[0:00] 100 Pulk Avenue in Cape Canaveral, Florida. I call this meeting to order.

[0:05] And with that, Council Member Shoryak, would you please lead us in the pledge?

[0:12] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[0:17] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:22] justice for all.

[0:28] » Thank you. City clerk, please call the role.

[0:30] » Yeah. Good afternoon. Mayor Prom Jackson >> here.

[0:34] » Council member King >> here.

[0:36] » Mayor Morrison >> here.

[0:37] » Council member Shoryak >> here.

[0:39] » And council member Willis >> here.

[0:41] » Council, thank you all for being here. City manager and directors and city

[0:45] staff and everyone from our community. We appreciate you taking the time out of

[0:49] the day. It is very good to see well attended workshop here today.

[0:56] If you do intend to speak, uh we will be getting to public participation here. Um

[1:03] item number five on the agenda. We do ask that you please fill out a public uh

[1:07] comment card. We've got some up here. Thank you all for for filling those out.

[1:12] Those are provided in the foyer and either one of our deputies or city clerk

[1:16] will make sure if you give it to them that you're heard.

[1:22] And with that we can proceed. Uh the first thing is our discussion and just

[1:28] to clarify we don't have due to the workshop and agenda as approved by uh as

[1:35] written or amended. Um

[1:39] the order city manager we've got item 4.1 the the benchmark millillage

[1:45] presentation by directors and then we are going to go to public participation.

[1:53] That's the order, mayor. And the reason for that is there's a lot of information

[1:57] to convey to the community that we feel it would be most efficient use of our

[2:02] time to get the pres presentation out first uh before public comment so that

[2:08] public comment can be based on that information as opposed to maybe the

[2:11] public coming up to comment uh on something that we are going to discuss

[2:16] already. Uh there's been a lot of work put into this presentation. Uh but it is

[2:21] certainly the pleasure of the council if you choose to uh rearrange those items

[2:26] uh it's it's whatever you would like to do. We just feel in the interest of time

[2:30] if questions or comments are going to be made about things that are going to be

[2:33] discussed maybe wait until they're discussed first.

[2:36] » Okay, that makes sense. council. I think uh being it's a workshop and I think

[2:40] we've got some time starting in the afternoon uh

[2:45] we could if if the council chooses and respecting what the city manager said if

[2:50] anyone does would like to speak now we could open that up and then after the

[2:54] presentation allow folks to speak as well. We've done

[2:59] that in the past and I think some members might need to go or they they

[3:04] really want to speak first >> that I was gonna I was I was going to

[3:09] suggest that as well because some people may not be able to stay for the entire

[3:14] workshop and they tend to run long. >> Okay. If anyone filled out a public

[3:19] participation card and would like to speak first if this council I should

[3:23] take consensus is are we in favor of allowing that kind of to public

[3:27] participation? Yes.

[3:29] » Okay. >> How long do you anticipate

[3:34] this part of it? >> I'm gonna That's a great question. The

[3:38] question was how long do we uh think the presentation will take from city staff,

[3:42] city manager? So the presentation is designed to review three the proposed

[3:48] millage rate in relations to two other benchmark rates and what reductions uh

[3:54] in and that would look like from a service standpoint. Uh we have three

[3:59] directors slated to present. We have a fourth director on hand. These are all

[4:03] general fund directors uh on hand uh to answer any questions the council may

[4:08] have. So the answer to the question is I really can't say other than you know you

[4:14] know how many how much the council wants to deliberate uh and go back and forth

[4:20] on [clears throat] cuts and services that will be impacted. I expect it to

[4:25] take a while. >> Yes. [clears throat]

[4:28] » Assuming no questions or intervention the presentation goes through any

[4:32] estimation of the time. Well, we started off saying start at 1:00 and if we can

[4:40] close during the normal course of business by 5, it would be a 4-hour

[4:43] meeting, but we're here for as long as the council needs us to be here. Beyond

[4:48] that, >> I think I'm asking on the presentation

[4:51] that that portion. Um, it's 30 or 40 slides, I think.

[4:55] » Yeah. I mean, we can run through it and just go through them. It would take

[4:59] maybe 30 to 40 minutes at best. Um again it depends on any interaction you want

[5:05] to have during >> that's helpful. Thank you. So knowing

[5:09] that 30 45 maybe even an hour best uh to get through this presentation. If

[5:14] anybody would like to speak prior we'll open it up another time. Just raise your

[5:19] hand and uh if you don't mind state your name and I'll

[5:22] » Peter McDonald. >> Peter McD I got your card here. Anyone

[5:25] else like to speak before the presentation? Dr. Shannon Roberts, I got

[5:31] your card as well. Any others? Thank you so much. Okay, Mr.

[5:37] McDonald, if you would like, please come forward.

[5:45] And we, as he's coming up, take your time. Uh, the lights here in front of

[5:49] me. Uh, when it's green, it's 3 minutes. Once the light goes yellow, uh, you got

[5:54] about 30 seconds left and we ask that you wrap up. Once it's red, please state

[5:58] your name and address and, uh, the floor is yours. Thank you.

[6:02] » My name is Peter McDonald. I'm a resident and homeowner in Cape Cana,

[6:06] city of Cape Canaveral. I live at 123 Just Road. Uh, I'm also the tennis

[6:12] instructor at Nancy Hansen Park. Um, I've heard uh rumblings that parks and

[6:20] recreation is in danger and I wanted to speak to it for just a moment. I truly

[6:27] feel that uh the responsibility of a of a city is to provide more than just

[6:33] being an administrative and tax collecting entity to to add to give

[6:38] something back to the its public and uh Nancy Hansen Park in particular. I can't

[6:44] speak to some of the other entities, Cape View and and or uh the rec center,

[6:52] but Nancy Hansen Park is in a growth period right now. Uh is is booming on

[6:59] the pickle ball side. Three, they're playing a team match now. Ladies USA

[7:04] team matches. Three separate teams that play there. Um I personally are working

[7:09] with a few different uh kids on the high school team. where, you know, it's just

[7:13] building and it actually can build more in that uh I don't know of too many uh

[7:20] parks and tennis clubs and such that are closed pretty much on the weekend. We're

[7:23] only open from 8 to uh 12 on Saturdays. We open that. That would be more

[7:28] revenue. That being said, my point is if you're looking to cut, why cut something

[7:34] that is in the red? It's making money and it's going to grow and it provides a

[7:39] wonderful wonderful uh thing for the community. I mean, it

[7:44] just so, you know, [clears throat] I'm not privy to all the numbers and millage

[7:48] rates and such, but I'm just uh heartfelt reaching out that this is a

[7:54] really positive thing for this community. And if it were just to be

[7:58] dusted over, which I've kind of heard it might happen, uh it would be tragic. I

[8:03] don't want to waste a lot more more of your time. Thank you for letting me

[8:06] speak. Thank you, Mr. McDonald. [applause]

[8:18] Shannon Roberts, 703 Lana Shores Drive here in the city. U I just wanted as a

[8:24] backdrop to what you're what we're all going to hear with the presentation is I

[8:29] feel like we're almost in a save our city um mode right now and that suggests

[8:35] the potential infusion of a ground of a um crowdfunding gunding initiative

[8:42] contributions by the residents contribution by those that may be in a

[8:46] position of contributing just like Dolly Parton did when she was rescuing you

[8:51] know her neighborhood. ood in Tennessee. And this suggests initiatives such as

[8:56] our relationship building with the hotels, with the port, because they're

[8:59] our neighbors. They're part of our community. And I really believe that is

[9:03] a backdrop to the particulars that Joey is going to be presenting that there's a

[9:07] bigger picture here. I feel like we're in the weeds when we start talking about

[9:10] the particulars of, you know, the roll back and the different options that we

[9:14] have for funding. I think we need to have a big picture for the city. And

[9:18] that's the reason I wanted to speak before that started because I think we

[9:22] need to be talking about big picture solutions not getting into the

[9:26] particular cost because this is devastating for our city in my opinion

[9:29] to look at the roll back implications of the different millillage levels. We need

[9:33] in my opinion we're going to need some external funding sources. It's going to

[9:37] take big time relationship building big time outreach big time opportunities for

[9:41] our community to contribute in different ways that may be out of the box

[9:45] thinking. So that's from where I'm coming.

[9:49] » Thank you, Dr. Roberts. [applause]

[9:56] » Those are the only two I think noted. If anyone have a change of heart or would

[10:00] like to speak now, otherwise we do have your cards up here in your name, please.

[10:05] » Barnes. >> Barnes.

[10:06] » Burns. >> Burns. Thank you. Please come forward. I

[10:09] have your card right here.

[10:13] » I'm nervous. I don't normally do this kind of thing. and bear with me when I

[10:18] read. Um, my name is Patricia Barnes and I live at 8498 Ridgewood Avenue,

[10:23] apartment 2303 in Cape Canaveral. I have lived in Cape Canaveral since

[10:29] 2009. I did a quick internet search. Why did the city of Cape Canaveral build a

[10:35] community center? The city of Cape Canaveral built a community center to

[10:40] provide a multi-geneneral fun facility that supports recreational interests,

[10:46] the needs of residents of all ages, offering a space for community

[10:51] gatherings, organized activity, and indoor sports. This initiative also

[10:57] aligns with the city's goals for revitalization and sustainability.

[11:02] What whose idea was it to build the community center in Cape Canaveral? The

[11:07] ideal to build the community center in Cape Canaveral was part of the city's

[11:12] goal for revitalization and redevelopment aimed at providing

[11:17] residents of all ages a p place for the community gatherings and organized

[11:23] activities. The project was de developed over several years reflecting the

[11:28] collaborative efforts of city officials and community input.

[11:35] There's a tab on the city of Cape Canaveral website.

[11:40] quality of life. It and it reads, "Cape Canaveral is a warm, inclusive beachside

[11:46] community that embraces its small feel and enhances the beauty and integrity of

[11:52] its natural environment. We promote resiliency, safety, sensibility,

[11:58] excuse me, sensible mobility, and a place and emphasis on pedestrian needs,

[12:06] businessfriendly development, and responsible community stewardship.

[12:13] We share a commitment to balanced, respectful, and neighborly philosophy

[12:19] that inspires future ready, essential civic services and quality of life

[12:24] amenities. I love this community and I want to see it thrive along with the

[12:29] people in it. Right now, people are struggling to find hope and community

[12:34] and quality of life. The center was built on that idea to give that and so

[12:40] much more. Please go to the website. Is it just words with no meaning? Because

[12:47] when I read it, I felt hope and promise of a better way of life. And just one

[12:52] more note,

[12:59] what happens to the prestigious diamond award the city received from the East

[13:03] Central Florida Regional Planning Council for its community center? An

[13:08] award that honors the region's best urban planning projects promoting

[13:13] equity, healthy neighborhoods, conversation, and economic v vitality.

[13:19] Thank you very much. >> [applause]

[13:22] » Thank you, Miss Barns.

[13:27] Would anyone else like to speak? Yes. Your name, sir?

[13:31] » Michael Mahia. >> Michael Mahia.

[13:34] » Thank you, sir. I assume I have your card. Go ahead and come forward. If not,

[13:40] please fill one out. >> I don't see a card for you, Mr. Mahia.

[13:43] Oh, no. Yes, I do. I apologize. Right here, please. Floor is yours. Thank you.

[13:47] » Michael Mahia, 2011 International Drive. Cape Canaveral 32920.

[13:55] Each one of us manages a personal budget for housing, food, phone, etc., which

[14:01] affects our families. With the current budget crisis, there are potentially 10

[14:06] city employees at C5 alone who will be unemployed potentially October 1st. They

[14:13] themselves are affected. Their families fear of losing insurance, the ability to

[14:18] buy food, pay the mortgage, and afford other discretionary purchases are at

[14:22] risk. The decisions made in this types of meeting in this workshop, I'm sorry,

[14:29] don't affect you folks. Um, might I suggest that the council does our civic

[14:35] duty civic duty without pay? Have all auctions been exhausted? How about

[14:40] selling property like the parking lot west of the dog park purchase from my

[14:45] understanding for approximately $1 million. What is the current value at

[14:50] this present time? And I'm going to concentrate the rest of my presentation

[14:54] on C5 alone. As I said, 10 people are likely affected. Not only them, the

[15:01] members, the subcontractors like Scott Marian, a trainer who owns half of his

[15:07] income by using the facility to train customers. A number of have prepaid

[15:12] their fees. How will they be refunded? Is Scott going to be responsible? Will

[15:17] the city step forward? It's of no fault of his own. The financial health or lack

[15:23] thereof is in dire straits. When you choose close a community center, you're

[15:29] destroying the sense of community. In essence, a death by a thousand cuts. So,

[15:35] one question I leave you with as it relates to the health of our city, ask

[15:41] yourself, if you're not going to get involved, who is? If you're not going to

[15:45] do it now, when are you going to do it? Thanks.

[15:54] » Thank you, Mr. Mahia. Would anyone else like to speak this time? Yes, your name.

[16:01] » Lisa, please come forward. Thank you. I have your card right here.

[16:07] » I don't do this, so don't mind me. >> Okay. So, I felt I needed to do this

[16:13] because there's just a lot going on with our city. Uh, good afternoon, mayor and

[16:17] council members. Um, I think we need to take a really careful look at the

[16:21] proposed millage rate before making any permanent cuts to the services,

[16:26] employees, and facilities of Cape Canaveral as a community. I understand

[16:30] we're facing significant budget shortfalls. I understand the difficult

[16:35] decisions you have to make, but why are we going directly to permanent

[16:39] reductions in employees services, recreational facilities before every

[16:44] other reasonable has been exhausted? Have you explored grants or um any

[16:50] outside funding? Have we looked at revenue producing opportunities,

[16:55] including city-owned properties and other assets? Um have we thoroughly

[16:59] reviewed administrative and discretionary spending, contracts, and

[17:03] other expenses before asking asking residents to pay more while

[17:08] simultaneously losing all of our services?

[17:12] Um, also, uh, I looked at the papers on the millage rates, but one thing it

[17:18] doesn't explain is how much that's going to affect each household. It might be

[17:22] easier for families to take if they saw that it would be a smaller increase in

[17:28] their budgets. Yeah. If it's $1,000 more a year, you're talking $100 or less a

[17:33] month. That might be easier to accept, you know. Um I also want to make it uh

[17:41] known that you know cutting the employees doesn't necessarily mean

[17:46] cutting costs. If we eliminate the positions you're talking about

[17:51] especially uh well C5 that's a whole another story. All that that's just sad.

[17:56] But even infrastructure maintenance there there's talk of it going down to

[17:59] one employee. How is one employee going to maintain the city? They do so much

[18:05] right now. They they do um you know all the beach work, all the

[18:12] trimming of the trees, keeping the areas neat, fixing city hall, uh everything.

[18:18] How can one person possibly do that? So that would then have to be what?

[18:22] Contract it out. That's not going to save money because you're still paying

[18:26] money to contract it out. Um forgive me.

[18:32] uh if we do the reduce it to one employee, it's just doesn't seem

[18:36] feasible how we can do it. Um you know, that's a team that that does that work

[18:43] now. So, and you know, so far as the C5 and Nancy Hansen, they're not just

[18:48] buildings. It's, you know, where our children go and families and seniors

[18:52] come together. It's part of what makes Cape Canaveral a community, not just a

[18:56] place where people live. Um, and I think the decisions that we make now will

[19:01] determine the future, ultimately the fate of our city. Like, what do we want

[19:05] to be? Do we want to be a transient town where it's all just tourists and that's

[19:10] it? Or do we want to keep our families and our sense of community? Um,

[19:16] something that occurred to me before I came here. Okay, I'm going. I'll do the

[19:20] rest later. Just one thing. Something that occurred to me is the park. Mhm.

[19:24] » Um, not Manatee Park, but the one on the other side where the soccer fields are.

[19:28] » Mhm. >> That's riverfront property, and I don't

[19:31] know how much it's utilized, but I looked up,

[19:34] » Miss Gandandy, it I we have to cut it at three.

[19:38] » But that property could be sold for three to$6 million, and that could put a

[19:43] big dent in the budget. >> Thank you very much. [applause]

[19:49] » Yes, Mr. Visomin please come forward

[20:01] Alvisy uh 421 Lincoln Avenue um Cape Canaveral. I'm a 40-year resident of of

[20:08] the city. Um I was going to speak about something different, but after hearing

[20:13] what people were saying, I understand that everybody wants this stuff. My

[20:18] problem is a city budget that went from 27 million in 24 25 to 40 million today.

[20:27] Where is our money going? That's really what it is. And if it can be cut

[20:31] somewhere, it has to be. We're just spending too much money. Now, whether

[20:37] it's I don't want to say you can cut you can cut all the parks. I know people

[20:40] like to use the parks. I know on the weekends uh that park is open. You can

[20:45] play pickle ball. It's open. No, I think there's only one person there. If you

[20:49] can do that during the week, then you can keep it open. You you you have to be

[20:53] able to bring this down. We have gone up between 70 and 100% on almost every one

[20:59] of our departments. It has to be there has to be room to cut. Our employees get

[21:05] paid very well. I think I think everybody's happy that all our employees

[21:09] are happy with the pay they get, the benefits they get, and everything. It's

[21:13] a pleasure to work, I think, for Cape Canaveral. when you look at the

[21:16] surrounding cities. The other point is is that we have Indian Harbor Beach,

[21:20] which is right down the block. Their budget is $13 million. They have a pool.

[21:25] They have their own police department. They're the same size as us. They're the

[21:29] same population as us. How is it possible that we're spending that much

[21:33] money? We don't only spent the 37 million, don't forget, we also in that

[21:38] period of time managed to spend our $8 million reserve. So, we have overspent.

[21:44] We have a spending problem where where we can adjust it from from this point. I

[21:49] don't know. Yeah. Are we gonna have to make drastic cuts? Probably. Selling

[21:53] property might be something. I thought of a couple of different things. I I've

[21:58] heard that in Vegas they charge a a tax on hotel rooms. $15, $20 a night for

[22:05] hotel rooms. We have all those hotels. Let's make some money from the port

[22:09] other than just putting up hotels so people can stay there and go. There is

[22:13] other avenues to make money if the council wants to open it up to

[22:17] discussion. But I do think that we have to get our spending on the way there.

[22:23] There's no way we can keep up with the amount of spending we are. And then we

[22:26] have amendment three coming right down the block which is going to cut again.

[22:32] And they're going to look at us and say, "How can Indian Harbor do it for that

[22:36] price?" and we're this we're not going to get the kickback from the state. They

[22:40] are going to that's how they're going to work this. They're going to say

[22:43] population size they're going to comparison of cities and when you ask

[22:47] for the money the additional monies that we're going to need because we're going

[22:50] to be obviously even lower than we are now. That's how they're going to make a

[22:54] decision. So we have to get our our house in order. Thank you. Thank you.

[23:01] [applause] Would

[23:05] anyone else like to speak this time? Seeing none, we will close public

[23:12] participation for now and uh I think open it back up

[23:19] later in the meeting. After hearing that, I do think and before going to our

[23:24] city manager for staff, I'd like to just make a few comments. Um, for those of

[23:30] you who who've seen the presentation, seen uh media headlines, I completely

[23:36] understand a lot of the comments that we heard

[23:40] today. But I can tell you this council has not

[23:44] made any decisions, nor did this council ask for the specific

[23:52] items that will be included in this presentation. And so with that, I'd like

[23:58] to and I think it's really important to just start with an opening statement

[24:03] here that I prepared and then we can move on. Thank you again for your time

[24:07] and those of you who spoke and we'll uh speak at the end.

[24:13] I had the opportunity to review the workshop presentation before tonight's

[24:18] meeting. Because of the importance of the decisions before us, I believe it is

[24:23] necessary to begin with a clear statement about why we are here, how I

[24:29] intend to guide the discussion and who we are responsible for representing.

[24:36] We the council do not represent city hall to the people. We represent the

[24:43] people to city hall. That principle must guide every decision we make about

[24:49] taxes, spending, staffing, services, and non-personnel costs. I want to thank my

[24:56] fellow council members. Each member brings a different perspective, and each

[25:01] of us understands the responsibility before us. We may not agree on every

[25:06] number or solution, but I believe we share a desire to protect this community

[25:11] and leave the city stronger than we found it. I also want to recognize our

[25:16] city manager and the staff members who prepared these materials today and along

[25:22] the way to get here. The city manager inherited a very difficult financial

[25:29] situation. He and his team have worked to explain

[25:33] the possible effects of different budget reductions. Those concerns deserve to be

[25:39] heard and taken seriously. Our employees perform very important work. They serve

[25:46] residents, maintain facilities, respond to emergencies, process permits, keep

[25:53] records, and perform many duties the public may never see. This meeting is

[25:59] not about attacking them or anyone. No employee is on trial this afternoon. The

[26:06] city's cost structure is absolutely under review. That review must include

[26:12] personnel and non-personnel costs. Salaries and benefits are viable and

[26:19] important, but they are not the entire budget. contracts, consultants,

[26:25] professional services, supplies, utilities, insurance, maintenance,

[26:31] technology, equipment, travel, memberships,

[26:35] facilities, programs, and other operating expenses also require

[26:41] scrutiny. Every reoccurring expense must be justified by the service it provides

[26:48] and the priority it serves. Employees deserve respect, honest leadership, fair

[26:55] compensation where justified, and an organization that can keep the promises

[27:01] it makes to them. Residents deserve those exact same things from their

[27:07] government. They deserve essential services that work, infrastructure that

[27:13] protects their homes, honest financial information, taxes they can afford, and

[27:20] a council willing to ask hard questions before taking another dollar from them.

[27:28] That's a lovely melody. It's a nice backdrop.

[27:32] » Is that something that [laughter]

[27:39] » I will proceed?

[27:43] They deserve essential services that work, infrastructure that protects their

[27:46] homes, honest financial information, taxes they can afford, and a council

[27:52] willing to ask hard questions before taking another dollar from them.

[27:56] Residents are people, too. They are the retired homeowners trying

[28:03] to remain in the homes they worked their entire lives to afford. They are

[28:08] families facing rising insurance, utilities, groceries, housing costs.

[28:13] They are renters who pay property taxes through their rent. They are small

[28:18] businesses dealing with higher wages, insurance, and operating expenses. They

[28:23] are residents worried that the community they love is becoming too expensive for

[28:28] them to remain here. City employees should never be invisible in a budget

[28:33] decision, but neither should the taxpayers who fund every paycheck, every

[28:39] benefit, building, vehicle, facility, contract, program, and operating

[28:46] expense. I understand that some employees feel this financial problem is

[28:51] being placed on their backs even though they did not personally create it. Many

[28:57] of them did not. But residents did not create it either. Residents did not

[29:04] prepare the budgets. residents did not authorize expenditures, reconcile the

[29:10] accounts, or decide how large the organization and its ongoing cost would

[29:16] become. A budget reduction is not discipline,

[29:20] [music] blame, or punishment. It is a governing decision about what the city

[29:25] can afford. Accountability does not mean finding someone to humiliate. It means

[29:30] understanding what happened, correcting it, and making sure it does not happen

[29:35] again. My position is also not based on stubbornly repeating a six-year-old

[29:41] campaign promise. My concern about taxes was never simply a promise that a tax

[29:48] rate could never change under any circumstance. It was a warning that

[29:54] government must live within its means, fund essential services first, and

[29:59] justify every additional dollar it takes. For years, I warned that

[30:05] expanding facilities, programs, staffing, and ongoing cost would

[30:11] eventually reach the taxpayer. construction or CRA money. It can pay

[30:17] for a building, but it does not permanently staff, clean, ensure, power,

[30:24] maintain, or repair that building. A ribbon cutting lasts one day. The

[30:30] operating bill continues every year. Hindsight does not make that warning

[30:36] unreasonable. Hindsight shows why it mattered. Before

[30:41] asking residents for more, we the government must prove that it has

[30:46] examined the entire budget. Not just the most visible employees and services, but

[30:53] also non-personnel expenditures and the assumptions supporting them. This is not

[31:00] an anti- park, anti-recreation or anti-service position. Parks matter.

[31:07] Recreation matters. Community programs can strengthen our city. But priorities

[31:13] still matter. Some responsibilities can only be handled by municipal government.

[31:19] The private market will not repair a flooded street, maintain our storm water

[31:26] system, operate our drainage infrastructure, preserve public records,

[31:32] or provide the public safety services this community depends on. A private gym

[31:38] or recreation provider can offer fitness classes and programming. The private

[31:45] market cannot take over the city's responsibility to protect a neighborhood

[31:50] from flooding. That difference must guide our priorities. A recreation

[31:57] center may be valuable. That does not make its current hours, staffing,

[32:03] programming, contracts, supplies, maintenance cost, or taxpayer subsidy

[32:09] untouchable once the city owns a park. Basic

[32:14] service, basic safety, cleanliness, and maintenance are obligation expansion,

[32:20] and enhanced programming are all choices. A beautiful facility does not

[32:26] comfort a family standing in flood water. That does not mean a recreation

[32:32] project caused flooding. It means every dollar has another possible use. When

[32:38] amenities expand while drainage, streets, lighting, or basic maintenance

[32:43] remain unresolved, council must ask whether we have our priorities in the

[32:49] right order. The financial problem before us did not appear overnight.

[32:55] Historical results show repeated years in which spending exceeded dependable

[33:01] revenue or the city relied on cash forward transfers and other one-time

[33:07] resources as our city manager has stated and provided.

[33:13] Cash forward is not reoccurring revenue. Reserves can help the city survive an

[33:18] emergency or cover up a one-time need. They cannot permanently support payroll

[33:24] contracts. non-personnel expenses and normal operations. That brings us to the

[33:29] central standard of for this workshop today. Dependable reoccurring revenues

[33:36] must match or at least slightly exceed reoccurring expenditures.

[33:42] Not by counting reserves as income or depending on uncertain grants or selling

[33:47] assets or relying on one-time federal funds or assuming that every existing

[33:53] contract, purchase, program, or operating expense must continue

[33:57] unchanged

[34:05] and not by postponing the same problem until next year. We must adopt a

[34:10] balanced reoccurring budget and establish a clear plan to restore

[34:13] reserves. As our city manager in this council has stated, a higher tax rate

[34:18] could make a spreadsheet balance, but a tax increase by itself is not a

[34:24] management plan. Before council considers 4.5 mills or any increases

[34:30] above roll back, we need to know what reoccurring gap remains after reasonable

[34:36] changes have been made. We need to know whether the rate restores reserves or

[34:40] simply preserves current spending. We need to know what non-personnel

[34:45] reductions, contract changes, delayed projects, program adjustments, and

[34:50] operational efficiencies have been evaluated. And we need to know what

[34:54] prevents the same problem from returning next year. I want to address a very

[34:59] important part of our recent history because it directly informs the

[35:03] decisions before us today. In the past, council asked for financial information

[35:08] that went beyond what was considered standard. We asked additional questions

[35:14] because we were told that the city could not cut any further. When former city

[35:20] management said, quote, "We can't cut anymore or reduce." We found out through

[35:27] research that we could and we did. Before making those reductions, we made

[35:33] clear that maintaining an appropriate reserve was essential. After reductions

[35:39] were made to expenses that could not adequately be justified, council was

[35:44] provided a revised budget showing that the council could reduce taxes, balance

[35:51] the budget, and maintain reserves above the minimum level. The budget book by

[35:57] code this volunteer group of council members

[36:01] relied upon from a highly compensated city manager at that time

[36:09] that budget book was materially incorrect.

[36:13] There has been a statement that council was warned and failed to listen to the

[36:20] need to increase taxes. I remember those meetings. I sat in them

[36:25] and I even went back and watched them. The original proposal did include a tax

[36:32] increase. Council then asked whether we could maintain reserves and reduce

[36:39] expenses sufficiently to allow that tax decrease. Council was assured in the

[36:46] revised budget that we could do so. There was no warning that the plan was

[36:52] impossible. there was an assurance that it was achievable. What I find most

[36:58] revealing and what in my opinion exposes the root problem is what happened with

[37:05] the adoption of the fiscal year 24 budget that occurred in September of

[37:12] 2023. Many of the the council members only two

[37:17] of us up here sat on that dis.

[37:23] Those who now argue that council should have listened to warnings about tax

[37:28] increases often point to that budget as the quote responsible model. Yet, it's

[37:37] that very budget that had increased taxes again following increases in prior

[37:44] years brought in a substantial increase in property tax revenue.

[37:53] A very large budgeted contingency on top of the built-in contingencies already

[38:00] embedded in many individual line items. Despite my opposing vote, council

[38:07] adopted that budget. That was also the same year in which one

[38:13] of the largest depletions of reserves occurred.

[38:18] What happened? Expenditures dramatically exceeded revenues. The SPI city spent

[38:25] through the large contingency that was budgeted. It then used one of the

[38:31] largest amounts of reserves as stated in our recent history, even while

[38:36] benefiting from a substantial windfall of federal ARPA grant funds. That does

[38:43] not demonstrate a revenue problem. It demonstrates a financial management

[38:49] problem. At no point did the city manager appear to pause midyear, notify

[38:56] council that appropriations were exceeding revenues, and recommend timely

[39:01] adjustments to protect the budget and reserves. There was no meaningful notice

[39:07] before more than $1 million was transferred from the people's reserves,

[39:14] reducing them from approximately little over 20% to 10%. There was also

[39:20] no notice to council to f the following budget year as required by the city

[39:25] code. So what happened? Council reduced taxes based on the numbers provided in

[39:33] the budget and relied on reserve figures that were dramatically overstated.

[39:39] Why was the tax increase the model of how to do it responsibly in 2024 not

[39:46] enough? Why was the contingency not enough? Why were the lower priority

[39:52] projects that could have been paused and transferred to higher priorities

[39:56] not enough to protect reserves? And why were non-personnel expenses, contracts,

[40:02] and other operating costs not adjusted when actual spending began to exceed

[40:08] dependable revenues? Those are management and financial control

[40:13] questions. They are not questions that can be answered simply by saying that

[40:17] council should have raised taxes. I am not shifting blame. I am acknowledging

[40:24] who does what. And at the end of the day, the buck stops with the council.

[40:31] But council cannot responsibly govern without accurate information, timely

[40:37] notice, and professional recommendations from management.

[40:43] The responsible the quote responsible council

[40:49] gave the former city manager and finance director what they requested

[40:56] followed the warnings presented to us and adopted a budget that increased

[41:02] taxes. The result was a substantial squandering of funds and a major

[41:08] depletion of reserves. Even if individual expenses that went

[41:13] over were justified, the lack of timely notice and corrective action was not. As

[41:20] our current city manager and new finance director have pointed out, this did not

[41:27] happen only once. It occurred over years of deficit spending going back

[41:35] over a decade. We are the team that is going to make

[41:40] sure that never happens again. I believe that it began with asking for more

[41:46] information despite being told that the city was fine, that a tax increase would

[41:51] quote keep us strong and that the financial condition of the city was

[41:55] sound. We heard applauses during audit presentations. We saw awards, positive

[42:03] narratives in budget books and statements about the city's financial

[42:07] health and the state of the city presentations. We heard promises that

[42:12] residents taxes would not increase because of our community centers or

[42:17] recreational upgrades. I also remember the aggressive response in a former

[42:23] meeting when I used the term quote slush fund in a very benign way.

[42:30] former councils at that time in 2018 demanded that I apologize.

[42:36] Today, thanks to the work of our new city manager and his team, I believe I

[42:42] have learned that the unassigned fund balance was being used as a de facto

[42:47] slush fund, covering up operating deficits and preserving a false

[42:53] narrative about the city's financial condition. Tax increases did not fix the

[42:59] root problem then they allowed the underlying financial mismanagement

[43:04] problem to continue. That is why our review must include the entire cost

[43:10] structure including those non-personnel expenses.

[43:15] We must examine whether contracts are necessary and competitively priced,

[43:20] whether consultants are providing measurable value, whether supplies and

[43:25] services are being purchased efficiently, and whether facilities and

[43:29] programs are operating at appropriate levels, and whether projects can be

[43:34] delayed, and whether reoccurring expenses are supported by reoccurring

[43:38] revenues. And we must all show show the residents what each option costs them.

[43:45] To one of the public comments and some of the presentations, these are

[43:49] estimations, but the difference between a 4.5 mil and the 3.2546 2546. Roll back

[43:56] property tax rate would be approximately $250 annually on a $200,000 taxable

[44:04] value home or property. $374 on a $300,000.

[44:10] just under $500 on a $400,000 property and $623

[44:18] on $500,000 and $747 on $600,000.

[44:25] Those examples only show the difference in the city tax from the roll back and

[44:31] it not with the resident's entire property tax bill or remaining taxes

[44:36] they pay to the city. Some may consider those amounts as reasonable and

[44:43] manageable. Others will not. City Hall does not get to

[44:50] decide that an increase is affordable or for every household or personal

[44:57] circumstance. Our responsibility is to show the actual cost and this council

[45:02] needs to weigh it openly against the services residents will receive. A

[45:08] resident's home cannot become city hall's automatic balancing account. We

[45:14] must also reject the idea that our only choices are 4.5 mills or layoffs.

[45:23] Closures and collapse are not the necessary end result. That is not a

[45:30] complete set of options. Council must also examine vacancies, delayed hiring,

[45:36] consolidation, shared services, contracts, consultant costs, facility

[45:42] hours, program fees, sponsorships, partnerships, procurement practices,

[45:48] non-personnel operating expenses as stated, and the delay of non-essential

[45:53] projects in which many of those are city manager and staff has worked through.

[45:58] Some of those may not work. Some may not save enough to make it reasonable, but

[46:03] our management must evaluate and this council must determine before the public

[46:08] is told that the only the highest tax rate can prevent disaster.

[46:14] Words within the presentation such as collapse, paralysis, and catastrophic

[46:23] are not budget measurements. If a service will fail, tell council what

[46:30] duty will not be performed, when it will happen, how residents will experience

[46:36] it, and whether management can reduce the harm. Tell us whether service moves

[46:42] from excellent to good, good to fair, or fair to unac acceptable.

[46:49] If a consequence cannot be measured, it should not be

[46:54] presented as certain. The same standard applies to staffing. Competitive

[47:01] compensation and the number of positions we can

[47:04] afford are completely separate questions. Few residents reached out

[47:10] with some of these points to the council and that's why I'm sharing them here

[47:14] because I find that I agree. The city may need to pay retained employees more

[47:21] competitively. Absolutely. That does not prove that every position, program,

[47:28] contract, non-personnel expense, and current service level must remain

[47:33] unchanged. We should determine what work is legally

[47:38] required, what workload exists, what service residents receive, what it cost,

[47:44] and whether the work can be organized differently. Pay the employees we need

[47:50] fairly. Determine separately how many positions and programs and operating

[47:56] expenses the community can afford. That recommendation must come from our city

[48:01] manager. Employees should not Employees should provide facts, workload

[48:10] information, and professional knowledge. [clears throat]

[48:13] They should not be placed in the uncomfortable position of publicly

[48:18] defending their own livelihoods. Council sets policy and priorities. The city

[48:25] manager must turn those priorities into a professional recommendation for the

[48:31] organization as a whole. That is why I intend

[48:36] at this workshop and ask and request that this council please direct all of

[48:40] our questions first to the city manager. For each major expense or proposed

[48:47] reduction, council needs a few basic answers in which all may not be able to

[48:54] be answered and in no particular order. Is it legally required or essential?

[49:02] What services do residents receive? What does it cost, including personnel and

[49:07] non-personnel costs? And is the expense reoccurring or one time? and can it be

[49:14] delivered differently? Many of those have been answered and provided, but we

[49:19] need to make sure with adjustments we're doing that. Payroll is an input.

[49:25] Contracts, supplies, and facilities, facilities, and other operating expenses

[49:29] are also inputs. Service is the result. Our goal this afternoon should not be to

[49:37] defend an existing number, department, contract, or organizational chart. Our

[49:44] goal should be to build the most effective government for our residents

[49:48] that we can afford this council. And my hope is that we leave this evening with

[49:55] a clear direction for our city manager, bring us a balanced reoccurring budget,

[50:02] and hopefully a reserve restoration plan is in sight. Clear service levels

[50:08] communicated, reasonable alternatives, and a review of non-personnel cost, and

[50:13] an honest explanation of what each option costs the residents.

[50:18] I do not think those are unreasonable requests and much of the information

[50:23] already exists. We need to organize it into a decision this council can

[50:28] understand, the public can verify and management can carry out. I believe this

[50:36] council is capable of doing that and I absolutely believe our city manager and

[50:41] employees are capable of meeting that standard. And most importantly, I

[50:46] believe the residents and constituents of Cape Canaveral can understand

[50:51] difficult choices when we speak to them honestly. We can protect essential

[50:57] services without protecting every past expenditure. We can respect employees

[51:02] without asking taxpayers to accept a cost structure they cannot afford. We

[51:08] can value our parks and recreation [music]

[51:11] while putting flooding, ba basic public safety, roads, drainage,

[51:16] sanitation, records, and basic maintenance first. We can examine

[51:21] contracts, consultants, and the other expenditures

[51:25] without assuming that every reduction is an attack on service.

[51:32] And city hall does not get to decide that an increase is affordable for every

[51:38] household.

[51:44] We can correct the past without making this meeting about personal blame. We

[51:50] can come out of this process with a government that is more focused, open,

[51:54] and financially sound. This is not anti-mp employee. This is not anti- park

[52:00] or anti-service of any sort. It is pro- resident, pro- essential services,

[52:08] pro-acc accountability, and pro-responsible

[52:11] government. The people did not elect us to protect city hall from difficult

[52:16] decisions. They elected us to make those decisions on their behalf. Residents

[52:22] work, sacrifice, save, and sometimes go without to fund this city. They deserve

[52:30] excellent essential services, fairly treated employees, protected homes,

[52:36] honest financial information, and a council willing to ask hard questions

[52:41] before taking one more dollar. They also deserve to know that every dollar

[52:46] whether spent on personnel or any other expense has been examined and justified.

[52:53] That is why I believe it was important to begin this workshop with this

[52:58] statement that has hopefully some clear direction. Let us be respectful. Let us

[53:04] be factual. Let us question assumptions without attacking. And let us replace

[53:10] fear with facts and turn those facts into responsible choices. And most

[53:17] importantly, let us remember council who sent us here. The city belongs to the

[53:24] people and it's time for this budget to prove it. Thank you for your patience as

[53:29] we read through that.

[53:34] » [applause]

[53:36] » I know I know that's lengthy. This council does

[53:41] not speak due to sunshine law. Over the past several weeks, our city manager has

[53:46] worked through some tremendous difficult challenges, made some public statements

[53:50] related to other matters and specifically this matter. And as I've

[53:54] seen social media and post and and media reaching out and just everyday

[53:58] conversations in our neighborhoods, I hadn't really said anything and I hadn't

[54:03] really put a strong position out. And I felt that it was important before we

[54:07] head into our public hearings that you know where I stand. And uh I'm certainly

[54:13] speaking for myself and trying to do my best as mayor to set a direction that

[54:18] ultimately a majority of this council will decide. I am one individual but I

[54:24] respect each and every one of you very much. Thank you for allowing uh me to

[54:28] work through that and thank you all again for for being a part of this and

[54:33] listening in. City manager with that. Thank you sir. Um I believe we can

[54:41] proceed with the presentation. >> Thank you mayor. Thank you council and

[54:46] thank you Cape Canaveral community who are here uh in person and those who are

[54:51] attending online and ultimately those who may watch this recording once it is

[54:56] available uh for your viewing. We appreciate your time and attention on

[55:00] this very important matter. I want to commend our staff for the amount of time

[55:04] and effort they have put into getting this presentation together. Uh

[55:10] answering to the mandates and questions uh posed by council. Our finance

[55:16] director works late hours these days and on weekends. I get emails from him as

[55:21] late as 11:30 p.m. um when he's responding to members of this dis. And

[55:28] so again, I just want to commend all of our staff for their efforts uh to get us

[55:33] here today. I want to ask before we proceed, could you please turn off all

[55:37] your devices?

[55:41] All devices. Secondly, um I want to talk a little bit

[55:46] about today's presentation. Um the mill rates that are listed under

[55:52] item 41 for discussion are not options for the council to choose. They're

[55:57] benchmarks as we stated in the agenda and they are listed that way because we

[56:02] entered today with a proposed millage rate of 4.5.

[56:07] 4.5 mills is our proposed millage rate and that requires a unanimous vote. All

[56:13] five members of this council to vote on that everything the next level is the

[56:19] 3.581 and then the level before that below

[56:23] that is the 3.2546. So, if we just refer to them generally

[56:27] as 4.5, 3.5, and 3.2, please know that's what we're talking about in general. Uh,

[56:33] those other levels require different voting thresholds. At a 3.5, it needs

[56:38] anything between a a 3.5 and a 3.2 is going to require um a 4 to one vote,

[56:45] which we call a supermajority. And uh anything above is going to

[56:49] require unanimous. And anything below at 3.25 25 or below is just a simple

[56:54] majority vote. So these are not presented as options for the council to

[56:59] choose. Again, these are just benchmarks for discussion so they understand

[57:04] whatever millage rate that they think they want, how they have to vote in

[57:08] order to achieve that. So thank you for that. We also want to talk about how we

[57:12] got here uh regarding deficit reduction.

[57:18] When we approach the budget, we look at three general areas where we can reduce

[57:23] expenses. And those areas are capital, operational, and personnel. And if

[57:29] you've attended or watched previous budget workshops, you know that we have

[57:32] attacked this issue by looking at those three categories. We had a CIP workshop

[57:38] where we started off in March presenting what was of potential. But when we got

[57:44] deep into our budget deficit, we realized that we had to cut severely our

[57:49] capital projects that are funded out of the general fund. Okay. So today's

[57:54] conversation about the budget is centered around the general fund largely

[57:59] which accounts for 40% of our overall taxes. I'm sorry, which is funded

[58:05] through uh taxes. 40% of our general fund is through taxes.

[58:10] So, we've looked at our capital expenditures and we've left very few

[58:15] things in there. Uh council is certainly um open to discussing those. We have a

[58:22] $90,000 study that we've planned uh to do for impact fee study. We cannot raise

[58:29] our impact fees to generate additional revenue unless we have a legally

[58:34] defensible study to back up our fees and that study doesn't come cheap. And so

[58:39] we've left that in as a capital uh expenditure. We also left another

[58:44] capital expenditure dealing with a road project. Um that project was awarded uh

[58:49] that the contract for that project was awarded to a contractor. Uh so $150,000

[58:54] from our general fund is supporting that project. the rest out of our enterprise

[58:59] accounts and I believe Joey that was the only other that was the only other

[59:03] capital expense or the the one for it. Yeah, we have a remote server out of

[59:08] state actually that we have to pay for by law as it helps service our

[59:13] community. So those are the three capital expenditures uh that are left in

[59:17] the budget that council can certainly consider. uh really the only one

[59:21] available would be the raftillis study. That's the company for the 90,000 should

[59:26] council 10 and not do that this year. The second category is operational

[59:32] costs. And when we talk about that, we're talking about, you know, the

[59:36] bullets and the beans and the band-aids, right? The equipment, the parts, the

[59:40] contracts, the the general costs to run a city um from an expense standpoint.

[59:46] and staff has sharpened their pencils on that and we have come back with what we

[59:51] believe are the the the the strongest cuts that we can take in our general

[59:55] fund and that leaves personnel and when a proposed military of 4.5% is what the

[1:00:04] majority voted on then those are our marching orders and unless u there's a

[1:00:10] desire and even the feasibility to go higher we walk into today's meeting at

[1:00:16] 4.5 which means the elimination of multiple

[1:00:20] positions just to achieve that level. So we walk in today as a 43 employee

[1:00:26] general fund city to a 28 employee general fund city to achieve that

[1:00:33] millage rate and and that's just how the numbers lay out. So working forward if

[1:00:41] we stay at 4.5 that's what our general fund employees will look like. Plus, we

[1:00:45] have 20 in our enterprise accounts to run sewer, storm water, and reclaim

[1:00:49] water. So, that that's the benchmark or the

[1:00:53] starting point for this conversation. And I just wanted to frame that because

[1:00:57] you'll see in this presentation, we have three directors who are going to present

[1:01:02] in the following order. Our finance director, Joey Blackard, will go over

[1:01:06] the main presentation uh which you will see overall the

[1:01:10] reductions in staffing and corresponding what we believe to be a corresponding

[1:01:16] reduction in service and and these conclusions are are

[1:01:24] not easy to come to. We can we can speculate, we can best guess, we can

[1:01:29] surmise through experience, we can clearly define in other cases,

[1:01:34] but anybody can be critical and pick this apart and say, "Well, do this or do

[1:01:38] that or whatever." It's my job to do that and it's the staff's job to do

[1:01:42] that. But we will take any input that we get from council and any input from the

[1:01:48] community. But at the end of the day, we have to meet a 4.5 proposed millillage

[1:01:53] rate or less depending on how the council p the council proceeds uh with

[1:01:58] this presentation. So, we'll first hear from our finance director and then we

[1:02:03] will hear from our um our parks uh and recreation cult uh director. We'll talk

[1:02:10] about specifically how we would proceed with our facilities. I I just want to go

[1:02:14] on record to say that no one has ever said that we are closing those

[1:02:19] facilities. What we have said is that if we cannot staff them due to meeting the

[1:02:24] budget cut mandates, then we would open them up for lease to an entity in some

[1:02:31] fashion. And we'll we'll dive into what that would look like moving forward. And

[1:02:35] that won't happen overnight. It won't be we're out October 1 and someone else is

[1:02:40] in, you know, we're out September 30th and someone else is in October 1. It

[1:02:45] won't happen that fast. And those facilities will remain vacant and

[1:02:49] unoccupied and unused until such time as they can be staffed by whomever the city

[1:02:56] chooses to operate them depending again on what millage rate is ultimately

[1:03:01] decided by this council. So I wanted to be very clear about that. And then our

[1:03:06] final pre presenter will be our human resources uh director who will go over

[1:03:11] um ultimately what costs do or incur or we will incur as a result of reductions.

[1:03:17] Uh again when you lose people and and knowledge and so forth, you know, you're

[1:03:23] going to lose uh functionality. And when we approached this budget um

[1:03:28] conversation, we started in looking at what are essential services and that

[1:03:35] will come up today. What services are essential? Public safety first and

[1:03:39] foremost is essential. And our partners in public safety, Canaveral Fire and the

[1:03:44] Bvard County Sheriff's Office have worked with us and have done everything

[1:03:48] they can to reduce their costs uh for their services and we are thankful to

[1:03:53] them for that. Then we look at what are other essential

[1:03:57] services. Uh a city typically has a city manager, a clerk's office, uh and a and

[1:04:02] a city attorney. And we would consider those essential services. We also have

[1:04:07] to have a finance department to pay all the bills to receive all the revenues

[1:04:11] that we generate. That is an essential service. If we if we have construction

[1:04:17] and so forth, we have to have a permitting process. We have to have a

[1:04:20] planning process. We have to have an potentially an engineering process or

[1:04:24] service depending on whether we contract or employ. But we always have to

[1:04:28] contract because you can never employ all the engineers that you need for the

[1:04:32] projects that are done. And so what are those essential services at at some

[1:04:38] point? It's it's really no arguing that when you're running a municipality and

[1:04:42] then you get into what is not essential service or what is an essential service

[1:04:47] but how can it be still be performed in some manner if you're going to reduce

[1:04:53] your employee um count to do that. And so the next step we went through is

[1:04:58] what's essential but how can we combine or hybrid is the term that we've used.

[1:05:03] How can we combine or hybrid those functions so that we can continue those

[1:05:08] services? But then it becomes a question of quality. Okay, how many hats can one

[1:05:14] person wear to perform an essential service to the extent that that service

[1:05:19] is adequately received and perceity or perception on the part of the those

[1:05:24] people who are receiving those services and that's where the conversations can

[1:05:29] go in different directions because a lot of times it's subjective uh to one

[1:05:34] person's personal opinion and and so that's where we we tried to figure out

[1:05:39] what are the best ways to combine essential services while still reducing

[1:05:44] the budget deficit. And those are very critical conversations that we have had

[1:05:49] with our directors. And then again, we fall back on what are those

[1:05:52] non-essential services and what was a resounding

[1:05:57] um vote for what is most non-essential in our situation in our city is parks

[1:06:03] and recreation. It is an important function for a community. There are many

[1:06:08] studies that have shown that having a viable active parks and recreation

[1:06:11] program run by the government provides many services, many tangible and many

[1:06:16] intangible services. But then again, we get to the point where it's it can also

[1:06:21] be a matter of opinion and the people who are responsible for making that

[1:06:25] decision are seated up here at this dis, but they're not going to do it without

[1:06:29] the public's input. And so when we move forward with our parks and recreation

[1:06:34] conversation, I I ask that everyone be mindful that we walk into this door

[1:06:39] today at a 4.5 millillage rate, which means that service will be drastically

[1:06:45] reduced already coming in the door today. And how we manage that moving

[1:06:50] forward will be determined uh based on what millillage we ultimately walk out

[1:06:54] of here with, whether it's today or a future meeting. We have two meetings in

[1:06:58] September. And so having said that I just again

[1:07:02] wanted to frame this conversation so everyone understood have we got here

[1:07:07] what has been taken into account or consideration. Do we look at contracts?

[1:07:11] Yes. Do we look at all the things that the mayor has suggested or people who

[1:07:14] have spoken at the dis have suggested? Yes, we have looked at everything that

[1:07:19] we can. And at this point in time it gets down to you know while we don't

[1:07:23] want to sit here and talk about a person's livelihood. we are looking at

[1:07:28] positions being lost and and that's the reality of the millage rate that we are

[1:07:33] we are addressing today the highest millage rate today at 4.5 mills and so

[1:07:38] we uh I would echo the mayor's uh statement that we want to be

[1:07:42] professional and and in the manner in which we do our business today and with

[1:07:49] that I will turn the microphone over to our finance director uh Joey Blackard

[1:07:56] Um, and mayor if you'll indulge me. It's important, I think, that the that the

[1:08:00] community understands uh who their staff is and and how credentialed they are to

[1:08:06] come to the microphone with their years of experience. Joey Blackard is our um

[1:08:12] newly appointed finance director. He does have two and a half years of

[1:08:15] service to our government. He has a master's degree uh in business

[1:08:20] administration and a bachelor's degree uh with a double major in finance and

[1:08:24] accounting. And we're very thrilled to have Joey walking us through this today.

[1:08:28] Joey.

[1:08:33] So the purpose of this presentation is to show the general fund scenarios at

[1:08:39] the corresponding millillage rates.

[1:08:45] So here's a summary um of our um current staffing level compared to the um the

[1:08:52] three benchmarks that we've chosen to present. Um and again those these are

[1:08:57] just benchmarks. There is a range that exists between these three numbers. Um

[1:09:03] why we chose these three benchmarks is the um the 4.5 mill rate that is the

[1:09:09] current um adopted proposed millage rate and we have a um what I'll call the 3.5

[1:09:16] number that is the um highest mill that a 4:1 council vote would obtain and then

[1:09:23] we have our rolled back millage rate at the bottom which is 3.2 two and that

[1:09:29] would require a 3 to2 vote. Um so I will get more into the um the

[1:09:36] scenarios of uh how the city's general fund looks on the next slide.

[1:09:45] » [clears throat] >> So currently the city's general fund has

[1:09:49] 43 staffed positions at the adopted proposed mill rate of

[1:09:55] 4.5. Um the city would have to eliminate um

[1:10:00] roughly 1/3 of the general fund workforce. And then as you continue to

[1:10:06] read to the right side of the screen, at the the highest 4:1 vote, which is the

[1:10:12] 3.5 mill rate, um the city would have to let go over half of the general fund

[1:10:19] employees. And then at the the farthest to the right at the rolled back rate, um

[1:10:25] we have determined and projected the city would have to let go uh 2/3 of the

[1:10:31] general fund um employees. And again to put this um in perspective, this is we

[1:10:38] are talking about the general fund. The city does have an additional 20

[1:10:42] employees in our enterprise funds which are made up by wastewater fund and

[1:10:47] stormwater fund. Um and in the throughout the rest of the

[1:10:52] presentation we will show um how at each mill rate uh the city is affected at

[1:11:00] each um step.

[1:11:04] So at the current um proposed mill rate adopted proposed mill

[1:11:11] rate of 4.5 mills the city would go from 43 employees to 28 employees a reduction

[1:11:18] of 15 positions primarily from uh 10 being from the

[1:11:24] parks and wreck department and um five being from the Community and

[1:11:32] Economic Development Department. So, what this would mean for the parks and

[1:11:37] recck department would be um the buildings in that department, the C5,

[1:11:43] which is the gym, um the Nancy Hansen rec center or rec complex, the Cape

[1:11:48] Center, and the Splash Pad would be changed from government running them as

[1:11:54] in public to um private operation. Um, additionally, at the bottom right of

[1:12:02] the screen, the effects on the community and economic development um, department

[1:12:07] um would require eliminating two code enforcement officer positions and one

[1:12:12] code enforcement administrative position and the transfer of two positions within

[1:12:18] that department to the storm water fund. So this is the um the corresponding

[1:12:26] scenario of what we believe the general fund would look like at a 4.5 millage

[1:12:31] rate. Now we will go to the next benchmark

[1:12:36] um which is the uh the highest mill rate that a 4:1 council vote would obtain.

[1:12:44] And the difference between the um the currently adopted 4.5 rate and this uh

[1:12:50] 3.5 rate is approximately $1.4 million that the city would have to make up

[1:12:56] somehow. So we have done this. We've made up that

[1:13:00] $1.4 million in difference um by eliminating an additional 10 general

[1:13:06] fund positions. three coming out of the administrative

[1:13:10] services. Um two coming out of the uh infrastructure maintenance department

[1:13:17] and then five out of the parks and wreck department which would leave um

[1:13:23] effectively um no parks and wreck employees left. So that is how um we've

[1:13:29] arrived to make up that difference of 1.4 million. Additionally, of the

[1:13:33] remaining employees um in this mill rate scenario um the the employees benefits

[1:13:39] the city's retirement contribution on behalf of the remaining employees would

[1:13:44] be reduced from 12% to 3 12%. Um and this to put it um in perspective

[1:13:52] um this would mean approximately 58% of uh current general fund employees would

[1:14:00] have to be let go and able to afford this situation as we're proposing.

[1:14:07] The next uh military scenario is now the rolled back rate that is the third and

[1:14:13] last of our three benchmarks that we are um presenting. Um

[1:14:19] this how the general fund would look at this millate scenario would be there

[1:14:23] would be 14 general fund staff remaining um made up of the numbers on the screen

[1:14:30] seven from administrative services six and community economic development and

[1:14:35] one infrastructure maintenance person remaining [clears throat]

[1:14:39] um this is uh and I'll speak a little bit more um about the uh rolled back um

[1:14:46] scenario on the next slide. Um so of the remaining 14 general fund employees um

[1:14:54] at the rolled back rate um

[1:14:58] each employee would be required to take one furlow day per pay period which

[1:15:03] would be approximately a 10% reduction in pay to that employee. The employees

[1:15:08] benefits uh retirement benefits would go down

[1:15:11] from 12% to 0% and the employee would have no uh raises throughout the year.

[1:15:16] um which would be materially impacting the remaining employees. Um and to put

[1:15:23] in perspective the difference between the um 3.5 mill rate and the 3.2 mill

[1:15:29] rate is that's um a difference of $487,000

[1:15:34] is the difference between those mill rates.

[1:15:40] Um and this will be the last slide of this presentation.

[1:15:44] Um it is a summary of um what the general fund would look like

[1:15:52] the scenario would be if uh the general fund had the rolled back mill rate. Um

[1:15:57] 29 of 43 general fund positions would be eliminated which is approximately 2/3 of

[1:16:03] the current general fund employees. Um the parks and wreck buildings C5

[1:16:11] Nancy Hansen wreck complex Cape Center and Splash Pad will be moved from public

[1:16:16] management to private operation. Um there'd be no parks and recck employees

[1:16:21] that would remain. The infrastructure maintenance department would be reduced

[1:16:26] to one employee. Code enforcement capacity would be signific significantly

[1:16:31] reduced. remaining employees would experience

[1:16:34] furlows and substantial benefit reductions.

[1:16:38] Um the city's ability to maintain current programs and service levels

[1:16:42] would be significantly reduced and um lastly disaster preparedness and

[1:16:48] response efforts would be um hampered.

[1:16:54] And that is the end of this presentation.

[1:17:01] Thank you very much, city manager. I'll yield to you.

[1:17:06] » Thank you. Um, so thank you, Joey. And if I could have Molly Thomas, our parks

[1:17:10] and wreck director, uh, come to a microphone. Uh, Molly Thomas has 12 and

[1:17:15] a half years of government service. She has served for seven years in this

[1:17:19] capacity as our parks director. She has a master's degree in anthropology, a

[1:17:24] bachelor of arts in administration, and she's a certified parks and wreck

[1:17:28] executive. uh CPRE through the state of Florida and or nationally certified I

[1:17:34] mean and she is also a Florida records manage has a Florida records management

[1:17:38] certificate. Molly you have the floor.

[1:17:48] All right. Uh thank you for this opportunity council.

[1:17:52] I am very um

[1:17:58] excited to be able to provide the boots on the ground view of what um the

[1:18:05] numbers that were just presented to you mean. Um and I will do that as clear and

[1:18:12] concisely as possible because obviously these are a lot of complex uh

[1:18:17] um moving pieces if you will. So sometimes if you move something in one

[1:18:21] place, it moves something in another. So if you have questions at the end, I'll

[1:18:25] be happy to answer that to the best of my ability. But as you can see from uh

[1:18:29] Joey's presentation that every time you talked about one thing, you ended talk

[1:18:34] up talking about two others. So this is no different. Okay. All right.

[1:18:41] So what I've assembled here is based on the benchmarks as was provided um by

[1:18:48] Joey. Uh Joey and I have spent a lot of time together recently. Um

[1:18:56] the impacts of a 4.5 mil. Um this is which this is the one that requires a

[1:19:03] unanimous vote. This one and everything under it until you get to the next

[1:19:06] number. This is the staff in the park department reduced by 10 personnel.

[1:19:14] The funds this funds three maintenance, one community engagement communications

[1:19:21] person and one director position. All city events including Friday fast,

[1:19:28] monster mash and space coast paddle battle are unfunded in this current um

[1:19:34] budget. All facility operations for the three

[1:19:38] brick and mortars that we have are unfunded. The splashpad operation is

[1:19:43] unfunded. And the box cast streaming service that

[1:19:48] is currently broadcasting this meeting is unfunded.

[1:19:59] So this is a little bit larger visual.

[1:20:04] The removal of 10 people um is only part of the equation. Funding the actual

[1:20:11] programs and activities and building operations themselves is the rest of the

[1:20:15] that equation. So funding the operations and the events is great, but funding the

[1:20:22] people would be essential to executing those operations and events. Um the

[1:20:28] splash pad in particular uh to comply. Um, you mentioned, mayor, in your

[1:20:34] opening statement that, you know, talking about what's legal, what's

[1:20:38] legally required and not legally required. One of the reasons that the

[1:20:42] operations of the splash pad was removed is because that costs $62,000 minimum

[1:20:48] for us to comply with state health regulations to operate it to the public.

[1:20:54] It's treated similar to a public pool. So, there's a lot of rules and

[1:20:57] regulations. So, um, until we found an alternative, uh, entity, if you will, to

[1:21:03] operate that or we wanted to add at least the 62,000 to the budget to

[1:21:08] accommodate that, the splash pad would not be operational and open to the

[1:21:12] public until we found a solution to that. Um, the same goes for the

[1:21:20] programs. Um, most of our programs are actually held by um, independent

[1:21:26] contractors. So those contracts would need to be continued with whomever would

[1:21:33] be taking on the building itself for those contracts to continue.

[1:21:39] So when we look at the different options for

[1:21:45] someone else taking over and and however that looks, there's a lot of different

[1:21:50] ways. [clears throat] Um all the facilities as the city manager indicated

[1:21:55] would be um vacant until another entity or partner is identified to resume the

[1:22:01] operations. Um I spoke at length yesterday with uh

[1:22:06] Mr. City Attorney and Florida statutes require the city to publicly solicit

[1:22:12] proposals before selling or leasing any city-owned property located within the

[1:22:18] CRA. This is not a um simple process and I can let the city attorney speak to

[1:22:26] that um at the end if you guys have any questions because he can speak to it

[1:22:30] much better than I can um because the CRA rules are rather complicated. But it

[1:22:36] does require a strategic assessment of what our goals need to be with

[1:22:41] outsourcing that and then how we are going to go about doing that. And when

[1:22:46] it comes to the three different buildings, it's not a copy and paste. So

[1:22:52] what you do with the C5 in terms of putting out an RFP is going to look

[1:22:57] different from what you put out for the Nancy Hansen or the Cape Center because

[1:23:02] there's different amenities, there's other things on the properties, so on so

[1:23:06] forth. Um, and I can get into that in detail and a little bit more if you want

[1:23:11] at the end. Um public private sponsorship

[1:23:14] opportunities are also a valid option. If you look at places like Picttona that

[1:23:19] is um very much a nonprofit grassroots type of entity. It's very successful um

[1:23:25] but also that takes time to put together. Um

[1:23:31] the other impact that must be [clears throat] realized when it comes

[1:23:36] to outsourcing the facility operations and leaving them vacant um effective

[1:23:41] October 1 is that any revenues generated by the facilities would be suspended

[1:23:46] until alternative um arrangements are finalized.

[1:23:53] Second up outsourcing event operations. So, the

[1:23:58] city has very minimal space and infrastructure to accommodate public

[1:24:02] events. To identify a third party host vendor or organization, the city would

[1:24:07] need to put out an RFP similar to what it would need to do with the buildings.

[1:24:13] Um, to identify the the types of events that you want to hold, um, where you

[1:24:17] want to hold them, and what the goal is for actually hosting them. Um, if

[1:24:23] revenue generation is a consideration, the city may or may not, depending upon

[1:24:28] the city attorney's guidance when it comes to this, uh, have to take a close

[1:24:33] look at its outdoor event entertainment permit. As it stands right now, if you

[1:24:37] were to come in and apply for an outdoor event entertainment permit and your

[1:24:42] event had over, say, 250 to 300 people, the most the city, not not police and

[1:24:49] fired, but the city would earn from that pushing around of paper would be $500.

[1:24:57] So that's not not a needle mover, if you will, because

[1:25:03] police and fire get paid separately by that person that is applying to do the

[1:25:07] event. Um outsourcing programming, that's kind

[1:25:12] of a repeat of what I just indicated. Um many of the city's programs are

[1:25:17] currently provided by independent contractors that pay the city 25% of the

[1:25:22] fees that they charge participants. types of programs offered or maintained

[1:25:27] going forward would be at the sole discretion of what I'm calling the

[1:25:31] franchisee, whoever is coming in to operate those facilities [snorts] and

[1:25:35] facility the city's ability to collect facility related program revenue

[1:25:40] following that would completely depend on the operational arrangements that we

[1:25:44] come to with whomever is running the buildings.

[1:25:50] So to sum all of that up with the current proposed 4.5

[1:25:56] expenditures related to basic level facility maintenance would have to

[1:26:00] continue until an alternative building operations model can be finalized to

[1:26:05] include t time for the requisite um code reviews and um obligations that are uh

[1:26:14] upon us due to the um nuances of the CRA and having to init initiate the RFP

[1:26:19] process. All current facility and event related revenue sources would cease

[1:26:25] until an alternative operations model is finalized.

[1:26:29] Refunds will need to be issued to facility renters program event

[1:26:34] participants for scheduled activities that are going to occur after October 1,

[1:26:39] 2026. Um, when I first put this agenda packet out, I didn't have all my numbers

[1:26:44] from my team yet. And I believe the number you first saw was 6,000. It's

[1:26:50] closer to 10. So we would need to process approximately $10,000 worth of

[1:26:54] revenues um if we were to cease building operations October one. Uh that would

[1:27:00] include um participants to Friday Fest as well. Um, so

[1:27:10] expectations from that, um, most likely, and this is just coming from my 12 years

[1:27:15] of working in communications from the city, um, it would be remiss not to

[1:27:20] consider that, uh, the negative community response to related closures

[1:27:26] and facilities and scaledback services should be among the expectations.

[1:27:34] So the next milestone that Joey has provided for us is the one that requires

[1:27:39] the supermajority vote. This is the 3.5. This effectively dissolves the parks and

[1:27:46] recreation and community affairs department. No positions are funded at

[1:27:50] all. All communications duties would um and this is you know pure conjecture.

[1:27:57] [snorts] Uh all communications duties would shift to community and economic

[1:28:00] development. Emergency operations support duties would also shift to

[1:28:06] community and economic development. Facility use over of the facility use

[1:28:12] oversight contracts permits to include pavilion rentals would shift to

[1:28:16] community and economic development and all park and facility maintenance would

[1:28:20] be shifted to infrastructure maintenance.

[1:28:27] So when we were looking at the individuals that were coming in at the

[1:28:34] 4.5 mil that is that was five staff members and those five staff members are

[1:28:42] responsible would be responsible for all of the things that are listed on this um

[1:28:49] chart right here. So for the communications roles that is website,

[1:28:56] social media, the records compliance associated with that and also other

[1:29:01] records compliance needs, emergency communications, public meeting noticing,

[1:29:06] digital ADA compliance, the marquee, the state of the city, uh your basic brand

[1:29:12] management, which for those that don't know what that all means, it's your

[1:29:16] business cards, it's your letter head, it's all of that. Those are that's all

[1:29:21] all that design work is done in-house and uh any community engagement that you

[1:29:28] can think of whether it's a report of concern whether it's you know hosting an

[1:29:33] event any of that that's all part of that communication function. Um assuming

[1:29:39] that we would be contracting out or leasing facilities, the people to do

[1:29:46] that contracting and permitting, facility contracts, franchise

[1:29:50] agreements, outdoor event permits, and any remaining facility rentals, all of

[1:29:54] those roles would need to shift to someone else. And then the three

[1:29:58] maintenance that would be um removed in this 3.5 mil uh they would be

[1:30:05] responsible for irrigation, grounds maintenance, the janitorial roles at the

[1:30:10] park pavilions, your basic plumbing and electrical at all of the the non-brick

[1:30:15] and mortar facilities and uh just general equipment safety like your

[1:30:19] playgrounds.

[1:30:23] So what does that look like to shift those responsibilities to another

[1:30:29] department or outsourcing it? um those assuming the new responsibilities would

[1:30:36] require extensive training not just um ADA but a lot of legal stuff that's

[1:30:42] associated with meeting notices so on so forth um content creation

[1:30:48] uh county EOC communications procedures and basic FEMA and um incident control

[1:30:53] systems um PIO responsibilities shifting contract and permit

[1:30:59] responsibilities whoever is taking on that new role would need a a very solid

[1:31:07] briefing on, you know, all the city codes that we have currently that govern

[1:31:11] the use of our public properties. Um, our city park and recreation properties

[1:31:16] themselves, the amenities, known issues, historic use, community nuances, grant

[1:31:21] restrictions. That's um one thing that was brought up in public comment is uh

[1:31:27] you know selling off certain properties while they may have significant cash

[1:31:32] value to unload them. Some things are protected for a certain number of years

[1:31:37] once a grant comes into play when it's uh for the building of say a kayak

[1:31:42] launch or a pavilion or a playground. Um the city is limited in what it can do

[1:31:48] and Anthony and I spoke about that yesterday as well. And that's one of

[1:31:53] those things where sometimes it would make sense to do it, sometimes it might

[1:31:57] not make sense to do it. So, um, that would have to be examined before we made

[1:32:04] any, you know, actions to to start doing something like that.

[1:32:10] And the shifting of maintenance responsibilities, those people would

[1:32:14] need to learn the ins and outs of our parks and our properties. Um, they would

[1:32:18] need the the maintenance history. They would need to know um the operational

[1:32:22] needs of the different property features. Um certainly playground and

[1:32:26] and property safety requirements. And um one of the most valuable things um that

[1:32:33] most of my maintenance team can speak to is knowing who your resident allies

[1:32:38] allies are. The people that walk around the parks, the people that walk up and

[1:32:41] talk to them every day, the people that point out, "Oh, I saw this." you know

[1:32:46] that type of institutional knowledge is very helpful when it comes to um trying

[1:32:50] to maintain properties like that. So

[1:32:56] to summarize what the 3.8 or below will do is it 3.8 8 or 3.5? 3.5

[1:33:05] or below. Sorry, typo. Um, all expectations from the previous

[1:33:10] summary. In addition to extensive training needed for reassigned staff to

[1:33:15] provide just the most basic of services, you'll have a diminished ability for the

[1:33:20] city to prepare for, respond to, and recover from an emergency. Um, it will

[1:33:25] be an increased workload for staff and other departments who have also been um

[1:33:29] similarly reduced. and um a diminished ability for the city to safely maintain

[1:33:35] the playgrounds and other recreational spaces.

[1:33:39] And that's all I got. Any questions for me,

[1:33:45] » city man? >> Thank Thank you very much,

[1:33:49] » council. Do do we want to uh go through um and try to get through all of them

[1:33:55] and then circle back for questions? >> I think that would be

[1:33:57] » sound good. I think probably we'll have some questions but okay I think we'll

[1:34:04] keep moving through. Thank you so much. >> Thank you Molly.

[1:34:07] » You're welcome. >> If I can invite HR Director Natalie

[1:34:10] Watkins to come forward.

[1:34:15] Natalie has 25 years of government service, 14 years serving as a human

[1:34:19] resources director. She holds a master's in public administration,

[1:34:24] uh, HR certification, uh, from the Executive Leadership Institute, Bvard

[1:34:28] County, and she's also certified from the Society of HR risk management, um,

[1:34:33] professionals. Thank you, Natalie. >> Okay.

[1:34:38] Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes.

[1:34:40] » All right. So, I wanted to start out with this slide to give you all an idea

[1:34:45] of what we were presented with when it came to our insurance renewal. We were

[1:34:50] presented with a really significant financial problem. The city routinely

[1:34:55] budgeted budgets about a 6% increase annually on the healthcare. Our current

[1:35:00] carrier came in with a 45% increase which a lot of our surrounding

[1:35:06] municipalities are also seeing. Um 6% is less than the national average of 8 to

[1:35:11] nine that people are seeing. We knew we couldn't absorb that. So we formed an a

[1:35:16] benefit committee with nine employees from different departments with

[1:35:20] different health needs and we looked at hundreds of plans from different

[1:35:25] carriers. We reduced our life insurance benefit to the staff. We reduced our

[1:35:31] long-term disability insurance and we changed carriers over to Florida Blue.

[1:35:37] So, we worked as a team to take that pot of money that was budgeted across all

[1:35:41] line items to get it back to the 6%. So, and that's really important because

[1:35:48] when we're trying to recruit, the wages aren't always competitive, but it's the

[1:35:52] total compensation package that we use as our recruiting and retention tools.

[1:35:59] So um when we're looking at this I think we need to apply the same staffing

[1:36:04] decisions that we're discussing now to understand the full financial impact

[1:36:08] before we make the cut. So

[1:36:14] this is the financial premise of the presentation. Basically before we

[1:36:18] eliminate we need to ask four questions and mayor you did allude to this in your

[1:36:22] opening statement. The first one is what work disappears?

[1:36:26] If the answer is none, who is going to absorb it? Will it be existing staff?

[1:36:31] Will that lead to overtime contractors which aren't cheap? Or does the work

[1:36:36] simply take longer? So then that goes to what happens to service,

[1:36:42] the level being provided to our to our residents. And then overall, what's the

[1:36:47] actual net savings when we do this? That's the number we need to focus on. A

[1:36:52] salary disappearing from the wage schedule is easy to calculate. However,

[1:36:57] the downstream costs are harder to see, but harder does not mean they don't

[1:37:02] exist. For instance, unemployment.

[1:37:06] With the 10 staff reduction, we're looking at 33,000 for unemployment.

[1:37:13] With the other scenarios, it could be 85,000.

[1:37:18] So, and that doesn't include PTO payouts which could range up to 200,000. So,

[1:37:24] those are also budget impacts.

[1:37:29] Okay. So, with regards to the current labor

[1:37:33] market, I did go out and we looked at other surrounding cities, the big ones

[1:37:38] around us that we're competing for talent with.

[1:37:42] So 51% of our our positions are ranked lowest

[1:37:48] on the minimum wage scale against all the others and that was 61 of 71

[1:37:53] position titles. 34% of them max out lower than all the others.

[1:38:01] We did have an internal employee survey back in July and eight out of 10

[1:38:06] employees identified their compensation and benefits as their top personal

[1:38:11] concerns. So those numbers also need to be considered. We're not starting this

[1:38:17] conversation from a position of being highly competitive.

[1:38:22] Does that mean everyone's going to leave? No, that's not what I'm saying.

[1:38:25] But it needs to un we need to understand the environment we're in when we're

[1:38:29] looking at increased workloads, reduced staffed, and an erosion of benefits

[1:38:34] which include furls, colas, merit increases, and retirement plan cuts.

[1:38:40] So to show you what that actually looks like,

[1:38:44] these are four positions that are considered essential. And I do have

[1:38:49] others if you guys are interested in seeing those comparisons. But just for

[1:38:54] two of our um our director positions, we're 15 to $30,000 below our our

[1:39:02] competitors. The city clerk is 18 to 46,000 below. Plant operators, which

[1:39:08] don't come easy, and the average age is starting to retire out of those

[1:39:14] positions. We are four to 20,000 below our competitors depending on the level

[1:39:20] of license ABC.

[1:39:24] So, and for with that, I'm not saying we

[1:39:27] have to be the highest paid city. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying

[1:39:30] we need to recognize what this means when we're recruiting and retaining

[1:39:34] people.

[1:39:40] Okay. So the turnover cascade as you can see is something that we all need to be

[1:39:46] concerned about. When we eliminate a position but the work gets the work

[1:39:50] remains and it gets redistributed to staff. We see people become stretched,

[1:39:55] disengaged. Outside workers could become injured and then we see someone else

[1:40:00] leave. Now we have another vacancy that we didn't even plan for.

[1:40:05] Now we're recruiting, interviewing, training with a budget we don't have in

[1:40:10] this new budget while the remaining staff carry even more workload. And

[1:40:15] that's how one plan reduction increased the risk of additional unplanned

[1:40:18] turnover. And I think we've already seen this. It's not a hypothetical concern

[1:40:23] for us. We saw it downstairs in in the community economic development

[1:40:28] department. When one person left, four others left behind them voluntarily. So

[1:40:37] um and again these are benchmarks. I'm not saying these are what it's going to

[1:40:41] cost to replace each employee but statistically to replace a front level

[1:40:46] line employee it cost about 45 40% of salary

[1:40:51] and the higher up a technical position 80,000 or 80% sorry. And then for a

[1:40:56] director level cuz right now we're not getting applicants for our city clerk

[1:41:02] position. So we are looking at having to use a recruiting firm which is going to

[1:41:07] cost money and it's also going to you know include relocation costs

[1:41:13] and again these are benchmarks. I'm not saying that this is the check that we're

[1:41:17] going to have to write at the exact amount but in it does involve a lot of

[1:41:21] staff time to make these replacements work. Not to mention the institutional

[1:41:27] knowledge that walks out the door that is not hard to re that is very hard to

[1:41:31] replace. The more specialized the employee, the

[1:41:34] harder the knowledge is to replace in these situations.

[1:41:38] [snorts]

[1:41:40] So

[1:41:44] the number to the left is easy to calculate. We

[1:41:48] eliminate. We see the salary and benefits come off the budget line. But

[1:41:52] that's not the gross savings. It's it's not it isn't necessarily the nec or it

[1:41:56] is the gross savings, not the net savings. If the work remains and all of

[1:42:00] those other things I've already covered continue,

[1:42:04] um we have to assume [clears throat] that we're going to have all of these

[1:42:08] recruiting cost and extra overtime to fill these gaps. There's a significant

[1:42:16] difference also that we need to consider when we're going from a large group

[1:42:19] health plan to a small group health plan insurance under 50 employees. Those are

[1:42:24] things that there's no guarantee that a smaller group means lower health care

[1:42:29] prices. Historically, the large groups can be lower rates because they are

[1:42:34] negotiable and the risk is spread over a larger population.

[1:42:38] In the smaller markets, rates are not negotiable. Plan designs are

[1:42:42] standardized and rates are based on age and location rather than the health

[1:42:46] experience of the group. There's other implications that we would

[1:42:50] have to consider also and that's at the bottom. But it would involve affordable

[1:42:55] care act FMLA reporting implications and depending on how many full-time

[1:43:01] employees we have left, we would have to dig into that to see how we are affected

[1:43:05] there. So reducing headcount can have a financial and admin consequence beyond

[1:43:11] the salaries just being removed.

[1:43:16] This is a kind of a redundant one of what Molly's already shown, but it's

[1:43:20] worth repeating to understand that yes, we're not closing the facilities. We're

[1:43:26] going to lease them out. But that doesn't guarantee that the person

[1:43:30] leasing them is going to offer the services that we are losing that our

[1:43:34] residents have come to re that they current release currently receive.

[1:43:39] So when we're discontinuing services, we can't assume that those services will

[1:43:44] continue. That's not me saying they can't be

[1:43:47] eliminated. You guys have the authority to make those decisions. But we need to

[1:43:52] be clear about what the decision actually means. If we're choosing to

[1:43:56] save the cost of operating the facilities and staffing the positions,

[1:44:00] then we're choosing to stop providing the services. And those two decisions

[1:44:04] can't be separated.

[1:44:09] So, I understand that council has a very difficult decision to make and I

[1:44:14] recognize the need to reduce cost. My purpose today is to tell you that not

[1:44:20] you can't not to tell you that nothing can be cut. It's to make sure we

[1:44:23] understand the full decision we're making here. On one side are the

[1:44:27] savings, payroll, facility, operating cost, and other direct costs. On the

[1:44:32] other side, we're giving up positions, facilities, programs, resident services,

[1:44:38] organizational capacity. And in this case, those losses are not theoretical.

[1:44:45] If we determine that the savings justify those losses, then we will move forward

[1:44:51] with those decisions. But we need to have the entire picture

[1:44:55] in front of us. This the savings and the services lost are part of the same

[1:44:59] decision. That's mine. It was brief. So

[1:45:05] » thank you, Natalie. >> Yep.

[1:45:09] [applause]

[1:45:12] So, council, um, I did want to make sure you knew that we have another director

[1:45:17] present from our general fund, and that's Zach Iicults. Uh, uh, Zach is our

[1:45:22] community economic development director and our emergency operations coordinator

[1:45:27] for the public's knowledge. Uh, he has 10 years of government service. Uh, he

[1:45:31] served in his current capacity for as our director just about two months.

[1:45:36] Prior to that, he was within that department his whole time here. Uh he

[1:45:40] has a master of science in interdisciplinary sciences uh and also

[1:45:44] bachelor of science and sustainability sciences as we know Zach was in our um

[1:45:49] resiliency director. Um and he's here. He does have a presentation, but he does

[1:45:54] have backup information submitted for the council's review and the and of

[1:45:58] course the public's review. Um and I just want to make one final statement,

[1:46:02] mayor, before I turn the microphone over to you. Um, our staff has worked very

[1:46:07] hard, as I said, on putting this information together and this

[1:46:11] presentation is is clearly for the community's consumption. Um, the

[1:46:16] decisions that have to be made here by our council are very serious. Um, and

[1:46:21] and so we wanted the community to be informed.

[1:46:24] The purpose of this presentation was not to shock and awe anybody. uh it's just

[1:46:30] the reality of dealing with the numbers and the services the the corresponding

[1:46:34] loss of those services. [clears throat] Um so that was not our goal. Our goal

[1:46:39] was just to present the facts and the information so the community is aware

[1:46:44] and that they community uh can provide this council with the information that

[1:46:48] is most important to them now that they are fully aware of of what these [music]

[1:46:54] potential whatever potential military you choose um could bring about for

[1:46:58] their community. So thank you mayor. >> Thank you. So the um our director Zach

[1:47:04] there's no presentation at that this time for that one. That that's correct.

[1:47:08] But he is here uh and he's part of the general fund

[1:47:11] » and we do have the print out and packet council. How about we take a a recess

[1:47:16] unless there's just some initial comments here. We can come back and I

[1:47:19] think go back through. Thank you all very much and uh city manager and team.

[1:47:23] » That's that's fine. >> Sounds good.

[1:47:26] » I I just have a question for Natalie. We can pick it up later.

[1:47:30] » That's fine. >> Okay.

[1:47:33] » Make sure we come. >> Yeah. I have several questions. So

[1:47:36] picking it up later is what I'd like to do so we can revisit.

[1:47:41] » Okay. So yeah, it's 2:52. 10 minutes or so or once we're all back,

[1:47:45] we can reconvene. Let's go ahead and recess.

[2:11:13] Council, are we ready? >> Ready to go. City manager, are you

[2:11:17] ready?

[2:11:22] » Take your time. Just let me know. >> We're going to get started in about

[2:11:26] maybe 30 seconds to a minute. Just giving you a heads up. Thank you all for

[2:11:30] your patience and taking that recess. Um, and if you do want to speak, thank

[2:11:36] you, sir. We are going to open public comment back up at some point, uh,

[2:11:40] depending on what the council wants to do. And, uh,

[2:11:45] yeah, please fill out a card if you choose to speak. And as always, if you

[2:11:50] did speak at the first one and, uh, recognizing that you might have heard

[2:11:56] something that was presented or stated and you want to speak again, we

[2:11:59] absolutely welcome that as well. So, thank you.

[2:12:03] Mayor, you refer to the budget comparison report.

[2:12:07] » I think so. Yes, it was the same email

[2:12:12] that I responded to. >> It is the budget comparison.

[2:12:15] » Yes, it is.

[2:12:27] » Thank you. [snorts] Ready to go? >> Yes.

[2:12:32] Okay, righty. It is 3:17 p.m. We are returning

[2:12:37] back from our recess. I call the meeting back to order. We at our workshop

[2:12:41] meeting here continuing uh along the agenda and uh we just uh finished the

[2:12:49] presentation from our city manager and and directors and staff. Uh I think this

[2:12:55] council, we got some questions, but before doing so, I want to go back to

[2:12:59] our city manager. Uh, thank you, mayor. I just did have uh two more follow-up

[2:13:04] comments in addition to uh Zach Iicult, our director for community development.

[2:13:09] Uh we have Dave Coulson from our um infrastructure maintenance. And if you

[2:13:15] have any questions about what IM would look like in relation to these mill

[2:13:18] rates, he'll be on hand for that. And then finally, back to the community when

[2:13:22] I talked about the presentation and um no intent to shock and awe the public

[2:13:27] obviously. Um the reason why we were specific in what cuts would look

[2:13:33] like is because during the last budget workshop we were operating from the

[2:13:39] premise that we were coming down at a 4.5 millillage rate and what those cuts

[2:13:43] would look like and then there was conversation on the dis about

[2:13:46] potentially going lower than 4.5 and so that meeting was running long. We had

[2:13:51] other uh items to discuss. So it that workshop was kind of paused if you will

[2:13:58] the content or the dialogue at that time was paused uh so that staff could return

[2:14:04] with what cuts would look like from the uh roll back rate up through the 4.5

[2:14:11] mills. So that's that's why we came back today with all of that information. Um

[2:14:16] we were having that conversation last budget workshop just at a 3.5 millillage

[2:14:20] rate. I'm sorry. Um, a 4.5. Thank you, milligate. And, uh, but now we have all

[2:14:26] of them. So, I just wanted to clarify that point.

[2:14:29] » Thank you, sir. Council, uh, as far as the original placement of public

[2:14:36] participation was right after discussion. Do we want to ask our

[2:14:39] questions? I know council member Willis had questions. I think we we all

[2:14:42] probably do. How do we want to do it? >> Well, if I may,

[2:14:47] » we have people here. They've heard what we just heard. Maybe maybe they have

[2:14:52] some questions. We'll open it up for them for for now and then we can

[2:14:56] respond. >> I think that that makes sense. Let's do

[2:15:00] maybe a hybrid. Is there any technical or clarifying questions before going to

[2:15:04] the public that maybe be helpful for the public to hear?

[2:15:08] » I have some. >> Okay. Council member Willis, you do as

[2:15:12] well. >> I do.

[2:15:13] » Okay. All of us. Okay. Let's go. Mayor Pro Tim.

[2:15:17] » Okay. I had a couple of questions and I as we worked through the materials that

[2:15:22] we had, let me get to them so I know exactly who to ask. Um,

[2:15:30] okay. on the and I let's see this one I believe

[2:15:35] is you Joey as we were talk and as we were talking and there these this

[2:15:40] doesn't have a a page number but it's the millillage decision determines the

[2:15:44] city's operating capacity slide

[2:15:50] and on that slide it says in right there perfect infrastructure maintenance would

[2:15:55] be reduced to one employee now I know that we have infrastructure maintenance

[2:16:00] personnel and PRCA also in public works. Is this um which which position are we

[2:16:09] talking about there for that one employee?

[2:16:12] » That one employee would be left in the infrastructure maintenance department.

[2:16:16] So that is not the um parks and wreck. >> Okay. So it's not parks and wreck. And

[2:16:22] is it um the infrastructure maintenance department that falls under public works

[2:16:28] or is this for these buildings for city hall, Cape Center and and the community

[2:16:36] center? >> That is correct. The the infra

[2:16:38] infrastructure maintenance um is for the general fund.

[2:16:42] » Okay. So, city hall, Cape Center, and community center.

[2:16:46] » Can I clarify real quick on that? So when we talk about the the maintenance

[2:16:53] folks in my team, we don't lump them into infrastructure maintenance and my

[2:16:58] three current maintenance folks and the ones that would be included in the 4.5

[2:17:04] but eliminated by the further roll back on that. Um they do the 27 acres of

[2:17:13] » Okay. Can we and I'm I'm in a different spot so I want to get that Molly.

[2:17:19] » So yeah, the commun the city hall. Yes. >> The infrastructure maintenance from

[2:17:25] public works has very minimal to do with Cape Center or any of the recreation

[2:17:31] buildings. They help us considerably when we need help, but within that

[2:17:37] » parameter that's not >> So what you're saying is this

[2:17:41] infrastructure maintenance person only works at city hall.

[2:17:44] » Um mostly well in around town like clearing storm drains and stuff like

[2:17:50] that. >> Okay. I thought that would have been

[2:17:52] done under public works for clearing storm drains instead of the general

[2:17:56] fund. >> I will let June and them speak to that.

[2:18:01] I just wanted to clarify that it had nothing to do with the Cape Center Nancy

[2:18:04] Hansen or the other ones. >> Okay. So, this person right here that is

[2:18:09] one employee only maintains city hall and some storm water projects within the

[2:18:15] city is what I'm hearing. >> If we could have Dave Coulter come to

[2:18:19] the microphone, he can explain all of the IM.

[2:18:21] » Thank you, Dave.

[2:18:25] So, um, infrastructure maintenance, the way that they're seeing it on this is

[2:18:31] all infrastructure maintenance in the city. It's this building. It's public

[2:18:36] works infrastructure maintenance. It's all roads. It would be all parks. It

[2:18:40] would be all grass cutting. It would be all everything that gets done on the

[2:18:45] beaches.

[2:18:48] Not not not and then if if the parks are gone it would also mean

[2:18:53] all the parks as well too in person for all that.

[2:18:56] » Okay. So help me understand Dave so that I I get this because I think that this

[2:19:02] context is important when we're looking at at various things like this. So do we

[2:19:09] have any infrastructure maintenance people in public works?

[2:19:13] » Yes they are the public works is infrastructure maintenance. Okay. So, is

[2:19:19] this person in public works that we're talking about?

[2:19:22] » Okay. And what and so this person that's reduced to one person.

[2:19:28] » Um it there they do all grass cutting all of the buildings.

[2:19:35] » It would be everything in the city. Yeah.

[2:19:37] » Everything in the city. Okay. What do the other public or infrastructure

[2:19:42] maintenance people do? >> They'd be gone.

[2:19:45] » Oh, they'd be gone. >> There'd be one person. Okay. So all

[2:19:48] infrastructure maintenance is under public works. You handle everything and

[2:19:54] in this statement we'd be reduced to one person. Correct. So there we're not

[2:19:59] looking at another group of infrastructure maintenance

[2:20:02] » people. There's just the one. >> Okay. See that's important. So I needed

[2:20:06] to know that. So this person is the public works infrastructure

[2:20:12] maintenance. Okay. Thank you Dave. That's what I wanted to know on that

[2:20:16] because that makes a difference. Um, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to keep keep

[2:20:22] rolling through if you don't mind. Sure. >> So, I can just get these out of the way

[2:20:26] and then that way I'll be out of the way on my questions.

[2:20:30] Okay. And then this one is for Natalie. >> Title or is it the first slide? I'm

[2:20:38] looking. >> It's the slide about 45%.

[2:20:42] » Okay. um

[2:20:45] renewal increase that you all had and then the 6% city budgeted increase.

[2:20:51] » Okay. So um you said that there were um there were decre or you had worked on

[2:20:59] decreasing long-term disability. >> Correct. We

[2:21:03] » Okay. Can you tell me what the premium is for long-term disability?

[2:21:08] » It annually >> Yes. It went down from about 24,000

[2:21:14] annually and we reduced the benefit for to 50% from 60% and it's dropping it to

[2:21:21] Well, it'll depend obviously on where we land on our numbers, but with the

[2:21:26] current >> Well, how much did you cut it when

[2:21:29] you're saying you went and um >> we cut it by about 5,000 overall, but

[2:21:34] that was with the current staffing model,

[2:21:38] » right? I'm just needing to know what that um

[2:21:41] what that looked like. So you cut it by 5,000.

[2:21:45] » Okay. U around 19,000. >> Believe it was 18.

[2:21:51] » 18. Okay. So that'd be six. Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Let me see if I

[2:21:56] have another one for you before you Okay. Um

[2:22:01] Okay. That one wasn't a question. Let me look here. Okay. on the comparison of

[2:22:07] salaries that are on the pay comparison key positions and versus market sheet

[2:22:15] » this one. >> Yes.

[2:22:16] » Okay. >> Are these just salaries or are these

[2:22:20] salaries plus all the benefits? >> No, those are just the starting wages.

[2:22:23] Those don't include the benefits. And I believe in my other packet I had

[2:22:27] provided you what the surrounding municipalities also offer for benefits

[2:22:33] for their staff as a comparison. So these are just the base starting wages.

[2:22:39] Okay.

[2:22:46] Right. So, I wanted to clarify that because that's important to know because

[2:22:50] when you look at adding in benefits, >> it increases it substantially typically

[2:22:56] because insurance isn't cheap. >> Correct. And like the other

[2:22:59] municipalities are all doing the 100% paid for the employee on the health

[2:23:04] insurance and they're very competitive across the board.

[2:23:08] » Yeah. And and it's hard for me looking at other cities and saying let's

[2:23:13] compare. It's hard >> because we've got West Melbourne who has

[2:23:17] homes with acreage. >> We've got Cocoa Beach that now has a

[2:23:22] large majority homes that are over a million dollars and we hadn't gotten

[2:23:26] there yet. So, it makes it hard for comparison comparing for you. I'm sure

[2:23:30] » there's no apples to apples. We did go out and look like the mayor had

[2:23:33] requested >> and Indian [clears throat] Harbor might

[2:23:36] be comparable by numbers, but their waters provided by the city of

[2:23:40] Melbourne, part of their fire department's volunteer staffing, they're

[2:23:44] not planked by the port and the hotels in Cocoa Beach. So,

[2:23:49] » understood. Yeah. So, and then on the turnover cascade

[2:23:55] » on that slide, >> um you refer you were referring to a a

[2:24:01] large group of people leaving in the um community and economic development group

[2:24:07] and was that when the we had the situation with the prior city manager

[2:24:12] exiting? >> Correct. We had um I believe what was

[2:24:14] it? 20 >> five to well from everyone we lost four

[2:24:19] voluntarily but the total number >> since then was about 20 employee

[2:24:23] turnover. >> Okay. Yeah.

[2:24:26] » Okay. But I wanted to clarify that because that I think that cascade had

[2:24:31] something to do with circumstances at that time. So

[2:24:35] » it did. >> Okay.

[2:24:36] » All right then. Let me I'm sorry. I'm just I'm just going through really

[2:24:40] hitting you Natalie. Let's see. Okay. All right. Um, and then this one's for

[2:24:47] Molly. I've just been going through as y'all did everything and making my

[2:24:52] notes. So, Molly, as we look at the impact of a budget of 4.5 mills

[2:25:01] summary. >> Okay.

[2:25:03] » Okay. Um, and it says box cast streaming of public meetings would be unfunded.

[2:25:10] And I guess I'm I know you've been here a long time, so I'm asking this for

[2:25:15] historical knowledge. I'm not sure why bo box cast streaming of public meetings

[2:25:21] would be under the PRCA or culture lever or services cuz that's government

[2:25:27] business. So I would think of that being somewhere else in the budget. So would

[2:25:34] you explain that for me? If you look at the history of how I got to

[2:25:40] where I am, >> um I was a standalone department at one

[2:25:44] point that was all of the city's communications and also the digital ADA

[2:25:51] responsibilities. The reason that I don't get directly

[2:25:55] involved in say agenda packet development software anything like that

[2:26:01] is that the reason boxcast is utilized is because it's the most hands down the

[2:26:08] most affordable and userfriendly way to facilitate

[2:26:13] um captioned live meetings. So, if we don't if we if the city council wishes

[2:26:20] to continue broadcasting live, the only affordable means to do that is to use

[2:26:27] box cast. >> Well, and I'm not questioning the

[2:26:29] software because we need to have a way to Absolutely. And I'm sure y'all have

[2:26:34] investigated that. My question was why it was in PRCA because to me

[2:26:39] » because the C and the A. >> Yeah.

[2:26:41] » I'm the community affairs so I do all the city's communications. All of them.

[2:26:45] Okay. So, culture and leisure services >> is no more.

[2:26:51] » Okay. And so, it's PRCA and the CA is community affairs.

[2:26:56] » Yes, ma'am. >> Okay.

[2:26:58] » Thank you. I I needed that.

[2:27:04] Okay. I'm sorry, council. I'll be through in just a minute.

[2:27:11] Okay. And then we had um

[2:27:23] okay on the leasing out of the

[2:27:30] potential leasing the community the community center for example.

[2:27:37] um understand we'd have to go out with the RFP process and it's pretty much

[2:27:42] standard for any type of government situation where you're soliciting a

[2:27:47] vendor >> and you may have to jump in on this city

[2:27:51] attorney as we go. So that that to me is not an unusual process. Um we'd have to

[2:27:58] have three bids is typically what state statute has you do. Correct.

[2:28:05] with respect to the properties that are located within this U community

[2:28:08] redevelopment area which you know Gen 5, you know, city hall,

[2:28:13] » Cape Center, um Nancy Hansen, I mean they're all they're all in the CRA area.

[2:28:18] So what comes with that territory is under the community redevelopment act

[2:28:23] there is a um um a disposition of property of requirement because the

[2:28:28] property um is owned by the city um or the CRA. If the city CRA owned property,

[2:28:35] you have to go through this RFP process. The RFP process is not like any other

[2:28:40] RFP process because it's in the redevelopment area. So the some

[2:28:45] strategic forethought will be need needed to be given to the RFP because

[2:28:49] the you you'll be requesting proposals that have to be consistent with the

[2:28:53] community redevelopment plan that has been adopted by the uh community

[2:28:57] redevelopment agency and has to be a a redevelopment type like activity that

[2:29:02] would be supported um under the plan. So there there's a few other boxes to tick.

[2:29:09] » Um but it's not unlike what you said the general generally cities have to go

[2:29:14] through that kind of process. >> But you know leasing property in the CRA

[2:29:18] or selling property located within the CRA has to go through a special

[2:29:23] disposition process. >> Okay. And then another question on that

[2:29:29] is so we we say this as leasing property and really there I see a couple of ways

[2:29:36] that could be done but you correct me because I could be wrong since it's CRA

[2:29:41] because really you could be leasing the property or where we you know are just

[2:29:46] saying here we're going to let you use our property or we could be having kind

[2:29:50] of a hybrid situation where we're saying you're leasing our property And a

[2:29:55] condition of this is that you provide us with maintaining the spla splash pad

[2:30:01] hours, maintaining the pickle ball court services,

[2:30:06] um taking care of gym services, and we could go in and specify what things we

[2:30:11] want. When I think of just leasing the property is just saying here you do it

[2:30:15] and they choose. But could we have that hybrid situation where we define

[2:30:20] services within that lease? There will absolutely be that hybrids that you

[2:30:26] speak of because in order to do an RFP that I'm talking about disposition of

[2:30:31] real property in a community redevelopment area, you the city and the

[2:30:35] CRA board will have to prepare a very detailed request for proposals for a

[2:30:43] specific type of project that um would be consistent with the redevelopment

[2:30:49] plan and activities. and proposals would be submitted, evaluated, and undoubtedly

[2:30:56] there will be um a contractual agreement um could be like an operating agreement

[2:31:02] depending on what you know we're we're dealing with on the on the proposal.

[2:31:05] [clears throat] >> Okay. And so would this the same be

[2:31:09] applicable for the Nancy Hansen since it's in the CRA development? Even though

[2:31:14] we may not have used oops may not have used CRA funds to renovate it,

[2:31:20] » we would still be able to apply those rules to Nancy Hansen saying we want you

[2:31:25] to provide services for equipment rentals or anything like that and we

[2:31:30] want you to provide services to support Friday or any of those things that are

[2:31:36] related to Nancy Hansen. >> Yes. under under the case law

[2:31:42] interpreting that statute. Um even though Nancy Hansen was property that

[2:31:47] was, you know, acquired and and built um and and run without CRA funds, it's

[2:31:53] still going to be subject to the same disposition if it's a lease or a sale.

[2:31:58] » Okay. Right. >> Okay. All right. So, that would Thank

[2:32:02] you, city attorney. I had to know that because how we handle those things, it

[2:32:09] makes a difference, too. So, I appreciate that. And then, um,

[2:32:15] okay, that one I think I've got Oh, okay. The other one was on this page of

[2:32:22] Molly's presentation, which is the summary expectations with the current

[2:32:26] proposed 4.5 mills. And with that, when we're talking about

[2:32:33] um possibly having to refund $6,000 of uh

[2:32:40] fees that people have paid to join the community center, fees that have been um

[2:32:46] collected already for Fridayfest and that sort of thing. But my question, and

[2:32:52] I guess this would be to uh I guess it's I guess it would be

[2:32:58] Anthony. Sorry, Anthony, I'm asking you everything today.

[2:33:01] » Can I clarify what that actually includes?

[2:33:04] » Mhm. >> Okay. It does not include membership

[2:33:06] fees. >> Okay.

[2:33:07] » That is not part of that membership fees. They sign paperwork saying when

[2:33:11] they register for annual or a monthly membership, it says non-refundable. So,

[2:33:16] the city, unless Anthony tells me otherwise, is not responsible for that.

[2:33:21] » Okay. What that figure includes is actually um as I noted I when this was

[2:33:26] due I only had the 6,000 number in hand. It's now closer to 10.

[2:33:31] » Mhm. >> Um so that includes over $4,000 worth of

[2:33:35] facility rentals and um also registrations for uh programs that are

[2:33:42] starting either next month or within the next couple days. and also all of the

[2:33:48] Friday Fest payments that have been taken uh through December.

[2:33:52] » Okay, thank you Molly. And um let's see that that just kind of got me off track

[2:33:59] here but okay so that's for the things that for people that have rented for

[2:34:05] Friday fest have rentals for the facilities and I had sent an email

[2:34:11] asking about the pickle ball tournaments and what we earn on those versus what it

[2:34:17] cost in staff time and that kind of thing. Did you happen to have that? I

[2:34:21] know you've been busy. Right off the top of my head, um what is not included in

[2:34:25] that $10,000 number right now is an invoice that could honestly be paid at

[2:34:30] any point. Um for $712 and the staff time to do that rental is

[2:34:39] minimal. >> Okay. For all those tournaments she had

[2:34:42] listed in that email. >> That's not all the tournaments. Those

[2:34:46] are just the the two coming up with the Nancy Hansen.

[2:34:48] » Okay. I was curious on all those tournaments because she emailed us and

[2:34:52] gave us a list of tournaments for the whole year that were going to be in C5

[2:34:57] as well as Nancy Hansen. >> I was only able to get the Nancy Hansen

[2:35:01] numbers because I've been >> if you could provide those to us later,

[2:35:05] that would be helpful too >> because that is that is basically tied

[2:35:08] into the rental fees because they're renting the building, renting the

[2:35:11] facility. Okay. >> So, okay. Um and then let's see. Okay.

[2:35:20] All right. And then my other question I think is back to you, Anthony. So, if we

[2:35:24] looked at leasing this, um I keep hearing we just close the doors and walk

[2:35:30] out and everybody has to be out of the picture with their ser their services

[2:35:37] with the C5 or with the Nancy Hansen and it'll be closed down for a while is what

[2:35:43] I've heard here today. Is there any reason we can't look at the millage rate

[2:35:49] with a period of service for that location to continue until we negotiate

[2:35:56] contracts so that our citizens do not lose services?

[2:36:01] » Theoretically, sorry. >> Theoretically, of course. I mean, um, if

[2:36:06] they go through the disposition process, I mean, you that that has to be

[2:36:10] published in the newspaper. It has to stay open for at least 30 days. my

[2:36:14] experience is going to be longer. So I mean if you want to transition into some

[2:36:19] other other arrangement and in the interimm basis

[2:36:24] fund some general operating expenses for the facility

[2:36:29] » out of millillage certainly you can do that the council can do that

[2:36:33] » and that would I mean so we could definitely just include a portion of

[2:36:37] those costs for the year if and you know the thing that's difficult for me

[2:36:43] looking at this and the millage rate and trying to said it is we can say we want

[2:36:48] to lease this. I have no idea what that looks like. I've not gotten one proposal

[2:36:52] or anything else and I'm looking at numbers here. So, how do I determine how

[2:36:58] I what cost it would be if I keep the staff or if I look at leasing because I

[2:37:04] have no comparison. I'm comparing this to nothing and I don't want to take

[2:37:09] services away. So, I was curious how if we could do that, how it would work and

[2:37:14] if we had the the legal ability to do it that way instead

[2:37:18] of just closing the doors. >> Certainly.

[2:37:21] » Okay. So, that was one question and I'm getting to the end of them, y'all. I'm

[2:37:26] sorry. I've been up here scribbling. Um, okay.

[2:37:33] All right.

[2:37:42] Okay.

[2:37:45] And then on page

[2:37:50] well this one says summary and expectations of 3.85 mills or below.

[2:37:57] And this is in it says all expectations from the

[2:38:02] previous summary slide which was the shifting communicate communications

[2:38:07] responsibilities and um all this. So this would be to you Molly. Sorry I was

[2:38:13] trying to determine which part it was. It all looks the same. Um so on this

[2:38:18] slide that says diminished ability for the city to prepare for respond to plus

[2:38:24] recover from an emergency. Um on that when we say recover from an emergency

[2:38:32] can you give me a definition of what that is that we would be diminishing

[2:38:36] because we're looking at service levels. We want to look at that I would think.

[2:38:40] So, um, when it comes to the recovery capacity, um, one of the many hats that

[2:38:47] I wear is I'm the deputy emergency coordinator and, um, one of my core

[2:38:52] functions in that is all of the emergency communications

[2:38:57] that funnels through me. So, communicating, our ability to

[2:39:01] communicate um, [clears throat] during, before, and

[2:39:05] after storms would would be diminished. And then one of the other factors that

[2:39:11] um would probably need to be considered when we are talking about um you know

[2:39:18] drafting an RFP is the community center was

[2:39:24] factored into the city's emergency response and recovery plans. It's a

[2:39:29] destination point. Clearly not a shelter because that doesn't make you know

[2:39:33] that's doesn't make sense to keep [clears throat] people on an island when

[2:39:36] they shouldn't be on an island. But it is a destination point and a key part of

[2:39:41] the recovery process in terms of a centralized location for people to come

[2:39:46] for us to distribute supplies so on so forth.

[2:39:50] » So Zach can speak to that even more. >> Right. And I'm imagine that Zach is

[2:39:56] going to be ready when I get there because we'll get to his page too. Okay.

[2:40:00] [laughter] Thank you. That was a question I had on

[2:40:03] that. Want to make sure I understood that. And that's all I have. Mr. Mayor,

[2:40:07] thank you for council for putting up with me through that.

[2:40:11] » That's great. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim. Council member Willis.

[2:40:14] » Uh yes, Molly. Um and probably Joey as well. Um on the 4.5 mil for the uh

[2:40:24] facilities C5, etc. [clears throat] If we were wanting to maintain services

[2:40:33] on those facilities, would we have to go above 4.5 to do

[2:40:38] that? >> I believe so because it would be a give

[2:40:42] and a take. If you want more service, it would cost more. So, it' be a give and a

[2:40:46] take. >> Okay. Okay. So, we would either have to

[2:40:49] drop something else somewhere else or we're going to have to go above 4.5 to

[2:40:55] make that happen for whatever period of time.

[2:40:58] » Correct. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh

[2:41:02] Natalie, if you don't mind, um how often have we put our

[2:41:11] benefits out to bid, healthcare, etc.? Well, to my knowledge, I've only been

[2:41:16] here two years and the city had not gone out to bid. So, which is why when we got

[2:41:23] the 45% that was the first thing we did. >> Okay.

[2:41:26] » Cuz we had talked about it last year about moving to the fiscal year that

[2:41:30] that would be something we would be looking at just to make sure we were

[2:41:34] getting the best. >> To your knowledge, in the past, when was

[2:41:37] it ever put out to bid? >> Never.

[2:41:41] » Not to my knowledge. >> Okay. Um, have we looked at I know that

[2:41:47] through [clears throat] the Florida League of Cities there's the Florida

[2:41:50] Municipal Insurance Trust and 11 municipalities in Bvard County subscribe

[2:41:55] to that. Have we have we looked at possibly including Cape Canaveral in

[2:42:01] that >> since coming on board here? No. I did

[2:42:04] use them for 14 and a half years at Cocoa Beach.

[2:42:07] » Uhhuh. >> Um, it's a great agency as well.

[2:42:11] » Okay. they're much larger. So, you don't have the dedicated claims rep like we do

[2:42:17] now to expedite claims. Um, Pidgeot, they have our institutional

[2:42:24] knowledge, for lack of a better word. >> So, they're able to understand our

[2:42:28] city's needs. But if that is something, we need to go out for bid for that.

[2:42:33] Anthony.

[2:42:37] » Um, the way it's typically done in practice, I mean, the city could

[2:42:43] solicit a proposal >> directly from FMIT,

[2:42:47] » right? >> Do it that way.

[2:42:51] » Well, I understand there's about 250 municipalities in Florida that

[2:42:55] participate. So, >> correct.

[2:42:57] » What What do they know that we may not? I don't I'm just asking the question.

[2:43:01] Honestly, I received the same level of service from both.

[2:43:05] » Okay. All right. >> Like I said, Pidgeot's smaller. And

[2:43:09] again, we have a dedicated person I can go to each time we have a claim or an

[2:43:14] incident and she expedites it for us. >> Okay. All right. Well, thank you.

[2:43:19] » We can look into it if you'd like. >> I think it I think it's worth at least

[2:43:24] seeing what >> Yeah.

[2:43:25] » what the benefit would be, if any. Um, and that's all.

[2:43:30] » I think the main difference I've seen is they had a dedicated disaster response

[2:43:34] recovery team. >> Mhm.

[2:43:36] » That came on site. But in speaking with Pigot recently, they also have those

[2:43:42] similar services through other um vendors that they contract with. So,

[2:43:48] » well, I noted I noticed that of the 11 municipalities in in Breard County,

[2:43:54] » uh, quite a few of them are smaller than us. So there's got to be some benefit

[2:43:59] possibly. So if we could explore that to some degree. Sure.

[2:44:03] » Thank you, Mayor.

[2:44:05] » Yes. Thank you, Council Member Willis, Council Member Shoryak, or Council

[2:44:10] Member King. >> A couple questions. Uh for Molly, the

[2:44:14] different events, the Friday Fest, uh Paddle Battle, Monster Mash, Egg

[2:44:19] Hunt, Kids to Parks Days. Can you give us like a ballpark what it costs each of

[2:44:23] those things? Both fixed costs and labor.

[2:44:27] » You'll have to give me a second to pull those.

[2:44:29] » Sure.

[2:44:51] That that was my only question if we want to move on while Molly looks that

[2:44:54] up. >> Um so for the Monster Mash Halloween

[2:44:58] party um what was budgeted for that prior was about $400 to $500 um by the

[2:45:03] year. Uh Friday Fest uh per event um about 17-800. So that's 10 events a

[2:45:11] year. It's $18,000. And the pickle ball tournament, um about

[2:45:16] $2,900.

[2:45:23] And [clears throat] the pickle ball tournament, for what it's worth, um the

[2:45:27] first year that Marcy took over it, um after I assumed um kind of control, if

[2:45:33] you will, over the department, u had a net profit of a little over 5,000. And

[2:45:39] that is increased $2,000 every year with no increase to the cost of the event.

[2:45:48] » Molly, what was that cost again? I'm sorry.

[2:45:51] » For which one? >> For pickle ball

[2:45:53] » for the Space Coast Paddle Battle. >> That runs at about $2,900.

[2:45:59] » Thank you. >> And the last event profited about uh

[2:46:04] 7,000 or 9,000 one of the two. Would you mind just going through them one more

[2:46:11] time, please? I'm sorry. Thank you. >> I got the paddle battle. 2,900.

[2:46:17] » Um, Monster Mash Halloween Party between $4 and $500.

[2:46:20] » Thank you. >> And then, uh, Friday Fest is about

[2:46:23] $18,000 a year roughly.

[2:46:28] » 18,000 egg hunt. >> Um, egg hunt, that's about 700.

[2:46:35] » And kids to park day. Um, kids to parks day. Uh, we usually can pull that

[2:46:41] together for about $200.

[2:46:51] » So, members, >> thank you, Molly. You're

[2:46:53] » welcome. >> That's all I have.

[2:46:55] » Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, my question is really directed

[2:47:00] to our attorney. uh given the fact that we have hanging over our head amendment

[2:47:08] three uh and I know that only 20% of our property owners here are homesteaded

[2:47:14] which is a big sigh of relief but nevertheless um given the fact that that

[2:47:20] could be a reality that we're dealing with whatever we decide on this budget

[2:47:25] right now can do we have the ability to tweak that budget after the November

[2:47:32] mber election until January 1st and really fly spec the numbers again if

[2:47:40] amendment three passes. It's an unusual circumstance.

[2:47:48] » Yes, amendment three is unusual circumstance, but under any

[2:47:51] circumstances, the city council can always revisit its budget during the

[2:47:56] fiscal year if that's your question. >> Okay. Okay. And my I guess my followup

[2:47:59] to that would be would it affect the um millage rate during the course of that

[2:48:05] year? >> No.

[2:48:06] » No. Okay. >> It would only be as I understand it, it

[2:48:09] would commence with uh in 2027 28, >> right? budget year for the first trunch

[2:48:15] of uh extra homestead exemption and then the following year would it go up to

[2:48:21] another what 250 >> 250 right

[2:48:24] » exemption >> and then we could we could adjust our

[2:48:26] budget and our millage rate at the at the at the next fiscal year correct if

[2:48:32] we wanted to lower the millillage or if we had to raise it we we'd have that

[2:48:37] opportunity to do that then >> right you would have to go through the

[2:48:40] whole budget process that you're going through Now,

[2:48:43] » right, >> next year you have to do it again and

[2:48:47] you would be taking into consideration next year whether or not amendment three

[2:48:51] has passed, >> right?

[2:48:52] » To set your millillage plus next year you'll be doing an extra exercise

[2:48:57] because the legislature wants local governments to do a shadow budget. I

[2:49:02] call it a you know of uh what what the budget would look like with 10%

[2:49:06] reduction. >> Okay. And that brings up another

[2:49:10] question. Thank you. Um, I have to find it.

[2:49:15] Uh, 10%. If we if we asked our department

[2:49:23] heads, our directors, if you had to take another 10% off the top, if let's say we

[2:49:30] went to 4.5 millillage and they took 10% off the top to get us there. Um, I guess

[2:49:37] my question in is generally to the directors, would they be able to do that

[2:49:43] to go to 4.5 or are are you down to the bone right

[2:49:48] now? So if I understand the question, if

[2:49:52] you're talking about taking an additional 10% right from the 4.5,

[2:49:58] » 10% across the board with each department, taking 10% off so that we

[2:50:04] could reach 4.5 and still be functional,

[2:50:11] » right? Um I I think the way to answer that is

[2:50:15] » it's it's kind of like at the 4.5 mill rate we have um x amount

[2:50:22] of expenses, >> right?

[2:50:23] » So if we took 10% off of that, >> then we'd have 10% less expenses. Then

[2:50:29] in that case, the millage rate would correspondingly potentially change or

[2:50:33] other things could be changed. But um I guess how I would look at it, it's more

[2:50:39] of [clears throat] the um they change the mill rate will affect what we can

[2:50:46] afford to do. So then if we cut 10% off of the 4.5 in effect,

[2:50:53] » we could go down to some number below 4.5 just to get this point um across.

[2:51:00] » Okay. It's just theoretical. I just needed to know that. Um, and my other

[2:51:05] question right now is really to the people who are here and the people who

[2:51:09] aren't here who might be watching us on the video.

[2:51:13] Are you willing to raise the mil the millillage rate and pay the increase in

[2:51:18] tax to keep the amenities that you all have said you really enjoy?

[2:51:25] And and I think that's the question. It's not about what I want to do. It's

[2:51:29] about what you want to do. if you're willing to pay the extra taxes and uh

[2:51:35] and have what we have now and maybe save a few jobs in the interim.

[2:51:41] [applause]

[2:51:46] That that seems to be that seems to be the consensus that I'm I'm getting by

[2:51:52] reading nextdoor.com and hearing you folks come out here and

[2:51:56] and talk about how much you enjoy the amenities and how what it gives you such

[2:52:01] a sense of community. Are you willing to pay for it? And if you are, then maybe

[2:52:06] we can do some juggling around and make it happen.

[2:52:10] That's that was my question. That was my question.

[2:52:14] Oh, well, thank you. [laughter] Vote for me. I'm just kidding.

[2:52:21] Just kidding. All right.

[2:52:23] » Okay. >> That's it, Mr. Mayor.

[2:52:25] » Any other question or statements, questions at this time?

[2:52:28] » No, I don't think so. >> Great.

[2:52:31] » Okay. >> I'm going to I got a few questions, but

[2:52:34] I think I'm going to hold all really good. And I know this is why we're here

[2:52:38] to work through it and and answer and and and understand what we're looking at

[2:52:44] so we can make the best decision.

[2:52:49] » Council member Willis. >> Yeah. I have another question that we

[2:52:52] probably haven't broached the topic on yet, but uh Joy, I asked you earlier

[2:52:57] about uh the CRA and how much um employees uh salaries are reimbursed

[2:53:07] from the CRA for their use in the CRA and you said 10%. That to me

[2:53:15] seemed a little low compared to what we've seen over the last year or two

[2:53:20] years of uh development in the CRA. So, how do you how do you arrive at that 10%

[2:53:27] reimbursement from the CRA? Because if it if we're actually a little higher,

[2:53:32] when couldn't we be taking more out of the CRA in that?

[2:53:36] » Mhm. Yeah, you are correct. We we came to the 10% number because we we thought

[2:53:42] roughly 10% of the employees that deal with the CRA or of the employees that

[2:53:49] deal with the CRA, roughly 10% of their time is dealing with things within the

[2:53:54] CRA. So that's why of the amount of a salary for an employee who deals with

[2:53:59] the CRA, if 10% is dealing with the CRA, then the CRA will pay reimburse that

[2:54:04] amount. As far as all the projects and things that happen in the CRA, all of

[2:54:08] that only comes out of the CRA. Um, as far as if we can potentially look into

[2:54:15] raising the 10% amount of people's time, >> if it's higher, then we could look into

[2:54:21] that potentially. Well, I mean, currently there's nothing tracked

[2:54:26] as against how much of say uh um Tim Carile's time

[2:54:32] dealing with the CRA issue or a project within the CRA or any other person's

[2:54:39] time. Is any of that tracked? >> No. At this point, no. Like in the

[2:54:45] payroll system, we do not track it hour by hour. Um no.

[2:54:50] » Okay. All right. Uh it just it just seems to me that that's a very low

[2:54:55] number. >> City attorney.

[2:54:59] » Um regarding CRA expenditures, I mean CRA expenditures have to be for a CRA

[2:55:07] purpose, right? First and foremost, and I think the council understands that um

[2:55:13] the CRA will has to pay or should be paying its own cost for ad

[2:55:19] administration. So, I think that's what you're alluding

[2:55:23] to. If there's a CRA project and it's being administered by city staff, then

[2:55:32] the administration costs incurred

[2:55:36] uh for that staff member to implement the CRA project

[2:55:41] is a legitimate CRA expense. It's not some just arbitrary percentage. It's

[2:55:49] based on administration administrative services provided to the CRA by city

[2:55:54] staff. >> I I understand that. That's why I asked

[2:55:59] if the time had been tracked >> because if we're not tracking that time,

[2:56:05] » I think the staff this year is really starting to hone in on that obviously,

[2:56:10] right? And I I've consulted with them to give them some of the guardrails

[2:56:16] regarding, you know, I think in my opinion, they were legitimate CRA

[2:56:21] expenses that the city was subsidizing and and the CRA has not been paying, but

[2:56:27] that again the exercise is related to legitimate CRA projects and expenses,

[2:56:35] right? We need to be very careful on that. But the CRA certainly should be

[2:56:40] paying its fair share of use of city resources including but not

[2:56:46] limited to staff. >> Mhm.

[2:56:48] » Right. >> Right.

[2:56:49] » Exactly. That's that's my point. >> That Yeah, you're absolutely correct.

[2:56:53] » I have a question with that. [clears throat]

[2:56:56] Um, so in knowing that, which is wonderful

[2:57:01] because that means some of staff's time is subsidized by CRA that's coming from

[2:57:05] the county and we're glad about that, right? Cuz there's a lot of taxes we

[2:57:09] don't get from them. Um, but how do how do we budget it in with the CRA for the

[2:57:16] upcoming year then when we have like uh CRA projects? Do is there an an

[2:57:21] estimated time or percentage of time that we can put into this year's budget

[2:57:27] on the upcoming CRA projects? And what what does that look like as far as

[2:57:33] percentage wise because there's got to be some way to budget for it, right?

[2:57:38] Instead of budgeting in a rears or are we budgeting for the past year's time or

[2:57:44] can we go ahead and budget forward? I I don't I that's a Joey question on the

[2:57:49] specifics of the budget, but with respect to administration costs of the

[2:57:54] CRA, that clearly should be a line item in my view a line item in the CRA

[2:57:58] budget. And I think it is right. >> Um yeah, we're currently calling I

[2:58:02] believe contribution is definitely a line item of the the amount that the CRA

[2:58:07] will give back to the general fund for the allocation of time, which is

[2:58:11] currently 10%, we'll look into it >> if it's more. Um and so we are budgeting

[2:58:16] for it for next year roughly 10% of a number of employees time that's spent

[2:58:21] with the CRA. Um and this current fiscal year as well we're going to be um we

[2:58:29] will have those savings as well. >> Okay. So it but in this that we're

[2:58:33] looking at with the examples with the millillage

[2:58:37] is that percentage already figured in with these examples that we're getting

[2:58:42] on millillage or is that something that you have to add in

[2:58:47] » uh in the backup that's been provided all the numbers we are providing it's

[2:58:51] already calculated. >> Okay.

[2:58:53] » And yes they do change as the mill rate changes and and

[2:58:57] » Okay. So you've already included that for this upcoming budget. Correct.

[2:59:01] » Okay. All right. Thank you. And thank you, Council Member Willis.

[2:59:06] That was a good >> Well, you've included it at 10%.

[2:59:11] » Yes. >> Okay. I still think that's low.

[2:59:15] » We will look into it to see if if there's any um potential additional

[2:59:19] reimbursement. >> Thank you.

[2:59:22] [clears throat]

[2:59:27] My one question I think at this time I got a few more but want to definitely

[2:59:30] hear from the public is on the uh you know we got it seen in the presentation

[2:59:37] the impacts but when this is uh included in the budget um that spreadsheet thank

[2:59:43] you so much that was provided

[2:59:48] the

[2:59:52] one with the column title 4.5. Are the changes that we saw in this

[2:59:58] presentation included in the 4.5 column?

[3:00:04] » Um, it it should remain consistent because the the bottom line is at the

[3:00:10] four point line if that's kind of the starting point.

[3:00:13] » Yeah. Column L there. Sorry. Go ahead. >> Mhm. If 4.5 is the the starting point,

[3:00:20] » then to go down to the the columns to the right, it would require an

[3:00:25] additional um I believe it was 1.4 uh millions in cuts. Um and then from

[3:00:34] the 4.5 to roll back would require about 1.9 million

[3:00:39] um total. Yes. So it is um consistent because the the idea is is if the

[3:00:48] starting point is that 4.5 millillage. >> Mhm.

[3:00:52] » Then we have um the difference between there and going to a lower millillage

[3:00:58] would provide the city with less money to work with. So therefore the city

[3:01:02] would have to adjust.

[3:01:06] Does that answer your question? >> Yeah. So the

[3:01:12] 9 roughly 3 million is obviously the the 4.5 and that's few million higher than

[3:01:20] the 6.5. Uh and and it does so the revenues

[3:01:24] change but so do the expenses to the CRA and so that's where the net effect takes

[3:01:32] place. So, if we were to to scroll down to the

[3:01:36] total revenue, if you go down just a little bit and might even

[3:01:41] hide that header up there in the far right arrow that collapses.

[3:01:48] Go up. Yeah, almost there. Go. Keep going up over to the right little that

[3:01:53] little arrow pointing up. Oh, nope. Down right there. Oh, right there. Yep. There

[3:01:57] you go. Thank you. Okay, so Yep. Good. All right. So the total

[3:02:04] revenue at the 4.5 we know roughly 9.3

[3:02:11] million would come from advalorum taxes and the the total after all the other

[3:02:16] revenues would be 18.8 million. That's what I'm seeing.

[3:02:22] » Correct. All the revenues combined would be that 18.3 million. And so that's

[3:02:28] about 50% of the total revenue would come from advorum tax which is I think

[3:02:34] an increase. I think we're at 40% today but the um

[3:02:41] the expenditure well the first question I have and it's going to be the same for

[3:02:46] expenses and this is it out of that 18.8 8 ad valorum is reoccurring revenue.

[3:02:56] What amount of the 18.8 is reoccurring revenue that we can rely

[3:03:03] on as opposed to one time or maybe wouldn't meet that classification.

[3:03:09] And if you don't have that now, that's I think a really good one. Maybe circle

[3:03:14] back. >> Mhm.

[3:03:16] » Yes. Very good question. I don't have that with the the numbers we have in

[3:03:20] front of us right now, but I can >> it's well above the vast majority, 90%

[3:03:26] um is >> those numbers we're looking at are the

[3:03:29] reoccurring. Um we have a few grants, I believe 150,000,

[3:03:35] » um some other kind of more one-time things, but um I can um calculate the

[3:03:41] exact recurring numbers and send those to you.

[3:03:44] » Yeah, just an estimate. And I think that's exactly right. I would transfers

[3:03:48] like we were talking about the CRA and you said contribution CRA being fund 106

[3:03:54] I think detailed on the >> is that uh I'm seeing that's a

[3:03:59] substantial I mean that's like uh in this particular one

[3:04:04] » 900 yeah $55,000 almost a million is that what we were just talking about

[3:04:11] » that is a very good example that would not be reoccurring because that is

[3:04:15] related to a debt payment that the CRA gives money to the general fund and then

[3:04:20] the general fund pays it out and next year is the last year of a debt payment.

[3:04:26] » So next year would be the last year that that um that occurs. So then it's not

[3:04:31] necessarily reoccurring. >> Okay. So yeah that I think when you and

[3:04:38] just get an estimate of the number uh on the revenue and then really the same

[3:04:43] question if we scroll down to the very bottom line of um a row to the

[3:04:50] expenditures if on the spreadsheet go all the way down to the bottom and if we

[3:04:57] add up all the expenditures I'm assuming this is going to be

[3:05:03] uh balanced And this is just general fund, right?

[3:05:07] Yeah, >> correct.

[3:05:08] » So it was column L. So there it is $18.8 million

[3:05:13] the expenditures just below it. So no deficit, right? That's a balanced

[3:05:18] budget. In the past, we received budgets that

[3:05:24] appeared to be balanced, but because there was non-reoccurring revenue. So

[3:05:28] what I'd like to ask is what are the reoccurring expenditures

[3:05:33] compared to the reoccurring revenues and is that balanced and it uh I think

[3:05:44] that's it for me now. So not a lot of CIPs but that's an example

[3:05:51] of a non-reoccurring right it's a one-time expense. Um is

[3:05:58] that's it for now I think. Yes. Mayor Pro Tim

[3:06:02] » I have one more question about the CRA. Um so we know we haven't captured the

[3:06:09] administration of that. How far back has that been that we

[3:06:13] haven't captured that administration of that?

[3:06:16] » The current fiscal year we're in right now is the first year we are charging

[3:06:21] for administrative expenses. >> Okay. So

[3:06:25] city attorney. Here I go. Can I go back and capture the administration all the

[3:06:30] way back to when the community center was built

[3:06:34] » because it had CRA funds involved, right? Can I go back and get that money?

[3:06:43] » Um I I I don't know. I'd have to think

[3:06:47] about that one a little bit more because I mean those are just years that have

[3:06:52] gone by where frankly, you know, the the city

[3:07:00] elected to do that and not, you know, as the CRA was

[3:07:06] created and starting to generate income that and revenue, tiff revenue, the the

[3:07:12] city didn't um impose and the CRA did not pay uh for those types of expenses

[3:07:19] » for those for for those past budget years. So,

[3:07:22] » and I understand that, but I'm in extraordinary times. So, I want to know

[3:07:27] if I can do that statutoily with the CRA. I want to go back to the

[3:07:32] community center and get our administration money. [laughter]

[3:07:36] » But even if we go back to Cape Center, I'd be happy. Well, administrative, just

[3:07:41] so we're clear, and Joey, maybe you can even chime in if necessary, but

[3:07:46] administration money is not the city personnel that are operating

[3:07:51] the community center. >> No, I understand that. It's the it's the

[3:07:55] staff time that it took to administer the CRA project. Correct.

[3:08:03] » It's the staff It's staff time that

[3:08:07] administers CRA projects. It's staff time that helps with the general

[3:08:11] operation of the CRA and preparing the budget and all that stuff. Um there are

[3:08:18] also, just so you know, there are some limitations on um the portion of the

[3:08:24] county's TIF revenue that can be used for administrative services. is the

[3:08:29] county has capped that amount amount of um use of of CRA revenue in the

[3:08:35] interlocal agreement between the CRA city and the county.

[3:08:39] » Mhm. >> Um so you know there are limitations on

[3:08:42] the county portion of the tiff revenue. that I would just love to know if

[3:08:46] there's any of it on recent projects that were not captured that we could

[3:08:53] recapture, you know, that we could go back and that I know would take you time

[3:08:59] to really look at it. I could talk to I'll talk I can talk to Joey and staff

[3:09:03] and go back and and and look at some of that, but as Joey indicated, this year

[3:09:09] the city is capturing um the CRA's fair share of paying for

[3:09:16] staff time. >> Okay. Let me know if I need to go to

[3:09:19] some county meetings. [laughter] >> That's not going to help you in this

[3:09:24] regard. >> Okay. just thought I'd suggest, but I

[3:09:28] would be hap I'd be like, you know, with this being an extraordinary

[3:09:32] circumstance, if we can get any of our past administration money, I'd be happy.

[3:09:39] So, if you could check on that, I'd appreciate it.

[3:09:43] » Good thoughts. [clears throat] >> Question. Uh, how much how much are we

[3:09:46] getting from that this year? Um, I don't know this current year off

[3:09:51] the top of my head, but I know uh next year since but since we're budgeting for

[3:09:55] it for next year it's about I want to say slightly over a h 100red,000.

[3:09:59] » Wow. Okay. Thank you. Good idea. Okay. >> And some of that's not just staff

[3:10:09] um salary and benefits like the proportionate share. It goes it goes to

[3:10:14] it goes to op overhead operating expenses too. Right.

[3:10:18] » Right. >> Now it can't as you can see it it's it's

[3:10:22] not a small number. I mean but it's it's something that's

[3:10:26] » every little bit that is that we can get for anything like that to me is a

[3:10:31] win-win. So, if you wouldn't mind talking with Joey about it and seeing if

[3:10:35] we can get anything at all, that just helps us go farther with trying to do

[3:10:40] something in this situation. Thank you. >> Any other questions at this time? Sure,

[3:10:48] there'll be more. >> I I don't have a question. I have a a

[3:10:52] suggestion. Um, we're looking for revenue

[3:10:58] outside of Adalorum taxes. Why don't we look into the possibility?

[3:11:06] And I got this idea from East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. I

[3:11:10] serve on the executive board and I heard a presentation by Simol County and it is

[3:11:17] a tourism improvement district which is separate

[3:11:21] than the tourism tax that the county currently collects. And I'm sure the uh

[3:11:28] city attorney is going to uh uh keep me between the ditches here. Um

[3:11:36] [clears throat] but what they've done, they've gone to the hotels in Simol

[3:11:42] County and have enlisted them into this tourism improvement district because the

[3:11:53] hotels are dependent upon a vibrant city. And if we want to remain a vibrant

[3:12:00] city, we need the tourism and we need the input and the finance from these

[3:12:07] hotels. We could solicit from the hotels to

[3:12:10] contribute a dollar a stay per day. Now, we're looking at probably I think

[3:12:19] it's 1,500 plus rooms. So, this is just numbers off

[3:12:25] the top of my head. So, annually at a dollar a day, we're looking at around

[3:12:30] $361,000 from the hotels.

[3:12:35] Now, they would have to we would have to solicit them to participate in this. Um,

[3:12:41] that would be something I am more than happy to go and try to do. I would meet

[3:12:47] with any hotel owner. Can't meet with the manager. you have to meet with the

[3:12:51] owner because they would just pass that through

[3:12:55] for each one of their stays. [clears throat] On top of that,

[3:13:00] we could go to the the uh port and ask them because the port relies

[3:13:07] upon a vibrant community as well. They do not want to see a community in

[3:13:14] decomposing around them, which if we're starting to close down

[3:13:19] things, that's possibly what's going to happen. Um, I'm happy to meet with

[3:13:25] commissioners, anyone uh to put this idea forward and get that because if we

[3:13:33] did a dollar per head to your original suggestion, Mr. mayor,

[3:13:40] we're looking at possibly 9.29 $9.3 million annually.

[3:13:47] » So, [clears throat] and if if the port didn't want to pony

[3:13:53] up a dollar, if they even ponyed up 50 cents ahead,

[3:13:59] that's over $4.5 million. So I am more than willing to

[3:14:07] expend whatever energy, whatever uh connections that I have to go and talk

[3:14:13] and preach to them the need for helping Cape Canaveral out because

[3:14:20] we bear the brunt of so much of what happens in the port.

[3:14:25] And I think it would be well worth us to make that effort. I don't want to just

[3:14:30] talk about it. I want to go do it. And uh I can I've already made inquiries to

[3:14:37] some commissioners about sitting down and talking. I've made inquiries to a

[3:14:42] couple of hotel owners about sitting down and talking. And I'm happy to do

[3:14:47] it. I just would need the council's blessing.

[3:14:51] So, I'm ready to go. [applause]

[3:14:58] That's great. I'm trying to document really everything. So at the end, one of

[3:15:02] the goals is uh to give clear direction. A lot of times we'll get through these

[3:15:07] meetings and the end it's uh all right. Well, let's let's recap. And so I've

[3:15:13] captured [clears throat] I think some of the things that we can

[3:15:16] come back to and u try and and set some plans into place or

[3:15:23] at least pursue those. So thank you. Well, let me let me add to that that

[3:15:28] this is already being done in Simol County, Daytona Beach, and Tampa,

[3:15:35] and it is not run through the county. The county doesn't collect these funds.

[3:15:40] These are contributions from the hotelers and from the port. So, it's not

[3:15:46] a tax. Mhm. >> It is an investment in their community,

[3:15:52] in their neighbors, and to ensure that we present a very good face to the

[3:16:00] people that are coming to partake of their services. So,

[3:16:05] [snorts] >> excellent. Thank you.

[3:16:09] Council got some cards up here. Any comments before we go to the public?

[3:16:13] Very helpful. We'll come back and we can keep working

[3:16:18] through it. All right. If you joined us, I don't know if anyone came in after,

[3:16:22] but if you do intend to speak, we're about to open that up and we do ask you

[3:16:25] please fill out a card. Uh, and if you did speak earlier, I I still got your

[3:16:30] cards up here and so no need to I think fill it out twice. But the first one I

[3:16:35] have here, um, and I should recap, three minutes is it's a green light, yellow

[3:16:40] light goes, uh, we got about 30 seconds left and a red one is we're wrapping up.

[3:16:45] Sorry, I saw you standing up. Did you do you need to go? I'm sure the Okay, cuz

[3:16:52] and if uh the first one I have is Mr. Brad PL. Brad,

[3:16:58] [clears throat]

[3:17:02] » excuse me, Miss Natalie. HR is very hard. Where is

[3:17:09] that free HR presentation? That was a Fortune 100 presentation and I've worked

[3:17:15] for Fortune 100 companies. I wrote this prior.

[3:17:21] Mayor and council, city manager, staff, and fellow residents. After reviewing

[3:17:27] today's public agenda, I have one immediate reaction. This is not a good

[3:17:32] optic for Cape Canaveral. We are discussing eliminating between 35 and 65

[3:17:39] 67% of our general fund workers. These aren't numbers on a spreadsheet. These

[3:17:45] are our neighbors and friends. Many live right here in Cape Canaveral. They have

[3:17:50] families, mortgages, children, and a goal to retire in a flourishing

[3:17:55] community. And they're the people who maintain our city, enforce our codes,

[3:18:00] operate our recreation programs, support our events, and serve our residents

[3:18:05] every day. So, I have one fundamental question. How did we get here? If we

[3:18:11] read October 25, the Canaveral Explorer magazine, the message to our citizens,

[3:18:17] we were told that property taxes had again been reduced below the state roll

[3:18:23] back rate while the city continued progressing on storm water safety and

[3:18:28] community service. Meanwhile, our revenue would be decreased.

[3:18:34] The city were looking during this time the city was looking forward to the

[3:18:38] Friday fest, trunk or treat, national night out, and activities at the C5

[3:18:44] building. Less than one year later, we are discussing a completely different

[3:18:48] Cape Canaveral. At 4.5 mil, general fund staff falls from 43 employees to 28. At

[3:18:57] 3.5, only 18 remain. At roll [snorts] back rate, only 14 remain. in a 67%

[3:19:04] decrease. No general fund for public Rex community PRCA employees.

[3:19:14] One infrastructure maintenance employee, eliminating Friday fest, all civic

[3:19:20] events, possibly closing our parks, and leasing out facilities.

[3:19:27] One person is left to help maintain an entire city. I do not believe

[3:19:32] dismantling Cape Canaveral should be our f financial recovery plan. We've

[3:19:37] discussed paid parking parking a solid waste fee, recreational fees that Mr.

[3:19:44] Willis brought up, leasing or potentially disposing of city assets. My

[3:19:49] question is, what does each of these options actually generate in dollars?

[3:19:55] And have we put that down? put the numbers in front

[3:19:59] of the citizens and then give us a roadmap. I recognize that the city

[3:20:05] manager, Mr. Touchberry, is facing extremely difficult decisions.

[3:20:10] Eliminating positions is never easy. Right or wrong, he is confronting the

[3:20:16] financial reality before him as a leader should. Now, council must demonstrate

[3:20:22] that same leadership. >> Thank you.

[3:20:29] Thank you, >> Mr. Carrie. [applause]

[3:20:37] Carrie H. Hearnden.

[3:20:46] Hi, my name is Carrie H. Hearnden. I live at 300 Columbia Drive, unit 2308.

[3:20:52] Um I'm a city uh born and raised in Miami. My wife and I live have moved

[3:20:58] here four years ago as refugees from Miami and have really fallen in love

[3:21:03] with the community. Uh my late wife now uh was a village council member down

[3:21:09] there. And so I have enormous sympathy for for where you're at. [laughter]

[3:21:15] I've seen this picture only she was on the city council or village council with

[3:21:20] the place that had a lot of money [laughter] and made an awful awful lot

[3:21:23] of difference. I really had come here because I was very very much in support

[3:21:28] of the uh parks and rack and and I I personally benefit greatly and I have

[3:21:33] made a tremendous number that's where I've made all of my friends that I have

[3:21:36] here in the community. It's it's a wonderful place and it's it's utterly

[3:21:40] tragic that we are at this place and I don't have any immediate solutions. I

[3:21:47] did build my business in Homestead, Florida, where the great city manager,

[3:21:51] Alex Moxo, was able to extract millions of dollars in hotel taxes to build a

[3:21:58] huge sports complex and and fund its operation. Um, I don't know. I don't

[3:22:04] know how he did it. I I'm not even sure Den County was too happy about it

[3:22:09] [laughter] at the end of the day, but he was able legally to do it. It was quite

[3:22:13] clever. Uh I [panting] I don't I don't have guidance to give you. Uh but I I I

[3:22:21] will tell you that I I thought I was going to rent here for the rest of my

[3:22:24] life. But seeing as a businessman what's happening in the space industry and this

[3:22:30] community has gone like this based on the space industry. The space industry

[3:22:35] is doing this right now. I put a bid on a unit today because I know the value of

[3:22:43] all the stuff I'm writing now is going like that and it's going to happen

[3:22:46] pretty soon but that's pretty soon is not soon enough for this situation. So,

[3:22:55] I wish you the best of luck and I wish there were something I could do to to

[3:23:00] help with this. Um, but I think there are creative solutions and I begin to

[3:23:06] hear some of them and I would I would suggest that maybe you reach out to some

[3:23:11] people that are very businessoriented in the community because what I learned in

[3:23:15] building a company from nothing to 500 plus employees is that all of us are

[3:23:20] always smarter than any of us and there are so many the only unlimited resource

[3:23:27] we have on earth is human creativity and I think there there must be a

[3:23:34] creative solution rather than what was described as this this degradation of

[3:23:40] our community. This is a fabulous wonderful community

[3:23:46] » and and we're just going through a tragic situation. Thank you so much,

[3:23:52] [applause]

[3:23:55] » Beds Rock.

[3:24:10] My name is Betsy Ron and I live at 7048 Civil Court. I've owned this property in

[3:24:15] Cape Canaveral for 14 years. [clears throat] I watched the last

[3:24:19] budget meeting recording and I'd like to address some of those items. But first,

[3:24:24] after watching the presentation today, I have a question that I think the public

[3:24:29] needs to know. If the budget continued to include all of the expenditures of,

[3:24:34] let's say, this current fiscal year, plus regain our needed reserve amount,

[3:24:39] what would the needed millage rate need to be? I think this is information that

[3:24:44] need needs to get out there to the public because they're seeing the cuts

[3:24:49] at a 4.5, but what is actually being required of

[3:24:53] us if we want to say we still want everything we have?

[3:24:58] What would I have to pay? And people need to know that

[3:25:02] as to uh the prior meeting. I have some notes here. I'd like to address the

[3:25:07] situation with park and wreck. Back when the C5 was built, the possibility was

[3:25:12] discussed to outsource the building and have it managed by an entity experienced

[3:25:16] in running such a facility. But the city staff at the time opted to keep it in

[3:25:21] house. By so doing, it became the attitude of residents that this is a

[3:25:25] city benefit that should be free or cheap. Calling it the community center

[3:25:30] also brought with it the unfortunate impression to Cocoa Beach residents that

[3:25:35] this was also for their use. Many even believe that this is under the control

[3:25:39] of the county. For many years, some board members, the CLS board members,

[3:25:46] continually brought up the issue of the need for revenue to offset the massive

[3:25:50] expenses. But those concerns did not sit well with city staff and it was tabled.

[3:25:58] Since this area is a nice to have but not a ne necessary area of the city to

[3:26:03] manage in hard times, I support the effort to outsource the buildings to

[3:26:07] have them run by entities that can run them efficiently and with experience. I

[3:26:11] would hope that at least the C5 and Nancy Hansen properties could be

[3:26:14] retained by the city and that the leasing of the property could cover the

[3:26:18] cost of the maintenance. Possibly in the future things could also change, but

[3:26:21] then tightening our belt, the nice to have sometimes have to go. Also, there

[3:26:26] was a discussion at the last budget meeting of scaling back on city

[3:26:29] employees benefits. I believe it was within the last few years that these

[3:26:33] benefits were renegotiated. I would suggest that some of those benefits

[3:26:36] should be rolled back temporarily. I worked in the private sector for 40

[3:26:40] years and saw many lean years when the company had to cut back on benefits or

[3:26:45] increase costs of benefits to employees. Somehow though, when spending the

[3:26:49] people's money, government employees never want to vote themselves any

[3:26:53] decreases. They may have paid slightly less in this city than other communities

[3:26:57] around us, but then we're the smallest community in the area also. Is it better

[3:27:02] to let more people go just to pad your own benefits? In lean times, I would

[3:27:06] hope that we have hired dedicated employees that are willing to do what is

[3:27:10] best for the people in this community. >> Thank you,

[3:27:20] » Lee Visam.

[3:27:29] » [clears throat]

[3:27:34] » Leadominy, 421 Lincoln Avenue, Cape Canaveral. I'm a resident. I've been

[3:27:39] here since 1989. I've been through how did we get the rec

[3:27:44] center? We stood in the ratison. There was a map. Where would you like these

[3:27:49] makebelieve things? It's just a pretend thing. My granddaughter was two. She's

[3:27:54] now 18. It wasn't pretend. We marched forward

[3:28:00] with these goals, with these lofty goals. There was city council people who

[3:28:04] said, "We can't afford this. What about the electricity, the air conditioning?"

[3:28:09] It passed. We are now in dire straits.

[3:28:15] 500 may not mean much to you, but if you have an apartment and your apartment

[3:28:21] building gets a $500 or $1,000, your rents go up. Your rents, we're

[3:28:27] complaining, we have no income rents. Well, if our taxes go up,

[3:28:34] so does the rental property. So, there goes all your workers from all of your

[3:28:38] restaurants. They're moved to Port St. John. They get jobs over in Port St.

[3:28:43] John. I feel that let's go back into a line by

[3:28:48] line budget cut. Keep your employees, but that make them do the deep cuts. We

[3:28:54] could do without something sometimes. Keep your employees. Have them cut. I

[3:29:00] worked as a teacher. I know how. I did my budget. We had to go up 10% every

[3:29:06] year. Okay. Our employees right now make more money than a 10-year teacher at

[3:29:14] start. Teachers pay for their own benefits. How

[3:29:18] do I know this? My daughter-in-law is a teacher here in Bvard County. I love my

[3:29:23] city. I go to at most events and I don't want

[3:29:28] to see take a nose dive. I believe in this man. He knew he was coming into a

[3:29:33] tough position. you know that I supported Todd and I

[3:29:37] thought that he was doing a good job. Obviously, I made an error. However, if

[3:29:44] this is a gentleman that you people chose to lead our city, let him be a

[3:29:48] leader and take his staff and make them do the right thing and make the cuts and

[3:29:54] keep each other's jobs. That's what I would do if I was the leader. Thank you.

[3:30:00] » Thank you.

[3:30:07] Jim Houston. While Mr. Houston's coming up, anyone

[3:30:13] who spoke earlier as promised, would any of you like to speak again now that

[3:30:18] we've spoke? Okay. Dr. Roberts, Al. Okay, great. I'll

[3:30:24] make sure to put your cards. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Houston.

[3:30:28] » Yeah, Jim Houston. Um 502 Jackson Avenue past 23 years,

[3:30:34] 605 Monroe for about 10 years, 7650 Ridgwood for several years. So I've been

[3:30:40] paying taxes here for a number of years, close to 40 some years. Tax increases

[3:30:47] don't bother me for what we get for them. And if you take a look at your

[3:30:53] benchmark millage percentages, you know, today 4.5, 3.58, 3.2, 25,

[3:31:01] etc., etc., and then look beyond the back, go look back quite a few years.

[3:31:08] I looked at mine this morning. Starting with 2015,

[3:31:13] our rate was at 3.47 97.

[3:31:18] It went up as high as 3.955 in 2017,

[3:31:23] you know, and and then uh it stayed up there with a 3.6 6 3.5 upwards to uh

[3:31:30] 2021. Then we had a few. It's it's like a

[3:31:34] roller coaster. Last year uh it's at 3.2. So having it go up to 4.5 for me is

[3:31:42] I'm willing to pay. It's not a lot of money. Okay. For me, I'm sure there are

[3:31:48] people out there that that could be a lot. For me, the increase takes me from

[3:31:54] last year, I think, up 310 bucks. You know, having said that, for those that

[3:32:00] don't know, Bvard County Property Appraiser taxes, you can get on a four

[3:32:08] installment, four installment plans per year payment plan, which is helpful,

[3:32:14] very helpful. I've done it before and um I don't need to do it now, but uh it

[3:32:20] helped me back when I need it when I needed it. So, for those that don't

[3:32:23] know, that's a good thing to know. Good thing to know. I I think um

[3:32:31] let's see if there's anything else for me to say here.

[3:32:34] That's what I wanted to speak to was the millage rate, property taxes. Was there

[3:32:39] something else on there, Wes? I forget. Miller rate and Bvard city property tax

[3:32:45] quarterly payment plan. I think you nailed it.

[3:32:48] » Yeah, I nailed it. Okay. Um on a side note real quick um uh to to sub out

[3:32:55] certain services or you know whatever we talk you talk K talked to it um relative

[3:33:00] to uh you know going out for bids uh request for proposals very specific

[3:33:07] scopes of work for specific bid packages is very very important. Having been a

[3:33:14] foreign contractor and involved with the aerospace business and doing that for 35

[3:33:18] years, very specific specific scope of work, bib packages, you'll get you

[3:33:25] hopefully you'll get equal bids, you know, and under the FAR requirements out

[3:33:30] on the port out on the base, the federal acquisition.

[3:33:33] » Thank you. >> 10% was where we were looking.

[3:33:37] [applause]

[3:33:42] » Got a new card. Robert, I believe Slain. Robert, you with us? Thank you.

[3:33:49] » Thank you. Uh, Robert Slain, 605 Manatee Bay, Cape Canaveral. Uh, first, thank

[3:33:54] you for serving. It's a thankless job. I've I've done boards before. You're

[3:33:59] never going to please everybody and you're going to make everybody upset,

[3:34:02] but thank you for your service. Um, y'all were put in this position by

[3:34:08] consequences of others and you're having to deal with it. And that's not an easy

[3:34:12] situation. This is triage at this point. I mean,

[3:34:17] you you've got to spend on what you can, not what you want to have. We all have

[3:34:25] wants and we all have needs. We fulfill our needs before we fulfill our wants.

[3:34:31] One person indicated, you know, with this 4 and a.5% millage rate, maybe we

[3:34:36] can ask our residents to pay a little more if that's what they want. But

[3:34:41] deciding that for us is not asking us. That's telling us what we're going to

[3:34:47] do. If you want to ask, put it to a citywide vote or ask for private

[3:34:54] donations. It's still allowed. The hotel idea is a good idea if we can come up

[3:35:00] with with a a proper way to approach that. The port idea is a great idea.

[3:35:06] If you want um there's not one single revenue solution on this. This is a

[3:35:13] multiaceted diamond. You're going to need it everywhere you can find it. And

[3:35:18] dollars and cents matter every point. Ultimately, we you have the difficult

[3:35:24] job of figuring out what the plan is to restore the reserve and how long is that

[3:35:31] going to take. Those are items we still don't know and they're hard to address,

[3:35:36] but thank you for doing that. >> Thank you.

[3:35:41] [applause]

[3:35:44] » Okay. Uh Dr. Roberts, please come forward. Thank you.

[3:35:58] First of all, thank you so much. I applaud you all for looking at this.

[3:36:01] Staff's done a great job of doing the analysis and so forth. I really

[3:36:05] appreciate the revenue generation options that you all are looking at

[3:36:08] because it's it's very creative out of the box, not normal for us to be looking

[3:36:13] at. And I think there's a huge potential there for us to modernize our approach

[3:36:17] to the way we are as a city and to [snorts] really preserve the

[3:36:21] preciousness of our community by looking at these revenue sources. just extremely

[3:36:26] substantial. Um, as council member Willis mentioned, other counties are

[3:36:32] dealing with or other municipalities look dealing with similar challenges and

[3:36:36] they're being very creative and progressive in the interest of the

[3:36:40] quality of their communities. And I think Cape Canal is just one and a it's

[3:36:45] the only one in the world that um does what we do. And I think to preserve the

[3:36:50] specialness of it, it is such a call to action right now. And I appreciate the

[3:36:54] leadership each of you are offering to play in doing that to preserve us. It's

[3:36:59] not the easiest road, but it is one that I think is a timely and much needed role

[3:37:04] as Digs or leadership from council now to reach out to others that can bring

[3:37:08] resources into us right now. Um, also Airbnbs, if I could mention short-term

[3:37:14] rentals. I understand that our comparative fees are are low relative to

[3:37:19] other communities. And I think that's another opportunity for us to maybe

[3:37:23] preserve the residential quality of our community and maybe push back on the

[3:37:28] Airbnb community that seems to find our community very very uh intriguing and

[3:37:34] inviting. So, I just wanted to mention that. But thank you for your leadership.

[3:37:37] I really respect each one of you for taking the initiative and reaching out

[3:37:41] to help generate revenues for our city so it won't be so painful for our

[3:37:46] community and it will protect the pre preciousness of our community as the

[3:37:50] only one in the world that has this opportunity. So thank you so much.

[3:37:54] » Thank you [applause] Al Visa.

[3:38:01] And while Mr. Visadom is coming up, was there anyone else that I missed?

[3:38:08] Thank you all for for participating. Very helpful. Mr. Domin, uh 421 Lincoln

[3:38:14] Avenue, uh Cape Canaveral. Um I just I I think some of everybody wants the same

[3:38:21] thing basically. But I think what we have to the divide is is the fact that

[3:38:27] the city council has to come up with something within our budget. Our budget

[3:38:33] exploded in the last two or three years and now we have to pay the price of

[3:38:38] trying to get it back, keep as many of the facilities and people we have

[3:38:43] working and also shrink this budget down enough so that we can also get our uh

[3:38:51] reserve back. And I have a question for city council at this 4.5. How much of

[3:38:56] the reserve is going to be put back? And after after we do this for the next

[3:39:03] year, what what is our projections for how much more money are we going to have

[3:39:08] to put back into this reserve? Like basically, how long are we going to have

[3:39:13] to keep all the cuts that we're saying? Or [clears throat] is it going to be

[3:39:17] something that's ongoing where we're this is this is it? Or is it and will we

[3:39:22] be ever back to our $30 million budget or some budget comparable to other small

[3:39:28] cities like us? That's all I have to say. Thank you.

[3:39:32] » Thank you. >> Make sure to address that question.

[3:39:37] » With that, that's all the the cards I have. Please raise your hand if I missed

[3:39:41] you. If not, thank you again. We're going to

[3:39:45] go ahead and close public participation, bring it back to the council.

[3:39:50] Yes, Mayor Pro Tim. >> I had some questions for our city

[3:39:56] attorney on the on the tourism investment

[3:40:02] district. So to implement a tourism um investment

[3:40:08] district like Simino has um as council member Willis mentioned

[3:40:13] um do we have to have that document written similar to the economic

[3:40:20] opportunity overlay district or would it be a portion of the economic opportunity

[3:40:28] overlay district that would it be a separate district or would it be a

[3:40:33] modification of the economic opportunity overlay district.

[3:40:36] » Okay, >> I can only give you one example off the

[3:40:40] top of my head, >> but the Semino County tourist

[3:40:43] improvement district, >> okay, is a special assessment district.

[3:40:48] My understanding is they do charge a special assessment. So, a

[3:40:55] special assessment was set up specifically

[3:40:58] for hotels, I think, with 60 or more rooms,

[3:41:03] and they pay a certain um dollar amount per uh per nightly um rental of the

[3:41:11] room. However, it is a special assessment. It's based on promoting

[3:41:17] additional tourism and providing additional services related to enhancing

[3:41:22] tourism within that special assessment district and I think they have like an

[3:41:28] advisory board that that was is formed made up of the hotel owners and um so it

[3:41:35] is a funding mechanism it's for a specific purpose and that's to enhance

[3:41:39] tourism >> not to pay just like routine county

[3:41:44] expenses. It's a tourist special assessment,

[3:41:47] » right? >> Yeah.

[3:41:49] » So, when you're setting this up, I would since that's a special assessment and a

[3:41:55] special taxing district, I would think that you as the city attorney would have

[3:41:59] to set up the special taxing uh district and then we vote it in and go through

[3:42:05] our hearings on it. >> There are multiple there would be

[3:42:08] multiple ordinances that would be involved. There would be a um a study

[3:42:12] involved. It's not going to be unlike it's a different type of assessment but

[3:42:16] as you know the council directed that we uh commence exploring a fire assessment

[3:42:22] right >> right

[3:42:23] » for next fiscal year and that is well underway now

[3:42:27] » so it's similar and and to that approach but for a completely different purpose

[3:42:34] » and not um it's not countywide it's only related to um you know um hotels as my

[3:42:43] So really for this budget that has to be finalized by September 30th,

[3:42:49] this wouldn't bring us anything for this particular budget, but we would probably

[3:42:53] want to look for look at going forward with that in order to bring in revenue

[3:42:57] for the next budget. Is that correct? >> Yes, it would it would be something for

[3:43:01] next fiscal year. Um but again, it's a special assessment. It's a special

[3:43:10] » there's a lot involved in in that um because it has to be special benefits to

[3:43:14] the property that are that are being assessed.

[3:43:17] » Okay. >> So,

[3:43:18] » and since if there's so you can restrict it to only hotels within that district

[3:43:24] and not the other businesses within that district since it's a specialist.

[3:43:29] » That's the way they set it up. >> Okay.

[3:43:31] » Okay. My general understanding. But the city has inherently has special

[3:43:38] assessment authority >> right to impose special assessments for

[3:43:42] the to recover costs for special benefits that are provided to real

[3:43:46] property. So they can be set up in a variety of different ways for a variety

[3:43:51] of purposes that that authority that authority

[3:43:56] exists generally. That's my understanding what the county

[3:44:01] relied on in Seinal. It's the general special assessment legal mechanism

[3:44:07] » for you know for that purpose for their enhanced tourism and and and imposing a

[3:44:13] special assessment on the hotels, >> right? So, it wouldn't really more or

[3:44:18] less be a dollar per person unless we just kind of made an average of what

[3:44:23] that assessment was going to be and determine what it would be for hotels

[3:44:27] and then charge that. Is that correct? Or is there a mechanism for billing and

[3:44:32] accounting for where they would be? me. Yeah. The mechanism on any special

[3:44:37] assessment and we're going to go through this with the fire assessment is to is

[3:44:41] to like come up with um you know the special benefit to the property and then

[3:44:46] you have to proportionally allocate the money that you anticipate costing right

[3:44:52] or imposing to recover costs. So that's that's that approach. But um you know it

[3:44:59] it there's no set methodology for special assessments.

[3:45:05] » Okay. >> It's just there it is open to some level

[3:45:10] of creativity, but there are legal requirements on how you impose the the

[3:45:15] the fee of the assessment that you're trying to recover.

[3:45:19] » Okay. I was curious how that worked with the accounting and whether it would

[3:45:24] apply to this year's budget which >> yeah it doesn't apply to it wouldn't

[3:45:27] apply it's too late to set up a special assessment for this year but that's why

[3:45:31] as I I presented last meeting how strategically important it was if the

[3:45:37] city was inclined to consider a a fire assessment we have to go through certain

[3:45:43] steps for which is the to to set up as a placeholder the collection mechanism

[3:45:49] that you're referring to that collection mechanism is putting it on non-avalone

[3:45:54] tax, right? And using the tax collector, right, to to collect that kind of

[3:45:58] revenue. >> And then with the fire assessment,

[3:46:02] that fire assessment going forward, we would have a a set bill because we don't

[3:46:08] have our own fire department. We use Kate Canaveral Fire Department. So that

[3:46:12] assessment will always equal what their bill is to the city.

[3:46:17] » We talked about that. And um right now your fire fire assessment I mean the

[3:46:21] fire your fire department is paid completely out of the general fund

[3:46:25] through millage rate. >> Okay.

[3:46:27] » Right. So the city is going to explore next you know in the coming months doing

[3:46:32] a fire assessment that's going to um be an opportunity to fund the fire

[3:46:37] department a different way. We talked about at last meeting it could be a

[3:46:42] partial or a full assessment. So, city might be able to take out a portion of

[3:46:48] the contract price from the millillage rate.

[3:46:50] » Mhm. >> Um, and assess or the city could decide,

[3:46:54] city council could decide that the best thing to do is take the complete

[3:46:58] contract cost of the fire department and assess it and take it out of the millage

[3:47:02] rate. >> Okay, perfect.

[3:47:04] » Yeah, that makes sense. And then so on this special um

[3:47:10] tourism district, taxing district. So, how many how long do you think that it

[3:47:17] with the fire we had to start in September to get that going? So, are

[3:47:23] there any special situations that say if you want to use it next year like this

[3:47:28] one was with the fire assessment that you all need to get on it soon?

[3:47:34] um [clears throat]

[3:47:38] not as not I don't think it the urgency is there as much as it would be for the

[3:47:42] fire because you're talking you're talking about a limit a limited special

[3:47:46] assessment. So um it's it's something that the city can stop exploring.

[3:47:52] » Mhm. >> But it's not I don't think in my mind

[3:47:55] it's not as urgent because fire assessment applies citywide. So you need

[3:48:00] a collection mechanism to collect citywide,

[3:48:04] » right? >> If the city was inclined to do a a

[3:48:07] tourist development district for like hotels and those types of like uh

[3:48:14] tourism businesses, the the amount of people to collect from um or businesses

[3:48:20] to collect from is far less than trying to collect from every property owner in

[3:48:24] the city. So, >> okay,

[3:48:26] » there [snorts] are other collection mechanisms to deal with a smaller

[3:48:29] special assessment than nonadvaloom assessment roles.

[3:48:32] » Okay. And then my last question on this cuz I wanted to understand this because

[3:48:36] I think it's definitely something we need to look into. What um if we did

[3:48:43] this as a city, are there any conditions that we would be bound to

[3:48:49] as far as having to provide any service or anything different as a city if we

[3:48:55] set this up or is it just we just set it up and tax them?

[3:48:58] » The the tourist you talking about the >> Yeah.

[3:49:01] » Yes. The city would have to provide some special service, not routine services.

[3:49:08] It's it's it's the way Semino County set it up. It's to provide additional

[3:49:13] services to enhance tourism. It's not it wasn't set up to recover

[3:49:19] routine expenditures or impacts that that those um hotels may be having on on

[3:49:26] general infrastructure. >> We'd have to look at what we're going to

[3:49:29] provide if we were going to use that tax.

[3:49:32] » Absolutely. >> Okay. I just wanted to understand what

[3:49:34] we're looking at. I was hoping we can move that forward quickly, but if it

[3:49:38] won't go till next year, it doesn't go till next year. So, thank you. That was

[3:49:43] my questions on it. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council member

[3:49:46] Willis. >> Uh, yes. The special assessment was 1

[3:49:50] point $1.75 uh assessment per available room. I

[3:49:57] spoke with Gui Kuna who set up the tourism improvement district. And I've

[3:50:04] also reached out to the company that uh helped [clears throat] them develop the

[3:50:11] tourism improvement district which was Civotas and I've reached out to the vice

[3:50:17] president of operations based in California who wrote the plan for them.

[3:50:23] Um [clears throat] yes it uh u would take a little while to happen but

[3:50:29] according to Mr. Kunha in Simol County.

[3:50:34] They are not required specifically on how those funds are dispersed.

[3:50:41] That was his statement to me. Um and that uh they

[3:50:49] the special uh the tourism improvement

[3:50:53] district that is set up in Tampa in the Eore area was limited to just that area,

[3:51:00] but in Daytona Beach it was primarily throughout. So I think it's worthwhile.

[3:51:06] It may not be an immediate impact, but I think we should exp uh explore it and

[3:51:12] move forward trying to do something to get some contributions from our hotels

[3:51:17] and from the port. If we don't do it now, we're just

[3:51:22] pushing everything back an additional year. So, [clears throat]

[3:51:27] I'm willing to reach out and discuss it with the with Civotas and further with

[3:51:33] Simol County and Tampa and Daytona Beach as well.

[3:51:41] » Excuse me, mayor. How quickly are you willing to speak to them?

[3:51:47] And and the reason is we would need to know what such an assessment study would

[3:51:52] cost. Civotas has already offered to discuss it with me on Monday.

[3:51:58] » Those are So you're you're talking about making it a this fiscal year project

[3:52:03] like we're doing the fire assessment >> if we if it's possible.

[3:52:07] » We would definitely need to know a number.

[3:52:09] » Yes, of course.

[3:52:21] a question on the um [clears throat]

[3:52:27] I didn't clarify the the reoccurring I had done some math to the point I think

[3:52:35] [clears throat] I did this prior and I I just found I think when we subtract out

[3:52:41] like in the um I don't have the I guess I got the original budget that was

[3:52:47] proposed with basically it's actually below the roll back rate cuz we didn't

[3:52:52] know it at that time slightly less. So, um,

[3:52:58] is it it looks like the reoccurring

[3:53:06] revenue

[3:53:11] is

[3:53:16] like if you add up what I'm calling fees, charges, taxes, the, you know, the

[3:53:21] things that continue, it's about 14 and a half million

[3:53:26] based on that original rate. And so I'd probably add 3 million or so cuz the

[3:53:32] that that 4.5 ad valorum so it'd be I guess 1617

[3:53:37] to your point maybe easier said pull out the 161,000 in grants

[3:53:45] pull uh remove the 570,000

[3:53:51] in contributions and then remove the 955,000

[3:53:57] in transfers minus that 18. But I think is that a

[3:54:03] sound like a safe estimate? Basically, uh 1.6 million from the 18. So to your

[3:54:10] point, the majority is reoccurring.

[3:54:18] I think what's harder to answer is the is that the expenditures

[3:54:23] should be less CIPs. That's a really important balance that I

[3:54:29] think the council needs to to know and I don't think that's an exercise that

[3:54:34] historically if it's like what what are we doing differently? I think that's

[3:54:38] really important that we can say do the reoccurring expenses

[3:54:44] or revenues cover the reoccurring expenses

[3:54:48] because in the past as our city manager and city director pointed out

[3:54:54] those those the deficits did not appear to be happening because a grant or a

[3:55:01] contribution or a transfer would or loan proceed. seeds

[3:55:08] non-reoccurring funds would balance the budget but the operating and personnel

[3:55:18] that was a problem of not having enough non-reoccurring revenues for reoccurring

[3:55:24] expenditures >> is that

[3:55:26] » yes that is correct >> so I think that's the first major task

[3:55:31] that I speak for myself to get comfortable

[3:55:35] with because then we we have a a we have a plan that is sustainable and

[3:55:46] we can begin to restore the reserves.

[3:55:51] Um is there any

[3:55:58] knowledge of what those expenses are? I don't know if you've had enough time or

[3:56:02] if that's something you have to get back on a future date,

[3:56:05] but >> um the recurring expenditures for the

[3:56:09] rolled back rate I actually would have in front of me.

[3:56:13] » Okay. >> Um because it would it will all change

[3:56:16] depending on the the military because as the numbers change um then the following

[3:56:22] expenditures would change as well. But looking in front of uh in front of me I

[3:56:26] have the roll back numbers. Um

[3:56:32] was this the the June 30th or the the actual roll back? I guess it would be

[3:56:38] one of these columns in that spreadsheet.

[3:56:43] Um the the number I'm looking in front of uh the number I'm looking at in front

[3:56:48] of me is not one of the reports that um council has.

[3:56:53] Um, >> okay. But it's the 3.2546.

[3:57:00] » Is that the roll back? >> Yes, I believe that's the roll back

[3:57:02] number. >> Okay, that's great. We do have this one

[3:57:06] that you prepared, the big one printed, but I understand what you're saying. Go

[3:57:10] ahead. Thank you. Um for all of the budgets um that we have

[3:57:15] » um we do do a snapshot of the general fund expenditures and it is fairly easy

[3:57:22] if we have that snapshot to just add personnel and operating.

[3:57:25] » Therefore those are the recurring expenditures.

[3:57:29] Um and those combined are about 14 million

[3:57:35] slightly over 14 million at um the rolled back rate.

[3:57:42] » Okay. >> Um

[3:57:45] but I would also add that that will change as the revenue changes because we

[3:57:49] match the expenditures to the the revenue. I think it would be more it

[3:57:53] would be better to Matt to find the recurring revenues and then base the

[3:57:56] expenditures off the recurring revenues. Okay. So total expenditures on that roll

[3:58:05] back rate according to this uh revenue and expenditure history report is

[3:58:11] showing 16,400,000. And if it's a little over 14, that means

[3:58:20] there's about two and a half million of non-reoccurring expenditures.

[3:58:25] Rough numbers >> about and also one thing to point out is

[3:58:30] it depends how we define a recurring because we do do a transfer to the CRA

[3:58:36] and that is recurring >> for I believe the next 20 or 15 years as

[3:58:41] the CRA exists. that will recur for the next 15 years. So if we include that,

[3:58:46] that'll add however much that would be and that does change as the mill rate

[3:58:51] changes. Um I understand that. I think it that's

[3:58:56] a a reality that we need to know. Um and maybe it's separate. uh but but it it is

[3:59:05] reliable if the the rate is right and the transfer can support it adequately

[3:59:11] in the 4 and 12 mil. So we don't really know

[3:59:17] yet what the reoccurring expenditures for the 4.5 millillage would be. We know

[3:59:23] that the revenues are about 17 and

[3:59:31] the presentation was heavily focused on personnel. Our city manager spoke about

[3:59:38] making reductions in non-personnel. Um,

[3:59:45] do we have uh just a basic overview or or summary or total of how many

[3:59:52] non-personnel with the total non-personnel reductions were in

[3:59:57] expenditures?

[4:00:02] » Can you clarify non-personnel?

[4:00:07] » Yeah. Operating supplies, materials. >> Oh, nonperson. I got you.

[4:00:11] » Yeah, just basically not anything that they they might be reoccurring.

[4:00:17] Um, printer, ink, promotional activities, those things.

[4:00:23] » Yeah. Um, so I'm looking at the difference in front of me. Operating

[4:00:27] expenditures from um the 4.5 to the roll back rate

[4:00:33] roll back rolled back rate went down almost $400,000.

[4:00:42] uh and operating does not include the personnel.

[4:00:47] » Correct. Yes. >> So the 4.5 has 18.8

[4:00:52] million in expenditures

[4:00:56] » I believe. So, >> and you just helped share that we would

[4:01:03] reduce 400,000 to go down to the roll back rate

[4:01:10] » in uh specific in operating not including personnel

[4:01:14] » um from that 4.5 rate which had I think yeah the 18 um 8 I believe.

[4:01:23] » Mhm. >> The Yeah. 18.8 8 million to the rolled

[4:01:27] back rate which the new budget would balance at about 16 million. Um to get

[4:01:32] there we did reduce the operating expenditures

[4:01:36] um by by almost 400,000.

[4:01:44] » And do we know what the personnel reductions totaled to that same rate?

[4:01:50] Um, yes, but it'll take me a second to pull up that um that spreadsheet.

[4:01:58] » Okay. I think um and we're talking from 4.5 to

[4:02:06] to roll back. There are and should be recognized the original budget had 20

[4:02:12] million in total expenditures reoccurring non-reoccurring

[4:02:18] operating personnel and so there's been through a variety of ways

[4:02:25] reductions there and yeah I think it does make sense to

[4:02:30] focus on where we are at this trim rate and um

[4:02:36] uh to so are there any other I guess is

[4:02:42] talking about non-personnel expenses what

[4:02:47] what remains and are there any

[4:02:54] opportunities to reduce meaningfully any non personnel

[4:03:03] just as an example I

[4:03:07] at the 4.5 mil. >> Um I would say um I would say no at this

[4:03:15] point we've reduced it as much as we can um because it to take even a step back

[4:03:20] how we looked at this whole um kind of cutting process

[4:03:24] » is from three three categories capital operating and then personnel.

[4:03:30] » Okay. in that order from easiest to to to hardest in order to cut capital.

[4:03:36] We've moved out a lot of capital. Then we looked at our operating expenditures,

[4:03:40] moved out many operating expenditures. And then when we had nothing else to

[4:03:44] save, that is when we started looking at personnel.

[4:03:48] Um so personnel is our last um option to look at.

[4:03:55] And to make the budget balance at this point, we do have to release a good

[4:04:00] amount of personnel to to balance a budget.

[4:04:09] Okay. Thank you. the um just a second here on the

[4:04:21] the slide that shows that 4 and 1/2 mil basically where we are still eliminated

[4:04:27] 10 perka positions parks and rec

[4:04:36] facility operations city events and their services.

[4:04:43] So

[4:04:46] what does I get the slide that what does that actually preserve at at 4 and a

[4:04:53] half mil? >> I'd like to take that. So it preserves

[4:04:56] five positions in parka. Mhm. >> We will not be running the facilities,

[4:05:01] but those those positions that are remaining will be able to continue to

[4:05:06] maintain those facilities, the grounds that are relevant to those facilities

[4:05:11] and two additional staff, the director and another staffer to be able to

[4:05:15] maintain all of the media, all of the facility lease agreements. Um, if we're

[4:05:21] not going to operate the facilities, but we're going to lease them out,

[4:05:25] somebody's going to have to manage that process.

[4:05:28] who occupies them, maintaining that, overseeing those facilities. From that

[4:05:33] standpoint,

[4:05:37] if we go below 4.5, then we, as the the next millage rate indicates, if we fall

[4:05:42] somewhere between 4.5 and 3.5, then we're going to have to really go

[4:05:47] come back to you with, well, at this point, what employee stays and and what

[4:05:52] goes to be able to maintain that minimum level of affiliation with those

[4:05:59] facilities. Today the perka pos yeah yeah this slide

[4:06:04] is perfect thank you is uh current 15 positions

[4:06:11] is what is the millage rate to Miss Ron's statement just in perka that would

[4:06:20] be required to not lose 10 positions cuz the 4.5 mil is like a 45% tax increase

[4:06:31] And so how much more would we have to increase taxes to add those to keep the

[4:06:36] 10 positions? >> That'll take us a moment to calculate. I

[4:06:40] believe for Go ahead. >> I have some round numbers. Um around

[4:06:44] six, a millage rate of six would um would balance the budget.

[4:06:53] Um because our original our original deficit was 4 million.

[4:06:58] » Mhm. So, in order to make up 4 million, we'd have to have a mill rate of six.

[4:07:05] » And to also answer the question, um, what would it take to to balance a

[4:07:11] budget and get the reserves we need? If the reserves were around 3 million, then

[4:07:17] we would need the the 4 million to balance the budget plus the 3 million to

[4:07:21] build the reserves for a total of 7 million. So a millage rate around eight

[4:07:27] would give us around $7 million. >> Mayor, if I can interject.

[4:07:33] » Yeah. >> If you're whenever you decide if now's

[4:07:36] the time or in the future to talk about coming in with a millage rate higher

[4:07:41] than 4.5, we're going to have to talk about what that notification to the

[4:07:46] community would look like because they've already received their notices

[4:07:51] at 4.5. And um

[4:07:55] we're not exactly sure that we can meet meet the requirements and fulfill state

[4:08:02] statute with um the meetings that we have to have in September. Preliminary

[4:08:08] review of that indicates that you would have to make a decision tonight most

[4:08:12] likely and we would have to immediately notice the community of a millage rate

[4:08:17] higher than what they've already received in the mail.

[4:08:20] But the attorney can weigh in on that a little bit better.

[4:08:23] » No, I think I was just I understand and I think that we when we adopted the trim

[4:08:31] as a ceiling, we knew it might be burdensome to try and go around that. I

[4:08:38] wanted to just understand

[4:08:42] that at the 45% tax increase still loses 10 employees.

[4:08:50] I mean, that would be the biggest tax increase I think that this city's ever

[4:08:54] done, if not the largest. And we're saying we'd have to go

[4:09:02] 100% higher or I mean, and then when we talk about sustainability,

[4:09:08] everything in here, none of these are CIPs. These are all reoccurring

[4:09:13] expenditures. And I think parks and w

[4:09:19] 400 500,000 prior to the expansions.

[4:09:25] It's kind of everything reasonably if it was 6 or 700,000.

[4:09:30] I think in here we're looking at well currently like 1.6 million.

[4:09:39] And maybe that's another way to ask, does 1.6 6 million cover parks and wreck

[4:09:47] for this upcoming year. I guess I could go to the perka total

[4:09:59] community affairs. Okay. So, I'm seeing Well, it's not totaled up here, but I

[4:10:07] I know it's in our budget book. If we if you get the total before me. Um, that's

[4:10:13] works. I'm I'm seeing perka.

[4:10:21] It was like 730,000 in 2021.

[4:10:26] Then it went to 1.1 million in 22. Then it went to 1.3

[4:10:33] million in 23. And now this does include I think some

[4:10:39] CIPs in there. So that's just not personnel. But then 2.1 million and 24

[4:10:45] and we're at 1.5 million25 at um I've got 1.7 million for this

[4:10:54] current year with CIPs and uh

[4:11:01] 1.258 258 with just personnel

[4:11:06] » one point for this 20 proposed year. So 1.677

[4:11:12] million keeps all 15 employees

[4:11:17] with as mayor pro Tim Jackson said 1.2 of it being personnel and so the other

[4:11:25] 400,000 I think would be operating supplies and maybe some CIPs and stuff.

[4:11:31] Is that right? >> Yeah. Comparing um to the current fiscal

[4:11:36] year we're in right now, >> the total parks and wreck budget that

[4:11:40] was budgeted for is um a little over 1.7 million

[4:11:45] » based on 1.2 million of personnel and about 500,000 of operating expenditures

[4:11:53] and about 70,000 in capital.

[4:11:58] So not so the

[4:12:02] » so pretty much all that's reoccurring expenditures

[4:12:06] » the personnel plus the operating >> um and not including the capital. So the

[4:12:11] personnel and the operating add up to about 1.7 million

[4:12:18] personnel and operating al reoccurring overhead I guess is another one right

[4:12:26] 1.7 million. >> Mhm.

[4:12:34] and a six mill up from a 4.5 would cover that. Uh

[4:12:44] » um I I would need some time to calculate that.

[4:12:47] » That's okay. I think similar to council member Willis asked previously because

[4:12:52] in our city manager pointed there's three millage rates that are pointed and

[4:12:57] they're they're just guides. It's not saying pick one of the three. Thank you

[4:13:02] for for making that clear. But to be able to just quantify like what.1 mil

[4:13:09] does like what's the value of 0.1 mil and you know times 10 would be 1 mil. I

[4:13:16] think that would that would be helpful. Um,

[4:13:32] » okay. >> Mr. Mayor.

[4:13:35] » Yep. >> On the

[4:13:37] um on the C5 personnel services. >> Mhm. [clears throat] It would also be

[4:13:43] helpful for me if we knew what just that building and providing the services for

[4:13:51] that looks like on a as far as personnel costs simply because if we decided to

[4:13:58] lease it and we and we negotiated um a contract with a vendor, the way

[4:14:05] that things normally work when you do that with in the in the enterprise

[4:14:10] business in corporate America America is you make sure your employees are taken

[4:14:15] care of where they're not let go. They move over to the with whoever's

[4:14:19] providing that service. Then they manage their, you know, ability to keep those

[4:14:26] people and they manage and pay them. And that would at least protect the people

[4:14:31] in that facility if we decided to lease, but it would also reduce the employee

[4:14:36] costs if we did it that way and negotiate it into the contract.

[4:14:42] I have the answer to that. >> Thank you, Molly.

[4:14:45] » So, with roughly the current structure, you're at about 250,000.

[4:14:51] » Okay. >> And what is that for the 250?

[4:14:55] » That's a facility manager. >> That is a programs and facility

[4:15:00] assistant, two part-time wck leaders, and one full-time wck leader, which is

[4:15:05] very lean. >> Would you give me those those again? And

[4:15:09] see, that's good to know if it's lean. We need to know that because we need to

[4:15:13] know how it impacts. Will you tell me those again? I'm sorry I'm writing this.

[4:15:16] » A facility manager. >> Okay.

[4:15:19] » A program and facility assistant, >> two part-time wck leaders, and one

[4:15:25] full-time WCK leader.

[4:15:35] » I didn't get it [laughter] all. I write slow. That's why I top everything.

[4:15:39] Tell me that one more time, Molly. I'm sorry.

[4:15:41] » Where did Where did you leave off? >> I got facility manager, program manager,

[4:15:46] program assistant, >> two part-time wck leaders.

[4:15:50] » Two part-time recreck leaders. Okay. >> One full-time WCK leader.

[4:15:54] » Okay. >> And that is lean.

[4:15:56] » Okay. But I mean, that helps us to know as you're looking at that, you know,

[4:16:03] because helps to know. Oh, I've I've been

[4:16:08] actively working on what proposals would look like

[4:16:13] » for such organizations to to consider us or entities to consider us. So, I have

[4:16:18] it broken down >> as far as that goes. I just I just want

[4:16:23] to make sure that we're looking at it on you know with

[4:16:27] as we're talking about those that staff's salaries that we're looking

[4:16:33] at that and it what kind of savings if anything we might find you know so thank

[4:16:40] you that helps me >> give it back to you Mr. Mayor.

[4:16:45] » No I think we're just working working through it. Uh the big one for me is

[4:16:50] those reoccurring revenues. Do we have a balanced budget at 4.5 with reoccurring

[4:16:56] revenues and reoccurring expenditures? And then every at least the two other

[4:17:02] options. Um are those balanced? Um I think

[4:17:09] then if we know whether it's 0.1 mill or a mill 1 mil if that's easier that's

[4:17:15] fine. We can divide by 10. but being able to then adjust that revenue

[4:17:20] accordingly.

[4:17:26] » Um yeah, we do have a balanced budget at 4.5 and and um the other levels

[4:17:33] presented as well with recurring to uh revenues and expenditures. We do not

[4:17:39] plan on um having any loss of money with these

[4:17:44] budgets as planned.

[4:17:50] Okay. As far as um you know ideas, I think

[4:17:56] talked about them I absolutely on um

[4:18:02] tourism, the port, all of that. I think those are uh really good opportunities.

[4:18:08] and obviously elections and there's uh new commissioners in there which was

[4:18:14] a bit of a pause just for me and I think we're going to we're we're in it now and

[4:18:18] heading in and could present a a better opportunity. We'll see. That's obviously

[4:18:24] they're on board and authority there. Um, but I sense that they wanted to be

[4:18:30] more involved in the community. >> Mhm.

[4:18:33] » As opposed to tunnel vision on tourism and cruise

[4:18:39] traffic and um obviously very successful there, but Cape Canaveral carries a lot

[4:18:45] of that. And so those things I think are really good and absolutely could be

[4:18:51] substantially positive.

[4:18:55] the as far as expenditures. I mean, we've talked about

[4:19:04] the it is I guess just take a step back. It is not my hope or desire to

[4:19:13] [snorts] close um anything in parks and wreck.

[4:19:18] Now, how we keep it open is the things I think we're talking about that

[4:19:25] that seems to be something sustainable. And as you said, Mayor Pro Tim, um if

[4:19:34] the current team was able to transition under like whether it's an operating

[4:19:41] lease and some of the things very happy to hear looking into that

[4:19:46] because we did bring that up in the past and um that was before Molly was the the

[4:19:52] director and it sort of grew and grew and uh here we are and I think we we see

[4:19:57] that reserves reserves with two years of operating expenses alone are

[4:20:03] replenished. We have to reserve it. But I don't

[4:20:07] I don't want to do that. I think to recap some of the things that we've

[4:20:15] discussed, one of the things is first of all kind of breaking it down the splash

[4:20:20] pad. The splash pad is

[4:20:24] a hit in the community. People really like the splash pad. I drive, that's my

[4:20:30] street. I drive by, you see happy people, and I mean, priceless. That is

[4:20:36] uh a really nice thing to see in Cape Canaveral. Families and I've had old

[4:20:43] high school friends that don't live don't even live here like, "Oh my gosh,

[4:20:46] came out to Cape Canaveral. I got it's just drive by on any nice day." And boy,

[4:20:51] that was tough getting it operating. And so today, it's uh it is really a

[4:20:55] success. The the hard reality is our director said the overhead to maintain

[4:21:01] it 72,000 I think you said roughly >> 64

[4:21:05] » and that's roughly >> that's for daily tests and coming in and

[4:21:10] making sure just like a pool >> just like a public pool that that that's

[4:21:14] all the legal requirements and when we put that out to bid with our current

[4:21:18] vendor he came in more than 40 thou $40,000 lower than the next closest one.

[4:21:24] Wow. And that next closest one had zero experience with splash pads and admitted

[4:21:30] that and said they were just going to give it a whirl.

[4:21:34] » And they're two different beasts. >> And is that a licensed profession or

[4:21:40] some credential to Okay. >> So the I'm using this as an example.

[4:21:46] It's highly used uh just from a an amenity standpoint.

[4:21:52] very different than our shuffle board courts, right? It's reality of every

[4:21:56] park in every community, but that's being used. And so when I talk about

[4:22:00] level of service and and impact and loss,

[4:22:06] um I can see that I can see, you know, that that those things aren't happening.

[4:22:12] But because it's popular, because it gets

[4:22:17] foot traffic, I think it was council member Shyak said

[4:22:22] sponsorship naming rights on an annual basis. I think um

[4:22:29] Health First uh any Blue Origin, SpaceX,

[4:22:35] uh Orlando [clears throat] Health is very

[4:22:39] involved in Parish Medical Center. Not you could could we

[4:22:47] create an opportunity? I mean, because for them, I don't I'm not sure the

[4:22:51] hotels would be in like we're not their target market. We're not buying hotels

[4:22:57] typically, but you know, the the space industry wants a good name in the

[4:23:02] community obviously all the way down to your small local Cape Canaveral

[4:23:07] businesses. This would take some time, but could we design a sponsorship

[4:23:13] package and test it and state here annually just like we did, which is

[4:23:20] awesome. I don't know if the folks know, but our city staff with the sea oats,

[4:23:25] » we used to they used to be a line item in our general fund. It was like 10.

[4:23:29] They're like a dollar well $2 a piece, but 15 20,000. And we have a sponsor now

[4:23:35] who who funds the seats. And it makes sense because it's a very positive,

[4:23:40] recognizable thing that a lot of people see. So I I love those creative ideas as

[4:23:47] as you brought up. So >> to be clear, mayor, we had a sponsor

[4:23:51] this year. >> We do have one.

[4:23:53] » Well, no, we had a sponsor this year. We don't have a sponsor every year for

[4:23:57] CEOs. We're working on that. And and to your point, um those would have to be we

[4:24:04] would have to make those contractual and to simulate as much of a reoccurring

[4:24:10] feel as we could sponsor it for x many years per contract. um so that it can

[4:24:16] stay running until such time as maybe um aderm taxes could pay for it or some

[4:24:21] other means. But I just I just want to clarify. Are we talking about doing this

[4:24:26] now or are we talking about the future in future fiscal years? Um well [sighs]

[4:24:32] well okay so

[4:24:38] if it's $1.6 $6 million to fund uh one fiscal year. Well, that's what we have

[4:24:44] budgeted to basically all parks and w everyone

[4:24:49] all employees are here most importantly because of

[4:24:53] them. The service level is where it is today, right? That's

[4:24:58] that's what I'm hearing. Um, I don't know how long it takes, but to

[4:25:05] me, and please if if I'm off on anything, it would seem

[4:25:11] the when would be answered of how long would it take to design

[4:25:17] um the sponsor package. Uh I [clears throat] think it's a

[4:25:23] full-time job. So in the remaining but and then go out work internally city

[4:25:30] attorney would probably have a role. I think he might have some experience and

[4:25:34] or observe this in other communities where corporate sponsorships get

[4:25:39] involved and the the sooner the better. I think uh when

[4:25:47] we say this year, we're in about a month away from the fiscal year.

[4:25:53] And one uh idea, right, was was the the splash pad,

[4:26:00] but the could fit under that umbrella under

[4:26:05] the same person, community affairs type person engagement um whomever our

[4:26:12] administration believes. But uh repeating that same logic and thinking

[4:26:18] okay where else is high foot traffic the visibility would actually be desired by

[4:26:23] a sponsor and it's a continuous annual expense as our beach crossovers.

[4:26:29] How many people step across? Does the space industry want to know that this is

[4:26:34] the only beachfront convenient accessible space viewing area and we got

[4:26:40] 17 of them not including Cherryown Park. We used to do sponsor of the boardwalks

[4:26:46] and having some sort of sponsorship annually that this boardwalk is

[4:26:53] sponsored by. Um if they donate to Sea Oats maybe to hence a little wood

[4:26:59] natural less signs better but kind of fits into the natural tone wood engraved

[4:27:04] sponsored uh by XYZ and splash pad beachwalk cross overs.

[4:27:12] Um, and the last thing I will say is because

[4:27:18] so that's one piece of the C5, the operator, whoever is in the health

[4:27:26] I'm just going to say Health First cuz they're they're really big or a parish

[4:27:29] or someone. They they operate gyms. Health First is leaving here.

[4:27:35] They we have city um employees trained knows the community works here. whoever

[4:27:41] it is, would they be willing to come in and

[4:27:48] take over the management, the operations, and a lot of the bills and

[4:27:52] the liability of that when well, I don't like anything sudden to answer your

[4:27:57] question, city manager. And so my thought would be if we continued

[4:28:02] business as usual for 90 days, could we get some sort of LOI of interest

[4:28:10] and then another 90 days to potentially contract? I mean, is it turnkey ready to

[4:28:16] walk in and operate? Is there an appetite out there? I don't know. So,

[4:28:20] it's really hard for me to know. It's a very nice facility. The residents keep

[4:28:25] their access to health and fitness. In a best case scenario, the employees are

[4:28:30] able to retain their local knowledge and positions and the residents and this

[4:28:36] council and the general fund sees a relief in operation

[4:28:41] cost. Splash pads separate, beach crossovers are separate, but I think

[4:28:46] that that would be where my head is. And I'm thinking like 90 days to to try and

[4:28:53] get interest and uh you know ideally 180 days 6 months to have uh maybe something

[4:29:02] uh contracted and the Cape Center old city hall very special building to this

[4:29:10] community that as I think I've stated and chatted

[4:29:15] with the city manager to me this is administrative But

[4:29:21] I believe out of Nancy Hansen, our rec side is handling Fridayfest. So that

[4:29:27] culture like the same rationale with Box Cast

[4:29:31] to me the Cape Center 100% culture community affairs type. Can we rent that

[4:29:40] space beyond what we're doing? But those walls are limited. You have indoor the

[4:29:47] parking lot that we acquired, right? That's food trucks, uh, vendors.

[4:29:53] Could we have someone who today that would be able to say rent this space,

[4:30:00] rent the outside uh,

[4:30:05] farmers markets and it's available as council member Shoryak 365 days. you

[4:30:11] could have an event with a little bit of indoor outdoor um and and I think that

[4:30:16] that to me is far better than parking cars. People would drive by it. I think

[4:30:20] it's a desirable space. I know locals would love food trucks and different

[4:30:25] options coming in and take the recreation side with the same logic and

[4:30:31] say you've got Oh, and they would also be responsible for booking Friday Fest

[4:30:37] because that's more of a cultural thing. So, you have the street

[4:30:42] city manager and I think staff talked about expanding, not saying we're full,

[4:30:47] expanding Fridayfest to increase revenue back in the nice green space area or the

[4:30:52] shuffle board. I think those are all really viable, good ideas that we could

[4:30:59] start to get revenue positive and also provide things to the community without

[4:31:05] losing any service and hopefully no one would lose their their job. It's

[4:31:12] changing what we're [clears throat] working on and how we're using our

[4:31:15] space. And the recreation side would be maybe out of Nancy Hansen, assuming we

[4:31:22] had a lease operator. Can't lease the C5, but we have obviously all the pickle

[4:31:29] ball courts, the tennis courts, um

[4:31:33] where wherever we have uh recreational space, the soccer fields, and you're

[4:31:39] trying to to rent that out and and >> mayor mayor

[4:31:44] » keep the movement going. Those are the three kind of buckets. 90 days to get

[4:31:49] interest, 6 months. Could we actually have something implemented? Sorry. Thank

[4:31:54] you for your patience. >> No, thank you, mayor. And just to kind

[4:31:57] of circle back to the beginning, um, if I could have Molly explain to you maybe

[4:32:03] or tell the council what she's attempted to do to find interest in these

[4:32:09] facilities, what marketing them looks like at this point without mentioning

[4:32:14] companies or organizations or whatever. Um, the efforts that we have undertaken

[4:32:20] thus far in anticipation of this conversation, number one. Number two, to

[4:32:25] shed some light on the reality of event planning, um the logistics, the time

[4:32:31] involved, the the rental of our facilities, and and I think we also have

[4:32:34] a component about these are all in the CRA, uh and what our ordinances look

[4:32:39] like um to accommodate those things.

[4:32:43] » That'd be great.

[4:32:48] » Hard to have microphone and computer open at the same time.

[4:32:51] So without mentioning names, as the city manager said, there's um

[4:32:59] and and it's more like recapping in terms of what Anthony said and as far as

[4:33:05] the process looks. Um and in our conversations, Anthony specifically

[4:33:11] outlined a couple uh windows of time that are required. Um I believe you said

[4:33:16] 30 days, Mr. city attorney for noticing before we

[4:33:21] actually sign something over in terms of a lease. Um there's also public private

[4:33:28] partnerships. Um and if you had told me a year ago I'd

[4:33:32] be talking about Picttona, I would have told you you were crazy. Um because I've

[4:33:37] been hearing about Picttona since day one of Picttona. And um it's not like us

[4:33:46] in a multitude of ways. just Google a picture of it. Um, but that doesn't mean

[4:33:51] that we can't be similar to it. And it's quite an inspirational story if you

[4:33:56] actually read the little history tab on how it was created. Um, we could

[4:34:00] effectively uh learn a lot from them. Um, and if you just go to their

[4:34:05] sponsorship page just by itself, you'll see um, some of your I'd say your top 10

[4:34:14] companies in terms of health insurance provide pro providers and all of that in

[4:34:20] including a lot of other local businesses, attorneys, real estate

[4:34:25] agents, so on so forth. So there's a lot of merit in all the different things you

[4:34:32] mentioned. Um, and then in terms of your suggestion with as far as, you know,

[4:34:39] okay, yes, find something for Nancy Hansen in terms of somebody that can

[4:34:42] operate that and utilize our current staff. Same thing with the the C5, get

[4:34:50] sponsorship for the splash pad. Um, we would also need to talk about, and this

[4:34:56] gets into, as multiple people have mentioned,

[4:35:00] really dialing in the scope of our our RFP. Does our RFP that talks about the

[4:35:07] C5, include covering the cost of mulch, which is uh a safety requirement in our

[4:35:13] park that's on that property? Like what does that RFP look like and maintaining

[4:35:18] the rest of that property, ball field to be included? Um, so when you look at

[4:35:24] those different things, like I I said in my presentation, it's not a copy paste

[4:35:30] on all the properties. And then to your last comment, um I don't know if you've

[4:35:38] noticed, but all of those benches that have never ever ever been sat on in the

[4:35:44] plaza are gone because on September 19th, I believe, or

[4:35:49] 18th, we're going to be doing our first cottage market. And that was organized

[4:35:54] by not just our um administrative team in our department, but also the

[4:36:00] community engagement coordinator that works out of the Cape Center. So, we're

[4:36:05] doing that. >> That's great.

[4:36:06] » Um, and that's a that's a dry run. We've never I mean, that place has been full

[4:36:11] of benches, so you couldn't do anything other than go sit there. Um, so we've

[4:36:16] got space for conservatively about 13 vendors and

[4:36:22] Marcy's been looped in on this. Marcy's the one that runs Fridayfest. She took a

[4:36:28] walk through the plaza with me to see how we could maybe incorporate that into

[4:36:33] expanding into Fridayfest. So, take a look at it when it actually when we have

[4:36:38] tents, when we have people walking around, when there's traffic going by,

[4:36:41] it's kind of scary out there by the front part of the road. We'll see how

[4:36:44] that goes. Um, and it is kind of separated from the rest of Friday Fest,

[4:36:48] which can be good and bad. You guys have all participated in Friday Fest in some

[4:36:52] way, shape, or form. Sometimes it's good to be by the band in the beer. Sometimes

[4:36:57] it's not. So, it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If you're trying

[4:37:01] to talk to constituents, if you're trying to talk to people, over by the

[4:37:06] band in the beer is not exactly where you want to be as a as a vendor or

[4:37:09] whatever. Um the idea of expanding Fridayfest into the um we'll call it the

[4:37:18] courtyard space over at the Nancy Hansen is incredibly problematic. Um, it is

[4:37:25] worse in terms of ADA accessibility than it is having the event in the street

[4:37:30] because there's oddly enough hills >> throughout that. Um, and the sidewalk is

[4:37:37] not um conducive necessarily for that and we don't have the best lighting in

[4:37:43] that area. So going over into that side space, every year we talk about it and

[4:37:48] every year we do a little walkthrough and a what if and a what if and a what

[4:37:51] if and every year we like it's it's just probably not a good idea. So, um,

[4:37:59] improvements in those areas would need to happen in order to really in earnest

[4:38:06] create a safe and marketable space because now you're taking people kind of

[4:38:13] off the off thebeaten path of what our traditional Friday fest event space is.

[4:38:18] It's one thing to have the visibility right there at A1A. It's another one to

[4:38:22] have them hidden by the shrubs in the in the back area where the shuffleboard

[4:38:28] courts are. And one of the things that always disappoints me about the shuffle

[4:38:32] boards is you would think that they were flat and they are not. Like it's not one

[4:38:38] big flat space. So, it's not conducive to even utilizing that

[4:38:44] interior part of the space to put in, you know, some tents and some lights and

[4:38:49] stuff like that because they're lanes with little valleys in between each one.

[4:38:53] So, um, did that answer anything? >> It did. The cottage, where would that

[4:39:00] be? >> In the plaza,

[4:39:02] » right next door. >> Right there.

[4:39:04] » North of Cape Center. >> Next to the dog park, the parking lot.

[4:39:09] Literally, if you walk out the side door,

[4:39:11] » this Yeah, the plaza >> where the palms date palms are. Yeah.

[4:39:15] Okay. >> Um, that's great. I think u Yeah, my

[4:39:19] thought would be it's hard to see how we're going to sustainably fund this.

[4:39:24] And so to answer your question, we already got some stuff going. Could we

[4:39:28] roll it out? And last, I can speak for myself. If a property needs some

[4:39:35] improvements and we know that those improvements are

[4:39:38] going to help for revenue positive. Absolutely. That's all I have to say.

[4:39:44] » Yeah, >> Mr. Mayor. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh,

[4:39:47] » yes, Council Member King. [laughter] >> Um, what about approaching those

[4:39:51] insurance companies that provide us with the silver slippers uh um uh or the

[4:39:57] silver sneakers, I'm sorry, uh programs? That might be another avenue uh to

[4:40:02] explore too for advertising. And also I just wanted to say um the VC

[4:40:08] doinees that were here earlier, they sponsored one of those benches on the on

[4:40:12] the uh beach crossovers. We could do that too.

[4:40:17] » If I may, mayor, the city attorney has some comments and I'd like to comment

[4:40:22] after him. >> Okay. Can I say one quick thing in

[4:40:24] regards to what she just said? >> Absolutely.

[4:40:26] » Okay. Don't ask me for permission. >> [laughter]

[4:40:30] » Well, I didn't want to I didn't want to stomp all over.

[4:40:33] » She's being polite. >> Yes, I was trying to be polite. So, you

[4:40:36] all had talked about that and you're talking about the benches. I'm going to

[4:40:39] tell you, someone needs to go right out to the space center to every rocket

[4:40:44] company in town and tell them that we are going to be selling advertising on

[4:40:50] our beach boardwalks >> and let them because we've got a ton of

[4:40:55] new vendors. So it's not just SpaceX and Blue Origin that might do that kind of

[4:41:01] investment. And these companies have money. So we're not talking don't don't

[4:41:07] say hey it c we'll charge you 2500 for the year. No ask substantial give us 50

[4:41:14] give us 25,000 >> high [clears throat] and negotiate.

[4:41:17] » Exactly. So go out there and I'm telling you, I know a young man in this room who

[4:41:24] is very good at what he does who will know all of those companies. Exactly.

[4:41:31] So hello, Zach. So um seriously, we need to

[4:41:36] be hitting those people. I think that'd be a great way to make some revenue as

[4:41:41] well. >> Thank you. It's just a different model

[4:41:46] that it sounds like we're looking into. city attorney.

[4:41:49] » Two points, three points maybe. First, good idea about marketing, right? And

[4:41:56] putting corporate logos on certain city facilities. Two of my clients have done

[4:42:00] that. Two different healthc care companies, right? Put a healthc care

[4:42:04] logo on a pickle ball stadium and put it on screening. You I think it was about

[4:42:11] 20,000 a year for a 5year commitment for $100,000. you know, it's another city

[4:42:17] very close to here, similar, right? Putting logos, um, naming rights, very

[4:42:24] very easy. So, you're throwing out revenue ideas and

[4:42:30] and and and I spoke to the manager and and and and Joey about this, brought it

[4:42:35] to their attention, and I'm going to bring it to your attention because if

[4:42:39] you want big ticket items for revenue opportunities in your general fund, one

[4:42:45] suggestion would be to deal with your sewer enterprise. Your sewer enterprise

[4:42:49] doesn't run like a business. Citizens of Cape Canaveral own that sewer utility.

[4:42:55] That sewer enterprise fund does not return an investment to the general

[4:43:00] fund. It also doesn't pay to utilize the city uh roads like other utilities. So

[4:43:07] there's no there's there's a vehicle called the payment in lie of franchise

[4:43:11] fee. I mean there return on between return on investment payment in le of

[4:43:16] franchise fee if it gets incorporated into the sewer rate model will bring in

[4:43:21] excess of seven figures to the general fund. It just needs to be thought

[4:43:25] through and needs to be handed to handed to your rate consultant when you do your

[4:43:30] rate study coming up to incorporate those concepts into the rates. So it

[4:43:37] gets part it's a rate component. Um this the sewer enterprise fund does not

[4:43:44] pay the general fund as an in as the as an investor because your general fund is

[4:43:50] your general operating expenses. So that's one one idea um to use the sewer

[4:43:57] enterprise fund to have a a legitimate interfund transfer of revenue from the

[4:44:03] sewer enterprise to the general fund to be used for general fund purposes.

[4:44:09] Right? So that's a that's a that's a suggestion. Um

[4:44:13] » and it would be a franchise fee that >> it's a pay it's it's a return on

[4:44:17] investment, right? So that's going to be based there's different ways to deal

[4:44:21] with it and there's an like a return on investment you you basically take take

[4:44:25] net net capital asset costs less depreciation right and you have a

[4:44:30] certain percentage and that and that inner fund transfer can occur annually

[4:44:34] as a return on investment to the general fund from your sewer enterprise fund.

[4:44:39] Then there's a payment in lie of taxes, a payment in le of franchise fees

[4:44:43] because your other utilities like electric, uh, solid waste, um, gas, they

[4:44:50] pay a franchise fee, right, to occupy the rightway because there are certain

[4:44:55] rightaway maintenance expenses that come out of the general fund. Well, why why

[4:44:59] wouldn't the sewer enterprise pay a payment in lie of a franchise fee,

[4:45:03] right? It's not a franchise fee per se because it's one agency, right? you were

[4:45:08] one governmental agency, but it's a legitimate transfer. You just have to

[4:45:12] set it up >> reoccurring

[4:45:16] » reoccurring annually. This is will be a reoccurring interfund transfer every

[4:45:21] single year to the general fund budget from the sewer enterprise for a return

[4:45:25] on investment and then a payment in lower franchise fee

[4:45:28] » and enterprise uh participation in operational cost for maintaining roads

[4:45:34] and that kind of stuff. They're occupying the rightway. Yeah. To occupy

[4:45:39] the rightway with the sewer. >> The return on investment is a different

[4:45:43] thing. That's think of it as a corporate situation, right? The shareholders get a

[4:45:47] return on investment, right, from the corporation. Well, the shareholders in

[4:45:50] this particular case would be the general fund, right? Would be the

[4:45:52] citizens of Cape Canaveral. So, you own a business called sewer enterprise,

[4:45:57] right? Why doesn't that sewer enterprise pay a return on investment to the

[4:46:00] general fund, >> right? To the shareholders, the citizens

[4:46:03] of of Cape Canaveral. >> Gotcha. So that's the concept. It can

[4:46:07] legitimately be built into the rate model and it could be an annual expense

[4:46:11] uh annual revenue source for the general fund.

[4:46:14] » Okay. >> A significant one.

[4:46:18] » And would it jack up the enterprise fees for our residents?

[4:46:22] » It's going to deal with it's going to impact the sewer rates.

[4:46:25] » So the sewer rates would be increased >> to move that over to the general fund.

[4:46:33] » It'd be part of the sewer rates. Okay. All right.

[4:46:36] » But don't we >> I see contributions from wastewater fund

[4:46:41] substantial. Would it be in addition to that or would it this be a more

[4:46:45] » those are um I'll let Joey speak to that but I think those are uh their fair

[4:46:49] share of the administrative expenses. Right.

[4:46:52] » That is the uh the utility tax. The 10%. >> Oh, and the utility tax. Yeah.

[4:46:56] » Oh, the one that we maxed out. Okay. So, this would be in addition to that.

[4:47:00] » In addition to >> That's great. So your big your bigger

[4:47:05] sewer [clears throat] users would obviously pay more

[4:47:11] right than res

[4:47:15] » based on it's going to be based on well it's going to be based on

[4:47:18] » usage >> usage.

[4:47:22] » Wow. Timeline to implement something like

[4:47:26] that. >> Do a rate study incorporate it and adopt

[4:47:29] new sewer rates. That's the timeline. It's something that can be done next

[4:47:33] fiscal year. >> Okay.

[4:47:38] » Mayor, if I may. >> Yes, please.

[4:47:40] » I I truly appreciate these um suggestions. Every one of them that's

[4:47:45] been made. Um some of them we've been discussing already and it takes time and

[4:47:50] effort to do them. Uh but at this stage of the game, I got to tell you, I feel

[4:47:54] like I'm my own on my own 10 yard line. The clock is running out and we're

[4:48:00] discussing what Hail Mary pass we're going to make.

[4:48:05] The council has capped us at a 4.5 millillage rate.

[4:48:12] We're talking about we want to buy 40 things and we only have enough money for

[4:48:16] 20. I would like to focus if we can on what

[4:48:24] we actually have to deal with. You have your first budget meeting one week from

[4:48:31] tonight and then you have your second one in 19 days

[4:48:36] and staff has already been running and run in every direction possible to get

[4:48:40] us to this point tonight. There's been a discussion on what

[4:48:45] millage rate would it take to keep employees in Parka.

[4:48:49] I don't know that that millage rate can exist in the time left to advertise

[4:48:55] because this council set a a proposed rate at 4.5 and that notice went out to

[4:49:02] the community and and it went out knowing that we would have to spend

[4:49:07] money if we're going to elevate it. So, you've set the bar. We've got to work

[4:49:12] within the confines of that bar. We've already told you who would have to go.

[4:49:18] If you want to try to save recreation, it's going to come at the expense of

[4:49:22] other general fund employees because there's no money.

[4:49:27] » I just have to be real with you on that. >> Yeah.

[4:49:30] » Unless there's some magic button money button I'm not aware of.

[4:49:35] » No, >> it's not there.

[4:49:37] » The reason I brought that up, it was there was a question related to it. Um

[4:49:41] and I think the answer was not with the intent to go back. I think that the 4

[4:49:46] and a.5 mil for me I can speak um

[4:49:52] our expenditures have gotten too high and the millage of six is what it would

[4:50:00] take to maintain this and every year those expenditures increase. And so it

[4:50:07] was to answer the question and to recognize,

[4:50:11] well, we're going to have all these reductions with a 45% increase and

[4:50:16] they're not going away and they're going to go up.

[4:50:20] The the millillage that we would have to be at

[4:50:24] with the types of spending patterns we've seen would send Cape Canaveral to

[4:50:29] the highest one of the highest tax communities in the county. And that's a

[4:50:34] structural issue. So I hear you loud and clear. Cutting expenditures

[4:50:39] was my hope and identifying. I have not went through these different

[4:50:46] millillage that was sent out um today but if I hear correctly there is no more

[4:50:52] non-personnel

[4:50:56] reductions and

[4:51:00] this 4.5 has those reductions built into it that we went through in the

[4:51:06] presentation. So

[4:51:10] I'm talking about the balance. Um if I go to like perka I will see a a dramat a

[4:51:20] regular time salaries for I'm seeing yes clearly it's $872,000

[4:51:28] for perka salaries not including retirement life insurance workman's comp

[4:51:34] all the other personnel expenditures. that is now down a half a million

[4:51:38] dollars to 325,000 which retains those five is that so we

[4:51:43] can and then

[4:51:48] I I I think I answered my question here. Um,

[4:51:55] so

[4:51:58] here here's my question. Instead of a why is it being recommended?

[4:52:04] Well, the [snorts] slide that mentioned the

[4:52:07] retirement that was one of mine. I did not understand that slide. I can try to

[4:52:11] find it, but it was the one that said um in in our direct finance director's

[4:52:16] presentation, it said not or does include

[4:52:21] um it's the one that took the the retirement and reduced that retirement

[4:52:25] down. Let's see if I if you find it before me. No, I think it was in the uh

[4:52:32] the ones Joey did. Um, oh, it's titled employee compensation

[4:52:38] and benefits at roll back rate.

[4:52:44] I'm not sure the ones prior. Yeah, that one. Okay. So, is this slide

[4:52:50] saying so this is going the the previous is can we explain what this means? Do

[4:52:58] the previous the the middle of the road rate and the 4.5

[4:53:03] have a reduction in retirement.

[4:53:09] » So the best way to frame this is at the 4.5 level.

[4:53:14] » Yep. um staff would

[4:53:18] have the same benefits as they do this fiscal year,

[4:53:26] which is the same similar healthc care package. I

[4:53:31] mean that's kind of being discussed uh and figured out but basically

[4:53:36] at some determined cost health vision, life, health, dental,

[4:53:42] » Mhm. [snorts] It would have the 2% cost of

[4:53:46] living. It would have the 3% merit. So that'd be 5% additional on top of the

[4:53:52] salary. And it would have a a 9% retirement contribution and a 3%.

[4:54:00] So, if we took a salary of $100,000 just for easy math for the just the the pay,

[4:54:08] there would be um $2,000 in automatic cost of living on

[4:54:14] 100,000. That's 2%, right? There would be another 3%. So, add them up

[4:54:22] merit if earned >> if earned

[4:54:24] » be 5%. So, there'd be 105,000. So, they were 100 this year. they're if earned uh

[4:54:30] they're going to get the 2,000 it's going to go up to 105 then the 3%

[4:54:37] I don't fully know how it works if I know that employees got to have a part

[4:54:41] or is the city pretty much contributing the full

[4:54:48] 12% the 9 plus the three >> the the retirement portion is the city

[4:54:53] gives 9% to every employee >> okay

[4:54:56] » and then there's a 3% match so If the employee chooses to invest up to 3%, the

[4:55:03] city will match that. So the city could do either 9% if an employee doesn't take

[4:55:08] advantage of the 3% or the city would pay up to 12% max.

[4:55:14] » Okay. So 100,000 just for example base salary plus 2,000 uh cola cost of living

[4:55:23] plus 3,000 merit plus automatic 9,000 in retirement that money is not

[4:55:32] dispersed immediately but available later

[4:55:35] retiring. Plus, if they put 3,000 in, conservatively, we'd say the city would

[4:55:43] match another 3,000. Are there any other standard when we say

[4:55:49] benefits that doesn't include health insurance? Is there anything else? I

[4:55:53] know our city manager and there contracted there's

[4:55:57] » I'm the only stuff. >> Yeah, I'm the only contracted employee.

[4:56:01] of course they have their their paid time off

[4:56:03] » uh in and in in the whole um package um the health insurance as well.

[4:56:10] » Right. >> Right.

[4:56:11] » So the cost in your example the the total cost to the city is normally 33 to

[4:56:19] 40% more than than an employes salary. >> Okay. That's helpful.

[4:56:24] » That's a good um rule of thumb. >> 33 to 40.

[4:56:28] » Mhm. So if it's a 100,000 the all in everything we just said which totals

[4:56:35] 17 there's probably another 17 >> in healthcare that's about it. Yep. And

[4:56:39] some other smaller things. >> Okay. So this

[4:56:44] this 4.5 mil we're saying today to keep the 43. We've hit a cap. We can't go

[4:56:51] over. Just the decision of the trim rate alone takes it to 28 employees

[4:56:57] right at four and a half. Do those 28 the 15 that are removed are two of those

[4:57:06] transfers they're leaving the general fund but they are actually staying with

[4:57:11] the city and performing services. They're just paid from a different

[4:57:14] source. >> Yes. So is it fair to say that the

[4:57:17] general fund is losing under this scenario 15 positions

[4:57:24] but we are actually keeping

[4:57:29] it's going from 43 to 30 employees the the citywide

[4:57:34] » citywide um >> not including wage

[4:57:37] » so which percent 4.5 >> I'm saying when the average resident or

[4:57:43] me reads that the 15 positions lost. Yes, they're they're out of the general

[4:57:47] fund, but two of those 15 are going to be funded out of a different fund and

[4:57:52] they will continue to do perform their same services.

[4:57:56] » No, we've already transferred them. >> It they will not perform the same

[4:58:01] services. >> They'll be working for a different fund.

[4:58:04] So, so in essence, the general fund, the work to provide for the general fund,

[4:58:11] the amount of employees working for the general fund will go from 43 to 28.

[4:58:17] » I understand that. >> Yeah. So, to your point, the 15

[4:58:19] positions we're talking about are in fact being eliminated. There are two

[4:58:23] other positions that are being transferred to enterprise and will be

[4:58:28] funded under Enterprise. And we are actually also considering creating

[4:58:32] another position under enterprise for sewer um that could potentially save one

[4:58:38] general uh that we can transfer a general fund employee over to but we

[4:58:43] haven't yet calculated that. So that number could change from 15 to 14 um in

[4:58:50] which case the savings would be just transferring that employee salary

[4:58:54] benefits well salary over and benefits over to the enterprise. The two

[4:58:59] employees that's already transferred that were previously paid out of the

[4:59:03] general fund, are they represented in that 43 number?

[4:59:08] » Yes. So, as of right now, there's 43 employees working for the general fund.

[4:59:14] In order to go to the 4.5, we would have to reduce it by 15 positions.

[4:59:20] » But I think the difference then would be we have to add two to enterprise. And we

[4:59:25] do have on the slide somewhere there's 20 in enterprise. So we I'm glad you're

[4:59:29] asking because we've not accounted for those two shifting from general fund to

[4:59:34] enterprise. Um so we'll have a total of 22 employees in enterprise.

[4:59:40] » So there's there's 20 employees in the enterprise funds currently currently. So

[4:59:46] if we currently have 43 general fund employees plus the 20 enterprise

[4:59:52] employees, the city employs 63 people.

[4:59:57] That's today. >> As of today. Yeah.

[5:00:00] » This is a better way to do it. 63 today. At 4.5 citywide, how many will we have?

[5:00:06] Cuz the funds can get confusing. >> It would be instead of 15 losses, it

[5:00:11] would be 13. So it' be 63 minus the 13. So it' be 50.

[5:00:18] » Okay. So do you see like what I'm trying to point out is when we see this and we

[5:00:22] have public comment go up the the optics of this not it's it's accurate and it's

[5:00:30] important because we are talking about the general fund. So I I think I grasp

[5:00:35] it but we're talking about a 4.5 millillage rate takes us from a 13

[5:00:42] employee reduction um from 63 to 50. Is that right?

[5:00:48] Citywide across all funds. >> Correct.

[5:00:51] » Okay. So,

[5:00:55] » may >> just one more question. The two that are

[5:00:58] transferred their function or level of service is not

[5:01:05] going to to change. So they're predominantly resiliency and but all of

[5:01:12] their functions and job duties will be transferable to storm water because

[5:01:19] resiliency is essentially um a component of storm water and

[5:01:24] » I see. >> Yep.

[5:01:25] » So they will continue to perform there will be no reduction in the level of

[5:01:30] service from those two functions those positions.

[5:01:34] » Correct. It will fall under another department. So there was we are talking

[5:01:38] about 13 employees. I'm going to stop there. Got

[5:01:43] a little bit more. Mayor Pro Tim. >> Um was storm water engineering moved

[5:01:48] over to that. Was that one of the positions?

[5:01:52] » No, these are both resiliency. You're referring to how we pay for our

[5:01:56] engineer. Yeah. >> And and we basically break him down in

[5:02:00] percentage wise, if you will. uh because he works across enterprise and general

[5:02:05] fund projects. So we fund his salary a portion from the general fund but then

[5:02:10] also from uh storm water and solid waste and reclaim. So but he's majority I

[5:02:16] don't know the number but the majority of his salary is out of enterprise.

[5:02:20] Could we move his entire salary to storm water

[5:02:27] and then do some type of uh bill back at a lower rate than what his salary would

[5:02:34] be to the general fund to to help offset the cost of the general fund's payment

[5:02:40] for that? If that makes sense. >> And that's a good question. But when we

[5:02:45] allocate salaries, it has to be true based on the amount of time they're

[5:02:49] working in the different funds. >> So if he works 25% in this fund, then

[5:02:55] [clears throat] we can only charge 25% to there instead of 50 and then it'd be

[5:03:00] overstating it. So we have to be accurate in the time.

[5:03:03] » This is something that comes up during audits. I mean it's normal to pay for

[5:03:08] employee salaries out of enterprise when they operate between general fund and

[5:03:12] enterprise but it's also something that is monitored uh when we get when we have

[5:03:16] our audits. >> I just think if we were able to

[5:03:20] alleviate that from the general fund and pay it out of enterprise and then have a

[5:03:25] bill back rate >> right

[5:03:27] » that is lower than the attorney. Well,

[5:03:32] one one of the things I think the city can take a really good hard look at are

[5:03:37] um development fees. So, the city engineers spends time in the general

[5:03:43] fund reviewing development permit applications. So those fe development

[5:03:47] permit application fees can be increased to offset

[5:03:51] the cost to the general fund for the city engineer cuz he is one of the

[5:03:56] primary plans reviewer >> on site plans.

[5:04:00] » So does that require a study and an act of Tallahassee?

[5:04:05] » No, [laughter] that one that one doesn't. that has guard rails in the

[5:04:09] statute and there's some new guardrails that went in effect July 1st, but that's

[5:04:14] that was one of the issues I was going to talk about. We ran out of time at the

[5:04:17] council meeting was that uh new law imposing those new guard rails. But I

[5:04:23] think taking the city engineers plans review time and cost and passing it

[5:04:28] along to development developers for development permits

[5:04:33] » is one way to recapture that expense. >> Mr. Mayor,

[5:04:39] » thank you. >> May I pop in for just a moment? We have

[5:04:42] pizza getting cold in the um conference room. [laughter] Lisa went out and got

[5:04:48] us something to eat. So um maybe we can take a break at this point before the

[5:04:53] pizza gets ice cold. [laughter] >> Absolutely. I think u we should we

[5:05:00] should take a break anyways. So council, you want to do that and we'll try to get

[5:05:04] back at it. And >> yeah, we can think better with a full

[5:05:09] stomach. >> Yes. [laughter] I think that's helpful.

[5:05:12] Um, okay. So, we're at 6:10 now. I think break when we're all back in here, we

[5:05:17] can reconvene. >> Good. Thank you.

[5:05:20] » Thank you.

[5:38:20] 4.5

[5:38:38] me. [laughter]

[5:38:42] Yeah.

[5:38:55] » And then they I think they adjusted. >> We're going to get started here in 30

[5:39:00] seconds or so.

[5:39:14] City clerk ready. >> Just making sure. Thank you.

[5:39:21] » All right, it's 6:44 p.m. We are continuing on through our workshop

[5:39:26] meeting here and I call the meeting back to order. Stick to a recess. We were uh

[5:39:33] acknowledging some of the uh important things that I

[5:39:39] think uh your city manager rightfully covered in the reality of

[5:39:46] we're two public hearings away from making a final decision. uh we've seen

[5:39:51] some of the in the presentation the the impacts of uh a few different scenarios

[5:39:59] and we're working through I think some of the line items

[5:40:04] um around payroll and the benefits and I think um

[5:40:13] couple of questions here on the revenue side we we mentioned a 500,00 000 loan

[5:40:21] potentially from the wastewater. Is that now being something that

[5:40:28] I is it in this budget? I didn't check down at the bottom, but if not

[5:40:34] » Mhm. the the loan, the inner fund loan um we have taken away because after

[5:40:40] further analysis, we realized it would not help us build up our reserves.

[5:40:44] » Okay. um due to the accounting equation, we'd

[5:40:47] get more money, but also our liabilities would go up. So then the net effect

[5:40:52] would be zero. Um where that type of loan would be helpful would be uh

[5:40:57] providing cash if a fund needed cash. But since the purpose for for us to do

[5:41:03] that loan was to rebuild reserves, it it would not um affect the reserves.

[5:41:09] » Makes total sense. But under an emergency, if we needed to do something

[5:41:14] that is a legal path um that does not help [snorts]

[5:41:20] our fund balance, um I think that that's that's good to know. As far as uh

[5:41:29] the enterprise as soon as the rate study is done, what was the timing on that? Um

[5:41:34] I kind of forgot where we left that off. Did we vote to do that study?

[5:41:42] for for the payment in L of franchise fee idea

[5:41:48] » the um sewer rate study is that this fiscal year that's being

[5:41:53] » we're paying for it in this current fiscal year

[5:41:57] » right >> um no I'm sorry the the rate study I

[5:42:01] believe is going to come out of next fiscal year we've budgeted for it for

[5:42:05] next fiscal year and um for the rate study we've in contact with the vendor

[5:42:11] asking them to take into account potential um the payment in lie of

[5:42:15] franchise fee and a potential return on investment as well as general um rate

[5:42:22] analysis. Okay,

[5:42:26] if we can go back to this slide. Thank you. Uh the one that shows it's just a

[5:42:31] few of them. We were bouncing around that one.

[5:42:36] [snorts] Um, okay. So, we have 63 employees down at

[5:42:41] the bottom there. Um, the 4 and 1/2 mil would reduce it down to 50

[5:42:48] total citywide with 13 lost. Um, the general fund would see 15

[5:42:58] out with two basically being paid out of another fund.

[5:43:04] Um, so

[5:43:08] [snorts] possibly a third one, just a reminder.

[5:43:13] » Okay, so that's that's like 13 positions from the general fund eliminated with

[5:43:20] two going over maybe three. So it'd be eventually 12.

[5:43:25] Um, or maybe it was the other way. I think that where my head is in talking

[5:43:32] through this is the benefits slide, the one that showed the um I think it's the

[5:43:40] that basically 4 and a half mills keeps the benefits

[5:43:45] for the remaining employees. The I'm just saying middle of the road.

[5:43:52] The 3 eight um Oh, I got it right here.

[5:43:58] 3.58.

[5:44:02] That one also keeps that one is the one that if we go that

[5:44:11] low, it will remove this slide right here. Reduce the city's

[5:44:16] retirement to 12 to 3 and a half%. >> Correct. Correct.

[5:44:21] » Okay. And then what happens is 2% cola still in there and Okay. So if I if

[5:44:30] I was to go through this uh this budget spreadsheet that we were provided and

[5:44:36] I'm going to line item like 9% 3% I will see those changes

[5:44:44] um like this one for example under the column. And if council doesn't see it up

[5:44:51] at the very top on the front page that you will see millage rates

[5:44:56] um the over to the the the far right the four that first preliminary one is sort

[5:45:02] of that's the original budget that we had.

[5:45:07] Um thank you. It's column uh I think uh K. Yeah. So, that one's sort of

[5:45:17] just remembering where we left off. If we were to go to our first printed

[5:45:22] budget books, this is the classification of how the money was

[5:45:28] going to be um spent andor brought in through revenue. The

[5:45:35] column L is the one that if we went with the the trim rate, we see an increase in

[5:45:41] revenue. And if to get to the the question

[5:45:46] 9% 3% we're going to see all that there. I saw a big reduction in the total

[5:45:52] salaries for Perka. So that represented the the 10 I believe employees that that

[5:45:59] was um stated in there and then the other three I think two from C and D we

[5:46:05] would see in this. Okay. So if we go to the [snorts] 3.58

[5:46:12] if I understand that slide it said can we go down to the retirement any one of

[5:46:18] them I would imagine it would impact all of them I think it would be ex um

[5:46:22] administrative would probably be the first one so keep going down

[5:46:27] um without seeing the column I think and if

[5:46:31] you I mean wanted to hide columns D through H

[5:46:37] Maybe just to so we can see the row that might

[5:46:42] There we go. Thank you. Okay, that's great. So there it is. You're on it. Go

[5:46:47] down a little bit lower. >> 124

[5:46:49] » below. Okay, so right there for example,

[5:46:53] retirement uh 9%. The the

[5:47:00] K was the uh original budget. We had 89,000 in retirement. The uh 4 1/.5 mil

[5:47:08] column L has 81,000. That I think might have just been did it reduced maybe for

[5:47:16] other reasons personnel. There wasn't a decrease in the retirement. Um

[5:47:21] and then the uh 25,000 that's basically what the 3% would be.

[5:47:28] » Correct. >> Okay, I see. Um, where does 2% does that

[5:47:34] is that just inside the executive salary line item one in row 119?

[5:47:39] » Correct. >> So it's automat and is the 3% in there

[5:47:42] as well? >> Correct.

[5:47:44] » I see. So we set a budget with the 2% and the 3% and put it all into executive

[5:47:49] salaries. Okay, makes sense. Um,

[5:47:55] is the automobile allowance with the city manager contract? Is that what

[5:47:59] Okay, that's what I thought. Just making sure. And that's the only one. Yeah,

[5:48:04] that would make sense. It's I think it was like 500. And that health insurance

[5:48:11] of uh

[5:48:16] I think it's the 125. >> Mhm. That's the the 198 is the um

[5:48:28] » the 4.5 right >> and and the reduction in that line of

[5:48:34] 126 that's highlighted that would be because of as personnel are taken away

[5:48:40] the the contribution would be gone as well. So it's the the percent didn't

[5:48:45] change it's just paying for less people's life and health insurance.

[5:48:50] That's why that goes down. >> Okay. I guess I didn't know that

[5:48:54] administration went from 10 to Oh, it does. It reduces by three. Makes perfect

[5:48:59] sense. Okay. So,

[5:49:06] here's where I am.

[5:49:10] What is the the I guess reasoning that we would

[5:49:21] think it's better to remove an employee as opposed to potentially reducing

[5:49:29] benefits for a short period of time. I can think of logical rational reasons

[5:49:36] why, but these are decisions that we don't have all the the knowledge or the

[5:49:39] info. I guess the better question be was that considered and is the

[5:49:43] recommendation that it would be better to keep benefits as opposed to losing

[5:49:49] positions that provide services. We were trying to keep all employees that

[5:49:53] remained employed as whole as possible. And uh we looked at the reduction of

[5:50:00] benefits should the council come in at a much lower millage rate where the only

[5:50:05] way to meet that millage rate would be to reduce benefits across the board as

[5:50:09] presented here.

[5:50:15] Okay. What were the items that fire identified that brought in the

[5:50:21] reduction? I think it was 200 something thousand.

[5:50:24] They did not have to make a substantial contribution to their pension.

[5:50:31] Their pension did not require that this year. So,

[5:50:36] » and that was it? Just >> that was it? Yeah.

[5:50:39] » Okay. >> I can't tell you what it'll be next

[5:50:41] year. I do know they from a pension standpoint, I do know they're going to

[5:50:46] hit us up for half of a fire truck again next year.

[5:50:51] So, was that an error or or did they take a

[5:50:55] » should that have not been in there in the first place or

[5:50:58] » what the 214? >> Yeah, the the pension contribution.

[5:51:02] » So, in managing a a pension fund, it's all about how actuarily sound the fund

[5:51:08] is. and with contributions and investments uh when those uh that

[5:51:14] information comes in the actuary calculates

[5:51:18] » and then they come up with a number and every year that'll vary. So I guess if

[5:51:22] their investments were doing well then that enables them to reduce their own

[5:51:27] actual contribution which means they can return that to us.

[5:51:32] » See that makes sense. If we were to total up 9%

[5:51:38] um my math may not be perfect, but I I I

[5:51:44] think at least off that original budget, like we were going back and forth with

[5:51:48] the insurance,

[5:51:53] it was

[5:51:59] uh here we go. So,

[5:52:07] the 9% citywide out of the general fund, not including wastewater and storm water

[5:52:12] fund prior to these was um for both the nine and the three. It used

[5:52:19] to be five or seven and a three. It was like 158,000 back in 2021

[5:52:24] and and then it slowly grew 207,023 238,024

[5:52:33] 25 it went to 274,000 and then we saw a big jump from 25 to 26

[5:52:40] to $350,000. And this year we've got budgeted

[5:52:46] according to my math if you add up all the departments in the general fund

[5:52:50] $389,000.

[5:52:54] So we've averaged 250,000 over 21 through the through the proposed

[5:53:01] budget and five of those years are actuals. But I guess that one jumps out

[5:53:07] at me. Um 390,000. And now we know it's not that

[5:53:13] high, but what how many um let's go back to the slide with the

[5:53:20] positions that showed uh the reductions from 4 and 1/2 to three. Thank you so

[5:53:26] much for going back and forth here. Uh there's no change

[5:53:36] in CE D.

[5:53:41] Well, I guess it depends what we're looking I mean the four and a half mil

[5:53:45] there's no change in the current. There's five reduction which is really

[5:53:48] three um but two are going over and so um

[5:53:55] though can we talk about the CED building and code what functions or what

[5:53:59] is the level of service drop at 4 and a half mills with the reduction of the

[5:54:04] three I think I remember some of it some of the responsibilities if is today

[5:54:10] would we consider the level of service excellent or good or fair and just

[5:54:15] trying to talk in broad terms, what would this reduction

[5:54:20] um what would it go to from 11 to 6 or 11

[5:54:25] to 8, however we want to look at it. Thank you. Um I made it up here. Okay.

[5:54:32] Um uh so yes, we'd be looking at a staff of

[5:54:37] six in the department and the main cuts in terms of day-to-day service would

[5:54:41] both mostly be focused in code enforcement. maybe losing two dedicated

[5:54:46] officers and an admin to the division, leaving us with one code enforcement

[5:54:50] officer. I think that would represent uh uh mayor

[5:54:56] in in the scale that you just provided probably service to fair at the best. Um

[5:55:01] just because it would be a lot. There's like 42 open code enforcement cases

[5:55:06] right now. they deal with a lot of things related to elicit discharge, uh,

[5:55:10] you know, construction issues, beach, uh, problems that have arisen. Um, and

[5:55:16] then I think in terms of the other employees, you know, we'd honestly be

[5:55:20] taking on several components of parka as well. So, we

[5:55:25] would become the department that would probably deal with the website, social

[5:55:29] media, we'd have to deal with rentals of the facilities that are left. um we take

[5:55:34] on emergency management roles that Molly's department was taking on. Um so

[5:55:40] we would we would try and continue some of those functions um as needed. Uh so I

[5:55:47] think overall it would definitely be a lot of hats would come to us um on top

[5:55:53] of the ones that we already have. Um but that's what we're currently looking at.

[5:55:58] Well, and so at 4 and a half mills, you're I still see five perka, but are

[5:56:03] we saying that >> you would still absorb no perk

[5:56:07] responsibilities at four and a half? >> No, at 4 and 1/2 um there would be still

[5:56:12] some parker left. Uh that would be for the the other scenarios three and a half

[5:56:18] or 32. >> Mhm.

[5:56:21] And Okay. So I see. So well that's helpful going ahead and really see an E

[5:56:27] it is not recommended to go lower and now are you explaining that

[5:56:31] » yeah honestly maxed out this is about this is as low as we can go last week we

[5:56:36] cut additional like what like 77,000 from the budget with operating supplies

[5:56:41] and um all conferences training's gone um so we we are just about there

[5:56:48] » yep these are um this is helpful perka can we ask kind of

[5:56:54] And if it's just a matter of going back through what was already stated, same

[5:57:00] from going to 15 to 4 and a half from I'm sorry, from 15 to five a net loss of

[5:57:08] 10. Um, refresh me. I guess the facilities are

[5:57:18] closed with the five three infrastructure maintenance workers.

[5:57:23] So today facilities open just >> we don't have infrastructure

[5:57:27] maintenance. We'll just call them parks maintenance parks maintenance.

[5:57:30] » Parks maintenance so that okay no one gets confused. So, um, could you pull up

[5:57:35] that one?

[5:57:48] Okay. So, if you do the four, those are the services that our facil

[5:57:55] are that those five people would continue to provide. If you go to four,

[5:58:00] if you go lower than the 4.5, those responsibilities would defer to

[5:58:06] the public works infrastructure maintenance folks and Zach's team.

[5:58:11] » Yeah, we would be we would especially a lot of that communication stuff that

[5:58:15] would probably all befall to us looking at it.

[5:58:21] » The maintenance >> communications

[5:58:23] » and the maintenance would be absorbed by public works. That one person over in

[5:58:28] infrastructure maintenance. Yes, >> the question. Okay,

[5:58:30] » I think we're down to one >> over there. 3.5. I think that was the

[5:58:36] » I think that's 32. >> Yeah, that's at the roll back rate. We

[5:58:39] have more. I don't know. Joey went to pull up the slide to be sure, but CED

[5:58:44] probably be taking on the contracts and permits as well. The lower one,

[5:58:51] if you go to the other one. Um so so we can be clear.

[5:58:57] Um so at the 4.5

[5:59:01] parka will have five people made up of a director, a community engagement

[5:59:09] um employee and three parka maintenance employees. And the idea is for those

[5:59:16] three people to maintain the um the buildings, the park of buildings, the

[5:59:21] C5, Nancy Hansen, those buildings, >> 27 acres of parkland

[5:59:27] » and that is at the 4.5. Anything lower would would be without any of those five

[5:59:33] parka employees >> and three of them are maintenance,

[5:59:37] » grounds, facilities. >> Grounds and facilities.

[5:59:40] » Is that right? Did I say it right? Okay. So the the three well I guess where I'm

[5:59:44] getting confused is it goes to zero at the 3.58

[5:59:50] another is but there's five in infrastructure maintenance will one of

[5:59:55] those five in infrastructure maintenance be responsible for the perka

[6:00:00] » and at the they would have to be because I wouldn't be here

[6:00:03] » right yeah those five remaining in IM would take care of maintaining all city

[6:00:09] facilities >> and we talk just taking it's very clear

[6:00:13] if a facility's closed the change in level of service.

[6:00:16] » Mhm. >> Right. That makes total sense to me. But

[6:00:21] if we own property, we have to take care of it.

[6:00:27] » We do. And I'm glad you pointed that out, mayor, because it's difficult for

[6:00:30] us to enforce code on people who aren't taking care of their property when we're

[6:00:34] not taking care of our own. >> Yes. And so my question is

[6:00:42] in the 15 we have three grounds maintenance today.

[6:00:46] » Okay. So there would be no reduction in grounds maintenance. I would think that

[6:00:51] it might even reduce a little if the facilities aren't being used but who

[6:00:56] knows might increase for some other reasons but grounds maintenance is not

[6:01:01] reduced from current the current. I would never recommend reducing grounds

[6:01:06] maintenance. It's taken me since I've taken over this department to get that

[6:01:11] 27 acres managed by more than one person.

[6:01:15] » Y >> from 2014 and actually probably before,

[6:01:19] but I can't speak to too much before until 2021,

[6:01:25] I believe, Ian managed all of those 27 acres. and don't even consider buildings

[6:01:32] because the people that work inside those buildings do a lot of the interior

[6:01:36] stuff that goes into doing that. So, I would never recommend getting rid of any

[6:01:42] maintenance with that amount of ground to cover, especially if you're talking

[6:01:46] about um reducing the amount of um money being spent to a contracted

[6:01:55] service to do your mowing. just that that alone you're going to need all

[6:02:01] three of those people >> especially if a storm's coming too.

[6:02:07] » Yeah. So I think um it's it goes to zero here. Are we

[6:02:14] and IM is taking a twoerson reduction as well. So if you add

[6:02:21] the three perka grounds maintenance plus the 7 IM that's 10 it's going to five is

[6:02:28] can we talk about the level of service decrease at the 3.58 just on

[6:02:35] grounds maintenance and if existing infrastructure maintenance workers are

[6:02:41] now having to take care of properties they did not I would imagine there's a

[6:02:47] opportunity cost they're they're not doing something else. Do we have an idea

[6:02:52] of how that will impact um IM and Perka?

[6:02:58] » Yes. Hey David. Right. [clears throat]

[6:03:02] » So um

[6:03:07] if it goes to the uh 3.5 and that's where two infrastructure maintenance

[6:03:12] employees are taken off uh the R I'm just going to read this

[6:03:18] right out. The remaining staff would effectively be limited to mowing duties

[6:03:23] with significant uh and immediate impact on the city's ability to maintain its

[6:03:28] infrastructure, respond to issues, support public safety, and provide many

[6:03:34] of the services residents and visitors rely upon.

[6:03:38] Um,

[6:03:42] so some of the things that you would start to see go away right away.

[6:03:46] » Mhm. >> Storm drain cleaning,

[6:03:48] heavy debris removal, storm water baffle box inspections, flooding cleanup from

[6:03:54] storm water, beach end crossover inspections, maintenance and rebuilding,

[6:03:59] beach cleaning and inspections. And this would be because we would have to be

[6:04:03] maintaining the grass, just mowing grass. That's kind of all we'd be able

[6:04:08] to do. >> It's either we do the these jobs or we

[6:04:13] mow grass. One or the other. Uh resetting removing moy mats including

[6:04:20] during hurricane preparations. BCSO uh drain AC drain maintenance,

[6:04:27] building plumbing and other AC maintenance there.

[6:04:31] assisting BCSO with accident cleanups and replacement of signage and street

[6:04:36] lights, oil changes, which we've just actually

[6:04:40] uh taken on. We're we're taking on the city's 33 vehicles doing service on all

[6:04:45] those. So, that would sort of go on the side as well, too.

[6:04:50] Um, hurricane prep, filling sandbags, moving sand to the park in case we have

[6:04:54] to do that. Um, emergency heavy equipment

[6:04:59] maintenance, city hall cleaning and maintenance, city hall AC maintenance

[6:05:03] and minor repairs, public works cleaning and maintenance, public works AC

[6:05:09] maintenance, public works weed spraying, assisting parks and wreck with parks and

[6:05:14] wreck. Well, that we would just abs like take that on anyway with any parks and

[6:05:20] wreck stuff that needed to be done. FPL and solar light street street street

[6:05:24] street light inspections and maintenance on those solar lights

[6:05:30] palm tree trimming. There's uh 1172 palm trees that we just took on this year

[6:05:35] with the budget that we've already cut. We would have to maintain all those as

[6:05:40] well too which we already do but we just took that on.

[6:05:45] Um, irrigation inspections and repairs over all our uh, medians, rightaways

[6:05:51] where we have irrigation, pruning all the city trees, super important. That's

[6:05:56] how the fire trucks get down the road without getting uh, pieces torn off of

[6:06:00] them or limbs dropped because they've caught onto a big branch trying to get

[6:06:05] to somebody's house. uh straightening and replacing street

[6:06:09] signs, uh

[6:06:13] inspections on roads, co planting, the drown zero stations, we relocate those

[6:06:19] every time the tide moves up too high or we have like a big event. Um we wouldn't

[6:06:24] be able to do that as often. uh the seasonal banner replacement, any

[6:06:29] striping that goes on in the streets and and parking lots, city holiday

[6:06:33] decorations, flag lowering like we just had to do

[6:06:37] this past week. That would all become second to basically mowing

[6:06:45] uh Thanksgiving and Christmas lunches and reindeer run support. So th those

[6:06:51] are just some of the things that IM does regularly.

[6:06:56] Uh there's many more things that we do. These are just some of the ones that

[6:06:59] were noted. There's a lot of uh there's a lot of odd

[6:07:04] things that pop up on a day-to-day basis.

[6:07:07] » Thank you, Dave. >> Does that help you at all?

[6:07:08] » 100%. That's excellent. >> IM is really important. Um I I see the

[6:07:15] rationale. There's no compromise on IM at the 4 and a half mil, right? It goes

[6:07:20] 7 to 7 to three grounds maintenance taking over the 20 plus acres of perkas

[6:07:26] there. I guess where I what what the 3.2546

[6:07:33] mills rolled back that that's basically the same amount of money in tax revenue

[6:07:38] that we had last year. Why

[6:07:44] are we not why do we have to remove 30

[6:07:50] 29 employees

[6:07:54] just by maintaining the seven the same amount of revenue last year? This is

[6:07:59] actually not even a decrease in tax revenue at all. With new construction,

[6:08:04] it'll probably be a little bit more money. H how are we so far off?

[6:08:10] Um,

[6:08:14] I guess that that's what I don't understand is we were able to do it on

[6:08:18] six and I'm I'm not blind to the realities of how we were

[6:08:24] balancing budgets, but is this the one I am? No. Perka, I guess I don't

[6:08:32] understand. >> Mhm. um this so for example

[6:08:37] the current fiscal year we're in we relied on five over $5 million of um

[6:08:43] reserves. So we are planning on a city to function

[6:08:49] without the use of reserves. So therefore taking away $5 million

[6:08:54] and this is the cost of making up um of balancing the budget without the use of

[6:08:59] reserves from the past. But we didn't have the five million in

[6:09:04] reserves. >> We engaged in deficit spending. We we

[6:09:10] planned to spend money we didn't have. >> The budget was approved on money we

[6:09:14] didn't have. So this leaves me I mean does our city

[6:09:22] [clears throat] broadly I guess to be a city manager

[6:09:25] question and if the directors have to add in

[6:09:30] 14 which I think I'm not sure what the transfers to the storm water if those

[6:09:34] would be in the 14 the two but what I think 14 is fine.

[6:09:44] What is does

[6:09:48] IM just not get done or one whatever one person does is that what we're

[6:09:53] » well I think we should go to that slide Joey to show who's left who those 14

[6:09:59] people are and we can explain it from there and I I go back to the beginning

[6:10:03] of the presentation where we tried to identify the bare minimum people that

[6:10:08] you need to operate a city um and that would be a city manager city clerk's

[6:10:14] office, finance, human resources, um, in your community, uh, and economic

[6:10:20] development. You you need someone to run that department. You have to have a

[6:10:24] planner, someone to do code, uh, someone who's got to do building permits, um, an

[6:10:30] engineer because he's he's saving the city money right now. He hasn't started

[6:10:35] to earn more than what we pay him, but I think in the future he'll pay for

[6:10:38] himself. and a department operations manager um who's your literal jack of

[6:10:45] all trades doing everything that everyone else isn't doing. Um and and

[6:10:52] those are your two most important you know services right there CED and

[6:10:57] administration. Um

[6:11:00] we park doesn't exist at this point. So, in order to beef up infrastructure

[6:11:07] maintenance at that rate, 3.2 mills,

[6:11:13] something else is going to have to go. Um,

[6:11:17] and we'll have to double up. So just starting from the top um you get rid of

[6:11:25] one of the clerks then that one person does everything public record requests

[6:11:30] transcribes all minutes unless you know someone can help us like they are right

[6:11:34] now because we're behind and they're doing it for free. Um, if you eliminate

[6:11:39] human resources altogether, someone has to wear the human resources hat when it

[6:11:44] comes to h, excuse me, hiring claims, insurance,

[6:11:49] um, finance department. If you got rid of another one there, then you're

[6:11:53] looking at, you know, I don't know that that that would even work.

[6:11:58] You can eliminate code enforcement altogether if you want to beef up

[6:12:02] infrastructure maintenance, but no city can operate without code enforcement.

[6:12:07] you get rid of a department operations. And mind you, these people who are left

[6:12:13] are doing all of the things that were not being done by the people who lost

[6:12:18] their job to the extent that they're humanly able to do that. And to, you

[6:12:24] know, again, what service levels will we be

[6:12:29] delivering to our community at that point?

[6:12:33] I look at this scenario and it is absolutely not sustainable.

[6:12:39] » Yeah. Just the infrastructure maintenance on one I one can't

[6:12:42] [clears throat] take care of the necessities,

[6:12:46] right? I mean that's not this isn't going so it would be poor service at

[6:12:50] least in that area.

[6:12:59] Council member Shy, I also want to point out one role that I think is essential

[6:13:05] is the executive assistant for the city manager because Keith's a talented guy,

[6:13:09] but we're wasting our money. If we're going to have him answering phones and

[6:13:13] making appointments and that kind of stuff, he needs somebody to handle that.

[6:13:16] No matter what rate we wind up at, we need to add that position back, I think.

[6:13:22] » Yeah. I don't think it's Oh, yeah. That that's from the 10. We lose that at at

[6:13:28] 358 and 3246. >> Yep.

[6:13:33] I think can we does this one show that can IM

[6:13:42] can the maintenance be maintained with one person? I guess there just be

[6:13:48] things that would not get done. Right. >> Mayor, if I may.

[6:13:53] » Yep. roll back is in here because you wanted to see like a zerobased budget

[6:13:59] and I'm just going to ask out of all politeness if you want to entertain a

[6:14:03] conversation about the reality of this mill rate could you poll the council to

[6:14:08] see if they think this is a reality so we can focus on it if this majority

[6:14:14] thinks this is a reality or can we focus on what is a reality because I'm telling

[6:14:19] you as your city manager that's not sustainable

[6:14:22] » and I don't think polling one's appropriate. City attorney can Robert's

[6:14:26] rules of order, but um yeah, I think that council can speak uh absolutely to

[6:14:31] what they want. Um I I I'll get I just this was given to us 48 hours ago and I

[6:14:39] know and I'm not saying that that's wrong, right? So we are just now really

[6:14:43] understanding it. Okay, we have and and that's not a complaint but and

[6:14:52] » I'm just recalling prior conversation about the reality of this millage rate

[6:14:57] with you sir. >> Okay. But does this

[6:15:01] can we go back to the slide that shows the 4 the general fund staffing by mill

[6:15:05] scenario >> when we go to 14 is everyone paid full

[6:15:11] salary? I think the retirement

[6:15:16] » at at 14 at rolled back and I'll go to the slide that says this. So at rolled

[6:15:21] back where we have 14 general fund staff.

[6:15:24] » Yep. >> Um there will be a required one furlow

[6:15:28] day per pay period which would reduce um 10% off of salary

[6:15:34] which would be savings towards the city. The employee would receive 10% less

[6:15:39] salary than normal. there would be no retirement contribution and no um raises

[6:15:45] throughout the year. That is how we got the budget to balance

[6:15:50] back >> at rolled back. Yes.

[6:15:52] » Okay. There would be no pay deductions though from the year prior

[6:15:57] » other than >> Go ahead.

[6:16:00] » I'm sorry. Um there would be [clears throat] in effect a 10% pay

[6:16:04] reductions to all city staff who remain at this at rolled back.

[6:16:12] If keeping the $100,000 example, if an employee has just paid $100,000 not

[6:16:17] including benefits and they would have made like 133 with your formula, I

[6:16:22] totally get that the 33 would not come in. Mike, when I say a pay reduction,

[6:16:29] they're going to go into the next year and they're going to get 90,000. Okay,

[6:16:34] » that is correct. >> Okay, so they're so

[6:16:37] Thank you. Um,

[6:16:45] I cannot look at a presentation and and make a well-informed decision. I

[6:16:54] trust our team. I haven't been a always been

[6:16:59] able to say that. I genuinely believe that everyone here is trying to bring

[6:17:05] forward the best thing they can, but there's a lot of pressure in the

[6:17:12] community and it is falling on us. No one's mentioning anything about

[6:17:21] with an acceptance exception of an investigation

[6:17:26] uh speak for myself what I believe some of

[6:17:29] the root problems were. But so my pause

[6:17:35] is I cannot get through this budget and get out and say well why' you do that? I

[6:17:42] do not understand the why we would keep retirement

[6:17:49] sal 2% at the 4 and a.5 mil and I understood I understood what was said to

[6:17:55] me I heard that is that if you're staying with us at the expense of losing

[6:18:00] potential critical employees we in the ced building and

[6:18:06] code enforcement is a good one I do not want to close perka I do not understand

[6:18:12] why we're going with a 5day close when we couldn't just

[6:18:21] why are 10 employees going to be gone that I think the the buildings would be

[6:18:26] closed with the five employees remaining is that

[6:18:29] » they would and and um the director >> no

[6:18:33] » that would stay open >> not it wouldn't be run by us not with

[6:18:37] these five all facilities would be up for lease

[6:18:41] contract in some fashion. These five people, um, three of them are

[6:18:46] maintenance folks, >> right?

[6:18:48] » One's the director and I'm missing the other title, but they're they'll be

[6:18:54] dedicated to, you know, Go ahead, Molly. >> Communications mainly.

[6:19:00] » Okay. So, we would not have a self-s served Nancy Hansen where the deputies

[6:19:05] unlock the doors. >> We can we can look at operation of those

[6:19:10] courts. Um, I don't know about the liability that we would incur. Um,

[6:19:15] that's probably an Anthony question. Uh, if we can resolve that with some

[6:19:19] signage, play at your own risk. I'm not certain.

[6:19:22] » Well, I think keeping those open is worth uh I think we should do that. The

[6:19:26] ball fields is >> May I ask a question?

[6:19:29] » Yeah, absolutely. >> Can you define open because I can leave

[6:19:33] any door unlocked that you want. Hey, don't you all have it better? But my

[6:19:37] thought was um morning time uh someone unlocks the door.

[6:19:42] » Okay. >> And you're suggesting work with the

[6:19:43] sheriff's office and then they would lock things up at a certain time like

[6:19:47] park gates get locked and so forth. >> I think you would

[6:19:50] » we'd have to >> shared that potential idea.

[6:19:53] » We'd have to engage them on that. But if it would help facilitate your question,

[6:19:59] perhaps Joey can do some quick math and he can look at how much money would be

[6:20:03] saved if we reduced benefits at a figure that that you would like to

[6:20:09] see and see what that does in far as building back employees. Um but we did

[6:20:15] see previously in the initial presentation about what lack of

[6:20:19] benefits, lack of raises, loss of employees does uh to us as a potential

[6:20:26] employer. anyone else who leaves for those reasons during the time where

[6:20:31] we're saying this is just temporary. Um we're going to have to absorb that loss,

[6:20:38] double up on duties, and we can potentially hire someone to fill those

[6:20:42] spots. And I don't know anybody who wants a government job that isn't going

[6:20:47] to go somewhere where there that's going to go somewhere where there's no

[6:20:50] benefits when there are other government jobs in that we are competing. we're

[6:20:55] we're already kind of behind the eightball when it comes to competing,

[6:20:58] which is what we said in the presentation. And now we're going to be

[6:21:02] not even on the pool table if there's no benefits. And so that's why we were

[6:21:07] trying to maintain the benefits with those people who were staying here. Um

[6:21:13] it >> doesn't have to go to zero, but let's

[6:21:15] » Well, that's why I said if you want to present a number, maybe Joey can

[6:21:19] calculate something on the fly to see how that builds us up on another.

[6:21:23] presenting that. If we go back in time to u

[6:21:29] August of 2024,

[6:21:34] we're about to pass the 2425 budget.

[6:21:40] We took retirement matching from 7% to 9%.

[6:21:47] We had an understanding of the reserves in the budget at that time. Now [snorts]

[6:21:52] knowing what actually was happening, the recommendation of the interim city

[6:21:58] manager at that time, well actually it was the former city manager was to do

[6:22:02] that.

[6:22:06] Should we have should we have done that if we would have known then what we know

[6:22:12] now about the current status? >> I I can't answer that. I wasn't here. I

[6:22:15] would defer to uh our HR director who can speak to you weren't here either. I

[6:22:20] literally just come in. >> You just come in. That's true. But from

[6:22:24] a competition standpoint with other employees,

[6:22:30] » I'm sorry. >> I think No, uh

[6:22:36] it was August of 24, I believe. It we we were all here and Mickey. Um

[6:22:45] » I can speak for >> Council Member Davis. I can speak for

[6:22:47] myself if knowing what we know now. No, we wouldn't have done that. Wouldn't

[6:22:52] have done wouldn't have done a lot of things if we knew then what we know now.

[6:22:57] So, >> and that's what I'm saying. And so,

[6:22:59] we're keeping the full [clears throat] nine. And so, we're not saying no

[6:23:02] benefits. That extra 2% was paid out. We are not

[6:23:09] saying give us our 2% back. We should have never given that money out. I

[6:23:14] » we should have never given that or paid that money out. Did we want to? We

[6:23:18] clearly wanted to. That's how much we appreciate our employees, but we cannot

[6:23:24] balance budgets the way we did. I think you understand why are we keeping nine

[6:23:30] on the line and I think you're you're saying no benefits. I haven't said

[6:23:34] anything about changing health insurance. I'm saying a reduction. I

[6:23:39] don't know. I should I I'm trying to share an idea of can we if it's 400,000

[6:23:47] in total contributions can that save a couple of perka or a CED.

[6:23:52] » I'm saying give us a number and we'll calculate it right now. I mean

[6:23:55] » that's not my job. >> No, no, we'll do it right now.

[6:23:58] » I don't know what what not. I'll do the best I can. What number do you

[6:24:02] » So if we want to go if you want to go back in time, we shouldn't have given

[6:24:05] the 2%. So let's hold everybody at 7%. And we can see what that number looks

[6:24:10] like. Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. So, if Joey can calculate

[6:24:12] » That's not my job. Disrespect. >> No, I understand. I'm just trying to

[6:24:16] facilitate this conversation and move it forward. You You want information. I

[6:24:20] want to give it to you. These people are ready to serve.

[6:24:24] » I stated this in previous meetings. >> Okay.

[6:24:26] » This isn't the first time I said that in our one-on ones.

[6:24:30] » It was the first thing I said. We come back into the meeting. Fire came in with

[6:24:35] some pension. This went back in. in that meeting the next day I go I don't

[6:24:39] understand this unless my memor is failing

[6:24:42] » you said it mayor I never interpret that as direction to provide that information

[6:24:46] I interpreted direction to provide a um uh roll back millillage and you have

[6:24:51] that now I'm taking your direction and we'll calculate 7%

[6:24:56] » and we'll see what do you have that number what's the number

[6:24:59] » is slightly over 80,000 is the savings >> okay so that's

[6:25:03] » and that's at 3.5 4.5 >> that would be so if we're currently at a

[6:25:08] total of 12% the 9 plus the 3 to get the 12. And if we go to 7%

[6:25:15] that's taking away 5% and each percent is roughly 16ish,000.

[6:25:21] So that's how I get that's the math on it. It's about $83,000. So slightly over

[6:25:28] $80,000 to reduce it from 12% to 7%. >> But we don't always give the three. Is

[6:25:34] that the best way to to calculate that? Shouldn't the nine's automatic? So,

[6:25:39] » so what what we're talking about is if we're just going to say 7% contribution

[6:25:44] to each employee >> uh and not have a 3% match. So, the

[6:25:48] option for an employee now is say, hey, I'm going to put in 3% on my own for my

[6:25:52] 401457. The city will match it with three. We want to remove that three. The

[6:25:56] employee can make all the contributions they want, but no match. So if you take

[6:26:00] the three out and the seven, what would that look like?

[6:26:04] » The three and the seven to take a combined 10%.

[6:26:09] » Remove the option to for remove the 3% match if an employee contributes three.

[6:26:15] » That would be So the 3% match is 50,000.

[6:26:21] So that's a total of what? 130ish.

[6:26:26] I'm sorry. the in total to go from the 12% match we're currently at to the 7%

[6:26:32] that I believe is is being spoken about. >> Yes.

[6:26:34] » It would save $80,000 >> total. Yeah. Total.

[6:26:37] » Okay. >> And then I have all the other uh

[6:26:40] benefits added up as well. >> And that's at the 4.5 millillage rate.

[6:26:44] » Correct. At the staffing rate at the 4.5. So at 80,000 could that potentially

[6:26:50] save an employee salary and benefits? You're talking

[6:26:54] entry level at best? uh for my department that would be one

[6:26:58] part-time wreck leader. >> Okay.

[6:27:00] » Roughly. >> So if we want to continue the exercise

[6:27:03] and and say and I'm just going to throw a number out there.

[6:27:06] » I'm going to throw Well, I mean, yeah, go ahead.

[6:27:08] » Well, 3%. Reduce 7 to three. And what would that save the city? And that's 3%

[6:27:15] across the board for all employees. >> And and we're talking short term here.

[6:27:19] I'm not saying any long. I'm saying get through the hump together,

[6:27:23] » right? Um, >> I could say something here. Maybe we can

[6:27:27] accept the 4.5 and assess it as the year progresses. Look at the adjustments

[6:27:32] through the year as um our city attorney mentioned when we brought this up hours

[6:27:37] ago. >> Well, I I'm not interested in that

[6:27:41] respectfully. I I I think um I don't understand

[6:27:47] the rash. You My grandmother used to always say you can clean a fish a few

[6:27:52] different ways. You know, there's more than one way to do it. And and I think

[6:27:56] this way there's some good stuff. I guess I I'm trying to address my math

[6:28:01] shows we spent in 9% in 2026

[6:28:07] $270,000 this year and then at least budgeted and

[6:28:12] then 85,000 and 3% for $350,000. This original budget had 390,000. And

[6:28:20] now I understand that might go down because we have less employees. But I'm

[6:28:24] going in an extreme example, if it's a

[6:28:28] critical function, it's not to get two employees back.

[6:28:34] It's to get a service level back. And if that means two employees, yes, that's

[6:28:38] how we have to think about it. So I'm looking at not 15 job losses. I'm trying

[6:28:45] to see what does that mean in level of service. I think we had some good some

[6:28:50] help code enforcement I understood the 42 backlog a great example of workload

[6:28:56] now it's you know amongst three is now going to one those are the things that

[6:29:01] are helpful um I will I I want to just state that

[6:29:09] we've got the payments

[6:29:16] we we pay do we have budgeted at the 4.5 total. What is the total retirement

[6:29:26] at the 4.5? The total retirement of 12% would be 200 um,000.

[6:29:38] » I guess I don't know why we're doing 12. Oh, because we we budget we have the

[6:29:42] money there in case the contribution is needed. Okay.

[6:29:45] » Correct. Yeah, we do a 9% and then budget for up to 3% because it is the

[6:29:50] employees uh choice. So therefore >> budget for the case they do it's uh

[6:29:55] 200,000 is what the total

[6:29:59] 12% of a retirement contribution uh costs the city.

[6:30:05] [clears throat] So, hypothetically, if we took it from

[6:30:08] 12% to 0%. That would save $200,000

[6:30:13] at this 4.5 that we're talking about mathematically.

[6:30:18] » So, why was it 390 in the 2027 column? This isn't going to show it cuz

[6:30:25] I added them all up. I mean, do we just have more employees?

[6:30:30] » Um, which column are you looking at? I think it's the K. Uh I can't see the

[6:30:37] header, but I think yeah, it would have been the K column. So the 89,000 or

[6:30:42] maybe it's the J. I am looking at a different sheet in

[6:30:46] front of me. The sheet I'm looking at in front of me has all of our um city

[6:30:50] employees and their benefits on it. Um so I think it'd be very hard to get the

[6:30:55] numbers I'm looking at from the sheet that that we're looking at on the um on

[6:30:59] the screens in front of us. >> Yeah. So [clears throat] I think and

[6:31:02] this is one of the the challenges is we have the presentation. I think you've

[6:31:07] got some supplementary resources. I can work in here. You know, being able to

[6:31:12] total stuff up out of here takes a little extra work. I I I just did that

[6:31:18] for myself. But I think all I did was added up all the departments. Um

[6:31:23] administrative perka in column L or I'm sorry in column K. That was the original

[6:31:31] budget. If you add all those up, it was 292,09%

[6:31:38] budgeted contributions and 97,03% totaling 389,000.

[6:31:46] And

[6:31:55] yeah, I think that's that's that's according to my math. I

[6:32:00] understand if that would reduce. So when I saw 390 if it I just don't know why it

[6:32:04] would go down almost in half if we're maintaining it. Um maybe it's cuz some

[6:32:09] employees obviously wouldn't have to pay. That to me was a lot of money. Um

[6:32:14] if it is let's just 200,000

[6:32:19] if if that's what we have to work with. Did I hear 80,000 saves a part-time

[6:32:24] worker? It cost 80,000 for a part-time.

[6:32:30] » That would that was just one example from from my department, but that

[6:32:34] doesn't really help in terms of that because the building operations are not

[6:32:41] funded. So, it saves a person, but it doesn't

[6:32:47] keep the lights on, pay the water bill, fund the AC contracts, that kind of

[6:32:52] stuff. If that makes any sense. But we have a part-time person in park of

[6:32:57] making $80,000 because wouldn't part-time not have benefits?

[6:33:03] » There's other factors with that and those are the estimates that I've gotten

[6:33:09] with regard to

[6:33:14] and it's not a full 80,000. Like that's the number that they that

[6:33:20] that would save you. So it wouldn't be two people necessarily.

[6:33:26] » Well, for example, how much is that position when you say it's not a full

[6:33:31] 80,000?

[6:33:37] » What did we actually pay? If you have that sheet up to answer, uh Joey, oh, a

[6:33:43] part-time perka in 2026. I think that's another way to look at

[6:33:48] it. >> Yes.

[6:33:50] So you could effectively fund roughly

[6:33:56] one to two people, but you're still not opening the building. You're still not

[6:34:01] paying the water bill. You're still >> Well, and I'm not really wanting to know

[6:34:06] that. I'm wanting to know how much is that part-time position that we said was

[6:34:11] almost 80,000. I mean, and then you were saying it's

[6:34:15] not really that. I mean, how much does a part-time park a person make?

[6:34:19] » May I jump in here? The um >> because he has the full

[6:34:22] » the spreadsheet I'm looking in front of me, it's about slightly over $30,000 for

[6:34:27] a part-time uh wreck employee. Okay. >> $80,000 does pay for about one code

[6:34:33] enforcement um employee. >> Okay. So there's a a a so if it the

[6:34:39] 200,000 budgeted for the retirement if it was reduced by $80,000 and we

[6:34:43] budgeted $120,000 for retirement for one year that would

[6:34:48] also give free up cash for one year to take the code enforcement from one to

[6:34:53] two and reduce >> it would if we freed up $80,000 from

[6:34:59] somewhere. >> Yeah.

[6:35:00] » It we'd be able to then use that $80,000 to afford one code enforcement. And I

[6:35:05] don't want to go any further cuz I can't especially this hour. That's what I'm

[6:35:09] I'm hoping we can do. Now do not in my opinion we should not do that if we feel

[6:35:16] that one but it's not always that three one uh

[6:35:22] you know three produces more than one. Sometimes there's reasons that two and

[6:35:28] the direct believe that they can produce the same as three. um not typical, but

[6:35:34] those things happen. Um th those are the types of things that

[6:35:40] that I was struggling with when I was reading this and trying to get to the

[6:35:44] bottom of it. The other thing is um when you say parks and wreck the the C5

[6:35:53] I don't think opening Nancy Hansen from our talk it was my understanding that

[6:35:58] Nancy Hansen first it was all going to be closed and then it was like no we

[6:36:02] could probably make it self serve but the C5 this doesn't have budgeted to pay

[6:36:07] the the water bill >> or the I mean not a lot of water usage

[6:36:12] would be >> not as much as it would use if the

[6:36:16] building was open. >> Okay, I I understand that. Uh the splash

[6:36:21] pad running at 4 and a half. >> The splash pad is not included in the

[6:36:25] 4.5.

[6:36:29] » Okay, that's new. >> What was mentioned earlier, it cost

[6:36:33] 64,000. We have to meet uh health department criteria to operate it.

[6:36:40] » Um there's no We have to have somebody I mean operate it.

[6:36:43] » Yeah. Well, do you remember the I remember talking about the 64,000, but I

[6:36:47] didn't realize that. I thought we were just restating the cost. I I missed it

[6:36:51] and the processing it's a lot of information, but we had talked about it

[6:36:54] and it was we thought it was closed. Then we said, "No, I don't think that's

[6:36:58] what the community would want. We keep it open." So, I understand if that's a

[6:37:02] part of it. I guess that's the thing. um parks and wreck employees.

[6:37:08] Another example, just how my brain's thinking, why would we close the

[6:37:12] facility, let off all the employees

[6:37:17] and then instead of keeping them on and maybe do scale back on some health

[6:37:23] benefits for a year or two?

[6:37:27] » Could you say that one more time, please?

[6:37:30] total health care life and health insurance expenditures. You and I were I

[6:37:34] think going back and forth and I think we're still working through it. I

[6:37:38] believe that parks and wreck currently is the highest amount for health

[6:37:43] insurance benefits out of all departments just logically because you

[6:37:48] have 15 uh I think we 15 employees there. I am might be there, but

[6:37:56] I'm trying to show tradeoffs for the community.

[6:38:01] If everyone in Perkos says, "I'm leaving because I don't have life and health

[6:38:05] insurance for a year or two or whatnot." Um, well, well, that's unfortunate, but

[6:38:11] to me, we would those are the trades I hope we can look at. What I saw here was

[6:38:20] very heavy on personnel [snorts] and that that

[6:38:27] one way. Um I haven't got into the supplies. I'm being told uh that we

[6:38:34] can't cut anymore. I I understand that. I I see that. But I I

[6:38:41] [snorts] I I'll stop. I I I don't think if I can see the level of service

[6:38:48] decline in between these I know I can read the words but you know big loss or

[6:38:54] some of the words we were reading right those aren't quantifiable and I know

[6:38:58] it's not easy to do that but like backlogs response times and those things

[6:39:04] some sort of indication I know that under these times we're not necessarily

[6:39:08] maybe reporting and measuring everything I get that nor would I think that That's

[6:39:12] reasonable under the the stress. But um

[6:39:20] to think that roll back,

[6:39:24] right? I I just cannot get past that. We that we would not reduce revenue, tax

[6:39:31] revenue, and we're going to lose 29 employees with literally a tax revenue

[6:39:38] increase. That means we were balancing

[6:39:45] I mean that's awful. >> We

[6:39:47] » that is I mean for five six years we've been doing that and that has it

[6:39:51] » well for 15 years we've been we've been deficit spending and I just want to roll

[6:39:58] us back no pun intended to March. >> What you're seeing is

[6:40:06] five million in cuts. I mean reality we started cutting back in March.

[6:40:13] » The ship was running a ground and we had to not spend 750,000 just to come in to

[6:40:19] the green or the black. So this isn't, you know, when you set a

[6:40:23] millage rate of, you know, 4.5, [snorts] that was basically

[6:40:29] cutting two more million after we've already cut three

[6:40:36] when we shouldn't have been budgeting to spend 5 million over what we were

[6:40:39] bringing in to begin with. So we're again, we're trying to, you

[6:40:46] know, buy 10 things when we have money for five at this point. And I'm

[6:40:54] we would be in a better position talking about this if we weren't dealing with a

[6:40:58] 4.5 millig rate. And I say that only because we would be having a more what

[6:41:03] more can we cut from this number as opposed to what are we trying to save at

[6:41:10] this number? 4.5 is it.

[6:41:14] And your staff, like I said, they live this

[6:41:20] every day. They do the job. I don't cut grass, you know. I I don't do what

[6:41:25] they're doing, but they're telling me. And I think the best We've heard a lot

[6:41:29] of good stuff, but when Dave Coulter got up there and told you I he itemized

[6:41:34] everything, that was a significant amount of work.

[6:41:39] So,

[6:41:43] we have to deal with what we have and that's 4.5 mills or less. And I go back

[6:41:48] to what I said, Mayor, roll back is not an option.

[6:41:54] It is not an option. >> Yeah. I I don't I I just I understand I

[6:42:01] don't understand how we've

[6:42:07] we got too much to take care of and too much to pay for. That's just the fact I

[6:42:12] we it it's nauseating and and the purchase of this property.

[6:42:19] » True. >> We can look at we can look at the

[6:42:21] » I don't want to sell stuff, but >> the C5 will be paid off at the end of

[6:42:25] this fiscal year. That's a huge deal. $800,000.

[6:42:29] I fully expect the fire assessment to be a win. I think what that opportunity

[6:42:35] will present for this council to this council is you can lower millage right

[6:42:39] away. You know, depending on what our needs are next fiscal year because we're

[6:42:43] not going to be paying for fire service out of the general fund if the

[6:42:46] assessment goes through. So that gives the council the opportunity to lower the

[6:42:51] millage rate. And so I think if we have a focus forward approach, we got to bite

[6:42:56] the bullet all a 360°ree outlook. We have to bite the bullet here. And I and

[6:43:02] I think I told all of you very candidly from the very beginning, you're going to

[6:43:05] have to raise taxes. I know you don't want to, but that is a cold hard

[6:43:10] reality. And and the question you have to ask yourself is is how much. It's not

[6:43:15] how much can I keep or it's how much it's not how how much am I going to lose

[6:43:21] because we're already at the 4.5. It's what can I keep what's left and you're

[6:43:26] going to have to help me prioritize. That's why from the very beginning I've

[6:43:28] said to you, I can't cut any lower until I get with you because services are

[6:43:32] going to be drastically impacted. And so my recommendation is you go with

[6:43:39] the 4.5.

[6:43:44] » Okay. So, and I understand I'm listening, but I'm about to give a

[6:43:48] little bit of perspective on my part. Um, I don't think staff that's with us

[6:43:55] now got us into this position. We had things that occurred in the past and

[6:44:00] some of those situations are are gone.

[6:44:06] Um [snorts] I think that it's a tough time for all

[6:44:09] of us. We didn't we certainly didn't have this in our view either. So the

[6:44:15] spending down of the reserves is something that [clears throat] is

[6:44:18] painful for us all. Now having said that I will say

[6:44:25] please I mean I looked at things like our long-term um disability.

[6:44:32] Other cities aren't giving people that. they're giving them an option to

[6:44:36] purchase that and and any sacrifices that staff makes

[6:44:42] now I think that that can turn around and

[6:44:46] change but I think it's going to be all of us that have to do the sacrificing

[6:44:51] not just and we have to look at whatever we can do now it's I don't like saying

[6:44:58] that because I know staff you want to stay here you want to do a great job and

[6:45:03] We want you to be in a situation where you have a bene you have the benefits

[6:45:07] you need. But to get through this time, we're going to all have to make some

[6:45:13] sacrifices as far as what's going on. Now, having said that, I'm going to say

[6:45:18] this. I believe this tax amendment three is going to pass. We're going through

[6:45:24] the painful part now. Okay? This is the part that hurts.

[6:45:30] And once we get past this corner and get our reser reserve, it doesn't even have

[6:45:36] to be fully funded on reserves, but once we're able to start building them back,

[6:45:40] then we can look at giving back the benefits the way that you had them and

[6:45:46] all of these things. And if you leave and go to another city, doesn't mean

[6:45:51] that in that if that passes that you won't get there. and they have their

[6:45:56] $200 million budget they have to cut and they have 80% of their property taxes

[6:46:01] and homestead properties. So, it could be painful going somewhere else. You

[6:46:07] could get there after if Amendment Three passes and you could lose your job. So,

[6:46:12] I think it behooves all of us to work together and try to do the best we can.

[6:46:17] I think y'all done a good job looking and cutting and that sort of thing, but

[6:46:22] whatever it takes is what we need to do. Um, I don't like closing things and I

[6:46:29] would rather overall make a sacrifice on whatever we can cut on benefits to keep

[6:46:37] as many of the people we can. I don't like services not being offered. I'm not

[6:46:41] that's [snorts] not my me. Um, but if we have to get a company in to run the C5

[6:46:47] for us temporarily or [snorts] whatever, those things we're gonna have

[6:46:52] to do to address the cuts. So, for me, I think it's going to be a time of

[6:46:57] sacrifice for all of us. I'll give y'all my $3,000 salary or whatever it is. I'll

[6:47:02] be happy to do that. Um, but but I think we have to look at that. Um, because

[6:47:09] what else are we going to do? I don't like

[6:47:13] people going away and I don't like services going away. And I totally agree

[6:47:18] with what kind of service level are we going to have. That's the only decision

[6:47:23] we can make as council up here is how we manage the services. I don't want

[6:47:29] services going away. And so that's my thoughts and I'm and I'm encou trying to

[6:47:36] encourage staff to please be patient because you're all valuable and if

[6:47:41] you'll if we can work through this hard time together and buckle down and we may

[6:47:47] have to put up with not having everything the way it was doesn't mean

[6:47:53] it's going to stay that way forever in my opinion because nobody really wants

[6:47:57] that. But we got to get through this. And I'm sorry everyone in this room,

[6:48:02] including the taxpayers, are going through this. It's not right. And I wish

[6:48:06] I could I had a magic wand and could start over. The first thing I do is get

[6:48:12] those administrative fees from the Cape Center, right?

[6:48:16] Anony's going to work on that for me, though.

[6:48:21] So, that's what I've got for this. We're going to have to to do what it takes.

[6:48:25] And if we can cut um I'd rather cut benefits for a short

[6:48:30] amount of time than people. That's just my thoughts.

[6:48:35] » Thank you.

[6:48:49] » Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, sir. I I can agree with uh Mayor

[6:48:54] Pro Tim about trying to cut back on some benefits temporarily. Um but I I just

[6:49:02] don't see any way that uh roll back is going to keep our services at an

[6:49:08] acceptable level. Um in fact, I don't know that 3.58 can do it either. So I'm

[6:49:15] more in favor of let's go with the 4.5 or somewhere close to that.

[6:49:21] And uh [clears throat] >> are you making that as a motion

[6:49:25] counselor? >> No, I am just stating my position.

[6:49:29] » So this is a workshop. So I don't think we're voting on anything tonight.

[6:49:34] » So that's that is just my >> You could give direction, Councilman.

[6:49:39] » Well, that is >> that's your direction.

[6:49:41] » That's my direction. >> Thank you. Thank you.

[6:49:44] » I agree. I think 4.5 is probably the most feasible um option that we have and

[6:49:51] to struggle over 3.25 and 3.58 is not getting us anywhere. I think I I I we

[6:49:59] owe it to the employees that have been doing diligent work trying to make this

[6:50:05] happen, trying to make this work, working with us. And if we go any lower

[6:50:10] than 4.5, I think we heard the the people here today. Are you willing to

[6:50:16] pay more for the amenities that you're enjoying? And they applauded. Now, maybe

[6:50:21] they don't represent the entire community, but these are the active ones

[6:50:26] who are paying attention and they're going to spread the word out

[6:50:30] there. And there'll be some people who don't want 4.5. They're going to cry

[6:50:34] about it. Let them cry. We're try. We're doing the very best we can. That's my

[6:50:40] opinion on it. >> I [snorts]

[6:50:45] » Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah.

[6:50:48] » Um and I understand what your what Council Member King is saying. However,

[6:50:53] I've looked at a lot of comments and we've gotten a lot of emails. We have a

[6:50:58] a population in our city that's 65% retirees.

[6:51:04] We have people and actually our city's more affordable than like a Cocoa Beach

[6:51:10] is. We have people that are concerned about their rent payments going up and

[6:51:17] all of these things and and going up as high as whatever. Every time we increase

[6:51:25] that increases rents that increases uh you know property owners taxes on a

[6:51:32] population that's usually living on a fixed income.

[6:51:36] So whatever we do we have to be mindful of that. So just saying let's go

[6:51:44] 4.5. I'm curious myself, what does it look like in between 4.5 and 3.58?

[6:51:52] Because these are benchmark numbers and we could do 4.3 if it made sense or

[6:51:57] whatever. We're not going to have that information tonight. Um, but I think we

[6:52:03] need to look at service levels like we said, but also be mindful that people in

[6:52:09] this community are retirees and while some may be willing to pay and able to

[6:52:14] pay those things, um, it just one moment please. Um, it is something that we need

[6:52:22] to be mindful of and where there may be people in this room expressing that

[6:52:26] they're willing to pay 4.5 or maybe they were willing to pay 10.0 or 7.0. They

[6:52:33] might have been willing to pay that. There were a lot of people sending

[6:52:37] emails and a lot of people commenting online they that their taxes were going

[6:52:42] up $400 a year or whatever in the trim notice and that it was a hardship for

[6:52:48] them. So I think we have to be mindful of that too. So

[6:52:53] Mr. Mayor, >> thank you. Council member Shore yet.

[6:52:58] [clears throat] >> Well, I think we've already figured out

[6:53:00] roll back rate does not work for doesn't maintain the level of service we want. I

[6:53:04] don't think 110% does either. So again, case point we're going to wind up

[6:53:09] somewhere between 358 and 4.5. I guess suggestion. Let's go to 3.58 and just

[6:53:15] add back in the things that are essential.

[6:53:19] » That's a good idea. >> And deter wind up because I I think

[6:53:21] number one, okay, we're going to add back in the executive assistant. So,

[6:53:24] what's where does that leave us? >> How what does that do for us millillage

[6:53:29] wise if we had that position back and just kind of go from there and work our

[6:53:33] way up? If I could interject, you know, looking at our chart and if you can put

[6:53:37] the one chart up there where it says general fund staffing by mill scenario

[6:53:42] from Joey's presentation. So we have um if No, you had it right

[6:53:51] right there. If you can thank you. Um so I mentioned earlier

[6:53:57] creating a position in solid waste to assist with some duties. we could move

[6:54:03] an employee from the general fund over there and that would save the general

[6:54:09] fund the salary the salary anyway of that particular employee and their

[6:54:13] benefits benefits would transfer over as well. So that would um

[6:54:18] that would reduce well that would take CED

[6:54:24] would be losing one but going over to that that enterprise and we can reduce

[6:54:31] the benefits to a level um that would generate whatever revenue figure that

[6:54:37] we're looking at. I will say that long-term disability is offered by other

[6:54:41] municipalities. To your point, Mayor Pro10, we're not the only city that does

[6:54:44] that, but we can certainly look at what it would look like to do away with

[6:54:48] long-term disability. I don't know that it's being accessed a whole lot right

[6:54:52] now being budgeted for >> the ones that I had seen um city manager

[6:54:57] is they gave it as an offering and it was an option to the in many

[6:55:02] municipalities give it as an option to their their staff members who can choose

[6:55:07] to pay for it or not to pay for it. Yeah. and then we could add it back in

[6:55:11] later. But that, you know, those are the kind of things kind of any kind of

[6:55:16] things like that that people may not be utilizing right now but may need later.

[6:55:21] Those would be good things to look at because that could possibly make a

[6:55:26] little bit of an impact as well. So, so far we're talking about

[6:55:30] transferring an employee from general fund to enterprise and I'll have to get

[6:55:35] with staff on that employee salary [clears throat] and benefits so we can

[6:55:38] calculate those numbers. Um, and we're talking about a reduction in benefits.

[6:55:43] We can come back with what that would look like and then we can discuss many

[6:55:48] any other position because we're looking at we can look at the 10 in admin admin

[6:55:53] services again. We can look at the seven in IM again. And I'm looking at the 4.5

[6:55:58] mil column here when I say this. So, we can look at that 28 staff there again

[6:56:05] and see how low we can get the millillage.

[6:56:07] » And uh city manager, could we look at if we kept the C5 and Nancy Hansen open

[6:56:17] for a certain period of time? Well, and specifically the C5 instead of Nancy

[6:56:23] Hansen as much where we would keep it open for a certain period of time while

[6:56:27] we get bids from the vendors, you know, and that way because it will

[6:56:34] make a difference if we don't just flat let staff go if we budget in and see how

[6:56:41] that can fall in there and can keep those staff until we get those RFPs in

[6:56:48] and make a decision, then they could possibly transition and we won't lose

[6:56:53] services for a short amount of time and we won't lo and staff won't lose out.

[6:56:58] Now that's my >> I would like to see that.

[6:57:01] » Okay, I'll get with that director because at 4.5 mills we're at five

[6:57:05] staff. Moving one employee over may open up a

[6:57:10] body, but I need to talk with our director and whatever else we can

[6:57:15] potentially come up with from benefits. I just would I would like to see what

[6:57:20] all of that looks like. Um just because >> that would serve our community better.

[6:57:26] » Sure. >> And it would also potentially protect

[6:57:30] those staff members where they wouldn't have to be just flat let go.

[6:57:34] » Well, I'm already seeing um two people's offices moving to the C5

[6:57:39] to help staff that, but we'll have to have that conversation.

[6:57:44] » Thank you.

[6:57:52] Okay. So, I think um yeah, I mean one

[6:58:00] this is really good. I I really [clears throat] just as I was listening

[6:58:04] to it, I was able to see when something goes down, other things

[6:58:10] go up and um very very helpful and again thanks to our city manager and and

[6:58:15] everyone took the whole team to put this

[6:58:19] together. And so today's a workshop. Um I think the

[6:58:25] council has talked about uh between 3.58 and 4.5 express some

[6:58:32] positions. Um, my hope is that we we keep

[6:58:40] I've taken the philosophy of being more comfortable with the the the citizens

[6:58:47] maintain access to everything be better to push down across the board for the

[6:58:52] short period or make adjustments. we can't really do that. Well, and and so

[6:58:57] the recommendation to close um

[6:59:02] I think similar to you said what you were saying is if the uh October one is

[6:59:07] uh when the the budget goes uh I would be interested in funding at least 90

[6:59:16] days, right? It's not like budget passes and and a department's not funded at a

[6:59:21] minimum 90. And I would even say potentially have some sort of uh budget

[6:59:28] to go another 90. And in that time period, if we could get a lease or

[6:59:33] something for an operator to come in, um then we would not miss a beat. This I

[6:59:40] guess the downside of that is if we go the full term, it's funded, and nothing

[6:59:46] comes to fruition, well, at least time was given, right? and it wasn't sudden

[6:59:51] and and people's lives have time to transition. And I think those efforts

[6:59:56] would be communicated, we'd have an indication. And so that's really

[7:00:00] important to me. Um if a department's 1.6 today and it cost 800,000 to get

[7:00:08] through 6 months, maybe it doesn't work like that. Maybe can we get by? How many

[7:00:13] months can we get by with um so many people at a half a million dollars? Can

[7:00:18] we get 90 days? maybe just lose a couple out of perka. I'll get into it a little

[7:00:24] bit more between now and our I guess our first public hearing. Um so those are my

[7:00:30] comments. Thank you. So to support your efforts, the council's efforts, mayor, I

[7:00:35] mean we're going to turn around some stuff quickly tomorrow um for you and

[7:00:41] looking at Joey. You don't have to work late tonight

[7:00:45] though, Joey. Well, we're going to turn around some stuff tomorrow and I want to

[7:00:50] communicate as much as possible as quickly as possible. You have a week

[7:00:54] before your next meeting. You know, we did our best to get this information to

[7:00:57] you. Our goal was noon Tuesday and we got it to you by like 6 Tuesday night.

[7:01:03] Um, and as you can see, there's a lot of work that went into it. We wanted to get

[7:01:07] it to you as as in advance as possible. uh because you know there are a lot of

[7:01:13] requests that come in and uh working uh Joey has been working incredibly hard.

[7:01:21] I can't say it any clearer than that. So >> it was very reasonable when we got it

[7:01:27] was very reasonable under the circumstances and I never expected

[7:01:31] anything >> um

[7:01:34] » other than you can do all you can do is all you can do

[7:01:38] » and and I know y'all are doing that. So, thank you.

[7:01:42] Especially with the short notice of coming off the last meeting. Okay,

[7:01:46] council, we're at 8:06 p.m. What do we want to do? We don't have to take any

[7:01:51] action. City manager, do you need >> any direction or anything beyond what

[7:01:56] you've heard? >> I think I have the direction. Um, but I

[7:01:59] I did need some direction on paid parking. Do you want to speak about

[7:02:06] that? And it doesn't necessarily have to be before this budget is approved um

[7:02:12] because there's just not enough time I think um but the vendor is willing to

[7:02:16] come back but uh he has asked us to ask you that if there is interest in it then

[7:02:22] he will provide dates and times that he's available and we can go from there

[7:02:26] and potentially it could be October at the earliest

[7:02:30] that would be no sooner than October.

[7:02:37] for me to get comfortable with paid parking. Um I I do have a serious

[7:02:42] security uh and privacy concern. Um like I expressed when it was first the old

[7:02:49] meters with the quarters and the things, I'm much more comfortable with those. I

[7:02:55] know the cost goes up on those to maintain. Somebody's got to handle it.

[7:02:58] might seem somewhat archaic, but this idea of this world where everywhere you

[7:03:03] go, you know, you're like credit cards and IDs and license tag readers. Cape

[7:03:09] Canaveral is a small town. We all trot down to the beach. Kind of makes turns

[7:03:14] my stomach. I love the revenue way more than uh the tax. I like that form. I

[7:03:22] think due to the timing and everything going on,

[7:03:25] um, >> we can continue to pause if that's the

[7:03:29] the will of the council. >> I'm saying for me, not now. But yeah, I

[7:03:34] think pause is a better way to explain it. But

[7:03:36] » I already see two one other agrees with you. So if I have a So I have a majority

[7:03:41] that says let's pause it. So that's all I needed. Thank you.

[7:03:47] » Appreciate that. >> Yes, sir. Thank you.

[7:03:54] Okay. Anything else as far as um direction or anything council we need to

[7:04:01] say or do? Council member Shy, >> I guess. So, we're looking at we're

[7:04:04] going to wind up between 3.58 and 4.5 is and I'm probably going to wind up closer

[7:04:10] to 4.5. >> We we'll come back with what additional

[7:04:14] um modifications that we can make and we'll we'll see where that lands.

[7:04:19] » Can I throw another question in? Sure. >> As far as recreation, I know Friday Fest

[7:04:23] is pretty popular. Can we just have a little sidebar? Here's how much Friday

[7:04:27] Fest would cost to keep. How much would it cost to do this event? Blah blah

[7:04:33] blah. >> That'll come with or without sheriff's

[7:04:36] office. Um because >> a little menu.

[7:04:38] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[7:04:40] » And then also, I just want to throw this out there. One thing that

[7:04:45] um Tim presentation last month, street lighting, I'd love to see something done

[7:04:52] with that because we can we can do that pretty inexpensively. Fill in all of our

[7:04:55] dark spots for what, $1,800 a month. Just something to think about.

[7:05:03] And that would be something that the residents would see all the time.

[7:05:08] Brighter streets, safer streets.

[7:05:14] Okay, >> they'll be able to see with the light.

[7:05:16] » Gotcha. I'll get up with him. >> We'll have that conversation.

[7:05:24] » I think at this point we might all want lights out. [laughter]

[7:05:28] » It's been a long day. Thank you all and and I know um

[7:05:32] I see all the work that went into it and it was not at a loss. tough

[7:05:37] conversations, but I echo uh council and mayor pro Tim.

[7:05:43] Um we will get through this. I believe that wholeheartedly and especially if we

[7:05:48] can keep our head and I think we're doing that. So, thank you all

[7:05:54] and and uh if there's not anything else, Council

[7:05:59] Member King, >> I'm all set.

[7:06:01] » Okay. Council member Shorette. >> Council member Willis.

[7:06:05] Do you know what what are the next steps from here? Because I know next Thursday

[7:06:10] is our budget first budget hearing. Do we have to meet before then or I'm just

[7:06:15] curious trying to figure out my schedule.

[7:06:18] » Probably a good idea that >> I'm sorry you're you're

[7:06:21] » our next our next uh appointment is next Thursday for the first budget hearing.

[7:06:26] Do do we have to meet before that or >> as a council?

[7:06:30] » Yeah. I mean does the budget have to be finalized for that?

[7:06:32] » Yeah, I don't think so. We'll get you a bunch of information in advance so we

[7:06:35] can make it available to the public during that meeting and I think you can

[7:06:38] talk about the budget as long as you need to during that meeting until you're

[7:06:42] done. >> Okay.

[7:06:43] » Yeah, it's going to be a limited agenda. Um I think it's already been printed and

[7:06:48] is it been posted? >> Yeah, it's it's just Yeah, just the

[7:06:52] agenda. It's the standard agenda that we've had in years past, but we'll have

[7:06:56] additional backup to give you. >> I thought you were saying meet one. I I

[7:07:01] was saying it'd be a good idea to meet with the city manager, but meeting as a

[7:07:05] group, I don't think we have to. >> Mayor Pro Tim, anything from you?

[7:07:09] » We do have the agenda. >> I always have stuff, but I'm going to

[7:07:12] spare everyone since we've been here so long.

[7:07:15] » Yes. Thank you all. >> Y'all good? Any [clears throat] report?

[7:07:20] Anything you need to say? Good. Awesome. City clerk. Thank you. All

[7:07:25] right. with that.

City Council Budget Workshop

Transcript