Just let me know when. >> Okay. No, no problem. >> Until six o'. >> Okay. >> Well, we can wait till 6 if everybody wants to take a quick break. >> No. Was that was that time or was it immediately following? >> I just I had 6:00.
>> Okay. Then we meeting was that was put on after >> Okay. So we do So it's been published at 6 p.m. Is that okay? Take a quick break >> and come right back just before 6, please.
Trees, trees, trees, trees. o'clock, right? >> Welcome everybody to the second city commission second budget workshop. It is April 29th, 2026 and it is 6 pm. So I'm calling the meeting to order beginning with the invocation by pastor Malbury.
Pledge of allegiance led by Commissioner Borum. Please stand if you are able. Again father again thank you for this day. We give you praise and glory for your goodness towards us. We ask God that you will bless us continuously as we seek to
move the city in the proper and direct direction. We thank you God. Your hand is upon this city. You know what to do. Touch the leadership God. Touch every one of us. You know God what we need. Give us the wisdom that is conducive for
the times that we live and we'll forever give you the praise. The glory and hon is dying. It is in Jesus name. Amen. >> Amen. >> Please join me in the pledge. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Roll call, please. Madame clerk. >> Commissioner Davis, >> present. Commissioner Campbell, >> present.
>> Commissioner Borum, >> present. >> Commissioner Jones, >> here. >> Present. Thank you. Going on to public comments for any items not specified on the agenda. Excuse me. Is there anybody here for
public comment? Seeing none, we'll close public comments and we'll move on to discussion direction. I've been asked by Chief SH to pull the presentation on elite parking services. So, we won't go over that. Um,
>> I actually asked for that to be pulled, Mayor. >> Oh, okay. Then, I'm sorry. >> I just want just for the record, >> Commissioner Jones asked to pull. Um so that is going to be pulled and we are going to go on to Miss Pierre revenues
that says good afternoon mayor commissioners and everyone in attendance. Um before I begin, I would like to just follow up from the first budget workshop meeting. There were a few items that were mentioned that were finance related and
I wanted to um acknowledge the these items were sent to you via email. The budget in Excel and readonly format was emailed. The explanation regarding carry forwards was emailed.
The an explanation for the transfers in and out was emailed. Confirmation of the setup of the airport account and the tiff bank accounts were um provided or confirmed.
Do you have any questions regarding those the items that were submitted to you all via email? And I'm present to answer those questions. I don't have any right now >> and I don't either and I just want to say thank you for your followup.
>> You're welcome. >> I do have a question in reference to the accounts and if you talk about the email I I actually sent a response back on the email asking to identify the institutions that we actually have those
accounts with for our purposes umformational purposes. I don't know if that's usually asked about, but we know that we bank with a specific bank at this time, which is our I guess our I think you and I had a conversation on the phone. I suppose I had a a response
back, but with a marriage bank, that's our primary bank. >> That is correct. >> Do we have any other financial institutions that we actually have either the uh interest accounts or our uh investment accounts with other than banks?
We have uh accounts related to pension um that's with principal bank but as far as our dayto-day operational accounts or savings
um it's through a mayor's bank. We do not have any um investment bank accounts regarding that are not like pension related at this time. Am I answering the question?
>> Let me let me let me ask the question. Do the city of Palaka have any other bank accounts period that funds are transferred into or out of at all? I just want to know. So whether
it's for investments or whatever, I just want to know that bit of information. Do we have any >> financial institutions that we do business with? >> Okay. >> Directly our funds go there or we get funds from them.
>> Okay. I would like to confirm what I've said before that Amer's bank is where we hold deposits, daily transactions and we have other accounts that are pension related
that are considered fiduciary uh accounts. This is from accounting perspective. So we don't we don't have ownership of those accounts meaning we don't access them because they're considered fiduciary meaning we we have a pension administrator the resource
center um the HR is the has uh expertise knowledge on the interactions with the resource center because the resource center is our pension administrator and just to clarify for for um payroll
that goes through Wells Fargo. Correct. Payroll checks are cut through Wells Fargo. >> So, just so that's clear, >> we have a third party vendor. Yep. >> ADP checks through pay through >> that process checks through payroll, but we do not have access to that Wells
Fargo account. >> Correct. But I just to clarify that that that account is through ADP. >> That is account is through ADP. We do not have control. We do not have access of that account. We hired this third party company ADP to process payroll on
our behalf and print checks on our behalf. >> So any payroll checks come through ADP? I mean uh Wells Fargo. >> Correct. And Miss um >> I mean since you say Miss Jones. >> Okay.
>> You want to add anything? Any employee that does not receive electronic deposit of a payroll check would receive a printed check and that comes from ADP printed from A and Will Fargo is their bank. >> Okay. So, we do have to transfer funds to
>> No, we don't transfer funds to them. >> How does that >> So, what they do is we process payroll and then we pay ADP if they're printing manual checks and they did it. They We have two or three people that get manual checks. They just don't want direct deposit. So those checks come to us on
the Thursday after we process payroll. And that is a Wells Fargo Fargo check and that's ADP. So it's listed as Well Fargo. It's not city of Palica. It's ADP Wells Fargo. >> Great. That clear up a lot of stuff. Okay. Thank you.
>> I got one one question on >> Davis was before you and before me actually. >> I just want to follow up and this is for Miss Pierre. So, you have an email request with a similar question. And so, I think one of the um and and I sent it
via email because I know when I send a a question, it goes to all commissioners. Um so, I think the point of this is for clarification. The response we're asking is maybe we should ask a different question and that question is does the city have
any business that come from other accounts and that would have been on there as a response um as Commissioner Jones said to clear it up that we contract with ADP but ADP use as Wells Fargo. I think what we're trying to get
to is understanding any city business that comes from a specific bank. And so while the city may not hold the account, we do business from that account through our vendor, if that makes sense. So I think that's where
we're trying to get to with some of the questions we have. Um it's not do we have an account but we really want to understand does the city get anything generated from a bank directly or indirectly and if so what's the name of
that when you responded to that request to all commissioners. So I would like to ask when you see the email if you could respond to that at some point in the future. I know you're very busy right now but if you could respond to all commissioners with that information. Thank you.
Yes, I'll be more than happy to provide that information and answer any other questions you may have. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, go go ahead. I think we're almost Oh, did you have something, Commissioner BMS? >> Well, it was just one thing that um, Miss Jones had brought up as it related
to um, how we normally, I guess, do dispersements of checks or payment electronically or what have you. and said there was a couple people who um only wanted theirs um printed in a
way. So question is that the city standard to be able to do electronic that's the way we do business and what is the additional cost associated with having to do manual checks um in that regard
>> there is no additional cost um in that aspect but like when we did bonus checks when we do and printed all of the manual payments that came through around December time that's that was a additional check run so that was a cost but for employees because an employee
can go in in the middle of a pay period and add a bank account. If that bank account is not pre-noted instantly, they're going to get a paper check for that. Um, so that's not an additional cost in that aspect. >> Okay. >> So employees in a regular payroll,
whether they come electronic or paper, there's not a cost. So, so yeah, my question was that I was just thinking that it would be for that particular or those individuals on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. >> We have two I think it I think it's
about two, but then we have more than two that comes in sometime and it's because people add a bank account and it doesn't get pre-noted. So, they will get that paper check for whatever amount they had going into that account. >> Thank you. Appreciate it, >> Commissioner Davis. So, Miss Jones, that
that then gives me a question and a recommendation again because it's very rare in this day and age for companies to even allow that that the city does not have a policy on how paychecks will be entered. So, that may be an
opportunity to address that. I I I mean, I've had positions where getting a manual check is not an option on an ongoing basis. Of course, when they set up new accounts, but that's a policy that the city may want to look at. We just happen to have two people now, but
it sounds like we're open to if someone requests it, we couldn't deny them because we don't have a policy, but just a recommendation. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you. All set. Okay, Miss Pia, we're back back on the um agenda. Try
So, everyone should have received the presentation. If you could turn to that that's towards the the back of the >> Unfortunately, we have technical
difficulties that is not able to be um provided on the screen. However, it was posted online. >> I want to say revenue. >> Yeah. Budget workshop will be the first page.
And that picture there is indicative of what a budget should be. Um it takes a team effort to build a budget. Um and we have some things that we're facing as a city that I want to cover in
tonight's workshop. Um the only item that I'll say that requires action or requires um direction is with the fire assessment. So when I get to that point, I'll mention what information I need from the dis.
But ultimately tonight's discussion is about planning and discussion to give an opportunity and close the knowledge gap as it pertains to revenues. So if you could, this is an overview of
the sections that we'll be covering. We're going to talk about property taxes. We're going to look at revenue trends, the fire assessment of course, and then potential other sources of revenue. We'll talk about transfers in and out,
the cash balance forward and proceed with um any questions, clarifications and that nature. I kindly request um I would like to be able to go through the sections first. Um for example, the first section,
property tax. I want to go through that in its entirety and then give you an opportunity to raise questions, concerns, and so forth. Okay. So now I'm on this page and this is just to highlight the fact that we
have a potential concern as a city. Many of the cities have this concern where there's a level of uncertainty as it pertains to property tax. The impact of it, we don't know because the as of
April 2026, existing property tax laws exemptions, they remain in place. As the 2026 regular legislative session ended in March without passing a finalized constitutional amendment to the November 2026 ballot, those special sessions may
still occur. So, there's there's an an uncertainty as it pertains to property tax. And we certainly want to take a conservative approach regarding this. So I'm on the second page here that says property tax overview.
So the first point I want to make with property tax or advalorum tax. These are considered general revenue or general purpose local governments. And this information comes from the Florida Legislature Office of Economic and um
demographic research. The second point I want to make is the Florida League of Cities defines unrestricted revenues as flexible funds used for general operations primarily consisting of advorum taxes, municipal
utility taxes, communication service taxes, and local business taxes. So these revenue sources are crucial. They're essential for funding essential services for example like police, fire, and the other departments that comprise
of the general fund. So this this table is to highlight the percentage of what the Florida League of City defines as unrestricted revenues. At the top we see advalorum taxes and this was for the
year 2425. It's a $4 million a little over $4 million which represents 68% of unrestricted revenue. Now I know that the city has a large what's considered a large budget but a lot of it is geared
towards capital. We are an aging city. We have aging infrastructure that needs to be replaced, repaired, maintained. So that that level of that part of the budget that is capital intensive is absolutely necessary and needed but
there's a side of this for operating for operations to keep the lights on to keep the AC to keep this the the operations going. So capital funds cannot be used for oper operating. So I just wanted to make that clear and
plain. So the these three or these four revenue types are to keep the city operating. And now we're on this page. Um property taxes percentage of unrestricted revenue. And this is just
for my visual folks. I'm visual. So I like to see the pie chart. So you can see that big section in blue which is the 68% that represents advalorum tax. So the city relies heavily on Avalorum
taxes for operations and the other taxes here are the next highest percentage 25% is the municipal utility service taxes which we do have an opportunity to
increase it but there are limitations to do that. The local business tax, which is otherwise known as the occupational tax, that's only 1%. Communication service tax, that's only 7% and that comes from the state. That
gets collected by the state and um it's considered like a state shared revenue. It gets collected by the state and then distributed to the city. Okay. And now we're on this page. So this is just to give you an overall over
overall view of all the general fund revenues that are operations related. So at the top when you look at this all-encompassing chart, 34.96,
you might as well say 35% of that represents property taxes. And right beneath that is our fire assessment fees which represents 18.8%. Then you have our utility taxes,
franchise fees, the state revenue sharing, local options, communication taxes, court order judgments, fines, and so forth. But this is our our breakdown of the revenues that we use
that I just want to highlight how key and how important it is for I guess those top two advalorum taxes and fire assessment fees. And just imagine if we didn't have both of those that would be a significant
hit. 35 plus almost 20% that's s that's a significant percentage if you add that together 60 68 35 and 20 yeah 58 58%. Okay,
we're going to move on to this next slide in the green table which is um named collection rate and this is just to show you as well the progression over the past few years. The first line is a
budgeted amount. Um the standard operating procedures for a budgeted amount is it's a percentage of the levied amount. That levied amount comes from the property appraiser. They would send a notification
the uh the um trim notice and they would send a notification to us as a city to let us know this is how much we it that can be levied. But the amount levied is not the same as what we actually collect. Cuz there are folks that can't afford to pay. There are folks that um
they might get set up with an installment plan and have to pay a portion of it in in bits and pieces. So our collection rate is what I want to highlight. You can see in 202122 there's a collection rate of 89.9%.
2022 23 you see the 85.93%. 2324 the 90.19% collection and then um our latest the 2425 is a 88 um 57%.
So normally the range is within like 95 to 90%. But because we're in a fiscally constrained area, the collection rate is significantly lower.
So that's something to consider that say the uh the state approves that okay, we're going to lower property taxes, it's going to happen in phases. We're going to lower it by 25%, 35%. Whatever they lower it by, we always
have to consider that. um we we're not going to collect the full levied amount. It'll always be based on past historical knowledge here. It'll always be within this range. And the conservative approach is to assume
that the collection rate would be 85.93% the lowest rate. So, I'm I'm a numbers person, so I know sometimes I can go down the rabbit hole, but I just wanted to for the v the folks that are visual that um that they I want you
to see and understand that yes, we there's an advalorum amount that's levy, but we don't get the full amount. Okay. So before we move on to revenue and trends, I would like to give you an opportunity to raise any questions,
concerns about the information presented so far. >> Anyone have any questions so far? >> It's not necessarily a question, but it is for uh clarity as people are, you know, up and along about the uh
property taxes maybe going away. Could you explain or I don't know if legal want to do it while we're in this budget workshop that all of the property taxes are are not slated to go away. It's only
homesteaded properties. So, we won't lose all of this because when you say abalone taxes um that that all property, not just homesteaded property. Is that correct?
So at the start of this legislative session, I believe there were about five different proposals that were being considered. Some were quite drastic in terms of eliminating all. Um there is going to I I don't think anything's going to happen this year. Uh it's not
slated to. So I do think this is something that we may see in the next legislative session, but it we cannot predict what form it's going to take. So, as of right now, we're okay for this next upcoming fiscal year, but I there
is pressure to eliminate all property taxes, >> right? So, I I just don't want people to be up in arms and I don't want us to panic as well, Sure. >> by saying, "Oh, we we can't adjust the fire assessment fee because we're going
to lose all the Avalor taxes because that's not about to happen." Um, however, you know, when you start talking about the economic impact and us being fiscally responsible, that's why we made mention that we have to tighten the belt on some maybe government
spending to be prepared for that. So, I just wanted to make that statement and actually make sure that I'm saying it right. um as we go through and look at what we're about to do as far as uh with with our budget and and looking where
where we could make adjustments. I'll just say it that way. So, I just wanted to make sure I was on the right trail because when you say that that we may lose all the avalorum taxes, first of all, not all at once. And secondly, not all the taxes right now. I
think the main focus is on homestead it >> and I just don't think we truly know at this point what may or may not happen. It's very unpredictable based on the number of proposals at the state level. So we could lose it all. We could lose just a portion. Um we do have to tighten
our belts of course to prepare for this but we also have to be careful about how quickly we tighten our belts too tight so that we don't cover what we have upcoming. >> Um yeah. So, it's going to be a balancing act. Go ahead, Commissioner Davis. >> Well, since we're on this topic, you're
right. We don't know what we don't know. And um Commissioner Jones, you um I will say you're you're right, but I want to talk about this is talking about eliminating property taxes. And you're
right. It's not all advalorum taxes, but property taxes in particular. And for our city, property taxes, as you can see on the information Miss Pierre just gave us, especially when we're talking about
it in terms of um unrestricted revenues, I know there are probably some other taxes in here with Avalor, but the bottom line is whether you're specific with the number not or not, property taxes um make up the p the majority of our
city's revenues. So, no, it may not happen today. It may not happen tomorrow, and it may never happen, but what you have to prepare for is if it does happen to have a plan. And one of the things I'm considering as we're in
this budget review is what does that really mean to our city? Um, and we can talk about some other communications for our citizens to understand it better, but at the end of the day, let me just say the state of Florida is going to get money. What
we're really looking at with property taxes potentially going away is a loss of decision making at the local level. money will go to the state and the state will however determine how they want to allocate to cities or other
municipalities. And so the decision making really comes from there because they're determining how much money we can get. It doesn't it also does not mean that our citizens won't pay for something. We're going to pay for something. We just may have to adjust it. You can call it, you may not be able
to call it a property tax, but we will probably have to come up with some kind of fee or some other allowable tax to offset those revenues. So, the one message I want to get out right now with all the unknowns is this. Nothing is
free. We will be paying. It just may be called something differently and potentially we will lose making decisions at our local level and have our state making them depending on dispersements of monies from the state.
So that's really what I want to say now that's for sure if this happens you know we have insurance in case of and so while we may not know and it may not happen today or tomorrow we still need to do some reductions anyway just for
efficiency and mayor you are correct I agree with you we're not going to cut cut cut we have to work but we are definitely hopefully going to look at reducing in areas that can stand reducing and I hope some areas will increase because some areas need some
increases and I don't think what we have the opportunity to do is find some efficiencies. So, thank you. >> Anybody else? >> Yeah. And there's another uh area here when we start talking about impact fees.
So, you know, we reenacted impact fees and commissioner Borne the most senior up here. He probably talked about it more than me. Uh and it just showed that percentage 1.06% 06% um of the revenues are from impact fees.
Well, um we should have seen that go up a little bit because there's been more building going on and um infrastructure projects and and and and development going on. So, I would expect
for that to go up. Do you miss Pier? or have that just been the trend and that's where we are to date that does those old numbers or just it's not impacting that much as much as we thought. >> That's a great point that you're making.
I believe Mr. Agimmo will be the expert as far as the timing of the impact fees. Based on my knowledge, the um impact fees are charges for new developments to help pay for infrastructure improvements needed to grow roads, parks, fire
services, and utilities. So, I'm I believe this is just my professional opinion that if you have a construction or new development, it's not until a certain point of the process. I don't
know if it's at the end or I don't believe it's at the beginning because so many uncertainties can happen. So it must be at the end of the the conclusion of the construction development that at that point impact fees would become due. >> I think Miss West can kind of speak to
that. >> It's at the point of the issuance of the building permit. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Which is the end. Right. And to the point to that point when we uh we had the joint meeting with the county commission, you remember the there was
some ind discrepancies in reference to, you know, let's just say the St. John's uh Avenue projects. Some of it's half city, half county. How are we going to have we discussed that any further? because I haven't heard anything else
about it of how we were going to, you know, divvy up the funds of the inact fees and um you know, when we start talk about budget and funds coming in, that's something that we need to actually have some kind of >> clarity
>> clarity on. You know, >> in the absence of an interlocal service boundary agreement, which we had proposed and was rejected by the county, the only path forward on splitting those capital costs is to do it on a case-byase basis uh for each new development if it does impact county
roadway. We can enter into a a cost share agreement with the county for that particular development in the absence of a a a general ISBA. So, are we considering those things when we approve these projects? I don't know if we have
in the past. I don't really recall that those conversations coming up, but um we have to we have to capture that at least have a method of capturing it um >> during that process. >> U Miss West, correct me if I'm wrong,
but the way we calculate impact fees is governed by what's in our ordinances. Is that right? >> Correct. which is governed by state statute. >> All right. But again, have we tweaked those because we remember we were not even getting any impact fees. I mean,
Commissioner Bor, help me here if if I'm wrong cuz we reacted reenacted it. Um I don't know if these conversations even came up because if it was ordinance and then we actually suspended the impact fees, we bring them back. Did we have that discussion so that we are
recapturing the money? I mean because we haven't had any further discussion. I don't know if we have changed the ordinance to reflect. >> No. So the county only enacted their impact fee ordinance in the middle of
last year, right? >> Um so no, we have not had any situation where we have that case by case analysis. Currently, 100% of the impact fees that we assess for development coming into the city,
the city keeps all 100% of those impact fees. It wasn't until the adoption of the county's ordinance where there came into some question about their but let me clarify that that is not the city paying any portion of the county's
impact fees. would be the developer paying for that one fund of government building impact fees. >> I got you. And that does clarify. But um but we can expect with the building with the development that's going on that we
should increase that should increase that number should increase. You don't think so? So in order to increase impact fees and we are coming up due on this it we have to base that on a basically a a study um done by an accounting firm and
that has to be done once every five years. So we're coming up on that point very soon and once that study is complete then only then can we raise our impact fees. I don't think that's what he was saying. I don't think that's what he said. I think he was saying that we
should see an increase in the impact fees coming in based on the development and the permitting that's been >> pulled in the city to date that we should see more impact fee revenue coming in. >> Right. We've had over 400 or 500 u you know applications in for uh development
or what have you. And so I agree with uh Commissioner Jones as it relates to that. If but again also it depends on whenever they do the permitting process. If they're not com complete with the construction then there could be some of the lag. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But it's good that the study was
too soon too. >> Um go ahead. >> Um impact fees are often not what they seem. So I just came from EMO2 training as a new commissioner. So, this is fresh, but
nevertheless, um here's my big takeaway from our discussion in class about impact fees is remember impact fees are only um on what the new development is going
to impact. It cannot go back and be used for, you know, any existing maintenance issues or anything. So, while it sounds like it's going to have some immediate impact, it's really for, in other words,
if you're not planning to fix a broken road now, the impact fee is not going to be able to fix that broken road. It can only be charged to the extent that it's going to continue breaking the road. >> So, broke is broke. But so in and considering that impact fees only
represent 1%. The other thing we have to be careful about with impact fees as well is because we're in a county that charges impact fees as well. And so of course it is the cost of doing business and allowing growth in our city. But again, it's not necessarily black and
white. You got to weigh pros and cons of people coming in and the growth and what that looks like and how we have a plan to address our aging infrastructure already because again that u impact fee
is only for a piece of impact from that new development. >> Clear as mud. >> Thank you. Um go ahead Miss Pierre. Okay. >> Okay. I ask everyone to move on to the
re revenue trends um slide and this is just a look back at the revenues for each of our funds starting with the general fund from 2021 all the way to 2025.
you can see the um progression um over the years and this kind of helps you see the big picture for my visual folks. Um the airport is listed there and we can see the gradual increase.
Um the water fund, the golf sanitation, ARPA funds which are grants and the better place which are um solely for capital improvements. And that gives you the overall picture
just of revenue in its entirety for each fund. Any questions on this slide? >> Can you get it any smaller? >> It's too small. >> Strange, huh? >> It's too small. >> It is. >> Okay.
>> With glasses on. Did did something happen with um the 2022 cuz it looked like maybe something in that formula that it's showing 17 million 8 something or what have you but
the the bar the bar graph is way exceeded let's see and we got 30 is that 30 is that 16 million or 36 >> 16 so it's right 16 I'll just double checking because then I was using the
best view I had with that. So, okay. You're right. Appreciate it. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. We can move to the next slide. >> So, this is our fire assessment.
So, the and these are just four options I'm presenting to you today regarding the first tier and second tier. We'll look at the the first option on the top left, which is no rate change. The rates
would remain the same. The $246 cents for tier 1. And that would result in revenues of $1,869,59754. And our second tier rate will be $125. and together it's about 2.3
um million in revenues. Now this fire assessment is to cover the fire budget which is over 4 million 4.5 million. So re really and truly the fire assessment covers half of the cost of the fire
budget just to so you can kind of compare and see that how significant um the fire assessment is. The the next option on the top right is are the rates
discounted at 5%. So rather than the um $246, it would be $2.34 for tier 1 and that would result in 1 mill 1 million 1.7
million in revenue and tier 2 at $118.75 and that total that would be 2.2 u million. It would result in some savings for our um residents. However, it would put more
pressure on the general fund because we can't cut our fire um department. Um so, it would result in a little over 100 100,000 um that would put more pressure on the
general fund to cover that gap. The um bottom left are is a discounted rate of 10%. Which the rate for tier one would be $221. Tier 2 $112.15.50
and that um total is about 2.1 million. And then we have our rates discounted at 15%. which would result in tier 1 $29 and tier 2 $16.25. Now, we do have Mark Lawson available on
Zoom. Um he thankfully, special thanks to Mr. Lawson. He prepared um this information that I'm presenting before you tonight. Um, so if you have any questions, we do have someone that can
speak more um more thoroughly on the fire assessment, but I want to highlight how important it is to receive direction from you all this evening. This would give the city ample time to advertise
the rate. um we would have to advertise um at least 20 for at least 20 days and that would be in line with having a public hearing on May 28th. That's a regular commission meeting date. Um and just keep in mind that what whatever you
rate you set tonight, it's not set in stone. Now, if you if you decide tonight we want to publicize a discounted at 5%, we can never increase or go above that. Um, so
in my I will just offer in my humble opinion um if you set it at a no rate change then you always have room to discount it or decide we want to lower it at the budget hearing on May 28th. So nothing
that you decide tonight is um means that it's a final decision because we're in a budget workshop. We just want to be proactive and make sure the city has ample time to advertise within the 20 days and also have the
budget hearing or the hearing for this fall on the May 28th commission meeting. And u Mr. Lawson is available if you have um questions or concerns and I'm here as well. >> Does anybody have any questions of Mr.
Lawson? >> No. No. I just um want to make a comment though. Go ahead. But I think most people issue with with what the fire fee is as it relates to that and how it's
um assessed is it deals with the assessed value of the home as opposed to the um actual just say for instance if if they increase I mean you can have not done anything to your home
>> and the the value goes up 15 $20,000. That's what the residents are feeling as it relates to taxes increase even if you did nothing
with if it stayed flat. So that's what they're seeing even with um just regular residents. But so how do how we have to put some kind of control mechanisms around that to be able to assist and aid in that regard
because initially the fire fee was put in place to help the city balance its budget because in the past coming in in 2015 prior to then the city couldn't balance it budget and had only $500,000 in
reserves and you can't operate um a month with 500,000 in in reserves. So if you had a a situation then the state would come in and if and we was at 9.1478
miller rate. So you could not increase if you increase the miller rate up to 10 once you get to 10 you had the state get involved >> right? So you only had limited amount of uh um millish you can increase to to
try and maybe get in whatever improvements need to be made whether it's infrastructure which you could not get because based on your bond rating we had crap bond rating prior to 2015. So we made some tough decisions during
2016 2017 time period to be able to bring in this to be able to get to where we are today. The initial thing was to try to just have it for a period of time to make
sure that we got a healthy budget, built the reserves and different things of that nature so that we can operate efficiently and effectively and and be where we are today because we had no infrastructure improvements prior to 2015. So what we have now is we're in a very
very good place. So what we were supposed to been doing was backing down and not not depending on fire fee to be our main source for revenue generation
as it relates to where we are now cuz 59% of it goes to the fire department what's generated to help pay for 59%. So what we've done, we've not went with what we originally promised the people.
And so I'm not saying cut it out, but I think we need to figure out a pathway to be able to provide the relief that was initially put in place. And there's only one other person that's on this board during that time that was put helped
implement the fire fee, but they that knew about the what the fire fee did for the city. So that's why we are in the position that we're in and people are continuously complaining about it because of how it certainly impact based
on the tears. So that's my comment >> and I don't disagree with you. I think though that we may have to start with this because the only way we're going to have any reduction is to find ways to reduce in the general fund budget and we don't have all of that down pat yet. And
I I know what you're saying too. It's also hard. The property appraiser sets the the rates property value rates. We don't. And so we can't really alter we don't have control to alter those. >> Right. But what I'm saying is what we've
done over the years, we have learned how this rate, if you look at the amount that we receive in and it has grown since that time period. So we have far exceeded what we really needed from the very beginning just to start balancing our budget and start building. And so
what happened? We were spending faster or or or spending money faster than we were being more fiscally responsible. And so this is where we are now. We're in a um a better spot, but we need to do a lot better job with trying to look at
our efficiencies and and hopefully the operational audit brings out a little bit more as it relates to that. What can we do as it relates to our budgeting, but I I think over the years we've spent monies that um not being fiscally
responsible. That's that's all I had to say. If I can I just make one comment? >> Absolutely. >> All the points that you've made are completely valid. I just want to highlight that because there is a level of uncertainty with adorum taxes. We
can't predict what is going to happen at the state level. And the conservative approach to remain fiscally sound is to make the right decisions preemptively to make decisions not waiting to be
reactive but rather proactive. Um, and it's just in my humble opinion that with this level of in uncertainty that we should consider um consider that uncertainty that we have because we're relying on the
property taxes at this time. And on my previous slides, I highlighted the percentage that we're relying on and that uncertainty that we don't know how much it could be reduced by. And rather than waiting for the legislature to do
something, if we take proactive steps um to ensure that we remain fiscally sound, then we'll be in a better position and it'll put the city in a better position as we as we move forward because we're a growing city. On one
end, we want to appease every resident at every level, but on the other end, we want to accommodate the new the incoming families, um, incoming, whether they're seniors, young, old, whoever wants to come in cuz we have property land that
is ready for ripe and ready for development. And we want to welcome all the new folks coming in. >> Yeah. And I had I had one one more. I'm not saying I want to hear from that's fine. Go ahead. >> I had one one final comment, but thank
you for um your statement. >> Um but anyways, what we our avalorum taxes where our base is and so again, if we're only getting in a little over 4 million on our Avalorum base
and a 1.8 eight on our fire assessment. And then we have to start looking at how each department um total budget what that looks like. And an example would be if our police is 5 something million,
our fire is um 4.5 or five. So one of the departments will eat up whatever you would get in Avalorum tax. So you have to start looking at ways to be able to you're going to be forced to be fiscally
responsible. You can't get blood from a turnup. So you got to start looking at some things in a very more realistic way. So that's what I'm saying. >> Thank you. Um anybody else have any comments about the question? >> Well said Commissioner. >> Go ahead commission.
>> I was ask I guess >> I want to hear from >> Jones. So I was asking because you guys had been here but if you guys are on the same page. So, of course, I have some questions and this is really to get feedback from the commission um because
I tend to have a very sometimes oversimplistic way of looking at things. So, I'm looking for a reality check. So, when I think about the city's fire assessment and what the money is used for, we know that it is offsetting our
um general fund expenses specifically for our fire um services. So when I look at the fire assessment and then I look at the adulurum or or
the the millage rate with the two, my initial thought is I would rather the fire assessment stay the same. And please hear me out because I really want to get some feedback and that I am definitely
in favor of at least a rolled back rate or looking at potentially decreasing our millage rate. My rationale is that um Commissioner Borum to your point I know why this was put in place based on
what you just explained and that was very helpful to me. My concern is that over those years, I don't see where the revenue has been replaced from other sources. So, that's the one thing I want
you to consider. Um, and I get the plan was for it to be temporary, but I'm not sure how we can have a revenue source with the expectation it will be temporary and we're using those funds to let them go away when we haven't
identified anything to replace them. So, that's the simplified way I want to say that. And so that's my rationale for recommending that especially tonight that we have no rate change because we do have the ability once we start going
through the budget to reduce if we see some place from my understanding. Is that correct? >> So that is correct. >> Okay. So from the fire assessment the other reason is because the fire assessment is for a specific cost and a
specific service that we cannot reduce. That's my other rationale looking at the millage rate that gives us funds to um to allocate to other departments. And I
don't want to use fire and police as an example or any of our first line safety departments because to me those are black and white. but the other city departments um and water and streets. I I really
want to use these other departments to look at where we may have be able to reduce in other areas and that to me um supports what I'm thinking of looking at reducing that millage rate. So that's my
rationale. I love to hear your feedback on that. So in a nutshell, what I'm saying is I'm supportive at this point from what I know to have no rate change in the fire assessment, but to look at looking at reducing the millage rate for
for sure for a roll back rate, but if there's opportunity for that, I want to share before I turn them this over is I was having this conversation with some other cities and um someone from the Florida League of Cities And regarding
homes where someone bought a house and they've na made no changes to the house and that the assessed value keeps going up. An analogy was made and in the room the person asked how many of us have
cell phones and we raised our hands and he said how many of you own your cell phones? Those who own them raised their hands. Now in my case, I bought my cell phone like six years ago. The what I want to
say is this. I still pay a monthly charge to a pro to that provider where I bought the phone. And his question was, why do you pay that monthly fee? And that is because I need service.
And that's the way I look at these taxes. Specifically, I want to talk about property taxes because that's where people are saying they don't agree with this set value, which we don't get to set, the tax collector gets to put them
out. But when I look at it, and I'm just talking about in black and white, not considering because I do hear our constituents, they're saying these taxes are too high, we can't pay them. But
when I look at it in black and white as a supply and demand, we still have to supply services. And the services don't cost what they cost when they bought the house. Now, I'm not by any means suggesting that I support the increase
in the assessed value, but the cost goes up. The cost of delivering services goes up. And there is an option. And this may sound crass, but I want it in context of what I'm trying to explain. I'm not saying I agree with
this, but everybody has a choice. We don't have to pay our cell phone bills every month, but after a few months, you won't be able to make a call. And people don't have to pay taxes. And again, I don't want to sound crass, but there are
consequences to action. But I do know there's an expectation that when someone calls for services, they're expecting services. And the unfortunate reality is we're living in a time where things are really
expensive. We still in this city, from what I can see, we still deliver top tier service with minimum revenues and trying to make the best decisions. So, while I do want our
constituents to get some relief, I want to also balance that with ensuring that our service providers for the city are one being fairly compensated and have the resources they need to deliver the expected service. And that's what makes our jobs hard, right? Because we're
trying to balance those things. So again, I see looking at the millage rate reduction, especially at this point in our discussions tonight, to say no rate change, but I would love to hear feedback on my oversimplified
explanation. >> That was my statement at the beginning that we start with the no rate change. Again, we have the flexibility to do something differently going forward, but I think we need to really analyze this budget, see what cost savings we can obtain and talk about the military.
We've got to do all those things, but to change to lower this now, I think could be detrimental to the city. I think we have to stay at the no rate change until we have gone through and provided more information to establish where we can make reductions.
And mayor, if I may, um I've sent >> Go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> No, you're you're fine. I do want to make the statement in agreement with actually Commissioner Borne because I was there um in the initiation of the
fire fee, but I also want to commend uh the analogy that Commissioner Davis just brought forth because anything that uh a lot of times when we sit on the DAS and we have these conversations, it's kind of hard to explain the process or how
things are to um our constituents. And I think Commissioner Davis did a phenomenal job with the um summarization that she did, but I am in agreement with making sure that at this moment we do not um change um and stay at a no rate
and until we are able to iron through this budget um as a whole. >> My turn. >> Go ahead. Your turn. >> Okay. Well, I see both sides of it, but I must go
back to the promises that were made to the constituents. Okay? We did make a promise that we would come back and adjust this. Matter of fact, my campaign was about coming to trying to do something with this fire assessment fee.
Uh, and understand that majority of the people that have more than one property actually have to pay on all properties. So, it's not like homestead, it's all properties you're paying with the
exceptions of not forprofit 5013c's they don't have to pay. in churches, okay, which you in the city of Palaka, you have a um religious institution on almost every other
corner, okay? So, they use they use fire department services just like a homeowner. Um, and I think that every unless everyone is taking their fair share, that's going to hurt us. So we haven't looked into that and that's an
area that we promised to look into but again we start talking about we hold on we don't want to knee-jerk reaction and stuff but we keep holding on and holding on till we do absolutely nothing and we haven't done anything last year when
when it's we came to these same talks we waited too late and we weren't able to do anything. So, um, we can't keep having those excuses of why we're not moving forward and being, uh, proactive in getting this fee rolled
back to at least give people a reprieve. Give us, I'm including myself because let me tell you, we get city taxes, county taxes, school district, uh, >> water management, >> the water man, all that stuff, man.
taxes have have gone up astronomically. Matter of fact, and then the we talked about what the property appraiser does, not to knock them, but they job. However, if you go get a loan on your house is
only worth minimum money, but your taxes shows that your house have so much equity in it and it's it's ridiculous. It's almost like you're actually asking do the people you said for services we have to pay for services but are our services going to be affordable you know
are they affordable services do the people have the ability to pay these taxes or are they going to be priced out and this is a trend seem like going upwards to pricing people out of their homes and uh or their property I think
all all all the conversation is uh necessary but what about the promises that we made. I think we we it we really should kind of try to keep those promises that were made and and and they it was a selling point
going in that we could adjust this but there have not been an adjustment yet yet Commissioner Campbell. So Commissioner Campbell and Commissioner Borne was on this dice. I wasn't. But that's one of the things that I fought
about and I said I would get up here and this is one of the things that I want to see happen that that and that affects everybody. Every homeowner or property owner not just a homeowner property owner. So um I'm adamant about doing
something not sitting on my hands on this one. Um we really need to it it's it's not saying that we're we're going to be physically responsible by doing something. We're not being physically responsible by not doing anything. And we know the importance of this fire
assessment fee, but are we going to do maybe the unpopular thing and say, you know what, maybe the not for profits have to have a a a bigger responsibility? Maybe these churches have to chip in as well to help these pretty fire trucks and things that that
that that's afforded to us because of this fee. I think everybody have to chip in. So, we got to have these conversations. We got to make the adjustments. Now, what degree, I don't know yet. And you and um we run we may
run the numbers tonight, but we can't sit on our hands. We got to do something. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Commissioner Campbell has his hand raised. >> Commissioner Campbell. Um, I have my hand raised because I'm not in a disagreement with uh, Commissioner Jones
by any stretch of the imagination, but I think this is one of the reasons why we um, anticipated last year with starting this process a little bit earlier so that we do not feel um, rushed. And again, I was on the commission when we
uh, had this um, brought to the commission initially. However, I do believe in order for us to be um uh a little bit mindful of a possible reduction is that at this moment, we put
ourselves in a position not to not be able to make the change, but be in a position so that we can really go through this process and really come to a conclusion as it it come to a conclusion versus putting ourselves in a situation where we can't move. So, I'm
not in disagreement at all. However, I do believe at this moment it will be wise for this commission to keep it where it is and then let's work actively to reduce the fee holistically. But at this moment, putting ourselves in a
position to reduce it where we can't go back. That's kind of doing harm. But I'm not in the I'm not in disagreement with trying to lower it. But at this moment, in order for us to move forth, I think that we do need to keep it to where it is as of now so that we can have
actively uh have active conversation. And again, I would stretch the the thing of us starting this process earlier so we did not fail so that we did not feel constrained um like we did last budget season.
>> I agree. Go ahead, Commissioner Bum. >> Right. And so to uh Commissioner Jones point as it relates to the various people who could be exempted from um property taxes and there's a number I
mean uh we have people who are uh super seniors you got all of you got various seniors you got people who are you know veterans um a number of people you have and we did the churches we did the churches or 5013C3 churches. Uh we did them at 50%
as opposed to 100%. So that's some a little bit of context as it relates to where some additional um revenue what we could have had at the time when we did it. We didn't do it at 100%. So
these are various things I know we're not going to certainly go out and and start taking away exemption because those are state I think those are statemandated which allows for people to be able to have those exemptions whether you're a super senior whether you're a veteran who served in the uh military
what have you. So and but there's a numerous other exemptions that we have that could be revenue generators that we are not capturing. And again, we do have quite a few institutions uh across our
city. I mean, if you look at our 2 uh 2.3 by uh 2 by 3 point something square feet uh square square or six six seven square mile city, we have 64 plus
institutions across our city and some own multiple properties. And so that means every time a a a 501c3 takes or purchase properties, those come off the tax role. So we need to really be
mindful as it relates to how revenue can continue to we we continue to lose revenue based on the the structure that we have in place as it relates to that. because I remember we had a church um just right here in the south historic
district. Um purchased a property. It was a rental property and it was worth pretty good monies but and and they had renters there or whatever at the time. They could have used that for revenue generation but instead I think they
demolished the location and it's just blank space now. So, that's just a little bit of context of a number of different things that we've lost revenue over the years based on how some um 501c3s
um went out and captured properties and some of them own multiple properties, 18 and 20 some of them. And I think that Commissioner Jones when we were talking about this was referring to 501c3s and churches in regards to the fire assessor fee, not um exemptions, the homestead
exemptions that Yes. That's >> Well, I'm just giving you additional things that help you lose. >> But to Commissioner Jones point, he's spot on where they do use everybody who goes there, they use the roads. If you got emergency in in in these
institutions, fire, police are responding. So yes, so the the services are used, but we're only charging at 50%. That's what I'm that's and that's >> and I agree and I think we need to have a discussion about whether 50 50% sufficient or not for the services they
receive that are the same as everybody else who are paying 100%. >> Right. That was just a little context. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Commissioner Davis. I'm I I'm in line with what Commissioner Campbell said tonight what I'm saying is tonight I am I believe we should not
have any rate change on the fire assessment and I do agree with my with the other commissioners that we will look at the op ability to make to lower as we're looking at the budget. So, I definitely want to say that. The other thing I want to say is I want to make
sure we don't mix too many things at one point because we're talking about generating additional revenue from potentially is what I'm hearing from the fire assessment by having everyone pay their fair share
which is separate and may even support reducing >> right >> if we can increase those giving. So, I hear you and I am definitely open to that, but I just want to make sure tonight that we can give Miss Pierre
direction on what she can do to create a draft budget by knowing that information. So, what I'm saying is tonight I'm recommending no rate change, but as we continue in our workshops to
look at what it would take um following up with Miss West to see what it would take for people to pay their fair share and if we have an option to reduce um I had another point. Um oh, I think I
think that's it for now. Mayor, I may come back because I had another point but I lost it. So that was a thing to separate and just for the recommendation tonight. But I do hear the commissioners and I do agree. Let's look for an opportunity to um reduce Oh, I know what
my other point was. You know, there's a saying all things being equal, right? And Commissioner Borum, what year did this value assessment start? I I don't recall. >> 2017. >> Okay. 2017. So here we are nine years later.
So I don't want we do have a burden as commissioners to make the right decision for our constituents but we don't get to do that in isolation either. We got to look at this country.
We have to look at our county. So, all things being equal, I believe that when the commission determined that we would have a fire assessment with a goal of it being temporary and going away once the city recovered some
revenues. That makes sense. But we know that all things are no longer equal today. And so I'm going to ask us as we continue to do research and prepare to do um to have
these discussions and create a budget that we do it in a manner that is consistent unfortunately with where we are where everything is too high. Grocery is high but does that mean that the city should reduce taxes to give an
offset because people can't buy groceries and pay taxes? But again, I do want our citizens to have relief, but we have to do what's reasonable in this current climate. The other thing we have to do is ensure that as we are looking
to reduce our expenses, there are some things that cannot be reduced. There are some fixed costs and there are some standards that we have set that we cannot reduce and one of those in my opinion is services to our
citizens for safety and protection. There are some other areas but I do want to say that we cannot in this moment in this time fix the woes of our country or
our state. We can work within it for the best decisions for our citizens, but that burden I believe is even greater because all things are not the same as they were in 2017. And we don't control
the ability to make a decision where we reduce, you know, costs for our citizens because we still have the old him a charge to keep. we have and a service to
provide for the safety of our citizens in our city. So just want us to consider that and go do that research and understand what's a reasonable reduction if we go that route but we do have to consider the larger um system that we work within
>> and because this is a workshop I I don't know that we're taking a vote on but the recommend should we be taking a vote on the recommendation for the fire so for the fire assessment option I think I heard and commissioner Campbell you also say that at this moment until we get
further into this budget workshop that you are in favor of a no rate change for at this time and I've have yes and I have expressed that as well as commissioner Davis. So I think going forward for direction's sake unless there's strong opposition we're going to keep it at no rate change we have to
really work at it. Go ahead >> because because that's not it. It is a discussion. However, I think direction should be more of this and this is what everybody said collectively. Go back
bring comparisons. If we were to recapture at 100% from the 5013C's, the religious institutions at 100%. How would that impact us if we drop it
5% reduce by 5% 10% 20% what have you and that would give us another snapshot so we can have that in front of us to make the informed decision because if we just say no we're not going to do it or we're not in favor right now we don't really have all the facts in front of us
so I would rather for finance to go back put those factors and and then bring it back to us again for discussion at date certain because we can't keep putting on the back burner. This does this the conversation has to
happen. I I I agree we trends change things change but we do also have a responsibility to take care of the people in the business of the city. So we do have that. So with that being said, I think that encompasses everything that everyone said, not
making that decision tonight, but here in the near future, because I don't want what I don't want to happen to happen is we come back and say, well, it's too late. We didn't do what we're supposed to do. So that's the direction that I would like to give from the diet. Um,
and and I think that encompasses what everybody pretty much said, but we'll have those other facts in there. So >> commission. >> Yeah. So, Commissioner Jones, just want to clarify. We have to give direction tonight for the finance director to move on. Let >> We got to give We have to give some
direction tonight. >> We're not locked into the direction, but it is for her to move forward at this point in her process, but we have the ability to come back and I agree what you asked for. That will help us
determine if we can reduce this. We don't have to determine reduction tonight because we don't have all the information. So, I'm agreeing with what you're saying, but we do have to give direction to Miss Pierre for her to move forward to get to the next uh budget uh workshop.
>> And that's why are we on the same page? I just want to make sure that was that was that is the suggestion. So, >> this is this is not this is not all things considered right here. So these numbers just like I just said were 5%
but not the 5% that we could recapture. >> I think >> that's the second part of it for that data to return to us for for that information and to have that discussion about whether we can >> offset the cost by having a higher rate for certain
>> and I want to make sure Commissioner Jones that you hear what I'm saying. >> I do but what what's in front of us is only four options. >> No. What I'm saying has nothing to do with this. Okay. >> That's why I don't know that you're hearing. >> Okay. So, you said to >> tonight we need to give Miss Pierre
direction whether we want her to dis give come back with information based on a 5% discount, 10% discount, 15%. What I'm saying is that we're premature. We can't do that now. We can move forward. She has to have This is a input to
something she has to have tonight. The reason I heard that we're recommending no rate change is because we can always go down, which it sounds like our goal may be to do that. We cannot do that tonight >> and but we can't go up should we change
a lesser rate recommendation. We can't go back. That's correct. So we're saying no rate change but and agreeing with you that also we're asking Miss Pier to bring back information about how that would change if certain organizations
501c3s were paying a larger share whether it's 75% or 100% whatever those percentages are what that would look like in terms of the whole >> correct >> so >> and Miss Pierre you're saying that we cannot go down once we if if tonight we
we say we want you to go for at a 15% rate deduction discount and you you you add those numbers in and all things considered, you say we couldn't go back and say, "Well, 15% was too much. We want to go back to five."
Correct. >> You said we couldn't could not do that. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> That's why we're suggesting the no rate change till we have more data to make a more informed decision for tonight's purposes. >> And Mr. Lawson is on the line. He can
speak to the timeline if you would like if that is the will of the commission. If you'd like to hear from him, he can speak from Mr. Okay, >> Mr. Lawson, can you give us the timeline, please? >> Mr. Lawson,
>> good evening. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yes, we can. Could you give us the timeline for the process, please? >> No, I I've been listening all along. I'm uh the answer to your question is if you uh direct the staff to prepare uh for
the public hearing and to advertise at the current rates, you can always drop them. If you were to decide tonight to go to a 15% less rate and you advertise, you would have to readvertise and that would be a waste of time and energy and and attention to the public. So my
recommendation after listening to you is go ahead publish for your hearing in in in in late May. um use the no rate change. And even at that hearing, if you adopt the note rate change, you still have the ability later in the summer to
reduce it without having any public hearing. You can always go down. You can't go up. >> Does that make sense? >> Yes. Thank you. Go. Do you have a question, Commissioner Jones? Go ahead. >> You could go down, but we couldn't increase it. In other words, if you if
you said you have your hearing at May 28th and you say, "We're going to adopt our rates like we normally do and we don't have to certify our rule until um late August, early September." In the meantime, when you do your budget, you know how much money you have available.
If you decide when you do your budget that you're going to lower the fire assessment rate, you do so. You do that summarily. you're done with the public hearing process and everybody gets a um a lowered assessment rate. But when you
do that, you do that as an informed commission and that money that you take out of your coffers from the U fire assessment will have to be made up through uh the monies that you get from your other legally available funds. That gives you more flexibility to my chagrin
and I'm trying to help all my clients. Everybody tries to do it backwards. They do their budget and then they do their assessment. You should do your assessment first and then feel figure out what to do with your budget. And that's what we're trying to help you do. >> Thank you. >> I think I was saying it correctly, but
we're going to see because what I'm saying is >> start out we could always go down. We're not we won't be able to go up. So if we we keep it as as it is right now, we couldn't later go up. >> Correct. >> That's right. And but if you if you keep
it like it is now, by law, you have to do a mailed notice. If you go above those rates, you're not going to do a mailed notice. That's too expensive. So you're doing publish notice. So you just publish at what you've done over these years. And then when you do your B budget, you can always go down from that
number, which is >> correct. So we can reduce it. >> What you call it down is up. >> Let me ask let me ask this question. >> I'm sorry. So we could always if we take the reduced rate now we can't go back to 10 or 5%.
>> Can I ask him one question about exemptions? Mr. Lawson, did you hear the direction about the exemptions possibly um instead of the 50% exemption you're considering? This is for the
>> churches not the churches the 501c3s instead of a 50% exemption it would be >> they would be paying paying the full >> or 75 a higher rate I guess it's >> well now in order in order to manufacture flexibility for the
commission when the we can we can we can adjust the published u ad that goes out and simply um uh put in that published had uh I will have to go back 10 years
and read how we um notified that exemption. If the exemption was done as a part of your adoption of your resolution as opposed to your mailed notices, then you you're free to do whatever you want. But I'll have to go back and I don't have 10 years of knowledge in my head that I can remember
on that particular issue. But we will go out and find out if you have the ability to do it. So here's my question to you to you. If we can in your published notice put a paragraph in that says and by the way the commission is considering charging all
institutions the full amount this year and leave it at that. I'd write it correctly so there is proper notice. If the documents that we originally did for you didn't put it in the mailed notice which I don't think it did. I think we did this at the dis but I'm not sure
then you'll be able to do that if you did put it in the mailed notice required by law that'll be more problematic and we would have to notify those property owners by US mail. I can get that answer to you fairly quickly,
but if you would give direction to explore u um um u uh adjusting institutional yeah adjusting the institutional amounts and and to get an answer to that um we can craft a notice in the publication
that does it. I wouldn't want to do that by mailed notice. I think that just is is would be um attract the wrong type of attention to all this. And if you'll just have to let me confer with uh your your interimm
manager and or the mayor and or Jane, we'll find the best way to do that. We can do that pretty quickly. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Campbell. I actually was going to ask the same question because I think I understood what Commissioner Jones was trying to uh
paint, but uh Miss Pierre, she asked it in a way that brought the clarity that I felt that was needed. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lawson. >> It's a pleasure. >> Okay. >> So, that's the direction. That's what we
want to do. >> Thank you. >> Okay. noted to we'll keep it keep the rate the same and that will be advertised and he'll add a paragraph he'll confirm it but more than likely it'll be a paragraph stating the
commission is considering 501c3 um and nonprofit organizations >> considering other entities that may now be paying less than you know homeowners property owners >> then that should get people to the next workshop
>> hey that'd be Good >> then. That's good. We want participation. That is good. >> We want them to come. >> Okay, that was exciting. Thank you very much for the direction. >> Well, if that's exciting. >> I appreciate the >> The next slide is about other sources of
revenue. I'm >> my my my apologies. This is Mark. Um I would like to continue on with my evening. I won't stay on the call unless you request that I do. >> I think we're all set. Thank you, Mr. Lawson. >> All right. You all are terrific. Good night. >> Good night.
>> Yes. >> Go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Other revenues. Good. Thank you. >> Other sources of revenues as we discuss the cons the concerns regarding advalorum um taxes and the uncertainty that's there. We also want to consider
what other forms of revenue can the city consider to supplement a potential loss of revenues in abalone taxes. At the top of the list, we have fair market value, rentals, leased properties.
Um, I didn't mention earlier, but there was an email from one of our department heads with a list of the some of the lease properties that he was aware of. Um, so there's a potential there to
assess the list of properties. I believe Mr. GMO presented a list of all the properties owned by the city so we could have an assessment done to to see if there's a potential to leased the land.
Um also the second point reviewing existing service charges that have not been adjusted in previous years to determine whether updates are warranted. So that would be in our appendix A.
And if this is something that the um commission is willing to consider, then that would be um it would be great to have that understanding so that when the department heads go into their their budgets, they also consider the fees um
that maybe have not been increased over the last few years. So they can incorporate consumer price index, inflation rates to just make sure that we are um we have cost recovery. We're we're providing a
service but making sure we're getting the recovery back from the service being provide or the cost is supplemented. Our third point is update cost recovery for permits, inspections, building zoning, rightway, business tax receipts.
this is more along the lines of um the planning area. If this is something you're willing to consider, then he would go back and assess the permits, inspections um and also this would touch um fire as
well because they also perform um inspections. Our fourth point here is a parking fees um fines in the downtown or event districts consider progressive um fine schedules and technology for collection.
So this would I know this is a a hot topic um in the in the city but if you look at other other cities if if I go >> the wonder I think it's a good idea I don't know if we might be on the
premature side honestly I don't see there's so much parking available that it's going to be hardressed to get people to pay >> on the right side of the road >> I know that that would Stop it. Can we start? >> Can we stop? Yeah. Tagging those people
and eventually finding that drives me crazy. >> We're just teasing them. >> Yeah. I want small town USA. That's what they do in small town USA. >> Not where you want to park. And maybe just um with events, we have a lot a number
of local events where we could consider um allocating spaces when there's a large event and saying, "Okay, this is the charge for to park here." Just a consideration. Not >> if if you want to if you want to attract
people here, you >> you want people to stop coming, start doing >> there. Yeah. I think it's not a bad day here for the future. I think it's a good idea for the future. I just don't think we're quite there yet. >> What? I got one that need to be on here. Um, do we do golf cart registrations
>> for people who we're putting 8ft sidewalks through the city? So, people going to be huh golf cart registration. I think that is something that we can look into. That's revenue for revenue. I mean other we we
start talking about we want to be like other cities. Other cities do that. So, and then they are growing popular. You see them more and more. So, don't let's not wait till it come. Let's get ahead of these things. >> It's just a conversation.
>> Does any I agree with you on possibly looking at the golf cart communities um and looking at the registration of the golf carts. However, I just didn't want it to go past that because we have the new ADA sidewalks or they will be to utilize the the the sidewalks. We would then have to look at as we already have
in place the bike lanes to be something similar for the golf cart. >> I'm glad you mentioned that. >> I was downtown the other day and I happened to run into the mayor >> and uh actually someone was riding one of those >> ebikes down there and I saw accident
almost happened. Now this is you chief. We don't want them riding on the sidewalk. But if you in fact, the way downtown is is kind of constructed with our parking. You could have a
a motorist open their door to their car. There's no bike lane, so most people kind of like just ride right beside the cars. And that that's a hazard in itself. So, um, what are our plans for that? I mean I I remember what are our plans to kind of
curb that before it happens. I mean I'm quite sure that >> we'll let Chief Shaw speak to it quickly, but we're going >> and we have bump out. I know. Don't don't don't get me out of order, but >> don't get me with that. But it is something to kind of consider. >> Because they're going to be actually be
riding with traffic. That's the way it's going to be once the bike lanes up in the street. They will be riding with not bike lanes. They'll be riding with traffic. there won't be bike lanes because there was no room that question. >> Yes, >> for for the downtown area, but we are we are exploring different things that we
can do ordinances uh referring to ebikes. Ebikes brings a a much more larger safety issue, but if you remember, we had these same safety issues with regular bikes as well. Um so, we are exploring. We do realize with the ebikes come increased speed and
increased danger. Um but there's things that we are facing um with restrictions that everybody around the states are state is looking at. So we hope to be able to have something with you soon. Downtown is implementing something uh with the with the effect of the streetscapes that may help out a little
bit. Um but again monitoring it right now um to see what we can do to assist uh further throughout the city. >> And the state legislature has passed and it kicks in on July 1st. Correct. >> Yes. I I should also note we already have an ordinance on the books section
70-32 that it it is already unlawful for anyone to bike on public sidewalks. >> Um so that that already exists from St. John's Avenue to from 1 Street to 11th Street and in Riverfront Park.
>> So just downtown. You can't ride a bicycle on the um sidewalk at the river park. >> So this is the exact description of where it's impermissible. um on any public walkways on St. John's Avenue from First Street to 11th Street
and in the Riverfront Park and the city dock parking area. >> I'm sorry. >> Are these things publicized? Just a question. >> Uh this has been an ordinance on the books for quite some time. >> No, no, no. I get that. But is it is it
is it not? Is it are there signs that state those people don't know that I didn't know it? there are not signs and uh up until you guys uh passed this ordinance recently, the municipal civil interaction ordinance, we weren't able to enforce that. So now we do have the
ability to enforce that and and we can work on uh public outreach um >> education. Yeah, >> that's coming. But what we were saying is once the everything is done, people will be riding in the street on their bikes with traffic, >> which is what you do in a lot of other
cities. as somebody who cycled out. >> Go ahead. But we need to get back to the budget. Back to poor mission. >> That's something gonna come back in. I guarantee you we'll be dealing with that. >> No, we we need to talk about it. But >> but it's a budget workshop. >> Yeah, it is a budget workshop.
>> Come. Go ahead, Mr. P. Sorry. >> No problem. Um, so the fifth fifth item, lease, sell underutilized property, surface lots, small parcels, consider ground leases for reoccurring revenue.
Um, just for example, if we have a parcel that is a good amount, a size enough to have uh, I don't know, solicit hot air balloon rides or I don't know, you know. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah, you something that would produce um allow income, you know, a steady flow of income. >> I just like hot air balloon, right? So, that's what came to mind, but it could be anything. I mean, it could be
multiple things. So, service level realignment um is another thing you could consider. I know we have a lot of landscape. We have a lot of properties here. So what um how can we do this efficiently and also reduce um the cost
associated? I mean it just says mowing but that's just one area. Um and special I mean I put special event support meaning if there are other ways where we can support a special event and charge
more then let's consider it. Um so and also considering hours of operation is um are the hours of operation adding value to the community? Just some things to consider
um for you all. And if this is something that you're interested in, then we could ask our department heads to include that in their in their budget preparation. >> That's the the goal. Yep. Um, and >> we're looking for any suggestions or
thoughts >> like using the fire trucks to water the trees downtown and >> they didn't use the fire >> something like I said we can uh come up with a different solution than the paint the lawn people that's that's hey got to be innovative you you got to think
outside the box sometime >> okay >> well said sir well said >> thank you go ahead and and this is this is time go ahead commissioner Davis I'm sorry commissioner Campbell. >> Commissioner Campbell. >> Commissioner Campbell. >> I really like the idea about the special
events because sometimes I honestly think when we have the applications become before us that we kind of short change ourselves with regards to um special events and the fees that are implemented with the special events because a lot of times the things that
come before us are quote unquote. they do to me they utilize the wrong class because a lot of them are uh initial or inaugural events that are not necessarily annual. Um and sometimes I just feel that we short change
ourselves. So I'm definitely interested in seeing if that's a way that we will be able to increase revenue with regards to special events because we have quite a bit of special events that come through the city and we should be able to reap the benefits of that.
Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner Davis. I'mma read this out loud because I do agree. Release garbage collection to one time per week. Save some money and maybe sweep the streets the other time. Okay.
>> I remember you proposed so that's one. >> I'll talk to Joe. >> You got to think about the >> public housing. Just suggestions. Just suggestions. suggest or that pay a higher fee if you want it more a week or
maybe different areas and it might work. >> Correct. Correct. Just general. >> I suggest you be creative. But I I have a question for um this this is probably for um Miss West is um it's my understanding that
um if we have a property with um code compliance. Oh, no, no, no, no, no. I'm I'm sorry. Not code compliance. But if a property
has a tax issue and the taxes aren't paid on that property and um if someone doesn't pay the property taxes, can the county when does property
revert to the county? And that may be something you have to take offline and I had it and I lost it when I started talking about the trash. >> That that's through the tax collector's office. It goes to a tax deed sale and they go up for auction. Correct. And if nobody buys it at the auction or nobody
buys it, my understanding, and this is the part I want to ask you about to check into, my understanding based on some information I heard is that that property then reverts to the county even though it is the city's property in the city. We're we we can get the property,
but we have to request it back. Is that something you can look into? I'm not asking for clarification now. >> We'll discuss. >> Yes. Thank you. >> That that's so if if so, I want to see if we got some property that the county don't know and the county may not know and that's really what I'm just asking.
But if that's something you can look into and I will send you an email with the proper question. >> Thank you, M. Anything else? Because we >> um my favorite I save the la the last the favorite or the best for last. Leveraging technology software to
increase efficiencies. Um if you are open to no not accepting cash payments and allowing considering um accepting payments online that would change
um that would change help create efficiencies. We have a lot of homeowners that are outside of the city of Palaca that um don't live here, can't come here locally, but they can rather than mailing a check and the check
possibly being lost in the mail. If you're willing to consider that, like no longer accepting cash and allowing folks to make payments online or via credit card, then I would um include in the finance budget a possible consideration
for software that would accommodate that purpose. >> I agree. And I also, as I recall when we met with the mayor's bank, they are also willing to train finance staff and etc. on a program to pay vendors electronically versus by check. So I
think those are all things we can do to move forward and to minimize cost rather than cutting checks for everything. So I I agree. I think we have to look into all of those possible options. >> And another example is if the finance
department could use all the modules in the software that we already have that could probably consolidate budget preparation and some other activities. That's another example, right, Miss Pierre? Absolutely. >> And then our staff can go home at night
and come back the next morning refresh. >> I'll be here all weekend as well. >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you. >> And any other department that that applies to >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. So the just so that it's clear for us and um the department heads, you're in alignment with all the items presented and each department head should consider what is presented on the slide. >> Yeah. >> Yes.
>> We want to move. Yes, we >> and and mayor may I again the city strategic plan should be driving our budgeting as well. Right. So we have this comp plan. We should have a strategic plan and I'll have some
questions um for the um acting city manager about that later. But that's what we should be focused on in our budget as the priorities, what we've planned for and not randoms. So I just
want to put that out there as well. So there's an opportunity to provide that strategic plan. know departments and commissioners and everyone who has a say in planning for the budget that could help us focus you know so yeah
>> it is also helpful when we try to explain to constituents why we're going in a particular direction if we have a plan that we're following and implementing >> one one more rec question uh depending on where we're going Next in the um
reports, the budget reports that we're using to review um the recommendations or get to the draft is when we're comparing 2025 to 2026. We have the 2025 budget in the column.
The next column is 2025 revenues yearto date and it matches it's a March date. What would be very helpful is for that to be the 2025 year to date so we can see what the trend is for collecting
actual revenues versus what we budgeted for. Does the Is that make sense what I'm saying or is this just mislabeled >> it? the the revenue part because I'm listing revenues and expenditures. It's yeartoate. >> I know. >> Actuals. >> Yes,
>> that's a better word. I could change the rev actuals. It's actual year to date from the beginning of the year. >> This is 2020. >> Column B. Column D. >> Column D. Right. >> But you see what it's labeled, >> right? >> What What is it labeled? It's labeled 2025 rev
um year to date March 2025. >> So the fiscal year ends. I would have expected that to say 9:30. This am I missing something? >> Well, you're not missing. >> Am I misunderstanding?
>> Yes, I'm misunderstanding. Okay. So, the label is is misleading. >> Yes, ma'am. Okay. What she's saying is as the actuals come in for expenditures within that column, it's showing to to date. So that would be if you're saying to date, it would be April.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. >> 28. >> Wrong year. >> This is where we are now, >> right? >> I'm sorry. I meant the previous year. I I'm just And I think you might have gi So, and tell me if this is off base. >> Okay.
What I'm really trying to see, we have a budgeted amount and what I'm really interested in understanding is for maybe the past three years, you know how in the presentation you gave us that great information.
Oh, maybe I got it. The revenue trend analysis is what really what I'm asking for. So, so but what I'm asking is a comparison to what we budgeted, what we thought we would get, and what we actually got. >> Okay. Does that make sense? Because what
that helps to do and I'm thinking is >> what we're budgeting for the upcoming year. >> If we're budgeting some pie in the sky number or based on what we did the prior year, let's make it make sense if we've
only been receiving approximately 90 or 95% of budgeted amounts >> to reflect. >> Let's reflect that going forward. Let's make it make sense. I agree. I agree. I just want you to
understand also um or consider that whenever you're preparing a budget, there is estimation involved in it. >> Oh, no. No. Agree. >> You you you don't always know exactly how I'm with you what I'm saying. But there have been some trends in the city
of Blacka over the past five years of how much money you collect, a percentage versus how much you expected. And what I'm saying is I rather have a more educated guess based on prior trends.
>> Yeah. No, it's not accurate, but >> it's more than expecting a lot significant revenue that we probably aren't going to. >> Yeah. Cuz we got some probabilities more realistic based on the past off of based on the past. was just like you said, let's assume that on the worst case
scenario, we're only going to get 86% of tax revenue >> because we've been that's how much we've been collecting. We're not getting 100%. I'm asking for the same thing but in our budget versus actual revenue. >> Okay, >> you you're already doing I'm asking
another category as usual. >> Okay. >> Sorry. And we can talk more offline if you need clarification. It's not difficult. I just want to make sure we can talk later and make it make sense. >> I I believe I understood what you meant. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. Is there anything else? Anybody? Commissioner Campbell? Anybody else? Do you have anything else, Miss Pia? >> Um, so there's another slide um here for the transfer in and out memo and the cash forward balance memo. And
um it's a I put it in a memo format just to give you as much information and help to close the knowledge gap and make sure everyone understood what those transfers represented. There's also included a chart.
I know it's kind of small. Please forgive me. Um but this shows if you follow the um the lettering A matches with A and and it just compares >> this would be I don't have the this this
sheet this is >> yeah but >> it's page 15 >> at the very beginning after the you get through yes at the very beginning of the presentation right after the the um
>> fees for parking and then this stops and it's so it's like the next page after that right here. So you notice that this is balanced on one side. You have the revenues or types of revenues that would fall under the transfer transfer
contribution reimbursement category on the left and then on the right. These will be considered expense um categories that are the the other okay with every transfer right there's a fund that's receiving money there's a fund that is paying money to
another fund so the expense would be the fund that is >> I triggered Siri or Google >> Gaction It's good information. >> Okay, one minute. Let's wait until it stops. >> Yay. Okay, go ahead. Sorry.
>> That was a first. Okay, so >> Oh, it was Eddie's phone. Okay. Um, okay. The transfers. So on the left side this represents the revenues the funds that are receiving on the receiving side
receiving the the transfer and then the other side expenses represent money going out of the fund going into another fund and that would be an expense for that u fund. So we can look at let's say there's a lot of discussion about
reimbursements right so reimbursement from let's see one of these admin expenses so the if you look at on your expense side down towards the bottom of the list there's a number of those that are are
named reimbursement general reimbursement general what that represents is you have employees all the employees payroll is coming out of um the administrative the administrators
myself HR city attorney coming out of the general fund and but we service every single fund we provide a service to them we from a finance perspective we're doing the financials for the
airport for water for all of the funds and those expenses represent present the services that we provide. It's a shared service among the funds. It's based on the costs each year. It's not something
that we just decide willy-nilly. It's based on actual um costs that each fund or service that each fund is receiving from administrators if that makes sense. Okay.
>> Mayor question. >> Go ahead. Go ahead. So to that point um thank you for that clarification. So let me make sure I understand for example I believe we had a question in a prior meeting as to
um the CRA for example we were asking about some transfers in the CRA and I believe at the time Miss Cardi responded that it's for the service provider. That's what you're explaining that that that's why funds are being transferred.
So my question is and my understanding is that there's a way to determine how much that should be. I I did read that that is permissible. It's also um an acceptable practice. But
the thing that's important when you're doing that is to ensure for example as a finance director you are 100% employed for the city. If you're using 80% of
your time for the city business, general business, and you're using like 10% for CRA and 10% for airport and 10% for that, shouldn't the transfer amount reflect
the percentage of time that you're dedicating to that area? If so, that that information needs to be consistent. I guess what I'm I'm not understanding is I thought I heard you say something about depending on the amount of
revenues. >> Oh. Oh, okay. How do you determine how much gets transferred per perition? So for Miss West as attorney like do do you know that in this particular month
she provided 20% of services to the airport and and we're reimbursed 20% of her salary from that bump you does that make sense? >> It does make sense. Um, but I also want to mention I understand what you're
saying having um a administrator document what how much percentage they're serving one fund as opposed to another fund. That would it would be time consuming and I just want to think about cost
benefit and being efficient. Um we for grant purposes there are grants >> where you do have to document the time spent correct on the grant. Good >> and the benefit the cost benefit for that one person doing that taking that
time makes sense >> but to have your um >> so is it the standard for example for Mr. McNair's fund. >> Okay. >> What determines how much is transferred
to the general fund from that fund for each position? And if that's a question you have to find out, let me know. But do you that's my question. >> So I hear your question and I want to just give you the logic behind it. It's
based on the size of the how many if it's a employee personnel cost how many employees are we talking how much time because if let's say you have a big department um airport is fairly small so I meaning the
number of employees I mean relative to the number of employees if we're just taking into account personnel costs administrators that are spending time servicing the airport fund the HR are spending time to process their their um
payroll that time spent and the number of employees that airport fund has just the logic behind that. I can't charge airport an exuberant amount if they only have five employees or I'm just giving
I'm just throwing out a number. Mhm. >> Um, so the logic as long as you can you can justify it, it makes s it makes logical sense that you're not like being unfair. It's a it's a shared cost among
the funds and it's based on the size. We're we're considering the um we're talking about liability also. the liability insurance gets charged or hit on general fund under other government services and that's a high high dollar
amount that cost has to be shared and what's logical is to okay what areas have the most buildings what areas are exposed to the most risk so that needs to be considered when you're when you're sharing am I I'm just bringing you the
logic behind the >> transfers I understand however Then I would love I would like to follow up with you on that. Okay. >> Um not necessarily here. I want to think about it because what I want to ensure the city is doing. >> Okay.
>> Is I heard a lot of nebulous words. >> Oh wow. Okay. >> Logical risk fair. We're not being unfair. And when it comes to finance, >> I'm not sure that's auditable. That's
subjective. And I'm saying nebulous, but really subjective terms. And so I think what I'm looking for is in the in a city policy, and this is probably what my followup is going to be when I go think about what I'm trying to get addressed, is
what does the finance department's policy say about transferring funds? Where is it documented? for example, we could be doing transferring funds based on how it's always been, but where's the
where's the standard? And and um so that's one thing. So I I'm definitely going to come back to that >> because I think what's important >> is when I think about compliance and again >> general compliance from my professional experience,
>> okay, >> I need to know what the formula or or policy is to to to move, you know, to what that amount should be. That's that's really what I'm saying. So I I will come back with a more specific
question because I don't want to do it here. And the second question I have is is anyone performing an internal audit function in finance and if not because I know we don't have an internal audit
position field but is anyone looking at you know kind of doing some internal audit for the finance department? the word internal audit. >> Um, it brings a lot of um, okay, you're
bringing a lot. But I will say this, >> as a finance department, our role is to look at and consistently review internal controls. >> Correct. >> And ensure that we're safeguarding assets. Mhm.
>> If we're looking at trends >> when the monthly reports are financial reports are being presented to you, all the steps it takes to get to that point requires much review. And
I wouldn't call it an internal audit. I would call it that's part of what we do on a dayto-day is we're looking for anomalies. We're looking for um things that aren't are standing out that don't appear patterns that aren't historical
or don't match up with what was occurred in prior years. We we're assessing and looking at internal controls but >> okay >> an actual function um we don't have a position in place but we do assess
internal controls and if there is a need to dig deeper we do we do dive deeper we do ask the questions we will departments know they may get a phone call from myself or someone from the finance
department asking hey this doesn't um look up to par. And they also know that if it's a purchase order, if it's an invoice, it will get rejected if it's not up to up to snuff. >> Um and it doesn't have the elements
needed. But if there's a special case, if we see uh if I see something, my role is to to dig deeper, research it. So, and part of my role would be to if there's a need for if I see that the
patterns, if I see that there's something a miss here, >> Yeah. >> a a trend that's going down when it should be going up, >> then I have to ask the questions and then dive deeper. >> I understand. And and I wasn't meaning to explain your job. I just those were a couple of questions and I'll follow up
in an email regarding the other question about the transfer logic. >> Okay. Thank you. And I will I also went and and we will have a whole CRA budget workshop, but I still have some questions about CRA doing that with the CRA as a separate legal entity, but we
will get to that. We're not going to do that tonight because it is we do have a separate budget workshop and I think um if I could just add because I've only been here eight months now um and I wasn't here when the budget preparation was occurring. I came in at the end of
that process. So your part of answering your question requires me to research and look back to see what happened and obviously if there is a need to do things differently, I'm absolutely willing to do that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Anything else, Miss Pierre?
Anything else? Anybody else? Commissioner Campbell, do you have anything? Okay. Um, >> no, ma'am. The >> Oh, okay. >> This last slide. Um, what's next?
I would like you to possibly consider because I know everyone has very busy schedules, but we also want you to have ample time to review the department's budget. We want you to ask the questions. We're we're happy to answer
any questions. We're all about transparency um and opening the books because these funds are, you know, come from our precious taxpayers um dollars and we know how hard it is to earn a dollar. So
with that said, you see here we have six um lines here for police. One, two, three, four, five. So, five five um groups here that I put together and I in the next few um upcoming weeks where we
would like to present, but I would also like to possibly facilitate where if you would consider meeting one one by one or one commissioner assigned to the first group to at least sit down
with the uh departments listed. For example, say Commissioner Borum um he has a lot of information on infrastructure and the history. if he were to sit down with public works, water reclamation, sanitation, and
streets and review their budget thoroughly in a in a setting in a conf in the uh conference room with them asking all the the hard questions and getting that out of the way so that when we come at a workshop,
we know that, okay, Commissioner Borum went through this in detail with the departments. Um, and you know, but there there's a a level of back and forth that gets facilitated in that one-on-one discussion so that when the when they
come to the commission or come to the budget workshop, we're we're answering questions that constituents and residents have brought forth to Commissioner Borum. That's just an example. Um, but I understand if it's not if that's not feasible, but I think
it would help to have that one one commissioner sit with pick one of these groups or we can regroup them based on whatever initiative passionate things that your that constituents have um come to you about. >> Just a thought to say
>> five areas. So like you you have five areas >> for example. So, you're saying if a commissioner could take a area based on passion, >> correct? >> Yes. >> I'm not in agreement with that. And I'll tell you why. >> Um, I think if given the opportunity for
commissioners to meet with any department head would probably be the best, but in order for a commissioner to take on a um specific group, I think that limits the conversation. And I know that we try to minimize when we come
into the workshops, but I do believe that the commission that we have are very thorough and a lot of the conversations, a lot a lot of the dialogue that has transpired um in our open forum uh gives the level
of transparency um not only to the commission but to our constituents as well. um that we are again being completely transparent throughout this process. So I would disagree with the um group but leaving
it open for any commissioner to meet with the department head but as far as the group I am not in favor of that and I won't do it. I I agree and in the past we've had each department do a brief presentation during the budget workshop about their budget and kind of
explaining why their budget is what it is. that's helpful because we all hear it at the same time. Um we can also certainly meet with each um department supervisor, manager, whatever. But I mean I think that's been helpful for me to have those brief presentations about
each department and that way the community also has it. Agreed. And what I do hear you asking though is for the commissioners to like read the submissions and be ready when we get here. That's what I hear. Oh, go ahead and say that. Well,
um I could I may >> go ahead. Go ahead, Commissioner Jones. >> So, uh what I would like to see you as finance or your department actually take on the meeting with the department heads. We
know that they have asked, but being more realistic and say, well, you know, note everything that we just said here. Basically, we're going to be cognizant of what may be coming down the pipe from legislation and there may be some uh restraints that we have. Have that
discussion and make them come to you with a more a realistic, hey, we want this wish list, but we could possibly do get some u responsibility back to the directors. um before they bring it back up here and I think that is what we
always ask and we asked that last last time and then you know we've given them opportunity up front and then if it have to still come to us we can make additional adjustments whatever way whether it's more money or less money um funding excuse me
>> can we consider a like a flat like okay every general fund department consider 5% Yes. >> Cut across. >> We can consider that. I think we need more information before I I would agree to that entire, you know, across the
board. I think we just need to know. >> Just show the effort. I think I mean because it's better to that you determine you being the department head determine what they could, you know, where they could transing city manager or interim city manager depending on
where we are in that process. >> If I could, um, we've done this in the past. um and sever several city uh or se several of our directors have been involved in it to where we've sat down with the finance director and city manager and we've gone over the entire
budget um that's looking to be submitted prior to being submitted to the commission. Um if that is amanable to you all, we can go through and do our comparisons with the uh department heads in that manner and present you all with what we have. >> That makes sense. Thank you.
Can I >> can I add um something? Can we would um is it acceptable that when the budget is being presented by the departments that the at each line they explain what's in that line item?
>> That's great. >> And go in detail about >> the more information the better. Yeah. >> Okay. So, >> so, so in doing that, I just want to understand that our uh our presentations that's been presented
before have been uh very generic in its its model mainly covering just decision units. So, if we're talking about discussing on on individual lines, it changes our presentations. So, if that if that's what you like, that's fine.
Then we need to make sure we share that with department heads and send out a different uh order for them to come back with. >> May I suggest something? Maybe continue with the PowerPoint the way presented. However, provide the detail
um similar to what um we have here except yours will be much simpler. would be your general um your account number, your account description, the budgeted amount that you get from finance, and a section where you would write in the what's in
that line. And that would hopefully provide enough transparency. Um cuz >> I I don't go ahead. >> For me, sorry, mayor. Personally, I don't care how it's presented, but let me tell you, I'm looking for and I think
the commissions are looking for, you know, your rationale. First of all, the strategic following the strategic plan that these requests are being made. Second of all, the rationale and you know I'm and maybe I don't know this yet from
um based on the experience I have here, but the decision trees are fine, but I I just really want to know what do you want? What's your rationale? >> And what do you need? >> No, no, no, not what you want. What do you need?
and what I want a little bit of what you want but need first some wants and what's your rationale I'm g be honest I the decision trees and looking at that I don't know but I also want to make sure we're not asking for anything that is
labor intensive from an administrative perspective for the information that we give I'm telling you the simpler the better and consistency from departments >> I'm just taking into account. My first month here, I heard the comments that
were stated regarding not having the information, not having enough time. So, I want to make sure we're we're meeting other commissioners. I I just need >> Do you want to say anything, Commissioner Jones? >> I think we said it. We already made it clear. >> Yeah. >> Commissioner B.
>> And she said um Chief said it about having explanations out there. It it does help to know the sense of urgency, the need, and just give us the information and then lessening your time up in front of us. Uh the director,
>> it's up. It's in our face. We can see it. We know we make decisions of importance, >> right? And obviously, you're not going to go through every line item because electric is what it is, water is what it is. So, we want to know what the needs
are and what the wants are of that particular department. and to be able to articulate that so we understand where the folks are coming from. >> Yeah, >> that's it. >> Yeah. >> Why would you want to >> go ahead, Commissioner Borl? >> And I think whatever your your requests
or your ask are, they need to just align with whatever um the city priorities are. So, we got to understand and know that's where the budget uh everything aligns with where your priorities are. So that's where the the funding should
flow and um again you still want to for every department to be able to submit what they need and you know again prioritize each of those uh items you know and so I think that's in in alignment with everything what everybody
else has said. So but making sure that whatever your ask is is aligned with the city's priorities that we've set. Thank you. >> Anybody else? Commissioner Campbell, since I can't see with your hands up or not. Okay.
>> I want to give you an example. >> Okay. >> And I probably get the but we need computer monitors uh for every employee at the city. They have a desk and we like, oh yeah, that's my need.
But then we go in and we see 50in monitors at each desk. That monitors bigger than the desk. Some of that's overkill. And this is me on a personal note saying this and and and so when a person comes up to city hall or any other office they go well I went in to
see this employee but I couldn't see their face because the computer screen is bigger kind of block the view and I've had that I promise you and that's why I'm saying in this meme it it actually said and it's like well it's something to think about. It's not that
you talking about technology and we need it, but is that a barrier to some of the constituents? I don't know if some people see it as such. >> Um, but we we it's a necessary evil. I guess we need it, but do we actually
need a 50-in monitor on our desk? >> Those kind of things >> for for us that like myself in accounting, we have a number of screens and websites. >> You don't have to justify it. I think we just asking for >> that's example I said >> oh yeah it's just it's hypothetical in a
sense >> you know we have a standard we have an expectation that's unwritten and if we need to say it that department head has when they're submitting budgets that obviously they're going to be fiscally responsible for the request and when we talk about wants the want may be
something that doesn't exist today that could help their jobs be better >> not like ooh pie in the sky so I think let's level set and I think Most of our department heads understand that. But um but that's a good example that
Commissioner Jones gave because we are public servants and we want to make sure that we are appropriate with our um utilizing the funds. So I think that's just a general statement. >> Thank you. Anybody else? If not, do I
have a motion to adjurnn? >> So move. Thank you.