City Commission - Special Meeting

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Thursday, September 10th, 2026 meeting of the special city meeting of the first budget hearing of the city of Lake Worth Beach. May I have the roll call, please?

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Thursday, September 10th, 2026 meeting of the first budget hearing of the city of Lake Worth Beach. May I have the roll call, please?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. That first part, I don't like that stuff.

I don't like that stuff. I don't have much justification.

Good evening, everyone. Well, first of all, we have a special celebrity guest today. I want to welcome Dorothy Jacks, who is our Palm Beach County property appraiser, to give us a little presentation on the state of our property taxes. Thank you so much for giving us this time tonight.

Me? Me? Make sure that yep. Good. Well, it's my pleasure to be here. I know I haven't been able to meet all of you in person but it's, it's an honor to come and speak to our cities and Lake Worth has always had such an important, both historical and piece of our county and we have many employees who work for me who live here so an important city to all of us at the property appraiser's office um i came today just to give you a short update on the tax roll the status of lake birth beach and its uh values and then also to talk about Amendment three. At the moment, of course, that seems to be the hot topic on the on the on everyone's mind. And so in addition to just doing a little bit about the city, I will also talk about that. But why don't we go to the first slide? Can we go to the next one? Thank you. So 2026, Lake Worth Beach has a market value now at 6.3 million. That is an increase of 9 billion. Sorry, it's been a long time.

We just dropped a lot in value.

sorry exactly and this is even value not even tax right so um but six billion dollars in market value last year your market value was 5.9 billion and So, a nice actually you can see it there a 9% increase in taxable value. So, the difference between market and taxable I'm actually going to go over with you just because I always like to just reflect how that happens. This year also a very healthy 69 million in new construction. And of course that's value that has never been added, never been collected on before, brand new. Of course the land would have been valued prior, but anything that is built and finished by the end of the year, the prior year is added to this year. So these are projects that were CO'd, finalized in 2025, are added for 26. And then anything you have going on now, If it finishes before the end of the year, it's added for 27. I always like to mention that too, because if you have projects that are sort of dragging along, it is something to think about that it doesn't matter whether it finishes on February 1st or December 1st, it's added for the next year. So it behooves to finish things up before the end of a year, because then the value gets added.

We'll have to make a few phone calls.

Oh.

And so anyway, very healthy 9%. The county went up just over 7% this year. So you are ahead of the trend. Your parcel count is at 13,067. That parcel is anything that can be taxed. So individually, it can be obviously a home, a single family home, all the way up to a entire apartment complex if it's owned by one owner. and they pay one tax bill, then they're counted as a parcel. Could be a condominium unit too.

Or commercial, just flat out commercial.

Any property that's individually taxed. So the number is almost identical to 2025's number. Tangible accounts are business property. So in addition to paying a tax on real estate, businesses pay a tax on their equipment, fixtures, furniture, that sort of thing. So the best example is Publix. Publix has a land and a building tax. And then on the tangible side, they'll pay a tax on the shelving, the refrigeration units, the cash registers. And just as in an office, you might have that same thing. The nice thing about tangible is that there is a $25,000 exemption. It's kind of like a homestead for tangible and that helps small businesses. So if you have hair salon, you probably don't have $25,000 worth of tangible equipment. We do note you on the tax roll, but you don't pay any tax. You see, if you're over $25,000, then you're going to pay a tax. Same way you pay it on the regular real property. You know, it's millage times value equals tax. So good. Let's go on to the next slide. I now wanted to just show you how we get from 6.3 billion down to your taxable value. If you'll see first, these are all reductions on the left side. Save our homes differential is first. So that is the 3% cap on homesteaded property. In other words, that's where property values have risen and the homesteader is not paying on their market value. They're paying on a only 3% over last year value. And so you lose a billion dollars there. The 10% cap is on non-homesteaded property. So those are businesses who had an increase over 10% year over year, at least once. And that is the amount that they're saving in total from that cap. You still have a million dollars of ag class in Lake Worth. Where? I don't know. I can find out for you.

You know, the big farms.

Now remember, if you're a nursery, you know, I think you have some nursery.

Smarty Plants. That would be commercial. That'd be retail.

has a class they make. It isn't necessary that it's not retail. It could be it is it can be retail. So that could be smart. Right. Hmm. Anyway, we can look into it. We can, we'll get back to you and let you know. Yeah. We can tell you exactly what parcels there are parcel or parcels there are, but yeah. Anytime it is bonafide commercial agriculture. So it can't be a hobby farm. It can't be, I have a couple of sheep and a few chickens. It has to be that you are generating a commercial income from whatever ag is on your property. So if you have 25 chickens and they're producing eggs and you're selling them commercially, Then you can get the ag class.

Can I have a goat? No, you can't. The mayor wants a goat. No goats, no chicken.

You can, but you can't have ag class. find out for you now again this is also interesting agricultural classification is only on land so if you have a farm with a farm building you're still paying tax on the building you're just getting a reduced value not a not a completely exempt value but a reduced value on the land itself

I'm going to ask you a really embarrassing question, but I better ask the question, better ask and find out than think you know it, right? The reduction, what is that? Reduction of what?

We're going from 6.3 billion and we're reducing down. You'll see that below that is- Oh, so that's 1 billion off of the, okay, thank you. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, this is how we go from market down to assessed and then the next page, we're actually going to go down to taxable.

Thank you. Thank you.

OK, so the next slide shows you how we get from that assessed value of a four point eight on the prior page down to the taxable value of four billion. So first line, you'll see there the actual homestead exemption, the twenty five, the initial twenty five thousand second, the additional twenty five thousand that was qualified some years later. Then the over 65 income limited exemption, which you all have approved many years ago. Thank you. That is not in every city. Only about nine or 10 of all of the cities, 39 cities in Palm Beach County have subscribe to the income limited senior exemption. The income, by the way, is around $37,000 a year. It's set by the state. It's quite low. I've tried for years in Tallahassee to get the amount set to the county's income limit. you know, numbers as opposed to the statewide numbers, wouldn't it? Because of course, 37,000 is a lot more money in Lafayette County than it is in Palm Beach County, you know? But anyway, that's, thank you. And also, you know, that it would be applied to everyone in Palm Beach County. It's a shame that it's only certain cities and only your millage. You know, it isn't, the county does it, but the school isn't involved, the water management, all the other tax authorities don't have it. All right.

Does that get applied automatically, the 65? No. People have to apply for it.

Yeah. Very simple process. What we do when people originally file for Homestead, we will often say, you know, if they look like they're seniors, you know, you hate to... And people's IDs.

Yeah, I did get one of those.

It's all being carded, right? Yeah, really. No, we'll see. This is the senior information. If you qualify, let us know. Tangible personal property, I mentioned that earlier, the 25,000, if you're a smaller business, you qualify for that. Government property, of course, the building that we're in, any other government property, that would include also state and federal, if you have any of that in your city. What about county? And county. Yes, like the cultural. Yes, there you go. Cultural council, anything owned by the county. You have a park. All of that is part of government. Institutional is churches and not-for-profits primarily. It may also include schools, gold seal daycare centers, charter schools, things like that are in institutional. Regular schools, public schools are in government. And then other is just these sort of secondary personal exemptions, widow's exemption, widow-widower, disability, historic, economic, those. OK. So what a widower is simply that you are one of those and you provide us with a copy of the death certificate of your spouse and you get an additional five thousand dollars, which is about one hundred dollars of tax savings and disability are related to totally and permanently disabled. Also, there are veterans exemptions. So if you are a disabled vet, there is an exemption. Historic and economic, I think you have a historic program here in Lake Worth. Yeah, so that's in under that number as well. All right, and that's how we get to the 4 million, 4 billion. All right, let's go on and talk about Amendment 3. I think now most people know what the proposal is, but this just quickly outlines it. It would increase the homestead exemption, which currently sits at $50,000, to $150,000 next year, $250,000 in January of 2018, for 28, and then would be indexed to inflation beginning in 2029. That portion of the bill would be, if it passes, the legislature will have a session where they will further define what that looks like. It's a little concerning because they have been given a fair bit of oversight of what that looks like by if the vote is positive. At the moment, anytime you're going to change homestead amounts, it must be done by a vote of the public in order for it to be placed in the Constitution. But that's a little concerning. This would be the first time that that would happen.

And I just read in the paper this morning that the Realtors Association has put $10 million. towards passing it.

Supporting the amendment. Yes, they have. Just going on, the first $25,000 would apply to all taxing authorities, including the school. Anything above that first $25,000, taxpayers would continue to pay school taxes. This is what makes this a tax reduction, not a tax elimination, because we would all continue to pay school board taxes There has been no thought about changing that at the moment.

Did you have a question, Mr. McCoy?

I did. You mentioned something about If the thing passes, then there will be working out of details. Is is our understanding or my understanding correct that right now there is not a carve out for fire and police? They would be affected. Yes. Then my second follow up question to that is when it gets to that stage of working on the bill, could they put in a carve out at that point?

You know, I'm not sure. I don't know. I'm not sure of the answer to that. We would have to have somebody who is more familiar with how that process will work. A lot of those things remain unanswered. You know, there is no... At the moment, the current language discusses that monies can still be used for all of government services. There's been nothing saying you can't use it for this or you can use it for that. But there has not been any hold harmless language discussed yet.

Okay, thank you.

Sure. So the new residents who come to Florida after January 1st, 27 will not receive the $250,000 or the $150,000. They would receive the current $50,000 for their first five years as homesteaders. Then after those five years are over, they would be increased to whatever the amount is in that year. The other thing is that that non-homestead assessment cap, we discussed it a little earlier, the 10% cap that is on non-homesteaded property. So that is commercial property, rental property, seasonal homes, et cetera, et cetera, all would lower from a 10 cap to a five cap. Quite honestly, we have tried to calculate what that might look like. It's quite hard to do it because of the market. you know, the market is so variable. Some years values will increase in certain categories by a lot. Some of the categories, categories, not so much. We've had a period of time where industrial property has done relatively well, higher than 5%. And so they would have the benefit of that if they were higher than 5%. But, you know, next year we could have a, some kind of sudden decline in industrial property. So it's hard to calculate that number. I'm not sure how significant it really will be because many of the, especially commercial properties, don't go up more than 5% a year. So they would continue to just go up their normal amount. But like rental properties- They could, yes. It just depends on the rental market, certainly.

Mr. Segrich and then Ms. Maleg have questions.

Thank you. Have they further defined new resident? So is it further defined as just as homestead? So you have to have an existing homestead to qualify?

So they have not. And the implementing language we've seen so far is confusing, even to us as the property appraisers. What we believe will happen is that will be clarified in the special session. And what we hope and what we will advocate for as the property appraisers is that if you are a resident, not a homesteader, but a resident on December 31st, 2026, you will qualify. So for the higher amounts, let's think for a minute about people's children who have lived here their entire lives and then buy their first home. In that case, they are a resident. And under that concept of that they've been a resident already, they should get the higher amounts, not have to sit at that 50,000 level for five years. You know, that seems harsh. But if somebody moves here from Georgia on March 1st, 2027, and this has passed, they will not qualify for it for five years. Okay. And again, I hope that those sorts of things we're hoping will become more clarified because it did concern us also that maybe if you'd had a homestead before, you would come in under it. But that excludes a lot of people, a lot of people, first-time homebuyers, people who are renters today, who are trying to buy their first home, who are Floridians, right? All right, let's go on to the next slide.

Thank you, Mr. X. I have a quick question. So on the tangible property tax that the businesses pay. Does that get separate out when we get our, our, I guess, share of the pie, when we get our collection of property tax do we see what that real number is on tangible property tax versus real estate property tax.

You certainly can. OK, so we know how exactly it comes to you. OK, we can ask finance.

OK, because I'm wondering, as you're talking through this, are those the things that are going to ultimately, unfortunately, get passed on to the businesses? Right. It's funny that we're talking about this today because. Today, I was on the phone with a client of mine who lives in Boca, who's all in favor of this. And I was trying to educate him. And he said, I've been paying my taxes for 14 years. I've never called the police or fire once. I said, so he goes, it should all be a la carte. I said, so you want the police to look up your address before they show up? I'm like, that doesn't make sense to me.

with the fire engines coming down the road, you're swiping, you're putting your, I was like, do you want them to show up when you need them?

Or, you know, but that unfortunately is the mindset of some people that I don't use the services. My kids don't go to the park.

Well, I have no children and I have been happily paying school taxes all my life because it's part of being a member of society.

Well, and that's what I'm afraid of is if it does pass, looking at things like the small business owner, like you said, who we may have to, as a county, look at and say, you know what, we might need to raise that tangible property tax. You know, we're going to have to pass it on to the landlords. The landlords are going to pass it on to the tenants. And then ultimately, you're going to be pricing people out. So I'm glad that you're going through this today. Thank you.

Absolutely. And I do think it's important to note that I think of property taxes in reference to your client as it's almost like insurance in a way. I mean, I have had homeowner's insurance for decades. 30 years. I've never used it. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars have we all paid in insurance? We haven't used it, but the day we need to use it, we'll have it. It's the same thing with police and fire. I will say that when I speak to groups of citizens, and this isn't lost on you, but there are so many pieces of government that we don't even know that are working for us right now. Exactly. I mean, my great example is code enforcement. You know, you may never use code enforcement, but the day may come where you need to call because your neighbor's got their car on blocks and the grass is growing three feet high. You know, those things are there and they have to be paid for from somewhere. And if that person doesn't come out, the quality of our communities is, I think, what is really at stake. at stake when we think about drastic cuts in value and thus tax. So I've got two more slides that are specific to Lake Worth Beach. This first one gives you a sense of How many properties are in your city today? These are based on 26 numbers. So there are 13,000 parcels. I mentioned that earlier. Nine points, almost 10,000 of them are residential. Of those residential, 5,600 are homesteaded, which is interesting because the rest of them are probably either seasonal homes or they're rentals, right? Right. They're renting out a home to someone else. And then you get to the first one is how many today in 2026 do not pay any property tax to Lake Worth Beach because their value is under $50,000. That's probably because they've been there a very long time. Or it is a very small home. You see this a lot with a sort of a century village type scenario or a smaller unit somewhere.

Condos.

Yeah, sometimes condos that have been there a long time. Same owner. I mean, my parents had a home for 38 years and their home was worth about... sort of $600,000. And I think they were paying on less than a hundred thousand dollars because they'd bought it for $70,000 in 1982 or something crazy like that. Right. So it's not unheard of, uh, especially for very long-term people. But what's interesting is what that number does when you look at it in 2027, when value would be less than 150 K and we get to 2,400 homes. And then in 2028, 3,700 homes that would not pay any property tax to Lake Worth Beach. Out of the 5,653. Now, obviously, each year value increases. So you'll get fewer and fewer because value may go over the 250 mark. Right. Because the value is going up, albeit slowly. It is going up for a homesteader.

Yeah. But I mean, if it goes up to 275, you're only paying taxes on the 25,000. That's the change. Wow. That's crazy.

Miss Malega. I think that this is a great time for us as a body to say this is important information. And I think that we need to cross-reference the people in our town who have rental license with your database. Because if they're renting and they're homesteading, I want them slapped on the hand. So I think that this needs to be a priority if or if this doesn't pass. And I don't know how the rest of the commission feels. But I know that there are people in the city who are taking advantage of the system. So I don't know if there's an appetite for that.

Look at the...

We look at who's got rental license from us and then look at if they've got homesteaded through Ms. Jack's office, we should be able to cross-harvest that. And I think that we should make that a priority.

And we'd be more than happy to help with that. Okay. Just bouncing the data from our system to yours. We do do this with the tax collector. So if they have a business license with you and with the county tax collector, we are already every year, we cross-reference each other's record to make sure we're accounting for everybody. But like you said, sometimes that doesn't work.

Excuse me, Ms. May has a question. I just have a question, and this might be for us. Do we have a copy of this that we could use to share with residents?

Oh, absolutely.

I don't mean a physical copy. I mean digital.

Well, yes. Yes.

Okay, wonderful. Thank you.

So my final slide for you is the next slide, which shows you the dollars impact for Lake Worth Beach. In, again, $2026, these will change, but you levied and collected $20 million in ad valorem revenue. we will this year and uh you of that 1.5 um million was lost to the current exemption that goes up to 3.5 in 2027 if it packages and 4.75 in 2028 are these compound or is this

Total.

Total.

So it's not the 1.5 plus the 3.5. Okay. Thank you.

So, I mean, it is, but it's just calculating. Inclusive of the other homes. Right. And then, so you get to the 23% of your collection would, if this was all happening today, would be what is lost. So the final slide just has, again, I think we all know it goes before the voters on November 3rd. It must pass by 60%. Taxpayers, if it passes, taxpayers will not have to do anything. Our office will simply apply the higher amounts. And of course, again, it's effective right away, January 1st, and we will wait for the enabling legislation, although much of that will have to do with the future. What voters, if it passes, have approved is what we know, $150,027. 250,028. It'll be what the future numbers beyond that look like that will be part of that enabling process.

I almost wish it was county by county on the vote. I mean, honestly, because we're looking at Florida as a whole is what it's got to pass a 60%.

Oh, there are some towns that will go bankrupt. That's what I'm saying. I mean, it shouldn't be an exact number. It should be a percentage of the value that you're taxed on anyway. Well, I know, but I mean, that would make the most sense.

Can I ask you what, if anything, is your office doing to get the word out?

Thank you. Yes. Well, we're excited that I excited. I don't know if that's the word, but we are. We are have developed and are excited to roll out in the next two weeks, a calculator. that will allow on which we're adding to our papa website or our office website which will allow citizens to go in and put in their own property and it will show them what they're saving what their taxes are today what their taxes would be in 27 and 28 and below that it will show them their taxing authorities and what each of those taxing authorities is slated to lose So hopefully financially. Yes. Yeah. In tax dollars. Right. The total of the tax. That might be.

I hope that's not counterproductive. Oh, wait, I can lose. I can save a lot of money.

Well, I think people will see what they will save because after all, that is what it's being. Right. Is the driving fact behind those that may vote. Yes. But I think it's important that they see also the picture of their local community of what the potential loss is. when you add it all together i mean we all can very quickly say hey more savings for me right but what's important is that people see what when we add everyone saying that together the sorts of numbers you see about what the loss would be to lake worth beach and then of course to our other taxing authorities certainly miss mr segrich has a question they're gonna be the first people yeah yeah pay to go to the library mr segrich

Thank you very much. And just going back one slide, I just wanted to make sure it's clarified for the public. So that $3.5 million number that we've been talking about, because we've been talking about it up here. Actually, I never thought of it, but it takes a little bit of the sting out of it because it's not on top of the 1.5. So it's not like we're losing an extra 3.5. we're already have 1.5 in exemption. So it's more like $2.4 million of additional tax revenue in 27 that we're losing.

If you find that comforting, I applaud you.

Well, you know, I mean, I mean, I do because, you know, we are currently weighing decisions and looking at things where we're spending nearly that on certain projects and so forth where, you know, There is light at the end of that tunnel where, you know, if this passes, municipalities like ours, we're not in that bad of shape. Other municipalities, it's a much, much worse picture. And, you know, we have to recognize that. But for the city of Lake Worth Beach... I'd much rather be looking at a $2.4 million delta than a 3.5. And I think that's important for people to understand because we've been out there, at least I've been telling people it's about $3.5 million loss and about a $4.8 million loss. But the truth of it is it's more like 2.4 and 3.1. Well, I didn't take into account, I was looking at it as, oh, changing it from 50 to 150 resulted in an additional tax savings slash revenue loss of 3.5. It's actually not. It's an additional 2.4.

And I just want to confirm that is correct as to how those numbers, so that the 1.59 is within that 3.5 and in the 4.7.

Yes, but let's remember, each of those are a year standing on its own. So today, in this budget, you lose 1.5 to the homestead exemption. Next year, you lose 3.5. Right.

So Commissioner Segrich's numbers are correct. It's a two above.

If you look at it from the prior year, what did you lose last year? What will you lose this year? That's the You have to think about it.

It's not that comforting.

I mean, I understand that it's within that year. But to your point, if I could, you're absolutely right. Lake Worth, because of your good property diversity, Meaning you have more than just homesteaded residential. You have commercial. You have a lot of rental. You have, I mean, I know probably having a lot of rental is not something you're thinking is great. But in this scenario, it means that the hit isn't as hard. I'll draw to your attention. There are cities that are heavily residential with little commercial. And then on top of that, they are also heavily homesteaded. One of your neighbors like Clark Shores is almost, their percentage is something like 60 or 70%. much higher and then you look at somewhere and then the other other thing that is in play is of course the millage setting process there has been no restriction on that a community can a city can raise their millage but you can't there are cities that are at the top yes yes so when it comes to also where you think of a city like um lake clark shores

If they were to basically go bankrupt and have to be consumed by the county, the county is consuming them, but not with any funding. They have to use the money that they are already getting and then use that to take care of Lake Clark Shores because they're not getting taxes for Lake Clark Shores. They're not getting it for the county either.

Exactly. And certainly Administrator Abruzzo's biggest, bigger concern even beyond that is the debt that a city might have. The county would have to absorb even their debt. So if a city had to unincorporate, that's what it would be.

Which would mean everybody would have to pay part of their debt. Correct.

Their debt would become the county's debt.

Which would become everybody's debt, which is another, it's actually another talking, but that's a great talking point because you're paying other cities debt by.

And if you even expand that to a state level, I'll just make that point.

Counties.

You know, there are counties in Florida that do not have homes worth more than $250,000. Right.

That's why it should be a percent.

And what will happen to those areas of the state? Currently, there are already 29 counties out of the 67 that are what is deemed fiscally constrained, which means that the state is already supplementing their local tax base in order to keep them running. So that number is going to explode if this passes. And the concern about that is from every metric where we give, we, Palm Beach County, pays revenue to the state, the big one being sales tax, we are a donor county. We are giving more. Obviously, the generation of sales tax is much higher here than at some other areas of the state. So we're not getting that money back. So the concern would be what happens then to those communities, right? Do they Again, unincorporate or even, I'm not even sure what the word is, if a county had to merge maybe with some other counties, create some efficiencies that way. But again, who's going to pay the bill for their fire engines and their police force and so forth? The state would. The state the same way the county would.

And there's no increase of money to cover that. No. So something's going to get squeezed. Yeah.

Correct. Well, that's what I was just going to say. And I think that that's an important talking point again, is that, you know, you're going to you thought a penny sales tax increase was bad. These counties may look at doing, you know, like Canada has a PST and a GST and all these other taxes. We may look at counties individually wanting to pass that to sustain that debt, which then ultimately guess what? Now you're paying for it.

course i think they fully recognize us do our state leaders that you know if you're in a small area and the sales tax is 10 and you can drive yeah three miles down the road into the next county and pay six i mean it decimates or into georgia just go buy your cars in georgia and then come back So I think that, you know, I'm so glad you're as educated as you are about all these different subjects. And I think it's just important that we're all communicating with the voters. Our calculator, again, we should have it up in the next two weeks, will hopefully help people see the two sides to this, that there's two sides to this. There's savings, no question, there's savings. But the long-term concern also, of course, is if all of the taxing authorities have to raise their millage rates, then how much are we really saving? Why not? Because we'll all continue to pay tax at some level. And if the rates rise, well, then that tax grows. Yeah.

Well, one of the disconcerting things that happened, I think it was last year when we went to the Florida League of Cities conference, they had someone, there was one of the articles of the, was Doge, and we all thought we were going to walk in there and hear some reasonable person, you know, talking about how to, and it was the guy from Doge.

The guy from what?

Doge, the Florida Doge guy. Yeah. And one of the things that really raised, I think a few of us noticed, it's not just fraud. Wasteful spending. It's the word wrong was in there. So they are making value judgments about wrong spending. Now, who wants fraud? We can always take care of some waste. But when the authority starts telling us what we are supposed to be able to spend, which has now happened with DEI in our city, which has its own needs and wants. That I think is a real, you talk about good government, not such a good government. I just had to put it wrong spending. That's my rant. Thank you so much for coming.

Mr. Perry, can we put a link once that calculator is up on our website to let residents know that it's available? I think we should really get Rebecca to do a PIO blast and stuff.

We'll let your city know when it's up. We'll be sending something out to all of our city partners. We try to regularly keep in touch through your finance section about all of the data that we're putting together on this subject and others. So we'll keep doing that. But thank you so much for having me.

If you're doing this to every city, you have like no life for a while.

But it's that important.

Oh my God, it's insanely important. Mr. McCoy?

The only concern, I like the idea of the calculator, but I don't like the idea of the calculator. If the first thing that comes up is, boom, you're going to say it's this. It's what I've said. You know, this whole thing is a circus barkers, snake oil. Hey, who wants free beer on Tuesday? Well, we all do. That's not the point.

There is also this misunderstanding that this is somehow a tax elimination. And one thing the calculator will show when it shows your taxes is that your taxes aren't going away completely. They're going down a little.

They might go down, but the big picture is we're not going, we as a society are unlikely to all agree that we're going to take a 25% or a 50% cut in services. Like your Boca friend said, well, I see that 300 or 3000 houses won't be paying anything. Well, I guess the fire truck just drives by them. Yeah. We're not going to agree to that. So somewhere the money is going to get squeezed out. So that's where I have a little bit of a concern. I wouldn't make this is what your tax saving for your bill is because that's very appealing. I would make the first thing to come up is this is what your city or your water management district that does your water control, whatever. I'd make that the first.

People don't. I've been doing a lot of research with the Florida League of Cities. We've been talking about this a lot. People don't care if the city is going to hurt. Because they don't realize what that means. Let me just finish. You know, they don't realize that it means you might have to pay $5 to go into the library or whatever, right? They want to know what happens to them. And I agree with you. I don't, but appealing to, yeah, appealing to, you know, people don't like government these days anyway. So they don't really care for her a little bit. They don't realize what's going on. Ms. May?

We're wasting all the money.

Oh, that's Mr. Segrich.

I would just add to that, if the feeling is people have apathy towards the government, it's incumbent on us to earn their trust and make sure that they understand what it is we're doing for them. But when you do have a general populace who looks at government and says, look at our roads, look at this, why am I paying so much in taxes? Nothing's getting done. um i don't blame people for looking at it and say i don't care if the city hurts i've been hurting for x number of years well i'm sorry and you know bad i think well that's the exact attitude that will force people to vote yes it's not too bad it's we have to do better And I think in shifting over to our budget, I think this year, this commission has taken great strides to ensure that we are doing better, that we are reinvesting in the roads, that we are taking care of these issues that the people of Lake Worth Beach have been screaming about for years. And it might be a little too late maybe for our residents to realize and say, hey, we Losing $2.5 million a year to $3 million a year is actually going to have an impact. But shame on us for not making that impact sooner because legislation like this just doesn't appear overnight. It comes around for a reason. And I thank you for the data and the factual figures. I think it's important to present this in a factual way to people and not slant it one way or the other because the people ultimately have to decide. And then it's up to us as being good stewards of their tax funds. to do the best we can with what we have and make the right decisions. And it's going to force us to make some tough decisions. And even the possibility of this coming down the pipeline, we as a commission are gonna have to make some tough decisions. Losing that amount of money is a lot. That's 50% of our road budget that we've said we need for the next 10 years. And so the argument could be made to those residents, you like the idea of us fixing the roads? This could stop that or severely hamper it. But we also have to be able to look at our residents and say, maybe we shouldn't be spending $2.5 million on a project that isn't going to yield such great benefits. Maybe they want us to spend that on the roads versus on something that they don't feel, right? So there's give and take.

I agree with you, but I don't think, Ms. Jax, thank you for, I just want to say, we could sit here and talk about this all night, but you are past your hours of working. So I just want to say thank you. Yes. Drink wine.

Again, thank you. And I always enjoy listening to the great conversation. Thank you very much. Wish you well. Thank you.

Yeah. Mr. Segrich, in response to what you're just saying, I mean, I think we've, in the past few years, we've tightened so many things up and the perception, even though our, just as an example of, you know, people's perception, we have our electric utility, our rates have been in, you know, in line with FBNL. Our Hardening has been great. We don't get outlets. And still, as you continue to point out, people talk trash about the electric. So people want to be... It often doesn't help the perception, even if the reality is changing.

And I don't... You don't need to wait for our conversation. I don't think you're more... I think we need to move on. Well, I would...

Madam Mayor, before you move on, I just wanted to announce that we did add the presentation from Mrs. Jacks to the agenda backup and republish this morning. So it is in the agenda backup and I emailed it directly to the commission.

Thank you very much. And thank you, Ms. Jacks. Go in peace. It's great. Getting more local, getting on a more local basis. We have our proposed operating budget. first public hearing tonight?

Should we? We have resolutions. Should we hold a minute?

She's interesting. She's got a good handle on stuff. Wrong spending.

Yeah. No, I'm glad you pointed that out. And I would point out that Steve somebody, he's a long time been in Tallahassee, been a Broward County Commissioner, and he challenged that fellow.

Okay, there we go. Thank you.

Okay. Good evening. My name is Candace. I am the assistant finance director of budget here in finance department. Today we are covering the proposed 2027 operating budget and I'm going to start off reading the first item that we have to discuss. Resolution number 36, 2026 is adopting the fiscal year 2026, 2027 tentative millage rate. The resolution sets the millage rate at 5.4945 to fund the city's proposed budget operating budget. I'm sorry. And I have to publicly publicly announce this. The city of Lake Ridge Beach tentative millage is $5.4945 or $5.4945 per 1,000 assessed valuation, which is 6.20% more than a rollback rate of 5.1735 mils. Motion to approve. Do I have a second? Great motion by Mr. McVoy, second by Ms. Malega. Mr. Sigrich has his light on.

So I'll make a disclosure before all of these items. So based on the ordinance that was brought to light, I'd like to disclose that I have approximately 77 campaign donors who have donated greater than $100 to my previous campaign who definitely have interest in this item. And I submitted that in writing, and I am now doing it verbally.

Thank you. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Thank you.

Wait. You said aye. No, I didn't. Oh. I mean, I'm going to say aye, but I really don't want to. Okay.

Is that an aye?

This is a McVoy aye.

A McVoy aye. Grit your teeth. Number B. 37-2026.

Okay, so this is adopting the tentative debt service rate this resolution says the tentative debt service military a point for to fund the city's voters approved 2027 2018 general obligation bond fund levy, we are expected to generate debt service payments in the amount of 2,156,588.

That's it. We have some lights on. Let's get a motion to approve. Motion to approve. Second.

Second.

By Mr. McFoy, Ms. Malega, and also Ms. Segrich.

It's been a long week. We've had a lot of meetings.

Rumors are going to fly. I don't think they will.

Shirley's all yours. I just want to... ask again on all of our bonds. I think it's important that we have that on the website as well. The completion of the projects, the, the date, the date of the bonds expiring or being paid in full. I think that's important, especially if we're going to be looking forward in the future to go out to bond again. I think that the residents and the business owners need to see what we've done with that money. And when it, when the, expiration date on some of those bonds is happening. I know it has nothing to do with this, but it's just if we can get consensus to 100 percent agree. Yeah.

OK. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Segrich.

have to make verbal disclosure that i have 77 contributions over 101 that have an interest in this and i also did it in writing and i'm a little bit shocked that no one else has that to disclose well maybe we do we just didn't know to think about i don't know well this is but when you say interested parties are you talking about just general people in general that live in the city Our ordinance reads, and as I was instructed by the city attorney, anyone who has an interest in an item before this commission who donated more than $100 to your campaign must disclose in writing and verbally.

Well, then we would have to disclose that with every single vote that we take. Is there a...

There you go. No, no, I'm saying... And that is what our ordinance...

When I read that, it sounded to me like a more... Not general. Everyone in the city that gave me $100, because that's going to somehow affect them, it seemed, correct me if I'm wrong, a more specific advantage to a... a person, a company, a more specific... A specific item, you're correct.

Yeah, yeah. It doesn't have to be disclosed on something like this. This affects every resident of the city. So it's really more in terms of, you know, this came up with the short-term rental issue. And so specific issues, if you have an interest in a specific issue, you have campaign contributions from someone that has a more specific issue, a general... a general a general thing such as passing a budget for the entire city then theoretically every resident has an interest in the budget in the city i don't think that's at all what was intended when you all adopted that amendment a long time ago i understood what you're saying but i asked that exact question of your office and the answer was that it is general

And there is no definition of class or special economic interest or special economic gain or loss. I was told that that does not exist in our ordinance. And I was also told that there is no definition of the size of the group. Therefore, we have to disclose on every single item or we need to correct that ordinance.

I would disagree with you. I think you may want to look at the ordinance, but I came from your office, sir. I understand. I think you're interpreting it incorrectly, frankly.

I mean, you can disclose all day long. I'm repeating the interpretation that was sent from your office to me.

I understand.

They got it wrong is what you're saying.

No, I'm saying that you're interpreting it incorrectly. So, I mean, no sense having a Mexican standoff. You're going to disclose. They don't need to disclose. I'm giving them legal advice. They don't need to disclose.

So share that opinion with us and with Mr. Trecivia from his law.

So at what point do we not have to disclose? At what point is the class large enough that it is a general application?

So this was a question I was going to ask the commission. Did you want us to spend the research on this project? Because Mr. Sedgwick has been asking this question over the last week or two since the short-term rental issue came up. And so I have a concern that when one commissioner requests something that's going to impact everybody and has a position that it needs to be addressed, when do we dive into that? Obviously.

No, but that's not the question is to make it consensus for the office to do extensive.

I mean, you have this ordinance in effect for years. And all of a sudden, it's now an issue as to what's the definition of class? Is it general? Is it not general?

So it's my understanding that in all those years, we have never had that disclosure.

There have been some occasions in the past.

No, I'm just saying the form was specifically generated brand new, sent to me to fill out a brand new form. You all received the form? Yeah. Okay. So that's a brand new form. It's a brand spanking new form, has never been used before. And on the form, it not only goes beyond interest, it says affected by. So I'm merely asking for clarification. You're saying certain items affect too broad an audience. Therefore, you don't have to disclose. And I agree with that. And that that was that night I asked that question because the way that the county defines it. is if there's a special economic interest, right? And that has a very clear definition. And I believe the size of the class is if you, and I called the Commission on Ethics on this, if you represent less than 1% of the affected body, there is no conflict, you don't have to disclose. I brought that exact question to Mr. Tresuvio's office, and I was told, no, our ordinance does not have that. So no, you do have to disclose. So all I'm asking is for an interpretation of where is that line? Should we follow the county and state? I think we should. But I was told we're not. And so that's where my confusion is.

I think that this is a conversation that needs to be had outside of here. This is not budget. If you want to disclose, disclose. If we don't want to, legal tells us we don't have to.

I'm fine if legal tells me I don't have to, but can I at least get consensus from you guys for legal to define that for us?

I have to, I don't have it in front of me. I thought I saw something about 0.01% in criminal.

So what we have is every jurisdiction has laws, right? There's the state code of ethics. We have a Palm Beach County code of ethics. And the city of Lake Worth Beach has adopted a campaign disclosure law, which is on top of those others. So yes, you're correct. Under the state code of ethics and the county code of ethics, the 1% rule, I think you're all familiar with that. If there's a hundred people on a street and you're on that street, you're good to go, but there's only 50 people on the street, then the impact you have to disclose. The city has a law that provides that if you have a campaign contribution of over $100, $100 or more, then you have to disclose that if you're voting on an item that you there's an interest in i understand the point about the generality of it so if you'd like us to do the research and write an opinion about that and some suggestions we can do that as opposed to responding to various hypotheticals which is what we've been trying to do for the last few days i would like to read it again before i make a decision about that i don't know if it's necessary or not and again i do have a year to interpreting um

I would, so that's not you.

I'm a lawyer, but I pretend to be.

You pretend to be everything. No, I would like to read it again and just take a look. If we all take a look and go, yeah, I think we need some clarification from me, but I'm not ready to make a decision about that right now. I need to look at it again.

I'm not asking us to make a decision, but I think about I think I think getting clarity on it, because right now it is completely nebulous.

Well, that's what I want to do is read it again and see how unclear.

And so, you know, I was told that I had disclosed members who represented less than one percent, which which is a special interest group, though.

We're talking about Airbnb owners. We're not talking about the entire city paying taxes and for rates. I would ask you to.

I would ask you to do two things. Please share with us the email that you got from Mr. Trussey's office so that we can also look at it and also give us time. I think we all need to look at that ordinance again. And just, I don't know how unclear it is. You're saying it's very unclear. I don't know because I haven't read it that close. That's all I'm saying.

I think so.

Let us read it. Okay, and let's keep going.

We need to go. It came on right around Labor Day where we might have been thinking about other things.

All right, 37-2026. Disclose if you'd like to.

I think we voted on, oh, we didn't?

There was a first and a second, no vote.

Okay, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Resolution 38-2026, first hearing adopted in the fiscal year 2026-2027, proposed city budget.

Okay, and I just have a brief recap to go over everything.

Yes.

Okay. So we'll start with the total amount of approved supplementals throughout the budget workshop. So total of 8.3 million. Okay. This year is the budget appropriation summary for fiscal year 2027 proposed budget. And this is across all city funds. We have a total sources of funds comes to about 225 million and total use of fund comes to about 212 million. Say that again. Okay, so this is the 2027 proposed operating budget proposed, I'm sorry, budget appropriation summary. And this is for all funds across the city. Including the supplemental? Including all supplementals, the CIP, everything that we discussed in the workshop. So we have a total sources of fund comes to 225 million approximately. And then total uses of funds comes to about 212 million.

Good. My question is on the Storm Fund, the 1.68. Is that the current fund? That's not what we're projected to have next year. On the very bottom, EU Storm Fund?

Second to the bottom.

Additional. That's not what the current balance is. Correct? Because I was going to say that doesn't look right. Correct. Correct. So we're looking at collecting 1.68 every year based on the amount of accounts that we have currently. Right. Okay. Thank you for the clarification.

Right. No, listen, this is a lot of numbers. Okay. Thank you. So that's like a, so 12 million that we haven't spent. Talking to David.

Okay. Okay.

Because I'm thinking about the like we talked about this morning, I'm thinking about the acoustics. I want no, I just want enough was hot in here. I just want enough to get us some sound stuff in here.

Correct.

And Mr. Yannick said he would do that.

He did.

This Okay, let's we have my leg.

Mr. Fisher.

Did you turn the air down? Thank you. Thank you. So moving on. No, no, no. We have one public comment.

Hey, Fisher 508 North A Street. As the only person that sat here for four full days listening to you all, I'm a little amazed at supplementals holding $8.3 million. know what they are i've set through my health paperwork on them but you know you just saw you might have to deal with three and a half million of revenue going away so i assume and i hope that's not wrong assumption that some of those supplementals are going to be where you all start and that you will acknowledge that um to the public and to the unfortunately to the staff who were involved in some of those. There was a lot of education items, upgrades and things like that. So I just finished on a total 8.3 million is a lot to add to the budget that first comes to you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McVoy. Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Maloney.

Okay, on this one, I would just, could you, and I don't want to put you on the spot, but ballpark of that 8 million, my recollection from some of the previous ones is the biggest chunks in general were out of the electric fund. And that's an enterprise fund that it's not coming out of taxes or other things. It's coming out of the flow of that one.

So, yeah. Okay, next slide.

So the next slide is the total approved CIP. We have approximately about 79 million that is approved and 478,000 that was not approved.

My question was on the clarification for the general fund. The not approval was the fence And then what was at the beach that we didn't approve? Oh, the artificial turf. That's correct. So the fence, the artificial turf at both those locations. Right. Thank you.

Do you have a motion? Oh, no. We're still on the same. And that's it for my slide. This is 39.

Sure. No, no questions. Don't know if you don't know the answer.

Well, I think I know the answer, but I just want to make sure that it's clear to everyone. So when we approve the proposed CIP for 2027, are we saying that all of these projects will be completed within that fiscal year?

Here comes Mr. Yonick.

Yeah, like in Iowa Finance. The majority of them, especially with the SHRIP projects, they go for so many years. But just by approving it this year, that means they're approved to initiate this during fiscal year 2027. They could start in fiscal year 2027, but not necessarily have to end within the same fiscal year.

But all of the funding for the entire project will come out of the 2027 budget. Yes.

Correct.

Even if the project lasts into the next couple of years. Correct.

And whatever funds is now used, it's going to be rolled into the following fiscal year.

For that project.

For that particular project. Correct.

Okay. So we're, so that's, so we're paying for it. Basically you're saying we're paying for it up front.

Yes.

We're allocating the money. We're allocating the money up front. And then, so as opposed to paying for it year after year, as it goes on. Okay. Thank you. Good question. Thank you.

And that's one, During our, I think the last quarter, last presentation finance did with the quarterly updates, where we showed you where all the projects were. And some of those projects go back to 2021. They're still, you know, ongoing. So that's what it means.

It'd be amazing if we could do all those projects in one year. That's a great question. No, no, no. It wouldn't be nice if that was possible. Okay, D. We didn't vote. Oh, all in favor? We didn't have a first or a second. On C? No.

Motion to approve.

Second by Ms. Malega, first by Mr. Segrich. All in favor? Aye. Okay, now we are on D. Resolution 39-2026, establishing the Refuse Services Annual Assessment for Fiscal Year 26-27. Motion to approve.

Do I have a second? Pete, one of them's seconded already.

One can second, one can first. I don't care. So how about May McVoy? May McVoy, we'll go alphabetical.

Motion by May, second by McVoy.

I'm sorry, I have to read the resolution.

That's okay. We're very excited about this.

Okay, so this is the Refuge Services Annual Assessment for Fiscal Year 2026-2027. This resolution is the annual assessment resolution setting the special assessment fee of $298.71 per equivalent residential unit for Refuge Services for fiscal year 2026-2027. Thank you. So now we can vote. Yes.

It might be interesting to put in the resolution if it's going up an increase.

It said 10% increase.

I know on my tax bill I saw that. And we got the letter. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Number E, resolution.

Madam Mayor, before we continue, I did have a public comment for this one and the one after it.

Oh, okay. For right now?

Yes, for item D, before we continue.

Okay, well, we did both, but let's hear it.

The public comment is from Uriel Ortiz at 1022 South M Street. It says, I reject the city's justification for increasing the fiscal year 27 refuse non-advalorium assessment based on the city's audited financial 2025 statements. The refuse fund does not appear to demonstrate sufficient financial need to justify an unexplained increase without a detailed accounting of the proposed expenditures and funding requirements. It lists the fiscal year Refuse Fund revenue as $8.08 million. The expenses is $8 million and a surplus of $83,510. Unrestricted net position of $6.74 million. Cash and investments of $9.39 million. The Refuse Fund generated approximately $83,510 more revenue than expenses in fiscal year 2025. While the annual operating surplus is relatively small compared to the stormwater, the Refuse Fund also maintained approximately $6.74 million in unrestricted net position and $9.39 million in cash and investments. The annual expenses were approximately $8 million. The city's unrestricted net position of approximately $6.74 million represents roughly 10 months of annual expenses. Cash and investments of approximately 9.39 million represent approximately 14 months of annual expenses. The city should identify the specific Florida statute, bond covenant, ordinance, resolution, or adopted city policy that requires these reserve levels. It should also explain why these reserve levels are appropriate and what position of these resources is legally restricted or otherwise unavailable for legitimate refuse expenses. It lists the historical financial growth from fiscal year 2020. That's the end of that comment, but it is posted online.

Thank you.

Do we... Would we like a little bit of a comment from...

No. No. I'm sure that everyone will read it and pay attention to it. So I have to have a motion? Yes. We have a motion, a second, all in favor?

We already did it.

I'm looking at the next one. Okay. The 40-2026 establishing the annual stormwater non-alarm assessment rate for the fiscal year 26-27. Okay.

Motion to approve.

Second.

She has to let poor Candace read it. It's okay. She's explaining it.

This resolution establishes the annual non-Avalorum assessment rate for stormwater services for fiscal year 2026-2027 in the amount of $128.73 per equivalent residential unit. The new proposed rate of $128.73 is a 7% increase from fiscal year 2025-2026. Okay. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. I have another comment. Okay.

Okay, jump in before we vote.

The comment is from Uriel Ortiz at 1022 South M Street.

the position i reject the city's justification for increasing the fiscal year 27 stormwater non-advalorium assessment based on the city's audited fiscal year 2025 financial statements the stormwater fund does not appear to demonstrate a financial need for a substantial increase in assessments fiscal year stormwater 2025 Financial results, the stormwater fund revenue was $2.98 million, expenses $2.15 million, surplus $830,652, unrestricted net position $5.13 million. Cash and investments, $5.80 million. The stormwater fund generated approximately $831,000 more revenue than expenses in fiscal year 2025. The city therefore retained a substantial annual surplus while also maintaining significant unrestricted financial resources. Stormwater Reserve position. Stormwater annual expenses were approximately $2.15 million, while unrestricted net position was approximately $5.13 million, and cash and investments totaled approximately $5.80 million. The unrestricted position alone represents more than 28 months of annual stormwater expenses. The city should identify the specific Florida statute, bond covenant, ordinance, resolution, or adopted city policy that requires the existing reserve level. The city should also explain why this reserve level is necessary and what position is legally restricted versus available for stormwater operations, capital improvements, and other legitimate stormwater needs. Historical financial growth from fiscal year 2020 through 2025. Stormwater revenue increased approximately 54%. Stormwater expenses increased approximately 17%. That is the end of that comment and all of the comments that I have for this evening.

Is that the last public comment for anything?

Yes, that's the last public comment.

Thank you. Mr. McCoy.

I would just reiterate what I've said a number of times during our discussions. Stormwater is how we keep our streets from flooding. We already have various situations of flooding at certain times. There are two known things that will increase that. One, increasing rainfall intensity, which is on the horizon known. and sea level rise that makes it harder to get the water out, which is also known. And our stormwater fund tends to be one of our smallest funds, but we can anticipate that the needs will only increase rather than decrease. So I am in favor of any, you know, I think it's a wise investment to be looking ahead and protect the health, safety, and welfare.

Generally speaking, everything's going up. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Thank you. Okay. New business. New business. Fiscal year 2027 position count.

Okay, so this fiscal year 2027 position count provides a comprehensive summary of all authorized full-time and part-time positions included in the fiscal year 2027 annual operating budget. For fiscal year 2027, the position count includes 429 funded positions compared to 431 funded positions in fiscal year 2026. Of the 429 positions, 398 are full-time positions, which also includes 11 GRIP grant-funded positions, and 31 are part-time positions.

Thank you. Do I have a motion?

Motion to approve, and thank you for also showing the positions that were eliminated. Second. Thank you.

Second by Ms. Malega, second by Mr. Segrich. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

It's hard to see that decrease. Next up, fiscal year contribution from Enterprise Operations. Do I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Second.

By Mr. McCoy. All in favor? Oh, you didn't say anything. No. We keep doing. We're just like, this has been a long week.

I don't think you have this. You don't need to. No, that's right. We can read.

You're good. You can just read that.

You can just read that.

take a deep breath go to d all right let me go for it okay yeah um so did you see no no no well did we vote yes yeah okay easy easy although we did so we voted we did not vote on b we voted on it we did thank you we did no not on c let's vote again since we're not sure we're on re-voting on b No, C. We're voting on C. We haven't even made a motion for C. Yeah, we made a motion for B. All in favor for Article B? Aye. Thank you. Article C. Fiscal year 2027, administration of charge for services.

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve by Ms. White.

Second. Second by Mr. Segrich.

All in favor?

Aye. Thank you very much.

D, resolution 41-2026, establishing the rates and charges for the electric utility for fiscal year 2027. Do I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second. Seconded by Mr. McVoy. All in favor? Aye.

But that's a resolution. Do you have to read that one? No, only ordinances. But she read all the resolutions.

No, those are different. You don't have to really read by title and ordinance.

Those were first hearings.

No, she didn't read this one that we just did. D and E are resolutions.

Do we need to read those?

When do you read a resolution by title?

Just the little part she's been reading is fine.

She does need to read that. Sorry we're confusing you, Candice. We don't know what we're doing.

Okay, okay, so this is for resolution number 41 2026 for establishing the race and charges for electric utility it proposes a 3% increase and base energy charges demand charges minimum bill charges and customer service charges for fiscal year 2027.

And you said 3%?

3%, yes. And we already voted on it.

We have voted on it. Thank you, and I apologize.

Next up, thank you, Ms. May.

Next up is Resolution B, which is Resolution 42-2026, Establishing the Fees and Charges for City Services for Fiscal Year 2027. Motion to approve. We've got a lot of meetings. There you go.

Okay, resolution number 42-2026 establishes the fees and charges for the city services provided across all departments in fiscal year 2027. Thank you.

Do I have approval? By Ms. Malega, second by?

May.

Ms. May, all in favor?

Aye.

Well, folks and directors, I don't know how y'all do it, but we thank you. And we understand that at some point we need to adjust these downward if that thing passes. See you all tomorrow morning at 8.30. Yes, cultural tomorrow is 9.11. It's been a lot. See you in the morning for the September 11, September 8, 25.

Be there. Did we have a motion to adjourn?

I need a motion to adjourn by Ms. Villegas, second by Mr. McVoy. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you very much.