[5:49] Before we begin, I'd like to

[5:51] thank Corporal Thornton, Deputy

[5:53] Winnick and Deputy Manley from

[5:56] the sheriff's office, and we're

[5:58] going to start with a budget

[6:00] discussion. Barry, you are

[6:00] recognized.

[6:02] >> Good morning, commissioners.

[6:03] So today we're going to have

[6:06] our first workshop on budget,

[6:07] really talking about different

[6:10] options and ideas. And there's

[6:12] been, you know, a few changes

[6:15] since we last talked. First,

[6:16] Commissioner Nowicki and

[6:18] Commissioner Shearer offered

[6:21] ideas in terms of ways to

[6:23] adjust the budget. And the main

[6:24] piece really focused around the

[6:25] general fund. And what can we

[6:28] do to reduce down the general

[6:30] fund portion of our budget to

[6:33] provide for property tax rate

[6:34] reduction? That's really been

[6:36] the focus of the discussions.

[6:37] From the comments that I've

[6:39] seen, I've also talked

[6:42] individually with each of you

[6:44] and listen to your thoughts and

[6:46] ideas. And so we have some want

[6:48] some updated numbers that we've

[6:50] kind of fresh off the press are

[6:52] able to incorporate within the

[6:53] budget. And two, we have a few

[6:55] of the budget ideas that we

[6:57] also think that we can

[6:58] incorporate that are reasonable

[7:02] in, in this discussion. So

[7:03] first, staff's going to be

[7:06] passing out a packet here. And

[7:08] as they get those out, then

[7:09] I'll wait till they they

[7:10] deliver those. And so we can

[7:13] kind of use that as a guide.

[7:14] We're missing a couple

[7:28] commissioners. So. And Chris is

[7:29] going to join me up here so he

[7:31] can answer any questions. The

[7:32] other thing I want to

[7:35] acknowledge is you could you

[7:37] may have questions about

[7:38] anything throughout county

[7:39] government. I've asked all of

[7:40] our department heads to be here

[7:42] this morning. So if there's

[7:44] questions that Chris or I can't

[7:46] answer, they're here and

[7:47] available to, to get into

[7:49] whatever type of detail you

[7:54] want. Right. And so, so on your

[7:58] packet, what you'll see is some

[8:00] options for additional

[8:01] reductions that were not

[8:04] proposed. As part of my budget

[8:07] presentation just a month ago

[8:09] in the if you look up in the

[8:12] yellow area, the first column

[8:15] there is it says public Works

[8:17] changes in allocation. So we

[8:19] went back and looked within our

[8:21] public works area, and we

[8:22] believe that we can accommodate

[8:25] an additional $500,000 of

[8:27] reductions in the general fund

[8:29] impact within the Public Works

[8:32] area. The second column is the

[8:34] tax collector. So the tax

[8:36] collector did his distributions

[8:38] and increased those

[8:41] distributions by $584,000. We

[8:42] believe that's an ongoing

[8:44] savings. So that's an

[8:45] additional amount that we'll be

[8:46] able to see every year. So it

[8:48] can be recognized revenue that

[8:51] again can help lessen the

[8:55] impact on our property tax. So

[8:56] we appreciate the tax collector

[8:58] looking at his budget and

[9:00] trying to reduce cost increase

[9:01] revenue. And that's the

[9:02] distribution that he provides.

[9:05] Back to the general fund. The

[9:07] third column is a Medicaid

[9:09] payment. So when we have to

[9:10] guess what the state is going

[9:12] to require as part of our

[9:14] Medicaid distribution, that's

[9:16] one of those unfunded mandates

[9:18] that that we talked about in

[9:20] the budget presentation. Well,

[9:21] we got the final Medicaid

[9:24] numbers, and it's $975,000 less

[9:27] than what what we had projected.

[9:30] So again, that's another change

[9:32] that is kind of hot off the

[9:35] press in terms of the

[9:40] discussions here today. Are the

[9:41] Medicaid. So the Medicaid we

[9:43] get we get a bill from the

[9:44] state each year. That's part of

[9:46] our unfunded mandates. We have

[9:47] to pay that well. We're

[9:48] projecting out what that will

[9:50] cost will be until we get the

[9:52] final letter from the state. We

[9:54] received that this past week,

[9:57] and it is $975,000 less than

[10:00] what we had put in the budget,

[10:02] what we had projected in the

[10:03] budget. So it's still a lot of

[10:05] money. It's still another

[10:07] unfunded mandate, but it's just

[10:09] $975,000 less than what we

[10:13] thought it would be. The the

[10:16] fourth column here is the

[10:17] Tarpon Department of Health,

[10:20] and Karen and Doctor Choe have

[10:22] looked at the this health

[10:24] center that we've had up there

[10:27] for a long time, they actually

[10:29] have reduced that a couple of

[10:31] years ago from a five day a

[10:33] week operation to a three day a

[10:34] week operation. And they're

[10:36] still not seeing the numbers

[10:38] that justify the continuation

[10:40] of, of that clinic. And so

[10:43] they're making a further

[10:44] recommendation is that we close

[10:45] the clinic. If I'm I'm looking

[10:47] back to Karen to make sure I'm

[10:49] saying this correctly. And that,

[10:53] again, will save general fund

[10:56] $400,000.

[11:01] >> Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. You

[11:01] recognized.

[11:02] >> So what does that mean for.

[11:03] You're saying we're seeing a

[11:05] reduction or not an increase in

[11:06] patient service requests.

[11:07] What's what are the numbers up

[11:08] there?

[11:09] >> Well, that that would

[11:12] absolutely be a Karen issue. In

[11:14] essence, they're same,

[11:16] obviously same patients, but

[11:17] they're but they're also

[11:20] waiting around even at a

[11:22] reduced hours of operation to

[11:24] where people do have choices,

[11:25] they can come, they have the

[11:26] Clearwater clinic. But I'll let

[11:29] Karen answer those specific

[11:31] questions. But this is

[11:32] something that her and Doctor

[11:33] Choe have had ongoing

[11:34] conversations. This wasn't

[11:36] really driven by the budget

[11:37] discussion. It just happened

[11:38] that they come to that

[11:40] conclusion during our budget

[11:42] discussions. So if in fact,

[11:44] that is the recommendation, we

[11:45] can incorporate that within our

[11:46] budget.

[11:47] >> I'll consider it. But I will

[11:49] say tarpon is a nice little

[11:50] distance away from Clearwater,

[11:51] especially when you're talking

[11:52] about people that don't have

[11:53] transportation.

[11:54] >> I understand.

[11:55] >> Can you about how many

[11:57] patients are we serving up

[11:59] there? Do you have you MAY not

[12:00] have this because you probably

[12:01] didn't know I was going to ask

[12:03] the question because I just got

[12:03] this myself.

[12:05] >> So sure. So I have some of

[12:07] the information that I can

[12:09] share. So in 2022, we reduced

[12:10] the operating days at the

[12:12] Tarpon site from five days to

[12:14] three days per week. So we're

[12:15] constantly looking at

[12:17] utilization of our health

[12:19] program, as well as the general

[12:22] doh services. We reduced the

[12:23] medical provider from three

[12:26] days to two days in NOVEMBER of

[12:27] 2025, because we were not

[12:29] seeing the encounters up there.

[12:31] There's been a 60% reduction in

[12:35] all medical services since 2018,

[12:37] and currently operating at only

[12:38] 58% of capacity, even with

[12:41] those reduced days. So we are

[12:42] paying for staff time without

[12:46] being able to fill those slots.

[12:48] Wick, which is also up at that

[12:50] location, reduced services to

[12:52] one day a week in FEBRUARY of

[12:54] 2025. That's not the health

[12:55] program. Health care for the

[12:56] homeless program. That's the

[12:59] core agreement. And there have

[13:00] been no doh dental services

[13:03] provided at Tarpon since 2019.

[13:05] We have also piloted for the

[13:06] health care for the homeless,

[13:08] the mobile mobile medical unit.

[13:10] We piloted that for two years

[13:12] and we also we went to the

[13:13] Shepherd center. We went to

[13:14] various locations up there, and

[13:19] we still were not seeing the

[13:21] encounters. We also work with

[13:22] Advent Hospital. I meet with

[13:23] them every single month to talk

[13:25] about patients that they're

[13:26] discharging. Can they link them

[13:28] to the Tarpon Health Center? We

[13:29] give them the information on

[13:31] the care coordinators from the

[13:32] health department. We're just

[13:35] not seeing the volume. And this

[13:36] recommendation, while it's been

[13:38] in motion, is also one of the

[13:39] recommendations that the

[13:40] consultant put forward in the

[13:42] health program evaluation as

[13:44] well.

[13:45] >> So you MAY not know the

[13:47] answer to this question. What

[13:49] were we doing as it relates to

[13:50] marketing and communicating to

[13:52] the public that this facility

[13:54] even existed and could provide

[13:55] services.

[13:56] >> So and so, in addition to

[13:57] meeting with the hospitals,

[13:59] meeting with community partners

[14:00] up there, really trying to

[14:01] provide outreach, I have staff

[14:03] that go out in community and

[14:04] provide outreach at events

[14:06] where, you know, we table

[14:08] brochures. We just aren't

[14:10] seeing the encounter rates up

[14:10] there.

[14:12] >> Okay. Thank you so much for

[14:13] answering those questions. I

[14:14] will consider this as you know,

[14:16] which is the request. But we

[14:17] all know the minute you close

[14:19] this down, people are going to

[14:21] come out of the woodwork.

[14:22] >> Karen, you also said there's

[14:23] some other ways in which you

[14:25] can provide services to your

[14:25] medical van.

[14:27] >> And so we still have the

[14:28] street medicine van. So the

[14:30] street medicine van does that's

[14:32] the smaller van. The street med

[14:34] van can still go up to tarpon,

[14:36] and we always can pivot the

[14:37] larger mobile medical van as

[14:39] well. So if we do start seeing,

[14:41] you know, the community members

[14:42] saying, you know, we really

[14:44] MISS The service, we can always

[14:45] bring the larger van back up

[14:47] there to make sure that we can

[14:48] meet those medical needs. Plus,

[14:50] we have options for telehealth.

[14:51] So if we have partners in the

[14:52] community that want to be a

[14:54] telehealth location, we can

[14:55] provide telehealth services

[14:56] through the health program as

[15:00] well. Sure thing.

[15:02] >> Okay, so that that's the

[15:03] Tarpon Department of Health.

[15:05] And again, that that

[15:07] recommendation would would save

[15:09] $400,000. And then the final

[15:11] box in the yellow area is

[15:12] something Commissioner Shearer

[15:14] raised. When you're doing

[15:15] revenue projections on how many

[15:17] people are going to visit a

[15:19] park or whatever you're doing,

[15:21] that it's an estimate. Right.

[15:22] And Commissioner Shearer raised

[15:25] this in his comments. We went

[15:27] back and looked at it, and we

[15:28] think that they're that they're

[15:29] probably being conservative

[15:33] there. And so just simply being

[15:35] more accurate or pushing that

[15:37] estimate that you can gain

[15:41] another $285,000 through that.

[15:42] So that so we've incorporated

[15:44] those. So those are those are

[15:47] for those are five areas that

[15:49] just simply incorporating those

[15:51] would, would enable you to

[15:53] reduce the, to do a millage

[15:56] rate reduction of by 25%, you

[16:01] know, and so the yellow is a

[16:03] recommendation we think makes

[16:05] sense. We can incorporate that.

[16:09] And as part of the final budget

[16:10] recommendations, when you get

[16:14] to the, I guess, orange area,

[16:17] we have some other ideas. The

[16:19] first one is Commissioner

[16:21] Nowicki, brought up as part of

[16:23] the organizational efficiency

[16:25] studies. So we we have about $1

[16:26] million that we budget in there.

[16:28] And every year different things

[16:29] come up, but it varies year to

[16:31] year. It depends on what it is.

[16:34] And I and our response. We

[16:35] outlined some of those things

[16:37] when we had to do a jail master

[16:39] plan for that site, when we

[16:41] when we did the centralize the

[16:42] intake over there, we had to do

[16:45] a master plan. We had to look

[16:46] at all the different facilities.

[16:47] Well, that's where we bring

[16:49] somebody in that can do that

[16:51] type of space planning, master

[16:52] planning, work and work with

[16:53] the sheriff's office and figure

[16:56] out security issues and routes

[16:58] for transports and and all

[17:00] those various things. That was

[17:03] one that we did when we do the,

[17:04] the board strategic planning,

[17:06] we pay for it out of there.

[17:09] When we, when we had to do the

[17:11] Cdbg. DR. Implementation

[17:12] planning, that's not

[17:13] reimbursable from the federal

[17:14] funds. So we had to do the plan.

[17:16] We had to pay for that in order

[17:18] to be able to access the $800

[17:19] million. So again, that's

[17:21] another one where we we used

[17:23] that. So each year there's

[17:24] different things that come up.

[17:26] We're currently doing a fleet

[17:28] operations review. I think

[17:30] there's a potential savings

[17:31] there of a significant amount

[17:33] of money. And so we brought

[17:35] someone in to look at it from

[17:36] the, from a private sector

[17:37] perspective on how to manage

[17:40] fleets differently than the way

[17:41] we currently do it. So that's

[17:43] underway. So we've had each and

[17:44] every year we have different

[17:46] things that come up. But again,

[17:47] Commissioner Nowicki raised

[17:49] that as $1 million potential

[17:53] area. We think that we do need

[17:54] money there because there are

[17:55] going to be things that come

[17:57] out of our fall studies and

[17:58] things we want to look at. But

[18:00] but since it varies and we

[18:01] looked back at several years,

[18:03] we can reduce that down by half.

[18:05] So we can take a half million

[18:06] dollars out and still have

[18:07] sufficient funds to be able to

[18:09] address any needs. And we also

[18:10] have reserves if for some

[18:12] reason we exceed it, because

[18:14] it's one time type money. So so

[18:15] that's an area that we can look

[18:19] at the next area. It was

[18:20] actually brought up by

[18:23] Commissioner Sheer, but this is

[18:26] in our water and nav area. Our

[18:28] water and nav is it's a

[18:29] specialized area. You know, we

[18:31] we do not think we can we can

[18:32] merge that with another

[18:34] department. And the people are

[18:35] busy. You are the ones that get

[18:37] the complaints about the, the

[18:39] delays and, and permits and out

[18:41] of that group. And they also do

[18:42] all of our navigational work

[18:44] out on all the waterways. So

[18:46] they work closely with the

[18:48] state. They oversee all of our

[18:50] navigational activities. And,

[18:51] and we've only got a few people

[18:53] in there, but the permit fees

[18:55] haven't been raised in a long

[18:57] time. And I'd have to get staff

[18:59] to tell me how long. But, but

[19:00] but it really should be

[19:01] breaking even. Right. And it's

[19:03] not. And that's where

[19:05] Commissioner Shearer identified

[19:07] $1 million of cost. But but for

[19:09] us to increase the fees for it

[19:11] to break even, we'd have to

[19:13] raise them by 120%, which I

[19:14] don't think there's a great

[19:15] appetite to raise fees. And

[19:17] we've actually been working

[19:19] with the contractors that do

[19:21] that work, and staff's been

[19:22] meeting with them. So we have a

[19:23] good relationship. It's

[19:25] something that we can look at.

[19:26] We'd like to work with the

[19:27] contractors. We think it's an

[19:29] area that's ripe for additional

[19:31] discussion. We don't have that

[19:32] in the first one, but if you

[19:34] wanted to look at fees, even

[19:36] fees in those in over three

[19:39] years could generate about

[19:40] $280,000. So that isn't that's

[19:43] that's an option that we could

[19:46] look at. If you choose to, to

[19:50] go there. Right.

[19:52] >> Excuse me, chair, can I ask

[19:55] a question? Barry, I the reason

[19:57] I brought that up is, you know,

[20:01] I in my mind permitting of the

[20:03] dock is very similar to

[20:05] permitting a house on a lot and

[20:07] I don't unless it's required by

[20:09] the Army Corps that that

[20:11] department handle these permits

[20:13] for docks. I don't see why our

[20:16] building division can't handle

[20:17] permits for docks. They. They

[20:20] have they have everything in

[20:23] place to do it. It's. They need

[20:24] surveys. They need a plan. They

[20:26] need design. They check the

[20:27] setbacks. They check the zoning.

[20:29] Why do we have to have a

[20:32] separate department? That's a

[20:33] tiny little department and

[20:34] public works handling such a

[20:35] vital.

[20:37] >> Well, first they do all the

[20:38] navigational stuff out on the

[20:39] waterways too.

[20:40] >> But I don't want them.

[20:41] >> To do that. I'll let. I'll

[20:43] let Joe or Kelly come up and

[20:45] and explain that the difference.

[20:46] But even if we put it over

[20:49] there, the workload you we get

[20:51] complaints from you because you

[20:52] get them from your constituents

[20:54] over the time it takes to get

[20:55] permits out now.

[20:56] >> All the time, all the time.

[20:58] And that's one of the reasons I

[21:00] like the idea of moving it to

[21:01] the building department.

[21:02] >> Again, if if our permit

[21:04] people are busy, I can't add an

[21:06] additional workload on them

[21:07] without delaying permits. And

[21:11] so if in fact, we, we we want

[21:13] to move those people over. I

[21:15] need the people to go with it

[21:16] or there's going to be a delay

[21:18] either on docks or on our

[21:19] regular permit activity. Either

[21:21] way, if they're busy. But let

[21:22] let Kelly explain the

[21:24] difference on on the activity

[21:26] itself first. Okay.

[21:27] >> And I do want to say we have

[21:30] a permit dashboard on our

[21:32] website live, and we are

[21:33] meeting all the permitting

[21:35] targets. I have received

[21:37] numerous. I know that sometimes

[21:38] when you get the emails,

[21:40] they're the the negative side.

[21:41] But you know, I forward all the

[21:43] the good ones over to Jill so

[21:45] that she knows that equally,

[21:46] we're getting positive feedback

[21:49] as well. So I do want to put

[21:50] that out there for our staff

[21:52] who are working really hard,

[21:54] but they have their very

[21:55] specialized. A lot of what

[21:57] we're looking at is it doesn't

[21:59] pertain to a parcel or the

[22:01] zoning or anything on the

[22:02] upland side. It's not land

[22:04] development code. What we're

[22:06] looking at is navigability. We

[22:07] have to look at the

[22:09] environmental aspects of that.

[22:11] We have the Army Corps of

[22:13] Engineer delegation, so we have

[22:14] to check all those boxes. And

[22:16] that's a service that the that

[22:18] the marine contractors actually

[22:20] asked us to get the delegation,

[22:21] because the permitting from the

[22:22] Army Corps can take an

[22:24] extensive amount of time, as

[22:26] anyone knows. I mean, minimum

[22:28] permit timeline for from the

[22:29] Corps for a single family dock

[22:30] is somewhere between six months

[22:32] and a year. We're doing it at

[22:33] the same time, and we're

[22:36] getting it done in a few weeks

[22:39] to less than a month. So we are

[22:41] able to do both our own

[22:43] internal navigability reviews,

[22:46] our own internal code reviews

[22:47] that we have to check those

[22:48] boxes, as well as doing the

[22:50] Army Corps review at the exact

[22:53] same time. There's also

[22:54] efficiencies in that when

[22:55] they're in the water, it

[22:57] obviously requires equipment,

[22:59] and we have other people who do

[23:00] similarly situated work and

[23:02] they share the equipment, they

[23:04] share the boats, they share

[23:05] those things that they need

[23:07] with those same groups so that

[23:09] there's an efficiency there.

[23:10] They also share the vehicles

[23:12] and stuff. So there's an

[23:13] efficiency there. Barry

[23:17] mentioned we maintain about

[23:19] 1200 aids to navigation and

[23:23] boater zones for speed and and

[23:24] other and wakes and those types

[23:26] of things. And these staff work.

[23:28] We have one person who kind of

[23:29] coordinates the permitting and

[23:30] the maintenance work, but he

[23:32] can't be out there by himself.

[23:33] He needs those staff to come

[23:36] out with him to help do that

[23:37] work. So it's a it's a combined

[23:42] effort. They're they're a team.

[23:44] We also do the, the dredge and

[23:47] fill permits. We do a handful

[23:49] of, of we have the state

[23:50] delegated authority for

[23:52] mangroves. Again, another

[23:53] specialized area. But I mean,

[23:54] in the grand scheme of things,

[23:56] we do maybe less than a dozen

[23:58] of those a year, really. The

[24:00] core, the core permitting work

[24:02] that we do is with regard to

[24:04] docks and dredge and fill. It

[24:06] is not the same as being a

[24:07] building inspector. We also

[24:09] have two marine contract

[24:11] inspectors who it's again, a

[24:12] specialized area of

[24:13] construction where they go out

[24:15] and they do all the

[24:16] post-construction inspections,

[24:17] make sure everything was was

[24:20] built as it was supposed to be.

[24:22] So it is a specialized area of

[24:24] work. The workload is we're

[24:26] full. I mean, they're still

[24:28] working overtime to make sure

[24:29] that we can hit the permitting

[24:31] milestones. And when

[24:34] contractors call us and they do

[24:36] to say, hey, you know what? I'm

[24:39] running out of work. Can you

[24:41] help me? I got to keep this

[24:43] crew busy. Can you move this?

[24:45] Where's this permit for me? And

[24:47] we've done that, and I've had

[24:48] them call me personally and say,

[24:50] I really appreciate your staff

[24:51] doing that to help me keep my

[24:53] crews busy. I know you guys

[24:54] don't always hear all that

[24:58] stuff, but I do, and Jill does.

[25:00] And our, our staff is, is

[25:02] working really hard to, to

[25:05] improve their efficiencies, to

[25:06] put out to be very transparent

[25:08] with their review timelines and

[25:10] even improve upon where they're

[25:14] going. Thank you. Jill. We're

[25:16] also county wide, so we work

[25:18] well beyond the unincorporated

[25:20] area. We work within all the

[25:21] jurisdictions that have

[25:23] navigable waters. And so we're

[25:25] also coordinating with those

[25:27] cities to make sure that, you

[25:29] know, sometimes they have very

[25:30] specialized things in place.

[25:32] And so we have to work with

[25:33] them and work and to ensure

[25:35] that what we're approving is

[25:37] not in conflict, conflict with

[25:39] with something that they have

[25:41] on the books. So it's, it's,

[25:42] there's a lot of coordination

[25:44] between our staff, the

[25:45] contractors, the cities, the

[25:47] Army Corps, dep. It is a it is

[25:52] a very complex program.

[25:55] >> Yes. How many full time

[25:57] permit techs do you have for

[25:59] docks or do you do they do both.

[26:00] Do they do the.

[26:02] >> They do the org chart that i

[26:04] provided you that I circled

[26:05] that they all do.

[26:07] >> I couldn't figure out whose

[26:09] responsibility was what on that

[26:10] chart. It didn't really say

[26:12] their do dock permits. They do

[26:12] channel permits.

[26:14] >> They do. They do. There's no

[26:16] there is no they don't. We

[26:17] don't break them up. They all

[26:19] do everything. We have two

[26:20] people who came over from the

[26:23] clerk. So the county this is a

[26:26] charter authority. We are we

[26:27] are the county wide water and

[26:30] Navigation Control Authority.

[26:32] It's part of our charter. And

[26:36] so back in the 1950s, I think

[26:38] when this was first implemented,

[26:40] the clerk of court actually did

[26:43] the intake and had been doing

[26:45] that for a very long time. And

[26:47] a year ago, we found an

[26:50] opportunity for efficiency for

[26:52] the clerk was was doing it with

[26:54] three people. We pulled over

[26:57] two positions from the clerk

[26:59] and streamlined the process,

[27:00] looked at how we could use a

[27:02] Cela better. And so now we've

[27:03] got two people who handle

[27:05] intake, and the rest of them

[27:06] all do all sorts of permitting.

[27:08] They do all of it. They do the

[27:10] dredge and fill. They do docks.

[27:11] They do multi, multi use docks.

[27:14] They do marinas, they do

[27:15] mangroves. They do all of it.

[27:18] All of them do all of it.

[27:20] >> And does the Army Corps of

[27:21] Engineers require your

[27:23] department handle the

[27:25] permitting or.

[27:26] >> They require the conditions

[27:29] of the sa96 agreement to be in

[27:31] place. Which means you have to

[27:32] you know, you have to be you

[27:34] have to have the expertise to

[27:36] be able to to do those reviews

[27:38] with regard to corals and, and

[27:40] other natural resources. But no,

[27:42] they don't require it. They

[27:43] require the expertise.

[27:45] >> And do they do they require

[27:47] inspections that you were

[27:48] describing by going out with

[27:48] the boat?

[27:50] >> Yes, they absolutely do.

[27:52] >> And that's why we don't. I

[27:53] mean, we have an agreement with

[27:55] them. So we wouldn't have we

[27:57] could cancel that. It it's in

[27:58] our charter. No violation of

[27:59] the charter.

[28:00] >> I.

[28:01] >> That would then delay

[28:02] everything for.

[28:03] >> I actually asked for a copy

[28:05] of the agreement, and I'm not

[28:06] throwing you under the bus. I

[28:08] just haven't had it. I don't

[28:10] have it yet. So I didn't have a

[28:11] chance to read it. But yeah.

[28:13] >> But it is a delegated

[28:13] authority.

[28:14] >> From the Corps. But they

[28:16] actually require you to go out

[28:17] and do on site inspections

[28:18] under the docks.

[28:20] >> They require us to look for

[28:21] all of those things. I know

[28:22] you're very busy, but in

[28:24] JANUARY I did send over. You

[28:25] would thought you would

[28:26] initially wanted to talk with

[28:28] the Corps, and I sent over our

[28:29] agreement and our checklist.

[28:30] Their checklist. I mean, it's

[28:32] an Army Corps checklist. And so

[28:33] it it very clearly identifies

[28:35] all of the things that we are

[28:39] required to look for. So yes.

[28:41] >> But you know, to your point,

[28:43] it's, it's really how do we not

[28:45] make this a general fund

[28:46] expense? The way to do that

[28:48] would be to charge permit fees

[28:50] at equal the cost of providing

[28:51] the service.

[28:52] >> I wasn't looking at raising

[28:54] fees. I was looking at reducing

[28:54] costs.

[28:57] >> But that's. Yeah. So there's

[28:58] and we couldn't and we can't

[29:00] use building permit fees for

[29:02] providing that work. That would

[29:04] be illegal. I mean, you can't

[29:05] your building permit fees are

[29:07] restricted to those building

[29:09] functions. And so it would have

[29:10] to be navigable fees or general

[29:12] fund either way. So that cost

[29:13] differential would still have

[29:15] to be assumed by the general

[29:18] fund. But we could increase the

[29:19] fees. And that's something we

[29:21] can look at. I we just put it

[29:22] in here that if we phased them

[29:24] in over three years, and I

[29:25] think from from what Kelly and

[29:27] Jill said, there's general

[29:28] consensus that we probably need

[29:29] to look at the fees, even with

[29:30] the contractors, because they

[29:32] want the service they want.

[29:33] They want that timely

[29:34] turnaround. That's way more

[29:36] important than, than the fee.

[29:38] But but they also, I'm sure,

[29:39] would object to too much of an

[29:41] increase at once. So that's

[29:42] just something we have to keep

[29:44] in mind. We put that in here

[29:45] that this is a possibility. We

[29:47] could do it over three years.

[29:48] That's how much it generates.

[29:50] >> Yeah. And we've had just you

[29:51] know, to Barry's point, you

[29:53] know, we've been doing very

[29:56] active engagement with the

[29:57] contractors. My deputy director,

[29:59] Paul, has been going out in the

[30:00] field and actually meeting with

[30:01] them, seeing some of the

[30:02] challenges that they're dealing

[30:04] with. I mean, it's a it's a

[30:05] very complex environment that

[30:06] they got out there, especially

[30:07] when neighbors aren't getting

[30:08] along. And we're trying to

[30:10] thread a needle to make sure

[30:11] that everybody can get what

[30:16] they want, you know? But with

[30:17] regard to the fees, I mean, one

[30:19] of the some of the feedback we

[30:20] got was that your fees aren't

[30:23] the problem, you know, so when,

[30:25] for example, you know, we have

[30:28] a contractor who specializes in

[30:31] high end docks, so he has a

[30:32] problem in that most of his

[30:34] docks are in six figure range.

[30:36] And the city's what they do is

[30:38] you go come in for a permit.

[30:39] All they're looking at is their

[30:42] setbacks and issuing a

[30:43] essentially a building permit.

[30:44] Even though we're doing the

[30:46] construction review. So they

[30:48] charge 10% of that. So they're

[30:51] paying ten grand to the city

[30:52] for a permit and we're charging

[30:54] a thousand bucks.

[30:55] >> Have we looked at third

[30:58] party reviews allowing third

[30:59] party reviews.

[31:00] >> We have looked.

[31:02] >> At so somebody can come in,

[31:05] they'll. Hire a specialist.

[31:05] >> Yeah.

[31:06] >> They're more expensive.

[31:08] >> Well, sure it is, but it's

[31:10] but it's a matter of time. I'm

[31:10] talking about.

[31:12] >> They would be more expensive.

[31:13] And again, the only way we

[31:15] could recoup that is to is to

[31:16] increase the fees or have a

[31:18] bigger impact on the general

[31:20] fund. So again, this is an area

[31:21] that we can talk about. We've

[31:24] put on an idea of a three year

[31:27] phase in, but this is an area

[31:29] we can talk about. So this is

[31:30] this is a ripe area. This is

[31:31] the next area is personnel

[31:35] lapse savings. So so we budget.

[31:37] If your department typically

[31:39] experiences a 5% turnover rate,

[31:41] we've in essence taken that out

[31:43] of your budget. So we'll budget

[31:46] you at 95% of payroll. Okay. So

[31:48] if nobody leaves, then your

[31:49] department's going to be short

[31:51] to meet payroll. Okay. But we

[31:53] typically and so we budget

[31:55] departments something less than

[31:57] 100% of payroll based upon what

[31:58] area it is and what their

[32:00] typical turnover rate is. We

[32:04] keep a, a set aside of $300,000

[32:06] in case any one of those areas,

[32:07] they don't have the turnover

[32:10] that year. And so it's a safety

[32:12] net. We can. But we haven't

[32:13] used it. And so we put that on

[32:15] the table that that's something

[32:17] that you could eliminate. And

[32:19] if we come up short, well then

[32:21] we'll have to go to reserves to

[32:23] to make them whole, you know,

[32:26] because it's a guess right on,

[32:27] on how much turnover is going

[32:29] to be. So that's an area that

[32:31] we could also look at. And then

[32:32] the final the final piece on

[32:35] the top chart is something that

[32:37] it's all near and dear to our

[32:38] heart, because we think Kelly

[32:40] and her team have done an

[32:42] amazing job at bringing our

[32:43] infrastructure back into a

[32:44] decent state of repair. But,

[32:46] but we're not there yet. But

[32:48] and that is in the third

[32:49] millage. So the third millage

[32:51] is what they have it targeted

[32:53] towards towards resurfacing.

[32:55] They have it targeted towards

[32:57] boxcar culverts and and various

[32:59] things like that. I'm

[33:01] particularly concerned about

[33:03] bridges. But, but we've, we've

[33:05] transferred a lot of money for

[33:06] those three increments to try

[33:08] to get caught up, if you recall,

[33:10] not to beat a dead horse, but

[33:12] before you had those increments,

[33:14] we had 1200 miles of roads that

[33:16] were in d or f condition. We

[33:17] were not doing local roads.

[33:19] They were not doing

[33:20] neighborhood roads. Today it's

[33:24] less than 200 miles, I believe.

[33:27] Kelly. Yes. Around there. So

[33:28] we've we've made a significant

[33:30] impact. The, the and that's

[33:32] because we could get out and do

[33:33] resurfacing pretty easy. When

[33:34] you have to reconstruct a road,

[33:36] it takes a long time. Now you

[33:37] have to get drainage and you

[33:39] have to address those things.

[33:40] And, and in particular, when

[33:41] you get into box culverts or

[33:43] things like that, it's a lot

[33:44] more involved and requires

[33:45] engineering and takes years to,

[33:47] to complete. Same thing with

[33:49] bridges typically, especially

[33:50] in some of these neighborhoods,

[33:51] as you well know, and you've

[33:53] heard as we've done bridges,

[33:54] you, you know, Don's out there

[33:56] trying to trying to get

[33:58] easements, trying to be able to

[33:59] reconstruct and things like

[34:00] that. So it takes longer and,

[34:02] and calling them typically go

[34:04] after grants for those types of,

[34:07] of projects. So our money is

[34:08] matched to, to do the local

[34:10] match for those. So we've made

[34:12] a lot of progress, but it is an

[34:14] area that if you want to

[34:15] provide property tax relief,

[34:17] this is an area where we could

[34:18] we could curb that back. So we

[34:20] put on for discussion that we

[34:22] could take half of the third

[34:23] millage, which is about 3

[34:24] million.

[34:26] >> Could you explain the 3

[34:26] million?

[34:28] >> So you have three different

[34:29] mills. Millages the first

[34:36] millage was to stabilize. Okay.

[34:37] You caught me with something I

[34:39] wasn't prepared for, but Chris

[34:42] has got an answer here. So the

[34:44] three the three mills, the

[34:46] first millage, it was a

[34:47] stabilization. The

[34:49] Transportation Trust fund was

[34:51] not keeping pace because that's

[34:54] your gas tax. Gas tax is flat.

[34:55] Costs go up. It does less and

[34:57] less each year. So the first

[35:00] was a catch up. And how much is

[35:03] that. Kelly can probably tell

[35:06] me.

[35:09] >> All three were 0.42. Right.

[35:18] All three mills were.

[35:19] >> I don't remember how much

[35:22] the first one is. It's like 6

[35:23] or 8 million.

[35:24] >> I amount and the millage

[35:28] rate please.

[35:29] >> Here, I'll let Chris answer

[35:31] this. Well.

[35:35] >> The the first millage is

[35:38] 0.1279 mills. And that in 27

[35:42] equates to 17.9 almost $18

[35:47] million. The second millage is

[35:51] 0.1752, and that equates to

[35:53] $24.6 million. And then the

[35:54] third millage, the one we're

[35:58] talking about, is 0.0281. And

[36:02] that is equivalent to $3.064

[36:02] million.

[36:04] >> Okay. Now go. I'm sorry. I

[36:05] just wanted to get that context.

[36:07] And maybe you talk about that

[36:08] first one. That was a

[36:10] stabilization effort because of

[36:11] the gas.

[36:12] >> Tax and the stabilization

[36:14] was to otherwise, the

[36:15] Transportation Trust fund was

[36:17] going to run out of money. So

[36:19] if you go back to when we were

[36:20] talking about this and 19 and

[36:23] 20, they that that that

[36:24] transportation trust fund was

[36:26] going to be out of money. And

[36:27] so this was to stabilize that

[36:29] to where we wouldn't, we

[36:31] wouldn't exceed. And we would

[36:32] basically have to start taking

[36:34] off projects and even or even

[36:36] maintaining the roadways. So,

[36:38] so that was the stabilization.

[36:39] The next one was really to get

[36:40] caught up on roads. And the

[36:43] third one was get caught up on

[36:44] roads and bridges. But you know,

[36:46] we've made a lot of progress.

[36:47] You're always going to have a

[36:49] couple of hundred miles of

[36:50] roads because they're not ready

[36:52] to be repaved. Right. They some

[36:53] last longer than others and

[36:54] things like that. So you always

[36:56] have. We're in a pretty good

[36:58] spot, I think with roads. We.

[36:59] And again, as you can see on

[37:00] the list, she's got you know,

[37:02] she's got $1 million, you know,

[37:03] planned for this year. And this

[37:08] is a it's 4.2 lane miles that

[37:10] that was what we would pay for

[37:11] out of that money. But again,

[37:14] we can we can just plan for

[37:15] that in a future year, along

[37:16] with all the other road

[37:19] projects that we have. So we've

[37:20] targeted a million and a half.

[37:22] So half of that millage, that's

[37:24] a trade off. It's a trade off

[37:25] between that and providing

[37:28] property tax rate relief.

[37:29] >> Second and third. The second

[37:30] and third millage are all for

[37:32] the neighborhood and local

[37:32] roads.

[37:33] >> And bridges.

[37:35] >> And bridges.

[37:37] >> And sidewalks. Yeah.

[37:39] Sidewalks to and if you recall,

[37:41] if you recall back when we

[37:42] started this, I think our

[37:43] CHAIRMAN Was out running and

[37:47] tripping on sidewalks and, and.

[37:47] >> Yeah, that was, that was

[37:49] during the Covid when we were

[37:51] all doing things. And I was out

[37:52] reporting on every nook and

[37:53] cranny that we had.

[37:55] >> He did in real time

[37:57] sometimes, you know, but but

[38:00] that's where it took us 625

[38:04] days. Okay. To fix a sidewalk

[38:06] when it was identified. That's

[38:07] how long it took before we

[38:09] actually repaired it. And, and

[38:13] so that these funds went to

[38:14] catching up and then

[38:16] maintaining that. So that

[38:17] include included both a catch

[38:19] up period where we got

[38:20] contractors on board and we got

[38:22] caught up. And it also current

[38:23] crews that we have on an

[38:26] ongoing basis now that respond

[38:29] to trip and falls, changes in

[38:30] sidewalks and repaving

[38:32] sidewalks to keep them in a

[38:33] decent state of repair.

[38:36] >> And so the second mill for

[38:39] 24.6 million is primarily roads.

[38:41] >> Roads and sidewalks and all

[38:41] combined.

[38:43] >> Okay. And the last one

[38:45] separate is just additional

[38:47] roads, bridges and sidewalks,

[38:51] just additional funds. Both.

[38:54] >> Yeah. And box culverts.

[38:55] She's got them segregated, but

[38:57] they're interchangeable. I mean,

[39:00] you know, so we it's it's an

[39:01] infrastructure repair fund is

[39:02] what it is.

[39:04] >> All of the, all of the penny

[39:05] dollars are going for more of

[39:07] our collector roads and our

[39:10] main roads. Yeah. Projects.

[39:12] >> Yeah, exactly. And, and that

[39:14] was the choice. I mean, you

[39:18] know, you again, before they,

[39:20] they looked at what we had in

[39:21] the penny and they looked at

[39:22] what was coming into the

[39:23] Transportation Trust fund. And

[39:25] then they just established the

[39:26] highest priority. And so if you

[39:28] have a neighborhood street,

[39:30] okay, or you have Belcher, well,

[39:31] then, you know, you're going to

[39:33] choose. Belcher because of the

[39:35] volume of traffic and the

[39:36] impact it has on the community.

[39:37] And so they were just

[39:38] constantly making choices to

[39:40] address the highest priority

[39:41] need, not necessarily getting

[39:43] caught up. This has allowed us

[39:44] to really actually maintain the

[39:47] roads and pave them at the

[39:48] right time, versus seeing them

[39:50] deteriorate to where you get

[39:51] into a state where you have to

[39:53] reconstruct them.

[39:54] >> Yeah. Commissioner Nowicki,

[39:55] you had a.

[39:57] >> Thank you chair. You know,

[39:58] these three millages are

[39:59] obviously a lot of money, and

[40:01] the county has done a really

[40:02] great job. It sounds like of,

[40:04] you know, getting from 1200

[40:07] miles to 200 miles worth of

[40:10] roads and hundreds of miles of

[40:11] sidewalk down to just, you know,

[40:13] a few sidewalks. I mean, can we

[40:17] get like a report showing like

[40:19] when we started, you know,

[40:20] halfway through and where we're

[40:22] at now? I mean, because I just

[40:23] don't understand how we have to

[40:24] be collecting the same amount

[40:27] of money, but we're not doing

[40:28] 1200 miles of roads anymore.

[40:30] >> We, we provided a report

[40:32] back in APRIL. I think it was

[40:33] that where we and Kelly has a

[40:35] live dashboard. So you can see

[40:37] that. So we're getting there

[40:38] and we'll we'll push that back

[40:40] out to you. Yeah. You know yeah.

[40:41] >> Because I mean, if.

[40:43] >> We're able to provide this

[40:44] information, we're getting

[40:45] there. But I will tell you,

[40:46] when we started, what did

[40:48] Elaine Mile Road cost and what

[40:50] does it cost today? It's also,

[40:52] you know, more than doubled in

[40:55] price. And so there's a lot of

[40:57] factors that go into that. But,

[40:58] you know, it has been a very

[41:00] good fund, but we're still not

[41:02] caught up. And so we'll.

[41:03] >> Never be.

[41:04] >> You said and I said.

[41:06] >> We'll always have a few

[41:06] hundred miles.

[41:08] >> We will. But and it's and

[41:09] it's a very fair question,

[41:11] Commissioner. I mean, it is a

[41:12] very fair question. I've asked

[41:13] Kelly that same thing. You know,

[41:15] when when can we see a less

[41:16] reliance on that general fund?

[41:18] And and we're getting there.

[41:19] And that's the reason we've put

[41:21] on that increment as a start of

[41:22] that discussion.

[41:22] >> I appreciate it.

[41:24] >> I would imagine ongoing

[41:25] every year, additional roads

[41:27] come onto the we need to get

[41:29] them fixed. So we're always

[41:31] kind of going through this, the

[41:35] loop every 15 years or so.

[41:37] >> And you know, the, the, the

[41:39] issues with culverts and

[41:40] drainage ways and bridges,

[41:41] those are those are just longer

[41:43] lead items. And so we only

[41:45] started this about what, 4 or 5

[41:46] years ago. And so we've, you

[41:49] know, resurfacing is easy. It's

[41:50] more it's more complex when you

[41:52] get into drainage and things

[41:52] like.

[41:54] >> That, then the bridges

[41:55] themselves. Are we getting

[41:56] money from the penny for

[41:58] bridges? It's not just this,

[42:01] it's not just this millage.

[42:04] >> It's bridges usually require

[42:06] multiple sources of funds. And

[42:11] so my guess is, I mean. I can't

[42:12] understand you, Kelly. So come

[42:16] on up.

[42:17] >> Replacement bridges

[42:18] independent.

[42:21] >> So we use penny to replace

[42:23] bridges but not to maintain. So

[42:25] the clerk has a very specific

[42:26] definition of what a capital

[42:28] investment is in a bridge. And

[42:30] therefore maintenance items

[42:32] even though they MAY be very

[42:33] expensive don't trigger capital.

[42:34] Like for example, we're getting

[42:36] ready to do about two and a

[42:38] half between two and a half and

[42:39] $3 million worth of maintenance

[42:40] on the Dunedin Causeway, and we

[42:42] can't use penny for that. We're

[42:44] using this money for that.

[42:44] >> Oh, okay.

[42:45] >> Yeah.

[42:47] >> And and okay.

[42:49] >> All right.

[42:52] >> Thanks. Commissioner. Scott,

[42:54] do you have a question? Hold on.

[42:57] Did you finish Commissioner

[42:57] Scott?

[42:59] >> Thank you, MR. CHAIRMAN. Is

[43:00] that because of the ballot

[43:02] language that we used last time

[43:04] for for Penny specifically or.

[43:06] >> Yeah, it's it's the penny by

[43:08] state statute is for brick and

[43:10] mortar infrastructure, not

[43:11] operations, not maintenance.

[43:13] >> Okay. So it's not so we

[43:14] couldn't like, if we wanted to

[43:16] change the ballot language

[43:17] going forward, that wouldn't

[43:18] change that.

[43:20] >> We could look into it, but

[43:22] probably not.

[43:24] >> So if you were just repaving

[43:25] the road, that's maintenance.

[43:27] And that's why we have this

[43:28] additional fund. If the roads

[43:30] get so bad that you're having

[43:32] to redo the roads, reconstruct

[43:34] the roads. Is that capital?

[43:37] >> Yes, that's I'm looking at

[43:38] Kelly nodding. Yes.

[43:39] >> Okay. So those roads, those

[43:42] those those those roads would

[43:44] probably be eligible for penny.

[43:46] The reconstructing the ones

[43:48] that are so bad that we have to

[43:49] reconstruct.

[43:51] >> Resurface.

[43:52] >> Oh, she's saying resurfacing

[43:54] is capital resurfacing. So we

[43:55] have we have flexibility there.

[43:56] Okay.

[43:57] >> But didn't that mean. But

[43:58] again you've got three

[43:59] different things.

[44:00] >> You have Penny, you have the

[44:02] gas tax. Okay. And then now you

[44:04] have these increments. So a

[44:05] little bit different

[44:06] definitions on some, but not

[44:10] all. Okay. But but we've put on

[44:11] the third millage to try. I

[44:13] mean, because this is there's

[44:14] no right or wrong answer. This

[44:16] is a balance on how much do you

[44:17] put into infrastructure. How

[44:19] much do you put on trying to,

[44:21] you know, ease the rate. But if

[44:23] you look at the yellow and the

[44:24] items that we've identified in

[44:27] the orange, that would get you

[44:31] to 50% of a of a rollback. And,

[44:33] and I've heard pretty clearly

[44:35] from the board of your desire,

[44:37] you know, to do this. So that's

[44:39] the reason we kind of come up

[44:40] with these ideas for discussion

[44:42] on today. And I'm going to I'm

[44:44] going to get to the end here.

[44:45] And then, you know, turn that

[44:47] back to you to where you can

[44:48] have these future.

[44:49] >> Further discussion. Very

[44:50] mechanically, I'm trying to get

[44:52] wrap my head around the the

[44:53] third millage. Are you

[44:54] proposing to reduce those

[44:56] millage or use the revenues to

[44:58] offset general fund to send it

[44:58] to general funds?

[45:00] >> What we would do, we would

[45:02] only transfer half of that

[45:03] millage amount, and then that

[45:05] would enable you to do a

[45:07] property tax rate reduction.

[45:09] >> Okay. So you would hold that.

[45:12] Okay. Yeah. And so but there'll

[45:16] still be like $30 million and

[45:17] those, those coming in.

[45:18] >> Oh yeah. Yeah, we're only

[45:19] reducing it down by.

[45:20] >> There's still a ton coming

[45:22] in for those projects, but we

[45:25] just hold a million. Five.

[45:26] Correct.

[45:26] >> 40 million.

[45:27] >> Yeah.

[45:29] >> I didn't get the last number

[45:30] written down. So I was just

[45:31] estimating from what I heard.

[45:33] So what's that. 17. So 40

[45:34] million is still coming forward.

[45:35] Yeah.

[45:36] >> So it's it's still a

[45:39] tremendous amount of money. So

[45:41] 45.7 is the total. So you'd be

[45:42] reducing it by a man and a half.

[45:44] >> As long as we're on it. I

[45:46] don't think that's a problem

[45:46] for me.

[45:48] >> So okay. So so those are

[45:49] just again these are just

[45:50] discussion points for you.

[45:51] We've heard you, we've trying

[45:53] to trying to respond to that.

[45:55] And we went back and looked at

[45:56] our budgets, you know, to try

[45:58] to do that. Now to go further

[46:01] than that, it gets more dicey.

[46:02] And we really got to start

[46:05] looking at programs. And so

[46:06] there we've talked about and,

[46:08] you know, you've heard, you

[46:09] know, the sheriff, he opposes

[46:11] this. But I, you know, again,

[46:12] everything should be on the

[46:15] table is what I've heard. So

[46:17] sheriff's, you know, 45% of our

[46:19] budget of our general fund

[46:21] budget. And so if we get if we

[46:22] get more than that, then then

[46:24] he needs to be part of that

[46:26] solution. And so that would be.

[46:27] And that's where we go to the

[46:29] green, where we would ask the

[46:30] sheriff to contribute. That'd

[46:31] be 2.8 million. And how he

[46:33] figures what he chooses to do

[46:34] is, is up to him.

[46:37] >> And that's just for context.

[46:39] Again, his budget went up a

[46:41] certain amount this year in his

[46:42] first proposed budget. And then

[46:44] he's brought it back down.

[46:46] >> Yeah. His budget went up 29.

[46:47] >> In the original.

[46:49] >> In the original was 29. And

[46:51] then with and then we asked him

[46:52] to reduce it and he come down.

[46:54] Seven. So it's still about 22.

[46:56] >> About 22 and this would come

[46:57] off of that.

[46:58] >> 22 this would be more. Yes,

[47:00] we'd be asking for additional

[47:00] amounts.

[47:02] >> Okay. Just want to make sure

[47:03] I'm clear. Go ahead.

[47:05] >> And so then that would get

[47:06] you to 75% of a rollback. And

[47:08] then to get to 100% rollback,

[47:09] my recommendation, we'd have to

[47:11] really look at programs. I've

[47:12] listed out programs here and

[47:13] you know, things like our bake

[47:15] care home care program, that's

[47:17] 100,000, the social action

[47:18] funding. That's the piece that

[47:21] we are recommending we keep,

[47:22] which is ongoing programs, is

[47:26] 600 000 is our Scattered Sites

[47:28] program. It's support services

[47:29] that people that have

[47:30] experienced chronic

[47:31] homelessness and trying to keep

[47:33] them into stable housing. And

[47:36] so again, that's a program that

[47:38] we Karen supports. She thinks

[47:41] it has good measurable outcomes,

[47:42] but it's not something we have

[47:44] to do. And so we could

[47:46] eliminate that. We put on the

[47:48] act. That's that's small, but

[47:50] that's a, that's a, a, a, these

[47:52] are the types of things that we

[47:53] don't have to do. And so, you

[47:55] know, we're just listing out

[47:56] different ideas, animal

[48:02] services. We do the. Capture

[48:03] spayed and release. I forget

[48:06] the terminology. And then and

[48:07] then additional parts of the

[48:10] third millage we would need to.

[48:12] And so we have those ideas.

[48:13] There are other ideas, but

[48:14] they're programmatic. You know,

[48:16] do you want, you know, do you

[48:18] know, what do we want to cut

[48:18] programmatically because it

[48:20] needs to be sustainable,

[48:22] ongoing cost if we're going to

[48:24] adjust, but we can get you

[48:25] there. We've looked and pushed

[48:27] our departments just to remind

[48:28] you, I mean, if you look back

[48:31] on your second page, you know,

[48:34] the, our over the last, you

[48:36] know, what, you know, five, six,

[48:37] seven years, your county

[48:38] administrative departments, a

[48:41] total of 5.6%. The growth is in

[48:43] the sheriff's office. It's all

[48:44] people based. You've heard him

[48:47] before, you know, and and so

[48:49] that's a and that's also the

[48:51] largest share of your budget.

[48:53] If you go to the third page

[48:56] that shows you in real dollars

[48:58] 26 to 27, the departments that

[49:00] report to you there. I mean,

[49:02] we're, we're down, you know,

[49:04] we're and we've tried to hold

[49:05] the line. And then the last

[49:07] page kind of kind of shows you

[49:10] that in real dollars. So again,

[49:11] this is just additional

[49:13] information for your

[49:15] consideration with that. That

[49:18] concludes my presentation.

[49:19] >> All of these, all of these

[49:20] reductions that we're talking

[49:23] about, they're all ongoing

[49:25] monies that's ongoing relief as

[49:28] opposed to looking at that last

[49:30] page real quick. And I

[49:31] apologize for being late. And

[49:33] thank you, Commissioner, for

[49:36] for standing in. So I MAY be

[49:37] saying something you guys have

[49:39] already talked about, but I'm

[49:41] seeing things like a reserve

[49:43] change. That's just really a

[49:45] one time.

[49:46] >> Well, the reserve. So again,

[49:50] we, we, we've, we've, so we had

[49:54] the 4.7 of reserves. These were

[49:56] dedicated reserves, not real

[49:57] reserves. We want to keep our

[49:58] reserve levels the same, but we

[50:00] want to take the 4.7 and put it

[50:02] towards a future bond payment

[50:03] for the new campus. We need to

[50:05] prepare for that. However, I

[50:07] also heard you loud and clear

[50:09] that you don't want to do the

[50:10] recommended changes to Wheaton

[50:12] Island. So then that 4.7 goes

[50:14] to about 4.2. Right? And so we

[50:17] would transfer that amount over

[50:18] restore Wheaton Island cuts for

[50:20] one year, which is what I think

[50:22] you directed while we try to

[50:24] work with the state. And then

[50:25] and we would transfer the

[50:26] remaining amount towards that

[50:28] future bond payment. So that's

[50:30] the transfers hold, hold steady.

[50:32] And then any of these other

[50:34] reductions are things that are

[50:36] ongoing. So if you eliminate a

[50:37] program, well then you don't

[50:38] have that cost next year either.

[50:40] And so it's sustainable year

[50:41] after year. So any of the

[50:42] proposed recommendations we

[50:44] have in here are sustainable

[50:46] year after year.

[50:46] >> Okay.

[50:49] >> All right. Thank you. Yes,

[50:51] Commissioner flowers.

[50:52] >> Thank you, MR. Chair. Thank

[50:54] you very much, Barry and Chris

[50:56] and staff, for bringing this

[50:59] information forward. Kelly, I

[51:00] bet she feels like she's on

[51:04] Name That Tune today for the

[51:07] docks and Davits or any dock

[51:10] reconstruction. Were there any

[51:14] new rules that came out for

[51:15] construction and maintenance of

[51:18] those as it relates to

[51:20] Hurricane Selina and Milton

[51:22] because of the severe damage?

[51:23] And just like they are

[51:25] requiring homes to be built up

[51:26] and above, were there any new

[51:29] requirements added to the

[51:30] installation and maintenance of

[51:32] docks? When it comes to the

[51:33] permitting piece?

[51:35] >> No. As a matter of fact,

[51:37] during the after those events,

[51:39] we waived all the permitting

[51:43] fees. And so, you know, we were

[51:45] just they come in and just let

[51:46] us know that we're just putting

[51:48] it back as is. And then we

[51:49] would update the system. So we

[51:51] waived all that. But our

[51:52] regulations, no, they changed.

[51:55] I will say the the docks and

[51:57] stuff that we're working on for

[51:59] the Parks Department. Yes. We

[52:01] have to build them to a higher

[52:01] standard.

[52:05] >> Okay, that was my point. And

[52:06] so thank you. That was for you.

[52:07] Thank you very much. I

[52:10] appreciate it, Barry, for the

[52:12] personnel lapse. I get it that,

[52:14] you know, we do have ebbs and

[52:15] flows within personnel within a

[52:19] year. So there MAY be more

[52:20] there MAY be fewer dollars

[52:22] needed to cover personnel costs.

[52:26] So when you have your. When you

[52:28] have your exercise for the

[52:31] different departments to do the

[52:33] internal reductions of 3%. And

[52:36] if a department fills that

[52:38] position, how will that be

[52:39] addressed going forward for the

[52:41] next fiscal year?

[52:43] >> Well, we do a we don't

[52:44] address it by specific

[52:46] positions. We look at at, you

[52:48] know, multi year turnover rates

[52:50] within a department. Different

[52:52] ones will have different levels

[52:53] of turnover. There MAY be a

[52:54] really small department where

[52:56] they don't have a lot of

[52:57] turnover. We MAY budget them at

[52:59] 100%. And so they MAY actually

[53:00] have somebody leave. But we

[53:01] don't necessarily budget that.

[53:03] But like a Kelly's department

[53:05] where you have a lot of

[53:06] different positions that have

[53:07] turnover, where then we're

[53:09] going to look at over over

[53:10] several years, what's the

[53:12] average amount of turnover? And

[53:14] then we'll reduce that amount

[53:16] out of the budgeted salaries.

[53:18] And so those are incorporated

[53:19] into the budget recommendations

[53:21] that you have before you.

[53:22] >> Okay. And so that has no

[53:24] effect on the 50 plus county

[53:26] positions that you presented to

[53:26] us.

[53:28] >> No, those were those

[53:29] positions. And okay.

[53:31] >> Yeah, we, we, we, we looked

[53:32] at the positions that we could

[53:34] reduce down. That's how we got

[53:35] to where we're multi-million

[53:37] dollar down for the department

[53:39] to report to you. So, you know,

[53:41] we, we looked at those targeted

[53:44] positions and said that we can

[53:46] reorganize and find

[53:47] efficiencies and do without

[53:49] those positions on an ongoing

[53:50] basis. So those were already

[53:52] baked into the recommendations

[53:54] that are before you. On top of

[53:56] that, we also have reduced down

[53:58] the salary vacancy rate.

[54:08] >> Okay. And then. For. The the

[54:12] general fund, because, you know,

[54:13] when we talk about, which I

[54:15] support reducing the dollar

[54:19] value that we pay for any type

[54:22] of possible study, you know, so

[54:25] we're saying if we have to have

[54:26] another study that comes on

[54:27] board because we need sometimes

[54:29] that match to go with other

[54:30] funds. And of course, we

[54:31] sometimes can't move forward on

[54:32] projects until we have the

[54:35] study for the data to show that

[54:36] we can move forward. We have a

[54:38] lot of things that MAY

[54:40] potentially have to come out of

[54:43] the general fund. And so do you

[54:47] feel comfortable with. Some of

[54:50] the things that we're reducing,

[54:52] but saying we MAY have to tap

[54:55] the general fund to provide for

[54:56] those things going forward if

[54:59] we have the need. Do you feel

[54:59] comfortable?

[55:01] >> Yeah, it's it's a hard it's

[55:03] a hard one to answer because

[55:04] you're you're trying to guess

[55:05] what's going to happen over the

[55:08] next, you know, year. Right.

[55:10] And, but, you know, just like

[55:12] last year, I think, you know,

[55:14] we decided to do when we did

[55:15] strategic planning, we

[55:16] typically bring in a consultant

[55:19] and we in this discussion, we

[55:20] said, let's do it ourselves.

[55:21] Right. But I couldn't have

[55:23] predicted that when we did the

[55:25] budget, you know, and so things

[55:26] like that, we're trying to use

[55:28] less consultants and try to be

[55:31] more efficient. But things like

[55:32] the fleet operation, we

[55:34] couldn't do that internally. We

[55:35] needed someone in the potential

[55:37] for for long term savings is

[55:39] great. So there, we needed some

[55:41] outside assistance. So we, we

[55:42] try to make those judgment

[55:44] calls. But each time, you know,

[55:46] we look at particular areas,

[55:47] you know, we'll need that if we

[55:50] exceed the 500, I think the 500

[55:51] 000 is good for an ongoing

[55:53] basis year after year. If for

[55:55] this next year, we have a

[55:56] discussion in here and we want

[55:57] to do something different. Well,

[55:59] we do have reserves. We don't

[56:01] like to tap reserves, but we do

[56:02] have that. If we feel that we

[56:04] need to push something forward

[56:06] and do that. So I'm comfortable

[56:08] with that recommendation.

[56:10] >> Okay. And then if if my

[56:14] memory serves me correct, when

[56:15] Commissioner Scott first came

[56:17] on board, we had a lot of good

[56:17] discussion about the

[56:20] transportation gas tax and what

[56:21] that will be used for and

[56:23] whether or not we could lobby

[56:25] our legislative delegation in

[56:28] that regard. And I think it MAY

[56:30] have been on our I'm going to

[56:32] call it our elevator wish list.

[56:36] Yes. To. So are we looking at

[56:38] maybe. I guess that would be to

[56:39] my colleagues, really? Are we

[56:41] looking at trying to maybe push

[56:43] that again? Because I think

[56:44] that would help us a lot in

[56:45] that area. When we're talking

[56:47] about the different services

[56:49] that are covered or paid for

[56:50] out of that, out of that fund.

[56:52] I know the whole topic was

[56:55] electric cars and gas cars, and

[56:57] it's at the pump and who's

[56:59] paying and how much, you know,

[57:01] with persons now going more

[57:02] towards not everybody, but some

[57:03] people going towards electric

[57:05] cars. So we're not generating

[57:06] revenue off of that. But then

[57:08] the conversation came up,

[57:09] whether or not the legislative

[57:11] delegation would consider

[57:13] taxing electric cars for that.

[57:15] So will that be or is there an

[57:17] interest from us to further

[57:19] that conversation and dialog

[57:22] with the state on that? I

[57:24] remembered way back when.

[57:26] >> Yeah. So I've had quite a

[57:28] bit of discussion with members

[57:29] of our legislative delegation

[57:32] about that. And I, I feel like

[57:34] they've got a real appreciation

[57:35] for the challenges that we're

[57:36] in, particularly with what

[57:38] happens or doesn't happen with

[57:39] amendment three. But I've

[57:40] explained to them several times

[57:43] the $45 million that we're

[57:44] taking from general general

[57:46] fund property tax revenue that

[57:48] would be available to return to

[57:51] the taxpayers. If we had

[57:52] another dial, we could turn or

[57:53] lever lever that that we could

[57:56] pull. So I'm feeling hopeful

[57:58] that there's some that there

[58:00] will be some options for us in

[58:01] this next legislative session

[58:03] for that. And as you're talking,

[58:04] there I was, I was sitting here

[58:06] thinking that, you know, did we

[58:08] if we wanted to take more of

[58:09] that millage away and sort of

[58:11] take a chance that we get that

[58:13] we get something on some relief

[58:15] on the loft going forward? You

[58:17] know, we could always bring

[58:19] this back if we didn't, but

[58:20] we'd be, you know, going out a

[58:22] little bit, a little bit of a

[58:23] financial limb to do that.

[58:25] >> Well, it'd be hard to bring

[58:27] it back because then you'd have

[58:28] to carve it out of something

[58:29] you've already taken off the

[58:30] table.

[58:31] >> But well, we know if

[58:32] amendment three doesn't pass,

[58:34] something else is going to come

[58:35] back around anyway. So that's

[58:37] your to your point. If we take

[58:38] it off, it's probably gone for

[58:38] good.

[58:40] >> And Commissioner, I mean,

[58:41] you know, work with, you know,

[58:42] three different chairmen, okay,

[58:44] that where we've had this

[58:45] discussion and the discussion

[58:47] has always been about if the

[58:49] state would treat us like they

[58:52] treat their own gas tax, they

[58:57] have a, what do we call it, a

[58:59] multiplier. No, it's not a

[59:01] escalator. Yeah. So there

[59:03] there's there's is indexed.

[59:04] Okay. Each and.

[59:05] >> Every year.

[59:06] >> And ours.

[59:07] >> Is not. Ours is not.

[59:09] >> And if they had done, if

[59:11] they had treated us the same 20

[59:12] years ago, you wouldn't even

[59:13] need these increments. So the

[59:15] actions and it goes back to the

[59:16] same discussion we have. The

[59:17] actions of the state are

[59:19] impacting our local taxpayers

[59:22] property taxes. It is no ifs,

[59:25] ands or buts. And this. And so

[59:26] the all three CHAIRMAN And your

[59:28] own legislative program has

[59:30] said, if you give us that index,

[59:32] we'll take 100% of that and

[59:34] reduce our property taxes to

[59:36] reflect that. We won't keep it.

[59:37] We won't. It won't be a shell

[59:39] game. We'll reduce down these

[59:41] increments and return it to the

[59:43] taxpayer. But until we get that

[59:45] legislation, I really recommend

[59:47] that we continue to stay the

[59:47] course.

[59:49] >> But I mean, $45 million is

[59:51] four and a half rollbacks.

[59:52] >> This year. This year.

[59:53] >> Yeah it is. It's a lot of

[59:55] money. I mean, it's significant.

[59:56] It's significant dollars.

[59:57] >> It is.

[59:59] >> So yeah, it's the challenge,

[1:00:01] right? I mean, it makes such

[1:00:03] logical sense because everybody

[1:00:06] is paying for their share of

[1:00:07] infrastructure improvements

[1:00:09] through the gas tax, except

[1:00:10] certain areas, you know, and

[1:00:11] again, I'm not.

[1:00:13] >> And, you know, and if it

[1:00:14] follows like the sales tax,

[1:00:16] that means our visitors are

[1:00:17] paying for our roads.

[1:00:18] >> Right.

[1:00:24] >> And then my last piece is.

[1:00:27] It is so expensive stormwater

[1:00:28] sewer projects and road and

[1:00:31] bridge repairs. Those are the

[1:00:34] two largest, greatest financial

[1:00:36] costs. I think that any local

[1:00:39] government has. And not just

[1:00:41] the cost, but also time and

[1:00:42] inconvenience because we're

[1:00:44] digging up roads or whatever.

[1:00:45] And so we're having to reroute

[1:00:48] people and whatnot. So I know

[1:00:49] that we try to use penny money

[1:00:51] for a lot of projects that we

[1:00:53] can use penny money for. And

[1:00:54] then in other areas, we apply

[1:00:57] for grant funds to try to help

[1:00:58] with that. I'm not sure how

[1:01:00] that's going to pan out, you

[1:01:01] know, going forward, whether

[1:01:02] it's from the state or the

[1:01:03] federal government as it

[1:01:05] relates to what we get. But so

[1:01:08] for me, just for me, I have no

[1:01:10] problem with what you've

[1:01:13] presented. I am, you know, I'm

[1:01:15] a social service girl at heart.

[1:01:17] So I, I still have a little

[1:01:19] heartburn over the Tarpon

[1:01:20] Department of Health, but I

[1:01:22] will I will go ahead and

[1:01:24] support that reduction. But I

[1:01:25] would hope that should there be

[1:01:27] a need or we see an increase in

[1:01:30] numbers because like I said,

[1:01:32] people MAY not necessarily be

[1:01:34] aware like much like we had

[1:01:36] with our other program. And now,

[1:01:37] you know, folks are really into

[1:01:41] it. But once you take something

[1:01:42] away, then all of a sudden it's

[1:01:44] like the, you know, there's

[1:01:46] this light that goes off and

[1:01:47] everyone now wants the service.

[1:01:49] So I would if that need arises,

[1:01:51] I will, I will be asking for us

[1:01:53] to come back and look at

[1:01:54] addressing how we could

[1:01:55] potentially meet that need,

[1:01:56] should the need arise in the

[1:01:59] Tarpon Springs area. But all of

[1:02:01] your other requests here, along

[1:02:03] with the other budget

[1:02:04] reductions that we've talked

[1:02:08] about, I do support. I know

[1:02:11] that with the sheriff's office,

[1:02:12] you're talking bodies, and no

[1:02:15] one wants to see a reduction in

[1:02:16] officers on the street. I know

[1:02:18] I don't, as well as some of the

[1:02:20] other functions that the

[1:02:23] sheriff does provide. I know

[1:02:24] we've had conversations about

[1:02:26] the social action funding and

[1:02:27] reducing that from that million

[1:02:29] down to that 600 and oh, you

[1:02:30] want me to.

[1:02:31] >> Wait until you get.

[1:02:33] >> No, no, I just want to make

[1:02:34] clear that I'm only

[1:02:35] recommending.

[1:02:35] >> I know you're only

[1:02:37] recommending the top level. Yes,

[1:02:38] I'm going to. I'm just giving

[1:02:39] you my overall.

[1:02:40] >> These are Renee's thoughts

[1:02:41] on

[1:02:43] >> We have we have yet to talk

[1:02:44] about that lower level. Is that

[1:02:45] correct?

[1:02:47] >> Well, I went over the I kind

[1:02:48] of briefly went over those.

[1:02:49] >> Briefly scan it.

[1:02:51] >> But but but those are not

[1:02:53] those are not areas that I'm

[1:02:53] recommending.

[1:02:54] >> Oh, I understand you're not

[1:02:54] recommending.

[1:02:56] >> But but there if there are.

[1:02:58] >> People that want a full

[1:02:59] rollback, those will have to be

[1:03:00] correct. At least those. And

[1:03:01] maybe something else that

[1:03:03] somebody has out there. Correct.

[1:03:04] Okay. So I would like to have

[1:03:05] that brief discussion about

[1:03:08] those areas just so we're clear.

[1:03:09] And that doesn't mean we're

[1:03:10] supporting or not supporting it.

[1:03:12] We're just need to understand.

[1:03:13] Hold on one second. Okay. Hold

[1:03:15] on. Before we jump into that,

[1:03:16] Brian, did you have anything

[1:03:17] else?

[1:03:18] >> I did, but if anyone wants

[1:03:19] to finish their thoughts.

[1:03:21] >> Okay. Did you want to go

[1:03:22] down and below.

[1:03:24] >> If you if you would like to

[1:03:25] do it a different way, I can

[1:03:26] wait.

[1:03:27] >> I'd rather have him kind of

[1:03:29] talk to each of those.

[1:03:30] >> Okay, then I'll do that.

[1:03:32] Okay, I'll do that. So that's

[1:03:33] all I have for my top.

[1:03:35] >> Okay. But I know we're going

[1:03:35] to come.

[1:03:37] >> Back for my yellow and gold.

[1:03:38] That's all.

[1:03:39] >> I have. Anything on the

[1:03:40] yellow and gold?

[1:03:41] >> I my questions were related

[1:03:43] to social action funding as

[1:03:44] well. And also some things on

[1:03:46] our agenda for next week. So

[1:03:47] I'll hold that until Barry's

[1:03:47] done.

[1:03:48] >> Okay, Commissioner.

[1:03:50] >> I was going to have some

[1:03:51] questions on the blue. Okay, so

[1:03:53] that was just kind of skimmed

[1:03:53] over. So I'm.

[1:03:55] >> Going to go there now.

[1:03:57] >> Okay. All right. Absolutely.

[1:03:59] >> Thank you. How he addresses

[1:03:59] those.

[1:04:03] >> So so on the blue we got we

[1:04:06] got Bay care home care. That's

[1:04:10] $100,000. And I'll ask Karen to

[1:04:12] come back up and explain,

[1:04:13] because I'll bring her up

[1:04:15] because she can explain each of

[1:04:17] these in, in great. Well, these

[1:04:19] first 2 in 3 or the first three

[1:04:22] in greater detail. So we'll

[1:04:23] just walk down through with the

[1:04:25] Bay care home, home care.

[1:04:27] >> Sure. So Bay care home care

[1:04:28] is part of the Pinellas County

[1:04:29] Health program and health care

[1:04:31] for the homeless. And it

[1:04:33] includes durable medical

[1:04:35] equipment. It includes home

[1:04:37] health, physical therapy,

[1:04:41] speech therapy, and iv

[1:04:43] antibiotics for individuals who

[1:04:44] need that level of treatment.

[1:04:45] >> And this is this is targeted

[1:04:47] for people at.

[1:04:49] >> 100% of the federal poverty

[1:04:51] limit or who are homeless.

[1:04:54] >> Okay. So this is specialized,

[1:04:56] an area that otherwise they

[1:04:57] wouldn't have access to those

[1:04:59] services and they got to meet

[1:05:02] certain income limits to, to be

[1:05:04] eligible. Okay. So that's the

[1:05:05] first one. That's the, the Bay

[1:05:07] care home health. The second

[1:05:09] area is the social action

[1:05:10] funding. And if you recall in

[1:05:12] the recommendations, those are

[1:05:13] three there were 3 or 4

[1:05:14] programs.

[1:05:14] >> Seven.

[1:05:16] >> Oh, okay. Seven programs.

[1:05:18] The reason I have her up here

[1:05:21] that are that are ongoing. So

[1:05:22] we had funded them past the

[1:05:24] last year for multi year. They,

[1:05:26] they're not guaranteed that

[1:05:29] funding. But when we, when our

[1:05:30] as part of our recommendation

[1:05:33] is we said since to continue

[1:05:35] those to their conclusion and

[1:05:38] then just not renew and then

[1:05:40] not start any other programs

[1:05:42] that would be new that were

[1:05:44] proposed. That was 1.1 million

[1:05:46] 600 000 of ongoing programs.

[1:05:48] And so that was how we come to

[1:05:49] that.

[1:05:50] >> 600 was the new program.

[1:05:52] >> No, that was the ongoing

[1:05:52] program.

[1:05:55] >> And we are talking about, oh,

[1:05:55] eliminating those.

[1:05:57] >> So yeah, so so our, our

[1:05:58] budget recommendation, the

[1:05:59] original budget recommendation,

[1:06:01] the 1.7 million. I'm using

[1:06:02] round numbers, 1.7 million that

[1:06:04] you have in social action

[1:06:06] funding, about 1.1 million of

[1:06:08] the recommendations were for

[1:06:09] programs that would be new.

[1:06:10] >> And that's already part of

[1:06:11] the budget.

[1:06:14] >> And and we recommended

[1:06:15] eliminating those as part of

[1:06:17] the budget. So what's left is,

[1:06:22] is 667,000 for ongoing programs,

[1:06:24] the seven programs that Karen

[1:06:27] just stated. And so you could

[1:06:30] choose to not fund those

[1:06:31] programs, there's no guarantee

[1:06:33] of funding. So you could choose

[1:06:36] to not renew those programs. So

[1:06:38] those programs would go away.

[1:06:39] So that's the social action

[1:06:40] funding piece.

[1:06:41] >> And I believe that

[1:06:42] Commissioner Scott, didn't he

[1:06:45] ask did you ask for a list of

[1:06:47] those? Yeah. And I'm looking

[1:06:48] through my notes here to see if

[1:06:50] I can find them.

[1:06:51] >> I have, I have.

[1:06:52] >> Can you briefly.

[1:06:54] >> I have it, I can.

[1:06:54] >> Grab it.

[1:07:07] >> Okay.

[1:07:12] >> I'll send it to you.

[1:07:14] >> And before you leave. And I

[1:07:16] don't forget, I wanted to hear

[1:07:17] what the update is from the

[1:07:19] hospitals on the Suncoast

[1:07:21] services, see where we're what

[1:07:22] kind of headway we're getting

[1:07:24] on that. Thank you. Appreciate

[1:07:27] that. Karen. Oh, yeah. Right on

[1:07:29] top. Jesus.

[1:07:30] >> Are you going to go.

[1:07:32] >> Through those or anything?

[1:07:33] Were you going to go through

[1:07:34] those? You want me.

[1:07:35] >> To keep going? You keep

[1:07:37] going. I mean, when we're done

[1:07:37] here.

[1:07:39] >> Okay. So so that was the

[1:07:40] recommendation again, if we get

[1:07:42] deeper, if we get if we get to

[1:07:44] where you're going to try to go

[1:07:45] to a full rollback, you really

[1:07:47] got to look at that. Funding is

[1:07:49] my recommendation. And then the

[1:07:50] funding. I'll let Karen again

[1:07:52] speak to specifically what that

[1:07:53] is.

[1:07:57] >> So so cabbie was a grant and

[1:07:59] prior to 2020, and we continued

[1:08:01] that service as a decision

[1:08:03] package moving forward. We were

[1:08:05] right in the middle of writing

[1:08:06] for the new procurement. So we

[1:08:08] were going to kind of take the

[1:08:10] best pieces of that and move it

[1:08:12] forward. And what this is, is

[1:08:14] field based behavioral health

[1:08:16] services for adults. So

[1:08:18] bringing services to their home

[1:08:20] to keep them stabilized. Many

[1:08:22] of them were formerly homeless,

[1:08:24] placed in scattered site

[1:08:26] housing, housing. So this is

[1:08:27] not attached to an organization.

[1:08:29] This is they've maintained

[1:08:31] their housing and they need

[1:08:33] additional services. And some

[1:08:34] of the areas that we're looking

[1:08:38] to expand is there are times

[1:08:40] that we are called from code

[1:08:42] enforcement for houses that

[1:08:44] have hoarding situations,

[1:08:46] animal hoarding situations. And

[1:08:48] this can also be used to bring

[1:08:50] services to those residents to

[1:08:51] keep them in their homes, but

[1:08:53] also work with those who have

[1:08:54] severe and persistent mental

[1:08:56] illness, who maybe went through

[1:08:57] a rapid rehousing program. But

[1:09:00] their needs far outweigh just

[1:09:01] kind of traditional case

[1:09:02] management.

[1:09:04] >> Okay. Okay.

[1:09:08] >> And the hospital.

[1:09:09] >> So the hospitals are still a

[1:09:11] work in progress. I sent

[1:09:13] letters to every single ceo,

[1:09:15] and then I have met with many

[1:09:16] of them that I routinely meet

[1:09:18] with for our health program to

[1:09:19] explain what this means with

[1:09:22] our reduction of funding. I

[1:09:23] meet almost weekly with the

[1:09:26] Suncoast ceo, and he said last

[1:09:28] week, I think hca was the only

[1:09:30] system that had reached out to

[1:09:31] discuss the letter.

[1:09:32] >> Okay.

[1:09:33] >> And that and current funding,

[1:09:36] current budget has funding for

[1:09:38] Suncoast through DECEMBER.

[1:09:39] >> Through DECEMBER at the end

[1:09:40] of this year?

[1:09:41] >> Yes.

[1:09:42] >> So we have a little time.

[1:09:44] >> Okay. All right. All right.

[1:09:46] >> Go ahead. Commissioner.

[1:09:48] >> Thank you. You answer. I was

[1:09:50] going to have a question about

[1:09:52] the Baycare piece, but you

[1:09:55] answered that one. But I will

[1:10:00] go ahead. And I think social

[1:10:02] action funding can be funded

[1:10:03] through the legislature. They

[1:10:08] have more more funds than we do.

[1:10:11] And those items are routinely

[1:10:13] funded in the state budget, in

[1:10:17] the various silos. And so I

[1:10:20] would be supportive of just

[1:10:22] getting out of the business of

[1:10:28] funding nonprofits on. Through

[1:10:31] the county budget and focusing

[1:10:34] on core services.

[1:10:37] >> So can you speak to that?

[1:10:38] Especially, I mean, these are

[1:10:40] seven independent groups.

[1:10:41] >> Yes.

[1:10:42] >> Do they all have the same

[1:10:44] access to to state grants? And

[1:10:47] are they all equally taken care

[1:10:48] of, or do some of them struggle

[1:10:50] getting the grants because

[1:10:51] they're not viewed the same way

[1:10:53] as others? I mean, i

[1:10:54] specifically look at Saint Pete

[1:10:57] Free Clinic who provides food

[1:10:59] for a lot of different groups

[1:11:02] who distribute to our residents.

[1:11:04] >> They have a lobbyist, I'm

[1:11:05] almost certain.

[1:11:06] >> So. So could you speak to

[1:11:07] the.

[1:11:08] >> I don't know that I could

[1:11:10] speak to each of the seven

[1:11:11] organizations. And if they have

[1:11:13] a lobbyist and kind of what

[1:11:14] their track record is with

[1:11:15] obtaining state funds, we can

[1:11:16] certainly follow up with them

[1:11:20] to ask that question. I mean,

[1:11:22] all of these are very kind of

[1:11:24] smaller nonprofits, probably

[1:11:25] with the exception of Saint

[1:11:26] Pete Free Clinic, that's

[1:11:28] probably the largest of the

[1:11:30] seven that were recommended.

[1:11:32] And each year they have to

[1:11:34] demonstrate that this is a need,

[1:11:35] an emerging need in our

[1:11:37] community, that they want to be

[1:11:39] able to try to fulfill. And

[1:11:41] it's the only opportunity that

[1:11:43] we offer at the county for new

[1:11:46] services or new programs.

[1:11:50] >> Okay, okay. Go ahead. I'm

[1:11:52] good. Okay.

[1:11:53] >> Yes, Commissioner Scott.

[1:11:55] >> Thank you, MR. CHAIRMAN. I

[1:11:57] agree with Commissioner Latvala

[1:12:00] on the funding. Social action

[1:12:03] funding. I just I just don't

[1:12:04] really think this is a business

[1:12:05] that we should that we should

[1:12:08] be in. But I in further than

[1:12:10] that. Beyond that, I also have

[1:12:13] some questions on for our

[1:12:15] agenda review later. Item 18

[1:12:20] and 19, which assumes that

[1:12:23] fiscal year 2027 funding item

[1:12:25] 18 is agreement with two on one

[1:12:29] Tampa Bay cares for

[1:12:30] administration of the Adult

[1:12:32] Emergency Financial Assistance

[1:12:34] Program for five years, works

[1:12:36] out to a little over $1.4

[1:12:39] million annually. And then the

[1:12:42] second one is with Vincent de

[1:12:45] Paul Cares and two on one for

[1:12:47] for rapid rehousing service.

[1:12:49] And that one's, you know, for

[1:12:51] three years. That one's well

[1:12:52] over $1 million a year. And I

[1:12:54] just look at all of these

[1:12:55] things and, and I'm sure

[1:12:56] they're doing great things in

[1:12:58] the, in the community, but

[1:12:59] there just seems to be so much

[1:13:01] overlapping, you know, just

[1:13:03] like the and I like Karen to

[1:13:05] speak to these individual

[1:13:08] programs. But, you know, then

[1:13:10] we've got the $1.7 million that

[1:13:11] we're providing to the public

[1:13:13] defender's office to do a lot

[1:13:15] of the same things, and then

[1:13:16] money for social action,

[1:13:17] funding for groups that are not

[1:13:19] for profits, that are doing a

[1:13:20] lot of the same things. And

[1:13:22] then we've got $2.4 million for

[1:13:23] Safe Harbor. That's kind of

[1:13:25] doing a lot of this. I just

[1:13:26] there's just such a tremendous

[1:13:28] overlap and all of these

[1:13:30] programs that that we have, and

[1:13:31] I'm not saying that we

[1:13:32] necessarily should rip the band

[1:13:34] aid off of all of these things

[1:13:36] in this particular year, but it

[1:13:37] just seems to me like it's a

[1:13:39] very it's a very fragmented,

[1:13:40] decentralized system, and there

[1:13:41] should be a lot more

[1:13:42] efficiencies. I feel like we're

[1:13:43] just throwing, throwing a lot

[1:13:45] of money to a lot of different

[1:13:47] groups to solve a lot of the

[1:13:48] same problems.

[1:13:49] >> Yeah, I think there's a I

[1:13:50] think there's certainly and

[1:13:53] again, I wrestle with this, you

[1:13:54] know, the things that we

[1:13:55] criticize the state about doing

[1:13:57] things spontaneously. And we're

[1:13:59] we're left holding the bag, so

[1:14:01] to speak. And so I want to make

[1:14:03] sure that we are respectful of

[1:14:06] a, of an incremental process,

[1:14:08] but I, too, would like to at

[1:14:09] least have in that maybe the

[1:14:11] first quarter of next fiscal

[1:14:13] year, kind of a discussion

[1:14:14] about all the different things

[1:14:16] that we do and maybe where

[1:14:18] there is overlap, because I'm

[1:14:21] certainly not at the level of

[1:14:22] understanding of the

[1:14:23] complexities of each of these

[1:14:25] and how they either overlap or

[1:14:27] they complement. I just don't

[1:14:29] know. I think you have a it's a

[1:14:30] great question. It's something

[1:14:32] we should at least have a good

[1:14:33] handle on so that we know

[1:14:35] whether we are duplicating. I

[1:14:38] would give some deference to

[1:14:40] the group that's in charge to

[1:14:42] make sure that we're not doing

[1:14:43] that. But I think from an

[1:14:44] education standpoint, at least,

[1:14:46] we should make sure we

[1:14:48] understand it. And so I think

[1:14:50] that would be an important

[1:14:51] element. I'm not saying that we

[1:14:53] don't touch it. I'm just saying

[1:14:56] just be mindful of these groups.

[1:14:58] And again, here we are kind of

[1:15:01] like we did last year on

[1:15:02] SEPTEMBER, right. You know, and

[1:15:04] they're starting as well. So I

[1:15:05] just wanted to throw that out

[1:15:08] there as context.

[1:15:09] >> So I mean, Karen, would you

[1:15:11] be able to just kind of speak

[1:15:12] to these these two programs?

[1:15:14] And is there any room for

[1:15:15] improvement at all as we look

[1:15:17] for, you know, next year's

[1:15:17] budget?

[1:15:19] >> So I can start with the

[1:15:20] Adult Emergency Financial

[1:15:22] Assistance program that only

[1:15:24] serves adults without children.

[1:15:27] And so that really is one time

[1:15:29] funding for someone who has a

[1:15:32] very high utility bill. They're

[1:15:34] up to 200% of the federal

[1:15:36] poverty limit. They have to

[1:15:37] demonstrate sustainability.

[1:15:38] This is the only program that

[1:15:41] they can call in and have that

[1:15:42] utility bill paid so that

[1:15:44] they're not without lights or

[1:15:45] water or potentially evicted.

[1:15:48] And so we pay rental assistance,

[1:15:50] mortgage assistance. And this

[1:15:51] was built because the Juvenile

[1:15:53] Welfare Board built a similar

[1:15:55] program for adults with

[1:15:56] children. And there really

[1:15:58] wasn't anywhere for just single

[1:16:00] adults to go. We help a lot of

[1:16:02] seniors. We help a lot of

[1:16:03] individuals moving out of

[1:16:05] shelter. We can pay first, last

[1:16:07] and security to move someone

[1:16:08] directly out of a homeless

[1:16:11] shelter with this program. On

[1:16:14] average, we serve around 2000

[1:16:16] residents per year. I'm sorry,

[1:16:18] 200 residents per year, and the

[1:16:22] average cost is around $2,000.

[1:16:23] It's there's really nowhere

[1:16:25] else for them to go unless they

[1:16:27] go to the really, really small

[1:16:28] areas. Like they'll go to the

[1:16:30] Urban League and get something

[1:16:31] paid, but then they run out of

[1:16:33] money. So this really was built

[1:16:35] on efficiencies to really help

[1:16:36] single adults. There's really

[1:16:36] nothing out there for.

[1:16:38] >> This program. Was that I'm

[1:16:38] sorry.

[1:16:40] >> It's it's it's on the agenda

[1:16:41] for the 10th.

[1:16:42] >> Oh, that's the one. We're

[1:16:43] talking.

[1:16:43] >> Two on.

[1:16:44] >> The second piece.

[1:16:45] >> Yes. Yeah, yeah.

[1:16:47] >> Okay. And so residents call

[1:16:49] into 211. They do a financial

[1:16:51] screening. They submit a ton of

[1:16:52] documentation. They have to

[1:16:53] meet eligibility criteria. And

[1:16:55] it's really a, it's a

[1:16:58] prevention bucket. So I don't

[1:16:59] really see that overlaps with

[1:17:00] the rapid rehousing program,

[1:17:01] which I can talk about. But

[1:17:03] this is prevention. It's

[1:17:05] preventing our residents from

[1:17:07] becoming homeless.

[1:17:10] >> Do do we know that people

[1:17:13] don't double dip, that maybe

[1:17:16] they get assistance from the

[1:17:19] public defender's pot of money

[1:17:21] and then get assistance from

[1:17:23] this pot of money, and then get

[1:17:24] assistance from a not for

[1:17:26] profit somewhere else? I mean,

[1:17:27] do we.

[1:17:28] >> There's not a centralized

[1:17:30] system for that. So no.

[1:17:31] >> Okay.

[1:17:32] >> But they have to demonstrate

[1:17:33] need, right. So we're looking

[1:17:35] at utility bills, bank

[1:17:37] statements, late ledgers. I

[1:17:40] mean, so I guess if they were

[1:17:42] wanting to to be defraud the

[1:17:44] system, I guess they could,

[1:17:45] they could try, but there is

[1:17:46] not a centralized system. And

[1:17:48] that that probably is one of

[1:17:49] the larger challenges across

[1:17:51] the entire nonprofit system is

[1:17:52] that there we don't have a

[1:17:55] centralized data system in

[1:17:56] behavioral health. I mean, like

[1:17:57] that is that's the complexity

[1:17:59] of, of the services that we

[1:18:01] provide. That is something I

[1:18:03] will say kind of in the future

[1:18:05] that I know the Opioid

[1:18:06] Settlement funding group is

[1:18:07] trying to look out for the

[1:18:09] mental health side, but it is

[1:18:11] very complex and it's going to

[1:18:13] take a lot of legal work for

[1:18:15] the entities to kind of work

[1:18:15] towards that.

[1:18:17] >> I mean, it's the same thing

[1:18:19] with our food banks that we

[1:18:21] have. I mean, you don't have a

[1:18:23] card that says you've got some

[1:18:24] food for the month, so you

[1:18:26] can't go down the street to the

[1:18:27] next one and the next one.

[1:18:29] There's no way to even govern

[1:18:30] that. Really. Correct. So that

[1:18:32] to, to your point, there's, I

[1:18:33] don't know, some of that would

[1:18:36] be, I'm sure very needed, you

[1:18:38] know, but some of it MAY not be.

[1:18:40] I wouldn't care to speak to

[1:18:41] that at all.

[1:18:43] >> So I can speak to the second

[1:18:44] program. Okay. So the second

[1:18:47] program is the Rapid Rehousing

[1:18:49] Collaborative. And so this

[1:18:51] started, I want to say 2016. It

[1:18:53] was built so that other

[1:18:54] municipalities could join in

[1:18:56] the funding. And so this was

[1:18:57] built with the county and the

[1:18:58] city of Saint Petersburg. And

[1:19:00] to date, that is the only city

[1:19:02] that adds funding to this

[1:19:04] agreement. That is rapid

[1:19:06] rehousing for families with

[1:19:08] children and individuals. And

[1:19:11] the county is, I would say, the

[1:19:13] the largest funder of rapid

[1:19:15] rehousing services. We fund two

[1:19:16] programs. So we fund this

[1:19:18] external program, and we have

[1:19:20] an internal staff program. It's

[1:19:22] called the Family Housing

[1:19:23] Assistance Program. But that is

[1:19:26] it. So those are the only

[1:19:28] family rapid rehousing programs.

[1:19:30] And while it sounds like

[1:19:31] there's duplication, there's

[1:19:34] not enough. So last week I got

[1:19:36] a report that there are 50 to

[1:19:39] 75 families with children

[1:19:40] unsheltered. Today they're not

[1:19:42] in shelter. They're living

[1:19:45] unsheltered on the street. So

[1:19:46] this is kind of that funnel

[1:19:48] that, you know, we have we have

[1:19:49] family emergency shelter as

[1:19:51] part of our book of business.

[1:19:52] They move from family emergency

[1:19:54] shelter into rapid rehousing.

[1:19:56] Then hopefully they're

[1:19:57] stabilized and they don't

[1:19:58] return both of the programs,

[1:20:00] the internal program and this

[1:20:02] program that's on the 10th have

[1:20:03] very, very, very low recidivism.

[1:20:05] And we do track that.

[1:20:06] >> Okay.

[1:20:09] >> Is the not nonprofit world

[1:20:12] that deals with homelessness.

[1:20:15] If this program went away, I

[1:20:17] mean, would the not for profit

[1:20:18] world pick it up and run with

[1:20:20] it? Or would these just be 50

[1:20:22] families that would be out on

[1:20:22] the street?

[1:20:24] >> This would be this would be

[1:20:25] almost 100 more families that

[1:20:27] would be on the street and

[1:20:28] there would be no funnel. So I

[1:20:30] don't know that they have the

[1:20:31] capacity to pick up and just

[1:20:33] run this program on their own.

[1:20:36] >> Okay.

[1:20:39] >> Okay. If if there's any

[1:20:40] opportunity for improvement in

[1:20:42] these in these programs as far

[1:20:44] as for next year's budget, you

[1:20:46] know, if you could look at that

[1:20:48] between now and when we vote on

[1:20:50] this would be nice.

[1:20:51] Commissioners if there is or

[1:20:51] not.

[1:20:54] >> But well, you know, we've

[1:20:56] talked we've talked a little

[1:20:57] bit about some of the programs

[1:20:59] and we've and we've put some

[1:21:01] areas on for discussion. Right.

[1:21:03] But we also could, you know,

[1:21:05] just like on the health care

[1:21:06] program, we wanted to have that

[1:21:07] ready and back for discussion

[1:21:09] this year. It's going to it's

[1:21:11] it's complicated. We sent out

[1:21:12] the draft report. We haven't

[1:21:13] even met on that draft report

[1:21:15] yet. It's going to take time to

[1:21:16] implement whatever we decide we

[1:21:18] can do. We can do the same

[1:21:20] thing on kind of this nonprofit

[1:21:21] and this homelessness area,

[1:21:22] because they all kind of

[1:21:23] interconnect in some way, shape

[1:21:26] or form, and we can look at

[1:21:27] them more holistically in the

[1:21:29] fall, if that's your pleasure.

[1:21:30] Because we never get enough

[1:21:32] time. We get we talk about this

[1:21:34] program or this program or this.

[1:21:36] But to your point, I didn't

[1:21:37] even know some of the stuff on

[1:21:39] what, you know, Sarah was doing

[1:21:40] in the public defender. It

[1:21:42] doesn't mean it's duplicative,

[1:21:43] but it could be. I just don't

[1:21:45] know. And we could look at them

[1:21:46] all at one time.

[1:21:47] >> Yeah. It just seems like

[1:21:49] there's there's lots of pots of

[1:21:50] money that do very, very

[1:21:52] similar things there.

[1:21:53] >> Yeah. And I think.

[1:21:54] >> They're very similar

[1:21:55] populations.

[1:21:56] >> Yeah, yeah.

[1:21:57] >> And I, and I, you know,

[1:21:59] again, Karen's, you know, been

[1:22:00] in the business for a while and

[1:22:02] knows the different players out

[1:22:03] there. I think that

[1:22:04] conversation would be really a

[1:22:07] good one to have. I know that

[1:22:08] you keep a close eye on it as

[1:22:10] you can in a system that, as

[1:22:13] you just said, it's hard to

[1:22:14] manage between different groups

[1:22:18] that are involved in some ways.

[1:22:20] And I just, you know, you have

[1:22:21] to be careful how we say it,

[1:22:23] but it's almost air on the side

[1:22:25] of caution just a little bit. I

[1:22:27] mean, I know there MAY be a

[1:22:28] little bit of overlap, the

[1:22:30] potential for some, but again,

[1:22:32] there is something about taking

[1:22:34] care of our own, our own

[1:22:35] families that live in our

[1:22:36] county that MAY be having and

[1:22:38] I'm not talking about the folks

[1:22:41] that. And I don't even want to

[1:22:43] use the wrong words here, but

[1:22:45] that, you know, homelessness is

[1:22:47] something that they like. There

[1:22:49] aren't many of those, but there

[1:22:50] are some that just live in that

[1:22:51] world. I'm talking about

[1:22:53] families who MAY be struggling,

[1:22:56] lost a job, lost a house, lost.

[1:22:58] Those are folks that are

[1:22:59] neighbors or friends or

[1:23:00] whatever that I think we have

[1:23:03] to be a little bit aware of

[1:23:05] what we're doing when we take

[1:23:07] programs away that might. And

[1:23:09] again, we're we're talking

[1:23:11] incremental here. I mean, I'm

[1:23:12] not I wasn't here for part of

[1:23:14] the conversation in the first

[1:23:16] part, but it seems to me

[1:23:17] without a whole lot of

[1:23:18] straining, we're talking about

[1:23:19] a half a rollback. And now

[1:23:21] we're getting into the into

[1:23:23] that next level of discussion,

[1:23:26] which is, you know, the

[1:23:28] sheriff's is 25% and the rest

[1:23:31] of them roughly 25%. So we're

[1:23:32] we're we're talking in those

[1:23:35] where it hurts, you know, and

[1:23:36] so this is where it gets a

[1:23:38] little bit, as you said, dicier.

[1:23:40] And maybe that's the area that

[1:23:42] we need to spend our time on.

[1:23:44] Unless I'm misread the

[1:23:45] commissioners here.

[1:23:47] >> Yes. Thank you chair, I just.

[1:23:49] >> I'm sorry, I, I owed. Her to

[1:23:51] go back to Commissioner Flowers.

[1:23:52] Sorry, Commissioner.

[1:23:56] >> That's okay. That's okay. So

[1:23:58] I meant to say something last

[1:23:59] time we had this discussion and

[1:24:01] I forgot I actually had a

[1:24:03] chance to work with Bob

[1:24:05] Dillinger when he created the

[1:24:06] fund out of the public

[1:24:08] defender's office. That fund

[1:24:10] was created because there were

[1:24:11] a number of people that were

[1:24:13] being arrested for substance

[1:24:15] abuse issues, didn't have money

[1:24:18] for legal representation. And,

[1:24:19] you know, perhaps the crime

[1:24:21] that they committed wasn't a

[1:24:23] felony, but a misdemeanor or a

[1:24:27] low degree felony. And the

[1:24:28] state and the public defender's

[1:24:30] office felt like putting the

[1:24:32] person into rehab would be a

[1:24:34] good investment. And so I

[1:24:35] worked at Gulf Coast Jewish

[1:24:36] Family and Community Services.

[1:24:39] We had two facilities on

[1:24:41] darling Darlington Avenue. So

[1:24:42] that's the borderline between

[1:24:44] Pasco and Pinellas. We had two

[1:24:45] facilities up there. And so

[1:24:47] those funds initially were

[1:24:50] utilized to secure beds for the

[1:24:51] rehabilitation. So we had one

[1:24:53] side that was men and one the

[1:24:54] other side that was for women.

[1:24:57] And so they received

[1:24:59] residential treatment services,

[1:25:01] intense wraparound services for

[1:25:04] the family. If there was family

[1:25:05] services for the children, and

[1:25:07] then of course, they were able

[1:25:08] to stay there and gain some of

[1:25:10] the skills needed in order for

[1:25:12] them to become self-sufficient

[1:25:14] once they were, once they

[1:25:15] graduated or moved on from the

[1:25:18] program. So that's how that

[1:25:19] program actually started. As a

[1:25:20] matter of fact, I went up one

[1:25:22] year begging them for more

[1:25:24] money and and he had come here

[1:25:25] to beg for more money because

[1:25:27] we were really able to change

[1:25:28] some lives. So I meant to share

[1:25:30] that when you were asking, what

[1:25:31] are those dollars used for? And

[1:25:33] I don't quite get it or

[1:25:34] understand it. With the

[1:25:36] development and construction of

[1:25:37] the Davis Bradley building,

[1:25:39] which is in Saint Pete, it was

[1:25:42] an old nursing home that was

[1:25:44] renovated. West care is the

[1:25:46] lead agency there, but I worked

[1:25:49] there with the coalition for

[1:25:50] Safe and Drug Free Saint

[1:25:51] Petersburg, and we provided

[1:25:53] those wraparound services and

[1:25:55] support services for the family.

[1:25:57] And it was a residential

[1:25:58] treatment. It still is a

[1:26:00] residential treatment facility,

[1:26:02] initially for all men. And then

[1:26:03] they brought in women. But some

[1:26:06] of those funds that the public

[1:26:07] defender's office had to try to

[1:26:09] help those individuals went to

[1:26:11] pay for those beds. So West

[1:26:13] Care got money from the state.

[1:26:14] You know, they got money from

[1:26:16] Samhsa funding substance abuse

[1:26:17] and mental health services out

[1:26:18] of the federal government to

[1:26:20] help pay for that. So that's

[1:26:21] some of those dollars are

[1:26:23] useful. I just forgot to share

[1:26:24] that. When you had asked a very

[1:26:26] good question. A lot of people

[1:26:27] don't know that. I don't think

[1:26:30] so. I wanted to share that the

[1:26:32] the concern I have with social

[1:26:34] action funding. And it's not

[1:26:35] just because that's the area

[1:26:38] I've worked in, I guess really

[1:26:42] all my adult life we have had,

[1:26:43] unfortunately, so many laws

[1:26:44] that have been implemented by

[1:26:46] the state legislature that in

[1:26:48] some instances criminalizes

[1:26:49] homelessness, because if they

[1:26:50] sleep in their cars now, they

[1:26:52] can be arrested. We do have

[1:26:53] families that are sleeping in

[1:26:55] their cars, and you can go by

[1:26:57] Walmart and see them, you know,

[1:26:59] parked with stuff up over the

[1:27:01] windows, you know, and whatnot.

[1:27:03] They go in to Wawa and other

[1:27:05] places to get themselves

[1:27:06] cleaned up, and their children

[1:27:08] are off to school in the

[1:27:09] morning. How do I know that?

[1:27:11] Because I worked with a group

[1:27:13] of volunteers and we raised

[1:27:15] money to buy uniforms for

[1:27:17] school and personal supplies to

[1:27:18] give to them so that their

[1:27:20] children could start school.

[1:27:21] And their greatest fear was if

[1:27:23] they find out that I'm homeless

[1:27:24] and my kids are homeless, I'm

[1:27:26] going to lose custody of them.

[1:27:31] So when it comes to the

[1:27:32] services, that allows an

[1:27:33] individual to be able to move

[1:27:35] into a place that has a roof

[1:27:36] over their head, as long as

[1:27:38] they can show that they can

[1:27:40] continue, they have a job that

[1:27:42] can pay the rent and utility

[1:27:44] bills and things of that nature.

[1:27:45] It does so much because a lot

[1:27:47] of those families, they are

[1:27:49] working, both parents are

[1:27:50] working. They're just not able

[1:27:54] to afford to get into a place

[1:27:56] when you need first, last and

[1:27:57] security. And typically the

[1:27:58] landlord is asking for twice

[1:28:01] the amount of what the rent is.

[1:28:02] And in some instances, that's

[1:28:05] about $6,000 to move into a

[1:28:07] small apartment. So I really

[1:28:10] support that. And if you all

[1:28:11] also remember when we were

[1:28:12] meeting over across the street,

[1:28:15] we gave the free clinic a lot

[1:28:17] of money to purchase that new

[1:28:19] warehouse off of 22nd Avenue so

[1:28:20] that they could expand their

[1:28:22] storage space for the food that

[1:28:24] they distribute to the public.

[1:28:25] I think some of you all have

[1:28:27] toured over there. I know I

[1:28:30] have, and it is it used to be

[1:28:34] the warehouse that was back up

[1:28:35] in there that did many blinds

[1:28:36] and stuff like that, that

[1:28:38] employed several people. But

[1:28:40] I've toured and gone over there

[1:28:42] and it's the way that they have

[1:28:43] it. You would think you're

[1:28:45] walking into a Costco or Sam's,

[1:28:46] the way they have everything

[1:28:50] lined up and just so clean. And

[1:28:54] then they provide those foods

[1:28:56] that they collect to other

[1:28:57] groups, like churches that do

[1:28:59] food distributions. Feeding

[1:29:02] Tampa Bay comes in and provides

[1:29:03] the food to do food

[1:29:05] distributions. If you want to

[1:29:07] see whether or not the need

[1:29:08] still exists, you can come on a

[1:29:10] Saturday morning, get there

[1:29:12] about 9:00, 930 on the corner

[1:29:14] of 22nd Street and 18th Avenue

[1:29:16] South, and you will see the

[1:29:18] line all the way from 22nd

[1:29:20] Street down to 16th Street. How

[1:29:22] long that line is. And it wraps

[1:29:23] around the corner every

[1:29:25] Saturday for and not people who

[1:29:26] just, you know, are coming to

[1:29:28] be greedy people who still need,

[1:29:30] you know, the food support and

[1:29:32] food assistance. So I, I see

[1:29:34] every Saturday and it's not

[1:29:35] just them. Mount Zion

[1:29:36] progressive does it on

[1:29:39] Wednesdays. There are some

[1:29:39] organizations, when they're

[1:29:41] doing paperwork to help, they

[1:29:43] try to track a person so that

[1:29:46] they know you got help from the

[1:29:49] Urban League for your lights.

[1:29:50] And so we already know you've

[1:29:52] gotten support for that. So

[1:29:53] we're not going to do it, but

[1:29:55] it's not on a bigger system.

[1:29:57] Like what? I would agree that

[1:29:59] if something could be done to

[1:30:01] do that, I support that because

[1:30:02] that way you could help many

[1:30:04] more families when persons

[1:30:06] aren't getting services, you

[1:30:07] know, from all of the different

[1:30:11] resources and repeat people

[1:30:12] consistently coming, you know,

[1:30:14] now the issue is, so let's sit

[1:30:16] down and talk about your

[1:30:17] finances or where you are

[1:30:19] because you are in every month

[1:30:21] person rather than a, you know,

[1:30:22] when you really, really need

[1:30:25] that, that help for our

[1:30:27] homeless persons who are

[1:30:29] receiving those mental health

[1:30:31] services. And I'm talking

[1:30:33] schizophrenia on up that are

[1:30:35] really concerning behaviors,

[1:30:36] those people are going to end

[1:30:38] up in our jails. And Sheriff

[1:30:39] Bob Gualtieri has already

[1:30:41] talked about about that they're

[1:30:42] going to end up in our jails

[1:30:45] because they can't afford an

[1:30:47] attorney to get out, or it's a

[1:30:48] revolving door they'll be in,

[1:30:50] then they'll be out. They'll

[1:30:51] get rearrested because of their

[1:30:52] behavior and it's not under

[1:30:54] control. They're not taking

[1:30:55] their medication. They're not

[1:30:57] in a solid place, you know, to

[1:31:00] kind of give them that support

[1:31:00] and make sure that they're

[1:31:02] doing the things that they need

[1:31:04] to do. And a lot of our

[1:31:05] homeless people, they are

[1:31:06] veterans. When we do the point

[1:31:08] in time count, and for the ones

[1:31:09] that will share information, a

[1:31:11] lot of them are veterans. So

[1:31:12] when it comes to social action

[1:31:13] funding, and again, I'm not

[1:31:15] just saying it because that's

[1:31:16] the world that I've worked in

[1:31:18] for so many years. And I do

[1:31:21] have a heart for that. It is

[1:31:24] because even persons who go to

[1:31:27] work every day who MAY seem

[1:31:30] like they're okay, they are not.

[1:31:32] And the few things that we

[1:31:33] provide through our social

[1:31:36] action funding, it nowhere near

[1:31:38] covers all of it, but it does

[1:31:40] give those organizations an

[1:31:41] opportunity to help people

[1:31:43] right in the community. And I'm

[1:31:44] not saying that you're saying

[1:31:46] this, but I'm just going to

[1:31:47] make this comment. Even if they

[1:31:48] work at McDonald's, Burger King

[1:31:49] or Wendy's, they're paying

[1:31:52] taxes. Their taxes are being

[1:31:54] put back into the community, or

[1:31:56] the revenues are being put back

[1:31:57] into the community. And this is

[1:31:58] the one specific area where

[1:32:00] they need some help and support.

[1:32:02] And I would just love it if we

[1:32:04] would continue to be mindful

[1:32:06] and thoughtful of that, because

[1:32:08] we probably know some people

[1:32:09] who had some very good lives.

[1:32:11] At one point, things happen,

[1:32:14] life happened, medical bills,

[1:32:17] divorce, loss of, of life, loss

[1:32:19] of a partner or whatever. And

[1:32:20] so now they're not where they

[1:32:22] used to be and they're having

[1:32:23] to navigate places where

[1:32:25] they've never had to ask for

[1:32:27] help, but they are grateful

[1:32:29] that there are organizations

[1:32:31] out there in the community that

[1:32:33] can provide them with that help

[1:32:36] and support. So I don't I don't

[1:32:37] mind looking at reducing like

[1:32:40] what has been presented, but I

[1:32:42] would really love if we would

[1:32:44] support keeping something there

[1:32:47] because we are really doing a

[1:32:49] tremendous service to help

[1:32:50] people that are in need.

[1:32:51] >> And you and you mentioned

[1:32:53] the parents and working, but

[1:32:54] the kids going to school is a

[1:32:55] whole nother thing.

[1:32:57] >> Yeah. And yeah, like I said,

[1:32:58] I'm, I could take you to some

[1:33:00] of the spots because they're

[1:33:01] very fearful that, you know,

[1:33:02] you're, you're elected official,

[1:33:03] you're going to tell them, no,

[1:33:05] no, I'm not going to report you.

[1:33:06] You're doing the best you can,

[1:33:08] but what services can we give?

[1:33:10] And it's hurtful when even I'm

[1:33:13] calling on their behalf. And

[1:33:15] like Karen said, the Urban

[1:33:17] League gets a pot of money. And

[1:33:19] and they have people that call

[1:33:20] and they're quote unquote on

[1:33:21] the wait list and they have to

[1:33:23] provide documentation. But that

[1:33:26] money goes quickly. You have a

[1:33:28] poc that have the ability to

[1:33:31] help seniors. That money goes.

[1:33:33] It just goes extremely quick

[1:33:35] because the need is so great.

[1:33:36] And unfortunately, the costs

[1:33:38] are more than what they can

[1:33:39] spread out. So they're only

[1:33:42] able to help fewer people. So I

[1:33:43] would love it if the state

[1:33:45] would step up and help. And I'm

[1:33:47] not saying that at some point

[1:33:49] they shouldn't, because I think

[1:33:51] they should, because those

[1:33:52] legislators represent the same

[1:33:55] people that we represent. But I

[1:33:58] also know how many, and I'm

[1:33:59] sure you guys do too. You've

[1:34:01] heard the stories. You see it.

[1:34:03] I know you know some of the

[1:34:04] same people. I know you know

[1:34:05] who's out there hurting and

[1:34:07] need the services. So I would

[1:34:08] like for us to seriously

[1:34:09] consider at least keeping the

[1:34:11] amount that has been presented

[1:34:14] to us there in the budget. When

[1:34:16] it comes to the scholarship. We

[1:34:17] haven't gotten there yet, but I

[1:34:18] still support that. I thought

[1:34:20] that was a good idea, and it's

[1:34:22] being taken out of a portion of

[1:34:24] our what we have in our offices.

[1:34:25] So I don't know how you all

[1:34:27] feel, but I still support that.

[1:34:29] I know you, the blue ain't what

[1:34:30] you're recommending to go away,

[1:34:31] but I'm just speaking.

[1:34:33] >> Yeah, we have to we have to

[1:34:34] modify that. I guess a couple

[1:34:35] of comments from commissioners

[1:34:37] on that one. Okay. I'll have to

[1:34:39] I'll have to clarify that in a

[1:34:39] second.

[1:34:40] >> Okay. We'll clarify. But

[1:34:41] that's.

[1:34:42] >> Not a budget. We're not

[1:34:43] solving the budget with that.

[1:34:45] >> Yeah, but I support that. So

[1:34:47] I'm just saying. And then the

[1:34:48] Bay care home care, you know, I

[1:34:50] kind of wrapped those comments

[1:34:51] up into what I just discussed

[1:34:53] about the need to be able to

[1:34:54] provide those services because

[1:34:55] they'll end elsewhere. So

[1:34:57] that's all I have to say. Thank

[1:34:58] you all so very much for

[1:34:59] listening to my long comments.

[1:35:01] >> Thank you. Thank you for

[1:35:02] your perspective, Commissioner

[1:35:02] Flowers. Commissioner Scheer.

[1:35:05] >> Thank you. Chair, I, I

[1:35:07] appreciate the time. I first of

[1:35:09] all, very. And, Chris, I

[1:35:10] appreciate all the work you did,

[1:35:12] answering all my questions, and

[1:35:13] you all worked really hard on

[1:35:14] getting the budget. I was very

[1:35:16] encouraged when you brought the

[1:35:17] first budget out and saw how

[1:35:19] close we were to a rollback,

[1:35:20] and I still think we're very

[1:35:22] close. But I just want to say

[1:35:24] up front on a few of these

[1:35:25] things, I will not be

[1:35:26] supporting any more reductions

[1:35:28] to the sheriff's budget. He's

[1:35:32] done enough already. Number two,

[1:35:34] I agree with Commissioner

[1:35:38] Latvala and Commissioner Scott

[1:35:40] on the special action funding.

[1:35:42] I think it should come from the

[1:35:43] state. I appreciate those

[1:35:45] comments. And then specifically

[1:35:48] on the the rapid housing, you

[1:35:50] know, there's a lot of places

[1:35:52] I'm on the Pinellas Safety

[1:35:53] Council Coordinating Council.

[1:35:56] There are a lot of places in

[1:35:58] Pinellas County where for

[1:35:59] homelessness for adults, but

[1:36:03] not so many for families. So

[1:36:06] when that item comes up and I

[1:36:08] appreciate your your comments,

[1:36:10] Commissioner Scott, I, I just

[1:36:12] feel like maybe the adult we

[1:36:13] could do away with that program

[1:36:15] and maybe take half the money

[1:36:19] and put it in a, in the, the

[1:36:21] fund for the children families,

[1:36:22] because we don't have enough

[1:36:25] for, for families. So that's

[1:36:26] something I was going to bring

[1:36:28] up at the next meeting. So I'm

[1:36:31] glad you did. And then I did

[1:36:33] want to bring up, I did send

[1:36:35] this memo out and I'm not going

[1:36:37] to cover every bit of it. But

[1:36:40] on getting back to the idea, if

[1:36:42] we do away with the special

[1:36:46] action, and I actually the the

[1:36:48] home care, I like that because

[1:36:50] it's more expensive to, to help

[1:36:51] people out of their homes and

[1:36:53] than it is in their homes. But

[1:36:55] we're still really close. And

[1:36:56] then I wanted to remind you

[1:36:59] that fleet management, fleet

[1:37:01] management, you're. The budget

[1:37:06] proposes a 2,500,000, almost

[1:37:08] $500,000 increase into the

[1:37:10] reserves. Fleet management

[1:37:13] already has $2 million in

[1:37:14] contingency reserves, and it

[1:37:18] already has $17 million in

[1:37:19] reserves. I don't know what the

[1:37:21] difference is, but that's 20

[1:37:23] million. So I don't believe we

[1:37:25] need $2.5 million to go to

[1:37:27] fleet management reserves. So

[1:37:31] that's 2.5 million.

[1:37:32] >> Could I address.

[1:37:33] >> If you want, if.

[1:37:35] >> We go along just so we don't

[1:37:37] kind of get off and take those

[1:37:40] for gospel. Okay. So let's

[1:37:41] let's address some of these.

[1:37:43] And Commissioner, you spent a

[1:37:45] lot of time on the budget, but

[1:37:47] but it's not easy to read a

[1:37:48] budget and, and, and

[1:37:49] necessarily understand the

[1:37:51] funding pieces that go into it

[1:37:54] and the way we draw those down.

[1:37:55] And so like, for instance, on

[1:37:57] the fleet budget, so this is

[1:38:00] not a general fund expense. A

[1:38:02] 7% is charged back to the

[1:38:04] general fund. So again, all

[1:38:06] your all your other funds that,

[1:38:09] that go into that. And so the

[1:38:12] contingency reserve for 27 is

[1:38:13] just $1 million. The

[1:38:15] replacement reserves for

[1:38:17] vehicle replacement is 20

[1:38:19] million. So we budget for that

[1:38:21] replacement vehicle. If we take

[1:38:22] that down, then when it comes

[1:38:23] time to replace that piece of

[1:38:25] equipment or vehicle, we don't

[1:38:27] have the funding available. And

[1:38:29] so these are these are planned

[1:38:30] expenditures for the

[1:38:32] replacement of vehicles. And

[1:38:35] then the contingency reserves.

[1:38:37] We we actually and I'll let

[1:38:39] Chris explain this. There's a

[1:38:40] contingency reserve of 4.5

[1:38:44] million from the bis. We

[1:38:45] reduced that down. And so

[1:38:47] that's, that's already gone

[1:38:48] from. Because I think you're

[1:38:49] getting some of the numbers

[1:38:50] from the original bis.

[1:38:52] >> That's what I was working

[1:38:53] because I didn't get any.

[1:38:54] >> Yeah. So there was a there

[1:38:56] was a change between the bis

[1:38:57] and my budget recommendation.

[1:38:59] And so there is a difference

[1:39:00] there. And I would understand

[1:39:01] how you wouldn't you wouldn't

[1:39:02] catch that. And so we're down

[1:39:04] to $1 million in reserves there.

[1:39:06] And again out of that there's

[1:39:08] only 11% of it is general fund.

[1:39:10] >> Okay. And then what about

[1:39:12] the building development

[1:39:13] services.

[1:39:15] >> Building development review

[1:39:16] services? So that first off,

[1:39:18] that's that's not general fund

[1:39:20] either. Let me go over to where

[1:39:23] that is. Chris, which page is

[1:39:29] that on? Oh, I got it. So again,

[1:39:30] these are not general fund

[1:39:31] dollars of the reserves 3.9

[1:39:32] million. That's one time

[1:39:34] funding that we set aside for

[1:39:35] substantially damaged

[1:39:37] properties. So, so all the work

[1:39:38] that we're doing on

[1:39:39] substantially damaged

[1:39:41] properties, again, that's

[1:39:42] that's stuff that we had to pay

[1:39:44] out in order to address that.

[1:39:46] It was one time money that we

[1:39:47] put in to address it. We're

[1:39:48] actually moving it out over to

[1:39:50] a different fund, but that's

[1:39:52] here nor there. But again,

[1:39:54] these the building fund is a

[1:39:55] special revenue fund and is

[1:39:57] legally restricted to be used

[1:39:59] only for associated building

[1:40:01] division operations. And it's

[1:40:02] governed by a Florida statute.

[1:40:04] So these are not general fund.

[1:40:06] So even if we make a change to

[1:40:07] it, it doesn't it doesn't

[1:40:08] change the outcome of our

[1:40:10] general fund.

[1:40:11] >> All right. And then my last

[1:40:14] thing was I, I found about

[1:40:16] $150,000 in silly expenses. I

[1:40:19] thought that we had there in my

[1:40:20] memo. I don't know why. I've

[1:40:23] been to two conferences now. I

[1:40:24] don't know why we're sending

[1:40:27] them $20,000. I don't the the

[1:40:28] agenda that they push on the

[1:40:31] national level is not my agenda,

[1:40:33] not fact. I love fact. You're

[1:40:35] doing great, but I don't know

[1:40:37] why we're doing. I don't know

[1:40:38] why we're doing the National.

[1:40:40] And then I had to pay for my

[1:40:42] own entry into the Naco. So I

[1:40:45] don't know why we're spending

[1:40:48] 20,000 on on. No. I signed up

[1:40:50] for the conference. I had to

[1:40:51] pay for the conference.

[1:40:51] >> Well.

[1:40:53] >> Out of your office budget.

[1:40:55] >> Yeah. Right. But this is a

[1:40:56] $20,000 line item for

[1:40:57] membership to nato. I don't

[1:40:57] think.

[1:40:58] >> He's differentiating

[1:40:59] membership versus what you pay

[1:41:01] to go to the conference.

[1:41:02] >> Yeah, I do have several

[1:41:03] positions on.

[1:41:06] >> The 20 the 20,000. I'm going

[1:41:08] to stay out of that one. I'm

[1:41:08] sorry.

[1:41:10] >> You get to say whatever you

[1:41:11] want to say, but when you say

[1:41:13] pay off, so you meant you paid

[1:41:14] out of your office budget.

[1:41:16] >> I paid to go to the

[1:41:17] conference out of my.

[1:41:19] >> Out of your. Yeah, that's

[1:41:20] what we all do.

[1:41:21] >> Right. But this is.

[1:41:22] >> The 20,000.

[1:41:22] >> Is just.

[1:41:23] >> The right of.

[1:41:24] >> Entry, right?

[1:41:25] >> What's that?

[1:41:27] >> The 20,000 is just the right

[1:41:28] for you to attend.

[1:41:29] >> No, it's actually it's.

[1:41:30] >> Actually for for nato.

[1:41:31] >> For nato operations. Okay.

[1:41:33] The conference is usually pay

[1:41:33] for themselves.

[1:41:35] >> It's like a yacht club.

[1:41:36] >> Separate, separate from that.

[1:41:38] >> And then I'm sorry. Let me

[1:41:39] apologize to you, sir, because

[1:41:40] I interrupted you and you

[1:41:41] didn't interrupt me. When I

[1:41:42] apologize.

[1:41:43] >> You said nato, and that got

[1:41:44] her attention, so.

[1:41:46] >> Yeah, like, wait a minute,

[1:41:48] but I, I would I will press my

[1:41:49] button when he's finished.

[1:41:50] >> Okay.

[1:41:52] >> Then I was just wondering,

[1:41:55] doesn't our we have a. I have.

[1:41:56] >> a couple things.

[1:41:58] >> I'm sorry. We have a

[1:41:59] representative in Tallahassee

[1:42:01] that we pay. Right. The what

[1:42:03] you call a lobbyist. Yeah. Our

[1:42:05] lobbyists don't. They have a

[1:42:06] tracking software? Aren't they

[1:42:08] providing us with the tracking

[1:42:09] on the bills? What are we going

[1:42:11] to pay $20,000 for tracking

[1:42:11] subscription? I don't

[1:42:12] understand that.

[1:42:13] >> That way we can track all of

[1:42:15] the bills. Tristan uses that on

[1:42:16] a daily basis. That's how he

[1:42:18] gives you updates, etcetera and

[1:42:18] stuff.

[1:42:20] >> I just assume our lobbyists.

[1:42:21] >> Will track the bills that

[1:42:22] they're tracking. We track them

[1:42:24] all, and that gives us the

[1:42:25] ability to go into the detail

[1:42:27] to see exactly what's being

[1:42:28] filed and, and stay up to date

[1:42:30] in real time. It's a very

[1:42:31] valuable piece of software. I,

[1:42:33] we did look, Commissioner,

[1:42:35] based upon your review, we did

[1:42:36] ask internally, though, and the

[1:42:38] the Alliance for innovation is

[1:42:39] something that we're going to

[1:42:41] eliminate. So we actually

[1:42:43] agreed with that. We have it.

[1:42:44] We've been part of that

[1:42:46] organization, but we

[1:42:48] reevaluated it and decided that

[1:42:50] it doesn't provide what we.

[1:42:53] It's worth. So we're going to

[1:42:53] eliminate that.

[1:42:55] >> Okay, great. 12 grand. I

[1:42:58] like it. So so, you know, hey,

[1:43:00] you hit $100,000 item on here,

[1:43:02] and then you got a program that

[1:43:04] you're going to be doing in

[1:43:06] your, your hr department that

[1:43:07] the collaborative.

[1:43:08] >> Oh, the.

[1:43:09] >> Collaborative labs, do we

[1:43:10] really need to have our own

[1:43:12] studies? We get a lot.

[1:43:13] >> Of, well, collaborative labs

[1:43:15] is again, through Saint

[1:43:16] Petersburg College and they

[1:43:22] provide. Page two. Hang on.

[1:43:23] Chris is directing me what to

[1:43:28] say. So we actually reduced it

[1:43:31] from $80,000 in the bis budget

[1:43:33] to $55,000. They do a lot of

[1:43:34] performance evaluation training.

[1:43:36] They do succession management,

[1:43:38] training, supervisor training

[1:43:40] and other employment engagement

[1:43:42] activities. So they they work

[1:43:44] with the departments. When the

[1:43:45] department wants to bring

[1:43:47] disparate groups together and

[1:43:49] create a vision or a line

[1:43:50] services and things like that,

[1:43:52] we use them sporadically, but

[1:43:54] they are. It's like any other

[1:43:55] type of training program. You

[1:43:56] can eliminate it, but it's

[1:43:58] going to have an impact on the

[1:44:00] way we operate. We we use them

[1:44:03] as we need. And so.

[1:44:04] >> Got it.

[1:44:06] >> All right. But I just wanted

[1:44:07] to bring those up and they

[1:44:08] caught my eye.

[1:44:09] >> Commissioner Latvala.

[1:44:11] >> I just want to voice.

[1:44:13] Although I've never been to a

[1:44:17] Naco conference and I never

[1:44:18] planned to go to a Naco

[1:44:19] conference unless there's one

[1:44:23] in Florida, I do not support

[1:44:25] succeeding or seceding from

[1:44:28] Naco. In the same year that we

[1:44:33] have a fact PRESIDENT In our

[1:44:35] midst, because I think that the

[1:44:39] look would be very tacky.

[1:44:45] Because what there's like, what,

[1:44:46] 420 or 450 county commissioners

[1:44:47] in Florida or something like

[1:44:49] that. What is.

[1:44:51] >> The way around that for Naco?

[1:44:52] I'm sorry. Somewhere around

[1:44:54] there, somewhere. In Florida,

[1:44:55] somewhere around there in

[1:44:57] Florida, and then in Naco with

[1:44:59] 3133, because some are called

[1:45:00] judges in Texas, they call them

[1:45:02] judges. They don't call them

[1:45:04] commissioners. And. Et cetera.

[1:45:07] >> So that's just my opinion.

[1:45:11] And I also do not support

[1:45:13] cutting arbitrarily staff from

[1:45:17] the Economic Development office

[1:45:20] either. But there you did have

[1:45:24] some recommendations that I

[1:45:26] supported. But those two I do

[1:45:29] not. So thank you, MR. Chair.

[1:45:31] >> Commissioner Flowers.

[1:45:34] >> Thank you. So the $20,000

[1:45:36] that is paid is membership that

[1:45:38] goes into Naco, that helps to

[1:45:41] cover staff that they have that

[1:45:45] go out and lobby on bills that

[1:45:51] are. Issues nationwide. Nothing

[1:45:55] that Naco does is spotty. When

[1:45:56] you serve on the committees.

[1:45:57] Anything that you discuss or

[1:46:00] talk about that moves forward

[1:46:02] through in a policy level, it

[1:46:04] has to be something that

[1:46:06] affects all 50 states. It can't

[1:46:08] be just the one thing. For

[1:46:10] example, issues surrounding

[1:46:12] affordable housing, which I

[1:46:13] served and was appointed by the

[1:46:15] former PRESIDENT And will now

[1:46:18] be appointed by the new

[1:46:22] PRESIDENT Of Naco to a national

[1:46:24] housing committee. And we work

[1:46:26] very closely with the federal

[1:46:29] government and hud on changing

[1:46:32] the legislation so that it

[1:46:34] keeps up with the needs in

[1:46:37] local communities. For example,

[1:46:39] the amount that vouchers are

[1:46:43] covered for now, no way covers

[1:46:44] the amount of rent that is

[1:46:46] needed to be paid to the

[1:46:47] landlords. So lobbying for

[1:46:48] things like that to get those

[1:46:50] formulas changed. And we've

[1:46:52] been very successful. It also

[1:46:54] covers any kind of technical

[1:46:56] support or assistance that we

[1:46:58] MAY ask for or MAY need. Not

[1:47:01] all counties need that because

[1:47:02] some are better positioned. We

[1:47:04] have a county that has a number

[1:47:05] of departments, but some of

[1:47:08] your more rural communities,

[1:47:10] sometimes they need that extra

[1:47:11] help. But anything that we need

[1:47:13] from Naco, we can call and they,

[1:47:15] they, they are there and they

[1:47:16] answer the call. Their staff is

[1:47:18] very lean. They don't have a

[1:47:19] million people running around.

[1:47:20] They could have one staff

[1:47:22] person covering several

[1:47:23] different policy committees I

[1:47:24] currently serve. Just had my

[1:47:26] first meeting yesterday. I

[1:47:28] serve on the justice Committee

[1:47:31] that oversees policies and

[1:47:34] legislation relative to.

[1:47:36] Criminal activity, relative to

[1:47:40] laws that that our sheriff

[1:47:43] ultimately ends up carrying out

[1:47:46] and specifically focusing on

[1:47:47] juvenile justice, because

[1:47:49] that's become a big thing. I

[1:47:50] also serve on the housing

[1:47:51] committee. I am actually the

[1:47:53] committee chair for the Housing

[1:47:55] Committee for Naco. And like I

[1:47:57] said, we've been very, very

[1:47:59] successful, and that success

[1:48:02] does trickle down to us because

[1:48:04] if we can effectuate change,

[1:48:05] that means more money for our

[1:48:07] housing department, which is

[1:48:09] Tom El Monte shop. So that

[1:48:11] means more money, that trickles

[1:48:12] down, that goes to home funding.

[1:48:14] That means more money, that

[1:48:16] trickles down to other projects

[1:48:20] and programs. So. I think it's

[1:48:23] worth it. Okay. Yeah, I believe

[1:48:26] it's worth it. And not just not

[1:48:27] just because I'm a fact. I'm

[1:48:29] the PRESIDENT Of fact and I do.

[1:48:30] >> But you are knowledgeable.

[1:48:32] >> Of it. Yeah. Chris, you did

[1:48:33] leave. But thank you so much

[1:48:35] for sticking up for me. I

[1:48:37] appreciate that, but there is

[1:48:40] value in it. And yes, I go and

[1:48:42] I'm very active. I go to all my

[1:48:43] meetings. I don't, you know, go

[1:48:46] to hang out. I go to work, get

[1:48:48] things done and bring it back.

[1:48:50] I go up on the hill to work,

[1:48:51] get things done, bring it back.

[1:48:54] So I just wanted to share. Oh,

[1:48:56] thank you, MR. Chair. Yeah,

[1:48:58] exactly. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:48:59] >> MR. Chair. Yeah. Go ahead.

[1:49:00] >> I'll be quick.

[1:49:02] >> No, no, I'm just trying to

[1:49:04] get some things in too, so go

[1:49:04] ahead.

[1:49:06] >> Sorry about that. All right.

[1:49:07] No, I just want to echo

[1:49:08] Commissioner Flowers comments.

[1:49:09] I mean, I find the meetings

[1:49:11] valuable. I serve on a couple

[1:49:14] of different committees and

[1:49:15] transportation Committee being

[1:49:16] one of them. And I find that

[1:49:18] that you get learn a lot, a lot

[1:49:20] of understanding and knowledge

[1:49:20] about how the federal

[1:49:21] government is looking at

[1:49:23] funding transportation for

[1:49:25] future projects, which has

[1:49:26] certainly helped inform my

[1:49:27] decision as we work towards a

[1:49:30] regional mpo. So so anyways, I

[1:49:31] just support what you said.

[1:49:34] >> Thank you. It seems like

[1:49:36] we've lost three of our members

[1:49:38] here. I know Commissioner

[1:49:40] Latvala will be back. I don't I

[1:49:41] think Commissioner Nowicki said

[1:49:43] he needed to leave after two. I

[1:49:44] don't know about Commissioner

[1:49:47] Peters. So this is our last

[1:49:49] workshop. Are we going to have

[1:49:52] a workshop? I mean, because

[1:49:54] otherwise we're going to be

[1:49:56] working during our hearings.

[1:49:57] >> You're you're well you're

[1:49:59] going to be working during your

[1:50:03] hearings. So any, any, any

[1:50:04] direction that you can provide

[1:50:07] would be helpful. We, because

[1:50:08] we don't have a workshop

[1:50:10] scheduled, we do on the 17th

[1:50:12] before the final vote. So you

[1:50:13] do have an opportunity between

[1:50:15] your first public hearing and

[1:50:17] your second public hearing. And

[1:50:19] so under your first public

[1:50:19] hearing, all I need is simple

[1:50:21] majority vote, and then you'll

[1:50:23] have a work session, and then

[1:50:24] we'll come into our second

[1:50:26] public hearing. That will

[1:50:28] require supermajority.

[1:50:30] >> Yeah. So again, I can't

[1:50:32] thank the commissioners who've

[1:50:34] done all of their homework

[1:50:35] leading up to it and the

[1:50:37] questions and in the messages

[1:50:39] that have that have come to us

[1:50:41] with no response required, of

[1:50:43] course, or even allowed. So

[1:50:45] thank you to any, all of you

[1:50:48] for that. And I think we've

[1:50:51] done a great job. I, I'm, I'm

[1:50:53] of the mind that a balance in

[1:50:54] our budget, somewhere between

[1:50:55] the hardware and the software

[1:50:57] of our county needs to be

[1:51:00] looked at. And for me, when I

[1:51:01] look at that, that third

[1:51:04] millage, which represents about

[1:51:06] 10% of our commitment to roads,

[1:51:09] bridges and culverts above and

[1:51:10] beyond what we're already doing

[1:51:12] in the penny, which is already

[1:51:13] doing more on infrastructure

[1:51:16] than we had originally thought.

[1:51:18] I'm an infrastructure geek and

[1:51:20] I believe in all of it, but

[1:51:22] there MAY be a time for us to

[1:51:23] look at that third millage and

[1:51:25] roll that third millage out of

[1:51:26] the budget for next year. That

[1:51:28] represents, as I said, 10% of

[1:51:29] the work. I'd like to know what

[1:51:31] that effect is and what we're

[1:51:32] looking at specifically,

[1:51:34] because I do think we have

[1:51:35] responsibility. The software of

[1:51:37] our county is critically

[1:51:39] important, and I just don't

[1:51:41] want to turn my back on it

[1:51:42] without knowing it. I hate to

[1:51:44] turn our back on the social

[1:51:45] action funding without knowing

[1:51:46] the details and what's going to

[1:51:48] be affected, what other sources

[1:51:50] they have. I certainly am not

[1:51:52] going to support anything on

[1:51:54] rolling back animal services.

[1:51:57] The the ttvr is critically

[1:51:58] important. In fact, that's an

[1:51:59] area that we ought to be

[1:52:01] committing more money to, to

[1:52:02] get a handle on the issues that

[1:52:05] we have in our county with

[1:52:06] regards to animals. And I

[1:52:08] certainly don't want to affect

[1:52:09] budgets that MAY be affecting

[1:52:12] our kids or well-intentioned

[1:52:14] adults that are just in a bad

[1:52:17] place. And so I see that

[1:52:19] nestled into the Bay area home

[1:52:21] care, the cabhi, the cab thing,

[1:52:23] the the special, the Social

[1:52:25] action fund, all of this stuff

[1:52:28] MAY have consequences that

[1:52:30] we're not aware of that are

[1:52:32] going to affect people. And we

[1:52:34] I mean, we certainly talked

[1:52:37] about, you know, the sheriff's

[1:52:41] facility on 4040 ninth Street.

[1:52:43] And if we close that, then

[1:52:45] we're talking about folks being

[1:52:47] out on the streets that we're

[1:52:49] going to have in and around our

[1:52:51] community. Number one, we MAY

[1:52:53] not like that. Number two, the

[1:52:54] folks that are there needing

[1:52:55] the help themselves, where are

[1:52:57] they going to get that help? So,

[1:52:58] you know, you have places that

[1:53:00] we take away from. I just like

[1:53:02] to know what what's their

[1:53:04] alternative realistically. So

[1:53:08] for me, giving up 10% of, of

[1:53:11] our road bridge and it's, it's,

[1:53:12] I can put my hands around it.

[1:53:16] I'm sure Kelly will let us know

[1:53:17] what would fall out and where

[1:53:19] we would go back, how we might

[1:53:21] not make as much progress as as

[1:53:24] we wanted. But to me, that's an

[1:53:26] area that we can look at. And

[1:53:27] to me, that's an area that

[1:53:30] takes our money north of 50%

[1:53:34] rollback. And at the same time

[1:53:36] preserves some of these

[1:53:38] programs that I don't think

[1:53:39] whether you philosophically

[1:53:40] agree that that we should be

[1:53:43] doing it or not, we've done it

[1:53:45] and people are in our county

[1:53:47] are used to having it. So I

[1:53:48] want to make sure I'm clear on

[1:53:50] what that looks like. If we

[1:53:53] take it away and I'm not. So I

[1:53:54] probably will not support any

[1:53:56] of the social action funding

[1:53:57] reductions, any of that, until

[1:53:59] I know more. But I'm willing to

[1:54:02] throw on the table that point.

[1:54:04] 00281 mill, which is about $3

[1:54:07] million a year on the on the

[1:54:09] upper upper part, that was

[1:54:12] representing about 50% rollback.

[1:54:14] So that would go up higher. I'm

[1:54:16] not sure what that looks like.

[1:54:19] Maybe it's 60%, 65% rollback.

[1:54:20] >> Okay. You're talking about

[1:54:21] taking the entire I'm talking.

[1:54:23] >> About taking the entire 3

[1:54:23] million.

[1:54:24] >> So that would be an

[1:54:25] additional basically a million

[1:54:28] and a half. So we we can we can

[1:54:30] look at that.

[1:54:32] >> Somewhere around 60, 65%

[1:54:33] probably.

[1:54:35] >> We can we can look at that.

[1:54:36] More importantly, what we'll

[1:54:38] tell you is what's going to

[1:54:39] come off the table, what the

[1:54:41] impact of that is. Okay.

[1:54:43] >> Yeah.

[1:54:44] >> I understand it's a, it's a

[1:54:46] balancing act. I hate, you know,

[1:54:48] I hate to see it. I love to see

[1:54:50] us tie it to when we can get

[1:54:52] the state to actually provide

[1:54:54] relief through the indexing of

[1:54:56] the gas tax. That's been our

[1:54:58] leverage point. But that's

[1:54:59] absolutely a policy call.

[1:55:00] >> I understand. I mean, I

[1:55:02] would too. I've been I've been

[1:55:03] pounding that drum. Obviously

[1:55:05] no one's got no one hears

[1:55:07] anything about it. And I

[1:55:08] appreciate the conversations

[1:55:10] you've had with some of them to

[1:55:11] understand the connections that

[1:55:14] they do and how it affects the

[1:55:16] very millage that they complain

[1:55:18] about us. I mean, it's like,

[1:55:20] it's so direct and we're not,

[1:55:21] we're not. And we're talking

[1:55:23] about everybody paying their

[1:55:25] fair share of that. And to that

[1:55:27] end, Barry, it might be it

[1:55:29] might be helpful to understand

[1:55:31] exactly what that gas tax is,

[1:55:34] because it's not all just the

[1:55:36] electric car piece that they

[1:55:38] pay their fair share.

[1:55:39] >> So if we what we've always

[1:55:41] tied it to just and I don't

[1:55:43] want to get down on a side

[1:55:45] thing, but we've always tied it

[1:55:47] to indexing of the gas tax. But

[1:55:49] we've also said that if there's

[1:55:50] been a lot of. And we always

[1:55:52] thought we you know, I mean,

[1:55:54] Commissioner Lavelle will say,

[1:55:56] you know, getting a bill opened,

[1:55:57] you know, is your opportunity,

[1:55:59] but there's got to be a reason

[1:56:01] for a bill to be opened or it's

[1:56:02] hard to get traction in

[1:56:04] Tallahassee. They there's been

[1:56:05] a lot of discussion about

[1:56:06] addressing electric vehicles

[1:56:08] and doing a registration fee.

[1:56:12] That would then be their part

[1:56:14] of what otherwise would be the

[1:56:15] gas tax. And so you'd put a

[1:56:17] registration fee on, we'd get

[1:56:18] part of it. The state would get

[1:56:20] part of it to cover the cost of

[1:56:21] roads, etcetera and stuff.

[1:56:23] That's the opportunity for them

[1:56:24] to say, all right, at that time,

[1:56:26] if that bill, if they address

[1:56:29] that, include us and indexing

[1:56:31] of our portion of the gas tax

[1:56:32] the same way the state does

[1:56:34] with their portion, that's

[1:56:36] really what we've tried to tie

[1:56:37] that together. We've just never

[1:56:38] been able to, in fact, spend on

[1:56:40] this. We've had this as part of

[1:56:41] our legislative program for

[1:56:43] years. We haven't been able to

[1:56:44] get traction. But and that's

[1:56:46] the reason I was saying that,

[1:56:47] that we've always said that if

[1:56:49] we can get that traction, we'll

[1:56:50] take we'll calculate that. How

[1:56:51] much does that bring in and do

[1:56:53] a direct millage reduction on

[1:56:54] our side of what the transfer

[1:56:55] is?

[1:56:56] >> I understand.

[1:56:58] >> No, I understand, I just

[1:56:59] wanted you to understand that

[1:57:01] the the mechanism to, to

[1:57:03] actually make that happen. Yeah.

[1:57:04] >> Well, adding these three

[1:57:07] mills is, was painful for me,

[1:57:08] but it did what it's supposed

[1:57:10] to do. And you know, to that

[1:57:12] end, I'm grateful. And it's not

[1:57:15] like we're we're still you're

[1:57:17] still talking about 40 million

[1:57:18] that we're adding to that

[1:57:21] instead of instead of 43

[1:57:23] million. And then I know that

[1:57:24] there are different pots of

[1:57:26] money there, but I'm just I'm

[1:57:27] again, trying to put

[1:57:27] perspective around this.

[1:57:29] >> We can tell you what an

[1:57:30] additional million and a half.

[1:57:32] I can tell you what we won't be

[1:57:33] able to do as.

[1:57:35] >> a result. And yeah, and

[1:57:37] don't don't pick out just the

[1:57:37] heartwarming.

[1:57:39] >> It's the road in front of

[1:57:39] your house. Yeah.

[1:57:41] >> Yeah, that that kind of

[1:57:43] thing. If it's if it's in front

[1:57:48] of Balch's house. But yeah, so

[1:57:50] I think again, it doesn't sound

[1:57:53] like I mean, if someone told me

[1:57:54] right now that we're going to

[1:57:56] lower, we're going to do a 60

[1:58:00] millage rate reduction or 60%

[1:58:03] number here or 65%. However we

[1:58:06] got there, I'd be ecstatic. And

[1:58:08] I'd say we're doing what our

[1:58:09] residents demand of us. They

[1:58:11] MAY demand more of us, and

[1:58:13] we'll see how that pans out in

[1:58:15] the next year. And, you know,

[1:58:16] and I don't, you know, I don't

[1:58:18] want to get into for this year,

[1:58:19] but for next year. And we're

[1:58:21] talking about restructuring

[1:58:22] government. And that means and

[1:58:24] that. Means that means salaries

[1:58:27] are on the table. It means our

[1:58:28] salaries are on the table, all

[1:58:30] of it when we have that

[1:58:31] discussion. So those are

[1:58:32] additional steps that we're

[1:58:35] going to have to again, we're

[1:58:35] going to.

[1:58:36] >> Have to look at.

[1:58:38] >> And I'm not I'm not prepared

[1:58:40] to do that. This year's budget.

[1:58:42] So to me, getting us to 60 or

[1:58:44] 65% is something that I can

[1:58:45] support, even though I MAY not

[1:58:47] support the mix. You know, if

[1:58:49] the majority wants to do it in

[1:58:51] the social action and leave the

[1:58:52] leave the roads, I'm not going

[1:58:54] to not support that. And I'm

[1:58:56] giving my cards away a little

[1:58:58] bit, but I don't think it's

[1:59:00] right to get rid of social

[1:59:02] action funding and the soft

[1:59:03] costs that that circulate

[1:59:05] through our county without

[1:59:07] knowing exactly who's going to

[1:59:08] be affected and how. And do we

[1:59:10] have other sources that they

[1:59:12] can get to? We did that for

[1:59:14] better or for worse. And so

[1:59:15] folks have counted on us, and I

[1:59:18] don't think it's right to just

[1:59:21] do that in one fell swoop. So

[1:59:22] there was a comedian that

[1:59:23] talked about one fell swoop.

[1:59:25] I'm trying to remember. Anyway,

[1:59:26] did you have something,

[1:59:26] Commissioner?

[1:59:28] >> Yeah. I just wanted to say

[1:59:30] that I, I agree with you. And

[1:59:34] looking at the the full third,

[1:59:36] third millage and and just a

[1:59:38] point on social action funding,

[1:59:41] we were very generous to not

[1:59:42] for profits with our Arpa

[1:59:44] dollars, which was a choice we

[1:59:45] made. We didn't have to do that,

[1:59:47] but we. But we did that. And a

[1:59:49] lot of these not for profits,

[1:59:51] not all of them, but a lot of

[1:59:52] them have some pretty nice

[1:59:53] endowments as well. So I don't

[1:59:55] think that they're going to. I

[1:59:56] don't think that our.

[1:59:58] >> And that's what I want to.

[2:00:00] That's what I want to dig in

[2:00:00] and find out.

[2:00:03] >> So yeah, and we have I have

[2:00:04] some of that information, but a

[2:00:06] lot of them have pretty nice

[2:00:08] endowments too. So I don't see

[2:00:09] everybody likes to get money,

[2:00:10] but I don't see any.

[2:00:12] >> And I think that's a great

[2:00:13] point. And I think Karen, at

[2:00:15] least when we have that next

[2:00:16] discussion on that, when we get

[2:00:18] to specifics, I think that's a

[2:00:19] good that's a good discussion

[2:00:20] to have. Yeah.

[2:00:22] >> So okay. That's all. Thanks.

[2:00:24] >> Oh, Vince Nowicki, you left.

[2:00:26] I'm not going to recognize you

[2:00:27] on the screen chair.

[2:00:28] >> Can I, can I recommend that

[2:00:30] you all take a quick vote to

[2:00:31] allow his virtual participation

[2:00:32] approval.

[2:00:33] >> Second.

[2:00:36] >> All in favor.

[2:00:36] >> Aye.

[2:00:38] >> All against. No, no. I'm

[2:00:39] kidding. Go ahead. Vince.

[2:00:41] >> He's in the timeout room.

[2:00:43] >> Oh. Well, thank you for.

[2:00:46] >> Allowing me to participate

[2:00:48] virtually. I was going to wait

[2:00:50] to bring all the hard cuts, so

[2:00:51] I didn't have to be there in

[2:00:53] person and get tomatoes thrown

[2:00:54] at me. So I figured I would

[2:00:56] just leave and then present all

[2:00:59] the hard cuts virtually.

[2:01:01] >> We can't even see your face.

[2:01:03] >> Well, I'm driving, so I

[2:01:04] don't want the sheriff to pull

[2:01:07] me over in a flock camera, but

[2:01:10] I'll save that for another day.

[2:01:11] >> You know what you want to

[2:01:13] play, you know.

[2:01:15] >> So I. I appreciate Barry and

[2:01:18] Chris. You know, all the hard

[2:01:22] work to get us halfway there. I

[2:01:24] still think we can do a little

[2:01:26] bit more work. And I support

[2:01:27] you, chair, by saying looking

[2:01:29] at that third millage, looking

[2:01:31] at that, I'm still not sure how

[2:01:33] I feel about the social action

[2:01:35] funding. I think we need to

[2:01:36] maybe look at that a little bit

[2:01:38] more. Could go one way or the

[2:01:42] other on it. A few things that

[2:01:44] I brought up, I mean, workforce

[2:01:47] relations barrier, Chris, in

[2:01:49] that workforce relations, I

[2:01:51] think we're spending like a few

[2:01:53] hundred thousand dollars or

[2:01:55] budgeting that for tuition

[2:01:57] reimbursement. Do we know how

[2:01:58] much of that is actually being

[2:02:02] used?

[2:02:04] >> I would have to look at that.

[2:02:06] I haven't looked at that

[2:02:07] specifically. I mean, Amanda is

[2:02:08] in the audience, but it's

[2:02:10] probably over. It's probably

[2:02:11] not in workforce relations.

[2:02:13] That's probably over an hr.

[2:02:15] Yeah, it's over in general

[2:02:15] government. That's a county

[2:02:17] wide program we have. It's part

[2:02:18] of our personnel policies and

[2:02:21] procedures for our employees.

[2:02:23] So that's a county wide program.

[2:02:25] >> Okay. I thought I saw it in

[2:02:26] our workforce relations.

[2:02:28] >> No, that would be over in hr

[2:02:29] or or general government. Chris

[2:02:33] is telling me, okay.

[2:02:34] >> And then, you know, I

[2:02:36] brought it up last year and

[2:02:37] I'll bring it up again this

[2:02:39] year. I don't think we should

[2:02:40] be paying for Icma

[2:02:42] subscriptions. I know, Barry,

[2:02:43] you adamantly disagree with

[2:02:46] that, but they're still

[2:02:50] promoting dei as their core

[2:02:52] values. And to train government

[2:02:54] employees how to promote dei in

[2:02:58] government. So if someone's

[2:03:02] getting 150,000 180,000

[2:03:04] $200,000 a year salary, there's

[2:03:06] no reason why they can't pay

[2:03:08] for that own subscription on

[2:03:10] their own. So maybe we don't

[2:03:12] need to eliminate it for

[2:03:14] everybody. But I think if

[2:03:18] you're making a significant

[2:03:20] income that you should be able

[2:03:24] to pay for that on your own

[2:03:26] because it's helping you

[2:03:27] advance their a person's

[2:03:31] professional life.

[2:03:32] >> Very

[2:03:34] >> Well, I'd say I'm a is a

[2:03:35] professional organization that

[2:03:38] that represents professionals

[2:03:39] throughout all cities and

[2:03:40] counties across the United

[2:03:43] States. They promote core

[2:03:45] values. Those those values,

[2:03:47] those tenets that we live by

[2:03:49] include. We believe in

[2:03:50] professional management is

[2:03:51] essential to the effective,

[2:03:53] efficient, equitable, and

[2:03:54] democratic local government.

[2:03:56] Everybody can can wordsmith

[2:03:58] anything they want. It goes to

[2:03:59] affirm the dignity and worth of

[2:04:01] local government services to

[2:04:03] maintain a sense of public

[2:04:05] trust. We talk about the words

[2:04:07] and highest ethical standards

[2:04:09] and integrity in all

[2:04:11] professional, personal and

[2:04:13] public relationships. The best

[2:04:15] interest of the community

[2:04:17] members policy. We submit

[2:04:18] policy proposals to elected

[2:04:19] officials and provide them with

[2:04:21] facts and technical and

[2:04:23] professional advice. We

[2:04:25] recognize elected officials are

[2:04:25] accountable to their community

[2:04:27] for decisions they make.

[2:04:30] Members are responsible for. So,

[2:04:32] and again, you can there's all

[2:04:33] kinds of documents. There are

[2:04:34] professional organization. They

[2:04:35] have documents. And so I'm sure

[2:04:36] there's something out there

[2:04:38] that talks about equity and

[2:04:39] things like that. But you go to

[2:04:41] the core tenets. We actually

[2:04:42] hold our our members

[2:04:44] accountable for those core

[2:04:46] tenets, including members that

[2:04:48] violate those of, of taking

[2:04:50] them out of the organization

[2:04:52] and disbanding them from the

[2:04:53] organization. So it's an

[2:04:54] organization that holds the

[2:04:57] highest ethical standards and

[2:04:58] that we live by, and that's

[2:05:00] part of our code of ethics. So

[2:05:02] it is a it is a tremendous

[2:05:03] professional organization, no

[2:05:06] different than Naco or, or fac

[2:05:07] or any other organization. Same

[2:05:10] thing. We have a Florida

[2:05:11] Association of City and County

[2:05:13] Managers. I wholeheartedly

[2:05:16] support that. I mean, yeah.

[2:05:16] >> Okay.

[2:05:18] >> All right. What else to say?

[2:05:20] I mean, I'm picking on them is

[2:05:21] just wrong.

[2:05:23] >> Vince, hold on one second.

[2:05:23] Commissioner Latvala.

[2:05:25] >> How much is that

[2:05:25] subscription?

[2:05:27] >> I, I don't know. It's based

[2:05:27] on.

[2:05:30] >> It's based on your income.

[2:05:31] >> But yeah. And it's capped at

[2:05:33] a certain amount. But we have a

[2:05:35] lot of our, we have a lot of

[2:05:37] our staff that are, that are

[2:05:38] members of it. It's usually

[2:05:39] it's all my aca, several

[2:05:40] department heads and things

[2:05:41] like that.

[2:05:42] >> We can get that number.

[2:05:43] >> We can.

[2:05:45] >> Okay. I'm just it was a

[2:05:46] question so we can get the

[2:05:48] number. Vince. Go ahead.

[2:05:50] >> Thank you chair. You know, I

[2:05:52] do support Commissioner

[2:05:54] Scheer's. I don't know if he's

[2:05:56] withdrawn his Naco proposal,

[2:05:57] but I. I would be supportive of

[2:06:01] that. And then.

[2:06:03] >> Yeah. Yeah. So you're

[2:06:05] supporting his support of the

[2:06:06] Naco thing?

[2:06:08] >> Correct. Unless he's already

[2:06:08] withdrew it then.

[2:06:08] >> Yeah.

[2:06:12] >> He did. Okay. Well, good job,

[2:06:16] I guess. And then and I'll and

[2:06:20] I'll have more. But but but the

[2:06:21] reserves that we're setting

[2:06:24] aside for the building to you

[2:06:26] know, Barry and I, we talked

[2:06:28] about this in our one on one.

[2:06:31] It's really hard to accept how

[2:06:32] we're setting aside money when

[2:06:35] we don't have like an exact

[2:06:38] cost. So I just, I mean, if

[2:06:40] we're a few million dollars

[2:06:43] away from a full rollback, you

[2:06:44] know, I think we should really

[2:06:47] look at that, you know, really

[2:06:49] dial in on how much we're

[2:06:50] setting aside. Maybe we only

[2:06:51] set aside 2 million this year

[2:06:54] instead of 4 million. So, so I

[2:06:56] mean, I would be in favor of

[2:06:58] something of that. And then I

[2:06:59] haven't really counted the

[2:07:02] votes on the the sheriff. But

[2:07:05] Barry, do you know, for the $2

[2:07:07] million, what percent of the

[2:07:08] sheriff's budget that would

[2:07:11] represent like 0.6% of his

[2:07:13] budget?

[2:07:15] >> Pretty easy math two. 2

[2:07:18] million out of 500 million. So

[2:07:19] whatever. Whatever that

[2:07:21] calculation is.

[2:07:26] >> I like 0.6%, maybe 0.7%. So,

[2:07:28] you know, 0.4. Okay. I was

[2:07:30] being more conservative, I

[2:07:35] guess. So I mean, I support law

[2:07:36] enforcement. I'm the first

[2:07:38] person to say, you know, law

[2:07:40] enforcement should have more

[2:07:41] measures of going after

[2:07:42] criminals and taking out the

[2:07:44] bad guys. Do we have any

[2:07:47] numbers on the sheriff's, like

[2:07:50] vacant positions or their lapse

[2:07:52] employment management? I mean,

[2:07:54] you know, we're not defunding

[2:07:56] the police if we don't approve

[2:07:59] a $2 million budget increase

[2:08:01] because the budget for the

[2:08:05] sheriff is still a $22 million

[2:08:07] increase.

[2:08:08] >> Right. Go ahead. Hold on,

[2:08:09] hold on, Commissioner Nowicki.

[2:08:10] Go ahead.

[2:08:11] >> Barry. So I've tried to

[2:08:12] address this with the sheriff

[2:08:14] before. In terms of vacancy

[2:08:15] savings, his turnover rate,

[2:08:17] etcetera and stuff. Obviously

[2:08:18] when you have a post, if you

[2:08:20] have a post at the jail and you

[2:08:22] have a vacancy, they backfill

[2:08:23] that with overtime because you

[2:08:24] got to have that post filled,

[2:08:26] right? Same thing out on the

[2:08:27] street. There's other positions

[2:08:28] where you don't necessarily

[2:08:30] have that, so you have turnover.

[2:08:32] However, what we don't fund is

[2:08:33] all the people that are gone at

[2:08:35] the police academy. So he uses

[2:08:38] those vacancy savings to fund

[2:08:39] his officers at the police

[2:08:41] academy while they're out at

[2:08:42] the police academy, but not on

[2:08:44] the street holding a post. He

[2:08:46] also overlaps them with a I

[2:08:48] believe it's a 90 or 120 day

[2:08:50] field training officer before

[2:08:51] they're allowed to be out on

[2:08:52] the street by themselves. And

[2:08:54] so again, that's time where you

[2:08:56] have you don't have a fully

[2:08:57] functional officer. And so they,

[2:08:59] they use those funds. So the

[2:09:00] specifics of it, we don't have

[2:09:02] that type of detail in the

[2:09:04] budget. But that's how he's

[2:09:05] explained that to me in the

[2:09:06] past. When we were looking at

[2:09:08] it, when I was applying it to

[2:09:10] all of our other departments.

[2:09:11] So beyond that, I can't give

[2:09:13] you more of an explanation, but

[2:09:15] I will tell you, obviously,

[2:09:17] that he has stated publicly

[2:09:19] that he he doesn't support any

[2:09:23] further reductions.

[2:09:24] >> Well, to be clear, it's not

[2:09:27] a reduction. It's he's still

[2:09:29] getting an increase.

[2:09:31] >> It's a reduction in his

[2:09:33] increased budget proposal.

[2:09:34] >> Yes.

[2:09:38] >> Right. So semantics I guess,

[2:09:40] but okay. Yeah. I mean, I would

[2:09:42] just be curious if there's a

[2:09:44] way that a lot of other

[2:09:46] departments, I guess, are going

[2:09:51] down a few percentages that

[2:09:55] it's just hard to believe you

[2:09:59] can't find a point 4%

[2:10:02] efficiency somewhere. But I

[2:10:03] haven't seen the sheriff's

[2:10:05] budget, but I know he's doing a

[2:10:07] great job and I support our

[2:10:08] sheriff. So if he says he it's

[2:10:10] physically impossible, then I

[2:10:12] guess it's physically

[2:10:15] impossible. But with that, I'm

[2:10:16] sure Barry and I will go over

[2:10:18] more stuff in our one on one

[2:10:20] and looking forward to the

[2:10:21] continued meeting. Thank you

[2:10:22] chair.

[2:10:23] >> And just I don't know if you

[2:10:25] were on when we were talking

[2:10:27] about that. We have a

[2:10:30] commission meeting next

[2:10:33] Thursday, and then we have a

[2:10:34] commission meeting on the 24th

[2:10:36] or 25th. The week before that,

[2:10:39] we have a workshop where we

[2:10:41] could discuss some additional

[2:10:43] items in public together and

[2:10:46] make changes to the budget that

[2:10:49] we preliminarily advance from

[2:10:50] the first meeting. We could

[2:10:52] make some changes on the fly

[2:10:54] for that. The final hearing on

[2:10:56] the 25th.

[2:10:57] >> We simply need a simple

[2:10:59] majority vote to advance out of

[2:11:01] the first public hearing, and

[2:11:02] then the second will be where

[2:11:04] we have to go through.

[2:11:05] >> The different, the different

[2:11:06] levels.

[2:11:06] >> Etc.

[2:11:07] >> And stuff. So I have a

[2:11:09] question. Hold on, Commissioner

[2:11:10] Nowicki. Just one thing, Barry.

[2:11:11] In looking at the operating

[2:11:14] budget comparisons from 25, 26

[2:11:18] and 27 under and again not

[2:11:21] picking on on on Karen but I'm

[2:11:22] looking at the human services

[2:11:26] budget proposal on 26 versus 27.

[2:11:27] And and I'm sure there's some

[2:11:29] really good explanation of why

[2:11:31] it's going up almost 100%, $200

[2:11:35] million from two, two, 83 to 4

[2:11:36] to 480.

[2:11:37] >> That's that hospital

[2:11:37] transfer.

[2:11:39] >> The hospital we're

[2:11:39] transferring.

[2:11:41] >> The money from that we get

[2:11:42] from the federal government.

[2:11:43] And we and it's the pass

[2:11:45] through. We we bring it in.

[2:11:46] Then we transfer it to the

[2:11:47] hospitals. They are getting a

[2:11:49] boatload of money.

[2:11:49] >> But we.

[2:11:51] >> Don't get it's not us.

[2:11:53] >> But it's reflecting. It's

[2:11:55] reflected in our our cost basis.

[2:11:57] >> It is reflected in our cost

[2:11:58] basis. That's when we get

[2:12:00] criticized on budget. You know,

[2:12:01] nobody understands it. Those

[2:12:03] are grants. Those are this

[2:12:05] those are you're not going to

[2:12:06] see that.

[2:12:06] >> Administrative cost.

[2:12:08] >> Out of it. I've been

[2:12:10] criticized on that many times,

[2:12:12] you know, yet their grants and

[2:12:13] their other things.

[2:12:15] >> Well, I mean, that one just

[2:12:16] that one jumps out at you. Oh

[2:12:18] yeah. I mean, when you talk

[2:12:19] about but we're getting dollar

[2:12:21] for dollar on that right.

[2:12:23] >> We're getting it's all pass

[2:12:23] through.

[2:12:24] >> It's just 200 million coming

[2:12:26] in 200 million going out.

[2:12:27] >> Correct. I think we we we

[2:12:29] put a small administrative fee

[2:12:33] on of, you know, 150 000.

[2:12:38] >> So okay. Yuck. Thank you.

[2:12:39] That's what that's kind of the

[2:12:41] stuff that's embedded in our

[2:12:43] budget. It is. When we look at

[2:12:44] the millage rate that covers

[2:12:46] the costs.

[2:12:47] >> Yeah. That's the reason you

[2:12:49] just got to look at the millage

[2:12:51] rate. Because the others are

[2:12:53] even on the chart that we have.

[2:12:56] You know, you see you see the

[2:12:56] blip. And that's and that's the

[2:12:58] reason we put on there. That's

[2:12:59] the cares funding. And it took

[2:13:01] us several years to spend that

[2:13:01] down.

[2:13:02] >> Understand? Did you have

[2:13:05] something else? Okay. Okay.

[2:13:07] Good. You good for now. Okay.

[2:13:08] >> So, commissioners, I got one

[2:13:10] on ones with you next week, so

[2:13:12] I'm sure that'll be part of

[2:13:13] figuring out where everybody's

[2:13:15] at, where we're going. So we'll

[2:13:17] have more discussion then feel

[2:13:19] free to send any additional

[2:13:20] questions. We'll try to answer

[2:13:21] them as we've been doing and

[2:13:23] get those out to the entire

[2:13:27] board. And then we do have the

[2:13:29] next Thursday, the first budget

[2:13:32] public hearing. Then we will

[2:13:34] have a work session on the 17th

[2:13:37] and on the 24th, the second

[2:13:40] public budget hearing.

[2:13:41] >> We'll get the script.

[2:13:43] >> Yeah, we're we need to meet

[2:13:44] with you and go through the

[2:13:46] script and all that stuff and.

[2:13:48] Yeah.

[2:13:50] >> Okay. So I thought I was

[2:13:52] supposed to have already had it.

[2:13:54] I thought I was supposed to

[2:13:55] already have it.

[2:13:57] >> So he does already have it.

[2:13:57] >> Oh, okay.

[2:13:59] >> You do need to.

[2:14:00] >> You're just holding it back,

[2:14:00] Chris.

[2:14:02] >> But you know, commissioners,

[2:14:03] I can't I can't let this go.

[2:14:05] You know, you if you look on

[2:14:07] the last page, the read where

[2:14:09] general government's going down

[2:14:11] 88.5 2%, county administrative

[2:14:13] departments going down four

[2:14:16] point. That includes raises.

[2:14:18] And, you know, Chris and I

[2:14:19] didn't do that. It's everybody

[2:14:21] out here in the audience. It's

[2:14:22] all of our department heads. I

[2:14:24] mean, they went back and looked

[2:14:25] at their budget and they dug

[2:14:26] deeper and they brought

[2:14:28] additional cuts to you because

[2:14:30] we asked them to. And so I just

[2:14:31] can't let that go unnoticed to

[2:14:33] say thank you for I mean, they

[2:14:35] truly care about trying to meet

[2:14:38] your goals, which is trying to

[2:14:39] balance providing services to

[2:14:41] our residents, but doing it at

[2:14:42] the lowest cost possible and

[2:14:44] keep the tax rate low. And so

[2:14:46] they've delivered. They've

[2:14:47] delivered for you repeatedly

[2:14:49] year after year. And so I just

[2:14:50] wanted to thank them publicly

[2:14:52] for all their efforts, because

[2:14:53] they truly are trying to do the

[2:14:55] best job that they can and meet

[2:14:57] all the competing needs.

[2:14:58] >> Yeah, it's a great point,

[2:15:01] Barry. And it I see a lot of

[2:15:02] directors and others over there

[2:15:05] and I it certainly doesn't go

[2:15:07] unnoticed. Perhaps not said

[2:15:08] enough. Thank you for what you

[2:15:10] all have done this year to. And

[2:15:12] you know, it's not an easy time

[2:15:13] for any of us. And it includes.

[2:15:15] All of you guys are doing the

[2:15:16] heavy lifting to give us these

[2:15:19] options on a piece of paper. So

[2:15:21] echoing your comments and I'm

[2:15:23] glad you said that. Thank you

[2:15:27] to everybody. Okay. We are

[2:15:29] jumping into, oh, we go from

[2:15:32] budgets to potable irrigation

[2:15:34] meters and Jeremy Ward better

[2:15:36] be coming ready to.

[2:15:38] >> We we wanted to do budget

[2:15:40] first. We don't want you in a

[2:15:41] bad mood before we get to

[2:15:43] budget, you know? So Jeremy,

[2:15:46] you're on.

[2:15:47] >> And I'm making sure that I

[2:15:49] had lots of tables with numbers

[2:15:51] so you can evaluate more

[2:15:55] numbers. So. Jeremy, water

[2:15:57] utilities director, you guys

[2:15:59] asked me to go back and look at

[2:16:01] the feasibility of potable

[2:16:03] irrigation meters. So I just

[2:16:04] want to give you an update of

[2:16:07] where we're at with that review.

[2:16:10] So as I understood the question,

[2:16:12] the we have certain residents

[2:16:14] that do not have reclaimed

[2:16:15] water service to their house

[2:16:16] yet are still irrigating their

[2:16:19] lawns, using potable water, and

[2:16:20] several other municipalities

[2:16:23] and water companies allow

[2:16:25] separate meters for irrigation

[2:16:26] water. So essentially, the way

[2:16:28] it works under today in

[2:16:29] Pinellas County utilities, if

[2:16:31] you water your lawn using your

[2:16:33] potable water meter, you are

[2:16:34] paying sewer charges on water

[2:16:39] that are going on your lawn. So.

[2:16:43] Is there a way to ease that

[2:16:44] burden on those specific

[2:16:46] customers? For reference, I put

[2:16:48] down here just at the bottom

[2:16:50] line today, under the current

[2:16:53] rate structure, at 10,000

[2:16:54] gallons of water usage, you no

[2:16:56] longer get charged sewer

[2:16:57] charges. So you're capped. So

[2:16:58] if you use 100,000 gallons a

[2:17:00] month because you're a over

[2:17:02] irrigator, you are still capped

[2:17:03] at 10,000 gallons.

[2:17:04] >> But but you're still using

[2:17:06] the more expensive potable

[2:17:06] water.

[2:17:07] >> You are absolutely using

[2:17:09] more potable water. And we only

[2:17:11] have availability to about

[2:17:13] 17,000 customers for reclaimed

[2:17:14] water. So reclaimed water is

[2:17:17] not even available to all

[2:17:22] 100,000 plus water customers.

[2:17:23] So I wanted to guide I'm sorry,

[2:17:25] there's going to be math here

[2:17:27] in numbers, but I do want to

[2:17:29] just walk you through how this

[2:17:32] applies to different people. On

[2:17:34] average, we use about 83

[2:17:37] gallons per day per person of

[2:17:38] potable water in Pinellas

[2:17:40] County utilities 20 years ago,

[2:17:42] that was about 100 gallons per

[2:17:46] day. As soon as ten years ago,

[2:17:48] we were down to 85 gallons a

[2:17:50] day. And now our last count,

[2:17:52] two years ago, we were about 83

[2:17:54] gallons a day. So we are

[2:17:56] showing water conservation

[2:17:57] measures working in Pinellas

[2:17:59] County. But even at 83 gallons

[2:18:02] a day, that's about 2500

[2:18:03] gallons a month, which rounds

[2:18:05] up to 3000 gallons of billing

[2:18:06] per our billing rules. We bill

[2:18:08] about a thousand. So if you're

[2:18:11] a single person, you MAY or MAY

[2:18:13] not use irrigation at your

[2:18:15] house. So you can see the first

[2:18:17] row there has $0. So this is

[2:18:19] someone who lives in a condo or

[2:18:20] a house without irrigation

[2:18:21] system. And then there's

[2:18:23] different levels of irrigating.

[2:18:24] Different people use different

[2:18:25] levels of irrigation as you're

[2:18:27] aware. So our kind of tabulated

[2:18:29] here for a household that

[2:18:31] doesn't use irrigation, that

[2:18:32] has a single person, they MAY

[2:18:36] use 3000 gallons of water on a

[2:18:38] monthly basis. And then if

[2:18:42] you're a standard water user

[2:18:44] for irrigation, 12,000 gallons

[2:18:46] of irrigation, you might use a

[2:18:50] total of 15,000 gallons a month.

[2:18:51] You add to that, from a sewer

[2:18:53] charging standpoint, we have a

[2:18:58] sewer base rate and then up to.

[2:19:00] 10,000 gallons, you are charged

[2:19:02] per thousand gallons of water

[2:19:04] used at your house. That goes

[2:19:06] and adds to the sewer bill. So

[2:19:07] what I showed here in the last

[2:19:08] column, and I again, I

[2:19:10] apologize for all the numbers.

[2:19:11] It's going to get worse here in

[2:19:13] a minute, but if you are a non

[2:19:17] irrigator using a per capita

[2:19:19] normal usage rate for a single

[2:19:20] person, your sewer bill and

[2:19:22] current bill charges is about

[2:19:25] $46 a month. If you are an

[2:19:27] irrigator using potable water,

[2:19:29] your bill would be more in the

[2:19:32] range of $102. Just on the

[2:19:33] sewer side. We're not talking

[2:19:34] about water, bill. This is just

[2:19:36] the sewer bill. And you can see

[2:19:37] that as you increase the

[2:19:38] irrigation, your sewer bill

[2:19:42] does not increase. So I just

[2:19:43] wanted to walk through that as

[2:19:46] a single person household. And

[2:19:47] how irrigating affects the bill

[2:19:49] you receive at home on a

[2:19:50] monthly basis.

[2:19:51] >> Because you've you've

[2:19:53] already you've gone over the

[2:19:55] 10,000 gallons per month of

[2:19:57] potable. Correct. So the sewer

[2:19:57] doesn't come into play.

[2:19:59] >> So the sewer no longer adds

[2:20:01] more to the bill.

[2:20:04] >> Is that for all potable?

[2:20:06] >> All potable? Yes.

[2:20:12] >> All potable. Residential.

[2:20:14] >> Only for residential.

[2:20:15] >> Commercial customers. If

[2:20:16] they go above 10,000 gallons.

[2:20:18] >> They're on a different rate

[2:20:20] structure. Yes. But it's it can

[2:20:24] be similar. I don't have that.

[2:20:25] I could get that if you want

[2:20:28] more detail there. So what I

[2:20:29] wanted to describe with this in

[2:20:31] detail to show you, because on

[2:20:32] the next chart, I don't want

[2:20:34] you to have to dive into all

[2:20:37] this detail, but there are

[2:20:38] multiple types of households in

[2:20:40] Pinellas County utilities

[2:20:41] customer base. So I just showed

[2:20:43] you the example of a single

[2:20:45] person who irrigates and

[2:20:46] doesn't irrigate their lawn,

[2:20:48] but you might imagine a two

[2:20:49] person household, a three

[2:20:51] person household, some six

[2:20:53] seven person households. And

[2:20:56] what it cuts down to is that on

[2:20:57] the last column here, as you

[2:20:59] have more people in your

[2:21:00] household, whether you irrigate

[2:21:02] or not, doesn't really impact

[2:21:04] your sewer bill because just

[2:21:05] your normal water usage tubs,

[2:21:07] showers, dishwashers, clothes

[2:21:10] dryers, those type of things

[2:21:12] uses pass the cap of the sewer

[2:21:14] bill. But if you are a lower

[2:21:17] person household who also

[2:21:18] irrigates, you are absolutely

[2:21:20] impacted by the way the current

[2:21:24] rate structure exists. So I

[2:21:25] just highlighted the single

[2:21:27] person and two person

[2:21:29] households. If you're a single

[2:21:32] person who irrigates to the

[2:21:34] minimum recommended level, it's

[2:21:36] about a $60 a month impact on

[2:21:38] your sewer bill. So the

[2:21:40] question that was brought to me

[2:21:41] was, you know, can we should we

[2:21:46] do something to help? Possibly.

[2:21:47] There's definitely an impact to

[2:21:49] a certain segment of our

[2:21:51] population. One of the

[2:21:53] difficulties that arises here,

[2:21:55] I don't know how many single

[2:21:56] person households we have in

[2:21:58] our customer base. I have meter

[2:22:00] data, so I don't go and poll

[2:22:02] and and ask people, you know,

[2:22:04] you have people getting married,

[2:22:06] divorced kids moving in and out.

[2:22:08] It's too dynamic to really

[2:22:10] understand how many people

[2:22:11] actually live and use water in

[2:22:13] a specific house on a specific

[2:22:15] day or year or month.

[2:22:16] >> But we have we have meter

[2:22:16] readings.

[2:22:18] >> All I have is water usage

[2:22:19] data.

[2:22:21] >> But that could also be maybe

[2:22:24] somebody filling up their pool.

[2:22:25] >> So under the current

[2:22:26] historical methods, you're

[2:22:27] correct. There's no way for me

[2:22:30] to distinguish a someone who

[2:22:33] washes a lot of cars or fills

[2:22:35] up their pool, or has one time

[2:22:37] water, you know, they hired a

[2:22:39] bouncy house with a water slide

[2:22:40] like I did for my daughter's

[2:22:42] birthday. We use a lot of water

[2:22:47] that day. Wasn't made for

[2:22:51] adults. That's lesson learned.

[2:22:53] So I wanted to just to present

[2:22:54] because when this question was

[2:22:58] brought to me, I tried to

[2:22:59] explain how our current rate

[2:23:03] structures are built. And aside

[2:23:05] from providing a potable

[2:23:06] irrigation meter, were there

[2:23:07] other methods that might

[2:23:08] accomplish the same goal? And I

[2:23:10] tried to talk through that from

[2:23:11] the podium, and I know that it

[2:23:13] it was very confusing. It was

[2:23:14] hard just to talk the numbers

[2:23:16] and abstract. So historically,

[2:23:20] how our rates are built, we cap

[2:23:22] the sewer charges at ten 000

[2:23:24] gallons of potable water use.

[2:23:25] We have a base rate and we have

[2:23:27] a per thousand gallons rate. So

[2:23:29] if the intent for those

[2:23:30] customers that were greatly

[2:23:33] affected by irrigating on their

[2:23:37] sewer bill, option one would be

[2:23:38] using a historical method where

[2:23:40] we just change the limits, we

[2:23:41] changed the base rates and you

[2:23:45] change the burden of the sewer

[2:23:48] cost, right? The overall sewer

[2:23:50] revenues generated by just

[2:23:52] manipulating those three

[2:23:53] numbers. It doesn't require a

[2:23:56] lot of analysis. It doesn't

[2:23:58] require any contextual to who's

[2:24:00] living what households. It's

[2:24:01] basically shifts the burden

[2:24:04] more evenly. So if you are an

[2:24:05] irrigator as a single person,

[2:24:07] your bill might go down ten

[2:24:09] bucks, seven bucks just by

[2:24:10] changing these limits. There's

[2:24:12] nothing magic to the numbers I

[2:24:13] showed in red there. I just

[2:24:15] picked some numbers out of the

[2:24:16] blue that were net neutral from

[2:24:20] a revenue basis. So we can do a

[2:24:21] manipulation of the costs and

[2:24:23] fees like this, keep the

[2:24:25] revenue the same, right. So my

[2:24:27] costs in this model have not

[2:24:28] changed. It's still cost the

[2:24:29] same amount of money to process

[2:24:31] sewer. It's just how that money

[2:24:32] is being charged and collected

[2:24:35] from the customer base. So this

[2:24:37] would be a historical method. I

[2:24:39] just wanted to show this, that

[2:24:40] that's what I was trying to

[2:24:42] explain. Commissioner Eggers

[2:24:44] was asking me questions and I

[2:24:45] was trying to describe back,

[2:24:46] well, what if we just changed

[2:24:48] the limit and shrink it from

[2:24:49] 10,000 to 6000? It would have

[2:24:51] an impact or raise the base

[2:24:53] rates. So this is an option

[2:24:55] that would provide some relief

[2:24:57] to irrigators using potable

[2:24:59] water. But I would also just

[2:25:01] point out that you do see that

[2:25:03] say if I'm not an irrigator,

[2:25:05] then my sewer costs went up.

[2:25:07] And maybe that's fair because

[2:25:09] right now the irrigators are

[2:25:11] taking a portion of the cost of

[2:25:12] running the sewer because

[2:25:13] they're paying for the

[2:25:14] irrigation water to run the

[2:25:17] sewer system, which we just

[2:25:18] admitted. The irrigation water

[2:25:20] doesn't go into the sewer.

[2:25:22] >> I'm sorry. Yes. Excuse me,

[2:25:24] chair, how do you determine the

[2:25:27] number of persons in the

[2:25:27] household?

[2:25:28] >> I don't.

[2:25:30] >> Okay, you can fill it out on

[2:25:31] a form or.

[2:25:33] >> No. Okay. And as you might

[2:25:34] expect, that's so dynamic that

[2:25:35] even capturing that data when

[2:25:39] an account is made would be

[2:25:40] irrelevant. A month later.

[2:25:41] >> I didn't I thought that you

[2:25:43] were going to use those numbers

[2:25:45] to determine their sewer fee.

[2:25:48] >> Not in the current model.

[2:25:51] Right. But it's a good I'm

[2:25:52] going to I'm going to address

[2:25:56] that. So option or sorry,

[2:25:57] before I get into option two.

[2:25:58] So some of the problems we have

[2:26:01] with this. First off, the

[2:26:02] assumption that 83 gallons a

[2:26:04] day per person. That's our

[2:26:06] historical average. So we just

[2:26:08] take the population of from

[2:26:11] census data divided by the

[2:26:12] number of total gallons used

[2:26:14] and say you got a million

[2:26:16] people as customers and you use,

[2:26:18] you know, 83 million gallons,

[2:26:20] you got 83 gallons per person,

[2:26:21] right? So that's how that

[2:26:23] number is developed at 83

[2:26:26] gallons per day. That is not a

[2:26:27] real usage data. And it

[2:26:30] actually bakes in irrigation

[2:26:31] water is baked in the 83

[2:26:33] gallons per day because it's a

[2:26:35] total system wide usage divided

[2:26:36] by a total census data of

[2:26:38] number of population of people.

[2:26:40] >> So it's potable. Oh, you're

[2:26:43] talking about using potable on

[2:26:44] irrigation because there's a

[2:26:46] whole lot of people using

[2:26:48] reclaimed.

[2:26:50] >> 17000 ish. So out of the

[2:26:53] 100,000 customers, it's a small

[2:26:56] percentage, 17%.

[2:26:58] >> Yeah.

[2:27:00] >> So bottom line, 83 gallons a

[2:27:01] day is really a rule of thumb,

[2:27:03] but it's the best data. We we

[2:27:06] have to produce some estimates.

[2:27:07] So that's how our rates have

[2:27:13] been based historically.

[2:27:15] Another question. So kind of

[2:27:16] the last bullet there. If we

[2:27:18] have 100,000 water customers

[2:27:21] ballpark, we could do an

[2:27:22] individualized analysis of

[2:27:25] every single account. But doing

[2:27:26] that through our historical

[2:27:29] methods is tremendously

[2:27:30] difficult. Even if you did 100

[2:27:32] accounts a day, it would take a

[2:27:34] single person a thousand days

[2:27:36] to evaluate every customer. So

[2:27:38] over three years working around

[2:27:40] the clock, and by the time you

[2:27:41] got done with the whole thing,

[2:27:42] you'd be outdated by someone

[2:27:44] who moved in and moved out. So

[2:27:45] an individual analysis of

[2:27:46] everything of every account

[2:27:47] isn't feasible through

[2:27:49] historical methods. But there

[2:27:52] is some good news. We now have

[2:27:55] army Army digital data, and

[2:27:56] we've recently purchased some

[2:27:58] machine learning and ai tools

[2:28:00] that can process that amount of

[2:28:03] data. We're building it now, so

[2:28:05] I wasn't I tried to get it

[2:28:06] ready for this meeting. I don't

[2:28:08] have it ready to show you the

[2:28:09] machine learning model that can

[2:28:11] do this. Within a couple of

[2:28:12] months, we'll have an ai model

[2:28:14] that we'll be able to segregate,

[2:28:15] how many people live and how

[2:28:17] many house just by their 15

[2:28:20] minute user data. Just most

[2:28:22] people aren't up at 4 A.M. So I

[2:28:23] know when there's water going,

[2:28:24] it's probably a sprinkler and

[2:28:26] the machine can figure all that

[2:28:28] out. That kind of answers your

[2:28:29] question. We're working to get

[2:28:32] a better estimate on who lives

[2:28:36] and what type of house. So the

[2:28:38] second option, aside from just

[2:28:41] doing rate manipulation, is

[2:28:43] providing a separate irrigation

[2:28:47] meter that itemizes and

[2:28:48] separates out what water is

[2:28:50] going down the sewage, which

[2:28:51] should be applicable to sewer

[2:28:53] fees, and what water is going

[2:28:56] on a lawn. All right, so we

[2:28:58] just got some generalized costs

[2:28:59] of what it would cost us to

[2:29:01] install a meter. We've talked

[2:29:03] to several of our partner

[2:29:04] agencies, the City of Dunedin

[2:29:06] and City of Saint Pete,

[2:29:07] Hillsborough County and others,

[2:29:09] Pasco County, and talked about

[2:29:11] how they've implemented similar

[2:29:12] programs because they do have

[2:29:15] these programs. And essentially

[2:29:17] it comes down to about a $3,000

[2:29:18] install cost. We have to

[2:29:20] purchase the meter so we don't

[2:29:23] have an extra 20,000m sitting

[2:29:24] around. So we have to purchase

[2:29:25] the material. We'd have to have

[2:29:27] the manpower to go install it.

[2:29:29] You have to go and tap the

[2:29:31] pipes. You have to connect the

[2:29:34] meter to a water pipe. And

[2:29:35] those aren't conveniently just

[2:29:36] in the yard. Sometimes they're

[2:29:37] under sidewalks, they're under

[2:29:38] trees, they're under roads.

[2:29:39] They have to get around

[2:29:41] manholes. So there's a one time

[2:29:42] installation cost. And whether

[2:29:43] or not we would absorb that as

[2:29:45] a utility and just pass it

[2:29:46] through all the rates, or the

[2:29:47] individual requester would pay

[2:29:49] that for themselves. But at a

[2:29:51] $3,000 cost, if you had a

[2:29:52] $40,000 a month saving, it

[2:29:54] would be a six year payback per

[2:29:57] meter installed in the system.

[2:29:58] The other cost that you might

[2:30:00] want to think about is what

[2:30:02] would it cost us to bill

[2:30:04] separately, an irrigation meter

[2:30:06] and a potable meter on the same

[2:30:07] account. And it's really

[2:30:08] nominal. So a dollar per bill.

[2:30:10] So that we did look at that to

[2:30:12] see what that would mean for us.

[2:30:14] And the hard copy is a little

[2:30:15] higher because you have stamps

[2:30:22] and postage and all that stuff.

[2:30:26] Part of the difficulties here,

[2:30:27] the cost of running the sewer

[2:30:29] system does not decrease just

[2:30:30] because you put a potable

[2:30:32] irrigation meter in the field.

[2:30:34] The sewer system gets the same

[2:30:35] amount of water it always did.

[2:30:37] We still have to treat the same

[2:30:38] amount of water, turn into

[2:30:41] reclaim and distribute it. So

[2:30:42] because I don't know the

[2:30:43] population of people that would

[2:30:46] be affected, how many people

[2:30:48] would want an irrigation meter?

[2:30:50] Is it one person, 10,000 people?

[2:30:52] 20,000 people, I don't know.

[2:30:54] But if there were 10,000 people,

[2:30:57] which is about a 10th of my

[2:30:59] customer base, which that might

[2:31:01] be a reasonable assumption that

[2:31:02] this program would benefit

[2:31:05] about a 10th of the people, a

[2:31:06] 40% savings or reduction in

[2:31:08] their water bill would mean for

[2:31:11] me, almost $5 million loss of

[2:31:13] revenue on the sewer system. So

[2:31:14] the sewer system has the same

[2:31:17] amount of costs, and I took $5

[2:31:18] million out of the money coming

[2:31:20] in because it's going off on

[2:31:22] the irrigation lawns. So that

[2:31:23] revenue would have to be made

[2:31:25] up back through other rate

[2:31:27] structure, right. We increase

[2:31:31] our non irrigated water potable

[2:31:32] bill would go up. The base rate

[2:31:34] on the sewer would go up.

[2:31:36] Something would have to recover

[2:31:41] that extra $5 million. So just

[2:31:42] kind of highlighting those

[2:31:44] points. Also, I think the

[2:31:47] second bullet there, if we are

[2:31:48] going to pursue borrowing in

[2:31:51] the future, I would have to

[2:31:52] understand that gap in revenues

[2:31:55] before going before lending

[2:31:56] institutions and saying, hey,

[2:31:58] well, I got this $5 million

[2:32:01] shortfall. So it's not a

[2:32:02] impossible or implausible. It's

[2:32:03] just we would need to

[2:32:04] understand it before we go and

[2:32:05] start talking to financial

[2:32:07] institutions that we know what

[2:32:08] our revenues are. There's some

[2:32:09] certainty around our input and

[2:32:10] output of.

[2:32:11] >> Jeremy. So some of the

[2:32:13] smaller users, the lower users,

[2:32:14] are the ones being more

[2:32:17] affected today. The larger

[2:32:20] users have that cap on sewage

[2:32:22] at ten 000. Was it 10,000

[2:32:22] gallons?

[2:32:23] >> Correct.

[2:32:26] >> Today. So so when they use

[2:32:30] more they're using 15 20,000

[2:32:32] gallons per month of sewer

[2:32:37] charge. The other folks are

[2:32:40] kind of in the system paying

[2:32:42] for that. I mean, they're

[2:32:44] they're those, those folks are

[2:32:47] getting a break on a cost. And

[2:32:49] I'm not I'm not suggesting that

[2:32:51] we go raise our rates or

[2:32:52] anything. I'm just saying there

[2:32:54] is a, there is kind of a, we're

[2:32:55] trying to balance all of this

[2:32:57] out, right? So some folks that

[2:32:59] are the higher users are

[2:33:01] getting a bigger break, so to

[2:33:03] speak, on the system than the

[2:33:06] lower users on the system. And,

[2:33:07] and I think that's the part

[2:33:09] that we need to try to.

[2:33:11] >> They're getting a break on.

[2:33:12] >> Well, they're not they're

[2:33:13] not getting charged for the

[2:33:14] gallons that are going down

[2:33:16] being used in the sewer system.

[2:33:17] >> They're getting charged for

[2:33:19] the water, so they still get

[2:33:20] charged for the water. What I'm

[2:33:21] talking sewer, just the sewer

[2:33:23] rates, right. And if it's going

[2:33:25] on the lawn and it's not going

[2:33:26] through the sewer anyway. So

[2:33:28] the question is how do you

[2:33:31] distinguish between how much is

[2:33:32] how much water that is going on?

[2:33:35] The lawn should be captured as

[2:33:36] part of a sewage rate, because

[2:33:38] I don't know if it's going into

[2:33:40] sewer or going on the lawn when

[2:33:41] it comes through your water

[2:33:43] meter. All I know is you took

[2:33:44] the water, right? Right. And

[2:33:46] where does it go from there? I

[2:33:47] don't know, they go in your

[2:33:49] pool. Did it go in your car? I

[2:33:51] don't know. And so that 10,000

[2:33:52] gallon cap that we put is an

[2:33:56] attempt to capture the the

[2:34:01] distribution of a single person

[2:34:02] household and a four person

[2:34:04] household. So the four person

[2:34:05] household who irrigates their

[2:34:08] lawn does not pay a dime of

[2:34:10] water, a dime of money towards

[2:34:13] the sewer fund for the

[2:34:15] irrigation. The single person

[2:34:18] who waters their lawn is paying

[2:34:20] money for the sewer system, for

[2:34:21] water that does not go into the

[2:34:26] sewer. So the 10,000 gallon cap.

[2:34:29] Limits that. And so this is

[2:34:30] what the option one question is,

[2:34:32] should we just lower the cap or

[2:34:34] raise the cap or do something

[2:34:37] with how the rate structure was

[2:34:41] built? Does that answer your

[2:34:41] question? I can.

[2:34:43] >> No, no. I'm trying to make

[2:34:47] sure that that that everybody

[2:34:48] is being charged a fair amount.

[2:34:50] And when the system is you keep

[2:34:52] saying the system, if you

[2:34:55] reduce it somewhere, it

[2:34:57] reducing the overall system and

[2:34:59] somehow you got to make it up.

[2:35:01] >> Yeah. Just the cost, the

[2:35:02] operational costs are not

[2:35:04] affected at all by any of this

[2:35:05] model. The, the cost it takes

[2:35:08] to operate the sewer system is

[2:35:10] known and it is unaffected by

[2:35:11] how we build.

[2:35:12] >> The variable portion is

[2:35:13] different, right?

[2:35:16] >> Right. And so then the last

[2:35:17] complication here with the

[2:35:23] option two. Is we haven't

[2:35:26] really accounted for. If I add

[2:35:28] more meters in the ground, that

[2:35:30] is more infrastructure that is

[2:35:32] increasing the utility

[2:35:34] footprint. And I just use the

[2:35:36] same assumption with a 10,000

[2:35:37] customers, right? Because if we

[2:35:38] made it available to one

[2:35:39] customer, we'd want to create a

[2:35:41] program and make it available

[2:35:43] to anyone that it could benefit.

[2:35:45] That's about a ten 000 potable

[2:35:48] meter increase to my

[2:35:49] infrastructure, which is about

[2:35:52] a 10% increase to my overall

[2:35:54] meter footprint. So right now I

[2:35:57] have six seven staff whose full

[2:35:58] time job it is to go out

[2:36:01] between the different divisions,

[2:36:03] install the meters, change the

[2:36:04] meters, turn the meters on and

[2:36:05] off. Every time someone moves

[2:36:07] out, they would want to turn on

[2:36:08] and off their irrigation meter

[2:36:09] and their potable meter. We do

[2:36:11] about 50 of those a day

[2:36:14] currently on a on a bad day. So

[2:36:15] that's just staff whose job it

[2:36:17] is will be to drive around the

[2:36:20] company and manage 10% more

[2:36:22] assets, including every time

[2:36:23] there's an error, a billing

[2:36:25] error, back end computer stuff

[2:36:26] that we just deal with on a

[2:36:30] daily basis. So other

[2:36:31] jurisdictions and water

[2:36:34] utilities have this program.

[2:36:35] Anecdotally, when we talked

[2:36:39] with them, there is mixed

[2:36:41] participation. So most, not

[2:36:43] most some customers are

[2:36:45] deferred by the payback period.

[2:36:46] Right. If I know I'm renting a

[2:36:48] house for a year, I don't want

[2:36:49] to buy something that's going

[2:36:52] to take a six year payback. One

[2:36:53] of the jurisdictions, I think

[2:36:54] it was Hillsborough County,

[2:36:56] maybe Saint Pete actually had a

[2:36:57] calculator on their website

[2:36:58] that said, hey, before you

[2:37:00] decide to buy this, here's what

[2:37:01] it will mean to you financially.

[2:37:03] So if you're staying here for

[2:37:04] more than six years in this

[2:37:06] home, you should probably do it.

[2:37:07] If you're not, you might not

[2:37:09] want to do it, but in my

[2:37:10] opinion, I would really want to

[2:37:11] understand what this ongoing

[2:37:13] operational increased footprint

[2:37:16] would mean. Before I could

[2:37:17] recommend that we should do

[2:37:18] this as a program.

[2:37:19] >> And you're presuming that

[2:37:21] we're paying for that meter

[2:37:22] install?

[2:37:24] >> I'm I my recommendation was

[2:37:25] that the customer would pay for

[2:37:27] that install, but that would be

[2:37:28] a policy decision.

[2:37:29] >> I understand, and the people

[2:37:30] that I've talked to said

[2:37:32] they're willing to pay. I'm not

[2:37:33] talked to the thousand or the

[2:37:34] number that you're talking

[2:37:36] about, but not a representative

[2:37:37] sample either. But the ones

[2:37:38] that I've talked to said, oh

[2:37:40] yeah, no, I'll pay for the

[2:37:41] meter install and everything

[2:37:41] else.

[2:37:43] >> But, but I think part of

[2:37:44] that is a misunderstanding. And

[2:37:45] I've had those conversations

[2:37:47] with customers as well. I think

[2:37:48] that's a misunderstanding. And

[2:37:49] the amount of savings that they

[2:37:50] think they're going to get. If

[2:37:52] I said it would take six years

[2:37:54] to pay back that $3,000 cost,

[2:37:56] is this truly worth it to you?

[2:37:57] Someone who's going to be in

[2:37:59] their house for 20 years MAY

[2:38:00] say, heck yes. And other people

[2:38:02] are like, well, no, it's not

[2:38:03] really, because they think that

[2:38:04] they're going to save hundreds

[2:38:06] of dollars a month when I'm

[2:38:07] telling you they're not going

[2:38:08] to save six.

[2:38:10] >> And that's fair. And so when

[2:38:12] somebody comes in to inquire

[2:38:14] about that meter, it's also

[2:38:16] smart of them to look at that.

[2:38:18] And we should have, you know, I

[2:38:20] think of Mike Twitty and his he,

[2:38:21] he creates a formula for

[2:38:22] everything in his department.

[2:38:24] So you can go on there and

[2:38:25] figure, you know, and maybe

[2:38:26] there's something we should put

[2:38:28] on there that shows what that

[2:38:30] savings really is and that it

[2:38:32] is a six year payback. And, you

[2:38:34] know, and maybe there is a

[2:38:36] rethinking from folks. I mean,

[2:38:37] it just makes sense that we're

[2:38:38] trying to accommodate our

[2:38:40] customers. I mean, that's what

[2:38:41] we're supposed to do.

[2:38:44] >> So and in order to and I

[2:38:46] alluded to this, if, if we

[2:38:47] decided that this was the right

[2:38:49] move for our customers, then it

[2:38:52] would be the right move for all

[2:38:53] of the customers in that same

[2:38:55] category. And I would want to

[2:38:56] go promote, hey, you didn't

[2:38:58] know, but I could save you $40

[2:39:00] a month or $60 a month if you

[2:39:01] enrolled in this program. So I

[2:39:02] don't want to we shouldn't do

[2:39:05] it in my mind as a one off for

[2:39:07] one or 2 or 10 people that just

[2:39:08] want the savings. If there's

[2:39:09] 10,000 people, that could be

[2:39:11] helped, we should go help them

[2:39:12] whether or not they know they

[2:39:14] want to be helped or not.

[2:39:15] >> I'm sorry. Chair. Yes,

[2:39:16] Commissioner? Is it possible

[2:39:17] you could finance it for the

[2:39:19] customers? So charge them a

[2:39:21] little more every month. Charge

[2:39:22] them for the payback on the

[2:39:23] meters. So the.

[2:39:25] >> Upfront cost would come

[2:39:28] through the water revenues. So

[2:39:29] the rate structure that

[2:39:30] everyone pays would then be

[2:39:32] finance it. Jeremy's not

[2:39:33] financing them. The county's

[2:39:34] not finding the other customers

[2:39:35] would be paying for that

[2:39:38] financial cost. Right. So I

[2:39:42] would pay the $3,000, 100,000

[2:39:43] customers would share the

[2:39:45] burden in that $3,000 upfront

[2:39:46] cost.

[2:39:48] >> No, I mean, each individual

[2:39:50] bill, if they if they get a new

[2:39:54] if they get a meter at and it's

[2:39:55] $6,000 cost and monthly, you

[2:39:57] can have them pay back that

[2:39:57] right.

[2:39:59] >> But that's upfront. 6000

[2:40:00] monthly cost has to come. So

[2:40:01] that's not budgeted in. We

[2:40:02] don't have revenues to cover

[2:40:04] that today. So that would be an

[2:40:06] extra $6,000 cost. The entire

[2:40:07] customer base would share that

[2:40:09] burden to finance that meter

[2:40:11] over the next six years for

[2:40:12] that specific customer that got

[2:40:15] the upfront cost. If I gave you

[2:40:18] $6,000 today, the entire

[2:40:20] customer base would have to pay

[2:40:22] their share of that because

[2:40:23] that capital must come out of

[2:40:25] my bank account to pay for the

[2:40:27] meter, and it gets recovered

[2:40:28] over one year, two years, ten

[2:40:30] years, the entire customer,

[2:40:31] everyone's rate would go up

[2:40:33] just a little bit to cover that

[2:40:35] $6,000 meter.

[2:40:36] >> Okay. I'm not understanding

[2:40:38] why it has to be that way, but

[2:40:40] okay, I'll take it.

[2:40:41] >> I mean, the revenues have to

[2:40:44] come from somewhere, right? So.

[2:40:46] Right. My revenues come from

[2:40:48] water rates. So the only way to

[2:40:50] pay for the capital expense is

[2:40:52] to increase the rates on the

[2:40:54] entire base, to cover the

[2:40:56] program of upfront financing of

[2:41:00] the meters.

[2:41:01] >> I don't think you'd have a

[2:41:03] whole lot of people taking

[2:41:04] advantage of the program, but I

[2:41:05] think it's something that we

[2:41:06] ought to look at.

[2:41:09] >> So did did we get I mean,

[2:41:11] Jeremy, you're trying to pitch

[2:41:12] two options and you got a lot

[2:41:14] of information here, and I'm

[2:41:15] just wondering if he can

[2:41:16] accomplish the same thing

[2:41:19] through an adjustment to the

[2:41:22] base rate. Correct. And I think

[2:41:23] that's kind of getting lost in

[2:41:25] this.

[2:41:26] >> Yeah. And that's what the

[2:41:29] option I if the intent is to

[2:41:31] help a specific customer with a

[2:41:33] specific problem, then I would

[2:41:35] not recommend a programmatic

[2:41:38] solution that would, that I

[2:41:40] would then promote to all,

[2:41:41] possibly 10,000 other people

[2:41:45] that this could help if the the

[2:41:48] intent is to reshift the burden

[2:41:51] of water that's going out for

[2:41:53] irrigation funding, the sewer,

[2:41:54] sewer operations. That's what's

[2:41:56] happening right now. Irrigation

[2:41:57] water is funding portions of

[2:41:59] the sewer system. That's how

[2:42:01] the rate structure is built. So

[2:42:03] if we just want to adjust that

[2:42:04] burden so that sewer water pays

[2:42:06] for the sewer cost, then

[2:42:10] perhaps we just change the in

[2:42:11] the option one style. We just

[2:42:13] change how the base rates are

[2:42:14] built so that less water used

[2:42:15] for irrigation funds, portions

[2:42:16] of the sewer.

[2:42:18] >> Yeah, I think, I think

[2:42:20] there's that's attractive. I

[2:42:23] think I mean, I haven't, you

[2:42:24] know, run this by the folks

[2:42:26] that are experiencing the issue.

[2:42:27] I think some of it's

[2:42:28] philosophical and some of it's

[2:42:30] practical. So if you're

[2:42:31] addressing at least the

[2:42:33] practical side philosophically,

[2:42:35] it MAY not be the the freedom

[2:42:36] or whatever that they'd like to

[2:42:39] see, but at least practically

[2:42:42] you're showing that it's not

[2:42:43] significant. If we if we're

[2:42:44] able to adjust those.

[2:42:46] >> And if you do that, then

[2:42:47] they don't have that $3,000 for

[2:42:48] an additional meter.

[2:42:50] >> No, I understand right. Yeah.

[2:42:52] >> Right. There's no under the

[2:42:53] option one, there's no

[2:42:54] footprint increase. We don't

[2:42:56] change any staffing or asset

[2:42:58] levels. We don't have to create

[2:43:00] a new program and track

[2:43:02] financing separately. Like we

[2:43:03] would have to do through an

[2:43:05] irrigation meter program. So

[2:43:07] that's essentially my

[2:43:10] recommendation is that we need

[2:43:13] to, in my mind, delay this

[2:43:14] until I can have better data.

[2:43:15] Let me go see if I can parse

[2:43:17] out how many one single person

[2:43:18] households we have versus how

[2:43:20] many for. I think that would be

[2:43:21] valuable, valuable information

[2:43:22] because we might MAY find out

[2:43:24] there's 30,000 customers that

[2:43:25] would benefit from this program.

[2:43:26] And if that's the case, that

[2:43:27] changes how the numbers work.

[2:43:32] Yeah. We are currently

[2:43:36] supplying water to customers

[2:43:39] who are not our sewer customers.

[2:43:40] So a different city or a

[2:43:41] different utility collects the

[2:43:43] sewer and we provide the water.

[2:43:45] So if I put a potable

[2:43:46] irrigation meter at that house,

[2:43:49] I've impacted the City of Saint

[2:43:51] Pete Beach sewer system or the

[2:43:53] Largo revenue. We would want to

[2:43:54] understand what our

[2:43:55] stakeholders, before I go,

[2:43:56] impact all of their revenue

[2:43:57] projections because they've

[2:43:59] built out their own models. So

[2:44:00] I think that would be an

[2:44:03] important step to do. And then

[2:44:05] we're currently underway with

[2:44:07] our new rate study. I could

[2:44:08] commit we're not scheduled to

[2:44:09] come back with final

[2:44:11] recommendations up until spring

[2:44:13] of next year. But I could come

[2:44:16] back this winter and give you a

[2:44:18] better update on how the

[2:44:19] numbers work. Maybe more

[2:44:21] refined model of option one.

[2:44:22] That was just me throwing

[2:44:23] numbers in a spreadsheet that

[2:44:26] wasn't scientific. But if

[2:44:28] that's the will of the board,

[2:44:29] or you could say implement

[2:44:30] today and we'll go build a

[2:44:31] potable irrigation meters,

[2:44:32] that's.

[2:44:34] >> I like the idea of doing

[2:44:36] further investigation on here,

[2:44:39] but I also like the idea of, of,

[2:44:41] of, of thinking about what that

[2:44:44] rate adjustment would be and

[2:44:46] how that would make sense to a

[2:44:47] particular person. On the

[2:44:48] practical side, I said there's

[2:44:49] practical, there's

[2:44:50] philosophical, right? We MAY

[2:44:52] not be able to ever deal with

[2:44:53] the philosophical side, but at

[2:44:55] least on the practical side,

[2:44:57] we've we've narrowed that gap a

[2:44:58] little bit. I think that makes

[2:45:01] sense to me. I don't know, I'm

[2:45:04] not anybody else want to weigh

[2:45:09] in on this. Want to do his

[2:45:10] recommendation, which is to do

[2:45:12] a little more study number one,

[2:45:14] and maybe take a look at some

[2:45:15] rate adjustments in that rate

[2:45:17] study that you're talking about

[2:45:18] at the lower end, so that we

[2:45:20] can make sure that those folks

[2:45:23] are getting their if if some

[2:45:24] people are getting a break

[2:45:25] because they're capped at

[2:45:26] 10,000 gallons and they're

[2:45:28] actually using 15,000 gallons,

[2:45:30] then maybe there's a break at

[2:45:32] the other end for those

[2:45:33] customers.

[2:45:35] >> Or and I haven't postulated

[2:45:36] this, but since you just

[2:45:37] brought up, we don't do a

[2:45:39] tiered system. Maybe we have a

[2:45:40] more tiered system on the sewer

[2:45:42] side as well. Yeah. So the

[2:45:43] sewer side is 10,000 gallons is

[2:45:45] the limit. On the water side

[2:45:46] you have different tiers of

[2:45:48] usage. So 0 to 4000 is this

[2:45:50] rate 4 to 6000 is this rate

[2:45:51] etc. Yeah. So all right.

[2:45:52] >> All right. Thank you.

[2:45:55] Appreciate it. We're going to

[2:45:57] obviously going to take a break

[2:45:59] here. Okay. Just if we can hold

[2:46:03] for a second. I had about 5 or

[2:46:05] 6 things I needed to go over

[2:46:07] when we're done with the agenda

[2:46:09] briefing. So but I need

[2:46:10] commissioner commissioners need

[2:46:12] to be here for some of that. Do

[2:46:13] you want me to just touch on

[2:46:15] those real quick, and then we

[2:46:16] can take a break for lunch and

[2:46:18] then make sure just making sure

[2:46:21] there was a, a psta letter that

[2:46:26] I received regarding a grant

[2:46:27] that they want to go after

[2:46:29] federal transit, transit

[2:46:31] administration, bus and bus

[2:46:33] facilities grant. They're

[2:46:35] requesting $2 million to expand

[2:46:38] where psta can construct bus

[2:46:40] bays, locations where bus can

[2:46:41] pull out of the travel lane for

[2:46:42] boarding and disembarking,

[2:46:44] which I would just love. Those

[2:46:46] busses make me drive me crazy

[2:46:48] when you get trapped behind

[2:46:49] them. And then they don't, they

[2:46:50] get rid of their one customer

[2:46:52] and then they sit there for a

[2:46:53] little bit. They tell me they

[2:46:55] don't sit there, but I've been

[2:46:58] behind them before. And to meet

[2:47:00] the grant deadline, we need a

[2:47:02] letter of support. Would you be

[2:47:03] willing to provide a signed

[2:47:04] letter of support for the

[2:47:07] project? I'm glad to do that.

[2:47:08] If the will of the commission

[2:47:10] is to do that, and I wanted to

[2:47:14] make sure that our Psta folks.

[2:47:15] >> I'm definitely in favor of

[2:47:18] bus Bay. Okay. Yeah.

[2:47:20] >> Okay. So do I have consensus

[2:47:22] then here for me to go ahead

[2:47:23] and send that letter of support?

[2:47:24] Okay. Thank you. That's that's

[2:47:27] great. The sheriff has gotten

[2:47:29] back to us and he's willing to

[2:47:31] well, he can't be at the work

[2:47:34] session this month. He's out of

[2:47:37] town as as the head of the

[2:47:38] sheriff's association, but he's

[2:47:40] willing to come on OCTOBER 8th

[2:47:42] work session to discuss this.

[2:47:44] The flock technology, I'm

[2:47:46] calling it flock technology and

[2:47:48] the policies and that kind of

[2:47:50] thing. And I know Commissioner

[2:47:51] Nowicki had submitted something,

[2:47:53] and I was just really going to

[2:47:55] want to put that on hold until

[2:47:56] we have the sheriff come in

[2:47:59] here and talk to us in a work

[2:48:01] session. So I want to make sure

[2:48:02] everybody's comfortable with

[2:48:04] that. Yeah, yeah.

[2:48:06] >> Yeah yeah, absolutely. Yeah.

[2:48:08] >> We're put any discussion

[2:48:10] about Commissioner Nowicki was

[2:48:13] talking about getting rid of

[2:48:15] the flock cameras. Yeah. And

[2:48:16] this this would just be putting

[2:48:19] that discussion on hold until

[2:48:21] we have that session with the

[2:48:21] sheriff.

[2:48:22] >> I think that's prudent, but

[2:48:24] I did I did request our county

[2:48:26] attorney to. I sent her a list

[2:48:27] of questions regarding that,

[2:48:29] and I'd like her to keep moving

[2:48:29] on.

[2:48:31] >> No, that's fine. I think

[2:48:32] that's fine. But I think it's

[2:48:35] good for us to have that, right.

[2:48:36] I mean, if anybody listened to

[2:48:42] us session his he had a right a.

[2:48:43] Talk with the press I guess

[2:48:45] yesterday. And so there was it

[2:48:46] was an hour long and it'd

[2:48:47] probably be good for everybody

[2:48:49] to look at that before our

[2:48:50] meeting. Did you have a comment?

[2:48:52] >> Yeah. Thank you, MR. Chair.

[2:48:54] Yeah. Back in JULY, I brought

[2:48:56] this up and asked Barry and

[2:48:58] staff to work on a on a white

[2:49:00] paper on that as well. So where

[2:49:01] are we?

[2:49:02] >> So we've been working on the

[2:49:04] white paper. We're I want to

[2:49:07] get a final review of that.

[2:49:09] It'll identify like, you know,

[2:49:10] how many cameras and different

[2:49:11] things like that. It also

[2:49:12] provides some background

[2:49:13] information about what others

[2:49:15] have done in neighboring

[2:49:16] counties and things like that.

[2:49:18] We can finalize that, submit

[2:49:19] that out to the commission. You

[2:49:21] can read that prior to the

[2:49:22] sheriff coming. So you'll have

[2:49:24] all the information available

[2:49:26] for you at that time so we can

[2:49:28] find that, finalize that in the

[2:49:29] next couple of weeks. Get that

[2:49:31] out to you well ahead of that

[2:49:32] meeting. Okay, great.

[2:49:33] >> I think that's important.

[2:49:33] Keep moving.

[2:49:34] >> Commissioner flowers.

[2:49:36] >> I just want to share that I

[2:49:38] was on with the conversation

[2:49:41] yesterday, and there is a great

[2:49:46] potential that a specific new

[2:49:47] legislative person will be

[2:49:48] actually submitting bill

[2:49:50] language surrounding flock

[2:49:52] cameras.

[2:49:54] >> So that's a whole nother.

[2:49:56] >> Yeah. But I'm just sharing.

[2:49:58] So yeah.

[2:50:00] >> So yeah, anyway, that

[2:50:01] conversation I think will have.

[2:50:04] And then we can kind of kind of

[2:50:05] collectively decide if we want

[2:50:08] to do something on the cameras

[2:50:09] that are in our right of ways

[2:50:11] versus the state right of ways

[2:50:16] that. Is that make sense here?

[2:50:17] >> Yeah. Makes makes total

[2:50:18] sense to me. And I'm really

[2:50:20] glad the sheriff is coming in

[2:50:21] because I think just out of

[2:50:23] courtesy and respect for an

[2:50:24] independently elected

[2:50:25] constitutional officer and a

[2:50:27] law enforcement professional,

[2:50:28] that we have a conversation

[2:50:29] with them. Yeah. So.

[2:50:32] >> I mean, it's such a well,

[2:50:33] anyway, it's a, it's an

[2:50:34] incredible conversation to have.

[2:50:36] I had one with a gentleman, one

[2:50:37] of our residents, and it was

[2:50:39] really a great conversation.

[2:50:40] And there just didn't seem to

[2:50:42] be a it's either, you know, the

[2:50:44] rights of the, you know, the

[2:50:45] Bill of rights and the

[2:50:46] Constitution on one side and

[2:50:48] public safety on the other side

[2:50:49] and near the twain shall meet

[2:50:51] unless it's your kid that got

[2:50:52] kidnaped and then you're like,

[2:50:54] turn them all on. So I want to

[2:50:55] find them right away. So I

[2:50:56] think that conversation is

[2:50:58] going to be a good one to have

[2:51:00] after the sheriff weighs in. So

[2:51:01] if we're okay with that, then

[2:51:03] we'll we'll put that

[2:51:06] conversation on hold. Barry's

[2:51:08] evaluation will be at the

[2:51:10] NOVEMBER 12th workshop and then

[2:51:12] followed up by NOVEMBER 17th at

[2:51:15] our meeting to vote on his

[2:51:18] review and raise. And so all of

[2:51:19] that, just making sure

[2:51:21] everybody's good with that,

[2:51:22] that's the best we're going to

[2:51:24] do. So just letting you know

[2:51:27] that we're talking about an

[2:51:30] investiture meeting on the 17th

[2:51:32] for the three new commissioners

[2:51:35] that are elected. That would be

[2:51:36] prior. It would be here

[2:51:40] probably around 11:00 prior to

[2:51:41] our workshop. We have a

[2:51:45] commission meeting that day. So

[2:51:46] I guess that's the best we can

[2:51:48] do. I think we were talking to

[2:51:50] Jill about needing about a two

[2:51:53] week window. If you want to

[2:51:53] speak to.

[2:51:55] >> That, the the for any of the

[2:51:56] county commissioners elected,

[2:51:58] your new term begins two weeks

[2:52:01] after Election Day. And I was

[2:52:02] talking with Stacey about

[2:52:03] coordinating a date. The

[2:52:04] election gets certified ten

[2:52:06] days out. So obviously 14 days

[2:52:08] is beyond that. Assuming that

[2:52:10] nothing, assuming everything

[2:52:11] goes according to plan, the

[2:52:12] election should be certified

[2:52:13] and you all should be perfectly

[2:52:15] fine to have the investiture

[2:52:16] then. But but that is the day

[2:52:18] that the new term starts.

[2:52:20] >> So that that's that's kind

[2:52:22] of where we're heading at this

[2:52:26] point then. And then the county

[2:52:28] attorney, I've kind of come to

[2:52:30] the end of my negotiations with

[2:52:32] Don, and I think that's been

[2:52:35] sent out to everybody. Yes. So

[2:52:36] everybody should have gotten

[2:52:38] that package of information,

[2:52:40] and I'll be bringing forward is

[2:52:41] submitted in that contract. But

[2:52:43] I wanted to bring other

[2:52:45] information that not only

[2:52:47] respected the the 12 member

[2:52:48] board that said, we wanted to

[2:52:50] show total compensation, but

[2:52:51] also the will that you guys

[2:52:53] said, we want to show the

[2:52:54] details so that when we're

[2:52:56] comparing to other counties, we

[2:52:57] have a good comparison. So you

[2:52:59] have both and that will be part

[2:53:01] of that package. It should be

[2:53:02] when you're looking. I just

[2:53:05] want to make sure that that you

[2:53:09] guys got that. So I just have

[2:53:17] one other thing. More on a.

[2:53:20] More on a personal level. So if

[2:53:23] you'll indulge me, I'm just

[2:53:25] really wanting to take an

[2:53:26] opportunity to share a little

[2:53:28] bit of a personal journey that

[2:53:31] I'm going through. I've let the

[2:53:32] commission know this weekend,

[2:53:34] but I also wanted to let my

[2:53:36] colleagues, the staff know, if

[2:53:38] anybody's those thousands of

[2:53:39] people that are watching our

[2:53:41] commission meeting or workshop

[2:53:42] would know. But and I don't see

[2:53:45] the press here today, but I'm

[2:53:46] just going to read because I

[2:53:48] don't know that I could do it

[2:53:54] otherwise. But. So I've been

[2:53:56] diagnosed with colorectal

[2:53:58] cancer and started treatment in

[2:54:00] mid-JULY. And the final

[2:54:01] prognosis was given to me in

[2:54:03] early AUGUST. My team of

[2:54:05] doctors are from Moffitt, and

[2:54:06] they, along with the tumor

[2:54:08] board, have given me, with his

[2:54:10] key words, a path to cure,

[2:54:11] because there's other paths

[2:54:12] that weren't quite as

[2:54:15] attractive for me as a path to

[2:54:16] cure, which was a great, great

[2:54:18] bit of news. It has been an

[2:54:20] emotional month or two, and I

[2:54:21] know there will be some ups and

[2:54:23] downs along the way, but I'm

[2:54:25] doing well. I feel great, which

[2:54:27] is the irony of all of it. And

[2:54:29] I too am optimistic. I have a

[2:54:32] good support from Anna, my life

[2:54:33] partner, my family, my friends,

[2:54:35] and all of you as colleagues

[2:54:37] and a deep spiritual belief

[2:54:40] that GOD has plans for me and I

[2:54:41] and I have to be on board with

[2:54:43] whatever they are. Don't know

[2:54:45] those yet, but hopefully I'll.

[2:54:46] They'll be the ones that I'm

[2:54:48] hoping for. I love serving the

[2:54:50] people of Pinellas County,

[2:54:51] working on regional issues and

[2:54:53] meeting with residents and

[2:54:54] business owners in North County

[2:54:56] and beyond. I plan on

[2:54:57] continuing to serve them and

[2:55:00] work with you. As an aside, I

[2:55:01] certainly don't want this

[2:55:03] disease defining my life or who

[2:55:07] I am. I was seven years into my

[2:55:09] ten year cycle of getting a

[2:55:11] colonoscopy, so I still had

[2:55:12] three years, but it came up

[2:55:15] sooner than we expected. All I

[2:55:16] would say is listen to your

[2:55:18] inner voice, and if something

[2:55:20] isn't quite right, get checked

[2:55:22] out. It's a one day process

[2:55:23] that's miserable. But I can

[2:55:25] tell you the alternative isn't

[2:55:28] very fun. So the idea is just

[2:55:30] taking charge of your life.

[2:55:32] It's worth it. And with that, I

[2:55:34] really don't have anything else.

[2:55:35] I just want to thank you for

[2:55:37] listening and indulging me,

[2:55:38] continuing to be my colleagues

[2:55:39] and friends. That's all I need,

[2:55:43] really. And the process will

[2:55:44] take a few months ahead for

[2:55:46] sure. First thing I'm going

[2:55:48] through now, I'm going through

[2:55:49] a procedure now and I'll have

[2:55:51] one in NOVEMBER, and then I'll

[2:55:52] probably have one in MARCH

[2:55:54] again, all with the intent at

[2:55:56] the end of it to be having

[2:55:57] non-detectable cancer in my

[2:55:59] system. But I just wanted to

[2:56:00] share that with you today. And

[3:05:12] 53 lots to be sold. The list of

[3:05:15] equipment is in your packet.

[3:05:17] Item 12 an award of bid. This

[3:05:23] is for. Let's see. Philippi

[3:05:24] Park wastewater collection

[3:05:26] system. I should have read this

[3:05:28] at the break. So this is a

[3:05:29] collection system. So it

[3:05:31] replaces for on site collection

[3:05:33] a separate collection systems.

[3:05:34] And to connect to the City of

[3:05:38] Safety Harbor on to the regular

[3:05:40] agenda. First item is operating

[3:05:42] agreement with Allegiant

[3:05:45] Airlines. For the new five year

[3:05:46] agreement Mark briefed you on

[3:05:49] represents a 61% increase over

[3:05:53] the prior agreement. Item 14 is

[3:05:55] an award of bid Hubbard

[3:05:56] Construction. This is for

[3:05:58] airfield pavement

[3:06:03] rehabilitation. Item 15 is a

[3:06:04] First Amendment to announce to

[3:06:05] you. This is for the Whispering

[3:06:08] Souls African American Cemetery

[3:06:09] to support the establishment of

[3:06:11] an irrigation infrastructure

[3:06:17] and a storage shed. Item 16 is

[3:06:18] a First Amendment to MISS To

[3:06:22] you. This is for Tierra Verde.

[3:06:24] Beautiful. This is for median

[3:06:26] enhancements within the certain

[3:06:27] neighborhoods that are listed

[3:06:29] there. This extends the grant

[3:06:32] timeline until 2027 has no

[3:06:37] fiscal impact. Item 17 is a

[3:06:39] resolution designating. Approve

[3:06:40] the updated list of code

[3:06:42] inspectors. This is a statutory

[3:06:47] requirement. Item 18 is an

[3:06:50] agreement with 211 Tampa Bay

[3:06:52] for adult emergency financial

[3:06:53] assistance. You talked about

[3:06:56] previously.

[3:06:59] >> Ryan, did you have any other

[3:07:00] questions about this? I love

[3:07:02] you to come up. Some of them. I

[3:07:02] mean.

[3:07:04] >> Not at the moment. I'm going

[3:07:06] to drill down into some of the

[3:07:07] supporting documents on this a

[3:07:09] little bit and see if I have

[3:07:10] any other questions for our

[3:07:11] next meeting. But I appreciate

[3:07:12] the.

[3:07:14] >> And Karen is available if

[3:07:16] you want to, you know, meet.

[3:07:17] >> With her. Yeah. And I'll

[3:07:18] reach out to her.

[3:07:20] >> Item 19 our agreements with

[3:07:21] Saint Vincent de Paul and 2-1.

[3:07:23] One Tampa Bay cares for the

[3:07:24] rapid rehousing provider

[3:07:25] services and the rapid

[3:07:28] rehousing, financial assistance,

[3:07:30] collaborative rehousing, rapid

[3:07:34] rehousing program. Item 20 is

[3:07:35] funding recommendation for the

[3:07:37] substance from the Substance

[3:07:39] Abuse Advisory Board for the

[3:07:41] Alcohol and Drug Abuse Trust

[3:07:44] Fund, and the recommendations

[3:07:50] are listed below. Item 21

[3:07:53] Letters of Agreement and

[3:07:53] questionnaires, and

[3:07:55] substantially the same form is

[3:07:56] required to allow to

[3:07:58] participate in the Hospital

[3:08:00] Supplementary Pay program for

[3:08:02] local hospitals. So this is the

[3:08:03] amount that you were talking

[3:08:05] about before that spikes the

[3:08:11] budgets. Item 22 is a revised

[3:08:12] authorizing agent approval form

[3:08:14] for Hazard Mitigation Grant

[3:08:16] program with Florida Department

[3:08:17] of Emergency Management for the

[3:08:19] North Booster Pump Station

[3:08:21] hardening project. So the

[3:08:23] project was rescoped and

[3:08:30] therefore we have to resubmit.

[3:08:32] >> Under item 23. This is a

[3:08:34] request to add some funds into

[3:08:36] a contract with outside counsel.

[3:08:38] If you all recall, this is

[3:08:40] related to the lawsuit in which

[3:08:41] we did conduct a shade meeting

[3:08:44] not long ago. Please do not ask

[3:08:45] me any questions here about the

[3:08:47] ongoing litigation. If you wish

[3:08:48] to do so, please contact me

[3:08:50] outside of this meeting. But

[3:08:52] this is an amendment to the

[3:08:52] agreement to get us through

[3:08:55] trial. Should that be necessary.

[3:08:57] I do not currently anticipate

[3:08:58] anything under county attorney

[3:08:59] reports.

[3:09:00] >> I'm sure I'll have a county

[3:09:03] administrator's report. Item 26

[3:09:04] will be appointments to the

[3:09:07] Youth Advisory Committee. Item

[3:09:08] 27 appointments to the

[3:09:10] Emergency Medical Services

[3:09:12] Advisory Council. You have a

[3:09:14] couple of appointments and

[3:09:17] reappointment on to the public

[3:09:21] hearings. Item 29 is amendment

[3:09:23] to this ordinance. This

[3:09:24] exemption from the assessment

[3:09:25] requirement for certain non

[3:09:34] public hospital facilities.

[3:09:35] What is this? I don't even

[3:09:36] remember it even though you

[3:09:38] briefed me on it. Yeah. Karen

[3:09:46] come up and. Say what this is.

[3:09:48] >> To the public.

[3:09:49] >> I'm sure it was explained to

[3:09:51] me, but I forgot. So Karen.

[3:09:52] >> So this is the hospital

[3:09:53] directed payment program that

[3:09:55] changes. I will say every

[3:09:56] single year we have not had one

[3:09:58] year that is the same. So this

[3:09:59] is a new process where

[3:10:01] hospitals can request to be

[3:10:04] waived from the assessment, but

[3:10:06] they would still receive the

[3:10:08] benefit of the amount. And so

[3:10:09] this this is an ordinance

[3:10:12] change that is required so that

[3:10:13] if cms approves those waivers,

[3:10:15] those hospitals can be exempted

[3:10:16] from paying into the amount.

[3:10:18] >> So this is a companion item

[3:10:20] to 21.

[3:10:21] >> Yes. It's kind of a whole

[3:10:22] process. And then the

[3:10:23] resolution will come forward

[3:10:25] once we have the actual model

[3:10:27] from the consultants. The

[3:10:29] consultants will be here for

[3:10:30] the public hearing. And I

[3:10:31] believe several hospital CEOs

[3:10:33] will also come to talk about

[3:10:34] the impact.

[3:10:35] >> MR. Chair, if you don't mind.

[3:10:37] >> Yeah. Go ahead, Commissioner

[3:10:37] Flowers.

[3:10:39] >> When this item comes up, if

[3:10:40] we could just have that brief

[3:10:42] presentation before the public

[3:10:43] so they can understand exactly

[3:10:44] what this is, please.

[3:10:45] >> Okay.

[3:10:47] >> Thank you.

[3:10:48] >> Great. Yeah. Remind me of

[3:10:51] that when we get to it. Oh, we

[3:10:52] were going to get a

[3:10:53] presentation from them, from

[3:10:54] staff.

[3:10:57] >> Then item 30 is the adoption

[3:10:58] of tentative millage rates and

[3:11:03] the first public budget hearing.

[3:11:06] So if we can go ahead and pass

[3:11:07] that now, are we good? No. I'm

[3:11:08] kidding.

[3:11:10] >> And I think we probably will

[3:11:11] have a little bit more

[3:11:14] discussion during this first.

[3:11:15] Hopefully when it gets to the

[3:11:17] last one, we will have minimal

[3:11:19] discussion, but still some. So

[3:11:21] but between that and our

[3:11:23] workshop, you know, we'll have

[3:11:24] another opportunity to bring

[3:11:27] this in for a landing hopefully.

[3:11:29] >> Yeah. I mean just my read,

[3:11:31] you know, but we do have to get

[3:11:33] to five. And so, you know, I'll

[3:11:34] be talking to individually.

[3:11:35] Then we can have that

[3:11:38] discussion at the meeting. I'm

[3:11:40] going to, you know, in response

[3:11:41] to your question, I'm going to

[3:11:43] try to show what that extra

[3:11:45] half of the millage does over

[3:11:47] the next ten years. So that way

[3:11:49] you can make an educated

[3:11:50] judgment on what you choose to

[3:11:52] do. And so we'll try to get

[3:11:53] that to you before next

[3:11:56] Thursday. And then, you know,

[3:11:58] wait for your direction.

[3:12:00] >> Sounds good. Anything else

[3:12:04] from the commission before we

[3:12:07] adjourn? Yeah, it was a good

[3:12:09] day. Good day, Commissioner

[3:12:12] Sher. Thank you for your for

[3:12:14] your inquiries, Commissioner

[3:12:16] Scott as well. Commissioner

[3:12:17] flowers, you always bring good

[3:12:19] stuff to the table. So we have

[3:12:21] some work to do still, but

[3:12:22] we're getting there slowly but

[3:12:24] surely. All right. Thank you.

[3:12:26] We are adjourned.

[3:12:42] >> Thank you sir.

Board of County Commissioners - Work Session on 2026-09-03 9:30 AM - Work Session/Agenda Briefing - Sep 3rd, 2026

Agenda

Transcript