Call to order the budget work session Tuesday, July 15th, 6:30 p.m. Roll call please. Here. Vice mayor Eisner here.
Commissioner coleus here. Commissioner DiDonato here. Commissioner Banther here. The purpose of tonight's meeting is for the Board of Commissioners
to study issues, gather and analyze information, and to and to clarify questions. No votes are conducted during work sessions. No public comments will be allowed tonight.
However, we public comments will be allowed during the two public hearings that are scheduled for Wednesday, September 3rd and
Wednesday, September 17th. Both of those sessions will be at 6:30 p.m. So I'm going to we're so what will be will the way
we'll conduct business tonight is we will hear from various presentations. And then upon completion of the presentations I will call on each commissioner
for questions or comments. So our our first agenda item number one would be Mr. Don Bergman from the Budget Advisory
Committee. He is the chairman. Good evening. The Budget Advisory Committee has completed its annual review of the
proposed fiscal year 2026 draft budget. The committee has held four meetings, which included presentations from all departments, as well as discussing a salary increase for the mayor and commissioners and
the millage rate. Before we touch on that, there was one other item we addressed at our March meeting. Finance Department shared with us a draft proposal they have in terms of modifying the fund
balance policy. There's currently two funds that have no policy at all. The Marina and the golf course. We thought it was important that everyone have a fund balance policy. So we're
we passed a recommendation endorsing this concept that you'll see when they present that draft policy to you. The committee recommends creating a fund minimum fund balance,
minimum policy for the Marina and golf course funds. At that same meeting in March, we were asked to look at the salaries for the commissioners and the
mayors. We asked the finance department to go out and poll the other municipalities in the county, not just in terms of raw numbers, but also in terms of any benefits paid. And our first
discussion after that, we needed some more information. We didn't have a good feel for how many hours are spent beyond the required for commission
meetings. So after Ron was able to get that information for us, we looked at. The other cities
and municipalities in terms of how they compare to us in terms of overall size versus what they're paying theirs, what the difference was between the commissioners and the and the mayor. And we came up with the
following two recommendations. The committee recommends increasing the commissioner's salary to 11,500 per year, and the mayor salary to 15,500 per year, effective October 1st of
this year. In addition, we the committee supports reviewing the mayor and commissioner salary with other regional areas every three years. Because I understand it's been a long time since we've looked at it here.
So we had that recommendation that it be done every three years. And lastly, as we have done for the last 4 or 5 years, the committee recommends that the millage rate be kept the
same at 5.37. I'll, I have really no specific questions. I just want to thank you, chairman, for all your diligent work. And obviously, as we go
through this process, we'll be using your and referring back to, to many of your recommendations. So, Commissioner Banther, do you have any questions? Yes. Thank
you I appreciate that. And I served on your committee and I have a lot of respect for you all. So thank you. It's a much needed function. Have you guys looked at any of the plans yet
about potential debt service and that kind of thing that we've been talking about up here? We have not looked at it in detail. There's been some preliminary discussion, but we haven't looked in any detail at this stage. Okay. Well, we can see
what my colleagues say, but I feel when you guys meet again or down the road, whoever does those agendas, we would obviously appreciate your, your your your input on that. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Commissioner De Donato. I
would echo that my appreciation for your committee and was able to view many of the meetings as well. I had the privilege of serving on that several years
ago and in the past, and I know how important the endeavor is, and I appreciate the time and commitment. I feel like a very thorough job was done by your
committee, and I appreciate it. Thank you sir. Commissioner Coolio's yes, thank you, sir, for your service and volunteering on the board. Did you did the Budget Advisory Committee have an idea of what
they thought that fund minimum balance should be for the Marina and or golf course? No, we didn't discuss in terms of a specific amount. We just we thought that all the funds should have a minimum balance
policy. So that's why we endorsed those two funds being added. Okay. Thank you sir. No further. Vice Mayor Eisner, somebody took my question right from me. Right before me. That
was excellent. You came over to my side. So I think. Yeah. Okay. That was good. That was the question that I had. The other thing is, you know, thank you
really for your hard work. Nobody asked me how many hours I put in, but that's okay. How did you come up with that? Were you just discussed other locations? We looked at the other
municipalities in the county. The differences between the commissions and the mayor and the and the and what they paid their based on the size of the cities. We took all that into consideration. Well, thank you,
because I know that's not easy. Nobody up here does this for the money. But, you know, I think after so many years, some somewhere along the line, it has
to change. So thank you for your hard work I appreciate it. Thank you. Chairman. Let's go to agenda item number two. The
compensation study results. And that will be our city manager Charles Rudd. I make a
presentation. I go. Thank you, Mayor and commissioners. I'm going to go through a little more quickly this time. The presentation we went over with
each of you for the for the pay study. And so at your direction, we hired Management Advisory Group to look at all of our, our, our pay classifications,
our job descriptions, our organizational structure. Doctor Campbell is here tonight to answer any questions you may have for him. They did comparison to the market. We
chose cities in our area and the Tampa Bay area. And then we asked them to look at another metro area around Orlando for comparable cities, as well as
Pinellas and Pasco County. And then the Net online service. The study that was provided to you has 13 sections in it. However,
sections only sections eight through 13 were going to are coming through with the budget process for approval. The sections three through six have
a lot of policy recommendations. Will be reviewing all of our policies in the future. So we'll bring those back to you for consideration. The major
findings were they found that our midpoint, or rather our entry level positions, were 13.8% below the market midpoint, was approximately 9% under
market. We had compression issues. We had. So when someone's been in the position for a number of years and a new hire comes in, they get hired at a similar salary. We had our
existing pay bands were too narrow, and then there were span of control issues. The number of direct reports for the city manager. So this is the numbers
we had. The recommendation is a 3% cost of living increase, which is just over a half $1 million. And then we anyone when the pay grades were adjusted up,
if they found themselves, we found them below their pay grade. There was an adjustment to that minimum. And then there was a further adjustment for compression. If somebody had been in their job for like ten
years, there was a calculation to move them into that new pay grade versus if they were fairly new to the position, they would be more at the entry level of that pay grade. And then so that
total adjustment payroll impact was 5.9%. If all positions were filled. Currently in the draft, there are a number of vacant positions, so we're at 5.37%
increase to the payroll. This is the organizational adjustment. You see the three deputy city manager and two assistant city managers, which is how we've
been functioning. Essentially, we've created direct reports for those positions that we talked about with you. And then this is the history. So starting back in
2021, there was a 3% Cola. And then it went up to a 5% Cola. This year. We think the impact, as I said, will be 5.91 if all positions were filled. But right
now it's at 5.37. So we feel like it's really in line with historically the increase in payroll that we've been experiencing. So overall, we're looking for adoption of the
recommended pay ranges, accepting the new position descriptions and the organizational restructuring, as well as the budgeted payroll changes. We've included these
changes in the budget, the compensation adjustments and the organizational pay adjustments, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Or we've got Doctor Campbell here as well. Okay.
I'll start off the questions. Let me you know our. Our goal here I would my goal I would
suspect the other commissioners are feel the same way is that we obviously want to do what helps
us retain. Good people. And we also want to make sure that we have proper compensation to
attract new people. So. And this may be a wrong hearing question, but what has been our. Our
retainage of current employees? Do we what has been our. Are we having issues with retaining employees at currently? Well, I
know since I've been here, you know, for instance, we lost our fleet manager to Hillsborough Sheriff's Office, and I believe we've lost our competitors be the county and other
municipalities. And as you mentioned, the purpose is also our entry level is low, that I think that's impacted our ability to attract candidates for our positions to begin
because we advertise the range and they look at the low end and we're just below the market. I know this is another subject that obviously we'll be discussing at the next
commission meeting, but I understand we lost our candidate that we approved last week for the public works. Yes we did. She withdrew today. Did that have anything to do with
compensation? Not that she stated stated health reasons. Okay. So I don't know if it was tied to compensation okay. So.
Does this does this plan give latitude to department heads. Where, when, when the when these calculations and this system is
applied to their departments where they feel there is some form of inequity, either people getting raises above other
people that they feel are more deserving. Is there latitude in this system? Well, there there is. In fact, we met with each department director, went over
the results, and we've made adjustments along the way. If further adjustments are brought to our attention, that's something. This won't go into effect until October 1st and you actually approve it in
September. So we do have some time. If the if the board is interested in some changes, we have time to make those. Okay. How about merit. Is there any
merit pay opportunities there. We are proposing a 3% merit. So even though the Cola is only 3% based on performance, someone could get another 3% on their anniversary date. Okay, so that
could help with department heads being able to handle what they appear to be. Inequities. Absolutely. Okay, what about charter officials? What I saw
recommendations on charter officials. Can you elaborate on what some of the recommendations were. And again, maybe Doctor Campbell doing it, but what were
the recommendations on the charter officials? I don't remember specifically those positions where they got moved to a different pay category. We
did we adjusted some positions. For instance, we found we had some directors, directors in in several different pay classifications. We had assistant directors in several
different places. So we consolidated those. So directors were paid comparably. Assistant directors, we made those adjustments okay. And all those are included in this budget. Yes
okay. And obviously the board can do as it pleases and could adjust some of those charter officials as well. Okay. Thank you very much. Those are my
questions, Commissioner Banther. Thank you. And thank you for doing this study. It's, you know, been talked about for a while and I think it was long overdue. A few observations to carry on, to continue on with
the conversation that you and I had as far as the, the, the org chart, I think it's a great idea that we're doing this deputy's deputy city manager position and the two assistant ones. And I
just think it's just for purposes of how you literally graphically do the org chart. But I do think it's still kind of looks odd to me that you have a deputy city manager and the
two assistants, the two like, you know, like assistant city, city manager spots on, on the, on the same plane. And I understand that the assistant ones will not report per se to
the deputy unless he's in your filling in your shoes. But I think something needs to be done to just differentiate that. I'm not sure what it is, but there could be some confusion if, if,
if somebody from the outside I think looked looked at this because typically deputy city manager would sound above on on like like like like like like
like like like like like like an assistant. You know, you know, city manager. I just think there's something we should be able to do that helps just clean that up and how somebody would would, you know, read that.
Okay. So I don't really have the answer per se, but if you could think about that, I know it doesn't functionally change anything that they do, but I just think it just needs to look a little bit cleaner. But I
think the idea of it's great because you have to have people designated in your place. And I think the city has grown to, to, to the point where you have to have these titles. And I'm glad
that that, that we're using our existing staff who's very great as far as the pay scale goes, you know, I was able to kind of spot check a few departments that I could, you know, that I
visually know, like all the, all the all the all the people in there, you know, and I and I emailed you today also for that information for who is just receiving Cola. And thank you for that. I do think that the
city clerk's office needs to be looked at again. And for some of the good questions that that the mayor asked, as far as compression goes, I know you have some outliers in there and not to single, single, single
good people out, but you got people in there that have been there for like 35 plus years. So I do think that that that specific department should be pulled out again and looked at to make sure everything's being
everyone's being compensated. Compensated. You know, you know, you know, you know, fairly in there and also and we've always struggled with this when we look at other cities and you know,
our city clerks are not just city clerks, they're also collectors. So it's hard to compare it dollar for dollar to like Dunedin or Oldsmar or like whatever. So I don't know if there is something we could
account for that when you're comparing their pay, but I just think that was the one department that I looked at that I thought could use a little more investigating and just making sure that we are appropriately compensating every
everybody in there. Certainly I don't think anybody was was, was, was like over compensated. But I think some might be might be under under compensated. And
then again, lastly, also to kind of dovetail off what the mayor said in relation to, you know, I in maybe it's just me, but when I was reading, you know, how were we classified the different
charter employees, I would think that would be more grouped together. And it seemed like they were grouped with people that wouldn't necessarily match that pay range or job description. And that could be
partially my, my like my like my like, you know, like, you know, ignorance with this, but you know, you and I can continue that, that more offline. That's just more educating me on that. But it just felt it was hard for
me to follow because I always try and read this stuff from the layperson's perspective. And, you know, charter officials, whether they're not always like the most paid per se, they're still kind of grouped in
together. And I didn't feel like it just didn't quite, quite, quite make sense to me when I looked at it again after our conversation. So again, if you could relook at the city clerk's
department and then as far as the org chart, perhaps adjusting where we have the deputy city manager to make it make a little more visual sense, and then, you know, also making sure that we
have the charter employees grouped appropriately in, in, in this new plan. But besides that, I think it's great. And, you know, we do struggle. We have struggled since I've been on the
boards back in, you know, 20, 2012 and on for, you know, finding good new applicants. And I'm very sorry to hear that that that this lady resigned. There was a lot of hope for her I
think. So hopefully her health issue gets resolved and we can find somebody like her. So do we have any candidates in like in like backup to her? We do. We had an applicant. We prepared to
make an offer prior to her interview. So we've reached out to him and he has tentatively accepted our offer though. He has. Okay. Yeah. That's that's that's very good. All right.
Thank you. Sure. Commissioner de Donato. Well, I agree with what's been said thus far. Certainly charter officials, I think we do need to look at that
individually. My two big things are compression, which you mentioned. I really think that's a gotten fairly bad. I don't like the word bad, but it needs
to be looked at and needs to be adjusted and retention. I know, for example, even 510 years ago
it cost $20,000 or more just to train and get an officer of the police or a fire operator up and going and certified, getting the certifications they need and
whatnot. It's $20,000 cost. At one time we were we were the prep school, if you would we were training them and they were leaving making $10,000 immediately more. And it's not
just those two departments. It was also in public works and PNC. We had people leave. So I believe in paying people to do
the job they're hired to do. And I prefer to keep them here and use their skills and their knowledge of our city, rather than not pay them and have them
go somewhere else and help those other people that didn't put the time and money in that we did to train these people. So I think it's important that we be
competitive and that we look at the compression in particular, because there there are some employees here that have been held back somewhat as far as
what they could get somewhere else. So glad to see we're looking at those issues, and I think we need to continue to look at that annually. Yes, sir.
Commissioner. Gulyas. Yes. Thank you, City Manager. We got when I asked for that document and you gave it to me, a lot of that was
able to show differences in individual pay rates or pay salary increases. The document we originally received was, you know, generally within the
departments and it included, you know, number of employees but not directed toward it was an average of an increase within the department. So I do have some concerns, and I'm not
willing to support a lot of, you know, the organizational restructure, I don't I don't personally see a need to have three assistant city managers when if right now we've got
great people who could do hybrid work. But if these individuals leave, you've actually created three more assistant director or assistant city manager positions
at the tune of you know what salaries and benefits? Close to half $1 million. So I don't follow. Well, if Renee Vincent
leaves, you know, retires or whatever, you have a planning director, and then you got to fill assistant city manager position. Not necessarily. I mentioned that in our
conversation. Those those positions, those three director spots would move under, probably under the deputy city manager. We would just be down to two, wouldn't automatically. So if
any one of them left their their department director level replacement wouldn't necessarily be, it wouldn't be an assistant city manager coming in. They would. So like I say, Scott
retired. The new fire chief would be just the fire chief. And then I would probably promote one of the other assistants to deputy, and we'd be down to just two. But then you start taking advantage of
their their experience and talent here at the city, but then you still have to fill that third spot. The director's position. Yeah. Which at the tune, looking at these pay rate
adjustments or increases they're going to come at.
They're going to come out to exactly 155,000 on the low end and 141,000 on the low end. But at some point, these three
individuals, they're going to retire. They're going to, you know, so we have to fill all three. Not necessarily. But what's the point in having the organizational chart to have three if we're not going to fill
them? Well, that's one of the reasons that their hybrid positions, so they're keeping their their department level responsibilities. Then if they were to retire or otherwise leave, we would fill that
director spot. But we would we would just reshape the advantage of the three of them. Now is their experience and their knowledge of the organization and the institutional knowledge.
And so we're taking advantage of that by by promoting them and encouraging their, their development. But then if they if they retire or move on, we just restructure. We would be down to
two then and we'd move those, we distribute those directors under other either myself or the other remaining two. We're taking advantage of the of the scenari. We have not institutionalizing
individual new three new positions that are just serve as assistants and a deputy. They they still manage their departments. We're adding two direct reports to each of them.
Yes, I understand city manager, but when you go to advertise these new positions, when or if these people retire, you're going to advertise it as what an
assistant deputy planning director. How are you going to advertise something like that? Just planning director, project admin director or fire chief?
Okay. And then what about we're not going to have any. So the restructuring the organization changes again just by one that that position that retired, we'd be down to, for instance, if it
was Renee, we'd have a deputy and assistant city manager, and that would be our structure. Okay. I mean, I'm all directed me to keep three. I would I would take that direction. But
my plan would be to reduce it to two. I wouldn't mind supporting having assistant deputy or assistant city manager. I wouldn't even mind if Chief Fire Scott Young becomes that person.
But I would like for him to be the assistant city manager or the chief of police. And both of you could help make that decision or sorry, Fire Chief,
right now, he's going to take it out on me for at least a month, right? More than that. So. But I'd like for that decision to be made if possible. And I think
Fire Chief will do a great job being assistant if given that position, but I don't I don't like the hybrid position. And as I look at some of these increases, I have respect for a
lot of the directors and upper management. But when I see some people getting, you know, 15% increases and I see some of the lower level people just getting
their 3% cola, it's not just a it's not something I want to support, and I just want to make sure that the whole point of this pay rate study was to help get these middle and lower level
people up to speed comfortably, you know, paid for. That way we don't lose them as much. I have a lot of faith and respect and some of the upper management
too. But I don't want to necessarily support that type of increases. What that pay rate study. Yeah. If you compare them other cities but their budgets
are bigger. Most of them. So and I think we can do just fine with one assistant city manager without the hybrid situation, because technically what we currently have is we have three
and a several order. If you know Fire Chief isn't available, then it's either. Bob or Renee. So I'm not. And it feels like if,
you know, if that's the organizational structure, then we got to fill it that way, not just change it because we lose somebody. So I don't want to support that. I do think some of the upper directors or officials
are a little bit top heavy in the compensation when you try to compare it to other cities, and our job is to try to reflect towards the middle and lower employees to help get them up, because those are the ones who
get trained and then educate on how to do stuff, and they leave. So and then I'd also like to see the charter officials move back
up in the pay band about 230 to 232. Because they're they're people that direct us to as board members. And I think
they're important should remain up there in that band. And then I'll have questions for. Doctor and Doctor Campbell here a little bit later. So thank you,
sir. Do you want to ask your questions of Doctor Campbell now he can come to the podium. Sure. Yes, sir. Hey, Doctor Campbell,
regarding the organizational three way assistant deputy stuff, is that have have you helped propose that to other cities after your rate studies? We have. And this goes to the
point of the other commissioner on the answer. I'm sorry, I can't remember your name, but but he raised the point about long term people who've been here, who've put in the years of
service, and a lot of them have stayed when the compensation was not very competitive. They have a lot of knowledge. And one of the things we found as we were looking at the organization,
many of the departments need to start looking and thinking more strategically. And we think the people that you have in place are the resources to be able to do that. So I don't see it as
creating a deputy city manager and two assistants I see as adding some additional responsibility to some senior directors so that they can employ their knowledge and
expertise and how to manage people and resources to some of the other departments that could use some assistance. And so we've seen this model work in other places. As the city
manager said, if one of those assistants leave, you have the option to replace them or just replace a director position. But I think at this stage in the
organization, there really needs to be an aggressive push to become more progressive and more strategic in terms of your planning. And I think those three assistant city of the
three assistants, the deputy and the two ACMs will help make that happen. And I think it's taking advantage of the resources you have. If you wanted to just hire
a deputy and two assistants and that would they didn't have departmental responsibility, the salaries would be a lot higher. So basically they're getting, for lack of a better word, kind
of a supplement to take on that additional responsibility. And I think in terms of managing the city, the city manager needs a team that he can rely on that has various points of view and expertise that can help move the
city forward. In our opinion, based on what we reviewed in terms of policies and productivity, information from the city, it's needed. Okay. And
you're also aware when one of these directors or any employee takes on another additional position, there is lead pay in which that's built into their current pay structure. Sure. But it's a little different when you
talk about senior leadership positions in terms of what the compensation should look like, as in, it's a lot more than what you what you all are proposing. It would be. And one of the
things I wanted to say, I want to say is that when you're doing these compensation studies, the focus is on the value of the job based on the duties, responsibilities and the requirements of the job. It's not about the person and how
well they perform. That's a performance issue that should be handled during their annual performance review. And if you have a merit pay program, address it that way. So from our standpoint, it doesn't matter
who holds the position because it's not about the person, it's about the value of the job. And we feel very strongly that what we have in terms of the value for these positions puts you in
a competitive position, I point out. And Charles did a great job of showing you where you were in terms of entry level salaries, 13.9% below, and then at the
market average, 9% below. If we look at that on a percentile basis, you were below the market average, the market average being the 50th percentile, you're about 47th percentile.
And so you've you've lost people and utilities, water, wastewater, particularly operators. I think the reason you haven't seen more senior leadership people leave because they're so invested. They've
been here so long. It's in their best interest to continue to ride it out until what, what time they see is appropriate for retirement. But if you want to start recruiting senior talent
as well as other talent, you've got to move the bar in terms of compensation. If you have too many markets that are within an easy commute of this city to where you cannot ignore the
level of compensation that's being paid in these other organizations. And so what we have done is taking you from about the 47th to 48th percentile and put you around the 60 percentile, which we feel
increases your position significantly with respect to your ability to recruit and retain. And I think now a focus needs to be on developing talent, middle management and
those underneath them. Because in any organization you go into it's middle management that makes or break the organization, the front line supervisors, because they have the majority of the supervision in the
organization. And so it's basically like a domino. You got these actors and these directors who are helping develop other directors and assistants, and then they're in turn are helping
lead people and coordinators and frontline supervisors. And so we think this all fits together like a nice puzzle. Okay. I mean, I'm just from what you
said and how the positions are created because of the value of the position, you know, especially these hybrid unless I heard our city manager wrong, he said, you know, these hybrid positions are really suited
because the characteristics of some of the people we have within our community. So they sort of both those statements, I believe, contradict themselves a little bit. I want to go to this
page 40 of your rate study that I received. And it's the salary survey results for Tarpon Springs, Florida. There's this first area where it says averages for each job class.
Those are the averages that were collected from all those other municipalities. Yes. Okay. And then these Tarpon Springs ones where it has the range with our
mid mid max, those are what the proposed are for the study. Correct. If you're talking about the salary survey summary, the information for Tarpon is what's
in place now. And it's compared against the market averages. And you can see easy way to look at it anywhere on the right side where it shows a negative either
at the minimum midpoint or maximum. That means that you're that far behind 13%, 12%, 10%. And so you'll notice that you
are for a number of jobs, you're behind. Okay. So it's no thank you for helping explain that to me as. And I would point out,
the ranges were so narrow that you had a large number of employees, tenured employees who were already at the top, some over the top, because the spread
from the minimum to the maximum was too narrow. Sure. I'm also looking at this is the class comparison list by pay plan. This is page 58 of the document
we received. So this basically talks about the proposed class titles versus the original titles. And. Basically what this
was taken just input taken. And then you know through staff and your agency will help create the new titles as well as the job descriptions. Everything we do in terms of that particular
report, we look at everyone's job duties, responsibilities, their current title classification, and based on the prevailing classification or title in the local government arena. If what you currently
have in place in terms of title and response duties, if that doesn't mesh with best practices, what we currently find in local government, we would recommend to change the title to a more appropriate
title that reflected the nature of the work. There were only a few titles that needed to be adjusted. Thank you sir, and
there's this. It's page two of 102 and in our report and I really it's a title. It shows report settings implementation report. If you could just maybe
give it to him just so he can look at it briefly. Doctor, would you consider that the formula that was used or the report settings that I, as a
consultant used in terms of building a plan? This is information that I used in terms of how I set it up and how I structured. Now is that the
formula or the. The method to, to help the parameters of how we put the structure together. I understand that when we do these type of studies, we are
collecting data on your existing positions in terms of duties and pay. We're collecting market data from peers or competitors in the region. And we're not
just plugging in a number from Dunedin and say, well, Dunedin is pretty close in size and budget. We're just going to do that. This process relies on on two concepts internal equity,
which is the current duties and responsibilities external, which is the market data. And we use linear regression, which is a computer modeling tool to enter
those two sets of data. And then the software predicts what the salary range and grade should be based upon that criteria. And so this is really relevant for me
as a consultant as I enter the information into into the software. Okay. No thank you, doctor. And within that same report that 102 pages you'll pretty much goes alternating
where it has the general, you know, number of employees, the change. And then the following page has a list of the employees with the percentage change. And
an increase or and all that. Is there a simpler form of a report that you could tie that in and maybe send to all of us? The reports are generated from the system, and the system is
hardwired programed to generate the reports in a certain manager in a certain manner. And so this is a standard way we produce all the reports okay. So how sir how
how should we feel about some of our directors and our upper management getting, you know, 14, 15, 16% increases and some of the lower people are getting
a 3% Cola increase. You know. Well and not to be, you know, insensitive to that. If we did not have the concept of job
worth what we pay people, we just pay everyone on one massive salary range. We would ignore what education or certifications are required for the job. We would ignore the complexity of
the duties associated with some jobs, but this process allows us to address that, to make sure that jobs are valued, ranked based upon the responsibility
and the complexity of the of the duties, as well as the qualifications to hold the job. It's supply and demand. Labor is no different than gasoline or orange juice. What your skill
set, whatever your skill set is, an employer is willing to pay based on the availability of that labor. If, for example, we had I'll just take a
recreational leader. If, for example, we didn't have a lot of people in this region with that skill set, the pay would in essence need to go up to attract
people from the outside to come in and take that job. And so jobs have value based upon those two things that I've identified. And although some of those lower
level positions did not receive double digit increase, some did, by the way, and some didn't. But it's a reflection of two things the job value in terms of the duties and what the market is
bearing for the job. And so those two things together define what we propose as the as the salary range. And I do want to go back and address the other issue about the charter
officials in the city clerk, the effectiveness of a compensation plan rests with its ability to be flexible. And so that's why we give you a salary range. You have the low end, which is someone with little or no
experience. You bring them in at that, at that level, and then you train them up and eventually they move through the salary range. And so if you have someone and I'm not picking on the city clerk, but if you think
that position needs some additional compensation, then that's why we have the range. Make a decision to move it forward within the range. Whatever you as a body feel would be appropriate. One of the reasons why we put we
recommended putting the charter officials in there is to take politics out of where their salary should fall by being set by an objective body who looked
at other organizations with charter official positions and say, here's the value of the job from low to high if you want to change it within that, that, that that dynamic, you certainly
have the right to do that. But we wanted to make sure that numbers aren't being pulled out of the sky. They're relevant and based on some type of definable criteria, which is the duties
and the market value. And was the training of these, you know, middle and you even said it the middle, you know, structure these departments is very
crucial. But was the human time and training these individuals, even on the lower level, taken into consideration for their development and for the. You're
exactly right. But a caveat is not every job is in need of the same level of adjustment. Some of those lower level jobs were closer to being competitive than
some of the higher level positions. For example, the public works position. That job was woefully inadequate for what you would in terms of pay for
what you'd pay a public works, particularly someone with no engineering background who understands infrastructure and capital improvement. It was further away, for example, than
maybe a water operator, because in some organizations it's easier to sell a pay increase for the hourly workers than it is for some of the, the, the
management team. But the truth is you need both. You need a management team with competent people, and you need the hourly people that are competent. And so what this study found was in
terms of where you stand in the market, based on all the criteria I talked about, some of the management people were further off than than the hourly people, and that's not a
reflection of their their value to the city. It's just a reflection of the value of the position. Okay. And as you stated, sir, you've helped recommend. Several assistant
city manager and other municipalities. And I have to bring this up again, because I am I must be missing it. But if those three assistant city managers slash department
directors within their departments six months from now, they all retire. You're telling me there's only three positions that need to be filled? To me, it looks like there's six
positions that need to be filled. I disagree with that, but ultimately you all, along with the city manager, will decide how you want to fill it. You certainly would have the option to, if all three left to
replace them as a deputy in ACM. Or you could take the ACM responsibility away and they would just be director level staff. But I think the part that's missing here is that you
have a unique opportunity where you've been fortunate to have some people that are really good at their jobs, good at management, good at organizing,
and can help the new city manager in terms of how he wants to move the organization forward based on the direction he's getting from the commission. And so the cost associated with
that, this is a business, $118 million budget. Somewhere along there, a little inflated this year, but we'll get into that again. No offense, but I'm a
plain talker. 150 $160,000 is a drop in the bucket. If it's going to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization. Okay. And that's all I have enough questions for
now. Thank you sir, before I go to the vice mayor, let me go back to Commissioner Banther because you didn't have any questions. Do you have any
questions of doctor? Not specifically, but I kind of, as my colleagues say things, think, think things do come to mind. And I do think, you know, I do
think we have some departments, like I mentioned, as, as, as, as with the city clerk, that and I think you touched on it as, as we have that range and we decide where those positions start in
this new plan inside that, inside that range. I think some of them just seem to be fine. Just just, you know, fine tuned because, well, you know, we are you know, my, my, my degree is
in economics and I understand there's there there is units of measurement. We have to use that in this equation. And, and you've done a good job with that. But there is there, there
is a human element that we need to make sure we are touching on in each department to make sure things that can't necessarily be quantified per se, are being accounted for in at least the,
the, the, the best, the best we can. So I think between now and the final approval, I'm sure with the city manager and your team, we will, you know, sort through all that. Thank you,
Commissioner Donato. I just thank you for your input. I concur with pretty much everything you said. I've gone through this process before and I appreciate what you're doing,
I understand. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Thank you. One of the beauties of being number five on this board is I get to hear some very good questions. And really,
I'm impressed with the response that you're giving. You kind of opened my eyes to some of the in-depth surveys that you do and
why you do it. So I have some questions regarding, I think one of the issues that we have is giving three titles the same
name as City manager. So I think and I'm just saying this there, you know, in our charter, we I think we have a deputy slash
assistant manager title, but we really don't really need assistant city manager, infrastructure and assistant city manager community development. It could just be
assistant community development and assistant infrastructure. I think when we're throwing that extra two city manager titles in there, it's thrown. I'm just
maybe speaking out loud, but it makes it look like we have too many, too many chiefs. So I think it's a wording thing that may be sticking. I don't know, I
can't speak for the rest of the board when I see that. It kind of threw me. I don't know if I want to have a structure with so many similarities like that,
because it's confusing to everybody. One of the things that you could do, and bear in mind, I've been assistant City manager before, and I've done
345 of these studies across the country. And so there are a number of ways to split an apple. You can, you know, call it whatever you want. One option
would be to keep the deputy, I think that needs to be designating the number two person under Charles purview of
responsibility. But if we wanted to distinguish those those assistants, we could call them senior directors. If that's a concern and the same, their
responsibility would be the same, but we would just distinguish them in another way. So it doesn't look like you've got a boatload of, of, of assistance. But I still go back
to what I said earlier. I think because of those individuals and their strengths, I think that presents a unique opportunity to
really kick start a new movement of strategic planning within the city and how it functions. We've been very impressed with with Charles's city manager. He's
he's really a visionary, and I think with the proper tools, I think he can really do some great things for the city under the direction of the commissioners. And we think
having that structure, whether you call it ACMS or senior directors, it doesn't matter. But the point is, taking advantage of that talent. The
other thing that I, I'm having a little trouble with the 3% on the low end, you know, we went through a number of years with
the five. And I also believe that we still have been feeling the pain of high prices. I know they've settled down a little
bit. So I mean, I don't know if I want to do that top end I would like to possibly pull, if I could, a percentage. I don't know what the rest of the board is thinking, but I would like to
pull a percentage away from that top end. I know you said you wanted to get up to about 60%. Maybe we could drop it down to 5857. I don't know what your
numbers are, but at least to give that 3% into a 4%. Here's my thought on that. Okay, gentleman here said his background is education,
economics, minds, policy, finance and education. And so I'm a researcher. Last week, the federal Department of Labor
released its consumer price index data. For the month of June, prices increased by 2.7%. That was up from about 2.4
previously. They issued a word of caution, if you will, by stating that depending on how the tariffs are going to play out, that the cost of living could increase a little bit
more. So everything from goods and services could go beyond that, that right now. Now, if you're concerned about the non
management staff, I would rather see you adjust their Cola a little bit higher. Leave the management level at 3% if that's
your concern, rather than punish the management folks for no reason of their own. When we did their survey of other
municipalities in the region, 3% was not the highest cost of living adjustment, but it was basically the median. You know, half were higher and about half
were a little bit under that. And so 3% pretty much hits that sweet spot when we know that it's already up to 2.7 in real percentages for the month of
June. So if you wanted maybe to look at where there's a natural break in the pay structure and give those non management folks maybe three and a half or four, but leave the management folks
at the three, I think that would be considered in my estimation, a win win for everybody. Well in speaking earlier to the city manager and I could be off on my numbers bringing it from 3 to
4%, I think he had said would bring it up another $70,000. So I would still go with that. I just don't like the 3% per se.
So that's that's one thing. My other question for you is in all these discussions, I know it was said this does not include the
union. Correct? No, sir. It does not yet, because it was said that that there was, you know, police and fire. And I know that they're on a three year. So
that's, that's not in this. Correct? No, sir. It's not in there. I just wanted to clarify when we when we started the project, we asked about that. And the decision was that as you
got closer to time to negotiate the contracts, you would then look at that and let us know if you wanted some assistance with that. Gotcha. And I know that we could also, regardless of what
we do up here, we have the ability for, you know, quality of work and responsibility to give increases accordingly.
Correct that. That's correct. You do have the ability to, you know, adjust the recommendations as you see fit. I would implore you not to reduce them. If you're going to change them,
maybe move them forward a little bit, but not not reduce them, because at the 60th percentile, that puts you at a position
where I think is conservatively responsible and not overboard. I got you exactly, I know. Did you not did you do you ever do an
employee poll to see what actually the employees would like to see for themselves in terms of pay? Yes. No, sir. And
why not? And I'll tell you why. After 340, some odd of these things. I have never met an employee that said the increases
were too much, but I've met a whole lot of employees that say it's not enough. So if we went out and canvased your employees now, here's what I think the
reaction or response would be. I would say we probably get about a third that would say, not bad. I think it was done fair. Okay.
Would like more. But but I can live with this. I appreciate what was done for me by the commission, by administration. We get a second third that would say, well, if you're giving me
3% and John or Mary over here, who's in the same position, I work harder than both of them. So I should get 3.5% because I work hard. Then you probably get the final third. That would say,
nah, this is just not enough, period. And so when you do these type of studies, I tell everyone the goal is not to make everybody happy. When it comes to money. I've seen money throw
rational thinking out the window when it comes, people become irrational, their personalities and their moods change. So the goal is not to try to make everybody happy. The goal is to
treat everybody fairly. And I can honestly say we did that. I have no relatives here. This is the first time I ever set foot in City Hall. When we kicked off this project, I looked at the
jobs objectively, didn't care about personalities or relationships or anything like that. Like I said, it's about the value of the job, not the value of the person. And so,
although yes, it would be nice to try to make everybody happy, but that's an impossible, impossible task. So you explained that you know, your
qualifications and other qualifications. So I'm not trying to make everybody happy. I'm trying to get their input to what they consider is fair. So
this let me just finish this. So what I'm saying to you is I understand you can't make everybody happy, but you can ask. There are people who are
happy with what they're getting. As you said, there are also people who in different ways and you know and means have more money than somebody else. They
don't need as much. So my, my question is just you put all this information into the computer and it spits back and gives you why would you not at least get their input to see
what they think? Psychologically speaking? Let's say, for example, that the majority, two thirds of the employees came back and said, we think 6%, 6%
is what's needed now. That becomes an expectation, fiscally speaking. Could you afford to do the 6%? Let's say you probably couldn't this year, but now
that's embedded in their thinking process, and then they're going to become some disgruntled, unhappy because that expectation is 6%. Although you told them we just want your
opinion, your opinion, your perspective. We're not promising anything. It's wired into their thought process. And if you don't deliver that 6%, then you're going to have some morale
issues. Manager pay is a management issue. That's why management pays earns. What it does is to make difficult choices with the limited
resources you have, and so that would be like the inmates running a prison. Somebody has to be in charge. Somebody's got to make difficult decisions. And that's where we are. You and I
have a different way of thinking. I'll just say that that's why I call it America. I appreciate your your aspect and your perspective on it. And believe me, I'm not sitting
there saying, no, I don't take it personal. Yeah. I'm not sitting there saying that, you know, I'm going to let them have that perspective. They're getting 6%. But I love to have people tell me what they want
and why they want it. Because I don't sit over the police chief and see what he's doing. 24 seven but if I get a written something from him, he could
then dictate to me what he does on a day to day basis. And that goes for everybody else in here. We can't sit over everybody to know. So if some people, you know, you just you just get a
perspective. That's all I'm saying. And, and I do value input from across the organization. I think what, what would be much more productive and healthier because now
there's a big push in both the public and the private sector to focus on quality of work life, making sure people aren't overtaxed, burned out, making sure they they got an
environment where they appreciate and enjoy coming to work. I think every organization should, every 2 or 3 years, they should do a quality of work life
survey, ask the employees how they feel about their work schedule, their health benefits, the leadership they get from their immediate supervisor, from their department head. What
other things would they like to see the city implement in terms of programs or policies that, in my opinion, would be a much more healthier exercise? Okay, I just
have one more thing, and I think I want to thank you. That was excellent. Like I said, I've had most of my questions asked or answered by you, and I was impressed with how you, you
know, you put in the documents and get out the feedback we had in. I don't think you're going to be able to answer this. Maybe
you will. The pay plan implement implementation costs. Easy for me to say. We had too many employees. So this was because
we had on the 299 employees we had then on the 110 employees, and we had 167 employees. All three of those were different categories, correct. Because we
don't have that many employees if we add them all up. So there has to be some redundancy in there. No. Well, the vacant positions in there for sure. Not that many. Not that many, no.
Everything that is in the report was double checked on the data file that we received from, from from HR. So all the people are in there part time as well, part
time and full time and vacancies. So none of these are duplicate? No, sir. I, I got the department heads, went over
their section which identified all their people. We do have a lot of part time folks that we keep on the books. They're just
here for the summer, but we keep them on the books. So if they want to come back the next summer, it's my understanding. So that may have been what
inflated the number is almost 600 employees. No, no, I'm not sure where you're where you're
seeing that you have it's page three. Hundred and 299 110 167.
I don't think that's in here. Last page of the implementation report. You have that page. Oh I
see. Oh. Oh this is the summary that we typed up. Oh it's this is the so this is the total that
got the 3% of that total 110 also got an adjustment. That's a minimum of the 2167 of them got a compression. So it's a total.
And then the other two are how many also got somebody could be somebody could be in both. That's what I've asked. That's why. It's why it's going to add up to more than the employees we
have. That's what I was trying to get to. Yes okay. Okay. I just have one quick comment. Yes, sir. I really do like the idea he said about. And this might cure some of the heartburn
up here about calling the assistant CMS, the senior directors. I realize it's just words. The duties and pay are the same. But you know, words matter, especially in the public space. And that was some of my
confusion with with the org chart. So I'm not saying you must do that, but I think you should you should, you should look into that. And I think that might it also depoliticizes that position because you put city
manager in that's called work at will, you know what I mean? And I understand we have we need to have a deputy named function. We do and that's appropriate in Chief Young. But I think
retitling the two cqms as senior directors are going to call are going to help cure a lot of things and could help the public see more, because it's kind of like our vice mayor position. Our vice mayor is a
commissioner, but they assume vice mayor titles. If Eisner, you know, doesn't show up one day, we don't hire a commissioner and vice mayor. It's one position. We understand that, you know, but the outside
doesn't. So I really think that that was a great idea. And we should we should look into that. Consider it. Right. Yeah. I too
think that the senior director idea would, would keep it from being as confusing. My degree, my degree is in finance. So you
got that, the economist and you got the finance. But the but you know, I, I agree wholeheartedly with you. This has to be
objective. And the reason that we hire somebody, we don't do this in-house so that we don't have it be personality driven.
You know, I, I again with my degree in finance, I look at and there may be just some disagreements up here, but I
look at Charles as being the CEO of the city. I look at us being the board of directors of, of the, of that 110 or the $100
million corporation. And, you know, our responsibilities are to the if it was corporation, the shareholders in this case the residents, we're not here to
make employees happy. That's not our job. Our job is to pay is to is to deliver services to the community. That's it. Deliver
our services to the community. Paying people the proper compensation to retain those people who can provide those
services, and also to attract those who can provide services. So if you are independently recommending a certain thing,
I've got to give a lot of weight to it doesn't mean that we here collectively can't tweak some things here, and we probably should. But I really appreciate your objectivity. I think that's
what's important, and that's why we hired you. And to take some of that out of the out of the out of the mix. But again, we'll have the latitude. And there also just for everyone's we have
that 3% merit. Discretion. Right. So that in department heads can reward those who they
believe deserve an increase due to their performance. So we have those things even though they're getting the three, there is an additional possibility of additional merit, which again
can go up to three. So I, I'd like to leave as much latitude to those people that that actually work with those people every day and, and could
determine who is, you know, merit or deserving again to retain them. You know, we're not again, we're not the shop stewards. We're not the union
reps here. We're we you know, we have to provide services for the residents. And again, I appreciate what you all I saw Commissioner question do you
have an addition I saw your hand. Yes. I just want to say one more thing. Then I'll yield to you. I appreciate your again your objectivity. And you answer
things extremely well. Thank you. Sir. Are you. You are not a lawyer to. No, sir. All right. You'd make a good one, Commissioner. Yes. Yes, doctor. This original report that we had
that we this process, there was an original report made, correct, that you supplied. And then what what latitude did our staff have in looking at it and
making any adjustments? Well, it went two rounds of review when the initial report was produced. It was a draft report. The
project manager at the time was Paul. So I submitted the report to Paul and to the city manager. They reviewed it. They had some questions, some concerns, some feedback. I went back and
responded to their concerns and feedback. Then the city manager directed Paul to meet with each individual employee department head to show them how their
department came out, including their position and all the people in their department. That generate a lot of feedback and some adjustments there. Sir, can
I ask you when you say, when Paul went to these department heads and you said it generated feedback in a lot of adjustments, is it at that current time, the department
heads made some suggestive adjustments for, for you to review? Yes. So simple terms. So you we were able there's a
report that shows the original and plus what the difference is and what the department heads made. Yes the department heads I received their suggestions
recommendations with explanations. Why. And then I made the adjustments that I thought were prudent, which they came back with some really good points that I wouldn't be able to tell from the questionnaires
that was submitted by the employees. They pointed out some stuff that was impactful to the analysis, and I made the adjustments that were appropriate. Based on that
feedback from the department heads. Because the worst thing you can do when you do these type of studies is, is force the results onto the department heads, because they got to be able to sell it to their people.
And so I was appreciative for their honest feedback. And we told them in the beginning, you're going to see what the results are and give you a chance to opine on what the
results are. And if you submit recommendations that we can validate, then, then we'll adjust it. I'm just not going to change something because you want me to. You got to give me
some justification to do that. And they did. And at the end of the day, we all were satisfied with the with the end result. And some of those changes could be tech. One is getting too much
of an increase, should be at 3%. Know what kind of changes is it? What operator should be a grade 108 instead of a 107? Okay. Or
why did this particular job come out at a 120? I explain my thinking as we analyze that job. Some department head will come in and say, well, I think there
was a little bit of an overemphasis on the information you were given from the employee. Here's actually how that handles or works within their day to day responsibility. So I brought it from a 120 to
119. It was moving a grade one, you know, one way or another, up or down. That was the changes that were made based on feedback from the department heads. Is
that something you could share with us? No offense, but I'm going to be candid because I have done this for a long time
and I would hope that you would appreciate my professionalism and knowledge. I don't think it's appropriate to get down into the weeds of who, where and what in terms of how some of the
people in positions were graded. We the idea was to give everybody an opportunity from the employee workforce, the department heads and the city
manager to opine on the results of the study, provide feedback where there was differences of opinion, perspective. Then to address that. I think at this level it should be about policy, not trying to micromanage the
comp study. That's just my opinion. With all due respect. Absolutely, sir. But I am as my job it is to ask questions and investigate matters. And this Pace study has to be done in
such a very long time. And when we get stuff that comes back, and would you not agree that the majority of the cities that you've compared us to, budget wise, personnel wise, are much
bigger in budget as well as employees? Majority of them. Some are smaller in budget, some are smaller with in terms of size of the workforce. Because we take the average of the market data, we don't cherry
pick the highest or the lowest. We take the average and we're not collecting the average based on what individual employees are making. We're taking the average
based on what the value of the job is from the organization's pay structure. You cannot build a statistically valid compensation study by using
actual salaries of employees in Dunedin or Pinellas County, because their actual salaries are a reflection of how long they've been there, what their education level was, and
experience beyond the minimum when they started, what policies that organization may have to move individual salaries. So what we're doing is trying to find the value, as I said, of the job. So we're looking at
what do they value this position at in terms of their pay schedule. And we extrapolate that data and that goes into the model not actual salaries of
comparable employees. Okay. And I mean the what was presented to us originally as, as I requested from the city manager, was this general one sheet with, like we
said, number of employees, total difference in the department and whatever and what pages, the department summary pages, and then what I requested more got a little bit more detailed in
individuals and their percentage changes. So you understand why sometimes individuals have to get into the weeds a little bit to look at certain things. So it's no disrespect to you or your profession, but this is
this hasn't been done in a very long time. And I hope some board members did look at this stuff and not just, you know, gone through the process before. So I would like to see those notes
because it takes into consideration. What the directors value. First rodeo. We've we've I've had this issue
years ago. Our legal department deems our work papers our property. And I will not supply the work papers. I've given you the summary of the data that we
forgot we got from the other peers. I've shown you what we're recommending for each individual employee, but what is the value of me giving you my work papers so you can second guess me, the
pay consultant who you hired to bring in. Because the pay study that was done last time was internally done. And it was a mess. And that and that's why we've gone in a direction where we hire different people. But
how do you think I feel about the transparency now that you're saying that you don't want to deliver the notes to everything? No, I'm not going to give you my working papers, but aren't they public documents? The things that we worked for, for all
this, you can consult with any attorney you want. They're not my work papers or my work papers. I've given you the product of the work papers and the work and analysis. If you think a job should. If you think
an individual in their salary should be changed, then that's something you guys need to decide. But from my perspective, I've given you everything you need to make whatever decisions
you want to make. I don't think you have, sir. So that's all I'm going to say for now. Thank you. All right. We agree to disagree. Okay. Is there any other? Go
ahead, vice mayor. So I just got a little confused with the. I just got a little confused with the last conversation a little bit. I kind of asked if we do an
employee poll and you said no, but you did inquire with the department heads. Yeah, we Charles, you said that. But they're employees in the beginning. Yes, but I meant the rank and file employees. Okay. I
just wish you clarified that you didn't do that with everybody. I thought you did it with nobody. No. Okay, that was that. Was it? Thank you. Okay, I'll just make
one more comment. I can appreciate your work. Paper comment. I'm a certified public accountant. When I produce a
financial statement for a client, that is my product, I do not turn over my work papers to anyone unless, you know, the
Board of Accountancy asks them for me. Of them, my product is the is the end result and your product is your report. And that's what we paid for. And
I'll point out one more thing that speaks to the quality of what we do. We're the only company in this business and there's a lot of them. Some of them work out their garage or
whatever, but we are the only company that has someone who is certified by the Fourth Circuit federal courts out of Virginia as an expert on compensation and
pay equity. Her name is Carolyn Long, and so she reviews every report before it goes out the door. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay, doctor, thank you
very much. I appreciate your your detailed answers to the questions. And thank you, City Manager. So let's go to item number three. The proposed
budget for fiscal year 2026 and the overview of our finance director, Mr. Ron Herring. Be
careful. We're warmed up already. Like a tired fighter. Maybe it'll be easier. No
comment. No. Oh geez. Okay. Well we have what I first got is I, you know, I spend you know, usually I have like 30 or 40 slides, but, you know, I've
spared you just like ten, 12 slides tonight. So but what I wanted to do was mostly we're going to go to the general fund, but I just want to have a couple slides on the overall budget as
it's sitting right now. The draft 2026 budget. All funds are in balance. The general fund is balanced with no use of unassigned fund balance. Ten
straight year city manager met with department heads. Budget Advisory Committee reviewed the budget with the department heads. And then we had the budget public hearing on June
17th, which included the survey results and citizens requests that they'd like to see in the budget. Items still in process so far, the compensation Study,
Stormwater Revenue Sufficiency study is still in progress, along with the Water and Sewer Revenue Sufficiency Study and capital projects capital projects. We weren't going to
get into detail tonight, but mostly in two weeks when we have the budget workshop on July 29th. This is I was like the
largest funds of the city right now. The draft budget of the city is 119 million. It's $33 million more, 33 million more than last year's adopted budget
of 86 million. The general fund is up 3.99% in the sort of bronzy color they're showing the increase per fund. The general fund is up 3.99%, mostly due to
pay and benefit increases. A lot of the other bigger increases are due to capital projects. So water and sewer fund 40.4% increase due to capital project
increases that were funding sanitation fund. Not too many capital projects, but it's mostly the 3% maximum for the contract increase for waste management penny fund. We've got
a 205% increase again with the capital projects that are proposed. CRA fund 242% capital projects, Orange Street and CRA
master Plan stormwater fund 161% increase again capital projects and the golf course fund 203%. The new clubhouse, which is in
the in design 4.2 million. So I know it's big, but a lot of the increase is due to capital projects that are in the budget. And is this one total city
expenditures again, trying to break it up by personnel services last year? This year the increase in personnel is 1.9 million 5.2%. Operating expenses
of 29 million, up 964,000. And I just want to give a kudos to the departments. When we started working on the budget back in April, May, the departments we came in and we reduced a lot of
the operating about $800,000 across all city funds. Well, I think alone it was like seven, 800,000 just in the general fund. So a lot of credit to the departments for helping to cut
some of the budget there. Debt service up 2.8 million because of the financing. We're looking into grants and aids and
transfers and reserves and other total budget, as I say, 119 million, the draft budget as it currently sits. And then down below you can see the capital outlay is 30.3% of the budget.
I'm sorry I missed up. Above is there's $36 million worth of capital projects currently in the budget. We usually average around 10 million. So you can
see we've got roughly, you know, $26 million more in capital projects in this budget. If you took off the 26 million, you'd be back back down to a budget of
right around 93 million. This is the revenue side of the of the total city budget going down from taxes ad valorem increases
619,000. That's the. 4.07% property taxable value increase. We had we got. A lot of one of the other larger items.
Intergovernmental went up as highlighted there in yellow 5.2 million. That's mostly due to water and sewer electric granted 2 million. And the Craig Park seawall. Phase two. Phase one
construction 2 million charges for services, up 1.9 million. That's mostly what you find in that category is a lot of the enterprise funds water, water,
sewer, storm water and sanitation rate increases down in miscellaneous. We have a $3 million increase, and that's mostly due to the water and sewer settlement. And then
highlighted down below is the 18 million, 18.2 million. And that is the planned what we have so far planned and in the budget.
Some financing the $18.2 million increase for financing. And that's what that's all I had on just going. Overall, I don't
know if you have any questions on that or if I just go back, go into the general fund. Like I said, we're going to have another meeting in a couple weeks. We'll go over the enterprise funds and the capital
projects. Why don't we why don't you go give your presentation on the general fund and then we can go through questions on both. Okay. Some highlights of the
general fund. As I mentioned, while we maintain the same millage rate of 5.37, the property tax revenue increase of 4.07, we were worried at first earlier in the year if we were
going to have just a 0% increase, but we fortunately we at least got a 4.07% increase. Last year. We had a it was 9.1% increase. We fully funded the
police and fire union contracts, which is the third and final year, funded the police and fire pensions as required amount per the actuary. And we have funded
the General Employees compensation study that we've been talking about. We always like to show every year the Tarpon Springs is a full service city. And the we up here, we got
the full service cities with populations over 20,000. And as you can see on the far right, the millage rate of tarpon is 5.37, the lowest of the of the
five largest cities, over 20,000 full service. Largo is at 5.52. Pinellas Park 5.65, Clearwater
5.88 and Saint Pete at 6.45. Items in the new items in the budget, we've got some new positions in there funded for starting October 1st 25 as a
part time code enforcement supervisor and the full time building department technician, we have one funded part time right now, but then we would
fund it for full time now and then to try to squeeze some positions in the budget and be able to fit them in. Funding wise, we've got some positions starting on April 1st, 2026, so
we're funding for half the year. Police department, police dispatcher, a part time HR administrative assistant and an
IT specialist. Some other additions to the budget. We've got funding for additional marketing, and it was at least 60,000 pinpointed for marketing.
There's some other items in there across some departments, funding for the economic development, sponge docks. That's $100,000 in the budget. Funding for additional training
that goes across a lot of departments with their own training. But then we do have some departmental developmental training of about 50,000 within
the budget. Getting into some numbers for the general fund last year. This year, personnel services up 1.6 million. And as you can see, that is the
increase of the general fund operating. This is where like I said, we're down 146,000. But department's really helped out and cut about six seven 800,000
out of their operating costs. Capital is only at 238,000. We never usually have too much capital in the general fund, because we usually don't have the money for it, because down below you can see personnel
services is 73% of the general fund budget. And just wanted to point out that the increase in the budget over last year is
3.99%. The other on the other side for the general fund is the revenues going from last year to this year. The main increases is the ad valorem of 596,000, and
then charges for services 570,000. That is mostly due to the fire department last year got a new unit that was funded last year. I was a little conservative on the budgeting,
so it's helped out in providing about at least about $480,000 more for the for the budget for
2026 under the charges for services. A lot of numbers, a little bars here and stuff. But the main thing is trying to show the general fund budget increase
and percent increase over the last five years. That's why I thought it was interesting that we were just at a 3.99% increase this year, compared to we were
8.39% last year, two years ago, 7.03%. And in 2023 we're at 10.65% increase. And then in 2022, we're at 4.84% increase. So were the lowest percentage
increase in the general fund for the last five years for 2026. This is more I know you might want to get the department heads
here going over their budget, but this is sort of I try to with budget advisory did this to try to say what's the major increases or decreases in the departments here. I won't go
through most of all of them. But, you know, most of them is the compensation study increase. There's some like the city manager department, which has the economic development sponge
docks 100,000. That's why the city manager department went up 176,000. Information technology went down 145,000. That's because the I.T. Tech department
is being moved to the cultural department. Under the planning department. They are now. The code enforcement department is going to be under planning,
being moved from police and getting into police and fire the big dollar amount increases in the in the budget. The $1.4 million budget increase is the police and fire that's highlighted there with their
union increase and their required pension contributions. Building department went down because in the previous year they had a large grant in the
tree bank for about 165,000. Public services went down 103,000, mostly due to they had a community center grant in the previous year of 120,000 cultural and civic services. As
you can see right below it, there's going to be a separate library department. So we've broken out library and so on, on departments, so cultural. We took out the 1.8 million, but then there was also an increase
in the cultural department by moving the I.T. Tech department, which had a budget of about 250,000, over to the cultural department. And other than that,
there's not much to more exciting going down the line there. So I think that's I just have the budget schedule for the
next, you know, with the tonight's meeting on July 22nd will establish the maximum millage rate per state statutes, the second budget workshop on
July 29th. And if we need a third budget workshop on August 7th, and then the public hearings will be on September 3rd and 17th. And that's what I
got for you. Thank you. Ron. So the only I know, we're going to have plenty of time to get into much more detail as we go through this process, but I know
your your mission was to be able to create this budget with no millage rate increase. So and I know you've done that. Correct?
Correct. And which I commend you for because it's a lot of work to put all these numbers together and, and not have an increase to the, to the, to the
residents. So I want to thank you for that. Thank you for your work. And I know again, we're going to get way more into the, into the details in, in the
coming months or so. So thank you very much, Commissioner Banther. Yes. Thank you Ron, this is I don't know what budget season this is with me and you, but you've always done a very good job at explaining these,
these, these all these numbers in a very simple way. So I do I do appreciate that. Thank you. I think it's very impressive. Like the mayor just said, that we have a 38% increase in the
budget, but no increase in the tax base or the or rather, the millage rate. And I think that, you know, goes goes along the lines of the good stewardship
that, that, that, that we've had. And I think it's going to be our job as the commission to help, you know, message that that that appropriately, when people hear about the increase
in the budget, explain why it is most of it comes from enterprise funds and for specific capital improvement programs, how we kept the millage rate the same, which I think, you know, I don't think you could strike a better
balance than you have in this budget as far as what meeting, meeting our goals and our needs and not increasing our taxes. So I don't have any specific questions at this time. I'll see I'll see what the what my
colleagues have to say. Thank you. Commissioner Donato, as always, you've done a great job. I appreciate it. And holding the rate is was important to all of us. I think right now during
this time and we're able to do that. I'm excited about some of the things that we're going to look at doing here in the future and escalating some of our projects and still being able to maintain the millage rate that
we're we're doing. So I appreciate your your endeavors and know that you look forward to doing budgets every year.
Commissioner. He's kind of. Running. All right, Commissioner Gulyas. Thank you, mayor Ron. We just we talked about how the general fund has gone up about
4%, but our overall budget, as we talked about, is up in a
difference of the total. Yeah, 38%. So we got a $33 million increase. Now obviously that a
portion of that money comes from the inner department loans. And plus this expected loan, which I feel like we're all just we're all in on this loan already because this is what we're
given. Assuming we're going to take on a loan and we have no option or no view of what our finances are going to look.
Without a loan of $20 million. And so I have some issues with it all. Borrowing a lot of money, we can sit there and say, good debt, bad date, what we
want. But. We still don't have a plan on what we're doing, on what projects we're going to do, the priority of them, and then the project on the back end. I don't have a commitment from
some senior leadership. They're going to be around for ten years while they take on these loans for the community. And, you know. How are all these projects
going to get done in one year, you know, per year, depending on we're going to do it all. So it looks like we have no backup plan. This board is all into borrowing money, and I still
think the residents need to decide on it. They need to vote and that has to come in on March election. That's still within the budget cycle and needs to happen because like I said, we
gave them that referendum. Do they want to be able to let the city manager make decisions, up the properties, up the $500,000 from the current 350 said, no,
keep it at 350 and we want to vote on it. So you don't think they want to vote on $20 million loan? So I do have some issues.
We're expecting to get some loan that I don't think is the greatest thing. We've seen. Projects balloon up and we can say, oh, the projects are going to cost more in the future, but
it's going to be a lot more projects to in the next ten years to those are going to have ballooned up values as well. And so I am concerned. But will the general fund looks fine for now.
But obviously there's some. Just because the general fund is looks okay, doesn't mean the overall budget isn't a concern. And so those are my questions for now. Ron's done a great job.
Staff's done a great job. But you know this is. We're giving free passes during this budget cycle. The city manager's first budget. Like I said, he needs to work with the budget that we've
been given that we need to work with and then have an opportunity to make those type of latitude arrangements. I don't I don't think any city manager should get a loan like
that to help do capital improvement projects, especially in the first year. I want to see something proven to us. So those are my thoughts on all of it, and I like the board to support
them, including the residents making and voting on whether they want to borrow that money at the amount suggested and for the years suggested. Thank you,
Vice Mayor. Thank you mayor. So again, I'm a little confused. Thank you. First of all, Ron, as always, did we agree to $20
million loan or we were looking at a $10 million loan so far when we went over. We're looking at $19.3 million financing, a
ten year bank note. So. So it was the fact that it was a ten year loan that you don't have to go to a referendum, but correct.
I didn't know that we were going to do $20 million. Would you explain what are in that 20 million? What are the things that you are in financing in
that 22? Well, the 19.3 million was was a station, $76 million, 1.6 million for spring of Craig Park seawall phase one
construction, 4.2 million for the golf course clubhouse, 3.5 million for stormwater projects and 4 million for Beckett Bridge
Utilities was a total of the 19.3 million. Gotcha. Okay. But some of that's already funded.
Yes, we have cash funded the fire station 70 and the 1.6 million of the Craig Park Seawall phase one construction. So what are we doing with that? What we're trying to do is free
up some money. So instead of having $200,000 left in the penny fund, we'll have about 5 million left. So we'll have money available for other projects like the bayou dredging
also be able to save. So if we do this, we will not have to lease fire trucks in the future, we're able to reserve aside $400,000 a year, like the fire ladder truck that's going to come before the board, maybe in
a couple weeks. So instead of having to lease that or finance it, we can reserve aside $400,000 a year for four years. So we have the 1.6 million ready by 2029 for this fire truck. So
what is the difference between finding financing the fire trucks when they come in or financing this now? I mean, you could go ahead and finance the fire trucks when four years when
that comes up. I mean, it's the same thing, though. I'm not seeing the benefit to the well, I think the main thing is you'd have to free up the 5 million for the Bayou dredging and other project, other other projects
out there too, with Craig Park Seawall phase two construction. So it's freeing up money to have for these other projects that are sort of hovering out there. I think there's also the Sponge
Docks flood abatement project that's still in the works, too. Yeah, there's a few extra million in that one too, I know. And just to let you know, I did
get a call today regarding the and I said to the city manager flooding on all 19 on every high tide. So, you know, that's that's another headache that we have to deal with because I
don't see that Pinellas County is going to deal with it. But okay, the intergovernmental I'm a little confused on this one
because it has. Electric grant 2 million Craig Park. So isn't that redundant to what we're discussing on the loan? Well,
those are separate the electric grant. Water and sewer has a $5 million electrical project to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant. Electrical. They've got a
$2 million grant coming for that. And what's then the Craig Park 2 million? That's the Craig Park, the project for Craig Park seawall. Phase one construction
totals 3.6 million. The grant is 2 million. The other part is the 1.6 million we're just talking about. We have cash funded currently. Gotcha. So it's
broken down into two parts okay. Our good old peepers, what are we planning on doing with that money that was given to us or
awarded to us? The FAS? Yes, that is going towards water wells. They need a new water wells. So those are going towards those because it says
water sewer fund. That's the title of the fund. But yes, it's going towards water wells. When you say water wells what do you mean they're going to. They need
so many more water wells to supply the water plant. The plant. Yes. Our plant. Okay. I just wish that it said that. That's all. How many so many
characters are, you know? Okay, I had this on loan proceeds. Okay? I asked that already. That's that's pretty much it, I
know. I know, Commissioner doesn't want to, you know, borrow money, but, you know, we are on a low amount of money as
long as we use this for capital improvements in a positive manner. I don't want to get into too many projects that will be sitting on Bob Roberts lap as
I'm seeing him shake his head, because there's only so many things you can keep tabs on, and all I can see in Florida is things get you can't. You can't
keep a tab on everything and a project. I don't want the project to go like what Bruce Avenue did. You know that was bad. And then we had still the situation going on with Seabreeze. That was another
project that went out of control. And I don't put that fault on you. It's just there's only there's just so many people could be there unless you have somebody watching everything that's going on. So when you're
loaning money for all these different projects, you have to have the people to be constantly overseeing it. It's not just the money thing. So I really would
like to see what we're going to need to loan or borrow rather, rather than just have a figure and then sit and scratch your head. What we could utilize it
for. I remember when I first got on this board, there was discussion of they bought certain things and then decided where they went. I don't believe in that school of thinking. I
believe that we should be seeing what we need, and then we buy it for where we need to put it, not, you know, vice versa. So I don't want to just give a carte
blanche to an $18 million loan just so that we can have some extra cash. I'd rather borrow it as we need it. So that's it
wasn't a question. It was a comment. But I think I'm allowed to do a comment. Yeah. Let's. No, you can you can do whatever you want. Let's go one more time
around the bend because I want I have a couple things I want to say. You know, I think all these this terminology is misleading
when you say. The fire station is funded. What, that. No, I'm, I said that. Well, he said it to me. Confirmed it. Right. So when
you confirm how about that when you confirm that the fire station is funded, what you're saying is we have money there that we could use to pay for the
fire station, correct? Correct. Okay. So it's not that money can be used for anything. We're just choosing to take $6 million and
buy fire station up front. Right. Okay. Which an option would be to fund the fire station over a ten year period, just like we would do. And we
have done with the property. Right? Correct. Okay. That we didn't want to take $5 million out of our funds that could be used for roads and streets and
all that, and we decided to go ahead and string it out for ten years because it made sense. It was a capital investment. The fire station will have value for many years to come, but we're
asking if we pay for it now with what you say is funded, which just means there's money there. That's money that can't be used for other things, such as and,
and I take difference with you when you are saying, oh, we're going to do bayou dredging or we're going to do this, we're going to obviously decide in our
CIP meetings what we are going to use our available funds for. Correct? Correct. Okay. So I don't think, again, that's misleading when you just, you
know, name off some random things. Because what matters to me is one is that we're not spending $6 million right now on a fire station. Again, that has
value over a long period of time. And ten years is, is I'd I'd be happy if we go 20 or 30, but we don't have that authority. We do have authority
under this board to go ten. So if we go ten, that frees up just on the fire station alone, it frees up over $5 million in
money that can be used for, in my opinion, stormwater mitigation. That's that is that is achievable. Streets. We have
so many, you know, brick streets throughout town that we need to restore and get them up to snuff. We have sidewalks. We have a lot of infrastructure
that we need to deal with. You know, we were I, I was having a conversation today about, you know, when we talk about the Sponge Docks area, you know, the
importance of having Roosevelt be a decent street to drive down right now. It's not it's a messed up street that probably,
you know, causes more alignment issues for cars than probably anywhere else. We've got Orange Street, we've got Safford Avenue, those those brick
streets. We've got a lot of things we need to address. So this is not we're not again borrowing money again on
anything that doesn't have value going forward. And I think when we get to and you showed every commissioner how that whole thing works, our debt service to
general revenue is going to be less than more than half of the communities in our general area. More less than half of what Dunedin spends, what less than
half of what New Port Richey has in their debt. This is going to be reasonable debt that is going to be where 4%, 5%, somewhere in that, in that general range.
Yeah. And this of not the whole not the whole budget, but only of the general revenue, which is
what, 4750 what is it? 4747 $47 million. So we're talking about of the whole revenue of the entire city. We're talking about
less than what a point. And somewhere around a point, 1.75%. Again, it's real small debt. It's debt that is very
comfortable for the for any municipality to function with. It's low. And again, we're buying fixed assets that have
long term useful value instead of paying for them now and at at because everything comes at a cost. You pay for the if we pay for the fire station now that's a whole lot of streets we can't
do. That's a whole lot of sidewalks we can do. Okay. So and under your budget, without the financing, you had only
$200,000 left in the penny fund, correct? Correct. Okay. $200,000 is goes like that. 200,000 could be one overage in some project.
200,000 out of $100 million budget. That's tight. And that's with doing none of these things. That's not fixing a street in town above very minimal stuff.
So, you know, I don't want the citizens to get the impression that we are either mortgaging the future of our town. We're not by any means, nor are we. Or
is this a irresponsible move? And it's not the city manager's move. He's not the one doing it. It's I. I came up with was the first guy to come up with this
idea. Okay? I'm a, you know, when the city, when our vice mayor talked about all of our. Our strengths as individuals,
you know, and I give you deference to your strength in mechanics and understanding construction and all those things. This is my deal, okay?
And I would never, ever put the city in jeopardy. I'm a reasonable person. I'm a conservative person. I'm telling you, this makes sound sense.
It's it makes it. We're putting the city in more jeopardy if we don't do this because we're going to have we're going to be so thin and God forbid we have another hurricane like we did.
We're we have our reserves. Are are what? So we so we're going to tell the residents, hey, we can't do any of these improvements, but we got you a fire station. Okay. Come on. And
the in that money that you're borrowing also is the clubhouse. That clubhouse is paying for that debt service. So that that debt service isn't coming off our general revenue that's
coming off of operations from the from the golf course. So I'm, I, I this, you know, Commissioner Banther talks about
hills worth dying on this one I'm I'm, I'm I'm worth dying on so because I know it's the right thing. Let's go. Commissioner, can I throw one more thing here
just briefly. You know, by having the money available, you're able to do some of these projects and not have the cost. If you have to do these projects later, they're going to with inflation, they're going to cost
more. So you've got the money available to do these projects at today's cost. How many years you've been here? I know you hate when I asked you that you want me to do this again, I ask you that question 38 years.
Yeah. Right. Okay. You are you are a consummate professional. You have been through, you know, you started when Tom Koulianos was the mayor of Tarpon Springs, and there's been, what, 12
mayors since then? I'm finished with you whole bunch, and you're going to finish with me. So. Yeah. And but you are as responsible as they come. I know
you're as responsible. Do you do you think this is a sound approach? Yeah it is. And we also we're one of the we're still one of the lower as we look at the annual debt service to revenues in the, in the area
here. So yes. Yeah. And what, what I'm going to ask is that Commissioner Gulyas, you know, I respect you and you know it.
Unless I'm wrong, the count is it's going to happen, right? So what I want all of you to do is, is obviously participate in what
we use that money for. You know, if it's going to happen that we're going to borrow money, we're going to have this freed up money. What what I'm going to ask is that, you know, and which
I know you will, that, you know, and it's going to be an opportunity for you to, to express what items you believe are important to work on in the
community, just like all the rest of the commissioners. So I'm not insensitive to, you know, your position and I don't and I don't impugn you even in the least. I think you
legitimately have your feelings and, you know, and I respect them. But if, if, if the if it's going to happen, then let's make
sure that we use the freed up money for the best possible things that add that help our community. And I know you will do that. So, Commissioner
Banther, do you want to have one more round? Yeah. Just quickly. So I couldn't agree more with with everything, literally everything that that the mayor just said. You know, it does boil down to just opportunity
cost as well, meaning the value of the next best thing. So if we don't take out debt service, which I think would be irresponsible, you know, you know, fiscally speaking, we can't do other things for
operating on a cash basis. I don't know of any, you know, $100 million corporation or government entity for that matter that operates like that. So I think it's a very responsible tool. And I'm glad
that the mayor just said what he said about Commissioner Coolio's that, you know, obviously it's you know, this is not a light matter. You know, I think it's good that there's somebody up here that's saying, hey, is this
the right thing to do? Let's learn more about this debt service. But but I think I think more importantly, you know, I would look for, for you and your watchdog mode to, to be part of
that conversation when it comes to what what we use this, this debt for. Because I think that's what we have to be laser focused on. And that, I think, is a primary function and role. I've
often, you know, I get up here and I say that that, you know, people off sometimes because I think we're doing things that are outside of our purview, but that is absolutely inside our purview. We should absolutely b
be be be, be, be, be the ones up here deciding what we use this debt service for to better to better like, you know, all the residents and you know, it's
very cliche. But if we don't do these improvements that we have to get lending for, and a lot of this is for stormwater and things like, like that when, when, when, when residents are, are are in knee deep water,
they're I really don't think they're going to be terribly concerned about the responsible debt that we took out to help, to help solve these problems. So again, of course, I respect any
opinion on this board. I'm glad we have differences so we can explore things better. And that's where you learn. And you know, I look forward to you being a watchdog in that mode.
Thank you. Commissioner De Donato. Well, I thank you, sir, for trying, you know, to further explain, and I concur. Most
people take out a loan to buy a new car. Basically, we're and I believe the next time we meet, we'll be talking about where
these projects actually are. We will name them and we will name the funding source further to so that everyone has a better understanding. Is that not
correct? Talk about the actual projects. Yes, yes. Well, the ones we mentioned before, the $19.3 million worth of projects. Yes. Yes. Okay. But because there seems to be a misunderstanding of the word is
borrowing money and we don't have any reason to do so. And I would assure everyone that we indeed are borrowing it to do projects that have been on the board that are now going to for
sure, get done, and we may even be able to add some projects to this because we're taking the loan. So we're we're magnifying what we would have done had we
done it the other way, is what this project is really doing. We're magnifying our ability to get things done. So I think I can, I can I can I correct one
thing? You said we're not borrowing money to fix streets or do any of these projects. We're borrowing money to build a fire station to free up the yes for project. But we're not.
We're we're borrowing money to build a fire station. Yes. That again, the money that that we're not going to use to buy the fire station is the money we're using to do these things. So. So I
don't want the community to think we're borrowing money to fix streets. We're not. We're borrowing money to build a fire station. Okay. Vice mayor, somewhat spanarkel, but I'll go
around. I'll go around. Come back. Commissioner coleus is next. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I mean, guys, I have a simple philosophy, and I'll
have you guys sit there and decide, because I think it's one way. What's a more important project? Paying to move the electrical and water pipes off the bridge area so we can
actually get the county to start doing that work, or doing the fire department, which we already have one next door. What's more important for the overall well-being of the city?
Moving in and out. And as far as the dredging, we can piece out portions of the dredging at a time. We don't have to do it all right now at 5 billion, you guys
see what it's like just to get the City Hall with with Pine Street and hibiscus over there blocked off and Tarpon Avenue and Grove Street blocked off. S. And as far as the like I said,
the Stanley's property, you know, mayor, you came up with that loan idea for the ten years, but the residents decided on it and you guys still almost went against it. So all I'm
saying is I'm definitely going to if this goes through, I'm going to make sure I we try to get everything done that we can and obviously looks that way because this board went from,
you know, the sky's falling on us before March to now we're just borrowing money left and right. So I get it. But some of y'all you're termed out. You guys aren't going to be around
ten years just to see the impact of this stuff. And I you know, I don't know if the city manager will do it will be around for ten years to see this stuff. So I don't like borrowing big loans there. You guys talk about these
projects in which we still have budgeted two, three projects a year. We're going to take on this debt, which yeah, it's still one loan puts us right below the average of all the
counties. So I stay firm in that. But the first priority is, is this Beckett Bridge situation over the fire department. I'm going to say that because that's a main artery to the city. It's
going to take two years for that project to get done. Two right. Probably be three with some change orders to five. All right. So and what are we going to do, have these stormwater
projects going on within one year while that roads being shut down and with some change orders in which a few of those projects may or may be budgeted within those two three years. So I am
skeptical, obviously. But, you know, I just like I said, then we then we talk about how. I
don't support the upper management getting these raises. I don't support the city manager getting a 15% raise. I don't support that right now. Not saying he's not doing a great
job, but 15% raise. We're getting loans out. I mean, this is it's much easier to work with like this in your first term.
And you know this this board talks about priorities. But show us all those projects when they're going to be done, the timeline is going to take. And we are borrowing money not for
the fire station. We're borrowing money for the overall CIP plan. So I think that needs to be corrected. And I also think if we want transparency, I would feel much more comfortable
if the voters supported it. That's all. And I think when you write something like that, it's written in the most positive manner anyways. So they're going to look at it and make that
decision. And that's just the way I feel. And I'd feel more comfortable with it too, moving forward. And I am going to make sure we get our stuff paid for, because to fix some stormwater
issues, which the water is still going to flood two times a year, which it shouldn't flood any, is a failure. And we got to do it right if we're going to do it right. So those are just my
thoughts on it. I'm going to not support it until I believe the residents make a vote on it to make me comfortable enough, or if it goes through, then I'm going to make sure we try to get what's in the best interest of
the community. But that bridge is number one. That way we can decide what we're going to do and let the county start doing their thing. Those are my thoughts, Vice Mayor. Oh my. So
I have to clarify something. I wasn't one of them up here that was saying the sky was falling. I was here saying we're going to be fine. So I just want to clarify that I don't mind the
borrowing of the money and the that was what I continuously said. As long as we knew what we were utilizing it for. And I know it's been said a number of
times, if we do borrow the money, we're the ones that make the call of where where it gets spent. I do think that we shouldn't be paying for the
firehouse all in one year, even though now it's, you know, financially accounted for. That's why when people buy homes, they buy 30 year, 20
year, you know, finance, mortgage. I think that we do have a great deal of projects that we need to get done. We all
sit up here and we all get calls from all of the things that the residents want. Everything from we flood on every street to why can't we have a new rec center
with a swimming pool in it? So, you know, we all get those calls. I just, I don't want to do reckless things with it. As
commissioner said, I would like to make sure that we're all very strongly in agreement to what is important and what's not. One of
the things I, I differ with a little bit is I don't think we can do the dredge in piecemeal. It hasn't been done in, I don't know, 50, 60. It could be 70 years. I don't know if we've
ever done that dredge on where it needs to get done. And we don't even know what it is. So I think that is important. I mean, the people that all live on, they're all paying quite a bit
more taxes than the people that are not living on the water, and yet they're not getting the full usage of their waterfront property, the Beckett Bridge. We
have to move the water lines and be prepared for when Pinellas County, you know, can find the funds or the whatever it is that's holding them up. But we
have to be proactive and get that done first. And I know that there's quite a few other things. I know that we're going to run into situations with
Craig Park, and we still have no response or answer of what phase two is going to be like. I don't like I said, I don't want to
take this money, borrow it, and, you know, haphazardly try to do a bunch of little projects and, you know, with the bricks are a
mess on orange. I in my truck, I bounced down there. I think I'm in a milkshake. I mean, it's just horrible. And, you know, that is a when we do our first Friday, that's a street that
everybody goes down. That to me is so important to do. But then again, we also have to be prepared when and I don't know if everyone realizes this up here we do. When you pick up these bricks, it's not just pick
up the bricks, relay the road and put bricks back down. You have to change all the water lines, all the sewer lines. Everything has to be done. So it's not just, you know, moving
bricks. We have situations where we have to realign sewer pipes, make sure that they're draining in the heavy, you know, rains.
There is a lot of projects. And I don't think that we have a $200,000 the funds. So we do have to borrow the money. I
don't think that it's excessive for our ratio. So, you know, do I want to do it? I don't want to go into debt. I like to spend. I personally am a spend what I
have type person I don't borrow, but I think to be responsible as a city commissioner, you do have to. I don't know how we got so far behind in some of these
projects, but we do need to move them forward because people, you know, could always see. They always say, hey, I'm paying a lot of taxes here in this town, and there's so many things that
need to get straightened out. And, you know, as a commissioner, what do you do? You you could keep throwing it at the city manager, but if there's no funds there to do it,
we're the ones that have to just keep shrugging our shoulders and say, you know, it's it'll get done when it gets done. So I am
for borrowing the money, but I really want to see. Exactly. And I and I know this board is going to make good decisions on what it gets spent on. So that's it.
Thank you, Vice Mayor. Okay. Unless there's any other questions of Mr. Herring, thank you very much. There's an item
number five. Miscellaneous. I'm not sure exactly what that is. City manager, do you have any miscellaneous? Do you have anything other that just in case. All right. Well, with that
said, there isn't any commissioner comments or anything at the at this work session. So meeting adjourned at
836. I was right on the money. Right on. Get good at this. What did you do? It goes back to a game that Jeff Larson I had 14 years ago. We would make predictions on when the meeting
would end, and we'd make little stupid bets with the candies. Is passing the time as all it was three. You want to see? You want
to see that? Look at what they took out for that palace of the city. All they built. Absolutely ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. I didn't know it
was. Nothing wrong with that. You're right. Listen, you got to pivot as you go to. Okay? I'll
see you all next week. Yeah, that's. Right. Yeah. I swear, you're like, in your 50s. I don't know, there's something
about you. I just think you're in your 50s, I don't know.