BUDGET WORKSHOP - Jul 21, 2026

Hey, good morning, and welcome to July 21st, 2026 Budget Workshop. I'm going to call the workshop to order. This is kind of a new setup, which feels like it's going to work really well. Everybody comfortable? Everybody ready for a fun, long, brutal day? No, okay. Just before we kind of start, and I'm going to let the manager say a couple opening remarks as well. So, actually, do we do your remarks after the lesson, Gene? Okay, well, I have it the reverse, so. Okay, so, no, I just wanted to say I was talking to the city manager yesterday just to understand our goals for the day, and we have a lot to do, but I think it's all done in a sense of we haven't really, we've seen the budget, we've all reviewed the budget, but we haven't met at all, so it's about learning. It's about listening, get our questions answered. You know, I'm sure we'll have some initial thoughts, but a lot of our decision-making will really happen at the next Budget Workshop. And so, just to kind of set that tone, I'll turn it over to Jennifer. You want to add anything to that, or did I get that right? You did. Okay. Okay, so, just some opening remarks for the day, and thank you for setting the expectation for the day, and I want to elaborate on that a little bit more, if I may, Mayor. First of all, this is the proposed budget. It is a draft budget. It will change before it is adopted. Hopefully not in major ways, but there will be some changes as we go through the workshops and the public hearing process. Right now, this is a balanced budget, and it will be a balanced budget with a 17.8% reserve. So, we're very proud of the budget that we have placed before you. A lot of hard work went into this. Kudos to the finance team and to all the department directors as well. We have reduced operating expenses, and we have moved out some capital projects in order to reach the balanced budget and the level of reserve that we're presenting to you today. And Les is going to elaborate upon a lot of that, as well as we go through the general fund. Today, as the mayor said, is informational. We're not expecting decisions. We're looking for direction, though, maybe, if you have comments or questions on the budget. Again, this is the city manager's budget presented to the city commission, but ultimately, it is your budget to be adopted. And so, we'll respond to any questions or comments that you have. This is the deepest dive that the city commission is going to do into our budget. We're going to look at new initiatives and CIP projects, and we don't have that many to present to you. We're going to look at, and we're going to take your direction on any initiatives you'd like to see or direction on those initiatives. We're going to look at property tax reform and the projected budget shortfall moving forward. So, we're going to touch upon that and the plan for a contingency budget as well. We're going to look at storm-related expenses and reimbursement. You've asked for that throughout the year to understand where we stand with the storm reimbursement. And then, we're going to go into revenue expenditures and projections across all funds, and that's the deepest dive, as I said, that you're going to do throughout this process. And then, the personnel requests for 2027. As you all know, during our gender briefings, we are recommending no new positions, but there are some reclasses. Health benefits fund discussion, because we need to talk about that, and we'll talk about that at the second workshop as well. And then, the city commission direction and discussion at the very end of the meeting. So, we are scheduled to go until 4 o'clock, and we may just do that, because there is obviously a lot to cover. This is a very challenging year for all of us in local government, as you very well know. And so, we do have a quick turnaround. I'm trying to get to the next series of budget meetings. We have a quick turnaround, as you know, to August 4th for the second budget meeting, budget workshop. At that budget workshop, August 4th, and I'm just trying to frame this for where this ship is going, we'll look for final direction on that tentative budget. We'll have the Board of Finance report for all of you, and then we'll do the aid to organizations discussion as well. And then, September 3rd will be your first public hearing on the tentative budget, and then, September 17th will be your final public hearing. And, again, we're going to be talking about the contingency budget we'll be looking at in October. So, with that, Mayor, without anything further from the commission, I would hand this over to Les, then, if that's all right. Yeah, I just wanted to say on the contingency budget, I mean, obviously, and I'm, you know, I'm just speaking to my colleagues here, you know, how we kind of lead in that way, I think, is up to us at the end of the day. And, you know, I personally think it is important to let the voters have an idea of what the tradeoffs are if they decide to vote for or against the referendum. You know, it's always nice to be out there, and at least, and you know, like, these are the things that are actually going to happen, because I think there are some people that think nothing, it'll be business as usual, which it won't, and we know that. And by being able to discuss some of those things and understand what the true impacts will be before the actual vote, to me, is going to be really important. So, but, in the meantime, we all knew we were going to have a tight budget, as it was anyway, and I know staff's done a lot of work already to make sure this budget comes in with some significant cutbacks as well. And it'll be up to us to see if there's more that we want to do with that. So, okay, yeah, so I'll turn it to Les and Gene. Great, good morning, Mayor of Vice-Barrick Commissioners. Les Totter, the Finance Director. I'm here with Gene, our Budget Manager. First section we'd like to go through today is we have some new initiatives and CIP projects in the 27 budget, and we'd like to walk through those by department, and we'll start with the City Manager Department, and then the plan is for each director to give a brief update for each project and answer any questions you may have, and I'll turn it over to the City Manager. Ram is starting, is graduating today, right? Where is that graduation? Right here. So we don't have to move very far. Well done. I think that's been a very advantageous program for our business community. And then the fire assessment, I think you're up to date on the fire assessment. You have to offer as moving forward with advertising for the request for proposal. Sorry. You know, we'll go through these, and at any given time during each of the departments, if there's any questions, just let me know, and you can jump in. So, because I don't want to at each time ask, hey, any questions about that, unless it's a long list. But, so, but, but, that being said, no, I mean, as you go, if you've got something on one of the lists, I mean, I'll just kind of turn any questions and just speak quickly, otherwise I'm going to move on. So, okay? All good? Okay. Okay. Next, Fire Rescue. New Initiatives and CIP Project. Okay. So the new initiative. Oh, wait. Sorry. Bob, Bob's up. I'm ahead of it. Okay. Thank you, Bob Ironsmith, Economic Development Director. We've got a few new initiatives here. They're all CRA-related. They're not a general fund. One of the most important ones to us is to update our CRA master plan. This master plan here that you've seen and it's on the web, this was done in 2011. It is time to get a new CRA master plan. This CRA master plan will include public input, charrettes, meetings with merchants, data analysis, and so forth. We've done a creative partnership here, recognizing costs or a big consideration. We went ahead and are going to utilize Ford Pinellas. It's going to help us do this. Our stake in this is, as you see, is about $49,000 or $50,000. This would be for an economic study. They're going to put in $50,000 for a landscape architect to help with graphics. And then they're going ahead and going to provide all their time. So this whole study is probably about a quarter of a million, but our contribution is only about $50,000. But it is time to get a new CRA master plan in play. The one we have is very old and dated. We need to make sure that we start to get unity with all the downtown, all the merchants, to look at things kind of holistically. So that's the first one. The second one there is North Alt-19 Entrance Way Improvements. This is for a concept plan. This is over by Skinner and Alt-19, the West End, that whole area. We've always done very well when we've gone ahead and enhanced and made our downtown look a little bit better. And the north way into our downtown needs some additional work in there. So this would include a concept plan showing streetscaping, median improvements, landscaping, and things of that nature. The last one, Virginia and Milwaukee, right here next to City Hall. We currently, because that's a one-way strip, and we want to make sure that people don't come in there. That's why you see those do not enter signs. Currently what's out there is what we call plastic bollards. It doesn't really have that sense of place that we like. What we want to see is a concrete curving, landscaping, irrigation, and things of that nature. It's what we do in the rest of downtown, creating a sense of place. And that's the other initiative. Be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Any questions for Bob? Mayor, mayor. Sure. Thank you, Bob. For the master plan, right, you said that it was, what you held up was from 2011? Yes. And so it's been 15 years since we've updated the master plan. Correct. Now CRA is only going to last another six. And is it worth the money investment in updating to a new plan when we're already at the tail end of the CRA? Certainly a great question, Commissioner. I think yes. Because we're going to see the CRA maybe continue on, maybe just not with the county component. It might just be a city initiated. We need to make sure the downtown stays strong. So we're going to need a master plan that still maintains and enhances the downtown, even after the 2033 sunset date. So that's why it's important to do it. Yes. Okay. And on the Virginia and Milwaukee bulbout improvements, for $75,000, I'm looking at the sense of place, and I'm wondering how that's defined versus what's wrong with it now. It seems to be functioning. It seems to be working. We're hearing from the residents that they're questioning the way we spend our money. And so I think it takes – we should at least be stepping back going, is this really something that's worth it? Especially when it's not going to add any – it's not going to make it safer than it apparently already is. Well, I haven't heard of any issues at that intersection, and so we're going to spend $75,000 to make it prettier. Well, I think it's function – oh, I'm sorry. No, and that's kind of it. Without disregard to what I understand, we want a pretty downtown and have it welcoming, but, you know. There actually is an issue, isn't there, with the bicycles? Yeah, it's both. There is a set of considerations to sort of understand what you're saying, Commissioner. There's also a function component. Yes, we have the do not enter signs, the plastic parts. But when you actually have a physical curb, it's much more of a barrier. It's something that's much more of a physical presence to say, do not come down this way on a one-way. There's been a lot of concern that motorists still could sneak through that area. And when you have more of a physical presence, it's a barrier. But it also makes it easier for pedestrians to walk across. It's just a safer area. The plastic ballads don't really give the safe passage for a pedestrian walking across the street. So it's kind of both. It is CRA dollars, and that's pretty much what part of our plan is, to create sense of place, safety, and a strong entranceway into our downtown. So it's all those things, you know. Okay. Are you done? Yeah. I'm done. Yeah. And looking at that $75,000, is that something that we would contract, or could our city staff do that? And, you know, I guess I'd like to have a little more explanation of what, obviously, it's right here. What would this look like in the future? Yeah, both those things. And this could come in less. Remember, this is just a little bit of a placeholder. I've talked quite a bit with Clay or engineer, and I don't want to speak for Clay, but I think there's something that could be designed in-house. It's rather simple. So I think we can save, certainly, on the design, but it'll certainly defer to Clay. But I think it's something we talked about that could be done in-house. And as far as the rest of it, it's just concrete landscape and irrigation. It'll probably come in less, but it's just hard for us to know today, you know, exactly, until we go out with a contractor. What we'd probably try to do is to tie it into another project for mobilization to get the scale down on the cost. That's all I had, Mayor. Thank you. Mr. Walker. Vice, Mayor. Sorry. Related to Commissioner Gao's question on the CRM master plan supplement. So if I understand correctly, the county share of that is $250,000? Excuse me, Vice Mayor. No, the county's going to put in $50,000, and all the rest is their staff time, which could amount to about $150,000. So it's a pretty big shot for them. Okay. So it's probably easily a quarter-of-a-million-dollar type study, and their contribution is $50,000, and we're putting in $50,000 as leverage. Is there any sort of requirement in the CRA process for this, other than our desire and need to update our master plan? No, it's certainly something on the statutes that you should be looking to update your master plan to make sure you're hitting all the goals and your vision. So it is a pretty important item. It is pretty much the blueprint or framework for the downtown is what gets included. And I think over the years, you know, the visions change, stakeholders change, merchants change. Obviously, something new that just came up obviously was the wet zone. So I think a lot of different things need to be looked at with this master plan. And I think the important thing is our downtown is an economic engine. You know, it's not only just property tax revenue. It's penny for Pinellas. It's utility. It's a whole dynamic. And I think it's very important that we have something that will run with us even after the sunset. So maybe it's just the city CRA at that point in time, which is fine. You don't want to see it deteriorate. It's kind of like working out and exercising. You know, you get to a certain point. If you just shut it down, things start to degrade, and we certainly don't want to see that. Okay, so basically the vision in the plan itself will go well past the sunsetting of the CRA. In my mind, yes, Vice Mayor. I think it's very important, and I have had discussions with City Manager, Lieutenant for Brantley here, that there needs to be some type of tool for a city CRA and a city revenue source to that downtown. Because if we don't take care of it over the years, just like our homes or whatever we do, you need to continue to invest in it. And this is a very strong economic engine, especially when the city is pretty much residential, right? We only have 5% commercial. So we want to make sure that we keep this going. Okay. That's great. Thank you. Sure, go ahead. Bob, just because I heard it twice, when you were talking about the bulb outs, you said concrete twice. And so I know this isn't about design or anything, but do you just have some sort of – I don't know if this is the appropriate time, but I would like something other than concrete. I look at the improvements that DOT is doing on alternate 19 going up to Curlew, and you just see it's just a sea of concrete going down. And it's just, to me, that is not a sense of place. Commissioner, if I – I agree, Commissioner. Excuse me. Commissioner, if I could, it probably – I'm assuming it would not be very dissimilar than what you're seeing at the roundabouts that were done on those approaches. It's concrete curbing, but there's landscaping in the middle. Yes, I probably didn't articulate that clear enough, Commissioner. It's concrete curb, as Jorge mentioned, with landscaping and irrigation and mulch and things like that. So, yeah, I probably didn't portray that good enough, but yes. Well, that, and I'm probably a little sensitive to it as well. No, I'm glad you are. Well, there's a joke there for sure. You think? I'm glad you are. Thank you, Bob. Yep. Commissioner, gallon concrete. Yes, sensitive issue. Yes, as it should be. Bob, I had one question. The entrance enhancement. Yes. Because you're trying to do one at New York, too. Is that on some list, New York and Maine? In the future, it is, Mayor. In the future years, we would look at some type of maybe median improvement there to the east of our current intersection would pass there. Yeah. And the entranceway feature that you'd be looking at in Alt-19, though, would be actually right where the CRA begins, which is what, Howard, or what street is there? No, this, actually, it's Jackson Street. It's kind of our north boundary. But, no, this would be right around that Skinner area would be part of our delineation. When you look at it with some critical eyes, there's an awful lot of DOT striping and gore areas and things of that nature that I think we could really tidy up with some landscaping and make it a real feature when you come into our downtown. And any time we demarcate or delineate our downtown, we get a pretty good push out of that. So we're pretty sensitive to that. Well, I kind of like the idea just because 2nd Main Street, I think Skinner is going to be the 2nd Main Street. That's a comment, so I'm not going to get that started. No, no, I agree. That was the whole goal was to, that was bifurcating or downtown. So, yep. Okay. All right. We're going to move on then. Next. Good morning. Michael Handoga, Fire Chief. I'm here to talk about two projects for fiscal year 27 that are replacing existing equipment as part of a, just updating our equipment for the department. First one is replacing the bunker gear extractor. The current bunker gear extractor, and that is basically a specialized cleaning device for our bunker gear that goes into the fire. The firefighters wear into the fires. The current one is 28 years old. It has reached end of service life. Getting parts for it is very difficult, and we had a significant out-of-service time with it in fiscal year 25 because we could not get parts for it. So, we have applied for a grant, or we are applying, in the process of applying for a grant through the state to pay for either a portion or all of that. So, we put the money in here as a placeholder if we do not receive the grant. Second is the replacement of the extrication equipment. We actually broke this up over two fiscal years to try to smooth some of the costs. We have contracted some of the extrication equipment. We had it on additional apparatus. Kind of our new model is that we're bringing all the extrication equipment to our two specialized units, which is Squad 62 and Truck 62 out on Belcher. And the current equipment is reaching end of life. The equipment that we're going to be replacing it with is the newest technology, saltwater submersible, battery-powered, and typically has a service life of about five to six years. This, too, we are applying for a grant through firehouse subs. So, hopefully, we will be able to get a portion of this paid through firehouse. The maximum amount that they'll allow for a grant is about $40,000. So, we would not get all of it covered, but we would get a portion of it in fiscal year 27. Great. Okay. Any questions on fire? So, the other day we had an incident with an airplane out on the causeway. Were we geared, or do we have the equipment that we could have went in that saltwater if we had to cut those people out? Yes. So, and that's actually a great, this is a perfect example of why we have the saltwater submersible equipment. The older equipment, we would not have been able to operate in that type of environment. Older equipment is hydraulic-based, and it has a hydraulic pump, essentially. It looks like a small little pump that you have to take with you, and it has a gas power. It would not operate in those conditions. The newest technology is saltwater submersible, so it would absolutely work in those conditions. And it's battery-powered, so it can be basically taken either from the shore out there, or there was a plan to put it onto the boat if needed. So, we had additional, in that situation, we had additional resources coming just for that. So, on that day, we were prepared if we needed to cut that plane apart? Absolutely. Good. Thank you, Mike. That's all I had, Mayor. Anybody else? Okay. We'll go to the next one. Good morning, Mayor. Vice Mayor of Commissioners, Michael Nagy, Director of IT Services. This project involves the installation and setup of a new door access control system in the fire administration building and all the fire stations. It would be done in phases. Phase one would be fire administration and fire station 60, and then the following year, in FY28, the remaining fire stations. The new system will be programmable into the existing Honeywell system we use here at City Hall and the EOC. So, basically, it's just a door access control system. And the reason why is the, I don't know if it's CJIS, Chief can answer that, but they have to have protection for the medical supplies that are in the building. In the fire station. Who's CJIS? So, CJIS is the criminal justice information system. And essentially, if there is any CJIS protected information and also just the HIPAA protected information, which is the health information. So, if we have information on a screen where there is a call with an address and kind of what the call is related to, that could be a violation potentially of HIPAA. So, one way to control that is we just control access right to the building. So, it protects some of the city from some potential violations in that respect. And the future goal is to get all city buildings on the door access control system. So, employees would use a badge instead of keys and we could regulate and administer who has access, when they have access. This is a start because of the requirements that CJIS has that we want to start with the fire administration and fire stations. So, we're actually in violation now? So, we have to be careful how I answer that question. Yeah, I don't want to answer that. No, we're... Okay. Got it. Yeah. Let's not answer that question then. Okay. Any other questions? Yes, I do, Mayor. Of course, I'm sure you had more requests than this. Could you help me understand the process that we're seeing now as a result of this? What other projects might have been eliminated in IT, that kind of thing? Or is this the only one that came forward? This is the only one that came forward. Because I think we've done a tremendous job citywide in so many other IT initiatives to make us more secure that we're maintaining things instead of just keep adding more projects. So, this will enhance our security for our buildings. Okay. Thank you. I would imagine that on other areas of capital investment that we probably had other projects that have been eliminated before it got here. So, just have that as a standard question as we go forward. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. We'll move on. Good morning, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Commission. Tony Mulkey, Parks and Recreation Director. I have a few projects to kind of go over for the fiscal year 2027 budget. The first is the Dunedin Marina Ferry Dock Reconstruction. That is the grant funded project with PSTA on upgrading the ferry connection that came through Congresswoman Luna's office. The second item is the Highlander Pool Resurfacing. This $280,000 request is to continue operations at the pool until the full rebuild can begin. This involves resurfacing of the liner of the pool as well as the pool deck to meet health and safety guidelines for our licensing. The third that I want to discuss is the memorial dedication study to inventory and review all our memorials, memorial benches, memorial trees, memorial rocks. We have a lot of different features throughout the parks to get an inventory, kind of a history on that, and to determine some strategies moving forward on whether to pursue a replacement program. And then the final for fiscal year 2027 is the initial stages to pursue CAPRA accreditation. CAPRA is the Commission of Accreditation of Parks and Recreation Agencies through the National Recreation and Park Association. It is a structured program that kind of ensures that the agency is utilizing resources and engaging the community in the most effective and efficient way possible. That is, of course, it's going to be a couple-year project. The initial year would essentially be internal efforts to kind of gather the materials that are necessary to prove accreditation, organize, and then the fiscal year 2028 is the initial assessment, which involves a site visit from accreditation visitors, as well as a review of all the standards that are required to achieve that. I'm happy to answer any questions on any of those. Questions? Yes, Mayor. I'll note here the Highland Park pool resurfacing. What is that telling us about the overall pool project, and is this an intermediate, or what are we doing here? This is an intermediate step in keeping the pool functional. The request, I believe, and I'll defer to finance a little bit on the structure of the financing of the pool renovation, the initial numbers for the pool renovation came in higher than expected. So we are reviewing those plans. We are close to 90% plans on the renovation with some of those considerations in place. So the timeline, even if we wanted to pursue the pool sooner, we would have to take some steps to be able to continue operations of the current pool out there. Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah, related to the Highland pool, Highlander pool. Did we look, so the resurfacing is really about the decks, right? It's about the deck and the interior of the pool. So the gunite and the finish on there, you see some areas that are peeling off and things like that just from the age of the surface. Okay, good. Okay, that's good to hear. The second question is, did you all look at any other types of capital improvement that may kind of extend that in the life, since we're moving out the actual renovation of it, like pumps? Did you guys look at that as a possible capital improvement plan? Because my understanding is that a lot of the water quality issues we've had at the pool has been due just to inadequate circulation and the pump, you know, the obsolete pumps and all that kind of stuff. So that's an accurate assessment on that. Part of that is also loss of water at the pool, whether through cracking or other elements. And part of the surfacing does address some of that. It's not a permanent fix, and there will hopefully not within the lifespan of this pool be a failure. But the pumps we have had to address this current fiscal year just because of a failure of those systems, that was the delay in getting the pool open this year. I'm happy to report that it is open and we are in full use. But those pumps that we did install have solved that problem. I appreciate that, too. And I do just for the good of the order here. I know that there's been a lot of collaboration between the City of Dunedin and Clearwater. Because I utilize the Clearwater pools. And that's awesome. I actually want to just put a shout out that, you know, the City of Clearwater Parks and Rec very much enjoys working with your team, Tony. We appreciate that. And our aquatics team has gone far beyond trying to put the Band-Aids and the duct tape in place to keep this thing running. But that additional $207,000, how does that mesh with the money that we receive from Luna's office? Is this an additional $200,000? So there was a match requirement. And Les, if you want to provide any details on the match on that, but Representative Luna had secured an appropriation for $600,000. I thought it was $800,000 that day that was brought in. I think it was $800,000. Yeah. Is that $800,000? $800,000. Yeah. Yeah. So it was basically a 20% match. And that's our, that $207,000 would be our contribution. Okay. And the other one was on that, real quick, what does that wall recover? Where's this partition wall at? So that's at the community center. There's three rooms that have partitions in there, are three partitions in a couple different rooms that you can see if you're looking at the surface, the fabric's peeling off of them. And it's kind of unsightly and opening up to the material underneath. This is to refinish those. Okay. And then the memorial dedications, you know, does that include those trees that have plaques along the trail? Would that include that or is that the counties? We anticipate trying to capture those because we're trying to learn about all the programs that put those in place. I believe, like, some of the areas up in the trailside oasis north of Curlew, that spot there was initiated and implemented by the city, some of those, even though that's state land and we operate under agreement and we have some of those along the trail. So it's a mix. And that's part of the study to figure out who's responsible for what. Okay. And I'm sure I'm not the only one up here that had families contact us after the hurricanes about some benches out on the causeway. Is that, will you look into that also at the same time? We've actually have some background on that. We're missing, I believe, 11 of the dedicated benches. There are others that we have in storage that we can't reinstall until we meet some standards that the county has put in place for us. And we're investigating how we can move that forward. Thank you, Tony. That's it, Mayor. Sure. Okay. Anybody else? Mayor, does that mean? I think. Yes. And then Commissioner Gow after. Do you want to go first? No. Go. All right. So what we're seeing here is only a city portion of the project, not the entire project. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. So that is why the tennis project's not on here? Hopefully the tennis projects will be initiated and encumbered by the end of this fiscal year. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Gow. Thank you, Mayor. Tony, in reference to the memorial dedication or city manager, is this, I've been talking about a sidewalk study or event study. Is this part of that or? Yeah, it would be. And it's really, this started as a result of that discussion that we had and what's happening on the causeway as far as dedicated benches. And so what we're really trying to do is capture all the different memorial programs that we have and put them all together in one program. Thank you. Okay. I got a couple questions. So, but at some point, we're going to get a full-on view of the pool, cost-benefit, how long we can keep it going, because, you know, we know we're going to put off the building and the pool. So, if, you know, for a lot of different reasons, but how long can we, what's it going to cost us, and how long of a life are we going to get out of the current pool? That's correct, Mayor. We're working on that right now, and we hope to have that to you very soon. Will we see that during the budget process? Yes. Yes, we will. Okay, that's awesome. And then I'm going to ask you, City Manager, this question. On the ferry dock, it's a little more complicated in the sense that whether or not the referendum passes in November could mean different things about the ferry PSTA, whether the ferry makes sense for us to spend for. So, talk about that just for a second. So, first of all, we do have some time to take into consideration what's going to happen in November, because the appropriation, we're not even going to see the appropriation until next year, apparently. And so, we have not entered into agreement with PSTA, and we've, there was a discussion with, I believe, Jorge and Nicole and PSTA and Jennifer Cowan as well, as far as the timing goes. And everybody agreed that we need to wait until after November. We spend $120,000 a year supporting that ferry. It's well worth it, given the ridership and what it's bringing to downtown. But, given that PSTA is also going to be impacted, if the referendum is approved, we're not sure what kind of ferry service they're going to continue to provide and support. And so, we need to kind of put this one in our back pocket until we can figure out what's going to happen in November. Mayor, if I could elaborate. We just received a word yesterday from PSTA. There was some discussion internally between ourselves and PSTA as to how we'd move forward, whether the city would engage the consultant to do the design work and then contract the work thereafter. There was a final determination made, given some concerns that Jen Cohen had raised on how we do that and making sure that whatever consultant is engaged meets all the federal requirements to do so. And RGEC contracts don't currently have that language embedded. So, the decision has been made that PSTA will be the lead agency as far as procuring the design consultant and then advertising the contract for construction. And, as Jennifer mentioned, Jen Cohen's advice is, let's go ahead and proceed forward, get an interlocal agreement in place, and then wait and see what happens with funding. Good. Thank you. That's a good clarification. Okay. No other questions? I want to move on. I think Public Works is next. Good morning. Sue Bartlett, Public Works Director. As to the question asked earlier, we have an extensive CIP. This just happens to be the only one showing up on your new initiatives. And, as you probably know, we have a GAB and Repair Replacement Program. But this particular item is showing up as the funding source as a state allocation for $850,000. So, it is an ongoing program that we've gotten a grant for, for around $2 million. And that work is ongoing through our engineering department. Okay. No questions? We'll keep going to utilities and engineering. Good morning, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. Clayton Watkins, Utilities and Engineering. The two projects we have today, the first one is for the survey. It's for an in-house design. To replace a segment of reclaimed water line between Harrison Drive and Sarazon Road. That failed on us a few times last year. So, this is a survey. The survey we'll pay for that is with in-house design with construction in the following year. The second project is us, is utilities getting on the main star service to help with work orders and project maintenance as our current systems are on an access base that are failing. And we just need a new software system. So, we're joining public works using the main star system. Excuse me. Okay. Any questions? Sure. Go ahead. Thank you, Clay. What is the impact of these new projects on the utility fees? Currently, these will not have any changes. We're still having our proposed increase in October, the 15% per the study. Okay. And so, this is under that threshold. I just, and it's not even for next year, but as a result of this, I don't want three years from now, oh, we have to change those percentage increases that we talked about even more because of, I want to make sure that the long-term plan, we are fine with our rate study. And we're not going to impact the residents on this. Well, so, as you can see here, we're looking to do another rate study next year, fiscal year 28. And a lot of that has to do with, and there are, there have been recent state statutes that are unfunded, and specifically the biosolid statement you see for fiscal year 29 and 30, that is stuff that was handed down to us last year that may actually affect that rate study. Correct. Okay. And I understand that, right? If we're getting a mandate from the state, yeah, that we can't account for that until it hits us. I just want to make sure that things that we can control, we are controlling. Yes, sir. Okay. And I think that's where that software, some of that will help us do maintenance and, you know, control, making sure we are turning valves and doing maintenance stuff that will help us, you know, keep the system up and running. Thank you. Anybody else? I mean, I just had the conversation yesterday with the city manager, but, I mean, it seems like we just did a utility rate study. And I get the rate studies, but I remember when we had Bolton years ago, and they gave us the big software program, and we just had to put in some numbers, update, and voila, we didn't need a $100,000 whole new study. So I just put that in you guys' claw. I mean, sometimes it does feel like we're over, you know, overpaying for lots of studies. So that will be three years from the previous study in 2028. And we're probably estimating a little high on that fee, too. Okay. Okay. Question there? Sure. Thank you, Dr. Clark. Clay, when we look at these rate studies, they are traditionally around are we able to cover the enterprise fund that they're associated with? What happens if the opposite is true, that we're having a surplus of revenue? We would adjust the rates accordingly. I just want to be sure of that. Thank you. Sure. Go ahead. Just in terms of it, it does seem that the rate studies come up fast and furious. And I hear you on the $100,000. We'll, staff, we'll look at what we can do as far as getting that cost down. But we did commit to the city commission that we would bring these rate studies back to you every three years. Traditionally, it was five years. We decided in this dynamic economy we can't do that anymore. And so it seems like we just did it. It really does. But it's three years. Right. And I get that. And I appreciate that. I just feel like if it's every three years, you know, less changes, maybe cost change. But I don't know. It seems like a lot. So. Okay. But I got you. We'll ask for that. Right here. Oh, sorry. Yeah. I'm using another microphone. Is that, yeah, I'm not sure where, it seems like the flu bug is hit. Yeah. I don't like it at all. I'm trying, yeah. We both got it. Yeah. You know, I'm not real nuts about it. I feel perfectly fine. Yeah, I feel great. I'm sorry. Where have you guys been? You know that I'm not real nuts about studies and consultants. For $100,000, can any of that be handled by city staff, board of finance, Lester's office? Can we bring some of that in-house rather than those costs? I just want to mention, we discussed that the next one that's coming up is the stormwater that needs to be looked at again in the near future. And the plan was for staff, myself, working with Sue's team to take a look at the model they had, do our own forecast, and see what we're finding. And if we're finding that we're okay, we may push that study off for a year or two. And if we find we think there's challenges, we probably need to do the study. So staff is planning on giving it a first look, if that makes sense. That's very similar to what I wanted to hear. Thank you. Yeah, that's a great answer. Because it does kind of feel like even us, I think, sometimes. It's like, because I get it. I get that you don't have staff time to get into it. But, you know, every time you turn around, it's like $100,000 for this study and $100,000 for that. But I get it. Good question, Steve. Okay. Okay, this is, the left portion of this slide are projects that we're proposing that we remove as project pages in the budget. These projects are implemented or ongoing initiatives. And the first one is Tyler Technologies Fire Prevention Software. And the next is Pinellas Solar Co-op, Solar United Neighbors. And the last is Ready for 100. And on the right side, this is a project removed from the business plan, being proposed to be removed from the business plan, that is inactive or canceled. And that's the paid time off initiative. And if you have any questions, happy to answer them. Questions? Mayor, mayor, may I? Thank you. Under the projects removed from the business plan, these are projects that we've had that are ongoing. And so, what's the result of this? If we stop those business initiatives on the Pinellas Solar Co-op or Ready for 100, what does that mean to stop those? Yeah, the ones on the left, we're not stopping. Those projects are continuing. The only thing we're proposing is we have project pages that track all these. And we're just proposing that they're already ongoing. And we do them every year. So, we're thinking we don't need a project page anymore. We look at that every year. Right. Just standard operating now. Right. Okay. Thank you. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Anything else? Okay. I personally love paid time off, but if there's no, you know, nobody wants it, I'm not going to push it. Okay. So, it is expensive transition, though. Okay. So, now we're going to move to City Commission discussion on initiatives and CIP projects. So, Les and Gene, I guess you're going to guide us through that a little bit? Yeah. This is just really an opportunity for the Commission to, are there any projects that you want to propose in the 2027 budget or mention that we haven't just walked through? Okay. So, anybody have a project that's on the ongoing list that you have a concern with or you have something new to bring up? Since we don't have any money, be careful with anything new. Mayor, if I may? Yeah. Let's just go around the table on that. Go ahead. I'll start with you, Commissioner. Go. Thank you. Yeah. I just recently brought up two projects. One of them was the sidewalk plan, which sounds like it has been, but also it talked about putting under the memorial study. Oh, yeah. Okay. Okay. And my other one was somehow pulling or combining all of our Scottish arts under one bucket so that it's manageable somehow. Nicole, you want to answer that? Get yourself a microphone. There we go. The healthy mic versus the unhealthy mic. And I've seen something in the presentations, but not this morning. Yes, we did pull all of the Scottish-related cultural funding under one BPI in the plan, so you will see it there. Everything's listed. Some of the items are still budgeted within the different departments, but now within the one BPI, you'll see everything that goes towards that funding. We should have included this here, and we did not, but it's about $130,000, I think, for all of the programs together in one place. Wonderful. Thank you. And just for informational purposes, I didn't include it because we kind of merged it with the Sister City Project already, so because we kind of renamed it and merged it into one, so it wasn't technically brand new. Is that okay? Yeah, because I did see it in the updates. We didn't talk about it this morning, so I just wanted to clarify. I saw what I saw. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. I had a question about that, but it just left my head. Okay. So we'll go to Commissioner DeGuard. Nothing to add. Thank you. Okay. Vice Mayor, do you want me to pass you for a minute? Yeah, go to Steve. Okay. Commissioner Tambor. I have really nothing to add, Mayor. Okay. So in looking at – I'm going to the budget page because that's where I originally looked at them, but a couple things. Strategic planning. So we were going to have data boards. Is that – do we have data boards now? Or I forget the name for the – I'm thinking – missing the – dashboard. Thank you. Yes. It just wasn't coming to me. Yeah, we do have a live dashboard page. We just are doing a little bit of tweaking. We haven't published it or kind of shared it, but it is out there. We just have a couple final tweaks to do, and then we'll probably do a post in the Dunedin News and then share it all with you. Are we going to get a demo at the commission level or – Sure. Yeah. I mean, this was the hype, so it'd be great to get a demo and show us all the – you know, how it all goes on. Yeah. Okay. So will that be more than once it's there in front and center, people can go right to the dashboard for key stuff? Yeah. We have discussed where to put it on the front page of the website, so you'll be able to see the dashboard and go directly to the dashboard from the front page. Okay. Cool. Yeah. The succession career planning path, $5,300. I know it's a little amount. I was just curious. What is that? Good morning, Mayor, Vice Mayor Teresa Smalling, Director of HR and Risk Management for the city. This – the amount that was put there was just a placeholder, if you will. Basically, we've been doing most of the work in-house, so we're working with departments on career ladders and succession planning for the senior staff. So it's in its – the career passing has been ongoing for a while, but the succession planning, we're still trying to get underway with that. There's been some informal discussion, but nothing to set down as a plan just yet. Okay. I think that's – I think that's on my – on the only other one, you know, Midtown Parking Facility is a – I guess that's more of a capital improvement project, so never mind. Okay. Okay. Anybody else have a follow-up? Very quickly. So I see the Dunedin Boat Club and Sailing Center is on there for fiscal year 28. The question I have is regarding the shaded line item there that has $25,000 in ARPA funding. Is that funding still there, or – Yeah, that's still there, yeah. Okay. All right. I was just curious because I thought ARPA was done. Yeah, ARPA needs to be spent by December 31st, 2026. Okay. But the funding is still there, yeah. Okay. Yeah. And we'll be – we'll be bringing back to commission, just bringing up ARPA probably in August, September, sort of some revisions to the ARPA plan to make sure we spend all the dollars before that timeline. Yeah. Yeah. I just wanted to clarify. It's interest earnings that is attached to the boat club. So interest earnings can be spent at any time. It's not tied to the December 31st, 2026 deadline for the grant funding. Perfect. Yeah. Good. Thank you for that clarification. And based on that, I mean, because it seemed like what's in the ARPA money right now is like $300,000 reserve or something like that. Is that money – we can just roll that into the general fund, right? Yes, we can. Yeah. Okay. So it's not a problem to spend it. It's just so – Right. Correct. Yeah. So, again, my thoughts are we don't need to look for a way to spend it. We can just let it help us in our regular stuff here. But that's just my thought. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Mayor, if you can. Sure. Go ahead. And I know, City Manager, you talked about it right at the beginning, but BEEP and we have graduation day today, and I know it's not a whole lot of money each year, but did we find at least this first session, does it have value? Are we getting – are the business owners getting anything out of it? Is it reaching the goals that we wanted to reach in the implementation of it and the purpose? Go ahead, Nicole. Yes. We're actually really pleased with the response and the interactions that we have. I do send a recap after each session, and I hear back from a lot of the participants saying how much they value it, how much they've gotten out of it. But we've had people who have been in the community for a really long time, people like Jeanette Donahue from the Chamber, who said, I had no idea that's how that worked. So I think it has been a really great asset for these individuals. And interestingly, the participants that we had, while I thought we'd draw a lot of downtown, we have representatives from all across the city, and I think that's what has made it even better. Well, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Actually, I guess I was going to say something about midtown parking, and it is on the initiative list. But, you know, we're not doing anything with midtown parking building until after referendum, right? Okay. Okay. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. All right. We'll go to the next item. Okay. This is some information on our property tax reform we'd like to share. And starting with just some highlights, it increases the homestead exemption on non-school taxes beginning in fiscal year 28. It increases the exemption to 150 in 28, and then that results in a $4 million loss of avaluarium for that year. And that's an estimate that these numbers are sort of moving around with the county and also the state with our actual loss, but $4 million is a pretty close number. And for the second year, it increases to $250,000 in 29 in future years, and that results in approximately a $6 million loss in avaluarium every year. So, Mayor, if I may, I just want to elaborate on that. So, the mayor and I are going to do some presentations tomorrow, and then we have forums next week as well in the property tax. And these numbers, we just got different numbers from the county than originally and from FCCMA as well. And so, it is a very dynamic culture that we're in right now as we, you know, that's indicative of the fact that we really don't know the impact as we have, you know, every organization trying to figure out exactly what that impact is. So, if you see these numbers move around a little bit, it's because we're using the county numbers. I think that they're the best numbers for us to use moving forward, but we need to pick one and stick with it. So, as we get closer to the referendum, I'm sure we'll do that, but I just want to put out there that these numbers are different than the original forums then, and so on and so forth. Well, my one question is, is it lower than $4 million or $6 million, or is it higher? And again, because, right, I mean, I don't want to, yeah, anyway, go ahead. I'm going to lose my halo here. So, yeah, we're at 3.9% the first year, and this is from the Revenue Estimating Conference, right, the REC. So, 3.9% the first year, and then subsequently 6.8%. So, it's less the first year, but more the second year. And that impacts. That impacts us. So, you know, I just want to be careful with the numbers that we bandy about. They're not absolute. And we're working with all agencies to try to get there. I'm just going to ask this, and obviously, when we finish, you can go forward, but this does not reflect the roll-down effect of EMS. Correct, it does not. We did get the, we have gotten those numbers from the county, is what that would mean, or? Yeah, we have the impacts. We know EMS would be reduced by 33% revenue stream. Well, we don't know what that means to us, except we can prorate it. Have they given us the? Yeah, we can prorate that and come up with basically, for EMS, we would, our revenue would go down from about $3 million a year to about $2.1 million a year, roughly. $3 million to $2.1? Yeah, roughly, yeah. And how about library cooperative? Library cooperative is decreasing, I believe, by about 30%, and that would be a reduction of probably about $200,000 a year, because we get about $680,000 now, roughly. And anything else that comes to mind? The only other thing would be the county pays 12% of our regular fire services, and that revenue stream is going down by another 35%, 38%, so they pay us about just over $1 million now, so that would be reduced probably to about $650,000 or $700,000. So about $300,000? About $300,000 reduction, $350,000 probably reduction. Yeah, the CRA also, of course. Yeah, that's right. The CRA has an impact, too, small impact. Yeah, $150,000 in 28,000, and I think we're around $250,000, $270,000 in 29,000. Yeah. Yeah, but I think some of that can be offset with some of the new development that could occur, such as the main tree exchange, you know. Right. Yes. No, it's a good point, though, but I guess that's my point. We need to really make sure we've got a good sheet on all the rollover effects, because I think that's part of the education plan, too. You know, I mean, we can get crazy and just, you know, PSTA is going to get impacted for people that use buses, but that's going to be their job to educate. You know, but anything that directly impacts us, is that all you guys can think of? I think I ask everybody that question. That's all I know of right now, yes, directly impacts, yeah. And have we gotten any communication from the county? Well, no, it's not, actually, Mayor. Okay, go ahead. And I think, also, my understanding is that the county is going to immediately look to law enforcement, to the sheriff's office, for decreases, and so that's going to impact us as well. We're the largest contract city of the sheriff's department, and so, and we sign a yearly contract, as you know, with them. So I think that we're going to be impacted there as well. We're going to be looking at decreases in levels of service for law enforcement as well. They're going to hand that down. They're not going to swallow that. Or increases of cost. Right, right. No, I think that's a good one. Right. Well, and really, I mean, I think that our position there needs to be, and we're in a workshop, is that there will be increase in costs, which is not tenable for us. It's not something that we can absorb, so we need to say to them, okay, so where can we decrease? I mean, we have the CPO program, right? We have the special details. We have the events and those types of things. So we need to approach it in a multifaceted way. I'd very much appreciate a fact sheet summarizing what we just discussed. Thank you. No, I think that's what we need. Mike? Say what? Not yet. Okay. Do you have more to finish before we go to general questions, or did you want to finish your thought process, and then we'll take questions, or? We've got a couple more slides. Yeah, okay. Then we'll go to questions. So in the 27 budget right now, we'll go through the general fund in a few moments, but our estimated shortfall in the outer years is about $5.65 million from 28 to 32. During the 27 budget process early on, we asked all the departments to reduce their controllable operating costs by 20%. We did that citywide, but focusing on the general fund for a moment. Without reducing service levels, we asked everyone to look at that. In addition, general fund departments were asked to review all their contracts. We looked at all contracts, professional services, and agreements to all their potentials for reductions and eliminations. We had a few minor reductions, but very few. Again, not really affecting service levels. The city also evaluated savings, potential savings in the risk insurance area, health insurance, and general fund fleet operations. We've looked at those to determine, do we have fleet vehicles in parks and rec, for example, we don't need, and looking at those different areas. We find a little bit of savings in those areas to date, not a whole lot. And even with these majors, additional budget reductions are needed, and they will result. Well, at this point, we feel they will result in service level reductions or impacts. And our contingency plan that we've discussed a little bit is we are working on it now. Finance staff and the city manager have met with departments, and we've discussed, you know, sort of giving them a number to work towards. And our goal is to have a reduction of $3 million that would go into effect on January 1st, 2027. It would basically be nine months of 27 fiscal year, but it would go into effect on January 1st. If the vote passes in early November, it would be fully implemented on January 1st, 2027. If the vote does not pass, it would still be implemented. Our goal is to implement it still, but at a slower pace through attrition over time. And down below are the departments that are being asked to do reductions. There's, you know, quite a list there. The support departments are on the far right. Support departments include city commission, city attorney, city clerk, city manager, finance, human resources. And then we're working with community development, economic development, housing, facilities, IT services. And we're including facilities and IT services because those are internal service funds that over half their costs go to the general fund. So they have a major impact on the general fund. Also the library, parks and recreation, and streets. And, you know, and obviously we, we, the, the reduction can be an increase in fees and we've asked departments to look at that, especially, uh, Tony and parks and rec increasing fees or, or, or reducing expenditures, a combination of both. So that's our, our plan is to bring that forward, uh, and, uh, have that. We're asking the departments to have it completed by, uh, August 10th. And our goal will be to, uh, bring it to your commission, uh, in early September, uh, uh, to go over a draft and then bring it back, uh, in either late September or, or, or early October for approval. Any questions? Question? Yeah. Uh, uh, so I'm going to do a round table on questions and I, and I'm going to do this one a little differently because it's very meaty, even though it's three slides, um, chance to ask questions and then maybe some commentary on kind of the, the whole theory that's being put out to us. So start with vice, uh, add to, just to what less. Sure. Absolutely. And then, but, and then we'll go to vice mayor. So I want to be very clear that we will place a plan before the city commission to execute immediately, but effective on January 1st, if the referendum passes. I think it's, it's our responsibility to present to the city commission and for the city commission to adopt that plan moving forward. So the public is fully cognizant of, of what that plan entails. Um, and it will include the decreases in levels of service. It will include addressing some of the law enforcement issues. It will include all of those things. I met with a member of the public who was known to some of you, uh, very, uh, educated, intelligent member of public. And, and his whole, um, question, if you will, some emails back and forth was, do we have a plan? And so we will have a plan before all of you, and it will take the form of a budget amendment. We can't adopt two separate budgets. We adopt one budget. This is our proposal subject to changes through this process. And then before you, in October, a, uh, the contingency plan, which would be a budget amendment with all of this, uh, included with the, with the budget amendment to be effective on January 1st. And it would be nice if we knew, and is the county working towards a plan? Because so much of what they do is going to roll down to us. So my understanding is, uh, the county is not working on the plan in the detail that we are. The county also has a structural budget deficit. They are working on that structural budget deficit, um, and, and we'll address this referendum should it be approved. That was what I heard, um, in the last meeting that we had. Yeah, I mean, I'm just going to say this and then I'll open up questions. I know there's some thinking of, from some cities, well, why are you going through all that until you know if it passes? Um, and really some of the same people that said, why would you do early education things before, because it's not going to be on the ballot. It's not going to happen. They're not going to do it. They told us they weren't going to do it. And guess what? It's on the ballot. So I think, uh, this is definitely the responsible way. Questions? Uh, vice mayor. Thank you, mayor. Uh, I think third bullet's not clear to me. Um, if the vote doesn't pass, it'll be, what will be implemented at a slower pace? Well, we would still, we would still plan on, uh, Um, implementing the reductions. Uh, if, if the reductions were related to positions, uh, then we would, we would, uh, impact those through attrition. We would, we would not be freezing positions or, or, or doing anything else to try to get the labor savings. The labor savings would take longer and be more of a gradual, uh, for, for, for non labor costs. Uh, most of that would take place right away. But for labor costs, some of that would be slower because we'd do it through attrition rather than freezing or, or freezing and things like that. No, that makes perfect sense. Thank you. I was just a little confused on the, uh, that first bullet point. Developing a contingency plan to account for $3 million budget reduction. So it's, it has been set up. If this, if this passes, we're ready to go. We're working, we're working on the plan now. You know, we've, we've, we've met with departments and we're, we're continuing to meet with them. And they're, they're right now, you know, uh, going through, figuring out the most efficient way to do this. You know, uh, the different departments and, uh, and we've, we've got more meetings ahead. But the goal is to have hopefully, uh, their plan by August 10th. So we, so finance can work through it with the city manager and make sure we're, we're all comfortable with what we've got as far as will the, will the savings work? Do the numbers make sense? And then once we have it fine tuned, uh, we would hopefully bring it to commission in draft form in, in September, early September, and then, uh, get input and then bring it back to commission, uh, probably early October. Uh, for your input again, and, and, and hopeful approval of the plan. And there were several homes that were damaged that received some pretty significant reductions in their property tax. Has that been built back in now? Because I would assume the majority of them are back paying the full price. Is that factored into any of our decisions here? Yeah, some of those have come back and, uh, and we're, we're actually, we've asked the county for a detailed list of that. And we should have that week when we're, we'll, we'll share that with your commission when we receive it. But, uh, some of them come, have come back, not all of them, but some, some have come back on the tax roll. And we've asked for more information on, uh, our new construction numbers, about, about a 60 or $70 million number. And we know at least half that more than, probably more than half that are, are the damaged ones coming back. But we've asked for detail to share, to, to share that with the commission. Uh, but, but some, but, but there's still, there's still some that are not back on the tax roll for sure. And doesn't each year your taxable amount on your home increase by a certain percentage? Is it like three or 4% per year? Yeah, if you're homesteaded, it could, it can be no more than 3%. Okay. And have we fact? CPI, yeah. Okay. And that's been factored into our numbers? That's been baked into what we're doing here? Okay. Yeah, that's been, that's been baked into our 27 budget. Our, our, our, our, our property tax number we have right now in our 27 budget is, is, is from the assessor's office. It's, it's, it's, it's what they, their values on the tax roll as of January 1st of this year. So, and that's, that's how it works. So our 27 numbers are really firm. Our future year estimates are, are just estimates, but 27 is really firm. Yeah. Thank you, Les. That's it, Mayor. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Gow. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, the contingency plan, if I understood that this is in addition to the 20% reduction that we're seeing in the 27 budget. Yeah, that's correct. Yes, it's in addition to. And within the 27 budget and that 20% reduction, is there anything in that 20% that is visible to the public? Uh, you know, the only. Levels of service? Uh, good question. The, I'm going to turn, the only department that had potential service level, small potential service level reductions was, was Parks and Rec and Tony. And I'll, I'll, I'll turn that over to Tony. Tony, can you, I think of any that impacted with the 20%? Sure. Uh, Tony Mulkey, Parks and Recreation Director. Uh, the, uh, items, and I think we'll probably go into detail on this, uh, as we proceed. Um, we're looking at deferring some activities that we had originally planned in the, the budgets that carry over year to year. So slowing down maintenance of certain items, um, reduction of contracted services, uh, things of that nature. Um, as far as the public impact, I would, I would hope it'd be minimal, but it would be a, a service level reduction. Thank you. And actually, I, I would like it the opposite. I'd like to have a greatest impact on the public as possible. And because we're in, we're in an educating period. And if they just, it's just numbers to them, if that's all they see is this. And they won't even see the 20%, but they'll see that the community center is closed. They'll see the programs we used to have aren't available anymore. And this is just the tip of the iceberg on what is coming. If you want to vote for this property tax. And so if there is some visual aid that we can show the public, your tax money at work, this is what you want. This is what you're going to get. I think the more we educate the public, the better. Thank you, commissioner. If I, if I can add one detail, our contingency plan will show that level of detail and those impacts. And I can't disagree with that. But if we can show that anywhere and anytime we can. Thank you. Yeah. Commissioner Duggar. Thank you, Mayor. I agree with my colleague, which I usually do, Commissioner Gow. We're doing an excellent job of managing a very difficult situation. I like the presentation. I like everything about it. But from my standpoint, I'm a communicator back to the community about what the impact is going to be. And I'm sorry. I'd like to run out of this building with my hair on fire and say, this is what we're going to lose. For instance, somebody give me a quantifiable number on what response times are going to be in the future for our fire and police. Because I know those are going to be degraded. And by the way, two minutes is life and death for older people on both fronts. If I don't have that kind of information, I can't say this is the gain that you're going to get, which is a little bit more money in your pocket, and this is the loss you're going to experience on the other side of that. And that's the communication we have to have. And maybe I'm in the wrong place. Maybe this is not the right place for that comment. But I know that right place is somewhere, and I just need to know where it is. Thank you, Mary. If I may, Mayor? Sure, go ahead. I would say, Commissioner, that's a point very well taken, and that is exactly what we're working on now, to provide you with those facts. But obviously, it needs to be based upon the research that we do. And because you're going to be conveying this to the public, we can educate, not advocate. So they have to be facts based upon all the information that we have. And we are working very hard to provide you with that information. Yeah, I mean, my concern with not having the public see any immediate result, and I get what you're doing. I understand it. But at the same time, when you talk about, and I have several places in here, I can't find them right now, but where I'd put, you know, are we just deferring the obvious expense? I mean, in my own home, there's things I can defer a little while, not forever. And some things, it's not smart to defer very long. And, you know, again, I don't want to push us into something that we, I mean, we're just kidding ourselves, because we're not wanting to show impact of service levels now. So let's just defer this stuff, even though we know that's a recipe for disaster at the end. And then when the time comes, we're doing the cutback after the fact. But I get what you're doing. I'm confused by the number 20%. 20% reduction in what? We didn't reach the 20%. 20% was what we were shooting for. Some got it. Some did not. Right. Because I don't want to use that number that we've done that, because we haven't done that. It's $500,000. $500,000. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And again, would you say most of that is, if it's not service level, because obviously if I'm a citizen and you tell me we cut $500,000 and no impact on you, I'm like, then why were you spending $500,000? Because then you were overspending the money. And what I'm hearing you say is a lot of that is deferred maintenance, deferred things that can reasonably be put off somewhat. Mayor, if I can elaborate. Yeah. It is a difficult response given the fluidity of the target, right? But there's deferred maintenance, there's deferral on filling positions, which has an impact. Some of it's short term, some of it's a little bit longer term. But you've got employees that are looking at what's happening, and they're considering, should I just move to the private sector? Because I used to have some degree of security working in the public sector, but now I don't. So there are those impacts as far as we're going to lose some good employees that are looking around and wondering what's going on and what's going to happen post-November. So it's not entirely quantifiable right now, but there are impacts that are going to occur because we're not filling certain positions to hit that 20% target. And so there is a ripple effect associated with the level of service that's going to be experienced. Yeah, I mean, actually, County Commissioner Kathleen Peters made some great statements about what she thought the impact of this referendum could be on the labor force and wanting to come to Florida and wanting to exit Florida. I was also, while I'm thinking about it, I'm going to bring this up, because yesterday I read Washington Post had an editorial board opinion titled, Ron DeSantis is trying to cut taxes the wrong way. They actually, you know, say he's done some good things, but this is the outgoing governor is pushing a ballot measure that could wreck local finances. And I'll tell you what, it's, I mean, look it up because it's well done. They did their research. They talk about the 3% cap that homesteader properties have. They talk about the burden that's going to get pushed to, you know, to commercial, et cetera. I mean, I'd love to put something like that on our website, but I know because it's advocating. I mean, it's basically saying, and we're not allowed to advocate, but in terms of really hitting a lot of issues of concern, it really does it. So, but anyway. Comment on that, because, you know, I like that idea. And I don't believe that, well, this may be a very fine line between advocacy and educating, but, you know, can we make that possibly part of our communication plan with the public via social media? When you say that, what do you mean? Well, the editorial, for instance. Well, I don't think we can, because I think it's clearly advocating. And I just bring it up, because it's obviously a side that I see a lot of, but we're not allowed to advocate. And we have to kind of stay in the middle. And, again, at the end of the day, it's a taxpayer's decision, and we're just trying to make sure they understand what could happen. But it is certainly, some of these editorials are someone's point of view, but it's clearly, they did a lot of research, too. So, do you want to clarify on what we can and can't do? Well, and most certainly. That's scary. Anything I say, you know, we go through the attorney, because we do have to be careful right now. Right. And, as the mayor said, everything we put out goes through the attorney first. So, even, and she's, as you know, she's very conservative on this subject. And we can certainly run it by her and see what she says, but I think I know what she's going to say. Yeah. So, right. And I think we're doing a great job of communicating as we go along with the public. You know, as far as, as I hear, I know exactly what you're saying, is that we have cinched our belt quite a bit. You know, we're, we've decreased our operating expenditures, which is, will have a ripple effect for years and years. Because, you know, first of all, we, we will not be keeping up with inflation and on and on. And, um, without showing, demonstrating a decrease in levels of service, how do they know? But the quandary is, the, um, we have a balanced budget with a reserve here. And, and then we close down the community center or decrease the hours. You know, the public is going to be outraged to begin with, uh, given that we have a balanced budget. And we'll, we'll be accused of scare tactics. And so, I'd rather be able to communicate and say, this is what we will do. This is what we must do. This is a fact, um, and this is the plan moving forward, um, and, and, and make that as clear as possible. And what I'm saying to you is that we need time to do that. It, it, it takes time. On August 10th, we'll have a better idea. And then we'll be able to present something to all of you and get that done as quickly as possible. Yeah. And I get that because I, I, I remember back, I was a staff person and we had to make big cuts in the budget. And every, all the departments had to do their cuts. And the first cut that, uh, Rec and Parks put out there. This was 25 years ago and, uh, was, uh, oh, we'll cut the before and after school program. And of course that would send every parent crazy, you know, and, and, and everybody saw it as really, really, you're going to put that first because you know, that's just going to tick off the most people. So, yeah, I think we have to be really careful of that too. So, um, yeah, I just want to be, make sure that we're in line with the timing of the referendum so that, you know, we have time to communicate what the reality is. Right. Absolutely. Which is, which is our job. And, and so, um, vice mayor, sorry. I mean, with the editorial, I don't even know to what extent there's a lot of editorials, a lot of different opinions. It's one I read, but we were in such a position where we're, we're, we're out to educate and we've got to walk that line. And one, one more quick thing. I just, I know we've mentioned this before, but it's not in the slides is just, uh, if this, if a vote passes the impact on cities and counties, credit ratings, a lot, a lot of concern about that. That's a great one too. You know, I wanted to mention that. Yeah. And, and I think that goes back to commissioner to guard about the fact sheet. I think some things like that, they're, they're just, there's probably just a one pager or two pager that really could hit some of those big items. So those are good. Mayor. Yeah. Um, I also share, uh, some concern about the third, third bullet point, because I'm not sure it's specific enough to communicate what we're trying to say there. Um, I'd like it instead of the proposition of the word it, the plan will be implemented at a slower pace, but over time, it's also very ambiguous term. What does that mean? And I just don't know what that means. Thank you, mayor. Okay. Mayor, if I may. Oh, go ahead. And I know I'm only speaking for myself, but I, I really want to smudge the line between education and advocacy. And this is a forever change in the way our city will, will govern itself financially. And so we need to make that clear. And the, some of the residents will certainly label anything we do as a scare tactic, but it's education. It's not scary. It's like, this is what will happen. If you want to be, you want to label it, scare tactic, you want to see that we're grandstanding, whatever you want to say, as far as the public is concerned, is fine. But that doesn't mean it's not factual. These, this is what's going to happen. And I think that's part of the education program. Because, again, a lot of the times that they don't understand it, or they think, well, oh, we'll be fine when, if you have to show them, it's, again, my example of the 20%. You know, we have to be able to identify, this is what's going to happen. This is education. And I don't think there's any problem with causing a little bit of good trouble. So thank you. I'm going to allow this side to say something, but I just want to say to you, I think we're striking the right balance. I think if we do something too soon that we really don't have to do, we'll get, we'll get criticized for that in a way that might not, might backfire. And I think that by having a plan, it's going to be voted on. It's going to be, if that passes, it will be implemented on January 1st. These are the cuts. I can go out there and people say, oh, it's all going to be the same. I'm going to say, well, the reality is it's not. This is exactly what's going to happen. We have the plan. This is the services you'll see go away. This is exactly what's going to close. This is what's happening. I think that that puts us in just the right place. I really do. And I think that we'll be able to say it with, you know, sincerity. And it will be factual because we will have voted that this is the plan. This is what we're doing. And I, but I do think that, I mean, that's $3 million. We've got to get to six. So we don't just need to understand what the contingency plan do. It's like there's a whole nother cliff that we're falling off after that. So I think that is something you need to think about. I want to give this side a chance to China. You know, I absolutely agree with you, Mayor. You know, just like there's a fine line between advocacy and education, there's a fine line between scare tactics and pragmatism. And we need to be in a position where we are communicating in a pragmatic fashion because, at the end of the day, you know, that is the reality. And anyway, but no, I absolutely agree. I like where we're at right now in terms of the communication. And, you know, the next step in this is, if it does pass, this is what it means. So, thank you. I guess I'm just very optimistic that this is going to work, even if it does pass. I mean, the Dunnington economy is strong. I hope that the five of us can lead the city to where it needs to be. And, you know, I just, I find it hard to go out and when, because I get to ask all the time, what do you think? And, you know, educate, advocate. And, yeah, it's, you know, there's going to be a reduction in services, but it's just going to force us to become more creative. And everyone keeps throwing out, and I'm not sure where this started, between 2020 and 2026. This is, these have increased in the city, staff spending, revenues, you know, whatever that means, we're just going to have to take it upon ourselves to figure it out. And, obviously, we are. We've started to figure it out. And it just, it feels like it's always that the sky is falling, and it's not. We will survive. Maybe a little different look, maybe a little leaner, but after the tier 44 years in this city, we'll survive. And because of the people sitting at this table, I feel very confident that we will survive. That's all, Mayor. Just a comment. I, yeah, I totally agree with you. And I actually think that the out, the really, the silver lining in this is, is that this is, this is, this is causing us to take a very healthy look at the budget. And, no, yeah, I agree with you. But, I, I will add that the conversation that you just made is exactly why we can't just show the $3 million cliff. We've got to show the $6 million cliff. Because this is really, we will survive. And this commission will make decisions to protect every part of, of public safety first, which will be, will put at risk a lot of our quality of life stuff with more quality of life city. And we will survive. I don't think it will be the same city that a lot of people came here for. And I think that's, we have to make sure they understand so that they can make that choice themselves because ultimately it will be their choice. But, but that's where we can't just show the $3 million cliff because it's a $6 million cliff. And it's not just a $6 million cliff. By the time you add the county stuff on, it's basically $8 or $9 million cliff. And so, you know, we need to show that because we'll survive, but we will look a lot different. And that's what we want people to make the decision on. And then we'll, we'll go from there. It is difficult for me to take seriously the prohibition on advocacy when the bill is stated in the way it is. The term excessive spending is advocacy within the very piece of action the referendum is proposing. Therefore, I have to ask myself some tough questions. I know as a city commissioner, I can't do certain things, but as a citizen, I haven't lost any of my rights. And if they try to prosecute me on that basis, let them have it, because that's what I'm supposed to do as a person. As far as the plan is concerned, I agree with my colleagues. We'll find a way through this. That's what we do. But that's like telling the passengers on the Titanic, some of you are going to make it. I love that. Um, so it's not exactly where we want to be, and it's not in the best interest of our citizens. Let's remember what's gone on in the last three, four years. We've used this term waste, fraud, and abuse, and we've labeled every government that way. They attempted that, and they came back with poor pickings. When they came back with their report, they had to make stuff up to find the crew, waste, fraud, and abuse. Now, I'm not saying every city in this state is run at high optimum levels. I'm just not saying that. But I am saying that they weren't able to find as much as they thought they were going to find. So I don't think there's a there there. And we're not talking about that. We're going to be cutting meat. Yeah, some people will argue what the fat is, but we're going to be cutting meat. And it means a lot of good things in this community will go away. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Guy, I guess you get the last word. Thank you very much, Mayor. I'm having a real hard time with the concept of whatever happens, we'll survive, we'll manage. I don't know what that means. People said that during the Depression, I'm sure. The big potato famine. Like, oh, well, we'll just get through this. But how do you balance that with the quality of life that Bob talked about earlier with these ball belts, right? And that sense of place. And we talk about that all the time. But yet, it seems to me like we might be losing energy in our focus on, well, whatever happens, we'll just have to deal with it. I think that is obvious because we have no other choice. But as long as we have a choice that is a better choice, we should be fighting for that. Thank you, Mayor. Well, the mayor always gets the last word, so. Well, that's our task, right? Our task is to educate. And the biggest takeaway from this discussion for me is we need to show the whole cliff because the whole cliff is big. And it will not be the same community we live in today. It won't. It just won't. And so, but again, everybody gets to vote. And our job is to educate, to make clear what those tradeoffs are. That's our job. That's our business job. Because I don't want to have to just survive. I don't. That's not why I live here. That's not why I stayed here. But we've got to put forward our case to show in our city, this is what we've done, this is what we've built, and this is what will go away. And you decide. Unfortunately, I do have more confidence in our city than some of the rest of the parts of the state. But that's, you know, we can't control that. Okay. What's next? Should we take a quick break? Break. Good timing. Budget workshop. And I think our next item is storm-related expenses and reimbursement. And go to a staff presentation by Les and Jean. Okay. I'll turn it over to Jean to go over the next few slides. Thank you. Hi. Jean Hawkwater, budget manager. So, as we know, we have incurred significant storm-related. Excuse me, but as we're moving along, are you tracking what we've asked for? You know, like the fact sheet and things like that? You got all that? Okay. Awesome. Very good. Okay. I like it. Okay. Good. All right. I like it. Okay. Sorry, Jean. Didn't mean to interrupt. That's okay. Just want to make sure our city manager's on top of it over here. We're taking notes, too. Okay. Good. Thank you. No problem. All right. So, as we know, we have incurred significant storm-related expenses in fiscal year 26 and 27 in the budgets because of Hurricane Selene and Milton. We're providing an overview of the storm-related expenses and anticipated reimbursements in the general fund, along with other relevant financial information to give a clearer picture of their impact on the city's budget. All right. So, this first slide is the estimated city match for storm damages. This is showing only actual storm expenses, and it is showing for the general fund, which includes our debt disaster recovery fund and the Marina Fund. So, the total estimated cost for the storms for the general fund and the Marina Fund is $17.4 million, which is shown in the far left column. And then the expected FEMA and state reimbursement is shown in the other columns, with our city match showing in the far right. I want to point out that FEMA expected reimbursement is $4.5 million total. And of that, we have received $2.3 million of that last year with expedited payment for debris removal. We've also received some small project reimbursements as well over the past year. We are hopeful that we will receive the remaining $3.2 million of debris removal funding from FEMA by September 30th of this year. For other storm projects, we're anticipating FEMA will reimburse most of the costs over the next two or three years. Our city match is estimated at about $528,000 in the general fund and $894,000 in the Marina Fund, with the total estimated city match to be $1.4 million, which you can see at the bottom of the far right. Total anticipated draws for the storm line of credit, as reflected in the 27 proposed budget, will be about $4.1 million in the general fund and $7 million in the Marina Fund. We expect the FEMA reimbursements to be received and the line of credit to be paid off in two to three years. The Marina Fund line of credit draw will likely be decreased by $3 million due to the state appropriation for the Marina storm repairs, which was approved by the governor with the state's 26 to 27 budget. And just so we all know, that happened after we published our proposed budget. We will evaluate the need for the line of credit funding as projects continue to be obligated and FEMA reimbursements to be received. This storm damage has added work and complexity to the fiscal year 26 and 27 budget processes. These numbers and the numbers listed here may change in the months ahead, but this is the best information we have as of June 30th. All right. This next slide. This is a general fund storm activity slide. And one thing to note on this slide, as opposed to the last, is this slide does include information on FEMA reimbursements, timing of those, and the interfund loan from fleet that the general fund had taken, and we're showing the reimbursements of that. So this slide shows activity from fiscal year 25 to this fiscal year 29, with most of the activity showing in fiscal year 25 through fiscal year 27. I want to mention that a key point in reading this slide is that in fiscal year 25, it has a positive 2.7 million at the total on the bottom, and that means the expenses are 27 million more than revenue for that year. That activity decreases the general fund balance, general fund available balance in 25, and then in fiscal year 27, you can see that it's the opposite effect, and revenues are more than expenses in the amount of 1.93 million. We also want to point out that in fiscal year 26, we will be drawing down the line of credit as discussed, and the estimated about will be about 2.1 million. As of today, we have not drawn down any funds on this line of credit, but expect we will in the months ahead. Overall, for the five-year period, the total number on the far right of 1,021,000 is a net expense to the general fund. One thing we wanted to note, we noted it last year as well, that in the fiscal year 25 budget, prior to the hurricanes, we had the fishing pier project that was in the budget at about 1.6 million. So in comparing with that, the general fund is actually a little bit better off comparing the 1 million of expenses versus what we thought we would be spending of 1.6. So that's a $500,000 savings over that four-year time period. It's also important to note that these figures assume the city will receive the full reimbursement of 75% from FEMA and 12.5% from the state of Florida. Before I move on, did anybody have any questions? So if you go back maybe one more screen, is it safe to say that Helene, Milton, and Debbie cost the city $17,421,000? Is that that simple? Those are the expenses, and that's really just for Helene and Milton. There's a small amount for Debbie, but most of this is Helene and Milton. Okay, so that $17,421,000 is the estimated cost for those two storms. Of that $17,421,000, how much have we been reimbursed by FEMA? So far, we've gotten about the $2.3 million. Just that we've identified, there might have been some smaller amounts. Sometimes we get other money from FEMA for the SAFER grant, and they're actually clearing up some older storms. So I will be doing a full reconciliation of what we've received from FEMA, the small amounts. We are hoping to get a bunch of things have been obligated that we're hoping to receive before the end of the year. And so we will be doing a full reconciliation, and there might be some changes to this in the tentative budget to make sure we're really showing a full, accurate level of where we're at. Do we stay in regular contact with FEMA? I mean, is there someone in the building here that calls them weekly and asks where our money is? Yeah, we... I mean, it's not overcomplicate this. Pretty much true, yeah. Yeah, we email them on a daily basis. They're asking questions every day, and we're responding to those questions, and we're working with Tetra Tech, our consultant, who helps us with it. They're very involved in this. Okay. So we meet with Tetra Tech every week, and we...formal meeting, and then we also meet with Tetra Tech and the FEMA reps about every two or three weeks. But as Gene mentioned, I'd say roughly we received about $3 million for those two storms to date. We've had small projects, roughly $3 million, no more than that. They are really looking...they're looking closely and asking a bunch of questions on our debris removal. We have $3.2 million that they owe us for debris removal, and that's moving now. They had it for 290 days and didn't do anything with it, and they started about three weeks ago looking at it. So we're hopeful that moves through and we get that funding within the next two or three months. That's a big dollar amount, but that's kind of what we're... And you said in two or three more months? Yeah, probably two or three more months before they obligate it and pay it. Yeah. That's our estimate. Yeah. And have we obtained every nickel's worth of property insurance that we were entitled to? Yeah, we received the insurance that we believe we're entitled to, and FEMA's asking us lots of questions right now. I mean, they are...FEMA was pretty dormant for a while there because the federal shut down and different things, and they didn't get much done for three or four months on Florida clients, that's what Tetra Tech has told me. But they are focusing a lot on our projects now, which is good. Good. I didn't mean to cut you off, and otherwise I could go for an hour on that topic, so I'm sorry, Jean. Okay. No worries. And I did want to also mention for this number, that's our total expense. Like, for certain projects, we have not spent all of the budgeted money yet. So, like, the fishing pier, you know, we're working on design, but construction has not been spent, but we have the full amount budget in there. And for the larger dollar amounts on anything we receive from FEMA or for insurance, like, there was, I think, a $300,000 insurance payment that we are showing as offsetting the fishing pier project because we did get that as insurance proceeds. We have some smaller dollar amounts that we want to do some final reconciliation on, but this is showing some of the big dollar amounts that we've gotten. So, question, if you go to the next slide real quick. So, I just want to make sure I understand this. The line of credit proceeds, so basically this year we took a $2 million line of credit, and we're planning on taking another $2.1 million next year, right? That's the plan. So, for the $2 million, almost $2.1 million this year, we have not taken it yet. We are anticipating, but we are trying to not take funding if we don't need to. So, that $2.1 million is basically more for some smaller projects that we're hoping will run through the pipeline and get reimbursed sooner rather than later. So, if we don't need to take that whole $2.1 million this year, we won't. So, the $2.1 million next year is more for where we're expecting we might need to take a drawdown on the fishing pier since we're thinking a lot of that spend will be next year. You know, we're not 100% sure, but we wanted to have a little estimate in our budget based on when we think funds will be spent and when we might be getting reimbursements from FEMA. These are all estimated numbers. Okay. No, I appreciate that. And then, to Commissioner Sandbergen's line of questioning, you know, I guess, you know, it is, I think, you know, we all understand the government shutdown and the impact of that, but we also have, you know, Tetra Tech, you know, in an advocacy role for us to, or, you know, I don't know, whatever you want to call it, but they're supposed to be helping. And then, of course, the Florida Department of Emergency Management. I mean, it is concerning to look at those numbers, realizing that of the $17 million in storm damage, we've only received 2.3. And I just, I guess the question I have on that is, you know, historically, what has it taken? And it sounds to me like it's taken quite a while if we're now just seeing FEMA reimbursements for storms before a lead in Milton. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. We just are now getting the final dollars from Debbie, Hurricane Debbie. So, yeah, it's normally at least a three-year process. Vice Mayor, if I could elaborate, if you recall, Irma, it took us four years to get reimbursement on that. So that's why carrying the reserve is critical. And I would like to point out, if you're looking at the one slide, I think if you go back one, you know, it shows the state and the city match. We've already been notified that going forward that those percentages will drop, which means the match, the FEMA portion is going to be less than 75% going forward. So our match will be that much more. So it is critical as far as essentially carrying these costs, utilizing reserves to pay these funds, and understanding that when we deal with FEMA and DEM and all those, most of the time we're dealing with contract employees. And they change throughout the process. You get to re-educate them along the way. So the four-year time frame is arduous and painful, but not uncommon. Yeah, that's, and you brought up another point, because I'd heard along, basically, that 75% of FEMA piece of that was going down. And I've heard some pretty drastic numbers, but I'm just curious as to what you've heard with regards to where. Yeah, there's drafts out there now. They're, it's, it depends on, they're looking at going to a different methodology, but also for debris removal, they're, you know, debris removal is 100% now. FEMA made this 100% for this storm, but a lot, but normally it's 75%, but they made this 100%, but they're dropping that, that 100% to the max 75%, so that would, that would, that difference would fall on us. I don't, I don't, the state, I don't think will pick up any, you never know, but I doubt the state picks up the difference, but they, they could pick up some of the difference. And they're also going to a method where, rather than really getting to the true cost, and, you know, one of the things we work through now is, you know, we've got, we've got engineer estimates for all these different projects, and FEMA's, and it's a negotiation process for them to, us to come up with, you know, what's the peer really going to cost, and come up with an agreed number, as an example. But they're, they're going to be going to more of a metric system, and the metric system will be, how long is the peer, what's under the peer, and it'll be some mathematical calculation, and from Tetra Steck's perspective, some places will win, and some will lose, because it will not be what the actual cost side will be, more of a mathematical calculation of, of, of, of, of what you lost, based on metrics and things like that. So there, that's in the draft too, but, but definitely, uh, I, I would expect our match will, our match with what we're seeing right now, would, would at least probably double from what, from what we would, in this storm, for example, we paid 12.5, what we're seeing, we probably paying at least twice that much, you know, if, if this continues to go through the way the drafts is written now, maybe more. Yeah, but, thank you. So looking at, for example, that Crowder Golf, $5.2 million, does FEMA pay them, or do we pay them when we're reimbursed? Yeah, we paid them, and then FEMA reimbursed us, yeah. Did we pay them already? Yes. Oh, yeah. And I'll bet you that means, uh, Tetra Steck, so they, we've put all that money out. Yeah, and that's the, you know, we, we paid the 5.2 million. I guess I didn't realize it, I'm too new in government to understand that. Yeah, we paid that, and then they paid us back 2.3 of that, expedited, and now we're waiting for the other 3 million, yeah, Crowder. Wow. I hope the citizens were listening when that, okay. So, so when people wonder why we carry a reserve, that's why we carry a reserve. I have no idea. Yeah, and it's going to get harder. Questions over here. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, yeah, what is the difference between the Disaster Recovery Fund and the General Fund, and where does the money come from in the Disaster Recovery? Uh, the Disaster Recovery Fund, I believe, was set up to, um, as a way to track all disaster recovery, disaster, uh, or storm-related expenses, and it rolls up into the General Fund. So, the money there does come from the General Fund. Okay, so, the General Fund, right? Is that what I heard? Yes. Okay, thank you. Yes. Uh, and I noticed that the Weaver Park Pier is there. I don't see the Marina Pier on there. Is there a reason? And it could be I'm just not seeing it, but... The Marina Pier... Oh, the Fishing Pier. ...is called the Fishing Pier. See, I didn't see it. Okay. We differentiate a little bit in the name, partially because, um, the general use that happens at that Fishing Pier, we, we try to differentiate it from the Marina itself, because it does not get paid for out of the Marina funds. Right. Okay. Yeah, and I just wanted to make sure it was there because the residents have been screaming for a while that they want their pier back. So, okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I have. Commissioner Degard? Very well done, first of all. My question's not to do with this. It has to do with the next storm and our ability to respond to it. What have we been advised from FEMA as far as how we're going to get recovery in future storms? Well, currently, you know, FEMA's guidelines are still the same as they were a year or two ago. This proposed, this proposed initiative that, that Horry mentioned is, is in a draft form and the current administration is going to roll it out at some point in the near future. We don't know exactly when yet. Once that's rolled out, then there'll be, that'll be major changes to, to, to the, you know, what FEMA's agreeing to and what we're agreeing to. But right now, if we, for the storm, for the storm season we're in right now, we're under the same guidelines that we're really in with Alina Milton until anything's formally, formally changed by legislation. Here's my point. We're being asked to cut back substantially on our expenses. We're being advised that in the future, FEMA may all go through the state as a block grant. If that were to happen, it's going to be more necessary for municipalities to self-fund for disaster because we can see the results. We will have actually the least possible capacity to do that because of the referendum. And the, in essence, we're going to get caught in the middle. No, that's a good point. As a matter of fact, one of the things that we were going to mention later in the presentation is the city manager and I have talked about, want to discuss with the commission, we think it would be, because of what you just said, set up a catastrophic reserve and start building that up over time to start having more dollars to set aside for, for match needs. But you're right. It's all the more challenging with, with, with, with the referendum and everything. But we do think that we need to figure out a way to cobble more dollars for, for future storms and future match needs. If you live on the coast in this state, look out. Yeah. Yeah. Well, first I was just going to say, and I just got my flood insurance bill for this year and eek, did a jump. So, insurance continues to be huge. Go ahead, Commissioner Gallo. Thank you, Mayor. Jorge, you had mentioned that the importance of the reserve on maintaining this. So, if we had something equally as catastrophic as the, the two hurricanes in our current state, do we have, are we in a good position? What kind of damage would this do to the reserve? I mean, I'll, I'll let Les elaborate, but obviously we'd have to rely on our line of credit that much more, right? If we start to consume our, our reserve in order to pay current storms that we had to front the cost on, and it takes four years to get reimbursed, and you get hit with another storm during that four-year period, then you're fronting that money on top of the one you already fronted. So, yeah, the referendum has a significant impact because, as they mentioned, the general fund is what supports that. And if we set up a catastrophic fund, that's fed by the general fund as well. But I'll let Les elaborate. I agree 100% with what the horror just said. Yeah, it would, it would be much more challenging. You know, one of the challenges we have now is we borrowed $5 million from the fleet fund, and we, we, we, we paid back $2.3 million, so we still owe them that other, that difference of $2.7 million, and we can't pay that back, really, until we get the remainder of that debris removal that we mentioned we hope to get in the next three or four months. And, you know, and we want that paid back because if we have a storm again this year, we would need to draw from either that fund or another one, uh, and line of credit to be able to, uh, come up with immediate dollars for debris removal and then long-term dollars for, for restoration. Thank you. Um, okay, so, sorry, I'm asking this probably for about the 10th time that everybody's asked it. Okay, so our total loss, $17.4 million, we've received 2 point, what? We, we received about, uh, in total, 2.3, but we also received probably another 400, 400, 500,000 on small projects, so probably 2.93 million dollars you've received so far. And then we got insurance money separate from that? Insurance money separate from that, yeah. And how much was that? I'm going to turn it over to Teresa. Okay. Bored over here. Okay. Unfortunately, I don't have that number on the tip of my fingers, but I will get that number for you. Yeah, if you could get it sometime today. Yes. Maybe at lunch, okay. Okay. Because I'd be curious, is it like more than a million, or? Um, pretty sure, yes. More than 2 million? I mean, that's important. I don't want to come at my fault. That's huge. That's a huge factor. We'll get that number for you specifically, Mayor, but what I do want to add is that what insurance paid FEMA will not. Right, I understand that. I'm just looking about making us whole. That's all I care about. And, but, but you guys feel, well, relatively confident we're going to end up getting all this money from FEMA someday. Yeah, relatively, yes. For a far away land. Yeah, it could be a long period of time. Okay. Yeah. Um, so, and the question I get, and I still can't answer it very well, is, well, first let me ask this. Of the 17 million, does that include floating docks for the marina? Yes. Our, our current budget has our estimate of the cost for floating docks, yes. And we think we're going to get that back from FEMA, too. And how does it jive with state appropriation? Well, the state appropriation is, we'll, we'll revise this because the good news is, we'll, we've got three million less dollars relying on FEMA. So the positive thing is, our, we've got three million dollars. Or is it four million? Because I thought we got a million dollars and then three million dollars. It was three for the marina. Yeah. Oh, okay. Three for the marina. Yeah. But didn't, in a prior year, we get one million, too? Yeah, we got, we got 1.5 last year, excuse me. Okay. So it's actually four and a half. Okay. And that's already in here. Yeah. The 1.5 we got last year is already factored into this. Okay. But the three million we just received is not factored into this yet. So, so it will, two things, it will reduce the reliance on FEMA and it will also reduce our match because on that $3 million, we're paying a 12.5% match. So we're going to be able to reduce our match by about $375,000 with that $3 million grant. So that's what I think we need is a little bit of a 17.4 million FEMA so far, appropriations, insurance, like building ourself back to wholeness, I guess is the issue. So I just wanted to clarify that that $17 million number is going to go up because we have already offset by 300,000 on the fishing pier project. I've already taken that out because FEMA will not be reimbursing us. We've already got that. So the fishing pier project is showing up, I think, at $1.7 million. It's actually $300,000 more than that. But you're talking about insurance. Insurance. And then on the appropriation side for the bulkhead, we're showing that $1.5 million already taken out. So we'll do the numbers with the full actual cost. I mean, it would just be helpful to have kind of a running little fact sheet that, hey, here's where we're at, $17 million, and here's where we're, okay, have it, expect it from, you know, just so we kind of know. I'm working on a reconciliation for that, a larger, more detailed one, but I'll create something fact sheet type for you guys. Again, because in my mind, right, we're $17.4, we've got $2.7 or $8 or $9, and we're, we've got $4.5, I mean, we've got $1.5 in the bank, $3 million, pretty secure that we'll get that. So it starts to, you know, at least trigger that number down. So, okay. Let's see. I think, yeah, I think that's my only, my only question. And, yeah, and again, I think this goes to the heart of the fact sheet on the property tax referendum. I mean, especially if FEMA's going to change its rules and state, you know, we're, again, recovery's hard. So, okay. Okay. So we're going to go on to, all funds is next, right, Les? Mm-hmm. Revenue expenditures, projections, all funds, so we get started with that. And what time are we planning lunch? Noon? Okay. So if we want to go ahead and we'll start with our, the different funds, does that sound good? We're going to do the baseline information. Is that what, is that what's next? Yes. Give you the baseline that we based our projections upon. And I, I don't know if anybody else did this, but in the budget, like if we're following you in the budget by funds, what page does that start on? When we get to the, we're not quite there yet. Oh, we're not there yet. This is just some. You guys tell me because I, that's where I put my questions. So I don't, I got to make sure I get back to that. So yeah, we'll let you know. And the slides we'll mention when we get to the, each individual fund, what pages in the, in the budget and the appendix. So for ad valorem revenue in the 27 proposed budget, this is based on the estimate we received from Pinellas County as of May 29th, 2026. The total, total taxable value increase in 20, fiscal year 27 over fiscal year 26 was 4.52% for our, for Dunedin. Um, and we want to mention that after the budget was, was published, we got the final certification from the County on July 1st and the AV growth was up a slight amount to 4.53. Um, and that will bring us an additional $1,200 in our budget and the tentative. All right. That's the smallest jump I've seen. Um, we, we always mentioned the increase between the, the, the tentative or the proposed and the tentative and this year it's a very small increase. Just a follow up real quick on something Commissioner Sandberg and ask, I mean, wouldn't they, when they give us that percentage, wouldn't they have already included anybody that's back on the tax roll after the storm? Yeah, everybody. So, I mean, we shouldn't expect, I mean, anything huge coming other than that. Yeah, that would be, uh, that number for 27, that's everybody on the tax roll. The tax roll January 1st of 2026, that's their cutoff date. So whoever is back on the tax roll as of January 1st would be in, in these numbers and whoever's not back would may, may fall into next year, but we would think most of them are back, but I'm not sure all of them are, but we'll get more information just editorially. I think of my street and, uh, some are still being built, some are being sold, which I have no doubt will be torn down and built. So, yeah. So next year I'll probably really tag it in maybe, or a year after actually. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. Um, the net taxable value, um, in talking about the new construction, the net taxable value for new construction in the 27, uh, according to the estimate we received on May, uh, May 29th was, uh, 79 million. Um, and I think that jumped up to 80 million when we got the final roll on July 1st. Um, and we have, as Les said, we have an email out to the county to get us a breakdown of what that new construction is. How much is actual new construction? How much is, um, storm damage houses coming back on the tax roll? Um, okay. Um, the taxable value revenue for TIF for the CRA fund increase over, uh, fiscal year, for fiscal year 27, um, was also 4.52%. Um, in, as of the July 1st estimate, uh, preliminary tax roll, the county came in at slightly higher at 4.66%, and that increased revenue in CRA by 1750. Another small, minor increase, but, um, uh, it was better than the opposite effect. So, I'm sorry, set 1,750. Sorry. It, it wasn't quite that small, but, um, sorry. The, um, fiscal year 27 proposed budget is based on a 4.1345 millage rate, which the city has held since fiscal year 2016. A proposed maximum millage rate of 4.1345, uh, for fiscal year 27 will be presented to commission at the July 23rd commission meeting. That's item 3D. Uh, and obviously we're keeping the same, uh, estimate. Sorry. All right. This is our slide, um, to show the millage rate effect on the avalorum tax revenue. Um, this shows the millage rate over the period of 2015 to 2027, 13-year period, um, and it also shows in yellow the property tax revenue for each year. We have a steady AV growth for several years, but growth has tapered off some in fiscal year 27, uh, 26 and 27. Moving on to, uh, the, uh, the summary of revenues comparing the 20, fiscal year 27 budget to the fiscal year 26 budget. General fund, uh, other taxes revenue increased in fiscal year 27 by 3.7 percent or 215,000 compared to fiscal year 26. This category includes electricity service taxes and communication services taxes, uh, cable television, satellite television, video streaming, and telephone services. The electric services taxes from Duke Energy was the main reason for the increase in fiscal year 27 compared to the 26 budget. In the penny fund, um, penny sales tax decreased by 6.1 percent compared to the fiscal year 26 budget. This is due to house bill seven 7031, um, from last year, which eliminated the 2% sales tax on rent and leases of commercial property. And that went into effect on 10, one 25. There will be more discussion on penny revenue later in the presentation today. County tax gas tax revenue are budgeted at negative 3.5 percent or another decrease compared to fiscal year 26. The fiscal year 26 actual revenues are actually trending 4% under budget and the fiscal year 27 budget is consistent with the most recent County of Pinellas estimates. Uh, there will also be more discussion on that, uh, when we get to that fund later today. For the enterprise funds, solid waste, um, the increase in revenue charges for services is 15.61 percent in fiscal year 26 budget, uh, as compared to fiscal year 26 budget. And there, that is effective on April 1st, 2027. It's a little different than our normal rate increases, which start on 10 one of the, of the fiscal year. Uh, that's because the 26, um, rate increase happened mid year. So the second, um, uh, first for the second year, the increase will also be mid year. And, and that is ordinance 26.01. Um, and that was approved, I believe in March of this year for wastewater utility rate increases is, uh, 15% in fiscal year 27 over 26. And, um, that is, um, in ordinance 2504, which was approved approved on June 5th, 2025 by commission. And, um, that sets the rates through fiscal year 30. Stormwater utility rate increase is this year in fiscal year 27 is 18.6% over fiscal year 26. The stormwater utility ordinance 2415 was approved by commission on July 11th, 2024. Um, and that set the rates for the next three years, fiscal year 27 expenditures, the fiscal year 27 budget includes a 3.5% merit increase for all employees, except fire union employees that are covered under a collective bargaining agreement with the city. There's no changes to range or minimums or maximums in this budget, uh, benefit, um, the, the benefit increase is about 15.9% in the proposed budget, mainly due to an increase in health insurance costs over fiscal year 26 budget. We are working with Teresa Smalling, human resources and risk management director and the Gehring, uh, group, our consultants. And based on most re most recent information from them, this may be reduced some, and we are still fine tuning the numbers. We will have more detailed information on the health benefits costs in the, but in second budget workshop on August 4th operating costs, um, in prior years, um, and we, as we discussed earlier, we have requested, uh, the city departments to reduce controllable operating expenses in fiscal year 27. And as a result, most departments did achieve a decrease in their expenses, um, with the following exceptions, um, the building fund there, they had an increase of 37% or $103,000 do increase in, uh, plans review services and inspection contractual services of 50,000 and an annual IT license increase of also a 50,000 for new floodplain management software. County gas tax, the, um, budget increased by 7.3% due to a $25,000 increase in the city sidewalk inspection and maintenance program budget. Wastewater fund, water wastewater fund had an increase of 4.4% due mainly to an increase in the biosolids hauling contract at the wastewater treatment plant. The marina fund had an increase of 23% or 26% or $24,950 due to an increase in repair and maintenance costs for the harbormaster building repair project. All right. Health benefits fund, um, has the 15.9% increase due to the increase in projected increase in medical claims and health costs in fiscal year 27. As discussed, this is still under review and may decrease some. We'll present the detailed information for this fund on August 4th. CRA, uh, there is a 2.5% or 10% increase due to an increase of $32,500 in professional services for the, uh, CRA master plan supplement, which is also in, uh, offset by a decrease in rents and leases by $21,400, um, and that's related to the ocean optics parking lot lease, which we are budgeting, um, for only half a year this year, based on the development of that property. Now we're moving to the long range projections and the, uh, the first one. Let's stop there and just make sure there's no questions on what we just saw. Um, anybody? Okay. I noted on your utility rates that they were based on the increase that we had, uh, made this last year, have we seen any elasticity and demand that might make those numbers a little less? No, I would say at this point in time, not from what the projects we've had on in, in the budget. Um, and then also the other, the additional mandates that we have to make sure and just staying in compliance. Well, we have seen some behavioral differences relative to, um, Oh, I'm sorry. If reusable water, uh, that that's had an effect. I wondered what our water, um, volume has been doing because if we're assuming equal volume, I think we're making an assumption that's false. I'm trying to, we've raised the rates. Usually the market tends to respond to a raised rate by reducing consumption. Have we seen any reduced consumption? I'd have to get back to you on that. Okay. Great question. Yeah. Uh, let's, I think it's, I think it's slide 25, the, the penny fund and it is down 6%. And the primary reason it's down was because of a state law that reduced commercial by 2%. Yeah. Commercial rent leases were 2%, uh, sales tax. And then they, they eliminated that completely on October, 2025. So all of 2026, we felt that impact. The state estimated about a 5%, four or 5% decrease, but we're, we're trending more like seven or eight. I mean, I think seven and a half percent decreased to date for the first six months of this year. But, uh, we're just truing up that adjustment to what we, what we anticipate receiving this year. And then a small increase next year, uh, for a little bit of growth in 27. Okay. And so again, this is a result of the state law and the impact on commercial, as opposed to just, we've had a reduction in sales. Tourism isn't here, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Correct. Correct. Okay. And so when we talk about what options are, if this referendum passes in November is we can still increase our millage, um, for those that for non owner occupied residences or on the commercial side. And so we could also see then if that's the case and we, if everything falls in line and we happen to do that, the state can also get a chance by just saying, okay, we'll reduce commercial by even that to try and, so the state will still have a role in any revenue that, that we bring in. Yeah. Right. That's true. And, and also just want to mention regarding commercial and, and, and not homestead. The, the, if the votes are approved in November, the other thing that, that all cities would face, including us is that the, the growth factors in future years would, would be definitely less because the max, the maximum out goes from 10% to 5%. So future growth would definitely be reduced, uh, during, during, during good, during good economy times because of that reduction. Okay. And the county gas tax here, there was a reduction of 3.2. What was the reason for that? Gas tax has, has been challenging the past three or four years. It's just, it's based on, it's based on, uh, consumption, uh, it's not, not the price, but the consumption and, and, uh, and for a number of years, we've seen it either flat or slightly go down. So it's just kind of, it's the last couple of years have been a trend with it slightly going down. Okay. It'd probably be a combination of electric vehicles and or the high gas prices. People aren't driving as much. Yeah. Awesome. Okay. And so how do we square that with the reduction in the county gas tax with, when, right on the next slide, I think when it comes to expenses, gas tax increased by 12%, was it? Yeah, we, we increased the 7.3. I'm sorry. Yeah, we did increase the sidewalk maintenance, but when we get to the gas tax fund, we'll, we can go over this in more detail, but we, the gas tax fund is, is very challenged. And we, we, we also moved money out of the, we moved dollars for pavement management. Out of the gas tax fund into the penny fund to help kind of cover, cover this expense. The gas tax, gas tax fund is very challenged right now. And we'll, we'll walk through more, more of that when we walk through that fund. But we had this increase, we had other decreases in addition to that to offset the revenue decrease. Okay. And we'll be talking about the, the gas tax fund later? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. That's all that I have. Just wanted clarification. Thank you. Questions on this side? I don't have any questions. Jean, you were real quick through the other taxes. Could you go through those again? Just, that's not a question about all those. I'm going to make sure I'm reading it right. All right. So the other taxes include electricity services taxes and communications taxes. And that could include cable, satellite television, video streaming, telephone services. And in this instance, the electric services taxes from Duke this year was the main reason for the increase in this category. So let's take something that we all have, cellular phones. Do they dictate to us what they're going to pay Dunedin? Or can we go to them and say we would like a little more tax revenue from them? Uh, that revenue stream is, is passed down from the state. Okay. And so we have very little control over that. Yeah. In other words, it's, it's a, it's a formula and, and that, that, that particular revenue stream has been pretty flat the last five years. It's gone up a little bit, probably 2% growth maybe overall over the last five years. But, but, uh, but we don't, we don't have much flexibility in, in, in, in what, what we receive or other cities receive from the state. So what we're looking, if we're looking to increase revenue, that's not a place to look. I think that'd be, I don't think that is going to do much now. And, you know, we looked at those, uh, enterprise funds with those rate increases. Are those funds solvent and stable, profitable now? The enterprise funds, when we, we'll go through them a little, this after, today, but overall, they, they, they, they look, they're in pretty good shape. You know, uh, a lot of moving parts on the water waste water fund, uh, that we'll talk about because of, Clay had mentioned some of the, the regulations we have to follow and that are down the pipeline. But, but overall, they, uh, they've improved a lot from, uh, a year ago. They have. That's all I had, Mayor. The, um, solid waste, uh, water, wastewater, stormwater. I mean, who up here voted for that? I didn't. I'm just kidding. Um, wow, that, that, I kind of hit you, you know, and of course that's the power too of the punch of the percentage versus a dollar figure too at times. But we know we kind of hit it hard on all of them and we're, we don't want to do that again. Um, but the out years declined significantly. Do you know the out years on those? Like in each one of those cases, the first year was the heavy-headed year. Yeah. Well, uh, each one's different, but, uh, the, the outer years in most of these funds that we'll go through later are, uh, actually, you know, right now appear to be above, above the reserve targets, which is good. In other words, they're, they're, uh, and, and some quite a bit above and we'll walk through that later. But, uh, the solid waste fund is, uh, is the one that just, just had the increase. It's, it's in sort of a, a pretty tight position through 27, but then 28 in future years, it, it builds, it's building up reserves very nicely in our, in our, in our forecast. And you're right. We're going to talk about those. I will say ahead of time on the benefits, it looked like we've doubled our cost from like 4 million something to 8 million something now in the last three years, which is completely unsustainable. So, I mean, um, which is reflective of the national issues too. Um, uh, my one question was, cause I think that when we talk about some other state laws that have impacted revenue decreases or increases fairly, um, I think we should make sure those are included in our kind of compilation of facts. And one thing I wanted to double check this, cause I think we had, didn't we have a large increase in the fire pension cost? Yes, we did. And, and how much was that? About 25% year over year. Which is how much? About, uh, $290,000. And why was that? You know, I'd have to get back, it's, it's, it's an actuarial calculation and I'd have to get back to you with, with, with a specific reasons whether, cause what goes into that is more, more, you know, every year they look at mortality, it's mortality rates, it's, uh, the investment returns, uh, that, that they received that year and, and some other things. So to give you a good answer, I, I can research that and get back to you. Well, and my main, my main part of the question is those, the, uh, the criteria, the benefit criteria is driven by state and a lot of those are put on us. And I want to make sure we're clear on that because again, state's taken, wants to take away, but the state puts all these unfunded mandates on us that we have to do. And I just think that's another example. So any example like that, that's driven by state, I just think we need to make sure we're including. So that people understand, you know, don't look at us for a lot of some of this stuff too. Um, I think that's all my questions. Um, could I follow up on one of those? Sure. Go right ahead. Thank you. Is the fire pension fund defined contribution or defined benefit? Defined benefit. FRS defined benefit. That's what drives the cost. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. And I was going to say, cause the, the sheriff would be the same thing. Sheriff's under Florida retirement system. So under special risk class. So, you know, any, any kind of law that might've impacted that might be impacting us on that cost side as well. Yeah. Cool. Um, okay. So everybody's good. We'll keep moving. Okay. Our, uh, while range projections now, and our first is the general fund. Um, general fund is the city's main operating, operating fund. It includes many city departments. Uh, some brief background on the general fund in the proposed budget for fiscal year 27. As, uh, the city manager mentioned earlier, uh, we, we have, uh, our available fund balance is at 17.8% and above our target, uh, goal of 15%. In 2028 and future years, there is a projected, uh, budget shortfall of 5.6 million, uh, in the general fund. The shortfall was very close to the same number as we had in the 26 final adopted budget. The shortfall represents the excess of expenditures over revenues over the five-year timeframe in the general fund, and we'll go over the general fund long range plan and more in a few slides. Uh, for some highlights in the general fund for property taxes, uh, as Jean mentioned earlier, we had, uh, 4.3% growth, uh, in revenue at $775,000, and that's due to the AV increase that we had in 27 over 26. For the intergovernmental revenues, uh, we increased by $774,000 in 27 compared to 26 budget, and that's too mainly to an increase expected FEMA reimbursement of, of, uh, $1,046,000 and with an offsetting decrease of $75,000 in revenue sharing proceeds from the state and a decrease of $240,000 in the state and local half cent sales tax, uh, and that again is due to the commercial rent, same thing. Our penny fund was impacted and our half cent sales tax was also reduced by about $240,000 as a result of that HB 7031. Um, charges for services increased by $820,000 or 8.1% in 27 due primarily to an increased reimbursement of $223,000 from the, uh, County of Pinellas for the firefighter and EMS cost reimbursement for 2027. Uh, also an increase in the administrative fee, uh, from the enterprise funds for, in the general fund from 27 compared to 26. And that's due, uh, related to the increases in stormwater, uh, and wastewater and solid waste, uh, year over year. And for the expenditures, the operating costs increased seven point decrease, excuse me, 7.1% uh, or $1.5 million in 27 compared to 26. And that is due, uh, to a couple of things. Uh, first, our, our ISF for, uh, for property insurance is decreased by $782,000 and that's due to the fact that in 2026, our budget was more than needed. Uh, the actual cost in 2026 for property insurance was much less than we budgeted. We talked about this a little bit in our VA a few months ago, but we budgeted a certain amount. It came in lower after the budget was adopted. It was good news in 26, but, uh, so, so, uh, and also all departments in the general fund were asked to reduce their controllable operating costs. We talked about that a little earlier and that, that resulted in approximately $500,000 in savings in, uh, in the general fund departments for the capital decrease of, uh, $4.9 million. We had a change year over year from 27 to 26. And that was due primarily to, uh, the Highlander Aquatic Complex, uh, decreased by $1.9 million in 27. Weaver Park, uh, pier renovation decreased by $400,000. The fishing pier and day docks decreased by $2 million. And the library lighting decreased by $152,000 in 27 compared to 26. That's what makes up most of that $4.9 million reduction. And for debt service, we had an increase of $873,000 in 27 compared to 26 budget. And that's due to an increase in debt service in the 20, in 27 for the storm line of credit of $935,000. That's an estimate of course, but that's what we have in the, in the budget and also a decrease in the aquatic complex financing costs for cost of issuance that was in 26 and was not in 27 and the net of those two make up the $873,000 and moving to the, uh, the assumptions in the general fund, uh, we have our, our projected 4.2 increase that we received from the county at the end of May. And that will be, that, that ended up being 5.4.53. Then we have estimates from 28 through 32. Uh, these estimates are consistent with county's estimated growth last year, uh, at 4%. And then when we do, we do reduce it to 3% in 32. We did make an adjustment in, uh, in 2028 for some new construction that we knew was coming in the pipeline. So we did make that, that adjustment in 28 in, in these numbers as well. Also, uh, other tax revenue is from 28 to 32 estimated 2% growth. Intergovernment revenue is 2% growth and charges for services is, uh, 2.2% growth from 28 to 32 and also salaries and benefits in, from 28 to 32 are our 3.5% merit increase, uh, uh, in our assumptions and for the benefits increase is 6% uh, estimate in 28 to 32 and operating costs is a 2.5% estimate from 28 to 32 and non-capital is a small increase of 1%. Uh, and we had some changes, uh, to the 27 budget. Um, we began a process, uh, with the budget in January of this year, 2026. Uh, we met with the city manager in finance, uh, met with all departments in early in April and early May to review all the department's budgets by line item. We started with over a $1.5 million shortfall in the, in the 27 budget before those meetings to have, uh, and to have the budget cut. We, we, we, we met, we reduced these projects before you to get us, you know, uh, back to, uh, uh, a, a, a budget that's over a 15% target. I want to mention because staff only added essential new projects to the general fund in 27, balancing the budget required moving these projects, uh, on this list from, uh, 27 to 28. And we, we moved out a solar energy improvement project for $550,000. We pushed it to 28. We had a Weybridge Woods project. Um, we pushed from 27 to 28 for $800,000. Dunedin Boat Club Selling Center. We moved to 28 for $886,000. And the citywide door access controls was split between 27 and 28 at $64,000. So the total of those was $1.6 million. And so this is our long range plan. This is in the proposed budget book on page, uh, 50, 502 to 507. That's at the top of the slide there as a reference. Um, as mentioned, the 27 proposed budget is balanced. The available reserve amount in the 27 year is projected to be 15, 17.8% well above our target. Uh, the general fund long range plan, uh, similar to prior last few years, uh, presents the budget shop, the shortfall not being addressed first. And then it, then it is being addressed at the bottom with the two yellow highlighted rows. We, you see towards the bottom on this slide towards the bottom. I want to point out there are red font numbers, uh, towards the middle rows. It says revenue over slash under expenses, like the fourth line from the bottom. Uh, that's, that's not the 28 to 32. When I mentioned the red numbers mean that the expenses are more than the, are more than the revenues. That's what that is showing. The first highlighted row represents the estimated available fund balance at the end of the year. And as you can see in 20, 27, it's 17.8% and above our target in 20, 28, 20, 28, it drops to 7.4%. And then it reduces, uh, each year after that, as you can see in the, uh, in the model at 32, the bottom row highlighted is the same information with the budget shortfall. Again, it's an estimate being addressed and, and the estimate average shortfall over the five year period, 28 to 32 is approximately 5.6 million. Uh, and that's towards the bottom. Um, the estimated budget shortfall can be addressed with reductions in service or, or, or, or, or, or reduction in expenditures or with, uh, revenue increases or a combination of both, both methods. Uh, the budget for 20, 27, uh, we have before you, and we have a balanced budget due partially to, uh, we are projecting a fund balance carryover, uh, in 20, 26 of 16.1 million. That's under the estimated 20, 26 column, slightly more than our, our reserve, which is rolling over, uh, to 20, 27. The estimated shortfall amount, uh, you know, we, we are addressing, we have been, as mentioned, the, uh, the staff's been addressing it, uh, over the last eight months with some of the things we talked about, uh, there's many ways to address it, uh, and we have, uh, discussed some of those earlier today. The estimated shortfall is very close to the amount it was last year, uh, in the final budget document last year, uh, the shortfall was, uh, very close to this number. However, I want to mention just a few changes that have happened between this long range plan and, and, and the adopted long range plan in 20, 26 budget for revenues, uh, big picture, uh, over the five-year timeframe, 20, 28 to 32, uh, our revenues are, are less than prior year over that, over that, uh, timeframe by, by about 1.8 million, uh, not a huge reduction, but it has gone down some. The assessed value estimates for property taxes are very close to the same as prior year in the long range plan, uh, very, very close there, uh, but a couple of other revenue sources such as the half cent sales tax I mentioned earlier, uh, which was, which has been reduced by about 240,000 and also the electrical service tax has also been reduced some. So between those two, the reduction is about 340,000 a year. And, and that 340 is sort of the average over the five-year period. So, uh, overall slight reduction in revenue, uh, over the five-year timeframe compared to last year. And on the expenditure side, personnel costs have increased, uh, from 27 to 20 to 32 in, in this, in this, uh, proposed budget compared to last year's budget. And for, for, and the increase is about $2.7 million in total. And, and the average is about 530, about $530,000 more labor this year than in the long range plan last year. And that's mainly due to, uh, health costs increase of 16%, which is, was more than our estimate last year in 27, uh, 16, much more than our estimate. And also we mentioned the pension benefits, it's the, the, our, our pension costs mainly due to fire are about $310,000 more this year compared to prior year. So, uh, labor's up a little higher than last year. Now the operating costs, uh, operating costs have decreased, uh, as mentioned, they've decreased, uh, uh, about $5.3 million over the five-year period. And the reduction's about a million dollars a year. So that, that's been helpful in this, in this long range plan. Uh, approximately half of this reduction was due to the efforts that we discussed. We, we asked all the departments to cut up the 20% and the resulting savings of that was $500,000. And that's ongoing every year in, in, in our estimates. Uh, also electricity costs were reduced. Uh, our, we were, had been over budget a couple of years in a row with, with utilities. And so we reduced utilities by about $245,000 in 27. Uh, hope, hopefully, uh, that, that works with Dukes increases, but we were running over. So we did adjust that $245,000 down. Uh, and also we had a $475,000 reduction for IT services allocation, uh, in, in this year. And we're, and we're, and that is expected to also, uh, flow throughout the model. So operating costs decreased with those items about 1 million a year, uh, in, in the model compared to prior year for the capital costs. We, we've had increases in capital costs. You know, we, we encourage our departments to put in their needs and wants, because one of the things we want to make sure we know what's in front of us. Obviously, you know, we want to make sure we know what our state of good repair needs are and other needs. So we do encourage them to put things in, in and out of years and so we can plan for them. Uh, so capital is increased by 5.5 point. There's 5.1 million more dollars of capital projects in this, in this, uh, forecast than there was in, in the budget last year. And that's about a million dollars a year more in projects each year. And, uh, so some of the projects that were added, and this is, uh, some of the larger dollars ones, Fisher Little League complex lights increased $450,000 over the five-year timeframe. A fireboat, uh, replacement is, was added, uh, uh, at for $700,000 out in 2032. An SCBA bottle air fill station for the fire department was added out in the later years of $750,000. Dunedin Marina Ferry dock reconstruction of $207,000. That, and that was our match we discussed earlier for the, uh, the federal grant. The Highlander pulse resurfacing of $280,000 was, uh, was added that was discussed some earlier. New fire apparatus equipment and outfitting a new project for $210,000 and solar energy improvements project was added for $750,000. So those are the larger dollar ones that are in the outer years this year. We're not, and we're not in the outer years, in, in last year's budget. Uh, I want to mention also that Highlander aquatics complex project, the total cost in the 27 budget is, uh, is, is out. We moved it, we're proposing to move it out in fiscal year 29, uh, and the cost is $8.1 million in the general fund. Uh, the plan would be to issue a 10-year bank loan. And I want to mention that if penny five is approved by the voters in November of 28, this amount of $8.1 million in the general fund would move to the penny fund and the penny fund would pay the debt service in 29 through 2038 timeframe. Assuming penny five is approved by the voters, uh, we would move that debt service out of the general fund into the penny fund. If penny five would, is not approved or not successful, the general fund would make all the debt service payments over the, over that 10-year timeframe. Um, also want to mention that debt service, uh, was decreased, uh, some by, uh, by about a million dollars in total or about 200,000 a year, year over year. So the total impact of these, these, when you net all these out, you know, they actually net out to about a $625 increase. It's very close in total. There's, there's changes, there's increases in labor, there's decreases in operating, there's increases in capital, but the net change is, it changes, you know, about a hundred thousand dollar average decrease every year. And our proposed, our estimated shortfall today is 5.650 million. And in the final adoptive budget last year, it was 5 million to 525,000, just very, very close. Uh, but I want to point out some of the differences to the commission. Uh, Mayor, can I frame that up for a second? Sure. So, um, and one of the things that, that, that I hear in the community, uh, as a result of the budget workshops and then adoption of, of our budget is, um, that we essentially have a deficit budget and that the city commission is adopting a deficit budget in much the same way the federal government does, right? If it's a deficit and it builds every year, it's just, it just increases the debt year to year to year. That's not happening here. This is a balanced budget. We are not permitted to adopt a deficit budget. We are projecting a shortfall in future years. If everything remains the same as it is this year, but as Les had said, we can't allow it to remain the same in the outlying years. And so every year we come to you, um, with ways to, to address, to balance the budget this year, not really addressing the budget deficit in future years. So the budget that we have for you now addresses that we start to address that without the contingency budget in case the referendum passes, but we're starting to, to make inroads there to eventually address that in its entirety over a, a period of time. Um, but I do have people after nine years, I finally realized what people were asking me that, that, that it thinking it's similar to the, to the federal government. It is not. We have a balanced budget this year. That's our responsibility to present to you, your responsibility to adopt. And then in future years, we need to attack, to address that deficit in a number of different ways. No, it's a good comment. Thank you. I'm glad because I get that too. So it's good. Yeah. I want to mention one more, one more item. If, if you look at, uh, 2027, uh, column, uh, or yeah, uh, and you go down and, and you see, uh, there's, uh, the revenue over under expenditures and it shows $442,000, uh, uh, but the fourth line from the bottom. And then, and then you go to the next column, next column in 2028, it's, it's a negative 4.5 million. So we go from pretty much, uh, a balanced revenue expense amount. And then we go to a negative 4.5. I want to, I want to mention a few, a few items that, that, that, that's causing that basically. So the first, the first item is, uh, the changes in 28 compared to 27 that are, that are driving that, that, that negative number is first, uh, in, in, in 2028, we added, we added back, we had all this, we had all this operating savings from the insurance and it's a one-time thing in 2027. So we added back $1.1 million in the general fund in 2028, because we knew that the savings we had in 2027 was a one-time thing in general. So 1.1 of operating costs were increased in 2028 to take that into account. Also, we had $1.6 million increase in projects. The projects in the total projects in 2028 are about $1.6 million more than they are in 27. We also have in 2027, in that storm slide we looked at earlier, it's, uh, 2027 is a net, uh, has a net revenue increase of 1.9 million, uh, due to, due to storm activity. So, so that, that revenue in 2027 is $1.9 million more due to, due to storm activity in 2028, that's not happening. So when you take, and when you take the 1.1 added operating expenses, the $1.6 million increase in capital cost year over year, and, and also the storm activity revenue in 27 and not in 28, that, uh, that gets you to about 4.6 million and, and very close to the difference between those two numbers. So I just want to give, give you an idea of kind of what's driving that. So, you know, just one, one example, I guess you said 1.6 million in capital projects. And of course we've, we've now seen where we pushed a lot over to 2028. But again, I can look in 2028 and see that there's things I would push. Push again. I'd push again. Sure. You know, I'm not convinced on some of them. So that's, so that's a number it's, you know, in a perfect world, whatever that we'd go to, but we have flexibility by the time we get there. Right. But again, so it speaks to how we balance the budget year to year. Yeah. Yeah, it is. Because I, again, you know, it's so funny. I looked at this budget forever. It's the first time it really thought to me, yeah, we pushed all these projects out. But again, I'm looking. And then there's a lot of times we justify a capital right at that year and we push it off and it, it doesn't, it doesn't get the same level of vetting, but it gets to stay there. Right. It's a place, but it doesn't mean it's ever going to happen. Right. Yeah. Got it. Can I ask a fundamental question? Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Are we, are we good? Are we ready to go to just questions on general fund? Sure. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Vice Mayor, I'll start with you. Uh, just a fundamental question, because it's, I, I know you do this somehow, but I'm not making the numbers. I can't get the numbers to add up. Um, when we see an ending unassigned fund balance, how much of that do we carry forward into the next year? Well, the, the, the ending unassigned fund balance is, is, you know, a point in time, you know, at the end of, for instance, 2026, we're estimating the fund balance to be 7.3 million as an example at the bottom, the yellow, what we carry over is we carry over the, the whole, the entire fund balance. Uh, that, that, if you look at 2026 estimate, the 7.3 million, you go up two lines, uh, we carry over the 11.2 million into the next year, which is the total fund balance, not just the available. And the difference is we've got restricted funds in the general fund that are, that are not available. And that's kind of, that's the difference between the 11.9 and the 7.3. So that 11.9 million dollar number under 20, estimate 26, uh, rolls up to the top line in 27 year. Uh, if you look at the very top line in 2027 budget, you'll see that 11.9 million. And then each year sort of follows that same format. And if you go to, if you go to 27 at the bottom, the total ending fund balance in 27 budget is 12.3 million. And then if you go to the top of 28, you'll see that, that fund balance of 12.3 million roll forward to 28. Okay. And so it's all not, it's not incorporated in any specific line item. Um, I'm just trying to get the numbers to. Yeah. Yeah. For, for, for flowing purposes, I would look at the ending fund balance, which is the third line from the bottom there, ending fund balance. And then those numbers are the total fund balance in the, in the fund and those roll up to the next year and then, and then, and continually we, we, that's what rolls from one year to the next. Okay. All right. Well, that's good. Um, yeah. And I just, uh, just to, just to comment, I mean, you know, just to put this in perspective last year when we did this, you know, we were looking at this big cliff in 26, 27 about, it was in that timeframe and, you know, and, but when to make that distinction between, you know, a deficit budget and basically, you know, the balancing the budget and identifying the shortfalls in the budget, you know, that, that's a year to year thing. And, you know, just for anybody who might be listening now in the public, um, you've got a, you got a pretty good track record here of managing that shortfall. So this is, this is why we're here. This is why we're in this, this, and talking about this because, um, you know, that is our job to manage that shortfall and the track record is good. That's all I've got. Thank you. Okay. Um, Mr. Sandberg, the, uh, in that personnel number, is it safe then that approximately 50% of our expenditures are personnel? Am I reading that right? Yeah, that's correct. Uh, yeah. Or, or a little, yeah, pretty close to that. Yeah. And that's wages and benefits and the health insurance benefits are in that? Yeah. Everything's included. Yeah. Health benefits are in there too. Yeah. Okay. And why do we carry such a large beginning fund balance? It seems like that's an awful, it's a pretty, pretty substantial heavy number. Is that on purpose? Well, our, our reserve, you know, we, our fund balance is, is, is one number. Then we have restricted funds that we really can't access. So that, so that the available is, is what we try to follow closely because that, that's what we can, that's what's available to, to, without any restrictions or commitments. So those numbers at the bottom, uh, such as the, under 26 budget, the 13.3 million, uh, or actually maybe estimated calls better, estimated 26, 16.1, that the 7.3 is, is sounds like a big number. Uh, but that's, that's 16.1% of our, of our, of our personnel and operating costs. And our, our reserve, our reserve target is that that, that percentage would be 15% or more. So, so we, we, our, our reserve target is have our, our available amount at 15% or more of the operating, which would be personnel and operating. So 16.1 is a little bit higher than that, but, but that's, that's really what our target is. May I, Mayor? Yes. And also, um, you know, the reserve, some cities carry a, I think Tarpon carries a 35% reserve, which in my mind, well, I won't comment, but anyway, that's a huge reserve. Um, and also, I think you just, I think you backed off of that one, backed off of that one. I love Tarpon Springs. They're wonderful. But anyway, so, um, um, but actually when we're surveilled, when we do issue debt and we're surveilled, the reserve is, is a very large subject in terms of, are we maintaining our minimum reserve? Les and I, for a number of years, have been really trying to build it up as much as we can. The average over this period of time is about 23%, which is a good reserve. It really is. Um, but to Jorge's point earlier, um, that, that's our checkbook in case of emergency and every fund carries its own reserve. Okay. Okay. That's all I had, Mayor. Uh, uh, Mr. Gough. Thank you, Mayor. If I understand this correctly, Les, under, uh, protection, uh, 2028, uh, the revenue over under right now, it's a negative 4.5. Correct. Right. And so. Estimated, yeah. If the referendum passes, right, and it's $3 million, is it safe to say that that will change from 4.5 to 7.5? Yeah. If that passed and we did nothing else, that number would, that negative number would go up by about 3.9 million. Okay. And then in 29, it would go up another six. That's right. In 29, it would be 6 million. Right. 6.2. I'm going to correct because add on the EMS issue deficit, we get passed down, add on cooperative, uh, library cooperative, add on. Yeah. So I knew where you were going. I thought it had on. Right. So we're looking in 2029 of 15, $16 million. Right. Okay. That's all. Thank you. Okay. Uh, commissioner, go ahead. Thank you, mayor. Um, I'm looking at our trend relative to total expenditures and 2024, it was 38.9 million. And this year estimate is 57 million, which is a $20 million increase. Help me understand why it jumped so much. Oh, okay. Well, in 2026 is, has a lot of storm activity in it. And that's, that's, that's, that's a lot of what's going on there. There's a lot of storm activity in 2026 and some in 2027 too. Uh, uh, uh, are, are, are, are storm activities? How much in 2026 roughly estimate? Yeah. Just one second here. Well, even if you look from 24 to 25, it doesn't have any storm activity. It jumps $14 million. So I'm kind of curious as what caused that jump. Yeah. 2025 had storm costs to 2025 had two, about $2.5 million roughly in storm costs. Uh, and it, we also had, uh, that large increase in operating to, uh, to, yeah. There were also increases in 2025 starting with the health, health fund and the risk fund started increasing their operating costs. We can, we can do, uh, an analysis. Yeah. To give you a good analysis, we will follow up with that to give you a detail analysis. I'd rather you do that than, you know, kind of peck through it. Yeah. Well, on a like note, if you take a look at the budget for 2027, we're looking at 49 and that does include some capital in it, even in the non-capital. But if you go in the non-capital budget, it stays relatively flat for the next four years. So, you know, I'm just, there are two different stories here. One of some increases that I'd like to understand and how we're possibly going to stay flat for the next four years. Yeah. You know, well, you know, the next four years, you know, one of the challenges we have in this, in this estimate is if you go out to 28 to 32 and you look at, uh, the revenue, the total revenue in 20, uh, no, actually look at 2030 revenue, it shows 49.5 million. Uh, and if you, if you take that number and then you, uh, if you look at personnel and operating costs only, you know, that personnel and operating, you know, completely cover all of the, uh, all the revenues, that's a challenge, you know, and that, that's what, I mean, capital is part of the challenge, but, and that's why the, one of the things we have on the next slide is a, a, a no capital scenario, uh, that I think might show some of that, but, uh, but we will get information for 24 actual and 25 actual to you because to break it all out. Yeah. That's just, just such a large jump and then showing, uh, no increases almost. It's not even inflationary for the next four years as well. So I understand we're doing some cost savings and, and reductions, but still that's pretty impressive. Thank you very much. Um, I don't think I have any questions. Um, yeah, I don't think I have any questions right now. Um, some of my questions are wreck and park questions and we'll get to, we'll be talking about that separate, right? Or not? Actually, you probably want to do that now if you want to, because it's a general fund. Um, so, um, when we look at some of these ongoing costs from wreck and park, athletic field renovation, uh, we've got the lighting here, the, uh, um, Fisher Little League and Jerry Lake complex lighting. Um, what, what is, um, how, how do we assess that? And, uh, and yeah, so why, why, what are we going to spend $120,000 on and why aren't we putting that off? Uh, thank you, Mayor, uh, Tony Mulkey, Parks and Recreation. Uh, we are, uh, proceeding with, uh, investing. We're trying to procure the lights. We, we did go out to bid to try and start that replacement. We're seeing failures. We're seeing standards that are compromising the safety and pay, playability of, of our fields. Uh, but we're approaching this with, uh, a several pronged approach. One, uh, what would upgrades due to our maintenance costs? Can we reduce our maintenance costs through newer equipment? Newer technology has efficiencies, so can we reduce our electrical and utility costs? Uh, the control systems on the new lighting, uh, more efficient for staff time and being able to program things? And then also the new technology and designs, uh, impact neighborhoods less through light splash and, and just kind of control of the lighting. So we're approaching it with some type of offset, but we are seeing failures to these systems that are impacting the play at these fields. Uh, uh, and, and this isn't just Fisher. This is Jerry, Jerry Lake as well as included in the out years. Um, so we're investigating some, some approaches where we can kind of, uh, maybe make a little larger impact sooner and realize those cost savings as we pay it off. So what percentage of, uh, of games are played? I mean, you may not know this, but what percentage of games are actually played at night? Uh, during the school year, all of them, except for the weekends. Okay. Yeah. And, um, I mean, I mean, what's the big deal? A few lights are out. Uh, could, could be a kid not seeing the ball. Could be, you know, somebody not seeing a hazard on the field. It, it, it's, uh, important to have the right lighting. I mean, I'm asking it rhetorically. It goes right to the heart of liability. It does. I mean, we'll, so yeah, I mean, really, if we don't keep them up, we got to shut them down. And I think these lights are 30 years old, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. But wouldn't it be true if we, if we, if we, if we don't keep them up, we should just shut the field down because it's not safe. Mayor, if I may, so. And we'll just get sued. Correct. Oh, somebody will be hurt. That's the worst part. Correct. And then as, as you look at cost cutting measures moving forward, right? Then you may just have to close any nighttime activities. So aside from closing facilities, you, you reduce the level of service that you're providing. Well, fencing out there is the same, right? I mean, matter of fact, I can think of a lawsuit we, since I've been on the commission, we settled, it was probably eight years ago and it was a fence issue and it wasn't a, it wasn't a cheap claim. Anyway. So, so all those seem like easy things to pass off. Playgrounds seem like, oh, but again, if you can't keep a playground up, you got to shut it down. Yeah. Too many, too many ways to get hurt. Can I ask one thing about that? Does that include the poles or just the lights? The poles are sound. So this is just the fixtures up on the poles. Are all the poles out there concrete now? They are. Okay. Because years and years ago, I had problems that they were wood. Yeah. And one took a tumble into the middle center field. So, okay. That's all. I'm good, Mayor. Sorry to interrupt you. No, it's okay. I guess my, my last question for you is, I know that you're doing a real detailed kind of cost benefit usage and all our centers, usage of our programs. When are we, when will we see that? Because that goes to the heart of. And I'm doing that in conjunction with preparing our contingency budget. So I should have that early August. Because obviously you got the, you got a tough job there. And it's going to be interesting to see how that all plays out. Absolutely. And the impact. So. Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Because then we're going to go to lunch. Mayor, may I? Yep. Okay. Uh-oh. Jeff's standing between us and lunch. Yep. Jeff's standing between us and lunch. Look out. Oh, my goodness. Yeah. Just real quickly back to the overall, I'll start with just the overall general fund. And right that all the staff, we reduced everything by 20%. That was the goal. That was the goal. We found our goal was a bit overambitious. Okay. As far as that goes. Even more interesting. Okay. Overambitious. We couldn't get to 20%. And so, and, but if we were, where that figure shows up is under operating. Is that a true statement? Correct. Okay. And so when we go from the 26th estimated to the 27th budget, that reduction of 21 to 18 is the reduction that staff was able to do. And that is 2.8 million. Right? Yeah. Well, there were, there was that, but there was also other adjustments that came into play. I mentioned we had a really large adjustment because of insurance. The insurance went down dramatically in 20, in 2027 because we'd overbudgeted in 2026. Budget to budget went down because our, our, our, our 2026 budget for property was, was much more than needed. Our actual costs are much less. So our budget was almost about a million dollars lower in 27 compared to 26. So there were a few things that came into play to get that operating number, but, but the part of it was 500. Yeah. Okay. And then again, back to, if that referendum passes and we're looking at 3 million, we found it very hard to get 2.8 and we're not done with there. It would be another three and then another six. Correct? Correct. And that's not taking into consideration what the mayor talked about. And so following up on my earlier, my comments earlier this morning and the lights at the little league, I would propose not doing the lights and cutting night games. Now show, show, show, show the citizens. This is what will happen. And this is serious. And then if they say, no, we want the lights, then okay, it's on them. They told us they wanted the lights. You know, I, you know, I, it's that anyway, those are, those are the leaders. No, I'm fine. And that's, I'm actually trying to be in support of little league, um, in all of our youth sports, uh, in Sterling, but my concern is they're going to vote yes for this, not understanding the impacts that we're going to be stuck with the impacts. They're going to be screaming that we don't have the services that we've come to enjoy in Dunedin. And what do we do with that? What do we do other than, yeah, sorry. Anyway, so those are my comments. And if I could, um, we have a very end of the, of the day, we have, uh, a, uh, commission city commission direction. And so if there's anything that anybody wants to put out in terms of a different direction that we're going, I think that's the time. And we'll, we can all kind of come to consensus. And mayor, thank you for that. It's a discussion. The commission needs to have on that issue. Staff has no comment. We can't comment on that path moving forward. I think it's a decision of the city commission. Very good. Well done. Um, it reminds me, and this is the last comment before lunch, when they finally made the vote to disband the police department and go to the sheriff, it was the only time that former city attorney, John Hubbard had nothing to say. They turned and he said, Mr. Hubbard, would you like to give an opinion on this? And he said, I have no comment. And it was the only time because he always provided comments. So I get it. You know, it's like sometimes that that's for us to decide. Okay. Sounds good. All right. We are adjourned for lunch in our budget workshop session. And I think we're on the stadium fund. Uh, we did have, if you want, we, we had a, uh, general fund, no capital scenario. We could go through if you'd like, or, uh, if you, or we can go to the stadium. It's up to the commission. Okay. Well, the commission going to go through the no capital general fund thing, or it's similar to last year. I mean, I looked at it. I, I kind of get it. Yeah. We see how the numbers, but it's great to have as a perspective early. Yeah. That's what we thought. Yeah. We thought we'd share it. Yeah. So, okay. Stadium fund. Great. Okay. Starting with the highlights in the stadium fund, uh, charges for services decreased, uh, by $10,000 in 27 compared to 26, a budget. And that was, uh, an adjustment to true up to actual revenues. Uh, the naming right revenue was, uh, being slightly under budget. So we, we sort of trued up to actuals, uh, in 2027. Uh, also in the miscellaneous revenues, we had a small decrease of $10,000 and that was for an estimated reduction in interest income in 27 compared to 26. And we had a, uh, a decrease in operating expenses of 303,000. And that was due to the property and liability insurance ISF charges, uh, due to lower than budgeted premiums in fiscal year 26. The excess fund balance in 26 in the ISF fund was used to reduce the risk ISF allocation to the stadium fund in fiscal year 27, similar to the general fund we talked about. Also want to mention, uh, staff is still fine tuning the property and liability amounts and allocations for the stadium fund and all funds working with the, uh, with Teresa, the director of HR and risk management for the assumptions in the stadium fund. Uh, we have $550,000 allocated per year from the general fund for, for operations. And that's mainly for, uh, for insurance, uh, uh, property insurance, uh, in the stadium fund and operating costs of 3% increase from 28 to 32. And for the overview in the stadium fund, this is on pages, uh, 508 and 509, uh, 50 or 27 budget includes, uh, normal operating, uh, cost in the stadium fund. We show at the bottom of the page, the reserve for capital in 2027, that reserve is for future major repairs at the stadium as outlined in the agreement with the city and the blue Jays. The capital reserve is 3.4 million, uh, at the end of 27. And that's the second number from the bottom row there, 3.4 million in 27. And ending available fund balances over our target, uh, in 2027 and future years. Okay. Questions. Okay. I have a question. Um, I just want to make sure I understand, uh, what's actually coming in here. Um, so the intergovernmental million dollars is from where that is, that is the payment we receive annually from the, from the state to make the, the, uh, bond payment every year. It's about, they pay about a million dollars a year. Uh, the state pays us 883,000, 333 a month. And then we collect that and then we make the debt service payments. Okay. And then the 348,000 is what? That is, uh, a combination of, uh, naming rights and, uh, and, uh, there's a, there's a few, couple of different revenue sources in their naming rights. And also, I believe the, uh, uh, Gene's going to check that he's confirming that right now, but there's, there's another one that I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll get to you. That's probably the biggie though. Naming rights. Yeah. And then, uh, and the miscellaneous is what? That is, uh, that is represents, uh, most of that is the Blue Jays, uh, pay us twice a year for their debt service payment for the bonds. Uh, and that's about 1.3 million or slightly more than that. They pay us twice a year in advance of our debt service payments every six months. Uh, that's what the majority of that is. And also a little bit of interest income too in there. And the 550,000 that we transfer in from the general fund, I mean, I kind of remember, is that like, it's towards kind of the capital improvement fund, but we only have to do it so many years or. Yeah. The, the five, the 550 transfer in that is a transfer from the general fund. And that, uh, that covers, uh, mainly in the agreement, we're responsible for property insurance and that, that, that covers property insurance, uh, payments every year, and also a little bit of property tax. Uh, the club pays most of the property tax, but, uh, we pay a little, but they pay most of it. Okay. Um, yeah, go ahead. Is there any, uh, income to the city, any revenue from ticket sales? I thought we got a percentage of every ticket. Yeah, we, we do the, the, it's collected and we do receive the, uh, ticket sell activity from the club, but that, but that is that money that when we receive it, uh, goes into that reserve balance that I mentioned earlier. Uh, the ticket sells, uh, the money comes to us, but we're, we're required per the agreement to reserve that in that capital reserve for future, future repairs and maintenance and things, uh, at the stadium. Okay. That's all. Thank you. That's, so that's probably part of the $348,000. That's part of it. Yeah, that's true. Yeah. Gotcha. Mayor, mayor. Uh, uh, uh, first Commissioner Gow. No, Commissioner Gow, then Vice Mayor. And so, um, unless the budget, uh, 2027, the reserve is 211%. Is that what I'm reading? Yep. 211% right now. Okay. What would it be if we did not do that transfer in from the general fund? Well, are we allowed to do that? And what would the impact be on the reserve? Well, we could reduce the transfer in, uh, if we wanted to, uh, you know, property, uh, insurance is running about $500,000, $600,000 a year right now, roughly, you know, in that fund or real close to that. We could reduce it some, uh, you know, and it would, it would go down. One of the things is you see, if you look out to 2031 or, or actually 2032, uh, we're at one, we're at 1.3 million. One of the other things that, that comes into play here is, uh, the, the cutoff, the cutoff year end, uh, as far as the cutoff every six months, as far as when, when the, the funds come in for, from the state to make those debt service payments. But we could reduce it to 400, 450, uh, for the next few years and, uh, and, and probably be okay. We could do that. I mean, I, I think, uh, I, I could do a little more analysis to, to see if there's any issues with this going to 450 and see if, if there's any concerns in the, in the outer years. In the, in the short term, uh, we have plenty of fund balance for that. I was going to ask, let me just ask, because I'm, I just want to make sure. So, but we have to pay what the actual cost of property insurance is. Yeah. We have to pay it. Yeah. Because everything else is required by the contract, I believe to go to capital money. That's going to help the stadium when it needs capital. So ultimately we got to pay the, that's right. We have to pay, we have to pay the insurance. And, and, uh, and like you said, everything that we receive, uh, we receive some money from the Blue Jays, the, the ticket sales, for example, and that, and those all roll into that reserve. And you can see that reserve growing every year, you know, uh, based on those estimated, uh, ticket sales. Yeah. Okay. And so that five 50 from the general fund that basically covers what the mayor was talking about. Yeah. It covers that. And, and, and, and, and, and, and could be, could be ancillary cost too. We don't see that very often because that reserve is intended for those types of things. And they've only used the reserve, I think a couple of times since the new stadium. Uh, but we could look in, uh, I will look into seeing if we, if we can challenge it and maybe reduce that five 50 sun, uh, uh, and, and get back to you. Because I know it was, it's been a couple of years, but, uh, we started a conservative, concerted effort on reducing the reserve and all of these funds that some of them were getting kind of out of hand. And at 211%, that just seems pretty high. Yeah. And it, as you can see, it, it is going down over time in the projection. Uh, you know, it, it's down to 1.3, uh, later on, but I can, uh, we'll take a look at it and we can, we can respond back and see if we can, uh, reduce it just to some lower number and get back to you. Thank you. Can I just finish that one thought? Um, so, uh, but just to be clear, if it's, if the cost of the property insurance or the, is it property insurance or property taxes? Property insurance. Property insurance is 450,000. We're, we adjust that. We get that money back to the general fund later. We don't just leave it there. Right. Say it again now. So if, if we're, we project 550,000 for property insurance, it actually, the bill comes in as 450,000. We take back the 100,000 to the general fund. We, we don't really do that. I mean, we could do that, but we don't do that. That's, that's why I think I'll look at it because we may be able to, for at least a few years, uh, reduce that contribution, uh, to, to chew up some of this fund balance. And, and, and so we don't, we don't true it up every year to answer your question. No, we don't. In other words, well, my concern less is, and again, I'll let you go off to do it, but is we're required to do the property insurance. Whatever that cost is, is ours. That's right. The other pieces that are in here are required to build up a capital account for when we know big things will start to happen at the new stadium. Exactly. Already not that new. So I'm not as concerned about the fund balance as we don't want to give any more to the fund than we have to. Right. No, good point. Yeah. Good point. Yeah. Let me, let me ask the question another way here because, um, yeah, this is along the same lines of discussion, but actually there's two parts to this. So first of all, is there anything prohibiting us from doing a transfer out, say to the general fund? Uh, prohibiting? No, I would, but I would, I would advise if we're going to do anything, lower the contribution over the next couple of years. You know, if we feel we have extra room, lower the contribution the next few years. Uh, but, uh, but there's nothing prohibiting that. No. And then the second part. I'm sorry. I think we better look at the contract because I'm not sure that's, I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that's addressed. I think the contract says we have to build a separate capital fund. So yeah, the capital fund for sure. We have to build a hundred percent. Yeah. That, those numbers down below, uh, we, we have to track that and, and we have that set aside in our financials too, you know, as a, as a reserve. So, you know, this almost kind of looks and feels like something that would an enterprise fund would lend itself well to. Um, you know, I take a look at the revenues coming in now, obviously the, the, the major revenue piece of this would be ticket sales. Um, I don't know what that number looks like for us, but is there any thought on that? And if it's not, you know, it may not, it may be prohibitive in some particular fashion. Well, well, ticket sales, uh, Tony may know the answer to that, but ticket sales, uh, change a little bit every year. Uh, I don't recall the exact number, but, but ticket sales definitely, it's just, for us, it's just a flow through. If we get 180,000, that number is flooring right down to that reserve at the end of the year. Uh, and you know, cause that, that's in the agreement. So it's just, that's money we, we received from the club, but it's required to go in that reserve capital reserve number. I'll just, just to share the comment that everybody else is making, um, that, you know, we, we, we keep that, that fund balance as a percent of the operating budget is pretty big. Yeah. Bigger than most. And then, so I wonder, is that reserve for capital piece of it, you know, do we need to carry that much? Yeah. Uh, I'll, I'll take a look at the fund and I'll get back with the commission and let you know if, if, if we, if I think that we could either reduce the contribution some in the next few years or, or do a, or do a one-time transfer, whatever the commission would like, you know, I'll take a look at it. Just real quick. That building is owned by the city of Dunedin. And I can never remember the reason that we have to pay property taxes, even though it's owned by the city. Can you clarify that? Yeah. It's, it's owned by the city, but both the, the stadium is, is, uh, the taxes are, are less than they would have been because we're, we're, uh, uh, a government agency. So, but, but, but it's, it's public private. So we do pay, we do pay taxes. The, the property taxes are paid primarily, uh, the first one 50, I believe is paid for by the club. And then the, and then anything above that is split. So there, the club's paying most of the property taxes. We pay a little bit, but the insurance is the city's responsibility. And the insurance happens to be a much bigger number than the property taxes. So if I may, so any governmental entity that uses property, um, for a commercial activity, such as the stadium and say, for example, we lease something out to a commercial activity, then we had to pay taxes on. Okay. Yeah, good. That's all I had. Thank you, Les. And, and Les, I'm sorry, cause I think I was going down a rabbit hole, but what you're saying is that reserve for capital number is our contractual obligation to hold onto. So the other is in question. We have to keep that much more. So, right. Exactly. That, that other number is what, is what we'll take a look at. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Okay. If I may, Mayor, that when we take a look at it, we will be conservative to make sure that reserve for capital is, has, well, we have to, cause you know, that stadium is going to get tired. You know, right. I remember with the other stadium before the renovation, it was getting tired and, you know, you don't want it to, you want to, we want to be proud of it, but obviously you want to be responsible with the money. Question, Mayor. We're looking at reserves here of in excess right now of two, of 3.4 million. No, that's the reserve for capital. The 2 million is the. Okay. We're, we're looking for the, I'm looking at that reserve, but I don't see interest income up in revenues. So I presume, I presume we would make interest off that. Yeah. Or it goes right back into it. Yeah. The interest income is in the, is in the miscellaneous line item. It's included in there. Yeah. The, the, the interest, the, the, now the, the reserve, the reserve for capital does earn interest too. In other words, we, we track interest and we do pay, we do allocate interest to that reserve every year as well. Just as a comment, that's an awful large miscellaneous when your total is 3.4 and you've got 1.5 in miscellaneous. Might want to be breaking that out in the future. Yeah. We could show up right now. Most of that, most of that miscellaneous is, uh, I'd say 1.350 of it is, uh, the debt service payments that the Blue Jays pay to us that we, that we turn around and make the debt service payment. That's what most of it is. Yeah. I figured that. Thank you very much. Okay. I guess we beat that one down. Good questions. Yeah. All right. Uh, okay. Okay. Impact fee fund. Uh, some highlights of the impact fee fund, uh, increase in license and permit fee revenue of $212,000 in 2027 for a projected increase in parkland impact fees due to development and offset by a small decrease in the multimodal fire and law enforcement impact fees. Um, we've got some developments that we've estimated that, uh, that will be coming through, uh, uh, 265 Causeway Boulevard and we've got Azul Avenue vacation homes and, uh, Sunrise townhomes. So there are three of the ones that we've included in, in our estimates, uh, for this, these impact fees, the, the operating expenses, uh, decreased by $15,000 in 2027. And that's due to Belltree's ADA improvements project that was budgeted in 26 and not in 27. And the capital expenses decreased by 230,000 in fiscal year 27 due to a multimodal Weybridge Woods design of $150,000 and law enforcement, public safety mitigation for safety barriers of 80,000. That was in 2026, but not in 2027 budget. And for the assumptions in the fund, uh, the revenues are estimated just, you know, based on estimates of, of no one or estimated developments each year. And this is the, uh, long range plan. This is, this is an overview, uh, combined of our four impact fees. And this is on page 510, 511 in the, in the budget document. This shows the estimated revenue and expenses for the total impact fees, which includes the multimodal, the parkland fee, the fire fee, and the law enforcement impact fees. Uh, and the following slides will go over. We have a slide, uh, for each impact fee starting with the multimodal impact fee. Uh, this is the revenue estimate is based on the estimated development as mentioned. The 27 budget has the pedestrian safety crossing improvements, uh, for various locations, uh, for $30,000 and the same amount in future years, as well, as you can see in the capital line item, uh, in this slide and moving to the parkland impact fee. Um, same thing, uh, the estimate is based on development. I mentioned in 2027, that is a higher number. We, we, we've anticipated these, those, uh, projects I mentioned being developed and, uh, uh, and bringing in, uh, more in this fund for the, for the parkland fee. Uh, there's no projected expenses in 2027 and after currently, uh, or no on projects in future years. Uh, the funds, uh, is projected to have a $1 million fund balance, as you can see at, uh, bought at the bottom on in 2027 and growing, uh, over that time, some over the timeframe after 32. And the next is the fire impact fee and there's no projected expenses in this, uh, at this time. And the fund balance and the fire impact fee is projected to be 135,000 in 2027. We are, we are, uh, working with, uh, fire chief to look at, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, capital project to, to spend some of these dollars. So we're looking at that to see if we can do it in 27 or 28 to see if we can find a project that we can move here and out of the general fund, since we've, we've got a balance of 135,000 getting to the point where we could do something with that. So we're looking at that now, uh, but law enforcement, uh, impact fee, uh, there's no projects, uh, planned, uh, in 27 or future years, but we, what, and the balance is now at an estimated $12,000, but I want to mention that we, in 2026 current year, we budgeted $80,000 in 2026 to, uh, for the, uh, public safety mitigation project for purchase of safety barriers. And, uh, so we'll be spending that in 2026 and, uh, we, we, we did that to draw some of these funds down too. So now we've got about 12,000, uh, moving forward. Are there any questions on any of the impact fees? Any questions? Commissioner Sanford. How is that law enforcement impact fund? How was it? Where does that, uh, revenue come from? The licensing and the miscellaneous? The licensing comes from development and, uh, you know, uh, certain, certain projects fall under that fee to have to pay it, pay that fee when they, when they develop. Do you have that, George, at all? Or so, so I don't know what the exact numbers are, but anytime somebody comes in for a building permit, so for instance, like, uh, I think, uh, you mentioned Sunrise, Azul, when they come in for a building permit, that impact fee will be assessed at that time for whatever that rate is per unit. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. What was the first impact fee before, uh, parking? Uh, multimodal is the first one. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Anybody over here? Um, so, uh, the, uh, the barriers that we're doing downtown, I know, I noticed somewhere in the budget, was it in general fund? We were going to pay $40,000 for more of them? Mm-hmm. So we're taking that out of general fund? No, I think that's coming out of risk. Yes. It's risk. It was, uh, it was a combination of the law enforcement impact fee and risk safety. Okay. Since it was deemed as a safety protective measure. Okay. Got it. Okay. Good. I don't have anything else. I'll move on. Thank you. Next is the building fund. Oh, public art. Excuse me. I'm jumping around here. The public art fund, uh, highlights, uh, the operating costs decreased, uh, $24,500. And that was due to, um, the public art master plan for implementation costs to adjust to available funding. We reduced it. Our funding stream is, we'll see in a minute, is low in that, in this particular fund. And, uh, due to very little revenues, uh, expected from future development projects that pay into this fund in fiscal year 27 in future years. And for the assumptions, uh, it's, it's again, based on estimated developments that would, that would pay this fee, public art fee. And, uh, the overview is, this is on page 512, 513 in the budget document, uh, staff expects development projects electing to deposit the, uh, 0.5% of project costs in the public art fund will improve and the actual revenue received and provide positive fund balance, uh, at some point in the, in the future. And as you can see in 27 through 32, we've have $2,500, uh, estimated for non-recurring operating and expenses each year. And we'll monitor that depending on revenues received each year. It's very, looks like a stable amount. What are we paying for there? Well, I'm all that Nicole can ask this, but better than me, probably. Yeah. I don't know about that less, but, uh, so I, we, we, you know, try to estimate for the development that is going to pay into the public art fund, which is a little hard. Um, so we, we have that just as a stable, um, you know, figure in there as an estimate. It fluctuates depending on when things actually get built and when things, uh, actually pay into the public art fund. So, um, we, you know, we see differences year over year. Um, you know, we have several applications that have come in, but likely will not be built for, you know, two to three years to be completed. So we try to maintain some stability, but really there's a lot of fluctuations. I think I understand what you said. Anybody else have public art? Okay. Keep going. Okay. Next is the building funds. Uh, we have for the highlights, uh, transfer in, uh, decreased in 2027 compared to 26. And that was, uh, the final year of an internal loan. There was an internal loan between the building fund and the public art fund and the last year payback was 2026. Uh, so there's no, no payment in 2027 and operating costs increased $72,000 or 12% in 2027. And this is due to an increase in contract service for inspection services of $50,000 and an increase in annual IT licenses for a floodplain management program of $50,000 in 2027 compared to 2026. And also there's a reduction in the IT ISF allocation of $33,000 to offset those increases. And for capital costs, there was a decrease of $32,000 in 2027 compared to 26. And that was due to the, uh, DigiPlan software implementation that took place in 2026 and is not in 2027. And that software is to be used for reviewing plans. And for highlights in the building fund, excuse me, for, uh, the, uh, next one, the, uh, assumptions, that's fine. Thank you. The assumptions, uh, we have projected, um, an increase in 2029 and 2030 in building permit revenue if needed. Want to point that out. If you look at 2029, we've got a potential 34% increase and then another, another increase in 2030. And, uh, and that's, and we're doing that because we reduced the fees by 33% back in 2021 timeframe. And we did that to work towards being in compliance with Senate bill 553.80, which was, uh, to the requirements of what your fund balance can be in the building fund for the state of Florida. Uh, our fees may need to be adjusted in the future as, and we continue to monitor each, the fund each year, as we always do. Uh, also, uh, want to mention, uh, the expenditures are projected to be salaries 3.5%, benefits 6%, and operating costs 2%. And, uh, the, the, the other years are pretty, pretty standard, but we had those two years of increases. Uh, cause you look at the water range plan here. This is on pages 514 and 515 in the budget document. The available reserves, uh, in 2027 are projected to be just under 2.1 million at the bottom there. Uh, and, um, and I mentioned, uh, we, the reduction in fees, which was ordinance 2021-12 that took place in March of 21. It was done, uh, with the goal of working towards following the state code I mentioned, which is 553.80, which allows for, for no more fund balance carrier forward in the average of us, of your operating budget for the previous four fiscal years. So, uh, staff has been working towards getting our, our fund balance is currently higher than that. Uh, our fund balance has gone down over the last few years, so we have made improvements, but ideally our fund balance would, would need to be about 1.4 million, uh, to be in compliance with that. And so we're still working towards that. Um, and, uh, we're, we're projecting, as you can see here that, uh, that, uh, in 2028, uh, which is the, which shows 1.334 million, that, that's pretty close to the number that, that is that four year average of budget. And we'll, we'll continue to monitor revenues and expenditures in the fund and in order to stay in compliance and also, also watch and, and it, cause we'll make it to the point where our fund balance is, as you can see here, if, if this projection holds true, our fund balance is getting below that, is getting below, uh, you know, out in 2032, it's almost zero. So at some point it, uh, we would need to look at, uh, you know, increasing those fees back to something, you know, we, reduced by 33, there may need to be an adjustment at some point to get it back up to, to pay for the ongoing cost. Uh, we've got a question. Yes. Are, are, are these fees, uh, uh, and permits based on a currently static rate and you're anticipating growth or is that an increased rate? Well, the, the, the fee, the fees are static in general and our estimated revenues are, are, are the estimated development that will happen that year. Okay. Uh, so we're stable, our fees are pretty set and we're seeing development grow like that. Yes. Do you think we should re-examine the fee basis that we're currently charging because of the projections we have? Well, you know, we, we lowered it by 33% and, uh, and, and we, we have made ground. We've made ground because this, that reserve of 2 million was well over 3 million, uh, a few years ago. So we are heading in the right direction. Uh, at some point, uh, you know, uh, our, 2026 revenue is trending a little higher than our budget. So it's been sort of a balancing act. We've, we've had lots of development, like you said, uh, recently. So that has increased the fees and, uh, we, we, since we're heading in the right direction, George and I have to talk about this from time to time, you know, but we, we, we think right now we're heading in the path to get, to get us in. The good news is the states, our auditors look at this and, and, and they talk, they ask us every year and we have a conversation and they do see we're making ground. And, uh, fortunately the state's not, uh, really, uh, at, up to this point paid a lot of attention to this, this requirement. And, uh, so we're, we're making ground and we think we're heading in a decent direction. Uh, but you know, if we lowered it again, we may have to turn around and raise it, raise it back up a lot two years from now. I can think of no better time than now to raise a fee if we're having these kinds of projections. Yeah. Just as a thought. Sure. No, it's, it's a good, it's a good comment. Yeah. Good comment. Thank you. True. Okay. Anything else on the building fund or any questions? Okay. I think we keep going. Okay. The county gas tax fund, uh, the, uh, gas tax revenues are budgeted at 3.2% decrease in 2027 compared to current year 26. And, uh, and mentioned, mentioned earlier that gas tax revenues are trending. They're coming in right now, less than budget for 2026 by about three and a half, 4%. Uh, and our 27 budget is assuming no growth, uh, and relatively flat. And we're budgeting $450,000 in 2027, uh, for gas tax revenues. And this is consistent with the county Pinellas projections last year. I've not seen their projections this year yet. Mayor. I'm in it. Excuse me. Am I okay? Yeah. Okay. Um, I think you're optimistic here. I think these numbers are going to grow. What you're finding is the consumer is moving to more electric vehicles because of the current cost of gasoline. And we've seen that globally, not just in the United States. So I think you're going to see a continued decline at about the rate you've got there in 27. Thank you. Good point. Yeah. Well, on that note, can I just ask, um, is there any legislation at all talking about offsetting with the electrical vehicle, electric vehicle usage, you know, on the roads? I know there's been talk of it, but never anything that's really gelling. Yeah. There was nothing last year, the previous session, there was a bill that was filed by actually by Senator Hooper, um, in regards to, um, including basically a fee during the registration process. If you have an electric vehicle to offset the, what we're seeing happen to the, to the tax fund. Um, but as of right now, we, we haven't, nothing's been successful. So Nicole, was that going to the state or was that going to go to local? That's at the state. That was at the state level. Yeah. I don't think that's going to help us. I think that's going to help the state, but I don't think that tax, cause it's, it's, it's in the guise of the sales tax, as I recall. Um, I mean, less how, I mean, I assume that the, the way that the tax, that the, the, the fuel tax or is structured comes from the state. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It comes from the state. Uh, this funding stream is, is passed, uh, passed to us through the state. Yeah, we get, it is passed to us through the state and it is based on consumption, like, like we mentioned. Yeah. It would operate the same way. Yeah. Yes, please. I was just happy because my jacket's coming. Under the expenses, are there any expenses that the city incurs that isn't funded that goes to what might be considered a gas tax expense, but the gas tax fund can't handle it. So it's paid through other funds. Well, yes. Uh, yeah, that's, that is happening. Uh, and we'll talk about that at the next slide, but yeah, we, the gas tax fund is financially constrained and, and, uh, and I, and I will look at the county's estimates when their budget comes out and, and see, see what they're estimating in the future years. Uh, but it is constrained. We're this year, for example, we moved, uh, uh, we moved $20,000 of payment management to the penny fund because this, you can see there, that was an, if you look at capital there, that $200,000, the last line at $200,000 is for payment management. And we reduced it by 20,000 because this fund can't afford it. So we, we, penny could afford it. So we moved it to penny. Uh, also in future years, we're moving, uh, the sidewalk maintenance project, uh, we are moving that out of the county gas tax and to the risk fund. Yeah. So the, we're moving, we're moving, uh, about a hundred thousand, $125,000 a year out of gas tax into the risk fund for, uh, in 28 and future years to be able to, to cover those, cover those expenses. Yeah. And also this year we added a hundred thousand dollars in the streets general fund budget for, um, pavement striping and ADA curb, um, work that's needed, um, for the sidewalks and stuff. So that is an increase to the general fund this year because we cannot put it in the, uh, county gas tax. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And I just wanted to make this point just in general, uh, that was the purpose of why this was even created was it was designed to help take care of our roads, but regardless of our transition to electric vehicles, we just, and not just Dunedin, but the entire country is outspending that gas tax. And so we just build more roads and build more roads, build more roads without any concept of the funding that's supposed to, um, supply the, those expenses. So anyway, I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you. Well, so my side comment to that is that's under the fact sheet failure to act when it's obvious. Yeah. And, and the county, Jennifer, uh, Horry, county back before, right before COVID was looking at, uh, uh, doing really addressing the challenge that, uh, the whole county has with gas tax. And it's a county thing. And they were looking at, uh, uh, uh, referendum, whatever it was going to be to try to, you know, shore up, shore up the needs, but nothing's happened. Yeah. Yes. Of course. Let's shore up that gas tax for more roads, but let's not build more bike lanes or sidewalks or walking paths. Genius at work. Thank you. Mayor, if I may, along those lines, the gas tax also is, as, uh, as Les mentioned and, and, uh, Jean, you know, we're also, uh, leveraging the risk fund because obviously we need to maintain those sidewalks that we have. Otherwise we cut our nose to spider because cut our nose off to spider face because when we have trip and fall claims, because we haven't maintained the sidewalks that we have, uh, to Nicole's point earlier, as you speak to your colleagues in Tallahassee, you know, if, if you can't do this one time charge when you register an electronic or an electric vehicle, what you could do is add something to the annual registration for your tag renewal. So the, those EVs would contribute to the usage of the roadways and sidewalks. And I think if you talk to any EV owner, they'd be more than willing to do that. Oh, I don't know. I knew that was tough. They're ready to do that. Uh, but, and not, not for this, but I would love to know what the linear feet cost is on repairing a road versus repairing a sidewalk. I'd love to know that cost differential. Okay. There you go. Okay. Well, we're really getting in the, good questions. Um, all good. Uh, so, but I think what the county was doing was, uh, going to add a, uh, a penny to, for gas tax, right? But still defies the reasoning of you need to get the electric vehicles in the game. So anyway, either way, cause I don't, they don't have the ability to do that. I think the state has to do that probably. Right. Yeah. Um, anybody else on this one? And just, I'm wondering, mayor, this is just cause I don't know. Um, cause that is important about, uh, the electric vehicles. Would that include golf carts? Yeah. I'm vehemently against that. Thank you very much. Yeah. That's a terrible idea. Um, a really terrible idea. Um, going in the wrong direction. Okay. So, uh, we're done with that. We're going to go to the penny fund. Uh, just the next slide. Forget that one. Next slide. I just want to briefly mention that, uh, just real quick. This, this is the fund overview. It's on page 516, 517. Just wanted to mention that our fund balance at the end of 27 is projected to be $66,000, uh, you know, in, in the gas tax fund. And, uh, and it's, it's, you know, uh, currently above our 15% target, but barely. And, uh, and like I said, we've shifted lots of dollars, uh, to, uh, the risk fund and also, you know, that 20,000 to the penny fund because it's, this fund can't afford it. And I will, I will check again with the County what their estimates are in future years to, to see if we're, or we're optimistic or too optimistic, uh, penny fund for the penny fund, uh, highlights the, uh, the other taxes, which is, uh, that's the sales tax. The penny surtax is estimated to be a $342,000 reduction, uh, or a 6.1% decrease compared to our 26 budget. The 26 actual revenue is projected to be approximately close to seven and a half percent. We think less than the budget due to that HB, uh, 7031 I mentioned regarding, uh, the elimination of commercial rents effective October 1st, 2025. The 27 budget is projecting 2% growth above that, above that estimate in 26, uh, in actual projections. So that, and that's how we based our revenue number of 5.237 million for 2027. Uh, miscellaneous revenue has decreased, uh, $250,000 in 27, and that's due to, uh, $250,000 for the Highlander aquatic complex therapy pool contribution that was budgeted in fiscal year 26 and not in fiscal year 27. Uh, the actual donation in 26 was $100,000 with the, with the expectation that the remaining $150,000 will be paid in 2029. And with, and, and once that final payment is made in 2029, that would be the full $1 million for the therapy pool, uh, uh, received by the city. The debt proceeds have decreased, uh, $4.6 million in 27 compared to, uh, 26. And that's due, uh, to moving the financing for the Highlander aquatic complex out to 29, uh, uh, in the proposed budget. And, and it was in 26. The capital costs, uh, have decreased $2.7 million compared to 26 due primarily to, uh, again, the decrease in the Highlander aquatic complex of $2.6 million in 27 compared to 26. And debt service has also decreased by 743,000, uh, due to a decrease of 676,000 for community, for the community center loan that was paid off, uh, in 2026 and not in, and not in 2027, not no payments in 2027, and also a decrease in the cost of issuance of $66,000 for the aquatic complex that was in 26, but not in 27. And for the assumptions in the penny fund mentioned earlier that were, uh, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the estimated decrease in 2027, 6% because of the changes, uh, with the, uh, HP 7031. And then we've got 3% growth, uh, in 28 and 29, then, then 1.5% in 30. 2030 is really only three months of the fiscal year, uh, because penny four expires in December 31st of 2029. Uh, also we, I mentioned the donation, uh, earlier, and then we also have transfers in every year from the water sewer fund of $468,000 for, uh, their debt service payments for the city hall. And those will, their last payment will be, uh, in 2029, uh, as lot, as well as our debt service payment, last payment will be in 2029. And for the overview, uh, you know, I want to point out that, uh, at the end of 2030, which is penny four timeline, we've got the bottom row, we've got $1.4 million, $1.5 million of, of, uh, of fund balance there that's uncommitted, you know, that could be, uh, uh, could be, you know, spent on, uh, other projects or whatever. So we, we have that for the next three years. Uh, and also want to mention that the estimated cost of the aquatic complex, uh, the estimated costs are include everything, but it, it, it is without the lazy river. It's the same project we had before with the slides and the total budget for Highlander aquatic complex right now for construction. And, and right now it's in penny fund and general fund I mentioned earlier, but it's 23.5 million. Um, and there's also a new project I want to point out in, in, uh, the penny fund. That's the Buena Vista drive drainage improvements, uh, in fiscal year 28 and 29 at a total cost of $500,000 for brick street repair and replacement for that project. And also in the outer years, uh, we do have, uh, replacement of fleet services building project in 28 and 20 and 29 and 30, excuse me, 29 and 30 for design work. And that's a placeholder for now. Uh, you know, it is a requested project in penny five revenue stream, but, uh, it's a placeholder at this point, as we work through the penny five plan with, with, with the, uh, city commission. Are there any questions on penny? Just to make sure that we're all on the same page here. Penny fund is used primarily for infrastructure projects, city. Okay. And I hear over and over about all the taxpayer money that went into this building. Is it true that a big chunk of this building was paid for by penny fund? Yeah. Uh, penny fund paid the total project was 23 million and penny fund paid roughly, uh, I'd say 17.5 million of that 17 million of that roughly. So 17 out of the 23 million, that's all been said now. Cause I still hear about how much money was spent for a city our size on this building. I knew the answer. I just wanted it to be said open on, on these microphones today so that everyone heard that. So thank you. If I may, mayor, the building itself is 18 million. Right. And, and so the stormwater storage and the parking lot and the entire project was just north of 23 million. Right. Yeah. With, with design. Right. Sorry. But still 17 million came. So I heard from, from, from penny. Good. I just wanted that clarified once and for all. It came from the, uh, uh, building fund and the water sewer fund with these, with these payments we just mentioned. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because they're enterprise funds and they pay for their use. That's right. And pay for the use here. Correct. Correct. And when will that debt, uh, for the city hall be paid? October, 2029 is the last payment. 2029. This, the residents in Benin will own this free and clear. That's right. No. That's good use of funds. Uh, and I do have a question. Yes. Right. Just kind of to piggyback on, uh, Commissioner Sandbergen that the purpose of the penny fund is for infrastructure or capital projects. And we have a line item there that pavement management program. And it seems to me a capital project would be a one time building city hall, a pool or something. The management program sounds ongoing. Yeah. But so are you almost using it like an operating fund? Yeah. The pavement management has a, uh, when, when they're redone, they have way over seven year life, which is sort of the timeframe they look at when they, when they redo a road. So that's why it's eligible. Uh, and us, like many other cities, uh, you know, penny fund is, is really for most cities around us, I think the majority of their ability to do pavement management because gas tax provides very little, as you mentioned. And then we, we put a little bit in stormwater, but that's kind of just, you know, uh, a couple hundred thousand a year for stormwater related stuff. But, you know, uh, pavement management has, has, when, when they're redone has, has a life of well over seven years. So that's why it makes it eligible. Horror, you want to add to that? Yeah. Commissioner, if I may, I think what, um, Les is alluding to is there's restrictions on, on what you can use infrastructure sales tax for. So if you can extend the, the life of any particular asset beyond seven years, then it's eligible for, for, um, use as a, for the infrastructure sales tax. So it's considered capital. So, you know, otherwise you would be using operating dollars and, and we'll do that for some of the, the work that streets does for street patches and things like that. But once you're resurfacing and, uh, refurbishing a roadway and you can extend it, serve a lot, service life beyond seven years, then it's eligible for penny expenditures. And so, uh, to the other point that Les made is we also use some stormwater, uh, funds for that. It's, it's a much smaller portion of the overall budget, but that's for curbing repairs, under drain and those kinds of things. But the majority is coming out of the penny. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? One more. Okay. Yeah. I don't think I misunderstood, but I want you to say it again, a projected cost of the pool. Did, did you say is approaching 24 million? 23. And what was the cost of this building in the land? 23. Isn't that incredible that the price of that pool is the price of just the land and this building, just by the, the, the way that we just can't catch up to the cost of that pool. I mean, it's beautiful. We want it, we need it, but it just, it's like, it's like trying to catch your shadow to narrow down the price on that pool. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when I first came on the commission, what we had budgeted was 600,000 for the pool. Right around that time, 2018 is around 4 million budget. Was it 4 million? Okay. Staying corrected. Yeah. But I mean, that goes to show, but that, I remember, uh, what was, uh, when did we build this building? Yeah. So it became an issue during the 2020 election and, and about waiting, don't wait, da, da, da. And let me tell you, we would have never got this building if we'd waited because it would be at least twice as much. It would have been crazy. It probably would have, who knows? We'd still be in Grand Oak Park. That's what we'd be doing. That's where we'd be. Um, I had a couple questions. Um, first of all, the, uh, just out of curiosity, the Buena Vista drive one. So there's another project on Santa Barbara. Is that like, how did those, what are those? Are they the same issue down on the, the North end of, I was going, I was, I was, I was, no, I was thinking, yeah, there's a stormwater projects. Those were both pipe replacements as there's, there's, each of, each one of those roads has a, has a pipe that sort of connects the system and leads out to the, to the bay. And those are replacement, replacing those pipes. So they're on the North side though, even on Santa Barbara, it's the North side is. Okay. Yes. Because I know there's an issue on the South side too, but. Yeah, they're on, they're on the Northern. I'm just curious. Yes. Both of these projects were in the stormwater study. Gotcha. And recommended. Okay. Sounds good. Um, and then, um, uh, so yeah, so my question goes back to the pool. Um, so if I look at the penny, 2026, we spent 2.6 million. No, we budgeted, but that's design, but that's okay. That's all going to be spent that 2.6 million. Yeah. Well, the design, the design costs are in our, are, are ongoing. Uh, but, but the construction will not begin until 2029 in here now. Yeah. Okay. Well, I guess what I'm trying to say, anything in here, it is, it's a 15 million for a 448 that would roll over into the next penny or how much we'll roll over to the next penny. I think it's about 16 million when we had presented the penny five, um, uh, we had actually roll over to the next penny. And just to clarify the budget in penny that's in 26 will not be spent because that would be for construction. The design piece is in the ARPA fund for the pool. Gotcha. And we're, Oh wait, say that again. Say that again. The, the, the design costs for are in ARPA. Okay. Gotcha. I didn't realize that. Okay. Um, so for those that say, you know, we're not conservative enough, I just, I'm just going to just pull up a little history. Um, before the, um, would have been the 2000 or 2010, maybe referendum, um, when the community center was so bad, the decision was made by the commission at the time to move forward anyway, even though it didn't have a guarantee it was going to win. And we've made the decision. We're not doing that. We're not going to expect it to win. Now I'm not saying I would have anything different because community center was in such dire need, but I mean, um, there's a lot of conservative principles at play with us that haven't always been true in the past. So we should get a little credit. That's all. Um, okay. Um, let's see if I had another question. I think that's it. I got a question. Okay. Vice man. So for the Coca-Cola property adaptive reuse, um, is that going to be pushed out to 2028? Is that what I'm seeing here? Yeah. Based on, uh, if I may, Vice Mayor, based on, uh, Coca-Cola schedule and we stay close contact with them, they still have not gotten a DEP clearance. So we pushed that out and more to correlate with what we expect that to go on the market for. Okay. Still very much committed to it. Still staying on top of it. Still fielding calls from developers, but, uh, Coke has just Is that a study or what is that? The, uh, the $30,000, the $300,000. No, the, the, the, the penny money, which was over two years is for infrastructure improvements in the right of way to enhance things to the Coca-Cola property as an incentive to bring the right project really to the city. Okay. Yeah. Anything else? And the, and the referendum will be 2028, November 2028. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Um, okay. So yeah, next. Okay. Next is the ARPA fund. The, um, have a small decrease in miscellaneous revenue, and that's just a reduction estimated for interest earnings because the cash balance is going down in the fund, uh, capital budget is, uh, decreasing by 25,000 in 2027. And that's due to, uh, we budget in 2026, we budgeted the boat club selling center and it's not budgeted in 2027. Uh, this project we pushed out to 2028. Now for the assumptions, uh, the, the total grant, uh, for ARPA was 18.3 million. If you, if you recall that we, we, we received over the, uh, the two different installments, uh, 6.4 million of that 18 million has been accounted for in the general fund for revenue recovery and governmental services. And 3 million of that was accounted for in the golf operations fund for the ARPA funds allocated, uh, towards the golf course restoration project. And, and, and the remainder obviously is in this ARPA fund. Uh, want to point that out and high level, uh, on the, the fund itself, this is on page 520, 521 in your, uh, in your budget book. Uh, the ARPA estimated fund balance at the end of 27 is $389,000. And as Jean mentioned, this is interest only. This is nothing that the grant is, is not included in this balance. This is, we, we have had interest earnings on this funding since we received it. Uh, and the good thing about it is the interest earnings, uh, is to do what we want, which is great. It's not part of the grant and, and it's, we can spend those funds how we, we want to. Uh, uh, and the, uh, now the, the, this can be used for contingency and, and these funds are, uh, the grant needs to be spent, as I mentioned earlier, by December, 2026. Uh, we'll be bringing an update, uh, to commission probably in August, September to, uh, just overall provide an update and make some recommendations for probably some movement. We have some projects that we know are not going to spend this money by December and we want to move the funds to the general fund to make sure we, we, uh, we have, we have flexibility to move the funds to different places to governmental services. And we'll do that to make sure we can draw the grant funds down and don't have any, any, any dollars left on the grant. Uh, one, uh, uh, one, one item that, uh, I mentioned a little bit earlier was, was we are going to recommend, uh, sometime in 26 or 27 to transfer the balance to the general fund. And, uh, and, uh, one of the things that see a marriage of, I just, we discussed some and I mentioned a little bit earlier was, uh, potentially moving this to the general fund and taking some of that money, maybe a hundred thousand dollars. I'm just picking a number to start, uh, a catastrophic reserve that we, we would like to set up at some point in the future to build, start building dollars for, for some of those future match dollars that we may have to come up with later for future storms. So that's just something that wanted to mention. Uh, we would like to eventually set up a catastrophic reserve if the commission agrees and just thinking it's the seed money for that. That's all potentially, you know, uh, but we want to discuss that more with the commission. Yeah. If I can add mayor, this is really the first time that you've, you've heard about, um, our discussions regarding the catastrophic reserve. And I think that it's fair to give you some time to think about it, but especially given the environment that we're in right now, but just generally, um, the, we have the reserve at all the funds, which we could use, uh, to address the catastrophe, but we, uh, would like to have a little bit more, uh, set aside, uh, when we know that, that I'm not knocking on wood here, but we know that in the future, you know, we've had a good year last year, but we know that in the future, what we're, we're most likely facing and we could set it up, uh, depending upon what the city commission would like to do moving forward, that it can't be touched except via resolution of the city commission. It may be five other people, you know, on the dais at that time, uh, when they need it, they need to, and a lot of times during a storm, you have a special meeting when they need it, they can tap into it, but you know, uh, it also obviously would be subject to, to future commissions as far as using it for something other than a catastrophe, but it needs to be protected in the budget if we establish it moving forward. So, um, we can talk about it more if you'd like, and we can tease out, tease it out a little bit more for your next budget workshop and that type of a thing, but, um, and certainly anything that we're putting in right now would, would be, you know, a mere ripple as far as addressing a catastrophe, but we've got to start somewhere, we feel. So. Anything else on that? ARPA? No. I've got a question. Okay. Yeah. The, uh, so basically what ends up getting spent by the end of this year is that ending fund balance. Yeah. This, uh, this ending fund balance is, uh, sort of unobligated right now in 2026. It's not showing here. There are, there are projects with, that are, that are, that have budgets on them that we are spending funds on. And those, those projects are the ones, some, those, some of those are on the grant and those are the ones we want to bring back to commission to walk through and make sure that we, we, we are, uh, if, if we've got projects that have funding on them that we are not positive, we're going to spend by December, we want to move them to the general fund and put them in a flexible space so we can draw the grant down. Any other questions? Commissioner Gough? Thank you, Mayor. Um, the downtown pavers that are not part of the budget, but they're the estimated in 2026 for 187,000.8. Uh, have we spent that money yet? And is there a reason why? And I'm sure there was, and we probably even had the conversation and I understand that, but why it's coming out of ARPA and not out of the CRA? Assuming it's for a CRA. It is, Commissioner. This was, uh, originally we had that money, uh, budgeted for that, uh, parking lot over there across from Caledonia. And we had some savings in there and we really wanted to do a streetscape project on, on Main Street. Uh, we were looking to do it this year, but we were running into the winter season with tourists. We didn't want to disturb it, especially with Skinner going on. So we have a plan for next spring, but that is part of CRA money and the ARPA in order to do that streetscape project. But it was originally for the parking area. We came in a little better cost than what we had expected. Right. And so... The question is, why is it ARPA? Yes. You know, why is it coming from ARPA? Yeah, we just had fund limitations in the CRA also. So it was really just a partnership type deal. Kind of similar, even what we're doing with Grand Ole Park. You know, we have penny money. You have CRA. I mean, CRA has limitations on the budget too. So this was a partnership type move. Thank you, Mayor. Any other questions? Mr. Undergard? In the world of competing interests, uh, is the ARPA fund restricted to downtown area or could it have gone to the pool? ARPA can be anything. Yeah. Could it have been any project? Did it have to be capital? Oh yeah. Yeah. I mean, it couldn't be any project, but ARPA could be spent on, you know, any area in the city. We've got, there's a list of projects, but there is flexibility in general government, in the general fund that we've, but so, you know, but, uh, but it's pretty broad as far as where it can be spent in the city. I have nothing against the paper project at all. I don't want to be misinterpreted. I'm just trying to understand the world of competing interests as you guys decided this budget. That's all. Thank you. If I might add to the commissioner, we were facing a pretty good reduction also from the county to the CRA. Right. Remember they're just going to match our millage. Their millage was always quite a bit higher. So we were also feeding, uh, having that, uh, reduction in revenue. So this looked like a good opportunity to do it. And it was a pretty small amount in the overall ARPA fund. I could easily argue either interest. So it's, I'm sure I have a strong disposition. Thank you. Yes. And I love to argue with Bob. So, yeah. So, um, uh, the golf course money, the 3 million. So, and I'm trying, I'm just trying to relive history here. Some of what we went to the golf course was, was money that was not coming back to us. Another was a loan. Right. So can you refresh me on that? Yeah. The ARPA money we just mentioned, and then we, we got a $2.5 million loan in the golf fund and the golf funds paying that off over 10 years. And the golf, and so the $2.5 million loan came from the general fund? No, no. The golf, golf enterprise fund issued, uh, we issued the debt and the golf enterprise fund is paying off all the debt for that loan, all the debt. So you did an outside loan? Yeah. It wasn't an internal loan. Oh yeah. We did a bank loan. Sorry. Yeah. We did a 10 year bank loan. So make sure. So the, the $3 million is a given. Like we just gave it to them. Yes. Contribution of project. Because originally we were giving them two. Yes. And I guess it jumped to three. Yes. The total project cost, I think, was 5.5 million. Sounds about right. And then the, the, the loan, the outside loan is being repaid, uh, through Greens fees and, and the members fees out of the enterprise fund only. Yeah. But I think when that thing gets profitable, we need to remember this because that could be general fund money. You know, like that, that it, it's an enterprise fund. I'm just saying, if we start to dig back a little bit of money from that eventually, it's because they got more than they were supposed to get. They were going to get 2 million out of ARPA. They got 3 million. That's all I'm saying. I'm putting a marker down because I do believe that thing's going to make good money. Right, Blair? Where's Blair? Well, we'll, we'll go through that too. Yeah, I know. I know we will. I'm just putting my marker down. Um, because it did, let's face it. It jumped ahead of a bunch of projects, including the pool. Um, and, uh, and, and we needed to do it, but, but you know, they, they, they grew into more than they were going to get. So, um, okay. First things first though. Okay. Um, and I have a thought about catastrophic, but I'll wait till the end. No, I'll say it now. I mean, I, I, I guess I'd have to be convinced that makes sense versus just raising the level of our reserves and categorizing it somehow and what's everybody else doing. Um, because I think you always, you know, look in the face of you got all these reserves and now you just created one more reserve. Um, so what are they really for? And you know, so, but you know, I, I'm not saying I'm closed minded. I'm just, just need to understand it better. So, right. And, and I'm sure there'll be further discussion about that at the end of the meeting, but that is a very valid question and it can be answered. But what I'd like to do is just get your questions and then we can answer it in our next budget meeting. Okay. Fair enough. Oh, we can, we can, people can make comments at the end too about that. Okay. Anybody know? Anybody else? Okay. Next is CRA fund. And, um, the first is the, uh, property tax revenue, the, the TIF revenue and an increase of 4.8%, $108,000. And that was due to the, the, uh, 4.5% AV growth in our, in our proposed budget for the expenses. Uh, other expenses increased $300,000, uh, in 2027 due to an increase in incentive tools for the affordable housing project. Uh, the new, but the new budget for this year continues to be 50,000 per year as, as it's been over the past several years in 2027, we are rebudgeting the project instead of using carry forward, the carry forward process to move the budget from one year to the next. The $50,000 will continue to be added to this project each year and it will be, it will be accumulated until a suitable, suitable project is found for the assumptions. We've got our, uh, the same as consistent with our general fund. We got 4% growth in 28 through 31 and then 3% growth in 32. And we do have a couple of, uh, same as similar to prior year. We moved them a little bit, uh, estimated new construction for out in 29 and 30 for ocean optics, uh, and gateway, uh, in there as well. And for the overview, which is on page 522 and 523 in the budget document, uh, under, under the revenues, uh, in fiscal year 27, we show, uh, 9.1 million dollars in debt proceeds for the midtown parking garage project. And that's to fully fund the project, uh, and provide cashflow for the project. The CRA fund is projected to have a $943,000 available fund balance. And that's at the very bottom, the yellow highlighted, uh, row. Um, and it increases in the outer years and is 4.3 million in 2032 to be used for future projects and initiatives in the CRA fund. And that's the yellow highlighted row again in 2027 also budgeted $150,000 for underground utilities and 75,000 for Virginia and Milwaukee ball ballot improvements to help with wrongway traffic on Virginia at city hall. Any questions on the CRA fund? Questions? No questions? Oh, come on, Bob. We got to go at him. We got to get him, you know, you know, okay, well, Oh, I got it. Oh, I have a question. Okay, good. Let's get him. Come on. All right. This may be very fundamental and rudimentary and probably a bit naive, but, um, all right. Midtown parking facility, 9.1 million. And as I'm looking across the, the lines in terms of our ending available fund balance, now those, those are some pretty significant reserves. Okay. Okay. All right. Well, that, uh, that you, so you can actually, as long as we stay within the parameters of the percentage of fund balance to operating, um, sure. Absolutely. You, that, that's essentially where you're drawing your major capital expenditures. Yeah, we are. I mean, ours does go up and down. Of course, we'll build up some reserves in order to do some future planning projects. And so it can go pretty quickly, frankly, but yeah, it is significant. As far as the, uh, the Midtown parking garage, the vice mayor and the mayor commission, uh, what we're going to do is go out for an RFP, but we're going to hold off until we see what happens with the property tax relief here in November. And that's the discussion I had with the city manager, Jennifer there and less. Okay. So, but we still want to continue on with it, but we certainly recognize, uh, you know, what impact that could have. Of course, with that Midtown parking garage, a good portion is paid for with CRA dollars, but it does sunset in 2033. So 23. So yeah, they, so what you've got in the capital line under expenditures is 9.7 million. And then the parking garage is 9.1 million. Where, uh, where's the other six, or I'm sorry, 600,000 public math here, 600,005, 600,000, 600,000, 600,000 and 5,000. Les, do you have a photo on that one? I'm trying to think of it. Is that the, is that the leases and the Gatsby or is that, uh, that's a project? Okay. All right. So we have, um, uh, 300 out of that number, 350,000 is for downtown pavers, which is new budget in 27. And then we have, um, 30,000 for the North, um, alternate 19 entrance enhancements, 150,000 for, um, underground and utilities in the downtown area. And then 75,000 for the Virginia and Milwaukee bulb out. Yeah. Okay. That makes sense. Yeah. Then, um, so what basically related to this, do we have a general idea of how much we're going to have to finance for the parking garage or we do, but we do like a lot less talk about, but our debt service is going to be like $840,000 a year. I think we're looking to finance, uh, pretty the most of that. Uh, of course it would run to the CRA in 2033. Then we'd go to the general fund. But one of the things to make sure that we all, uh, keep in mind is when the general, when the, uh, CRA sunsets, 1.5, 1.6 million will come to the general fund and we'll continue to increase over the years. So it'll go up to over 2 million, probably in about three or four years. Okay. So that will help pay for that. So we would, um, immediately, um, set aside that funding to pay the debt service after the CRA sunsets. Yeah. Right. To the general fund. Right. Yeah. For how many years? Uh, I think we're looking at 10 years. I want to say 15, but I'm going to defer less. 15 year loan we're thinking. 15 year loan. Yeah. So eight or nine. Yeah. Thank you. Other questions? Mayor? Mayor? Yes. Um, I noticed that we have the 350,000 for downtown pavers, walkability enhancements for this year. Uh, so downtown pavers through the CRA, but yet on the ARPA, we have the 187 for downtown pavers. So why aren't we all coming from the same fund? Yeah. I'll let finance the actual project cost for the streetscape. This is main street from the trail to Broadway is somewhere around the million dollar figure. And it's a culmination of some different, uh, allocations. Jane. Yeah. I think that the main reason was that the funding was allocated to ARPA for the, uh, parking lot across from Caledonia when that project came in under budget. Um, and at that point, um, and at that point, I think we were needing a little bit more, uh, money for the project in the CRA to be able to do what we needed to do was originally, uh, reallocated a year or so ago. So at that point, the CRA didn't have, I think there was a little bit more of a funding constraint to add that and leave it in the CRA, leave it in the economic development project instead of putting it back to another project was I think the reason at the time. Um, so, you know, we, you know, we are willing obviously to, to do whatever the commission, you know, requests. Yeah. I'm just seeing, uh, in 2032, right. The end balance is going to be 4.3 million. And it just seems to me that there should be plenty of room, uh, in the CRA fund for that. But that's, that's my comment to me. I did want to say, Jean, I love how thorough you are with your answers. It's amazing. You're, you're so on top of it. Um, and less, nothing, not taking away from you because you're great too. So anyway, so I mean, but it's just, I love like the detail that Jean gives, you know, I've seen her in action in the finance board too, and they're, they, they love it. So it's, it's like kudos to you. It's awesome. Um, so I mean, everybody's looking at that 4 million, but again, like we could put that into the parking garage and reduce the level of the amount of loan we take. And certainly a lot of things could be done with that. And I continue, I've had this conversation with you. I've said it on the diet. It's like, I just worry because that downtown in some areas is, is tired and, um, we got it. We don't want to fall behind it. We want to stay with it. So yeah, no, it's, it's, it's tired and dated. That's why we need to get a new CRA menstrual plan involved. We need to make sure we get a new vision and we need to continue to invest in it. It is an economic engine and the dollars that come out of there aren't just property taxes. I said, it's penny, it's utility, it's franchise. It's, it's part of the heart, you know, along with many other things for the city. Right. I mean, no matter what happens with that referendum, we want a strong downtown. So, um, so, um, was I next or did I jump in? I forget. Okay. Did I jump in? Okay. Go. No, I'm done. I was done. Okay. All right. Um, so Monroe, uh, the Monroe garage lease went, that, that is over what, 2033 or? Yes. What do we pay for that? Yeah, we pay, uh, approximately $113,000 each year for that lease. And then we also have a maintenance charge. I think it's 57,000 or 60,000 somewhere there about. So yeah, it's a pretty good sum. I mean, are you worried about that? Uh, you know, it's, it's, it's interesting. Obviously we have the private parking garage going on Douglas right now. And then some of that's going to be paid. So we can kind of use that as a, as a prototype to see how that gets used. We still have some capacity in that Monroe garage, but yes, once it goes away, we really need our own downtown parking garage to control our future. You know, we, what we did is we took advantage of the great recession and we leased all of these lots and now it's time that we need to make sure that we have our own. And that's what that Monroe represents. Uh, excuse me. I mean, is your vision to not stay there or is it your vision? At least we have leverage to we have leverage reasonable. We have leverage. Which that would be my thought too. You know, whether he could, uh, adaptively reuse that, which might be tough because of his ceiling height. Yeah. But yeah, it gives us leverage. Okay. Is it? Yeah. It's a great garage. Um, um, yeah, I think that's all I have. I'd like to heckle you, but I just can't come up with something. There's still time mayor. There's still time. Yes. You're right. You're right. There's still time. Okay. Everybody's good, right? Okay. We'll go to solid waste. Okay. Solid waste. Um, you know, government revenues increased by $800,000 in 27 compared to 26 due to a, an FDEP diesel emissions mitigation program for two solid waste class eight vehicles. Another grant was awarded mid year in 2026 for class seven vehicle. This grant was not budgeted, but it, uh, is shown in the estimated column for 2026, uh, a note related to the purchase of the vehicles, uh, the, the class seven vehicle, which is being funded by a grant was already in the 26 budget and was ordered with the fleet replacements in March 26 due to the timing concerns and lead time needed to order the class eight vehicles. These two vehicles replacements are being ordered in 20, in fiscal year, 2026 current year with a budget amendment. This will ensure the city receives the vehicles before the grant, uh, timelines and deadlines, uh, for charges for services, uh, increase $1.7 million, 25.2% in 27. This was due to the rate increase of 28.52% effective April 1st, 2026. And there will also be a rate increase schedule for, for April 1st, 2027 of 15.61%. Ordinance 2601 was approved at the second reading on, uh, March 19, 2026. In addition, in addition to the April 1st rate increase in 2026 and 27, it stipulates an increase of, of a 3% or, or CPI, whichever is greater from October 1st, 28 through fiscal year 2030. Uh, debt proceeds decreased $492,000 in 2027 compared to current year due to grants covering the cost of vehicles, in 2027 year and no need for financing vehicles in 2027. That service is also not needed for, for the class seven vehicle purchase with the grant in fiscal year 2026. I want to point out these grants are very helpful in the solid waste fund and, uh, saving as financing cost and, uh, and also, uh, cost of issuance as well. Uh, for the expenses, the operating costs have gone down $152, $53,000, uh, compared in 2027. This is due mainly to a decrease of 104,000 in refuse disposal and 245,000 in fleet overhead costs. This was offset by a 203,000 increase in administrative cost allocation and also other contracts and ISF charges in fiscal year 27 compared to fiscal year 26 budget. The decrease in the, in the refuse disposal was due to stopping the service for the enclaves for the solid waste fund and the capital costs have decreased 492,000 in 2027. And that is because, uh, no fleet, no fleet vehicles are scheduled for fiscal year 27. As I mentioned, solid waste has ordered three vehicles in 2026. The total cost of those vehicles is 1.1 million and the grant funding will be 1 million fifty thousand dollars with 800,000 budgeted in 2027. The net expense to the fund for the vehicles would be $75,000. So, so the fund will pay 75 of the 1 million 50, 1 million dollars and the vehicles purchased in 2026 are a rear loader, a sidewinder and a front loader. And for the assumptions, uh, I mentioned the rate increases, uh, that we have, uh, uh, uh, the, the, in 27 or 28 and then the CPI in 29 through 30 salary is, uh, is 3.5 percent, uh, merit increase per year benefits are 6 percent and operating is 2 percent. And fund overview, this is on page 24 and 524 and 525 of your budget document. Uh, the estimated 26 column alarm range plan in the proposed budget shows, uh, a negative fund balance and, uh, that's in the book, not in the slide today, but I want to mention that that's for the, that was for $875,000 for those two class eight vehicles, uh, and it's, and it's currently shown as a capital expense in fiscal year 26. Since the vehicle will not, will not be received until fiscal year 27, the encumbrance for this will carry over, uh, into 27 and the vehicle will be actually be paid for in 27, not 26. This purchase will not affect the 26 year in an available net position or available fund balance, but we need to make sure we had the funding there for the PO to, to order the, order the vehicles. Any questions on the solid waste fund? Question, solid waste or comment? Go ahead. Uh, at the beginning of the, the first slide, I think it was like 1.77 million increase in revenue. Yeah. Is that because of the rate increase? Yes. Is that where that came from? Yes. Correct. Okay. Yeah. And that also obviously took into consideration the number of units that we withdrew service from the, well, you, you used the enclaves. The enclaves. Yeah. That's right. It took that into consideration. Right. Okay. Correct. All right. Thank you. Other questions? If I can. Mr. Gow. Uh, yeah, just less, I'm looking at that negative 10.2 reserve and you had mentioned, uh, that that's because of the purchase of the vehicles. Yes. And that we haven't received those vehicles yet. We won't receive them at 27. And so the negative 10.2 is erroneous. Well, that it's at the end of 26, is that going to be the reserve level? No, it won't. That's a good question. It is. It's, it's, it's for budget purposes, we need to show it, but we know that we're going to be carrying it over that, that, uh, 800,000, carrying over it, 800,000 dollars. And we'll be carrying 800,000 dollars over in the next year to pay for those. So we're, we're comfortable that we'll have a positive fund balance. It'll be a tight fund balance. And, and we knew it was going to be tight already because of just the, before, before we put the rate increases in, but that, those vehicles, that PO will be, will for sure be carried over to 27. And, and that budget will move to, we'll move to 27. Mayor, if I may, I just want to remind the commission that, thanks to Camille back there, those purchases are being advanced and we're, we're getting two vehicles worth about $800,000 for a net cost to the city of about 70, 75,000. And I had kudos to Camille written down. So you just jumped ahead of me a little bit. Okay. Kudos. Very good. And, and so since we are, this is all about the 27 budget, the 4% that is now there isn't a real number, right? That's going to change as well. The 4% for budget year 2027, we currently have it 4%. Yeah. It, I mean, it should, because what will happen is the, the ending fund balance for 26 will be higher than we're showing. So it's all going to flow in properly. So that 4% in at the end of 27, we'll, we'll still be the same. Okay. That makes sense. That makes sense. Okay. Thank you. That's all I had. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Well, anybody else? Good. I, um, Commissioner Degard, you're good. Um, I just, um, um, regardless of, um, of, you know, the increase, um, the, the, the rates that our citizens are now paying, are they competitive? Yeah, they were competitive. The rate studies show they were competitive. Yes. No, I mean, I know the answer to that, but they were actually a little better than competitive. So, um, I think it's important that, and that's what makes it important to keep up with it because, but inflation got so ahead of everybody, you know, we've, we've got to catch up. I, once in a while, I get asked the question about, can we go back to, uh, uh, two day a week pick up? Yeah. What would it like, do we know how much that would actually jump the rate? I'm going back to right around when I started here in 2014, but when the city decided to go from two day collections to one day, it was a significant impact to the rate had we not done so. So we're going to jump back the other way. Yeah. Yeah. You, you can't, um, increase that service level without adding equipment and people. Yeah. So those are real dollars. Yeah. Okay. Good. Um, and, and I'll ask the obvious question too, because of the grants that Camille continues to get, um, if this, if we're getting ahead of this and it looks like we've got more money coming in and we're growing, which at some point we start to grow, um, at, at, you know, we won't wait too long before we give a rate relief. Like we're not going to sit there with flush money when it's growing where we, we, we know when to trigger it back as well. Yes. The city manager has requested that we keep her totally up to date on where we are in that so she can bring it back to commission should there need to be an adjustment and that rate change. Either way. Either way. Okay. Good. Okay. Yep. That's all the questions I have. Anybody? Okay. Okay. Okay. Next is, uh, water wastewater. Um, in government revenues have increased by $361,000 in 27 due to, um, HMGP grants on lift stations, 20 and 32 rehab projects. Um, charge for services have increased by $4 million or 15% compared to 26. Um, the rate increase was approved by city commission on with ordinance 2504 on June 5th, 2025 at a 15% increase in 2026 and 27. Um, the proceeds have decreased by 3.4 million in fiscal year, 27 compared to 26. And that is related to, uh, uh, SRF loans on, uh, wastewater SCADA and electrical upgrade projects. Also, uh, bank loan was moved to 2027. That was in 2026. And the bank loan has been reduced. The bank loan is now projected to be 7.5 million. It was, uh, close to 15 million last year. So we've scoped that out working with, with Clay and his team. Uh, and these are for critical projects in the water wastewater fund, which include the water wastewater treatment plant, um, eight fill, uh, facility, eight filter media and basin rehab, the wastewater treatment plant, RAS, WAS pump replacements, production well facilities, and, uh, Willowwood water main replacements. So those are the, the plan projects for that, uh, funding. And that will be a bank loan that will be moved probably moving forward to forward with the commission sometime in the next 12 months. Um, for expenses, uh, capital costs have increased 6.4 million in 2027, uh, due mainly to $3 million for green sand filter project, 2.9 million for facility eight filter media project and Bayshore water main project of $500,000. These projects were all budgeted in 27, but not in 26. And for other expenses, we have a decrease of 3.3 million in 2027 compared to 26. And that was, uh, an FDOT project for the utility relocation at Curlew that was budgeted in 26 and is not budgeted in 27. For the assumptions we have, uh, for revenue, we have our, our, our rate increase in, in, in 27 to 15%, then 28 to 30, uh, 3% uh, increases. And then, then there's no, no increases in, in the long range plan in 31 and 32. The ordinance only goes out to 30. Um, the expenditures are, uh, merit increase to 3.5% benefits of 6% and operating costs at 2%. And mentioned here, the other side of, uh, these, the city hall, there's a transfer out to the penny fund for the, uh, contribution to the city hall every year of 468,700. And that will, that will go through October of 2029. For the overview, this is on page 526 and five through 529 in the budget document, the, uh, the available net position, uh, at the bottom, uh, in 2027 is 42%, uh, and about $9.8 million. Uh, and it's above our target of 25%. Uh, as mentioned, we have a projected debt issue of 7.5 million in 2027. And then another, we, we, we also look out in 2030, uh, under debt proceeds, you can see those, there's another 7.5 million in 2030. We're estimating we'll have another need for financing out in 2030. And the timing of that debt issue will be consistent. Uh, and, and both of these debt issues that were, uh, in, in 27 and 30, were in the rate study. The rate study anticipated either a bank loan or SRF loans. We're expecting the loan in 27 to be a bank loan. We're hopeful Clay and I talked to Clay a lot about this. The goal is to try to package, uh, some wastewater projects for the one in 2030, where hopefully we can make some of that, if not all of that SRF, an SRF loan, uh, uh, that that'll be the goal. Um, the loan in 27, as I mentioned, will be a bank loan. And, uh, we will, we will, we will monitor the timing of the issue of the, of the financing. Uh, I'm, uh, we'll be staff will be bringing to your commission, uh, in August or September, a reimbursement resolution for this financing, uh, for the water wastewater fund. And that's not, that's not, there's no commitment to issue the financing, but it allows us to reimburse ourselves for costs that are incurred, uh, because our goal will not, will be to not issue the financing until we have to. And that I'm thinking that may be sometime in between, uh, January and June of next year, but still, still rough numbers on that, as far as timing. Uh, the city has received and is pursuing grants on certain projects in this wastewater fund, which include Bayshore water main replacement, 1.5 million appropriation approved in 26, uh, 26, 27 state budget. Also, the city has applied for a federal apportionment on this project. The WWTP admin hardening reinforcement of walls, uh, hazard mitigation grant application is in process. The project total is 1.175 million with a 75% reimbursement if the grant is awarded. The application has passed the state review and is under, uh, review by FEMA now. And that includes, uh, the water wastewater fund. Okay. Questions on water wastewater, knowing that you might want to ask water and stay away from wastewater, following Tom's statement. Anybody? You sure? It was a pretty extensive, uh, operating number, that 12 million. What were some, an example of some of the expenses? Was it, do we have some construction or modernizations? I can't remember. Um, there, there's constantly, um, a lot of construction and stuff on these, on these, in this fund with water and wastewater. The operating budget can, um, is a lot of chemicals for water and wastewater to treat. Um, there's also an increase this year, I want to say 500,000 for the biosolids hauling, which that, that contract alone is probably like a million or so, at least a million each year. Um, and you know, I can pull more information. There's, there's just a lot of, a lot of chemicals, a lot of equipment, uh, a lot of parts. And then another one's, sorry, excuse me. So another one's electricity. That's what I, that's what I was looking for. I would estimate the wastewater treatment plant spends about a million dollars in power just alone. Okay. Okay. Yeah. That's what, thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Mr. McGarrett. As I recall, as we were doing the rate increases, there was a significant expense in ground infusion. In what year is that experienced? So after we're having some further conversation with, with DEP and trying to meet the 64, the Senate bill 64, and then some concern with the PFAS going on, that's currently moved out of the, out of the, out of the program in the long term, you'll probably, we'll be adding in a future year, you'll see probably more reclaimed storage to offset that. Okay. Will that affect our rates at some point? Because that was about a third of our rate increases, I recall. It was, it was approximately 7.5 million dollars. We'll be adding it. You'll see the other, they're in the, in there, another project is for additional reclaim of about 5 million for 5 million gallons. We'll be probably doubling that to go to 10 million gallons of storage instead of doing the infiltration. I'll seek an interpretation of that later with you. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. And just one, one second. I think the other thing to mention is because we don't have that project early on in the planning schedule, we are able to only do this up, we can do a 7.5 million dollar loan instead of the 15 million dollar loan we were thinking of. So it's, it's going to help us on the debt servicing side by, by doing that. It'll be short term. Short term, yes. Okay. Any, I think nothing else. We can go to stormwater. Then I think after stormwater, we'll take like 10 minute break. Okay. Stormwater, um, intergovernmental revenues, uh, increase of $985,000 in, in 2027 for, uh, USDA emergency, uh, watershed protection EWP grants of 2.7 million net increase in 2027. We also had an increase in, uh, FDEP appropriation for gabions of $850,000 in 2027, an increase of 2.8 million for HMGP grant for gabions in 2027. That is still pending, uh, revenues, charges for service, uh, increase in 2027 over the 26 budget by 1.2 million dollars, uh, or 83% for the rate change in fiscal year 27 in the stormwater fund for the expenses, the operating, uh, cost decreased by 1.8 million dollars or 41% in 2027 compared to 26 budget due primarily to a decrease in ditch maintenance. The USDA EWP project of 1.2 million in fiscal year 27 and a decrease in stormwater pipelining project of $750,000 in 27 compared to fiscal year 26. And capital costs decreased 3.5 million, uh, in 2027 compared to 26 due to, uh, decreasing Gabion's, uh, USDA EWP grant project of 1.2 million and offsetting increase in Gabion's non-grant project of 3 million and an increase in infrastructure replacement and repair project of 1.7 million. And for the assumptions, uh, the rate increase in 27 is 18.6, uh, beyond, uh, it's zero after 28, uh, based on the ordinance. The expenditures are, uh, merit increase of three and a half percent, uh, benefits of 6% and operating of 2%. And the, uh, overview for the stormwater fund is on page, uh, 530 and 531 in the budget document. And the stormwater fund has an estimated available fund balance of 2.3 million in 2027. Uh, in fiscal year 28, we will likely need to issue financing, uh, to provide cashflow for projects. And we'll be evaluating that, uh, with, with staff, uh, over the next year. We'll work with public works team to determine the timing and sizing of, of financing, uh, if needed. Any questions on the stormwater fund? Okay. Questions. Questions. So I'm just kind of curious going back to the reserve. Um, what, I mean, is the reserve built up to address any specific thing or what, what's the plan for that? Well, the reserve is projected to be 42%. And then, and then, then, uh, in 20, then 2029, the, the, the, the target's 25%. So we would like it to be at 25 or higher. It does, the rate increases, uh, do not continue as you can see. So without, without any future rate increases, you know, by, by 2029, we would, uh, we would start to fall. But actually, that's a dip. We actually are okay. I take that back out to 2032 with this, with these current, current estimates and current projects, uh, that we haven't heard today. Yeah. I mean, that those projects may change that the costing of the projects may change, but what we have in today, we, we appear to be okay out to 2032. So we, yeah, we just voted to raise the rates on this stormwater too, right? That was a couple of years ago. We, yeah, we, we, the ordinance we put forward was for the three years. And then we said we would come back, which we have on the agenda to come back and tell you how we've done. And then, um, ask for the, a similar, um, increase based on CPI or 3%. Um, so we can remain stable. Yeah. Vice mayor, if I could, at the library, just if you recall, to Sue's point, the rate study was for a three year period, because we were in the middle of the vulnerability assessment, which would identify additional capital projects. I think that speaks to why we're building that reserve, because we're assuming there will be successful in getting some grants. But if we're not, then we're going to have to utilize that reserve to implement those capital projects. Yeah, that's good. I, I, I think it's important that we, we have the end game there. Thank you. Yes. This leveling out has taken place through moving those projects around, uh, based on their priority and based on our funding. Thank you. Well, cause in reality, when it comes to stormwater, there's no end to the projects. That is correct. Okay. Yeah. Just to be clear. Um, okay. Um, I don't have any questions. Anybody else or you'll be good. Okay. You can take a 10 minute break. Okay. And we are, I think, right at the Marina, right? Okay. Marina fund, uh, intergovernmental revenues have increased 1.8 million in fiscal year 27 compared to 26. And that is mainly due to anticipated FEMA reimbursements in 2027. And that's, uh, for the Marina ball cab project and the shore pedestal project of those two. Miscellaneous revenues, uh, which includes slip renter income and Dunedin fish and company lease revenue has increased by $101,000 in 2027 compared to 2026 budget. This is due to a projected increase in slip vote rental income. Um, the actual, uh, the actual revenue projected to be received in 2026 is more than budget. We were conservative in our budget for 2026, uh, of $502,000, but we are projecting revenue in 2026 to be approximately 560,000. Uh, the 2027 budget includes is proposing a 7% increase in slip runner income in 2027, which was in the projections last year for the Marina fund. Uh, debt proceeds have decreased 3.5 million in 2027 compared to 26. Uh, the Marina ball cab project is 3.1 million and the dock AMV design costs were 437,000 that was budgeted in 26 and not in 2027. And for expenses, uh, personnel costs decreased by 20,000 or 9% in 27. The decrease is related to, uh, a split that we've done in 2027 in the Marina personnel between general fund and Marina fund. The split is, uh, approximately 25% general fund and 75% Marina fund. The split is based on how each employee's workload is allocated between the Marina fund and the general fund for boat ramp and fishing pier, uh, type work. The capital pro project costs have decreased 3.4 million, uh, in 2027. That's due to the Marina ball cab project and dock a and B design costs being budgeted in 26 and not in 27. The construction for dock a and B has been moved to fiscal year 28 in the Marina fund. The debt service costs have, uh, increased in 27 by, uh, 1.7 million dollars, which is due to a, the payoff of the storm line of credit after the receipt of the FEMA reimbursement for the Marina ball cab project, which is expected to be received, uh, and the line of credit paid off in early 2027 is the goal. This partially offsets the intergovernmental revenue. And for assumptions, um, we've got miscellaneous revenue. I mentioned includes slip winter incomes, and that's a proposed 7% increase in 2027. And then, uh, and then 3%, uh, actually the 7% increase proposed from 2027 through 2031, 7% each year. That's consistent with last year as well. We were at 10% uh, prior to the storms. We are currently at 7% for the next, next few years. And those, uh, that list, what's in that line item is slip renter income, uh, transient boat slip rentals, which is a fairly small number, interest revenue, and the Dunedin fish lease, fish company lease expenditures. Uh, our salaries are 3.5% merit and benefits are 6% and operating costs are 2%. And for the fund overview, uh, on pages 532 and 533 in the budget, uh, the marina fund has an available fund balance, uh, at the end of 2027. At the bottom, the yellow highlighted of 1.4 million in 2027. As mentioned, uh, we, we proposed a 7% increase in the slip rental revenue and fiscal year 27 budget, and then 7% increase in 28 through 31. This assumes FEMA, this assumes FEMA pays us back 87.5% of the marina ball cab replacement and, uh, dock A and B project cost. And I mentioned dock A and B, uh, project costs are the cost of, of, of floating, floating docks. We recently received a state appropriation, uh, from the state of Florida of $3 million that was mentioned earlier. We'll be making adjustments to this fund for the tentative budget. Uh, the state funding will replace FEMA funding, uh, for storm damage, but we, we should also see some reduction in match needed, uh, for FEMA, which should reduce the match requirements, uh, by approximately $375,000 because there's no match required for the state grant. And that includes the overview of the marina fund questions on the marina fund. Uh, uh, you were starting this side. Yes. Uh, thank you, mayor. Um, what are our assumptions about occupancy in the marina? I know that we're not fully occupied right now. What are you assuming as we're looking at this? Uh, we're the assumption in 27 is it will stay. The occupancy will be, uh, pretty much the same as it was in 26. Once the boats came back, we're assuming about this, uh, the same amount. I, as far as exactly where they're at, I believe they're, uh, I believe 80, 80%, 85%, but I have to get back to you on exact as far as, as far as occupancy now, but we're assuming pretty much the same occupancy next year as we've, as we had this year in 26, once the boats, uh, all came back. That's all I have for now, mayor. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? I was, I'm shocked by this mayor. I just thought you'd have no questions. Okay. So confirming, and I, I think you, uh, had mentioned this, but that 4.5 million for capital, is that just docs A and B replacement? Yes. Okay. Yeah. All right. Um, and then just also, this is really to confirm here, but all of the slip rental proceeds go in the miscellaneous. Correct. Okay. That's correct. Does that also include boat ramp? Uh, uh, boat ramp, uh, revenues have been moved to the general fund now. Yeah. Okay. I knew that. Um, the debt proceeds, the, so where does that 3.9 come from? Are we financing that? I'm, I'm assuming is that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Debt proceeds in 28. Yeah. That's, that's, uh, that's, uh, uh, funding coming in for the line of, the line of credit, the line of credit to pay for, uh, doc A and B, for example, that project. Um, and, uh, Jennifer, what do we, when are we going to get the master plan back and talk about the docs again? So we're actually, we have the two locations. Okay. Perfect. Okay. Later. How much later? So I guess I should repeat that vice mayor, if you don't mind, since the microphone was off. Um, we have the locations of the floating docs where we're going to take the city commission. You need to go individually, as you know, um, and staff will be with you, various staff members. And then once we, you have the floating doc information that you need, we'll bring the master plan back to all of you, uh, for you to adopt. Okay. Perfect. Okay. Those are all, those are all the questions I have. Anybody? So, okay. I've got Commissioner Sandberg in there. I'll come back to you. That's fine. So the miscellaneous goes from 604 to 650. Is that based on that same 80% occupancy? Yeah. Yeah. Basically. Yeah. We, you can see, we do, we do assume in 29 that, uh, that the it's, it's back to full again, you know, that's an assumption. Now we're kind of assuming in 27, 28, it stays near the same capacity that it is now. And right now in 29, we're assuming that it will go up some because it'd be, it'd be, it'd be full at that point, ideally. Yeah. I understand. Thank you, Les. Okay. Commissioner DeGuard. Yes. Was the transfer of the ramp, uh, to the general fund a temporary, or is that a permanent condition? It was proposed to be permanent. Uh, we, we, it was moved in 26 this year. We, we, you know, because boat ramp, you know, the thought was, uh, we, we, we, we get revenue for the boat ramp, or we normally do. We haven't in the last few years, but, but, but we will again in the near future. And, uh, that, that would move to the general fund. And the thought was the ramp, the ramp is really not for the slip runners. It's for the public. And so we, uh, we decided to move the, the ramp expenditures and offsetting revenue to the general fund. We thought it made more sense there rather than because it really don't think it benefits the slip runners that much. It's more, it's more for the public. Thank you. Anybody else? All right. Okay. Um, so going back to that, and I mean, obviously we made the decision and I don't really recall what, where my mind was at at the time, because with the boat ramp revenue now, it just makes me feel like we have an enterprise fund and then we're scattering off the boat ramp to the general fund. Um, you know, and then does the revenue for the fish company, is that, that's part of the revenue for marina fund, right? Why would we give the marina that? I mean, I, I'm trying to figure that out because enterprise fund should be an enterprise fund should be an enterprise fund. And I would, I would, I would just wonder if anywhere else where there's a marina, they say, oh no, we're, we're gonna, we're not gonna include that in our total enterprise. And just whatever the rates end up to be for each other, they figure that out. They don't separate them. But maybe I'm wrong. Yeah. I, I, I'd have to research that as far as what, how other marinas do that. I'm not sure, you know, uh, but our, our thought was that, you know, the, the, the pier is more public than more, more for the public than, than, than the slip renters as an example. I get the pier. Yeah. One hundred percent. I get the pier. And the boat ramp, uh, you know, we, we thought it made more sense to go to the general fund, uh, you know, after talking through it, um, just because of, again, we, you know, it didn't, in talking to Lori, not many, it seemed like not many slip renters needed to use it or used it. And it was more for, you know, general public. Mayor, if I could, I'm working off. I don't know. It just feels like other enterprise funds. We could sparse apart different little things in it and say, well, this is the people that have memberships at the golf club, but this is separate. So we'll just, I don't know. Yeah. And just, I'm working off memory here, but I, I think, uh, to, to Les's point, and you mentioned the, the pier itself that supports the downtown and the businesses. So that's why that's allocated to the general fund as opposed to the marina fund. I think the lease for, uh, Walt's business there, the thought process there was absent that, then there could be some slips in that location. And so that's why that those funds go back into the marina fund as opposed to the general fund. And again, the, the ramp is primarily in support of, uh, the public accessing the basin to get out to the sound as opposed to the slip runners themselves. And I think there's also an allocation associated with the parking that's immediately adjacent to the marina for the slip runners. And so that, that repaving and that, that type of work gets allocated to the marina fund where the balance of the parking goes to the park itself working off memory. But I think that that was the thought process, whether it needs revisiting or not. Yeah. I mean, I was just saying other marinas, it doesn't seem like they'd parse that out, but maybe vice mayor has an opinion or maybe you don't, I don't, I don't, I don't put you on the spot, but I guess I did. Well, I, I, I hadn't heard any, anything about that. So I'm not sure that I know anything more. So if I may, mayor, we'll be happy to give you, um, an idea of how much revenue is generated. Well, I know it's not, I know it's not a lot of revenue, but it is going to be some cost. Right. Yes, absolutely. And, and what other enterprise funds are doing, um, it, it, it, it was in the fiscal year 2026 budget. And the whole rationale was that it's used more by the general public. So, but we're, we're fine. We'll give you a report and we can make a decision. I just kind of, I don't want to parse off too much when it's an enterprise fund. And quite honestly, this is going to sound really bad, but you know, the fund is, this is a case where it seems to me, you guys, that is better off after the storm, because I didn't know how we're going to fund those flooding docks. And now we're going to be able to make a more sustainable, better marina than we had before. And we're going to have to pay for it. So, yes, that is true. Okay. All right. Uh, well, with the, so back to the master plan. Yeah, I got your attention. Well, and then I know Commissioner DeGuard won't say something. Yeah. I'm sorry. I, I, I saw a squirrel. Um, I knew I could do it. Yeah. Um, but I, this is why the, the timing of the master plan is, is critical because I just based on a lot of feedback I've received, um, there, there definitely is, wait for it, some opinions on, on how this should be be work. But it, it's not what you think. And I don't want to derail this discussion with that discussion, because that'll come up during the master plan part. But, uh, I'll just say this, I, I think everybody recognizes that the cost of the floating docks is significant. And I'll just leave it at that. And we can talk more about that later. Okay. And Commissioner DeGuard, do you have something else to add? The only thing I want to ensure is that a marina slip owner would not find himself paying for use of the ramp because it's now two separate funds. I just need to put that, uh, out because suddenly we might see people saying, oh, we need to charge people in the marina because it's not part of the marina. Do you understand what I'm saying? Yeah, I do. Okay. Just want to be sure that can happen. Yes. And that's a very good point. Yeah. Good question. But that brings up, if they are using the ramp, why isn't it just part of the enterprise fund? Right. Yeah. Um, but it's just a discussion topic for anybody out there watching with the marina. Um, and then, uh, my other thing, I just want to clarify. So, uh, so the, the increases to the rates are automatic. We've put that in place and that automatically is happening. No, actually that the, the marina, the marina rate increase will be, be a resolution that will be brought to your commission in September, uh, for, to make that adjustment. Yeah. It's not, this, this, this particular one is done annually. It's not, we've not done a three or four year thing. We could look into doing that, but it's been done annually the last couple of years. Probably because it was a moving target. That's the thing. It's certainly a better moving target even now, but yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's fine. So, sorry. I just kind of wanted to know. Um, and oh, did we lose a lot of people because of the storm moving out, actually moving out of the marina? Uh, Tony, I mean, it didn't come back. Sure. Um, there, there was a number that have not come back because we obviously have a significant number of open slips and we've had some replacement through the wait list. Um, I couldn't tell you the exact number, but, uh, we did have some that we lost and it's not a significant turnover. No. Couldn't answer that. I don't think so accurately, but I don't think so either. I think most came back. Okay. And now that led into another question, but I'm, oh yeah. So how long is our waiting list? It depends on what size boat, the small boats. We have openings, the larger boats. We have weights, long way a and B dog. Yeah. Yeah. It's long weights. They have weights. Yeah. Okay. So, I mean, yeah, I, I just think all those things are important as we move forward. So, okay. Mary, I do have a question. Sure. Sorry, just piggybacking on that. Cause I think earlier we talked about the occupancy rate was about 80%. 80%. And so are you telling me that of that, that 20% we're missing is all the, uh, small boats? It's actually the larger, uh, or excuse me, it's probably more so the larger vessels because we haven't been able to fill all those spaces because of the proximity of the bulkhead project on a and B. So we haven't been able to rent those. And that's why there's vacancies, um, moving forward as those bulkheads complete, we're going to look at a strategy to try and fill those even on a temporary basis before we start the build outs to try and close that gap a little bit. But, um, if I had to say, I think most of them are in the larger slip category. Okay. And so, and again, those vacancies are a result of construction, not the lack of desire. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. No other questions. We'll go to golf operations. Okay. Golf operations, uh, charges, uh, charges for services are, uh, are down $159,000 in 2027 compared to 26. This decrease is due to an increase in members dues of $181,000 in 27, which is offset by a $367,000 decrease in public green fees. The increase in members dues is related to the end of the grandfather rates for members who paid during the restoration project effective January, 2027 members rates will be normalized across all categories. Uh, and the decrease in public rounds played in 2027 budget is based on a full year or more of, of history at the golf course. Now with it, with the restoration under the new pricing at the golf course, the estimated rounds in fiscal year 27 are approximately 47,000 rounds, which is about 9% less rounds projected in 2026 year, uh, for expenses, the, uh, operating costs have decreased $206,000 in 2027 compared to 26. This is due to an increase in, uh, sewer sanitation, uh, mainly reclaimed water, uh, in 2027, of 100 of $115,000 with offsetting decreases in facilities ISF and insurance ISF of $188,000. Also a decrease in electricity and repairs and maintenance of $63,000 and reduction of operating supplies of $37,000. Uh, and for capital costs, they've increased by 60,000 in 27, and that's due to a hundred thousand dollar increase for, uh, the Dunedin locker room remodel project and with an offset, uh, of 40,000 decrease for the rain and starter shelters that were budgeted in 26 and not in 27. And for the assumptions in the golf course, uh, as I mentioned, uh, the, the revenue increase is, uh, as, uh, about a 4% reduction. And then we've got an estimate of 3% and 28 increase, and then, uh, uh, 2% 29 through 32, uh, increase in, in, uh, revenues and, and in expenditures are 3.5% merit and 6% benefit and then 2% operating. And this, this is on page 534 and 535 in the budget book. Um, the estimated fund balance at the end of fiscal year 27 is, is $19,400. Uh, it, the golf operations fund and restoration project that the golf course are both fairly new to the city. It will take time to build up available net positioning and working capital in the golf enterprise fund. The 27 budget is showing revenues more than expenses of 194,000. If you look at the 27 column and go down to the third line from the bottom, you can see, uh, revenues over expenditures and that's $194,000, uh, profit or, or, or, or revenues over expenditures. The 26 estimate estimated net working position or working capital is a negative number of $175,000. And what that means is it means current assets, less current liabilities. Uh, and so current liabilities are, are more than current assets. There is available cash in, in the fund in fiscal year 25 and cash today, uh, in the golf funds, about $250,000. In the golf fund today, there is a, there is, there's a grant part of the, the negative fund balance or a negative net position. I mentioned the current assets, less current liability at the end of 26, uh, is related to the, there was a $500,000 restoration grant that we, that the golf course had, had received. Uh, it was actually before we even, uh, you know, worked out and took over the golf course. It was 500,000 for that project. And, uh, and, uh, and 375,000 of that has not been paid to this paid to the city to date by the state of Florida. The staff's been working with the city attorney and, and Blair and his team and, uh, and, and, and, and the state to try and do rectify and satisfy all the requirements of the grant, uh, the available, the available, uh, balance in the outer years. Uh, if you look out in the outer years out to 2032, you know, the projection is that we, that we will have profits over the, over those years. We, and you can see the fund balance out in 2032 is, is estimated to be $700,000 and a 20% reserve. We have, we have projects that are, uh, that are planned in here, uh, throughout, throughout the model. And, you know, those projects may, maybe, may be deferred based on, based on funding availability. But, um, but that's kind of what we, uh, big, big picture, where the enterprise fund is. Any questions? Let me know. Thank you. Okay. Questions? Uh, oh, well, I, I just want to, I mean, I don't, I don't have any questions per se, but I, I am pretty happy with the operating expenses going down as they did. You know, I think that shows efficiencies and so. Okay. Yeah. I think Commissioner Sandberg and you. So I'm, I'm not sure this is for you or, or for Blair. Is there a waiting list to add more members? Yes. And would it be financially worthwhile to add permanent members to increase our revenue? Or is there a reason why we want to leave it as is? I'm, I'm going to let, I know the answer to that, but I'm going to let Blair answer it. Blair was. Oh, he was comfortable too. Come on. Yeah. He's a subject matter expert. God, he was just going to sit back there. My favorite thing, hiding behind Jorge. You can have Jorge's peanuts too. You can have peanuts there as well. He's on the peanuts. Yeah. Uh, yes, there is, there is a, a waiting list. Uh, we have approximately 225 names on it right now, and we have 275 memberships right now. Um, the most of the greater share of the revenue comes from outside play versus member play. Uh, that doesn't mean we aren't trying to lessen the gap between the average price per round per outsider versus member. We're trying to get the member up closer to the outside rate. Um, but right now there's a pretty big discrepancy. So if it, if it remained as it is right now, it actually would not be to our benefit to add more members. Okay. Um, that may change in the future. And did I hear that that's 47,000 rounds that were played up there? That's what we're hoping to do. Okay. Um, that's what we're forecasting for 27. That's what we're hoping to do for 26. All right. In our, in the revenue portion that, that includes the, the pro shop. And do we have a situation up there where we receive a monthly rent from the restaurant? We have a contract with the restaurant, but there's rent abatement for the improvements they did, uh, in the clubhouse. Okay. So the monthly rent we're getting right now would actually be zero. But we will eventually. I was gonna say, I didn't know that. So when will the abatement be? I'd have to look at the even. Just okay. Okay. Okay. No, I guess that that's it. Thank you, Blair. Didn't mean to get too comfortable back there. This side. I think it's stay put, Blair. Anybody over here? Um, I, I've been told in that now that you're up here, Blair, uh, that one of the things that would help our course in a number of ways is an improved driving range. What are your thoughts on that? Um, our, we have after the restoration, we have a nice golf course and it's in good shape right now. And we have people traveling from up to an hour away to play it on our, a little more than that. We have a group from Wesley Chapel plays every weekend just because they think it's a great deal. Um, our, our driving range. That's exactly what I asked. Does not match the quality of the golf course, in my opinion. Um, it hinders us. We, we have a golf course where we could do some decent tournaments and we just did the Florida State Golf Association Publinks Championship. Um, but that was tee times and the, we can get about 10 people on the range at a time. If you want to do a big shotgun tournament and we do the Chamber of Commerce, but that's a fun tournament. If we're talking about a competitive tournament, we just don't have the room, the facility. Um, it's not a long, a big enough range for how far golfers today hit it. Uh, it's fine for me. It's fine for a lot of ladies and juniors, some juniors like 12 and under, but it's just not big enough. If I can answer that. It's something that Blair and I have talked about quite a bit. Um, you don't see it anywhere in the capital, uh, improvement program. Yeah. I think I, I agree with Blair. We need to address it. And I think that there might be some, um, some, uh, kind of intermingling with sterling links as well. Um, so we need to, to, to sit and figure that all out, um, to get those, those big tournaments in there, but we, we need to address it moving forward. Anything else? Yeah. And this is just to clarify more for the, the public. You talked about the restaurant and the abatement and why we're not receiving anything at this time, but just to clarify that the restaurant is not part of the golf course, right? We have our own contract. Yes. And so that's why we're not seeing any finances regarding the restaurant. That's correct. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So, so the abatement along those lines, the restaurateur, uh, invested, uh, over $500,000 in capital improvements to the restaurant. And part of our agreement with the restaurateur, the city invested nothing. So the part of our agreement is that, um, essentially their rent is abated to a certain date, which should, or a certain amount of their capital improvement, um, so that they can recoup some of their investment because the city owns all of those capital improvements. So we own the kitchen equipment. Yes. Good. Okay. That's good. Cause I want to say it's four year agreement, wasn't it? Four year agreement. Am I wrong on that? Was it? Yeah. I'd have to look. I haven't. Oh, I thought it was four. So yeah. Yeah. That'd be great to know what that, what that is. Okay. I'm going to ask questions unless somebody else has another one. Um, um, so, um, Jennifer, this might be to you that this grant, the $370,000 sounds like it's in, um, you know, political Hades or whatever. I don't know. It's in between life and death. Uh, and it doesn't seem to be coming off that. It almost seems like a political solution is the only thing that's ever going to get it out of the metal. I mean, I mean, thoughts. Yes. Uh, and Jennifer Cowan is actively, uh, pursuing that grant. She's feed, she'd filled me in, but right. But I, I don't know without somebody blinking, which seems to be between the federal government and state government, we're the losers. Right. Exactly. And it looks at this point as, as though the federal government is not, uh, is not blinking. The state is allowing us additional time. So we have additional time to work on this and getting the grant funding, but it may well be a political solution moving forward. So, so we need to think about who has the best contacts federally to try to move the, move it because, um, I don't think it's going to move otherwise. I just think where does the total stand? So that's my view, but we'll get an update from Jennifer Cohen, but it just seems like, you know, one of us needs to step to try to at least move some, get some help from the federal government, one of our representatives. So I'm sorry for the C students. I'm being a little bit vague on purpose. I don't know that we want to, but still. What was the topic of a grant? So, um, the grant was a, um, was taken out by the previous operator of the golf course and it's a PPP, uh, grant that was taken out during COVID. The, um, federal government, uh, tagged that particular grant and many grants that golf courses had, had, uh, received and said that it's not eligible for PPP funding. Um, and the city, given that the city is ultimately the owner and we're still working with the, you know, the, the board of directors has not been completely, uh, dissolved. We still have, they're in place so that they can, because the grant funding would go to the board of directors and then come to us by our agreement. The federal government is saying, no, you're not eligible to receive that, that funding. Um, and, uh, we have Jennifer Cowan working with the federal government. Um, and the state government is kind enough to give us a, a, a period of time in order to, uh, because, because we've got a historic preservation grant from them. Right. So, and that's saying if you owe them, we're not going to give you. Right. Exactly. So, so they're saying essentially what the federal government is saying is that the state grant, they have their first position on the state grant. Right. Um, so, so it's, it's really the three of these parties negotiating, um, uh, in regards to getting repayment of the grant. So, so they're saying that the city is not in for the, uh, the board of directors is not in first position. The federal government is. And, you know, and the, and the problem is in, uh, commissioner to guard, you said it when you look for waste fraud and abuse, this isn't it. And, and unfortunately it's now we're stuck with needing that money really. And, uh, having spent it really. So anyway, um, okay, good. That's great. Um, so we'll get a update and maybe one of us can jump in on, on, on, on that level. Um, uh, uh, so the, you're not increasing the cost of the public rounds for 20, 27, we are increasing slightly. We're going to, what we've come up with is, uh, we had a rate of $140 peak season. We had certain months, we had a peak season, shoulder season and summer season. So we are increasing slightly the rounds. We're going to try, uh, Monday through Friday at a hundred or Monday through Thursday at one third at one 40. And then Friday, Saturday, Sunday at one 50. We don't have any trouble filling Friday. Yeah. I get it. Yeah. I mean, and again, I'm Blair, I'm, I'm not getting into your business cause it seems like we're doing well. And, uh, and I fully support you. Um, I, I, if I get one comment though, it's just concern from the average everyday Dunedin resident who, you know, feels it's high sometimes. Um, they do get a 25% discount. Okay. Good. Yeah. That's good. I wasn't even clear. Okay. Good. And they're not mistaken. The number one topic among public course operators, not just municipal, but public courses, the fees are, are going nuts. Yeah. And where does the person, where, where would I play for example? Yeah. And I get that. And I, I just, I know that as commission, we all kind of said, we won't, you know, price you out of your own course, but at the same point, number one, it's got to make money. I mean, you know, for the good of the whole city, it's the most important successful. I've heard that from, yes, it's got to be successful. So from the mayor, there you go. So I, yeah. And, and so, and then, so my last question really is, um, in your opinion, because I do respect it in your opinion, are we really going in a great direction? You feel like we're really headed pretty well, like as we kick off and get everything, you know, done. There's a learning curve and not, no two places are identical, but yes, I believe we are going forward. I believe we are going the right way and doing the right things to accomplish what the city needs us to accomplish. Well, I will say some of the same people I got emails from during the drought, oh, it's terrible. Every, the sky is falling are some of the same people now that say, oh, it's fantastic. It's fantastic. It's such a great course. So, and again, and they all understand, I think, as you've explained, it takes time to seed it in when you have a new course and we're, well, we're a year and a half into this, right? Yeah. Good. Mayor, could I add one thing? How are the, um, so somebody walks in, is there a notification of a signed 25% disc? Is it 25 off? 25 for a resident, business owner, landowner, first responder, uh, uh, retired military or active military? Do we ever, is that on our like city's social media? It's on, it's on our website and there's a sign at the front counter. Okay. So if if someone walks in and they're a Dunnean resident, that it is made available to them. Good. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Well, and I just would add, I mean, is there anything wrong with promoting the fact that you get a 25% discount on our social media at our golf course? I mean, is that colliding? I mean, I mean, it's, it's just to our citizens. I mean, I'm not, you guys can decide, but I'm, I'm the, the microphone police here and I forgot to turn on. No, it's something, uh, actually we just talked to Tony about this the other day. Um, you know, when Blair mentioned the, you know, seasonality possibly changes a little bit right now is just not part of our, our social media strategy, but Tony and I are talking about it at this time. Yeah, we're, we're working on, I know Blair's, uh, has his marketing, um, efforts that are going out to a wider audience. And we're talking about some strategies to target the local community, especially city residents. Great. Well, I didn't know about 25%. And trust me, I've had quite a few opportunities to say back to a citizen, you get 25%, but I didn't really realize it. So I'm glad to know it. Um, okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Blair. Mayor, may I just, on the golf course fund, um, I'm really proud of this. I'm proud even making $1 on this golf course after what we've been through. Yeah. Um, and, uh, you know, in the operations of the golf course, the condition of the golf course, um, and we're showing profit moving forward in the golf course. Um, and traditionally, as you know, in years past, we'd be having a discussion about how much we needed to contribute to the golf course to keep it a subsidy, but I'll give it a float. Right. So I'm really proud of the work that we've done. And, um, I look forward to, to, to this golf course in the future. I think kudos to both of you. Thank you. And, and to Tony. Absolutely. Yeah. And to Vince, if he's listening, you know, I'm sure he's not, but yeah, I'm sure he's not. He's probably at a casino. I'm relatively sure. Thank you, babe. Thank you. Okay. Great. Okay. Uh, fleet. We've got to move along here. I know we're going to lose, uh, vice mayor at four. So we got to clip it along if we can. Okay. All right. The fleet fund, um, charges for services. We've got a decrease of $204,000 come in 27 fiscal year 27 compared to 26. This is due to a mainly due to a decrease in fleet repair and overhead costs of 100, 191,000. Um, and there's always a little bit of up and down on, on some of these costs, but that's basically, um, what, what we're, we have there, uh, miscellaneous income. We have decreased by 102,000 in fiscal year 27. And this is mostly, mostly due to the, um, decrease in investment earnings due to the reduction, um, due to the reduction of fund balance in fleet fund because of the, um, inter-fund loan with the general fund. So, um, we have paid back, uh, 2.3 million of that effective fiscal year 25. And we still have that. We've talked about it. The, the, the rest of that, um, uh, 2.7 million of that inter-fund loan. Um, and at that point, uh, the fund balance will bring the fund balance back up and the interest earnings will, um, incur at the historic levels. Um, we, and again, we are expecting to pay that off by the end of this year, September 30th. Uh, for expenses, operating costs have decreased by 95,000 in fiscal year 27 compared to 26. This is due to a decrease in, of 70,000 in repairs and maintenance and 33,000 in insurance ISF allocation costs. Uh, capital costs have decreased also by about 691,000 due to a decrease in fleet replacements. And this is due to the fact, just the fact of when vehicles are scheduled for replacement. Um, the largest decrease this year was in streets department, which went down 622,000 parks, recreation decreased 200,000 utilities decrease 138,000, but in stormwater, there was an increase in, in budget for vehicle purchases of 227,000 fleet assumptions. Um, the fleet fund, uh, uh, bill, wait, hold on, sorry. So fleet, uh, fleet fund assumptions, uh, charges for services are showing an increase of 1% between 28 to 32 expenditures. Salaries are increasing 3.5% for the merit increase benefit 6% and operating has a 2% operating for the fleet fund overview. The, uh, if you look at five pages, 536 and 537 in the budget that, um, oops, sorry, sorry, lost my place here. The fleet fund available net position is projected to be 10.2 million in fiscal year 27. And this isn't accumulation of funds, um, that are to be used towards replacing the city vehicles and the fleet replacement plan. Questions. Okay. Seeing none, I'm going to, you know, we've talked about this fund a lot. So, um, okay, we'll move to facility maintenance fund. Okay. Facility maintenance highlights, uh, charges for services, um, the allocations to the departments are, uh, 7.7% less or 215,000 less than 26. Um, we are using, uh, fund reserves to help, uh, with, uh, decrease the allocation to the departments. And we are also, uh, had some savings in the departments per our efforts to save across the board in 20%. Um, so, uh, operating costs decreased by 21,000 in fiscal year 27. There was some ups and downs, some decreases in repair and maintenance, professional services, electricity, and the risk insurance ISF, but they were also offset by an increase in, um, IT services, um, ISF to bring us to that net decrease of 21,000. Uh, capital costs had a decrease of 30,000 in fiscal year 27 compared, uh, to, uh, uh, which was related to, uh, capital project of fence replacement in 26 that is not budgeted in 27. Facility fund assumptions. Um, the budget is really based, uh, in the outer years projections based on the budget. Um, and we normally for charters for services and for salaries, we have the same assumptions that most funds have 3.5% increase for salaries, 6% increase for benefits, and 2% increase for operating. Facility fund overview will, is on pages 538 and 539 in the proposed budget. The facilities fund, um, available reserves is projected at the end of fiscal year 27 to be 44% or 1.3 million, uh, which is more than the reserve target of 25%. We do have a roof replacement, um, in non-recurring capital section in fiscal year 27 of 16,666 and another roof replacement in fiscal year 28 and 29 as well. I think these are all for different buildings at the facility public services, um, location. Any questions on the, uh, facilities? Questions on facilities? Um, I've noticed that what we're looking at is a fund balance that is well above the 25% even over time. Um, is there a reason for that? Uh, generally speaking, um, if, if there are, um, vacancies, which I believe we've had in the facilities fund for a while, um, and, uh, if all funds have not been spent in a specific category for whatever reason in terms of operating expenses, um, any, any savings get carried over in reserves, um, to the next year and we will usually use a lot of those reserves to offset the current year. So savings we had from fiscal year 25 is built up in reserves and we are using that, um, to offset expenses in fiscal year 27. You don't fall beneath 40 percent, uh, of your fund balance. You're 43, 9, 43, 4. Yeah. Seems a little rich. So, so what happens with these is generally the projections out are, are pretty stable based, based on our, on our, um, projections of expenses. So we are increasing the charters for services based on where we are at for the expenses. So we are looking at fiscal year 27, which has the 44 percent reserves. And, um, we will, we, we've tried to be a little conservative because we know the custodial contract is going up in fiscal year 27. So we didn't want to run the reserves too light, but Les and I have also talked about possibly using some more reserves to reduce the allocation to the department. So that's, that's still in, in the works. We're just trying to balance. You hate to lose your base, but maybe it can be just a one-time return and then you're back at your old. And, and we do this every year. Truthfully, we always have to reduce, we always use reserves to reduce the expenses and facilities because unfortunately they, this is an ongoing issue in terms of, of having enough staff. So they usually have salary savings that roll over and we already have used some reserves. We were trying to leave them a little bit richer just in terms of not knowing what the custodial contract is going to do next year. Cause that doesn't, um, come up for renewal until Sue, do you know when that comes up, comes up this year? I mean, right. We will, we actually got an extension on the contract. So we'll have a couple more months into the known fiscal year before we put a new contract in place. And, um, we, when Jean says that, um, it offsets the expenses, she means everybody who contributes to the ISF, their rate actually is reduced per square foot. So it gets spread back across, um, and helps, you know, that each individual budget. But if you look in the context of a roof replacement or, uh, some other catastrophic, um, AC, even in city hall, um, you know, one or two ACs, one million dollars, not going to go very far. So it's not just a percentage. It's also a total amount because it's such a small budget overall. Um, we would go to the general fund then if this reserve wasn't here. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Any other questions? I just have one. Um, and it just got alerted me again. What, what are the vacancies and are they still in the facility maintenance crew team? And, and, and are we keeping up with taking care of our facilities? Um, we are actively keeping up with our facilities. Again, this city hall is a challenge. It's a lot of new technology. So, um, we're really on the cusp there where we're starting to see things wear out and come off a warranty. So again, time will tell here. Um, but yes, we are actively maintaining it. We do have, they are on the team, those vacancies, like we just lost another, uh, two, three people, actually. So we kind of go up and we get a nice, you know, a couple of people hired. And then, um, I mentioned during the break, one of our staff, not facilities, but, um, we lost another one to see a Tampa. Um, and it, the amount that they're paying is just, we can't compare, um, to that charge, but we're still getting good people. Uh, in fact, we have one moving over to fire. So sometimes we're losing them inside the city, which is a good thing, but yes, we still do have vacancies and getting skilled staff is, um, it's difficult. Okay. Um, could we get a list of current vacancies? And I know some of them you're actually holding on, but I'd like to see what they are. We get that with our stuff. Okay. Any, if there's no other questions, we'll move on. Risk safety fund. Okay. And we're going to, uh, actually leave this up to you. We do not have all the numbers, numbers finalized, uh, yet. We're still working, uh, through some last, the last minute, uh, changes we got for the risk fund. This usually happens, um, where we more, have more information in the next, um, workshop. So, um, if you want, we can go over this now, or we can wait and go over it in the next workshop once the numbers are a little more finalized. What do you recommend? Okay. Okay. So we'll wait on that for next workshop. Okay. Okay. And also health is generally the same situation. We don't have the final numbers yet. Teresa will be talking to you more about health once we move past the fund updates. And so we're not going to total table help, but if, if it's okay with you guys, we wait and talk about it until we actually have the final numbers. Got it. Okay. If I could though, um, health is a particular area that I am concerned about because of its rate of growth and its rate of growth historically and our projections in the future. So just know that I'm going to be really drilling down on that one on the next one. Thank you. Maybe we'll hear something from Teresa that'll elevate your thinking too. So, no, I think that's great. Um, okay. So in that case, you guys are done with that piece and we're going to actually move to just one more fun, quick IT ISF. Oh, sorry, Michael. Sorry. That could be good news at this point, right? Yep. Um, all right. So highlights for the IT ISF. Um, and I will say Michael did a wonderful job lowering his, his expenses this year. So we have a 12% decrease in charges for services. And, and just so everybody understands when we're decreasing the charges for services to the fund, that is decreasing to the expense to the other departments and other funds. So he's helped out, um, by lowering his budget. Um, so, uh, the savings we have is about 354,000, um, in the charges for services, um, operating, he, uh, part of how he got these savings in a reduced charges for services, he has these operational savings of $243,000. Um, and that is mainly due to I annual IT license decreases, decrease of 171,000 and repair and maintenance decreases. Um, part of these, these changes also that we've been seeing some savings in the fund is we have moved away from having a two computer model per person, um, for, per employee. We are now moving towards a one, uh, laptop model instead of having a desktop and a laptop. That's going to save us a lot of money over the years. Uh, Michael started it last year and we're continuing it. Um, and another thing to mention is in the savings for annual IT licenses, part of that savings is coming from the fact that we're moving, we're not just discontinuing, uh, annual licenses that we need, but there was one that was moved about 90,000. I believe that was moved to the water wastewater fund out of IT because we're, we're very close to getting, um, utility billing off of Naviline. So that was the one that was moved and that will be an ongoing savings for the IT fund. Uh, capital cross cost decreased by 80,000 compared to 26, um, due to a decrease in network equipment in, um, uh, 50,000 and a decrease of, um, for the ERP five phases, five and six, um, capital, uh, improvements, uh, implementation costs of 20,000. Uh, all right. IT assumptions. We have, um, again, the charges for services are basically are based on the budget, um, for that given year, uh, salary increases of 3.5%, benefit increases of 6% and operating increases of 2%, right? The IT overview, that's a long range plan is on page 554 and our, sorry, 544 and 545. And our available fund balance at the end of fiscal year 27 is projected to be 27% and that remains that way in the outer years. Does anybody have any questions? Any questions about IT? I have one. Okay. With the convergence of AI into society, how does that affect us and what is that going to do to our costs? We're currently using AI in the GIS side and in the cybersecurity analyst side as testing to see how it would work with the city. We're not fully implementing AI. We're, we're seeing just very, very basic costs. So basically right now it's only $40 a month for us to use the technology we need to see how it would help the city overall. Um, down the road, we just don't know. We're, we're monitoring what other cities, municipalities are doing. Um, they're all in the infancy stages as well. Their budgets don't allow for, uh, positions or for elaborate systems. So they're kind of following the trend of the federal governments and the state to see what they're doing. So it's going to be waiting to see right now. Um, that's all I really know about how it would affect us. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Sure. Go ahead. I don't see it on, uh, 93 or 94, 94, 95, whatever, but in one of the other pages, uh, teams, how often do we use teams? So no, no. How often do we use it? It's used every day by various staff. We're actually looking into eliminating some other, uh, systems to fully, to go more with teams. We're paying a huge cost for Microsoft 365 every year, which includes teams. We want people, our staff to really use it. It's just a, a large training curve for some people. Um, it's something, things you have to use every day, but, um, we are using it. We use it for meetings. We use it for SharePoint, for sharing documents, for collaborating. Okay. So it is part of the 365 package then? Yes. Because I thought I saw an extra expense for teams. I believe it's part of the 365 package. Okay. Um, could, Michael, could it be that, uh, uh, uh, uh, switching to teams phone system? Oh, in the future. It's like 194,000 or something like that. Yes. That would be a future expense if we decide to go with teams phone system. Um, but that would be in the outer years. So, yeah. All right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, we're going to go ahead. So personnel requests and then turn to Teresa. I'm sorry. Oh, sorry. Turn to Teresa for personnel requests. City manager recommended. Yeah. Good afternoon again, uh, mayor, vice mayor, commission, Teresa Smalling, director of HR and risk management. The first slide that you're looking at is our staffing history that, uh, we show every year. Um, as you can see, um, there are, as, as Jennifer, uh, mentioned this morning, there are no, um, requests for additional positions. However, um, the reason why, uh, the note says FY 27 to be determined is because we are, um, working with some departments on possibly freezing or eliminating, uh, vacant positions. So we didn't want to put a final number until we had, uh, finished walking through that. So, but right now our, um, current FTEs remains the same at 405.93 of, uh, full time. And then below in the red is the variable on demand employees, our seasonal employees of 24.42 FTEs. No questions. I'll move on to the next slide. Yep. Keep going. Uh, so I just want to, um, just the generally talk about these recommendations. So, um, um, a reclassification is a position in which, uh, the duties have significantly increased with added responsibility, thereby, um, justifying an increase in the current grade. So, um, um, these changes are requested by departments, um, to, um, um, increase overall department effectiveness and to also, you know, help employees in some ways with, uh, retention in, uh, recognizing the additional responsibilities that they are now, um, taking on. So, um, um, just to go over each one in the city manager's office, the, uh, senior administrative assistant to the city commission is, uh, being reclassed, recommended to be reclassed to administrative coordinator. That's a one grade increase, uh, in community development, the co community development technician who has, um, probably gotten quite a number of certifications and has increased in the, um, her responsibilities in the department is, um, being recommended for senior community development technician. Then in utilities and engineering, um, the current engineer two is being recommended to, uh, be reclassed to an engineer three, uh, due to also added responsibilities and, um, the fact that he meets the minimum qualifications for an engineer three, the admin assistant in, uh, utility in engineering in the utilities and engineering department is being recommended for reclassification due to her additional responsibilities, um, with some of the, um, the responsibilities that she is helping with, uh, uh, permit review and, uh, other, um, various responsibilities in the engineering department section. And then in wastewater, uh, the lift station lead is being recommended for reclass, uh, to a foreman, uh, with the responsibility of, uh, overseeing the 43, uh, lift stations as well as four employees. So added supervisory and, um, oversight responsibility. And those are the positions that are being recommended for reclassification. Okay. Any questions? Anybody? Okay. If there's no questions, everybody good with these? Yeah. Okay. Then let's move on. And then just the, the next slide would show how the breakdown of how these, um, additional, um, monies would be, would impact each fund. Uh, just those, over just under 10, five for the general fund, um, just over 7,000 for building and then about 31, just under 32,000 for the, uh, weight water wastewater fund. Yeah, no, I think we're good. And, um, I mean, and quite honestly, like the County doesn't even micro these, it's considered part of just being fair to the employees as they get more duties and things like this. So, I mean, I'm not saying I don't want to see them anymore, but, um, but they're, they're, it's good. So, okay. Um, so then we're going to go to the health benefits discussion. As, as, uh, Jean mentioned, uh, we literally just got, um, scenarios and, uh, final numbers, um, just before my meeting with the board of finance last Wednesday. So I haven't even had a chance to discuss with Jennifer. So, um, the decision was made to hold off until, uh, August 4th. So we could really bring the numbers to you. Okay. Um, we have, um, as Jean also said, work, been working with, uh, Gehring group. We've, um, taken some of the, um, recommendations, suggestions from the board of finance, and, and we've looked at where we were in February to where we are now. And, uh, you know, thankfully the, the number did not increase significantly between, but we see areas that we can, uh, reduce the, the amount and then work towards, um, a cost share with the employees on the premiums. So that's what we'll be bringing to you in August. Okay. Um, in the interest of moving along, I was going to move along, but if anybody has a burning need to, we'll do that. I mean, anything you can give us, you know, far enough ahead, I think, before August 4th, because that's kind of decision time. Um, so we can be talking, thinking about it, talking about it, maybe talking to you, uh, talking to Teresa. I think that's probably helpful, because it's, it's a big nut and we need to, I think we have to be smart about that one. Sure. I just want to be sure that this topic is earlier in the agenda so that we don't find ourselves shorting it. Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah, totally agree. Okay. Um, so now we're going to go to citizen input. Does anyone in the audience wish to come forward and speak on anything we talked about today? Okay. I'm looking at the one citizen who's here. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So we're going to go to, uh, city commission. Well, first we'll go to commission direction first, and then you're going to do next steps, right? Okay. So, um, I guess, uh, and Jennifer, when you do next steps, maybe you can do what, what you've got is our follow-up stuff, but just, uh, this is our time to kind of do any final comments and thoughts about overall strategy, about what you need for the next time. Um, so this would be it. So, uh, Vice Mayor, do you want to start? Yeah. Well, first of all, I want to thank everybody and all the hard work that went into this. Uh, you know, I, I know that this is a big lift and, uh, you know, we all, we all greatly appreciate it. Um, you know, I, uh, I, I think walking away with, uh, with, with impression today, I, I think, um, you know, if it weren't for the referendum, I'd say we are in awesome shape. And, uh, but you know, the, the real, the real 60,000 pound gorilla is looming. And, uh, the, the fact of the matter is, is that I think we've got a good plan if it passes. I mean, I'm sorry, if it fails, if the referendum fails, and, uh, um, I, I really am looking forward to, um, if it does pass, getting that contingency plan in front of us as quickly as possible. Um, and, uh, in terms of the takeaways, um, you know, I, I don't know that I really have anything that, that would be pressing except for what we've identified today of pieces of information need to come forward. I just, I do want to, um, just emphasize the fact that the one thing that does scare me is health benefits, um, because to me, that's a black box. That's a big unknown. Um, and I'm encouraged to hear that maybe the costs haven't risen as fast as, as much as they are in other areas. Um, and, uh, I guess really those are my, my thoughts. So thank you. Mr. Sandberg? No, I, I think, uh, great job by Eugene and by you, Les. Um, you know, I guess, like I said earlier about the, the, what may happen in this November election, uh, you know, our economy here in town is strong or unemployment's less than the national average. I think we, as a city commission always need to be on the lookout for what we can change. If it means supporting our merchants, advertising, promoting our city and make sure that downtown stays fresh and clean looking. Um, you know, we're one of the bigger employers in the city and, uh, I think we have an incredible city staff. We're asking a lot of them, but now it was just announced a few minutes ago. We need to continue to do the best we can. Uh, we, uh, I think we, you know, we lose track. We're all concerned about a potential loss in homesteaded property, but remember we have the main street exchange on the way. We have flats on main on the way. So we've taken the time to go out and find some large projects that will offset some of this. And, uh, that's, I think we're sitting in a good place. Uh, you know, going forward development, it needs to be smooth and seamless. So when developers come to town, we can get them on board, get the projects. You know, I've always been pro development. Uh, I think we're doing the right things. We're headed the right direction and, uh, city commission needs to always look to improve and do the best for everyone involved. So with that being said, thank you. Thank you, mayor. Uh, yes, certainly kudos to Les and Jean really fabulous. Um, um, I, I think the, uh, what's coming in November is, uh, the potential for really, really, really, really, really dark place, uh, that's going to change the way we operate forever. And that's always my concern. And we, once it passes, if it does, we can't go back. And so my line of thought is to do whatever we can to do to protect the future. I don't consider my own personal property tax as a tax. I think it's an investment in my community and every penny that I put towards my taxes, I get back in services. And I'm, and I'm very proud of that. Um, I would, I would like to see, uh, just small stuff. The, the papers that are in ARPA, I would like to see that moved back to CRA. Uh, it's a CRA project. It's all goes hand in hand with all the other paper projects. I just make sense to me. And then that frees up that money to stay in ARPA and then can go to help support the general fund if it's necessary. I don't see a problem with that. I, well, can we just, does everybody kind of agree with that? Cause I don't have a problem with that. And I, it's not that much money compared to what the, what the, uh, um, what, what the reserve is in CRA. I, I don't know. I didn't know how you want to handle that. So what I'd like to do actually is, is to, um, have a look at what the impact of that would be on the CRA and bring that back to you, um, for decision making on, on August 4th. Right. Sorry, Bob. I didn't mean to be that quick about it. Don't be mad at me now forever. Also for consideration in August, uh, there's literally no night baseball or soccer, I guess, at that point, right? If we're, if we're talking about the lights for both baseball and soccer, it'd be for both places. Although I know all of the training for soccer takes place at night. So that, that can be tough. I, I understand it, but it's short-term pain for long-term benefit. Um, and in that regard, we have the potential to lose, uh, certainly most of our property tax funding through this referendum. So I wouldn't mind entertaining a rollback in our millage this year. I'd rather lose a little bit of money this year that might help protect the rest of the property tax funding in the future. I, I understand that, that that'll be hard, but I think it's at least worth taking a look at instead of standing strong now. And then because we're standing strong, the residents in November tell us differently. And so again, rather lose a little now than a lot later. Anyway, those are my comments. Okay. Commissioner Degard. Thank you, Mayor. Um, this was an accomplishment in a big way. A year ago, we were talking about the need to raise the millage to make our budget work. We haven't done that. Check that box. That's huge accomplishment. Um, were it not for the cloud that's over our heads right now, we would be dancing out of the building this afternoon. This is a great budget. Um, by the way, it's a great budget because I understand it this year and I didn't have a clue last year. Um, but it was, um, a lot of work on the part of a lot of people and it has a ton of moving parts. Um, one of the things that I'm, I'm going to move away from the budget and I'm going to move to the referendum. We keep calling this a property tax. That's linguistically wrong. We're not charging a fee to our residents for the amount of property they own. This is a service tax. That's one of the the issues we have. It's misunderstood. The residents that are so much for that rollback. Well, actually, if they're under that $250,000 cap, be paying nothing for their streets, for their safety, for a number of things, they'll be freeloaders in essence, being carried by other people. And by the way, if you even do the math, if you just do the math on somebody that has a home that's, let's say valued at $500,000. Okay. They're, they think that they're going to, and the property taxes on a $500,000 home is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of four to 5,000. They think that's going to go to zero. They think that's what they're voting for. It's going to go down maybe $2,000 at the most, and they're going to lose a lot more than $2,000 in services. The benefit, as opposed to the cost, is horrendous for them. It's a terrible deal. Them voting for this thing would be about the dumbest thing I can imagine. Not to mention what it's going to do to their property insurance. Not to mention the fact that, by the way, cities are going to be biased about what development they have. Because guess what? Anything under a certain level is a zero benefit to the city. What does that do to a city's mentality? Now, I don't think we would do that, but I'll bet you a lot of others are out there thinking of future developments right now and saying, oh, they have to be over a million dollars before we'll even consider a development project per unit. So this is a form of fraud at the highest level, in my opinion. I don't plan on being terribly quiet about that because I think that's informational. I know I make a lot of people nervous, including our lawyer, but that's okay. I want to thank you all for what you do on a daily basis, and this feels like you're being very underappreciated to me. I'm grateful. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. First of all, so I don't forget, thank you, Les, Jean, City Manager, Jorge, all the staff. Everybody was involved in this. I just want a big thanks to that. As usual, we just have a professional group that handles this very professionally, and it's appreciated because it makes our jobs a lot easier. You know, I've been around at times where it's like pulling teeth to, you know, to drive efficiencies and things like that, but you guys are awesome. I, the one thing, our job is education, and if this occurs, there's no amount of creativity that's not going to make it obvious and clear that our community is different. And I think our job is to educate. And so, well, I just want to make sure that what we do now is we do a sheet that tells the whole story. And the whole story is that in 2029, we will have $6.8 million less, plus $0.9 million less than EMS, plus $200,000, so $200,000 countywide library system, $100,000, $125,000, $150,000 CRA. We will have $300,000 less in unincorporated fire, which is kind of, that one's a little weird, right, Chief? Because they've got to pay for us to do unincorporated areas. Otherwise, we're not doing it. So we have control on that side of it. But either way, those things come to around $8.3 million cut. Well, at the same time, we have to dance around what you can actually use general funding money for, which is going to be somewhat of a shell game as well, and do the things that our citizens have come to love about the quality of life in our city. So I want to look at all those things. I want to look at that entire amount. So we're showing the whole picture. I think that's going to be painful. It's going to be painful to, because I think you're working on $3 million. We need to work on $8 million. And that includes, we need to understand what happens to fire. I mean, we don't have the EMS money, and I don't know what that means for unincorporated. So we need to understand those things, and that's going to be painful, and it's going to be scary for every employee in our system, because there's going to be some things put on the table that are going to be frightening, because 50% of our budget is personnel. So, and there's, I mean, we'll be having a lot of layoffs. So, but I think that, again, and Jeff, I appreciate your idea of turning the lights off now, but I just want to get down to what will we really do with an $8 million loss, and I want to communicate the heck out of that. This is the plan. You decide. Is this your Dunedin, or is this your Dunedin? You get to decide. I don't want anything to backfire, that we're shooting from the hip, and oh, we're going to show you, because we're going to turn it all down now. I want to do it from a place of, and not that you wouldn't, but a place of like, look, I mean, we're not joking here, and we could play games with you here, but this is just reality. I mean, we've gone through this budget, and this is what the plan is, and if this is the plan you want, then you should vote to get the property tax cut, but I personally don't think this city will want it, but it will be up to them, but most people here didn't move here for that. They moved here because we're quality of life, which has everything to do with our economic vitality and our businesses, by the way. It all is intertwined. The unintended consequences here are huge, including the fact that the worst hit group for this thing is going to be people trying to buy a new house. So do you want to try to come here for a new job or go to another state? So I think it's going to be interesting how it all plays out, but I just wanted to kind of go after that, and I'm just, and this is my personal opinion. As you guys do, this exercise is $8.3 million exercise, or whatever it turns out to be. We've heard it today. We still have to compete for staff. Therefore, that means we just have to lay off staff, not gut the staff we have, and just make salaries that are crazy and we won't have. We've got to have less quality people and adjust our workload and adjust our services. That's just my view. Let's see what else. I guess those are my big things. I thank our staff ahead of time because, again, these are going to be tough exercises to do, and it'll be tough for us up here because, let's face it, we can cut services. We just have to be as unemotionally attached as we can be to protect the things that will matter the most and cut the things that are probably quite a quality of life issues. But we've got to be honest about it, but it'll be harder for the people they're sitting in the jobs to hear some of this. So I hope this thing is not going to pass, but we have to be ready if it is. And I think we're a better city for fully educating and helping our citizens understand this is what will happen. Those are my comments. So on that note, I think you need to go to next steps and include it in next steps if you could also maybe a two-page summary of the efficiency study costs and savings that we've gotten out of that. I'd like that. It would be nice to have that as well. Got it. So, and thank you to the five of you, too. I know it's a long day for all of you. I know you enjoyed it immensely, though, by the looks on your faces. I just want to run over what we're going to be working on in the intervening period between now and our next budget workshop on August 4th. So we are going to put together the fact sheet and we will use Sue and Les and city managers, office staff, in order to put together a two-page fact sheet to get to the points as quickly as we possible. And that fact sheet will encompass the outlying years if the referendum were to pass. So the 4.2 to begin with and the 6.4 and on and on and what that looks like. Also, the decreases in fire EMS. And we're going to have to put a little asterisk there, you know, stating it hasn't been decided yet by the county how much of that. It might not be all of it, but we'll figure that out. Right. So, and the only word I've gotten, it's only from one commissioner, has been we're just going to make the cuts. Right. I mean, so unless they tell us more, I don't know what else to do. I think we'll make that assumption. Unincorporated is a little more complicated because that's on them. We just won't cover it, although it'll be worst case scenario. Right. Right. So the other thing is, so that's the fact sheet and we have a clear understanding of what it is that you're expecting there. The other thing is, I think we need consensus direction from the city commission on the issue of the visual aid of the impact of the referendum before the referendum is voted upon. Commissioner Gao had used the example of closing community centers or not, you know, lighting fields at night. Mayor, you said that you don't think that's a good idea. We need consensus direction because I don't, I believe it's a policy question. I don't think staff needs to comment on that. I agree. So I, I turn to commissioner. Yes. There is no way in the world I would want those lights turned off at Duny and Little League. That's my opinion. Well, then you better hope that it fails in November. Okay. Well, we're not getting a debate. I mean, but I get it. And I wish I respect, everybody respects your opinion. This is a seminal moment for all of us and the city. I think that we probably need a principle of do no harm, but scare them to death because that's what's coming. I mean, you just go down the list of things that they will lose if this passes. And as I said, their benefits would, if they had to repurchase them, that they're getting ready to lose, they would be willing to pay that amount of money for it. They don't see that. That's the problem. They haven't got a visualization. The only visualization they have is that I'm going to save money if this passes. That's their only visualization. I don't know how to get it across. I have sympathy for both views. I don't want to see us hurt our citizenry right now, but I don't want them to hurt themselves later. So I'm kind of there. So allow me this then. We will provide the fact sheet. And if that gets us as far as Commissioner Guy would like us to go, then we should be good to go. But what I'm hearing right now is the fact sheet, provide the fact sheet, a very clear fact sheet, but not at this point, impact them directly before the referendum. What are we going to do with that fact sheet? We're going to try to get it to the public? So the fact sheet then, yes, it would be something, and it's especially important. It's something that we're planning on doing regardless. We're having all the information from the departments. The deadline was August 10th, and you're asking for something by August 4th. But we should have a pretty good run in it. But the fact sheet would be exactly that fact, so that you could educate the public based upon what we will do as part of our contingency plan. Yeah, I think that's kind of to be determined. But right now, I think we need the best fact sheet in our hands so we can know, like, this is, we've voted on this. This is what's going to occur. I understand. But I just don't like that feel of the sky is falling and the world is ending. We will come through this. We don't know what we're going to be dealt in November. And we're not going to have any choice. I mean, if it goes one way, we have to make moves. If it goes another way, then everything's in place. But I just don't like... So let me understand. I just want to understand what you're saying. Are you saying that we shouldn't go through the exercise to know what $8 million of things we would cut from the budget if it passes? Well, obviously, I have to answer that question and say, of course, we want to know. Okay. Yeah, okay. You were scared. Yeah, no, no. I just think the people in this room, led by the people in that corner, we will still be done eating. We're just going to have a little leaner look. And I just don't want to scare the staff, scare the taxpayers, scare the resident owners. So yes, the fact sheet would be great. We need to get it in front of as many people as we can. And obviously, we're limited on just down to a couple of weeks. So I'm all in favor of that. I just don't know how you educate other than that. I mean, because otherwise, really, Steve, and you know, I respect you, but you're saying we'll be the same Dunedin, but we'll be leaner. But if I'm voting on something, I want to know what that means. Does that mean that there will be no more lighting on any of the fields in Dunedin, literally? It might. Does that mean we will, well, we can't, will we close some playgrounds because we can't keep them all up? And we can't afford not to keep them up because then we get liability. So I think, I actually think hopefully this thing's going to fail and we will have gone through an amazing exercise to be even better than ever as we come out the other side. But to me, I don't know how you educate the citizens to go in to vote on this and know like, oh, I didn't realize it meant that. You know what I mean? Well, of course. And remember, you know, if somebody goes behind that, I guess you don't go into a booth to vote very often anymore. But, you know, we've never talked about the additional money that will be left in our citizens' pockets. I mean, I just feel like there will be some more stimulation of our economy and mainly our local economy, I hope. But yeah, I don't know where this is going to go either. I mean, we've all heard different ideas and different polls. So I just don't want to be scared. I just go to the outgoing Florida governor is pushing a ballot measure that could wreck local finances. Okay. So my point is, and look, who doesn't want a tax cut? But how do you get there? Because some of the messaging of this is just that way. It's the wrong way. It's the wrong way because it guts so much of local government. And it's up to us to educate it. And I mean, if I'm taking my personal opinion, my personal opinion is, you know, we're going to have the problem that we have now bigger than ever. And that problem is, I am one that's artificially low on taxes. And actually, I think I'm getting a fantastic deal now. And there's a lot of residents in this community that have lived here a long time that are getting a great deal. And then you got the reset to the new homeowner that gets crushed by the taxes. And so the real problem solution is what they were supposed to do next year, in my opinion, I'm going to say my opinion, which was to have an educated group of 25 people decide how do we best change the property tax structure for the good of everyone. Because I'm not blind. I mean, obviously, I want more money. But at the same time, you look at the fire assessment, there's a lot of people protected and having low taxes right now. They're going to get the fee. It's going to be a regressive fee. I think we're going to be shocked at what that fire assessment is actually going to cost us. I think the consultants or whoever we hire, I think it's just going to be just numbing to see what kind of money we're expecting for there. But I mean, look, I respect everybody's opinion up here. We all care about individual costs of services for our residents. But again, our job is to educate. And right now, if we're facing and if that ballot passes, we get an $8 million, $8.3 million cut in money to do it with. It's wrong not to well, it's the right thing to do is educate what that actually means. Actually, I want to go someplace else with us. I keep coming back to the fairness doctrine. A number of people will be living in Dunedin, receiving our services and not paying a dime. Exactly how many of those will be, I'll have to get that calculus. But that's what we're offering these individuals by what we're putting here in front of them through this referendum. They won't pay anything for safety. They won't pay, unless we get the fire assessment, anything for fire. Their streets will be right there for them, sidewalks. Oh, and they'll sue us if they stumble on those sidewalks. So all of those services are free. That's not appropriate. It's simple as that. Now, does everybody like free? Yeah. But then again, expect the programs to be degraded. Expect the ambulance to take a little longer to get to your home when somebody's got a heart attack. Expect your fire might just take the whole house instead of a portion of it. Imagine that you won't get swimming lessons for your kids in the future, or the lights be on on the field. Now, yeah, I'm being a little harsh here. But if I'm not harsh here, somebody will turn to us and say, you should have warned us, because that's what's on the other side. I promise you that's what's on the other side. Yes, government is always a question of how much would we pay for it. But then the next question is, how much do we get to benefit from it? And I don't think that equation has been calculated properly here. Well, and I'm just going to add that I think I could be one of them that gets all those services for free. And that's just, to me, that's just not right. And on top of it, I'm still going to have 77% of the rest of my tax bill. Well, probably not, because EMS will be gone. EMS will be gone. I mean, it'll be hurt. PSTA will be injured. And I'll tell you, you talk about, you know, people complain about PSTA. But I used to be director of health and human services for four years at the county. And you know who needs that PSTA the most? People that are trying to get to work who don't have the money otherwise, because they don't have a car. So anyway, we could go on and on. But I just figured out what I'm paying for my Dunnean services is $805. But it will go to zero. And that goes to your point. I don't know. Again, our job is to educate. And I just think we just have to do the best we can. And to your point, Steve, I think that that's what we count on the state to do. Thoughtful, mindful, property tax reform. And this isn't it. All right. Anybody else? So go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. And I know that was a difficult discussion. From my perspective, I knew through agenda briefings that I have two commissioners in separate places as far as that goes and how we demonstrate the decreases in level of service. So it's something that obviously needed to be discussed in public. And so thank you. I have we have our consensus direction. So moving forward, then other items for asking. Thanks a lot. Sometimes it's part of the job. So the fact sheet I've already spoken about, we want storm expenses running for sheet A. Here's a where that. So I'll have to figure out what that was. So have we seen reduced consumption? You know what it was? It was the $17 million. And we got this much from FEMA. And we got this much from insurance. All right. The fact sheet for the storm expenses. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. Yes. That was it. Thank you. Have we seen a reduced consumption as a result of the rate studies? And that's water, wastewater. Commissioner Dugard asked that and Clay will get that for us. Mayor wants us to add state laws that have resulted in an increase or decrease in other taxes in the other tax category. Some of the unfunded mandates and what what spurred some of those decreases. And mayor would like to know what has what drives increases in the fire pension and examples of the increases that are driven by the state that are also unfunded mandates on the city. Commissioner Dugard general fund increases in expenditures for fiscal year 2024 wants us to detail that a little bit more some of the increase in expenditures. Why so much and what contributed to that? Commissioner Gow would like to have us in the stadium fund look at reduce the transfers in. And we need to check that reserve on whether or not we can reduce that reserve and turn that over to the general fund and also show a breakdown of the miscellaneous. It's a big number and what contributes to that. I believe that was Commissioner Dugard. And also Commissioner Gow would like to know the cost of repairing a road versus the cost of replacing a sidewalk by lineal feet and whether or not this includes golf carts. So we had a good discussion on the boat ramp and the general fund. We want to find out what other marinas do and whether or not that standard operating procedure and then make a recommendation to the city commission and also talk a little bit about revenue and expenditures. The golf agreement for the restaurant, the restaurateur, we need to talk to you a little bit about the term and when it is that they'll start paying rent. We need a list of the current vacancies and personnel and we can provide that to you all almost immediately. It's actually in the city manager's update, I believe, via separate, Teresa, under separate cover. We'll just provide that to them. The next workshop, we're going to be talking about the risk safety fund. We also are going to talk about the health benefits fund and you want that information to you as soon as possible so you can noodle that around a bit prior to the August 4th meeting. The pavers in American Rescue Plan Act funding, we want to move that back to the CRA. We ask you for a little bit more time to find out what the impact is on those pavers in the CRA and then make that recommendation. And then Commissioner Gao asked us to have a look at a rollback in millage, look at some of the scenarios of what a rollback in millage would look like. And keep in mind that on Thursday evening, you're looking at the maximum millage rate. So rollback, since you're looking at the maximum millage rate, we can still have that discussion as far as looking at the scenarios for a rollback. So next steps then, we'll provide some of this information to you under separate cover. On August 4th, 2026 is our next budget workshop. It's going to be final direction on the tentative budget because we're going to move forward then on our first public hearing. You're going to have the Board of Finance report and we actually have, kudos to the Board of Finance, we actually have their signed letter for you ready to go. We'll be sending that out to you this week. And then the aid organization study, the committee has met on the aid organizations. We have our recommendations for you moving forward. Our first public hearing on the tentative budget and the millage rate is September 3rd of 2026. And our second and final public hearing on final millage rate and our adoption hearing for the budget is September 17th, 2026. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. I think that's it. Unless there's something else good for the order. Okay. And I hope when we go through our $8 million exercise that we'll be surprised and it won't feel as bad as I think it's going to be, but we'll go from there. Thank you. Thank you.