Good evening everybody. Welcome to the city of Plaa city commission meeting on July 23rd, 2026. It is 6 p.m. and I'm calling the meeting to order. Beginning with invocation the invocation led by Pastor Malbury and the pledge of allegiance led by Commissioner Davis.
Please stand if you're able. >> [clears throat] >> Let us pray. Uh, Father, be before we ask you for anything, we want to thank you for everything. You taught us that in all things to give thanks, for this is the will of God. We give you thanks
for how you blessed us to come through this day. You brought us together once again in a meeting for the city purpose. We ask God that you will give us the wisdom that is needful to lead this city God in the right direction. We pray that
you would have your way God and bless the dice everyone and participants. We pray your will be done now in this house in Jesus name. Amen. >> Amen. >> Please join me in the pledge of allegiance to our flag. I pledge
algiance 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 Cler.
>> Commissioner Davis, >> present. >> Commissioner Campbell, >> present. >> Commissioner Borum, >> present. Commissioner Jones >> here. >> Mayor Carrera >> present. Thank you. We have forum on to number two, oath of office, interim city
manager. Adopt resolution 2026R-122, a resolution of the city of Palaca, Florida, appointing Cynthia W. Curry as interim city manager of the city of Palaca, authorizing the mayor and the city clerk to execute and attach an employment agreement, providing for an effective date, and providing for
Scrier's errors. Do we have a motion? >> So move second. Second. >> We have a motion is second. Roll call. >> Oh, you're over there. We'll do all in favor. >> Any opposition? Thank you. Pass unanimously.
Time for the oath of office. Miss Curry, please. It used to be up here. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that I I state your name, please. >> I Cynthia W. Curry. Do solemnly swear or affirm >> Do solemnly swear or affirm
>> that I will faithfully perform the duties >> that I will faithfully perform the duties >> of interim city manager >> of interim city manager >> and will support and honor to the best >> and will support and honor to the best >> of my ability >> of my ability >> all of applicable laws of the state of Florida
>> all of the applicable laws of the state of Florida >> county and the city of >> the city of Palacco. I hereby for this oath >> I hereby this oath >> affirm that I will perform duties >> perform that I will perform duties >> of this public trust and affair >> of this public trust and affair
>> equitable and ethical manner >> equitable and ethical manner >> befitting the dignity and responsibilities of the office >> befitting the dignity and responsibilities of the office. >> Congratulations [applause] on to approval of minutes. June um has
everybody had an opportunity to read June 10th, 2026 public arts workshop, June 11th, 2026 regular commission meeting, June 17th, 2026 budget workshop, and June 29th, 2026 special call meeting minutes.
>> Motion to approve minutes as presented. >> Second. We have a motion to second. Roll call. >> Commissioner Davis, >> yes. >> Commissioner Campbell, >> yes. >> Commissioner Jones, >> yes. >> Commissioner Borum, >> yes.
>> Mayor, thank you, Mayor. >> Oh, Mayor Carrera, I apologize. >> Yes. [laughter] >> On to public recognitions presentations in the spotlight. Employee of the month, Mr. [snorts] White.
Madame Mayor, commissioners, good evening. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> The city of Palaka is proud to recognize Chief Jason Shaw as our employee of the month. In appreciation of his exceptional leadership, unwavering
professionalism, and steadfast commitment to public service, Chief Shaw has exemplify the highest standards of public service and leadership. He consistently demonstrates initiative, creativity, reliability, and teamwork while serving as a model of
professionalism for employees across the organization. Regardless of the challenge, Chief Shaw is always willing to step forward when needed, providing thoughtful guidance and dependable support to both city leaders and staff.
His willingness to help wherever he is needed has made a lasting impact on the city of Palaca and the community we serve. Chief Shaw leads with integrity, respect, and an unwavering commitment to the city's mission and values. His calm demeanor and sound judgment and ability
to analyze complex situation allow him to develop practical effective solutions. He is known for asking the right questions, paying close attention to detail and providing guidance that inspires confidence in those around him. Whether mentoring colleagues or
assisting leadership, Chief Shaw presence brings stability, reassurance, and professionalism. Chief Shaw's commitment to excellence is evident in every aspect of his work. His thoughtful leadership promotes safety, accountability, and responsible
decisionmaking while settling a standard while setting a standard of excellence for others to follow. During periods of organizational transition and uncertainty, Chief Shaw willingly stepped aside outside of his traditional role to provide leadership and support
across the city. He embraced unfil unfamiliar responsibilities, collaborated with fellow department leaders, and helped guide the organization toward greater stability and confidence. Chief Shaw, we thank you for your outstanding service, exceptional
leadership, and unwavering dedication to the city of Palaca. Your contributions have not gone unnoticed, and we are honored to recognize you as employee of the month. Congratulation on this welldeserved [applause] Yeah, I thought he was going to speak
first. [laughter] Got it. Thank you. >> Speech. A good one, too. I was waiting for the joke, the punchline to come in and then to continue on. Um, first uh let me start by saying thank you to uh fellow
team members, my employees, my supervisors um and all that we serve for the city of Palaka. It's truly an honor to be a a member of the city of Palaka, to have the ability to step in when needed and to lead a team that is uh
that does wonders that that that I get to see on a daily basis. So, I was honored to be able to do so. Throughout my career, um I was always taught it's not the the leader that seeks the limelight, but uh what you do not only for the overall organization and what credit that the organization gets, but
what those below you and how they begin to strive and and advance and that's the judgment of the leader itself. So, with that, I I will say thank you. I definitely shocked and um I guess that means I can go home early. Thank you.
>> [applause] >> Sons of the American Revolution Firefight of the Year War award [snorts] come on up, please. Please give us your name. >> My name is uh Paul Sap. I am the uh heroism and public service chairman of
the uh local chapter St. Augustine um Sons of the American Revolution. And with me is Phil Perry. He's our chapter president. So we always like to give uh recognition to our first responders, our police, our fire, and other important
people who do a really good job for us. We do this every year. We're glad to be back again this year to address uh everybody here in the city commission. So, we're going to give out some awards for heroism to some very brave firefighters. And let me uh let me call
out their names here. We do have a few awards. [clears throat] So, we're proud to award the S heroism medal to members of the city of PLCA fire department. Captain Kenny Reid, Captain Kenny Suggdan,
Engineer Marcus Wilson, Engineer Zayn Wily, Engineer Matt House, firefighter Lauren Hutch or Futch, and firefighter Ben Stevens. On May 12th, 2025, these firefighters responded to an active
structure fire on North Maryland Avenue in Putnham County, Florida. Demonstrating exceptional courage, they deliberately placed themselves in extreme danger by entering the burning mobile home. While conducting an aggressive interior attack, crews forced
entry through windows after removing wood and other obstructions, locating and removing three victims, an adult female, and two children who were rapidly transported to the hospital. One adult was found deceased on scene and a seven-year-old child child self-rescue
rescued. This selfless act highlights the extraordinary bravery and dedication of our fire personnel who willingly risk their lives to serve our community in its greatest time of need. So, thank you all very much. Let me uh
There's a whole bunch of them here. So, let me go down the row here. I don't know everybody's name and Ben Stevens. >> He's not Zane Wilson. Engineer Marcus Wil
and >> [applause] [applause] >> This way. Thank you. Congratulations. [applause] Let's keep the meeting rolling. Madame Mayor, commissioners, guests, and staff, um we just appreciate this time to recognize these people for what they
do every day and what they're willing to do. And we've seen that they are willing to risk their lives to save others lives. We appreciate the Sons of American Revolution helping us recognize this and the commission allowing it to happen here today. Thank you.
[applause] on to city manager. Oh my god. On to city manager and administrative reports. Interim city manager report update on New Town Museum and Cultural Center. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor, members of the commission. This item is brought before you today in the form of a staff report.
Um we uh there was discussion at previous uh meetings regarding the proposed um New Town Museum and Cultural Center. um memorandum of understanding. Um I've had uh conversations with our internal staff and Mr. Hill in
preparation for um this report today. Um as I mentioned, we're not bringing the back at this time. I thought that it was appropriate for the commission to get just a little bit more background on where the um city has been as it relates
to um the relationship and partnership with New Town Museum and Cultural Center. Um I think it's important for us to uh have a little bit of background about the uh Jenkins Junior Memorial Gymnasium, as we call it, the Jenkins
Community Center. Um there was an original grant of $690,000 scope for the purpose of eligible cultural and historical facility purposes in the area of cultural significance. Of course, this occurred at the Jenkins Center. Um the grant was
awarded uh in July of 2021. And um the the term at that time was through June 30 of 2023. The grant was actually extended um and there was a city match required of approximately $190,000 that was added to
the $660 $90,000 bringing the total funding for the Jenkins Community Center renovations to $880,000. Um, as the project was scoped out, um, there was, um, commission approval over
time, uh, for, uh, a total allocation. In addition to the grant and the initial match, the city put in additional dollars bringing the total allocated for the Jenkins Community Center improvements to 1,191 um,,470.
Um, currently the, uh, Jenkins Community Center improvements are nearing completion. Um there is an estimated $134,730 remaining in the city match on this project. And the city match is generally
is is not a match associated with the original grant because the original grant has been closed out. The city match really just refers to the supplemental money that the city placed into this project. So there's no grant association necessarily with this money.
Regarding the um museum, uh it was organized uh and a not for-profit has been organized around the museum for its operations. Um the following references capture some of the discussions that the city has had in partnership with the
museum over time. Uh on January 9th, there was a presentation made to the city commission regarding Jenkins new town visioning session. And so that means internal um staff from the city um along with uh leadership from the museum, they met and they had an had a
visioning session. There were many meetings, but the one that I was able to reference was held on December 12th of 2024. On March 27th, 2025, there was a resolution 2025R-476.1 that was placed on the uh consent agenda of the city of Palaca naming the
facility um the Jen um in the Jenkins Center as the New Town Museum and Cultural Center at Jenkins. Uh on February 12th, 2026, there was a proclamation presented by um the city commission to the museum by Mayor Korea
uh in celebration of Black History Month. Uh and on May 28th, 2026, there was a presentation made by Mr. Terrell Hill to the city commission regarding the memorandum of understanding between the city and the museum to operate the museum in the Jenkins Community Center.
Um the agenda item was referred back to staff and this is the report um coming from that um the process of those meetings afterwards. Um I think it's important for um the commission to at this point focus on
where the dollars that have been that are remaining whether those dollars actually go into the improvement of the community center Jenkins community center for the purpose of the museum being located there. I did not find anything in the record where the commission had actually made that
decision uh for the allocation of those funds. And so before we can move into anou I think that that has to be addressed. And so that is one of the first things that um I think the commission needs to um discuss. Um the second thing is that in theou that was
presented, it was a draft of course there was an allocation or or an ask for an allocation of $25,000 annually for the next five years. Um there was some preliminary discussion afterwards about that. I think that um it was appropriate
at that time for me to have a have a brief discussion with Mr. Hill about the annual operating budget once the center was up having uh an annual budget presented to the city so we could take a look at it and look at the other elements of that budget in addition to
whatever contribution the city decides to make. Um because I'm sure there would be other elements to an operating budget just besides the city's allocation, whatever that amount should be. And so with those items um really still pending, I think the recommendation
today would be in good faith um for staff to continue with the issuance of a professional services contract that would assist in determining the cost of the buildout of the museum in the Jenkins Center because quite frankly that's that's the point that we need to
to decide. Um and based on the cost of the buildout and the availability of funds, develop a recommendation for consideration by the city commission on how to proceed. Um and then hold on hold on the commitment of operate of
operating support uh to the museum pending a final decision around buildout cost and timing. So that's where we are today. Um I have been working with Mr. right on this and he is available for any questions regarding the the Jenkins
Center. Um but that is where we are. We really need to have some direction from the commission on uh moving forward with the improvements in the Jenkins Center for there to be a space for the museum. Um right now as it relates to the $134,730
that remains um in city funding in support of the Jenkins Center and obviously in the Jenkins Center if the commission um so uh deems it appropriate to to build the space out for the museum. I think that we need to um to understand a little bit about what is
included in that 134. There is a um a line item based on my understanding uh in the 134 in anticipation of support for building the museum out for an engineer or planner to go in and basically do the estimates for what it
would take to [clears throat] actually do the buildout. So there are some pending decisions that we need to make before we um actually move into anou. So it's madame mayor it's open for discussion commission. >> Anybody have any questions
before we stop discussing this? Um I have I in terms of the remaining funds available for the Jenkins Community Center the 135,730. Um what other items are needed to be done outside of the museum or is this
the only remaining Mr. Cut? Come up please. gone. Hello. Well, the remaining funds for that project, that is actually what's left. We already have allocated the money to finish the rest of the projects already set aside. The remaining funds, that's what came up to
be $130 some,000. And that's really roughly 60ome,000 out of the city match that y'all allocated about a year or two ago. And then we also budgeted in the in the budget GL line for some money to cover the cost for the new time museum when it came to be built out and that's
where it came up to be $130 some thousand. >> Okay. So it's it's anticipated to be for the buildout of the museum. Okay. That wasn't clean. >> And madam ma'am to include that the buildout is I'm assuming the one and I I want to be clear about this. We don't
have a number from the the engineering firm that says that it's going to be whatever that number is. >> It could be more, could be less. Okay. >> I just want to make that clear. But this figure does include I believe funds for a planner or the engineer to come in and
do that work. >> Yes, it's 30. Pastor Ro is quoting us of $30,000 to come in and do the scope of work for that. Uh we have had if you don't mind s back we have had a couple quotes came in before we did the RP program and they came in around 65 to
$75,000. So that's where we're gauging this at and the price that we have. Does anybody else go ahead? >> So, Mr. Cutright, what other you say put some stuff aside, money aside for other things that has to be done over there. Could you name those other things? I
mean, >> putting the fence up as we speak. Now, they're finishing that up. Uh, O call is coming in to do some drop stations to have so we can have guest Wi-Fi throughout the building. Uh, we're actually changing all the side doors of the multi-purpose room and also the room for the classroom. Putting doors in for
that. Right there. We have did the signage and uh matter of fact, I got it right here. I see what I'm trying to get. Um property with the doors. We did the we got the flooring. We're going to redo the flooring in a couple of those areas back in the back classroom that we had
to vandalism. So, we're going to redo that. So, all that has been allocated out. So, the funding's left is going it could go directly toward the build out of the building. And we already have POS and everything quote for the things I just told you about. And this is not to only because I think
some commissioners was there the other day and sound system. Do y'all have that was something that need to be addressed. >> We call and also I give you the names. We got three quotes. O call is coming in today to get another quote. We're
actually going to put two state art sound system in the multi-purpose room and also at Price Morton. Uh we we're getting the build out on both of those. Could we not skimp on those things because when the public come >> you already know >> and we allocating 17 $18,000 per
building and it's already in the budget. This is something that was budgeted uh Commissioner Borne and Commissioner Campbell have hit on it. So we actually have that money set aside. I just wanted to price warn to be halfway finished before we moved in there because most of the money is going to go into price morning build out first before we do the
multi-purpose. And my last question, I know um a lot of those funds were to harden that center >> or you know they've thrown around stuff about shelters and stuff. >> Are we compliant or have we considered
those things for that building? >> And if so, what does that mean? What was the hardening part of it? >> The that would probably be a David about the harden part, but it was it's quot it's coded to be a a hurricane relief shelter and also a jump site. When I say a jump site for when we have uh major
disasters, that can be a site where y'all can come and set up and work. [clears throat] But the the uh the shelter also would be coded to be used for homeless shelter for a temporary use, not a permanent use. [snorts] >> And that we're talking about in this instance price just to clarify for the audience
>> because we're jumping around here. Okay. No, I'm Jenkins. I'm on Jenkins. >> You're on Jenkins. Okay. >> No hardening for those type things. No. >> Nope. Um, >> what about the kitchen? >> Kitchen at Jenkins. >> The kitchen at at Jenkins because I
heard that we were actually because you remember the >> Yes. >> phone conversation reference to >> Well, we actually in part of this, not this money, but budget money. We actually going to put a sink closer to the kitchen back there in the back, but other than that, the kitchen is functional. Uh, the fire marshall came out that and everything's functional.
It's just the sink back there need to be redone and make sure we have water closer to the sink to have a full-fledged function kitchen. Do we have an industrial uh stove? >> Yes, everything is fully functional with the stove and everything. We got a refrigerator. It's just the sink. Where is that? We need to redo it. And we also
have the It used to be uh what was the plumbing company here? They changed their name since then, but they came out and gave us some quotes. So, we actually working on getting >> Okay. >> Anything else? >> No. >> Does anybody else have any questions? Mr. Go ahead. So, just to clarify,
$134,000 is remaining and dedicated to the uh to refinish Jenkins for the New Town Museum. >> That's the bottom line. Thank you very much.US 30,000. >> Correct. For30,
>> right? >> And anybody else direction? We follow the direction of the >> Okay. Just just want to be clear on that. >> Okay. >> City manager recommend. >> Thank you. >> So, Madame Mayor, yes. >> The three items that are listed here under recommendations for us to move
ahead in good faith and um issue the contract to Cacero who is apparently in place to do the work around the planning for the space and estimating how much it's going to cost to finish it out. We're going to move forward with that. That's what it sounds like from the will of the commission that they want to move
forward with your recommendations. Thank you. >> Yes, >> we'll come back to the commission. >> Okay. Once that is done, >> thank you. >> Anything else, Miss Pierre? Financial report for May.
>> Greetings, mayor and commissioners. Before you is the month of May financial reports, the financial dashboard. The first page. Okay. Want to pull it up for me? >> Oh, perfect. Thank you.
>> Thank you. So, the first page is of the financial dashboard shows the financial condition is stable. Um, for the month of May, we're 66% into the year. Um the numbers highlighted in green represent stable conditions where revenue has is
has exceeded expenditures and you can go to the next page. The next page shows a list of the general fund departments and each department is stable highlighted in green.
You can go to the next page and the last page has the fund reserves for the month of May. for the general fund, sanitation and utilities. And that concludes my report unless you have questions.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um on to announcement for the executive meeting. Miss West, good evening. Pursuant to section 286.011 section 8 of the Florida statutes, the city commission will hold a private
attorney client session commonly referred to as a shade meeting on Tuesday, July 28th, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. here at city hall. The purpose of the session is to discuss strategy related to litigation in the pending matter of Jeff Nations versus the city of Palaca.
The session will commence and conclude in an open public meeting and the entire private session held in the shade will be recorded by a certified court reporter. In attendance [clears throat] will be the mayor, city commissioners, city manager, and the city attorney. Immediately following the attorney
client session, the city commission will hold a closed executive session pursuant to section 447.605 605 subsection 1 Florida statutes to discuss matters related to the city's collective bargaining negotiations with the firefighters union. The session will be
limited to the city commission, the city manager, the city attorney, and the city's labor negotiation team. >> Thank you. Are we all set with that? Um, on to on to public comments. I'm going to open the floor to public comments. For items not specifically
mentioned or listed on the agenda, if there's anybody here for public comments, feel please fill out a yellow comment card and bring it up and forward with you. Um, it your time will be limited to three minutes and we will not not be able to resolve whatever your concern is at this time until we do
further research. Um, I'm going to open the floor. I do have a public comment card for Miss Kitchens. >> I'll pass. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, Miss Reyes, please give us your name and city of town of residence.
>> Thank you. Reyes [snorts] Reyes Boswick. Thank you. Um, I have two things regarding the drinking center. Is that no longer going to be a cold weather shelter like it was last year based on what was just said? I I know
you're not going to answer it now, but that's the one thing. And then the second thing, as you know, I've asked about the 124,700 ARPA funds that were on your budget item, and I've been asking for the
obligation that was assigned to that, and I haven't received it. I had a conversation with Miss Curry this week and she advised that that money was never obligated to the homelessness and
therefore she's having to reallocate that money into different funds that are obligated. So I just need to understand it's been since 2024 that you were supposed to obligate it and it wasn't
apparently. I don't know. I haven't been able to get the documentation, but I'd like to find out what happened. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else here for public comment? Seeing none, we'll close public comment.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Please come up. I'm sorry. I didn't see you. >> Good evening. My name is Sharon Session Williams and um I had a chance to just fill this out, but I am a commissioner with the Pala Housing Authority Board and I'm
here I don't see it on the agenda, but I'm trying to see if some of that can be addressed or we can come to be on the agenda to address some concerns that we were emailed about reappoint. >> Thank you.
Is there anybody else here for public comment? Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Do we want to respond to any of these things at this time? M. >> Sure. As it relates to the public housing issue, I believe that um in conversations that I had last week or
the week prior to with the attorney as well as the clerk, um the openings, and I believe it's four of them, um be advertised if have been advertised already. and the recommendations for the commission to consider and approve will be brought to you at the April uh
August, I'm sorry, August 27th commission meeting. Yes, sir. >> Go ahead, sir. >> I have a concern because that is incorrect. There is actually only two seats that is available or up for that that should be vacant. Um, and then you
have two seats that are vacant in the year of 2027. And then you have a vacancy that will be open in 2028. And that is according to documentation that has been previously sent to the commission in which I've
asked that question several times. So there is not four vacant seats on that board. There should be only two vacant seats on that board. And the two vacant seats should be Dr. Evans and Miss Williams. Madame Mayor, I'm going to yield to Miss West and or um Miss Hayes.
>> So, the Palaca Housing Authority is a creature of statute and it is clear that the mayor along with the city commission make those appointments. it has to be codified in the form of a resolution and in our research we have not been able to
find anything since 2020 on uh the appointments of any of those members. So if you do if we do have documentation in the form of a resolution um by all means please get those to me. Uh our research
internally has not been able to find any resolution uh since that time. The last one that was done was done by Mayor Hill and I have not been able to find anything and I've been working with the clerk and going through his records to find anything and we are not able to find those appointments.
>> I mean, we had a actual workshop with reference to this um matter and again I know I've personally sat up here and made reappoints to individuals on that board and that has been in recent years and it has not been since 2020. Um, so I
know personally that I've made um reappointments or voted for reappoints of individuals that sit on that board. And again, according to documentation that was provided to the city commission, there are only or should be only two vacant seats. And if that is not the
case, where does that leave the Palaka Housing Authority with regards to being able to conduct business and move forward um in this interimm time? But again, I'm very much confident in knowing that two vacant seats should be
available in 2025. They were became vacant in 2025. The next two are vacant come 2027. And then the last one which is have by uh Miss Spels is 2028. And again, I've called I've asked for this
documentation and I have the documentation to provide. >> Okay. So to address your question about what happens in the interimm uh merely because their terms have expired does not automatically according to the statute result in a vacancy of that
position. They will continue to hold that position until the mayor nominates and makes the appointment. Um, I did review some documentation from a workshop, but it did not take the statutory requisite form of a resolution
uh by the mayor making the nominations and making the proper appointments. So again, if if there is documentation that contradicts uh what I've been able to find in terms of the resolutions making these appointments, I am more than willing to take a look at those so we
can reassess how many actual expired terms that we're dealing with. I wish that would have been done prior to um putting that out with reference to saying that there were four vacancies and I wish that just would have been
vetted prior to that going out. >> Go ahead. >> What? >> I thought you were about to say something. >> No, no, no. She spoke. She was Madame Mayor. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Any further discussion on
>> um No. And that was my understanding too. So if somebody has um resolution documentation of those resolutions, that would be great. Um and to make it clear, the mayor uh nominates those to be appointed, but ultimately the final
approval is with the commission. >> Correct. just to make that clear. >> Madame Mayor, relative to Miss Reyes's comments, um she and I did have a conversation on yesterday. I provided explanation around the ARPA uh allocations that were previously uh
identified in the uh plan, the ARPA plan. Um before you today is a new plan with a new recommendation for distribution of the remaining funds. Uh and we will be prepared to speak about that when that item comes up.
Thank you. Cold weather. And the other thing that Miss Reyes brought up is the cold weather shelter. Um last year, come up Mr. Cutright. We did do a cold weather shelter at Jenkins Community Center. So clarification for the future
>> from y'all guidance that we continue to have that temporary cold weather shelter as long as it meet the threshold that we had in the criteria of the weather being lower than 35 degrees. So until y'all tell us that we don't normally want to do that, that would always be in place. Uh we would just require several days
notice to put in place the the cops and everything else. >> Is the future intent though to have it at Price Mountain? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> But it but it needs to be that'll be an alternate site. >> Okay. Thank you. >> On to the consent agenda. Um the request
has been made to p Um, seven. I'm sorry. D like dog. >> D as in dog. >> D and G. I have thought
something else. >> She's she said D and G. She >> I said D and D. I said >> I think she also said >> pull for someone who wants to make comments, >> right? Yes, >> that was D, right? >> D >> and I. So DG and I
>> Okay. Do we have a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve the agenda. I mean the um consent agenda with the exception of DG and I. >> Second. >> Roll call, please.
>> Commissioner Campbell. >> Yes. Commissioner Jones. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Borum. >> Yes. >> Davis. >> Yes. >> Yes. Um item B. >> D.
Sounds like D. Sorry. Okay. >> I think B was B as well. Who said B? >> I think somebody said BG. No. No. DJ. Yes. It was DG and I. >> Okay. Um
>> D adopt resolution 2026-R116 granting a special events permit to Lee Hall Jr. for the Lily Water Bash to be held on July 26 from 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at Booker Park. Miss Kitchens wanted the item pulled.
I leave the kitchens the floor and I asked this be pulled for the commission to uh about it. Uh I have no particular problem with it except two things. Uh at the last uh commission meeting, I think it was when there was discussion about the last uh wonderful block party that was had that was turned into be a fiasco
with people being injured and a thousand people going to Midtown Shopping Center and creating havoc. Um the assistant chief Matt Nukem suggested that the city put restraints on the amplified sound when they suspend the sound uh ordinance as in 80 dB at the perimeter of the
event. No, no louder than 80 dB at the event and not beyond the perimeter. So, I want I want to know has the commission put the restraints on this event or or is this event going to be blasting people out in East Palaca, Londy, Hastings, and in my neighborhood two
miles away. Uh the other thing is, and this is something that uh the commission should ask, in the agenda packet that I received, which I presume it's the one you received, it said the application was in it. I wanted to see when the application was applied for because there is a time restraint. it's either
30 and 45 days before the event is when you apply. If you don't meet the time requirement, then the commission has the ability to uh uh let that go and go ahead and approve the event. So my question is when was the event applied for and do you all need to let this you know give
special permission to have it applied for after the time period? So that was that was my two concerns is the sound and the uh time period. Was it applied for at the proper time period? If it wasn't then you all do need to give approval for it to be applied for after the sale after the time period and this
is occurring three days from the day and you just got it today. Uh the only other thing is I would ask you federal law says marijuana is illegal. Federal law I believe the state of Florida says the same thing. There's been reports of marijuana smoking at Midtown Shopping
Center during these events after the after the event. I would request that you make sure that the police since the city property if there is any illegal drug use on the city property that you instruct the police to follow the law and make arrests. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Mr. Cartright, do you want to provide any additional information? >> Uh well, on the decimal sound, Chief Matt Nukem and I met with other staff and said we don't address that issue. They have something there to make sure the sound will go past that. And if it does, then we'll try to put it back into
the box. Um, what was the Holocaust question? Um, the applicant applied for this. This was actually supposed to been on July the 4th and our special event meeting. We advised him to see if he can move it back because we had so much going on that same day and it would be hard for us to have adequate staff to
cover all these events. So, this this applicant came in. I give you the exact date. It's not in front of me right now, but I think he applied for this back in April. Uh so as well in tide that the number of days he had to be spec to be permitted um
I can't answer about the marijuana in the area right there. I can't address it. >> Yeah. Okay. So May 28 when we talked about the decimal. Yes. >> So he's well inside the window where we need to do this event. >> Does anybody have any questions?
>> I I do. >> Go ahead. [clears throat] Um, I know we talked about Booker Park and I know there's renovations going on at Book of Park. How would that coincide this event with the construction that we have going on
out there? Or have we started any construction? >> Now, that would be a Joe question. >> I'm looking at Joe. I want him to come up here and answer the question. >> Mr. Barakio. [clears throat] >> Uh, yes, sir. We have uh started construction out there as far as clearing out the old playground
equipment. New playground equipment is coming in. Everything's been approved. It's shipping towards us now as we speak. We're going to put a 40ft container out there to hold all the equipment as they install it for the week. At the same time, the splash pad is moving along great. They finally have the engineered drawings and they're
being pushed into the county as far as getting approval. Once that gets done, it'll continuously move forward. Also, we have FPNL is scheduling to come out there and start looking and doing a whole entire layout for the lighting for the entire park. Also, we are going to
make the bathrooms uh full-time bathrooms. Um that's coming. Yes, sir. And and we're excited about it, too. So, we just finished putting or we started putting the security system in this week for the doors so they could be open and controlled remotely um at all times so
nobody has to actually deal with the key. We can schedule events in the future. So, we're pretty excited about that. And we just had three different cameras put down in the bathrooms, the playgrounds, and towards >> cameras in the bathroom. >> No, no, towards the front bathroom. [laughter] >> What the
>> Yeah. And then and then one towards the playground so we can make sure everybody's safe. So, that's in in in motion, sir. Yes, sir. >> Good idea. I just want to make sure we we're not going to mess up something we've already started doing over there or if it's going to conflict. Thank you.
>> Yes, sir. Cool. to answer your question. He we gonna work around all the construction they got going. >> Thank you. Um >> Okay. Do you have another question? I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> I won't put him on the spot. >> I won't put you on the spot. Go ahead.
>> Okay. Um >> Yes, I will. >> Okay. >> I just want to ask this question and um >> I hope so. One second. >> No, I won't. Go ahead and suck it. Right. >> Okay. Madame Mayor, I move to adopt
resolution 2026-R116. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Is there anybody else here for public comment on this item? Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Roll call, please, Madam Clerk. >> Commissioner Jones, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bur,
>> yes. >> Commissioner Davis, >> yes. >> Commissioner Campbell, >> yes. >> Yes. >> G. Adopt resolution 2026-R120 office spending plan July 23rd 2026 a resolution of the city commission the
city of Palaca Florida authorizing the city manager to expend remaining American recovery plan act funds totaling 1,1985634 cents providing for conflict severability and an effective date
Yes. >> Contracted with many cities and counties across the country and those here in the state of Florida who received offer allocations after I would like to ask ifformational wise to the offer program and pretty
much where we are. But before he speaks, I'd just like to to what has occurred here in the city of Palaca relative to the offer application. Um we received a total of 5,234,421 and today is [snorts] 4,124,565
remaining a109856 and 34. Um in the original uh ARA plan approved by the commission there were several community based organizations listed for um receipt of ARA funds. Um there are worthy organizations with services
clearly that the community uh would have benefited from. Unfortunately at this time um we as a city need to be able to fully obligate and expend all of these funds um prior to the deadline. And it's
not an obligation. It's full expense. No excuses as the federal government of all of the remaining funds. The recommendation is to uh utilize those funds for the organizations internally that we can validate and document
personnel record uh personnel expenditures, operating expenditures that have been obligated and expended. Uh quite frankly, as of December 31st, 2024, um the obligation for December 31st, 2024. But we can ensure as we may need
to be audited uh and provide documentation that we have spent those funds by the deadline allocating to police, fire and our wastewater um services. They are traditional municipal services uh that can very easily be validated as it relates to expenses. I
wish the city is a position to community based organizations but at this time I am not sure that I can that that will be done by the end of the calendar year. Hence the recommendation that you have before you today. Um and
that recommendation is for the fire department. Um for public safety services, these are services that are traditionally provided by municipal government 369,95211. for waste water reclamation treatment the same amount 369,95211
cents and that is for an approved category by the federal government for infrastructure and utilities and the final allocation for the police department public safety services again public safety services traditionally provided by the municipal government in the amount of 369,952
so that would fully extend our offer immediately and we would have no further concerned about whe [clears throat] >> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the commission. Um, thank you all for having me uh tonight. It's a pleasure to be here before you. My name is Joseph
Sheets. I'm a director with Accenture Infrastructure and Capital Projects. firm works around the world. Um we're doing different consulting uh consulting scope but uh particularly my team works with grant funding federal state and otherwise and we've worked with the ARPA
program since it inception on March 3rd with over 30 different municipalities in the state of Florida in addition to many many others around the country managed to over a billion dollars in our funding around around the US since it
inception. So, um, I'd like to go through the the report that you have before you. Um, although it's sometimes it's I know Miss Curry uh speaks very well about pretty much everything she speaks of. So, sometimes it's hard to go after her in these instances
because she she corrected and what she was discussing regarding the American Rescue Plan and some of the plans moving forward. Um, kind of take a small trip back in time, right? March 3rd, 2021, the peak, one of the peaks of the pandemic, President Biden signed on the
American Rescue Plan Act, which a part of part of that was the state and local fiscal recovery funds that allocated 350 billion of the 1.9 trillion uh stimulus funds for state local um state local governments to spend on a variety of
different allowable items uh to address the impacts of the pandemic. The city of Alaska was allocated 5 approximately 5.2 million of that funding [clears throat] to date. Uh 4.2 million approximately $4.2 million has been expended um with
$1.1 million remaining. There's there's a few deadlines that were put in place. Um one of which was the obligation deadline of December 31st, 2024. Then obviously the expenditure deadline of December 31st, 2026. So moving through the report uh
you have for you the proposed use of the remaining AR funding all of which is technically in the revenue replacement expenditure category. Um there was initially five then six and then eventually eight or
nine different um expenditure categories eligible for ARPA funding. Um however the most broad and the one that carried the least amount of administrative burden was the revenue replacement um allowability which uh any entity any local government could spend up to $10
million or you know their total allocation less than 10 million they could entire allocation within that funding category of which the city that category all of that approximately 5.2 2 million could go into that category. Why is it the most flexible? Well, the the
Treasury said you can spend it on a provision of government services, right? What does that mean? It's a very [clears throat] broad definition intentionally. So, and identified that any of these municipalities that got these smaller applications, smaller allocations, you know, needed to have
that less that lessening of the administrative burden of the program. Um, so when we look projects that are being recommended for reobligation. Um they all fall under that category. Um even with water, waste, water reclamation, right? That's a provision
of government services. So we have the fire department um the water wastewater reclamation, the police department split equally amongst that plan. Um when we talk about obligations and the
reconciliations, um you know, the one before you >> [snorts] >> to reduce the risk of non-expendures, reduce as much as possible, reduce the risk of any of this funding being sent back to the federal government.
We have especially with the new administration, seen a much much more aggressive communication about non expenditures about deadline. There will be no extensions, there will be no exceptions. If the funding is not spent by that deadline, December 31st, 2026,
it will be going back to the Treasury. So from a compliance standpoint, we talked about obligations. An obligation by Treasury's definition is an order of order for property services, entering contract, subord, and similar transactions that require payment. Um,
additionally, that can also be in the form of payroll obligations. Well, how do you obligate a payroll obligation in 2024 if you're not going to spend it until 2026? That happens. They they consider an obligation being that that position existed before December 31st,
2024. So, as long as that position was budgeted existed before then, it is eligible for expenditure through that period. So, you know, any of the payroll costs that are identified or the expenditure would be eligible for free obligation,
you know, activity um when the obligation got like it, there was a lot of a lot of chatter about what are the reasons we can reloate funding, right? Can we do it just because we don't like this project anymore? Um, you know, we're we're
moving directions. There's there are some pretty specific instances, right? Um, and there's detailed here in the report, right? Well, one of which is, right, the project would either come in under budget, right? or there was going to be um a a uh inability to fulfill the
commitment to spend the funding during the creative performance. Um so this would be that category u that this would fall into. So again the plan uh the plan is meant to mitigate as much as possible any of the risk of clawback. Um you know it's a word that no no one in local
government wants to hear. Um and you know it's el been eligible activity within the plan and you know think very well earlier yeah this is uh this is what what we recommend as well that's
the best path forward >> any questions or Mr. and thank you. Um, okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Davis. >> No questions. >> No questions. Okay. Would you like to make a motion? >> I have a comment. [clears throat] >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Um,
in reference to the offer funds, ARPA funds also could have been used for ADA purposes as well. because I read and I understood from a long time ago and I know it may be at the last minute but one [clears throat] of the things as Joe just came up and talked about uh some of
our recreational areas don't have restrooms that's ADA compliant so uh people with wheelchairs can't go in and utilize the bathroom so we keep them locked during the day um do you think we could use some of that
money to do something like that make those areas ADA compliant right? Along with what we were doing, I mean, we just [snorts] take some of the money from some of those line items. Um, I mean, I just think it'd be considered and and helping a population that we haven't been able to help in the past.
>> So, there's there's two parts to to what you're asking. One [clears throat] is, is that an eligible activity? Yes. Would it have met the obligation deadline? >> Won't be finished. >> Well, it's so the obligation deadline was December 31st. >> Well, I don't
pay obligation or contract or or invoice, purchase order, any of those um liabilities for payment or services, then it would not be eligible. >> I understand. I understand. We >> Thank you. I just want to know.
>> Thank you. With that, do we have a motion? >> So move >> second motion to second. Is anybody here for public comment on this item? Seeing none, I'll close public comment. Roll call, please. Madam clerk. >> Commissioner Borum.
>> Yes. >> Commissioner Davis. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Campbell. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Jones. >> Yep. >> Yes. [clears throat] >> Thank you. Um uh do we want to take a recess? I would think not.
>> Could I we pass something that I want to address to [clears throat] I want to advance question about >> uh Yeah. >> Oh, okay. What am I doing? Okay. Sorry.
>> Adopt resolution 2026 R123 cancelling request for proposal for 20261 for financial order services in its entirety. >> Greetings mayor and commissioners.
I intend to review the staff report. This is an application request requesting the city commission approval to formally cancel the RFP 202601 for financial audit services that would void and reject all the six proposals
received and authorize the development and reissuance of a new solicitation for these services at a later date. And to give you some background, on March 13th, the city of Palaca about the city contracts released the RFP for financial
audit services bid posting. The solicitation was drafted and received necessary approvals from the audit selection committee and the [clears throat] city commission prior to publication. The procurement timeline progressed through April 10th for the
submission deadline and close with six proposals received. April 28th, the audit committee cond conducted formal evaluations of all six submissions. May 6, the audit selection committee finalized and approved the proposal rankings
and following the subsequent posting of the intent to award, management decided to halt the procurement process. Um, pursuant to the section G of RFP 202601, the city reserves the right to
cancel the um, cancel the process. And so staff is recommending to cancel. >> Thank you. Does anybody have any questions? >> Okay, with that, do we have a motion? Um, I move that we adopt resolution
2026-R123. >> Second. >> Motion is second. Is there anybody here for public comment? >> Seeing none, we'll close public comment. Roll call, please, madam clerk. >> Commissioner Davis, >> yes. Commissioner Campbell, >> yes. >> Commissioner Jones,
>> yes. >> Commissioner, >> yes. >> Yes. >> In recess, no. move forward on to number nine, budget presentation discussion, budget development presentation. Miss Curry. >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Mayor,
members of the commission. So, you received a lot of information um in the last week uh about the budget development process. I'm going to go through some of it with you. Um all of the directors are here today um for any questions. Um, I'm here to take
direction as we continue to review and prepare uh a balanced budget for your consideration at the uh workshop coming up in late August. Um, but I would like to say that the budget development process has been pretty robust. I term
it budget rodeo stage one. um because it really was only a couple of weeks that we had to meet with directors and just kind of get back and um try to do some analysis around what we've been able to find. And when I say we, I introduced um
just briefly Cant Ramos who has um been working with me here around [clears throat] the corner. Um she's met directors and met with staff and and and we've been working diligently to um prepare a balanced budget for you. What you have today uh is a compilation of a
lot of information. Um I wanted to make sure that um the commission had a lot of information relative to departments uh and the different components and elements of the budget that um you normally may not be close to. Uh and so
I tried to put as much of that information out there relative to not only the general fund but to all funds uh and positions um that make up the budget for the city of Pala. Um there are a little over 43 slides and that quite frankly can get a little boring
based on some of the information in those slides. So I've prepared um a more executive um uh presentation if you will of that information. And so I'll just roll through um that information um and
starting with all funds. Um we if you can move to the next slide. The all funds for the um city just based on where we are right now is about $85.7 million. Um about 64 million of that is is is operating revenue which in
excludes your transfers and fund balance which are pretty hefty which makes that um 64 turn into the 85.7. Um and there are approximately eight funds. Um those funds are comprised of the utilities fund, the better place
plan, the sanitation fund, the general fund, the airport, and other funds such as the CRA tax increment fund, ARPA, uh and the golf course. Um I'd like to compare that $85.7 million figure to the fiscal 26 number, which is about the
same number, 85.6 million. Moving to the next chart, all funds revenue by fund. You can see pretty much what makes up that um the I'm I'm going to focus on the column for fiscal year 2027, the estimate, the 85.9. You can
see the different funds that make that up. The utilities fund actually leads it. It's the largest fund here. um followed by of course the general fund and then your better place uh fund which includes quite a few grants which quite frankly carries the city of Palaca in
terms of um contributions and support from the federal government and the state government. We've been very lucky but we also have to be cognizant that reliance on grants can be problematic as those grants expire positions are funded by those grants and then you have to
roll back. Um and we have to be conscious of that as we continue to apply for grants um to support our operations. Um on the all funds expenditure side um next slide right now for fiscal 27 it is adding up to $84.5
million. It's a total including transfers. And I will say right up front, the whole transfer um category of the budget, the reserve category of the budget, we'll talk about it a little bit, but that has to be flushed out a lot more thoroughly before I come back
to you in August. Uh and I'll talk about that a little bit more later. But of that $84.5 million, about 41.4 million of it, which is 49% is comprised of capital and grants, which is what I just talked about. So, it lets you know just how heavily we are relying on that
particular fund. Um, and I um I think that it's important too for us to talk about um the significance of personnel. Um personnel out of the $84.5 million knowing that a lot of it is is capital and grants. Personnel is still about
$17.4 million of that. And so, it's still a hefty number um that we will address. And I'll talk about personnel a little bit later. All funds expenditure by department. I'm on page six of 16. Um all funds expenditure by department. You can see that. Um and this is all funds.
It's not just general fund, but we did have um meetings with departments. And in that fiscal 27 estimate category, you can see um the shift in the departments versus the budget that was adopted in 26. So you see some in red, some in
black, which obviously the red is deficit, the black is more of a additional monies put into those areas for now. And I say for now because obviously we will continue to review these numbers and bring back um a balanced budget. Moving on to page seven
as it relates to positions by fund. Right now we have um been able to identify approximately 186 funded full-time FTEES citywide. and that'sund um 72 and a half field positions and 13 and a half vacant positions. The general
fund comprises about 113 and a half of those positions. Uh and then the other funds are 72 and a half. Um but a total of about 186. We're still refining that number with HR. We've got a couple of things that we need to work out in the fire department and a couple of other
departments. So that number may shift by maybe one or two when you see it again. But for now, when we work with the department and HR, this is where we are. Uh, all funds positions by department. Uh, again, we've got, uh, 186, 172 and a
half filled, and 13 and a half vacant. And what you'll see on the chart below that are all of the departments, the funded FTEEs, those that are filled and those that are vacant. And that's we're trying to make sure that we can can continue to track that. Um the O2
section of this is going to focus on general fund only. U moving to the next slide. The general fund right now is at $26 million. Of that $26 million, approximately $4.7 million of it is um comprised of property taxes. This is revenue only. And the reserves are
comprised of three and almost $3.5 million. This is general fund reserves budgeted only. That $ three and a half million dollars is comprised of more than just um operating reserves for the general fund. There's some monies in there for fire. There's some reserves in
there for police. There's some reserves in there for insurance. There different reserves that are in that number. I have to flush that number out so when I come back to you, I know exactly how much you are able to allocate as a commission that's not dedicated to something else,
but it is showing up in the general fund. But for now that is the number. Um on page 11 we look at the general fund revenue by major category. Obviously taxes um is the big one and um you can
find um the numbers associated with the other general categories totaling the $25.9 almost $26 million. Uh we actually received today I believe correspondence from um the state with updated numbers as of July for um I think the state shared revenues. I don't think there was
not a big difference in that. Uh but we did receive that update today and we'll load that number into the revenues as we continue to refine them. As it relates to expenditures on the general fund side, again 25.9 million which matches the 26 million approximately on the um
revenue side personnel just for general fund out of the 17 million that I mentioned earlier, 12.2 two of it belongs to the um general fund which is about 47% of the fund and public safety which is police and fire comprises $10.2
million of the general fund expenses. Uh on page 13, general fund expenditure expenditure by department. Again, um in budget rodeo one, the fiscal 27 estimate column gives you some idea of where we ended up in early discussions with
departments in terms of budget uh request. I'll call it a request estimate request. Um we are under in many of those departments as you can see in red and in a few of the departments. Obviously, the numbers are are larger. Again, having to flush these numbers
out. I'll also say that as I went through the budget, I'm using probably uh let's see what I will use as an example. You see public works with a positive 655. We're going to sit with public works tomorrow and go through that, but obviously capital request is
is quite a bit of that um because public works is capital heavy in terms of the work that they have to do. But we'll continue to flush that out as we move through um the review of the budget. Um quickly moving through on page 14. Um
switching back to positions. This is general fund only 113 and a half. You saw that figure um on a previous slide filled out of the 113 and a half or 103.5 positions. And there are 10 vacancies in the general fund um as of
today. Um you can see by department where those numbers um lie and where those 10 vacancies are. Um we have a couple in the police department. The fire department may not have a vacancy. That's one of the things that we have to shake out. I believe that one may have
been filled already, but right now we're looking at approximately 10 vacancies. If you estimate the value of that, clearly close to probably 8 $900,000. Um so there is opportunity depending on where the vacancy is um as to whether it
will remain in the budget or out of the budget. We still have to straight that out but there is an opportunity for savings around that number. Uh what is still pending the state revenue sharing because we got that number I'm on page 15 now of 16 because we got the number today from the state
on state revenue sharing that is no longer pending. So we will roll that number into our estimates. We're going to have to finalize the personnel projections because we're still sitting down with HR to make sure that each department understands what their personnel numbers are. I think in the past HR has handled the the personnel
side of the budget and the departments handle the operating and capital side and they they come together but they're not managed together uh are not developed together. I'll put it that way. So now I'm putting everything together uh in terms of um departmental
budgets. We have one-time sources and uses of funds that need to be flushed out. Um there are a lot of one-time and when I say one-time I mean rolling over for example revenue from this year call it carryover forward you know carryover
forward that has to be flushed out because it it inflates the budget if you will and so that has to be flushed out. grant funds appropriated needed to make sure that all of the grants that are showing in 27 are active grants um and that we're rolling in numbers that are
are are actual numbers and not grants that have expired. I need to shake that out. Um the commission asked for a 5% and a 10% reduction. We have those numbers in aggregate, but when we come back in August, we'll actually programmatically be able to show you for
whatever the department is, what that 5% represents in service and services provided as well as the people involved in that. Um, the reserve level and policy target, the reserves must be flushed out. There are reserves across
all funds, but my concern is the reserves for the general fund that this commission has a full handle on what that looks like. If you take a look at the annual financial report and look at the um the reserve that is unassigned there um those numbers are actually
rolled into your those numbers are in your operating budget. In my experience those reserves should not be shown as revenues or expenditures in your operating budget. Um because little by little you use them. uh and they should
not be used un unless you come back to the commission and get approval to use those reserves, but they are right now rolled into the operating budget. And I need to be comfortable with the fact that if those funds have been used,
there's been a budget amendment attached to the use of those funds that have been approved. That amendment has been approved by the commission. So, I've got to flush that out. Uh and of course, the fire assessment exemption. We'll be talking about that a little bit later in the um meeting today. Um but that is
still pending. I know that there was a meeting and there was an approval overall for the fire assessment, but still some conversation needed to take place about the exemptions. And so that really is where we are pending on that. Um but this is general information. It
is not a recommendation. I promise you that when we return in August, we will have a recommendation. Um this is based on a maximum millage rate which will also come up later in the discussion. The maximum millage rate is 6.2397.
Um and it is um the best place right now for us to land until we are able to share with you more detail about the general fund budget that obviously is driven by property tax and whether we need that flat rate or whether we can go
below that flat rate all the way to roll back. I'm not convinced that we cannot go back to roll back based on where what I'm seeing. But I don't want to make that decision before I fully flushed out the reserves and all the transfers in and all of the transfers out. All of the
debt service not debt service payments but all of the payments that have to be made to for loans that have been taken out. There's a lot of that in the budget that that needs to be flushed out further. So right now what I have shared with you um is based on maintaining a
maximum millage rate um and then coming back in August and presenting to you a balanced budget particularly for the general fund that hopefully will allow us to move below that. And so um that is the the budget presentation for this for this evening.
>> I just have a comment. Um, Miss Curry and team, can I just say thank you, thank you, thank you for making a clear and concise budget presentation um that I think will lend to the commission making better decisions. So,
thank you very much for all your hard work under such a short in such a short period of time. Um, so the rodeo has been successful for phase one. It's been a little bumpy, but we're we're moving along. It'll work itself out. you'll have solid recommendations at your um
your workshop in August. >> Thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner. >> Yes. And I concur with um Commissioner Davis. I want to thank you for the work you and the staff has put in to make this budget crystal clear. 2020 20 vision vision 2020. You're very clear
with your budget and you also gave us clear recommendations in the budget packet that that you provide us to help us make >> package is more detailed than it should be, but I figured starting out you you needed to see as much of the detail as possible. There's a lot in there that that really and truly I'm not able to
explain right now and I don't have a problem admitting that. That's what time will allow me to better understand it and when I come back in August be able to provide a balanced budget uh and hopefully one that will be less reliant on the U maximum mill rate. >> Right. So it doesn't leave any questions in my mind as it relates to like there
has been in the past. But thank you for all you've done. >> Anybody else? >> I agree too. But I do have questions that >> could you put your mic on and speaking to your mic please? there for reminding me on page 307 we talk about opera funding
>> and yeah so on the opera funding what we just talked to with our consultant we're talking about spending >> 1,19,000 and then on here >> yes >> you guys have 1,283,000
so that's a difference of >> there is that that that figure and that is not correct and If you recall a couple of days ago, the budget the the agenda that you're looking at now was republished. It was
republished because I saw the difference in the two numbers for ARPA and asked that the clerk republish the agenda with the correct number in it, which is the 1.109 number that you all just reviewed. When you come when I come back in August, that 1 million2 will be a
different number. That is not the correct number. So >> I think it's reflected in packet. >> Yeah, >> it is. >> Well, this the packet I have. So I mean it's here and here. >> But let me just say Commissioner Jones is correct. The ARPA number had it was
two different No, actually it was three different numbers and I finally settled it down to the 1.109 which is the correct number. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you >> for being on point there, Miss Curry. I
can't say that about you. Thank you. wash the nose. >> With that said, >> I can make mistakes, too. Okay. >> Oh, I >> you and that happens at times. >> I want to get kudos for a good kiss. That's all. >> I said good. I'm just kidding.
>> Okay, we need to provide some direction. [clears throat] >> No, I mean this wasformational. If you had direction to provide, I'm here to take it. But, you know, we're moving right along. >> Okay. Thank you. On to public hearings. Adopt resolution 2026-R114.
A resolution of the city commission of the city of Paka, Putnham County, Florida relating to the levy of general municipal purpose adorum taxes for the fiscal year 2026-2027 beginning October 1st, 2026 and ending September 30th, 2027, establishing a
proposed maximum millage rate, computing the roll back rate, setting a public hearing, providing for notice to the Putham County Property Appraiser, providing for scriven Evers, and providing for an immediate effective date. >> Yes, ma'am. Madam Mayor, >> go ahead, please. >> Members of the commission, so this is
the maximum millage item. Um, just an overview, if I can get the um slides to roll on the property tax um property [snorts] tax and millage. Um, as she is moving along on that,
the certified taxable value um is at $794.5 million. This is up from the 25 roll uh tax uh roll of 742 million.
Um this generates 4.7 million at the flat rate of 6.2397 and that is budgeted at 95%. I think one of the things that we picked up as we were reviewing the budget is that the um state statute that does not allow you to
budget 100% of your revenue. We we cannot do that. We are budgeting at 95%. Um and that of course um equates to $75,475 uh per tenth of a meal. Um, I don't
think it's necessary for me to talk about what a meal is, but it is a dollar of uh every $1,000 of taxable value. And right now, we're at 6.2397. Uh, a property tax. Um, if you have $6.24 per 10,000 of taxable value for
city services, that's basically what the 6.2397 equates to. This role grew about 7.3 uh 03% up from 205. And so we did get some RO growth, but between the June uh roll that we got and the July roll that we got, it actually
went down about $10 million. So we actually lost between June and July. Um and so that's that's it's notable. If you take a look at page three, you can take a look at where you've been with your millages over time and the taxable value. So starting in 2014, you can see
that the millage rate was as high as 9.17. And um you can see the role at that time was $364 million. You can see um probably better on what you're looking at at your places than on the screen because it's really small. But the role
from 2014, it grew from $364 million to what we've been talking about recently and that is the $794.5 million. So you can see the tax role has grown. The millage rate has actually dropped. Um but obviously we've been taking advant
advantage of the growth in the role to generate that additional revenue to support your operating expenses. Um but it's interesting to see how the 6.4 millage rate has carried over time. Um the same flat rate but still taking
advantage of the growth on the road. Um and so in fiscal 20 um six you actually did go to roll back the 6.2397 2397. We're suggesting that that be the maximum millage rate for this particular
time frame. Um but 6.2397 may have been rolled back last year, but it will represent a slight tax increase if we stay flat because we're still right now taking advantage of the growth on the roll which generates an additional maybe 230
37,000 237. Next chart. Um, yes, the roll back rate 5.248. That's what roll back would be if we went to roll back. And I'm not saying that we won't, but that is what that rate is. It's generated for us um, you know, by the
property appraiser. 6.2397 is the flat rate as I've said more than a few times and it generates an additional [clears throat] $237,684 um, in revenue that we are taking advantage of because of the growth on the road. Um, millage options. On page five of nine, roll back. We just talked
about that 5.9248. Current rate 6.3297. If you go to roll back, we only need a majority vote. That's three out of five. If you go to a higher vote than that, you're going to need twothirds votes, which is going to be four out of five.
So, we'll see where we end up in August. But these are the options that you have. Uh what it means for a property owner. On page six of nine, we basically use the assessment of 50,000 uh up to 150 um taxable after homestead. The homestead
of course is 25,000. Um you see what that person that individual or property owner would be paying at roll back at 5.248 and at the current flat rate of 6.2397. You can see what those numbers are. But this is always good for you to have as
you're talking to residents and they're curious about what the rates mean to them [cough and clears throat] and um where their homes are assessed. But the [snorts] homestead exemption is um is key. The property tax reform on the horizon is um also key. On page eight, we're talking about a vote in
November that would severely impact the revenue. And that is um as of January 2027, we would actually if that item passes, if that item passes, the city and other cities and counties would be
looking at revenues rolling back. Um and you know, for 27, we're talking a little over $483,000. These numbers are still as of the June June one roll. Uh cities and counties don't calculate these numbers. These numbers have to come to us from the property appraiser. And so I just want
to make that clear. These numbers may be a little different, but I asked for the numbers and you know, we weren't able to get them in time for this presentation. So, um, if that item passes, we're looking at, um, rolling back revenue to the tune of a little over $483,000.
And if the item passes, it not only affects your 27 budget, but it affects your 28 budget. And that compounds with an additional $586,000 approximately um impact on the budget. Um, if this happens, 96% of the
homesteads on uh in the city would not be paying any property taxes. Um, and this is $150,000 homestead exemption in 27 and a $250,000 homestead exemption uh in 28. There's some stipulations around
that in terms of who is able to get it and I won't go into that but it is going to have a significant impact on revenue generation um not only for the city of Gainesville but the county of Putnham and all of the other cities and counties around the state. Um final [clears throat]
page seven of nine actually um so the action required today is to set the 27 maximum uh not to exceed miller rate at 6.2397 2397 holding the rate flat at its current level for certification to the property appraiser. The maximum is a ceiling. It's not the
final rate. The commission can adopt a lower rate at the September hearings. It cannot go higher without mailing a new notice to every property owner. This is a number on the August tax notice. Property owners will see the maximum on their trim notice. The final rate is September 10th. The final rate is set on
September 10th at your first budget um public hearing and the 24th, the second uh and final public hearing. A flat ceiling preserves right now every option through hearings, including adopting the roll back rate. So today is nothing final. It's just setting a ceiling and
giving me the opportunity to come back and present something that hopefully will be um acceptable to you as you move into your hearings on the 10th and the 24th. Any questions or discussion? >> I don't have discussion.
>> Okay. >> Yes. Um, based on the FY2027 budget development update, I move to set the tenative millage rate at the current rate of 6.2397 and adopt 2026R-114. A lot of words.
>> We have a motion. We have a motion and a second. Is there anybody here for public comment? Seeing no closed public comment. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Campbell, >> yes. [snorts] >> Commissioner Jones, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bor, >> yes. >> Commissioner Davis, >> yes.
>> Yes. Thank you. Unanimous approval on to ratify and confirm the fire assessment resolution adopted on May 28, 2026. [clears throat] >> Miss Curry. >> Yes, ma'am. So, I am um madame mayor, members of the commission, I going to
ask um the city attorney to weigh on this. Um we had um a situation where the ad was um I think the meeting was it in May. You may want to go and summarize this because it was prior to my coming in, but we had to place a ad uh out in
addition to the original ad to um make some changes that were required so that we, you know, were totally transparent. You may want to uh Miss Curry is accurate. This uh initially was uh adopted the resolution on May 28th
and this is a remedial public notice that had to be republished in order to include the statutoily required map of the jurisdictional boundaries of the city. This is not intended to open it back up for any purpose. However, it is
encouraged uh due to the remedial nature that you open it up for public comment. Um the the uh process is laid out in your staff report to open the public hearing in the on the limited remedial matter and receive and consider any
public comment and then close the public hearing and ratify and confirm the resolution that you already adopted on May 28th. >> Thank you. I know. Is there anybody here for public comment? I know. I know that Miss [snorts] Kitchens has a public comment.
Cotton, please come on up. >> Florida. And I'll have the same comment that I had at the budget workshop. Uh you don't go up. Let me rephrase that. Our charity groups, the churches, the bread of life, they they feed people.
The Christian Service Center helps people pay utility bills when they get in the gym. It helps them pay rent. It gives them clothes. Uh the Elks Club, the Moose Lodge, the Bur Hodge Post, the BF post. All these people do very important charitable work for our
citizens that the city commission cannot or will not do. I just saw where you can't use ARPA money for the homeless. Okay. You can't use ARPA money for the homeless. Great. So, what are the homeless going to do? Who provides their shelter? who provides their their food, who provides their clothes. It's these
organizations. If you get rid of the exemption that the holy exempt people have, including the churches, you're going to put a massive massive financial burden onto these organizations, they will not be able to continue to do the charitable work that they have have previously been doing in the city of
Pala. So, you need to think very hard about it before you remove these exemptions. It's not that many of them. The total, if I remember correctly, from uh the finance director's thing, $96,000. Now, that may sound big to me and to some of y'all individually, but out of the city budget, that is nothing but a
drop of water in a huge rain barrel. You all each get $5,000 $5,000 each year, which is $25,000 for I call it bad money, but it's for your special projects. Three years worth of your money would would equal $75,000. That would help offset the fire cape. But no,
you need to think about these holy exemp things, the churches and these charity clubs, charity organizations. They're helping local people. They are helping people. And I'll give an example of First Baptist Church. When the fire fee first went in for our sanctuary alone, without the administrative fee that now
charged to the tax collector, without the assessed value going up, for our building alone, it would be $10,000 in a fire fee. That money comes out of utilities for running the church. comes out [clears throat] of salaries and that comes out of whatever charitable work we do including missions for St. James was
somewhere over $8,000 worth of you fire tax for the building. Now with the assessed value going up and now the administrative fees added by the tax collector and the property appraiser, God knows what it's going to be. You're going to almost put the churches out of business. How can they continue to stay in business and how can they help
people? Think about this. The bread of life, the Christian service center. If you don't like churches, that's your prerogative. But think about these other organizations that help people. Please give this careful thought and don't remove the exemptions from these charitable projects. You can find the
money someplace else. There's plenty of money floating around for recreation. You have a you have a recreation once a week during the summertime. Cut a couple of those out. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anybody else here for public comment? Seeing none, we'll close public comment.
Do we have a motion? >> Go ahead, Miss Curry. So, madam mayor, members of the commission, so um the last meeting did set the rate. It did set the fire assessment rate, but there was still a question about the exemptions. So, I think that is on the
table for discussion uh by the commission as to whether you want to remain with the 50% transition transitional level is what it is called. If I'm saying that correctly, I believe after speaking with the consultant, Mr. um that this transitional level was
actually supposed to move away at some point in time, but it's remained at 50% for a while. Uh and it does represent 96,553,000 of um institutional revenue that we would need to put back in. Everybody has
to be treated equally here. And so we can't just let this go without putting the money back in or taking it from some >> somewhere else >> some somewhere else. Um what you all asked staff to do was provide some options with percentages. And so that is
on page two of three of the staff report in terms of you know 100% what that would cost 95 90 75 50 which is where we are and 25%. Um >> it is [clears throat and cough] a discussion to be held by the commission and we'll take direction based on what
you all decide. >> Right now it is not built into the budget. >> Okay. discussion. >> Could you make that bigger, please? Cuz >> I got to pass it to you. [clears throat] >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah, I want the people to see it.
That's important. It's important for Yeah. So, can I talk? >> Yes, you can. You will. >> So, my request was to give our constituents
a reprieve and actually lower the fire assessment fee for everybody. Um, not just the churches. But in and in addition to that, Miss Kitchen, I am the person that said
not for profofits and churches should pay their fair share because you know why? A church can actually have any kind of fundraiser and make money tax-free. They have church anniversaries, pastor's
anniversaries, and whatever they want to name to raise money. And I'm not talking bad. I I I support the church as well. What I'm saying is the church probably is able to get money faster and untaxed quicker than you and
I. And I'm not just talking about me and I don't want to just put you in this equation, but we're talking about a lot of folk that live on fixed incomes and those that fire assessment fee along with city tax, county tax, school tax
with the referendum we just had and uh and and and fee other fees. It's a lot for constituents around. I we talk to them all the time. You know how it is when people ring your phone and ask you about this. So, [clears throat]
we're trying to have a win-win situation. The fee is here. The fee has got us out of trouble uh from the past administration and commission. Um so, we
want to stay at a level where we do have money to to pay our bills as as the c the city. So what do you think would be fair? I would like to ask someone from the I mean we having discussion. What do they think would be fair? >> I'm not allowed to speak.
>> Well, no. Yes. >> I'm still making a statement. I'm making a statement saying what what what do we think would be fair? We're not we're not we're not bashing the 5013C's or the churches, but we're saying if if
the public has to pay at 100%. What percentage do you think the church should pay? You really think they shouldn't pay anything? The churches don't pay taxes. This is a fee to say if my my
1,200 foot house catch a fire, it's going to cost less than putting out a First Baptist Church. It won't, will it? It won't take It won't take as much effort. It's not going to take as much water. It won't take as much resources.
So when you when you when you when you add those things together and I'm talking in general so I'm not talking directly [clears throat] to >> I well you kind of are and >> I'm not I'm I'm making a point. So that's what we're tasked with and
that's why I think that uh the public is is due an explanation and see where we are as far as making this decision. So what I say is it doesn't take the same amount of resources, but we pay more. So it it it's it's it's pretty
tough task to try to balance it. So but I and I'm I'm just saying again for this board and my colleagues, that's what the position I take. I think that we should consider either lawn it for all taxpayers or or fee payers or we must
have the 5013c's and the churches pay a little more. >> So if I might [clears throat] >> please >> no I on May 28th um the rate was set at was set. We opened the public hearing
[clears throat] up because we wanted to be totally transparent relative to the ad. Um that's what I'm trying to get back to. So we are at a reconsideration is kind of where it is because that decision was really made on the 28th. The only thing that was left open was on
the exemption. >> Correct. >> And whether that should actually remain uh at 50% or not. And so that's where we are. >> Hopefully not at a reconsideration of the >> Go ahead, Commissioner Davis. Oh, did you go on? >> You go first. No,
>> I will make >> No. Okay. I was just gonna go ahead make a quick comment if they can just pull up the >> slide number five from from the presentation that'll kind of help explain a lot to do with the overall
implementation. Go no go back. No, I'm sorry. Go back to seven. Maybe it was seven eight. Which one would that had the the trend from the with the mill rate from uh was it? Yes. 9.1478.
So this just give you a historical perspective of what caused us to be able to put the the the fire fee in place to put us in the position that we're in today to be able to be >> uh as as vibrant as we are today. And so
that's why we're here. Um, and we're we was trying to it was initially put in place and we supposed to been backing it out. Uh, reviewing it every year and trying to back it out, but somehow that didn't happen because it takes the commission to be able to help back it
out. We had so we couldn't all agree on moving it back. So, we have several commissioners who tried to lower that um rate continuously and we have made some progress, but that's where we are. That's what got us in the position to
where you see all of the growth u all of the infrastructure going in and everything as it relates to the the pipe that you see in the ground our our water lines and uh and and and all the other growth you see in here the number of people that we've hired over the years
uh the um wages that we've put in place and different things of nature. So that's all built into this that shows success. So, but yeah, and so again, I concur with Commissioner Jones as it relates to if we're going to have our
our residents pay um at 100%. Then the institutions that also uh don't pay taxes, but they also earn grants. They get grants. They get they don't pay taxes, but they get tax
dollars that through the form of grants. they get um revenue through donations, general don uh um generous donations from people untaxed. So I think from a fairness standpoint and service they receive the services from from my fire,
police and everything else, the utilization of the roads. So everybody who attend these churches, there's a number of calls that go out to these churches u from emergency services to everything else. So I'm just going to conclude with that. So, I think that, you know, those are the things. So, if
we're going to do it for one, we need to do it for all. And we need to try and roll it back. I'm a proponent of trying to be more fiscally responsible and let's roll this back. I'm always a proponent to help lower taxes. And this is what we've done over the years. So, I'm I'm
completely uh in agreement with Commissioner Jones. >> Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Davis. >> Thank you. Um, I move to ratify and confirm the fire assessment resolution that was adopted on May 28th, 2026. >> Second motion in a second. Is there any
further public comment? Seeing none, proposed public comment. Roll call, please. Madam clerk. >> Commissioner Jones. >> Nay. >> Commissioner Gor. >> Yes. [snorts] >> Commissioner Davis. >> Yes.
>> Commissioner Campbell. Yes. >> Yes. [clears throat] Thank you. >> Onwood request to annex amend the future land use map for reszone 503 East Harris Street for lack of Florida. Possible 01-10-26-3150-008--0090.
Possel01-10-26-3150-00008--100 posel 01-10-26-3150- 008- 0110 possible 01-10-26-3150-3150-- I think it's duplicate 009-00004 possible 01-10-26-3190- 0 09-000050
POSEL 01-10-26-3150-009-0060 Posel 01-10-26-3150-008--0080 Impossible 011026-35 3150-008--000070 Mr. Mr. Hagamo I'm asking three ordinances to the next city commissioner that time service.
>> I'll make a motion that we continue this. >> We have a motion to second. All in favor? I any >> any well I could have done roll any opposition. Thank you.
>> Adoption of the city of Pala comprehensive plan 2145 ordinance number 2026-31. Mr. Agamo. >> Yes. Mayor, if you may recall, the city
of Palaka adapted plan 2045 back in December of last year and it was transmitted to the state for a coordinated state review. Uh the Florida Department of Commerce uh after their
review determined that the compens due to inconsistency or violation of Senate Bill 180 was Florida statue as chapter 2025 190. After we received the the notice from
the state, uh we requested the state to give us a staff report so we cannot see what were the inconsistencies uh that was pointed out by the state. And they basically had two categories of that they raised in their letter and
their staff report. One was that uh policies that were more restrictive or barome than what we have currently and the other was that potentially could be more more restrictive. Uh after we
received the staff report from the state uh we tried to meet with them. We tried to call them. they wouldn't return our calls, they wouldn't be with us. So, uh, I work with the our consultants JB Pro to address every single one of those
inconsistencies or that were raised by the state and we made changes to to the policies. In some cases, we deleted policies. In some cases, we edited and removed some, for example, if the word was shout and they have issue with that,
we put should. Um so we provided a new amend the comprehensive plan with those changes that uh that we proposed. It was reviewed by the planning board uh July 7th and it was recommended for approval.
Staff also is recommended that you approve this uh comprehensive plan for transmitted to the state. It will go to the department of commerce and for the state coordinator review. Uh the state has 60 days to respond to our submission
to provide comments to us, objection, comments, and recommendations. And after we receive that, we will address if they have any more issues, we will address their comments and then eventually bring it back for adoption to the to the city commission, which I believe would be
probably two or three months from now. >> Thank you. Does anybody have any questions or Mr. Agama? Okay. Do we have a motion? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> A motion. Second. Is anybody here for public comment on this item?
>> Seeing no closed public comment. Roll call, please. Madam clerk. >> Commissioner Bor. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Davis. >> Yes. Commissioner Campbell. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Jones. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. On to Commissioner comments. Do we have anybody that has any comments? Go ahead. >> Nothing. Commissioner Barn, >> no comments. >> Commissioner Jones, >> I do I have a couple things to address. K addressed them earlier and I was going
to ask in reference to the uh event special event uh planning. Um, I was asked a question today randomly in reference to the uh
the block party that has passed and was offer officer involved uh um incident and the question was um as we approve these events and I looked in the packet before I asked the question I want to
look again before I make any comment on it and I did look there's no insurance that the person that is sponsoring the event or having it. There's no insurance that
they they have or that's in our packet. And I think that that's something that we need to look into. Um because it's going to have us for some kind of litigation. Um, and that person that was calling me
was asking me all of these questions. So, I I see seems like a frame of mind to go there and I I can I asked the the city attorney and she gave me the answer and as we look we're proving these things and you know the backlash that we
received before things happen. We have no control over them. And it seemed like a fun event and I I support it as we all have, but we need to make certain that these individuals are getting their own insurance because when something
happened, it's going to come back on the city. And we got to be more responsible at in the front in the front of these things before we just go ahead and sign off on them. And so I I didn't want to actually
say it at an inappropriate time. I want to be more appropriate. That's what we we need to do that. And do you agree with that, Attorney? Attorney West >> 100%. >> Okay. So, that is something that has uh and and you guys know what happened after that event. We got fingers pointed
us. So, that is something we can do and uh I don't know either we get the insurance or they get the insurance u when they have the liability insurance when they have these events. And I guess there must be there should be a threshold. A kid party of course and we should be
okay with that. But when you start talking about adults, even a kid party, it can get hurt on our on our property. We, you know, a whole homeless is not enough. I think it should be liability insurance. Um so um can we get that
brought to us in the form of u or uh uh policy that we pass to make that happen? >> That would be >> and my understanding was it was part of the special events polic process. You
have to provide the document having done them in the past. You have to provide proof of insurance and make name the city >> as well. So that should be that is the way it is. I don't know if this one slipped through the cracks.
>> It did. Okay. And so that is an issue and thank you for bringing that up, but that is already in policy. >> You want me to ask that question from here? >> I beg your writing. >> The one I've talked to you about earlier. Do you want me to ask it here? Because I think they're an assumption
that was >> Yeah, it is. It is absolutely policy for uh a certain level of special events. I would have to defer to the community affairs director on what thresholds special event A or B or C, but it is already policy that they have to have
their own uh certificate of insurance provided prior to the event. It's part of the checklist that they go through in the special events process. They're supposed to provide documentation of that COI. >> So supposed to madam clerk or somebody
look and see is it I overlook it because I did not see one. >> Right. as to the one that you approved today. >> I just approved it. >> Yes. So I I did see that on the application for the special events permit, they indicated that the COI was going to be provided after commission
approval. >> But I think it should be yes and they never get it and it's absent in the one that I just spoke of and it's it didn't happen. AB absolutely you're absolutely right that that process in terms of the
timing of the COI needs to be provided prior to >> Yes. >> Yes. We agree. We all agree with that. >> Secondly, >> um as I listened to Lorenzo speak on zoning and uh the Harris Street area. Did he
leave? Oh, the Harris Street area that you're bringing to us today. Um, I know we spoke about it, mentioned it several times going back and forth about squaring off the boundaries within the city so that we would have in areas like the Rolling
Hills area either make it squared also to be city and city limit. So they get city water, city sewer, the Baylorville area, the the area where you're talking about Harris Street. squaring those boundaries off so it'll be city and we provide city waters who
at least offer it if those residents don't want it. That's one thing but we need to make an effort and I've requested it and requested that we we make an effort. Here's a request and it is a request for somebody to do just what I was asking and it's here before us but I haven't seen any effort that we
have put out to try to facilitate that. >> You're correct. We we we haven't done that yet. Uh we haven't the last discussion that we had on this item. If you remember, we presented you um the
issues involved with doing the annexation of that [snorts] area. >> Yeah. >> Uh also remind you that it is a voluntary press process. We were prepared, you know, to go and do a a program
uh to reach out to property owners. [clears throat] However, that direction we never got from the city commission. We had that discussion at the public meeting, but there was not a formal direction for us to do that. >> And it was it was a direction of this
board. We we did give direction. >> Yes. >> Well, I think we would have to look back to verify that, but also there was a cost to it. I mean, yes, it's voluntary and there's a cost. >> Okay. Okay. >> But I think that's what the issue of the cost of it to provide and then it was
reason for us to go look into uh to get a grant >> that the state has and we did look into that. The problem is that the applicant has to be the county because [snorts] those property are within the jurisdiction of the county,
not the city. So we couldn't apply for us. >> Well, here's an opportunity. >> I think I provided an email on that or or a report to the commission. >> So here's an opportunity. Harris Street, they're requesting it. So, here's an opportunity to make that happen. >> Oh, yeah. >> So, I want to point it out to you in this meeting so that
>> Yeah. >> I won't have we won't have to have a oneonone. We need that to happen. Uh because now the county have an ask for us and are we going to give them the same
response that you just gave me? It's too costly. What what do we gain by their request? >> I'm not aware of the request from the county. I >> I don't either, but they it it'll be coming up. So So um but I would like to
have the the cost that's associated so that you so we could actually tell them as well. >> Yeah. >> So um >> I know you've been out for a minute. >> We do have those numbers about close to $40 million to to extend the sewer and the water lines. $40 million.
>> Yeah, if I remember that was what uh probably worth prepared. >> Okay, so Harris Street actually goes all the way through the Bville area. So I want to see how we make this happen. So maybe I'll stand down and wait to see what happens here.
>> Th this this request that we have today that it was asked to be continued. Yeah, those definitely going to be annex. You know, planning board recommended approval. Staff is recommended approval. There's no any issues with with this annexation. >> Okay. So, I'm glad you mentioned the
point of the board. This is my last one. I promise. Um, Rebuild Florida is a Department of Commerce program. They've been doing great work in the city of Paka [clears throat] and Putnham County.
>> Yes. they've been rehabbing houses or at some cases they tear down and actually build new homes for people. Um and certain areas has happened what was brought to my attention uh the young man
from Talas uh with that program called and wanted to have an appeal for someone who lived in an existing home um and they they decided that they needed to tear their house down to
rebuild and they've been going through this process over a year and Um this is what I gather and you can tell me. So could you tell me what any could you give me some insight on? >> It has been a year. >> Okay. Could you >> It started with a request for a zone
verification letter and that was in May of this year. >> Okay. >> Of this year. >> Excuse me. May we get some understanding of what we're talking about? >> So you're talking about >> please for him. Let him >> from Mr. Mr.
Yes. We're talking about a existing house on St. John's Avenue >> 1509. It's an existing dwelling unit. It's a non-conforming use because it's on commercial. The intent of the the program, the engineer working with the
with the with the state is to demolish the house and put a new one. >> The problem is that because it is a non-conforming use, they are vested to continue and they can remain. The problem when they demolish they lose their vesting provision and therefore
our club does not allow to put a new house. >> It has to become commercial at that point. >> Well, the only option they have really is to to make it commercial the first floor and residential on top. So I've been working with them with the
applicant with the state with the engineering firm over this issue for the last two months. And uh the the the the option that we look with the engineering firm was the the option they had was to appeal the decision the determination by
staff that it was an unconform use. It cannot be demolished and replace it. The other option was for them to get a reser. So they opted to proceed with those both those both options and we took it to the planning board first as an appeal. The
appeal was not granted and then the reasoning was heard and the planning board recommended denial. >> If I might interject ahead >> well this was brought to my attention as well. I've had the discussions not only
with Mr. Um I I came over and I've also had it in the presence of Miss West. Um I went by took a look at it. I know the history. I've spoken to Keon Scott from the state um Department of Commerce. Um I had some concerns based on the circumstances. Um, I know zoning and I
don't know zoning, but I do realize that there are zoning uh rules that apply, maybe some precedent that applies, but there is also a point of entry for this commission to also have something to say about that as a final decision. I've spoken to Mr. Akimo about that. it is to be brought back in a report form and if
there is an opportunity for this commission to take action on this over whatever the appeals board or the or the stimo who I think made the initial decision to decline if there is an entree point for this commission to make a decision one way or the other I would like for that to happen on the 27th is
that what we discussed >> yes if I just may add the only option really available for the city commission to have entry is to review the zoning request lines amendment and zoning request and that's going to be placed on your agenda for the August meeting. The
appeal option is not available anymore. There is an appeal period which you have to you have to file and that that passed. >> Okay. >> Just a point of clarification and this is for our city attorney. >> [snorts] >> When an item comes before the zoning
board and they recommend approval or denial, let's when they um re have an approval and it [clears throat] comes to the commission to be ratified. [cough] Correct. >> It depends on the nature of the land use
change. Not all of their recommendations are in an advisory capacity. Some are final. >> Okay. And is that the case for when they deny? Would the same [clears throat] rules apply or does the commission get to
ratify? So in this particular case, it was a staff recommendation of denial that was appealed to the planning board and that does not come before the city commission unless they were to make some sort of
formal appeal of that and they didn't. >> But you're bringing this back at the next meeting. You're bringing you're going to make a report and bringing it to the commission at the next meeting. Can you clarify what's going to happen with this? >> Yeah, let let me explain, you know, why It was not been brought to you. Okay.
Before >> right after the planning board meeting when the appeal was not granted and the resi was recommended recommended for denial. Two days later they called back to my office and asked telling us that they
were going to proceed with the renovation of the house and not the demolition which is fine. They can do the renovation. It will not trigger any non-conforming vesting provision. So that's why we I didn't bring back to the city because they were working on that. >> Okay.
>> They changed their mind later on. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And so we're >> and we as of actually as of today I did receive an email from Keon with a report saying that that renovation is not feasible. >> Okay. >> They want to demolish the house. The
only way for them to do that is when I bring back the future length amendment and resigning application to you for your consideration. If you approve that then they will be able to do what they want to do. >> Thank you. >> But I can I I need to tell you though
that >> I understand. >> Okay. I can say that we have we have a recommendation from planning board and you have recommendation from staff which is for denial and that's not going to change. >> That's fine. And that's fine. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, I still have two questions along.
When was the zoning change? Because that house been there longer than one of those businesses there. Actually, it's two houses. And along that corridor, all along that corridor,
you have mixed use. You have residents, business, residents, residents, residents, business. So, that's on St. Jones Avenue from Mosley all the way down to 11th Street. So it's mixed use. So when was it changed? I just want to know when was it
changed? >> I believe it was 2008. >> 2008. >> Yes. >> And she she was non-conforming since 2008. >> That's correct. When when the commission approved the zoning of commercial, you made it non-conforming and you put specific provisions in the commercial
zoning that new single family a new residential unit could not be built and there's about seven houses existing today in that corridor and there was the intent of the city to make that a commercial corridor.
>> So the city kind of did their own gentrification. >> That's correct. Yes, >> that's what that is. >> Yes. >> So um but it is coming back to us and we can set president. You can grant the you can grant the res the future lines
amendment and that will be the only residential uh zoning within the whole corridor. >> Appreciate it. >> Yeah. >> Are you all set? >> I'm set. >> Commissioner Jones actually brought up
what I was going to make mention of in this meeting. So I look forward to the conversation in August. >> Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Are we all set? Do have a motion to adjurnn?