City Commission - Regular Meeting

We'd like to call our meeting to order. Can we do roll call?

Mayor Brinson.

Here.

Vice Mayor Joe Smith.

Here.

Commissioner Brennan Smith. Here. Commissioner Touchstone. Commissioner Ebiar.

Here.

We have Quarren. Touchstone is here.

Can we all hear invocations?

Father God, we thank you first and foremost for our being here. We thank you for the life, health, and strength that flows through these bodies. We ask now that you'll help us to govern and guide this meeting according to your divine will and purpose for this city. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

Amen. Hola. We'll do the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

At this time, we'll proceed to number five, presentations. Yes. Agenda is number. Number six.

An annual assessment resolution of the city of West Park, Florida, relating to the provision of fire protection services in and for fiscal year 2000.

Just for clarification, this resolution is under consent.

Mayor, you forgot to number five, opportunity for the public to address the commission.

There's no one there. No one signed in. Oh, okay.

Yeah, every name is probably remarked.

I'm sorry, Ola. Go ahead.

An annual assessment resolution of the city of West Florida relating to the provision of fire protection services in and for fiscal year 2026-2027, beginning October 1st, 2026 through September 30th, 2027, establishing the process Proposed rate of assessment imposing fire protection service assessments against assessed property located in the city of West Park. Approving the proposed assessment rule for fiscal year 2026-2027, providing adoption of representation, providing for an active date.

Commission, public hearing, anyone from the public have any comments or questions? I'll turn it over to staff.

None of this.

Mission.

Madam Mayor.

Yes.

Motion to approve.

Is there a second? Item number one.

This is a fire protection, fire assessment.

I'm sorry, Mr. Ballard. I couldn't hear it.

Yeah, this fire assessment. The rate proposed the same as last year.

Okay. Is there a second for the fire isn't it? Thank you. Any other comments? All the world, please.

Commissioner Smith. Yes. Commissioner Touchstone.

Yes.

Vice Mayor Smith.

Yes.

Commissioner Ebiard. Yes. Mayor Brunson.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Item number two.

An annual set resolution of the City of West Park, Florida, relating to the provision of solid waste service for fiscal year 2027, beginning October 2026 through September 2027. Establishing the proposed rate of assessment, imposing solid waste service assessments against assessed property located within the City of West Park. Approving the proposed assessment rule for fiscal year 2026-2027, providing for adoption of representations, providing for effective date.

Commission, what's your plan?

This is also a public hearing, but yeah, but if we can make a quick presentation on this item, anyone from the Commission in the audience have a question.

Commission, what's your pleasure on the item?

Yeah, I want to make quick presentation so forth. Steven.

There it is.

Steve. It's still red. It's blinking now.

OK.

While staff is distributing items, Chris, if you want to go ahead and explain this item. I thought this was brought up during the last meeting, so I thought to kind of give a detail of it. Now Chris will present the details and the breakdown.

Chris Wallace, Finance Director. I think during the first budget meeting we had, there was some confusion over rates and what rates were. and there's really been up to three different rates, and I think that's what confused people. This time last year, we adopted a solid waste assessment, and just like all of our assessments, they're levied 100% of the lead, but people only pay, usually almost everyone pays 96% because it's on the tax bill, and most people pay the tax bills in November where they get a 4% discount. So when we're doing the budget, we're really dealing in the net because that's what we actually get. We just gross it up so that it comes down to what we actually have to get to pay the vendor. So from October until March, we had WastePro operating under the rates of their own contract. And of course, during this time, we were back and forth putting out a bid for a new solid waste assessment or solid waste services that expired, I believe, in January. The vendor had kept their rates for a while but then they had to raise them because the cost of solid waste has just become very expensive from public and private haulers. So as the RFP dragged out into the early or late spring rather, early summer, we found the city went with the low bidder which was waste management. So there was a rate from October through March and from April through June and then another rate from July through September, and that rate will continue from October 1 next year, which is the budget we're dealing with. So the rate actually went up in March slightly, and then it went back down in July when bid was awarded. So those are the rates that we're talking about. On this first page, you'll see that the amount bid and awarded For the current year for the three months this year and then for all of next year and we're talking about the assessment for next year at this point Assessment is seven hundred and six dollars And thirteen cents is what we're assessing what people will actually pay and what we will gain the vendor the six hundred and seventy seven dollars in 88 That's what's actually going out the door The current year's assessment was $583.66 gross, but people actually only wound up paying $560.31. So the increase net of the discount is actually $117.57 per month more next year than it was this year, which is a $9.80 increase per month on a net basis. Once again, I'm only going to deal in nets because that's how the budget's adopted. So on this next chart, we kind of tried to compare the differences. So you see the monthly cost per unit. going from october to february was 46.69 the monthly cost march through june was 59.33 that was the cost of the city but the resident had already paid her assessment so they were still only paying 46.69 per month which meant the city was having to eat 12.64 cents per month which we're recovering from residents Then when the contract became active with waste management, the low bid was $56.49 per household or per service, rather. If you had a duplex, you'd pay in twice this. So what the resident was paying from July through September was not $56.49, rather $46.69 still, which is what they were levied back in the current year. So we're even from July to September, $9 per household per month. Going from next year, it stays the same at 56.49. That's what the resident's going to pay. So the difference basically, you know, not quite $10 per month. And that was low bid for the same service level. The difference being bulk where you had to modify the collection schedule. This next schedule shows you what the cost is for the solid waste fees for WPRO, the different components. The contractor was paying for collection, what the county was charging us that the WPRO had to pay. The disposal cost, which is what the county charges. Franchise fees set by contract for the city, so that turned out to be $50.33 per month, or $711 grossed up. $683 is what was paid by the resident. And this is just the resolution that shows the contract being adopted and the extensions and such. But that's the commission well aware of the contract that was awarded for the service that started in July. So I think hopefully that'll apply. There are different rates. It's just the progression of how the contracts proceeded and the RFP proceeded and how the assessment process worked. There's no really getting around that. You don't know what the bids are going to come in at. So we do have to get that cost, and we anticipate that to some extent. I don't think we extended or anticipated to the extent in the months that it was outstanding, but still, that's just the way it goes. So they were here, and then they went up, and then they came down. It was basically all that happened. And if anyone has any questions on that, I'll be glad to answer them.

Any questions for Chris? Yes.

As far as the gross up by 4% to account for early payment discount allowed, the difference from $7.06 and $0.13 to $6.77, I'm calculating $28.25. So when you take the 4%, what figure are you taking 4% of?

We're taking 4% of the total assessment, which for the current year was 7.013. And so 96% of that number should be 6.7788.

So that's what brings it to 7.613? Because I'm trying to say that when you do the calculation, for the monthly estimate, which is 56.49, which I understand that part, and you multiply it by 12, it gives you $677.88. But on our tax bill, we're seeing $706.13. So I'm trying to figure out how we get to $677.

Right. So the $706.13, Commissioner? includes the 4% discount because we're not going to get it. So we do what's called a gross up. We take what the cost actually is, we gross it up by the 4%, and that goes on the tax bill. But when you pay that tax bill, if you take advantage of the 4% discount, then that brings it back down to the 67788. So non-advalorum assessments that go on the property tax bill because the state allows under its constitution a 4% discount for early payment. That concept was originally for property taxes. And at some point, the state allowed non-advalorum special assessments to be placed on property tax bills under the unified method of levy and collection. If you were to build yourself and make it due in November or October or whatever, you would bill $677.88 and not allow a discount. So if you build it yourself, which is certainly allowed, but I don't recommend that in any event. Because then you have to build a building, you know billing and collection costs You would only be billing six seventy seven eighty eight because you use the unified method of levy and collection Which is to say you put it on the property tax bill for notice and collection purposes Almost everyone and that's not to say everyone almost everyone is going to take advantage of that four percent discount and pay it in November when they pay their property taxes because most people won't leave that on the table and So what they wind up paying is the 706.13 less 4%, which comes down to 677.88. It's math gymnastics that you have to do because we have to get from each unit 677.88. At the end of the day, that's what we need to get to be able to pay our vendor who we selected. But to get $677.88, we actually need to bill $706.13 because you're going to take a discount from it. So we're not going to get the $706.13. We'd be underwater if we did that.

Right. So if the customer pays the – okay, so on the bill it's going to say $706.13, but if they pay early, then they will end up paying $677.88. Yes, ma'am. The next question is, I was going through my email and I came across a resident that she was trying to get clarification as to why is that the city is building for the $75,000 administrative fee, which I'm going to assume that is also the same as the franchise fee.

No, they're separate fees, ma'am. So the RFP of the contractor We anticipate recovering from vendor. We encourage the vendor to resolve complaints from customers. You know, people should call, you know, the waste management or waste program before that. Every year, they're encouraging our website or phone number to contact the vendor if they have a problem with their cart being knocked over, not being picked up, bulk weight questions. They're best handled by the vendor. However, people still have problems with vendor. They still call us. It's daily operation of the city. There's probably not a day that goes by that we don't get a call or a complaint. I'm sure you get plenty of complaints. Well, we heard that during the RFP process. So we deal with customer complaints on a daily basis. We did not have staff dedicated more or less daily to that than we really, you know, we wouldn't be doing solid waste services. And in a perfect world, that would happen. But honestly, people call up, their garbage wasn't picked up, so they say, or the garbage can was knocked over. They did pick up bulk waste for whatever reason. They're illegal dumping in a lot. There's some crossover in code enforcement with that as well. So we do spend quite a staff time with solid waste and bulk waste questions and complaints from customers, and I'm sure that the body does as well, because we hear it more or less every meeting.

Okay. Now the next assessment is just for rental?

It's for residents 10 units or less per parcel. So if you have 11 units in an apartment complex, you probably will have commercial service. So that doesn't apply, but it's for resident service on a parcel that has 10 to 20 units or fewer.

Oh, okay. Because I've seen, too, also a business was concerned about the fact that, you see, like, they're mandated to use waste management, and he had a concern because, you know, they usually select their own garbage vendor. I don't know if you guys came across that email. That's the reason why I want to know if this is just, you know, for what we call residential and is it that it's still separate?

Yeah, there's two things I think you're talking about. So this resolution is solely for the adjustment against residential units for residential solid waste and bulk waste and recycling services. And for residential, I mentioned it's for 10 units or fewer per parcel. However, the contract with Waste Management which deals with both residential and commercial services was something the Commission approved back in June after much debate. Commercial was talked about during that award of contract and even the RFP that was discussed with it. Prior to this contract, there was what we would call open market where you just, you know, if you're a business, you can choose whoever you want that's good and bad i suppose but it was difficult to manage that from the city's point of view i think you find a lot of cities will just have it like a franchise for both services you tend to get an overall cheaper price when you do that that cost was debated by the commission during the rfp and the award of the contract so thinking about two different things the contract were awarded for a franchise for residential and commercial Tonight's business, however, is only for the assessment of the bill for the residential services, residential, again, being tenants or fewer. So tonight you're only dealing with the residential assessment for residential services. The rest of it's all been approved by the commission.

Okay.

Any other questions? All right, thank you.

Yes. I basically have a comment. I know I have a question. The franchise fee set by the city, who pays that?

The customer pays the franchise fee, which in this case for residential services is the residential customer.

So the residents are paying the franchise fee to the city? Yes. What is the purpose of the residents paying the franchise fee?

It's the ways and means of the city raising revenue. It's always been that way. The fee really hasn't changed that much. I think it went up by $5,000, but the You've always levied a franchise fee for garbage, both on residential and commercial. But at the end of the day, the customer pays it, and then that money goes into the general fund to support general fund operations, whether that be code enforcement or solid waste or whatever. But it's just the ways and means of financing the city.

So we're basically charging the residents to use this contractor, or what's the purpose of it?

Well, WastePro paid that as well. It hasn't changed. It's always been that from day one. When it was Broward County, there was a franchise fee as well. I don't know of a city that doesn't charge a franchise fee for solid waste. The customer winds up paying it, but in the absence of it, then you'd have to come up with $500,000 from somewhere else, and the likely source of that would be property taxes. I guess it's just the market basket of goods of how you finance the city.

All right, so it's just a means of financing the city?

Yes, ma'am.

And so the vendor doesn't pay that at all, right?

Well, in this contract, we pay the vendor, and then the vendor turns it back over to us. So it's like taking money from the left pocket and putting it in the right. It's just a wash.

So basically, the residents are paying the franchisee via the non-admin taxes. It goes directly to the vendor, but then the vendor turns around and says, sends that money to the city for the city benefit, right?

Correct. Okay. The vendor's not booking that as a revenue. The vendor's booking that as a liability to the city when we pay them.

Okay. I just want to clarify on record because it was alluded that vendor pays this as though the residents don't pay it. I want it to be on record that the residents are paying this.

Well, I would make a general statement that any time you levy a tax, it's ultimately going to be the residents that pay it. Even if that's against a business, that winds up turning into some fee to a business, winds up in product or less hours or whatever. So ultimately, right. I mean, we all pay, state, federal, local governments, whatever you're paying, we're paying it as customers. So it's just a blazing means of financing local government.

Understood, because there was, like I said, there was a misrepresentation before when I was having this discussion about the franchise fee. I particularly was saying that we should see how not including the franchise fee in order to reduce the cost to the residents. So by virtue of the cost of the services going up, probably almost $10, we agree. If we did not have the franchise fee, then the rate will basically stay the same as last year.

Well, that may be the case, but then you're faced as a committee on what you do with the loss of $500,000. So, I mean, you don't have a lot of choices, as we discussed at the last budget hearing. You know, your options are very limited on that. But that would be the ultimate outcome. Cut $5,000 in revenue, you're going to need to cut $5,000 in expense somewhere.

Okay. But essentially, if we did not have the franchise fee, would the rate remain relatively the same as last year?

No.

Last year's millage was... We're going up $9.80.

If we were to cut out $9.40, we would be closer to last year's amount, correct? Correct.

No, we won't be comparing apples to apples because last year also, like I said earlier, since before incorporation until now, there's always been price fee.

I'm not refuting that. What I'm saying is comparing apples to apples. The cost is going up $9.80, and the cost for the franchise fee is $9.40 a month. If we did not have franchise fee, it's simple mathematics and arithmetic, right? Will we be closer to our last year assessment? No, because from the comments you said earlier, it's not apples to apples.

You said apples to apples, but it won't be apples to apples.

No, I'm talking basic arithmetic. So if the assessment is going up $9.80, and if we were to reduce the franchise fee or eliminate that, by now I was in 40 cent, then we'll be basically back to where we was as far as the general assessment last year.

Well, I think the math on that is right. But I mean, like you said before, and like the man noted last year, you were paying the $9 a month in the franchise fee as well. So all along could have been saving money, but you're not really even money because that money's used in the city. Right, but it would be saving money to the resident. Well, they're going to wind up paying it somewhere.

Exactly. Okay, how would they do that? Because if our millage rate stays the same and we eliminate the franchisee, then it would be the cost savings to them of $117.57. All right. Hold on. I'm asking the finance director. Well, I think I was going to give the same thing.

The same thing is what he's going to tell you.

I'm asking the finance director. Let the finance director answer the question, please.

Well, he can answer when I finish.

No, no, no, no, no. Well, I'm not going to have him answer because he works for me. That's why I'm telling you. He works for us ultimately through you. And my request is to hear from the finance director. Well, I'm going to let him go ahead and answer because I'm saying the same thing.

Thank you. So they would save money on their garbage bill, all right, on the assessment, whatever you want to call it. But then you're like, okay, now you're $500,000 short in the budget. So you have one of two options or a combination of these options. You either raise revenue somewhere else and pretty much the only other place you're going to be able to raise that extent is going to be the property tax, or you cut expenses. Your budget's already being funded by about $3 million fund balance, so it's like, well, at some point you're going to make up that loss.

Hold on. When you say that our budget is being funded by $3 million of fund balance, are you alluding to the fact that we're going to be taking $3 million from our reserve?

Well, not quite that much, but yeah, in that direction, absolutely, with the loss of the $500,000. So...

If we lose $500,000, we need to take $3 million from our reserve coverage?

Well, no. The budget, as will be presented again on Wednesday night, is going to be funded with about $2. something million of reserves.

So, hmm.

The budget is funded with $1.5 million of reserves because we cut the millage rate last year. We had to go into reserves to make up the difference. So, you know, you once again had a good income.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me just clarify what you just said. You said because we cut the military 0.3 mils, which only equated to like $190,000. You went into our reserve $250,000 last year.

No, a million and a half dollars the current year.

We did a million and a half dollars in our reserve last year.

This year, this current fiscal year.

This year.

Yeah, and last year's budget process, that's how it was adopted. That's what was presented to the commission.

No, that's not my understanding that we were touching our reserves as far as $1.5 million, because why would we need to go into our reserves $1.5 million for a $190,000 difference in the tax rule?

Okay, so the budget originally presented did not go into reserves for that full amount, but it was still going into it for quite a bit of amount. Balance it. That's not an unusual dynamic. When you lowered the millage rate, we had to put more money into the reserve, take more money out of the reserves, bring it up by that $300,000 or whatever it was.

It was $190,000.

Whatever it was. I don't recall. I'm sorry. But whatever it was, we did have to, like, started that process going into reserves. And then when you lowered the millage rate, and this was just, at length during the commission meetings.

Not about going into the reserve. We cut from the BSO contract increase in order to come with that. We had a lengthy conversation as far as what areas we were supposed to cut. So we were supposed to cut the tree lighting program.

We did.

No, you guys did not. Well, we cut. You were supposed to not have the tree lighting program this fiscal year, but the city manager went ahead and financed it through the budget even though it was not approved by the commission. We talked at length about how we can reduce our get to that $190,000 last year by trimming the increase from PSO and eliminating the merit increase for the employees. And that's what we talked about. We never, ever discussed going into the reserves.

Prior to that, if you go back and look at the budget document, it was predicated on using reserves. I think you can go back to the year before that where not for ARPA funds, we would have had to go into reserves as well. Absolutely.

That was never explicitly explained during the budget meetings. No one ever stated in the presentation that we were taking X amount from the reserves and what we were taking X amount from the reserves for. It was never even mentioned at all.

Well, okay, I'm not going to debate that because that's ultimately what happened in any event. And if you look at the budget for the current year, as we'll discuss on Wednesday, and maybe place a pin in it, the budget is predicated on reserves. And that's one of the things that you had. We discussed briefly in addition to some other items, and you'll see it in the presentation Wednesday night. But you are going into reserves to balance the budget. And lowering the millage rate was, you know, you voted to keep the millage rate the same, but hopefully low again. I'm not really sure how we're going to be able to do that. You know, you've got some big cost drive public safety that just kind of increase and increase. One thing we've been blessed with in the city is an increase in the taxable values of the city. You know, they're not keeping pace dollar-wise with their increase in expenses. So bottom line, to bring this back to the item on the agenda, yes, there's $500,000 in there for franchise fees. There's always been $500,000 in franchise fees. If you take $500,000 out, I mean, it's really simple. At that point, you either raise revenue, cut expenses, or do a combination thereof. So that's just how it's going to go down. But it's not a new fee. It's always been there, and it's always been used to support the operations of the city and to hold the millage rate down. Go back a few years, you'll recall that the millage rate was pushing 10 mills. It was 9%. you know, your 9.2 mills because the property tax values had decreased after the Great Recession or whatever you want to call it. So we had a very high millage rate and we have a cap on the millage rate under the state's constitution of 10 mills. You know, you wouldn't have been able to survive if you had gotten rid of that fee at that point in time. But it's just your market basket of goods that you have in your arsenal. I know one of the commissioners brought up during the budget hearing last week that, you know, they wanted to consider some alternative revenue sources. I wish there were. We don't have the ability to raise sales taxes or tourism taxes. We don't have that legal ability to do any of that. We've done pretty much everything we can to keep the city operating in a fiscally prudent fashion. And it still is. But, I mean, you know, with Amendment 3 and all this other stuff going on, you've got tough choices to make. And you're the ones who have to make them at the end of the day. We just make recommendations for it. But for the item at hand, that $500,000 is part of the assessment, has always been part of the assessment. If it were not there, garbage bills would be lower. They would have always been lower. But you would be without that revenue source that you use for the city. So that's the explanation.

I'm just really in shock that it was not highlighted about going into the reserve because Even when we had the home explosion and we were exploring the idea of how we can help out with the home explosion, it was stated, oh, we can only use the reserves if the house is on fire. If we have catastrophic loss, that's the only reason why we should go into the reserve. But to now be learning that this fiscal year, we dipped in the reserve without the commission saying, knowing about it because it was snuck in the budget and it wasn't highlighted in the budget presentation that any of the reserves are going to be used and now we're going into our potentially going into the reserves for a greater amount this year all in the name of public safety right so most of the money that we're dipping into our reserves for is for public safety accommodation because the contract is too expensive for us to pay for with our taxes. So now we're dipping into that, right? So to me that speaks to us not really being fiscally accountable because prior to that we went into our ARPA funding over like three something million dollars of funding that was supposed to help to benefit residents and get them back to our residents and our business back to a stable position after COVID. That's what those fundings were primarily supposed to be utilized for. And we used a great bulk of it, more than 50% on public safety. And now that that umbrella funding is no longer available, we've been dipping into our reserves year after year for public safety.

Well, I wouldn't phrase it that exact way. I mean, there's lots of things that go into it. Is it factual or not?

No matter how you would phrase it, is what I'm saying factual or not?

Well, I'm not going to say it's not factual. I just wouldn't phrase it that way. Because there's other things in the budget. There's other options, things you have to consider always in a budget. So I just wouldn't phrase it that way. However, for Wednesday, we'll be prepared to illustrate what happened in prior years and what's happened this year because it's my opinion. that it was discussed to some extent, to a large extent. It was never discussed, not at all. Tonight's meeting, though, this is assessment resolution. All you're dealing with is the assessment itself.

Okay. Thank you.

Commission, what's your pleasure?

I have one more question to the city manager. Since we're discussing about solid waste, you know, we are also responsible for the commercial industry too. So I wanted to know, has a notice been sent out to the businesses to notify that they do not have an option to select their waste collector that is going to be waste management? Have a notice been sent out to each businesses that way they can be aware?

To see if they have not been, say that again, they have not?

No, has it also been sent out to notify the business owners that they do not have an option to select their garbage solid waste vent as what they usually do? That was going to be strictly waste management.

The vendor, there were two vendors here that were in commercial. And both of them got together. One of them is waste management and the other is republic. And they both got together. Now, waste management, they agreed that management can send a notice through them. And they're working together to make sure they make it happen.

Okay, so they haven't done it yet to notify their...

They have, both of them have worked, they're working together to make that happen now. Only two commercial vendors that we had during that time and they both got to that and they let Waste Management, they gave Waste Management the authority to go ahead and their vendors know, their customers know that Waste Management is taking over and they work together in making that happen themselves.

Okay, so you don't know if it's already in process or has it been done?

I'm sure they've already, if they're not in progress, every one of them. They're working together to make it happen.

And they haven't had a discussion on the breakdown to see how the fee is going to be calculated?

They have a fee.

And we as missionaries, just like how we're doing the residential, we haven't had a chance to... No, it's part of a proposal.

It's part of the proposal.

But I know I'm saying that we did not discuss that part to see what was going to be the charge to the...

It was part of the bid. So it's going to be something we have to weigh on. The bid, they itemize at different charts and they have it all in the packet. It's still on the website. They have it all in there. They have their rates all in there.

Okay. I would like to see... Just like how we're working on the residential... You know, I'd like for us to also be able to see breakdowns as how we're doing it.

It's on the web. The breakdown that you approved is the same they're using. It's right on the web.

Yeah, because we did not go into lengthy discussion about the commercial aspect.

It's part of the contract.

I understand it's part of the contract, just as how the residential is part of the contract. And, you know, we got to work it out and see exactly where the numbers are coming from, but we never did for the commercial. So that's That's the part I'm saying is that if you can show us a breakdown, not today, but at another time for the commercial, because they're still going to come to us when they start seeing the changes, just like how one of the businesses emailed us wanting to know about the pricing and the calculation. So my point is just as how residential is in the contract, and we are breaking it down and we can see with our own eyes, It's the same way how I would like for us to do the same thing for the commercial part of it, to actually break it down so that I can better understand it, to better communicate it to the businesses, if I'm accounted with a question about it, which we have.

Commission, what's your pleasure on item number two? Madam Mayor.

Mayor.

Yes.

I move to approve. I have a, Mayor.

Yes. Commissioner Smith had spoken first.

No, he wants to vote.

He called for a motion. Is there a second? And then if you have a question, we'll answer. I'll come back to you. Is there a second?

I didn't even hear a motion because I didn't know who you were recognizing. You didn't say by name. I assumed that it was me.

So Commissioner Smith spoke first. Is there a second to his motion?

I didn't hear a motion. A motion to approve the idea of the motion to approve.

Is there a second and then I'll ask you'll be able to ask your question. Is there a second? To the motion, is there a second? I'll second for the motion. Just for the sake of. Asking moving forward and you can ask your question.

But I think you should let her do her question and then we'll go to.

Can you let me run the meeting? Thank you.

But sometimes you're not doing it the proper way.

Commissioner Touchstone, what's your question?

Okay. So I had a comment to piggyback off of what Commissioner Everlard was discussing with the commercial rate for the businesses. As I understand it, this service, would not go into effect for three years into the contract, three years into the eight-year contract. Is that correct? About the commercial... About the commercial... Nobody's able to answer that? When would the commercial business start under the contract? Because it was my understanding that it won't occur until three years into the eight-year contract.

You want me to talk now or you still want Chris? I'm trying to figure out because I kept quiet.

This is not a finance director question. This is operations as far as the contract because Chris is sitting and leaning that that's not

No, Chris understand it, Chris was part of it. I'm not sure where you got the idea. We never talked about any three-year, anything else, because we didn't present anything about three years. The contract is effective immediately. and the contract is going on. Like I indicated to the question that was asked earlier, we only had two non-exclusive contracts prior to the contract, and both of them understood the contract terms and, in fact, participated in the process. The second one, to some extent, while they did not submit their proposal, they understood their intent. So they got together with the new vendor and decided that is the case. In that situation, the process, the contract is immediately effective.

No, so when we were discussing the RFP proposal, it was explicitly stated. I would like to request now the public record request for that specific meeting where we were discussing the terms of the contract with the vendor. It was explicitly stated when I asked about why are we doing an eight-year term. It was indicated by your facility manager and the potential vendor at that time that the commercial services would not begin until three years into the contract. So that's why we did an eight-year contract opposed to an extra year contract. to allow for that transition. So you're saying to me now that the commercial part is immediately. And so we are asking our businesses to transition to a contract with waste management only effectively immediately? Or is that... Like I said, three years down the road that we're transitioning into that.

Like I indicated earlier, they're working together. If there's an existing, they follow Florida statute. If there's an existing contract that they have with them, with their current vendor, they will go along with it, finish that contract out, and they will move forward. But both of them, it's only two, that's why both of them are working together. Whoever doesn't have a contract, my assumption is they will just give it to them and say, okay, you can move on. But if you have a So many years contract. It's left in your contract. After three years, they will continue to service them. But that's why both of them are working. They can only work together doing that. And that's how the process works. However, if both decide on something else between each other, then that will be what they do.

I'm getting several calls and emails from commercial businesses even saying that waste management is proposing to increase what they're currently paying by double. So like if a business owner was paying $500 for however many frequency, that same frequency for that same cubic yard dumpster is causing them over twice the amount. So if they were paying $500, it's being proposed for them to pay like $1,100. Go ahead. You didn't want me to finish? I said you didn't want me to finish what I was saying?

I thought you were your example or your citation or your what you got a call on, you wanted to respond to. That's not what the rate, that's not what we evaluated in the sample we gave you. However, if there's one person that had that, that called you or multiple, whatever, just provide the information. We'll give it to the vendor and they will analyze it. I've been aware of one that didn't even read the sample. the proposal right, didn't even read the table right to know which is the value. So we know that some of them don't understand it. So when they sit with them, the issue goes away because now, oh, okay, this is the cubic yard, this is the size, oh, we did not realize it. It has the chart. If you go on the website, you see a chart that shows the size and the frequency. And the sizes, if you think you were using, some people didn't understand how many cubic yards to use. And I could see how that happens. What's a two cubic yard, five cubic yard, or whatever else, and the frequency. It may be different at any vendor. When they don't and explain to them, they tend to get it and find that out. But if there is a challenge, just bring it up. We have not seen here, at least I'm not aware of, a commercial vendor that has only had one, and that one was resolved the same day because he finally understood. It's what I understood. But if you have any, bring it up, and the vendor will sit with them, and they will go over it.

Well, this is why I had put on record my objection to us putting the cart before the horse. We never did an assessment as far as the business impact with putting out an RFP that included commercial availability into this existing contract. There was no meeting with existing business owners to quarrel them about what it was that you were going to be opposing to the commission. So it's not something that the commission indicated to you that they had desired to combine the contract with commercial. In fact, when you brought the idea when we were considering the second RFP, I went on record saying that I didn't think that that was a good idea prior to soliciting the input of our business owners that would be impacted by going from two potential options to be able to competitively negotiate their own contract as an independent business to now being dictated to only having one exclusive vendor for services. So they're unable to negotiate the terms of who it is that they would like to select from an economic cost standpoint to now being mandated to, um, an exclusive vendor. Um, I think that that's not, uh, the best process to be using to not, um, get the buy-in and the business, uh, input on this. Um, and I think that it, like I said, I think that this was a rush job to, um, wait until the last minute to present um the waste management option to the commission to kind of rush on to decide um so yeah i think that is a travesty and i think that we need to revisit that because there has been a multitude of business owners that have reached out to me and i'm sure um They have also reached out to my colleagues. So this is not just a one-off issue from one business. There are several businesses. And I'm just wondering, did we do our due diligence, which I know that we haven't, but have we done our due diligence to ensure that this is not going to create a hardship for our businesses?

ANYTHING ELSE? SO THERE IS A MOTION TO FLOOR AND A SECOND. CAN YOU GIVE THE ROLL, PLEASE?

COMMISSIONER EVIART?

YES.

COMMISSIONER BRENNAN-SMITH? YES. VICE MAYOR JOYCE-SMITH?

YES.

COMMISSIONER TUSHTON? NO. MAYOR BRENSON?

YES.

MOTION PASSED.

ITEM NUMBER 3.

A resolution of the city of West Park, Florida, electing to utilize the uniform method of collecting non-advalorum assessments pursuant to section 197.3632, Florida's truth for the collection of nuisance abatement services assessments, adopting findings back, approving the rate of assessment for each affected, approving the assessment rule, providing for adoption of representations, providing for an effectiveness.

Commission. What's your pleasure?

Madam Mayor, yes, motion to approve.

Second. Thank you. Well.

Commissioner turn. No. Commissioner Brandon Smith, yes, right Smith. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Motion passes.

At this time, we need to adjourn this meeting and close out the regular commission meeting and open up Twin Lakes meeting. So I'll entertain a motion to adjourn this meeting and a second. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Now that's how you properly adjourn the meeting. Again, a motion in the second.

We will go ahead and start the next meeting, which is the Twin Lakes meeting. So, Mr. Clerk, do you need to call roll or do anything over again, please?

Yes. So the mayor does know how to follow the rules sometimes.

Commissioner Brandon Smith? Here. Vice Mayor Joy Smith?

Here.

Commissioner Touchstone? Here. Mission every year here we have one. Can you read I remember a resolution of the governing for its next water control district relating to the provision of water control and drink services. facilities and program within a city of West Park Establishing and approving the rate of assessment for Twin Lakes water control district to be imposed during fiscal year 2026 2027 beginning October 1st 2026 through September 30th 2027 providing for an adoption of representation providing an effective date Commission what's your pleasure?

Yes motion to approve

It's a motion by Commissioner Smith. Is there a second? Second. I believe it was Evelard that was second. Any other questions?

It was Vice Mayor that second.

Roll call.

Vice Mayor Joy Smith.

We'll just say that at the same time.

Commissioner Eviard.

Yes.

Commissioner Touchstone.

Yes.

Commissioner Brenton-Smith. Yes. Mayor Brinson.

Yes.

Motion passes.

At the time, we'll adjourn the Twin Lakes meeting.