City Council - Special Meeting

. . . Thank you for watching. you so so

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to our special city council meeting this Monday, June 15th, 2026, at 6 o'clock p.m. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Councilwoman Morgan.

Yes, ma'am. Councilman Pickett.

Yes, ma'am.

Mayor Martin. Here, ma'am. Councilman Bonner.

Yes, ma'am.

Vice Mayor Carvalho. Here, ma'am. Please stand for the pledge.

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

Before we move on in public to be heard, I'd like to share our standards of decorum we follow here in our chambers as outlined in section 11 of the council rules. Our meetings are to conduct business of the city, and we ask that all participants please uphold the principles of civility, honor, and dignity. When addressing the dais, please use proper language, direct all comments to the chair, and refrain from any and all personal attacks, disruptive behavior, or the use of profanity. In addition, outbursts or applause are not permitted each speaker will have three minutes and time may not be transferred from one to another if any of the rules are disregarded we will provide a warning and after that you may be asked to leave the chambers and if necessary may be removed under florida law we value everyone's input and we thank you all for your participation here tonight thank you so much we're going to move on to public to be heard now public to be heard is for any non-agenda related items so again anything that's not on the agenda would anyone like to address public to be heard i think i think everyone i have signed up to speak is on the topic Seeing none, we'll close public to be heard. We're going to move on to our special presentation, 5A, our discussion and direction regarding distribution of waste pro-settlement funds. Yes, did you have something, Anthony?

Oh, I was just going to say there's a gentleman who appeared to stand up and raise his hand. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see you.

Come forward, sir, for public to be heard. I apologize, I didn't see you. Good evening. Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor, Commissioners. My name is Reginald Floyd, and I'm here to request a letter of support. I'm representing the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Incorporated. And I did send a letter of request a couple of weeks ago, but I'm here now to make the public request before the mayor and the commissioners. As I said before, I represent the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Incorporated. And we are petitioning, our fraternity brothers are petitioning our national organization to establish a chapter here in the Port St. Lucie slash Martin County area. As you know, this area is one of the fastest growing areas, not only in the state of Florida, but in the country. And the citizens in Port St. Lucie, especially the young at-risk students, are not really receiving any of the services that the fraternity provides. The closest fraternity is located in Fort Pierce, Ada Kappa Lambda chapter, but they provide very little or no services to the Port St. Lucie Martin County area. We work with a mentoring group of young men who are middle school and high school age. And we have an 80 to 100% success rate of those students who participate in our mentoring group graduate and go on to college. and they receive their bachelor's or associate or even higher degrees. We provide a range of comprehensive services such as tutoring, college tours to campuses, all kinds of team building, self-esteem building, goal setting, those kinds of activities to strengthen and to broaden the horizon of the young men. All of the men in our fraternity are college educated men. Many of them reside right here in the Port St. Lucie area in Tradition and other areas. And we desperately would like to expand our services in the Port St. Lucie area. We are submitting an application to our national organization and we need letters of support. We appeared last week before the Stewart City Council and they unanimously agreed to provide a letter of support. So we are here now tonight in St. Lucie County in Port St. Lucie requesting the same.

Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the council? Is this a non-agenda related item, sir?

I'm not sure what's on the agenda.

about the Waste Pro Settlement is on the agenda? Okay, that'll be the next item, sir. You can, just on the next, after the presentation of the next item. Okay? I'm sorry, would anyone else like to address the council on non-agenda? Seeing no one, I'll close public to be heard again. Sir, I'd be happy to meet with you on that. So if you want to give your information to Mary is behind you. If you could just give your information to Mary, and then I'll be happy to have my assistant call you to meet with you, sir. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay, moving on to 5A, discussion and direction regarding distribution of waste pro-settlement funds. Mr. Proulx?

Good evening, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council, City Manager, staff, and residents behind me. My name is Charlie Prew. I'm the Deputy Finance Director. The purpose of tonight's special meeting is to discuss the $24 million received by the city as part of the Waste Pro Settlement and to obtain council direction regarding how those funds should be used. As many of you know, the city experienced significant solid waste service disruptions under the previous Waste Pro contract. In response, the City pursued legal action and ultimately reached a settlement resulting in $24 million. While the circumstances that led to this settlement were certainly unfortunate, the City was successful in pursuing recovery on behalf of its residents. As a result, City Council now has the opportunity to determine the most appropriate use of those funds. Tonight's presentation will walk through the staff recommendation and several key policy decisions that require Council's action. Before discussing the recommendation, it's important to recognize that this was not a simple or hasty decision. Staff evaluated numerous options and weighed factors such as fairness, feasibility, cost, administrative complexity, legal considerations, and timeliness. The recommendation presented today represents a collaborative effort among the Finance Department, Office of Solid Waste, City Manager's Department, Legal Department, and Communications Department, and reflects staff's best judgment after carefully balancing the competing considerations associated with this unique situation. This evening, Council will be asked to provide direction on three key decisions. First, the methodology and eligibility criteria for any distribution of funds. Second, whether any settlement proceeds should be used to reimburse prior solid waste expenses incurred by the City. And third, the method by which any approved refunds would be returned. So briefly, I do want to explain, if anybody has a copy of the presentation that went out, we continued to analyze the numbers and we determined that we wanted to add additional residents to the proposed refund based on further scrutinizing who would be deemed as the most primary service disrupted residents. So essentially, after further analysis, we concluded that additional residents were present during the primary service disruption, and so the presentation was reflected for those properties. And so this is the revised methodology. It hasn't changed materially, but it did change from the 294 to the 282. And so if I could further explain this methodology, I'd like to start with the recommendation itself. Staff's recommendation is to return the entire $24 million settlement back to residents. Looking at the next number, so going from the top down, there are approximately 95,159 eligible properties. For clarity, these are single family residential improved properties that currently pay the residential solid waste assessment. Of those properties, approximately 81,918 were on the 2022 tax roll and received a refund of $282 per property. These properties represent approximately 86% of all eligible properties and were present during the period when residents experienced the most significant service disruptions. It's important to remember that more than eight out of every 10 eligible properties fall into this category and would receive the higher refund amount under this recommendation. Staff believes these properties should receive the larger refund because they were present during the period when residents experienced the most significant service disruptions. The remaining, if we go into the right now, the remaining 13,241 properties were added to the tax roll between 2023 and 2026, and they would receive a refund of $64 per property. While these properties were not on the tax roll during the service disruption period, they became part of the city's tax base and supported the litigation and recovery efforts that made this settlement possible. The $64 amount is based on the estimated annual rate increases built into the remaining four years of the FCC contract. The current residential solid waste assessment is $467. And rates are expected to increase by approximately $16 per year under the current contract. Rather than providing that $16 benefit over the next four years, staff is recommending providing the entire estimated benefit at one time. Together, these refunds fully distribute the entire $24 million settlement among all 95,159 eligible properties. It's important to note that this recommendation assumes the full $24 million is returned. On the next slide, council will be asked to consider whether any portion of those funds should be used to reimburse the general fund for prior solid waste expenses. Staff believes this recommendation strikes a balance, providing the greatest benefit to the properties that were most directly impacted by the service disruptions, while also recognizing properties that contributed to the city's tax base while the recovery efforts were underway. The next decision for council would be to consider whether any portion of the settlement proceeds should be used to reimburse the general fund for emergency solid waste related expenses. During the service disruption and subsequent recovery efforts, the city incurred approximately $13.7 million in costs that were paid from the general fund. These costs include emergency hauling operations, equipment, staffing, litigation expenses, and the temporary debris drop off site notice cameo. If Council chooses to reimburse the general fund for some or all of these expenses, the amount available for distribution to residents would be reduced accordingly. The final decision for Council to consider is how any approved refund should be distributed to eligible properties. The first option is to apply the refund as a credit through the tax roll. Under this approach, the refund would be reflected as a reduction to the residential solid waste assessment on the annual property tax bill. The primary advantage of this option is that it leverages an existing process already used to collect the residential solid waste assessment. It reduces administrative complexity and ensures the benefit is applied directly to the eligible property. A tax roll credit also allows the city to distribute the refund through an established system that is already in place. Because every eligible property already participates in the annual assessment process, there is no need to create and manage approximately 95,000 individual refunds. The second option, though, is to issue physical checks. The primary advantage of this approach is that residents receive a direct payment that can be deposited or used immediately. However, there are also administrative challenges. Checks would need to be printed, mailed, someone would inevitably be lost, returned, remained or uncashed. and staff would need to manage replacement requests, address corrections, account reconciliations, and other follow-up activities associated with issuing checks. Ultimately, though, both options achieve the same objective of returning funds to residents. The decision before council is to whether the refund should be delivered through a direct payment or through a reduction in the solid waste assessment via credit. This brings us back to the three decisions before council this evening. First, does council support the recommended methodology and eligibility criteria? The second, should any portion of the settlement proceeds be used to reimburse the general fund?

And finally, if refunds are approved, should they be distributed through physical checks or a tax roll credit?

Staff recognizes there are multiple ways these funds could be distributed, and there could be many different options on the best approach. The recommendation this evening reflects staff's best effort to balance fairness, administrative feasibility, cost, and the timely return of funds to residents. Most importantly, it provides a framework for returning the entire $24 million settlement back to residents. We appreciate Council's consideration and look forward to your direction. With that, I'll conclude the presentation and be prepared to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. Um, and I appreciate the recommendation, um, to get things started. Um, council, uh, I know we cannot have discussion obviously, except for being on the day is here, right? So, uh, I took a deep dive into, uh, the numbers and everything over the weekend. And, uh, I came up with an additional option that I would like to share with the council. Um, and I think, uh, it is a more balanced and fair approach. And from the beginning, I have maintained that the funds should be primarily to benefit the residents who experienced the trust service issues in 21 and 2022. And at the same time, it's very important to acknowledge that the residents who moved here afterward, these households have also contributed to paying for the temporary cameo site, the lawsuit, and the cost increases related to CPI, as was mentioned by Mr. Prue. And for that reason, I do believe that all residents should receive some level of credit. I asked staff today to prepare a slide that I'd like to share with you. So if you could bring that up.

Sorry, we have several scenarios in here. YES. SO, MADAM MAYOR, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO WALK THROUGH THIS SLIDE OF THE METHODOLOGY?

SURE, YOU CAN WALK THROUGH IT.

OKAY. SO, SAME PRINCIPLE, THIS PROPOSES THE FULL 24 MILLION GOES BACK TO ALL 95,000 ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES. BUT WE SEE THERE WAS AROUND 81,000 PROPERTIES THAT WERE ON THE 2022 ROLL. AND WE ANALYZED OUT OF THOSE 81,000 PROPERTIES, How many of those currently have the same owner today as they did back in 2022? Did they leave the city or did they move out of that home? That's approximately 57,000 people still remain today as they did back in 2022. And so under this proposal, the higher amount would go to those people remaining. So that's $364 per property. Now, one scenario would be that, let's say, a person lived in a property through the service disruption. But in 2024, they bought another property in the city just outside of 2022. The argument is that that person was here during the service disruption. They felt the pain. They went through everything that these same 57,000 residents went through. But we don't know if they moved or not. So the 24,000 number there represents the number of properties that have changed hands. Now they could have moved out of state, they could have bought a property in the county, they could have bought a property in the city. So under this proposal, since it is unknown, the city would set up an eligibility process where a person can come in and make a claim. Essentially, they would go through the process and say, I moved from this property in the city to this property in the city. And while they are getting the $64 now, there would essentially be a true-up process, if you call it. That's my accounting term. But they would be cut the difference of $300 after that claim has been vetted. So it allows them the full $364 refund that the same property owners that stayed in their property would benefit. ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT CAME ON IN 2023 TO 2026, THAT IS THE SAME METHODOLOGY. THEY WOULD STILL GET THE $64 CPI RATE. LET ME KNOW IF I EXPLAIN THAT APPROPRIATELY.

Yeah, I think you explained it appropriately because the issue was in my conversations was that when those title changes occurred, there's no way for us to tell where those people move to if they moved out of the city or to another state. There are some people that may have changed their joint ownership or their ownership into a trust and we don't can't account for that. There could be title changes as a result of marriage or a divorce. And there's really no way to track down What that looks like according to what was represented to me and I'm assuming to everyone else as well but So that is why I've proposed this method because I think it is the most fair and then for the there if there are people in the city who moved from one house to another house and I do know examples of residents that have moved and from one house to another house but stayed within the city, they should be eligible through a claims process. And I would propose a 180-day claims process based on simple criteria that is vetted between staff and our legal department. and to make sure that they do get their full amount as well. But I just want to make sure we're being as fair as possible, making sure the people that were here and suffered through it the most get the most refund or the most credit, I should say, but also making sure we're addressing everyone else as well since they have contributed to, like I mentioned, the lawsuit and the cameo site, the former cameo site, and also have to deal with the CPI increases as well. And, counsel, I don't know how you feel about that, but I would like your input. And, again, I think that all the money should go back to the residents. I've stated that very clearly since the day we talked about the lawsuit from the beginning, that the funds should go back to the residents and that we should not reimburse the general fund. Who would like to talk next?

I have a question. Can you pull the slide back up? Okay, no, go back, Charlie, to the one that we were just talking about, the $24,000 on there. This one? Okay, so 24,676 homes will get $64, correct? They'll get the $64. But what are we going to do with the difference in the money? It's going to be held in trust or how does that work? And then if those 24,676 people don't come forward – What are we going to do with the excess money left over? Yeah, thank you for that. How is that going to be distributed? Excellent question. I think we're all in agreeance that every single dime of this money is to go back to the residents. How are they going to get that money?

Yeah, that's an excellent question. Because if you multiply the 57 by the 364 and the other numbers by the 64, it's not going to add up, right? And so since we don't know how many of that 24,000 is going to apply and then ultimately succeed in getting the $300 extra, so our estimate was 750,000 that essentially we have removed from the 24 million for that claims process. And that was derived from, based on statistics, Models state that anywhere from 20 to 40% of residents that do move stay within the city. And so I went on the conservative side and based it on 10%. So 2,400 residents would make that claim. Lowering it to 10% actually gives a higher amount of a refund to everybody. So that 364 is higher because of that 10%. And so our thought is that around 2,400 people would make this claim, get the claim, and be paid out of that reserve.

2,400 or 24,000? 2,400 properties.

We're assuming 10% of the 24,000 properties will make a claim. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.

On that slide, you're saying the 2026 tax roll. Property taxes are always in arrears.

Correct.

We won't have the 2026 until next year.

Correct. So the argument, that's about 2,000 properties that went on the 2027-2026 tax roll. For those of you at home, the tax roll is different than a calendar year. It's different than a fiscal year. It's different than a service year. It's any properties that were CO'd of 5-31-26 and January, sorry, June 1st of 25. And so I think your comment, Councilman Morgan, is If they've been added between June 1st of 2025 and now, why are they getting the $64? Do I understand that correctly?

Well, I mean, we don't even have the 2026 tax roll. It won't be out until next year.

Right. So the philosophy is that the property does exist. and they're experiencing service.

Yeah, it's vacant land possibly?

No, these are COs. These are homes.

But how can you do a 2026 tax roll when everything's done in arrears? Am I not getting it? Am I missing something? Because that would actually, our tax roll, should it not state 2025?

So the 2026 tax roll will contain properties that were COed 531 of 26 and prior. Yeah. That's what goes on the assessment for the non-advalorant assessment section.

Yes, go ahead. I was going to say, which I believe the lawsuit was settled right around that time frame. So it actually makes it perfect for that cutoff.

Yes. I think it was around April, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong, Rich. So that was settled. And so we've kind of used it. We do have to pick a date and time, and we've historically used the tax roll as that date. Back in 2022, we did apply, I believe it was a $36 credit or so, and we used the tax roll year for the basis of that credit. Understanding you can make the date really anything. However, based on the data that we pull with the property appraisers, the tax roll year is the date we generally go by and have done so in the past.

I do have another question, Madam Mayor. Go ahead. So, Mr. Pruse, so a lot of questions have come up about the actual decision by council. One of the questions is, why are we not going to a second day instead of utilizing, like use the refund for a second day? Do you want to talk about financially why that's not feasible in this situation?

Well, one, it's going on the ballot, so we're not really sure which way that's going to lean. And really, we wanted to try to get this back to residents in the most fiscally responsible and timely manner. All the answers are right. Nobody has a wrong solution to this. And based on staff's evaluation that the options before us as far as returning funds directly back to the resident, either via credit or physical check, was the... was the most appropriate scenario under our purview. You know, you could make an argument that two times a week is subjective. Maybe not everybody would want that additional service. But we went with the more likelihood that people would want a financial refund in some manner.

Would it also be fair to say that going to a twice-a-week pickup would create a cost in perpetuity, which eventually the lawsuit would run out of money and then they would be charged that additional second day, which is the discussion that we're currently having in the ballot question?

Very much so.

Okay.

Thank you. Councilman Bonner.

Thank you, madam area. So it's been my philosophy from the beginning that, you know, and there's there's I've received a few suggestions that the city should spend the money on this or on that or to establish this or that. And the philosophy has been plain and simple. It's not the city's money. It's the taxpayers money. The taxpayers are the ones that were wronged. The taxpayers were the ones that suffered. We all had our garbage out at the end of the street for weeks upon weeks and upon weeks. as a result of the contractor's breach of contract. And so in my mind, the only justifiable way to respond to this settlement is, and I think we all agree, to return that money to the taxpayers who suffered that loss. In terms of kind of how do we distribute that money fairly and efficiently, I kind of agree with the mayor's slide because I think it is, it's very prudent, it's the right thing to do to give back the funds to those who suffered during that time. And to the best extent that we can determine that, you know, If you own property at that time and you're still the owner of that address, that's pretty straightforward, and that's why we're able to give that $364 amount now. And then there's a little bit more legwork to get it right, to get it fair, but we provide that 180-day claims process. And then folks who have moved within the city, then they too can get the full amount. And then we're also... Giving our newer residents who did pay for the Cameo site and did pay for the litigation, we're giving them something as well. And so I think it's proportional. I think it's fair. I think it's the right thing to do. As far as the general fund reimbursement, we did have administrative fees that were charged to the contractor that were used to cover some of those expenses at the time. And so I think... That's one of the purposes of those fees. And how to return the funds is very straightforward. Checks are costly and expensive and get lost. And so a credit on the property tax bill is the way to go. Thank you.

Go ahead, Councilman Pickett.

I totally agree, Councilman Bonham. I think the slide the mayor put forward puts more money back into the residents' hands. And I think that's the more fair way to go, to make sure that every single dime of this money goes back to the residents. They're the ones that suffered, who went through the litigation. And now it's time to reward them for the suffering that they did. So I'm good with the slide the mayor put forward. I would like to see this issued as a tax credit on the tax rolls instead of a paper check because we all know when you issue checks, we're going to have to put out a press release. Your checks are being released, and then that just warrants somebody to come steal something out of your mailbox. So I think the best way is to issue it on the tax rolls like we did before and go with it like that. Thank you.

Vice Mayor.

Madam Mayor. And I do know we have people set up to speak, so I want to make sure of that. But I'm of an agreeance with, I like your methodology that you brought forward. I think it's a good methodology. I'm actually on the opposite side of distribution. I would rather see physical checks. The reason why is my concern is if there's a substantial tax credit that's applied, around $300 as you provided, they will see their tax bill overall decrease. and then the following year see a perceived increase, which in turn complicates the discussion in the future for people to understand their tax bill. I wish it was straightforward where they would actually place a credit in the property appraiser, from my understanding, your discussion. I did request that staff look at can we place a line that says one-time solid waste credit to be clear, unfortunately that's not an option for us and it's not an option according to the property appraiser's office so we'll just have to be able to do a credit on the solid waste line and i think that it'll just really make it very confusing i know physical checks are a little bit more laborsome But I also think, too, when I look at, I mean, we all pay mortgages. I know that anything that we receive is going to get split up over 12 months with your escrow. You're really not going to see that. As we have this discussion, I think people really would appreciate seeing a check that they could utilize immediately. So I'm for a physical check.

so i know there was a question with regard to a 40 character limit on the reference line in the tax bill can that be done yes on the tax bill not the trim notice right that was what our limitation was in further conversations today we we can get the 40 character line on the trim notice we can but the rate will be the current rate so the 400 and i believe 82 rate on the trim notice will be the rate so The rate is a rate, and I know legal's looking at me because there is a distinction between the word rate. The rate will be the proposed, or the solid waste rate of the 482, but we have 40 characters. If you look at your trim notice and you look left, it usually say like PSL, solid waste assessment with the one PSL phone number. We have that to work with where we can state something like waste pro credit, to be applied or something like that. That is on the trim notice. On the tax bill, it will be the reduced amount because that is a bill. That is what you owe. And so that will be your 482 minus your 364 or 64.

And we are required to send out notice letters as a result of whatever our decision is.

That's correct.

So that residents will get a notice that they are going to get.

A CREDIT BECAUSE THERE'S A DISPARITY BETWEEN WHAT SOME ARE BEING ASSESSED AND WHAT OTHERS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT BEING ASSESSED, IT'S IN THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST TO SEND LETTERS.

AND THOSE NOTICES WILL GO OUT PRIOR? YES, THEY WILL GO OUT IN AUGUST.

And so I want to follow up with legal as well, because my understanding was that we did have the 40 characters, and we would be able to write something like lower rate from waste per lawsuit, but have the lower rate there. So am I understanding now that we're going to have to put a very high amount that people aren't going to have to pay on the trim notice?

I think, to Mr. Proulx's point, there's We can put the 40 characters in, but the way they appear on each trim and the tax bill will look different, right? So the trim is going to look like the full freight or the full cost of what that assessment normally is, and you won't see the credit until the tax bill actually comes in, the way it operationally works. So we have the ability to put the 40 characters out, but in terms of what they see in terms of the number, they'll be different from the first step to the second.

disappointing because it's very misleading you know I mean the trim notice should be it's it's called truth in millage it should tell the truth in millage so I'd appreciate you know, communicating, you know, having the ability to communicate with our residents. And so I'd appreciate looking into this further because, you know, we need to find a way to have that trim notice represent what the truth is, what the truth in millage is. And so I would just ask that you look into that further. Thank you.

Yes, go ahead.

If we don't do that, then we're just opening ourselves up for more problems. because we're sitting here telling you we're going to give you that money back, get a trim notice, and it shows what the full bill is. You're going to have people lined up in here screaming at us. So if we can't get that right, then we need to send checks. I mean, bottom line, I don't want to complicate things for staff, but if what they send out is not being truthful, then we're just going to have residents screaming at us.

I think it's straightforward to do checks.

We can maybe go back to that and review the options. Just because we might take a little bit of a hit because of something that's misleading, the checks The checks are going to cost more. They're going to add expense. They're going to add procedural headaches. And I think the best thing to do is to give people credit. We just need to figure out a way to communicate that. So I'd like to revisit that if we can.

Mr. Pruitt, we discussed this. How much is it going to cost to do the checks?

About $2 a check.

How much?

$2 a check.

Okay. And then the total is for the amount? You had an actual total.

It's about $200,000. Okay. Yeah, that's just the hard cost of the physical checks.

And so out of a $24 million lawsuit, if I provided to the public checks and I said it was going to cost $200,000 out of the lawsuit, would people prefer physical checks is the question? And I just think people prefer physical checks. It's their money.

I do want to clarify. Sorry, Vice Mayor. The full $24 million is used to refund the residents. The hard costs from the checks are going to come and be derived from the interest generated.

Sorry, say that again?

The hard costs are going to be derived from the interest generated from the $24 million. So we invested the $24 million.

So there you go.

And so the hard costs, whether they be checks, letters, otherwise, are going to come from the interest generated. So our proposal, and I'm doing this more for the clarification of the residents, The full $24 million is going to go back to the residents.

And just going back to your methodology, Madam Mayor, I think we do hard checks, but then in addition to that, like you said, you're doing $750,000 put aside.

Yes.

That piece, whoever doesn't do the 180-day claim process, I would suggest... that then that leftover amount is applied to the tax roll, which is minimus. I think $750,000, I did it quick with a calculator, was like around $7. So if nobody came forward and claimed, it makes sense to put that on the tax roll in the future because it's just $7. that refund because I want all of it to go back to the residents, claimed or unclaimed, right? But I do think for ease of the future tax bill next year, specifically, it's important to give physical checks because And then on top of that, the property tax discussion is one that everyone's having. Keep in mind, City of Port St. Lucie only has two lines on that tax line. It's your City of Port St. Lucie tax and the crosstown assessment. And so essentially, what could potentially happen is the other entities, depending on how they choose to deal with taxation this year, you may see a difference in your bill, you may not. And so I think, to me, it's more straightforward to just do it that way. But I'm only one of five, so I'll shut up.

Councilman Morgan. The numbers on the slide showed 81,918. Were those the amount of the residential units at the time? When we had our meeting, I wrote down that it was supposed to be $53,882. How did it jump almost $30,000?

Yes. So originally, if we go back to the presentation that was proposed and published, that was based on properties in the 2021 tax rule. AND SO AFTER STAFF DID A FURTHER ANALYSIS, THE PROPERTIES IN THE 2021 TAX ROLL WERE BUILT BEFORE 531 OF 21, BUT THE PRIMARY OR LET'S SAY SOME OF THE PEAK SERVICE DISRUPTION CAME AFTER THAT. AND SO WE INCLUDED PROPERTIES FROM THE 2022 TAX ROLL, SO 531 OF 2022, AND PRIOR AS OUR PRINCIPAL PRIMARY SERVICE DISRUPTED PROPERTIES. AND SO THAT IS THE 81,000 PROPERTIES.

So at 30,000? No, it was only 4,000. 77,000 to 81,000.

Yeah. But I wrote down 53,882 homes. That currently, the homeowner is today as it was back in 2021.

Is that what you're referring to? Yeah, so it went up in one year, it went up over 30,000.

I'm not sure what the 53,000.

See, this is where the numbers are not making sense.

I don't know it's from my notes when we had met the first time well there's been various iterations and proposals on on this so initially we've done several several analysis and initially when we were looking at the properties that changed hands we ran it on a conservative analysis pretty much an excel file that's comparing ownership names the 57 jumped up quite a bit because through our IT department we ran A MORE ADVANCED CONFIDENCE LEVEL ESSENTIALLY. SO IT'S AN ALGORITHM THAT IF A PROPERTY HAS SALLY JONES AS 2022 AND SALLY JONES TRUST, IF IT WAS 80% CONFIDENT, WE ADDED THEM TO THIS 57 BUCKET. SO WE DID THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE APPROPRIATELY GIVING THE RIGHT REFUND TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE. Some of our preliminary numbers were lower because we were trying to err on the side of caution. But as we further analyzed the data in more detail, the amount of eligible properties jumped up because we were more confident in that analysis. And it definitely could have jumped up from 51 to 57.

I'm still leaning towards the... on the tax roll because of trying to locate people. I'm sure there's a lot of homeowners here that live elsewhere. It's going to be, I'm going to use one of your terms. I watched your coffee with the council in May. It's logistics, and it's gonna be a logistics nightmare to do checks, I believe. I think the best way is gonna do the reduction on the tax bill. That way we make sure that they get it, they get it, we don't go through the hassle of you mailed out a check and then it got returned, you have the wrong address, or they don't own it anymore, or whatever happens with that. I think it would be easier to do that on the tax roll. Councilman Bonner, do you have something else?

And I was going to say, you had mentioned a $2, you said that was the cost of printing the physical check. Roughly, yes. Did that include mailing? Yes. It did include mailing, but it didn't include any kind of staff time. It didn't include reissuing checks or any of that nature. Do you have an estimate of what it... What it might cost in total in addition to the physical cost of mailing of the checks?

We likely would have to hire at least a part-time contractual position. When the checks get mailed, they get mailed all at once. So all 95,000 will hit within the same couple-a-day period. And so we're going to see a real sharp uptick of those phone calls and people wanting... to know where their check is, if it was cash, if it was thrown away. You can figure 5% right off the top are not going to make it into the hands of the people that can cash it. And so we'll have to deal with those phone calls and those queries. We will definitely do the best of our ability, but we will likely have to have temporary staffing to handle the influx.

Madam Mayor. Go ahead.

Go ahead. So, I mean, do you have any kind of cap as to what that cost could grow to? I do not.

I wouldn't be prepared to make that estimation right now.

Madam Mayor, you have something? Yep. So you did say, and you said it low, so I don't think everyone heard. I just want to make sure that the money has been in trust and therefore it has interest. Yes. Do you know how much the additional interest is that's been gained?

To date, no, but I can tell you at the time of investment, the interest rate was 3.77.

Okay, so it would be good to have that number. And then in addition to that, I understand the challenges of staff and having to deal with this, but when the trash situation was occurring without, and we didn't have a warning for that, we had to deal with it. And so for me, we need to get this right. And so if we have calls, if we have staff time, whatever it is that it needs to be taken to make it happen, to make it right. We make it right right now. And I don't want to do it on a tax roll. I believe that people are not going to see the impact. I believe that, like I said, it's going to get escrowed. People suffered through this time. It was a very real time. I know we all did. I'm not saying that no one here has experienced it personally. But I do think people deserve to have relief. The relief, I think, is best in a physical check. And I don't want people, I don't want to have to deal with the phone calls in the future year where people are saying, why did my bill go up $300 this year? Or why is my mortgage increasing again this year? And so I just, I think, and to make it simple to you, and I don't want to debate back and forth necessarily, but I think that if whenever you do take a vote on this, if we could go item by item. We were going to go item by item. I appreciate that. Thank you.

I do have concerns about the fraud and then checks getting stolen and then people saying I didn't get my check and it got stolen and all the myriad of issues with that. But we're going to go now to our public comment. I have several people signed up to speak. Annette Rodriguez. Good evening.

Good evening. Um, I apologize, but I'm new to the communities.

So yeah, put the mic down a little bit.

Okay. I'm new to port St. Lucy. So I wasn't aware of that. There was already a plan. So I was here just to make sure that whatever was happening, I was kind of in agreement with, but everything's good. I think you're handling perfectly.

Thank you, ma'am. Tom Lucy.

Hello, ma'am.

Hello. Forgive me if I pronounced your name wrong.

Yeah, I hate to throw a monkey wrench into the situation here, but maybe you could just take my money and give me a credit on my water bill. Then you don't have to spend all that money on checks. That's a lot of money for nothing. Just give me a credit, and then when my 360 is expired on my water bill, I'll continue to pay it. Then all your worries are over.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Sandy Barrios. Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor. I just wanted to state that I like the optional, the second option that was presented, with the exception of the giving a refund to the owners from the 2023 to 26 tax roll. What I would suggest differently to do with those funds is, if anything, any unclaimed funds from the second section, the people who don't make a claim within the 180 days, any leftover funds from that, plus the funds from the 23 to 26, maybe use it for a one-time project for the city where all of us could see it instead of going directly to those people that really didn't get that impact from when all this happened. That would just be my recommendation or what I would do different. The other thing is I know some people have brought up the fact about going to twice a week. And as stated before, after using up the funds, then it's going to become a cost to us. My suggestion or recommendation to that is a very simple solution. And it wasn't that expensive. I actually called up the waste company and ordered an extra bin. It cost me $80, and I no longer have to worry about trash overfilling on my bin or, you know, that many bugs. With just ordering an extra bin for, I think it was $82 or $84, that solved that issue for me entirely. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. I think this is Mr. Doak.

Good evening. My name is Shane Doak. I'm with Civil Rights Advocate C Group, Justice Without Limits. Some of you guys I've spoken to, Mr. Bono, I've talked to online a few times. I am very happy to see that you guys are looking to put this into the people's hands. One thing I am concerned with, because my mind runs numbers, based off this numbers, I see 743,220 people $6 unaccounted for. I was wondering, where is that going? That's not part of the $24 million. I might have missed where you guys said it was going to legal fees or contractors, I believe somebody said. So out of the $24 million, based off these numbers here that I see, I don't see $743,226. So I was wondering, where is that going?

So after everyone's done speaking, we'll address that, sir. After all the public comment, we'll go back and address your question.

Oh, okay. So we just come up and ask a question, but we don't get an answer?

You will get an answer. I just want to give everyone the opportunity to speak.

Right, but my answer would lead to my next comment. So if I don't have an answer, I won't know where to go next. Does that make sense?

Okay. So the $743,226. Right. So it was explained by Mr. Pru that that money is going to be held in abeyance for the people to be able to make the claim if they move from property to property within the city of Port St. Lucie. They'll have that period where they can make the claim and prove that they moved from a house in Port St. Lucie to another house in Port St. Lucie.

No, I understand the escrow holding. I understand that makes perfect sense. But that would be part of this money. This money here equals $23 million. What I'm trying to figure out is how much was spent on legal and contracting. Because the reason why I ask is because these lawyers, the lawyers who work for the city, who represented us, work for us. They've been paid. That's their salary. That's what they do. There shouldn't be an additional payment. Or if there was a settlement, the settlement should have covered legal fees. So we shouldn't have to be coming out of pocket or out of our money for legal fees or contractors or things that had to have been done to take care of this lawsuit. $24 million is $24 million. I'm just trying to make sure that the numbers add up because there's been an issue with numbers before, and that's what we're working on is a budget to, you know, transparency.

So I don't think anyone was proposing to take any money out of the $24 million to use it on legal fees or any contractors. There was a mention in the presentation about a general fund reimbursement based on that, and no council member up here has stated that they wanted to do that. They stated that the $24 million has to go back to the residents.

Okay. All right. Well, thank you very much. That's why I just wanted to make sure because... Yep.

Thank you. Madam Mayor.

Yes. We have a lot of cards, so I just want to comment too. It's just for further clarification. Because there is an amount that exceeds the city manager's threshold, if we're going to forgive the general fund holdings, we have to do that in a sense formally. And I know that's on there. We're going to. I just want to say that the only reason why it's being discussed is for transparency. Right. So we have to, if money's been expended specifically because we used outside legal as well, we then have to forgive that money to the general fund legally as well. And that's where the transparency is important. So I just want to make sure we said that. Thank you.

Thomas Maresco. Good evening.

Good evening. I'm Tom Maresco. I've been a taxpayer here since 1985, and I've seen this go from a great little community to Fort Lauderdale. And if I wanted to live in Fort Lauderdale, I would move with my family down south. But that's a different issue. Okay, I think this is a cut and dry issue. If you're on a tax roll, 19, what was it, 2022? That's it. You draw a line in the sand. That's it. It shouldn't go to people of 2025 or anything else. This is cut and dry. It might be inconvenience for you to write a check, but you know what? That doesn't help me as... a senior citizen on a fixed income to make maybe my taxes will be a little less last year because you're going to raise my taxes anyway. And Mr. Doak is right. We need to know exactly where the money's going. I don't think it's that much for us to ask as citizens. And you said transparency. That's what we want. And I really hope that you guys do the right thing. I really do. I've been here many times, and I'm going to be honest with you. You really haven't. So please, this time, I'm urging you, do the right thing. And I've heard a lot of positive input from you guys. But please, it might be a little more inconvenient, and it might cost a few more dollars. But look at these people. These people are all senior citizens, most of them. And working people can't make it here for a 5 o'clock meeting or a 6 o'clock meeting. So please, that's all I have to say. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you for my time. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Montero? Good evening.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the council, city manager, and the legal representatives. I saw on television that there was going to be this meeting tonight. But this week I've been suffering with the loss of children in swimming pools. So I want to bring another issue that there's got to be some extra money in this budget that you've already established. And I would hope that there's an education program for young children that are six months old in Port St. Lucie. There may be something in the county. Now, we have a wonderful swimming pool at Raven Woods, and I think it's underutilized. Maybe it needs additional money. But I think that we're a growing city. And in the last couple of weeks, I think we've lost like four children in swimming pool accidents. And people had their swimming pool and the kids got into the swimming pool and didn't know how to swim when they was two years old. And I know of children six months old, if they fall into the pool, they can float. And why should we be having something just to give people their tax money back? I'm on a fixed income. I'm about one of the oldest people in this room. But I'm concerned about the youth. in our community drowning. I live with the little kid that got killed in a magic kingdom. 10 years ago, my kids swam in that water. My children grew up going to Disney World. I thought that was the safest place in the world. And now they're telling me 400 alligators have been relocated. So I'd like to see more signs, alligators and snake in the area because there are many people from the north like me. I don't know about alligators. I don't know about snakes. And what do young children know? And so I would ask if it doesn't come out of this budget and comes out of some budget that we have a positive program educating all children and have no income problem. Because people with money, their children are educated. They know about swimming. It's people on low and moderate income that have a problem with that. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Overholt.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I'd like to discuss or make a statement about this $24 million. Since the residents were essentially overcharged and deprived of service, the money should be given back to them. I actually agree with you guys. I'd like to suggest that the money given back in the form of a property tax credit, all right? In addition to that, I also would urge the council to adopt the rollback millage rate 26 the action will lower residents taxes and force the city to live responsibly within their budget thank you thank you mr. Floyd mr. Floyd okay I cannot read this name last name starts with a P

Please state your name for the record, sir.

Matt Pelton.

Good evening, sir.

It's evening. I live here in Port St lousy and I lived while this was all going on and I think the people should get the money and I don't think you should be entrusted with any of it because I've seen what you do with money in this city, not to mention this county, the $64 million of tax money that was wasted. I'm sure some of that was our tax money as well. And if we get rid of the taxes, where does that money go if they get abolished here and this year is voting? So then that goes back to the city and doesn't go back to the people. Just a thought. And then the other part about it is you guys say you really want to get back to the people. I'm a business owner. I'm a homeowner. And I employ people of Port St. Lucie. And you guys have done nothing but treat me like absolute garbage. Well, when this was going on, I had eight trash cans full of maggots. in my home. And then I had your code enforcement people harassing me about stuff at my place. Okay? So you're going to tell me that you actually want to give back to the people? You people are an absolute disgrace to our Constitution. You disgust me. The taxes, the amount of money, and everything that you do to the people in this city is an absolute joke. The only reason people are here And the only reason you come up with the idea of giving people money back is because it's a voting year. You're thinking about getting votes. You don't give shit about people.

Please refrain from profanity. That's all right.

I'm done.

Okay, that's all the cards that I have signed up to speak. We'll bring it back to the council now. So let's go through the items.

Madam Mayor, just before you go through the items, I wanted to clarify Mr. Lucy's comment. Mr. Lucy, part of the reason why I just want to share about the water bill, that would be a great idea, except everyone does not have city water. And that's actually one of the arguments. Some cities actually put their solid waste fee. onto their water bill because it makes sense it's a utility unfortunately because of that that's the reason why it's on our tax bill and then to clarify your comment that's the reason why it's also i believe a justified refund because essentially it's a pass-through it's not really a tax the contract is for the services that are provided to the residents that we negotiate on the behalf and then it's essentially services in bulk And then that gets distributed on your tax bill. But it's literally like we're just the middleman. It's not our charge. It's the company's charge. So because it is a transactional service, it's not a tax. So I feel that it's actually right to give it back to the residents. But I do take your comments into consideration. I know that we've had programs in the past that have addressed water safety, and we have added additional signs since that Disney incident. I'll make sure that the city manager, I know we have your contact. I want to make sure we get that to you as well as additional modifications and maybe some additional awareness if needed with water safety as was requested. So thank you.

Okay. Just want to make a point of clarification. Going back again to when the lawsuit, we discussed the lawsuit being filed originally several years ago now. I made a comment at that time that the money should go back to the resident should we be able to be successful in getting a settlement or winning the case. Now let's go forward with our three items that we have to discuss. I want to start first with the general fund reimbursement. Let's move forward with that. I think all of us have made it pretty clear. Do you want motions? Yes, let's do motions.

I would like to make a motion that we do not reimburse the general funds for the expenses that have been utilized.

Okay, I have a motion and a second that we do not reimburse the general fund. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Next, methodology and eligibility criteria. Is there a motion with regard to the methodology?

Madam Mayor, I would motion that we return the full $24 million to the taxpayers using the methodology on the alternate option that you provided, which was roughly to the 55,000 households who were eligible. who were here at the time with the same owner receiving the higher credit and then a claims process for the properties that had change of ownership and then the smaller credit towards the remaining homes.

Is there a second?

Yes.

Okay. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Discussion.

Discussion. Go ahead. So it was brought up a number of times that why are we, why are residents that did not even experience the issue that they had with waste pro from the 2023 to the 2026. Um, and I, I tend to agree they didn't live or breathe or handle all of this horrific PTSD that we all have from those years. I mean, it was, it was bad. And I tend to agree that it needs to go to the people, to the residents that actually went through this.

Madam Mayor, I can speak to that as the motion maker. So I agree with you that the funds should be returned to the residents who suffered. There are degrees of suffering. And so the people who lived through and like myself, like all of us who had the weeks of missed service, the frustration, certainly they're entitled to a higher and a significant amount. $364 is most of the solid waste fee. It is a very significant credit and they will likely pay less to the city this year than they paid last year as a result of that credit. However, it is not true to say that newer properties did not experience any degree of suffering. and newer properties paid for the crosstown site, newer properties paid for the litigation, newer properties are paying higher rates than they would have paid had the contractor not breached. And so It was a lesser suffering, but they deserve some degree. And so we kind of take this we kind of take this multi tiered approach to say, look, everyone had some degree of suffering. And I believe that, you know, you're never going to get anything perfect. But I believe this is as proportional, as fair, as thoughtful as we can get to make sure that, you know, in a city of I say this time and time again, in a city of over a quarter million people, you're never going to make a decision that Everybody likes, but I think we have reached the sweet spot here. I think we have reached the fairest possible solution for distributing these dollars. Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Yes, Madam Mayor. It's $24 million plus any accrued interest between now and whenever the funds are distributed.

Wait. Unless the decision's made to issue checks, which is going to cost... which I thought Charlie had mentioned that that money that we're getting from the interest would go towards the expense of doing checks if we do checks.

I just want to make sure that any funds past the $24 million do get returned back to the residents. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other discussion? All those in favor of the methodology as stated by Councilman Bonner, which is the additional option? Aye. Aye. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NOW LET'S DETERMINE HOW TO RETURN THE FUNDS.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RETURN THE FUNDS VIA CHECK.

IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION?

MOTION THAT THIS GOES TOWARDS ON TO THE TAX ROLL. It can't be a credit. It'll be issued via the tax roll on the property tax.

Credit on the tax bill. Yes. Is there a second? No second. Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any final discussion?

Madam Mayor, I would just ask that staff in the city attorney's office continue working to find out any ways that we can be clearer and more clearly communicate what is actually happening on the trim notices. I think that's I think that's very important that this is communicated properly.

Yeah, and I also think that we need to make sure, since we are required by Florida law to send out notices, that we're going to need to make sure that it's very clear on that notice as to when the residents will see the credit and how the residents will see the credit. Can I ask for a roll call vote, please?

I'm sorry? Can I request a roll call vote? Sure. Thank you. Okay.

The motion is for placing the refund on the tax rolls. Councilwoman Morgan?

Yes, ma'am.

Councilman Pickett?

Yes, ma'am.

No, that's not what the people want. Please refrain from calling out, please. It's not just me. Thank you.

Taxation is theft. Give them checks.

Mayor Martin? Yes, ma'am. Councilman Bonner?

Yes, ma'am. Give us back our money, it thieves.

Visa Mayor, I'm sorry, Vice Mayor Carballo? No, ma'am.

Our insurance was free.

Motion passes.

Okay. Does any other member of council have anything that they'd like to discuss? If not, we are adjourned.