Sep 12, 2025 Special City Commission Meeting

READY TO BEGIN, MR. CITY MANAGER, WE HAVE TEMPORARY RESOLUTION 1 4 3 0 0.

WE WILL ALL PLEASE RISE.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WILL BE LED BY COMMISSIONER MOREY WRIGHT JR.

AND THERE WILL BE A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR EVERYONE WHOM WE WISH TO GIVE A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ONE NATION.

JUSTICE FOR THANK YOU.

FOR MANY WHO ARE AWARE, THIS IS A SCRIPTED BUDGET MEETING FOR CERTAIN ITEMS THAT WE HAVE TO SAY FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.

SO, UM, PLEASE BEAR WITH US IF WE'RE READING SOME THINGS.

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

THIS IS A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARACK TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE ANNUAL FIRE ASSESSMENT, THE ANNUAL STORM WATER UTILITY MANAGEMENT FEE ASSESSMENT, THE ANNUAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES ASSESSMENT, THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT ASSESSMENT, AND THE SETTING OF THE TENTATIVE MILITATE AND THE TENTATIVE CITY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026.

THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE THE CULMINATION OF AN ENTIRE YEAR'S WORK BY THE CITY COMMISSION, THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC TONIGHT.

THE CITY COMMISSION HELD WORKSHOPS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AS WELL AS TWO BUDGET WORKSHOPS ON JUNE 30 AND AUGUST 27TH, 2025 TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE STAFF ON THIS SUBMITTAL.

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES ON THE DAYS FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION AT THE WORKSHOPS, THEIR SUGGESTIONS AS WE DELIBERATED AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS WE'RE

[1.a TR14300 - A Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, relating to the provision of Fire Rescue Services, facilities and programs in the City FL Tamarac, Florida; reimposing Fire Rescue Assessments against assessed property located within the City of Tamarac for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025; approving the rate of assessment; approving the assessment roll; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; providing an effective date.]

PLEASE READ THE STATEMENT.

THE CITY OF TEAC HAS USED THE FIRE RESCUE ASSESSMENT SINCE 1997 TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC FUNDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FIRE RESCUE SERVICES IN THE CITY OF TAMARAK.

AS THE CITY COMMISSION IS AWARE, THE FIRE RESCUE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE AN EQUITABLE AND EFFICIENT METHODOLOGY TO USE AN APOR APPORTIONING THE COST OF FIRE RESCUE SERVICES TO IMPROVE, UH, PROPERTIES, THUS REDUCING THE OVERALL BURDEN ON THE AVALOR TAX RATE.

THE RESIDENTIAL RATE FOR FY 2026 WILL BE $450 PER DWELLING, AN INCREASE OF $30 FROM LAST YEAR.

THE CITY RECENTLY CONDUCTED A STUDY ON THE FIRE RESCUE ASSESSMENT IN 2023 AND BASED UPON CALLS FOR SERVICE AND A FIVE YEAR BUDGET FORECAST FOR THE COST OF PROVIDING FIRE RESCUE SERVICES, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVED THE RATES THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED AND APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION AT THE JULY 9TH, 2025 PRELIMINARY FIRE ASSESSMENT RATE HEARING AND SUBSEQUENTLY ADVERTISED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 14TH, 2025.

THANK YOU MS. MS. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.

PLEASE READ THE TITLE TO THE RESOLUTION.

THANK YOU MADAM MAYOR, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARACK, FLORIDA RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF FIRE RESCUE SERVICES, FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS IN THE CITY OF TAMARACK, FLORIDA.

REIMPOSING FIRE RESCUE ASSESSMENTS AGAINST ASSESSED PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF TAMARACK FOR THE FISCAL YEAR, BEGINNING OCTOBER 1ST, 2025, APPROVING THE RATE OF ASSESSMENT, APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT ROLE, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERAL ABILITY, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

THIS ITEM WAS DISCUSSED AT JUNE 30TH, 2025 BUDGET WORKSHOP.

THE PRELIMINARY RATE OF $450 WAS ADOPTED AT THE JULY 9TH, 2025 CITY COMMISSION MEETING.

FOR A TIMELINE ON THE PROGRESSION OF THIS ITEM, PLEASE TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN ABOVE.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON TEMPORARY RESOLUTION NUMBER 1 4 3 0 0.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM IS CLOSED.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON TEMPORARY RESOLUTION NUMBER 1 4 3 0 0 MOTION TO ADOPT TEMPORARY RESOLUTION NUMBER 1 4 3 0 0 ESTABLISHING THE FIRE SERVICE ASSESSMENT RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026.

SECOND, I

[00:05:01]

I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? COMMISSIONER BOLTON TON? UM, WILL THE MANAGER HAVE HIS STAFF INCR? UM, TELL US ABOUT THE INCREASE OF $30 AND WHY I CAN INVITE THE, UM, DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF, BUT THE ESSENCE OF THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER IS, UH, BASED ON THE RATE STUDY THAT WAS CONCLUDED IN 2000, UH, CONDUCTED IN 2023 AND, UH, BASED ON THE FORECASTED EXPENSES, UM, AND THE BUDGET FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE, UH, THE RATE TO SUPPORT THAT, UM, WAS, WAS, UH, SEQUENCED TO BE, UM, IN, IN AN INCREASE LAST YEAR AND INCREASE THIS YEAR AND AN INCREASE IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR.

AND, UM, THIS, UM, BUDGET IS, IS, UM, EITHER, UH, SUPPLEMENTED BY THE GENERAL FUND OR THE FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE.

IT'S, IT'S, UM, IT NEEDS TO BE PAID, UH, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER FOR THE CITY TO ESTABLISH TO, TO OPERATE THE FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE RESCUE SERVICES.

SO, UM, THAT'S WHY, UH, IT SAYS IN THE RESOLUTION THAT TO, TO REDUCE THE BURDEN ON THE, UH, AVALOR TAXES, THIS, UM, IS A MORE EQUITABLE WAY OF, UM, FUNDING THE CITY'S FIRE RESCUE SERVICES AND IT IS $450 PER DWELLING.

CAN YOU REMIND US HOW MANY DWELLING UNITS? UM, ABOUT, UM, 20 17, 20 17,000, CHRISTINE , DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES APPRO APPROXIMATELY 17,000 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

FOR THE SINGLE PARAMETER UNIT, UM, RATE.

SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY A REVENUE OF $510,000.

MR. MANAGER, THE PROPOSED, UM, FIRE ASSESSMENT RATE WILL GENERATE REVENUE OF APPROXIMATELY 17 MILLION 996 3 42.

IF WE HAVE 17,000, UM, DWELLING UNITS AND THE INCREASE IS 30 $30 PER DWELLING UNIT.

UH, THEN MY QUESTION IS THE INCREASE IS $510,000, UM, PER FISCAL YEAR? YES, BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER INCREASE THERE IS, IT'S ABOUT $800,000 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FOUR 20 AND FOUR.

THE DIFFERENCE OF $30? YES, YOUR MATH IS CORRECT.

UH, COMMISSIONER.

UH, AND THAT IS OVER, UM, THREE YEARS.

THAT'S FOR THIS YEAR.

SO, UM, $510,000 TIMES THREE IS $1.53 MILLION OVER THREE YEARS.

NEXT YEAR'S ASSESSMENT, UM, HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED YET.

UM, BUT IT'S, IT'S, UM, PART OF THE STUDY IS THAT WHAT THE STUDY CALLS, UM, ADDITIONAL, UM, THE, THE, THE STUDY, UM, WHEN WE DID THE STUDY LAST YEAR, WE OPTED FOR 420, WHICH REPRESENTED I THINK 93, 90 3% OF THE COST OF FIRE SERVICE.

FOUR 50 WAS A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE COST OF FIRE SERVICE.

BUT SINCE THEN, THE COST OF FIRE SERVICE HAS INCREASED EXPONENTIALLY BECAUSE OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE INCREASES IN OPERATING COSTS, WHICH WAS MORE THAN WE HAD ANTICIPATED, AND THE INCREASE IN PERSONAL COST, WHICH WAS WAY MORE THAN WE ANTICIPATED.

SO WE, WITHOUT DOING ANOTHER STUDY, THIS FOUR 50 WILL COVER LESS THAN A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE FIRE SERVICE.

SO FROM WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING, UH, THIS YEAR IS $30 INCREASE, UH, BUT NEXT YEAR MAYBE MORE? NO, NO.

THE, THE, THE, THE RATE WILL INCREASE NEXT YEAR ONLY IF WE DO ANOTHER STUDY, WHICH WE USUALLY DO ANOTHER STUDY, WE USUALLY DO A STUDY EVERY FIVE YEARS.

OVER THREE YEARS, SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THIS IS GOING TO BE AN INCREASE, UM, THAT REMAINS THE SAME FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS.

MANAGER, YOU SAID THAT THIS IS

[00:10:01]

SO $510,000 THIS YEAR, NEXT YEAR AND THE OTHER YEAR, OR IS IT AN ESCALATING COST COMMISSIONER? THE EXPECTATION, OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO DO THE RATE STUDY, BUT THE EXPECTATION IS THAT, UM, AS THE, UH, THE COST OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, UM, GO UP, THE, THE RATE WILL, UM, UH, WILL HAVE TO GO UP AS WELL TO SATISFY THAT.

SO THE EXPECTATION IS YES.

AND THE RESOLUTION SAYS THIS IS TO EASE THE BURDEN ON THE ALOR TAXES.

CAN YOU TELL US HOW? SURE.

UM, SO THE, UH, FIRE RESCUE IS, IS FUNDED BY GENERAL FUND AND, AND, UM, OBVIOUSLY I CAN HAVE THE, UH, THE FINEST DIRECTOR TO EXPLAIN THAT, BUT, BUT IT'S, IT'S SUPPORTED BY, UH, GENERAL FUND AND, AND SO GENERAL FUND IS EITHER, UM, UH, SATISFIED BY THE, UH, AD VALOREM TAXES OR THIS ASSESSMENT FEE.

SO, UM, IF WE DO, IF WE DON'T DO THE ASSESSMENT, THEN UH, THE, THE, THE COST WILL BE, UM, UH, COVERED BY THE, UH, ADVIL TAXES INCREASING THE BURDEN ON THAT, UH, TAX RATE.

SO IN ESSENCE, WE WOULD INCREASE THE AVALOR TAXES OR WE WOULD KEEP IT THE SAME, BUT JUST ROLL THE COST OVER.

IN THE AVALOR TAX, YOU WOULD FIND YOU WOULD HAVE TO FIND A WAY OF, OF, UM, UH, FUNDING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR FIRE RESCUE OPERATIONS IN THE AVALOR TAXES? THAT'S CORRECT.

AND STAFF LOOKED AT, AT THAT, AT DOING THAT OR YOU JUST ARBITRARILY DID A STUDY? NO, NO.

UM, THE, THE STUDY ITSELF IS, IS UM, IS LOOKING AT EVERY ASPECT OF THE, UH, THE, THE FIRE RESCUE OPERATION OR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

UM, BUT THE, UM, GENERAL FUND AS IS TODAY IS, IS, UM, UH, IS BARELY COVERING THE OPERATIONAL, UM, FUNDING OF THE CITY, UM, CITY SERVICES.

SO, UM, ANY REDUCTION IN THE, UM, IN THIS RATE WILL, WILL, WILL CHANGE THAT EQUATION.

ON THE, ON THE GENERAL FUND SIDE, OUR OPTIONS ARE TO FUND IT WITH THIS NON-AD VALOREM INCREASE OR FUND IT THROUGH AD VALOREM TAXES.

SO I'M ASKING IF WE FUND IT THROUGH ADV FUND, THE INCREASE THROUGH AD VALOREM TAXES, WOULD WE BE INCREASING THE MILLAGE RATE OR NOT? YOU WOULD HAVE TO FIND, UM, THE, THE, THE MILLAGE RATE, UH, TO SUPPORT THAT ADDITIONAL, UM, UH, COST OF OPERATING.

SO THE ANSWER, THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES.

SO THEN IF WE LOOK AT, UM, THE, THE MILLAGE RATE SIDE, WE WOULD EITHER BE, UM, FUNDING IT THROUGH MILLAGE RATE BY CUTTING OTHER AREAS TO KEEP THE MILLAGE RATE THE SAME OR FUNDING IT, UH, IN THE AVALOR BUDGET AND INCREASING THE MILLAGE RATE.

YOU ARE CORRECT, BUT AT THIS POINT, THE MINUTE RATE IS WHAT IT IS.

UH, SO IT CANNOT BE CHANGED.

SO YOU'D HAVE TO FIND OTHER WAYS TO CUT THE BUDGET TO CARRY THE COST IN THE VALOREM TAXES VERSUS THE NON-AD VALOREM.

IF, IF WE DID NOT GO THIS ROUTE.

YOU'RE CORRECT.

UM, SO IT DOES NOT EASE THE BURDEN ON THE VALOREM TAXES IF YOU FOUND OTHER WAYS IN THE VALOREM TAXES IN THE GENERAL FUND TO REDUCE THE COST, YOU CAN SAY THAT FOR TODAY? YES.

BUT IT WILL, IT WILL ADD ADDITIONAL BURDENS, UM, ON THE GENERAL FUND, UM, EXPENDITURES.

UH, SO, UM, IF YOU TAKE AWAY THAT, BUT YOU'D BE DECREASING, YOU'D BE DECREASING FUNDING SOMEWHERE ELSE TO INCREASE THIS FUNDING FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE IT WOULD BALANCE OUT.

SO THE GENERAL FUND'S CONTRIBUTION TO FIRE RESCUE FUND WILL HAVE TO INCREASE AND WE WILL, WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND THAT SOMEWHERE.

GOT IT.

SEEING NO ONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM, CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

COMMISS WRIGHT? YES.

MOTION PASSES FIVE TO ZERO.

MANAGER, PLEASE READ YOUR STATEMENT.

TEMPORARY RESOLUTION

[1.b TR14301 - A Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, relating to the levy and collection of the City’s Stormwater Management Utility Fee within the municipal boundaries of the City of Tamarac for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025; approving, confirming, and adopting the Stormwater Management Utility Fee and Stormwater Management Utility Fee Roll; providing for other matters relating to the levy and collection of the Stormwater Management Utility Fee on the annual property tax bills; providing for conflict; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

1 4 3 0 1.

MR. CITY

[00:15:01]

THE CITY OF TAMARACK HAS BEEN USED IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE COLLECTION OF STORMWATER UTILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES FEES SINCE 2014.

THIS ASSESSMENT IS AN EQUITABLE AND EFFICIENT METHOD OF ALLOCATING AND COLLECTING THE STORMWATER UTILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES FEE ASSESSED COST AMONG ALL THE PARCELS IN THE CITY.

THE RATE PER EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT, ALSO KNOWN AS ERUS FOR FY 2026 IS $170 AND 89 CENTS, AND IS AN INCREASE OF $4 AND 98 CENTS OR 3% OVER THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR CODE AFFORDANCES STAFF RECOMMENDS THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVED THE RATE THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED AND APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION AT THE JULY 9TH, 2025 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER UTILITY MANAGEMENT FEE ASSESSMENT RATE HEARING, AND SUBSEQUENTLY ADVERTISED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 14TH, 2025.

THANK YOU, MR. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE OF THE RESOLUTION.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARACK FLORIDA RELATING TO THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF THE CITY'S STORM WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY FEE WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TAMARACK FOR THE FISCAL YEAR, BEGINNING OCTOBER 1ST, 2025, APPROVING, CONFIRMING AND ADOPTING THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY FEE AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY FEE ROLE PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY FEE ON THE ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX BILLS, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS ITEM WAS DISCUSSED AT THE JUNE 30TH, 2025 BUDGET WORKSHOP.

THE PRELIMINARY RATE OF $170 AND 89 CENTS WAS ADOPTED AT THE JULY 9TH, 2025 CITY COMMISSION MEETING.

FOR A TIMELINE OF THE PROGRESSION OF THIS ITEM, PLEASE TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN ABOVE.

I'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON TEMPORARY RESOLUTION NUMBER 1 4 3 0 1.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON TEMPORARY RESOLUTION NUMBER 1 4 3 0 1 MOTION TO ADOPT TEMPORARY RESOLUTION 1 4 3 0 1 ESTABLISHING THE STORMWATER UTILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES FEE ASSESSMENT RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026.

SECOND, THE MOTION, THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT, THE SECOND BY MYSELF.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER BOLTON MANAGER COULD HAVE YOUR STAFF, UM, EXPLAIN THE $4 98 CENTS OR 3%, UM, INCREASE OF COURSE.

UM, MS. , CAN YOU, UM, PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR THAT INCREASE? CERTAINLY THE, THE STORM WATER UTILITY ORDINANCE CALLS FOR AN INCREASE OF 3% OR CPI ON MAY OF THE, UH, THE FISCAL YEAR AND THIS YEAR THE CPI WAS 2.4%, SO THEREFORE THE INCREASE OF 4 98 REPRESENTS TWO, I'M SORRY, IT'S THE CPI OR 3%, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER .

THEREFORE, THE INCREASE FOR THIS YEAR IS FOUR IS $4 AND 98%, WHICH IS, WHICH REPRESENTS 3% OF LAST YEAR'S RATE.

THANKS.

SEEING NO OTHER REQUEST FOR QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION, CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

VICE MAYOR DANIEL? NO.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON? NO.

TO TEMPORARY RESOLUTION 1 4 3 0 2.

MOTION PASSES THREE TO TWO.

MOVING

[1.c TR14302 - A Resolution of The City of Tamarac, Florida, relating to the provision of Residential Solid Waste Collection Services in the City of Tamarac, Florida; approving the assessment rate for Residential Solid Waste Collection Services for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 2024; imposing a Residential Solid Waste Collection Assessment against assessed property located within the City of Tamarac for the Fiscal Year beginning on October 1, 2024; providing for severability; providing for conflicts; and providing an effective date.]

MR. CITY MANAGER, PLEASE READ YOUR STATEMENT.

THE CITY OF TEAC HAS BEEN USED IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES SINCE 2013.

THIS ASSESSMENT IS AN EQUITABLE AND EFFICIENT METHOD OF ALLOCATING AND COLLECTING THE RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES ASSESSED COST AMONG SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TYPE PARCELS.

THE RESIDENTIAL RATE FOR FY 2026 IS $278 AND 75 CENTS PER RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT RECEIVING CURBSIDE PICKUP, WHICH IS NO CHANGE FROM FISCAL YEAR 2025.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THE

[00:20:01]

CITY COMMISSION APPROVE THE RATE THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED AND APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION AT THE JULY 9TH, 2025 PRELIMINARY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES ASSESSMENT RATE HEARING, AND SUBSEQUENTLY ADVERTISED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 14TH, 2025.

MISS CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE TO THE RESOLUTION.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TAMARACK FLORIDA RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES IN THE CITY OF TAMARACK, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT RATE FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR, BEGINNING OCTOBER 1ST, 2024, IMPOSING A RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION ASSESSMENT AGAINST ASSESSED PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF TAMARACK FOR THE FISCAL YEAR, BEGINNING ON OCTOBER 1ST, 2024, PROVIDING FOR FAVORABILITY, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS ITEM WAS DISCUSSED AT THE JUNE 30TH, 2025 BUDGET WORKSHOP.

THE PRELIMINARY RATE OF $278 AND 75 CENTS WAS ADOPTED AT THE JULY 9TH, 2025 CITY COMMISSION MEETING.

FOR A TIMELINE ON THE PROGRESSION OF THIS ITEM, PLEASE TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN ABOVE.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON TEMPORARY RESOLUTION NUMBER 1 4 3 0 2.

IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON TEMPORARY RESOLUTION NUMBER 1 4 3 0 2 MOTION TO ADOPT TEMPORARY RESOLUTION NUMBER 14 3 0 2, ESTABLISHING THE RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE SERVICES ASSESSMENT RATE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026.

SECOND FOR MOTION.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I HAVE A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR DANIEL, ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? C NONE.

CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

MAYOR GOMEZ.

[1.d TR14303 - A Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, relating to the provision of Nuisance Abatement on certain real properties by the City in accordance with Chapter 9, Article II, Division V of the City’s Code of Ordinances; approving the collection of a Nuisance Abatement Special Assessment on real property that has been specially benefited by the City’s abatement of nuisances thereon; approving a Nuisance Abatement Assessment Roll; providing for conflict; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

RESOLUTION 1 4 3 0 3.

MR. CITY MANAGER, PLEASE READ YOUR STATEMENT.

IN 2012, THE CITY COMMISSION ADOPTED THE PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDINANCE.

AS PART OF THAT ORDINANCE, THE CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZED THE USE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR AMOUNTS BILLED BUT UNPAID.

AS OF JUNE 1ST OF THE YEAR, FOLLOWING THE ABATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC NUISANCE, THE CITY ABATED SEVEN OR 8 8 8, UH, PUBLIC NUISANCES BETWEEN JUNE 1ST, 2024 AND MAY 31ST, 2025 ON FIVE PROPERTIES, ONE OF WHICH THE CITY'S CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION HAS AGREED NOT TO BUILD A PROPERTY OWNER FOR THE REMAINING ACCOUNTS ARE DELINQUENT.

AS OF THE STATE CITY STAFF HAS PREPARED THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST EACH PROPERTY WITH UNSETTLED LIENS, THE TOTAL OF WHICH IS $4,915 AND 86 CENTS TO BE COLLECTED ON THE TAX BILLS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026.

THIS IS THE 13TH HERE.

USING THIS TYPE OF ASSESSMENT, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE CITY COMMISSIONER APPROVED THE PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT THAT WAS APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION AT THE JULY 9TH, 2025 PRELIMINARY PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT ASSESSMENT HEARING AND SUBSEQUENTLY ADVERTISED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 14TH, 2025.

THANK YOU, MADAM CITY ATTORNEY.

PLEASE READ THE TITLE TO THE RESOLUTION.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARACK, FLORIDA RELATING TO THE PROVISION OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT ON CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES BY THE CITY.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER NINE, ARTICLE TWO, DIVISION FIVE OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES APPROVING THE COLLECTION OF A NUISANCE ABATEMENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON REAL PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN SPECIALLY BENEFITED BY THE CITY'S ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES THEREON APPROVING A NUISANCE ABATEMENT ASSESSMENT ROLE PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS ITEM WAS DISCUSSED AT THE JUNE 30TH, 2025 BUDGET WORKSHOP.

THE PRELIMINARY NUISANCE ABATEMENT ASSESSMENT OF $5,184 AND 82 CENTS WAS ADOPTED AT JULY 9TH, 2025 COMMISSION MEETING.

I'M GONNA PAUSE FOR CLARIFICATION.

UH, THAT WAS WHAT IT WAS PRIOR TO.

[00:25:03]

YES, GO AHEAD.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR COMMISSIONERS FOR THE RECORD.

JEFF STREETER.

THE AMOUNT ADOPTED AT THE JULY 9TH MEETING WAS HIGHER BECAUSE, UM, AFTER THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AG, UH, DEPARTMENT AGREED NOT TO CHARGE, NOT TO BILL FOR ONE OF THE, UH, NEWS, ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE, UM, UH, ABATEMENTS THAT THEY, THAT THEY DID.

SO THAT REDUCED THE NUMBER OF ABATEMENTS FROM EIGHT TO SEVEN AND IT ALSO REDUCED THE NUMBER, UH, THE DOLLAR AMOUNT.

BUT, UH, SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT A, AT A LESSER AMOUNT FOR THE FINAL, UM, NUISANCE ABATEMENT.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

I JUST WANTED YOU TO SAY IT BECAUSE THE NEXT THING IS GO TO THE PROGRESSION ON THE TIMELINE IF YOU WOULD PLEASE.

UM, AND TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN ABOVE.

SO I THINK WHAT YOU SAID MAKES IT A LITTLE MORE CLEAR FOR WHAT IS BEING LOOKED AT BY THE RESIDENTS.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM FOR TEMPORARY RESOLUTION 1 4 3 0 3 IS NOW OPEN AND SEEING NOBODY WISHING TO SPEAK, IT IS NOW CLOSED.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON TEMPORARY RESOLUTION NUMBER 1 4 3 0 3 MOTION TO ADOPT TEMPORARY RESOLUTION NUMBER 1 4 3 0 3, ESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026.

SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? SEEING NONE, CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

MOTION PASSES FIVE TO ZERO.

ORDINANCE NUMBER 2 5 9 9.

TEMPORARY

[1.e TO2599 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida to establish and levy ad valorem taxes within the corporate limits of the City of Tamarac, Florida, for the tax year 2025; providing for the levy of ad valorem taxes in the amount of 7.0000 mills ($7.0000 per $1,000) based upon the taxable value on non-exempt real and personal property located within the city limits of the City of Tamarac; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

THIS IS THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING FOR ESTABLISHING THE OPERATING MILITARY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026.

THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON TEMPORARY ORDINANCE NUMBER 2 5 9 9 WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2025 AT 5:05 PM MR. CITY MANAGER, PLEASE READ YOUR STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRUTH IN MILITARY REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA STATUTE, THE CITY'S REQUIRED TO ANNOUNCE THE PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED MILLAGE RATE AND THE ROLLBACK RATE.

AS SUCH, THE FOLLOWING IS READ INTO THE RECORD.

THE PROPOSED OPERATING MILLAGE RATE OF 7.0000 MILS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026 IS 0.4094 MILLS, OR 6.21% MORE THAN THE ROLLBACK RATE OF 6.5906 MILLS.

THAT CONCLUDES MY STATEMENT, MADAM MAYOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MADAM CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE TO TEMPORARY ORDINANCE NUMBER 2 5 9 9.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARACK FLORIDA TO ESTABLISH AND LEVY A VALOREM TAXES WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF TAMARACK, FLORIDA FOR THE TAX YEAR 2025, PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF A VALOREM TAXES IN THE AMOUNT OF 7.0000 MILLS BASED UPON THE TAXABLE VALUE OF NON-EXEMPT REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF TAMARACK, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR FAVORABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS ITEM WAS DISCUSSED AT THE JUNE 30TH, 2025 BUDGET WORKSHOP.

THE PRELIMINARY MILLAGE RATE OF 7.0000 WAS ADOPTED AT THE JULY 9TH, 2025 COMMISSION MEETING.

FOR A TIMELINE OF THE PROGRESSION OF THIS ITEM, PLEASE TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN ABOVE.

AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON TEMPORARY ORDINANCE NUMBER 2 5 9 9.

IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? PLEASE COME FORTH.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.

YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

ADDRESS IF YOU'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE ADDRESS, THE CITY IN WHICH YOU LIVE.

AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF WE LIKE WHAT PEOPLE SAY, WE DO THIS.

IF WE DON'T, WE DO THIS.

WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE ANYBODY UNCOMFORTABLE FOR THE COMMENTS THEY WISH TO SAY THANK YOU, KATE JOHNSON, MAINLANDS.

FOUR.

UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE MILLAGE RATE IS STAYING THE SAME AS LAST YEAR.

HOWEVER, WE ALL KNOW THAT IF IT'S STAYING THE SAME, WE'RE REALLY PAYING MORE TAXES BECAUSE PROPERTY VALUES GO UP.

IN ADDITION, YOU ARE ADDING $35.

FROM WHAT I CAN TELL FROM WHAT YOU'VE SAID ON THE OTHER ITEMS, TO ME, IF THIS COMMISSION TRULY WANTED TO DO WHAT WAS BEST FOR THE TAXPAYERS, YOU WOULD LOWER THE MILLAGE RATE.

AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO CUT THE BUDGET, BUT WE ALL KNOW THERE ARE MANY PLACES TO CUT THE BUDGET WHERE THINGS CAN BE

[00:30:01]

DELETED.

OUR TAXES COULD ACTUALLY EITHER STAY THE SAME OR GO DOWN, BUT ANYBODY WHO'S GOTTEN A TAX BILL FOR NEXT YEAR ALREADY KNOWS TAXES WENT UP, WE'RE PAYING MORE.

SO NOW YOU'RE TAKING MORE IN FIRE.

AND I DON'T BEGRUDGE THEM THAT, BUT FROM WHAT I HEARD WITH THE DISCUSSION, THAT'S NOT GONNA BE ENOUGH TO PAY WHAT IS NEEDED.

SO WHY NOT CUT THE BUDGET NOW IN ORDER TO COVER THOSE EXPENSES THAT YOU KNOW ARE GOING TO COMING IN THE FUTURE? I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS COMMISSION STAYS WITHIN THE BUDGET AS IT IS NOW.

HAVE YOU STAYED WITHIN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET WITHOUT GOING INTO SAVINGS OR ALL OF THESE EXTRA INITIATIVES AND THINGS THAT ARE BEING DONE THAT ARE COMING OUT OF CITY MONEY? WERE THEY IN THE BUDGET? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT ONE IN PARTICULAR WAS BUDGETED FOR 20,000 AND COST 200,000.

SO IF, IF THIS COMMISSION IS NOT STAYING WITHIN BUDGET, WHICH ANY HOUSEHOLD HAS TO DO, THEN FOR EMERGENCIES, WE WILL HAVE NO SAVINGS LEFT FOR ANY CRITICAL ISSUE THAT MAY COME UP THAT IS NEEDED, WHETHER IT'S A HURRICANE OR SOME MAINLINE BREAK OR SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AT THIS POINT BECAUSE IT'S AN UNKNOWN.

ISN'T THAT WHAT SAVINGS IS FOR, TO COVER THOSE UNKNOWNS? BUT IF WE'RE NOT STAYING WITHIN BUDGET AND WE'RE GOING INTO SAVINGS, WE ARE PUTTING EVERY RESIDENT IN THIS CITY AT RISK FOR HIGHER FEES, MORE ASSESSMENTS, WHATEVER THE COST.

SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THAT AS YOU GO FORWARD WITH THIS BUDGET THAT YOU GOING TO BE VOTING ON WHETHER IT STAYS OR NOT.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO SET THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE.

I MAKE A MOTION TO SET THE TENTATIVE MERGE OPERATING RATE AT SEVEN.

WE CAN'T HEAR, SORRY, .

I MAKE A MOTION TO SET THE TENTATIVE OPERATING MILLAGE RATE AT 7.0000 MILLS, WHICH IS 0.4094 MILLS, OR 6.21% MORE THAN THE ROLLBACK RATE OF 6.906 MILLS.

SORRY.

SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

I HAVE A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR DANIEL, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL VICE MAYOR DANIEL? YES.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON? NO.

COMMISSIONER PATTERSON? NO.

MOTION PASSES.

3D TWO CITY ATTORNEY APPOINT OF CLARIFICATION.

MADAM CITY ATTORNEY? YES.

UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT? WELL, I JUST CONFERRED WITH THE CITY MANAGER.

UM, YOU, THIS IS AN ITEM THAT REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE IN FAVOR BECAUSE YOU'RE RAISING, YOU'RE ACTUALLY RAISING THE TAX RATE.

SO, UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A THREE TWO VOTE IS, UM, NOT APPROVING THE, UM, SORRY, WE'RE NOT RAISING THE TAX RATE.

I'LL LET THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, MISSUS OR MR. STRADER, UM, EXPLAIN IT.

GOOD EVENING AGAIN FOR THE RECORD.

JEFF STREETER, BUDGET MANAGER, A MILLAGE RATE, UM, THE MILLAGE RATE WILL ULTIMATELY REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE, WHICH IS, UH, OF THIS BODY, WHICH WOULD BE FOUR OUT OF FIVE.

BUT FOR PASSAGE OF A TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE AND A TENTATIVE BUDGET, THAT CAN PASS WITH A NORMAL MAJORITY 'CAUSE.

BUT AT, AT THE FINAL MEETING, AT THE FINAL PUBLIC HEARING, THAT WILL REQUIRE FOUR OUT OF FIVE VOTES.

SO TODAY WE ARE FINE.

TODAY YOU CAN ADOPT A TENTATIVE, YOU MILLAGE ADOPTED TE RATE AND A TENTATIVE BUDGET WITH A MAJORITY VOTE.

VOTING ON TODAY AND WHAT WE'LL BEVO VOTING ON IN THE FUTURE? WHAT REGARDS TO SURE.

CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN, UM, THE DIFFERENCE AT WHAT WE'RE

[00:35:01]

WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON TODAY IS THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE, AND THAT'S THE MILLAGE RATE THAT, THAT IS ESTABLISHING WHAT'S GONNA BE INCLUDED IN THE NEWSPAPER AD THAT WHEN, WHEN WE, WHEN, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU MAKE A CHANGE TO THE MILLAGE RATE, UM, YOU, YOU EITHER HAVE TO ADVERTISE FOR A NOTICE OF A TAX INCREASE OR A NOTICE OF A BUDGET HEARING.

UM, THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN NOTICE JUST FOR A BUDGET HEARING IS IF THE MILLAGE RATE IS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE ROLLBACK RATE.

ANYTHING ABOVE THE ROLLBACK RATE REQUIRES A NOTICE OF TAX INCREASE.

AND THE MILLAGE RATES THAT YOU'RE SETTING TONIGHT IS FOR PURPOSES OF, UM, ESTABLISHING WHAT'S GONNA GO IN THAT NEWSPAPER AD IN, IN THE BUDGET SUMMARY THAT RIGHT.

BUT IT'S NOT A VOTE FOR INCREASE IN THE MILLAGE RATE, IT'S JUST WHAT'S GONNA BE ADVERTISED.

JUST IN CASE WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT WOULD NOT INCREASE THE MILLAGE RATE.

THAT WOULD BE THE FINAL VOTE ON SEPTEMBER 24TH.

JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

'CAUSE THEN WE'LL GET A LOT OF FEEDBACK THAT WE'RE RAISING THE MILLAGE RATE AND WE'RE NOT.

[1.f TO2600 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of The City of Tamarac, Florida, adopting the Operating Budget, Revenues and Expenditures, the Capital Budget, and the Financial Policies for Fiscal Year 2026; providing for conflicts; providing for scriveners errors; severability; and providing for an effective date.]

ALL RIGHT.

MOVING TO TEMPORARY ORDINANCE NUMBER 2 6 0 0.

THIS IS THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING TO ESTABLISH FISCAL YEAR 2026 OPERATING BUDGET, CAPITAL BUDGET AND FINANCIAL POLICIES.

A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON FOR TEMPORARY ORDINANCE NUMBER 2 6 0 0 WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2025 AT 5:05 PM MR. CITY MANAGER, PLEASE READ YOUR STATEMENT.

IN 2012, THE CITY COMMISSIONER ADOPTED THE PUB.

UM, I'M SORRY, UM, I'M ON THE WRONG PAGE.

THE TENTATIVE OPERATING IN CAPITAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026 IS $293,969,914, WHICH IS $53,633,690 MORE THAN THE AMENDED BUDGET OF $240,336,224 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025.

THE TENTATIVE GENERAL FUND BUDGET, WHICH IS THE PRIMARY FUND FOR PROVIDING GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES SUCH AS OUR CONTRACT WITH BSO GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, PUBLIC SERVICES AND PARKS AND RECREATION, IS $114,182,731, WHICH IS 12,038,000 $174 MORE THAN THE AMENDED BUDGET OF 102 MILLION $144,557 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025.

IN ADDITION, THE FINANCIAL POLICIES ARE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET.

THESE FINANCIAL POLICIES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF OUR LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLANNING FOR THE CITY.

THESE POLICIES SET PARAMETERS FOR OPERATING MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING ESTABLISHING RESERVES FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, ESTABLISHING ACCOUNTS MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL PLANNING POLICIES, AND ESTABLISHING POLICIES ON ECONOMIC RESOURCES.

MADAM CITY ATTORNEY.

PLEASE READ THE TITLE TO TEMPORARY ORDINANCE NUMBER 2 6 0 0.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARACK, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE OPERATING BUDGET, REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES, THE CAPITAL BUDGET, AND THE FINANCIAL POLICIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS ITEM WAS DISCUSSED AT BOTH THE JUNE 30 AND AUGUST 27TH, 2025 BUDGET WORKSHOPS.

FOR A TIMELINE ON THE PROGRESSION OF THIS ITEM, PLEASE TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN ABOVE.

I'LL NOW OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON TEMPORARY ORDINANCE NUMBER 2 6 0 0.

IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THREE MINUTES.

NAME, ADDRESS.

HI, THANKS.

UM, GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

MY NAME IS MONA PERLMAN AND I'M FROM GRANVILLE IN TAMARACK.

UM, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE I JUST CAME IN

[00:40:01]

TO UNDERSTANDING THIS.

DO YOU HAVE ON YOUR, WELL, WHEN YOU ADOPT THE BUDGET, WILL YOU HAVE IT ON YOUR WEBSITE SO THAT WE CAN SEE IT? THE PROPOSED BUDGET IS ALREADY ON THE WEBSITE.

OH, IT'S, AND ALL, EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT ARE ALSO IS ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AS PART OF THE, UH, AGENDA PACKAGE, UM, FOR THE COMMISSION MEETING.

SO IT'S ALL AVAILABLE.

WE CAN TELL YOU EXACTLY WHERE TO FIND THEM.

UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF OUR STAFF MEMBERS CAN, CAN CASES.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NO ONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

THIS ITEM IS NOW CLOSED.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO SET TENTATIVE OPERATING BUDGET, CAPITAL BUDGET, AND FINANCIAL POLICIES FOR FISCAL YEAR POLICIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026.

THIS MOTION, THIS ITEM IS FAILING FOR A LACK OF A MOTION.

I MAKE A MOTION TO SET THE TENTATIVE OPERATION, OPERATING BUDGET, CAPITAL BUDGET AND FINANCIAL POLICIES AS PROPOSED.

SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE MAYOR DANIEL AND I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.

UM, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

UM, REGARDING THE BUDGET AS PRESENTED, UM, I GUESS THROUGH THE MANAGER, UM, MS. KAJU OR WHOMEVER CAN ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS.

I'M KIND OF ACCUSTOMED TO SEEING A FULL BUDGET.

SO I'M LOOKING AT A CONDENSED VERSION OF THE BUDGET SEPARATED BY FUNDS MM-HMM .

AND, UM, IT LEAVES A LOT OF ROOM FOR QUESTIONS.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH ANYTHING IS.

UM, UM, IT'S A VERY HIGH LEVEL, HEY, THIS IS HOW MUCH WE HAVE HERE.

THIS IS HOW MUCH WE HAVE THERE.

MM-HMM .

THIS IS HOW MUCH WE'RE SPENDING THERE.

THIS IS WHAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING HERE.

UM, I KIND OF LIKE TO KNOW DETAILS, SO I'M A LITTLE, UH, DISSATISFIED WITH THE WAY IN WHICH THE BUDGET IS PRESENTED FOR A VOTE.

MY FIRST QUESTION, THOUGH IS EVERYWHERE THAT I SEE APPROPRIATION FROM FUND BALANCE MEANS THAT WE ARE SUPPLEMENTING YES.

AN AREA, RIGHT? THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS AN ENTERPRISE FUND.

IT SHOULD BE SELF-SUSTAINING, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? IT'S A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND AND IT SHOULD BE SELF-SUSTAINING, RIGHT? IT'S, YES.

IT, I'M LOOKING AT THE BUDGET AND IT SAYS THAT THERE IS A $2 MILLION APPROPRIATION FROM THE FUND BALANCE GONNA THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

IT'S THEIR OWN, IT'S THEIR OWN FUND BALANCE.

IT'S A FUND BALANCE FROM THE BUILDING FUND.

SO YOU SEE WHERE THIS IS CONFUSING BECAUSE IF, SO PUBLIC ART FUND IS A HUNDRED AND THERE'S 144,000 COMING FROM AN APPROPRIATION FUND BALANCE.

IS THAT THEIR OWN FUND TOO? YES.

MM-HMM .

SO WHERE IS WHERE, SO EVERYTHING HERE THAT SAYS APPROPRIATION FROM FUND BALANCE IS THE RESPECTIVE FUNDS BALANCE? YES.

NOT THIS, NOT THE OVERALL GENERAL FUNDS BALANCE.

NOT THE GENERAL FUND.

WHAT IS THE FUND BALANCE? WHAT IS THE GENERAL FUND'S CURRENT RESERVE? I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY, UM, SOMEWHERE IN THE REGION OF 61 MILLION.

UM, IF I REMEMBER EXACTLY, THE UN UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE WAS 57 MILLION, SOMEWHERE IN THE REGION OF 57 MILLION .

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THOSE NUMBERS WHEN WE'RE HAVING A BUDGET DISCUSSION FOR SURE.

UM, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF MISCONCEPTION THAT WE'RE PULLING FROM SAVINGS TO RUN THE OPERATION.

SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING AS IT PERTAINS TO THE FISCAL MANAGEMENT OF THE CITY'S BUSINESS.

SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE PRETTY HEALTHY.

I APOLOGIZE, BUT WE DID HAVE IT, UM, IN THE WORKSHOP.

UM, IT WAS JUST NOT A PART OF THIS PACKAGE.

AND I, I CAN GET THAT, THOSE NUMBERS FOR YOU.

SO BEFORE THE MEETING, SO $61 MILLION

[00:45:01]

IT WOULD, IS THAT ACCURATE? UM, I WOULD SAY YES.

ALTHOUGH WE ARE LOOKING TO, TO UTILIZE, UM, WE HAVE SOME AMOUNT OF THAT FUND BALANCE IS BEING UTILIZED THIS YEAR, AND IN THIS BUDGET WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 28 MILLION THAT WE'RE ALL ALSO LOOKING TO TAKE OUT.

OFF THAT FUND BALANCE STAFF IS PROPOSING THAT WE INCREASE, I SEE A SLIDE IN THE PRESENTATION THAT SAYS WE SHOULD INCREASE A DISASTER RECOVERY FUND FROM A MILLION TO $3 MILLION.

I KNOW YOU GUYS PROPOSED 10 MILLION THE LAST TIME MM-HMM .

SO YOU GUYS REDUCED THE 3 MILLION MM-HMM .

WHEN HAVE, WHEN'S THE LAST TIME WE HAD TO, UM, TRIGGER THOSE DOLLARS? IN THE PAST, WE HAVE NOT HAD TO BECAUSE WE'VE, WE'VE, UM, CONSISTENTLY BEEN ABLE TO, UM, UTILIZE FEMA FOR THE EXPENSES WHEN WE HAVE A DISASTER.

AND, UM, WE NEED TO RECOVER THOSE FUNDS.

WE OPTED THIS YEAR TO INCREASE THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE, UM, HAD INFORMATION TO SUGGEST THAT FEMA WILL NO LONGER BE THERE.

SO WE WANTED TO PREPARE FOR THAT EVENTUALITY.

HOW MUCH HAVE WE HAD TO RECOVER FROM FEMA IN THE PAST? WE HAVE RECOVERED, I THINK FROM HURRICANE IRMA.

IT WAS SOMEWHERE IN THE RE REGION OF $5 MILLION.

HOW LONG AGO WAS HURRICANE IRMA? IT WAS 2017.

I SEE.

UM, COSTS FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

I DON'T SEE THE COSTS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

THE, THE, UM, THE CONTRACT WITH BSO IS WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET, BS BSO, UM, IT'S A DIVISION IN THE GENERAL FUND.

THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 23 MILLION.

23 MILLION, CORRECT? YES.

POLICE SERVICES, YOU SEE POLICE SERVICES WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND OF 24,000,817.

8 26.

THAT COVERS BSO.

IT COVERS, YOU KNOW, OUR CROSSING GUARDS AND SOME OTHER MISCELLANEOUS.

WHAT'S THE INCREASE THIS YEAR? 2.5 MILLION, 2.5 MILLION.

I SEE THAT WE REMOVED, UM, MARTIN LUTHER KING CELEBRATION SERVICE, UM, CELEBRATION COSTS.

MARTIN LUTHER KING, WE, UM, THESE AT, UM, PARKS AND REC IS NOT WITH US, BUT THAT CAME TO US FROM THE PARKS AND SHERRY'S HERE, UM, FROM THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT.

AND WE DISCUSSED IT.

WE HAD THE DISCUSSION WHEN WE BROUGHT UP THE LIST AT THE OCTOBER 27TH MEETING.

AND, UM, WE, THE AUGUST 27TH MEETING, SORRY.

AND, UM, THAT WAS THE, UM, SO THE, THE THOUGHT WAS NOT TO, IS NOT TO, TO ELIMINATE MARKETING, BUT TO REDUCE IT.

RESPOND.

HI, GOOD EVENING.

MAYOR CITY COMMISSION.

SHERRY WILSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION.

DISCUSSION AND WE, INSTEAD OF MAKING SOME OF THEM, WE PUT BACK, AND THESE ARE THE ONES THAT WAS LEFT, UM, AMOUNT TO 87,490.

THE, UM, THE IDEA WAS TO REDUCE THE FUNDS FOR THE EVENT, BUT STILL HAVE IT AND MOVE IT OVER TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER.

UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS WHY, UM, OUR DIRECTOR WAS GOING TO REDUCE IT.

SO WE, SO WE'RE REDUCING, WE'RE REDUCING DOLLARS ALLOCATED TO THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, UM, FOR PURPOSES OF CELEBRATIONS OF VARIOUS SORTS TO, FOR WHAT REASON EXACTLY, TO BALANCE THE BUDGET? WHAT EX WHAT REASON DID WE NEED? YEAH.

PART OF IT WAS TO HELP BALANCE THE BUDGET, BUT THE ALSO, UM, PARKS AND RECREATION WAS TASKED ALONG WITH THE CONSULTANT TO LOOK AT ALL THE EVENTS THAT HAPPENED WITHIN PARKS AND REC AND SEE WHICH ONES ARE STILL VALID AND WHICH ONE COULD BE REDUCED.

IF YOU RECALL, AUGUST 27TH, WE, WE, WE GAVE A LIST AND THAT LIST WAS APPROXIMATELY 102,000.

AND THERE WAS DISCUSSIONS, UM, WHERE IT WAS EXPLAINED WHY SOME OF THESE ITEMS WERE BEING REDUCED.

AND, UM, THERE WAS EXTENSIVE

[00:50:01]

UM, I KIND OF SKIPPED OVER A, A, A, A QUESTION THAT I HAD REGARDING, UM, THE POLICE.

THE POLICE, UH, COSTS.

SO THERE WAS A TWO AND A HALF MILLION INCREASE, YOU SAY MM-HMM .

IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE, WHAT'S THE INCREASE? WHAT PERCENTAGE WAS ABOUT 10%? 10% INCREASE? YEAH.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S IN LINE WITH OUR AGREEMENT.

UM, THE, DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? WELL, I, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS YEAR IS, IS IS UNIQUE IN, IN, IN A WAY THAT, UH, THE SHERIFF, UM, HAS JUST SIGNED A NEW CONTRACT WITH THE, UH, EMPLOYEES, NEW LABOR CONTRACT WITH THE EMPLOYEES, WITH THE, UM, UH, WITH THE, UH, PERSONNEL THAT BRINGS, UM, UH, INCREASES TO THE, UH, TO THEIR COMPENSATION.

AND, AND SO THAT'S BEEN REFLECTED.

UH, SO THAT'S 1.8 MILLION.

SO IT'S, IT'S ABOUT $1.8 MILLION EXTRA THAN, THAN, UH, THE, THE NORMAL ROUTINE INCREASES, UH, COMPARED TO, UH, PAST YEARS TO REFLECT THE, THE, UH, THE NEW LABOR CONTRACT.

MM-HMM .

SO IT'S MORE THAN IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.

IT'S, IT'S, IT'S ABOUT $1.8 MILLION, UM, MORE THAN, THAN ITS NORMAL.

UM, INCREASE.

I SAW SOMETHING IN THE NEWSPAPER YESTERDAY THAT SAID WE JUST, ANOTHER EIGHT PEOPLE GOT FIRED, UM, FROM BSOI, I DON'T KNOW.

'CAUSE I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING.

I HADN'T SPOKE TO ANYBODY.

NO, I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHAT'S GOING ON.

BUT, UM, PAYING FOR MORE SALARIES, WE LOST PEOPLE.

I'M, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.

SO THE, THE, THE SHERIFF, I BELIEVE HAD A PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY AND, AND, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, HE ANNOUNCED A NUMBER OF, UM, UH, TERMINATIONS AND, AND, AND DISCIPLINES.

AND, AND, AND SO I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT, UH, COUNT OF THAT, UH, WITH ME RIGHT NOW.

BUT, UH, THIS, UH, NUMBER, THE $1.8 MILLION, IT REPRESENTS THE, UM, THE, THE, THE, THE CHANGE IN THE, IN THE CONTRACT PRICE BASED ON THE NEW NEGOTIATED, UH, UNION AGREEMENT.

AND IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE, UH, TERMINATIONS OR, OR SEPARATIONS.

UH, IT, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A REFLECTION OF THE ENTIRE COMPLEMENT, PERSONAL COMPLIMENT FOR TAC.

SO, UM, THOSE SEPARATIONS ARE, ARE MANAGED, UM, WITHIN THE CONTRACT, UH, SEPARATELY.

AND, AND, AND THAT NUMBER DOES NOT, UH, IMPACT THAT.

UH, FORGIVE ME, CAPTAIN, I HAVE, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'M HEARING ANYTHING ABOUT THE CONTRACT.

I'VE NOT BEEN BRIEFED ON ANYTHING, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING.

I DON'T KNOW IF MY COLLEAGUES DO, BUT I HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING.

UH, AND CAN I HAVE MY, MY TWO MINUTES PLEASE? YES.

I HAVE NO, I'M, THESE ARE REAL QUESTIONS.

I HAVE NO INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO A LABOR CONTRACT.

I'M SEEING THAT WE JUST, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER X AMOUNT OF PEOPLE GOT FIRED.

I'M REALLY CONFUSED.

BE HAVING THE MINIMUM STANDARDS PER FOR THE DEPUTIES EVERY DAY.

CAPTAIN DAVID FRANK'S, UH, CHIEF OF POLICE, UH, TAMARACK DISTRICT FOR BSO.

UH, AS IT RELATES TO THE, THE CONTRACT, THE SHERIFF, UH, BROUGHT FORTH A STAT, A STUDY OF, UH, SALARY STUDY THAT WAS, UH, DONE THROUGH AN INDEPENDENT, UH, COMPANY THAT COMPANY CAME BACK WITH TO SHOW WHERE BSO WAS, UH, RELATION TO OTHER APARTMENTS IN THE AREA.

AND WE WERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE, UH, PAY SCALE COMPARED TO ALL THE OTHER AGENCIES IN SIMILAR SIZE AND WITHIN THE COUNTY.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE, THE ADDITIONAL, UH, COST BECAME FOR THE SALARY STUDY.

NOW, WHEN IT COMES TO THE, UH, TERMINATION, THIS IS RELATED TO THE, UH, INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED OVER HERE IN TAMARACK.

SO THE, UH, TWO SERGEANTS THAT WERE, UH, TERMINATED HAVE BEEN REPLACED.

THEY JUST WERE NOTIFIED TODAY.

SO THOSE POSITIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPLACED.

AND I BELIEVE IT'S LIKE THE CAPTAIN WHO WAS, UH, TERMINATED, UH, HE HAS BEEN REPLACED.

UH, AND THE OTHER DEPUTIES, THEY WILL BE REPLACED AS THEY'RE BRINGING PEOPLE IN.

SO THEY HAVE TERMINATED, BUT THEY ARE ON, ON PAR TO GET, WE ALREADY PUT PERSONNEL REQUISITIONS IN TO REPLACE THOSE, UH, INDIVIDUALS BACK TO THE DISTRICT SO THAT WE'RE BACK TO STAFFING.

SO IN TERMS OF SERVICE LEVEL, IS THE CITY RECEIVING SERVICE LEVEL AT A HUNDRED PERCENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT? YES.

THEY WILL

[00:55:01]

SO THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF STAFFING WILL BE ON THE ROAD EVERY DAY TO ENSURE THAT COVERAGE FOR THE EVERY ZONE AND FOR THE, UH, THE DETECTIVES AND THAT STUFF THERE IN THE WEEK AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

EVEN IF WE'VE GOT A PULL FROM POMPANO OR WE NEED TO PULL FROM ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION UNTIL THE POSITIONS ARE FILLED, I WILL ENSURE THAT THE, THE VOTE IS COVERED AND IT SHOULD BE COVERED INTERNALLY.

WE DO HAVE ENOUGH STAFF HERE.

WE'RE NOT BELOW TO ANY TYPE OF CRITICAL LEVEL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

WE HAVE ENOUGH STAFF IN THE DISTRICT ITSELF TO CONTINUE OUR STAFFING LEVELS AT THIS TIME.

BUT THE CONTRACT CALLS FOR 90 BODIES, 92 BODIES, RIGHT? CORRECT.

92 BODIES.

HOW MANY DO WE HAVE? I BELIEVE WITH THE DETERMINATIONS? I BELIEVE WE NOW, I, I JUST GOT THE, UH, THE NUMBERS BACK.

I THINK WE'RE GONNA BE DOWN ABOUT FIVE, FOUR OR FIVE VACANCIES WITH THE, UH, THE DEPUTIES HIMSELF.

YOU SAID FOUR BECAUSE WE JUST, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.

YOU SAID FOUR WITH ONES THAT JUST GOT TERMINATED.

YOU SAID FOUR OR FIVE AGENT DEPUTIES, DE DEPUTIES PHYSICIANS, BUT THEY'RE, THEY HAVE ALREADY PUT THE REQUISITIONS IN TO HAVE THEM FILLED BY NEW HIRES AND, UM, EITHER TRANSFERS IN.

AND, UM, DOES THAT INCLUDE PEOPLE THAT ARE SUSPENDED AND ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE? AND THE OTHER BUNDLE OF FOLKS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ADDED TO THE ALLOCATION FROM LAST YEAR, THAT HAS, THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE NINE ADDITIONAL POSITIONS WITH THE VACANCIES, THE SUSPENSIONS.

NOW WITH, AFTER THE, UH, DISCIPLINE HAS BEEN GIVEN, THEY WILL DO THEIR SU SUSPENSIONS AND THEY'LL BE BACK ON THE ROAD.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY THE FEW THAT WERE ACTUALLY TERMINATED.

WE HAD A COUPLE THAT DID GET TRANSFERRED OUT, BUT WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO BACKFILL THEM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

YOU MENTIONED A PRESS RELEASE OR I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY SOMETHING ABOUT A PRESS RELEASE.

IS THERE ANY IN INFO, ARE WE GETTING THE, ARE WE GONNA BE INFORMED ON THE PRESS RELEASE? THERE WAS A PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE SHERIFF, UH, EARLIER TODAY.

AND, AND, AND SO, UM, UM, AND THEN, UH, THE CITY OF TAMARACK HAS ISSUED A, UH, PRESS RELEASE, UM, IN, IN, UH, IN LINE WITH THE, UM, UH, THE CONCLUSION OF THOSE, UH, FINDINGS.

OH, I'M SORRY.

I MEANT I DIDN'T MEANT TO SAY PRESS CONFERENCE, SO I'M SORRY.

THE PRESS CONFERENCE WAS REGARDING TAMARACK.

YES, MA'AM.

AT 10:00 AM THIS MORNING.

ANYONE WANNA TELL US WHAT IT'S ABOUT? UH, THE SHERIFF BASICALLY WENT THROUGH AN ANIMATION OF THE, UH, THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AND THEN DISCUSSED THAT HE, UH, HAD W DISCIPLINE AMONGST, UH, 21 EMPLOYEES.

THE CONTRACT EXCEEDED WHAT THE CAP WAS, AND PLEASE LET ME BE CLEAR, I'M ALWAYS IN SUPPORT OF PAYING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MORE.

COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

UH, THANK YOU MADAM MAYOR.

GOING BACK TO THE, THE POLICE QUESTION, 'CAUSE I HAD IT HIGHLIGHTED IN GOING THROUGH THE BUDGET.

SO WE HAD A CITY MANAGER CLARIFY, WE HAD A 10% INCREASE, APPROXIMATELY, YES.

APPROXIMATELY 10%.

IS THAT 2.5 OVER? YOU SAID THE PREVIOUS COST WAS 21 MILLION.

LET ME, I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THE, THE, THE CONTRACT WORKS IN THAT.

UM, BSO IS REQUIRED BY MAY 1ST EACH YEAR TO SEND US WHAT THEIR BUDGET IS GONNA BE YEAH, FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR.

SO, SO THAT WAS ABOUT 23 MILLION.

UM, IT WAS ABOUT 20 20 MILLION THE YEAR BEFORE, ABOUT 2.5 MILLION.

SO THAT'S WHY WE SAID 10, 10%.

AND, UM, AS WE GO TO THE FOLLOWING YEAR, WE'RE PAYING THEM BASED ON THAT BUDGET.

HOWEVER, IF THEY HAVE VACANCIES, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO SEND US A CREDIT FOR THOSE VACANCIES.

SO THEY WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, DON'T PAY ME EACH QUARTER.

THEY LOOK AT ALL VACANCIES THAT THEY HAVE, AND THEN THEY SEND US A VACANCY CREDIT.

I UNDERSTAND.

AND THE NUANCE SAYS, BUT YOU SAID BASIC MATH, 2.5 MILLION, 10% WOULD BE 25 MILLION.

THAT'S, THAT'S BASIC MATH.

IF YOU, NO, TWO YOU SAID YOU SAID 10% IS 2.5.

I CAN TELL YOU BASIC, MATT, 10%, TWO, 2.5 MILLION, A LITTLE, THAT IS 10% OF 25 MILLION AUTOMATICALLY.

SO THAT IS, IT'S MORE THAN 10%.

IT'S A LOWER NUMBER.

SO WHEN IT COMES TO NUMBERS, I KNOW IT'S NOT, IT'S A LITTLE MORE THAN 10%.

WHY I AM ASKING IS THAT I SEE THAT THE, THE SHERIFF, UM, BASED ON MEDIA COUNCIL HAVING AN ISSUE WITH THEIR FIELD WHERE THERE WAS A CAP, THE CONTRACT CAN'T EXCEED 5%.

DO WE HAVE THAT CAP? WE DO.

WELL, AND, AND IT'S, IT'S STILL CONTINUE.

IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE PART OF OUR, UM, UPCOMING, UM, CONTRACT.

DO WE HAVE A CAP IN OUR CONTRACT? WE DO.

WHAT IS THAT NUMBER? IT'S, IT'S 5%.

SO WE CAN'T EXCEED 5%.

SO WE'VE, SO EVEN WITHOUT HAVING A NEGOTIATION, WITHOUT TALKING TO SHARE WITHIN THE CONTRACT YEAR, SORRY, WITHIN THE CONTRACT YEAR.

WITHIN THE CONTRACT YEAR, BUT THIS IS OBVIOUSLY MORE THAN 10%, WHICH EXCEEDS THE 5%.

I THINK THE ISSUE THE SHERIFF WAS HAVING WITH THEIR FEEL IS THAT THE FACT THAT

[01:00:01]

I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND THE NUANCES FOR BUDGET PURPOSES, BECAUSE WHEN I READ THE ARTICLE, THE SHERIFF SAID THE SALARY STUDY REVEALED THAT BSO OFFICERS ARE PAID 19, 19.4% BELOW THE MARKET AVERAGE MINIMUM.

THIS IS THE SHERIFF'S WORDS.

SO IF WE GO UP MORE THAN 10% THIS YEAR, OBVIOUSLY THE OFFICERS ARE STILL NOT AT THE MARKET AVERAGE THAT THE SHERIFF IS SAYING.

IT'S A, IT'S A THREE YEAR PLAN BASED ON THE SHERIFF'S PRESENTATION TO CATCH THE DEPUTY PAY, UH, TO, YOU KNOW, MARKET RATE OF TODAY.

SO THE COST OF BSO IS GONNA GO HIGHER NEXT YEAR AS WELL? IT IT WILL MOST LIKELY YES, BECAUSE THE, UH, THE NEXT YEAR'S, UH, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PAY, UH, ADJUSTMENTS WILL BE REFLECTED ON IN OUR CONSIDERATION FOR NEXT YEAR.

BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD THE NEGOTIATION WITH BSO AS YET.

NOT, NOT YET.

SO HOW CAN WE, HOW CAN WE BUDGET SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T HAD NEGOTIATION FOR? SEE IF WE WANNA, WE MIGHT SAY WE WANNA GIVE OFFICERS THE FULL 19%, SO OUR CONTRACT WITH, WITH BSO EXPIRES, UM, AT THE END OF THIS MONTH, WE'RE IN THE, UH, PROCESS OF THESE, UM, YOU KNOW, CONVERSATIONS.

AND THEN WE WILL BRING THAT TO THE, UM, CITY COMMISSION.

AND AT THAT TIME, UM, YOU WILL, UM, YOU WILL BE CONSIDERING, UH, A BRAND NEW NUMBER AND A BRAND NEW CONTRACT, BUT WE, WE ARE GONNA PROVE A BUDGET FOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS.

WE'RE GONNA START AFTER.

THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, CORRECT.

AND, AND, AND, UH, THAT'S A PRELIMINARY, WELL, WHETHER THAT'S A NUMBER WE HAVE TO INCLUDE IN THE BUDGET BASED ON THE, THE SHARES PROJECTIONS AND, AND, AND, AND SO WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER NUMBER TO INCLUDE IN THERE.

SO WE, WE, WE HAVE TO INCLUDE THAT NUMBER.

SO YOU'VE INCLUDED WHAT THE SH WHAT BSO HAS SAID WOULD BE THE INCREASE FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR? THAT'S CORRECT.

WE'VE ALREADY INCLUDED THAT.

WHICH IS, WHICH IS MORE LIKE 10%, IT'S MORE LIKE 11% WHEN I, IF, IF YOU DO THE MATH TWO, 2.5 MILLION OVER 21, IT GIVES ME MORE LIKE 11.7.

UM, SO THAT'S AN INCREASE OF 11.7.

AGAIN, ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF PAYING OFFICERS MORE.

JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION ON THAT BECAUSE ANOTHER CONTRACT IMMIGRATION IS COMING UP AND I SEE WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING IN THE NEWS.

I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING IT AND READING IT.

'CAUSE I KNOW IT'S GONNA COME IN FRONT OF US.

UM, SO GOING BACK TO COMMISSIONER PATTERSON'S QUESTIONS, I HAD THAT HIGHLIGHTED BECAUSE THAT, THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME.

UM, THE EVENTS, I THINK WE HAD A DISCUSSION.

YOU GUYS HAD ELIMINATED JUNETEENTH AND MLK AND I WAS VERY ADAMANT THAT WE, WE SHOULD NOT ELIMINATE THOSE EVENTS BECAUSE YES.

HOW WE TOOK IT, TOOK IT OUT FROM THE, WE, WE, WE STAND ON THE SHOULDERS OF THOSE PEOPLE AS ANYONE WHO OF IMMIGRANT OF COLOR, JUNETEENTH AND, AND MLK.

UM, WE KNOW THAT THOSE PEOPLE PAVED THE WAY FOR US.

SO THOSE ARE EVENTS THAT SHOULD BE IN THE COMMUNITY AND THOSE WAS ARE PART OF AMERICAN HISTORY.

SO, UM, I THOUGHT WE HAD, WE HAD CLARIFIED WE WE'RE GONNA BRING BACK JUNETEENTH AND WE'RE GONNA KEEP MLK THE SAME.

I THOUGHT THAT'S YEAH.

JUNE.

YEAH, JUNETEENTH IS NOT ON THE LIST.

BUT I SAW WE REDUCED MLK BY SEVEN FROM FROM 13 TO TO, UH, TO THREE A DIFFERENCE OF 10.

UM, I SAW THAT IN THERE.

I OBVIOUSLY THE OTHER STUFF AND YOU KNOW, I MENTIONED NOT IN FAVOR OF, OF GIVING MYSELF ADDITIONAL BENEFITS.

THAT'S SOMETHING I WAS ADAMANT ABOUT AT THAT MEETING.

NO ADDITIONAL BENEFITS, YOU KNOW, AS A ELECTED OFFICIAL.

SOMEONE ECHO THAT SENTIMENTS AGAIN.

UM, WHAT DID I HAVE HIGHLIGHT? I DON'T KNOW, THING THAT WAS HIGHLIGHTED.

APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE FRONT BALANCE YOU JUST MENTIONED WE HAD 61 MILLION.

YOU MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS WORKSHOP WE HAD 61 MILLION AND I THINK OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS WERE LIKE 34 MILLION OR 28 YOU SAID, RIGHT? THEY'RE 28, YES.

SO WE'LL HAVE A REMAINDER OF LIKE 34 MILLION.

WELL, WE ARE, WE'RE ALSO IN, UM, FFY 24 AND I THINK WE BUDGETED 19 MILLION FOR FY 24 THIS, THIS YEAR.

SO THAT FUND BALANCE WAS AT AS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 20, 24 WHEN THE YEAR ENDED.

SO FY 24 THAT WE ARE IN NOW, WE HAD ALSO BUDGETED ABOUT 19 MILLION TO COME OUT FUND BALANCE AND UM, THE YEAR HAS NOT YET ENDED.

SO WE DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GONNA ADD TO OUR, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME EXPENSES.

SO WE MAY ADD TO THE FUND BALANCE.

WE, IT MAY BE REDUCED, WE'RE NOT SURE.

BUT, UM, WE HAD BUDGETED 19 MILLION FOR A CAPITAL PROJECT FOR FY 24.

AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER 28 MILLION IN THIS BUDGET FOR FFY 20 FOR FY 25.

AND WE ARE ANOTHER 28 MILLION IN THIS BUDGET FOR FY 26.

SO WHAT ARE WE GONNA HAVE IN A FUND BALANCE AT THE END OF THE, THE, THE, THE, THE BUDGET YEAR? WHAT, WHAT, WHAT AMOUNT? IS IT 61 OR IS IT GONNA BE 34? IT'S GONNA BE LESS.

IT'LL BE LESS THAN THE 61.

THANK COMMISSIONER PATTERSON FOR BRINGING UP WHAT WE DISCUSSED, I BELIEVE WAS LAST COMMISSION MEETING OR TWO COMMISSION MEETINGS AGO.

ALL RIGHT.

THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS.

VICE MAYOR DANIEL, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.

[01:05:01]

JUST THE CLARITY MM-HMM .

BECAUSE TO FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING ON AS A COMMISSIONER FROM PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, IT'S NOT GOOD THAT WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON.

WE SHOULD BE TOLD, UM, NOT JUST ONE PERSON ON THE COMMISSION BUT EVERYONE, AND THEN TO VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT IMPACTS KNOWLEDGE THAT WE WEREN'T GIVEN IS IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT.

AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE, SO TO YOUR BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, I'M ASKING THAT WE GET INFORMATION, ALL OF US AT THE SAME TIME.

IF THERE'S A MEETING, WE ALL GO OR NO ONE GOES, OR ONE OF US SAID WE CAN'T GO, BUT WE ALL GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO.

UM, I ALSO AGREE, BUT THAT THE, IF IT'S INCREASED FOR THE POLICE AND THEY'RE GETTING MORE SALARY, ABSOLUTELY, BUT I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE CAN SAY THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING TO.

YOU CAN'T ASSUME, AND I KNOW AS A SCHOOL PRINCIPAL I CAN SAY I CAN HAVE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, A TEACHER HAS TO BE THERE, A TEACHER HAS TO BE THERE, A TEACHER'S NOT THERE.

GUESS WHAT? YOU PUT A SUBSTITUTE THERE OR I GO IN THERE, BUT SOMEBODY HAS TO BE THERE.

SO I THINK THAT'S VERY UNFAIR AND I'M HOPING THAT IN THE NEW CONTRACT THERE'S NO SUCH THING.

IF WE HAVE 92, WE GET 92.

BUT I WAS GLAD TO HEAR THAT WE GET A CREDIT, BUT IF SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT, THEN MAKE IT PARAMOUNT.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON? MANAGER, ARE WE AT THE END OF THE CONTRACT WITH THE BSO AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER? YES.

THE CURRENT CONTRACT EXPIRES AND THE CURRENT CONTRACT NUMBER IS, UM, $21 MILLION, UH, 21.

UH, AND, AND SOME CHANGE.

I'M ONLY ASKING 'CAUSE I'VE HEARD VARIOUS NUMBERS, RIGHT? SO I JUST WANT TO BE SURE WHAT IS THE NUMBER THIS YEAR? I THINK WE BUDGETED APPROXIMATELY RECLAIMING MY TIME ABOUT 20 AND A HALF MILLION.

APPROXIMATELY 21 MILLION IS WHAT WE BUDGETED THIS YEAR.

IT'S WHATEVER BSO SENT TO US TO SAY THAT IT'S GONNA BE THEIR BUDGET FOR FFY 25.

THAT'S WHAT WE BUDGET.

SO THEY SEND US A BREAKDOWN, UM, OF THEIR EXPENSES AND THAT'S THE TOTAL AND THAT'S WHAT WE, WE PAY ON A MONTHLY BASIS.

AND THEN WHEN, WHENEVER THERE'S A VACANCY CREDIT, WE TAKE THE CREDIT.

SO WE BUDGETED 21 MILLION LAST YEAR.

SO THIS YEAR WE'RE BUDGETING $23 MILLION, WHICH IS $2.5 MILLION MORE THEREABOUT.

THEREABOUT.

SO NOW IT'S GONNA BE A 10% INCREASE.

APPROXIMATELY.

SO MANAGER, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WERE MENTIONING SOMETHING THAT IT IS 5% CAP WITHIN THE CONTRACT PERIOD, OR BECAUSE THIS IS A NEW CONTRACT, IT'S A BRAND NEW NEGOTIATION AND THE 5% DOES NOT MATTER ANYMORE.

5% WILL BE PART OF THE NEW CONTRACT.

UM, SO THAT THE, UH, THE, THE COST OF, UM, UH, THE, THE, THE SERVICE WILL NOT GO, UM, BEYOND 5%.

SO, SO LET ME, LET ME UNDERSTAND.

SO IF WE HAVE A CONTRACT IN PLACE, IT CALLS FOR 5% INCREASE EACH YEAR OVER THAT, OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT WE HAVE A CONTRACT, IT CAN GO UP TO 5%? NO, NO MORE THAN 5% WHEN WE HAVE A CONTRACT INTACT.

CORRECT.

SO I'M SAYING THE CONTRACT IS EXPIRED NOW, RIGHT? SO DOES THE 5% INCREASE EXIST OR IT'S A BRAND NEW NEGOTIATION AND THE 5% DOES NOT MATTER ANYMORE.

SO THE EXISTING 5% EXPIRED, UH, OR WILL EXPIRE AT THE END OF THIS MONTH.

AND THEN WE'LL START WITH A, UM, NEW, UH, BASELINE, WHICH WILL, UM, WHICH THE 5% WILL HAVE, UM, WILL, WILL BE RELEVANT TO THAT.

SO THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.

SO WE'RE, SO WE'RE STARTING A BRAND NEW CONTRACT AT $23 MILLION AND THEN 5% CAP, SUPPOSEDLY TAX IMPACTS, WE'LL BE IN THAT AGREEMENT, AND THEN IT CAN ESCALATE UP TO 5% OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

UM, INDIVIDUAL YEARS, I BELIEVE.

UM, YEAH, YEAH.

I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT, UM, SINCE THE, THE CONTRACT, UM, IS COMING TO AN END, WHAT WE HAVE IS AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT IT WILL COST NEXT YEAR.

SO WE ARE, WE'RE, WE'RE BUDGETING WHAT THE ANTICIPATED COST, BUT WE'RE NOT YET CONTRACTED FOR THAT COST.

HOW DO WE GET THAT ANTICIPATED COST? BECAUSE IT'S A BUDGET THAT WE GOT FROM, FROM THE SO

[01:10:01]

ON MAY 1ST.

SO, SO AHEAD, AHEAD OF NEGOTIATIONS, THEY SENT YOU SOME ANTICIPATED COSTS AND THEY'RE SAYING MM-HMM .

WE ANTICIPATE THAT YOU MIGHT GO 10 TO 15%, LET'S SAY IN THE NEW CONTRACT.

BECAUSE, UM, THEY, THEY LOOK AT WHAT THEIR, THEIR COSTS ARE FOR PERSONNEL AND OPERATING COSTS AND, UM, SOME CAPITAL, UM, FOR, FOR TAMARACK.

AND THEY PRESENTED, PRESENTED TO US IN A LETTER, WHICH THEY CALL IT WE, WHAT WE REFER TO AS A DEMAND LETTER.

AND, UM, THAT NUMBER IS, IS WHAT WE BUDGET BECAUSE THEY, THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT THEY ANTICIPATE THAT THEY'LL SPEND.

AND DID THEY EXPLAIN, UH, THE, THE COST WITH THE NUMBERS? YES, THERE'S A BREAKDOWN.

SO WHERE'S THE BREAKDOWN? IT'S A, THAT LETTER IS, IT WAS PROVIDED TO US.

WHAT WAS IT FOR? IT IS PROVIDED TO US, BUT WE, WE, WE NORMALLY DON'T MAKE IT PART OF THE BUDGET BECAUSE, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S PRESENTED AS IF YOU'RE, IF IF SOMEBODY IS ASKING FOR $2.5 MILLION DOES TAKE BSO OUT OF IT AND TAKE LAW ENFORCEMENT OUT OF IT, BECAUSE THEN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO START THIS POLITICAL ARGUMENT THAT, OH, THEY'RE ATTACKING LAW ENFORCEMENT.

UH, AND, AND THAT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, MY HEART WHERE BS IS CONCERNED.

HOWEVER, IF, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DISH OUT $2.5 MILLION TO SOMEBODY, THEN YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT $2.5 MILLION IS AND WHERE IT'S GOING.

SO YOU NEED TO HAVE THE, THE BACKUP IN THE, IN THE BUDGET.

WHAT ARE WE VOTING ON? WE CAN'T JUST ARBITRARILY GIVE $2.5 MILLION.

THIS IS NOT A $1 MILLION MISTAKE ON COLONY WEST.

THIS IS $2.5 MILLION BEING HANDED OUT TO ANOTHER AGENCY.

SO SHOW ME WHERE THE MONEY'S GOING.

SO WE CAN DEFINITELY SHOW THAT.

AND, AND AS I WAS EXPLAINING THIS YEAR, THE DIFFERENCE, OR THE REASON THAT IT'S GOING UP TO THAT EXTENT IS, IS, UM, ABOUT, UM, 8.7%, UM, UH, CHANGE ALONE ON THE, UM, ON THE NEW NEGOTIATED CONTRACT.

SO THE, THE AMOUNT OF, UH, CONTRACT IMPACT ON THE, ON THE CITY'S, UM, BUDGET IS ABOUT 8.7%, UH, FOR, FOR STAFFING OR FOR NEW, UH, NEGOTIATED SALARIES ONLY.

AND THEN, UH, THE, THE REMAINING PART IS THE, UH, ANNUAL INCREASE OF, OF PROVIDING THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE, UM, BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE TODAY.

BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY PROVIDE THAT BANK, WE CAN PROVIDE THAT, UH, WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.

THE STAFF CAN PROVIDE THAT, CAN PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION IF YOU NEED TO REQUIRE, AND I'M ASSUMING BSO HAS THEIR OWN PIO? THEY DO.

SO WHY DID THEIR PIO NOT PUT OUT A STATEMENT? WHY DID RPIO HAVE TO PUT OUT A STATEMENT OR THE STATEMENT THAT THE CITY PUT OUT SPECIFICALLY SAYS ON BEHALF OF THE TAM REC CITY COMMISSION AND THE ENTIRE CITY OF RACK? I DID NOT DRAFT THIS.

THE, THIS STATEMENT.

SO WHERE DID IT COME FROM? .

SO IT'S, UM, IT'S A STATEMENT, UH, THAT WAS PUT OUT BY THE, UH, CITY STAFF.

WHERE DID THEY GET IT? BECAUSE IF IT SAYS THE CITY COMMISSION, THEN A MEMBER OF THE CITY COMMISSION MUST HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS STATEMENT.

SO WHO, SO THE, UH, THE ORIGINAL, UM, VERSION OF THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER BOLTON, UH, THAT WAS, UH, UH, THAT CAME FROM THE MAYOR.

AND, AND THEN WE TOOK THAT, UH, ORIGINAL DRAFT, AND THEN WE, UH, MASSAGED IT INTO A MORE, UH, CITY, UM, UH, STATEMENT ON THE, UH, ON THE CHANGES ON THE, ON THE EVENTS AND THE, UM, UH, AND THE STICKER EVENT.

SO, SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU TOOK A PRESS RELEASE FROM THE MAYOR, YOU SEEDED IT TO PIO AND THEN PIO O PUT THEIR SPIN ON IT AND PUT IT OUT AS IF IT IS OUR WORDS? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BECAUSE THIS MAYOR HAS SAID IN THE PAST THAT NO MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION CAN GIVE THE MANAGER OR THE CITY ATTORNEY ANY POWER BY THEMSELVES.

SO HOW IS THIS A DOUBLE STANDARD? HOW? BECAUSE IF HANS DRAFTS A RESOLUTION BY HIMSELF, IT'S A PROBLEM.

AND YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE A PRESS RELEASE FROM THIS MAYOR SO THAT IT LOOKS LIKE I AM WRITING IT TO HAVE FLOWERS FOR BSO.

AND I DO, BUT NOT EVERYBODY AT BSO.

SO WHO ARE YOU TAKING DIRECTIVES FROM? ONE PERSON OR THE ENTIRE COMMISSION? WELL, THE ENTIRE COMMISSION, THE, THE, THE, THE COUNCIL.

SO WHO DID SHE SEND THAT PRESS RELEASE TO? COMMISSIONER THE, THE CITY'S, UM, REASONING FOR, FOR HAVING THAT PRESS RELEASE IS TO, UM, IS TO

[01:15:01]

NOT THE CITY.

SHE SENT IT TO SOMEBODY.

IS IT YOU OR DIRECTLY TO THE PIO? OI RECEIVED IT.

AND THEN YOU SENT IT TO THE PIO, CORRECT.

WHICH MEANS YOU'RE TAKING A PAA PRESS RELEASE FROM HER AND YOU'RE BEATING TO HER DRUM AND YOU'RE SENDING IT TO THE PIO O AND THEN NOW THE PIO IS WRITING AS IF IT'S COMING FROM THE COMMISSION.

AND WE HAD A DISCUSSION AT COLONY WEST, AND THAT DISCUSSION SIMPLY SAID THAT ONE PERSON DOES NOT SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS COMMISSION.

DO YOU REMEMBER THAT CONVERSATION? I DO.

SO IF YOU'RE COMING FROM THAT CONVERSATION, AND THREE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO GIVE YOU THE DIRECTION, WHY ARE YOU TAKING DIRECTION FROM ONE PERSON? YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT WRONG IN YOUR ASSESSMENT.

YOU'RE CORRECT.

EXCUSE ME, YOU'RE INCORRECT, MAYOR.

UM, I'M SPEAKING.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND THAT IS ALSO A PART OF THE RULES.

WHEN SOMEBODY HAS THE FLOOR, YOU, YOU LET THEM HAVE THE FLOOR.

I'M NOT INTERRUPTING YOU GUYS SHOW THAT RESPECT.

I'M LETTING YOU SPEAK.

SO YOU, YOU RESPECT YOU, YOU'RE CORRECT IN TERMS OF, UM, YOU DON'T SHOW RESPECT KATE JOHNSON.

YOU DON'T SPEAK FROM THE AUDIENCE.

EXCUSE ME.

YOU DO THAT ALL THE TIME.

SHE DID NOT SPEAK COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

YOU JUST, SHE JUST DID.

NO, SHE DID NOT.

WE DID NOT.

NO, SHE DID NOT.

IT IS, IT IS THIS ONE AT THE FRONT, THIS MINION AT THE FRONT.

UM, THE OTHER, THE OTHER ONE.

THE OTHER ONE THAT'S ON YOUR PAYROLL.

THERE'S NO ONE ON MY PAYROLL.

GET YOUR CRAP TOGETHER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

WE DO NOT TALK FROM THE OR AUDIENCE.

YOU WERE ASKED TO COME TO THE MICROPHONE WHEN THE TIME WAS APPROPRIATE.

THERE'S NO SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIENCE AT THIS TIME.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, YOU ARE AWARE THAT WE DO NOT TALK BACK TO THE AUDIENCE SO YOU CAN CONTINUE TO SAY YOUR TWISTED SPEECH AS YOU WISH.

YOU HAVE A FEW MORE MOMENTS.

IT'S NOT A TWISTED SPEECH.

GO AHEAD.

IT IS NOT YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE THIS THING POLITICAL ABOUT YOU AND ONE PERSON.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE IT.

I WILL NOT SIT HERE AND HAVE YOU SPEAK ON BEHALF OF ME.

IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

THIS COMMISSION SPEAKS AS A BODY.

YOU DON'T SPEAK ON BEHALF OF ME, PERIOD.

NEVER EVER LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN.

AND IF YOU DO IT AGAIN, YOU ARE ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK.

MR. MANAGER.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

AT THAT MEETING, THERE WAS A COMPLAINT THAT THE MAYOR DID NOT PUT OUT A STATEMENT AFTER THE LAST INCIDENT.

AND AT THAT MEETING IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT AS THE MAYOR, THE MAYOR WILL PUT OUT A STATEMENT.

SO IN ORDER TO NOT HAVE ANYBODY WITCH ABOUT IT AGAIN, THE MAYOR PREPARED A STATEMENT AND IT WAS AN INCLUSIVE STATEMENT, JUST GENERALLY SUPPORTING THAT.

WE WERE HAPPY THAT THE WORDS OF THIS CITY OF BSO WE'RE DONE.

HE SAID HE WOULD DO IT.

THE SHERIFF DID IT.

HE HAD HIS TRANSPARENCY.

HE LET US KNOW.

AND WE WERE VERY HAPPY THAT WE NOW HAVE OUR NEW CAPTAIN AND WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT WE WILL HAVE A GOOD, SAFE, SUCCESSFUL POLICE FORCE UNDER OUR DISTRICT SEVEN CAPTAIN DAVID FRANKS.

AND I WAS BEING INCLUSIVE TO INCLUDE EVERYBODY.

IT IS A SHAME THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS SUCH, ARE YOU GONNA A DIFFICULT ATTITUDE PROBLEM? AND SO YOU ARE SPEAKING NO, NO.

WE ARE DIRECTING THE COURT MEETING TO START YOUR TIME.

I'M DOING, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

TAKE YOUR FIVE MINUTES.

NOW YOU ARE NOT THE MAYOR.

DEAL WITH IT.

SO CITY MANAGER, DID YOU NOT GET THAT LETTER MANAGER? DID YOU TRY TO PUT IT OUT THERE? DIRECT YOUR STAFF? NO, DIRECT YOUR STAFF TO CLOCK HER.

THIS IS NOT YOUR PLAYGROUND.

COMMISSIONER IS RULE.

THIS IS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

IT'S THE RULE.

YOU DON'T GET TO SPEAK 20 MINUTES ABOUT THE BUDGET.

ITS THE RULE CONTROL YOURSELF.

IT IS THE RULE.

YOU DO NOT GET TO SPEAK 20 MINUTES RECESS.

IT'S FOUR AT 6 24.

WE'LL BE BACK IN FIVE MINUTES.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT IS SIX 30 AND WE ARE RESUMING OUR MEETING CITY CLERK.

AND THIS IS THE LETTER FROM BS O.

WE ARE CURRENTLY BEING HANDED THE LETTER FROM BSO THAT WAS SENT TO THE CITY ON MAY 1ST, 2025.

THANK YOU CITY CLERK.

BSO.

[01:20:02]

READY.

SO AT THIS TIME, I'M GONNA TAKE MY FIVE MINUTES NOW FOR THE BUDGET ITEM, CAPTAIN FRANK, CAN YOU PLEASE DO US A FAVOR AND EXPLAIN WHAT TRUEUP IS WITH BSO AND THEN THAT THE STAFFING LEVELS AGAIN ARE ALWAYS COMPLETE.

WILL YOU PLEASE JUST CLARIFY? YES, MA'AM.

CAPTAIN FRANK'S, BSO, UH, BASICALLY IT MEANS THAT WE'RE ALWAYS GONNA MAINTAIN OUR STAFFING LEVELS IF WE HAVE TO BRING PEOPLE IN FROM THE OUTSIDE AND TO, TO BRING THOSE LEVELS UP.

WE WILL ALWAYS MAINTAIN THE LEVELS FOR THE DISTRICT SO THAT THERE'S ALWAYS PEOPLE ON THE ROAD.

AND THAT THE PUBLIC SAFETY IS NEVER, UH, BROUGHT DOWN TO ANY LEVELS THAT IS UNSAFE.

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE ZONES COVERED AND IF, IF I CAN'T EVEN HAVE AN ADDITIONAL OUT THERE, IF POSSIBLE, BUT WE WILL ALWAYS MAKE SURE AND ENSURE THAT THE, THOSE CITY IS COVERED AND WE WILL NOT GO BELOW UP.

UH, I APOLOGIZE TO GIVE THE EXACT WORDING ON THE TRUE UP HOW IT'S DEFINED, BUT WE DO COME UP TO THE LEVELS AND WE MAINTAIN THE MINIMUM OF 20 ON EVERY DAY.

SO THE TRUE UP AS MY UNDERSTANDING IS IF WE HAVE A POSITION THAT IS NOT FILLED AT THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY AT THE END OF THE CONTRACT, WE WILL BE REIMBURSED FOR THAT AMOUNT.

IS THAT CORRECT? I'M SORRY.

YEAH, WE CALL THE, WE USE THE WORDS VACANCY CREDITS.

I, OKAY, I DO APOLOGIZE ON THAT.

YES, THERE ARE VACANCY CREDITS.

ANYTIME THERE IS A, UH, A PCN THERE, A POSITION CONTROL THAT IS OPEN FOR ALL THE TIME THAT IT IS, UH, OPEN, WE DO, UH, REIMBURSE THE CITY BACK THAT AMOUNT FOR THE TIME THAT THEY'RE NOT THERE.

AND IS THIS A CORRECT STATEMENT? CITY MANAGER? YOU WISH TO SAY SOMETHING? NO, I MEAN, UH, I WAS, I WAS JUST GONNA CONFIRM THAT WE RECENTLY RECEIVED ABOUT $80,000, UH, FOR, UM, UH, VACANCY CREDITS FOR, FOR THE PAST COUPLE MONTHS, CORRECT.

AND THERE, I BELIEVE THERE'S ANOTHER CREDIT COMING, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

THERE IS ANOTHER ONE COMING.

SO THEY ARE, UH, REIMBURSING THE CITY FOR THOSE TIMES THAT ARE NOT THERE.

AND IS THIS A CORRECT STATEMENT? THE CONTRACT EXPIRES AT THE END OF NEXT MONTH.

WE ARE ENTERING A NEW CONTRACT AND WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN NOTICE, WHICH YOU JUST HAVE PROVIDED TO US, THAT'S IN SERVICES ARE GOING UP AND WE HAVE TO BUDGET.

NOW, THAT IS A REASON FOR PUTTING THIS HIGHER AMOUNT BUDGET NUMBER IN THE BUDGET.

DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE ARE GOING TO SETTLE FOR IT OR SIGN FOR IT, BUT AT LEAST WE ARE PREPARED FOR IT.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

UM, MS. KAUSE, CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN IN THE NUMBERS A LITTLE MORE HOW MUCH IS IN OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, WHICH IS OUR RESERVE OR A FUND BALANCE, HOW MUCH MONEY WENT IN 24, HOW MUCH IS BUDGETED FOR 25? HOW MUCH IS IN 26 AND HOW MUCH REMAINS? UM, IT WAS 58 MILLION .

IT WAS 58 MILLION.

THAT WAS THE, UM, UNRESTRICTED FUND BALANCE FOR FY 24.

WE BUDGETED APPROXIMATELY 19 MILLION FOR FY 25.

IN ADDITION, WE ARE BUDGETING, UM, 20, APPROXIMATELY 28 MILLION THIS YEAR FOR FY 2026.

SO MATHEMATICALLY, THAT LEAVES US 11 MILLION IN THE UNRESTRICTED FUND BALANCE.

YES, MA'AM.

AND WHEN THE UNRESTRICTED FUND BALANCE IS GOING TO OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, IS THAT CORRECT? THE UM, YES.

THAT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE UTILIZING FOR CIP.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IS? THESE ARE ALL THE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE OUT THERE FOR THE WALLS, UM, FOR BUILDING THE WALLS, FOR BUILDING THE PARKS, BUILDING THE EAST SIDE COMMUNITY CENTER.

AND WE HAVE A FEW OTHER PROJECT THAT MAKES UP OUR OUR CIP.

SOMEBODY UPSET THAT WE HAVE NOW STOPPED A COMPUTER COURSE FOR SOME OF OUR SENIORS.

I HAVE BEEN VOCAL ABOUT THIS AT ALL OUR MEETINGS.

I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF OUR CURRENT BUDGET IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT IS.

I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A REASON FOR KEEPING IT AT SEVEN MILLS AND THAT THE INCREASE OF TAXABLE VALUE DOES GO TO HELP WITH ALL THE INCREASED COSTS OF GOODS SERVICES.

I DO BELIEVE THAT WE ARE SHORT ON KEY PERSONNEL, WHETHER IT'S OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC SERVICES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CODE ENFORCEMENT, I THINK WE NEED MORE MONEY GOING TO OUR EMPLOYEES AND HELPING OUR EMPLOYEES DO THEIR JOBS BETTER.

I HAVE SAID THIS TIME AND AGAIN, WE HAVE 74,000 PEOPLE IN OUR CITY AND WE'RE STILL RUNNING AT AN EMPLOYEE RATE OF ABOUT 411, WHICH IS ABOUT A PERSON AND A HALF TO TWO PEOPLE SHY OF WHERE WE SHOULD BE FOR A CITY THIS SIZE.

AND WHICH IS WHY I THINK WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE DIFFICULTY MEETING THE EXPECTATIONS OF OUR CUSTOMER SERVICE SECOND TO NONE.

UM, I DO NOT AGREE TO SOME OF THE SERVICES OR THE PROGRAMS THAT ARE BEING CUT FROM PARK AND REC OR BEING TRANSFERRED TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

I RECEIVED AN EMAIL TODAY ABOUT

[01:25:01]

THERE ARE CERTAIN OTHER THINGS THAT WE WERE CUTTING OUT LIKE FAST TRACK BECAUSE WE'RE TOLD, OH, THE PROGRAM EXISTS SOMEWHERE ELSE, BALONEY, BECAUSE I'M GETTING RESIDENTS WHO ARE TELLING ME THEY HAVE NO AFTERCARE PROGRAM FOR THEIR KIDS AND WE HAVE JUST CUT OUT THESE PROGRAMS. I CANNOT ACCEPT THIS BUDGET THE WAY IT IS AND I WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS BUDGET THE WAY IT IS.

AND I ALSO DO NOT AGREE WITH THE INCREASES THAT WERE PUT IN FOR PERSONAL GAIN AT THE AUGUST 27TH BUDGET MEETING.

SO FOR THOSE REASONS AND PROBABLY PLENTY OF OTHERS, I AM NOT GOING TO APPROVE THIS BUDGET.

THANK YOU VICE MAYOR DANIEL.

THANKS, UM, CAPTAIN.

SO GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE.

I'VE HEARD A LOT OF GOOD THINGS ABOUT YOU.

UM, SO I'M, I HEARD YOU VERY INFORMED , UM, QUESTION IF, HOW OFTEN ARE WE AT THE MINIMAL LEVEL THIS YEAR? HOW OFTEN WERE, UM, IT'S PROBABLY A, YOU SAID THERE'S A MINIMAL LEVEL FOR US TO STAY.

A CRITICAL LEVEL.

WHAT I SAID CRITICAL LEVEL, LEVEL, I APOLOGIZE.

CAPTAIN FRANK'S, BSO, UH, WHEN I TALK ABOUT MINIMUM, MINIMUM STAFFING, WE DO THAT ON A DAILY BASIS.

WE HAVE TO HAVE X AMOUNT OF DEPUTIES ON THE ROAD EVERY DAY, UH, WHICH IS THE, WHICH IS 20, WHICH MEANS WE COVER EVERY ZONE AND HAVE TWO SUPERVISORS THAT COVER IT WITHIN A 24 HOUR PERIOD.

NOW THAT, THAT ALSO DOES NOT INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE, UH, DETECTIVES AND THINGS LIKE THAT ON THE ROAD AT THAT TIME.

NOW IF THEY'RE THERE, THEY CAN BE COUNTED TOWARD THAT MINIMUM.

BUT THE ACTUAL STANDARD IS TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THAT AMOUNT FOR, UH, PROPER STAFFING SO THAT EVERY ZONE IS COVERED AND THAT WE ARE OUT THERE SO THAT THE PUBLIC IS SERVED.

SO ON AVERAGE, AND YOU, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'RE ABLE BE NET UNION ON AVERAGE, HOW MANY TIME WERE WE AT THAT LEVEL INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM LEVEL, WHICH, UM, DEFINING MAXIMUM OF THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WE PAID FOR IN THE CONTRACT? ACTUALLY WE WERE JUST AT A HUNDRED PERCENT STAFFING AND WE JUST CAME DOWN A FEW WITH, WITH THE TERMINATIONS AND THE TRANSFER OF A PERSON TO THE DUI TASK FORCE AND ANOTHER PERSON BEING PROMOTED TO SERGEANT.

BUT BEFORE THAT WE WERE, WE WERE ACTUALLY AT FULL STAFFING.

YEAH, BUT I'M SAYING 'CAUSE IT'S DONE DAILY, SO SAY 365 DAYS, WHAT NUMBER OF DAYS WE'RE NOT AT THE MAXIMUM LEVEL AS I DEFINED, OR WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE YEAR ARE WE NOT AT THE MAXIMUM LEVEL.

I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION WITH.

YEAH, IF YOU COULD VICE MAYOR, IF YOU COULD LET US, LET ME, I'M NOT SURE IF ANYONE ELSE IS INTERESTED, BUT I'M INTERESTED IN KNOWING IN THE FUTURE AND, UM, AND IF THE MINIMUM, THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF DEPUTIES OR UM, BSO STAFF MEMBERS, THAT'S NEED, THAT'S ALL WE NEED TO BE SAFE.

WHY ARE WE PAYING FOR MORE? WELL, WHEN I, WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE MINIMUM STAFFING, THE MINIMUM STAFFING IS THE, BASICALLY WE CONSIDER ROAD PATROL.

THE MINIMUM STAFFING IS NOT DETECTIVES, THE MINIMUM STAFFING IS NOT ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE, THE MINIMUM STANDARD DOESN'T COVER, UH, THE COMMUNITY POLICING.

THE EXTRA UNITS THAT WE USE FOR, UH, CRIME SUPPRESSION TEAM, ALL OF THOSE, THOSE ARE IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE CONSIDER THE MINIMUM STAFFING FOR THE ROAD.

THE ROAD HAS THE MINIMUM NUMBER.

SO WHEN I TALK ABOUT MINIMUMS AND AND MAXIMUMS, THERE'S, THERE'S, IT'S A, A LITTLE BIT OF A, UH, A MISNOMER AND HOW IT'S, HOW IT'S BROUGHT UP.

SO THE MINIMUM STAFFING FOR US BY CONTRACT, WHICH IS WRITTEN IN THE CONTRACT WOULD BE THE 20 DEPUTIES IN A 24 HOUR PERIOD.

THAT MEANS WHAT IS THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM PEOPLE WORKING AT THAT TIME IN A 24 HOUR PERIOD IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES FOR THE CITY, UH, FOR POLICING THAT.

BUT NOW DURING THE OTHER TIMES WITH BASED ON SCHEDULES AND EVERYTHING ELSE, WE HAVE DETECTIVES WHO THEN FOLLOW UP ON THE CASES THAT, UH, ARE FOUND OUT DURING THE DAY.

WE WOULD HAVE OUR CRIME SUPPRESSION TEAM THAT WOULD BE OUT THERE, UH, HITTING SPECIFIC TARGETED TYPE OF CRIMES.

OUR CRIME PREVENTION UNIT, WHICH DOES A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY POLICING, UH, PROVIDES A SECURITY HERE AT LAKE CITY HALL, UH, DURING THE MEETINGS AND ALL OF THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.

THOSE ARE IN ADDITION TO THE ACTUAL MINIMUM STAFFING.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE MINIMUM STAFFING FOR THE, THE DISTRICT IS WHEN WE MEET THAT NET NUMBER, WHICH WOULD BE THE 92, UH, TOTAL POSITIONS THAT WOULD BE COVERED AND HIRED AND BROUGHT IN.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE SALARY STUDY IS SO THAT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE CAN NOW GO OUT AND RE UH, RECRUIT AND RETAIN MORE DEPUTIES SO THAT WE'RE NOT LOSING 'EM TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS LIKE PALM BEACH SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS WHO ARE PAYING MORE THAN US AND HAVE, YEAH, I'M ALL FOR THE INCREASE IN STAFF PAY HERE BSO TO CITY SCHOOL BOARD EVERYWHERE.

I THINK WE ALL NEED MORE PAY JUST TO LIVE IN SOUTH FLORIDA.

SO TOTALLY NOT AGAINST THAT.

THAT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT WHAT YOU ON THAT ONE.

[01:30:01]

THING IS, IF THE MINIMUM IS 20, RIGHT? CORRECT.

ON THE ROAD WE PAY FOR 92, SAY 10% OF THAT IS, IS, IS ADMINISTRATIVE, I GUESS.

UH, YOU WOULD HAVE, UH, A CHIEF, A LIEUTENANT, UH, EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND A LIEUTENANT.

THAT'S YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF.

WE HAVE NINE SERGEANTS AND THEN WE RUN 80 DEPUTIES.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE COMMUNITY SERVICE AIDS, WHICH ARE NOT COUNTED IN THE MINIMUM STAFFING OF THE 80 DEPUTIES AND SERGEANTS.

THOSE ARE THE ONES FOR COVERING ROAD PATROL FOR MINIMUM, BECAUSE WE HAVE NINE ZONES THAT ARE COVERED, WE ENSURE THAT THE NINE ZONES ARE COVERED AS WELL AS THE SUPERVISOR FOR THOSE NINE DEPUTIES.

AND THEN THE NEXT SHIFT WOULD COME ON.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE, YOU WOULD GET THE 20 DEPUTIES.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE 10, UH, TEN, TEN NINE DEPUTIES AND A SUPERVISOR WOULD BE THE MINIMUM STAFFING.

IF WE HAVE ADDITIONAL STAFFING, WE CAN PUT THEM OUT THERE.

SORRY TO CUT YOU OFF, BUT THAT MEANS THAT WE COULD BE OPERATING AT ABOUT 30% ON A GIVEN DAY, MEANING 'CAUSE ONLY 20.

SO WHEN PEOPLE COME UP HERE, UH, AND THEY SAY, OH, WE'RE AT MINIMUM, THAT MEAN ALL YOU NEED IS 20 PEOPLE OUTTA 92? WELL, IT'S WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU'RE NOW TALKING ABOUT STAFFING.

SO YOU HAVE FOUR SHIFTS, WHICH YOU ARE COVERED ON THERE.

EACH SHIFT CONSISTS OF 14 DEPUTIES.

EACH YOU HAVE 56 OF THE DEPUTIES ARE ASSIGNED, ARE ASSIGNED TO THE SHIFTS ALONG WITH ONE SERGEANT PER SHIFT WITH, ALONG WITH ALSO ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTS.

AND THAT'S THE ROAD PATROL CONTINGENCY OR CONTINGENT.

SO YOU HAVE 56 DEPUTIES THAT ARE ASSIGNED TO ROAD PATROL.

THE OF THE 56 ON, WHEN YOU HAVE 14 THAT ARE ASSIGNED, YOU MAY HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON ANNUAL LEAVE, YOU MAY HAVE PEOPLE OUT ON SICK LEAVE.

YOU MAY HAVE, UH, PEOPLE ON SUSPENSION, WORKMAN'S COMP, HOWEVER THAT MAY BE.

BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE UH, TALKING ABOUT, THE MINIMUM STANDARD IS THAT WE WILL, OF THE 14, THERE WILL BE NINE DEPUTIES THERE AND A SUPERVISOR WILL BE PROVIDED FOR THAT SHIFT.

AND THEN DURING THE 24 HOUR PERIOD, IT WILL BE THAT INCLUSIVE OF THE 20 DEPUTIES WHO WILL THEN PROVIDE THE SERVICE TO THE CITY TO ENSURE THAT THE ROAD IS COVERED.

IF WE HAVE EXTRA, I'M SORRY.

IF WE HAVE EXTRA, THEN WE WILL HAVE THEM OUT ALSO PATROLLING.

I GET IT.

I JUST, IN THE FUTURE WHEN WE GET REPORTS, INSTEAD OF SAYING MINIMUM, IF WE COULD JUST SAY THE AMOUNT SO WE KNOW, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONLY 20.

I UNDERSTAND.

I IT CAN BE CONFUSING HOW IT IS OF WHAT MINIMUM AND MAXIMUMS ARE.

IT'S, IT'S A KIND OF AN INTERESTING WAY, WAY OF PUTTING IT.

APPRECIATE IT.

APPRECIATE, THANK YOU.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION, MAYOR.

CITY MANAGER, MADAM MAYOR, VICE MAYOR.

I, I ALSO WANT TO, UM, BRING A LITTLE BIT OF A, UM, UM, UPDATE TO THAT CONVERSATION THAT, THAT TODAY YOU'RE CORRECT.

UH, IT, IT TAKES, UM, UH, 20, UM, STAFF MEMBERS, UH, FOR A 24 HOUR PERIOD, WHICH IS NEXT IMPOSSIBLE TO, TO, TO CALCULATE, BUT WE DO IT SOMEHOW TO MAKE, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE ON A SINGLE DAY BASIS.

NOW, GOING FORWARD IN THE NEW CONTRACT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT WE'RE, UH, ASKING FOR IS, UH, TO CHANGE THAT 20 HOUR PERIOD TO A 12 HOUR, UH, PERIOD SO THAT WE CAN ACCURATELY, UH, CALCULATE THE, UH, THE, THE MINIMUM STAFFING.

AND IN, IN, IN, IN, IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ALSO WANNA LOOK AT THE POSITIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THAT MINIMUM STAFFING.

SOME OF THE OFFICE POSITIONS DO NOT NEED TO COUNT TOWARDS THAT, UH, MINIMUM STAFFING BECAUSE THEY ADD NO VALUE TO THE VISIBILITY IN THE COMMUNITY IN THE, UH, ON THE STREETS.

AND, AND SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.

UH, WE'VE ALREADY BEEN TALKING TO THE MAJOR AND, AND, AND, UH, WE'RE ALSO GONNA BE TALKING TO CAPTAIN ABOUT THAT.

AND, AND, AND SO THAT'S GONNA BE PART OF THE NEXT, UH, CONTRACT, UM, CONSIDERATION.

UM, CAN I ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS? MANAGER, UM, REGARDING THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAPPENING EARLIER.

'CAUSE I, I, THERE WAS AN EMAIL THAT WENT OUT YESTERDAY AND, UM, IT SPARKED QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR ME.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS THE ONLY FORM IN WHICH IT, IT'S ALREADY COME UP, SO I WANNA GET A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION ON WHAT HAPPENED, HOW IT HAPPENED, AND HOW WE CAN ENSURE THAT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

UM, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT, UM, YOU PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON A MEETING THAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY.

THERE WAS A MEETING THAT YOU, AND I UNDERSTAND THE MAYOR ATTENDED WITH BSO THAT I KNOW I WASN'T INVITED TO.

WHEN MY RESIDENTS CALL AND ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT SERVICE LEVELS, I CAN CARE LESS ABOUT HOW MUCH WE'RE PAYING BSO.

FRANKLY, WE NEED POLICE SERVICES, PERIOD.

SO WHATEVER IT COSTS TO KEEP MY RESIDENTS SAFE IS THE COST.

MY QUESTION THOUGH IS WHEN MY RESIDENTS HAVE QUESTIONS, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, THAT TRIPLE HOMICIDE DIDN'T HAPPEN IN MY DISTRICT BECAUSE I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD'VE BEEN A PROBLEM IF I WASN'T A PART OF THE

[01:35:01]

DISCUSSIONS YESTERDAY.

THERE WAS A MEETING, I DON'T THINK ANYONE ON THIS COMMISSION WAS INVITED TO THAT MEETING PER THE CONTRACT, WHO IS THE GOVERNING PERSON BETWEEN THIS 20 SOMETHING MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT? AND THIS ORGANIZATION FROM A CONTRACT PERSPECTIVE, THE CITY ADMINISTRATION, UH, CITY MANAGER AND THE STAFF ARE, ARE IN CHARGE OF THE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION.

NOW, FROM A, UM, A COLLECTIVE PERSPECTIVE, OBVIOUSLY THESE ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE, UM, THE, UM, THE, THE ULTIMATE ROLE IN, IN MAKING SURE THAT THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES MEET THE DEMANDS OR THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.

SO, SO HOW DID YOU AND THE MAYOR END UP GOING TO A MEETING YESTERDAY REGARDING THE CITY OF TAMARACK AND THE REST OF THE BODY NOT BE INVITED TO THAT MEETING? SO FULL DISCLOSURE.

AN EVENT THAT HAPPENED THAT WAS TRAGIC, FRANKLY, I WAS THE ONE THAT ORGANIZED THE, THE, UH, THE VIGIL.

I WAS THE ONE THAT, YOU KNOW, I WAS TOLD THAT WE WEREN'T EVEN INVITED TO THE VIGIL.

THE MAYOR SAID THAT, BUT THERE WAS A LOT.

THERE WAS A, THERE WAS A HUGE PRODUCTION IN OUR CITY NEWSLETTER.

ARTICLES CONTINUED TO GO OUT ABOUT IT, AND AN EVENT HAPPENED YESTERDAY TO DISCUSS THE EVENT FROM WHATEVER, SIX MONTHS AGO OR THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION.

AND SHE WENT, YOU WENT, AND FOUR OF US DIDN'T.

AND I, I WOULD'VE DECONFLICTED MY SCHEDULE, BUT THERE WAS NO INVITATION.

WE FOUND, I FOUND OUT ABOUT IT AFTER IT HAPPENED.

HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? SO, UM, IT, IT WAS, IT WAS AN, UH, IT WAS NOT AN IN-PERSON, UH, MEETING.

IT WAS A ZOOM CALL.

AND, AND, UM, I WAS REACHED BY THE, UM, THE, THE MAJOR, UM, FROM, FROM DOWNTOWN, UH, THAT, UH, THE SHERIFF WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A, UM, A CONFERENCE CALL OR ZOOM CALL TO, TO TALK ABOUT OR TO, TO PROVIDE A PREVIEW OF, UH, OR HEADS UP ON THE, UH, UPCOMING PRESS CONFERENCE.

UM, WE, WE, I DIDN'T KNOW THE, UM, UH, THE, THE TIME OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE OR WE, WE WERE, WE WERE NOT, UM, AWARE OF THE, UM, THE MEETING FOR THAT WAS CALLED YESTERDAY EITHER.

SO I BELIEVE IT WAS LIKE 1:00 PM UH, OR THEREABOUTS.

UH, WHEN I RECEIVED A CALL AND THE, THE, UH, THE MEETING ZOOM CALL WAS SCHEDULED FOR, UH, LIKE ONE 30 I WAS ON THE ROAD.

SO IT WAS AN IMPROMPTU, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, INVITATION, UH, THAT I, UH, THAT I ACCEPTED, UH, BECAUSE IT WAS, UM, IT WAS, IT WAS AN IMPORTANT MATTER.

NOW, UM, UH, THE, THE, THE SHERIFF'S, UM, FIRST, UH, ONE OF THE FIRST STATEMENTS, UH, FROM, FROM, UH, FROM THE SHERIFF HIMSELF WAS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, THE, THE ENTIRE COMMISSION WAS NOT INVITED BECAUSE OF THE, UH, SUNSHINE, UH, CONCERNS.

WHAT SUNSHINE CONCERNS.

I'M, I'VE, I'M JUST, HOLD ON, HOLD ON.

THERE ARE NO SUNSHINE CONCERNS.

YEAH, I'VE HEARD THAT A NUMBER OF TIMES.

THAT WORD, THAT LINE WAS USED WITH ME MULTIPLE TIMES AFTER BEING ELECTED HERE.

OH, YOU CAN'T COME TO THIS MEETING BECAUSE OF SUNSHINE.

YOU CAN'T COME HERE BECAUSE OF THE SUNSHINE.

IS THIS RELEVANT? ARE WE GONNA LET THE CITY MANAGER FINISH? YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUDGET.

YOU DON'T TO POINT OF CLARIFICATION, YOU'RE ONE THAT ARE, YOU'RE THE PERSON THAT USES THE LINE.

MAYOR A HIT DOG ALWAYS HOLLERS.

I'M TALKING RIGHT NOW.

PLEASE DON'T DISRESPECT ME.

I'M ASKING YOU TO SIT YOUR, I'M TALKING DIRECTLY TO THE MANAGER.

I HAVE QUESTIONS THAT NEED ANSWERS.

I DIDN'T DISRUPT YOU.

PLEASE DON'T DISRUPT ME.

I'M ASKING YOU TO SIT IN THE I DIDN'T DISRUPT YOU.

PLEASE DON'T DISRUPT ME.

SITUATION WHERE THE SHERIFF DOESN'T KNOW THAT WE ARE A BODY.

THE QUESTION IS SPECIFIC.

WHY IS THIS A SUNSHINE MATTER? LISTENING TO A BRIEFING FROM THE SHERIFF DOES NOT.

THAT IS NOT SUNSHINE IS RE SUNSHINE IS A MATTER THAT IS COMING BEFORE THIS BOARD THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE VOTING ON.

LISTENING TO WHAT HAPPENED IN OUR CITY SIX MONTHS AGO IS NOT A SUNSHINE VIOLATION.

AND IF IT WERE, THEN I THINK THAT THE APPROPRIATE, THE, THE APPROPRIATE WAY THAT THE APPROPRIATE WAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED WOULD'VE BEEN THAT THERE WAS A WORKSHOP HAD HERE IN OUR CITY.

THE COMMISSION BE INVITED.

THE MAYOR IS ONE FIFTH VOTE.

THIS IS A BODY.

THE RESIDENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE.

EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A PART OF THAT CONVERSATION IF THERE WAS A BRIEFING TO BE HAD.

SUBSEQUENT TO THE MEETING, I SEE A PRESS RELEASE ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

THE MAYOR SAYS, I'M CONFUSED.

THE MAYOR SAYS IT WAS INCLUSIVE.

THERE WAS NO INCLUSIVITY, NO ONE WAS INVITED TO THE MEETING.

YOU, TO THE, TO, TO THE COMMISSIONER'S POINT, DON'T SPEAK ON THE BEHALF OF ME.

DON'T BE DON'T SPEAK ON THE BEHALF OF MY RESIDENTS.

I'VE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE COME AND EXPRESS GRIEF, YOU KNOW, SADNESS, CONFUSION, QUESTIONS THAT NONE OF US ARE ABLE TO ANSWER.

I'M WAITING, I'M WATCHING SUN SENTINEL LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

THE REALITY IS, IS THAT THIS IS A COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

I'VE SAID IT ONCE, I WILL CONTINUE TO SAY IT UNTIL EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THIS IS NOT A STRONG MAYOR CITY.

SO I'M CONFUSED MANAGER AT HOW WE FOUND OURSELF IN A

[01:40:01]

HOW COME THE SHERIFF DOESN'T KNOW THAT? ARE WE COMMUNICATING THAT? ARE WE, DOES HE KNOW THAT THE REST OF US ARE EQUALLY AS INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC SAFETY IN OUR CITY? SO, UM, LET, LET ME JUST MAKE THIS LITTLE COMMENT.

UM, THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT CONVERSATION.

UM, PERHAPS WE SHOULD KIND OF FOCUS ON THE BUDGET, BECAUSE AT FIRST IT WAS ABOUT THE BUDGET.

UM, BUT I THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD FOCUS ON THE BUDGET, VOTE ON THIS.

AND THEN AFTERWARD, UM, BEFORE ADJOURNMENT, IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION, I THINK WE, WE CAN, BUT I DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE THE RESIDENTS, UM, WITH THE BUDGET AND THIS OTHER CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE HAVING, WHICH IS WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT.

I THINK WHERE I'M, WHERE, WHERE THIS IS, COMMISSIONER WRIGHT SPOKE TO SOME QUESTIONS HE HAD WITH RESPECT TO NUMBERS.

AND IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT WE'RE WE'RE VOTING ON NUMBERS BEFORE THE CONTRACT IS EVEN NEGOTIATED.

CORRECT? IN TERMS OF THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THE RELEVANCE IN THIS CASE IS IF WE'RE VOTING ON A NUMBER THAT'S A PART OF THE CONTRACT, AND THE CONTRACT HAS TERMS, WHAT I'D LIKE TO ENSURE IS THAT BEFORE WEGO, IS THE CONTRACT COMING BEFORE THE COMMISSION? IT WILL.

AND, AND THE NUMBER AS PART OF THE BUDGET IS JUST AN ALLOCATION.

IT'S NOT THE CONTRACT THAT'S BEING, UH, YOU KNOW, PROPOSED.

IT'S JUST AN ALLOCATION OF, OF BUDGET, UH, NUMBERS FOR, UM, UH, THE POSSIBLE RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT.

IT WILL COME TO YOU FOR APPROVAL.

OKAY? MY VOTE ON THE, ON THE, ON THE, ON THE BUDGET FOR POLICE SERVICES IS HELL YES.

MY CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO THE BUSINESS TERMS AND HOW WE DO BUSINESS WITH OUR PARTNERS IN BSO WILL NEED TO BE CONSIDERED, RIGHT? AND I'M ADAMANT ABOUT THAT.

I I STAND WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH WHAT WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER.

MANAGER, THE DIRECTION IS THIS.

DO NOT PUT OUT A PRESS RELEASE ON THE BEHALF OF THIS COMMISSION.

UNDERSTOOD.

UH, WAIT A SECOND.

A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

WEREN'T YOU JUST TOLD BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON, YOU DON'T TAKE DIRECTIVE FROM JUST ONE PERSON ON THE COMMISSION UNLESS THERE'S THREE OF US? I MAKE MOTION.

I MAKE A MOTION.

LET'S GO BACK THAT THE MANAGER, DO NOT PUT OUT A PRESS RELEASE ON THE BEHALF OF THIS COMMISSION.

CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND? CAN WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR THE BUDGET, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN? AND WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO THE BUDGET.

WE'RE CALLING THE QUESTION CITY CLERK CALL THE QUESTION ON THE BUDGET.

NO, NO, NO.

I IT'S ABOUT THE BUDGET.

ARE YOU GONNA SPEAK ABOUT THE BUDGET? YOU DO NOT DO THAT.

AND YOU'LL BE, I CAN HU AND YOU'LL BE HUMILIATED EVERY TIME.

YOU DO NOT.

I'M NOT HUMILIATED BY YOU.

YOU DO NOT CALL A QUESTION CLERK.

I'M BE HUMILIATING SOMEBODY FROM THE YOU DO NOT SPEAK.

TELL ME WHAT YOU DO.

NOT SPEAK FROM THE AUDIENCE.

YOU DO NOT SPEAK FROM THE AUDIENCE, SIR.

YOU DO NOT SPEAK FROM THE AUDIENCE.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT IS 6 53.

WE'LL BE BACK AT SEVEN O.

WE'RE COLLEAGUES, YOU DO NOT SPEAK FROM THE AUDIENCE.

AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE NOW BACK IN SESSION.

IT IS 7:00 PM AND THE PEOPLE WHO WISH TO SPEAK SHOULD BE IN THEIR SEATS.

IF NOT, WE ARE GONNA CALL THE QUESTION.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON, YOU HAVE YOUR TWO MINUTES.

TWO MINUTES, UM, MANAGER.

5%.

SO IF WE START AT $23 MILLION, IT MEANS THAT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, OVER FIVE YEARS, THE CONTRACT COULD GO TO, TO HOW MUCH? I, I I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER RIGHT OFF TOP OF MY HEAD, UM, COMMISSIONER.

BUT, UM, THE 5% CAP, UM, LIMITS THE, UH, THE INCREASE.

CAN YOU HAVE STAFF WORK THAT QUICK MATH OUT FOR A MINUTE? SURE.

UM, YOU, YOU WANNA KNOW, UM, 5% FOR FIVE YEARS? YES.

OBVIOUSLY, I DON'T HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT,

[01:45:01]

UM, ADDITIONAL SERVICES WITH CONTRACT, WITH, WITH, UH, WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, UH, IS NOT WITHIN THAT CAP.

SO IF WE ADD ANOTHER DEPUTY OR TWO, UH, IT'S NOT, UH, PART OF THAT CAP THAT'S ADDED TO THE CONTRACT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? SO, UM, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR CONTRACT IS BASED ON, UH, THE EXISTING, UH, PERSONNEL COMPLIMENT.

SO IF WE EVER CHANGE THAT EQUATION AND, AND, AND, UH, ADD, UM, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY, UH, TWO MORE DEPUTIES, THREE MORE DEPUTIES, THAT'S, UM, THAT DOES NOT GO AGAINST THAT CAP.

IT JUST GETS ADDED TO THE CONTRACT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST TODAY.

SO WITH, WITH THE NEGOTIATION FROM BSO, IT, ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUE AT A 5% CAP OR, OR NOT, OR THE CONTRACT COULD BE DIFFERENT.

COULD HE SAY I WANT 10% CAP OR THAT THAT 5% CAP IS, IS, UM, IS TO CONTINUE? AND, AND, UM, UH, BUT IF THE, IF THE CONTRACT IS DONE AND WE'RE STARTING A NEW CONTRACT, THEN THE NEW TERMS OF THE CONTRACT COULD SAY WE'RE NOT GOING GOING TO DO A 5% CAP, WE'RE GONNA DO A 10% CAP.

UM, IT COULD HAPPEN.

BUT, UH, IN OUR DRAFT, UM, DRAFT COUNT, DRAFT, UH, AGREEMENTS THAT, THAT WE, UM, EXCHANGE WITH THE, UH, WITH THE MAJOR AND, AND, UM, INTERNALLY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, UH, THAT 5% IS STILL, UH, THE CAP.

UM, IN LOOKING AT THE BUDGET, WE'RE, UH, PROPOSING A PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR, UM, $326,000.

LET, LET'S HEAR ABOUT THAT.

SO THIS WAS AN ITEM THAT WAS PART OF THE, UH, ORIGINAL BUDGET WORKSHOP.

AND, AND, UH, DURING THAT TIME, UH, THE, THE, UM, THE CONVERSATION WAS THAT, UM, UH, WE NEED ANOTHER ENTITY, UH, THAT CAN OVERSEE THE CITY'S, UH, GENERAL PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS AND, AND, AND, UM, ENHANCE THE LEVEL OF SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE, UH, FROM A PUBLIC SAFETY PERSPECTIVE.

OKAY? SO, YOU KNOW, I, I BELIEVE I HAVE A VERY GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH, UM, THE, THE GUYS AT BSO AND, UM, EVERYWHERE I GO, UM, THEY SEEM TO TALK ABOUT CAPTAIN FRANK AND THAT HE THAT HE'S A CONSUMMATE PROFESSIONAL AND HE'S GOOD AND HE'S THAT.

UM, AND PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHO, WHOEVER THESE TWO NEW CANDIDATES ARE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT, THAT THEY'RE EQUALLY AS AS GREAT.

UM, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED THIS, THIS PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR POSITION.

I WOULD RATHER SEE THE, UH, ASSISTANT MANAGER ROLE BE, UM, PUT BACK IN THE BUDGET AND TAKE OUT THIS PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR ROLE.

I BELIEVE, UM, YOU KNOW, FROM, AND I'M GONNA REFER TO OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR, BUT, BUT, UH, IF THAT'S THE DESIRE OF THE CITY COMMISSION, THOSE CHANGES CAN BE MADE BETWEEN, UH, THIS MEETING AND THE NEXT MEETING.

WE, SO I'D LIKE TO ASK MY COLLEAGUES IF THERE, IF THEY WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THAT.

I AGREE.

THERE WAS A QUESTION.

FIRST THE CITY MANAGER WAS ASKING MS. KAUST, DOES MS. KAUS NEED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FIRST FOR A CLEAR QUESTION? YES.

UM, 5% COMPOUNDED OVER FIVE YEARS.

IN YEAR FIVE IT WOULD BE 30 MILLION 4 73, 5 52.

THE, UM, AND, AND THE MORE UPDATED QUESTION, CHRISTINE, IS, IS, UM, WE CAN MAKE CHANGES TO THE BUDGET BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING.

WE DO NEED TO ADVERTISE, UM, WHAT THE TENTATIVE BUDGET IS AFTER THIS MEETING.

AND, BUT WE CAN, WE CAN MAKE CHANGES EVEN IN THE LAST MEETING.

BUT WHATEVER CHANGES HAPPEN TONIGHT, WE WILL DO, THAT'S THE CHANGE THAT WE WILL, WILL ADVERTISE.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

UM, I BELIEVE THAT THEY COULD JUST GO DO IT NOW BEFORE WE VOTE AND JUST MAKE THE, TAKE A RECESS AND LET THEM MAKE THE CHANGES.

UM, WHAT, UH, CHRISTINE IS SAYING THAT WHATEVER THE CONCLUSION OF THE CONVERSATION IS, IT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE ADVERTISE ADVERTISEMENT THAT, THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO PUT OUT.

AND, AND, AND SO I, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT WE COM COMPLETE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE BUDGET AND THE CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS.

AND THEN SO WE HAVE A COMPLETE LIST OF, UM, UH, CHANGES TO, TO ADVERTISE.

AND WHAT WE WILL DO, UM, WHATEVER THE CHANGES ARE THAT'S AGREED ON, WE WOULD CALCULATE THE CHANGE AND TELL YOU WHAT THE, WHAT THE, THE BUDGET WILL BE.

AND YOU VOTE ON THAT NUMBER RIGHT NOW?

[01:50:01]

SO THERE IS A REQUEST TO REMOVE THE PUBLIC SERVICES PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR AND REINSTITUTE THE REMOVE THE FREEZE OF THE FUNDING OF THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.

IS THAT CORRECT? AMENDED.

AND ARE WE DOING ONE AT A TIME FOR THE FINAL HEARING? I DON'T, COMMISSIONER BOLTON? CORRECT.

REMOVE THE, REMOVE THE PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR AND, UM, REMOVE THE FREEZE REIN REINSTATE THE A CM ROLE.

RIGHT? UM, GO AHEAD.

JEFF WAS SAYING GO AHEAD.

FOR, UH, FOR POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON, ON THE PROCESS TONIGHT, AND WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE, WE'VE MADE CHANGES BETWEEN THE TENTATIVE AND THE ADOPTED BUDGET.

AND WHAT THE COMMISSION WOULD DO TONIGHT IS THEY WOULD'VE, OF, OF WHATEVER LIST OF ITEMS YOU COME UP WITH THAT YOU WANT TO CHANGE OR EDIT, WE WOULD TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

WHAT, WHAT WE, YOU, YOU WOULD VOTE ON THE BUDGET AS AMENDED.

THAT WOULD INCLUDE ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO DO.

AND WE WOULD BRING FORWARD AN ORDINANCE THAT HAD A DIFFERENT ATTACHMENT NEXT TIME THAT REFLECTED WHAT THOSE CHANGES WERE AND WHAT THAT TOTAL AMOUNT WAS.

SO ALL YOU REALLY HAVE TO DO TONIGHT TO MAKE THINGS SIMPLE IS TO ADOPT ON THE BUDGET AS AMENDED AND WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, UM, INDIVIDUAL CHANGES, EACH COMMISSIONER WANTS TO SEE PUT IN THERE.

SO I HAVE COMMISSIONER BOLTON WISHING THAT COMMISSIONER PATTERSON, YOU WERE STARTING TO SAY.

NO, I JUST, UM, I SECOND THE, THAT THAT AMENDMENT TO THE EXIST TO THE BUDGET AS PRESENTED, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE JUST GETTING CONSENSUS RIGHT NOW ON IF THAT IS GONNA BE AN ITEM THAT WOULD BE RIGHT.

SO I'M SAYING YES, I, OKAY.

COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

UH, QUESTION CITY MANAGER, A CM ROLE.

UM, THIS HAS BEEN IN THE BUDGET SINCE, UH, 2023, HAS IT CORRECT? UM, THE PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR, IN FACT, IT'S, IT'S BEEN IN THE BUDGET FOR MUCH LONGER THAN THAT.

IT'S, IT'S BEEN 2017.

AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR, IF YOU RECALL, I DID MENTION, WHY DON'T WE, CAN'T WE GET A CONSULTANT TO KIND OF ADVISE US BECAUSE WE DO HAVE FANTASTIC BSO LEADERSHIP AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

I DID MENTION THAT IN THE LAST BUDGET WORKSHOP, AND I WAS FOR REMOVING THAT.

SO I WOULD SUPPORT COMMISSIONER BOLTON IN REMOVING THAT PARTICULAR POSITIONS.

'CAUSE I THINK WE HAVE QUALIFIED PUBLIC SAFETY PEOPLE AT THE HELM.

SO I, I DO SUPPORT THAT, UM, IN REMOVING THAT, BECAUSE I DID, I DID MENTION THAT IN THE LAST, UM, WORKSHOP.

UM, SO WE'RE REMOVING THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WE'RE REPLACING THAT WITH A CM, WHICH IS A DIFFERENCE OF LIKE 50 40 1041.

41,000.

41 OR 52.

MAY I SUGGEST, UH, THAT, THAT WE LEAVE, UM, SOME, SOME DOLLARS, UH, IN THEIR, UH, LIMITED AMOUNT OF DOLLARS.

UM, AND, AND, AND, AND SO THAT IN CASE WE NEED SOME, SOME OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE IN, IN PUBLIC SAFETY MATTERS, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, UH, THAT, THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO.

UM, UM, UH, TO THAT MR. CITY MANAGER, UM, YOU'RE THINKING OF WHAT A CONTRACT PERSON AND WHAT IS THE AMOUNT THAT YOU ARE THINKING THAT YOU WOULD POSSIBLY BELIEVE SHOULD BE LEFT IN THE BUDGET FOR? I'M, I'M, I'M THINKING, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE AROUND, UM, UH, 65, $70,000, UH, NOT TO EXCEED $70,000, UM, FOR, FOR FI 26.

SO THE AMENDMENT TO THE REQUEST IS NOW THIS PER THE CITY MANAGER REDUCED ADDING A PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR AT THE PRICE OF $326,877, TURN IT INTO A CONTRACT EMPLOYEE WITH A AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $70,000 FOR FY 26 IF IT SHOULD BE NEEDED.

AND THEN CONTINUING ALONG THOSE LINES, UNFREEZING THE $285,825 AND BASICALLY IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE OF APPROXIMATELY $30,000 IN THE BUDGET.

ADDITIONAL, WHEN YOU TAKE THE REDUCTION FROM THE ORIGINAL PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR, ADDING BACK THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, WHICH WAS A $40,000 SAVINGS AND NOW PUTTING UP $70,000.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN INCREASE OF $30,000.

IS THAT CORRECT? APPROXIMATELY? IF THAT'S THE MATH.

UM, YEAH.

SO AT THIS TIME THEN I'LL GO DOWN THE LINE AGAIN AND SEE IF THAT IS AMENABLE.

AND IN, IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND, AND WE'RE PAYING OUT OF THAT FUND.

VICE MAYOR? YES.

COMMISSIONER WRIGHT.

QUICK QUESTIONS TO YOU.

MANAGER.

YOU, DO YOU CURRENTLY HAVE A CONSULTANT? WE DO.

AND HOW ARE YOU PAYING FOR THAT? UH, WE'RE PAYING FOR IT OUT OF THE, UM, OUT OF THIS YEAR'S FUNDS, THIS YEAR'S FUNDS MAYOR FOR, UM, UH, WE HAVE, UM, WE HAVE SOME, SOME, UH, FUNDS FOR THE, UM, UH, CONTRACTUAL SERVICES

[01:55:01]

SO WHY DO WE NEED ADDITIONAL MONEY IF YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT? UM, I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT, UH, SAME AMOUNT OF DOLLARS ARE GONNA CONTINUE TO BE IN THE CITY MANAGER'S, UM, BUDGET.

AND, AND, AND SO, UM, AND, AND WE ALSO, UH, DID WE NOT INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF THE BUDGET AMENDMENT OR, OR, UM, YES, WE WOULD HAVE TO INCLUDE IT AS PART OF THE BUDGET AMENDMENT.

SO THE, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE SORT OF, UM, BORROWING THAT MONEY AND THAT AMENDMENT WILL WILL COME TO YOU.

UM, OKAY.

PUBLIC SAFETY, ABSOLUTELY.

30 GRAND MORE CAN BE .

INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS.

UM, THE $21,000 I SEE FOR 5 57 B EXPLAIN THAT, UM, DURING THE WORKSHOP ON AUGUST 27, THERE WAS A, A CONSENSUS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT THAT THE CITY CONTRIBUTES FOR 54 57 FOR THE COMMISSION TO MOVE IT FROM 4,800 TO $9,000 A YEAR.

AND THAT IS A BENEFIT TO THE COMMISSION, TO THE COMMISSIONERS? YES.

UM, WHAT WOULD IT BE PER COMMISSION? PER YEAR? PER COMMISSION PER YEAR? $3,800.

SO I'VE HEARD, UM, COMMISSIONER WRIGHT SAY THAT HE'S NOT, UM, FOR BENEFITS GOING TOWARD, UM, HI HIMSELF.

SO I'D LIKE TO REDUCE THAT.

UM, SO, SO YOU, YOU, YOUR TIME IS CALLED.

I'D LIKE TO ASK MY COLLEAGUES JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME SO I CAN, I CAN GO THROUGH THIS LINE ITEM.

IS THAT OKAY? IS THAT, IS THAT OKAY THEN WE ARE GOING TO WIND UP HAVING TO ALLOW EVERYBODY ELSE TO HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME.

SO TWO MINUTES.

THIS IS A BUDGET ITEM.

WE'RE WE, WE SHOULDN'T BE RUSHING THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT.

TWO MINUTES? ABSOLUTELY.

ALRIGHT, SO HOW MUCH PER 4,200.

UM, SO BECAUSE COMMISSIONER WRIGHT SAYS THAT HE DOES NOT WANT THAT BENEFIT, HE DOES NOT WANT BENEFITS TO GO TO HIMSELF.

I'D LIKE TO REDUCE THAT AMOUNT BY $4,000.

UM, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.

THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.

HE SAID HE DOES NOT WANT ANY BENEFITS GOING FOR HIM.

THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID, RIGHT? I SAID NO ADDITIONAL BENEFIT.

YOU SAID, YOU SAID NO ADDITIONAL BENEFIT.

NO, NO ADDITIONAL, WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION IN A WORKSHOP.

WE CAN PULL THE RECORD.

I THINK THE HR LADY CAN COMMENT ON THAT.

WE, WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION, BUT IF, IF IT, IF IT MAKES YOU FEEL GOOD, I WOULDN'T TAKE THE ADDITIONAL BENEFIT OF THE MONEY CONTRIBUTED TO MY, MY INVESTMENT ACCOUNT.

OH, I'M JUST, I'M JUST SAYING WHAT YOU SAID.

YEAH, BUT I'M A PREMIUM.

SO THIS, THIS IS A BENEFIT.

I'M BLESSED IN MANY OTHER WAYS.

THIS IS A BEN, THIS IS A BENEFIT.

THIS IS A BENEFIT TO THE COMMISSION.

UH, AND THE, THE COMMISSIONER IS SAYING THAT HE DOES NOT WANT A BENEFIT.

SO I SAID I DO NOT SUPPORT ANY ADDITIONAL BENEFITS.

YOU, YOU DON'T SUPPORT AN ADDITIONAL BENEFITS.

EXACTLY.

SO I'M JUST SAYING THEN THIS $21,000 SHOULD BE REDUCED BY $4,000 BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE HIS BENEFIT.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT DOES NOT WANT THIS BENEFIT? SO I, THIS, THIS LITTLE GAME GOING ON RIGHT NOW, JUST THAT IT'S NOT A GAME THAT ON, THAT'S JUST THAT THAT'S FINE.

I, I SO TOO WISH FOR THAT BENEFIT TO NOT BE PROVIDED.

I DO NOT ASK FOR IT.

I HAVE SAID THAT THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE.

SO THE, SO WE'RE, WE'RE REDUCING THAT BY 8,000? YES.

ARE WE REDUCING IT BY 8,400? WE JUST HAD TWO, TWO ELECTED OFFICIALS SAID THAT THEY DON'T WANT IT.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN THERE THAT, THAT IS, THAT IS FOR THE COMMISSION'S BENEFIT? JUST 20.

SO TRUE, APPROPRIATE, APPROPRIATE FUNDING FOR TRAVEL? YES.

$20,000? YES.

UM, WHAT WAS IT LAST YEAR? THAT THAT LAND WAS ZERO.

THAT LAND WAS ZERO? YES.

NO, WE'RE REDUCING IT ORIGINAL MONEY.

UM, SO, UH, THAT IS AN EXTRA BENEFIT.

COMMISSIONER WRIGHT AND, UH, MAYOR GOMEZ.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL BENEFIT OR DO YOU WANT TO TAKE US, LET US TAKE IT FROM THE, FROM THE BUDGET, WE GET 10,000 FOR TRAVEL THAT'S ALREADY THERE.

THIS IS AN INCREASE OF $20,000.

THIS IS AN INCREASE OF WHAT? 20,000 ADDITIONAL YEAR POOL MANAGER.

UM, SO THAT MEANS A POOL GETS BIGGER FOR, FOR, FOR WHO WANTS IT, DOESN'T IT? YEAH.

YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING YOU DON'T WANT ADDITIONAL BENEFITS.

THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS.

I'M JUST TRYING TO HELP.

NO, NO, I, IIII UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.

IF IT'S 20,000 AND YOU'RE REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO CAN SHARE FROM IT MEANS YOU GET MORE MONEY.

[02:00:01]

SO WE'RE, WE'RE REMOVING YOUR PORTION IF YOU DON'T WANT IT.

SO I KEEP MY, MY $10,000 I CAME IN, MET THERE.

I'M SAYING THAT WHATEVER I HAVE BEFORE, I'M NOT ADDING TO THAT.

SO I KEEP MY 10,000.

I'M FINE WITH KEEPING WHAT I HAVE ALREADY.

I DON'T NEED ADDITIONAL POOL OR WHATEVER.

IF YOU WANNA DO THAT, THAT MAKES ME FEEL GOOD.

SO BE IT.

KEEP MY 10,000 AS I CAME IN.

I DONE, YEAH.

THE, THE POOL IS NOT ALLOCATED PER COMMISSIONER.

IT'S JUST A POOL FOR ALL COMMISSIONERS.

BUT THERE'S NO SPECIFIC ALLOCATION.

BUT BECAUSE HE'S NOT GOING TO PULL FROM THE POOL, WE SHOULD NOT BE ENCUMBERING FUNDS.

SO WE SHOULD REMOVE THE $4,000 THAT, THAT, THAT HE WOULD GET.

ARE WE REMOVING 4,000? NO, YOU'RE GONNA REDUCE IT.

WELL, YOU ARE GONNA REDUCE IT BY ANOTHER OR IS IT, WAS IT 2000 EACH? RIGHT? 4,000.

4,000 EACH.

BUT IT'S NOT ALLOCATED PER COMMISSIONER.

IT'S JUST A POOL.

SO HERE'S THE THING.

SOME OF US KNOW WHAT A BUDGET IS AND SOME OF US STAY ON BUDGET AND THEREFORE WE HAVEN'T HAD TO DRAIN THE BUDGET IN ORDER TO ADD THE EXTRA MONEY TO BE PULLED FROM, BECAUSE PEOPLE GO AND TRAVEL OUTSIDE THEIR BUDGET LINES.

SO YEAH, I HAVE NO PROBLEM TO REDUCE THAT, POOLED THEM OUT.

'CAUSE I DON'T AGREE WITH IT IN THE FIRST PLACE BECAUSE WE SHOULD BE STICKING TO OUR BUDGET AMOUNT THAT IS ALLOCATED TO EACH OF US FOR OUR TRAVEL.

AND THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED, UNFORTUNATELY FOR, OKAY, SO THAT'S REDUCED TO, SO THAT A BIG, BIG WHOPPING 60,400 CLARIFICATION.

'CAUSE I'VE NEVER GONE OVER MY BUDGET.

I I USUALLY TURNING BACK THE MAJORITY OF THE MONEY.

SO I'M LET'S NOT DROPLET OF HINTS 'CAUSE I'VE NEVER DONE THAT.

WHAT ABOUT YOU COMMISSIONER, MAYOR? YEAH, BUT WHEN, WHEN YOU SAY THAT TO THE CROWD, IT APPEARS IF WE ALL GO OVER, YOU NORMALLY GET BACK ALMOST ALL OF OF YOU $10,000 FROM ME.

SO LET'S NOT PUT THAT OUT THERE AND THAT 20,000 OR WHATEVER, 10, 8, 5, IT WILL PROBABLY STAY THE SAME.

IT'LL PROBABLY GO RIGHT BACK TO THE BUDGET.

ARE WE REDUCING THAT LINE BY 8,000? MM-HMM .

THAT, THAT'S THEIR PLEASURE.

NO, WE, WE, WE WE SHOULD KEEP IT IN THERE.

BUT I CAN'T GO PAST IT.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

I'LL GIVE, GIVE HIM EXTRAS, BUT I WOULDN'T GO PAST IT.

LET'S PUT THAT IN THERE.

KEEP IT AT HIS.

BUT THAT'S HIS THING.

I WOULDN'T EXCEED MY 10 GRAND SINCE I'LL BE FAIR, YOU CAN HAVE EXTRAS AND I WOULDN'T GO PAST WHATEVER.

I'M NOT AS GENEROUS.

REDUCE IT FOR ME.

TAKE THAT $4,000 THAT IT WOULD BE ALLOCATED, THAT I WOULD HAVE THE ACCESS TO IN A POOL AND REMOVE IT AS WE NICKEL AND DIME THIS BUDGET WHEN WE STILL HAVE MILLIONS THAT WE ARE OVER BY.

SO LET'S CONTINUE TO DRAG THIS ALONG BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING BETTER TO DO TONIGHT.

THIS THIS, THIS 20,000 WOULD NOT BE 12,000.

12.

UM, HE, HE'S, HE'S SAYING THAT HE CAN .

NO, HE JUST SAID HE COULD GIVE THE HIS COLLEAGUES EXTRA.

IT'S 12.

IT'S 12 AND THE MAYOR SAYS SHE DOESN'T WANT IT.

SO NO, IT'S 12.

IS IT 4,000 OR IS IT WE'RE REDUCING BY 4,000 OR IS IT BY 8,000? BECAUSE HE WANTS HIS OTHER 4,000.

UM, MS. .

SO IT'S 16,000.

IT'S ONLY 16,000, NOT 20.

LISTEN, LISTEN.

NO.

REDUCE IT BY FOUR.

I HAD A CHANGE OF WATER.

REDUCE IT BY FOUR 12.

I I EMPHATICALLY STAND BY MY TRAVEL.

I WENT TO WASHINGTON.

I ASKED THE CONGRESSWOMAN FOR, FOR MORE MONEY.

THIS IS, WE WERE ASKING FOR $200,000.

WE GOT $1.6 MILLION.

THAT WAS MY ASK.

I WAS IN THE MEETING.

I ASKED FOR THAT.

SO I STAND BY MY TRAVEL.

SO WHAT ARE WE CH WHAT ARE WE NOW WE NOW HAVE WHAT, WHAT YOUR TIME IS DONE.

WHAT DID WE SAY? ARE WE REDUCING IT BY 16 TO 16,000 OR REDUCING IT TO 12,000.

TO 12,000? WE'RE REDUCING BY 8,000.

ANYTHING ELSE THAT, THAT IS IN THERE FOR THE COMMISSION.

SO, SO IT IS NOW I WOULD LIKE, IS THERE, I WOULD LIKE THE, I ASKED MY COLLEAGUES FOR DIRECT.

I ASKED MY COLLEAGUES FOR EXTRA TIME, BUT YOU GOT YOUR EXTRA TIME.

WE DID NOT SETTLE ON AN, ON AN AMOUNT OF TIME.

HR DIRECTOR HAS BEEN WANTING TO SPEAK.

MS, I AM ASKING PLEASE.

I AM ASKING MS. DURGAN, PLEASE COME.

I'M COME AM ASKING POINT OF ORDER.

MADAM UH, DURGAN IS NOT IN YOUR TIME.

SHE WISHES TO SPEAK ABOUT AN ITEM ON THE BUDGET AND SHE IS GOING TO SPEAK.

WHAT ARE YOU GUYS TRYING TO HIDE? WE'RE IN THE SUNSHINE.

THERE'S NOTHING TO HIDE MS. DUR, BUT IT GOES THROUGH THE BUDGET.

OH, YOU WANT RESIDENTS TO SEE THE BUDGET? LET'S GO THROUGH THE BUDGET.

YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT COMMISSIONERS ARE GETTING? MR. YOU NOW DO NOT, LET'S GO THROUGH THE BUDGET.

WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO RUSH THIS PROCESS? MR. LET'S GO THROUGH THE BUDGET.

MS CA THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFITS FROM PLEASE PROCEED FOR COMMISSIONERS AND JUST BECAUSE IT'S COMING FROM ME, YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT.

OKAY? OH WOW.

MS. KAUSE.

YEAH, PLEASE CONTINUE IN.

WHATEVER MS. DURGAN DEFERRED TO YOU TO DISCUSS, PLEASE.

OH NO, SHE, SHE WAS JUST A CLARIFICATION ON THE, THE BUDGET FOR THE COMMISSION.

OKAY, WELL IF WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS ON IT, WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

I THINK SHE MENTIONED IN THE WORKSHOP, 'CAUSE I PAID VERY MUCH, VERY ATTENTION.

SHE SAID WE COULDN'T BIFURCATE THE BENEFITS IN TERMS OF YES.

AND CLARIFY ME, OUR HR DIRECTOR IS THAT, OH, HERE WE GO.

JUST, JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE SHE DID SAY THAT.

SHE DID SAY THAT.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I DON'T GET ADDITIONAL STUFF.

AND THEN SOMEONE SAID, CAN WE, CAN WE BIFURCATE THE ADDITIONAL 21,000 GOING THROUGH THE 4 0 1 B CANNOT BE BIFURCATED.

CAN I EXEMPT MYSELF? IS THIS FOR THE TRAVEL? SORRY, DANIELLE, DIRECTOR, NOT

[02:05:01]

4 57 B FOUR FIFTY SEVEN.

I RECALL YOU SAYING THAT WE COULDN'T WHEN WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION AND COMMISSIONER BOLTON DID MENTION WE CAN OPT IN OR OPT OUT.

YOU SAID THERE COULDN'T BE AN OPT-IN OPTOUT OPTION.

IT'S A BENEFITS PACKAGE.

SO IT WOULD APPLY TO ANYONE THAT IS INVOLVED IN THE BENEFITS PACKAGE.

SO YOU'RE SAYING EVEN THOUGH I WANT TO OPT OUT AND I'M SAYING ON THE RECORD, I'M MORRIS ST.

AUBURN WRIGHT JR.

UH, WANNA OPT OUT OF, OF GETTING THE 4 0 7 B LEGALLY I CANNOT OPT OUT.

I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO, I I ASKED A CITY ATTORNEY WHETHER OR NOT A COMMISSION MEMBER CAN OPT OUT AND SHE SAID YES BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A, UM, A CITY.

THIS IS A SUPPLEMENTAL SPONSORED.

THIS IS NOT A CITY SPONSORED, UM, UM, UH, BENEFIT A 4 57 PLAN.

THAT'S IT'S INDIVIDUAL AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE A 4 57.

IT'S A SUPPLEMENTAL.

SO IT IT IS CITY SPONSORED BENEFIT WHEN IT'S IN THE PENSION THROUGH THAT'S, IT'S NOT A PENSION THOUGH.

IT'S NOT A PENSION.

A 4 57.

IS IT A 4 57 PLAN? CORRECT.

IT IS A 4 57.

IT'S NOT THIS, YOU CAN PUT DIFFERENT AMOUNTS IN ON UNDER 4 57 PLANS.

IT'S A SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFIT DIFFERENT FROM A YOUR PENSION, WHICH IS THAT BENEFITS PACKAGE AND YOU CANNOT OPT OUT OF THAT.

BUT IT'S PROVIDED BY THE CITY.

I UNDERSTAND, CORRECT? YES.

LEGALITIES TO BE CON CONTINUED.

YOU, YOU KNOW, WHERE PEOPLE STAND, LEGALITIES TO BE CONTINUED AND WE GO FROM THERE.

WE CERTAINLY CAN RESEARCH IT AND GIVE YOU SOMETHING BACK.

LOOK, THIS IS JUST A GAME.

ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.

NOT BY YOU, VICE MAYOR.

ARE WE DONE? SO AT THIS POINT, DO YOU NEED ANYTHING FURTHER? SO IT WOULD BE, UM, YOU WOULD BE APPROVING THE, UM, THE ORDINANCE AS AMEND AS AMENDED.

YES, CORRECT.

CITY CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL COMM MAYOR.

MAYOR GOMEZ.

SORRY.

NO.

COMMISSIONER WRIGHT? NO.

MOTION PASSES.

THREE TO TWO AS AMENDED.