Town Council - workshop

Good evening, the time is now 6 p.m. and will call the order the town council workshop of September 7th. I guess I turn it over to staff.

Mayor, do we want to do roll call first?

Yeah, I'm sorry. Roll call, please.

Mayor Koretsky.

Here.

Vice Mayor Choi. Here. Councilor Delaney. Here. Councilor Geisinger.

Here.

Councilor Sundstrom. Here. Town Manager Fitzgerald.

Here. I guess I do need your help. How do you make it full screen? Boom. Good evening, Mayor, Council, Scott Reynolds, Chief Finance Officer for the town of Jupiter. We're here for a workshop this evening to cover a few topics relating to the millage rate and how JFRD is funded. and also some statutory requirements relating to the approval of the millage and then implications of millage rate decisions. We're in a very unique position this year. We'll talk about that as we go through the presentation about bringing on a new department and funding a whole brand new department. So it's very unique for a municipality to be doing that. So we'll talk about some of those very unique situations that the town is currently in. So for FY27, we've talked about a number of these things through the trim process and the budgetary workshops. Jupiter's had a long history of either maintaining or reducing its millage. We've always been very fiscally conservative relating to specifically the millage rate, the tax rate for the citizens. But in 2027, an additional millage is required to fund the first year of Jupiter Fire Rescue departmental full operations. This additional millage replaces the Jupiter Fire Rescue MSTU line on the taxpayers' bills. If you've received your trim bill, you've seen last year's amount on there for the MSTU, which is now being replaced by the Town of Jupiter's portion of that millage to fund the Jupiter Fire Rescue. The town's millage increases less than what the Palm Beach County Fire Rescue previously charged Jupiter residents for fire services. You can see the... over to the right. In FY26, the town's operating millage was at 2.3894. We're proposing to keep that operating millage portion the same. You can see the Palm Beach County Fire Rescue, the MSTU that I just discussed, was at 1.7251. The replacement millage for the fire portion of the overall town millage is 1.1992. So you can see the difference, the reduction and the actual millage rate between FY26 and FY27 from 4.1145 to 3.5886. So Jupiter Fire Rescue, the total operating budget for fiscal year 27, 25.4 million. Most 85% of JFRD's operating budget is funded by the 1.1992 millage increase being proposed for FY27. The rest, as we've discussed throughout the summer, is funded by a combination of EMS transport fee, fire prevention fees, and a non-Avalorum assessment. So just to go over some statutory requirements, there's been some changes in the law, and we did talk about those during a couple of workshops this summer relating to trim, the term rollback rate, what a lot of people don't understand what that is, What the rollback rate is essentially, it tries to bring in the same amount of revenue that you collected last year. That puts the town in a very unique situation. An increase of up to 10% over that rate to try to collect what was done last year would require a two-thirds majority vote. An increase over that 10% threshold or over the rollback rate requires a unanimous vote of the legislative body. which is the council. The rollback rate is defined as the rate that would be charged if the budget dollars were unchanged from one year to the next. Due to the increase in the property values, if the millage rate is unchanged, the dollars in the taxes paid will increase no more than 3% for the Save Our Homes set of properties. The town is in a unique position this year where its rollback rate is based on FY26 rate that does not include the most the cost of providing fire rescue services. State statute does not contemplate that situation where a local government is taking over the provisions of a new service. This is a once in a lifetime event. It truly is for a municipality and is in the last remaining item for the implementation of the Jupiter Fire Rescue, which will save the taxpayers annually in first year $10 million. We've talked about that extensively too throughout the summer. Essentially, the rollback rate becomes the default rate if other proposed rates fail to meet the required number of votes. And we'll talk about what that means in an upcoming slide. So relating to the proposed rate, 3.5886, it requires a unanimous vote of the legislative body. It would generate just over $70 million. We've talked about that when we set the TRIM. 10% above the rollback rate, a rate of 2.4976 requires a two-thirds majority or four out of the five of you. That would bring in revenue of just over $49 million, would mean a reduction or shortfall of just over $21 million based on the unanimous vote threshold. A flat rate that we've had from last year at the 2.3894 two-thirds vote, again, four of the five of you would need to vote for that, would bring in just over $46 million, almost $47 million, but then there would also be a shortfall of just over $23 million. The rollback rate itself, even with the simple majority vote, as we've always been able to do with three of the five of you, would be 2.2705, would be a reduction in in the proposed operating budget of $25.8 million. So there's the ramifications of how the vote works and the rates associated with that. So the implications of the millage rate decisions, any rate that is approved below the proposed rate of the 3.5886 would result in a deficit. We just talked about that in the previous slide. In the most extreme case, the rollback, the majority of the JFRD operating budget or the $21.5 million would need to be funded from other means. The deficit could be funded from general fund reserves or reduction of services or projects. We talked about putting some on hold, so that would be an extreme measure. A significant use of general fund reserves would seriously impact how the town would be able to respond to the Amendment 3. We've all been talking about Amendment 3. In fact, we had a workshop on that talking about that very subject should pass. This would impact the town's future credit ratings as well and drastically reduce the funding needed to respond to major natural disasters. We talk about that every year, not just this past year. So with that, I'll turn it back over to you, Mayor and Council, and if you have any questions.

Well, I think this is somewhat unique. So I can either let you all ask questions or I can go first. I think it's probably appropriate for me to go first.

Does everybody agree? I can say one thing quickly just to provide context because I had asked for this workshop, which is unusual. And thank you, everyone, for agreeing to be here tonight. The reason I had wanted to ask for the workshop is because It is, um, as presented, you know, a very important decision. And one of the only decisions we've had to make, um, that's required to be five. Oh, we've talked about that for a number of months. Um, you know, it is the funding for fire rescue. And my understanding currently is that we don't have the five vote. And so, you know, based on Florida statute, my understanding is that when we meet to set the millage, this is just a workshop. But when we take that decision next Tuesday, There's no redo. There's no special meeting after. If we can't come to that decision, the statute says, barring any major hurricane or anything, we have to move forward on the 22nd. And so I know that we want to fund fire rescue. We want to make sure that we're being responsible. But I kind of wanted a dress rehearsal to air out the policy around this decision because it's really important that we get it right and really important that we get the five vote and that there be no question, hopefully before we, we take that vote on Tuesday. So, you know, given the current understanding of where things stand, given some of the anxiety around fire rescue and you know, that I've been hearing, I think it's just good to have a discussion. And so I thank you for that. And then, and that's it really, we can get into it from there.

So kind of Robert's rules and order is interesting. I didn't feel like last meeting I could make a motion that would have gotten support. I thought about that. First of all, if anybody had asked what millage rate do I support, I was prepared with it. I'm certainly better prepared tonight to explain. And my goal tonight is to get a consensus and a feel good about what I support, not because I support it, but I hope when I share how I came up with that, I believe it represents everybody's thoughts, so I want to kind of share that. But, you know, read aside on first reading and so the motion was made and seconded and I felt like if I made any more comments quite frankly you know somebody say I'm not well again I don't think it would have it wasn't the place this is better better venue if you will to talk about it so anyway I'm prepared to share a number of things um but it starts with fundamentally explaining some things so you know um and when i'm done so we'll ask the finance director if he wants to correct anything that i'm saying but you know the millage rate decision is always the very last overarching budgetary decision every year and being the longest tenured member i understand that better than has to be better than everybody because I've been doing it longer. And it is separate from the budget. It is. It has been many years. We do a lot of adjustments to make the numbers work. So the millage rate, and just to be clear, the millage rate, This isn't about the non-advil on fire taxation. Let me make that clear, OK? And it may have been heard that way. And certainly, I was advocating because I certainly was hopeful that it's going to be revisited. But nonetheless, so JFRD, I want to say this a number of times tonight because I'm kind of stunned that there's this talk the way there is and concern So JFRD is not and never has been dependent upon the non-advalor fire taxation decision, which was enacted by 3-2 policy vote. Not dependent, never has been. Let me make that pretty clear. There is no turning back, and that has been the case now for the past three years. We don't have a contract with Palm Beach County that goes beyond September 30th at midnight. You know, would any of us want to turn back, right? So the fact that people have got anxiety just because we've been talking about non-anvalorum tax, like, gosh, is there some jeopardy? Of course not. Certainly not when we're at the finish line and we realize... the extraordinary benefits to the residents. Effective October 1st, midnight, the town of Jupiter, we, the council along with staff, have fulfilled two strategic goals that will have significant long-term benefits to all town property owners, residents, and businesses. Celebration. The town now has a fully integrated public safety team with JPD and JFRD professionals working side by side to better serve the public. Any enhanced partnerships with the medical center will further lead to improved medical outcomes. They began operations October 1st. I can tell you what, sitting at this point in time, just that, I'll pause there. If there was no money savings, we're better. It's better for the community. So I just wanted to have said that, right? I mean, it couldn't be more evident to me now that we've seen what has been built over the time. And so I move on to the property taxes. You know, the creation of Jupiter Fire Rescue Department has achieved $10 million. We've heard that. We know that. In just year one, any annual savings in future years would be higher yet. The contract had... If they build a station outside of the county, I mean, out of the town, we're going to pay a share of it. The Donald Ross one, we've known about that one from the time we signed the contract. That was entered as a condition. People may not know that. Come back and do renovations. The $4 million renovation that we're going to do at Abacoa, they would have done. They needed to do, and it was fully. So we already got that baked in our number. So, oh, my gosh, you know, in future years, The savings are going to be greater. At this point in time, we now don't need to keep any of that. We need to celebrate that. So let's now talk about lowering the cost to government, which is what Amendment 3 is about. It's taken us three years of a concerted town of Jupiter local governmental team effort. We've exceeded our fiscal goal and delivered $10 million annual property tax savings in fiscal year 27. This annual savings equates to about $150 for every man, woman, child in town, taking into account 65,000 year-round residents. The sheer magnitude of savings to our constituents drove us into action. Now, if there's anybody up here who's never heard me use that term, I've been using it for 20 years now. Because every decision I've ever made is you take the amount of money that you're deciding to spend you divided by the number of residents and that's the cost per resident I was challenged by the Council. A prior Council of which the other four no longer here. Well, gee, you know, businesses pay that or whatever. So, you know, 20 years ago, I came up with the way I analyze the cost to residents and understand that and to businesses and, you know, who pays, you know, how does businesses pay from us? But I just want to emphasize $150 for me. There's nothing we could have ever done that will deliver more value. The Florida constitutional amendment three is to lower homesteaded property taxes is on the November 26 ballot. And if passed, it's gonna result in approximately $10 million reduction in property tax revenues impacted a town. It gives us no credit for the fiscal stewardship track record. It's really ironic, and we ought to be sharing this because that's their target. We in the town of Jupiter local government, we didn't need the state of Florida government to motivate us to lower the cost of government in local property taxes. We delivered it as part of how a local government should work and does work in Jupiter. We all are proud of that. I personally will vote no on Amendment 3. I'm going to be sharing that freely as far as I can because of how radically it will change local governments where we serve closest to the people. I'm going to continue working relentlessly to lower the cost of local government regardless of the voter outcomes. Again, some may know this, but I do think it's important to share this perspective. In 2010, I analyzed the budgets for a large, medium-sized municipality in the county. And I began, it's interesting, I was Doge before there was Doge. And I printed out some copies. I was going through some old records to just find some stuff. I trended back to the year 2000. I was trending ad valorem tax allocations to general fund. And the metric I used is I was seeing how it was growing versus CPI plus population, because that's how a business would think. That's what we hear from the CFO of the state, right? We did that. Staffing. I got a graph where we were trending staffing versus just population growth. Back in that time, I had a hypothesis that, gee, like a business, if you're staying below population growth plus inflation, you've done your job. And businesses would love to have that. And then staffing, you know, population. Now, I've learned a lot over time, and I now realize the flaws of that. But nonetheless, it's the same language. But at that same time, then, I built spreadsheets

Mayor, point of order, is this to do with the current agenda? Yes, it does. OK.

Yes, it does, because I'm basically going to share information. But I just want to share how what I've been doing is sharing information, because probably nobody but me was better poised to quickly analyze how the non-advorum tax fee was working. And then each meeting I came, as I said, I was trying to keep it short. But nonetheless. But back then, way back then, I even had the businesses. And every time there's a need to update it with current decisions and whatever, I'm going back to that original sheet that I did and seeing about fairness of taxation. You know, fairness of taxation is our responsibility, right? And so we went into this, and the tax disparities inherent with the Jupiter Fire Risk Protection non-advolent property tax is owned and rests with us. You know, at the last, at the first budget hearing, a third and deciding vote emerged to at least study and entertain a non-advolent taxation tax. an alternate approach, you know, for fiscal year 28. And we needed a motion and a second by Councilor Delaney to make that happen. And I hope that does happen. But one thing, and I'm just making sure everybody understands me. I make decisions and act based on my, who I am and what I've done. At FPL, we used an approach toe in the water. You stick a toe in the water when you do something the first time, but then you analyze the heck out of it and see how it worked out. So look, all of us, when we did not, whether we agreed or didn't agree with the non-advolent tax, we were using a toe in the water approach. I think everybody kind of said it, those that were supporting it and saying, Hey, we'll see how it works. Um, and then it can be, and you know, I just, uh, they'll forget, you know, councilor Delaney commented recently that, uh, something that's so very true, all taxes are, uh, have disparities. Absolutely. But this is one that will ultimately own long term. Right. And so particularly with Amendment three coming up, I think it was important for me to be able to share the potential consequences of shifting to a different taxation approach. which is which everybody may be going to if in fact amendment 3 passes so I do believe we're aligned with we realize we were trial implementing something and if we if we can if three or more can agree that it is appropriate that we could and should commit to that you know before fiscal year 28 rolls around The so now. Going back to the now to the update on some of the analysis that I did and you know if anything I'm just trying to make sure you understand that everybody understands my position on how I came up with a rate that I can support. So number one is I looked at what I represented to the public when we were embarking on this decision to garner support. And because of my track record on council, I was point in sharing this with the chamber, in sharing this with the public. You'll look, I had Facebook posts. So nobody's owned this more than me with regard to committing out there. Like this is what a resident can expect. This is what a business can expect. because I actually put specifics down to a you know out there. So some may have committed big picture and we certainly delivered big picture. I committed I feel like it just the way I am that I committed you know personally to every property owner in the town and and then it just was by nature. is I always check, how did we do versus what we said we did? So part of this was just seeing how we did versus what we said we were going to do. And so I'll start with the commercial first and go back to the, but interestingly, even in the commercial, it turns out, and I have 33 commercial parcels. I have them because I've been doing these same ones for more than a decade, actually. I used it when I got with the chamber to kind of win their support of the benefit is going to be to every business. And so bottom line, I just looked at how it compared, because I had a spreadsheet started. I just had dropped into fiscal year 27 trim numbers, and I looked at these 33 commercial parcels, and 18 decreased, but 15 increased. the disparity, but another part of the disparity was the taxable value increases. So I even adjusted for the taxable value increases. Anyway, so then as I came up with a thought for a millage rate that I could support. The millage rate that I could support, and let me just give it to you here, but we'll come back to it, was 3.4798 And just using that as a number, 3.4798, it turns out when I applied that, you know, obviously at this point in time it results in a lower tax for everybody by that incremental amount. Thirty-one commercial parcels decreased and only two increased. And then when I looked at the residential parcels and I wind up adding more as I realize who I'm going to go meeting with is I added, for example, Noel Martinez because I'm going to be meeting with him to share so the chamber knows how this worked and a few others. But nonetheless, you know, I had shared last time some of the disparities, but, um, you know, but so I, I've said that, I don't think I need to repeat those here. Um, but take the most impact of, um, and then I, you know, ironically, I look back to what I had presented and, um, Coincidentally, we had this ad valorem tax implications for JFRT decision. We had a benefits versus, you know, Palm Beach County best case and then to their goal. So ironically, although they didn't have an address associated with it, we had a homesteaded condo at $260,000, which was extremely close. was in fact within a few thousand dollars of the example that I gave for the residence and the Barcelona apartments. So I looked at that. I said, gee, we said there it's going to be $102. if someone was valued at that. And then the 443 was the average 444,000 was the average taxable valuation at that time three years ago. And we were saying that, you know, first year versus their best case, we're going to deliver $173. So then you kind of compare that against what we're going to do with the trim numbers. And it was just far from it. So similarly with the commercial properties, I went ahead and did an adjustment of if we did use this 3.4798, how would that work out? And it makes things significantly better. It doesn't meet the number, but I feel better about it. The $14 savings that this one resident's going to get when the expectation had been $81. they're going to at least get 43, right? You can't cure it with doing that. But I just felt better overall that we're coming closer to delivering for those at the bottom of the end, most impacted by the disparity. And then the others gain even more. But it is what it is. So I'm just looking at, I think it's a fair outcome, you know, in year one, you know, for taxation. And then... You know moving further on and I'll just go to the presentation. If you could pull up. Mister Reynolds your page. Of your presentation. Okay. So at the 3.4798 number, and I did give this to Mr. Reynolds, and I don't know if he has this number prepared, but I have it. The revenue generated would be $68,314,000 for a delta of $2.1 million. And that's revenue generated. But the budget numbers, everybody may know this, you may not know it. When you walk that number into the budget, statutorily it's 95% you walk in, 5% is an assumption that you're not going to collect everything. And then on top of that, and why don't exactly know there's a 3% take of the revenue, I think it's for the tax collector and the property appraiser's office. So when you look at total revenue generated, we can only budget 95% and then you slice off 3%. So that would come down to 1.968 million. Just to have a point of perspective. So I wanted to just have explained where I am and what the costs are. And again, I see Mr. Reynolds. He can come up and correct me if there's any. But I asked him just to move it to the next slide.

You wanted the next slide?

Yeah, just that slide. Thank you. And I just want to further say, and many have heard this probably more times than they care to hear it, but I've had a lot of great mentors. And so one mentor that I'll always fondly remember taught me that the walls we perceive are the walls that confine us. And I perceive less walls as a result of that learning. I perceive less walls than others. so I don't unnecessarily confine my policy guidance and decisions by those kind of walls. I realize up here, and this isn't a criticism, but we think differently. It never was, never will be, ever important for me to separate fire rescue from the general fund. That was done, in my mind, simply for transparency to the public. And I know others have different opinions about that's fine. We can, we can have different opinions on a team that's healthy, but I've never been bounded by that. So I, and I'm emphasizing that because I'm just not, I just don't want to hear that. Gee, the mayor is hedging. No, he's not. We have one team is one millage rate. That millage rate is for town. They're not separated. We're keeping it bookkeeping wise, but they're not separated. And we've met our transparency. I know a policy decision is made by the creation of non-advalorant tax. We're going to be there until some future council decides otherwise. But I just want to make it clear that that's a wall that isn't a wall for this member of the council. So then on this, really I wanted to talk to the second bullet. which says the deficit could only be funded from. And that's not completely true what's there. And I just want to share and I don't think Mr Reynolds and we're going to give him the opportunity to speak. I don't think he's going to disagree with anything I'm saying here because we've been working together. I hope and I for a long time and I hold them in the highest regards. But first of all, you start with the item I talked about on tax collections. So in fiscal year 27, the fact that we budget on 95%, the 10-year historical average in collections, Mr. Reynolds, I'm gonna use 98.3, which is a decade that I have confidence in. I know it's gone up higher than that in recent years. That's from 2012 to 2021. But that 3.3% above budget collections is $2.3 million. So some of you on the council know this. Newer members may not. That happens every single year, and we sweep it at the end of the year. But it is a collection, and it goes into the general fund. So I know that, and so it's a source that I'm – you can't beat government on taxes, you know, because we lean, right? And that's why it works out that way, and surprisingly, a lot of people don't – Pay it early like I do to save 4%, right? It's not you look in the CAFR, right? So that's $2.3 million. Now, for the record, let's be clear as we go forth here. It's almost precise, not exactly, but two-thirds of that's the general fund and one-third of that is JFRD. So going forth, if we're going to be keeping these if others are going to have walls up, you want to maintain, we got to remember that the added collections that we know we're going to get then they get parceled to the two different accounts. Interestingly, I think it's important just to mention. And so now that goes up this year, because the fact that we added, you know, we've had a steady ad valorem rate and there's a steady amount we're going to come up with an upside at the end of the year and that's how the general fund reserve was growing. Well now it's going to grow another 50% because we've added roughly by taking JFRD is we now get more and but I just it is relevant I think to just share that you know Palm Beach County Fire Rescue never provided a shred of evidence to me that they were not sweeping the revenue outside of Jupiter. In fact, when we were negotiating this, I got with the chief, and he left here, and I said, that's a question I had. And quite frankly, I requested it, and they opted not to respond. And to this day, even when we've done audits, I think they've been sweeping it outside of Jupiter, and it doesn't matter anymore. We're now going to get that benefit, right? But keep in mind, that benefit is above $25.5 million because what's presented is the budget per the rules. So we're actually going to collect more revenue. Secondly, so that's, look, I'm just coming with solutions so people know, you know, how this correction in just this year could be done. I always try to come up with solutions. I'm not just saying, hey, and that's why I say We're not taking it from reserves that exist and lowering the numbers. We all are equally concerned about Amendment 3. But then I've asked for many times every year we look at retroactive carrier refund. We look at things. So under the case of retroactive carrier refund reallocations, I made this ask in a budget workshop that has yet to be implemented. I think everybody would agree, I would hope, or close, or at least understand that, gee, Southern Extension of Illinois has been a big deal to me. Took me years, we got it fully funded. And now, and I support this approach, and we're moving in this direction, particularly with the world as it's going to be, is a proportionate fair share So at a workshop, I asked that the budget be adjusted. I want it to be done in this cycle. And basically there was $2.7 million pre-'27 carryover in general funds. I said, sweep it, take it. There was $2 million in surtax funds dedicated to that project. I said, sweep it, take it. We'll assign it to something else. I gave up a project that until I die, I'm going to work on getting that project to happen. But I gave it up because it's the right thing to do. And we give it up. I remember when I was saying it, I remember seeing Councilor Sundstrom, big smile, agreeing, which is why, you know, I don't know what, when council decides, think about it, us as a council, if we're not clear, they don't necessarily know there was a consensus. So when this wasn't done yet, I said, gee, I think everybody supported it. I don't know why anybody wouldn't. And I use as an example, Councilor Sundstrom. I think she was very supportive. In those workshops, we just don't say that. So the point is, that's $4.7 million more that we need. And I still want it to be done before we finalize that budget because I want the record to show going forth to the property owners along the corridor. We're not funding all of it. It's relying upon proportionate fair share. So that sheet needs to be adjusted.

Mayor, point of order. I know we're at 640.

I just want to make sure that we have time to understand that I'm trying to make sure but I asked one question about when your former points about revenue collection. However, we come up a little bit over and then it gets the first general fund maybe into the reserves. So you want to just come you want to lower the millage to come in right on target.

No, no, it turns out.

Because the overage is more, I kind of look at that as more of a contingency. I understand.

No.

It's not something I even really consider every year.

And I'm not saying we do, but the point was I'm just trying to put into perspective with the amount that I'm trying to reduce, right, is I want to make sure everybody understands that the general fund number that we have in our head that we're down to, right, We take these acts. If that happens, it goes up, you know, and so you get the 2.3. Now you go ahead and you add 4.7. You know, you had $7 million. So, you know, there's solutions that we as a team have been working on, right? This isn't Jim, but I'm just saying these are solutions here. So I just want to make sure council knows, gee, we're not really dragging down our, you know, reserves because we've been working to build them up further, right?

And we only have 45 million in reserves right now.

Understand. But can I ask a couple of questions.

Sorry I just I want to I think you know we've been having this discussion all summer but I just want to make sure that the records correct on a couple of things. You had said it was a 3 2 vote on now. Was it a 3 2 vote staff because my understanding was it was a 4 1. Well the understanding of council is 4 1 and the vote was 4 1. So I just I wanted to say that quickly and you know this This isn't about the nav is how you started this. This isn't about the nav, but then it sounds like it's going, it's a, it's about the nav because the savings, like why the two, the 2 million, the prod, the presentation says that any thing less than the millage presented by staff who knows the actuals, not just, you know, they, we all understand the 95% collection. And we all understand and budget around not only what we're proposing, but also the actuals at the end of the year and where they go. And so with all of that known, not unknown, there would be a deficit. The balance isn't, you know, we call it, it's called here a delta of 2.1, but it's a deficit of 2.1. So the question is, like, on a recurring expense, fire will cost us every year. It will be a recurring expense. Where is the recurring revenue to balance the 2.1 million delta or whatever the delta ends up being with a lower millage. Because to fully fund fire rescue, staff is saying with the 95% collection, with the actual at the end of the year, with everything trued up, this is what we need to fund fire rescue.

You know, you look back at the general fund budgeting we did for fiscal year 23. We designated $555,000 from the fund balance, not knowing how we were going to correct it in the following year. In 24, we designated $750,000 from there. 25, we didn't. In 26, we went ahead and designated $17.7 million, of which $684,000 was for the general fund, not for fire rescue. And then we actually went into 27 in the hole Because we had budgeted, I didn't support it, but we had budgeted the use of a million dollars for the splash pad using, couldn't make the numbers work, it was going to come out of reserve. So the point was, this happens often, right, that we do that and we don't know how we're going to get to recurring. So, and there's so many options we have. I just wanted to, for respect to my colleagues, wanted to make sure I was making my pitch why that's a number for me. And I was speaking on the three to two. You're correct on the vote. But when I was told that by three to two policy decision, it's a decided policy decision, That's what I was referring to. But it doesn't matter. That decision is made. We can't change it. It is what it is for fiscal year 27. And I'm not resisting that. It is. I'd like to make it correct some of the disparities, and that's why I take the position. Look, the state is the one that established it takes unanimous. That means that they decided that, gee, the person that feels the strongest about the taxation level has the last say, right, to some degree. And I'm hoping it doesn't come down to that, right, is that I was trying to make the case that everybody would feel good about lowering the millage rate by that amount, how it really does correct some disparities and delivers closer to what we all represented to the public. And I was just trying to show you the solutions we have. And I don't know that everybody knew the 95% number, but I'll just leave it at that. I know some did, but we're the 3% that gets swept. I'm just trying to present some factual numbers here. But to the degree that if you read this, it's like it can only be funded from this, and anything we do is going to seriously impact how we're going to be able to respond. No, we're already working to respond. And that's why I wanted to make sure that we realize, because it doesn't show up in your budget book when you look at the fund balances, right? Until, for example, the $4.7 million is returned, and we pick a project to use for that surcharge fund also lowers the consumption of general funds, right? So. OK, so, oh, man.

All right. Trying to figure out how this works. So this would create a $2 million recurring deficit. It's a lower millage, creates a recurring deficit. Staff, can you come up? I have a couple questions about just this end-of-the-year money and actuals and planning for reserves, planning for programs, and how we treat actuals. What do we do at the end of the year? Money? Is this correct? What's presented? I mean, I imagine we know our actuals that we have at the end of the year when we true everything up. And we place it into reserve. It goes into the reserve. That's correct. If we have excess funds.

It does. It goes in to build up the reserve balance.

And it's part of what we've been doing to build up our reserves. We've known that.

It's not just the ad valorem. I mean, really shouldn't paint it in that light.

It's a mix.

There's a multitude of different things that happen during the year, and I'll give you some examples. The interest rates happened just a few years ago where the interest rates were going up, We were the beneficiary of some of those interest rates where we exceeded our estimate. Those monies came back into the reserves. It helps us build up our reserves to actually pay for the first two years of Jupiter Fire Rescue, if you remember that we discussed about that. There's also cost savings that occur throughout the year. We budget for certain items. Those items may not happen during the year. At the end of the day, Those excess revenues, because we didn't have an expenditure to go with it, those funds would go back into the reserves. So there are a number of things that attribute to the reserves. Now, the mayor is correct. We do have to budget 95% of the avalorum, and that is to account for the statutory discounts that occur, plus uncollectibles. That's what the state wants us to do. to be fiscally responsible. And sometimes people do not pay early. So there are collections that exceed that 95%. So that does happen. So there is that. But again, it's not just one item that that creates a situation where we're actually able to put money back into reserves or a number of different situations. I just want to make sure that's clear.

Thank you. And I mean, my understanding has been that we've always wanted to be somewhat protective of reserves. That's part of the splash pad is that it can't be from reserves. It needs to come from another source. And that was part of the exercise. I think, I mean, I worry about the recurring nature of this deficit and, and struck the structural deficit of this and where to find it. And I, I know that we know about the 95 and we've added it to reserves that we've worked to build reserves and that we need to build reserves more than ever now. with amendment three with, you know, with the fact that we've drawn down on it to create Jupiter fire rescue. So, I mean, that's, what's been creating the anxiety. And I do think it is about the nav. I mean, you've said it's not about the nav, but you've talked about it quite a lot over the last 30 minutes. And you know, if the amount matches the nav, looking at the pie chart from staff, it is a very small portion. We tried to be responsible putting into balance all of the various factors, not only for residents, but for the Jupiter Fire Rescue Department, which needs to have reliable revenues going forward where uncertainty is certainly being created in the external environment. And so, I mean, I think that's the bigger concern is balancing it. The amount in the NAV currently, and just so the rest of the council knows, is currently at the margin, which I think we've talked about. If we pull up the pie chart that we had, if I could ask for that one, it is a very small percentage of the total amount. And I agree with Councilmember Delaney. There is no form of taxation that's perfect. We're running into that issue with other land acquisition decisions and things like that. But this on the whole, you know, could we, staff, I guess another question I had was, as we were going through this, if we were to do a full ad valorem, wasn't there a question of we would have needed a referendum to do that?

If you're going to pledge the full faith and credit of the town, yes, that's the ad valorem dollars, just like you did with the open space issuance. You would need to go to referendum for that.

And so we didn't, yeah, we chose this path kind of early on. without choosing it specifically, but more generally chose it when we didn't go down that path. So, you know, now and no action has been taken until now. There's been no other military proposed until now. You know, at the very end of the budget cycle, it's just the concern of this will have a structural impact on the funding of the fire rescue department. And how do we make sure that we're balancing you know, the needs of residents. I care deeply about them receiving a savings. I think we've been able to deliver that, and we've had a lot of good news. But we also need to balance the needs of our department, not only our residents, but our department, and to give them a solid start where they're not concerned about filling a deficit maybe next year. You know, we don't know. We don't know what the future holds. So we can look. things next year. We can always look. I think we have to look at the non-evaluam quite regularly. But how we start this year and how we end three years of building fire rescue matters. And that's the concern for me.

Mayor, you covered a lot of ground. And I respect your opinions and what you've how you feel, what you've always done, your research and everything. No one's more thorough than you are. But I think what you're asking as to the fiscal policy that we've always adhere to on the Council has put us in a great strong position that we're now so you're asking us just to come in like right on the money. Like we lose our contingency and you know I and I I'm always in like indexing water funding in you always kind of push back on that we're not doing this this year and I just kind of ate that and say it just OK. The staff said we didn't need it, but I'm always in favor of indexing. I want to have the money in the bank for these large projects instead of asking people for a drastic rate increase or a tax increase. But I think you're asking us to sort of change the policy of that gut as to where we are. to just sort of come in a little more right on the money as opposed to having a little extra in the bank at the end of the year. Am I correct in that?

No, I don't believe that's the case. You can try to convince me otherwise, but first of all, this is the first time.

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to figure out where you're coming in on that.

No, I just see it differently. And I tell you what, I'm not going to adjourn the meeting without emphasizing this. Fire rescue is not a jeopardy. Because even with this reduction, they're not going to come up short. Because that's why I was emphasizing the one-third that they're going to have come back. They're going to start building a general fund reserve for fire fund. and the one-third ironically covers fully so if there's any department not at risk it's jupiter fire rescue department i want to make that clear because i've been here and for the record i don't think anything's in jeopardy here i mean we have these options some of them are terrible i don't think anything is perceiving yeah that it is in jeopardy and so i i came here tonight to make sure i am putting that issue to rest okay not a jeopardy There is no going back. We wouldn't want to go back. It's silly to even talk about it. I don't want to fire rescue guys thinking that the difference of opinion, the discussion about disparities that exist. By the way, it is what it is. I tell you what, in all my years, the non-advolent fire tax is the only item that has ever come before the council that I can ever recollect that we had no policy input and couldn't have any. It was presented as take it or leave it.

It's a pretty unique situation.

Agreed.

There were two options.

There was the flat and then the tiered system. None of us could have known. Just my nature to kind of then, gee, you know, the vice mayor was the first one that was asking, you know, and was talking about and learning about disparity before I ever got to ask about the disparity between condos and single family homes, right? So we all knew, but we also knew And therefore, those that did decide had to decide based on having no input. Well, seeing that it's the only thing that, I can ever elect and maybe everybody else that you had no policy input. Well, gee, let's make a decision to revisit it for fiscal year 28 so it can reflect true policy of the count. That's the only thing. I was always hoping that happened out of it, right? And when you proposed at last meeting, you know, and I know that the vice mayor already was supporting that, that I thought it would have passed, but But in any event, so I hope that gets decided. But this is a workshop. I'm just saying, but I want everybody to feel good.

I think we all agree that we're going to look at it next year.

That hasn't been said with clarity.

When I brought it up, I looked down. Everybody agreed on that.

I just have a question for you, Mayor. We're going back on the numbers. I want to go all the way back. You've said multiple times, and I really want to understand why, that you believe that you're not representing the residents that voted for you.

Tell me what you mean by that.

If that's something you feel, should we be feeling this or not? Just explain that a little bit more.

I think each one of us represents different things to the public, so I wouldn't expect everybody would feel the way I feel. I mean that, and I've said that, but I also want you to understand that, look, I'm the one, I'm the one that was actually represented. I'm the one that sat with the chamber and got the chamber to support us with fire rescue. by showing them the impact per business, right? To kind of share, this is the benefit for us.

So does this go back to the discrepancy with square footage and all of that? Because if that's the case, that's not our issue. That's where it came from, the data. The consultant, right or wrong, pleasant or not pleasant, presented it. She brought the data. Yes, there's discrepancies. But we didn't create them.

Yeah, but it couldn't have been known at that point in time. Um, it really took a lot of analysis. So, you know, I understand that.

Yeah, I accept that fact. And that can be hopefully corrected in 27. Put the powers to be there. Yeah.

Yeah. I think we could look at that. So my question, so Mayor, help me understand the 2 million recurring. Where is that money coming from?

Well, first of all, we're going to have to work on that between now and as part of the fiscal 28 process, I get that. And I agree to that. But it's no different than years past, when we took out reserves, not knowing how we're going to make it up. So yeah, we're gonna have to commit to, to sort that out. I'm not saying I have a solution on that. But but I'm going to continue working.

So that further so that reduces our budget for tonight we're going to have to find a way to make up the 2 million but we're doing that on the eve of a potential and then that 3.

That's the concern next year.

Yeah, so it would be on top of the 8 million and we're doing it for ourselves. After the baby, I mean this is a win like we are saving residents an enormous amount so to do that additional to give ourselves an additional burn without a solution where we make this vote on Tuesday. going into an environment where Amendment 3 is likely, that's my concern. And that's why I've been, you know, concerned.

Mayor, you can vote for the proposed millage rate and then vote no on the budget. I guess we need to know if there's a 5-0 vote for the millage rate.

Well, I know what number I'm going to support. I heard it. I'm going to... The...

I just want to get this over the finish line this fiscal year. I mean, it's a miracle, not a miracle, it's just a tremendous accomplishment what staff has done in the last three years. And now there's just this anxiety and confusion because people in the public watching, sitting here, We're up here going on with it. They're just confused about what the hell's going on with it. And you get firefighters like, am I going to have a job tomorrow?

Which is why I want to make that clear. I'm going to support the budget, but funding is different. Fairness of taxation is something different that I feel accountable for.

I'll agree with that. But this year, we're kind of locked into this one, the way this is set up now, and then we can look at it next year for the next budget. We can have staff analyze it.

I'll go back to the question that was asked of me from the vice mayor, and I answered it. Each one of us, so you asked kind of, if I recollect the way you asked it, was like, should everybody feel the same way? I said no, because we all represented things differently.

We're making that point so it wouldn't be misrepresented that we are not doing our fiduciary obligation that we're going through this process. And yes, you can vote one way or the other. But what's driving that? Is it only because of square footage? And if that's the case, frankly, I don't think this is the year we're going to accomplish getting that corrected.

No, it's not just that. So we'll just leave it at that.

Every budget season after we finalize a budget, I always left this chamber feeling great that staff did the right thing. We all made the right decisions. I never felt like we're underspending overspend. I thought we came in right in the money. It was always, you know, good to wait that we had COVID and, you know, supply chain issues over the years. And, but we always, it always came out on the money. So, um, I'm comfortable with this for this year and then take a look at it next year. And, you know, anything's possible up here, but we just have to be on the same page.

I agree that I think I mean, I'm willing to look at it next year. I think we we are in a very volatile environment and I think we have to every year look at it. But I mean, we are not even a week out. We are days out from a vote after months of discussion and years of preparation. And there is a lot of anxiety that I want to relieve before that, you know, before our vote.

I'm going to look at it to even have been our financial consultant reassess the nav that we have for next year and see if there's some way to make it more fair to our residents it. It's never going to be perfect, but I think we have is is a compromise which works for majority of the residents and commercial owners within the town. I do have an issue with the 2.1 million dollar recurring deficit. I don't want to kick it down the road next year or worry about then because that could turn into $8 million next year if Amendment 3 passes, and even balloon up to $14 million the following year if we keep carrying it if Amendment 3 passes in 29. So I have a concern about the $2 million deficit carrying it forward.

Well, I'm not convinced to support the number, so when you go back to the previous sheet, it isn't... You know, I'll support the 3.4798. And it doesn't take us back to 110% rollback unless that's what you all decide.

So we won't have a 5.0 in the millage?

What's that?

We won't have a 5.0 in the millage?

Not at the 3.5886, no. As I said, I'm giving you my number, 3.4798.

It's a shame we've gone so far. You know, I wasn't part of the council three years ago when this leadership in the town, the council, the three members here had the vision for Jupiter Fire. put together the strategies, and took those bold steps to make it happen. Since then, we've put in two new stations. We got a re-outfitted attempt station. We bought brand-new fire trucks and ambulances. We hired over 100 firefighters and paramedics. We've promised the town we'd give them the same quality and level of service they got from Palm Beach County. It just amazed me to get this far in the 11th hour and now we're squabbling on how we're going to fund the town over the next fiscal year. To me, this is all NAV. This is all fire. Everything's rolled up and running, including the town, and I'm amazed that we're at this point, at this hour, not being able to agree upon the 3.5886. And I don't want to push a deficit down the road. I want to get it resolved now, and we can look at everything again next year, including the NAV. So that's where I stand, so.

Historically, we've always, more often than not, we've relied upon the reserves and kicked the can and came back the next year and got a shot at it.

But there's uncertainty in kicking that can now with Amendment 3, so I don't want to put ourselves in that position right now.

And, Mayor, I totally respect everything. Your presentation, your right...

You've got all your points and I I understand that what I don't understand is pretty much what.

The council is that it's a small amount of money. To rely on having to take the reserves with amendment 3. I think next year it's going to be a greater deficit yesterday's stock market was horrible it we don't know it's going to go up and down. But this is a small amount of money for all the work that you all have done to get to this point. That's where I'm trying to wrap my head around. I've learned so much from you. And the one thing I've understood is your passion and commitment to fire rescue our police to get to just a few days before, um, and say, no, that's where I'm trying to understand it. I believe next year we can pick this apart to where we need to pick it apart. But right now is not the time. Um, I You've worked too hard for this.

Mayor, I've heard they've cleaned up the language on the ballot for Amendment 3. And if it's on the ballot, it's going to pass. So I'm looking at it like it's going to happen. So you look at the pie chart, everybody, the town wide saving about $10 million. So you're looking at the, what is it, 8% we were collecting on non-adviral arm?

Is it 8%? 8%, right, Scott? I'm sorry?

It's 8% on the non-adviral arm that we're going to collect. It could be 15, but we're collecting 8.

Well, there is some statutory discounts that we agreed to. But 15% is the percentage that we set.

Okay.

But overall, we're going to collect about just over 1.9 in total after the statutory discount.

Everybody's saving money. So also what you're saying, it confuses people. I go, everything's going, my tax is going up. They're not. So some people this year won't save quite as much as others, but it's within a few dollars. It's All said and done in the big picture, 30,000 foot view, it's insignificant. I understand your principles. We all have them. But I think with everything that's been accomplished in the last three plus years, to get there next Tuesday night, we don't get a 5-0 vote in the ad valorem. And we have a 21 million or 23 million or 25 million deficit that we have to take out of reserves and we have 45 million in reserves amendment threes around the corner. It's coming if it's on the ballot and Our reserves get cut in half and then, you know, and then we're picking up the pieces from there. So I think it's just completely unnecessary. Everybody's worked too hard. Um, you know, I suggested to our colleagues that we take a look at it this year. Everybody agrees you can vote no in the budget, but we need you to vote yes on the millage. So that's where I am on it. And I just, I just hope that you agree.

And Mayor, I just want to say last meeting, you made a very succinct point. You, living in the shores, annexed out of the county to come into Jupiter. And your words were close to, I will pay more for better services. We're here. We couldn't ask for better services than our own fire rescue. And to come down to this, again, the budget, you can vote no on it. But we're in a different crossroad than you've all been before. So I only make that point only because your love for everything you've done for all these years is a tough decision. And no one's asking you to compromise anything. There is no compromise. It's where the money is going to come from now or next year.

By the way, and I keep going on, but we still seem like we're at an impasse. Where we'd find it, first of all, That's our challenge in the fiscal year budget process for 28. I know we'll get there if we're working together on that. What we did some years is the 15% that went to capital, we went ahead and moved it to 10 for a number of years. Was that deficit spending? No, it was not. Did we have a recurring solution? No, we did not. So interestingly, if we were to just, the first easy solution is for next year on this is we lower the capital spend from 15 to 10%, and there you go. There is no long-term recurring. You know, those projects, many of them are discretionary. So there are a lot of solutions, a lot of tools in the toolbox to do it. And fire rescue is not at risk because it separately as a separate fire fund is covered.

Well, it appears we've reached an impasse. Are we done?

Well, Tuesday night, we're going to have to adopt something. I'd like to adopt what's being presented in front of us, but... And that doesn't deliver the commitment that I represented, so...

And we're risking $25 million out of the operating fund.

We're not risking $25 million.

If we do not get 5-0 vote, it goes back to rollback rate, and that's $25 million, right?

If the four that feel that way decide to let that happen.

No, if the one that feels that way decides, not the four.

Well, you're saying that we'd end up with $68.3 million, not $49 million. Did you confirm those numbers, Mr. Reynolds?

I'm sorry, what was the exact question there?

No, no, I was just saying, somebody's looking at your sheet. Again, if you go back to up six there, where if we don't all agree on the 3.5886, then the only option is the 110%, which is $49 million. That's the $49 million option. I understand, and I just said... At the 3.47.

Anything above that requires unanimous.

I understand. At the 3.4798, it's 68.3 million, correct? You did those numbers? No, when I was.

What?

Well, I thought you, when I had cited those numbers, I'm just asking you to confirm.

Oh, did I do the calculation based on the millage that you gave me? I did do the calculation on that.

It's 68.3 million.

It is correct, 68.3. Sure, I can help with this. First, sorry, that is correct. Based on 100%. Based on 95%, it's 64 million 64.8. What that means, as far as reduction of revenues from each of the funds, the CRA is not excluded from that, by the way, whatever millage you set, the CRA also must adhere to that revenue or that millage. So there'd be a $44,000, almost $45,000 reduction in the CRA year one. And then there would be an overall just over $2 million between Jupiter Fire Rescue, the town operating, and the CIP. However you decide to fund that, there would be an additional $2,800,000. reduction over what's been proposed.

I just want to make sure that at this workshop we come out of the scenarios that exist.

So again, Mr. Reynolds, just on the 3.4798 with the 95% it comes down to 64.3. Is that correct? Did I write it?

68.3 at the 100% and then when you do the 95 it would be 64.

When people are looking at the numbers here, I'm just being consistent with that. 49 is the 110% rollback rate. The proposed rate was 70.45 and the rate that I support is 68.3. That all translates to smaller numbers when you go into the budget.

Why is your proposed reduction of the 2.1 million? We haven't talked about this in previous meetings. I mean, this kind of seems out of the blue, like 11th hour.

Well, I wouldn't say it's out of the blue. I've been messaging that I'm not going to support the full millage rate. Um, and if you asked me last meeting, I'd have given you the number. Um, but it wasn't asked on first reading. I had it available. In fact, I had given it to Mr. Reynolds before the meeting.

I didn't know you were, why would I ask that? Because this was just, I get, you just brought it up, so. This is a budget meeting that wasn't even going to exist. It's just sort of.

No, but our first reading, when we didn't get, when the motion was made, and I made clear I didn't support it on first reading, that was okay. Right?

I guess. This is a point. I don't know. We should be celebrating right now as opposed to bickering about this.

And I'm confident this is doable. That's why I support that number.

Well, it's it's doable. But now we're getting away from what got us in a great position where we've been in for many years. And I'm not willing to do that. I just don't understand. I mean, I have full faith in our town manager and our finance department. And we've met with them many times.

Many, many times over the years about budgets and I don't know. I thought

I think that us looking at it in our next fiscal year would be satisfactory for you to approve the current millage rate as proposed. I don't know why it's not. Because if we don't get a 5-0, it's drastic.

It's not drastic.

It's drastic. No, it's not.

Most years we are taken from non-revenues, from general fund reserves, as I indicated here. And we even plan, like last year, we were planning going in this year, we're going to use... How do we have such reserves that we take from reserves every year?

What's that? It doesn't make sense. How do we...

No, because we end up with an overage, but I'm saying we go into the budget, assuming we're going to use general fund reserves. Then, because we wind up finishing the year either both a combination of under budget and also we get more revenues than we expected or that could rely upon, then we still net up. But it's not unprecedented to basically go into the budget...

assuming that but then you start the next year with the lower millage and if we need to up it and they hope they're raising our taxes and we would be we'd be raising the millage rate from what we cut it so it's putting it's it's veering off the path of fiscal of good fiscal conservative policy to veer to the left no pun intended to start dipping into reserves and then worrying about it the next year. I don't live my life like that. I don't run my business like that. I like to run the government more like a business and be ready for things and plan, and you do too, but this is just, this is, I don't, I wouldn't expect this from you. Put it that way. You know, I understand where you are.

I understand where you are with the- I live my life this way, so, you know.

I understand where you are with- Because I can cut spending. With the disparity in- It's not absolutely fair for the non ad valorem, but we have to live with it for this year. And it's just it's peanuts. And to cause this whole all this consternation with the staff firefighters. I don't understand. It's not I don't think it's worth it. I don't think it's worth it.

Mayor, I may be slow, so bear with me. Why exactly don't you support that? Maybe that's what I've heard numbers and everything. Why exactly are you not supporting this?

It's inconsistent representations I made. I've always fulfilled my, you know, I've always fulfilled my work to fulfill my campaign pledges.

So what are you not fulfilling? You saved me. You saved me. you represented i brought it down i brought it down people 10 million dollars a year i brought it down i brought it down to individual people and businesses and we deviated from that and i live with that but so i am understanding it correctly you're not saving us this money as much money as you said are you hearing that from people i don't understand that i think i can help you as an individual i understand who i am as an individual

But I think also, I mean, I was in the same campaign cycle, and I also spoke with the chamber at length, several meetings. And I also represented on Facebook and all of this. I think at the time that we had the election, it was so early. I mean, we had just taken... We were very early stages. I think there was an understanding. It had to be general. You can't be to the dollar so far out. You just can't. And so we were... And we have delivered. We've over-delivered. $10 million is over what we thought we would save. So we've even over-delivered. And to be here at the 11th hour is really hard because we have done that, and the good news is getting lost. We could only present, and we could give conceptually where it would go, but it was so early at that point.

Be careful when saying over-delivered because when I'm comparing against a tax-saving goal, It's $5.5 million, not 10. So the numbers I, when we said the tax savings goal is based on a $5.5 million savings. So when I compare how we did against that goal, that's where the shortfall is, even though we did 10.

That's what we're delivering. What's that?

I all along but it's over delivering, which make which proves the point about the disparity in the non ad valorem. But it is what it is for this year. But it's just that it's that significantly different, right?

We would when we first met with the consultant, it was I remember he's saying you could probably save around 5 million a year then up from there, because of your hockey stick rap. Remember that? Of course you do. So how was going from $5.5 million to $10 million, not over-delivering.

That's over-delivering. I'm talking about what I represented when it boiled down to a resident with this tax bill, what they're going to... With the non-ad valorem. It's a property tax. So at this point in time, I don't see a distinction between From 27 on, we're going to talk, I'm going to be talking property taxes and that property taxes now becomes ad valorem plus non-ad valorem. Because that's the proper, you know, you get a bill, it's property taxes, doesn't matter what you call it, right?

Yeah.

So I'm just comparing property taxes. So that's aside, decision's been made.

Yeah, but but there were two options flat and sort of the tiered system on the square footage. And I know there's issues with condos and you know, square footage and garages and porches. Nothing's exact. But to blow this whole thing up because of that, those tiny discrepancies for one year when we've gotten this far to me doesn't make any sense. I don't understand that. I understand your reasoning, your principles. I have the same ones. You do far more analysis than I do, but I don't understand causing this right now at this point in time. I don't think it's fair to everybody else, but You vote the way you want to vote.

Did you have a number on the discrepancies? In my mind, somewhere I'm thinking 300. And 300, if that's the number, versus 30,000. We need to address it afterwards. We need to get through right now with the military and keep what you've all started for all these years. That percentage is so tiny. And yes, if there's a discrepancy, Let's work to correct it.

Maybe this year we'll find out who got gypped and send him a check next year. Let's just get over the finish line.

Hey, what I'm proposing, you can't remedy a shortfall. It's an adjustment that I felt comfortable with.

And I totally respect it. I just think at this point you have colleagues who have worked side by side with you for all these years and possibly respecting their opinion as well and saying you know what maybe this is not the time for this battle maybe next year will be a better battle but you've come so far for 300 residents and those people are very important And they can be corrected if, and again, we don't even know if there's a real disruption.

I don't know where you're getting a 300 resident.

I don't know how many you found out were.

No, no, I just did some random sampling of some residents. And I don't know where I got that number. It isn't a number of residents.

But all I'm asking is that we don't even know if those samplings, we don't know what the rationale was when they used it. So I'm not even going there. I understood it when you brought them forward. But to stop what you've all done at this point in time, that's where I'm having my concern. And again, I do put faith in our staff and our town manager. They've brought you to the right direction. We've got a fire department going to... roll out that truck in about 810 days 13 days 13 days.

We want to celebrate this doesn't affect for rescue I emphasize that it it that the I think the morale of what they're hearing we it's not going to only only for the point of Council saying it because it's not that's not the case their budget is is is not the issue here. You know, and I want to just make sure, I was using examples, but I don't want to trivialize that. I don't want to leave it there, is at a very high level, we had four different ad valorem values that worked out to be significant. The average homesteaded unit was the average taxable valuation for 14,000 units was $444,000. The average homesteaded value for a condo was $260,000. So you take those numbers, $260,000 and $444,000, and those are significant numbers because it equated to an average. And all we said was, okay, as an example, average. If you got a property value of $260,000, you're going to get $102. And that's based on the $5.5 million reduction. And if you have a taxable valuation of the unit, quite frankly, whether it's homesteaded or non-homesteaded, whether it's a business or, you know, you're going to get, you're going to realize a benefit of $173. And the way it turned out is, ironically, the example that I used for single-family home versus the Barcelona apartments, the single-family home was going to get $14,000 that matches that valuation, $14 versus 102. Okay, that's disparate from the average, because the average, by the way, because at a taxable valuation, all things should have been equal with ad valorem, period. The other number, the 444,000, turns out is I have, $173 was the expectation if you had a property in this town valued at $444,000. And the two that I had on here coincidentally, I didn't search for them. I was using this kind of the same pick some residents approach. But I think it's everybody up in this dais is included in that. You get $173. And it was coming out, even though we're saving $10 million instead of $5.5, it was coming out at $94. So I don't get to what we represented. That wasn't my goal, to get to what we represented. was to be a little bit closer to it than half the number, right, than, you know, a meager 14% of the number. So I just, that's a number I took. I saw we're at least making a little bit of an adjustment. We'll come back next year to get it, you know.

No, I totally understand what you're coming forward with.

I just want to make sure that somebody has not said that, gee, it's only about... No, that's the difference that it made with the non-ad valorem that nobody could have understood or realized when it came to us, but we do now. And I'm just feeling like an adjustment that I know we can deal with next year, you know... We'll be inclusive of revisiting that. Anybody have any? I guess we come to the meeting on Tuesday when we finish this meeting. And we need to have a position that we can get a 5-0 on. And I hope that we all four don't fall back to 110%. That'd be your choice.

No, I think it's your choice, too. So I think that's where we're headed right now. So, yeah.

It's not our choice. It's probably your choice. And I don't believe that.

We've gone through the whole budget process, all these meetings. This one came up. Why are we having this meeting? And here we are.

So we're all in lockstep on getting this through this year.

I agreed for you to take a look at it next year. And, you know, I... i've been on the end of a bunch of losing votes in ten plus years up here and i just ate it and this isn't a losing vote for you it's just this year you're not going to get every little thing you want none of us are because nobody wants any nobody wants something that's not of taxes not fair that's why we're going to look at it but we need to cross the finish line and i don't want to abandon the policies we've had for far before I was on this council, when I got here, things are in great shape. They've always been in great shape. I'm not willing to turn the ship in a different direction. It just doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make any sense at all.

Okay. I'm going down the road for any final comments.

No, again, Jim, I understand, Mayor, rather, I understand you are you're not in support of how it came about. However, that being said, you've heard the rest of your colleagues here, you've come too far for something that's not going to change between now and Tuesday night, but it can change. And again, we don't even know if what this data is proving is right, wrong, correct. We don't know where it is. I think we're all asking the same question. you've come this far. You're not altering your values, your fiduciary, any of it. I think what has been presented is the fairest way. But to come back here with a 401, I don't know. I don't even know if the residents are going to understand it.

Councilor Censure, any closing comments? No comment. Council Gassinger.

I guess I will take one exception that your opening statement, this is not about the NAV. To me, listen to the whole conversation, it is about the NAV. So that's what disappoints me is we've been rehashing that NAV now for what, four months, five months? We voted 4 to 1 to put the assessment in place. That's a done deal. I hate to see us get there next Tuesday and have to settle back on the 2.4976 rollback rate. And I think that's where we're headed right now.

And Mayor, I think in theory, you agreed on the NAV. You just don't agree with the fairness of it. So we all agree there needs to be a NAV, not just for fire, for servicing of debt, but also for flexibility in the future. And with Amendment 3 coming up, a lot of other municipalities are looking at NAVs for different options. You know it's the right thing to do, but you're just... I feel like you're kind of holding us hostage because you just have to make a point. It's really what it feels like. And I think my colleagues would agree with me.

I think we're all willing to look at it next year. I think we've all expressed an openness. We did the last time. I'm sorry I wasn't seen. But I think we all did that last year. Sorry, last meeting. And I mean, we don't want to miss. the forest for a tree. You know, I don't want to be stuck on something small and miss the bigger picture. And that's it.

I just want to correct one thing, another thing that was said wrong. No, I never agreed to non-advalorum. Every single time it came up from day one, I questioned. I wanted to see how it worked out. Also, from my perspective, maybe one of five, but it wasn't as important for me to have to have a non-advalorum, okay? Because I knew that we...

I never thought we'd have to have it either. I don't think any of us did.

Okay, no, no, but you stated that we...

I thought, all right, I may be wrong. I assumed, because we all get briefed by the town managers, that we all wanted to look at it. And I know it was 401 because you got into the weeds on the nitty-gritty and the disparities, which is fine. But I never thought we had to have it. But it's here. We've advertised it. We're married to it for next week. So, you know, for that to come up and we don't get the 5-0 vote, we're going 20 plus million into reserves. I think it's ridiculous. We can do it. I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but we have to do it. We have to do it. But, and then this last minute, let's reduce the millage rate. This is last minute. Take 2.1 million out. We should have talked about that three months ago.

We didn't even have numbers three months ago.

Our last two meetings, we should have talked about that. This is just last minute. This meeting shouldn't even have taken place.

The NAV is not on the agenda on Tuesday.

Yep. Excuse me?

The NAV is not on the agenda, and yet it is. It's being made, so even though we're relitigating the NAV.

Whenever we vote on it, whatever the date is.

I look at its property tax.

We all do.

Once a decision was made, I'm okay with it. I'm not repeating it. I was sharing the disparity on why I want to adjust the number.

We know it's all property tax. We know that. We all agree with that.

Yep. Okay. The time is now 737. We'll adjourn the meeting.