Board of County Commissioners on 2026-06-16 9:00 AM

6th regular BOCC. If you will please stand for the invocation and for the Pledge of Allegiance, and Chaplain Henley will give us the invocation. Good morning. I would invite you all to pray with me. Heavenly Father, when we consider all that you have made, we are in awe of you. As we work together today for the common good, thank you that you hear and answer our prayer. We welcome your presence here this morning. Give us clear minds and peaceful hearts, and lead us always in the path of your wisdom. And I ask this prayer in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the United States. We're not doing the presentation. We're doing the other one first, I think. Okay, we are moving to presentations and recognition. I guess we will start with Stacey. Yes. Well, good morning. Can you hear me, Amber? Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. I'd like to introduce Congressman Franklin. Thank you for not only representing us, but taking your time and being here with us today. So, Congressman. Good morning, and thank you, everyone. It is really my honor this morning to be here to present Clerk Butterfield, the Board of County Commissioners, and the dedicated staffs on their receiving of three very prestigious awards from the Government Finance Officers Association. The GFOA sets the national standard for governmental accounting, budgeting, and financial reporting. Receiving these awards demonstrates a sustained commitment to excellence in public service. As County Comptroller, Clerk Butterfield and her team play a critical role in providing the oversight, transparency, and accountability residents expect and deserve from their local government. Today, we're recognizing the Clerk's Office with two awards. First, for the 45th consecutive year, which, think about that for a second, 45 years, the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for Polk County's Annual Comprehensive Financial Assessment, Financial Report. Additionally, for the 24th consecutive year, the Award for Outstanding Achievement in Popular Annual Financial Reporting. This account, or this report called the PAFR, it's basically the Reader's Digest version that goes out to constituents to explain the bigger report that gives residents a clear understanding of how Polk County manages public funds and supports the county's services. And finally, the Board of County Commissioners and Budget Staff are receiving the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the 34th consecutive year. So, by earning all three of these recognitions, Polk County has once again earned the prestigious Triple Crown Award, a distinction that reflects excellence in financial reporting, budgeting, and governmental transparency. So, I've always believed that awards like these are nice. It's great to receive the accolades. What's really important is the things behind these awards, the things that drive those. So, that's really what Polk County residents should be most proud of. In a time where the public has so much distrust in government, and some of that is deserved, some of it's not fully deserved, accountability and transparency are more critical than ever. It's important to note that applying for this recognition in these awards is voluntary. Clerk doesn't have to do this. The last thing she and her team needs is just more busy work to get things done. But that's not what this is about. This recognition by a national group of peers says Polk County is not only doing it right, it's among the very best of the very best throughout the entire country. So, congratulations to Clerk Butterfield, the Board, and all the staff members whose hard work and commitment to responsible stewardship make these achievements possible. It's my honor and privilege to represent you all in Washington, but most importantly today as your constituent, I thank you for the hard work that you do every single day on our behalf. So, congratulations on a job well done. Thank you. Thank you. Well, thank you so very much, Congressman Franklin and Clerk Butterfield, for recognizing these important achievements today. I'm proud of the teams behind this work. These awards reflect professionalism, dedication, and collaboration that help keep Polk County financially strong accountable. Managing public funds is a major responsibility, and our teams work hard every day to provide transparent and trustworthy financial information to our residents. While these reviews are voluntary, I want to make that clear, it's voluntary, we continue to participate because accountability and public trust matter. These recognitions show public counties' commitment to meeting the highest standard in governmental financial reporting and budgeting. Receiving the Triple Crown Award makes me feel like we're at the horse races, right? The Triple Crown Award is an outstanding achievement, and it speaks to the quality that is done through our teams. We congratulate every single one that took part of this, and I especially, in the name of the board, I especially want to say thank you so much, team, for going out of your way to make sure that we are not only fiscally responsible, but also transparent. And that is obvious by the awards that we've gotten today. So thank you so very much. Thank you, Commissioner Santiago and Congressman Franklin. Thank you again for joining us here today. These awards are meaningful to us, even though they're in the county. Thank you, Terry, as we mentioned, because they do show our commitment to that accountability, transparency, and stewardship of the county's funds. And while it has been numerous years, consecutive years, which I'm proud of, it's not mean that each year is just a give me. We actually submit our application, and when the application comes back, they have comments, and there's things that occasionally we do have to change and work on, but it's not something that is just routine as it is being reviewed. So we continue to exceed those high standards. We're proud of that. The reports, this, as I remind all of you, is the annual financial report, and it helps you sleep at night, but it has this really great statistical section in the back that's very helpful. We have these posted online, and then we also have, as Congress mentioned, our popular annual financial report. But this is just a Reader's Digest version of where does the money come from and where does it go? Earning these takes teamwork. It's not about just one group of people. It's a collaboration between the clerk's office, the board's budget management, and the board's overall management, as well as our external auditors. So we want to recognize, or I want to recognize the teams that work hard to produce these reports for our citizens and apply for it. So with your budget and management team services director, if you all would just stand as I call your name and the rest I'll do in just a moment. We have Christia Johnson, who is here with us. We have our comptroller division lead, which is Tandra Lee-Milson. She is actually away in training this week. And then from our external audit team, I don't know if Lance was able to join us this morning. In addition, I have many other team members that are here. If you're here from the clerk and comptroller's office, would you please stand up as well as the budget management office to be recognized? Look at this. Every single day, all year long. So thank you to the board for your continued partnership and our fantastic working relationship. It only benefits the citizens of Polk County. Before I go, though, I do want to say that we have a few copies of the reports in the back for anyone that would like one to pick it up today and then contact our office. We can send you a hard copy if you would like. So, again, Congressman Franklin, it's an honor to have you with us today to present these awards. And thank you again for your service for us. We appreciate everything you do. All right. So, teams, come on up. We want to get a picture with the congressman. If we stay up there, yeah, let's stay up there and then they can go ahead and get involved. Okay. We'll be right there. There's our bookends, our tall bookends. I'll try to get them. Christia hasn't slept in months. Wow. Come on. Skittle? Yep. I'm in an aisle. That's okay. Thank you, Leif. So hold me up along the way, would you? Yeah. All right. All right. Everyone ready? Three, one. All right. That one didn't make a sound. Must be. Now we go down. Let's give them one more. Yeah. Good. Now we will resume with employees recognition. Good morning, commissioners, staff, and visitors. I'm Caitlin Hoverkamp, Public and Media Relations Officer for Polk County Government. Today we are recognizing four employees for their service to Polk County. I'd like to invite the employees to come to the front as their names are called. And then if the honorees will remain at the front while the commissioners return to the dais behind them, we'll take a group photo at the end. Alicia Glasscock has worked for the Polk County Parks and Natural Resources Division for 20 years. In 2006, she joined the division as a recreation coordinator before being promoted to her current role as a recreation program manager with the division. Alicia obtained her bachelor's degree in travel and tourism planning from the University of Florida. Alicia is also a graduate of the county's succession management development program class of 2026. In her spare time, Alicia enjoys hiking in the mountains, being outdoors, reading, and spending as much time as she can with family and friends. Catherine Coburn has worked for the Polk County Court Services Division for 25 years. Catherine began her career with the division as a pre-trial receptionist. Throughout her time with the division, she has also served as a pre-trial interviewer and then a pre-trial investigator before being promoted to her current position as a pre-trial interviewer supervisor, which she has held for the past 20 years. Catherine is a certified Florida Crime Information Center agency coordinator, a certified judicial information system coordinator, and a criminal justice information services administrator for the division. In 2019, she was recognized as the Polk County Court Services Division employee of the quarter twice. In her spare time, Catherine enjoys fishing, bowling, camping, and spending time with her husband, Johnny, her daughter, Kayla, her son, Trey, and her beautiful granddaughter. In the future, she looks forward to retiring, traveling, and spending as much time as she can with her family. Paula Vassar, a 25-year employee with Polk County Court Services, unfortunately could not be here today. He will be recognized at an upcoming meeting. Mark Pilon has worked for the Polk County Fire Rescue Division for 25 years. Throughout his time with the Polk County Fire Rescue, Mark has held a variety of positions, including serving as a firefighter and a driver engineer, before being promoted to his current position serving as a fire training captain. Mark obtained his bachelor's degree in fire science from Eastern Kentucky University. He is also a member of High Point Church in Lake Wales. In his spare time, Mark enjoys golfing, fishing, and spending time with his wife, Cindy, their two daughters, Peyton and Paige, and their son, Will. In the future, he looks forward to watching his children grow in their careers. Jay Jarvis has worked for the Polk County Roads and Drainage Division for 35 years. He began working for the division as an Engineer 1 and held a variety of roles, including Engineer 2, Engineer 3, Drainage Engineer, and Drainage Manager, before promoting to his current role serving as the Polk County Roads and Drainage Division Director in 2012. Jay obtained his bachelor's degree in civil engineering from the West Virginia Institute of Technology. He has held a registered professional engineer within the state of Florida for the past 26 years and currently serves as a member of the American Public Works Association and as a member of the Florida Engineering Society. In 2022, Jay received the Polk County Transportation Organization's Bob the Builder Award and he was awarded the Urban Engineer of the Year Award from the Florida Association of County Engineers and Road Superintendents. In his spare time, he enjoys golfing, fishing, going on cruises, attending amateur and professional sporting events, and spending time with his wife, Roxanne, his son, Josh, his daughter, Julia, and his grandson, Raiden. In the future, Jay looks forward to continuing working for the county and to spend as much time as he can with his family traveling and hanging out at their lake house. Madam Chair, while everybody's getting situated, 130 years of service to the public here in Polk County. Not so fast, Jay. In honor of Jay's 35 years here at Polk County, we decided that we hadn't embarrassed him enough, so we're going to ask that his family come up so we can get some photos. Then we will bring up his staff, and then we're going to get all the directors up there with him too. Thank you. We need staff. Do you need us? Yeah. Oh, okay. If you want it, it's in the picture. Can you give us a cue? Nope, you're in awe. Jay asked that everybody be in the photos. Come on, come on. I'm going to get next to her up. Jay, are you going to put this on your dart board? Oh yeah, they're loving that, ain't they, Jay? They're not a husband. They're not a husband. They're not a husband. Or no. Hey Jay, anybody working today? No. Okay. All the accolades. Call in now, you're going to get the interim machine. Okay. In the blue. Yeah. Just a job. I don't think they get close. Yeah. Hey. I mean, the ropes out there like. Yeah, that's great. Y'all, y'all going to have to, some of y'all going to have to get. You guys are going to have to go in the front. Yeah, where are they going to go? Holy moly. I have to go in two rows. Two rows. Call us in the back, please. That's the hotel. Let's see how they get up. Hi, how are you? Thank you. I hope everything's okay out there in the public sector right now. Yeah, they do. Yeah. Come in tight. Hello, Neil. Hello. Thank you, Neil. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Neil. If you can't see me, I can't see you. I can't see you. Hey, that's it. Come on, come on, all you wonderful people. Join the celebration. Are we getting in here by height? It's going to be a short name. A little shorter. We'll have to figure out some. That was crazy. That's good. And he'll say that the other deal was just a dog and pony show. That could not be true. We'll give a couple of minutes for those that are leaving. If you would do so very quickly so we could continue with our meeting, that would be great. Thank you so much. I've seen you. I know. That's okay. We'd have been okay if it weren't for Jay. At this time, we will go to public comments concerning agenda items. Amber, do we have any? No, ma'am. We do not. Thank you. And now we turn it over to Ms. Stacey. All right. Good morning again. Thank you. Today we have for you to approve and ratify payroll checks numbers 0,4661 through 0,4679 and the amount of $17,555. We have 3,085 direct deposits in the amount of $4,886,919.55 and those are dated June 12, 2026. We have wire and electronic fund transfers that are $108,036,820.06. Those are dated June 2nd through June 15th of 2026. And we have invoice checks numbered 506396 through 507296 totaling $18,070,720.66. Those are dated June 2nd through June 15th of 2026. For you to approve and ratify, please. Madam Chair, motion for approval. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We also request the approval of your minutes of your regular board meeting that was held on June 2nd, 2026, please. Motion for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Anything else? That's all I have for today. Well, you're very proud to receive, what is it, a triple crown? Triple crown. That's awesome. Thank you. Congratulations again to you and to your teams. I appreciate it. We will move on now to the approval of the consent agenda. Motion. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And we move on to elected official, and I think that would be, there you go, there you go. Come on up. Well, good morning, Honorable Madam Chair and County Commissioners. It's a privilege for me to be here with you this morning. Uh, I have been in this role now for 16 months as a supervisor of elections for Polk County and serving the citizens, and it's been an honor and a privilege for me to do that. But right off the bat, we had congressional map changes. As you know, the governor just changed, uh, or just signed the bill into effect. So we are now having to do redistricting on congressional maps only. Uh, so this is a procedural, uh, change as a result of the, uh, recent congressional redistricting. And these changes will impact around 150,000 voters here in Polk County. Uh, as you just saw, uh, Congressman, uh, Franklin, uh, he will take the majority now of Polk County, but then it will be divided into three other congressional seats. Uh, per Florida law, our office must send out voter registration ID cards every two years before the election, which you probably just received your voter registration card. We have to redo them now, and it's going to cost the citizens of Polk County $136,000. We have to do it every two years. And now that we've gotten the new, so on your, uh, agenda there, it says no physical impact. There is a physical impact. This must be done for list maintenance purpose. And this requires to inactivate any voter that has, um, has returned mail. And we have about 108,000 citizens that we, um, have inactivated on our list, our roles. So I, I've spoken to Commissioner Braswell and told him around 51,000, but we've been very busy at work here the last two weeks and we're up to 108,000 now. Uh, before redistricting, we had 172 precincts, uh, as a result of redistricting, we now have seven precincts that were added. And as you can see the numbers, it's 258, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, and 553. One precinct was removed, which was 129. And so now we have a total of 178 precincts here in Polk County. I've given you a map in front of you, uh, that you can see the old congressional, the new congressional maps and the new precincts. I got a question. Okay. Any questions from Ms. Bell? Yes. So Webster's out and Lee are out? Correct. Completely. Correct. And is, uh, 16, is that, who's that? Is that Stuby? No, it's, um, it's an open seat. Oh, okay. And nine was what? Was Soto, but it's Shannon. Yes. If you can't in that, and he's leaving. So that's open seat. Oh, okay. And that will take, as you can see, it will take in the Southern part, Fort Meade, Frost up in that area. Okay. All right. Yes. We need a motion. Any other questions from Ms. Bell? Okay. So this is an approval item. All right. So. Move to approve. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion or questions? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I appreciate your support as a commission, and I appreciate you serving, because I've been there. Thank you very much. Appreciate you. What'd you do? Okay. Now we will turn it over to County Attorney, Mr. Mink. Okay. County Manager, Mr. Beasley. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, members of the viewing audience. The manager's office will have four items for board consideration this morning. First item, item G1. Could I ask Mr. Scott Lowry to come to this podium on my right, please? He's got some of his family here with him. Madam Chair, members of the board, item number G1 is to request the board to confirm the appointment of Mr. Scott Lowry to serve as the next director of the county's real estate services division. The Polk County Charter specifies that the county manager's appointment of executive service employees is subject to confirmation by the board of county commissioners. After a comprehensive internal review, I have appointed Mr. Scott Lowry to the position of director of Polk County real estate services division, effective Monday, August the 10th, 2026. Mr. Lowry has served Polk County since 2009 and currently serves as the support manager for the real estate services division. In this role, he manages division operations, assists with multimillion dollar capital improvement program budgets, coordinates complex real estate acquisition projects, and provides leadership and guidance to the related staff members. Prior to his current position, Mr. Lowry served as the senior right-of-way agent and as a right-of-way agent one and two, where he managed right-of-way acquisition activities, reviewed legal documentation, coordinated public hearing items, and negotiated property acquisitions for county infrastructure projects. Before joining Polk County, he spent more than a decade in the title and settlement services industry managing office operations, personnel, closings, title examinations, and financial administration. Mr. Lowry earned a bachelor of science degree in economics from the Kansas State University and earned his certified public manager designation from the Florida State University. He has also served on several local advisory and regulatory boards, demonstrating a strong commitment to public service and community engagement. The real estate services division director position is an authorized position in the adopted FY25-26 budget, and the existing appropriations are sufficient to cover the negotiated base salary of $132,017 and employment benefits of approximately $37,188. So, Madam Chair and members of the board, it is an honor to recommend to this board and to request this board to confirm my appointment of Mr. Scott Lowry to serve as the next real estate services division director, effective Monday, August 10, 2026. Scott, please. Yeah, thank you, Bill, and thank you, board. It's an honor and a privilege to be selected for this position. I want to thank my family. My daughter's here with me today. I just found out this morning she got out of jury duty to be here, so I'm questioning her motive. But I am glad she's here. My lovely wife, who's with me today and always appreciate her support and encouragement. The staff at real estate services are, I'm told, the best staff ever, is what they tell me. But I want to take a moment to thank and acknowledge my predecessor, Wade. I've been here 17 and a half years, worked for and with him that entire time. He's been a great teacher, mentor, and a friend. And basically, he has molded this division into a group that has a reputation for getting things done efficiently and effectively and correctly. And I look forward to continuing that mission. And again, I thank you. Thank you for your service and for stepping into this place. You've got big shoes to follow. But I know that you're going to do just as good or probably even better. Right, Wade? There you go. So, anyway, anybody with a comment or a suggestion? We do need a motion, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, a motion for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion, questions? Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. Scott, I've known you and known Wade for a long time. And you all do a great job there in that division. And like you said, Wade has always done this county an outstanding job with you being there and helping. And you couldn't ask for, you know, anybody better to be with. And you've got some big shoes to fill. But I know you can do that very easily. So, appreciate it very much. Anybody else? Okay, hearing none, we have a motion and a second. No further question or discussion. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. Thank you again. Yeah. Madam Chair, members of the board, the next item is the heavy lift of the day. And I would say it's a project that's been a long time in the making. Item number G2 is to request the board to approve a construction contract with the Junior Davis Construction Company in connection with the Thompson Nursery Road Extension Project Phase 1, Segment 1 Project. Today's board contract authorization will reflect an expense not to exceed $33,523,440.79. Polk County has completed the public process to solicit bids from qualified contractors for the construction of the Thompson Nursery Road Phase 1, Segment 1 Extension Project. The Phase 1, Segment 1 Project limits begin at State Road 540 or Winter Lake Road and US 27 and extend approximately 1.9 miles to the southeast ending south of Rifle Range Road, County Road 655 and Eloise Loop Road. The scope of the work includes, but is not limited to, roadway construction, drainage improvements, pedestrian features, roadway signage, pavement markings, traffic signal installation, and maintenance of traffic. The project is intended to enhance multimodal mobility along the new roadway with accommodation for pedestrian and bicyclists, as well as provided bridges over the Juanita Farms drainage canal. Intersections have been designed to improve safety and enhance traffic operations. The new roadway will include curb and gutter features and a stormwater collection system to improve drainage conditions. Bid number 25-420 was issued and seven contractors submitted a bid, the lowest responsible bid being submitted by the Junior Davis Construction Company in the amount of $33,273,440.79. A recommendation of award was issued and no protests were received. In accordance with resolution number 13066, $250,000 is included in the proposed contract award to address mostly allowance work conditions and possible contingency conditions. The contract time for this project has been set at 1,033 calendar days for final completion. The Phase 1, Segment 1 portion of the project is partially funded with $3,276,934 of local agency program funds provided by the Florida Department of Transportation. As such, the Florida Department of Transportation has reviewed the proposed project construction documents and has provided approval for the county to enter into a construction contract with the apparent low bidder. The Thompson Nursery Road Phase 1, Segment 1 project is an approved project in the Board's adopted community investment program and funding is budgeted in the Special Revenue Grant Fund and the Impact Fee Zone A Fund within the five-year community investment program. So, Madam Chair, members of the Board, I think consistent with the Board's priority commitments to roadway capacity improvement projects, especially the long-standing plan improvements along Thompson Nursery Road, I would request the Board approve a construction contract with the Junior Davis Construction Company in the amount not to exceed $33,523,440.79 for bid number 25-420, all in connection with the Thompson Nursery Road Extension Phase 1, Segment 1 of the project. Motion for approval? I have a motion and a second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair, members of the Board, item G3 is a related item as it does relate to the same project, just another component or phase of the project. Item G3 is to request the Board to approve Amendment No. 4 to the existing professional services agreement with Kimberly Horne and Associates for all anticipated professional engineering and design services in connection with the Thompson Nursery Road Phase 2 Roadway Widening Project. Today's Board action will reflect an existing contract amendment not to exceed $3,453,821.68. Polk County entered into an agreement with Kimberly Horne in June of 2022 to provide professional engineering services for the Thompson Nursery Road Widening and Extension Project in the amount of $5,088,870.83. The proposed four-lane urban collector roadway will extend from U.S. 17 at State Road 540 Winter Lake Road to U.S. 27 at Thompson Nursery Road. The limits of each phase and segment are as follows, moving from west to east and totals approximately seven miles of roadway construction. I might say, Madam Chair, members of the board, members of our viewing audience, I think the Thompson Nursery Road Initiative is probably the most complicated project and logistically challenging project that the county has ever undertaken in light of how this project is being phased. Phase 1, segment 1, consists of State Road, begins at State Road 540, Winter Lake Road at U.S. 17, and proceeds east to County Road 655, Rifle Range Road at Eloise Loop Road. Phase 2, segment 2, excuse me, phase 1, segment 2, begins at County Road 655, Rifle Range Road, and proceeds east at Eloise Loop Road all the way east to the CSX Railroad right-of-way. Phase 1, segment 3 of the project, begins from east of the CSX Railroad right-of-way and proceeds to Eloise Loop Road. Phase 1, segment 4 of the project, begins at Eloise Loop Road to West Ruby Lake Drive at Thompson Nursery Road. And the final phase, phase 2 of the project, begins along Thompson Nursery Road at West Lake Ruby Road and ends at the intersection of U.S. 27. Those initial professional services included final design, permitting, right-of-way acquisition support, and construction bidding assistance for Phase 1, segments 1, 3, and 4, the PD&E alignment study for Phase 1, segment 2, and options to include the final design efforts for Phase 1, segment 2, and the PD&E alignment studies with final design for the entire Phase 2 project component. In August of 2023, Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $1,092,550.64 was approved by the board to allow Kimley-Horn to modify the project scope to add the PD&E study for Phase 2 of the project. The study evaluated the new four-lane divided roadway following the existing alignment of Thompson Nursery along a center, left, and right spatial positions. In May of 2025, the board approved the recommended alignment, which resulted in a combination of all three alternatives evaluated. In August of 2024, Amendment 2 was approved for additional design services necessary to relocate the City of Eagle Lakes utilities as part of the Phase 1, segment 1, construction project in an amount not to exceed $73,805.18, of which the city has provided full reimbursement. In July of 2025, the board approved the recommended alignment for Phase 1, segment 2 portion of the project and the PD&E study effort for that component of the project has been completed. In January of 2026, Amendment 3 was authorized for Kimley-Horn to provide final engineering design, permitting services, right-of-way acquisition support, and bidding assistance for the Phase 1, segment 2 portion of the project. This proposed Amendment No. 4 is to support the final Phase 2 component of the project by providing final design and engineering services, right-of-way acquisition support efforts, and bidding support services for the previously approved Phase 2 alignment study in an amount not to exceed $3,453,821.68. The combined negotiated professional service fees, inclusive of proposed Amendment No. 4, now totals $13,828,742.63 for all phases and segments of the proposed Thompson Nursery Road widening project. The Thompson Nursery Road Phase 2 portion of the project is an approved project within the board's adopted FY25-26 five-year community investment program. Funding for these professional services is available and budgeted within the roads and drainage five-year community investment program. So, Madam Chair, members of the board, in keeping with the board's priority commitments to roadway capacity projects, here again, the longstanding commitments to those planned Thompson Nursery Road improvements, I would request the board approve Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 2022-041 with Kembley Horne & Associates in the amount not to exceed $3,453,821.68 in connection with the Thompson Nursery Road Phase 2 roadway widening project. Madam Chair, motion for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Final item, Madam Chair, members of the board, item number G4 is to request the board to approve a construction manager at risk guaranteed maximum price addendum with Miller Construction Management Incorporated in connection with the Calusa Lake Fire Rescue Station in an amount not to exceed $6,390,171.95. In addition to the proposed construction contract action, board action today will include approval of a community investment program amendment and budget transfer from the Emergency Medical Millage Fund Reserves in the amount of $1,693,204. In July of 2021, the board authorized staff to negotiate construction manager at risk agreements with Miller Construction Management to provide pre-construction and construction services for a maximum of four fire stations. The projects include building the new fire stations using Polk County's current fire rescue station prototype design. Miller Construction Management has since completed construction of the Watkin Roads Fire Rescue Station in 2024 and is currently providing construction services at the Bradley Junction Fire Rescue Station. Pre-construction services are now complete for the Calusa Lake Fire Rescue Station and Miller Construction has provided a guaranteed maximum price to construct this station. In accordance with resolution number 13066, $250,000 is included in the proposed guaranteed maximum price to address allowance and contingency work conditions. The total contract time for this project has been set at 365 calendar days for final completion. The Calusa Lake Fire Rescue Station project budget was initially set at $5,300,000. After considering related project expenses and encumbrances in the amount of $603,032, the available construction fund balance totals $4,696,968. As such, a community investment program amendment and a budget transfer from the emergency medical millage fund reserved for future capital in the amount of $1,693,204 is necessary to fund the remaining portion of the project. So, Madam Chair, members of the Board, I think in keeping with the Board's highest priority commitments to Polk's public safety mission, I would request the Board to approve construction manager at risk 2025-066 guaranteed maximum price addendum with Miller Construction Management in connection with the Calusa Lake Fire Rescue Station in an amount not to exceed $6,390,171.95. I'd also request the Board approve the requisite community investment program amendment and budget transfer as noted in the amount not to exceed $1,693,204. Motion for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion or question? Commissioner Scott? I just want to say we talked about this in our Friday agenda briefing, but not only is the expansion of our fire stations important for the safety of our community, but when we look at the cost of cost escalations, and we're talking about the very first one of these we built being less than $4 million, now we're over $6 million, so while it's definitely a lot of money, it's less now than what we'd have to spend in the future for sure, and it provides the additional safety for our residents. I think it's important to recognize that, and this is our prototype fire station that was a prototype that now is, I want to say industry leading as far as safety for our firefighters and the men and women that use it every day, so that just adds off to the county for, I think, looking from a program perspective of implementing this successfully, and not only to manage how we spend our money, but how efficient and effective we are with it as well, so that's all. Madam Chair, if I might add to that, this is about the ninth station that we built in the last six years. We have made a huge dent in that infrastructure need. And we've committed to 12. 12, yeah, 12 to, 12 fire stations and maybe one or two more emergency medical services stations, so about 13 to 15 facilities, and we've, we've done, we've already done nine of them. Absolutely. Yeah, and you know, and where we were at, you know, five years ago, eight years ago, 10 years ago, and some of the stations that we had, they got the job done. Hotel rooms. We had employees in hotel rooms. They're in a camper. Yeah. That's true. Camper in Lake Hills. Yeah. Yeah, but good job. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any other questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. That's it for me, Madam Chair. Thank you. We'll go on to the Commissioner's report. Ms. Commissioner Troutman? Nothing at this time. Commissioner Wilson? Yes, ma'am. I had talked with Randy the other day, but I think it's time to raise our burn band. Yes, sir, and I spoke to the fire chief yesterday. Everything seems to be good, unless there's some substantial change today. I think the plan is to repeal it tomorrow, and that will go out. So, unless there's a substantial change in the forecast, the plan would be that we repeal it tomorrow. Anything else? Nope, that's it. Thank you. Commissioner Braswell? I don't have any. Commissioner Wilson? I mean, Scott? Yes, ma'am. Just a reminder to our residents that, you know, hurricane season is upon us. There's that invest that's out near the Texas and the Gulf of America. So, certainly take your time in preparing so that we're not scrambling at the last minute and trying to find resources, water, canned goods, shelter. Special needs-wise, Polk County is very, very forward-thinking when it comes to shelters. Also, for those that have special needs, reach out to our emergency management folks. They'll direct you. But please don't wait until the last minute to figure out what those plans are. That's the worst thing you can do. So, just a friendly reminder. Hopefully, everybody takes time to plan, and we'll be safe if and when we need to. Commissioner Scott, if you recall, on today's agenda, it actually extended the authorization for the county manager to adjust the rates so individuals could bring yard waste to the landfill in preparation of possible hurricanes. That's good. It was June 30th, right? Yes, sir. So, that's extended to June 30th. Yep. So, definitely any resident that has debris that they don't want to pile up the curb, it's too much to meet the requirements for us to pick up, take it to the landfill, discounted rates until June 30th. So, I highly recommend that as well. Yes, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. And I have nothing also, so let's go on straight to the expedited hearings. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before we do the expedited hearings, I will go over the public hearing general procedures. I remind everyone, if you wish to speak on any of the public hearing items, that you need to fill out a speaker card in the back and give that card to a member of the communications staff. We ask that you please turn off your cell phones and other devices that may distract from the public hearings. Please adjust the microphone and state your full name and address. For the record, before you begin speaking on topic, individuals speaking during public comment section of a matter will be strictly limited to three minutes. The board is experienced in these matters and is able to discern what is legally relevant to an issue and what is not information that is relevant and repetitive only serves to frustrate and necessarily prolong the day's business. The commission expects civility at all times during all public hearings, speaking out of turn, shouting out from the audience. Disrespectful sounds or utterances while another is speaking are unacceptable and you will be asked to relieve the chamber's remainder of the day. If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the board with respect to any matter considered here today, you will need a record of the proceedings and that for such purposes, you may need to ensure that a verbatim record for the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, which you must gather at your own expense. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony today must be sworn in. All testimony given to public hearings shall be deemed to be sworn. At this time, if you're going to address the commission or speak on any case today, please stand, raise your right hand, and answer out loud to the following questions. And this is for the land use cases. Do you swear or affirm the testimony or evidence you provide to the commission today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Madam Chair, at this time, I'll go over the expedited hearing procedures. Expedited hearings are held pursuant to resolution number 2022-089. Expedited hearings are used when no opposition was present at the Planning Commission hearing. The applicant agrees to the expedited hearing, and recommendation of the Development Review Committee is for approval. Expedited procedures are the following. After staff briefly introduces the case, the hearing will be open for public comment. If anyone speaks or in public comment, the applicant will be given the opportunity to respond. At the public comment, the board will consider the land use case. At any time, full presentation of staff can be requested from a commissioner, the applicant, or a member of the public. All documents attached to the agenda item are deemed part of the record of the land use case. Unless removed from the list of experts by motion of the board, all individuals on the list of experts attach to the agenda item are deemed experts for the purpose of the land use case. At this time, Madam Chair, I'll turn it over to Mr. Ziskell to present the expedited hearings. Thank you, Mr. Mink. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, and members of the public. My name is Ben Ziskell. I'm the Land Development Director with Polk County. There are 12 items on the expedited public hearing portion of today's agenda. Item number N1 is an expedited public hearing for case LDC-PAL 2026-1 OC text to consider a text amendment to the comprehensive plan related to the office center land use designation. The office center land use designation is one of the least, if not the least, intense commercial districts within the Polk County land use plan. And in response to the rapid growth that we have seen in the residential market over the last five years, there certainly is a demand for increased professional and personal services, which fit nicely into the office center land use designation. However, the location criteria and the manner in which an office center is located is outdated, and this text amendment provides new parameters by revising the location and population support needed to designate a piece of land to the office center designation. This item did appear before the Planning Commission and received unanimous recommendation of approval. It also did appear before this board for transmittal was transmitted to the Florida Department of Commerce and received no comments or objections. So today this is back before you as an adoption hearing, and following any questions or comments, staff recommends adoption. Any questions? Yes. Ben, so it's the least impactful. I would agree with that. How do we police this going forward in the future? We approve it. Offices go in. Five years later, something happens. They abandon them. And next thing you know, something much more impactful goes in there. Do we have an enforcement mechanism other than code enforcement, or how does that work? Well, within the land use designation, there is corresponding text in the land development code that specifically prescribes what type of uses can go on on the office center designation. So while it says office, it actually is more, what we're seeing more of is personal services. So everything from a barber or a nail salon fits into the office center designation. But certainly the provisions of the land development code, when a business turns over, it would be governed by the land development code and the list of uses that are in the use table. It seems like one of the businesses that's turning out to be one of the most obnoxious things in the county is where these guys go into these plazas and turn them into speaker installation places where they think they can blast their music 24 hours a day. Is there a way, would this, that would have to be in that list to be able to go into one of these? Right, that use would have to be specified, and I'd have to look at the business operations as whether that would be considered a retail business or an automotive-type business, depending on what exactly they're doing and if they're using tools on a vehicle. But certainly the use would have to be listed in the use table, and then, of course, they would be subject to any noise regulations or light regulations that exist elsewhere in the code. All right, thanks. Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, do we have a motion and a second? Madam Chair, I think we need to open public. Oh, we haven't? Oh, that's right, public. Thank you. Open for public hearing. Amber, do we have any? No, ma'am, we do not. Okay, and then I close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Motion for approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any question, discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair, item number N2 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCT 2026-2, Office Center Consistency, to consider an amendment to the Land Development Code to implement new regulations regarding office centers. This text amendment will implement the previous item that was just approved. As I mentioned, it's a two-pronged process for the allowable uses in these districts. The first is the comprehensive plan, and then this item is the Land Development Code. Particularly related to uses within the office center, this amendment does make a change to the text that currently requires all uses in the office center receive Planning Commission approval. This amendment would, again, defer back to the use table and allow low-intensity uses to be done through an administrative approval. It also does add funeral home and related facilities to the allowable uses, as well as sit-down restaurants and leisure and special interest schools. So, again, it is a companion item to item number N1. This item did appear before the Planning Commission, and you received unanimous recommendation of approval. It did appear before you on first reading. However, no action was taken at that time. Now, with item N1 approved, we are able to approve this item, and following any questions or comments, staff recommends approval. Any questions for staff? Okay. Hearing none. Amber, do we have any? No, ma'am. We do not. Okay. Then I've opened the public hearing by addressing Amber, and now I close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions in discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair, item number N3 is an expedited public hearing for case LDC-PAS 2025-36, Highway 540A, OCX-CPA, to consider a future land use designation map change from residential suburban to office center. So, this is the third part of this package of approvals. We do have a property on the north side of 540A, just to the west of US Highway 98, that wishes to seek a designation change from residential suburban to office center. Along 540A, the residential uses that exist tend to be either churches or small, low-intensity personal care services or offices. The subject site is adjacent to an existing religious institution. The applicant is seeking a map change to office center per the new regulations just adopted via item N1 and N2. This item did appear before the Planning Commission and received unanimous recommendation of approval. And following any questions or comments today, staff recommends approval. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, Amber, do we have anyone signed up? No, ma'am, we do not. Okay, then I open and close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Motion for approval. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Commissioner Scott? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I've been just to confirm, this was near or on the same property as a church now. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Yes, it is directly adjacent to a church. The church actually wraps around the property on the east and north side. Right, okay. I just want to make sure I was thinking of the same one. Thank you. Any other question, discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair, item number N4 is an expedited public hearing for case LDC PAS 2026-3 Sumner North Cozart Road CPA to consider a future land use map designation change from business park center to industrial on approximately 25.8 acres. You can see the site located on the screen here is along Highway 37 south of the city of Mulberry. It is currently surrounded by industrial land uses on its east, west, and south boundaries. It sort of serves as a little peninsula dipping into the industrial area, and the request, as seen on the bottom right, is to change the designation to industrial to match the adjacent properties. The Planning Commission reviewed this and unanimously recommended approval. This is an adoption hearing, and following any questions or comments from the public or the board, staff recommends adoption. Any questions or comments? Okay, hearing none. Open up for public hearing. Amber, do we have anyone? No, ma'am. We do not. Okay, thank you. I close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Madam Chair, motion. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any question, discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair, items number N5, N6, and N7 are all very similar in nature. About a year ago, the board reviewed a land use recommendation or request from a property owner to change a piece of land from phosphate mining to agricultural rural residential. And at that time, the board directed staff to look at properties within the phosphate mining land use category that were in a similar situation And to bring amendments before the board proactively so that property owners did not have to endure the cost or the time in changing their land use designation. So items N5, N6, and N7 all accomplish that and are very, very similar. Item number N5 is an expedited public hearing for case LDC-PAS 2025-12, Keller Road, PM to ARR, CPA, to consider a future land use map designation change from phosphate mining to agricultural residential rural on 19.47 acres. You can see the subject site here is to the east of the city of Fort Meade along Keller Road. In looking at the map on the top, you can see a pocket or a sort of an area of agricultural rural residential that exists completely surrounded by phosphate mining land. The subject site is in a red rectangle here. The request is to change that site to agricultural rural residential. It includes a total of nine parcels occupying 19.48 acres. All sites have been developed with residential dwelling. They were developed as residential uses in the 60s and 70s. They have never been owned or used for the mining operation. And staff recommends changing these nine parcels to the agricultural rural residential designation. This item did appear before the Planning Commission and received unanimous recommendation of approval. And following any questions or comments for the board or the public, staff recommends approval. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, I'll open it for public hearing. Amber, do we have anyone? No, ma'am, we do not. We close public hearing and we bring it back to the board. Motion for approval. I have a motion and a second. Any question, discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair, item number N6 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCPAS 2025-13, Mount Pisgah Road, PM to ARR-CPA to consider a future land use map designation change from phosphate mining to agricultural residential rural on approximately two acres. Similar to item number N5, the site is located near the city of Fort Meade. You can see on the top picture here, there is a pocket of agricultural rural residential directly adjacent to phosphate mining. The phosphate mining designation currently includes our subject site, which is two parcels over two acres. The recommendation is to change that designation to ARR to match the adjacent properties to the west. Likewise, as the previous case, the site has been developed with residential buildings from the 1960s and 70s, has never been owned or operated as a mining operation. The item did appear before the Planning Commission and received unanimous recommendation of approval, and following any questions or comments for the board or the public, staff recommends approval. Any question for staff? Commissioner Brasswell? We're doing three of these because each group of parcels is owned by a different owner? I mean, why not just clump them all into one? They're geographically separated, so for purposes of advertising and creating the legal description to advertise for the public hearing, we separated them into three separate pockets because they are geographically spaced out. Okay, thanks. Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, I'll open it up for public hearing. Amber, do we have anyone? No, ma'am, we do not. Thank you. We close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Ready for approval? Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Item number N7 is an expedited public hearing for case LDC-PAS-2026-4, Fort Grove CPA, to consider a future land use map designation from phosphate mining to agricultural residential rural on approximately 39 acres. This site is also south of the city of Fort Meade, a little further south than our previous two cases. Looking at the screen here, you can see that there is agricultural rural residential to the north of our site, surrounded by phosphate mining on the east, west, and south. The property in this case contains eight parcels over 39 acres. These particular properties are not developed in the same pattern of 1960s and 70s homes. They are vacant parcels. However, they have never been owned by a mine or part of a mine plan. So, considering the charge from the board to change these to ARR, staff recommends approval of this item. This did appear before the Planning Commission and also received a unanimous recommendation of approval. So, following any questions or comments from the board or the public, staff recommends approval. Any questions for staff? Yes. Then, does this kind of wrap it up or are there still a lot out there? We're still looking at them. We're still trying to investigate. There are a lot of phosphate mining properties. We think we've got a good handle on it, but we're continuing to identify them as we see them. Commissioner Troutman? That was going to be my comment. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. We open the public hearing. Amber, do we have anybody? No, ma'am. We do not. Okay. We close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to the board. I have a motion and a second. Any additional questions or comments? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair, item number N8 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCT 2026-3 recreation use amendments to consider an amendment to the Land Development Code's Chapter 3 conditional uses for high-intensity recreation facilities allowing access via easement for firearm ranges. This is a text amendment that I brought before you two weeks ago. Firearm ranges or gun ranges are low-intensity uses as it relates to traffic, and they are intended to be located in more urban and rural settings as opposed to urban settings. So some of the proposals we see are located on un-maintained or easements or roads that are not dedicated to the public, and there's been an interest in allowing them to locate it on easements. This text amendment would allow a facility to locate on an easement with several conditions. First, that the easement be at least 20 feet in width, that it not exceed a half a mile, and that the firearm ranges serve no more than 50 daily attendees. This item did appear before the Planning Commission received unanimous recommendation of approval. I presented it to you two weeks ago on first reading with no action required, and it is now before you on its adoption hearing. Following any questions or comments, we recommend approval. Any questions or comments? Commissioner Scott? Just to confirm, so it's the allowance of using an easement to get to the range, but the range itself would still be on an owned parcel for the recreational activity, correct? The easement itself is only for access to it. Right. The easement is to allow an easement to access a gun range. Right, but the gun range itself would be on a parcel that's owned. This isn't just opening up an easement for the range itself to be located on. The parcel would be a privately owned parcel and a lot owned by a private entity, but rather than have a requirement that that parcel be located on a public right-of-way up to current public right-of-way standards, it would allow an easement to access that private parcel. Correct. Thank you. I just want to clarify that. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other questions? Is that? Okay. Hearing none, I'll open it up for a public hearing. Amber, do we have anyone? No, ma'am. We do not. Thank you. I close public hearing, and I'll bring it back to the board. Motion for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. An additional question or discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair, item number N9 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCT 2026-8, ATMs and vending machines, to consider an amendment to the Land Development Code to provide standards and definitions for freestanding vending machines and ATMs. Currently, the Land Development Code is silent on these types of facilities or types of equipment. However, we are seeing an increase in the desire of companies to locate these within shopping center parking lots. In particular, the banking industry, as in-person banking has declined, we are seeing an increase in the desire for banks to locate ATMs in shopping center parking lots. However, absent this code amendment, we do not have standards to be able to guide development as to where to put them, what the setbacks might be, or more importantly, provisions for them to remove these facilities should they no longer be needed and prevent from becoming an eyesore. So this item did appear before the Planning Commission and received recommendation of approval. I presented it to you two weeks ago on first reading where no action was taken, and we are back today for the adoption. And following any questions or comments, staff recommends approval. Any questions for staff? Yes, Commissioner Troutman. Mr. Ziskel, what would be the process that the residents would go through should they feel that one of these has become inoperable? Certainly reach out via a complaint. Reach out to either land development staff or code enforcement staff for us to look at and to investigate. Our presumption is that with company names, in particular on the bank side, if one becomes inoperable, we believe it would be in the bank's best interest to remove it and remove their lettering and their wording and their equipment. So we are hopeful that if one does cease operations that it would be removed proactively. But if there is a complaint, we can certainly look into it in partnership land development, and code enforcement will investigate the matter. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Scott? I'm sure. Just also more of a long-term thinking. One is on the ice machine vending. Do we have regulations already for the type of water supply that that is required? Like it has to be a municipal supply or can it be a well supply? Is that already defined, or we don't have clarity on that? That I do not know. That would be through the permitting process. I'd have to defer to the building department or the health department. It doesn't DP. Yeah. The health department, I think, approves those. Emergency water. Okay, gotcha. I believe there's an approval process of that. And I guess where I was going with that is in the event that it does become inoperable and it's decommissioned and removed, do we have to have specific language to confirm that the utility is abandoned properly so you're not having any infrastructure issues on the water utility? Just not necessarily affecting what we have in front of us today, but I don't know if we need to develop more clarity. I do believe we probably have regulations in our utility code. All in the same thing. Yes, sir. I think we would have enough there to, if it surprised me, we wouldn't have something that we could incite someone for. Okay. Just want to make sure we didn't have an issue long term in the middle of the shop. I think we have something in our structural maintenance ordinance and stuff that would also maybe address it, too. Perfect. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, we'll open it up for public hearing. Amber, do we have anyone? No, ma'am. We do not. Okay. We close public hearing and bring it back to the board. Madam Chair, motion for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair, item number N10 is an expedited public hearing for case LDC-PAL-2026-5, ILE duplex and sewer text amendment CPA, to consider a text amendment to the comprehensive plan which would allow septic tanks for duplexes in the residential low portion of Indian Lake Estates. Indian Lake Estates is a community that has special provisions within the comprehensive plan, and currently the area which is depicted in orange that has a residential low land use designation does not allow for duplexes and does not allow for those duplexes to be connected to a septic tank. It does require connection to public sewer. This amendment would allow this orange area to be developed with duplexes and would allow duplexes to share a septic tank. So it would provide that for each lot there could be one septic tank that is shared amongst the two residential units containing the duplex. This is similar to but different than an item that was brought before this board about a year ago. There has been interest in developing in Indian Lake Estates. However, with the lack of sewer infrastructure, development is significantly hampered. The amendment that was before you a year ago included allowing duplexes in areas outside of the residential low, in particular the office center portion of Indian Lake Estates. This does not allow that. This limits it to the residential low and, again, requires that the two units not have separate septic tanks but share a septic tank on each of the duplex sites. This item is a companion to an item that is following, which will be implemented through the Land Development Code. The item before you today for N10 is a comp plan text amendment, which does require review by the Florida Department of Commerce. So this item is a transmittal hearing. The Planning Commission reviewed it and unanimously recommended approval. And following any questions or comments, staff recommends approval to transmit this to Florida Commerce. Any questions? Commissioner Braswell. I guess I thought everything out there was on septic, but there is sewer available? No, there is not. But the regulations require in order to do a duplex or to build a duplex, you have to have sewer. So they're at a sort of a quagmire that you can build, but you need the sewer, but the sewer doesn't exist. And does any, is Tamara here? Do we have any idea how far we'd have to run a sewer? Long way. Miles? Ten miles plus. Yeah, okay. All right. Long way is close enough for me. Yeah. All right. Thanks. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Hearing none, we open it for public hearing. Amber, do we have anybody? No, ma'am. We do not. Okay, close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. It's a transmittal. You still have to have a motion, yes. Move for approval. Okay, so who was the first? I'm sorry. Was it you? Braswell. Braswell. Who's the second? Second. Okay, second. All right. Now we have a first and a second. Any additional questions or comments? Commissioner Scott? Madam Chair, I know this will come up in N11, but just for clarity that allowing this will require the duplex to remain under one ownership. You would not be able to separate and sell half of a duplex and therefore have an issue on maintaining the septic. And I know we talk about N11, but we need to mention that for this one as well. All right. So I have a first and a second. Any other additional questions? No. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair, item number N11 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCT 2026-12 ILE, Land Development Code Duplex, and Use Table text change. And again, this is the implementation portion of the Indian Lake Estates sewer and duplex item. This is the amendment to the Land Development Code. It is a companion item to item N10. While the comp plan item was transmitted via the last vote, this is a first reading, so no action is required on this amendment today. And I will be bringing this back to you for adoption at the time we bring back the comprehensive plan text amendment. Any question for staff? Hearing none, I open it for public hearing. Amber, do we have anyone signed up? No, ma'am. We do not. Okay. We close the public hearing, and since this is first reading, we'll wait for two weeks for that. Okay. N12? And finally, item number N12 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCT 2026-14, Polk City Spa LCC text amendment. This is a request to remove a footnote within the Land Development Code that applies to one parcel within the Polk City Spa and one parcel countywide. That footnote does not allow the expansion of an LCC within the Polk City Spa. However, the rest of the county allows the expansion of LCCs with certain criteria. And looking at the map and looking at what that means, it means it applies to this one parcel located right here. As you can see, there is LCC completely surrounding this parcel on the south and the west, but the Polk City Spa boundary actually includes it. And so it is subject to this footnote that does not allow it to expand. And what the elimination of the footnote would do is it would allow this particular district to expand either to the north or to the east should either of those properties seek to develop. The property to the north is part of a large church property and contains substantial stormwater management facilities, large retention ponds. However, this property to the east is a viable candidate for commercial development and there is an applicant or a potential purchaser who wishes to develop that with a use consistent with the Land Development or with the LCC. So they were seeking a change via a map amendment, but this footnote prevented us from processing that. So removing this footnote will allow that applicant to seek approval of a land use change. This item is before you today on first reading. So no action is required. And I'll bring this back to you in two weeks for your consideration of adoption. Any questions for staff? I mean, then I'll open it up for public hearing. Amber, do we have anyone signed up? No, ma'am, we do not. And I close public hearing and bring it back. Oh, it's a first reading. So we'll wait two weeks. And that, Madam Chair, that concludes the expedited portion. Land development does have one regular public hearing item. Good morning. Sorry for the long pause. Shonda Bennett with the Land Development Division. This is a request for the Board to consider a small-scale conference plan amendment and adoption for LDCPA-S 2026-7. It's a future land use map amendment for 8.59 acres from Business Park Center to Industrial. The parcel is on Rucker Highway just south of the city of Auburndale. Auburndale, you can see a location map there at the bottom in the middle of the screen. The northern map is what the land uses look in the surrounding area. You can see the majority of it is Business Park Center or the city of Auburndale. And then if it was approved, the lower right map displays what it would look like if approved. The area is in the Transit Supportive Development area. There were, the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the requested amendment. It is also adjacent to a railroad on the east side of it. So you've got Rucker Highway on the west and then a railroad on the east. There are some vacant and industrial higher-intensity uses surrounding the property within the Business Park Center and in the city of Auburndale. And the staff report and ordinance and application are submitted into the record. This is my last slide. This shows a site visit slide on the bottom left standing on the property looking into the property. You can see the railroad on the back of the property here. And then an aerial photograph showing the non-residential uses and vacant parcels surrounding the property. And staff does recommend approval, and I stand for any questions. Any questions for staff? Yes, Commissioner Wilson. Correct. She heard me. Any other questions for staff? Okay. And hearing none, we open it up for public hearing. Amber, do we have anybody? No, ma'am, we do not. Okay. Then we close the public hearing, and we'll bring it back to the board. Move for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any additional question or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Next items, O2, O3, and O4 are companion items. The O2 is the only public hearing. So if someone signed up for O2, O3, or O4, they will be called when the public hearing is open for O2. O2 is a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance amended in Polk County Ordinance 2006-024. The Polk County Procurement Ordinance is amended to increase the authorized maximum amount the county manager may enter into without further board approval to $200,000. In 2015, the board adopted an ordinance to authorize the county manager to enter into agreements to purchase or procure goods that do not exceed $100,000. This increases it to $200,000. But it is required that the board approves the necessary funding and budget for the items. And the terms and conditions of the agreement are approved by the county attorney's office. It is recommended for approval. So we'll take all three of them. When you open it up, yes. We'll do starting with O2 and any public hearing. Yeah, if anyone wants to speak on O2, O3, or O4. We'll vote on each one separately. And you'll vote on them separately. Yes, ma'am. All right. So any questions for the attorney? Okay. Hearing none. Do we have anyone that has signed up for public hearing? No, ma'am. Not for any of the three. O2, O3, or O4. None of them. No one. So we'll close public hearing and bring it back to the board. So we need an approval for O2. Yes, ma'am. So moved. Second. Okay. I have an approval. A first and a second for O2. Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Then, ma'am, Chair, O3 is a resolution, a companion resolution that authorizes the county manager to sign other agreements up to the value of $200,000. Like the previous one, it requires it to be budgeted, and it requires the county attorney's office to approve the terms and conditions of those agreements, and it's recommended for approval. Okay. Move for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion or questions? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries for O3. Thank you, ma'am, Chair. And O4 is to consider a resolution, mending resolution number 2001-094, Polk County Allowance Work Policy Establishing Allowance Administrators in Providing Allowance Rates for Horizontal and Vertical Construction Allowances. The horizontal will be increased to 15% with no cap, and the vertical will be increased to 10% with a $500,000 cap, whichever is less, and it's recommended for approval. Okay. Any questions for the attorney? Hearing none, I'll need approval. Second. I have a motion. I hear a motion. I got a second. You got a second. I have a motion and a second. Any additional questions or discussion? Madam Chair, if I may. Yes. Just for some background, in case anyone watches this later on that didn't watch the agenda briefing, you know, these changes that we're making here really reflect industry increasing cost for construction, and we look at efficient operations of the county on these projects. We need the ability for our staff and the management level to be able to approve, you know, additional funds to complete these projects timely, so it reduces the impact to our residents, and so just wanted to give that as a background for these necessary changes, and quite honestly, probably long overdue based on the escalation of prices that we're seeing. And that would be 02, 03, 04. It allows the airplane to move a lot quicker and more efficient. Yes, ma'am. Any additional comments or questions? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And that's all we have at this time, Madam Chair. We move on now to the general public. Yes, ma'am. We have comments. Okay. There are six. Thank you. We will start with Kay Bork. Good morning, Commissioners. Appreciate you letting me talk this morning. Congratulations on the awards for the financial reporting and budgeting. The people of Polk County appreciate your efforts to ensure accountability and your belief that public trust matters. We thank you for that. I want to thank everyone who has contributed to the recent improvements at Polk County Animal Shelter. Captain Varnador appears committed to moving animal control forward through practical improvements, upgrades when possible, and continued engagement with citizens, resources, rescues, and advocates. He's also sought guidance from the University of Florida Shelter Medicine Program and local shelter management experts. Plus, the shelter's social media presence has also improved significantly, bringing more positive attention to the shelter and the animals and providing useful educational content. In April and May, local cat rescues, along with rescues from neighboring counties, transferred 854 cats out of the shelter. That is amazing. It's 62% of the stray cat intake during that period. It's an extraordinary effort. Unfortunately, it is not sustainable long term. As a community, we must focus on prevention rather than reaction by expanding proven strategies that reduce the number of animals entering animal control. TNVR and community cat programs, low-cost spay and neuter services, support for struggling families, including help with veterinary costs, spay and neuter costs, food, and pet supplies. Many of these programs already exist through rescues and charities in parts of the county, but they're being implemented inconsistently. They could be far more effective with revised ordinances and a centralized source of help for residents. I followed the news about the rabid cat in Lakeland, as well as the sheriff's comment that the attack shows what happens when people encourage and enable non-owned free-roaming and feral cats. I would argue that this case instead shows what can happen when a community fails to recognize that policies opposing TNVR may contribute to larger, unvaccinated stray populations, increasing risk both to animals and people. It underscores why Polk County should support rather than hinder human humane population management and vaccination efforts. I understand there are differing views on the effectiveness of TNVR. As someone who has always been more focused on dogs, I was really unaware of the challenges surrounding community cats. But after seeing how many cats the shelter takes in, I realize the issue must be addressed if we are to reduce overall shelter intake. I would submit that the current approach of catch and kill has not been effective in reducing the cat population. The data in Polk County clearly shows that the current situation is not working. For that reason, we should not cling to our current views of catch and kill if the evidence shows that they are ineffective. Instead, we should be open to a different approach. Proven TNVR methods can prevent reproduction while also creating a stronger barrier against disease transmission against wildlife, pets, and people. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next, we have Debbie Hicks. Good morning. Debbie Hicks, 236 Alderman Road, Lakeland, Florida. I want to start out saying the professionalism that I saw when I visited animal control has increased immensely. Captain Varnador has done a wonderful job implementing new procedures, and it's amazing to see. However, they are kind of lofty. I'm not too sure how many inmates they have to have to be able to get maybe 100 dogs out twice a day to feed in the other kennels and then get them. It's a little lofty. They don't have volunteers. I know there's inmates. Hopefully, it's all being, but I love the professionalism and the fact that he's changed procedures. And I want to also thank the facilities people from the county. I hope you have multiple facility people because this is a job not for one person. The fact that they pretty much gutted that south run where they have the cats now is about the only way to deal with it. They gutted it. The cages are a little small. They might want to enlarge them. I know that would be quite an expense. They're small. But when you get to that north side, when I was there, they took out all the kennels on the south side, and they couldn't get them back in properly. I'm afraid that north side is going to be even worse because you have the half concrete wall. So when they get ready to do what they're going to do with this 1988 infrastructure, it's going to be a job. And I encourage the facility people because that is a job to work on. But the improvements they've made in adding these other runs, also I want to mention the fence in between the booking center on the west side, the booking center and the animal control, that needs a new fence, and that gate is not totally shut. It needs to be fixed. I don't know about the others. But, you know, I have to tell you the things that I don't, you know, that need to be fixed. But the improvement is amazing, and I really appreciate it. And I hope volunteers get to come in at some point so that we can help get these animals out, even if it is just to be in those exercise yards out in the big area just so they can bring them out so we can sit with them and do the socializing with them. I think that's something he's thinking about doing. It would be great. I would be glad to do it. I'm not sure the sheriff will let me come, but I'd be glad to do it. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next I have, I think it's Martin Bozeman. Did I say the name correctly? Martin? I just, I'll have to, okay. I've never done this before. I'm just here because of the- Just give me your name and your address, and then you have three minutes. Martin Bozeman, 6155 South Florida Avenue. And I'm here just to give you guys praise and support for the sign ordinance. It was nice driving through the city of Bartow and not seeing all the eyesores. I feel they are an eyesore. I feel they're a safety hazard for people mowing. I think the people that put them out are not going back and picking them up. And if I was to do that, that is considered littering. I think there's some legality to it as far as there was several signs around a stop sign. If someone's to run that stop sign, who's going to be legally liable for what happens if they run that stop sign and injure somebody? There's just a lot of, there's a lot of other ways to advertise without the signs. So I'm just here in support of that ordinance. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you very much. Okay. Johanna Agende? Good morning. My name is Johanna Agende, 109 Sandburg Lane, Winter Haven, 33884. I want to congratulate as well Animal Control and the Animal Rescues. Based on the report from May, there was a 90% live release rate for dogs. And this is due to adoption, rescues pulling them from the shelter, or return to owner. And then there were also 468 cats in May that were pulled by rescue. So that's amazing. I do want to point out that these numbers are a direct result of small private rescues pulling these animals to save them. Yes, Grady receives the budgeted funds, but these small rescues, they operate on their own resources. Let's talk about animal intake. Rescues can only do so much on the back end of saving these animals. Some are even pulling dogs directly from the street, so we don't even have the data from that. So we still need your help preventing animals from entering the shelter. Take ear tip cats, for example. I know community cats aren't the favorites. They're kind of the underdogs of the rescue world. But I want to educate and urge everyone to recognize the importance for caring for them. If we can educate the public that when you see an ear tip cat, leave it alone. An ear tip cat indicates that a cat has been spayed, neutered, and vaccinated. As someone who trapped cats, it takes time, it takes effort, it takes two days, it takes money. And, you know, also for the clinic staff that performs the surgery. Someone did the hard work of TNVR already. The easy part is to just let them be. Now, if an ear tip cat does enter animal control, one solution is to turn that cat over to a rescue. The rescue can then evaluate if the animal is fit to be adopted or returned back to the field. Now, this approach takes off the responsibility of managing these ear tip cats from animal control. I think it's kind of a win. If there is a colony that has not been stabilized, of course, we promote trap, neuter, vaccinate, and return. You know, of course, affordable spay and neuter vouchers. And this will probably decrease the rabbit cat case, unfortunately. So another solution for reducing intake of animals into the shelter is reuniting lost cats and dogs to its owners while in the field. At the recent animal welfare conference, Brian Lloyd, the manager of animal control in Port St. Lucie, emphasized the need for prioritizing reunification in the field versus bringing an animal into a crowded shelter. Because of this, they have an impressive 60 to 65 return rate for dogs and cats. In contrast, our return to owner rate is less than 3% for cats and 26% for dogs since the beginning of this year. So we must do better in that sense. I do want to conclude this by requesting the establishment of an advisory board comprised of animal welfare experts. You know, animal welfare is such a big umbrella of various topics from the preventative side, the intake side, the care for them once in the shelter, animal abuse. It's such a big, big umbrella. So this group can help address these issues and work with Captain Barnard or in the sheriff. Thank you so much. Thank you. Madam Chair, may I? Ms. Ayinde. Jay, question, when you return to owner in field, can you give just a very brief description of what that means? Oh, yes. So while a dog or a cat is seen in the field, instead of taking them back into the shelter, which is already full, they can try to find the owner, perhaps by scanning. I don't know if they already scan there, but, you know, before entering the shelter, finding the owner. Okay, so they would need to be microchipped in order for that to happen otherwise. Okay. Hopefully pet regulation. Thank you. Madam Chair, if I may. Yes, yes, sir. Just a continued, you know, I guess encouragement for the community, no different. You've heard me say before, you know, when we have hurricanes or other natural disasters, you know, the community coming together is often what leads to the success of recovery or in times of dramatic need, you know, a singular entity, whether it's public or private, but can't accomplish it by itself. And so when you mentioned about the rescues pulling together and pulling a lot of the cats and dogs from Polk Animal Shelter, Polk Animal Control, we appreciate that. You know, that's one of those things that, again, as a community, we have to have that involvement. And I would encourage more and more. I know that from a Polk County staff perspective, Animal Control works every day with several of the rescues, sending photos, sending information. So the staff that's at Polk Animal Control is certainly diligent and very dedicated to finding, you know, adoption sources for the animals that are there. This Thursday, there's, I think it's Petco, it's a mega adoption that Pasco County and Polk County we're working with. And I'll be in that area. I actually had my scheduled visit to Pasco was for this Thursday. So I plan to check out the adoption event as well. But those are types of events that, again, and just the, you know, network of people that you guys have, certainly please push for that to be, you know, shared. I mean, it's easy to share information of what you don't like. And you guys do a great job of sharing information that you do like as well. I would just keep passing that positivity around because at the end of the day, you know, if we have a natural disaster and everybody wants to complain about their tree limbs aren't getting picked up, but there's still people without water or without electricity or, you know, life-sustaining needs. To me, that's more important to spread the word of, hey, this person needs it versus saying, here's my complaint. And so I think just that as a group mentality of really pushing for all of us as a community can help bring more resolve and address a lot of the topics that you guys have. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Abercrombie. Good morning. James Abercrombie for the record. 2737 Gibson and Galloway Road. There's an awful lot of praise this morning about transparency and how good a job you guys are doing. I've gave you this paperwork before. Chapter 119, Mr. Mink happens to throw that out every time he has to do with public records, that kind of stuff. I'm going to read part of it to you, the most important part. This is actually what public records is. This is definitions under Chapter 119, 011. I might have to put my glasses on for this one. But public records means all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form. Now, Mr. Mink seems to think that just us talking is not a form of public records because it's not in writing. And that's not that it's not public records. He does say it's public records. But it's not in writing, so I do not have access to it. So, characteristics or means of transmission. Made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by the agency. That's everything. This is a state law. It's based on the Constitution. It has to have a constitutional article for this to become legal, to become a law. There's a lot more to this, folks. Once again, this is a long statute. You cannot just arbitrarily deny public records based on your impression, your interpretation of it not being a public record. If it's in writing, once again, I've told you on other meetings that this is in writing one way or another. Either they got a receipt for cashing it in or they got a receipt for dumping it at the trash, yes. It is a policy of the state that all state, county, and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person. Providing access to public records is a duty of each agency. I should be walking in any office in any place in this building and ask for public records. And I don't have to have a reason why. I don't have to tell you why. I'm asking for public records. I can't go through Ms. Desiree because she can't get it. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Abercrombie. We're going to follow this. You may want to go ahead and get together with Attorney Meek to make sure that you have the correct information. Thank you. Next is Tom Palmer. Good morning. Tom Palmer, 1805-26th Street Northwest. I'm chair of Ancient Island Sierra. And I've come once again about data centers. Now there's a proposal out in the county that's kind of in the preliminary stages. It just occurs to me that you need to give the staff some breathing room to give them a chance to figure out how they're going to review these. There's nothing. It's a big gap in your land development code. I mean, you just pass something for ice machines, but you don't have anything for data centers. So, I mean, I think there's a couple issues. I mean, water is one issue, and some of that hasn't been really discussed as much. As Commissioner Braswell pointed out in a recent column, the 50,000 gallons a day that the Fort Meade one has proposed is de minimis. But what they don't talk about is the 67.2 million gallons a day that would require for a power plant for the one gigawatts of power it's going to generate. There's also issues of how does it affect the grid, coordinating with the utilities, especially during peak generation hours like freezes, heat waves, and stuff. How is that going to work? It's just things to think – there's some issues to think about, air quality from the power generation, from the diesel generators. And there's just a lot of issues. I'm not saying what you should do. It's just some things to consider so you don't end up, you know, kind of at a loss when someone comes in with some of these proposals. You really need to be ahead of the game, I think. But that's – that's just a suggestion, okay? Okay. Thank you so much, Mr. Palmer. Anybody else? Yes, ma'am. We have a late request. Okay. We have Jennifer Hardiman. I hope I said that last name right. Okay. Please come forward. Jennifer Hardiman from 218 Reyes Circle in Lakeland. Excuse me if I cry. Commissioners, years from now, no one will remember a single budget line item discussed in this chamber. They will remember whether Polk County chose complacency and excuses or whether it chose to save lives when it had the opportunity to do so. Some people in this room understand what it means to carry invisible wounds as a veteran and 9-11 Pentagon attack survivor living with PTSD. I know firsthand the healing power of a dog. My dog is not a statistic, and he is not, but he is a part of the reason I can face difficult days and keep moving forward. Tonight, somewhere in that shelter may be another dog capable of changing a life. A shelter animal can become a lifeline for a veteran struggling with PTSD or a companion for a senior living alone. Every animal lost unnecessarily is a chance lost forever. These animals rely entirely on us to speak for them. Proverbs, excuse me, Proverbs 31, 8 through 9 calls for us to open our mouths and speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. Thank you. Polk County spending is not producing the outcomes residents expect, and that must change. Animal control funding is increasing to approximately 5.8 million. Yet the county projects only modest adoption growth, while euthanasia numbers are expected to rise significantly. That's a concern of every person in this room, because behind every number is a living animal and a missed opportunity. The county is spending more money than ever, and demand continues to rise. Yet the shelter remains under strain. Polk County continues to struggle with outcomes that trail many neighboring communities. The budget acknowledges this problem, but it does not yet present a vision for solving it. Even if 1% of the county's growth funding can address these issues, then that conversation needs to happen. Public office is not only about budgets and meetings, it's about what we leave behind. Every commissioner in this room has a shared responsibility for both successes and failures of this county. Your responsibility cannot be delegated, redirected, or ignored, and the consequences of your decisions will remain. And someday, whether it is your grandchildren, your neighbors, or simply your own conscience asking the question, the answer will matter. When people come to you asking for help, what did you do? Did you look away? History remembers results, and your legacy is being written right now. Remember, the character of a community is measured not by how it treats the powerful, but how it treats the vulnerable. To quote Senator John Kennedy, you've got to try harder not to suck. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else, Amber? No, ma'am. That is it. Then I close the public hearing, and we're adjourned. No, ma'am. We're not adjourned. Okay, we're not adjourned. We'll go straight to the work session. Madam Chair, can we take about a five, ten-minute break and get situated? Absolutely. Yes, ma'am, Madam Chair. He wants to blow through this. Madam Chair, members of the board, today's discussions are pretty typical. On a normal budget year. But today's discussions are going to be broken into two parts. The first part is about Polk County Utilities and their rate analysis. And out of, I wanted Tamara Richardson to kind of introduce our guest, Murray Hamilton. When you get to see Murray, when Murray finishes, you'll know who Murray is and why Murray loves doing what he does. But the context of the utility rate study is going to be built around three concepts. One is you're going to – the sheer magnitude of the capital construction program plan for the utilities division and the costs of those capital construction elements is driving the need for consideration for additional rates adjustments to generate those revenues to pay for those improvements. The second concept you're going to hear a little bit more about is that I call it the one water concept. But it is really the concept of how we manage reclaimed water today and into the future. And that in the past, it was a disposal challenge. Now, it's really a conservation initiative. And you will see rate structures built around how we manage that. And I think the other category is that look at rate structures. We want to make sure we're equitable in terms of how the users of the system are paying for the system. And that there never has and never will be any kind of a subsidy from any other fund source to manage the Polk County Utilities Division. It is an enterprise fund. And it has been blessed to be a real solvent fund. And I think we've got some strategies that we want to share with you. At the end of the day today with this section is I would like to get head nods on the rate structure that we're proposing, the term of that rate structure. And you will see some project information. But I think that we'll talk about connection fees. We'll talk about reclaimed water rates. And we'll talk about the term of that. The other thing is what's unusual about today is in the past years we've had rate studies done about every five years. It was this board that suggested rather than wait every five years and potentially have sticker shock to adjustments that were needed, this board suggested let's do it more frequently. So we're starting to look at that on a two- and three-year horizon. This is that two-year horizon for the Utilities Division. So with that, I would like Tamara Richardson to kind of set the table that I haven't already set. Okay. Good morning. Tamara Richardson, Utilities Director. As Mr. Beasley said, we did a rate sufficiency study. It's pretty much what a sufficiency study is. It updates the rate study that we did two years ago. And we found that the rates are still in good shape. However, the construction prices over the past couple of years have been unpredictable, to say the least. We looked at 12 projects from 2024 that are still on the books now because, you know, our projects are multi-year projects just like many of the – just like all of the infrastructure groups. We have these long-term projects. So from 2024 to 2026 on these 12 projects, the prices have increased $300 million. So we – the construction costs, like I said, are best-case scenario, unpredictable. So Murray Hamilton from Raftelis, he's our rate consultant. He looked – he took a look at where we are, what our projections are operating, as well as capital projects. And he's come up with some recommendations. Also, as Mr. Beasley said, reclaimed water is no longer a disposal issue. Under the one-water concept, all we consider all water, no matter its source, equal value. And so we're suggesting some changes to our rate structure because of that. And this is the trend. In my previous life, when I worked for Claremont, we did this same type of thing 15 years ago. So this is not a new concept about looking at how we charge for reclaimed water. And reclaimed water is more expensive to produce than potable water. So we're looking at some changes to that structure. So having said that, I'd like to introduce Murray Hamilton from Raftelis, and he can give you an update about the work that he's done in working with staff to update where we are and taking a look at our rates and our connection fees. Let me frame Murray Hamilton for you. Murray and I go way back. Murray does this for a living, has done it for many years, knows Polk County utilities extremely well, and knows utility systems across central Florida extremely well. does this on a repeated basis for a number of municipal and county customers. So when it comes from Murray, it comes, we believe, with a lot of credibility in light of what our cousins are doing in other jurisdictions. And so, Murray, take it away. Thank you, Mr. Beasley. Madam Chair, Commissioners, again, for the record, my name is Murray Hamilton. I'm a vice president with Raftelis. Raftelis is a utility rate and financial management and technology consulting firm. We've got a whole laundry list of services that we provide to local governments to help them thrive. Primarily, while we're here today, you know, again, Mr. Beasley pointed out some of those concepts. First and foremost, the county commission asked us to begin reviewing rates a little bit more frequently. And so our last study concluded back in 2024. In addition, working with your utility staff and consistent with the findings of our prior study, they've identified the need to issue additional bonds in order to help continue to fund the capital improvement program. That will necessitate a plan of finance as well as a subsequent bond feasibility study. And the county will need to consider an updated rate plan in order to help facilitate those needs. Just some background in terms of recent actions that this county commission has taken in recent years. Effective on and after October 1 of 2024, this commission put in place a five-year rate plan. It approved applying the alternative water supply surcharge to both potable as well as reclaimed water irrigation. For the benefit of the residents, the alternative water supply surcharge is that mechanism that the county is using to collect funds to primarily fund your Cypress Lake water initiative and ultimately your Polk Regional Water Cooperative costs as well. The commission approved to implement a water-based charge for the Reclaimed Water Service for the very first time. You approved increasing the alternative water supply surcharge by 25 cents per 1,000 gallons of water each year through the implementation of the rate plan. You updated the water and wastewater connection fees. Again, those are the charges that new development pay to fund their proportionate share of capacity costs, as well as updating your miscellaneous utility fees. Those are the turn-on, turn-off, site visits, those kinds of things that customers request from time to time. The commission implemented a 6% annual index for both water and wastewater services through and including fiscal year 2029. We approved the issuance of $54 million in new money that went towards critical projects here over the last couple years. And then, again, lastly, this county commission has asked for more periodic updates to our rate plan. As Mr. Beasley and Ms. Richardson pointed out, what's changed? Continued impacts resulting from rapid population growth as well as regulatory requirements. These create inherent challenges in maintaining our existing as well as our planned water resources. It necessitates the improvement and expansion of facilities and infrastructure. In a couple slides, you'll see a graphical representation of the capital needs over the next decade. They total a little bit more than $1 billion with a B. Also impacting your system and the industry nationwide, significant construction cost inflation. Ms. Richardson already highlighted 12 specific projects within Polk County that were significantly impacted. What's shown here on slide four is just some of the industry-wide market-based research that we've seen nationwide. So in preparing our rate study for the county, we've developed three primary strategies in order to help offset some of the financial impacts. First and foremost, we want to ensure that new development is paying its proportionate share of those capacity-related system costs. So system costs represent the investments that the county makes in water supply and treatment, wastewater treatment and disposal, and backbone transmission. The fees exclude local and on-site water distribution and collection costs and other service-related infrastructure that the developer typically constructs at their own expense. Our study recommends aligning the water and wastewater connection fees with the current costs for new capacity. Our second strategy, as the county administrator pointed out, safeguarding utility resources. Again, that one water concept. I love what Ms. Richardson said is placing the same value regardless on the availability of the water. As an industry, we've been very focused on alternative water resources like Reclaim Water. These resources help offset the needs for potable water. The demands for water create the need to selectively price discretionary water uses to reduce waste. We're going to show you some charts a little bit later based on actual water demands that are taking place in your Reclaim Water system. And I think for some of our residents, I think for the commission, I think you may be surprised by how people are using your resource. Reducing the waste will help extend the life of current resources and facilities and will ultimately lower the near-term cost. This study recommends increasing the charges for Reclaim Water service to provide better equity among similar customer needs and to help discourage wasteful use. Our third strategy focuses on long-term improvements that will benefit future generations of customers. These are long-lived assets, and they should be funded over an extended period of time with the use of debt to help benefit the customers that are using those facilities. Our study recommends the continued index of monthly service rates in order to provide a sustainable revenue. And in the bottom-left corner of slide 7, what we're demonstrating here is that the strategy reflects a financial plan that places a strong emphasis on capital maintenance and reinvestment in your existing system, while also providing new capacity to support development in your community. So our document today is basically a briefing document approach, and I apologize. It's a little narrative-heavy on purpose. I did provide copies for your use, but I hope to keep the conversation engaging and move through this information as quickly as we can. So under Section 1, we'll review the system connection fees. Again, these are fees that are paid by new development that create demand for system capacity. They are used to help pay for growth-related facilities and major equipment, and when these programs are implemented appropriately, they help avoid growth-related costs from burdening the existing customers. When developing the fees, proposed connection fees must be reasonably equitable to all parties. They have to be based on the capital costs to provide capacity to new development and also be based on reasonable level of service standards, level of service standards being the gallons per day per capita per new customer joined in the system, both residential as well as commercial. The funds are accounted for in separate buckets, restricted funds, and they cannot be used to fund deficiencies within the system or pay for any operating expenses. In our cost methodology, we consider those investments that the county has already made, again, at that system cost level, water supply treatment, wastewater treatment, disposal and transmission, those facilities that have excess capacity to serve new growth, and then we've also considered the near-term capital program, those facilities that will be expanded to accommodate new growth. This also includes the county's investment in Polk Regional Water Cooperative to obtain alternative water resources, as well as your investment in Cypress Lake. As shown on slide 11, we have your current fees that were approved just two years ago at a total cost of $9,207 per equivalent residential connection. That's our unit of measure based on our level of service. And if the commission and residents would like to consider that as a single-family home, that would be appropriate. But these fees do apply to commercial businesses as well, as well as multifamily. Our proposed calculated cost is $11,449 per equivalent residential connection. And in order to provide new development adequate notice to incorporate these new charges into the next contracts, we're recommending a proposed implementation date of January 1, 2027. We did provide on slide 12 a comparison of current connection fees. There are a whole slew of reasons why these fees vary against other utilities in the industry. Certainly source of supply and type of treatment. We see that amongst our Polk Regional Water Cooperative members, those who are having to access larger portions of water resources through the PRWC versus those that are able to rely on their existing supply. The costs are different. Availability and access of grants, the level of service can vary slightly among different utilities. And certainly the age and size of the system are important. Within Polk County, I believe, I'm an accountant, not an engineer. I think we have six service areas. Does that sound right? Six service areas. And so that's difficult in and of itself to manage, and it's not necessarily comparable when we're looking at some of the other utility systems. Now, in our rate comparison chart, and, again, this isn't meant to be a report card, the majority of the utilities on the far right side of the slide are Polk Regional Water Cooperative utilities, and those communities are actively growing, including Polk County itself. They're heavily influenced by investments in the Polk Regional Water Cooperative, as well as in their own investments in wastewater treatment. And the county is being affected by that as well. However, on the left side of this chart, you'll pay attention to City of Bartow and the City of Lakeland, who, while they've recently updated their connection fees, you know, they have a slightly different investment in the Polk Regional Water Cooperative. Therefore, the outcome of their rates are slightly different. In Section 2 of our briefing document, we've addressed our evaluation of the Reclaim Water Service. Again, as I promised, I've got a couple charts that we'd like to share with you today, primarily focused on what I believe is discretionary water use. So on Slide 14, we have a representation here of all the classes of a Reclaim Water System, which does include bulk disposal service. You know, initially, and for many of our utilities, the primary purpose of having a Reclaim Water System is to get rid of it, get rid of the affluent. And we have a large number of bulk customers who actually help us dispose of about 20 percent of our resource, which is an important function, certainly during peak weather events. We need to have that utilization. For our residential and commercial customers, they're represented in Tiers 1, 2, 3, and 4, and we'll provide some more background as it relates to this. But you can see in Tiers 3 and 4, these are discretionary water uses that are taking place. And so we'll isolate that information here for you on a subsequent slide. Also represented in the center of Slide 14 that we have here is the current conservation pricing. I call them multipliers. You know, basically, as discretionary water demand increases for our Reclaim Water customers, the price of that water also increases. And so on Slide 15, what we've tried to do here is isolate 98 percent of the Reclaim Water customer base, which is principally made up of residential and commercial accounts. What's highlighted here is that for Reclaim Water sales occurring in Tiers 3 and 4, they comprise monthly water demands above 30,000 gallons per month. That's monthly. That's what's represented in Tiers 3 and 4 on the left side of this chart. For commercial, the volume of water represented in Tiers 3 and 4 represent water demands above 45,000 gallons per month, again per month. Based on information for the Water Management District, a typical quarter-acre lot irrigating two times per week needs about 17,000 to 19,000 gallons of water. I'd also like to highlight for you, just focusing on residential, there are over 800 bills that are rendered above 75,000 gallons a month. Now, when it comes to equity of service, I'm a strong believer that customers should pay a comparable rate for the service that they're receiving. And I view this as irrigation service, no different than potable irrigation and Reclaim Water irrigation. The current potable rate for water being used in Tiers 3 above 30,000 gallons is $11.78 per 1,000 gallons. The current Reclaim rate is $5.63. With that information, we have some recommendations for the County Commission that are going to be brought back at a public hearing, hopefully, for consideration. First of all, we'd like to align the Reclaim Water rates closer to the potable irrigation rates beginning on and after October 1 of 2026, so this is the upcoming fiscal year. Because the current rates are significantly lower, half, of the potable water charges, on paper, the charges typically double. What I would point out is that a large portion of your customer base has some flexibility to conserve. That's what those charts demonstrate, as well as some of the bill comparisons that we'll share with you. So consistent with our goal to decrease demand, we're expecting that customers will respond to the price increase and use less water, particularly that discretionary water being used in Tier 3 and 4. We believe the proposed Reclaim Water rates will provide better equity among customers with similar uses, and it will discourage waste. Beyond fiscal year 2027, we also recommend that the Reclaim Water rates will continue to be indexed concurrently with the potable rates. We have a few bill comparisons here, beginning on slide 17. And again, this isn't fully intuitive. I realize that. It typically compares one month's bill to a next month's bill. You know, again, first and foremost, I think all customers should pay a comparable rate for service. This is the primary reason we'd like to align the Reclaim Water rates with the potable irrigation rates. Secondly, as it relates to your large users, and you can see them out here, you know, depending on their conservation efforts, they may have the ability to reduce their current charges or certainly to lower their potential increase, moving anywhere between 40,000 monthly gallons per month down to 30 or even 20,000 gallons per month. So, again, there's investments that a property owner can make on their own property as it relates to updating and maintaining their irrigation system, putting in rainbird features that turn off the water in wet environments and those kinds of things. And we are optimistic that customers will make those types of investments. The commercial bill comparison is somewhat similar. Keep in mind that the amount of water tiered by rate is just slightly different. But, again, for those large users, commercial accounts, this is a three-quarter inch meter. You know, it's typically a smaller lot. And, again, as I pointed out, we have a lot of customers who are using a substantial amount of water for such a small area. And then not to fail to highlight our bulk disposal customers. Their rates will be increasing as well. We have a non-interruptible service. This is like a typical residential or commercial accounts that has pressurized reclaimed water service. And so we can't interrupt it. They have 100 percent access to that use. And then we also have a bulk reclaimed water customers that are interruptible. And you'll notice that these customers do receive a discount as it relates to the service that they receive. An interruptible bulk customer has invested on the county's behalf and put infrastructure on their site so that they can be interrupted. They've put in storage ponds and those kinds of things so that if you're going through a period of drought where reclaimed water may not be as accessible, then they can continue to manage their enterprise. Our third section of discussion relates around the revenue sufficiency analysis that Ms. Richardson was highlighting. In doing so, our primary emphasis is on the next five fiscal years through fiscal year 2031. We've developed a projection of the utility system's cash flows, looking at all the business attributes of your utility system, from customer sales and growth to operating expenses, capital requirements, the need to finance long-term obligations. We've prepared a flow of funds analysis. We've evaluated the impacts on the revenues and the system itself. And to ensure compliance with the bond resolution, rate covenants, as well as county policy as it relates to your reserve funds. On slide 23, we have a projection of your operations. This is the operating revenues compared to your operating expenses. These are the funding requirements before we consider payment on principal and interest on bonds, as well as funding of capital requirements through user rates and fees. As you can see, over our five-year forecast period, we anticipate that by fiscal year 2028, the operating expenses themselves will exceed our current revenues. Now, I'll highlight for you that a portion of those costs are purchased water capacity costs through the Polk Regional Water Cooperative and through Cypress Lake. And so, again, they are, in this respect, they're uncontrollable, right? They're coming to the county through another agency, and these are costs that the county is picking up. As it relates to the capital improvement program, in the near term, again, through fiscal year 2031, the total capital improvements are approximately $722 million. We have a funding mechanism here in place and anticipated for our forecast period. To provide about half of the revenue needs through rates, fees, charges, and grants, and the other half through the issuance of future bonds. Looking at about 7 o'clock in the bottom left-hand corner of this pie chart, you can see we still had about $32 million of existing 2024 bonds that we're utilizing this current fiscal year in 2026, again, to fund critical projects that we have. I've got a listing for you here in a second. Our first prospective bond issue is approximately $218 million that we anticipate to be issued on or about October of this year. And then we have some future long-term obligations that we anticipate as we walk through the five-year planning horizon. Our series 2026 project, again, totals approximately $218 million. This is the prospective bond issue that we anticipate may move forward on or about October of this year. Comprising almost 90% of this bond issue revolves around the Northeast wastewater treatment facility expansion and also capital maintenance, capital maintenance within the utility system. Now, as it relates to capital maintenance, our strategy here is to use bond proceeds very early in the forecast period while reducing the dependency on those bond proceeds going forward while the utility system implements water and wastewater and reclaim rates over time. So it's a strategized phasing. We also have a number of other projects that are highlighted here associated with the bond issue. And then on the following slide, we have other capital improvements that, nonetheless, I'm sure you've all heard about over the last couple years. Many of these have been readily available within the capital improvement program, and they've continued to move out in time as the cost to construct these facilities has increased. I do want to highlight that county staff is anticipating some external funds to the tune of at least $60 million over the next few years, $30 million of which is a spend share for the I-4 Ultimate project, as well as use of other grant funds and applications that the county is moving forward. So, again, a total of roughly $60 million in external funds is being applied to that capital plan. As it relates to our plan of finance, and we've worked closely with the county's clerk's office as well as the county's financing team in order to help facilitate these estimates, prospectively, we may have approximately three bond issues over the next five years, the first of which is the $218 million 2026 project that we were covering a second ago. We could also have an issue in fiscal year 2029 and 2031. We worked with the county's financial advisor, PFM, in order to provide estimated repayment schedules for these prospective bonds, and they've taken an approach to save on interest costs as well as prolonging the repayment period for these prospective obligations. Before calculating the project needs, as I pointed out earlier, we did account for roughly $33 million in construction funds related to the 2024 bond issue. And so those monies are being expended this fiscal year and will be fully utilized, necessitating the need to issue the 2026 bonds. Utility staff plan to use connection fees to help repay a portion of the expansion-related debt service, which also includes the debt service for the Polk Regional Water Cooperative obligations, those obligations that are being allocated to the county. The utility system will also continue to prioritize the use of the connection fees towards expansion-related projects within the capital improvement program as feasible. Some of our other study considerations, when developing the proposed rates, they should meet the following criteria to help meet the expectations of bondholders, as well as the rating agencies, to ensure that we fully fund the operating and capital requirements of the system over time, to maintain adequate cash reserves consistent with our policies and expectations of our bondholders, and to provide net revenues that comply with our rate covenant provided for in the bond resolution, and to provide a strong debt service coverage margin going forward. Madam Chair, we have a summary of our decision matrix here on slide 31. Again, to provide financial stability and rate covenant compliance for your utility system. First and foremost, we're asking the county commission to adopt the proposed connection fees and prioritize the use of funds, to align the reclaimed water rates with the potable irrigation rates, to extend the previously approved increases in the AWS surcharge, that was $0.25 increase per 1,000 gallons per year over the five-year period, and the annual 6% index, through and including fiscal year 2031. So to kind of restate that again, the county commission has already approved that through fiscal year 2029. We'd like the commission to extend that through fiscal year 2030, as well as fiscal year 2031. The county staff is also recommending an implementation of a septage receiving fee of $0.15 per gallon, and the septage receiving fee, if approved, would also be subject to our 6% index. We also recommend that the county commission consider approving the 2026 project to a total estimated cost of $218 million. Again, we anticipate that those bonds may be issued on or about October 1 of 2026. We have a brief summary of our projected financial results. And again, under the proposed rates, fees, and charges, if approved by the county commission, you would see that our projected revenues over the next five years would meet our projected annual expenditures. Those expenditures comprising operating expenses, capital requirements, principal and interest payments on debt. We do have a summary of some average bill impacts. I've already shared with the commission the reclaimed water comparisons. Again, those have to be slightly interpreted because I personally believe that customers have flexibility to adjust their water, their discretionary water use as it relates to reclaimed water. Our next summaries include water only, which comprises roughly 25% of your existing customers. You can see over both residential and commercial, over the five-year forecast period, this includes the 6% annual index as well as the increase in the AWS surcharge. So there are two factors impacting this water bill. The annual average increase is around 8% to 9%, so slightly higher than the 6% index when you consider the alternative water supply surcharge. The next slide comprises roughly 75% of your total customer base, again, residential and commercial. This is a water and wastewater bill comparison, so again, it's incorporating the 6% annual index as well as the AWS surcharge. And in this comparison, you can see the annual average increase per year is approximately 7%, so just slightly higher than the 6% index when considering the surcharge. Lastly, here we do have a comparison of the typical residential bill. This is a water and wastewater bill comprising 6,000 monthly gallons and how that comparison relates to utilities in your region. If approved, well, the 2027 rates have actually already been approved. Again, the commission adopted rates for 27, 28, and 29 as it relates to water and wastewater service. That adopted rate is $124.62, again, for a customer receiving 6,000 gallons of water for water and wastewater service. Madam Chair and Commissioners, our required action items include preparing the necessary notice and rate resolution for implementing the proposed rates, fees, and charges, to hold a public hearing on or about July 21, 2026, to consider a reimbursement resolution for the issuance of future bonds, and to also consider implementation of the proposed rates and fees. We also would like authorization to initiate a bond feasibility study, which would help support the issuance of the $218 million supporting the 2026 bonds. And, Madam Chair, with that, that does conclude the presentation document, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions? We'll start with Commissioner Braswell. I got a bunch, but I'll just leave it with a few. But I'll start with a statement, and that is the 15 years ago when the PRWC concept came around, I think that's where the first mistakes were made. I think the whole process has gone the wrong direction. Unfortunately, it's like you can't beat City Hall when the state decided that's the direction. There's nothing we're really going to do about that going forward. And why do I say all that? Because in – let me find it. The ultimate reason is on slide number 10, connection fee criteria, help avoid growth-related costs from burdening existing customers. This whole system, the way it's set up, the customers that have been customers for 20, 30, 40 years are going to pay an enormous increase in the cost of water because people are moving here. Basically, everybody subsidizes the water and the cost of water for everybody moving here, which that's the premise that I don't like about the PRWC. I brought this up once before, maybe twice, when the Southwest Florida Water Management District director was in the room about a two-tiered system and his answer, and I believe it's been his answer and many people like him. The reason there's not going to be a two-tiered fee system is to discourage the use of water by everybody, by charging them so much water or so much they can't afford to use it. I mean, that is the system that we're setting up here, right? I mean, when you look at a water bill of $150 a month, that's – and it's water. It's not Coca-Cola or Starbucks or something like that. It's just water. It's a huge burden on a lot of people, and it's going to become a bigger burden. And the system is set up. Like I said, the more people that move here, the more everybody that lives here has to subsidize their water. So I say all that to ask a question, and the question is, are two-tiered systems nonexistent in Florida? Is that just something nobody wants to consider? Is it too complicated for somebody to think about? And what I'm saying is, okay, you move here, your rate is this. My rate stays down here, but your rate is this. Is that just something that's just off the table? I have heard the conversations down in South Florida. Right. You know, basically, can I have a homestead for my utility? Exactly. Right? Yeah. But we're doing away with that, so. Right. So, conceptually, the legal minds, and I can't provide legal advice, but the legal minds that I have talked to about those concepts, it would be very difficult to defend. Okay. I mean, ultimately, what you pay for water is going to be more than what people are paying for property tax right now. I mean, at the rate this is going to. And what we're looking at here is, by implementing your suggestions or recommendations, we keep that straight line above the costs. But it seems, and I know we've said, let's do these rate studies more often, but it seems like the projections are kind of short-range to me. Is there a reason that we're only projecting out three or four years, just everything is just so unpredictable? Is that kind of the thought behind it? Commissioner, we typically align that with the capital planning element. And so, the county utility staff has a robust five-year capital plan, and we try to align with that. We do have a 10-year financial model, but it's significantly understated in that it doesn't capture those other capital improvement costs that would show up in year 6 through 10. It may address capital maintenance. So, it might signal the wrong expectation of what you might anticipate. Three to five years is typical. It's comparable. And if the commission approves moving forward with a bond feasibility study, that's what the bonding community and the rating agencies are going to ask for, that financial. But they'll look longer term, I would assume, the length of the bonds, right? I mean, that's what they're going to be like. Well, they typically look historically, but they're going to rely on our five-year financial forecast that's comparable in the bond market. And that's one of the reasons we're asking the commission to consider approving the rates, fees, and charges through fiscal year 31. Okay. That's the principle on that. You know, my ultimate answer is, you know, I would certainly agree or approve or whatever you want to call it what you're suggesting because – but to me, it's – we're in a position we don't really have a choice. If we can't do a split fee or tiered fee service, then everybody's got to share the pain, and, you know, that's just the way it is. But back to your – the wastewater, I'm a little – over the years, the discussion, reclaimed water. I thought that was a – almost a seasonal thing, that we had it sometimes, and sometimes – I mean, what am I thinking out there? Providence, some of that area were customers, and then we weren't able to provide it. Am I thinking of something else? Maybe, Tamara, does that ring a bell with you? Well, wastewater – reclaimed water is seasonal in that the supply is steady, but the demand varies. So, during the hot, dry months when it first starts getting warm, we do run out, and we supplement with groundwater. So, it's seasonal in that way, and so that's why we do have our interruptible users so that during those peak months when we are trying to meet the demands of our residents, we can turn their water off to supply them. But that – it's not – we – and the only time we ever have surplus is maybe if it's raining a lot. But that justifies the bringing the rate up to the potable water rate because some of the time we're supplying them on potable water, not reused water, correct? Well, that's part of it, but also, as you saw in Mr. Hamilton's slides, there is just a handful of people who are really abusing the supply and taking it away from our future customers or our current customers. So, there – because there's a handful of people who are abusing it, they are not – they are getting more than they paid for as far as, like, with connection fees. Okay. So, we're just trying to level things out, and also, it takes the – it takes – that somebody has a benefit, a benefit that they're paying less for reclaimed – for less for irrigation water because they have reclaimed versus their neighborhood, the subdivision could be right next door, pays a higher rate because they use potable. So, it kind of takes that also out of the equation. It kind of makes it a level playing field. All right. Thanks. Okay. Anybody else? Just with that discussion about the reclaimed water and understanding that we do have some abusers, I do have some concern. I mean, you're going to double the rate in six months, and that's significant. Not only – you know, the residential is the lower. They're looking at a 91 percent increase. Some of these others are looking at a 106 percent increase. But to take that on, you know, pretty much immediately in six months, I think, is kind of a hard hit. But what's your thought on that? Well, it's aligning it with the – what our potable customers already pay. So, it is aligning it. So, now, again, it's a level playing field. Yeah, I'm not worried about getting there. I'm just saying my concern is that we're getting there in the economy in which we are faced with today, that everybody – we're all aware of it. And in six months, to double that bill, I think, is, to me, an area where I just think our residents may feel the pain significantly. And it sounds like some of that y'all want them to feel the pain, but that's my concern with just that drastic of an increase that quickly. Yeah, and we do offer our residents an opportunity to work with them to reduce that bill. So, it is discretionary, and they do have an opportunity to reduce it. So, if they are paying more than they are comfortable with, we can help them reduce that bill to preserve that resource. Okay. Do you have a lot of takers in those opportunities? Oh, yes. We have a very robust conservation program. Okay. But when was it – when was it – the last time you raised this, when we talked about waiting too long and going up – two years ago? Three years ago? It was two years ago, and at that time, I wanted – we were talking about raising the reclaim rates at that time, but we had just implemented the monthly fee as well, and Mr. Hamilton was concerned, and rightly so, that if we did – doing too much at one time, so we're doing it in two separate pieces. First, we did the connection – the monthly fee, and now we're raising the rates to match the potable. Well, I mean, I'm just going back to what Becky's saying. And, I mean, two years ago, we said, man, we don't want to do this anymore, wait seven – you know, four or five years to raise the rate. It's what we've done in the past because it's sticker shock. Well, we waited two years, and now it's still sticker shock. I mean, we've doubled it. And so, I mean, it's – It's tough. Yeah. You know, I'm glad I got a whale. I'm going to tell you that. Commissioner Scott? Yeah, just a couple of things. One, going to Commissioner Braswell's point, when we talk about, you know, the connection fee criteria that says, you know, fees are paid by, and then it says, helps avoid growth-related costs from burdening existing customers, where does that particular language come from? Was that just a general understanding of what the connection fee is supposed to be doing? Because I just think, again, it implies that, you know, if I'm a resident from 1950 here, and I've, you know, I hooked up to County Water in the 70s, that, you know, I'm being protected. But truly, I have – I don't have that protection. So, I guess, why even have that? Well, there is a timing difference. I'm not going to suggest that there's not a timing difference. To get as close to that two-tiered rate structure, the best mechanism we have out there is the connection fee. It's the connection fee and all those other new developer charges because, again, that – otherwise, the existing customer is going to pay the full freight of that. So, a couple ways that that helps benefit the system. If you go back to the pie chart for the capital improvement program, I think in total we have about $100 million of the $722 million that are being funded directly with connection fees. That's step one. Otherwise, we'd have to borrow those monies and finance them long term, and they'd be paid by existing residents. In addition, what's also taking place – and I had a particular slide in here – is that county staff also pledges and uses connection fees to repay the portion of the bonds that they did have to borrow. Because, again, there's that timing difference, right? The capital costs are so great, I'm having to finance them over an extended period of time, and the ratepayers are having to step in and help meet that obligation. Well, so do the connection fees. So, the connection fees that come in, we're applying those to help lower the principal and interest payments on the bonds. And I'll point out, that also includes the Polk Regional Water Cooperative. So, the PRWC is not producing water yet. It will be producing water in the next couple years. Polk County is participating in the southeast and west Polk project. Some debt service payments associated with some design and planning SRF loans are going to become due here soon. And the county is able to apply connection fees towards the payment of those expansion-related debts. Not the operating expenses, but the expansion-related debts. So, I don't – you know, I don't want to overstate the fact that, you know, that the connection fees completely offset the burden that existing customers, you know, pick up. I'm a Florida resident. I've been a Florida resident since 1983. So, I understand our development trends. But they do provide a benefit. And that's our best mechanism to have a two-tiered system. And I guess some follow-up on that is that just from evaluating the connection fee and then looking at that more over a longer period of time, when we talk about how does that offset, meaning, you know, for projected development and the expensive water, when we look at the AWS projects that we have, you know, I don't – I haven't not been involved in this 10 years ago. I'm not sure how forward-thinking we've been, but it's just something I think, again, kind of tying back to the reclaim discussion, when you look at us looking at 10 or 15 or even 20 years out, you know, being more, I guess, proactive on trying to linearly approach these things versus kind of what looks like to me is like we're stair-stepping. You know, we have a fee increase and then we do nothing for a couple years and then we have another stair-step. And that relates to sticker shock. I'm just suggesting that whether it's connection fees, whether it's per-gallon charges, whether it's surcharges, whether it's monthly fees, that I would personally like to see us be proactively managing it to where we have this linear relation and not necessarily put a lump percent increase, but what does make sense where scientifically you're going through as a consultant and forecasting the best you can and then having it to where we are having, you know, something that makes sense. And we make adjustments over the time. Maybe that, you know, instead of a linear line, it does have some, you know, steeper slopes sometimes and some shallower slopes at other times. But, you know, overall, we're just not stair-stepping it to where you get the doubling of a reclaim rate or in the connection fee. Obviously, you don't want to double that either, but the rate payer that has had water for years doesn't want to see a significant uptick either. The other question I had, two other things. One, when we go to the proposed bonds, when we talked about at the beginning of today's conversation, you said roughly about $300 million of increased costs for the projects that remain on the books. The proposed bonds that we're getting, I didn't do the quick math, but I guess these bonds presumably have increased based on those increases by some proportionate share. Is that correct? That is accurate. Give me a quick second. In our last rate study, we had a series of prospective bond issues as well. And our initial bond issue was $54 million for new money. By the way, at the time that the bonds were issued, the county also refinanced some bonds and took advantage of some savings there, too. So I don't want to understate that we had some other activities that took place, but we got $54 million for new money for capital improvements. Beyond that, we were expecting to issue almost $200 million in additional bonds through fiscal year 2029. So now our financial forecast period has shifted a little bit. We're looking out through 2031. We have the increased costs that Ms. Richardson has highlighted for you. And so those have played into the upward pressure on those particular issuances. And that's why you're saying your first issue is approximately $218 million, followed by almost another $100 million, roughly, two to three years from now. Okay. And please. And in addition to that, there are some projects that we have delayed for several years to try to spread out those capital costs because of the increases that we're seeing, something that maybe we can wait on, like maybe more of an internal project like a training center. That's not even on the five-year capital anymore. We move those out. So just to keep the ones that we have to have for capacity or regulatory requirements. Okay. And then the last point I had was with respect to the 6% annual increase for the septic receiving based on the current $0.15 per gallon rate. Doing the math on that in 10 years, it would almost double it. So for a resident that has a 1,050-gallon tank, just the disposal cost alone in 10 years would be almost $300. So you're going to push septic dollars to be charging 1,000-plus dollars or more just to pump the tank out, which I think becomes unobtainable for a lot of residents. So I don't necessarily know, unless, I mean, if we think it's going to be costing 6% more year over year from that $0.15, which we had already said was on the higher end of average collection costs, I don't necessarily know that the 6% annual increase makes sense on the septic receiving. And like I said, if we look at it from a cost perspective, and it has to be fair enough, but it just seems fairly onerous as we go through time, you're going to get to a really unobtainable cost factor for homeowners to be able to pump their tanks. And these numbers, of course, are based on our current projections. But if we do a rate study every two years, that can go up or down, and the county manager has an opportunity to change that any time based on the current. This is just based on our current. In two years, it may not be, it doesn't look like that anymore. But right now, based on the projections that we have, that's what we need. In two years, it may not. In two years, it may be worse. I don't know. But there is flexibility. So every two years, we have an opportunity to look at this to see if it's still necessary. Yes, ma'am. Just two comments. Well, first of all, there's a lot of information here that we have to really look at and consider and kind of do our research. But, Mr. Hamilton, you started out with rates are still in good shape. So I guess I was expecting a little bit more of a presentation on how good of a shape we still are with our current rates. And two years ago to now, that seems like a short time for us to really even think about, my personal opinion. And I can understand the needs. I see the needs. But to do another increase in rates. And I'm going to talk a little bit about Braswell said because one of the things that I put down in my notes is about watering, the two-tier. Too bad we can't have a two-tier or something similar to that. Because we're going on the assumption that people will stop using so much water because of the cost. That's an assumption. We don't know that for sure. And looking at the northern states or where most of our people are coming from, I don't think a water shortage on their part is on their mind. So I think it's behavior. When they come down here, they're going to continue to use that water source because that's just how they've been living up north with the water. I said a couple of weeks ago, I said, too bad we can't have a pipe coming from Canada from the Niagara Falls all the way down here. And little did we know we were going to be talking about this specifically today. So I think it deals with behavior. And so that's always going to create a separation from those that have been here forever and have been conservative and those that are coming from other places and not being conservative with water. So that, to me, is an issue in itself. And I'm saying it just to say that because we can't deal with behaviors unless we educate the people. And that's just a whole other area of it. But, anyway, those are my comments for this. Madam Chair, Mayor. Marie, on slide 31, can you just clarify for me when you're talking about the adoption of the connection fees and then prioritize the use of those funds? I think from the discussion I got that you were having concerning Commissioner Scott's points, that's where that explanation lies. But can you just clarify that for me? Yes, that is absolutely correct, Commissioner. The prioritizing the use of those connection fees. And a few slides before, I think under the financing plan, I did highlight that, that county staff has appropriated and used connection fees historically to help pay those expansion-related bonds. We anticipate that that's going to continue. Staff is in the process of updating what that maximum value can be used to help repay those bonds. In addition, that does include the Polk Regional Water Cooperative. You know, once those items are met, if there's additional connection fees, you know, keep in mind we have to make an estimate of what those connection fees are going to look like next year and the year after. You know, to the extent they have additional connection fees, they're going to apply them to their expansion-related projects within the CIP. Okay. Thank you. And just my one comment with the two-tiered system is, you know, I get some of the frustration, but I also think we have to remember, you know, some of our children weren't here. Do we have a two-tiered system coming into our house for us that have been here for 20 years, but now I just had a kid, so they have to pay more? So I think sometimes when we try to make it simple with that thought is that we don't think about our natural growth that we also have within our own households, and that impacts that as well. So I think it is simple to say, but when you get down to who's adding new users, we ourselves are sometimes adding new users even though we've been here 20, 30, 40 years because we just grow naturally as well. Madam Chair. Just two other things. One is, just to circle up on the two-tier, understand a lot of the conversation, but it's no different than, you know, when my parents bought land, they bought it at $1,000 an acre. When I bought it, it was $10,000 an acre, and now when my kids go to buy it, it's going to be $50,000 or $100,000 an acre. Cost increase with generations because that's what happens. So to say we couldn't defend the two-tier system, I think that's probably somewhere in politics I got hung up because, again, on a land cost or a house cost or anything else, the next generation typically pays more. But the first generation, if you bought, you know, 10,000 acres in 1950, unless you, you know, inherit that, you're going to pay more for that later on. So it's just a tiered cost increase over generational transition. The other part was, too, just on the going back to septage. For me, I would like to get some more of the background information on where that 6% annual increase is being justified for the next two years just so I can have that for those that are going to reach out to me and ask why that is and, you know, for them on explaining to their customers, you know, why the cost is, what it is, and just to be educated on how that might be reduced in two years or how it might not be beneficial for me. Any other comments or questions? Okay. Madam Chair, let's stay on that slide. That's really the closer for this topic. I mean, does the board want a subsequent work session or is the board okay to move forward with adoption of the proposed connection fees and those increases effective January 1 of 2027? That's one question because we need to, if the board's okay with that, we need to build those revenues into the budget for 2627. The ultimately would be the utility's adopted budget. That's one question, and I know that's paramount. The second question is, do we align the reclaimed water rates consistent with potable rates effective October 1, 2026? So those are two big questions and the heavy lift. Fifth, I think, third item up there, extending the increase of the AWS surcharge out one additional year to match the five-year rolling plan. You've already done that for the next four years. We're just asking to extend that surcharge one more year. And the other things I think will fall in place. It was septage. Commissioner Scott mentioned it. Septage is the new facility. It's going to open later this summer, fall. We have to have a revenue source to operate and maintain that facility and to invest in the necessary capital, future capital investments of that facility. We did have a meeting out there, I think, recently with the haulers. There was some questions about the $0.15 per gallon rate, but they seemed to suggest that that was a reasonable fee. So I think we've got buy-in from the stakeholders. But those are really, I think, the four to move the needle and set utilities aside until we come back at a public hearing to codify everything that the board has done here with relative to rate structures. You got any comment on that? No, that's basically it. We need direction if you want us to be with it or I guess do the work session. Madam Chair? Yes. Just for me personally, to your point, there's a lot of information that's in here. I don't feel comfortable today saying that I'm ready to move forward with what we have here. If it means that we can defer it by a month, I don't know timing-wise what it impacts, but instead of it becoming October 1 effective, that means November 1, that's fine. But I don't feel that I have enough time right now to digest this and propose either to agree to it as presented or to propose some alternates and kind of let it settle in. And I think there's too much information and not enough time at this moment for me. I agree with that. That's why I said this is a lot of information here. So, yeah. Me too. Maybe having another time we come together and we discuss it. By that time, we've been able to get answers to our questions or do a little bit more research on this. Well, let me ask you this. Outside of the septage receiving, what else are we going to change? I mean, we can look at this until the cows come home. We've got to cover our costs. The price has to go up. We can't operate in the red. What else are we going to do? I'm just curious. I mean. I didn't hear that we're going to operate in the red in the next year. Look at the graph. Correct? This is based on what we need to run the facility. We don't, you know, we don't put in extra money. So, this is what we need to do. So, I would like to see how we're going to be operating in the red in the handout or something like that. Because I think that's information because. Page 23. What is it? Slide 23. I mean, that's where we go if we don't raise the rates. And this other slide is where we go if we raise the rates. Page 23, this is the projection under your current rates that are in place today. Now, again, and Mr. Beasley, I may have misspoke. The adopted rate plan is through fiscal year 29. We're asking you to extend that for 30 and 31. So, it's a two-year extension. So, I apologize if I misspoke. The primary issue revolving around your rates, one, listing the capital increases that we were trying to address coming out of the last rate study. Our first estimate was causing the need for the 6% increase to go up. And we worked as a team to try to come up with a way to avoid that and to keep the 6% index on plan. And one of those mechanisms in order to help or two of those mechanisms in order to help facilitate keeping the index at 6% as previously approved by the commission was, one, to recommend an increase in the connection fee and, second, to increase the reclaimed water rates, which was an issue we wanted to address in the last study. But I had concerns that it would be too much at one time two years ago. So, we brought that forward again. Now, by increasing the reclaimed water rates, it will produce 4% of revenue and will prevent the 6% index having to go to 10. And it would have to go to 10 fairly shortly here because we have these future capital needs and bonds. Now, probably more principally because we need to implement a plan is we do have those capital planning requirements, 218 million. We're having discussions at the clerk level to understand when we actually need the funds. We're going to be out of those 2024 bond proceeds here very shortly, and so we're going to need funds by October. We need to back that schedule up and start the bond feasibility study here very shortly. We're already in conversation with your financing team. So, I'm personally not opposed to delaying anything, but it's going to impact the schedule of events that take place. In the end, we have to have a well-balanced plan. Now, slide 23, I'm not sure that it does the best justice on the question that you're asking. If we're electing to have another workshop after this, I can provide you maybe a better graphical representation of what you're asking. But what's shown there for slide 23 is revenues under the current rate today, not the adopted rate. Keep in mind, the adopted rate is through 2029 already, unless the commission has an interest to rescind those rates, and I haven't heard that today. Madam Chair, if I may. And again, if I had been involved in this for the last 10 years straight, I probably would feel a lot more comfortable right now because I have a whole history track of it and going through it. But to me, for where we are, and the information provided is in-depth, and I appreciate, and I say in-depth, like it's a lot of information, but it's good information, and I appreciate what we've been provided today. For me, right now, I feel like I'm being asked to approve, you know, if I take my homeowner's insurance, my life insurance, my car insurance, and my boat insurance, and here's some different rates for different things, and then here's a matrix, and then within one hour, please decide if you want to change all this or not, like a wholesale change, is what I'm being asked to do. What I'm saying, there's multiple pieces that go into this. Obviously, it's just utilities, but it's a complex deal, and there's a lot of, when we talk about the connection fees, the proposed increases there, the, you know, reclaimed water, we talk about the subject hauling facilities. It impacts, I mean, residents across, but there's different segments of constituents that it impacts as well, and so when I go through that, you know, I go back to my engineering days. It's kind of like when a client comes to me in June and says, I want to put a shovel in the ground and build this project in September. Well, I can't design your project and get your permit to where you can be approved for construction in, you know, two or three months. I give me six months, and that's a more appropriate time. What I was suggesting for this was not to defer at 12 months on a work session, but if instead of, you know, voting on this in July, that we vote on it in August, because then it allows us to have another work session to ask questions in between now and then, and to get more answers and clarity. And then maybe all the information as it's presented now is to the penny exactly how we want to have it, or maybe there's some concessions or increase or decrease. It could go a number of different ways for what's being presented, but again, there's a lot of different revenue sources here for our utilities, and that's what I'm saying. I can't digest all this in this forum and then make a clear, conscious decision to say, yeah, I'm 100% confident that, you know, me as a commissioner should go this way for all those different constituents, for both private, you know, businesses and then the users and rate payers and commercial and residential. There's a lot of impacts there. So, again, that's why I say is let's not put it to where the utility is, you know, scratching our heads of where we're getting money from to operate because we're deferring the six months, but simply to give us at least 30 days to figure this out since of a July 21st vote, do it in, you know, a month out from August. And if that pushes it from October 1 to November 1, I guess that it is what it is. If that's an issue, I'd like to hear that because if we've waited, my other concern is if we have waited until now and it's like more urgent or dire to make this decision to move forward, then I'm concerned that we haven't properly planned and we should have heard this three months ago or four months ago or five months ago. So, again, I'm not scorning anyone. I appreciate lots of information. It is a lot of information, and if we are to that point where we need to make a decision sooner than later, then next time around, let's please appropriately plan to do this six months in advance of where we're at right now. Madam Shelby, frame that comment. I'm required to present a balanced budget to the board on the 17th of July. So we have 30 days. We can propose several different dates for additional work sessions on this specific topic. I suspect we will need some other time with some other tax reform discussions, but if we're going to crank these revenues and this information as part of the adopted budget in 26-27, we need to have some resolution before the 17th of July. So the adopted budget assumes all this as it's currently presented, is that correct? The plan is we would adopt this rate structure and these revenues in the utility budget for part of the adopted 26-27 budget. Is there any reason we couldn't have this rate structure proposed several months back versus now when it's a month out from the budget? The hindsight is 20-20. I guess if I had thought more that we would have done this sooner, but this is the normal course of what we did two or three years ago, two years ago or so in the June timeframe. But we have new faces on the board and a new perspective on those things. But what I can do is between the next two weeks, so I can propose to each board administrative assistant several work session dates that we could get together again. It would be a special call meeting as opposed to a board meeting or a Friday agenda review because we're in that three-week cycle here. We don't see each other again until the 6th of July, subject to a special call meeting. Do we just need to make a decision before the 6th of July? My hope would be sometime before the 6th so we can crank all of this and make sure it's included in the budget that I present to the board on the 17th of July. Madam Chair? Yes. I guess maybe coming from a different approach, maybe try to go piece by piece right now and see if we have consensus on each box, for lack of a better word, on that page 31. So we know kind of what we are comfortable or not comfortable with. That's a good one. I just want to ask a question on page 23 where it's supposed to be on the operating in red. Actually, it's not until 2028 that we start exceeding. So we actually have 2027 will be okay because we still have the rates that would be higher than the operating. So it's not until 2028 that basically evens out or the operating costs are more. Am I correct? This slide's a little misleading. I heard your question earlier. That's the one I'm going by. And this slide, I know, and this slide's not really representative of your total cost. This was demonstrating operating income to cover operating expenses. What's not included on this schedule is principal and interest payments on the current and the proposed bonds and also capital requirements that are funded from rates. And so, again, if we do end up with a follow-up workshop, we can put that graphical representation together. I can tell you to answer some of the questions that, you know, the capital plan was updated a number of different times. We did just finish this analysis at the start of June. So where are we at now, June 16th? No, what's today? 16th. 16th. 15th. And so we've just recently completed your packet. What we saw in the financial projections was that we were in a position to run out of cash in a near term. That may be year three. That may be year four. And certainly coverage compliance. And with the need to issue another $218 million in bonds, we needed to make sure that we had enough revenue in the near term. So it's not all about cash flow. It's also meeting that credit responsibility. But, again, Madam Chair, I can provide that information to this commission if that's the guide. Yeah, that would be good, especially if we can use that in the next time we get together for that. So going back to what you proposed, Commissioner Troutman, page 31, I'll take recommendations from the board on how you would like to proceed. Commissioner Troutman said look at each one of those and see what we can move forward with. Is that what you recommended, or do we do it as a package? I hate to use the word package, but you know what I mean, as one. I mean, the only thing I hear any contention on is the septage fee. I mean, or the $0.15 a gallon septage receiving fee. I guess maybe more so the indexing of it. I mean, I did have, you know, the concern about the phase-in in six months. So that's my only concern. Do we want to push that out to a total of a year and do, you know, half in six months and half in another? I'm not dead set on that, but just thinking about the shock to the residents. But I'm going to propose that we just have another meeting, give us time to look into this. Like you said, Commissioner Scott, we may come back and say, okay, this is perfect. I feel comfortable with it. I think that's the point that I also have an issue with. I want to feel comfortable with it. And having it given to me today, to vote on it today, is a little presumptuous. And so I just want to make sure that we have the opportunity. So I just say let's not separate it. Let's just go ahead and do it all at one time. Yep. What? Mr. Troutman, just want to clarify for staff. You're talking about the reclaimed fee? Correct. Okay. Yes. Just that one piece of that reclaimed and where you're seeing basically a double in six months. Well, I'm good with voting on it right now because it ain't going to change. And just remind me, we're not really voting. We're just getting direction whether or not we could bring something back to you on July 21st. We're not voting on this. No, ma'am. We're just looking for direction. And that's basically what this is for. We're getting direction right now, only so to bring something back to you on July 21st. And I believe we could workshop hopefully something before then to keep it on schedule. A workshop is not going to hurt. And we can workshop. We may come back to this. You're absolutely right, but it's not going to hurt. But at least we understand it a little better and we feel more comfortable with it. And we can share the information accurately with our constituents. So that's my whole purpose of doing this. Madam Chair, one of the things is a what-if scenario. And I'm not here to ask 50 questions, although I would if I had to push this forward today. You have three minutes. I know. You have three minutes. But, like, for instance, on the AWO surcharge, you know, pushing that out, you know, through fiscal year 31 versus, say, you know, increasing connection fees that offset that need, those are scenarios that I would, you know, look at me independently. No other board member may. It's fine. But I would look at, again, those connection fees offsetting the burden on, you know, current resident says, okay, do you increase the connection fee instead of having an AWO surcharge, you know, pushed out? It's just those are one of many questions that I would like to get answered and evaluate. And it may be, as, you know, as we said, it may stay exactly as it is. But just to at least talk through those things would be helpful on my end. One of many. Again, there's 50, but that's my one. Okay. Thank you. So, Madam Chair, I'll just work with your assistants and propose several work sessions, special call work session meetings. Yeah. Over the next two weeks, you may see. We probably can tag it with the next, what is it, financial budget meeting. I'm not sure when the next finance committee meeting is. All right. Canceled one here. That's the pleasure of the board. We'll have a subsequent work session on this topic. Okay. Can do. That's good. All right. Next one. Next item up, Madam Chair. It's another exercise we do every year about this time. This is to bring the board up to speed on kind of where we are on the proposed 26-27 budget. Tied to that, I say it's normally a very benign process. We've been blessed the last four or five years in terms of our revenues, in terms of programs, in terms of trying to address growth in our community and demands brought on by the growth in our community. This one's going to be a little different in that we've got the 26-27 budget essentially built. The funds are balanced. So we want to walk you through where we are today on that budget. But then we want to do a little bit more of a deeper dive to talk about at least the first formal discussion with the board about what we think the potential impacts on property tax reform are going to be that will come in two waves, the first wave in 27-28, the second wave in 28-29. We want to look at those funds that are going to be impacted by what the voters might decide to do in November of this year. And I believe there will be a need for some subsequent deep dives on some of those fund sources that are going to be hit the most subject to what the voters decide in November. So with that, I want to go to Christia Johnson, the head of our budget management services. She and her staff have really worked hard pulling all this together and had to make certain assumptions. But the first part of this is more routine with 26-27, where are we at, where we're going. And then the second part of her presentation is going to start looking at a bit more of a deep dive on what funds are likely to be impacted by a property tax reform consideration. Christia, please. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I want to start off by walking through some of the primary budget assumptions that we've put into building the fiscal year 26-27 tentative budget. We are still finalizing. So any budget numbers that you hear from me today, it is not final. It is still subject to change prior to the county manager's proposed budget presentation on July 17th. So we are building in no increase or decrease to the millage rate. Right now, the ad valorem budget is based on the June 1 valuation numbers that we received from the property appraiser. That showed a countywide value increase of 4.57 percent and an unincorporated area value increase of 2.73 percent. Christia, put that in some perspective. In light of the last six or eight or 10 years worth of growth, what those growth numbers mean and how far back we had to go to see that kind of limited growth. The last time we saw a valuation increase that small was in the fiscal year 13-14, 14-15 time frame. So we have had growth above 6 percent ever since then. We've had three years of double-digit property valuation growth. And then for current year, we saw 8.83 percent. So we have seen some significant increases over the past few years. This is really bringing us back to closer to the long-term property value growth average over the history prior to these booming years. Mr. Maystock, we did for a moment. Is this, does this correlate with the one that you send us in the email? Yes, that's going to be the second portion. The second part. The first part should be... Is it in here in this packet or not? No. Because that's the one that I got. That's part two. We haven't got it. Part two. So where's part one? We don't have it. You don't have it. Okay. I just wanted to check because that's the one I had here for you. Yes, we will get to that. And that'll be coming up after we go through kind of the more routine slides that we do go through about this time every year. Then we're going to get into that data. So in light of these decreased valuations that we're seeing, I did have a staff member reach out to some other counties to see what they were seeing. And we're definitely not alone in this. Osceola reported a 4% property value growth. Hillsborough reported 3.39%. Brevard reported 4.74%. And Volusia and Seminole were around 5.5%. The highest one of the counties that responded was actually Hillsborough, I'm sorry, Highlands County at 8%. I don't have access yet to see what could have caused that, but I would speculate it was maybe a large development going online. They have a very small property tax, property value base. So it probably wouldn't take a whole lot to get an increase that high. For the sixth year in a row, we are able to fully fund the general fund operating reserves at the maximum of the policy at 45 days. This is always a good news item. This shows good fiscal planning and governance on the part of the board. So we are pleased to be able to do that again. The salary adjustment that's built in is a 2% COLA on October 1 and a 2% merit slash tenure increase on the employee's anniversary. This is the same structure as in current year and the two prior years, I believe. The health insurance shows a 5% increase on the employer side. And then for the fifth consecutive year, no increase to insurance cost was passed along to the employees. On the fire assessment, we are showing a $413 per single family residential unit fire assessment based on 5% indexing. But we just received some fire rate study results that may indicate that it should be a little lower. Management is still reviewing these numbers. And so for right now, we're just going to go ahead with what we started with. We did receive these maybe a week, week and a half ago. So this is brand new information that is not yet shown. Madam Chair, that adjustment for single family residence is based on the reallocation of call volume. So although the single family residence may go down, it's to be adjusted because the commercial call volume is different. So that's the difference. The amount that's coming into fire services to meet its budget will be the same, just based on the difference of call volume. Yeah, the $413 represents the 5% indexing for next year. Based on a continued analysis of that call volume, it's possible that the single family residential rate may go down slightly as opposed to not increasing by 5% because of the call volume assignments. But it will write itself in the outer years, depending on call volume assignments. We're still looking at that. But I think it's $393 now. Correct. $393. It might go to $385 or $390, the recommendation based on call volume. But in the outer years, it will continue to write itself with that 5% indexing. Madam Chair, that fire study, we're going to get a copy of that. Is that correct? Yeah, we can get you a copy once we finalize it. I guess I just want to make sure, so residential may go down, but I'm assuming, like you said, commercial. Yes, that's based on, and we have to do this every so often to make sure that the one side is not paying for the other side, and that it's truly based on the call volume of the different uses. Right, and before, it seemed like some of the commercial may have been undercharged. Yeah, or the call volume changed over the years. And it does change over the years, just based on the different calls that you get. Okay, very good, thank you. All right, next we have the solid waste residential assessment. This is the non-ad valorem assessment that appears on the property tax bill for the unincorporated area solid waste residential customers. It's made up of a collection and a disposal component, and those are set to index at approximately 5% each year. And then finally, the utility water and wastewater rates, you just heard the whole presentation there. This is 6% indexing to customer rates, and that was approved two years ago, and this is just a continuation of that approved indexing. So, this is a chart that we show you several times each year that shows a comparison between the current year adopted ad valorem budget and the preliminary numbers estimate for fiscal year 2627. So, the green column is based on that 4.73, 4.57, I'm sorry, and 2.73% increase that we're using until July 1 when we receive the numbers that statutorily we have to build the ad valorem budget around. The gray column on the right-hand side, that's going to be the, yes, ma'am. I'm sorry, is, is, are they looking or they think it's going to be higher than that 4.5, or is that pretty much where they're? Typically, there is not a lot of change. Not a lot of change. Not a lot of change. Between July 1 and July 1. Some years, it's gone up a tiny bit. Some years, it's gone down a tiny bit. But I don't anticipate that those numbers are going to be drastically different. So, I feel like this is pretty close to what we're going to see. In the gray column on the right-hand side, that is the comparison between current year adopted and June 1 preliminary. So, if you look down towards the bottom, there's a row that says total countywide and MSTUs. That shows an increase in ad valorem revenue across all of the funds that receive ad valorem revenue of about $21.7 million in total. If you look up at the top, that separates out the countywide millage rate, and it is broken down into four different segments. The general fund being the largest segment, we do spend a lot of time focusing on that. You can see that the additional revenue that would be going into the general fund based on the ad valorem change would be about $15.6 million. So, by statute, the constitutional officers and elected officials have to turn in a budget request to the BOCC, and we build those into our budget. So, this takes an overview of the net general fund impact for those constitutional officers. We are looking at the current year adopted. We do have a column that shows what the plan year budget was in the prior year. The green column represents the budget request that we have received and is currently being reflected in the fiscal year 2627 budget. Then the blue column shows the difference between the current year adopted and the request for fiscal year 2627. A few have some FTE changes, and overall, the percentage change for all of these officers is about 8.9%. Those that are showing a higher percentage increase are driven primarily by cybersecurity and other technical type needs. One indicator of growth that we monitor is building permits. So, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Ben Dunn to discuss the information on the next two slides. Good morning, board. And if you recall at the last board retreat, this data is very similar, showing the trends in the new housing market as it relates to today. And as you can see, there is a slowdown in the new housing market, and it's actually consistent with the fiscal year 13-14 levels, which coincides with what Christia was talking about earlier. But what we've also seen, too, on the next slide, is total permits have actually dropped as well. And that's the first time we've seen that in a long time. So, total permits have always held pretty firm, but now they're actually declining as well. And that's your single trades, your windows, your doors, your remodels, AC chains out. So, we're seeing a slowdown in that as well. So, it basically suggests a slowdown in the total economy as it relates to new housing and, you know, remodeling and putting money in cash into your existing house. So, is it a recession? I'm not sure if it's a recession, but it's definitely showing some uncertainties in the economy as it relates to construction. Each year, we look at the prior year general fund ending fund balance, which is the revenue in excess of the expenditures. This is a final audited number, the $64.7 million total. So, that is a final audited number. Then it is offset by a number of board decisions that have been made to allocate some of those funds to other places. And then we end up with a net number of one-time money that is available for board direction. Right now, that came out to $51.5 million. And last year, through the same exercise, the board opted to put $2 million into reserve. So, we do have that additional $2 million that is available to be allocated. Also, when I balance out the general fund after July 1, the last few years, we have had some excess revenue over expense that has been able to be contributed to this pot. Last year, we had about $24 million that was added. We will have some money for $2627, but it will not be in the tens of millions this year. Madam Chair, members of the board, I just want to call your attention to that number. However, we go through this exercise every year, and when we get to the second part of Christia's presentation, depending on what the voters decide in the fall, I think the board is going to have to start taking a hard look at this one-time funding exercise as a potential reoccurring theme for potential revenues to help offset potential losses in revenues. It will potentially greatly impact the wonderful, smaller capital projects that we've been able to get done every year. But depending on what the voters decide, it's a new day, and we have to think differently about how we use those available funds. And this is a reoccurring fund source that has always been used for one-time projects, but I think we're going to have to start thinking differently about this fund source in the future. It will go a long way to help deal with what may be coming our way. Go ahead, Christia. And because we are statutorily required to budget our revenues at 95%, there is about $30 million in absolute recurring revenue built into this. So while we use it for one-time projects, a large portion of it is actually recurring revenue. Prior to fiscal year 21-22, when the general fund operating budget, general fund operating reserves were fully funded at 45 days, this money was split into two different pots. One went into bolstering those reserves, trying to get up to that policy level, and then the other half was put towards board goals. So it's only been within the last few years that we've been able to put forth that entire balance for the one-time projects. Currently, staff is working on a recommendation list, and that'll be presented to you at an agenda work session topic on July 17th for one-time money. So this shows the history on the fire fee. We had to recalibrate the fire fee back for current year. We had implemented a 5% indexing back in fiscal year 21-22, and that was serving us well. But because a lot of positions did have to be added, both for the mitigation of mandatory overtime and for the upcoming implementation of a Kelly Day, we did have to take another look at that rate. The intent was to begin the 5% indexing again for 26-27, but as we've already pointed out, there could be some changes to that based on the results of the study. And this shows the history on the solid waste collection and disposal residential assessment. We did have to reset that in fiscal year 24-25 because the hauler contracts were renegotiated, and the county did expand our own collection rate, our own collection area as well. So starting from 24-25, we have built in approximately 5% for indexing for each subsequent year. I won't go into any detail here. This is just kind of a high-level summary of a few of the utilities rates that are in place. So after talking through ad valorem changes as well as assessment changes, what does that mean to the average homeowner? So for the 2025 tax roll, the average single-family residential just value was $271,682. So assuming that this property is located in the unincorporated area, there's been no change in ownership, there's been no improvements to the property, and it only has the two existing homestead exemptions applied to it. This is what that change would look like from 2025 to 2026. Keep in mind that we're only looking at rates that are controlled by the BOCC. This doesn't take into account the school board, no municipalities, no water management districts, none of those other taxing authorities are in play here. This is BOCC only. So in total, they would have paid about $2,386.53 current year. Taking into account, there is a 2.7% growth cap under Save Our Homes. So assuming that cap is placed, the homestead exemption, now the second homestead exemption, is subject to a CPI increase every year. And that brings those two homestead exemptions up to a total of $51,411 for fiscal year 26-27. This average home would then pay the BOCC $2,480.89, which is a total increase of $94.36 over current year. The last few years have been a time of growth and expansion, obviously, and the staffing increases over the past few years has really been in an effort to keep up with that growth. Last year, we added an unprecedented 191 positions to our staffing complement. And then we added another 50 positions after the budget was adopted in conjunction with the SAFER grant. So this request is a lot more measured at only 54. And seven of the requesting divisions are only asking for one or two positions. These are in order to address a specific and supported need within the division. So there are 21 positions that are requested in total for fire rescue. 18 of them are EMS millage funded positions. We're requesting that they be added to the headcount, but the funding is deferred to fiscal year 27-28. So there are no dollars associated with those salaries built into fiscal year 26-27. With an ongoing shortage of qualified paramedics, fire rescue is planning on recruiting EMTs and firefighters through the Hometown Heroes Program and provide paramedic training through our new fire rescue training center. This is a nationally accredited paramedic program, and it takes about 12 months to complete that program from start to finish. So establishing the positions now, that allows for fire rescue to begin recruiting and training candidates now and aligns the actual funding for when those positions are anticipated to be filled with fully certified paramedics in fiscal year 27-28. And so this really supports proactive workforce development. It addresses future staffing needs, and it ensures responsible EMS millage funding as well. Christia, with that, where does the cost for the training come from? So we're not putting them into the salary count, but they are still, we have a cost, obviously, to incur with the training. Chief Smith's here. Chief Smith to give more detail on that. I'm going to say good morning, but good afternoon, Madam Chair. Yeah, so those positions right now, so like we said, we'll actively recruit the EMTs and firefighters, which we already have EF, you know, FTE positions for those, and as we hire those, they'll go through that training, and then when they fully mature in that discipline, which will be that fiscal year 27-28, that's when we'll account for those 18 millage, you know, for those EMS millage positions, because they will be a millage position that drives our EMS for, especially with, you know, the Lakeland Hill Station and some of those new stations that are coming on board. He didn't. So, and I thought maybe I missed it. Nope. The cost of the training. So here we're, so where is that incurred, and where is that in your budget? So you remember when, if you remember, when Holly and I were in there with some of our, where we took our finances, put it into the state, the state took it to the federal, and then it came back to us. That's where we fund all our EMS, all our EMS programs, our firefighter, paramedic, and our EMT. That's just one asset of what that, and I want to, was it an HMO? It wasn't an HMO, but that whole program, that's what really how we fund all that. Okay. Yep. All right. Again, just looking for the budgetary impact, so that makes sense. Yep. All right. So our current position count right now is 2,667 positions, and that would increase to 2,721 with the approval of these 54 requests, but when you look at employees per capita, population growth has far outpaced our headcount growth. Employees per thousand was 3.92 back in fiscal year 07-08, and 20 years later, it's 3.14 with the proposed fiscal year 26-27 headcount. That reflects a long history of measured growth in staffing. We don't add positions we don't need, and we leverage technology and outside partnerships any time that we can in order to stay within a measured growth. Over that 20 years, population grew by about 50%, but our headcount grew 19.7%. So if our headcount had grown in the same manner that population grew over that period of time, we would now have 3,387 positions. And I just want to comment on that, Madam Chair, if I can. And as, you know, Blaze has made it around the state, that's really been one of the things where there's been a lot of criticisms with other counties. So I just want to say kudos to the leadership and to everybody really looking at that. I think y'all are very wise with, obviously, the budget and dollars that came in not to put it heavy into the staff, and I think that that's going to put us in a much better position than a lot of other counties may find themselves. So thank you. Madam Chair, let me add to that. This board and prior boards have been gracious about investing, allowing the staff to invest in technology. The technology has really made various elements of our organization extremely efficient, and that reduces headcount. So we've taken advantage of that, and that's what's helped us do just that. So now we're going to have a few slides to talk about the potential property tax legislation. So there's a lot of numbers and a lot of data that is coming up. And so we want to frame the assumptions that I used in coming up with the figures that we're talking about. So I started off with all of the parcels in the 2025 tax roll as published by DOR in October of last year. I pulled just the parcels that had homestead exemption applied to them. So this calculation begins on a parcel-level analysis. Again, this tax roll is from October of last year, so this is not up-to-date information. I don't have access quite yet to what it looks like right now, but after July 1, I will have access to the new tax roll, and I'm going to rerun these numbers based on what that looks like. So I used the property valuation growth from June 1 and then applied a 4% annual growth rate thereafter. I calculated all of this off of the total countywide detail, and I calculated the unincorporated area at 57%. That's based on the current year proportion of countywide versus unincorporated. So this analysis, the basis of comparison here is what we're anticipating for fiscal year 26-27 as ad valorem revenue versus the ad valorem revenue that would be generated in 27-28 if the property tax legislation were to pass. So this is comparing what we anticipate versus what we anticipate. I know there are other analyses that are out there that have higher numbers, and the reason for that is the basis of comparison. Those are taking into account how much ad valorem revenue would we get if the property tax referendum fails versus what we would get if it passes. So it's just two different basis of comparison. I did kind of run those numbers high level, and instead of the $65 million that the analysis shows that would be a reduction in revenue, ad valorem revenue, from 26-27 to 27-28, that's about $65 million. But when I compare what we would get without legislation versus with legislation, that loss would be more in the $90 million range. So it's just the way that we're looking at it. Additionally, I always show you numbers at the budget level, so that is taking into account 95% of anticipated revenues. Other sources are going to give you that 100%, so that's another reason why those would be a little bit different. So the next slide is going to show the comparison against 26-27 preliminary versus fiscal year 27-28 applying $150,000 homestead exemption, and that applies to the first $150,000 of the assessed value. The slide following that one is going to take that out another year and apply an exemption of $250,000 on that first $250,000 of assessed value. So this doesn't take into account any assumptions that are in relation to the non-homestead cap. Currently, that cap is 10%. This would take it down to just 5%. So any non-homesteaded property, unless it changes hands and is revalued, the growth on the assessed value would not be in excess of 5% as opposed to the current 10%. This also doesn't take into account that this legislation also calls for a five-year residency requirement. If someone comes into the state and establishes a new homestead, it would be five years before they would be able to have this full exemption. They would be subject to the current exemptions as they stand now. Christia, do you have an idea of the difference that will result from the 5% to 10% rate changes? I have no idea. I really don't have a basis to analyze that on. I don't have any statistics on how many properties would be potentially subject to this. So I really don't even have a guess at this point. That's why I'm really focusing on just the homestead exemption portion, because I can actually look at numbers to compare. And again, all figures are calculated at 95% in accordance with our statutory revenue budgeting. So this is the slide that compares fiscal year 26-27 to fiscal year 27-28. This assumes a 4% growth rate in valuations, but it assumes that the first $150,000 of assessed value for homesteaded properties is now in place. So if you look down at the bottom, I mentioned the $65 million in decreased revenue. That's $64.9 million down in the bottom row on the right side. That's the comparison between estimated 26-27 and estimated 27-28 based on these assumptions. Of course, this does not take into account any changing of hands of properties where it's revalued. It doesn't take into account any new homesteaded properties, anything like that. I've just applied this exemption to those properties that exist in the 2025 tax roll as they are right now. And then I've extrapolated for the property valuation growth over the next couple of years. If you look under the general fund, you see that as the largest portion of ad valorem. That hit would be about $45.9 million just to the general fund alone. So taking that out an additional year to look at the $250,000 homestead, the comparison in the far right column in gray, that is actually going to show you the cumulative loss from fiscal year 26-27 through 28-29. So this is just comparing, again, against fiscal year 26-27. So you can see that results in about almost $100 million in ad valorem revenue decrease from fiscal year 26-27. Christia, hold that. ... growth for years down the road? Yes, we're just assuming that 4%. We're just going to... In perpetuity, we're just assuming 4%. That's just our long-term loss. So that changes, of course. Of course. The numbers change, too. Okay. Madam Chair, let me try to put the last part of Christia's presentation in some perspective with regard to this slide. There are seven millage funds, I call them, that are going to be impacted by property tax reform. And so the intent here is to do more of a deep dive on each one of those seven funds, the general fund, the emergency medical fund, the transportation millage fund, the environmental lands fund, the parks MSTU, library MSTU, and stormwater MSTU. And that's where the adjustments will have to be made. So we want to do a bit more of a deep dive on all seven of those funds to talk about what revenues we get and what expenses we incur in the broad categories within each of those seven millage fund accounts. So go ahead, Christia. All right. This slide, this is nothing but a high-level summary of the prior slide. This summarizes in millions the same data, but it's rolled up into countywide MSTUs in the unincorporated area, and then a total down at the bottom. So it reflects the exact same numbers, just in a truncated format. We do have some future budget meetings that are on the calendar now. On July 17th, we will have the one-time money discussion at Agenda Review, and then later in the day, the county manager will present his balanced proposed budget, as well as the sheriff will present his proposed budget, as well. On August 4th, we will have the board CIP work session, and then statutorily, we have to hold two budget public hearings in order to adopt the budget. Those will be held on September 14th and September 21st. And next, to go into the millage fund summaries, this is where the information that I emailed out a couple days ago comes into play. So we're going to break out all those different funds, like Mr. Beasley said, so a lot of data, a lot of information. So I want to kind of put it into some perspective. All of the budget data for 26-27, like I said, this is still in progress. It is subject to change between now and the proposed budget. So these are not necessarily going to be final numbers that you're going to be seeing. It's shown as of June 9th. That is the day that I pulled what those numbers were as of that date. On the environmental land side, we do show that as 0.2 mils. But there are actually two different funds that receive that money. One is the Land Management Trust, and the other is the Acquisition Fund. And I'm going to break those out and show those two funds separately in the coming slides. So we're going to start with the countywide millage rate. That rate is 6.6348 mils. That's how I report it to the state. The breakdown between these funds, the environmental lands by resolution does state that it has to be up to 0.2 mils. But other than that, that internal allocation between the general fund, emergency medical fund, transportation trust fund, that is all by board direction. So we're going to start off with the general fund. And I'm going to go into a lot more detail with the general fund than the subsequent funds. The general fund, obviously, is the biggest component of millage. And because it does run a lot of the general county administration, we do put a lot of emphasis there. So right now, the total budget, I'm estimating it around the $3.7 billion range. So to calculate the total, I used what was in the budget system as of June 9th, and that was around $3.77, I believe, billion. So of that total, the general fund makes up about 20%. The tentative general fund budget at this moment is about $757.5 million. And so that's what these slides are going to be based on. So when we talk about the general fund, you may remember that I show you slides on this several times a year. We take the total general fund, and then we want to break that down into the operating budget. And that's what we're actually budgeting with intent to spend. So we take the total expense side of the budget, and we pull out the interfund transfers, and we pull out the reserves. And that gives us what we call the operating budget. So there are a number of different things that go into the line items for transfers and reserves. I've kind of broken those out for you if you want to see that detail. The majority of the transfers out of the general fund are going to go to the one-time money going into the general capital fund. This is that one-time money, that ending fund balance, that is transferring that over to where we budget the CIP projects. We do have a number of other much smaller routine transfers that we do make out of the general fund. On the reserve side, our operating reserves at 45 days, that makes up about 86% of the reserves that are in the general fund. So when we talk about the operating budget, we do break it down and kind of section out where those expenses go. And then we show the revenue that covers those expenses. So I am going to show you some more detailed slides that break out some of these different pie slices and give you a little bit more insight into what goes into those. This slide is just kind of a hypothetical for the legislative impact in fiscal year 27-28, if that were to pass. It kind of shows us where that loss comes into play as opposed to fiscal year 26-27. That revenue reduction on the revenue side, that white pie slice really comes off of the blue ad valorem slice. On the prior slide, ad valorem made up about 60% of the total revenue in the general fund operating budget, and that was about $357 million. Now, with the legislative impact pie slice coming into play, that reduces that revenue budget down to $311.5 million. So that has to come out of the expense side somehow. So when we look at the BOCC portion of the expense budget, it was about $191 million in total. That runs a lot of divisions that are either fully or partially funded by the general fund. If the legislative impact had to be put just on that slice of pie, that would come down to $144.8 million in total to fund those central services that are funded from the general fund. Madam Chair, let me maybe put it in a slightly different perspective. The expense side of that slide, that white pie, that sliver, the assumption is that the BOCC is going to bear all of that loss of revenue. It doesn't show any reduction in the constitutional. It doesn't show any reduction in the sheriff. There are some mandates there, some other. That's going to be a point of discussion with the board as far as how do we – this is just the general fund portion of the 2728 property tax reform. So I'm just planting a seed here with the board that says, look, you've got a big piece of pie there. I don't know that it's appropriate for the board to suggest that you're the one that's going to have to find a way to make those reductions without some spirited discussion with our constitutionals about their part in this decision or part of this – being a part of this journey. Stay tuned. Well, I mean, I think that just says that everybody's going to have to do some belt tightening. I mean, I will share the love of ad valorem tax cuts to everyone. We also have to remember that this is for 2728. So we've got to keep that in mind so we don't confuse 2627 and 2728. Yeah. But you're right, Commissioner. So the next three slides are going to break down the other general fund revenue pie slices and kind of show you what goes into those. And then we're going to have two that are going to address pie slices on the expense side. So this looks at the other taxes that go into the general fund. This is made up of public service tax, state revenue sharing, sales tax, communication services tax, and local business tax. And that's estimated around $137.4 million for 2627. The general fund collects a variety of revenues from charges, fees, and fines. And the largest portion of that is going to be ambulance fees at 71%. We do receive some sheriff and court fees and fines, code enforcement fees, land development fees, county probation fees, building fees, and then all other miscellaneous fee revenue is in that final slice of pie. And then all of the other revenues that don't fall into the categories that we've already discussed, we show those here. The biggest piece is going to be made up of indirects at 38%. That is the payment that other funds make to the general fund for the cost of services provided by general fund divisions. We have a consultant who performs a study every year to analyze transactions between the other funds and the general fund, and they come up with a recommendation on what those payments should be to the general fund. So, for instance, I don't track my time. I can't tell you how many hours I spent working on something for utilities versus solid waste or anything like that. This indirect study actually breaks that out and makes a recommendation on what those funds owe back to the general fund for the work that I did and the work that other general fund divisions have performed. We also have a budget for the constitutional officers' returns at the end of the year. They do give us some money back. They don't typically spend all of their budget requests for the prior year. So, any of those unspent funds, they do return those back to us. We have some EMS funding. It's really a federal Medicaid supplement program, and it covers the difference between the flat Medicaid reimbursement rate and then the normal bill rate for the same transport that's performed. We have interest and earnings on investments. We have a little bit of revenue there. We have other funds that make transfers into the general fund, and then all other is a variety of other miscellaneous type revenues that come into the general fund from many, many different sources. So, now we turn from the revenue side to the expense side. We have some mandated items that we do have to fund out of the general fund. One of the bigger ones is going to be the pre-booking and inmate medical costs. That is a mandate that we fund that program. We also have to make payments to the municipal CRAs based on the tax increment financing, sorry, tax increment funding, and this is the general fund's proportional share of that. We have to fund claims management, Article 5 court technology, the medical examiner, and then a bunch of tinier pieces, such as the county audit, the burials and cremations for indigent persons, clerk filing fees, the postage on the trim notices, and things like that. And so, to break down that BOCC pie slice, that $191 million that I referenced, there are a lot of different divisions that do receive either full funding by the general fund or some partial funding. The biggest piece is going to be in public safety. That's about 38%. The other large portions are going to be just board, general county administration at 16%, and then facilities at 14%. No other division takes up more than 5% of that pie slice beyond those. So, stepping away from the general fund, we're going to take a look at the other funds that do receive some ad valorem revenue. These are not going to be nearly as detailed as the general fund slides that we just saw, and I have a pretty standard format for each one of these funds. We're going to show the big pie, the total budget, and how much that fund contributes to the entire budget. Then we're going to take the expense budget for these funds, pull out those inter-fund transfers, pull out those reserves so that we have an operating budget number, so that we can do the comparison, the revenue and the expense side, those pies like we just saw for the general fund. So, the Emergency Medical Millage Fund receives 0.25 mils of the countywide millage rate. It's only about 1% of the total county budget, and once you pull out the transfers and reserves, we're left with about $28.2 million in operating budget. So, to break that down on the revenue and expense side, this is very similar to what we just looked at with the general fund, that breakdown of the operating budget. So, this fund, a lot of that funds personnel. We have normal fleet charges. We have some vehicles and other capital that is not CIP-related. The other funds, with the exception of environmental lands, pay into the municipal CRAs. They do pay their fair share. The general fund does absorb that environmental lands portion. The other funds also contribute to the property appraiser and tax collector commission payments. There are two CIP projects that are included. This is the Willow Oak Fire Station and the Eagle Lake Fire Station. There's $1.5 million budgeted for each one of those, and that will be part of what's in the CIP presentation in August. And when you look at the revenue side, ad valorem tax does fund a lot of that expense, but you can also see that there's a big portion of carry forward in there. So, that means they're spending down the reserves. They're spending those reserves right now. So, I'm sorry. They're spending down reserves in the form of carry forward. The Transportation Millage Fund receives 1.2 mils of the countywide millage rate. It's about $200.6 million in total. And then you can see on the reserves, there's actually a pretty large reserve that's being pulled out. It just contains significant reserves for future capital. This is slated for multi-year CIP projects. This is funding for future years that is not anticipated to be spent yet. So, I just want to clarify on that. You're calling them reserves, but it's money that we have appropriated and put onto projects that are multi-year. Most of that will be. They could potentially have a small reserve for contingency or something like that, but the vast majority is going to be reserves for future capital that is allocated to future year projects. Like Thompson Nursery or 557? Yes, sir. Because that looks a lot different when you think of it in that aspect as far as it's been committed to projects that are expected by us and the public. Yes. So, this leaves us with an operating budget of about $84.6 million. In this case, the expense side of the operating budget is less than the ad valorem revenue in total. So, you can see the ad valorem taxes fully funding the expense. That means that more money is going into those reserves for those future capital projects. So, about 69% of the expense operating budget is slated for CIP projects. The largest of those is actually the pavement management program at $13 million, but there's a total of 25 projects that are associated with that $58.3 million. And that is just what is in the budget for $26.27. And that doesn't take into account those future years of multi-year projects. The rest of the expense side, it's salaries and benefits, fleet, IT, operating expense, vehicles and equipment, and the proportional payments for the municipal CRAs and the property appraiser and tax collector commissions. So, in looking at environmental lands, of that 0.2 mils, 0.05 mils goes into the Environmental Lands Management Trust Fund. So, this fund is mostly reserves. This was actually established back in 1994, 1995, when the original environmental lands millage was put into place. So, the concept of the Management Trust Fund was that it would build reserves over time, and then the interest and investment earnings generated by that money is what would maintain those environmental lands in perpetuity. So, that is built over many, many years. And so, there's almost $42 million in that reserve for maintaining those lands potentially forever. And given that, the actual operating budget is only about $4.8 million. It's primarily just general operating expenses. There's one CIP project that has $255,000 in it. That is the chemical storage and pole barn project. And then there's about $827,000 in non-CIP-related capital for vehicles and other types of equipment. Can I stop you for a minute? This is probably a question for you, Mr. Beasley. I saw the CRA funds there. Yes, ma'am. We've had conversations about the CRA. Yes, ma'am. Is that something that we will have conversations about in the future, or are we pretty much we have to go ahead and do the CRAs? Randy, help me out here. But I believe that you will see that as property values moderate, there will be less of an increase of the money going to meeting our CRA obligations. I don't believe unless a CRA is sunset, will sunset, like the county will sunset too. LOEs will sunset in three years, and hard to CRA I think is paid off in about a year and a half or a year. Yes, I believe it's paid off next year, and then we'll sunset it at the end of next fiscal year. There's about another 23 CRAs that exist within the municipal limits, and I don't foresee them wanting to go anywhere, i.e. Lake Wales wants to expand it. I believe Haines City wants to consider extending the term of their CRA. So those are required payments, I think, to answer your question, unless they sunset, they're required for us to pay. We don't really have any discretion on them. Yeah, per statute. Yes, sir. So the companion fund is going to be the Environmental Lands Acquisition Fund, which receives .15 mils of the .2 mils. So in total, the fund budget is about $23.8 million, and when you pull out the transfers and reserves, we're left with about $22.2 million in that operating expense budget. This fund is 99% CIP. These are land acquisition purchase projects, and the rest in there, very, very nominal portions of salary. And then the required fleet and other payments such as that. And so you can see the ad valorem tax funds about half of that, and then the carry forward is the other half. So that is the spending down of reserves on acquisition projects in 2627. So that is all of the components of the countywide millage rate. And so now we're going to move on to the unincorporated area and the three unincorporated MSTUs that exist there. Each one is considered a separate taxing authority, so we're not able to shift those millage rates in between them. I'm not going to talk about Rancho Benito for several reasons. One of them is that it only generates $9,000 a year, and after looking at the tax roll, there are zero homesteaded properties within that area. So the legislation really doesn't even apply at all. So we're just ignoring Rancho Benito for the purposes of this analysis. So we want to start off with the Parks MSTU, that's .5286 mills. The total fund is about $49 million. And when you pull out the transfers and reserves, we're left with an operating budget of about $37.9 million. Almost half of the operating expense budget is in CIP projects. The largest of those projects at $4.9 million is replacement and repurposing. Saddle Creek Park Office and Maintenance Area Renovation is about $3.4 million. Then we have Bone Valley and Simmers Young Artificial Turf around $2 million each. And so, again, you see a lot of carry forward on the revenue side, so that money is spending down of reserves on these projects. So these were reserves for future capital, and for these projects, the future is now. The library's MSTU, that's .1985 mills. The total budget is around $13.4 million, and that operating expense budget comes out to about $8.8 million. 68% of that expense is the aid to municipal library systems, and the rest is just general operating expenses of running the program. Ad valorem tax pretty much covers most of these expenses. These would be recurring expenses, the aids to the municipal libraries. That's a recurring expense, as well as just the general operating of the program. Finally, the last MSTU is Stormwater at .0941 mills. That total budget is around $16 million, and the estimated operating expense budget is about $14.3 million. 71% of that expense budget is CIP projects, and the largest project is the Kissimmee Watershed project at about $5 million. And, again, you can see that carry forward. This is the spending of those reserves for future capital as these projects begin or progress. So, all that being said, obviously, there's a lot of work to do to determine where we need to make cuts. And so, in order for you to be able to make those decisions, we do anticipate having future work sessions to kind of talk through these different areas. And then we will follow your direction based on those work sessions. Yes, sir. I'll refresh my memory. Assuming this passes in November of 26, the changes go into effect when? January 1, 2027. The fiscal impact is in the fiscal year 27-28 budget, which will be October of 27. October of 27, okay. Well, that's for us. But, I mean, the implementation in the amendment is on a January 1. Or it's 2027 because it's based on your taxes. Your taxes are levied technically on January 1. So, will there be three months of regular? I mean, how does that work? No. I don't want to get in the week. We're always in the rear. Correct me if I say it wrong. We're always in the rear. You're always in the rear. You're always in the rear when you're doing your budget. Yes. Right? Let's see. It's always going to be one year behind. So, the revenues, the ad valorem revenues that we've built in for 2627, that is the 2627 tax roll. Everybody is going to get their bill based on how things exist right now for 2627. As of January 1, 2026. So, as far as when the tax bills become due for 2728, that's going to begin in November. So, any revenue that is generated from the new ad valorem isn't even going to be billed until November of 27. So, the first time anybody is actually going to look at their tax bill and go, wow, it's less, will be November of 27. They'll see a trim notice. They'll see their trim notice. Well, yeah. In August or so. Yeah. Well, yeah. That's right. The actual bill will be received in November. Yeah. Okay. So, Madam Chair, I think the last thing to frame this is that the hope here was is that unless, absent the utility discussion on their rates and fees, hopefully the board looks at the 2627 budget and says, yeah, I think we're locked in. I think it's doable. It's balanced. It's cautious. It's conservative. We're locked in with what's being, what will, it'll get tweaked here and there, but that will be the spirit and the intent of what the board will likely see in July the 27th for me. I'm good. The issue would be is that subsequent discussions about what are we going to do? You see the limited amount of locations where money goes that is likely to be affected by this property tax reform, and the big impact is going to be not just on programs. It's going to be on major capital cuts. I don't see another way around it, and I see it being shared between everybody who gets some element of that millage assignment from the county, and it's going to take a number of discussions, but I do think we can start crafting some sound bites for the general public. These are the things that we're going to start talking about, and these are the things that are going to hit home really, really hard and fast should that's what the voters decide to do in this state. Madam Chair? I'm just kind of forward-looking, and again, when we get to more of the discussion of what it will look like with the property tax reduction if that passes, I would just like to have the data for this specific to the three MSTUs on parks, library, and stormwater with anticipated revenue cuts and looking at that 28-29 that you had prepared as going back in the past and seeing what did those three MSTUs look like at what year to be at that same budget level. Obviously, inflation costs are more now. I get all that, but looking in the rearview mirror, how did those programs look back when it was only a $17 million budget instead of being $21 million and understanding what wasn't in place or what was and then factoring inflation there may help us at least paint that picture of how much of a drawback there is there. Well, those MSTUs are relatively young compared to, I mean, when did they kick in, 08, 04? 2005 or 2006 for Parks and Library. The stormwater MSTU was 2013. 2012 or 2013. Yeah, so they were just part of the budget up until then, and then they were pulled out as separate funding. I suspect we have enough between 10 and 20 years to have something there, but that would be a good tool to look at. It's been a long day, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Board's due diligence. We've been dealing with this for the last four months, and the property tax reform just for the last, now that the smoke has cleared, just for the last two weeks. It's that dynamic and that detailed of a review. My hat's off to the staff. A lot of work is still yet to be done, but they're up to the challenge, and God help us going forward. It's going to be an interesting time if this passes. Well, we shall see. So, I think we're adjourned. Oh, yeah. They're finally adjourned.