Good evening. It is, we haven't done this in a while, July 29th, 5-0-1. This is the City of Plantation Maximum Millage Rate Presentation Meeting. Ms. Beggarrow, would you please call the roll? Council Member Anderson. Here. Council Member Andreu. Here. Council Member Fadgen. Here. Council Member Horland. Here. Council Member Reinstein. Here. Mayor Sortel. Here. City Attorney Ezra. Here. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Beggarrow. Good evening, Ms. Otanano. Good evening, everybody. Council Members, Mayor, City Attorney Ezra. Welcome to the City of Plantation Fiscal Year 2027 Maximum Millage Budget Presentation. Before I get into the budget presentation, I did include some additional slides in your packet and on the agenda to go through the property tax reform. Although it is not impacting our fiscal year 2027 budget, it could have significant implications for the FY27, our FY28 and 29 and going forward. So I just wanted to kind of explain to you what information we have so far and that we are thinking about it behind the scenes. So in November... Do you have printouts? I did not bring them because I have them on the agenda. It was sent to us. Right. Can... Yeah. Actually. We're being sustainable here. We're being sustainable. Okay. So it's on its way. You're welcome. In November 2026, the Florida voters will have the opportunity to vote on the constitutional amendment that will expand the homestead exemptions. If approved, it is required to be approved by 60%. If approved, it will expand Florida's homestead exemptions. It will reduce the taxable value of qualifying properties. And it takes effect beginning in January 2027, which will impact our fiscal year 2028 revenues. So why does this matter? So if homeowners pay less property tax, then local governments, including the city, will receive less property tax revenue. Then cities will have to evaluate how the reduced revenues will affect future budgets and service delivery. Why it matters to plantation is we have 21,983,000 homestead exemption properties in the city that could qualify for this exemption. This is approximately 42% of our taxable property base. In year one, the exemption, if it passes, if the exemption will increase from $50,000 currently to $150,000, that's in fiscal year 2028. In year two, fiscal year 2029, it will increase from $150,000 to $250,000. Additionally, not on this slide, but there is also an impact on the commercial side as well, where the commercial cap, which is currently 10%, is going to be reduced to 5%. So there is additional impact on the commercial side as well. So what is the impact to our city? So the Florida Department of Revenue, at their Revenue Estimating Conference, came up with some forecasts of how the amendment will impact the local taxing authorities. And this is what they have stated is the impact that they're forecasting for the city of Plantation. So in year one, they're projecting $12.7 million reduction in revenue. In year two, $23.9 million, year three, $25.5 million, year four, $27.2 million, and year five, $28.8 million. So as you can see, this is a major impact, and we have to wonder how will the city respond to this amendment if it passes. So as I said, behind the scenes, the city has been, we're not waiting, we've known about this for a little while. We don't know if it will pass, but we don't want to wait until it passes to try and determine what we're going to do with the impact. So we have been looking at a plan of what we will do when we get there, if we get there. We're looking at identifying operational inefficiencies. We're going to conduct a full workforce staffing review. We'll explore new revenues, for example, non-advalorum fire fee, a utility tax. These are just some of the ideas. We would look at maybe adjusting current city service fees to be full cost recovery fees. Consider new service fees for services that we provide now that we're not currently charging for. And then, of course, we will evaluate opportunities for grants, public, private partnerships, sponsorships, et cetera. Now, we currently are very active with our grants, and we do very well. We would have to hope that we would be competing, I'm sure, with a lot more people if this does come down the pike. So as I said, this is not impacting the budget that we're going to go over tonight. That is a balanced budget, and it maintains full services. It's just that this is something that's going to pack us in the future, and we just didn't want to start off without having that conversation. So, Tanyano, can I stop you there? Councilmember Fajan has a question. Yeah. Thank you, Council President. I just have one quick question. So at the beginning of the year, at strategic planning, I believe, we are projecting $36 million loss. So where did that number come from? Was it just a broad stroke estimate, or why did we think it was $36 million in January, and now the out – where did you say this came from, the projections? This is the Florida Department of Revenue, their Revenue Estimating Conference. Okay. So where did our number come from, and why is there a number? Okay. I don't know if it's going to answer. Yeah, so while it is – there were estimates that were coming out from Florida League of Cities, from BCPA. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I do want to point out – Everyone wants to talk about it. We all have an answer. Well, nobody wants to really talk about it, but it's evolved heavily, and I just want to remind you all, when it initially came out, it was going to be the complete elimination of the ad valorem, and that subsequent was rolled back. To the homesteaded. Well, no, but the homestead, but the complete exemption of the homestead, right now it's going up to $150,000, $250,000, but the thought was – originally it was proposed to eliminate entirely, and then before that, it was going to be schools and localities. Well, I'm more – I'm focused on the number that we were talking about. I'm just trying to figure that out. Like, if you – if we lost the full homestead exemption – so you're saying all homestead properties, no matter the value, were we going to lose? Right. So, like, a million-dollar property in January where we thought we were going to be possibly losing that as well. The other thing that wasn't – now you've got the lag factor with the five-year timeframe, so that was not part of the original proposal, and so that was a rough estimate in the beginning. So now we've got something – we know what we're dealing with. And I'm not critical of that number. I just want to know where we started because we really haven't had a lot of discussions over the last seven months about where we thought it was going. So this is the first kind of update that I've heard from the administration regarding what we think – where the number is coming from. Exactly. And the last number preceding this was from BCPA, and that was predicated on 2025 numbers if applied then. Right. All right. That's all my curiosity. When we had financial – when we had strategic planning, that was the governor's original plan, and I think that's what the governor is saying now. He's sticking by that original plan and is not in full support of Amendment 3 because it was not a full repeal of property taxes. So those are the numbers we're working with. Plus, we haven't come back because they actually just finished that special session not that long ago, so nobody knew really what was happening until recently. Thank you very much. Councilmember Andrea. Thank you, President Horland. Just thinking about what Councilmember Fadgen said, I know that we haven't, as a full body, had the conversation, but I know I've spoken to Mr. Nunamaker about this several times between, you know, when we had January, when we had our meeting, up until now, probably at least once a month. And then there have been many Zooms held publicly, so it's definitely been top of mind. But my question for Ms. Otteniano is, did you also consider adding to this slide or to our possible response? I know later on you're going to be discussing some departments, or the directors will be discussing their department's needs, but a hiring freeze? Because I know there are going to be requests to add additional staff, and that's a concern, because I'd hate to add people and then later have to, you know, terminate and let people go. So that's one. And also, did we also look at travel? And, you know, we all want professional development and growth opportunities, but, again, in this environment, that might be something that has to, you know, be on the wayside until this. So all of those things are being discussed. These are just some of what we are talking about, what we have a plan in place, if this does pass. The January strategic planning is where we have, that's very, not too long after the budget. So we have a plan that we're going to present, like, full recommendations to Council at that time. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Two more. Councilmember Reinstein. Yes, thank you. I know that, obviously, the presentation, this brief presentation right now is in regards to the property tax reform and the referendum. But because you have it on the screen and because you brought it up in terms of how the city will respond, the top two identify operational inefficiencies and conduct a full workforce staffing review. So I would say I hope, but I do want to hear the confirmation that these are things that we regularly do anyway. Yes, they are. These are ongoing processes. This isn't something that is just because, I mean, it may be heightened for this reason, but this is something that we regularly do as part of, you know, our overall review and, you know, focus on efficiency and so forth. That's correct. We do that on an annual basis. Actually, all year long we do that. But it would be a much deeper dive and very different when you don't have the money to support the services. Perfect. I didn't want to leave that untouched because I didn't want there to be a suggestion that we're only doing this now. This is something that we regularly do. Exactly. All right. Thank you. Mayor. Councilmember Reinstein, you're dead on. In fact, we probably do it every day when you think about it. Do we need this? Do we not need this? In response to Councilmember Andre, which is a great question, travel this year increasing the amount of documentation. So when people, before they go on trips, what are you going for? Why are we doing it? What are we getting out of it? I held off as we're going into this. But I think you want to see, you would like to see the whole schmear. Am I correct? That's correct. Okay. You'll get it. You won't get it today, but you'll get it. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. And again, we don't want to take too much time on this. It's an overview. We will be talking about it a little bit more in strategic planning. But I will say that historically, the city of Plantation has really worked hard to optimize taxpayer dollars. And I just want to add, and I'll talk about it a little bit more. As my colleagues know, I've been on the Road to Yes tour with Solid Waste Authority, and I've attended far too many council and commission meetings in Broward County. But it's been eye-opening. I continue to say I'm grateful for what we have and how we govern. But a few of those meetings recently, they've started their budget process, and I've sat through those. And it's been interesting to see where we are in relation to other cities. As you know, the city of Parkland is heavily relying on their ad valorem tax dollars, and we'll be in a much more dire situation than we will. Some cities, not in Broward County, but when I was at the Fire Chiefs Association meeting, are looking at roll-ups on their millage rate because they will not be able to fund their public safety services. So I think it's important to keep that in mind as we go into strategic planning. And I know that – I'm sorry, I would have stopped you. I didn't need a – yeah, I hate to waste the paper. Thank you. There is one of our cities just north of us – I don't want to name them because I don't think it's public knowledge – has started the 10% cut exercise. And they were only able to get to about 4.86% before it really started to impact personnel and capital costs. So I think it's important to keep that in mind. Yeah, and that's an exercise that we have already been told as department heads that we will be doing that as well. So all of that to come. Because that comes regardless of whether this passes or not. That's an exercise we have to do no matter what. So that's already on our to-do list. Thank you, Ms. Otanana. Thank you. Okay, so again, this is not impacting our 27 budget. But I felt it was important to have the discussion. So the fiscal year 2027 proposed budget for the City of Plantation is – the total budget for all funds is approximately $311 million. This is an increase of 4.8% or $14.3 million. The significant changes from fiscal year 26 to 27, you will see the general fund decreased 4.5% or $7.5 million. That is in the area of capital projects. And then the enterprise fund for utility water wastewater increased 18.3% or $15.3 million. The plantation preserve increased 45%, approximately 46%. That's $3.2 million. And that's related to capital projects as well. So we will go through all of these as we go through the budget presentation, starting off with the general fund. So the general fund budget, proposed budget, is based on a proposed millage of 5.7 mills. This is the same millage as last fiscal year. It was actually reduced last year from 5.8 mills down to 5.7. The property values in the City of Plantation increased 5.7% according to the Broward County Property Appraiser. The proposed millage rate and the increase in property values will generate approximately $85 million in ad valorem revenue. This is estimated at 96% collections. The additional revenues from fiscal year 2026 amended budget to the fiscal year 27 is approximately $4 million. Of this additional revenue, 26.1% or $1 million and $30,000 is related to new construction. The proposed millage of 5.7 mills requires a two-thirds vote from Council. Looking at the general fund revenues, what change we have again, ad valorem is our largest source of revenue for the general fund. Coming in at $85 million, which is a 4.9% increase from budget to budget. And again, the increase is related to increase in property values. The utility service tax category is approximately $10.3 million. This is an increase of 5.2% or $510,000. The increase is directly related to the utility service tax for electricity. FPL came out with another schedule of increases. So when they increase their fees, we get additional monies here. The franchise fees category is approximately $11 million. This is a 2.7% increase or $294,000. Of this $294,000, $190,000 is related to franchise fees for electricity for the same reason, increase in rates. And then also $160,000 is related to franchise fees for solid waste. The license and permits category, license permits and special assessments category is approximately $2.8 million. This is an increase of 7.1% or $185,000. The increase is primarily in the area of engineering permits. The intergovernmental category is approximately $18.9 million. This is $3.9% or $708,000. Of this $708,000, we do have an item in this category that is a pass-through, some pass-through revenues. We have the insurance premium tax monies for the police officers and the firefighters. That's the $175,000 and $185,000 monies. That's approximately $180,000. So that's money that we get in, but we don't get to spend it. That goes right to the pensions within three days. There is also $111,000 in this line that is a grant that we received for a community paramedic. So the money is coming in here, but it's going to pay for a position on the expense side. So we do get to use that money, but we're going to get to use it to pay for a position. The other $400,000 in this category increase is $344,000 is related to property to sales tax and half-cent sales tax. And then another $100,000 related to the increase in the community service tax. The charges for services category is $23.3 million. This is an 8.9% increase or a $1.9 million increase. In this category, we also have some pass-through revenues. That's monies that we get for solid waste. The increase related to solid waste is $650,000. This is monies that the city collects on the utility water bill and pays to waste management on a monthly basis. The other $1.2 million in here is related to increase in ambulance revenues. We're projecting $650,000 additional revenues there. There's an extra $250,000 in special detail. For the police special detail. And then I think that was... Oh, there was also an increase in the cost allocation. So we charge cost allocations to enterprise funds and the building department for services provided to them by the general fund department. So those increases are in there. The fines and forfeiture category is approximately $1.1 million. This is a 59.9% increase or a $429,000 increase. $352,000 of that $429,000, this increase is related to the Red Speed program, the implementation of the Red Speed program. There is additional funding of $50,000 for county court fines and then also another $25,000 related to code violations. The miscellaneous category, the miscellaneous revenue category is approximately $2.4 million. This is a 1.6% increase or a $39,000 increase. The increase here is directly related to interest earnings on the city's investment portfolio. We typically earn more than that, but we can't project more than that because if we don't get that, then we would end up having to support the fund through other balances. So general fund expenditures, as you can see from the chart, personnel services are the largest cost for the city, coming in at 72.6%. The total category for fiscal year 27 is $115 million. This is an increase of 7.2% or $7.7 million. The increase here is related to, we have 3.5 million of this increase is related to 3% increases for employees, the addition of five full-time positions, one part-time position, increases for IAFF and FOP based on their negotiated contracts. We also have a $2.2 million increase in medical costs, and then a $2 million increase in pension and retirement contributions. The operating expenditures are our second largest category, coming in at approximately $32 million. This is an increase of 3.5% or $1,079,000. The increase here is the increase in cost of goods and services. That's mainly the issue here. Although inflation has come down, costs still seem to be high. There are some significant items. There was a $250,000 increase in uninsured liabilities, and there was $180,000 for required physicals for the firefighters, $40,000 cancer policy for firefighters. So those types of things we have to put in the budget. The grants and aid section totals $2.7 million. This is an increase of 1.7% or $494,000. The increase here is directly related to the tax increment payment that we pay to the CRA, and that's related to the increase in property values. I'm going to skip over capital outlay. I'm going to leave that one to last. The debt service, the category is approximately $1.3 million. This is a 28.6% increase or a $289,000 increase. The increase here, we only have only one debt service in the general fund, and it's related to the Public Safety Dispatch Center. The $288,000 increase is a baked-in-the-cake CPI as part of that contract, that increase. That started in year eight of the contract. The capital outlay category is approximately $8 million. This is a decrease of 68.3% or $17.1 million. The decrease here is not because there was a decrease in capital requests. That was what the budget could fund. That was the last of the dollars. There was a lot of projects that were taken out. We actually cut $10 million in capital requests during the budget process. And we also cut, I will say, and I forgot to mention with the personnel, we are adding five people, but there was a request for 15, so 10 of those positions were cut, just so you know. And then, like I said, with the capital, a lot of the items were cut, and we are funding a lot of capital projects with grant funding, fund balance, impact fees, anywhere we can to help reduce the burden on the budget. So the total budget and amount for capital items, like I said, is $7.9 million. We have tried to focus on asset management over the past few years. Fiscal year 27 is no different. $4.8 million is dedicated to asset management. We have public works has $1.5 million. This $1.5 million is related to roads, sidewalks, citywide AC program, and various equipment related to facility maintenance citywide. The parks and recreation has $3.3 million of asset management items, playground upgrades, shade structures, sports courts resurfacing, walkways, fencing replacements, outdoor lighting, pool deck and plumbing upgrades, and other miscellaneous equipment. Other capital items not related to asset management, we have $3 million in the public safety, IT, and in other miscellaneous departments. So public safety capital items total $1.1 million. Of that $1.1 million, $600,000 is related to the police department, where we have some replacement vehicles, canine and police specialty equipment. We'll say we did cut a lot of police vehicles in the request this year. They had seven vehicles and equipment was cut during the budget process, along with a lot of other things. The fire rescue department has $500,000 in capital items to go towards the training tower, the stretcher lift system, Lucas resuscitation system, extrication equipment, and a skid steer. The IT department has $1.9 million in items. They have the ERP system, which I'm sure you're all aware we're in the middle of implementing at the moment. They have network file management software, network devices, a cell, a cloud upgrade, servers, and applications. Other miscellaneous equipment for departments citywide costs about $100,000. So as I mentioned, we have a lot of projects that we're funding with grants, a combination of grants, impact fees, and fund balance. So the slide, I won't go through all the projects, but on this particular slide, we have $20.6 million that we have been approved for in grants. Of this $20.6 million, $10.5 million is related to the Midtown Bridge. We got $7.5 million from a grant, and we got $3 million from SOAR tax monies. And the column to the right is the fund balance. So with all projects that you get, all grants that you get, there's typically funding that's required for matching. But even with the matching, it doesn't always complete the project. So additional fund balance. So everything that's in the fund balance line is not necessarily matching. It may be matching, and whatever else is needed to complete the project. So those are funded. That's $30 million of fund balance. Additional projects that's being funded by the impact fees, $2.1 million. And then we have another project that's being funded by appropriations for $640,000. So all in all, we have $53 million in capital projects that's not being funded by the budget. That's primarily being funded by grants and fund balance. $20 million, again, is for grants, $2.1 million impact fees, $640,000 for appropriations, and $30 million for a general fund fund balance. Special districts, the city has two, the Plantation Gateway and the Plantation Midtown Development Districts. The Plantation Gateway Development District proposed budget is based on a proposed millage rate of 1.7108 mils. This is the same millage rate as last year. Actually, it's the same since 2025. It was reduced in 25 from 1.815 mils. Property values in the Gateway Development District increased 20.11% according to the property appraiser. With the increase in property values and the proposed millage rate, these combined will generate approximately $1,012,000. Again, this is at 96% collections. The additional revenues over the previous fiscal year is $162,663. Of this amount, 80.7% is related to new construction. The proposed millage rate of 1.7108 mils requires a two-thirds vote from Council. The Gateway Development District budget for fiscal year 27 is approximately $400,000. This is an increase of 0.6% or $2,300. The increase is in electricity costs and water and wastewater costs. The proposed budget for the Midtown District is based on a proposed millage of 0.9707 mils. This is the same millage rate since 2018. The increase in property values per the Broward County property appraiser is 5.42%. The increase in property values and the proposed millage rate will generate approximately $2.3 million. Additional revenues over the previous fiscal year amended budget is $79,171. $81.3% or $64,000 is related to new construction. The proposed millage rate of 0.9707 mils requires a two-thirds vote or four votes from Council. The Midtown Development District, the Plantation Midtown Development District proposed budget for fiscal year 27 is approximately $10.2 million. This is an increase of 0.8% or $80,682. The increase is in operations in the area of R&M maintenance contract for the LPRs. Now, this is a placeholder. We may get grants for this, and if we do, then that money will roll back to the Midtown Fund balance. And then the other increase was the electricity costs. The capital budget for Midtown is approximately $7.9 million. As you can see, there is the New River Greenway project, the Plantation Midtown Bridge, the MMTP Northwest Southwest 84th Avenue, Pedestrian and Vehicle Connectivity, the Cleary Boulevard Drainage Improvements, and then the Southwest 78th Avenue Realignment. Special Revenue Funds, we have nine. The Library Board, CRA, CDBG, Road and Traffic, SHIP, Federal and State Forfeitures, Impact Fees, Donations, and the Building Fund. Building Fund is the largest of all of the category. The Special Revenue Funds category total is $20.9 million between all nine. The increase is 9% or $1.7 million. The increase is in the area of Community Redevelopment Agency and the Building Fund. The CRA increased 24.2% or $1.2 million. That increase is directly in the line of the Catalytic Investment, which is the Incentivized Program for bringing business into the CRA. The Building Fund increased 5.1% or $429,000. The increase here is related to salary wages and employee benefits. So in there we have 3% increases for employees and then pension and medical cost increases. RNM Maintenance Contract Increase. They have several subscriptions that the costs go up every year. That's related to the $140,000. And then the cost allocation is the increase in the cost allocation fee that the General Fund charges to the Building Department. Debt Service Funds, we have two types. We have non-advalorum debt service and advalorum debt service. The non-advalorum debt service total budget for fiscal year 27 is $318,000. This is a decrease of 2.2% or $7,094. The decrease is related to the decrease in interest expense. The advalorum debt service total budget is $3.9 million. This is a decrease of 0.01% or $500. The advalorum debt service is supported by a voted debt millage rate, which is 0.2637 mils. And the estimated taxes a homeowner with a save-our-home value of $200,000 and $50,000 exemption will pay approximately $39.55. Capital projects like debt service, there are two types, non-advalorum capital projects and advalorum capital projects. The non-advalorum capital projects budget totals $873,000. This is an increase of 3.5% or approximately $30,000. The increase is primarily in the area of capital projects. The capital project budget is $860,000. And they have the lighting at bus shelters, pedestrian amenities, sunrise and 441 improvements, heightened pedestrian crossing, and then the green mills senior housing. Capital projects for the advalorum bonds is approximately $1.3 million. This is a 20.4% decrease or $345,000 decrease. The decrease here is directly related to the completion of the advalorum bond projects. We have two projects left in the parks and recreation silo, the Pop Traverse restrooms and the Central Park multipurpose building improvements. When they are done, then we will be finished with all the bond projects. Enterprise funds, the city has three, utilities, golf course, and stormwater. Utilities fund is the largest of the category. They make up 86.8% of the category. All utility funds total 98.7% for fiscal year 27. This is an increase of 18.3% or $15.3 million. The increase is in the personnel budget and it's in the capital budget and actually in operation. So it's across all categories really. The personnel budget is $20.6 million. This is an increase of 15.9% or $2.8 million. The increase is related to the request for four new full-time positions, an assistant director, a field maintenance superintendent, a utility billing assistant customer service manager, an assistant budget and contract manager. There's also the request for a reclass of a utility service worker to an inventory clerk. Including in the increase or contributing to the increase is 3% increases for current staff and then again increase in pension and medical costs. The operating budget for the utility departments is $22.9 million. This is an increase of 7.4% or $1.6 million. The increase is primarily in the area of engineering fees and waste disposal fees. And I remember going through the budget process with the utility director. He mentioned that the waste disposal fees are coming down. This is an increase now, but next year it's going to be a lot higher. So he said that that's coming. The capital budget across all utility funds is $47.7 million. This is an increase of 29.5% or $10.9 million. $6.8 million is in the operating and maintenance fund. $29.1 million is in the repair and replacement fund. And $11.8 million is in the water and wastewater capacity funds. The Preserve Golf Course Fund is 8.9% of the enterprise category. Their budget for fiscal year 27 is approximately $10.2 million. This is an increase of 45.9% or $3.2 million. The increase is primarily in the capital area, but there are some increases in the operating budget as well. Operating budget is $6.1 million and the increase there is 5.4% or $303,000. The increase in operating is related to outside service fees, bank fees, tools on the threshold, rental and cost allocation. The capital budget is $4.1 million. This 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 other project is Bridges and Bulkhead for $958,000. The stormwater fund is 4.3% of the category. Established in 2013, it's supported by a non-ad valorem assessment. On 6.24, 26 council approved moving from a flat rate residential assessment methodology to a five-tier structure. As you can see, it starts off with less than $2,500 square feet in tier one. $2,501 to $5,000 square feet in tier two. $5,001 to $7,500 in tier three. And then tier four, $7,501 to $10,000. And then, of course, tier five greater than $10,000 square feet. The stormwater assessment fee, the current recommendation or the recommendation at the meeting on 6.24, we're not voting on that in this meeting, that's going to be on the next agenda. But the recommendation for the city engineer was to increase the fee from $4.56 per year, you per month, $54.74 per year, you per year, to $10.42 per year, you per month, or $125 per year, you per year. The stormwater budget for fiscal year 27 is approximately $4.9 million. This is an increase of 58.8% or $1.8 million. The increase is primarily in the area of capital projects, but there are increases in personnel as well. There is an increase of, the budget for personnel is $1.9 million. It's an increase of 6.5% or $122,000. This increase is related to 3% increases, and then, of course, medical and pension increases. The operating budget totals $892,000. This is an increase of 14.1% or $110,000, approximately. The increase is in the area of communication, supplies uniforms, permit fees, R&M vehicles, debris removal, and fuel. The stormwater capital budget totals $2 million for fiscal year 27. This is an increase of 370.6% or $1.6 million. There are four projects in there this year. There is the citywide waterway restoration plan, the basin tree drainage improvements, basin 2 drainage improvements, and plantation park roadway drainage improvements as well. The city's recommendations to adopt a preliminary maximum millage rates and assessments as follows. City of plantation proposed millage rate 5.7000 mills. This requires four votes from council. The Gateway Development District proposed millage of 1.7108 mills requires four votes from council. The Midtown Development District proposed rate of 0.9707 mills requires four votes from council. And then the voted debt millage of 0.2637 mills requires three votes from council. We'd also like to establish date, time, and location for the forced public budget hearing, which we're scheduling for September 9, 2026 at 5.30 p.m. in city council chambers. The budget calendar for now, on August 4th, we're required to submit the preliminary millage rate and assessments to the property appraiser to include on the trim notice. September 9th, we have the forced public budget hearing to adopt the tentative millage rates and the tentative budgets, which, again, is at 5.30 p.m. in city council chambers. September 14th, we have the final hearing scheduled for the stormwater non-advalarm assessment. That's at 6 p.m. in city council chambers. And I would like to remind everyone that is a Monday, not a typical Wednesday. And then on September 16th, we have the second public budget hearing to adopt the final millage rates and the final budgets, 5.30 p.m. city council chambers. Wonderful. Thank you, Ms. Otaniano. All right, council members, I'll turn it over for questions. Council member Fadgen. Thank you, Council President Horland. I got questions about the slides, and then you want me to go into my questions for the other things? Or do I want to? Otaniano, the opportunity to get through the slides. So go ahead. No, that's fine. But I also have, you just want me to do my whole request and questions and whatever. Okay. Let's see here. Slide 3 and slide 4. Let's see if I can go. Slide 3. Okay. So $84,855,637 for the estimate at Advil RM. On slide 4, the next slide. Oh, sorry. $85,155,000. Why was there a difference? So the number here is based on the levy. So for the levy, the levy is going to generate that amount of money. But on slide 4, we have an extra $300,000 budgeted for delinquent. Okay. All right. The other question, not really a question, but a statement regarding the enterprise funds, the three enterprise funds, and particularly the utilities. I kind of just want to get it out, so people can hear this, so they kind of understand government accounting. If I can find the slides. Sorry. Oh, here we are. So slide like 24. However, the utilities budget is completely funded by the monthly water bills that they collect, impact fees, and then grants that they get them. So not coming from the general fund, not going to be affected by the property taxes. This is a self-sustained, responsibly-run utility. It's just as if it's a business. Correct. I want to kind of point out the same thing for the golf course, the $10 million, all based on the green fees and the restaurant fees, that it's a self-sustained thing. And I'm proud about the golf courses that the general fund has not subsidized the golf course. And that's a huge feather in my cap. And, like, when I talk to other elected officials in other cities, I like to brag about that one because it could easily be heavily subsidized by the city. So I'm proud that we properly maintain that. I should have started with, thank you for your presentation. You're welcome. Well, just a little bit of trivia knowledge for you regarding the golf course. When I first became the director, which I think was about 14 years ago or 12 years ago, somewhere around there, the golf course, I was asked to do an analysis on the golf course. And we projected that in 2022 or 2020, we were going to have to be supporting. The general fund was going to have to be supporting it because it wasn't doing as well as they thought that they would. They had a huge debt service. But that really, it never evolved. It never came true because they do very well. They do a good job. And I always look at the history of when that golf course opened is that there was a right-sizing in golf courses in the area. A lot of golf courses got developed into neighborhoods and stuff like that. So we kind of got lightning in a bottle when we opened up that golf course. So, but I just want to point out that, you know, so people don't feel like their property taxes are going to support a recreational activity. I like that when I go play there and I pay my fees that my neighbors not help me pay. Okay. So, thank you for the presentation. It's always very thorough. I know how much work's involved in giving us this information and coming up with a thoughtful presentation for the max millage. So, I know that we're setting the max millage, which we are, which is what we're going to send to the property appraiser, which will go out in the trim notices. So, this is not us setting the millage rates and the non-advalorum. It's just so they can publicly notify. We have to get it done by a certain date. Otherwise, we have to pay for the public notice. Exactly. Yeah. So, I'm going to go through the different millage rates that we have, and I'm going to put out my comments on there. And my numbers are pretty close to you. I always go off the memos, and it's just rolling off the memos that you give us. I'm sure yours is off the amended budget at the end, so your denominator is probably better than my denominator. So, we budget at 96% for advalorum revenues. Right. So, the midtown millage rate, 0.9707, is going to generate an increase of revenue of about $79,000, 3.489% increase for the prior year. It also represents a $898,000 revenue increase since fiscal year 2021, which is 61.98%. We haven't touched that millage rate since fiscal year 2018, when it was 1. Right now, it's 0.9707. So, I would like to request that if we could present the numbers that would show reducing that millage so that the increase in revenue is 3% or less. So, if you could bring that to us at the next one, I would like to have a consideration of reducing that millage to that. Gateway. Keeping the millage the same increases the revenue about $162,000, which is about a 19% increase year over year. That's a $441,000 increase since fiscal year 2021, which is a 77% increase. We lowered it last year, fiscal year 2025. We also lowered it in 2024. Before that was 2020-19. The business owners and the commercial property owners have invested through their tax dollars, and we should give them relief, in my opinion. So, my request for that would be, I would really like to reduce it by three quarters to have the year over increase in revenue at 5%. So, by my calculation, that would be 1.51, changing the millage from the current, where is it, 1.7108 to 1.510 to get to a 5% increase. And, at a minimum, do a 10%, just so that there's a 10% year over year. The tax base is improved because of all the work we've done out there. But, the early adopters, some of the businesses, some of the property owners who have been there for the last 20-plus years, they've been carrying that load, and they deserve a break. We have, we've built up the tax base for them to actually get relief. So, if we could present that to us at the next, when we actually set the millage. And then, the operating millage. Keeping the millage at 5.7, the revenue increase is about 2.5 million year over year, which is about 3%. The increase since fiscal year 2021 in revenue was about $28 million, which is now a 49.95% increase in revenue since that period. And, I believe this is what Tallahassee is talking to all the municipalities in the state and the government, the county governments, is that, you know, we've been saying that keeping the millage the same is not raising your taxes, but then with the, how quickly our property taxes go up, you know, we are pulling in a lot of money. Now, don't take my comments saying that I don't feel like we're very efficient, that I'm saying this is a comment on that we are not efficient with how we utilize our tax dollars. You know, I do believe we are efficient with it. We're thoughtful with it. I've made this comment in the past regarding our budgets and such. But, you know, that's a huge number. I don't think there's too many households that had a 49.95% increase in their household incomes. So, with the homestead property tax referendum on the ballot in November that we all are aware of and been talking about, and if that doesn't pass, the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission scheduled to meet in 2027. You know, the state has suggested but hasn't defined that they're going to backfill some of our budgets, but they haven't told us what it would be. I think it would be in our best interest to do a rollback this year so that the following year, when we might be asking the state for more appropriations, that we can show that we heard their message and we're working in good faith. And I think that this would be the time to actually start that thoughtful process of reducing our potential revenue. So, I would like to see the rollback numbers when we set the millage. So, I've said this before, these increases are the result of the residents, the business community, and our commercial property owners, and the stakeholders in our city. That's what's making this place thrive, and I really want to give them some relief, and that's all my comments for now. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Fadgen. I'm going to jump in just on one thing that you said there. Typically, you and I agree on a lot, but this is always the meeting where we disagree on the millage rate. So far as backfilling the budget, that was one proposal that had been out there, and the state is having a trust fund. That was taken off the table. I understand that. So, I do not – if you want to clarify the comment. Well, what I was saying is at one point they were talking about there would be a backfill mechanism, but they didn't define it. So, that doesn't mean that they're not going to, but I'm just saying that we want to present that we are doing what they're asking of us. That's what my comment is. Okay. So, I'm just going to make a couple of comments about that. I just want to remind my colleagues that once you lower the millage rate, restoring it becomes much harder, and Florida's recent legislation significantly restricts local government's ability to increase millage above the rollback rate. So, you know, and potentially, my feeling is we should not permanently reduce recurring revenue sorts until we know what Florida voters decide in November. I think to do so would be irresponsible. If Amendment 3 fails, we can revisit a millage reduction next year with much greater certainty, although I do believe with the Tax Reform Committee meeting, and I believe that's in February, we may still – if Amendment 3 were to fail, we may see further reform coming our way. And if it passes, we'll be grateful we reserved some recurring revenues. Plantation has significant long-term capital obligations. Unlike many operating expenses, infrastructure costs do not decline. So, while we have seen significant gains over the years, residents have also benefited from years of taxable value growth without large millage increases. As I said earlier, I've been visiting a lot of the cities, and I've sat through some of their budget presentations. And when I look at this, and you start to compare to other cities, city of Plantation, out of 31 municipalities, our millage rate is at number 20. And we have – we raised – lowered it last year, but it has remained stable since 2018. I mentioned earlier that I had been in Parkland, and Parkland went through an exercise. They were also very proud of the fact that while we've had eight years of stable or lowered millage rate, there were six years I did inform them we had beat them. But they went through an exercise where they took a look at what CFO Angolia had been requiring when they were going out to Doge City municipalities or counties. And they went ahead and did the indexing from 2020. And my numbers may be a little off of yours, but taking it from what our numbers have been. If you take a look from 2020 through 2025, using 2020 as the base, our overall increase is 33.91 percent in our general fund. Parkland was very proud of themselves that they were 37 percent, and we were even lower than that. And they're very fiscally responsible, as the city of Plantation is. That comes out to an average annual growth rate in our general fund of 5.98 percent per year, which I think when we take a look at the capital costs that we've gone through, and listen, I'm paying 50 cents more a gallon of gas than I was a week ago. Those costs have also gone up for the city. So, again, I really want to be careful here until we know what happens in November. But I cannot stress enough that the legislature has made it significantly more difficult for us to raise a millage rate once we go back to that rollback rate. So, I want to let my colleagues weigh in on that, but I do want to get that out there. Thanks, Ms. Otaniano. Thank you. Council members, Council Member Andrea. Again, thank you, Ms. Otaniano and team. I know it's a team effort for a wonderful presentation. It is. I am sympathetic as well to the state of the economy and everything that our residents are facing in terms of, as Council Member Horland said, you know, the price of gas and groceries and everything that is happening in our current economy. But we do have too many moving parts currently right now to do a rollback. So, I believe we should approve the recommendations that you're proffering, all four of them that you are proffering, which is to really maintain our current millage rates. So, that is my recommendation. I concur with you. Thank you, Council Member Andrea. Council Member Weinstein. So, at this point, well, first, thank you again for the presentation. I also appreciate the slides. It's very helpful to see it in that summary fashion as well. I do look forward to seeing the numbers requested by Council Member Fadgen, although we're here tonight to set the maximum, not to set the millage rate. And I do understand that it is much harder to go back up once you've reduced it. So, at this point, I can't see us, at least for this meeting and for this purpose of setting the proposed maximum millage rate to move our numbers. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Conklin, would you like to – I'm going to turn it over to public comment. You signed up to speak. Yes. Sure. Council Member Fadgen, go ahead, and then Mr. Conklin. And I want to be clear, I'm not proposing to reduce these millages now. No, I understand that. I understand the process, so – No, I understand that. But this is usually where we have that conversation. A hundred percent. Thank you for that. Good evening, Mr. Conklin. How are you tonight? Dennis Conklin, 4581 Northwest Sixth Court. And just to be clear, Mr. – That may most protect you and your families. Thank you, Mr. Conklin. And just to be clear, we've got legislative items 1, 2, and 3 setting those millage rates. So, if you'd like to offer a comment on those. Yes, I would – and please hang on to these for item 20. I'm here always at this time of the year to request a rollback for the city rate. That's item 3, I believe. And for the Gateway 7, since the creation of the CRA in 2000 for 30 years, we still have three more years left – fiscal years left, I guess you could say. I've asked that after the third year when the CRA TIF exceeded by leaps and bounds the millage rate, that the millage rate be nilled for the district because they already pay the city tax just like everybody else for their property. So, it's not like they're getting away without paying property tax. So, I'm requesting that. If you look at the combination of the CRA and the Gateway 7, there's over $10 million in there. It's gone up and it's gone down a little bit, but it's gone up and up and up. So, good grief. Let's zero that millage rate out. And, again, I always request for the rollback, which means for the city rate, you would get the same number of dollars this year that you got – I mean, in the coming year, excuse me – that you got this year. And I'm going to speak to the mountain of money. Once plantation wound up sitting on over $100 million, I started keeping track of it. You've got the chart there. It's only done this in the last, what, eight years there, nine years there, okay? You're sitting on over $380 million of cash and treasuries and stuff like this. I've been warning you about the treasuries. Nobody is buying them. We are buying them back. We are going deeper and deeper into debt because nobody wants our money. The dollar isn't worth spit since we went off the gold standard. I hate to say it. When my parents were growing up, they took gold away from them. When I was growing up, they took us off the gold standard. They took away silver from our coins. Thirty seconds, Mr. Conklin. Okay. And now my kids are growing up. They're taking copper away. So they're taking away the three godly forms of money. You look in the Bible, gold, silver, copper. They've taken it all away from us, and they've stuffed us full of Federal Reserve notes. So you've got to get rid of the – Thank you, Mr. Conklin. Thank you. I'll yield back. All right. We'll see you in a little bit. Thank you very much. Is there any other public comment on setting the millage rate? All right. Public comment is closed. We're going to move to – I don't see any other comments from Council. We're going to move to legislative item number one, a resolution to adopt the proposed maximum millage rate of the Plantation Midtown Development District for fiscal year 2027. Mr. Ezra, would you like to read that summary, please? You do not need to read that. All right. Then do we have a motion? Motion to approve item one. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Ms. Beggar, please call the roll. Should we say the actual point? Should we say the – yes, because it's not in the resolution. I just realized that. Do you want to state – Ms. Otaniano, you want to put this slide back up, please? I just looked at that, and it's not in the resolution. It's in the resolution. Is it? It's in number one, but I just was wondering, should we state it for the record? I apologize. It is. Council Member Reynstein, would you state it for the record, please? The first line of the title refers to a millage rate of 0.9707. Sounds like Mr. Ezra got it. Thank you. And your seconds. Okay. Ms. Beggar, I'll please call the roll. Council Member Andreu? Yes. Council Member Fadgen? No. Council Member Reynstein? Yes. Council Member Anderson? Yes. Council Member Horland? Yes. Thank you, Ms. Beggar. Item number two, a resolution to adopt the proposed maximum millage rate for the Plantation Gateway Development District for fiscal year 2027, and it's a maximum millage rate of 1.7108. Do we have a motion? Motion to approve. Great. Do we have a second? Second. Ms. Beggar, please call the roll. Council Member Andreu? Yes. Council Member Fadgen? No. Council Member Reynstein? Yes. Council Member Anderson? Yes. Council Member Horland? Yes. Thank you, Ms. Beggar. Item number three is a resolution to adopt the proposed maximum millage rates for the City of Plantation Operating Budget and Voted Debt Service for fiscal year 2027. For the record, the maximum millage rate for the operating budget is 5.7 mills, and the voted debt service millage rate is 0.2637. Do I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second? I'll second. Ms. Beggar, please call the roll. Council Member Andreu? Yes. Council Member Fadgen? No. Council Member Reynstein? Yes. Council Member Anderson? Yes. Council Member Horland? Yes. Thank you, Council Members and Ms. Otaniano and your staff. Thank you so much for everything. All right, and with that, it is now 6.02. The millage meeting is adjourned, and we will be back at 6.30.