and call to order the first public budget hearing meeting. Ms. Spigaro, please call the roll again. Councilmember Anderson? Here. Councilmember Andreu? Here. Councilmember Fajan? Here. Councilmember Horland? Here. Councilmember Reinstein? Here. Mayor Sortel? Here. City Attorney Ezra? Here. Thank you very much. Good evening, Ms. Otaniano. Good evening, Mayor, Council President, Council Member, City Attorney Ezra. Anna Otaniano, City of Plantation Finance Director. Welcome to the City of Plantation First Public Budget Hearing for the Fiscal Year 2027 Budget. Before I get into the presentation, I need to read some information into record about identifying the rollback rates, the proposed rates, and the increase above the rollback rate. The City of Plantation Fiscal Year 2027 proposed budget is based on the general fund operating millage of 5.7 mils. This is an increase of 3.87% from the rollback millage rate of 5.4878 mils. The voted debt millage rate for Fiscal Year 2027 is 0.2637 mils. This is the millage rate required to fund the voter-approved debt. The Plantation Gateway Development District Fiscal Year 2027 proposed budget is based on the operating millage of 1.7108 mils. This is an increase of 4.55% from the rollback millage rate of 1.6364 mils. The Plantation Midtown Development District Fiscal Year 2027 proposed budget is based on the operating millage of 0.9707 mils. This is an increase of 2.54% from the rollback millage rate of 0.9467 mils. The City of Plantation Aggregate Fiscal Year 2027 proposed budget is based on the aggregate millage of 5.9258 mils. This is an increase of 3.90 from the aggregate rollback rate millage rate of 5.7031 mils. Okay, what do we do? The Fiscal Year 2027 proposed budget for all funds is approximately 311 million dollars. This is an increase of 4.8% or 14.3 million dollars. The significant changes are in the general fund, which decreased 4.5% or 7.5 million dollars. Additionally, capital project funds decreased 12.5% or 315,000. Increases were seen in the enterprise funds across all enterprise funds. Water, wastewater increased 18.3%. Stormwater increased 58.8%. And plantation preserve increased 45.9%. The increases and decreases across all of these funds were primarily in the area of capital projects and capital equipment. I will go through all of these as I go through the regular slides. This is just the overview. Starting with the general fund, the general fund proposed budget is based on a proposed millage of 5.7 mils. Property values in the City of Plantation increased 5.7% according to the Broward County Property Appraiser. The increased millage or the increased property values and the proposed millage will generate approximately 85 million dollars. Additional revenues over the previous fiscal year is approximately 3.95 million dollars. Of this 3.9 million dollars, 26% or 1 million and 30,000 is related to new construction. The proposed millage of 5.7 mils requires a two-thirds vote or four votes from Council. So in the past, we've come in and we've shown you what the impact of that, how that was going to look for certain areas in the City of Plantation. We tried to do it where we cover most areas. I typically tend to focus on, as an example on the history, the historical plantation. So starting with the historical plantation, first column is the neighborhood. The second column is fiscal year 26, save our home values. And then the next column over is the taxes for fiscal year 2026. So historical plantation homeowner in fiscal year 26 had a save our home value of $223,710. Reducing that by homestead exemption and additional homestead exemption, the millage rate of 5.7 mils generated a property tax bill of $986.03. For fiscal year 27, the property in the historical plantation is now, save our home value, is $229,750. Again, taking out the homestead exemption and additional homestead exemption, this property value will generate a property tax of $1,016.53. And that's at the proposed millage rate of 5.7 mils. The annual increase for this particular property will be $30.50 or $2.54 monthly. Now again, we like to do it across the whole city. So looking at Lauderdale West, they will see an increase of $12.13 annually, $1.01 annually, all the way down to Plantation Acres, who will see a $78.99 increase annually, or $6.58 monthly. Now, when the trim notices go out to the residents, we tend to get a lot of calls. They ask, why are our property taxes going up? And they tend to think that the total tax bill is actually coming to the city. So we explain to them we only get a portion of the taxes. So again, I took the trim notice for the historical plantation homeowner to just kind of so people can tie it back and understand where the numbers are coming from. So at the top of this slide here on the left-hand side, it says your property value last year, and it has columns for the county, school board, municipality, and independent. On the right side, it has your property value this year, again, for the county, school board, municipal, and independent. So if we look back at last year, the assessed Save Our Home value under municipality for the homeowner and historical plantation was $223,710. Taking out the homestead and the additional homestead, taxable value on this property is $172,988. This was last year as fiscal year 26. This times the millage rate of 5.7, which was the adopted rate last year, generated a property tax bill of $986.03, which are these are the numbers that I had explained on the previous slide. Looking at the right side, the proposed property value, property millage rate is 5.7 mils. The property value for the Save Our Home assessed value for this particular fiscal year 27 is now $229,750. So it went from $223,710 up to $229,750. This $229,750 less the additional, the homestead and the additional homestead brings this taxable value to $178,339. So again, it's more than it was in the previous year. This new taxable property value now multiplied by the 5.7 proposed millage rate will generate the $1,016.53. The other entities on there have similar millage rates where they take your taxable value and you multiply all of their rates to come up with the total tax bill. So looking at that a little closer, so people have less information to look at. Every dollar property tax, 33.74% goes to the Broward County School Board, 28.76% goes to the City of Plantation, 26.56% goes to Broward County, and the rest goes to the North Broward Hospital District, Children's Services Council, South Florida Water Management District, and the Florida Inland Navigation District as well. In the maximum millage meeting, I was asked to bring back what the rollback rate would look like and the impact of the rollback rate. So the rollback rate for fiscal year 27 is 5.4878 mils. This rollback rate and the property value increases will generate approximately $81 million, $82 million. Comparing that to the proposed millage rate of 5.7 mils, we would lose approximately $3.2 million in ad valorem revenue. The rollback rate requires a majority vote, which is three votes from council. So like the regular rate having an impact, I wanted to show what is the impact of the rollback rate on the residents. So again, using historical plantation, same, save our home values, only now we're using the rollback rate. The historical plantation homeowner will save approximately $28.83 annually, or $2.40 monthly. And again, looking at Lorda Dale West, $2.89 savings annually, $0.24 monthly, and plantation acres, the larger of the slide, $73.03 in savings annually, and $6.09 monthly. So moving on to the general fund revenues, general fund revenues increased $7.5 million over fiscal year 2026. As you can see from the slide, our largest source of revenue is ad valorem revenues, coming in at $85 million. Ad valorem revenues increased 4.9%, or $3,952,000. This is the increase in property values. The next category over, utility service taxes increased 5.2%, or $510,000. This increase is directly related to Florida Power and Light increasing their rates. Franchise fees category increased 2.7%, or $294,000. Again, this category increase is partially due to FPL franchise fees for electricity. So again, FPL increasing their rates. And then also due to increase in the franchise fees for solid waste. The license permits and special assessments category increased 7.1%, or $185,000. The increase here is directly related to engineering fee, engineering revenue projections for fiscal year 27. Intergovernmental, this category increased 3.9%, or $707,000. Increase in here is due to the increase in sales tax, half-cent sales tax. We also have $111,000 in there, which we received a grant, which is pass-through revenue. We received a grant for community paramedic, which is in this category. We also have $100,000 in CST, which is the communications service taxes as well. The charges for services category increased 8.9%, or $1.9 million. Again, we have some pass-through revenues in here. In here, we have approximately $650,000 in solid waste pickup and recycle revenue that we collect for waste management. So we collect it, it goes in here, and then it goes out. You'll see it going out on the expense side. Also in here, we have $650,000 increase related to ambulance revenues and $250,000 related to special detail. The fines and forfeiture category increased 59.9%, or $429,000. The increase here, $352,000 of the increase here is related to the Red Speed program. $50,000 is related to county court criminal fines, and $25,000 related to code enforcement. The miscellaneous category saw an increase of 1.6%, or $38,000, $39,000. The increase here is related to the city's investment portfolio and interest earnings. General fund expenditures. General fund expenditures actually decreased $7.5 million. The decrease is primarily in the capital outlay, which I will get to in just a second. Personnel services. So in the maximum mileage, I came in and I said we had five full-time positions that were being added and one part-time. After the maximum mileage meeting, administration actually put a freeze on hiring freeze, and they took away a majority of those positions. We do have two positions that are still being added. One is a grant fully funded position, which is the community paramedic, and the other is the assistant director in the parks and recreation, which is actually being funded by the position that this person is leaving. So it's not fully funded, but it's partially funded. The increases in the category after that are related to increases for general employees, increases for IAFF and FOP based on their negotiated contracts, and then also some increases in medical costs. The operating costs increased 3.5%, or $1.1 million. The increase here is directly related to the increase of cost of goods and services. I've said this many times, that inflation has come down, but the cost of goods and services is not coming down with it. Capital outlay decreased 66.9%, but I want to mention, so when we cut the position in personnel, we had a savings of $348,000. Those monies were put in capital. They were actually put over onto the paving. So when we came in, in max millage, that number was, the capital outlay was actually a smaller number by 348,000. So when we cut the positions on the personnel side, those monies were moved over to paving. So paving now, in max millage, it was a million. Now it's a million, 348,000. So you can see where the money went. As I said, we had 66.9% decrease, or $16.7 million. This decrease is not related to a decrease in capital requests. It's actually due to the fact that we didn't have money to cover any more requests. We actually cut about $11 million in capital during the budget process. So this is what is left after what was cut. The grants and aids category increased 22.4% or $494,000. Increase here is directly related to the city's tax increment payment to the CRA TIF. And that's related to the increase of property values. Debt service. General Fund only has one debt service. It is the debt service related to the police Motorola Dispatch Center. It is actually a 28, that's the CPI increase that's baked into the contract. The contract states that every year the payment will increase by CPI. So that actual increase is related to that. So we talk about personnel, we talk about operations, and we talk about capital. Those are our biggest items. These are the items. But we talk about how much it is. I like to kind of go into, okay, this is where it's going. So you know the total cost, but how is it being spent? So looking at personnel costs, $115 million is the total category. As you can see from the slide, public safety is the largest cost in personnel costs. Coming in at $73.2 million. So under public safety, we have police, fire, and fire rescue. The other categories, okay, I'll start over to the left. Technology, information technology, we kind of put them by themselves because they're a very unique department. So information technology, of this $115 million, $3.8 million is related to information technology. Public works, we've got five departments on there here. We have public works, central service crafts, central services facility maintenance, landscaping, and resource recovery. All of those together have a combined total of $11.2 million. General government funds, the departments, that's everybody who's not in any of those other categories. So that will be administration, finance, city clerk, procurement, engineering, planning and zoning, library, museum. All of those are in this grouping and that's a total of $13 million. Parks and recreation, again, this is five departments, parks, recreation, tennis, aquatics, and equestrian. Total $13.8 million. So moving on to the operating costs, same category, same groupings, only this time the largest cost is kind of shifting around. This time it's with public works. So of the $31.7 million in operating costs, $11.1 million is related to public works. Again, that's five departments under there. $7.4 million related to public safety, $7.1 million general government, $3.9 million parks and recreation, and $2.2 million information technology. Capital costs, same thing. You can see from the slide parks and recreation is the winner in this category. Coming in at $3.4 million for capital items. Information technology, $1.9 million. Public works, $1.9 million. Public safety, $1.1 million. And then general government, $10,000. So digging a little deeper into the capital to give you an idea of what they're buying, police department has approximately $600,000 in capital items, of which $431,500 is related to marked and more unmarked police vehicles and equipment. $109,000 is related to police specialty equipment. And $24,000 is related to a new canine. Fire and fire rescue departments, capital items, is approximately $500,000. They have $191,000 in miscellaneous life-saving equipment. They have stretchers, AEDs, life-saving equipment. They also have $100,000 in here for the design of a training tower, a fire training tower, $90,000 for a skid steer and $68,000 for an extraction response equipment. Public works capital items total approximately $1.9 million. Of that $1.9 million, $1.3 million is related to road repaving and maintenance. $300,000 related to sidewalk and swale tree improvements. $150,000 related to the citywide AC system maintenance program and then $68,500 for mowers and blowers. Information technology, $1.9 million. Of that $1.9 million, their biggest item is the $1.6 million for the ERP. This is the new ERP that we are currently in the process of implementing in the finance area. Next, after that, will be human resources. So $1.6 million for fiscal year 27. They also have $143,000 for visualization subscription, $36,000, $37,000 for an Acela upgrade, and then $75,000 for network file management software and $75,000 for network servers and devices. Parks and recreation, as I said, $3.4 million, of which $400,000 is related to playground equipment units, $335,000 for shade structures for playgrounds, for bleachers, $300,000 related to playground safety surfacing, and then $100,000 relating to fencing. Continuing on with parks, they also have a dugout replacement for $415,000, sports courts resurfacing for $185,000, $75,000 for exterior exercise equipment, $300,000 for parking lot and walkway resurfacing, and then some $243,000 approximately for community center upgrades. There is some upgrades to the weight room at the Central Park and then a new kitchen for the gym ward. Moving on to gateway, the gateway budget, proposed budget, is based on a proposed millage of 1.7108 mils. Property values in the gateway district increased 20.11% according to the Broward County property appraiser. The increase in property values in the proposed millage rate will generate approximately $1,013,000. Additional revenues over the previous fiscal year is approximately $163,000. Of this $163,000, 80.7% or $131,000 is related to new construction. The proposed millage of 1.7108 mils requires a two-thirds vote or four votes from council. Again, during the maximum millage, I was asked to bring back what would a rate of 1.5100 look like. That's a reduction from the proposed rate. That would look like $893,886. That's what would be generated at this rate at the current increase in property values. Estimated loss revenue comparing this proposed rate versus the actual proposed rate is approximately $119,000. Now, this 1.5100 is actually lower than the rollback rate. So, I brought you back the rollback rate as well because we wouldn't want, we wouldn't recommend going below a rollback rate. So, I brought you what a rollback rate would look like as well. So, the reduction of millage at the rollback rate, which is 1.6364. Revenues that would be generated at this rate are $969,000. And the estimated loss revenue compared to what we're actually proposing is around $44,000. Moving on to the Midtown District. The Midtown District proposed budget is based on a proposed millage of 0.9707 mills. Property values in the Midtown District increase 5.42% according to the Broward County property appraiser. At the increased property values in the proposed rate, we will get approximately $2.3 million, which will give us an additional revenue of $79,171. Of this $79,081.3% or $64,3 is related to new construction. The proposed millage rate of 0.9707 mills requires a two-thirds vote or four votes from council. Again, during the max millage, I was asked if I could bring back the reduction of the proposed millage, reducing it by 3%. Reducing it by 3% would bring us to a reduced millage of 0.9662 mills. 0.9662 mills would generate approximately $2.3 million in ad valorem revenues, and that would be a reduction of approximately $11,000 compared to the rate that we're actually proposing, the 0.9707 mills. So looking at the Midtown Development District budget, it's got a total budget of $10.2 million. This is an increase of 0.8% or $80,682. The $80,000 increase is directly in the operations and it's in the area of R&M maintenance contract for the LPRs, the licensed plate readers. The $10.2 million includes a capital budget of $7.9 million. The $7.9 million is spread along all of these projects. We have the New River Greenway project, the Plantation Midtown Bridge improvements, the Multimodal Transportation Plan, Northwest Southwest 84th Avenue design and improvements, the Perimeter Road improvements, pedestrian and vehicle connectivity, Cleary Boulevard drainage improvements, and the Southwest 78th Avenue realignment. Moving on to special revenue funds, we have approximately nine special revenue funds in this category, which totals $20.9 million. This is an increase of 9.0% or $1.7 million over the previous fiscal year amended budget. The increases are in the area of the CRA and the building fund. So the CRA, which is the Community Redevelopment Agency, increased 24.2% or $1.2 million. The increase is in the catalytic investment, which is the incentive program that we have for business trying to bring businesses into the CRA. The building fund increased $5.7 1% or $429,000. The increases in the areas of salary, wages, and employee benefits, R&M maintenance contract, and cost allocation. Moving on to debt service funds, we have two types of debt service. We have a non-advalorum debt service and an advalorum debt service. The total debt service for both of them is $4.2 million, which is a decrease of 0.2% or $7,594. The non-advalorum debt service totals $318,000. This is a decrease of 2.2% or $7,094. The decrease is in interest expense. The advalorum debt service, which is the debt service related to the advalorum bond, this is supported by a voted debt millage rate, which for fiscal year 27 is 0.2637 mils. The total advalorum debt service for fiscal year 27 is $3.9 million. This is a 0.01% or $500 decrease. Again, the decrease is in interest expense. Moving on to capital project funds. Like debt service funds, capital projects has two types of funds. They have a non-advalorum capital projects and advalorum capital projects. Non-advalorum capital projects total approximately $873,000. This is an increase of 3.5% over the previous fiscal year or approximately $30,000. The increase is related to capital projects. We have the green mills, senior housing, heightened pedestrian crossing, sunrise and 441 improvements, lighting at the bus shelters and pedestrian amenities. The actual capital totals $861,000. The difference there is there are some costs in operations related to bank fees. The advalorum bond capital projects total approximately $1.3 million. This is a decrease of 20.4% or $345,000 compared to the previous fiscal year amended budget. This decrease is due to the progress being made in the bond projects. At the moment for fiscal year 27 we have two projects. We have the Pop Travers restroom and the Central Park multipurpose building improvements. The Pop Travers project is substantially complete. It's not fully complete. It's almost there. Any money is left over if any from this particular project will be moved over to the Central Park multipurpose building improvements. Moving on to utilities or to the enterprise funds. We have three enterprise funds. We have the utility funds, we have the preserve golf course and we have the stormwater fund. Utilities is the largest by far of the category making up 86.8% of the category. The total budget across all utilities is 98.7 million. This is an increase of 18.3% or 15.3 million dollars when compared to the fiscal year 26 amended budget. The increase is primarily in capital but it's also in can be seen in operations for and in the personnel. So personnel costs for utilities are approximately 20.6 million. This is an increase of 15.9% or 2.8 million. The increase is related to the addition of four full-time positions. One assistant director, one field maintenance superintendent, one utility department assistant customer service manager, and one assistant budget and contracts manager. It also includes the reclass of one utility service worker to an inventory clerk and 3% increases for current staff. Continuing on with utilities, their operating budget across all utility funds is approximately $22.9 million. This is an increase of 7.4% or $1.6 million. The increase is in the engineering fees and waste disposal fees. The capital budget is approximately $47.7 million. This is an increase of 29.5% or $10.9 million. As I said, the majority of the increase is here. Capital projects are spread among four funds, $6.8 million in utilities, operating and maintenance funds, $29.1 million in utility repair and replacement fund, and then $11.8 million across the utility water capacity and the wastewater capacity fund. Moving on to the Preserve Golf Course. The Preserve Golf Course makes about 8.9% of the enterprise category. Total budget for fiscal year 27 is $10.2 million. This is an increase of 45.9% or $3.2 million. The increase here again, most of it's in capital but is also in operations as well. The operating budget for fiscal year 27 is approximately $6.1 million. This is an increase of 5.4% or $313,000. The increase is in outside service fees, bank fees, tools on the threshold, rentals, and cost allocation. The capital budget is $4.1 million, which is an increase of 244% or $2.9 million. The increase is directly related to the clubhouse renovation, which is $2 million, and then the bridges and bulkhead project $959,000. The stormwater utility fund is 4.3% of the enterprise category. The stormwater utility fund, which was established in 2013, is supported by a non-ad valorem assessment. The proposed rate for the non-ad valorem assessment for fiscal year 27 is $9 per ERU per month or $108 per ERU per year. That's an increase from $4 in 56 cents per ERU per month or $54 and 74 cents per ERU per year. During the fiscal year in June 2026, council approved the recommendation of moving from a flat rate residential assessment methodology to a five-tier structure. We have, as I said, five tiers. Tier 1 is for anything less than 2,500 square feet. Tier 2 is 2,501 square feet to 5,000 square feet. Tier 3, 5,001 square feet to 7,500 square feet. Tier 4, 7,501 to 10,000 square feet. And then Tier 5, greater than 10,000 square feet. The stormwater utility budget for fiscal year 27 is approximately $4.9 million. This is an increase of 58.8% or $1.8 million. The increase is in several areas. It's in your personnel, operating, and capital. Personnel budget is a total of $1.9 million. This is an increase of 6.5% or $122,000. The increase is related to increases for employees and payroll, increase in payroll allocations. Operating budget total is $892,000 approximately. This is an increase of 14.1% or $110,000. The increase is in the areas of communication, supplies, uniforms, permit fees, R&M vehicles, debris removal, and fuel. Stormwater continues. The capital budget for the Stormwater Fund is approximately $2 million. This is an increase of 370.6% or $1.6 million. This $2 million encompasses four projects. The citywide waterway restoration plan, basin tree drainage improvements, basin 2 drainage improvements, and the plantation park roadway drainage improvement. That covers the total budget of all the departments. So the recommendations for council this evening are to adopt the tentative millage rates. The city of plantation proposed millage rate of 5.7 000 mills requires four votes from council. The gateway development district proposed millage rate of 1.7 108 mills requires four votes from council. The midtown development district proposed millage rate of 0.9 707 mills requires four votes from council. And then the voted debt millage rate of 0.2 637 mills requires three votes from council. In addition to the millage rates, we are recommending that you adopt a fiscal year 2027 tentative budgets for the city of plantation, the gateway development district, the midtown development district, and the community redevelopment agency. Coming up next, we have the final hearing to adopt a non-advalorum stormwater assessment rate, which is on Monday, September 14. I repeat that, that's on Monday, September 14, at 6 p.m. in city council chambers. The second public budget hearing to adopt millage rates and final budgets is scheduled for Wednesday, September 16, 2026, 5.30 p.m. in city council chambers. And happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. I'll turn to council and then we'll take public comments and then we'll go through each of those legislative items. Councilmember Fadgen, it looks like you buzzed in first. Thank you very much. Thank you. Welcome. Very thorough presentation as always. I appreciate everyone's efforts to pull the budget together and come up with a thoughtful budget that's focused on serving our residents efficiently and responsibly and being good stewards of our city resources. I kind of went into a lot of detail on this at the Max Millage meeting, but I'm going to go over some of these things again. regarding the operating millage starting fiscal year 21, the revenue increased 3.9% followed by 4.6%, followed by 9.7%, followed by 9.7%, followed by 9.3%, 5.5%, and then 3% this year. Gateway, starting fiscal year 21, the revenue went up 9.4%, followed by 6.8%, followed by 28.9%, followed by 6.5%, followed by 4.2%, followed by a reduction in revenue last year of negative 2.6% because we voted for a reduction in the millage to give some relief to the people that have been long-time investors in the Gateway District, and then we have a 19-point-percent, well, 20.11% off your slides. So I'm assuming that that's because the Publix is included in this one? Or is the Publix not on the other? Is the Publix in there? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so that's really what's driving that, correct? Yeah. Okay. And that's great. That's an example of what's going on in that district. And a lot of good things are happening. Midtown, starting fiscal year 21, 1.6%, 1.4%, 14%, 16%, 14%, and 1%, 3%. That's an indication that, you know, our job is to facilitate that our property, our residential homeowners, our commercial properties, our businesses, are creating this wonderful, vibrant community, and that's what's driving our revenue increases. So to remake my request that I made at the Maximillage meeting, I would like to have the gateway millage reduced so that, I'm sorry, what is the year over year? I lost my notes. Are you looking for the rate for the gateway millage revenue increased 19% or 20%. I would like to reduce that millage to get it down to a 5% increase. That's going to reward the people that have been there a very long time hanging in there while we finally got this thing rolling, and now the property base is a lot higher and we can still have a hefty amount of revenue from that in order to come through. Midtown, I would like to target that 3% that I mentioned at the Maximillage and then for the operating millage, I would like a full rollback and be revenue neutral. And I said this at the Maximillage meeting that this is what Tallahassee's talking about. Maintaining the millage year over year over year is not giving relief to the property tax owners, taxpayers. And, you know, every year that I've been sitting up here, I've always proposed a reduction in the millage. This is the first year I'm requesting a rollback. And my target has always been 2% to 4% year over year to be in line with CPI. So I think it's way overdue. We don't know what's going to happen with Amendment 3. I think that it would be in our interest to show Tallahassee if we have to request appropriations from them. We don't know if they're going to help backfill our budgets. That's not defined as Council Member Horland told us at the last meeting. And I'm just going to make, you know, I listen intently to my colleagues on the council when they make their comments. And I try to understand. And I did a little research. And one of the comments was it's very difficult to raise the millage. So I don't agree with that. I looked up the millage for the last 25 years. Actually, I looked it up for the last 28 years. And in the last 25 years, the millage has been raised 11 times. It's been lowered 3 times. And it's been kept the same 11 times. And if you go back 28 years, it's been raised 14 times, lowered 3 times, and kept the same 11 times. So if we decide to do the rollback as I'm requesting, and I think it's well overdue, we can change course next year and raise it if necessary for whatever reason, whether Amendment 3 doesn't pass and we determine that there's a need that we need to increase the revenue. Or if Amendment 3 does pass, we have a determination that we need to increase. I think it would be wise to start this process that might be coming before us. So I believe that's all I really want to say. I kind of went into this in great detail at the Max Millage meeting. I believe it's time. And I humbly request support from my colleagues. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Fajon. So, you know, we do listen intently to one another and we disagree on this. I'm going to take your last comment and start with that first. So when I stated that it is more difficult to raise the millage rate, that is because the state legislature passed legislation that now requires municipalities to have a supermajority to raise that millage rate. So the discussions that I'm hearing at Florida League of Cities, at the Florida Chiefs Association, some of those, especially those fiscally strained counties and municipalities are saying, we'll have no choice but to raise our millage rate if Amendment 3 goes through. So I think that I understand your intent and I appreciate it in trying to bring some relief to the businesses. I fully support, and I know Mr. Conklin has been asking for it for years, going with the rollback rate in the Gateway District. We can talk about Midtown and perhaps the reduction there, but I think that, and I said this during the millage rate hearing, with Amendment 3 looming in November, I think it would be fiscally irresponsible for us to cut $3.2 million out of a budget when we can potentially be losing $13 million if that passes. And we don't know what's going to happen with the legislative session. So as you know, because you do your homework as well, you know that costs have gone up for our residents, the costs have gone up for the city as well. So I know I made some proposals about some other fees that we could cut, especially looking at our recreation programs. They're small amounts, but I don't think, when we take a look at the numbers, and I am not, and I acknowledge the costs that we're all, the cost pinch that we're all feeling, but to cut $3.2 million for our budget when it's going to save, I think the maximum would be $70 a year for someone. What, I think $2 would be the savings in Lauderdale West? Is that what I wrote down? For whom their average, I think, again, it would be irresponsible when we have Amendment 3 hanging overheads like the sword of Damocles. So that is my statement on that, and I see you buzz back in, Council Member Fadgen. Sure. I respectfully disagree. We do this dance every year. And Davey's proposing a rollback, so it can be done. I'm not saying it's going to be easy, it's going to be difficult, but I think it's time. Okay. Thank you very much. Council Member, any other comments? Council Member Andrea. Thank you, President Horland. I didn't hear the motion, but I believe you were... I didn't make a motion. No. Oh, Council Member Fadgen, I'm sorry. That, though, you're recommending for the Gateway the rollback to 1.6364. Is that correct? I'm good with a rollback. Okay. I can support... I said that I would support the rollback on the Gateway, and I think that you had originally proposed a lower number? Ms. Otanianos got that up. It was going to be less, but if we got support for a rollback, I'm willing to accept the rollback. Okay. What I was proposing was going to reduce the revenue to the $893,000, reducing, doing the rollbacks, $968,000. I can support the rollback rate to 1.6364. We all are. Right, we are. So we appreciate that in the spirit. And I think the concern is, too, that we'll be losing those CRA funds in four years, so I think to be able to hold on to it a little bit, but to be able to give a little relief. Go ahead, Council Member Andrea. Thank you. Ms. Otaniano, I wanted to just clarify one point. And I want to, again, thank you and your entire staff for presenting a very well-balanced budget and taking the time to meet with all of us. I don't think the public sees that part, but you meet with us individually for quite a while to go through the specifics and the details line by line for each of our different areas. So thank you for that. But personnel in general, is that about 40% of the overall budget, the $115 million? Actually, I think it's like $73 million. Oh, it's much higher than that? Yeah, it's much, it's high. Well, are, I originally had in my notes that it was $71 million, but then when I did the math real quickly today, I said, oh, that looks inflated based on your $115 million. That would be closer to maybe $37 million. Actually, it's $53 million. I'm sorry? Oh, I'm not out of alarm. Hang on, I'm sorry. It says 72.4% of the general fund expenditure, 72.4%. Okay. So is that incorporating a raise? Yes. So that is, that's my worry though, because is this going to be sustainable if the property tax revenue decreases next fiscal year? And I know that I'm asking you to have a magic ball, but I am concerned that we might not be able to sustain this if Amendment 3 passes. No, ma'am. The present operation will not be sustainable if Amendment 3 passes, and we'll be having a discussion on October 21st, just for a 30,000 foot view of what that looks like, the impact of the city. But there will be, you know, felt service impacts. Because one of the things we need to do is to make sure that we don't just cut capital. And we honestly can't cut capital to get there. But in the past, 08, a lot of capital was deferred, deferred, and deferred. And as you are aware, particularly from some of our shade sessions, we're still digging out of that hole. So we would have to make strategic reductions in service with the idea that maybe in the future we could repopulate those services if the legislature is of a mind to give us some other alternative revenue source. I mean, administration recognizes the unique nature of ad valorem. I mean, obviously you can't moderate your consumption of an illiquid asset, but that is one of our key revenue sources today. And the manner in which this reform was passed and put forward, there really wasn't much of a discussion about what other options there were. But to your point, no, that is not sustainable. Thank you for that candid, honest answer. And a question to Mr. Nunamaker in terms of Central Park and the multipurpose building. Has that project started yet? In various phases, yes, but we want to make sure that we have a concerted effort to give the building a full revamp. So, bless you. So we'll be doing that, but we also want to kind of get a sense of what are we going to be doing there. So I think November will give us a good idea of the services we'll be running there. And I don't want to freak people out because we recognize that as one of our primary parks, obviously. And I think one of the guides will be is how many touch points do we have in a given service area. And certainly we get a lot of bang out of Central Park. It's a very valued park. So it is our intent to remodel that facility. But we do want to have a better idea of exactly the services we'll be providing. And, Ms. Otenyana or Mr. Nunamaker, we will send again this year an overall kind of budget picture out to all of the residents in their water utility bill. Is that correct? Yes, we have already got that ready to go. Okay. Because I'm glad to see the people who are here and listening and are engaged, but there's still so many more that we know are not present today. And I want to make sure that they have a full understanding of this as well. Yeah, absolutely. I, too, share some of Council Member Horland's concerns. I said that at our last meeting, you know, I feel strongly that Amendment 3 will pass. And so, I want to be a bit conservative, so I would recommend keeping our millage rate flat. Thank you. Those are all of my comments. Thank you, Council Member Andreu. Council Member Ryanstein. Yes, thank you very much for the presentation. I, you know, Council Member Andreu just mentioned that while we may not be going line by line and go through the details here in front of in front of the public, it doesn't mean we haven't done our research beforehand and gone through the entire book and asked our questions. I know for myself, for example, is that I don't swim at the aquatic center. I don't play tennis at the Veltri Tennis Center, nor do I play golf. But I may be missing out. My dad would agree with you. But it doesn't mean that I don't ask the questions to make sure that if there's a request or there's something in the budget for those items that they're substantiated. And that's because I look at it when I review our budget, I look at it that we're in the customer service business. And so the question is, is that, you know, how are we satisfying most of our customers, even if not all of our customers? We know that that's really an impossibility, but we try and do the best we can. And when I look at the proposed 5.7 remaining the same, I see that because our needs increase. So even though we're keeping it the same and even though property values go up and we may be bringing in more money, we're spending more money because our residents have been requiring it, have been requesting it. And I do think that I could agree for the gateway to see a rollback. And in Midtown, I believe I heard a request for a 3%, and I could agree to that as well. I think those are, in terms of those two districts, those are areas where the investments have been made, but some relief, I think, can be granted and continue to be granted as I think we started to do some of that last year as well. That's where I sit. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Does that reflect the 3%? Yes. That was requested? Okay. Yes, you may. Thank you, Council Member Weinstein. So, okay, keeping it the same, it would increase the revenue $79,000, and then the one next to it, it's really $68,000 is the increase in revenue. There's not a loss of revenue. No, but compared... I don't like that word loss, because a loss is something you can't control. So, it's loss compared to what we're proposing. Okay. That's what that... And that's what I said when I did the presentation. Compared to what we're proposing, it's a loss of $10,000. A reduction of $10,000. A reduction. Because this is a controlled reduction. It's not a loss. Okay. Thank you. Anything else for the days? All right. I'm going to turn into public comment. Okay. Thank you. Otaniano. So, we've got Mr. Conklin, Ms. Andrade, and then Ms. Bentley. Mr. Conklin? Good evening, sir. Good evening, if I may approach. You may? Dennis Conklin, 4581 Northwest Sixth Court. Heavenly hosts protect you and all of your families. I want to concentrate on the top page, okay? And I probably gave you my copy included. It's the mountain of money. I refer to each year. What you're seeing here, if one of you would hold that up, because I think I gave you my copy. The mountain of money since basically about 20 years ago, it went from $100 million, it dipped a little bit below $100 million, and now it's gone all the way up to $388 million. Now, some of it is restricted, and a lot of it, about $100 million is not restricted. So to deal with, I think the first proposal was about the Gateway 7 district, and if everybody can go to your citizen's report back there on the desk, you'll see page 9 that the gateway is going to pull in over a million bucks at this proposed rate, right? Not the reduced rate. And if you look at the CAFR, the Consolidated Annual Financial Report, year in and year out, you'll see the gateway has a fund, it's a couple million bucks are sitting in there, okay? The CRA, which they finally got coincided exactly, overlapping the Gateway 7, that has maybe, so the whole district probably got about $10 million bucks sitting in there. Part of that mountain of money. So you shouldn't be afraid, because it was mentioned, I always ask for a zero millage, not the rollback millage, on the Gateway 7. You shouldn't be afraid to zero out the millage on the Gateway 7. They will not be, and you're spending about every weekly report, I'd look, and I'd bring it up here, and I'd say, $2,000 for water and wastewater from the Gateway 7? They got a couple million bucks in there, okay? So that's for that. And the other pages in there that I did give you, that's going to be discussed on 8 and 9, okay? And I'll yield back my time, but do not be afraid to zero out the Gateway and go with the rollback for the city, which I always ask for as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Conklin. All right, Ms. Andrade, Ms. Bentley on deck. Good evening. Welcome. Hi. Donna Andrade, 5592 South of 2nd Street. Mayor and Council members, I put this together before hearing all the comments, but I'm just going to go with what I have. Last year, the city reduced the millage rate from 5.7 to 5.8. The mayor and council members finally voted to reduce the rate after years of Tim Fadron making the case to reduce the millage. So finally, there was movement. However, this barely moved the needle, as you know. You've been talking about the very small decreases. Well, they're not small to us. A small amount from the city, from the county, over several years, it adds up. It might be going towards a car payment. It's not small to us. It matters. This year is different as there is the possibility of Amendment 3 being approved by voters in November. If I were in your shoes, I suspect this might influence how you vote on the millage rate. In case Amendment 3 is voted in, it seems the city would likely want to get as much cash as possible prior to the possible reductions in the future, it seems like. You know, if I was in your shoes, I probably would do the same thing. If Amendment 3 is approved, I have heard of concerns of staff reductions. I have been there in the private sector and it is no fun. I have also heard the case of parks having limited hours and recreational activities being cut, and also the concerns about police, fire, infrastructure, services, etc. No one is arguing that all these things are not important to the functioning of our city. We all want Plantation to be a well-run city and a nice place to live. However, the city, county, and most of the other taxing authorities have brought this Amendment 3 vote on themselves by not doing something about it and it being the millage rate. Second, you are losing or have lost our trust between dragging your feet on millage rate reductions, installing the citywide license plate readers, and yes, I know there's a pause, but there is an election coming up. The land use vote on the Big Lots Plaza by the zoning board and your lack of clear communication of the very creeping, in my opinion, state, live local act and its impact on our city, we don't trust you. We don't trust you to keep the future of the city aligned with what residents want. Progress, freedom, choice, and local input for future developments. If the only choice is government-induced affordable housing rentals and does not include new home-buying options for first-time homeowners, what is your real goal for this city? Where is the real work on housing affordability? The millage rate is part of that. Thank you. Please, no applause from the audience. Ms. Bentley? Good evening. Hello. My name is Lisa Bentley. I'm a 22-year resident of Plantation, and I'm here tonight because I believe Plantation homeowners deserve a meaningful millage reduction. Plantation homeowners are already dealing with higher insurance premiums, higher utility bills, higher grocery prices, higher costs to maintain their homes. A higher property assessment does not put cash in a homeowner's bank account. It doesn't increase a retiree's Social Security check. It doesn't give a working family a raise, but it can increase the amount of property tax they owe. And that is why I believe this council has an obligation to be more aggressive with the rollback because plantation owners deserve the benefits from the increase in their property value, not simply have government benefit from it. And let's be clear. Homeowners don't pay a millage rate. They pay a tax bill. A homeowner should hear, we lowered the millage rate, and then they open their tax bill and discover that their property tax actually went up. That should not be happening. That isn't a meaningful tax relief. If the city can responsibly operate at a lower rate, then that money should stay with the people who live, work, and pay taxes here. So I'm asking the council to go further. Don't stop at 5.7. Give plantation owners a real rollback, not just a lower number on a budget document. Plantation owners have seen the value of their homes increase, but that doesn't mean their ability to pay taxes has increased. They should not be punished simply because their homes is worth more on paper. It's about recognizing the financial pressure families and seniors are already facing. It's about giving homeowners some relief when the property values increase. If the city of plantation holds an existing budget surplus, those funds can temporarily act as a cushion to offset the initial revenue loss brought on by Amendment 3 passing. Homeowners deserve a meaningful millage reduction. I'm asking you tonight to give that relief. Roll the millage back further. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming out tonight. Please. Be quiet. Thank you. Ms. Otanano, can I ask you a couple of questions before we move to the items, please? You've heard a couple of people and Mr. Conklin mention our reserves. Do the bond rating companies, Moody's and Standard & Poor's, base their rating of our city based upon the reserves that we hold? It's one part of the calculation, yes. It is. And so we've talked about the percentages, I think, from the governmental accounting finance officers' association. I was going to use the acronym and I got caught up in it. So yes, one of the recommendations that they make, especially for South Florida when we're vulnerable to hurricanes, is to have a percentage of our general fund kept in reserves, correct? They usually say two months of operating expenses. And that also applies to any other things that we may encounter, such as COVID, infrastructure breakdowns, such as that. The last couple of legislative sessions we've seen bills, much to Ms. Morris and I's chagrin, for sovereign immunity increases. It failed last year. We do believe it's going to come back a little bit stronger this year. If the sovereign immunity increases were to be put into effect, would we then have to take possibly some of those reserves and move those into risk management because we are self-insured? Yes. Well, we actually have a reserve for that. Okay. So that is part of the risk. Some of that. Okay. Thank you for that. I wanted to just ask a couple of those questions. And one other thing, we do have the, we're codifying the transition of paid into our, that's later on the agenda tonight. And I noticed one of the things in there, because I know that you had asked for an additional person in finance. That was a discussion we had early on. I know that's been taken off the table, but you had not asked for an additional personnel in 20 years. Correct. What I want to ask you, and I know we can discuss it further when we get to that item, but it is of concern because what you do is vitally important for the city. I see that you are now going to serve as a treasurer overseeing that special district. So is that, to assume, is going to increase the workload in your department? It will, but not just my department is going to increase it in engineering. Certainly engineering. But definitely finance. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for that. Do you, any further discussion on the dais? Do you want to go ahead and read those items in? Or, Mr. Ezreal, will you be reading those? I'm happy to, if you'd like. Okay. Thank you. Let's go ahead and, Councilmembers, we had, I want to see if we have a consensus on the gateway development. Ms. Oteniano, I'm sorry, I'm going to ask you to put the gateway up again just so we get the rate correct. Please. So this is going to be item number one, FY 2027, tentative millage resolution for the plantation gateway development district. Correct. Okay, Mr. Ezreal, you got that? That's 1.6364 mills. Okay, do we have a motion? I'll make a motion that we approve item one with the rollback rate of 1.6364 mills. Thank you very much. Do we have a second? Do we have a second? Okay, go ahead. Do you want to read it? Do we need to read it? There's no legal requirement to read the title of the reso. All right, because of the reso. So we have a first and we have a second. Mr. Conklin, you're on your feet? Well, no, I took the public comment for the budget at the beginning. You want to come back up? You can come back up. That's the way we had the separate slips tonight. Go ahead. Dennis Conklin, 4581 Northwest CIS Court. I did find my own. It was buried in the 8 and 9 issue. Okay. Again, I want to thank you for voting the rollback. I wanted to explain you were talking about reserves. That mountain of money, okay, that includes the reserves which are restricted, but there's $100 million in there that are unrestricted. That's what I'm talking about to pay off pensions and to cover these reductions in millage rates, particularly, as I always ask for the Gateway 7, since the CRA creation. Three years into it, it vastly exceeded the money in that district, and they should have been receiving the relief all along. I noticed that if it goes through, the millage rate is going to produce, at the lower rate, I think it's going to produce, what is it, $893,000, something like that. Their budget is only $398,000. You see what I'm saying? So there's a half a million bucks that goes in to the mountain of money, reserved, understood, but you can go for a zero rate. And I'll yield back on number, what is this, number one. Thank you. Number one. Thank you, Mr. Conklin. Other further comment on that? Hearing none, Ms. Biggerow, please call the roll on item number one. Councilmember Anderson? Yes. Councilmember Andrew? Yes. Councilmember Fajan? Yes. Councilmember Einstein? Yes. Councilmember Horland? Yes. Item number two is a fiscal year 2027-10 quantitative millage rate resolution for the Plantation Midtown Development District and I'm hearing the consensus to reduce that to 0.9662. I make a motion to approve the reduced millage of 0.9662. We have a second. Thank you. Any public comment on that? Ms. Biggerow, please call the roll. Councilmember Anderson? Yes. Councilmember Andrew? Yes. Councilmember Fajan? Yes. Councilmember Reinstein? Yes. Councilmember Horland? Yes. And I heard no changes proposed for the debt service so that's item number three. I'll make a motion for the rollback rate. Can I read it? Can I read it? Fiscal year 2027 tentative millage resolution for the City of Plantation operating budget and voted debt service. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. I got ahead of myself. We're on debt service. You certainly did. That's on the voted debt service. Motion to approve. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Any public comment on that? Ms. Biggerow? Please call the roll. Councilmember Anderson? Yes. Councilmember Andreu? Yes. Councilmember Fajan? Yes. Councilmember Reinstein? Yes. Councilmember Horland? Yes. You know, Councilmember Fajan, I want to apologize. It was the operating budget and the voted debt service on that one. Well, I kind of had a motion out there, so did that count? Mr. Asrell, how would you like to proceed? There was no second on the motion that was made. There was a motion and a second. There was a vote taken. If you want to reconsider it, somebody who voted in favor of it could move to reconsider it. I don't want to reconsider it. Obviously, you do not want to vote yes for that. That was, I would like to redo the vote. What do I have to do? You voted in favor of it. You can move to reconsider it. I would like to make a motion to reconsider it. Second. Thank you. Okay. I'll accept the reconsideration so you can get your vote in. All right. So I need a roll call on the motion to reconsider, please. Roll call on the motion to reconsider, please. Council Member Anderson? Just to reconsider. Just to reconsider the vote. Yeah. It's not about the vote. Yes. Council Member Andrew? Yes. Council Member Fadgen? Yes. Council Member Einstein? Yes. Council Member Hortland? Yes. That's just to give Council Member Fadgen the opportunity. And I'd like to make a motion to do the rollback rate for the general millage and keep the voted debt millage the same. Do we have a second? Just for point of clarification, can you just state what the numbers are just so we have them? Can we pull it up? So you want the rollback millage? You would like to hear the rate. Okay. So the proposed rate is 5.700. The rollback rate is 5.4878. And then the debt millage is 0.2637. So my motion would be for the 5.4878. Council President, may I ask if we can maybe bifurcate the... I don't know if that's possible. It's one resolution. It's one resolution, right? Okay. So it's the rollback rate. You want to keep the debt rate? Yeah. Vote a debt rate. I don't think we have a choice on that one. There can be another motion. So after this fails. Do I have a second? I'm confused what you're saying. I made a motion. I know what he wants, but then you said bifurcate and you can't... Because of the voted debt, because it's one resolution. So if that motion fails, we can come back on the... Then split it. No. It's all one thing. So in the resolution, it's 5.7 mil for the... And then you have the voted debt millage rate of 0.2637. But my motion is for the rollback rate of 5.4878 with the voted debt millage rate of 0.2637. Looking for a second. Do we have a second on the rollback rate? I'll second it. For the rollback rate? Yeah. Okay. Any further discussion? Councilmember Anderson? Yes. Councilmember Andreu? No. Councilmember Fadgen? Yes. Councilmember Reinstein? No. Councilmember Horland? No. All right. Item number three, we will... I'll make a motion to approve the 2027 tentative millage rate resolution as it reads for the City of Plantation operating budget and voted debt service. And we need four votes to pass that, Ms. Ottenano? Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Any further discussion? A couple comments? Councilmember Anderson? Yes. Councilmember Andreu? Yes. Councilmember Fadgen? No. Councilmember Reinstein? Yes. Councilmember Horland? Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you for reconsidering that. Absolutely. No problem. I'm sorry about that little glitch there. No, I got confused too. A lot of numbers. Yep. Which you should be used to as a CPA. Item number four, fiscal year 2027 tentative budget resolution for the Plantation Gateway Development District. Do we have a motion? I'll make the motion to approve. We have a second. Second. Any public comment? Any further discussion? Ms. Beggarrow, please call the roll. Councilmember Anderson? Yes. Councilmember Andreu? Yes. Councilmember Fadgen? Yes. Councilmember Reinstein? Yes. Councilmember Horland? Yes. Item number five, fiscal year 2027 tentative budget resolution for the Plantation Midtown Development District. Do we have a motion? Motion to approve. Second. Okay. Any further discussion? Public comment? Hearing none. Ms. Beggarrow, please call the roll. Councilmember Anderson? Yes. Councilmember Andreu? Yes. Councilmember Fadgen? Yes. Councilmember Reinstein? Yes. Councilmember Horland? Yes. Councilmember Andreu, was that a recent buzz in? Or was that old and I missed it? No. Okay. Sorry about that. Oh, okay. Bifurcation. Okay. Item number six, fiscal year 2027 tentative budget resolution for the City of Plantation consolidated. Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Any further discussion? Public comment? All right. Ms. Beggarrow, please call the roll. Councilmember Anderson? Yes. Councilmember Andreu? Yes. Councilmember Fadgen? Yes. Councilmember Einstein? Yes. Councilmember Horland? Yes. Thank you very much. Ms. Otaniano, again, thank you. I know you're coming back up for CRA, but thank you to you and your staff for crunching all of those numbers and bringing them back to council as requested. We appreciate it. You're very welcome. Thank you, everybody. It's been a challenge. Regarding the CRA, it's just a budget resolution. Yeah, I have to call her. I'm here if there's any questions. Okay. All right. So, at this time, it is 649. We will adjourn the budget hearing.