[00:00:02] MR. CHAIR, YOU NOW HAVE A QUORUM. OKAY, EVERYBODY, I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AND WELCOME EVERYBODY WHO'S ON THE INTERNET. [CALL TO ORDER] PRAISE GOD. AND AND SO WE'D LIKE TO OPEN UP WITH AN INVOCATION. WOULD THERE CAN CAN WE HAVE THE MAYOR ACTUALLY OPEN UP WITH WITH FOR AN INVOCATION? WOULD THAT BE. AMEN. SO. O FATHER GOD, WE O BOTH. WELL, FATHER GOD, WE COME TO YOUR THRONE. ROOM OF GRACE IN A TIME OF NEED. FATHER, WE LEAVE OUTSIDE THE THINGS OF THIS WORLD, OUR FEELINGS, OUR EMOTIONS. AND WE ARE LED BY YOUR HOLY SPIRIT RIGHT NOW. FATHER, GIVE US THE WISDOM ON HOW TO SERVE YOUR PEOPLE, NOT PUTTING OUR DESIRES FIRST, BUT YOUR DESIRES FOR YOUR PEOPLE. HOLY SPIRIT, YOU REIGN IN THESE CHAMBERS. WE THANK YOU FOR THE WISDOM. WE THANK YOU THAT ANGELS ARE HEARKENING TO THE VOICE OF YOUR WORD. AND MINISTERING TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US. FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR GRACE OVER THE CITY OF PALM BAY, AND WE THANK YOU FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE THAT IS SERVING HERE. WE DECLARE THIS IN THE NAME ABOVE ALL NAMES, IN JESUS MIGHTY NAME. AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. HOORAH! THANK YOU SIR. OKAY. MADAM. TERESE WOULD YOU DO, MR. DELGADO? PRESIDENT. MR. MYERS IS ABSENT. MR. MILLER IS ABSENT. MR. GUM, PRESENT, MR. NORRIS. MR. O'NEILL HERE. MISS SAP, MISS COFELL HERE. MR. CHANDLER IS ABSENT AND MR. WEINBERG IS ABSENT. BUT WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL. OKAY, FIRST THING ON THE ON THE AGENDA IS, OF COURSE, THE ADOPTION OF MINUTES. [ADOPTION OF MINUTES] AND HOPEFULLY YOU'RE ABLE TO PERUSE THE THE MINUTES. AND AGAIN THANK YOU. THANKING TERESA FOR HER HER TAKING CARE OF ALL OF THESE DETAILS. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. I HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. OKAY. WE HAVE A. MOTION BY MR. TOM AND. YES. AND WE HAVE A SECOND AND DISCUSSION AND A QUESTION. ON WHAT ABOUT THE 12 STEPS IT SAYS. A TOTAL OF 12. AND WHAT PAGE IS THAT ON? PAGE FIVE FOUR. 5042. MR. CHAIRMAN. YES. I COULD SAY SHE'S RIGHT BECAUSE I GOT A PHONE CALL FROM A COUPLE PEOPLE THAT THAT DIRECTLY AFFECTED AND WONDERED WHY IN THE WORLD WE WERE DOING THAT. SO IT WAS PUT DOWN AS CONSECUTIVE FOR A TOTAL OF 12 YEARS. SO WE'RE JUST REMOVING THE CONSECUTIVE. CORRECT. GOT IT. WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON THAT, AM I CORRECT? THAT WILL BE PART OF THE CORRECTION WHEN YOU ADOPT THE MINUTES. WONDERFUL. I'M STILL LEARNING. IT'S A LEARNING CURVE. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY. WITHDRAW YOUR SECOND, PLEASE. I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY SECOND. OKAY. RUTH HAS WITHDRAWN MY MOTION. MAKE ANOTHER MOTION THAT WE ADOPT THE MINUTES WITH THE NOTED CHANGES. SO MOVED. SECONDED BY. AND THE NOTED CHANGE AS AS STIPULATED WAS TO CHANGE CONTINUOUS TO TO A TOTAL OF 12 YEARS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE IS IS IT LIMITED TO 12 YEARS OR A MAXIMUM OF THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS? OR ARE WE TAKING OUT CONSECUTIVE ALTOGETHER? CONSECUTIVE WAS OUT ALTOGETHER. IT'S THREE TERMS BECAUSE ANY PORTION OF THE TERM 12 YEARS OR A MAXIMUM OF THREE TERMS. SO NO CONSECUTIVE AT ALL. OKAY. ANY ANY OTHER DISCUSSION CORRECTIONS? YES. IF I COULD JUST SAY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THAT PROPOSAL WAS NOT EVEN ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION, [00:05:01] BUT IT WILL BE CORRECTED IN THE MINUTES. IT WAS NOT ADOPTED. THAT WAS NOT ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION. I THOUGHT WE HAD PASSED IT. YEAH WE DID. I THOUGHT SO TOO. BUT WE CERTAINLY CAN ADDRESS. WE CAN ADDRESS THAT. ABSOLUTELY. I'M SORRY. IT WAS. IT WAS THE NEXT I'M SORRY. IT WAS THE NEXT MODIFICATION THAT THERE WAS NO ACTION. BUT YOU COULDN'T ADDRESS IT. THAT WAS WRONG. WE'RE GOOD. OKAY. AND AGAIN, IT WAS 5.1042. OKAY. NOW I'M REALLY CONFUSED BECAUSE THE LAST PARAGRAPH IN THAT 5.2 SAYS THAT IT SHALL HAVE THE WORD CONSECUTIVE IN IT. THE MOTION. FOR 12 CONSECUTIVE YEARS, OR A MAXIMUM OF THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS, AND A PARTIAL TERM WAS CONSIDERED AS A FULL TERM. THAT IS THE MOTION THAT WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NO, NO, NO. THEY'RE SAYING THE CONSECUTIVE SHOULD NOT BE. IT WAS A TOTAL OF 12, NO MATTER WHETHER IT WAS CONSECUTIVE OR NONCONSECUTIVE FOUR YEAR TERMS, THREE FOUR YEAR TERMS, A FULL TERM. YEAH. ALL IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING THE MINUTE WITH THE CHANGES BY THE SIGN OF I, I ALL AGAINST PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. TERESE, WHICH WAS THE ONE THAT WAS NOT PASSED. IT WAS THE ONE IMMEDIATELY AFTER. I'M 5.041 THAT WAS WITHDRAWN. THERE WAS NO ACTION TAKEN ON THAT ONE. OKAY. THAT WAS WITH THE DESIGNATING SPECIFIC SEATS, RIGHT? ALRIGHTY. NEW BUSINESS. PART ONE REVIEW DISCUSSION, MR. CHAIR. PUBLIC COMMENTS FIRST. OH, YEAH. PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY COMMENTS? OKAY. THANK YOU. ARTICLE SIX, TAXES AND FEES. [NEW BUSINESS] AND VICE CHAIR GUM HAS A PROPOSAL. YIELD. MICROPHONE. I'M SORRY. I TRIED TO PRINT EVERY OR SEND EVERYTHING IN. POSSIBLE. AND ATTACK THIS FROM EVERY POSSIBLE DIRECTION TO MAKE SO THAT YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND. THE TRUTH IS, IN 2016, WE COULDN'T TELL WE WERE GOING TO HAVE 8% INFLATION IN 2022. AND IN 2020, WE DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THAT INFLATION IN 2022. THE MATH WORKED IN 2016 AND IT WORKED IN 2020 AND 2020. AND THEN 2022 CAME ALONG AND THE MATH JUST SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK ANYMORE. SO THIS PROPOSAL ISN'T A HUGE STEP TOWARDS FIXING IT. IT'S A LITTLE BIT GOES A LITTLE BIT TOWARDS FIXING IT BECAUSE IT STILL CAPS AT 5%. NO MATTER WHAT THE CPI DOES. BUT IT GIVES THE GIVES THE CITY SOME FLEXIBILITY. BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS IF INFLATION FALLS BELOW 2%, THEN THE CAP FALLS RIGHT ALONG WITH IT. SO I WANTED TO KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET. LIKE I SAID, THAT'S WHY I PRINTED IT ALL OUT. IT WASN'T A MISTAKE. IT WAS JUST NOT HAVING THE FORESIGHT THAT ANYTHING LIKE THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN. BUT IT DID, AND THIS IS MY ATTEMPT TO MAKE IT RIGHT. SO WITH THAT, THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION? YES. COMMENTS. YES. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO HAVE SUFFICIENT CAPITAL, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD ALSO BE IF INFLATION IS UP SALARIES SHOULD BE FROZEN. THERE SHOULD BE NO RAISES. YOU KNOW I THINK IT'S GOT TO GO BOTH WAYS. YOU CAN'T KEEP PUTTING YOUR HANDS IN THE POCKETS OF PEOPLE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY GETS THEIR AUTOMATIC 5% RAISE. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR. SO I THINK THERE SHOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO IT. IT SAYS THE CITY HAS TO JUST STOP ANY EXPANDING ON THE BUDGET AND THE MOSTLY PAYROLL. NO. PATRICIAH. CONTRACTUAL. MADAM. YES. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ISSUES WITH PUTTING RESTRICTIONS ON PAY IN THE CHARTER. SEEING THAT A LARGE PART OF OUR WORKFORCE ARE UNIONIZED AND ARE COVERED BY CONTRACTS, [00:10:03] AND THEIR WAGES AND SALARIES ARE THINGS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO BARGAINING FOR UNDER THEIR CONTRACTS. AND SOME OF THEIR CONTRACTS DO ALREADY INCLUDE CERTAIN INCREASES BECAUSE WE CONTRACT FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. SO FOR PARTICULARLY FOR OUR UNIONIZED FORCES, TRYING TO PUT THAT IN A CHARTER PROVISION IS GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC. I MEAN, YOU COULD EXEMPT IT OUT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHAT YOU DO IS HAVE IT WHERE IT APPLIES TO VERY FEW PEOPLE. IT'S JUST GOING TO BE YOUR GENERAL EMPLOYEES, AND MOST OF THE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO IT. AND IS IT ALSO CORRECT THAT THAT IF THE UNION SETS A STANDARD, THEN AUTOMATICALLY EMPLOYEES THAT MAY NOT BE OF THE UNION ALSO ARE FATHERED INTO THAT DECISION? WELL NOT NECESSARILY. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT UNION. I MEAN, THE GENERAL EMPLOYEES DO A LOT OF TIMES GET SIMILAR TO MAYBE BLUE OR WHITE, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET SIMILAR TO FOP. OR IF IN THAT RESPECT, OTHER THAN THE NON-UNIONIZED PEOPLE IN THOSE IN PLACE ARE FIRED. SO GENERAL EMPLOYEES DON'T AUTOMATICALLY GET WHAT UNION EMPLOYEES GET. THANK YOU. IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM FAIR BECAUSE WHEN THERE'S INFLATION, THE INCOME OF THE PEOPLE CERTAINLY ISN'T GOING UP. OUR EXPENSES ARE HIGHER. AND MEETING, YOU KNOW, YOU WIND UP WITH PEOPLE HAVING TO TAKE OUT LOANS JUST TO TAKE CARE OF THE CITY. AND I JUST I MEAN, FREEZING IT TEMPORARILY AND THEY CAN GET IT LATER. THERE SHOULD BE SOME NEGOTIATION IN THERE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT COULD BE ACCEPTABLE. I REALLY DON'T, YOU KNOW. I'M NOT SAYING THAT PEOPLE DON'T DESERVE RAISES. I THINK MOST OF US, WHEN WE HAVE JOBS, WE THINK WE DESERVE A RAISE IF WE WORK HARD. BUT CONSTANTLY GOING INTO THE POCKETS OF THE PEOPLE IS, TO ME IS JUST UNJUST. AND THERE SHOULD BE SOME WAY OF, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SAYING NEVER GIVE IT TO THEM WHEN, WHEN THE WHEN THE COSTS COME BACK DOWN, IT CAN BE RETROACTIVE. BUT YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS WHY PEOPLE DON'T VOTE FOR THE, THE INCREASES WHEN SALARIES ARE OF COUNCILMAN AND OTHER PEOPLE ARE WANTED TO INCREASE, PEOPLE VOTE AGAINST THEM BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST TO THEM, IT MAY SEEM LIKE PENNIES PER PERSON, BUT IN REALITY IT ADDS UP. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME WAY OF YOU KNOW, MAYBE GOING BACK TO THE UNIONS AND SAYING IF WE WIND UP WITH A RIDICULOUSLY HIGH INFLATION RATE, THERE HAS TO BE SOME GIVE AND TAKE. I'VE, I'VE RUN BUSINESSES WHERE THEY TELL ME, YOU HAVE TO FIRE PEOPLE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY. AND WHAT I DID WAS I WENT BACK TO THE EMPLOYEES AND I SAID, LOOK, THIS IS MY OPTION. I DON'T WANT TO FIRE YOU. WILL YOU WORK LESS HOURS? WILL YOU TEMPORARILY TAKE LESS PAY, IF THAT'S WHAT IT'S CALLED FOR, MADAM. THEY ALWAYS FOUND IT ACCEPTABLE. WOULD I, WOULD I, WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT WHEN SALARIES ARE ESTABLISHED IT IS A PROPOSAL THAT'S GIVEN BY THE CITY MANAGER AND THEN APPROVED BY THE DAIS. WELL, THE APPROVED THE BUDGET AND THEY ALSO APPROVED. COUNCIL APPROVES PAY RANGES BECAUSE THEY'LL HAVE THE EMPLOYEES AND THEIR PAY RANGES AND SCALES. BUT THE WHAT SALARY ANY PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE GETS OTHER THAN THE CHARTER OFFICERS COUNCIL DOES NOT DIRECTLY APPROVE THAT THEY APPROVE THE PAY SCALES AND IMPROVE THE OVERALL BUDGET. OKAY. I I'M JUST ASSUMING THAT IF WE WENT INTO EVERY JOT AND TITTLE ON EVERY LINE ITEM, INCLUDING SALARIES, WE WOULD HAVE A CHARTER THAT WOULD BE SO BIG AND, AND PROBABLY PROBLEMATIC OVER TIME THAT IF THERE IS A PROBLEM IN REFERENCE TO SALARIES THAT'S GOING TO BE DEALT WITH INTERNALLY BY THE CITY MANAGER AND THEN ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THE DAIS AS DISCUSSIONS BUDGET DISCUSSIONS ARE BEING MADE. THERE'S A PROCESS THERE THAT GOES THROUGH IT AND WHERE PEOPLE'S VOICES CAN BE HEARD IN AN ULTIMATE DECISION CAN BE MADE IN REFERENCE TO SALARY. I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT THAT LINE ITEM SHOULD BE SOMETHING OF A CHARTER SHOULD BE ADDRESSING. IT'S TOO, TOO DETAILED, TOO LASER FOCUSED. MR. CHAIRMAN. YES, SIR. JUST A LITTLE HISTORY ON IT. I DON'T REMEMBER IF THE CLERK WAS HERE AT THE TIME. 2005, SIX SEVEN. AROUND THAT TIME FRAME. THE CITY WAS REALLY, REALLY HURTING, AND EMPLOYEES WERE PUT ON FURLOUGH, [00:15:04] AND THEY WORKED LESS HOURS AND THEY TOOK THE CUT IN PAY AND THEY DID ALL THAT. SO THE, THE, THE UNIONS HAVE BEEN THERE AND THEY'VE DONE THEIR PART OF THAT. AND YOU CAN GO ASK ANY OF THE UNION PEOPLE. I AM NOT A UNION PERSON. BUT THAT BEING SAID, THAT THE UNIONS DID STEP UP WHEN THE CITY NEEDED THEM. SO I REALLY THINK THAT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT I WOULD WANT TO PUT IN THE CHARTER. OKAY. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION IN REFERENCE TO HOLMES. IF I HAD A HOME THAT COST ME 150,000 TO TO BUILD. AND THE TAX RATE IS BASED ON THAT AMOUNT. AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY, ACCORDING TO WHATEVER INCREASES THAT ARE THERE, IT'S GIVEN. BUT IF I THEN SOLD IT FOR IN THE MARKET, THE MARKET WAS 300,000. WHOEVER BOUGHT THE HOUSE THEN STARTS AT THE 300,000 MARK. AM I CORRECT ON THAT? YES. SO SO IT'S NOT JUST PEOPLE MOVING IN THAT CAUSES INCREASE OF OF, OF INCOME, BUT ALSO WHEN THEY SELL A HOUSE, IT ALSO MEANS ADDITIONAL REVENUE TOWARDS TO THE TO THE CITY. WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? IT MAY BE IT DEPENDING UPON WHETHER THAT PERSON ACTUALLY IS SUBJECT TO TAXES. LIKE IF YOU HAVE A 100% DISABLED PERSON, YOU CAN SELL IT AT A MUCH HIGHER RATE, BUT THE CITY'S. THAT PERSON IS ONLY GOING TO PAY. I BELIEVE THE SCHOOL TAXES THEY WON'T BE PAYING EITHER. SO YOU HAVE DIFFERENT EXEMPTIONS FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE. BUT GENERALLY THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE A DO WE HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON. YES. WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME IN AND STATE YOUR NAME? YOU HAVE TO BE ON THE MICROPHONE, RIGHT? NO, YOU HAVE TO BE ON THE MICROPHONE BECAUSE THIS IS BEING BROADCASTED. AND PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME. OKAY. MY NAME IS JOE. MY ADDRESS IS ON THE MICROPHONE. I AM PALM BAY RESIDENT, SO I WILL SAY I LIVE IN THE CITY. I'M SORRY BROTHER, YOU CANNOT HEAR ME JUST YET. OKAY. AND ALL THAT. THE THE BUDGET, THE BUDGET IS DETERMINED, DETERMINES THE SALARY AT THE END WILL DETERMINE THE SALARY AND HOW MUCH IT CAN BE PAID. MY SUGGESTION IS IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, IT MAY BE IN THE CHARTER. I DON'T KNOW THE CHARTER. WELL, YOU COULD STIPULATE THAT IN THE CHARTER THAT ONLY A PERCENTAGE LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, 80% CAN BE USED ONLY FOR SALARY AND NO MORE. ONLY IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION. YOU CAN CAP IT. YOUR YOUR BUDGET, HOW MUCH YOU'RE GOING TO PAY FOR SALARIES. YOU CAN ADD THAT TO THE CHARTER. BUT AGAIN, THE BUDGET WILL DICTATE HOW MUCH MONEY CAN BE GIVEN AND WHERE THEY WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY. SO THAT'S A SUGGESTION TO YOUR POINT. NOW I WANT TO REMIND YOU ALL, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH SALARIES. WE'RE DEALING WITH WITH THE THE CAP. SO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO HAVE A PROPOSAL IN REFERENCE TO SALARIES, THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT IT, GIVE IT TO TERESE AND AND ADDRESS IT IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE. I'M SORRY BROTHER, COULD I HAVE A REBUTTAL IF YOU DON'T MIND? YES, SIR. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I WOULDN'T WANT TO TIE THE CITY MANAGER'S HANDS IN THAT WAY, BECAUSE THAT'S A MANAGEMENT DECISION, NOT A NOT SOMETHING YOU PUT IN A DOCUMENT. THAT'S TO LIVE ON IN PERPETUITY. OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION? WELL, CAN I JUST SAY SOMETHING? YES. LET ME LET ME AGAIN SAY THIS ISN'T ABOUT SALARIES. WE'RE DEALING WITH SECTION NUMBER 6.01, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO DO WITH SALARIES. SO IF WE CAN KEEP THE DISCUSSIONS ON POINT ON WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING AND IF WE WANT TO BRING SOMETHING ELSE, SUCH AS SALARY, WE NEED TO LET THE PEOPLE KNOW WHERE IS IT GOING TO BE AT? WHERE IS IT GOING TO BE ADDRESSED SO THAT PEOPLE CAN THINK ABOUT IT? AND LET'S KEEP IT ON. ON POINT OF WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING AT THIS TIME. WE'RE WE'RE TOUCHING ON THE CAP, NOT ON SALARIES. WHAT WOULD THE MOTION HAVE TO CONSIST OF? THE ENTIRE LANGUAGE, THE STRIKEOUT, AND THEN READ IT ALL BACK INTO THE RECORD OR WHAT'S THE MOTION NEED TO BE. WELL, YOUR MOTION CAN JUST STATE WHAT WHAT YOU INTEND TO CHANGE IN HERE. WE CAN FIGURE OUT THE LANGUAGE, BUT JUST GIVE US YOUR INTENT. SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO. STRIKE THE 3% CAP AND REPLACE IT WITH THE CPI 2% PLUS CPI. BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, YOU CAN'T NOBODY COULD ANTICIPATE THE AMOUNT OF INFLATION THAT [00:20:03] TOOK PLACE OR THE CATASTROPHIC THINGS THAT DID TO THE CITY. SO I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THE MOTION AGAIN, IS TO HAVE THE PROPOSED CAP TO BE CHANGED TO 2.72.0. EXCUSE ME, THE CPI PLUS 2% AND. YEAH. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS? YES. SO WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. WAS THERE A SECOND? DO I HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE TO HAVE A. OH I'M SORRY. THAT'S RIGHT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? YOU DID HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION, RUTH? I'LL GIVE A SECOND TO START THE DISCUSSION. OKAY. RUTH, I SECOND THE MOTION. NOW, I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. BASICALLY, WHAT'S IN THE BLUE ON PAGE? WHATEVER THIS IS. OF TOM'S. THERE'S NO PAGE NUMBERS, SO I'M ASSUMING. PAGE THREE. RED LINE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE. CORRECT. 6.01 LIMITATIONS ON AD VALOREM AND THE BLUE PART, THE UNDERLINED TEXT IS WHAT WE'RE KIND OF VOTING ON, RIGHT? OKAY. TAKING AWAY THE RED LINE TEXT. PUTTING IN THE BLUE LINE TEXT. AND SO WHATEVER THE CPI IS THAT DAY, IT WOULD BE PLUS 1% PLUS 2%. OKAY, SO PLUS 2%. FOR A CAP OF FIVE, RIGHT? TRUE. OKAY. OKAY. WHEN IT SAYS EXCLUDING REVENUE ATTRIBUTED TO NEW CONSTRUCTION AS DEFINED BY LAW. MEANING WHAT? WHAT IS THAT? REVENUE. THAT'S THE SAME WE HAVE RIGHT NOW THAT WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN AND BUILDS A HOUSE AND THE FIRST YEAR THEY PAY THE FULL RATE TAX, THEY HAVE NO PROTECTION. THE NEXT YEAR THEY FALL UNDERNEATH THE CAP. OKAY. CAN I SAY SOMETHING NOW? YES. PLEASE DO. I APPRECIATE YOU KNOW HOW YOU WORK THIS OUT, BUT IN REALITY, MOST PEOPLE DON'T LIKE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THE MORE MONEY YOU ALLOW THEM, THE MORE THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE. THAT'S JUST REALITY. IT WORKS IN BUSINESS. IT WORKS IN EVERYTHING. IF YOU HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY IN YOUR BUDGET, YOU DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO SPEND ALL OF IT BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW. THE FOLLOWING YEAR, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO NEED IT. SO ON A YEAR TO YEAR BASIS. AND THE OTHER THING IS, I THINK THE CITY IS STILL LOOKING AT THEY'RE BASING THEIR BUDGET ON TWO YEARS BACK. RIGHT? CAN ANYBODY TELL ME IT'S NOT NOT THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IT'S THE YEAR BEFORE. SO A LOT OF THINGS HAPPEN. WE'RE A GROWING CITY. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF EXPANSION AND I GET THAT. BUT I DON'T SEE PEOPLE GOING FOR THIS WHEN THEY SEE INCREASES THERE. THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, AM I GETTING AN INCREASE? IF I'M GETTING AN INCREASE, I'M HAPPY TO GIVE IT TO YOU. BUT I PEOPLE HAVE HELD PRETTY TIGHT TO THAT 3%. AND YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND IT AND I HAVE TO DEFEND IT BEFORE. YEAH, YEAH. NO, I LIKE I SAID IT, IT IT WASN'T A BAD THING. IT WAS THAT NOBODY HAD THAT KIND OF FORESIGHT. IT WASN'T SOMETHING ANYBODY COULD SEE ON THE HORIZON. WELL, IT'S LIKE THE REST OF US WHEN WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR THINGS, WE CUT BACK. YOU KNOW, THEY WILL CUT BACK. YEAH. THERE'LL BE LESS POLICE AND LESS FIRE, AND THE ROADS WILL BE BACK TO THE WAY THEY WERE FIVE YEARS AGO. YEAH. I JUST FEEL THAT IF YOU IF YOU GIVE A COUNCIL, REGARDLESS OF WHO IT IS, IF THEY HAVE THAT OPTION, THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO THE CEILING. ALL THIS DOES IS PUT IT BEFORE THE VOTERS. YEAH. YOU NEED 50% PLUS ONE. YEAH. AND THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING IS PUT THIS BEFORE THE VOTERS GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO SEE WHERE THEY'RE AT. I MEAN, HONESTLY, WE LOST TEN POINTS BETWEEN WHEN IT WAS PUT IN PLACE AND WHEN IT WAS REAFFIRMED. I DON'T KNOW WHERE PEOPLE ARE WHEN I GO TO PANDA EXPRESS AND THEY SAY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ROUND IT UP FOR THE PEOPLE IN NEED? I THINK I'M KIND OF IN NEED. I DON'T WANT TO ROUND IT UP. SO I'M COMMISSIONER ON THIS ONE. I'M WITH COMMISSIONER SEP ON THIS ONE BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE TO ROUND MY TOTAL UP AT PANDA EXPRESS EITHER. I DON'T WANT TO GIVE MORE MONEY FOR ANYTHING. I'D RATHER KEEP IT. RUTH. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I AGREE WITH IN THIS IS THAT THERE'S THESE NEW HARD PROTECTIONS THAT THE CURRENT CAP DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR A 5% HARD CEILING, A FEDERAL BENCHMARK THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING USED IN A LOT OF OTHER TYPES OF PAYMENTS TO PEOPLE. AND THEN THERE'S SOME SUPERMAJORITY OVERRIDE. [00:25:07] SO AS LONG AS THOSE THINGS ARE CLEARLY IN THIS LANGUAGE. SO THAT FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT TO PEOPLE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I, I DO REPRESENT A LOT OF PEOPLE AND THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND IT AND SPEAK TO IT. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I DO LIKE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR THING. HAVING THAT 5% HEART SEALING WHERE THEY CAN'T GO OVER IT NO MATTER WHAT. AND THEN THEY HAVE TO SATISFY A SUPERMAJORITY OVERRIDE. SO I'M AGREEING WITH COMMISSIONER GUAM ON THIS ONE. YOU CALL THE QUESTION AND WE CAN GET OUT OF HERE. DO I HAVE ANYBODY ON THE ON THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? DOES ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? IS THIS ON THE CAP? YES IT IS. YES I DO. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M COMING IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT. I JUST WALKED IN FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS OPEN HOUSE, BUT OH. JUDY. AND. MY VIEW ON THIS CAP AND THIS IS PRETTY SIMPLE. IF YOU HAVE TO BUST THE CAP BECAUSE OF AN EMERGENCY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT MEANS THAT THERE ARE NO RAISES FOR PERSONNEL FOR THAT YEAR THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BUST THE CAP. I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT RAISES AND WE DID A 7.4 RAISE. WE HAD ONE WORKER THAT GOT A 17 POINT SOMETHING RAISE. HE IS THE HIGHEST PAID PERSON IN HIS CLASS FIELD IN THE UNITED STATES. IT SAYS PALM BAY HAS THE HIGHEST PAID PERSON IN THIS CLASS. SO YEAH, IF YOU'RE GOING TO RAISE THE CAP AND RAISE THE TAXES ON THE CITIZENS, YOU DON'T GET A RAISE. THAT'S THE WAY I LOOK AT IT. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? I'D LIKE TO ADD ONE MORE COMMENT. I CALCULATED WHAT IF WE WERE TO HAVE INSTITUTED THIS OVER THESE LAST FIVE YEARS, FROM 2020 TO 2025 A PERSON WHO, WHO WHO PAID $1,000 IN TAXES WOULD BE END UP PAYING 1226 BY THE YEAR 2025. IT ENDED UP BEING ABOUT A 4.05 YEAR RATE. THAT BEING SAID, MY CONCERN IS THE FOLLOWING. WE ARE IF WE CONTINUE SINCE, SINCE THE RATE IS ALWAYS BASED ON THE PREVIOUS YEAR, IT'S REALLY COMPOUNDING. IT'S NOT JUST 3%, IT'S COMPOUNDING INTEREST. AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY MY TAXES BECAUSE IT KEPT ON GOING UP, UP EVERY YEAR AND EVERY YEAR IT CONTINUED TO THE PLACE WHERE NOW I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY PAYING FOR MY TAXES BECAUSE I STILL ALSO HAVE TO DEAL WITH INFLATION. INFLATION HITS MORE THE THE AVERAGE PERSON THAN IT DOES THE CITY BECAUSE THE AVERAGE PERSON IS DEALING WITH INFLATION WITH FOOD. OBVIOUSLY THE CITY DOESN'T QUOTE UNQUOTE PAY FOOD. SO, SO THOSE RATES WOULD DIFFER. AND IT MAY BE MORE BECAUSE IT'S, IT HAS TO BE INDUSTRIAL. MAYBE INDUSTRY HAS, HAS IS ON A HIGHER RATE, I DON'T KNOW. MY, MY SIMPLE POINT IS THIS WE DO HAVE A PLACE WHERE IF THERE'S A CRITICAL NEED, THERE IS AN OVERRIDE. NOW, I KNOW THAT YOU MENTIONED HERE THAT IT WASN'T MEANT TO BE AN EVERY YEAR SITUATION. THAT MAY BE TRUE, BUT IT'S STILL AN EVERY YEAR OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO ADJUST AND TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE WHERE THEY CAN VOICE THEIR OPINION ON EACH AND EVERY YEAR. IF WE PUT IT THIS WAY, IT COULD BE LIKE YOU MENTIONED HERE, 2.2%, OR IT COULD BE 5%, FIVE YEARS IN A ROW. AND, AND THE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE NO VOICE IN THE MATTER BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE CHARTER. SO MY POSITION WOULD BE, AS I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR FINANCES, I UNDERSTAND THE CAPACITY OR THE DIFFICULTY [00:30:01] THAT THAT THE CITY IS ENCOUNTERING EVERY YEAR. I'M GLAD TO SAY THAT THOUGH. I'VE HEARD THIS FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS, THE THE CITY IS STILL AFLOAT AND STILL MOVING FORWARD. THAT SINCE WE DO ALREADY HAVE IN THERE THE CRITICAL NEED OVERRIDE. WHETHER IT'S FOR FIRE, WHETHER IT'S FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT OR WHATSOEVER, SINCE IT'S ALREADY THERE. I WOULD HAVE AN OBJECTION THAT THE ONUS OR THE WEIGHT ON THE SHOULDERS ENDS UP BEING ON THE PEOPLE EVERY YEAR. IF WE DO THE CPI IN A GREATER MEASURE THAN IT'S ALREADY NOW. AND, AND SO I WOULD PREFER PERSONALLY, I WOULD PREFER STANDING EVERY YEAR IN FRONT OF THE DAIS AND SAYING, I AGREE WITH YOU, RAISE IT BECAUSE I CAN. I CAN SEE YOU HAVE A VALID POINT. RATHER THAN IT BEING IMPOSED ON ME EVERY YEAR AND ME NOT BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS IT TO THE DAIS BECAUSE IT'S IN THE CHARTER. SO, SO PERSONALLY, I WOULD BE AGAINST IT FOR THOSE REASONS. ONLY BECAUSE THERE IS THE PLACE WHEN YOU CAN OVERRIDE IT BY THE DAIS. AND THEREFORE, IF IT WERE THAT CRITICAL, THEN THEN WE WOULD DO IT. THAT'S JUST MY POSITION. THAT BEING SAID, GREAT PRESENTATION. I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND YOUR LOGIC BEHIND IT. AND, AND SOMETIMES WE SAY IN OUR HOUSE IT'S, IT'S NOT WRONG. IT'S JUST DIFFERENT. AND, AND, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A DEMOCRATIC, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DIFFERENT THINGS AND, AND JUST TRYING TO, IT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT SOMETHING THAT NOT IT ISN'T WRONG, BUT TO CORRECT SOMETHING THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT CHANGED. YES. AND WITH THE CHANGE, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE. AND IT'S OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE FOUR VOTES. SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO JUST CALL THE QUESTION, PLEASE. WE'LL DO ANYBODY ANY MORE, ANY MORE DISCUSSION CALLING THE QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR, BY THE SIGN OF I, I ALL AGAINST NAY, NAY. COULD YOU HAVE THE ROLL CALL PLEASE? MR. DELGADO. NAY. MR. GORM. AYE, MR. NORRIS. NAY, MR. O'NEAL. NAY, MISS SEP. NAY. MISS CAULFIELD. YES. MOTION FAILS. OKAY. SEVEN. GIVE ME A SECOND. SO WE'RE NOW ON SECTION OR ARTICLE SEVEN, AM I CORRECT? IS THE NEXT ONE CORRECT FOR THE REMAINING ARTICLES? THERE WERE NO PROPOSALS SUBMITTED. SO UNLESS SOMEBODY BRINGS SOMETHING UP, NO PROPOSAL FOR SEVEN. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROPOSALS FOR EIGHT? I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY. ANY THERE WAS NOTHING FURTHER ON EIGHT. NUMBER NINE. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANYTHING FOR THAT EITHER. EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY. I HAVE TO TURN THESE PAGES. OKAY. BEING THAT THERE'S NOTHING FOR NUMBER NINE, WE ARE NOW ON ARTICLE TEN AND. I BELIEVE. RUTH, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ON TEN OR NOT? OKAY. YEAH, I DON'T THINK I DID. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY FINAL COMMENTS THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE HERE ON THE. IN THIS COMMISSION AND ANY FINAL COMMENTS? PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. IF YOU COME UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND AND GIVE YOUR COMMENT. JUDY. AND GOING BACK TO. I THINK IT'S 7O3. SINKING FUNDS. IS IT ARTICLE SEVEN IS 7.03 SINKING FUNDS. I THINK IT STATES THAT COUNCIL CAN AUTHORIZE. YES. THERE WE GO. IT CAN APPROVE [00:35:04] ISSUE A BONDS AND LET'S SEE, SEVEN O COUNCIL MAY ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER APPROPRIATE SINKING FUNDS FOR THE. ESTABLISHED FOR THE SATISFACTION OF ANY OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CITY. I, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DO THIS SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD ALSO HAVE IN HERE ESTABLISH THE SINKING FUND FOR INFRASTRUCTURE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE RESERVES FOR THAT TYPE OF THING, BUT A SINKING FUND FOR INFRASTRUCTURE. THEY, THEY CAN USE IT OR THEY DON'T HAVE TO, BUT I KNOW IN MY ACCOUNTING EXPERIENCE, WE HAD SINKING FUNDS FOR RESERVES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR MANY THINGS, CAPITAL AUTOMOBILES, ROADS. I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IF YOU JUST ADDED A SENTENCE IN THERE TO ALLOW THEM TO USE SINKING FUNDS FOR FUTURE RESERVES. LIKE I SAID, DON'T HAVE TO USE IT, BUT IT'D BE IN THERE. I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION TO TO ONE OF YOU TWO ON THESE SINKING FUNDS, DO THEY ALREADY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO ESTABLISH ANY SINKING FUND, OR IS IT JUST ONLY FOR INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CITY? I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE SINKING FUNDS AT ALL. THAT WOULD BE A CITY MANAGER QUESTION. YES. OKAY. IS THERE ANYBODY ON THIS ON THIS COMMISSION? I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FINANCIALS. OKAY. WE DO HAVE A COMMENT HERE. WHICH RAN THROUGH 19 TRENTON AVENUE. WHAT IS A SINKING FUND? I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S LIKE A SAVINGS ACCOUNT THAT YOU KEEP PUTTING ASIDE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ONE NOW. RIGHT? AND I HAVE NO IDEA, SINCE THEY MAY ESTABLISH. BUT DO WE HAVE ONE NOW? WE DON'T HAVE SOMEONE WHO CAN ANSWER IF WE HAVE A SINKING FUND. LET'S GET SOME MONEY OUT OF IT AND FIX THE DAMN ROADS. THANK YOU. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE SINKING FUND ACCOUNTS IN THE BUDGET. OKAY. FROM JUST BEING THROUGH THE BUDGET, BUT I DON'T CAN'T RECALL OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE FOR. THIS IS THE LAST OF THE ARTICLES, AM I CORRECT? YOU ARE CORRECT. LET'S LET US DO YOU. TYLER, YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING? I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE ONE MORE MEETING AFTER THIS, AND WHICH YOU CAN REVIEW EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE COVERED UP TO NOW. MAYBE SOMEONE IS INTERESTED IN KNOWING ABOUT SINKING FUNDS. WE CAN ASK THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHO ARE IN THE KNOW TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS SO WE CAN HAVE A QUALITY ANSWER TO IT. AND, AND WHETHER WE NEED TO ADDRESS THIS AND ADD RATHER SIMPLY ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATE SINKING FUNDS FOR THE SATISFACTION OF OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS WE COULD PUT AND, OR FOR ANY FUTURE PROJECTS, WE COULD ADD THAT AS A POTENTIAL IF, IF THAT IS NEEDED TO, TO AUTHORIZE THIS. AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE SOMEONE FROM FINANCE HERE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE, IF THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO IT ANYWAY, AND THEY MAY ALREADY HAVE THAT CAPACITY. AND SO IT MAY BE A QUESTION WE NEED TO ASK HIGHER UP AND THEN COME BACK NEXT TIME FOR A FINAL A FINAL AMEN TO THIS AND, AND, AND THEN CLOSE, CLOSE OUR MEETINGS. WE HAVE ANOTHER PLEASE GIVE ME YOUR NAME AGAIN. JUDY. JUDY. JUDY. JUDY. OKAY. THANK YOU. JUDY. MY THOUGHT PROCESS IS IF WE HAD A SINKING FUND. MANY YEARS AGO FOR ROADS, WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO OUT AND GET A BOND AND GO INTO DEBT AND AND HAVE IT PASSED. IF THERE WAS A SINKING FUND FOR THE ROAD. JUST ROAD MAINTENANCE THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF ANY TYPE OF GOING OUT AND GETTING ANOTHER BOND TO FINISH THE ROADS OR THAT TYPE OF THING. IT'S A, IT'S JUST LIKE A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WOULD HAVE A RESERVE ACCOUNT FOR ROOFS OR A RESERVE ACCOUNT FOR FENCES. IT IS A MAINTENANCE. DEFERRED MAINTENANCE IS BASICALLY WHAT IT IS. AND WITH THIS 703, IT ONLY ALLOWS A SINKING FUND FOR INDEBTEDNESS. [00:40:07] AND I'D LIKE TO SEE HIM BE ABLE, IF THEY CHOOSE, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A SINKING FUND FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, EITHER ROADS OR JUST INFRASTRUCTURE. THANK YOU. SO THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT IT IS. OKAY. GO AHEAD. LET'S DO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS FIRST. BILL BATTEN, 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET, SOUTHWEST. WE CURRENTLY HAVE SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO THAT FOR THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND. THE CITY OF PALM BAY DESIGNATES FOR EVERY YEAR $3 MILLION DESIGNATED STRICTLY FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE. THAT'S ALL IT CAN BE FUNDED ON. WE HAVE SEVERAL CATEGORIES WHERE WE GET THAT FUNDS FROM, AND WE AUTOMATICALLY PUT THAT IN ANNUALLY, BUT IT CAN ONLY BE USED ON ROAD MAINTENANCE OF THE ROADS. SO BUT AND WE DO THAT $3 MILLION A YEAR. THAT'S WHAT THE CURRENT BUDGET SETUP IS FOR ANNUALLY. THANK YOU. YES. VICE CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE IRONY IS THAT YOU JUST SAID YOU WANTED TO STICK AT THE 3% CAP, AND THEN YOU'RE COMING HERE SAYING YOU WANT MORE, AND WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY NOW TO PAY FOR WHAT WE HAVE. I'M NOT ASKING FOR MORE. YES, YES, MR. TYLER. THANK YOU. THE SECOND WHAT YOU SAID. YES. WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP WITH ANOTHER MEETING. AND IF IT'S POSSIBLE, WE CAN POTENTIALLY TABLE THAT LAST ARTICLE ABOUT THE SINKING FUNDS BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S OBVIOUSLY AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION FOR US. I'D LIKE TO ALSO REQUEST THAT WE HAVE SOMEONE FROM OUR FINANCIAL DEPARTMENT WITH US AND OUR CITY MANAGER, BECAUSE IT SEEMS A LOT OF OUR QUESTIONS ARE ASKING THAT ARE RELATED DIRECTLY TO CITY MANAGEMENT AND CITY FINANCIALS. WE'RE NOT GETTING THE ANSWERS FOR, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THESE VOTING MATTERS. SO DEFINITELY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM THERE TO FOLLOW UP WITH. ALSO LIKE UNDERSTANDING WITH OUR ROAD MAINTENANCE PLAN THAT WE HAVE, IT'S VERY LOOSE. IT'S BECAUSE PEOPLE THINK OF, OH, WE HAVE A $3 MILLION ROAD MAINTENANCE BUDGET AND PEOPLE THINK OF OUR MAIN ROADS. HAS VERY LOOSE CONSTRAINTS. SO IF PEOPLE CALL IN AND MAKE COMPLAINTS, I WANT MY ROAD PAVED, I WANT THIS. IT'S MORE OF WHO HAS THE SQUEAKY WHEEL GETS THE OIL AND IT'S NOT DESIGNATED TO THE, THE MAIN ROADS THAT WERE THE MOST CONSUMERS ARE USING EVERY DAY. SO MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN TALK WITH OUR CITY MANAGER AS WELL. IF TIGHTENING UP TIGHTEN UP THAT BUDGET PLAN AND MAYBE ROPING THAT INTO OUR ON THE TABLE NEXT TIME. THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT. YES. COMMISSIONER REQUEST TO SEE IF IF DO YOU NEED A REQUEST FROM US TO GET THAT INFORMATION? BECAUSE THE STATUS I. I WAS GOING AFTER THE SAME THING. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF ANY SINKING FUNDS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE? HOW MANY? WHAT FOR? AND WHY? AND WE WANT TO. JUDY IS BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT TO AVOID ANY INDEBTEDNESS. SO WE WANT TO JUST GET A HISTORY ON THAT. AND THEN FOR INFRASTRUCTURE SPECIFICALLY, IS THAT OKAY? AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH YOU KNOW DON'T THEY HAVE A SCHEDULE FOR THE ROAD, THE REFURBISHING OF THE ROAD SECTIONS THAT THEY'RE DEALING ONE AT A TIME. IT'S ON A KIND OF LIKE A SCHEDULE. YES. BUT WE PAUSED IT. WE DID PAUSE IT SO THAT WE CAN DO A WAS IT A C P I. AND SO WE CAN MAKE SURE WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF FUNDS THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE ACTUAL WORST ROADS DONE. SO AND I THINK WE'LL BE GETTING THOSE RESULTS. THE OTHER THING, CERTAINLY HAVING A CITY MANAGER EXPLAIN MORE BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S A SINKING FUND, BUT I DO KNOW THAT HE STARTED WHERE WE WOULD ACTUALLY PUT FUNDS ASIDE FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE MONEY EACH YEAR. SO BECAUSE LIKE WHEN WE'RE DOING FIRE TRUCKS IN THOSE, EVEN SOME EQUIPMENT FOR PUBLIC WORKS, THOSE THINGS ARE EXPENSIVE. SO I DO KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING HE JUST STARTED, BUT HE JUST STARTED HERE. I DON'T KNOW, IT'S NOT BEEN QUITE A YEAR. VICE CHAIR YOU WERE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING? OH, JUST WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ROAD MAINTENANCE AND STUFF. $3 MILLION FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE. THAT'S LIKE TWO MILES OF ROAD. SO PUT IT A LITTLE BIT IN PERSPECTIVE THAT $3 MILLION DOESN'T PAVE A LOT OF ROAD. IT SURE DOESN'T. I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. LET'S JUST ASSUME I MEAN, WE'RE JUST IMAGINING RIGHT NOW. IF IF IF THE ROADS WERE CRITICAL COULD THEY JUST AS, AS WE HAD MENTIONED BEFORE, THEY CAN BREAK THE 3% AND THEY COULD SAY WE'RE MAKING IT 5%, WE'RE TAKING THE 2% AND WE'RE PUTTING IT TOWARDS ROADS. [00:45:02] COULD THEY DO THAT? YES, THEY COULD DO THAT. ANOTHER QUESTION. AND IT JUST WENT IT MUST HAVE NOT. MY MOTHER USED TO SAY, IF YOU DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE QUESTION IS, IT'S BECAUSE IT WASN'T IMPORTANT IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO BUT THEY DO HAVE THE CAPACITY TO, TO. OH, I KNOW WHAT THE OTHER QUESTION. IF THEY WANTED TO, COULD THEY TAKE OUT A BOND AND SAY, WE'RE DOING THIS MUCH FOR ROADS, WE'RE TAKING OUT A BOND. AND THEN OF COURSE THAT BOND WOULD HAVE TO BE APPLIED BE PAID FOR OVER TIME, BUT THEY COULD ALSO DO IT THROUGH A BOND. WE HAVE A BOND NOW. THEY WOULD BOND OUT ON THAT, RIGHT? YEAH. WE HAVE THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND, OUR ABILITY TO BOND. YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY THAT MAY BE DIFFERENT DEPENDING UPON WHAT HAPPENS TO AD VALOREM TAXES. A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAY BE COMPLETELY OBSOLETE OR IRRELEVANT. IF THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO AD VALOREM TAXES ON MOST OF OUR HOMES. HOMESTEADED PROPERTIES. BUT YES, WE DO HAVE A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND NOW THAT PLEDGES TAX REVENUE. AND THAT'S HOW WE'VE DONE MOST OF THE ROADS. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY FINAL COMMENTS? YES, I HAVE A QUESTION. IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN SELL BONDS TO CITIZENS, HAVE THEM INVEST IN THE CITY? THIS WOULD BE A MUCH BETTER QUESTION FOR FINANCE. AND I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FINANCE AT THE NEXT MEETING. AND I DO NOT WANT TO OVERSTEP. SO I'M GOING TO LET. I WILL ADD THAT TO THE QUESTIONS TO LET FINANCE KNOW THAT YOU ALL WILL BE ASKING AND SEEKING ANSWERS FOR ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS. MR.. COMMISSIONER. SO THE OFFICIALNESS OF THIS BECAUSE I'M STILL LEARNING THIS PROCESS AS WELL. DO I NEED TO MAKE A MOTION FOR US TO TABLE ARTICLE FIVE? ARTICLE SEVEN SORRY, CITY BORROWING TO THE NEXT MEETING OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN JUST. NO, I HAVE CONSENSUS. OKAY, GOOD. THANK YOU. AND AGAIN, IF IS AS IT'S COMING TO OUR FINAL MEETINGS, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER REVIEW THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS AND GO OVER, THIS WOULD BE YOUR FINAL OPPORTUNITY AS, AS, AS WE FINISH THIS THEN WE WILL HAVE CLOSED THE MEETING AND, AND MOVE FORWARD IN PRESENTING THIS TO THE DAIS. SO MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE? MOTION TO ADJOURN. VICE CHAIR THOMAS. MOTION SECOND. RUTH. COMMISSIONER. RUTH. SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR OF GOING HOME? SAY, BY THE SIGN OF I, I. BYE BYE. GOD BLESS YOU ALL. HAVE A GREAT REST OF YOUR EVENING. HAVE A HAPPY WIFE TONIGHT. SILHOUETTE. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.