City Council - public_hearing

I would like to say that this 4.6761 rolls us back to where we were two years ago, correct?

So we're still where we were two years ago and we're looking for a brighter future. Thank you for all your help.

But we have increased, what was the property increase in value? So how much additional revenue have we taken in from property taxes? I'll be able to show you on this presentation. So we have taken in more money as well.

And the staffing services required to support that increase is still two years behind. And the personnel we needed for it is still going to fall two years behind.

Well, I don't think that's a... Because there was a lot of things that was actually built into that. It just wasn't staffing. So I don't think that's a true indication of what it is. Because it was different things within that budget.

No, it's an exact representation of what we are. It is not.

I mean, that would make sense if it was the whole entire thing was staffing. We're talking over each other. Correct. One at a time. Thank you.

Yes, I just think it's important that we don't try to paint a picture that is not correct. There has been a increase in taxes that have taken in. So I think it's important to say that. And this budget that was proposed was not just staff. That is 100% not accurate. That's all I have to say.

How much does that come out to in terms of reserves? How much is coming out of our reserves to balance this?

me it makes the most sense to have both in right now and adjust as needed down the road if we need to move those funds around my position is is that the in-house attorney we are budgeting for one position we're not budgeting for department so we're not properly budgeting budgeting so to have an in-house one attorney cannot do the job so if we're looking to actually do that do we need to budget for budgeted properly we need to staff it properly we need probably three attorneys probably two paralegals, executive assistant, so that this is just not accurate. It's just not accurate. That's just li

any final comments i have a question so i'm looking here it says 314 896 for the legal services for that that is it's 297 565 so is it the risk the risk person is in there as well fourteen thousand for the risk risk person is included only fourteen thousand that'll leave fourteen thousand seven

I'm looking at it. So it's a regular salaries and. So the risk, so that risk position that's in there is the, that's the risk specialist. Manager, not the specialist. Okay. Thank you.

At our current budget, I make a motion that we keep what we got.

I just prepared a statement I just want to read and the reason why this is important to me. If public funding for nonprofit human service organizations is reduced or eliminated, there is a reasonable expectation that the underlying community needs will not disappear. They will shift to a higher cost government system. The city should anticipate increased demand for police calls for service, fire and emergency medical responses, juvenile justice involvement, homelessness intervention, behavioral health crisis, child welfare, and family stabilization services, emergency room utilization, and oth

Every tax dollar needs to be defined in public purpose. We need to be careful, especially with November right around the corner. Every dollar needs to be accounted for right now. And like you said, we can always come back.

Move to add back in the nonprofit grant program back into the budget.

running plumbing because some there's faucets that are not working things of that nature you also have in hr you got seven people you know when when um residents walk in the staff members in there have to turn their computers off because employee information is relatively available for it's visible and it's visible And we're talking about a risk management person. So now we're going to have overcrowded offices in that area. So there's a lot of behind the scenes stuff that needs to be taken into consideration. We are growing. The staff is growing. And remember, that was Apopka High School. That

So just to be clear, the $75,000, we're gonna be re-plumbing, we're gonna be adding walls, we're gonna be ADHD, we're gonna do all that for $75,000 on a commercial building and putting in flooring for $75,000?

So to be clear, this $75,000 is a general budget for renovations. We have not identified exactly what we're going to do with that, and we don't have an itemized list of things we're going to tackle for the $75,000? And what is that list? Can we have a copy of that list? Yeah, it's actually right here. Can you give us the dollar amount that equals the $75,000?

So I know you trust employees, but we still need to know for transparency how much it's going to cost. We are spending taxpayers' dollars. So we're saying that we're doing seated hall renovations. We're going to construct, frame, insulate interior walls, new furniture, new carpet, make passageway between the kitchenette and breakdown. rework the interest, main rooms, additional employee, create space for their, for sensitive operations, rework the public interest, handicap access, enclosed pets, like building division, building the office code, like really how much it's gonna cost. It's gonna

You stated the staff had that number and you trust staff. So can you please identify which staff member that you spoke to that you just said that the staff had that number? What is the number? And which staff member that you spoke to said they had the number? Because you just stated that. That was your own words.

No, I just, so to make it clear that you did say on record that you have a number, what it costs, and you trust staff with that number. And when I asked you to identify that number, you then said you didn't have the number. So it's very clear that this list that you just typed up, that you don't have a, actually, you don't have a clue how much this costs because you can't tell us what it costs. I just think it's ridiculous that you present a piece of paper and cannot tell the taxpayer how much it's gonna cost. That's all I have to say about it.

This is not in the budget. $75,000, it's gonna cost more than $75,000. We do not have a list of what this costs. That is 100% inaccurate.

Do we have a list of the replacement of which office furniture that we're going to be replacing and which location, which buildings?

Is facilities available to tell us which is $210,000? I think that will help us make a decision.

Well, if we're going to be voting on it now, we need to actually know what that entails. We don't know what that $210,000, what office furniture is. That's very vague. That could be one piece of furniture. We don't know what that is. It's a large expense, 210.

I can't blindly vote on, because I don't know what we're spending the money on. One piece of furniture, two pieces of furniture, I don't know.

So any additional information, excuse me, you're out of order.

If we're going to spend $210,000 on taxpayers' dollars for furniture, I think we should know exactly what we're spending $210,000 on. And I'm not confident in voting on $10,000 blindly and not sure. I can't tell a taxpayer what I'm spending the money on, a piece of furniture that we don't know.

I move to remove the office furniture replacement out the budget until we know exactly what we're spending the $210,000 on.

I'll go ahead and I'll remove that for me because I've actually already have other organizations that have already agreed to assist with that. So for me, I remove my recommendation. I actually follow recommendation to take it out of the budget. I'm fine with that.

Our last, if we could reduce it to at least half, 5,000, that still allows the opportunity for commissioners to still support those organizations, but obviously we're still providing some savings towards the budget. So I would ask just for this, for 2026, 2027, to have our discretionary fund reduced to 5,000 each.

I make a motion to reduce the commission discretionary contribution fund to 5,000 for fiscal year of 2026, 2027. Second that.

So instead of being 20,000, it would be 20?

Is there any way that we could create matrix to where we can find out funding mechanisms that we could at least make sure that we're covering our staff costs?

I'm a huge fan of it. I also go out there, but I think it'd be negligent on our part not to try to find funding mechanisms.

I know Blanche is not looking nicely at us because we're adding money back to our already laboring.

Absolutely. I think it's important that we do that.

Obviously, that's in addition to the $100,000 that's died on the floor right now. But I just want to make sure we're not doing the same exact thing with these funds.

I figured it would, but I wanna make sure that we're clarifying that.

Any comments on this? The only thing that I, with the bathrooms, should that be, should that come out of the rec fund?

I mean, I'd like to also add that in the CRA area, like Commissioner Ruth had mentioned, there are areas that don't have sidewalks that children are walking to Apopka Middle School or Dream Lake Elementary, Apopka Elementary as well. So those areas that we need to consider what's the most highest traffic in terms of our children walking to school. So we make sure that we are installing sidewalks so they can safely get to and from school.

CRA only goes to Oak, but even from two-thirds of the CRA is without sidewalks, so... I mean, just pick a road in the CRA and you'll find something. Very few have sidewalks.

I am going to give you my- You want those steps, I'll make you get them. I'm gonna give Mr. Olsen my- Next date, 9-19? 9-19. 16th. 16th.

No, thank you. No, I ditto. Thank you, everyone that's in the room, all the directors, everyone that took part. Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, for your input in all of this. Thank you. No, we could have not done it with Hallie. And most importantly, thank you.