Commission - workshop

The recommendation had been to do away with the CRA, unfund it, and remove the flock cameras and the crossings for the rails to trails intersections. So we met with them this morning, told them what you all had decided at the last meeting. Their recommendation now is to continue with the 50% funding of the CRA, but to close the animal shelter. And that was leaving at a 4.35 millage rate. And we've got Kiki's who can model a couple different scenarios based on that conversation this morning and go from there. And before we get into that, I'm sure, I mean, you all, we've talked about it since you've been here, but the state, Governor DeSantis has pulled the permit on flock cameras for state right of ways. And then today the sheriff has ended their contract with Flock. So we will have some savings in that. We will bring that contract to you all to see if you want to terminate, which makes sense because we have nowhere to put Flock cameras now except on private property. So we will have a little bit of savings there, but we will discuss that at the next commission meeting or the meeting after. But the money is still in the budget for now just in case we have to pay any expenses related to that. So Kiki, if you want to pull up your screen. So based on the Finance Review Committee's recommendation that has the CRA at 50%, but the animal shelter is still in, and we're at a 4.35 with a $286,000 surplus right now.

SO SINCE THE LAST TIME WE SPOKE ON THIS TOPIC, THANK YOU, SINCE THE LAST TIME WE SPOKE ABOUT THIS AT A WORKSHOP, I WENT THROUGH AND LOOKED AT FISCAL 26 NUMBERS. I DID THAT ON THE WEEKEND, SO I HAVE 11 MONTHS OF GOOD DATA FOR FISCAL 26, AND I BASED THE REVENUES ON THOSE 11 MONTHS. WE STILL ARE MISSING ONE REVENUE PROJECTION FROM THE STATE. IT'S JUST FOR FUEL TAX. I've put in my best estimate. I'm pretty confident in the revenues. I think that we're really close. I don't see that as an issue. The other change that I made over the weekend was our employees have made their medical deduction selections. And as you've heard, this year we offered an HMO for the first time. We had 40 employees move into the HMO plan and some other migrations between the two plans. So that saved us another $99,000. I'm explaining why this is in a surplus now. So the revenues are done. The medical is in. This number is at 4.35. I'll refresh your memory that that requires a 4-1 vote. If we don't have a 4-1 vote, this number becomes, oops, sorry. Now we're in a deficit of $384,000. So as the City Manager just described the conversation this morning with the Finance Review Committee, they voted to continue a 50% funding of the CRA but to remove the animal shelter, which we would still need to pay $150,000 approximately to the county. So what I did was I did this. And then that gets us, oops, one more. We're still at negative 183 at the rollback rate. If you were to vote for one, we would have a half a million dollars of surplus.

And that is with the animal shelter removed? The animal shelter is now gone. So point blank, y'all lose my vote if the animal shelter is touched. I've made that very clear. Um, that is my 1 sacred cow. It is the latest operation and 1 of the least expensive of the city ops. It's 3 whole people. Making incredibly relatively small salaries. Just telling you that I won't hunt.

So I'd like to reiterate, we don't lose a vote. The residents lose the vote. It's what changes there. It's our job just to present the numbers with the facts. So we're not here to ask for votes. We're here to give you information so you all can vote on.

I've made that clear before. I'll make it clear again.

I appreciate that. I'm just modeling the numbers for you. I'm just telling you what the ramifications are of what you keep and what you get rid of.

Okay.

So, and again, if...

These recommendations were originally from the Financial Review Committee, right?

Yes, sir. We took the conversation that you all had from the last meeting where you did not accept their recommendation to remove the CRA 100%, but recommended the 50% funding. So they took that and they came up with the recommendation of, okay, if you want to fund the CRA 50%, then close the animal shelter.

These numbers you gave right here, was that, sorry, I just want to make sure I got it right. This is with or without the funding of the rails to trails crossings?

That still has the crossings in there.

Okay. So when we were wrapping up our fifth workshop last week for the budget, it felt like we were kind of at a good consensus among the commission and looking at the 50% CRA funding. There's a wedge built in for a city clerk to have city manager equivalent funding. We talked about that. I talked about how I thought it, because based on the responsibilities, not the organizational level or the direct report to the commission, but because of the smaller span of control and responsibility of actual people and operations, it would make sense to align that salary more equivalent to the assistant city manager than the city manager. So that gave us some wiggle room there budgetarily as well. I thought we were already at a point where we were looking at balancing with a 4.35 mils potentially and still have $28,000, $30,000 surplus.

Again, I made adjustments over the weekend to actuals. I found all... More money. There was more money, yes, sir. There was more money from the state. There was more money because of the medical selections that the employees made. So, again, if...

So let's go back and take a look at that versus what they, and I realize the financial review committee's giving us recommendations and they adjusted their recommendations based on the half funding for the CRA. But I'd like to go back and look at what we had when we closed out our fifth budget workshop with the additional facts and figurings you've done with 11 of the 12 official state planning factors.

Okay. So I've just now put the animal shelter back in. The CRA is at 50%. The 3-2 vote, we would have a deficit of $384,000. 4.35, which is what they recommended They, the Finance Review Committee, recommended last meeting, not this morning, the last one, that would give us a surplus of $286,000. But it requires four of you to agree to 4.35. I understand.

Well, can you show me what it would be just for reference of what our millage rate is right now?

Of course.

And keep in mind that still requires a 4-1 vote.

Anything above the rollback rate would require a 401.

We could not have been more transparent and collaborative in these workshop forums. I do not think a 401 vote or even a 50 vote is a tremendously heavy lift if we can all come together and agree that We have done our utmost due diligence to keep the millage rate as low as possible, to be as transparent as possible, and to be as lean and efficient as reasonably we can get to.

I'll say this I can't tell you how many times I used to come to commission meetings with I think this is going to happen and something totally different happens so oh yeah all the time and as soon as we leave here people will talk to us right and then people will change their minds it happens

majority of the time so I just be careful with that with that expectation I've done it myself and I've been disappointed many times so I will say we are anticipating a a 3-2 vote as you have seen and now the six workshop there is different priorities for all five of you some of you think animal control should be closed some of you do not some of you think CRA should be 0% funded, some think it should be 100% funded. So staff is anticipating a 3-2 vote and trying to get as close as we can to that break even number with a 3.97. It is impossible without losing some type of service.

So again, at a 3-2 vote, this is the maximum millage that you could vote for, 3-2. including the animal shelter and the CRA at 50%, we're still in a deficit of nearly $400,000. And again, this is just the first step. In November, if amendment three passes, there's going to be a reduction of approximately a million six. So I had been asked by several residents, what would be my recommendation? And what I said this morning was in a perfect world, if I could figure it out, I would recommend that we need a $750,000 surplus, approximately half of what we're gonna lose next year. But unless we make some dramatic changes, I don't think that that's possible. So that's why we started the conversation about other possibilities. That's how we got on to the conversation this morning at the finance review. In a perfect world, if I could figure it out, I would recommend that we have a three quarters of a million dollar surplus. in anticipation of the two following years being even tighter. Does that make sense?

Any thoughts among the rest of the Commission? Any discussion you want to have?

I know we talked a little bit about, like, I've been a big proponent of adding those the crosses at the rails and trails. I think they're needed. But if we don't have the money to do all of them at one time, I'm willing to try one out at first so it would be cheaper so that we can see if it's even worth doing. You know what I mean? Rather than paying for all of them at once, maybe just do one, see if it's even worth the time.

We can model taking that 80,000 and splitting a third of it because it was for three crossings.

Was that in streets? Yes, ma'am, 541. There it is. So you want to just make that $25,000 instead of the age?

Yes, yes.

That's the wrong.

Just getting started. Just getting to the good part.

I know.

We've got two, like, semi-shades of red, two semi-shades of green, two shades of blue. Twenty-five? Twenty-five.

Twenty-five. I also suggested that in times of financial belt tightening, it may not be a good look for us to put the Christmas lights on this building. That's $10,000 we could save.

Yeah, we had mentioned that at workshop one or two. It seemed that the commission was still interested in doing that, but that is definitely something that's an easy cut.

So I just want to verify, the recommendation from the Finance Review Committee was reduce CRA by 50%. Yes. Do away with the animal shelter.

Yes.

And what else?

That was a 4.35 milliliter. 4.35. I think it's reasonable.

So, anything more?

And at this point, city manager, in terms of personnel cuts, how many positions are we looking at being down, positions and actual people displaced?

So there was 29 cuts. On your screen there is what the difference is. 21 of those were vacancies, and the rest were actual people. some of those too. We have done some shifting around. We have transferred some to the enterprise funds to fill some of those positions to help relieve the general fund.

So we are a municipal government. We are not corporate America. But I can tell you how in corporate America from an HR perspective this would do is they would have a bottom line number they needed to get to and they would cut people in positions until they got there. I applaud you not doing that and I realize everybody here has a face and a name and a history with our city and has done a good job. In many cases a great job. That is one area we can go back and revisit if we have to.

So if we cut any more personnel, we need to cut departments, which would be like closing the animal shelter. There's a difference in corporate America and government America is corporate America can quit bad customers. We cannot. If we have people that don't pay their utility bill, we have people that don't pay their taxes, we still have to provide them services. If there's somebody that hasn't paid property taxes in two or three years, they call for up the police or fire, we still have to go. So we can't not provide services. So there is a difference in cutting personnel in corporate America versus government America. But we are pretty much down. If you look at staffing throughout our municipality and other municipalities, we are already understaffed. And with these cuts that we're going to present or that we're going to have in fiscal year 27, we will be even more understaffed. But if we go to cut more staff, it's leading to departments.

completely understand and we are very much teetering on bare bones needs and wants right now. There are certain departments that are very popular and do great things that we could survive as a city without but they are a huge quality of life issue and we're trying to balance that. But if we have to go back and cut more that's on the corporate side that's obviously the big thing. You either stop doing some of what you're doing or you cut people.

So in that, though, we have presented multiple things to cut, and the Commission hasn't gone along with cutting anything. We presented, let's cut animal shelter. That didn't work. Cut the CRA. That didn't work. We want to reduce staffing. If we will gladly cut whatever the commission says, but the commission is gonna have to direct us on what to cut. We started the meeting talking about cutting animal shelter and the reaction is no. So what do we cut?

Judy, you missed that. Commissioner Tender, I'm sorry. So the finance advisory board this morning, they came back and recommended again, they adjusted from cutting the CRA to 50% CRA. But they also recommended, since they were recommending only cutting 50% of the CRA, they also cut the animal shelter. And I said that was dead on arrival with me.

I definitely disagree with cutting the animal shelter. I think we would be in for a nightmare, to be honest with you. And we would have... Bay County is not going to help in the animal shelter part of it. I personally think we should cut CRA 100% and save a lot of money. And if we're being totally honest, and this is my turn to talk, I'm just going to say what I'm thinking. Our finance department right now, salaries are almost half a million dollars a year with five employees. Before Ms. Kiki started, which is, she's been here a long time, we had one person doing finance. And now we're at almost half a million dollars a year with five or six employees.

I would remind you, before Ms. Roman started here with one person doing finance, there was also $5 million stolen from the city.

That was Michael White. That had nothing to do with Beverly.

No, but if you have one person in the finance department, there are no checks and balances.

We don't need six.

We need one person. So we have a procurement manager to help with our procurement. We have a payroll clerk. We have an accounts payable, an accounts receivable. Dawn is our senior accounting. She handles all of our fixed assets. We have Ms. Roman as the finance director, and we have an assistant finance director. The public just voted for a city clerk, and if it's a treasury clerk, then it's going to be splitting that duty.

And I'm not in favor of treasury clerk, but I know we're not voting on that.

So just to talk about that for a second, because I presented this before the city clerk was voted on. I had a presentation to show what the idea was. Not one person. I don't think I even have one resident say we're not for that. No one said anything that they were against it. But now all of a sudden. No. Why?

Are you asking me that question? Oh, I just got into a big hullabaloo with a customer, two today, matter of fact, I called Chris on two of them, make it three, because the last one I got out of there late, and I apologize for being late. I was taking chicken and dumplings to the fire department, and I'm sitting there just fat, dumb, and happy, didn't even remember this meeting. I guess I'm tired. I'm tired of it up to here. Me too. I feel like we're hiding a bunch of stuff. I feel like we're taking away from things that matter to our residents, all residents, and just making our paychecks fatter. You all got my email, my recommendation. We all answered quick, too.

I didn't answer it.

Nobody answered it. And I knew nobody would answer it.

Well, then I would advise you not to do that because...

I agree.

And I don't think we're even supposed to get an email on it.

Really?

Yeah, I don't know.

It's not on the, I don't think it's on the agenda.

But it's something we could vote on in the future, right?

You're polling the commission on something we could vote on. That is a Sunshine violation.

Huh. But I did say do not answer, right?

You did.

Yeah. I did.

But anyway, the point I'm trying to make is this conversation should have happened when we discussed this prior. And I don't understand why that conversation never occurred, but now it is.

May I clarify something? When I hired on in January of 2020, the finance department was two people and it was severely understaffed. And from an audit perspective, there were no separation of duties. It was a problem, and the audit told you it was a problem. I can't remember if there were 14, 15 findings by the audit firm. It was not the way to run municipal government. It was not the way to run any kind of accounting department. There were no separation of duties, and with only two people there, they couldn't take vacations. You couldn't be sick. There was no way to run the finances of the municipal government. Yes, we have additional staff now. We've segregated duties. We've separated so there's checks and balances that we're all double checking each other's work and no one has too much authority. It's all checks and balances and audit requirements. So for instance, I don't know how to cut a check. I couldn't tell you how to run a check through the system. That's intentional because I'm responsible for balancing the checkbook at the end of the month. If I knew how to run a check through the system, I could write a check to myself and then reconcile the check. Do you understand the checks and balances? You don't want to have a singular person in charge of everything. That's protecting your money. So it's an investment in protection. Does that make sense to you, Commissioner?

Oh, yeah, it definitely makes sense. I guess for me, a half a million dollars is a lot of money.

It's a lot of money for anybody, absolutely. Yeah. But what I'm saying is that you have purchased checks and balances and better record keeping and more controls over your money. The example, I think everyone has heard the story about the previous city manager going into the accounts payable person and saying, write a check to ECS. And that happened. THAT JUST HAPPENED AND THERE WAS NO INVOICES, THERE WAS NO BACKUP, THERE WAS JUST TWO FOLKS TRYING TO CHUG OUT ALL THIS WORK AND NO TIME AND NO PLACE TO REGISTER A COMPLAINT THAT THIS WAS NOT THE PROPER WAY TO DO THINGS.

I would like to add, too, that during the time that everyone always references there was one or two people in accounting and there was one person in utility building, the city also only had 13,000 people in 2001. We have drastically grown since. It is not the same city as it was over 20 years ago. We don't provide the same services that we did then. We have grown drastically as a city. And in order to do that, you have to have more employees to keep up.

And the reporting has become far more complex because of Hurricane Michael. I spent a good portion of my day today, being an example of it, still going through and doing reporting on the hurricane. That was not a feature back then.

You know what happens when we don't have checks and balances? you get in the position that we are in right now. So if we do away with those checks and balances five, ten years, actually even before that, you're going to be having the same conversation again, and we will be worse off than we already are.

So to try to regroup us here in a productive direction, What kind of deliverables or guidance, City Manager, are you and Kiki looking for from the Commission today as part of this workshop?

We are not looking for any deliverables. We are here to present the facts. The budget is pretty much done. As what you see on the screen, that is where we stand. There is not any more of the cuts to go through. If there's anything else to cut, it's you all need to decide what services do you want to provide to residents or what other services do you not want to provide to residents anymore. This is what the numbers will be when you all vote. And from there, it's where do we go from here?

So Kiki, roll us back one more time, or you may have it on a different tab here. 4.35 mils, which represents a 6.5% increase. Animal control is still in. It is. And this is with the costing factor. How much was it? Now you actually have 11 of the 12 state costing factors already. You said you've got one.

I'm sorry, I have one?

You have 11 of the 12 costing factors you needed from the state, right?

Oh, all but one revenue is the fuel tax. Okay.

So with 11 of the 12 costing factors woven in here, I believe when we walked away from the fifth workshop, we were at 28 or no, it was 80 something thousand surplus.

I think it was 32. But again, I've updated the revenue since then.

So that's the difference. Hey, that's good. It's The discussion was at that point, I know it was less than 100,000, I can't remember, because we looked at so many numbers that day, but the discussion was, well, how much, and I believe the term I used was financial slop left in the jar, should we have a hard break or some kind of emergency so we don't have one minor blow-up or issue or something, some major breakage, and we're already, you know, a couple weeks into the new year and we're already in a deficit, right? And I know you recommended a certain amount of a surplus, but as it stands right now, if we press forward with what we came up with at the end of the fifth workshop, we're looking at a surplus of about 336,000. with a 4.35 mils, correct? Correct.

Can I add to that real quick just for clarification? That's not including if we cancel the $16,000 a year for flock?

The flock is still in here. I can take the flock out.

And then that's all, is that including the $25,000 or the $80,000? $25,000. Okay.

And leave flock in because we will still have some expenses related to that potentially. So it doesn't make any sense to zero it out yet until we find out for sure what we're doing with that contract.

Did we put that? Oh, it's in the police department. You don't want me to change it at all?

No, we need to wait until we get through and find out what we're doing with the contract.

Okay.

Yeah, it's a brand new thing, so. Yeah.

And how much is the flock currently?

$12,500 a year. $12,500.

What did you say? $12,500. Okay.

Okay.

So we started the conversation about the CRA. Can I give you some information about that as well? Sure. So this was also discussed this morning. These two columns, let's see if I can, I don't know how to make that so you can see it. The columns to the left are historical data about the county portion, what we have received since the inception of 2007. Columns on the right are the city contributions. Now, since 2007, we've had a number of financial issues, as you are fully aware. We've had Hurricane Michael, we've had COVID, and we had a housing crisis back in 2008. Taking all that under consideration, over the span of the CRA, the county has contributed, has increased an average of 9% a year. The city has increased an average of 8% a year. So if I take those percentages and I extrapolate them over the remaining life of the CRA, which is until 2043, that means if the city were to contribute 17 million, the county would contribute 26 million. We're leveraging that city money to increase the county participation. Now that's using a 9% annual increase, which initially sounded high to me, but again, calculating those numbers, we had those three pretty dramatic events during that timeframe. In the box, I put my lowest estimate. So worst-case scenario, over the span from now until 2043, the city could contribute 8,000, excuse me, 8 million, which would get us 11 and a half million from the county. Does that make sense? Now I've set this up in such a way so that I can model if you wanna make a change. So the current thought was, well, what if we fund at 50%? So now the city would contribute $8.8 million and the county would contribute $13.1. My position is I would like to see the CRA funded at the maximum that you are comfortable with because we're leveraging that money. If we completely do away with the CRA, that money, we're leaving it on the table for future investment into the CRA property. I understand that it's short term in the budget. It makes sense to cut the CRA. Long term, it's going to have a larger impact. At one point we talked about, or I suggested, splitting the baby and going to 75%. So over the course of the life of the CRA, the city would contribute 13 million and the county would contribute 19, still down from their maximum of 26. My recommendation on this is based on the fact that if we make whatever change you decide to make to the CRA, I don't believe there's ever going any back. whatever change you recommend to the CRA, the county will need to agree to. We cut it to 50% and then the world changes and next year everything's fine and we wanna go back to 100%, I don't believe the county would agree to that. That's not to their advantage. We're saving them money in their budget. Do you have questions on that?

is there any way we can get a confirmation from the county on that say if we went down to 50 percent can we increase it later so mr craps had a great point this morning as you can't get future commissions to commit or you can't get a current commission to commit to a future commission so they wouldn't say that we're going to increase next year

But, I mean, we can't go and say, hey, this year we want to go down 50%, but next year we're going to project to be 100% and have them agree to it now.

I doubt they would agree to that. It's kind of like saying we're going to increase stormwater assessment 3% this year. I need you all to agree to do a 20% increase next year. It's not going to happen.

The other proverbial elephant in the room is Amendment 3. If Amendment 3 passes, I'm very curious how long CRA is even financially feasible for us or the county at that point.

Kiki, do you have any idea how the CRA will affect the fuel depot property?

It's not in the CRA.

It's definitely not? I know at one point they talked about.

It's not. I think they tried to change the boundary at that time. That's a Ben and Bobby question, but the boundary did not get changed to include that.

So it would be strictly city property, Bay County property?

It would be ad valorem. If the fuel depot is developed, it would be ad valorem increase.

That would increase the property values within the city limits and the ad valorem would rise, yes. There would be additional revenue to the city once that is built out. But I have no information on when that will be concluded.

Yeah, so basically it would be added tax base, but then you'd also have to provide services for that tax base. So it's kind of like you've got to make sure it balances. Now, they do have that special thing where they've said they're going to build a fire station and they're going to build a bunch of things. We don't know any of that yet, though.

And keep in mind, even if they do build it, it will be our responsibility to staff it. Right, right.

So in terms of the CRA commission, do y'all want to talk about this further today in this workshop? We kind of did the proverbial split the baby or the Solomon Act to try to keep it and fund it within reason. I know Commissioner Perno talked about it with builders and how important it is from that aspect. But is there anything else y'all want to talk about?

GOOD AFTERNOON. JUST TO COMMENT ON THE FUEL DEPOT, THE CRA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FUEL DEPOT. YES, COMMISSIONER TENDER, IN 2016 IT WAS ON THE TABLE, IT WAS DISCUSSED, BUT IT WAS ALSO DETERMINED NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. SO WE WON'T BE INVOLVED IN ANY ACTIVITY AT THE FUEL DEPOT, ANY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. ROMAN. HYPOTHETICALLY, IF WE WERE TO CHANGE THE the percentage from 50% to 75%, what would be the difference in the budget?

One moment please.

And that might help, that information might help to kind of clarify things.

All right. So 75% of the CRA, the animal shelter is in. The rails to trails intersection is down to $25,000. And that's it.

So the surplus would come down from $336,000, is that correct?

Yes, to 192.

To 192.

However, again, this is at 4.35. Assuming a 4-1 vote.

Assuming a 4-1 vote. 3-2 vote.

Deficit at 467,000. The power of the fourth vote for sure.

So realistically, Commission, what are y'all thinking? I mean, this is the time for us to share our feelings with the group, per se.

Can I ask a question? This is an old lady memory gone. Did we ever get that state audit that we requested?

That board will reconvene in 2027.

So two years from now.

Well, 2027 is in a few months, but...

So again, for those who are listening at home, I feel the need to reiterate, the city is audited every single year. I know.

By the same people. I mean, is that, why did we ask for the state audit?

Well, you did. You wanted it. Amen. Okay.

And I... Seconded it.

Well, I'm the one that got with the state reps. for it to get requested, because if we request it, then it costs us money.

Yeah. Okay.

So we submitted all of that paperwork to them. Senator Trumbull's office turned it in. That board, my mind went blank on what they're called. They will reconvene in 2027 to decide if they will audit us or not. Still doesn't mean they will.

Right.

Yeah.

When we originally brought that up, you know, that's what was spoken to. It's going to take a while if it ever had.

So thoughts on the CRA? What are you all thinking, 50 percent, 75 percent, zero percent?

Well, I mean, I'll say what I said last time. I do not want to get rid of all that money on the table. I understand that it's an upfront savings, but I do think we owe it to the citizens to cut it from 100%. I do think that, but I don't want to go down to zero. I don't have the appetite for that. I mean, that's just... I do think like what Commissioner Wark, I think it was Commissioner Wark said last time, we do need to kind of refocus the purpose of the CRA, focus more on commercial side in terms of incentives than the residential side because we need to bring in those businesses rather than, I mean paint projects are cool to give people the ability to repaint their house but That's not really, in terms of ROI, that doesn't really help us. But if we're able to somehow incentivize businesses through the storefront program or through giving a discount to have them move here, that's the best tool we have. In the state of Florida, it's the right to build states, so we can't. People that don't really understand local government will joke with me all the time. Like even today, someone was like, you guys need to get a Chick-fil-A in Lynn Haven. I'm like, we have nothing to do with that. But if there's certain things that we want in the CRA area, we can incentivize certain things to come here by giving them a break if they're in the CRA area. That's really the only tool we have as a municipal government to lure whatever it is the citizens want business-wise here. I mean, Chick-fil-A would probably be like seven chicken places within a two-square-foot-mile area, but maybe that was a terrible example, but that's just what someone said today, so it was on my mind. But, yeah, that's what my thoughts are.

So what's your gut take between... I hear you saying... It's practical to reduce and refocus. I'm totally in agreement with you there. I think most of us are. What's your gut telling you on the 50, 75%?

I mean, if we had more money, it would be a no-brainer for 75%. I don't know. I almost want to be like, can we cut in between 75 and 50 and do 60 and get a little bit more? But 75 just seems a little bit too much for me. But 50, I don't want to go any lower than 50.

Pat, you got any thoughts here, sir, on 75 or 50?

When did we decide this morning we decided to get rid of the Plenty of Animals shelter? As the finance review? Yes, sir, that was their recommendation. What's the total dollar amount of the savings? And wouldn't there be a transitionary time where it would still cost us money during this fiscal budget? We just let it go? Yes, sir.

It would be about a $200,000 savings a year.

I think they said it still cost us $150,000 a year.

That is the estimate based on... Is that for lights?

No, that's for paying the county for performing the animal control duties. Every other municipality, they pay the county a quarterly invoice. I took the quarterly invoices from Panama City, Callaway, The Beach, Springfield, and Parker, and just kind of did an average and estimated...

So we're not getting rid of the animal shelter, per se. It's still physically going to be there, but the county would run it?

We would close the Lynn Haven Animal Shelter. If the county wanted to use the facilities, we would welcome them to use it. It wouldn't be a revenue generator. It would be an MOU. Right.

So would we eliminate those three employees that are employed there now?

Yes, ma'am. Would they get jobs with the county? I mean, wouldn't we?

I can't speak for the county, but I'm sure they would be offered something, but whether they take it or whether the county offers it, I can't speak for them.

I wanted to ask, Kiki, do we have any more FEMA money coming?

It's kind of short notice.

Because I want to talk about the 640 and the 147.

You want to talk about FEMA check? There's very minimal amounts of FEMA money. I don't believe that we should consider FEMA money for this discussion. It's going to be very minimal going forward.

We will be lucky to get through it without stroking on the check.

And why would we have to pay them?

Because they claim that they overpaid us.

Okay.

»» Okay.

»» So the animal shelter in this budget has $373,000. That's three staff members and $90,000 in rehab to the building, including a new air conditioning system. If we were to turn this over to the county, that 373 would become 150. Does that make sense?

Yes, sir.

If we close it, the county will have to perform the animal control duties.

In that location?

No, sir. Take our location off the table.

What happened to the money from FEMA that was supposed to take care of the animal shelters?

That project was not done. And where did that money go? It was returned.

It was returned?

I was told it was put into this building. You don't receive a check from FEMA and say, here you go, go do this project. You have to prove that you expensed it.

Okay, so let's talk about the bridge money, 147.

That was a 428 project. That money was reallocated into this building.

Kiki, when she gave her that briefing, that's when she briefed us that.

She briefed that Vicki instructed you to do that, right? Put that money into here?

That was the arrangement, that all the 428 money would go towards this building, yes, ma'am. So the Bailey Bridge, which was a million six, does that sound right? We did not do the Bailey Bridge project. We used that million six towards this building. The animal shelter, FEMA, had allocated $600,000 for the animal shelter. The former city manager said, we are not going to do that project. She and the facilities maintenance directors thought that they could do the work in-house. Mm-hmm. Because we had no invoices to present to FEMA, we couldn't get that $600,000 because we did not substantiate it with invoices. Okay.

And there most definitely was not $600,000 expensed on that building.

No. I had a figure of $640,000.

So when she says $600,000 allocated, that doesn't mean $600,000 that we receive. That's just something that, hey, they can get up to $600,000 for reimbursement. We do the work, we send in the receipts and all the paperwork, and then we wait, and then they send us reimbursement.

The technical word is obligated. FEMA uses the word obligated, meaning they are telling Lynn Haven, we will reimburse you up to $600,000, whatever the number was, 640, whatever. But Lynn Haven would have to do the project up to $640,000. Lynn Haven did not do that project. Therefore, we cannot get the money from FEMA.

It's just reimbursement.

Right. And we didn't have any insurance. I knew we had insurance money for the library. Did we have any insurance money for the animal shelter?

Yeah, I don't have that number on the top of my head. Do you know if we used it for that?

There was work done to the animal shelter, yes. There was a new roof and some minor renovations inside to get the building back usable. Would it have been the best case to spend 600 grand on the facility and rebuild it? Absolutely. We could have got 600 grand back to do it. But even if we would have gotten the 600 grand back to do it, we still would have had other financial issues that we're dealing with today and would still be looking at is this one of the services that we want to do away with. The 600 grand has nothing to do with keeping the animal shelter open or not. It's whether the facility is in better shape than it is today.

You're saying that 600 and whatever was never used for anything else?

It can't be used for anything else. It was obligated for the animal shelter. And the decision from the previous administration was not to do the work. Therefore, we cannot request the money from FEMA because the work was not done.

Gotcha. So it's like non-existent.

So then if you don't do it in so much time, it expires and the money goes away.

Correct.

We have trucks and we have hardware to go with the animal shelter, right?

We have vehicles that belong to the animal shelter, yes, sir.

What would happen with those?

We would likely sell them and help our revenues.

Is there any, I know this is short notice, we're making a, I feel like we're making a knee-jerk decision, but I mean, can we explore the option of a private partnership with like an Aliqua Animal Rescue, I just mentioned them because I know they're, you know, they're pretty prevalent in this area, or where it was a hybrid situation where they took over the shelter Bay County worked it with the vehicles. I think we owe that to explore before we made this decision.

I would like to remind everyone that we are the only municipality between Pensacola and Tallahassee, aside from Destin, I got that wrong this morning. Destin and Tallahassee are the only cities that have animal control. Every other place is performed by the county.

I'm okay with that.

Have you been over to the animal shelter lately?

If you haven't, you need to go take a look. There are walls.

You open a door, the wall's gone, and it's all piled up outside in big piles. Oh, yes. You go...

Have you seen it? I have. I have too. They've gone through the summer without AC for most of the animals. A lot of fans.

Huge hunks of cement like this.

So would the facility be used if we turned it over? At the animal shelter. Sir, I don't feel like we've done anything over there. Would that facility be used to turn it over or would it just go to the county in another location?

We have money allocated in the new budget to replace, well, to put in an AC system and wiring for most of it. There's a small window unit, I believe, but the facility needs repairs. The AC would be a big part, but it's already in the 27 budget.

So right now, if we put in a 4.2, 35, right, millage, and we had a 75% CRA, a 25% reduction in CRA, and we kept the animal shelter, we would have $192,000 surplus in the budget, correct?

Let me put it back, just one second, please.

And that was with only one of the three $25,000, wasn't that what it was?

One crossing.

One of three.

One of three, yeah.

Three, right? Yes, sir. Okay.

Animal shelter is in. CRA is at 75%. The crossing is at $25,000. We're at 4.35, which is a 4-1 vote. We'd have a surplus of $192,000.

which gives us some operational, not a lot, but in the grand scheme of things, but it keeps us in the green and close to 200,000 for general fund operational breaks, emergencies, mad money per se.

It's going to go pretty fast.

Oh, I'm sure. But at least it's not one of these where we're down to the dollar or whatever. $50,000 left in the green and one contingency or one issue and you're in the red, right?

Does the sanitation rate increase have anything to do with this? No, sir. No. It's an enterprise bonus. It's enterprise.

And I have not put that in because you haven't voted on it.

I know. I hope we do. You know, what we're looking at is better than what we've had, and it's a little bit more for the CRA than what the Finance Review Committee put in. And it keeps the animal shelter, but it doesn't have as much of a surplus. Yeah. So we're cutting it. But that means, my fellow commissioners, we all need to vote for this if that's what we want. That's what we're here for, to talk in the sunshine about this. You know, because I'd like to be confident that we walk away from here knowing more what our vote's going to be, not hedging the bets. It's going to be 3-2. We're going to drop to a rollback rate and then the damn budget's going to be screwed in the process. So, I mean, I feel like, you know, that's a best-case scenario right here, even though it's not the best leaving fat on the table for the budget. But, you know, it's a start. And if you want to, whatever you cut the CRA, it's not coming back, you know. So to cut it this much and to do, I think we've got options to explore with our Lynnhaven Animal Shelter. There's still negotiations. I think the county's redoing their process on animal control right now. It might be a win-win within the budget year to switch the county. And then we could save money that way. But for what we got to decide, you know, I'm okay with what I'm looking at, even though it kind of stinks for an aggressive, it's not an aggressive surplus, but it's a surplus. So you got my feelings. You can go around from here and see if we need to do something else.

I will say, too, this will be, I believe, the first time since I've been in that we had a surplus.

But with that, though, I want everyone to remember that, yes, we do have a surplus, but we have kept every service and we can't sustain. So we have kept animal control, we've kept the CRA, we've kept sports and rec, we've kept everything. But we've cut everything from the budget. We're not buying any new equipment. We're not buying any new vehicles. We're not doing any projects. So we're keeping all of these services, but we're not improving any of the services. We've cut 29 positions, so we're going to provide the same services with less people, less equipment, and less things to do it. You cannot keep going down this road. At some point, the five of you are going to have to decide what to cut. And we keep presenting things to you, and none of it gets cut.

So, Pat, you said one thing that I really agree with, sir, and that is, you know, let's kind of lay our thoughts on the table and where we're going with this. Commissioner Tender and I have both said today we're against dropping the animal shelter. And I've already told you all, I won't vote for this budget if the animal shelter is cut. So you cut both of our budgets, you're at a 3-2. Right, that's a 3-2 that rolls you back. But now if Animal Shelter stays in and we all come to a consensus, which we're trying to do as a team and a collaborative front, a 4-1 or even a 5-0 is very realistic. So one thing I have said in the last couple of budget workshops is, y'all, tell me what your sacred cows are. Tell me what your silver bullets are.

So what you're saying is you'll never be open to shutting down the animal shelter.

Is that what you're saying? I just said I will not vote for this budget if the animal shelter is cut.

My question is, are you saying you will never, ever be open to shutting down the animal shelter?

And I just gave you the answer that I'm willing to give you. And that is I am not voting for this budget if you put the animal shelter.

Okay, next year and the year after that and the year after that, will you be open to the possibility of the animal shelter shutting down?

We will see what happens with Amendment 3.

The reason I'm asking this is for a very important reason. Hold on, hold on, hold on.

Get it. Go ahead.

When I originally came, I'll get to you. But when I originally came here with a resolution to look at consolidation of services, we all sat up here and we all agreed, let's look at the numbers. We can't even look at the numbers because we don't have them. Why do we not have the numbers? Because people change their minds. We talked about all this up here on the dais. And I'm going to tell you this right now, and nobody from the county is going to tell you this. The reason they're not looking at it is because they don't have confidence in this commission to make a decisive decision. People come up here and they'll say one thing and they'll go on Facebook and say something else. That's why we don't even have the numbers to look at. That's why I asked the question, will you ever be open to it? Because we need to look at the numbers. I'm not saying it needs to be. This needs to happen and this needs to happen. But we at least need to have the numbers to make an informed decision. And we can't even make an informed decision because we can't even get the numbers.

And I have been consistent privately with the city manager as well as publicly. That is not something that I wanted to support.

Then why did we vote on looking at consolidation of services if you were not for it?

The city manager asked for authorization to go to the counties and run numbers for authorization. You want to look at the numbers, fine, you look at the numbers. You can do that. I don't see what the issue is.

The issue is, when we voted on it, you were fine at looking at the numbers, but as soon as we left out of here, you were not. That's the problem. We say one thing up here, and then we go out there and say something different. That's the issue I have, and it puts us in a bad position when we do that, and that's what the county sees, and the county's like, what, they're gonna say this and not do this? Of course we're not gonna look at it.

You run the numbers if you want. I have been very consistent that I do not support that. And you can be mad at me all day long and twice on Sunday, Jamie. It is what it is. I've said very clearly what I will support and not support.

I don't have a problem with you with that position. But if that was the position that you had, then you should have said it when we voted on the consolidation of services. You even brought up the animal shelter when we talked about consolidation of services. I had. As something that I didn't want to do. Hold on, hold on, hold on. And you said, yep, we're going to look at all these, and you're the one that brought up animal shelter. But now, you're not even willing to look at it.

I did bring up animal shelter and rolled the tape back. It literally said, this is one thing that I don't want to do and don't have the heart to do. However, if we have to save money, this is a possible option. I did say that. Go roll the tape back and look. Sir?

I am more than happy to say how I feel about the animal shelter, okay? Now, it's not the hill I want to die on, but I do want the employees there, I would like them to stay employed with the county. I would like to know that the county is going to take over the facility. I think we've got an opportunity and originally, if we'd have just stuck to the guns and let it go, we would have had this scenario in front of us with a better situation and a savings. And that's what I'm agreeable to. But we haven't heard back from the county on it since they walked away from negotiations. And I don't know what their reasons were. I got a good feeling why. But to lose the animal shelter, as long as we have a facility and we have the people, I think the people that work our animal shelter are the reason the animal shelter works. So if they're still there, whether they're wearing a Glenhaven shirt or a county shirt, I think the care and concern is still there. Now, there'll be a set of rules. The county has maybe a different set of rules than the Glenhaven shelter does. So be it. I think that's going to work out. So I mean, to make it something that you're going to you're kind of cutting off your nose to spite your face if you're going to just deadpan say no, you know, because I think there's a means to an end here, you know, but do we need to do it now? Because right now what you're looking at is the 4.35 millage, you're looking at a 75 percent CRA and you're leaving the animal shelter in and this is what you're getting. Now, it's not the best thing for City Manager because he sees the ways and daily operations are going to bring this budget down, right, because we're running on fumes, correct?

So we are on fumes, and as the conversation has gone today, we do not anticipate a 4-1 vote.

Right. That's what I'm sitting here trying to play Texas Hold'em with you guys and know what your hands are and see that we've got to agree on either the millage or the cuts. and know what we're going to, you know, this is one thing we need to, you know, it's okay to say how we're going to vote or what we're agreeable to. It's a workshop. You know, you're saying you're not agreeable, but look what it's going to cost the city if you don't think that, you know, if you get myopic on this and, you know, there's a way out of it with the animal shelter. There's a way out of it. But for right now, what you see, it's there and what you got. But if we worked on it more diligently, there's a way out of it after this where we can save money. And I guarantee you, we could get to work on it and we could negotiate with the county after the budget you know, and make an announcement, do whatever, or we can see what we've got options out there. I know there's people within the city who said, if anything's ever happening with the animal shelter, let me know, and they're connected with some serious private stuff that I've talked to city manager about it, and I'm not gonna put anybody on the spot right now, but we can go to work on getting some help with the animal shelter if we needed to. of what we are looking at right now. But that means we have to vote, four to one at least, for that millage and this budget right here.

I would also like to add, let me deal with the employee portion. Some of you have made comments or made decisions based on how you feel about certain individuals. That is not the job of you five. That's my job. You all do not need to make your decisions based on this budget on personalities and who you like or who you do not like. That's for me to do. You all need to make the decision based on the numbers.

Your point is well taken, City Manager. We haven't cut any programs. I like Ben quite a bit. We could cut the CRA and I would be fine with it. You two in particular were against that, and we're like, eh. So we tried to come back to the meat in the middle and to split the baby, right, to the 50%. I want us as a team, if we do this right as a team, as a commission, and we do it fairly and openly, and we communicate, hey, CRA is my big rock. I'm going to die on the CRA Hill, or I'm going to die on Animal Control Hill, or I'm going to die on Sports and Rec Hill. Let's do that. Let's have those conversations. Let's figure out. Let's make the tough calls as a team and get a 5-0 vote or at least a 4-1.

Are you going to vote for a 4.35 match?

With what we just presented a while ago, we can roll forward with the 4.35, right? It seems like that's about a 6.5% increase from the 4.05. I think I'm the first one to say that so far. Where are the rest of y'all at with that? Kiki rolled the tape back to where we were a minute ago with the four point...

4.35. I will do that. Just let me explain to you what you're looking at right now. This is the animal shelter is gone with a 3-2 vote and 75% for the CRA. That's what you're looking at right now. Now you want to go back to 4.35 and fully fund the animal shelter?

Yes.

One moment, please.

So this is where communication is very critical between the five of us. Let's be open. Let's be frank. We can make them, to the city manager's point, all we're doing is we're cutting muscle. We still got the bone, right? We still got all the programs. So where do y'all, I'm going to specifically pulse all four of y'all. Where do y'all stand right now on this with the 75% millage, or excuse me, the 75% CRA funding, 4.35 millage, which is about a 6.5% increase, with one of the three Rails to Trails signs in, right? And everything else where we ended the fifth budget workshop. So everything we talked about that we went through line by line, department by department, cut out the tree giveaway, all of that. Here's where we're at. Where do you all stand? I will publicly say I could support this. As long as the animal shelter is left alone with its three employees doing what they do, I will support this. Where are the rest of you for? Pat, we'll start with you, sir.

I've already said it. I just said it. I started this stuff. I just said it.

What the hell? Well, it's going down the list.

I just said it. That's what I just said. I said this. Look at this. This is what I said I would be for, and I need to hear from you guys. You're just recapitulating. Yes, sir. Now, I'm also for... Let that man negotiate with the county and see what we can save in the future and vote on moving the, if it makes sense and the county's agreeable, I'm okay with moving the animal shelter to county services and keeping the employees and saving the money. That'll be another fight, but for now, I want to see this. But I'll damn sure vote to do it if he brings it back and the county wants to negotiate with it.

Thank you, sir. Your input and your support of this is readily acknowledged. Sam, what do you think?

So I'm going to say something that I never thought I'd say in my entire life, which is I think I might support a 4.35% increase, just because we've already cut our budget by 23%, at least. And we're still running on fumes. The millage rate was 4.3 seven years ago or so. You know, if the staff had not shown as much effort as they had to cut down on the budget, I would have said absolutely no, I'm not voting for a 4.35, not a chance. But, I mean, the effort has been put there. The Finance Review Committee has put hours and hours into this. All the heads have been put into this to try to get this thing done. It is what it is. I would say I like the CRA, but I, and what I struggle, so the thing I struggle with right now is if we're going to raise the millage rate to 4.35, Would like to see more surplus So does that mean we so in the only way we could do that is maybe not go all the way up to the 75% on the CRA that's not a Hill I'm gonna die on so like if it comes down to Being a 3-2 vote on that. I'm I'm not gonna be the Novo to kill it That's just kind of where my head's at Yeah

So one quick, easy kill, if there is such a- You got wiggle room on the CRA, but you'll vote for it. Yes, yeah. So if you wanted to go, say, over 200,000 surplus versus 192, we could drop that one remaining- upgrade rails to trail sign and leave what we have now that's 25k right so that gets you up to 220 ish 215 ish we could do that you could also drop the percentage of the CRA a bit but

So we can also leave it as is and not try to drive up revenues, but our belts will still be tight October 1. I mean, we still have to look at, you know, with some of these position cuts, we still have some vehicles that we plan to get rid of. Those are revenues really aren't accounted for. We could sell some more of our vehicles off that we're not going to use, less fuel consumption. So I would say let's not just continue to cut just to get an extra 18 grand shown on paper. Let's just continue to be frugal in the budget and work towards it as we work through fiscal year 27. Okay.

Thank you for that, City Manager. Commissioner Ward, what are your thoughts?

I'm not happy with it. We sit here and we say, we gotta make hard decisions. And I don't know, I just, I don't think we realize what that is. But the rails or trails thing, I'll be honest with you, I know it's not a lot of money just to do one, but if someone's gonna use it, they're gonna be walking. If they're driving a bike, something on wheels, they're not gonna push the button. I really, I know it's considered a safety thing, but I don't think it's gonna get utilized like we think it's going to be, and I'd be fine cutting it. I already said it earlier. We should have been having these conversations about consolidation of services. I'm not saying I was this way or this way. I just wanna know the numbers, and I wanna know the facts so I can make an informed decision. I can't make that decision now. But I would vote yes for this, but I wouldn't be happy with it. That's where I'm at.

Thank you, sir. Ms. Stender.

Okay. Well, you all know I'm not in favor of messing with the animal shelter. I feel like we should cut back. If we've got to keep the CRA at all, I think we should cut back to about 60%. Rails to trails, you can close them all as far as I'm concerned. That was a waste of money, in my opinion, when we started that whole thing. That's pretty much it. I feel pretty strong about the fact that instead of building a pavilion at Kinsall Park, we should have asked James to direct his funds to the animal shelter. It would have been less money than building a pavilion at Kinsall Park.

I would like to add that we didn't ask. He told.

Oh, he told you he was going to build a pavilion?

I didn't ask for anything. He told me.

Oh, okay. Well, I'll be calling him in about 15 minutes because I'm hearing two different stories.

So, ma'am, where are you with this budget? Is this something that you can support as currently drafted, the 4.35 animal shelter in CRA at 75%?

I'm like Jamie. I want to think on it, too.

already said i'd vote yes for it but i'm not happy with it yeah i'm not happy with it either um we're not voting today are we no we're not put me down as big fat maybe that's four to one well that's a four one and a potential five of a it's sausage making and it's not pretty but we could end up with a pretty damn good product

So Mayor, I know that you have not been a part of the- So do we hands or do we bust out the pocket knife? What was that, ma'am? You were not a part of the commission the last time we did this. The first item that will be brought to you is the millage rate. Based on this conversation, I will bring a resolution that says 4.35. We will hope that it will receive support. If it does not, then I will need guidance and we'll need to redo that number. Once you as a commission decide on the millage rate, then the next resolution will be the budget. So depending upon what you do with the millage rate, I may have to quick change the numbers on the budget to make it balance. Yes.

So we just had four yeses and one big fat maybe, in air quotes, for the 4.35 with this budget as presented.

What always happens is we'll sit here and say something and we'll bond up, but then we go out there and get everybody's feelings. So just what we're going to vote and we're going to put up the armor now and we're going to hear from the public.

Yeah, so one other piece of this that we haven't even discussed in the budget is, so for the enterprise funds, we don't need to really do anything with that, correct, City Manager?

Well, we were asking you to increase the sanitation rates and the stormwater rate next meeting, so.

So increase the rates, but is there any type of normal budgetary input you need from us other than that, the price control?

No, sir.

What about the non-advalorum for stormwater?

That's what's coming up at the next meeting.

Well, the non-Avalorum is a year-to-year renewal versus an enterprise budgetary fund, right? So, it's, accountability is a little different, right? Because that's a year-to-year renewal versus, say, you know, garbage or something like that.

That's what I'm saying. That's what we'll bring into your next meeting. We opened the hearing at the last meeting, and you and I will continue that hearing at the next one, and we're going to present to you the 3% increase that was agreed to last year. If you approve it, that's... a three percent increase if you don't approve it then we're stuck and still running stagnant and stormwater

Now, with the stormwater, is there any discussion for that among the commission? Like, for example, Commissioner Wark had a pretty innovative idea that he proposed before I joined. I remember sitting out in the audience watching it.

If we're going to change it, that should have happened six months ago. We're not changing anything next meeting. The only thing we're doing next meeting is approving whether you have approved the increase or not.

So the timeline for any changes for that will be for the 28.

Is that sanitation and stormwater next meeting? Yes, sir. Okay. And millage.

Basically, if we want to change the methodology, we need to start that October.

For the next year? Yeah. Okay. Because we haven't mentioned it at all other than the rate change proposal.

Well, I didn't anticipate there being a discussion on changing the methodology since last year. We had the same conversation and it was agreed to to increase it 3% this year. Which it goes back to Commissioner Wark's comment about can you get the county to agree to keep a percentage reduction down this year and then increase it next? The commission at the time last year said, oh yeah, we'll increase the stormwater rate. We're facing it may not increase this year. So you can't go year to year without the conversation.

Okay. Well, this is my first rodeo with that. So excuse the new guy question.

Hey, we've all been there.

All right. Any other discussion among the commission for this at this point? Or city manager, do you have anything else you want to talk with us about regarding this workshop?

No, sir. I just hear people say, you know, up here, hey, we're not happy with the budget. You know, it's a tough number, but there's people that are losing their jobs over it and there's still stuff not getting done. So we completely understand. But again... I've got the employee side of it. Just need you all to focus on the numbers and decide what you all think is best.

I would like to say on record, when I was saying I'm not happy with the budget, it's not that I'm not happy with the work that you guys did. No, I get it. Yeah, it's just I'm upset with the situation, if you will, the situation that we're in.

And as bad or as challenging as things are now, If Amendment 3 passes, next year's budget will be a whole different shooting match.

If Amendment 3 passes, we will start the budget conversation, the second meeting. Well, we don't have a second meeting in November, but we'll likely have a special meeting in November so we can start it. As you can see from six budget workshops, it's going to take six months to establish that.

And for the final tidbit here, I guess, City Manager, your point is well taken that we're not cutting core services yet. We haven't made any tough choices. We haven't killed any sacred cows, per se, any of the core programs. Realize, moving forward, any additional cuts, we're really there. There's no fat left to trim. It's literally cutting off fingers or limbs, programmatically speaking, with any future cuts that we have to do.

So to fit the analogies, we're not cutting sacred cows, but we're starving them.

So with that, any other discussion from the commission before I open up the floor?

None? All right.

Come on up.

I'm going to need about 10 minutes. A couple of things. I think the finance department might be a little heavy on employees, but you don't want one person managing $68 million. If you have no checks and balances, everybody gets a check, right? The finance department does need people there, but you need more than one, more than two, maybe not seven or six. But anyway, that's it for the finance department. The animal shelter... Me, personally, I hate to see it go. It was my thing. I did not want to see. I would never have thought I would have recommended that we eliminate the animal shelter. Right. But going through this, We have to make changes that we're not going to have to continue to starve everything. And we've got to make changes that are going to carry through from year to year. Y'all will be right back here a year from now making the same decisions, talking about the same stuff, because you've not bitten the bullet, per se, and made the decision now. These things you're going to have to look at. Same thing cutting the CRA back to 50%. It's something that is going to give you a possible, and I hate to use the word surplus, because as soon as you say surplus, people start trying to spend it. More unallocated funds is how I would like to look at it. But you need to make cuts that are going to carry through from year to year, not just a Band-Aid, and that's what you're doing right now. And the Band-Aid's not going to work next year. You're going to need a tourniquet, and then you're going to be cutting limbs off. Right now is when you need to be thinking about that. There should be no real sacred cows. Really, there shouldn't. At the end of the day, you need to work toward significant sustained reductions that you can maintain. Because right now, if Amendment 3 passes, the state's going to start taking control of everything. We need to get a grasp on our budget today so we don't have to depend on the state, which is what's going to happen if we don't do it now. The state's going to come in and say, we're going to control what money you get. The 3-2, if you decide, well, we're going to get rid of the animal shelter, and you say, oh, well, we're not going to vote for that, well, you vote for 3-2, you're going to be at rollback rate. You're going to get rid of the animal shelter. The 3-2 is not an option to keep the animal shelter at that point. So keep that in mind. The traffic signals, the Finance Committee this morning, we did not even discuss the traffic signals. So I'm going to say that recommendation to remove those stands. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but there was no talk about that. The flock cameras is $12,500. Y'all not really talked about that. It may save $10,000 or so, something like that, when flock goes away, but that's something there. That's pretty much all I've got to say. I will tell you my wife is a big proponent of the animal shelter. Me and her disagree that maybe it needs to go, maybe it not. But if you get rid of it, you're not gonna see it come back or see anybody volunteer. Chris, how much money was raised for the animal shelter?

I haven't seen an official number, but unofficially I believe about $830.

Okay, $830 for a public outcry to fund the animal shelter. The last thing I'd like to say, and I'm sorry I'm going to run out of time, I would like to see in the future, once a month, say the first commission meeting, I would like us to see a thing from the finance director that says, X dollars came in this month, X dollars went out this month, and this is how much cash we have on hand, first meeting each month. That way we know, and yeah, it's a snapshot, I know, but you can follow those, and eventually you get enough snapshots. You can see how things are trending, and I just think that's a good idea. The citizens would know how much money we've got, how much we're spending, and how much we're bringing in. Thank you.

I gave you some extra time because you were actually briefing us on some of the committee stuff this morning. We don't have a huge population here, so give a little grace and extra there. But I appreciate what y'all did this morning. I may not have agreed at all with you on the animal shelter, but I appreciate y'all's due diligence. I didn't watch your meeting this morning. I watched the whole three-plus hour on the 17th, and that was fun. Poor Mr. Hines for his first meeting. But thank y'all for your work there, Johnny. Mr. Scrae, come on up. Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

Yeah, the official number is just over $800 in direct donation. There's one person who is working on getting a $3,000 donation from their employer to be directly donated through the Grace Project to the animal shelter, so that's pending. There's another individual who's having $250 directed through his financial broker, so that's pending. But some of the biggest gains is not in the direct dollars donated, it's the publicity that it brought. There was a lot of people that went up to the animal shelter and brought cat litter and cat food and dog food and just different things they needed. I remember a few years ago we did, there was a little girl that passed away in a car accident here in Lynn Haven. This is going to make me emotional, something you guys probably haven't seen in a while. She died in a car accident, and she used to volunteer at the animal shelter all the time. And I worked with Ramona to get stuff to truck up at the park here with that little girl's family. People came out and dropped off all they wanted to donate it, put it in the back of Ramona's truck, and they walked laps, which is something that little girl liked to do at Sheffield Park. So that kind of stuff, I mean, that's where the difference is made. It's not in the direct dollars donated. It's in that bigger picture of stuff. Just an update for y'all. Zach Detweiler and myself have selected a treasurer for our 501c3. We're starting Lynn Haven Community Fund. Emily Kanzarani is going to be our treasurer. So we're going to be working on filing paperwork. We're going to start operating as a corp until we get our 501c3 status. The same message that I've been pushing the whole time is we're committed to bridging that gap that the city is in obviously tough times. One of our first things we're already working on is getting two or three concerts out here this fall. That's something that the community loves. It's going to look a little bit different than when the city ran it, but that's okay because the city's not meant to be in the entertainment business. We love the parks. We love that the city provides the parks. You guys don't need to be the ones doing the entertainment in the parks. You have a whole community that can do that. Community hasn't needed to do that because the city took that baton and they ran with it. There was no room for anybody else to do that. That day is gone. It does not need to come back. The community can do that. There's plenty of other events that we can work on. We can work on helping fund the animal shelter as well. It just, I appreciate you guys keeping it for one more year. Let's see what this year brings, what we can bring to the table and just kind of go from there. You guys did great discussing it. I appreciate you putting everybody on the spot. That's what it takes. It sucks to see taxes go up, but let's be honest, this is probably going to be the last year, you know, because even if the millage goes up next year, you know, your tax base may be going down heavily.

Thank you, Ryan. And since you're an administrator for Lynn Haven Neighbors, this is relevant to your discussion there. Yesterday, a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel I worked with at Tyndall who lives here in Windhaven, Mindy Oliver, posted. And she had reached out to Courtney at the animal shelter and said, hey, what do you need? She said, hey, we could really use some extra cat litter and cat food. So Mindy posted that yesterday and said, hey, I talked to Courtney this morning. She said these are items that they could really use. And there was a slew of folks, hey, what's their address? I'll Amazon deliver, you know. And then the same individuals would reply back, hey, just send them 40 pounds of cat litter, five cases of cat food, whatever, right? So I appreciate the fundraiser you did with Butters, I think was the name of it. But that's just one of many. There's a lot of folks. We got a lot of animal lovers in Lynn Haven. The animal shelter is very, very near and dear to all of us. It just is what it is. But that's another example of folks in the community willing to step up and help and not go, well, I already paid taxes. Why aren't you all feeding those cats? It's what do you need? And people are already showing up at the shelter giving these donated items.

I just want to clarify, so ButterApp is a fundraising app that anybody can use. You choose some of their different fundraisers, cookie dough, dog treats, the different things they have, and you just run a fundraiser. 50% of the money that's raised goes to paying for the product that's being delivered and whatever their GNA is. And then 50% goes to you as the fundraiser. To keep things clean and neat, I had the funds, which I think the check was just mailed out today, direct it to the Grace Project, which is a 501c3 that already works with our animal shelter. So when they receive the funds, they're gonna bring them to the city animal shelter. And I've been telling a lot of people along the way, just, you know, make the check payable to city of Lynnhaven, put in the memo at Kiki's direction was Lynnhaven animal shelter. And she segregates those funds. So that way people donating know where it's going. But yeah, that's just one of many fundraising platforms that we all have access to. It just takes motivated people to get it done.

I appreciate your efforts there, sir.

Anybody else this afternoon? Y'all have been a good, quiet, laid-back audience. Anybody else? Hearing none. Commissioners, City Manager, y'all got any final thoughts or closing shots? City Attorney, you've been unusually quiet today, sir.

Yeah, all good.

Nothing else for the good of the order? Everybody have a good afternoon.