Aug 24, 2026 Special City Commission

[ROLL CALL]

[00:00:08]

COMMISSION MEETING OF THE STUART CITY COMMISSION BUDGET WORKSHOP NUMBER TWO TO ORDER ON AUGUST 24TH, 2026 AT 3:03 P.M. MARY, IF YOU COULD DO THE ROLL CALL. MAYOR REED HERE, COMMISSIONER CLARK HERE, COMMISSIONER HERE. COMMISSIONER ELECT MATHESON HERE. MR. RICH, IF YOU COULD JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSIONERS.

[COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSIONERS ]

YES, I WANT TO THANK ESPECIALLY THE NEW BUDGET STAFF FOR THE WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING, AND I'M GLAD THAT I'M HERE THE WEEK AFTER ELECTION. AND I'LL SAY MORE AT THE 530 MEETING.

COMMISSIONER MATHESON. YEAH, I'LL HAVE MORE COMMENTS AT THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING, BUT I'VE BEEN DIGGING INTO THE BUDGET AND I'LL HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. AND THANK YOU FOR THE PREPARATION. ANTHONY AND KATIE, I HAVE NO COMMENTS. COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER AND I

[COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER ]

[1. FY2027 BUDGET PRESENTATION ]

CIGNA INSURANCE INCREASES ABOUT 8.8%. THIS PART IS JUST A RECAP OF WHAT WE SAW LAST TIME. OUR UNION OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN 7 AND 7.5% ARE NONUNION OBLIGATIONS FOR NONUNION EMPLOYEES, AT 3% FOR US, RATE INCREASES AT 5%. OUR STAFFING UPDATES ARE INCLUDED, WHICH INCLUDES FIVE NEW EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS UNFREEZING FOUR POSITIONS. THIS DOES INCLUDE THE DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING REDUCTION OF 5%, WHICH, AS A REMINDER, INCLUDED OVERTIME, SMALL CAPITAL ITEMS, PLANNED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, PROGRAMMATIC EXPENSES, SUPPLIES, TRAINING AND CONFERENCES. SINCE THE LAST MEETING, WE DID RECEIVE SOME STATE REVENUES. WE ARE WITHIN ABOUT 70,000 OF WHERE WE ASSUMED TO BE, BUT THAT IS A 70,000 THAT WE ARE LESS THAN WHAT WE NEED IT TO BE.

FROM WHAT IS EXPECTED FROM THE STATE. SO AT THE LAST MEETING, THE BOARD WAS SPLIT WHETHER TO GO 4.9 MILLS OR FIVE MILLS. SO WE DID AN EXERCISE IN BOTH, ASSUMING THE 4.9 MILLS, WHAT WOULD CHANGE. SO WE KNOW IT WOULD BE ABOUT $316,000 LESS THAT WE WOULD RECEIVE IN REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES WOULD BE REDUCED AS WELL. THAT WOULD BRING OUR REVENUE AND EXPENSES IN GENERAL FUND DOWN TO 49.8 MILLION AND WOULD BE ABOUT $18.7 MILLION, GIVING APPROXIMATELY 3.2 TO THE CRA, NETTING ABOUT $15.5 MILLION, OR ABOUT 550,000 OF NEW MONEY SINCE THE LAST MEETING. WITH THE DIRECTION OF GETTING. WHAT ABOUT A PLAN FOR THE 4.9 MILLS? ANTHONY AND I DID REFINE AND ADJUST REVENUES AND EXPENSE ASSUMPTIONS TO GET WITHIN THE LIMITS THAT WE NEEDED TO BE. THE RISKS OF GOING WITH THIS OPTION IS THAT WE HAVE NO OPTION TO BRING BACK ANY OF THOSE DEPARTMENTAL CUTS. IF STATE REVENUES ARE HIGHER,

[00:05:04]

SO IN THIS CHART, ON THE LEFT SIDE IS THE TAXABLE VALUE. AND I JUST CHOSE DIFFERENT TAXABLE VALUES TO DO THE CALCULATIONS FOR. SO ASSUMING A TAXABLE VALUE FOR A HOUSE THAT'S 250,000 500,000, A MILLION, 5,000,010 MILLION. FOR AN EXAMPLE, IN FY 25, OUR MILLAGE WAS 4.9 IN THAT CENTER COLUMN. AND THEN THE TAX AMOUNT AGAIN TAKING THAT TAXABLE VALUE, DIVIDING IT BY 1000 TIMES, THE 4.9 IS GETTING THAT TAX AMOUNT FOR OUR RESIDENTS. AND EACH OF THOSE VALUE CATEGORIES. SO IF WE WERE TO GO DOWN TO THAT CENTER CHART, THIS IS JUST FOR THE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE HOMESTEADED TO INCREASE THE 3% TAXABLE VALUE IS GOING TO INCREASE 3% AGAIN. AND THAT LEFT COLUMN, YOU SEE THAT VALUE INCREASE. SO NOW THAT $500,000 HOUSE IS NOW VALUED AT 515,000, IF WE MAINTAIN THE SAME 4.9 MILLS, YOU SEE THAT TAX AMOUNT

[00:10:06]

BUT I WANTED TO PRESERVE THAT IN THE RESOLUTION. YOU'LL ALSO SEE RESOLUTION FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. AGAIN JUST THE BOARD ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE PLAN THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE FOR FY 27 AND THEN OUR NATURAL PROCUREMENT PROCESS WILL STILL TAKE PLACE FOR THOSE PROJECTS, BUT IT'S A GOOD ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE BOARD AND THAT PLAN. AGAIN, NEWLY, YOU WILL SEE THE COST OF LIVING INCREASE FOR NON-BARGAINING EMPLOYEES. SO THAT WAS THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION FROM PRIOR MEETINGS EARLIER IN THE SPRING THAT THEY WANTED TO SEE THAT AS A SEPARATE VOTE. SO THERE IS A 3% COST OF LIVING INCREASE FOR NON-BARGAINING EMPLOYEES AS PART OF THE BUDGET. SO THAT WILL BE A NEW RESOLUTION YOU'LL SEE THIS YEAR. AND THEN FINALLY, THE TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR FY 27 IN TOTAL. SO WHEN IS ALL THAT GOOD STUFF GOING TO HAPPEN? WHERE AND WHEN? SO THE TENANT, VILLAGE AND BUDGET HEARING WILL BE ON SEPTEMBER 9TH AT 515 HERE IN CITY HALL AT 121 SOUTHWEST FLAGLER. THE FINAL MILLAGE AND BUDGET HEARING WILL OCCUR ON SEPTEMBER 14TH AT 515. ALSO HERE IN CITY HALL AT 121 SOUTHWEST FLAGLER. OUR ROLLBACK RATE. JUST AS A REMINDER FOR THE COMMISSION, OUR ROLLBACK RATE WAS 4.7499. OUR MAX RATE CAN BE 5.245.2249. SO WITH THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE 4.9 OR THE FIVE MILLS IS BOTH. IN BETWEEN THOSE WITH TWO THIRDS VOTE, WE CAN SELECT EITHER ONE, AND I WILL LEAVE THAT TO THE COMMISSION THEN TO HAVE DISCUSSION AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION ON WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE MOVING FORWARD. DO ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR KATE? I HAD ONE QUESTION. IT WAS 500,000 FOR CONFUSION CORNER, BUT THEN THE CRB MEETING COMING UP, IT'S

[00:15:01]

I'M TRYING TO GET CAUGHT UP HERE. EVERYONE. LET'S SEE. THEY MIGHT NOT BE IN ANY PARTICULAR.

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A COMMON CLASS STUDY WAS DONE FOR NON-BARGAINING EMPLOYEES? I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO ROZ ON THAT, ROZ. SO WE'RE VOTING ON IN THE FUTURE, A 3% COLA FOR NON-BARGAINING EMPLOYEES, CORRECT? WE ARE. AND WE HAVE DONE A STATEWIDE STUDY, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE AVERAGE IS SOMEWHERE FROM 3 TO 5, TWO AND A HALF TO FIVE STATEWIDE. LAST CLASS AND COMP, HELP ME ON THAT ONE. I WANT TO SAY IT WAS 23. WE DID THE BIG 1 IN 19, AND WE HAD A REFRESHER IN EITHER 2324 SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE A FEW YEARS. SO IT WOULD BE SAFE TO SAY THEY'RE COMPARABLE WITH STATEWIDE. YES. BECAUSE OF THAT CLASS AND COMP STUDY, WE RESTORED OUR COMPETITIVE LANDING AT THE 50TH PERCENTILE. OKAY. SO THE UNFUNDED PROJECTS, I GUESS THIS IS A GENERAL ASSESSMENT FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, BUT IT WOULD BE SAFE TO SAY. AS A GENERAL STATEMENT, THOSE PROJECTS AREN'T GOING AWAY. AND WOULD IT BE A SAFE ASSUMPTION TO SAY THAT GENERALLY THE COST OF THOSE PROJECTS HISTORICALLY INCREASES OVER YEARS? IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT? YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE STORMWATER PROJECT SPECIFICALLY THAT WAS LISTED AS UNFUNDED? YES, MOST OF THEM. ANY OF THOSE, YOU KNOW.

YEAH. INFLATION 3 TO 5%. THOSE STORMWATER PROJECTS ARE GOING TO BE MORE THAN THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. AND THAT'S WHERE THEY THEY HAD A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.

THEY HAD A CONSULTANT COME IN AND THAT'S WHERE THOSE PROJECTS CAME FROM. AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO ADD AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BASICALLY HAVE SOMEBODY COME IN AND REDO IT AGAIN, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T JUST ADD AN INFLATION PERCENT TO IT. OKAY. BUT 3 TO 5% A YEAR WOULD BE A SAFE ASSUMPTION FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. YES, SIR. SO THAT'S CONCERNING TO ME. WHEN WE START THINKING ABOUT UNFUNDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE, THAT COST ISN'T GOING AWAY. WE'RE JUST DEFERRING IT. BUT ALSO COMPOUNDING THAT COST PER YEAR. IT'S SOMETHING JUST THAT I WILL BE THINKING ABOUT. I GUESS, IS THE PRESENTATION OVER BECAUSE I HAVE JUST A FEW QUESTIONS. BASICALLY ON THE, THE THE GENERAL BUDGET, NOT SPECIFICALLY TO THIS PRESENTATION. SURE. GO AHEAD.

SO. THERE SEEM TO BE SOME BIG CHANGES. I'M GOING TO GO. MY QUESTION WOULD START ON PAGE 15.

GENERAL FUND REVENUE. ONE OF THEM HAS TO DO WITH POLICE AND OFF DUTY DETAIL. AND AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO DIVE INTO THESE NUMBERS AS QUICKLY AS I CAN OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS. BUT FISCAL YEAR 2025, 154,000 OR SO OFF DUTY DETAIL. FISCAL YEAR 2026 160,000. SO, YOU KNOW, A $16,000 INCREASE AND THEN WE JUMP NEXT YEAR, THIS COMING YEAR AND PROPOSES 200,000. SO WE GO FROM A $15,000 INCREASE FROM ONE FISCAL YEAR TO A $40,000 FISCAL INCREASE. AND I'M JUST WONDERING, WHERE DOES THAT INCREASE COME FROM? AGAIN, I'M NOT A NUMBERS GUY, BUT I WOULD MORE WOULD BE THINKING AND ASSUMING BE CLOSER TO THE PRIOR FISCAL YEAR. AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, SIR. THE THE BUDGET OF FISCAL YEAR 26, THE ADOPTED BUDGET WAS 150,000. THE

[00:20:07]

WE DID CHECK THAT NUMBER WITH THE INVESTMENT MANAGER THAT WE HAVE FOR OUR INVESTMENTS. AND BASED UPON THEIR ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT TREND OF INTEREST RATES AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE HAVE SITTING BASICALLY SITTING IN THE BANK. YEAH, THAT WAS A CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE.

OKAY, OKAY. SO. ONE OF THE BIG NUMBERS THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME, PAGE 16. GENERAL FUND EXPENSES BY DIVISION. ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY, GOES FROM 300 TO 450 K. YOU KNOW, FOR THE PRIOR FISCAL YEAR. DO YOU WANT ME TO GO AS AS YOU LIST THEM OFF OR KIND OF WAIT TO THE I GUESS GO AS YOU LIST THEM OFF? OKAY. I'M OPEN TO ANY OTHER COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS ON SOME OF THESE.

THE THE ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEYS, BUT WAS NOT BUDGETED FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE BUDGET AND FISCAL YEAR 25 BECAUSE SHE CAME IN MID-YEAR. AND FOR FISCAL YEAR 26, IT WAS SORT OF AN ESTIMATE OF HOW MUCH IT WOULD TAKE HER TO, TO DO HER JOB AS IT WAS BASICALLY A NEW ROLE.

BUT MYSELF AND THE CITY MANAGER WORKED CLOSELY WITH HER TO MAKE SURE THAT FOR FISCAL YEAR 27, THE THE BUDGET REQUEST THAT SHE HAS IN THERE IS A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF WHAT SHE NEEDS TO DO TO HIRE CONSULTANTS AND AND DO HER DO HER JOB. SO WE DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH HISTORY IN THAT DIVISION TO, TO COME TO A MORE, YOU KNOW, HISTORICAL AVERAGE OF EXPENSES. YES, I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND AS FAR AS THAT'S ALMOST A NEWLY CREATED POSITION, IT'S HARD TO COMPARE THAT TO OTHERS. BUT YEAH, SURE. YEP. JUST MAKE SURE YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. AND COMMISSIONER RICH JOINED US AT 320. MY APOLOGIES. OKAY. GOOD TO SEE YOU HERE, COMMISSIONER, I AGREE, I SHARE YOUR CONCERNS WITH THIS DRAMATIC INCREASE IN HER BUDGET. I KNOW YOU WANT TO GET YOUR ARMS AROUND WHAT RESOURCES WE CAN BRING TO BEAR ON THIS ISSUE, AND THAT PERHAPS THERE SHOULD BE MONIES SPENT ON SCIENTISTS OR ENGINEER, SO THAT WE CAN GET A GOOD APPRAISAL ON MAYBE OUR POSITION WITH FUTURE LOATHSOME NEGOTIATIONS. I HAVE NO PROBLEM DOING A BUDGET AMENDMENT SOMETIME DURING THE FISCAL YEAR. IF MISS HOLMES CAN SHOW A GOOD REASON WHY SHE NEEDS THOSE ADDITIONAL MONIES, I IMAGINE SHE WANTS THESE MONIES FOR THE SAME TWO CONSULTANTS SHE HIRED LAST YEAR. YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT, MISS HOLMES, OR. SO LAST YEAR WHEN I

[00:25:11]

WHAT THE CITY NEEDS IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL TYPE DEPARTMENT IS MUCH MORE THAN ONE PERSON CAN PROVIDE. AND THERE'S NOT THE TYPE OF EXPERTISE IN HOUSE IN THE CITY THAT'S THAT'S NEEDED. AND SO THE CONSULTANTS THAT I WAS ABLE TO HIRE LAST YEAR WERE USING FUNDS ALLOCATED FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR. SO THERE'S JUST, THERE JUST WASN'T ENOUGH INITIALLY ALLOCATED FOR THE COST, YOU KNOW, CONSULTANTS, WATER RESOURCE ENGINEERS AND SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANTS ARE EXPENSIVE. IT'S WHEN YOU HIRE THEM AS CONTRACTORS, LIKE LAWYERS, LIKE ACCOUNTANTS, YOU HIRE ON THE OUTSIDE, YOU KNOW, IT'S YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. AND SO GOING FORWARD, WHAT I DID FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 27 WAS BASED ON THE HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO HIRE THE CONSULTANTS THAT I HIRED. PLUS, LOOKING AT OTHER AREAS OF EXPERTISE THAT WE MIGHT NEED, ESPECIALLY IF LOATHSOME OR ANOTHER ITERATION OF A OF ANOTHER LOATHSOME TYPE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER PLANNING EVENT COMES AROUND. THAT'S, THAT'S THE KIND OFAT ARE GOING E ANTICIPATED AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, LIKE, AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, WHEN I STARTED HERE WITH THE CITY OF STUART, THIS IS NOT MY FIRST TIME HIRING CONSULTANTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WORKED YEARS AND YEARS WITH SOUTH FLORIDA AND MARTIN COUNTY DOING SIMILAR TYPE STUFF. SO IT'S BASED ON MY EXPERIENCES AND GOING FORWARD. AND, AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, SOME OF SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE ENCOUNTERED IN THE LAST YEAR HAVE BEEN ITEMS WHERE I'VE HAD TO DO PURCHASE ORDERS WITH THESE CONSULTANTS TO DO CERTAIN ANALYSIS RIGHT NOW. OR, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S DUE WITHIN A MONTH. I MEAN, IT'S IN ORDER TO DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT AND ANOTHER CONTRACT OR ANOTHER IT THAT THAT WILL BE CUTTING A LOT OF TIME FRAMES VERY CLOSE, JUST SO YOU KNOW, AND IT'S ESPECIALLY IF, IF WE HAVE TO GO OUT FOR BID ON ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THEN THE CITY IS JUST GOING TO BE LOSING OUT ON ITS POSITION TO COMMENT AND PARTICIPATE. ONE OF THE PEOPLE YOU HIRED WAS A LOBBYIST, CORRECT? RIGHT. AND IS ARE THERE ALLEGATIONS IN HERE FOR A LOBBYIST AGAIN? YES. OKAY. AND THROUGH THAT LOBBYIST, THAT'S HOW THAT I MADE CONNECTIONS WITH OUR LOCAL CONGRESSMAN'S OFFICE. THAT'S HOW WE GOT AT LEAST ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE EPA GRANT. AND THAT'S HOW WE GOT INFORMATION ABOUT THE EPA GRANT THAT THAT GROUP FORWARDED OUR APPLICATION TO BOTH SENATOR'S OFFICE AND THE CONGRESSMAN'S OFFICE. AND WE GOT AT LEAST ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT OUT OF THAT. SO IT'S IT'S A VALUABLE IT'S A VALUABLE CONTRACT TO HAVE IN IN THIS TYPE OF UNIQUE POSITION. WELL, I'D APPRECIATE IF COMMISSIONER MARTIN WOULD TAKE THE TIME TO REVIEW THOSE EXPENDITURES AND WHETHER HE FEELS THEY'RE THE MOST VALUABLE FOR THE CITY AT THIS TIME. I WILL CERTAINLY BE DIGGING INTO THEM. I AM CURIOUS, YOUR INTRO IN THE BUDGET, DID YOU GET RESPONSES FROM ALL THREE? BOTH OUR STATE SENATORS, I MEAN, BOTH OUR U.S. SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN. YOU WERE REACHING OUT TO THEM, REACHING OUT TO THEM FOR THE FOR THE GRANT OR. YES, I GOT I GOT A RESPONSE FROM BRIAN MAST. AND SO FOR SENATOR SCOTT'S OFFICE, THEY REQUIRE A LOT MORE LEAD TIME. SO WHEN WE FOUND OUT THE THE NEED FOR LETTERS OF SUPPORT, IT WAS TOO CUTTING IT, TOO CLOSE FOR THEM TO RESPOND. WAS IT THE SAME WITH MOODY? WELL, I THE SENATOR MOODY'S OFFICE APPARENTLY DIDN'T HAVE A A BIG STAFF TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES. SO MAYBE IN THE NEXT SIX YEARS OR SO IT'LL IT'LL BE

[00:30:09]

BUT AGAIN, ONE OF ONE OF MY BIGGEST CONCERNS LOOKING AT THIS IS JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO OVERESTIMATE OUR REVENUES IN THE COMING FISCAL YEAR. THAT'S AT THE 2000 FOOT GLANCE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I SAW, LOOKING AT ALL THE NUMBERS. JUST SOME OF THEM, SEEMED LIKE LARGE INCREASES COMPARED TO THE COUPLE PRIOR FISCAL YEARS. BUT THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? ASK AWAY. YEAH, I MIGHT I THIS ONE'S MORE OF AN EDUCATIONAL. WELL, THERE'S TWO MORE, BUT POLICE AND FIRE SAW SOME INCREASES GOING FROM AGAIN, 12.8 MILLION TO AND 12 MILLION RESPECTIVELY TO 14.2 MILLION AND 14.1 MILLION. SO EACH DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, 1 MILLION TO 1 MILLION AND A HALF INCREASE. AND IS THAT COMPARABLE TO PRIOR FISCAL YEARS OR SOME OF THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE TRUCK? NO, I WAS JUST CURIOUS. PIECE OF THAT IS GOING TO SORRY I CAN'T SEE YOU DOWN THERE. THE BIGGEST PIECE OF THAT'S GOING TO BE THE UNION OBLIGATION. SO THE SEVEN, 7.5% INCREASES IN TOTAL FOR BOTH OF THOSE IS ABOUT 1.2 MILLION. SO HISTORICALLY HOW THAT COMPARES? I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK BACK UNLESS ANTHONY KNOWS OFF OFFHAND. WE CAN. YEAH. I HAVE TO LOOK UP FOR HISTORICAL INCREASES. AND THEN ONE FINAL QUESTION. SO PAGE 18. YOU KNOW, UNDER THE CITY COMMISSION, THE LAST LINE. AIDS TO PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS. 2024 WAS 830,000, 2025 IS 313,000. IS THIS JUST HOW THE ACCOUNTING IS DONE FOR.

MAIN STREET PD B GRANTS? IS THAT OR OR CAN YOU EXPLAIN THOSE? OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I BELIEVE THOSE WERE ARP RELATED FUNDS THAT WERE GIVEN OUT AS RESCUE. YEAH, COVID MONEY, BASICALLY ONE TIME COVID MONEY. I COULD LOOK INTO THAT AND PROVIDE A MORE THOROUGH ANSWER ABOUT WHAT THOSE THOSE AIDS WERE. BUT OKAY. BUT YEAH, I'M, I'M ALMOST POSITIVE THERE IT'S ONE TIME COVID MONEY. ARPA OKAY. YEAH, I'D LIKE TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN GET BACK TO ME. THEY SEEM LIKE LARGE NUMBERS THAT WEREN'T THERE IN SOME OF THE OTHER FISCAL YEARS AND OBVIOUSLY AREN'T HERE THIS LAST FISCAL YEAR. I THINK THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANKS.

COMMISSIONER MATHESON, CITY MANAGER MIKE MAYOR, ON THE FINAL QUESTION, THERE WERE ALLOCATIONS MADE. THERE WERE ARPA, ARPA MONEY RECEIVED, CARES ACT. I MEAN, THREE SLUGS OF COVID MONEY DIDN'T HAVE THE EXPERIENCE HERE AT STEWART, BUT I HAD THE EXPERIENCE AT MY PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT. AND SINCE THEN COMING TO STEWART AND LOOKING INTO THAT, YES, THE COMMISSION RECEIVED SOME ARPA GRANTS. COULD BE OTHERS. I HAVEN'T LOOKED BACK TO CARES ACT, WHICH WAS THE ORIGINAL SLUG. AND THEN THE COMMISSION DID ALLOCATE TO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS VIA THAT GRANT PROCESS. AND I HAVE THOSE RESOLUTIONS ON MY DESK, BUT WE WE CAN PROVIDE THE DETAIL ON THAT. I THINK THERE WAS ONE QUESTION I, I ADDRESSED TO A SINGLE COMMISSIONER ABOUT ARPA MONEY IN PARTICULAR. SO WE'LL HAVE THAT DETAIL AND BACKGROUND,

[00:35:03]

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER GIOVI. YES. HI. I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONER RICH AND COMMISSIONER MATHESON IN REGARDS TO OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY. NUMBER ONE, WE ARE UNIQUE IN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY. ACTUALLY, I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OTHER CITY OR COUNTY NEARBY HAS ONE. SO WE'RE THAT'S NOT TRUE. OKAY. I WAS JUST TOLD IT'S NOT TRUE, BUT WE'RE UNIQUE IN HAVING OUR OWN. AND HAVING SAID THAT, WE ALL LIVE HERE AND AND ENJOY AND PROSPER FROM THE SAINT LOUIS RIVER, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY TO PROTECT THAT. SO BUDGET THE ADDITIONAL BUDGETS IN NEEDING TO HAVE CONSULTANTS.

LOBBYISTS ARE SO IMPORTANT TO US. IT HAS PUT RUTH IN THE MAINSTREAM WHERE SHE'S NOW BEING INVOLVED IN THOSE COMMUNITIES, GETTING INFORMATION WHICH HELPS US TO BE ABLE TO SUBMIT FOR THESE GRANTS, NOT AT THE LAST MINUTE. HOPEFULLY THAT GETS BETTER, BUT WE'RE WE'RE LEARNING, AND I THINK ANYONE COMMISSIONER MATHESON, WHO'S BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE RIVER COALITION FOR OVER I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS WOULD APPRECIATE WHAT IS BEING DONE HERE AND HOW MUCH IS INVOLVED TO GET THAT DONE. OH, I ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE IT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. BUT PART OF OUR JOB IS TO ANALYZE THE BUDGET AND POINT OUT ANY NUMBERS AND ASK QUESTIONS. I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE IT. ONE OF THE REASONS I BRING IT UP IS BECAUSE AT A CERTAIN POINT, IT MIGHT BE MORE FISCALLY PRUDENT TO BRING SOMEONE IN-HOUSE, JUST LIKE WE DID. MISS HOLMES, THAN TO PAY CONSULTANTS. I INTEND TO CLOSELY WORK WITH RUTH, YOU KNOW, ON SOME OF THESE GRANTS AND SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO WE NEED AS FAR AS APPLYING FOR THEM? BECAUSE WE WE CERTAINLY NEED MORE THAN WHAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY NOW. BUT THERE ARE CERTAINLY A LOT OF NONPROFITS THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO ASSIST US THAT AGREE WITH OUR SAME MISSION. SO I HAVE PLENTY OF IDEAS ON THAT ISSUE. AND I MENTIONED IT BECAUSE I, I KNOW THAT YOU APPRECIATE IT. YOU'VE BEEN SO INVOLVED AND YOU KNOW THAT WE TRY TO MEET WITH RUTH WEEKLY. SO AS A COMMISSIONER, YOU WOULD MEET WITH HER AND POSSIBLY LOOK INTO THAT. THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO LOOK DOWN THE ROAD. THANK YOU. RATHER THAN DOING CONSULTANTS THAT WE HIRE AN ADDITIONAL PERSON IN THAT ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THANK YOU. ABSOLUTELY.

I MET WITH HER FRIDAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER RICH? THANK YOU. YES. ONE ISSUE WHICH I'D LIKE TO SEE US ATTENDING TO, WHICH WE GROSSLY IGNORED OVER ALL THE YEARS, IS DEALING WITH OUR WATERWAYS, SPECIFICALLY POPLAR CREEK. I'D LIKE TO REMOVE THE FUNDING FOR THE SKATE PARK AT GUY DAVIS. IT'S NOT WANTED BY THE COMMUNITY, AND I THINK THAT EXPENDITURE WOULD BE MUCH BETTER SPENT BEGINNING WORK ON CLEANING UP OUR CREEKS. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN THERE, BUT THAT IS NOT THE MOST PRESSING NEED. THERE'S NO HUE AND CRY FROM THE COMMUNITY. AND YET, IF YOU WALK AROUND AND LOOK AT THESE WATERWAYS, IT'S REALLY DISGRACEFUL WHAT WE'VE ALLOWED TO TAKE PLACE AND WE NEED TO START STUDYING THEM, PROVIDING ANALYSIS AND WITH A SPECIFIC WAY FORWARD ON CLEANING THEM UP. SO I WOULD HOPE WE COULD PULL THAT MONEY OUT OF THERE FOR NOW AND APPLY IT TO OUR WATERWAYS. THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER IS STILL IN THE. OH, HI. I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT AND I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO ANSWER IT NOW, BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE COST TO UNDO THAT PORTION OF THE SKATE PARK, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN.

YEAH. I MEAN, WE HAVE PLANS. WE HAVE CONSULTANTS WE'VE PAID FOR. SO THE LOSS, WHAT WE WOULD DEAL WITH AT GUY DAVIS PARK IN REMOVING THAT SKATE PARK, WHAT WOULD THAT GAIN BE TO USING IT TOWARD POPLAR CREEK? RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT ALMOST 100% DESIGN, AND WE'RE READY TO GET OUR SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMITS. WITH THE SKATE PARK INCLUDED IN THE PLANS. SO NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD TO REMOVE IT. AND THEN ALSO WE HAVE TO WORK WITH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO ADJUST THE PLANS AND AND APPLY FOR THE PERMIT AGAIN. SO WE'RE READY. WE'RE PLANNING TO MEET WITH BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS TO GO OVER THE 100% PLANS,

[00:40:05]

DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER? THANK. COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU, MISS GANDY. I THINK IF I LIKE TRYING TO COME UP WITH FUNDING IN THIS BUDGET. FOR, YOU KNOW, CITY FUNDED CLEANUP. IF PUTTING THE SKATE PARK INTO A PHASE TWO, BUT LEAVING THE PLANS THE SAME.

WOULD THAT ALLOCATE, YOU KNOW, NOT CHANGING THE PLANS AT ALL, BUT DOING A PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO, WOULD THAT CHANGE THE BUDGET AT ALL? IS THERE ROOM FOR THAT DISCUSSION? BECAUSE YOU COULD PHASE THE PROJECT AND WE COULD GET AN ALTERNATE BID FOR THE SKATE PARK. SO AT LEAST WE HAVE A BID SHOULD WE DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD TO INCLUDE THE SKATE PARK, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO INCLUDE IT AS PART AS PART OF PHASE ONE, IT COULD BE MOVED TO PHASE TWO, BUT IT WOULD BE INCLUDED AS PART OF OUR SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT. YES. LEAVING PERMIT. YEAH. SORRY TO LEAVING ALL THE PLANS THE SAME. NOT CHANGING ANY OF THE PLANS. HAVING A PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO. AND THEN SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S ON THE TOP OF MY HEAD WAS THE EMAIL MISS HOLMES SENT US PERTAINING TO THE BID FOR MUCK REMOVAL. AND THAT EMAIL SEEMED TO ALLUDE FOR A NEED FOR US TO BE MUCH FURTHER ALONG IN PREPARING FOR APPLICATIONS FOR THAT, THAT GRANT THINGS LIKE STUDYING THE MUCK, GETTING A GOOD ANALYSIS OF IT. AND, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS SEEKING OUT, YOU KNOW, AN INTERN OR SOMETHING THAT THAT CAN DO THAT. SO THAT NEXT GRANT CYCLE, YOU KNOW, WE CHECK ALL OUR T'S AND DOT ALL OUR EYES BECAUSE THIS IS KIND OF NEW TERRITORY. BUT YOU KNOW, I SEE FRAZIER CREEK MUCK REMOVAL AS AS WIDE OPEN. IT'S IN THE CRA AND A LOT OF POTENTIAL THERE. AND I, YOU KNOW, I KNOW I'M HITTING THE GROUND RUNNING, BUT I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF FIGURING OUT A WAY TO ADD THAT INTO THE BUDGET. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS. YES. THANKS, COMMISSIONER. SO IF WE I'M SORRY IF WE IF WE WERE TO PUT THIS INTO STAGE TWO, YOU'D STILL HAVE TO HOLD MONEY IN THE BUDGET FOR IT. OTHERWISE WE'D BE SIMILAR TO THE CAPITAL FUND WHERE WE MIGHT BE IN YEARS UNFUNDED. SO. SO THE WAY I'VE DONE THE BUDGET IN THE CIP IS OVER TWO YEARS, BECAUSE WE DON'T EXPECT TO SPEND ALL OF IT IN FISCAL YEAR 2027. SO I'VE BUDGETED SOME FUNDS FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT IN FISCAL YEAR 2027. AND THEN A FISCAL YEAR 2028. WE'LL HAVE ADDITIONAL BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT, FINISH IT OUT. AND THEN IF IF WE WANT TO DO, BUT AGAIN, LIKE IT'S GOING TO COST, IT'S GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL COST TO DO IT AS PHASE TWO, BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY GOING TO BE MOBILIZED.

AND, YOU KNOW, NOW TO, YOU KNOW, FINISH OUT THE PROJECT, THE CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN DO PHASE TWO LATER ON, IT'S GOING TO COST US MORE MONEY TO DO THAT AS A SEPARATE PHASE, BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE TO MOBILIZE AGAIN. RIGHT. AND THAT WAS THE POINT I WAS GOING TO GET TO. IF WE DO IT TWO YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, THE COST WILL BE MORE. IT WILL BE. AND SO YOU'D STILL HAVE TO BUDGET FOR IT THE FOLLOWING YEAR. I JUST DON'T SEE IT AS A COST SAVINGS. BUT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE DO OBTAIN OTHER GRANTS AND MONIES TO CORRECT THE SITUATIONS. AT FRAZIER AND FULTON CREEK. I COULD ALWAYS DO AN ALTERNATE BID, SO AT LEAST YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE COST LOOKS LIKE FOR SKATE PARK. AND IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE, IT'S NOT GOING TO

[00:45:01]

COMMISSIONER MATHESON'S POINT IS A GOOD ONE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO THROW THE DESIGN AWAY. WE STILL HAVE PURCHASED IT. IT WILL STILL BE VALID AND USABLE. BUT YES, IT WILL BE MORE EXPENSIVE. TWO YEARS TO BUILD THE SKATE PARK. IT'LL BE MORE EXPENSIVE. TWO YEARS TO START WORK ON WILLOUGHBY AND ON MUCK REMOVAL. IT'LL BE MORE EXPENSIVE TO DO EVERYTHING IN THE FUTURE, BUT IT'S WHAT'S OUR PRIORITY. AND IT JUST DOES FOR THAT COMMUNITY, FOR THAT PROJECT. IT IS NOT THAT SKATE PARK. THAT WAS THE PET PROJECT OF A FORMER COMMISSIONER. BUT WHAT EVERYBODY WANTS IS TO SEE THESE WATERWAYS CLEANED UP, TO BE ABLE TO PADDLE BOARD UP FRAZIER CREEK, UP POPPLETON CREEK, EVEN GET TO THE SHORELINE, JUST THE MANGROVES.

CAN WE GET TO THE MANGROVES ON THESE CREEKS? AND WE HAVE GOT TO GET TO IT. AND I THINK THIS IS THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY. THANKS, COMMISSIONER. RICH. COMMISSIONER CLARK. I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID AND I KNOW THAT I'VE TALKED TO MISS HOLMES. I HAVEN'T TALKED TO HER VERY RECENTLY, BUT IT'S ALWAYS VERY TOUGH TO GET FUNDS TO DO THESE THINGS. AND WE KNOW THAT THE FUNDS HAD BEEN BASICALLY DIVERTED FROM THE STATE WHEN WE GOT THOSE ORIGINAL FUNDS, THE 500 000. SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. I JUST KNOW THAT ALL OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN STATED, WHEN YOU PUT SOMETHING IN, YOU PUT SOMETHING BACK. THEN YOU KNOW, THE STAGE WHERE WE ARE, IT DOES MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE. I DON'T THINK THAT. MISS HOLMES HAS THE WHEREWITHAL, SEEING WHAT SHE HAS IN HER BUDGET AND ANY POTENTIAL GRANT COMING IN TO DO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE REALLY WANTED TO DO, WHICH WE'RE NOT GETTING THE THE MONEY FOR. BUT I WOULD LIKE, I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO, TO GET AT IS TO SEE IF THERE'S SOME WAY. THAT WE COULD GET SOME KIND OF A DEFINED PLAN FROM OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY AS TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT SHE'S GOING TO BE SEEKING AND WORKING TOWARDS. I KNOW THAT SHE WORKED HARD ON PUSHING WITH THE GRANT, THE MUCK REMOVAL GRANT, BUT MAYBE IF WE COULD JUST GET SOMETHING IN THE NEAR FUTURE, PROBABLY IT WON'T WORK FOR THIS BUDGET SESSION, BUT AT LEAST WE'LL HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW WHERE SOME OF THE PRIORITIES. BECAUSE WHEN I MET, ESPECIALLY WITH SOME OF THE RESIDENTS FROM PEYTON CREEK, THEY. THERE WAS A LOT OF IDEAS AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT POSSIBLY DOING THINGS WITH HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER PEOPLE. AND, AND IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME TO FIGURE OUT THESE THINGS THAT ARE AFFECTING OUR COMMUNITY AND THE NEEDS THAT WE HAVE, NOT JUST FOR CLEARANCE AND FOR NAVIGABILITY OF THE WATERWAYS, BUT THE ACTUAL QUALITY OF THE WATER AND, AND ALL THE WORK AND THE TESTING AND CLEARING, AND EVEN JUST, JUST BASIC CLEARING AND CUTTING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. SO THAT TAKES TIME AND INVENTORY. BUT I THINK THAT IF WE CAN GET SOME KIND OF A CLEAR PLAN THAT WILL LET US KNOW POSSIBLY IF SHE NEEDS HELP IN THE FUTURE FROM SOMEBODY FROM F A OR WHATEVER IT TAKES TO HELP TO GET SOME THINGS GOING IN THAT AREA. I DO HAVE CONCERNS, AND I THINK THAT WE DO NEED TO, TO DO PUSH SOME THINGS AND GET SOME PUT SOME. WE'RE NOT GETTING THE MONEY THAT WE THAT WE THOUGHT WE'D GET WHAT WE COULD TRY TO TURN SOME THINGS AROUND HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF OUR BUDGET PERSON WILL BE ABLE TO WORK SOMETHING OUT, BUT I THINK WE SEE WHAT WE HAVE. AND I. I'M GLAD THAT COMMISSIONER RICH KIND OF FIGURED OUT IF WE COULD JUMP ON THAT MONEY THAT WAS PUT IN THE PLAN. BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT THAT WILL REALLY MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE. AND WE REALLY WANT TO GET THAT PROJECT AT GUY DAVIS GOING. SO I THINK

[00:50:06]

IN THE PAST, IN THE PAST 15 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE, EVERY TIME THAT I BROUGHT UP SOMETHING, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL COST. AND USUALLY THE BUDGET IS ALREADY PRETTY MUCH SET. AND IT'S LIKE, WELL, WHERE ARE WE GOING TO FIND THE MONEY FROM TO DO THIS NEW THING? BUT I JUST WANT TO BRING IT UP IN THIS BUDGET SESSION. AND I DON'T KNOW IF SOMETHING COULD BE DONE FOR THIS YEAR, OR IT WOULD BE ANOTHER TIME, OR WE CAN JUST FIGURE OUT A PROCEDURE ON HOW TO DO SOMETHING. BUT I KNOW, AND THIS I DON'T SEE. MR. OH, YEAH. YOU'RE HERE, MISTER.

BRANT FROM PETER. PETER. NO, NO, NOT PETER BEHIND PETER COMMUNITY SERVICES. NO, NOT WELL, BOTH OF YOU, I GUESS. WELL, MICHAEL, MIKE AND JIM. YEAH, YEAH. SO WE CAN FROM THE 10TH STREET. YEAH. COME IN TO SERVICES. SO I'VE HAD PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT GROUPS WHO SAID THAT THEY WANT TO DO A PROGRAM AT 10TH STREET, BUT THEY'D LIKE TO GET SOME KIND OF A SEED FUNDING OR SOME KIND OF A BASIC SPONSORSHIP THROUGH THE CITY TO HELP THEM DO THIS PROGRAM WITH YOUTH. WE HAD A SITUATION THIS SUMMER WHERE SOMEBODY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING, AND I'VE TOLD PEOPLE, YES, YOU CAN RENT. YES, YOU CAN BRING A PROGRAM OR BRING A PROJECT, WHETHER IT'S A COOKING PROJECT OR A SPORTS PROJECT OR WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO, YOU CAN DO THAT THERE, AND IT'S YOUR PROJECT, AND YOU HAVE TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE. BUT THESE PARTICULAR FOLKS HAVE BEEN ASKING, WHY CAN'T WE WORK ALONG WITH THE CITY AND SPONSOR WITH THE CITY? IF IT'S ANYWHERE FROM 500 TO ONE TO THOUSANDS TO HELP THEM SO THAT THEY CAN GET SOME YOUTH FOCUSED PROGRAM THAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN THAT THEY THINK WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY. I DON'T KNOW IF MR. REDMOND HAS TALKED TO THESE PEOPLE, AND AGAIN, I'M JUST BRINGING IT UP BECAUSE I THINK I'VE SENT A FEW OF THESE PEOPLE TO THE CITY MANAGER TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT THEIR IDEAS, AND SOME OF THEM HAVE HAD PROGRAMS HERE AT THE 10TH STREET, BUT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING IN THE BUDGET. AND A COUPLE OF THE PROGRAMS WHERE THE. THE CITY HAS DONATED MONIES TO HELP WITH AN ANNUAL PARADE OR WHATEVER THE SITUATION IS, BUT IT'S BEEN ASKED, AND I JUST WANTED TO FIGURE OUT FOR A BUDGET PERSON, WE'RE AT A TIME WHEN WE'RE HAVE LESS MONEY, PROPERTY TAXES, OR WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING LESS.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF ANYTHING IN THAT IT'S A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION HAS ANY TYPE OF REALISTIC ABILITY FOR SOMEBODY TO PARTICIPATE AND PARTNER WITH THE CITY, ESPECIALLY TO DO YOUTH PROGRAMS. SO THAT'S MY QUESTION AND I. YEAH. ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A CONSENSUS FROM THE BOARD OR. I JUST WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT WE'RE DOING BETWEEN MIKE AND CITY MANAGER BOTH. I WASN'T SURE IF YOU WANTED ME TO ANSWER. YEAH. WITH WITH REGARD TO WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY, I HAD THE COMMUNITY IN MY OFFICE ON FRIDAY, WHICH WAS GREAT. GREAT MEETING UP WITH SOME FOLKS OVER IN EAST STEWART AND TALKED ABOUT THINGS LIKE THIS. MY CONCERN WITH SOMETHING LIKE YOU JUST DESCRIBED, THE LAST THING THAT YOU DESCRIBED WOULD BE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND PROGRAMMATIC KIND OF THINGS, TECHNICALITIES, LEGAL ISSUES THAT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE, WHO, WHO'S ACTUALLY TECHNICALLY RESPONSIBLE, WHO'S WHO HAS THE LIABILITY, ETC. SO I THINK THOSE, THOSE ARE CONCERNS, BUT CERTAINLY WE COULD OPEN UP ANYTHING. WE COULD DO A PROCESS, A LOTTERY, A REQUEST FOR INTEREST, OR EVEN AN RFP FOR

[00:55:06]

MAYOR, WHILE I'M SPEAKING. SAME SAME KIND OF SUBJECT, ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN, SAME THING.

MAY I MAY, MAY I GET TO A PLACE MAYBE BY THE NEXT MEETING WHERE WE'LL ADD ONE, TWO, THREE, WHATEVER. RUTH AND, AND THE REST OF THE TEAM. MILTON. PETER MAY HAVE THOUGHTS ABOUT IT AS WELL. AND ANYBODY JUST. AND COMMISSIONERS, WE COULD ADD A FEW LINE ITEMS THAT REGARD TO POPPLETON AND FRAZIER WITH REGARD TO MUCK. WHATEVER THE SUBJECT MATTER, WE COULD PUT THOSE IN PROGRAM. IT JUST THE WAY KATE SHOWED YOU NOT TOO LONG AGO AND. OF COURSE, WE'LL HAVE TO FIND THE FUNDING. SO FOR FISCAL YEAR 27, YOU'LL ALL HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION. DO YOU WANT TO ALLOCATE FUNDS TO FOR WHATEVER PROJECTS WE SHOW YOU, AND WHERE DO YOU WANT IT TO COME FROM? SOME OF IT COULD COME FROM KATE'S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BECAUSE THOSE ARE CONSULTANTS AND WHATNOT, AND WE DO NEED THE STUDIES. SOME COULD BE NON-APPROPRIATED FUNDS, LIKE GRANTS THAT WE WILL APPLY FOR IN THE FUTURE. I'M NOT GOING TO SIGN UP FOR ANYTHING IN FISCAL YEAR 27 THAT I CAN'T PAY FOR AND THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR, BUT I CAN SHOW YOU FISCAL YEAR 28 AND 29. SO BUT WE CAN GET IT STARTED JUST AS YOU DESCRIBED. COMMISSIONER MATHESON DESCRIBED. WE. THERE THERE ARE THINGS, COMMISSIONER RICH, THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU POINTED OUT THAT WE KNOW ABOUT, THAT WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT MANGROVES MUCK, AND WE COULD GET TO TASK THE. AND IT'LL BE UP TO ME TO RECOMMEND THE FUNDING RESOURCES TO YOU. AND IF IF THAT MEANS IT'S GOING TO COME ON THE GENERAL FUND OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND. WELL, YEAH, WE GOT TO WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS AND TRADES, BUT IF IT'S COMING FROM NON-APPROPRIATED FUNDS, LIKE FUND BALANCE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE 4.1 MILLION IN INTEREST PER YEAR. AND I ONLY PRESENTED A PLAN TO USE 400,000 OF THAT $4.1 MILLION IN INTEREST PER YEAR TO TO BE USED. SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY IN FUND BALANCE AND IN JUST INTEREST ALONE THAT YOU COULD DECIDE TO ALLOCATE TO GIVE TO STAFF TO DO WORK LIKE THAT. SO I'LL COME BACK NEXT MEETING. WE'LL PUT THAT IN THE CAPITAL BUDGET. THOSE THINGS THAT COME TOP OF MIND, WHICH ARE POPPLETON, WHICH AND FRAZIER MANGROVE CUTTING AND MUCK STUDY OR MAYBE NOT REMOVAL BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE THE STUDIES FIRST, GET THE ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE BEHIND US. AND, YOU KNOW, SO I GOT A LITTLE EXPERIENCE WITH THIS CAPITAL BUDGET STUFF AND, AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND GETTING STUFF DONE. SO WE JUST NEED THE RESOURCES TO DO IT. WE GOT A

[01:00:03]

THANK YOU MAYOR. THANKS, MIKE. THANK YOU. MIKE. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS? YES.

THANKS, COMMISSIONER. RICH, I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO COMMISSIONER CLARK'S CONCERNS BECAUSE I. I HAVE BEEN DESPITE THE REMARKABLE CONTRIBUTION OF THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB AND THOSE PROGRAMS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FOR FREE, WHICH MANY PEOPLE STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE AVAILABLE FOR FREE. BUT THERE IS JUST TREMENDOUS LOYALTY FOR THOSE PROGRAMS THAT TOOK PLACE AT 10TH STREET. AND CREDIT GOES TO THE STAFF THERE. AND MR. TROTSKY, WHAT HAS HAPPENED? BECAUSE I SPOKE TO MR. TROTSKY ABOUT THIS, THE SAME ISSUE, COMMISSIONER CLARK, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THEY'VE REPLACED MANY OF THOSE PROGRAMS WITH ADULT PROGRAMS. AND IF YOU PUT CHILDREN IN THE BUILDING, IT CREATES LOGISTICAL PROBLEMS IN TERMS OF SEPARATION. AND SO IT'S A TOPIC WORTHY OF DISCUSSION, BUT IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT MIGHT APPEAR ON THE SURFACE. BUT IF WE CAN ASSESS THE NEED, I CERTAINLY THINK WE SHOULD TRY TO, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE A SERVICE THERE FOR THAT COMMUNITY. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE PROCEED. I'M SURE MR. TROTSKY WILL BE IN A POSITION TO PROVIDE US GUIDANCE. THANKS, COMMISSIONER. RICH. MY COMMENTS WOULD BE WITH THE THE CIP PLAN FOR THE CITY SITTING ON THE MPO BOARD. WE RANK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AS A BOARD AND WE HAVE A PRIORITY LIST JUST SO WE'RE KIND OF AWARE ON WHAT DIRECTION BECAUSE NOW WE'RE WE'RE CHANGING THE GUY DAVIS PARK, THAT'S 100% DESIGNED. AND AS FAR AS THE PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS, I BELIEVE THAT WAS LINE ITEM DOWN FOR 25,000 FOR THE BDB BOARD AGAIN. AND IT WAS FOR AN MOU WITH THE CITY AND UF AND IFA'S FOR 24,000. SO THAT'S HOW YOU GET THE 4000 PRIVATE AIDS. AND AS FAR AS THE UNFUNDED PROJECTS, I, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MADISON, THERE'S QUITE A BIT. SO IF WE'RE REALLY GOING TO LOOK AT UNFUNDED PROJECTS, ESPECIALLY FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, MAYBE WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE CIP KIP PLAN FOR THE CRA, WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE NECESSARY IF WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING FUNDS FOR STUFF LIKE THAT. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. AND THEN JUST LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE, IS IT NECESSARY FOR POLICE TO HAVE A $10,000 DRONE POTENTIALLY FOR I SAW IT IN HERE, JUST JUST THINGS LIKE THAT. EVEN LIKE THE SCUBA TANK, LIKE, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A WAY TO PUT THE FUNDS SOMEWHERE ELSE AND THEN GOING BACK TO FIRE RESCUE? I KNOW AT THE LAST MEETING YOU HAD MENTIONED, WE WERE WAY BEHIND ON STAFFING FOR THE CITY OF STEWART, FOR PROVIDING A LEVEL OF SERVICE TO THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE HERE. HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN AN ISSUE IN THE CITY? I'VE BEEN HERE FOR TWO YEARS, CHIEF FINCH, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, BUT SOME OF THESE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE BEEN UP HERE FOR EITHER MANY YEARS OR YEARS IN THE PAST. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE AWARE OF THE UNDERSTAFFING FROM YOUR DEPARTMENT OR IF IT'S A NEW THING, BECAUSE I'VE ASKED THE QUESTIONS HERE. HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU BEEN UNDERSTAFFED FOR THE DEPARTMENT? SO I'M GOING ON 29 YEARS HERE AND NINE YEARS AS THE CHIEF. SO WHEN I STARTED WE WERE NUMBER X AND WHERE WE ARE NOW IS ALMOST DOUBLE. SO WE WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY. THAT'S HOW THAT'S HOW BEHIND WE WERE.

BUT WHAT WE HAVE DONE OVER THE PAST NINE YEARS IS INCREMENTALLY INCREASED. OUR STAFFING, OUR EQUIPMENT TO TRY TO DO IT IN, IN THE MOST RESPONSIBLE WAY, RIGHT. WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING AGAIN THIS YEAR. THERE'S STILL POSITIONS THAT ARE NOT STAFFED, LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE SAFETY OFFICER, YOU KNOW, THE EMS SUPERVISORS THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE. WE'RE THE ONLY DEPARTMENT THAT THAT DOES NOT HAVE THOSE. WE ARE A CLASS ONE DEPARTMENT. EVERYBODY SHOULD BE PROUD OF THAT. SO BUT WE'RE NOT WE'RE WE'RE GETTING TO THE POINT NOW WHERE WE ARE, WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO WHERE WE SHOULD BE, WHERE EVERY OTHER DEPARTMENT AROUND US DID IT QUICKER THAN US. RIGHT? SO IT'S, IT, IT MAY SEEM LIKE, HEY, EVERY YEAR, YOU KNOW, WHEN PEOPLE HAVE COMMENTED, YOU KNOW, WHY, WHY ARE WE WHY DO WE NEED MORE EQUIPMENT? WHY DO WE NEED MORE PEOPLE? BECAUSE THAT'S HOW BEHIND WE WERE. AND WE AGAIN, NOT TO KEEP SAYING IT, BUT WE INCREMENTALLY INCREASE IT. SO I CAN'T JUST COME IN AND SAY, HEY, I NEED TO HIRE 35 PEOPLE, RIGHT? AND GET LAUGHED OUT OF THE ROOM. JUST LIKE I CAN'T SAY I WANT TO

[01:05:02]

WE HAVE BROUGHT IT UP. SO A LOT OF THE DAYS OUT OF THE MONTH, BECAUSE WE TRACK THE DATA, WE CAN DO IT, BUT WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE OUT, FMLA, PEOPLE AT BABIES, ALL OF THIS STUFF. AND OUR OUR LEVEL DROPS, OVERTIME COMES INTO PLAY. SO I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU A, YOU KNOW, CONCRETE NUMBER, HEY, THIS NUMBER RIGHT NOW WOULD SOLVE ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS. YOU KNOW, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT, BUT I KNOW THAT THE PRIORITY FOR THIS YEAR IS THOSE THREE PEOPLE.

AND THAT'S WHY I DID IT. I DO THE BUDGET. I KNOW PEOPLE SAY, HEY, YOU SHOULD ASK FOR 20 PEOPLE. THAT MAKES NO SENSE, RIGHT? SO. THE THREE THIS YEAR WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE. NEXT YEAR WE WOULD PROBABLY LOOK TO ADD 2 OR 3 PEOPLE, AND THAT MAY GET US TO WHERE WE CAN DO OUR STAFFING. BUT THEN I KNOW WE HAVE CAPITAL ITEMS TOO. SO I HAVE TO BALANCE THAT WITH THE MANAGER AND FINANCE TO DO THE RIGHT THING. AND THE ONLY REASON WHY I'M ASKING IS I, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM BEING FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE, BUT LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S A LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT YOU'RE PROVIDING AS WELL. SURE. I JUST WANT TO KNOW, I, I'M, I'M UP HERE FOR TWO MORE YEARS. YEAH. SO I JUST, I WANT TO BE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON. AND, AND I THINK COMING UP WITH THE RANKING SYSTEM, LIKE I SAID, FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WILL HELP AS WELL. SO IF THINGS GET CONTINUALLY SHIFTED, AT LEAST THAT YOU'RE AWARE THAT IT'S ON THE PRIORITY LIST, JUST THE RANKING MIGHT HAVE MOVED. AND, AND TO FURTHER ADDRESS IT, I WAS ASKING BECAUSE I GUESS THE RHETORIC OUT IN THE PUBLIC IS THAT CITY OF STUART FIRE RESCUE CURRENTLY COST MORE TO OPERATE THAN MARTIN COUNTY. SO ASKING FOR THREE, SIX, 9 OR 8 STAFF, AS COMMISSIONER CLARK HAD MENTIONED. IS THERE ANY COMPARISONS BEING DONE THEN FROM THE CITY TO FIND OUT IF THAT'S TRUE OR NOT? I MEAN, THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT IN MY SCOPE. THAT'S NOT WHAT I DO. I, I RUN THE CITY OF SEWER FIRE RESCUE AND BROUGHT US TO A BE A CLASS ONE DEPARTMENT. SO AND ALL, ALL THE EQUIPMENT AND STAFFING THAT I ASKED FOR IS STANDARD. YOU COULD BRING THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT IN HERE RIGHT NOW, THE UNION, EVERYBODY, THE UNIONS HERE, YOU CAN ASK THEM. AND AM I DOING LESS OR MORE THAN WHAT I SHOULD BE DOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CITY OF STUART AND PROVIDE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE? I KEEP SAYING IT, BUT WE WOULDN'T BE A CLASS ONE IF WE DIDN'T PROVIDE A HIGH LEVEL OF SERVICE. RIGHT? AND WE DO IT EVERY DAY. BUT EVERYBODY THAT'S BEEN WITH THE CITY OF STUART FOR A LONG TIME, LIKE ME, HE'S GOING ON 20 YEARS. WE'VE ALWAYS DONE MORE WITH LESS. THAT'S OUR THAT'S OUR M.O. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE DONE OUR WHOLE CAREER. RIGHT. AND I VOWED WHEN I BECAME THE CHIEF, I'LL FIX IT. I'LL TRY TO I'LL TRY TO BRING US UP TO THE MODERN DAYS. AND WE'VE DONE THAT. AND I'M NOT UP HERE CRYING, SAYING THAT WE'RE PROVIDING BAD SERVICE. WE OBVIOUSLY ARE DOING THE OPPOSITE. RIGHT. BUT WE NEED TO KEEP GOING. WE HAVE A BRAND NEW LADDER TRUCK JUST GOT HERE TEN MINUTES AGO. SO EVERYBODY GETS TO SEE THAT. THAT'S REPLACING A 21 YEAR OLD TRUCK, RIGHT? SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED. BUT THE AMBULANCE THAT'S IN THE

[01:10:03]

CHIEF. THANK YOU AND I APPRECIATE THAT. AND THANK YOU FOR BEING ISO NUMBER ONE. YEAH, THAT'S SOMETHING EVERY CITY RESIDENT SHOULD BE PROUD OF. EVERY STAFF MEMBER ALONG, YOU KNOW, THE ENTIRE FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUT EVERY ONE OF US. AND WE THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND THAT WAS A GREAT EXPLANATION OF, YOU KNOW, EVERY DEPARTMENT IS CONSTANTLY IMPROVING AND MAKING PROGRESS. AND THAT SOUNDS LIKE EXACTLY WHAT STUART FIRE HAS BEEN DOING. AND MAYOR, I THINK YOU BRING A GOOD POINT UP. A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY IS JUST PRIORITIZING AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND WHAT OUR PRIORITIES ARE ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS. AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT WHEN WE LOOK AT IT, HOW IT'S DONE AT THE MPO WITH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. SO SOME OF MY PRIORITIES FROM THE 2000 FOOT PERSPECTIVE WOULD BE WHEN I LEFT OFFICE, THE 10TH STREET COMMUNITY CENTERS, ORIGINAL PLANS WERE BASICALLY SHOVEL READY, AND I WOULD PRIORITIZE THAT. I CERTAINLY AGREE, I DON'T WANT TO SCRAP THE SKATE PARK, BUT I. I'M VERY INTERESTED IN COMING BACK WITH, YOU KNOW, TWO OPTIONS AND WHAT THAT WOULD COST IF IT WOULD FREE UP MONEY IN THE CRA. AND WE COULD POTENTIALLY LOOK AT USING STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE BOUNDS OF THE CRA AND ALLOCATING SOME CRA FUNDING FOR THOSE PROJECTS. SO THEY'RE NOT DEFERRED. YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT'S AN OPENING. AND THEN IF THERE'S ANY MONEY FREED UP, I WOULD CLEARLY PRIORITIZE OUR TRIBUTARIES OF THE SAINT LUCIE ESTUARY AND INNOVATIVE WAYS THAT WE CAN CLEAN THOSE UP. YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS MY PRIORITY AND, YOU KNOW, I WOULD ALSO JUST PRIORITIZE KEEPING CITY OF STUART ISO NUMBER ONE. AND REALLY, I DON'T WANT A FIRE DEPARTMENT. SO THAT'S YOUR JOB. MY JOB WOULD BE THE PRIORITY FOR CITY AND COMMISSION WOULD BE THAT WE REMAIN ISO NUMBER ONE. THAT DICTATES THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING.

CORRECT. AND THAT INSURANCE REBATE THAT IT GIVES TO OUR BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS IS A WONDERFUL THING THAT WE AS COMMISSIONERS AND EVERYONE CAN BE PROUD OF. BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF IT MAY BE HELPFUL FOR STAFF, IF WE ALL TOUCH ON THOSE PRIORITIES, BECAUSE YOU MAKE A VERY GOOD POINT ABOUT THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS. AND THAT'S THAT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE. IF THOSE ARE CONTINUED TO DEFERRED, AND PERHAPS THERE IS SOME FUNDING IN THE CRA FOR FOR WHERE THOSE PROJECTS, THE ONES THAT ARE IN THE CRA CAN CAN LIE. WELL, THANK YOU BY THE WAY, WE'RE WE'RE THE ONLY CLASS ONE FIRE DEPARTMENT FROM ORLANDO, THE PALM BEACH. SO WE'RE THE ONLY ONE IN BETWEEN. SAVES TAXPAYERS A LOT. YES. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER RICH. I DON'T KNOW WHO WAS FIRST I WASN'T YOU GUYS CAN DECIDE. YEAH. COMMISSIONER RICH. YEAH THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT THAT'S BEEN MADE HERE IS SO THAT ISO ONE RATING THAT IS THE HIGHEST RATING, THE HIGHEST RATING. AND THE INSURANCE COMPANIES LOOK AT THAT TO DETERMINE THEIR RATES. ABSOLUTELY. FOR THE CITY, FOR THE MUNICIPALITY AS WELL AS THE RESIDENTS. AND HOW LONG HAS THE CITY OF STUART'S FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD THAT HIGHEST RATING SINCE 2019? OKAY. A YEAR AFTER I GOT IN. YEAH. GOOD JOB.

OKAY. AND BY THE WAY, THE TOWN OF SOULS, WE HAVE NOT BEEN CHRONICALLY SHORT, NO CAPABLE FIRE DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE WE HAVE DONE THE RESPONSIBLE THING OVER THE YEARS. AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE WHAT WE ARE. AND JUST AS A NOTE, THE TOWN OF SEWALL'S POINTS UNDER CONTRACT WITH US FOR FIRE RESCUE. AND BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDER CONTRACT, THEY GET THE BENEFITS OF US. SO EVERY HOUSE AND BUSINESS AND SEWELL'S POINT IS A CLASS ONE AS WELL. AND THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY. YEAH. SO IT'S A GREAT IT'S A GREAT THING. THANK YOU CHIEF. OKAY. COMMISSIONER JOB.

YES. AND I WANT TO THANK THE MAYOR FOR BRINGING UP. I WAS GOING TO BRING IT UP EVENTUALLY IN REGARDS TO THE MONIES THAT ARE IN THE BUDGET FOR NOT FOR PROFITS, I SIT ON THE MARTIN COUNTY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT PROBABLY 4 OR 5 MONTHS AGO, THE CITY THE COUNTY ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE WITH THEM. AS YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW, WE DID NOT FUND

[01:15:03]

AND THE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATED FUND. SO THE NON APPROPRIATED STUFF AND ENTERPRISE FUNDS. THESE CAN BE ADJUSTED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND ALLOCATED BASED UPON HOW.

WELL. AND I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT I KNOW THE STATUS OF EACH ONE OF THESE FUNDS, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, OUR OWN BANK ACCOUNT. SO I THINK THE PRIORITIZATION, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION GUIDANCE, MAYOR, IS THAT THE COMMISSION THINK ABOUT THE GENERAL FUND. SO PRIMARILY SALARIES, YOU KNOW, COMPENSATION AND THOSE CONSUMABLE ITEMS, THOSE LINE ITEMS THAT ARE IN QUESTION OR THINGS THAT DO LIKE THE LAST, THE LAST ITEM THAT IS A LEGACY ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE LINED OUT. THOSE THINGS THAT AFFECT THE GENERAL FUND IN THE MILLAGE, THOSE WE'RE ASKING THE OTHER STUFF LIKE CAPITAL, AND I'M NOT TALKING SOMETHING IMMEDIATE, YOU KNOW, AND EARLY 27 AND I, I COULDN'T EVEN SPEAK RIGHT NOW ON WHAT THOSE ARE. BUT I KNOW THAT PETER KNOWS, AND I KNOW THAT MILTON KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT THEY NEED TO DO, YOU KNOW, TO LET A CONTRACT ON OCTOBER 1ST. SO THEY'LL LET ME HEAR IT. BUT THAT THAT'S REALLY WHERE WE ARE.

THE OTHER STUFF THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, MOST OF IT THAT I WROTE DOWN IS AGAIN, AN ENTERPRISE FUND ISSUE, A LONG TERM ISSUE. I THINK I ALREADY GAVE YOU MY THOUGHTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND CREEK. I MEAN, WE'RE HAPPY TO COME BACK. AND IF YOU WANT TO PUT SOME MONEY OR KEEP THE MONEY THE SAME IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL LINE, UNDER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, UNDER THE ATTORNEY, THEN WE COULD COME BACK WITH A IF IF WE DO HAVE SOMETHING VALID TO BRING TO THE TABLE, THAT WE KNOW WHAT THE COSTS ARE, AND WE'RE READY TO ISSUE AN RFP OR WHATEVER THAT IS, WHATEVER PROCUREMENT PROCESS WE'RE GOING TO CHOOSE THAT WE COME TO YOU WITH A SPECIFIC PROJECT, WITH A NUMBER AND A FUNDING SOURCE. HAPPY TO DO THAT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. BUT REALLY, FOR OCTOBER 1ST, I THINK WE JUST NEED TO DECIDE

[01:20:03]

ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL GET A CONSENSUS FROM THAT. I'LL GO DOWN THE LINE. AND THEN, LIKE I SAID, COMMISSIONER MATHESON AGREED WITH RANKING COMMISSIONER JOVI AND THE UNFUNDED PROJECTS AND JUST SETTING PRIORITIES. WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT, THE BEAUTIFICATION STUFF OR THE UNFUNDED PROJECTS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OR DREDGING OF THE CREEKS? SO I GUESS, COMMISSIONER RICH, WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE MILLAGE RATE? SO STAFF KNOWS? FIVE COMMISSIONER JOVI WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT STAY AT FOUR. COMMISSIONER CLARK, I THINK WE CAN WORK WITH FIVE BECAUSE THAT MIDDLE THING THAT SHE HAD PUT UP, I SEE IT AS BEING A A SOMEWHAT OF A SWEET SPOT WHERE WE'RE GETTING MAXIMUM BENEFITS AND THAT EXTRA CUP OF STARBUCKS COFFEE PRICE IS PAYING FOR ITSELF. COMMISSIONER MATHESON YEAH, HAVING, YOU KNOW, JUST JUMPED IN HERE TODAY. I, I BELIEVE EVERYTHING I'VE HEARD SO FAR AND IT'S A TOUGH ONE, HAVING NOT BEEN PART OF ANYTHING LAST YEAR, BUT I I'M OKAY WITH IT AT FIVE. I'D LIKE TO SEE IT AT FOUR NINE, BUT AT LEAST STAFF KNOWS WHAT DIRECTION TO GO IN. SO THANK YOU KATE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR. YES, CITY MANAGER'S WHO'S CONDUCTING OUR AUDIT AND WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THAT ON THAT OR I JUST GOT AN EMAIL TODAY AND I'M GOING TO REFER TO THE EMAIL. BUT KATE AND I DISCUSSED IT THIS MORNING AND WE DISCUSSED IT MAYBE TWICE A WEEK THAT WELL, KATE, WHY DON'T YOU DISCUSS THE FIRM WHERE WE ARE? BECAUSE I JUST GOT AN EMAIL FROM THE LEAD AT THE AUDIT FIRM TODAY, SIR. SO. BUT I'LL LET BECAUSE KATE HAS HAS BEEN ENGAGED WITH THEM NOW ON A DAILY BASIS. I'LL LET HER TAKE IT FROM HERE. YEAH. OUR AUDITS COMPLETED THROUGH FOUR OF US AND WE ARE IN THE FINAL STAGES.

WE GAVE THEM A GOOD PORTION OF ALL THE LAST MINUTE ITEMS THEY WERE ASKING FOR ON FRIDAY. THE FINANCIALS ARE UNDER REVIEW. EVERYTHING THAT WE PROVIDED IS UNDER REVIEW. I DID GET AN EMAIL THIS AFTERNOON FOR A FEW ADDITIONAL FOLLOW UP ITEMS AND VERIFICATIONS, SO WE'LL SEND THAT AS SOON AS WE CAN. BUT ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE AS BEST AS WE CAN BE TO BE ON TRACK FOR THE AUGUST 31ST DEADLINE THAT WE WORKED FOR. THANK YOU. AUGUST 31ST. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER MADISON? YEAH. COMMISSIONER CLARK, THIS IS A QUESTION. WE PROBABLY KNOW WHERE WE ARE, EXCEPT THAT I PROBABLY HAVE FORGOTTEN WITH THE INSURANCE AND THE YEARS THAT WE HAVE THIS CIGNA SINCE THE PRICES ARE GOING UP SO MUCH, WHEN ARE THE NEXT TIME THAT WE CAN FIND SOMEBODY ELSE OR DO SOMETHING ELSE? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOUBLING HERE. WE'VE BEEN WITH CIGNA SINCE 2010. WE DID PUT OUT AN RFP IN 2020 AND THERE WERE FOUR, I BELIEVE, WHO RESPONDED. AND CIGNA ONCE AGAIN CAME THROUGH AS THE ONE THAT PROVIDED THE BEST BENEFIT OVERALL AND COST PRICING THROUGH THE GUERIN GROUP. RIGHT.

GEHRING IS OUR BROKER THERE NOW, BROWN AND BROWN, SO THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ARE ANALYZE, RECEIVE THE INFORMATION AND ANALYZE THE INFO AND PROVIDE IT TO US. IN A COMPARISON, CIGNA HAS OVER TIME REPEATEDLY COME BACK AS ONE OF THE BEST. IN FACT, SEVERAL OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE NOW MOVING TO CIGNA. OUR INCREASE COULD HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE. AROUND THE COUNTRY, WE'RE SEEING 15 TO 30% INCREASES. LOCALLY, WE'RE SEEING 12 TO 20% INCREASES. SO OUR 8.8 WAS PRETTY NOMINAL IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. THAT CONCLUDES YOUR COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER CLARK. MIKE. OKAY. I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE PREVIOUS ISSUE WITH THE AUDIT JUST TO CATCH EVERYBODY UP. IF ONLINE OR PEOPLE WEREN'T AWARE

[01:25:05]

WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT MEDICAL PLANS. WE HAVE BASIC AND BY UP, AND WE TOOK THE SINGLE COVERAGE PLUS A SPOUSE AND TOOK THAT TIMES 8.8%, AND IT WAS ABOUT $30 A MONTH IN A DIFFERENCE TOTAL. THAT WAS A $30 A MONTH. IT'S ABOUT 30, I THINK IT WAS ABOUT ACTUALLY IT WAS A LITTLE LESS THAN THAT. IT WAS A LITTLE LESS THAN THAT. YEAH, IT WAS LESS THAN THAT. THE ACTUAL NUMBERS NOT COMING TO MY HEAD. I COULD PULL IT UP IF EVERY TWOS AND THOSE DEDUCTIONS OCCUR EVERY TWO WEEKS. SO THE ACTUAL COST OF IT WAS VERY NOMINAL, SIMILAR TO THE STARBUCKS CUP OF COFFEE EXPERIENCE VERSUS IT. IF THE CITY EMPLOYEES RECEIVE AN INCREASE IN THEIR BASE PAY, IF THERE IS A COLA, IF THAT IS GRANTED, THAT IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE WHEN YOU DO THE MATH THAN AN 8.8% OF A, AN INSURANCE PREMIUM, IT'S REALLY QUITE NOMINAL. SO THE POINT BEING THAT A 3% COLA INCREASE ON YOUR SALARY IS MUCH LARGER THAN AN 8.8% INCREASE ON WHAT YOU HAD BEEN PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE. AND THAT SHOULD YOU GET A 3% COLA INCREASE IN YOUR PAYCHECK, THAT THAT 8.8% WILL NOT BE AS PAINFUL TO THAT INCREASE. AND THAT WAS THE GAP THAT ROZ SHOWED. I, I FOUND THAT VERY HELPFUL TO EXPLAIN TO STAFF, YOU KNOW, AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON OF WHAT AGAIN, 3.0 INCREASE IS ON YOUR SALARY COMPARED TO 8.8 ON WHAT YOU WERE ALREADY PAYING FOR HEALTH INSURANCE. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND THAT $30 WAS ON A FAMILY PLAN AS IT CAME TO MIND ON A FAMILY PLAN WITH HEAVIER COVERAGE. SO YEAH, IT WAS NOMINAL IN THE IN THE SCHEME. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. JUST ON THAT, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE ISO RATING FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. HOW ARE WE DOING HEALTH WISE ON OUR SAVINGS AND THE PROGRAMS THAT WE DO FOR EMPLOYEES TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE WEALTH, WELLNESS THINGS. I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP. THE HEALTH INSURANCE OVERALL IS A COMBINATION OF THE CIGNA AS OUR ASO, AND THEN WE HAVE THE EMPLOYEE HEALTH CENTER AND WE HAVE THE WELLNESS PROGRAM. AND IN FACT, I MADE A POINT TO THANK THE EMPLOYEES FOR BEING SO RESPONSIBLE IN USING THE EMPLOYEE HEALTH CENTER AND PARTICIPATING IN THE WELLNESS PROGRAMING TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT TO OUR HEALTH INSURANCE. THE INSURANCE IS WONDERFUL.

IT'S A GIFT. WE ALL NEED IT. THANK GOODNESS WE HAVE IT. BUT IF WE CAN AVOID GOING TO SAY, THE EMERGENCY ROOM IF IT ISN'T NECESSARY, AND GOING TO AN URGENT CARE FACILITY OR WAITING UNTIL WE CAN GET TO THE HEALTH CENTER, WE DON'T HAVE A HIT TO THE INSURANCE. THAT'S WHAT KEEPS OUR INCREASES DOWN AT 8.8 VERSUS THE 12 OR 15 OR 20% THAT HAS BEEN SEEN AROUND THE COUNTRY. SO IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO THANK THE EMPLOYEES FOR BEING SO RESPONSIBLE IN TAKING CARE OF OUR CIGNA HEALTH INSURANCE. IT ALL WORKS IF WE CAN PRACTICE A HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE. WE USE THE INSURANCE LESS AND WE HAVE LESS IMPACT, WHICH MEANS LOWER INCREASES.

[01:30:07]

YEAH. THANK YOU. DOES ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS FOR STAFF? I KNOW COMMISSIONER RICH, WHEN YOU WEREN'T HERE, I WENT TO A COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSIONERS. I DIDN'T KNOW IF

[APPROVAL OF AGENDA ]

[COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (Non-Agenda Related) (3 Minutes Max.) ]

OKAY. I MEAN, I, I, I'VE OWNED IN THE CITY OF STUART FOR OVER 30 YEARS. I OWN MULTIPLE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES HERE UNDER MY LLC AND MY PERSONAL. OKAY, HOW MANY TIMES IS THIS PLACE GOING TO BE REMODELED? WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO BE DONE THERE? AND AS FAR AS THE SKATEBOARD PARK, WHAT, WHAT DO WE HAVE THE TRUE NUMBER OF WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO COST BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT NUMBERS OUT THERE. I HEARD 500,000, 700,000. WE ALL KNOW THAT'S NOT THE CORRECT NUMBER. BY THE TIME YOU HAVE CHANGE ORDERS AND EVERYTHING, YOU HAVE ANY CONSTRUCTION FOR 35 YEARS. SO IF NOBODY WANTS TO SKATEBOARD PARK, WHY IS EVERYBODY PUSHING FOR IT? THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT COULD BE UTILIZED WITH THAT SPACE. I'VE WALKED EAST. STEWART, I'VE SPOKE TO THE RESIDENTS THERE DURING YOUR ALL YOUR CAMPAIGNING AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I SPOKE TO THESE PEOPLE. THEY DON'T WANT IT. WHO FROM PALM CITY, PORT SAINT LUCIE, JUPITER, ANYWHERE ELSE IS GOING TO THE SKATEBOARD PARK? YOU ALL KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE A DISASTER FOR THE CITY OF STUART. IT'S GOING TO TAKE UP THE RESOURCES OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. WHEN YOU GOT KIDS HANGING OUT THERE ALL NIGHT LONG, DRINKING OR DOING WHATEVER THE HELL THEY DO THESE DAYS, IT'S GOING TO TURN INTO A WHEAT FACTORY. OKAY, I'M NOT TRYING TO TAKE AWAY PROJECTS. THE PEOPLE THAT WORKED HARD TO DO THIS, BUT IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A 50 OR $100,000 LOSS OPPOSED TO ALMOST A MILLION, MILLION AND A HALF, I MEAN, THINK ABOUT THE REAL NUMBERS ON THIS. NOBODY WANTS THE SKATEBOARD PARK. I SUGGEST THAT YOU ALL MAKE A DECISION. PUT A SPLASH PARK THERE FOR THESE KIDS WHO NEED. STUART HAS POOLS. NOBODY HAS POOLS OVER THERE. IT WOULD BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL WALKED OUT THERE AND YOU ACTUALLY TALK TO THE PEOPLE AND THE RESIDENTS OF STUART, THEY DON'T WANT IT. THEY DON'T NEED IT. HOW MANY KIDS ARE SKATEBOARDING THESE DAYS? HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE YOU GOING TO SEE SKATEBOARDING IN 105 DEGREE REAL TIME AT 3:00 IN THE AFTERNOON WHEN THEY GET OUT OF SCHOOL? YOU ALL KNOW IT'S A MISTAKE. THE PREVIOUS COMMISSIONER WANTED IT. IT WAS HIS BABY, OKAY? AND WE ALL KNOW THAT. YOU ALL KNOW IT. AND THAT'S FACT IN THAT FICTION. AND AS FAR AS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, I'VE NEVER HEARD OF AN ENGINE RUNNING ON TWO PEOPLE WHO RUNS AN ENGINE OR A TRUCK ON TWO ON ON TWO, TWO FIREMEN.

THAT'S ABSURD. SO IF HE NEEDS THREE MEN, HE SHOULD BE GETTING HIS THREE MEN. I JUST DON'T I, I DON'T GET IT. AND AS FAR AS RUTH. RUTH IS EXTREMELY A WONDERFUL ASSET TO THIS COMMUNITY. OKAY. AND ON TOP OF THAT, IF SHE NEEDS IN HOUSE, LIKE YOU SAID, AN IN HOUSE INSTEAD OF HIRING ALL THESE DIFFERENT CONSULTANTS AND ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE THAT COST A FORTUNE, YOU PUT SOMEBODY ON THE PAYROLL IN HOUSE, IT WOULD HELP. AND YOU ALL REALLY, REALLY SERIOUSLY NEED TO CONSIDER THIS SKATEBOARD PARK. THANK YOU, CUZ IT'S OVER. OKAY.

THANKS, DAVE, FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? I HAVE NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT, SEEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.