Sep 14, 2026 Special City Commission

[00:00:01]

MINUTE. WE WILL RECESS. AND WE ARE NOW BACK IN. WE ARE NOW IN THE 515 MEETING. WITH REGARD TO

[ROLL CALL]

COMMISSIONER MATHESON HERE. COMMISSIONER REID HERE, COMMISSIONER RICH HERE. CAN WE FOREGO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE SINCE WE'RE ALREADY IN A MEETING? YES. AND ANY COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS ON THE SPECIFIC 515 AGENDA ITEM? ANYTHING RELATED TO IT? OH, YEAH. I DON'T SUPPORT RAISING TAXES ON OUR CONSTITUENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN WE ARE

[APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

[COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER]

AND WITH THAT, MAYOR, I WILL HAND IT BACK TO YOU. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, BUT I'D LIKE TO TAKE THE ITEMS AND THEN ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. SO IF THE CITY

[1. FINAL MILLAGE FOR FY 2027 (RC): RESOLUTION No. 68-2026; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, OF MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE FINAL LEVYING OF AD VALOREM TAXES FOR THE CITY OF STUART IN MARTIN COUNTY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC WITH REGARD TO RESOLUTION NUMBER 68-20266? MADAM MAYOR, I, I MOVE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 68-2026. IS THERE ANY FINAL MILLAGE IN A SECOND? SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SECOND. AND. YOU READ THE TITLE IS IS MR. COLON HERE OR ANYBODY WILL MENTION AGAIN THE ACTUAL MILLAGE MISTER COOLING COULD YOU COME FORWARD PLEASE. IN CASE YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANTHONY COOLING, BUDGET MANAGER. SO THIS IS THE FINAL LEVYING OF THE AD VALOREM TAXES. COULD YOU JUST STATE THE AMOUNT OF THE. TAX BEING LEVIED, THE AMOUNT OF THE FIVE MILLS. YES. AND THE TOTAL TOTAL LEVY WOULD BE $20,072,642. AND OR SORRY, 20,112,000 $867,000. AND WE'RE REQUIRED TO BUDGET AT 95% TO THAT. THAT COMES OUT TO $19,107,224. THANK YOU. THIS IS MR. MADISON. DO YOU HAVE A

[00:05:12]

IT'S A LITTLE HARDER TO SIT THERE AND LOOK AT STAFF AND SAY, REDUCE THE BUDGET HERE, HERE, HERE. WE DON'T NEED THESE EMPLOYEES, WE DON'T NEED THIS OR THIS. BUT THAT HASN'T HAPPENED. SO I DO SUPPORT THE MILLAGE AS PROPOSED. THANK YOU. AND JUST JUST WITH THAT, MR. COLON, JUST AND AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THE EXACT NUMBERS, BUT WHEN WE WHEN WE DID CHANGE THE MILLAGE TO THE 4.9, WE LOST ABOUT 13 EMPLOYEES. AND WE ALSO HIRED FOUR NEW FIREFIGHTERS. SO WE TRIED TO DO A BALANCE AT THAT TIME WITH LESS. IS THAT CORRECT? THERE WAS A NUMBER OF FROZEN AND DEFUNDED POSITIONS TO MAKE UP FOR THE REDUCTION IN THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY, AND THEN IT WAS ADJUSTED AGAIN UPWARD TO AN EVEN 4.9 IN ORDER TO GET THE THREE ADDITIONAL FIREFIGHTERS.

YEAH, THAT'S THE SHORT VERSION. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION. AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS OTHER COMMISSIONERS? WE'VE HAD COMMISSIONER READ COMMISSIONER MATHESON. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH ANY COMMENTS. THANK YOU, MR. COLON. OUR MAIN PURPOSE FOR TODAY IS TO GIVE THIS FINAL MILLAGE FOR FY 2027 TO THE PUBLIC. DOES THE PUBLIC HAVE ANY COMMENTS, THE CITY MANAGER OR CITY MANAGER? I ALSO WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT IT'S BEEN THE LEGAL OPINION THAT FLORIDA STATUTE 200.065 WILL REQUIRE A TWO THIRDS VOTE, WHICH WILL BE FOR MEMBERS OF OUR COMMISSION. OKAY, SO WE NEED FOUR MEMBERS OF OUR COMMISSION TO PASS THE FINAL MILLAGE RATE FOR FY 2027 AT FIVE MILLS FOR THE CITY OF STUART. AND MR. COLON, COULD YOU COME UP AGAIN, PLEASE? WE'VE HAD BUDGET WORKSHOP AND NOT EVERYBODY WAS AT THE BUDGET WORKSHOP. BUT IN ESSENCE, IT WILL ON AVERAGE, PROPERTY OF ABOUT 250,000 WILL PAY ABOUT ANYWHERE FROM $5.20 TO UP TO $31 OR SO MORE ON THEIR PROPERTY FOR THE ANNUAL FOR THE YEAR. THE EXAMPLE THAT WAS GIVEN AT THE BUDGET WORKSHOPS AND AT THE TENTATIVE HEARING WERE FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON'S MIDDLE CLASS PERSON WITH THE $250,000 HOUSE, THE ASSESSED VALUE OF PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF STUART INCREASED ROUGHLY 3%.

YOUR PARTICULAR HOUSE MIGHT GO UP MORE THAN 3%, SOMEBODY MIGHT BE ASSESSED LESS. SO THIS IS KIND OF AN ESTIMATE. SO YOU WOULD BE PAYING AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BEING GOING UP ABOUT 3%. AND THEN IF THE MILLAGE STAYED AT 4.9 AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 4.9 AND 5.0 PER MONTH FOR SOMEBODY WHOSE PROPERTY WAS WAS $250,000 AND INCREASED 3% COMES OUT TO $5.21 A MONTH. AND THE EXAMPLE COMPARATIVE TO A TO A, A STARBUCKS FROU FROU DRINK, I DON'T KNOW, THE STARBUCKS COMES OUT TO LIKE $5.68. SO THE COST PER MONTH FOR A STARBUCKS DRINK PER MONTH IS MORE THAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 4.9 AND 5.0 MILLS. FOR AN AVERAGE MIDDLE CLASS HOME AND THE. THE. THE ABSOLUTE AMOUNT I THINK IT'S 319,000. THAT WAS THE INCREASE THE VALUE, THE INCREASE BETWEEN THE POINT THE THE POINT ONE MILLAGE RATE, THE THE DIFFERENCE IN PROPERTY TAXES THAT WE WOULD GET BETWEEN 4.9 AND 5.0 IS SOMETHING LIKE 382,000. MR. $382,144 LESS CRA. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND ALSO, MR. COLON, SINCE IT'S THE FINAL HEARING AND PEOPLE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN HERE FOR THE THE PUBLIC

[00:10:04]

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. WE ARE HERE ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 68, 2026. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE EITHER PUT IN A GREEN CARD OR WOULD NOW LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE FINAL MILLAGE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027? MAYOR, CLERK, I HAD MY LIGHT ON. OH, COMMISSIONER, THAT WAS MADISON INTERIM CITY MANAGER JIM TROTSKY. COULD YOU CONFIRM THE TWO THIRDS VOTE? CERTAINLY. TWO THIRDS VOTE WOULD BE. TWO THIRDS. VOTE WOULD REPRESENT 3.33 OUT OF FIVE. AND THAT WOULD NECESSITATE US TO BEING ABLE TO HAVE A REQUIRED NUMBER OF FOUR PEOPLE WHO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MILLAGE RATE. SO IF THIS MOTION DIDN'T GET FOUR YAYS, THE MOTION WOULD FAIL. WOULD IT ROLL THE MILLAGE BACK TO 4.9 THEN? IS THAT A STATE STATUTE THING? IT WOULD YOU WOULD NEED TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON EITHER ITEM 5.0 OR 4.9, OR IT WOULD BE THE ROLLBACK TO LAST FISCAL YEARS. RIGHT. BUT THE RATE OF NOT MORE THAN 110% OF THE ROLLBACK RATE MAY BE ADOPTED IF APPROVED BY A TWO THIRDS VOTE OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY OR INDEPENDENT DISTRICT. OKAY.

THANKS. THANK YOU. MR. COLON, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ANY HIGHLIGHT ON THAT LEGAL. I HAVE NOTHING, MA'AM. THANK YOU. CITY CLERK. I HAVE NO COMMENTS. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO CALL THE ROLL? YES, COMMISSIONER. JOB. NO. COMMISSIONER REED. NO. COMMISSIONER. RICH. YES.

COMMISSIONER. MATHESON. YES. MAYOR. CLARK. YES. SO WE HAVE A THREE TWO VOTE ON THE MILLAGE RATE FOR THE CITY OF STUART AT 5% FOR THE TOTAL BUDGET AND FOR POTENTIAL GROWTH IN THE MILLAGE OF ABOUT $380,000. THAT WHAT THE MILLAGE REFLECTS IN DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR THE BUDGET AND BASED ON THE STATUTE, LEGAL AND CITY MANAGER, COULD YOU PLEASE LIST THAT OUT AGAIN SO THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT IF THIS IS THIS DOESN'T PASS IN A CERTAIN MANNER WITH THE STATE, THAT THE WHAT HAPPENS WITH OUR MILLAGE RATE AND WHAT IS OUR NEXT MOTION AFTER THIS? IT'S MY OPINION THAT THE ROLLBACK RATE WOULD STILL NEED TO BE VOTED BY MAJORITY VOTE. THE.

ANYTHING HIGHER, I KNOW 4.9 WAS CONSIDERED AND FIVE ZERO. BOTH OF THOSE WOULD REQUIRE FOUR VOTES. SO THERE COULD STILL BE A MOTION FOR 4.9. THERE COULD BE A MOTION 4.95. BUT WE WE WE NEED A VOTE TONIGHT. YES. WHAT WAS THE MILLAGE. WAS IT 4.9 OR WAS LESS THAN 4.9. IT WAS PROPOSED TODAY AS 5.0. THE LAST YEAR WAS 4.9. GOTCHA. BUT IF YOU GO TO 4.9 WE STILL NEED A FOUR ZERO VOTE. IF YOU GO TO ANY OTHER NUMBER ABOVE THE ROLLBACK MILLAGE, WE NEED A FOUR FOUR COMMISSIONER VOTE POSITIVE VOTE. WHAT IS THE ROLLBACK RATE? JIM'S GOT 7497.

ROLLBACK RATE IS 4.7499. SO WHY DON'T SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS PROPOSE SOME CUTS TO THE BUDGET IN A MOTION. THAT'S WHAT WILL HAPPEN. MORE PEOPLE WILL LOSE THEIR JOBS. AND IT'S ABOUT

[00:15:06]

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER REED. COMMISSIONER RICH. YEAH. MANY COMMISSION'S FIND THEMSELVES WITH ONLY FOUR PEOPLE, AND IT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST. AND IT IS THE REQUIREMENT SIMPLY THAT THE MEETING CONTINUE UNTIL SOMEONE CONCEDES AND ALLOWS. YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T SAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A THREE TWO VOTE. IT SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE THREE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES. AND WE ONLY NEEDED TO BE MADE AWARE OF THAT. AND SOMEONE SAID, OKAY, THE MILLAGE IS NOT TO EXCEED FIVE OR WHATEVER IT WAS, BUT NO ONE SEEMED NO ONE WAS AWARE OF THAT AT THAT TIME. AND THUS THE ERROR WAS MADE. AND WE FIND OURSELVES IN THIS SITUATION. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER RICH.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE FINAL MILLAGE RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027 THAT HAS. NOW WE HAVE WE HAVE IT AT FIVE MILLS, AND WE'VE HEARD THE INCREASE. WE'VE HEARD THE VOTE. AND WE HAVE TO ADOPT A MILLAGE RATE TODAY. SO BECAUSE OF OUR ADVERTISEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER THINGS. SO WE NEED FROM OUR COMMISSION BOARD PROPOSAL WITH REGARD TO MILLAGE. MADAM MAYOR. YES, SIR. WE ALSO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR OUR BUDGET IS BALANCED AS WELL. YES, SIR. OKAY. AND IF WE HAVE A LESSER MILLAGE OF 4.7 VERSUS 4.9 OR 5.0 IN THE MILL, THAT WILL ALSO. AND WE'VE HAD BUDGET WORKSHOPS AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS, AND APPARENTLY WE'RE AT SOME TYPE OF FILIBUSTER TODAY, MADAM MAYOR. YES, SIR. I DON'T ACTUALLY EAT CAKE, BUT I GUESS SOME OF US WANT TO HAVE OUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. THE THE POINT OF THIS PROCESS IS TO HAVE THOSE WORKSHOPS AND FOR US TO SIT UP HERE AND LIST STUFF THAT WE'D LIKE TO CUT AND SAY IN A MAJORITY VOTE, WHETHER THEY'RE TWO OF US SITTING UP HERE OR FIVE OF US, HOW WE'D LIKE TO CHANGE AND DIRECT STAFF. WE'VE HAD ONE MEETING WHERE THERE WAS A 4 TO 0, 4 TO 1 VOTE ON A MILLAGE RATE OF 5.0. WE'VE HAD TWO OTHER BUDGET WORKSHOPS WHERE NOT ONE OF US MADE A MOTION TO REDUCE THE BUDGET. WE HAVE IN THE BUDGET AS BALANCED THREE NEW FIREFIGHTERS AND THE PROPOSAL FOR SIX NEW CITY EMPLOYEES. AND WE AS A COMMISSION, HAVE AGREED TO ANALYZE OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS IN THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR AND PRIORITIZE THEM. WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT BY THE STATE TO PASS A BALANCED BUDGET BEFORE OCTOBER 1ST, AND WE'RE THE SECOND OF TWO MEETINGS

[00:20:05]

AND HAVING YOUR CAKE AND EATING IT TOO, IS SITTING UP HERE AND SAYING, I AGREE WITH ALL THE THINGS PROPOSED IN THE BUDGET. BUT I WANT TO HAVE IT CUT. AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN HAVE OUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO, SITTING UP HERE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MATHESON, COMMISSIONER RICH. SO, MR. CITY MANAGER, WOULD WE HAVE TO AGREE TO SPECIFIC CUTS OR JUST SAY, TAKE $400,000 OUT? WELL, I MEAN, IF WE GO TO ROLLBACK, WE'RE CLOSER TO 900,000. YEAH. WE WOULD JUST SAY SLASH THE BUDGET WE NEED TO BE IF WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 4.9, IF THAT WAS WHERE YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO GO WITH THIS THING, THEN WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO CUT THE BUDGET BY $382,144 LESS.

THE CRA DO WE HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC OR WE JUST. YES. YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY SOME THINGS. ANTHONY, COULD YOU COME UP, PLEASE, PLEASE. ANTICIPATING THAT THIS COULD BE AN ISSUE? THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT HAS IDENTIFIED A FEW THINGS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

SO THE THE WAY THE THE CRA TRANSFER IS CALCULATED AS THE INCREASE IN THE INCREMENT. AND SO THAT'S GOING TO BE A TRIVIAL AMOUNT. AND JUST FOR EASE AND SIMPLICITY, I. THE THE POINT ONE DIFFERENCE OF THE INCREMENT THAT THE CRA PROPERTY INCREASED IS A SMALLER AMOUNT. AND I WOULD. I WOULD SUGGEST IF WE'RE GOING TO LINE ITEM AND AMEND THINGS ON HERE, WE DON'T TRY TO CALCULATE OUT ON THE FLY THAT CRA AMOUNT AND JUST. WE WOULD REDUCE IT BY THE 382 144 BECAUSE THE CRA BASICALLY IS FUNDED BY A TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE CRA FOR THE PROPERTY TAX AMOUNT. SO WE WOULD JUST WE WOULD REDUCE THAT TRANSFER BY A CERTAIN AMOUNT, AND THAT WOULD BALANCE THE BUDGET. WELL, THAT THAT WOULD LEAVE US JUST DECIDING THE $382,144 WITHOUT TRYING TO CALCULATE ON THE FLY A SMALL REDUCTION FOR THE TRANSFER TO THE CRA. AND THAT WOULD STILL KEEP THE THE THREE NEW FIREFIGHTERS AND THE SIX NEW POSITIONS. THE ESTIMATE FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS IS ABOUT 320,000 FOR THE PAY AND BENEFITS FOR THOSE COSTS, THE OTHER THREE POSITIONS, 98,000 FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. THIS IS PAYING BENEFITS, 85,000 FOR THE MAINTENANCE MECHANIC AND ABOUT 78,000 FOR THE GROUNDSKEEPER.

THE THREE OTHER POSITIONS THE STORMWATER TEAM LEADER AND THE WATER PLANT OPERATOR TRAINEES.

THOSE ARE IN THE THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS, THE BUSINESS FUNDS. AND SO ANY REDUCTION IN THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY WOULD NOT AFFECT THOSE THREE POSITIONS. SO IT WOULD BE JUST BASICALLY THE THREE FIREFIGHTERS AND THREE OTHER GENERAL FUND POSITIONS. IF YOU WERE GOING TO GO THERE TO BALANCE THE BUDGET. AS FOR THE SUGGESTION TO BALANCE THE BUDGET, BASICALLY BY SPENDING DOWN OUR OPERATING FUND BALANCE, THAT WOULD BE YOUR DECISION TO MAKE. WE ALREADY, IN DEVELOPING THE BUDGET AT FIVE MILS, PLAN TO DO THAT BY ROUGHLY 400 000. 800 000 TOTAL, 400,000. BECAUSE WE HAD THE MONEY ALREADY FOR ONE OF THE AMBULANCES. BUT JUST DO A DELAY IN THE MANUFACTURE. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DELIVER IT TILL OCTOBER 1ST. AND THEN WE HAD PLANNED, RATHER THAN GETTING A BANK LOAN FOR THAT SECOND AMBULANCE, THAT WILL BE DELIVERED AT THE SAME TIME BY THE MANUFACTURER TO GET OUT ANOTHER 400,000. SO THE BUDGET ALREADY REQUIRES THE USE OF $800,000 IN IN FUND RESERVE, 400,000, YOU KNOW, NEW MONEY TAKING IT FROM THE BACK POCKET AND THEN 400,000 THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALREADY GOT IT RIGHT BECAUSE WE GOT THE LOAN MONEY AND WE WOULD BE JUST SPENDING THAT. SO RIGHT NOW, THERE'S PROBABLY ROUGHLY, WE DON'T KNOW THE 2026 AMOUNTS, BUT THERE'S ROUGHLY 6 MILLION IN UNALLOCATED FUND RESERVE IN THE GENERAL FUND AND ANOTHER 2.5 MILLION IN READY CASH INVESTMENTS. THE BUDGET POLICIES THAT WERE PASSED IN 2026 REQUIRE A 90 DAY OPERATING RESERVE. THAT'S ROUGHLY ROUGHLY $8 MILLION IN 2020, $6 IN 2028. THE BUDGET POLICIES REDUCE THAT

[00:25:14]

WELL THANK YOU ANTHONY. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BUDGET WORKSHOPS, COMMISSIONER RICH REMINDED ALL OF US THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE IN DIRE STRAITS BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, WHICH IS VERY TRUE. SO THIS BUDGET WILL HAVE TO BE AMENDED DEPENDING ON THAT ELECTION ANYWAY. SO THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH ANY ACTUALLY WE WE WE'RE AT A STANDSTILL RIGHT NOW. THIS IS OUR STATUS. WE HAD A MOTION. AND THAT MOTION WAS A THREE TWO VOTE. AND WE NEED FOUR PERSONS TO VOTE FOR THE CURRENT RESOLUTION NUMBER 6826. SO THAT THAT IS THE VOTE. BUT IT IS NOT THE VOTE. THAT'S SUFFICIENT TO BE SENT TO THE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR THE APPROVAL OF A MILLAGE RATE FOR THE CITY OF STUART. SO WE DO NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER MOTION ON THE APPROVAL OF A MILLAGE RATE. AND BEFORE WE HEAR THAT MOTION, I JUST WANTED TO ASK MR. COOLEN TO JUST RESPOND TO THIS. MAY IT JUST BE A CONFIRMATION. YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT 98,000 FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND IF WE DID SOMETHING LIKE APPROVE THE.

JUST IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE. IF WE APPROVE THE CHICKEN ORDINANCE AND WE HAD TO HAVE MORE CODE ENFORCEMENT, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HAVING CODE ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER THINGS IN THE BUDGET, THEN, YOU KNOW, THOSE KIND OF THINGS WOULD BE NOT AVAILABLE. AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE AS MUCH CODE ENFORCEMENT, BECAUSE THAT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE ONES THAT MAY GET CHANGED OR CUT, DEPENDING ON HOW WE SLIDE THINGS ONE WAY TOWARDS CRA OR DEPENDING ON HOW WE'RE SLIDING.

BUT I'M JUST BRINGING THIS UP THAT ALL OF THESE THINGS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. ALL OF OUR OUR VOTES HAVE CONSEQUENCES. WE'VE SEEN THAT WITH THE VOTES THAT HAVE HAPPENED, THE VOTES THAT CHANGED OUR CITY MANAGER, THE VOTES, THAT'S PROBABLY BRINGING BACK ANOTHER CITY MANAGER. ALL OF THOSE COST THE CITY OF STUART MONEY. AND SO EVERYTHING HAS CONSEQUENCES. AND WHEN WE VOTE ON THIS MILLAGE RATE TODAY, IT HAS CONSEQUENCES FOR EACH TAXPAYER AND ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE EMPLOYED BY THE CITY OF STUART AND WHO ARE IN ARE CURRENTLY INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET THEY'VE HAD. HOW MANY HAVE WE HAD? 3 OR 4 AT LEAST FROM APRIL UNTIL NOW. WE'VE HAD BUDGET WORKSHOPS AND TWO BUDGET WORKSHOPS AND ATTENTIVE, TENTATIVE BUDGET HEARING. AND WE HAVE THESE TWO TODAY. JUST TO CLARIFY THAT 98,000 IS THE PAY AND BENEFITS COST FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER POSITION THAT IS BUILT INTO THE BUDGET. THE CURRENT BUDGET? YEAH. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE CITY OF STUART REGARDING MISS JOB? COMMISSIONER JOB.

THANK YOU. WE'RE LOOKING FOR PLACES TO CUT THE CITY LEASES OUT. QUITE A BIT OF PROPERTY FOR RIDICULOUS AMOUNTS. AND WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THAT LIST. AND AT LEAST HAVING OUR CITY PROPERTY BE PROFITABLE. I MEAN, IT'S JUST A THERE'S A LIST. AND THE AMOUNTS THAT CORRELATE TO RENTS THAT THAT WE'RE GETTING THAT WE ARE GETTING IS JUST NOT ESPECIALLY IN DOWNTOWN STUART WHERE RENT IS SO HIGH. WE'RE LEASING OUT PROPERTY FOR WAY BELOW MARKET VALUE. AND WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THAT. THAT WOULD BE A GREAT WAY TO ENHANCE PROFIT INTO THE CITY AND MONIES.

THANK YOU. THANKS. THAT'S NOT HERE AT THIS TIME. OKAY. JUST TO SPEAK TO THAT POINT, THE

[00:30:08]

THANK YOU. I HAVE A COMMENT WITH REGARD TO THIS ITEM. LEGAL. THIS ITEM IS SET. SPECIAL IS SET FOR 515. IF WE IF WE TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL AFTER ITEM NUMBER 12. I HEAR THAT COMMISSIONER RICH SAYS THAT WE HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE BUDGET WHEN WE HAD OUR PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER. IS THERE ANY WAY LEGAL THAT THIS ITEM COULD POSSIBLY BE TABLED? AND LET'S HEAR SOMETHING FROM OUR POTENTIAL. NO, NO, WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS HEARING. WE NEED WE NEED TO VOTE YES. WE NEED A MOTION. THANK YOU. WHETHER IT'S A DIFFERENT NUMBER, THAT NUMBER WITH FOUR VOTES. JUST WANT TO BRING IT UP IF IT IS OKAY, MADAM MAYOR. YES, SIR. I'M GOING TO TRY TO SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE HERE. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY NO THOUGHT HAS GONE INTO HOW THIS BUDGET IS GOING TO GET BALANCED UP HERE ON THE DAIS. I PROPOSE A MILLAGE RATE OF 4.95. THERE'S A MOTION FOR MILLAGE RATE OF 4.95. SO WE'RE WE'RE WE HAD INCREASED FROM 4.9 TO 5.04 .95. IS THERE A SECOND. I MEAN CAN WE HAVE A SECONDED FOR DISCUSSION. FOR DISCUSSION.

OKAY. SO THERE'S A MOTION FOR 4.95 AND A SECOND. I WOULD NOT EVEN TRY TO ASK MR. COOLEN IF HE HAD DONE A POTENTIAL FOR. ACTUALLY, WE WERE PREPARED. I'D LIKE TO THANK MR. WILLIAM PEREZ, WHO HAS A A TABLE WHERE WE GOT IT OUT BY TENTHS AND HUNDREDTHS. SO 4.95 WOULD BE A REDUCTION OF $201,120 THAT WE'D HAVE TO EITHER SPEND FROM OUR ALLOCATED FUND RESERVE OR REDUCE POSITIONS, OR TAKE A GAMBLE WITH OUR INSURANCE THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE BIG CLAIMS. THERE'S ALL SORTS OF WAYS WE COULD BALANCE THE BUDGET, BUT IT'S PROGRAMMATIC DECISIONS.

BUT THERE'S A WALL BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, STAFF AND THE POLITICAL DECISIONS FROM THIS FROM THIS COMMISSION. THANK YOU. SO THERE'S A MOTION, A SECOND AND THERE'S DISCUSSION. THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION. SO NO ONE WILL MAKE A MOTION. OF SAYING SOMETHING TO CUT. YOU'VE GOT THREE COMMISSIONERS UP HERE THIS FAR INTO THE BUDGET PROCESS. THERE'S A MOTION TO HAVE THE MILLAGE RATE AT 4.95. IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MATHESON FOR DISCUSSION. I'M ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER JOB CLARK. MATH READ RICH MATHESON AND WE HAVE MR. RICH AND MR. AND MR. MATHESON COMMISSIONER SO COMMISSIONER MR. BAGGETT YOU SAY WE HAVE TO BUDGET WE HAVE TO BALANCE IT. SO ITEM NUMBER TWO IS THE BUDGET ACTUALLY. SO DO WE HAVE TO BUDGET IT BEFORE WE AGREE ON THE MILLAGE. OR CAN WE BALANCE IT AFTER WE AGREE ON THE MILLAGE. AND THEN LOOK AT YEAH, I CONSIDER THE BUDGET. I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO COMBINE IT, BUT YOU CAN'T. I THINK YOU NEED TO VOTE ON THE MILLAGE, BUT YOU GOT TO CONSIDER WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT IN THE BUDGET. I WENT ON THE BUDGET ITEM. I DON'T THINK IT'S AS CRUCIAL, BUT AND ALSO YOU ONLY NEED A THREE TWO VOTE ON THE BUDGET, RIGHT. WHEREAS THIS UNDER THE STATUTE, YOU NEED A FOUR RIGHT, FOUR PERSON VOTE. I MEAN I MEAN THE ONLY SUGGESTED CUT WAS INCREASING THE REVENUE FROM THE LEASING. SO. IT'S A PREDICAMENT. COMMISSIONER MATHESON. SO YEAH, WE HAVE ONE SUGGESTION OF CUTTING WHICH IS CHANGING LEASING OR LEASE PROPERTY. MR. BAGGETT. ARE OUR PROPERTIES THAT ARE LEASED CURRENTLY UNDER EXISTING LEASES

[00:35:04]

AND ALL THE PROPERTY THAT THE CITY LEASES OUT IS TRIPLE NET LEASE. SO THEN THEY GO BACK WITH THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE PROPERTIES GO BACK ON THE TAX ROLL AT A HIGHER RATE, WHICH BRINGS IN MORE MONEY TO THE CITY ON THE TAX ROLL, NOT TO MENTION JUST THE PRICE OF THE LEASE THAT THEY'RE PAYING. AND WHEN YOU DO A LONG TERM LEASE, TYPICALLY YOU'RE AT MARKET VALUE. SAY YOU DO A LEASE FOR TEN YEARS. AND TYPICALLY THE LESSOR HAS THE ADVANTAGE IN THE BEGINNING OF THAT TEN YEARS. AND ON YEARS EIGHT AND NINE, THE LEASEE HAS THE ADVANTAGE UNTIL THE LEASE IS RENEGOTIATED. BUT THE CITY IS IN EVEN MORE OF AN ADVANTAGE BECAUSE WE DO TRIPLE NET LEASES AND THE LESSOR IS PAYING THE TAXES ON PROPERTY THAT THEY'VE IMPROVED.

NONETHELESS, THE CITY COMMISSION HAS TO DECIDE SOMETHING RIGHT NOW, AND HAVING AN APPRAISER COME IN AND EVALUATE OUR LEASED PROPERTY IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT DECISION. FROM WHAT I HEARD, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO LOOK AT THE PROPOSAL FOR THE NEW HIREES, AND WE HAVE THREE COMMISSIONERS UP HERE THAT SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDED BUDGET OF FIVE MILLS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSED NEW HIREES AND TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO DO NOT, AND THE THREE FIREFIGHTERS. ARE THE NUMBER. MR. COOLING'S AT 320 000 PLUS OR SO, AND WE'RE TRYING TO COME UP WITH 290 OR. NOW. PRIOR TO THAT WAS 380. IF WE GO BACK TO 4.9 MILLS. AND AGAIN, WE HAVE THREE COMMISSIONERS UP HERE AND WE HAD FOUR LAST MEETING WHO SUPPORTED THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS UP HERE AT THE ENTIRE BUDGET PROCESS WHO HAVE ONE TIME MADE A MOTION TO CUT THE PROPOSED BUDGET. LET THEM ALL EAT CAKE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MATHESON. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS ON THE MOTION TO HAVE THE MILLAGE RATE FOR THE CITY OF STUART BE 4.95? LET'S GO TO THE PUBLIC. ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? YES, I HAVE ALTHEA WILEY. MISS WILEY, PLEASE COME FORWARD. GOOD EVENING. I'M ALTHEA WILEY. COULD YOU SPEAK UP FOR US? ALTHEA WILEY, STUART.

RESIDENTS. CONGRATULATIONS. BUT JUST JUST SITTING HERE. WE'VE THERE'S A WEB THAT'S BEEN CREATED HERE. YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS RUNNING CAMPAIGN, MY CAMPAIGN WAS BEHIND EVERY ISSUE.

THERE ARE PEOPLE. THERE ARE PEOPLE. SO WHATEVER'S HAPPENING UP HERE, YOU GOTTA FIGURE IT OUT BECAUSE THERE'S PEOPLE BEHIND EVERY DECISION. AND YOU GOTTA ASK YOURSELF WHY YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD AND WHY YOU WANT TO HOLD BACK. THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU, BECAUSE ALL OF YOU UP THERE ARE PROBABLY PRETTY WELL. OKAY. BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE BEHIND THESE DECISIONS, AND YOU REALLY HAVE TO SIT WITH YOURSELF AND ASK YOURSELF, WHY AM I HOLDING OUT? IS IT PERSONAL? IS IT A GET BACK? I'M JUST GOING TO BE REAL. IS IT A GET BACK? WE GOT PEOPLE OUT HERE THAT WILL BECOME CASUALTIES OF THIS DECISION. DON'T DO IT FOR ANY PERSONAL REASON OTHER THAN WHAT'S RIGHT. WHEN YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION, YOU LOOK AT HOW IS IT GOING TO AFFECT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU. IT'S ABOUT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. IS IT GOING TO BE GOOD OR IS IT GOING TO BE BAD? WE HAVE PEOPLE COMING HERE, WE

[00:40:10]

THERE ARE PLENTY OF THINGS THAT COULD BE MADE ABOUT US INDIVIDUAL, BUT HOW IS IT GOING TO AFFECT THE PEOPLE? AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SITTING HERE REPRESENTING. PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE OTHER THAN YOUR FEELINGS AND OTHER THAN YOURSELF. THANK YOU, MISS WILEY.

MR. MATHESON, DID YOU HAVE YOUR LIGHT ON? NO. SORRY. NO. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC? YES, I HAVE ONE. MAYOR AUSTIN LEVY. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSION. AND FIRST, SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. YES, MA'AM. AUSTIN LEVI, LEGISLATIVE VICE PRESIDENT, LOCAL 2411. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE VOTING REQUIREMENT IS CLEAR. FLORIDA STATUTE 200.065 ESTABLISHES SPECIFIC VOTING THRESHOLDS FOR ADOPTING A MILLAGE RATE ABOVE THE ROLLBACK RATE. THE ROLLBACK RATE IS APPROXIMATELY 4.74 MILLS, AND THE PROPOSED RATE IS 5.0 MILLS, WHICH IS ABOUT 5.5% ABOVE THE ROLLBACK RATE. IF THERE'S ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT TO ADOPT THE 5.0 MILLS. THE CITY NEEDS TO FOLLOW THE VOTING REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE 20.065. OTHERWISE, I WOULD ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CLARIFY AND STATE ON THE RECORD WHAT VOTE IS LEGALLY REQUIRED BASED ON THE ROLLBACK RATE AND THE APPLICABLE APPLICABLE MAXIMUM MILLAGE CALCULATION BEFORE ANOTHER VOTE IS TAKEN? IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT TAKES A 4 TO 5 VOTE TO APPROVE AN INCREASE AT 110%, AND A FIVE OUT OF FIVE VOTE TO INCREASE ANYTHING GREATER THAN 110%. THANK YOU SIR. I'LL ALLOW THE CITY ATTORNEY TO RESPOND IF HE IF HE'S ABLE TO. YOU MUST HAVE MISSED IT. WE ALREADY ADDRESSED IT. IT'S A FOUR OUT OF FIVE VOTE FOR A FIVE ZERO MILLS, WHICH WAS THE FIRST VOTE, 4.95.

SAME. WE NEED A FOUR OUT OF FIVE VOTE. THANK YOU. NEXT I HAVE DAVID COLEMAN. MR. COLEMAN.

SO I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION HERE. A FEW WEEKS AGO WHEN THIS BUDGET WAS DISCUSSED. OKAY. AND THIS WHOLE MICHAEL MORTEL WAS BEING BROUGHT BACK, OKAY. AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, THREE FIREMEN GOING TO BE CUT OUT OF A BUDGET. FROM WHAT I'M LISTENING TO, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE I JUST GOT HERE. I JUST CAME UP FROM THE SOUTH. OKAY, WELL, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HIRE THREE NEW FIREMEN. IS THAT BECAUSE MR. MORTEL DISLIKES THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? BECAUSE THAT'S A KNOWN FACT. THAT'S NOT FICTION. I'M NOT SITTING HERE TRYING TO BELITTLE ANYBODY OR DO ANYTHING WRONG. BUT THERE ARE WAYS TO FIX THIS, THIS BUDGET, OTHER THAN EAT YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. NONSENSE. COMMENTS. THAT'S RIDICULOUS. THERE'S A THERE'S WAYS THAT YOU COULD GO OVER THIS BUDGET WHERE THINGS COULD STILL BE DONE WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING FIRE RESCUE OR POLICE DEPARTMENT OR ANY OTHER THING. I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS YOU COULD DO IT. I MEAN, YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEND $500,000 TO PUT UP NEW SIGNS OVER IN CONFUSION CORNER.

FOR WHAT REASON? FOR WHAT REASON IS THAT? WHETHER IT'S WHAT FUND THAT COMES FROM, IT'S 500 GRAND GOING FOR SIGNAGE. YOU SPEND MONEY EVERYWHERE THAT YOU WANT TO SPEND, BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN WE CAN'T GET, YOU KNOW, RAISE THE TAXES. WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? YOU CAN'T GO UP A LITTLE BIT ON THE TAXES. WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? YOU SPEND $20 A MONTH EXTRA. IF IT GETS THE FIREMEN, IT GETS OUR BUDGET BACK TO TO WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. YOU GUYS ARE COMMISSIONERS. AND LIKE I TOLD YOU AT THE LAST MEETING THAT WE'RE BEING MOCKED HERE. AND IT'S IT'S EMBARRASSING. AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH NONE OF US BUT TO SIT UP HERE AND, AND NOBODY COULD COME TO A COMPROMISE. COMMISSIONER RICH, FIRST TIME I'M SEEING HIM, LIKE, SMIRKING UP THERE RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS ACTUALLY FANTASTIC. YOU KNOW, I YOU GUYS GOTTA DO SOMETHING. I MEAN, YOU YOU GOT ATTORNEY HERE. YOU GOT A CITY AND CITY MANAGER TEMPORARILY.

AND THEN YOU HAVE OUR FUTURE CITY MANAGER COMING BACK WHENEVER YOU'RE DOING THAT.

OKAY. SO WAS THIS BUDGET DISCUSSED WITH HIM AT SOME POINT? I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW THAT. WAS IT DISCUSSED WITH HIM? AND THEN HE SAW THREE NEW FIRES FIRE, FIRE RESCUE FOR ON THE BUDGET FOR HIRE OR WHAT DID YOU SAY, CODE ENFORCEMENT OR, OR THE OTHER HIRES? YOU GUYS GOTTA DO SOMETHING, MAN. I MEAN, IT'S GETTING TO THE POINT. IT'S RIDICULOUS. THANK YOU, MR. KELLMAN. CLERK I HAVE NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT, MAYOR. WE HAVE ONE. COMMISSIONER HAS A COMMENT. COMMISSIONER JOB, COULD I HAVE ANTHONY ADDRESS THAT? BECAUSE I THINK WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE BUDGET AT THE NINE THE 4.95. YES. YEAH. YOU WERE ABLE TO KEEP THE FIREMEN,

[00:45:06]

BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT IF YOU DIRECT US, WE WE COULD DO IT. THANK YOU. MR. SORRY, I DON'T I DON'T MEAN TO BE YOU KNOW. MR. COMMISSIONER JOE HAS A QUESTION. OKAY. NOT A QUESTION. YES, MA'AM. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IS THAT 9.4.95 IS A COMPROMISE, AND WE'RE ABLE TO DO IT WITHOUT SLASHING ACROSS THE BOARD. AND AS I'VE SAID SEVERAL TIMES, WE'RE NOW TALKING ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN 2028. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN NOVEMBER. I MEAN, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT. AND I DO AGREE AT THAT SENSE, NOT IN THE DIRE STRAITS THAT COMMISSIONER REED, COMMISSIONER RICH DOES, BUT WE DO NEED TO BE COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT VOTE WILL GO. AND IF THAT VOTE GOES YES OR NO, THAT'S GOING TO DETERMINE US BACK AT THE TABLE ANYWAY, REDOING THE BUDGET. BUT I THINK 4.95 IS A GOOD COMPROMISE. CITY MANAGER, COMMISSIONER JOB IN THE GREATEST RESPECT, I DID SOME RESEARCH ON AMENDMENT THREE, AND THOSE REVENUES ARE DONE IN ADVANCE. SO THAT WOULDN'T HAVE NO IMPACT ON THIS NEXT FISCAL YEAR. SO IF IT'S 2028 CORRECT. SO THEN WE'LL BE DEALING WITH 2028. THEN. MAYOR, I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT. MISS STOUDEMIRE. OR IS IT HER? NO. MICHAEL MORTEL. OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SORRY, I THOUGHT MR. MR. MORTEL, PLEASE COME FORWARD. THANK YOU. MICHAEL MORTEL.

RIVERSIDE DRIVE. STUART. I FELT COMPELLED TO RESPOND BECAUSE I, IN FACT, HAVE TAKEN A VIEW OF THE UPCOMING BUDGET. AND I AM AWARE OF THE AMENDMENT THREE THAT IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE ON NOVEMBER 4TH. AND IT HAPPENS TO BE POLLING AT 63% RIGHT NOW, WITH THE 3.5% MARGIN OF ERROR.

MY PROPOSAL IS REMAINS CONSISTENT FOR THE LAST FEW WEEKS. TO ANYBODY THAT'S TALKED TO ME, I THINK THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME NEEDS TO COME BACK FOR SOME BUDGET AMENDMENTS, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S SOME ERRORS THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO CORRECT. BUT MY RECOMMENDATION AND MY DISCUSSION WITH MR. TROTSKY AS RECENTLY AS THIS AFTERNOON WAS THAT I THINK THE BEST BET FOR THE CITY IS TO PASS THE BUDGET AT THE FIVE MILLS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED, AND THAT HAS GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE BUDGET PROCESS. CONTINUE HIRING THE STAFF, INCLUDING THE FIREFIGHTERS, THAT YOU DON'T THINK I LIKE AND MOVE FORWARD.

AND THAT IS, I THINK, WHAT THE CITY'S BEST CHANCE OF HAVING THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES

[00:50:03]

ROUGHLY $201,000 IS THE AMOUNT BETWEEN 4.95 AND 5.0. IF YOU DIVIDE THAT BY THE 10,000 PARCELS, THAT'S $20 PER PARCEL. THANK YOU FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. THANK YOU SIR. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YES, I HAVE LUCILLE SMITH. OH, MISS SMITH, OKAY.

COMMISSIONER, I'M NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE BUDGET. I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE CITY COMING OUT IN EASTWOOD, CLEANING UP THE LOTS THAT LEADING OFF OF CHURCH STREET INTO TARPON AVENUE. I DON'T KNOW WHO OWNS THEM, BUT I KNOW IN SOME NEIGHBORHOODS THAT I GET AROUND AND RIDE IN TO LOTS PEOPLE NOT LIVING THERE, BUT YOU'RE KEEPING THEM CLEAN. AND WHEN YOU RIDE OUT IN EASTER, YOU SEE ALL THESE LOTS AND GROWED UP, NOBODY KEEPING THEM UP. THEN IT'S A SHAME ON ALL OF US. AND ALL OF US ARE NOT LIKE THAT ONE PERSON. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. SO.

NO, WAIT. IT'S SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY. AND YOU MADE ME FORGET, YOU KNOW, GETTING OLD. BUT THE MEMORY GOES AND COME. LET US SAY ANYWAY THAT NEED TO BE CLEANED UP. AND OH, I KNOW WHAT IT WAS. WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR HOUSES OUT IN EASTWOOD FOR THE LONGEST. THE CITY CAN SELL AND THEY CAN RENT OUT LAND. THEY CAN DO EVERYTHING. BUT NOBODY SEEMED TO WANT TO RENT OUT LAND FOR EASTWOOD OR PUT SOMETHING UP THERE WHERE WE CAN LIVE. ALL OF OUR PEOPLES, WHICH I GET.

YOU DON'T CARE WHERE THEY LIVE, STOOD OR NOT. THEY'RE NOT PUTTING MONEY IN YOUR POCKET.

BUT THEY'RE ALL LEAVING STUART, GOING TO FORT PIERCE, PORT SAINT LUCIE AND OTHER PLACES BECAUSE THERE'S NOWHERE AROUND HERE FOR THEM TO LIVE. WE NEED HOUSES AT THE END. HE STOOD, AND WE KNOW YOU GOT LAND SOMEWHERE OUT THERE. AND THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT TAKING CARE OF THESE LANDS, YOU CAN HAVE THEM TO CLEAN THEM UP OR SELL THEM SO THEY CAN BE BOUGHT AND PUT SOME HOUSES OUT THERE IN THESE. STUART GO REALLY, REALLY NEED IT. AND THE THIRD THING, OUR PEOPLE DON'T HAVE NO RECREATION PLACE TO GO. EVERY TIME WE TURN AROUND THEY HAVE SOMETHING. WE GOT TO COME TO YOUR EVERY PENNY. WE GET IT GOING TO Y'ALL. THEY HAD FUNERALS SITTING THIS WEEK. THEY HAD NO PLACE TO EVEN GO. GO IN THERE. THEY REPAIRED DINNERS. THEY THEY CLUB ACROSS FROM STUART MILL. THEY CHARGE YOU, BUT THEY DON'T CHARGE YOU

[00:55:07]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. I JUST MISS SMITH HAS GIVEN ME A CHANCE TO SAY THIS.

WE ARE ASKING FOR COMMENTS ON THE BUDGET ONLY. WE'RE GOING TO STICK TO THAT. IF YOU DO HAVE GENERAL COMMENTS, IF THE TIME HAS PASSED FOR THAT, WE ARE GOING TO COME BACK TO GENERAL COMMENTS IN THE REGULAR AGENDA. BUT AND WE COULD HAVE DONE THAT. BUT IN DEFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT YOU'RE HERE AND YOU'RE WAITING, I LET THAT GO. BUT WE ARE ASKING ONLY FOR COMMENTS ON THIS BUDGET ITEM. WE'RE STILL IN THE MIDDLE OF COMMENTS IN THE REGULAR AGENDA, BUT WE'RE ON A SPECIAL MEETING AND I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. WELL, YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT. I HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT. YES, DEAN OLDENBURG, MR. OLDENBURG. MR. OLDENBURG, YOU WEREN'T HERE EARLIER. WE DID GIVE SOME GUIDELINES ABOUT PLACE AND MANNER OF COMMENTS.

AND I KNOW THAT YOU WEREN'T HERE, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OUR COMMENTS, THIS COMMENT THAT YOU GIVE NOW HAS TO BE WITH REGARD TO THE MOTION ON THE BUDGET, IF IT'S A GENERAL COMMENT, YOU'LL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE GO BACK TO THE REGULAR AGENDA. OKAY. IT HAS TO BE ON THE ITEM THAT'S ON, ON, ON HAND. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU'RE GOOD. ARE YOU GOOD? YEAH. OKAY. YES, SIR. THEY SAY THE BUDGET IS OFF, BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD IT WAS OFF BY 300 AND SOMETHING THOUSAND DOLLARS. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IF FIREFIGHTERS GET NOT HIRED OR FIRED OR HOWEVER THAT GOES, IT'S NOT BECAUSE THE BUDGET'S OFF BALANCE. IT'S REALLY BECAUSE WE FIRED OUR MANAGER AND WE'RE SPENDING A FORTUNE TO HIRE MIKE MORTEL. SO THAT'S DEFINITELY THROWING THE BUDGET OFF. THIS GUY JUST CAME BACK UP HERE AND SAID, OH, IT WASN'T $500,000. IT'S A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR NEW SIGNS FOR CONFUSION CORNER. WHY WOULD WE SPEND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON CONFUSION CORNER? IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. WHY WOULD WE NOT HAVE MORE FIREFIGHTERS TO PUT SIGNS THAT WE DON'T NEED AT A CONFUSION CORNER THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR 50 YEARS? NOTHING'S GOING TO CHANGE. IS NO SIGN THAT YOU COULD PUT UP THERE THAT'S GOING TO DO ANYTHING IN REGARDS TO THE LEASES. YEAH. IF YOU HAVE RESTAURANTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT CAN IMPROVE THE PROPERTY OVER TIME. BUT WE'RE WE'RE RENTING OUT. TOBY OVERDORF ON THE RIVER FOR $1,500. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY. BRIAN MAST ON THE RIVER. THEY'RE PAYING PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR. SO YOU SAY THAT THESE THINGS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, BUT ALL THESE CONSEQUENCES ARE DUE TO WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE. AND WE WE TRY TO CORRECT. SO AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT IF FIREFIGHTERS DON'T GET FIRED, IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF THE THE MILLAGE RATE, IT'S BECAUSE OF WHAT YOUR ACTIONS WERE. WE DON'T HAVE TO RAISE THE TAXES FOR ANYTHING. YOU GUYS MADE BAD DECISIONS AND YOU'RE TRYING TO RECTIFY THOSE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU SIR. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? I HAVE NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MOTION. CAN YOU PLEASE REITERATE THE MOTION? OKAY, COMMISSIONER, BEFORE WE DO THAT, ANTHONY, I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM SOMETHING. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. EXCUSE ME, THAT ANNUALLY WE GET IN LIKE $4 MILLION IN INTEREST. THE. WELL, THE INTEREST BUDGETED FOR NEXT YEAR IS 4.1 MILLION. BASED UPON THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS THAT WE HAVE, THE OUR CONSULTANTS FROM FLORIDA CLASS THAT MANAGES OUR, YOU KNOW, INVESTMENTS, WE RAN THAT NUMBER BY THEM. THEY WERE IN THE OFFICE THAT DAY. AND BASED UPON THE PERSPECTIVE OF INTEREST RATES GOING UP AND HOW MUCH WE HAD IN THE IN OUR INVESTMENTS IN OUR FUND BALANCE AT THE TIME, THAT 4.1 MILLION WAS, WAS A REASONABLE ESTIMATE FOR INTEREST INCOME FOR, FOR

[01:00:02]

SOME IF IF WE WENT TO A LOWER RATE OF 5.95 MILLS, THE ROLLBACK RATE STAYS THE SAME.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. I'M SAYING SORRY 3.48%. OKAY. SECTION ONE READS THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING MILLAGE RATE IS 5.000 MILLS, WHICH IS GREATER THAN THE ROLLBACK RATE OF 4.7499 MILLS BY 5.27%. I THINK IT IT'LL BE AMENDED TO, SAY 4.9 IF THIS 44.95 MILLS IF THIS IS PASSED. BUT I THINK THE PERCENTAGE OVER THE ROLLBACK RATE WILL BE LOWER. CORRECT. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT'S ABOUT THREE AND A HALF. YEAH. YEAH. IT'S JUST A PERCENT. A PERCENT CHANGE CALCULATION. SO THE THE NEW NUMBER MINUS THE OLD NUMBER DIVIDED BY THE THE THE THE VOTED DEBT SERVICE MILLAGE WOULD BE ALSO CHANGED. NO, THE THE VOTED DEBT SERVICE MILLAGE WOULD STAY THE SAME. THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT'S THAT'S THERE. OKAY. SO JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE ADOPT THIS, THIS IS THE EXACT LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE ADOPTING. IF WE DO ADOPT IT. IS THERE ANY. MR. MATHESON, COMMISSIONER MATHESON. SO THIS IS STILL. THE MOTION IS STILL FOR A MILLAGE RATE INCREASE 5.95. AND WE HAVE ONE COMMISSIONER WHO STATED HE WILL NOT SUPPORT ANY INCREASE, BUT AGAIN, HAS NOT STATED ANYTHING TO CUT. WE'VE ALREADY HAD A COUPLE STALEMATES. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THIS VOTE.

OKAY, SO WE HAVE A SECOND MOTION 4.95. THERE'S MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER RICH AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MATHESON. AND WE'VE HAD PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE'VE HAD COMPETENT STAFF PROVIDE US WITH RESPONSES. AND WE'VE HAD AND WE'VE HAD OUR PUBLIC COMMENT. SO AND WE'VE HAD. I GUESS I WOULDN'T CALL IT A CAUTION. WE'VE HAD THE THE PARAMETERS SET OUT FOR US WITH REGARD TO HOW WE WOULD ADOPT THIS. AND WE NEED TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF FOUR COMMISSIONERS WHO ADOPTS A MILLAGE RATE FOR THE CITY OF STUART. AND AT THIS POINT THE VOTE IS GOING WILL.

THE ITEM THAT IS GOING TO BE UP FOR VOTE IS A 4.95 MILLAGE RATE. IS THAT CORRECT? CLERK CORRECT.

OKAY. THAT WOULD BE A 4.2% INCREASE FROM THE THE ROLLBACK RATE OF 4.4.2 PERCENT INCREASE FROM THE ROLLBACK. OKAY. AND THAT WOULD BE INSERTED WHEREIN THE ORDINANCE LEGAL SECTION ONE WILL READ THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 OPERATING MILLAGE RATE IS 4.95 MILLS, WHICH IS GREATER THAN THE ROLLBACK RATE OF 4.7499 MILLS BY 4.2%. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. YOU'VE HEARD THE CHANGE. AND YOU YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE FOR THE ORDINANCE. IS THERE ANY FINALLY, IS THERE ANY

[01:05:05]

WILL LAUGHLIN COUNTY HIGHWAY 4.9. I THINK ABOUT THIS WHOLE PICTURE HERE. WHY IS THERE A FUNDING ISSUE? IT GOES TO MY POINT. THE CRA, THAT 3% PROPERTY TAX INCREASE THAT GOT PASSED ON TO EVERYBODY BECAUSE OF TIFF, THE WAY THAT OPERATES EFFECTIVELY, NONE OF THAT 3% INCREASE GOES TO THE GENERAL OPERATING BUDGET. IT CAN ONLY GET FUNNELED TO THE CRA. I'M SPEAKING IN GENERALITIES, HOWEVER. SO LET'S SAY YOU GOT $100,100 MILLION ASSESSED VALUE IN THERE, 3%, 300 000. SO WHY DON'T WE JUST TAKE MONEY FROM THE CRA OR JUST UNDERFUND OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, REDUCE THE FUNDING TO THE CRA TO OFFSET THE DIFFERENCE. IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE. YOU CAN KEEP IT RIGHT AT 4.9 OR EVEN WHATEVER YOU'RE AT 4.9, YOUR DEFICIT IS 300 AND CHANGE. REDUCE THE FUNDING TO THE CRA BY THREE 300 000. COULD BE JUST THAT SIMPLE. NO, IT'S NOT COMPLICATED. IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. THIS IS WHAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE. THE CRA IS IS $10 MILLION ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM THAT KEEPS GETTING FATTER AND FATTER AND FATTER EVERY YEAR. IT'S EATING UP EVERYBODY'S LUNCH AND WHO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EVERYBODY. ALL THE TAXPAYERS. I GET IT, SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO LOSE JOBS, BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GETTING TIRED OF HAVING THE GOVERNMENT'S GUN SHOVED UP THEIR NOSE AND SAYING, PAY, PAY, OR ELSE? OKAY. IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE. WE CAN GET THOSE THREE FIREFIGHTERS. ALL YOU GOT TO DO IS REDUCE THE FUNDING TO THE CRA. STOP FEEDING THE ELEPHANT. THANKS. THANK YOU, MR. LAUGHLIN. NO OTHER COMMENTS. CAN YOU HAVE A VOTE? CAN WE HAVE TO HAVE A VOTE ON THIS 1.95? COMMISSIONER JOB IN THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE, BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE WE NEED TO BE RIGHT NOW. AND I DO AGREE WITH MR. LAUGHLIN, WHERE WE DO HAVE A $16 MILLION ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM AT THE CRA. BUT IN THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE, I SAY YES TO THE NINE THE 4.95 COMMISSIONER. RICH. YES, COMMISSIONER. READ NO.

COMMISSIONER MATHESON. YES. MAYOR CLARK YES. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. WITH REGARD TO THE

[2. FINAL BUDGETS FOR FY 2027 (RC): RESOLUTION No. 69-2026; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGETS OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2026, AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2027; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

I DON'T SEE ANY MOTIONS OR ANY LIGHTS. COMMISSIONER JOB. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. PREVIOUSLY, DID YOU SAY THAT WE NEEDED TO CHANGE THE WORDING ON THE FINAL BUDGET FOR 2027 IF WE PASSED, OTHER THAN THE 5%? NO. THE ONLY THING I SAID WAS WE ONLY NEED A THREE TWO VOTE FOR THIS FOR THIS RESOLUTION. HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT THE RESOLUTION AS PROPOSED IS IN SYNC WITH THE FIVE O MILL, WHICH YOU GUYS JUST VOTED ON, A 4.95. SO THERE WILL BE NEED TO BE SOME ADJUSTMENTS, WHICH YOU GUYS HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED, BUT I'LL LET THE FINANCE PEOPLE DISCUSS THAT. OKAY. SO AS MR. BAGGETT WAS SAYING, THE BUDGET WAS PREPARED WITH WITH FIVE MILLS. SO THAT REDUCES THE THE REVENUE INTO THE GENERAL FUND BY, YOU KNOW, ROUGHLY $200,000. THERE ARE MYRIAD WAYS THAT THE WE COULD BALANCE THE BUDGET. WE COULD TAKE MORE FROM UNALLOCATED FUND RESERVE. THE FIREFIGHTERS ARE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S THAT'S ON YOU GUYS. BUT YOU BY A THREE TWO VOTE, SOME CUTS HAVE TO BE EITHER IF PROPOSED BY US OR PROPOSED BY YOU GUYS AND VOTED BY THREE TWO. SO WE HAVE A

[01:10:06]

SO TO COVER 200, 000 OF A SHORTFALL AND STILL HAVE FIREMEN AND STILL BE ABLE TO DO ALL THAT, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT, I WOULD SAY, BECAUSE THIS RELATES TO THE GENERAL FUND STUFF FOR THE WATER FUND, WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THE EQUIVALENT OF A DOUBLE A RATING FOR FOR LOANS AND OPERATING RESERVES. AND THOSE ARE KIND OF ANOTHER ANIMAL FOR ENTERPRISE FUNDS. BUT FOR THE GENERAL FUND, 200 000, SINCE WE WE'RE OUR REVENUES ARE COMING IN FINE FOR FISCAL YEAR 26, OUR EXPENSES ARE NOT GOING TO BE AT 100%. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO OVER OUR FISCAL YEAR 26 BUDGET, $202,000 IS A REASONABLE AMOUNT. I. I THINK SAFELY, I CAN STAND UP HERE AND SAY THAT WE CAN ABSORB THAT IN OUR FROM OUR UNALLOCATED CASH RESERVES, WITH THE CAVEAT WHEN WE'RE COMING TO YOU NEXT YEAR, RIGHT. THERE'S ALWAYS NEXT YEAR IS THE CAVEAT,

[01:15:06]

THAT'S PART OF OUR JOB. IF WE DON'T SUPPORT THE BUDGET, WE SUGGEST THINGS TO CUT. AND NOW OUR PROPOSAL IS TO GO DEEPER INTO OUR RESERVES, WHICH HAVE A HIGH PROBABILITY OF BEING AFFECTED. IF AMENDMENT THREE PASSES NEXT YEAR, WE'RE GOING TO DIG INTO THE PIGGY BANK.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WITH ANY COMMENTS ON THE FISCAL YEAR BUDGET AND THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 69-2026? CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY, ARE YOU SATISFIED THAT WE'RE MEETING ALL OF THE STATE REQUIREMENTS IN APPROVING IF WE PUT INTO VOTE RESOLUTION NUMBER 6 TO 9, 2026, WHICH IS AMENDMENT TO THE TO THE BUDGET ITSELF, THE GENERAL BUDGET, BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE APPROVED MILL WAS APPROVED AT 4.95. HAVE WE MET ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS? WE HAVE MET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF NOTICE AND. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF. I COMMEND MR. TROTSKY FOR PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER BECAUSE IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET THE TIMING DOWN. THAT IS ALL RIGHT. ON, ON 4.95, I ASSUME THE NUMBER. I MEAN, YOU'RE ASKING ME I ASSUME THESE NUMBERS ARE RIGHT. SO I'M NOT PUTTING MY, MY, MY REPUTATION ON THE LINE. I ASSUME THAT WITH THAT ASSUMPTION, YES, WE'VE MADE THE ADJUSTMENTS WITH THE 4.95 MILLS TO THE BUDGET HERE, BUT WE'RE OBVIOUSLY RELYING ON OUR ON OUR STAFF. YES. AND A, WE HAVE WE, WE, WE, WE WENT THROUGH AND AND. MR. COOLING ADJUSTED SECTION ONE. A AND IF I'M CORRECT, IT'S REDUCED FROM $15,998,424 TO 5059 50,000,990 996 422 ALL RIGHT. 22 422. AND IF, IF IF THE DECISION MADE WAS TO, TO, TO SPEND DOWN THE FUND BALANCE, IT WOULD BE JUST I, I THINK THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO THE OTHER SOURCES, FUND SOURCE OF REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND TO GO FROM 800,000 TO 1,002,000. AND IF THAT WAS AMENDED, THEN SECTION A AND SAID, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE. MR. BAGGETT SAID, WE. COULD YOU PASS THE BUDGET AT THAT, YOU KNOW, 5,000,700 AND SOME CHANGE.

AND THEN THAT GIVES THE TOP LINE AUTHORITY FOR THE ENTIRE GENERAL FUND. EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST DETAILS. AND THEN WE WOULD SPEND THE ADDITIONAL 202,000 IN FUND BALANCE TO MAKE UP FOR THE DECREASE IN REVENUE FROM GOING FROM FIVE MILLS TO 4.95. THANK YOU, MR. COLON.

THANK YOU. YEAH. THERE IS A MOTION. I DO NOT HAVE A MOTION. WE NEED A WE NEED TO HAVE A

[01:20:03]

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CITY MANAGER. IS HE OVER THERE? YES, SIR. YES, SIR. CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME BACKGROUND ON WHY THE STATE MIGHT REQUIRE 60 OR I BELIEVE IT'S 90 DAYS OPERATING EXPENSES WITH THE THE BUDGET WILL. THE THE 60 DAY RECOMMENDATION IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION, AND IT COMES FROM THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA.

IT'S JUST A BEST PRACTICE FOR GENERAL FUNDS. IT'S NOT A TARGET. NOBODY'S GOING TO SLAP HANDCUFFS ON US IF WE GO TO 59 DAYS. THE WAY TAXES COME IN, WE GET A, YOU KNOW, BUNCH LATER ON IN THE YEAR. WE DON'T TRACK FUND BALANCE DAY TO DAY. IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION FOR GENERAL PRACTICE. GOOD GUIDANCES. DO WE AS A CITY HAVE TO PAY OUR EXPENSES? YES. OKAY.

AND IS SOME OF THAT RESERVES IN CASE A HURRICANE COMES AND PEOPLE WE STILL NEED TO PAY OUR EXPENSES. CORRECT. THAT'S WHY THERE'S 60 DAYS. IT'S LIKE OPERATING RESERVE. IT'S NOT CAPITAL RESERVE. IT'S OPERATING OPERATING PAY CHECKS, YOU KNOW, PAYING FOR, YOU KNOW, CLEANUP, DEBRIS CLEANUP, THAT SORT OF THING. OPERATING RESERVES. SO 60 DAYS OPERATING RESERVE. AND DOES THAT RESERVE RIGHT NOW? WOULD YOU SAY THE CITY OF STEWART'S? WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE.

CREDIT RATING IS PRETTY HIGH AS FAR AS BORROWING MONEY THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GONE OUT FOR ANY. FUNDS. YEAH. WE YEAH. WE DON'T WE DO NOT HAVE AN OFFICIAL CREDIT RATING WITH ONE OF THE MOODY'S OR THE RATING AGENCIES. BUT IN DEVELOPING THE AUDIT AND THE RATE STUDY FOR THE THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS, WE ARE EQUIVALENT TO A DOUBLE A RATING IS WHAT WHAT OUR CONTRACTOR RATE, TAYLOR SAID ABOUT THE CITY'S FINANCIAL SITUATION.

OKAY, BUT DO THEY LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT, YES, WE PAY OUR BILLS AND OUR RESERVE BALANCE RATING AGENCIES TO BORROW MONEY? YES, THEY THEY LOOK AT FUND BALANCE. IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THEY LOOK AT. OKAY. SO THAT COULD AFFECT OUR FINANCES IN THE FUTURE, OUR ACTIONS NOW AND OUR CREDIT RATING, SO TO SAY, IS BASED ON THE PAST ACTIONS OF THE CITY OVER MANY DECADES. I WOULD SAY IT'S IT'S ONE OF A MYRIAD OF THINGS THAT GO INTO WHAT MOODY'S AND RATING AGENCIES DO WHEN THEY WHEN THEY RATE A MUNICIPALITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. COLON. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YEAH, I HAVE NO COMMENT. SO WHAT WE NEED TO YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS. WE NEED A MOTION FROM OUR BOARD. I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR.

APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 69-2026. FINAL BUDGET FOR THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR 2027.

WHICH INCLUDES JUST A VERY. THOSE WHO REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF NONETHELESS DID NOT COME UP WITH A SOLUTION. SO WE FIND OURSELVES HERE. I WOULD JUST REQUEST REQUEST THAT ANY AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY STATE THE. THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT LEE AND I CAME UP WITH AT $50,796,422 AS THE EXPENSE BUDGET FOR THE GENERAL FUND, AND FURTHER, I WOULD REQUEST THAT IT WOULD SAY THAT THAT DIFFERENCE WOULD BE COME FROM UNALLOCATED FUND RESERVE. JUST TO MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR, MADAM CLERK, COULD YOU INCLUDE THAT LANGUAGE? IF IF THAT IF THAT WAS YOUR DECISION. IT IS MY. CAN I ASK REAL QUICK, MR. COOLEY, ONE MORE QUESTION. FOLLOW UP. DOES SUBSECTION ONE SEE THE CRA FUND? DOES THAT GET AFFECTED BECAUSE WE'RE REDUCING THE GENERAL FUNDS? I MEAN, IS THERE GOING TO BE AN ADJUSTMENT

[01:25:02]

NOW I'D HAVE TO FIND OUT WHAT THE WHAT THE INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN VALUE FOR THE TIF WAS, AND THEN MULTIPLY THAT BY 0.10. AND I THINK THE GENERAL FUND SHOULD PROBABLY JUST EAT THE SMALL DIFFERENCE AND JUST DO THE $3.3 MILLION TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL FUND FROM THE CR RATE, FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE CRA, BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE NONE OF THE OTHER SUBSECTIONS ARE IMPACTED. SO WE'VE GOT NONE, WHICH PROBABLY NOT IMPACT, BUT THE CRA HAS A $16 MILLION NUMBER. SO THIS WOULD THIS BE ADJUSTED AT ALL IN THE RESOLUTION OR IT'S GOING TO STAY THE SAME. IT WOULD STAY IT WOULD STAY THE SAME. AND THE LEAST PROPERTY FUND THAT'D BE REVENUE FROM OUR LEASE PROPERTIES. CORRECT. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE IMPACTED. POLICE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND NOT GOING TO BE IMPACTED. WATER AND SEWER PHONES SEPARATE SANITATION FUND.

CORRECT. STORMWATER. OKAY, I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.

THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND THERE'S A SECOND. WHO MADE THE SECOND? SURE. I'LL SECOND IT. NO, SECOND. I'LL SECOND IT. COMMISSIONER REID SECONDED THE MOTION. DO WE HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? RESOLUTION 6 TO 9, 2026, BASED ON A 4.95 MILLAGE RATE WITH A CHANGE IN ITEM A TO THAT FOR THE THE NUMBERS TO REFLECT, I THINK 50,798,422 96,000. SO IT'S 202 THEN. OKAY. AND THEN. ITEM NUMBER C WILL NOT CHANGE.

EVERYTHING STAYS THE SAME IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE RESOLUTION. IF THIS IS ADOPTED, THIS IS THE LANGUAGE AND IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE. OCTOBER 1ST FIRST, OCTOBER 1ST. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MOTION THAT'S BEEN PUT IN FRONT OF US? JUST I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY, THE CRA BUDGET WAS ADOPTED A LITTLE BIT AGO WITH THE WITH THE WITH THE FIVE MILS. SO I WE'D HAVE TO REVISIT THAT. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE, IN MY OPINION, I DON'T THINK IT'S. WE WOULD WE SHOULD PROBABLY NOT DO THAT. YEAH. IN FACT, ALL OF THESE. EVEN THOUGH YOU SAID THAT YOU ARE TAKING ON THE LARGER AMOUNT UNDER THE UNDER THE GENERAL FUND, ALL OF THESE BUDGETS WERE DEVELOPED BY THE DEPARTMENTS BASED ON FIVE MILS. YEAH. THESE THESE, THESE ARE NOT MY NUMBERS.

THESE ARE THE DEPARTMENT'S NUMBERS. I JUST HELP FACILITATE AND AND PUT IT ALL TOGETHER.

AND THERE'S META LEVEL, YOU KNOW, STUFF ABOUT, YOU KNOW, INSURANCE AND STUFF LIKE THAT THAT I HAVE TO DICTATE DOWN TO THEM. BUT THESE ARE THE DEPARTMENT'S NUMBERS. NOT, NOT MY NUMBERS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BUT ANTHONY, CAN I JUST SPEAK, COMMISSIONER? YOU'RE ALLOWED. THANK YOU. YOU MADE A RECOMMENDATION THAT AFTER WE HAVE THIS VOTE, THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN AMENDMENT IF THAT NEED TO BE ON THIS PARTICULAR JUST AS PART OF THE AMENDMENT, I REQUEST THAT IT'S SPECIFICALLY CLARIFIED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE $202,000 IS MADE UP BY INCREASED USE OF FOR OUR FROM UNALLOCATED CASH RESERVE. OKAY, SO THAT NEEDS TO BE IN THIS MOTION. WHERE WOULD THAT BE ADDED LEGAL. SO MAYBE WE PUT A NOTE WOULD BE PUT RIGHT ON THE A WHERE A IS THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN REDUCED BY X WHICH WILL BE MADE UP FOR. I. I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE MOTION IN THE RESOLUTION, BUT THAT'S WHERE IT COMES FROM. OKAY. MADAM MAYOR, CAN I ASK ANTHONY A QUESTION? IF THE BUDGET WAS PASSED HERE, WE CAN ALWAYS DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT AFTER IT'S ADOPTED NEXT YEAR. WE WE COULD WE COULD ALWAYS ADOPT THE BUDGET AMENDMENTS, BUT THE DIRECTION FOR YOU WOULD PASS AN UNBALANCED BUDGET BY $202,000. WELL, WE CAN'T WE CAN'T DO WE CAN'T WE CAN'T DO THAT. SO WE

[01:30:07]

IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO TONIGHT, BUT WE'RE ABSOLUTELY GOING TO HAVE TO RETURN THE CRA BUDGET THAT WAS ADOPTED THIS AFTERNOON AT 3:00 AND HAVE IT BE ADJUSTED TO THE GROSS NUMBERS, IS GOING TO HAVE TO START AT THE 4.95 MILLS RATHER THAN FIVE MILLS. IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL, BUT IT IT CAN'T BE IGNORED. RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT, MR. MORTEL. MR. JOB, WOULD YOU. WELL, RATHER THAN WAIT AND WHY WE'RE HERE, WE'RE VOTING. WHY NOT PUT IT INTO THIS AGENDA IF WE HAVE A CONSENSUS FROM THE. IT'S FOR THE CRA. YEAH. AND YOU OH, IT'S GOT TO BE ON THE YOU GUYS ARE PART OF THE CRA. BUT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY.

MADAM MAYOR, JUST TO CLARIFY THAT WE ARE BALANCING. WE ARE GOING TO ADOPT A BALANCED BUDGET BY STATING THAT. WE ARE REDUCING THE GENERAL FUND ITEM A, SECTION ONE A. BY 202,000.

AND IS THAT SUFFICIENT, MR. BAGGETT? YEAH, I ASKED AS PUBLISHED ON THE AGENDA. WE'RE REDUCING SECTION ONE A BY $202,000 TO WHATEVER THAT 50,700. AND I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO PUT IN THE. OKAY IN THE RESOLUTION WHERE IT COMES FROM. THAT'S OKAY. MADAM CLERK, DO YOU IS THAT CLEAR FOR THE MOTION? OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO STATE THE MOTION, MADAM CLERK, SO THAT WE CAN. I WILL NOT BE ASKING FOR ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'VE HAD THE MOTION AND WE'VE DISCUSSED IT BEFORE THE COMMISSION VOTES. COULD YOU PLEASE STATE THE. I HAVE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 69-2026, REDUCING THE GENERAL FUND, SECTION ONE A BY $200,000. 202 I THINK IT WAS. 202 AND IS THAT CLEAR TO ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS? WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION ON THIS FROM THE PUBLIC, AND WE'VE HAD INPUT FROM OUR LEGAL AND FROM OUR. BUDGET DEPARTMENT. MADAM CLERK, I SEE NO LIGHTS ON FOR THE COMMISSIONERS. COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL COMMISSIONER READ NO. COMMISSIONER. RICH. YES, COMMISSIONER MATHESON. NO. COMMISSIONER. CAN I ASK IF IF WE ARE MAKING THIS MOTION IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE MILL MILLAGE RATE THAT WE JUST PASSED? I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S PROPER TO ASK, BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE OBJECTION? I THINK THE DISCUSSIONS OVER YOU NEED TO VOTE. OKAY. YES. REMEMBER WE ONLY NEED A THREE TWO VOTE ON THIS ONE. OKAY. I'M GOING TO VOTE YES. MAYOR. CLERK YES. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. THIS HAS BEEN THE MEETING FOR THE

[01:35:05]

DELIBERATION. I'M GOING TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING UNLESS THERE'S

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.