[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.