business tax receipt. Um okay, going away on our budget. All right. Do I have a pen? No, I don't have Okay. Uh good morning. Um thank you very much. No. Uh I got one. This the county
attorney gave me one. Thank you. Um I'm now gonna call to order our budget meeting for this morning. Um let us stand for the invocation of the pledge and good morning. Good morning. Let's pray. Oh father, we have gathered this morning
to begin to discuss a budget for next year. Lord, and historically we understand that the wants and needs usually exceed the income which always makes budget discussion a little bit more difficult. So I lift up this day
and ask that you help us to discover a groundwork that we can build upon in order to plan for that budget. Lord, so give us uh your wisdom, give us your grace as we discuss this very important issue and help us to begin to look
forward to next year. So when all is said and done, uh we will have used our finances wisely and we will uh protect and uh keep all of our uh all of our
folks safe, Lord. So we thank you for being with us today and we lift up this meeting in your name. Amen. Amence to the flag of the United States of America. to the republic for it stands
one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Can I have the roll call please? Commissioner Oakley here. District two commissioner president. District four
commissioner Jerger here. District five commissioner Mariano and district three chairman present. No here. Sorry rubbing off on me. I'm trying. Um I'm resisting. Okay. So, this morning we're
going to talk about our fiscal year 2026 budget and I will turn it over to the county district. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I turn it over to Amy, I just want to say thank you to this board and thank you to to the team. Um, you know, in the past couple of years, we have really made great strides in providing
unparalleled levels of transparency uh with the board and the public as it comes to how we build and set this budget. And so this workshop is is another step in that process whereby there's a lot of work that's been going on the past six, seven months in building uh what will be the the fiscal
year 26 budget. Um and a number of challenges that I think uh Amy here will discuss with the board. We're really looking uh forward to this meeting in order to have your your candid feedback on how we proceed next because our next step will be uh adopting a trim and then
we'll head into the budget process in September. So, I won't get too far ahead of my skis there for you, Miss Amy, but I'll turn it over to our budget director, Amy Lee Ferrell. Good morning, Amy Frell, budget director. Um, so like Mike said, we are going to be talking about our the
where we're at so far in providing a proposed budget to the board. Um, so this morning we're going to talk about a high level overview of the budget cycle and the process and what that looks like. So, we'll talk about what we've accomplished so far in this cycle and
what's still left to be done, what work um the team and the board still has to do for this cycle. And when talking about where we're going, it's very helpful to put some perspective in where we've been, where we've come from. So, we're going to show some key data
metrics that tells the story about where we've come as a county. That way, we can set the stage for where we're headed. Then, we're going to get into the the budget, the numbers. We're going to talk about the different revenue assumptions that are built into the budget we're presenting today. We'll talk about those
expense pressures that we're experiencing and we do have um preliminary taxable assessed value from the property appraiser. So, we'll talk about those numbers and how that's impacting our budget. And then we're going to have some um key dis key key discussions with the board talking about
um general fund, our different millage rates, and then taking a look at our five-year capital improvement program. All right. So, what kind of work have we done already this year? Well, in January, we started with a strategic direction um discussion with the board
and when we're looking at our five-year strategic plan, what are those things we should be focused on in this year? And then how do we help build a budget that's going to align resources to move the needle on that strategic plan? And then we looked at revenues.
Did I get louder? I feel like I got louder. It's okay. Um, so when we looked at our major revenues and how those are looking like they're shaking out for this year, um, we had some key discussions around the parks MSTU and, um, how might that look for us moving forward? And then we met as a
team internally and we started going through operating budgets and capital budgets and looking at the the submitted requests and really kind of sharpening the pencil, if you will, on those requests to try to be as tight as we can with the limited resources that we're projecting to have coming in. And now
we're back here before the board for a budget workshop to say, hey, we met in January. We heard you. We think we heard you. Here's where we're looking at now. Did we get it right? Um if so, yay. but also what stuff do we need to kind of fine-tune as we move forward before we
get to trim which is happening next month where we'll set the truth and millillage and then in September we'll come back for two public hearings to adopt the budget for 26 it's a lot of work we've done a lot of work but there's still a lot of work left to go
all right so let's talk about where we've come from so this slide we did show this it looked a little bit different um we did work with our media team to try to gussy up our slides a little bit. It's very pretty. I know. They did a great job. Love them. Um, but
so it the data is still the same from what we showed previously. But let's talk about it again. So since 2010, our population has grown by 42%. Right? So we're showing some some key years for you here. We've got 2010, 2020, and then 2024. And in that time, over that 14ear
span, the population has grown by 42%. And so then we have a couple metrics here that show you what has that growth in population meant in terms of demands for our service. So we're looking at single family permits. Those have increased by 644%.
Yes, that math is right. It's that's a large number, right? But workloads increased. People are coming in. We've seen a lot of new construction and building growth over the last 14 years. Tons of trash. Um, and we look at this a little bit later when we start
talking about um, key economic indicators and trying to predict where we think we might be headed. Um, but our tons of trash has gone up by 31% in 14 years. And then we're looking at utility connections. So this um, this is anywhere from homes getting put online.
It could be commercial, but every time we've had to set up new water connections. And so those have grown by 53% in 14 years. So, and then we look at 911 calls. And so, these are um encompassing law enforcement plus fire
rescue. And we have seen a jump of 137% in calls for service for law enforcement and our fire team. Um and so we've had to make some key decisions. So, as a county, we can support the growth that we've been seeing, right? And so um
but from an operating budget standpoint, we have maintained very efficient and effective levels of funding because we've been able to handle so far the demands of service and they have far outpaced what our operating budget has
grown because that's only grown by 30%. And so this board and previous boards have made some really tough key decisions to make sure that as a staff we're working as effective and efficiently as possible to meet those demands for service while finding balance for our citizens and our
businesses in terms of costs. That's a great story that all these Yeah. And now, um, back in January, there was a piece of the puzzle that we didn't quite pull together for you yet, but we have it on this slide. So, that shows
what was our support from an operation standpoint. This shows how have we supported the growth in the county from an investment in our infrastructure. And so, here we're looking at we've had eight new fire stations come
online in that same 14-year time frame. We've done five rehabilitated fire stations in that time frame. We have and so these aren't inclusive of all of the infrastructure investments that the county has made in the last 14 years. We've just brought some some key ones,
right, that might sound interesting or fascinating, but really kind of help us tell the story. Um, so we've also had some new parks come online. We've got Stark Key Ranch District Park, Wesley Chapel District Park, Wiregrass Sports Campus. Um, and so here's some capacity road
projects that have also come online in the last 14 years. We saw Ridge Road expansion, Sun Lake, State Road 54 and 56 widening I75 and overpass um, interchange. We've also seen some investments into
our library facilities, Starky Ranch Library, Wesley Chapel Library, and Landel Lakes and Regency Park expansions. And then from a utility standpoint, we've seen the Boyoyette Road Reservoir come online. We've um had the acquisition of FGUA and East Road
Transfer Station expansion, just to name a few. Do we have any questions on this slide? We um I was just mentioning to the county administrator, we should add um the Clinton Avenue extension and the widening widening of 52. Okay. Parts of
52. Anyway, team, you got that note, please. All right. So, we have been meeting demands for service, demands for infrastructure, supporting a growing county, and we have done that by maintaining a level of affordability for
our citizens and our businesses. And that's what this slide right here tells the story about. The first number we're looking at is our average total property tax millage rates. And so this is a ranking from 1 to 67 for the 67 counties and we are at 28. We have lower property
tax millage rates than Penllis, Hillsboro, and the state average. And then when we look at the next graphic, that middle one, we're looking at our per capita county government property tax levies. So these are just county county taxes.
And we again are ranked lower than it it might seem counterintuitive because we're technically higher, but it means that our um per capita county government property tax levies are lower again than Hillsboro, Penllis, and the state average. And then when we look at our
per capita taxable value, again, we are lower than Penllis, Hillsboro, and the state average. So, our board over the years has maintained lower millage rates even though they've had lower taxable values. And that really tells the story
that we have been trying to push the needle as efficient and effectively as we possibly can over the years. All right. So, if there's no questions, I'll continue on and start talking about our budget. All right. So before we get into
numbers, let's talk about some of the assumptions that are underlying the numbers that we'll be looking at. So going into right now, we're assuming no change in our operating millillage from what was adopted for FY25. We're looking at no change in the fire MSTU, no change
in the road rehabilitation MSTU. Um and also for 25, we adopted zero mills for the parks MSTU. Um and we've been having a lot of discussion this cycle on the parks MSTU. So we hope to continue that discussion here today. And then there's
no change in the storm water assessment and our water and wastewater. So we have rate hearing scheduled for August. So we'll see um we'll see how that plays out later this summer. And we are on track for our seventh year for our solid
waste 747 plan. And you'll remember that is to um accumulate funds for the fourth burner at our waste to energy plan. All right. So that's the revenue side of the house. What are those expense pressures that we're also seeing at the same time? So we've got public safety,
staffing, and expenses. So this is sheriff growth. We've got jail expansion operations. Um fiscal year 26 will be the first full year of our Dshift for fire rescue. We have um Wesley Chapel Library coming
online. That's a that's fun news, right? Um, we are looking at uh a wage increase for our team. We did a compensation and classification study last year and so we certainly don't want to lose ground on the progress we made on making sure that
our team is paid fairly. Um, and then there's also retirement rate increases and things like that that we've got baked into the budget. Um, and we did get our uh next year amount from Medicaid and what our contribution to that will be. So, that's
also baked into the budget that we'll be showing. And then we're going to be talking about just general inflation and then um sustaining our county facilities. All right. Now, before we get into the nitty-gritty of our budget numbers, let's look at some key economic
indicators that kind of help us look and project and plan in the next 5 years, 10 years. And so, tons of trash. The budget office looks at tons of trash. Well, why why might we look at tons of trash? You're asking because I'm not actually in the trash industry. Well, we look at
that because it is tied very closely to the economy. And so, consumer behavior drives our economy. And so if people are purchasing stuff, they are in fact creating trash. And so high amounts of trash indicates that we've got a pretty
strong stable economy. Now, if we start to see that ton of trash slipping a little bit, um what we found fascinating enough is that there's a tight correlation with our taxable assessed value. And closely after that tons of trash starts to level out, we do start
to see typically a decrease and a shifting of our taxable assessed values. And it works the same way. If tons of trash goes up, assessed values end up going up. Tons of trash starts to go down or level off. The same thing happens with our assessed values in pretty close proximity when you're
talking from a a time perspective. So that is one of those leading indicators that we look at to see how might the economy um be shifting. Another thing we like to look at is how are our new home permits looking? And so
here's our trend over time. Um, and you'll see that they are leveling off. So we do still have some new construction happening, but it's leveling off. It's not at the um the the high peak that we saw previously.
All right. So new construction values. So this is how our permits shaking out and then this looks at the value of of those things that have come online. So our new construction and you'll see that there's an eb and flow to this. Now back in the times of right before the
recession, you'll see there's a really big there's a high spike and then a big drop off. So what we're experiencing now is kind of similar but not completely because it's a a bit more controlled. We've learned some things having gone
through that recession as a country um as a state, as a county. And so what we're seeing is kind of more uh leveled stabilization where new construction is concerned. So we don't expect to maintain high levels of the boom we've
been experiencing, but we also don't expect it to have that sharp drop off either. But I don't have a crystal ball. All right. So what does that mean in terms of total taxable value? So the past couple slides we looked at, we were
looking at the new construction piece of taxable assessed value, but there's a secondary component when we're talking about taxable assessed value, and that's revaluations of existing properties. And so there's a few things that can impact what those values are going to shake out to be. One of those is did I have land
that's now has a building on it? You could see a big jump in assessed value when that happens. Previous year I was assessed on just the land. Now I'm being assessed on land plus building. Another thing that can trigger a high revaluation number is have I sold a
piece of property to somebody out of the state and they have no portability of homestead exemptions. And so you would see a big spike in revaluation numbers there. And we did experience a lot of that during and right postcoid where we had a lot of people coming in from out
of state. They did not have any portability. And so we saw big jumps in our revaluation numbers. Um and then the third bit of that is just normal growth in assessed value. And you'll remember if we are homesteaded
then you're capped at 3% or the rate of inflation um whichever is higher. So if rate of inflation is higher than 3% you get capped at 3%. If it's 2.1 you'll be capped at that 2.1%. Right? So it you'll but if you're not homesteaded then it's
a 10% cap. All right, Amy, you just told us a whole bunch of stuff. Now, what does that mean? What does that mean in terms of how how are assessed value shaking out? And what does that mean in terms of revenue? Well, our June one numbers from the
property appraiser showed us 9.5% growth. And so, what we thought might happen is what happened. Um, when you break this out into the two components of new construction verse revaluation, our revaluation point was in between three
and four percent. Last year, our revaluation number was between seven and 8%. So, we are seeing that cooling off in the market that we thought we were going to see, which was why we came to the board earlier in the year and said we're going to be modeling five, seven, and 9% because we are seeing that
cooling off in the market. And it did actually got it right this time. So, but what does that mean in terms of revenue? So, we're expecting to see roughly 37 million more dollars in property tax revenue. And of that 37 million, the sheriff's allocation is
14.84 million. Um, and then here you can see the slight increase to our payments to CRAAS at around 700,000. And then our increase to our different tax increment financing units is roughly 6.1 million.
And so that leaves about 15 million coming back to the board in additional property tax revenue over last year. And then when we look at the fire MSTU, they're um that equates to 10.7 million more in revenue. And then our road MSTU,
that equates to 1.87 more in revenue. But that is just one piece of our very big and complex general fund. And so you all will remember earlier in the year we also talked about half cent sales tax our guaranteed entitlement and while those are growing those were not growing
at the same rate that we had been experiencing. So that did apply um a little bit of pressure and burden on the general fund as well. Um, so big picture 50,000 foot view. We're expecting if FY25 plays out the way we think it'll play out, we're expecting to start the
year with 97 million in fund balance. And then we're expecting to see 583 million in revenue, but 629 million coming out in expenses to include recurring plus one-time expenses for the year. Which means we are um presenting a
budget where we are eating into our reserves a little bit this year. And so we'll have about 50.6 million in reserves which equates to roughly 35 days of operating. We like to have 60. Um but we did have some we had some
storm impacts with the revenues not performing the way we were hoping. Right. This all kind of just came together in a we'll call it a perfect storm so to speak and and so this is kind of where things are shaking out right now. Um Amy, can I ask a question?
Yes. Does anyone Does anyone else have a question at this point? Um Amy, on that ending fund balance and how we went to our reserves, um the way we get paid by FEMA, I believe, is we spend it, then we get it back. Yes. And so this is Yeah.
Yeah. So, let's talk about that a little bit. Um so, this is the first year that the county has gotten some some um money back in the same year that the storms have occurred. And really the reason that we were able to to draw some money
down from FEMA had to do with the complexity and the magnitude of the impact. And so when I say complexity and magnitude, um I'm going to give you all some estimates, but just to give you some perspective in in what that magnitude means in terms of um impact
and workload that our team is still experiencing to try to recoup more funding back from FEMA. So we've got this from this storm season we have 147 unique projects that we are requesting reimbursement from FEMA on. When we look
at the past 15 years we had 35 projects and from this storm season we had 147. I don't know yet. That's so when we talk about magnitude
and impact that's that's what we mean. That's it's it was unlike we had experienced, right? And so we were able to draw some funds down. Um we draw we drew down some funds for debris removal. So we were able to get half of what we were expecting and we were able to put
that back into our solid waste fund. So it's about 20 plus million dollars we were able to draw draw down from FEMA and put back into our solid waste fund. Um we had some what's called forced account labor. So thank manpower people out there doing work overtime related
that kinds of things. We got I think it was about don't hold me to it but I think my team told me roughly fourish million dollars that we were able to draw down in the same year but we're not expecting to get the remaining for another two or three years because that
does tend to be the typical timeline between documentation having everything vetted through FEMA through the state. It's typically a two to threeyear time frame before we start getting those funds back um for to give you some idea.
The team's working on stuff from Irma and Idalia as well. So, how much is that that we're hoping to get back and is that why our fund balance is lower than we want it to be? I mean, does that go back to fund? That is part of that is that's part of it. I mean, also part of
it is the fact that our our projections on revenues such as uh half cent sales tax, those revenues took a took a deep decline as well. I mean, so you're looking at probably half of that number alone is just due to declines in in revenue from other sources. Couple that with maybe another seven to 10 on top of
that with with reserves for for storms. You know, it's it's why you have reserves quite honestly. That is well 35 is kind of shocking to me at 35 days. Um, so I'm just hoping that we can build that back up with the, you know, how much are we expecting from FEMA and how
much does that bump us up to? So I guess that's kind of my question. Yeah. So we're pretty early in the game for me to give you an accurate estimate of what those cost projections are. We are right there's still some projects that need some um engineering inspections on there to help us figure out scope. Um, and
we're in the middle of some FEMA inspections right now. So, we still there's still some work to be done before I can really pull together a number that's accurate. All right. Well, we look forward to that number. Yep. I think it'll help our Yeah. As soon as Yeah. As soon as I can get you something
that feels accurate, I will. I just don't want to give you um a shot in the dark number. I'm just trying to remember when we've been down that low before because we normally want 60 days. Yeah. It's it's been um it's been a few years. It's been a while since we've uh been
that low, but that is part of why we have reserves. And so then, you know, it becomes a policy decision for us to make on how aggressively do we want to try to get back to that 60 days and what does that look like?
Any other comments? Okay. Thank you. All right. Right. So now when we're talking about your property tax dollars, where does that money go? Right? And so these are just your advalor property taxes. So what we're looking at here
does not include any CDDs one might pay. It really just is it's um not your storm water assessments. This really just is property taxes. For every dollar of property taxes that the common citizen pays, where does that money go?
And so one penny of every dollar goes to swift mud, one penny of every dollar goes to mosquito control, 38 cents of every dollar goes to the school board. So 40 cents for every dollar that the taxpayer pays does is not under the
purview of this board that's sitting with me today, but 60 cents of every dollar is. And so now let's talk about how that 60 cents is um distributed throughout the county. And so this is based off fiscal year 25, right? So
property taxes that people are now paying. So two cents of that 60 cents goes to maintaining our roads. Um and that's not the only revenue source that goes toward our road program, but for
maintenance, that's your road MSTU. Um 21 cents goes to the sheriff. 20 cents goes to boardside public safety, so fire, rescue, corrections. Um, two cents goes to our parks department,
our other constitutional officers, not including the sheriff, and our support of the sixth judicial circuit. That equates to four cents on every dollar. Public services, so think senior services, libraries, um, your veteran services. So that's three cents of every
dollar. Um 3 cents goes towards uh general obligation bond debt payments and our contribution to our community redevelopment areas. And then 5 cents goes to our support services. So think about those services that are kind of behind the scenes keeping the wheels
moving but aren't necessarily public facing. So our facilities management team, um our information technology department, um our administrative departments, right? So kind of all that behind the scenes. my department is lumped in there in a support service
standpoint. Now, this graphic right here, oop, this graphic right here that we just showed you that that county distribution of property taxes, that makes up that big slice of our overall general fund revenue. But in our general fund, there
are other types of revenues as well. So the next biggest piece of the pie is that starting off fund balance number. That next bit of the pie is um money that comes to us from the federal government and the state government. So
think our half cent half cent sales tax, our guaranteed entitlement, those types of revenue sources. Then you'll see our charges for service. So this is where we are charging for a specific service that's coming back into the county. Um and that is a very small piece of our
overall revenue stream because most of our services um that are general funded are free to our citizens. We don't really charge for a lot of our services. And then internal charges. So, this one um we just wanted to give some transparency because there are some
departments in our county who are supporting other departments and so we try to the best of our ability to recoup funding to offset expenses to the taxpayers so that way our taxpayers are only paying for the services that they should be paying for. And so, um we do
something called a cost allocation study where we we do recoup some of the support from other funds like solid waste or water utility fund. And again, it's to make sure that our property taxes are really only paying for those things that they should be paying for.
And then we've got um some other revenues here. So in uh and our miscellaneous um so that includes a big chunk of that. roughly $6.5 million of that is where our fire rescue team is
getting some public emergency medical transportation supplement um to kind of offset because when you transport somebody who is uh under Medicaid coverage, you are capped at the amount that you can receive in that transport. And so this program helps us offset some
of those costs and uh keep our fire rescue team moving. All right, so now let's talk about the other side of the equation, which is our expense side. So how are those expenses broken out? And so the biggest chunk of expenses in our general fund are around
public safety to include the sheriff, corrections, fire, rescue, emergency management, our 911 team. So they're they make up that other and then that green part of the bar is our outward facing department. So that's
our parks department, um community services, libraries. Um the blue one is our general government. So again, think of those like those support services that we saw that were five cents of every dollar that the taxpayer pays. So we've got our facilities department, it our different
administrative departments. All right. And so back on this slide, we said that there was about $15 million in increased property taxes coming back to the board, but some of that is already accounted for.
And so we are looking at, like I said earlier, um trying to maintain the progress we made from fairly paying our team members so that way we can retain our high talent. Um, so we are modeling a wage increase here. There's a retire statemandated retirement increase that
we also have that we're accounting for. Um, we are still working through our phased in approach of being able to expand uh to operate our jail expansion when that whole project comes live. Um, when we look at the other constitutional
officers, not including the sheriff, that was about a $1.3 million increase. and we have some slides to talk about some of the pressures that they're feeling as well. Um, so you can see why their budget requests are up a little bit from last year. Um, it includes 10
additional sheriff deputies um that the board is contributing over and above the 40% of the taxable assess value increase. Um, operating our Wesley Chapel Library, which is you'll remember is going live this year. Um, and we're
in negotiations with our corrections union and so there's some some more to come there. We don't have a firm number because that that's still underway and we are in the process of working through um making sure that we really are putting
our resources in the strategic plan where the board has told us these are priorities. And so the team's looking on bringing on a homeless program administrator to help us with um some creative solutions to solving our homeless issues in the county.
Any questions or thoughts before we move on to the next slide? All right. So, here is our one-time capital fund um our capital or general fund capital investments that the county administrator is proposing. So, we're
looking at the Hudson Library renovation. Um we think that the animal shelter, we're still waiting to see, but it looks like that might not be getting funded from this state.
Yeah. So, but we have this placeholder in here um just in case um but we'll we'll see when uh everything gets through the governor. Is there anything in the budget for the
animal shelter? No. Yep. That's that's a shame. wouldn't sleep on. And so in 25 we had design money for an armory for the sheriff. And so this year in the program is the construction bit
of for that armory. Um the next thing you see here is facilities budget request. So investing a million dollars into things like carpet replacement, reconfiguration of spaces, um you know to meet our department needs. Uh 4.6 6
million um into our facilities renewal and replacement program where we're looking at maintaining roofs and um HVAC units and things like that trying to maintain the longevity of our buildings.
Um 2.2 million invested into our facilities master plan. Uh one roughly 1.6 million into IT projects and capital and then 1.25 25 million into our parks non-C capital maintenance and um sod
replacement. All right. So then our five-year lookout for our general fund capital. We've got everything you saw from the other slide. And so we um we build into our five-year plan um
maintaining our facilities, our IT um and we've got the parks non- capital maintenance and sod replacement built out for five years. Um and then we also are we've got programmed in an FY29 electronic poll books for the supervisor
of elections and then FY27. Um, back when we got ARPA funding, there was a list of projects that the board had approved. And so, we had a cash flow plan to fund all of those projects even though it's not technically being funded
with ARPA anymore. We do like to let you all know that those projects are still happening. Here's the year in which it is happening. And I believe this is the last one. And this was our um our economic bit of it. So, our harbors
redevelopment program. And then we had talked earlier about how we're seeing some um general inflation applying some pressure. And so when we look at some of our um general fund departments, this really just shows you
what does that pressure look like. And so we are looking to be able to absorb some of that pressure by modestly increasing by roughly 5.3% um just normal operating budgets for our departments in the general fund um without including any new initiatives.
So just in order to be able to maintain the level of service that our citizens have come to expect from us that is going that is roughly a 5.3% increase in our operating budgets. that equates to almost $13 million um more than last year's adopted number.
All right. And so also within the general fund, we have what we call our outside funding contributions. Anything that you see here that is bold and italicized are state mandates for us to fund. Anything that is not bold and
italicized is um we are contributing at the board's discretion. And so our biggest increase is that Medicaid number. We did get it um that did come to us from the state. So we are looking at 1.09 million increase over last year
for that Medicaid. All right. So what else is in our general fund? Well, we've got our other constitutional officers. And just a reminder to the board of the timeline um driven by state statute of when those budgets are due to us. And um you'll be happy to know they all made it on time.
And the only one that were left uh that we haven't got yet is the tax collector because that doesn't come to us until August 1st. All right. And so here's the highle picture of our constitutional officer budget request and um the change from
FY25 adopted. And then like I said, we've got individual slides behind here so we can show you what are those details. All right, so we'll start with the clerk. And so some of the stuff on this slide is baked into the clerk's request, but the stuff at the bottom is not yet
in there. You'll remember in April when we did the uh workshop with our constitutional officers on the budget, um the clerk let us know that there was a bill running through that might impact her workload. And so, um, it's still
it's still out there. It's still viable. And if it gets signed by the governor, um, that she will be requesting one additional FTE above the budget that she already submitted to us, and she's estimating that cost to be about 60,000.
But what is baked into her request and you can see it broken out between board services and then our multi- agency sieges. Um she is requesting two new positions um cyber security and for documentation a refresh of the audit software um which all this was discussed
at the April workshop and then those two buckets you see reflected in the board side and then the salary and retirement increases are across um both of those those operating units. and the sheriff. Um, so his his number
includes those 10 additional deputies that that we are funding on his behalf, the 40% of new property tax revenue allocation. And in his um budget submission, he did let us know that he's looking at 2.5% increase for salaries,
benefits, self- insurance, and retirement. 1.37 million for contractual and equipment cost escalators. And then his capital purchase of 2.4 million, but this does actually represent a little more than half a million dollar reduction from his
25 budget. And the supervisor of elections is increasing his budget submission by a little bit for vote by mail and sample ballot postage because 26 is an election year. The property appraisers includes a wage
increase and some network switches and firewalls. I noticed I noticed the property appraiser has 5%. Is that like negotiable? I mean no one else is doing 5%. Just thrown that out there.
Have you talked with him? We I mean we we did have some initial conversations. They believe um you know currently with what their employees are paid that that 5% is is the right market. What was he last year? Uh I think they matched with us. I don't
recall last year. I'll let you know. Um did the I'm sorry. Did the clerk have a That's not me. I know technology upgraded. Was there a did the clerk put in what
she is talking about for salaries? Um so I can say that the clerk historically tracks with us. So wherever we settle um they will have a like wage increase. Okay. And I've asked the county administrator
to get us a track of the count the constitutional officer's budget from 2010 to today just like we tracked ours. All right. Any further discussion? All right. So, now let's talk about our road rehabilitation services MSTU. So,
this is a new MSTU that was levied for the first time in fiscal year 25. So, we wanted to bring back to the board how that program is executing and what the plan over the next three years looks like assuming a stable military.
All right. So this slide shows you um dollars executed or encumbered. So expected so in the works expected to be fully expended by the end of the year. Um and we have it here broken out by treatment type. But if you look at the
far bottom right um 14.1 million executed in expected to be executed by the end of the year in the road program. So we asked Jason Mikl can you execute this money if we give it to you? He said, "Absolutely." And then he said,
"Look, I did it." Smart man. Yes. Ed. Yes. Commissioner Oakley. Uh, just a question or answer to that is the fact that the citizens have appreciated we changing to that plan rather than PEvest
we've had before. And I've gotten great remarks out in the public from people saying that's the right way to do it. And I mean these are people that are naysayers to everything we do seem like, but in fact they think we did the right
thing by changing to this system. So and and the work process of all that work and the paving going on has been very uh accurate and moving forward and no problems because y because it's been
used. I mean the fact of it is I think they'll end up spending that money a little quicker than you know, it'll be short coming out to the end of the year, but the fact of it is they've used that money and and there's a lot of good comment out in our citizens for that. So, I certainly
appreciate all the work they've done in that and bringing that actually program forward to us so we can vote on it and actually move forward with a better program than we've had in years past. So, thank you. And and may I add Jason once more?
Well, what um where Well, I think we all do, but I we've got to be able to get it somewhere. So, yeah, we didn't we didn't go with the Cadillac, but I don't think we went with the I don't know what's the lowest kind of car. I have no idea. Don't offend somebody. Yeah,
no, the board did the Rena. You're right. The board did adopt the the mid-range plan. Yeah. And I know she can Amy can get to the right number because we were going to have this budget meeting. So here we are having this workshop and I said I got to come up with a name for you. I said I'm used
to budget Bob. So it all sound good goes. So we got accurate Amy out there. Right. Yeah. Accurate Amy. It's stuck. That's it. I'm okay. I know. I'm okay with it. Accurate Amy. Accurate
Amy. I I can't think of a nickname that um would speak to trust more than accurate Amy. So I very much appreciate that sir. All right. So this is money spent, but what does that equate to in lane miles?
Well, so happy you asked because Amy has a slide for that. All right. So, um, so this shows you broken out by treatment type and by district what are the lane miles that the program has been able to execute
this year in terms of um rehabilitation. And so we said we will give you money but you need to go get work done. and the team met the charge and they got a tremendous amount of work done in the same year that they had to stand up the
new program as well. So it is pretty remarkable to see and so now we'll show you. So here's what they were able to accomplish in one year. So what's their plan over the next three years assuming that they have a stable millillage. All right. So here is by treatment type
um what the team has programmed in from a fiscal standpoint over the next three years. And you will see that there is an additional treatment type here listed out that was not listed out in the previous slide and that is sidewalks. So
the team wanted to make sure that they were able to better and more accurately collect data and present data out on sidewalks as well. So for 26 and moving forward, we have broken that bit of the program out so we can be a little bit more transparent for you all.
So that's what that looks like in terms of dollars. And now here's what those dollars look like if we break them out by district and treatment type. I'll just sit here for a couple seconds
so people can take it all in. And then here's what that looks like in terms of planned lane miles by district. And so when we look at um putting some context on this, this
equates to about um five districts. So, district one uh looking at rehabilitating 15% of the total lane miles in the next three years. For district two, that you're looking at
roughly 21% of the total lane miles. For district three, you're looking at roughly 25% of the total lane miles. For district 4, you're looking at 19% of the total lane miles. And then for district five, you're looking at roughly 20% of
total lane miles. I thought we had the time. All right. Good job, Jason. All right. So, the next bit of um
discussion and conversation. Yes. Um so, I'm on the county website on the road schedule and the schedule's not here and I thought we had that published. Where? I can send you Okay. But why
wouldn't it not be on the paving page? I'm not sure. I can I can send you a link when I get back. We'll make sure it's clear. Yeah, I think it's it's got the prepaid paving assessment refund request and the paving assessment address change request, but that's the
only I'll double check. Okay, great. Okay, we found it. Okay. It still was kind of hard even I knew what I was looking because the one you were looking at was was designed for PAS and we're calling the new program road rehabilitation and
I think that's okay. Yeah, we'll we'll we'll try to transition to make clear we'll talk to Tom's team. Thank you. All right. So um so again everything that we've for an example everything we've got here planned with the roads
MSCU is assuming a level millage rate right no change in that millage rate but part of what um the discussion we need to have with the board is do we want to maintain millage rates do we want to address millage rates do do we want to shift them and so that's part of the
conversation that we need to have today so that way when we come back in July we're able to move in um in the direction you all would like us to move. So, for some historical context, when we look at our general fund millage, um we
have where where that sat over the last couple of years. We've got our fire MSTU and where that um millage rate um where those millage rates have set, our roads rehabilitation MSTU, again, FY25 was the first year that we had this
MSTU. And then our parks capital maintenance MSTU, we adopted zero mills in 25. And so part of today's conversation is, you know, where do we think we might want to land going into 26? That's my All right. So Amy, how much um how much
is going to change on the road MSTU? I mean, with the values going up, what would that number look like this year? So, if we keep the same millage rate based off our um June 1 number from the property appraiser, they're looking at getting roughly 1.87 million more in
revenue. And what will that equate to in road mileage for paved Do we have a mic for Yeah, we have a mic over here. Come hang out with us. All right. So, um kind of in a weird spot.
Yeah. All right. So, uh Commissioner, if if we um first of all, I just want to say again, thank you to the commission for supporting this program. Um you tasked us with uh executing and um the team did. So I'm I'm you know I I
give them all the credit. They they um did a great job of u executing, understood understood the mission, understood how important this was to everybody to get this done and and we um you know we we um they went out there and performed. So I I know um you know I
want to see what the fire when it comes to more money there's a lot of places that more money could go throughout the county and you have tough decisions to make, right? Right. So, any dollar that we get more um for this program, we are we're going to be happy to execute on. Um you know, you saw the multiple strategies, including now the way um Amy
showed you with sidewalks. We um we will execute on the the money that's given to us. Um the the treatments do cost a little bit little bit, you know, different as as you move down that list. They get more expensive anywhere from $10,000 a mile all the way down to about
a million bucks a mile. So, it depends on what we do. Uh we are doing a lot of mill and resurfacing throughout the county. As you you'll see at your next meeting, we are going to be coming to you for a new rejuvenation um and uh microsurfacing contracts to to do some of that work as well. And then we're
also going to have two vendors for our for our paving contract that that um that you just saw. So we uh we're ready to rock and roll on on the um on the the dollars that we received. Right. So those how many dollars total dollars you
have this past year? I think what Amy showed you here was just over 14 million. I think it's 14.7. So if you add what we have, that's almost 2 million more, right? It's about 10%. It's about 10% more. Okay. I know the citizens are very happy with the project
and and the way it's been built to them. Uh I'm sure we heard a little bit of that info early on when they got their bills for that. But uh the fact of it is I think more people and citizens are real happy with the program, the way it's working. uh they're seeing roads
being paved and uh very important for people. So word of mouth with a lot of people out there. So I think they're more in favorable of maybe some kind of an increase without a whole lot of increase. But uh you got to be careful because their money is tight. So it'd be
good if we could add some money to that project so it could move further cuz all districts are getting some paving done and they've been needed to be done for a long time and been held up because they've gone through that PAS system where put neighbor against neighbor and it kept a lot of things from moving
forward. So in this in this sense those roads that need it are getting done. So so I appreciate everything y'all are. Okay. All right. So, um, another MSU that we need to have some dialogue around is the
parks MSTU um, to assist us in understanding what direction we need to take as we come into the TRIM meeting next month. Um so we've been talking about three different possible scenarios
um funding capital maintenance, funding their operations or the combination of funding their operations and their maintenance through the MSTU. And the team did some work to update the ordinance so that way any version of
these three scenarios would be allowable in that MSTU. And so here we're showing you depending on uh what level that that would be set at, what is the impact to your um median home owner. And so
looking at uh our current median value, that is roughly 178,000 is your median home value in the county. um and then what that program revenue it would generate. Well, just to add to to what we need for
parks and MSU, we need something more than zero without a doubt. Yes. When I when I came into office uh nine years ago, we actually were behind in maintenance on 20 I think for 20 years. We've been behind like $20 million
and covering that. But Keith, I think's coming forward or so. I think his number was more to that, but just in case the the fact the fact of it is um the fact of it is it is very important that we take care of these parks. We don't let
them get behind. During COVID was not necessarily a great time for the county, but it actually for parks, it helped them because parks actually got shut down to a point that they were able to take care of some of that past maintenance that hadn't been done before because they didn't have any play or
anybody, you know, working on on their field. So, they were able to do that in-house with with a lot of their employees. Uh, very important, very important to the citizens that these fields are kept up. Uh, and I tell you, people are coming to play
ball here in Pasco County and recreation. So, I'll let I'll let Keith talk to it. He can talk much better at it than I can, but the fact of it is very, very important. We got other parks coming online, but we can't just keep
going without maintenance fees to be able to take care of these parks. We got to have this money for that and citizens want it. You shut down park and see what happens in a neighborhood in Pasco County. They'll scream and holler and be
packing up our boardrooms with with people against us for that. So, we need to keep them going and do the right thing by by keeping them up like they should be. Keith, you want to add to it? I feel like I've said quite a quite a lot over the last year and a half. I was
watching Jason present and much respect for the success of that program and I thought god I wish I was talking about the you know the success of of that and then I thought then I was reminded by my fiscal manager that actually we we have that success we got the go bond back in
2018 and we've been you know since the last six plus years seven years spending about three and a half million on capital maintenance executing maybe not as stellar that was a backlog yeah that was a backlog You didn't even make it through the whole backlog. Correct. We didn't, but we did several projects and we met all
the draw down requirements and we've been uh making those improvements to Commissioner Oakley's point throughout the county for the last 6 and a half years. Um so, you know, in summary, the the parks department uh budget request for 26 is is yeah, a solution to figure out this capital maintenance piece. We
we did our we did our planning and we're asking for 8.2, too. But in addition to the capital maintenance side, we also have a budgetary request on the operational side of 1 one a.5 million for the cost of goods, services, and contracts that have increased that as we
continue to in order to pay our utility bills, we take away from the capital funding in order to be not have insufficient fund fees. So, uh I mean that's high level summary. That's the that's the park's budget request for FY26. Yes. Thank you. And so what's what's
coming before you now on this slide and really we would like to have some some more discussion on it is is Amy is outlining really a couple of options here before the board. So we have the tool it's called the parks MSTU that the board adopted last year. It it did not go forward. It went forward with a zero
millillage last year. That was for the parks maintenance piece that Keith is talking about. Um and so if we were to establish if the board were to establish a millillage on that to fund parks maintenance, it's that one. It's that 0.1565 number that that you're seeing there. That is not currently funded
today through any through any of our current budgetary uh processes. Right now, uh we're able to fund Keith's operations to about the tune of about 1.2 1.3 million. Uh some of that handles SAD and then some of it is also addressing backlog maintenance and other things. That's what we're able to to
afford with the way things are currently set up. So that would generate 8.2 million program revenue. When you see a general fund millage requirement, you notice that the general fund mill uh it would be an increase. Correct Amy? If we were to try to fund that out of the general fund. So you and really you have
two options there. Option one is you can increase the general fund millillage and then we can find the money that way or you direct us to go do it another way in which case I'll have to cut from other programs in order to try to find find the funding in that sweet spot. So Amy is just going to walk stepwise through
those items. And really one of the biggest decisions we need to know today is you know what millillage you know if any does the board wish to establish on the parks MSTU and how do we how do we address that coming into the trim because it is a it is a sequential function um because once we eliminate
that variable then we figure out how to address any ripple effects that that come from that. So Amy why don't you continue to walk through this and then when we get to the end let's let's try to have some discussion on it. Right. So, um, to Mike's point, where where we're trying to get to, it's it's kind
of twofold, right? Um, what level of funding do we want to provide parks? And then what is the mechanism we'd like to use to get there? Um, and so both of those things give us uh clear direction on how to move forward going into the
July trim meeting. So, are we looking to fund some additional capital maintenance at the full 8.2 million that Keith said he needs on an annual basis or some other version of that? Right? A lesser amount. So,
anywhere from 1 to 8, what might that look like? And do we want to put that into an MSTU or do we want to find that funding somehow in the general fund? Um, and so if we were to do the full 8.2
in an MSTU, um, so the just know that the don't hold too firm on the actual millage rates because that's assuming June 1st taxable assessed value. The millage rate would um modulate a little bit. It's really
that program revenue where we need to have the discussion because we'll get July one numbers and then depending on what revenue you'd like to see generated would tell us what would that millage rate need to be. So don't pay too much attention to millage rate at this point.
But it really is so that that program revenue piece. Um and so would we like to see 8.2 million generated some other number? Um, do we want operations in there? Maybe not with capital maintenance yet. Maybe that's
something we build out over the years if we were to establish an MSDU and let growth get us there. Um, or would we want to look at the the whole picture in year one with ops and the maintenance money?
Yes. Well, I'll jump in with both feet and make a big splash here. It's no secret. I would really prefer the capital maintenance and operations all in MSTU,
but I'd want those mills cut. Obviously, they've moved from the general fund over into its own. So, it' be uh the the difference pulled off the general fund revenue. Uh and that that solves a generational problem. Just funding the
piece will ultimately lead to a potential increase on taxes. Uh, I think the restructuring of our current general operation millages is paramount here using the money we have without potentially raising taxes
to, you know, significantly fund the parks program in which it needs to be. Well, um, just funding the maintenance, the capital maintenance piece. I I I disagree with how that structure is last year obviously and I don't think that
has the generational benefit to the park system uh based on money um as a capital maintenance and operations piece because times times get tough, you know, they're going to be the first ones to take a hit. So, we backslide. This somewhat protects the budget for the parks
department. They can keep moving forward and aren't just, you know, less distractions uh within volatile budget years, right? And Mike Paul and I have talked through this pretty heavily and we actually agree on something here uh on this. he
might be able to talk to it more eloquently than than I can, but I'm I'm all for all in MSTU if there's, you know, we just pull those fun those millages off the general operating mill and then let Keith and Kathy go to work
and build the field of dreams that we're hoping to build here in Pasco County. Commissioner Oakley, I see the problem with doing that is you can't swap millage on general fund for for MSTU money for the other because it hits
every department. Every constitutional takes a hit on that mil on the general fund millage. So there's no way to actually do that, match it up and do that the right way without it hurting a lot of different departments. So Mike,
if there's some I'll be medium somewhere that I can take a stab at that unless there's clarity in that comfort to so so the way I mean there's there's some there's some structural things that that really in my opinion should should kind
of kind of play out here on this. So we've got we've got the parks MSTU and everyone's no one's wrong here. Let me let me just let me just start by saying that I think that there is merit in in the uh in the parks budget being in its own separate in its own separate thing
uh going going down a path with growth and allowing organic growth to take care of the parks it fences off that money and and protects it. Um Commissioner Oakley, you are correct. Um when you make a reduction a a consequent reduction uh in the general fund uh
we'll just call it the general operating millage that when you change that multiplier you have you do have less revenue. There is less revenue available um for other departments that you know and you've seen before that would that would that could impact public safety that could impact other general
operating um departments. Now there could be an order of operations because one of the things that we have been trying to look at this as is we've been trying to look at the budget holistically and if when we look at it holistically and while it it's not ready to be baked perhaps in in this year's budget but we we've had discussions um
kind of loosely on on look what what what does it look like if law enforcement for example were in its own MSTU or what does it look like if we were to take the rescue component of the fire department and put it in its own in its own MSTU. do. And when you start projecting out the numbers, they they
look they look better. Um quite honestly, because the public safety expenses, let's face it, they they creep up higher because there is it is a demand that our citizens require, right? They they they need adequate police, fire, and rescue services. And that's that's cornerstone of infrastructure for growth. Next
biggest thing they like are parks, and they like roads. You I mean, this is this is back this is backed with data. So, I I I think all of these all of these ideas have merit. I just I I do think that the order in which we take them up, you know, could could matter if if the board is is committed to doing
it. So I think the end state of these being in their own separate taxing units provides the transparency that I think the board and the public demand and look for. Um I do think um that the order in which we tackle them could could matter somewhat. So, for example, if we were to, you know, as you point out, you
know, Commissioner Oakley, if we were to adopt a parks MCU and we were to cut the general operating millage this year, um, that's that's going to create some challenges in terms of us having to fund other budgets. Now, you give me that direction, our our job is is to figure
out how to make that how to make that work. If that's the direction of this board, it'll it'll be it'll be tough, but but I'm not saying that it's insurmountable. Um, but then that would be predicated on on, you know, next year probably making some decisions on, well, let's let's get these law enforcement
MSTUs or or a fire rescue MSTU on the books because if those don't get into the books, then you could have, you know, other problems in your general operating mill. So, some of that isn't isn't completely baked right now, but it is certainly a path forward over the next two years that I think the board
the board could take that would really stabilize some of the reserve problems that that we've seen. um get parks, get sheriff, get fire, rescue in in their own in their own aligned buckets. Um the question the question before you today
is, you know, you know, do you want to tackle this one first or do you want to take on take on the other ones first? There there's some order. There's some order that matters. But even if you were to take this up and direct us, we would we would try to figure out how to make it how to make it work. And there may be
short-term short-term pain for long-term gain on that. Um or you know we can handle it a different way. The issue with the MSTUS as you all know is I I need not me excuse me we the law requires that we have unanimous consent to establish a millillage um on
those. And so if the board is not united in that at this time then we need to come back with other plans. I I just need to know that. Well I know we need the maintenance fee for the parks. I I know that's there and I know we always seem to have an issue with the amount
sheriff gets at times, but we know he needs money for our safety and security and things in the county. I see I see us needing this park thing, but I don't want to cut millage and cut other departments at the same time. But
the fact of it is a tax is a tax whether it be in in the general fund or if it's over here in MSTU. But I can I can almost see as you were speaking the fact that there probably could be a plan maybe not this year
uh that we take and make the sheriff have his own uh MSTU and also for the others that uh for the property what monies he gets the elections all of them could be on their
MSTU and take drop that benefit. So, a tax is a tax one way or the other, but you can't take it away from the general fund without maybe doing all of them at the same time because if you do all of them at the same time, they all pretty much kind of stay whole and and they're
the same tax you're putting out. So, maybe there's a way to do that. I I think there might be, but that's something for accurate Amy to take care of and and the and the staff, your staff, Mike. So, but uh I can see where
a picture of that would be better than when we tweaked millage to do that before it really had a had a bad effect. Lisa is next on other people and other departments. So, I was concerned about that. Uh Lisa. Okay. So, when I talked to Mike and Amy, um I I just in good
conscious can't can't vote for a tax. I I feel like I we can't tax our citizens. Um and I asked for a plan. What does that look like coming out of um the general fund or you know did you happen to come up with anything?
So there are some there are some paths forward and depending on the level that the board would like to see funded from the general fund would help us. Um, so like I'll call it lowhanging fruit, but if we're not getting any state money for
the animal shelter, that could peel off some money if we wanted to keep some maintenance money. But so we can look at some of those one-time investments that we're planning to make, peel some of those back little by little and shift those over to parks capital maintenance.
Um I'm saying if we if we have if we funded parks maintenance like we did last year or this year. So you're saying if well we funded about 1.3 million in terms of right? Um I mean
I want our parks to be great. I just like I said to you guys a million times I feel like we can't tax our our citizens right now. So where else can we get money? And I'm not for cutting the millillage because then our first
responders are our first hit. So, um, so like I I was hoping we had something for this meeting where I could see if possibly we could take I we need Yeah, we would need um the to really be able
to come up with a good plan for you all. We would need to know what's the funding level you all would like to see and then that helps us really identify um a couple approaches to get money, right? So, so if we're looking at let's say in in a scenario there's no parks MSTU and
we're looking to fund some capital maintenance dollars out of the general fund based off current millage rate and the status of the universe as it exists today. Um, knowing would we want to increase it by 1 million or 5 million
would help us know what different options we could provide to the board to get there. Well, let me let me let me jump in here just just a second here. So, Commissioner Jagger to answer to answer your question. Um, if if the board adopted a zero millillage for the
parks, but said, "Hey, what do we what do we do with parks?" Right? So, the recommendation would would probably to be to bring forward Keith's budget as as currently slated right now with a recommendation on what level of parks maintenance the board would like to see. And so, to answer that question, I I I
did have some conversations with Keith and Kathy on Keith, what do you think you could realistically execute without having to bolster up? Right. So, that 8.2 million that he requested does include some staffing up, some ramping up um in order to have the capacity to spend those dollars. So looking at it
relatively conservatively at this point, we we think somewhere between 3 and 4 million is where parks could probably realistically under their current structure uh realistically execute without having to do to do anything else. So, you know, if the board if the board, let's say the board were to say,
"Hey, look, you know what? We we wanna, you know, to address Commissioner Oakley's concerns, uh, you know, maybe it's look, if we if we did not adopt that this year, and we wanted to move towards, look, let's let's take care of the the public safety component and
parks and get those things aligned all at once because we we've got some order of operations here is really really what the issue is saying. What? What? What? What? Um um Sorry, I was about to say Colonel Oakley. Uh what uh what Commissioner Field promotion, sir? It sounds good.
Got a good ring to it, right? What uh what what what Commissioner Oakley is is kind of led led to concern because if if we were to cut the general millage then yes, this year then you would see some cuts. now um or reductions in in recurring revenue that would probably have to be made up out of
reserves or other other sources until next year. If we could get a law enforcement MSTU and and an update to the fire MSTU put forward and then parks and you take them all take them all at once, then you can probably do that without a whole lot of um hubhub within
within the general fund. So, but Commissioner, to answer your question, if if there was zero, if it was set at zero, and that's that's that's where we landed, we would probably recommend to fund fund Keat's budget where it needed to be and then just ask the board for some guidance on what you would like to
see. If that number is 3 million, great. He's getting about 1.2 million right now currently from general fund. You know, Amy made a very quick, you know, look, yeah, we could take that money from the animal shelter. We didn't get money this year for it. Um, you know, live to fight another day. That would certainly be a
quick a quick fix. That's where we would look. We would look we would look to un unspent capital dollars to kind of make make those first moves and cuts. So it it can be done. Commissioner, he would just have to temper what the program would look like to to fit within that. It's kind of like what we said with
paving, right? We recognize that quite honestly, we could do a lot of roads or we could do some roads, but doing some was better than doing no roads. And so it's the same when it comes to the park maintenance. doing doing a little bit more of than what we're currently doing is a great thing and it is a win for parks and we would we would take that
happily. Okay. So, I hope that answers your question. I I I I'm I'm going to disagree that I I feel we have a responsibility to maintain our parks and Keith's been limping along with pretty much nothing for quite a number of
years. Yep. I look at where we are in affordability. I think our residents I think our residents want our parks. I think I mean they are screaming for that little league park in Beexley. Um they
are look at what's happening over at VO connected city and VOP. They want their parks. So, I I am 100% and fully funding Keith's request, which I think is a conservative request. And and if we're not going to fund maintenance, we
shouldn't be bringing on any of these parks because we cannot build a park and then not take care of it. Drive by Mitchell Field and take a look at it. Drive along the Sun Coast and look at the wooden rail along the side on the Sun Coast Trail. It's falling apart. Um
there's gaps in it. It and it's that's That's the pre that's the uh presentation of our county when people are coming through from other counties south. You drive through Hernando, the Sun Coast Trail looks lovely and you get to Pasco and it's fallen apart. I mean,
it it's obvious there's a lack of maintenance going on. So, um I think that we should be funding at a minimum his um $8 million uh of maintenance. And I think if we put it to the public, they
would fund it. They would want to fund it. So, so if I could ask ask on that. I mean, again, there's there's options to do that. So, you know, right now we are not funding that in in your current general operating millage, you know, is does the board want to consider, and
don't don't throw tomatoes at me, you know, an increase in the general mill in order to cover that or do we want to take that from other sources or other programs or reserves? Who are you going to cut it from? We're already you're already operating much lower than any other county per
capita. I'm just offering I think we're already to the bone and so we you know we we have a responsibility to fund government and Commissioner Oakley wants to speak. So I'm not willing to cut the sheriff or the fire department or um
any other program. I think it we're already at minimum. So, uh, I I was for the MSTU. If I don't mind I don't mind his idea of putting the whole park bud budget over in an MSTU as long as it
includes the $8 million. Um, I mean, and that's got to be a little bit of an increase. So, Commissioner Oakley. Yeah. Thank you. I I guarantee if we put this up on a referendum to vote for the for the people and c and citizens of Pasco
County to vote, I guarantee they would pass that hands down. That there's I mean, we just added another park. We bought the land for another park at Two Rivers and it's it's a good thing and it's coming. And I
spoke yesterday at uh Two Rivers for their groundbreaking of uh landing of two Two Rivers. Uh very good turnout of people there and all and they're doing a great job. A good open space. Got landscaping. Got got trees diameter wise
probably five five inch trees are putting in. I mean these are huge oak trees going to be coming in there. They got their bay heads where we very open, very large lots in there. It's a very nice project. So, but they got a new park coming. Somebody's got to take care
of it. It's our park. We bought the land to put the park there. So, that park's going to be called uh Bob Thomas. Oh, really? Bob Thomas Memorial Park. Was Robert there at Two Rivers? No, Robert wasn't there. It's not on the park today on yesterday. that was setting up of the
new development itself, but the park could come later that we'll be presenting that and having a I'm sure we'll have a groundbreaking for that. So, there's a lot of good things, but there's people are wanting every time we start a new season of whether it be soccer or baseball or whatever, I get a
phone call, oh, I don't get enough time on the fields. I I haven't got enough. We don't have enough fields. There's and there's almost not enough time in the day to put them on there. But the fact of it is when you got so much play and so many people demanding to have park
space, it costs money to keep it up. And if we don't give money to the parks to do it, then shame on us. We're not doing the right thing for our citizens. And and I want the citizens won't. I I agree. But I want to remind you all that um now that I'm an older person and I
don't play softball and soccer anymore, I want parks for me, too. I want wonderful trails to go walk on or bike on or uh shaded trees to have a picnic under. I mean, we we need to think of all generations when we talk about our
parks. So, um and we don't have Commissioner Mariano here to weigh in on anything. I I just have a comment. I mean, I feel like some of this, you know, was created because, you know, just take take the cap. we weren't taxing all these these big
companies coming in um and our our firehouses weren't being funded all the way because because of that tax money and now it's like okay now we we've taken the cap off or about to take the cap off and now
impact piece yeah for these for these big huge companies coming in. So I I I just feel like it I I love parks. I mean I have kids. I love parks. I want beautiful parks. you go to other counties, we have beautiful parks. I just I I hate having that fall on the
citizens. That's all. I hate having attacks. Um I I I really wish somehow we could figure it out um for the next couple of years. I mean, I'm not hearing that from anybody else. Um I'm not for cutting the millillage.
Um I want nice parks. I I just feel like this is just this is just something that's kind of happened because of maybe some poor decisions in the past. Well, um you know what h what happened in the past was this county got stuck in the
early 2000s um when they rolled and rolled and rolled the millillage back and you know we've always been a conservative county. they rolled it very far back and then save our homes came in and it's taken decades to recover from that. Um so but
I think going back to the slide that Amy had up before which shows you where we sit as far as taxing our citizens in the state. We are very very low tax county, but we can't stay at the bottom and provide services and we can't stay at
the bottom and fund our sheriff's office the way we want to. We It's And no one wants to raise the tax. Um I personally think MSTUs are a great way to go. Uh because you know exactly where that money is going. It's dedicated and we
can tell our citizens that penny, that dollar, what is it? $44 a year for How much is 8 million a year on an MSTU per for $111 on the paper? I It's $25 a
year. What is it? Because you've got 44 a year. That's operation then maintenance. No, I I think it's just capital maintenance is $44 a year. Is that right? Right. I'm talking about the whole thing though is Yeah. But if you just look at trying to get Keith whole
if we take the operations and the other out and we move it over that's just a there's no difference and just you're just putting it in a different pot which I'm I'm fine with that but we have to add maintenance money. It's in it. It would be
chair man. Yeah. Uh okay weightman and then commissioner. So commissioner Joerger I agree with you believe me. Yeah. No, I've had no problem before you came on holding the board till 10:00 at night as a freshman commissioner uh as
chief remembers and his his troops storming out and boxing MSDUs in in taxes. So, I appreciate and 100% agree with you. And the reason I didn't support the maintenance tax last year is because like you, if I'm going
to support a tax, it's going to have to be a true generational benefit to our county citizens. And we all know our county has grown younger by 20 years since CO. And so my thought process was
with the all-encompassing park MSTU the 6235 mills we would pull that off the general fund millillage. So essentially reducing the general fund millillage 6235 move that over into its own. So it's it's unilateral. There's no tax
increase. And if we needed to there's no secret. I'm all for spending down reserves. If the county has money, we spend it because it's the only business in the world that will have a boatload of revenue coming in the following year. So, I'm not afraid of spending down our reserve money, especially if we're to
cover the $8 million shortfall for the 12 months. And then he's back keyole and he's growing. And then what that does is there's no net tax increase to the people. It is the same principle for the sheriff and what the fire guys are
doing. the fires extra but with what with the potential public safety MSTU then it protects that budget that budget's blowing out of control fund that fund is growing at a healthy rate we can reduce that millage rate and cut it back but essentially then if if we're
you know say three mills it's it's essentially it's a it's a tax reduction if we do the maintenance tax that's a tax that would be over and above our courage millage so it would be that would in my opinion would be a tax increase. It wouldn't be net neutral.
And so that's why I'm I'm such a advocate for the all-in parks tax if we pull the full millage rate off the general fund millillage and move it over and then Keith can go to work. Well, Mike Carbala and speaking with him
was fully comfortable with this plan and he still had flexibility within his budget to figure out the wiggle room of what people need. Again, that's where the reserves come into play. I'm comfortable spending those reserves down. That's why the taxpayers give us the money is to to spend it and use it,
not hold it in a savings account, in my opinion. And I I think I think that's that's the healthy way to go. Key team can be off and running. The residents, I think, would appreciate it. And it's just again, it's just you we we live 12
months at a time here, right? And if something doesn't predict as accurate Amy says, which I think it'll be pretty accurate, then we come in hopefully next year it's and and and work together and and tweak it to make it right because
the demand is clearly there for this and the and this restructuring the generational impact I think it'll have for our residents and our park system. I don't even know how to how to measure it. But I think if we were to support
the all-in plan and then balance the budget the way that we need to, I just 10 20 years down the line, I think this board could look look back and go, "Wow, we we really did the right thing." Restructuring our budget because it's budget, we're kind of managing it, my
opinion the same old way as it's been been done for a long long time. And so I looked at our budget and say how can we restructure it and make that dollar go further and by moving you know dollar for dollar into its own MSTU Keith's budget will go further. The same thing
for public safety MSTU which the sheriff has endorsed again pull those millage rates and the sheriff supports this. Pull that mill for his own MSTU. Take that millage pull it off the general operating millage rate. No tax increase.
His budget's protected. he can go to work. The sheriff's not distracted from the politics of a budget. He can focus on sheriffing. I think also it'd be a tool that when the sheriff retires, it would help be a recruitment tool for a new sheriff to come in because they
would be comfortable with the budget structure and not necessarily be just, you know, have to focus on the politics around his or her budget when that time comes. It's like, hey, we have a board that supports us, supports our funding mechanism. and also give the opportunity again if that fund is growing at a
healthy rate sheriff could come in and bless hey you can reduce my millillage I have all I need and it'd be a tax reduction and so it's just restructuring pieces of the pie in my opinion and I think these are the the generational changes good impacts that we can make
with with restructuring our budget for generations to come by doing this without increasing our taxes okay commissioner Oakley okay um if We took the millillage or took the millage that for the MSTU and made them
whole and take parks out of our general fund was to is there a way and if we're going to reduce some millillage on on the general fund to make each person like the sheriff's department whole and be able to still do
that pulling out that MSTU sounds to me like there's going to be a little bit of a a tax increase over on the maintenance part But my real concerns when you dro in millage rate, my concerns is making those holes that are left in the general
fund. So, so they're not left holding a bag of like that one tweet we made before thinking that was going to be a good deal. It took 600,000 away from the sheriff's office and that's a lot of money. So, and it takes away forever. Before you answer, I I want to add on
kind of add on to what you're saying. And and I I like Keith's budget growing organically for himself, but I want to get him some more money. No one likes raising taxes. Um so I want to throw out some ideas. If we started to do that,
I'd be okay with that if we got Keith some more money this year. So I hate to see that animal services money go away, but maybe that's an option. But I also know that maybe we could make a pledge here that you know the money that Don't
tell me you programmed it already. The money that um we programmed it already that Senator Fano um you know what he bring gives to us sometimes we get some money back we give it to Keith. um if we if we do come in over 9.5 or whatever
we're at, you know, and and we have some extra money there, he gets a big portion of it and let's build up his kitty for this year so he's not starting at zero. Mike and I did talk about that like any extra revenue he had, you know what I'm
saying? We throw towards parks. Yeah. So, I'll I'll address that and then I'll address Commissioner Oakley's um thing. So with with regards to we do do revenue projections on on what um tax collector gives back to us. Now sometimes those
sometimes he brings in more than what those projections show. So if if we have a projection and let's just say we've projected I don't know do you know offhand what we projected for this year? Not offhand but Dan can pull it. I'm just going to I'm going to give a fake number right now. Let's say that number
is $2.5 million. If if we projected that coming back am I close? Four and a half. Oh, we projected four and a half. And Keith, you're rich for all. No, not really. Not really. Quite the opposite, actually. No, it's already accounted
for. So, we've accounted for 4 and a.5 million from in the budget already. Yes. Yes. But that's from all So, if if the tax collector were to come back with say 5 million or 4.6 million, I I would understand that to mean take that extra 100,000, half a million, and we we plow
it into parks through a budget amendment or something like that. that understood understood just know that we we set a number um and if it's over that number then yeah of course otherwise we're building into these other budget assumptions so back to commissioner Oakley's commissioner Oakley's point so commissioner Oakley's point um and I
think we saw it we saw it the first year when we talked about the uh when we made the haircut on the on the general operating millillage and and that that pain was spread equally yes the sheriff's budget was impacted by 600,000 so if but that wasn't fair that was done so quickly
That was What do you mean? We were there till 10 at night. No, no, no, no. The cocktail napkin math and he moment. It was late. People were tired. My fault. Um, but I'm not I'm not I'm not using it to point blank. I'm just saying it's it's it's it's just a factual mathematic
thing that that happens. We didn't have that. It got serious come game day. And I think now we know, hey, this could potentially happen. And so it's healthy to have that conversation now where that scenario that conversation never
happened. Right. It was quick draw McGraw. Correct. And so that was a learning lesson and we were able to fix it. Senator Sono came in and we rang the bell for him and we fixed it. But now we're able to have these great
conversations and dialogue of how we spend the people's money and plan on these real scenarios that we know can potentially happen. So that's to use that as a as as the prime example. I think that'd be a little bit Sorry, I was just
feeding off of of what what Commissioner Oakley had mentioned in his statement. Um the the the simple fact is is when there is a reduction in the general operating mill there is Amy can you please go to the the slide where you show oh
Dan would you please go to the slide that shows the uh revenue um where it shows the new revenue slide but again Mike if we were to understand the commercial indust I'll touch on that in a second because commissioner Jagger sort of alluded to
the same thing. Uh, wrong way down. Can you give a little more context, please? Uh, the your revenue slide that shows new revenue 37 million, whatever the number was. Keep going there. That's it. Okay. So I think Commissioner Oakley, this is the
point you're trying to make here, is that if if we were if the board were to adopt a parks MSTU and some sort of commensurate cut in the general fund, whether it's dollar for dollar or some other number, your net increase in property tax number will change because
your multiplier is different. So your millage is currently at 74292 around there. Um, originally, you'll remember, two years ago was at 767 and it was that was it's been reduced two years in a row.
Good work, team. Um, but and and so to that and so to that point, your net increase in property taxes, that number will be some number lower than 37 million. Um, based on how we currently allocate money, those other numbers would also change in the downward
direction. So the question is is if we do make a reduction, how do you make up for those numbers? Commissioner Weightman here has suggested spend it out of reserves that that's a policy decision on on what we what we want our reserve levels to be. I don't you know we we've seen we've seen the need for
reserves as a result of the hurricanes. Um you know um I won't get into that discussion. We've we've you got to you just you just got to be got to be careful. That's a calculated risk. the uh and so and then that number of what's available to BCC and to fund constitutionals also drops and so you're
looking at next slide please next slide next slide next slide next slide you've got these numbers no that's fine go back you know these are these are kind of these other other expenses and
pressures that are out there that would would rely on that $15 million that that would that would decrease right and So it it becomes a you know it becomes it's a policy decision on how to how to fund and how to set how to set those numbers. So one of the things early on that that
we were talking about and I I look at this now through through the lens of you know you know Commissioner Wakeman and having discussions with all of the board members um even in the sheriff being supportive of an MSTU is if we take care of our big rocks. Go back two slides.
No, I'm sorry. just go forward one and that's that public safety component which is their biggest draw out of that. You know, right now we're focused on an MSTU that hand that that really kind of operates in that green area. We're talking about MSTUs that operate in that purple area. If we're going to be
looking at cutting general operating millage and and coming up with new ways to transparently fund different programs, my advice is focus on the purple area first. you get the purple area taken care of, that provides you maneuver space to handle the green areas, possibly even
other areas depending on how this board wants to go. Um, we haven't established those yet, but I think, you know, again, if we begin with the end in mind, you certainly can tackle the green area first. Um, but then there would have to be some alignment on this board's part to really be committed to addressing the
purple areas next year. Otherwise, you could find yourself in some some fiscal stress. And what does that mean? What does that mean exactly? What what what I'm saying is is perhaps you should look at adopting a law enforcement MSTU and a rescue MSTU perhaps first and then and then work your way into parks. But go
ahead. But then how does Keith get his We would have we would we would have to stop gap his funding this year. Status quo. It would either be status quo or this board can can direct me. Look, I I can take some if you want to tell me give Keith $4 million to do deferred parks maintenance and the additional one
and a half that he needs for the operations. uh we we will even if we have to cancel the animal project or onetime capital projects or pull from reserves that's your policy decision we can make that work for this year Mike to be to be accurate I think I think staff
started with parks as a dipping their toe in the water to see how this MSTU funding way of funding departments would work correct it was less bold than jumping all in I think on a public safety MSU would you say That's I I
would I would say that I would say that's accurate. Yes, sir. Yeah. So, look, I'm for transformative changes with this budget and transformative changes in how we fund certain departments and key departments. I don't like having to give 40% of all new revenue to any department. it handcuffs
this board whether they want to choose to reduce millage rate it it it or how we want to structure different departments and how we fund them to have a handshake agreement of okay we have the 40% of all new revenue year after
year I I just to be bound like that I I don't I don't like what it does I think it it it eliminates or in or or inhibits creative thinking on how we structure our budget to to do better for our
county with the dollars that we have. And I think through the parks discussion, I think that's what's led, Chase, I think you agree, led to the sheriff saying, "Oh, this is this could really work for us." And it would take the distraction of us and sheriff and the four 40% and yada yada yada that's
gone on for years and years and many other between boards and sheriffs around the state. It would take that distraction out. That's moved over. It's doing its thing. and allows the sheriff to department to go and do what it needs to do. And then allows us to really
focus on the money that we truly have and how we want to break up that piece of the pie. I feel like the 40% really handcuffs this board um and how we want to to fund whether it be roads or parks or or whatever. So, I mean, I'm I'm all
for these big transformational changes to our budget. Uh, as long as it's, you know, we're cutting, you know, miller rate for millage rate, moving moving from A to B and then um, you know, seeing seeing how it looks looks from there. And we have, again, we
have the reserves. I'm not afraid to spend them. We have a big reimbursement coming. We live 12 months at a time. There's more money coming in the next year. the public. We take the money from the public and they expect us to spend their money. So, hey, that's what we're here for. There's no department in here
that's not asking for more and more money. Right. Right, Mike. So, let's let's spend it and give give the folks what they're what they're wanting. If if the board wants to tackle public safety MSTU, heck, I'm I'm all for willing to have that that conversation and move
forward and pausing peace. But, I mean, I'm I'm That's kind of my thoughts and feelings on this matter. So, I wish was here. Well, I think Amy's got a lot on my
plate. What I think Well, what does it take to get to and you know, you know, I've been advocating for an MST for the sheriff for a long time. I'm glad to see he's there now apparently. Um, but have we missed deadlines to set that up for this year? Yes. Yes, we for this year.
Yes. Yes. So, we can't do that, but we can vote into policy, but we could bring we could bring items back with regards to fire, with regards to law enforcement, and you can adopt that, and then it would show up on next year's uh next year's trim, and you know, you can
set a millillage then. I mean, we know threequarters of the battle is is getting the policy, passing the ordinance. That's that's a a hurdle, but I think there seems to be an alignment there. At least we could set the policy. And if
it's set at zero, that's fine. But the policy is set. But you can adopt the ordinance by three votes. You can you have to establish the millillage by five. Yeah. I was going to argue on your three quarter argument. No, but you can't you can't you can't set a millillage without having the ordinance
passed. That's true. Step one. That is correct. That's truly the process. So, but I don't know that it's the most difficult for hurdles to pull. He was arguing you're threequarters of the battle. I can be the battle. You want to sit next to me?
Mr. Oper, do you have any thoughts on uh pausing and doing the purple MSTUS first? I I I see the logic and what the county administrator is saying because those are critical. I think we've
actually started the conversation we need to have and I think going forward with that will be great. Uh I think we need to do the best we can for parks this year. Agreed. And then then set a plan that we work out so we're not down
to the wire and said, "Oh, we got to do this and this." And it not work out right. I'd like to see numbers from Amy accurate. Yeah. No surprises on budget. Come up with those numbers and and how those scenarios should work. Yes, ma'am. And give us a better way. Intelligent
decision with good information backing is is the best route to go not to just haphazardly do something then it not be really what we want to do. We don't want to hurt any department. Kathy then me. I just got a question. So Kathy Gearson, assistant
county administrator of public services. So I I just want um ask a question so I fully understand. So if we pause the MSTU for parks this year, we fund them a certain amount of money, that's a oneshot deal and we're back at the same
boat asking again next year. That's what I'm asking. Well, that's what that's what I'm about to talk about. So that's what I'm thinking too. If if we're if we're going to do say the law enforcement MSTU and and you wanted to add a fire MSTU, I would like to add I would like to modify the fire to include
rescue. Rescue is not in there. So those are those are the same numbers just pulled out into their own silo, right? Um so why can't we do all of them at the same time? We don't have to pause for parks for a year, do we?
So part of the problem is is well this is this is this is what uh county attorney talks about with the challenge not problem the challenge because you know uh for example I if if we were to and this is what commissioner Oakley has pointed out as well if we establish a
millillage that we want um you are in in effect raising taxes unless you make a commensurate cut somewhere else what I'm saying is is that by making and by making that cut in general operating, you will adversely affect other areas of the operation, you know, which which
would include other, you know, public safety, uh, libraries, other other pieces of the puzzle. That's why I I recommend tackling the purple area first because those are your largest expenses that come out of your general revenue, truthfully. Uh, they're also, as Commissioner Weightman pointed out, you
you've got some some some rules that you've put in place and and and deals, you know, that that sort of complicated. They make it less simple. And so by simplifying those parts, Commissioner, you can you can more directly
address, you know, parks, you know, in terms of an MSTU and get there. And so what what I think I'm hearing the board say is, look, we can stop gap parks this year and then we tackle all three MSTUs next year in a way that that gets structured with no adverse impact to the
taxpayer. I like that. the benefit to the taxayer is transformative and generational. I think if we do this well there's you know there's there's impacts to everything we do but I'll remind I'll remind the board too that we we that's that is again to establish a millillage
is is always a unanimous vote. I'm not sensing uni unimity here on on a parks MSTU this year necessarily but I am I am sensing broader support for bringing forward you know perhaps later this year couple MSTUs and you know change to that one and then looking at it as the budget
process kind of building our budget around structuring these transformatively here these these these three new taxing units uh and then making the adjustments within our general government because it's our our public safety expenses increase at a much much faster rate uh than than probably our general government expenses
do anyway notwithstanding parks. So if we're going to just set up the ordinance policies potentially so we would have another standard budget year is what I'm hearing you say. So if if that's the case, if we're not if
we're going to potentially stay status quo, then that gives this board the ability because money's compounding, then I'd want to see an a reduction down in the general operating millage for this year. So I would say the only
challenge to that, the only challenge to that would be that in order to fund portions of parks, I would either need to find the money from other programs or withdraw from reserves. That's a policy decision. I I I know where you sit on it. I don't know where the rest of the board sits. The problem with that is they just don't match up. Yeah. Where
where you can't do that. I mean, I'm not for lowering um the millillage. I'm I think if we keep it status quo um and try and find as much money for parks as we can this year. Um, I mean, I'm not a fan of dipping into reserves, but for a
one-time, um, to help Keith get where he needs to be. Um, and if we don't fund the animal services, you know, if we're just taking money and saying, "Hey, you know what? Parks is a priority to this board." Um,
I support that. I mean, I I I want to have the best I want to have the best parks. And I'm also for, you know, next year looking at the sheriff's office. it own MSTU and and parks as well. Well, I'll be advocating for reduction
in general operating mill. So, I hope accurate Amy and others can help find a way to reduce taxes. From which department do you want to cut it from? Well, that's what service do you want to cut? That's what we're going We're already 28. We're already So, we've got
over So, there's over a half a million dollars of pork spending that's listed in this. Just so you know. Well, it's it's going to be a it's a probably an uncomfortable conversation, but there's $500,000 there, and there's other areas
at which we can modify and and do it. And I think that if that's the direction that we go, it gives Mike and Amy the opportunity to look a little further and bring something back for so, you know, ask ask, you know, we all comb through it and when we have another discussion
and see what we may or may not want to do. Commissioner Oakley, the problem I have in that is we're pretty flat budget. So, and I think all our department Mike have have come back
with very good budget restraints on themselves uh going forward to be pretty flat this year. I appreciate them all doing that because the money's going to be very tight this year. U cutting back millies,
I I can't do that. I don't want to give up any services for my citizens. Yeah, we're already and I don't think they want to give up services either. And to do that, that's what you're doing. And I just to piggy back on everything's getting more in inflation's involved
here and everything's getting more expensive. We're still way lower in tax property taxes in our county than we are our neighboring counties. Most of the state, especially and pretty much Oh, yeah. Most of the state. Okay, Florida's
incredibly expensive and there's only so many $20 hamburgers people can buy. So, if we're going to stay status quo, I think it's incumbent upon us and staff to figure out how to reduce millage for people if there's a way to do it because
just because it stays flat, their values are going to go up. It's going to pay 3% or commercial property is going to go up 10% and they're going to pass that on the consumer. So, if there's any ability to hold that down a hair, that's the that's I think it's incumbent upon us
and our obligation to try to find some level of relief for our businesses and our property owners. Our businesses are going to get some relief this year uh because of the uh business tax receipts that they won't be collecting. So, they are they are seeing some relief and I
think Oh, I want to say something. Yeah. Go. No, I I think if we just refer to the pie when we talk about um reducing the millillage, I mean, our first responders are going to be the ones taking the hit off of that and and feeling that. And we're a growing
county. We're just talking about our growth. Like, how do we expect them to do their job if we're saying, "Hey, you need to do your job with more people and less money." That that's how I look at that. But you're you're assuming we're cutting their budgets. That's not the conversation that we're having. Well, then who? But you're saying you're cut.
You want to cut the mill. Yeah. When we find Yes. If they're 40% of our budget or more, then how do you think they're not affected? That means we look at the other cut the road paving program. Cut. Again, if this is department here do you want to cut? Well, there's parks,
there's li parks and libraries. But this again, oh my god. But this goes back to my point of the parks MST. Well, you can you can take them out in your district. and my my district's so this goes back this goes back to the parks MSTU and how that fund compounds so when we have
difficult conversations like this you see what happened automatically this is my whole rationale behind the parks MSTU behind the sheriff's MSTU is when we start having conversations like this it's like oh let's automatically go to the lowhanging fruit
but he's in his own silo he's kind of exited from the conversation I didn't feel exited But you see what happened? Like he's trying to cut him, but all these other guys are going, "Oh, you're going to cut our budgets." So if we narrow narrow the
pie chart there to you can you want to reduce the millage then and you're not taking it out of the purple and you're not taking it out of the green. Well, that's not the direction I thought we were going today. So now you're saying you want to reduce, you know, I don't I don't want to have one of those board meetings where we we're there till 2 in
the morning because Well, we wouldn't on the general on the we this the regular way. We wouldn't we wouldn't have to pack lunches. I'm I'm bringing my magazine and my snack just to be prepared. Um okay. What you know we don't have
Commissioner Mariano here but listen we all philosophically this is a very conservative county. We we get it. That's why we are ranked where we are. And I think we our staff works incredibly hard and our our departments I think work harder than any other
county in the state to provide the level of service we do for the amount of money we we receive. And it's it's shown that we're a great county to live in and we're cheap as heck. So I feel I feel our citizens are getting a great return
on their investment and we are very very mindful of any every penny we take in. So, um, the only place I see where there's some pork, sorry, Mike, ouch, is that not you, Mike, the other Oh. is we're all, you know, you're doing two
and a half% rate wage increases and there's this discussion there for five. And I think I think we all need to be around 2.5. And I don't know what that means in his office. Maybe it's insignificant, but I would like to see if we can talk with property appraiser
about something something about, you know, you also have that his budget is approved by department of revenue. Correct. Not the county. Well, let's still talk to him because it's still our general revenue money, right? Yep. Something something that's important to
pull to to point out and this has been a fun project with accurate Amy and and her team. Boy, it's stuck, isn't it? Is the Thank you. Commissioner Oakley names Holden. That's good. So, we started this when we first came on the
unfunded mandate project and we're today in this budget coming up. We're 13,758,643 in unfunded mandates that come down from the state. And these unfunded mandates that come down from the state are truly,
you know, those handcuff us quite a bit. So as we learn and understand and this is across all all departments from the sheriff's office and you name it every all the unfunded mandates that our taxpayer has to pay for that come down from the state of Florida. I think it's important as we understand these
mandates and its impact to the taxpayer and it's in and how it impacts our ability to make taxing policy on our county that we work with our delegation and talk with them as there you know maybe there's an ability for them to tweak something during session. If that were to happen, that's just as big of a
win as getting an appropriation or or you know, good policy done. Um but you know, almost $14 million this year, that that's a game changer in some of our conversation. It's a slide that's up here currently. Oh yeah. So bold and
italicized things are state mandates for us to pay anything that is not bold or italicized is at the board's discretion. Yeah. And so the half a million of discretionary spending, 505,000 is is below it. But the 13 plus million in in unfunded mandates is I think an
important conversation that that we start having with our delegation to see especially with the conversation the state had about property taxes and how to fund things. I mean they're the reason why we're spending almost 14 mil and it keep seemingly keeps growing every year. Commissioner, I'm getting
some complaints online. They may not be able to hear you. If you just please. Oh, um um to your point, um I want to make sure uh Amy, did you receive the email that I sent to him about the hit to our budget from the reduction in the
business tax receipts? And is that accounted for in the budget? Um no, I don't think this one is accounted for yet. So and to your point right we we have we we are you know structurally
you know our expenses are are higher than what our revenues are are coming in. So you know topline removals again you know I think the question you know to your point commissioner is you know if if if the board wants to make a reduction in the millillage it probably comes from reserves. I mean that that's really it. Well you're already and
you're already hitting the reserves. We're already we're already hitting it hard. So I'm use I say no to that. So I I just again I that that's I just want to wanna want to put that out there as as just a statement. So I I you know just this is this has really been good
conversation. I mean for us and for the team and understanding and you know and having a transformational path forward is amazing. Um and and so I think I think I've got enough guidance to to to bring some stuff back for trim. Um I don't you know chair however you want to
continue to go we we can either talk more about this but I can come up with some recommendations and thoughts on what that could look like whether or not you want to adopt them that that's a whole another you know whole another discussion but simp you know we we will be responsive to that so that's yeah so
I think it's been a great budget meeting any any other uh we still have a few more things that we just want to cover in terms of capital but that's yeah how we discussion the courthouse the uh EOC. All right. So, we did um we did a deep
dive into the general fund capital and so here is looking at the rest of the capital through our other funding sources over the next five years. Um it is a $ 1.7 billion five-year plan. You'll remember, I'm sure, last year it
was roughly a$ 1.8 billion plan. So, pretty much maintaining course and speed from our capital investment standpoint. And in here, um, we've got some, um, like our solid waste, uh, expansion
that's built into here. Hudson Libraries built into here. We're looking at another fire station that's built into our 5-year plan, a Conerton district park, a maintenance facility on the west for utilities, and an environmental lab
upgrade. Just to you point out some key projects coming up in the next five years. All right. And then um our robust transportation engineering capital program over the next five years. And so we have that break broken out um by
their different we'll call them buckets where they've got capacity projects, major maintenance, multimodal and pedestrian safety intersections, signals and street lights and some of um the key capacity projects that they've got built
into this 5-year plan. We're looking at Ridge from Sunlake to 41 estimated to start in 26. Uh, Sunlake Boulevard south of Wilton Way to Anchor Dune Drive. They're looking at a start in FY26 as well. Uh, Rangeeland Boulevard from
Gattle Gattle Cattle, my goodness. Cattle Gap Trail to Beexley Village Drive. Um, also slated to start in 26. Dubulus Road, Little to Town Center, uh, slated to start in FY29. And Shady Hills Road, uh, Mary Gella
Elementary School to Bosley. Um, looks like that's slated to start in 26 from a design perspective. Do you have We don't have that in our No, I'll I will send you all the details, but I just wanted to highlight some of the some of the major ones in the plan. Okay.
Now, the toughy here. Where's this money coming from? Oh, she's a slide ahead of me. Yeah. So, can we give him handouts? All right. And so, um, long-term capital where, uh, we really don't have a
funding solution to date for. We know we've got a criminal courthouse we need to find a solution for. Um, working through our public safety operations center. Uh, the sheriff needs a logistics building. And so, I'll pause for discussion.
Yes. No, I I was um thinking why don't we just why don't we get with our delegation and see if they can get us started on getting money allocated um for a courthouse.
I mean, it's a start. Well, do they do they does the state help or the feds with the courthouse? No, they do for fiscally restrained counties, don't they? They can help with Get Ralph a microphone, please.
In the past they have done construction but there was backlash trying to just design or just like study anything and the courts have gone and to the delegation and they've heard them but they've never proceeded forward an offer to give that to the courts. Trust me the
courts are doing that as well asking the delegation. We could try but I doubt we'll see that. And what about the uh PISA? So, we've we've already I'll I'll answer that. So, we've already gotten some federal money on that on that piece of it. We actually have some federal money
to to do the design on it. You know, notwithstanding anything, we we do have this this DR money. And while there is a prohibition specifically against some of these things, we are we haven't given up in trying to see if if there's a way that we can we can get DR
dollars to to potentially fund that. Uh if that if that were to fail, then you know, you're you're kind of looking at some big ticket items that clearly would require debt. Uh the question is is how would you want to you would want to go go for that? you you need a source. You
need s a source to pledge and your your current half cent sales tax and other recurring revenues probably aren't going to be enough to do that. That or you're going to overladen those those supplies. So, you know, this this board has discussed uh potential referendums in terms of general obligation bonds, in
which case that's where folks will agree to be taxed at a certain millillage to pay that debt service off. Um it's it's clearly an established need. It's it's really a question for the board of how to do it. Uh impact fees are another another we could use the impact fees I guess to to offset debt service but that
really still doesn't change your your your pledged sources. So it really comes down to except you have no current impact fees would fund any of I think that is correct we should well and and and then and then I would need to talk with Jeff's team on on recent changes in
the law and how that and how that would work to even establish a new impact fee. Tallahassee keeps moving the goalposts on that and so it it is it it may be challenging in order to hit that. Like anything, we're we're becoming more sophisticated in our approach to to seeking grants and and trying to get out
outward sources of money to help, you know, fund our operations. Our our grants division and budget, uh, as well as a number of our teams have really been making some steady progress on that front. But these are these are big ticket items that quite honestly you're you're going to need a big way to fund it. And so right now it just kind of
sits there on a slide until I can kind of maybe get some direction from this board. If you want to pursue a referendum, uh we can certain What's that look like? What what would a bond look like to cover cover all three? Expensive. Well, you would. I mean, we'd have to go out to the You'd have to you couldn't
combine them as a as a single entity. I don't really Yeah, but we could we could come up with an aggregate millage of what that would look like in terms of the debt potential debt service. Um, you know, if the board would like to see that before potentially pushing pushing. I don't know how else we're going to get
there personally. Yeah. Only way I'll support is if the voters want Yeah. No, we'd have to put it to to the voters. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Because it's going those are going to be go. Correct. They have to vote on those. Yeah. I mean, and we can't put it into one.
You have to You'll have to legally it's got to be for a specific purpose is what what Jeff is referring to. They all look like public safety to me. Yeah, but there's there's accountability and expenditure requirements that we don't need to get into it. What's the facility?
There would be an operational cost. We'll we'll we'll get you an all-in number. They all passed off. They had a homestead referendum at the same time. Yeah. All All the G all the geos did, but the sheriff's one was the
sheriff was the lowest one. Yeah. So, well, actually, it was the jail. It was not the sheriff. It was Right. But even if we got if we put all three on there and we even just got one, it's still Well, actually, I I was just uh I was I was notified by Chase that, you know,
the the sheriff logistics building may have some alternative funding. So, that that may be able to drop off this list. But your your two big nuts relatively are your 202 and 150 there. Yeah. So, I mean, I'm I'm kind of here and let the voters decide. We have an election coming up in 26. Yeah. Let's test the
waters. Why not? Yeah. I trust our citizens. I tell you, do we want They came through before and did a great job in what they supported. The board would have done it. I know the board would have done it, but you put
out the citizens. They all approved expansion jail, the libraries, the parks, all the all the different items that were on there were passed. They even have an item on there what gave them a break on their taxes by giving them an extra homestead exemption that
did not pass. Did not pass at that time. I think we we give great value in the we got the citizens around you need to take care of their money do things the right way. Sure. Yeah. But they do want service and they do want parks.
Um, and in related to this conversation, uh, because it looks like parks will be what, two budget cycles off. Do we want to look at a a referendum for parks in the interim if we're going to put things on the ballot? Well, because we're
looking at two two years, right, before we would potentially come up, are you saying a bond for parks? Yeah, like we did what year? 19. He's not here. Well, that that was for that was for maintenance. And again, I I don't know if I would that that's like it's like
seeking a mortgage to repair your roof or do I mean, it's just deferred maintenance. I I'm I'm not sure, you know, that was kind of where it I don't know what the language was in that. Yeah. If you're talking onetime capital expenses for for other parks, I mean, I think right now you've got a good revenue source with your impact fee
that's really, you know, helping us move the needle needle on that front. I'm I'm not sure it's necessary at this point. I mean, it's it's an idea worth exploring, but and I I think it would kill the other two because parks people would parks was the number one on that got
through there for the backlog of capital maintenance. So, I I just don't think a bond is a good way to pay for current maintenance. That was a one-time cry and catch up, although it didn't go all the way. Uh, but I think going for these two
big ticket items for a bond to be great. And you know what? Maybe if it's wildly successful and we've got some money we have some money saved aside for that PO, we can move it if we get a bond for
it. Well, we're looking at options now, actually. So, yeah. Okay. I'm good with those answers. This is fine. All right, that was good. Well, I think basically we all we all are pretty much basically ideologically the same.
So that helps unlike some other counties. Um I think we're we're pretty consistent and pretty pretty much together. Amy, you want to bring us in for a landing? Absolutely. All right. So, um we appreciate the board's thoughtful dialogue. Um, we know we pose
some tough questions for you all and some tough uh points of discussion, but it's important, right, that we hash that out and we get good direction. And so we've heard what we need to hear and the next time that we are going to come back and hang out like this will be to set
trim. Um, so we went over our budget cycle. We talked about how we got to where we are. We talked about all of the pressures on our budget, what it's looking like so far. We got some clarification and guidance from you all and thank you for a lovely morning and
my nickname. All right. Any any anything else for the good of the county? No, just thank thank you board members. This is and Amy and your team. I always enjoy budget time and everybody in the crowd. Thank you for your help and supporting
with the backup that we need to make our decisions. So, the sheriff's budget's so big. keep hanging in all the detail the budget book but we appreciate all the work that you guys did. Okay,
wait is closing. All right, we are returned. Thank you. [Music]