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 operations 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 are some capacity road projects that have also come online in the last 14 years. We saw Bridge 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 Land of Lakes and Regency Park expansions. And then from a utility standpoint, we've seen the Boyette 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
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 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. And 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 D-shift 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? 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 fun? 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. I know 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 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
SwiftMUD, 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 six judicial circuit. That equates to 4 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, 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, our 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 sleep.
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 requests. So investing a million dollars into things like carpet replacement,
reconfiguration of spaces, um you know to meet our department needs. Uh 4.6 six 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- 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 we're 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 then 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 throwing that out there. Have you talked with him? We I mean we we did have some initial conversations. They believe u 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 upgrade. 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 officers 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 $4.1 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. And 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 think 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 paving going on has been very uh accurate and moving forward and no
problems because 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 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. So we got accurate Amy. 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. 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? Okay. But why wouldn't it not be on the
paving page? I'm not sure. I can send you a link. 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. That's the only
Okay, great. Okay, we found it. It still was kind of hard even I knew what I was 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. 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 mill 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 u how much
is going to change on the road MSTU? I mean, with the values going up, what 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 by first paid? Do we have a mic for Yeah, we have a mic over here. Come hang out with us. All right. So, um kind of 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, Um, you know, I I give them all credit. They they 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 we uh they went out there and performed. So, I I know um you know, 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. 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 payment contract that that
um that you just saw. So we u we're ready to rock and roll on on the um on the the dollars that we received. So those how many dollars total dollars you have this past year? I think what Amy showed you here is just over 14
million. So if you add what we have, that's almost 2 million more, right? It's about 10%. About 10% more. Okay. I know the citizens are very happy with the project and and the way it's been built to 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 for a lot of people out there. So I think they're more favorable 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
because 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 pash 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 doing. 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 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 the
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 for 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 six 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 one point one and a half 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 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. Great. 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 MSTU 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. I'll jump in with both feet and
make a big splash here. I would really prefer the capital maintenance and operations all in MSTU, but I'd want those mills cut. Obviously, they move from the general fund over to its own. So, it' be
the the difference pulled off the general fund revenue 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 mill is 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 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 take a hit. we backslide. This somewhat protects the budget for the parks department. They can keep moving forward and aren't just, you know, there's less distractions uh within volatile budget years, right?
And my father and I talked through this pretty heavily. 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 calling 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 to build the 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 mill 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 happy medium somewhere that I can take a stab at that unless there's clarity and add 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 it fences off that money and and protects it. Um Commissioner Oakley, you are correct. um
when you make a reduction a consequent reduction uh in the general fund uh we'll just call it the general operating millillage 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 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. 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 image to you and we were to cut
the general operating millillage 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 village. 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. 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 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 part 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 maybe uh that we take and make the sheriff have his own uh
MSTU and also for the others that uh for the property prayer what hit monies he gets the election 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 there. 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 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 on other people and other departments. So, I was concerned about that. Oh, 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 c 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 millillage rate and the status of the universe as it exists today. Um, knowing would we want to increase it by one million or five
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 Jerger 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. Seeing what what what what um sorry I was about to say Colonel Oakley uh what 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 millillage 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 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 falling 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 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. I I guarantee if we put this up on a referendum to vote for the for the people and cit and citizens of Pasco
County to vote, I guarantee they would pass that hands down. That there's I mean, we just had 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 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 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 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 fees 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 poor decisions in the past. Well, um you know what hap 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
$111 on the paper? I It's $25 a year. What is it? Because you've got 44 a year. That's operation 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. Chair man. Yeah. Uh okay. Waitman and then Commissioner Oakley. 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 boxing MSDUs in in taxes. So, I appreciate and 100%
agree with you. And the reason I didn't support the maintenance 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 mill. So essentially
reducing the general fund millage 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. He's whole and he's growing. And then what that does is there's no net tax increase
to the people. And it's the same principle for the sheriff and what the fire guys are doing. The fire extra what the potential public safety MSTU then it protects that budget. That budget's blown out of control. That fund
is growing at a healthy rate. We can reduce that millage rate and cut it back. But essentially then If we're, you know, say three mills, it's essentially it's it's a tax reduction. If we do the maintenance tax, that's a tax that would
be over and above our Kurds 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 Corbala 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. 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 in 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 in my opinion the same old way as it's been been done for a long long time and so I look at our budget and say how can we
restructure it and make that dollar go further And by moving, you know, the offered 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 millage 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 would 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. It 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 millage. 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.
U if we took the millillage or took the millage that for the MSTU and made him 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 dropping 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 what you're saying and and I 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, 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 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 a 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 four and a half 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 six 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. 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 did 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 a 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 millage, there is Amy, can you please go
to the the slide where you show 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 sites coming on, this could help us make the decision decision. Let
me I'll touch on that in a second because Commissioner Jagger sort of alluded to the same thing. Uh wrong way, Dan. Priority. 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. It'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 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 Weightman 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 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 would 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 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 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 the department to go
and do what it needs to do and it 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, millage 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, wish Jack was here.
Well, I think Amy's got a lot on our plates. What I think Well, what does it take to get to and you know, you know, I've been advocating for an MST for 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 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. 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/4er argument. No, but you can't but you can't you can't set a millillage without having the ordinance pass. That's true. Step one. That is correct. That's that's truly the process. So, but I don't know that it's the most difficult hurdle to pull. He was arguing you're
threequarters of the battle. I can be the battle. You want to sit next to me, Jeff? Mr. Opie, 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 saying because those are critical. I think we've actually started the conversation we needed 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 remain accurate. Yeah. No surprises on budget.
come up with those numbers and and how those scenarios should look. Yes, ma'am. And give us a better ways 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 Pearson assistant coming ministry 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 firearm 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 taking 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, there 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 taxpayer 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 a 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 in a a reduction down in the general operating mill for this year. So I would say the only challenge to that, the only challenge to that would be that uh in order to fund portions of parks, we'd either need to find the money from other programs or
withdraw from reserves. That's a policy decision, but I I know where you sit on it. I don't know where the rest of the board. The problem with that is that they just don't match it. Yeah. Where where you can't do that. I mean, I'm not for lowering um the millillage. I think
if we keep it status quo, um 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 gets 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 having its own MSTU and and parks as well. Well, I'll be advocating for a reduction in general operating millage. 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? What service? We're already 28 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, 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 us. 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 departments and Mike have have come back with very good budget restraints on themselves for to keep pretty flat this year. I appreciate them all doing that because
the money is going to be very tight this year. Uh cutting back millage. I I can't do that because 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 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 neighboring counties.
Most of the state especially and pretty much Oh, yeah. 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 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 What department
here do you want to cut? Well, there's parks, there's 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. again. 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 exit from the conversation. 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 out of 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. 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 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 the only place I see where there's some
pork, sorry, Mike, ouch is 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 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 Republic Raser about something something about, you know, you also have that his budget is approved by Department of Revenue, correct? Well,
let's still talk to because it's still our general revenue money, right? Y something it'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 is the Thank you,
Commissioner. Open. 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 13,758,63
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 is 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 like it's up here currently. Oh yeah. So bold and italicized things. Our 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 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. No. 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 them. We're already we're already hitting it hard. So I'm I say no to that. So I I just again I that that's I just want to want to 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 the courthouse, the uh ELC. Okay. 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 intersection 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 Rangeand Boulevard from Gattle Gattle G 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, 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 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? Help with Get
Ralph a microphone, please. In the past they have done construction but there was backlash on 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 and offer to give
that 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 pizza? So, we've we've already I 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 really it comes down to except you have no current impact fees would fund any of I think that is correct we should well 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 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 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 it is if the voters want Yeah. No, we'd have to put it to to the voters. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Because that's those are going to be go. Correct. They have to vote on those.
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 homestead. Yeah. All all the G all the geos did,
but the sheriff's one was the lowest one. 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 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 voters decide. We have an
election coming up in 26. Yeah, let's test the waters. Why not? I trust our citizens. I tell you, do we want They came through before did a great job and what they supported.
The board would have done it. I know it. They all approved expansion in jail, the libraries, the parks, all 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 we got citizens. You need to take care of the money do things right.
Yeah. But they do want service. 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 in what year? 199. 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 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 crying catchup, although it didn't go all the way. Um, but I
think going for these two big ticket items for bonded be great. And you know what? Maybe if it's wildly successful and we've got some money, if 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. We're 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 paying keep paying in tough all that detail. The budget book, but we appreciate all the work that you guys did.
Okay, wait is closing. No. All right, then we are returned. Thank you.