I've never seen that in a coffee shop, by the way. [laughter] >> [snorts] >> See if we connect today. >> So, you're that one Pandora I use your laptop. [laughter] >> No, I use it, too. >> Oh, I use it. I have it running in the background at work.
>> I don't use Spotify. >> You and my parents. [laughter] >> Kyle does Spotify, but I don't I haven't Oh, >> I think you can do like a family update. >> You need to get on that family [laughter] plan. >> Is there was Yeah, I guess I need to
>> You can still do like >> the playlist like you do on Pandora. Like just >> put in a artist and it'll just pick stuff, but you can also listen to whatever you want to. >> Be at my parents house and my dad's like trying to find a song for me for like an
hour. I'm like, that's not going to play it. [laughter] >> It'll come on eventually. Clickers up there. [clears throat] >> Yeah, I got it. >> Check it. Make sure >> and we're live on the >> right. Good evening everyone. I'd like
to go ahead and call tonight's meeting to order. It's 6 pm July 20th, 2026 and this is our second budget workshop. Lori, can I get roll call? >> Mayor Young >> here. Vice Mayor Painter >> here.
>> Council member Brandon >> here. >> Council member Sartorii >> here. Council >> member Stone >> here. >> Thank you. Our first agenda item tonight, agenda item one, discuss our fiscal year 2026 2027 proposed budget and uh any changes and updates we had
from our June budget workshop. >> Jeremy or Jeff? >> Uh yeah, I'll start off just as Jeff um comes up prepares to speak. I'd just like to highlight a few important points. U following the council's discussion and direction at the initial budget workshop on June 15th. Uh our
staff has continued working diligently on the budget, this document remains a work in progress. Um but is much closer to the recommended budget than we were a month ago. We have now received our final tax rules and actively evaluating insurance and pension benefits. Most of
the information presented last month remains unchanged. Jeff will highlight and provide a highle summary and outline of the updates. After Jeff's remarks, I would appreciate just a few minutes to to point out a few additional items that were still addressing prior to the
budget adoption. With that, Mr. Jeff Snyder, our finance director. >> Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. It's a pleasure to be here today and um [snorts] this is going to be great fun. This is like the funnest time of the year, don't you think? I >> I couldn't agree more.
Um, this [clears throat] budget serves as a management guide, a planning document, and a financial road map for the village. So, that's the idea behind it. Um, the manager is real tough on this budget process, and you could ask
any of the department directors. It it is a bit of a a uh tussle, I guess, is a good word. Um, here's the [clears throat] the key dates. We had the strategic initiatives in February. The budget process begins
in March. Um the budget workshop was on June 15th and um you have areas you can see it and today is the second budget workshop on the 20th. Future meetings are September 10 and September 17 and those are the
hearing where we would adopt the budget and the military in earnest. Here's [clears throat] our military history for the last 10 years. Um, a lot of the things on the side there are going to change with if
this, uh, referendum gets passed in the fall. Um, but right now, uh, homestead property is limited to 2.7% increase. That's CPI. Uh, [clears throat] it the last numbers that we got from the county, about 65% of the village
residents are homesteaded. um non-h homesteaded property is is limited to 10% increase as well as commercial property is the same. We've kept our millage rate rather steady. Um so been working on that. Um
significant changes since last year as we got our notice from the final uh assessment from the appraiser. So that increased our taxes in advorum taxes by 59,650
and then we're getting a federal grant and so we're looking at 140,000 more money coming in. Uh so we're excited about that. Uh decrease another thing that was a good news um Northcom we're joining with them and doing their
upgrades and all of that. They came down 37,000 37,500. Uh we did increase overtime for police for the firearms training and then new radio network expenditures and that equated to about 26,000.
[snorts] Um we increased transferred out for Constitution Park uh playground equipment and the grant and that's $676,000. uh [clears throat] we decrease the allocation to reserves by the 483
and that we we're planning to recommend the playground equipment that we talked about that the manager just talked about and then small change there. uh $140,000 and the grant is transferred to capital
so that we can do capital work with it and that's going to be paying help paying for the Northcom radio migration. Um and then the playground equipment we talked about and the increased expenditures are there in the capital project fund.
Here's a look at what it what the budget looks like at this current moment. Uh you see it's $52 million, 52.5 million. Uh $2 million is the increase from last year, 4.2%. And um you can see on the side the
different changes. Uh public safety went up by 587,000 in in salary and personnel costs. General fund wrote rose by 8.6 six by public safety and non-represented employees salaries of 99,000 and we
transferred a million dollars to capital [clears throat] and and uh vehicle replacement fund. Here's what the general fund looks like for sharing salaries, wages, operating expenditures, etc.
Um it's it's really pretty phenomenal when you're below 70% in your employee salaries and wages in the general fund because it is a heavily um people as opposed to stuff
and the [clears throat] uh general property taxes are 65% of our budget this year and you can see how the rest of that goes. [snorts] Here's what we're looking at for uh anticipating projecting for uh
the [clears throat] target bunt uh excess over the target fund balance. So we're looking at about $2.5 million we believe will be there. Um and it remains to be seen. So that's available for one-time capital
type items. And [clears throat] here's the impact of the proposed millage on a single um homesteaded property here in the town. Um and I've just followed along from the time that I got here. So we've been
going up by the amount that it goes up. So this year's uh next year's would be 616,000. Started around half a million. I think it was 550. I don't remember exactly. Um, but you can see that it go the taxes per year for the village will go up by
$104,000 this year for homesteaded property. Our average on that way. [clears throat] Here's the building fund. Um, they've been doing better than proposed usage of their fund balance for quite some time.
So, we're hoping that that continues. If not, there will be some adjustments that we'll have to make there. Um, and [clears throat] here they're ending restricted fund balance. If they use all of their their uh reserves, we'll put them at 287,000 and then
they'll get a chance to do something different. Um, this in this budget includes our five-year capital plan, but we're only really budgeting for next year, the 26 27th. So, you see the budget you're approving. We're just giving you ideas or that what management thinks we need
to do over the next four years after that budget year. Um capital improvement $87,000. Um capital projects which is just general fund basically funded 200 or 2 million. [snorts] And then the special
law enforcement fund that's guessing at 132,000. Here's lists of our projects. Uh the 27, the peachcoled is the one that you're really going to be making decisions on this year. And it as it goes out, you're
seeing what the other ideas are, recommendations. So, the [clears throat] water fund has $15 million in projects. They're very busy. Um capital improvement, we see us
remaining pretty healthy. And that's a sir tax and the utility tax. We'll be using some of that for the uh migration to Northcom projects fund. We're doing well there. We have the old Dixie improvements. Uh
there sidewalk continues streets and the playground. Special law enforcement. This is how they want to use their funding [clears throat] which is restricted. Then our utilities uh refuge and our
enterprise funds uh 23 million for the water utility fund that includes some borrowing and things like that. Uh refuge and recycling we're doing well. And storm water 751. Here's the water utility. We're starting
to spend down a little bit of the money. Um not a bunch of it though. and refuge [clears throat] and recycling. We're building that up just a hair. So, that's uh a good good um trend to be playing with
storm water. Uh we're trying to save up some money for PGO, so we're trying to to hold on to some so that we can do some of the more major projects with cash. I like cash. Cash is king. Um, and then the vehicle replacement fund,
696,000. Um, and this is the cars that that were expecting to purchase or at least were in the plan. Um, you can see that the police cops vehicle um is is probably going to be
[clears throat] building fund. Um, hand-me-down is where we're headed for that one. Um and then [clears throat] decisions uh the millage rate for single or for simple majority 6.1150.
So that's way back down there. Uh millage rate up to 6.7265 2/3 of the the village that's four of you. And then um unanimous up to 6.7 and over 6.7 and then a referendum after
that. And there it is. >> So, we just I'm going to go back a few slides and then I'm going to go forward with a couple of my own, but just to add I feel like color commentator for what was what was done. I know we talked or
Jeff brought up, you know, $2 million increase. Um, a big portion of that, you know, you have old Dixie is $570,000 that we're transferring from our reserves into the general fund budget. So, while it looks like $2 million,
know that we have some transfers in. Um, the capital and street, we transfer those in every year. So, that's $910,000. The capital plan that we have this year, as you guys know, we we lost $670,000 in our sir tax money that we're not
getting as revenue anymore. So, we don't have a a a steady funding for our for our CIP. What we did with the additional $536,000 is we transfer that to capital to pay for so some of those capital expenditures and so we can move forward
with some of those as you guys know um and I'm going to talk about in just a second the Constitution Park was in that we we estimate a million dollars for the renovation of that whole parking or the whole um uh playground structure over there. So, just want to touch on the
capital and even it even touches how it touches the general fund. And so, while it shows $2 million, know that we're transferring some of that in from our fund balance. And so, we're not we don't have a new a full 2 million new new million dollars in new money. Um,
the water utility fund, I know Jeff talked about about spending some down. You know, our intent has always been and will continue to be that we we are trying to get to the point we have several projects in the works that we've had in the works for a long time. The water treatment plant uh we put out for
bid, we we had to go back. We had to reject the bid. We put it back out. Hopefully, we're going to get that project going. That's a $6 million project. And then the water main pro project, the water main three is $5.2 million. We have to put in our plan. We're going to try to go after SRF
funding. The the idea though is that we we we have some projects that we can do pay as you go. So while you're seeing, you know, a $10 million uh net position or $14 million in 27, our intent is that, you know, we're going to get to a
point where stop relying on borrowing money, we can actually start uh pay as you go. And so why it looks like it there is some money there know that [snorts and clears throat] we have several pro you guys know I mean $60 million or $80 million whatever the SR whatever the PAS situation is we have
several projects that we're going to have to bring online pretty quick to just to meet some of the PAS stuff. So um right now we're we're getting some uh interest earnings off of some of that which helps us as well. Um let me see what my next slide was. 20
[sighs] 25. So, the the storm water fund, as you guys know, that's been kind of a thorn for us the last several years. We've we've been really tight with the storm water fund, almost uh um you know, resistance because, you know, we haven't been able to do as many projects.
However, we're finally getting to a point where, you know, we're we're building up that reserves. We we anticipate at the end of 27 we'll have $316,000. you know, it seems like a lot, but that would go quick if we had any kind of emergency repair. Um, we do have a
couple projects similar to last year. We have a couple projects we plan on doing. Um, so we're starting I'm starting to feel a little better about that fund, but we still have a little bit of work to do. Um, let's see. I'm going to [snorts] come back to the vehicle replacement fund as
part of my u next presentation here. Um, this was the part that I was hoping to have a few minutes just to um I'll minimize that in case you guys have questions. Finally have about 60 or 70 slides, so it shouldn't take that long. >> Cool.
>> Um, there's a couple things when we talk about, you know, talk about our budgets and and I think everybody knows this, but I really want I really want it to be out there. Don't go too far, Jeff, in case we have they have questions. um what's changed and when we talk about what's changed is that you know
increased um costs related to inflation I mean electricity costs go up fuel costs go up utility costs go up you guys have seen some of the insurance leadins already materials and supply contractual obligations all those are costs of doing business going up everywhere um so those
are things that um you know they're going to go up you know some of them we have little control over what say the same we've done a really good job of trying to manage service levels, uh, keeping the millage rate the same, you know, keeping our reserve strong. We have very conservative debt, only the
rec center and the general fund and, you know, some of the SRF funding. We've been trying to get that very low interest rate, but we're not borrowing just from the market. We're trying to get our SRF funds, which helps us. And then our pursuit of grants has continued to be strong. And um this was a slide
that the mayor asked for last time when we started talking about we showed a graph with uh salaries and operating costs. This kind of shows everything and then she and I believe I'm not she's here so she can obviously tell me but she wanted to see this in relation to
our millage rate. And so if you look at the red water I guess the filling in that's the millage rate versus what our total expenses are are the bars that go up and down. So, um, you could see that our our our millage rate, our property taxes doesn't cover everything.
And that's I think that's the important part, something to think about is when we start talking about our millage rate, like it our property tax, it doesn't cover everything. We have to find other revenue sources. This the shared sales tax that we get, it's it's based off of your your road miles and your
population. And and you know, to Quest is 2.2 square miles and we have 6,000 people. we get uh you know a limited share of some of those shared revenues and so um I'm not sure I mean in my that's my interpretation of the slide I
mean mayor may have some other thoughts on it but uh the millage rate doesn't cover all of our expenses um couple things that we will be looking for before we adopt this budget some of the things that uh what Jeff presented is still kind of a couple things are
still moving and the replacement radios was one of them uh We we are receiving additional federal aid that we're getting um and that we're using trying to use that that money for radios. We are expecting to get an additional um
additional lump sum in this year's budget. So we may be reducing the radio revenue and expenditure in the capital as we look at that. So it' be a minor change. We're trying to um we should be receiving some money this year. the vehicle replacement fund. Um, I'm going
to go into that. The we are going to pitch or talk a little bit about tonight and get direction from council uh doing an impact fee study and raising our impact fee. I have a slide or two on that. The construction uh park uh constitution park capital expenditure,
the waste treatment plan, we have a a change that we're going to make in there. And then of course our final health and property and casualty insurance are still ongoing. So, the vehicle replacement fund from what um Mr. Snyder proposed, the police pickup truck that's in your guys' packet that
we have on here, we're going to take that one off um with the new boat lift that we have. Um and we we're not going to have the the necessity, I'll say, for that truck. And so, we can take it off. It's in pretty good shape. It's, you
know, it's at 10 years, but without having to, you know, move the the boat around a lot, I think that'll save someone some wear and tear. So, we're going to take that one off and and transition it off. So, that should save on that. The other one that just wanted to highlight and Mr. Snyder started that
the police COV COP vehicle uh we're going to one of the uh building department vehicles that we're getting that's going to move over to the cop. We still have to pay um we have to pay the building department for that. So the general fund has to pay for it. We don't
know that it's going to be $30,000. We'll we'll what we have to do when we get ready to transfer that over. We have to get a a true value of what it is on the market today. So it could be less than $30,000, but we'll we'll bring hopefully bring that back to you with
some updated numbers. Uh the impact fee um as you guys know when development when a development occurs or redevelopment um the developer has to pay impact fees for police, fire and parks and recreation. Um and usually
charge once paid by new development or redevelopment and it should be used for capital expenditures um infrastructure. You can even purchase some property with it. Um, and so instead of, you know, shuffling that burden to to to your
residents, the development pays their fair share. So, um, I think it even says there you can buy land, constructing facilities, acquiring vehicles, equipment. Um, you can't use it for reoccurring costs, ongoing operation, maintenance costs, staff salaries, or
fire existing services. Um, and it has to be a rational nexus for for the use, and there's a statute that governs that. Currently we charge these we charge the developments um $86 you see fire $86 these are our posted rates we already
charge these um but as we and we looked at this like four or five years ago should we do it should we not and at the time and it didn't come for official council vote but I had some conversations and at the time we didn't think there was a there was really a lot of juice to the squeeze so to speak so
we we didn't do cuz we're going to have to pay um initiate a study. You have to do a study. It's going to cost probably in the grand of 20 to $30,000. And so we didn't know that there was a lot of um a lot of value for doing that
to pay 20 or $30,000 for for this. But what we're seeing, and I know Jupiter just had this conversation, so I'm going to use their slide, um but our our fire impact fee is $87 compared to what you see everybody else doing. And [snorts] so, uh, I think it's probably time to to
look at that. And like I said, this is not an impact to our residents is not new. So, the Senate Bill 180 would not affect this. We can still implement it. We just renew. We just do it through an impact study. So, we're going to bring you guys a proposal back or if you guys
give us direction that you guys are okay with that, we can mark this as a discussion point of of looking at going to get a couple quotes for somebody to do an impact fee study. update for us and then we can increase those. If you look at that, you can also based on
commercial size of commercial. So, some of the redevelopment with some of the commercial spaces will also contribute to fire and police. You can't do it for parks and wreck for commercial, but you can for police and fire services. So, that'll be a discussion point for us to to look at, see if you guys want to
update that um and we can include that in the budget. um Constitution Park playground. Um it is on our capital plan. You can review that on clear gov on our document. Now it has all this information just talking about the need.
Um it is a 20-year-old playground. If you've been out there, you've you know you've you've seen it. Uh we've had to replace a couple of the sections of slides over time. It's just new. I mean, it's just due for for replacement. Um like I said, it is 20 years old. So, uh,
we originally had in the in the capital projects for $1 million. Um, we broken it up into two different sections. Um, we did get an updated quote since the last time we just put in that we were going to, you know, it was in the million-doll range. I knew we were going to need to break it down. So, we went
and got a got a cost for what it is just to replace the the five by 5 to 12 age playground on the I don't know. I guess I'm not my directions, but looking if you're coming in the do side, the left side, the larger one with all the kids play. Even the smaller kids go over to
the big one cuz it's more fun. Um, that's the one that really needs some work. It's also got the swings over there. And so we we went through there and got a budget item. Um, and we we did the playground. The surface on there is a pour in place, which is that rubbery type feel that you see in a lot of
playgrounds. Has very low maintenance. Um and so we got a quote for uh 659,000. Uh we have budgeted 536. So um we plan would just use some of our reserves that we have in our capital fund balance to
make up to $123,000 unless council gives us direction and wants us to go reduce the budget down. We could look at alternatives like turf or mulch. Um and those would reduce reduce the the budget. However, it will increase maintenance over time when
you're having to redo. Mulch is the absolute cheapest, but you're going to have to there's going to be maintenance over time and always be replacing the mulch. Um, just a couple pictures of the upgra updated playground. You'll see that surface. You can put it any colors
you want. Uh, obviously, um, this surface, even when it heats up, it doesn't get super hot. Um, it's very low maintenance. If a section for some reason gets damaged, you can replace just a small section versus if you put turf in, you might have to like take out
a whole section of turf um to to make it look uniform. Um and then to replace the the shade structures and over there by the swings. So overall that that's kind of the uh big picture for it. The I think the last
one on here is a water treatment plant concentrate header and Allison's here so if I stumble she can help. But um we our current project we have $175,000 to replace a deteriorated section of fiberglass reinforced plastic. Um we are
programmed to proactively following a prior failure um of the feed water header section to replace an aging infrastructure before the further fails. Um during um Kimley Horn going out and doing some of the the evaluation, we found that we had uh a section that was
leaking and another section needed to be replaced. And so before we bring you guys the adopted budget, we would be uh increasing that item from 175,000 uh to 400,000. We do have that those section
to be replaced as part of the PAS project. It was scheduled for 28. We're we're because of this condition they're in moving those up, do them together, and we'll save some money for mobilization. Um so we'll help save a little bit of money on that part. So
we'll have >> Sorry, can you put that slide back one more time? How much was it? >> It's gone to 400. Okay. >> Um, so it's consistent still with our five years. It is in our five-year plan. Um, lower construction cost, few
operational impacts if we're doing it all at one time, we can do that. And then uh hopefully, you know, obviously the system reliability is very important um to us. So that's something for decision point as long as you guys are good. But we'd be bringing that back to you. Um there's
nothing going to fail today. So let put take that off the table. Um but it is something that we do want to create a sense of urgency for as we move forward. Um and so we'll stop there. That's the budget. That's item one. I specifically
separated the two. While they can be combined, if there's discussion points, I really wanted to make sure that we were still um in line where we where we were going with a budget and where council there's a couple decision points, discussion points that you guys
can give direction on and then we can transition into some of the property tax referendum impacts and and considerations. And if they tie into the first budget item, you know, we can always take a step back. But um I guess turn it over to you, Mayor.
>> Thank you. All right, council will open up for discussion. >> I don't have any comments. Um I think it's very thorough. Um we'll talk about the item number two when that comes up, but um you know, I have always to taken the position of deferring to staff. You
guys know what we need best. I think it's been very thorough. I think the department heads have their finger on the pulse of what they need. And uh if this is where we're at, this is where we are. I mean, I don't have any recommended changes >> regarding the playground. Um I mean, that was here before we moved
here, so it's definitely been 20 years plus. Is staff asking to remove the mulch and go with the rubber? >> Yes, the rubber. Yes. We know at least from council's past consideration, you know, while turf is an option, we know
that that wasn't really a viable option just because, you know, our council stance on on turf in the past. Um, but if you've been to a lot of playgrounds lately, like this this surface is kind of the way to go. It's kind of the trend because of the the lease maintenance. If
a kid [snorts] falls, I mean, it's very, you know, it's very friendly because it's kind of a rubbery surface, right? like versus if you fall in the the mulch and you know doesn't catch the mulch right like you you could get scraped up. This this kind of helps a little bit. It's a kind of a a better surface.
That's our recommendation. If if if council wants to go with mulch, we will absolutely can do mulch. >> I mean, I personally like the mulch and I've never heard [snorts] too many complaints um about our park being mulch. I would only ask um regarding the
rubber and since so many other parks have it, there has to be some data on how much they have to cut pieces or maintenance it or if a kid throws up on it or other things on it like we've seen at parks. What does that entail
costwise um fixing those spots? Like again, so I'm thinking mulch is so much easy. If there's an issue, you dig out that one section, you replace it. It's very earth friendly. It holds moisture. it cools. I mean, it's natural and that Constitution Park was always kind of known to be more
natural. So, like, if they're really looking at rubber, if they would just make sure they do look at the data from other parks on maintenance rather than just spraying it down, what does it cost to cut out sections and what is the timeline on that? You have to shut down
the whole park for x amount of days and vice versa. Just so I feel like just so that way out of fairness we can balance which one really is more economical especially considering what we're in right now. That's it. >> Understood. >> What authority requires us to get a
study on the impact fee. >> What authority like there's a statute that that governs it. I'd have to pull that statute from you. But in order to have impact you have to have a study that shows um what
you know you have to all your capital expenditures number of people you know what that those costs are and then there's there's a rational nexus that has to be provided >> and does that company that provides that study have a certification of some sort
to be able to do that study >> what I'm getting at is this something that we can use AI to help generate I was told no, but let me let me get I'll pull the exact statue for you and we can look at that. But I was told that you had to have a consultant do it for
you, but I don't you know to your point like what what is that what qualifies you to do that? But I'll I'll get you that. >> Okay, that was it. Everything else looks great. >> Yeah, I don't really have any uh big questions. I think it very thorough. Um,
you know, I guess on the playground I [clears throat] I can see the advantages of going with the uh I guess it's rubber, right? >> Um, and I don't know if you I I know there was a piece on there that said you could go out to get additional pricing for
turf or mulch. Mhm. >> Do we know what of that 659 um the rubber surface? >> No, haven't haven't got there yet. Alls I know is that I was, you know, when we started, you know, this is within the la
since the last budget workshop when we had those discussions, you know, we kind of we had that conversation where there was, you know, $536,000 that we could give back the taxes. At that point, we were really making sure
that we had council direction that we weren't going to lower the taxes. A lot of it because of the November election, we were conservative. So once we knew that we were going to use that use those funds, that's when we really turned up the heat about going to get an official, you know, an updated quote other than
the million dollars in our capital fund that we could that we can do that. So um we can we can have that for you. Um and we can have that discussion about looking at what those costs are un you know to get them down um with turf or
mulch. I I get the impression that now we're just talking about either the rubberized or mulch because I don't think there's a passion to do turf, right? >> Not for me. >> I'm indifferent. I think the price difference is going to be pretty I mean
it's probably less than the rubber, but the mulch is going to be the big delta, >> right? >> Um but no, I I I can certainly see the advantages of going with the rubber. I just know we're trying to look at every single dollar at this point. So, um, but no, otherwise I
have no other questions. >> You know, we replaced the mulch about seven years ago. >> Oh, we are always replacing mulch. I mean, you you never it never stops. I mean, I think when we had I think when you're referring to I think we had a really bad >> rain flood at the time we had the the
storm water that was over there had got clogged up too. So, that whole part got flooded and we did that. I think a lot of the mulch got washed away because that is the lowest point in all the village that that park is. So, you know, you're you're always probably going to fight that when we have really heavy
rains is that park's going to get flooded first. Um but um I think to your point, we we did do that where we play had to replace all of it. >> Okay. I don't remember what year. >> I vaguely remember that. >> Yeah, me too. >> Have we received a ton of complaints
about mulch like from residents, parents? No, I don't think that's that. I can't remember any specific um I know we've had I know we had some some concerns like underneath the swings
with that how underneath there it kind of got as they were swinging, you know, kind of wore down underneath there. But I think we fixed it pretty quickly. >> That's turf under the swing, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Um I mean I do agree with what council member Brandon said. I do feel like that
park's like a more it's always been kind of like a natural feeling park. So if we can maintain that um if a if mulch is more affordable as well as the maintenance compared to the rubber or mulch like maybe just get
us that information so we can kind of give final direction. um the impact fees. So, it's been, you know, our last meeting we talked about raising fees and did vote to raise fees. I mean, before we're talking about new
fees, so it's getting hard to stomach all these continued. We're going to be increasing fees. Um it and I know you said it doesn't impact the residents, but it does it's impacting the ones that are going to be building or businesses that will be
building. Correct. Yeah. So, a development will pay more. So, it could it could roll into those people who move into those areas, whether commercial or or single family. >> Right. So, if someone's building their own home, like they're going to be hit
with that up front. >> Yes. >> Right. So, it does technically impact our residents and potentially businesses. Um, I need to think about this some more since this was just presented to us tonight. How does us
making any changes to that? Would it uh affect any future decisions we might want to make on a mobility fee? Because I know that's been on hold because of the SP180. How do those two intertwine?
>> So, the mobility fee would be a new fee, which so we're not allowed to charge that currently because of SB180. These are existing fees and so we've already even got a legal opinion that it is legal to update these through the study and and implement these if because
the mobility fee be new. We have to wait on that. >> But even right agree but so but they they are totally independent. If we change one it's not going to impact any future. >> No I think it probably will have some synergy where um we have some of the
data. I mean, the mobility stuff, there's al obviously different projects. Um, but there I'm sure there'll be some data that can be used and and multiplied to get to get to the number. But, um, the mobility stuff, all the projects on there are completely separate than any
of three uses that these departments would have. >> Okay. So, there's so there's no synergies with what we can pay with the impact fees versus what we could pay for with the mobility fees. [clears throat] >> I don't I don't think they're going to be completely separate. Again, it's like that's been that one has been on our strategic plan. Again, that's another
fee. So, I kind of want to like weigh the options. Um, is this is this worth it to increase if we're going to also do mobility fees? I I think we need to look at everything collectively and the impact we are really making overall on the residents and businesses. So, again,
I just need to think about it some more. >> And and I say that because you caught me cold with the question. I mean [clears throat] there there could be some synergy with like parks and wreck where we have the trails and things that go through remembrance park and you know part of our mobility plan had that connectivity. So maybe there's some
synergy but in theory they're all it's a different list of projects but some of the projects might might connect a little bit. So >> maybe like like Kyle or council member stones a third in AI see what it see what it says in comparison and if there are synergies so we can make you know an
educated decision on this knowing that we we've had this strategic plan for a while for mobility fee. >> Yeah. So in my mind you know this is we were going to come back we'll get three quotes um you know 20 or $30,000 we'll put it in the budget or we don't and you guys can make that decision. Obviously,
we can have some I'll give you guys all that data and and answers to your questions and then um that would be a change to the budget if we do do that. Okay. And the three three months of reserve um I know I've said the past couple years I think three months isn't even
enough compared to some changes FEMA's made to to see what our uh other cities in the state have gone through during a disaster. Um, and in light of potential property tax reform, I know he it was
just a resolution for the 3-month reserve, right? Like how how could that ever be changed or could is this something like future councils can can they just easily take from that three months of reserves or is it no one's
touching it? Like what what would it take for someone to have to take away from that three months reserve? So council has policy decision in this in this regard. I mean you guys can change adapt anything. Our the the policy reads
that we need to at least have 3 months. So typically anything that's spent from is allocated from that takes council approval as well. I mean we don't just go and I mean spend the money out of that fund balance unless there's a budget item that we're bringing to you.
So there's two parts for for council is the policy part which if you guys want to raise it from 3 months to 6 months because of you know just you know the the safety net um that part or any expenditure to come out of there typically would always come to council.
I mean I don't I can't ever think of a situation that would come up that we wouldn't throw a budget like old Dixie on there and show you guys that it's coming out of fund balance reserve. It's not going to be if we needed to use that to balance a budget, you guys would see
that too. We would rarely ever do that unless this November thing hits and you know we were in some kind of crazy situation. But um I can't ever imagine any kind of situation that you guys wouldn't have authority to of those expenditures. >> But with the policy right now, can could
future council just going, well, you know what, we need the money. we're gonna take from this three-month reserve or would they have to update the policy or is there I mean do we have like voting I don't think we have voting requirements my point is like do we need to put guard rails around it because if
property tax reform >> does pass I would hate even us up here right now to take to start dipping in that three months reserves because I think it's critical to always maintain I mean could you put like supermajority vote requirements on that or just throwing this out for discussion because
it does concern that that could start be you know people could dip into it if property tax reform happens. If it doesn't I would actually like to see the policy increase it to 4 months. >> So way the policy reads that if it dips below the 3 months I have to immediately
notify you guys and I have to have a plan to bring us above back up 3 months which wasn't done in the past when it fell below two months. And when I got here, we did that. I notified you guys. We I had to have an action plan on how we're going to get it above. So, if it
fell below three months, I have an obligation to tell you guys it's below three months. But it sounds like today if this council, another council wanted to, they'd have to change the policy and then in order to not let it go below 3
months. >> There's there's no penalties going against the policy. >> Yeah, that was happening when we when before Jeremy got here. It was well below policy. >> Just violating policy and nothing happens. >> So you can make it stringier in that you might have to make a comment at every council meeting
that or below policy and let the mayor make that comment, you know, >> or if anyone wants to on the dis dip into it like it'd have to be like supermajority vote or something. I don't I don't know. Like I said, let's just I throwing out there food for thought,
especially if property tax reform passes because um that'll be very very bad for the village if that starts to get um chipped away at. >> Yes. So, I would support that. Um
personally, like off the top of my head, I don't know what the legal allowances are for guard rails as you call them, what our limitations would be. But when I think about the towns that got hit and a town doesn't have enough reserves, like that's not fair to the people. So I
think it is smart if we keep the policy and then put some sort of public noticing so that the people know that their money is depleting quickly and they won't be safeguarded if something happens. Does that make sense? Okay. >> Yeah. Maybe just toss it around. >> Yeah. We'll see what if there's any
other cities that have anything better or stronger. And I mean Jeff and I can we can come up with some options for you guys or tell you there's not many options other than you guys have the authority. But I'm sure we can change it to supermajority any of that. That would take but let us we'll work on it. I I
understand these. >> You just want to be careful that you don't put too many strings on it that you can't use it too in a time of need. >> Right. >> That's Yeah, that's kind of what I'm saying. Like I don't know all the different legal options. >> Yeah. >> Off the top of my head. I agree. >> Yeah. We'll let we'll let them but you guys get what I'm saying though, right?
It is like cuz if if you know property tax reform passes and then you know who knows what's going to happen after that and then that that chunk of reserves might start looking good. >> Okay. All right. Any other discussion on agenda item one?
>> No ma'am. >> Any comment cards, Lori? Any public comment? >> No. All right. We'll move on to agenda item two. uh council workshop discussion on the property tax referendum impacts and fiscal considerations.
>> Thank you, mayor. Um so [snorts] coming out of our last workshop, I think one of the one of the themes that I got out of or one of the I guess direction is that really wanted the staff to really start looking at what it looks like in the future and you know maybe
it'll help with our residents so they understand it. So, I I kind of I say I stumbled onto this one on a weekend or whatever, but the new Florida statutes is going to require us every year to do a 10% exercise. And that's going to be a requirement that we have to do the
exercise and post it. And so, we also know that the impacts to the village of Toquesta is going to be 13%. It's going to be 10% one year and 3% the other. So, it's a really good exercise for us to look at this anyways because this is
what it's going to look like come January when we when we start doing is whether regardless of this pass or not. So, even if it does pass, we still have to find another 10% that we're going to have to do an exercise for. So, with all that being said, um we did we I've put
this to staff and I said that we due to the new ballot measure as all of you guys know the impacts. I won't go through through those. Um, but as you know, we what this means for Toquesta is that you know that it's going to impact the village operating, the county general operating, the county fire, the
library, children's services, find all those services show up on the village of Tquest, the tax bill. And I just want I put it in red just so you guys know this was an exercise. This is not what staff is recommending. If we get to a point where council directs staff to make cuts
or make recommendation for cuts, it might look completely different. And because there's a lot of things on here that I didn't completely vet that are very concerning to me, but the the object was for staff is to make cuts up
to 13% without affecting staff. And so, as you guys will see from this exercise, it's very difficult to do that. Um, and I think on one of these next slides, and we'll get there, you know, we have $20.58 million budget for this year. We
didn't we we didn't do it based off of the next 27's budget. We did bid off this year's just to see what it look like. Um, because we didn't know at the time and we still don't know what next year's budget will look like completely. Um, but you have basically operating of
$5.84 million in operating expenses. The rest of it is all personnel out of that 20.58. So if you take away the 2/3 and I know somewhere in here I think it had 80% and you know it's type error or bad math on my part but twothirds of it
contractual or fixed audits insurance utilities Northcom software things that you can't touch. It really only leaves $1.97 million in discretionary. And when I say discretionary, I use that very very
loosely and hate the word discretionary because what you're talking about is trainings and uh ADA compliance and uh the newsletters, you know, all the stuff that, you know, the village takes for granted, you know, um and you know,
general park maintenance, those are discretionary, but we use those. And so, uh, when I when I say it's discretionary, I use it very loosely because, um, I don't believe it's really discretionary. So, we only had $1.97 million in discretionary
funds. The object is to get to $1.9 million. So, if you scrapped basically everything out of there, and what our staff did is went through and tried to get to as low as they can get without without shutting down their department [clears throat] um, with zero money. Um,
we're still $755,000 gap and and that is even with these cuts that I don't recommend it is cutting our services to where they basically have nothing. I mean, a perfect example, my department, I would have zero dollars
for training, zero dollars for travel. Um, we in this exercise, we also cut our lobbyists. We cut discretionary funds for counsel. So if the state really is going to hand out money for us or we have to go ask the state for money, we got no money to even go ask him for
money because we got no lobbyists, no discretionary funds, and no money for me to go up there. So there's a lot of that where there's a there's a cut that basically limits that what how effective we can even really be. And that's still leaving a gap of $755,000.
That's deferring maintenance and deferring some capital. So, we'd be cutting some of our roads and sidewalks, not all of it, just cut it 13%. Cut our vehicle replacement fund 13%. You'll see that. I mean, it still leaves us uh pretty short.
You guys have this slide, so I won't really go too much in this, but this is each what you know over under uh the target. So, each department had a 13% target. This is what they cut. Some of them, you know, like information technology and village council, you guys
were good. Um, we cut the discretionary funds 15,000. You know, we can we can live another day. Uh, the finance department, you know, they they we have a freeze on a position right now. Um, so that's why you're seeing them in the positive. You know, I obviously have
concerns about that that transparency and all that. And we we're going to try to make that work at least through November and see see how that works out for us. But the rest of the departments are are can't get there without without starting to talk about personnel. The
two biggest departments, fire and police, if you look at the target for fire department, $812,000 is a 13% cut without getting into contractual or personnel, they could only get to 80,000. And I will say even with that, they're deferring some of their replacement of their hoses, replacement
of some of their some of their smaller equipment is deferring that. So at some point it has to come back. I mean, you can't you can't defer it forever. Same thing with police department. Uh there was even a thing or two that I had to give back to the chief because we had a conversation. I was like, "Look, you
can't cut gas and oil." Like that that's going up. But he was trying to give like 5,000. I'm like, "Let's not let's not do that cuz that's not realistic." I mean, um and who knows what gas and oil is going to do in the future as as we move forward. So just these are some of the
just highlighting a few that come up but I mean we eliminate sequest you know public works landscaping and reduce that. So you know we obviously have to take on some of that responsibility with our staff. We are looking at freezing a position in public works that may be
coming open. So we're not only removing some of the landscaping contractual but then we're removing staff and we just added remembrance park to them last year. So these are some of the unintended are some of the things that we really have to take another look at as far as those level of service cuz
they're the ones taking on remembrance park and some of that that responsibility. The keys program, nautical club, family night out, that was all part of that $30,000 that they were pulling out of their budget. Those would be gone. Those are like our favorites, right? Like but um we just those would be some of the things that
we'd reduce. So, we're not talking about people, IT, security, um, you know, internship and any of my training programs, those were gone, which, you know, not a huge deal. We can make make that work. Um, and then, but I think a big concerning from a management
standpoint is, you know, there was a saying, I'm going to try to get this right. It should have rode down because I'm bad with sayings. But, you know, you can you can train people and they leave or you can not train them and they stay. We're going to have very uninformed un untrain, you know, people that are on. We're not going to have any training
budgets. We have ADA compliant. We have websites. Every time they come in, we we typically do some training. So, um even trainings for, you know, IT security, how to, you know, um uh picked out the some of the security stuff. I mean,
we're going to be really uh having some tough conversations with with some of the training programs. So, staff's not recommending the IT security. The number one threat to uh to municipal governments today is IT security, cyber security. Um that one's a big one and
we'll be talking about reducing some of our some of our software to make that happen. Do not recommend reducing staff from that, you know, that department. We have two full-time staff. I think they work 110%. Um you can't cut it down to one. I mean, we'd never be able to take
a vacation. I think even now Brad is answering phones on vacation at times. So, it's a very critical position. I know we looked at like what it would cost to to maybe contract that out. I would never I don't think I would ever get to the point recommending that. We
can look at it, but we will not get the bang for the buck um for what it cost us to run it with two people. Um fire equipment maintenance deferral, police department. Um you know, these are things that we'd have to really take another look at because I think it, you know, we're handcuffing oursel. Uh the
finance department capacity is a little bit of a concern. Cut it down to four. Um could we do it? We'll see in the next couple months. And then I you know the biggest one that you know she's here so she you know not doing that for her. But the majority of the cuts she cut down to almost zero just so she we weren't
talking about staffing. Um we're talking about no ADA compliance which that's a mandate coming in a year that we have to meet. We don't have any it's an federal obligation that we have. Um we're talking about cutting all that out. no training, no uh the newsletter got cut
cut out, the smoke signals, things like that that we've been we've been doing, you know, that that department also handles a lot of PIO stuff. So, um not going to be all put out a lot of PIO stuff without without any kind of budget. So, a lot of lot of concern with
this budget exercise. Um closing the remaining gap. There's I mean there's there's some options and I don't know why that turned out green but they were supposed to be blue like the other ones but staffing levels service levels public safety capacity we haven't really
you know wanted to talk about touching those at least in my conversations infrastructure maintenance you know deferring more um technology risk tolerance like are we willing to take more risk um health insurance and pension we you know we are talking about
health insurance. We're doing some analyzing some of the pension benefits and if there's something that we can do that would help us save on some of that in the future. Uh that'll have to be a conversation that we have. Um and of course property insurance, are we willing to take increased risk um to
lower deductibles and some of that. I know Mr. Stone brought some of that up. Um, I was told like two years ago we did that exercise and we actually cut out. We don't have trailers and things like that on our insurance. They're working on and they may have already sent it to
me a list of things that are on there versus aren't and we're not seeing a lot of those smaller stuff. We will look at options still because that's council direction about raising some of the deductibles and some of that to see if we can save some money. Um, so this is an exercise um, just so I
think everybody can see some of the potential. Um, I just stress, you know, and and for anybody that's listening, like a lot, and I've said everybody before we even started this exercise before we started, a lot of what the what what's in the village budget,
there's not I mean, kudos to our council um, and our staff. We don't have a lot of discretionary programs. We don't have a lot of the community programs other than some of our wreck stuff. We don't we don't have a lot of that. So there's
not a lot. Our budget's really lean. And so you're seeing a majority of it I mean what 80 something% is either going to be personnel contractual or fixed. So you're talking about 20% of our budget is I guess prime for the cutting which
you know to is 1.97. We need to cut 1.9. So, we need to look at other options. We we're looking at, you know, we have a whole running list of things that we can consider. My recommendation now is, you know, consider to monitor some of the legal challenges out there. Consider to,
you know, continue to educate people on what this means for the village. Um, and, you know, looking at what what we can do on the short term without affecting this year's budget, but you know, talking about a couple freezing the positions. We're we're going to be talking about some of the health
insurance. Continue to try to hedge a little bit without without going all out. Um and just continue to look for for you know different revenue sources or avenues. That would be my recommendation at this point. The last I think it's the last set of slides. When we talk about personnel
should have probably put it in the middle, but we have 116 employees. If you remove utilities, building, storm water, those departments, you're down to 86 employees. If you want to leave police and fire alone,
you're down to 34 employees, which now as of probably tomorrow, um or or shortly after, we'll be down to 32 employees. So, you're looking at 32 employees that you would have. We're we're removing um this from five down to
four and one of the public works position will likely be transferred over to water utility. So that'll be down to seven. So if you look at even leisure services 8.49 now this is FTE so you have a lot of part- timerrs that add up
to 8.49. They're full four full-time staff. One is a park maintenance two full-time staff and then Greg. So they're a pretty shoestring budget as it is. So if you look at just the departments, I mean, um, actually this will be down, this is down to one with
this upcoming budget, we reduce down to one code compliance officer. So you're down to 31.7 employees out of all 11 departments. So when you look at like, you know, skin on the bone, there's not or meat on the bone, there's not a lot left when you're
talking about people. I mean, you're talking about one or two people per department except for public works and leisure services, which we just talked about, and four in finance. So, um, everything else is one or two employees. So, there's not even there's not a lot there. If you don't want to touch pull
up public safety, um, then there's not a lot left on the on the bone for that. I wish we could have ended with a budget conversation. is much more positive than this. But, um, I'm open to any discussion. If you want to tie it back into the budget, we can, however you
want to do it. Um, just know that that was kind of the direction you guys wanted to at least see what that looked like. And I I feel like it's a good representation of where we're at. >> Thank you. Council, open it up for discussion. >> Yeah, I I agree. um tremendous effort by
staff and I think you know right now I don't have a a recommendation to to move forward with any of that. I think we wait and see. Um it's I think the data is going to rem and and the information is going to is going to remain pretty
much the same as we move into November. But, um, you know, I think your staff did an amazing job and and I've always said that, you know, there's bad actors in the municipal world, but there's none here. And I think we are as thin as we can be. And if this happens and we have
to really find a way to make it work, it's going to be painful. But I don't I think that's the data that you've given us is where we'll need to move forward. But I don't think I don't have a recommendation to move forward at this time with it. I think it's great information. It's there. It's ready for us. it can be updated on, you know,
November 5th or whatever the date is that we might need to start taking some action. But I think it's great and and again a testament to what your leadership and what you've done to lead the team to get to this so quickly. So, thank you. >> I have no questions or comments. I think
it was pretty self-explanatory. >> I got some. Um, so I don't think it's going to be as uh let's say it does pass. I don't think it's going to be as traumatic as what we all think it's going to be because I do think it's opportunity for adding additional
revenue sources or even just increasing the millage rate um to to cover the costs associated with providing the service. [snorts] I think what the what your presentation definitely shows and and um council mentioned is everything's done very very well already from
operating side um where [snorts] there's not necessarily opportunity but the only options are is going to be on you know overall salaries overall hourly rates that's that's about the only place you could could cut um I don't think we're
heavy in personnel um that's so there and salaries and >> [snorts] >> and or benefits are your two options and there's only so much you can do there too or you're not going to have good morale or you're going to lose employees. So, um for me having the
ability to see where as as a taxpayer where my taxes go and what they're used for, I think is really the great opportunity here to clean clean that up. So, there's not a lot of where is this money? Oh, it's in the general fund. It's all going in one spot
kind of a thing. That's where I I like the non-advelorm options. That's why I like um when somebody uses something, they they pay for it. That's where I think where we can really kind of just have it properly allocated sources of revenue coming in is going to be the
improvement that I think is going to be good. So that way in the future if there is an increase in whatever, you're going to know exactly where it's coming from um as a taxpayer and and you can ask those questions at that at that moment. So, I like where we're headed and I
think we'll be fine. >> Yeah. No, I I like that we're being proactive. I agree with Council Member Sator. I think we just have to wait and watch. Um but good that we're thinking about all this. Frustrating that we're
having to think about cutting our [clears throat] costs in such a way that we can't maintain our fire hoses. Um and that we're being put in this situation to even consider that. Um but yeah, I think we just have to wait and see leading up
to November. >> Yeah, I think um thank you for the effort. I think it's a good snapshot. Um I mean, I think we can all say it's not realistic, right? I mean, we can't just continue to defer maintenance indefinitely because some of it's defer maintenance, some of its capital
projects aren't happening. Like those things have to happen eventually. So, you know, potentially the closing the gap slide that you have. I mean, those are going to probably have to be looked at and assessed. Um, you know, I mean, do we re renegotiate existing contracts and try to, you know, negotiate
[clears throat] those down? I don't know how that works in the government world. I know that's not as easy to do as in the private sector, but, you know, do we go to purchasing? Again, don't know how it works because I know you have like government contracts for cars and government pricing, but can we buy like one or two, you know, prey year old
pre-owned cars? anything we can think of to save money like we're we're we need to be saving pennies at that point, right? So, I think um it's a great start. You know, if if we get to the point where the reform passes, we're going to have to look into into [clears throat] many other things. Um
because like I said, you're eventually you're going to have to pay for the maintenance and the capital projects. Um, yeah. I mean, like you said, I had it literally on my notes is you removed lobbyists, but you also removed travel and discretionary funding. So, if we're
having to advocate for appropriations at the state, how is that even happening? So, again, as I said, it's like it's a it's a good snapshot, but we need to kind of uh may have to dig in some more. And I think too, like if it does pass council is going to have some tough decisions, too. Like, do do we really just want to up and raise the miller
rate for those remaining people that are paying? Like that's not an easy discussion either. And like I said, all these fees we've been talking about, you know, I think most of us been like wait and see. We want to be proactive. We want to know what the moves could be. But again, it's like, well, here's relief, but we're going to charge you this fee, this fee, this fee. And those who are still paying, we're raising your
military. Like that's a tough pill to swallow in our seat, too. I don't, you know, we're going to have potentially some tough discussions there as well. Um, I was curious. Oh. Oh, one more thing, too. when it comes to, you know, if you have to look at some of the closing the gap categories that you had
on that slide, you know, I'm sure in your manager meetings, you guys are all going to be talking about that. So, you would think potentially everyone might be trying to do the same thing. So, you know, you might trying to stay competitive across the board. It's going
to be so it's going to vary so much with every city though because of you know we all have different homestead percentages and you know the loss of revenue is going to be so different. But I would think I would hope that the managers you know through that organization that you guys are going to be coming up with some
pretty smart ideas too. >> I hope so. >> I hope so. >> I'm sure you're on that road. [laughter] >> And then I was just curious. So you know you did outline uh on the staff memo which is great. So, um, those who are paying attention and reading this see,
you know, the county general operating, the the library, children's services, fine, Jupiter inlet district, healthcare district, South Florida Water Management District, they're all affected, too. Have you heard anything from any of these different taxing districts, what their plans are, how that's going to
affect our residents? >> No, I mean, obviously, I've followed the county um, and I've watched some of their meetings. I have not some of those other entities. I don't think they streamed their meetings and I have not um I haven't reached out but I mean if you want I can just pick their brain a
little bit and see how they're going to manage the situation just so you guys have it for our residents information as well. I mean it's part of the big picture too because say something happens to library people might be looking at us like why why is library you know not being taken care of or
closing down or some you know and so again it's going to it's going to be good to know what some of our other um stakeholders are doing you know Jubra Inlet District we all know um everything that's been going on there and like are they going to have money to do what they
need to do with inlet so that impacts a lot of our residents so I think any information you can get and we can you know um stay informed that will help as well. >> I' I'd be curious to find out let's say this this mill rate does or the the
property tax does pass and it is reduced. How much will we have to raise tax to stay even? >> I think >> say that one more time. I'm sorry. >> How much will we have to raise the millage rate to stay even? >> If this passes you told us that it was like 7 Yeah.
>> 7.1 or something like that. You you calculated a new mill rate. Yeah, it was I have that it's like 7.1. I showed it at our last budget meeting like if we just wanted to, you know, say we're going to keep exact same thing. We're not, you know, cutting anything from the budget. I think it was like 7.1 and that
was actually given to us by the appraisal district. I think I didn't we didn't necessarily calculate. They they've been great. Um I don't think other counties are getting the same same kind of analysis that our our county appraiser has given us. tonight and I
say that with pretty good confidence. They've been on the spot with with really trying to make sure that we have this data. >> Yeah. >> And uh the other the other thing I would there's a couple points is that um look [snorts] for look for increased homestead exemptions between now and
January 1. You know, people that have the ability or November really, but I think it takes it would take effect January 1. people other people if they have if they don't have a homestead in another state they'll get it here or if they have another state and think it's more advantageous they'll try to try to
figure out a way I know there's some additional requirements that they're going to have to do to prove their homestead so um I think they'll tighten that up. The other thing that um we've already alluded to a little bit and Jeff had on his presentation is now with budgets and I know our council's talked
about keeping our millage rate the same this year to see how it goes but with budgets you have to start with your roll back rate now and so what the state did intentional unintentional I don't know but you know you you have this you know
you have this this uh reduction but you also have to start at a at a lower rate and in order to pass something more than your roll back rate you have to have four to one. So that's why I talk about it's really important that we have dialogue to make sure that we're on the
same page and if we're not you know we need to have more meetings or more discussion so we make sure we're on the same page and I think we we had that we had good direction from from council last time at least at least up through this year through the budget process of of making sure that we're we're holding
our millage rate the same. We're not we're not lowering it, but you know, I know I've watched a lot of other meetings in a lot of other cities. I mean, they're having trouble getting their 2/3 and they're starting with a roll back rate. So, they're already you'll see a lot of budget problems that you're seeing. If you see them on the
news, it's because they're starting with a roll back rate and they don't have a twothirds vote to to keep their millage rate the same of what it is. So, for us, if we were to go roll back rate and start there, we'd have to cut $779,000 from our budget. And so council, you
know, gave us good direction last time. I think that's the way to go. And and so that was the other the other two points I just want to bring up. The mill is rate and the new legislation and what we need for votes and that, you know, we're looking for they're looking at everybody's looking at how what their homestead exemption percentage is going
to go to. Right now we're at 65%. We'll see if that if that changes next year. >> It'll increase. >> I think it will, too. So that's going to mean the $1.9 million may not hold, >> right? >> It may be more than that, >> right? >> Yeah, that's been the discussion. I
mean, you know, even from the start of this, you know, before session started, like people will find the loopholes, right? They'll [laughter] >> we're advising clients to homestead in Florida. I didn't [laughter] >> I didn't really chime in on the impact fee, but um you know the comments that
were made were were valid and you know can we do it with AI or a different way around it but [clears throat] I think that there is a a need to increase ours because there is impact when a new development comes on there's impact that
you know and I know it says well it does affect the residents because they're paying that impact fee Um, and I look at it, it's also kind of the same as like I didn't have I lost portability when I moved in here. And for the same house that's two doors down
from me, pays about $2,500 a year in taxes. I paid $9,000. That's an impact to me. So, um, I'm not getting any more service. I My house was there. It had been there since 1969. There was no new impact. There was not
an impact, but I'm paying an impact fee. by and any new resident that moves in is going to be paying an impact fee. By somebody new to Toquesta or to the state of Florida that's never had portability, they're going to pay almost 2%. So I think collecting it where we can, there
is an impact on that. And I think everybody ultimately pays that at some point. And with the 3% save our home, you know, that's the real estate tax reform that needs to be addressed. not what's happening currently in my opinion, but um you know there is an impact and I think we should collect it
where we can and uh because it didn't stop my desire to live here by knowing knowing I was going to pay almost $9,000 a year in taxes. So I think if if it's a $8,000 impact fee per unit, I think people are still going to pay. You know, we have a
product here that's wonderful. So, I don't I didn't say that before because I didn't know what we were discussing, but I I there is an impact and you you pay it one way or another depending on where you're coming from and you know what you're what you're bringing with you to the table. Portability, no portability. Never owning a home in Palm Beach
County. You know, I took two years off from owning a home and it cost me $9,000. >> Shame on me. But, >> well, actually more than 9,000. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> Yeah. I think my request is that like we've we've talked about fire impact
fee. We raised several fees at last week's council meeting. We're talking about um I'm sorry I said fire assessment fee. Now we're talking about fire well multiple impact fees. We have a moility fee on you know our strategic plan. We have you know potentially
talking about raising the military. I my request is that we need to holistically look at them all together and because right now it's like individual and so I think depending on what happens with the property tax reform we really need that holless holistic look like and what's
the best bang for the buck like do we need to do a $30,000 consultant fee for the impact fee if we can figure out well if we just do this and this we're whole right so I think that that's my request >> because um yeah it's just it's peacemeal and so it's making me uncomfortable like
well I don't really know what the best decision is right now. >> I agree. >> Yeah. I think if you're adding additional fees you got to reduce them somewhere else. >> Right. Yeah. So >> and so there is going to be a big red reduction in property tax >> passes. Yeah. >> You better find some [laughter] other places.
>> All right. Any other discussion? >> Any public comment? >> All right. With that is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So moves. >> Second. All in favor? I >> You guys know we're already we're already hedging with electricity. We cut the air off earlier, I guess.
>> Sure did. >> I feel good right now. It's like >> much better in here. >> I know. I >> think turn the lights off and >> we could just have You're