TRUE Commission

>> 180 ANOTHER EVENT. A FEW OTHER PEOPLE. >> YOU KNOW, CAME ALL OKAY TO GET TO START OVER. ALL RIGHT. BUT ANYWAY, WHAT I WANTED TO SHARE WITH EVERYBODY. >> IS THAT IS YOUR TIME. OKAY. I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. THIS IS AMENDMENT OK. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. >> MOVING FORWARD TESTING. 1, 2, ARE GOOD AS TEAM ONE TO TESTING. SO WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WHERE WE HAVE AND AGENDA TODAY. THAT IS PRETTY OPEN FORUM WORKSHOP ORIENTED. SO WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN DISCUSSION ABOUT AMENDMENT 3. I DON'T WANT TO DWELL A LOT ON THE IMPACTS. WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANT. SOME ESTIMATES ARE THAT THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE. >> WE'LL HAVE AN IMPACT OF ABOUT 25% REDUCTION IN AD VALOREM TAX REVENUE. WE WILL START WITH THAT AS A A BASELINE AND WE CAN GO THROUGH AND I WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP A SERIES OF PRINCIPLES THAT WOULD GUIDE OUR ANALYSIS OF THE UNDERLYING FINANCES. SO THERE ARE SOME PRINCIPLES THAT WOULD INCLUDE HOW MUCH PERSONNEL COST CAN GO UP IN TERMS OF SALARIES. A GREAT PORTION OF ACTUAL PERSONNEL COSTS ARE NON CONTROLLABLE. THEY ARE CONTRACTUAL. THEY ARE AND ANY ATTEMPT TO TRUE UP SO TO SPEAK. AN ITEM CALLED EMPLOYER PROVIDED BENEFITS, WHICH INCLUDES OUR HEALTH INSURANCE FOR OUR CITY EMPLOYEES. >> AND I MEAN IT. >> THIS EXPLAINED TO ME THAT IN THE PAST RECENT YEARS, ANYWAY, THAT THE THE EMPLOYER PROVIDED BENEFIT, THERE WERE VERY LIMITED INCREASES AND THAT AND SO AS A RESULT, THE EMPLOYEES DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY THAT ADDITIONAL COSTS. AND THAT WAS ONE WAY OF SORT OF GIVING THEM A BACK DOOR INCREASE IN SALARY THAT IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY THAT INCREASED COSTS OF THE BENEFITS, THEN THAT WOULD BE LIKE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS. SO THERE ARE NUMBER OF THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES, THE PENSION COSTS. >> THAT WILL BE. >> TRANSITIONING FOR FIRE AND RESCUE AND FIRST RESPECT AND THE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION THAT WILL BE TRANSITIONING OVER TO THE FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM. THE CITY GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION FUND THAT IS STAYING IN THE FACT. IS THAT CORRECT? OK? SO THEY'RE NOT TRANSITIONING TO FRS. ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S LOOK AT HER IN TERMS OF PERSONNEL COST WHAT IS GOING TO BE IN CONTROL, BULL AND UNDER UNDER THE SALARY CATEGORY. SO COLLEEN HAS DISTRIBUTED SOME PAGES THAT CAME OUT OF THE PROPOSED CITY BUDGET. THIS IS FROM PAGE 12 TITLED OVERARCHING ITEMS SO PROPERTY TAX REVENUE. >> THE >> CITY COUNCIL VOTED TO REDUCE THE MILLAGE RATE BY 1, 8, TO THE MAIL AND WHICH HAS AN IMPACT OF REDUCING THE REVENUE BY 1.1%. >> AND THEN THE >> TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUE LOSS FOR THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR IS GOING TO BE 14 1 MILLION, 291,395 DOLLARS. BUT THE U.S. INTERESTS PULL. I'M SORRY, THE INVESTMENT POOL, THE INTEREST EARNINGS RATE ASSUMPTIONS. ARE THERE INCREASING FISCAL 27 FROM 3 POINT? 0, 2, TO 3.5. THAT IS PROBABLY A SAFE ASSUMPTION. IT MAY END UP BEING ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT LOW AS WE SAW THE FEDERAL RESERVE TO SINK IN. TRUE INCREASED INTEREST RATES YESTERDAY. AND THE EXPECTATION IS THEY WILL PROBABLY INCREASE INTEREST RATES TO MORE TIMES BEFORE PROBABLY BY SPRINGTIME PERSONNEL COSTS. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, A LOT OF THE PERSONNEL COSTS ARE IN THE EMPLOYER-PROVIDED BENEFITS, CATEGORY HEALTH INSURANCE, PENSION PLANS, CETERA. THE ACTUAL SALARIES OF CITY EMPLOYEES ARE CONTROLLED, BOTH CONTRACTUALLY AND NON THE FIREFIGHTERS AND THE POLICE. THEY ARE GUARANTEED A 5% INCREASE BY THE CONTRACT. THE FOP MEMBERS UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS UNDER THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE ARE GOING TO INCREASE BY 7%. ALL OTHER UNIONS, WHICH ARE I GUESS ALL THE DIFFERENT UNIONS WITHIN THE GENERAL EMPLOYEES, THEY NEGOTIATE DIRECTLY. AND I MY ASSUMPTION IS THE ONLY UNION THAT INCLUDES IS SEE AMERICAN, I'M SORRY IS THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE, THE ASSOCIATION OF FEDERAL, STATE AND COUNTY EMPLOYEES. IS THAT THE ONLY UNION THAT REPRESENTS CITY OF JACKSONVILLE IBEW. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO THANKS SO MUCH. SO I WOULD SAY THAT ONE OF THE OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES IT WOULD BE THAT NON CBA EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES THAT ARE NOT BENEFITING FROM A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT THAT THEIR SALARIES SHOULD BE CAPPED AT 3%. I LOOKED THROUGH SOME OF THE I GUESS, CAESARS SUB FUNDS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, IF YOU DIVIDE THE TOTAL SALARIES BY THE 24 POSITIONS IN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, THE PROJECTED INCREASE FOR THE FISCAL 27 YEAR IS A 10 POINT 5, 6%. I BELIEVE IT WAS. YOU LOOK AT THE OFFICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF, THOSE EMPLOYEES, THEIR PROJECTED. AND I THINK THEY'RE ACTUALLY LOSING A COUPLE OF POSITIONS IN THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF. BUT STILL THE INCREASE OF THOSE HIM? WELL, I EASE IS GOING TO BE OVER 10%. I THINK IT'S 10.2%, BUT ROUGHLY 10 IN BOTH INSTANCES. AND THEN IF YOU GET INTO THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS UNDER THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, YES, THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, YOU HAVE THE HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS, YOU HAVE CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT POLICE. I THINK IT'S A PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND I FORGET THE OTHER DEPARTMENT UNDER THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE ALL BUT ONE OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS, THE INCREASES ABOVE FREE PERCENT, POSSIBLY BAYLOR. SO WHAT I WOULD SAY IS NOW THAT THAT BUDGET DOESN'T PROVIDE ENOUGH DETAIL TO TELL YOU OF THOSE INCREASES, HOW MUCH OR HOW MUCH OF THE INCREASE IS BEING DRIVEN BY A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AS OPPOSED TO NON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS? SO I WOULD SAY THAT ONE OF OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES WOULD BE THAT FOR ALL CITY EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN EMPLOYEES UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THOSE SALARY INCREASES SHOULD BE HELD TO 3%. THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF AND ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS THAT FUNCTION UNDER THE SHERIFF JFRD. IF YOU LOOKED AT IT, THEY'RE INCREASES ARE I THINK ABOUT 3 AND A HALF OR MAYBE 4%. BUT AGAIN, THAT THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE SUBJECT TO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. I THINK ONE OF THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES IS WE'LL START OFF BY SAYING WE BELIEVE THAT PERSONNEL COSTS SHOULD BE CAPPED AT 3% FOR ALL CITY EMPLOYEES, NOT SUBJECT TO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. SO THAT LIKE THAT PRINCIPLE NUMBER ONE, THEN ON THE OTHER GUIDING PRINCIPLE IS IN MY OPINION, I THINK WE SHOULD NOT TOUCH ANY OF THE PROPOSED SPENDING OTHER THAN PERSONNEL COST SUBJECT TO REDUCTION FROM PRINCIPAL ONE THAT WE SHOULD HOLD ALL SPENDING UNDER THE JACKSONVILLE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND JFRD HARMLESS THAT NONE OF THOSE INCREASES IN THAT SPENDING SHOULD BE REDUCED OTHER THAN ANY EMPLOYEE EXPENSES PURSUANT TO PRINCIPAL ONE. SO WE MAKE THAT PRINCIPLE TO THAT. WE HOLD JFRD AND JSO HARMLESS FROM ANY POTENTIAL IN DECREASES IN SPENDING OTHER THAN THOSE RELATED SALARY AMOUNTS SO WE CAN NOW PROCEED TO LOOK THROUGH. IF YOU LOOK FOR YOUR PACKAGE AND THIS DOES GO INTO A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL, THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 12 ABOUT THE PENSION BENEFITS AND YOU SEE THAT THE OATH, THE TOTAL INCREASE IS 14.7, ALMOST 14.8 MILLION FROM 26 TO 27. A POLICE AND FIRE 7 MILLION 9.82. CORRECTIONS. A 1 MILLION 6.46. I'M SORRY. THIS IS POLICE AND FIRE IS 7 MILLION 92 GENERAL EMPLOYEES. 4 MILLION FOR 97. AND SO BUT AGAIN, THESE ARE THEIR PENSION PLANS. AND I GUESS PRINCIPLE NUMBER 3 THAT WE WOULD ADOPT IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANY IMPACT ON REDUCING PENSIONS, THAT WHATEVER IS PROPOSED TO BE SPENT FOR PENSIONS, IN FACT, SHOULD BE SPENT FOR PENSIONS. SO THEN AS YOU MOVE THROUGH THIS PACKAGE OF INFORMATION ON PAGE 14, YOU SEE OUR PROPOSED BUDGETS FOR THE GENERAL FUND AND YOU HAVE A SERIES OF SUB FUNDS. 0, 1, 11, 0, 1, 12, ONE, 13, ONE, 16, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO YOU. GET TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, PROPERTY APPRAISER CLERK OF THE COURT AND TAX COLLECTOR. SO YOU SEE THAT ALL OF THOSE CATEGORIES EXCEPT FOR MULTI-YEAR PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES. THERE IS A A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE EXCEPT MULTI-YEAR PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES WHICH ARE, IN FACT, DECREASING BY ABOUT 14 MILLION AND THEN SPECIAL EVENTS. GENERAL FUND DECREASING BY 3.4 MILLION. OTHERWISE THERE'S A TOTAL INCREASE OF GENERAL FUND SPENDING A 14 MILLION DOLLARS. THANK YOU. GET UNDER SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS WHICH ARE STILL PART OF THE GENERAL FUND AND THAT RUNS ALL THE WAY DOWN FROM SUB FUND IN 101 ALL THE WAY DOWN THROUGH 15, 304. AND THERE ARE A FEW OF THOSE THAT ARE PROJECTED TO HAVE A REDUCTION AND THE NET IMPACT OF THE REDUCTIONS FOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS IS A DECREASE OF 109 MILLION DOLLARS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT CAPITAL PROJECT. FUNDS WILL LEAVE THOSE ALONE. RIGHT NOW. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FOCUS ON THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE GENERAL FUND. THEN YOU HAVE YOUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND THESE ARE IN ESSENCE OPERATIONS OF CITY GOVERNMENT THAT REALLY ARE AKIN TO A BUSINESS. AND YOU SEE WHERE THERE WAS A A PROJECTED DECREASE OF 30 MILLION FOR 50 AND SOLID WASTE IN GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS. TOMMY, DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS DRIVING THAT SIGNIFICANT DECREASE OR THEY PROJECT TEEN? IS THIS BECAUSE OF THE NEW THE FEE STRUCTURE FOR SOLID WASTE THAT THEY'RE NO LONGER GOING TO BE RELYING ON SUBSIDIZING THAT OPERATION OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND THAT THE PART OF THE REDUCTION? >> NOT TOTALLY SURE. BUT I BELIEVE THAT IS PART OF WHAT'S DRIVING THAT REMEMBER THAT BEEN DISCUSSED IS FROM THE NEW FEE AND THAT WAY THE GENERAL FUNDS NOT HAVING TO PAY BACK THE LOAN FROM THE. >> ALL RIGHT. SO THAT ALL THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS, THERE'S A PROJECTED DECREASE IN THEM OF 100 MILLION DOLLARS. 709 MILLION IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR TO A 609 MILLION FOR PROPOSED SPENDING FOR NEXT YEAR. YOU CAN SEE THERE HAS BEEN SOME BELT TIGHTENING ALREADY AND THEN YOU GET DOWN TO ON PAGE 16, THE PENSION TRUST FUNDS. >> AND A NOMINAL. >> INCREASE IN PENSION TRUST FUNDS OF 3 MILLION DOLLARS ON A BASE OF 25. SO LITTLE BIT MORE THAN 10%. BUT AGAIN, A LOT OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS INTO THE PENSION FUNDS ARE DRIVEN BY THE REQUIRED CONTRIBUTIONS TO MAINTAIN THE ACTUARIAL SOUNDNESS OF THE PENSION FUND AND TO BEGIN CLOSING THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY. ON PAGE 17, YOU START SEEN A SUMMARY OF CITY EMPLOYEES KEPT GENERAL FUND LAST YEAR HAD 7,244 THEIR PROJECTED IN THE COMING NEXT YEAR. THEY WOULD HAVE INCREASE OF 71 POSITIONS. 68 OF THOSE 71 ARE COMING OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND OPERATING FUN NUMBER 0, 1, 11 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, AN INCREASE OF 2 POSITIONS, TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE SONS, A DECREASE OF 2 POSITIONS. THE NET IMPACT IS AN INCREASE OF CITY EMPLOYEES OF 71. SO WE MAY WANT TO SAY PRINCIPLE. NUMBER 4 IS THAT THE CITY LOOK VERY CLOSELY, NOT INCREASING THE NUMBER CITY EMPLOYEES AND THEN AS WE APPLY THESE PRINCIPLES, EACH OF THESE DIFFERENT POINTS WILL HAVE A FINANCIAL IMPACT ON CITY OPERATIONS. SO WE GO OVER TO PAGE 19 AND WE START BREAKING OUT THAT SUB FUND 0, 0, 1, 11, THE CURRENT YEAR, WHICH IS THE MIDDLE OF THE FIRST 3 COLUMNS IS THE MIDDLE COLUMN. 2 BILLION, 3 MILLION, 918,000 DOLLARS PROJECTED FOR PROPOSE, I SHOULD SAY FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. THAT BEGINS THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER. ABOUT 14 DAYS FROM NOW WOULD BE 2 BILLION. 26 MILLION. THAT'S A 1.1% INCREASE. NOW IF YOU LOOK BACK UP TO THE TOP LINE OF THAT 2 BILLION, 26 MILLION. 1 BILLION. 248 MILLION IS COMING FROM AD VALOREM TAXES. THAT IS THE LINE THAT WILL BE IMPACTED IF AMENDMENT 3 PASSES. IF WE WERE TO ASSUME AND WE CAN PROBABLY IT'S PROBABLY BETTER TO MAKE A MORE SEVERE ASSUMPTION RATHER THAN MORE LENIENT ASSUMPTION. SO IF WE WERE TO ASSUME THAT THAT 1 BILLION TO 48 RISK AND KEEP IT ROUNDED IT MILLIONS SO BILLION TO 48 HAS A 25% DECREASE. THAT MEANS THAT THAT NUMBER NEXT YEAR IS GOING TO BECOME 936 MILLION. 1 BILLION TO 48 DROPS TO 936 MILLION. THAT'S A REDUCTION OF 312 MILLION DOLLARS. YES, SIR. >> WHEN IF AMENDMENT 3 PASSES, THE CHANGES WOULDN'T GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL THE 2020 28 FISCAL YEAR A FISCAL YEAR. OKAY. 27. 28 DISAPPEAR. JUST A. >> THAT REDUCTION OF OR AN ADDITIONAL 100,000 ADDED TO THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION TO GO FROM 51 50 AND THEN 2028 IS TO 50 IN 2029. IT GOES 2.50, TO 200. TODAY'S FLAT AFTER THAT, THEN IT'S UP TO THE LEGISLATURE TO MAKE SURE SHE WAS ONLY 200,000 INCREMENT PER YEAR STARTING FOR THESE FOR THE NEXT 2 YEARS. SO 100,000 THE FIRST YEAR. BUT IT'S THAT THE ENTIRE EXEMPTION IN THE FIRST YEAR IS $150,000. >> RIGHT, OK? THAT'S RIGHT. IT WAS A MARGINAL INCREASE OF 100,000, CORRECT? AND THEN THE SECOND YEAR IS TO 50, CORRECT? CORRECT, WHICH IS A MARGINAL INCREASE OF 200,000. THE CURRENT 250 PLUS THE 50 GUESTS TO GET IT INCLUDES THE 58 LOSE. IF IT SENSES A CHANGE OF 200 MILLION, 200,000, CORRECT THAT IT'S TIME TO START. SO SO WHAT? NOW? WE HAVE A POLICY QUESTION IS SHOULD THE CITY BEGIN IMPLEMENTING POLICIES TO DETAIL EXPENDITURES IN THE 26 27 FISCAL YEAR? >> THAT TAKE EFFECT IN BEFORE THE TAX REDUCTION OCCURS. THAT'S A POLICY DECISION. WHAT ARE YOU THOUGHTS? WHICH IS OCTOBER ONE, THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW FISCAL YEAR, CORRECT. SO ALTHOUGH THERE'S NO REDUCTION IN SPENDING IN THE 27 PROPOSED BUDGET, WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE AN IMPACT AND THE 27 28 BUDGET. SHOULD THE CITY BEGIN THE GLIDE PATH IN THE UP COMING FISCAL YEAR TO PREPARE OR SHOULD WE SAY? BUT THE GOOD TIMES ROLL AND WE'LL KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD RIGHT NOW AND DEAL WITH THAT IN THE NEW THE NEW CITY COUNCIL AFTER THEY TAKE OFFICE BECAUSE THEY WILL BE THE ONES WHO WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT BUDGET SHORTFALL. CORRECT TIMING. 27. 28. THAT'S GREAT. I MEAN, NOW WE'RE NOT THAT WE CAN'T TAKE ANY ACTION BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A QORUM. BUT I THINK WHAT WE COULD DO WOULD BE TO REQUEST PROBABLY NOT AT THE OCTOBER MEETING, BUT MAYBE BY THE NOVEMBER MEETING. DO YOU HAVE A WAY DO HAVE A PERSON ON YOUR STAFF THAT DEALS WITH THE BUDGET THAT ALREADY HAS THESE GREAT EXCEL SPREADSHEETS SET UP AND WE CAN JUST GO IN AND IT'S A CHANGE IN A ROW. A 10 REDUCE IT BY 5%. YOU'RE ONE 20% IN YEAR TO 25% IN YEAR 3 ACROSS THE BORDER. THE SPECIFIC LINE ITEMS. OKAY. PROBABLY MORE. >> THE BUDGET OFFICE AS WE REVIEW THE BUDGET. SO WE DON'T PREPARE THESE NUMBERS. WE REVIEW HAVE NOW. AND A LOT ALSO DEPENDS TO GET THE FINAL FINAL TAX NUMBERS BECAUSE THESE ESTIMATES ARE BASED ON THE THIS YEAR. 26, WHICH IS NOT IN TO GET TAKE ON THIS SO FAR THROUGH THE TAX WILL TO JULY. SO YOU'RE NOT QUITE THERE YET. I KNOW WE YOU DON'T HAVE A BUDGET ANALYST ON THE COUNCIL ON THAT STAFF. THAT'S THE BUDGET OFFICE WOULD BE WOULD BE THAT AREA WE WHEN WHEN WHEN WE GET THE BUDGET, WE ARE ALL ASSIGN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE BUDGET REVIEW. >> SO IF WE WERE TO SAY, OK, BASED ON OUR CONVERSATIONS HERE TODAY, AND IF THE TRUTH COMMISSION WERE TO TAKE ACTION AT THE OCTOBER MEETING AND THAT THESE GUIDELINES AND WE THEN REQUEST THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET DIVISION TO PREPARE PROJECTIONS BASED ON THESE NEW ASSUMPTIONS. WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY THAT THEY WOULD BE ACCOMMODATING AND BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH SUCH PROJECTIONS? >> THAT WOULD BE AN ADMINISTRATION QUESTION. I HAVE NOT. NO, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE WORKLOAD IS. I AND I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> SO THE TRUE COMMISSION BEING A A CREATION OF CITY COUNCIL WITH STAFFING BY THE CITY COUNCIL AUDITOR, WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE ANY RESOURCES TO DO MODELING AND PROJECTIONS CHANGES AND CITY FINANCES. >> TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NOT IN THE COUNCIL AUDITORS OFFICE. WE DON'T HAVE WE DON'T HAVE THE MODELING THEM THINGS LIKE THAT. >> THE ORDINANCE ONLY CHARGES THE COUNCIL AUDITORS OFFICE WITH PROVIDING SUPPORT. IS THAT CORRECT? CALLING OUR ENABLING LEGISLATION AND YOUR OFFICE BUT NOT IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH? TO MY KNOWLEDGE? NO, BUT YOU CAN REQUEST THE VARIOUS, YOU KNOW, ADMINISTRATION AGENCIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT DEPARTMENTS. BUT AND THE SUPPORT I BELIEVES PROVIDED BY OUR OFFICE AND AND CALLING. >> OR COULD BE REQUESTED ON BEHALF OF THE FISH ARE APPOINTED BY THE ADMINISTRATION. SO THE MAYOR AS POINT, HE'S HERE OUTSIDE OF THE ONLY ONE. HE'S THE ONLY ONE NOW FROM THAT 19. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE. I WOULD. >> PROBABLY HAVE TO COME IS A RESOLUTION FROM THE 2 COMMISSIONER FROM THE TO DO THAT TO THEM. >> MR. PENCE, WHAT WE COULD DO. WE COULD COME. WE CAN COME BACK IN OCTOBER AND SAY WE HAVE LOOKED OVER THIS UNI AS ACE OF AND MAKING IT TO YOU WHEN IT BECAME AND THEN WE CAN BRING THIS UP THE OCTOBER MEETING UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND I WILL USE MY DISCRETION AS CHAIR TO CLEAR THE AGENDA FOR OCTOBER OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN FURTHER DISCUSSION. THESE ITEMS I'M SORRY, THE YEAR, CORRECT. AND WE WILL GO AHEAD. AND CAN YOU SEE IF THE LOOK TO SEE IF HE WANTS TO COME AT 4 AND WE'LL JUST DO THE SAME THING WE'RE DOING TODAY, WHICH IS BLOCK OUT THE ENTIRE 2 HOURS FOR THE COMMISSION. ALL RIGHT. LET'S DO THAT. SO WE'LL JUST HAVE A FULL MEETING OF THE COMMISSION TO BEGIN AT 4 AS OPPOSED TO 4.30. WE'LL HEAR FROM PHILIP WILL GIVE HIM 30 MINUTES AS MUCH TIME AS HE WANTS. IT WILL COME BACK IN AND WE'LL PICK UP DISCUSSION THIS UNI. I DON'T HAVE TO BE ANYWHERE UNTIL 06:30PM, TONIGHT. I'VE GOT TO LEAVE HERE BY 6. GOING TO BE AN ORANGE PARK AT 6.30, SO MUCH TIME. DO YOU HAVE BUT CHINESE? ANYTHING CAN WE CONTINUE TO DISCUSS IS UNTIL SUCCESSFULLY THAT OKAY WITH YOU. AND THAT'S NO INTENTION OF GOING PAST 6 BECAUSE I CAN'T GET TO ORANGE PARK IN 25 MINUTES. >> SO IF I COULD, MISTER CHAIRMAN FOR CLARIFICATION OUTSIDE OF THE HEAVIEST AIR RAYMOND, OUTSIDE OF THE POLICE AND FIRE PENSIONS OR THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING GROUPS TO PUT A CAP OF 3% ON SALARIES. CURRENTLY IT'S AT WITH THE 3% BASED ON COLA, CORRECT? JUST COST OF LIVING INCREASES ARE CONTROLLED IN ON PENSIONS. I MEAN, ON PAYROLL IS OUT OF REACH, NOT NECESSARILY AT ANY TIME WENT ON A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR THOSE LIKE THAT'S NOT DONE ON BEHALF OF CITY EMPLOYEES. I DON'T KNOW. AND HERE'S WHY I'M SAYING THAT BECAUSE WHEN I LOOKED IN. >> I JUST LOOKED AT THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF AND I LOOKED AT THE OPERATING UNITS UNDER THE SHERIFF AND I LOOKED AT JFRD BECAUSE IT'S IT'S ONLY IT'S ONLY ONE LINE ITEM ON THAT. THE CITY BUDGET, UNLESS YOU'RE SOMEWHERE IN THAT 471 PAGES OF TEXT THAT IT'S BROKEN OUT IN MORE DETAIL. THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAD UNIONS WITH IN IT OF GETTING MORE THAN A 3% INCREASE. HIS OFFICE WAS GETTING US A 10% INCREASE. A COUPLE OF THE OTHER OFFICES. WE'RE GETTING AN INCREASE OF THE 6%. NOW, IF YOU GO BACK TO OUR OVERARCHING ITEMS, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR CORRECTIONS WAS 7%. I BELIEVE EVEN THAT LINE ITEM WAS MORE THAN 7. MAYBE NOT. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S NOT ALL BE HAPPY TO ADMIT THAT I WAS WRONG, THAT AND THEN THE THE OTHER SHERIFFS OFFICES COMPONENTS UNDER SALARIES, THEY SHOULD NOT EXCEED 5%. >> WHAT WAS CURRENTLY NEGOTIATED ON BEHALF OF THE UNIONS WAS WHAT THE A QUARTER DEFINED BENEFIT. THAT'S THE PROGRAM. NOW WE'RE UNDER 8 NEWS FOR ONE AND WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT SALARIES, RIGHT? >> OKAY. NOT NOT HOW WE'RE DOING THE PENSION WERE. >> WAS ANYONE FIND OUT WHERE THE MONEY IS IS TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS NEGOTIATED? BUT ARE WE LOOKING AT POLICE AND FIRE OR LOOKING AT JUST SALARIES OF EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE? WE I IN MY OPINION, WE SHOULD LOOK AT ALL SALARIES, ALL CITY AND THAT WAY BY A 3, NO 3% OTHER THAN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS. YOU CAN'T OVERRIDE CONTRACTS. I AGREE. THAT'S MY THAT'S MY POINT IS THAT WAS BACK IN TUESDAY. THAT COMMENT. SO JUST SALARIES OF EXISTING EMPLOYEES OVER ABOVE THE REDUCTION THAT SO IT SHOWED HIM PROPOSED BUDGETS AND THE REDUCTION, BUT A 3% CAP. AND THAT COULD TAKE EFFECT CURRENTLY THAT AND THAT COULD BE WRONG. WHERE'S THE CURRENT AGREEMENT WITH SALARIES? WELL, THE BUDGET DOCUMENT THAT I READ, I CAN'T DISCERN THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL. WOULD THAT BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THE 2 IT WOULD BE THE WEEDS. BUT YEAH, I MEAN THIS THIS IS WHAT'S REQUIRED. AND THIS IS WHY WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY HERE THAT PEOPLE LIKE GETTING IN THE WEEDS. BUT THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED. I MEAN, THIS IS GOING TO BE A LEGITIMATE ADVISORY BODY AND WE HAVE TO GIVE ADVICE. AND IF WE CAN'T DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION AND YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE GET THE ADVICE? SO, COLLEEN, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN SPEAK TO? IS THERE A DOCUMENT THAT WOULD SHOW THE DETAILS ARE WHO REQUESTED THE PUBLIC AT THE ADMINISTRATION AND SHE THINK THEY REALLY GET THE BUDGET BOOK. THIS COMES OUT FROM WHICH IS NOT THE THING THAT'S ON WINE. ITS ONLINE, THE PDF PDF 171 PAGE AND IT BREAKS IT DOWN BY AL HARTMANN. SEE, OBVIOUSLY, I HAVE NOT READ ALL 4.71 PAGE, RIGHT? I MEAN IT IT GETS INTO FOR THE MOST PART THE GO. IT BREAKS DOWN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE OF JSO ONE NIGHT IN A SIEGE. US ALL THE BEST TO SEPARATE PAGE AND YOU CAN YOU GO. THESE ARE THE. >> THESE ARE THE POSITIONS AND FISCAL. 25. 26. THESE ARE THE PROPOSED POSITIONS FOR FISCAL 26. 27. THESE THESE WERE THE SALARIES AND FISCAL. 25 2060'S. THE PROPOSED SALARIES FOR 20'S 2026. 27. YOU DIVIDE THE SALARIES BY THE POSITIONS AND THAT YOUR AVERAGE SALARY. THE INCREASE WAS OVER 10% FOR THE MAYOR'S OFFICE. HER 24 PEOPLE WERE GETTING ON AVERAGE A 10 AND A HALF PERCENT IN THE CELLAR. >> THE BUDGET LAST LAST YEAR WHEN IT ALL AND ALSO ABOUT THESE. SO WHAT WERE THEY KEPT AT THIS TIME? THIS YEAR THING DURING THE HEARINGS, THEY. >> THEY DIDN'T CUTS POSITIONS THAT THEY MAY BE PRIEST RE THE MAYOR'S OFFICE STAFF TO SAY YOU MUST INCREASE GREAT CITY COUNCIL STAFF. SO MY WORKERS, ALL POLICE AND FIRE WERE ALL. WHAT ARE THE CORRECT WITH THAT, RIGHT? SEE YOU ANYTHING RIGHT? YET ALL THE PIECES AS POTENTIAL RECRUITING TOOL. YEAH. >> ONE OF THE BUDGET HEARINGS, THEY PAY LIMITED. THE MAYORS OFFICE INCREASED OUR INCREASED TO THAT WHICH WAS CITY COUNCIL. SAME PERCENTAGES AND PER CENT SAYS IT SAYS TO ME IS ONLY FAIR. AND AND ALSO LAST YEAR, I BELIEVE CALLING IF YOU REMEMBER CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. LAST YEAR, BUDGET CITY COUNCIL REDUCE THE MAYOR'S OFFICE BUDGET ORDINANCE 1000, RIGHT WHEN SHE JUST SIMPLY WENT AND DID AN INTERNAL TRANSFER HIM PUT IT THAT. AND AND SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT WAS APPROVED FOR WHAT'S PROPOSED, YOU'VE GOT THAT CUTS. SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S HIGHER. SO BECAUSE WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT WE WHAT WE REVIEW AND HOW WE REVIEW IT IS I APPROVE BUDGET TO PROPOSED. SO IF THERE WAS AND ITS ORIGINAL PROVED. SO IF THAT'S WHAT'S SO THAT MAKES WHAT MAKES IT LOOK LIKE IT IS ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN WHAT IT WAS ON PAPER. IF THAT MAKES SENSE NOT TO FALL, YOU VALUE YOUR CLOSE LEE IT. IT'S JUST IT BOTHERS ME AS A TAXPAYER AND AS A BUSINESS PERSON. >> THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS NOT SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH WHEN IT COMES TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH CONTROLLING THE PURSE STRINGS. THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. OUR REPUBLIC FOR WHICH WE FOUGHT A REVOLUTION, HOLD THE EXECUTIVE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE AND THAT IS DONE THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS. AND THIS EXAMPLE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CUTTING AND THE MAYOR RESTORING IS AN EXAMPLE THAT FUNDAMENTALLY THE MAYOR SAYS, WELL, I'M NOT GONNA BE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF GAVE THE COUNCIL THE FAT FINGER. AND I'M MOVING ON NOW. TO BE FAIR, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, THEY WERE JUST PLAIN POLITICS AND THEY SAID THEY SAID THEY WOULD CUT THE MAYOR'S BUDGET. YOU KNOW, THAT'S SO IT. THIS PUTS PLENTY OF BLAME TO GO AROUND BETWEEN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND THE CITY COUNCIL. IN MY OPINION, IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO MOVE. WE HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO THAN TO PLAY POLITICS OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS AND A 2 BILLION DOLLARS CITY BUDGET. AND BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH WHEN IT COMES TO SPENDING. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST AND INVIOLABLE PRINCIPLE IN MY IN MY OPINION CENT THAT THAT BOTHERS ME SO ON. >> MR. CHAIR. IF I COULD SPEAK FOR A MOMENT. THE DEBATE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE INCREASE OR CUT WHAT PARTISAN POLITICS IS ALWAYS THAT WAY. HOW DO WE THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX LOOKING BACK AND COMING FROM PRIVATE BUSINESS FOR 30 YEARS AND MULTIPLE ENTITIES TO REWARD THOSE WHO SPEND APPROPRIATELY, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE USE IT OR LOSE IT BUDGET APPROACH. SO THEY SEE THE END OF THEIR BUDGET CYCLE. WE HAVE RESOURCES IN HERE. IF WE DON'T SPEND THIS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE INCREASE NEXT YEAR AND WE'RE GOING TO LOSE WHAT WE HAVE NOW. IT'S IT'S IT'S SPREAD, PROBABLY CITYWIDE AND EVERY INTERNAL DEPARTMENT THAT THEY HAVE A USE IT OR LOSE THAT MINDSET VERSUS WAY TO REWARD THOSE WHO SPEND THEIR MONEY MORE APPROPRIATELY. IT'S I THINK YOU GET MORE WITH HONEY THAN YOU DO WITH THE COVER STAND. YES, YES, SIR. YOU WANT TO TASTE? >> I WAS ONE OF THE ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO LOOK AT IS WE BELIEVE LOOK TO SEE IF THERE IS, YOU KNOW, I GUESS A SPENDING SPREE THAT'S AT THE END OF THE BUDGET YEAR. AND, YOU KNOW, IF WARRANTED WILL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THERE MAY BE REASONS FOR THAT. BUT WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAYBE, YOU KNOW, LOWER THE BUDGET IF IF, IF IT'S REASONABLE TYPE THING. >> BUT LAST AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT A REWARD IT, YOU KNOW, THOSE WHO DO OUR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR INTERNAL DEPARTMENTS WEATHERS 2500 TO 250,000, DOESN'T MATTER WHICH IF THERE IS A GOOD REDUCTION THAT CAN BE IN PLACE, A REWARD FOR THE 8 AT MONEY MAY STAY THERE EARMARKED FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT. BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO ASK FOR AN INCREASE. LEAVE IT THERE. STUDYING THE USE IT OR LOSE IT MENTALITY. HOW IS THE BUDGET? 0 BASE BUDGETING PER DEPARTMENT. HOW'S THAT WORK INTERNALLY FOR THE DEPARTMENT HEADS? >> ACCORDING TO ANNE, THERE IS NO 0. IT'S NOT 0 BASE. IT'S IT'S IT'S IT IS. IT'S JUST A COMPARATIVE FROM YEAR TO HEAR THE PREVIOUS YEAR. AND USUALLY YOUR YOUR INCREASES LIKE THIS YEAR. MOST OF THE INCREASE, I BELIEVE OF THE OTHER UNIONS AND AND BELIEVE APPOINT EMPLOYEES. THERE IS A 3% COLE IN THE BUDGET. SO YOU'LL SEE THAT. BUT I KNOW, YOU KNOW, SERVICES OR WHATEVER THEY MAY, THEY MAY BE FLAT OR SOME MAY BE GOING UP A LITTLE BIT, WHICH BY THE 1.1% INCREASE IN YOUR EXPENDITURES. BUT THAT'S IT'S IT'S USUALLY YOU DO A COMPARISON YEAR TO YEAR. >> IT'S WHICH IS WHY I GO BACK TO MY PET PEEVE THAT WE DON'T BUDGET ON A MONTHLY BASIS, THE BUDGET ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. AND THEN AS THE FISCAL YEAR PROGRESSES AND IF THE DEPARTMENT GOES OOPS, WE'VE SPENT MONEY WE SHOULDN'T HAVE SPENT. WELL, THEN THEY HAVE 2 CHOICES. THEY CAN CUT SPENDING ON THE BACK END. WE'RE ALL STAYING JUST TO A BUDGET TRANSFER AND THEY HAVE $100,000 A 42 OF ENTER DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET TRANSFER. >> I THINK THE MAYOR HAS $500,000 A TRANSFER ATTORNEY DISCRETION. I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST WITHIN HER DEPARTMENT. NOW SHE HAS SHE CAN DO A HALF HALF A MILLION BUT ANYWHERE WITHIN CITY BUDGET TAKE FROM ONE DEPARTMENT AND PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND UNDER THOSE AND EXECUTIVES TIME, I'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT. >> THAT MAY COME BACK TO THE CHARTER OBLIGATION TO HAVING THE STRONG MAYOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND HOME RULE. AND THAT'S A LOT OF TUTSIS, 40 DOOR. HE OR SHE IS AFFORDED IN THAT POSITION. >> BUT YOU BUT YOU CAN CONTROL THROUGH ORDINANCE TRULY, YOU KNOW, WE CAN SAY, ALRIGHT, THE MAYOR CAN ONLY CAN CAN ONLY TRANSFER $100,000 UNDER THESE CONDITIONS. >> THE BILL GOES BY US, BUT BY THAT, ITS JAKE. >> AS YOU FOUND IT EVERY YEAR SINCE HE'S BEEN ON THE COUNCIL, DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S YEAR? THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THAT. AND THAT'S TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OR THE THE LATITUDE TO DO. IT USED TO MOUNT A THE TRANSFER THAT. >> THEY REDUCED UNDER MAYOR BROWN. AND THEN WHEN MAYOR CURRY THAT EVENT PUT IT BACK, HUAWEI. >> AS WELL AS AN PEELING THE ONION AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX OF A SYSTEM THAT'S REWARDING TOO 0 BASE BUDGET, MONTHLY VERSUS ANNUALLY. I AGREE IT'S HEAVY AND YOU'LL SPEND MORE ON THE PAYROLL SIDE JUST TO ADMINISTER THAT. SO THAT COMES AT A COST. BUT IT'S MORE EFFICIENT AND IT'S WHAT BUSINESS HAVE TO. >> WITH NOW IS COMING. IT COMING OUT OF BARNETT. AND BUT WE WERE A GROWING ORGANIZATION, BUT WE HAD TO ANTICIPATE OUR STAFF EVERY MONTH AND WE THE MANAGER WAS CHARGED WITH UNDERSTANDING THE GROWTH DYNAMICS OF BARNETT AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE RAPID GROWTH AT BARNETT WAS EXPERIENCING. THEY HAD TO PROJECT WHEN THEY WOULD NEED AN ADDITIONAL PERSON AND THAT WAS PUT IN THAT MONTH. AND THEN THAT MONTHS, SALARY IN EXPENSE WHEN COMMENSURATELY. AND I BELIEVE THAT IF IF THE CITY GOVERNMENT WERE TO ADOPT A 0 BASED BUDGETING MONTHLY A STRUCTURE, I BELIEVE THAT WE COULD PROBABLY SAVE SOME MONEY IN THE LONG RUN AND I WOULD PROPOSE AS WE'RE TALKING HYPOTHETICALS, THE WAY YOU REWARD EFFICIENCY IS IF YOUR DEPARTMENT IS BUDGETED IN THE SKY NEWS, 5 MILLION DOLLARS FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT AND IF YOUR BUDGET, IF YOURS, IF YOU'RE DEPARTMENT, IF YOU'RE ABLE TO MANAGE THAT BUDGET AND YOU COME IN FOR 50 AND I WOULD SAY THAT $50,000 SAVINGS SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE EMPLOYEES ON A FORMULAIC BASIS TO REWARD THEM FOR SAVING THE 50 PAPER. WE WERE DOOR TO THE DEPARTMENT AND TO THE EMPLOYEES AT THE I MEAN, THAT'S THE INDIVIDUALS THAT MAKE THE SAVINGS. THANK YOU. AND IT COULD BE THE DEPARTMENT. I MEAN, A BONUS TO THE EMPLOYER TO A BONUS TO EARN IT. I WOULD SAY OPPONENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT 2.30, ONLY WAY TO DO IT FAIRLY WOULD BE TO ALLOCATE IT ON A PER CAPITA BASIS. HAVE TO DO THAT. FANTASTIC. MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF A KICKER FOR THE MANAGEMENT TEAM. AGAIN, JUST TRYING FROM THE OUTSIDE LOOKING IN THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF REWARD COMPONENT FOR DOING WHAT'S RIGHT IS NOT THE SAME THING WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN. IF YOU IF YOU RUN THE CITY OFFICIANT, LEE IN THE LONG RUN, THE TAXPAYERS ARE HAVING TO PAY LESS MONEY FOR CITY SERVICES, REWARD THE EMPLOYEES, CREATING THAT OPERATE IN DOING WHAT'S RIGHT RIGHT THERE. SO BACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL NUMBER. THEN IF WE GO FROM THE 1 BILLION TO 84. >> AND YOU'RE YOU PUT TOGETHER A PROJECTION OF A SHORTFALL. 25 1% WHERE THE 25% NUMBER COME FROM. >> I WAS AT A PERCENTAGE. THAT'S WHAT I HEARD. YOU KNOW, WHERE WHERE I GOT THAT? I DON'T REMEMBER ANY NAFTA. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF THAT. SOMEONE ALREADY DONE THIS AND WE'RE DUPLICATING THEIR EFFORTS WAS THE NUMBER IS I'VE HEARD 250 MILLION DOLLAR SHORTFALL OF HER 350 MILLION DOLLAR SHORTFALL. WHAT IS A POTENTIAL SHORTFALL IS CLEARLY GOING TO CHANGE ANNUALLY EACH BUDGET CYCLE BASED ON UNTIL THE 8TH UNTIL THE YOU KNOW, TILL THE PYTHON SWALLOWS TO BE A TOP LEVEL IS OUTRIGHT WHICH WOULD BE 2028. 29 LEVELS OUT. I THINK YES, THE YEAR ONE THAT'S OURS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROJECTIONS CITY. >> SINCE THIS CAME THIS, THIS ACTUALLY CAME FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE. OKAY. WE HAVE A COPY THAT I DON'T. I'M SORRY. THE IS AN IMPACT STUDY AND THIS IS BASED ON VALUES. FROM FROM THAT. THANKS, ED. FOR 2026 SEXUAL, WHICH IS IN PROGRESS, OK, TOTAL FOR FIRST YEAR FOR FISCAL YEAR. 27 28 IS ESTIMATED 193 MILLION DOLLARS SHORTFALL SHORE FROM OUR TOTAL REVENUE REDUCTION 193 TOTAL REVENUE REDUCTION 193.1 MILLION UP OR YOU COULD SAY 200 MILLION. YEAH. AND THAT'S THAT'S THE REVENUE REDUCTION FOR THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE FOR FISCAL YEAR. 28 29. AND IT'S ESTIMATED AND AGAIN, THESE IT COULD BE A KID. >> THE HIGHER BECAUSE VALUES THE HOME WILL BE HIGHER BAY AS HOMES GO UP. YOU KNOW, IT'S SO IS BASICALLY 300 MILLION DOLLARS. 209 AM 3, ME AND 593,000. MY NUMBER 3.12, WAS A LITTLE HIGH, BUT NOT. >> WITHIN A OKAY WITH IT FOR ME JUST TO CLEAN ACCEPTED. THAT USED TO DERIVE AT THAT NUMBER AND NOT THAT I DON'T TRUST ANYBODY BUT OBVIOUSLY AND POLITICAL CYCLES. YOU HAVE THE FORMULAS THAT CAN BE STRETCH ONE WAY OR THE OTHER TO COME OUT WITH THE OUTCOME. WAS THE FORMULA USED WITH A DAILY FOR WE GET WE KNOW A NUMBER OF THE VOLUME OF HOUSES. SO THIS AS I UNDERSTAND WITH AMENDMENT 3, YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT FOR 5 YEARS. YOU MUST OWN THE HOME, NOT NOT OWN IT OUTRIGHT BUT FINANCED AND YOU HAVE WE'RE ALMOST TO THE BANK PROBABLY OWNS MOST OF THEM. BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE 50 MILLION DOLLAR, THE $50,000 CURRENT EXEMPTION GOES TO ONE 50 WITHIN THAT FIRST YEAR. DO WE DO? WE CYCLIC BASED ON THE FIRST YEAR, TOTAL VOLUME OF HOMES, 5 YEAR RESIDENT. WE MATCHED THAT. WE DID OUR TO SOMEBODY TO GET THAT THE HOME THAT THE IT WAS ON HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES. PLUS 5 YEAR REQUIREMENT TO RESIDENTS AND ALSO THEIR NUMBER CHAIN. >> AND ALSO AFFECTING THIS, TOO, IS THEY LOWERED THE ASSESSMENT CAP ON NON HOMESTEAD PROPERTY FROM 10% TO 5%. AND THAT'S ALSO SCHOOLS EXCEPT SCHOOLS THAT ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO ISRAEL AT THAT. THAT WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THAT NUMBER THAT THAT EFFECT OF THE 5%. I CAN ONLY SAY THIS IS WHICH CAME FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S THEY SAID THAT THE FIRST WANT TO READ FOR THE FIRST YEAR REFLECTED $150,000 HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. THE SECOND YEAR REFLECTED THE $250,000 HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. BOTH INCLUDE THE ESTIMATED IMPACT OF THE 5% ASSESSMENT CAP ON NON HOMESTEAD PROPERTY PROPERTIES. ALL THE ESTIMATES FOR YOU WERE PREPARED USING VALUES FROM THE 2026 TAX ROLL, WHICH IS IN PROGRESS AND CALCULATED USING THE 2025 FINAL MILEAGE RATES. >> THAT'S THAT'S HOW IT WAS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF IT INCLUDED THE 5% ARE THE FIVE-YEAR RESIDENCY CAUSE THAT CHANGES PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY COULD CHANGE THE NUMBER PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY. SO IF WE COULD ASK THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THAT THAT DOES COINCIDE WITH THE AMENDMENT 3 TO THEN GET A MORE REALISTIC NUMBER OR TO HAVE OR ABSOLUTE NUMBER, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT COULD CHANGE IF I COULD CHANGE IT BY NOW. YOU KNOW WHAT CHANGED BY 10 MILLION? I HAD NO IDEA. BUT THAT'S A COMPONENT OF THE TRUE AMENDMENT. SO WE'RE WE HAVE A 2% GROWTH RATE ON AVERAGE. RIGHT NOW WE'RE GROWING BY ABOUT 20,000 PEOPLE A YEAR. SO YOU COULD JUST BACK THAT IN 2 JUST A BASIN TO 2 PEOPLE PER UNIT CALCULATION. SO WE'RE GROWING 10,000 HOMES TO 10,000 HOUSING UNITS A YEAR. AND THEN YOU CAN DIVIDE THAT BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY. THE MULTIFAMILY WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED BECAUSE IT'S CONSIDERED NON HOMESTEAD AND HOMESTEAD. THE IF IF, AGAIN, WHAT SAY YOU DID PROBABLY OF THE HOUSING UNITS IN THE CITY, I WOULD THINK PROBABLY. >> MAYBE 60% SINGLE FAMILY, 40% MULTI-FAMILY. SO THAT 1000, LET'S SAY THAT 600 OF THEM SINGLE FAMILY. OKAY. SO THEY COULD PROJECT DOUBT THAT THAT 600 OVER A 5 YEAR TIME FRAME, IT'S GOING TO TAKE THAT LONG. I DON'T BELIEVE THE AMENDMENT. >> WHAT WOULD BE APPLIED EX POST FACTO TO WEAR IF YOU LIVED HERE 3 YEARS AND THE AMENDMENT KICKS IN. YOU'VE GOT TO LIVE HERE ANOTHER 2 YEARS. THAT'S WHAT I WAS DATA PASSAGE. CORRECT. >> UNDERSTANDING ABOUT 500 PART IS THAT YOU YOU, I GUESS YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE YEARS. >> YOU ALREADY MEET THE THRESHOLD. >> AND THEN ONCE I HAVE 10 AFTER THE EVENT SO THAT. >> YES, SO THEY COULD DO A RELATIVELY I THINK SO. WHEN TRACY CALCULATION, THANK, YOU KNOW, WE JUST DID 600 OVER 5 YEARS. THAT'S 3,000 UNITS. AND THEN YOU JUST WHAT WHEN SHE HIT THE YEAR 5. SO THE BIGGEST IMPACT IS GOING TO BE IN THE INITIAL. YEAH. YOU'RE WANTING TO HEAR WHAT CAN WE GET A COPY? >> COLLEEN, OF THE DOCUMENT HE HAS FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE TO EACH OF THE DAY AND E MAIL IT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS AS WE CAN SEE THAT I CAN E-MAIL IT TO LEAN ON THESE GUYS AND THEN CAN WE MAKE THE REQUEST MR. CHAIRMAN TO STAFF FOR WHETHER THE 5% FOR THE FIRST UNIT TO HOW THEY HOW THEY APPLIED. IT WAS THAT 5 YEAR RULE FIVE-YEAR RULE RESIDENCY RULE WAS THAT INCLUDED IN THE FORM JUST SO WE CAN BE A NUMBER. CAN YOU CONTACT? HE SAYS OFFICE ON THAT ONE. >> CALLING. I DON'T HAVE THE CHIEF APPRAISER IS A MORE DOWN THERE. AND THEN BACK TO I LIKE YOUR IDEA OF LEGISLATION TO REDUCE THE EXECUTIVE LEVEL SPENDING FROM THE 500,000 TO THE 100,000. AND IF WE CAN LOOK INTO THE LEGISLATION THAT I THINK YOU SAID COUNCIL MAN HAD SUBMITTED WHERE THAT STANDS, COULD YOU FORD US A COPY THAT BILL AND MAYBE PUT HIM ON THE AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER TO COME IN AND PRESENT? TALK TO US OF LANCASTER. SOUNDS LIKE HE WANTS TRACTION, BUT HE'S GOING OUT OF OFFICE AND I GIVE HIM A LAST CHANCE TO GET AHEAD. ONE GETTING BY. HE SAID, I MEAN, I CAN CALL HIM UP. I THINK I'VE GOT HIS NUMBER, BUT I DON'T KNOW HIM THAT WELL, BUT I'VE GOT HIS NUMBER. >> AND THEN JUST BACK FOR A FOOD CONVERSATION AGAIN IN THE WEEDS, WHAT'S LEGALLY ALLOWED? YOU SPOKE OF COMPENSATION DIRECTLY TO THE EMPLOYEE THAT DOESN'T SELL LEGAL. BUT IS THERE A REWARD TO THE DEPARTMENT THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO KEEP IT WITHIN THEIR BUDGET? BUT HALF OF IT HAS TO COME BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND OR I? >> I THINK IT NEEDS TO GO TO THE EMPLOYEE. OTHERWISE YOU HAVE NO, YOU'RE NOT CREATING ANY INCENTIVE. IS THAT LEGAL? WELL, IT'S NOT CHANGED. CHANGE LAW. THAT'S NOT LEGAL. >> THAT'S TAX DOLLARS GOING UP A RUN AT THAT AMOUNT TO AN ATTORNEY. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE LEGAL BUT TO REWARD THE DEPARTMENT HAD A A PERCENTAGE PARADA BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR DOING WHAT'S RIGHT. I DON'T THINK IT'S PROBABLY THAT THAT WAS EARMARKED HIM OUT SPURS TO BE SPENT AND THEY SAVED IT. THEN THEY GET TO ULTIMATELY KEEP A PERCENTAGE OF IT. WHAT THEY DO WITH IT. WELL, IT CAN NOT ALL OF IT. IF IT'S A IT'S A BIT OF A CONVERTED TO A PERSONAL REWARD. WHAT'S THERE'S NO INCENTIVE DOESN'T SOUND LEGAL. BUT THAT'S A QUESTION FOR OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL IN BACK TO THE CHARTER OF RESPONSIBILITY. BUT QUESTION WOULD BE IF IT'S $100,000 AND THEY SAVE $100,000 TO $25,000, COME BACK TO THE DEPARTMENT IN 75 GO BACK TO THE CITY. SO EACH YEAR OF SAVINGS, THEY CAN ESSENTIALLY PULL SOME RESOURCES FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE LARGE EXPENDITURES OR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ARE INVESTMENTS TO MAKE IT TO WHATEVER IT MAY BE DEPENDED UPON DEPARTMENT TO STAFF. DOES THAT SOUND LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE? DOES IT YOU'VE BEEN DOING THIS FAR LONGER THAN I HAVE? YOU SEEN HIS IT CAN CAN WE DIRECT QUESTION TO LEGAL TO G C WE WERE TO ADOPT 0 BASE BUDGET APPROACH AND IF A DEPARTMENT THROUGH ITS OWN OPERATING EFFICIENCY REALIZED REDUCED SPENDING. IS THERE A LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR DIRECTING? >> THE >> SAVINGS IN SPENDING TO THE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES AS A REWARD? >> MR. CHAIRMAN ALI, THAT EMPLOYEE. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO ASK THAT. THINK THAT MAY BE AN OBVIOUS AND I DON'T THINK YOU CAN REWARD THE EFFICIENCY OR SENT THAT TO US A CAUSE THAT WE NEED TO DO. WE NEED TO CHANGE ORDINANCE, WHICH COULD CHANGE THAT, OK, LET'S THINK THROUGH FERMENTED, IF AN EMPLOYEE'S AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAVE $100,000 KNOWING THAT HE COULD RECEIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE SAVINGS AND THAT MAY PERPETRATE MORE FRAUD BECAUSE THEY'RE LIKE, WHY JUST WON'T SPEND IT? WE DON'T NEED IT'S NOT MY GRASS TO BECAUSE IT'S NOT MINE BOUNCE TO BE PAINTED AS MY MIND. THAT'S WHY YOU WANT TO HAVE OVERSIGHT. >> OF OF THE AUDIT FUNCTION. YOU HAVE A STATEMENT. I WAS GONNA SAY. I THINK THAT THINK OF AT THE OFFICE WOULD BE LET'S ASK THEM TO. >> THE WORDS FOR THE RED HAVE TO CHANGE. FLORIDA STATE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO ASK WHETHER HERE OR THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND I THINK IT SMACKS OF IMPROPRIETY AND IT WOULD BE UNETHICAL. SO I JUST APPLIED TO BUSINESS WHAT I HAVE FOR THE EFFICIENCY. YES, BUT PRIVATE BUSINESS CAN TAX DOLLARS CAN NOT. BUT THAT'S WHY IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO, IF YOU WANT TO ADOPT A BUSINESS PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED TO GOVERNMENT AND IF THE STATUTES PROHIBIT IT, YOU HAVE TO CHANGE THE LAW. BUT I THINK THE PRINCIPLE CAN BE APPLIED PRINCIPAL. YES, AND THAT WE CAN POINT TO HAVE TO CHANGE THE LAW, THE LEGISLATIVE GUIDELINES, THEN I WOULD PROPOSE WE CHANGE THE GUIDELINES. SO THE QUESTION NEEDS TO BE, WHERE SHOULD THE SAVINGS GO TO THE DEPARTMENT OR BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND? WHERE DO YOU PUT THE EFFICIENCIES? AND THEN THE QUESTION, HOW DO REWARD AND WHAT'S THE PRO RATA? WHAT'S THE PERCENTAGE PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY? YOU COULD SPEAK TO PAY, GOES BACK TO THE SHAREHOLDERS, BUT I DON'T SEE REFUND CHECKS TEAM. IT'S A COMBINATION OF 2. IF YOU SAVE 100,000 AND AS A DEPARTMENT MANAGER IT, LET'S SAY YOUR YOUR BANK CAME IN BY BECAUSE IT REDUCED EXPENSES, REDUCED OPERATING EXPENSES. WE RECALL THAT NON INTEREST EXPENSE WE CUT OUR NON INTEREST EXPENSE. NET INCOME OF THAT BANK BY DEFINITION WAS HIGHER. THERE ARE 2 THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN TO IT. THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BANK WOULD GET A BONUS AND INCREASE BONUS IF LOWDOWN FROM THE MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT. IF YOU ARE AN EXEMPT EMPLOYEE, IF YOUR NON EXEMPT, I DON'T BELIEVE FEDERAL LAW ALLOWS THAT. BUT I REMEMBER PERSONALLY RECEIVING BONUSES FROM BECAUSE OF HOW WELL OUR UNIT OPERATING, RIGHT. I JUST THINK WE NEED TO COME UP WITH SOME WAY TO APPLY A REWARD SYSTEM FOR CITY EMPLOYEES BASED ON REALIZED OFFICIAL SAYS WOULD YOU SUPPORT APPROACH LIKE THAT? NO QUESTION ABOUT IT AS WE SPEAK TO MAKE IT TO HURT US. AND SO IF I COULD, MISTER CHAIRMAN TO STAFF WHAT'S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, YOU GUYS ARE IN IT. YOU PROBABLY NEVER GET ASKED QUESTIONS DIRECTLY ON, CAN WE SHOULD WE HOW WE? >> WHERE DO YOU SEE SAVINGS ARE EFFICIENCIES? WHAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED AT COUNCIL LEVEL? YOU ARE CLEAR THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WAS LEGISLATION THAT WAS SPOKEN OF TO REDUCE THE EXECUTIVE LEVEL SPENDING FROM HALF MILLION 100,000. WHAT DO YOU KNOW OF LEGISLATIVELY THAT'S BEEN DONE TO HELP AFICION SEAS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT'S BEING ASKED OF US AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE CITY. BUT YOU SEE IT. YOU HEAR IT, YOU KNOW IT AND ARE YOU ABLE TO SPEAK TO IT? WHAT YOU'VE SEEN? DOES THAT PUT YOU ON THE SPOT? >> I SAY THAT I SENT ACROSS THE BOARD, NOT ALL OF THEM. SO ON THAT ACROSS THE BOARD ELECTION, ONE PART OF AN INFECTED. THAT'S THE ONLY DEPARTMENT. THIS IS THE LAST PASS OR 2. THAT'S IT. BUT HE DIDN'T. >> I JUST WENT IN TO BED ESSENTIAL SERVICES TO UTILIZE CHARTER RESPONSIBILITIES. BUT THANK YOU. CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THAT WAS RECEIVED WELL, BUT IF ONLY ONE AGENCY CAME BACK AND REQUESTED FOR TO BE ADDED BACK IN, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WORKED. I GUESS IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT WHAT HE SPENDS FIRST, WHAT THAT DEPARTMENT SPENDS VERSUS WHAT THAT DEPARTMENTS SAVES. THERE IS A POSITIVE ARE WON THAT UNIT. THAT WAS A 2 AND A HALF PERCENT ACROSS THE BOARD. YES, AS THIS IS ONE WAY TO KIND OF RAIN THAT WAS PUT IN BY THE DOZIER SPECIAL COMMITTEE, THOSE THERE, WHICH HAS NOW BEEN PUT INTO A JTA IF IT'S THAT KIND OF DIFFERENT. YES, JUST A FUN, MR. CHAIRMAN, LET'S DO THAT AGAIN REQUESTED. AND IT CAUSES EVERY INTERNAL DEPARTMENT TO EVALUATE HOW THEY SPEND THE MONEY. >> WE COULD SPEND YEARS DIGGING INTO THE DETAILS OR JUST TAKE A LOW HANGING FRUIT APPROACH. AND ACROSS THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM REQUESTS THAT COUNCIL TIGHTEN THE BELT BY 2 AND A HALF PERCENT DO IT AGAIN, COLLEEN. SO WE HAVE WE CAME UP FOR PRINCIPLE. NUMBER ONE. >> YOU GOT THAT. THAT WAS THE THAT WAS TO REDUCE NON. >> CBA EMPLOYEES CAPPING INCREASES AT 3%. PRINCIPLE. NUMBER 2 WAS IS GOING TO REMEMBER A GOOD. MY MEMORY IS WAS PRINCIPAL. NUMBER 2, WE WERE GOING TO CONTROL WHAT PUBLIC SAFETY SPENDING HOLD HARMLESS NOTE. THAT WAS PRINCIPAL NUMBER 2. PRINCIPLE NUMBER 3 WAS NOT. >> HAVE A ROLE OF PUBLIC. >> THE PENSIONS OR THE NOT TOUCHING PENSIONS, RIGHT? >> THAT'S A PRINCIPLE 3 PRINCE FOR WAS BUT EXPENDITURES, NOT PAYROLL, I GUESS IS MY QUESTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY EXPENDITURES NOT ALREADY STARTED WITH PAYROLL, REDUCING ALL PAYROLL, REDUCING ALL SOLAR EASE OTHER THAN CVA EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO THE CBA. THAT WOULD BE AWFULLY HAPPY TO KNOW THAT CAPPING THERE INCREASES AT 3%, NOT CUTTING THEIR SALARIES, CAPPING THEIR INCREASES AT 3% AS USUAL. IS THAT WITHIN PUBLIC SAFETY, THOSE POSITIONS OUT THINK ALL OF THEM 0. YEAH. SO IN THE JSO, EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE IS SUBJECT TO THAT YET COLLECTIVELY IT'S NOT JUST SWORN ELLIE IS NO ONE THINKS THE OWNED EVERYBODY CORRECTIONS. I THINK IT'S ALL BUT THEN IT WOULDN'T APPLY IT WITH. THAT'S RIGHT. BUT IT WOULD APPLY TO OTHER IF WE JUST SAID THAT. YOU CAN SAY ALL BECAUSE IN YOUR HAPPEN, SO CLOSE TO USE A LULL, I THINK ALL BELIEVE IRAQ ARE GETTING JUST JUST NOT COVERED BY CBA THAT COVERS EVERYTHING. THIS FIRE POLICE, CORRECTIONS CETERA. YOU CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT IS. >> ALL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS ALL POLICE AND FIRE EMPLOYEES. >> THERE'S THERE ARE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES. THE CHANCE THERE ARE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES. A JFRD DON'T KNOW. BUT THERE'S SOME LIKE TO THE CBA. I DON'T. I BELIEVE THEY ARE. OKAY. >> OKAY. HOW MANY THAT? I BELIEVE IT. I DON'T. BUT THE POINT IS THAT MATTER HOW MANY THE POINT IS, IF THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO THE CBA, THEIR RAPID THEIR INCREASE WOULD BE CAPPED AT 3%. >> BECAUSE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING HAS BARGAINED A 3% OR MORE MORE MORE. RIGHT? OKAY. WELL, AND THAT'S AND THAT'S THE MAIN IS GERMANE TO THE DISCUSSION. SO THEN PRINCIPAL NUMBER 5 IS GOING TO BE FIGURING OUT SOME WAY. THE DOT 0 BASE BUDGETING, REALIZED OPERATING COST REDUCTIONS, SAVINGS TO BE PASSED ON TO CITY EMPLOYEES AND A BONUS STRUCTURE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. THE SHOE IS A REQUEST TO OGC TO DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OF THAT APPROACH. AND IF IT'S NOT CURRENTLY LEGAL, WHAT WOULD BE LEGISLATIVE REMEDY TO CREATE A VAST KARLA MILLER ETHICS TO SEE IF THAT'S THE CASE WITH THAT, I'M GOING UP TO GENERAL COUNSEL. I THINK IT WOULD COME BACK. I THINK AN UNETHICAL, NOT UNETHICAL, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ILLEGAL, PERFECT SUBJECT. AND IT'S A DIFFERENCE THAT THERE IS. IS IT IS IT UNETHICAL TO REWARD A CITY EMPLOYEE FOR OPERATING EFFICIENTLY? NO, IT'S NOT UNETHICAL. THIS IS CURRENTLY LEGAL, MEANING THERE'S NO LEGAL RAIN WERE NO LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR CREATING THAT PROCESS. SO IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THAT APPROACH, YOU SIMPLY HAVE TO CHANGE LAW TRULY AND IMPROVISE ADEQUATE GUARDRAILS THAT THERE IS NO ABUSE. AND THEN THAT'S THE HEAVIER LIFT AND DOING WHAT DOGE DID IS SAY 2 AND A HALF PERCENT ACROSS THE BOARD. IF YOU WANT THAT TO BE YOUR PRINCIPAL GUIDING PRINCIPLE NUMBER 6, I MAY SUGGEST THE S I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. NUMBER 6, MANDATORY 2% REDUCTION IN SPENDING FOR ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS. MAYOR, WHAT DO UNLESS GOING TO HAPPEN UNLESS YOU'RE WHAT THEY DID? OK, 2 AND A HALF. IF ONLY ONE AGENCY CAME BACK AND REQUESTED TO BE PUT BACK. THAT WAS PRETTY EFFICIENT SAVINGS ACROSS THE BOARD. YOU KNOW, THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT STAFF. >> IT WAS PRETTY SMALL TO SMALL OFFICE AND I WANT TO SAY WAS LESS THAN $20,000. BUT I WOULD HAVE TO OK, BUT THE SAVINGS ACROSS THE OUT, THE TOTAL SAVING LITTLE SLAP SHOT. I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP MY HEAD. I WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO KNOW. IT'S VERY INTERESTING. >> IF THERE WEREN'T A LINE OF LOBBYING IN PEOPLE CLAMORING TO GET IT BACK, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WORK. ALL RIGHT. 2 AND A HALF PERCENT OF 2 BILLION. >> BUT YOU SEE IN ONLY 1 BILLION YOU STEPS AND TRACK DOWN THE ROUGHLY 800 MILLION DOLLARS IN SALARIES. THEY DIDN'T TAKE IT FROM PUBLIC SAFETY. SO THAT'S IN THE U.S. AS FUNDING CENT CERTAIN. SO THAT 2 BILLION, NOT NUMBER. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ALWAYS DISCUSSED IF I COULD IS EVERY TIME A BUDGET CUT ACROSS THE BOARD IS DISCUSS PARTISANSHIP STEPS IN AND THEY CLAMOR THAT POLICE AND FIRE IS GOING TO BE CUT. AND I THINK THAT'S A MISNOMER. IT'S NOT IT CAN BE CUT ELSEWHERE WITHOUT CUTTING POLICE AND FIRE. CORRECT? I JUST THINK YOU WHAT YOU SAW ONLY A BILLION AND SO 1 BILLION AS POLICE AND FIRE. THEY'RE SO REALLY IT WAS 2 AND A HALF PERCENT OF A BILLION CREATE THOSE CLOSER TO US. OKAY. WE'VE GOT A NUMBER THAN US. THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM ONE, BUT IT'S A ANY THOUGHTS ON A NONPROFIT GRANTS. HOW MUCH IS >> BEING SPENT THROUGH? I THINK IT COMES TO RATE. WELL, I THINK IT COMES TO A COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT FIRST AND THEN GOES TO PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS. AND ONCE IT COMES TO PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT, I BELIEVE AND LARGE PORTION GOES TO THE CULTURAL COUNCIL AND ART IN PUBLIC PLACES AS A MEDIA PASS THROUGH. WHAT IS THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT NOW FOR PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT? I DON'T HAVE THE BUDGET OPEN. IT WAS TRUE OF ME AND DOWN. IT WAS 4 MILLION. WELL, THE ONE TIME WHEN I WAS SERVING, IT WAS 6 MILLION. AND AS SOON AS IT CAME IN 3 AND AT 3 MILLION WENT TO THE CULTURAL COUNCIL. >> IT'S THE 2 POTS. THERE'S ONE THAT GOES TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT BY GRANTS. THAT'S ROUGHLY 7 MILLIONS WITH THEY REQUESTED SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE. THEY REQUESTED 7 MILLION AND IN THE IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET, RIGHT? WAS THAT AN INCREASE OVER LAST YEAR? THAT'S ROUGHLY THE SAME. THAT. AND THEN THAT'S THE ONE THAT THEY THEY'VE REDUCED THE REQUEST BY 65% BASED ON THE OUTCOME OF THE AMENDMENT. 3 REFERENDUM. THEY DID THAT FOR PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS AND CULTURAL CHILL SERVICE GRANTS, OK, BOTH OF THOSE THINGS. >> BUT THESE ARE COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANTS THAT ARE PASSED THROUGH SOME OF THEM. YOU CAN'T CATCH IT COMES STRAIGHT THROUGH. IT HAS TO GO TO THE CORRECT. >> I THINK PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT IS COMING STRAIGHT FROM THE GENERAL FUND HAS TO CULTURAL SURFACE. I THINK THEY BOTH DO. THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT COME FROM WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT THESE FUNDS, I THINK IT JUST STRAIGHT FROM THE GENERAL FUND. ARE THERE SOME PROCEEDS FROM THE CDBG THAT DOES GO TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS? I DON'T THINK SO. >> SPEND MANY YEARS SINCE I WAS IN PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT. BUT I BELIEVE THERE WAS AT THAT TIME WHETHER THERE STILL IS I HAVE NO IDEA. WE STILL GET CDB CHEESE. >> YES, OKAY. I'M NOT AWARE IF THERE'S STILL ARE I DO. I KNOW ONE TIME THERE WERE HE SAID THAT KIND OF EARMARKS. I'M NOT SURE RIGHT NOW WHAT THAT IS. >> AT ONE TIME THERE WAS 75 ORGANIZATIONS RE FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS TO KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS NOW AS IT INCREASED OR DECREASED AN. >> IS A COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS. THERE'S A LIMIT ON THE AWARD IS 150,000 PER PER. >> BUT HOW MANY AGENCIES ARE REQUESTING OF THE 7 MILLION THAT'S AVAILABLE POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE IF THE BUDGETS PASS? BECAUSE WHEN I WAS SERVING, THEY DID IT AS KIND OF A THEY KEPT USING THE TERM PEANUT BUTTER SPREAD IS JUST KIND OF LIKE EVERYBODY GETS A LITTLE. AND THEN THEY WE CREATED A SCORING SYSTEM TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE THE MAYOR'S PRIORITIES WERE MET AND THAT MOST AT NEED FOR AT-RISK COMMUNITY. SO IF THAT'S STILL THE CASE AND THEIR 7 MILLION GOING THAT DIRECTION, WHAT WOULD BE THE DIVISION IS A 3 AND A HALF MILLION TO 75 AGENCIES. YOU CAN DO THAT. MATH WAS, IS IT STILL 75 I GUESS IS MY QUESTION AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S A FIXED NUMBER. I THINK IT'S BASED ON ON THE ON THE APPLICATIONS THEMSELVES, BUT NO, BUT APPROXIMATELY APPLICANTS ARE THERE RIGHT NOW. SO IF WE WERE TO REVERT BACK TO THE QUESTION AT HAND, ASSUMING THAT PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS COUNCIL AND THE CULTURAL ARE BOTH FUNDED OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, THE REVENUE OUT OF AD VALOREM TAXES. WOULD WE THEN SAY IF AMENDMENT 3 PASSES THOSE RUSSET THOSE 2 ITEMS SHOULD BE ZEROED OUT? NO, SIR. AND THE REASON I SAY THAT HAVING SERVED IN SEEING THE AT-RISK COMMUNITY AND THOSE NEEDS MET THE COMMUNITY, THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS DO BETTER AND THEY'RE MORE EFFICIENT WITH THE TAX DOLLARS IN THE CITY COULD BE. WE JUST DISCUSSED THE THE DEFICIENCY THAT WE SEE IN THE DEPARTMENTS THAT THERE'S NO REWARD FOR NOT GOING TO 0 BASED SYSTEM. WE SEE THE VERY SAME IN PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS THAT THEY ARE MORE ACCOUNTABLE AS ENTITIES. THEN THE CITY COULD BE THAT. HOWEVER, WE DID FIND THERE WAS SOME AGREED TO SPENDING AT TIMES AND THEY CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. WHERE WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER THAT WE WRITTEN A CHECK DIRECTLY TO THE PERSON NEED AT THE CITY LEVEL THAN IT WAS TO FLOW THROUGH PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS. HOWEVER, THAT WAS NOT THE NORM. I CAN GIVE HIM SOME, FOR INSTANCE, THE THE SALVATION ARMY. I REMEMBER ONE OF THEIRS. THEY RECEIVED 250,000 AND OF THE 250,000, ALMOST $0.70 OF EVERY DOLLAR MADE IT TO THE PEOPLE IN NEED AND THEY COULD PROVE IT. I WAS IMPRESSED. THERE WERE OTHERS THAT I WON'T MENTION BECAUSE I'M CERTAINLY BE UPSET. BUT IT WAS SO EGREGIOUS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER TO WRITE A CHECK FROM THE CITY AND PUT THEM IN THE RITZ CARLTON IN BY DINNER AND THEN IT WOULD BE TO LEAD THAT AGENCY TO IT. SO THAT'S A A SCORING SYSTEM TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO SPEND THE MONEY MORE APPROPRIATELY. BUT THEY DID A BETTER JOB TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NONPROFIT'S DID A BETTER JOB THAN THE CITY COULD DONE TO MEET THE MAYOR'S PRIORITIES OF TAKING CARE OF THE MOST IN NEED AND AT RISK. >> IF THIS AMENDMENT WERE TO PASS, WOULD YOU PROPOSE TO HOLD THEM HARMLESS FROM ANY REDUCTIONS? IF AD VALOREM TAXES ARE GOING TO DECREASE PINE 10%, 15%. >> DO YOU THINK THEIR LEASE AT THE END OF TAX DOLLARS TO THINK THAT THEY CAN'T CUT THEIR BUDGET BY 2 AND A HALF? ALSO, IT SOUNDS BIZARRE. BUT SHARON, THE SHARE IN THE GAME, SHARON, THE. >> YOU WOULD NOT YOU WOULD PROPOSE YOU WOULD NOT PROPOSE. >> EXEMPT THEM FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE REDUCED REVENUE IF THE MEN HAD ANY ADJUSTMENTS ARE GERMAN PEAK. >> ON THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT COUNCIL YESTERDAY, THE 5TH. >> THE COUNCIL ARE THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. THEY THEY HAVE PULLED. THERE'S A FULL AMOUNT THAT WAS THE PROPOSE WAS 7 BILLION, 7.2 MILLION DOLLARS FOR PUBLIC SERVICE PROPOSED PROPOSED AND THEY ARE PREVIOUS YEAR WAS I DON'T KNOW WHAT PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED A AMENDMENT 3 CONTINUE. SEE, OK, IF IS PASSES, THEN THE CONTINGENCY WILL BE HELPED HELP TO HELP DEFER SOME OF THE COSTS FOR NEXT YEAR. BUT SO HE'S GOT 6.2 MILLION DOLLARS IN RIGHT NOW. >> SO THE CITY WOULD DEFER THE COST TO HELP. THE NONPROFIT KNOW THAT THIS IS THIS IS JUST WHAT THEY'RE TAKING. THEY THEY'VE TAKEN 2.5 MILLION FROM THE 7.2 MILLION. SO IT TOOK 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT. >> AND THEN 3.7 MILLION. >> OUT OF THE CULTURAL COUNCIL. >> TO COME UP WITH A TOTAL OF 6.2 MILLION DOLLARS, WHICH IS WHAT IS IN THE CONTINGENCY FOR THE AMENDMENT 3. THAT'S A TOTAL AMOUNT IN THE CONTINGENCY. I BELIEVE. SO YES, IN BOTH N THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT CAME OUT OF 2 SOURCES, CORRECT? IT WORKED. AND WHERE IMPACTS IT WOULD NOT OCCUR UNTIL THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE FINANCE CHAIR. I DON'T. IT WASN'T DISCUSSED IN THE MEETING WAS DISCUSSED, BUT I'M NOT SURE I WASN'T AFTER I WAS 8. I WASN'T PART OF THAT MEETING. SO >> THE NOW IF. >> AND THEN THE 3 DOESN'T PASS. THEN POINT THAT GOES BACK TO THE INTEND TO SOURCE OF FUNDING LEVELS. THE WELL, OKAY. YES. GOES BACK TO WHERE IT IS INTENDED TO BE. BUT THIS I DON'T KNOW IT. IT WAS DONE TO HELP MY GETS TOUGHER AND THE FUTURE WAS THAT. >> THAT'S MY FEELING FROM THE COMMITTEE WAS THAT THEY DON'T PERCEIVE IT TO BE A CORE SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT. AND SO THEY WERE TRYING TO LOOK AT THOSE BUCKETS TO SEE WHAT COULD BE CUT. THAT'S TRUE, AS ARE SO MANY OTHER ONES THAT THEY WOULDN'T TOUCH IT. ALSO, IT'S NOT A CORE FUNCTION. ABSOLUTELY NOT. >> HAVING SERVED, THOUGH, I SAW THE NEED IN THE COMMUNITY BEING MET AND I KNOW THAT THE IT MUST BE MET BECAUSE HE CAN'T TRIP OVER THE HOMELESS BEFORE YOU REALIZE YOU HAVE A PROBLEM AND THERE'S A PROBLEM AND WE CAN'T IGNORE HIM. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE PHELAN TRAFFIC WITH THE CITY TAXES. I'M NOT SAYING THAT AT ALL. BUT AT THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS COMMISSION, THOSE COMMISSIONERS HAVING SERVED DO SOME VERY AT THE TIME, GOOD WORK, HOLDING ACCOUNTABLE THE RESOURCES THEY'RE RECEIVING AND THEY SPEND IT FAR BETTER THAN THE CITY EVER COULD AS WE DIP AS WE'RE DISCUSSING. WELL, BECAUSE THEY'RE LEVERAGING THOSE DOLLARS, SURE, THEIR DOLLARS AND THROUGH VOLUNTEERISM AND COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND FAITH-BASED COMMUNITIES, ALL THOSE THINGS INCLUDED. SO BUT AGAIN, TO SHARE IN THE CUTS, YES, I MAY DISAGREE WITH WHAT THEIR FINDINGS WERE TO SAY. TAKE IT ALL OUT FOR NOW, BECAUSE NOT A CORE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT. WHOEVER MADE THAT STATEMENT NEVER SERVED IN THOSE CAPACITIES TO SEE THE TRUE MAYBE UNITY. >> THEY DIDN'T TAKE IT ALL BUT FOR THIS. BUT AND THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE TAKEN SOME OUT OF OF OF CHAIRMAN OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT, BUT A 3RD. BUT THAT'S A 35% OUT OF THE ONE RIGHT HERE, RIGHT? >> I CAN BACK TO THE 2 AND A HALF PERCENT THAT WE SPOKE OF THE NEAR A PRESENTATION OF ITEM, 6, 2%, TO 9% ACROSS THE BOARD, INCLUDING THE SEC ANKLE COUNT ALL ACROSS THE BOARD. CAN JUST THAT OPINION? WHERE ELSE CAN WE SAVE MONEY? YOU SAID THERE WAS A REDUCTION IN WORKFORCE THAT YOU MENTIONED. I'M WHAT WAS THAT? BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S ALREADY AS YOU KNOW, IN BUSINESS. THAT'S ONE OF THE IF THE U.S. LIFTS IS HUMAN CAPITAL. TWO-THIRDS OF YOUR OPERATING GREAT SERVICE RELATED BUSINESS, TWO-THIRDS OF YOUR OPERATING COSTS COME OUT OF. >> PEOPLE WRITE WRITE COUNTY SALARIES AND BENEFITS BY THE APPROACHING 65 MAYBE 70% EVEN. WELL, YOU CAN ON PAGE 20. LOOK AT NUMBERS, 68 AND INCREASE. IT'S ALMOST ALL POKES SOME TOUCH WITH YOU, WHICH IS NOT ENOUGH. >> AND I WERE INJURIES AND THEIR MINDS ARE 800 WHEN THEY'RE 800 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SHORT AND WHERE DON'T GET ME STARTED. HOW COOL OFF THE DEEP END TO THE STAFF AT TIME OF. SO THE 22ND WILL BE THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL AS WE SEE IT, CORRECT. WHAT WERE SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS FOR THE PROVERBIAL HANGING FRUIT ON EFFICIENCIES THAT WERE DISCUSSED THERE? WHAT ARE THEY ALREADY SEEN? THAT BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANY HUGE REDUCTIONS AND THE ONES THAT ARE LEGITIMATE AND THEY'RE IN BRACKETS HERE. WHAT WAS DISCUSSED, MAYBE THAT WAS CONTROVERSIAL. THERE WAS A CONTROVERSIAL DISCUSSION ABOUT. >> FLAT CUT. I FEEL LIKE 5 MILLION TO THE KIDS HOPE ALLIANCE BUDGET DISCUSSION ABOUT DOING US. A PERCENTAGE OUT OF THE BIGGEST DEPARTMENTS OF PUBLIC WORKS. AND I WISH I HAD BRIAN'S IT'S SHEET. THESE QUESTIONS WE COULD HARVEST ASKED PUBLIC WORKS, PHILIP, YES, WHAT SOUNDS LIKE YOU SAID THERE IS A SHEET THAT YOU WANT TO REFER TO THAT MAY ALREADY HAVE SOME OF THOSE EFFICIENCIES. I SENT IT TO ALL THE LAST TIME, THE LAST MEETING. BUT IT IT'S LIKE A 4 PAGE DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS EVERY EVERY DECISION THAT WAS MADE, EVERY CHANGE THAT WAS MADE TO THE BUDGET DURING THE BUDGET HEARINGS. I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING THAT THAT MY FULL CAN WE SEND IT AGAIN? YEAH. I'D LOVE TO SEE THEM. ONE OF THE ONE THE AIR IS STILL BOTHER ME IS WHY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF HAVE TO HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE. THOSE POSITIONS CAN'T BE INTEGRATED INTO THE LINE DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THAT OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF IN THE CITY CITY GOVERNMENT. WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS ON THIS? AND I DON'T KNOW WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE. I JUST I'VE SEEN THE POSITIONS. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF POSITIONS FOR STRATEGIC INITIATIVES. ARE THOSE PPAS ARE THOSE POSITIONS THAT WOULD BE BETTER PLACED IN PUBLIC WORKS OR >> PLANNING OR IN? >> NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT, THE NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT AND NONE WHERE WHERE IS THE PROOF WHERE OUR SENIOR SERVICES IS THAT IN PARKS, PARKS AND RECREATION PARKS, RECREATION IN SOCIAL SERVICES AT THE TITLE NEWS COMMUNITY SERVICES. YEAH, THERE'S JUST THERE'S THE QUESTIONS THAT I ASK IS WHY DO YOU WHY DO YOU NEED THOSE STAFF POSITIONS FOR THE MAYOR? WHEN YOU HAVE APPOINTED DEPARTMENT HEADS SHOULD BE DOING SOME. HIS DEPARTMENTS SHOULD BE DOING SOME OF THE FUNCTIONAL WORK IN THESE AREAS. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT BOTHERS ME. BUT >> SO SOMETHING I HAD LOOKED AT YEARS AGO WAS THE THE PARK SYSTEM OWN THE PROPERTY AND AND THEIR PAIN AT THAT TIME WAS DISCUSSING HOW ROBUST ARE PARK SYSTEM IS. AND WE HAVE THE LARGEST PARK SYSTEM OF ANY CITY IN THE UNITED STATES. HOWEVER, IS THAT ALL NECESSARY? WHAT I MEANT AND EVEN MAKE THIS THE LAST IN A STATEMENT, THE LAST MEETING IS NOT A PARK WITH A SWING SET APART BANTER SIDEWALK PARKS THAT WE CALL PARKS THAT ARE REALLY GREEN SPACE CENTER, OVERGROWN, SOME OF THEM FENCED SOME OF THE RETENTION OR DRAINAGE AREAS THAT WE CALL PARKS THAT COULD BE PUT BACK ON THE TAX ROLL TO ALLOW PRIVATE BUSINESS TO DO WHAT IT DOES BEST BEST, A DEVELOPER TO DEVELOP IT, WHETHER IT BE COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL, WHATEVER IT MAY BE AND ALLOW THE TAXPAYERS ESSENTIALLY THROUGH PRIVATE BUSINESS TO PAY TAXES ON PROPERTY THAT'S OWNED NOT BY THE CITY BUT BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. I DON'T KNOW THAT NUMBER OF THOSE THAT HAVE SERVED. I'M SURE PARKS AND RECS KNOW THAT NUMBER, BUT THEY'RE MANAGING IT. SO YOU HAVE TO INCREASE YOUR STAFF. YOU HAVE TO INCREASE YOUR MAINTENANCE. YOU HAVE TO INCREASE YOUR EQUIPMENT COST. BUT THAT'S PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL. I'M CERTAIN I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS. BUT I KNOW ONE TIME BOASTED BY PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION, THE LARGEST PARK SYSTEM OF ANY SITTING UNITED STATES. I'M ASSUMING IT'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF REAL ESTATE THAT'S PROBABLY OWNED BY THE CITY IS BEING MAINTAINED BY THE SAY THAT'S NOT PRODUCING REVENUE. >> AND AREN'T THERE UNDER MAYOR DELANEY WINTER-LIKE. >> LARGE BLOCKS OF ACREAGE THAT WERE GIVEN TO THE CITY. >> AND THEN OUT AT BUTLER. >> MR. HODGES WHEN HE PASSED AWAY, THIS IS LIKE 1100 ACRES THAT WAS GIFTED TO THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE. SURE. MAYBE IT'S A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT OR SOMETHING. I BELIEVE IT'S BY THE CITY. AND IF IF THAT'S IF THAT ACREAGE IS COUNTING IN OUR QUOTE, PARK SYSTEM IS IT'S USING THAT NUMBER. IT WOULD IT WOULD BECAUSE IT'S JUST SITTING OUT THERE. THAT'S WHERE HIS AIR HIS WORKERS AIRFIELD IS. DAVID, BEFORE THIS PROPERTY, MR. HUTCHINS, DEEP FOREST. THERE WAS ONE OUT THERE TO HOLD OFF OF JTB. IT WAS A DECISIONS. OKAY. SOME REASON 1000 DAVIS FROM WINN-DIXIE AND THEN THE PLANE WAS ON A CRANE. >> DO WE KNOW? CAN WE ASK? I GUESS THEY'RE REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT HAVE WHAT PARCELS ARE VACANT AVAILABLE, NOT MAINTAIN, NOT USED. AND LET'S GO AFTER THE ONES THAT ARE BEING MAINTAINED LIST. AGAIN, NOT CAUSE A PROBLEM WITH THAT AGAIN. NO PARK BENCH, NO SIDEWALKS, NO SWING SET, NOT TRULY A LEGITIMATE CITY PARK THAT IS CITY OWN REAL ESTATE THAT COULD BE PUT UP FOR SALE. >> THAT'S FRAME IT LIKE THIS. JEFF, WHAT IF WE SAID WHAT IS THE TOTAL ACREAGE HELD BY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OF THAT ACREAGE? HOW MUCH IS CO