Jones, and Mr. Johnson. >> Thank you. Um, you know, this this
subject can get a little touchy, too, because this is this is hard to even look at. Um, we're looking at a big portion of our budget. So, I know we're just spitballing ideas here, but I also want to keep in mind that, you know, some of the people affected might be sitting in this room. So, um, but yeah, I guess I will open the Florida
questions and I might just start with the first one. The fire district fee, I wanted to talk about the counties, um, they have it as a separate line item. Does that get affected by this bill or is that not affected by the bill? >> Yeah, so it's all nonschool
millages and in Simol County their fire um funding is a millage rate. >> So it is not a fee. It's a it's a it's a millage rate. So it's every millage rate other than the school milit rates are affected by this.
>> Okay. So, so you would have to basically and the county's had not certainly not a spokesperson for Simol County, but they would certainly have to have some conversations about do we change the methodology of how we fund the fire system because as you may know,
Castleberry, Winter Springs, Altoont, and unincorporated Simol County are all under the county's um fire services. >> Sure. And is there a reason like I think it was like MTSU BU like one of them was not affected correct like how are you
put it on there or is it just if it's on there as like a tax form under advorum that's why it's affected >> if it's advorum other than schools it's affected it's it's all milliges that are affected >> so all MSTUs are are impacted correct >> is correct >> yes okay that's what I thought >> and not to get too much in the weeds on
roll back but um strap your seat belts on just for a second So roll back by definition is the same the rate that needs to be applied to the values to generate the same dollars as the year before less any kind of new
construction or annexations. So there is I mean it's just a pure math formula that if we reduce the values significantly because of an exemption increase your roll back rate is actually
going to roll up. Okay to generate the same dollars as you did before. Now, as was indicated under this year's scenario, the budget you're currently working on, they have changed the formula by taking out the personal income growth. Um, I think that was an
effort to maybe get ready uh for this in case this passes. But you're, if this passes, you're a year from now, your staff is going to be presenting to you a millage rate that's going to be higher
just because of pure mathematics, because of roll back. Okay. Now, you don't have to adopt that certainly, but um that is a a quandry [snorts] that no one's really having that conversation about. And that's some of the conversations that you're hearing
is, you know, does this is this kind of a you know, it's the old balloon scenario. If you pull push one end of it, the other end's going to expand. So, you know, your non-homesteaded property owners could theoretically be more impacted even if you don't adopt
that. I'm going to call the roll up roll back rate. Uh because obviously that would be a higher rate applied to that value. >> So, you're saying year one if this were to pass it'd be a roll forward rate because the values would drop. So, to get the same amount >> to generate the same value,
>> we could do that 7.04 4 with a threeperson vote pass and it wouldn't be above the 10% threshold. >> But we didn't put the numbers up there of if you had a $250,000 tax property um that didn't get this exemption. What would happen if it went up to that? And
I assume, you know, two points of a military, we just shot up their taxes a lot. So, >> well, that's the thing though th those who are now exempt, it doesn't affect them at all. >> It doesn't affect them, but the other people everybody else, right? >> Great. Okay. And that's kind of the
the shift we'll call it potentially. Um and you know there is that intended or unintended believe there's unintended consequences. Um but there is there will be a shift and again you as a council do not have to adopt that roll back rate. Um but
that's certainly a conversation that's going to be had all across the state. >> No, that's a really important point. What's the impact to the county? You showed us what what it is for us. >> So, with all the count between the county's general fund and the fire fund,
it's almost $200 million. So, um it's real money um for them also. >> Wow. >> How much of that is their fire? >> Uh a big chunk, probably about 40% 45%
of it is the fire fund, right? Wow. And that's why they're going to have to if this passes, they're going to have to go to probably a nonadalorum fee to to to fund it because it just won't it won't work. So,
is there going to be any kind of educational stuff that goes out to the voters to help them process this? Well, as all of us in government, we have to be exceedingly careful about not
>> proposing or opposing, but um to your point, we we have created a spot on the website already that has basically that that slide that we had about what the amendment does. um the trim notices that will be going out in mid August um for
the proposed property tax. We're going to have that same slide on there again to talk about just what the effects are whether not indicating whether it's good or bad. These are just the facts because I think right now we're facts are kind of missing sometimes. Um, and I mean we
all get blown up with social media and stuff like that and you know there's confusion out there in that the governor's plan and I mean he talked about it today. Um, this is not his plan. Um, so
he even said he I'm not even sure I'm going to campaign for it. I'm I'm going to vote for it. He said but I'm not sure I'm going to campaign for it because this was not my plan. Now, his plan was a little bit more draconian than this because of the school piece of the equation, but
I he's got a there's a calculator out there right now still today that if you pull it up, put your address in there, um it it was his plan which did eliminate the school taxes and it shows
if you're under $250,000, you owe zero taxes. Well, that's just very disingenuous. Um, it's not, you know, no one can take it down or whatever, not take it down. But there's again, lots of bad information out there, misinformation out there. Um, I think
you will see advocacy groups from both sides, uh, trying to come forward. Um, you know, I know the cities and I know the counties and other groups are trying to be do some kind of education process for sure. As far as a calculator, is
there something we could do at the county level that you could go in and calculate it since I mean it's a math? >> We we we certainly could and we've had this discussion to be quite frank with you on on sta with my staff. Um my concern is the assumptions that we would
have to put in there about you know did the property not sell? Um because it gets re you know as you know under save our homes today when the property sells the value resets. So in this county on
average over $150,000 worth of value is under the cap. So I would have to assume the property didn't sell. Um you know there's a lot of assumptions and I get concerned about doing that in that at the end of the day someone does it, they
print it out and then this does pass and you know we're a couple hundred bucks off. You know there's that. So I mean we're still having that conversation. Um, I know my association, my property appraisers association, we we're trying to come up with some ideas with a frequently asked questions brochure and
but um I, you know, I love a good calculator as much as anybody. Um, and um, we may we may go there before. >> I guess I was just trying to offset the fact that you said 40% of your taxes are cool, right? So if you go on the state level, it's it's lying to you.
>> Exactly. It's definitely lying to you at this point. Yes. >> What is the county? So this is obviously some of the ideas that you know the city's thinking about. What what is the county considering? I mean are they going to are they considering the military adjustment as well? >> I I think they would see I think like
your your city manager has indicated. Um I think every government's going to have to assume a basket of solutions between you know potential cuts. probably going to be some revenue enhancements whether that is a slight increase or larger
increase in the military non-advalum assessments um those types of thing you know here in seminal county we have not done a lot of non-advalum assessments I mean garbage street lights those types of thing but there are counties in the
state there's 30 and 40 non-advalorum assessments um literally on a piece of property mosquito districts hospital district dot to dot to do that. So, and no one ever wants to go there either, but um there's there's there's going to
have to be some kind of revenue enhancement and then as Mr. Cobb indicated, there's going to have to probably be some uh cuts and expenditures also and what what that looks like um moving forward for sure. So, I think it's a basket of of solutions.
>> Gotcha. >> I will say I'm sorry. I will say there's no way, especially at the seminal county level or at the county, you cannot cut your way of a $200 million >> um amount of money. Now, you can trim
around the edges and do some things, but you can't cut $200 million out of the the county's general fund or fire fund um and even be legitimate. So, >> yes, sir. Uh, so you said a minute ago that we have to be exceedingly careful
in what we say about this. Is am I missing something? Is there some way as an elected official that my free speech on this issue is being infringed upon? >> Well, certainly I cannot utilize my office nor can this council utilize your official capacity
as a council to advocate or not advocate for an amendment. I mean, that's in the state statute. I think your your city attorney can speak to that. Certainly, you as an individual certainly have opinions and I have lots of opinions. Uh I just have to be careful with what I do
with with as in my official capacity as property appraiser and utilizing the resources of my office. Uh and I can certainly educate and that's education is a um is a good word. Um, but I certainly
cannot put my thumb on the scale uh one way or the other. So, >> but we could individually put our thumbs on the scale. You just can't as a constitutional officer. Is that what you're saying? >> His office. >> I'm going to let your city attorney speak. >> Yeah. And uh to uh uh property President
Johnson's point, it's it's the using the resources of the office part that is the primary issue. All right. We have a uh statute 106.113 Florida statutes that regulates it's primarily focused on the expenditure of
public funds. All right. It expressly calls out actually that elected officials and I'll just offer you know a a slightly uh modified thought there. Elected officials as elected officials can say whatever they want.
>> All right. the matter is using public funds or using the resources that come from public funds of the office to then project out those uh things and so on. So you're not restricted even if you happen to have you know city council member by your name and something from
having all the opinions of the world about it. the matter is using public funds and the resources >> which is why the title is in a lawsuit >> right because it's advocating >> and as I indicated we're when we send the proposed property tax notices out in mid August we have for the entire time
I've been property appraiser for 24 years we've always put an educational insert in there um we are going obviously do the same thing and one of the pieces is that that initial graph that little slide about what the amendment because I think I would be
that's good. That's something we currently do. It's education. I think I would be have problems if I said let me just do a separate mailing you know uh with this as an education piece. Maybe maybe not. But since the mailing is
already going out and it's already expenditure of funds and again I'm not advocating for or against the amendment. It's just facts. I think that's fine and that's not utilizing the resources of the office because there's other information on there too. >> So, so the calculator that's on the
state of Florida website that's wrong that doesn't run a foul of using public funds to put their thumb on the scale. >> That statute only restricts local governments. >> Oh, of course it I I I joke I go I don't know where this calculator is. I don't know if it's in
the basement. >> It's the It's the governor that did it. And all of the state legislators say they can't figure out how to get them to change it, >> right? How to turn it off. But um yeah. Yeah. I can't find the calculator, but
it does say clearly on there um brought to you by the state of Florida. >> Yeah, that is I went on there into my house. It said I'd pay like zero dollars. Yeah. So, uh, as far as, um, you know, one of the one of the things that's on that
first slide of yours, um, it says that, uh, that it requires, so that the amendment requires through general law a schedule for full elimination, but you were saying that the legislature may choose to do that or may choose not to do that.
>> I had another question about that, but >> and again, um, Mr. boss can speak to this because he's gone through this process a couple of times other ways. It's very unusual to have a constitutional amendment sitting out there which we will vote on in November without what we call implementing
legislation. Um the thought is well it's not the thought if if this passes we'll come back in November this is the governor and the legislature talking um and we will create the implementing legislation the the very fine points about how do we get
to all these things because there's a lot of nuances there. So, um, it's the schedule. Again, all we're trying to all this constitutional amendment is trying to do is give the legislature the authority so they do not have to come back to the voters somewhere down the
road and ask, can we go from 250 to 350? Uh, this will allow them so if they so desire to come up with a schedule and >> perhaps unconstitutionally delegate their authority. Of course, it's a constitution. We we give it but if if
this passes we have delegated our constitutional authority to them >> in the constitution >> to create a schedule. Yeah. Basically >> even more fun. >> Is that term birectional? Could they move it the other direction? >> Uh no. >> No. >> No. >> Just one direction. >> No, it's one direction. It's it's two.
It's 150 250 and then plus+. >> Okay. So, so the next point said that it requires local governments to use the remaining property taxes yet there's they're required to have a schedule for
full elimination. What's anybody's plan when this goes to zero, which is what the law says that it shall. >> Yeah. Well, of course, not every piece of property has a homestead. So you will still have those non-homesteaded properties that will be paying property
taxes. So you'll have to prioritize what where their money goes for everybody else's services. >> Okay. So the schedule for full elimination is not full full elimination. >> It's not it's only for homesteaded property, right? So we're always talking about the subset of homesteaded
properties. Yeah, to back to your point, initially when the governor started this conversation 16 17 months ago, he talked about I don't think it's good to pay property taxes whatsoever. Okay? And then it morphed into homesteaded
property taxes. >> And so that's where we're we have landed is homesteaded property taxes only. Um so there will be that other group of properties and again only renters will pay property tax, >> right? So even in within Simol County um
there I'm going to count halves and have nots. You as Oido and Winter Springs are kind of heavily residentially dependent. Although your tax base is much more diverse than your neighbors to the uh north and winter springs and Altoont
Springs the in perspective over a two-year period of time loses $4 million. Yeah, >> I suspect they can find >> $4 million over you lose 15. Okay, so even within this county because it's
just about the makeup of the properties, you know, how much is commercial and how much is homesteaded. >> That's it's a huge thing. So you can you take that and make it exponentially >> across the state and you will have counties north of Gainesville that will
have huge problems. There are already 31 counties of the 67 that are physically constrained. They cannot pay their bills today for the most basic of services under the current system. The thought is you take the 31 if this passes to go and it goes to 37 counties.
We'll no longer be able to pay the most basic of service >> and we will subsidize them further through state. >> Yeah. So currently under current law uh on an annual basis uh and again this is by legislative decree. So they did it
this year next year they may decide not to do it. There is a transfer of sales tax dollars that leaves Tallahassee that goes to those 31 counties so that they can in fact have a sheriff's department and a and some level whether it's a volunteer fire department or whatever
that looks like. Um, so yes, there's already a transfer of money primarily through the sales tax. Um, and again back to the governor's original concept, he wanted to have create a trust fund um that would create money that and I
called it the hunger games. If that was going to be there, we were, you know, the cities and the counties could go to Tallahassee and ask for money to fill in the gaps, right, for this pot of money. um that got stripped out along the way also. So that that trust fund is not
there. But back to if this does pass back to the implementing legislation. Um that's potentially the legislature could say, let's create a trust fund, a revolving trust fund on an annual basis to help backfill some of this. They don't have to do that, but that could be part of the implementing legislation
that may happen in November. And I think that's the concern is what does this we know what the amendment says, but what does that there's going to be I won't say hundred but many dozens of pages of statutes to implement this this
amendment if it passes and what what's going to be in those dozens of pages. And so I think that's kind of the the big unknown at this point. >> So Mr. Cobb, I know you're looking for some direction on what staff needs to do
to figure this out. I mean, I personally think whatever we decide to do should be decided before voters vote on this. So, um, you know, I know the internet likes to say fear-mongering a lot. So, I do think if any of us were to go online and say this is what's going to happen, [clears throat] it's just not true until we all come to a consensus, right? So,
personally, I would like to find some consensus before the vote so they know what a yes vote would do in the city of Ovito and what a no vote wouldn't do. So, it's it's fair to the voters so they know what they're voting on. Um, but I guess, you know, you have a lot of things up here that can some can be
used, some cannot that you kind of need direction from us on. So, how do we tackle this? >> Well, I I I guess like I said, the first question is, are we going down the right path? Obviously, when I when I put up the millage rate, there was a big concern that everyone was going to say,
"Oh, you're going straight there." Which we're not. Uh we just wanted to show you the parameter and but there is possibility as that that could be one of the things that we have to do. Uh when you think about that, we have a $45 million general fund budget and cutting
$15 million out of it over two years, that's a pretty big chunk out of that $45 million. Uh I made a co I was doing some research on it and I told the staff I said we're looking at uh precoid
revenues with postcoid expenses is what we're looking at and that's that's one of the things is that even though COVID ended in 2022 we're still feeling the feeling the effects of it uh especially as far as how much our cost have
increased in the and so It's one of those things that when you're looking at, like I said, pre-COVID revenue, postcoavid expenses that we I I believe we do have to look at some form of revenue replacement. Uh, and what that is right now, I can't tell you exactly
what that is, but there has to be some balance as well and rethinking how we do things and and making the necessary cost cutting too. Uh, so I mean, and we're looking at everything. Uh there is not anything that um if you remember back um
uh I believe the very early uh bill that came out I think it was SJ 203 you know put limitations on said certain certain aspects of the government were protected and you couldn't do anything. This one doesn't. They put every every aspect of local government on the table. And so
we're we are we're looking at the entire operation. But that's really where we are. we, you know, moving forward on the fire fee, we're able to, we're ready to do that to move forward if you want us to move forward on that. I think starting that sooner than later is better. Uh, if we looking at other
non-adilarums, uh, Mr. Johnson's right as far as the county fire fee, we've been looking at various unincorporated uh, tax bills, it shows up under the adalorum section. Uh, whereas like with our our street light fee, it shows up in the non-adorum section. So, uh, they do
have a municipal services taxing unit. If it were a municipal services benefit unit, I'm assuming it would fall under the non-med. >> Correct. >> I do know that I think fire can be an MSBU. Uh it does affect the value of property. So it can be that. >> Uh so
>> you can only do that at the county level, right? Like we can't do that. >> We cannot do that. We do not have the authority to do that. >> We can we can do either for fire. It's for law enforcement. And the county can only do an MSTU, not an MSBU for law enforcement. Yes, for law enforcement >> but for fire it can go MST or MSBU.
>> Correct. >> Yes. The only thing we can do is nonadvalorum fees is the only thing that we can do. Set up a non-adorm district >> and a a nonadvalorum district and on the county level what's called an MSBU or mult uh municipal service benefit unit
are functionally equivalent. That's just the term you use when you do that at a county level. So that's effectively what a fire district fee would be is uh implementing kind of a city level MSBU. We just don't call it that.
>> Has anyone uh created a list of all the nonadalorum fees that are being used throughout the state that we could poke at? I know you mentioned there's some >> there's a lot out there. I'm sure there's I'm sure there League of Cities
probably has some >> Well, Orange Orange Orange County, I think, is a great one to look at. So, a new development goes in there and they they have their street light district for just that neighborhood. They have a sidewalk district for just that neighborhood. Uh the roads, the storm water, everything is hyper localized and
extremely transparent and extremely fair. And I I think that would be a great direction for Ovito to go to the extent we're able to. Um, so unlike our storm water fee where everybody pays the same rate whether or not you get the same benefit or you know there's there's
hypothetically like I benefit from somebody six miles from me not flooding uh versus how Orange County does it where my neighborhood I can see that my neighborhood is not flooding. Um so things like sidewalks which we've
mentioned before I I hope that we will reconsider sidewalk districts. Um I hope that we will consider I don't think we can do a parks fee. Can we that had come up before >> that's one of the things that I do want to explore is a is a parks a parks not
adorum especially for maintenance and capital if we can do programming that would be wonderful but I think it's something I would like to explore it and see if it is something we can do. >> Can we do a road fee? >> No. >> Is it allowable to have a road fee? I thought I saw the county had
>> those. County does have a road millillage. It's a mill. >> I'm not sure what the legalities of that are from a can the city impose that or not? >> Yeah. No, we we can't impose other millages but the general fund mill and then any voted millages. Um so yeah the
if they have it's implemented as a road MSTU. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's a very small um I mean they can it's like a half a mill or something like that. It's very very small >> as a tax. That's not something separately we can impose. Uh with regard to a road
[sighs] >> with regard to a road fee. >> Could we vacate the roads to the county and then the county could create an MSTU? Because I I think that would >> exciting. Well, but if that's the goal, >> they're the same boat as us.
>> Yeah. >> I mean, you just said I mean they're getting stripped $200 million. >> Well, but they're not. that but it so the county is a little bit different because we have a 10 mil cap under the Florida Constitution but the county when they provide services like road maintenance that allows them to have an
additional 10 mills >> on top of the 10. So we if we can offload some of our 10 into their 10 uh because they can have 20 mills if that makes sense. Uh there there is some potential for collaboration there that may not be harmful to the county. Well,
it sounds like we at least have consensus to look into some options with fees. >> Okay. And and Mr. Britten, good idea. We'll we'll definitely start looking around the state for uh other other ideas. No, >> I'm actually thinking about other states, too, that have low property taxes. How do they generate revenues?
>> Right. >> I just rode through Alabama. They got very low property taxes, but they have an income tax. >> They have an income. >> Yeah. No, I' I've I know the staff have had to I've I've had some pretty creative I'll call them creative ideas. Uh they're
reigning me in at times. Uh but uh but yes, I mean there are a number of things and and and mayor the idea wellounded as far as looking at neighborhood level and how we can do that. >> Yeah. Another thing that came to mind that's I don't think it affects Ovito as much as other places, but it's going to
be the the folks that have winter homes here. those aren't homesteaded for the most part, >> right? And unfortunat for fortunately or unfortunately here in Semino County, this is a people come and live here and work here. Uh there are parts of the state, South Florida, uh the coastal
areas that do have a lot of secondary homes and probably their impact is not going to be as significant as an a county like ours that is a I don't like to use the term bedroom because we are more of diversified economy than that. But people come here and live here and
work here and uh raise families here. So there's not that much of a transient population as we see in other parts of the state. I one other point that Mr. Cobb brought up because we did this math uh and it's I think it's a good point from the public perspective have them
understand things. Uh essentially what we have with this you're going back to 2022. So as far as your values go we did this for the county. So 2022 would be the values um for the 150 2023 is the values
at the 250 level. So essentially the way to another way to look at you basically wipe out any growth that's occurred in those three to four year periods of time with new construction uh growth in a tax role if this amendment passes. So I call
it my back to the future slide. You kind of go back to 2022 but your as Mr. Cobb indicated your expenses have done nothing but go up in that same time frame. So it's not >> um >> So you're saying you're reducing the appraised value? No, what I'm saying is
by taking this [clears throat] many billions of dollars off the tax roywide, we have basically taken the tax role back to 2022, 2023 levels. >> Yeah. So, but your expenses are gone up exponentially in that same time frame. So,
>> but but you're also doing it on average, right? You're shifting where the tax burden goes. I mean, that's I think the biggest >> I think that's the biggest conversation that we as a state have got to have over the next number of months is what does that look like at the end of the day? Uh
because it's going to be there's going to be a shift. I mean, there's going to be some cuts. There's going to be some increases in other fees and those non those non-homesteaded properties and that's everything. That's commercial, that's apartments, that is hotels, that's you pick your favorite
non-homesteaded property. If you raise the millage rate, then they're going to feel that impact. I I think one of my not really a frustration, but it's just reality of the situation. To make up a tax bill, two parts of the equation, the value that I come up with and the tax
rates that the taxing authorities multiply against that value to come up with a with a dollar figure. We're always as a state concentrating, it seems like, on the value piece of the equation. And you know, so if if you're
taking, you know, if you're affecting the one piece, you're going to have to do something to the other side of the equation um to, you know, have a devastation one way or the other. So, >> I mean, this is kind of simple math. Um, but I don't I don't see a way where this doesn't come out where the other half of
the equation that's not exempted. >> Oh, absolutely. >> Doesn't pay more. So, we're affecting renters and business owners. >> Oh, absolutely. The and the only other thing I would say is um is again you know I mean car rides it's going to take to Tallahassee but if this does pass in
November and we start this is where the concern is on the implementing legislation and there is none or very little when they reconvene in November if this passes do not be surprised that they put some guard rails on what
you can do as a council as far is raising fees and that type of thing. So, I'm I don't want to be Debbie Downer, but I've seen this movie before. So, um >> the state basically wants us to have less money. I mean, this is what they've
said that we have had an increase in property value and we've just gotten this gusher of cash that we have all wasted because they know better than us. Right. I the question I have about that um and and I don't uh mean to make you
uh speak for the legislature, but but I'll ask [laughter] anyway. Um >> God knows. >> How is the uh how is the school board not in the same boat? And how is um how is what's good for the goose not good for >> because the way the state the way the school systems are funded in the state?
Okay. Um, it is a combination of property taxes and it's called the required local effort that is set at the legislative level. I tell people all the time that school board down the street has very little control over how much taxes you pay uh on an annual basis for
school taxes that the the legislature comes up with a number to fund public education in the state. It's basically 20ome billion dollars. And then they say they know what the property values are across the state and they mandate through the department of education.
They say you will apply this mill rate seminal county to your values to generate the dollars to fund your public education system. They also backfill that with with um with some level of prop of sales tax, not much but some. So
they know that if they had wiped out the required local effort, that's why it's called that military. It's called the required local effort. They're going to have to figure out how to fund the school system because also in the constitution is this guarantee that the people of the state of Florida will
provide a free public education to every citizen in the state of Florida. So you can't have two parts of the constitution uh contradicting each other. >> It's the state's problem, >> right? It would have made it their problem. That was their pro and that would have been their problem. That's why they've always exempted out. That's
why we're still at a $25,000 homestead exemption for school taxes. There's two different types of homesteads. Um, school taxes and non-school taxes. >> It all makes me crazy because they, you know, they say it's about, you know, that our the money that we've gotten and spent outpaces inflation. But inflation
is just an average and what we spend money on as a government are things that have outpaced inflation. anything that requires American labor materials. >> Yeah. >> Right. But but even the even the roads, I mean, it's American concrete. American people putting it in. Americans make more money.
>> Even real wages is higher, right? Um and so to go back to 20, I Mr. Boop told me a couple a year ago maybe that um we could get a fire truck all day long for 800,000. Was that it in 2019 pre-COVID? And now we're a million
and a quarter. I saw on the last uh >> on the last >> there was a time we get a fire truck for 500,000. Now they're about 1.1 1.2 million. >> Yeah. Couple. >> Yeah. So >> you wait four years. >> You pay up front. You pay up front. Mr.
Cab was right. You pay up front. You [laughter] wait four years. >> It's like our our new uh brush truck >> ended up over 500,000. >> Yeah. you know, and uh an ambulance used to be able we used to be able to get an
ambulance for two 250 300,000. Now they're upwards to 800,000. [cough] >> It's Yes. The that government as Mr. Boop says, government inflation is is different. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, as far as what do we want
to do about it? Um I I'm just looking up here to try to get some consensus so staff knows what they can and cannot look into. So, one of those pay off debt. Um, we've talked about this a lot. So, as far as it sounds like it, how much debt will we be paying off? And you said it's about six 700,000
a year that that would kind of help us with debt service. >> Yes. What we you'll see this when we get to the the budget update, but we would like to pay off two two that we only have two general fund remaining loans and I believe it is between six and 700,000. I'll have to go ahead
>> Miss Jones >> to pay off both the debts. That's right. About 2 million or slightly under that that saves within the operations each year about $700,000 in >> in savings and expenses and debt service
each year. >> Okay. >> And what we would like to do is do that this fiscal year is what we would like to do. >> Should we discuss that when we do the budget or Yeah. Okay. So, we'll come back to that one. >> We can do that. It's fine. >> Does anybody have any input on any of these items on here? I like the idea of
having 100% administrative or cost recovery for development in particular. Um I'm curious what it would look like in the parks and wreck venue. I don't know that anybody would use our parks if we had 100% cost recovery. But same thing for ambulance. That's a rare
enough thing and insurance usually covers it. I I didn't know that we were not doing close to I don't know what our percentage >> I think we looked at it a while ago. It was like 50 60%. So, let's get it let's get it to 100%.
>> And these are just things to look into, not necessarily that we're doing them. Um, anything else on here as far as freezing positions right now? >> We're actually starting that already. We we've been we've been evaluating the vacant positions and and that's one of the things that we do as a budget. We
budget at 100% employed. Mhm. >> Uh but we've already started looking at freezing freezing vacant positions if we can't if we especially the ones that we're chronically not being able to fill and that we're we're already adjusted and living without. But we're already
looking at that as well. >> What is the administrative cost to do the study to uh do a fire district fee? because that that's one of those administrative recurring costs that
if if we do find ourselves in a position where we need to replace that level of revenue, I think it would make sense to at least investigate what it might look like to team up with a county. And and
the reason why on that is because we also need another fire station and the location where it should go is at the very edge of Ovito. So it doesn't make sense like if if we're not on the same methodology of funding and and we have
different fe like it it the math is just going to get real wonky real fast if we end up going in this direction. So that's my two cents on that that we should perhaps >> I think we should put all options on the table. I do think that's why I asked the question earlier as far as how the
county funds it. Is it affected? because if theirs was not affected as a tax rate, it does make sense to look into it. Um, but it sounds like almost the entire state is going to go to a fire tax district. Um, I I don't can't imagine anybody funding
anything else otherwise. So, but I think we need to look at how much our fire department cost and we need to figure out how what it would look like as a fee. And I would like to see what the county is doing on how they're going to calculate it that as well too. Although there's five of us here, so I'm
open to input here. We just got there's a lot of ways to skin a cat, but I think we have to look >> I think you got to let them come back to I mean these very generic I mean we got to let them come back. What are some of the ideas? I mean the fire district fee again I think that's one that we've all talked about and kicked around you know
nonadalorum uh assessment districts is is is another one as much as we can recover you know our revenue and then also I mean we got to look you know at expenditures and I'm sure there's some tightening that can be done in there um >> so is there consolidation is is is an
answer because the county's in the same boat as we are uh and I can't see how they could take on anything that we have and I think we need we would never get the money back for it anyways. I mean, so we got to protect what we got and then find ways to do it. >> I mean, and I do believe last time we
checked, we operate at a lower cost than the county does. So, as long as we confirm that's still true now that we know that they also have to go to a fire tax district, I mean, we just have to I think we should be conscious of how they're looking at it and how we're looking at it. So, that's fair. But, I guess the question is, is there anything on here we don't absolutely don't want
to do because I don't want to waste staff's time digging into any of this. I think you look at it all. >> Look at it all. Yeah. >> Yeah. Look at it all. I I also wrote down our I don't know how much money we spend out of our budget on contracts, but is there a way to look at reducing
our contract uh uh liability or whatever it is, maybe renegotiate contracts we have for for outside services. >> Well, we could do stuff like mow less often or switch to native plants that don't mow to be mowed at all. uh in the
past that has not gotten a lot of support. So maybe maybe now is the time where we can do a little bit more environmentally friendly stuff. >> I don't I don't know why we have to see a guy edging Mitchell Hammock Road every other week. >> That's that's one of the things that are
um our mowing contracts are coming up. We're going to be going out and rebidding those soon. So looking at those uh frequencies, you know, increasing the frequency, the time frame between MOS, that is definitely something we can look at. >> And Mary, you even
>> you even mentioned to me the possibility of looking at our electric, you know, and and increasing looking setting our thermostats higher just to see if that can save us on uh on electrical bills. And I know there's certain uh there's
certain folks in this building that would love to see us do that. So uh and everything one of the things I want to tell you about if you with the consolidation this is what this is the guidance that I've been given on the consolidation if you want to do it we
need to ask and they would like to have a resolution saying please study this and what I've been told is after they study it there's no shame in saying sorry that's not in our best interest so that would be that's one of the things
that has to happen the thing that has to happen for the county to look at consolidation of any of our services is that we have to they want something from the city council saying we want you to look at this and so that that that's just how >> that's the guidance I've been given
>> and pay for >> I don't know if there's a cost to it >> is there a cost to it >> as far as as far as the county them looking at it I have no I do not know now yes to do the technical study for the uh fire fee and I don't remember
what the amount was when Wildan did it, but this time we would have to actually go back out. So, um, but we would have to do the technical study for any of our not at the warm districts. So, we would have to do that. I I do want to clarify that
I'm not a spokesperson for the county's fire department, but there is no guarantee that they would go to a fire fee, >> but obviously like you're doing, they're having to look at many different options. And certainly that's an option
of going from that 2 and.5 mills, I think it's 2.6 six mills that's applied to all the properties um to more of a a fee uh if that millage rate goes away. So, I guess I was just logically if you lose that much money and then you just raise the millage, you're putting it all
on the people who didn't get a tax break. I don't think spread it out a little bit. >> It would take a huge millage rate increase to to make up that difference to your point. Right. >> Um and you know that is >> right. It's not a given. >> Right. Right. Right. So, but they're looking at everything just like you are. So,
>> Right. >> So, with no fee, is there a downside of looking into it? Do we not want to look into it as far as uh >> I think we should ask the county to take a look at it. I'd like their feedback on if they would take us and under what
circumstances. Um because I I know that we have been looking at and stating that we we think we need one or two more fire stations here and the county seems to think there needs to be at least one more on this side of town. So like I don't know what ter on what terms they would take us because we're also we're
in ISO 2 and they're ISO1. And so if they take us and that would drag the whole county to ISO2, they might say, "Well, you've got to you need to bring some more to the table." So we don't know if we can even afford to. >> It might actually cost us more. >> It might cost us more to do the things
needed to to be part of the county. >> We are still going to look at a fire district, right? >> Yes. >> That that's that's that is we would we we recommend that we do that. >> Okay. I'm fine with that. >> Okay. So >> on fire, one of you talked about how um
the optimal place for a new fire station is kind of on the border. Um I think I talked to you about this, Mr. Cobb, the the idea that if there was such a thing to go in if um since it would serve both city and county primarily and perhaps
even equally um to to partner on that one, you know, similar to that one at UCF that's simol and orange. um with an interlocal or something. I mean certainly kind of thing can be done. >> Well, as soon as we do that though, even if we only add you know 0.25 instead of
adding so we have two stations right now and if we were to go to three and completely cover the the cost ourselves then our carrying cost would be 150% what it is right now. So if we only do half of then it's 125%. The margin is
0.2 mills between Yeah. like we'd be better off going to the county at that point if we do another fire station. So, I think this council needs to decide, are we going to try to become ISO1 or add another station because if so, our savings go away and we are probably
better off in the long haul um collaborating. I personally would like to keep the level of service we're at. I think we're doing a great job. >> Yeah, I think ISO2 is fine. >> I think if we're looking at going to the county, it's got to save residents money and it's got to make sense. And I think we kind of just logicked our way into
it. It almost doesn't make sense. >> So we So we would rather have this level of service than a higher level of service if the county would force us to have a higher level of service and higher cost. >> That is kind of what I'm hearing, >> which is okay. Like that's okay. >> I think there's perhaps difference of
agreement upon which is the higher level of service. >> I agree with that. >> Yeah. >> Well, I mean I like I guess maybe ISO1 ISO 2 does not denote a higher or different level of service. I mean it for insurance purposes it may. insurance. >> Um, >> it's a bigger bigger >> for insurance. So, may maybe the
response well because we have first response agreements, everything, you know, whoever comes comes. >> I think we have a top-notch fire department. I think we're just looking at revenue replacement and what makes sense. I do think we kind of talked myself into that we should just look at the fire tax district we have right now.
>> Um, but if there if there are three people who want to look into the county option, we can do that. But we've got to decide right now to let >> I just need to know. Sam, >> if I need direction on whether or not to prepare a resolution requesting that they look at it,
>> I'm not in favor of it. Again, we've invested so much into the equipment, the houses, the people, the training. We would never get it back. They're in the same boat as we are. They're going to have to change to how their fee is coming in. This level of service would
would drop off. I am I am not in favor of doing a resolution to ask for it. >> I am I don't know it doesn't >> I am not >> okay. All right. So I think I I mean we just kind of logicked how it wouldn't
make sense for me. So we should just go forward with looking at a fire tax district fee. Um I think we're all in favor of looking at that and then everything else we left on the table. That is still an option. So, um I guess as far as that, like when can we expect
I know this is a lot of work, some options to come back and how many work sessions are we looking at to kind of hash out a plan? >> I think I think the goal right now is to get it to you in August. That's the goal. So that we have September, October, November. >> Sorry, it like thundered. You said August. >> Yeah, that's the goal right now is to
get it to you in August. >> Okay. So, on the fire district fee, um, we went there before and last minute the methodology was changed and I was on board and then I stopped being on board. Um, I am going to have a hard time and
you only need three votes. So, you don't need you don't need my support to do it down the road if if this even passes, which honestly I don't really think it's going to pass because a lot of reasons. Um, that being said, it would be hard for me to get excited about a fire fee
without being able to compare it to what it would look like to be part of the county system. Um, unless everybody here is committed to not building an additional fire station for the foreseeable future because as soon as an additional fire station is in the mix,
the numbers the numbers change. Which doesn't mean we couldn't consolidate at a later time. just would would kind of be an inefficient and redundant expenditure of money studying how to create the fee and implement the fee um
and then [clears throat] you know realize ah it's it would be better overall to consolidate >> when you put it that way maybe there's no hurt maybe there's no harm in knowing the answer
>> I We just went over like we three said no. So >> yeah, I know. >> But as far as you know, mayor, what you're talking about, I think that's what we can get into when we start going down the path of fire tax district. I think the staff needs to come up with how much does it cost and then we all need to
>> we already know I'm looking at the chart that staff already made of how much it costs and there is a 0.2 22 mil differential between what the the count so actually our if we did not count the revenue that the fire department brings in uh we would operate at a higher cost
but because they bring in ambulance calls and uh fire inspection fees and construction plan review fees uh the differential ends up being 222 mills less expensive than the county. So you if we were to outsource then we'd
have to subtract out that point then you subtract out the income if that makes sense. So I I don't know that we're all looking at not everybody's looking at the chart I'm staring at. So everybody's just sort of guessing. >> Well I also think there's a lot of ways to do a fire tax district fee, right?
Because we already went through so many options last time around that I think we need to first of all address this, right? How are how are we planning on doing this in multiple different directions? And then we can dig into the weeds of how different fees would work. >> A fire fee. And I'm sorry, this all got
said, but I I can't remember ex exactly what was said. This would be non-advelorum. >> Correct. >> That that's correct. Yep. >> Okay. So, if the county kept a millagebased fee and we switched to a a
fire fee, then people who are are heading towards having lower or no taxes would be better off if they were placed by us into the county's millage scenario. So it it's one of those things where each person's going to be indiv
individually impacted based on their unique set of circumstances and it's going to be incredibly difficult to evaluate evaluate what's best for veto as a whole. >> Too many moving parts. >> But don't we know but don't so okay don't we know is as far as going to the county and having them do a
study. Don't don't we know what the answer is already? Is it's that 2.7? Yeah, we already know that we do it at a less cost right now under this methodology with no additional fire stations. And we know that if we add a fire station >> that we would be paying No, we would be
paying substantially more. We'd be paying 150% more at worst case scenario or 125% if the county went and havsies on a station. Does that make it like that math I think is kind of loosey math. >> Right. Yeah. given that the fire station
is the same size, the same step. >> But as far as where we're at today, because I think we're getting the weeds here, we're all good with looking at all these options and we'll come back in August and we'll go through then. >> Okay, >> everybody's good with that. >> Yes. >> Thank you. All right. Is there anything else as far as questions on this topic?
>> Okay. I want to thank you for coming out as well. >> Deputy Mayor, I I wanted to personally thank Mr. Johnson because he has been so gracious uh in his time and in working with us and has also compliment Mr. B, Miss Jones and Mr. Dora on the work that
they've done putting this together. And so it's it's been a really good team effort. >> And real quick, um always use us as a resource. We have lots of data. Uh we we'll provide that. And I will tell you, and I don't say this at every city commission, I mean, your staff is
wonderful to work with. Um it's much easier than some and I won't say but we we're all a family. We love it. Uh so again use us as a resource. Um lots of information on the property sizes, land, etc. So we can dissect this thing any
way you want to dissect it. So uh moving forward. So we're as we're there for you any >> we appreciate it and we like our staff here too. >> Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. All right. We're going to move on to our next order of business, which is item number three, Forvis Mazar's preliminary observations with
the Twin Rivers golf course. >> Mr. Cobb. >> All right, I'm gonna Let's Let's hope this connects. >> There we go. >> This is the initial >> secret code. Oh, I don't
>> we having fun yet? >> I know. >> Oh, I got I got to move it, don't I? So, they're gonna really See which way we go. >> We're gonna take a quick break until everybody comes back.
>> No, I'll try to figure out how to get it up on the screen. >> Well, you got a minute. >> I want to go back. >> We still got four items. I'm so excited. >> It's gonna be great. >> Yeah. Okay.
I couldn't imagine. >> Yeah, I'll reciprocate. No, >> no yoga ball yet. >> I I told Paul and Charlotte I'm a brother to bring me the yoga ball. You
should have done this, >> but I didn't bring so like maybe I should >> I played Robert. >> I hear they're nice. I haven't played up there. >> Should try to give them a try.
>> Not that expensive either. >> Should probably do. >> It's really not far. >> It's really not far. >> Not even first down. Prices [laughter] are up.
>> What are the chicken? >> Lands better up there. >> All right, I think everybody's back. Were we missing anybody? >> No. Okay, Mr. Cobb, >> you're good. Okay. Thank you, Deputy May. >> You're good to go. Uh if you recall back in May, I believe it was May, believe it
was the first meeting you made, uh we brought forward the uh preliminary observations from the uh forest mazar's uh work and the five uh recommendations that well not recommendations, observations are presented to you there
uh on the screen as far as what they their what their observations were and uh with the establishing external controls as well as doing comprehensive audit. Uh what our recommendation is is that we would engage Purpose Gray which
is our our auditor firm and they've given us an estimate range of 14 to 20,000 to do the comprehensive audit which will include uh the as far as establishing internal controls as well. Uh Mr. Bose. Uh we've already sent him
all of the uh the the the golf course management contract looking at any the conflicting language and if you give us direction he will he'll go forward and produce you know language to address any conflicts. Uh they asked us
to investigate golf now complimentary rounds. If you remember back in May we explained that they're not really complimentary rounds. These rounds are discounted rounds that the revenue goes straight to Golf now, Golf Now in exchange for services that they provide to the golf course. Uh we since this is
industrywide with them. It's not something that is uh specific to Twin Rivers, we're recommending that no further action be taken regarding uh that that item. Uh, one of the other ones was either to negotiate a revenue sharing agreement similar to what they
have at Mayfair and Wakiva or uh to go out for an RFP. If you remember, the the answer was um a little competition doesn't hurt. What we've done, this is a table that was provided in your staff memorandum that shows uh
with us, we have a management contract. We provide uh we compensation at $10,000 per month. You can see with Wakiva it drops to $5,000 a month. But there is a revenue share between the county and down to earth. And you'll notice there's no cap. Uh but in Mayfair, uh there is a
cap of $108,000 maximum. So um one of the things that I was going to say is that you can direct us to do all five. You can direct us to do any of the five. Uh so we just wanted to get your direction on what of these items that you would like us to go forward with. uh
we think that um at least looking at the uh the comprehensive comprehensive audit and the uh internal controls is is necessary. Mr. Dunlevy is here uh and has expressed to us that if we want to go to a different style of uh management
agreement that the company will work with us on that as well. So uh that's that's our presentation. Deputy Mayor that you asked us to bring it back in a work session setting and so we just want to get your direction on where to go forward. Okay. So, it sounds like some of these
were not much to do there. Um, as far as investigating golf now, I mean, that one just sounds there's no further action we need to do with that. >> Okay. So, do we have I'll just open the floor here and see if anybody has any comments on any of these on on how we want to proceed.
>> I'm not sure that there's any sense in doing the audit. Uh, especially if we go back out to bid. And at this point, what I would like to do is make sure that everybody knows that Down to Earth Golf is on the up and up. And I'm extremely
annoyed by the lack of full resolution from the the audit, the the forensic audit that happened. And I think the only way to resolve that and for us to show full confidence again is to just go out to bid and do it fresh. in in that
process to make sure that we have the internal controls and some of the other stuff that that's discussed in there and probably head towards some kind of revenue sharing agreement. It it looks like that's more of a standard thing and we're locked into this 10-year-old
perhaps an archaic nonidal scenario that doesn't create a lot of incentive to you know you want to grow it. I I I I think we need everybody to have a little bit more skin in the game perhaps. So that that is what I I think is
the best way to make sure that everybody's comfortable and our contract is good and it's fair and there's all the right incentives in there. >> Okay. So, mayor, I'm hearing from you. You're into doing another audit and no audit. >> No audit. Okay. >> No audit. Forget about that because we
already know that we need to do >> I'm glad I clarified. Yeah. But you're into negotiating a revenue sharing agreement. >> Not just an RFP. Do an RFP and as part of the RFP, uh, talk about that as a methodology.
>> Okay. Uh, Council Member Broadford. >> Yeah. I'm I'm not for the I mean, we're saying 14,000 to 20,000. We just spent 30,000 and we got very little out of that. So, we're now we're talking another 14 or 20,000. If anything, we should have done the financial audit to
begin with. Um but yeah, I I they really didn't come back and say there was, you know, major problems. So might think I don't think we need to do the audit. Um >> RFP, >> I I like the revenue sharing agreement.
Um I mean the RFP, I have never heard anybody have issues out there u with the management company we got. But you know, if you guys want an RFP, that's up to you. Um, I do like the idea of the revenue sharing agreement.
>> Okay. Council member Rock. >> Um, I I like RFP uh only because I mean you can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure of other um contractors that just get to go that long or just go forever without having an RFP. Like we're
redoing it again for Waste Pro. Um, you know, not that not that residents or anybody have a lot of problem with Waste Pro. It's just that that's kind of the nature of of providing services to the government is that that things are are recompeted so that we know, you know, so
the contracts can um can I guess change with the times, right, in in whatever different ways make sense. As far as revenue sharing goes, I I I'm interested in the idea um because it certainly puts the um the management company in a
position where they've got some skin in the game, right? Uh I think that the difficulty is that unless we decide what we want the revenue sharing to be upfront, then every company that might
bid for it could put in it would be up to them to kind of come up with their best guess of what they think we want. Um, and I've been in situations like that before where I've been on the other side and you're trying to make a bid and
proposal and you're trying to anticipate what your competition might do and you're also trying to competition or you're also trying to anticipate what the government wants and the government won't tell you, right? It's like, well, is that your proposal? You know, it's kind of what they always come back to.
So, um, I I find that to be a frustrating thing from the other side. Um, I don't necessarily know right offand how to do it better. Um, but that's maybe something we can discuss. So, I'm interested in those things. Um, and I think, uh, as far as financial
audit goes, um, you know, it it may be one of these, the mayor makes a good point. Um, I was kind of in favor of it, but you know, when you put it that way, if if we were to go to audit or to go to RFP right
away, then in some ways, what's the point? Um, I kind I kind of get that. Um, you know, unless there was something really wrong and it would be disqualifying, you know, then then you would know. Um, but you
know, if you get to have other companies coming in with a bid and it's and it's lower or whatever, then maybe those things sort themselves out. So, I can kind of see both ways on it. >> So, that's a yay or a nay on the audit. >> Uh, on the audit, I don't
>> I can come back. >> I would say if if we don't go to RFP right away, then yes. How about that? Was that >> That's fair. Okay. Yes. Audit. Okay. Council Britain.
>> Um the internal controls. Yes. But would that be part of the 14 to $20,000 we'd be asking Pervis Gray to do or are we going to do that in house? >> That would be part of the audit part of purpose gray. >> Okay. So, how do we do that if we don't do the audit?
>> You put them in the RFP because we have a list of the internal controls that are suggested. >> Oh, that's >> Do we Forbus Mazar? I I feel like we had a pretty solid >> they were pretty broad but some of them were specific.
>> So if we have a list >> maybe we have a list of uh internal controls. Can't staff >> put those in place? >> And I guess question for you guys. >> Could I speak to some of this? >> Yeah. >> Uh me and my company have been sullied
over the last several months. If we just go to RFP, I remain that way. I would love the opportunity to dig into this stuff and easily answer a lot of this stuff that's been brought up so that I don't remain sullied and my
company doesn't remain sullied at a place we've done a very good job at. So whether it's staff or an outside company, I enthusiastically welcome the attention to these items.
It's been a very frustrating six months listening to all this unfold. It's it's uh not been a very fair situation and to just go to RFP, we just we just are
remain in the bin. It's not that's not the right thing to do. >> I think it's the opposite of that. I I think if you if we go to RFP and you come back and you're the strongest company and we bring you back that >> but with not having disproven anything. So we just remain out there as a accused
group of people target. >> Well, you can just spontaneously on your own right now put into place all the internal controls. The last six months you could have chosen to do internal controls. >> Most of it already exists but we haven't even gone we haven't gone to the first thing in the list yet. We've just
>> Okay, it's still my turn, right? >> Yes. >> Still your turn. >> Uh, I'm in favor of renegotiating the contract and and at that time you put whatever internal controls you want to add in it and then and then we go on
from there. I I think down to earth is done. Having been there before and now, it's almost miraculous the change in that golf course and the revenue sharing. I don't know what our policy will be, but we've always reinvested
whatever profits we've generated back into the course. And that's that's proven profitable the the whole time. All the while while maintaining our protection from, you know, rain events, which which definitely closes the course
down for several weeks, which hurts the course, but they still survive that. That's that's the primary purpose for the golf course. So, uh, so that's one, two, and three, and five. Okay. So, I guess I'm up and I want to I
want to speak to that, too. I agree. I think Down to Earth has done a great job and you've gotten us in the black and made us money. Um, and I am sorry for your frustration. I know it's it's not fun when we discuss a lot of this stuff publicly. Um, it's unfortunately the only way we can operate. Uh, as far as
um going to bid, I do think that is a pretty standard thing in government and I do think you actually have a leg up having run the course. Um, I don't have an issue with looking into options with renegotiating contracts. We do that with
everybody for the city. Um, but in putting in local controls into whatever we we renegotiate, I I do think that's a good idea. Um, and if you have, it sounds like we've already implemented some of those at the course. >> They existed before they were said not
to exist. >> Understood. >> Okay. Um, any other comments? I didn't speak to local controls, but I am in favor of that also. I don't remember what the count was, but >> Okay. >> Um Brian, I got a question on RFPs. Uh
when would we how long would the RFP period be and when would we have to issue it? >> Uh we can issue at any time. Uh we one of the things that we do have is in our contract, we have to give a 90 days notice if we are not going to renew. Our
contract renews every November. And so what we would have to do is complete the RFP process at least 90 days prior to that to that. Um but I would say we would want to we would want to do that well before the November so
that to give give time for transition should something happen that we would not pick down to earth. Uh so you know I would say that um probably doing it this November is probably not you know we'll probably renew for this November and
then we would if you say go with the RFP it would be in looking at going to the before the next November renewal. >> Okay. >> Okay. It sounds like we have consensus to renegotiate or go to RFP include
internal controls and not do an audit. So, >> so renegotiate and go do an RFP. Sorry. RFP. >> Sorry. RFP. >> Yeah. RFP. >> Go with RFP. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Is it 3 to two? >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> I think Wait, you're looking confused. >> Did I get that wrong? >> No, I Okay. >> I wasn't counting. >> Yeah. >> Council Brford, I'm You were looking for RFP, correct? >> I did not. No, >> you were going for renegotiating in contract. >> That is correct.
>> And then looking into revenue sharing. >> Yes. >> Okay. I got that wrong. So, hold on back over a minute because I was looking into revenue sharing as well, too. >> Oh, so you do not want an RFP. >> I am on the fence. I think they've put us into the black here and they've done
a good job. We did an initial audit, didn't find any giant problems. I do think we should renegotiate a contract because it's been a long time. Um, but as far as doing an RFP, I could actually see us costing us money. So, I'm sorry I got you backwards. >> Could I make a recommendation to this? Uh, >> yes.
>> Let's renegotiate. Obviously, utilizing Mr. Vos and working with Mr. Dunley, renegotiate to a to come up with a uh revenue sharing management agreement. We'll bring it back to you. If it's not
something that you're in favor of, then we can go to RFP. >> Okay. I think that's fair. And I think everybody was on board with making sure internal controls were >> right. We can make sure that >> correct. >> Okay, we're good. >> Can do that. >> Do you think there's something a little
You You brought up that it is normal to go out to bid. >> I do. Every you know, it's been 10 years. I think it is perhaps on principle it may be time to go out to bid even if we pick the same company because
renegotiating does not address Mr. Dunlevy's concern about reputation in the way that an RFP would. I I don't know that an RFP cost us any money. It costs us some time to think about it. >> Well, we're still looking at a November. >> Yeah. So, in the meantime, we should
renegotiate perhaps and get the >> I'm not totally against it. I guess I am on the fence, but that being said, I do think they put in a ton of work to make our course as successful as it is. I do think it's fair to definitely renegotiate a contract, and I think it's fair what Mr. Cobb said, if we come back
and we're not totally on board with what that looks like, we can bid it out. But I I also think an issue with bid process, which you mentioned, is sometimes you get people who undercut and say they're cheaper and they're not going to maintain our field. So there's there's a lot of risk with also bidding out.
>> Um that's not direct in product. >> And one of the things with the renegotiation is that we can talk about term. >> Okay. >> So one of the things we can do, >> there's a way to get to an in between. I'd be on board with that. >> I think to what you said though, you know, I mean, they've done a lot of work
to um make it what it is. I mean, I I see it the same way as Waste Pro, right? I mean, they've they do a lot of work to to keep our city clean, and we still go out to bid just because um you know, like the mayor said on it's it's kind of the principle of it uh when it comes to
uh dealing with the government. But since we can't do it till next November which is what is that 18 not 18 months 16 months outish uh there is some sense in trying to cross a bridge now
>> and potentially concurrently looking at what it might be to go go out to bed. Well, you if you went out for RFP now >> and you'd have to award in August, >> it can't be done this. It would have to
be next November. >> It It would have to be 16 months out. So, we wouldn't even probably put the >> Could we do it in 30 days? >> Uh, no. We wouldn't be able to turn it around in 30 days. It at most RFP processes, you give at least 60 days for them to reply because they have to have
time to prepare. So >> for 16 months, >> okay, then I'm good. I'm down for negotiating right now, seeing what we can do with that. We've got consensus there. That makes sense. >> And then in January, perhaps >> we can if we need to.
>> Okay. Anything else on this topic or do you have the direction you need? >> I've got my direction. >> Can Can I ask one more thing? Does does the um the contract re-ups in November? Could the contract be for less than a full year if we were to do >> a renegotiation? Oh, valid.
>> Well, not Well, I suppose that is technically a renegotiation, maybe. Um because then you don't have to wait two whole years to to change because because you're saying we don't can't get it done in 30 days. Maybe we could get it done in 90. Um make the contract go to June
or something and then you've got plenty of time to do. >> I'm I'm okay with the full term of a contract. Like I'm I'm good. >> All right. We will move on to item number four, which is also the golf course. So, we will go over the state of the golf course. >> Maybe we should have done this before.
[laughter] >> Yeah, maybe. >> Let's see. Um, am I doing his presentation? Okay, let me uh I need to pull up the presentation. >> You asking me or >> I'm I'm asking Kelly. >> Oh, I'm like I I don't [laughter] know. >> Okay, hang on one second. Let me uh let
me get this. >> Oh, so it's on your computer, but he's you're the talker, >> right? Yeah. Just one second. I'll I'll have everything ready for you. While he's doing that, thanks for having me in so I can make this presentation.
I always learn something when I come in here and tonight was no exception. We go. Okay, Nick, you just tell me when to change and I'll move I'll move this I'll move the slide. >> Go ahead and change. >> [laughter] >> So the first thing I wanted to talk about was kind of what our guiding
principles are since we entered into this relationship and with this this golf club and that is we want to provide a welcoming atmosphere for the public golfers in the area and those that visit the area. Provide affordable golf and food and
beverage while maintaining, [clears throat] you know, above average conditions for the price point in the market. And I think we've done a pretty good job of that. Um, we serve the community with a platform for many many many charity events, right?
Some that are are uh directly related to the city, others that would certainly uh have benefit within the city. I don't know what the number is, but it would be a big number. all those events that we run. Um,
we we inherited a uh a junior program and expanded it that is truly second to none in the area for for public golf. Um, Julie Roberts is the main player in that. She literally has hundreds of kids
that that go through the club weekly. like if there's a spare 10 minutes for a clinic, she's running one. So, uh I'm sure she sleeps really well at night because there's a ton of kids uh running through that place.
And and the benefit of that also is that uh we're growing new golfers for future business, right? They're always going to come back to where they learn to to to play the game. Um we also we wanted to continue to improve the facilities both on and off
the course. There's been um at the time of purchase there was some big investment by the city to improve the course right away which certainly has benefited the the property through operations. We've been able to
uh make enough money that we were able to put some back in for some other very big projects. among them. Um, replacing the cart barn that had the roof falling in on it. The most recently we did the greens. Um, and the course at that point
was at a a real crossroads because if we' have continued with the greens as they were, the old ones, our business would be plummeting at this point. But because we were able to do it, we're still now back on an upswing. Uh, and the the uh the customer comments on them
are are are really good. So course conditions, uh, this is our biggest marketing tool. We have some of the best fairways there are going. Our greens, as I said, were redone and are fantastic. We maintain bunkers better
than 90% of the other golf courses out there. It It costs money, unfortunately. It's uh there's a lot of labor goes into it, but a lot of places just don't maintain bunkers anymore because of the costs involved. The TE's, if anything, if I can point to one thing that's a little weak, it's our TE's. But that
will improve as the summer goes on. They get overseated during the winter and and uh the transition can make them come out a little funky or uh in the spring. >> TE's are kind of an indication of uh the number of people playing too. >> That's true. That's true. Yep. So uh
that brings us to the next slide. Rounds and revenue. The year before we started there, the golf course did 28,000 rounds and some of those were foot golf rounds. They were trying everything they could to get people through the door.
Uh we should finish this fiscal year at about 58,000 rounds. So that's a you know a doubling a doubling of participation at the golf course. Revenue is is an even an even bigger up. The year before we started, total
revenue was 865,000. We should be in the 2.7 range. Excuse [clears throat] me. At the end of this fiscal year, junior golf, I jumped the gun on. Um Julie takes these kids through a stepped program. They get introduced to golf
during camps and clinics. Um, and then she graduates them into another program that's the US kids golf program that helps build skill. Um, and then they graduate further from there
into the PGA Junior League, which introduces competition. Uh, and they and they play against other other clubs. So, and some of those some of those golfers will go on to play high school and and and college golf. One of my complaints
uh with Julie used to be that the parents would just come and drop the kids off, but they didn't play with the kids on the weekends. It was just a a form of babysitting. So, she uh introduced some parent child events that have become
very very popular. So, she's got she's now got the kids and the parents playing together, which is great. And she's literally I mean in the in in the almost 10 years or nine or 10 years we're there literally thousands of kids have gone through that program and a lot
of them now are helping with the program. Kids that graduated through it now assist her uh with all the uh clinics that she's putting on. >> Mr. Dunley, didn't she recently get recognized? >> She was yeah given a national
recognization by US kids golf. She should be localized by the local or recognized by the local PGA as well, which we're working on, but she deserves a lot of credit. Uh, past improvements, again, we talked about that a little bit. Irrigation was
what we did the very start. The city was very, very smart to uh to do that on the front end. That's the that's the bones for the whole thing. Bunkers, as I said earlier, our bunkers are better than than the vast majority of courses around. That was another uh uh
improvement made. Cart Barn, we already talked about greens. We talked about we releveled a couple of uh TE's uh in the greens renovation as well. Other things we have going on uh that are either just done or about to
be done. We replaced the uh the course signage along the road to what you see pictured on the top left there. The other ones are just faded. I did the one that was there before, but nine years later it faded out. So, we've
done that. Uh, we've refreshed the bathrooms. I have a kind of a talented guy on staff that uh is able to do a lot of this stuff. So, we've done it very inexpensively, but it's visually made just look a lot better. There's still more to do. We
have flooring that the in the clubhouse that really needs addressed. Um probably furniture as well, but we're getting there. Um the pro shop's going undergoing a little uh facelift right now as well. It's maybe maybe a
third done. Some exciting stuff we have coming up. Uh you see this uh tag marshall. This is a oops GPS system that's going to go on all the golf carts for the player. They're going to get a screen like you
see here that gives them win, gives them the yardage to the to the pin, shows them the entire hole. In addition to that, it gives them they'll be prompted to order FNB. So, when they get to the seventh or eighth hole, there'll be a a prompt come up on the screen that says,
"Hey, if you'd like something at the turn, let us prepare it for you. It'll be ready for you." Um, it'll help us uh increase food and beverage revenue. >> Is that a green contour? Yes. Yes. >> Okay. >> So, uh and then on the back end, it
affords us some some great management tools. We'll be able to see on a computer screen where every golf cart is and how long they've taken to get there, so we can monitor pace of play uh much more efficiently.
It also gives us the ability to geoence. And what that is, every golf course fights golf carts going where you don't want them to go. Uh, and they beat [clears throat] up areas. You want them on the cart paths around TE's and greens and so on and out
of wet areas. So, we'll have the ability to shut a golf cart off or give a warning if they're heading toward a a uh an area that you don't want them in or is dangerous. Even street crossings, it can warn them, hey, you're coming through a street crossing. Please, you know, look before you go across.
And finally on this page, uh these are out there actually already as of just a couple of days ago. Uh new directional signs. Again, we replaced those several years ago. It was time to do it again. So, we just uh we just did it again.
>> How many carts are in the mix? >> How many >> How many carts does the course have? >> We have 74. >> 74. Okay. >> We talked a little bit about stuff that's been done. Here's things that we kind of need to look forward to. Um,
cart path repair is an ongoing thing. Those car paths are now 30 six years old. So, um, roots destroy them, ground settling, you know, so we've done
a bunch of repair already. It'll be an ongoing thing. Uh on my wish list uh for the restaurant is some new furniture, some new patio furniture for out on the patio, some new flooring uh in the clubhouse. And then and these
aren't in any particular order. This should probably be at the top. A new chemical storage building is required for the maintenance area. The shed that's out there now is not very impressive. So [clears throat] far, we haven't been made to do it, but that day will come.
So with all that, I [clears throat] really feel like the the the outlook for the golf course is extremely good. the the money that's been invested in the property is going to allow it to move forward, be
financially viable, uh compare well with our competition, um and remain attractive to the locals that that it serves and those that come into the community to uh to enjoy it.
I can say that for myself and my company, we've been very proud of our association with Twin Rivers and the city of Oto. We're uh we're thankful for the opportunity you've given us up to now. And um you know, we really hope to be an important partner going forward.
So, thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um and I got to say 58,000 rounds of golf a year is pretty impressive. Um are we still seeing that kind of increase? >> It's flattening. It's kind of flattening right now with the economy. >> There's not as much opportunity on the T- sheets as as there was.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> There's room. Will it still go up? Yes. But we shot up to that kind of quickly. >> Sure. Okay. And we have questions. >> I I do have a question and that's on the golf court uh the golf carts. And I I'm just doing the math right now. So, it
looks like there's a $178,000 a year golf cart budget which when you divide it out looks like it's about $2,400 per cart. And I have not tried to buy a golf cart ever in my life. Um, that seems like we would own the golf cart. I'm
pretty sure or like Can you tell us more about the golf carts to help us understand that? >> Yeah, it's a lease and the lease the monthly lease number is approximately >> looks like it's 179. >> 13. >> Oh, yeah. It's 13,000, but you when you
divide by the 75 carts, then it's 180 a cart. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's stand >> and that's just that's a normal lease. Okay. >> And that includes maintenance and everything on that. >> It doesn't though. That's what I'm trying to understand. >> Maintenance too. But the >> Yeah. >> So
the the price of carts has gone up in recent years. They've gone away from the lead acid batteries and now they have these um uh lithium ion batteries which are supposed to have a longer life. Um,
we'll see. We'll see. But you can't get the other ones anymore. So, we're kind of You're kind of >> So, you have to like switch out the batteries a lot and that's not >> Well, the batter is warrantied for the for the lease life of the cart. >> Okay. Well, how are we getting to this
extra cost for the maintenance though of the the leased golf carts >> there? Tires, wear, brakes, people. >> Okay. So, brakes and tires. >> People break things. Golf Golf carts take a beating. >> Yeah. >> All right. I'm a witness to that and I'm probably part of that.
>> Beating up our golf carts. >> All right. Any other questions? >> I will say the geo uh fencing will be a benefit because there's nothing worse than driving down a fairway and seeing golf cart tracks through a puddle that they shouldn't have been riding in. I I
played a couple courses uh when I was on my vacation and they're they're very helpful. They could be very annoying if you're not if you're not sure where you're going. >> Well, also, you know, when we get wet in the summer and we do or we have to go car path only and we're blessed that there are car paths all the way around
so we can remain open when the course is even, you know, very very wet. Um there'll be a setting that we can switch it to so that they can't even get off the cart. >> No, it'll it'll stop right there and you have to back up. >> Yeah. >> Okay. You had a question? Uh, I had some
questions on the the proposed budget. If uh this is the right time for that, >> ask away. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, so there were a few things on here that I'm I'm kind of struggling to understand. It looks like our payroll for the golf course is about a million dollars roughly.
>> I don't have it in front of me, but >> yeah. Um, so there's a line item here for payroll admin at $244,000. How what what is that? And >> that's so the the um there's four
departments at the golf course. There's golf, there's food and beverage, there's maintenance, and there's admin. So there's salaries in there for employees in the and that admin department, which would include um you know, Julie, our
manager, things like that. >> So So those are additional salaries. >> Yes. Yes, >> that 244,000. >> Okay. So So the total payroll there is more like a million and a quarter then. >> I'm not I'm not looking at the sheet, but
>> Okay. And and how many fulltime? >> I'm tell I'm I'm saying there's there I'm not u I'm not uh disagreeing with you. I'm just saying I'm telling you there's payroll in four departments. >> There's payroll in four departments. >> Payroll and
in four departments. >> Payroll in four departments. Yeah. Uh because there's I just looked at the payrolls that were on here. Uh, payroll food and beverage one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one 10 one4 right then uh couple others pro shop 363
maintenance 441 um but the admin what so what all what does that cover then that line item of payroll admin >> managers uh payroll taxes associated with that benefits are in there as well
>> so that include okay so that's the benefits and payroll tax >> that comes out of these other items. >> So, you know, 10 104 for payroll food and beverage. That's that's only like
straight time that >> that's everything that's that's everything payroll is in that line item. >> Are you saying that employees are represented by the $240,000 a year or they are not represented and that that is only FICA, Social Security?
>> No, no, no. I'm saying I'm saying that with so I said there's payroll in all four departments right so the golf staff are in under golf and that line item is their raw pay any benefits they're
paid taxes all that all payroll um expenses are in that line item >> so >> are in which line item >> one one of the four line items >> one of the four >> yeah and then >> so you're looking at a pay you're looking there's four payroll lines on
that budget, one for each department, each of the four departments. What I'm saying is within that line is everything payroll, right? Taxes, raw wages,
401k or you know, all all payroll related expenses are in there. >> Okay. Okay. So, the one that says payroll admin is for that's the payroll for the admin people. All the payroll it that's not a separate >> that's your sale. >> It's not a separate fee for
administration of payroll. >> No. Oh, no. No, no. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I I get that now. Sorry about that. Uh Okay. >> Sorry, I didn't I didn't uh I didn't know where you were going there. >> Yeah. What is the uh professional fees consulting?
>> That's that's the 10,000 a month. That's the down to earth fee should be in there. >> Okay. It's what 124,000. >> So we're 10,000 a month. So it's 120 and then you know there might be an accountant in there or something.
>> Okay. >> Um so I I was looking at some of the other things like so there's like pro shop on here. Uh there's I wrote some of this down. So, Pro Shop, there's uhund 101,000 for merchandise and then there's
a an income line for merchandise sales at 124 plus payroll on the pro shop. Now, I assume payroll pro shop includes that's 383,000. I I assume that is other than
just the people who sell the merchandise in the pay in the pro shop, right? That's probably the pro and and the lessons come off of that. >> It's all the guys in the cart barn. It's all the starters and rangers. Um guys that pick up range balls. It's all those people
>> in in addition to the folks that are working behind the counter in the pro shop. >> So is does the pro shop run at a loss? I mean because those numbers are pretty close, right? And and when I'm not when I'm not counting like you know the power and uh all the other things that are broken out for pro shop and the
employees that I can't really break out from the lines here like we talked about just a second ago >> run a loss >> it depend it depends on h you know how you hang the costs on the various departments. So you would include green fees as part of
the pro shop revenue right in addition to merchandise. So the pro shop department wouldn't look on paper like it runs at a loss, but all the revenue is up in one spot at the top of the budget. Right. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. I'm just trying to understand a
little bit more about um you know about how the the different things line up. I I definitely understand that there's going to be kind of some cross things uh in between. Um but you know like merchandise to merchandise sales, right? things like that seem to have a a
correlation and there's >> yeah it's just it's it's kind of a small part of the business really the green I mean the it's a it's a service to the to the the greater business which is the which brings the green fees in >> right so you know 25% markup on
merchandise but then not counting all the overhead it does seem like we run at least that part of it as a loss and is that like a customary kind of thing If you looked at it only as a store. Yes. >> So it's perhaps a loss as a store.
You're look you're looking at the green fees. >> Yeah. >> So you got to go into the pro shop in order to get your tea time and then pay your green fees. So your green fees are all part of that, >> right? >> It's just it's a secondary thing what he's saying is >> of the clothing in there. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Clubs and the shoes, balls. >> Is that what you're saying? >> No, I'm just saying it's a small part of the business. >> Okay. Okay. It's a secondary revenue source to the business. >> Okay. Um, yeah, I think that's it for now.
>> Oh, anybody else? All right, I think we're good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> All right, we're going to move on to item number five, which is the fiscal year 2026 27 budget June update. Mr. Boop. >> Okay. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Give us
just a second to get uh everything set up. >> Sure. Thank you, Nadia. So, we're going to start off with uh attachment number one, which is just a quick review, if you will, of the uh budget that we presented
to you this past May. This past May seems like forever ago, quite frankly, at this point in time, as much uh work as we've had to do over the last several weeks, >> but as you'll recall, uh we were advised at that point in time that our estimated
uh increase in property values was 3.5%. So um during that meeting we also advised that we had received another estimate at 44 4.5 and today you heard that uh the actual
increase in our taxable values was 4.7%. So Nadia if you can go over to the right hand side of the schedule please uh just to review some of these things really quickly. Uh during May we talked about the current operating rate millage rate of four 5.8610 8610. We also talked
about adding in the geo bond millage rate savings of 0.0065 for a total revised uh millage rate of 5.8675. Uh we also talked about the u total
millage rate of 5.8675 adding back in the G the revised geo bond millage rate of 1075 for a new total millage rate of 5.9750. down below. Uh we had illustrated the um
change in expenditures uh as capital. Uh we received direction uh from y'all last May that to uh fund the capital as it existed. We've updated this slightly. We have removed the uh uh highland base
cloud migration of 93,060 because of the recurring costs and threat of uh HJR1F and four center bill 4f. So we chose to remove that right now uh to mitigate the uh increase in
expenditures recurring expenditures going forward. uh should those uh should HJR1F fail, we'll come back to you and probably bring that back to you sometime next year and add that back into the budget we can. Let's go on to attachment number two. Attachment number two
presents the budget to you with a 4.5% increase uh in property values and you can see that the increase in revenues is a million 37,000. So uh with that we removed the use of fund balance um from the schedule and we
also um in the schedule we realigned the revenues to more coincide with the annual report. So if you look at the categories on the annual report uh you will see that these categories are are line up with them. So that's something
that we hadn't done in the past. We just wanted to make the the two presentations more synonymous. Down underneath the expenses, what we did is we uh downloaded our payroll again. And so we updated our our payroll distribution across all the categories. And you'll see slight variances amongst the
expenses for uh the download of the uh the new payroll. Going down to operating expenses, you'll see that there was a little bit of a reduction there in operating or I should say an increase in operating expenses. the reduction of the
reduction uh to uh basically provide um some additional financial resources should we decide to go out look at districts for uh funding in the future to help offset the uh HJR1F impact. So
that is about $270,000 in this presentation. So if we can let's go over to the right. This is a budget. This is a balanced budget. This is not a recommendation but we just wanted to show you the impact of um the 4.5%.
So in this budget what we have presented is not taking the geo millage rate savings and adding it back into the operating rate. We have the um geo excuse me we have the uh general government operating rate of 5.8610 8610
adding back in the geom millillage rate for a total millage of 5.9685. We we reflect the transfers in here and the transfers out to give you some additional information and we give you a recap on the amenities of fund balance
down at the bottom. Now this is not our our recommended budget to you. Our recommended budget is in attachment four and what it does is it takes into consideration the presentation that Miss Jones made to us earlier this evening
and the recognition of Senate Bill 4F which pretty much drives us back to the roll forward or roll back rate. So taking that into consideration, you'll see that there's a significant reduction in the adalorum
revenue uh of about $87,000 roughly from the previous presentation and we have offset that with uh we go down just a little bit, Nadia. We have offset that with a decrease in operating
expenses. You'll see it went from uh $30,000 decrease to 170. And basically what we did is we took some of the money that we had set aside for consulting and u districts uh setting up future assessment districts and uh took that
out of the budget. And in order to get the budget to balance what we are asking you to do is to give us direction if we go over to the right is um give us direction to pay off the existing debt that we have remaining in the general fund which totals as Mr. cops said
earlier approximately 670,000. If we go down a little bit lower, um you'll see that the payoff that's requested this year for the end of the fiscal year is $1.6 million. So, what that does for us, if we go back to the top, it revises the uh millage rate to
the roll back rate. You'll see that again the current operating rate millage rate is 5.8610. Bringing in the millage reduction to bring us down to the um roll back rate of847
brings us down to 5.6763. Now that's slightly different from what we presented to you in the HJR1F and 4F presentation. We're doing our very best to guesstimate what we thought that the roll back break would be because we don't have the actual form yet from the
state. So our recommendation tonight is for um us to uh receive get direction to pay off the debt so that we can lower the uh millage rate to the roll back rate as required by 4F. Anything higher than the
roll back rate that's being required by 4F would require four out of five votes. This requires three out of five votes. Um and um the uh total millage rate with the geo bond issue would be revised 5.7838.
So that is a very quick review of our presentation and the things that have changed since the month of May and uh we are asking for your direction. >> All right. Thank you Mr. B. So I guess I'll ask if anybody has questions on the budget before we get into the the debt part of this. Does anybody have any
general budget questions? Okay. So, as far as paying off the debt, what are you guys thinking? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I I like it as long as it's cheaper to pay it off than to carry it, right? Like we talked about >> it's not
>> last time. >> It was a year ago and it may not be today, right? >> But what what would we make like the the differential iss 30,000 a year? >> I don't even think it was that high. I mean,
>> I'm thinking maybe 10 to 15,000. It's it's the hassle to keep it on our books to make $15,000 in a year when we can then be happy and when think, oh, now our cash flow is liberated for the next three years. That seems >> I think it makes sense at this point. Yeah. >> Yep.
>> Yeah. I think that would be the first time since the early late 90s, early 2000s that we would be debtree. >> Well, debtree as to the general fund, which is is a solid improvement. I that is that is fabulous.
>> We're in a an extremely good position in the general fund with the payoff of this debt. There's a lot of jurisdictions around the state with the implementation of HJR1F that that do not have the ability to do what we do and the strategic move and paying off this debt
allows us to go to the roll back rate and um pass the mill rate with a three-fifths vote. >> Well, I think this makes a lot of sense and it sounds like we have full unanimous consensus. So, we're good to do it, >> Mr. Cobb. Anything else? >> I don't have anything now, >> M. Kelly.
>> All right. >> Excellent. >> Going on to uh the remainder of the budget, I've asked Nadia to present some schedules. Um, and Kelly is going to go over the utilities and I'm going to close it out with the internal service fund for it. So, with that,
>> good evening, uh, mayor, deputy mayor, and council members. The next presentation we have is on the vehicle replacement fund. This is the general government vehicle replacement fund. We have separate funds for the storm water and the water sewer utility. Um going
down to revenues, we have u proposed charges for services of 1 million 631,387, which is an increase of $342,280 from the previous fiscal year. This revenue line is a direct allocation from
all of the departments in general fund that have vehicles and equipment. And it also ties back to your general fund model, the two lines labeled as vehicle replacement fund purchases and vehicle replacement fund leases. And we are
happy to say that in both scenarios, we were able to fund the same amount for the vehicle replacement fund. The next revenue line, miscellaneous, um, of $10,000. This is interest income and it remains unchanged from the previous fiscal year.
Going down to expenses. Um the big line here is the capital expenses of 1,365,000 and this represents the vehicle replacement purchases. We're also requesting a reserve for contingency of 230,640.
Um going down to transfers out on the 45,000 you you see here on the schedule is the last payment of the 2020 equipment lease. The fund balance projected for the beginning of 2627 is $1,779,014.
To the right we have the list of vehicles uh proposed for replacement. Um we are proposing to replace 11 vehicles for fire, I'm sorry, for police. Um they total 725,000.
um two interceptors, eight explorers, and a for and a Dodge Charger. For fire, we have a Chevy Tahoe battalion vehicle, a Ford Explorer for the fire chief, and a rescue boat for a total of 226,000.
For public works, we have a Bobcat steer for 78,000, Ford F-150 for 45, and a message board for $25,000 for a total of $148,000. And for parks, we have five pieces of
equipment, utility carts, a mower, and um 2016 van for the facility maintenance division. And the last item on the list is a forklift uh for the fleet department of $75,000. Do you have any questions on the
equipment or the vehicles? >> Any questions? >> What's with the the the love of Ford Explorers at $66,000 a pop? Like is there and this is probably not so much a question for you as for the police and
fire chief trying to understand why the battalion chief couldn't show up in a you know a Camry or something different something more a Kia [laughter] I don't know we we don't keep them very long if we're hard on maybe we should get be getting >> the least expensive
>> Ford Explorer and a and a battalion chief vehicle come fully equipped also with um there's uh specialized storage compartment in the back that gives them the command capabilities when they're on an emergency scene. Um, new radios, things like that that go into that.
>> So, it comes preloaded with a radio and all the technology >> through the vendor through the state contract. And it comes basically you can get it with the um the command platform that's in the back of it that that's not just stores um computer and different
things like that, but it also stores additional equipment because we got three battalion chiefs that work 24-hour shifts. There's um there's specialized equipment that they carry on that vehicle. And this includes basically a turnkey replacement of that because the equipment that's on the vehicle now.
Once again, it's technology based and a lot of that stuff is there's newer technology, better better stuff that's out there. So, we like to get it fully equipped. >> So, we're going through this was bid out and we're piggybacking on somebody's bid. >> Correct. We always piggyback state contracts and things like that whenever
we whenever we purchase vehicles. Yes. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> And I would say that this is one of those examples where cost has skyrocketed. You can even see it when you're buying a car yourself. It's like double the cost of cars. >> The uh the G3 rescue boat. That sounds
cool. What is that? [laughter] >> So that currently I don't know if you've ever been out station 48 off 419. Um there is currently a little Johnboat that's out there. Um city's had it for years. I believe at at one point they received it on a grant. Um that boat has
a weight limit that's basically equivalent to two firefighters with gear. So, if we had to enact a rescue right now with that boat, we've almost we're exceeding the weight capacity and it's putting crew in danger and the personnel that we're trying to save in danger. What we're what we're looking for now is something that's more on
along along the lines of like a rigid Zodiac type that you can pick up and carry down because if we have a an incident out at Long Lake, for example, or something like that, um that would give us the capability to be able to deploy it without the use of a trailer,
possibly carry it down to the waterfront and then deploy it out for a rescue if need be. >> Is Long Lake the primarily the the place where motorboats [clears throat] would be? I'm trying to think where else there might be >> long lake. There's retention ponds throughout the city. Um especially along um
um Mitchell Hammock. There's one in the south end that we actually had a lady a fatal a fatal a car went into a retention pond and the lady went down and we weren't able to get out to her. >> Oh wow. >> So um there there are bodies of water that that we would utilize that. Plus we
got the Econ River. We got a lot of areas and not necessarily within the city limits, but we get called to those because we're closest unit goes >> jurisdiction. We also have Horseshoe Lake >> is another one that boats >> with boats on. >> Yeah, there are several bodies of water around that we that we could benefit
from having something that may not necessarily require a boat ramp to launch that we can just pick up and carry and put down into the water to get there. And that's what this is. >> Okay, cool. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> I think we're good. Okay. Um good evening again. The next um
fund we are going to discuss is the water sewer fund. So in starting with their revenues for next fiscal year um the water revenues, reclaim revenues and the sewer revenues. Um if you recall last year we did do a rate study and as part of that rate study all the rates
will increase 9% beginning October 1st of this year um which you can see is just uh about $1.2 million increase in their revenues. Um the debt proceeds um we have proposed a potential debt issuance last year for the two and a
half million. We did not do that and so that just has been removed from the current year. The other revenues is primarily consist of your interest income um which has gone up about 257,000 and then right now our use of fund
balance on the water sewer fund for next year is at $100,000. As far as the expenses go, um a lot of the salaries over time, all the insurance, they do trend with the general fund. So there is a 4% increase in salaries and benefits proposed for
next year. um workers complic of about 10%. Um as Nadia stated, the water sewer fund does have its own vehicle replacement fund that we transfer funds to to fund the vehicles specifically for this fund. Um general insurance is
proposed at about 10%. Um operating expenses have gone up a little bit. They went about $470,000 for next fiscal year. Um capital has decreased. um $2 million and a lot of
that is based on the available funding in the fund. Um it is a schedule that's put together um by the public works department um and they kind of prioritize their funding for each year. So if you go off to the right on the schedule, you can see the capital
projects that they have proposed to fund for next fiscal year. Um and then below that you'll see their allocation for transfers out. So they're transfers that are kind of significant. They're the five point $4.5 million. Um the general
fund transfer is is the utilities allocation of the administrative costs from the general fund. So you know finance, HR, um city manager's office, they they pay a share of those costs. Um the other big
cost is the IT internal service fund. So that would be their share of the IT costs. It's their direct costs for any software, any expenses that the utility needs directly and the remainder is an allocated share of kind of the salaries
and benefits and the operations of that department. Um the last big transfer is for equipment replacement. So we transfer every year uh equal to 50% of whatever the prior year's depreciation expense was. we transfer
50% into this equipment replacement fund um which allows them to have funds set aside for anything they need to do as far as repairs or maintenance upkeeps to the water plants. Um so off to the left.
So we are proposing right now based on um the the utility is more of a cash basis not quite fund balance basis but um we propose next year's ending cash balance to be about $12 million which is
consistent to um they only have a $100,000 use of fund balance. So they will end about $12.4 million for next year. Do you have any questions on the water? >> Any questions? Do you have any questions on any of the capital?
Would you like us to go through the capital uh worksheet or does anybody want us to go through that? >> Has it changed since last time? >> I don't think we've I don't think we've presented it this year yet.
>> Um I'm not seeing. >> So, we prepare uh you want to pull it up real fast. We prepare a capital schedule. um it goes out this it goes out 10 years but we're showing you five here. So everything in 2627 is what has
been funded which is what's showed on the um the rights >> capital line >> on the yeah the capital line and this is just a detail of those and then going forward. >> Okay. >> Any questions on those?
>> Good. >> I'm good. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. So we will move on to we'll move on to water uh the storm water fund. So storm water is very similar to the water sewer. Um their rate study for uh beginning October 1st
of 2026 their rates will be increased by 15% per the most recent rate study that we performed. So that will give them an extra $460,000 a year. uh miscellaneous revenue. They
um they are tight on cash. So we did get the bonds uh last year for the 9 and a half million. So a lot of their capital right now flows through the 9 and a half million which is a different fund. Um one of the big reasons why the water
sewer fund does have such low cash is still because of a lot of the FEMA projects that we are still waiting on reimbursement from. Um and so once that comes in, it will help replenish the funds. So right now the interest that they're earning is just quite low.
On the expense side, very similar to the water sewer, um salaries 4%, workers comps 10%, general insurance. Um their operations have remained consistent uh with the current fiscal year.
And as you can see, their capital is quite low, but again, they are still spending down the $9.5 million note that we received. The majority of their capital projects are going through that fund right now instead of the stormwater fund directly.
Um, their debt expenses will go up about 520,000 and that is because beginning in 2627, they will make their first principal payment on that $9.5 million note. Up until now, we've only been paying interest on that note. Um, and then the
reserve for contingency is up just slightly um to not $240,000. Um, and their transfers out remain pretty much the same as the current year. And again, they do the same transfers. They transfer some to the general fund for the allocation of
administrative expenses. They do have their own um renewal and replacement fund that we implemented when we did the most recent rate study. So we do transfer 50% depreciation. So their renewal replacement fund as well. And then again they contribute to the IT
internal service fund. So their transfers total about 617,000. >> Uh with the with the FEMA funds, how much are we waiting on still? I assume that's McKinnon and we're still being rejected for Magnolia. So, Magnolia is not stormwater fund because we are
currently funding the project with four gen uh third generation sales tax. That's right. But we are expecting McKinnon which is a little over $3 million. >> Does that include Little Creek? >> We've already been reimbured for everything else but McKinnon.
>> I think we're good. I just think that's crazy. We're still waiting on that. >> Do you need additional details on any of the capital here or weaving? >> You guys need anything? >> I do have a quick question on that. Uh are we going to So staff created all these great lists of capital improvement
projects and they're in an order that probably makes sense. Um, I think there might be some value in maybe coming up with a just a general policy that once a year sometime perhaps not during the budget cycle we evaluate what is the
most important and revisit this because they they always sort of pop up right about now and I don't know it's a little bit of a surprise every time even though we've seen them before. So we we need to probably see them more often so we can let people know what their what their fees are going to going towards and
especially in today's climate where everybody's looking to pay less taxes, pay less people want to pay less fees. Well, like this is a feebased fund right here >> and we need to be able to articulate with with extreme clarity what you get
for paying that on your utility bill every single month. And a lot of people in neighborhoods that have not yet been addressed feel like they keep paying and paying and they're not seeing anything happen in their neighborhood. So that's
nothing really to do with the budget, I guess, but a request for staff in general to make sure that we see this a little bit more often and that perhaps we are given an opportunity to give a layer of suggestion maybe. I I
know this is probably prioritized based on >> To be fair, isn't that what this is? It's showing what we're going to do next year. >> It is. Um, but there there's a lot of neighborhoods that have taken a lot of turns in a row and some neighborhoods that are not getting as many turns. And if there's a reason for it, I think it
would be helpful for the for all of us to know the reason why certain neighbors or neighborhoods are not getting turns. Yeah, that's it. >> I mean, I can't speak for public works, but I mean, th this the process alone to
gather the CIP and put the schedule together does take a couple months. It's not a quick process. And then e even prioritizing these the best we can, it's always inevitable that it will change. I mean, it it changes
from the time we started this till the till it'll probably change before the budget's fully approved. And so, you know, it comes down to making our our best plan going forward, but being able to you have to be flexible to work with that along the way because something
will take priority over something else. So, >> yeah. In addition to that, you know, we did the first $9.5 million issuance last year, and we have a three-year window to spend that down to avoid any additional
uh arbitrage uh taxes from uh the IRS. So, our goal is to make sure that we spend that issuance down first. And then once we get done with that, we are going to look into issuing an additional $9 million so that we can go after the next
trunch, if you will, of projects that need to be done around the city. Following that, everything is pay as you go. So um the schedule's built to accommodate what can be done you know with the cash flow that we have available and with the future expected cash flows through the through the
future debt issuances that we do plan for the storm water fund. So it's some of its timing. >> Council member rap. >> Yeah. So I mean this this capital improvement stuff with the storm water and the water and sewer. This is um this
is what we've been looking at since last you know January February right when we um raised the storm water rates and all this was put together um you kind of said that this has changed all the time I the question I was going to ask to that is what like to what extent is it
changed are are projects reordered um in >> doesn't change all the time so so we put this this schedule gets put together uh during the budget process each year and then we we adopt only the
current year. So typically what happens is at at this point we've we've identified the 26 27 projects. When we get to January of next year again Bobby and his staff will look at the schedule again. Um projects do shift
sometimes depending on the need or the priority. Um but so do costs. So it's all kind of constantly in motion. But I will let you >> infrastructure fails and sometimes projects have to be moved forward. I think if you look on the list, I think
seven of the projects that are listed are actually on schedule with the original rate study uh CIP. Two were moved forward. Two were moved forward, I believe, based on what staff determined was a more of a priority. So,
>> and I think one was brand new that wasn't identified if I remember correctly. >> So, about half of them are kind of the schedule that that was put together, you know, a year ago and then the others are things that have been moved and shifted around. >> Yes, sir. And one thing that's hard to explain unless you've worked in it is
utilities are fluid. >> Water, sewer is the same as storm water. I mean, things just pop up. I mean, you could go in a neighborhood tomorrow on a culde-sac and the road is collapsing and you didn't know about it, you know, when you started the budget process and you know, and it could happen in another one tomorrow. We start getting heavy rains
later in the summer, we're going to see more of them pop up that we didn't even know about. So, yeah, priorities are going to shift all the time. It just the crystal ball doesn't work for not very well, not for utilities. >> So, it seems like in this year about half of them are planned and half of them are >> I would say about twothirds are actually
planned or more. Yes. >> Yep. We're better better than that. Maybe three fours. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I think we're good on this one. >> Okay. >> So, next up we have the fleet internal service fund. As the name suggests, this
is internal service fund and it's funded by the general fund, the water, sewer, and the storm water utility. Um, their revenue charges for services are increasing $33,058 from fiscal 2526.
Under expenses, uh they're trend trending the same as general fund. Um 4% increase in salaries and benefits. Um we have a slight increase in overtime and then the workers compensation and
general liability are increased by 10% increase in premiums. Their operating expenses are reduced by $2,200. And the big item here is the capital expenses. This is for two projects. Um, one of them is, if you recall during the
capital improvement program presentation we did for general fund, this is the fuel master replacement design. And since this is a project that benefits the entire city, uh, we thought it's the best idea to fund it through the fleet
um, internal service fund. So all the funds can contribute to the cost. Um it's the $121,221 is just for the design of the project. The actual construction is scheduled for next year and it's a little over
1,200,000 and um transfers out uh the fleet department contributes to the insurance deductible fund. So the 4,700 hours is transfer out to the insurance deductible fund. All we know the fund balance will
remain the same at $55,549. Um this is just a breakdown of all the transfers in and um the capital. Uh I failed to mention the second project, the gate replacement. It's a replacement of the gates at the fleet department for
$15,979. Do you guys have any questions? Any questions? >> We're good. >> Okay. Last up, we have the IT internal service fund. Uh we made a concerted effort a couple of years ago to break um
it out of the general fund uh for a couple reasons. Number one is it's uh it provides services to every single entity uh within the city. But the other reason was that it was strictly a defensive move because of some pending legislation
that was taking place and at that time uh the legislation was trying to limit and I think it's going to come back the level of transfers that can take place between the utility and the general fund. So pulling this uh activity if you
will out of the general fund uh puts us well underneath the threshold that's being proposed for limiting transfers to the general fund from the utilities and isolates it to itself. So that's the main reason why we broke it out and reflected it separately was to protect the general fund and and to also protect
the appropriate funding level that needs to take place within the IT internal service fund to fund it correctly and appropriately. Uh one of the things that we have to recognize with the IT internal service fund is that it is the backbone of communications here at the
city. If we do not fund it correctly, things will break, things will go wrong, communication will not happen effectively. So as uh Miss Jones and Mr. door have said the expenses within the IT and internal service fund pretty much flow
directly in with like the general fund expenses do 4% increase for salaries um 10% increase for workers compensation 10% increase for uh general insurance and uh everything else pretty much is
comprised of uh things that are required uh functionally for the IT internal service fund to do the IT the Software maintenance is listed. There are the m various different maintenances, excuse me, ma software programs that are used within the city. Some in police, some in
fire, uh some in finance, etc. Operating expenses uh basically comprise the general operating expenses of the IT department and we have a small reserve for contingency uh within the uh within the expenses.
So all things considered, you know, we have total operating expenses of 2,667,000. We have adjustments of transfers in for the same amount with a net effect of zero for that fund with an with a forecasted ending fund balance of
$119,300. So any questions about the IT internal service fund? Could you click over to any other spreadsheet and show us where the money leaves that place and goes here? I really love the concept of
isolating these internal service funds. they make a lot of sense for the for transparency and I would like to better understand and everybody who's here watching or on on YouTube understand how we can click between and see that yes technology is accounted for in the
departments and that we're accounting for it collectively as a city because that like that's kind of how I'm thinking about what you guys have done. >> Yeah, that's that's something that we have done. we continue to work on. We have developed schedules that show the allocations back to the various
different um departments within uh the general fund and uh that information is available. >> So like if you scroll over to the left is it somewhere over there like where where do we find >> it's so that's the IT services fund is
going from the general fund over there. This is the general fund schedule and as you can see 1,432,000 is going to the IT internal service fund and we are also showing it um in the water sewer
and the storm water. So here you can see 1 million15 this is the water sewer and then we have the same schedule for the storm water. >> Okay. And then you got the same thing going on for the fleet internal services fund, >> right? Were you talking about this
schedule, mayor, or or the one where you allocate it back to the ind individual departments in the general fund? >> Okay. So, you kind of have to back out a little bit more internal to each department to figure out inside the general fund how much is is for it and
and vehicles and all that stuff. But still, this is this is a a layer of transparency that is definitely much easier for the public to follow, I think. So, thank you for that. Okay, I think we're good on the budget.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. We will move on to our last item, which is item number six, the limited parking zones in Obito on the park. Mr. Cob, >> uh, thank you, mayor, deputy mayor. I'm going to be really fast on this one. Uh
if you see this uh yellow the yellow area there by Center Lake Park uh staff went out and they surveyed all the streets and looked at all the on street parking with Inovvito on the park. The white ones the white areas are the existing areas that have limited parking. We're recommending that after
looking at all of the different streets, the yellow area there is what we recommend to be added as a limited parking zone. There approximately three parking spaces next to our dog park. And if you give us direction to go forward, we'll go forward and install the signage. >> And you were saying for three hours,
right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Any discussion here? Let's do it. Let's do it. >> Let's do it. >> All right. We have consensus. >> So, is is there any other place that has uh that might be described similar, right? City. So, it's City Street where
there's a business in front of it rather than a residence. Well, that that was the thing that we looked at because I mean, if you think over on uh I'm not sure if this is actually showing up on on the screen, but when you look at City Walk, you've got you have the opportunity on CityWalk Lane where
there's businesses on the one side, but then there's businesses on the other side with residents above and residents behind. The thing about that is you've got a parking lot there that serves those residences. So, there's not really the conflict that you have. Uh we when you look over at Micro Roberto Way,
you've got the strand on the north side of Microberto Way >> uh over at Pvita Boulevard and then you've got the commercial building that's across the street. Uh but we haven't seen it seems to be that the parking because you have parking inside
of the Strand. You have parking on Ovida Boulevard. there hasn't been really been the conflict that you're seeing in the yellow area there that is across from from the the Aryan businesses. Uh the one thing that we did notice is that
where that yellow parking is, there's no parking across the street from it. You don't have parking on both sides of the street. It's the same thing that you have with uh Strand 2 there along Center Lake Lane. there's no parking across the street on Center Lake Lane on the park
side on the north side there. So, it's the same situation just different side of the street and so that's one of the one of the one of the factors that actually, you know, drew us to that. Uh but yeah, when we looked at Microberto Way and we looked at CityWalk, looked at the other areas of Center Lake, we even
looked at boardwalk too, uh we didn't see any of the conflicts that we're seeing, you know, there in that one little spot. So, uh, since to be consistent with what's happening at Strand 2 with on the south side of Center Lake, doing the same type of
treatment there on the north side, uh, is is what we found that we could be consistent that way. So, >> okay. >> Okay. Sounds like we're good. We're all in consensus here. >> All right. Um, I've got nothing else tonight. Does anybody have anything else?
>> I do have one extra thing. There is a a mention of a potential charter review um idea. Uh so Winter Springs is actually doing charter review right now and uh David Bayer from Save Rural Seinal uh
was brainstorming and I thought well that might be kind of interesting to uh adjust what it takes to uh incorporate new areas into the city. So I think Mr. Cob's got a few slides to to go over on that one, but that's also
something that u Karen Harriet spoke about at the very beginning. So, I was glad that to see that a lot of the charter review committee members sent notes back. I I'd say it's like five to one in favor of doing this even though it's not an idea that that came up
during the thing. So, I I do appreciate the irony of me bringing this up after all of the pontification. So, Mr. Yes, here we are. I wasn't going to bring it up. >> I I'll bring it up for you. So, are we going through the slides? Is that what
we want to do here, Mr. Cob? >> Are we We're prepared to. Yes. If council wants us to do it, we're prepared to do it. >> Is that what council would like to do? >> Yeah. I mean, if there are slides, I would like to see them. >> Okay. >> Uh yes, council, we were and actually
worked with Mr. Bose, so I'll be we may be tag teaming. Uh but uh what this is this is a request to amend the charter to basically require a four-fifth vote to approve a uh annexation request and
the this is what the uh Mr. Vos put together a charter language as far as the question is concerned and to just ask to that it would be what any ordinance annexing land would require for fifth vote. It would be an actual the actual change would be to section
2.02. We would add the sentence there that says basically says would be required affirmative voter for council members. Uh the mayor mayor talked with the supervisor of elections. They are giving us a little additional time. Uh they uh if we can get it on first
reading on 6 adopt it on the 20th and if we can get it to them on the 21st they'll put it on the ballot. question. Would this apply to like if we wanted to annex like any of those donuts into the city? >> It would also apply to enclaves. Yes. >> Yeah. On was about to say I enclaves
might be a special carve out. >> I'm okay with protecting the rural boundary. I'm not okay with handstringing us on getting in donuts and and things. >> I don't think anybody would I don't think anybody would be a hold out on a donut. >> That's also Yeah. >> Yeah. Who would Why would we hold
>> I think if we're going to do this, we should do it right. I also have questions on I guess the the argument you brought up in an email was state the state is kind of attacking this right well isn't the county more of a defense than us and if they take away
the power from the county you would come away from us anyways not necessarily so if somebody was trying to use annexation as a way to get out of the rural boundary in spite of the county and the state were to pass some legislation making such a thing possible
I I think there is a potential for this to be a layer of protection against that sort of a thing. >> But if they went to us to annex it and they were in a rural boundary, it still falls back to the county, does it not?
>> Not if the state changes things around. Well, I'll let Mr. V speak >> under the current provisions of the Seminal County Charter. If there isn't any state preeemption, then yes, if there was a request to annex in and it was in the rural boundary, uh, and they
met all the other requirements to be able to annex, you could annex and then, but land use control would still sit with the county until they relinquished it under the charter provision. >> So, it' have to get through to the county and then us. >> What's that? [clears throat] >> Well, under unless the state changes the state level law, >> correct?
>> Which is the whole point of bringing this this up. Now, I'm in favor of adding a boundary to the row boundary. I'm not in favor of this because it doesn't it doesn't specify the row boundary and I don't want to have a supermajority vote to fix the non-ural boundary issues we have. Um, so I guess
I wouldn't be in favor in this unless we're not hamstringing ourselves on other properties in the city, if that makes sense. >> Do we just have the two donuts? >> Uh, I think there's some up there in the north end, too, but there's a couple properties here and there. So, but that
being said, um we could bring this back next year and get it done the right way. I know we're on a time constraint. >> We can't have Sorry. >> So, under our charter, we're supposed to review every five years. So, I was just kind of looking at this came up kind of
super late. I wish it had come up months ago. Um, so I was looking at it thinking, well, if we have to have such a thing on an evenumbered year election, we're looking at not if it's not this November, it's basically six years from now. And what could the
state do in the next six years to potentially change state level law to make it well and and maybe it's okay. Maybe we just are the defenders of the rural boundary if somebody wants to to get out of the county and hopes that that's a way to We already are the
defenders of the the rural boundary. >> I don't I don't see any of us really going against the rural boundary. I think we're all in support of But are are we all going to be here six years from now? And and that's that's the whole do we want to hamstring future councils and and I do on this one,
>> but hamstrings is all the way around except I I get the rural boundary part of it, but to miss Tuker's point, when you get to the south and to the west, >> could could we just add language? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to you had more.
>> No, go ahead. Uh uh could we add just uh a couple of words that say territorial boundaries of the city? Let's see. Annexation of real property um that is in the Simol County rural area >> and
>> or maybe just say except enclaves or >> across the rural boundary >> is whatever says across the rural boundary. I mean, so yeah, you want enclaves, but then to go west or south, do you want to >> start using the word
>> boundary? >> Yeah, if if the rural boundary is under attack to use the word rural boundary in ours, I think is a problem. So just making it be to annex. >> What do what do you mean? Why why is that a >> Oh, because the state is actively
attacking things that are are known as rural boundaries, like the word rural boundary or rur urban services line, things like that. Like, >> but when they but when they've been making law recently, they have gone back and retroactively, right? Anything any
laws that were passed, you know, past this date that [clears throat] have to do with and then they kind of lost off the >> the topic. So I I don't think rural boundary or the the words rural boundary really trigger anything in the state at least in the current recent laws that
have been passed. Does it does that make sense? >> Yeah, I I get what you're saying. Um I guess you just found my issue with it, right? So I'm totally in favor of protecting the rural boundary as much as we can. I just the way this is written right now is too broad where it's hamstringing us on other issues that are
not rural boundary related. >> Right. So, and and I understand this is last minute. Like I think the schedule we just showed it has to be decided like today >> today to be on for >> so I would if we're going to do this I would like to do it right and I personally don't believe this is written right as it is presented >> last minute.
>> Can we rewrite it right now? I mean is there a way that we could rewrite it right now? >> Okay. >> So So and let me ask this too. Um, you were talking about 5 years for charter review, but we can under the state statute, we could do this any year and it does not even have to be an even
year. >> Well, at this time, I don't think it has to be an even year, but it could in the future have to be. >> Could potentially happen, right? The Yeah. >> Um, so, so it could, as it stands now, it could come back next year or we could
fix the language today. I don't mind trying to fix the language today. >> Yeah, can we fix the language today? >> We could try if you give me some direction. Um I I will offer one uh thought to the discussion about
>> referencing the term rural boundary. I would I would offer some just recent disagreement with with the thought the legislature has been um quite enamored uh in a negative way with that exact
term. So referencing that term or having it built in such a way that it is tied to the semino county rural boundary. It is very possible that again to the point at some point in the future of we're just we're trying to predict the future and what the legislature might do. There
is nothing that necessitates the legislature keeping in place pre-existing rural boundaries. And in fact there have been um there have been floor amendments and other drafts and and everything in various versions uh in the legislature that have come through
that have wiped out pre-existing ones. >> Sure. Yeah. So, um, so referencing the Semino County rural boundary, uh, very possibly may put expressly may put a target on this amendment's back and may
make it, uh, legally ineffective if the rural boundary goes away. So, it may by expressly referencing it not accomplish what it sounds like it would be intended to accomplish. Well, if that's what it's intended to accomplish and then the royal boundary goes away, it's it's all
kind of moot anyway, right? >> Not necessarily because we could just say we're going to honor it anyway by simply not annexing you and not giving you utilities. But it would just be like we'd need four people instead of two people to say we're not going to annex you and give you utilities and stuff.
>> I mean, you still need three votes to annex in. And I think we've we've sent letters to our legislature as a commission and I don't think people are going to get elected into this city without supporting it as they shouldn't. So um again all about supporting the royal boundary. I just see some flaws in
how this is written with where it constrains us elsewhere from the royal boundary. Have we ever not had a unanimous vote to annex something that I mean I that's an enclave or that has three contiguous sides? I mean it just it's
But I do see how this could in the future become an issue on edges uh and requiring for I don't know. I like it. I like it. I even if we change the language I I
would still be okay changing the language to say rule boundary if that would help. >> Yeah. I think that puts a target on its back and >> well this is >> the target's there anyway is is the way I see it right if the if the legislature is going to come after things like this they're going to come after >> the boundary itself
>> well this is a policy decision on expansion and on you know how how much additional infrastructure are we willing to take on you know we're we're at a position where we're going to for the first time in decades have no
debt uh against our general fund. That's incredible. So, if we start annexing vast swaths, you acres of land on the edge of a veto, that is it's almost like us hamstringing future councils not to
take on infrastructure costs that we have no way to collect enough taxes to sustain. But that, you know, this is like super going down many rabbit holes all at once. But there's more there's more to it and from my perspective than just potentially protecting the rural boundary. It is protecting the financial
integrity of the city for the long haul. >> Yeah. >> Do we have consensus to move forward with this? >> Okay, we got two. >> Anybody else want to join in? >> Not right now is the answer. All right. >> All right. >> Maybe next year. >> It was a good try.
>> All right. Anything else for tonight? Uh, I do have one item uh the city clerk just gave to me. Uh, we need a voting delegate for the League of Cities Conference. And >> Council Britain, are you still interested in being our voting delegate?
>> It'll nominate Councilman Britain. >> Who Who else going this year? I'm going. Okay. Were you all going? >> Okay. >> I'm on a committee. >> I am too, but I'm not going. I >> The committee doesn't do anything there. >> Okay. I think we're good. And then I
guess we'll see you guys all the Fourth of July as well. >> Oh, yeah. >> All right. It's 8:39 and we're out of here. >> This damn thing off. >> Just have a good time. Good job.