It was okay. You're still okay. I put the darks in the washer, but I didn't start them. I was waiting to get yours because I think the wind comes tomorrow. Okay. Means you broke it. Oh, it was a trip.
Means you broke it. Charge up. Yes. One more battery to maintain. Is it really? Does green mean talk or red mean talk? Red means red means off.
Yeah. Yeah. No, I can see that. It is what it is. What's funny is I was walking out this morning and I got down around the boat dock and I looked up and I go, "Oh, Rocky just went off." Yeah. I didn't know it was going off.
All I just looked up and I saw it. How about that? emergency. So, where are you guys doing dinner tonight? Normally, they're right over there.
They're sitting in a stack somewhere. Somebody from the boat, of course. I'm fine. I Yeah, I'll go electronic as with everything else. I was just I went to just grab one as I normally do, right? I mean, wasn't there
Where does it not? No, I'm grabbing. I'm good. Thank you. I'll see you. Hopefully it's not too long tonight. That's good. Okay. Okay.
How was your trip? It was awesome. That was awesome. Like could have gone another two weeks for sure. That's correct. Was good. It's a shame I like hiking the mountains so much. You don't live in the rain. I know. It's like the one thing you can't make up here. I grew up in the
mountains. It's hard for me to live here. That's what I mean. That's why we always vacation. Or parks. National parks. Me too. Usually in the winter though. Love you too. Love you too. this time of year, you know, it depends on where you
go, but it can get really hot. Mhm. Especially if there's no trees. Well, it's like 30 at night and then you wake up and be frozen and then by lunchtime it's like 88 90. Yeah. I usually go to uh Colorado and it's
usually in the 50s at night, but during the day it gets up to 100. I can get hot. And the sun is really strong. It's dry up there. Oh, yeah. We were getting some. It's so dry out. Oh, yeah. But Ben keeps wanting to go to like I don't know Europe and stuff cuz he has
done like a little bit. So I like to visit like cool things. Yeah. Like hikes. I do too. But I do owe him a trip like over there. That's that's the
way I made all my favorite trips of him like hiking. I'm kind of a nature guy anyway. Yeah. No, I told my mom another life I'm a mountain goat by far. Good question. Might not look like it, but that's my happy place. Almost every type of animal we wanted
except a moose. Oh, you don't want to see a moose. But we did see some bears. That was good. Wasn't wolves. Black bears. Brown bears. They were brown bears that were black bears. Black bears. They're aggressive skip this long distation, but we saw some wolves. Who
did you send in? Coyotes. Megan's thing about this holiday. Tons of buffalo. Did you do a tour or did you drive yourself? Oh, no. I'm a DIYer for sure. So, we rented an RV and then like I planned all out
a couple years ago, didn't he? Yeah. Right after Oh, right after Yeah. the park way to get out. It's funny cuz like the probably the most commercialized is Old Faithful and I was like that was cool but like very Oh yeah. Oh, were they
here in the weekend? Those will go off. Oh yeah. They literally like turn it into huge viewing boxes for benches and everything and they'll tell you it's going to go up within the next 20 minutes. So people just go wait for it.
Yeah, it was it was like an amusement attraction which I was like but the rest of it was still like very much hike to a lot of just I took my wife to Maui
our 35th wedding anniversary. We just hiked everywhere. Oh my gosh, it was just so beautiful. Beautiful island. The whole thing with the hike was perfect. I'm not tired and sore by the end of it. I didn't get what I wanted. The thing is the tough thing was that
the the roads in Maui are just forever to get, you know, it just took us all day to where we wanted to go and then we do our thing and then all day to get back. They were there and they said it was like to go two miles is like hours. Oh yeah. Yeah. That's And you can see where
you wanted to go. Yeah, it's just Yeah, I couldn't live there for that reason. No, it was very frustrating cuz I was tired and I want to get there, right? Yeah. My four-year-old got tired and I throw them in my backpack. Oh, like in
between. I like put a speaker through my straps. Yeah. Log to find. Howdy. How's it going? Welcome back. Thank you. I'd like to still Good. How are you doing? And this is what like eight days.
Yes. Even smaller the whole time. We RV, so we even like stayed overnight in the park. That's pretty cool. It was cool. Kids loved it. They loved it. So, and those are great times. We saw a ton of Buffalo like thousands.
There's They block the road. They like charge past you. It's very exciting. Who does that? Huh? No, the bison. Which, by the way, a bison and a buffalo is the same thing. Which took us 3 days to find a park ranger and ask them this because I was like, I don't know if they're different
or not, but I'm pretty sure they're not. Same thing. They taste the same. First on my agenda. Well, Ben used to own dog, by the way. like a dog and didn't Oh, it was the worst pet I've ever It was when I
started dating him. He had a actual prairie dog as pet inside house or inside house. Her name was online. You wouldn't want her to, but she would escape and do that. She'd like break open very part of the My sister lives in the place
where they are. I'm getting Well, we saw some as they are in houses too like that. All right. Are we ready? You guys ready? Yeah. All right. I'll call us to order at 5:30. We have all
members of council present. Uh we will start with public comment. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to address council at this time? Hearing none, we'll close public comment and move on to the second order of business, which is the discretionary spending powers to the public art board.
Deputy May, could we since we're geared up for the budget, could we go ahead and do the budget first? Let's start with the budget. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Yep. Well, thank you, Mr. Cobb, honorable mayor, deputy mayor, council members. Uh we have before us tonight is we have
four funds that we'd like to discuss with you. A high level discussion of the general fund, and we have already discussed that four times. This will be our fourth time. and we just want to bring to light the changes that have occurred since the last time we were together. In addition to that, we need
to review the fleet fund with you, which covers um b the the vehicle purchases and equipment that we want to purchase this this next fiscal year. We also have the water and sewer fund which pretty much follows the will dam um financial
model that we reviewed and approved in February as well as the storm water which also follows the same model. So, with that, I'd like to go ahead and start off with the general fund. And I want to start where I always start, which is with the operating reserve.
Whoops, I got the wrong thing here. With the operating reserve here, 2425. As you'll recall, the last several times we were together, we were also um requesting use of fund balance to pay off the remaining debt in the general
fund. And the reason that we were going to do that was so that we could create enough margin cash flow in the general fund to reduce to use a portion of the millage rate for the payment of the fire station. Well, that didn't materialize. We didn't need to do that. We had
discussions just by review. We had discussions with bond council and they asked us to delay it for a year because of arbitrage issues. So, we don't want to get caught up in paying for taxes that we don't really need to pay. want to keep as much funding as we possibly
can. So, we started off with an audited um beginning fund balance of 20,677. The revised amended use of fund balance of 3.5 million brings us down to an ending fund balance of 17 million for
this current fiscal year. Now, remember, we always want to try and maintain uh an ending fund balance in the range of 15 to 20 million. So this puts us in a very good place within that range. Feel very confident about that. Our target fund
balance um by the GFOA best practices 16.67% is 6.7 million. And um our internal policy of 15% is 6 million. We're well above those those targets and margins and we have enough amount available to
cover our policy reserves. So any questions on that so far? Looking up with the revenues, uh just a quick recap, revenues really didn't change that much. Um our ad balorum uh percentage was changed from 7 to 7.5%.
So that yielded an additional $73,000 in additional revenue. The only other revenue that changed was the use of fund balance. We didn't have any fund use of fund balance in the previous presentations. And we're using fund balance basically to balance the use of capital that we have brought to you
tonight for your final approval. So that's needed to balance the categories of capital and operating because some of the some of the categories had to be shifted because some of the capital is actually operating. So we had to bring that back to you tonight for again frontal approval and discussions. So
total revenues are coming in at 42.8. Interesting to note that our advalorum revenue is 1.69 and right now our total revenue is 1.64, meaning that all of our other revenues on a combined basis have have declined. We're not going to know
where we're going to land in intergovernmental until sometime in mid to late July, but this is the best forecast that we can bring to you based on uh current projections. Looking at expenses, uh again, expenses really didn't change
all that much. Uh we had a couple minor um revisions in salaries for for some things that took place in in FIRE. Uh we actually loaded the the um actual payroll that we had on hand at the time that we did this projection that cost a couple categories to change. The only
other changes that we have here in this is is again we we brought to you tonight the detailed capital expenditures and operating expenditures and some of the capital again was operating. So we saw a shift between this line right here capital expenses and operating expenses.
For all practical purposes total expenses remained pretty much the same slightly different. We have a net operating result before any transfers of 96 million. when you take into consideration the transfers in transfers out and uh transfers out debt basically
that presents us a balanced budget. So we're bringing to you a balanced budget tonight. Um again and we're rolling forward our projected operating of 17 million almost 17.1. We're projecting a use of fund balance of 57,000 and again
that's for one-time purchases related to capital. and our projected ending fund balance is 17,35,000. We're well ahead of the uh 17 six excuse me 16.67% uh GFO best practices and we're also
ahead of our internal reserve and we have a solid u balance of 10.7 million which is available in case we have any type of weather or economic related events that occur over the next year. Any questions? good solid position in
the general fund. Okay. Now, we brought to you just want to take a quick look at capital. Want to make sure that you're okay with the capital that we're projecting to use for this ne next fiscal year. We brought to you the capital um last April towards the end of April.
We met with the individual department directors. We all voted on what we felt the priorities were. Um recently, we met with Mr. COB to finalize uh what we felt we needed to uh bring forward to you based on uh what we can afford, what we
can fit within the dollars amount, dollar amounts and based upon what the directors and everybody voted on. So these are the categories um capital and capital outlay uh and these are the items that were funded under under each uh for the top
portion of items affecting capital totaling the $951,000. Do you have any questions about any of these items or any or any concerns? $60,000 for a drone. Yes, sir. That's correct.
Is that like one of those big drones the army uses or is it going to be able to deliver something? No, that's for the that's for the um police and it's my understanding that uh pretty much most of the technology has been bought out by
is it Axon Axion? And they're pretty much dictating the market right now. And because they're dictating the market right now, they're driving all the costs and that's the best that we can possibly do. Is that the uh mostly for the the payload or is it for the propulsion? I
can't answer that. I would need to defer to the police chief for that. So if your your question is is it for the technology that's on it or is it the actual drone capabilities as far as flying? I I relate all of them together.
So the software chief, could you come up to them? Could you come up to the microphone, please? Thank you. So to add on to his point, Axon is the sole um provider of drones also combined
with the fact that our previous drone was uh from a company called DJI which has um some uh relations to China and and we are no longer uh the US government is no longer allowed to utilize drones uh from China or those parts. Thus the Axon driving up the cost
for for that. So they're Americanmade. Yes, they are. Okay. All right. Thanks. You're welcome. Any Yes. I'm sorry. All right. Now, I think we're on uh the tennis courts at Round Lake, those are
not very old. I'm just wondering what what went wrong with them and can we keep it from happening again? Good evening, Mayor, council members. The Round Lake Park tennis courts have five courts. Three on the south. Those were
the newly built ones not too long ago. The two on the north were already previously there. Those are the two courts that have failed. So there's cracks that are over one inch in gap that we are having to repair on a constant basis and it's a safety liability. So we're only um requesting
to rebuild, which means reassphalting those two courts on the north. The other three courts are staying, but they'll all be resurfaced at the same time. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Mr. Ben. Any other questions? Okay, going back down to the very bottom, we want to make sure that we
cover everything correctly. Some of these projects were actually included in in capital, capital outlay, etc. So, uh, basically what we did is we broke them out of the capital. We've moved them over into the operating category. And these are the items that we are funding
uh, under operating. I want to make sure that there's no questions regarding these. The total hasn't changed. The total is about 1.3 million that we presented to you earlier. That is just the categories that we've had to change for accounting uh presentation purposes.
If we're good, uh we'll go on to the next fund, which I'm sorry, I had one question and this is for Mr. Belden. For park sign upgrades, are we still looking into putting a park sign at Round Lake? Deputy mayor. Yeah, those signs are to
replace the frontage signs like so out here in front of city hall OSC. We are going to replace the the sign at Round Lake Park, the existing sign. However, this does not include a I guess my question was more of are we moving that sign to actually be at the entrance
since it's not this request does not include that. It's something that we're still looking at options. I don't know what the space limitations are to move that sign to the front of the of the park entrance. Okay. All right. Okay. Are you talking about on 419? Yeah. So,
we we might not have the legal ability to move that. But it is an interesting thought to put it where you could find it. I I brought it up before cuz it's pointing at a house and not the street of where the park is and it's like three houses off from the entrance. So, we're redoing the facility over there. So, I
was looking at redoing the sign. So, I was just seeing if we've made any headway with that cuz yeah, it's not helpful. It's not helpful. Okay. Thank you. U moving on to fleet. Looking at the fleet schedule, uh pretty
much um you know, these are the items that we're able to fund in this next fiscal year. We're looking at bringing in charges for services of about 1.3 million, miscellaneous revenues at 10,000. We're going to use um $64,000 in fund balance,
total revenues of 1.3 um and uh capital expenditures of 1.2 million. So that gives us a net margin of $91,000 which is going to be transferred out to pay the debt service associated with
some of the vehicles that we've uh purchased um several years ago. And I think we're getting very close to paying off that that debt. items on the right are what we were able to fund this next fiscal year. Uh, every year we meet with
uh Chris Burton. We talk to the individual department directors and based on their needs and what we can fit into the schedule and we we bring it forward and uh basically we have it listed here. So again, we have about $1.2 2 million dollars in vehicle
replacements, which is significantly ahead of where we were several years ago when we can only afford to replace about a quarter of a million dollars. So, we've made some great headways headway and great strides in this arena and uh I feel very encouraged about the direction
that we are able to go with fleet. Do we have any questions about what we're funding in fleet? Okay. Hearing none, we'll go on to water and sewer. Excuse me. And like I said a couple moments ago, um the water and sewer uh
funds are pretty much driven by the technical study that was done by Wilden Financial Group. Uh the water revenues this year include a 9% increase. much of the increase um goes towards uh additional uh items that need to be
funded as well as capital. So water revenues, reclaimed revenues, sewer revenues u and so on were all increased by 9%. Okay. We also have listed up here debt proceeds.
Debt proceeds of $2.5 million. We're looking at doing next year what we call a bond anticipation note. uh other otherwise called a ban. And we've had discussions with um our bond council, Mr. George Smith, about making sure that
we spread our our needs out far enough to avoid arbitrage. So what we're able to do with the debt proceeds there's many many needs in as we know in the water and sewer fund and we have to make sure that we time the issuance of the
debt such that we can pay the entire debt down within 3 years. What the bond anticipation note allows us to do is spread the beginning of that debt uh so that um we are not subject to arbitrage.
Then what we do when we go and issue the final bond issue, we roll the b the bond anticipation note into the final issue and we're well ahead of where we would go where we would be if we were trying to immediately spend it over 3 years. So
what this affords us the time to do is to time that bond issue well so that we don't have any arbitrage rebate issues and so that we meet the needs for cash flow within the water and sewer utility. The bond
anticipation note is an interestonly debt. We don't pay any um principle on it. So the interest rate would float according to market and we feel that we're heading into a very seasonably positive um interest rate market going
forward barring the unknown. So we think it's going to work out very well to our advantage. So any concerns or questions about that? We'll bring that back to you sometime next year at the time that we are actually able to uh issue the note and
the funding is actually needed. Other revenues are basically comprised of late fees and interest income. Again, interest income. We don't know what's going to happen with that over the next year. We anticipate a couple rate uh decreases coming up in the near future,
at least two before the end of the fiscal year. There's some discussion about even uh a rate decrease coming up in July. We'll see. Use of fund balance $364,000 primarily to fund um operational and excuse me primarily to fund capital type
issues. Total revenues coming in at 26.1 million and an increase of 5.4 million which is basically primarily related to the debt proceeds as well as the uh 9% uh rate increase.
Expenses follow pretty much the same flow as the general fund. 4% increase for salaries. We take a look at workers comp, general insurance, and those increase pretty much at the same rate as they do in the general fund. Workers comp and general insurance are affected
by salary increases and changes. So that'll be a certain component of the 10% but also general insurance and liabilities affected by your change your your change in um total insured values. So we know those numbers are going to go up. Um we just don't know how much. And
so we anticipate um getting those numbers in very very soon. Hopefully we'll have a little bit of margin in there that we can do some other things. Operating expenses based upon the input from staff as well as the projections that were provided uh in the willan
study increased 11%. And capital basically capital is driven by uh the willan study and discussions with uh the public works staff. The capital's detailed over to the right. Um and these
are the items that we're able to capital excuse excuse me these are the items that we're able to afford through the capital um numbers over the next fiscal year. These are the detailed projects that were listed both in the wild study as well as what um what was laid out uh
through our discussions with public works. Looking going back over to the left hand side of the study, excuse me, of the of the uh presentation here, transfers in $50,000 that comes in to pay off the note from the golf course, transfers out, transfers out
debt, basically matching up against the operating results. We're projecting, you know, break even analysis at this point. Hopefully, we do have some net income and a contribution to fund balance next year. Our uh current cash balance um is
uh projected to be uh 8.3 million based upon uh what we anticipate our results and spending to be over the previous fiscal year. We're ending up our cash position after the withdrawal from fund balance of $364,000 and a very solid $7.9 million position.
Our 120day working capital reserve requirement is 4.3 almost 4.4 million. a very solid um position. Wall Street looks at that very favorably and that's why we have our double A standalone
rating from Wall Street. We've worked very hard to obtain that and maintain that and as you'll recall when we presented the annual report to you this past fiscal year, we had a very solid 3.27 debt service coverage. So, we
expect that to change a little bit with the additional debt that's coming forward, but hopefully the operational margin will cover the difference and we'll end up with a very solid position going forward. Any questions about water and sewer, very solid financial position, very solid results, well
positioned to do what needs to be done. Just one question that is what are disc filters? It's a really big capital outlay listed. Need to defer to the public works folks. Thank you, mayor.
Mayor, it's the end of the um wastewater treatment process right before chlorine contact. Is that right? Right before it um right before it. It's at the very end. And it takes out any last particullet in the water for business before it's reclaimed eligible reclaimed
quality. How how long do they last? I have to defer to Miss Stewart on that one. 15 years. Thank you. Any other questions about the water sewer? Okay. Looking at our last fund, uh the storm water fund. As you know,
this is where we have done most of our work over the last year because of the um because of the needs around the city. So, storm water uh basically we had a an increase in February and we have a 25%
increase in the rate um uh set for October 1st of this year which will yield an additional $1.6 million in revenue. miscellane miscellaneous revenues of $20,000 which are which is basically pretty much interest income.
I'm not sure we're going to hit that number but we'll see. Uh total revenues of 4.5 million. And again the same thing with expenses. Uh they they follow the same pattern as the the the water uh and
sewer fund as well as the general fund. 4% increase for salary work and uh overtime health insurance basically slight decrease workers compensation general insurance liability insurance 10% increase will end up somewhere in there marginally
operating expenses based upon discussions uh as well as the will study capital expenses these are the capital expenses that we're funding this year as a result of our operations there are significant capital expenditures that are also being um funed did through the
bond issue that we just recently did. So, when we take a look at these numbers, including the reserve for contingency, we're looking at total expenses of 3.9 million uh net operating results of 580,000, which equals the amount that we're transferring out. So,
one of the things and and also I don't want to get to that right now, but let's go to the right um a little back. So looking at transfers out, one of the things uh mayor, you'll recall that we were really concerned
about over the last year is we're not putting enough money back into the storm water utility. And so we're trying to fund a couple things. It's going to take us some time to get there. We're not going to get there overnight, but you'll see under the transfers out, most of
those all those are standard transfers that we do every single year with the exception of what you see at the very bottom. storm storm water renewal and replacement. We have never had a storm wa water renewal and replacement fund before. We're establishing we are
establishing that this year and we are putting it in motion going forward so that we start setting funds aside for renewal and replacement. It'll take us some time to accumulate the values that we really need to have in the storm water fund but over time we should get
there. Uh, additionally taking a look at the top um, total the capital requests, total operating capital requests include the storm water basin study, the flood forecasting and the storm water camera truck. Those are all procured this next
or forecasted to be procured this next year out of um, funds available funds. Those are not going to be funded through debt. Okay, debt is going to fund significant a significant amount of other items.
Going back over to the left, could you real quickly explain what a storm water camera truck is? I have to defer to public works for that. Sorry, Gator. Our storm water uh division decided they wanted to copy our wastewater
collections division. They have it's a small little van truck that has the technology and a camera unit in it. They can roll it out and it runs for several hundred feet. They can stick it down in the collection system and basically map out what's going on down there and take a look around. You know the the the images we've gotten that shows the
alligator in the system. Same idea. Can we not use the same one? Well, think about think about storm water. What's in it? And think about what's in the waste water. Well, well, the storm water's not and they don't Sometimes they both need it at the same time. So, it's okay. Yeah, I guess
we've advanced as far as the utility goes. We really need one for each. Expensive board. All right. Thank you. Okay. Okay, going back over to the left, explaining our financial position and where we're currently at. Um, we're currently in a deficit position in the
stormwater fund. And the reason that we're in a deficit position is because we have significant cash outlay related to the uh FEMA recoveries of about what, Nadia? Three 3.2 million. 3.2 million.
So, we're going to be in a deficit position until we start receiving monies back from FEMA. Uh there's no workaround to that at this point in time. Um I'm not concerned about it. Uh hopefully, maybe uh we may get some refunds before
the end of this current fiscal year. I don't know. Uh but it really depends on how fast FEMA can move um with the information that we submit to them. We're currently in the processing of aggregating that information now and submitting that to them. But again, it's
not anything to be concerned about at this point. Um, we have discussed perhaps borrowing some money from um, the ARPA funds, the interest based off the utility, but I'm not even sure that that will be enough to cover the balance until we get re, you know, refunded from
FEMA. So, I'm not really sure that that that's the right answer right now. Is that mostly McKinnon or is that also Lake Riverside, too? 2.9 million is McKinnon and like 300 is from Hurricane Milton. There was um sidewalk washed
away and a few other items. So once we get that money, we'll have a positive fund balance. And again, the these things happen and these types of funds from time to time. I've experienced this before, not here, but I've experienced this before in my career. It just takes time for them to
heal and recover. So, um I don't expect any audit issues as a result of that. We will cover this uh through the through an audit adjustment at the end of the fiscal year. So, we're okay. So, going forward uh basically the next
fiscal year, we should have recovered at that point and we should have a positive uh operating reserve. I'd like to take a really quick look if we can, Kelly, at the capital for um uh for the for the uh storm water fund.
And what you'll see here and looking at this spreadsheet is anything that says FB is funded through the bond issue and everything that you see FS is funded through storm water operating funds this next fiscal year. So, you can see there
are significant projects in play for this next fiscal year with the bond monies that we just received. And I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of that, that those funds were not sitting dormant, that they are being put to use and uh they will be in process
and in play over the next fiscal year. Any questions? Is is there some sort of uh integrated schedule that will coordinate all of these projects? Are they all going to get done in the next year? It's my understanding that they will be in process in the next year. As
far as completion, I can't comment on that without talking to It's a lot of stuff to be uh watched over by our staff. Come on. I certainly Mr. Britain, Mr. Jurg and I have had this conversation. This is a heavy load and we're aware of it and we're going to
be using our consultants to our maximum extent. Okay. So, will they be able to integrate the schedule for us? As far as a laid out, um I'll have to have to ask Paul what he's got put together because I I know we as I said this is a heavy
load and trying to figure out we're also trying we're going to be trying to hire someone in the next fiscal year to help him out. Um, and so if you'd like a schedule, I'll put one together for you and lay it out. I could envision a war room when we get something like this. Yeah, it's a lot. No, I I agree with
you. It's it's a heavy load. Absolutely. Okay. We actually, just FYI, we have a a RFQ coming in soon for actually dedicated storm water consultants. So, we're going to be actually adding on to our existing civil consultants so that we can
actually hit this hard. And and kind of the way it works a lot now is that the consultant does mo you know the heavy lifting almost all the work which just a matter of administrative management to make sure they're on track. You know that many I mean you probably got a limited number of construction contractors to do this
stuff unless we're going to do it in house. Uh no we actually we have seven I think uh right now on contract. Okay. Are there seven in seven small contractors that should be able to handle most of the load of these. That's a heavy load for those guys too. Yes sir. will be a busy year. Okay. All
right. I'll be watching. One one other quick question while you're up there. This has to do with the water sewer fund. Um St. John's had recommended that we jump on board with the HTO SAVE program through UF. It ends up being a $4,000 investment on our end
and they will cover the other half of 4,000. And it basically does what Urban 3 did for land use and tax productivity for water consumption. so we can track stuff and become more eligible uh for grants by measuring improvement that we
may be seeing. Is that something that is already baked into the budget? And if not, can I'm not familiar with that one is, but I don't think that would be a problem trying to find $4,000. Okay. I see nodding his head over there. So, okay, we can do this. All right. Fantastic. Do do we need to find 8,000
or do we need to find $4,000? Because it looked like it was reimbursed. We might need to find eight and then back to what what she's talking about. St. John's St. John's has a reimbursement program that if we participate in this UF program, then they'll fund 50%. But it looked to
me when I looked it up, it looked like it was a reimbursement, not not on the front end. So, so I guess it would be $8,000 is what we would need. All right. Thank you. Okay. Hey, just to wrap all this up, um
the numbers that we presented to you tonight are the numbers that uh we plan on putting into the budget book, which we will start working on. Um it's a significant effort, uh to get it done, and we plan on having that done uh by the end of July. Now, the general fund
includes the approved mill rate of six, excuse me, the mill rate that was provided to us by consent of 6.0750, 0750 uh which is the total millage rate. The operating millage rate is 5.9610.
The geo bond millage rate is.1140. The total millage rate is 6.0750. Looking at the very top here, we will be bringing back the millage rate uh to you on July 21st for your discussion and
approval. That will be the preliminary militaryrate for your discussion and approval on July 21st 21st. So with that, is there anything else that I've missed? Anything else we need to discuss, Mr. Cobb? Not that I know of. Okay. Well, there was one thing at our
visioning session and that was talk of shifting to technology that Yeah. for I think it's mainly for financial stuff that integrates all the different departments in a better way. So people are not duplicating efforts. Has any discussion happened on that or do we
have any numbers so we can start maybe planning for next year's budget? Is that what you and Patrick work on? Everybody's just kind of chilling on it. I I because I thought that everybody had kind of agreed that that Mr. Kelly has
been working on something that um sort of the dashboard um well that that's a transparency effort if he's trying to get the budget but it takes it all together. He's been he has been working on something like that
something to replace Navaline because that's kind of what I yeah I thought that's what what staff was suggesting would be a really important thing to do. We are working on that. I know I spent a great deal of time at the FCCMA conference talking to practically every vendor that provides it, asking them questions. Do you do this? Do you do
that? Do you do this? Uh, also Mr. Boo has been in conversations with CIA Castleberry who recently did it and about the experience they had and the company they did, but we haven't really had chance to put the numbers together yet. Is that something that we should consider budgeting for now so it can
happen in the next year? there's there's no good time to do a paradigm shift like that. That's something that um you know that's that's a process and uh more than likely that might
involve a consultant who can pull us all together to find out what the operational needs are around the city, what best software will fit in to everybody's needs. There are certain components that um may or may not work well. So we may not want every component
of a software change uh to bring into our environment but I think the first thing is to identify the needs by department so that we can find what the best fit is for our city so that we make sure that we actually bring in the best software. There are a number of so Mr.
Cobb is exactly right. There are a number of software firms that are out there. Um, there is one that appears to be a leading software firm. The city of Castlebury has brought them in. I can't remember their name. I've discussed it with their finance director a couple
times. I saw at the conference last week and they seem to be very happy with it, very pleased. And they're converting all the modules. So, but again, in order for us to do this well, to do it correctly, I think that we need to make sure that we involve all the departments to make
sure that they'll be happy with whatever software we end up with. And, uh, as you know, it can be a major shift and a major change. It can take, you know, a few years to pull that off and make it happen. Um, and, uh, it's a very involved, very technical, uh, very
detailed process, especially when you're involving the financial statements, payroll, and things of that nature. So, um, it's I'd be I'd be interested in knowing kind of roughly what the price tag would be sooner rather than later so
we can at least begin having discussions. I don't know if one's like way off the charts, expensive, and one is within grasp or I I don't even know. They vary. Okay. They vary from what I understand. Um, I I believe that the uh software that's being used by the city
of Castleberry is is reasonable. I don't know what their definition of reasonable is. I don't know what their price is. So, um, but again, those are discussions that we still need to have. All right. Thank you. Yeah, I learned that, uh, a number of the companies provide most of
the modules that we use. Uh, but there was maybe one or two that had all of the modules that we use. And the the big kicker every time I'd asked I said, "Do you do work orders?" No, we don't do work orders. Oh, okay. U
then I would there was one company they only do personnel. That's all they do. And I said, "No, I need a full integration everything, you know." Well, we could look at that. And I said, "No, I don't want something that you're going to take and massage." No, I I want the whole thing. So, but we there were a few
companies that um yes, we're going to get some demos. We start looking at it and and but it was something that definitely interested in and that um especially in talking with the Castleberry city manager. He he they had
a good experience. So, all right. Thank you. Anything else? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. C. Thank you. Am I right in guessing we'd go to number two now? Sure, let's do that. Moving on
to number two, discretionary spending powers, the public arts board. Mr. C. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. uh the at the last public arts actually I think they they've spoken about it a couple of
times uh at the public arts at their meetings and they have a the public arts board has a request uh for you the to allow them to have some spending authority up to a certain amount and they're willing to allow the council to
pick that amount uh to be able to approve expenditures for item items that are connected with approved art projects. And uh Miss Lisa McCoy from the public art board is here with us tonight and Dr. Koreah. So I'm going to turn it over to them and let them tell
you about the the the request from the board. Thank you, city manager Cobb. Um good evening. um as I've had the great pleasure of serving on the um in an appointed position um the city arts
board and um it's been a really I think we've been doing some really exciting things some dynamic things um for the city and its citizens and um this was this came up in in discussion at a a meeting um twice and I
think it some of it was um some of these spending seems so minor that to go before council seemed like such this huge process. And we wanted to present this to council and seeing what their feeling was. Um as far as um you know
our request to have a threshold of spending on specific um complimentary um um you know um spending that would um complement already approved by council
um arts projects that we're um we're working on. and specifically like examples like postcards which are identified posters, advertising um materials. So, not like enormous high-end um spending, but something
that's um definitely limited um as far as costs and um wanted to um present this um before council and um ask for your direction and um as far as um a threshold and and what your opinions are
as well. So, good evening, mayor, deputy mayor, council members. So the idea was not for them to um have any discretionary powers over public art. So the public art will be still um be taken to council and
approved by council. It was only on you know elements that would complement like a banner for instance for the opera that we had or something you know related to that effect or stationary or merchandise on approved projects that are already
murals that we already have in in place. And um they thought that this would streamline, you know, the decision and the fabrication of uh those elements if they would have the approving authority. Would $1,000 be enough?
I think it's in what they were discussing at that level. That's what I was going to say, too. Uh anyone got an issue with that? No. I'd go as high as 1500. Yeah, that would be good, too. You need you need some room for taxes. Well, I guess we don't have to pay taxes
probably, but leave some wiggle room. I'm not sure how this is different from uh things that the city staff is able to to spend without coming to council um already. So if there was a uh something
you wanted postcards for or something like that like um for the So I I watched um the sections of those meetings that were referenced and it seems like there was some conversation that was calling back to some previous ones too about promotional items or something like that
about the the hundth. um you know so staff was able to buy uh you know like the banners and and stuff like that without directly coming to council and saying hey we we want to do these things. So um can can staff not already
do this for the public art? Not for the dedicated um fund that we have for the public art. So I think what you were um referring to is rack and parks that isn't general fund that has been budgeted. So that is a different that comes from general fund. The the funding
for the public art comes from the public art fund and for the code of ordinances it says that the um the public art board is just advisory. So they cannot spend and I cannot spend money on that that uh board from that um fund unless you know
the council approves it. So every every penny that we have spent on the public art fund has been approved by council so far. So are you done? Uh yeah. Yeah, I think so. I'm just asking do you have you know if
you do this are you going to have some sort of a a financial report at your meetings that says this is what we spend our money on so that we could have some at least some visibility into it not to micromanage you but just to know what you're spending it on. Well, it will have to go through the finance process,
right? So, first of all, we'll have to see if there is funding in the public art fund. Okay. To um support that and um and then it will have to be but if you allow them to have an amount a threshold we will have to change I
believe the code of ordinances. Okay. To um some sort of treasury report or something not not really complicated just say you know postcards or banners. Well, finance will have to um I would imagine have help from the finance, but I would imagine that the finance department will
have to verify and and um that is within the budget. I I don't mind signing anything and sending to the finance department as well. Okay, good. It sounds like everybody's on board here. $1,000 or $1,500 didn't matter to me.
I'll get either way. I don't care. Okay. So, $1,500 and then you guys will move forward with drafting. We'll go with Can I question? Oh, um uh so Dr. Craig, you mentioned at one of those meetings that um the possibility of this triggering uh
form one for the people that are on the public arts board since they would have spending authority. Were you able to find information about that? You said I I did not check that. I can still check with our um um city attorney to see if that triggers any any um new
responsibility for them. Okay. Okay. Everybody good? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll move on to item number three. Seminal county city of Ovito mobility fee interlocal agreement. Mr. Cob
made by Jonathan. Sure. We can bring Denver up too. Thank you, Lisa. All right. [Music] Okay. Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. If you recall on at your May 19th meeting,
uh, there was a resolution number 4599 was presented and it was a request to approve the Simol County uh, city of Ovito mobility fee interlocal agreement. Uh, talk a little. Yes. Yeah, definitely. Sorry. And uh at the meeting the council's decision was to to
continue its decision to the uh May July 21st uh meeting and during the uh discussion uh there was also a request to have a discussion tonight at this work session.
Uh the based on as you can see from your from your agenda memorandum there were basically four uh issues that were addressed uh during the meeting. one was statutory compliance. Uh there was con there was also discussion around the uh city's termination of the old road
impact fee agreement. Uh the county's use of the funds and then as well as the timing of the payment of the mobility fees uh to the county under the interlocal agreement. Uh staff reviewed all that. Mayor, you sent out an email
to both the city and the counties requesting data and wanting the data into a certain format. And actually, could I have that? Yes. Here we go.
I've got the staff report here. I was going to pull up the table that uh this and what we did. The staff looked at the request the requested the data request. We went into the city's uh building
permit uh databases and we uh took in we took into account each of the database each of the uh building permits and there we go. Uh
we uh then looked at what was paid as far as what was paid to the city, what was paid to the county, uh whether or not it was a vested uh project that was vested from mobility fees. And so this is based on
the city's data is what it's based on. And this was Mayor, I hope we got I hope we got the columns correct. I I don't care about the columns. Okay. Wait. I I don't care so much about the columns as the the final thing. So, if you could lead with the amount that we may have
overpaid or may have underpaid, is it 741? Well, as far as as far as the cal as far as column F, which is the last column, that would be column B, if column B, which would be that the combined county
mobility fee and county road impact fee, uh, minus column E, which is the mobility fee, uh, count, which would be the 25% that the county receive would receive from the city as far as collected mobility fees. So that that
difference is $740,000 is that's that's the difference there. Um so we put all that together. We also we did receive information from the county. Uh we have not been able to marry the city and the county databases together to u take a take a second look
at it. But we did receive the information from the county. I believe they their numbers was around 1.2 million. Yeah. 1.2. So we are very close actually. But on their projects, as I was looking through that data, a lot of the projects
they spent on were not in Ovito's mobility fee benefits area. And I think that right there is those are the ones that we need to address. So we need to address the the entire big picture. And then we need to also talk about since the time we said that we would be
implementing a mobility fee. uh you got to calculate what would have been it's a little a little bit making soup and it's very I can't even exactly explain it. So I'm glad that Mr. Paul is here to uh
perhaps bring a little bit of clarity to what the law uh says in your understanding of it and where we stand on this because you could probably look at this and it swims around in your brain and you pop out a number and say, "Well, either you owe the county more or
or they perhaps have been prepaid some things and going forward we may need to do some more things when you keep some more on funding on this side." Let me see if I can load this up better. And you can close here, Brian. This the column here to see if it Yeah. So
that'll make it bigger. Yeah. Well, this was the this was the projects that uh the county did send to us. Now, the the thing that this is when it says east collect impact fee, that is the fund that the project's being funded from the
Redbuck Lake Road uh turn extensions. One of the things that we and I'm going to pull up another I'm going to pull up another file real quick. Just so we can show this may take a little bit.
This is this is a huge map but this is the road impact fee districts. Ovido is in the east district which is this entire area right here. Uh Red Lake Road is right here. This is Tuscilla Road and
one of the things that we asked the county because they said these were turn lane extensions. So they they built capacity into the turn lanes, but we said where are they? And uh they were all west of Tuscilla Road. And so they're in what's known as the South
Central District, not the East District, which is what Ovido is in as far as that. Now, one of the things we asked our GIS folks, can you overlay the benefits district? This is the Avito benefits district. so that you all could see how it lines up with the east east
uh road impact fee district. And then as well as like I said, here's Red Bug Lake Road. This is this is uh Tuscilla. The from what we can tell the uh Turn Lane extensions were in here is
where they were. But uh let's see. Let me get back over here to this one. Okay. Now the uh when we the so those were paid for with impact fees. The next
these are paid for these projects here are you where they are actually using mobility fees. And this first one is the mobility fee rule district which I'll bring up the mobility fee map in a minute. They're using funding for they have $833,000
allocated for phase three 419. For ju just a second though on the impact fees. Are they using impact fees that were paid prior to the county adopting a mobility fee and they were just still holding on to them? I believe so. Okay. But that would be it would have been
paid after the point where we had said we will be ceasing our obligation to collect. You'll see this is where they had FYI 2122 23 these were funds that were actually used during those fiscal years. Okay. Okay. Uh now whether or not
they wait were they used then or were they paid then? I think they were paid. May I but remember that their ordinance allowed cities to submit projects to be vested. Yes. Against. So that's why it explains that they may have charged
impact fees beyond their mobility. um uh fee being ordinance being adopted because we and we took to council and we fasted a bunch of understood. But am I misunderstanding the state level law
that when we gave notice in July 2021 that we were going to do the mobility fee that from that point on we would have to at a later date figure out how to reconcile projects that were that used funds that
came in after that point whether it's through impact fees or whatever happened to be in place in the time they were collected that they did have to be in the OV veto mobility benefits district. Maybe maybe I'm like being overly
hopeful in how I'm reading that. And thank you very much for that, Mayor. And let let me let me just try to I'm going to split some ideas in two here. Okay? Because these negotiations negotiations like this are going on all over the state between cities and counties. All
right? And I want to tease out here and I recognize the tapes rolling and folks can listen to us and so on, but I I do want to tease out just so we understand what the mandates of the law are and then you know what useful negotiating positions might be at different points
in time in negotiating tease those apart a little bit. All right. Because I have scoured these laws, including the new amendments to it, the relevant uh amendments in uh 163 3180 and uh 801, but primarily in
3180. And I do not have it jumping off the page at me. Nor have I been able to get anyone, including folks, you know, who are very deep in this stuff and involved directly in writing some of this language, to walk me through precisely how the statute mandates that
in coming into a new interlocal agreement that's required under the statute by October 1, 2025, that that must go back in time. one and two that it goes back in time to this particular
point in time where we got out of a prior interlocal agreement or obligation you know agreement to collect or anything like that. Why that is a relevant period of time to look back and then that has to be something accounted
for in the interlocal agreement in the precise way there's been some discussion on. Now, I want to break that apart from potential negotiating position, you know, depending on what you're looking at. It is a there's it could be a useful negotiating
position to say, look, from this point forward here, we let you know things are going to be different. And so from this point forward, we are going to be expecting when we come and get this deal done that this stuff you're collecting right now, you're going to treat it with
a tighter dual rational nexus, if you will. That this this amount of money that you're going to collect from this point on, we're going to be expecting that you're going to be spending it at bare minimum either closer to home or you're going to give us credit for it or something like this. There's nothing in
the statute that says that must be the only way it can come out. Now there might be other things. There might be an argument from a hypothetical and not I'm not going to say you know veto in 7 county but a hypothetical county uh city relationship. There might be some
instance where a developer has some serious problems with some county transportation impact fee or mobility fee. They might think there are concerns about uh you know the the size of their area or how money can migrate and leave
uh the uh area and so on and go get used in another part of the county. And they might have a cause of action to sue. They might have a cause of action against the county to challenge that and so on. Whether or not there might be some infirmity with a county mobility
fee or county transportation impact fee at some point in the past or currently or whatever is not immediately directly relevant to our negotiating an interlocal agreement that complies with the statute. All right. It doesn't
have to be that everything going on with a given county, everything is perfect and rosy and no one could it's unassalable, unchallengeable by some developer. All right, so just wanted to tease that out. I I I recognize that
it's a useful negotiating position to to go look at all that. I've not had it drawn out to me after a lot of inquiry with a lot of folks and it's not on the face anywhere of the statute itself. So just want to share that's my office's reading of it as we implement it around
the state. So we would just be relying mainly on the dual rational nexus angle of it sort of supporting the statute as it stands. And the again I agree that it's a it's a useful argument from a from a
bargaining position standpoint if you will. Uh but it's the developer that has the cause of action, not us. And see, that's the issue. And the the the the legal argument to a counterparty in something like this would be, hey, uh at least for this window, if if we're going
to imagine some look back time, you know, x years, what have you. Uh if there were an agreement, you're going to treat that money in such a way that it's tighter into Ovita. All right. We're doing you a favor, counterparty, county, whomever. We're doing you a favor. we're
tightening up any potential dual rational nexus problems for you retroactively with our interlocal agreement. So I mean that's that's kind of a negotiating argument. I don't think that it is it renders the city's participation in an interlocal agreement
or an interlocal agreement itself illegal because that piece in the past that's a problem of the counties if anybody's is not buttoned up. Okay. Thank you. Uh getting back to the projects, uh they
do have County Road 419 phase three widening. They've got $833,000 available in fiscal year 25. They're using the mobility fee rule district which I'll show you that uh they also have they've listed two projects here with the suburban east district and that is the
Oxford road project and then the Slavia road project. We did confirm with him the Oxford road project is in Castlebury. It's in the suburban east district which is what Ovidito is located in. But we'll show you I'll show you the map as well. Uh the Slavia road project we did confirm was the roadway
improvement projects west of 426, not the one east of 426, but it is within it is within the uh within the area. Yeah, it is. And see here we go. So this is the suburban. This is the
county's fee county's mobility fee districts. You can see here's the rural and then here's the suburban east which is what Ovido is part of there. Actually, we're in a little bit of both. And so we ask our GIS folks to also look at it. And um you can see here we do
cross in to the uh into the rule district. Obviously phase three is inside of the city limits. So we know that's within it. And then the uh the Slavia road as well is is right here. It's it's in the district too. So um
those two projects we did say okay those projects are in the district. And if you look at they've got it around with little around 3.4 million 3.5 million available. They have spent some money on
the uh on the Slavia road as well. uh and but they do have 2.5 million available there with the 833 it's around 3.4 4 million that is available uh in for those those two projects as far as uh 419 and and Slavia Road. Both of
those projects are within the benefits district. Let's see here. And let me get back over to as we're negotiating, could we get some sort of assurances written into the agreement
that if Slavia Road is abandoned, because that that's a huge chunk, 2 and a half million. And uh I've heard mixed reviews after that idea was floated with the public um that it will in fact be used in our benefits district and any
other amount that is currently unspent will be used in our benefits district. I I think that's a a very reasonable ask on our end. and we've got, you know, I think all of us probably are often asked, you know, why don't you make the developers pay for this, that, and the
other. And and looking at what the county has spent it on, it's really hard for us to go and look and say, well, we collected impact fees to offset things that benefited anything in Ovito because like the these were spent far away. A
lot of this was far away from here and did not, you know, nobody thinks it really benefits Oto. I mean, it's just very hard. Well, that and that that's the real rub for me is that I I can't Yeah. easily look at people and
say, "Oh, well, these these did something for you." No, they did nothing. Right. In the case of Redbug Lake Road and in the case of Boxford, I agree. they those were even though it's just because the district is so large and we're part of it. Uh but as far as
you know 419 that's one of our big that is our big priority and then as well Slavia which this is like I said this is the west side this isn't the east side that um did not go past the U last public meeting but no I I think and I believe that the
way that the agreement is currently crafted is that monies collected have to be spent in the benefits district and so that's but putting getting that having it such that cuz I know when you started talking my first thought was let's make
it move over to 419 let's do that but uh yes and one of the things that I know when let's we can get over to the um this is one of the things we also asked public works what have we spent what have we been spending our funds on now I
don't believe that we've spent the uh I believe these are all um impact fees these are we haven't really I don't think we've spent mobility fees yet unless Mr. White tells me otherwise. These this was uh this is monies that we've spent on our two left turn lane
projects. Uh we spent a little over uh 1.168 million. Uh these were with the multimodal impact fees and these both of these were building turn lane capacity. Uh the Alfia Woods project was the extension of it and then of course the Mitchell Hammock the Lockwood Boulevard
one was the additional turn lane. So we did ask our that was from ours as well. So um one of the issues raised was again the 25% the timing of the payment the
payment of course it's within 10 days at the end of the quarter that's provided if there's money in the account as well. If the money's not in account there's nothing that we can really pay them. And let's see like I said Mr. OS did do a deep dive into the U state statute as
far as that he also did you have a chance to speak you didn't have a chance to speak with the county attorney very briefly very briefly yes so but the county attorney did provide a a um as part of their their information she the county attorney did provide some
information regarding that um let's see here this is just the proposed agreement as far as what it does and it does require the 25% set aside side. It does require that uh the county spend the money in the districts and it um does
talk about some other stuff, but uh but that's really the biggest ones and that the the the agreement is good for five years is what it's for. Are they amendable to letting us keep it in our account? Because if we have some lowhanging fruit and we can spend it in the 5 years that's required because I
think that's the the rule like the the new thing is you got to spend in 5 years or you give it back to the developer. If they can't spend it in 5 years in a useful way on a project in our benefits district and we can and we've already given it to them, I mean that just creates an extra step. So there seems to
be some sense in just letting it stay with us and we will probably have more small ticket items that we can knock out. Um so if they're open to it, I think it's a thing worth asking. They'll just have an IOU. Yeah, I'll
I'll only be repeating what I've learned from staff secondhand. It's it's my understand that it's my understanding that that uh was originally proposed in advance to the county. The idea that all right 25% share but it'll be parked right here. It'll be sitting right here.
Give us a call when you have a project and we'll send it on over for that. Apparently the uh county was I don't want to characterize it. I wasn't there. But my understanding is county staff was not not in favor of that. Uh, it was one of the one of the items that they and it
really comes down to interest. Okay, that's what I was going to say. If if they want to get the interest, fine. I just want to make sure there's a way for us to get it back so that we don't accidentally have the county lose 25% of what we collected from lack of spending it. And then we would need to on our end
be diligent enough to to somehow keep track of the money they've got and the clock on it. And I don't know how that Yeah, it's such a new law. I don't know that anybody's gotten to the end and said, "Oh, well, I don't think you have spent my 25, you know, my spent my stuff. Give me back my whole mobility
fee cuz I don't see anything for it." The the concept has existed. It it's just come down like a ton of bricks in the statute now, but the concept has existed in a lot of impact fees and other types of uh impact type fees, right? Yeah. Concept existed a long
time, built into a lot of ordinances and so on that the mechanisms by which it works go various ways. traditionally in a lot of those ordinances it would be you get it back if you come and jump through the right hoops to ask for it and do the right kabuki dance and all of this uh little
less so now but in any event I don't want to put words in the finance department's mouth but there there are general ways to track you know kind of money and how it's aged uh for these purposes and one of the things too is that the way the agreement is structured right now is that we would only give
them the funds collected we wouldn't give them the interest it would be without that. Uh I think yes they would like the money to go into their account so then they can acrew the interest as on it. Uh the one of the things that we could look at and discussing with them
again is that when they have a project if they have a valid project it's in our benefits area then they come in and say okay we've got this project we would like to draw down funds and we would hold it until the time that they came in with the project. I know Mr. Wyatt told me the other day
they're already talking about County Road 419 and the design and wanting the city to pitch in and help with the design of phase three. So, um but yes, that is something that we could go back to them and say we would like it to stay
that and rather than us just paying you quarterly that when you have a project you send us you tell us this is a project it's it's we want it for this purpose and then they would you know we would hold on to it until that time. I don't even mind giving them the interest. Uh
but you know that gets all complicated. So whatever whatever finance can track somehow. I just don't want us to get to year four and a half and all of a sudden we realize, oh, we got $3 million we need to spend usefully. And I don't know
what the rules are. Do you have to have it all the way spent and you have the thing to show or does do the funds just have to be committed and the project plan? I I don't know. But whatever it is, we should get into our patterns. Um, if if I may, Jonathan Paul and the
Urban Concepts, the the one benefit of it all coming to you is it's really up to you to track it now. You know, before it was it went to the county and then you had to kind of rely on them on how the money got spent back. Well, now you're the one sending the county the
money. So really, it's you collect it. You're going to be able to tell we sent the county $500,000 on this day. You can program a deadline five years out to say we need to see that money spent five years out from here.
Otherwise, we're going to request a refund per the agreement. So it's the way they the statutes read is they're spent on a first um first in first out basis. So the first money gets um paid, that money gets spent first. So you as a
city will be able to track what you send to them every quarter and it'll be up to you all to say, "All right, our five-year window is this day from this transmission or this day from this receipt um of these funds." So that is
one benefit that you all didn't have uh beforehand. So, I assume this will come back to council at a council meeting to approve the uh agreement. Uh yes, sir. Right now, we're on schedule to go July 21st. Okay. And
uh I guess what we need to figure out is what are what are our additional marching orders? I know we we gave you three questions. Um, you know, as far as this prepayment of the 25% set aside, I do not believe the
county will will buy into that. My recommendation is don't even don't even ask. Uh, Mr. Mr. Bose said he could not find a statutory way to enforce it. Uh, so but, uh, I think we cleared that one up as far as
how we go after that. So, okay. Number two. Number two is as far as um well this is just us holding it with the So it sounds like if I heard everybody right we're okay with them having it and getting the interest on it. We just want to make sure we can get it back if they
don't use it in five years. Is that correct? Everybody's on board with that. So if we can put something in there that just says if not spent however you guys want to word that. Okay. So, I want to thank you very I want to tease this out real quick because um
yeah, I was just double- checking the the exact language in the interlocal. A as it's in the interlocal right now, it's specifying that the county has to spend it within 5 years of the date of payment and if they don't then they have
to give it back to the payor. So, that's already in there. Yes. But I don't speak to the Yeah, that's the idea. Yeah, they're giving it back to the developer uh as opposed to it going somewhere. If we're sitting there with a pressing need
uh for a spend on on something out of this fund, county sat on it for x years and didn't use it and then it was just going to go poof. Um I guess that I I just want everyone to understand. Is there something something we could do like a warning like at a six-month out
where they check in with the city on if we have something useful for it? Is that I don't have any great bright idea Jonathan. Well, no, if I could the reason we put there there's actually a seven-year window in the your ordinance. The reason we put the five years in
there is because we then need some time to allocate that project. It is the county that said put that back there goes into the payor. The way we originally wrote the recommendation to the county was you have five years. If it's not spent in five years, it comes
back to the city. The city then has a year to spend that funds because if not after year seven, we have to reimburse it to the original person that paid those funds. So that's probably an error on the county's part. Your ordinance
says you have seven years. We recommended a five-year window because we wanted so we had we want the money spent, but it doesn't have to be spent. It should not go back to the payer. It should come back to the city and then if the city doesn't expend that in two years, the city would need to reimburse
that to So, is this just Can we get some clarification on if we can go back to what we intended? Is that what that is? Yeah, it it sounded like the ask would be to go back to what a prior draft was to say, county, you have you're getting this money, you have five years, you don't spend it in 5 years, it's coming
back here so we can figure out a way to spend it before our clock expires. And then if we don't spend it, then it goes back to the payer. Sure. Correct. Okay, that sounds good. Yeah, go forward with that. Okay, good on that one. We'll do that. And then there's a third one on here, right? Uh this is the uh oh this
idea is that if you know that the countyy's collecting mobility fees in the unincorporated area of our benefits district but there's no requirement for any set aside of those funds to come back into to come to the city. And the
idea behind it is is that when they collect their mobility fee for an unincorporated project, there's a more than likely there's an impact to a city city roadway, especially if it's in our benefits district. And so the idea behind this was to ask them to set aside
25% of their mobility fee to us for a project for a city project basically. I mean, have we fair is fair. ask them to send the money our way, too. We can
ask. Yeah. Again, just I'm I'm going completely secondhand based on what I've heard from staff. It's my understanding I've gleaned secondhand that that this ask has been made and it was uh violently opposed. Is
that is that my recollection accurate or That is correct. That's what I remember. But also is it are we talking about within the unincorporated semino county as a whole or just projects that affect just in our area? It should be within your mobility benefit district. Okay.
Within our mobility district and that is actually consistent with what statute is intending and also Florida statute 1633177 which is basically you're supposed to work out mitigation back and forth. So, I think it's a I think it's a fair ask
of them again. Um, and I will reiterate the um the original percentage, the actual share of the mobility plan was actually 10%. The 25% is the overall traffic on county roads within the city.
So, you could potentially argue, hey, 15% of that money we're going to set aside to make sure that you actually do what you're say you're going to do as part of negotiation. But but I I think the third one I think it's a valid you know valid argument. You have a
defined area. We've shown that that area goes primarily to Oido for most of its daily needs and it's in our technical report that area largely uses the services in the city to meet their daily needs. Um so I think it's a fair and
appropriate act and it's consistent with what statute says. I have a question. Would that require the county to change their mobility fee ordinance? No. No. Uh I think per Florida statute, it's an interlocal agreement between two local
governments. Both of you all have a plan. Both of you all have a defined area and this is a pretty defined area. And you've got a lot of unincorporated development right on the edge of your city impacting your city infrastructure.
And and to Jonathan's point, th this was actually in the memo. The one thing I did point out in reviewing the interlocal in its current draft just for its legal compliance with the statute. The one thing I noticed in looking at the language uh and as I laid out in the member, there are a couple different
ways to fix it. As Jonathan indicated, that's one of them. The statute requires that the interlocal agreement is supposed to address in whatever way advantageous or disadvantageous. It's supposed to address impacts from a city into the unincorporated county and onto
the county road network and impacts from the unincorporated county into a city. All right. Um the way the phrasing of the interlocal as it is currently, it's all talking about impacts of the city into the unincorporated county and onto the county road network. as I laid out
in the memo are the two ways to do it. Kind of gloss over it by rewarding some stuff to say, "Oh, that's the net number." Or as Jonathan said, you make an ask some number within this unincorporated area that's within the study area. That's a number that
represents, you know, impacted in the city. So, one way or another, my advice would be that piece has that piece for compliance with the statute has to be buttoned up, whether it's kind of the words smmithy way or having a number come back way.
I like the way where they give us their 25%. I I think it's a valid ask and I hope they if they feel it's a valid ask of us, it is a valid ask in return. I don't have a problem asking. Nope. I mean, it does seem fair as far as what
answer we get. We'll see. But, uh, and and you know, I would say if if for some reason they have a real big hang of about it, it would be helpful to have written into the ILA that we can ask for it at any time and they must give it to
us if we are using it in the benefits unit. So, if they want to hang on to it because they're hooked on interest or whatever, um, I I would like us to be able to access it whenever we need to. So I I think it's a it's an opportunity for joint funding of projects is that
when we've got a pri I this is this is one of the ones I can give you a a perfect example of one where u I was told to pound sand. Okay. Uh Mr. Britain, you'll be very you you'll be into this uh Hidden Cove
uh down in here. Okay. when I I read the uh traffic impact study for Hidden Cove and uh the first words out of my mouth was why why are they not showing any impact to Mitchell Hammock Lockwood
and the traffic engineer had sent all the traffic south when I know that the closest grocery store is north when I know that the closest way to get to 417 is north and at the time Mr. Wyatt was working on the
design of the u the the turn lane. And that was the first words out of my mouth was why aren't they contributing to the turn lane? And uh the whole thing about it was those impact fees should have been directed toward our Lockwood project is what they should have been
done. But the way that the county's study structure was set up, the onem boundary did not make it to Mitchell Hammock Road. So they sent everything south. And the best that we could get out of it was some median improvements, safety
improvements there where Simmons Road comes into into Lockwood Boulevard. But this would have been that would have been one where those impact fees could have been a joint project, you know, and so uh that's that's what I see this as. I I see this as an opportunity for us to
have that discussion on them setting aside that money within our benefits monies collected within our benefits district that could be used on as as Mr. Bose said their impact on our uh on our uh network. So maybe we need to make
that point. If I look at all the development on trail, right? Uh to the south, all the development on 426. Well, we already looked at all that outside the city. Have they ever lifted a finger to
address the impacts to us? Well, if you if you if you uh you know, like you said, there's uh there's Slavia Road. There's uh that that doesn't count. Slavia road. Are you kidding me? So I mean but those those
are what they'll tell. So I guess the the kicker for me is who gets to pick the order in which things are done the priority. So, if we give the 25% to the county and they have a different order that they'd like to do
things in than we do, that's where we might have preventable conflict if we negotiate it ahead of time through this agreement. Um, and in in particular, the 2 and a half million for the Slavia road, I do not see that going anywhere
in the next five years. So that's a huge chunk of money that we could, you know, ahead of time staffs get together and say, well, how can we actually spend usefully the most usefully 2 and a.5 million in the next 5 years? And I don't I don't even know
what the right answer is to this 2.5 million Oavia east or west. It's west of 426 over to Redbug. They're already they're already on. Oh, they already spent that money. They're No, they
available. That's what I'm saying. They spent this They've spent Yeah, they've spent some already. I think it's more on design, but there's 2.53 million available that they allocated to spend on the west. Understood.
I don't know that that's going anywhere in 5 years. So to to use all of it in studying, if we can think of ways to actually install the capital improvements, I don't know that studying counts as a capital improvement for
purposes of impact fees. So I'd rather do the things and not consume it and studying whether we could someday do the thing. You can use them for design. Okay. So design is one thing, but I I
don't know that that's going anywhere. It's a discussion worth having. I think as long as council thinks we have enough ways to spend $2.5 million. I have a question. If we are going to request the county to allocate 25% of the projects within the Ovido benefit
district in Simino County, right, in Simo, can you talk a little closer to the mic? So I have a question. If we're going to request, you know, um the county to contribute 25% for projects within their land within the uh of the benefit
district to the city. Should we replicate the same form of payment? Well, in the interlocal every quarter, are we going to do the same request, the same thing? That's what I my understanding was that everybody was aiming to whatever we do for them, if we're sending them quarterly 25%, they
send us quarterly 25%. And that's what you call a negotiation. I mean, that's why it's called an interlocal agreement. You're negotiating it is you come out the terms and at the end of the day you maybe you end up with what you originally had is we set aside 25% to fund these five projects if and
when you're already you know I mean that's you know a lot of the discussions that have gone on about the three years prior to you know how you handle that and what statute does or doesn't say. I mean a lot of that happens to be you know a negotiating stance and you know
you these are all opportunities to have a negotiation and you know at the end of the day if both sides get something out of it you know it's a fair one I mean most times they don't end up being a a win lose or win lose you just want a win-win for for
both parties. Mr. Cob, could you tell what I was trying to get? The piece of information I was trying to get cuz you speak my language better than anybody else, I think. And I don't know the answer to the question that I was asking. Like,
how much might we have using the formulas that I was kind of trying to articulate, right? How much are we off from it being imminently fair had we
passed this mobility fee on July whatever it is 2021 and boom everything had gone where it should have and everybody had agreed to the 25% from the get-go. Do we know yet? Can is it knowable?
Sort of. I think from the perspective what what you were trying to figure out is the funds that were paid directly to the county from when I'm going to say September 30th, 2021
cuz that's when the that's when it came road impact fee agreement terminated to the adoption of the mobility fee. So, those funds that were paid when the developer came to the building
department, uh, they paid the city fees to the city, but they brought us a receipt saying, "I went and I paid the county fee. Here's my receipt for paying the county fee." And so those fees that were paid during that time frame,
you're looking for that amount of money that was not it. So, I want to know how much of that was not spent in the Ovito mobility fee benefits district area and of that that was spent in the Ovito
benefits district area, how much is 25% cuz you know 100% went to the county, not 25%. And did we tr are we tred up?
I I still don't know if I I'm making that fully comprehensible. I Yeah, if if we're talking about like $200,000, I think h it's not worth thinking about. If we're talking about5 or $6 million, like I just don't even know what amount of money are we even
talking about. So you look at the talking about a couple of million point 1.1 according to us 1.2 2 according to them. Well, how do we get to 2.5 on Slavia Road? Is that other people's impact fees in that fund as well? Well,
that's that's the the um argument from the county that they can because they are they can use the whole suburban area, they can use the money in the whole suburban area. So, what they are telling us that actually we we have
allocated more than what we collected. They haven't spent yet, but they have allocated. So, how much of that 2.5 only 1.1 maximum could have possibly come from us. So we're in a better we are in better shape in which case I have no
problems at all. Uh and 25% going either way sounds lovely. So that that was my main concern. I just needed to know how much total. This was the this was the revised data from the county after we filtered out the school fees and the uh
and the library fees and as Dr. Ka said it came out to around 1.2 million. That's what it came out to. And then with us with the city based on the city data and this could just be how the two staffs classified you know the application and they could
also one. So about $100,000 difference probably less than $100,000 difference. All right. So I think we're cleared up there. We're all good. So is there anything else you need direction on for this? I think no if I just I as far as the three things that we were looking
for. Number one, we're not going to we're not going to bother with, right? Uh number two, uh we're going to take a look at um just a potential error and putting it back what the contract said for the seven years. Going back to the earlier
going back to the earlier one and then number three, we're going to ask them. We'll ask them and see what we can do. See what we can get. Okay. Any further questions on this prioritization? I think it would be helpful. And I don't remember all the terms of the proposed
ILA. Um for us to have some provision that if either organization asks the other like I maybe OVTO gets first dibs to pick the priority but because it is a pre-agreed list if they if there is a
tagged project that they want to manage. I mean, I guess we could ask for the money and then we could manage a project that maybe they have 75% of and we have 25% of and we just think it's really important. I don't know, Mr. V, you got any
recommendations on how to negotiate ahead of time this prioritization? So it's already built into the interlocal right now that the monies coming out and through this interlocal agreement have to be spent on projects that are either
in their mobility plan or our mobility plan. So that might be that might be a superset if you will like a larger list than you might want instead of drilling it down. But um but that list exists sometimes when you go look around the
state these other other interlocals in other places where they're negotiating they write in the specific projects into the interlocal. That's perfectly great and fine. I think the the mode of what in this draft was we already have two lists. Let's just import them by reference. Are we doing that though?
Because I'm not comfortable with us having our 25% be spent on things in their mobility plan. So it's in their mobility plan that law also in our benefit that lie yeah in their mobility plan that lie within our um benefit
district. Okay. Yeah. Has to check both boxes and that and that's close enough. But if we want to do a bunch of sidewalks and they want to keep on saving to do a road think I don't think we can control everything. But yeah, I get what you're saying. I think it might be worth it to
have some provision and and I'll rely on him as far as word smoothing, but a provision where the city could approach the county with a project for joint funding and vice versa. So that it truly is as Mr. as Mr. Paul did say, you know, truly
working as an interlocal agreement that if we have a project and we that we say, "Look, this is a very high priority. Could we work together on this? Use our mobility fees to pay for this." Uh, can we not do that in the language as theirs
now? Like, doesn't that allow it? I think I don't know if it's I don't think it specifically addresses that type of working together to jointly fund projects. I think it's more there's city stuff, there's county stuff and it's all within the benefits district. As far as
the counties uh as far as the county network is concerned, I haven't read it and reread it in a number of days, so I don't recall. I have four or five of these interlocals all swimming my head. Some with general coordination between managers type language, but um
we can take a look at that. But I wouldn't want the reverse to be true where if they have air quote credit on our end and they say we want to do this thing, give us all your 25%. Now, if we in our brains have a certain amount in the account and we have a
project in mind that we want to use that 25% for. So, you know, I I don't know how best to navigate that, if that makes sense. Yeah. Keep in mind whether whether that whether uh unless I've missed something. The whether their 25%
piece is physically sitting with us or sitting with them. That's still their 25 fe 25% piece to to use first because we can't necessarily rob Peter to pay Paul and then just hope some mobility fees come in to cover what we borrowed. You
know what I'm saying? So I think I think there's going to have to sit there or is it we should just spin we should spend the 100% no matter which account it happens to be parked in as fast as we can on things that are in
our benefits district. That's kind of how I would want to approach all of our projects. I would speculate that the county would not be very happy about the idea it's 25% if you can spend it first. Do you see what I'm saying? I I get it. I
mean, the idea of having the five years, you know, you got five years to spend it and if you can't do it in five years, then it comes back to us to try to spend it in the that's kind of a little bit of that. So, that is sort of the priority thing that So, it is kind of already settled in there that it's theirs and
the stuff they send us is ours until the fiveyear mark is up. Okay. It's all clicking in my brain now. Okay. So, they own it unless they give it to us. All right, I think we're gonna move on. I think we're good. Anything else from staff? Uh, no. Thank you, D.
Okay. All right. We're gonna move on to item number four, which is the discussion on linkage fees. Mr. Cob, I'm going to unplug. Let Dr. Kareah plug in for her computer on this one.
Didn't we talk about linkage fees? I asked this question as well. Yeah. Is there something new? That's No, there's nothing new. Not that I know of. Then why are we doing this? Where'd she go? We lost the mayor. Uh
we've talked about this at least twice since I've been on council. We've talked about it before. Uh mayor asked uh before we revised the uh our procedures, uh mayor asked if we could bring it back one more time.
So, um, we discussed that when we were Well, I think we should wait for the mayor since she brought it up. So, we'll just give her a minute. All right, I think we're good. Okay, so this um we are bringing this item back to
you. We have a discussion on linkage fees when we started the LDC rewrite. So it was together with the definition of family and I think we have either items. We had oneonone meetings. I think only council member art was not here back
then when we had the this this first discussion. So it's bringing it back um the idea of having a linkage fee um u in the city. So I'll go over quickly um we'll provide some overview on linkage
fees. um seek direction from council and see if if that is the case, what will be the next steps. Um so this is based on Florida statutes and um um it's Florida statutes 166 uh 04151
and talks about affordable housing u provides two ways to stimulate affordable housing either inclusionary zoning uh or housing where um the the city may require developers to provide a
percentage of their um residential units to be affordable. or uh have a linkage fee that in le of providing the units this the um city would uh request and require a fee to be
paid and uh um to be um to be funding um affordable housing. Um in both situations the statutes require um the uh
uh the cost to be offset by either um density bonus or waving impact fees and other fees. So it has to be so it's not um the city has to give something back.
Um so this is really a tool for local um governments to help support affordable housing. Um and they may be assessed at the time of the new development and they have to be placed in a fund that will be used specifically for the construction or maintenance of affordable um uh
resident residential units and it has to um provide a rational nexus. So cities will have to do a rational nexus studies to see what is the impact of the new development on the demand of um
affordable housing. So um the next studies will have to check the potential fee levels for the type of developments, the type of assessment, the exemptions and waiverss if there are any um how we going to use
the revenues, what will be the incentives to offset the linkage fee, any other um administrative provisions. Um so usually the nexus is that some types of development would trigger the need
for affordable housing and especially um commercial use um especially um restaurants that have a low pay um wage. It's a if you have that development in in the city then you
would have um lowinccome you know u salaries or you know employees and then that would trigger the a demand for affordable housing. The same thing with um sometimes high-end apartments or in construction um that you would have also
workers with low salaries and that would uh also trigger the a demand for um for um uh affordable housing. Um so you'd have to analyze the types of the development and what the demand um that
they would um uh impact or the the what they would trigger in demand. Um they also have to we will also have to analyze what will be the tradeoffs if it will be density or intensity bonus reduction of which fees including impact
fees or water and sewer charges or any other incentives that you um the city may provide. Um it's still not very much used in the in the state. So we you we researched the city of Winter Park is
the one that has the long longer um uh uh ordinance in place but talking to them um they say it's still the amount that they collect is very limited so it takes years to reach you
know something that can be used. Um they have um and I think we're going to talk about some individual cities. Um, so let's start with the town of Jupiter. They did not have an Nexus study done. They adopted the ordinance in Mayuh5
and the fee that they charge is $1 per square foot of only non-residential construction. Um, to date they have collected 200 $300,000 roughly and um they are they haven't used the funds yet. They are still
waiting to see the direction for the use of funds. Coconut Creek. Um they completed the nexus study um and they adopted the ordinance in 2006. The fees range for 0.15
um dollar to 2.42. So one for office, the other one for hotel. The only charge of non-residential construction and they um have collected um 2.6 million expended 1.6 six to provide you know
home assistance to 24 households and rehabilitation assistance to 19 households. City of Winter Park has the long um uh longer uh pro uh uh ordinance. Um they
um did a nexus study by reference. So they did in-house using other um studies and they charged $2 um per square foot for restaurants and $1 per square ft for office retail and
other non-residential use. they have collected last year 115,000 um and they said that it takes you know three years to do something like $300,000 that they can do you know um
that they can fund one project they have um some partnerships so they so they work with Habitat for Humanity and they also have um the Hannibal Square LN Trust so these are the two partners ers that they work
with. Um so we need to we are seeking direction from council on whether the city would like to pursue the adoption of an ordinance for um linkage fees and if so what would be the
next step would be to fund the study a nexus study. Um so that is what we are asking question for the direction. Thank you. Um, and like I said, this has come up twice already, and I feel like we've
we've hashed it out. So, unless something new has come, I believe you're the one who brought it out. I don't Something's better than nothing. And I don't know if I think four of us at least were here when the Seminal County Housing Authority came and was talking about their challenges in acquiring
financing to rebuild the section 8 housing behind Jackson Heights. Um, it may not be a lot of money, but something's better than nothing. And we are able to legally charge the fee. Um, nobody is thrilled
about new luxury apartments being built. If we can skim something that is mathematically justifiable because these luxury apartments are bringing lowly paid landscapers to do things or you know there's some where
you can sign up to have somebody pick up your trash from in front of your uh apartment. There's a lot of lowpaying jobs at these apartment complexes and these commercial places. Um to do anything that will make it more easy for
people who may work in these places to live in our community I think is the right thing to do morally is the right thing to do for our roads. So these people are not adding extra wear and tear to our roads. It could be life-changing and maybe some developer,
if we are uh aggressive with pursuing the highest fees possible, maybe somebody will choose to actually build integrated affordable housing. It's it's worked pretty well in Gainesville. Probably they're the most
aggressive uh jurisdiction to pursue the use of linkage fees. Uh that's actually the city I was in when I discovered it existed and it sounded so good I didn't think it was true. So they had to bust out Florida statutes and be like, "No, look, you can charge this." And it's it's remarkable. It's it's a fantastic
tool that we have that for whatever reason there's some sort of hesitancy to use. People are coming. They're building luxury apartments. And we can't stop the luxury apartments, but we can do this to try to make
affordable housing. You It's our nudge. It's our only tool, the only one we've got. Anybody else? So, what exactly is the downside doing this? because if this has come up before
I mean I can the summation of multiple discussions is some of the examples kind of show it. I mean Jupiter a great example 10 years they've collected $275,000 that they took from developers. They haven't spent a penny because no one's collecting enough to actually do
anything. Winter Park 35 years they've had it one of the longest in the state and I just did the math on there. They have built 15 homes over 35 years and they've donated a little bit to Habitat for Humanity. Yeah. Uh we also are
required by state law if we do this to give density bonuses and incentives equal to the amount that we take from developers. So we're incentivizing developers that are already making money on these luxury apartments. And then on top of that, we're also charging the
money is coming from commercial properties like small businesses, like restaurants. So, some of them were like a couple dollars per square foot. You're opening up your new business. We already have impact fees, things like that. And now you're getting hit with a up to$10,000 plus dollar bill on top to pay
for affordable housing. Small businesses are struggling right now. So, I just don't see the benefit of adding another fee that doesn't actually accomplish making affordable housing. In practice, I can't haven't seen an example where it works. and you're also having a downside
to small businesses. So, that's where I came at it last time, but if I'm missing anything, I mean, we just we've had extensive discussions. We all up here are passionate about finding a solution to affordable housing. I have not seen this work. What is it about Gainesville that makes
it work or what what is different? That that wasn't in the presentation, right? The Gainesville we did not detail. No. So they are have a much higher fee. So there there is a higher pain point. You
actually have to think well man they have told me that I can build I don't know what their numbers are exactly but let's call it I get a 10% density bonus if I incorporate into this housing project affordable housing.
So that was the idea of the density bonus right originally in our comp plan was to stimulate workforce housing. Um unfortunately back then the density bonus was not enough to stimulate
developers to apply for density bonus. Now our density bonus allows for other you know other uh benefits for the developer right so they can enhance the public realm so it's not specific to
affordable housing so this is one way to go is to stimulate with incentives I think linkage fee is you you charge a flat fee right a flat fee it it's very per square
footage or yeah per yeah but it has to do with how much space you're bringing in and how much activity and all that stuff. So there's you know it meets the dual rational nexus test and all the good things that impact fees need to do. So I guess our question is back has
your mindset hasn't changed, right? I'm in my mindset hasn't changed. I mean I'm I'm opposed to it. Well, mine hasn't changed because I always bring up the Saddowski fund and what are they doing with that money which is a state fund
that's got I don't know, Mr. Voss, you can help me. maybe millions of dollars in it that they they rate every year and it's being paid for out of I think dock stamp uh fees. Um I I don't recall the numbers right now, but that that is a common pattern
last many decades. Yes, sir. Um and if the state's not going to do anything to use those funds, why should we? It's a tool that we could use to slow down development, even if it's just a little bit. Well, I think you got a majority here. I
guess so. Okay. Uh I think we're still a no on linkage fees, it sounds like. Okay. All right. So, we already went over item number five. Is there anything else for the good of the order? I do have one quick thing. uh working
with some a recent high school grad, recent UCF grad and a current high schooler and trying to help people uh become aware of their water using habits. Um if council's okay with it, I'd like to take the list, it's public
record of the top 100 most intense water users, send them a letter on uh on city letterhead. Yeah, it could come from me or whatever. and uh then send the interns out to knock on their doors and see if they would like additional
information. Uh you the letter would of course include information about the 50% rebate on a smart water timer or a um rain gauge. There's there's a lot of programs through St. John's that don't require the city's involvement and um I'm ready to get this thing jump started
to see if we can get some data. Mr. Chicago, is that something we need like consensus on? Is that a concern with like liability on interns knocking on doors or Well, one of the things was since council since council hadn't really endorsed the the
the program, I thought it would be good to get direction for us to send the letter send the letter out on the city letter head. Uh but as far and plus want to make sure that the residents know that why the interns are coming to disc.
It's not they're not coming there to solicit them to purchase these these rain gauges. It's it's there to show them that there is a way for them to through the state program that they could get reimbursed for something that could help them reduce their their
irrigation. I think it is the irrigation usage. Yeah. to help them reduce their irrigation usage concern. Did we not discuss doing like a kind of open house here and inviting the top users out and kind of educating them that way? There was like talk about doing that. Well, we
have to tell them somehow. So, no. Sure. But like that was a discussion item. I believe that's part of that old education thing we talked about with Mr. Ford, right? Okay. Um, yeah. You know, rain gauges are required last time I checked. If they're
not using them, maybe we need to go enforce that. I don't know how you enforce that, but yeah, as far as educating people, if a drain gauge is if a sprinkler system is going off in the middle of a thunderstorm, that's that's a good indicator. All right. So, it sounds like
everybody's okay with this idea to get out the first hundred letters, give these guys something to do the last half of summer, and then we can think about it whatever pace council thinks is a good idea, part of the education program. Yeah. Can we get a copy of the letter beforehand and make sure we're all on board? Sure. Does that work?
Yeah. Okay. Okay. Who would it be coming from? It'd be coming from from you. Yeah. Yeah. Seems fine. I mean, educating. You don't necessarily need our permission to send stuff from you, right? Well, it's going to come on
city letterhead, so people don't think it's a wonky thing. that that's the really the the ask is you know maybe it's more an announcement than an ask is you know I don't have a problem educating people part just part of the education process
but what the main thing was is that they're going to be talking about the state program that they can get 50 is it 50% reimbursement 50% back on the um smart smart irrigation control is what it is and and even the most perfect
users Deerra from St. John's River Water Management District. She was perfectly using her rain gauge and she would go out and turn off if it had rained and she knew it, she would turn off the water for that time. But when she switched to the smart meter, she instantly uh used 30% less. And that's a
person who's doing it right. So, I'm sure there's people who are not doing it right who will save substantially more than 30%. And and that's the thing with the rain sensors. cuz I know like with my rain sensor, uh, the battery dies every so often and I don't realize it and so I have to go back out and change
out the batteries, you know? I think what you're talking about is more than a sensor. It's a smart controller, right? And it it uh it integrates the weather forecast, right? Like what if it's going to rain tomorrow or supposed to? Well, it sounds like we could use some
education at this table. So, I have no problem with educating people. So, it sounds like we're good there. Anything else? All right, we are adjourned at 7:25.