[Call To Order]
          [00:00:04]
          GOOD EVENING. THE TIME IS NOW 6 P.M., AND WE'LL CALL TO ORDER THE TOWN COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 17TH. I GUESS I TURN IT OVER TO STAFF. 
          MAYOR, DO WE WANT TO DO ROLL CALL FIRST? YEAH, I'M SORRY. ROLL CALL, PLEASE. 
          MAYOR KURETSKI? HERE. 
          VICE MAYOR CHOY? HERE. 
          COUNCILOR DELANEY? HERE. 
          COUNCILOR GUISINGER? HERE. 
          COUNCILOR SUNDSTROM? HERE. 
          TOWN MANAGER FRANK KITZEROW? HERE. I GUESS I DO NEED YOUR HELP. HOW DO YOU MAKE IT FULL 
          [1. Discussion on the Fiscal Year 2027 Millage Rate.]
SCREEN? BOOM. UH, GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL. SCOTT REYNOLDS, UH, CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER, UH, FOR THE TOWN OF JUPITER. UH, WE'RE HERE FOR A WORKSHOP THIS EVENING, UH, TO COVER A FEW TOPICS RELATING TO THE MILLAGE RATE AND, UH, HOW, UH, JFRD IS FUNDED, AND ALSO SOME STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MILLAGE, UH, AND THEN IMPLICATIONS OF MILLAGE RATE DECISIONS. 
          UH, WE'RE IN A VERY UNIQUE POSITION THIS YEAR. UH, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT AS WE GO THROUGH THE PRE- UH, PRESENTATION ABOUT, UH, UH, BRINGING ON A NEW DEPARTMENT AND FUNDING A WHOLE BRAND-NEW DEPARTMENT. SO IT'S VERY UNIQUE, UH, FOR A MUNICIPALITY TO BE DOING THAT. SO WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE, UH, VERY UNIQUE SITUATIONS, UH, THAT THE TOWN IS CURRENTLY IN. 
          SO, UH, FOR FY27, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THESE THINGS THROUGH THE TRIM PROCESS AND THE BUDGETARY WORKSHOPS. UH, JUPITER'S HAD A LONG HISTORY OF EITHER MAINTAINING OR REDUCING ITS MILLAGE. WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN VERY FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE, UH, RELATING TO THEM SPECIFICALLY THE MILLAGE RATE, THE TAX RATE FOR THE CITIZENS. UH, BUT IN, UH, 2027, AN ADDITIONAL MILLAGE IS REQUIRED TO FUND THE FIRST YEAR OF JUPITER, UH, FIRE RESCUE, UH, DEPARTMENTAL, UH, FULL OPERATIONS. UH, THIS ADDITIONAL MILLAGE REPLACES THE, UH, JUPITER FIRE RESCUE MSTU LINE ON THE TAXPAYERS' BILLS. IF YOU'VE RECEIVED YOUR TRIM BILL, UH, YOU'VE SEEN, UH, LAST YEAR'S AMOUNT ON THERE, AND SO FOR THE MSTU, UH, WHICH IS NOW BEING REPLACED, UH, BY THE TOWN OF JUPITER'S PORTION OF THAT MILLAGE TO FUND THE JUPITER FIRE RESCUE. THE TOWN'S MILLAGE INCREASE IS LESS THAN WHAT, UH, THE PALM BEACH COUNTY FIRE RESCUE PREVIOUSLY CHARGED, UH, JUPITER RESIDENTS FOR FIRE SERVICES. YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, OVER TO THE RIGHT, UH, IN FY26, THE TOWN'S OPERATING MILLAGE, UH, WAS AT 2.3894. 
          UH, WE'RE PROPOSING TO KEEP THAT OPERATING MILLAGE PORTION THE SAME. UH, YOU CAN SEE THE PALM BEACH COUNTY FIRE RESCUE, THE MSTU THAT I JUST, UH, DISCUSSED, UH, WAS AT 1.7251. UH, THE REPLACEMENT MILLAGE, UH, FOR THE FIRE PORTION OF THE OVERALL TOWN MILLAGE IS 1.1992. SO YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE, UH, THE REDUCTION, UH, IN THE ACTUAL MILLAGE RATE BETWEEN FY26 AND FY27, UH, FROM 4.1145 TO 3.5886. SO JUPITER FIRE RESCUE, UH, THE TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET, UH, FOR FISCAL YEAR 27, UH, 25.4 MILLION. UH, MOST—85% OF, UH, JFRD'S OPERATING BUDGET IS FUNDED, UH, BY THE 1.1992 MILLAGE INCREASE, UH, BEING PROPOSED FOR FY27. UH, THE REST, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, UH, THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER, IS FUNDED BY A COMBINATION OF EMS TRANSPORT FEE, FIRE PREVENTION FEES, AND A NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT. SO, JUST TO GO OVER SOME STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, THERE'S BEEN SOME CHANGES IN THE LAW. WE DID TALK ABOUT THOSE DURING A COUPLE OF WORKSHOPS THIS SUMMER, UH, RELATING TO, UH, TRIM, UH, THE TERM ROLLBACK RATE, WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS. UH, WHAT THE ROLLBACK RATE IS ESSENTIALLY, UH, IT TRIES TO BRING IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT YOU COLLECTED LAST YEAR. UH, THAT PUTS THE, UH, TOWN IN A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION. 
          UH, AN INCREASE OF UP TO 10% OVER THAT R- RATE, UH, TO TRY TO COLLECT WHAT WAS DONE LAST YEAR WOULD REQUIRE A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE. UH, AN INCREASE OVER THAT, THAT 10% THRESHOLD OR OVER THE ROLLBACK RATE REQUIRES A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF, OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY, UH, WHICH IS THE COUNCIL. THE ROLLBACK RATE IS DEFINED AS THE RATE THAT WOULD BE CHARGED IF THE BUDGET DOLLARS WERE UNCHANGED FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT. UH, DUE TO THE INCREASE IN THE PROPERTY VALUES, IF THE MILLAGE RATES IS 
          [00:05:02]
UNCHANGED, THE DOLLARS AND THE TAXES PAID WILL INCREASE NO MORE THAN 3%, UH, FOR THE SAVE OUR HOMES, UH, HOMESTEADED PROPERTIES. THE TOWN IS IN A U- UNIQUE POSITION, UH, THIS YEAR WHERE ITS ROLLBACK RATE IS BASED ON FY26 RATE THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MOST, THE COST OF PROVIDING FIRE RESCUE SERVICES. STATE STATUTE DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT SITUATION, UH, WHERE A LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS TAKING OVER, UH, THE PROVISIONS OF A NEW SERVICE. THIS IS A ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME EVENT; IT TRULY IS, UH, FOR A MUNICIPALITY, AND IS IN THE LAST REMAINING ITEM, UH, FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUPITER FIRE RESCUE, WHICH WILL SAVE THE TAXPAYERS, UH, ANNUALLY IN FIRST YEAR, 10 MILLION DOLLARS. UH, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT EXTENSIVELY TOO THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER. 
          UH, ESSENTIALLY, UH, THE ROLLBACK RATE BECOMES THE DEFAULT RATE IF OTHER PROPOSED RATES FAIL TO MEET THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF VOTES. AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS IN A UPCOMING SLIDE. SO THIS, UH, RELATING TO THE, THE PROPOSED RATE 3.5886, UH, IT REQUIRES A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE, UH, LEGISLATIVE BODY, WOULD GENERATE, UH, JUST OVER 70 MILLION DOLLARS. UH, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT WHEN WE SET THE TRIM. UH, 10% ABOVE THE ROLLBACK RATE, A RATE OF 2.4976 REQUIRES A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY, OR FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE OF YOU. UH, THAT WOULD BRING IN REVENUE OF JUST OVER 49 MILLION DOLLARS, UH, WOULD MEAN A REDUCTION OR SHORTFALL OF JUST OVER 21 MILLION DOLLARS BASED ON THE UNINA- UNANIMOUS VOTE THRESHOLD. A FLAT RATE, UH, THAT WE'VE, UH, HAD FROM LAST YEAR AT THE 2.3894, UH, TWO-THIRDS VOTE AGAIN, UH, FOUR OF THE FIVE OF YOU WOULD NEED TO, UH, VOTE FOR THAT, WOULD BRING IN JUST OVER 46 MILLION DOLLARS, ALMOST, UH, 47 MILLION, BUT THEN THERE WOULD ALSO BE A SHORTFALL OF JUST OVER 23 MILLION DOLLARS. THE ROLLBACK RATE ITSELF, UH, EVEN WITH A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF, UH, AS WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO DO WITH, UH, UH, UH, THREE OF THE FIVE OF YOU, UH, WOULD BE 2.2705, UH, WOULD BE A REDUCTION, UH, IN THE PROPOSED, UH, O- OPERATING BUDGET OF 25.8 MILLION DOLLARS. SO THERE'S, THERE'S THE RAMIFICATIONS OF HOW THE VOTE WORKS AND, AND THE RATES, UH, ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. SO THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE MILLAGE RATE DECISIONS, ANY RATE THAT IS, UH, APPROVED BELOW THE, UH, PROPOSED RATE OF THE 2 POINT OR THE 3.5886 WOULD RESULT IN A DEFICIT. 
          UH, WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THAT IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE. UH, IN THE MOST EXTREME CASE, THE ROLLBACK, THE MAJORITY OF THE JFRD OPERATING BUDGET, OR THE 21.5 MILLION, UH, WOULD NEED TO BE FUNDED FROM OTHER MEANS. UH, THE DEFICIT COULD BE FUNDED FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES OR RE- REDUCTION OF SERVICES OR PROJECTS. UH, WE TALKED ABOUT PUTTING SOME ON HOLD, SO, UH, THAT WOULD BE AN EXTREME MEASURE. A SIGNIFICANT USE OF GENERAL FUND RESERVES WOULD SERIOUSLY IMPACT HOW THE TOWN, UH, WOULD BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE AMENDMENT 3. WE'VE ALL BEEN TALKING ABOUT AMENDMENT 3. IN FACT, WE HAD A WORKSHOP ON THAT, TALKING ABOUT THAT VERY SUBJECT, UH, SHOULD IT PASS. UH, THIS WOULD IMPACT THE TOWN'S FUTURE CREDIT RATINGS AS WELL, AND DRASTICALLY REDUCE THE FUNDING NEEDED TO RESPOND TO MAJOR NATURAL DISASTERS. WE TALK ABOUT THAT EVERY YEAR, UH, NOT JUST THIS PAST YEAR. SO WITH THAT, UM, I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. 
          WELL, I THINK THIS IS SOMEWHAT UNIQUE, UM, SO I CAN EITHER LET YOU ALL ASK QUESTIONS OR I CAN GO FIRST. I THINK IT'S PROBABLY APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO GO FIRST. DOES EVERYBODY AGREE? I, I CAN, UM, I CAN SAY ONE THING QUICKLY, JUST TO PROVIDE CONTEXT, BECAUSE I HAD ASKED FOR THIS WORKSHOP, WHICH IS UNUSUAL. UM, I KNOW, AND THANK YOU EVERYONE, UM, FOR AGREEING TO BE HERE TONIGHT. UM, THE REASON I HAD WANTED TO ASK FOR THE WORKSHOP IS BECAUSE IT IS, UM, AS PRESENTED, YOU KNOW, A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION AND ONE OF THE ONLY DECISIONS WE'VE HAD TO MAKE, UM, THAT'S REQUIRED TO BE 5-0, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT FOR A NUMBER OF MONTHS. UM, YOU KNOW, IT IS THE FUNDING FOR FIRE RESCUE, AND MY UNDERSTANDING CURRENTLY IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE 5-0 VOTE. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, BASED ON FLORIDA STATUTE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WHEN WE MEET TO SET THE MILLAGE, THIS IS JUST A WORKSHOP, BUT WHEN WE TAKE THAT DECISION NEXT TUESDAY, THERE'S NO REDO. 
          THERE'S NO SPECIAL MEETING AFTER. IF WE CAN'T COME TO THAT DECISION, THE STATUTE SAYS, BARRING ANY MAJOR HURRICANE OR ANYTHING, WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD, UM, ON THE 22ND. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT, I KNOW THAT WE WANT TO FUND FIRE RISK, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE BEING RESPONSIBLE, BUT I KIND OF WANTED A DRESS REHEARSAL TO AIR OUT, YOU KNOW, THE POLICY AROUND THIS DECISION, BECAUSE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE GET IT RIGHT, AND REALLY 
          [00:10:01]
IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THE 5-0 VOTE, AND THAT THERE BE NO QUESTION, HOPEFULLY, BEFORE WE, WE TAKE THAT VOTE ON TUESDAY. SO, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE THINGS STAND, GIVEN SOME OF THE ANXIETY AROUND FIRE RESCUE AND, YOU KNOW, THAT I'VE BEEN HEARING, I THINK IT'S JUST GOOD TO HAVE A DISCUSSION. AND SO I THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND THEN, AND THAT'S IT, REALLY. WE CAN GET INTO IT FROM THERE. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I WAS, YOU KNOW, THE KIND OF THE ROBERT'S RULE, ROBERT'S RULES AND ORDER IS INTERESTING. UM, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE LAST MEETING I COULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WOULD HAVE GOTTEN SUPPORT. 
          UM, I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. 
          FIRST OF ALL, IF ANYBODY HAD ASKED, WHAT MILLAGE RATE DO I SUPPORT? I WAS PREPARED WITH IT. I'M CERTAINLY BETTER PREPARED TONIGHT TO EXPLAIN, AND MY GOAL TONIGHT IS TO GET A CONSENSUS AND A FEEL-GOOD ABOUT WHAT I SUPPORT, NOT BECAUSE I SUPPORT IT, BUT I HOPE IT, WHEN I, WHEN I SHARE HOW I CAME UP WITH THAT, I BELIEVE IT REPRESENTS EVERYBODY'S THOUGHTS, SO I WANT TO KIND OF SHARE THAT. UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, UM, THREE DECIDE ON FIRST READING, AND SO THE MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED, AND I FELT LIKE IF I'D MADE ANY MORE COMMENTS, UM, QUITE FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, SOME MAY SAY I'M NOT, UM, WELL, AGAIN, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HAVE, IT WASN'T THE PLACE. THIS IS BETTER, BETTER VENUE, IF YOU WILL, TO, TO TALK ABOUT IT. SO ANYWAY, I'M PREPARED TO SHARE A NUMBER OF THINGS, UM, BUT IT STARTS WITH FUNDAMENTALLY EXPLAINING SOME THINGS. SO, YOU KNOW, UM, AND WHEN I'M DONE, SO WE'LL ASK THE FINANCE DIRECTOR IF HE WANTS TO CORRECT ANYTHING THAT I'M SAYING, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE MILLAGE RATE DECISION IS ALWAYS THE VERY LAST OVERARCHING BUDGETARY DECISION EVERY YEAR. 
          AND BEING THE LONGEST-TENURED MEMBER, I UNDERSTAND THAT BETTER THAN, HAS TO BE BETTER THAN EVERYBODY BECAUSE I'VE BEEN DOING IT LONGER. UM, AND IT IS SEPARATE FROM THE BUDGET. IT IS. IT HAS BEEN MANY YEARS. WE DO A LOT OF ADJUSTMENTS TO MAKE THE NUMBERS WORK. SO, BUT SO THE MILLAGE RATE, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE MILLAGE RATE, THIS IS, THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE NON-ADVAL ON FIRE TAXATION. LET ME MAKE THAT CLEAR, OKAY? AND IT MAY HAVE BEEN HEARD THAT WAY, AND CERTAINLY I WAS ADVOCATING BECAUSE I CERTAINLY WAS HOPEFUL THAT IT'S GOING TO BE REVISITED, UH, BUT NONETHELESS, SO JFRD, I WANT TO, I WANT TO SAY THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES TONIGHT BECAUSE I'M KIND OF STUNNED THAT THERE'S THIS TALK THE WAY THERE IS AND CONCERN. 
          SO JFRD IS NOT, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, DEPENDENT UPON THE NON-AD VALOREM FIRE TAXATION DECISION, WHICH WAS ENACTED BY 3-TO-2 POLICY VOTE. NOT DEPENDENT, NEVER HAS BEEN. LET ME MAKE THAT PRETTY CLEAR. 
          THERE IS NO TURNING BACK, AND THAT HAS BEEN THE CASE NOW FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS. WE DON'T HAVE A CONTRACT WITH PALM BEACH COUNTY THAT GOES BEYOND SEPTEMBER 30TH AT MIDNIGHT, NOR WOULD ANY OF US WANT TO TURN BACK, RIGHT? SO THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE GOT ANXIETY JUST BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT NON-AD VALOREM TAX, LIKE, GOSH, IS THERE SOME JEOPARDY? OF COURSE NOT. CERTAINLY NOT. 
          WE'RE AT THE FINISH LINE AND WE REALIZE THE EXTRAORDINARY BENEFITS TO, TO THE RESIDENTS. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO... EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1ST, MIDNIGHT, THE TOWN OF JUPITER, WE, THE COUNCIL, ALONG WITH STAFF, HAVE FULFILLED TWO STRATEGIC GOALS THAT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT LONG-TERM BENEFITS TO ALL TOWN PROPERTY OWNERS, RESIDENTS, AND BUSINESSES. 
          CELEBRATION. THE TOWN IS NOW HAS A FULLY INTEGRATED PUBLIC SAFETY TEAM WITH JPD AND JFRD PROFESSIONALS WORKING SIDE BY SIDE TO BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC, AND THE ENHANCED PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE MEDICAL CENTER WILL FURTHER LEAD TO IMPROVED MEDICAL OUTCOMES. 
          THEY BEGAN OPERATIONS OCTOBER 1ST. I CAN TELL YOU WHAT, SITTING AT THIS POINT IN TIME, JUST THAT, I'LL PAUSE THERE. IF THERE WAS NO MONEY SAVINGS, WE'RE BETTER. IT'S BETTER FOR THE COMMUNITY, SO I JUST WANTED TO, I WANTED TO HAVE SAID THAT, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT COULDN'T BE MORE EVIDENT TO ME NOW THAT WE'VE GOT, WE'VE SEEN WHAT HAS BEEN BUILT OVER THE TIME. AND SO, UH, MOVE ON TO THE PROPERTY TAXES. YOU KNOW, THE CREATION OF JUPITER FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT HAS ACHIEVED 10 MILLION DOLLARS. 
          WE'VE HEARD THAT, WE KNOW THAT. 
          [00:15:01]
IN JUST YEAR ONE, ANY ANNUAL SAVINGS IN FUTURE YEARS WOULD BE HIGHER YET. THE CONTRACT HAD, IF THEY B- BUILD A STATION OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY, I MEAN OUT OF THE TOWN, WE'RE GOING TO PAY A SHARE OF IT. THE DONALD ROSS ONE, WE'VE KNOWN ABOUT THAT ONE FROM THE TIME WE SIGNED THE CONTRACT. THAT WAS ENTERED AS A CONDITION. IT DIDN'T, PEOPLE MAY NOT KNOW THAT. COME BACK AND DO RENOVATIONS. THE 4-MILLION-DOLLAR RENOVATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AT ABACOA, THEY WOULD HAVE DONE. 
          THEY NEEDED TO DO, AND IT WAS FULLY... SO WE ALREADY GOT THAT BAKED IN OUR NUMBER. SO, OH MY GOSH, YOU KNOW, IN FUTURE YEARS, THE SAVINGS ARE GOING TO BE GREATER. THERE'S NO, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE NOW DON'T NEED TO KEEP ANY OF THAT. WE NEED TO CELEBRATE THAT. SO LET'S NOW TALK ABOUT LOWERING THE COST OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT AMENDMENT 3 IS ABOUT. IT'S TAKEN US 3 YEARS OF A CONCERTED TOWN OF JUPITER LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL TEAM EFFORT. 
          WE'VE EXCEEDED OUR FISCAL GOAL AND DELIVERED 10-MILLION-DOLLAR ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX SAVINGS IN FISCAL YEAR 27. THIS ANNUAL SAVINGS EQUATES TO ABOUT 150 DOLLARS FOR EVERY MAN, WOMAN, CHILD IN TOWN, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT 65,000 YEAR-ROUND RESIDENTS. THE SHEER MAGNITUDE OF SAVINGS TO OUR CONSTITUENTS DROVE US INTO ACTION. NOW, IF THERE'S ANYBODY UP HERE HAS NEVER HEARD ME USE THAT TERM, I'VE BEEN USING IT FOR 20 YEARS NOW, BECAUSE EVERY DECISION I'VE EVER MADE IS YOU TAKE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT YOU'RE DECIDING TO SPEND, YOU DIVIDE IT BY THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS, AND THAT'S THE COST PER RESIDENT. I WAS CHALLENGED BY THE COUNCIL, A- A PRIOR COUNCIL, OF WHICH THE OTHER 4 ARE NO LONGER HERE. WELL, GEE, YOU KNOW, BUSINESSES PAY THAT OR WHATEVER. SO, YOU KNOW, 20 YEARS AGO, I CAME UP WITH THE WAY I ANALYZE THE COST TO RESIDENTS AND UNDERSTAND THAT, AND TO, UH, BUSINESSES AND, YOU KNOW, WHO PAYS, YOU KNOW, HOW DOES BUSINESSES PAY, BUT FOR FROM US, BUT, UM, BUT I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE 150 DOLLARS FOR EVERY... THERE IS, THERE'S NOTHING WE COULD HAVE EVER DONE THAT WILL DELIVER MORE, MORE VALUE. UH, THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 3 IS TO LOWER HOMESTEADED PROPERTY TAXES, IS ON THE NOVEMBER 26TH BALLOT, AND IF PASSED, IT'S GOING TO RESULT IN APPROXIMATELY 10-MILLION-DOLLAR REDUCTION IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUES IMPACT TO THE TOWN. YOU KNOW, IT GIVES US NO CREDIT FOR THE FISCAL STEWARDSHIP TRACK RECORD. IT'S REALLY IRONIC, YOU KNOW, AND WE OUGHT TO BE SHARING THIS BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR TARGET. WE IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WE DIDN'T NEED THE STATE OF GOVER- THE STATE OF FLORIDA GOVERNMENT TO MOTIVATE US TO LOWER THE COST OF GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES. WE DELIVERED IT AS PART OF HOW A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD WORK AND DOES WORK IN JUPITER. WE ALL ARE PROUD OF THAT. I PERSONALLY WILL VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 3. I'M GOING TO BE SHARING THAT FREELY AS FAR AS I CAN, UM, BECAUSE I, BECAUSE OF HOW RADICALLY IT WILL CHANGE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHERE WE SERVE CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE. I'M GOING TO CONTINUE WORKING RELENTLESSLY TO LOWER THE COST OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, REGARDLESS OF THE VOTER OUTCOMES. UM, JUST AGAIN, SOME MAY KNOW THIS, BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO, YOU KNOW, SHARE THIS PERSPECTIVE. UM, YOU KNOW, IN 2010, I DID A, UM, I ANALYZED THE BUDGETS FOR A MUNIS- LARGE MUNIS- MEDIUM-SIZED MUNICIPALITY IN THE, IN THE COUNTY, AND I BEGAN, IT'S INTERESTING, I WAS DOGE BEFORE THERE WAS DOGE. AND I, AND I PRINTED OUT SOME COPIES. I WAS GOING THROUGH SOME OLD RECORDS TO JUST FIND SOME STUFF. I TRENDED BACK TO YEAR 2000. I WAS TRENDING AD VALOREM TAX AD VAL- ALLOCATIONS TO GENERAL FUND. 
          AND THE METRIC I USED IS I WAS SEEING HOW IT WAS GROWING VERSUS CPI PLUS POPULATION, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW A BUSINESS WOULD THINK. THAT'S WHAT WE HEAR FROM THE CFO OF THE STATE, RIGHT? WE DID THAT. UM, STAFFING. I GOT A GRAPH WHERE WE WERE TRENDING STAFFING VERSUS, UH, JUST POPULATION GROWTH. BACK IN THAT TIME, I HAD A HYPOTHESIS THAT, GEE, LIKE A BUSINESS, IF YOU'RE STAYING BELOW POPULATION GROWTH PLUS INFLATION, YOU'VE DONE YOUR JOB, UM, AND, UH, BUSINESSES WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THAT. AND THEN STAFFING, YOU KNOW, POPULATION. NOW, I'VE, I'VE LEARNED A LOT OVER TIME, AND I NOW REALIZE THE FLAWS OF THAT, BUT N- NONETHELESS, IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE. BUT AT THAT SAME TIME, THEN, 
          [00:20:01]
IS I BUILT SPREADSHEETS. 
          MAYOR, POINT OF ORDER, IS THIS, IS THIS TO DO WITH THE CURRENT— YES, IT DOES. 
          AGENDA? OKAY. 
          YES, IT DOES, BECAUSE I'M BASICALLY GOING TO SHARE INFORMATION, BUT I JUST WANT TO SH- SHARE HOW WHAT I'VE BEEN DOING IS SHARING INFORMATION, BECAUSE PROBABLY NOBODY BUT ME WAS BETTER POISED TO QUICKLY ANALYZE, YOU KNOW, W- HOW THE NON-AD VALOREM TAX FEE WAS WORKING. AND THEN EACH MEETING I CAME, AS I SAID, NOTHING, YOU KNOW, I WAS TRYING TO KEEP IT SHORT, UH, BUT NONETHELESS. 
          BUT BACK THEN, WAY BACK THEN, IS I EVEN HAD THE BUSINESSES, UM, AND EVERY TIME THERE'S A NEED TO UPDATE IT WITH CURRENT DECISIONS AND WHATEVER, I'M GOING BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL, UH, SHEET THAT I DID, UM, AND SEEING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FAIRNESS OF TAXATION IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY, RIGHT? AND, UH, SO WE WENT INTO THIS, AND THE TAX DISPARITIES INHERENT WITH THE JUPITER FIRE RISK PROTECTION NON-AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES OWN AND REST WITH US. YOU KNOW, AT THE LAST, AT THE FIRST BUDGET HEARING, A THIRD AND DECIDING VOTE EMERGED TO AT LEAST STUDY AND ENTERTAIN A NON-AD VALOREM TAXATION, UH, AN ALTERNATE APPROACH, YOU KNOW, FOR FISCAL YEAR 28, AND WE NEEDED A MOTION AND A, AND A SECOND BY DO- COUNCILOR DELANEY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN, AND I HOPE THAT DOES HAPPEN. 
          BUT ONE THING, AND I'M JUST MA- MAKING SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS ME. I MAKE DECISIONS AND ACT BASED ON MY... WHO I AM AND AND WHAT I'VE DONE. AT FPL, WE USED AN APPROACH, TOE IN THE WATER. 
          YOU STICK A TOE IN THE WATER WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING THE FIRST TIME, AND BUT THEN YOU ANALYZE THE HECK OUT OF IT AND SEE HOW IT WORKED OUT. SO, LOOK, ALL OF US, WHEN WE DID NOT, WHETHER WE AGREED OR DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE NON-AD VALOREM TAX, WE WERE USING A TOE IN THE WATER APPROACH. I THINK EVERYBODY KIND OF SAID IT, THOSE THAT WERE SUPPORTING IT AND SAYING, HEY, WE'LL SEE HOW IT WORKS. UM, AND THEN IT CAN BE, AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST... I'LL NEVER FORGET, YOU KNOW, COUNCILOR DELANEY COMMENTED RECENTLY THAT, UH, SOMETHING THAT'S SO VERY TRUE, ALL TAXES ARE, UH, HAVE DISPARITIES. ABSOLUTELY. 
          UH, BUT THIS IS ONE THAT WILL ULTIMATELY OWN LONG TERM, RIGHT? AND, UH, SO PARTICULARLY WITH AMENDMENT 3 COMING UP, I, I THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO SHARE THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF SHIFTING TO A DIFFERENT TAXATION APPROACH, UM, WHICH IS, WHICH EVERYBODY MAY BE GOING TO IF, IN FACT, AMENDMENT 3 PASSES. SO I, I DO BELIEVE WE'RE ALIGNED WITH, WE REALIZE WE WERE TRIAL IMPLEMENTING SOMETHING, AND IF WE, IF WE CAN, IF THREE OR MORE CAN AGREE THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE, THAT WE COULD AND SHOULD COMMIT TO THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, BEFORE FISCAL YEAR 28 ROLLS AROUND. UH, THE, UM, SO NOW, GOING BACK TO THE, UM, NOW TO THE UPDATE ON SOME OF THE, UH, ANALYSIS THAT I DID, UH, AND, YOU KNOW, IF ANYTHING, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS MY POSITION ON HOW I CAME UP WITH A RATE THAT I CAN SUPPORT. 
          SO, NUMBER ONE IS I, I LOOKED AT WHAT I REPRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC WHEN WE WERE EMBARKING ON THIS DECISION TO GARNER SUPPORT. AND BECAUSE OF MY TRACK RECORD ON COUNCIL, I WAS POINT IN SHARING THIS WITH THE CHAMBER, IN SHARING THIS WITH THE PUBLIC. YOU'LL LOOK, I HAD FACEBOOK POSTS, SO NOBODY'S OWNED THIS MORE THAN ME WITH REGARD TO COMMITTING OUT THERE, LIKE, THIS IS WHAT A RESIDENT CAN EXPECT, THIS IS WHAT A BUSINESS CAN EXPECT, BECAUSE I ACTUALLY PUT SPECIFICS DOWN TO A, YOU KNOW, UM, OUT THERE. UM, SO SOME MAY HAVE COMMITTED BIG PICTURE, AND WE CERTAINLY DELIVERED BIG PICTURE, BUT I COMMITTED, I FEEL LIKE, AND IT'S JUST THE WAY I AM, THAT I COMMITTED, YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY TO EVERY PROPERTY OWNER IN THE TOWN. AND, UM, AND THEN IT JUST WAS MY NATURE, IS I ALWAYS CHECK, HOW DID WE DO VERSUS WHAT WE SAID WE DID? SO PART OF THIS WAS JUST SEEING HOW WE DID VERSUS WHAT WE SAID WE WERE GONNA DO. AND SO I'LL, 
          [00:25:01]
I'LL START WITH THE, UM, COMMERCIAL FIRST, UM, AND GO BACK TO THE, UH, BUT, UM, INTERESTINGLY, EVEN IN THE COMMERCIAL, IT TURNS OUT, AND I HAVE 33 COMMERCIAL PARCELS. I HAVE THEM BECAUSE I'VE BEEN DOING THESE SAME ONES FOR, FOR MORE THAN A DECADE, ACTUALLY. I USED IT WHEN I GOT WITH THE CHAMBER TO KIND OF WIN THEIR SUPPORT OF THE BENEFIT IS GOING TO BE TO EVERY BUSINESS. UM, AND UM, SO BOTTOM LINE, I JUST LOOKED AT HOW IT COMPARED, BECAUSE I HAD A SPREADSHEET STARTED. I JUST HAD DROP IN A 220 SE- YOU KNOW, FISCAL YEAR 27 TRIM NUMBERS, AND I LOOKED AT THESE 33 COMMERCIAL PARCELS, AND 18 DECREASED, BUT 15 INCREASED. THE DISPARITY, BUT THE OTHER PART OF THE DISPARITY WAS TAX, UH, THE TAXABLE VALUE INCREASES, SO I EVEN ADJUSTED FOR THE TAXABLE VALUE INCREASES. UM, ANYWAY, SO THEN AS I CAME UP WITH, UM, A THOUGHT FOR, UH, A MILLAGE RATE THAT I COULD SUPPORT, UM, THE MILLAGE RATE THAT I COULD SUPPORT, UM, AND LET ME JUST GIVE IT TO YOU HERE, BUT WE'LL COME BACK TO IT, WAS 3.4798. UM, AND UM, BUT JUST USING THAT AS A NUMBER, 3.4798, UM, IT TURNS OUT WHEN I APPLIED THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY AT THIS POINT IN TIME IT RESULTS IN A LOWER TAX FOR EVERYBODY, UH, BY, UH, BY THAT INCREMENTAL AMOUNT. 31 COMMERCIAL PARCELS DECREASED, AND ONLY 2 INCREASED. UM, AND THEN WHEN I LOOKED AT, UM, WHEN I LOOKED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PARCELS, AND I WIND UP ADDING MORE AS I REALIZE WHO I'M GOING TO GO BE MEETING WITH, IS I ADDED, FOR EXAMPLE, NOEL, NOEL MARTINEZ, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO BE MEETING WITH HIM TO SHARE SO THE CHAMBER KNOWS HOW THIS WORKED, UM, AND A FEW OTHERS, BUT NONETHELESS, YOU KNOW, I HAD SHARED LAST TIME SOME OF THE DISPARITIES, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, BUT SO I, I, I'VE SAID THAT. I DON'T THINK I NEED TO REPEAT THOSE HERE, UM, BUT TAKE THE MOST IMPACT OF, UM, AND THEN I, YOU KNOW, IRONICALLY, I LOOK BACK TO WHAT I HAD PRESENTED, AND, UM, COINCIDENTALLY, WE HAD THIS AD VALOREM TAX IMPLICATIONS FOR JFRD DECISION. WE HAD A BENEFITS VERSUS PF, YOU KNOW, PALM BEACH COUNTY BEST CASE, AND THEN TO THEIR GOAL. SO IRONICALLY, ALTHOUGH THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN ADDRESS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, WE HAD, UM, A HOMESTEADED CONDO AT 260,000 DOLLARS, WHICH WAS EXTREMELY CLOSE, WAS IN FACT WITHIN A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS OF THE EXAMPLE THAT I GAVE FOR THE RESIDENCE AND THE BARCELONA APARTMENTS. SO I LOOKED AT THAT, I SAID, GEE, WE SAID THERE IT'S GOING TO BE 102 DOLLARS, UH, IF SOMEONE WAS VALUED AT THAT, AND THEN, UH, THE 443 WAS THE AVERAGE, 444,000 WAS THE AVERAGE TAXABLE VALUATION AT THAT TIME, 3 YEARS AGO, AND, UH, WE WERE SAYING THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, FIRST YEAR VERSUS THEIR BEST CASE, WE'RE GOING TO DELIVER 173 DOLLARS. UM, SO THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU KIND OF COMPARE THAT AGAINST UH, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE, WITH THE TRIM NUMBERS, AND, UH, IT WAS JUST FAR FROM IT. SO SIMILARLY WITH THE UM, SIMILARLY WITH THE UH, COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, I WENT AHEAD AND AD- DID AN ADJUSTMENT OF IF WE DID USE THIS 3.4798, HOW WOULD THAT WORK OUT? AND IT MAKES THINGS, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER. IT DOESN'T MEET THE NUMBER, BUT I, I FEEL BETTER ABOUT IT. YOU KNOW, THE 14-DOLLAR SAVINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS ONE RESIDENT'S GONNA GET WHEN, YOU KNOW, THE EXPECTATION HAD BEEN 81 DOLLARS, THEY'RE GONNA AT LEAST GET 43, RIGHT? YOU CAN'T CURE IT WITH DOING THAT, BUT I JUST FELT BETTER OVERALL THAT WE'RE COMING CLOSER TO DELIVERING FOR THOSE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE END, MOST IMPACTED BY THE DISPARITY, AND THEN THE OTHERS GAIN EVEN MORE, BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS. SO I'M JUST LOOKING AT, 
          [00:30:01]
I THINK IT'S A FAIR OUTCOME, YOU KNOW, IN YEAR ONE, YOU KNOW, FOR, UH, TAXATION, AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, MOVING FURTHER ON, UM, AND I'LL JUST GO TO THE PRESENTATION, UM, IF YOU COULD PULL UP, UH, MR. REYNOLDS, YOUR, UH, PAGE 6 OF YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY, UM... SO, AT THE 3.4798 NUMBER, AND I DID GIVE THIS TO MR. REYNOLDS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS THIS NUMBER PREPARED, BUT I HAVE IT, UM, WE WOULD, THE REVENUE GENERATED WOULD BE 68,314,000, UM, FOR A DELTA OF 2.1 MILLION, AND THAT'S REVENUE GENERATED. 
          UM, ME ALSO THEN, BUT THE BUDGET NUMBERS, EVERYBODY MAY KNOW THIS; YOU MAY NOT KNOW IT. WHEN YOU WALK THAT NUMBER INTO THE BUDGET, STATUTORILY, IT'S A 95% YOU WALK IN. 5% IS, UM, AN ASSUMPTION THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO COLLECT EVERYTHING. AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, AND WHILE I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW, THERE'S A 3% TAKE OF THE REVENUE. I THINK IT'S FOR THE TAX COLLECTOR AND THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE. 
          SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT TOTAL REVENUE GENERATED, YOU KNOW, WE ONLY GET, WE, WE CAN ONLY BUDGET, UH, 95%, AND THEN YOU SLICE OFF 3%. SO THAT WOULD COME DOWN TO 1.968 MILLION. UM, JUST TO HAVE A POINT OF PERSPECTIVE. SO, UM, I WANTED TO JUST HAVE EXPLAINED WHERE I AM AND WHAT THE COSTS ARE, AND AGAIN, I SEE, UH, MR. REYNOLDS IS, HE CAN COME UP AND CORRECT ME IF THERE'S ANY, AND BUT I ASK HIM JUST TO MOVE IT TO SLIDE, UH, THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          YOU WANT THE NEXT SLIDE? YEAH, JUST THAT SLIDE. THANK YOU. SO, AND I JUST WANT TO FURTHER SAY, AND MANY HAVE HEARD THIS PROBABLY MORE TIMES THAN THEY CARE TO HEAR IT, BUT I HAD A GREAT, I'VE HAD A LOT OF GREAT MENTORS, AND SO ONE MENTOR, UH, THAT I'LL ALWAYS FONDLY REMEMBER TAUGHT ME THAT THE WALLS WE PERCEIVE ARE THE WALLS THAT CONFINE US. AND I PERCEIVE LESS WALLS AS A RESULT OF THAT LEARNING. I RECEIVE LESS, I PERCEIVE LESS WALLS THAN OTHERS, SO I DON'T UNNECESSARILY CONFINE MY POLICY GUIDANCE AND DECISIONS BY THOSE KIND OF WALLS. I REALIZE UP HERE, AND THIS ISN'T A CRITICISM, BUT WE THINK DIFFERENTLY. IT NEVER WAS, NEVER WILL BE, EVER IMPORTANT FOR ME TO SEPARATE FIRE RESCUE FROM THE GENERAL FUND. THAT WAS DONE, IN MY MIND, SIMPLY FOR TRANSPARENCY TO THE PUBLIC. AND I KNOW OTHERS HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT THAT. IT'S FINE. WE CAN, WE CAN HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON THE TEAM. THAT'S HEALTHY. 
          BUT I'VE NEVER BEEN BOUNDED BY THAT. SO I, AND I'M EMPHASIZING THAT BECAUSE I'M JUST NOT, I JUST DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT, GEE, THE MAYOR IS HEDGING. NO, HE'S NOT. WE HAVE ONE TEAM. THERE'S ONE MILLAGE RATE. THAT MILLAGE RATE IS FOR TOWN. THEY'RE NOT SEPARATED. WE'RE KEEPING IT BOOKKEEPING-WISE, BUT THEY'RE NOT SEPARATED. 
          UM, AND, AND WE'VE MET OUR TRANSPARENCY. I KNOW A POLICY DECISION IS MADE BY THE CREATION OF NON-AD VALOREM TAX. WE'RE GOING TO BE THERE UNTIL SOME FUTURE COUNCIL DECIDES OTHERWISE, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THAT'S A WALL THAT ISN'T A WALL FOR THIS MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL. UM, SO THEN ON THIS, REALLY, I WANTED TO TALK TO THE SECOND BULLET, WHICH SAYS THE DEFICIT COULD ONLY BE FUNDED FROM, AND, UM, THAT'S NOT COMPLETELY TRUE, WHAT'S THERE. AND I JUST WANT TO SHARE, AND I DON'T THINK MR. REYNOLDS, AND WE'RE GOING TO GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I DON'T THINK HE'S GOING TO DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING I'M SAYING HERE, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER, UH, I HO- AND I FOR A LONG TIME, 
          [00:35:01]
AND I HOLD HIM IN THE HIGHEST REGARDS. 
          BUT FIRST OF ALL, YOU START WITH THE ITEM I TALKED ABOUT ON TAX COLLECTIONS. SO IN FISCAL YEAR 27, THE FACT THAT WE BUDGET ON 95%, THE 10-YEAR HISTORICAL AVERAGE IN COLLECTIONS. MR. REYNOLDS, I'M GOING TO USE 98.3, WHICH IS A DECADE THAT I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN. I KNOW IT'S GONE UP HIGHER THAN THAT IN RECENT YEARS. 
          THAT'S FROM 2012 TO 2021. 
          BUT THAT 3.3% ABOVE CO- BUDGET COLLECTIONS IS 2.3 MILLION DOLLARS. SO SOME OF YOU ON THE COUNCIL KNOW THIS; NEWER MEMBERS MAY NOT. 
          THAT HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE YEAR, AND WE SWEEP IT AT THE END OF THE YEAR, BUT IT IS A COLLECTION, AND IT GOES INTO THE GENERAL FUND. SO I KNOW THAT, AND SO IT'S A SOURCE THAT I'M... YOU, YOU CAN'T BEAT GOVERNMENT ON TAXES, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE LEAN, RIGHT? AND THAT'S WHY IT WORKS OUT THAT WAY, AND SURPRISINGLY, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T PAY IT EARLY LIKE I DO TO SAVE 4%, RIGHT? IT'S NOT, YOU LOOK, LOOK IN THE CAFR, RIGHT? SO THAT'S 3 POINT, 2.3 MILLION DOLLARS. 
          NOW, FOR THE RECORD, LET'S BE CLEAR AS WE GO FORTH HERE. 
          IT'S ALMOST PRECISE, NOT EXACTLY, BUT TWO-THIRDS OF THAT'S THE GENERAL FUND, AND ONE-THIRD OF THAT IS JFRD. 
          SO, UM, GOING FORTH, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE KEEPING THESE, IF OTHERS ARE GOING TO HAVE WALLS UP YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN, WE GOT TO REMEMBER THAT THE ADDED COLLECTIONS THAT WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO GET, UM, THEN THEY GET PARCELED TO THE TWO DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS. 
          INTERESTINGLY, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT JUST TO MENTION, UM, AND SO NOW THAT GOES UP THIS YEAR BECAUSE THE FACT THAT WE ADDED, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD A STEADY AD VALOREM RATE, AND THERE'S A STEADY AMOUNT WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH AN UPSIDE AT THE END OF THE YEAR, AND THAT'S HOW THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE WAS GROWING. 
          WELL, NOW IT'S GOING TO GROW ANOTHER 50% BECAUSE WE'VE ADDED ROUGHLY BY, BY TAKING JFRD IS WE NOW GET MORE, AND, UH, BUT I JUST, IT IS RELEVANT, I THINK, TO JUST SHARE THAT, YOU KNOW, PALM BEACH COUNTY FIRE RESCUE NEVER PROVIDED A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO ME THAT THEY WERE NOT SWEEPING THE REVENUE OUTSIDE OF JUPITER. IN FACT, WHEN WE WERE NEGOTIATING THIS, I GOT WITH THE CHIEF, AND, UH, HE LEFT HERE, AND THEY WERE GONNA, I SAID, THAT'S A QUESTION I HAD, AND QUITE FRANKLY, UM, I REQUESTED IT, AND THEY OPTED NOT TO RESPOND. AND, UH, TO THIS DAY, EVEN WHEN WE'VE DONE AUDITS, I THINK THEY'VE BEEN SWEEPING IT OUTSIDE OF JUPITER, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE. WE'RE NOW GONNA GET THAT BENEFIT, RIGHT? BUT KEEP IN MIND, THAT BENEFIT IS ABOVE THE 25 AND A HALF MILLION BECAUSE WHAT'S PRESENTED IS THE BUDGET PER THE RULES. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY GONNA COLLECT MORE REVENUE. UH, SECONDLY, UM, SO THAT'S, YOU LOOK, I'M JUST COMING WITH SOLUTIONS SO PEOPLE KNOW, YOU KNOW, HOW THIS, UH, CORRECTION IN JUST THIS YEAR COULD BE DONE. UM, I ALWAYS TRY TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS. I'M NOT JUST SAYING, HEY, AND THAT'S WHY I SAY IT'S, UH, WE'RE NOT TAKING IT FROM RESERVES THAT EXIST AND LOWERING THE NUMBERS. YOU KNOW, WE ALL ARE EQUALLY CONCERNED ABOUT AMENDMENT 3. UM, BUT THEN I JUST WANT, I'VE ASKED FOR, UM, MANY TIMES EVERY YEAR WE LOOK AT RETROACTIVE CARRYOVER FUND, YOU KNOW, WE LOOK AT THINGS. 
          SO UNDER THE CASE OF RETROACTIVE CARRYOVER FUND REALLOCATIONS, UM, I MADE THIS ASK IN A BUDGET WORKSHOP THAT HAS YET TO BE IMPLEMENTED. I- I- I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD AGREE, I WOULD HOPE, OR CLOSE, OR AT LEAST UNDERSTAND THAT, GEE, SOUTHERN, THE SOUTHERN EXTENSION OF ISLAND WAY HAS BEEN A BIG DEAL TO ME. TOOK ME YEARS, WE GOT IT FULLY FUNDED. AND NOW, AND I SUPPORT THIS APPROACH, AND WE'RE MOVING IN THIS DIRECTION, PARTICULARLY WITH THE WORLD AS IT'S GONNA BE, IS A PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE. 
          SO AT A WORKSHOP, UM, I ASKED THAT THE BUDGET BE ADJUSTED. I WANT IT TO BE DONE IN THIS CYCLE, AND, UH, BASICALLY THERE WAS 2.7 MILLION DOLLARS PRE-27 CARRYOVER IN GENERAL FUNDS. I SAID, SWEEP IT. TAKE IT. THERE IS 2 MILLION DOLLARS IN SURTAX FUNDS DEDICATED TO THAT PROJECT. I SAID, SWEEP IT. TAKE IT. WE'LL ASSIGN IT TO SOMETHING ELSE. I GAVE UP A PROJECT THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M TILL I DIE, I'M GOING TO WORK ON GETTING THAT PROJECT TO HAPPEN, BUT I GAVE IT UP BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING 
          [00:40:01]
TO DO, UM, AND WE GIVE IT UP. I REMEMBER WHEN I WAS SAYING IT, I REMEMBER SEEING COUNCILOR SUNDSTROM, BIG SMILE, AGREEING, WHICH IS WHY, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT COUNT WHEN COUNCIL DECIDES, THINK ABOUT IT, US AS A COUNCIL, IF WE'RE NOT CLEAR, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW THERE WAS A CONSENSUS. SO WHEN THIS WASN'T DONE YET, I SAID, GEE, I N- I THINK EVERYBODY SUPPORTED IT. I DON'T KNOW WHY ANYBODY WOULDN'T. AND I USE AS AN EXAMPLE, COUNCILOR SUNDSTROM. I THINK SHE WAS VERY SUPPORTIVE. WE JUST, IN THOSE WORKSHOPS, WE JUST DON'T SAY THAT. SO THE POINT IS, THAT'S 4.7 MILLION DOLLARS MORE THAT WE NEED, AND I WANT IT AND STILL WANT IT TO BE DONE BEFORE WE FINALIZE THAT BUDGET, BECAUSE I WANT THE RECORD TO SHOW, GOING FORTH TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG THE CORRIDOR: WE'RE NOT FUNDING ALL OF IT, IT'S RELYING UPON PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE, SO THAT SHEET NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED. UM. 
          MAYOR, POINT OF ORDER. I KNOW WE'RE AT 6:40. 
          I SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE TIME TO ENGAGE ON IT. 
          I UNDERSTAND, BUT I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS. 
          ASK ONE QUESTION ABOUT ONE OF YOUR FORMER POINTS ABOUT, UH, REVENUE COLLECTION. 
          HOWEVER, WE COME UP A LITTLE BIT OVER, AND IT THEN IT GETS TO FIRST GENERAL FUND, MAYBE INTO THE, UM, RESERVES. SO YOU, YOU WANT TO JUST COME, YOU WANT TO LOWER THE MILLAGE TO COME IN RIGHT ON TARGET? NO, NO, IT TURNS OUT. 
          BECAUSE THE OVERAGE IS MORE, I KIND OF LOOK AT THAT AS MORE OF A CONTINGENCY, IN CASE. 
          UNDERSTAND. NO, I- IT'S NOT SOMETHING I EVEN REALLY CONSIDER EVERY YEAR, IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST. 
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
          UNDERSTAND, BUT ERIC, CAN I ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD. 
          SORRY, I JUST, I WANT TO, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN HAVING THIS DISCUSSION ALL SUMMER, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RECORD'S CORRECT ON A COUPLE OF THINGS. UM, YOU HAD SAID IT WAS A 3-2 VOTE ON NAV. WAS IT A 3-2 VOTE, STAFF? BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WAS A 4-1. 
          I THOUGHT IT WAS 4-1. 
          WELL, THE UNDERSTANDING OF COUNCIL IS 4-1, AND THE VOTE WAS 4-1. SO I JUST, I WANTED TO SAY THAT QUICKLY. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE NAV IS HOW YOU STARTED THIS. THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE NAV, BUT THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S GOING, IT'S A- IT'S ABOUT THE NAV BECAUSE THE SAVINGS, LIKE WHY THE 2, THE 2 MILLION, THE PROD- THE PRESENTATION SAYS THAT ANYTHING LESS THAN THE MILLAGE PRESENTED BY STAFF, WHO KNOWS THE ACTUALS, NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, THEY, WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE 95% COLLECTION, AND WE ALL UNDERSTAND AND BUDGET AROUND NOT ONLY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, BUT ALSO THE ACTUALS AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND WHERE THEY GO. 
          AND SO WITH ALL OF THAT KNOWN, NOT UNKNOWN, THERE WOULD BE A DEFICIT. THE BALANCE ISN'T, YOU KNOW, WE CALL IT, IT'S CALLED HERE A DELTA OF 2.1, BUT IT'S A DEFICIT OF 2.1. SO THE QUESTION IS, LIKE, ON A RECURRING EXPENSE, FIRE WILL COST US EVERY YEAR. 
          IT WILL BE A RECURRING EXPENSE. 
          WHERE IS THE RECURRING REVENUE TO BALANCE THE 2.1 MILLION DELTA, OR WHATEVER THE DELTA ENDS UP BEING, WITH A LOWER MILLAGE? BECAUSE TO FULLY FUND RIOT FIRE RESCUE, STAFF IS SAYING, WITH THE 95% COLLECTION, WITH THE ACTUAL AT THE END OF THE YEAR, WITH EVERYTHING TRUED UP, THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO FUND FIRE RESCUE. 
          YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK BACK AT THE GENERAL FUND BUDGETING WE DID IN FISCAL YEAR, FOR FISCAL YEAR 23, WE DESIGNATED 555,000 FROM THE FUND BALANCE, NOT KNOWING HOW WE WERE GOING TO CORRECT IT IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR. IN 24, WE DESIGNATED 750,000 DOLLARS FROM THERE. 25, WE DIDN'T. IN 26, WE WENT AHEAD AND DESIGNATED 17.7 MILLION, OF WHICH 684,000 WAS FOR THE GENERAL FUND, NOT FOR FIRE RESCUE. AND THEN, UM, WE ACTUALLY WENT INTO 27 IN THE HOLE BECAUSE WE HAD BUDGETED, I DIDN'T SUPPORT IT, BUT WE HAD BUDGETED THE USE OF A MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE SPLASH PAD USING, COULDN'T MAKE THE NUMBERS WORK, WAS GOING TO COME OUT OF RESERVE. SO THE POINT WAS, THIS HAPPENS OFTEN, RIGHT? UM, THAT WE DO THAT, AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET TO RECURRING. UM, SO, AND THERE'S SO MANY OPTIONS WE 
          [00:45:01]
HAVE. I JUST WANTED TO, FOR RESPECT TO MY COLLEAGUES, WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS MAKING MY PITCH, WHY THAT'S A NUMBER FOR ME. 
          THE NOT, AND THEN I WAS SPEAKING ON THE 3 TO 2, YOU'RE CORRECT ON THE VOTE, BUT WHEN I WAS TOLD THAT BY, BY 3-TO-2 POLICY DECISION, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A DECIDED POLICY DECISION, THAT'S WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. THAT DECISION IS MADE, WE CAN'T CHANGE IT. IT IS WHAT IT IS FOR FISCAL YEAR 27, AND I'M NOT RESISTING THAT. IT IS. 
          I'D LIKE TO MAKE IT CORRECT SOME OF THE DISPARITIES, AND THAT'S WHY I TAKE THE POSITION. 
          LOOK, THE STATE IS THE ONE THAT ESTABLISHED IT TAKES UNANIMOUS. 
          THAT MEANS THAT THEY DECIDED THAT, GEE, THE PERSON THAT FEELS THE STRONGEST ABOUT THE TAXATION LEVEL HAS THE LAST SAY, RIGHT, TO SOME DEGREE. 
          AND I'M HOPING IT DOESN'T COME DOWN TO THAT, RIGHT? IS THAT, UM, AND THAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE THAT EVERYBODY WOULD FEEL GOOD ABOUT LOWERING THE MILLAGE RATE BY THAT AMOUNT, HOW IT REALLY DOES CORRECT SOME DISPARITIES, YOU KNOW, AND DELIVERS CLOSER TO WHAT WE ALL REPRESENTED, YOU KNOW, TO THE PUBLIC. AND, UM, AND I WAS JUST TRYING TO SHOW YOU THE SOLUTIONS WE HAVE BECAUSE, AND WHILE, AND I, I DON'T KNOW THAT EVERYBODY KNEW THE 95% NUMBER, UH, BUT I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. SO I JUST WANT, I KNOW SOME DID, BUT UH, AND, UH, THE, OR THE 3% THAT GETS SWEPT. I'M JUST TRYING TO PRESENT SOME FACTUAL NUMBERS HERE, BUT UM, BUT TO THE DEGREE THAT IF YOU READ THIS, IT'S LIKE CAN ONLY BE FUNDED FROM THIS, AND ANYTHING WE DO IS GOING TO SERIOUSLY IMPACT HOW WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND. 
          NO, WE'RE ALREADY WORKING TO RESPOND, AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE REALIZE, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SHOW UP IN YOUR BUDGET BOOK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FUND BALANCES, RIGHT? UN- UNTIL, FOR EXAMPLE, THE 4.7 MILLION DOLLARS IS RETURNED, AND WE PICK A PROJECT TO USE FOR THAT SURCHARGE FUND, ALSO LOWERS THE, UH, CONSUMPTION OF GENERAL FUNDS, RIGHT? UM... SO. 
          OKAY, SO, OH MAN. ALL RIGHT. 
          TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS WORKS. SO WE, THIS WOULD CREATE A 2 MILLION RECURRING DEFICIT. IT'S A SL- IT'S A LOWER MILLAGE, CREATES A RECURRING DEFICIT. 
          STAFF, CAN YOU COME UP? I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT JUST THIS END OF THE YEAR MONEY AND ACTUALS AND PLANNING FOR RESERVES, PLANNING FOR PROGRAMS, AND HOW WE TREAT ACTUALS. WHAT DO WE DO AT THE END OF THE YEAR? IS THIS CORRECT, WHAT'S PRESENTED THAT, I MEAN, I IMAGINE WE KNOW OUR ACTUALS THAT WE HAVE AT THE END OF THE YEAR WHEN WE TRUE EVERYTHING UP, AND WE PLACE THE RESERVE, WE PLACE IT INTO RESERVE, WE PLACE IT, YOU KNOW. 
          IT GO- IT GOES INTO THE RESERVE. THAT'S- RIGHT. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. IF WE HAVE EXCESS FUNDS, IT DOES. IT GOES IN TO BUILD UP THE RESERVE BALANCE. 
          AND IT'S PART OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING TO BUILD UP OUR RESERVES. 
          IT'S PART OF THAT. 
          WE'VE KNOWN THAT, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A TOWN. 
          AND IT'S NOT JUST THE AD VALOREM, I MEAN, REALLY SHOULDN'T PAINT IT IN THAT LIGHT. 
          IT'S A MIX. 
          THERE'S, THERE'S A MULTITUDE OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT HAPPENED DURING THE YEAR, AND I'LL GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES. UH, THE, UM, THE INTEREST RATES, UH, HAPPENED JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, WHERE THE INTEREST RATES WERE GOING UP. WE WERE THE BENEFICIARY OF SOME OF THOSE INTEREST RATES, WHERE WE, UH, WE EXCEEDED OUR, UH, EX- OUR, OUR, UH, UH, ESTIMATE. THOSE MONIES CAME BACK INTO THE RESERVE. IT HELPS US BUILD UP OUR RESERVES TO ACTUALLY PAY FOR THE FIRST 2 YEARS OF JUPITER FIRE RESCUE, IF YOU REMEMBER THAT, THAT WE DISCUSSED ABOUT THAT. 
          THERE'S ALSO COST SAVINGS THAT OCCUR THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. WE BUDGET FOR CERTAIN ITEMS. THOSE ITEMS MAY NOT HAPPEN DURING THE YEAR. AT THE END OF THE, AT THE END OF THE DAY, UH, THOSE, THOSE EXCESS REVENUES, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE AN EXPENDITURE TO GO WITH IT, UH, THOSE FUNDS WOULD GO BACK INTO THE RESERVES. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT ATTRIBUTE TO, UH, THE RESERVES. NOW, UH, UM, THE MAYOR IS CORRECT. UH, WE DO, UH, HAVE TO BUDGET 95% OF THE AD VALOREM, UH, AND THAT IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE STATUTORY DISCOUNTS THAT OCCUR, UH, PLUS UNCOLLECTIBLES. IT'S WHAT THE STATE WANTS US TO DO, UH, TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE, AND SOMETIMES PEOPLE DO NOT PAY EARLY. UH, SO THERE ARE COLLECTIONS THAT EXCEED THAT 95%, SO THAT DOES HAPPEN. UH, SO THERE IS THAT, BUT AGAIN, IT'S NOT JUST ONE ITEM THAT, THAT CREATES A, A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE A- ACTUALLY ABLE TO PUT MONEY BACK INTO RESERVES, OR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR. 
          THANK YOU. AND, I MEAN, MY UNDERSTANDING HAS BEEN THAT WE'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO BE SOMEWHAT PROTECTIVE OF RESERVES. THAT'S PART OF THE SPLASH PAD, IS THAT IT CAN'T BE FROM RESERVES; IT NEEDS TO COME FROM ANOTHER SOURCE, AND THAT WAS PART OF THE EXERCISE. I THINK, I MEAN, I WORRY ABOUT THE RECURRING NATURE OF THIS DEFICIT AND, AND STRUCT- THE STRUCTURAL DEFICIT OF THIS AND WHERE TO FIND IT. 
          [00:50:02]
AND I, I KNOW THAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE 95, AND WE'VE ADDED IT TO RESERVES, THAT WE'VE WORKED TO BUILD RESERVES, AND THAT WE NEED TO BUILD RESERVES MORE THAN EVER NOW WITH AMENDMENT 3, WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH THE FACT THAT WE'VE DRAWN DOWN ON IT TO CREATE JUPITER FIRE RESCUE. SO, I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN CREATING THE ANXIETY, AND I DO THINK IT IS ABOUT THE NAV. I MEAN, YOU'VE SAID IT'S NOT ABOUT THE NAV, BUT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT IT QUITE A LOT OVER THE LAST 30 MINUTES, AND, YOU KNOW, IF THE AMOUNT MATCHES THE NAV, LOOKING AT THE PIE CHART FROM STAFF, IT IS A VERY SMALL PORTION. WE TRIED TO BE RESPONSIBLE, PUTTING INTO BALANCE ALL OF THE VARIOUS FACTORS, NOT ONLY FOR RESIDENTS, BUT FOR THE JUPITER FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT, WHICH NEEDS TO HAVE RELIABLE REVENUES GOING FORWARD, WHERE UNCERTAINTY IS CERTAINLY BEING CREATED IN THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT. 
          AND SO, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S THE BIGGER CONCERN, IS BALANCING IT. THE AMOUNT IN THE NAV CURRENTLY, AND JUST SO THE REST OF THE COUNCIL KNOWS, IS CURRENTLY AT THE MARGIN, WHICH I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. UM, IF WE PULL UP THE PIE CHART THAT WE HAD, IF I COULD ASK FOR THAT ONE, IT IS A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT. IT IS, UM, AND, AND NO, AND I AGREE, UM, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER DELANEY, THERE IS NO FORM OF TAXATION THAT'S PERFECT. 
          YOU KNOW, WE'RE RUNNING INTO THAT ISSUE WITH OTHER LAND ACQUISITION DECISIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT THIS ON THE WHOLE, YOU KNOW, COULD WE STAFF, I GUESS ANOTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS, AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH THIS, IF WE WERE TO DO A FULL AD VALOREM, WASN'T THERE A QUESTION OF WE WOULD HAVE NEEDED A REFERENDUM TO DO THAT? IF YOU'RE GOING TO PLEDGE THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE TOWN, YES, THAT'S THE AD VALOREM DOLLARS, JUST LIKE YOU DID WITH THE OPEN SPACE ISSUANCE. 
          YES. 
          YOU WOULD NEED TO GO TO REFERENDUM FOR THAT. 
          AND SO WE DIDN'T, YEAH, WE CHOSE THIS PATH KIND OF EARLY ON, UM, WITHOUT CHOOSING IT SPECIFICALLY, BUT MORE GENERALLY CHOSE IT WHEN WE DIDN'T GO DOWN THAT PATH. SO, YOU KNOW, NOW, AND NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN UNTIL NOW. THERE'S BEEN NO OTHER MILLAGE RATE PROPOSED UNTIL NOW, YOU KNOW, AT THE VERY END OF THE BUDGET CYCLE. IT'S JUST THE CONCERN OF THIS WILL HAVE A STRUCTURAL IMPACT ON THE FUNDING OF THE FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT, AND HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BALANCING, YOU KNOW, THE NEEDS OF RESIDENTS? I CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THEM RECEIVING A SAVINGS. 
          I THINK WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DELIVER THAT, AND WE'VE HAD A LOT OF GOOD NEWS, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO BALANCE THE NEEDS OF OUR DEPARTMENT, NOT ONLY OUR RESIDENTS, BUT OUR DEPARTMENT, AND TO GIVE THEM A SOLID START WHERE THEY'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT FILLING A DEFICIT MAYBE NEXT YEAR. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS. SO WE CAN LOOK AT THINGS NEXT YEAR. 
          WE CAN ALWAYS LOOK. I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE NON-AD VALOREM QUITE REGULARLY, BUT HOW WE START THIS YEAR AND HOW WE END 3 YEARS OF BUILDING FIRE RESCUE MATTERS, AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE CONCERN FOR ME. 
          MAYOR, YOU ALSO, UM, YOU COVERED A LOT OF GROUND, AND I RESPECT YOUR OPINIONS AND WHAT YOU, HOW YOU FEEL, WHAT YOU'VE ALWAYS DONE, YOUR RESEARCH AND EVERYTHING. 
          YOU'RE, NO ONE'S MORE THOROUGH THAN YOU ARE, BUT I, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE ASKING US TO, YOU KNOW, THE FISCAL POLICY THAT WE'VE ALWAYS ADHERED TO ON THE COUNCIL HAS PUT US IN THE GREAT, THE STRONG POSITION THAT WE'RE IN NOW. SO YOU'RE ASKING US JUST TO COME IN, LIKE, RIGHT ON THE MONEY, WHICH, LIKE, WE LOSE OUR CONTINGENCY, AND, YOU KNOW, I, I, AND I, I'M ALWAYS IN, LIKE, INDEXING AND WATER FUND, AND, AND YOU ALWAYS KIND OF PUSH BACK ON THAT. WE'RE NOT DOING THIS THIS YEAR, AND I JUST KIND OF ATE THAT AND SAY IT JUST, OKAY, THIS SAS SAID WE DIDN'T NEED IT, BUT I'M ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF INDEXING. I WANT TO HAVE THE MONEY IN THE BANK FOR THESE LARGE PROJECTS INSTEAD OF ASKING PEOPLE FOR A DRASTIC, YOU KNOW, RATE INCREASE OR A TAX INCREASE. SO, BUT I THINK YOU'RE ASKING US TO SORT OF CHANGE THE POLICY THAT GOT US TO WHERE WE ARE, TO JUST SORT OF COME IN A LITTLE MORE RIGHT ON THE MONEY AS OPPOSED TO HAVING A LITTLE EXTRA IN THE BANK AT THE END OF THE YEAR. AM I, AM I CORRECT IN THAT? NO, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE. UM, YOU CAN TRY TO CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE, BUT FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT- I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU. I'M TRYING, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE YOU'RE COMING IN ON THAT, THAT'S ALL. 
          I, UH, NO, I JUST SEE IT DIFFERENTLY, AND I, AND I TELL YOU WHAT, I'M NOT GOING TO ADJOURN THE MEETING WITHOUT EMPHASIZING IS FIRE RESCUE IS NOT AT JEOPARDY, UM, BECAUSE EVEN WITH THIS REDUCTION, YOU TAKE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME UP SHORT BECAUSE THE, THAT'S WHY I WAS EMPHASIZING THE ONE THIRD ON THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE COME BACK. WE'RE GOING TO, THEY'RE GOING TO START BUILDING A GENERAL FUND RESERVE FOR FIRE FUND, AND THE ONE THIRD, IRONICALLY, COVERS FULLY. SO IF THERE'S ANY 
          [00:55:01]
DEPARTMENT NOT AT RISK, IT'S JUPITER FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT. I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HEARING THIS. 
          AND FOR THE RECORD, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING'S IN JEOPARDY HERE. 
          NO, NO, BUT I'VE BEEN HEARING. 
          WE HAVE THESE OPTIONS; SOME OF THEM ARE TERRIBLE. I DON'T THINK ANYTHING'S- PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MISPERCEIVING YEAH. 
          THAT IT IS IN JEOPARDY, AND SO I, I, I CAME HERE TONIGHT TO MAKE SURE I AM PUTTING THAT ISSUE TO REST. 
          OKAY. 
          NOT A JEOPARDY. UH, THERE IS NO GOING BACK. WE WOULDN'T WANT TO GO BACK. IT'S SILLY TO EVEN TALK ABOUT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T WANT FAR REST OF YOU GUYS THINKING THAT THE, THE, THE, UH, DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, THE DIFFERENCE, THE DISCUSSION ABOUT DISPARITIES THAT WORK, THAT EXIST. BY THE WAY, IT IS WHAT IT IS. WE, I TELL YOU WHAT, IN ALL MY YEARS, THE NON-OUT-OF-WARRANT FIRE TAX IS THE ONLY ITEM THAT HAS EVER COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL THAT I CAN EVER RECOLLECT, THAT WE HAD NO POLICY INPUT AND COULDN'T HAVE ANY. IT WAS PRESENTED AS TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. 
          MM-HMM. IT'S A PRETTY UNIQUE SITUATION. 
          AGREED. 
          IT WAS, WELL, THERE WERE 2 OPTIONS. 
          FINE. 
          THERE WAS THE FLAT AND THEN THE TIER. 
          SO NONE OF US COULD HAVE KNOWN. 
          JUST MY NATURE TO KIND OF THEN, GEE, YOU KNOW, THE VICE MAYOR WAS THE FIRST ONE THAT WAS ASKING, YOU KNOW, AND, AND WAS TALKING ABOUT AND LEARNING ABOUT DISPARITY BEFORE I EVER GOT TO ASK ABOUT THE DISPARITY BETWEEN CONDOS AND SINGLE AND SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, RIGHT? SO WE ALL KNEW, BUT WE ALSO KNEW, AND THEREFORE THOSE THAT DID DECIDE HAD TO DECIDE BASED ON HAVING NO INPUT. 
          MM-HMM. 
          WELL, SEEING THAT IT'S THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN EVER RECOLLECT, AND MAYBE EVERYBODY ELSE, THAT YOU HAD NO POLICY INPUT, WELL, GEE, LET'S MAKE A DECISION TO RE- REVISIT IT FOR FISCAL YEAR 28. 
          MM-HMM. 
          SO IT CAN REFLECT TRUE POLICY OF THE COUNT. IT'S- THAT'S THE ONLY THING I- I WAS ALWAYS HOPING THAT HAPPENED OUT OF IT, RIGHT? AND WHEN YOU PROPOSED IT LAST MEETING, YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW THAT THE VICE MAYOR ALREADY WAS SUPPORTING THAT, UH, THAT I THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE PASSED, BUT, UM, BUT IN ANY EVENT, SO I HOPE THAT GETS DECIDED, BUT THIS IS A WORKSHOP. I'M JUST SAYING, BUT I WANT EVERYBODY TO FEEL GOOD. 
          I THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT IT NEXT YEAR. 
          I AGREE. 
          I JUST HAVE— THAT HASN'T, THAT HASN'T BEEN SAID WITH CLARITY THAT I— I THOUGHT EVERYBODY, WHEN I BROUGHT IT UP. 
          THEY ALL NODDED. 
          I THOUGHT EVERYBODY, I LOOKED DOWN, EVERYBODY AGREED ON THAT. 
          YEAH. WELL. 
          I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MAYOR, AND WE'RE GOING BACK ON THE NUMBERS. I WANT TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK. YOU'VE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES, AND I REALLY WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY, THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE NOT REPRESENTING THE RESIDENTS THAT VOTED FOR YOU. TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT, BECAUSE IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU FEEL, SHOULD WE BE FEELING THIS, OR JUST EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. 
          WELL, NO. I, I THINK EACH ONE OF US REPRESENTS DIFFERENT THINGS TO THE PUBLIC, SO I, I WOULDN'T EXPECT EVERYBODY WOULD FEEL THE WAY I FEEL. I, I MEAN THAT, BUT WHAT PART- AND I'VE SAID THAT, OF THAT STATEMENT? BUT I ALSO WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT, LOOK, I'M THE ONE, I'M THE ONE THAT WAS ACTUALLY REPRESENTING. I'M THE ONE THAT SAT WITH THE CHAMBER AND GOT THE CHAMBER TO SUPPORT US WITH FIRE RESCUE BY SHOWING THEM THE IMPACT, YOU KNOW, PER BUSINESS, RIGHT? TO KIND OF SHARE THIS IS THE— SO DOES THIS GO BACK TO THE DISCREPANCY WITH SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ALL OF THAT? BECAUSE IF THAT'S THE CASE, THAT'S NOT OUR ISSUE. 
          THAT'S WHERE IT CAME FROM, THE DATA. THE CONSULTANT, RIGHT OR WRONG, PLEASANT OR NOT PLEASANT, PRESENTED IT. SHE BROUGHT THE DATA. YES, THERE'S DISCREPANCIES, BUT WE DIDN'T CREATE THEM. 
          YEAH, BUT THEY- IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN KNOWN AT THAT POINT IN TIME. UM, IT REALLY TOOK A LOT OF ANALYSIS, SO NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          I ACCEPT THE FACT. 
          YEAH. 
          I ACCEPT THAT FACT. 
          AND THAT CAN BE HOPEFULLY CORRECTED IN 27 WITH THE POWERS TO BE THAT 8. 
          PUT THE- YEAH. 
          YEAH. I THINK WE COULD LOOK AT THAT. SO MY QUESTION, SO MAYOR, HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE 2 MILLION RECURRING: WHERE IS THAT MONEY COMING FROM? WELL, UM, FIRST OF ALL, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO WORK ON THAT BETWEEN NOW AND AS PART OF THE FISCAL 28 PROCESS. I GET THAT, AND I AGREE TO THAT, BUT IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN YEARS PAST WHEN WE TOOK OUT RESERVES NOT KNOWING HOW WE'RE GONNA MAKE IT UP. UM, SO YEAH, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO COMMIT TO, TO SORT THAT OUT. UM, I'M NOT SAYING I HAVE A SOLUTION ON THAT, BUT, UH, BUT I'M GONNA CONTINUE WORKING. 
          SO THAT FURTHER, SO THAT REDUCES OUR BUDGET FOR 2 MILLION. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE UP THE 2 MILLION, BUT WE'RE DOING THAT ON THE EVE OF A POTENTIAL AMENDMENT 3. THAT'S THE CONCERN. 
          WHICH WOULD BE 8 MILLION FOR NEXT YEAR. 
          YEAH, SO IT WOULD BE ON TOP OF THE 8 MILLION. WE'RE DOING IT TO OURSELVES AFTER THE SAVING. I MEAN, THIS IS A WIN. LIKE, WE ARE SAVING RESIDENTS AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT. SO TO DO THAT ADDITIONAL, TO GIVE OURSELVES AN ADDITIONAL BURN WITHOUT A SOLUTION, WHERE WE MAKE THIS VOTE ON TUESDAY, GOING INTO AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE AMENDMENT 3 IS LIKELY, THAT'S, THAT'S MY CONCERN, AND THAT'S WHY I'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, CONCERNED. 
          I MEAN, YOU, MAYOR, YOU CAN, 
          [01:00:01]
YOU CAN VOTE FOR THE MILLAGE, THE PROPOSED MILLAGE RATE, AND THEN VOTE NO ON THE BUDGET. IT'S JUST, I GUESS WE NEED TO KNOW, WE NEED TO KNOW IF THERE'S A 5-0 VOTE FOR THE MILLAGE RATE. 
          IT WAS FOR THE NUMBER. WELL, I KNOW, I KNOW WHAT NUMBER I'M GOING TO. I SHARED IT. UH, I'M GONNA... THE, UM... 
          I JUST WANT TO GET THIS OVER THE FINISH LINE THIS FISCAL YEAR. I MEAN, I- I- IT'S A MIRACLE, NOT A MIRACLE, IT'S JUST A TREMENDOUS ACCOMPLISHMENT, WHAT STAFF HAS DONE IN THE LAST 3 YEARS. AND NOW THERE'S JUST THIS ANXIETY AND CONFUSION, BECAUSE PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC WATCHING, SITTING HERE, WE'RE UP HERE GOING ON WITH IT, THEY'RE JUST CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT'S HELL'S GOING ON WITH IT. AND YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, YOU GET FIREFIGHTERS LIKE, AM I GONNA HAVE A JOB TOMORROW? OR THAT, YOU KNOW. 
          YEAH, WHICH IS WHY I WANT TO MAKE THAT, MAKE THAT CLEAR. 
          I'M GONNA SUPPORT THE BUDGET, BUT FUNDING IS DIFFERENT. 
          FAIRNESS OF TAXATION IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT I FEEL ACCOUNTABLE FOR. 
          I'LL AGREE WITH THAT, BUT, BUT THIS YEAR WE'RE KIND OF LOCKED INTO THIS, TO THIS ONE, UH, THE WAY THIS IS SET UP NOW, THEN WE CAN LOOK AT IT NEXT YEAR FOR THE, FOR THE NEXT BUDGET. 
          YOU KNOW, WE CAN HAVE STAFF ANALYZE IT. 
          I'LL GO BACK TO THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED OF ME FROM THE VICE MAYOR, AND I ANSWERED. EACH ONE OF US, SO YOU ASKED KIND OF, IF I RECOLLECT THE WAY YOU ASKED IT, WAS LIKE, SHOULD EVERYBODY FEEL THE SAME WAY? I SAID, NO, BECAUSE WE ALL REPRESENTED THINGS DIFFERENTLY, AND, UH, BUT UM, YOU KNOW, I CAN TELL YOU. 
          I WAS MAKING THAT POINT SO IT WOULDN'T BE MISREPRESENTED THAT WE ARE NOT DOING OUR FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION, THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AND YES, YOU CAN VOTE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT WHAT'S MAKE, WHAT'S DRIVING THAT? IS IT ONLY BECAUSE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE? AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE YEAR WE'RE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH— NO, IT'S NOT. 
          GETTING THAT CORRECTED. 
          NO, IT'S NOT JUST THAT, SO I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND MAY I? EVERY, EVERY BUDGET SEASON AFTER WE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE FINALIZE A BUDGET, I ALWAYS LEFT THIS CHAMBER FEELING GREAT THAT STAFF DID THE RIGHT THING. WE ALL MADE THE RIGHT DECISIONS. I NEVER FELT LIKE WE'RE UNDERSPENDING, OVERSP- I THOUGHT WE CAME, CAME IN RIGHT IN THE MONIES. 
          IT WAS ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, GONNA WAIT THAT WE HAD COVID AND, YOU KNOW, SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES OVER THE YEARS AND, BUT WE ALWAYS, IT ALWAYS CAME OUT ON THE MONEY. SO, UM, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THIS FOR THIS YEAR, AND THEN TAKE A LOOK AT IT NEXT YEAR. AND, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING'S POSSIBLE UP HERE, BUT WE JUST HAVE TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE. 
          I AGREE THAT I THINK, I MEAN, I'M WILLING TO LOOK AT IT NEXT YEAR. I THINK WE, WE ARE IN A VERY VOLATILE ENVIRONMENT, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO EVERY YEAR LOOK AT IT. 
          BUT I MEAN, WE ARE NOT EVEN A WEEK OUT. WE ARE DAYS OUT FROM A VOTE AFTER MONTHS OF DISCUSSION AND YEARS OF PREPARATION, AND THERE IS A LOT OF ANXIETY THAT I WANT TO RELIEVE BEFORE THAT, YOU KNOW, BEFORE OUR VOTE. 
          YEAH, I'M GOING TO LOOK AT IT TOO, EVEN HAVING OUR FINANCIAL CONSULTANT REASSESS THE NAV THAT WE HAVE FOR NEXT YEAR AND SEE IF THERE'S SOME WAY TO MAKE IT MORE FAIR TO OUR RESIDENTS. IF, UM, AGAIN, IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE PERFECT, BUT I THINK WHAT WE HAVE IS, IS A COMPROMISE WHICH WORKS FOR MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS AND COMMERCIAL OWNERS WITHIN THE TOWN. I DO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE 2.1-MILLION-DOLLAR RECURRING DEFICIT. I DON'T WANT TO KICK IT DOWN THE ROAD NEXT YEAR OR WORRY ABOUT IT THEN, BECAUSE THAT COULD TURN INTO 8 MILLION NEXT YEAR IF AMENDMENT 3 PASSES, AND EVEN BALLOON UP TO 14 MILLION THE FOLLOWING YEAR IF WE KEEP CARRYING IT, IF AMENDMENT 3 PASSES IN 29. 
          SO I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE 2-MILLION-DOLLAR DEFICIT, CARRYING IT FORWARD, SO. 
          WELL, I'M NOT CONVINCED TO S- SUPPORT THE NUMBER, SO WHEN, YOU KNOW, WE GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SHEET, WHAT IT ISN'T, UH, YOU KNOW, I'LL SUPPORT THE 3.4798, UM, AND IT DOESN'T TAKE US BACK TO 110% ROLLBACK UNLESS THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL DECIDE, BUT, UM. 
          SO WE WON'T HAVE A 5-0 IN THE MILLAGE. 
          WHAT'S THAT? WE WON'T HAVE A 5-0 IN THE MILLAGE? NOT AT THE 3.5886, NO. AS I SAID, I'M GIVING YOU MY NUMBER, 3.4798. IT'S A SHAME WE'VE GONE SO FAR. YOU KNOW, I WASN'T PART OF THE COUNCIL 3 YEARS AGO, WHEN THIS LEADERSHIP IN THE TOWN, THE COUNCIL, THE 3 MEMBERS HERE HAD THE VISION FOR JUPITER FIRE, PUT TOGETHER THE STRATEGIES AND TOOK THOSE BOLD STEPS TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. 
          SINCE THEN, WE PUT IN 2 NEW STATIONS. WE GOT A RE-OUTFITTED A TEMP STATION. WE BOUGHT 
          [01:05:02]
BRAND-NEW FIRE TRUCKS AND AMBULANCES. WE HIRED OVER 100 FIREFIGHTERS AND PARAMEDICS. 
          WE'VE PROMISED THE TOWN WE GIVE THEM THE SAME QUALITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE THEY GOT FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY, AND IT JUST AMAZED ME TO GET THIS FAR IN THE 11TH HOUR, AND NOW WE'RE SQUABBLING HOW WE'RE GOING TO FUND THE TOWN OVER THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. 
          TO ME, THIS IS ALL NAV, THIS IS ALL FIRE, EVERYTHING'S ROLLED UP IN ONE, INCLUDING TOWN, AND I- I'M JUST, I'M AMAZED THAT WE'RE AT THIS POINT, AT THIS HOUR, NOT BEING ABLE TO AGREE UPON THE 3.5886. AND I DON'T WANT TO PUSH A DEFICIT DOWN THE ROAD. I WANT TO GET IT RESOLVED NOW, AND WE CAN LOOK AT EVERYTHING AGAIN NEXT YEAR, INCLUDING THE NAV. SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND, SO. 
          AND HISTORICALLY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALWAYS, MORE, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, WE'VE RELIED UPON THE RESERVES AND KICKED THE CAN AND CAME BACK THE NEXT YEAR AND GOT A SHOT AT IT. 
          AND, AND I- BUT THERE'S UNCERTAINTY IN KICKING THAT CAN NOW WITH AMENDMENT 3, SO I DON'T WANT TO PUT OURSELVES IN THAT POSITION RIGHT NOW. 
          AND, MAYOR, I TOTALLY RESPECT EVERYTHING, YOUR PRESENTATION. YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU'VE GOT ALL YOUR POINTS, AND I, I UNDERSTAND IT. WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS PRETTY MUCH WHAT THE COUNCIL IS SAY- IT'S A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY TO RELY ON HAVING TO TAKE THE RESERVES. WITH AMENDMENT 3, I THINK NEXT YEAR IT'S GOING TO BE A GREATER DEFICIT. UM, YESTERDAY'S STOCK MARKET WAS HORRIBLE. UH, IT, WE DON'T KNOW, IT'S GOING TO GO UP AND DOWN, BUT THIS IS A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE TO GET TO THIS POINT. UM, THAT'S WHERE I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND. I'VE LEARNED SO MUCH FROM YOU, AND THE ONE THING I'VE UNDERSTOOD IS YOUR PASSION AND COMMITMENT TO FIRE RESCUE, OUR POLICE, TO GET TO JUST A FEW DAYS BEFORE, UM, AND SAY NO. THAT'S WHERE I'M, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT. I BELIEVE NEXT YEAR WE CAN PICK THIS APART TO WHERE WE NEED TO PICK IT APART, BUT RIGHT NOW IS NOT THE TIME. 
          UM, I... YOU WORK TOO HARD FOR THIS. 
          MAYOR, SO I- I'VE HEARD THEY'VE CLEANED UP THE LANGUAGE ON THE BALLOT IS, UH, FOR AMENDMENT 3, AND IF IT'S ON THE BALLOT, IT'S GOING TO PASS. SO I'M LOOKING AT IT LIKE IT'S GONNA, GONNA HAPPEN. SO YOU LOOK AT THE PIE CHART, EVERYBODY TOWN-WIDE SAVING ABOUT 10 MILLION DOLLARS. SO, SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE, WHAT IS IT, 8% WE'RE COLLECTING ON NON-AD VALOREM? IS IT 8%? 8%, RIGHT, SCOTT? I'M SORRY? IT'S 8% ON THE NON-AD VALOREM THAT WE'RE GOING TO COLLECT. 
          IT COULD BE 15, BUT WE'RE COLLECTING 8. 
          UH, WELL, THERE IS A, A STAT- SOME STATUTORY DISCOUNTS THAT WE AGREED TO, OKAY. 
          BUT 15% IS THE, IS THE PERCENTAGE THAT WE SET. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT, UH, OVERALL, UH, WE'RE GOING TO COLLECT ABOUT JUST OVER 1.9 IN TOTAL. 
          OKAY. 
          AFTER THE STATUTORY DISCOUNTS. 
          EVERYBODY'S, EVERYBODY'S SAVING MONEY. SO THAT ALSO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IT CONFUSES PEOPLE LIKE, OH MY, EVERYTHING'S GOING, MY TAXES ARE GOING UP. 
          THEY'RE NOT. SO SOME PEOPLE THIS YEAR WON'T SAVE QUITE AS MUCH AS OTHERS, BUT IT'S WITHIN A FEW DOLLARS. IT'S, IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE IN THE BIG PICTURE, 30,000-FOOT VIEW, IT'S INSIGNIFICANT. I UNDERSTAND YOUR, YOUR, UM, UH, YOUR PRINCIPLE. WE ALL HAVE THEM, BUT I THINK WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IN THE LAST 3-PLUS YEARS, TO GET THERE, YOU KNOW, NEXT TUESDAY NIGHT, WE DON'T GET A 5-0 VOTE IN THE AD VALOREM, AND WE HAVE A 21 MILLION OR 23 MILLION OR 25 MILLION DEFICIT THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE OUT OF RESERVES. AND WE HAVE 45 MILLION IN RESERVES. AMENDMENT 3 IS AROUND THE CORNER. IT'S COMING IF IT'S ON THE BALLOT, AND OUR RESERVES GET CUT IN HALF, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THEN WE'RE PICKING UP THE PIECES FROM THERE. SO I THINK IT'S JUST COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. EVERYBODY'S WORKED TOO HARD. UM, YOU KNOW, I SUGGESTED TO OUR COLLEAGUES THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT IT THIS YEAR. EVERYBODY AGREES. YOU CAN VOTE NO ON THE BUDGET, BUT WE NEED YOU TO VOTE YES ON THE MILLAGE. SO THAT'S WHERE I AM ON IT. I JUST, I JUST HOPE THAT YOU AGREE. 
          AND, MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO SAY, LAST MEETING, YOU MADE A VERY SUCCINCT POINT. 
          YOU IN LIVING IN THE SHORES ANNEXED OUT OF THE COUNTY TO COME INTO JUPITER, AND YOUR WORDS WERE SIT CLOSE TO, I WILL PAY MORE FOR BETTER SERVICES. WE'RE HERE. WE COULDN'T ASK FOR BETTER SERVICES THAN OUR OWN FIRE RESCUE, AND TO COME DOWN TO THIS, AGAIN, THE BUDGET, YOU CAN VOTE NO ON IT, BUT WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT 
          [01:10:01]
CROSSROAD THAN YOU'VE ALL BEEN BEFORE. SO I ONLY MAKE THAT POINT ONLY BECAUSE YOUR LOVE FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE FOR ALL THESE YEARS IS, IS A, IT'S A TOUGH DECISION, AND NO, NO ONE'S ASKING YOU TO COMPROMISE ANYTHING. THERE IS NO COMPROMISE. IT'S WHERE THE MONEY'S GOING TO COME FROM NOW OR NEXT YEAR. 
          BY THE WAY, AND, YOU KNOW, I KEEP GOING ON, BUT, UH, WE STILL SEEM LIKE WE'RE AT AN IMPASSE, YOU KNOW. WHERE WE'D FIND IT, FIRST OF ALL, THAT'S OUR CHALLENGE IN THE FISCAL YEAR BUDGET PROCESS FOR, FOR 28. UM, I KNOW WE'LL GET TO, WE'LL GET THERE IF WE'RE, UH, WORKING TOGETHER ON THAT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE DID SOME YEARS, UM, IS THE 15% THAT WENT TO CAPITAL. WE WENT AHEAD AND MOVED IT TO 10 FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. WAS THAT DEFICIT SPENDING? NO, IT WAS NOT. DID WE HAVE A RECURRING SOLUTION? NO, WE DID NOT. SO, INTERESTINGLY, IF WE, IF WE WERE TO JUST, THE FIRST EASY SOLUTION IS FOR NEXT YEAR ON THIS IS WE LOWER THE CAPITAL SPEND FROM 15 TO 10%, AND THERE YOU GO. 
          THERE IS NO LONG-TERM RECURRING, UH, YOU KNOW, PRO- THOSE PROJECTS, MANY OF THEM ARE DISCRETIONARY. 
          UM, SO THERE ARE, THERE ARE A LOT OF S- LOT OF SOLUTIONS, A LOT OF TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX TO DO IT. UM, AND FIRE RESCUE IS NOT AT RISK BECAUSE IT SEPARATELY AS A SEPARATE FIRE FUND, IS, IS COVERED. 
          WELL, IT APPEARS WE'VE REACHED AN IMPASSE. ARE WE DONE? I MEAN... 
          WELL, TUESDAY NIGHT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO ADOPT SOMETHING. 
          I- I'D LIKE TO ADOPT WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED IN FRONT OF US, BUT... 
          AND THAT DOESN'T DELIVER THE COMMITMENT THAT I REPRESENTED, SO. 
          AND WE'RE RISKING 25 MILLION OUT OF THE OPERATING FUND. 
          WE'RE NOT RISKING 25 MILLION. 
          IF WE DO NOT GET 5-0 VOTE, IT GOES BACK TO ROLLBACK RATE, AND THAT'S 25 MILLION, RIGHT? IF, IF THE 4 THAT FEEL THAT WAY DECIDE TO, TO LET THAT HAPPEN. 
          NO, IT'S THE ONE THAT FEELS THAT WAY DECIDES- WHAT'S THAT? NOT THE 4. 
          WELL, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S... WE'D END UP WITH 68, 68.3 MILLION, NOT 49. 
          COULD YOU CONFIRM THOSE NUMBERS, MR. REYNOLDS? I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS THE EXACT QUESTION THERE? NO, NO, I WAS JUST SAYING SOMEBODY'S LOOKING AT YOUR SHEET AGAIN, IF YOU GO BACK TO UP 6 THERE, WHERE IF WE DON'T, IF WE DON'T ALL AGREE ON THE 3.5886, THEN THE ONLY OPTION IS THE 110%, WHICH IS 49 MILLION. 
          THAT'S THE 49-MILLION-DOLLAR OPTION. 
          I UNDERSTAND, AND I JUST SAID AT THE 3.47- ANYTHING ABOVE THAT REQUIRES UNANIMOUS. 
          I UNDERSTAND. AT THE 3.4798, IT'S 68.3 MILLION, CORRECT? YOU DID THOSE NUMBERS? NO, WHEN I WAS... 
          WHAT? WELL, I THOUGHT YOU, WHEN I, WHEN I HAD CITED THOSE NUMBERS, I'M JUST ASKING YOU TO CONFIRM. 
          OH, DID I DO THE CALCULATION- YEAH. 
          BASED ON THE MILLAGE THAT YOU GAVE ME? UH, I DID DO THE CALCULATION ON THAT. 
          IT'S 68.3 MILLION. 
          UH, IT IS CORRECT: 68.3. 
          SURE, I CAN HELP WITH THIS. 
          FIRST. 
          I'M SORRY. THAT IS CORRECT, BASED ON THE 100%. UH, BASED ON THE 95%, IT'S 64 MILLION, UH, 64.8. UH, WHAT THAT MEANS, UH, AS FAR AS REDUCTION OF, OF REVENUES, UH, FROM EACH OF THE FUNDS, THE CRA IS NOT EXCLUDED FROM THAT, BY THE WAY. UH, WHATEVER MILLAGE YOU SET, THE CRA ALSO MUST ADHERE TO THAT REVENUE OR THAT, UH, MILLAGE. SO THERE'D BE A 44,000, ALMOST 45,000-DOLLAR REDUCTION IN THE CRA, UH, YEAR ONE, UH, AND THEN THERE WOULD BE AN OVERALL, UH, JUST OVER 2 MILLION BETWEEN, UH, JUPITER FIRE RESCUE, UH, THE TOWN OPERATING AND THE CIP. 
          HOWEVER YOU DECIDE TO FUND THAT, THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL 2 MILLION 800,000 DOLLARS REDUCTION OVER WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED. 
          OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUT OF THIS WORKSHOP WE COME OUT OF THE SCENARIOS THAT EXIST. 
          SO AGAIN, MR. REYNOLDS, JUST 
          [01:15:01]
ON UP ON THE 3.4798 WITH THE 95%, IT COMES DOWN TO 64.3. IS THAT CORRECT? DID I WRITE IT? UH, 68.3 AT THE 100%, AND THEN WHEN YOU DO THE 95, IT'D BE 64. 
          64, OKAY. 
          WHEN PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS HERE, I'M JUST BEING CONSISTENT WITH THAT. THE 49 IS THE 100 PER- 10% ROLLBACK RATE. THE PROPOSED RATE WAS 70.45, AND, UH, THE RATE THAT I SUPPORT IS 68.3. THAT ALL TRANSLATES TO SMALLER NUMBERS WHEN YOU GO INTO THE BUDGET. WHY IS YOUR PROPOSED REDUCTION OF THE 2.1 MILLION? WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THIS IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS. I MEAN, THIS KIND OF SEEMS OUT OF THE BLUE, LIKE 11TH HOUR. 
          WELL, I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S OUT OF THE BLUE. I'VE BEEN MESSAGING THAT I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE FULL MILLAGE RATE. 
          UM, AND IF YOU ASKED ME LAST MEETING, I'D HAVE GIVEN YOU THE NUMBER. 
          UM, BUT IT WASN'T ASKED ON FIRST READING. I HAD IT AVAILABLE. IN FACT, I'D GIVEN IT TO MR. REYNOLDS BEFORE THE MEETING. 
          I D- I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE... WHY WOULD I ASK THAT? BECAUSE THIS WAS JUST WHAT I GET, YOU JUST BROUGHT IT UP, SO. 
          WELL. 
          NO, BUT ON FIRST- THIS IS A BUDGET. THIS IS A BUDGET MEETING THAT WASN'T EVEN GOING TO EXIST. IT'S JUST SORT OF... 
          NO, BUT ON FIRST READING, WHEN WE DIDN'T GET, WHEN THE MOTION WAS MADE, AND I MADE CLEAR I DIDN'T SUPPORT IT ON FIRST READING, AND THAT WAS OKAY. RIGHT? I GUESS. I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, THIS, THIS IS A POINT. I DON'T KNOW. 
          WE SHOULD BE CELEBRATING RIGHT NOW AS OPPOSED TO BICKERING ABOUT THIS, SO, UH. AND I'M CONFIDENT THIS IS DOABLE, SO THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT THAT NUMBER. 
          WELL, IT'S, IT'S DOABLE, BUT NOW WE'RE GETTING AWAY FROM WHAT GOT US IN THE GREAT POSITION WHERE WE'VE BEEN IN FOR MANY YEARS, AND I'M NOT WILLING TO DO THAT. 
          I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND. I MEAN, I, I HAVE, I HAVE FULL FAITH IN OUR TOWN MANAGER AND OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT, AND WE'VE MET WITH THEM MANY TIMES, MANY, MANY TIMES OVER THE YEARS ABOUT BUDGETS, AND I DON'T KNOW. I- I- I THOUGHT, I THINK THAT US LOOKING AT IT IN OUR NEXT- NEXT FISCAL YEAR WOULD BE SATISFACTORY FOR YOU TO APPROVE THE MILLAGE, THE CURRENT MILLAGE RATE AS PROPOSED. I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S NOT, BECAUSE IF WE DON'T GET A 5-0, IT'S DRASTIC. 
          NOT DRASTIC. 
          IT'S DRASTIC. 
          NO, IT'S NOT. 
          IT'S A TWO... MOST YEARS WE ARE TAKEN FROM NON-REVENUES, NON- FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES, AS I W- AS I INDICATED HERE. 
          AND, UH, WE EVEN PLANNED, LIKE LAST YEAR, WE T- WE WERE, WE WERE PLANNING GOING IN THIS YEAR, WE'RE GOING TO USE... 
          HOW DO WE HAVE SUCH RESERVES THAT WE TAKE FROM RESERVES EVERY YEAR? WHAT'S THAT? THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. HOW DO WE, WE HAVE- NO, IT'S A SMALL- WE, WE HAVE NO, BECAUSE WE END, NO, WE END UP WITH AN OVERAGE, BUT I'M SAYING WE GO INTO THE BUDGET ASSUMING WE'RE GOING TO USE GENERAL FUND RESERVES. 
          THEN, BECAUSE WE WIND UP FINISHING THE YEAR EITHER BOTH A COMBINATION OF UNDER BUDGET AND ALSO WE GET MORE REVENUES THAN WE EXPECTED OR THAT COULD RELY UPON, THEN WE STILL NET UP, BUT IT'S NOT UNPRECEDENTED TO BASICALLY GO INTO THE BUDGET ASSUMING THAT. 
          BUT THEN YOU START THE NEXT YEAR WITH THE LOWER MILLAGE, AND IF WE NEED TO UP IT, THEN THEY, OH, THEY'RE RAISING OUR TAXES, AND WE WOULD BE. WE'D BE RAISING THE MILLAGE RATE FROM WHAT WE CUT IT. SO IT'S PUTTING, IT'S, IT'S VEERING OFF THE PATH OF FISCAL RE- OF GOOD FISCAL CONSERVATIVE POLICY TO VEER TO THE LEFT, NO PUN INTENDED, TO, TO START DIPPING INTO RESERVES AND THEN WORRYING ABOUT IT THE NEXT YEAR. I DON'T LIVE MY LIFE LIKE THAT. I DON'T RUN MY BUSINESS LIKE THAT. I LIKE TO RUN THE GOVERNMENT MORE LIKE A BUSINESS AND BE READY FOR THINGS AND PLAN, AND YOU DO TOO, BUT THIS IS JUST, THIS IS, I DON'T, I WOULDN'T EXPECT THIS FROM YOU, PUT IT THAT WAY. YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE. I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE WITH THE I LIVE MY LIFE THIS WAY, SO, YOU KNOW. 
          I, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE. 
          BECAUSE I CAN CUT SPENDING. 
          WITH, WITH THE DISPARITY IN, UH, IT'S NOT ABSOLUTELY FAIR FOR THE NON-AD VALOREM, BUT WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH THAT 
          [01:20:01]
FOR THIS YEAR, AND IT'S JUST, IT'S PEANUTS. AND TO CAUSE THIS WHOLE, ALL THIS CONSTERNATION WITH THE STAFF, FIREFIGHTERS, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. IT'S NOT, I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH IT. I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH IT. 
          MAYOR, I MAY BE SLOW, SO BEAR WITH ME. WHY EXACTLY DON'T YOU SUPPORT THAT? MAYBE THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD, NUMBERS AND EVERY- WHY EXACTLY ARE YOU NOT SUPPORTING THIS? IT'S INCONSISTENT REPRESENTATIONS I MADE. I'VE ALWAYS FULFILLED MY, YOU KNOW, I'VE ALWAYS FULFILLED MY CA- WORKED TO FULFILL MY CAMPAIGN PLEDGES. 
          SO WHAT ARE YOU NOT FULFILLING? YEAH, THAT'S YOU SAVED ME, WE- YOU SAVED, YOU REPRESENTED I BROUGHT IT DOWN TO— CHAMBER. 
          I BROUGHT IT DOWN. 
          YOU'RE SAVING PEOPLE 10 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. 
          I BROUGHT IT DOWN. 
          WHAT ARE YOU REPRESENTING? I BROUGHT IT DOWN TO INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES, AND WE DEVIATED FROM THAT, AND I LIVE WITH THAT, BUT... 
          SO I AM UNDERSTANDING IT CORRECTLY. 
          MAYOR, YOU'RE NOT SAVING US AS MONEY, AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU SAID. ARE YOU HEARING THAT FROM PEOPLE? I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          I THINK I CAN HELP THERE TOO. 
          IT'S WHO I AM AS AN INDIVIDUAL. 
          I UNDERS- I UNDERSTAND. 
          IT'S WHO I AM AS AN INDIVIDUAL. 
          BUT I, I THINK ALSO, I MEAN, I, I WAS IN THE SAME CAMPAIGN CYCLE, AND I ALSO SPOKE WITH THE CHAMBER AT LENGTH, SEVERAL MEETINGS, AND I ALSO REPRESENTED ON FACEBOOK AND ALL OF THIS. I THINK AT THE TIME THAT WE HAD THE ELECTION WAS SO EARLY. I MEAN, WE HAD JUST TAKEN, WE WERE VERY EARLY STAGES, I THINK THERE WAS AN UNDERSTANDING IT HAD TO BE GENERAL. YOU CAN'T BE TO THE DOLLAR SO FAR OUT; YOU JUST CAN'T. AND SO WE WERE THERE, AND WE HAVE DELIVERED, WE'VE OVER-DELIVERED. 10 MILLION IS OVER WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD SAVE, SO WE'VE EVEN OVER-DELIVERED. 
          AND TO BE HERE, YOU KNOW, AT THE 11TH HOUR IS REALLY HARD BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE THAT, AND THE GOOD NEWS IS GETTING LOST. 
          WE COULD ONLY PRESENT, AND, YOU KNOW, WE COULD GIVE CONCEPTUALLY WHERE IT WOULD GO, BUT IT WAS SO EARLY AT THAT POINT. 
          BE CAREFUL ON SAYING OVER-DELIVERED, BECAUSE WHEN I LOOKED AT, WHEN I'M COMPARING AGAINST A TAX SAVING GOAL, IT'S 5 AND A HALF MILLION, NOT 10. SO THE NUMBERS I, WHEN WE SAID THE TAX SAVINGS GOAL WAS BASED ON A 5-AND-A-HALF-MILLION-DOLLAR SAVINGS. SO WHEN I COMPARE HOW WE DID AGAINST THAT GOAL, MM-HMM. 
          THAT'S WHERE THE SHORTFALL IS, EVEN THOUGH WE DID 10. 
          THAT'S OVER-DELIVERING. 
          WHAT'S THAT? I, I ALL ALONG— IT'S OVER-DELIVERING, WHICH MAKE, WHICH PROVES THE POINT ABOUT THE DISPARITY IN THE NON-AD VALOREM, BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS FOR THIS YEAR, BUT IT'S JUST THAT, IT'S THAT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT, RIGHT? WE WOULD, WHEN WE FIRST MET WITH THE CONSULTANT, IT WAS, I REMEMBER HE'S SAYING, YOU COULD PROBABLY SAVE AROUND 5 MILLION A YEAR, THEN UP FROM THERE BECAUSE OF YOUR HOCKEY STICK WRAP. 
          REMEMBER THAT? OF COURSE YOU DO. SO HOW IS GOING FROM 5 AND A HALF MILLION TO 10 MILLION NOT OVER-DELIVERING? BUT THAT'S OVER-DELIVERING. I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT, WHAT I REPRESENTED WHEN IT BOILED DOWN TO A RESIDENT WITH THIS TAX BILL, WHAT THEY'RE GONNA, WHAT THE CHANGE. 
          WITH THE NON-AD VALOREM. 
          IT'S A PROPERTY TAX, SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I DON'T SEE A DISTINCTION FROM 27 ON. WE'RE GONNA TALK, I'M GONNA BE TALKING PROPERTY TAXES, AND THAT PROPERTY TAXES NOW BECOMES AD VALOREM PLUS NON-AD VALOREM, BECAUSE THAT'S THE PROP- YOU KNOW, YOU GET A BILL, IT'S PROPERTY TAXES, DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU CALL IT, RIGHT? YES. 
          SO I'M JUST COMPARING PROPERTY TAXES. SO THAT'S ASIDE, DECISION'S BEEN MADE. 
          YEAH, BUT, BUT THERE WERE TWO OPTIONS, FLAT AND SORT OF THE TIERED SYSTEM ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND I KNOW THERE'S ISSUES WITH CONDOS AND, YOU KNOW, AND, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE IN GARAGES AND PORCHES. 
          NOTHING'S EXACT. BUT TO BLOW THIS WHOLE THING UP BECAUSE OF THAT, THOSE TINY DISCREPANCIES FOR ONE YEAR, WHEN WE'VE GOTTEN THIS FAR, TO ME DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. I DON'T, I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING, YOUR PRINCIPLES. I HAVE THE SAME ONES. YOU, YOU, YOU DO FAR MORE ANALYSIS THAN I DO, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND CAUSING THIS RIGHT NOW AT THIS POINT IN TIME. I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO EVERYBODY ELSE, BUT MAYOR, DID YOU- YOU VOTE THE WAY YOU WANT TO VOTE. 
          DID YOU HAVE A NUMBER ON THE DISCREPANCIES AT, IN MY MIND SOMEWHERE, I'M THINKING 300 FOR, AND 300, IF THAT'S THE NUMBER, VERSUS 30,000. WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT AFTERWARDS. WE NEED TO GET THROUGH RIGHT NOW WITH THE MILITARY AND KEEP WHAT YOU'VE ALL STARTED FOR ALL THESE YEARS. THAT PERCENTAGE IS SO TINY, AND YES, IF THERE'S A DISCREPANCY, LET'S WORK TO CORRECT IT. 
          MAYBE THIS YEAR WE'LL FIND OUT 
          [01:25:01]
WHO GOT GIPPED AND SEND THEM A CHECK NEXT YEAR. LET'S JUST GET OVER THE FINISH LINE. 
          HEY, WHAT I'M PROPOSING, YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T REMEDY A SHORTFALL. 
          IT JUST, IT'S AN ADJUSTMENT THAT I FELT COMFORTABLE WITH. 
          UM, YOU KNOW. 
          AND I TOTALLY RESPECT IT. I JUST THINK AT THIS POINT, YOU HAVE COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE WORKED SIDE BY SIDE WITH YOU FOR ALL THESE YEARS, AND POSSIBLY RESPECTING THEIR OPINION AS WELL, AND SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT? MAYBE THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR THIS BATTLE. 
          MAYBE NEXT YEAR WILL BE A BETTER BATTLE, BUT YOU'VE COME SO FAR FOR 300 RESIDENTS, AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE VERY IMPORTANT, AND THEY CAN BE CORRECTED I- IF, AND WE, AGAIN, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THERE'S A REAL DISCREPANCY. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GETTING THE 300 RESIDENT. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YOU F- FOUND OUT WERE. 
          NO, NO, I, I JUST DID SOME RANDOM SAMPLING OF OKAY. 
          SOME RESIDENTS, SO IT DOESN'T- AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE I GOT THAT NUMBER. 
          IT ISN'T A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS. 
          BUT ALL I'M ASKING IS THAT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THOSE SAMPLINGS ARE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RATIONALE WAS WHEN THEY USED IT. SO WE'RE NOT GONNA GO, I'M NOT EVEN GOING THERE. I UNDERSTOOD IT WHEN YOU BROUGHT THEM FORWARD, BUT TO STOP WHAT YOU'VE ALL DONE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THAT'S WHERE I'M HAVING, UM, MY CONCERN. AND AGAIN, I DO PUT FAITH IN OUR STAFF AND OUR TOWN MANAGER. THEY'VE BROUGHT YOU TO THE RIGHT DIRECTION. WE'VE GOT A FIRE DEPARTMENT GONNA ROLL OUT THAT TRUCK IN ABOUT 08, 10 DAYS. 
          13 DAYS. 
          13 DAYS. WE WANT TO CELEBRATE. 
          THIS DOESN'T AFFECT FIRE RESCUE. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT. 
          IT, IT AFFECTS THE, I THINK, THE MORALE OF WHAT THEY'RE HEARING. WE, IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT- ONLY, ONLY FOR THE POINT OF COUNCIL SAYING IT, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT A, THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THEIR BUDGET IS, IS, UH, IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. YOU KNOW, AND I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE, I WAS USING EXAMPLES, BUT I DON'T WANT TO TRIVIALIZE THAT. I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE IT THERE, IS AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL, WE HAD FOUR DIFFERENT AD VALOREM VALUES THAT WORKED OUT TO BE SIGNIFICANT. THE AVERAGE HOMESTEADED UNIT WAS THE A- THE AVERAGE TAXABLE VALUATION FOR A HOME 14,000 UNITS, WAS 444,000 DOLLARS. THE AVERAGE HOMESTEADED VALUE FOR A CONDO WAS 260,000. SO YOU TAKE THOSE NUMBERS, 260,000 AND 444,000, AND THOSE ARE SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS BECAUSE IT EQUATED TO AN AVERAGE. AND ALL WE SAID WAS, OKAY, AS AN EXAMPLE, AVERAGE, IF YOU GOT A PROPERTY VALUE OF 260,000 DOLLARS, YOU'RE GOING TO GET 102 DOLLARS. AND IF, AND THAT'S BASED ON THE 5-AND-A-HALF-MILLION-DOLLAR, YOU KNOW, REDUCTION. AND IF YOU HAVE A TAXABLE VALUATION OF A UNIT, QUITE FRANKLY, WHETHER IT'S HOMESTEADED OR NON-HOMESTEADED, WHETHER IT'S A BUSINESS OR NOT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GONNA GET, UH, YOU'RE GONNA GET, REALIZE A BENEFIT OF 173 DOLLARS. AND THE WAY IT TURNED OUT IS, IRONICALLY, THE, THE EXAMPLE THAT I USED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOME VERSUS THE BARCELONA APARTMENTS, THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WAS GOING TO GET 14 DOLLARS THAT MATCHES THAT VALUATION, 14 DOLLARS VERSUS 102. OKAY, LET'S, LET'S DISPARATE FROM THE AVERAGE, BECAUSE THE AVERAGE, BY THE WAY, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE AT A TAXABLE VALUATION, ALL THINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EQUAL WITH AD VALOREM, PERIOD. THE OTHER NUMBER, THE 444,000, TURNS OUT IS I HAVE 173 DOLLARS WAS THE EXPECTATION IF YOU HAD, IF YOU HAD A PROPERTY IN THIS TOWN VALUED AT 444,000. AND, UH, THE TWO THAT I HAD ON HERE COINCIDENTALLY, I DIDN'T S- SEARCH FOR THEM, I WAS USING THIS KIND OF THE SAME, PICK-SOME-RESIDENTS APPROACH. 
          QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S EVERYBODY UP ON THIS DAIS IS INCLUDED IN THAT. UH, YOU GET 173 DOLLARS, AND IT WAS COMING OUT, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE SAVING 10 MILLION INSTEAD OF 5 AND A HALF, IT WAS COMING OUT AT 94 DOLLARS. OKAY, SO I DON'T GET TO WHAT WE REPRESENTED, YOU KNOW, THAT WASN'T MY GOAL TO GET TO WHAT WE REPRESENTED, WAS TO BE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO IT THAN HALF THE NUMBER, RIGHT? THAN, THAN, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, 
          [01:30:02]
A MEAGER 14% OF THE NUMBER. SO I JUST, THAT'S A NUMBER I TOOK. 
          I SAW WHAT LEFT. WE'RE AT LEAST MAKING A LITTLE BIT OF AN ADJUSTMENT. WE'LL COME BACK NEXT YEAR TO GET IT, YOU KNOW. 
          NO, I, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE COMING FORWARD WITH. 
          BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEBODY'S NOT SAID THAT, GEE, IT'S ONLY ABOUT... NO, IT'S TH- THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE THAT IT MADE WITH THE NON-AD VALOREM THAT NOBODY COULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD OR REALIZED WHEN IT CAME TO US, BUT WE DO NOW, AND I'M JUST FEELING LIKE AN ADJUSTMENT THAT I KNOW I CAN DO, WE CAN DEAL WITH NEXT YEAR, YOU KNOW, UH... WILL I- INCLUSIVE OF REVISITING THAT. ANYBODY HAVE ANY, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, WE COME TO THE MEETING ON TUESDAY WHEN WE FINISH THIS MEETING, AND, UM... WE NEED TO HAVE A POSITION THAT WE CAN GET A 5-0 ON, AND, UH... I HOPE THAT WE ALL FOUR DON'T FALL BACK TO 110%. THAT'D BE YOUR CHOICE. 
          NO, I THINK IT'S YOUR CHOICE TOO, SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED RIGHT NOW, SO. 
          YEAH. 
          IT'S NOT OUR CHOICE, IT'S PROBABLY YOUR CHOICE. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT. 
          WELL, WE'VE, WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE WHOLE BUDGET PROCESS, ALL THESE MEETINGS, AND THEN THIS ONE CAME UP: WHY ARE WE HAVING THIS MEETING? AND HERE WE ARE. SO WE'RE ALL IN LOCKSTEP ON GETTING THIS THROUGH THIS YEAR, AGREED FOR YOU TO, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT NEXT YEAR, AND, YOU KNOW, I, I'VE BEEN ON THE END OF A BUNCH OF LOSING VOTES IN 10-PLUS YEARS UP HERE, AND I JUST ATE IT, AND IT'S THIS, BUT THIS ISN'T A LOSING VOTE FOR YOU, IT'S JUST THIS YEAR YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET EVERY LITTLE THING YOU WANT. NONE OF US ARE, BECAUSE NOBODY WANTS ANY, NOBODY WANTS SOMETHING THAT'S NOT A TAX THAT'S NOT FAIR. 
          THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT IT, BUT WE NEED TO CROSS THE FINISH LINE, AND I DON'T WANT TO ABANDON THE POLICIES WE'VE HAD FOR, FOR FAR BEFORE I WAS ON THIS COUNCIL. WHEN I GOT HERE, THINGS ARE IN GREAT SHAPE. THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN IN GREAT SHAPE. I'M NOT WILLING TO TURN THE SHIP IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL. 
          OKAY. UM, I'M GOING DOWN THE ROW FOR ANY FINAL COMMENTS, UH, NO, AGAIN, VICE MAYOR. 
          JIM, I UNDERS- MAYOR, RATHER, I UNDERSTAND YOU ARE... YOU'RE NOT IN SUPPORT OF HOW IT CAME ABOUT. 
          HOWEVER, THAT BEING SAID, YOU- YOU'VE HEARD THE REST OF YOUR C- UM, COLLEAGUES HERE. YOU'VE COME TOO FAR FOR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND TUESDAY NIGHT, BUT IT CAN CHANGE. UM, AND AGAIN, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WHAT THIS DATA IS PROVING IS RIGHT, WRONG, CORRECT. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE. I THINK WE'RE ALL ASKING THE SAME QUESTION. 
          YOU'VE COME THIS FAR. YOU'RE NOT ALTERING YOUR VALUES, YOUR FIDUCIARY, ANY OF IT. I THINK WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED IS THE FAIREST WAY, UM, BUT TO, TO COME BACK HERE, UM, WITH THE 4-1, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THE RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO UNDERSTAND IT, SO. 
          COUNCILOR SUNDSTROM, ANY CLOSING COMMENTS? NO COMMENT. 
          COUNCILOR GUISINGER. 
          NO, I GUESS I WILL TAKE ONE EXCEPTION THAT YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, WELL, THIS WAS NOT ABOUT THE NAV. TO ME, LISTENING TO THE WHOLE CONVERSATION, IT IS ABOUT THE NAV. SO THAT'S WHAT DISAPPOINTS ME IS WE'VE BEEN REHASHING THAT NAV NOW FOR, WHAT, 4 MONTHS, 5 MONTHS. 
          WE VOTED 4 TO 1 TO PUT THE ASSESSMENT IN PLACE. THAT'S A DONE DEAL. I HATE TO SEE US GET THERE NEXT TUESDAY AND HAVE TO SETTLE BACK ON THE 2.4976 ROLLBACK RATE, SO, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED RIGHT NOW, SO. 
          AND I, AND MAYOR, I THINK IN THEORY YOU AGREED ON THE NAV, YOU JUST DON'T AGREE WITH THE FAIRNESS OF IT. SO WE ALL AGREE THERE NEEDS TO BE A NAV, NOT JUST FOR FIRE, FOR SERVICING OF DEBT, BUT ALSO FOR FLEXIBILITY IN THE FUTURE, AND WITH AMENDMENT 3 COMING UP, A LOT OF OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ARE LOOKING AT NAVS FOR DIFFERENT OPTIONS. YOU KNOW IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, BUT YOU'RE JUST, I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE KIND OF HOLDING US 
          [01:35:01]
HOSTAGE BECAUSE YOU JUST HAVE TO MAKE A POINT. AND IT'S, IT'S REALLY WHAT IT FEELS LIKE, AND I THINK MY COLLEAGUES WOULD AGREE WITH ME. 
          I THINK WE'RE ALL WILLING TO LOOK AT IT NEXT YEAR. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK WE'VE ALL EXPRESSED AN OPENNESS. WE DID THE LAST TIME. 
          I'M SORRY I WASN'T SEEN, BUT I THINK WE ALL DID THAT LAST YEAR, UM, OR SORRY, LAST MEETING, AND I MEAN, WE DON'T WANT TO MISS THE FOREST FOR A TREE, YOU KNOW? I DON'T WANT TO BE STUCK ON SOMETHING SMALL AND MISS THE BIGGER PICTURE. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. 
          I JUST WANT TO CORRECT ONE THING, ANOTHER THING THAT WAS SAID WRONG. NO, I NEVER AGREED TO NON-AD VALOREM. EVERY SINGLE TIME IT CAME UP FROM DAY ONE, I QUESTIONED. I WANTED TO SEE HOW IT WORKED OUT. 
          ALSO, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I MAY BE ONE OF FIVE, BUT IT WASN'T AS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO HAVE TO HAVE A NON-AD VALOREM, OKAY? BECAUSE I KNEW THAT WE— I NEVER THOUGHT WE HAVE TO HAVE IT EITHER. I DON'T THINK ANY OF US DID. 
          OKAY, NO, NO, YOU STATED THAT WE— I, I THOUGHT I, I, ALL RIGHT, I MAY BE WRONG, MAYBE YOU D- I, I ASSUMED, BECAUSE WE ALL GET BRIEFED BY THE TOWN MANAGER, THAT WE ALL WANTED TO LOOK AT IT, AND I KNOW IT WAS 4-1 BECAUSE YOU GOT INTO THE, INTO THE WEEDS ON THE NITTY-GRITTY AND THE DISPARAGES, WHICH IS FINE, BUT, UM, I NEVER THOUGHT WE HAD TO HAVE IT, BUT IT'S HERE. 
          WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE ADVERTISED IT. WE'RE MARRIED TO IT FOR NEXT WEEK, SO, YOU KNOW, TO FOR THAT TO COME UP AND WE DON'T GET THE 5-0 VOTE, WE'RE GOING 20 PLUS MILLION INTO RESERVES. I THINK IT'S RIDICULOUS. WE CAN DO IT. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO LOSE SLEEP OVER IT, BUT IF WE HAVE TO DO IT, WE HAVE TO DO IT, BUT AND THEN THIS LAST-MINUTE, LET'S REDUCE THE MILLAGE RATE. THIS IS LAST-MINUTE, TAKE 2.1 MILLION OUT. WE SHOULD HAVE DONE TALKED ABOUT THAT 3 MONTHS AGO. 
          OH, WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE NUMBERS 3 MONTHS AGO. 
          OH, ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, THROUGH OUR LAST 2 MEETINGS, WE SHOULD HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT. 
          AND THE NOW— THIS IS JUST LAST-MINUTE. WE'RE, THIS IS, THIS MEETING SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TAKEN PLACE. 
          THE NAV IS NOT ON THE AGENDA ON TUESDAY. 
          YEP. 
          EXCUSE ME? THE NAV IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, AND YET IT IS. YOU KNOW, IT'S BEING MADE SO, EVEN THOUGH— RIGHT. 
          WE'RE LE- WE'RE RELITIGATING THE NAV. 
          YEAH. OKAY. 
          WELL, WHENEVER WE VOTE ON IT, WHATEVER THE DATE IS. 
          I LOOK AT ITS PROPERTY TAX, SO I— WE ALL DO. ONCE THE DECISION WAS MADE, I'M OK WITH IT. I'M NOT REPEATING IT. I WAS SHARING THE DISPARITY ON WHY I WANT TO ADJUST THE NUMBER. WE KNOW IT'S ALL, IT'S ALL PROPERTY TAX. WE KNOW THAT. WE ALL AGREE WITH THAT. 
          YEP. OK, UH, TOWN IS THE TIME IS NOW 7:37. 
          WE'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.