Apr 26, 2022 Charter Review Commission

[00:00:03]

OKAY. WE'RE GETTING READY TO GO.

[CALL TO ORDER]

THE PLEDGE WILL BE LED TODAY BY KAY TO WAKE HER UP A LITTLE BIT.

RISING LEADERS ON THE ON THE PLEDGE.

I PICK ON EVERYBODY.

SERVICE RECALL HERE.

VICE CHAIR. WEINBERG.

MR. DELGADO.

MR. MEYERS.

MR. MCCLEOD.

MR. MOORE. MR. JONES. MR. CHANDLER. MR. OLSZEWSKI. OKAY.

GOING INTO PUBLIC COMMENTS.

ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON AGENDA ITEMS? NONE. OKAY.

MOVING ON. ADOPTION OF MINUTES.

[ADOPTION OF MINUTES]

THE MOTION TO APPROVE.

TAKEN BY PHIL.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MINUTES? IF NOT, I'M GOING TO CALL IT ALL IN FAVOR.

SAY I ALL OPPOSE.

OKAY. OKAY.

THE REPORT SECTION IS ONLY FOR INFORMATION.

[REPORTS]

I'M FINISHING ALL BUSINESS ONE RECOGNITION AND DISCUSSION OF CITY CHARTER ARTICLE SIX

[UNFINISHED AND OLD BUSINESS]

I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO COMMISSIONER CHANDLER.

YOU TALK FOR A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, INTRODUCE THE.

YOUR SUBJECT MATTER AND TAKE IT FROM THERE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF THIS ITEM CAME ABOUT RELATIVE TO, I THINK, ABOUT A MONTH AGO, MAYBE A MONTH AND A HALF AGO.

WE VOTED TO ELIMINATE, IN ESSENCE, THE CHARTER CAP THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS WITHIN THE CITY'S CHARTER. AFTER DOING SOME SOME HARD THINKING AND DELIBERATION WITH MYSELF, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR US TO BRING IT BACK, TO REVIEW IT, TO SEE POTENTIALLY WHAT IT WOULD BE IF WE WERE TO INCREASE THAT CAP INSTEAD OF COMPLETELY ELIMINATING IT LOOKED AT PARTICULARLY 5% OR 6% TO SEE WHICH ONE IS MORE FEASIBLE AND IF IT WILL POTENTIALLY GET US TO THAT THRESHOLD OF NOT BEING BELOW THE REQUIREMENT OF THE RESERVES, BUT ALSO GETTING THE CITY TO WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE SO THAT IT CAN OPERATE AND BE A FUNCTIONAL GOVERNMENT MUNICIPALITY.

HE PASSING IT OVER? YES, SIR. TO WHO? NO. MADAM CITY MANAGER, I PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.

NOT THE CITY ATTORNEY.

OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.

SO, YES, THANK YOU FOR THE REQUEST.

WE'VE ACTUALLY HAVE TWO PARTS TO OUR PRESENTATION TONIGHT.

I ACTUALLY HAVE BEHIND ME.

LARRY WOJCIECHOWSKI IS OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR.

YOU'VE MET HIM BEFORE AT THESE MEETINGS.

I ALSO HAVE ANJELICA COLLINS, WHO'S OUR BUDGET ADMINISTRATOR.

SHE'S GOING TO GIVE YOU A PRESENTATION.

WE PUT TOGETHER SOME DATA THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR YOU TO SEE WHAT A FIVE OR 6% COULD LOOK LIKE. ALSO GAVE YOU SOME HISTORICAL INFORMATION, JUST SOME HIGH LEVEL, TO HOPEFULLY HELP YOU DIG INTO THE 3% CAP A LITTLE BIT MORE.

WE ALSO HAVE ON ON ORE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY STANTEC IS WITH US AGAIN AS THEY CAME LAST TIME AND THEY ARE PREPARED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT AGAIN WHAT THE FUTURE LOOKS LIKE IN A CAP ENVIRONMENT, WHETHER IT'S THREE, FIVE, SIX, ETC..

SO I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT TO TEE IT UP AND WE'LL JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO PRESENTATION IF EVERYONE'S OKAY WITH THAT AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO ANGELICA.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME THIS EVENING.

I HAVE MET SOME OF YOU.

SOME OF YOU. I HAVE NOT.

BUT MY NAME IS ANGELICA COLLINS, AND I'M THE BUDGET ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE CITY OF PALM BAY. ESSENTIALLY, WHAT MY JOB IS, IS I PREPARE THE CITY BUDGET AND I TAKE THE CITY THROUGH FROM PREPARATION TO ADOPTION.

SO THAT'S MY MY SOLE JOB.

WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS A PRESENTATION THAT I HAVE PUT TOGETHER WHICH WILL GO OVER WHAT THE 3% CAP IS, HOW I CALCULATE IT.

AND THEN I'VE PUT TOGETHER SOME HYPOTHETICAL DATA FOR A 5%, 6%, AND THEN ALSO A NO CAP.

AND WHAT I WILL SHOW YOU IS A LOT OF DATA.

SO PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS TO WRITE ANYTHING DOWN THAT MAY HELP YOU SORT OF GET PINPOINTED. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF DATA INVOLVED WITH WHAT I DO, AND INSTEAD OF WRITING IT ALL OUT, I'D RATHER TALK ABOUT IT AND SHOW YOU WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

[00:05:01]

AND THEN, AS MS..

SHERMAN MENTIONED AFTER MY PRESENTATION, WE WILL HAVE STANTEC WHO WILL TAKE YOU INTO THE FUTURE. SO I WILL LOOK AT CURRENT YEAR AND HISTORICAL TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT IT WOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE IF WE WOULD HAVE HAD A DIFFERENT CAP OR A NO CAP.

AND THEN STANTEC WILL SHOW YOU EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAD REQUESTED AS FAR AS A 5% POSSIBLE INCREASE ON FUTURE PROJECTIONS.

YOU HAVE THE PRESENTATION IN FRONT OF YOU.

I DO HAVE IT UP ON THE SCREEN.

SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW IT THAT WAY, IT'S REALLY UP TO YOU JUST TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW, LET HER GO THROUGH A PRESENTATION.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WRITE THEM DOWN AND THEN WE CAN ENGAGE IN THE QUESTIONS.

SO SHE HAS A QUICK FLOW.

AWESOME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

SO AGAIN, LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT OUR ABOUT OUR AGENDA TOPICS OF DISCUSSION.

I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT OUR 3% CAP AND GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL DATA.

I WILL TALK ABOUT WHAT THE 3% CAP IS AND HOW IT IS CALCULATED.

IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND HOW THE 3% CAP AND THE RATES ARE ACTUALLY CALCULATED. IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS JUST PULLING SOME NUMBERS.

WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT OUR OPERATING MILITARY RATES AND ASSOCIATED REVENUES.

AND I WAS ABLE TO ACTUALLY PULL SOME HISTORICAL DATA FOR OUR GROSS TAXABLE VALUE FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS.

SO THAT GIVES YOU A GOOD IDEA OF WHERE WE ARE AND WHERE WE'VE BEEN.

THEN WE WILL KIND OF SWITCH OVER TO THE HOMEOWNER'S POINT OF VIEW.

SO WHAT IS THE TAX BILL LOOK LIKE WHEN IT COMES TO A 3% CAP, WHEN IT COMES TO A HYPOTHETICAL 5%, 6% AND A NO CAP? AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE TAX BILL BREAKDOWN.

SO FROM YOUR STAND, YOU CAN REVIEW IT AS WHAT THE CITY'S IMPACT IS AND WHAT THE HOMEOWNERS IMPACT IS, BECAUSE THEY ARE VIEWED OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT.

BUT IT IS GOOD TO PRESENT THAT DATA TO YOU SO YOU CAN HAVE BOTH POINT OF VIEWS.

ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE 3% CAP.

MOST OF YOU MAY KNOW IT.

BUT ESSENTIALLY, WHEN IT WAS VOTED ON ON NOVEMBER 8TH OF 2016, WHICH WAS IN FISCAL YEAR 2017, BUT DID NOT OFFICIALLY BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL 2018.

SO OUR HISTORICAL DATA CAN REALLY ONLY GO BACK TO 2018 BECAUSE THAT'S OFFICIALLY WHEN THE CAP WAS IMPLEMENTED INTO THE BUDGET.

NOW BASED ON ARTICLE SIX AND SPECIFICALLY 6.1 TAXES, THERE ARE THREE SORT OF PARAGRAPHS THAT ARE TRULY IMPORTANT TO HOW I CALCULATE THE CAP, SO THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THOSE BECAUSE THOSE WILL HELP US GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION AND DISCUSS SOME OF THE CALCULATIONS AND PART OF ARTICLE SIX TAXES AND FEES, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 6.1 TAXES.

PARAGRAPH B STATES.

UNLESS OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY THIS SUBSECTION, THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL NOT IMPOSE ANY TAX AD VALOREM TAX FOR CITY PURPOSES AT A MILITARY SITE WHICH CAUSES THE BUDGETED REVENUE THEIR FORM TO THE CITY TO INCREASE OVER THE BUDGETED AD VALOREM REVENUE FOR THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR BY MORE THAN 3%.

SO YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT WHEN I AM PREPARING OR WHEN THE CITY PREPARES A BUDGET FOR THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR AD VALOREM REVENUE. SO AS I'M PREPARING FISCAL YEAR 23 DATA, I HAVE TO LOOK AT AD VALOREM BUDGETED TAXES FOR FISCAL YEAR 22.

PARAGRAPH C STATES NOTWITHSTANDING PARAGRAPH B OF THE SUBSECTION, THE CITY COUNCIL MAY IMPOSE AN AD VALOREM TAX FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES AT A RATE WHICH EXCEEDS THE LIMITATIONS IN PARAGRAPH B.

IF A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL CONCURS IN FINDING THAT SUCH AN EXCESS IS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF EMERGENCY OR CRITICAL NEED.

THIS MEANS THAT WE ARE ABLE TO EXCEED THE CAP WITH A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF CITY COUNCIL AND THOSE DO HAVE TO BE FOR AS IT STATES, EMERGENCY OR CRITICAL NEEDS.

WHAT THOSE EMERGENCY OR CRITICAL NEEDS ARE IS SUBJECT TO WHAT CITY COUNCIL SEES.

THIS IS ALL IT STATES IN THE ACTUAL CHARTER.

PARAGRAPH D STATES IN CALCULATING THE ALLOWABLE INCREASE IN AD VALOREM REVENUES OVER THE AD VALOREM REVENUES BUDGETED FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

UNDER PARAGRAPH D OF THIS SUBSECTION, THE CITY SHALL EXCLUDE FROM THE ANTICIPATED REVENUES ALL REVENUE CHANGES FROM THE FOLLOWING KINDS OF PROPERTY.

NOT APPEARING ON THIS ON THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S TAX ROLL, ONE NEW CONSTRUCTION TWO ADDITIONS

[00:10:07]

SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS, AS I'M PREPARING DATA FOR FISCAL YEAR 23, I RECEIVE TAXABLE VALUATIONS FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS OFFICE THAT ARE LABELED OR VALUED AS 2022.

HOWEVER, THOSE TAXABLE VALUES ARE AS OF DECEMBER 31ST, 2021.

SO WHATEVER HAS HIT THE TAX RULE FOR THAT CALENDAR YEAR WILL BE LABELED 2022 TAXABLE VALUATIONS THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 23 TAXABLE VALUE CALCULATIONS.

OKAY. AND LOOKING AT OUR FIVE YEAR HISTORY, AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, WE DID EXCEED THE CAP IN FISCAL YEAR 2018 AND 2019, BUT WE DID MEET THE CAP IN 2020, 2021 AND 2022.

THE NEXT SLIDE IS JUST A TEN YEAR HISTORY OF OUR MILITARY AND OUR 3% CAP.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE, DATING BACK TO 2012, THE GRAY LINE WILL SHOW YOU THE ADOPTED MILITARY RATES THAT WE HAVE, WHICH BACK IN 2012 WE DID SIZE START AT A NINE POINT.

IT GOES UP FOUR NUMBERS BUT IT WAS ESSENTIALLY A 99.0 MILITARY AND THEN EFFECTIVE 2018 WHERE YOU SEE THE ORANGE LINE, THAT IS WHEN THE 3% CAP WAS IMPLEMENTED.

SO IN 2018, OUR ACTUAL 3% CAP RATE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN 8.1888.

HOWEVER, THAT YEAR WE DID ADOPT AN 8.45, WHICH MEANS WE DID EXCEED OUR CAP.

WE DID THAT AGAIN IN 2019.

AND THEN AS YOU SEE IN 2020, THOSE TWO LINES DO MEET BECAUSE WE HAVE MET THE CAP IN THE PAST THREE YEARS.

SO THIS JUST GIVES YOU A GOOD HISTORICAL TEN YEAR HISTORICAL DATA THAT SHOWS THAT ESSENTIALLY IN THE PAST TEN YEARS, OUR MILITARY HAS CONSISTENTLY DECREASED.

AND THEN WE DID MEET THE CAP STARTING IN 2020.

ALL RIGHT. SO THE NEXT SLIDE.

IT TOOK ME A WHILE TO TO GET THIS SLIDE TOGETHER.

SO PLEASE DON'T MIND IF I DO READ THIS FOR VERBATIM.

THERE'S A LOT OF CALCULATIONS AND A LOT OF IMPLIED THINGS BEHIND ON HOW TO CALCULATE THIS CAP. SO I WANTED TO SIMPLY PUT IT IN THE MOST BASIC TERMS TO WHERE I COULD EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE WHAT THE CAP IS AND HOW I ACTUALLY CALCULATE IT.

SO IF I READ IT FOR VERBATIM, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T MIND.

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I GET IT ACROSS BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO USE THIS IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES AND WHEN WE'RE ACTUALLY CALCULATING REVENUE.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THAT THIS IS GETS COMES ACROSS THROUGH PRETTY WELL.

ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT IS THE 3% CAP, THE OPERATING MILLAGE THAT IS APPROVED IN SEPTEMBER, MEANING FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR EFFECTIVE? THE FOLLOWING FISCAL YEAR IS CAPPED TO SET A RATE THAT WILL GENERATE NOT GENERATE MORE THAN A 3% REVENUE INCREASE FROM THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR BUDGETED AMOUNT.

THAT'S WHAT I HAD MENTIONED.

REMEMBER, I MENTIONED THAT EARLIER.

SO WHEN I'M PREPARING FISCAL YEAR 23, I NEED TO LOOK AT 2022 NUMBERS AND IT'S ALWAYS EXCLUDING NEW TAXABLE VALUE CONSTRUCTION ADDED TO THE MOST RECENT TAX ROLL.

ALL RIGHT. SO THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION OR THAT NEW VALUE THAT IS OUTLINED IN PARAGRAPH D UNDER ARTICLE SIX WITHIN THE CHARTER IS EXCLUDED FROM THAT CAP CALCULATION THE FIRST YEAR. SO AFTER THAT FIRST YEAR OF IT BEING ON THE TAX ROLL, IT FALLS UNDER THE CURRENT CURRENT ACTUAL TAXABLE VALUE.

SO THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION, WHICH IS EITHER NEW CONSTRUCTION ADDITIONS, DEMOLITIONS, THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE 3% CAP.

ALL RIGHT. SO HOW IS THE 3% CAP OPERATING RATE AND REVENUE ACTUALLY CALCULATED? SO WHAT I DO FIRST IS OBVIOUSLY I GO AHEAD AND SET THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE REVENUE WITHOUT THE NEW TAXABLE VALUE.

SO THAT'S OBVIOUSLY VERY EASY TO CALCULATE.

SO AS I'M PREPPING FOR NEXT YEAR, ALREADY FOR 23, I PULL MY 2022 DATA, CALCULATE 3% AND ADD IT TO THAT. RIGHT? SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 3% CAP, DON'T THINK OF IT AS THE RATE, THINK OF IT AS THE REVENUE. RIGHT? SO WE HAVE A CAP REVENUE THAT WE CANNOT EXCEED.

AND I HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE MILITARY IS IN ORDER TO NOT EXCEED THAT REVENUE.

SO THEN WHAT DO I DO? I DETERMINE THE OPERATING MILLAGE RATE THAT WHEN APPLIED AGAINST CURRENT YEAR ADJUSTED

[00:15:04]

WE NEVER BUDGET AT 100% STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.

ALLOW ME TO MEANS I HAVE A MINIMUM OF 95, SO WE NEVER ANTICIPATE ON GETTING A FULL 100% OF AD VALOREM. AND THEN I DEDUCT THE CITY SERRA AD VALOREM PORTION BECAUSE WHILE THE CRA IS A CITY OF PALM BAY PROPERTY ZIP CODES CITY IS THAT PORTION THAT IS GENERATED IN THAT DISTRICT IS SET ASIDE THAT IS NOT PART OF THE GENERAL AD VALOREM TAXATION AND THEN THAT AMOUNT GENERATES FUTURE REVENUE.

SO JUST BELOW THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE AMOUNT THAT IS IDENTIFIED IN STEP ONE.

SO MY SPREADSHEETS ARE LENGTHY AND DETAILED, BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT I DO IS I DETERMINE A RATE THAT WHEN APPLIED AGAINST THAT ADJUSTED TAXABLE VALUE I BUDGET AT 96%, I TAKE OUT THE CRA PORTION.

AND WHEN THAT REVENUE COMES JUST BELOW THAT 3% REVENUE, THAT IS THE RATE THAT I HAVE TO GO WITH. RIGHT.

AS SOON AS THAT RATE INCREASES BY EVEN ONE ONE BY 1/1000 OF A DECIMAL, BECAUSE WE DO GO OUT FOR AS SOON AS THAT REVENUE, THAT FUTURE REVENUE BASED ON THAT CALCULATION EXCEEDS THAT 3%.

WE HAVE OFFICIALLY EXCEEDED OUR CAP.

RIGHT? SO AND NOW IN STEP TWO, I'VE DETERMINED MY RATE.

SO NOW I KNOW MY RATE.

I KNOW WHAT THE 3% MAX I HAVE AND I KNOW WHAT POTENTIAL REVENUE I WILL BE GENERATING BASED ON THAT RATE THAT WE HAVE.

SO NOW I GO AHEAD AND APPLY THAT RATE TO.

A NEW TAXABLE VALUE.

SO THAT'S THAT SECOND STEP BECAUSE I REMEMBER I MENTIONED THAT NEW TAXABLE VALUE IS EXEMPT. SO NOW I APPLY THAT REVENUE WITH A MILITARY THAT I'VE DETERMINED IN STEP TWO AGAINST THE NEW TAXABLE VALUE.

SO THAT GIVES US A SECOND SET OF REVENUE.

AND THEN STEP FOUR IS I ADD THOSE TWO TOGETHER.

SO THAT IS ABOUT AS SIMPLEST AS I CAN EXPLAIN IT.

SO A 3% IS NOT NECESSARILY JUST LOOKING AT OUR CURRENT YEAR ADDING 3%.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE CAN'T EXCEED IS THERE'S A LOT OF IFS AND A LOT OF RESTRICTIONS BEHIND IT. SO TWO SETS OF REVENUES, WE ADD THEM TOGETHER AND THEN THAT WILL BE OUR PROJECTED AD VALOREM TAXATION REVENUE FOR THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR.

AND THEN THE MILITARY IS SENT TO PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE INTO THE STATE AND THEN THAT ONCE ADOPTED IS OFFICIALLY RUN THROUGH THE PROCESS AND ADD IT TO THE HOMEOWNER'S TAXABLE TAX BILLS AND HOW IT'S CALCULATED.

AND WE'LL GO THROUGH THAT IN A LITTLE BIT.

SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY HOW HOW THE CALCULATION FOR THE 3% CAP AND FOR ANY MILITARY REALLY WORKS. I.

ALL RIGHT. SO NOW EVERYTHING THAT I'VE TAUGHT YOU GUYS AND YOU'RE EXPERTS AT CALCULATING THESE, WE ARE GOING TO DO WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO THE DATA.

SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS SO IMPORTANT FOR ME TO WALK YOU GUYS, EVERYBODY THROUGH IT, TO SHOW YOU HOW STEP BY STEP WHAT WHAT IT IS THAT I REALLY DO.

SO THE NEXT FEW SLIDES, WE HAVE ABOUT FIVE.

WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH THE 3% CAP ON HOW IT'S CALCULATED, WHAT THE REVENUE HAS COME IN. WE'RE GOING TO DO A 5% HYPOTHETICAL FOR THE PAST THREE FISCAL YEARS.

WE'RE GOING TO DO A 6% HYPOTHETICAL FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS.

AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO DO A NO CAP WHERE WE SIMPLY JUST PICK A NUMBER THAT HAS CONSISTENTLY DECREASED OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.

AND THEN THE LAST SLIDE WILL BE A LITTLE BIT OF A SUMMARY.

SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO TO GIVE YOU GUYS AN IDEA OF THE VARIANCES WITHIN EACH SLIDE AS WELL. ALL RIGHT.

SO OUR FIRST SLIDE SHOWS YOU OUR CURRENT 3% CAP HISTORY.

SO AS I WAS GOING THROUGH THIS, I SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY NUMBERED THE ROWS, WHICH IS A GOOD, GOOD INDICATOR FOR MYSELF FOR NEXT TIME BECAUSE I WANT TO TALK YOU THROUGH EACH PARTICULAR ROW AND WHAT THAT DATA REFLECTS, BECAUSE JUST THROWING NUMBERS OUT THERE,

[00:20:04]

AND THEN ALSO THE NEXT FEW SLIDES WILL REFLECT THE SAME TYPE OF CALCULATIONS.

SO THAT WAY I DON'T HAVE TO RESTATE WHAT THOSE PARTICULAR ITEMS ARE.

AND IT'S ALSO A GREAT WAY FOR FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE FOLLOWING ALONG TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT EACH ROW IS. ALL RIGHT.

ROW ONE IS PRETTY SIMPLE.

SELF EXPLANATORY.

IT STATES WHAT OUR 3% CAP MILITARY WOULD BE.

SO WE HAVE OUR FIVE YEAR HISTORY.

AS YOU SEE, WE HAVE THE 2018 THROUGH 2020.

AND REMEMBER, THOUGH, THE FIRST TWO YEARS, WE DID NOT ADOPT THE 3% CAP.

WE DID EXCEED IT.

SO THAT THOSE TWO VALUES, THE 8.1888 AND THE 8.0687 ARE HYPOTHETICALS.

ALL RIGHT. SO THOSE WERE CALCULATED, BASED ON MY CALCULATIONS, ON WHAT THESE 3% WOULD HAVE BEEN. THE SECOND ROW WILL SHOW YOU THE ADOPTED MILITARY.

AND SO THAT SHOWS YOU THAT THOSE FIRST TWO YEARS WE DID EXCEED THE CAP.

AND THEN ROW THREE, OBVIOUSLY, IS ANOTHER ONE IT SAYS STAYED WITHIN THE CAP, YES OR NO? ROW FOUR, WHICH IS LABELED THE 3% MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GENERAL FUND REVENUE, EXCLUDING NEW CONSTRUCTION. THAT IS WHERE THE CALCULATION SORT OF STARTS.

SO THAT IS THE TOTAL REVENUE.

BASED ON THE STEPS WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, REMEMBER WE DID ADJUSTED TAXABLE VALUE 96% LESS THE CRA.

SO THAT AMOUNT IS THE TOTAL REVENUE THAT IS ESSENTIALLY I'M SORRY.

SO THAT THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT ONE.

SO THE 3% MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GENERAL FUND REVENUE IS THE MAXIMUM I'M ALLOWED TO GO TO.

ALL RIGHT. SO THAT IS THE ONE WHERE I TAKE CURRENT YEAR REVENUE AND I APPLY THE 3%.

AND THEN SO THAT IS THE MAXIMUM I ALLOWED TO GO OVER THE NEXT ROW DOWN, WHICH IS THE GENERAL FUND PORTION AT ADOPTED MILITARY EXCLUDING NEW CONSTRUCTION.

THAT IS THE CALCULATION FOR THE TOTAL ADJUSTED TAXABLE VALUE AT THE 96% COLLECTION, LESS THE SERRA PORTION.

ALL RIGHT, SO ROW FOUR IS THE MAXIMUM WE CAN HAVE.

AND THEN ROW FIVE WILL BE THE ACTUAL REVENUE THAT WE ARE TAKING IN BASED ON THE ADOPTED RATE THAT WE HAVE.

SO AS YOU SEE, FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS, WHICH IS 2018, 2019 ADOPTED, WE DID EXCEED THAT CAP RATE.

SO THE DIFFERENCE OVER AND UNDER THAT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 WAS ROUGHLY ABOUT 860,000.

AND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019, IT WAS ABOUT 1.4 MILLION.

SO EXCEEDING THAT CAP FOR THAT 8.45, THOSE FIRST TWO YEARS OF HAVING THE CAP IN PLACE, THAT IS THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT WAS GENERATED.

SO BECAUSE THAT IS THE TRUE NUMBERS THAT HAVE COME IN.

RIGHT. AND UNDERNEATH THE BLACK LINE, WE'VE JUST ESSENTIALLY GIVEN YOU THE SECOND PORTION OF THE CALCULATION BECAUSE REMEMBER, NEW CONSTRUCTION, NEW TAXABLE VALUE HASN'T BEEN INCLUDED YET.

SO THAT FIRST LINE IS ESSENTIALLY A CARRY DOWN FROM THE PREVIOUS ROWS, WHICH IS WE DID GENERATE THE 28 MILLION OFF OF CURRENT TAXABLE VALUE AND THEN WE APPLY THAT MILITARY TO THE NEW CONSTRUCTION.

AND IN THAT OF THOSE FIRST TWO YEARS, AS YOU SEE, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION ADDED AN ADDITIONAL 380,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 AND 738,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019.

AND THEN THE LAST ROW WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY YOUR TOTAL COMBINED, JUST LIKE IN THE PREVIOUS STEPS WE HAD TALKED ABOUT.

ALL RIGHT. SO FISCAL YEAR 2021, 22.

IT'S THE SAME PROCESS DURING THOSE YEARS WE SIMPLY ADOPTED THE CAPS.

SO AS YOU SEE THAT DIFFERENCE OF THAT OVER AND UNDER THE 3% MAXIMAL ALLOWABLE REVENUE IS ACTUALLY A NEGATIVE.

IT'S VERY SMALL.

SO FOR 2020, YOU HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF A VARIANCE OF -172.

SO THAT IS ESSENTIALLY MEETING THE CAP.

SO THAT IS THE PROCESS THAT WE GO THROUGH.

SAME THING FOR 21, 22, AS YOU SEE, WE FELL BELOW THAT REVENUE, THAT 3% MAX REVENUE AND MEANING THAT WE MET THE CAP AND THEN THE LAST VOTE WILL SHOW YOU THE TOTAL AD VALOREM TAXATION THAT WE BUDGET TO BRING IN BASED ON THOSE MILITARIES.

SO THIS IS ALL TRUE DATA THAT WE HAVE IN THE BUDGET THAT'S BEEN FULLY DISCLOSED.

AND NOW WE WILL GO INTO YOUR HYPOTHETICALS.

[00:25:02]

AND OUTSIDE OF THAT, THE INFORMATION WILL BE THE SAME.

SO YOU'LL HAVE A 5% MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GENERAL REVENUE EXCLUDING NEW CONSTRUCTION.

YOU WILL SEE WHAT WE WILL GENERATE BASED OFF THE 5% AND THEN WE WILL SHOW YOU THE NEW CONSTRUCTION PORTION AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT.

SO THESE ARE ALL HYPOTHETICALS.

I DID NOT INCLUDE FISCAL YEAR 18 AND 19 IN THIS BECAUSE ADOPTING AN 8.45 WAS STILL EXCEEDING THE 5% AND THE 6%.

SO IT WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY REDUCED.

SO I'VE OPTED TO JUST STICK WITH THE LAST THREE YEARS BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ACTUAL YEARS THAT WE LIMIT THE CAP.

ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT IF WE WOULD HAVE ADOPTED A 5% RATHER THAN A 3%? SO LET'S LOOK AT FISCAL YEAR 2020.

SO THESE ARE WE WANT TO DOVE INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE BECAUSE YOU WILL SEE THAT YOU HAVE A COMPARISON AT THE BOTTOM OF EACH PAGE.

SO FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020, A HYPOTHETICAL 5% MILITARY WOULD HAVE BEEN AN 8.2959, AND YOUR MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GENERAL FUND REVENUE WOULD BE ABOUT 33 MILLION.

SO WHEN WE RUN THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND APPLY IT TO NEW CONSTRUCTION IN OUR CURRENT TAXABLE VALUE, OUR TOTAL GENERAL FUND OUT OF A LOWER TAXATION REVENUE FOR A 5% CAP MILLAGE RATE AT THE 8.2959 WOULD HAVE BEEN $33.8 MILLION.

NOW, WHEN YOU COMPARE THAT TO A 3% CAP, WHICH IS WHAT WE ACTUALLY ADOPTED, WE WOULD HAVE GENERATED AN ADDITIONAL $643,879.

FOR FISCAL YEAR 21, OUR HYPOTHETICAL 5% CAP RATE WOULD HAVE BEEN A 7.9900.

THAT WOULD HAVE GENERATED US $35.9 MILLION, WHICH IN COMPARISON TO A 3% CAP, WOULD HAVE GENERATED AN ADDITIONAL $684,972.

IN OUR CURRENT FISCAL YEAR IF WE WOULD HAVE ADOPTED A 5% CAP MILITARY RATHER THAN THE 3% OF A 7.7471, IT WOULD HAVE GENERATED A TOTAL OUT OF A LOWER TAXATION OF $38.6 MILLION.

WHEN COMPARING THAT TO A 3% CAP, IT WOULD HAVE GENERATED AN ADDITIONAL $736 367 $736,367. LET'S MOVE TO THE NEXT PAGE, WHICH IS A HYPOTHETICAL, HYPOTHETICAL 6%, SAME SETUP, SAME CALCULATIONS.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THAT AGAIN.

SO IF A FISCAL YEAR, 2020, A HYPOTHETICAL 6% CAP MILLAGE RATE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN 8.3749, WHICH WOULD HAVE GENERATED $34.1 MILLION.

WHEN COMPARING THAT TO A 3% CAP WHICH IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE, WE WOULD HAVE GENERATED AN ADDITIONAL $965,818 IN 2021.

IF WE WOULD HAVE HAD A 6% MILLAGE RATE OF 8.0661, THAT WOULD HAVE GENERATED A TOTAL GENERAL FUND AD VALOREM TAXATION REVENUE OF $36.3 MILLION, WHICH COMPARED TO A 3% CAP, WOULD HAVE GENERATED AN ADDITIONAL 1,027,457.

AND HYPOTHETICALLY, FOR 2022, OUR CURRENT FISCAL YEAR IS 6% CAP WOULD BE A 7.8209, WHICH WOULD HAVE GENERATED A LITTLE OVER $39 MILLION.

AND WHEN COMPARING THAT TO A 3% CAP WOULD HAVE GENERATED AN ADDITIONAL 1,104,000 AND $550. YOU.

THE LAST SLIDE BEFORE WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A SUMMARY IS A HYPOTHETICAL NO CAP.

SO WHAT IF THERE WAS NO CAP? SO ESSENTIALLY WE SET THE RATE AT YOU CAN SET IT AT ANY AMOUNT EXCEPT FOR EXCEEDING A TEN MIL AND YOU ESSENTIALLY SET IT TO.

GENERALLY, WHAT HAPPENS IS A SET OF TWO NEEDS OF WHAT DEPARTMENTS HAVE AND WHAT THE CITY OPERATIONS HAVE, AND THEN YOU GO FROM THERE.

SO IT'S A VERY FLUID ENVIRONMENT.

[00:30:03]

IT REITERATES WHAT THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE WAS AT THE BOTTOM, WHICH THAT WAS EXPLAINED IN THE EARLIER SLIDE.

SO AND THEN WHAT WE DID WAS THAT, WELL, WHAT WAS OUR GOAL WAS TO GET DOWN TO EIGHT MILLS, RIGHT? SO IT'S AN 8.0000.

SO WHAT WE DID IS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020, WE SAID, OKAY, HYPOTHETICALLY, IF WE'D MADE A JUMP FROM 8.45 TO 8.25 FOLLOWING THE MILITARY.

SO IN FISCAL YEAR 2020, IF WE WOULD HAVE SET IT AT THAT, OUR REVENUE WOULD HAVE BEEN $33.6 MILLION.

SO OUR ADDITIONAL REVENUE OVER THE CAP, IF WE ADOPTED THAT RATE, SO OVER THAT 3% CAP THAT IS IN PLACE WOULD BE ABOUT 456,828.

THEN FOR 2021, WE DECIDED, WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND REDUCE IT TO EIGHT, RIGHT? SO WE DID A JUMP TO EIGHT AND THE TOTAL REVENUE GENERATED AT THAT PARTICULAR MILL WOULD BE AROUND $36 MILLION.

AND COMPARING THAT TO OUR 3% CAP WOULD HAVE BROUGHT IN 200 729,926.

NOW, 2022 IS THE BIG YEAR, RIGHT, IF YOU HAVE, BECAUSE I WANT TO GO INTO THAT IN A LITTLE BIT. SO WE HAVE A LOT OF NEW TAXABLE VALUE THAT HIT OUR TAX ROLL FOR THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR. RIGHT. SO IF YOU'VE SEEN THE BUDGET PREPARATIONS LAST YEAR, SO WE HAD A LARGE AMOUNT OF NEW TAXABLE VALUE THAT HITS.

SO REMEMBER WHAT I SAID, THIS NEW TAXABLE VALUE IS EXCLUDED FROM THAT BUDGET FOR THAT FIRST FISCAL YEAR. RIGHT? SO THE MORE TAXABLE VALUE YOU ADD THAT FIRST YEAR, IT HELPS AND THEN IT DOES HELP YOUR CURRENT TAXABLE VALUE GROW AS WELL.

SO FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022, WE OPTED TO MAINTAIN OUR OUR RATE.

SO WE KEPT IT AT THE EIGHT MILL AND BECAUSE OF THE NEW TAXABLE VALUE IN OUR, OUR ADJUSTED TAXABLE VALUES GOING UP BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS HITTING THAT TAX ROLL FROM THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, IF THIS YEAR WE WOULD HAVE DATED MAINTAIN THAT EIGHT MILL FROM THAT FISCAL YEAR 21 HYPOTHETICAL, WE WOULD HAVE GENERATED ROUGHLY ABOUT $39.9 MILLION, WHICH COMPARING THAT TO THE CURRENT 3%, WE WOULD HAVE BROUGHT IN AN ADDITIONAL $1,998,060.

SO NEW TAXABLE VALUE IS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO BE ADDED TO THE TAX ROLL.

AND THEN EVEN THOUGH IT'S EXCLUDED AFTER THE FIRST YEAR, IT DOES HIT YOUR GROSS ADJUSTABLE TAXABLE VALUE.

SO IT IS IT'S AN IMPORTANT ITEM THAT THAT REALLY EVERY YEAR, THE MORE THAT HITS THE TAX ROLL, IT REALLY ALLOWS US TO TO REALLY GENERATE THOSE DOLLARS BECAUSE IF IT WAS JUST THE GROSS TAXABLE VALUE WITHOUT THE NEW TAXABLE VALUE BEING EXCLUDED, THERE WOULD BE A LOT MORE RESTRICTIONS.

SO THAT'S WHY YOU DO SEE THAT LARGER JUMP, BECAUSE YOU MAY ASK, WELL, WHAT IF WE KEPT THE MILITARY THE SAME, BUT YOU'RE INCREASING FROM ROUGHLY ABOUT 700,000 TO ALMOST 2 MILLION.

AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE OF THAT TAXABLE VALUE, IT DOES ADJUST EVERY YEAR.

ALL RIGHT. SO THE NEXT SLIDE IS SIMPLY A RECAP.

SO THAT WAY I KNOW ALL OF MY CALCULATIONS ARE PRETTY, PRETTY GREAT.

I THINK THEY ARE. BUT DEFINITELY THIS IS JUST A REVIEW SLIDE FOR YOU.

SO THAT WAY YOU HAVE THEM ALL TOGETHER.

AND I OPTED JUST TO LOOK AT THE THREE YEARS TO JUST SO THAT SOMEONE.

LET ME GO AHEAD. AND. SO.

YEAH, SO. SO THAT IS SIMPLY JUST A SUMMARY OF WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.

SO YOU SEE YOUR 3% CAP RATE, YOU'RE 5%, YOU'RE 6%.

AND THE HYPOTHETICAL NO CAP.

SO THAT WAY YOU DO HAVE THEM ALL ON ONE PAGE.

WE? THE NEXT SLIDE I THINK IS IS ONE OF MY FAVORITES.

IT TOOK ME A WHILE TO GO THROUGH THIS, BUT SO I PULLED A LOT OF A LOT OF MY MY TRIM AND MY TAX FORMS THROUGH ALL MY PRINTED COPIES THAT I HAD GOING BACK 20 YEARS.

SO I DID PULL THE PALM BAY.

GROSS TAXABLE VALUE FOR A 20 YEAR HISTORY.

SO YOU WILL SEE DATING BACK TO 2000.

SO THIS IS THE GROSS TAXABLE VALUE.

SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS RECEIVED FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE AND THE GROSS TAXABLE VALUE REMEMBERS CURRENT PLUS NEW CONSTRUCTION.

[00:35:04]

SO AS YOU SEE, 2002 IS ONE OF THE LOWER POINTS, BUT IT'S IT'S DATING BACK QUITE SOME TIME, SO IT'S ABOUT $2 BILLION.

AND THEN WE HIT THAT INCREASE.

SO AS AS MOST OF YOU KNOW IS THERE WAS A LARGE INCREASE IN STATE OF FLORIDA.

THERE'S A LOT OF INFLATION GOING ON.

A LOT OF PROPERTIES ARE REALLY SKYROCKETING TO WHERE WE ARE CAPPING OUT IN 2018.

SO IN TWO I MEAN, IN 2008, I'M SORRY, SO IN 2008 HAS BEEN IN THE PAST 20 YEARS OUR HIGHEST GROSS TAXABLE VALUE FOR THE CITY, WHERE IT'S COMING IN AT ROUGHLY ABOUT $5.8.

AND THEN WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

SO THAT IS WHEN THE BUBBLE BURST AND ALL OF THE VALUATIONS FOR HOMEOWNERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS JUST SIMPLY, I DON'T WANT TO SAY TANKED, BUT IT DEFINITELY DID DID A SHARP DECLINE. SO OVER THE COURSE OF FIVE YEARS, WE HAVE LOST BASED ON OUR VALUATIONS THAT ARE TRULY RECEIVED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS.

SO THESE ARE TRUE NUMBERS.

OUR VALUES FOR THE CITY OF PALM BAY IN TOTAL HAD DECREASED 56.95%.

SO IN 2013, WHICH IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 11 YEARS AFTER WHEN WE FIRST STARTED, OUR LOWEST POINT WAS ROUGHLY ABOUT $2.5 BILLION.

SO WITHIN A FIVE YEAR PERIOD, WE HAD LOST MORE THAN HALF OF WHAT OUR PROPERTY VALUES WERE. SO AS WE JUST WENT THROUGH ALL OF THE CALCULATIONS OF HOW THE CITY GENERATES MONEY, WE GENERATE MONEY BASED ON PROPERTY VALUATIONS.

SO THEN THAT WAS OUR LOWEST POINT.

AND THEN WE STARTED SLOWLY SEEING THE INCREASE.

SO EVEN TAKING IT NOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NINE YEARS LATER.

SO FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR WILL ALMOST BACK UP TO WHAT WE WERE IN 2008.

SO OUR VALUATIONS FOR 2022 ARE $5.3 BILLION.

I AM ANTICIPATING THAT.

I'M HOPING, BUT BASED ON WHAT I'VE SEEN THAT FOR FISCAL YEAR 23, I AM HOPING THAT THAT WOULD BE OUR FIRST YEAR WHERE WE'RE ACTUALLY EXCEEDING THE HIGHEST POINT IN THE PAST 20 YEARS. SO THAT TELLS YOU THAT WITHIN FIVE YEARS THOSE VALUES WENT WAY DOWN AND SEE HOW LONG IT HAS TAKEN US TO JUST SCROLL BACK TO WHERE WE ARE.

AND OUR MAIN REVENUE SOURCE GENERATOR IN THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR MORE THAN 70% OF OUR REVENUES ARE GENERATED, COMES FROM AD VALOREM TAXATION, WHICH IS BASED ON PROPERTY VALUES.

ALL RIGHT. SO THE NEXT TWO SLIDES, I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU INTO THE POINT OF VIEW OF WHAT A HOMEOWNER SEES OR A PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN THE CITY OF PALM SEES.

RIGHT. SO IT'S GOOD TO SEE NOT ONLY FROM THE CITY SIDE ON WHAT THE CITY GENERATES, BUT HOW ALL THOSE CALCULATIONS OF THOSE RATES ACTUALLY IMPACT A HOMEOWNER AND IMPACT A HOMEOWNER'S TAX BILL.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS IN TWO SECTIONS.

SO ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE IS THE SECTION AND SEXUALLY A SIMPLE FORMULA ON HOW A HOMEOWNER CAN ACTUALLY PROJECT ON WHAT THE IMPACT OF THE CITY OF PALM BAY'S TAXATION HAS ON A TAX BILL. SO IF YOU'RE EVER INTERESTED, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO GO TO THE CITY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WEBSITE AND YOU CAN PULL YOUR ACTUAL VALUATIONS FOR YOUR HOME AND YOU ARE GOING TO WANT TO LOOK AT YOUR HOME'S TAXABLE VALUE NON SCHOOL AMOUNT BECAUSE YOU NEVER TAXED ON YOUR FULL AMOUNT.

THERE'S A LOT OF EXEMPTIONS, SO YOU WANT TO WANT TO LOOK AT THAT NON SCHOOL AMOUNT, RIGHT. AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO MULTIPLY THAT TIMES THE MILITARY.

SO THOSE ARE ALL THOSE RATES WE TALKED ABOUT THAT GO OUT FOR DECIMALS AND YOU'RE GOING TO DIVIDE IT BY 1000.

SO THAT ESSENTIALLY SHOULD ESTIMATE WHAT YOUR PROPERTY TAX BILL FOR THE CITY OF PALM BAY IS. AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK IN THE NEXT SLIDE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PROPERTY TAX BILL AND WHAT THE CITY RECEIVES.

SO WHAT I'VE DONE IS I HAVE DONE A SOME CALCULATIONS ON WHAT A TYPICAL TAXABLE VALUE NON SCHOOL AMOUNT IN THE CITY OF PALM BAY IS.

SO WE'VE KIND OF BROKEN IT DOWN INTO EIGHT DIFFERENT GROUPS AND I'VE DONE AN ANNUAL COST BASED ON OUR CURRENT 3% CAP RATE, WHICH IS 7.5995.

[00:40:04]

SO LET'S GO IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PACK, WE'LL PICK THE ONE 75,000.

SO DO YOU REMEMBER I KNOW YOU SAYING YOUR VALUATIONS GO UP, BUT THE 75,000 IS AFTER ALL THE EXEMPTIONS AND IT'S THE NON SCHOOL AMOUNT.

SO YOU CAN'T JUST GO BY YOUR FULL VALUE OF YOUR HOME.

SO FOR $75,000, AT THE CURRENT RATE THAT WE HAVE OF 3%, THE ANNUAL ESTIMATED COST WOULD BE ROUGHLY ABOUT $570.

IF WE HAD A HYPOTHETICAL 5%.

SO IF WE HAD ADOPTED A 5% CAP, THEN FOR THAT $75,000 FOR THAT HOMEOWNER, THAT TAXABLE PORTION WOULD BE $581.

WHICH WOULD BE AN INCREASE OF A LITTLE OVER $11 A YEAR AND IF IT WAS A 6% CAP.

SO IF WE WOULD HAVE ADOPTED THAT 6% CAP RATE FOR THAT 75,000 VALUATION, IT WOULD BE ABOVE ABOUT $586, WHICH WOULD BE AN INCREASE OF ABOUT $16.61, AND THAT IS ANNUALLY.

NOW, ON THE BOTTOM OF THAT, I WANT TO RECAP WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT SO YOU CAN ALSO GET A COMPARISON.

SO FOR THE CITY OF PALM BAY, THAT TOTAL AD VALOREM TAXATION FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE.

SO AS WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, THE TOTAL AD VALOREM TAXATION FOR A 3% CAP.

SO AS WE'VE COMBED THE ADOPTED, WE ARE PROJECTED TO GENERATE ROUGHLY ABOUT 37.9 MILLION.

IF WE WERE TO MOVE TO A 5% CAP, IT WOULD INCREASE TO 38.6, WHICH WOULD GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL ROUGHLY ABOUT $740,000.

AND IF WE WERE TO GO TO A 6% CAP, THE PROJECTED REVENUES WOULD BE A LITTLE OVER 39 MILLION, WHICH WOULD GENERATE ABOUT AN ADDITIONAL 1.1 MILLION.

SO THIS IS A GREAT SLIDE BECAUSE IT SHOWS YOU FROM THE HOMEOWNER'S PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT AN ADDITIONAL YEAR A HOMEOWNER WOULD WOULD SEE ON THEIR TAX BILL AS COMPARISON TO WHAT THE CITY OF PALM BAY WOULD SEE ON THEIR AD VALOREM TAXATION REVENUE COMING IN.

THE NEXT SLIDE IS ONE OF OUR TAX BILL BREAKDOWNS.

SO AS I JUST MENTIONED IS THAT YOU ALWAYS WANT TO REMEMBER THAT TAXATION OF THE TAX BILLS YOU DO RECEIVE, THEY'RE NOT ALL JUST FOR CITY OF PALM BAY.

SO IF YOU ARE A CITY OF PALM BAY HOMEOWNER OR A PROPERTY OWNER, THE PROPERTY BILLS THAT YOU DO RECEIVE FROM THE BREVARD COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE, THEY INCLUDE VARIOUS THINGS. SO THERE'S VARIOUS TAXING AUTHORITIES ON THOSE BILLS AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THEM IN ORDER. SO BREVARD COUNTY OBVIOUSLY IS GOING TO TAX YOU.

SO THIS IS ACTUALLY A A REAL LIVE TAX BILL.

SO I DID PULL SOMEONE SOME I KNOW SOME PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE AREA.

SO I DID THIS IS NOT A HYPOTHETICAL, BUT I DID PULL THEIR THEIR TAXES AND I DID PLUG THEM INTO MY SPREADSHEET. SO THIS IS A TRUE BILL.

SO BREVARD COUNTY BASED ON THAT VALUATION.

SO IF THEY WERE TO RECEIVE A TOTAL TAX BILL OF $710, BREVARD COUNTY TAKES APPROXIMATELY 17% OR $125.

AND BROWARD COUNTY, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN GENERAL FUND THAT THEY RAISE MONEY FOR.

THEY HAVE LIBRARIES.

I SAW SOME MOSQUITO CONTROL.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR TAX BILL ON THE BACK, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS UNDER THE COUNTY THAT THEY ACTUALLY TAX YOU ON.

THE LARGEST OUT OF YOUR TAX BILL GOES TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

SO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCOUNTS FOR ABOUT 43% OF YOUR TAXES.

SO OUT OF THAT $710, 310 GO TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

SO THEY PAY FOR CAPITAL NEEDS, THEY PAY FOR SCHOOL NEEDS.

AND SO IT'S THE SAME CONCEPT AS WITH THE COUNTY IS THEY WILL TAKE ABOUT 43% OF THAT TOTAL TAX BILL. THEN THE NEXT PORTION IS THE ACTUAL CITY OF PALM BAY.

SO CITY OF PALM BAY ROUGHLY ACCOUNTS FOR ABOUT 36%.

SO MAYBE A LITTLE, LITTLE MORE THAN A THIRD OF YOUR TAX BILL COMES TO THE CITY OF PALM BAY. NOW, AS YOU REMEMBER, THE CITY OF PALM BAY, WE LOOK AT BOTH OUR GENERAL FUND, BUT WE DO HAVE THE ROAD ROAD BOND PROGRAM, AS MOST OF YOU REFER TO THAT AS THE GO BOND PROGRAM.

BUT SO WE DO HAVE WHILE THE TOTAL OF $256 GOES TO THE CITY, 37 OF THAT IS DEDICATED TO

[00:45:07]

SO THAT IS SEPARATELY TAXED.

SO THAT IS NOT PART OF THE AD VALOREM TAXATION EXERCISES.

WE JUST WENT THROUGH THIS. SO THAT IS COMPLETELY SEPARATE AND THAT IS VOTER APPROVED.

SO THAT WILL CONTINUE ON.

SO I DID SPLIT THAT OUT.

SO YOU DON'T THINK THAT THE 256 ALL GOES TO THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND? A PORTION OF THAT IS DEDICATED TO THE ROAD PROGRAM.

AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE SPECIAL DISTRICTS.

SO IT'S A SMALL AMOUNT, ONLY ABOUT TWO AND A HALF PERCENT.

SO ABOUT $18 OF THAT BILL GOES TO SPECIAL DISTRICTS.

WHEN I LOOKED AT THE BILL, IT SAID SOMETHING LIKE THE FLA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT AND THE SEBASTIAN INLET DISTRICT.

SO THERE'S A FEW DISTRICTS WITHIN THE COUNTY THAT EVEN IF YOU MAY NOT LIVE IN THAT AREA, YOU ARE STILL TAXED ON.

AND THAT IS PART OF YOUR COLLECTION.

SO THAT GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT A PROPERTY TAX BILL SORT OF LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT THE HOMEOWNER AND PROPERTY OWNER IN THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

WHAT PORTION OF THAT BILL WILL ACTUALLY GO TO THE CITY OF PALM BAY? ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT SLIDE IS I KNOW THAT SEEMS TO BE A FAN FAVORITE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO CALL IT.

I HAVE TO. PLUS SEPARATE, SEPARATE ONE OUT.

SO I DID PUT A SEPARATE ONE IN EVERYONE'S POCKET.

I KNOW THE WRITING MAY BE A LITTLE BIT SMALL, BUT THIS ONE SEEMS TO BE A FAN FAVORITE.

AND I LIKE IT TOO. BUT SO GENERALLY WHAT IT WHAT THIS IS, IS THAT FOR EVERY DOLLAR THAT IS GENERATED BY THE CITY OF PALM DAY, A DOLLAR GOES INTO SUPPORTING THE DEPARTMENT'S OPERATIONAL NEEDS.

SO WHETHER THAT IS PERSONNEL OPERATING CAPITAL, SO ALWAYS THINK A DOLLAR COMING IN IS A DOLLAR INVESTED IN THE SERVICES FOR THE CITY.

SO THE DOLLAR IS GENERATED AND THIS GIVES YOU A TRUE IDEA.

AND THIS IS THESE ARE ACTUAL NUMBERS BASED ON THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR ADOPTED BUDGET.

ON HOW MUCH OF THAT DOLLAR.

ON WHERE IT GOES.

SO WE DO HAVE MOST OF OUR DEPARTMENTS OUTSIDE OF UTILITIES AND BUILDING EITHER FULLY OR PARTIALLY OPERATE IN THE GENERAL FUND THAT IS SUPPORTED BY THE AD VALOREM TAXATION FOR MOST OF IT IS SO OUT OF THAT DOLLAR, 50% OR $0.50 ON THE DOLLAR GOES TO PUBLIC SAFETY, WHICH IS FIRE AND POLICE.

SO THAT INCLUDES PERSONNEL OPERATING IF THERE ARE ANY CAPITAL NEEDS WITHIN THAT WITHIN THAT BUDGET. SO 50% IS IS DEDICATED TOWARDS YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE AND SAFETY DEPARTMENTS.

THE OTHER 50 IS SORT OF SPLIT OUT WHERE $0.09 ON THE DOLLAR GOES TOWARDS PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSFERS. SO TRANSFERS IS ONE OF THOSE GROUPS WHERE WE HAVE DEBT SERVICE TO PAY.

DEBT SERVICE IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO PAY, JUST LIKE WE HAVE TO PAY OUR CREDIT CARD BILLS AND OUR MORTGAGES AND ALL THAT.

SO ABOUT $0.09 ON THAT DOLLAR GOES TO SERVICING PUBLIC WORKS AND ANY TRANSFERS THAT ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THAT GROUP.

$0.07 ON THE DOLLAR IS FOR OUR PARKS AND FACILITIES.

SO AS YOU KNOW, RECENTLY WE HAD FACILITIES IN PARKS KIND OF COMBINED.

SO THAT IS SERVICING YOUR PARKS FOR THE FOR THE COMMUNITY IN OUR FACILITY NEEDS AND WE HAVE SOME NON DEPARTMENTAL.

SO NON DEPARTMENTAL IS THAT GROUP WHERE WE PAY LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR DEPARTMENTS, WHERE WE PAY CERTAIN FEES AND CERTAIN SERVICES THAT IMPACT THE CITY AS A WHOLE.

$0.04 ON THE DOLLAR GOES TO OUR IT DEPARTMENT, $0.03 ON THE DOLLAR GOES TO OUR RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND $0.02 GOES TO CITY MANAGER, FINANCE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

SO IT'S TECHNICALLY $0.06, BUT IT'S $0.02 FOR THAT.

AND LEGISLATIVE AND CITY ATTORNEY PROCUREMENT, AIR AND COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVES OUR SMALLEST DEPARTMENTS.

SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS SHOWS IS THAT $0.50 ON THAT DOLLAR GOES TOWARDS OUR PUBLIC SAFETY AND SERVICES DEPARTMENTS.

SO A LOT OF THAT IS MOST OF IT IS BASED ON WHAT I SEE IS ACTUALLY A PERSONNEL COSTS.

SO WE HAVE A LOT OF PERSONNEL COSTS WHEN IT COMES TO THOSE TWO DEPARTMENTS.

THERE ARE TWO OF OUR LARGEST DEPARTMENTS EMPLOYEE WISE, AND THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE SUPPORTED AND THEY'RE ALSO BOTH IN CONTRACTUAL UNION CONTRACTS SO THAT A LOT OF TIMES WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RETIREMENT AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. THAT COMES TO THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

SO I'LL BE OPEN TO QUESTIONS.

DEFINITELY. I ONLY HAVE ABOUT 20 QUESTIONS.

HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WITH THE CITY? SIX YEARS. AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION.

A JOB VERY WELL DONE.

[00:50:01]

I'M GOING TO START JUST WITH THE DOLLAR HERE FOR A MINUTE.

I NOTICE THAT THIS AMOUNTS TO $0.76.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHER $0.24.

SHOULDN'T. IS IT? I ADDED IT UP.

HMM. IT'S.

YES, SO. SO REMEMBER WHEN I MENTIONED THE DEPARTMENTS, YOU HAVE TO DOUBLE THAT.

SO CITY MANAGER, FINANCE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT EACH ARE $0.02.

OKAY, GOT IT. YEAH.

APPRECIATE THAT. RIGHT.

SO YOU HAVE YOU HAVE MULTIPLE.

MULTIPLE. OKAY.

JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY ON THE TWO YEARS THAT WE EXCEEDED THE 3% CAP.

THAT JUST MEANS WE GOT MORE THAN EXPECTED.

NO. SO WE CHOSE TO EXCEED THE CAP FOR EMERGENCY AND CRITICAL NEEDS.

SO IT'S NOT THAT WE EXCEEDED MORE THAN WE EXPECTED.

WE ESSENTIALLY EXCEEDED THE CAP BASED ON WHAT THE CHARTER ALLOWS AND AND THERE'S NO PENALTIES FOR THAT.

THERE ARE NO PENALTIES.

SO IT IS A ONE TIME EXCEEDING THE CAP AND THAT'S THE REVENUE THAT WAS TAKEN IN.

AND SO IF WE DID THAT, IF THAT HAPPENED AGAIN.

IT WOULD JUST. GO TO AN EMERGENCY FUND OR WE CAN MAKE IT AN EMERGENCY FUND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO.

SO COUNCIL DEEMS CERTAIN EMERGENCIES AND CRITICAL NEEDS.

SO BASED ON WHAT THEY DEEM IS A EMERGENCY IN CRITICAL NEED DURING THE BUDGET PREPARATION PROCESS, THEY CAN CHOOSE TO EXCEED THE CAP AS LONG AS IT'S A SUPERMAJORITY.

AND THEN WE WOULD BUILD IT INTO THE BUDGET THAT THAT REVENUE THAT IS GENERATED IN EXCESS OF THE 3% WILL GO TOWARDS THOSE CRITICAL AND EMERGENCY NEEDS.

UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU.

SO BASICALLY THE MORTALITY RATE IS DETERMINED BY THEN WHATEVER THE MONEY IS, THEN DIVIDING IT THROUGH AND THAT'S HOW YOU GET THEM OUT OF TREATMENT.

NO. SO.

SO FIRST I HAVE TO SEE WHAT MY 3% REVENUE CAP IS, RIGHT.

WHEN YOU GET THAT TOTAL AMOUNT.

YES. AND THEN I SET THE MILITARY RATE TO WHERE MY TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUE, WHICH IS GOES AGAINST OUR ADJUSTED TAXABLE VALUE.

GOT IT. AT 96% LESS.

THE CRA.

I UNDERSTAND VERY WELL.

WHEN YOU SELL A HOUSE.

BREVARD COUNTY UPS THE AMOUNT THE THE THE VALUE OF THE HOME TO ITS CURRENT.

PRICE. SO IS THAT LOCATED UNDER NEW CONSTRUCTION WHEN THEY SELL A HOUSE AND THAT COMES.

SO TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD IT BE INCLUDED UNDER NEW TAXABLE VALUE.

SO IT'S NOT JUST NEW CONSTRUCTION.

SO WHEN IT'S NEW TAXABLE VALUE, IT IS ANYTHING THAT'S NEW CONSTRUCTION ADDITIONS OR DEMOLITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE VALUES OF IMPROVEMENTS.

SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY IF YOU'RE BUILDING A POOL, IF YOU'RE ADDING ON A PATIO.

SO THOSE WOULD BE ADDITIONS.

THAT'S TO CURRENT HOMEOWNERS.

THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY NEW CONSTRUCTION.

SO IT'S ANYTHING OF VALUE WHERE IT'S NOT NECESSARILY DUE TO A SALE OF A HOME, BUT IT IS ANYTHING THAT IS YOU ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE GOING TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS OFFICE, YOU'RE ASKING FOR A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT SOMETHING.

SO THAT'S USUALLY CONSIDERED PART OF YOUR NEW TAXABLE VALUE.

OKAY. THE 2020 AND THE 2021 FIGURES, THOSE ARE HARD FIGURES BECAUSE THEY'RE FINISHED.

SO WE HAD A -172 AND A -161 RESPECTIVELY, CORRECT? YES. AND 2022 IS FINISHED AS WELL.

2021 IS WHEN IS THE YEAR FINISH.

WELL, SO THESE ARE BUDGETED AMOUNTS, WHICH MEANS I WORK AHEAD.

SO I AM CURRENTLY WORKING TO ADOPT FISCAL YEAR 23, WHICH WILL BE ADOPTED IN SEPTEMBER.

LET IT BE NOTED FOR THE PUBLIC TO GET THAT CLOSE.

AS FAR AS PROJECTED VERSUS ACTUAL IS AMAZING.

CONGRATULATIONS. WELL, THESE WOULDN'T BE SO.

THESE ARE BUDGETED AMOUNTS.

SO ACTUALS ARE PART OF.

ONCE I GO INTO OUR BUDGET PREPARATION PROCESS, YOU WILL SEE ACTUAL PROJECTIONS VERSUS THE BUDGET. SO THESE ARE ONLY BUDGETED AMOUNTS.

SO HOW DO WE KNOW? OKAY, THAT'S THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM, RIGHT?

[00:55:09]

THANK YOU. DAVID, YOU HAD A QUESTION.

ACTUALLY ANGELIC.

I DO. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR OBVIOUSLY YOU PUTTING A LOT OF WORK ON IT.

MY QUESTION IS, IS I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE WERE FORECASTED AT A COLLECTION RATE OF 96%.

MM HMM. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK THAT UP.

SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ACTUAL COLLECTION, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK UP WHAT WHAT IT IS COMPARED TO THE ACTUAL BUDGETED AMOUNT.

IT'S USUALLY CLOSE.

SOMETIMES WE DO EXCEED IT BECAUSE YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO REMEMBER PEOPLE PAY TAXES LATE.

AND SO THAT GETS COME INTO THE COME INTO THE HOPPER, TOO.

SO WE ALSO COLLECT SOME DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS.

SO WHILE THAT IS NOT PART OF THE AD VALOREM BUDGETED AMOUNT, WE DO ACCOUNT THAT FOR AD VALOREM TAXATION AS WELL.

I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE IS THAT THE STATE IMPOSES A 3% CAP ON ON YOUR YOUR ASSESSED VALUE.

IT'S EITHER THE 3% ACTUALLY IS 3% OR THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX INCREASE THE LESSER OF THOSE TWO. SO THAT'S ACTUALLY BUILT IN BY STATE LAW.

AND ONE ELSE. JEFFREY.

BRING THEM CLOSER TO YOU.

I THINK YOUR PRESENTATION WAS EXCELLENT.

TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS TYPE OF PRESENTATION IS PROVIDED TO CITY COUNCIL ANNUALLY. AND THE SECOND QUESTION IS.

WHAT INPUT DO YOU HAVE YOUR DEPARTMENT IN DETERMINING WHAT IS AN EMERGENCY OR WHAT'S A CRITICAL NEED? SO AS FAR AS THE THE CITY COUNCIL PORTION, SO WE DO HAVE WORKSHOPS WITH CITY COUNCIL.

WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE NOT PRESENTED THE HYPOTHETICALS CAMPS.

THAT HAS NOT BEEN PART OF OUR JOB, BUT WE DO HAVE COUNCIL WORKSHOPS.

SO HOW MY BUDGET PROCESS WORKS IS I START THAT IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY WITH DEPARTMENTS AND WE ESSENTIALLY BUILD NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET UNTIL PROPERTY VALUATIONS COME IN, IN JUNE AND JULY. AND THEN WE HAVE BUDGET COUNCIL WORKSHOPS WITH COUNCIL, SO THEY'LL GET A MID-YEAR AND THEN THEY GET TO WORKSHOPS IN JULY AND AUGUST BEFORE WE MOVE INTO THE BUDGET ADOPTION IN SEPTEMBER.

SO YEAH.

AND THEN I DON'T KNOW IF IF MS..

SHERMAN WANTS TO ADDRESS THE SECOND PART.

THE INPUT IN THE CRITICAL AND EMERGENCY NEED.

YES, SIR. SO THAT ULTIMATELY IS THE CITY COUNCIL DECISION.

THEY WOULD MAKE THAT DECISION BASED ON INFORMATION THAT CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND TEAM ALL PRESENT IN TERMS OF THESE ARE THE NEEDS OF THE CITY.

SO ONE OF THE EXAMPLES, AS I'VE BEEN ADVISED, WHEN WE EXCEEDED THE CAP AND I THINK MAYBE IN THE FIRST YEAR WAS RELATED TO SOME HURRICANE EVENTS THAT HAD OCCURRED.

AND SO THAT WAS DEEMED BY COUNCIL TO BE AN EMERGENCY EVENT THAT CAUSES AN UNPLANNED FOR EXPENSES. RIGHT.

SO ULTIMATELY IT'S COUNCIL'S DECISION.

BUT IT WOULD IT WOULD ALSO BE SOMETHING WE WOULD DISCUSS AS PART OF THE PRESENTATION THAT STAFF MAKES TO COUNCIL WHEN WE LAY OUT FOR THEM.

THESE ARE ALL OF THE NEEDS OF THE CITY.

AND THEN YOU WOULD NEED A SUPERMAJORITY, A VOTE FOR THEM TO SAY, OKAY, WE BELIEVE THIS IS A BIG ENOUGH DEAL FOR US TO EXCEED THE CAP IN A GIVEN YEAR.

GOOD. I GOT YOU.

IT'S ON. TURN THE KNOB.

YEAH. WE TURNED IT OFF.

OKAY. YOU CAN HEAR ME NOW.

OKAY, GOOD. AGAIN, I WANT TO ECHO HOW WONDERFUL THIS PRESENTATION HAS BEEN.

VERY DETAIL AND BREAKING IT DOWN FOR ANYONE TO UNDERSTAND.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

MY QUESTION IS ON PAGE 12.

SLIDE 12.

NOW, WE ARE TRYING TO DETERMINE WITHIN 5% OR NO CAP, BUT I DIDN'T SEE AN EXAMPLE FOR NO CAP HERE.

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN KIND OF IDEAL.

AND I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY DIFFICULT SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU'RE SPECULATING WHAT WE WOULD ACTUALLY DO.

I NOTICE IN YOUR EXAMPLES YOU ALSO HAD 8% AS PROBABLY A TARGET AND WE WERE ORIGINALLY WENT UP TO 8.4.

IS IT THEN THAT YOU'RE DEEMING 8.4 AS TOO HIGH AND PROBABLY NOT REAL UNREALISTIC? OR WHAT WAS THE EIGHT FOUR? SO IT WAS ESSENTIALLY JUST TRENDING DOWN.

SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT 8.45, THOSE WERE ACTUAL ADOPTED RATES.

[01:00:04]

AND THEN WE HAD JUST TALKED ABOUT WITH SHERMAN, WE SAID, WELL, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN LOWER IT DOWN TO EIGHT.

I MEAN, HONESTLY, WITH A WITH A NO CAP, YOU CAN PLAY WITH IT ALL DAY AND YOU CAN JUST COME UP WITH SOME NUMBERS.

SO WE HAD JUST HAD THOSE FEW TARGETS WHERE WE PUT IN PUT IN EIGHT.

SO IT WAS HONESTLY JUST RANDOM THAT WE DECIDED TO LOWER IT TO THAT AND MAINTAIN IT JUST TO GIVE AN IDEA.

I MEAN, GOING OUT FOR DECIMALS, YOU CAN PLAY WITH IT ALL DAY LONG TO SEE WHAT THAT RATE WOULD BE. SO WE JUST KIND OF KEPT.

UNDERSTOOD. THE QUESTION I ALSO WANT TO ASK AND MAYBE SHERMAN COULD ANSWER THIS, HAVE YOU DETERMINE WHAT THE IDEAL BUDGET WOULD BE IF YOU WERE ABLE TO FUND AND WOULD 8% BE THAT? OR IS IT A 5%, 3%? SO DIFFICULT QUESTION TO ANSWER.

I CAN ANSWER THE FIRST PART EASILY, LIKE A PERFECT BUDGET FOR ME IS ONE WHERE YES, UNLIMITED MONEY. AS MR. BATTEN SAID, NO PERFECT BUDGET FOR ME IS ONE WHERE WE'RE PROPERLY FUNDING THE THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AS PRIORITIES.

SO WE'RE FUNDING OUR OUR BASIC OPERATIONS NOW.

RIGHT. BUT BUT A PERFECT WORLD FOR ME IS A SCENARIO WHERE WE'RE ABLE TO PROPERLY FUND MEETING OUR CAPITAL NEEDS INVESTING IN THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND AT A PROPER LEVEL, KEEPING UP WITH THE RATE OF GROWTH IN THE CITY.

SO ADDING POLICE OFFICERS, FIRE STATIONS, FIREFIGHTERS TO BE IN THE FIRE STATIONS AT AN APPROPRIATE PACE TO KEEP KEEP PACE WITH OUR GROWTH.

SO THAT'S THE PERFECT SCENARIO FOR ME.

AND OF COURSE, I ADD ON TO THAT KEEPING UP WITH THE THE SALARIES IN A VERY COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE DOING THE SALARY STUDY.

THAT PART'S EASY TO ANSWER. THE OTHER PART OF YOUR QUESTION IS MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE EVERY YEAR THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTIES CHANGES.

SO IT WOULD BLESS YOU.

IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO PICK A RATE TODAY THAT IS LIKE THE IDEAL MILITARY.

IN AN IDEAL SITUATION, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, AND WE'RE IN A GROWTH ENVIRONMENT AND WE DIDN'T HAVE A CAP CALCULATION.

I WOULD EXPECT A NORMAL SITUATION IN A BUDGET YEAR TO LOOK LIKE BECAUSE WE ARE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FULL VALUE OF PROPERTY GROWTH THAN THE MILLAGE IS ABLE TO DECREASE INCREMENTALLY, WHICH IS PART OF WHY WE SHOWED A LITTLE BIT OF A DROP.

THAT'S NORMAL.

IN TERMS OF CALCULATING MILEAGE AND TAX TAX REVENUE THAT COMES IN.

IF YOU'RE NOT IN A 3% CAP ENVIRONMENT, OUR WORLD IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THIS CALCULATION TO GET TO A NUMBER THAT WE HAVE TO STOP AT.

BUT WHEN YOU'RE IN A GROWTH ENVIRONMENT AND WHEN YOU'RE ADDING MORE TO THE BASE BEYOND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND YOU'RE STARTING TO SEE COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, YOUR TAX BASE DIVERSIFIES AND LESS.

YOU CAN MOVE YOU CAN MOVE MORE OF THE BURDEN OF THE TAXES AWAY FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES AND PUT IT ON.

IT'S JUST THE MATH OF HOW IT WORKS.

IT ENDS UP GOING MORE ONTO THE COMMERCIAL AND THE MULTIFAMILY.

AND THAT'S ACTUALLY LONG TERM BENEFICIAL FOR EVERYONE BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL DO MORE.

YOU CAN STILL BRING IN THE REVENUE YOU NEED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CITY, BUT YOU'RE NOT PUTTING IT ALL IN THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME HOMEOWNERS ANYMORE.

OH, WELL, I.

I HEAR YOU. I'M NOT NECESSARILY FULLY SATISFIED WITH THAT, BUT I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET TO THE THE ARGUMENT FOR NO CAP, RIGHT.

BECAUSE WE COULD PLAY WITH IT ALL YEAR.

BUT PEOPLE WON'T BE HAPPY WITH US PLAYING WITH IT, YOU KNOW, 12, 15, WHATEVER IT IS.

AND I KNOW THAT THE STATE HAVE A CAP AS WELL.

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT FOR NO CAP VERSUS OR CURRENT OR FIVE OR SIX, WHAT MAKES IT WHERE IF IDEALLY, PROBABLY REASONABLY WE COULD GO TO 8%? IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO KIND OF SIT HERE.

SO I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD PAY WHEN I SEE IT HERE.

BUT. TELL ME THE WHAT MAKES NO CAP VERSUS A 6% 5%.

WHEN YOU SAY 8%, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MILITARY AID? I'M JUST USING OUR MILITARY.

YES. OR MAYBE NOT LIKE GOING TO A CAP OF.

OH, NO, NO, NO. JUST MILITARY.

I GUESS THE SIMPLEST WAY I CAN EXPLAIN IT IS WHATEVER YOUR CAP IS, WHETHER IT'S A THREE OR A FIVE OR A SIX.

ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T TAKE YOU CAN'T TAKE THE BENEFIT OF THE GROWTH IN VALUE ON THE WHOLE FOR YOUR CITY, WHICH USUALLY IS YOUR CITY GROWS, YOU'RE SPREADING THE BURDEN.

RIGHT? AND SO YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO AS THE CITY GROWS AND MORE TAXPAYERS ARE NOW IN THE POT. YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF YOUR GROWING CITY BY KEEPING YOUR MILITARY AT A PLACE THAT IS APPROPRIATE TO MEET THOSE DEMANDS.

[01:05:03]

AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS IT CAN COST $500,000 FOR A FIRE ENGINE REPLACEMENT.

IF I NEED A STAFF, A FIRE STATION, THAT'S MULTIPLE PEOPLE SALARY AND BENEFITS THAT I'M GETTING UPWARDS OF $100,000 JUST TO PAY FOR THEM AND ALL THEIR STUFF.

SO YOU CAN SEE HOW QUICKLY JUST A COUPLE OF MILLION DOLLARS EXTRA IN A CAP ENVIRONMENT GETS EATEN UP.

AND THAT'S NOT CONSIDERING ALL THE OTHER THINGS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT DOING, LIKE ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND, LIKE OTHER CAPITAL NEEDS.

SO IT JUST BECOMES VERY CHALLENGING.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS TO.

IT DOES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

BECAUSE JUST KIND OF LOOKING AT OUR WHEN WE HAD THE HIGH GROWTH IN 2000 OR THREE OR THEREABOUT AND WE'RE ALMOST THERE NOW, BUT OUR OUR INCOME IS LIMITED SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT CAP IS THERE. SO COULDN'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OF ANY OF THE EXTRA BASED ON THAT.

SO YEAH. AND IF I COULD ADD THE NORMAL EBB AND FLOW OF THE CYCLE OF GENERAL FUND REVENUES IN A CITY'S FINANCIAL SITUATION REALLY SHOULD BE THAT IN THE HIGH GROWTH YEARS, YOU'RE ABLE TO INVEST IN SOME OF THOSE THINGS THAT YOU SOMETIMES YOU PUT OFF IN THE LOW GROWTH YEARS, YOU KNOW, BUT BECAUSE OF WHERE WE'RE AT, WE HAVE STRUGGLED TO EVEN CREATE A.

I'LL CALL IT A STANDARD OF LIVING CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN WHERE I COULD SAY WE'RE GOING TO REPLACE X NUMBER OF THESE VEHICLES EVERY YEAR ON A RECURRING BASIS.

THERE WAS EVEN A TIME WHERE IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR US TO BUDGET FOR COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS.

NOW COMPUTER COSTS HAVE COME DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY, SO THAT'S REALLY HELPED, BUT USED TO BE HARD TO EVEN DO THAT CONSISTENTLY.

SO JUST OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

A TAD BIT IF YOU LOOK AT.

IF YOU LOOK. IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR SLIDE NUMBER 11, THAT SAYS IT ALL.

BECAUSE WE WERE UP AT 5 MILLION, WE DROPPED DOWN TO TWO.

BILLY. I MEAN, NOW WE'RE DOWN.

DOWN THAT MUCH.

SO IN THE TIME THAT IT'S CLIMBING, WE'VE RESTRICTED OURSELVES.

SO WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THOSE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY DO DURING THE GOOD TIMES YOU SET UP FOR THAT.

WE HAD TO SOMETIMES TAKE FROM PETER TO PAY PAUL BECAUSE FIRE ENGINES WERE BREAKING DOWN.

AND WE HAD TO GET GRANTS TO GET FIRE ENGINES OR GET BREVARD COUNTY TO SELL US ONE OF THE USED ONES IN ORDER TO FULFILL OUR NEEDS HERE IN THE CITY.

THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE SHOULD BE FUNCTIONING.

THAT'S WHERE THE ARGUMENT COMES IN, IN REGARDS TO CAP ON ALL CAP.

IT'S NOT LIKE THERE WAS MISAPPROPRIATION IN A SENSE.

IT'S JUST THAT IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE CAP CAME AT A TIME WHEN WE'RE DOING GOOD AND ALL THOSE BAD TIMES THAT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO EVEN GIVE RAISES AND DO THE OTHER THINGS.

SIMPLE THING AS AS AS IT MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW FROM IN THE IT WORLD IS THAT'S WHAT WE LIVE NOW. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE CITY GETS HACKED.

WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR INFORMATION? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY, EVERYTHING, ALL THAT INFORMATION TO THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

IF PALM BAY HAS HACKED, YOUR INFORMATION IS OPEN.

FOR ANYBODY TO USE.

SO THOSE ARE THE DIFFERENT THINGS, NOT JUST ABOUT PEOPLE SOMETIMES PUT IMPORTANCE ON CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS WHERE THE POLICE FIRE PUBLIC WORKS, BUT THERE'S A PLACE CALLED I.T.

THAT WE USED TO MAKE ARGUMENTS FOR.

BECAUSE THEIR EQUIPMENT WAS OLD.

BUT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THE STUFF THAT WE NEEDED TO GET.

BECAUSE WE ARE PLAYING AROUND WITH JUST MONEY THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE.

BECAUSE OF THE CAT.

RIGHT. SO THAT'S. AND ALL YOU HAVE TO LOOK AND SEE IS GO BACK TO AT THE TIME BEFORE 2008 AND LOOK AT WHAT ONE MILL PROVIDED VERSUS WHAT WHAT MILL PROVIDED IN 2012 AND 2013 WHEN.

56%. A VALUE WAS GONE.

SO. IF YOU ADD SOMETHING AND IF AND IF I ALSO MAY, I WENT AHEAD AND CALCULATED THE EIGHT.

I JUST DID IT FOR THE 75,000.

IT'S SUPER EASY. SO IT'S 75,000 TIMES 8.000, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO ADD IN THERE, DIVIDED

[01:10:03]

SO THAT WOULD BE ROUGHLY ABOUT $600.

SO THAT WOULD BE $31 MORE PER YEAR IF YOU'RE GOING OVER THE 3%.

AND IF WE GO BACK TO SLIDE NINE, IF WE WERE TO GO INTO THAT ENVIRONMENT OF THAT 88.0 MIL FOR US, FOR THE CITY OF PALM BAY AS A VARIANCE TO THE 3.3% WOULD BE ALMOST $2 MILLION ADDITIONAL. SO THAT WOULD BE THE COMPARISON FOR 75,000.

IT'S ABOUT $31 MORE FROM ME.

THE 3%.

JEFFREY ANGELICA, THROUGHOUT YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU MENTION THAT SOMETHING WAS TRENDING DOWN. WOULD THAT BE ANTICIPATED? AD VALOREM TAXES? YOU SAID THAT HAD AN EFFECT UPON HOW YOU SET THE THE MILLAGE CALCULATION.

NO. SO IT'S NOT AD VALOREM TAXATION.

SO OUR MILLAGE RATE IS ACTUALLY TRENDING DOWN.

SO AS YOU GO TO SLIDE FOUR, OUR ACTUAL MILITARY RATE IS TRENDING DOWN, EXCEPT FOR WE DID HAVE FOR THAT 3% CAP, WE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF AN UPTICK WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A 3% RATE FROM 2019 TO 2020.

AND THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN NEW TAXABLE VALUE THAT WAS ADDED.

BUT IN GENERAL, OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS, OUR RATE THAT WE HAVE ADOPTED IS TRENDING DOWN.

AND I JUST BASED ON THE CALCULATIONS I DO WITH THE PROJECTED GROWTH THAT WE'VE HAD AND WITH THE GROWTH THAT WE'VE SEEN, AND AS MISS SHERMAN HAS MENTIONED, THAT THE MORE VALUE YOU ADD TO THE TAX ROLL, WHETHER THAT IS IS SINGLE FAMILY, HOMEOWNERS, MULTI OR COMMERCIAL, YOU'RE SPREADING OUT THE AMOUNT THAT THE CITY IN A HYPOTHETICALLY IN A WORLD WHERE THERE WASN'T A CAP ON WHAT THE CITY NEEDS TO GENERATE.

SO I THINK OF IT AS IF THE CITY NEEDS TO GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL 5 MILLION MORE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR BECAUSE WE HAVE NEW REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE TO PAY, WHETHER IT'S DEBT SERVICE, WE HAVE NEW STAFF, WE HAVE A NEW FIRE STATION.

THAT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I THINK CHIEF WHO HAD MENTIONED IT IS REQUIRES 12 PEOPLE TO STAFF A FIRE STATION AND A FIREFIGHTER COSTS ABOUT 100,000.

WHEN YOU INCLUDING ALL THE PENSIONS AND EVERYTHING.

SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT $5 MILLION, THE MORE TAXABLE VALUE AND THE MORE YOU CAN SPREAD THAT OUT IS THAT YOU'RE JUST GENERATING THE 5 MILLION, RIGHT? SO IF YOU HAVE 5 MILLION, THEN YOU CAN ONLY SPREAD ACROSS 100 UNITS.

OBVIOUSLY, THAT COST PER UNIT THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL IS LIABLE FOR IS EXCESSIVELY HIGH.

IF YOU HAVE 100,000 UNITS, THAT 5 MILLION THAT YOU NEED TO GENERATE, YOU'RE SPREADING OUT OVER ADDITIONAL UNITS.

SO BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY NEEDING TO GENERATE OR NOT USING ONLY, BUT IF YOU'RE GENERATING THAT $5 MILLION, THEN WE'RE ABLE TO SET THOSE RATES LOWER BECAUSE WE'RE STILL ABLE TO GENERATE THE 5 MILLION AT A LOWER TAX RATE BECAUSE WE'RE SPREADING IT OUT MORE.

RIGHT. SO IT IS ESSENTIALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT IS NEEDED TO BE GENERATED RATHER THAN BEING RESTRICTED TO SETTING IT TO A CERTAIN VALUE.

SO IT IS MY ANTICIPATION THAT THE RATES WILL CONTINUE TO THOSE 3% CAP RATES OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS WILL CONTINUE TO DROP BECAUSE OUR GENERAL GROSS TAXABLE VALUE CONTINUES TO INCREASE AND YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SPREADING IT OUT.

I THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION BECAUSE I DID NOT MAKE THE CONNECTION.

OKAY. WELL, THANKS.

JUST TO REITERATE WHAT EVERYONE ELSE ALREADY SAID.

WONDERFUL JOB, ANGELICA.

THANK YOU ON THE PRESENTATION, KAY.

NOT THAT I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS, BUT I THINK THE ARGUMENT FOR ALSO ELIMINATING THE CAP COULD POTENTIALLY BE NUMBER ONE.

THE STATE ALREADY HAS A CAP IN PLACE.

NUMBER TWO, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT NEW CONSTRUCTION AND GROWTH, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THAT REVENUE WILL ALWAYS BE THERE.

AND SO FOR US TO CAPITALIZE, IN ESSENCE, ON THE GOOD YEARS.

RIGHT. IT WAS MENTIONED OR TALKED ABOUT.

BUT I THINK ALSO ONE THING THAT GOVERNMENTS DO A DISSERVICE TO THEMSELVES AND IS WE CONSIDER CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, RIGHT.

CPI IS FOR HOUSEHOLD GOODS, BUT MUNICIPALITIES IN MY RESEARCH AND DUE DILIGENCE, I'VE SEEN THAT SOME MUNICIPALITIES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES AND I CAN'T THINK OF THE ONE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD HERE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

BUT THEY ACTUALLY UTILIZE A MUNICIPAL COST INDEX.

[01:15:05]

AND SO BY US USING A CPI, THAT'S REALLY DOING A DISSERVICE TO TO A LOCAL GOVERNMENT, YOU KNOW, HOUSEHOLDS VERSUS LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THAT'S TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF, YOU KNOW, INDEXES THAT SHOULD BE USED.

QUESTION HERE.

WHEN THE CAP WAS BUST, A CAP WAS BUST.

WHEN THE CAP WAS BUST OR BROKEN IN 2018, 2019.

CITY MANAGER YOU ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT THAT WAS DUE TO HURRICANE.

DID THE CITY NOT RECEIVE HURRICANE RELIEF FUNDS DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME? ANGELICA CAN JUMP IN AFTER I SAY WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY IF I'M MISSING ANYTHING.

BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS DUE TO WE HAD A LOT OF OUTPUT OF EXPENDITURES, BUT IT TAKES A WHILE TO GET REIMBURSEMENT FROM FEMA.

YEAH, IT SHOULD BE A MULTIYEAR DRAG.

THAT'S ALL YOU HAD TO SAY. FEMA AND YES, I WAS ABOUT TO INTERJECT.

IT DOESN'T COME TO YOU.

YOU LET IT GO.

ABSOLUTELY. LET ME INTERJECT.

I'M ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MOBILE AND WATER CONTROL DISTRICT.

WE ARE STILL FIGHTING WITH FEMA TO GET REIMBURSED FOR OUR EXPENSES FROM THE HURRICANE.

I THINK WE RECEIVED OURS.

OUR FINAL PAYMENT, I THINK CAME LATE LAST CALENDAR YEAR.

SO I'VE OFFICIALLY RECEIVED ALL MY PAYMENTS.

OKAY. A COUPLE OF POINTS I WANT TO MAKE.

NUMBER ONE, AS ANGELO POINTED OUT, IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR TAX BILL.

ONLY ABOUT 36% GOES TO THE CITY.

THE REST IS. THE REST IS.

MUCH OF IT GOES TO THE SCHOOL BOARD, BUT ONLY ABOUT 36% GOES TO YOUR CITY.

YOU COMPARE THAT TO TO THE YOUR TAX BILL FOR OTHER CITIES.

I MEAN, IT'S STILL REALLY PRETTY LOW.

SECOND THING I WANT TO POINT OUT IS, IS IS MR. CHANDLER WANTS TO SEE WHAT THE EFFECT OF INCREASING THE CAP TO EITHER 5% OR 6%.

WELL, IF WE INCREASED IT TO 5%, THAT WOULD MAKE AN ADDITIONAL $736,000 THIS YEAR.

NOT REALLY A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE.

6%, AN ADDITIONAL MILLION ONE IF THERE WERE NO CAP.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST ABOUT $2 MILLION, WHICH COINCIDENTALLY IS JUST ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD COST FOR US TO FOR OUR ROAD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.

YOU WANT TO GET STANTEC BECAUSE BEFORE.

YEAH, BECAUSE WE'RE TIME.

YES. YEAH. WAS THAT MY CUE? FINALLY ON PETER. I'M SORRY I TOOK TOO LONG.

NO, IT'S OKAY.

YOU KNOW, GREAT, GREAT JOB WITH THAT PRESENTATION.

CAN EVERYONE. CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME OKAY? YES. ALL RIGHT.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY.

MY NAME IS PETER NAPOLI.

I WORK WITH STANTEC CONSULTING.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE TONIGHT.

I'M HERE TO SHARE THE FINANCIAL MODEL THAT WE ASSEMBLED FOR THE CITY.

WE CALL IT A GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS.

AND ESSENTIALLY THE GOAL OF THE MODEL IS TO PROJECT THE FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS.

SO I'M GOING TO SHARE MY SCREEN RIGHT NOW.

YOU GUYS HAVE A WAY OF SEEING MY SCREEN OVER THERE, RIGHT? OKAY. PERFECT.

SO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT NOW IS WHAT WE CALL THE PANEL.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY A DASHBOARD THAT SUMMARIZES THE RESULTS OF OUR STUDY.

AND THIS IS A DYNAMIC DASHBOARD WHERE WE CAN CHANGE CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS AND SEE THE IMPACT OF THOSE CHANGES.

BEHIND THE SCENES, THERE'S A PROJECTION OF ALL OF THE CITY'S EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENT, BY TYPE. SO ALL OF THE PROJECTED PERSONNEL NEEDS, PROJECTED OPERATING EXPENSES, PROJECTED CAPITAL FUNDING TRANSFERS, DEBT SERVICE, ETC..

AND THEN ON THE REVENUE SIDE, FOR THE REVENUES, OTHER THAN PROPERTY TAXES, WE'VE ADJUSTED THOSE REVENUES OVER TIME TO ACCOUNT FOR.

THE INCREASE IS RELATED TO THE ECONOMIC PRESSURES, INFLATION, ETC.

SO THE REVENUES ARE BEING ESCALATED AND THE PROPERTY TAXES.

WE'VE SET UP A UNIQUE SIMULATION THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE.

THE FUNCTIONALITY WITH THE CAP THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING.

SO WHAT WE CAN DO IS WE CAN LOOK AT DIFFERENT SCENARIOS RELATED TO THE CAP.

I CAN CHANGE THE CAP TO 5%, 6%, 8%.

[01:20:01]

SO JUST TO FAMILIARIZE EVERYBODY WITH WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, THIS IS THIS IS KIND OF OUR BASELINE SCENARIO.

STARTING FROM THE TOP, YOU'LL SEE A SECTION WHERE THE PROPERTY TAX RATE IS REFERENCED.

SO YOU START THIS YEAR WITH 7.5995 AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IN EACH YEAR THERE IS AN THERE'S A DECREASE THAT PROGRAM AND THAT'S AN AUTOMATIC DECREASE.

THAT'S PROGRAMS CURRENTLY RELATED TO THE CAP.

SO WE HAVE THE 3% CAP IN PLACE FOR THIS BASELINE PROJECTION.

IN THE SECOND SECTION HERE, YOU'LL SEE THE PROGRAM INCREASES TAXABLE VALUE.

SO JUST LIKE ANGELICA WAS EXPLAINING, THERE'S KIND OF TWO PARTS TO THE INCREASE IN TAXABLE VALUE. THERE'S THE INCREASE, THE OVERALL, THE GENERAL INCREASE, AND THEN THERE'S THE INCREASE RELATED TO NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT ISN'T CAPPED PER THE CITY'S POLICY.

SO THIS PAST YEAR, WE'RE LOOKING AT A 6% AND THEN A 4.3% FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.

SO THE 6% WOULD BE 3% OVER YOUR CAP BECAUSE THE CAP AFFECTS THIS COMPONENT OF THE TAXABLE VALUE INCREASE.

THE 4.3% FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE FULLY REALIZED BY THE CITY.

THAT'S A REVENUE. AND EACH YEAR GOING FORWARD, WE MADE ASSUMPTIONS FOR HOW THESE INCREASES. WILL RESULT.

SO WE SINCE THERE'S TWO COMPONENTS, WE HAVE A PROJECTION FOR THE TAXABLE VALUE INCREASE.

SO FROM 6% TO 5%.

AND 4%, 3%.

SO THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO KEEP ASSUMING THAT THIS CURRENT YEARS ARE GROWING AT THE SAME RATE.

THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IS ALSO INCLUDED.

SO YOU CAN SEE THAT COMPONENT.

AND THE ONE THING I WANT TO POINT OUT HERE AND EACH YEAR THAT YOU EXCEED THE CAP.

SO IN EACH YEAR THAT THIS NUMBER IS ABOVE 3%, THAT'S GOING TO TRIGGER THAT MILLAGE RATE ADJUSTMENT, JUST LIKE IN HISTORICAL YEARS.

JACK. I'M SORRY, IS THERE SOME AUDIO DIFFICULTY? OKAY. SORRY.

I JUST SAW EVERYONE LOOKING.

I WAS LIKE, WAIT A SECOND.

TESTING. TESTING.

WE GOT IT. IT SOUNDS BETTER.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

SO WHAT I WAS POINTING OUT IS THAT CURRENTLY THIS THE MODEL IS SHOWING THE CAP IN PLACE ANY YEAR WHERE YOU EXPERIENCE WE'RE ESTIMATING THE CITY TO EXPERIENCE GROWTH ABOVE 3% AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGERS THAT MILLAGE RATE ADJUSTMENT SO THAT THE CITY'S CAP IS ACTIVE.

THIS THIS SECTION HERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE SHOWS THE THE CASH FLOW RESULTS.

SO WHEN WE'RE PROJECTING WE'RE PROJECTING THE REVENUES, WE'RE PROJECTING THE EXPENSES.

IF THE EXPENSES ARE OVER THE REVENUES, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A DEFICIT.

IF THE REVENUES ARE OVER THE EXPENSES, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A SURPLUS.

AND THAT AND THAT'S SHOWN NUMERICALLY HERE AND THEN GRAPHICALLY IN THIS RIGHT HAND GRAPH.

SO ON THE RIGHT HAND LINE GRAPH, THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE REVENUES VERSUS EXPENSES.

AND THIS BASELINE SCENARIO, YOU CAN SEE THE ORANGE LINE, WHICH REPRESENTS THE EXPENSES AND THE TEN YEAR PROJECTION IS ABOVE THAT BLACK LINE, WHICH REPRESENTS ALL THE REVENUES.

SO YOU'RE OPERATING AT A CASH FLOW DEFICIT USING FUND BALANCE AND EACH YEAR TO COVER THE GAP. SO THIS THE.

NUMERICAL LINE HERE IMPACTS YOUR FUN BALANCE.

AND THE FUN BALANCE GRAPH IS SHOWN ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE END OF YEAR FUN BALANCE.

WE START THE PROJECTION WITH A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, AND IN EACH YEAR, DEPENDING ON THE RESULTS OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES, YOU'RE GOING TO EITHER SUBTRACT FROM THAT FUND BALANCE OR ADD TO IT.

SO THIS BASELINE SCENARIO WE'RE SHOWING YOU SHOWS A SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE BEGINNING YOUR FUND BALANCE.

AND LET ME POINT OUT, THE BLACK LINE IS THE RESERVE TARGET OR THE RESERVE REQUIREMENT BY CITY POLICY. YOU DON'T WANT TO FALL UNDERNEATH THAT BLACK LINE BECAUSE YOU NEED TO KEEP A

[01:25:05]

SO IN THIS GRAPH I DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS GRAPH.

YOU CAN SEE THE FUND BALANCE IS STARTING OUT ABOVE THAT BLACK LINE.

YOU'RE IN A SAFE SITUATION, BUT CURRENTLY WITH THE 3% CAP ACTIVE IN EACH YEAR, THE MODEL IS SHOWING THAT YOU'RE RUNNING A CASH FLOW DEFICIT.

YOU'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING MORE THAN YOU'RE COLLECTING IN REVENUES.

SO YOU CAN SEE THE BLUE BARS DEGRADE IN EACH YEAR UNTIL YOU GET TO THE.

FOURTH YEAR YEAR 2024.

OR THIRD YEAR, RATHER.

WHERE THE FUN BALANCE ACTUALLY FALLS BENEATH YOUR TARGET.

AND YOU'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE A POLICY WHERE YOU CAN'T FALL BENEATH THAT TARGET. SO YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE SOME SORT OF ADJUSTMENT EITHER TO EXPENSES OR REVENUES THAT YEAR. SO THAT'S THE BASELINE ANALYSIS.

I HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THE CAP AND SHOW YOU THE IMPACT SIDE BY SIDE.

I CAN MAYBE RUN THROUGH THAT SCENARIO FIRST, IF YOU'D LIKE.

OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO BRING IN THE SCENARIO FUNCTIONALITY.

SO NOW YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S A BLUE AND A GREEN BAR NEXT TO EACH OTHER, AND EACH OF THE YEARS THE GREEN BARS ARE GOING TO STAY THE SAME AND THE BLUE BARS ARE GOING TO CHANGE WHENEVER I CHANGE ANY ASSUMPTION.

SO I'M GOING TO CHANGE THAT TAX CAP.

RIGHT NOW IT SAYS, YES, IT'S IN PLACE.

I'M GOING TO SAY NO.

SO YOU'LL WITH THAT ESSENTIALLY DOES IS IT KEEPS YOUR CURRENT MILLAGE RATE THROUGHOUT THE TEN YEAR PROJECTION AND IT SHOWS YOU THE RESULTS OF THE FINANCIAL RESULTS OF THAT.

SO YOU CAN SEE UNDER THIS SCENARIO, THE CASH FLOW DEFICITS ARE GREATLY REDUCED.

YOU HAVE SLIGHT DEFICITS.

YOU'RE STILL USING DOWN YOUR FUND BALANCE.

BUT YOU YOU KIND OF END IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE RIGHT AROUND YOUR MINIMUM TARGET.

AND IN THOSE OUT YEARS, YOU'RE REALLY CLOSE BUT SLIGHTLY OFF.

AND THAT'S.

THERE'S A LOT OF TIME BETWEEN NOW AND THEN TO ADJUST.

SO I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS A THIS ISN'T AN EMERGENCY SITUATION WHERE YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE SOME CHOICES NOW.

BUT THIS IS THIS IS TYPICALLY THIS IS A GOOD, SUSTAINABLE PROJECTION THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND.

WHAT? QUICK QUESTION.

WHAT WAS HIS NAME? PETER, CAN YOU EXCUSE ME? PETER, CAN YOU CHANGE THE TAX RATE CAP BACK TO.

YES. AND PUT IN 6% THERE.

SO THAT'S INTERESTING.

I'M GOING TO CALCULATE THAT AND IT'S GOING TO SHOW YOU THE SAME EXACT THING.

AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS AND THESE OUT YEARS, BECAUSE WE'VE REMAINED REALLY CONSERVATIVE WITH THE PROPERTY PROJECTIONS, WE'RE ACTUALLY ONLY PROJECTING 5% INCREASES OR PERCENT INCREASES AND THEN 3% INCREASES.

NONE OF THOSE EXCEED THAT 6% CAP.

SO THE CAP IS NEVER TRIGGERED UNDER THE 6% SCENARIO.

NOW, WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW HOW PROPERTY VALUES ARE GOING TO GROW IN THESE OUT YEARS.

YOU COULD HAVE MUCH MORE SUCCESSFUL YEARS LIKE YOU'VE HAD IN RECENT YEARS, AND IN THAT SITUATION YOU WOULD MISS OUT ON THAT REVENUE IF THE 6% CAP IS IN PLACE.

BUT UNDER THE CURRENT PROJECTION THAT WE HAVE SHOWN HERE, THE 6% ISN'T TRIGGERED.

PETER, WOULD IT SUFFICE TO SAY, GIVEN YOUR LAST STATEMENT THAT YOU WOULD AGREE WITH A 6% CAP WOULD NOT BE PROHIBITIVE OF THE CITY? GOING FORTH WITH ITS FINANCIAL GOALS MOVING FORWARD, GIVEN YOUR MODEL.

THAT WOULD THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE ARE CAPTURING THE COSTS AND EXPENSE NEEDS IN THE FUTURE YEARS.

SO THAT WOULD REALLY DEPEND ON THAT.

I WOULD SAY I WOULD JUST CAUTION EVERYONE THAT THIS PROJECTION DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY ADDITIONAL FTES.

SO IT'S THE CURRENT STAFFING LEVELS PROJECTED FORWARD WITH SALARIES AND BENEFIT

[01:30:05]

IT INCLUDES, I BELIEVE, A MINIMAL OR CONSERVATIVE LEVEL OF FUNDING FOR THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND AND OTHER CAPITAL FUNDING AT ONE AND ONE HALF MILLION ANNUALLY.

WAS ALSO IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THAT WAS KIND OF ON THE LOW END OF THE RANGE FOR CAPITAL NEEDS IN THE CITY.

BUT UNDER SO UNDER THIS CONSERVATIVE SITUATION, YES, THE 6% WOULD ALLOW ALL THIS GROWTH TO STILL BE ACHIEVED.

AND IT'S A BETTER SITUATION THAN THE 3%.

UNDERSTOOD, SIR.

AND THIS MAY BE A QUESTION MORE FOR MADAM SHERMAN, BUT HONESTLY, I WOULD LIKE YOUR ANSWER FROM YOUR UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE.

IS IT YOUR VIEW THAT IN YOUR CONSULTANT CAPACITY THAT IT'S IT'S UP TO YOU TO RUN THIS MODEL TO PROTECT THE CITY FROM FROM SITUATIONS THAT SIGN US UP TO BE IN A NEGATIVE FINANCIAL SITUATION.

SO YOUR MODELS ARE INTENDED FOR US AS CITIZENS AND THE CITY STAFF TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT AND GAUGE OUR RISK.

SO FROM A RELIABILITY PERSPECTIVE, OF COURSE, THEY'RE FORECASTS MODELS SO EQUIVALENT OF THE WEATHERMAN. BUT THE INTENTION AND THE OBJECTIVE OF THE MODELS IS TO SHOW US WHETHER THINGS WE'RE DOING FISCALLY ARE FEASIBLE AND SUSTAINABLE OR NOT.

SO WITH THAT BURDEN OF PROOF, I'M GOING TO VENTURE TO SAY TO THIS BOARD THAT THIS CONSULTANT IS TELLING US THAT WITHIN A 6% CAP, WE DO NOT HAVE LIMITATIONS OR HANDCUFFS, HANDCUFFS THAT STOP US FROM ACHIEVING THE PREDETERMINED GOALS THAT THE CITY STAFF LAID OUT TO THIS CONSULTANT FIRM TO ENTER INTO THIS MODEL, WHICH, OF COURSE, THE CONSULTANT SERVES AT THE CITY'S DISCRETION.

SO IF THE CITY THINKS THAT WE NEED TO ENTER OR CHANGE THE EXPENSES AND INCREASE THEM AND INCREASE THEIR PROJECTIONS, I'M SURE THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY INSTRUCTED HIM TO DO SO.

SO. IT'S MORE OF A STATEMENT THAN A QUESTION.

BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION, PETER.

AND WHILE I HAVE THE MIC, MR. CHAIR, IF YOU'LL ENTERTAIN ME, ANGELICA, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS PRESENTATION.

I QUITE APPRECIATE IT.

I HAVE HAD THE PLEASURE OF HEARING MS..

COLLINS PRESENT MULTIPLE TIMES ON THIS ISSUE AND ON THE BUDGET PROCESS, AND EACH PRESENTATION GETS MORE DETAILED AND MORE UNDERSTANDABLE AND MORE PALATABLE FOR US, THE NORMAL CITIZEN. AND FOR THAT, I AM VERY GRATEFUL TO YOU, MA'AM.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. DAVID.

I MIGHT AS WELL ECHO WHAT EVERYBODY HAS SAID.

BOTH PRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN FANTASTIC.

AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR.

DOING EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO AND SIMPLIFYING IT FOR A COUNTRY BOY.

LIKE, BECAUSE IT WAS LIKE, IF YOU CAN MAKE ME UNDERSTAND IT, YOU CAN MAKE ANYBODY UNDERSTAND IT. HELLO, MADAM CITY MANAGER.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS AND FROM WHAT HE.

WHAT PETER JUST SAID IS.

WE WOULD BE FINE WITH THE PROJECTIONS BASED OFF OF HOW WE'RE OPERATING TODAY.

BUT TO WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER, IF WE WANTED TO FORECAST TO LOOK AT WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IN GOOD YEARS? THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE DATA THAT WE'RE SEEING IN FRONT OF US.

ALL THAT WE'RE SEEING IS IF WE WERE GOING TO OPERATE SIMILAR, I GUESS IN A WAY OF BECAUSE CURRENTLY WE'RE HANDCUFFED, THIS IS ALL WE CAN DO.

SO THIS IS HOW WE'RE OPERATING.

THIS MODEL IS PROJECTING, EVEN AT THE 6%, STILL LOOKING AT HOW WE'RE OPERATING TODAY WITH THE 3% HANDCUFF AND SAYING, WELL, IF YOU KEEP OPERATING THE WAY YOU ARE TODAY.

THEN YOU'LL BE FINE IN THE 6%.

BUT THAT'S KEEPING THE SAME MINDSET LIKE, YEAH, YOU CAN GO TO 6% BUT NOT CHANGE ANYTHING OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T IT'S ALL HYPOTHETICAL FOR THE FUTURE. SO IT DOESN'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT YOU WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE FOR ACTUAL REVENUES BASED ON VALUES CHANGING.

RIGHT. IT'S JUST A FLAT PERCENTAGE INCREASE ASSUMED, BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T INCLUDE A REAL VIEW OF WHAT YOU NEED TO INVEST IN ROAD MAINTENANCE AND CAPITAL.

IT HAS SOME PLUG NUMBERS IN JUST AGAIN, HYPOTHETICAL.

AND THEN AS I THINK WAS ALREADY MENTIONED, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE GROWING YOUR STAFF.

SO IT'S BASICALLY STATUS QUO FOR TODAY.

SO IF WE WANT TO.

SO GETTING AWAY FROM BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I'M SO BUSINESS GUY, I'M ALWAYS LIKE, HEY, IT'S ABOUT GROWTH AND PROJECTING OF GROWTH, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN PROJECT GROWTH IF YOU ARE LIKE KIND OF HOLDING YOURSELF BACK FROM BEING ABLE TO DO SO.

SO I'M CURIOUS IF AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS HAS BEEN DONE, BUT IF IT'S IF WE TAKE A LOOK AT

[01:35:03]

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE'VE DONE TO SHOW WELL, HAD WE NOT HAD THIS CAP THIS YEAR, THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO BECAUSE THE GROWTH POTENTIAL.

BUT WE WEREN'T BECAUSE OF THE CAP, BECAUSE I GET THE NUMBERS.

BUT I THINK OF, WELL, WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS MEAN? LIKE, WHAT AM I ACTUALLY GETTING FOR THIS? YOU CAN TELL ME IT'S AN ADDITIONAL 2 MILLION THAT WE COULD HAVE MADE THAT YEAR.

WHAT WOULD WE WHAT COULD WE HAVE DONE? BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WOULD WANT TO HEAR.

IT'S IT'S GREAT TO HEAR A NUMBER, BUT WHAT COULD WE HAVE DONE TO GROW AS A CITY? I THINK IS IS LIKE THAT'S THE PART TO ME THAT WAS LIKE, HOW DO WE CONNECT THOSE DOTS? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT DOES.

THANK YOU. SO I'LL START WITH VERY SIMPLE THINGS THAT ARE THINGS WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT HERE IN THIS MEETING, PUTTING $750,000 INTO ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND TWO YEARS IN A ROW AS A REOCCURRING NUMBER IS, AS WE ALL HAVE ESTABLISHED, INSUFFICIENT.

SO IF WE KNEW THAT WE HAD GREATER AMOUNTS OF RECURRING REVENUE THAT WE COULD COUNT ON, THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE MORE COMFORTABLE SAYING, OKAY, LET'S LET'S MAKE A MOVE TO A MILLION OR 1.25, WHATEVER IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

ADDITIONALLY, AS WE'RE WORKING TOWARD THE FUNDING OF OUR NEW FIRE STATION, WHICH WILL BE DISCUSSED ACTUALLY AS ONE OF OUR ITEMS NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.

WE WOULD LIKE TO BE WORKING ON STAFFING UP SO WE CAN START TO BRING STAFF ON.

YOU'LL GET THEM, GET THEM TRAINED, GET THEM, USE OUR SYSTEM AND BE READY FOR AN ACTUAL BUILDING IN THE FUTURE.

BUT WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL WITH THAT NOT TO OVERCOMMIT THOSE THOSE PERSONNEL AND OPERATING DOLLARS. SO WHAT WE DID THIS PAST YEAR IS WE WERE ABLE TO WORK INTO THE BUDGET WITH COUNCIL'S APPROVAL, THE ADDITION OF THREE STAFF MEMBERS, THREE POSITIONS BEING FUNDED AT THE HALF YEAR HALFWAY MARK IN THE FISCAL YEAR.

SO WE DIDN'T WEREN'T ABLE TO FUND THEM FOR THE WHOLE FISCAL YEAR.

BUT TO START SO WE COULD TRY TO HIRE SOME FOLKS AND PREPARE THE STAFF UP FOR THAT STATION WHEN IT'S READY TO GO.

I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS FOR ME, AND I'VE MENTIONED IT ALREADY OUTSIDE OF PERSONNEL IS REALLY JUST HAVING A SUSTAINABLE.

REOCCURRING CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM.

I CAN'T UNDER EMPHASIZE HOW.

HOW SIGNIFICANT IT IS THAT WE'RE LACKING IN THAT.

AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE HAD WE'VE BEEN IN A POSITION WHERE WE'VE HAD TO KEEP COMING BACK TO COUNCIL TO USE UN DESIGNATED FUND BALANCE OR SAVINGS HERE OR THERE TO TRY TO FUND THINGS. LAST YEAR IS A GOOD EXAMPLE.

WE HAVE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT THAT WE HAD TO TAKE OUT BECAUSE IT WAS FAILING.

AND THEN WE HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL AND SAY, NOT ONLY WILL YOU PLEASE FUND THESE BECAUSE WE HAD TO TAKE THEM OUT, BUT THESE OTHERS, THEY'VE BEEN HERE FOR 15 PLUS YEARS AND THEY NEED TO BE REPLACED AND WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN FOR THAT.

I FEEL BAD ABOUT THAT BECAUSE AS THE CITY MANAGER, ONE OF MY JOBS IS TO MAKE SURE I GIVE YOU, YOU, ALL OF THE PEOPLE, THE COUNCIL, THE RESIDENTS, A GOOD PLAN FOR SOLID FISCAL MANAGEMENT. AND TO ME THAT MEANS NOT NEGLECTING OUR ASSETS.

I MEAN, IT'S EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE TO REPLACE JUST A CHILLER OR AN AIR HANDLER ON A BUILDING AND.

I HAVE DIFFICULTY FINDING THAT ON A REOCCURRING BASIS AND THE NEEDS WERE THIS WE STARTED LAST YEAR BUILDING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN THAT TOLD THE TRUE STORY FOR EVERYBODY BECAUSE FOR FOR A WHILE PRIOR TO LAST YEAR, THE GOAL WAS NOT THE GOAL.

THE METHOD OF OPERATION WAS REALLY WHY BOTHER PUTTING IT ALL IN THE LIST? YOU CAN'T FUND IT, YOU CAN'T MAKE A DECENT PLAN ANYWAY.

SO LET'S JUST LIKE DEAL WITH IT WHEN IT BREAKS.

THAT'S NOT A GOOD WAY TO LIVE, RIGHT? SO LAST YEAR, ALL THE DEPARTMENTS WERE TASKED WITH START BUILDING A REAL PLAN AND GIVE US A REAL VIEW OF WHAT SHOULD BE DONE AT THE IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OR TEN YEARS OR WHATEVER. SO THIS THIS CYCLE IS THE FIRST CYCLE FOR FOR QUITE SOME TIME GOING BACK THAT YOU WILL SEE A REAL CIP PLAN.

WHICH I'M EXCITED ABOUT BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT.

BUT MY MY BIGGEST CHALLENGE IS CAN I FUND IT? AND I DON'T KNOW THAT ANSWER RIGHT NOW, BUT I KNOW IN A 3% CAP ENVIRONMENT BASED ON PAST COUPLE OF YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IS CHALLENGING.

THANK YOU. LET ME ADD A COUPLE OF POINTS.

NUMBER ONE, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT ONE CHART I FORGET WITH PAGES ON.

BUT BASICALLY FOR THE NEXT LAST NINE YEARS, WE'VE BEEN PLAYING CATCH UP AND AND IT'S REALLY, REALLY HARD TO DO AND YOU'VE GOT TO SPEND MORE MONEY TO TRY AND CATCH UP.

AND THAT'S WHAT WHAT ONE OF THE THINGS, SUZANNE HAS BEEN TRYING TO DEAL WITH.

AND SECONDLY, ALL THOSE PROJECTIONS DON'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT GROWTH.

AND AS THE CITY GROWS, WE NEED TO EXPAND OUR SERVICES.

WE NEED TO HIRE MORE POLICE.

WE NEED TO HIRE MORE FIRE.

WE NEED TO BUILD ANOTHER FIRE STATION.

[01:40:01]

KNOW WE'LL WILL, YOU KNOW, ELIMINATING THE CAP SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS OVERNIGHT.

NO, BUT IT WILL CERTAINLY HELP US TO ADDRESS OUR PROBLEMS. HOLD HOLD A SECOND.

HOLD. HOLD YOUR THOUGHT, BECAUSE I WANT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THIS MEETING AND STUFF I'M ON OR. NO. OKAY.

I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW THE THE THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK AND THEN BRING IT BACK TO US AND THEN WE COULD CLOSE IT OUT THAT WAY.

UM. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? WELL.

YOU OUGHT TO BRING YOUR OWN 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET SOUTHWEST.

FIRST, I'D LIKE TO BRING UP THE FACT THAT ON THE PRESENTATION.

I WASN'T. I'M GLAD I WASN'T THE ONE.

STRAIGHT AWAY. SECOND THING, THOUGH, IS THAT YOU HAVE DOWN HERE AUGUST 26, 2020.

I THOUGHT YOU'D LIKE TO KNOW THAT LITTLE THING IF YOU'RE GOING TO PRESENT THIS TO THE PUBLIC. THE OTHER.

THE OTHER ITEM WAS.

IT'S FINE. IT'S JUST.

OH, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? THE OTHER ITEM WAS SINCE WE HAVE THE STATE MANDATE OF MILLAGE OF 10% JUST IF WE'RE.

I'M GOING TO HAVE A MILLER. JUST MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THAT YOU CAN NEVER GO BEYOND THE CITY.

CANNOT GO ABOVE A MILLAGE RATE OF TEN.

KEEP IT. WE CAN MAKE THAT SOMEHOW PRESENTABLE TO THEM IN.

WE'RE GETTING READY TO PRESENT THIS TO THE COUNCIL.

IT CAN EXCEED THE MILLAGE RATE OF TEN.

BATTEN, THOUGH, WOULD LIKE TO SEE BILL BATTEN WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THE TOTAL TAXES THAT WE PAY, BE IT THE ROAD BOND, THE MILLAGE RATE, THE THE TILLMAN CANAL DISTRICT, NONE OF MY TAXES ADD UP TO NO MORE THAN A MILLAGE RATE OF TEN.

THAT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL REAL HAPPY.

WE CAN TALK ALL WE WANT ABOUT THE PALM BAYS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE CONTROL OVER.

BUT LET'S SEE IF WE CAN MAKE IT SO THAT WE.

LEE GREAT OF TEN BECAUSE THEN A FAMILY CAN ACTUALLY PLAN WHAT THEIR TAXES ARE GOING TO BE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR THEM.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, BILL.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT? NO. NO.

OH, YEAH.

NO, WE'RE NOT DONE. YEAH.

I'M NOT DONE WITH PUBLIC.

ALSO 935 W STREET SOUTHEAST.

I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.

I'M JUST GOING TO READ THE QUESTIONS AND THEN YOU GUYS CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO ANSWER THEM LATER. SLIDE ONE OF THE OF ANGELICA'S PRESENTATION SHOWS THE DATE OF AUGUST 26, 2022.

SO I'M WONDERING.

WHAT HAPPENED THERE.

SO NEXT QUESTION IS, WHY ISN'T THE CURRENT APPROVED NEW GROWTH REFLECTED IN ANY OF THESE NUMBERS? THE THE GROWTH THAT WE'RE SEEING IN 2022 IS IS NOT BEING SHOWN.

SO THAT MEANS THAT IF THE CAP SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE AND THE CITY CAN OPERATE UNTIL THE NEW GROWTH REVENUE IS REALIZED, WHAT IN THE PALM BAY GROSS TAX TABLE IS PREVENTING ALL THE NEW 2022 HOMEOWNERS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION TO GO UNDERWATER AND PROPERTY VALUES TO DRASTICALLY DECREASE AND THE BUBBLE WILL BURST AGAIN.

WHAT WHAT PROVISIONS ARE STOPPING THAT HISTORY TO BE REPEATED? WHAT IS THE CITY DOING TO REDUCE THE CITY'S IMPACT WHEN THE BUBBLE BURSTS AGAIN? HOW IS IT ACCEPTABLE THAT THE SYSTEM, PALM BAY, WOULD BE WILLING TO ENDURE ANY TAX INCREASES WITH ALL THE NEW CONSTRUCTIONS GOING ON? NEW RENTAL PROPERTIES THAT I DON'T LIKE.

I DON'T SEE HOW RENTAL PROPERTIES HELP OUR BUDGET AT ALL FUEL COSTS.

THE EFFECT OF THIS ADMINISTRATION IS GOING ON AND NO CAP TO ME SEEMS LIKE THE COUNCIL WOULD BE ABLE TO ASSESS ANY PERCENTAGE THAT THEY WANT TO, GIVEN THE PAST DECISION TO GO WITH THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, A 13% RAISE FOR A TIME PERIOD THAT DOESN'T EXCEED FIVE YEARS IN THE SERVICE TO THE CITY.

WHAT SHOWS THE CITIZENS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AND THIS COMMISSION IS NOT REASONABLE IN ITS SPENDING AND ITS PROJECTION OF SPENDING.

WHY CAN'T THE CITY OPERATE WITHIN ITS BUDGET?

[01:45:05]

ISN'T. WHERE IS THE PLAN TO KIND OF LEVEL ALL THAT OFF? AND THEN I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW RENTALS VERSUS OWNERS HAPPENS IN THE CITY.

WHY ARE WE APPROVING ALL THESE RENTAL PROPERTIES WHEN THEY'RE TOTALLY UNREASONABLE IN THEIR RENTAL AMOUNTS? FOR A ONE BEDROOM AT $2,000 PER MONTH IS TOTALLY UNREASONABLE.

AND WHY ISN'T CITIZENS? WHY ISN'T SERVICES PART OF THE NEW COMMUNITY PLAN? SO IF YOU HAVE A NEW COMMUNITY GOING IN, WHY AREN'T ALL THOSE SERVICES INCORPORATED IN THAT PLAN FOR THE CITY TO RECEIVE THAT THAT MONEY IF YOU HAVE A NEW COMMUNITY GOING IN.

SO ALL THAT FEES SHOULD BE INCORPORATED TO HAVE A NEW FIRE STATION, A NEW SCHOOL AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE. SUSAN.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

OH. MY NAME IS.

AND. I COME TO MEETINGS, I SERVE ON THE BUDGET ADVISORY BOARD AND IT SEEMS LIKE.

WE KEEP OVERLOOKING THE STARTING POINT.

OUR STARTING POINT IS.

FROM BEHIND.

WE. WE CAN'T SEEM TO CATCH UP.

OUR FIGURES ARE BASED JUST LIKE STANTEC.

RESTRICTIVE. HOW WE'RE OPERATING NOW.

WE'RE OPERATING.

RESTRICTIVE. WE'RE TELLING PEOPLE THEY CAN'T HAVE BUDGETS.

THAT INCLUDE NEW PERSONNEL.

THEY CAN'T HAVE BUDGETS BECAUSE THERE'S NO MONEY.

TO THINK TO THE FUTURE.

AND YET WE ARE IN A PLACE WHERE WE'RE CREATING THE FUTURE.

AND. TO ME.

WHAT WE'RE REALLY CREATING IS CRISIS.

WE ARE LIMITING OURSELVES AT A VERY TIME WHEN WE SHOULD BE EXPANDING OURSELVES.

RUTH SAID THE IMPACT FEES THAT WHOLE.

SIT IN A CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND TALK ABOUT IMPACT FEES ON THESE NEW DEVELOPMENTS.

THE CITY.

IT IS JUST BAD BUSINESS.

IT'S POOR THINKING, IT'S NO PLANNING.

AN IMPACT FEE IS COLLECTED AT THE BEGINNING OF A DEVELOPMENT.

OR THINGS THAT WON'T BE.

UNTIL THAT DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETE.

THE DEVELOPMENT USES THE CURRENT.

SURFACES. THOSE THINGS ARE ALREADY STRESSED.

IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE THAT IN THESE.

OR DEVELOPMENTS BEFORE THEY BUILD THE BUILDING.

WE SHOULD. BANNING, WE ALL KNOW.

ON UNDEVELOPED LAND.

IT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED.

IT SHOULD BE PART OF THE.

THEY CAN'T SHARE THE.

ALREADY IS USING.

OH, AM I TIME? OKAY. SO NOW SO THE BOARD HAS A FULL UNDERSTANDING AND NOBODY GETS UPSET ON WHICH WAY THIS IS GOING. OKAY.

YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A VOTE ON THIS ITEM AND THIS ITEM WAS VOTED ON ALREADY.

SO THE PRESENTATION OF TODAY, THE COMMISSIONER CHANDLER BROUGHT FORTH WAS TO TRY TO CHANGE OUR MIND COLLECTIVELY FROM THE PRIOR VOTE.

[01:50:04]

WE STAND THERE.

SO THAT'S REALLY THE VOTE.

YOU CAN'T MAKE A NEW MOTION BECAUSE THE VOTE WAS ALREADY RENDERED.

THE ONLY THING THE ONLY VOTE HERE IS TO.

I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CHANDLER THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE 6% CAP.

SO WITH THAT, I WANT TO TURN IT OVER TO RANDALL.

CAUSE HE HAD PUT HIS HAND UP.

I DID, MR. CHAIR. SO THANK YOU FOR THE RECOGNITION.

I DID HAVE A QUESTION, BUT FRANKLY, I'M GOING TO MAKE IT AS A STATEMENT.

IT'S OUTRAGEOUS TO ME AND QUITE FRANKLY, UNACCEPTABLE THAT THE MODEL WASN'T LOADED WITH A GROWTH MINDSET. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE PAYING CONSULTANT FEES AND WHY EVERY CONVERSATION THAT I HAVE ABOUT THIS CITY'S BUDGET TALKS ON DATA FROM THIS CONSULTANT AND FROM THIS MODEL, AND THEN WHEN THAT MODEL PROVES A POINT THAT I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH, LET ALONE IF I DIDN'T AGREE WITH IT, WHEN IT PROVES THE POINT AND I SAY THE POINT HAS BEEN PROVEN. THE REBUTTAL IS THE POINT IS NOT PROVEN BECAUSE THIS IS JUST A FORECAST AND THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE FORECAST.

WELL, WHY THE HECK DID WE MAKE A CONSERVATIVE FORECAST? IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT, WE NEED TO GROW AND WE'RE BEHIND.

WE SHOULD HAVE ADJUSTED THE NUMBERS AND THE MODEL SHOULD TELL ME SOMETHING THAT I CAN ACTION ON, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THIS MODEL TELLS ME THAT A 6% CAP WOULD DO NOTHING BUT GOOD FOR THIS CITY.

AND COMPARED WITH A 3% CAP AND WHEN I SAY THAT OUT LOUD AND SAY, LOOK, THE MODEL SHOWS US 6% WORKS AND THE REBUTTAL AND THE RESPONSE IS, WELL, IT'S NOT AGGRESSIVE ENOUGH.

NOW IT FEELS LIKE THIS WHOLE EVENING'S WORTH OF CONVERSATION IS RELATIVELY MOOT.

AGAIN, I'M GOING TO MOVE ON FROM THAT.

I'M GOING TO SAY THAT THE MODEL HAS PROVEN THAT THE 6% WOULD PUT US IN A BETTER SITUATION. I'M GOING TO BE FRANK AND STATE IF THE MOTION GOES THROUGH AS FORWARD AND GOES TO COUNCIL, IF IT GETS PAST COUNCIL AND BECOMES A REFERENDUM, I BELIEVE MR. CHANDLER'S VERBIAGE LAST TIME, BECAUSE HE HAS A TELESCOPE THAT WOULD TELL HIM THAT THAT REFERENDUM WILL FAIL, AND I TEND TO AGREE WITH HIM ON THAT.

NOW, IF WE ARE TO RISE UP AND SAY THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MODIFY THE CAP TO SOMETHING MORE REASONABLE FOR TODAY'S ECONOMY, AND THEN AT THAT AGREE TO A FIGURE, THE FIGURE THAT'S BEING TOSSED AROUND, THERE IS NO MOTION OF 6%.

THAT MAY RESULT IN THE VOTERS COMING TO UNDERSTAND THE ESSENTIAL NEED FOR US TO RAISE CITY REVENUES. AND WE MAY MAKE AN ADDITIONAL 1.1 MILLION, 1.2 MILLION PER YEAR, AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY ALLOCATE THAT AND MAKE A DENT.

SO IF A PROPOSITION DOES COME UP, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORDER THAT WE WOULD MAKE A MOTION AND THE MOTION WOULD BE TO MODIFY OUR PREVIOUS ACTION ON THE ITEM.

BUT IF THAT IS TO COME UP AND IF IT IS TO RAISE TO 6%, I WON'T BE SHY TO SAY THAT I'LL SUPPORT IT BECAUSE AGAIN, IT BRINGS THE CONVERSATION TO THE PEOPLE AND THE CONVERSATION THAT THE PEOPLE OF THIS CITY NEED TO HEAR IS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO. BUT THE CONVERSATION THE PEOPLE DON'T NEED TO HEAR AND DON'T WANT TO HEAR IS TAKE THE HANDCUFFS OFF FREELY.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU MAKE STATEMENTS LIKE THAT.

AND I'M SPEAKING IN GENERAL TERMS THAT THE REASON THE CAP EXISTS IS OBVIOUSLY ROOTED IN SOME SORT OF LACK OF TRUST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

AND SO ONCE WE'VE ESTABLISHED THE BASELINE OF A LACK OF TRUST, THEN WE VENTURE TO SAY, OKAY, WE NEED TO EARN BACK THE TRUST.

AND HOW IS TRUST EARNED BACK? BUT ONE STEP AT A TIME AND ONE MILESTONE AT A TIME.

SO NOW LET'S COME TOGETHER AS THE PRODUCTIVE CITIZENS THAT WE ARE HAVE A PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION AND SAY, HEY, INSTEAD OF TURNING TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY AND SAYING THAT MEASURE THAT WE PUT IN PLACE FOUR YEARS AGO AND WE'VE ONLY FIVE YEARS AGO EXCUSE ME, AND WE'VE ONLY EXERCISED THREE OUT OF FIVE, IT'S JUNK.

LET'S COMPLETELY REMOVE IT.

LET'S ACTUALLY SAY WHAT'S TRUE.

IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE AS WRITTEN PER SAY.

AND WE REALLY NEED TO TURN UP THE VOLUME ON IT A LITTLE BIT.

AND IF WE TURN THE VOLUME UP ON IT A LITTLE BIT, A 6% EXAMPLE, YOUR PROPERTY TAX BILL, MR. CITIZEN, WOULD GO UP THE $20 THAT IT WAS OR THE $30 THAT IT WAS.

BUT IF WE CARRY ON WITH THE MOTION AS IT WAS BEFORE, IT WAS RECONSIDERED TONIGHT, AS IT WAS CONSIDERED BEFORE I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD, I'LL MENTION I DID NOT GET THE CHANCE TO VOTE ON THAT ONE, AND THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.

EVERYBODY KNOWS WHERE MY VOTE WOULD HAVE BEEN.

IF WE DON'T MOVE ON THAT, THEN WE ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE ON THIS ISSUE. AND I THINK THAT EVERYBODY ON THIS BOARD WANTS TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE ON THIS ISSUE.

[01:55:05]

A MINDSET OF THE CAP NEEDS TO GO AND CONSIDER.

THE MINDSET OF THE CAP COULD BE ADJUSTED AND SOME BENEFIT COULD COME TO THE CITY BY ADJUSTING IT AS OPPOSED TO ELIMINATING IT.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU. THE WAY I SAW IT.

YOU HAVE A FILM? CAUSE I SAW CHANDLER AND KAYE AND THEN DAVID.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

A QUICK QUESTION, MADAM CITY ATTORNEY.

IF THE CURRENT MOTION STANDS TO ELIMINATE THE CAP, HOW WOULD THE BALLOT LANGUAGE READ FOR THAT? WELL, NO YET.

WE ACTUALLY WORK ON THE LIBERAL BALLOT LANGUAGE AFTER IT IS APPROVED BY COUNCIL.

IT'S A ESSENTIALLY A TRIO OF US.

IT STARTS IN HOUSE BETWEEN THE CHARTER OFFICERS.

I'LL START WITH IT.

GET SOME REVISIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY CLERK, AND THEN I WORK WITH OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL.

WE REDRAFT AND ASK QUESTIONS AND WE CIRCULATE IT BACK ANOTHER TIME AND THEN IT GOES OUT.

SO IT IS A PROCESS BECAUSE WHAT WE LOOK AT VARIOUS LAWS MAKE SURE TO MAKE SURE IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL, CORRECT.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT UNNECESSARILY VAGUE.

IT'S SOMETIMES I'LL ALSO CIRCULATE IT AMONG MY NON ATTORNEYS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AVERAGE INTELLIGENT PERSON AND WE'VE MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO THAT.

WE ATTORNEYS HAVE DONE IT LIKE YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE.

AND I GIVE IT TO ADMINISTRATIVE AND WE'RE LIKE, WHAT IS THAT? AND SO IT'S LIKE, OKAY, TELL ME WHAT IT IS THAT YOU THINK.

AND WE'VE MADE ADJUSTMENTS AND SENT IT BACK OUT.

SO IT IS A I CAN'T TELL YOU THE PROCESS, TELL YOU WHAT IT IS, BUT IT IS A PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS NOT ONLY LEGAL, BUT THAT IS IT'S COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT PORTION.

MY CONCERN WITH THAT, THOUGH, WAS OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS CURRENT LANGUAGE THAT EXISTED AND ALL OF THAT LANGUAGE WAS STRUCK THROUGH IN THE FIRST SENTENCE.

JUST SAID COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO LEVY TAXES.

SO HOW DOES THAT PARTICULAR LANGUAGE THEN COME INTO PLAY IF THIS AMENDMENT IS PASSED? WHAT YOU ALL ARE TELLING US IS, IN ESSENCE, WHAT THE INTENT IS.

THAT IS WHAT WILL BE CONVEYED BETWEEN WHAT GOES FROM HERE TO COUNSEL.

AND COUNSEL WILL TELL ME WHAT THE INTENT IS, AND THEN I WILL GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.

I CAME UP WITH THAT.

I TOLD YOU AS FAR AS THE LANGUAGE IN THAT LANGUAGE WILL THEN BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL.

BUT ALL OF THIS ESSENTIALLY BY CHANGING THE LANGUAGE, IT REALLY DOES TO CONVEY THE ACTUAL INTENT. IT WILL NOT NECESSARILY BE THE FINAL LANGUAGE THAT IS ON A REFERENDUM, BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE ON THE REFERENDUM HAS CERTAIN PARAMETERS, THERE ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS, THERE ARE CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AS FAR AS NUMBERS OR WHATEVER.

BUT THIS IS WHAT IS YOUR INTENT? GIVE ME YOUR GIVE ME WHAT YOU THINK AND HOW YOU THINK IT.

AND I WILL WE WILL CRAFT IT INTO A WAY THAT IS UNDERSTANDABLE AND LEGAL.

UNDERSTAND. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE I ALWAYS TELL TELL THE COMMISSION THIS.

WE ARE AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

THIS IS NOT THE FINAL SAY.

WHATEVER WE MOVE FORWARD, COUNCIL STILL HAS TO AGREE OF WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT OR NOT. SO DON'T GET UPSET IF THE VOTE DOESN'T GO YOUR WAY BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL COME TO A COUNCIL MEETING, ADDRESS, COUNCIL AND SEE IF THEY'RE GOING TO GO WITH IT OR NOT.

SO THIS IS JUST AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ADVISORY.

I MEAN, MAKE THAT NOTE CLEAR.

OC OC.

SO I'LL GO WITH THIS.

THIS VOTE HERE TODAY IS TO ME IS TO CORRECT A FAILED IDEA, THE IDEA OF A CAP.

I DON'T KNOW IF MR. CHANDLER OR ANYONE HERE CAN POINT TO A CITY THAT'S DOING EXTREMELY WELL IN STATE OF FLORIDA WITH A 3%, 6% OR 5% CAP, IF YOU CAN LOVE TO HEAR THAT.

BUT WHAT CITY HAS DEMONSTRATED HAS DEMONSTRATED HERE TODAY IS THAT WITH AN ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL $31 OR THEREABOUT OR CITY COULD POTENTIALLY GAIN AN ADDITIONAL $2 MILLION THAT WE CAN USE TO INVEST IN OUR CAPITAL FUND.

AND SO TO ME, IT MAKES SENSE NOT TO TRY TO LIMIT OURSELVES AGAIN WITH A CAP THAT WE KNOW

[02:00:04]

WHY THE CAP? SO A FAILED IDEA DO NOT DO NOT COME BACK TO IT.

DO NOT HAVE US USE THE WORD AGAIN.

YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT. HANDCUFF OURSELVES TO THIS FAILED IDEA, REMOVE THE CAP.

MAKES SENSE. AND THE CITY MANAGER ANSWERED THE QUESTION EARLIER WHAT WILL HAPPEN, WHAT IT MEANS TO HANDCUFF OURSELVES, WHAT IT MEANS NOT TO HAVE THE CAP? AND I HOPE EVERYBODY SEES THAT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT A MISTAKE.

THANK YOU. YOU'VE GOT DAVID GOES AND THEN.

KEN. AND THEN JEFF.

AND THEN. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. IS THIS. IS IT ON? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? THERE YOU GO.

FORGIVE ME FOR USING A BIBLICAL EXAMPLE, BUT I AM A PASTOR, SO GIVE ME A LITTLE LEEWAY THERE. THE REASON THAT IN A TIME OF FAMINE THAT EVERYBODY WENT TO EGYPT WAS BECAUSE EGYPT HAD HAD PUT AWAY WHEN TIMES WERE GOOD FOR THE TIMES WHEN THEY WERE LEAN AND WHEN THE WHOLE WORLD WAS IN A FAMINE.

THEY ALL WENT TO EGYPT BECAUSE EGYPT HAD THE LEADERSHIP AND THE FORESIGHT WHEN THINGS WERE GOING WELL TO SAVE AND TO PUT AWAY.

AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY THEY WERE THE LEADING NATION IN THE WORLD AT THAT TIME.

I FEEL LIKE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR PALM BAY AT THIS POINT TO BE ABLE TO PUT AWAY FOR A RAINY DAY, INSTEAD OF ALWAYS HAVING TO OPERATE WITH OUR HAND OUT, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY OUR BILLS, UPGRADE OUR POLICE STATIONS, CONSTANTLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO REPAIR OUR ROADS. WHY DON'T WE GET INTO A POINT WHERE WE CAN BE A CITY THAT LEADS AND WE CAN PUT AWAY FOR A RAINY DAY? WHEN TIMES ARE GOOD, WE CAN STORE UP.

AND THEN WHEN WE DO REACH THOSE LEAN TIMES, WE DON'T HAVE TO TRY TO ROB FROM PETER TO PAY PAUL UNTIL WE RUN OUT OF DISCIPLES.

LET'S LET'S HAVE SOME LEADERSHIP.

AND SO I WOULD SAY I WOULD BE AGAINST ANY CAP, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT THESE MODELS HAVE SHOWED US THAT THESE CONSULTANTS ARE SAYING, IS THAT EVEN AT A 6%, WE CAN POSSIBLY KEEP UP, BUT IT DOESN'T ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO SAVE THE CITY MANAGER ALSO ADDRESS THE SAME ISSUE. IT DOESN'T GIVE US THE CAPACITY TO BE ABLE TO GET IN A POSITION WHERE WE CAN BE PREPARED FOR A RAINY DAY.

SO I WOULD BE AGAINST ANY CAP.

HERE YOU GO. LISTEN, I KNOW WE ALL HERE HAVE HAVE THE BEST INTEREST IN AND OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T WANT TO LIMIT THE CITY FROM ACHIEVING THE GOALS WHICH ARE VERY NECESSARY.

BUT LET'S I WANT TO LOOK AT THIS REALISTICALLY.

AS I WILL STILL FAVOR WHAT RANDALL AND WHAT JORDAN HAD HAD HAD OFFERED.

FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.

WE HERE DISCUSSED IT AND THERE'S SOME DISAGREEMENT.

THE AVERAGE PERSON WILL NOT HAVE DISCUSSED IT.

AND SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADVERTISE IT, THERE BETTER BE A CLASS ONE ADVERTISEMENT CONVINCING MR. MR. JOE AND MRS. JANE BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE IF YOU ELIMINATED ALL.

IT'S GOING TO PASS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.

PEOPLE ARE FACING EIGHT AND A HALF PERCENT INFLATION RIGHT NOW, 11% WHOLESALE, 100% INCREASE IN GAS.

THE AVERAGE PERSON, THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE FACING IN REALITY FOR THEM, THIS IS NOT A SAVING TIME. THIS IS A LONG TIME.

IT WOULD BE LIKE SOLOMON PUTTING A DIS OR SOLOMON'S SON REHOBOAM BOMB, PUTTING ADDITIONAL TAXES ON ALREADY TAXED PEOPLE FOR WHAT'S HAPPENING CURRENTLY.

IF THIS WERE A DIFFERENT TIME, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH DIFFERENT.

SO IF I LOOK AT THIS AS A WHOLE, AS THE AVERAGE PERSON IS COMING TO LOOK AT WHAT'S PRESENTED AND THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE WHOLE PIE FOR A MINUTE, THIS IS WHAT I MAY BE WRONG, BUT POTENTIALLY THIS IS WHAT THEY MIGHT SEE, NUMBER ONE.

THEY'LL SEE.

OH, WE'RE IN, WE'RE IN.

THEY NEED MORE TAXES BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCILMEN ARE GOING TO HAVE 100% INCREASE IN THEIR INCOME. I'M NOT DENYING THE FACT THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THEM TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL INCOME. I'M JUST SAYING WHAT THEY WHAT THEY POTENTIALLY MIGHT HEAR, EVEN THOUGH WE MIGHT SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THIS IS WHAT THEY MIGHT HEAR.

THEY NEED MORE MONEY BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TO FUND EVERYTHING.

[02:05:01]

IN ADDITION, THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY MY RIGHT TO ELECT SOMEONE IN MY DISTRICT.

THEY JUST WANT TO PUT THEM IN THERE.

IN ADDITION.

THEY HAVE.

THEY'RE GOING TO ERADICATE.

THE CAP AND SIMPLY SAY THE COUNCIL SHALL HAVE FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO LEVY TAXES AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW.

IN MY VIEW. THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY THIS IS A POWER GRAB ABOVE ALL PARAGRAPHS.

I'M NOT DENYING ALL THE POINTS THAT ARE IMPORTANT.

I'M NOT DENYING THE INFORMATION, THE FACTS.

I'M NOT DENYING THE REALITIES OF WHAT'S NEEDED.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS, WHAT ARE PEOPLE GOING TO HEAR WHEN IT GETS OUT THERE AND THEY SEE THIS? I'M GOING IF ANYTHING, AT THIS TIME.

REALISTICALLY, THE ONLY THING WE SHOULD REALLY HAVE BEEN PRESSING ON IS THIS ISSUE RIGHT HERE. EVERYTHING ELSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED AND LEFT THE STATUS QUO TO KEEP THE HEAT LEVEL DOWN, BECAUSE THE HEAT LEVEL RIGHT NOW IS UP BECAUSE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OUR COMMUNITY.

COUNTRYWIDE, THE COVERED THE TAXES, THE THE INCREASED GAS TAX, THE INFLATION, ALL OF THIS HITTING THEM. AND THEY'RE GOING TO THEN THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY. SAY WHAT? AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CARE ANY ABOUT ANY INDIFFERENT INFORMATION THAT'S GIVEN HERE.

THEY'RE JUST GOING TO SAY, NO, NO, NO, NO.

I AM THANKFUL THAT WE CAN HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY UP THERE THAT CAN SAY, THIS IS AN EMERGENCY. WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING.

LET'S DO IT.

AT LEAST WE HAVE THAT.

IF ALL THIS FAILS, AT LEAST WE HAVE THAT.

BUT AT THE VERY MINIMUM, I MEAN, MAXIMUM, I WOULD SAY 6%.

YES. ELIMINATE IT.

AND I'LL TELL YOU WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR.

THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR THEY WANT TO GRAB EVERYTHING THAT'S IN MY WALLET.

I DON'T CARE IF YOU DO TELL THEM THERE'S A 10% MAX AT FLORIDA.

YOU CAN I'VE I'VE MADE ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE PULPIT EVERY WEEK, SEND IT BY EMAIL, GAVE THEM A TEXT. AND THE DAY BEFORE SOMEONE SAID, WHAT'S HAPPENING TOMORROW? WERE YOU NOT LISTENING? THE ANSWER IS NO.

THEY'RE NOT LISTENING.

THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE LISTENING.

NOT THAT WE SHOULDN'T PLAN FOR THE FUTURE, AS THEY SAID AND AS I HAVE DONE, BUT WHAT ARE THEY LISTENING? THEY'RE LISTENING AT REAL LIFE RIGHT NOW.

I'VE GOT TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE.

I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE.

I'VE HAD TO SCRAP EVERYTHING ELSE TO PAY FOR THE GAS.

AND NOW THEY WANT MORE MONEY.

$40 MORE A MONTH.

I MEAN, A YEAR.

BOY, THAT'S. THAT'S CHEWABLE.

IN AND OF ITSELF THAT IS CHEWABLE, THAT I CAN SWALLOW $40 A YEAR.

THE AVERAGE PERSON WOULD SWALLOW 40 EXTRA DOLLARS A YEAR.

BUT WHEN YOU PUT IT IN CONJUNCTION OF EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S HAPPENED HERE.

I WOULD SAY ALL OF OUR TIME HAS BEEN WASTED.

EVEN THOUGH WE ALL HAVE THE BEST INTERESTS AT HEART FOR THIS FOR THIS COMMUNITY.

AND AND I WOULD AGREE THAT YOU DO DEFINITELY NEED SOME EXTRA INCOME CAPITAL INVESTMENTS SO NECESSARY. I AGREE WITH ALL OF THOSE POINTS.

I'M JUST SAYING, WRONG TIME, WRONG SEASON.

YOU'RE GOING TO FIND YOURSELF HITTING A BRICK WALL.

THAT'S MY VIEWPOINT. I WOULD STAND FOR THE SIX TO ELIMINATE IT.

I SAID, WE'RE JUST SHOOTING HERSELF IN THE FOOT.

IF IF WE IF WE HAVE A CHANCE OF MAKING IT, IT WOULD BE AT 6%.

IF YOU TAKE IT OFF, YOU CAN THROW IT UP IN THE WIND AND SAY GOODBYE.

IT'S STILL AT 3%.

NOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REALLY WORK IT OUT.

DAVID JONES THEN JEFF.

WE'LL FINISH WITH JEFF, THEN I'LL BRING IT BACK TO ME.

BEFORE THE STATEMENT, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.

SO LET'S, UH, FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE, THAT IT GOES TO COUNCIL AND IT PASSES THROUGH COUNCIL AND YOU HAVE TO DO THE MAGIC THAT YOU DO TO, TO PUT IT ON A BALLOT.

OUTSIDE OF THAT, IS THERE A, A TEAM OR AN ORGANIZATION, OR IS IT THE CITY THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR EDUCATING INDIVIDUALS? WHAT'S GOING ON THAT BALLOT LIKE? IS THERE IS IT JUST IT GOES THERE OR IS THERE A MARKETING PLAN OR.

[02:10:03]

TYPICALLY, ANY INFORMATION THAT THE CITY WANTS TO RELEASE NEEDS TO COME TO MY OFFICE AND WE EVALUATE IT BECAUSE THE CITY CAN EDUCATE, THE CITY CANNOT ADVOCATE, AND THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. ESSENTIALLY, YOU NEED TO GIVE THE INFORMATION.

IT NEEDS TO BE A FACTUAL YOU KNOW, IT CAN'T BE ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO APPEAL TO EMOTIONS. WELL, IF YOU DON'T, YOU KNOW, PASS THIS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE POLICE. THE FIRE TIMES NOT RESCUE TIME IS GOING TO BE DOWN.

GRANDMA'S GOING TO DIE.

NONE OF THAT. YOU KNOW, GROSS HYPERBOLE THAT YOU LAUGH.

THERE HAVE BEEN SOME THINGS MAYBE NOT QUITE THAT BAD BUT YOU KNOW CLOSE BUT IT SO SOMETIMES IT'S A MATTER OF THE.

ESPECIALLY WITH PRIOR REFERENDUMS, THE CITY LOOKING AT WHAT DO WE THINK WE CAN EDUCATE WITHOUT ACTUALLY BEING ACCUSED OR ADVOCATING.

BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES.

IT'S OTHER GROUPS THAT WILL TAKE IT AND THEY WILL RUN WITH IT.

SO SOMETIMES IT MAY BE JUST, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY REACHING OUT TO THE CITY MANAGER, YOU KNOW, DOING A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST, FINDING OUT, HEY, CAN YOU GIVE ME ALL THE INFORMATION? BECAUSE YOU MAY GIVE ME THIS INFORMATION VANILLA STYLE, BECAUSE THAT'S ALL YOU CAN DO. I'M HERE TO GET PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR THIS OR TO VOTE AGAINST IT.

SO I'M GOING TO COLOR IT, WHICH THEY'RE ABLE TO DO.

AND WE ACTUALLY CAN'T.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR FOR FOR THAT EXPLANATION.

I, UM, IN PARTS AGREE WITH SOME OF WHAT KEN AND WHAT RANDALL SAID BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT EDUCATION.

I THINK THE HARD PART, THOUGH, IS AND, YOU KNOW, I, I LIKE I LIKE IT WHEN OUR MAYOR SAYS WE'RE GOING TO BE THE GREATEST CITY ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH, CAUSE IT SOUNDS GOOD.

AND THEN THE REALIST CYNIC, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT IN ME, SAYS, WELL, WHEN AND HOW? LIKE, WHO'S MEASURING? AND WHAT ARE WE MEASURING ON? AND WHEN I SIT IN HERE AND I'M LISTENING TO WHAT WE'RE SAYING, I HONESTLY DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO GET TO WHAT HE SAYS BY HANDCUFFING OURSELVES.

I THINK IF YOU SET THAT STANDARD AT THE BEST AND YOU HAVE TO TELL YOUR STAFF, THEN I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE ABILITY TO TRY AND GET US THERE.

AND. CAN YOU YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT WAS EXTRAORDINARILY PROFOUND TO ME.

IT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR. AND REALISTICALLY, ALL THE BEST INTENTIONS.

IT'S JUST MARKETING, MAN.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO MARKET IT IN A WAY THAT'S GOING TO TRY TO TARGET A CERTAIN DEMOGRAPHIC TO THINK A CERTAIN WAY OF HOW TO FEEL.

AND ANOTHER THAT'S NOT AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN NECESSARILY CONTROL THAT, BUT I ALSO DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT SHOULD LEAD US IN MAKING A DECISION, BECAUSE THEN IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE MAKING A DECISION BASED OFF OF FEAR VERSUS MORE THAN BASING A DECISION BASED OFF OF WHAT'S NECESSARY.

AND. THAT'S THE PART TO ME WHERE I STRUGGLE TO SAY I CAN GET BEHIND PUTTING ANY CAP BECAUSE IT SAYS WE KNOW WE'RE DOING WRONG, LET'S DO LESS WRONG, BECAUSE WE HAVE A FEAR THAT PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, CAUSE WE'RE LIVING IN THAT SIDE OF FEAR AND LESS WRONG INSTEAD OF DOING NO WRONG. IT STILL FEELS TO ME AS WRONG.

SO I, I AGREE.

I CAN'T FORESEE A SCENARIO WHERE I AFTER HEARING THE EVIDENCE AND I WANT TO SEE US BECOME THE GREATEST CITY ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

I JUST CAN'T FORESEE US GETTING THERE OR EVEN REALLY GETTING CLOSER THERE BY CONTINUING TO HOLD OURSELVES BACK FROM PROGRESS.

OKAY WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO GIVE IT TO JEFFREY.

THEN IT COMES TO ME AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR. ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I ASKED.

FOR ANGELICA'S PRESENTATION.

SUMS UP WHAT WE'VE JUST HEARD.

WE CANNOT CONTINUE.

TO RUN AN UNSUSTAINABLE.

TRY. MOM, LOOK AT OUR UNSUSTAINABLE PROGRAM.

SO IT BEHOOVES US IN TERMS OF OUR ADVISORY CAPACITY.

TO DO WHAT WE JUST DID TONIGHT.

WHICH IS TAKE A DETAILED LOOK AT THE PROJECTIONS.

ANGELICA'S PROJECTIONS SUGGEST.

[02:15:05]

BECAUSE WHATEVER THE CAP IS.

THERE IS A HANDICAP.

THE CONSULTANT'S POSITION.

IS EVEN WORSE IN ITS OUTLOOK THAN ANGELICA'S BECAUSE THEIR METRICS ARE STATIC. THEY DON'T ACCOUNT FOR INCREASING COSTS.

CHANGES IN DIRECTION OF THE CITY AND WHAT WE NEED.

AND THEY PROJECT THAT THE CURRENT SYSTEM WON'T WORK.

SO IF A PART OF OUR CITY AS THE PHILOSOPHY THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR ANYTHING THAT SAYS INCREASE IN TAXES.

I SAY, SO BE IT.

WE NEED TO EDUCATE PEOPLE AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE CITY.

AND IF THE 3% IS NOT GOING TO WORK AND ALL THE PEOPLE ARE NO COMPLAINING ABOUT GAS PRICES. COMPLAINING ABOUT TAXES.

YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT FOOD.

GUESS WHAT? THAT'S.

LIFE IS NOT MUCH WE CAN DO ABOUT THOSE THINGS, BUT WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN OUR CITY. AND I THINK.

AFTER HEARING ALL THE EVIDENCE, I AM INCLINED TO SAY WHY NOT BE LIKE EVERY OTHER CITY IN THE STATE? DON'T HAVE ONE AND GO WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE AT LEAST THAT GIVES US A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT WE FACE.

AND EVEN THOUGH THE REVEREND MAKES A GOOD POINT AS TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO THINK, WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE THEM HEAR WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO HEAR.

AND I WOULD.

I WOULD GO TO BATTLE.

WITH WHAT I WOULD CALL THE BELOW AVERAGE CITIZEN SAYING I DON'T HEAR ANYTHING BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE PEOPLE WHO WILL HEAR SOMETHING OUTNUMBER THOSE PEOPLE AND WHEN THE FACTS ARE ON THE TABLE.

I REALLY BELIEVE THAT WE CAN GET BEHIND IT AND I WOULD BE INCLINED TO VOTE FOR NO CAP.

BUT IF WE DO THAT, WE HAVE TO HAVE A DARN GOOD EXPLANATION AS TO THE CONSEQUENCES.

FOR THE CITY FOR HAVING A CAB.

THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO BRING IT SO I CAN FIND CLOSURE TO THIS.

EVERYBODY HAS GOTTEN THEIR TIME TO SPEAK AND THEIR MINE ARE OUT THERE.

EVERYBODY IS LISTENING. THIS IS BEING VIDEOTAPED.

SO WE ALREADY HAVE A VOTE FOR NO CAP.

SO THE CONSIDERATION HERE IS AND BY SHOW OF HANDS, WHO WANTS TO GO UP OR DOWN? SO IF YOU'RE FOR SUGGESTING THE 6% CAP.

RAISE YOUR HAND.

IF YOU'RE AGAINST THE 6% CAP AND KEEPING THE NO CAP VOTE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE, RAISE YOUR HAND. THAT.

THAT'S THE VOTE THAT NO CAP STAYS IN PLAY.

THE REALITY OF THE MATTER IS I DON'T FEAR.

FEAR IS NOT SOMETHING THAT DRIVES ME.

THE RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO BE THE RESIDENTS.

I SET UP THERE FOR 12 YEARS WITH PEOPLE.

SAYING, OH, NO, NO, NO, THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN OR THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

THE GO BOND IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND IT DID. OH, THE RESIDENTS WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A SALARY INCREASE.

THE RESIDENTS DID.

WE SOMETIMES UNDERESTIMATE THE RESIDENTS BECAUSE.

WE HAVE A TENDENCY TO ONLY SEE ONE OR 2% OF THE RESIDENCY THAT COMES TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND WE DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE 98%.

THAT ACTUALLY YOU GET TO VOTE.

BECAUSE WE MAY HAVE 120,000 PEOPLE LIVING IN PALM BAY, BUT WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT 80 TO 85000 REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

SO IT IS THE DUE DILIGENCE OF COUNCIL.

IF THEY DO DECIDE TO GO WITH THIS NO CAP TO GET OUT THERE AND GO TO THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION INDIVIDUALLY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE DID.

THE WHOLE THING.

I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND AND I KNOW PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT THIS, THE 3% CAP SNUCK IN ON US. AND IT WAS THE WORK OF ONE PERSON.

AND THEN ONCE PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE 3% CAP WAS, THEY WERE TOTALLY LIKE, OH MY GOD,

[02:20:01]

AND FOR SOMEONE THAT'S SET UP THERE AND WENT THROUGH 12 BUDGET CYCLES, ESPECIALLY DURING THE TIME THAT THIS DROPPED AND YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THINGS HAPPEN IN THE CITY, EVERYBODY ALWAYS TALKS ABOUT THE CPI, WHICH IS SOMETIMES PEOPLE WOULD SIT UP THERE AND GO, YEAH, BECAUSE AT HOME WE TIGHTEN OUR BUDGET AND.

THIS IS NOT HOME.

THIS IS THE MUNICIPALITY.

WE WORK DIFFERENT.

YOU CAN BRING YOUR HOME MENTALITY, SIT IT UP THERE AND THINK THAT IT'S YOUR HOME.

YOUR HOME MAY HAVE FOUR OR FIVE PEOPLE.

YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR ABOUT 42,000 HOUSEHOLDS.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF AMENITIES THAT PEOPLE WANT.

SOME SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT PARK IS VERY IMPORTANT.

SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT POLICE AND FIRE IS VERY IMPORTANT.

FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERNALLY HERE, LIKE COUNCIL OR MYSELF, I KNEW WHAT EVERY DEPARTMENT NEEDED AND EVERY TIME I WOULD TELL EVERY DEPARTMENT AND CITY MANAGER BRING TO THE TABLE WHAT YOU NEED.

BRING TO THE TABLE WHAT YOU NEED, AND I'LL BE ABLE TO FIGHT FOR WHAT YOU WANT.

BUT THE THING IS THAT SOMETIMES.

THINGS SNEAKS UP ON YOU AND THE CAP SNUCK ON US.

AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WHEN WE REALLY NEED TO BE ABLE TO.

GO AND REALLY MAKE PALM BAY THE GREATEST CITY EVER TO COMPETE WITH THE ORLANDO'S OF THE WORLD. BECAUSE, REMEMBER, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND SEVEN COUNTIES IN CENTRAL FLORIDA BECAUSE I SAID THIS, WE ARE THE SECOND LARGEST CITY.

IN EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA, THE ONLY CITY BIGGER THAN PALM BAY.

IT'S ORLANDO.

THAT'S IT. SO IF WE DON'T START THINKING OF OURSELVES AS THAT TRENDSETTER, WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE SITTING BEHIND LIKE THE LITTLE BROTHER OR LITTLE SISTER OF MELBOURNE.

AND THAT DOESN'T FLY FOR ME.

WE NEED TO THINK OF OURSELVES AS SOMETHING GREATER.

AND NOT ALLOW OTHER PEOPLE TO SET THE TONE ON THE CONVERSATION OF WHO PAM IS.

BOMBAY IS THE GREATEST CITY.

I'VE BEEN AROUND OTHER CITIES.

THERE'S NOBODY THAT COULD TELL ME ANYTHING ABOUT OUR COUNTY IN REGARDS TO BEING AROUND OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND NOT MUNICIPALITY IN OUR COUNTY OR NOT EVEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OTHER MUNICIPALITIES NATIONWIDE.

AND OTHER MAYORS.

AND THE IDEA IS THAT WE WENT BACK AND FORTH AND IDEAS THAT THEY STARTED FROM PALM BAY.

AND MADE IT THEIR OWN.

AND WHEN WE WILL GO IN FOR TIGER GRANTS TO GET POLICE OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS, BECAUSE THERE'S GRANTS OUT THERE TO BE ABLE TO GET TO HIRE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL PAY YOU SO MUCH AND THEN YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT OVER AFTER TWO OR THREE YEARS. THERE'S ALL OF THOSE THINGS AVAILABLE, BUT YOU NEED TO BE OUT THERE.

YOU NEED TO BE OUT THERE.

AND THAT'S WHAT I ACCOMPLISH, AS I SAID UP THERE AS MAYOR.

YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T SIT AROUND AND THINK THAT THINGS ARE JUST GOING TO SHOW UP IN THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

YOU HAVE TO BE. YOU HUSTLE.

HUSTLE. AND THAT'S WHAT I SAW FROM THE MAYOR OF NEW YORK WHEN THE MAYOR OF CHICAGO, L.A., EVERYBODY WAS DOING THEIR THING.

AND YOU GET IN THERE AND YOU HOPE THAT WHEN YOU'RE RUBBING SHOULDERS, SOMETHING DROPS OFF ON YOU. AND THAT'S REALLY THE REALITY OF LIFE.

THAT'S WHAT POLITICS IS.

SO WITH THAT, I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR COMING AND WORKING AND THIS CHARTER REVIEW.

I THINK THIS IS OUR LAST.

I GUESS MY PLAN IS TO PRESENT.

EVERYTHING THAT THE COMMISSION HAS VOTED ON PRESENTED TO COUNCIL, PROBABLY THE SECOND MEETING IN MAY. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT A THE COMMISSION SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO BE AT THAT MEETING SHOULD THERE BE ANY QUESTIONS JUST TO BE AVAILABLE.

I DON'T WANT TO BE THE I DON'T WANT TO BE THE ONE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

AND THEN DEPENDING ON HOW COUNCIL MOVES FORWARD WITH THE MODIFICATIONS, THEN WE'LL PRESENT AN ORDINANCE WITH ALL OF THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, HOPEFULLY IN JUNE OR JULY.

YOU KNOW.

BUT I'VE BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT BEFORE.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S UP TO YOU IF YOU DON'T.

YEAH. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

AND ANOTHER THING, TOO, I WANT TO MENTION THE IF YOU BELONG TO ANY HOMEOWNER'S.

IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH ANY.

YOU KNOW. I KNOW JEFFREY WOULD.

[02:25:03]

I WAS INVITED TO ALL THESE COMMUNITY.

MEETINGS. ALL THE ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.

ONLY THE CASK INCLUDED WHEN THEY HAD THE.

AND I WAS ALSO ASKED.

TALK ABOUT THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS, WHICH.

AD NAUSEUM. AND.

ACTUALLY ONLY SEVEN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAD PROPOSED IN.

BUT EDUCATE PEOPLE.

PEOPLE YOU TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS.

YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ADVOCATE FOR ANYTHING.

JUST WHAT A DIFFERENCE MADE.

I JUST WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID AT MACACA IS THAT EVERY ELECTION.

I WOULD GO OVER ALL THE ITEMS ON THE BALLOT AND EXPLAIN THE PROS AND CONS AND ASK PEOPLE TO SPREAD IT. WE CAN DO A GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN AND I WILL IN THE COUNTRY.

I'M RETIRED NOW. I CONTRIBUTE SOME TIME AND A LITTLE MONEY TO THESE KIND OF THINGS.

AND I KNOW RANDALL WELL BECAUSE HE RANDALL IS EXCITED ABOUT GOING TO THE PEOPLE, SO I'LL JOIN IT. OH YEAH.

YOU CAN COME IN JUNE, THE MONTH OF JUNE.

GARY, WITH THAT, EVERYONE, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU.

THANK YOU TO MY VICE CHAIR.

THANK YOU TO STAFF.

THANK YOU TO ALL THE MEMBERS FOR TAKING YOUR TIME.

YOU KNOW THAT WE GET PAID $50,000 A YEAR FOR SHOWING UP TO THIS, SO ENJOY THOSE 50,000.

I'M GOING TO DISNEY WORLD.

WE'RE GOING TO DISNEY WORLD.

ALL RIGHT WITH THAT NOTE AND THANK YOU FOR THE AUDIENCE, YOUR QUESTIONS TO ASK THE CHARTER. SO WITH THAT, EVERYBODY ENJOY, ENJOY, ENJOY, ENJOY.

THANK YOU. READING A JUROR.

WHAT?

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.