Second, 1.30, meeting to order, and this is our budget, development, revenues, fee schedule, and adoption of policies. Do I hear a motion? So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda. So, Tommy, this is not on the agenda. Do we need to add this or no? It was this morning, so we didn't get to it. Oh, oh. That's part of this morning's meeting. We'll just continue. Yeah. Okay. All right. Any discussion to the agenda? Any public discussion? Back to the board. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. 3-0 with Commissioner Prizzi and Alfred Alderoux. Okay. It's Crosby. You are recognized. Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Tommy Crosby, Assistant County Manager. The first thing we didn't get to touch this morning was the downtown building inventory. There are no decision points on this. This is a handout so that the board can become aware of our assets downtown and what our needs are downtown so that as we get into that phase of our capital plan in fiscal year 29 or 30, the board can then kind of give us direction on what you want to do. So the first page, if you want to address our inventory, it's currently what we own downtown. So you can see all the blue buildings, court complex under construction. The yellow building is the chamber building we talked about last month. And then the green building is an empire lease. And then all of the red buildings are buildings that we own. The next page. It's just getting us level set for the future discussion. Okay. The next page is the away from downtown. It's the former facilities and former fire rescue headquarter building. And the supervisor of elections storage that currently exists. So those first two pages are really just a picture of the area and what we own, what we lease in the future courthouse that we're building. The square footage is on the next page. Courthouse complex will be the largest 110,000 square feet. You can see we have a total of 457,000 square feet in the downtown area currently. That courthouse complex is both courthouses. No, the old civil is below it. No, it's just the first. It's just the criminal, not the new civil. Correct. So that will double. This is department staffing. This is the number of employees, downtown, proper appraisers. You see growth management, IT, tax collector, fiscal, human resources, OMB, attorney's office, code enforcement. So we have 326 total staff that currently are planning to be relocated in the existing civil courthouse. If the board decides to do something else, just be aware that's the number of current staff that we have we will need space for. We broke it down. Public facing departments. There are six of those, property appraiser, tax collector, county manager's office, commission offices, growth management, including the MTPO. We have some limited public access. Code enforcement has some walk-in traffic, not a lot. EO procurement and communications. Those are much less traveled. And then we have a series of internal resource departments that have virtually no downtown traffic or foot traffic. So this is a document for you to have as we walk through phase two of the CIP, as Travis comes back through on the facilities plans. Again, probably want to have this conversation I would recommend in the summer of 28. If you want to have it earlier, you can. We won't be able to start any type of design or any planning unless it's an actual, you know, you want an actual new building, like demolish this one and rebuild this and do something different with the civil. If those probably need to be had early 28 to give us time to work that necessary direction and plan for architects, engineers, like scoping it, all that kind of stuff, because we're not going to do anything until 30, because we're not going to the courthouse until 30. That's just not going to happen. So that's kind of where we're at. And Travis just wanted you to have this, because the board had asked, to kind of get a summary of where we stand currently. Yeah, no, I think it's a great. I'll have you have the discussions. Yeah, great background and backdrop to some future kind of redevelopment discussions. Commissioner Prithee? Do we, I know that we have a current motion on the floor, or I mean, like a current standing direction to bring back sort of like where we stand with what was done previously and all of that. And I think we tried to defer that to the September meeting with the city of Gainesville, correct? We want to meet prior to the September meeting with the city of Gainesville. Right. So I'm just thinking like the previous downtown plan. Right. The previous downtown plan and the evictus reports on our buildings. And like, I think we want to like get the refresher course on the things that have already kind of been done and discussed. And then, I mean, because my, you know, my dare to dream scenario is that we look at all of what we own downtown and then we begin to think about how we could have a collaboration with either a master developer or several developers that are interested in redeveloping. Great hasn't slipped a word about this all summer, except to whisper. One, we need to know what we've already done and the information we have at our disposal. So we don't have to redo all that. And two, we need to bring the community into the conversation, the downtown advisory board, the local businesses that are here and the community more at large in terms of like, what are the facilities and the needs and the, and what is the city then also doing with CRA? The opportunity, yeah, I don't think we ever had that public discussion. Yeah. And then that would lead us, I think, to doing some kind of an ITN or, or some kind of like outreach to, you know, the private sector to say what's possible with these properties. And that could include the civil courthouse and us being in it, or it could not. It could be that we do that project and we have the remaining pieces available. Okay. So I guess, what do you need from us? What do you need us to, what are you looking for from staff to supply? Yeah. So, you know, this whole discussion is critical to have really an update from the city as to what they've done. I was only looking for a kind of a summary reset of what information have we gathered to date, independent of talking to the city, so that when we had that first joint meeting, we would be able to present kind of, here's our footprint. They could present, here's our plans and what we're thinking about, and then kind of open it up for discussion. So, yeah, just those old reports for me, I know that because we went kind of what started down this path a little bit, and then we sort of like hit pause because we were like, oh, well, we're going to do this do-si-do plan, and then it's going to free things up. So I think just refreshing us on where we were in terms of what we've already done and accomplished in terms of reviewing the buildings we have, the conditions they're in, you know, really basic. Really an expansion of this. Yeah. This is the first. Okay. All right. We will bring that back then over the summer, it sounds like. Yeah, and it can be during a regular meeting. Yeah, I would say during a regular meeting or then the August meeting or, yeah. Okay. We can do that. All right. So the next topic is the fee study. So you have a fee study recap for school year 27 in your backup. Yeah. It looked like this is a summary of page 39. Summary of changes. This is fees right now. We're on. I would entertain any questions. I don't really see the value going through every one. Let me audibly say what they are. Yes, ma'am. Yeah, I have a few comments, questions. One, for fees, I want to say thank you to parks for hourly and half-day fees. I really appreciate you all taking the time to analyze that, hear our feedback, and the community's feedback on that. So thank you very much. In animal resources, I guess I was just interested why the rates went up so much for veterinary services. It looks like we've increased physical exams from $20 to $113, as well as fecal FIV tests. Oh, that one didn't go up so much. But fecal flotation went up $113, canine virus testing $113. That's basically the current cost of what it's costing us to do the services. So when we went out and did the fee study, it hadn't been done since 2017, 2016, 2017. So it was bringing it up with the fact that our costs have gone up and plus the staff costs have gone up. Okay. I think that one of the things that we've talked about again and again in terms of animal resources, and I know, again, everything's sort of clouded by this whole property tax discussion and that we may have to have fees for service for everything that we do. But precluding that conversation, I think we had talked a lot about wanting to be able to offer low-cost veterinary services so that people in our community that don't have access. And I know we have St. Francis Vet Clinic in town that does some of that, so maybe it's a partnership with them rather than us providing that service. But I do think we had talked about, especially for sterilization and exams, like being able to still have affordable, accessible rates. So I would just love maybe that to come back to us at a later date. You know, we can pass this now just to understand what we're doing to try to have accessible opportunities for vet care. Okay. Before you get off of that topic, Commissioner Prizia, at one of our last meetings about animal services, there was a big conversation about intact pets and releasing them, et cetera. And if there's any change that the board wants to consider in regards to that cost or anything, this is the time that we can – this would be a part of it. Oh, the microchipping? No, and the being intact, giving them back into that versus – Oh, right. And sterilize them. Yes. So it is – owner surrender is $200. Sterilization is $113. But if – I guess this is the time if there's some type of fee that we want to see attached to that, this is the time we should probably talk about it. Or either – I just want it to be a policy that if they don't pay the breeder's fee, then the dog is not released intact. Okay. Like, either they pay the breeder's fee or the – right, because they're keeping a dog intact to breed it, or the dog is fixed before it's returned to its owner. Okay. Or cat. Can we do that? Okay. We can add that to the fee schedule if – whatever the board decides. But if that's a – Yeah, I can add that as part of my motion. Okay. Okay. That'll be fine. I just didn't want to let this go by without that conversation. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay. And then for META, we – I know it's page 14. Upon entering the working phase of the program, we're charging them 30% of their net income for housing. I understand that's because 30% of your net income is kind of what the maximum you're supposed to be spending on housing. I guess I have a concern about that because I feel like these people have been in recovery for some time. They're just getting out of recovery. When they get out of our program, they're going to need to have deposits and first and last months of rent and lots of things to be able to support themselves. So I didn't know if we put that in an account that they then get back when they leave or if this is something where we're just trying to cover our costs of housing or why we have that transition. I'm on page 14 under metamorphosis. So on the summary, it's under page 3. Oh, yeah. Sorry. On the summary, it's on page 3. And we have – they retitled it to say – to make it part of the transitional housing program to add that. And this is that second phase of the program. Right. So it's not while they're – when they first come in, they go through the program. Then when they graduate from that and they get the job, then they pay a fee to continue as that part – like part B of the program. Okay. Just to – and it's sort of in a way to sort of get them ready for – Yes. I guess I – my only concern is just that they're still in transitional housing because they probably can't afford real housing and or like – so I just – again, I'm not – I'm fine to pass this right now, but I do just want staff to hear me and hopefully the board too that like I would love for us to be making sure that this isn't like prohibitive of those people then accessing – No, and Claudia has told me in the past that we've talked about that for the program because we did talk about whether or not we set aside money and put it in bank accounts for them and then that was us kind of a little bit overreaching for them because they do need to learn that skill and develop it. But it is something that the case managers do monitor. I know that. Okay. Claudia just said that they keep the rest of their income towards getting housing. They eat their meals at Meta and we cover all the housing costs. We're getting ready – getting them ready for independent housing. Okay, great. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. And it's of their income. Most of them are part-time workers. Right, exactly. It's not a lot of money. Right. Yeah. Okay. On page 15 of the actual fees, cost of supervision, I just – I wanted to encourage us to have the rate of community service be valued at the county's minimum wage rather than the state's minimum wage. I'm on page 15. It's a cost of supervision under court services. It's page 15 of the actual fee schedule for the – I think I'll have to double-check that. I don't know whether that's by statute, too, because it's a court – kind of like a court fee, not necessarily our fee. So, I'll double-check that one. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So, if it's allowable, then we'll put it at our rate. At our rate, if folks are okay with that. I'll just add that our rate, if possible. Did you find it? Yep. Okay. $30. Right now, it's $50 a month. It's $50 a month under probation. Just a second. But then we have – you can get community service hours that apply towards that, and I just wanted to encourage us to use the county's minimum wage standards rather than the state's minimum wage standards to value their hours at work. Right, so that to go up to county's minimum, if possible. Oh, yeah. Which would be $18, I think. Yeah. $18, $15. And then electronic monitoring. Do we know – is that our cost? Do we know if that's like a direct pass-through? Is that our cost? It's our cost. It's not our full cost. Yeah, it's less than our cost. It's less than our cost. Yeah. We're not recovering. Okay. Under environmental programs, we have the irrigation. I just wanted, again, to encourage us under – it's on page 17 of the actual fees. The after-the-fact fee is the same as the non-residential fees, and I guess I wanted to encourage us to potentially follow a growth management standard and have after-the-fact fees be like one-and-a-half times the original fee, so that we're encouraging people not to just come in and do the after-the-fact fee. Well, the residential fee is $100. After-the-fact is $200. Oh, okay. Wait. Oh, I read this wrong. I was reading the $200 and then $200. That's non-residential. That's commercial. It's the after-the-fact for either. I guess that's what I was saying is, like, I would just like it to be one-and-a-half times the original fee. That way, whatever we put it at, it just basically – that's what growth management does. Growth management does double. For building fees. For fees. When you – if you do something and you build it and you didn't get your permit and you get caught, you basically pay twice. That's what it is. So it's double for residential. The residential fee is $100 and after-the-fact is $200. $200, but not for – but I guess that would be the – after-the-fact would be for everything, for commercial as well. So commercial would be $400. So if we instead just – rather than having a number, we just change it to one-and-a-half times or two times. Two times. Two times the total. Okay. Okay. Okay. The construction permits – this may not be popular and it may not be something we can even do right now, but I notice the way that our construction permits are set up, they're kind of regressive because we charge $4.50 per thousand dollars of value for the zero to 1,000 square feet and then we charge $2.50 per thousand dollars of value once they have more than that. And I was wondering if maybe not in this round, but for future we could explore the idea of having like a minimum cost standard that covers basic costs and then have the $2.50 per thousand dollars of value be across the board. You know, like a fixed cost for the cost of our administration of the program and then $200 per permit plus $2.50 for every thousand dollars. I don't know. It just feels like we're charging people who have smaller projects more per project than we are for the larger projects, which seems counterintuitive to me. I think that to cover the upfront cost is the cost. It has to be exactly the cost to cover it. You can't charge more or less. And once you start getting bigger, the cost does go down because you've already paid. I see. I believe they're doing another study right now because there's been some statute changes in fees recently and growth management's updating again right this minute. So those may change. Okay. Okay. And then administration. We just have this weird fee for mobile farmers markets. I wonder why. I'm trying to find it. If it's on, hold on. It's not a, I don't think it's a new fee. It wasn't a change. I just have never seen it before. It's under administrative. It's mobile farmers markets, $50. I just didn't know why we charged it, what it was for. I'm not sure. I'm not sure about that one. I couldn't think. Okay. It's on page 39 under administrative permit fees. I guess it's under growth management, but administrative permit fees. We have a mobile farmers market, $65. Oh, it's under growth management. So that's the cost of zoning permits. All of our zoning permits, I think, are around that same, that have to go through the zoning administrator. So a mobile farmers market that's driving around has to. I don't know what they're getting. Oh, yeah. It says administrative permit. I just would love to know what that's for. Okay. I think that's it under the fees. Okay. Thank you. With that, I can make a motion that we adopt our fees with the change to the irrigation after the fact to two times the original cost, that we look at increasing our value of community service to county minimum wage, and that we ensure that if an animal is released to the owner, that it's either sterilized or that they've paid their breeder's permit. Second. I have a motion to second. I could approve the fee schedule with those changes. Any discussion? Any public discussion? Back to the board. All of those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion to commence. Okay. Mr. Chair. Oh, the other one. I'm sorry. Is it a mobile food sales application permit? Yeah. For the market. It looks like a... It's like a permit truck or anything like that. It's the same as everyone else's permit fee, though, right? Right. I guess I'm just interested to know what it's for. Like, the health department inspects them and regulates them, and I guess I'm just interested to understand what it's for, you know? So, those fees I'm checking to make sure, but for the mobile farmer or for mobile foods aren't for somebody who just drives up and parks in the street and sells to the people on the construction site and keeps going, they're parking somewhere, so they're checking to make sure they have ingress and egress, so that it's safe, and that they're going to be... Okay. So, it's an actual inspection of the location. Of the location itself. Okay. Not the truck. That's what I wanted. Okay. And it's in the code. Great. Thank you. Now I know what it's for. All right. I just get that question. I've gotten that question a couple times, and I'm like, I don't know. So, when I saw it here, I was like, I'm going to ask. Yeah. Just ask them where are they parking, and then you can tell. All right, Tommy. Okay. The packet, I'm going to go through that. That's basically a historical trend of what's been happening. Yep. It's actually what it is. What it is is there's a policy decision to be made. If you have questions, you're more than welcome to reach out. Let's figure it through. It's what has transpired. And our biggest challenge, and the reason why I don't really see the value in going through it very deeply, is of what's going on in Tallahassee right now. So, we're going to be, you know, we got a tweet last night, you know, about us again. So, there are people in Tallahassee that don't understand budgets and don't understand how they operate and don't understand governmental accounting, and they may draw conclusions and say things that may or may not be accurate. So, we spend a lot of time chasing that rabbit, unfortunately. Unfortunately, after the session is over, we will come back on the 9th to talk about revenues. I will tell you that I've already had a lot of conversations with the clerk's office as well as the manager about our accounting of things and about how we budget things and the transfers and the interfund transfers and our subfunds with emergency management. So, the main drivers that we've had in the general fund have been EMS. You know, that we went to Kelly Days. We've done a lot in EMS and expansion of transport services. And so, that fee schedule that you saw today, you know, we've went to 200%, right, 200% of Medicare. I think that Commissioner Prizzi made a pretty astute observation that depending on what happens, we may be charging a lot more fees to the maximum that we're allowed to charge fees, right? So, we don't know what's coming, but I will tell you that we are preparing to take on what's coming, whatever that approach is. Are you building this year's current budget under the rollback rate? We are. Have you had that? We are no longer doing that. And the reason, let me take that back. That decision will be probably made after we know where the legislature completes, and we will obviously seek direction of the board. Originally, we were building our budget on a rollback rate. We actually, everything in there now is based on a rollback rate. However, there's probably not a, I would not recommend that in this environment, not knowing what you will have to do next year or the year after that. We will probably, we are currently planning on a slight reduction again of the millage, and then the difference being set aside into programs that are easily identifiable, that the board could say, we want to lower it more. However, that means, this is what that means to you. So we're not going to, I don't think we're going, right now the plan is not to bring you a rollback rate at the millage rate setting date, if you will. That rate will probably either be currently what it is now or a slight decrease again for you to set millage rates in July. And then we can have that discussion over the summer about what going to rollback rate looks like in terms of reductions and in light of what we're anticipating from what comes out of this session. Because even if the entire two, the whole package doesn't, and there's a lot of amendments going around right now, as you all are aware, even if something less comes out, I think there's still going to be, we still saw the legislation included, you can only spend it on X, Y, and Z, which didn't include constitutional officers, it didn't include administering the county, et cetera. So we just have to wait to see what comes out in the wash. We'll report back June 9th of what we see as a potential impact. But beyond that, what you see July 7th will probably, right now, the manager I've been talking about will look very similar to a millage that we have now, maybe slightly decreased. But with the budget prepared in a way where the board can easily identify what we're looking at in terms of what cuts would be necessary to do certain things. Because if we go to a rollback rate and then they pass this additional homestead exemption in November, then we're looking at all the low-hanging fruit has been gotten. And now we're, then we are talking about deep cuts, unless we start then increasing millage again substantially. So that would be the concern. We have not ruled out everything from, we do still have an incorporated MSTUs for the unincorporated area. We still have them for fire. So I'll happily share my strategy will be everybody now that currently gets money from the other funds that get money from the general fund are going to start letting the general fund keep that money. So PSTs, so CSTs that are going places, PSTs, sales tax, all of those kind of things. When you mentioned earlier repayment of bonds, I mean that's something probably we will need to look at our ability to do some of that with fund balance to allow that sales tax money to free up to come to the general fund to support it more. So in that case, you may be very well correct in what is our best solution on building up as much revenue, non-ad valorem revenue in the general fund that we can. All those are going to be on the table. It's just premature to have that discussion until we know what's going to be on the ballot, I think. And we haven't worked through all those issues with the manager. The accounting side of it, again, we keep ambulance transport as a sub-fund of the general fund. A long time ago it was just in the general fund. Before that it was in a special revenue fund. So Todd and I are talking about the value of putting it back in a special revenue fund. And it strictly transfers in and out that are showing our budget to look like it's growing a lot faster than it is. And they keep harping on that. And so a lot of these dollars, the revenue recovery funds should be pretty much spent because broadband is about done. That should be pretty much done. The 08 fund, again, unincorporated, how we account for that could be a special revenue fund like it used to be instead of the general fund. So we may look at opening up some of these funds again just from an accounting perspective for people that are not willing to dive into our actual expenditures. We looked at our expenditure. Todd actually sent me our general fund, county-wide AFR expenditures from fiscal year 20 to 24. We're not done with 25. So over that five-year window, a 36% growth. That's what you're looking at. So 7% a year growth, 8% a year growth. So hardly the growth that you're hearing about. But it's hard. That can't be done. That response can't be given in a tweet. You have to look into it. So that's where we're at. From a reporting out standpoint, I hope you're comfortable with that. Yeah, I remember you had talked about building the budget on the rollback rate, and I just didn't know how your thinking had changed based on what's happened. So we still have it built on that, but we have also identified what that means because it will impact services. There are some transfers that we make. We have minimized it. I was sincere in the meeting with constitutionals. All of the constitutionals, as well as our departments, prepared their budget very conservatively. We have no REFTE really asked for the very few. Only the sheriff asked for a few, which were probably past due. There was really no big ask or big request. My biggest concern is probably the CIP that we just went through, the facility preservation stuff, and not getting farther behind and things like the jail. And that's typically where you look at deferred maintenance, and we know what that means long term. It's really not a good plan. So we're trying to hold that together right now. So right now I believe the plan. The manager's not in here. I believe I know we're on the same page. Right now the plan has probably come with a level or slightly decreased general fund millage and the same MST millage for now. And then y'all can make decisions over the summer after we know what the state has done and what they're going to do. Okay. This is not on that, but it is on this stuff. Okay. But I realize that before we get off of that, I mean, I think it's a prudent decision not to sort of put all our eggs in the rollback rate basket right now and to see where we can sort of shift fees and shift other taxing fund subsidies out of general fund into those funds themselves. But, yeah, this is going to be an interesting kind of all-hands-on-desk situation. Good thing we decided it is zero-based budgeting. Yeah. Pick the right year, I guess. On the fees, I guess I didn't – I don't know if my motion included the Sports and Events Center fees, but I did not intend it to. I did have some changes for that, too. The Sports and Events Center – there's an appendix that got added that has a bunch of authority delegated. Yes. Under E2 – I mean, I'm sorry, under E, I guess, 3 or E.III. I guess all three of those, actually. I feel okay with giving the county manager the ability to provide some discounted rates and help with Jessica and Steve and this new sales manager negotiating rates, but I feel like if we're going to give multi-year discounts, that needs to come to the board because we don't always have – we don't make multi-year budgets, so being able to give multi-year discounts when we don't know what our budget is going to be feels a little hard to do, especially – I don't – you know, I have no sense of how big those would be because they're all without – it doesn't say cannot exceed. They cannot exceed as blank. So I don't have a sense of, like, you know, is that the world masters that we're giving a discount to for, you know – I think it's more of a multi-year track season or a multi-year – Right. – some event that says we want to come back – You want to come back every year, yeah. So I guess I just – you know, I just noticed that it was blank, so I wanted to point out that I didn't want to pass the fees with a blank there. And I also wanted to have some – What should we put in there, Tommy? I don't know because I don't know what the basis of the authority you were looking – seeking for the multi-year fees. So on the other – in regard to the other parts of that, though, we would request – when we worked with Jessica's team on development of the plan, it's not just discounts. It's also times of demand where we could actually increase fees, you know, because there's a high demand week or whatever the case may be, weekend. We don't want to get locked into a low-income event and then another one pop open that says, wait a minute, you know, I'm bringing a lot more people in here. I'm willing to pay a lot more for this weekend, you know, and we've locked in because of a fee schedule. So we are asking for some latitude to operate it more like that business model we talked about earlier to have – and it becomes very cumbersome and the timing gets off the more we have to come back to the board because typically you understand the explanations and we get there. It's just the process of getting there just starts taking the tools out of their toolbox. So that's all we're asking for is really to get this latitude. And I – again, I'm totally fine with that. I just think there comes a time at which we're doing big discounts and multi-year deals or big increases and multi-year deals. I think it does bode having a conversation about it. Fair enough. And then the only other thing was like the – recognizing the value of created events and its importance. The board hereby authorizes the county manager to create county-owned events with admission rates and registration fees. That, again, it's like in concept it doesn't bother me that much, but it does – I mean, those are events that are going to represent the board of county commissioners. And I guess I would just hope that at the minimum we would get some kind of advanced notice that those events are going to be planned, like that, you know, the list of those events and their plans and their fees would at least come before the board on a quarterly basis before they've been held. So if we have questions or concerns, we could raise them ahead of time. We can do that. We can add that for sure. And the primary – Under the board oversight, we do have that ability to pull it off. Right. I know. I just – you know, it's like if she's doing – if they're, like, doing a bunch of events and then, like, the event happens and then we get a bunch of community outcry about the event, like, I'd rather us just catch it in advance and be able to have a conversation with Michelle about it or whoever the county manager is, you know, like, just to say, hey. Like, there's some concern about that event because X, Y, and Z, like, we all have our fingers on the pulses of different parts of the community that may have some kind of issue. Like, I think about that extreme bull riding event that was going to be at the equestrian center. Like, there's just – there's just times when people have issues with things and it may or may not be for a legitimate reason, but getting ahead of it rather than reactionary about it would be good. Can I say one thing, too? And I agree with that. The main county-owned events that we did last year was track season. So when Stephen said we, for the first time, produced and managed those six events, those would be the primary ones that we have already internally decided. We're not putting any new events that we're managing on our plate until we get through World Masters next March. Some of the things we've talked about are doing more along the line of, like, home shows. We have a home show operator who comes in, and he generates a ton of businesses. But we're thinking about those kinds of events. But I'm happy, you know. Like, an example would be – Maybe we could carve out track season as, like, track season is going to happen. Some of those will be county-owned, but then a non-track season event we bring back to you. Yeah, that would be fine. Would that work? That's fine. Okay. I just think it's more like – like, for example, we decide we're going to have a county-run craft fair. Then that becomes a direct competition with GLAM and with the other community-led craft fairs and festivals that are happening in our community. And so thinking about that sort of thing, it doesn't make sense for us to do that. You know what I mean? And the Oklahoma Southern one already – So just think about those sorts of things that may rub up against some of our locally-owned businesses or community partners that I want to make sure we think about before we do it. That makes sense. Yes. Thank you. So we'll carve out track, but any non-track event we would bring back to you all? Yeah. Okay. Do you have a number? Do you have an amount? Yeah. I'm burned out. Well, that's true. Yeah, I mean, we have no idea what a regular discount would be or, like, what that even looks like. And every event is probably pretty different. Can we do it as a percentage of the rental? Something like a 25% before it comes back? Yeah. Okay. Let's do that. Okay. How much? 25% of the regular. Total. Right? Yeah. And then if it needs to be more than that, it can come back. And then you want to just change the three years to two years, not to exceed two years? Do you have many multi-year back when it comes after three? Lock us down for the next three years? We have some who would like to. I know we have one that's actually working with us now. He wants multi-year. I think doing two years is satisfactory because we don't even know what may happen in three years. Well, I'm not saying we can't do it. I'm just saying if we're going to lock in big discounts with someone for multiple years, actually just at least putting our eyes on it when we know budgets are so tight these days, you know, like, say, like, yeah, that's worth it. It's going to bring in X amount of revenue. It's going to bring in X amount of economic impact. So we have a justification for doing it. Okay. Interesting. So do you want me to amend that? I mean, we've already... Yeah, please. And adding, I guess we would add that too then to the... So you okay? Secondary, okay? Yes. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All right. Next time. All right. The policies are next up. I'm going to let... You want to walk through the policies? Yep. I'll do it. I'm going to let Mo walk through the policies. I think there's a summary. I love it. I did a summary so that you didn't have to read them all. The first one is the budget management. We were looking to just re-clarify for our own staff the language in the amendments and adjustments. Sometimes there becomes some confusion in the fiscal staff as to what the threshold was and what was happening both on fund function and accounting. So that was the first rewritten version. And this does not change our practice. Right. This is currently what we do. Right. Okay. The second was the budgeted reserve for contingency. It's an accounting component. Contingency sits in the 9930 account. We have other reserves that a department may have identified a project for but hasn't fully developed the project. So we sit it in so that it's not sitting in their operating account so they can't spend it until they identify it and use it for the intended purpose. So this was just to identify for us the 9930 account for reserves. Okay. Page 11 under risk. We went to a new actuary this year. And we normally had a 75% threshold in this, in the policy. And they are recommending that we change it to 70%, which is what the actuary is actually calculating our numbers on. Oh, okay. That makes sense. That's so I understand what that is. Yeah, I was just wondering about that. I made a little note on that. Yeah, that's right. The capital budget and financial plan update. It was requested from our staff that we add the word acquisition. Since we do original construction and major renovations, we have been acquiring properties. So we wanted to make it clear related to art and public places that it was included in the intent, put that into anything that we acquire. We're on page 273 of this booklet, if you wanted to know. Also, in the capital budget plan, we have the pay-as-you-go, pay-as-you-use financing. We did add just a new section that the clerk is responsible and has delegated the responsibility for staff to manage equipment. And we're just reemphasizing to the staff that they are going to be held accountable for the equipment that is issued to them. This is the annual requirement for keeping our tangible personal property? Yep. More attractive items, making sure that there's been a little confusion on who's responsible for ultimately knowing where that is, because the clerk is responsible for doing the inventory, but the departments are responsible for their stuff. So that's just clarifying. So I've got a computer. The responsibility on the department. Yeah, I'm responsible for this computer, not the clerk's office. So if the computer goes missing, what happens? They come to me and ask me why. Either I've done a police report or I said I dropped it off the top of my car. Or come clean. For debt management, we had no changes. Energy conservation, no changes. Ethics, no changes. Under financial management, that policy we have existing in the policy is the E911 equipment replacement reserve. And since we have acquired both the Budget Inn, Scottish Inn, and the Sports Event Center, we wanted to start to dedicate funding into a special revenue fund for those long-term items, such as when the parking lot needs to be replaced or the roof, so that we are not taking care of the things that we own. This is just E911. This is just the 911. This was E911, so we added it here for the housing apartments and the Sports Event Center. What about the radio system? The radio system, that's a good question. So the chief, a few years back, when we took it over, actually the sheriff has been managing it, and I think that's been a pretty good relationship, according to the chief. He's really, they already do their whole radio system and everything, so I think it's been done very well. Something we're looking at in this budget is, you know, do we want to just end up contracting some longer-term deal? Now, from an upgrade standpoint, I know they were talking to Chief Theus, and now they're talking to Chief Taylor about the cost of an upgrade, and I don't have those numbers up front of me, so I don't want to give you the wrong number, but it is a larger number to upgrade all the systems that they want to upgrade. I know that he was trying to get off of two of the towers. He was trying to get off of the radio system tower onto a less costly tower and off of the GRU space as well, so I know that's something that the chief had goals towards, so I'll have Chief Taylor get caught up on exactly where they want to go with that. Health insurance management policy, no changes. The citizen-initiated road program, no changes. And then Donna had updated the performance management policy, now with the new strategic goals that you have. So she is here. Do you have additional questions on that? I just wanted to say thank you. I was excited to see that updated and see all the opportunities for us to sort of drive, you know, standards and incorporating performance management standards, not just into departmental, but into procurement contracts and reporting. I think that's going to be really powerful. I did wonder about the Government Finance Officers Association best practices. It says they meet those quality standards. I don't really know what those quality standards are, so I guess that was my only, like, big question mark that I had had. And Donna and I talked about it really briefly last night at the McEnopey meeting, but for the edification of everybody, I was just making sure that those were the quality standards we wanted to use because they're financial standards for performance versus other standards around program needs or specific values that are associated with those programs. Sure. My name is Donna Bradbrook. I work with Budget and Fiscal Services. Mr. Chair, to answer the question, the Government Finance Officers Association provides what are considered minimum standards for performance measures in relation to communication of the adopted budget. So how are we using the budgeted dollars for service and program delivery? At a minimum standard, it's like you have to consider the audience who might be looking at the measure. Your measure should be set based on smart standards, you know, specific, measurable, attainable, time-bound, realistic, and then the one thing that kind of really stands out with the GFOA minimum standard is that they want you to report three years of actuals and at least one year of projected targets so that you can start to show trend lines within your performance reporting. Those are considered minimum standards. ICMA has very similar minimum standards, which is, ICMA is the International City County Management Association, and when you look at them, they are just that minimum standard. So we can always do more. So the dashboards that were presented at the May 5th meeting is certainly much more robust than what the minimum standards are, but we wanted to make sure that the minimum standards were at least identified as part of the performance management policy. Awesome. Thank you. And this is excellent work. I'm very excited about the dashboard and about all the sort of ways in which we can help tell the community all the amazing work that our teams are doing. Thank you, Donna. So just as a follow-up to that, I think the reflection of it being GFOA standards, much like the budget, the standards aren't driving your performance measures or what you're deciding to perform on. Right. It's just the caveat of how we go about it and how we're reporting it out, just like you do your budget. So the budget's not, policy's driving the budget, not vice versa. Good. And then the last is the public purpose policy, no change. Okay. All right. So we need a motion to approve the policy changes. Please. Move approval of policy changes. Second. Motion and second. Any discussion? Good work, Sav. Any public discussion? Back to the board. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion is unanimous. So just for my clarification, Mr. Chair, that's all I have for today, but just for my clarification, the conversation about how we're looking to prepare the budget, I seem to get the consensus that we're okay with that direction that we're working right now. I just want to make sure I did something. Yeah. The reason I asked was I thought it was probably important based on the fact that there's going to be some things on the ballot that we do the rollback. Since we have, as a board, lowered the millage rate every year, really, since I've been on the board and some years all the way back to the rollback. I think I understand the need to prepare for the future, but at the same time, I think the need to communicate to the public, that intent is really important, and they're going to be deciding on whether or not they actually want local government. I mean, that's how I kind of feel. This is where the state is going to be putting something on the ballot that's going to be asking the citizens, do you value the services that local government provides? This board has always taken, since I've been on it, an approach that we are taking the money from our citizens and as efficiently and effectively as possible, trying to deliver services that are not only statutorily required, but that reflects the values of our local community. What's going to be on the ballot is the values of the local community no longer matter, that the state is going to determine what essential services can be funded by the public. And the public is going to have to decide, you know, do I want to pay for those other services or not? And so I thought it was important that we at least locally try to do the rollback rate during this year for that reason. I understand all the reasons that you said, and I guess I need to think more through that. I have no problem with setting the millage higher and then making that decision ultimately when we have to make it and knowing what the impact would be of that reduction. But I also had remembered you saying, I'm going to prepare the budget under a rollback, and I just didn't know how that would change. I think... We have, but again, I'm not sure that we're prepared to leave it at that for this first phase. However, after whatever's passed or signed or whatever happens, I plan on being at the June 9th meeting to kind of, again, let you know the impact, potential impact. I'm not asking you to vote on what your initial millages will be, because that wouldn't be appropriate. That's a public hearing that we'll do July 14th. But I wouldn't mind hearing feedback about these same thoughts, and as you've had a chance to ponder it, what your thoughts are individually, so that kind of helps me and the manager know what to prepare for. Because even if on millage night we bring back just the same millage or slightly below, and the board of that one says, no, we're going to go ahead and rollback rate, that's your, you know, we'll work that out. So that's your prerogative as the policymakers to decide. So it would be helpful June 9th, it gives you a week to kind of think about that and how you want to articulate that at the regular meeting. And we will listen to you diligently and kind of get an idea of where we need to go with that, the manager's budget rollout. Mark, do you have an update on anything that's happening in Dallas, because has anything passed? I see Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I won't try to analyze it, but both the House and the Senate voted to put this on the November ballot. In the Senate, it was party lines with two Democrats joining the Republicans to vote to put this on the ballot. I don't have the House count in front of me. I emailed both of you a Florida politics article that kind of talks about the details of it. But no big surprises. You know, originally the governor's recommendation had included not exempting the school system. An amendment put that back in, so schools are exempt from the bill. The 5 percent cap on non-homestead properties is in the bill. And there is a list of things that are allowed. And it's 150 and then 250, or it's just the 150? It's the 150 and the 250. Trust fund is the trust fund? With the understanding that the eventual goal is to eliminate property taxes altogether. Oh, homestead. Homestead. Homestead. And I'm trying to think. Is the trust fund in the bill? Well, it's my understanding that the trust fund survived. There was a great deal of debate about that and how it would work. And I don't think those details have been fully fleshed out yet. Okay. And there were – there was very enthusiastic debate on the floor. One amendment was asking that the state follow the same rules that they're giving to local governments, which is they shouldn't be allowed to spend money on a campaign to convince the public one way or the other. That amendment was not successful. Of course not. And you all have the Florida politics article. I've been trying to listen while I'm listening to what's going on in the room here today, so I'm certainly not ready to offer any detailed analysis. That would be – certainly not without talking to Mr. Crosby. June 9th. We'll have that discussion at our board meeting on Monday night. Okay. Mark, thank you. You're welcome. All right. Isn't homeowner's insurance kind of calculated by how close you are to a fire station? You get discounts if you are within a certain – Mm-hmm. Yeah, a certain distance from the – So that trickle down can go even further than what we're looking at locally. Mark, too. Do what now? Update on – Oh, but just so you know, at this point, we're considering I'm no longer involved in either educating or advocating for this. So don't be surprised that you're not seeing anything else on our social media sites. Yeah. Very good. Okay. So now that that's passed, then we can't – we're done. No more county-wide communication. Oh, we can talk about it. No, but I understand. But, you know, even going out into the communities earlier, we haven't been yet. Have we been to all our communities? Maybe we have. Except for Alachua. Alachua. Okay. Tommy, you got anything else? Yes, sir. Thank you for your time. All right. I think we've covered that item. All right. Public comment. Is there anyone from the public? Let's just do the Justice Board. All right. We'll close public comment. All right. Commissioner comment. You got anything, Chuck? Anna, you got anything? Mary Helen? Just very quickly, I went to the farmer's market at Tech City for the second time on Saturday, and it was really exciting to be able to see what's expanding out there and the amount of growth that the sales of these farmers. And Anna, what I was – one of the things that I came away with as I was talking to the different farmers and trying to find out where their farms were located in the county, I was thinking that we could have our team of folks go out at the farmer's market while it's going on and interview some of these farmers that are there, interview some of the people that are there, because from what I understand, it's really growing very quickly. It is. Very similar to the book sales that we have here. You know, so that if we can get a video and actually find out where they take map, you know, where – We're working on that, actually. They're working on that currently. They're working on a map of where our – Bailey McClellan, under the Economic Development Department, she's working on the food systems map that was supposed to be coming out four or five years ago, but revitalized that project and is working on exactly where they are, what their story is, what their hours are, to create sort of a website where people can go and get that information, almost like a little directory. And then also, she's done one video already of one of the farmers, but she's working on others. Okay. Well, I was just thinking of the whole event, you know, interviewing. Totally. Not only – because it's also boosted the businesses of the people at Tech City then who are – I mean, it's a win-win for everybody up there. Absolutely. And, you know, we had one point talked about rotating it through, and they were saying, no, leave it here so everybody can build the community that they are building there. So it's pretty exciting. It is. It's pretty awesome. Do you have anything, Anna? No. So the only thing I have, really, Anna, is the discussion that we started on commissioner support structures. I've been thinking about it a lot. Also, then, you know, I'm going to be talking to my colleagues down at FAC, but I – with everything that has just happened and is happening in Tallahassee this week, I am not going to be able to support an expansion of commissioner supports this year. It's just not something that I'm going to support. If three of you want to do that, certainly I'll go along with you all. I mean, but ultimately, I'm probably a male on that this year. I am. I just wanted to tell you that. I am, too. So, Michelle, welcome. Thank you. Sorry. We're wrapping up. We were going to bring up NACO also, the vote and whether – because – whether we're going to – Oh, yeah. So, historically, when I've gone to NACO, the Florida delegation has consolidated their votes, and so we've given the NACO proxy to the state of – whoever was there was given it to the state of Florida for the FAC, and so that requires the board action, and so I would need a motion that we give our proxy to Florida Association of Counties. So moved. Second. Got a motion. Second. Any discussion? At least don't. Yep. Back to the board. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. That motion passed. Four zero. Commissioner Alproud. So, it's kind of an administrative thing. Everyone kind of does it, but the quicker they can line up having all their proxies, then leadership at Florida can be talking to who the candidates are about we have – you know, these are the votes that we have. It's something good to do. All right. All right. If there is nothing else, then we stand adjourned. All right, all right. All right. Let's see. All right. First,пер