City Commission - Special Meeting

That's a high standard.

Okay, Madam Mayor, it is 6.06 and we are live.

Thank you. Can I have the roll? Welcome everyone. Thursday, May 28th, special city commission meeting regarding board appointments and a financial update. Thursday, May 28th. May I have the roll call, please?

Mayor Betty Resch.

Here.

Vice Mayor Mimi May. Present. Commissioner Sarah Maliga. Present. Commissioner Christopher McVoy.

Here.

Commissioner Anthony Segrich.

Present. Ms. May will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Will. It's 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.

Okay, I guess I'm going to take over and we are going to start with the business advisory board and the planning and zoning board advisory. You know what I mean? The board appointments. A little bit of help here. How do we do this? We have a discussion about each one.

So last time we had a discussion, Vice Mayor, about each, like we each took our turn on who our top candidates were.

Right.

And then I would suggest us do P and Z first just because it's quicker. Okay. And then by then, hopefully the mayor will be back and then we can move forward.

Okay. So, yeah, because we're going to need to have her votes too. The only reason I might consider starting with business advisory is that there were some that were on for both lists. Do you think it matters?

I don't think that matters.

Okay. Okay, so let's get those lists out.

Everybody should have their sheets with your rankings. They left them on the desk.

Well, I mean, I have the ones I filled out.

Yeah, they left new ones here.

We don't have the attorney here. Do these become public record? Do we hand these in at the end? Yes. Okay. All right. So I know I see my clean ones. Let's do the business advisory board first. And before we do that. I do want to thank everybody who came and applied and put yourself out there and offered to serve this beautiful city. That takes a lot of guts and a lot of compassion for the city. And if you don't get appointed, please don't go away. There's always going to be another position. And just because you're not a voting member doesn't mean that you can't attend the meetings. Everybody has a voice. So that's really important. And if that, if the meetings for planning and zoning or business, um, advisory board really speak to you, go attend. There could be other times when we need members and then we can, you'll be at the top of the line because you've already done the interviews.

So we are, you said you want to do the business advisor or the PNZ first?

I want to do PNZ first. Um, I'm just looking and okay. So this is how I think I'm going to start this. I'm going to ask you guys for your top three and I'm going to give, she wanted to do it by points, like three points for number one, two points for number two and one for number three. And we'll see who has the most points at the end.

The top two will then move on because there's only two positions. Okay. All right.

So give me your, give me your top three in the order of one, two, and three. most points for first right three points for first two for second one for third and the one with the most points wins so let's start with district one um first we have let's just make sure we have the right the right list so we have william feldkamp um autumn home i have crossed out yes or no

Yeah, she wasn't here.

She wasn't here. That's what I thought. All right. We have Laura Levitas, Marco Mottola, Jackson Stahl, and Lisa Amata. Lisa Van Horn. Sorry.

Yes. Is that what you have too, Chris? You good?

Okay. So why don't we start with district one? Tell me your top three in order from one, two, three.

My first choice would be three points. Is that how you're doing it?

Yep.

Okay. Is William Feldkamp.

Okay. Okay.

My second choice would be Lisa Van Horn. And third, Jackson Stahl.

Okay, thank you. Mr. McFoy.

First, William Feldkamp. Second, Lisa Van Horn. Third, Autumn Holm.

She was not there, didn't interview.

But she applied and I read her application.

Okay. The mayor's not here right now. Anthony? Anthony? And my first choice is Lisa. My second choice was Jackson. And my third choice was Laura. And I don't have the mayor's, but I don't know.

I'm sorry, Madam Vice Mayor. I did not hear Mr. Segrich's choices.

Mr. Segrich's first choice was Jackson. His second choice was Lisa. And his third choice was Laura. Lisa Van Horn, Jackson Stahl, Laura Levitas.

Thank you.

OK, so we do need the mayor's vote. But right now we're at six for. Mr. Feldkamp, we're at one for Autumn. We're at two for Miss Levitas. We're at zero for Mr. Mottola. We're at six for Mr. Stahl. And we're at two, four, six, nine for Lisa. So we need the mayor to vote. Do we play the Jeopardy music? I don't want to speak for her.

We'll just wait.

Do you want to do our business advisory board ones?

Whatever you want. You're running the meeting.

Okay. I think we should because then we can keep moving along.

Got it.

All right. So... Business Advisory Board. There are two vacancies as well. And I think we'll just do that the same way, if that's okay with you guys. Let's... Is that the mayor?

I heard something.

Okay. Let's start again, if you don't mind, with District 1. So give me your top three. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I know what I'm supposed to be doing.

I know it's hard.

Oh, she's here. Okay.

So let's pause on that. I need your top three for the planning and zoning in order.

And here they are.

Okay.

Three for the highest.

Well, I'll put the points. Just tell me who your number one choice is.

Number one would be Lisa Van Horn.

All right. Number two? Jackson Stahl. And number three? William Feldkamp. All right. So that makes seven. Six turns to eight. Nine turns to 12. If we go from straight rankings, we can welcome Lisa and Jackson to the Planning and Zoning Board. Okay. Does that work for everybody?

No. So who is it?

Lisa Amato or Van Horn. Sorry, we're going to do some name, some name and Jackson Stahl. Where's Jackson? He may not be here.

He may not be here to win.

You don't have to be present to win on here.

Yeah. And then, Madam Clerk, I have the final rankings. If you need mine, but I believe I do too, but thank you. You're welcome. Okay.

So mayor, what we did is, so I'm sorry, madam vice mayor, do you want to make an official motion?

Uh, no, no, I think we'll go at the end and motion both of the boards and at the same time.

Okay. Thank you.

We can continue.

Go ahead.

All right. You want me to keep going or you want to go? I'm looking for my other list. Um, not yet. We can get them at the end. Um, And I'm looking for my list, which I got. Okay. So when we, when you look for your list, so we, Craig was not here. So we're going to do the same thing that we're going to list our top three. We're going to give three points for our top two points for our second and one point for the third, and then we'll tally them up. District one.

Okay, sorry. This was really hard. It was. And I do understand what Commissioner Segrich said a couple of nights ago. So I did speak to the chair about some of this stuff. And we agreed that we would fill these two positions, get a couple of monthly meetings under our belt, and then see if there's an opportunity that if the board thinks we need to bring some more people in for a different insight. And so they are open to that conversation. So just for the future reference.

So should we do the top four or no?

Well, no, we're going to do this top three, but I'm just saying if you didn't make it now, that doesn't mean that your application or the interview goes away. We could be calling people back in the future. So did you start?

Does that make sense? I don't.

Yep. Okay. So my first one is. Dipan Patel.

Okay. Okay.

My second one is Dylan Lipton. And my third one is Joseph Lipovich. Am I saying his last name right? Yep.

Okay. District two.

Dipan Patel for number one. Shane Logan for number two. And Paige Shelton for number three.

Okay. Thank you. District four. other one didn't show up for an interview so you can vote for whoever he wants um number uh district four i had um number one dylan lipton so three points for him number two joseph lipovich okay and number three jose fernandez number three jose fernandez okay um mayor um okay my number one was um

Jose Fernandez. My number two was Shane Logan. My number three was Joe Lipovich.

And one point for Joe. Okay. And my number one was Joe Lipovich. My number two was Shane Logan. And my number three was Deepan Patel. So I have total one for Paige Chilton, four for Jose Fernandez. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 for Joseph Lipovich. That is hard to say. 5 for Dylan Lipton. 2, 4, 6 for Shane Logan. And 3, 6, 7 for Deepan Patel. So there's a tie with Joe Lipovich and Deepan Patel. And so they would be the first two. That would make sense. So they each have seven points. Well, okay.

Joe and Deepan.

I want to run off election. So, and this was very difficult. Obviously the different, you know,

I'm going to keep all my stuff because like I said, if we come back in the next couple of months, it does say that we keep these on file for a year.

Yep.

And then we wouldn't have to go through the process again. Maybe we could just.

Right. I mean, we have, then we have Shane on deck, then Dylan, then Jose. I mean, we've got people who have already.

And there's only two openings.

There's only two openings right now.

Okay. We don't want to recount. No.

Okay. All right. Okay. So I'm going to make a motion that we appoint, um, Deepan Patel and Joseph Lipovich to the Business Advisory Board.

Second.

Hold on, let me just do both. And that we appoint Lisa Van Horn and Jackson Stahl to the Planning and Zoning Board. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye.

So that is unanimous. And congratulations to those of you on the new boards. I'm assuming the clerk will reach out to you to do ethics training and let you know when the meetings are. Yes, Madam Vice President.

I'll reach out to everybody. I will thank everybody. And those that were appointed, I will do it a little differently to make sure they know about the ethics training, etc.,

Okay, great. And then when you do reach out to everybody, because not everybody is here, would you let them know that we're going to keep their applications on? Ask them if they would like us to keep their application, if they would be willing to serve if more spots opened.

Okay, absolutely.

Okay, thank you.

And I missed the beginning of the meeting. I apologize, but I just want to also reiterate thanking everyone for putting in there. It was so enlightening and heartening to see how many qualified and wonderful people tried. But if you're not chosen tonight on the board, there are so many ways. Please stay involved in the city. We want to hear from you. I didn't even film right now. Thank you, everyone, and stay involved. I always tell people because I read or I hear, oh, this happened, I didn't know about it. Every week, look at the agenda. If there's something on the agenda that piques your interest, hit it and see what it is. And if you have an opinion about it, either email us together or separately, or come to the meeting and speak, or send a little comment to be read on the agenda, because we do want to hear from you. And it's one of the hardest things we have is communication, getting the word out. So pay attention and thank you.

Yeah, we did the motion. We did the second. We voted. No, not yet. So we need, according to... We need both of the sheets from today. Not the ones we took notes on last time.

That's all I have.

I didn't do any of the sheets. Just these? Or the ones from during the meeting?

I don't know.

You can have the whole folder if you want it. I'm going to give you the whole folder back. Okay.

There you go. All right.

We're not adjourning. We're just going in. Yeah, we're going to go into the next thing. So thank you for everybody who came and applied. And I mean, obviously, you're welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting, but that is the end of that portion. And thank you, Mayor, for letting me share.

Fine job, apparently.

Okey-doke. And are both Lisa and Dupont here? Lisa's here.

Lisa here. With your permission, we'll share your contact information with the chair of the business advisory board so she can have communication via email. Is that okay? Okay. Thank you. Welcome.

Lisa's on PNZ.

Lisa's on PNZ.

You mean? Joe.

Joe's not here. I don't see him.

No.

No.

Okay.

I'm sure she has Joe.

All righty. Phase two. This is an update of the fiscal year financial outlook forecast. Take it away.

Madam Mayor, commissioners, we have our finance department here tonight want to give us a fiscal year 2026 update. And if you have any questions during the process, be sure to just let us know. We'll try to answer those questions.

Good evening.

Good evening. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Madam Vice Mayor, City Commissioners. For the record, my name is Yannick Guindajayo, Finance Director. Joining me this evening is Monica McNaughton, Assistant Finance Director for Budget. Unfortunately, she's leaving us soon, her last day being tomorrow. And we also have tonight Candace Dale and Hector Vargas, both senior budget analysts, who will each be presenting a portion of tonight's meeting. So tonight's presentation will provide an overview of the city's financial performance through the second quarter ending March 31st, 2026 with the following agenda. So we'll start off with the budget to actual. followed by the fund balance reserve policy. I'll give you a quick impression on that. And we'll also do a fund balance analysis for the past five years. We'll also do a CIP updates for all the projects that are currently active and we'll provide you an update where they are by fund. And we'll also give you an update on the bond schedule, how much we have left for each bond that we issued. We give you an update on the discretionary sales tax or any sales tax. We also give you an update on ARPA funds, the ARPA projects that are funded by ARPA. And we'll just go over legislative updates for only the ones that would significantly impact the financials. And so with that, so the next, so that's the agenda for now. So we'll go on to the budget to actual, which is going to be presented by Candace Dale.

Can you hear me? Okay. Good evening, Madam Mayor, Vice Madam Mayor and commissioners. My name is Candace Dale. I'm a senior budget analyst in the finance department. And thank you for the opportunity for presenting a quarter to budget to actuals. We're going to start first with the general funds. And as you can see, revenues remain ahead of prior year's performance at $34.5 million, representing a 5% increase over fiscal year 25 actuals. Expenditures are being well managed and they remain below prior year spending levels at 11%. Current trends indicate the general fund is performing in line with the adopted budget.

If you could slow down just a bit and speak up just a bit. I'm not literate in economics, so I have to listen really closely.

Is this better?

Just keep it slower and a little louder. Thank you.

I'm sorry, Candace, Madam Mayor. They need to share the screen so it can be seen at home.

It's being done as we speak.

Thank you. Do you want me to start over with the general fund? If you would, yeah, that'd be great.

Because it's a lot.

General fund revenues remain ahead of prior year's performance at $34.5 million. It is a 5% increase over fiscal year 25 actuals and tracking closely with budget targets. Expenditures. Where would I see that?

You got to go, Spencer.

I'm sorry.

Where would I see that? What page are you on? Oh, the actual.

Okay, I'm sorry.

We got it.

Okay.

So she's comparing quarter to quarter.

No, no, I see. I was on page four. And I apologize. Yeah, we're good. I grabbed like the little thing to move to the next page, but it was the page I was supposed to be looking at.

Mimi and Sarah will guide me.

And I can't even get to the right page.

That's a sad fact on what I need. Okay. Yeah, that's fine.

Yes, there's a $34 million.

And that's how much we spent so far?

Oh, I'd rather you know how much we spent. Oh, got it.

Actual. Revenues. The word says revenues.

Yep.

Yep.

Okay, I will start over. Thank you. You're welcome. I'm on the general fund revenues and I'm using rounded numbers. Okay, so the revenues remain ahead of prior year's performance at 34.5 million. That is a 5% increase over fiscal year 25 actuals. Expenditures remain below prior year spending levels at 29.4 million and that is 11% below prior year actuals. Current trends indicate that the general fund is performing in line with the adopted budget. And now, yes.

Yeah. Sorry. Okay. Um, just, uh, where we look at the lines regarding, um, benefits. Do we pay the benefits at the first quarter for the whole year? So that's why we're looking at 70% is paid?

Yes. So benefits, especially the required contribution for the policing fire, it's always paid at the beginning, as well as the general employee plan.

Okay, and then wages is at 40%. And we're end of quarter two. So we should be about 50%. Correct. Can you?

So I would assume that the reason why we're not at 50% of because of vacancy, vacancy positions.

Okay. And then how come non departmental expenditures are so high?

Because at the beginning of fiscal year or towards November, December, we send the CRA portion, whatever we collect from, whatever we have budgeted to transfer over to CRA is done at the beginning of the first quarter. I see. Okay.

Thank you. Next, I'm moving on. Oh, did you have another question?

So with expenses being a lot lower, are we expecting that they're going to catch up, meaning we have some big things that we haven't paid for yet, or are we expecting this trend to continue through the rest of the year?

That is, we expecting the expenses to catch up. But again, we don't know if those vacancies will still be, you know, if those vacancies position will be filled or not. If they are, then definitely will catch up. And also we have other contracts that are coming that are coming through the pipeline. So that also may have us catch up as well.

Okay, so right now we shouldn't be expecting an 11% savings on budget at the end of the year.

This is just general fund.

Right.

So for fiscal year 2016, we had budgeted to use fund balance, but we're still outperforming the expenses because we have interest income. Are we collecting higher utility service taxes or state revenue sharing? That's another one that's been a lot more higher than what we budgeted for. So we're expecting to be in the positive by the end of the fiscal year.

Excellent.

Okay. So we're expecting the savings to continue. It might not be 11%, but it's some savings to continue. Just one other minor comment is when we start off, we're talking about year comparison to year comparison. If we could just add that as a column in there, that way- So you said last year's was 5% above and then 11% below.

So I want to see budget to budget and what that percentage is. The difference.

Yeah, that was kind of the essence of your summary on it. It would be nice if that was there because the 5% number, if someone doesn't listen to this, they'll lose that and they'll have to self-calculate.

We could add that column for the next one.

But doesn't it say, I'm just, it doesn't at the right side where it's tan, It has the budget and the actual from last year.

So when she gave her summary, part of it's in there where our expenses are 11% lower than last year and our income is 5% higher. Yeah, the year-to-year comparison isn't there, but that was the basis of the summary.

Thank you. Ms. Mulligan?

I can't find it in front of me. What is that breakdown on taxes for property taxes? versus the home on the homestead because we're looking at what the senate's actually in office on right now trying to get rid of property tax it was 25 percent was homestead do you know the number of what our tax would be affected if we lose that property tax

Yes, it was around $5 million. Okay, thank you. If we lose all of it.

For those who are listening, this is an education for our voters that if you see the numbers and how close we are, losing $5 million to our general fund balance would be detrimental.

Yes, it would.

And I literally just got an alert 10 minutes ago that they're in session that we need to start emailing everybody. Thank you.

Especially if you can't spend it on anything but five different things. Right.

Okay, moving on to the building fund. The building fund revenues are outperforming prior year's actual by 31%. It's driven primarily with permit fees and special assessment generating about $1.05 million. It is about 35% higher in the same period last year and achieving 64% of the annual budget. Expenditures are at $790,000. That is 24% under budget year to date. And the general fund continues to maintain a positive overall financial position. Are there any questions on the general, I'm sorry, on the building fund?

Mr. Segrist, Mr. McVoy, go ahead, Mr. McVoy first. Mr. Smiley first.

My question is, so we're talking about an impact fee, right? And the impact fee that we're looking at would go into the building fund, is that correct?

I'm sorry, could you please repeat the question?

Pay attention in class, you two. So we're talking about doing an impact fee. Oh, there's phone a friend. If we do initiate this impact fee, that would go to the building fund revenue and expenditures?

For the record, William Walters, Community Sustainability Director. The mobility fee, which we're talking about, is its own enterprise fund with its own series of expenses and revenues.

So it'll be a new enterprise fund?

Yes.

So it will not go into the building fund?

No. The fee that we'll be collecting is somewhat based on the amount of the building permit revenues.

Okay. So we will be creating an additional fund for that mobility fee?

Yes.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Segrich?

Thank you. The permit fees, are those flat rate or are they based on the value of the project?

Permit fees are all based on the value of the project, but as a project becomes more expensive, the percentage of the fee goes down.

So with the new legislation that just got passed, are we going to expect a large hit to the revenue for building permit fees?

We do expect some sort of hit. We do expect, and I think this is for our next meeting, we were going to propose to raise the minimum permit fee. We've got it proposed for next year to be $125. We're proposing it to go to $135 because a lot of the exemptions are going to cover minimum permit fee type items. And so we'll need to make up that difference in some way. There is still a lot of confusion over what you do and do not have to get a permit for regarding that $7,500 exemption, but all life safety issues still require a permit.

And we're no longer going to be able to charge it based on the value of the project, correct?

It's going to have to be based on the actual cost of looking at the... Well, I don't know how... Our fees are based on what we anticipate the cost to provide the service is. So they should be synonymous. And we've been doing a little bit of a calculation. We have been running low on the minimum permit fee side and roughly... online with the other one, there is going to be a lot greater exemption for private provider, which will have to incorporate that because we have several larger projects coming along in the next six months to a year, and they'll likely go private provider route.

Thank you. Mr. McVoy? Thank you. This fund is only the building or is it permits for fences and I don't know, whatever people are doing on residential things. That's part of this fund?

No. We're going to be discussing that as part of a new ERP. There are fees that are collected by the building fund that are for other activities. And those go to those other activity revenue lines. But sometimes, and I don't know whether we have a clear delineation under the current system, because we do collect things in the building permit module that have nothing to do with the building permit. There is some concern that some things may end up in the building permit review section that are not actually building permit review, such as right-of-way permits, driveway permits, fence permits, and things like that. So I don't have a direct answer to your question. I feel fairly confident that things are going where they're supposed to go because we do have a definitive revenue line item for everything that is collected based on the fee. But there is some things that don't quite line up always because things are collected in the building permit module that are not related to building permits.

So this is sort of a computing accounting.

A little bit, yeah. Difficult. We're going to be proposing to move those things out of the building permit and have their own separate section.

I think what I actually was thinking of was code enforcement stuff. Is in this one or is not in this one?

It has nothing to do with the building permit.

And just a general comment. Thank you very much for rounding the numbers to three significant figures. I think that helps us. Thank you.

Okay, moving on to co-remediation fund. And as you can see, revenues remain significantly below expectations at 8.2 thousand with year to year date revenues totaling 8,208 compared to 37,103 at this time last year. That is a 78% decline year over year. The expenditures have declined in response to the reduced revenue environment with total expenditures of 31.4 thousand. That's approximately 23% lower than last year. Could you say that last part again?

For the expenditures? Yeah, the explanation for them.

Approximately 23% lower than last year.

Yeah.

And slightly below the fiscal year 26 budget.

But do we know why?

Is there a reason why?

The main reason is, and William can expand on it, the main reason is that that fund does not generate sufficient revenues to cover the expenses.

This is the, okay, this is when we go out and mow the lawn and we go out and paint the house and charge them back. Is that what this is?

It's a little bit more complicated. Sorry to be more complicated than that. The remediation fund has three primary activities, which are lot clearings, board and secures, and demolitions. We have not done very many board ups or demolitions this year. We haven't done demolitions in several years, but we do have one that's kind of pending. it might be undertaken by the private property owner. This is also where all the funding comes for foreclosures. And we are running, I just looked at a series of invoices. The expenditure line here is probably going to take a significant jump between now and the end of the fiscal year because there's about $7,000 just in foreclosure expenses. We're transferring money out of a demolition fund to cover that. And this is something we need to talk about later is that the less activity we do in terms of board ups, lot clearings and demolitions, the less revenue we get. Because unless we sell surplus properties and we've sold all of them except for a couple, and those were reserved for affordable housing, there is no real defined revenue stream for this fund.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, At some point, maybe we can take a look at funding could i'm not suggesting it, but could we look at getting some money from some other funds that i've assumed i've harped on this a lot of this foreclosure things really important.

I believe we request additional funds during the upcoming budget because we discussed this a few months ago. I brought it to your attention that this was going on.

We didn't do a supplemental because we wanted to have more policy direction from the commission as to what would likely be an appropriate budget in terms of foreclosures and the city attorney's office was going to give us some idea of what foreclosures cost and they're running around seven to twelve thousand dollars for the initial part like a title search hiring an attorney serving papers court recording fees and that sort of thing and even though we decide to foreclose on our property it doesn't mean we're going to actually get the property And then often sometimes there are other things that are owed on those properties, maybe code lien somewhere else. We might be in second in line or third. So it doesn't guarantee we're going to make any money if we actually get the property and sell it.

Right. But it will be out of the hands of the bad owner.

We hope so.

That's the bad owner. We talked about this.

Or somebody may buy one through a tax deed sale. And we seem to have a lot of property owners buying property through taxis, stales, and do not realize that they have a responsibility once they buy the property.

Okay, thank you. It would be nice to be able to track that a little bit better. Ms. Mulligan.

Thank you. It goes to the point when we have these lot clearing fees and then they go before a special magistrate for a discount. Are they allowed to get up to 10%? No.

Our policy has always been, and through our ordinances too, actual direct costs that the city has paid for cannot be reduced. The only thing that can be reduced is the outstanding lien, which is based on the daily fine that's accruing on the property. So we can't reduce lot clearing costs, board up costs, demolition costs, the administrative costs. Those cannot be reduced. They have to be paid. It's the lien that can be reduced up to as much as 10% of what's owed.

And that gets recorded. The fees, it's a lien against the property. Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. May. I guess my question is, if you look at 25, where besides selling the surplus property, we didn't, I mean, it was nowhere near, we had nowhere near the budget for 25. So why would we think that we would for 26? Why was it budgeted that way if we're coming in at the exact same, actually less on 26?

We did anticipate that we would be actually doing more activities in terms of remediation this year than we have been. And so we have to attribute not only the cost of providing that service, but also the projected revenue that would come in if we did expend that money.

Okay. And when we do, what's preventing us from doing more of the demolition, the lot clearing?

We have to have properties that qualify that need that work done. And people have learned that it's way more expensive for us to do it than they do themselves. And so co-compliance has been rather successful this year in having people maintain their own properties.

Then that's good news.

And then we have torn down or encouraged numerous properties to be torn down. And once they're torn down, we don't have that problem anymore.

Okay. So it's not doom and gloom. No, it's not. People are taking care of their properties.

Yes.

Okay, great. Thank you. Mr. Segrist? Thank you. So when we foreclose on our property and we actually gain ownership and then later sell it, it becomes revenue here, correct?

It does if we actually sell it for anything.

Sure.

a number of the properties have been given out for free for affordable housing, and that generates no money.

Correct. But in the case where we foreclose on it and say someone comes in and outbids the number, I'm assuming our lien gets paid in whole or partially at that point. Where does that revenue go?

That would go over onto the lien collection side. It would not come the remediation fund side.

So that would fall into which fund?

The general fund.

So that goes back to the general fund? Mm-hmm.

If you notice, I think it was two slides ago that Candace showed us, we are way ahead of our collections in terms of co-compliance fees. That's under fines and forfeitures. We're already almost at a million dollars for this fiscal year versus just over half a million last year. We've had several really, really large co-compliance collections this year.

So since the foreclosure expense for obtaining that lien comes out of this fund, wouldn't it stand to reason couldn't we, off the top, take our expenses back? Because if we're taking ownership of the property and then selling it, We're putting that revenue in here if there is any. But to me, it would make more sense. I don't know. It's kind of a financial question. If we're getting $200,000 in lien money back and it costs us $20,000 to do the foreclosure,

in theory that twenty thousand dollars should come back to this fund you absolutely correct uh commissioner uh under the magic principle where the cost is incurred is where the revenue should be um and is that happening here well i think the codes that we're using is going to the general fund so we could if we able to track those specific revenues we could transfer those funds back to the remediation part

Makes sense.

And we could come up with a schedule just to present to you before we do such transfer.

Okay, yeah, because I think that would make more sense and keep this looking like a healthier fund. And of course, as Commissioner May said, it's kind of a good thing that we don't have a lot of these because people are coming into compliance. This is not a fund that we want to see making money, right? Because it means people are getting foreclosed on and people are being, you know, we're having forced action. So thank you. Okay, now we're moving on unless the bottom right hand corner, I think the calculations are off because it says zero for everything.

Okay, well, they can look at them.

Okay, so we're moving on to the beach funds. The Beach Fund revenues are outperforming prior year trends and tracking ahead of budget overall. We're at 2.29 million, which is 10% above budget and 8% higher than the same period last year. Total expenditures are at 2.54 million, tracking 10% above budgeted year to date, with most increases tying to operating costs and personnel support necessary to maintain beach operations, public safety, and service levels during peak season.

Ms. May? The line that says transportation, I'm assuming that's parking revenue?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, keep going. Okay, is there any more questions for the beach one?

We'll let you know. You haven't done this too often. I do have a question.

Oh, now there's a light.

That's how you tell.

I call on the daylight and I say, Ms. Malega, what would you like to ask? The parking revenue. So is this the meter parking and the decal? The resident decal?

Yes. So all of it goes into there.

In addition to the valet agreement we have with the hotel next door? That goes into this line? Or is that going to rent? of rent and royalties which one would that go into that'll be the rent it's the it goes what goes into rent because they are renting spaces so i didn't know if the spaces went to parking um i'll have to double check on that one you know i'm talking about the hotel that runs lower they rent like uh eighty thousand a year yeah i believe that goes into the rent we could double check And here goes Miss Tiana.

Oh, it's rentals.

Rentals. Thank you. Thank you. So that's separate from parking, even though technically parking. Got it. Okay, Candace, go ahead.

Okay, so now we're moving on to IT funds. IT fund is a revenues are outperforming prior year trends where year to date revenues of 1.87 million, that is 70, I'm sorry, 7% over fiscal year 25 actuals, which are driven by internal service charges recoveries. expenditures are at 1.3 million and overall the ic fund continues to operate in a financial stable manner, while supporting citywide operations.

Ms. Beck? So this is a completely internal fund.

Yes.

And so each department pays X amount of dollars into this fund.

That is correct.

So if we are, quote, making money in this fund, then is it possible that the IT fund or the IT charged for the other departments could be reduced? if this fund is overperforming? Does that make sense? Do you know what I'm saying?

Yes. For instance, for this particular fund, if we see that there... If it's fund balance is way in excess of what we have for policy, which I'll cover in a few, we could reimburse or give a credit to the department.

Because I think they pay a percentage. Is that right? Or do they pay a flat rate?

There's a whole allocation.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Also, what are we getting interest on at 200%? Investments.

From investments.

Okay. For what investments? Investments. So each fund has a pool of funds that are being invested in bonds.

Okay.

So it's been performing well for the past two years. So that's kind of 200%.

So each department has to put money into the IT fund, which then has its own investment situation going on that then comes back and funds that department? Yes.

So this fund is separate. Each fund has a balance in our investment accounts. So as we earn interest based on their proportion, each fund gets a respective investment income.

Each one has it.

No, I know.

I understand that. I'm just kind of just because it's an internal fund. I'm wondering why. Why would they need the interest if they're getting funded by the department, the exact money that they need?

Well, it's to get the interest. That's just like an accounting or the account rule. That's how we have to allocate the interest by fund. So if the cash portion, if their cash portion is earning interest, we have to allocate that interest income in their fund.

Okay. That makes sense, I guess. Okay. And I don't have a problem with it having money in it because I'm hoping that IT is, you know, then going out and looking at new products and trying to bring us more efficient processes and everything. I'm not dissing the IT fund. I'm just trying to figure out how is it all coming in and then how does the internal fund work? That's all I'm asking. Okay, thanks.

Oh, I'm sorry. Ms. Malega was first and then Mr. McCoy.

Thank you. So my question is, and I just want clarification on the total operating expenditures of 3 million. Is that the new system, the ERP system portion of it?

The ERP system is in the capital project. It's a separate.

So $3 million in operating expenditures without wages.

No, with wages, actually. Oh, you mean the operating expenses?

Yes. That seems high, and I was hoping that that was the new software system or portion of that that we're bringing in. Why would the operating department, I mean, they don't even have that many employees.

Just give me a second.

As Nellie runs from the room.

Your mic's not on. So I have operating expenditures 3.059 million for the budget. The budget is 4.17 is actual.

The 4.4 includes the ERP.

Thank you. So it wasn't in capital.

Correct. That's not capital. Not that I'm.

Yeah.

The ERP, you have it designated in my budget. I saw it. So it was there. It was like 700 and something. Well, OK, but I want to clarify a couple of things, because there's a lot that has is encumbered for monthly expenses like our telecommunications, our AT&T bills, Comcast bills, Verizon's, et cetera. So I'm not sure if this shows the encumbered, but those are expenses that will occur. In addition to having renewals that happened in the last quarter, perfect example of Central Square, and that one's happening in, it's actually due the second week of June. And that's a bill that's over $300,000. So you don't see that reflected here. So just because you see this percentage doesn't mean that you have a surplus.

Well, I was just questioning the operating expenditures of $3 million. That's... That's a lot for, I think, for an IT department, but that's why I was hoping part of it was the new ERP.

I now put an example with software maintenance and support alone, it's over a million dollars. And to run all the softwares that the departments use. So just to give you an idea, just software alone is a million something. I can't know exactly the dollar amount, but that's part of it. Telecommunication as well. That includes the cybersecurity as well. And it includes the software maintenance for the ERP system.

So it does include, okay. Yes. Thank you.

And that also obviously went up.

Mr. Stigrich?

Thank you. And just real quick, does that also include like telecom and all of that lumped in here? Yes. Okay. Yes.

And as for salaries, it's because there's a vacant position as well on that one. And plus we have our GIS as a part-time although it has to be funded as a full-time in case that person needs to be replaced.

Okay. And just so I'm perfectly clear, the ERP implementation is in here, correct? Yes. Okay. And then I guess based on what Commissioner May was saying, their fund balance is at 2.5 million. They're required to have 25%, which is around 1.5, which means the fund balance is about a million dollars over. Just from personal experience with things like IT, if there's any kind of disaster or incident, you're going to want to have a healthy cushion there for that. Because especially with government and the kind of data that we have, it gets real expensive real fast if there's any kind of an incident. Yeah.

It's good to have a cushion. It's always good to have a cushion. Thank you. OK. OK. Welcome to the golf planet.

OK. The golf form, I'm sorry, the golf fund revenues are at 1.47 million, which is 11% above budget and approximately 141,000 higher the same period last year. Expenditures remain well controlled. They're at approximately 943,000. That's only 11% over budget year to date. Golf fund revenues, I'm sorry. The golf fund is performing Normal.

Well, within limits.

Ms. Malega. Thank you. So I don't see the rent for the beach club listed under golf fund. I see culture, recreation, interest, donations, and use of fund balance. Is that under rentals?

It's in that detail. And what detail? The subtotal, the culture, recreation.

Okay, I would like to see that broken down because we're getting ready to go out to RFP possibly. And I think that it's very important that we see the return on the investment for that property. It is one of the diamonds that we have in the city. And to me, cultural recreation, that's renting golf carts and golfing. That is not rental of the property. And I also don't see in here And this is something that's just come up recently, so just forgive me. The operating expenditures, is that us also covering the utility bill for that renter? Is that in there? Their water, is that part of the operating expenditures for that property that we're renting?

I would have to double check that.

Okay, because I have a lot of questions in regards to cleaning up the golf fund personally and making sure that we're getting the residence fair share out of that property. Okay.

I would have to get back to you on that one during the budget workshop. Okay. I'd have to dig in and make sure I give you the correct answer.

Thank you. Ms. May. My question is actually for Ms. Maliga. So you're talking about the rent that the city is paid by the beach club.

Correct. Paid by the beach club.

Okay. So at first I thought you meant the rent that was being paid to rent the room.

No, no. So the rental that we are charging, the $4,400, whatever it was, I don't see it broken out. And additionally, we had that conversation about utilities and them not paying that. I would like to see that broken out.

I agree with you a million percent. I just wasn't clear where you were going at the beginning with the rental, but that makes perfect sense. I'd like to see that too. Mr. McCoy.

Just recall, or I think I recall, that there may be only one meter water, one meter electric at that building, in which case it'll be a little hard to know what is the...

session and what is other stuff correct so it'll have to be a little bit of detail they'll have to you're right and that's what they said they're going to look into that as well bring that back i want you to be yes i'd do a different meter mr segrich no okay oh i was just going to say can we find out for certain um except the garage don't like it don't want to come in tomorrow

Madam Mayor.

Yes, I'm sorry.

I have the interim city manager give an update on that. We've been doing some research and we can provide you a little bit of information about the meters.

Oh, the meters.

Tiana McKay, Interim Assistant City Manager. We have been working with our Public Works Department and our team to be able to separate the meters and be able to, when we move forward, be able to invoice the tenant with their utilities. So we are currently working on that internally. And we will have a full update report on that for you.

I want to make sure that we're not invoicing them. Like we're sending that. I want to make sure that whoever's renting that space has their own account number and their own meter. That is saying in the future, I want to make sure that we're not just invoicing it as part, like my landlord as part of my cam sends me my percentage of the water and the garbage. I don't get the bill directly. So I would like to make sure that whoever does get that space is directly being billed through our city utilities for their services.

They will be because our electric team and our public works team and our water team have all been working to ensure we are able to do that. And we have created a separate meter. Fantastic.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Garage Fund.

Okay, moving on to the Garage Fund. This is another internal service fund. The garage charges services are up 5% over the prior year. The total revenues are about $814,000, which is a 4% increase. Their expenditures total $889,000 through March of 2026. The year-to-year increase in total expenditures is largely tied to non-departmental costs rather than operational efficiencies within the garage division.

So that went up quite a bit from last year. Mr. McGaughy and then Ms. Mulligan.

No.

Ms. Mulligan and then Ms. McGaughy. Thank you. I don't know if Jamie's here, but this non-departmental $8 million?

Yes, that amount includes the garage fleet, the fleet maintenance facility.

The one that's falling down?

Or the new one that we're building?

So this is the money that we're putting aside for the new build that is hopefully going to be here before I turn 60.

We do have the assistant director here if you have any questions.

So my question is, Are we going to just keep that earmarked at 8 million until the garage comes to fruition?

Well, the majority of that is the garage, which I think is about 6 million. Okay. But there's other projects that keep scrolling from the previous year that are included in that amount. So they keep rolling into the following year. All right.

Thank you. That's great.

All right. So this is our fleet garage, right? Yes. Mr. McVoy, and then...

I think that's my question. This has nothing to do with the proposed K Street. This is the fleet.

No. Okay, there have there's no expenditures or or revenues from it yet so Mr sandwich.

Thank you so with a large expenditure like that that we see kind of going year after year after year, my question is so we budgeted for it in 2025 and and we we didn't spend it so i'm assuming that probably went back to fund balance is that correct.

Well, not that particular one, because the garage, the fleet, I believe that was approved a couple of years ago, two or three years ago. So that's been rolling over. So when we budget for this fund, we don't include capital projects. capital project is separate. It's just showing here because it's a, because it rolls under them from the previous year.

Yeah, I follow that. But in the first year that we put it on there, right? And we didn't spend it. That money went back to the fund balance. Correct. And then each subsequent year that we're putting it on there, we're not re-reserving new monies from somewhere else that's expected to come out of fund balance. Right.

It's the same as the same.

Yeah, no, I was just trying to make sure that we weren't going 8, 16, 24, you know, and that way.

And just to clarify, when the commission approves the budget every year, that's in there. So you're actually approving it again to advocate it. So just for your clarification.

just reality yeah i don't know yep it is a little confusing because it looks like we spent nine million last year and we're about to spend nine million this year which isn't the case yeah if we spent it it would have been in the actual not in the budget it's not that's true thank you

I believe the director will be providing an update during budget hearings on the process to build the new facility. That's correct.

Self insurance fund.

Okay, so moving on to the self insurance fund, they have total revenues of 3.68 million through March, which is 11% higher above budget expenditures are at 2.6 million, which is 7% above budget and 1% lower than prior year actuals. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We're on page 10. Yes. Overall, Mr. McVoy has a question. Okay. Overall, the self-assurance fund is performing at the bargain. I'm sorry, the budget train. Okay. Mr. McVoy.

Just a general question on self-insurance. Is it fair to say that that over, say, a decadal sort of timescale is a fairly noisy fund? Some years there's no expense or small and other years it may be, you know, we may get hit quite hard. And it's probably hard to predict on a year to year basis. Is that a reasonable estimate?

So we get the estimates for the insurances, for the property and liability insurances. We get an update on that. There's also personnel costs in that fund as well. But yes, if we do get an emergency, I don't want to say the word, but if we do, then most likely the money comes out of there first.

Okay. Thank you. Just to understand that one.

Thank you. Mr. Segrich.

Thank you. Just as a general question with our property liability, would it be possible to get the asset list that we use to apply for that?

We're currently working with the departments, with the asset list to make sure that all the assets that we have insured is complete.

Could I get the one from whatever was applied last? Absolutely. Okay. And then the other question is, so per our policy, right, we're keeping 25% or that's our goal, which is 1.5 million. And we've got roughly 10 million in there, right? Which is healthy, right? And so on. understanding that that policy is more of a general thing. And, and, and this is where do we think we actually need to be? Because one of the line items that, you know, concerned me was that our premium is like 1.3 million, but we're budgeting close to $3 million for it, which helps increase the fund balance, but how much is too much at some point, right? Well, we are way, way over, uh,

the minimum, as you stated. The ones that assess the claim liability every year, they actually recommend that we keep our fund balance at that level, which if I remember correctly, was at 3 million, right? However, you know, given our current situation with the pending litigations, that fund could come in handy. If we have any, you know, like, for instance, at this moment, we're far from reaching the $8 million for the utility storm fund. Should anything happen, that's the first fund that's going to be the fund that we're going to be using. In addition, if you remember the first main break, that loan is due, I think we paid, that loan is due like fiscal year 2028, two years from now. So if we haven't settled yet with AT&T, those funds will have to come out.

So we should consider ourselves lucky that we have that padding and there's some existing looming liabilities or potential liabilities that make sense to have that level. Got it. Thank you.

I'm just going to reiterate that even though that fund does look healthy, it just takes one or two things to wipe us out. And we're all very privy of the potential litigations that are happening behind the scenes. So I am for one, I'm thankful. that we overestimate on this every year because we don't want to be in a financial situation where we have something come to us in a litigation and we can't fulfill that obligation. That to me means a lot. So thank you for making sure that we continue to overfund and make sure that we are protecting the city, the residents, and our finances.

However, going forward, we're going to keep it where it is.

Keep it where it is.

Give the funds. I don't know.

I see those advertisements, Morgan and Morgan. Okay. Thank you. Page 11.

Okay, we're moving on to the benefit fund. Revenues are trending ahead of expectations. There are approximately at 2.13 million, which is 16% of budget and about 7% higher than the same period last year. Total benefit expenditures through March are at 2.74 million, which is 23% of the annual budget compared to 15% at the same point last year. The increase is primary timing related due to insurance and claims related payouts occurring earlier in the fiscal year.

Okay, any questions? All right, keep going.

The next fund we have is the electric funds. Revenues are outperforming prior year and slightly ahead of budget overall. Total revenues are at 36.4 million, which is 3% above budget and 15% higher than prior year actuals. Expenditures are at 29.7 million. Total wages and benefits are running 12% over budget, I'm sorry, largely tied to staffing and benefit cost pressures, but those increases are being offset by favorable trends and operating expenditures. Okay, Ms. Malega.

Thank you. Just for clarification, when we look at the operating expenses and the expenditures, that includes the bond paybacks, correct?

Correct. Correct.

is in that line item, right?

Yes, the 5.9 million.

Well, I'm looking at operating expenditures. Non-departmental. 18 point, yeah. Is it under operating expenditures or non-departmental?

That would be non-departmental.

That's all the bond payments?

Yes, bond payment for the most part, yes.

Yes, okay. And then when I talk about total wages and benefits, I hear that you're saying we're up, but we also know that we have had the grant coming in and we've moved some of the work that we were gonna do forward. So we talked about overtime the other day. and how some of the overtime is related to the SHRIP project and the work that we're doing. Does that tie into some of this overtime?

On the expense side, the overtime for general overtime, whether it's SHRIP related or not, would show up in the expense side, if that's the question.

I guess the question is I want to make sure that we're not giving away too much overtime because now I'm hearing that we're above our expectation on our wages, which makes me worried. Because if this is a short project and it's on emergency services and it's on outages that we're working on, I don't see the reason for us to be on the higher end.

Well, no, keep in mind that this is a combined budget with base and PCA are both in here together.

I'm talking about wages and benefits. I'm not talking about PCA.

Okay. So wages and benefits, we are up on overtime, but we are capitalizing much of that and drawing that down from bond funds.

But it still doesn't make sense to me if it's drawing it down from bond funds. I would rather spend that money on capital and tangibles than spend it on unnecessary overtime if we don't need to do that right now.

The way that we install the capital equipment is to use overtime labor. And that labor is then capitalized together with the equipment that was placed in service.

Still on an overtime schedule?

We have a three-year time limit to spend down the bond funds, and it also helps speed the ability to improve reliability. And while we're working Saturday overtime, for example, we also have people available to respond to non-capital-related outages. Some of the overtime that we also work is related to work that we're doing on roads when we have maintenance of traffic, MOT, for example, on Malaluca. Well, some of that true, but a lot of it is also when, for example, on Malaluca and Lake Worth Road, when we're working on the underbuild along the new transmission system, we're working longer days. So we don't have as much of a road opening or road lane closures. So we're working 10 hour days out there, for example, to get that done as quickly as possible.

I just think about people are going back looking at this. Is there any way that we could cliff note something that's In regards to the increase in overtime, and then it is related to strip on capital projects.

I'm assuming finance could do that. We do track it internally. Yes.

Yeah. We're always trying to build the transparency, especially with the electric utility. And our numbers are great. Our outages are great. Everything's on the up and up. I just don't want people to reflect back on this and be like, well, why are they spending so much of my money and then raising my cost of my PCA and my cost of my electric? Is that so they can continue to pay overtime? So I just want to make sure there's a fine balance in the transparency of what we're doing.

Right. I'll add too for the public listening that when we're working overtime, especially when working overtime on capital construction, those are projects which need to get done and we're using our own people to do them on overtime rather than paying contractors to do it. We can't do that in every single project, but where we can use our own people, even if it means working overtime, that's still a lower cost than using a contractor.

I fought for us to be able to get the right trucks to get the right poles so we didn't have to outsource that. But I just think for transparency, for these numbers, that there should be some kind of like little cliff note that it goes towards the bonds, capital improvements or something. That over time.

I think, and I know when we did the presentation the other night on just, well, two nights ago, we were here late, right? There was a column in there that showed out of each bond issue, how much of the work had been done internally. That's not all overtime. For example, I'll say that that was a number of about $10 million. I don't want people to think, oh my gosh, they spent $10 million in overtime. No, no, no. That $10 million includes the overtime labor and straight time labor and the equipment value that was paid for out of the bond in each one of those years.

Because it's over and above their day-to-day running the electric utility. It's like all the strips.

Well, a lot of the strip stuff takes place a normal day. So, for example, just round numbers, don't hold me to specifics on it, about 50% of the time that our line department, our linemen and the folks that support them, about 50% of their time is now spent on new stuff, installing new stuff, much of which is done during the basic 40-hour week, but some of which is done by working a couple of hours extra in the evening and also having one or two crews, usually one crew, but sometimes two crews work on Saturday. Okay. Where that's eligible to be paid for out of a bond fund, meaning it's working on a SHRIP system hardening reliability improvement program. We use a lot of acronyms for everybody, but where it's being spent on those eligible activities, we do charge those accounts. Every dollar or every hour that we spend doing work ourselves is a dollar an hour we didn't spend with a contractor. Not that contractors are bad, but it's very helpful for the morale of our team if they get to earn that extra revenue by giving up their Saturdays to come and do it. And we do that on a voluntary basis. We don't force them to come in.

You talked about this the other night, and it gives them more ownership. They know the system so inherently.

Yes, they do.

And transparency, when you see that number and we hear overtime, we're paying overtime. Again, especially when we have a conversation about raising rates, it needs to be very black and white why we do what we do. Right. The backstories.

Well, it would either be that or that money paid out to third-party acts. Correct.

And it's all showing up in our results, and you can see all the new infrastructure. And thank you for your support over the years, all of you, and helping us fund that. That's an important part of the program.

Mr. Zegre?

Thank you. Kind of on that topic, the summary comment was that wages and benefits was up from last year, but the numbers that we have on our sheet show it down and the rate down significantly.

I will have to go back and pull that information because there's other things that are tied to this. So that's what the data was looking at. This is just the master of what's all coming together from that spreadsheet.

So there are wages and benefits up or down?

I would have to go back and look at the back sheet for that.

One of the things that I'll point out, there are some things that will push that up. So, for example, if we go out on mutual aid, that's a significant increase in wages, but we are compensated for that by the receiving entity. Wages go up each year by, let's say, 3% or so, whatever the last negotiated increase in the cost of living allowance in the wages. That will drive that up. And if we have staffing increases year to year, that will show up there as well. Of course, it's typically in overtime, whether we work a lot of overtime at you or less overtime a year at that year, it'll swing that number around as well.

Yeah, I'm just saying from here, it's actually lower. So I'm curious where the summary of it being significantly higher came from. Well, no. So the burn rate's at 35% versus 41%, which is great. We're burning through that less fast. And the actual is $300,000, roughly less than last year. So that to me would be a significant decrease, not increase. Commissioner Malega's comments were based on the comment that there's this big increase. Well, we're not seeing that in the numbers. We'll have to dig in.

Where did you see the increase?

Sixth. Okay. And it's kind of, you know, the commentary on the overtime and the capitalization of labor, you know, to your point, Commissioner Malega, it's very important for our residents to kind of understand that concept. And it's not an easy concept to grasp, but think of it as, you know, we can take a million dollars out of our pocket now and have to pay for it now, or we can spread that out across a number of years and not have that impact now, but get all the benefit. Yeah.

And you're constrained on the spread out by the three-year bond.

Yeah.

Correct. We're required to spend the bond money within three years. There's an IRS test that's applied. And they look also closely at the interest that you earn on the money while you have it. And if you over-earn, in essence, on the interest, you wind up refunding that back to the IRS. That's my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, Yannick. Is that right? If we over-earn on bond fund interest, we have to refund that. On bond fund interest.

We have to pay the access to IRS. No, we don't want to do that.

Right. And Commissioner Segrich is correct. When we capitalize things, we basically spread that cost over the life of the asset, which is 28 to 30 years or so for a utility plant. Whereas as we have expensed that million dollars, we take the hit immediately on a financial basis. So I'd rather take 1 30th of the 1 million in that example than 1 million hit to the bottom line. But you can only do that on projects that are truly eligible for capital treatment. And we're very tough judges of ourselves in making those decisions.

If I may, if I may, Madam Mayor, we just checked our system. So last year, fiscal year 25 in October, I believe there was a hurricane melting where we had to go to Naples. So that's where the salaries were higher, about $300,000 for this one month. So that's why you see that decrease.

Yeah, we supported storms in Gainesville, Tallahassee, and then in South Carolina. Yes, we did. Yes. back towards the utility.

It's under interest and other earnings, I would suppose.

Yes, that would be under other earnings.

Thank you. Moving on to page 13.

Okay, so that's moving on to Electric Utility Storm Fund. And they are currently at 880,000 for fiscal year 26, which is 34% higher than fiscal year 25 actuals revenues at the same point in time. Any questions?

Thank you.

$5.

What? Is that a lot of $5?

Yeah, because it's all those $5 fees. But that's good because it should be, if we're getting $1.6 a year, it should take five years to get to the $8 million, which if we get there faster, we can take the fee off or reassess what amount we really want to be at.

Page 14.

Water fund.

Okay, so now we're moving on to the water fun, the water fun is currently at 10.4 million and revenues and 7.7 million and expenditures.

So I just want to make sure that going forward that into the budget that we're accounting for the new legislation and the surcharge to the outside service area and what that number looks like financially as far as income that's being lost.

Yes. After talking to the water utility director, we were informed that it's capped at 25%, which is what the new bill dictates. Okay.

So what were we charging before?

Before, I'm not sure. Years ago, I don't know what.

We've always been at 25? Yes. Okay. So we're not going to lose anything as far as revenue goes?

As far as I'm concerned, no.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Page 15, local sewer fund revenues and expenses.

Okay. So currently local sewer revenues are at 7.4 million and their expenditures are at 5.6 million.

So both are up.

All right. Ms. Malega. I hate to keep doing this. What is non-departmental under the local sewer fund?

I believe that's tied to the debt service, but I will have to double check that.

So that's an under operating. It's the service for the bonds.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Page 15. Okay. Page 15. No, 16.

Oh, 16. I'm sorry.

This is the stormwater fund right now. Revenues are at 2.7 million. Expenditures are at 1.07 million. Okay. Next page moving on is page 17. So the refuse fund, the refuse fund is that 5.5 million in revenues and expenditures are at 3.8 million. Mr. McCoy.

Yeah, I'm a little behind. On the stormwater one, I just would like to comment that we do have flooding issues at big storms in various parts of the city. And I've said on other occasions, we probably are underfunded in this fund, given the needs and the projected increase in needs particularly increased rainfall intensity which is a bummer for flooding um but expected so just a comment to us did you drive down um fund it more i think no we did that last year we're not doing that again i'm asking how would we fund it more if it's not increasing the rates i mean we're at 84 percent already i think we've funded it we're getting there

I think he's talking the bigger picture.

Speaking of that, did anyone drive down Forest Hill Boulevard this morning? It was literally underwater. The water was above the curb. So it's not just us.

It happens in our city too.

Well, we know that. We're well aware of that. It's not just us.

No, no, it's not just us, certainly. We're probably a little worse because we're closer to the coast, but Yep.

Okay. Refuse.

Refuse fund is the last fund. Revenues right now are currently at $5.5 million and expenditures at $3.8 million. So both have gone up. Ms. May.

Okay. Where in the revenues is dumping the revenue from picking up mattresses?

That would be included as part of charges for services.

Okay, so that's not just the tax bill, garbage bill. That includes any other fee that a resident gets. Is there any way to find out exactly, like, I pay my garbage and my taxes, and so does everybody else. So what do we get from that versus what do we collect on subsequent pickups?

Okay. Okay.

Do you know what I mean? I want to know what are we getting when we're driving around picking up those mattresses?

Okay. We can create that schedule for you. The fines and the specials.

Yeah, because I really want to know is this a revenue source? And then from that, are we funded in our manpower, in our truck power? Do we have what we need to take care of this problem? Because in my mind, we aren't doing a good enough job. So I want to know the details of the money.

I will get together with the department heads and get that breakdown for you. That's super. Thank you.

I appreciate that. Thank you. The ever-present problem of mattresses.

It's like the rain.

Ms. Malega. I also would like to know, I heard that there's been a tipping increase and I want to make sure that we're not behind on that. If we have to do a fee adjustment now i would rather do that now than us being the whole like we were with pca um if the tipping fee did go up to us um i do like commissioner may's question i would like to see that separated because to me if especially because i'm one of the people who sends all the emails about dumping and lots i would like to know that we're i'm always told we send the bill and we collect it that should to me should be under A fine, not for a charge of service, because we're not in the business of cleaning up your lot. And it really should equate to a fine at the end of the day. And making sure that we're not only just getting our fine covering the time of the personnel that's doing it, but the gas that it takes to drive now this load to Lantana plus the tipping fee. All that's got to be making sure that we're calculating that in right and that we're not losing money on that. Another question that I had on the refuse fund was, I lost it now.

Something.

All right. Mr. Segridge.

Thank you. I know we have the contract with waste management where they handle all of the dumpsters. Do we get any revenue from that? And where does that appear here if we do?

I would have to refer back to the, is Mina here?

Yep. Here he comes.

Hi.

Good evening. I'm not knocking you.

I'm trying to get you more money to pick up more mattresses.

Not always dressed like that. Yes, we get revenues from waste management. Yes, it should be in the I believe it should be rolled in charges of services somehow.

Yeah. Not asking for a specific number. Do you have any kind of ballpark in your head?

We can get the specifics and separate, like get a separate column for you.

It's really helpful that we can, number one, we need to know when we get a lot of questions. Yeah.

We can definitely get you the information. Thank you.

So I just want to clarify that right now, what you see in the budget to actual just subtotals, but on the actual budget book, you'll be able to get your line item. Yes.

And this is through March.

This is through March.

Motion for a comfort break.

It's been an hour and a half.

Is that a line item? Let's have a comfort break.

And we're at the end of this section. We can have a comfort break. We're going to take a little break. She doesn't have to. I've never denied anyone a comfort break.

I'm not okay. Yep. yeah very very real for talking oh I don't know.

I don't know. I don't know.

We have to be careful. I don't know.

Yeah. Yeah. Madam Mayor? Yes, ma'am. It is 742. Are we ready to reconvene? I believe we are. Okay. It is 742 and we reconvened.

All right. Thank you very much, folks. We're reconvened and we are on a new phase, a new phase. We're on phase two, phase deux, fund balance.