PROCLAMATIONS/RESOLUTIONS

[26. 6:30 p.m. PRIVATE MEETING - A Private Meeting between the Board of County Commissioners and its attorneys, held under the authority of Section 286.011(8), F.S.]

>> WE HAVE TO MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 26. 6:30 P.M. PRIVATE MEETING. I HAVE SOMETHING I HAVE TO READ , AND THEN, WE WILL RECESS FOR IT. AT THIS TIME THE BOARD IS SCHEDULED TO MEET WITH ITS ATTORNEYS IN PRIVATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING WITH AND ADVISING THE ATTORNEYS REGARDING A CERTAIN CASE IN WHICH CLAY COUNTY IS A PARTY. THE CASE IS MICHAELA WALSH BROWN VERSUS CLAY COUNTY AT ALL. CLAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CASE NUMBER 2023 -- MATTERS PERTAINING TO SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR STRATEGY SESSIONS RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES WILL BE DISCUSSED. THE PRIVATE SESSION IS BEING HELD UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF 286.11 EIGHT FLORIDA STATUTE AND WILL COMMENCE IMMEDIATELY UPON RECESSING THIS PUBLIC MEETING IN CONFERENCE ROOM B. THE SESSION IS EXPECTED TO LAST 30 MINUTES.

THOSE PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE WILL BE THE FOLLOWING. ME, BOARD CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER CONDON, COMMISSIONER COMPERE , COMMISSIONER RENNINGER, COMMISSIONER SGROMOLO, THE COUNTY MANAGER, COUNTY ATTORNEY , COUNTY'S OUTSIDE COUNSEL AUSTIN SHERMAN . THE ENTIRE SESSION WILL BE RECORDED BY A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER, WHO WILL TRANSCRIBE EVERYTHING THAT IS SAID AND NOTHING SHALL BE STATED OFF THE RECORD. THE TRANSCRIPTION WILL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD AND WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION UNTIL AFTER THE LITIGATION IS CONCLUDED. WE ARE NOW IN RECESS WITH THE TIME BEING 7:01 P.M.

[18. Oakleaf Library Project (M. Canfield / C. Singleton / K. Smith)]

SPOKE SO THE PRESENTATION WILL BE AS FOLLOWS. CRAIG SINGLETON, OUR PROJECT MANAGER WILL START WITH CONSTRUCTION FUNDING, THE DATES, THE DEADLINES AND PROJECTED CASH FLOW FOR THIS PROJECT AND I'M TO DISCUSS THE CURRENT LIBRARY USAGE, HOW PEOPLE ARE USING LIBRARIES, THE HISTORY OF THE OAK LEAF LIBRARY, OUR ONGOING ASSUMPTIONS AND OUR COURSE OF ACTION THAT I

RECOMMEND. >> GOOD EVENING. THE FIRST THING I WILL GO OVER AS THE PROJECT FUNDING. THE CURRENT BUDGET IS 10 MILLION, WHICH CONSISTS OF A .25 SALES SURTAX REVENUE, 1 MILLION IN IMPACT FEES AND $750,000 STATE APPROPRIATION.

WORKING WITH THAT $10 MILLION BUDGET WE CAME UP WITH 8 MILLION BY WORKING BACKWARDS AND REVIEWING EVERYTHING IS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT PRICE. FIRST AND FOREMOST WOULD BE THE DESIGNER PROPOSAL . I KNOW WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH A LOT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS AWARE THAT UP UNTIL LAST NIGHT THAT WE WERE CONTINUING TO GO BACK AND FORTH AND WE NOW HAVE $28,000 IN SAVINGS AND THE NEW PRICE IS $835,516. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT. WE BUDGET THAT AT $800,000 IN UTILITY CONNECTIONS OF 200,000. FINALLY, WE ESTIMATED THE PHASE

[03:00:07]

1 CONTRACT AT $100,000. THESE WERE PROVIDED WITH THE IN-HOUSE ESTIMATOR, MYSELF, AND WE ALSO RAN THESE NUMBERS OFF OF THE PROPOSED ARCHITECT AND HE MADE SURE THAT EVERYTHING LOOKS GOOD AND ALL THOSE NUMBERS ALSO HAVE A PRETTY LARGE CUSHION ON THEM, JUST TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE. GOING BACK TO THE GMP , I WANTED TO JUST TOUCH BASE AND MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS AWARE WITHIN THAT $8 MILLION THERE IS ALREADY A CONTINGENCY ALLOWANCE BUILT INTO THAT . ADDITIONALLY WE WILL HAVE ODEP IN SAVINGS AND ALSO AS THE PROJECT MANAGER FROM DAY ONE I WILL SET THE TONE TO MAKE SURE THE ARCHITECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER ARE AWARE THAT THE GMP IS 1 MILLION AND NOT ANYMORE. THERE WILL BE A COLLABORATION AND WE WILL DEFINITELY BE ABLE TO GET THE LIBRARY BUILT FOR THAT PRICE AND THEY WILL NOT COME BACK AND PROPOSE A HIGHER NUMBER AND IF THEY DO WE WILL EJECT IT AND TELL THEM TO GET US TO THAT $8 MILLION NUMBER.THE GOOD THING ABOUT THE GMP METHOD IS EVERYONE HATES CHANGE ORDERS AND WE REALLY WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT WITH THE GMP. THERE SHOULD BE NO REASON WHY THIS PROJECT WOULD GO OVER THAT $8 MILLION GMP. UNLESS IT WAS A CHANGE ORDER REQUESTED FROM US AS THE OWNER , WHICH WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD. EVEN WITH ALL OF THESE CONTINGENCIES AND ALLOWANCES AND PATTING WE PUT IN, WE HAVE A REMAINING BALANCE OF JUST OVER $64,000 JUST TO ALSO HAVE ADDITIONAL CONTINGENCY BUILT INTO THE PROJECT. WE ARE VERY CONFIDENT WE CAN GET THIS PROJECT DONE FOR THE 8 MILLION GMP AND $10 MILLION OVERALL BUDGET. JUST THE PROJECT TIME LINE. IF WE WERE TO START IN SEPTEMBER, THE ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE WOULD BE THE FALL 2027. THAT IS BROKEN UP WITH 10 MONTHS FOR DESIGN, ROUGHLY 2 MONTHS FOR PERMITTING, AND ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION VARIATION OF 14 MONTHS. ALONG WITH THESE DATES ARE A COUPLE OF DEADLINES. THE FIRST ONE IS THE APPROPRIATION OF $750,000. THAT DEADLINE IS JUNE 30TH, 2027. AND WE CAN REQUEST AN EXTENSION OF A 30 DAY NOTICE PRIOR TO AN EXTENSION . THAT IS FOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS. A SECOND THERE IS THE SPECIAL WARRANTY, WHICH EXPIRES APRIL 25TH, 2029 , AND AN 18 MONTH EXTENSION IS POSSIBLE IF CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. THE ONLY STIPULATION TO THAT DEED IS THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOT OF THE LIBRARY BEING 1600 SQUARE FEET, WHICH PER PROPOSAL WE ARE LOOKING AT ROUGHLY DOUBLE THAT SIZE. SO IF 40 WERE NOT TO BUILD THE LIBRARY THAT PARCEL WOULD REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL OWNERSHIP. THE LAST SIDE IS THE PROJECT CASH FLOW AND I KNOW THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THIS PROJECT WAS BUDGETED THROUGHOUT THE THREE FISCAL YEARS. YOU GET A BETTER IDEA . IT WILL BE PRETTY STABLE IN THE BEGINNING MAINLY DESIGNER AND THEN TOWARDS THE BEGINNING OF 2027, THAT'S WHEN THE PROJECT WILL REALLY START TO RAMP UP AND WE WILL BE SPENDING THE BULK OF THAT PROJECT ALL THE WAY TO COMPLETION IN THE FALL.

THAT IS ALL I HAVE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> QUESTIONS FOR GREG? COMMISSIONER RENNINGER? OH,

OKAY. >> IN THE SECOND PART THE DESIGNER IS HERE AND IF HE WANTS TO SPEAK TO THAT PROPOSAL.

>> JUST STAY ON BUDGET. >> I WILL HAND IT OVER TO MARY.

THANK YOU. >> THE FIRST THING I WANTED TO TALK TO ABOUT THIS EVENING WAS CURRENT LIBRARY USAGE IN THE BRANCHES THAT WE HAVE. ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS WE DO IN OUR LIBRARIES IS PRESENT PROGRAMS AND WE DO FOR ALL AGES FROM BABY STORYTIME ALL THE WAY UP TO ADULT PROGRAMS. WE HAVE LITERACY PROGRAMS AND PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN AGES 6-11, 12-18 AND FOUR ADULTS. I INCLUDED MY STATISTICS FROM THE FULL FISCAL YEAR FOR LAST YEAR SEE YOU CAN SEE WE HAD OVER 2000 PROGRAMS LAST YEAR AND OUR ENGAGEMENT AT THAT TIME WAS OVER 85,000.

CURRENTLY FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THE END OF JUNE WE ARE CURRENTLY SITTING AT 1641 PROGRAMS WITH ALMOST 66,000 ENGAGEMENT OF INDIVIDUALS. SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE OFFER IN OUR LIBRARIES IS ONE-TO-ONE TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANCE. WE HAVE A

[03:05:03]

STAFF MEMBER IN A PROGRAMMING TEAM WHO SPECIALIZES IN TECHNOLOGY. ANYONE CAN SET UP AN APPOINTMENT TO LEARN HOW TO USE THEIR NEW COMPUTER , HOW TO USE THEIR NEW KINDLE, I WORK ON A RESUME, ANYTHING THEY HAVE WE WILL DO A FREE 101. IT CAN BE AN HOUR OR TWO HOURS AND THEY CAN HAVE AS MANY APPOINTMENTS AS THEY NEED. LAST YEAR WE HEAD 247 INDIVIDUAL APPOINTMENTS AND THIS YEAR WE'VE HAD 156. ANOTHER THING THAT HER LIBRARIES PROVIDES IMPORTANT IT IS PUBLIC COMPUTER USAGE. LAST FISCAL YEAR THE PUBLIC USED OVER 32,000 HOURS OF COMPUTERS WITHIN OUR BRANCHES. THIS YEAR WE ARE 18,000. SO I DON'T KNOW. WE ARE HALFWAY THROUGH THAT. I DON'T KNOW WILL MEET THE SAME NUMBERS AS LAST YEAR, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT OUR COMPUTERS ARE DEFINITELY BUSY. CHECK OUT PHYSICAL MATERIALS AND I WANTED TO FOCUS ON PHYSICAL MATERIALS BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING A PHYSICAL LIBRARY, SO WE WANT SOMETHING TO COMPARE AND WE ARE WHEN WE GO INTO OUR NEW OAK LEAF LIBRARY. LAST YEAR WE CHECKED OUT 347,081 PHYSICAL ITEMS IN OUR BRANCHES AND CURRENTLY THIS YEAR WE ARE AT ALMOST 253,000 CHECKOUTS.

ANOTHER THING THAT WE OFFER IN OUR BRANCHES IS MEETING ROOM USAGE. WE USE MEETING ROOMS TO HOST PROGRAMS , BUT YOU CAN ALSO BE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AND REQUEST TO USE THE MEETING ROOM.

A LOT OF NONPROFITS USE THAT. GIRL SCOUT IS OUR MEETING ROOMS, CHURCHES USE THEM . AND EVEN A FOR-PROFIT INDIVIDUAL COULD SIGN UP TO USE A MEETING ROOM. SO LAST YEAR WE HEAD 1500 RESERVATIONS AND WE HAD ATTENDANCE OF OVER 32,000. THIS YEAR WE HAVE HAD ALMOST 1100 RESERVATIONS AND WE ARE AT 33,000 AT ATTENDANCE AND THOSE MEETING ROOMS. ADDITIONALLY THE BRANCHES HAVE STUDY ROOMS DEPENDING ON THE SIDE OF THE BRANCH AND DEPENDS ON HOW MANY STUDY ROOMS WE HAVE. LAST YEAR OUR RESERVATIONS WERE OVER 3000 AT ALMOST 9700 INDIVIDUALS WERE ABLE TO USE THE STUDY ROOMS TO STUDY. CURRENTLY WE ARE AT 4300 AND JUST UNDER 8000 FOR ATTENDANCE IN OUR STUDY ROOMS. SO THAT ARE SOME STATISTICS. I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHY PEOPLE COME TO HER LIBRARIES. OUR VISION FOR LIBRARIES IN CLAY COUNTY IS TO INFORM AND CONNECT AND INSPIRE. WE HAVE PROGRAMS TO HELP INFORM INDIVIDUALS. WE WANT TO CONNECT PEOPLE WITH EACH OTHER AND WE WANT TO INSPIRE THEM FIRE PROGRAMS TO DO ADDITIONAL THINGS. OBVIOUSLY I TALKED ABOUT CHECKING UP PHYSICAL MATERIALS ATTENDING PROGRAMS. WHEN I WANT ASSISTANCE AND PUBLIC COMPUTERS THEY ARE ABLE TO CREATE ITEMS WITH TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE IN TOOLS AND MATERIALS THAT WE PROVIDE. AND GATHER FOR MEETINGS AND STUDY BUT THEY COLLABORATE TOGETHER ON PROJECTS. SO YOU WILL SEE A LOT OF TABLES AND CHAIRS IN OUR BRANCHES. STATE-OF-THE-ART LIBRARY WAS GOING TO BE LOCATED IN THE CHALLENGER CENTER ON -- IT WOULD BEEN PURCHASED BY THE COUNTY OR DONATED BY THE LAND PARTNERS AT THAT TIME THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME CONSIDERED CLOSING ONE LIBRARY AND CONSOLIDATING THAT IN THE NEW OAK LEAF BRANCH. IN 2007 A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED WAS SIGNED FOR THE BACK PORTION OF THE CURRENT PARCEL. THAT WAS .465 ACRES AND INCLUDED THE BACK PORTION. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT WAS THAT WE BUILT AT LEAST A 6000 SQUARE FOOT LIBRARY AND THAT. AND IN 2010 IT WAS REZONING OF THE AREA TO A PUD AND THEN WE SIGNED ANOTHER WARRANTY DEED FOR A PORTION OF THAT PARTIAL PARCEL. IF WE ARE TO KEEP THAT CONSTRUCTION HAS TO START WITHIN FIVE YEARS AND THERE'S AN 18 MONTH EXTENSION AND REQUIRE A 68 -- A 1600 SQUARE FOOT LIBRARY. IN 2004 AND 2005 THE LEGISLATURE GRANTED THE COUNTY $750,000 APPROPRIATION AND THAT WAS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRANCH. I KNOW BASED ON OUR LAST MEETING THERE WERE CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS WE HAD TO MAKE CONCERNING THIS NEW LIBRARY. THAT WAS THERE IS A NEED FOR THE LIBRARY IN OAKLEAF TO BE PROVIDED WITH MINIMAL OPERATIONAL EXPENSES BUT THERE'S ALSO THE NEED TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT SERVICE AT

[03:10:03]

OUR CURRENT FIVE LIBRARY BRANCHES THAT WE HAVE. THE FOLLOWING IS THE COURSE OF ACTION THAT I AM PROPOSING. WE WOULD RESTRUCTURE OUR LIBRARY HOURS IN OUR STAFFING AND ALL OF OUR BRANCHES INCLUDING THE OAKLEAF LIBRARY. AND MINIMALLY INCREASED OPERATIONAL EXPENSES FIRST ON A TALK ABOUT BRANCH HOURS. CURRENTLY BRANCHES ARE OPEN 9:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M.

MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. TO ESTABLISH THE GOAL WE WOULD NEED TO CHANGE THE HOURS OF OPERATION FROM 10:00 A.M. TILL 7:00 P.M.

AND THAT'S AN EIGHT HOUR SHIFT AND LUNCH BREAK WE ONLY NEED TO STAFF IT WITH ONE SHIFT RATHER THAN TWO SHIFTS WE HAVE TO HAVE RIGHT NOW. CURRENTLY WITH THE FIVE BRANCHES THAT WE HAVE WE OFFER 60 HOURS OF SERVICE HOURS PER BRANCH PER WEEK FOR A TOTAL OF 300 SERVICE HOURS PER WEEK. WITH THE REDUCTION AND THE CHANGE IN THE SERVICE HOURS. AND THE ADDITION OF THE SIX FRANCIS BRANCHES, WE WOULD HAVE A TOTAL OF 312 SERVICE HOURS PER WEEK.

IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THIS MODEL , WE WOULD NOT BE NEED AS MANY FULL-TIME STAFF MEMBERS. WE WOULD NEED MORE PART-TIME POSITIONS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE BRANCH. CURRENTLY AS FULL-TIME STAFF POSITIONS BECOME VACANT, THE PLAN IS SOME WILL BE REPLACED WITH TWO PART-TIME STAFF POSITIONS. CURRENTLY AS A FULL-TIME STAFF MEMBER WORKS 40 HOURS PER WEEK. A PART-TIME STAFF PERSON WORKS 24 , SO WHEN YOU HAVE TWO PART-TIME STAFF MEMBERS, YOU ARE INCREASING THE SERVICE BY THE STAFF BY EIGHT HOURS PER WEEK. SO THIS MODEL OF STAFFING WE WOULD INITIATE IMMEDIATELY. SO WE CAN HAVE THE SAVINGS IN PLACE FOR THE NEW LIBRARY TO OPEN. THIS WOULD ENSURE THAT NO CURRENT STAFF POSITIONS WOULD BE ELIMINATED AND THEY WOULD NOT BE NEED TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL STAFF FOR THE BECAUSE WE WOULD NEED LESS STAFF AND WE WOULD MOVE IT FROM THE CURRENT BRANCHES. WE WOULD NOT INITIATE THE OUR CHANGING UNTIL THE NEW LIBRARY OPENED. THAT WAY IT WOULD ALL HAPPEN ON THE SAME DAY. WE HAVE GRAND OPENING AND WE WOULD CHANGE HER HOURS AT THAT TIME. THERE IS AN ESTIMATED MINIMAL INCREASE IN OPERATING EXPENSES FOR OPENING A NEW BRANCH. THERE WILL BE ELECTRICITY AND WATER. WE ESTIMATE THAT AT APPROXIMATELY $20,000 PER YEAR. OTHER MAINTENANCE EXPENSES WE ESTIMATE AT 10,000 AND THAT IS GENERALLY THINGS LIKE PEST CONTROL, THE ALARM COMPANY, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. AND THEN THE COLLECTION BUDGET, I ESTIMATE BETWEEN 35 AND 57,000 PER YEAR . THIS PARTICULAR LIBRARY IS 12,000 SQUARE FEET WILL BE TWICE THE SIZE OF MIDDLEBURG , IF YOU WANT TO GIVE YOURSELF A PICTURE. THE FLEMING ISLAND LIBRARY IS ABOUT 27,000 SQUARE FEET AND THERE BUDGET IS ABOUT 57,000. I KNOW OR I BELIEVE WHEN A NEW LIBRARY OPENS, MORE PEOPLE WILL BE INTERESTED IN IT AND MORE PEOPLE WANT TO GO THERE SO WE WILL WANT TO MAKE SURE WE KEEP THAT COLLECTION OF AT THE BEGINNING AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO EVALUATE THAT AS TIME GOES ON. THE TOTAL ESTIMATED INCREASE IN OPERATING EXPENSES WOULD BE BETWEEN 65,080 7000 PER YEAR. BUT, AGAIN, I WANT TO STRESS THERE WOULD BE NO ADDITIONAL COST FOR STAFF BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE THAT MODEL . I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> QUESTIONS FOR MARY. I JUST WANT TO COMMEND YOU, MARY. THIS IS A BRILLIANT RESPONSE TO AN ISSUE . THAT IS WHAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT WHEN I TALK ABOUT DOZIER ACTIVITIES. AND I KNOW THAT YOU WORKED REALLY HARD AND I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE WAS

INVOLVED BUT IT'S REMARKABLE . >> I HESITATED TOO LONG. I APOLOGIZE. COMMISSIONER COMPERE.

>> I WAS GOING TO ALSO COMMEND YOU , MARY , ON THE RESTRUCTURING THAT WOULD'VE BEEN NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL . I ECHO THE CHAIRWOMAN'S SENTIMENT. THIS IS A LOT OF GYMNASTICS THAT ONLY YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT FOR US HAVING BEEN SO INTIMATELY AWARE OF WHAT THOSE DETAILS LOOK LIKE. SO I DO APPRECIATE YOU HEARING THE CONCERN LOUD AND CLEAR AND THE TEAM EXECUTING TO FIND OUT HOW DO WE MAKE THIS

WORK. >> GOOD JOB. I THINK IT'S A CREATIVE SOLUTION. THIS NEXT PART IS NOT IN YOUR SHOP. AS FAR

[03:15:04]

AS OPERATIONS, BUT IT IS ABOUT MAINTENANCE. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE COMMISSION'S PLAN ON MAINTAINING OUR CURRENT LIBRARIES. THIS PAST BUDGET CYCLE WE REMOVE MAINTENANCE PROJECTS FROM CURRENT LIBRARIES AND I THINK , FOR ME, BEFORE ANYTHING NEW IS CONSTRUCTED, WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN WHAT WE HAVE AND WE HAVE PROVED THAT WE CANNOT DO THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW KIND OF WEARS EQUITY COME FROM BEFORE WE COMMIT TO A

FACILITY. >> I KNOW WE TOOK OUT MIDDLEBURG LIBRARY WINDOWS. WE TOOK AT A PARKING LOT IN FLEMING ISLAND .

A ROOF. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE TOOK OUT?

>> THE AIR-CONDITIONING IS BEING TAKEN CARE OF. YES. IN ORANGE

PARK. >> WE WERE LOOKING AT POSSIBLY ADDING A WALL IN THE MEETING ROOM AND WE ARE WAITING TO HEAR ABOUT THE GRANT WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE A GRANT FOR THAT OR NOT.

>> IT IS A VALID QUESTION. >> I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, I SUPPORT COMMISSIONER COMPERE WANTING TO DO THE LIBRARY. I GET IT. IT'S JUST ALL FIVE BRANCHES HAVE ROOFS AND PARKING LOTS AND AC UNITS AND -- SO WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T STRETCH OURSELVES SO THIN THAT WE DETERIORATE OUR CURRENT FACILITIES. I MEAN -- I DON'T KNOW IF THE FLEMING ISLAND PARKING LOT HAS EVER BEEN REPAVED FROM WHEN IT WAS

ORIGINAL. >> I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THAT. I COULD RESEARCH THAT. THAT I DON'T

KNOW. >> I THOUGHT THEY WERE LOOKING AT POSSIBLY INCLUDING THAT IN THE RADAR ROAD ARE NOT. I DON'T REMEMBER. I REMEMBER THERE BEING A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT BUT THE

OUTCOME WAS I DON'T REMEMBER. >> I KNOW IT WAS CUT. AND POSTPONING IT UNTIL RADAR ROAD IS PUT IN .

>> BUT I THINK WHEN YOU DIVE DEEP INTO HER BUDGET , AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD CHALLENGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO, IF YOU HAVE, THAT'S MY CONCERN. WHEN YOU DIVE DEEP INTO THE FUNDING SOURCES , THE MATH IS NOT MATH AND THAT'S THE PART THAT I'M

CONCERNED ABOUT. >> WELL, I THINK FOR ME A CAN. I THINK WE HAVE TO GET CREATIVE WITH THINGS. SO IT DOESN'T WORK FOR NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET FOR OBVIOUSLY THE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT WE CUT , BUT THERE IS GOING TO BE -- SHE HAS IN HERE SOME MONEY FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS. I THINK IS ABOUT PRIORITIES, RIGHT? SO IF IT'S $100,000 IN MAINTENANCE COSTS, THEN WE WILL HAVE TO PUT THAT AS A PRIORITY OVER OTHER -- EVERY YEAR THE COUNTY MANAGER GIVES US A BUDGET WHEN WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF MAINTENANCE PROJECTS WE CANNOT AFFORD TO DO. HE PRIORITIZES THOSE WITH STAFF TO TELL US . I THINK THE PARKING LOT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE. JEAN IS NOT HERE TONIGHT BUT I REMEMBER HIM SAYING AT THE POINT THAT IT HAS TO BE DONE. IT CAN WAIT.

THERE MAY BE OTHER THINGS THAT CANNOT.

>> AIR-CONDITIONING. $300,000. >> I THINK WE HAD SOLVED THE AIR-CONDITIONING PROBLEM IN THE EEOC. I DEPEND ON STAFF TO BRING THOSE TO US, AND I FEEL LIKE THIS IS THE ADDED COST YEARS MINIMAL, BUT I HEAR YOU AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE I'VE BEEN BEATING THE DRUM THE LOUDEST THAT WE HAVE A LOOK AT WAYS TO DO OTHER THINGS. I HEAR YOU AND SYMPATHIZE WITH THAT. I JUST THINK THAT , FOR ME, THAT'S NOT EXACTLY THE SAME. I THINK WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE PRIORITIZE. I HEARD THE PUBLIC LOUD AND CLEAR. WE ALL SEEM TO. IS TO FUND PUBLIC SAFETY, DON'T RAISE TAXES. AND SO WE TOOK THAT MISSION. OKAY, WE TOOK IT AND WE ARE LOOKING AT IT. IT DOESN'T MEAN FUND PUBLIC SAFETY AT THE COST OF EVERYTHING ELSE FROM THE RESIDENCE. FOR ME , THERE WAS NOT ALWAYS A LOT THAT I AGREED WITH COMMISSIONER COMPERE'S PREDECESSOR ON. BUT THE OAKLEAF LIBRARY WAS ONE OF THEM BECAUSE I HEARD THE PEOPLE AT THERE. AND HERE'S THE OTHER THING I THINK IS IMPORTANT. WHERE THE LOCATION OF THIS ONE IS IS WHEN MARY PRESENTED IN THE SLIDES ABOUT THE HISTORY THERE , AT ONE POINT , AND THIS WAS REALLY EARLY ON IN MY TENURE,

[03:20:03]

THERE WAS CONVERSATION ABOUT SOME KIND OF A COUNTY CENTER AT THE CHALLENGER LOCATION, WHICH IS FURTHER SOUTH ON THE EXPRESSWAY. AND I WAS THE ONE WHO OBJECTED ABOUT CLOSING MIDDLEBURG CLAY HILL. THAT WAS A SOURCE OF CONTENTION BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE WHO USE MIDDLEBURG CLAY HILL LIBRARY. AND THERE I CAN HAVE THE TRANSPORTATION TO THAT LOCATION. THIS LOCATION IS FURTHER UP INTO OAK LEAF, AND I THINK IT MAKES SENSE. THERE CAN BE SOME RECIPROCAL MONIES . DUVALL COUNTY CHARGES CLAY RESIDENTS TO USE THEIR LIBRARIES AND THEY MAY WANT TO USE OURS. I DON'T DISCREDIT YOUR ARGUMENT. I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. I JUST THINK IT'S ABOUT PRIORITIZING THOSE PROJECTS. AND I AGREE WITH YOU FULLY THAT IN THE NEXT BUDGET YEAR , IF RADAR ROAD IS DONE, I THINK THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT WORRYING ABOUT PEOPLE CUTTING THROUGH THE PARKING LOT INSTEAD OF NOT RESURFACING THE LIBRARY PARKING LOT UNTIL RADAR ROAD WAS DONE BUT I AGREE WITH YOU THAT NEEDS TO BE A PRIORITY AT SOMETIME.

>> I JUST HAVE LEGITIMATE BUDGETARY CONCERNS AND I WILL BRING IT UP WHEN TROY TALKS ABOUT THE BUDGET, BUT WE DIPPED INTO RESERVES OVER $2 BILLION BECAUSE OF STORMWATER FAILURE.

SO AND WE'VE DONE IT TWICE. I THINK STAFF TOLD ME IT'S HAPPENED TWICE IN FIVE YEARS WHERE THE COUNTY -- IT WAS AN EMERGENCY, RIGHT? SOMETHING HAPPENED AND NOW YOU'RE DIPPING IN TO $3 MILLION OF NON-BUDGETED -- CAN PUT A STRAIN, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT ADDING MORE COSTS WHEN WE JUST ELIMINATED -- YOU KNOW -- I KNOW IT'S NOT POPULAR. I GET IT. BUT THAT IS PART OF THIS JOB. AND THAT'S WHERE I DON'T --

>> ARE YOU DONE? >> YEAH. I'M DONE. I VIEW THIS WITH CONCERN AS WELL. WE CANCELED $10 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS BETWEEN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET AND NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE REFIT THE COURTHOUSE ISN'T GOING TO BE IN THE BUDGET UNTIL 18 MONTHS FROM NOW , IF IT EVEN MAKES THAT LIST. AND THOSE ARE ALL ITEMS THAT WE ASKED IN THE COUNTY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION WE ASKED TO PUT IN THE BUDGET. AND YET THERE'S NO MONEY TO DO IT. AND I WILL ALSO POINT OUT THAT IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN, WHICH WE APPROVED , IS A GOAL OF DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES. AND WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY LAST MEETING TO DO IT AND WE FAIL TO. AND WE ARE TO HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY, WHICH I REALLY QUESTION IF IT'S GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE NEXT THREE OR 46 MONTHS. YOU JUST CAN'T KEEP PUTTING IT TO THE RIGHT. THE ROOF WILL LEAK. TWO BY FOURS AND THE TWO BY SIXES WILL ROT AND THE 350,000 TURNS INTO $750,000. SO I VIEW THIS WITH CONCERN . WE CRITICIZED PREVIOUS COMMISSIONS ABOUT NOT TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS WHEN IT WAS THEIR TURN TO DO IT. AND WHEN I SEE $10 MILLION FOR PROJECT BEING KICKED DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY , I'M LOOKING IN THE MIRROR. THAT IS US. SO IT'S NOT POPULAR . NOBODY LIKES LEVY FEES OR INCREASED TAXES , BUT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO RUN THE COUNTY. AND THOSE ARE ALL -- THERE'S NO FLUFF IN THERE. THE ROOF IS LEAKING AND THE AIR-CONDITIONERS DON'T WORK. YOU KNOW , THE PARKING LOT HAS TO BE REPAVED. I VIEW THIS WITH CONCERN. EXPANSION AND RESPONSIBILITY WITH NO EXPANSION OF RESOURCES. YOU CAN REPRIORITIZE AND INSTEAD OF DOING THIS ROAD WE WILL DO THIS ON THE ROAD. WELL WHAT ABOUT THIS ROAD. IT DOESN'T GET DONE.

AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TONIGHT TO LOOK AT ANOTHER PROJECT THAT'S ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO. AND WE WILL SEE WHERE THAT GOES. IT'S ANOTHER $50,000 THAT COULD BE USED SOMEWHERE ELSE. WE WILL SEE WHERE THAT

GOES. THANK YOU. >> MADAM CHAIR. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU AND I KNOW I VOTED AGAINST THE UTILITY TAX, BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THE TIME IS COMING WHERE THE RUBBER WILL MEET THE ROAD AND WE DO HAVE TO MAKE THOSE TOUGH DECISIONS. AND WE WILL SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT. LIKE A SAID, I DON'T NECESSARILY FEEL COMFORTABLE ADDING MORE COST WITH NO NEW REVENUES WHATSOEVER. AND PRIORITIES , I GET IT, BUT THE BIGGER QUESTION IS ARE WE GOING TO PRIORITIZE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT THERE FOR

[03:25:05]

SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY THERE. THAT IS THE TOUGH PART. FOR ME

TO KIND OF SWALLOW. >> I HEAR YOU. I GUESS I WAS JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THERE'S ALWAYS WAY MORE PROJECTS . ERIC TOLD US LAST MEETING LIKE THERE ARE A LOT OF UNFUNDED STORMWATER PROJECTS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT -- I'M SURE EVERY DEPARTMENT IN THE COUNTY COULD COME UP WITH A LIST THAT WE COULD NEVER DO ALL OF THEM.

>> UNTIL MOODY ROAD HAPPENS AND IT'S ALMOST $1 MILLION.

>> THE PINES ONE PINE RIDGE. THAT ONE FELT LIKE EVERY MEETING IT GOT HIGHER AND HIGHER. PINE RIDGE.

>> I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THE COMMISSION WAS TALKING ABOUT A DRAINAGE PROJECT COMING OUT OF RESERVES OF THE LAST YEAR'S WHICH IS PINE RIDGE AND MOODY THAT HE'S REFERENCING. BUT TO YOUR POINT WAS BUT $8 MILLION THAT CAME OUT OF RESERVES. SO TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS AND TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS BUT BOTH ARE ACCURATE.

>> NEVERTHELESS, THAT'S THE PART FOR ME THAT IS HOW I DO MY PERSONAL, YOU KNOW, FINANCES. THE SAVINGS ARE THE SAVINGS AND I DON'T LIKE TAPPING INTO RESERVES AT ALL. SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A HURRICANE COMES AND WE HAVE TO GET AID TO PEOPLE VERY

QUICKLY. THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. >> I HAVE A QUESTION BASED ON THAT. TROY, I DID NOT ASK EARLIER WHEN ZACH WAS HERE. BUT ON OUR AUDIT , IT LOOKED LIKE IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS WE'VE HAD WAY MORE THAN THE MINIMUM IN RESERVES. LIKE DOUBLE. ALMOST TRIPLE IN UNRESERVED FUND BALANCES.

>> IT'S LIKE 30%. >> TAPPING INTO RESERVES WHEN YOU HAVE TRIPLED THE AMOUNT THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE IS VERY DIFFERENT TO ME THAN -- LISTEN, WHEN I WAS ON THE SCHOOL BOARD, THERE IS A MINIMUM REQUIRED BY THE FUND BALANCE THE STATE REQUIRES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS. AND I WAS IN THE MINORITY THAT SUMS SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS VOTED TO GO BELOW THAT IN ORDER TO FUND EMPLOYEE RAISES. I DID NOT SUPPORT THAT THEN AND I DON'T SUPPORT IT NOW. SO I GUESS THAT'S WHERE MY DIFFERENCES. I DON'T WANT THE PUBLIC TO THINK THAT WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE WITH THE RESERVES. I HEAR YOU ON IT AND IT'S A BALANCE. BUT TO ADDRESS THAT POINT. DAVE AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT IT WHEN THAT'S LIKE IN MY. THE ONE THING TO BE KEY IN ON THAT SLIDE IS IT SAID IT WAS NOT AN ALLOCATED RESERVES, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THAT WAS ALLOCATED IN AN ALLOCATED.

ALLCATED COULD BE, I'VE SET THIS ASIDE FOR PROJECT THAT'S HAPPENING NEXT YEAR. IT'S BEEN ALLOCATED AND COMMITTED. THAT'S WERE RE-PRIORITIZATION COMES IN. YOU REALLOCATED BASICALLY COMMITTED MONEY. IT WAS COMMITTED FOR POTENTIALLY FUTURE PROJECTS AND YOU SAID, NO, I'M GOING TO CHANGE THAT. SO I THINK IT'S IN THE TERMINOLOGY THAT WE ARE USING. WE LOOK TO SEE 16.7 IN UNRESTRICTED RESERVES BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO BASICALLY RUN THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT FOR 2 MONTHS, WHICH IS THE RULE OF THUMB THAT EVERYONE PUTS OUT THAT YOU NEED TO RENT FOR 2 MONTHS WITH NO REVENUE COMING IN. THAT'S WHAT

WE LOOK AT. SO I THINK -- >> WHAT WAS THAT WORD.

>> THE UNALLOCATED IS IN THE VAULT. LIKE THAT'S PUT AWAY AND YOU CAN PULL IT OUT, BUT IT'S THE IDEA IS TO NOT PULL IT OUT.

THE PERCENTAGE THE OTHER 15% OR 60% IS EARMARKED PROJECTS.

>> FUTURE PROJECTS THAT YOU HAVE TO HOLD BACK STATUTORY. YOU CAN'T HOLD BACK 100% OF YOUR REVENUES. STATE STATUTE THAT SAYS 5% OF YOUR REVENUE -- YOU DON'T GET 100% OF YOUR TAX REVENUE. YOU ONLY GET -- WE RUN ABOUT 97% OR 96% OF THAT MONEY COMES IN THE DOO. ALL THOSE THINGS PLAY INTO IT. SO I GUESS IT'S BOTH SIDES. I DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO THINK WE'VE BEEN TELLING THE BOARD WE NEED 16.7 AND WE ARE RIGHT THERE IN THE AUDITOR SAYS YOU HAVE 40. ARE NOT FINANCIALLY STRAPPED IT'S THAT BALANCING ACT AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN ON.

[03:30:01]

>> WITH A LOT OF THESE BIGGER CIP PROJECTS, IF YOU DON'T DO THAT WITH RESERVES, YOU WILL NEVER HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO GET

IT TO THE FINISH LINE. >> WHICH IS THE REASON WE DID THE BONDS FOR ROADS AND THE REASON WE DID BONDS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY IS BECAUSE THE PAY-AS-YOU-GO MODEL IS LET'S WAIT TO WE GET TO $1 MILLION IN THE BANK SO WE SAVE UP TO 10 MILLION AND WE GET TO $10 MILLION THE GUY COMES IN AND SAYS IT'S NOW 12. OKAY LET ME SAVE A LITTLE LONGER. AND IT'S A BALANCING ACT. THE ENTIRE BUDGET PROCESS IS A BALANCE OF NEEDS AND WANTS , RESERVES, CASH FLOW, AND IT ALL PLAYS AND TOGETHER. IT'S ONE WAY TO SAY WE ARE NOT IN DIRE STRAITS BUT WE ARE NOT FLUSH WITH CASH EITHER.

>> THINK YOU FOR ADDRESSING IT. THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING IT. WE HAVE DONE A. I GUESS I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON A. B DOESN'T HAVE AN ACTION. SO B AND C. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION

ON ITEM B. >> I MOVE APPROVAL. QUESTION. NO MATTER -- WE CAN DO B NO MATTER WHAT BECAUSE THAT'S JUST

DESIGN. CORRECT? >> ON THE SECOND HER MOTION FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION SO WE HAVE IT ON THE RECORD. SO NOW,

KAREN. >> SO YOU CERTAINLY COULD APPROVE THE AGREEMENT AND MOVEMENT TO DESIGN. BUT THEN, THAT'S THE DECISION -- JUST SHELVE THE DESIGN UNTIL YOU DECIDE TO BUILD THE LIBRARY LATER IF YOU DON'T GO FORWARD -- MAYBE YOU'RE ASKING WE JUST STRAIGHT BIT IT. WE COULD GO FORWARD WITH THE DESIGN BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP AFTER

THAT? >> WE HAVE MANY ROAD PROJECTS WE ARE ABLE TO DO DESIGN AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO CARRY FORWARD WITH IT. BASICALLY THE SAME THING TO ME. I MEAN, I'M SENSING WE'RE KIND OF CONCERNED HERE .

>> THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU. I THINK A COUPLE OF THINGS. WE CANNOT USE THE GRANT FOR DESIGN. SO IF YOU SAID YOU'RE GOING TO DO THE DESIGN TODAY AND NOT DO CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THE FUTURE, YOU WOULD BE GIVING BACK THE APPROPRIATION TO THE STATE. AND I GUESS THE OTHER THING FOR KAREN WOULD BE , NOTHING STOPS YOU FROM GOING INTO THE THE SEE MORE PROCESS. AND GET TO THE END AND SAY I DON'T WANT TO -- YOU CAN ALWAYS BACK OUT.

>> EDITS JUMPING UP. SO THERE MAY BE MORE HERE.

>> THE PAUL HARVEY THE REST OF THE STORY. AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHO PAUL HARVEY IS, YOU ARE VERY YOUNG. OR I AM VERY OLD.

>> WHITE HAIR. >> RAMPS , OBVIOUSLY THE INTENT IS TO BRING A DESIGNER ON BOARD AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER YOU WANT TO BRING A CONTRACTOR ON BOARD BECAUSE YOU GET A LOT OF SYNERGY BETWEEN THEM WORKING . WE LOVE OUR ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, FROM A CONSTRUCTIBILITY , WHEN YOU BRING A CONTRACTOR ON BOARD , YOU'RE PAYING WHAT YOU SAW WAS PHASE 1 AND CALL IT 100 100,000 TO BE ABLE TO PUSH ON IT. THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO CONSTRUCT. WE CAN LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE OF THE DESIGNER AND THE CONTRACTOR WORK HAND-IN-HAND TO COME UP THE BEST OVERALL PRODUCT. IF AT ANY POINT WE IS THE OWNER AS THE COUNTY COULD SAY WE'VE HAD ENOUGH PLEASE STEP ASIDE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH WEARE GOING A SHELVE IT AND SINCE WE HAVE THE DESIGN WEEK CAN BUILD LATER. DESIGN BID AND BUILD LATER. SO YOU'RE GAINING YOUR MAXIMUM CAPABILITY FROM AN ANALOGY STANDPOINT CLOSING THAT BRIDGE ON I HAVE A BUDGET AND WILL CALL AT 8 MILLION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND A HALF A DESIGN WITHIN THAT. BUT IF YOU HAVE THAT CONTRACTOR WORKING WITH THE DESIGNER AND COMPARING ESTIMATES, THAT'S WHAT YOU WILL

[03:35:03]

END UP WITH A DESIGN IT'S GOING TO BE CLOSER TO YOUR BUDGET THAN IF YOU DESIGN AND PUT IT ON THE SHELF AND COME BACK TWO OR THREE YEARS FROM NOW YOU HAVE TO READDRESS THE DESIGN AND IT MIGHT BE TWO OR THREE TIMES THAT.

>> BASICALLY IT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED TOGETHER OR NOTHING AT

ALL. >> IT WOULD BE BEST TO APPROVE BOTH OF THEM AT THIS TIME. BUILT WITHIN THAT CAUGHT THE OFF RAMPS FOR THE CONTRACTOR IF WE FIND THE CONTRACTOR IS NOT UPHOLDING HIS AND. WE DON'T GET THE SERVICES WE NEED FROM THE CONTRACTOR WE HAVE TO EXIT THAT CONTRACT.

>> WE HAVE DONE THAT IN THE PAST.

>> OTHER DISCUSSION ? >> ED, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE

OFFRAMP AGAIN. >> AGAIN, OFFRAMP IS A GENERALIZED TERM. IT WOULD BE WE BROUGHT ON THE DESIGNER ON BOARD AND WORKING THROUGH 30% DESIGN . WE BRING THE CONTRACTOR ON BOARD AND LET SAY HE'S NOT WORKING WELL WITH US AND GIVING US GOOD INFORMATION AND NOT GIVING US GOOD INPUT. BASICALLY TERMINATE

THE CONTRACT. >> WHEN YOU SAY 30%, THAT'S 30%

OF CONSTRUCTION? >> 30% OF DESIGN. WE WILL HAVE THE@ON BOARD AND 30% DESIGN AND AS WE GET TO 60% DESIGN HALLWAY TO 90%, HAVE THEM PUT A SHOVEL IN THE GROUND BUT YOU HAVE THAT BASICALLY CONTRACTOR SITTING ACROSS THE TABLE PROVIDING INFORMATION AND INPUT TO THE DESIGN ON WHAT THE BEST MEANS AND METHODS ARE FOR BUILDING THIS PROJECT AND THE CONTRACTOR HAS BOUGHT INTO THE PROJECT AS WELL JUST NOT PUTTING THE PRICE TOGETHER BECAUSE HE'S BEEN WORKING THE NINE MONTHS WITH THE DESIGNER WORKING THROUGH THE DESIGN AND THE REVIEW PROCESS.

SO THEY HAVE A VESTED INTEREST TO WORK THE PRICING IN WITH OUR ESTIMATORS AND THE DESIGNERS ESTIMATOR FOR THE RIGHT PRICE.

>> OKAY. AND THE 835,000, IS THAT IN THE 2024 2025 BUDGET?

>> THERE IS 500,000 IN THE CURRENT BUDGET AND THAT WOULD GET US INTO THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR WHERE THERE'S MONEY SET ASIDE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE DESIGN. AND OUR POLICY ALLOWS US TO GET INTO A CONTRACT WHEN FUNDING IS IDENTIFIED. MANY OF OUR CONTRACTS ARE WELL INTO TWO THIS CLEARS.

>> THE SECOND HALF IS IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET. THAT WAS NOT CUT. BUT IT LOOKS LIKE AN UPTICK , CRAIG . IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S AN UPTICK IN SPENDING NINE OF 26.

>> THAT'S THE CASH FLOW PROJECTION . I CALL A HOCKEY STICK. THREE YOUR DESIGN YOU'RE SURVEYING THE GEOTECH YOU'RE NOT SPENDING A LOT OF DOLLARS AND AS WE GET TO THE CONSTRUCTION WHEN YOU START BUYING STEEL AND PLACING CONCRETE YOU HAVE AN ACCELERATED SPENDING CURVE AND THAT'S WHERE YOU SPEND YOUR DOLLARS FOR CONSTRUCTION.

>> WOULD THAT BE ON CRAIG'S -- I KNOW I'M ASKING FOR MEMORY BUT IS THAT ON CRAIG'S SHEET FROM 9/1/26 ARE THE LARGER UPTAKE OF SEVEN OF 27? ARE THAT'S JUST PAYING THE BILL VERSUS ACTUALLY NOT DOING THE WORK? BECAUSE I KNOW THE BILLS

LAG. >> I WOULD SAY , AGAIN, AND I'M NOT -- PROBABLY MAY OF 2027 IS WHEN YOU START TO GET THE HEAVIER CONSTRUCTION. THE LOWER FROM NOW UNTIL SEPTEMBER LOOKS LIKE AUGUST OF 2026 IS WHERE THE MAJORTY OF DESIGN AND THE CONTRACTOR YOU'RE PAYING HOURLY FOR HIS INPUT FOR HIS EXPERTISE IN HELPING WITH THAT DESIGN SO HE'S NOT PHYSICALLY OUT THERE WITH SHOVELS AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND MOVING AND EQUIPMENT. AS YOU START GAINING -- WE EVENTUALLY GET TO THAT GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE AND ESTABLISHED WITH THE CONTRACT PRICES, YOU HAVE SUBCONTRACTORS LOCKED IN THAT'S WHEN THEY START ORDERING MATERIALS AND THAT'S WHEN YOU START SEEING THAT SECOND BIT OF UPTICK BASICALLY THIS TIME NEXT YEAR AND THEN MATERIALS ROLL IN AND THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE THE BIGGER UPTICK. ON THAT GRAPHIC.

>> AS A REMINDER WITH THE CMAR, WE WOULD FIRST BRING TO A PHASE 1 AGREEMENT TO THE BOARD THAT SAYS THE CONTRACTOR WILL WORK WITH THE DESIGN AS EXPLAINED AND THEN WE NEGOTIATE THE GUARANTED MAXIMUM PRICE, WE BRING THAT CONSTRUCTION BACK. SO THE BOARD

WILL SEE THOSE TWO AGREEMENTS. >> KAREN, KIND OF IN LINE WITH COMMISSIONER -- COMMISSIONER SGROMOLO'S -- THOSE ARE OFF RAMPS? AS WELL. SO IF WE CHOSE TO MOVE FORWARD, OBVIOUSLY, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SOME, AT LEAST WITH FLEISHMAN AND

[03:40:11]

GARCIA, I KNOW THERE ARE PENALTIES.

>> ALL OF THEM HAVE EXIT CLAUSES, WHETHER IT'S FOR CAUSE NO CAUSE. WE LIKE TO EXERCISE THOSE BUT WE DO HAVE THAT.

>> AND WE WOULD PAY THEM FOR ALL SERVICES RENDERED UNTIL THE TIME

THAT WE OFFRAMP. >> GOT IT.

>> THANK YOU. BUT GOING BACK TO YOUR QUESTION THE LONG WAY TO GET THERE IS YOU GET A SECOND CHANCE AT THE BID YOU -- IF YOU TO THE ARCHITECT TONIGHT BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY COMMIT TO THE $8 MILLION YOU HAVE ANOTHER CONTRACT COMING FOR YOU IN 10 TO 12 MONTHS, TO SAY , HEY, HERE'S THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE AND THIS IS WITH THE COUNTIES NEGOTIATED AND YOU GET ANOTHER CHANCE TO SAY, YEAH, IT'S $8 MILLION ORTS 8 MILLION OR 1 DOLLARS. AND HAS TO BE MILLION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID TO DO. YOU HAVE A SECOND CHANCE. 12 MONTHS FROM NOW. I THINK THAT WAS THE QUESTION GOING TO BE SOME BUMPY BUDGET YEARS HERE. WE HAVE A BRAND-NEW CFO AT THE STATE LEVEL IS HOT ON THE TROUT TO GET PROPERTY TAXES ON THE BALLOT. SO FAR NO ONE PUBLICLY IS GOING OUT AND SAYING HOW MUCH TO RUN LOCAL GOVERNMENT. SO I HEARD THE ARGUMENT. I DO. WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. COMMISSIONER

RENNINGER. >> THE STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT FLEISHMAN AND GARCIA WE ASKED THEM TO RELOOK AT THE NUMBERS AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE CAUGHT IT, BUT CRAIG TALKED ABOUT $28,000 REDUCTION IN THEIR FEES. AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT FOR EVERY CONTRACT WE PROPOSE. BUT I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS , YOU KNOW, WE ASKED FOR 750,000 FROM THE LEGISLATURE TO BUILD THIS BUILDING FOR CONSTRUCTION. IF WE WERE TO USE ONE OF THESE OFF RAMPS AND HAVE TO GIVE THAT MONEY BACK , IF I WERE SITTING -- DON'T COME TO ME AND ASK FOR ANY MORE MONEY. THEY ARE GOING OUT ON A LIMB TO GIVE US THIS MONEY . SO WE AS A COMMISSION SAID THIS IS OUR GOAL. THIS IS A GOAL TO BUILD THIS LIBRARY. I DON'T LIKE TALKING ABOUT EXIT RAMPS WITH NO REASON TO TALK ABOUT EXIT RAMPS. WE HAVE TO BE AWARE OF THE LONG-TERM PICTURE.

AND WE ASKED FOR THIS LIBRARY BECAUSE OF THE NEED UP IN OAK LEAF AND WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.

>> AND AGREE . AGREED. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT WE HAVE NEXT YEAR TO DEAL WITH THE BUDGET AGAIN THAT WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO WITH IT AND WE WERE $17 MILLION IN THE HOLE WHEN I PROPOSED UTILITY TAX I WILL SAY THAT I DID IT. THE GREAT THING IS THE STAFF WAS ABLE TO GET DOWN TO 1.7 AND NOW TO BALANCED-BUDGET WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT. THERE WAS NO WAY OUT AT THAT POINT AND SO WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS NEXT YEAR.

YES, I AGREE. WE CANNOT BE GIVING MONEY BACK. THAT WOULD LOOK BAD ON US. BUT $8 MILLION IS A LOT MORE THAN $750,000.

REAGAN HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT AND PEOPLE THAT WANT THIS OAKLEAF LIBRARY, IT SOUNDS AMAZING AND WONDERFUL FOR PEOPLE, BUT ARE PEOPLE HAVE TO REALIZE WE STILL HAVE TO RUN THE COUNTY AND WE HAVE TO STILL HAVE MONEY FOR EVERYTHING ELSE MAINTAINING , YOU KNOW, SO, AGAIN, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN IN THE BACK OF MY MIND THAT'S GOING TO BE THERE. YES, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH

YOU , COMMISSIONER RENNINGER. >> OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. I GET THE APPROPRIATION. I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT FINANCIAL TIMES CHANGE. I THINK WHEN THE COUNTY WENT OUT FOR THAT, THERE WERE STILL ARPA FUNDS. THERE WAS STILL COVID MONEY. WE WERE KIND OF LIQUID FOR CASH AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE ANYMORE. FOR ME , JUST -- I MEAN, LIBRARIES ARE IMPORTANT IN THEIR COMMUNITY CENTERS. I TAKE MY SON THERE ALL THE TIME ON SATURDAYS. BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, WHEN YOU START GETTING DOWN TO BRASS TACKS, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS I THINK -- AND I AM ONE OF FIVE. I THINK THERE ARE

[03:45:01]

OTHER THINGS THAT ARE MORE PUBLIC SERVICE -- NOT PUBLIC SERVICE BUT CORE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT THAT WILL HAVE TO MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS. TO YOUR POINT , WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO YOU, $1 MILLION IS A LOT OF MONEY. IT'S A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY. I THINK I'VE SAID MY PIECE. IF SOMEONE HAD CREATIVE IDEAS TO SAY WE ARE TO MOVE THIS MONEY HERE AND DO THIS, AND I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT AT ALL, I'M JUST HEARING LET'S GO TO LIBRARY AND BUILD A LIBRARY. HOW?

>> YOU'RE NOT WRONG. >> THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW HOW. SELECT ONE COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT WE HAVE SHERIFF'S OFFICE PEOPLE SITTING OVER THERE AND ONE COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT WIRY NOT PUTTING $8 MILLION TOWARD THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX THAT WE TALKED ABOUT LONGER THAN WE TALKED ABOUT THE OAKLEAF

LIBRARY? >>

>> I'D LOVE ONE DAY TO TAKE MY DAUGHTER, MY SON, TO A LIBRARY IN MY DISTRICT, JUST LIKE ALL OF YOU HAVE. I WANT FOR MY DISTRICT WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IN YOURS, AND RIGHT NOW FOR US IN THAT PART OF THE COUNTY, WE ARE ASSESSED A FEE TO TRAVEL THREE MINUTES UP THE ROAD TO USE LIBRARY SERVICES. AND ANY TIME ANYBODY WANTS TO CONGREGATE FOR ANYTHING, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A COST, WHICH IS NOT -- IT'S NOT EQUITABLE IF WE'RE TALKING

[03:50:01]

ABOUT ALL OF THE OTHER RESOURCES. AND SO, AGAIN, I THINK YOUR POINTS, ALL OF YOUR POINTS ARE WELL TAKEN, BUT THE REASON WHY WE GOT HERE, WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THIS THREE YEARS AGO, WAS BECAUSE IT'S -- THERE'S A GAP IN SERVICES THAT IS NOT JUST A LIBRARY. AND WE WERE LOOKING TO MEET THAT NEED -- MEET MANY OF THOSE NEEDS IN ONE FELL SWOOP. SO $8 MILLION IS -- IT'S A NICE CHUNK, BUT IT'S NOT $8 MILLION FOR THE PURPOSES OF MEETING A LIBRARY NEED. I THINK THAT OUR COUNTY STAFF HAS DONE A REALLY GREAT JOB OF FIGURING OUT HOW ELSE CAN WE BRIDGE THE GAP IN THE SERVICES THAT HAVE NOT YET REACHED THE OAKLEAF AREA. AND THIS, I THINK, WAS ONE OF THE GREAT WAYS TO DO THAT. SO LIKE I SAID, I THINK THAT YOU GUYS HAVE MADE, ALL OF YOU COMMISSIONERS, HAVE MADE STRONG POINTS. YOU HAVE. IT'S NOT LOST ON ME. I'M LOOKING T THE SAME CONCERNS THAT YOU ARE AND WANTING TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. BUT I WOULD NOT -- I WOULD BE DOING YOU A DISSERVICE IF I SAID, YEAH, THIS IS A LIBRARY, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING THERE WHEN THAT'S JUST NOT THE LANDSCAPE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN MY PART

OF OUR COUNTY. >> OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION. OUR MOTION AND OUR SECOND ARE ON ITEM B. TO APPROVAL FOR ITEM B.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE BY

SAYING AYE. >> AYE.

>> THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES, 5-0. NOW ITEM C.

>> YES, MA'AM. WE TALKED ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO BRING A CMAR ON QUICKLY DURING THE DESIGN PHASE, SO WE PUT OUT THE RFQ TO SELECT A CMAR. WE RECEIVED SEVEN PROPOSALS. THREE OF OUR STAFF MEMBERS EVALUATED THOSE PROPOSALS. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE HASKELL COMPANY WAS SCORED THE HIGHEST. SO IT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION IF YOU WANT TO GO WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE PRESENTATIONS, AND AS WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, THIS WOULD COME BACK WHEN YOU DO SELECT THE COMPANY FOR THE CMAR, IT WOULD COME BACK IN TWO PHASES A PHASE ONE CONTRACT THAT WOULD BRING THEM ON BOARD TO WORK WITH OUR DESIGN FIRM, AND THEN IF WE NEGOTIATE AND AGREE ON A GMP, WE WOULD BRING A SECOND AGREEMENT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR

CONSTRUCTION. >> SO I -- I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE PRESENTATIONS. I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF GOOD -- I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH A LOT OF THESE, NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT A LOT OF THESE FIRMS, AND I'M SURE THEY'RE ALL VERY CAPABLE. BUT JUST LIKE WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK FLEISCHMAN AND GARCIA THE QUESTIONS ON THE BOARD FLOOR FOR THE PUBLIC, I WOULD PERSONALLY LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT FOR THE CMAR, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BECOME SO CRITICAL IN -- IN NOT -- BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER RENNINGER, ON NOT TAKING THAT OFF-RAMP, UNLESS IT JUST -- UNLESS CATASTROPHICALLY WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE TO DO THAT, YOU KNOW. AND WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE EVERYTHING.

AND AGAIN, THE GREAT -- I THINK GREAT, HEALTHY DISCUSSION THAT W'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC, THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF THE SUNSHINE, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN OUR LEGISLATURE. THEY GO AND NEGOTIATE THESE DEALS OFFLINE IN PRIVATE, AND SO WE DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF KNOWING WHAT THOSE ARE ABOUT. AND THAT'S NOT A CRITICISM OF OUR LEGISLATORS, I THINK OUR LOCAL ONES ARE VERY HONEST, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM ARE, IN MY OPINION. THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE PRESENTATIONS. I'LL SEE IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE OTHERWISE OR MOVE FOR THAT. SURE, I'M SORRY.

>> I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SEE PRESENTATIONS. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE TOP THREE WITHIN A POINT OF EACH OTHER, I MEAN, THAT'S LIKE NOTHING. SO I'D LIKE TO SEE A PRESENTATION FROM THE TOP THREE.

>> ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT WE HAD A SITUATION ON -- I'VE LOST TRACK IF WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON IT OR NOT TONIGHT, BUT WHERE SOMEBODY BROUGHT IN LOCAL PREFERENCE LATER AND IS ABLE TO BUMP A BID. AND THIS IS SO CRITICAL. IS THAT A MOTION?

>> YEAH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION WE INTERVIEW THE TOP THREE.

[03:55:01]

>> I'LL SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATE BY

SAYING AYE. >> AYE.

>> THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0.

>> GET THAT SCHEDULED FOR YOU. >> NEXT MEETING.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT

[19. Budget Follow Up (T. Nagle)]

DISCUSSION, EVERYONE. NOT TIMELY ENOUGH, I GUESS, COMMISSIONER SGROMOLO, IS ITEM NUMBER 19, FOLLOW-UP. YOUR POINTS ARE

VALID. >> GOOD AFTERNOON -- OR GOOD EVENING AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS. I THINK WE'RE AT THE BUDGET FOLLOW-UP. SO THE FIRST ITEM OF THAT IS REALLY -- AND TERESA'S HAVING A LITTLE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY, SO I'LL TRY TO WING IT THE BEST I CAN. LAST MEETING YOU TOLD US TO CUT THE 24/25 PROJECTS WE SELECTED. IN LOOKING AT THOSE, SOME OF THOSE HAD MADE IT TO A POINT OF HAVING A PO OR HAVING A CONTRACT. AND IN CONSULTATION WITH PURCHASING AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ACTION OF THE BOARD IS -- IF WE CAN PULL THOSE BACK, WE CAN -- THAT'S THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD IS TO PULL THOSE CONTRACTS BACK AND PULL THOSE POS BACK ON THE ONES THAT DON'T HAVE A COST TO DO THAT TO US. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE ONES THAT WE ALREADY CONSIDERED AND HAVE ALREADY WORKED WITH THE FIRM WITH WAS FLOORING AT ONE OF THE PROJECTS.

THE FLOORING HAD MADE IT THROUGH THE PROCESS. WE HAD A PO. THEY HNLT ORDERED FLOORING YET, SO WE WENT AHEAD -- ACTUALLY, IT'S THE OTHER ONE, TERESA, I APOLOGIZE.

>> THE OTHER ONE? >> YEAH.

>> WE WENT AHEAD AND PULLED THE FLOORING BACK BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RESTOCKING COST, NO COST TO CANCEL THAT PO. JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT IS THE BOARD'S DIRECTION?

>> BUT THERE'S A CONTRACT AND SO WE HAVE TO DO A NOTICE TO TERMINATE FOR CONVENIENCE, SO BEFORE WE ASK HOW WE'RE DISHING THAT OUT, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS YOUR DIRECTION. ALL OF THESE WE WANT, CANCEL POS, BIDS, AGREEMENTS.

>> SLIDE 24/25, KEEP GOING. NO, BACK, BACK, BACK, BACK. BACK ONE MORE. NO, GO ONE FORWARD, SORRY. THAT'S THE LIST WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. NOW, NOT ALL OF THOSE WERE UNDER CONTRACT. YOU KNOW, I THINK THE ONE THAT I'M AWARE OF IS THE FLOORING FOR ORANGE PARK.

THAT ONE DID MAKE IT THROUGH TO A CONTRACT, AND WE'D ALREADY KIND OF WORKED ON WITH THE VENDOR ON STOPPING THAT PROCESS AND RESTOCKING, IF THAT'S THE BOARD'S DIRECTION. SO I THINK TONIGHT THE MAIN THING WAS TO CONFIRM THAT IS THE BOARD'S

DIRECTION. >> IS THERE ANYONE THAT IS -- THAT WANTS TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THAT'S NOT THE DIRECTION?

>> LET ME ASK, JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE'S NO COST TO CANCELING

ANY OF THESE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> WELL, I GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE DIRECTION WE WANT FROM THE BOARD. IF THERE WAS A COST INVOLVED IN CANCELING ONE, WE'D BRING THAT BACK. FOR THE FLOORING, THE GENTLEMEN TOLD US THERE'S NO RESTOCKING COST, NO ISSUE, WE HAVEN'T ORDERED ANYTHING. NO HARM, NO FOUL ON THAT PARTICULAR ONE. STAFF IS GOING THROUGH AND ANALYZING EACH ONE OF THESE TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NOTHING OPEN, BUT IF WE DO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S OPEN AND THERE'S NO COST, RATHER THAN US BRINGING EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE BACK, WE WERE LOOKING FOR CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD TO SAY, THAT'S THE DIRECTION. IF THERE'S A COST INVOLVED. IF IT'S A 20% RESTOCKING FEE, THEN WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE LOST MONEY.

>> COMMISSIONER BURKE? >> I THOUGHT IT WAS 1.7. WHY IS IT A LOT MORE THAN THAT THAT WE'RE CUT SOMETHING.

>> THIS IS HOW MUCH WE WERE CUTTING. THE 1.7 IS WHAT WAS LEFT. THIS IS FROM THE SLIDE FROM LAST --

>> THIS IS NOT THE ADDITIONAL CUTS?

>> THIS IS NOT THE ADDITIONAL CUTS, NO.

>> GOT YA. >> THIS IS WHAT YOU VOTED ON LAST MEETING. BETWEEN THE TWO MEETINGS WE STARTED DOING THE BUDGET DEDUCTIONS AND TRANSFERRING. WE FOUND OUT IN ALL THE CONVERSATIONS -- BECAUSE STAFF'S STILL WORKING ON STUFF, SO THINGS MOVED, AND WE MISSED ONE. I MEAN, I'LL JUST BE

HONEST. WE MISSED IT. >> OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE WHO IS NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IF THERE'S A COST ASSOCIATED WITH IT THEY'LL BRING IT BACK, BUT OTHERWISE CANCELING THESE? I'M

HEARING CONSENSUS. >> I'M FINE WITH IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON A?

>> DO WE NEED A VOTE OR? >> WELL, I MEAN, YOU'RE ASKING -- I MEAN, THEY'RE COMING OUT OF THE BUDGET. YOU'D WANT NO FURTHER ACTION. I MEAN, I JUST, I WANT TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING THE COUNTY MANAGER TO SIGN A LETTER TERMINATING A

[04:00:05]

CONTRACT. AND SO JUST WANT THE BOARD -- MAKE SURE YOU ALL SAID YES. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. BUT JUST TO THE EXTENT THAT WE ARE

NOW TAKING STEPS TO HALT. >> I GUESS IT WOULD BE VALUABLE TO KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE ARE UNDER CONTRACT.

>> WELL RIGHT NOW, THE ORANGE PARK FLOORING. THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE TALKED. WE HAVE THE LETTER DRAFTED, READY TO GO OUT.

>> THEY SAID THERE'S NO -- OKAY, KAREN'S SAYING THAT'S

THE ONLY ONE. >> YEAH, SO, I GUESS WE'RE MAKING SURE YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT ONE, AND YOU KNOW, IF

THERE'S OTHERS -- >> AND WE'RE HALTING, I MEAN, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE HALTING MOVING FORWARD ON ANY OF THE

OTHERS. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> SO TO THE EXTENT WE WERE MOVING FORWARD WITH A WORK ORDER UNDER A CONTRACT WE CURRENTLY HAVE FOR SOMETHING WE'RE STOPPING. AND WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD THAT I THINK WAS THE --

>> SO DO WE -- ARE YOU SAYING YOU WANT US TO VOTE?

>> NO, I JUST WANT IT CLEAR ON THE RECORD -- I JUST DON'T WANT IT TO COME BACK AGAINST US, YOU KNOW, THAT HOW ARE WE, AT YOUR DIRECTION, WE HAD HOWARD SIGN THE LETTER TERMINATING THE CONTRACT. BUT I MEAN, I THINK WE HAVE IT, CONSENSUS. EVERYBODY

KNOWS THAT. >> MADAME CHAIR, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW -- I THINK YOU JUST TOLD US, IT WAS JUST THE ORANGE PARK FLOORING, THAT'S MY BIG THING, WHICH ONES ARE, AND IF THEY ARE, LET US KNOW. AND THEN LET US KNOW THE COST OF CANCELING IT.

>> SURE. >> WELL, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TOO -- AND I MEAN, THIS IS IN YOUR BUDGET -- I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW WE'RE NOT TAKING ANYMORE STEPS ON ANY OF THESE PROJECTS. SO WE'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH TRYING TO DO THE BOARDWALK REPAIRS. WE'RE NOT TAKING STEPS

TO DO THE LIGHTS. >> EVER? OR JUST --

>> WELL, NO, FROM 24/25. >> I THINK THAT WAS PRETTY

CLEAR. >> OKAY.

>> SO THAT WAS THE FIRST ITEM. >> ALL RIGHT, ITEM B. DISCUSSION

OF BALANCING THE BUDGET. >> YEAH. SO, AS WE TOLD YOU WE WOULD COME BACK WITH A BALANCED BUDGET, WE DO HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET. WE DID THAT BY, OF COURSE A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE WAS LOOKING AT THE SAVINGS IN ANY PROJECT THAT WE HAD. SO IF THERE WAS $10,000 LEFT ON A PROJECT THAT WE HAD COMPLETED, WE PULLED THAT MONEY BACK, SAID, OKAY, MAKE SURE THE THING'S DONE. WE DIDN'T LOOK AT MOVING STUFF INTO CAPITAL. SO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A NEW CAPITAL BUDGET THAT HAS ITEMS MOVED INTO CAPITAL AS NEEDED. THE OTHER THING THAT WE DID WHICH WAS DIFFERENT THAN YEARS PAST IS WE ARE LOOKING AT CHARGING BACK TO THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS IN DIRECT COSTS. THAT IS DONE BY MOST COUNTIES. THIS COUNTY HAS CHOSEN NOT TO DO THAT OVER THE YEARS. I WAS TALKING TO DAVID ABOUT IT EARLIER. WE'RE GOING TO START CHARGING BACK INDIRECT COSTS. SO THERE IS A COST TO THE GENERAL FUND TO SUPPORT SOLID WASTE. THERE IS A CHARGE FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO SUPPORT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. WE ARE GOING TO START CHARGING THEM -- THERE'S A STUDY THAT'S DONE, WE ARE GOING TO START CHARGING THOSE ENTERPRISES, NOT THE FULL AMOUNT, THEY CAN'T SUPPORT IT THIS YEAR, BUT WE WILL START MOVING DOWN THAT PATH. AND WE DID USE THAT THIS YEAR TO HELP BALANCE THE BUDGET. SO I'M JUST, IN ALL TRANSPARENCY. WHAT YOU'LL VOTE ON TONIGHT IS A BALANCED BUDGET. WE ARE STILL WORKING. WE'RE STILL WORKING WITH THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ON MAKING SURE WE'VE GOT ALL THE INSURANCE STUFF EXACTLY LINED UP, MAKING SURE WE'VE GOT ALL OUR PEOPLE WITH THE DECISIONS THAT THE BOARD WAS MADE LASTING. MAKING SURE WE GOT ALL THE PEOPLE LINED UP EXACTLY RIGHT. THIS IS A BALANCED BUDGET, BUT WHAT WE DO TONIGHT VERSUS SEPTEMBER WILL LOOK DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE REVENUE STREAM CHANGES FROM DOR.

HOPEFULLY TO OUR ADVANTAGE BUT POSSIBLY, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT DOR'S GOING TO TELL US. SO WE DO HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET AS IT SITS RIGHT NOW FOR YOU TO ADOPT, WHAT'S REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE, BUT IT WILL CHANGE, AND I JUST WANT TO BE

TRANSPARENT ABOUT THAT. >> I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE WE DO THE CHARGE, AND I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING THAT. AND I WOULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE GOVERNOR'S DOGE PROGRAM SO THAT COUNTIES ARE LOOKING AT WHAT OTHER COUNTIES ARE DOING AND ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS. AND I DON'T GO ANY FURTHER THAN MARION, THE LIBRARY. WE'VE DONE A LOT OF TALKS ABOUT PROJECTS AND CUTTING PROJECTS. WE HAVEN'T DONE A WHOLE LOT OF TALKING ABOUT WHAT MARY DID. AND I'M NOT ASKING FOR THAT TO BE DONE BY ALL STAFF BEFORE SEPTEMBER, BUT MOVING INTO -- TO ME, THAT'S THE STRATEGIC PLAN THAT THE CITIZENS ARE LOOKING FOR, HOW DO WE MAXIMIZE THE SERVICES WE PROVIDE TO THE CITIZENS AT THE MOST EFFICIENT COST. AND SOMETIMES WE DO THE OPPOSITE. YOU KNOW, WE INSOURCE WHEN WE USED TO -- A GOOD EXAMPLE IS -- AND I ASKED YOU ABOUT THIS ON THE PHONE, I ASKED THE COUNTY MANAGER ABOUT IT ON MY CALL LAST WEEK -- AND THAT IS MOWING SERVICES. YOU

[04:05:02]

KNOW, WHEN I GOT ELECTED, I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONER BURKE AND RENNINGER WILL REMEMBER THIS, WE USED TO HAVE MOWING -- SOME OF THE MOWING SERVICES INSOURCED. AND THEN REMEMBER, THEY HAD TROUBLE HIRING -- THEY COULDN'T HIRE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO DO THE WORK. AND SO WE OUTSOURCED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE PEOPLE TO INSOURCE. AND -- OR WE COULDN'T FIND ENOUGH EMPLOYEES. AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT INSOURCING AGAIN. AND I GUESS I WOULD ASK THE QUESTION, WHY WOULD YOU GO BACK WHEN THE LABOR MARKET HAS TIGHTENED EVEN MORE NOW IN FINDING EMPLOYEES? I'M NOT ASKING FOR THAT TO BE RESOLVED TONIGHT. I ASKED FOR THAT PROJECT TO BE LOOKED AT, AND THEY DID LOOK AT IT. COUNTY MANAGER AGREED TO LOOK AT IT, SO THEY TOOK A LOOK THAT'S ONLY ONE EXAMPLE. BUT I BRING IT UP TO SAY I THINK THAT'S THE SOLUTION, ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS, THAT I SEE GOING FORWARD FOR NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET IS -- AND YOU KNOW, AND I THINK OUR PARTNERS, ALL OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICES, WE DON'T HAVE A MEETING THAT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE DOESN'T HAVE STAFF HERE, THEY LISTEN TO THE CONVERSATIONS, THEY COME BACK. AND I WOULD SAY WE'RE BLESSED IN OUR COUNTY THAT WE HAVE TEAM PLAYERS AT ALL LEVELS SO THAT WE CAN BALANCE THIS VERY, YOU KNOW, WALK THE TIGHT ROPE, I THINK WERE YOUR WORDS. SO THAT'S WHERE I LOOK AT GOING FORWARD.

AND I UNDERSTAND WE'VE CUT A LOT OF PROJECTS, AND PROJECTS WON'T GET IT DONE NEXT YEAR BECAUSE WE CAN'T CUT ENOUGH PROJECTS. BUT LOOKING AT EFFICIENCIES, NOT ADVOCATING THAT PEOPLE LOSE THEIR JOBS, MARY SAID SHE HAD SOMEBODY LEAVE. SHE'S GOING TO USE THAT HEAD COUNT DIFFERENTLY. I THINK THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL WERE SAYING TO US AT THE LAST MEETING, COUNTY MANAGER WAS, ABOUT THE 15 HEAD COUNTS, HOW HE'S GOING TO RESOLVE THAT. THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THOSE 15 PEOPLE, IT'S HOW DO WE USE THEM. AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK THAT THE DOGE EFFORTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE. SO THAT'S WHERE I SEE. NOW, WE'RE NOT ADOPTING A BUDGET TONIGHT, BUT WE ARE -- HAVE TO LOOK AT A BALANCED BUDGET TO ACCEPT MASS

MILLAGE. >> RIGHT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SETTING TONIGHT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW WE BALANCED THE BUDGET AND WHERE WE'RE AT. WE ARE BALANCED AT 16.7 AND RESERVES. THAT WAS THE GOAL. AND THE THIRD ITEM, C, IS THE RESOLUTION. IT'S ON THE ATTACHMENT TO BASICALLY WORK WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER ON SETTING OUR 0.2 FOR CONSERVATION AS A SEPARATE LINE ITEM. I'LL LET COURTNEY TALK

MORE TO IT. >> YEAH, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW ON THE TRIM NOTICE AS WELL AS ON THE ACTUAL TAX BILL THAT IT CAN SHOW THE CONSERVATION LAND PROGRAM AS A SEPARATE ITEM. HE IS NOT SURE IF FOR THIS YEAR HE WILL BE ABLE TO ON THE TRIM NOTICE BECAUSE OF THE TIMING BE ABLE TO. IF HE ISN'T ABLE TO, HE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PUT AN ASTERISK ON THE TRIM NOTICE AND PUT AN ASTERISK AND PUT A DESCRIPTION THAT'S A 0.2 FOR THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM. BUT HE JUST WANTED THE RESOLUTION DONE TO GIVE HIM DIRECTION. AND THEN HE SAID HE WOULD GET WITH THE TAX COLLECTOR AND THEY WOULD WORK THROUGH IT, BUT.

>> QUESTIONS? >> YEAH.

>> WE'RE LIMITED WITH CHARACTERS. HE THOUGHT WE WERE LIMITED TO 24, SO WE CAME UP WITH 22. SO IT'S CONSERVATION, LANDS, PGM. WE WERE LOOKING, NASSAU COUNTY DID IT, ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS, SO WE WERE JUST TRYING TO --

>> OUR CONSTITUENCY OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED FOR CONSERVATION, SO I THINK IT SHOULD STAY CONSERVATION.

>> WHEN REG TALKS ABOUT THE MAX MILLAGE, THIS IS PART OF IT.

0.01 WILL BE GOING TO 0.808, IF THAT'S THE BOARD'S DESIRE, TO SUPPORT CONSERVATION. WHICH THE VOTERS, AS YOU PUT IT, SUPPORTED 73%. SO THAT'S -- SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE'RE HAVING THE CONVERSATION IS WE WANT THAT TO BE A SEPARATE LINE ITEM ON THE TAX BILL SO IT'S CLEARLY ILLUSTRATED THAT THIS IS NOT JUST GENERAL FUND MONEY, IT'S GENERAL FUND MONEY FOR A PURPOSE. SO -- AND TO HIS POINT, HE ASKED FOR A RESOLUTION TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S -- IS ARE DOTTED, TS ARE CROSSED.

>> TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC, IF WE DO NOT DO IT, WE ARE NOT GIVING THE PUBLIC WHAT THEY VOTED FOR. IF WE DO NOT RAISE IT, WE ARE NOT GIVING THEM THE LAND CONSERVATION, WHAT THEY

VOTED FOR. >> THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE BOARD. THAT WOULD BE A DECISION OF THE BOARD. BUT THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF, AS REG WILL TELL YOU, WOULD BE TO DO

[04:10:01]

THE 8.8.01. >> 73% VOTED FOR IT.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> SO IT SHOULD BE COMING.

>> YEAH. IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'LL TURN IT

OVER. >> I NEED A MOTION ON THE

RESOLUTION. >> SO ARE THERE MORE QUESTIONS FOR TROY? COMMISSIONER COMPERE, YOU LOOKED LIKE THERE WERE.

>> JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, TROY, CAN YOU SET OUT FOR US WHAT ALL OF THE OPTIONS LOOK LIKE FOR US IN

TERMS OF MOVING. >> I THINK REG IS GOING TO DO

THAT IN THE NEXT ITEM. >> OKAY, WELL, IF I'M HEARING YOU, NEXT STEPS IS SETTING THE MAX MILLAGE, RIGHT? OKAY, SO YOU SAID IF WE DO NOT INCREASE MILLAGE, THEN WE'RE PAYING OUT OF GENERAL FUND FOR THIS -- THE INITIATIVE FROM LAST YEAR.

>> SO YOU'RE BASICALLY WHAT YOU END UP BOILING DOWN TO IS IF YOU SAY -- I THINK TWO ITEMS, ONE IS THE RESOLUTION. WHETHER YOU DO -- SO I THINK IF WE CAN RESOLVE THE RESOLUTION PIECE, BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO MAKE THE RESOLUTION TO SAY IF WE EVER LEVY THAT RESOLUTION, LEVY THE CONSERVATION, WHETHER IT'S 0.2, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, YOU WANT IT TO BE SEPARATE. IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO INCREASE THE MILLAGE RATE AND YOU STILL WANT TO DO THE CONSERVATION, THEN THAT'S ABOUT A $4 MILLION DELTA. YOU WOULD HAVE TO SAY EITHER I'M COMING OUT OF RESERVES, I'M GOING TO NOT DO THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM NEXT YEAR, OR YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND $4 MILLION IN YOUR BUDGET TO CUT ADDITIONALLY. THOSE ARE YOUR ONLY THREE OPTIONS TO STILL KEEP YOUR MILLAGE WHERE IT'S AT. IF THAT

WAS THE DESIRE OF THE BOARD. >> THAT WASN'T THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ON THE BALLOT. THE LANGUAGE SAID THE 0.2.

>> IT DID. I THINK TO THE COMMISSIONER COMPERE'S POINT, YOU WOULD BASICALLY ABSORB THE 0.2 INTO THE 0.86. I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT THAT COULD BE YOUR --

I MEAN -- >> WELL, I JUST WANTED -- WHAT I WANTED TO BE CLEAR -- AND I THINK THAT THIS IS -- I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A TONIGHT CONVERSATION OR A TOMORROW CONVERSATION, BUT I AM SO MUCH AWARE OF THE OPTICS HERE AND THAT WE'RE THE ONES WHO ARE HAVING TO SET THE MAX MILLAGE.

AND WE ARE NOT, LIKE, WE ARE THE BODY THAT HAS TO CARRY OUT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS. AND SO THERE'S NO WAY ABOUT IT, THE COUNTY COMMISSION IS GOING TO HAVE TO ROLL IT OUT, AND I CAN ALREADY ANTICIPATE THE ARGUMENTS THAT WILL BE CRAFTED THAT WE HAVE INCREASED THE MILLAGE RATE, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS MOVING AT THE DIRECTION OF THE 2024 ELECTION OUTCOME. SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO -- AGAIN, WE'RE BACK TO NEGOTIATING A TIGHT ROPE.

WHAT ARE THOSE OPTIONS? WHAT YOU'VE PAINTED A PICTURE HERE, EITHER WE ABSORB THE COST, WHICH IS NOT WHAT THE VOTERS ASKED FOR, OR WE -- OR WE KEEP -- OR WE INCREASE THE MAX MILLAGE. WAS THERE A THIRD OPTION? OKAY, SO IT'S JUST THOSE TWO.

>> IT'S EITHER 8.8, YOU DO THE 0.2 ABOVE WHAT YOUR CURRENT MILLAGE IS, OR IT'S YOU ADOPT A LOWER MILLAGE AND YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO FUND THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM OR NOT DO

THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM. >> OH, SO THAT IS THE THIRD. THE THIRD IS SAYING NO TO WHAT -- I MEAN, TWO OF THOSE -- TWO OF THE THREE ARE SAYING NO. TWO OF THE THREE IF YOU DO NOT INCREASE THE MILLAGE, THEN YOU'RE SAYING NO BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE WAS SO SPECIFIC ON THE REFERENDUM. AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS -- TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, THERE IS THE OPTION OF NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND JUST SAYING, NEXT YEAR WE'RE NOT DOING THIS. AND SO AGAIN, THIS IS VERY -- THIS IS A VERY DELICATE SITUATION, BUT I THINK THAT WE'VE TALKED IT OUT ENOUGH. I JUST REALLY -- I DON'T WANT -- MAYBE THIS IS THROUGH THE CHAIR, AN ASK, OR MAYBE IT'S NOT, I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE WE CAN DISCUSS IT. BUT I CAN ALREADY SEE HOW THIS COULD BLOW UP AND BECOME -- ESPECIALLY ON THE BACK OF A CONVERSATION JUST LAST MEETING -- AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO POSITION THIS IN A WAY THAT THE PUBLIC ISN'T GOING TO BLAME US FOR A DECISION THEY MADE LAST

YEAR. >> THERE'S NO WAY TO NOT -- THEY'RE GOING TO BLAME US. I MEAN, THERE IS NO WAY. I MEAN, I HAVE -- THIS WHOLE THYME I'VE BEEN IN OFFICE, I'M LIKE HOW DO I EDUCATE THESE PEOPLE, HOW DO I HELP THEM KNOW THE TRUTH, BUT YOU CAN'T. IT'S LIKE WE HAVE TO JUST DO THE RIGHT THING AND, AS THE SHERIFF TOLD ME ONE TIME, THOSE 80%, THEY'RE PROBABLY

[04:15:03]

GOING TO LISTEN. WE JUST HAVE TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT, AND THAT'S

WHAT THEY VOTED FOR, SO. >> SO MADAME CHAIR AND THEN COMMISSIONER COMPERE, HOPEFULLY THIS HELPS IN THIS SCENARIO. I THINK PART OF OUR -- AT LEAST I VIEW IT AS PART OF OUR DUTY, IS CARRYING OUT THE WILL OF THE VOTERS. I SEE IT AS MY DUTY TO ENACT THIS, SO TO SPEAK. THERE WOULD BE PEOPLE IN MY DISTRICT FOR SURE THAT WOULD BE LIKE WHAT ARE YOU DOING IF YOU DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, I WANTED THAT AS REFLECTED IN THE VOTE. SO I HEAR YOUR CONCERN. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN THIS LEADERSHIP POSITION THAT ALL FIVE OF US ARE IN, THERE'S GOING TO BE PEOPLE WHO TRY TO POKE HOLES IN IT. BUT KNOW THAT YOU HAVE THE DATA TO BACK UP THAT THIS WAS THE WILL OF THE VOTERS OF CLAY COUNTY, AND IT'S OUR JOB NOW TO CARRY OUT WHAT THEY'VE ASKED US TO

DO. IF THAT HELPS. >> YEAH, I THINK IT GOES EVEN FURTHER THAN THAT. I THINK THAT THE STATE STATUTES WERE VERY CLEAR ON THE PROCESS THAT WE HAD TO GO THROUGH TO GET TO THIS POINT. I THINK THAT OUR VOTERS WERE EDUCATED, AND YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE NORTH FLORIDA LAND TRUST AND THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS USES CLAY COUNTY AS AN ANOMALY EXAMPLE, THAT YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY YOU DON'T HAVE THESE THINGS GO IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS AND THEY PASS OVERWHELMINGLY. OUR VOTERS SAID, NO, WE WANT THE BCC TO PUT MONEY ASIDE FOR CONSERVATION, AND WE'RE WILLING TO FUND IT. SO WE DID -- SO WE ASKED THE VOTERS, DO YOU WANT TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL $2.2 MILLION ON YOUR PROPERTY TAXES TO FUND CONSERVATION? AND THIS MONEY -- I, ESPECIALLY THE RESOLUTION, I WOULD MOVE WE APPROVE THAT BECAUSE I WANT IT TO SAY ON THE PROPERTY TAX BILL THAT THIS IS FOR CONSERVATION BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE USED FOR ANYTHING ELSE. SO WE CAN'T GO, YOU KNOW, NEXT YEAR AND MOVE THAT 0.2, THE $4 MILLION, WE CAN'T USE THAT FILL A BUDGET GAP , WHICH IS WHAT THE ARGUMENT WOULD BE.

>> YEAH NO, I APPRECIATE THIS DISCUSSION, BECAUSE I DID NOT REMEMBER THE LANGUAGE OF THE REFERENDUM SETTING OUT THAT THIS WOULD BE A LINE ITEM ON THEIR TRIM NOTICE. AND SO THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY AS TO WHAT WAS VOTED FOR. I OFTEN SEE A DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE ASK AND EXECUTION AND UNDERSTANDING HOW EXECUTION IS GOING TO BE ROLLED OUT. AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M SPEAKING TO, NOT NECESSARILY -- I'M NOT SAYING THAT OUR VOTERS DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR, I'M SAYING I DID NOT REMEMBER THAT THE LANGUAGE IS VERY SPECIFIC THAT THIS COULD HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED. AND SO AS YOU SAYING THAT THE TRIM NOTICES ARE GOING TO REFLECT, OR RATHER THE REFERENDUM REFLECTED THAT THIS WOULD BE A PART OF THEIR TAX ROLL ASSESSMENT, THEN

THERE'S NO GRAY. >> I THINK TO THE POINT IS THE REFERENDUM PROBABLY DOESN'T LINE OUT THE FACT THAT IT'S A SEPARATE LINE ON THEIR TAX BILL. EVEN THOUGH WE APPROVED A SEPARATE 0.2. THAT'S WHAT THIS RESOLUTION IS DOING, IT'S CONFIRMING THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A SEPARATE TAX LINE, AND THAT'S WHAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER ASKED FOR IS A RESOLUTION TO CONFIRM THAT'S A SEPARATE LINE.

>> RIGHT, BECAUSE IN LOOKING AT THE OTHER COUNTIES, THEY, ON THE TAX BILL, EVEN THOUGH IT'S, LIKE, I FORGET WHAT OURS IS CALLED. OURS IS CALLED COUNTY SERVICES. AND I THINK NASSAU COUNTY IS CALLED GENERAL FUND. AND SO -- AND THEY ACTUALLY HAVE MORE CHARACTERS. THEIRS SAYS GENERAL FUND AND THEN GENERAL FUND ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS OR SOMETHING. SO INSTEAD OF IT ALL BEING UNDER GENERAL FUND OR ALL BEING UNDER COUNTY SERVICES, THE THOUGHT WAS TO BREAK IT OUT LIKE THE OTHER COUNTIES DO TO SHOW THAT YOU HAVE COUNTY SERVICES AND THEN YOU HAVE THE OTHER PART OF COUNTY SERVICES THAT'S THE CONSERVATION.

>> I THINK, COMMISSIONER COMPERE, IF YOU DON'T -- IF WE DON'T APPROVE THE RESOLUTION, IT COULD BE USED FOR OTHER THINGS, EVEN THOUGH THAT WASN'T THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. AND I THINK IT'S RESPONSIBLE TO BREAK IT OUT ON THE PROPERTY TAX BILL AND SAY FOR CONSERVATION. THE 0.2.

>> YEAH, I'M NOT ARGUING THAT POINT. I AGREE. THAT IS NOT A QUESTION FOR ME. DID THE REFERENDUM REFLECT THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE ON THEIR TRIM NOTICES?

>> PART OF YOUR GENERAL FUND. IT'S AT A 0.2 INCREASE . WE'RE

[04:20:02]

TRYING TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO ROLL INTO THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET, TO COMMISSIONER CONDON'S POINT, NO EXTRA DOLLARS ARE GOING TO CONSERVATION. THERE'LL BE NO AMBIGUITY THAT THE 0.2 GENERATES $4 MILLION AND HOWEVER MANY DOLLARS. IT'S GOING TO GENERATE $4 MILLION. SO SOMEBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK AT OUR BUDGET AND GO, WHERE DID THAT $4 MILLION GO, IT WENT FOR CONSERVATION. THERE SHOULD BE NO DISCREPANCIES IF SOMEBODY ASKS THE CLERK TO DO AN AUDIT. THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO FLOW IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS, IN MY MIND, THAT'S WHAT THIS RESOLUTION IS GOING TO DO. IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT CLEAR EVERYWHERE THAT THESE DOLLARS ARE FOR THIS PURPOSE, SO.

>> DO WE HAVE TO VOTE OR VOTE WHAT?

>> YEAH, WE DO HAVE TO VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION. SO I MOVED THAT WE APPROVE THE RESOLUTION, SO I NEED A SECOND. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS IT CLEANER, CHRISTY, IF WE HAVE1 SEPARATE? SO COMMISSIONER BURKE, IF YOU'LL MOVE AND COMMISSIONER SGROMOLO SECONDS, IS THAT CLEANER? I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR YOU. MOVE APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION.

>> SECONDS. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR -- THIS IS ONLY ON ITEM C, THE RESOLUTION FOR THE PROPERTY TAX -- PROPERTY APPRAISER, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR

[20. Approval of the FY 25/26 Maximum Millage Rates and setting the date, time and location for the First Public Hearing for the adoption of the FY 2025/2026 Clay County Tentative Budget]

INDICATE BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE.

>> THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. NOW WE ARE TO ITEM 20.

>> MADAME CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS, IT WILL NOT BE REG, IT WILL BE ME WHO TALKS ABOUT OUR TRIM AND SETTING MAX MILLAGE FOR THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR. LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND TO BEGIN WITH. INO THE -- EACH OF YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE SCRIPT IN FRONT OF YOU. AND I THINK IT ALSO IS NICE TO SEE IN THE TABLE FORMAT OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE JUST HAD. AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNTY'S ANNUAL BUDGET, THE STATE OF FLORIDA MANDATES THE COUNTY FOLLOW THE PROCESS GOVERNED BY STATUTES. THIS PROCESS REQUIRES THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO ADVISE THE PROPERTY APPRAISER OF ITS APPROVED MAXIMUM MILLAGE RATES, THE BCC SHALL PROVIDE THE DATE, TIME, AND PLACE AT WHICH THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD VIA CERTIFICATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE'S DR 420 FORMS WITHIN 35 DAYS OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION OF THE COUNTY'S TAXABLE COUNTY VALUES. COUNTY STAFF HAS PREPARED THE PROPOSED MILLAGE RATE CALCULATIONS BASED ON THE TAXABLE VALUE, ENSURING THAT ALL REQUESTS OF THE COUNTY CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECEIVED FAIR EVALUATION AND APPROPRIATION. THE PROPERTY APPRAISER PRESENTS THIS TO COUNTY PROPERTY OWNERS VIA THE RECEIPT OF THEIR TRIM NOTICE. AN INCREASE OF 0.2 MILLION IN THE OVERALL PROPOSED MILLAGE RATE FOR THE FORESTS AND FARMS CONSERVATION LANDS PROGRAM REFERENDUM APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN THE ELECTION. THREE OPTIONS ARE PRESENTED FOR SELECTION AND APPROVAL OF MILLAGE RATES. THERE ARE THREE OPTIONS. EACH ONE IS DISPLAYED TO YOU IN ATTACHMENT A, B, AND C, AS I GO THROUGH THEM. OPTION ONE IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED MILLAGE OR ATTACHMENT A. MAXIMUM MILLAGE RATES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025/26 WILL BE BROKEN UP INTO FIVE COLUMNS AND MULTIPLE AREAS OF TAXING UNITS. EACH COLUMN IS A TAXING UNIT. THE MILLAGE TAX, THE TAX REVENUE, THE CHANGE FROM CURRENT RATE, AND WHAT IS NEW FOR THIS YEAR, THE VOTING REQUIREMENT. AND THE FINAL COUNT. AND THE TAXING UNIT FOR THIS ONE, AN OPTIONAL ONE, ATTACHMENT A, WOULD BE A MILLAGE OF 5.9089 WITH A REVENUE OF --. VOTING REQUIREMENT TWO-THIRDS.