City Council - public_hearing

Okay, good evening everybody. Hello again, I should say, right? It is 5.01 p.m. on September 9th, 2026 here in our council chambers. And we will start with roll call.

Greg Julian.

Okay, and then we're just going to go on to the Pledge of Allegiance next, okay? Okay. I'm not gonna make our veterans stand here. We did that this morning. Anybody have any announcements? Okay, our next meeting is September 23rd, 9 a.m., regular council meeting here at the chambers. And the budget hearing will be at 5.01 on the 23rd. Okay, public input. Anyone wishing to address the council on any matter must state their name for the record. Each person will be allowed to speak up to a maximum of three minutes. Go ahead. And this is for the budget? This is for the budget? Please turn on the mic. Thank you.

My name is Kurt Havel. I'm a local resident here in downtown Punta Gorda. What I'm here for tonight is I was here earlier. It's hard to convey a message in three minutes. So unfortunately, I came back again just to sort of finish on that. I told you guys how I think your job is incredibly challenging. You go out in public in a small town and half the people like you and half the people don't. With that being said, I think that you guys are our leaders and I expect, well I think we shall expect that we're honest with you and you're honest with us. During my vested rights process, I was so disappointed by some of the things that were said and some of the things that I thought were manipulative and disruptive. I talked about Janine Polk earlier, and so that part is done. The next part is that, the historical district. I saw you two on TV the other day, Mrs. the Mayor and Mrs. Janine Polk, and I saw the kind words you had to say about me, so I'm gonna rebut that a little bit here, okay? So, Janine, you said that they're selling like hotcakes. And I just, I have a problem with the way you describe things, so I always think it has an agenda behind the description. So, downtown Punta Gorda, the very first page here is your historical layout. I got this from the city. So, in the last 12 months, there's been 11 sales in the historical district. That's not really hotcakes, but let's take a look at the numbers. Out of 11 houses that sold, on the very bottom of page two, the average drop in price has been $134,818. The worst part of this is the average sold price versus the original list price is 69.88%. I don't think any of these sellers would consider that they were successful. I don't think they would think that their place sold like hotcakes. I don't think that they would think of anything that was positive for them. I am for downtown Punta Gorda. I want people to buy houses and to fix them up, or if they can't fix them up, if they're situated in the middle of a lot, there's no way to put a garage or a driveway in there, these poor people are stuck. Give them options, that's what I'm asking you to do. Give them options, let them do one or the other. If they wanna buy a property that doesn't have a garage and has no room to put a garage on, or a driveway, let them buy it, let them bulldoze it, and put something nice and new up. What you are doing, Janine, is spectacular. You are doing what they call principle progression. That raises the value of all the houses around you. It's not principle of conformity, it's principle of progression. I did the same thing. If 15 other people did, it would raise our tax base drastically and all the values would come up. And these poor people that sold, matter of fact, look at this. The three best drops in prices were minus 25,000, minus 30.

Thank you.

I'll be back.

Anyone else have anything to say for public input? Please state your name for the record.

Mike Polk for the record.

I'm speaking in regard to the millage rate and the budget. If a proposed millage rate surpasses the baseline or rollback rate, local authorities must characterize it as an increase and provide public notice. The public notice typically appears in the newspaper under the hearing notice of proposed tax increase. The Truth in Millage Act, TRIM, and Florida mandates these safeguards to inform taxes and allow input on property tax changes. Thankfully, again, you're going with a rollback rate, which I commend you. I think last year was the first time in 12 years that the city went with a rollback rate. This year, although the budget stayed the same, the millage rate will actually increase due to a decrease in the tax base. The tax base for 2026 is $5,062,248,653, down approximately 3.1% from 2025 when it was $5,244,778,754. Subsequently, the rollback rate has increased from 3.8686 mils in 2025 to approximately 4.0074 mils in 2026. This is similar to the period from to 2013 when our tax base actually decreased 50% over a five-year period. Hopefully the real estate market will recover. However, the current Tax Reform Act Amendment 3, if passed, will bring significant reductions in tax revenues in the future. I applaud staff for making the cuts this year, but be sure, depending on the outcome of Amendment 3, this may just be the beginning. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, if not, we're gonna go ahead and move on. 2A is our budget hearing for the fiscal year 2027.

Kristen Simeone, Finance Director. So for 2A, we're gonna go through all of the items that are gonna be up for discussion tonight. So that way you have information and the public has the information prior to the actual public hearings. And then when we get to those public hearings, I can always go back to the slides that are in question. So first of all, we want to give you an all funds updated. So again, everything was reflected in the budget message. So the administrative charges and computer overhead were updated based on the all funds proposed budgets. All the performers were updated. Some additional items came in after the budget message, just based on the timing of when the state posted that information. But we had to provide that information to you by August 15th, so we wanted to make sure you had that. So some of the changes that are reflected in these particular numbers is state projections that were released as of August 20th. The municipal revenue sharing didn't require a change, so we were within range for that particular projection. The half cent sales tax is budgeted at 97% and it reduces intergovernmental revenue and the ending fund balance by $160,870 in the general fund. So again, we don't want to have over budget. So in this particular case, we've been seeing a continuous slight decrease every single month. So with that, we didn't want to budget at 100% of what the state projected. We used 97%. The 1% sales tax, based on the state projection, reduced the intergovernmental revenue by $60,150. But we could offset that one with some interest revenue in the 1% sales tax, because again, a lot of our projects have been moving a little slow in that fund. Also not reflected in the budget message were some grant awards that were received and that council approved to accept. So the MAP grant, $60,000 for the derelict vessel and waterway debris removal. So that increased our intergovernmental revenue and police operating expenditures in the general fund. There was also an additional MAP grant for $329,090 for a vessel, event overtime, and dive training. So again, that increases the intergovernmental revenue and police personnel operating in capital outlay in the general fund. I put a note in there that we would come back to you with any other additional updates. 831 state projections for gas taxes that were released on August 31st were in line with our projections used. So we did not have to make any additional changes in that area. We want to give you a comparison of various millage rates. So we have our rollback rate of 4.0074, which would generate approximately 19.5 million in ad valorem revenue. What we had currently used in our pro forma was 3.9797, and that was to provide a flat ad valorem as compared to fiscal year 2026. So that would be about 19.3 million. If the millage rate remained the same, revenues would be approximately 18.8 million. And another rate that was proposed was 3.9928, which would give you about 19.4 million. The explanation of our ad valorem tax revenue, again, is to better match programmed expenditures with current revenues. We had some service level changes. So we had an increase of net two employees in public safety. Information technology improvements increased annual subscriptions. to aid in revenue sufficiency for the five-year recommended planning to service level enhancements. And again, you'll see that we still have some work in that area to do when we look at the five-year pro forma. to continue funding for the city's paving program, to continue funding for drainage improvement program, although that is now being done by in-house staff beginning in fiscal year 26, to provide funding for emergency vehicles and fleet equipment replacements, and to provide funding for infrastructure maintenance and other needs. So this is the updated general fund pro forma. So as you can see, through fiscal year 29, with things as they stand, we're doing OK. We would obviously be working now through each fiscal year trying to improve that so that through the whole five-year pro forma, we could somehow get back to having a projected carryover. And that is at 16.7%. And again, this is kind of similar, as mentioned, earlier that in fiscal year 2008 through 2013 timeframe, we would see this in our pro forma that we would have some negatives and back then, sometimes it was even the very next year and we always work to find ways to improve and reduce those deficits. I did want to again bring up the legislative pro forma that we have worked up. Again, if legislative reform and tax ad valorems are reduced, how would that affect the pro forma and again we'll be looking for ways to improve or find other revenue sources to help us but you can see that by fiscal year only through fiscal year 28 are we fully covered and then in fiscal year 29 we're having to look um further This is the proposed 2027 budget, all funds summary. It's $219,202,087. And you can see the various revenue sources and the various expenditures. And again, ad valorem is only 12% of the total budget for the whole city. I had 11%. We will be talking about the BSI Canal Maintenance Fund proposed single family residential assessment of $1,035. And that's for 2027, a $945 operating assessment with an additional $90 for the debt on the lock widening project. For the PGI Canal Maintenance Fund, the proposed single-family residential assessment is at $1,500. And again, this will help increase the replacement program. And for the lot mowing program, the proposed assessment is $285 per ERU, which is not an increase from the prior year. It is still the same as the current year because there were additional funds left over due to reduction in Lot mowing with less rain, so there was less growth, so they were able to save in that area. Any questions at this time?

Any questions? Oh, I'm sorry. I have a couple questions. The one cent sales tax money currently allocated for the city hall, So has that all been reassigned and do we get to choose?

So council will get to choose and we did bring that to a council meeting and at the time council had decided to hold off on reallocating those funds until the historical side was also being worked on.

Okay, so also I'm just more concerned about the reserves and us not really having money set aside or a percentage set aside specifically for emergencies. And I did notice that the county had made that a priority. They set aside, I believe it was like 3.8% or 3.9%. Obviously, it wouldn't be the same as ours. But I'd like for us to have a chunk of it and just keep it on hand because it looks to me like it's slowly dwindling. And we all know we have emergencies here in the city of Punta Gorda.

We can make that part of our policies based on council direction. So currently, we do have various policies. And council did add some percentage to the special use fund. But again, that has a lot smaller reserve balance than the general fund currently. But you did set aside a certain percentage of the special use fund for emergencies. But we could do that here as well based on council direction.

How do you all feel?

How do you all feel about that? I mean, we just came through two major storms in the last two years. We know how much it costs, a lot of overtime for employees, a lot of trash pickup very quickly that we have to pay for upfront. How do you all feel about that?

I think it's a great idea. I mean, all it is is I think a little bit more transparent, easier for the taxpayer to look at and know what are reserves and what is emergencies. So I have no problem breaking that up. As far as what we put in it, you know, I'm up for suggestions.

I agree with that as well. I don't know what's going on with the mics, but I went live.

I'm kind of happy about it. I did too. I pushed it and went live. Yeah.

It's kind of easier.

Dennis, do you have anything to say?

I shouldn't have pushed it. I don't. OK, whatever. So we're using up the reserves that we had when times were good, right? So we're not really balancing the budget because we're digging into reserves. Is that correct?

As we get into the future years, yes.

OK. So if we want to have emergency reserves, where would we get those?

Again, it would have to be a policy determined by council. So do you ask each fund to put aside some amount towards an emergency fund, and we can set it up in a separate fund? Or do you want specifically just for the general fund an emergency fund, emergency reserve percentage? or a set dollar amount, we can do a lot of different things.

Kristen, what did we do during the years of 2008 to 2011? What did the city do to try to have that work?

So there was a lot of various factors. So throughout the whole time period, There were changes to benefits for employees. There were changes to the reserve balances. So at that time, the minimum reserve was 5%. However, we usually ended up the year with a higher percentage. So again, for budgeting purposes, we used a minimum of 5%. But again, the divisions always are very careful with their spending. And so additional funds were usually turned back in. So that helped keep that. But we were using a 5% until things started turning around. And then the council at those times would increase it incrementally. There was early retirements, I believe, that were offered. Positions were eliminated. Everyone looked at all their operating and figured out what they could do. So I think there was a decrease in training during that time. I'm not saying that's a good thing because, again, we want qualified individuals. So there's a lot. And we can go back to all those different years. And there might have been different things in different years that were I know one of the big things that's still in place today is the take-home vehicles were parked. They're parked here now. So that would help reduce our insurance and things like that. So that's one that has stuck since during that time. Saves on vehicle gas going, you know, when employees were allowed to take those home.

i think that's that's great it's a great thought i was hoping from the last time we had this that staff would come up with other ways i know it was great that they tried to reduce their operating expenses but i was hoping that by the time we came to the meeting tonight that we would try to figure out ways that by the year 2029 we wouldn't be down so low and like you said it has nothing to do um even with the changes in the ad valorem tax, because like you said, it's only 12%. So we really have to look at what we are doing every single day. Even if it doesn't pass, we still need to do a reduction of something to see what we're doing.

And again, we'll be doing this exercise every year, trying to reduce 10%. And again, it'll be council direction as well, because your departments may offer up some cuts, but it may cause Changes in the way we do business might cause delays in service, you know, so it depends on the service levels that is wanted by the citizens and are communicated through you, the council.

Right, but you're saying a 10% reduction, but there's still increases, you know, that you automatically do a 5% increase here, a 10% increase here, you know, like workman's comp and and medical, so these things that are already there, we can't reduce, so we have to look at other means. And I do, I'm gonna let, Janie, were you done? Because you still have real light. Oh, sorry. I'm gonna let Melissa talk because I want to come back again.

Well, going back to what Ms. Polk said about the reserve percentage, so if we were to kind of split this, obviously best practice is to keep that operating reserve at 16%, right? That's our goal. And I just did a quick little research in Charlotte County. I think they call it a disaster retention reserve. And I'll read exactly what they say. A reserve established to fund non-reimbursable expenses resulting from natural disasters ensuring adequate resources are available for disaster recovery. Of course, the county's striving for $25 million. But I think... And I know that mayor's kind of talking about something different as far as cutting. So if we just talk about right now, do we want to make a change where we split that reserve? That's probably something we could decide tonight because we're not, we're just moving money. We're not changing anything. We're just moving that. I think, is that kind of what you're? Yeah. Okay.

Yes, and I think that defining it, like you said, defining it as this is only being used if there's a flood or if there's a hurricane or if there's a, you know, God forbid, fire, whatever it is. you know, when you're in emergency mode and you have no emergency funds, I don't know how we're going to get through that. So my concern is the County did it. I think we should do it. I'm just not sure what the percentage looks like. Their percentage is very different from ours and we're going to have to look at it and decide how much we're going to set aside for just emergencies. Right.

And, Just to also be clear about when we have an operating reserve, part of having that operating reserve is for emergencies. So do you want to say part of the 16.7 should be specifically just for storms and then a different, you know, so say it's like 5% is just for storms and then the other 11.7 is for operating? Because again, you can just split it specifically for that purpose, if you would like.

Isn't it like two and a half months? What is two and a half months for us to survive? Is that 16% or is that only 5%?

It's the 16.7%.

That's what we need to really keep for any disasters because we are more prone to disasters. So that whole amount should stay for disasters, in my opinion.

And that's what we have set aside. That is the whole point of having those minimum operating reserves. But you can add additional reserves, like you said, if you wanted. But when we have these minimum operating reserves, if you need to use them, that's what they're there for. For emergencies.

Janine, you're back on.

But again, I think to your point, all we're trying to do is just separate where we can show the taxpayers, listen, this is the money that we're literally only going to touch if there's a disaster. And to find that, I mean, I kind of like the disaster retention reserve. This is the money that we have, and that's all it's for. You know, we know that right now it's a big pot of money that can be used for anything. But I think dialing it down into a natural disaster reserve is something that I would be fine with. Again, we're not funding or defunding, we're just splitting and moving. So I would have no problem with that.

So what you read, you said non-reimbursable. So that would be something that we would just pay and fix and not even wait for FEMA reimbursements? Is that?

We have to, I'm sorry, I was, We have to pay to have the things done before we're reimbursed by FEMA, so we'd have to have the money to do that anyhow.

Sorry. Theirs is actually set up, this reserve is just set up for non-reimbursable expenses. I was just taking a chapter out of their book. We can set it up however we want. I think... Ms. Polk's point is just having something aside that we can say this is literally, we're not gonna use it for. Anything. I don't even know. It's just for disaster related acts of God, however you wanna categorize it. So I guess the question would be what is our appetite for putting what percent, probably a percentage is better than an amount. So what's the appetite for that?

Are we making that decision now? Or just saying that we're gonna do it?

So you have two options, right? So you can either try and make a decision now, or we continue to work on that for our upcoming. You do see we do have available reserves for fiscal year 27. So as we work through our fiscal year 28, we can talk about that. And then we would also have more information regarding a sales tax election as well as the proposed Amendment 3, right? So it's up to you.

I like that. I like waiting. We've had a good discussion about it, but waiting and let's see what kind of falls with the Amendment 3 and everything go from there. Is everybody okay with that?

Yep, please. When you're calculating personnel, are you automatically putting in a 4% increase or how do we budget for that? How do we know?

Yes. So just for a standard pro forma, we use like a set percentage. So we do have 4% merit increases in there for the out years. Operating expenditures use a 3% increase except for general liability, we use 5%. Computer overhead, we use 3%. For health insurance, we use 6%. And then for workers' comp, we have 10%. And again, each year, as we know the information, we update it. So last year, health insurance came in at 3.5%. This year, it came in at 5.5%. So we were pretty close on that 6%. And some years, it's been higher. And some years, it's been lower, if you look at the whole term. Again, I've only been here since 2007, but I've seen the gamut.

Yeah, you sure have. So how do you calculate for police and fire where it's not always 4%? How do you figure that into the equation?

So for the out years, again, we just use a standard 4%. And then as each year comes, we actually do it based on their actual contract. So we update it for actual contract.

personnel charges could be higher is partly what you're saying yes they could be sorry so i'm going back here i was just looking i went to july of 2026, looking at the projected 2026. And I apologize, I don't remember. And everybody else might be smarter than me. But we have transferred to other funds of, you know, over $26 million. What was that transfer to other funds for?

Sorry, that was for the PGI and BSI loan funds for the FEMA seawalls. Again, it carries forward when it hasn't been completed. And I did want to also mention about the personnel. Yes, it could possibly be higher, but generally throughout the year we do have vacancies. And so usually there's savings there. So a lot of times that is offset.

And then I was looking at the 50% fiscal year of what we did and looking at the budget fiscal year 2026, the operating expenses from what we have here to what we had at 50% for the budget of 2026, not the current projection or actual. The operating expenses went up over a million dollars. This doesn't like our 50% had the council $15,000 on it. Capital outlay net went up over a million dollars and transfer for capital projects went up over a million dollars. You told me about what the other funds were with the PGI and BSI.

So, um, You said operating went up a million dollars?

Operating went up over a million, capital outlay net went up over a million, transfer for capital projects went up over a million. So even from the 50% our budget to what we look at, we've changed.

And are you looking at total funds or just the general fund? I just want to be clear.

Just the general fund.

Okay. I can get you that information. I believe it was in our, a lot of any, A lot of that information would have been in our budget message. So I can look that up for you. It might have been something specific. It could be the radios. I'm not sure. But you're talking about original budget to original budget. So let me. Let's just go back, if you don't mind.

No, it's OK. You don't have to do it right now. These are just questions.

And I can look that up for our next meeting as well, if that's OK.

I think the biggest thing, like you're saying, to make sure that we have any kind of disaster recovery, and then looking, like I said, we're very thankful that most of the departments tried to do at least a 10% reduction operating, but we really have to take a look at, because I hate seeing positions eliminated, which we might have to do. We don't know where the trend is gonna go. early retirements. I mean, these are things that we really have to discuss. If we're going to come into this, you know, we really have to start being smart about the finances, and I know all of you have worked really hard on this, and I'm really happy, Janine, that you did bring up, and Melissa, you agree, and everybody else agrees here that we do need to keep that emergency money set aside because we do have, I mean, over a million dollars for encrypted radios, which is absolutely necessary, but we weren't budgeted for it. So there's always emergency money that's needed for something like that.

And again, when we do bring back or the departments bring back any of their suggested cuts, they'll bring back how that affects the service levels so that you're aware of how that will affect everyone.

And per the strategic plan this next year, we will also be having workshops with residents to determine what service levels are acceptable to them, what amenities they'd be willing to pay for, those types of things as well. Also within the pro forma are the planned positions going out. Those positions are planned at this point in time. Should we have a significant decrease in revenue, that is a place that we can always decide to make alternate decisions on.

Anything else for two?

Okay.

Then we are going to move to the resolution to be. And this is a resolution of the City Council of the city of Punta Gorda, Florida adopting a tentative millage rate for the city of Punta Gorda, Florida for the fiscal year 2026 2027. And setting a date, time and place for public hearing to consider the final millage rate. I do want to add the city of Puente Gorda's calculated rollback millage rate for fiscal year 2026-2027 is 4.0074 mills, while the proposed millage rate to be levied is 4.0074 mills, which is 0% higher than the rollback millage rate.

And then just so you're aware, this will be a public hearing? Yes. OK. So this resolution will adopt a tentative millage rate after city council discussion. It includes the rollback forward rate of 4.0074 and sets the final millage rate public hearing as September 23rd, 2026 at 5.01 p.m. in city council chambers here at 326 West Marion Avenue, Punta Gorda, Florida.

So do you have any questions for Kristen before we open up for public? Okay, public comments? Anybody wanna speak on this? Melissa? Move to close public hearing.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to close public hearing. Anybody opposed? Okay, motion carries. So you don't need a resolute, because we have a second hearing, do we need to discuss?

No, we still need to adopt what you want for the resolution, because that will be what is published in the newspaper. So I've put, again, the slide up about the various millage rates so that you can have discussion of what you would like to put as a final millage rate for our next meeting.

I'm still firm with the rollback rate.

So you're firm with 4.0074? Jean?

And the 3.9928 was out of discussion with the property appraiser. I don't know how he came up with something a little bit different from Kristen. They could have been using a different program. I know it looks like it's just pennies off. But in my mind, I think it's more palpable. It can be accepted more readily if we keep it under 4.0074. We keep it just under that. It's not that much of a difference, I know, but it just seems like we're raising everything The next thing that we're talking about is raising the sea walls. And earlier, we talked about raising everything else, the water. I just feel like, can we just give the people a little bit of a break here with the 3.9928? And it really shouldn't affect us tremendously.

If you're looking for the difference, it would add back $63,665. So basically we had, yep, sorry. And again, earlier I had shown you we had lost a little bit from that revenue sharing. So that would help put some of that money back.

And Kristen, this does include all the new that's online, all of the new commercial development. And not everything's online. I mean, good thing that will be coming up that will be helping us out a little bit.

This is based on the property appraisers as of January 1, 2026. 2026.

And some of that just now came online, so it's not really. So that wouldn't be until next year.

I think psychologically and emotionally, I think you're right, that having it just under four is helpful for the taxpayer. So I don't know what the best choice is for us. So I want to hear from everybody.

Yes, it's not much, I guess. I don't know who can do this math. You know, how much would that save the taxpayer? In other words, if we're looking that, you know, so 63,000, for us could probably do a lot. On the flip side, 63,000 spread out with the taxpayers, what number are we looking at? I guess that's my question, if that makes sense. She already has her calculator up.

think that, you know, we went down to 3.8686 and yes, we have some things crunching, but I feel like we're going, well, we're still having increases here and there, you know, and, and like you said, even looking at what's going to happen on the ballot, that's only 12%. I thought last, something else I read said 11%, but 12%, that's still very minimal. And I still think that we really need to start looking internally to see how to save money instead of constantly saying, well, we're just going to give, you know, make the taxpayers pay $10 more, $15 more, $20 more, because, you know, I've said it, The same, you know, we pick up groceries, everything we're picking up is a little bit more and then you go to the checkout and it's quite a bit of money. So I know we went to 3.86, but you know, I personally, you know, I would feel better at 3.9797 where it used to be. You know, we brought it down. It's not that much different, 70,000. Sorry. That's OK.

The difference between the rollback rate and 3.9928 is $70,950. The difference between the rollback rate and the 3.9797 is $134,615. And when you look at the big picture,

with the things that we approve we approve a lot of stuff way over 134 000 so really 134 000 compared to how many millions is still really not a whole lot and and we have been increasing everything else and and i personally think 3.9797 you know 134 000 difference we should be able to figure out how to save 134 000 in our city

Maybe I didn't say it right. Kristen, what I was looking at is like the taxpayer. So how much is their bill going to change based on these? That varies upon how much somebody's house is. I guess just an average, just an ish. You know what I mean? Just to pick a number, $300,000, whatever, just an ish.

Oh, let's see. I don't know that I have that calculated for each various one. I can have that for the next meeting. So again... You could do, even if you still stayed with say the 4.0074, you still have another chance to reduce it at the next meeting. So again, can't go above that. I was just saying you can always go down.

While she's looking at that, I'm just going to give an example of mine. My property value went down $200,000 and yet my property taxes went up like $400. So, you know, and then that's, you know, with the proposed. So it does affect everybody on top of everything else that's going on. And I'm just giving mine because I can physically see mine, you know, for an example. So some people, it might not affect them very much, but other residents who already foot a lot of the heavy parts of the bills, you know, will be taxed more. Sorry chain.

Just wanted to make a comment that staff did take a really hard look at their budgets everything is more expensive for everyone and that's how we came up with the numbers that we have things were caught they were shown to counsel that they were cut It isn't that we haven't been looking at ways to cut and that we don't have a plan for the future of how we're going to get there. We provided you with your options, but we also, I just want to stress that we worked hard to bring you the budget that we did. Every single director, every person involved in the budgeting process put a lot of thought into this and really looked at their departments and divisions and where they could make cuts.

And I truly appreciate that, and that's why I'm not saying anything about salary cuts, because I know that you've been looking at other areas. There are a lot more areas, but we're trying to look at them without cutting salaries as well. So there are other means to do it. Like you said, maybe the benefits that you're getting, maybe like the defined benefit plan, I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong on this, because if I recall, Mr. Murray was saying that it doesn't, when he was the city manager, He said, like, his benefits, it doesn't have to go to a spouse. It can go to a grandchild. Well, if it goes to a grandchild, how many more years is a city paying for the benefits of somebody like that? And maybe that's where we need to look at changes as well because that is very costly. You know, and defined benefit plan, you know, that was added on in 2023, I believe. also was a huge expense for our city for the taxpayers to have to pay. So, you know, we are trying to look at other means of not changing these other things. And that's the only reason why I'm saying that we should be able to somehow try to figure out how to save the taxpayers more money.

In some of these, you kind of have to look at holistically as well, right? Because if we're not able to retain employees, we're spending a lot of time on training for someone that might leave within less than a year. So again, there's a cost factor to that as well. That happens in every profession, though, I think. But again, if we're not being competitive, it might happen more often. We become the training ground, and then everyone goes somewhere else, and then they stay there longer. So I'm just trying to be devil's advocate here and kind of let you know some of the information that we've heard in the past.

But like I pointed out, even with the state, they're giving 0% for everything. So we're still doing much better than a state giving 0%.

So I just looked at my notice to go from 3.86 to 4.0. It's going to be a difference of $62 for me. I mean, you know, I know every house is different on how it's valued. I get all that. But this could be the last before Amendment 3 passes. So I'm still... Okay with doing the 4.00. I'm afraid of what services we may have to cut already. And I think that is, I think we tell the taxpayer that they have to pay 60 to 100 or a couple hundred dollars, but their services remain the same as opposed to we're saving you that money, but your services may be cut, which we don't know. That's a concern to me, so yeah.

OK, I'm going to be honest here. I think we're splitting hairs. I mean, like I said to begin with, and I couldn't say it, it is more palpable. Easier to be accepted. If we are just below the 4.0. That's why I'm saying the in-between number is kind of the nicer number to go with. It doesn't really affect the city so much. A $70,000 difference, I think we can cut something that's $70,000. And that's why I'm I'm liking that number better. I've had several residents say, it's never been as high as 4.0. I think it's just a mindset. They don't realize that their assessed value has gone back enough so that 4.0 is the number now to keep the same amount of money coming in.

So it's, did you look at did you look at the page 10? No, I mean, actually, staff actually looked at it with the 3.9797. So it's almost exactly the same 19 340 100. And it's with the 3.9797. It's 19 340 380. So they already calculated it at the 3.9797.

Did you want to put the millage rate back up so I can see?

You see what I'm saying? Page 8 and then page 10. So page 10, even with the legislative, the staff calculated it with 3.9797. I see the top number.

I think this is the slide you were referring to.

Yep. So you see it's 19-340-100. And if you look at the proposed millage rate at 3.9797, it's 19-340-380. So it's almost identical. I did find the

Teresa found it for me. The spreadsheet we had worked up for showing like how the homestead property might look with the various rates. The only one I was missing was the newer one, the 3.9928. But for between 4.0074 and 3.9797, let's say for a $500,000 It assumes a 2.7% increase because that was the maximum of the CPI. So the maximum value that a homestead property could go up was 2.7 for the assessed value. It would be a difference of $13 on a $500,000 home between the rollback rate and the 3.9. 797, just so you're aware.

So 3.9797 is still palatable, however you say that word.

Well, I think at this point we all just need to take where we're at. I'm at 4.00. Me too.

I'm at 3.9797.

Since we have only one chance to lower it, we could leave it as is and make our decision next time. But I lean towards 3.9797 right now.

And like I said, we're splitting hairs. And we don't ever mention that the county has also affected the taxpayers. That's right. And unfortunately, we get beat up over it. The city council does. And unfortunately, our taxpayers get beat up over it. And so that's never mentioned here. I think it's important to know that. It's so close in dollar amounts for each person. That's why I went with the 3.99. It was fair. It was in between the two. And I'm very much into the 3.9928. Just think it's a little more acceptable. And it's in the middle. And I'm the middle child, so there you go.

You know, it's always good for us to look at compromising and trying to work out a solution amongst all of us and to help with the taxpayers and their dollars. And, you know, I tend to be a stubborn person on what I believe and everything like that, you know, because I'm looking at 3.8686 and thinking I'm going up to 3.9797, but... If you're looking at between 4.0074 and 3.9797, I can see where you're saying that the 3.99 is in the middle. It still helps out. I'm still looking at how we had calculated with our general fund and legislative that this actually shows us what it is. And is that difference really going to mean that much right here? But if it makes us work at 3.9928, I'd be willing to change that even though I'd really rather stay at 39797.

Jeanine, for the record, can you explain what Charlotte County did to the tax situation?

Well, it's been the same as the city pretty much. I mean, 12 years in a row, even if you keep the millage rate the same, as assessed values raise, you are raising taxes. You are. And our assessed values have gone up exponentially, especially after COVID. And that's when we saw the real tax dollars get... get eaten up. And I do agree with you, too, Dr. Reichardt, that things have gotten so much more expensive. But by that percentage, I don't know. So I explained it pretty well, I guess, hopefully.

What I notice is that taxpayers, when they see a four at Valorum, they just think we raised the rates. They don't understand any of that math. And our goal is to to try not, yeah, it's a balancing act, you know, and it is psychological in many ways, how people feel about it, that matters.

Well, I think, too, you know, if we're keeping the budget the same, let's say last year we didn't keep the budget the same, we didn't go with the rollback rate, Paul gave me that number, too, and I was like, wow, that means our rollback rate this year would have been a lot more. So the rollback rate, it kind of helps, year after year. And keep that in mind, too.

So I'm asking, you know, Melissa and Greg, would you consider going lower? We have to work something out, we have to compromise. And we want to protect our residents, but we also want to make sure that we run a good city too. And it's not that much, like you say, the residents would like to see it under four. Are we willing to look at under four?

I'd still like to wait until the 23rd and make that final decision if we want to drop it.

What difference do you think we're going to have between today and the 23rd?

we're going to have more information from Kristen.

Are we?

Most of the information will be the same as what we're presenting, except anything that you've asked for at this meeting.

And I think the only thing we're asking for is how to reduce the budget even more, not what's happening right now.

There you go, sorry. Yeah, $39.99 and $40, and that's what we're talking about, right? You go buy something, $39.99 sounds better than $40, and that's kind of what Ms. Polk's talking about. I have no problem with the 3.9928. MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS DOWN THE ROAD WHAT SERVICES ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED. NOT THIS. I'M NOT SAYING THIS. I'M JUST SAYING I'M LOOKING PAST. BUT IF 3.9928 AND, YOU KNOW, WE LOSE THAT EXTRA REVENUE, I'M SURE WE CAN FIND SOMEWHERE ELSE TO CUT IT, I HOPE. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S WHAT GETS IT DONE, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. SHANNON?

YEAH. I WANT TO GO WITH 39928.

And Janine, we know you're at 39928. I will go to 39928. Greg? I'll stay. I'll hold. He's going to hold his cards. Okay, so I think with the consensus, we look at we're going at 39928, which actually...

Since it's a resolution, I think he would probably do it as a motion for the rate, and that way we'll fill in the resolution for signature tonight.

Okay, and then will you have to change the general funds with the...

with the numbers and everything then i guess a motion to adopt the resolution with the um rate that you are discussing janine okay motion to adopt the rate with 3.9928 uh second that okay we have motion in a second to adopt it at 3.9928 anybody opposed to this hi

Okay, so one opposed, four yeses. So the motion carries for 3.9928 to adopt the rate. Jenny, did you have something to say again? Okay. We are, yep, we're going to 2C, sorry. I'm bouncing back and forth here. That was 2B. That was the millage rate. So 2C is now the budget. So a resolution of the city, good, okay. Resolution of the city council of the city of Punta Gorda, Florida, adopting a tentative budget for the city of Punta Gorda, Florida for the fiscal year 2026, 2027, and setting a date, time and place of public hearing to consider it. And again, that'll be September 23rd at 5.01 p.m. here in council chambers at 326 West Marion Avenue. Kristen, did I miss anything?

Nope, that's good.

OK.

So for discussion, again, I've put up the budget. The amount of taxes, the ad valorem will go up. $63,665 on the revenue side. And then on ending carryovers on the expenditures, it'll also go up $63,665. So both the total revenues and total expenditures will be that slight increase.

So where will you put the $63,000 towards expenditures? What is it going to go to?

So right now, it'll go to ending reserves for further discussion and allocation, as we've talked about earlier. OK.

Any questions for Kristen? Okay, we're going to go ahead and open it up to the public. Anybody want to speak on this? I'm going to go second. Melissa is waiting here. So ready? Move to close public hearing.

I second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to close public hearing. Anybody oppose that? Okay, public hearing is closed. Any other discussion? So then I'm going to need, thank you, an adoption. So I'll move to approve 2C.

Do you need me to read? Adopt a tentative budget. So I'll move to approve resolution to adopt a tentative budget for fiscal year 2026-2027.

With those two changes that we talked about?

With those changes that we talked about.

I second that.

You're not going to repeat the whole thing? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Anybody oppose this? No opposition. Motion carries. Thank you. OK, we're going to close the budget public hearing. And we're going to open up the BSI Burnt Star Isles Canal Maintenance Assessment District.

Do you read the resolution? You want me to read the resolution? Or do you want me to? I don't know. I can do it.

Okay. A resolution of the City Council of the City of Puente Gordo, Florida, as the government body of the Burnt Star Isles Canal Maintenance Assessment District, establishing fiscal year 2026-2027 assessments for canal maintenance and repairs, finding a special benefit to the owners of lot assessed, providing for collection of such assessments by the tax collector as non-ad valerum assessments, and providing an effective date.

So again, Kristen Simeone, finance director. So this would set the single family lot or zoned multifamily lot with single family residences at $1,035 and 10.8 cents per square foot for other than single family lots, except for lots zoned multifamily with single family residences. And this is the final document for this. I mean, this doesn't come to you again, okay?

Does anybody have any questions for Kristen?

Do you know, do they have a date where they're not going to constantly assess $90, $90, you know, so much every year? For the debt?

Yes, it was included in the perform. I believe it's through fiscal year 29, and then they'll look at putting that towards increasing their program.

Okay. So nothing else for Kristen. We're going to open up for public comment. Anybody want to talk on this? second time anyone want to talk on this oh i'm live move to close public hearing i second that okay we have a motion a second to close public hearing anybody oppose it okay motion carries do we have any discussion amongst ourselves if not can we get a final resolution move to approve three can i say three or you want me to read the whole thing The resolution to set it at 1,035. Are you wanting to say 3A?

Sarah said it was okay.

3A? Mm-hmm. Okay, you can just say 3A. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second for Resolution 3A. Anybody oppose this? Okay, motion carries. So we're gonna close Burnt Star Isles Canal Maintenance, and we're gonna open up Fuente Gorda Isles Canal Maintenance District. Okay. This is a resolution of the City Council of the City of Punta Gorda, Florida as the governing body of the Punta Gorda Isles Canal Maintenance Assessment District, establishing fiscal year 2026-2027 assessments for canal maintenance and repairs, finding a special benefit to the owners of lots assessed providing for collection of such assessments by the tax collector as non ad valorem assessments and providing an effective date.

And again, Kristen Simeone, finance director. So this resolution sets the PGI canal maintenance assessment district fee at $1,500 per single family lot or zoned multifamily with single family residences and 15.6 cents per square foot for other than single family lots excluding zoned for multifamily with single family residences.

Any questions? I have the same question. Oh, I'm sorry, Greg.

I dislike having to do this to myself, but it's what it is. The cost of the contractors and the materials has gone up. We have to do it.

And do we have an ending date for this, Kristen, like we did with BSI?

So again, for BSI, and again, just talking about BSI, you were just asking about the $90 for the debt service. They may have to start stepping up their program as well. For PGI, again, I can't tell you the exact date. It depends when we get to that date. amount where we think the end of service life is happening right so um we have to keep stepping up that program until we can make that number for that end of service life of the the sea walls because again they're they're aging um i thought it might be interesting because i've been looking this up right so um and obviously when the canal districts were first set up It's not just the seawalls, it's the canal maintenance. So early on, when you don't have a lot of repair, those fees were mainly canal dredging and the mangrove trimming and those kinds of things. As you get towards the time when these were all kind of put in around the same time, over maybe 10 to 15 years, you're going to have those needs. So since fiscal year, That's PGI. Since 1980, when the first assessment was assessed, if you're looking at a single family platted lot, the amount collected in assessments is $19,380. To replace a seawall at 80 linear feet is about $55,000 right now. So I just kind of want to put that in perspective.

And, you know, we're representing the people, our residents and stuff like that. And I don't see anybody here actually saying no to it or they oppose it. So, you know, we have to look logically at, like Greg says, how much it costs for everything. And it's kind of the way it is.

Yeah, I'd like to ask, though, how the payout to R.J. Gorman is going to impact PGI fees? When does that get calculated in?

So we'll continue to look at that. There are reserves available currently to cover that. But that will all be calculated as we move forward.

I thought. Please forgive me if I misunderstood this. But I thought that was already money that we put aside, because that would have been the work that was already done. So that was actually part of the annual maintenance fees that we just didn't pay out. So I don't see where we'd be adjusting it or anything, because it was already presumed that work had to be paid for. So I think it was already incorporated in the amount. Yes.

Question. So BSI is $10. SQUARE FOOT AND PGI IS 15. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT?

YES. SO THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT, THIS IS FOR THE NON-SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. AND IT'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LINEAR FEET FROM THE SEA WALL AND THEY CALCULATE IT BASED ON THE SEA WALL LENGTH AND THE CERTAIN FOOTAGE. OKAY. $0.10. Let me go back to that.

That's all right. Okay.

It's like $0.10.8.

And for the other one, for PGI, it is $0.15.6. Did we get any response from the public about the seawall maintenance cost? Yes. And I'll let

Yes. I think we've answered three emails. Does that sound right? Yes. And then we get some calls in our office as well as the canal maintenance supervisor gets some calls.

What kind of comments are we talking about? Like people, are they concerned about this price? Are they concerned about the maintenance?

More, again, I think everyone just is asking about the fee and the increases, right? We explained to them, and again, knowing this information that we have of how much has been collected per platted lot, you know, I think people are a little more understanding.

The other thing is I do get comments on why are we not using fiberglass rebar type setup versus treated metal or what we're using now. And I know Cape Coral uses fiberglass. A lot of people use fiberglass. And I know that once metal starts to rust, it expands and it starts to break down the concrete. So I would like to, I know you guys have your thoughts about it. I'd like to understand more about that in another discussion. If we're really making the best and most long-lasting seawalls that we can.

Okay. So again, Mark would probably be the one to answer those types of questions.

Let's see. that was just discussed within the last few months at our canal maintenance committees whether or not that they wanted to engage in another seawall study if they wanted to do a test pilot of a project or anything like that both of the canal maintenance boards decided that they didn't want to take on a study at this time but that doesn't preclude our canal maintenance and our public works department from continuing to evaluate those options looking what other communities are doing to move potentially if there is a cost savings and a longer life in those to move to that in the future. But at this time, it wasn't the will of the boards to go ahead and go down that road.

Which is actually a shame because composites really have, you know, I used to deal with composites, you know, in my profession and composites really have changed quite a bit. So from a study that was done a few years ago to a new study, it probably would show tremendous changes and improvements and cost effective. So it, It disappointed me that they didn't have a bite for it when I think there really is a great need for it, like you're saying. So with that said, I do need a resolution. There's Janine, sorry.

No, I was just going to add that we did purchase property too, which is also coming out of these funds, if I'm not mistaken.

That was for BSI.

Yes, for BSI specifically. And will we have to do that? I guess we won't for PGI, but they do have a lot of dredging going on. So that's another cost. I mean, it all just compounds. And if you had to replace your seawall, so I talked to my sister, she lives in Clearwater, and she said $50,000 to do her seawall. $50,000. So, you know, you're paying $1,500. I know it seems like a lot of money, but if you had to replace your entire seawall, it's very expensive. So, thank you. Can I get a rest? Okay.

Did we have public hearing?

for PGI.

PGI, excuse me. See, I'm trying to jump ahead of the ballgame. Do we have any public hearing on this? Anybody in the audience want to talk? Seeing nobody rise, I'll move to close public hearing.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to close public hearing. Anybody oppose this? Motion carries.

I'll make a motion to approve 4A.

Can I get a second?

Second.

You beat you to it. OK, anybody oppose this? OK, nobody's raising their hand, so that is approved. OK, we're going to close the Punta Gorda Isles Canal Maintenance District, and we're going to open the city of Punta Gorda Lot Mowing Assessment District. Sorry, that's me again, isn't it? A resolution of the City Council of the City of Puente Gordo, Florida, establishing fiscal year 2026-2027 assessments for program services within the Puente Gordo Lot Mowing Assessment District, finding a special benefit to the owners of lots assessed, providing for collection of such assessments by the tax collector as non-ad valorem assessments, and providing an effective date.

Thank you again. This resolution sets the city of Punta Gorda lot mowing assessment district user fee at $285 per mowing unit.

Any questions for Kristen? Let's open it up to the public. Again, open to the public. Nobody's rising. Move to close public hearing.

I second that.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to close public hearing. Anybody oppose it? Motion carries. Anybody have any discussion?

If not, move to, excuse me, approve 5A.

I'll second that.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Anybody oppose this? No? Motion carries. We are closing the City of Punta Gorda-Latmoing Assessment District. I don't see anything for any more public speaking, so we are going to go ahead and adjourn this meeting. Thank you. Thank you.