Jul 12, 2023 Citizens' Budget Advisory Board

[00:00:01]

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY.

[CALL TO ORDER]

WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

JESSE. PRESIDENT.

NATHAN WHITE. JIMMY BACCUS.

PRESIDENT. CLINKSCALES.

SUSAN CONLEY PRESENT.

RICARDO MARTINEZ.

JEFFREY MACLEOD, PRESIDENT.

HERE. WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

I SEE NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

WE'LL PASS OVER PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION.

WE HAVE ANYONE JOIN US? WE'D BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS THEM.

WE COME UPON OUR NEW BUSINESS.

OUR FIRST ITEM HAS TO DO WITH APPOINTING A MEMBER FOR THE RFP PROCESS FOR THE CITY'S AUDIT SERVICES.

[1. Appoint CBAB member to RFP for the City’s Audit Services]

MR. WOJCIECHOWSKI THERE WAS DEFINITELY LAST YEAR WE WENT BACK OUT FOR AUDIT SERVICES.

OUR CHARTER STATES THAT EVERY FOUR YEARS WE HAVE TO GO OUT AND GET A NEW AUDIT COMPANY TO DO OUR AUDITING SERVICES.

LAST YEAR WE ONLY HAD ONE PERSON OR ONE FIRM ACTUALLY APPLY AND EVENTUALLY WE ACTUALLY CONFIRMED THEM AND WE BROUGHT THEM ON BOARD. HOWEVER, THROUGH THE.

WAYS. GOOD EVENING, MISS CLINKSCALES.

DO TAKE YOUR TIME GETTING UP.

MR. WOJCIECHOWSKI IS JUST TALKING TO US ABOUT NEW BUSINESS.

ITEM ONE, GIVING US THE BACKSTORY.

JOHN. GO AHEAD, SIR.

OKAY. THE CURRENT AUDIT FIRM, THEY COMPLETED THE AUDIT.

HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT GOING TO RENEW THEIR CONTRACT.

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON FROM THEM AND WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK OUT AND DO ANOTHER RFP.

UH, IT'S A DIFFERENT.

WAY OF BRINGING ON AN AUDIT SERVICES COMPANY BECAUSE THE STATE STATUTE DICTATES HOW IT'S DONE.

IT'S NOT DONE THROUGH THE NORMAL RFP PROCESS.

SOMEBODY FROM THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO SIT ON ON THAT RFP AND THEY'RE THE CHAIR.

THEN IT HAS TO BE TO OTHER.

NON EMPLOYEES THAT ACTUALLY SIT ON THE RFP PROCESS OR ON THE COMMITTEE.

SO AT THIS TIME, I HAVE ACTUALLY GONE OUT AND I'VE RECRUITED AND ASKED AND GOT APPROVAL TO USE.

CATHY ROTHMAN.

SHE'S THE FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR THE CLERK OF THE COURT FOR BREVARD COUNTY.

YOU'LL BE SITTING IN ON IT.

AND THE CITY MANAGER THOUGHT TO UTILIZE SOMEBODY FROM THIS BOARD.

SIT ON THE PANEL.

THAT IS WHERE WE STAND.

I CAN TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROCESS.

IT'S GOING TO BE GOING OUT HERE IN THE NEXT WEEK.

OUT FOR 30 DAYS.

AT THAT TIME.

RECEIVE THE SUBMISSIONS FROM HOWEVER MANY FIRMS. AND THE THREE OF YOU, WHOEVER THAT IS, WILL SIT DOWN.

WE SELECT.

FUNDS. THROUGH THE BOOKLETS THAT ARE SUBMITTED, YOU'LL YOU'LL GET THE PACKAGES WELL IN ADVANCE FOR YOU TO REVIEW THEM.

RANK THEM ACCORDING TO.

SEE. BIT THERE TO DO THE JOB FOR US.

NOW I WILL BE AN ADVISORY.

THE TO THE PANEL.

MARSHA, OUR CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, WILL ALSO BE ON THE PANEL TO ASSIST IN ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE.

IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

AND OF COURSE YOU WILL HAVE SOMEBODY FROM OUR PROCUREMENT THAT'S THERE TO ASSIST ALSO.

UH. NO.

IF ANYBODY HAS EVER SAT ON A RFP OR ON A COMMITTEE LIKE THIS.

IS A VERY GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY SELECT SOMEBODY FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR FIRM TO COME ON AND DO OUR AUDITS.

AND IT'S A IT'S A YEARLY AUDIT.

THEY DO. IT'S CALLED THE FOR THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL.

THEY DO FOR US. WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE GOING OUT QUITE LATE, ACTUALLY ASK FOR THEIR SERVICES.

NORMALLY YOU WANT THEM TO BE STARTING IN AUGUST.

HOWEVER, WE PROBABLY WON'T EVEN HAVE SOMEBODY SELECTED UNTIL OCTOBER.

WILL BE WORKING BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL A LITTLE BIT, BUT.

[00:05:02]

THAT. SIR, I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT TO YOU TO.

ASK QUESTIONS OR.

UH, SURE. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

DOES ANYBODY ON THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE POSITION? CONNELLY DO, TIME WISE.

SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

WILL BE.

FROM THE TIME THAT YOU ACTUALLY RECEIVE THE BOOKS OR PAMPHLETS, YOU'LL HAVE PROBABLY TEN DAYS TO ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THE BOOKS AND LOOK AT THEM AND SELECT AGAIN.

YOU PROBABLY WILL NOT GET VERY MANY BECAUSE OUR CHARTER STATES THAT THEY CAN ONLY BE WORKING FOR US FOR FOUR YEARS.

LAST YEAR WHEN WE ONLY HAD ONE PERSON OR ONE FIRM SUBMIT, WE ASKED MANY, MANY OTHER ACCOUNTING FIRMS, AUDIT FIRMS, WHY THEY DIDN'T APPLY.

AND THEY SPECIFICALLY SAID BECAUSE IT'S ONLY A FOUR YEAR.

OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HIRE SOMEBODY OR BRING SOMEBODY ON FOR FOUR YEARS WHEN THEY HAVE TO LET EVERYBODY GO.

IT IS NOT THE NORM WHAT WE DO HERE.

SO. WHY WE ONLY HAD ONE PERSON.

I HAVE A QUESTION. SURE.

MR. MACLEOD, PLEASE.

WHY IS IT GOING TO TAKE UNTIL OCTOBER TO HIRE? WE'RE NOW IN JULY.

BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GO OUT FOR YOU HAVE TO PUT IT OUT ON THE STREET FOR 30 DAYS, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN AND REVIEW.

IT HAS TO ONCE THE SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETS.

AND IT HAS TO GO TO LEGAL CONTRACT HAS TO BE DRAWN UP.

BIRTH. MOVES.

WHOA. WORKED IN IT FOR QUITE A WHILE.

SO EVERYBODY ELSE WHO'S ON THERE NOW.

HAVE THEY BEEN THROUGH THE PROCESS OR IS EVERYBODY? KATHY BROTHMAN. SHE'S BEEN A FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR 35 YEARS.

SHE HAS DEFINITELY SAT ON MANY PANELS.

I CAN'T SAY WHO THE COUNCIL PERSON IS IF THEY'VE EVER SAT ON ONE.

THEY HAVE TO SELECT ONE THEMSELVES.

SO. QUESTIONS WITH BACCHUS.

SO THE COUNCIL.

YES. HOW DO THEY SELECT THE RIGHT PERSON OR THEY JUST.

THEY'RE GOING TO DO IS THEY APPOINT SOMEBODY.

OF THE FOUR WILL APPOINT SOMEBODY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I WILL START WITH VOLUNTEERS FIRST.

WHO'S INTERESTED? I CAN TELL YOU, YOU WILL PROBABLY PROBABLY HAVE TO MEET TWICE FIRST TO BE INTRODUCED TO EACH OTHER AND THE WHOLE PROCESS WILL BE EXPLAINED TO YOU AND THEN YOU WILL MEET AGAIN TO DO THE SELECTION.

TALKING A COUPLE OF HOURS.

WITH THE SELECTION OR A RECOMMENDATION WILL BE A SELECTION.

OR IT STILL HAS TO, OF COURSE, GO TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

BUT. SO IT WILL LAST.

I MEAN, THE COMPANY WOULD FOR YEARS.

HOW HOW HOW WOULD IT BE FOR, AS, LET'S SAY, ONE OF US AND HOW LONG WOULD IT LAST FOR ONE OF US? ACTUALLY SIT ON THE COMMITTEE ITSELF.

DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF SUBMISSIONS.

LET'S SAY YOU GET 3 OR 4 SUBMISSIONS.

I WOULD SAY IT SHOULD TAKE YOU A COUPLE HOURS PER SUBMISSION.

RANK THEM. HER BOOK, OF COURSE, SUBMISSION.

YEAH. THAT'S OKAY.

I'M JUST WAITING FOR SOMEBODY ELSE.

ALL RIGHT. SO ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? IF IT'S AND LET ME JUST PUT IT OUT THERE.

IT WAS JUST SUGGESTED BY THE CITY MANAGER TO OFFER IT UP TO TO THIS BOARD.

SO IF YOU IF NOBODY WANTS TO, WE MOVE IN ANOTHER DIRECTION.

THAT'S. RECORD.

I'M VERY I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE WERE ASKED, AND I THINK WE SHOULD.

SOMEBODY. TIMING WISE.

BUT I'VE ALREADY GOT ON THE BOOKS FOR TRAVEL AND THINGS.

SO. SO USUALLY I'VE SAT ON A FEW RFPS WHERE I'VE HAD 11.

AND I KNOW YOU'RE ABOUT TO GO THROUGH 11.

[00:10:01]

UM, WHEN I, WHEN I GO THROUGH THE RFP PROCESS IS I REALLY JUST MEET ONCE WHEN WE OFFICIALLY BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING. SO IT'S LIKE AN OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING THAT THEY DO WHERE YOU GO THROUGH ALL OF YOUR RANKINGS.

BUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS, IS YOU'LL PICK UP THE BOOKS OR THE SUBMISSIONS FROM OUR PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT AND THEN YOU WILL GET LIKE A RANKING SHEET.

SO THEY'LL TELL YOU OUT OF THE 12 SECTIONS IN THE BOOK, YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO LOOK AT THESE THREE AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

SO YOU REALLY ONLY EVALUATE THE SECTIONS THAT THEY WANT YOU TO EVALUATE.

AND THERE'S AGAINST SPECIFIC CRITERIA.

SO HONESTLY, IT'S JUST AND YOU DO THAT ON YOUR OWN TIME.

SO IT'S NOT THAT YOU COME IN AND YOU HAVE TO DO IT HERE.

WHEN I DID MY 11, I TOOK THEM HOME AND JUST PLOWED THROUGH THEM ON A SATURDAY AND SUNDAY.

AND BUT THEY WERE BIG BOOKS.

IT WAS FOR DEBRIS MONITORING AND DEBRIS REMOVAL.

BUT THAT'S REALLY ALL IT IS.

IT'S THERE'S GUIDANCE AND YOU DON'T REVIEW THE ENTIRE BOOKS.

AND THEN THE ONLY TIME WE USUALLY COME TOGETHER, I MEAN, WITH THE AUDIT ONE, IT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT IT'S REALLY JUST THAT SELECTION, WHICH HAPPENS AT THE END WHEN YOU OFFICIALLY COME TOGETHER AND YOU DISCLOSE YOUR RANKINGS ESSENTIALLY.

AND THEN THE SELECTION IS BASED ON RANKINGS AND THEN YOU KIND OF HAVE SOME DIALOG AND THEN THEY GO TO UNLESS THERE'S ANY KIND OF. UM, DISPUTES ON THE RANKING.

IS EVERYONE IN AGREEMENT AND IF EVERYONE IS IN AGREEMENT, THEN IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL AND PROCUREMENT DOES ALL OF THAT.

SO IT'S REALLY. IS TIME CONSUMING.

I'M NOT GOING TO SAY IT'S NOT, BUT IT'S NOT.

THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME TO THE CITY AND DO ALL THAT.

YOU PICK IT UP AND THEY TELL YOU, THIS IS THE DAY THAT WE'RE MEETING TO MAKE THE SELECTIONS.

NOW, THAT IS THE PART IS YOU HAVE TO BE HERE.

THOSE ARE THOSE ARE THAT'S ONE THING THEY ALWAYS STRESS IS THAT THE MEETINGS THEY HAVE YOU HAVE TO BE HERE AT THAT TIME.

BUT IT'S REALLY.

GET GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE THING IN THE FIRST DAY OR YOU CAN KIND OF DO IT 2 OR 3 DAYS PRIOR.

IT'S REALLY WHATEVER.

SO I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING MAINLY IS TO GO THROUGH THE LITERATURE ITSELF.

THAT'S THE TIME.

UM, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR IS EXPERIENCE, YOU KNOW? DOES THE FIRM HAVE EXPERIENCE? YOU KNOW, HAVE THEY DEALT WITH OTHER CITIES, MUNICIPALITIES OR COUNTIES OF, LIKE, SIZE? JUST DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT AS FAR AS THE.

PROCUREMENT WILL SIT DOWN AND ACTUALLY DO THE EVALUATION OF.

DOLLAR AMOUNT. YOU WON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT AT ALL.

THEY. THE FIRMS ACTUALLY SUBMIT A DOLLAR AMOUNT AND THEN PROCUREMENT ACTUALLY DOES THE RANKING OF THAT.

YOU WON'T EVEN HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT PART.

IT'S JUST YOU'RE SELECTING THE MOST.

I'D. UM, I'M JUST.

I'LL THROW MY NAME OUT THERE.

OKAY. SO ANYWAY, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.

WHAT'S HIS NAME? OH, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT MR. BATTS SERVE ON THE RFP.

THE THAT MR. BATCH SERVED ON THE RFP COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY'S AUDIT SERVICES.

OKAY, SO WE HAD A MOTION FROM MS..

CLINKSCALE, SECONDED BY MR. MCLEOD, TO APPOINT MR. BACCUS AS THE KBAB REPRESENTATIVE TO THE RFP FOR THE CITY'S AUDIT SERVICES.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE. AYE.

AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

MR. BACCUS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

WE APPRECIATE YOU REPRESENTING US.

AND WE KNOW YOU DO A GOOD JOB FOR US.

LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING ABOUT IT.

THANK YOU, SIR. THIS ALSO.

OKAY. WE'LL TRANSITION SLIGHTLY INTO NEW BUSINESS NUMBER TWO.

[2. Discussion on Budget Workshop from July 11, 2023]

NUMBER TWO, A DISCUSSION ON THE BUDGET WORKSHOP FROM JULY 11TH, WHICH WAS LAST NIGHT, RIGHT HERE IN THESE COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

IT'S NICE TO SEE YOU, MISS CLINKSCALES, AS WELL AS YOU, MR. BACCUS. I HOPE EVERYBODY ELSE WAS ABLE TO AT LEAST SEE VIRTUALLY THE MEETING.

AND IT LOOKS LIKE MISS COLLINS HAS GIVEN US A PRINTED COPY.

I WISH I WOULD HAVE GOT THAT FROM YOU YESTERDAY.

I WOULD HAVE USED IT AND JUST BROUGHT IT BACK TODAY.

AND IT WAS ACTUALLY PUBLISHED IN THE AGENDA.

SO IF YOU. OH, COOL.

[00:15:01]

SO THAT'S FANTASTIC. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND I GUESS WE'LL START THERE.

DO WE WANT TO JUMP RIGHT INTO QUESTIONS? YOU GUYS WANT TO CUE IT UP AT ALL? WHAT DO YOU THINK? ANYONE CHOMPING AT THE BIT WITH A QUESTION YET.

ACTUALLY, ONE THING THAT I DO WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT IS THE MAYOR ACTUALLY IS REQUESTING US TO TAKE SOMETHING BACK TO COUNCIL.

FROM WHAT? AFTER YOU GUYS HAVE YOUR DISCUSSION OF WHAT YOU ACTUALLY DECIDED.

I WILL TAKE BACK ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU COME UP WITH.

YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. WOJCIECHOWSKI.

JUST TO REITERATE THE YOU KNOW, IT WAS GOOD, GOOD.

WONDERFUL PRESENTATION BY MISS COLLINS, ALL OF THIS CONTENT AND THEN SOME.

AND THEN THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE WHAT THEY MAY, YOU KNOW, AGREE TO AS A TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE WHEN THE MEMORANDUM SENT BEFORE THEM AT THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING NEXT WEEK, THEY HAD GOOD DIALOG ABOUT THAT, CAME TO A GENERAL CONSENSUS.

AND THEN THE MAYOR DID SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, HE'S GOING TO BE SEEKING THE INPUT AND THE INFORMATION THAT WE TALK ABOUT HERE TONIGHT TO WEIGH INTO HIS DECISION AS FAR AS WHAT HE'S GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR TO SET THAT TENTATIVE FOR.

NEXT WEEK. SO AND YOU KNOW, I WON'T OVER SUMMARIZE AND DO IT ANY INJUSTICE, BUT I FEEL LIKE MY UNDERSTANDING IS PRETTY GOOD AT THIS TIME TO BE ABLE TO RESTATE THAT NEXT WEEK THE MEMORANDUM WILL COME UP AND THEN THAT WILL BE AN OFFICIAL MOTION FROM COUNCIL AND WHAT HAVE YOU TO SET A TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE, A TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE THAT CAN BE BROUGHT DOWNWARD BUT CANNOT GO UPWARD.

SO THERE'S ALWAYS PHILOSOPHICAL CONVERSATION ABOUT STARTING HIGH AND BRINGING IT BACK DOWN LOW.

AND THAT'S KIND OF THE CONVERSATION THAT THAT THEY HAD IN THE DISCUSSION THEY HAD.

SO BEFORE I TURN IT OVER AND ASK ANYONE ELSE FOR INQUIRIES, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS I DO WANT TO SHARE WITH THE BOARD THE SAME THING THAT I SHARED WITH COUNCIL AND ANYONE ELSE THAT WAS VIEWING THE THE WORKSHOP THAT IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE AND OR SLIDE 29, WE HAVE A WHICH IS ACTUALLY JUST ONE OF A COUPLE OF VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF OUR DIFFERENT OPTIONS OF MILLAGE RATES THIS YEAR.

BUT 29 DOES A GOOD JOB OF CALLING OUT THAT OUR CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 2023 MILLAGE RATE IS 7.5995.

AND THEN BELOW THAT, IF WE WERE TO MAINTAIN THE SAME FOR 24, WHAT WOULD IT BE? A FEW IN-BETWEENS.

AND THEN OUR ORANGE HIGHLIGHT IS OUR 3% CAP, WHICH OF COURSE TO REITERATE IS A 3% CAP ON THE REVENUE THAT THE CITY CAN GENERATE FROM THE SAME PROPERTIES THAT IT WAS ABLE TO GENERATE REVENUE FROM LAST YEAR.

THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT WASN'T ON THE BOOKS LAST YEAR.

WE'RE ABLE TO TAX THAT HOW WE SEE.

BUT ANYTHING THAT WAS ON THE BOOKS LAST YEAR, WE CAN'T MAKE MORE THAN 3% REVENUE THAN WE MADE LAST YEAR OFF OF IT THIS YEAR.

SO THAT CALCULATES OUT TO 7.0171 THAT WOULD BE REFERRED TO AS THE CHARTER CAP MAXIMUM.

AND THEN OF COURSE, THE LAST ONE LISTED THERE IS 6.8183.

THAT IS REFERRED TO AS A ROLLBACK RATE, WHICH ROLLS BACK THE MILLAGE RATE AND ROLLS BACK TO BASICALLY THE SAME.

AND MISS COLLINS CAN FILL IN ANY GAPS HERE, BUT THE SAME REVENUE THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE MADE OFF OF THOSE SAME PROPERTIES LAST YEAR BECAUSE YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT YOU NOW HAVE NEW THINGS THAT YOU'RE TAXING, YOU TAX ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT SLIGHTLY A BIT LESS.

YOU MAKE ROUGHLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE OR ACTUALLY A SMIDGE A LITTLE MORE.

SO WHAT I'M GETTING AT IN THAT SUMMARY AND AGAIN, FEEL FREE TO FILL IN ANY GAPS THERE, BUT WHAT I'M GETTING AT THAT SUMMARY IS THAT IT'S MY HUMBLE OPINION THAT NEXT WEEK, NEXT THURSDAY, THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD ADOPT TENTATIVELY A MILLAGE RATE OF 7.0171.

THE REASON THAT THAT IS MY THOUGHT IS THAT IS WITHIN THE CHARTER CAP AND THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION OR REASON OR CRITICAL NEED BEEN IDENTIFIED TO GO OVER THE CAP OR TO SOLICIT THE SUPERMAJORITY VOTE THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO GO OVER THE CAP.

SO I DON'T SEE ANY HORIZON WHERE ANYTHING ABOVE 7.0171 IS APPROVED.

SO I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD SET IT AT THE TENTATIVE AND WHAT I SHARED IN MY SENTIMENT THAT I SHARED WITH THE COUNCIL AND WITH THE PUBLIC IS THAT I WOULD LOVE FOR ONE DAY, WHETHER IT'S THIS FISCAL YEAR OR ANOTHER, OUR COMMUNITY, TO GET TO A PLACE OF ROLLBACK FOR OUR COMMUNITY, TO GET TO A PLACE WHERE THE RESIDENTS THAT THAT LIVE HERE AND ENJOY HERE AND PAY TAXES HERE YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT CAN CONTINUE TO REAP THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY'S GROWTH AS OPPOSED TO THE PERCEPTION OF PAYING FORWARD THE COST OF THE CITY'S GROWTH.

I FEEL AS THOUGH THERE'S A SENTIMENT OUT THERE IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT AS OUR MILLAGE RATES GO UP OR AS EXCEPTIONS TO OUR CHARTER CAP, GO UP TO MAKE UP FOR OUR NEEDS, SOME FOLKS FEEL AS THOUGH THAT'S DUE TO THE GROWTH OF THE CITY.

NOW, OF COURSE, THAT COULD.

BE MADE TO BE TRUE.

BUT OUR FINANCIAL WOES ARE MOSTLY FROM THE DEFICITS THAT WE HAVE REGARDLESS OF THE GROWTH.

AND THEN WE HAVE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE GROWTH, RIGHT?

[00:20:01]

THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT WAYS TO SKIN THE CAT.

THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT WAYS TO LOOK AT IT.

THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES TO ADOPT.

A COUPLE OF THEM WERE DISCUSSED AT COUNCIL.

ONE COUNCIL MEMBER WANTS TO KEEP 75995 FOR THE YEAR.

THAT'S THAT'S HIS PREROGATIVE.

HE DOESN'T HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY SUPPORT AND IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

BUT THAT'S HIS PREROGATIVE.

THAT'S HIS THOUGHT. SO MY THOUGHT IS IT OUGHT TO BE 7.0171.

MY THOUGHT IS IT'D BE GREAT IF WE COULD ROLL IT BACK TO 6.8183.

AND MY LAST THOUGHT BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO JUMP IN, I SHARED WITH THE COUNCIL IS IF WE WERE TO ROLL FROM 7.0171 TO 6.183, THERE WOULD BE A POTENTIAL, A LOSS OF POTENTIAL GAIN OF REVENUE OF $1.463 MILLION, $1.5 MILLION. I FEEL AS THOUGH, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S MANY FINANCIAL NEEDS, THAT THERE IS A LOT TO BE SAID ABOUT THE SENSE OF SECURITY THAT IT CREATES IN THE COMMUNITY TO BE AT A ROLLBACK OR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH YOUR CAP.

AND I THINK THAT THE 1.4 MILLION, YOU KNOW, AS THE PACKET TALKS ABOUT, THERE'S A FEW, THERE'S A FEW 1.4 MILLIONS AROUND AND I THINK WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT UP, LET ALONE THE THE OTHER REVENUE OF SOMEHOW SOME WAY EXCEEDING THE CAP, WHICH AGAIN I SEE NO FEASIBLE WAY THAT THAT CAN OCCUR.

BUT THOSE ARE MY SENTIMENTS BEFORE I DO PASS IT ON, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE MY GRATITUDE TO THE WHOLE FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND MISS COLLINS FOR THE DILIGENCE FOR PREPARING THIS AND FOR SHARING IT WITH US YESTERDAY IN SUCH GREAT DETAIL.

IT WAS IT WAS A VERY, VERY GOOD PRESENTATION AND I APPRECIATED IT.

SO AT THAT TIME, I'M JUST GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO THE REST OF THE BOARD.

I JUST WANT TO SAY MY PIECE, GET IT OUT, AND I JUST WANT TO HEAR EVERYTHING YOU GUYS ARE THINKING.

SO WHO WANTS TO TAKE THE MIC? MISS CONNELLY? YOU JUMPED.

GO FOR IT. ACTUALLY, I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION I WISH I WOULD HAVE ASKED LAST NIGHT, IF I MAY DO THAT BEFORE COMMENTS, AND THAT IS ON THE SALARY INCREASES.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A STUDY GOING ON TO MAKE SALARIES EQUITABLE AS WELL AS TO FILL SOME OF THE EMPTY POSITIONS THAT.

SO HAS THAT BEEN INITIATED? SO THE SALARY STUDY IS COMPLETE.

PEOPLE HAVE BEEN GETTING RAISES AND THOSE ARE BUILT INTO THE BUDGET THAT IS BEEN PRESENTED.

YES. SO A CERTAIN AMOUNT WAS SET ASIDE FOR THIS YEAR ALREADY IN THE APPROVED BUDGET FOR THE POTENTIAL OUTCOME OF THE SALARY STUDY, AND THAT WAS COMPLETED AND FINALIZED.

AND SO THOSE UPDATES HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE FOR THIS YEAR.

AND THEN IT'S ALREADY BEEN CALCULATED INTO NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET TO START THE INDIVIDUALS AT THE SALARY THAT THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY ENDING THE CURRENT YEAR WITH, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE EVERYTHING FROM THE SALARY STUDY.

YES. SO WHEN YOU MENTIONED UNFUNDED REQUESTS THAT HAPPEN NATURALLY.

BUDGET LIKE THIS THAT HAS THAT CAP THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE.

UM, SO ON UNFUNDED REQUESTS IS ESSENTIALLY ALL DEPARTMENTS SUBMIT THE REQUESTS FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR, WHICH CAN BE PERSONNEL, NEW POSITIONS, RECLASSIFICATIONS OPERATING COSTS OR ANY KIND OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT.

SO CAPITAL IS ESSENTIALLY THINK OF UNIT COST OF 5000 OR MORE BIG CONSTRUCTION AND WE ASKED THEM TO PRIORITIZE THEM, TO RANK THEM BASED ON THEIR NEEDS.

AND ESSENTIALLY THERE ARE SO MANY OF THEM THAT WITH WITH THE 3% CAP AND EVEN IF THERE WASN'T A 3% CAP, THERE WOULD STILL, YOU KNOW, BE A STRUGGLE TO TO COVER ALL THOSE.

BUT ESSENTIALLY THE I CALCULATE WHAT OUR REVENUE IS, WHAT WE HAVE LEFT OVER.

SO I INCLUDE EVERYBODY WORKING ALREADY, EVERYONE'S SALARIES, EVERYONE.

SO WHAT WE ESSENTIALLY GO INTO 24 AS IS.

AND THEN I LOOK AT THIS IS HOW MUCH WE HAVE LEFT OVER, WHAT CAN WE NOW FUND OUT OF THESE REQUESTS? SO WE HAVE THE FUNDED ITEMS. SO THINK OF IT, IF I HAVE $2 MILLION, WE START WITH 2 MILLION AND THEN WE GO THROUGH THE REQUESTS.

SO IF YOU HAVE A POSITION THAT'S 100,000 AND NOW YOU'RE AT 1,000,900, AND WE ESSENTIALLY JUST GO THROUGH THE LIST OF REQUESTS.

AND WHEN YOU'RE OUT OF MONEY, YOU'RE OUT OF MONEY.

AND THEN EVERYTHING THAT'S NOT APPROVED BECOMES AN UNFUNDED.

AND ESSENTIALLY IT'S A REQUEST, BUT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO FUND IT AT THIS TIME.

JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP.

I'M READING PAGE OR SLIDE 15.

LAST POINT TO READ THAT THE RIGHT SIZING THAT WE DID DO FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 TO, YOU KNOW, GET EVERYBODY TO THE CORRECT SALARIES PER THE STUDY WAS $2.8 MILLION, IS THAT CORRECT?

[00:25:02]

OKAY. SO THAT GOT MOVED OVER IN A BUDGET AMENDMENT.

IT'S ALL SQUARED AWAY.

WE'RE FINE FOR FISCAL YEAR.

THAT ALREADY HAPPENED. THAT WAS.

YES, THE MONEY WAS ALREADY SET ASIDE IN THE 23 APPROVED BUDGET, SO THAT FUNDING ESSENTIALLY WAS SET ASIDE ALREADY WITH AN ANTICIPATION OF TO BE SPENT.

OKAY. LAST YEAR, AS WE WENT THROUGH THE APPROVED BUDGET, YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN A LINE ITEM THAT WAS SET ASIDE FOR FUTURE POTENTIAL ESTIMATES FOR ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE SALARY STUDY.

SO THAT WAS NOT PART OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT.

THE MONEY STILL HAD TO BE MOVED.

SO YOU WOULD SEE IT ON A BUDGET AMENDMENT BECAUSE STATUTORY WISE, IF I'M MOVING ANY MONEY FROM ANYWHERE, THAT DOES HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED.

BUT THOSE FUNDS WERE SET ASIDE DURING THIS PROCESS LAST YEAR WITH THE ANTICIPATION OF BEING PAID.

SO TO THAT DEGREE, WHEN THEY WHEN THE AMENDMENT DID HAPPEN, THEY DIDN'T COME FROM UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE.

THEY CAME FROM THEY WERE SOMEWHERE THEY WERE IN AN ACCOUNT SOMEWHERE.

THEY WERE A PORTION.

A PORTION DID BECAUSE WE SET ASIDE A CERTAIN AMOUNT FOR THAT, PLUS UNION CONTRACTS FOR THE ENGAGE CONTRACTS NEGOTIATIONS.

SO THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERLAP.

AND THAT'S JUST MAINLY BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON AN ESTIMATE, BUT IT WASN'T A LARGE AMOUNT.

GOTCHA, GOTCHA.

SO JUST TO REITERATE, WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE FUNDED FOR FISCAL YEAR 23.

WE'RE BUILT INTO THE BUDGET WITH THESE NEW SALARIES IN 24 AS WE SEE IT.

AND WE'RE ALSO BUILT IN TO GET A 3% RAISE ABOVE THAT WITHIN THE FISCAL YEAR 24 BUDGET.

WHEN DO THOSE RAISES TAKE PLACE FOR THE EMPLOYEES? RIGHT AWAY AT THE FISCAL YEAR, OCTOBER 1ST.

OKAY. SO WE'LL START A NEW FISCAL YEAR.

WE'LL BUMP EVERYBODY 3%.

I'LL FUND IT IN THE CURRENT BUDGET.

GO ON. UNDERSTOOD.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS CONNELLY, FOR ASKING THAT CLARIFYING QUESTION, BECAUSE REALLY I WANTED MORE CONTENT TO THAT, TO CONTEXT.

I JUST KIND OF FORGOT. SO CAN I CAN I ADD SOMETHING JUST FOR ONE SECOND, IF YOU WILL PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING INTO THE MIC.

WE'VE HAD. OH, NO, NO, NO.

BECAUSE WE'VE GONE BACK AND REVIEWED THESE THINGS MULTIPLE TIMES, AND THERE ARE MANY TIMES WHERE YOU CANNOT HEAR.

SO PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MIC IF YOU CAN.

DEFINITELY. THANK YOU, SIR.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WHILE YOU HAVE IT, MISS CONNELLY? YEAH, I. I THINK THIS IS A FIRST FOR MY SITTING ON THIS BUDGET ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO REQUEST SOMETHING OF US.

AND I'D LIKE TO BE VERY THOUGHTFUL AND CAREFUL IN OUR COMMENTS TONIGHT.

AND WE DO REPRESENT CITIZENS.

AND I THINK THE AS MY UNDERSTANDING IS, I WOULD BELIEVE THE COUNCIL IS ASKING FROM US CITIZEN.

ONCE WE BEING.

BE REPRESENTATIVE OF CITIZEN POPULATION.

UM, SO I DON'T SEE IT BEING CHANGING OR COMMENTING ON THE FIGURES THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED, BUT MORE.

GOING BEYOND THAT.

WELL, THANK YOU, MISS CONNELLY. I APPRECIATE THAT.

MISS CLINKSCALES, YOU HAD A QUESTION? SURE. YES, THANK YOU.

THAT PRESENTATION WAS AWESOME.

HELPED ME WITH THE UNDERSTANDING A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT I WANTED TO ASK THE QUESTION.

TWO QUESTIONS, ACTUALLY.

THE FIRST ONE IS WITH THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND.

THAT GOLD BOND.

IT WAS APPROVED BY VOTERS.

BUT YOU TALKED ABOUT A SECOND ONE COMING UP FOR 2025.

AND I WANTED TO KNOW, IS THAT.

THAT FIRST VOTE ALLOWS US TO JUST KEEP ADDING THESE BONDS AS NEEDED, OR DOES IT GO BACK OUT TO THE COMMUNITY TO VOTE AGAIN? NO. SO WHAT THE VOTERS APPROVED IS ESSENTIALLY UP TO 150,000,003 DRAWS OF 50, BECAUSE ANYTIME YOU ARE ISSUED A BOND FOR CONSTRUCTION, YOU CAN'T SIT ON THAT MONEY FOR MORE THAN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.

AND WHEN YOU'RE PULLING 150 MILLION ALL AT ONCE GETTING CONSTRUCTION DONE AND WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME IS VERY DIFFICULT.

SO WE ARE ESSENTIALLY DOING THREE DRAWS OF 50 TOTALING THE 150 MILLION.

SO THE FIRST DRAW OCCURRED IN 2019, SHORTLY AFTER IT WAS APPROVED.

CONSTRUCTION STARTS AND AS SOON AS OUR WORK WITH OUR CITY ENGINEER AND OUR BOND COUNSEL, WE WORK CLOSELY WITH THEM AND WE SAY, OKAY, WE HAVE NOW ALLOCATED THE MAJORITY OF THOSE 50 MILLION TOWARDS PROJECTS.

WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND GO AHEAD OUT FOR THE SECOND DRAW, THE SECOND PORTION OF THE 50.

[00:30:06]

SO THE THIRD DRAW IS ABOUT TO OCCUR.

SO THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY JUST SPACED OUT ABOUT 2 TO 3 YEARS.

SO BECAUSE THAT ALLOWS THE CITY A STAGGERED TIMEFRAME OF CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE PROJECTS, IT'S DIFFICULT TO DRAW 150 MILLION AND GET EVERYBODY GOING AT THE SAME TIME.

IT'S JUST NOT FEASIBLE TO DO THAT.

SO THAT IS WHAT IS ABOUT TO OCCUR.

IT IS THE THIRD PORTION OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT COMES OUT AND THEN DUE TO THE VOTERS BEING APPROVED, WE'RE DONE AFTER THAT.

SO THAT WOULD BE THE LAST DRAW.

YOU TALKED ABOUT THE EFFECTS ON RESIDENTS IN PALM BAY.

YOU SAID THAT WE WOULDN'T SEE AN OVERALL HIT AT ONCE, THAT IT WOULD BE SPACED OUT ENOUGH THAT I GUESS THE IMPACT WOULD BE LESS TO RESIDENTS.

CAN YOU BECAUSE I KNOW FOR THIS YEAR WE HAVE A PLUS 27, $27.

THAT'S $50.54.

RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S IT'S NOT $27.54.

THE WAY THAT IT'S CALCULATED IS THE SAME WAY AS YOUR TAXES.

THERE'S A RATE THAT IS APPLIED AGAINST YOUR NON TAXABLE VALUE OF YOUR HOME AND THAT GENERATES A DOLLAR AMOUNT ON YOUR TAX BILL.

THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR THAT PARTICULAR THEY CALL A TAXING AUTHORITY.

SO THIS WOULD BE LIKE PALM BAY ROAD MAINTENANCE GOES DIRECTLY INTO THE FUND THAT MAKES THE PAYMENTS FOR THE DEBT SERVICE TO PAY THE BONDS. CURRENTLY.

WE ARE NEEDING TO TAX PEOPLE TO COVER DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS FOR THE TWO TWO DRAWS WE'VE DONE.

WE BECAUSE.

IT'S NOT.

WE'RE NOT TAXING.

TO GENERATE MORE THAN WHAT'S NEEDED.

WE'RE ONLY NEEDING TO GENERATE A CERTAIN AMOUNT.

SO IT'S SORT OF OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU DO IN THE GENERAL FUND AND THE GENERAL FUND.

YOU TAX GENERALLY AT AN AMOUNT IN ORDER TO RAISE OR GENERATE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF REVENUE.

WITH THAT DEBT SERVICE, WE ONLY NEED TO GENERATE ENOUGH TO PAY THOSE DEBT SERVICE BILLS.

BECAUSE THE.

THE DEBT THAT WE HAVE TO PAY IS EVEN SLIGHT.

IT'S EITHER SLIGHTLY SMALLER OR SLIGHTLY HIGHER.

IT'S ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

BUT YOU HAVE MORE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE BEING TAXED.

YOU'RE SPREADING IT OUT.

SO EACH PERSON WILL BE PAYING A LITTLE BIT LESS BECAUSE WE ONLY NEEDING TO GENERATE ENOUGH.

NOW WE'RE ABOUT TO GO OUT FOR THE THIRD PORTION IN 24 OR IT'S AT THE END OF 23 INTO 24. BUT THE IMPACT TO THE TAXPAYERS WILL NOT HAPPEN UNTIL A YEAR FROM NOW.

ESSENTIALLY, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN A YEAR, BUT IT'S IN THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE, YOU WILL SEE THE REQUIREMENT OF OUR PAYMENTS GO UP BECAUSE WE'VE NOW ADDED THAT THIRD PORTION TO IT.

BUT THE METHOD IS STILL THE SAME.

WE ONLY TAX ENOUGH TO COVER THOSE PAYMENTS.

THANK YOU.

THE OTHER QUESTION WAS THE CONVERSATION LAST NIGHT ABOUT THIS 3% CAP.

IT WAS SAID A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONCE WE MAKE THAT DECISION THIS YEAR THAT THERE'S NO ROOM TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT IN PRIOR I MEAN, IN FUTURE YEARS. WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE VOTE ON THIS MILLAGE RATE EVERY YEAR.

SO WHY IS IT THAT WHAT WAS THAT CONVERSATION? MAYBE I'M MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT IT WAS SAYING, BUT I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY, WELL, ONCE WE MAKE THIS DECISION, 3%, THAT'S IT.

AND I'M LIKE, NO, IT'S NOT, BECAUSE DON'T WE VOTE ON THIS EVERY YEAR? I'LL SHARE MY INTERPRETATION FIRST, IF YOU GUYS DON'T MIND.

THE WAY I INTERPRETED IT, WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THIS IS THE TRUTH, BUT WAS THAT.

GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. I THINK WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO SAY IS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO SET THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE, THEY DON'T WANT TO SET IT AT THE 3% CAP RATE.

YOU SET IT HIGHER FOR WHEN YOU'RE DOING THE TENTATIVE IN SEPTEMBER IS WHEN YOU ACTUALLY SET THE RATE.

SO YOU COULD HAVE SOMETHING HAPPEN BETWEEN NOW AND SEPTEMBER.

AND THEY ACTUALLY NEED THE MONEY FOR SOME REASON, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE.

BUT IF YOU'VE COMMITTED IT AT THE 3% CAP RATE, YOU ARE NOW STUCK.

YOU CAN'T INCREASE IT.

[00:35:01]

IT DOESN'T GO YEAR AFTER YEAR.

YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU SAID IT EVERY YEAR.

SO, SEE, I INTERPRET THAT A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

MS.. CLINKSCALES AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU WERE FOCUSED ON THE CONVERSATION THAT OCCURRED AROUND SLIDE OR PAGE 30.

YEAH. SO BASICALLY IF WE GO WITH 7.0101 THIS YEAR, WHICH IS OUR CAP, THAT WOULD RESTRICT OR CONSTRAIN THE ABILITY BY THAT MUCH, BY THAT FRACTION OF A PERCENTAGE FOR THEM TO RAISE THE MILLAGE RATE NEXT YEAR, BECAUSE THIS YEAR THEY CAN ONLY RAISE IT SO MUCH BASED UPON LAST YEAR.

SO THERE WAS ONE PARTICULAR COUNCIL MEMBER WHO FELT VERY STRONGLY, EVEN IN SPITE OF A LACK OF CRITICAL NEED, THAT WE SHOULD STAY AT 7.5995 TO HOLD IT UP THERE, BECAUSE ONCE IT COMES SO FAR UP A YEAR AT A TIME.

AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY, I THINK MISS COLLINS WAS EXPLAINING IT VERY WELL IN THAT IT'S PROTECTIONS TO THE CONSUMER AND TO THE TAXPAYER, THAT WE CAN'T HAVE JOLTS AND WE CAN'T HAVE SPIKES. AND THEN JUST THROUGH THAT, IT WAS INTERPRETED WELL, SOME PEOPLE TOOK IT AS A POTENTIAL RESTRICTION TO OUR OUR, YOU KNOW, OUR REVENUE POTENTIAL.

AND THAT WAS KIND OF THE DIALOG I HEARD BACK AND FORTH.

BUT I LIKED IT THAT THE SAFETIES ARE IN PLACE TO PROTECT US TAXPAYERS PERSONALLY, BUT DEFINITELY ME AS WELL.

YOU WERE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING, NATHAN NO, THE THE OUR WONDERFUL CHAIR SAID WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. IT CAN ONLY INCREASE BY SO MUCH EACH TIME.

SO WHEREVER WE SET IT IN ONE YEAR WILL CHANGE OUR RANGE OF AVAILABLE PLACES TO SET IT THE NEXT YEAR.

THEY THEY I GUESS THEY'RE STILL DISCUSSING IT BETWEEN THEM.

THE. THEY'RE NOT SETTING IT YET.

THEY ACTUALLY SAID IT NEXT WEEK.

WE'RE GOING TO SET IT NEXT WEEK.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE ONE MORE COMMENT, AND THAT IS, AS FINANCE FOLKS, WE THERE'S A LOT HAPPENING IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.

WE KNOW THAT WE'RE IN A MULTIPOLAR WORLD.

BACK IN THE DAY, IT USED TO BE MORE UNIPOLAR.

AND SO THE UNITED STATES, THE DOLLAR WAS THIS RESERVE CURRENCY AND STILL IS IN A LOT OF PLACES, THE RESERVE CURRENCY.

WE KNOW THAT CHANGES ARE HAPPENING NOW AND IT MAY THAT MAY NOT BE.

AND SO I GUESS AS A FINANCE FOLKS, DO YOU ALL I'M SO HAPPY THAT WE'RE STAYING AT 3%.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS. BUT THE OTHER REASON IS, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE IMPACT OF THAT ON THE CITY? LIKE, HAVE YOU EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT IT? DO YOU TALK ABOUT IT OR IS IT NOT A CONVERSATION AT THIS POINT? EXPAND ON THAT MORE, MISS CLINKSCALES, BECAUSE I'M SEEING THE FACES OF AN INQUISITION AND HAVE THE SAME ONE.

I'M HEARING YOU, BUT I'M NOT HEARING THE QUESTION.

OKAY. SO THE QUESTION IS, SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE WORLD NOW? AS WE KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD OF BRICKS.

RIGHT. SO BRICKS ARE THESE COUNTRIES COMING TOGETHER AND THEY ARE LOOKING AT A DIGITAL CURRENCY THAT WILL BE BACKED BY GOLD AND OTHER COMMODITIES.

AND SO IF THE DOLLAR IS NOT THE RESERVE CURRENCY, WHAT IMPACT DOES THAT HAVE ON OUR CITY? IF ANY.

AND HAVE YOU EVEN HAD THE CONVERSATION TO EVEN DISCUSS THAT, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CITY HAS NOT TALKED ABOUT? SO FAR OFF STILL, NO, WE HAVE NOT HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT.

WE WOULD BE TALKING WITH THE FINANCIAL ADVISORS IF THAT EVER CAME UP, AND THEN THEY WOULD START ADVISING US ON IN WHICH DIRECTION WE NEED TO GO.

OKAY. I WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT.

I'M JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE AS A QUESTION.

JUST MY IS IT IS IT SMART TO HAVE THAT 3% CAP? I MEAN, PERSONALLY, I SEE IT AS.

CUTTING THE HAND OFF THE FEED YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE KILLING YOURSELF FROM GROWTH.

SO I ALWAYS HAVE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO STAY IMPARTIAL WITH WITH THE JOB THAT I HAVE.

WE TAKE DIRECTION FROM WHAT CITY COUNCIL SAYS, WHAT OUR CHARTER SAYS, WHAT THE STATE STATUTE SAYS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE REGULATE.

AND WE WE SET OUT THAT'S OUR LAW.

UM. I DO KNOW THAT OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY, THE COUNTY I KNOW OF NO OTHER MUNICIPALITY IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA THAT HAS THIS, WHETHER IT'S A GROWING CITY, WHETHER IT'S A BUILT OUT CITY, WHETHER IT'S A YOUNG CITY OR WHATEVER HAVE YOU.

WE ARE UNAWARE OF ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY OR ANOTHER TAXING AUTHORITY AUTHORITY THAT HAS THIS OR DOES THIS.

I'M IN CONFERENCES WITH PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE STATE.

THEY THEY.

THEY'VE HEARD OF IT. THEY DON'T DO THAT EITHER.

WE'VE LAST YEAR WE HAD A CONSULTANT COME IN AND DO A GENERAL FUND FORWARD LOOK FOR TEN YEARS.

THIS IS A CONSULTANT THAT OUR UTILITIES DEPARTMENT USES FOR RATES AS WELL.

THEY'RE VERY WELL VERSED WITH WITH THE STATE, WITH PROJECTIONS, WITH I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT THEY DO.

[00:40:05]

THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY A RESTRICTION LIKE THAT IS PUT IN PLACE.

SECONDLY IS.

WE DO HAVE, AS STATED IN THE PRESENTATION, THERE ARE STATUTORY LAWS THAT RESTRICT US FROM TAXING CERTAIN AMOUNTS AND WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY THOSE IF WE DO NOT ABIDE BY THOSE.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PUTS US OUT OF COMPLIANCE, MEANING THAT THEY HOLD ALL OF OUR REVENUE.

WE'RE NOT ABLE TO TAX ESSENTIALLY AT THAT POINT.

SO THERE ARE STATE LAWS THAT ARE RESTRICTIONS.

AND THEN WITHIN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WE HAVE OUR SAVE OUR HOMES EXEMPTION.

SO THAT EXEMPTION, IF YOU'RE A RESIDENT WITHIN THE STATE, WITHIN THE COUNTY.

UM, LONG TIME RESIDENTS, IT'S BENEFITING THEM QUITE WELL WHERE REMEMBER WHAT I HAD TALKED ABOUT IS, IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE BEING TAXED, YOU'RE NOT TAXED ON YOUR FULL HOME VALUE.

YOU HAVE EXEMPTIONS THAT ESSENTIALLY PUSH DOWN WHAT THE VALUE OF YOUR HOME IS THAT YOU'RE BEING TAXED ON.

AND MOST PEOPLE KNOW THEY HAVE HOMESTEAD.

WHEN YOU KNOW YOU PULL YOUR THING, YOU HAVE 25,000 PLUS A 25,000 HOMESTEAD.

AND IT WAS ACTUALLY IT WAS ACTUALLY OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR WHO I'VE OWNED A HOME IN BREVARD COUNTY FOR SEVEN YEARS.

AND I WAS LIKE, OH, I DIDN'T SAVE OUR HOMES.

WHAT IS THIS? I SAID, I DON'T HAVE THAT.

AND EVEN I WAS SURPRISED I PULLED MY TAX BILL.

AND IT REALLY WASN'T UNTIL WE HAD A CONVERSATION WHERE THE SAVE YOUR HOMES IS IMPLEMENTED BY THE STATE THAT ALREADY RESTRICTS YOUR VALUATIONS OF YOUR HOMES TO.

I THINK WHAT WE CALCULATED WAS 3%.

SO ESSENTIALLY.

YOU ALREADY.

WITHOUT US HAVING A 3% OR NOT.

YOUR TAX BILL IS ALREADY.

APT IN A SENSE BECAUSE OF THOSE EXEMPTIONS.

RIGHT. SO REGARDLESS OF IF WE WERE TO HAVE A 3% OR NOT, THERE'S LIMITATIONS ON THOSE HOMEOWNERS ALREADY. SO WHILE, YES, THE 3% DOES DRIVE IT DOWN, MORE OF THE RESTRICTIONS WE HAVE IN PLACE.

HOWEVER, THE.

THE THE DISADVANTAGE IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.

IMPACTING THE CITY IN A GREATER DEAL THAN IT DOES THE HOMEOWNER.

AND IN PART.

WE DON'T CAN'T GENERATE THE REVENUE TO PUT BACK INTO CITY NEEDED EXPENDITURES TO HELP THE CITY GROW. IF THAT MAKES IF THAT HELPS EXPLAIN.

IT DOES. I'M LOOKING AT IT IN THE SENSE THAT.

THE CITY JUST BECOME STAGNATED.

BECAUSE THERE'S NO GROWTH, YOU PRETTY MUCH STOPPING THE GROWTH THAT YOU'RE SAYING.

YOU'RE SAYING, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO SET THE GROWTH.

AT ONE LEVEL, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE YEARS CONTINUES TO DEVELOP, MORE PEOPLE PULL IN THE CITY.

YOU. IT.

MR. CHAIR, MAY I MAKE A COMMENT, PLEASE, MR. MCLEOD? ABSOLUTELY.

I WANT TO PUT SOME HISTORICAL REFERENCE TO THIS.

SERVING ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.

THIS WAS ONE OF THE MOST HOTLY CONTESTED.

POINTS OF DISCUSSION.

MANY PEOPLE WERE OF THE VIEW THAT THE 3% WAS DEFINITELY A HANDCUFFING FACTOR ON THE CITY.

AND. IT APPEARED TO ME THEN THAT THOSE WHO VOTED AGAINST IT.

WE'RE DOING SO FOR SELFISH REASONS BECAUSE THEY MISUNDERSTOOD THE EFFECT OF RAISING THE 3%.

YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WERE THINKING THAT WE'RE GOING TO PAY MORE TAXES.

PEOPLE WERE COMPLAINING FROM THE AUDIENCE THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T TRUST THE CITY COUNCIL, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY.

AND, YOU KNOW, MISS ANGELICA DID AN EXCELLENT JOB TO EXPLAIN.

HOW DO 3% REALLY HANDICAP THE CITY? BUT VOTERS DIDN'T GO FOR IT, SO WE'RE STUCK WITH IT.

MAY I ADD SOMETHING? THE. WE'VE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH S&P AND FITCH, WHICH ARE TWO CREDIT RATING ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE UP IN NEW YORK.

[00:45:04]

BURN THEM. IS THAT WE HANDCUFF OURSELVES BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER HEARD OF THIS 3%.

THEY WERE QUITE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

SO THAT COULD IN FACT, IT MAY HAVE ACTUALLY HINDERED OUR CREDIT RATING EVEN THOUGH IT DID GO UP.

THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE YOU LIMIT YOURSELF ON A REVENUE COLLECTION OR A REVENUE SOURCE.

SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR THAT DICTATES OUR CREDIT RATING WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

SO.

AND ONE THING TO ALSO ADD IS, IS THAT WHEN IT COMES TO THESE CREDIT RATERS COME IN AND DO THIS.

I MEAN, THESE ARE LARGE COMPANIES.

THESE ARE FORTUNE 500 AND S&P.

THEY DO THIS FOR FOR MANY, MANY DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS.

AND DO REMEMBER THAT THE CREDIT RATINGS THAT YOU DO RECEIVE FROM FROM THESE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON THE INTEREST RATES YOU PAY WHEN YOU GO OUT FOR THE BONDS.

SO WHILE WE'RE THANKFUL THAT OUR CREDIT RATING HAS INCREASED BECAUSE YOU'RE ABOUT TO GO OUT FOR ANOTHER $50 MILLION, BUT EVEN A QUARTER OF A PERCENT ON 50 MILLION IS A LARGE.

UM, AMOUNT POSSIBLY OF ADDITIONAL INTEREST THAT HAS TO BE PAID AND.

THE ROAD BONDS ARE TAXED OUT, MEANING THAT IF THERE IS A POTENTIAL IN INTEREST RATES GOING UP, MEANING THAT THE CITY HAS TO PAY HIGHER INTEREST ANNUAL INTEREST PAYMENTS, THAT IS TAXED OUT TO THE INDIVIDUALS WHO PAY THE TAX BILL.

SO IT IT'S A IT'S A IT'S A RIPPLE EFFECT, RIGHT? SO WE RELY ON STRONG CREDIT RATINGS IN ORDER TO GO OUT AND DO BOND ISSUANCES TO GET FAVORABLE RATES SO THAT OUR PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS ARE ESPECIALLY INTEREST PAYMENTS ARE REMAINING LOW SO THAT TAXPAYERS DON'T HAVE TO ABSORB THAT BURDEN.

BUT THEN WHEN YOU ADD THOSE RESTRICTIONS.

WHICH MAY APPEAR LIKE A FAVORABLE THING BECAUSE YOU'RE ADDING A RESTRICTION IN THE SENSE OF THE 3% CAP.

HOWEVER, IT HAS AN INDIRECT EFFECT ON YOUR RATINGS, CAUSING YOUR HIGHER PERCENTAGE RATES, CAUSING INTEREST RATES TO INCREASE.

SO IT IS IT'S A IT'S A RIPPLE EFFECT.

AND OUR JOB IS TO GO OUT.

I MEAN, WE WORK WITH OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS AND BOND COUNSEL AND WE TRY TO GO WHEN WE CAN FOR THE LOWEST INTEREST RATES.

I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S WHAT OUR JOB IS.

BUT YOU HAVE TO REALLY LOOK AT IT AS COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE THAT.

THERE'S RIPPLE EFFECTS IN IN ALL OF THOSE THOSE INSTANCES.

I WANTED TO SAY THAT ANYTIME A RULE IS PUT IN PLACE, THAT'S NOT TYPICAL.

THERE'S A REASON FOR IT.

SO SOMETHING MUST HAVE BEEN HAPPENING THAT IN THIS CITY THAT REQUIRED THAT WE HAVE SOME KIND OF RESTRICTION.

AND FOR FOR US TO THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE VOTING AGAINST IT BECAUSE THEY'RE IGNORANT IS NOT FAIR.

I DON'T THINK THAT YOU SHOULD I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD.

IF IF A GOOD PRESENTATION WAS MADE AND PEOPLE HEARD THE FACTS OF IT AND THEY STILL VOTED AGAINST IT, THEN WE SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT THEY'RE JUST IGNORANT OF OF WHAT THAT IS.

WE SHOULD I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S A WRONG ASSUMPTION.

BUT, YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE.

LET ME. WELL, MISS CLINKSCALES AS CHIEF DUMMY AMONGST US, I'D LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 28.

AND WE CAN WE CAN ADD MORE CONTEXT TO THIS HISTORY LESSON.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO A DEBATE ABOUT THE CAP, BUT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A NICE, INFORMATIVE CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.

CAP WAS VOTED IN IN 2018, SO IT COULD HAVE BEEN HONORED FOUR TIMES.

IT WAS HONORED TWICE.

FIRST TWO YEARS IT EXISTED.

IT WASN'T HONORED BECAUSE IN SUMMARY, THERE WAS HURRICANES AND THE COUNCIL VOTED FOR IT.

[00:50:01]

WE DON'T HAVE NECESSARILY THE SAME THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT WITHIN OUR CITY, STRICTLY DEFINED AS AS OUR UNITED STATES OR EVEN OUR STATE GOVERNMENT DOES.

SO THEY DON'T HAVE THE SAME CHECKS AND BALANCES.

SO WHAT THE CAP SERVED TO DO WAS IMPLEMENT A CHECK AND BALANCE.

THE CITIZENS VOTED FOR IT, PUT IT IN THE CHARTER, WHICH HAS TO BE WITH AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY TO INCLUDE A CHECK AND BALANCE SO THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE OR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WOULD HAVE TO COME TO THE LEGISLATIVE WITH A BUDGET AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE SAID WE NEED TO STAY WITHIN.

IF YOU THINK BECAUSE WE THINK THAT THIS IS UNREASONABLE AND WE NEED TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND IT, YOU CITY COUNCIL ARE WITHIN YOUR POWER TO EXCEED IT.

AND THEY PRACTICED THAT POWER.

I WON'T SAY WITHOUT HESITANCY BECAUSE I DIDN'T WATCH THE MEETINGS IN 2018, FISCAL YEAR AND 2020 FISCAL YEAR AND SAID WE HAVE TOO MUCH GOING ON.

CAP ASIDE, FOUR OUT OF FIVE OF US AGREE WE'RE MOVING ON.

EVERY YEAR THE COUNCIL OF FIVE PEOPLE, WHICH IT SHOULD BE FIVE PEOPLE, HAS THE ABILITY TO CIRCUMVENT THE CAP IF FOUR PEOPLE DECIDE THAT THEY SHOULD, AS OPPOSED TO JUST THREE.

SO THE ONLY THING THE CAP DOES IS INCREASE THE BURDEN BY ONE HUMAN BEING.

THAT ONE HUMAN BEING HAS TO READ THE NUMBERS AND SAY, YEAH, THIS IS TOO MUCH AND THEN WE'RE ABLE TO GO ABOVE OR THIS ISN'T ENOUGH REVENUE, WE NEED TO GO ABOVE THE CAP. OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO ABOVE MAJORITY'S THREE SUPERMAJORITY IS FOR THE ONLY THING THE CAP DOES IS MAKES ONE MORE PERSON AGREE.

IT MAKES FOUR OUT OF FIVE INSTEAD OF THREE OUT OF FIVE AGREE.

NOW, THE THOUGHT OF THE CAP WAS BROUGHT UP IN A TIME AND A PLACE AND AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE HAD A MAYOR WHO WAS ACTING LIKE A STRONG MAYOR AND TRYING TO RUN THE CITY.

WE HAD A MAYOR WHO WAS WAS TAKING FINANCIAL ASSETS FROM THE CITY, SUCH AS VEHICLES.

THIS IS ALL PROVEN IN FINANCIAL AUDITS.

THIS ISN'T BLASPHEMY. THIS IS TEXT THAT'S WRITTEN IN PUBLIC RECORDS.

AND WE HAD CITIZENS AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHO SAID, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN PUT SOME SORT OF CHECK OR BALANCE OR RESTRICTION ON ONE REVENUE OF THE STREAM OF THE CITY, THAT WILL FORCE THE HAND OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THE ADMINISTRATION, TO SEEK OTHER REVENUE STREAMS. IT WAS IRONIC BECAUSE I HEARD A COMMENT LAST NIGHT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR HOUSEHOLD AND YOU SAY, WELL, I CAN ONLY INCREASE MY MY REVENUE SO MUCH, THEN THAT'S NOT REALLY GOING TO WORK OUT BECAUSE YOUR EXPENSES KEEP INCREASING.

BUT THAT'S THE REALITY OF LIFE.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT WORKS FOR THE CITY, REVENUE FROM THEIR MAIN REVENUE STREAM IS ONLY GOING TO INCREASE BY 3% ON OCTOBER 1ST.

AND THEN IF THEY WANT MORE MONEY TO COVER THEIR MORE EXPENSES, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SEEK OUT ALTERNATIVE REVENUE STREAMS, JUST LIKE WE DO HAVE TO IN THE CITY.

BUT IF OUR NEED IS SO DEEP AND SO BIG THAT IT CAN BE PROVEN AS A CRITICAL NEED AND VOTED ON BY SUPERMAJORITY, WE SIMPLY CHARGE A HIGHER MILLAGE RATE.

LOOK AT THE I DON'T WANT TO BE TOO SUBJECTIVE.

I WANT TO REMAIN OBJECTIVE. LOOK AT THE NOTABLE GAP BETWEEN WHERE THE CAP WAS ASKED TO BE IN FISCAL YEAR 23 AND WHERE THEY LANDED.

THAT IS A NOTABLE GAP THAT IS MUCH BIGGER THAN THE GAP FROM 19 TO 2 CAP TO NOT.

THAT'S BIGGER THAN 22 NAUGHT.

THAT'S A BIG GAP I'M GETTING.

I'M GETTING SUBJECTIVE HERE.

SORRY, THAT GAP WAS JUSTIFIED.

VOTED ON BY A SUPERMAJORITY LAST LAST YEAR.

WE GOT WE ALL GOT TAXED.

WE ALL PAID OUR BILLS.

OUR BILLS WERE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN IF WE WOULD HAVE STAYED UNDER THE CAP.

OUR CONTRIBUTION TO OUR CITY WAS THE MAJORITY OF OUR TAX BILL, NOT THE MINORITY.

WE PAID MORE TAXES TO THE CITY THAN WE PAID TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

IT ALL IT ALL HAPPENED.

BUT IT'S ALL FACT THIS YEAR.

THE THE ADMINISTRATION, I FEEL AS THOUGH DID THEIR DUTY BY COMING FORTH WITH A BUDGET AT THE CAP, WHICH IS THE EXACT THING THAT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE VOTED FOR IN 2018.

IT'S THE EXACT THING THAT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE VOTED FOR LAST ELECTION DAY TO KEEP.

IN SPITE OF MANY CHARTER AMENDMENTS, THERE WAS TEN CHARTER AMENDMENTS.

EIGHT OF THEM WERE VOTED YES AND TWO WERE VOTED NO.

AND AGAIN, CHIEF AMONG THE DUMMIES I SERVED ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, I SPOKE AGAINST THE CAP BLOWING UP AND ANOTHER GENTLEMAN WHO JOINED US ON THE COMMISSION, SEEING THAT THERE WAS TWO VAST SIDES.

THERE'S THIS THIS THERE'S THIS GUY WHO'S A STICK IN THE MUD, ALONG WITH A PASTOR WHO WON'T MOVE OFF OF.

NO. THE CHECK AND BALANCE NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE.

THERE'S ANOTHER GROUP THAT SAYS LET THOSE FIVE INDIVIDUALS DO WHATEVER THEY SEE FIT, THAT WE'VE ELECTED THEM A SUITABLE ARGUMENT.

BUT THE GENTLEMAN CAME FORTH AND SAID, FOLKS, WHY DON'T WE RAISE THE CAP?

[00:55:01]

THAT IS UNREASONABLE.

WE NEED NO CAP AND THAT'S IT.

SO THE CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT WAS VOTED ON WAS SHOULD THERE BE A CAP OR SHOULD THERE NOT BE A CAP? THE VOTER SAID THERE SHOULD BE A CAP.

SO NOW TWO TIMES TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CITIZENS, REGISTERED VOTERS OF THE CITY HAVE SAID THERE SHOULD BE A CAP.

SO WE CAN'T REALLY TOO FAR.

BESIDES WANTING TO EXPAND OUR KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE CAP IS, GET INTO TOO MUCH OF A DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A CAP OR NOT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN VOTED ON TWICE.

IT CAN'T BE VOTED ON THIS ELECTION YEAR.

AND IF IT CAN BE NEXT ELECTION YEAR, BY ALL MEANS, YOU KNOW, USE YOUR AVENUES, GET THE GET THE AMENDMENT, THE PETITION SIGNATURES YOU NEED, AND BRING IT FORTH TO THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF VOTERS.

AGAIN, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A TOUGH TIME GOING FROM A CHECK AND BALANCE TO NOT.

THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT.

I DID WANT TO ASK ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION BEFORE I WILL DEFER TO ANYONE ELSE ON THE GEO BONDS AND WE'RE GOING TO GET OUR THIRD.

HOW LONG IS IT GOING TO TAKE US TO REPAY THOSE? BECAUSE I ASKED AT A COUNCIL MEETING, MISS SHERMAN WASN'T READY FOR IT.

20 YEARS. 20 YEARS.

SO. WE ALREADY STARTED THE 20 ON THE FIRST.

WE ALREADY STARTED THE 20 ON THE SECOND.

IT'LL BE THE 20. SO FISCAL YEAR 2045 OUGHT BE OUR LAST PAYMENT ON ON GO ROBOTS.

YES. THEN YOU START DROPPING OFF.

COOL. COOL. AND FOR THAT WOULD BE THE LAST ONE.

OKAY, COOL. AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN PAY TOWARDS THAT IS THROUGH THIS TAXING, RIGHT? WE CAN'T, LIKE, ALL OF A SUDDEN BE LIKE, HEY, WE HAVE EXTRA MONEY.

NO WAY WE WOULD BUT AND TRY TO PAY IT EARLY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT IT'S ISSUED AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THERE ALSO SET WHEN YOU CAN ACTUALLY CALL WHEN THEY'RE CALLABLE.

ALSO, THERE'S CERTAIN TIMES THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY PAY THEM DOWN EARLY, BUT PROBABLY OUT 15 YEARS YOU CAN START DOING THAT.

UNDERSTOOD. AND SEE WHY I WANTED TO ASK THAT CLARIFYING QUESTION I WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO NOTE IS IRONICALLY, THE GROWTH OF THE CITY WILL ACTUALLY HELP THE EXISTING CITIZENS PAY FOR THESE ROADS BECAUSE NORTHWEST IS BLOWING UP SOUTHEAST IS BLOWING UP.

THAT'S GOING TO GET ON OUR TAX BOOKS NEXT YEAR OR THE YEAR AFTER FIVE YEARS.

AND THEY'RE GOING TO HELP US PAY FOR 15 AFTER THAT.

RIGHT. SO THAT IS A VERY NICE EXAMPLE OF THIS UTOPIA THAT I DESCRIBED, WHERE WE WERE IN A ROLLBACK SCENARIO.

AND IT'S ALMOST IDENTICAL WHERE YOU'RE TAXING.

YOU ONLY NEED TO MAKE THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY.

YOU'RE TAXING MORE AND MORE PEOPLE.

SO IT COMES DOWN. WE GET TO SEE THAT COME TO LIFE IN THE GO ROAD BOND.

SO I WAS A LITTLE INTIMIDATED WHEN I HEARD THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY TIP OVER THAT ONE MILL NEXT YEAR AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE EXTRA 50.

BUT THEN AS MISS COLLINS CONTINUED TO EXPLAIN AND EXPLAIN, I THOUGHT ABOUT ALL THIS GROWTH.

I'M LIKE, WELL, SHOOT, WE OUGHT TO GET IT RIGHT BACK DOWN BELOW ONE MILL IN A FISCAL YEAR OR TWO, WE HAD $1.5 BILLION OF ADDED PROPERTY VALUE IN ONE FISCAL YEAR LAST YEAR.

THAT IS CRAZY. THAT'S IT.

THAT BLOWS MY MIND. 500 OF IT WAS NEW CONSTRUCTION FROM LAST YEAR, BUT STILL, THAT'S.

THAT'S NUTS. THAT IS NUTS.

BUT OTHER THOUGHTS BASED UPON THE CONVERSATION WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THE PRESENTATION WHERE WE KNOW OUR REVENUE IS WHERE IT HAS BEEN. ALSO, WHAT IF EVERYONE STILL HAS 28 OPEN? JUST NOTE THAT FLAT LINE FROM 13 TO 18 OF THE MILLAGE RATE AND HOW IT JUST STAYED THERE.

REVENUE JUST KEPT GOING UP, BUT THE MILLAGE RATE JUST DIDN'T MOVE UNTIL A CHECK AND BALANCE WAS PUT INTO PLACE.

DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? QUESTIONS, INQUIRIES. MISS CONLON, PLEASE.

FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE US ALL TO.

BREATH. AND TO GO BACK TO WHAT I ORIGINALLY SAID, THAT WE ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITIZENS.

SO ALL I CAN AND I'M IN MY HEAD, I WOULD LIKE TO CRAFT A RESPONSE TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

AND PERHAPS ONE THING WOULD BE THAT WE AS CITIZENS HAVE QUESTIONS, CONCERNS AND WANT TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THE SPECIFIC IMPACTS.

OF THE 3% CAP.

GOOD AND BAD.

AND SO I'M SAYING LET'S USE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT OUR EXPERIENCES ARE AS REFLECTIVE.

OF INFORMATION TO GO BACK TO COUNCIL THAT I THINK.

FIRST THAT. AS I SEE IT, WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THE BUDGET AS PRESENTED.

VERY EXCELLENT JOB.

WE'RE SUPPORTIVE, AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGED COUNCIL FOR DOING THE 3% CAP.

UH, BECAUSE THAT IS THE VOTED, UH, THAT IS THE VOTED RESPONSE RIGHT NOW.

[01:00:03]

AND I THINK WE CAN TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK TO THE POINTS MADE OF WHY THE CAP WAS PUT IN PLACE, WHICH WHAT I HEARD WAS IT WAS GENERATED IN A TIME WHEN THERE WAS LITTLE TRUST IN OUR OFFICIAL AND OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND PEOPLE WANTED SENSIBLY, FINANCIALLY A CHECKS AND BALANCE.

WE HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING AMONGST OURSELVES.

WHAT PURPOSE CAN WE SERVE? HOW CAN WE BE OF MOST SERVICE TO THE COUNCIL? AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MAYBE THESE TWO THINGS TIE TOGETHER, AND THAT IS THAT.

WE ARE PERHAPS THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE OF CITIZENS IN TERMS OF THE BUDGET AND HOW IT WORKS.

AND I DON'T CLAIM NEAR ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE, BUT WE'RE THE FORERUNNERS RIGHT NOW AND USING THIS TO SOMEHOW GET THESE SEATS FILLED SOMEHOW TO DO WORKSHOPS TO EXPLAIN, I THINK WHAT EVERYBODY SAID. THERE'S TRUTH IN WHAT EVERYBODY SAYS, THAT THERE ARE MISCONCEPTIONS.

THERE ARE THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE ECONOMY AND WE WANT TO BE PART OF THE CHANGE.

WE ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE CITY HAS SOME SERIOUS PROBLEMS AND THE BUDGET IS JUST A PART OF IT.

SO. AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO GO BACK IN THE TIME WE HAVE REMAINING AND START CRAFTING OUR RESPONSE.

AND TO FILL IN FURTHER, I WOULD LIKE FOR WHAT CAN WE DO AS THIS ADVISORY BOARD IN TERMS OF.

UH. SHOWING TRUST.

OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.

CERTAINLY. I MEAN, WE'RE SEEING IT FIRSTHAND.

NONE OF US ARE QUESTIONING THE NUMBERS.

AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF US HAVE ANY.

I DON'T THAT WE HAVE GOOD ELECTED OFFICIALS.

AND CHECKS AND BALANCES.

HOW CAN WE SERVE BETTER IN A CHECKS AND BALANCES CAPACITY? AND I WANT TO TIE THAT INTO.

ISSUES. THE BIG ISSUES OUR COUNCIL IS LOOKING AT THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE BUDGET IS WE ARE IN A HUGE OPPORTUNITY FOR GROWTH.

AT THE VERY TIME WE ARE IN OUR LARGEST NEED TO REPAIR AND REPLACE OUR OWN INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS, AS WELL AS DEALING WITH SAFETY, POLICE AND FIRE.

NEEDS FOR OUR CURRENT CITIZENS AND OUR CURRENT DEVELOPMENT.

WE ARE IN A TERRIBLE POSITION OF HOW TO GO FORWARD.

AND WE'RE NOT READY.

AND THIS IS WHERE I THINK WE CAN BE OF.

WELL, IN TERMS OF.

BEING A CONDUIT OR AN EDUCATOR.

FOR CITIZENS.

CITIZENS ARE MOBILIZING.

THEY ARE MOBILIZING AGAINST DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE.

UH, THEY.

THERE. THEY REALIZE THE PROBLEMS THAT THIS IS BRINGING TO THEIR NEIGHBORS.

SO HOW CAN WE BE PART OF THE SOLUTION? CAN WE SAY SOMETHING TO COUNSEL THAT TO FORM, TO BE MORE RESPONSIVE, TO HAVE WAYS OF GENERATING, GETTING BACK TO DEVELOPMENT, WAYS THAT CITIZENS KNOW THAT THE COUNCIL WITH THE CURRENT BUDGET, WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE IS WORKING ON.

POLICE AND ROADS AND WATER ISSUES.

AS WELL AS.

WORKING WITH DEVELOPERS IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS AND THE ORDINANCES AND MAKING DEVELOPERS THAT WE WORK TOGETHER THAT.

ALL ARE IMPACTED BY THE PROBLEM.

LET'S ALL BE PART OF THE SOLUTION.

[01:05:01]

MAY HAVE TO GO BEYOND IN THE CITY, MAY HAVE TO GO BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED AND PARTICIPATE WITH THE CITIZENS IN PUTTING IN SIDEWALKS OR PUTTING IN MORE LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY ALONG THE LAGOON AND THE WATERFRONT.

SO THIS IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE CRAFTED.

AH, FOR THESE THINGS RATHER THAN.

OUR FOR AND SUPPORT.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR SHARING.

MS.. CONLEY AND THANK YOU FOR KEEPING US TOGETHER AS ONE.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

I APPRECIATE THAT. MOST NOTABLY, THE THE BIG BREATH.

FIRST, YES, MR. MCLEOD.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

YES, SIR. HAVE WE RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM COUNSEL TO THE LETTER THAT WE SENT? NO, SIR. ARE WE TO ASSUME THAT THIS REQUEST THAT WE PROVIDE OUR INPUT NOW TO COUNSEL IS THEIR RESPONSE? UM, POTENTIALLY.

I INTERPRETED IT POTENTIALLY AS THE MAYOR'S BEST STAB AT A AT A RESPONSE.

I JUST WANT TO RECORD, TO BE CLEAR, THAT GIVEN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CAP CAN BE EXCEEDED. AND WHAT THIS IS CALLING.

RIGHT. WHAT THIS COHEN IS SAYING IS KIND OF.

WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE FACE SHOULD BE DEEMED EXTRAORDINARY.

AND THE DEVELOPERS AND THE CITY WORK TOGETHER TO ADDRESS THOSE.

HAS DEVELOPMENT BEEN SO RAPID AND SO VAST? THERE'S A LOT OF CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE THAT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE.

AND CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, WE CAN POSE THAT ARGUMENT TO CITY COUNCIL WITH THE VIEW OF THEM POSSIBLY EXCEEDING THE CAP FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITIZENS, EVEN THOUGH THE CITIZENS.

SAID THEY DIDN'T WANT IT, BUT THERE ARE NO COMPLAINING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE WHAT THEY NEED.

GOT MY COMMENTS HALF RIGHT.

AS I AM ASKING THAT WE WORK TOGETHER AND PROPOSE SOLUTIONS.

BUT I DID NOT TIE THAT TO USING IT FOR A REASON.

BREAK THE CAP. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE ITEMS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED WOULD CERTAINLY BE CONSTRUED AS EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES VIS A VIS THE EXCESS DEVELOPMENT.

I THINK, YES, THAT CAN BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION OR PART OF A RECOMMENDED SOLUTION.

BUT FOR NOW, WE'RE STARTING WITH A BUDGET THAT IS BASED ON THE.

YEP. WE NEED TO NOT FORGET.

THAT BECAUSE OF THAT, THERE ARE UNFUNDED REQUESTS AND THERE ARE THINGS IN THE CITY IN TERMS OF SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE CANNOT MEET.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE BUDGET HERE.

LIKE MR. OLSZEWSKI SAID, WE MUST FIND WAYS TO FUND THESE OTHER THINGS.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU BOTH.

AND MR. WHITE, PLEASE.

REGARDING. A COMMENT MS. CONNOLLY MADE. I WOULD NORMALLY AGREE STRONGLY WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THERE IS THERE IS SOME TRUTH IN EVERYONE'S STATEMENTS AND EVERYONE'S POINTS OF VIEW.

I'M NOT SURE I CAN SAY THAT TONIGHT.

I WOULD CAUTION THIS BOARD TO REFRAIN FROM CALLING 60 TO 70% OF VOTERS IN PALM BAY SELFISH.

I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD BE.

COME CLOSER TO THE MIC, PLEASE.

I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT IS AND WOULD BE CONSIDERED INAPPROPRIATE AND I WOULD ATTEMPT TO REFRAIN.

I DO NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH VOTERS, EVEN THOUGH I'M ONE OF THEM.

SOMETIMES I DON'T EVEN AGREE WITH MYSELF IF I'M LOOKING INTO THE PAST.

BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IS APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR FOR THE BOARD.

REGARDING THE GENERAL FUND AND THE CAP WE HAVE SEEN REPEATED.

RECORD BREAKING REVENUES THESE LAST FEW YEARS.

THIS LAST JUMP.

SAW IN THE REVENUE.

THEY'RE JUST LOOKING BACK AT THE YEARS.

LET'S START AT 2020 AND THEN MOVE FORWARD.

33.6. 3035 JUST FROM PROPERTY TAXES, 35.6 UP TO 38.3 AND THEN TO 2023, IT JUMPS TO 46.5. WHAT PAGE ARE YOU ON, SIR?

[01:10:01]

SURE. 33, 35, 38, 46.

THAT IS A SUBSTANTIAL JUMP.

AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT'S AN $8 MILLION JUMP IN JUST PROPERTY TAX REVENUE IN ONE YEAR.

THAT IS THAT IS RECORD BREAKING.

AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EVEN KEEPING THE 3% CAP, KEEPING AT, I SHOULD SAY, THE 3% CAP, INCREASING REVENUES YET AGAIN BY ANOTHER $5 BILLION.

OR OVER. JUST OVER 5 MILLION.

5.2. I CAN'T PERSONALLY, AND OBVIOUSLY THERE WILL BE DISAGREEMENT AND DISCUSSION, BUT I CAN'T PERSONALLY SEE HOW THAT COULD BE DESCRIBED AS AN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE WE NEED TO BREAK THE CAP IN ORDER TO FUND THE ABSOLUTE BASIC NECESSITIES OF THE CITY THAT ARE APPARENTLY INADEQUATELY FUNDED.

LOOKING AT THE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ON PAGE IS THIS 14, I BELIEVE.

14. NO.

13, SIR. NO. THE COMPUTER? YES. 13.

YES. YOU'LL NOTICE THE CHANGES TO THESE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT'S BUDGETS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OVER THE YEARS.

THAT'S 12. AND 13.

YES, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. I'M FOCUSING ON 12 FROM THE PRINTED VERSION, JUST TO USE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE TOO TIME CONSUMING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM AND NOT ALL OF THEM REFLECT THE SAME WAY, BUT SEVERAL DO.

LOOKING AT POLICE, FOR INSTANCE, FROM 2020 UP TO 2024, THEIR BUDGET INCREASES FROM THERE TO THERE BY ABOUT 33 OR KNOW BY ABOUT 50%.

FROM 2020 TO 2024, THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET INCREASES BY 80%.

THAT'S JUDGING FROM 2020, EVEN AS IN 2021, IT SOMEHOW SURVIVED WITH A SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER BUDGET AMOUNT, WHICH IF WE USED 2021 AS THE BASE INSTEAD OF 2020, THEN FROM THERE 2021 UNTIL 2024, IT INCREASED BY.

FOR 200%.

AND IT'S NOT THE ONLY IT'S NOT TRUE OF ALL DEPARTMENTS ON HERE, BUT IT IS ALSO NOT THE ONLY DEPARTMENT ON HERE THAT HAS A SIMILAR DRAMATIC INCREASE OVER JUST THESE LAST 3 OR 4 YEARS AND A DRAMATIC INCREASE THAT EXCEEDS THE INCREASE IN FUNDING THAT WE'VE SEEN FOR POLICE AND FIRE.

WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE.

INCREDIBLE REVENUE INCREASE.

WHILE MAINTAINING OR HONORING THE 3% CAP THIS YEAR.

AND I APPRECIATED YOUR CALLING ATTENTION TO MR. CHAIR ON THE CHART ON PRINTED PAGE 28 THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KEEPING THE 3% CAP VERSUS KEEPING THE AT THE TIME CURRENT MILLAGE RATE. WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A NUMBER THAT IS SO NEEDS TO BE SO DETAILED, SO SPECIFIC THAT WE GO FOUR DIGITS PAST THE DECIMAL POINT. AND THEN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KEEPING THE 3% CAP VERSUS WHAT WE DID IS A FULL MILL.

WHOLE AND COMPLETE WHOLE NUMBER MORE THAN THAN THAN WHAT THE 3% CAP WOULD BE.

WE. AND IT STILL DIDN'T DO WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE MOST STANDOUT MOMENTS FROM THE WORKSHOP LAST NIGHT.

I WASN'T ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON, BUT I OBSERVED ONLINE.

WAS NEAR THE END WHEN SPEAKING WITH THE CITY MANAGER, THE COUNCIL SPEAKING WITH THE CITY MANAGER, ASKING ABOUT THE DISCUSSION OF POLICE AND FIRE BECAUSE THAT WAS THE REASON, GIVEN THE JUSTIFICATION GIVEN FOR EXCEEDING THE 3% CAP.

FIRST RESPONDERS, POLICE AND FIRE.

POLICE AND FIRE. HOW ARE WE DOING ON THAT? IS BASICALLY THE QUESTION, BECAUSE WE DID BREAK THE CAP BY AN X BY AN EXTREME AMOUNT, I WOULD SAY, FOR THAT PURPOSE.

AND THE ANSWER WAS WE HAVE NOT MET.

GOALS PRESENTED TO YOU WHEN WE DID THAT BROKE THE CAP FOR THESE REASONS, AND WE'VE NOT MET THEM.

NOT EVEN PARTICULARLY CLOSE.

WE HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS.

I WILL NOT DENY THAT. BUT WE DID NOT MEET THOSE GOALS.

WE STILL HAVE NOT MET THOSE GOALS AND WE'RE NOT VERY CLOSE TO MEETING THOSE GOALS.

AND THEY'RE TRYING TO USE SOME ARE TRYING TO USE THAT AS AN EXCUSE TO EXCEED YET AGAIN.

IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO LEARN FROM THE PAST, EVEN THE EXTREMELY RECENT PAST, THEN I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT MORE PROBLEMS THAN WE EVEN HAVE TODAY.

I WOULD STAND FULLY IN SUPPORT OF RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL THAT WE MAINTAIN.

RESPECT OF THE 3% CAP FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR.

THANK YOU, MR. WHITE. I APPRECIATE YOU MAKING THOSE COMMENTS, MOST NOTABLY AT THE END THERE.

I APPRECIATE YOU SHARING YOUR SENTIMENT BECAUSE I DID WANT TO DO LIKE A LIKE A CONSENSUS TYPE SURVEY OF WHERE EVERYONE'S HEAD IS AT SO THAT WE CAN GET TO A DESTINATION SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT MS.. CONLEY DESCRIBED.

[01:15:03]

I TOO, AM IN SUPPORT OF RESPECTING THE CAP.

I'D LOVE ROLLBACK, BUT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER.

I'LL STAND LONELY ON THAT.

BUT I TOO AM IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS BUDGET AS IT IS.

MS. CLINKSCALES, WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THIS BUDGET? I'M IN FULL SUPPORT.

MR. BAKKEN IF THE 3%.

I ONE, TWO, 3% IS GOOD.

BUT I ALSO WANT TO LEAVE A CUSHION IN THERE.

I LOOK AT THE BUDGET IS SIMPLY LIKE MANAGING YOUR OWN PERSONAL LIFE.

WE PAY OUR BILLS.

BUT. UH, FOR ME, I ALWAYS LEAVE AN INVESTMENT, AN EXTRA AMOUNT.

IT'S JUST SMART TO DO.

IF NOT, YOU'RE GOING TO CUT YOUR OWN THROAT.

SO I AGREE WITH HAVING THE 3%, BUT I LOOK AT IT.

WELL, YOU ALWAYS LEAVE THAT EXTRA SPACE FOR WHATEVER MAY COME COME TO LIGHT.

JUST TO CLARIFY MANDATORY RESERVE AS WELL.

WE DO HAVE A MANDATORY RESERVE THAT THE CITY HAS TO KEEP.

I THINK IT WAS 166.

DON'T YOU REMEMBER WHAT THAT NUMBER WAS? WELL, WE NEED TO DO IS WE NEED TO SET ASIDE A TWO MONTH RESERVE TO BE ABLE TO OPERATING SOMETHING LIKE 12 TO 13 MILLION.

RIGHT. AND ALSO WE SET ASIDE A 4% FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSES, TOO.

SO. YEAH, NINE.

GOOD, GOOD. LET'S LET'S LOOK AT PAGE NINE.

AND MR. BACCHUS, I WANT TO JUST ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO FULLY UNDERSTAND YOUR SENTIMENT, SIR, BECAUSE ARE YOU THINKING YOU WANT TO HAVE IN YOUR METAPHOR, IN YOUR EXAMPLE, THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE RESERVES IN YOUR SAVINGS ACCOUNT OR YOU'RE THINKING YOU WANT TO TAKE DOWN AS MUCH REVENUE AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR EXPENSES ARE GOING TO BE LIKE.

JUST IN THAT EXAMPLE, IN THAT METAPHOR THAT YOU WERE DESCRIBING.

IS IT SAVINGS OR IS IT BRINGING IN MORE REVENUE? IT'S PRETTY MUCH SUM OF BOTH IS SAVINGS AND IS IS BRINGING IN REVENUE BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT FOR THE NEXT GENERATION AHEAD.

UNFORTUNATELY, BOMBAY HAD A BAD MAYOR THE FIRST TIME.

SO LET'S NOT LET'S NOT YOU CAN'T SAY THAT EVERY PERSON THAT SERVES ON THE BOARD AND A MAYOR IS GOING TO DO THE SAME THING AS THE PREVIOUS ONE.

YOU PRETTY MUCH TIED YOUR HANDS.

SO THE SAVINGS ARE GOOD, BUT I STILL WANT THE OTHER ONE OPEN ALSO.

I APPRECIATE THAT SENTIMENT, SIR, AND THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING IT FOR ME.

THE REASON I ASK ABOUT SAVINGS IS TO MS..

CLINKSCALES POINT IS, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU AND ANYONE ELSE BOARD CITIZEN OTHERWISE JUST, YOU KNOW, IS AWARE WE HAVE THIS.

PAGE NINE DOES A NICE JOB OF DETAILING FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR AS FAR AS WHAT WE HAVE AS A MINIMUM BALANCE, WHAT WE HAVE ABOVE AND BEYOND OUR MINIMUM BALANCES, THINGS OF THE SORT. SO THERE'S EVEN A FURTHER PAGE THAT TELLS US HOW MUCH TRULY IS UNDESIGNATED AND, YOU KNOW, TO A CERTAIN DEGREE AVAILABLE.

AND I JUST WANT US ALL TO KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS, TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAVING A HEALTHY CONVERSATION HERE.

SO THAT WOULD BE REFERRING TO PAGE NINE.

I C I WAS ON PAGE NINE.

THE MINIMUM FUND BALANCE REQUIREMENT IS 13 MILLION, 13.8 MILLION.

AND AND SO WHEN YOU TAKE IT AWAY FROM THE 32, IS THAT HOW WE GET TO THE 24.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IS WHERE WE'RE AT IS 24.6.

YEAH. BUT SEE THIS 24.6 ISN'T FREE AND CLEAR THOUGH, RIGHT? YOU GOT TO TAKE 13 OFF OF THAT.

YES. COLLINS 13 IS WHAT'S REQUIRED TO BE IN THERE.

SO. RIGHT. SO 11 IS FREE AND CLEAR THE EXCESS.

SO CONVERSATION SAKE, 11 PLUS IS FREE AND CLEAR.

11.2 SO WE HAVE 11.2 IN RESERVE.

ALSO NOTEWORTHY FROM THE PAGE THAT WE WERE REALLY LOOKING AT 29 THAT MISS COLLINS DID A REALLY GOOD JOB LAST NIGHT OF MENTIONING IS THAT WE DID DIP INTO OUR RESERVES SIGNIFICANTLY LAST YEAR.

AND I'M REMISS IF WE DON'T HIGHLIGHT THAT OF $13 MILLION.

SO OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T DO THAT AGAIN.

WE ONLY HAVE WE ONLY HAVE 11 FREE AND CLEAR RIGHT NOW.

RIGHT. SO WE CAN'T DO A BIG A BIG SPEND OF 13.

BUT WE DID DO THAT LAST YEAR AND THAT'S WHAT WAS ESSENTIALLY CREATES THE BALANCE IN THINGS AS THOUGH, YOU KNOW, THE REVENUE DIDN'T COME IN.

WE BROUGHT FORTH THAT 13 MILLION REVENUE SO THAT WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE ON THOSE ADDITIONAL EXPENSES.

SO THERE'S MINIMUM RESERVES.

WE KEEP THOSE. WE KEEP FAR ABOVE AND BEYOND ALMOST TWICE AS MUCH AND WE CONTINUE TO DO SO.

MR. WHITE'S PREVIOUS POINT, THESE POSITIONS KEEP GETTING FUNDED AND NOT STAFFED AND THE MONEY ROLLS.

SO YOU SEE ON A SUBSEQUENT SLIDE SIX IS JUST STICKING OUT.

MY BRAIN IS THE ONE THAT IT WAS, BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GOING OFF MEMORY.

BUT $6 MILLION THAT GOT CARRIED OVER FROM LAST FISCAL YEAR IS ANTICIPATED TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF IT WAS FROM THOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT NOT STAFFED BUT

[01:20:09]

SO I THINK THAT TO MISS CONNELLY'S POINT OF GETTING TO A POINT WHERE WE REALLY WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS WE'RE SEEKING AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR, ARE WE SEEKING FUNDING ABOVE AND BEYOND THIS PROPOSED BUDGET TO FUND MORE FULL TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT, FOR POLICE OFFICERS, FOR FIREFIGHTERS, WHAT HAVE YOU? I'M GOING TO SAY I COULD BE CONVINCED OTHERWISE.

I'LL SAY THAT, TOO. BUT I'M GOING TO SAY, BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE BUDGET AND BASED UPON ALL THE FACTS AND BASED UPON THAT, WE DID BUDGET FOR ADDITIONAL IN BOTH OF THOSE FIELDS FOR NEXT YEAR.

I DO NOT SEE A NEED TO BUDGET FOR AND FUND MORE.

I SEE A HUGE NEED TO HELP THOSE DEPARTMENTS IN ANY WAY WE CAN TO HELP IN RECRUITING EFFORTS AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, PALM BAY HIGH, HAVING A FIREFIGHTER SCHOOL STARTING THIS THIS SCHOOL YEAR IS IS AMAZING AND IS GOING TO REALLY HELP WITH THAT.

I ACTUALLY HAVE A FAMILY MEMBER WHO'S INVOLVED IN THAT PROGRAM.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE LOST HIM TO BREVARD COUNTY FIRE RESCUE.

PALM BAY BOYS GOING TO BREVARD COUNTY.

BUT IT'S BEAUTIFUL TO SEE THAT HAPPEN.

I DON'T I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD SEEK TO FUND MORE POSITIONS TO THE TUNE THAT WE WOULD TRY TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT OF A CRITICAL NEED, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CITY MANAGER DIDN'T SEEK TO IN HER FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.

I DON'T SEE THAT NEED. SO THAT'S WHERE I AM STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF THE BUDGET AS IS.

BUT AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOUR POINTS, MR. BACCUS, AND THE DIALOG WE WERE ABLE TO HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY.

MISS CONNELLY WHERE ARE YOU AT? YOU KNOW, STRICTLY SPEAKING, WITH, YOU KNOW, DO YOU SUPPORT THIS BUDGET AT THIS THIS MILLAGE RATE? DO YOU THINK THAT ONE OF THE HIGHER MILLAGE RATES THAT'S QUOTED AND THE POTENTIAL REVENUE ASSOCIATED IS MORE CALLED FOR, DO YOU THINK, ROLLBACKS CALLED FOR? WHERE'S YOUR SENTIMENT? I'M. NOT WANTING TO DO WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT, AND THAT IS DISCUSS THIS 3%.

OVER IT. GOING OVER IT.

UM. I'M WANTING TO SAY THAT.

HE. OUR SUPPORTIVE AS A BOARD OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE DECISION THEY WILL MAKE.

A IN. AND CAP, HOWEVER.

I THINK THAT AS A CITIZEN, WE CANNOT OVERLOOK.

OR FORGET ABOUT.

OR TAKE STEPS TO SOLVING WHAT OUR CITY MANAGER POINTED OUT AS.

NOT NECESSARILY TO BREAK THE CAP, BUT JUST THE REALITY OF WHERE WE NEED FUNDS THAT ARE NOT IN THE BUDGET.

SIMILAR WITH MISS COLLINS, I THINK.

NEED TO BE THE DOCUMENTERS AND THE.

BEGINNING OF THE SOLUTION FOR.

WHERE WE'RE AT. SO I CANNOT.

DON'T SEE.

I'M TRYING TO DO A RESPONSE TO COUNCIL THAT.

MINDS HOW WE CAN BE OF MOST USE.

IF IT IS BECAUSE WE ALL KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH.

SHOULD WE OR SHOULD WE NOT HAVE THE CAP? DO WE NEED TO? SESSIONS LIKE THIS.

AFTER THE BUDGET IS APPROVED.

UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALMOST TOO LATE.

NEXT YEAR AND.

PROACTIVE. IF UNDERSTOOD.

GO AHEAD, MS.. CLINKSCALES.

I JUST I THINK WE ALSO HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT TRYING TO SHIFT ALL OF THESE UNMET NEEDS, THE COST OF ALL THESE UNMET NEEDS TO NEW DEVELOPERS AS WELL, BECAUSE I THINK YOU COULD HINDER DEVELOPMENT IF YOU START THINKING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN'T FUND COMING INTO A CITY.

I THINK THAT, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY IS, YOU KNOW, THEY NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO HELP FILL SOME OF THIS NEED.

BUT I THINK THAT.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING BEFORE? BECAUSE I DON'T I THINK WE GOT TO BE CAREFUL WITH THAT, TOO.

THAT IS THE.

THE EASIEST SOLUTION.

I'M ALSO SAYING THAT'S NOT THE ONLY SOLUTION.

I THINK SOLUTIONS WILL COME THROUGH A COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP OF CITIZENS AND DEVELOPERS AND THE CITY.

[01:25:06]

SAFETY, NUMBER ONE, AND INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND STILL HAVE DEVELOPMENT AND STILL HAVE THE BUDGET.

THE BUDGET THAT WE HAVE COME UP.

YES. WELL, THANK YOU, MISS CONNELLY, FOR SHARING.

AND THANK YOU, MISS CLINKSCALES, FOR THE THE FOLLOW UP DIALOG THERE.

MR. MCLEOD, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU, SIR.

I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND STAFF.

THEY ALWAYS.

IN MY INVOLVEMENT IN THESE COMMITTEES OVER THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF.

THEY HAVE, IN MY VIEW, PERFORMED EXEMPLARY SERVICE.

I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE BUDGET, BUT I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE ARBITRARY 3% CAP.

I THINK IT HANDCUFFS THE CITY, AND I THINK MOVING FORWARD, THERE MAY BE SOME SERIOUS BUDGETARY ISSUES BASED UPON THIS HANDCUFF.

DULY NOTED, SIR, AND I APPRECIATE YOU SHARING THAT WITH EVERYONE, HAVING HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TO SHARE THEIR SENTIMENT AND THEIR IDEAS AND THOUGHTS, I WOULD LIKE TO SET A GENERAL DIRECTION OF THE IDEA THAT WE DO NOT DISCUSS THE CAP FURTHER.

THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO TALK ABOUT IT ANYMORE.

WE CAN'T MODIFY IT.

WE CAN'T BRING IT UP TO A VOTE.

WE CAN'T CONVINCE A COUNCIL TO BREAK IT.

WE CAN'T CONVINCE THE COUNCIL TO NOT BREAK IT.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY ANY RESOURCE TO DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

SO ALL I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THIS FISCAL BUDGET.

IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT ALTERNATIVE REVENUE STREAMS AND THINGS OF THE SORT LIKE MISS CONNOLLY WAS TALKING ABOUT, I THINK THAT IS A GREAT THING TO GROW INTO AND TO GROW INTO EXACTLY WHAT I WANT TO SAY.

I WANT TO ECHO MS..

CLINKSCALES SENTIMENT OF PRACTICING CAUTION IN.

I JUST WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, BEING HOW AMBITIOUS WE ARE WITH WHAT THE DEVELOPERS CAN DO FOR US, JUST FROM MY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF MISINTERPRETING PREVIOUSLY AND NOW KNOWING THE TRUTH OF JUST HOW MUCH WE CAN ASK OF A DEVELOPER, AND I TELL YOU THAT STORY FROM MY CURRENT SERVICE ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.

AND JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BOARD OR FORUM I'M INVOLVED IN, I'M THE CHIEF DUMMY AMONGST THEM AND ALWAYS THE MINORITY.

BUT SOMEHOW THE TRUE MAJORITY ALWAYS JUST VIEWED AS THE MINORITY, BUT ALWAYS PUSH AND PUSH AND PUSHING AGAINST DEVELOPERS.

AND I WON'T SAY THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF ME AND MY PUSHING, BUT NEXT THING YOU KNOW, THE CITY ATTORNEY SHOWED UP AND SHE GAVE US A REALLY GOOD LESSON ABOUT WHAT WE CAN ASK FOR FROM DEVELOPERS AND NOT AND WE CAN'T TELL A DEVELOPER YOU WANT TO BUILD ON THIS LAND THAT YOU OR SOMEONE THAT YOU'RE REPRESENTING OWNS.

YOU WANT TO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.

YOU WANT TO CHANGE WHAT THAT IS TO A CERTAIN DEGREE.

WE'LL GIVE YOU THAT CHANGE IF YOU BUILD US THIS ROAD THAT WE REALLY, REALLY NEED ALREADY BEFORE YOU CAME.

WE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S A THIS FOR THAT AND IT VIOLATES THAT DEVELOPER'S PROPERTY RIGHTS.

THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER IS WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR AN IMPARTIAL CHANGE TO THOSE.

AND THE IMPARTIALITY COMES INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT THEY ASK FOR FIRST, AND THEN THEY ASK FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING.

AND WHEN THEY ASK FOR A CHANGE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT ACTUALLY COMES TO COUNCIL AS A QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDING.

SO AGAIN, OBJECTIVITY IS VERY IMPORTANT, BUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STANDS TO BE SOMETHING LIKE THE CONSTITUTION, RIGHT? AND THEN THE BOARD STANDS TO BE TO WEAR OUT THE METAPHOR SOMETHING LIKE A SUPREME COURT, WHERE IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE.

DO I? RANDALL, THE NEIGHBOR THAT LIVES ON BROOK STREET, WANT THIS DEVELOPMENT TO BE HERE? DOES MY CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALL FOR BRINGING THIS CHUNK OF LAND INTO THIS TYPE? I HAVE TO BE OBJECTIVE AND I HAVE TO MAKE MY DECISION THAT WAY.

NOW, I KNOW THAT WHEN THAT DEVELOPMENT COMES, THEY'LL PAY IMPACT FEES.

AND I KNOW THAT POTENTIALLY SOME ROADS WILL GET IMPROVED TO GET THAT DEVELOPMENT IN THERE.

BUT TO GET THAT DEVELOPMENT IN THERE, THE CITY HAS TO OFFSET THE COST BY GIVING THEM BACK WHATEVER THEY INVESTED.

SO IF THEY ADD A TRAFFIC LIGHT, THEN THEY WERE GOING TO GIVE US $2 MILLION WORTH OF IMPACT FEES.

BUT THE COST OF SIX 600 K TO DO THE TRAFFIC LIGHT.

SO WE GIVE THEM THAT BACK AND THEY ONLY GOT TO PAY US 1.4.

SO WE ALWAYS PAY.

WE REALLY ALWAYS PAY. THE CITY ALWAYS ENDS UP PAYING.

THE DEVELOPMENT OBVIOUSLY WILL HELP BECAUSE OF IMPACT FEES AND MR. WHITE'S REQUEST. WE HAVE A REPORT HERE AND A DISCUSSION POINT ABOUT IMPACT FEES, BUT WE CAN'T PUT THE ONUS ON OUR DEVELOPMENT AND ON OUR FUTURE GROWTH. WE HAVE TO FIND THE BALANCE.

[01:30:01]

EXACTLY. I THINK WHAT YOU ARE OBSERVING AND ARTICULATING IS JUST HOW COMPLEX THAT PROBLEM BECOMES.

BECOMES QUITE COMPLEX WHEN GROWTH IS HAPPENING AND WANTS TO HAPPEN, WHICH WILL HELP US OFFSET SOME EXPENSES.

BUT WE'RE BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL ON OTHER EXPENSES THAT INHIBIT OUR ABILITY TO REALLY WELCOME THAT GROWTH WITH WIDE OPEN ARMS. AND THAT'S WHERE SOME NEIGHBORS GET HESITANCY AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, BECAUSE IT'S LIKE, HEY, IF ALL MY INFRASTRUCTURE IS SHY, WHERE ARE WE GOING TO GO? AND I'M ONE OF THEM THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M DIGRESSING BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH THE GENERAL FUND.

THIS IS UTILITIES FUND.

THERE IS NO MASTER PLAN TO EXPAND UTILITIES AVAILABILITY IN OUR CITY.

THERE ISN'T ONE. BUT ALL THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION AUTOMATICALLY GETS HOOKED UP TO UTILITIES, TO CITY WATER, TO CONSISTENT SAFE TO DRINK, WATER TO THE ABILITY TO FLUSH THEIR TOILET AND NEVER HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT AGAIN, MAKE IT SOMEONE ELSE'S PROBLEM, PAY FOR THE SERVICE THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION GETS IT, BUT THE INSIDE DOESN'T, RIGHT? THAT'S WHERE IT'S COMMONLY.

I THINK WE CAN GET MORE ALL THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

NOT IN THE BUDGET PROCESS, MORE ASSERTIVE ABOUT WHAT WE WANT TO SEE HAPPEN YEAR ROUND THAT WHEN WE COME TO THIS ALLOWS US TO HAVE THIS DIVERSITY AND THIS ROBUST GOODNESS IN THE COMMUNITY TO DO THINGS LIKE AGAIN, MY UTOPIA OF GO TO ROLLBACK AND SO ON.

I'M NOT A FOOL.

I KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THESE THINGS.

SO I'M NOT WANTING TO JUST BLINDLY BE AT ROLLBACK OR JUST BLINDLY ALWAYS LOWER IT OR JUST BLINDLY LOWER THE OLSZEWSKI HOUSEHOLDS TAX BILL.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF FINDING THE BALANCE, KEEPING THE STUFF THAT THE DEVELOPERS DO NEED TO PAY FOR, FOR THEM, GETTING THE STUFF THAT THE CITIZENS NEED AND NEEDED YESTERDAY TO THEM AND PROJECTING, FORECASTING AND PLANNING FOR.

ALL OF THE SERVICES AND THINGS THAT NEED TO BE GROWN.

FIRE STATIONS ARE JUST THE BEST EXAMPLE.

WE NEEDED FIRE STATION SEVEN BEFORE ANYONE ELSE CAME AROUND.

NOW WE NEED FIRE STATION EIGHT OUT IN THE NORTHWEST.

WE NEED FIRE STATION NINE OUT IN THE SOUTHEAST.

WE DON'T EVEN HAVE FIRE STATION SEVEN BUILT YET.

SO REALLY, LIKE, ARE WE EVEN AT THAT POINT IN THE CONVERSATION OF TALKING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

SO ALL THAT SAID, MISS CONNELLY, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN COME TO A CONCISE PARAGRAPH STATEMENT TO ISSUE TO THE MAYOR, TO THE COUNCIL WAS THE MAYOR WHO REQUESTED SPECIFICALLY, I FEEL STRONGLY THAT THERE IS SENTIMENT AND DIALOG AND CONVERSATION THAT IS IS.

SUMMARIZE ALL THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS COULD PASS ON.

AND IF THE MAYOR HAPPENS TO BE WATCHING US, THAT HE COULD HEAR.

BUT IF THERE WAS SOME WAY THAT SOMEONE SAW TO, I DON'T KNOW, PRESENT A COUPLE SENTENCES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND THEN AS A MOTION AND THEN VOTE ON THAT AS THE OFFICIAL SENTIMENT, I WOULD WELCOME THAT.

I JUST WANT I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.

I'M THE CHAIR. AND TWO, I JUST CAN'T ARTICULATE IT.

UM, I'M HEARING A CONSENSUS THAT THERE'S HEARTBURN AROUND THE ENTITY WHICH WILL NOT BE NAMED AGAIN IN THE COURSE OF THIS MEETING AND THAT THERE IS, YOU KNOW, APPRECIATION FOR THE EXPENSES WE HAVE TO COVER.

BUT I DO HEAR CONSENSUS THAT THIS BUDGET, AS PREPARED AT THIS MILLAGE RATE, WHICH JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE THE 7.1071, IS GOOD, IS IS THOUGHTFUL, THOUGHT OUT, HAS OPPORTUNITIES, HAS SOME REALLY GOOD THINGS, ACHIEVEMENTS TO CELEBRATE.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT WITH IT.

UM, ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. MAY I ASK A QUESTION? YES, SIR, PLEASE.

I THINK I COULD BE TOTALLY OFF BASE ON THIS IS BECAUSE THEY'RE SETTING A TENTATIVE MILLAGE NEXT WEEK.

I THINK. PUTTING WORDS INTO THE MAYOR'S MOUTH AND I REALLY SHOULDN'T IS I THINK HE'S LOOKING FOR WHAT IS YOUR VIEWPOINT BECAUSE THEY'RE DEBATING WHETHER THEY SHOULD SET IT AT AND I'M GOING TO SAY THE 3% CAP BECAUSE THAT'S JUST THE MILLAGE OR SHOULD YOU SET IT AT WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY AND THEN DROP IT DOWN IN SEPTEMBER? THAT WOULD BE ACTUALLY STEP NUMBER ONE OF GIVING THEM GUIDANCE OF WHERE YOU THINK THEY NEED TO GO AS FAR AS THAT'S CONCERNED.

RIGHT. WHICH HE COULD NEED TO DETERMINE WHAT YOU WANT THEIR END RESULT TO BE BEFORE YOU MAKE THAT STATEMENT.

OR REALISTICALLY, YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO.

BECAUSE TO MISS TO MR. WOJCIECHOWSKI'S POINT, WHAT DO WE WANT THEM TO DO NEXT THURSDAY? I KNOW WHAT I WANT THEM TO DO, BUT I'M NOT MAKING ANY MOTIONS.

I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND AS A BOARD TO THE COUNCIL TO ADOPT A BUDGET THAT HONORS THE 3% CAP FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

CAN'T YOU JUST SAY A MILLAGE RATE? I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

I GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND THAT MENTIONS AN ENTITY THAT I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT, BUT EVERYONE HEARD IT.

[01:35:04]

SO I WOULD PREFER THAT WHAT I HEARD FROM THE MEETING WAS THAT COUNCIL WAS.

LEANING TOWARDS SETTING IT AT THIS POINT TO THE HIGHER RATE, BUT LEAVING IT AS AN OPTION TO GO TO THE 3%.

AM I CORRECT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR US TO CONFIRM THAT? AND FROM WHAT I HEARD IS IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WAS A MAJORITY THAT IN THE LONG RUN THAT IT WILL BE SET AT 3%, WHATEVER THAT MILLAGE IS, FOR THE LONG RUN.

BUT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT IS IN THE SHORT RUN, RIGHT.

THE NOT LOCKING ANYTHING IN STONE.

IT'S JUST WHERE DO WE START? SO BECAUSE ONCE ONCE YOU COMMIT TO THAT, YOU CAN'T GO UP.

YOU CAN ONLY GO DOWN. SO I WOULD.

FOR OUR MOTION TO BE.

DO WE SUPPORT THE COUNCIL? ADDING THAT AT THIS POINT.

KNOWLEDGE THAT THE END WILL.

OUT ANY COMPELLING REASON.

WILL BE OR MAY BE.

START HIGH. ALL YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE JUST IT'S A TENTATIVE.

SETTING THAT HIGH.

AND AGAIN, IT CAN NEVER GO UP.

OR ACTUALLY IT CAN GO UP, BUT THEN IT'S A.

THAT COULD BE THE MOTION THAT WE DO SUPPORT COUNCIL IN WHAT THEY.

SAID LAST NIGHT, WHICH IS THAT THEY WANT TO SET IT HIGH AT THIS POINT, BUT THAT IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THREE COUNCIL PEOPLE.

WILL BE VOTING FOR.

OKAY. I APPRECIATE YOU SHARING THAT SENTIMENT AND I'M NOT DISMISSIVE OF IT WHATSOEVER.

I JUST WANT TO STAY WITHIN ORDER.

AND SINCE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, I'D LIKE TO CALL A VOTE ON THAT MOTION.

AND BASED UPON THE RESULT OF THAT, WE'LL SEE WHAT WE NEED TO DO AS FAR AS ISSUING ANOTHER MOTION.

BUT I DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AT THIS POINT, UM, UNLESS BY ANY MEANS YOU GUYS WANT TO REMOVE YOUR MOTION, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU LIKE TO VOTE ON IT OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO PULL THIS AND TRY TO RE ARTICULATE? I WOULD SAY I WOULD NOT.

I WILL NOT BE AMENDING MY MOTION.

I DO BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD.

THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE SHOULD ALSO BE SET AT THE CAP RATE.

LAST YEAR THE SAME THING WAS SAID OF I DON'T WE DON'T INTEND TO BREAK THE CAP.

IT'S JUST IN CASE.

AND THEN THEY BROKE THE CAP FOR THE EMERGENCY OF NOT HAVING FUNDED POLICE AND FIRE ENOUGH AND STILL DIDN'T FUND POLICE AND FIRE ENOUGH. SO I WOULD I WOULD SAY MY MOTION STANDS AS IS AND I WOULD LIKE.

OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. MR. WHITE. MISS CLINKSCALES, YOU WERE THE SECOND, SO YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP ON THAT.

SO I'M GOING TO CALL THAT QUESTION.

SO. MR. WHITE, I'LL QUIT BEING FUNNY.

MR. WHITE MADE A MOTION, MISS CLINKSCALES SECONDED, THAT WE RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL THAT THEY SEND THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE TO TO.

WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR HERE, SIR? YOU MEET? WE'LL USE IT TO MEET THE AND NOT EXCEED THE 3% CAP, WHICH IN THIS INSTANCE I WANT TO LISTEN TO MILITARY IS THAT 7.0171.

SO THAT WAS MR. WHITE AND MS..

CLINKSCALES MOTION THERE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE, AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY.

NAY. OKAY, SO 3 TO 3 TIES FAIL.

SO THAT'S GONE.

SO WE'RE BACK TO SQUARE ONE TEAM.

REFLECTIVE OF. IT IS.

AND THAT'S WHY I LOVE IT.

THAT'S THE BEST I CAN SAY.

I'M VERY. OUT OF US ALL, BUT.

HERE WE ARE. ALL RIGHT, MISS CONNELLY, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU.

I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO BY ANY MEANS, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO LET YOU KNOW THE FLOOR IS OPEN.

SOMEBODY, YOURSELF INCLUDED, WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION THAT CONTAINED ANYTHING THAT YOU HAD JUST ARTICULATED TWO MINUTES AGO.

WE'RE WELCOME IN IT. ALL RIGHT.

I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SET THE TENANT TWO, THAT WE SUPPORT THE COUNCIL IN THE SETTING OF THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE TO WHATEVER.

VERY IMPORTANT. SO WHICH FIGURE? PAGE 29 FOR REFERENCE.

25. THE CURRENT IS 5995995.

YOU WOULD LIKE TO LET ME FINISH.

GO AHEAD. I'LL RECAP AFTER.

GO AHEAD. SO THE MOTION IS TO.

[01:40:06]

SEVEN. DO I HEAR A SECOND? I'M GOING TO SECOND IT. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY MISS CONNELLY, SECOND BY MR. BACKUS TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL THAT THEY SEND THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE THIS COMING THURSDAY AT 7.5995, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE OUR CURRENT MILLAGE RATE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY.

NAY. HAIL.

OKAY. SO.

I'M NOT GOING TO BE A STICK IN THE MUD AND I'M NOT SAYING ANYONE ELSE IS.

WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING.

TO MISS CONNOLLY'S POINT, I LOVE THAT WE REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY SO WELL.

THIS IS A WONDERFULLY DIVERSE BOARD AND THAT IS A GOOD THING.

I DON'T WANT ANY SEVEN ZERO AGREEMENTS HERE, RIGHT? UNLESS IT'S THAT WE ALL LOVE PALM BAY, BUT WE GOT TO GIVE THEM SOMETHING.

I DON'T I DON'T WANT MR. WOJCIECHOWSKI TO SAY THAT THEY MADE TWO MOTIONS AND THEY THEY BUTTED HEADS AND THEN THEY LEFT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT REFLECTIVE ON US.

WELL, AS A BODY. WHAT'S COMPROMISE, FOLKS? BACK TO THE QUESTION OF WHEN WE ASKED COUNCIL.

OUR PURPOSE.

FINALLY, CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE.

OH, SORRY. I'M GETTING TO AGAIN, TRYING TO REDEFINE US IN IN TERMS OF HELPING REBUILD TRUST.

GIVE US A PART IN OVERSIGHT OR JUST LIKE WE DO AT THESE BOARD MEETINGS, PORING OVER THE NUMBERS, ASKING THE QUESTIONS, BEING SOME OF THE FRONT.

LEADERS FOR HOW THE MONEY IS SPENT FOR THE REASONS THAT DECISIONS ARE MADE.

THAT MAY SEEM COUNTERINTUITIVE.

SO MAYBE THAT IS OUR ANSWER.

YOU SAY SOMETHING. GO AHEAD, MR. BACCUS. WELL, I KIND OF PIGGYBACK ON ON WHAT SHE SAID AND WHAT YOU SAID ALSO.

IT'S JUST A REALISTIC FACT.

AND MAKING A DECISION IN THIS AREA, IT'S GOOD TO HAVE DIVERSITY.

I SEE THAT. THAT'S THAT'S A THAT'S A MAJOR THAT'S A MAJOR, IMPORTANT THING.

AND IT'S JUST GOING TO HAVE TO COME DOWN TO REALLY THE COUNCIL SITTING BACK, REALLY MAKING SOME LONG TERM DECISION AND JUST THINKING ABOUT THE DECISION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE. THAT'S THAT'S JUST YOU CAN'T GET PAST THAT DIVERSITY AND ANY DECISION YOU MAKE, IT EXISTS.

AND, UM. I DON'T SEE US COMING.

IT DOESN'T MEAN BECAUSE WE'RE NOT AGREEING THAT WE DISAGREE.

IT JUST MEANS THAT. THAT WE JUST GOT SOME SOME DIFFERENT VIEWS.

AND THAT'S JUST HOW THE CITIZENS OF PALM BAY IS GOING TO HAVE IT ALSO.

YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. BACKUS. AND MR. WHITE, IF I COULD IF I COULD ASK TO THOSE WHO DISAGREED WITH MY MOTION, THE THERE ARE SEVERAL ACTUAL MILLAGE RATES PRESENTED HERE ON PAGE 29.

WOULD YOU OR WOULD THOSE OF YOU WHO DISAGREED WITH MY MOTION OF OF THE AMOUNT OF 7.0171, WOULD YOU FIND ANY OF THE OTHER RATES PRESENTED IN BETWEEN THERE AND THE CURRENT RATE AS AN ACCEPTABLE RECOMMENDATION POINT TO COUNCIL? TO HELP ANSWER THE QUESTION, I'D LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION ON PAGE 29 TO THE FAR RIGHT COLUMN THAT SHOWS YOU THE INCREASE OF REVENUE YEAR OVER YEAR.

SO 7.5995 20.6.

NO DISRESPECT, THAT'S WHERE SOME PEOPLE ARE AT.

IS THERE ANYTHING BETWEEN 20.06 AND EVEN AT ROLLBACK, WE MAKE MORE MONEY AT 8%.

IS THERE ANYTHING IN BETWEEN FROM A YEAR OVER YEAR REVENUE INCREASE THAT WE CAN AGREE IF IT ALL WENT CRAZY AND REGARDLESS OF A CAP OR ANYTHING, WE CAN AGREE, HEY, WE OUGHT TO PUT A LID ON THE REVENUE INCREASE TO THIS PERCENT.

IF THE DISCUSSION IS WE CAN ALWAYS COME DOWN, BUT WE CAN'T GO UP.

SO LET'S SET IT HIGH.

IS THERE A MIDDLE GROUND WHERE WE CAN SAY THAT THAT HIGH, THAT HIGH LEVEL OF.

WELL, WE'RE DEFINITELY NOT GOING TO GO HIGHER THAN THAT.

CAN WE MEET THAT SOMEWHERE BELOW THE CURRENT RATE? BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE IT IS A VERY DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE, RIGHT?

[01:45:01]

IT'S IT'S IS GOSH DARN DRAMATIC.

YEAH. TO YOUR POINT, SIR, I COULD I COULD CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF LITERALLY ANY ONE OF THESE MILLAGE RATES EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE PERIOD I THERE IS I JUST CANNOT JUSTIFY THE EXACT SAME MILLAGE RATE.

I CAN TOTALLY HAVE AN EDUCATED CONVERSATION ABOUT, HEY, LET'S SET IT AT THIS.

WE MAY OR MAY NOT COME DOWN, BUT I WILL NOT.

AND I TOLD THEM YESTERDAY AND I WILL BE HERE NEXT THURSDAY.

I WILL SPEAK AGAINST AT EVERY CHANCE I GET, KEEPING IT THE SAME.

I ASKED A GOOD QUESTION.

YES, SIR. YOU DID? I THINK SO.

ANY THOUGHTS? CONNELLY OR MR. BACCUS? LEVSKI WHEN YOU SPEAK AND SAY YOU'RE COMING BACK.

TO GET. THAT BECAUSE.

THINK COUNCIL IS HEARING.

HUH? I DON'T KNOW.

MISS CONNIE. I FEEL QUITE MISUNDERSTOOD IN THIS IN THIS CHAMBER PRETTY MUCH EVERY TIME I STEP IN THE DOOR.

BUT THE IRONIC THING IS THAT THE PEOPLE THAT SIT UP ON THIS DAIS, WHETHER IT'S WITH ME OR THE PEOPLE THAT WATCH ME SPEAK FROM THAT PODIUM, YOU KNOW, MIGHT GIVE ME CRAZY FACES OR WHATEVER.

BUT ALL THE PEOPLE THAT UNFORTUNATELY, I'D LIKE TO GET MORE PEOPLE COMING IN AND ACTUALLY VIEWING THE MEETINGS LIKE RIGHT HERE AND SITTING IN THESE UNCOMFORTABLE SEATS.

BUT ALL THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT AREN'T HERE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MAKE IT HERE OR WHAT HAVE YOU, WHEN YOU GO OUT IN THE COMMUNITY AND YOU TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW.

WHAT'S THE SENTIMENT? A LOT OF THE SENTIMENTS I BRING UP ARE WHAT I HEAR.

THAT'S WHY I BRING THEM UP AS AS I'VE ARTICULATED IT AND EXPLAINED AND SO ON.

I LIVE RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER.

I'M IN EARSHOT OF STATION TWO.

I'M IN EARSHOT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

I GOT A FIRE HYDRANT THE NEXT DRIVEWAY OVER.

I GOT CITY WATER. I GOT CITY SEWER.

I GOT IT ALL GOING FOR ME, MISS CONNOLLY.

SO THE ONLY REASON I KEEP COMING HERE IS TO REPRESENT MY COMMUNITY AND TO REPRESENT MY NEIGHBORS WITH VOICES THAT JUST AREN'T QUITE AS LOUD AS MINE.

BECAUSE MY NEIGHBORS AND MY COMMUNITY ARE SICK OF PAYING FOR THINGS THAT THEY DON'T RECEIVE.

AND IT'S ALL PERCEPTION.

BUT WHAT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER IS PERCEPTION IS REALITY.

PERCEPTION IS ALWAYS REALITY.

SO WHETHER YOU'RE IN BUSINESS AND THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT AND THE CUSTOMER'S PERCEPTION IS ALWAYS RIGHT, OR YOU'RE IN GOVERNMENT, IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT THAT'S ALWAYS RIGHT. IT'S THE PEOPLE AND THEIR SENTIMENT THAT NEEDS TO ALWAYS BE THE GUIDING LIGHT AND THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE.

AND NOW IT'S THE GOVERNMENT THAT NEEDS TO GROUND US ALL AND THE ADMINISTRATION THAT NEEDS TO GROUND US ALL IN REALITY AND ADMINISTER THINGS AS THEY SEE FIT.

THE REASON THAT I WILL COME BACK INCESSANTLY AGAINST 7.5995 IS THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO ISSUE THAT MILLAGE RATE.

THE LETTER OF THE LAW, THE CONSTITUTION OF OUR CITY.

THE CITY CHARTER SAYS YOU CAN'T DO IT UNLESS YOU HAVE X, Y, Z, YOU DON'T HAVE X, Y, Z.

IT'S A NON CONVERSATION.

I'M JUST A REALLY BLACK AND WHITE PERSON WHEN IT COMES TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT WITH IT.

SO THAT'S MY MOTIVATION TO COME BACK AND FIGHT AGAINST 7.5995 AS MANY TIMES AS I HAVE TO.

BUT I DID THAT LAST YEAR AND THEY DID IT ANYWAY.

SO I'M NOT SAYING I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO CHANGE THE NARRATIVE.

I'M JUST GOING TO CONTINUE TO REPRESENT MY NEIGHBORS AND MY COMMUNITY.

NO. MAY I SPEAK NOW, PLEASE, MR. MCCLOUD? RANDALL.

THERE ARE TIMES IN OUR LIVES WHERE.

OTHER PEOPLE SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU, SIR.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I POINTED OUT WHEN I SERVED ON THE.

CHARTER COMMISSION IS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO GOT UP TO SPEW WHATEVER THEIR POINT OF VIEW WAS.

THEY SEEM TO BE DISTANT FROM THE ISSUE OF DEMOCRACY.

YOU ELECT PEOPLE TO REPRESENT YOU, BUT THEN YOU COME TO A MEETING AND TELL THEM HOW YOU WANT THEM TO REPRESENT YOU.

WHEN THE CHOICE IS NOT OURS.

CHOICES, THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO THE FACT THAT YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH THE MILLAGE AND I AGREE WITH IT BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THE EXCESS REVENUE AND THE EXCESS REVENUE IS BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY.

I MODERATED A MEETING ONCE WHERE A GENTLEMAN GOT UP AND SAID.

HE IS NOT.

IN ANY EDUCATION TAX MILLAGE BECAUSE HE HAS NO CHILDREN IN SCHOOL AND HE IS RETIRED.

[01:50:07]

MAJORITY. RULES.

AND SOMETIMES HARD LINES.

DOES ADD TO THE FRUSTRATION.

AND WE DON'T ALLOW THE ELECTED PEOPLE TO DO WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.

THAT'S MY POINT OF VIEW. I APPRECIATE THAT SENTIMENT, MR. MCCLOUD. I REALLY DO.

AND I JUST MUST ASK YOU A FOLLOW UP QUESTION AND SAY, IS DEMOCRACY NOT AT PLAY? WHEN THE CITY CHARTER WAS AMENDED AND REAFFIRMED TWO DIFFERENT TIMES, DEMOCRACY IS AT PLAY, SIR.

OH, YES. OH, YES.

BUT. INHERENT IN THE POWERS THAT WE GIVE TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THEY ARE PERMITTED.

MOVE ABOVE.

IF THERE ARE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND WE CAN'T AVOID THAT.

RIGHT? I MEAN, WHAT WE'RE DOING AROUND HERE IS JUST EXPRESSING OUR DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW.

BUT THE CITY COUNCIL CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT.

THIS IS VERY TRUE.

EXACTLY. AND THAT'S TO MY POINT.

AND THAT WAS TO MY EARLIER POINT.

YOU KNOW, MS.. CONNELLY ASKED ME, WHY DO I KEEP COMING? I ASKED MYSELF THAT EVERY TIME, BUT THE ANSWER I GAVE IS THE ANSWER I'LL STAND ON.

I DON'T COME FOR SELFISH REASONS.

I DON'T COME TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE AND MAKE IT MY WAY BECAUSE, ONE, I CAN'T.

IT'S GOING TO BE WHATEVER WAY THE COUNCIL DECIDES AND TWO, I'M GOING TO MAKE IT.

IF THEY MAKE IT EIGHT, I'M GOING TO MAKE IT.

I'M BLESSED ENOUGH THAT THAT IS TRUE.

I'M BLESSED ENOUGH THAT THAT IS TRUE.

BUT I GOT NEIGHBORS, I GOT FAMILY, I GOT MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY WHERE THAT AIN'T TRUE, THAT IF IT GETS OUT OF HAND, IT'S GOING TO PUT THEM UNDER.

SO I FIGHT FOR THEM. SIR, THAT'S DEMOCRACY AT WORK.

ME FIGHTING FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT FOR MYSELF IS DEMOCRACY AT WORK.

AND I'M NOT DRAWING A HARD LINE IN THAT I'M NOT WILLING TO GO ABOVE A TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE ABOVE 7.0171.

I'M DRAWING A HARD LINE THAT THERE IS NO WAY I'M GOING TO RUBBER STAMP AND USE THE EXACT TO MR. WHITE'S POINT FOUR DECIMAL PLACE NUMBER FROM LAST YEAR LIKE A COOKIE CUTTER RUBBER STAMP AND SAY, HEY, LET'S JUST KEEP THE TRAIN GOING.

I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HARD LINE AGAINST THE TENTATIVE AND THIS AND THAT AND THE OTHER AND RUBBER STAMPING.

RUBBER STAMPING IS UNACCEPTABLE TO ME AND RANDALL.

YOU KNOW, I MUST SAY THAT I AM.

I UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT YOUR POINT OF VIEW, AND I'VE STATED THAT TO YOU PREVIOUSLY.

IT'S JUST THAT THERE ARE MANY OCCASIONS WHERE I DISAGREE WITH YOU.

AND THAT'S ALL. BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO I SPEAK TO.

WANT TO SEE THEIR CITY IMPROVE AND THEY DON'T MIND PAYING EXTRA BECAUSE THEY WANT THE MONEY TO BE USED FOR THEIR BENEFIT.

SO THAT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE DICHOTOMY.

AND I APPRECIATE YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

JUST HOPE YOU APPRECIATE MINE.

I SURE DO, SIR. I REALLY DO.

MAY, MR. WHITE. TO THE POINT.

OF. POINT OF DEMOCRACY AND MAJORITY RULE.

THAT IS NOT THE FOR ONE, THAT IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT EITHER AT THE NATIONAL OR LOCAL LEVEL, BUT ALSO TO THE CHAIR'S POINT.

RESIDENTS EN MASSE.

THE ELECTORS DID VOTE TWICE FOR A CAP THAT IS ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE BROKEN IN THE CASE OF EMERGENCY OR CRITICAL NEED, A CRITICAL NEED. TO ME, I COULD GET SPECIFIC, BUT I WON'T IF IT'S BEING PUT NEXT TO EMERGENCY AS THE ALTERNATIVE.

THAT HAS TO BE A BIT MORE CRITICAL THAN SIMPLY A BUDGET SHORTFALL FROM FROM DESIRED POINTS AND THE DRAMATIC INCREASES IN REVENUE THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE LAST FEW YEARS SEEM TO HAVE NOT.

NOT SOLVED THE PROBLEM.

PROMISES, SO TO SPEAK, HAVE NOT BEEN MET IN THAT REGARD.

BUT. YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT EITHER OF US ARE GOING TO TO CONVINCE THE OTHER FULLY OF OUR POINTS.

TO GET BACK TO TO MY QUESTION, IF I COULD, HOW WOULD THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FEEL ABOUT A RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE MEETING IN THE MIDDLE, SO TO SPEAK, OF THE 7.25 MILLAGE RATE? THAT WOULD BE AN INCREASE IN REVENUE FOR THE CITY OF 15% OR $6.9 MILLION, JUST 6.9, EIGHT 6 OR 6 EIGHT.

SO JUST UNDER $7 MILLION.

MIDDLE OF THE ROAD BETWEEN THE CURRENT RATE AND THE CAP RATE AND STILL A VERY SIGNIFICANT JUMP.

[01:55:06]

THIS WOULD JUST BE FOR A JUST IN CASE SCENARIO.

SO REGARDING THE JUST IN CASE SCENARIO, DO WE BELIEVE AN ADDITIONAL 5% INCREASE IN REVENUE OR AN ADDITIONAL JUST ABOUT ALMOST $2 MILLION OVER THE CAP RATE OF 5.2 WOULD BE ENOUGH OF A OF A BUFFER, I BELIEVE WAS THE TERM USED PREVIOUSLY A BUFFER? BUFFER FOR THAT SCENARIO.

THERE ARE THE POTENTIAL FOR A SCENARIO.

HOW DOES THE HOW DOES THE BOARD FEEL ABOUT THAT? 7.25. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. COMPLICATED.

ASOPUS. ALL COUNCIL IS ASKING FOR IS WE.

CAUGHT THEM.

WHAT THEY HAVE DECIDED.

HAVE NOT DECIDED YET.

WELL, THE TENTATIVE.

KNOWLEDGE WHAT THEIR THEIR THEIR PLAN IS TO SET A TENTATIVE MILLAGE.

ULTIMATE.

I JUST REALLY WANT TO I'M LOOKING FOR CRITICAL.

I REALLY DON'T SEE IT.

I SEE THAT WE HAVE 11 MILLION STILL AVAILABLE IN TERMS OF WHAT'S AVAILABLE AFTER WE MEET THE STATE STATUTE THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT IN RESERVE.

AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, WE HAVE 11 MILLION THAT'S STILL AVAILABLE THERE.

I JUST DON'T SEE HITTING THE HITTING RESIDENTS WITH ADDITIONAL COSTS.

FOR WHAT REASON? I MEAN, I JUST DON'T SEE IT.

I THINK THE.

I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S THE WAY I STAND.

I MEAN, I THINK THE FIRST MOTION OF 3% WAS FINE.

IF WE COULD GET A VOTE AT THE 7.25 RATE, I MEAN.

IT WOULD BE A COMPROMISE, BUT I REALLY DON'T SEE THE VALUE IN IT.

I'D LIKE TO ASK THE STAFF A QUESTION.

MR. WOJCIECHOWSKI, WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS FOUR PERSON COUNCIL, WHICH WE COULD GET INTO THE DEMOCRACY BEHIND THAT FOUR PERSON COUNCIL? WHAT IF THEY CAN'T AGREE LIKE WE CAN'T AGREE? THEN WHAT HAPPENS? GOVERNOR DESANTIS HIMSELF COME DOWN HERE AND SET THIS MILLAGE RATE OR WHAT? ACTUALLY, IF THEY DON'T AGREE, IT STAYS AT THE CURRENT RATE.

BASICALLY, THIS YEAR'S BUDGET ROLLS INTO NEXT YEAR.

THE ENTIRE BUDGET, NOT JUST THE MILITARY.

RIGHT. OKAY. THAT'S NOT A BUDGET CODE TELLS YOU.

SO IT'S IT'S THE BUDGET.

IT'S NOT THE RATE.

SO IT'S NOT.

7.5995 APPLIED.

IT IS THE BUDGET THAT WAS APPROVED ALSO.

IF WE DO NOT GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AS REQUIRED PER THE STATE, IF THEY TOTALLY DO NOT AGREE, WE ESSENTIALLY ADOPT THE BUDGET.

SO WHATEVER NUMBERS WERE THERE WILL ROLL FORWARD, WHICH WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN A 3% CAP RATE.

YEAH, IT WILL BE EVEN BELOW ROLLBACK.

A SMALL ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THAT, WOULD THAT BE AND I DO SEE THAT THIS IS AN EXTREMELY UNLIKELY SCENARIO, BUT WOULD THAT IN THAT SITUATION, WHERE WOULD THAT BE THE ORIGINAL BUDGET OF 2023 OR THE FINAL AMENDED? IT WOULD IT WOULD BE YOUR APPROVED BUDGET THAT'S ROLLED.

SO IT'S NOT AMENDED AND THE AMENDED THERE'S A LOT OF BEHIND THE AMENDED AMENDED BUDGET.

ALSO YOU ESSENTIALLY ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH STATE STATUTES.

RIGHT. WHICH.

THAT WOULD NOT BE MY RECOMMENDATION.

NO, OF COURSE YOU WOULD NEED TO BE COMPLIANT.

SO IF THEY DON'T AGREE THIS THURSDAY, THEN THEY CAN'T GO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING TO ANOTHER APPROVAL WHICH THROWS OFF THE TRACK, MOST NOTABLY THAT THEY CAN'T HOST THE IT'S NOT A WORKSHOP, IT'S THE HEARING.

THEY HAVE TO COME TO THE HEARING HAVING ALREADY AGREED WHAT TO SEND IT AT TENTATIVELY.

OR THE HEARING CAN'T COME ABOUT.

SO COUNCIL SETS A TENTATIVE MILLAGE THIS UPCOMING THURSDAY.

[02:00:06]

OKAY. ALL OF THAT HAS TO GO TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER WHO ALSO FOLLOWS STATE STATUTES.

THAT IS HOW TAX BILLS ARE GENERATED AND ARE SENT OUT.

IF THEY DO NOT COME UP WITH A TENTATIVE RATE, THEN WE WOULD ALREADY START BEING OUT OF COMPLIANCE.

CAUSE HE RUINS THE TIMELINE, EVERYTHING FALLS APART.

SO THE.

TENTATIVE MILLAGE IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS SET.

AND AS YOU TALKED ABOUT, IS YOU CAN NEVER GO ABOVE, YOU CAN GO BELOW.

UM, I WORK WITH.

ALL TAXING AUTHORITIES WITHIN THE COUNTY.

WE DO TRAINING WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.

OUR CALLED THE TRIM SECTION, WHICH IS THE TAXING SECTION THAT REVIEWS EVERYBODY FOR COMPLIANCE.

IT'S USUALLY. NOT RECOMMENDED THAT YOU SET THE TENTATIVE AT THAT AT A ANY KIND OF A LOWER RATE JUST BECAUSE BECAUSE OF THOSE REGULATIONS BECAUSE YOU CAN NEVER.

YOU KNOW, GO LOWER.

WE JUST HAVE THAT 3% SCENARIO THAT NO OTHER TAXING AUTHORITY OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY KIND OF HAS.

BUT BECAUSE THERE ARE TIMELINES THAT ARE STATUTORY PUT IN PLACE FOR BOTH.

MUNICIPALITIES, TOWNS, COUNTIES THAT PROVIDE COUNTY PROPERTY.

APPRAISER. THIS IS A PROCESS THAT HAS TO OCCUR.

YOU ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE.

THEN IF THEY WERE TO.

A ESSENTIALLY ADOPT A RATE.

HOWEVER, YOU'RE STILL OUT OF COMPLIANCE.

THEY HOLD ALL YOUR REVENUE.

AND THIS IS NOT IT'S NOT JUST TAXATION, IT'S STATE SHARED REVENUE.

THE OTHER 21%, YOU CAN ADD THAT TO IT AS WELL.

SO ESSENTIALLY THREE QUARTERS OF YOUR REVENUE COMING IN, WE WILL NEVER RECEIVE.

SO AT THAT POINT.

THE. 11 MILLION THAT YOU HAVE AS A BUFFER WILL QUICKLY DISAPPEAR.

SO IT'S.

THERE'S. THERE'S A LOT OF LEGAL THINGS TO IT THAT WE HAVE TO MEET.

AND THAT'S TRULY.

THE ONLY RECOMMENDATION OR THE ONLY THING THAT THAT I CAN TALK ABOUT.

SURE. ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION.

MS.. COLLINS SO THE ONE THAT THEY SET THURSDAY AND WE'RE GOING TO TRANSMIT THAT TO THE PROPERTY.

APPRAISER SO IS THAT WHAT GOES INTO EVERYBODY'S NOTICE OF THEIR PROPOSED TAX BILL, THEIR LITTLE YELLOW SHEET THAT THEY GET? YES, THAT WOULD BE LISTED ON THE BACK.

GOTCHA. GOTCHA.

SO I'M NOT THIS IS NO LIKE, OH, THERE'S A POINT FOR ME.

BUT LIKE THAT'S BEEN MY THOUGHT AND I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE GOING TO POTENTIALLY SHARE WITH THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PAY A DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT EQUALS US MAKING $9.5 MILLION MORE THAN THAN THIS CURRENT YEAR, WHEN IN REALITY WE PLAN TO MAKE 5.2 TO MR. WHITE'S MAYBE IF WE SET OUR WORST CASES.

I JUST IT MAKES THE.

IN MY OPINION THE PROPOSED TAX STATEMENT LIKE NOT THAT RELEVANT, RIGHT? LIKE, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I GUESS IT'S A GOOD THING OBVIOUSLY THAT LIKE, OH MAN, IT'S AN OVERESTIMATE.

AND THEN WHEN MY TAX BILL COMES IN LESS, I'M GOING TO BE HAPPY.

BUT LIKE IT DOESN'T REALLY GIVE ME AN IDEA.

LIKE I'M MEANT TO SEE THAT IN AUGUST AND HAVE AN IDEA HOW MUCH MONEY I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PAY IN NOVEMBER.

AND LIKE IF IF IN THIS INSTANCE OR EVEN IN ANOTHER INSTANCE AND TO MISS COLLINS POINT, MANY ENTITIES ARE DOING IT, IF NOT ALL OF THEM.

I JUST I DON'T VIEW THAT AS LIKE THE MOST PRUDENT USE OF THE PROCESS.

I WOULD WANT TO BE AS TRANSPARENT, DIRECT AND FORWARD WITH THE COMMUNITY THAT THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING.

SO IF IF, IF I IF IF I HAD, YOU KNOW, I HAD A VOTE, IT WOULD BE TO GIVE THEM WHAT WHAT WE ACTUALLY INTEND TO DO, WHICH IS WHERE SOME FOLKS HAVE CAUTION OF SETTING IT HIGH.

BECAUSE IF YOU COUNCIL AS A BODY, IF IT'S YOUR INTENT TO BRING IT LOW, WHY CAN'T YOU DO THE SAME THING THAT MR. WHITE IS PROPOSING AND COME DOWN AND PUT IT AT 7.25? WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE AT 7.5995 ON ALL THOSE THOSE MEMORANDUMS? AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT TO 7.0171.

THAT'S THE DISCONNECT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT IS WHAT LEADS TO THE PERCEPTION PERCEPTION OF, YOU KNOW.

I DON'T WASH. I DON'T EVEN KNOW THE TERM OF OF LACK OF TRANSPARENCY BEING INTERACT ANOTHER.

LET'S TRY IT AGAIN. GO AHEAD.

[02:05:02]

SO CAN WE MAKE SOME SORT OF STATEMENT MOTION THAT SAYS THERE IS. A LACK OF CONSENSUS OR MAJORITY OR WHATEVER FOR THE 3% CAP IN GENERAL.

HOWEVER, IT IS OUR.

AS A BOARD.

IT IS WE BELIEVE IT IS MORE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY FOR TRANSPARENCY AS WELL AS FOR ACCURACY. KNOWING THAT THIS BUDGET IS GOING TO BE THAT FOR THIS YEAR, THE 3% CAP IS GOING TO BE OBSERVED BY COUNCIL THAT WE.

SET IT AT THREE. ADD ON TO THAT, I'M SURE.

BEING THE CURRENT.

THE COUNCIL'S CURRENT EXPRESSED CONSENSUS IS THE DESIRE THREE OUT OF THE FOUR TO MAINTAIN THE CAP AT THE AT THE FINAL STAGE, SO TO SPEAK, AND ALSO TO HAVE THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE BE THE CURRENT MILLAGE RATE.

SO THEY'VE ALREADY EXPRESSED THAT ONCE WE GET TO THAT FINAL LINE, THEY'D LIKE TO DO THE CAP RATE.

AND WE SEEM TO DISAGREE ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD GO TO THAT 3% CAP RATE AT THAT FINAL STAGE.

SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT, THE ONLY THING THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AGREE ON AS A BOARD IS THE SETTING OF THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE.

THAT IS THAT IS A PLACE WHERE WE MIGHT HAVE SOME HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSENSUS.

SO THAT KIND OF COMES BACK TO MY QUESTION.

SAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE A CONSENSUS ON THE FINAL MILLAGE RATE, BUT CAN WE AGREE ON A CONSENSUS TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL FOR THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE? FOR INSTANCE, I'D LIKE TO HEAR MR. BAX'S THOUGHTS ON THE ON MY PROPOSAL OF THE 7.25.

AND AN EXTRA AN EXTRA 5% BEYOND THE CAP RATE, BUT NOT FULL THE FULL 10% UP TO THE CURRENT RATE WHEN IT COMES TO REVENUE.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT? AS I THINK YOU WERE THE ONE THAT USED THE WORD BUFFER? WHAT WOULD YOU THINK ABOUT THAT AMOUNT AS A AS A BUFFER FOR THE RECOMMENDATION? WITH THE TENTATIVE.

SOMETHING I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT HERE.

MAY I ADD SOMETHING? YES, PLEASE. IT'S AS YOU HAVE ALL BEEN DISCUSSING, AND IT'S OBVIOUS THAT YOU ARE A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF THE CITY OF PALM BAY. HALF OF YOU WANT TO GO AT THE HIGH RATE.

HALF OF YOU WANT TO GO AT THE CAP.

THERE IS NO.

ANYTHING WRONG WITH ME? TAKING BACK SOMETHING THE COUNCIL TO SAY THAT TO SAY THAT THE REPRESENTATION OF THIS OF THIS BOARD.

GAME. AS A SPLIT JUST LIKE WOULD BE EXPECTED.

YOU YOU ACTUALLY SEE THAT THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH COMING BACK AND SAYING THAT TO SAY THAT YOU DID TWO VOTES, ONE TO GO AT THE FULL RATE, ONE AT CAP AND IT WAS A 3 TO 3.

THERE'S A DIVISION.

IT'S OBVIOUS.

BUT AT LEAST YOU'RE GIVING COUNCIL WHAT THE MINDSET IS OF THE CITIZENS OF PALM BAY.

I APPRECIATE THAT, SIR.

MR. BACCUS, GO AHEAD. I THINK HE'S.

I TRULY THINK HE'S RIGHT, BECAUSE.

BEING. IT'S JUST REALISTIC, YOU KNOW? JUST A DIVERSITY THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THE COMMUNITY.

EVERYBODY'S NOT GOING TO AGREE WITH THIS AND EVERYONE'S NOT GOING TO AGREE WITH THAT.

IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO COME DOWN TO THE COUNCIL REALLY SITTING BACK AND SAYING, OKAY, YOU NEED TO COME.

WE NEED TO COME WITH A DECISION BECAUSE AS YOU SAID BEFORE, WE CAN'T JUST SIMPLY JUST NOT HAVE A DECISION.

YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT, MR. BACCUS.

I, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE IDEA OF OF SHARING EXACTLY THAT.

IT'S IT'S THE TRUTH.

SO FAR, MY PUSH FOR CONSENSUS AND RESOLUTION AND COME INTO SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE TOGETHER COMES FROM MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE ON THIS BOARD, MOST NOTABLY LAST FISCAL YEAR.

SO THIS BOARD COULDN'T COME UP WITH A CONSENSUS OR A VOTED ON MOTION OR ANYTHING WHEN THE STAFF, YOU KNOW, VIA THE CITY MANAGER'S ASSERTION WAS TO BREAK THE CAP.

SO I UNDERSTAND THE CITY MANAGER, HER STAFF DID NOT BUILD THE BUDGET OUTSIDE OF THE CAP LAST YEAR.

[02:10:05]

AND THIS BOARD DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY SAY TO COUNCIL WE THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA OR WE THINK THAT'S A BAD IDEA BECAUSE WE COULDN'T COME TO WE COULDN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT.

SO I SERVED AS THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD, CAME TO THE WORKSHOP, SHARED THAT LACK OF CONSENSUS SENTIMENT WITH THE COUNCIL, WHAT HAVE YOU.

THINGS GO ON. THEY PASS ON.

A COUPLE OF MONTHS LATER, A COUNCILMAN PUTS AN AGENDA ITEM TO DISSOLVE THIS BOARD AND QUOTES THAT IN THE LAST FISCAL YEAR WE DIDN'T EVEN CONTRIBUTE AS HIS REASON, AS HIS AS HIS RECOURSE.

NOW I'M I'M GOING TO RESERVE ANY OF MY FURTHER STATEMENTS ON THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THINGS IN THE PHYSICAL PRESENCE OR NOT.

BUT I DON'T WANT THIS BOARD DISSOLVED BECAUSE I WANT TO HAVE THIS FORUM TO HAVE THIS HEALTHY CONVERSATION.

AND I REALLY WANT TO HAVE THE FORUM TO GROW IT INTO SOMETHING LIKE THE UTOPIA MISS CONLEY DESCRIBES FOR OUR CITIZENS.

AND I FEAR THAT COMING ONCE AGAIN WITH A STALEMATE IS JUST GOING TO POTENTIALLY PLAY INTO THE HAND OF THE INDIVIDUAL THAT BROUGHT THE MEMO FORWARD AND MAYBE EVEN SOME OF THOSE THAT WERE WILLING TO HEAR HIM OUT AND WERE WILLING TO AGREE AND SAY, YEAH, THEY NEVER CAME AND TALKED TO US, EVEN THOUGH I DID, EVEN THOUGH THEY CANCELED THEIR FIRST WORKSHOP ON A MOMENT'S NOTICE BECAUSE THE AC IN THIS ROOM WAS OUT, WE COULDN'T MOVE IT TO THE TO THE DON REID MEMORIAL ROOM TO HOUSE THE SEVEN PEOPLE THAT WANTED TO BE THERE.

THE AC IN THIS ROOM WAS OUT.

SO THEY CANCELED THE FIRST WORKSHOP.

SO I CAME TO THE SECOND WORKSHOP AND I TOLD THEM WHAT THIS BOARD TOLD ME TO TELL THEM.

WE CAN'T MAKE UP OUR MINDS TOGETHER, AND IT WAS LOST UPON THEM.

THEY REAFFIRMED THAT THIS BOARD NEVER CAME.

THEY TRIED TO DISSOLVE THE BOARD.

SO I'M.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE.

BUT THAT'S BEEN MY HESITANCY AND THAT'S WHY I'VE PUSHED HARDER.

IT HASN'T BEEN TO PULL IT ALL THE WAY DOWN.

IT'S WHY I'M SO WILLING TO COMPROMISE.

WHEN MR. WHITE MENTIONS THAT, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SAY NOTHING.

BUT IF THAT IS TRULY WHAT IT IS, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

AND IF THAT'S WHAT LEADS TO THE BOARD GETTING DISSOLVED, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT OVER THE PHONE.

THAT'S IT. MISS CONNOLLY, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE IDEA OF THE MIDDLE GROUND? 7.25, THE BUFFER.

HALFWAY IN BETWEEN.

THAT'S NOT ENOUGH.

IF THIS SOUNDS, I'M NOT SURE.

BUT IF THAT'S IF THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING, THEN WHY ARE WE HERE? NOT TO PROVIDE AT LEAST AN OPINION.

IT IS THEIR DECISION BY LAW.

BUT WE EXIST TO ADVISE.

AND ALSO ONE THING I NOTICED FROM THE WORKSHOP, FROM THE WORKSHOP IS THEY DID NOT EVEN CONSIDER OR DISCUSS AT ALL ANY OF THE.

ALL THREE OPTIONS.

THEY ONLY DISCUSSED THE CURRENT AND THE CAP WELL, AND THEY SLIGHTLY DISCUSSED ROLLBACK BRIEFLY, BUT THOSE THREE IN THE MIDDLE WERE NOT EVEN MENTIONED BEYOND THE PRESENTATION, OF COURSE.

I MEAN, WE WE EXIST TO PROVIDE ADVISORY COMMENTS.

THAT'S AND THAT'S WHY TO THE TO THE CHAIR'S POINT WHY I'M WILLING TO TALK ABOUT A COMPROMISE EVEN THOUGH I PREFER CAP RATE.

CAN WE TALK ABOUT AT LEAST HAVING THAT BUFFER.

NOT QUITE AS AS BROAD AS MAINTAINING THE CURRENT AND THAT'S WHY I JUMPED STRAIGHT TO THE MIDDLE INSTEAD OF I'M NOT I'M NOT TRYING TO BARGAIN SAYING, WELL, IF WE CAN'T DO

[02:15:01]

CAN CAN WE CAN WE TALK ABOUT MEETING IN THE MIDDLE IS STILL A BUFFER.

STILL HIGHER THAN I WOULD LIKE.

STILL HIGHER THAN THREE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL SAY THEY WANT TO GO IN THE END BUT.

SERVE THE THE THE IDEA OF A BUFFER, BUT MAYBE JUST NOT QUITE AS LARGE OF A BUFFER.

SENT THAT TO THEM AS WE COULDN'T COME TO A CONSENSUS ABOUT.

FINAL RATE WHEN IT COMES TO THE IDEA OF A OF A JUST IN CASE BUFFER IN THE CASE OF AN EMERGENCY, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THAT BUFFER BE ABOUT THIS BIG INSTEAD OF.

DOUBLE. DESIRED RATE.

THAT THAT THAT'S KIND OF WHAT BOTHERS ME IS BETWEEN THE CAP AND THE CURRENT 10% OR 11% TO 20% DOUBLE.

IS A SIZE OF BUFFER THAT I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO HAVE IN ALMOST ANY BUDGET I'VE EVER MADE.

THAT'S A LOT.

AND. ON ONE HAND, YOU COULD SAY THAT MORE IS BETTER.

I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THE CONCEPT THERE, BUT CAN WE COME? I'M LOOKING FOR THE MIDDLE GROUND.

CAN WE COME TO COME TO THE POINT OF SAYING 50% MORE IS A GOOD SIZE FOR A BUFFER? LISTENING TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

COULD IT BE MORE? WHAT YOU SAID, CONLEY.

CAN YOU MAKE SURE YOU SPEAK? THANK YOU.

I THINK IT'S SIGNIFICANT.

WHAT YOU SAID IS THAT YOU DID NOT HEAR COUNSEL CONSIDER ANY OTHER OPTIONS.

THEY WENT TO THE EXTREME, SO TO SPEAK, AND MAYBE THAT IS WHAT THE BEST WE CAN OFFER THEM IS.

WE WOULD.

WE TOO HAVE THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED IT AND HAVE DIVERGENT OPINIONS AND IN IN THE RESPONSE TO FOR ALL TO BE HEARD AND FOR ALL TO BE CONSIDERED, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT A.

IT'LL. OR A BUFFER.

A LOWER RATE.

UM, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT WOULD DO IF THEY DID HAVE AN EMERGENCY AND HAD TO ENACT.

BREAK THE CAP, BUT.

THAT COME CLOSER TO MAYBE.

GETTING A BIT FROM EACH OF US.

THAT'S MY THOUGHT. YES. AND I THINK IT EVEN TO TO MR. WITKOWSKI'S POINT, THAT'S OUR FAILED VOTES STAND ON THE RECORD.

AND I BELIEVE THEIR EXISTENCE SHOWS WHERE OUR MINDS ARE AT.

I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT THIRD VOTE WHERE THERE IS A CONSENSUS, BUT THE OTHER VOTES WILL STILL STAND AND DRAW ATTENTION TO THE POINTS THAT WE COULDN'T VOTE, WE COULDN'T AGREE ON THIS AND WE COULDN'T AGREE ON THIS.

AND THOSE THOSE FAILED VOTES EXIST AND TELL A STORY.

BUT I WOULD LIKE A THIRD VOTE WHERE WE COULD MEET IN THE MIDDLE, I THINK, BECAUSE IT'LL SHOW FOR THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST THE IDEA.

FOR ME, FOR INSTANCE, WHO WANTS THE 3%, IT WILL SHOW THAT THAT THAT THAT PREFERENCE IS THERE AND NOT EVERYONE AGREED WITH IT.

AND FOR THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE THE FULL MAINTAIN CURRENT RATE, IT WILL SHOW THAT THEY WANTED THAT.

BUT NOT EVERYONE COULD AGREE ON IT.

AND THIS WHATEVER THIS ENDS UP BEING IS WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO MEET IN THE MIDDLE AND AT LEAST GET A CONSENSUS.

ALL THREE VOTES EXISTING WILL TELL THE FULL PICTURE OF THE STORY.

I WOULD LIKE A THIRD VOTE THAT AND I DON'T I DON'T THINK THAT IS DISRESPECTFUL IN ANY WAY TO OUR COUNSEL FOR US AS REPRESENTATIVES OF CITIZENS TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, TO TAKE THE POSITION THAT WE TAKE.

I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT'S DISRESPECTFUL.

I THINK WE IT'S THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.

WE PUT PEOPLE IN TO REPRESENT US, BUT WE ALSO HAVE A VOICE.

AND IF WE, YOU KNOW, WANT TO INFORM THEM OF WHAT OUR POSITION IS, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE DO BECAUSE THEY ARE THERE TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE.

AND WE ARE A CITIZENS BUDGET ADVISORY BOARD.

AND SO BECAUSE WE'RE SPLIT, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

BUT I LOVE THE IDEA OF COMPROMISE AND THAT'S WHAT, YOU KNOW, I'M I'M WILLING TO COMPROMISE BECAUSE THERE COULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT FORESEEN RIGHT NOW MAY BE ACTUALLY MORE HELPFUL THAN MOST OF OUR FEEDBACK IS TO COUNCIL BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T EVEN CONSIDER THIS OPTION.

MISS COLLINS PRESENTED IT.

IT'S IN THE PRESENTATION.

IT WAS RIGHT THERE, BUT IT GOT PASSED OVER IN DISCUSSION.

SO COMING BACK IN, LIKE YOU SAY, THEY TALKED ABOUT THE EXTREMES COMING BACK IN AND SAY WE DISCUSSED IT, AND THE ONLY CONSENSUS WE COULD COME TO OUT OF THREE VOTES WAS MEETING IN THE MIDDLE, SOMETHING YOU GUYS DIDN'T EVEN TALK ABOUT.

AND THEN THEY'LL BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THEMSELVES AND MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.

YES, I WOULD LIKE ALL THE COMPONENTS TO BE CAPTURED, NOT JUST THE END.

[02:20:01]

IF WE COULD. YEAH, BECAUSE I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO EXPAND ON THIS FOR FUTURE.

USE OF OUR BOARD.

BECAUSE GOING BACK TO THE ITEMS THAT ARE NOT IN THE BUDGET, THE UNFUNDED REQUEST, GOING BACK TO THE ISSUES THAT THIS CITY IS. THAT THE CITIZENS ARE DEALING WITH IN TERMS OF NEEDING MORE INFRASTRUCTURE AND NEEDING MORE POLICE AND FIRE.

I THINK MAYBE WE CAN BEGIN TO GET THE.

BECOME A CONDUIT AND A BRIDGE.

HELP RESOLVE SOME OF THESE ONGOING JUST LIKE YOU DID.

MISS CONNOLLY, THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.

JUST LIKE YOU DID TO PRESENT OTHER.

WELL, IT DOESN'T APPEAR YOU'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS OR LET'S.

SO. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

TWO THINGS, THE COMPROMISE, BUT ALSO THE PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH TO GET TO THAT AND THEN ALSO OFFERING COUNSEL THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE USED IN THIS CAPACITY FOR OTHER.

BUDGET RELATED DECISIONS.

AND I KNOW SEEING FAMILIES THAT ARE STRUGGLING OVER AND OVER JUST IT YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. EVERYBODY IS NOT, YOU KNOW, ABLE TO PAY THEIR BILL ALREADY, YOU KNOW, SO, I MEAN, JUST LOOKING AT THE CONSTITUENTS THAT I SPEAK WITH A LOT IS THE SAME THING.

YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST LIKE.

YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A HOUSEHOLD BUDGET.

YOU WANT TO TRY TO STAY IN IT.

EMERGENCIES DO COME UP.

WE GOT A LITTLE BUFFER ALREADY TO DEAL WITH THAT.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT IS A COMPROMISE TO COME TO THE 7.25.

BUT IT'S A COMPROMISE THAT I GUESS WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE.

YOU KNOW, I'M COMPELLED TO MAKE IT IF THAT'S THE CASE, SO THAT WE DON'T COME WITHOUT A DECISION AT ALL.

BUT I REALLY WOULD LOVE TO STAY AT THE 3%.

I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S SENTIMENTS.

MS.. CONNELLY I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE YOUR POINT THAT I AM VERY INTERESTED IN AS THE BUDGET GOES THROUGH, WHICH AGAIN, THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO DO WHAT THEY WISH TO THEN BE ABLE TO FLIP.

THE BUDGET ALREADY EXISTS, IT'S FUNDED, IT'S WHATEVER, BUT THERE'S ALL THESE UNFUNDED THINGS.

SO NOW LET'S DISCUSS WHAT CAN WE FIND AND WHEN CAN WE FUND IT, AND SO ON.

THAT WAS A SENTIMENT THAT I SHARED AND I FELT THAT THE BOARD HAD CONSENSUS OF THIS TIME LAST YEAR, AND IT WAS MY TRUE AND HONEST DESIRE TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS.

I'M GOING TO SPEAK FRANKLY.

I DON'T FEEL VERY INVOLVED IN THE $13 MILLION THAT WAS SPENT, IF YOU LIKE, HEARD ABOUT IT IN ARREARS, WHICH, AS WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE DID DISCUSS OUR BYLAWS, IS THE CURRENT SITUATION.

AND SO I THINK WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO GET PAST THIS BUDGETING PROCESS AND GET BACK TO TRYING TO FIX THAT SITUATION.

BUT WHEN WHEN THERE'S ANOTHER CHUNK OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S 13 FIVE OF IT WAS ALL AT ONCE BY COUNCIL.

NEVER. THIS BOARD WAS THE CITIZEN BUDGET ADVISORY BOARD.

THINK ABOUT US SPENDING THIS UN DESIGNATED FUNDS THIS WAY.

YOU KNOW, AFTERWARDS WE WERE MADE AWARE THAT THEY SPENT THE MONEY, BUT IT WASN'T HEY, WHAT CAN WE PRIORITIZE? SO I THINK THAT ALL THAT EVERYONE HAS SAID, IF WE CAN COME TO THIS COMPROMISE AND THIS CONSENSUS OF SOME SORT AND WE CAN REALLY HONE IN ON SOME OF MISS CONNOLLY'S WONDERFUL SENTIMENTS AS SHE SUMMARIZED THEM.

AND AGAIN, MA'AM, I THANK YOU FOR KEEPING US AS A UNITED GROUP AND A UNITED FRONT.

THEN OUR WORK CAN BECOME HAVING GOOD CONVERSATIONS OF REPRESENTING OUR COMMUNITY SO THAT THE NEXT, METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING, 13 MILLION THAT GETS.

THAT FUNDS UNFUNDED REQUESTS.

WE KNOW THAT THE COMMUNITY WAS REPRESENTED IN IT.

COUNCIL KNOWS THE COMMUNITY WAS REPRESENTED.

WE GOT TO FIGURE THAT OUT.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO FIGURE THAT OUT TONIGHT, UNFORTUNATELY.

BUT WHAT WE CAN FIGURE OUT TONIGHT IS WHAT WE WANT.

MISTER WOJCIECHOWSKI, TELL THE MAYOR WE SAID ABOUT THIS COMING THURSDAY.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

OKAY. MR. WHITE HAS A MOTION.

I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE AS A COUNCIL PROVIDE ADVICE, ADVISE, COUNSEL OF THE DECISION THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND THEY MAINTAIN.

WELL, NOT MAINTAIN THAT THEY SET A TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE OF 7.25 AND THAT THEY ALSO BE INFORMED OF THE PREVIOUS TWO MOTIONS AND THEIR RESULTING TIE VOTES.

YOUR SECOND. I'LL SECOND MR. CLINKSCALES SECOND. MR. WHITE MADE A MOTION, MR. CLINKSCALES SECONDED TO RECOMMEND COUNCIL THAT THEY SET THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE THIS COMING THURSDAY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AT 7.2500 AND ALSO SHARE

[02:25:09]

UM. I'M I'M INTRIGUED BY THAT.

I APPRECIATE THAT THAT THAT'S THERE.

UM, I THINK WE SHOULD CALL THE QUESTION.

SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? AYE. AYE, AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY.

NAY. OKAY.

AND. RESPECTFULLY, SIR.

JUST ONE MOMENT, MISS CONNELLY.

I JUST NEED YOUR VOTE. I HAVE EVERYBODY'S VOTE BUT YOURS, MA'AM.

HAVE ANY. TRUE.

I'M. OR YOU NEED TO EXTEND THE MEETING CLOSE.

ISN'T IT NINE? OH, I WILL SAY I AGREE.

SO, MA'AM.

MOTION HAD SOME.

YES, WE HAD SOME NAYS.

YOUR VOTE IS.

YES. OKAY.

SO THAT MOTION CARRIES 4 TO 2.

DON'T QUITE WANT TO EXTEND THE MEETING, QUITE HONESTLY.

TAKE A MOTION TO DO SO.

UM, WHERE ARE WE AT, SIR? WITH THAT MOTION PASSING AND YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOWING, YOU KNOW, THE INTENT OF HOW EVERYONE'S FEELING AND EVERYTHING.

UM. YEAH, THIS IS TRICKY BECAUSE OUR BYLAWS SAY NINE.

OUR BYLAWS DON'T SAY THAT.

WE START AT 630, BUT WE USED TO START AT 630.

NOW WE START AT SIX, SO IT REALLY SHOULD BE 830.

BUT OUR BYLAWS DO SAY NINE.

BUT ANYWAYS, WHERE ARE WE AT ON THIS BUSINESS ITEM? THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO KNOW.

THE LAST BUSINESS ITEM IS JUST FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES IS NUMBER TO COMPLETE IS WHAT I'M I THINK SO, YES.

WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO PRESENT THAT IT WAS VOTED BY 4 OR 2 TO GO TO 7.25.

HOWEVER, I'M ALSO GOING TO GIVE THE OTHER TWO VOTES AND EXPLAIN.

THE DIVERSITY. THAT'S WHAT.

THAT'S. THANK YOU, SIR.

THAT'S. THAT'S BUSINESS NUMBER TWO HANDLE, THEN.

SO THEN THAT DRAWS THE.

UH, THE QUESTION OF.

NEW BUSINESS. NUMBER THREE.

DISCUSSION ON IMPACT FEES.

SO WE HAVE THIS SCHEDULE PUBLISHED.

IT'S GOT ALL THE IMPACT FEES MR. WOJCIECHOWSKI SHARED WITH US AHEAD OF TIME AS WELL, SIR.

RIGHT. I'D MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 845.

MR. WHITE HAS MADE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 845, WHICH INHERENTLY I FEEL WOULD BE TO COVER THIS ITEM.

RIGHT? BECAUSE IF WE DON'T DO IT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO COVER THE ITEM.

SO IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION TO EXTEND TO 845? I'LL SECOND. MS. CLINKSCALE SECOND.

SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF EXTENDING TO 845 SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOOD ON THAT.

SO LET'S COVER NUMBER THREE.

[3. Discussion on Impact Fees]

GO AHEAD. THIS WAS ACTUALLY REQUESTED BY MR. WHITE TO TALK ABOUT IMPACT FEES AND THE.

IT WAS ACTUALLY HOW MUCH MONEY WE ACTUALLY COLLECT THE FEE SCHEDULE, DIFFERENT ITEMS LIKE THAT.

AND I REALLY DID NOT BRING IN THE FEE SCHEDULE BECAUSE IT IS ACTUALLY GOING BACK OUT FOR REVIEW.

AND IT IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED BACK TO COUNCIL.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS PROBABLY IN DECEMBER OR JANUARY TIME FRAME.

I DIDN'T WANT TO BRING IN THE OLD NUMBERS BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS WORTH HAVING THAT CONVERSATION BECAUSE WE'RE CHANGING THEM.

THE IS THE DISCUSSION OF OF CHANGING THEM COMING UP, OR IS A RECOMMENDATION BEING BROUGHT OF WHAT TO CHANGE THEM TO? IN DECEMBER EXCUSE ME, IN DECEMBER, JANUARY TIME FRAME AFTER THE CONSULTANT GOES THROUGH, IT IS WHEN IT WILL BE PRESENTED.

SO WHAT IT WILL BE CHANGED TO THROUGH IT NOW TO BRING A RECOMMENDATION.

RIGHT. OKAY.

I SEE. BUT THAT IS BECAUSE WE'RE ELIGIBLE.

BECAUSE WE'RE ELIGIBLE EVERY SO MANY YEARS.

HOW MANY YEARS TO DO THAT? IT CAN ACTUALLY BE CHANGED.

I DON'T WANT TO MISQUOTE.

I WANT TO SAY IT CAN BE CHANGED EVERY YEAR.

HOWEVER, IT'S A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE THAT IT CAN BE CHANGED WITHOUT AN ACTION LIKE THIS.

RIGHT. I WILL ACTUALLY BRING BACK INFORMATION TO TELL YOU EXACTLY HOW IT CAN BE CALCULATED, HOW MANY YEARS YOU HAVE TO WAIT, THE PERCENTAGES THAT IT CAN BE INCREASED.

I APPRECIATE THAT, SIR, BECAUSE. YEAH, IT'S IN MEMORY SOMEWHERE FROM ANOTHER WONDERFUL PRESENTATION.

[02:30:04]

SO YEAH, THAT'D BE GOOD FOR REFERENCE MATERIAL.

IF IT'S, IF IT'S EASY ENOUGH TO, TO PUT IN AN EMAIL WHEN YOU HAVE COLLECTED THAT INFORMATION, IF YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE IF IF YOU FEEL IT WOULD NEED TO BE PRESENTED IN PERSON FOR IT TO BE CLEAR, THEN THAT'D BE FINE.

BUT IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND IF YOU THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

I CAN PUT IT WHEREVER IN BETWEEN NOW AND OUR NEXT MEETING THAT YOU THAT YOU GET THAT GATHERED UP.

I CAN DO THAT. SEEN HERE.

THESE. WAS THE BEST GRAND TOTAL NUMBER WOULD BE THE CASH AND INVESTMENTS AT THE TOP.

YES. THE ALSO THE TOTAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL BALANCES TO BE SPENT.

SO BASICALLY FUNDS THAT ARE ALLOCATED ALREADY FOR THEY'VE BEEN THEY'VE BEEN ALLOCATED FOR CERTAIN ITEMS. YES. THERE ANY PLACE FOR CITIZEN INPUT IN THE REVIEW? IMPACT FEES OR ANY OF THE CHANGES.

I CAN FIND OUT AND GET THAT INFORMATION TO YOU.

I DON'T KNOW. REACHING THEM WOULD REQUIRE TWO PUBLIC.

YES. YEAH.

AT MINIMUM AT THAT POINT.

THAT IS. SO THEN I WOULD LIKE TO START PREPARING OURSELVES FOR.

YEAH. THAT'S WHY I ASKED MR. WOJTKOSKI IF HE COULD EMAIL THAT INFORMATION WHEN HE HAS IT, JUST SO THAT WE HAVE AS MUCH TIME AS, AS WE'RE ABLE WELL FOR THAT DISCUSSION AND TO EXPAND THAT THEN TO BE LOOKING FOR WAYS THAT CITIZENS CAN PARTICIPATE.

MR. OLSZEWSKI WAS SAYING ABOUT AMENDMENTS OR THINGS LIKE THAT, ANY CHANCE THAT WE CAN BE HAVE A VOICE OR HAVE A REVIEW OF HOW THE MONEY IS BEING SPENT OR COLLECTED? I WOULD SAY POTENTIALLY, BUT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT FOR EVERYONE THAT BUDGET IS IS REALLY A GENERAL FUND BUDGET, RIGHT? WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THE UTILITIES FUND.

WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THE BUILDING FUND.

WE TALK ABOUT THE GENERAL FUND, THE BUDGET ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

WE TALK AD NAUSEAM ABOUT AD VALOREM TAXES.

IMPACT FEES ARE THEIR OWN BALL OF WAX, THEIR OWN ENTITY.

SO YES, THERE ARE REVENUE STREAM.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE OUT OF BOUNDS TALKING ABOUT THEM, LOOKING AT THEM, WHATEVER.

BUT I WOULD WANT TO DEFINE OUR SCOPE VERY STRICTLY TO UNDERSTAND IF WE WERE TO DIVE INTO THIS AREA, WHAT WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, TANGIBLY BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF IT, BECAUSE FRANKLY SPEAKING, WE'RE HAVING ENOUGH TROUBLE DECIDING WHAT WE CAN TANGIBLY GET OUT OF OUR CURRENT WORK. AND THAT JUST HAS TO DO WITH THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET.

SO I'M ALL GUNG HO FOR FOR IMPACT FEES, BUT I FEAR THAT IT MAY BE SUBJECT MATTER.

THAT IS JUST A SLIGHT BIT DISTANT FROM OUR BOARD IN PARTICULAR THAT DOESN'T RESTRICT US FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS AS CITIZENS.

AND JUST I AGREE.

I WOULD JUST SAY THAT MY I SUPPOSE MY REAL PURPOSE IN IN ASKING THIS TO BE ADDED IS THAT I KNOW THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I KNOW THE LEAST ABOUT, RIGHT? AND I THINK THAT'S TRUE FOR MOST RESIDENTS 100%.

SO I THINK IN MY MIND THIS IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS I DON'T WANT TO SAY OUR FREE TIME, BUT THE BUDGET IS OUR IS OUR MAIN FOCUS, THE MAIN BUDGET, THE GENERAL FUND AND SUCH.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO TO HAVE A LITTLE DISCUSSION IF POSSIBLE.

I'M PROBABLY NOT DISCUSSION TONIGHT EVEN, BUT JUST BRING THIS ONTO OUR RADAR, THIS INFORMATION AND THE FACT THAT A CHANGE IS COMING UP, A PROPOSAL FOR CHANGE IS COMING UP SO THAT WE CAN LEARN MORE ABOUT IT AS WE GO AND BE ABLE TO INFORM THE RESIDENTS WHO WE SPEAK TO ABOUT THE CITY'S BUSINESS.

LESS SO TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL A CHANGE.

ALTHOUGH IF IF THAT COMES TO THAT POINT IN CONVERSATION WITH THE COUNCIL OR WITH THE BOARD, THEN SO BE IT.

BUT AT THE VERY LEAST, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE INFORMED ON THIS MONEY ASPECT OF THE CITY AND BE ABLE TO INFORM OTHER RESIDENTS AS WELL.

DEFINITELY. AND TO THE DEGREE TO YOUR POINTS THAT YOU JUST MADE TO MISS CONNELLY'S POINTS AND HER GOALS, THIS CAN DEFINITELY FALL UNDER THAT SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE STREAMS. AND HOW DO WE GET THINGS DONE? THIS IS A MUCH MORE RESTRICTIVE REVENUE STREAM.

IT CAN ONLY BE USED IN THAT ZIP CODE.

IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING NEW, IT CAN'T BE PERSONNEL, SO ON AND SO FORTH.

BUT WE STAND ALONE. YOU KNOW, WE ALL WE EVERY TIME WE SPEND A PENNY OUT OF THERE, WE WE BOUNCE IT OUT OF LEGAL.

WE HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE LEGAL FROM LEGAL COUNSEL MAKE SURE THAT KNEW ENOUGH.

YEAH. WHETHER WE CAN SPEND IT THE WAY WE'RE SAYING THAT WE WANT TO SPEND IT.

AND THE QUESTION THAT COMES UP ALL THE TIME OF IN MANY, MANY FORMS OF COURSE, IS, WELL, WHY ARE WE SPENDING THIS ON THIS OR WHY ARE WE NOT SPENDING THIS ON THIS? AND I FEEL LIKE A THE BOARD HAVING A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPACT FEES WHERE THEY ARE, HOW THEY WORK, I THINK WILL BENEFIT ALL OF THOSE FUTURE DISCUSSIONS,

[02:35:02]

SO THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO BRING THAT IN, FILL THAT KNOWLEDGE GAP, SO TO SPEAK, FOR US.

SO I DON'T, PARTICULARLY IF ANYONE ELSE DOES, BUT I DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THE MOMENT ON THIS INFORMATION THAT MISTER WOJTKOSKI HAS PROVIDED.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHEN IT IS READY AND I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE LOOKING OVER THIS.

BUT IF NO ONE ELSE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, KNOW THAT I PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.

I'M GOOD WITH WHAT WE'VE WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED SO FAR AND JUST HAVING THIS ON OUR RADAR.

YEAH, I CAN CONCUR WITH THAT ENTIRELY, SIR.

I REALLY LIKE GETTING OUR TOE INTO THIS WATER, SO TO SPEAK.

AND WE'VE ALREADY BEEN PROMISED SOME FOLLOW UPS, RESOURCES, TOO, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

MISS CLINKSCALES, YOU GOT A COMMENT? YEAH, I WANTED TO FIND OUT.

WE HAD TALKED LAST YEAR ABOUT THE WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT? THE FORECLOSURE, THE FORFEITURE FUNDS THAT GO INTO THE POLICE.

AND I WAS ASKING FOR A BREAKDOWN OF HOW THAT MONEY LIKE, WHAT DOES IT COME FROM? YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S ORGANIZED, BUT SOME KIND OF REPORT ON THAT.

AND THE OTHER THING WAS THE PALM BAY SENIOR CENTER, IF WE HOW DOES THAT CONTRACT COME ABOUT AND WHAT COMPANY IS HIRED? BECAUSE FROM WHAT THEY TELL THE COMMUNITY IS THAT THEY ARE CONTRACTED.

THE GROUP THAT'S THERE THAT THEY'RE CONTRACTED BY THE CITY TO BE THE MANAGEMENT OVER THAT FACILITY.

AND SO WHAT'S THE RECORD ON THAT? LIKE HOW MUCH ARE WE PAYING THEM? BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN ISSUES IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT HOW THEY RUN THAT CENTER AND HOW.

YEAH. SO THERE'S BEEN PROBLEMS ABOUT HOW THEY'RE RUNNING THAT CENTER AND HOW OPEN THEY ARE TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE COMING IN THE CENTER.

SO THERE'S BEEN SOME COMPLAINTS.

AND SO I WANTED TO SEE HOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

SURE. THAT'S THE PURVIEW OF.

FROM WHAT I RECALL, A RESOURCE WITH US THOUGH, ABOUT IT.

I FEEL LIKE BECAUSE I MISSED THE MEETING MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION ON THE DOLLARS AND STUFF.

BUT I WAS GOING TO SAY, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY FROM OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IT, WHAT WHAT WAS SHARED SO FAR IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS WAS THAT IT IT IS ACTUALLY AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY THAT RECEIVES GRANTS AND GRANT FUNDINGS FROM THE CITY.

I'M NOT SURE IF GRANTS IS THE RIGHT WORD, BUT FUNDING FROM THE CITY FOR THEIR ACTIVITIES, SO TO SPEAK, BECAUSE THE CITY WANTS TO HAVE A SENIOR CENTER, BUT THEY ARE ACTUALLY THEIR OWN ENTITY RECEIVING THOSE.

I ACTUALLY DID PROVIDE INFORMATION OF ALL THE EXPENDITURES THAT HAVE HAPPENED THROUGH THE GRANTS.

I THINK FOR THE LAST YEARS.

I BELIEVE IT WAS. SO THAT'S NOT A PALM BAY THAT'S NOT A PALM BAY BUILT FACILITY.

THAT FACILITY WAS BUILT BASED ON GRANTS, NOT NOT TAX DOLLARS THAT COME IN.

THAT BUILDING, I BELIEVE, WAS ACTUALLY BUILT.

BREVARD COUNTY CAME FROM BREVARD COUNTY.

AND SO DOES THE CITY PAY THEIR CONTRACTED AMOUNT, WHATEVER THEY ARE.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE COST IS, BUT WHATEVER IT IS, YOU PAY A SENIOR ORGANIZATION THAT'S IN THERE, THERE IS UNDOUBTEDLY A CONTRACT.

NOT. MINIMUM THAT THEY ACTUALLY PAY US.

OPERATED. THEY COLLECT THEIR OWN REVENUES.

THEY DO THEIR OWN EXPENSES IF THERE'S MAJOR.

ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE DONE.

YES, WE CAN. WE MAKE SURE THAT THE AC IS WORKING AND DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT.

YES. IS THAT STILL OUR BUILDING? THIS DATA WAS IN AN EMAIL SENT ON APRIL 7TH FROM MR. WOJCIECHOWSKI. IF YOU WANT TO LOOK.

YEAH, LET ME LOOK AT THAT. YOU GET THE GENERAL IDEA OF IT AND STUFF.

AND I JUST WANT TO MENTION OUT LOUD THAT THE PARKS AND FACILITIES AND RECREATION, YOU KNOW, USED TO BE PARKS AND RECREATION.

NOW IT'S TWO THINGS. THE WAY THAT WE GO ABOUT THINGS IN OUR COMMUNITY, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY IS UNIQUE.

I'M SURE THERE'S OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT DO IT.

IT'S UNIQUE TO OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES IN THAT FOR THE MOST PART, WE PARTNER WITH COMMUNITY PARTNERS AND WE GIVE THEM RENT THEM AT VERY, VERY, VERY LOW COST, LIKE NEGLIGIBLE, LIKE $1 A YEAR OR WHATEVER.

BALL FIELDS, BUILDINGS, WHATEVER.

AND WE TELL THEM, GO FACILITATE.

SO THE SENIOR CENTER IS THE CITY OF PALM BAY'S PROPERTY RESPONSIBILITY LIABILITY.

BUT RATHER THAN EXTEND OUR RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND GIVE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, HR BENEFITS, HEALTH INSURANCE, DISABILITY, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF, WE INSTEAD. HAD THIS COMMUNITY PARTNER THAT'S WILLING TO DO ALL THE WORK AND ALL THOSE FOLKS ARE VOLUNTEERS OR WHATEVER, AND THEY'RE MANAGING THEIR REVENUE STREAMS SO THAT THEY CAN PAY FOR THEIR ACTIVITIES OR WHATEVER.

BUT EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE IN THE CITY BUILDING, THEY AREN'T THE CITY, RIGHT? SO THEN YOU GO TO I'M FINDING PARKS HERE, YOU GO TO ONE OF THE PARKS THAT THE BALL PLAYERS PLAY AT, RIGHT? SO IT USED TO BE SOMETHING, SOMETHING OAKS.

NOW IT'S LYNN MUNSINGER PARK IS WHERE PALM BAY WEST LITERALLY.

[02:40:03]

THEY'RE A COMMUNITY PARTNER.

GIVE THEM THE BALL FIELDS.

SO WE PAY FOR THE BALL FIELDS.

WE PAY TO CUT THE GRASS.

WE PAY TO DO EVERYTHING.

BUT UNLIKE A COMMUNITY LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, SAY, MELBOURNE, WHO ACTUALLY THE CITY'S RECREATION DEPARTMENT RUNS THAT BASEBALL LEAGUE, THAT LITTLE LEAGUE.

WE HAVE COMMUNITY PARTNERS THAT RUN OUR LITTLE LEAGUE, SO ALL OF OUR SPORTS LEAGUES ARE THAT WAY.

THERE'S VERY, VERY SMALL, LIKE ONE SOFTBALL LEAGUE FOR 50 YEAR OLDS THAT THE RECREATION DEPARTMENT RUNS ON A PALM BAY BALL FIELD.

BUT THE MAJORITY OF OUR OTHER RECREATIONAL ENTITIES, THE SENIOR CENTER INCLUDED, ARE THROUGH THOSE PARTNERSHIPS.

AND SO I TELL YOU ALL THAT SUMMARY, I SIT ON THE RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD, SO THAT'S HOW I HAVE ALL THIS KNOWLEDGE.

BUT I WOULD TELL YOU TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THE DEPTHS OF IT, TO GET WITH THE RECREATION, LIKE LEADERSHIP, NOT JUST MR. POPPY, BUT MR. DETWILER'S OVER THERE AS WELL.

THERE'S A THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT PEOPLE WITH INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE THEY KIND OF CREATED THE MODEL THROUGH NECESSITY OVER TIME BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, THROUGH CONTRACTION, GOT REALLY, REALLY SMALL.

WE HAD THESE BALLPARKS. WE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THEM.

WE HAD THESE FACILITIES AND THIS IS WHAT THEY FIGURED OUT.

I WONDER IF THE MODEL IS STILL PERFECT IN THE MODERN DAY.

SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DIG INTO IT AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT DIFFERENT AS LONG AS IT'S NOT BUDGET RELATED.

BUT YEAH, SO KNOW THAT, KNOW THAT AND THAT INFORMATION.

WE DID GET AN APRIL EMAIL.

YES, MA'AM. MISS. I DID.

I REMEMBERED THAT. I READ IT SOMEWHERE I WAS ABLE TO FIND IT.

IT'S IN THE HISTORY SECTION OF THE GREATER PALM BAY SENIOR CENTER WEBSITE AT THE VERY BOTTOM.

THE LAST PARAGRAPH IS THE MOST INFORMATIONAL CONSIDERING YOUR QUESTIONS, THE BUILDING IS LEASED FROM THE CITY.

OPERATING FUNDS ARE OBTAINED FROM YEARLY DUES BINGO SUBLETS, FUNDRAISERS AND CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE FACILITIES PROVIDE THE SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY AND SUCH.

SO THAT'S THAT'S WHERE MOST OF THEIR OPERATING FUNDS COMES FROM.

THAT DOES END UP INCLUDING GRANTS AND SUCH.

THANK YOU, MA'AM, FOR THE INQUIRY, AND I HOPE WE'RE ABLE TO FRAME THAT UP.

SO THANK YOU, MR. WHITE, FOR GETTING OUR FEET WET WITH IMPACT FEES.

BY WAY OF MR. WOJCIECHOWSKI HERE, I'M EXCITED TO MS..

CONNOLLY'S POINTS TO JUST REALLY FIND THOSE SUPPLEMENTAL INCOMES AND REALLY JUST TRY TO HELP COUNSEL IN OUR COMMUNITY GROW.

THAT'S THAT'S ONE THING WE ALL AGREE ON.

YOU KNOW EMPHATICALLY THAT WE WANT THE BEST FOR PALM BAY AND WE WANT TO SEE OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY GROW AND ACTUALLY BE THE GREATEST CITY ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH, AS OUR MAYOR CALLS IT. SO DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION TOPICS ON THIS BUSINESS ITEM OR OTHERWISE? WANT TO REMIND COUNCIL THAT WE'RE DOWN ONE MEMBER AS OF TODAY THAT OUR ONE MEMBER WILL.

FOR LACK OF SHOWING UP.

SO I WANT TO ENCOURAGE US ALL TO FILL THAT POSITION.

IS THAT A SPONSOR? IS THAT AN AT LARGE POSITION? DO YOU KNOW IF IT'S AN APPOINTEE? IF IT'S MR. JOHNSON'S COUNCILMAN JOHNSON? SO GET WITH THE CLERK'S OFFICE.

YEAH, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT FILLED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

DEFINITELY. THANK YOU FOR THAT, MISS CONNELLY.

I APPRECIATE THAT. ANYTHING ELSE, FOLKS? ALL RIGHT. WELL, IT'S 844, SO WE DID GOOD ON OUR OUR EXTENSION THERE.

WE'LL CALL THIS MEETING ADJOURNED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.