[Town Hall Meeting ]
[00:00:51]
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US HERE TONIGHT. IT'S JUST ABOUT 5:30, SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH OUR SALES TAX EDUCATIONAL TOWN HALL. TIME DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY. I'D LIKE TO GO OVER A FEW HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS TOWN HALL IS TO PROVIDE YOU, THE COMMUNITY WITH INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROPOSED 1% SALES TAX REFERENDUM. JESSE DUNN, THE DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WILL REVIEW THE MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THIS TOPIC, AND THEN WE WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC.
NOTE, JESSE IS NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. NONE OF THE STAFF MEMBERS HERE TODAY, MANY OF THEMMING TO MY LEFT, ARE NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS. WE ARE HERE AT THE BOARD'S DIRECTION TO PROVIDE THE COMMUNITY WITH FACTS, NOT TO PROVIDE THE COMMUNITY WITH OUR OPINION, NOR TO ADVOCATE FOR OR AGAINST THE SALES TAX REFERENDUM. THE INFORMATION YOU WILL SEE HERE TODAY IS FACTUAL AND VETTED. ONCE THE QUESTION AND ANSWER PORTION BEGINS, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO LINE UP BEHIND THE MICROPHONE THAT WE'VE SET UP HERE TO MY RIGHT, AND WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO ASK YOUR QUESTIONS. OF COURSE, COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ARE WELCOME AS WELL, BUT THE STAFF MEMBERS THAT ARE HERE TODAY ARE HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. SO, WE ENCOURAGE THOSE. OUR ONLY GOAL HERE TODAY IS TO PROVIDE YOU WITH ACCURATE INFORMATION. WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO REINTRODUCE JESSE DUNN, THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET TO BEGIN HIS PRESENTATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND
ATTENTION. >> THANK YOU. HI. THANK YOU FOR THAT ROUND OF APPLAUSE. JESSE DUNN, DIRECTOR FOR THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. A LITTLE BIT IRONY IN THIS IS THAT WHEN ONE GOES INTO BUDGETING AND ACCOUNTING, IT'S ALMOST A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO AVOID THESE TYPES OF SCENARIOS, RIGHT? A PERSON LIKE ME IS GENERALLY MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THREE SCREENS, SPREADSHEETS, AND, YOU KNOW, BALANCING A BUDGET IS A REAL TREAT FOR US. CERTAINLY, BEING UP IN FRONT OF A CROWD IS GENERALLY SOMETHING I AVOID TO DO. AVOID DOING. BUT HERE I AM TONIGHT, AND I THINK ON THAT, WHEN THE COMMISSION TALKED ABOUT HAVING AN EDUCATIONAL TOWN HALL REGARDING THE SALES TAX, IT BECAME PRETTY TO EVEN ME THAT I WAS THE RIGHT PERSON TO AT LEAST PROVIDE THAT EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT. I'VE BEEN WITH THE COUNTY FOR 20 YEARS, AND I'VE BEEN IN THE BUDGET OFFICE FOR 20 YEARS. SO, REALLY, A GOOD PORTION OF THE TIME FRAME THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS EVENING, WHERE THIS -- WHERE WE'RE SEEING THIS -- THIS FUNDING CONCERN AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEFICIT IS CERTAINLY NOT MY DOING, BUT CERTAINLY WHILE I'VE BEEN IN THE BUDGET OFFICE IN VARIOUS CAPACITIES. AGAIN, IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT, IF THERE WAS AN EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT, I WAS CERTAINLY GOING TO HAVE TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE ON THIS. SO, AS LORENA MENTIONED, I THOUGHT IT WAS AN EXCELLENT IDEA TO GO THROUGH, AND THEY REVIEWED SOCIAL MEDIA AND VARIOUS COMMENTS OUT THERE AND QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP THROUGH COMMISSION MEETINGS AS TO SOME OF THE BASIC QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP ON THE SALES TAX SINCE THE DISCUSSION HAS STARTED THIS PAST SPRING. SO, WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO GET RIGHT INTO THE PRESENTATION. I'M GOING TO WARN YOU NOW, THERE ARE DEFINITELY SOME BUDGETARY ITEMS IN THERE THAT, AGAIN, I'M 20 YEARS IN ON THIS, AND I APOLOGIZE NOW IF I BORE YOU WITH THIS, BUT WE WILL GET INTO SOME OF THE DETAIL.
BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF OUR BUDGET AND OUR BUDGET PROCESS. SO WITH THAT, WHY DON'T WE MOVE FORWARD. OKAY. I'M GOING TO REITERATE, SO, BETWEEN 5:30 AND 6:00, WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS PRESENTATION.
[00:05:04]
REALLY, WE'D LIKE TO KEEP IT -- WE'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTION-AND-ANSWER SESSION BETWEEN 6:00 AND 7:00 SO WE CAN GET TO THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUT THERE. SO, LET'S GET RIGHT INTO IT. ON MARCH 15TH, AND I'M GOING TO KIND OF BRING YOU UP TO SPEED, THERE WAS A SECOND READING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE LEVYING A 1% INFRASTRUCTURE SALES TAX FOR 10 YEARS THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO VOTER APPROVAL IN A REFERENDUM TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8TH, 2022. THAT PROPOSED INCREASE WOULD TAKE ST. JOHNS COUNTY SALES TAX FROM 6.5% TO 7.5% FOR 10 YEARS BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2023. THAT 1% SALES TAX MAY NOT BE USED FOR -- I'M SORRY, MAY BE USED ONLY FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE. IT IS NOT FOR OPERATING; IT IS NOT FOR MAINTENANCE. IT'S A VERY SPECIFIC ELIGIBILITY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. THE 1% SALES TAX WOULD ONLY BE COLLECTED ON THE FIRST 5,000 OF TAXABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT WHEN YOU THINK OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT OR VEHICLE PURCHASES; THAT IT IS ON ONLY THE FIRST 5,000. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX DOES NOT APPLY TO MOST GROCERIES, PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES, OR OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. THE 1% SALES TAX IS ESTIMATED TO GENERATE $500 MILLION OVER 10 YEARS PRIOR TO ITS SUNSET PROVISION AND I THINK THAT'S A IMPORTANT NOTE; THAT THERE IS A SUNSET PROVISION AFTER 10 YEARS AND THE 500 MILLION RECEIVED IMPLIES $500 MILLION SPENT ON COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE. THERE IS NO PAYING INTEREST RELATED. AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT INTEREST PAYMENTS LATER AND CERTAINLY THE USE OF DEBT AND THE AVOIDANCE IN THIS PARTICULAR SCENARIO. THE PROPOSED PROJECT LIST IS NOT A PERMANENT OR FINAL LIST. AND, AGAIN, WE CAN -- WE'RE REALLY NOT -- I'M NOT GOING TO GO OVER THE PROJECTS SPECIFICALLY. THE PROJECT LIST HAS BEEN OUT THERE.THAT WAS A LIST PUT TOGETHER BY STAFF, BY DIRECTORS IN THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, AS TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS THAT EITHER NEED OR NEEDED TO BE COMPLETED. SO, THAT'S CERTAINLY OUT THERE, AND IT'S ON THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE. AS WELL, MOVING FORWARD ON THIS, THE COMMISSION DIRECTED THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FINALIZE BYLAWS OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE SALES TAX COMMITTEE IN THE EVENT THAT THE REFERENDUM PASSES, AND WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT LATER. AND THEN, FINALLY, RESIDENTS CAN CERTAINLY VISIT THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE, THAT INCLUDES, AGAIN, THAT PROPOSED PROJECT LIST, OTHER FAQS AND WHAT WAS CALLED -- BEAGAIN, THI IS IN THE BUDGETARY AREA, AND THERE WAS A SALES TAX AUDIT THAT I THOUGHT WE DID WELL WITH.
GOING INTO THE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS, THERE ARE SEVEN THAT WE NARROWED THIS DOWN TO. WE WILL GO THROUGH THESE ONE BY ONE THIS EVENING. AGAIN, I'M GOING TO PRESENT THIS. CERTAINLY, WHEN THE QUESTIONS COME BACK, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT SAME QUESTION OR AN ITERATION OF THAT OR A QUESTION THAT MAYBE HASN'T BEEN RESPONDED TO THIS EVENING. SO, THE FIRST QUESTION THAT'S COME UP, CERTAINLY WE'VE SEEN THIS IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PLACES, IS, WHAT IS THE TRUE COST OF THE SALES TAX REFERENDUM TO THE CONSTITUENT? WE'VE HEARD VARIOUS PERCENTAGES ON THIS.
SO, CERTAINLY THE TRUE COST TO THE CONSTITUENT IS A 1% COST INCREASE ON CERTAINLY ANYTHING THAT IS A TAXABLE ITEM. SO, THE EXAMPLE THAT IS UP ON THE SCREEN THIS EVENING IS UNDER THE CURRENT SALES TAX RATE OF 6.5%. IF YOU HAVE A $100 ITEM, YOU'RE PAYING $106.50. IF THE SALES TAX IS PASSED, THE ADDITIONAL 1% RATE WOULD RESULT IN THAT SAME $100 PURCHASE RESULTING IN A COST OF $107.5. SO, THE INCREASE IN COST ON A $100 ITEM IS 1%, IN THIS CASE, IT'S ONE DOLLAR. THE TRUE COST TO THE CONSTITUENTS IS NOT A 15% COST INCREASE. AND I THINK THERE CERTAINLY SOME -- I'LL JUST SAY SOME LANGUAGE THAT'S OUT THERE THAT SAYS IT IS A 15% INCREASE. 15% REPRESENTS -- SO, 7.5 IS 15%
[00:10:01]
HIGHER THAN 6.5, SO THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN THE PERCENTAGE IS 15%. THE EFFECT TO THE END USER IS 1%. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. SO THE TRUE COST IS 1%. THEN, AS WELL, BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE COUNTY BEING MISLEADING IN THAT LANGUAGE, THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE -- I'M SORRY. THAT THE REFERENDUM UTILIZE THE LANGUAGE EITHER .5% OR 1%. THEY DON'T REFERENCE A 15% IN THERE. SO, WE ARE UTILIZING THE CORRECT LANGUAGE ON THAT. QUESTION 2: HOW MUCH SALES TAX WILL BE CONTRIBUTED BY TOURISTS AND VISITORS? THIS IS OMB, AND THIS IS MY OFFICE, ESTIMATES THAT TOURISTS AND VISITORS WOULD CONTRIBUTE AS HIGH AS 40%, OR ABOUT $200 MILLION IF THIS IS A $500 MILLION PROGRAM, TOWARDS THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE. AND I PROVIDE THE SOURCE DATA BELOW HERE THIS EVENING, AND I'VE WORKED WITH THIS WITH THE DIRECTOR OF TOURISM AND WE PROVIDED A RANGE, AND OUR RANGE OVER THE -- SINCE '18 HAS BEEN SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE RANGE OF 28, 29% AND ABOUT 40% OVERALL, BASED ON THE VARIOUS COST CATEGORIES THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PRESENTS.AND I THINK THE POINT TO MAKE HERE IS THAT THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM VISITORS WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE TO IMPROVING COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCES. SO, CURRENTLY, WE CERTAINLY SEE TOURISTS AND VISITORS USING A LOT OF -- OR A MULTITUDE OF COUNTY RESOURCES THAT ARE OUT THERE, COUNTY ROADS, COUNTY BOAT RAMPS, COUNTY PARKS, AND RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO TOURIST OR VISITOR CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS THAT, SO THERE IS CERTAINLY A FACTOR OF RECOUPING FROM THOSE VISITORS TO ST. JOHNS COUNTY. QUESTION 3: WHY DOESN'T DEVELOPMENT PAY FOR OUTSTANDING INFRASTRUCTURE? AND I'M GOING TO -- THAT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION, CERTAINLY. SO, A LOT OF THIS BEARS INTO THE DETAILS OF HOW CERTAINLY CONCURRENCY AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT WORKS. CHAPTER 136 OF FLORIDA STATUTES LIMITS NEW 2022 BEARS ITS FAIR SHARE FOR ANY INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING ROADS, PARKS, PUBLIC FACILITIES. THERE ARE TWO METHODS THAT THE COUNTY USES. CERTAINLY YOU'VE HEARD THESE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IMPACT FEES, AND IMPACT FEES ARE, IF YOU'RE NOT FALL -- FAMILIAR WITH THEM, A FEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO CAPTURE THE IMPACTS ON COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REITERATE, SINCE 2018, THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS REVIEWED EVERY FIVE YEARS, ST. JOHNS COUNTY CHARGES THE MAXIMUM RATES AS ALLOWED BY STATE LAW. SO, CERTAINLY, THE IMPACT FEE IS RECOUPING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT FROM DEVELOPMENT. THE OTHER COMPONENT IS CONCURRENCY OR PROP SHARE AGREEMENTS, AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT IS DISCUSSED AS PART OF VARIOUS COMMISSION AGENDAS, AND THESE ARE COMMISSION-APPROVED AGREEMENTS TO MITIGATE ROAD CAPACITY IMPACTS. AND PER STATUTE, AND THIS IS CERTAINLY VERY INTERESTING TO ME OVER THE YEARS IN LEARNING ABOUT THIS, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MAY NOT REQUIRE FINANCIAL COMMITMENT GREATER THAN THE DEVELOPMENT'S PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THEIR IMPACT. DEVELOPMENT CAN ONLY BE ASSESSED ITS SHARE OF IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY TO MITIGATE ITS IMPACTS. SO, IF THERE IS A -- AND I THINK THE -- YOU KNOW, A VERY BASICALLY EXAMPLE WOULD BE IF THERE'S A $40 MILLION ROADWAY THAT REQUIRES, AND I'M GOING FROM TWO LANES TO FOUR LANES, AND A DEVELOPMENT'S CALCULATED AMOUNT OF IMPACTS IS 20 MILLION ON THAT, THEN THERE'S NOTHING LEGALLY THAT ALLOWS US TO CHARGE THAT DEVELOPER FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF THAT ROADWAY CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT. SO, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESOLVING EXISTING TRAFFIC DEFICIENCIES AND ALSO NOTE, THE COUNTY DOES EXEMPT NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FROM CONCURRENCY REVIEW, AND THAT IS REALLY TO INCENTIVIZE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY.
[00:15:03]
CERTAINLY, THERE ARE SOME INHERENT MECHANISMS THAT ARE CHALLENGING TO THE STATE METHODICAL, SO IMPACT FEES AND THE PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE AGREEMENTS ARE, AGAIN, BY FLORIDA STATUTE. THERE IS CERTAINLY A TIME VALUE OF MONEY.INFRASTRUCTURE IS PREFERRED. WE'D LOVE TO GET THE MONEY ALL UP FRONT FOR A PROJECT, AND IN MANY CASES, THAT'S NOT THE SCENARIO. IMPACT FEES ARE COLLECTED IN PHASES; THEY ARE NOT COLLECTED UP FRONT. AS WELL, PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE AGREEMENTS MAY ALLOW FOR PHASED PAYMENTS TOWARDS INFRASTRUCTURE.
PRIOR PROPORTIONATE SHARE AGREEMENTS MAY NOT HAVE ANY INFLAMMATION ESCALATORS THAT ARE IN THERE. SO, IF A PROJECT WAS AGREED UPON SOME YEARS AGO WHERE THE IMPROVEMENT WAS $18 MILLION, AND THAT SAME IMPROVEMENT, YOU KNOW, SOME YEARS LATER IS CLOSER TO 21 OR $22 MILLION, THOSE PRIOR AGREEMENTS DO NOT HAVE AN INFLATIONARY ESCALATOR IN PLACE. AGAIN, IT WOULD BE CERTAINLY TO OUR BENEFIT TO GET THOSE REVENUES UP FRONT, BUT THE -- AGAIN, THE MECHANISMS THAT ARE IN PLACE DO NOT ALLOW FOR THAT.
AS WELL, WE ARE RAPIDLY CHANGING MARKET, AND I THINK WE'RE ALL KIND OF ATTUNED TO THAT, ESPECIALLY OVER THE LAST YEAR.
CERTAINLY, WITH INFLATION, IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE ALL GETTING USED TO, BUT THERE ARE CERTAINLY FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS AND CODES FOR CONSTRUCTION THAT MAY IMPACT THE TOTAL COST OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT, AND, AGAIN, I'LL USE THE IDEA OF 2018. A PROJECT MAY -- A ROAD CAPACITY PROJECT MAY BE 18 MILLION. IN 2022, NOT ONLY FOR INFLATIONARY REASONS, BUT THERE MAY BE OTHER STANDARDS AND CODES THAT CHANGED SPECIFICALLY FROM DOT THAT MAY REQUIRE THAT SAME ROADWAY TO NOW HAVE MAYBE A MULTI-USE PATH OR A DRAINAGE REQUIREMENT OR NOW ASPHALT THAT USED TO BE FOUR INCHES IS NOW FIVE INCHES, SO WE'RE CONTINUALLY KIND OF RESPONDING TO AND REQUIRED TO RESPOND TO THOSE CHANGES IN STANDARDS AND CODES. OUR ANNUAL IMPACT FEE INDICES HAVE NOT KEPT UP WITH CONSTRUCTION COSTS. EVERY YEAR OUR IMPACT FEES ARE INDEXED BY A CONSTRUCTION -- THEY'RE INDEXED BY A CONSTRUCTION INDEX. THE LAST INDEX WAS IN THE 8% RANGE.
WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN TERMS OF ACTUAL COSTS IS 15% PLUS IN THE ACTUAL. WE ARE TIED TO THESE INDICES AND WE'RE CERTAINLY SEEING THAT THE INCREASE ON THOSE IMPACT FEES, AGAIN, IS NOT NECESSARILY KEEPING PACE. ALSO TO NOTE IS WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED A POLICY FOR INDEXING PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE AGREEMENTS MOVING FORWARD. SO, AGAIN, THAT'S CERTAINLY A TOOL THAT IS A BENEFIT TO THE COUNTY TO ENSURE THAT AS THE PROP-SHARE AGREEMENTS ARE APPROVED, THERE IS, AS THE DEVELOPMENT MOVES FORWARD OVER MULTIPLE YEARS, THE ABILITY TO RESPOND TO CHANGES IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS. THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET A LITTLE INTO THE BUDGETING, SO KIND OF BEAR WITH ME ON THIS.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT'S OUT THERE IS THE COUNTY IS A 1.5 BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET, INCLUDING $300 MILLION IN RESERVES.
CERTAINLY, THERE'S A PORTION OF THAT THAT CAN ADDRESS THIS FINANCIAL DEFICIT. AND I THINK -- AND, AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT MY DEPARTMENT DOES NINE MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR. SO, I'M GOING TO -- HOPEFULLY I'M NOT GOING TO GO TOO QUICKLY THROUGH THIS, BUT I'M CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE NINE-MONTH PROCESS ON THIS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL BUDGET, THERE ARE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE IN THERE. EVERYTHING THAT IS IN THE $1.5 BILLION BUDGET IS NOT PROPERTY TAXES. SO, IT IS NOT REALLY AT THE WHIM OF THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE IN HERE TO ADJUST. THERE ARE CERTAIN COMPONENTS THAT ARE, BUT THERE ARE ALSO CERTAIN COMPONENTS THAT ARE NOT AT THE WHIM OF THE PROPERTY TAX PAYOR. THERE ARE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS BY FLORIDA STATUTE, BY LOCAL ORDINANCE AS TO USING CERTAIN DOLLARS THAT ARE OUT THERE, AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY FUNDS THAT ARE JUST NOT ELIGIBLE TO FUND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS THAT WE ARE -- THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN THAT PROJECT LIST. SO, I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH A LITTLE PIE CHART HERE, AND THIS IS AN OVERVIEW OF THIS YEAR. THIS IS THE FISCAL YEAR 2023, $1.5
[00:20:03]
BILLION BUDGET. THERE ARE FOUR COMPONENTS TO THAT PIE CHART.THERE ARE THREE THAT ARE MILLAGE RELATED AND/OR WHAT YOU PAY YOUR PROPERTY TAXES INTO, THE GENERAL FUND, THE TRANSPORTATION FUND, AND THE FIRE DISTRICT FUND. AND YOU CAN SEE THOSE COMPRISE ABOUT A THIRD OF THE OVERALL BUDGET. THE OTHER TWO-THIRDS OF THE BUDGET, OR ABOUT $958 MILLION, ARE RESTRICTED FUNDS AND, AGAIN, THEY ARE RESTRICTED BY STATUTE OR ORDINANCE OR OTHER REGULATIONS THAT ARE OUT THERE. AND THIS IS, AGAIN, WHAT WE KIND OF BALANCE IN OUR NINE-MONTH PROCESS. AND I'M GOING TO GO INTO WHAT THOSE RESTRICTED FUNDS -- CERTAINLY SOME OF THEM, WHAT THEY'RE COMPROMISED OF. HERE ARE THE RESTRICTED FUNDS.
HOPEFULLY YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A LITTLE CHART OFF TO THE SIDE HERE. THAT'S A FULL ACCOUNTING OF THAT $958 MILLION. THE FIRST ONE I'LL USE UP THERE IS AN EXAMPLE, IF YOU CAN SEE THAT, IS UTILITY OPERATION, SO THAT'S YOUR WATER BILL. SO, WE CAN CHARGE FOR YOUR WATER AND SEWER AND UTILIZE THOSE DOLLARS FOR A ROADWAY. WE CAN'T CHARGE YOUR WATER BILL AND BILL THE PARK OR A IRE STATION. SO, THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE STATE THAT YOUR WATER BILL -- THAT THE REVENUES THAT WE CHARGE NO MORE THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR YOUR WATER AND SURE FOR BOTH THE OPERATIONS AND THE CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED TO UTILITIES. THE SECOND GROUPING THERE, IMPACT FEES, THAT IS A RESTRICTED REVENUE THAT CAN BE USED FOR GROWTH INFRASTRUCTURE.
SO, I HIGHLIGHTED THAT JUST TO KIND OF KEEP THAT IN MIND THIS EVENING. THERE'S A REVENUE THAT CAN BE UTILIZED TOWARDS YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS. THERE ARE GRANT PROGRAMS THAT ARE OUT THERE, ABOUT $90 MILLION IN GRANTS AND SOME OF THESE RESTRICTED FUNDS. SOME OF THEM HAVE TO DO WITH FEMA, SOME OF THEM HAVE TO DO WITH SOME OF THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTT OUT THERE AND YOUR DCF GRANT PROGRAMS. THOSE ARE HEAVILY RESTRICTED AND HAVE VERY SPECIFIC ELIGIBILITIES, ALL OF WHICH ARE NOT FOR GROWTH INFRASTRUCTURE. WE DO HAVE SOME ITEMS UP THERE, ABOUT $80 MILLION, IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN FUNDED AND HAVE BEEN FUNDED FROM VARIOUS UNRESTRICTED AREAS THAT WE DO ACCOUNTING FOR. AND THEN, AGAIN, KIND OF CONTINUING THROUGH THE PROCESS, WE HAVE THINGS THAT ARE BUDGETED THAT REALLY DON'T EVEN HAVE DOLLARS IN THERE. THEY'RE ACCOUNTING. WE'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE ACCOUNTING ON OUR HEALTH INSURANCE. WE'RE SELF-INSURED AND WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO THE ACCOUNTING. WE HAVE OUR SOLID WASTE, OR YOUR GARBAGE PICKUP. AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHARGE A RATE FOR YOUR GARBAGE PICKUP AND UTILIZE THOSE DOLLARS FOR ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE. WE HAVE, AS WELL UP THERE, CULTURAL EVENTS. IF YOU THINK OF THE AMPHITHEATER AND THE CONCERT HALL, AGAIN, WHEN YOU PAY FOR THAT TICKET TO GO TO AN EVENT, THOSE DOLLARS ARE BEING USED TO PAY FOR A PORTION OF THE EVENT ITSELF, AND THE ASSOCIATED OPERATIONS, WE'RE NOT USING THOSE DOLLARS TO BUILD OTHER CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE. SO, HOPEFULLY, THERE'S DEBT SERVICE THAT'S UP THERE. THERE ARE RESTRICTED COURT AND PUBLIC SAFETY FUNDS IN THERE. SO, WE ARE -- AS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE BUDGET OFFICE IS REQUIRED TO DO THE FULL ACCOUNTING ON MANY OF THE COURT OPERATIONS THAT COME DOWN THROUGH THE STATE. SO, WE HAVE AN ACCOUNTING ON THAT. THAT'S ALMOST -- THAT'S ABOUT $24 MILLION. AND, AGAIN, THERE'S THE BREAKDOWN TO KIND OF DRIVE HOME, IF YOU WILL, THAT $958 MILLION OF THAT $1 APPOINT 5 BILLION BUDGET IS RESTRICTED. BUT WE'RE GOING TO KEEP IN MIND THAT IMPACT FEE PORTION UP THERE AND WE'RE GOING TO BRING THAT F FORWARD. GETTING INTO THE MILLAGE FUNDS, WE HAVE THE THREE MAIN ONES THAT WE HAVE OUR YOUR FIRE DISTRICT AND I'LL JUST KIND OF MAKE THE POINT, EVEN YOUR PROPERTY TAX FUNDS HAVE RESTRICTIONS. SO, WHEN YOU PAY FOR ON YOUR PROPERTY BILL -- TAX BILL FOR FIRE, YOU WANT TO KNOW TO THOSE DOLLARS ARE GOING TO TOWARDS YOUR FIRE OPERATIONS, SO WE MAINTAIN SEPARATING ACCOUNTING ON THEM, AND THEY ARE RESTRICTED. SO, THOSE DOLLARS ON YOUR PROPERTY TAX BILL GO TO FIRE OPERATIONS. YOUR TAX BILL INCLUDES TRANSPORTATION TRUST, WHICH IS DOLLARS YOU PAY ON YOUR PROPERTY TAX BILL THAT SUPPORT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND
[00:25:02]
IMPROVEMENTS. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE GENERAL FUND, AND I THINK THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE LOOK AT THAT IS REALLY THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE RESOURCE OF ALL. SO, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT ONE NEXT. SO, AGAIN, WE HAVE TRANSPORTATION, SO, THERE ARE SOME ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS IN THERE. BUT IF YOU THINK OF THAT, THAT'S YOUR ROADWAY MAINTENANCE, YOUR PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND OTHERS. LET'S LOOK AT THE GENERAL FUND A LITTLE BIT. THE GENERAL FUND SUPPORTS MANY CURRENT -- MANY COUNTY OPERATIONS, AND WHEN YOU THINK, AGAIN, A LOT OF GOVERNMENT, YOU THINK OF THOSE TYPES OF OPERATIONS THAT FALL WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND. SO, I'M GOING TO KIND OF GO THROUGH A FEW OF THOSE ON THE SIDE THERE, BUT I ALSO WANT TO KIND OF MENTION THAT THE GENERAL FUND IS OUR EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND HURRICANE RESERVES. YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE DODGED A BULLET THIS PAST MONTH WITH HURRICANE IAN. BUT A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK, WE HAD BACK-TO-BACK EVENTS WITH HURRICANE MATTHEW AND IRMA.THOUGH, NOT DIRECT HITS, WE CERTAINLY HAD, IF YOU THINK ABOUT UNLOADING ALL THE LIMBS AND LEAVES AND FENCE POSTS OR FENCING OR ANYTHING THAT CAME DOWN FROM YOUR PROPERTY, AND CERTAINLY THERE WAS A LOT OF THAT, THIS GENERAL FUND IS THE COUNTY'S RESPONSE. SO, WE DO EMERGENCY RESPONSE, AND WE DO DEBRIS PICKUP. THAT DEBRIS PICKUP ON MATTHEW WAS BETWEEN 15 AND $18 MILLION AS AN EXAMPLE. NOW, WE CERTAINLY GO BACK AND ATTEMPT REIMBURSEMENT, AND WE'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL THROUGH THE FEMA PROCESS. BUT THOSE DOLLARS ARE ALL UP FRONT, AND THAT IS REALLY WHAT -- AND THAT'S KIND OF THAT BOTTOM YELLOW BOX THERE AND THAT EMERGENCY -- I DO HAVE -- I DON'T KNOW THOUSAND GET TO -- OH, IS THIS THE POINTER? NO. I DON'T HAVE A POINTER. THE BIGGEST BLUE BOX THROUGH IS OUR EMERGENCY RESERVES OF A LITTLE LESS THAN $40 MILLION. THAT IS -- THAT IS A NATIONAL BEST PRACTICE TO HAVE THAT, AND, AGAIN, WE'VE CERTAINLY SEEN THOSE DOLLARS DROP SIGNIFICANTLY POST-IRMA WHEN WE HAD, AGAIN, TWO BACK-TO-BACK STORMS WITHIN 11 MONTHS OF ONE ANOTHER. BUT ALSO WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND ARE, AND, AGAIN, IT'S ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE THERE, ARE SHERIFF OPERATIONS, WHICH IS ABOUT $105 MILLION. WE DO HAVE OUR RESERVES, WHICH I'M GOING TO HIGHLIGHT. WE HAVE NONOCCURRING -- AGAIN, OTHER NONRENEWABLE ENERGY FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS. WE HAVE THE EMS COMPONENT OF OUR FIRE/EMT. WE HAVE OUR OTHER OFFICERS, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, WHICH IS KIND OF IRONIC WITH THIS DIS PROPERTY APPRAISER, THE TAX COLLECTOR, THE CLERK OF COURTS.
WE HAVE PARKS AND LIBRARY PARTICIPATIONS THAT ARE FUNDED OUT OF THERE, ALL COUNTY-WIDE PHYSI FACILITIES. GROWTH MANAGEMENT, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE, WE HAVE DEBT SERVICE OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND AND NONOPERATIONAL AND OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE SMALLER TRANSACTIONS IN THERE.
SO, OF THIS BUDGET, WHICH IS, AGAIN, ABOUT $394 MILLION, IF ASKED WHAT DOLLARS ARE AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS OUR INFRASTRUCTURE? I WOULD SAY, WELL, LET'S LOOK AT THE RESERVES THAT ARE IN THERE.
AT SOME LEVEL, AGAIN, THIS IS THIS LITTLE YELL BOX DOWN HERE, I'M NOT GOING TO RECOMMEND TO THIS COMMISSION WE DRAW DOWN ON THOSE EMERGENCY RESERVES. AGAIN, WE'VE CERTAINLY SEEN THIS HAPPEN BEFORE, AND THOSE EMERGENCY RESERVES ARE OUR RESPONSE TO A STORM EVENT. THE RESTRICTED RESERVES ARE RESTRICTED BY EITHER AN AGREEMENT OR MAYBE A RECEIVABLE -- AN ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, SO THEY ARE RESTRICTED RESERVES. IF WE WANT TO TAP INTO AN AVAILABLE RESOURCE, WE HAVE UNRESTRICTED GENERAL FUND RESERVES AND, AGAIN, THESE ARE THE UNRESTRICTED FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTY OF ABOUT $21 MILLION. SO, AGAIN, KIND OF GOING THROUGH AND BREAKING DOWN AND, AGAIN, IF MY ATTEMPT HERE IS TO SAY THERE ARE CERTAINLY DOLLARS IN THE BUDGET, BUT WHEN YOU BRING IT TO CONTEXT OF WHAT IS IN THE BUDGET, IT BECOMES -- THE DOLLARS CERTAINLY GET SMALLER. SO, WITHIN THE $1.5 BILLION BUDGET FOR '23, THERE'S ABOUT $43.4 MILLION IN IMPACT FEE
[00:30:01]
RESERVES, SO THE REST OF THE IMPACT FEES ARE APPROPRIATED TO PROJECTS. REALLY, THAT $43.4 MILLION IS PROGRAMMED OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, BUT $43 MILLION IN IMPACT FEES, THOSE ARE DOLLARS THAT ARE SPECIFIC. AGAIN, WE COLLECT THEM FROM DEVELOPMENT, AND THEY'RE TO BE USED FOR CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE, FOR CAPACITY, FOR GROWTH PROJECTS. SO, WE HAVE $43.4 MILLION, WHICH I'VE PROVIDED BELOW. AND THEN SOME PORTION AND THIS IS REALLY MORE BOARD POLICY THAN ANYTHING ELSE, THROUGHOUT THE YEAR OF UTILIZING WHAT ARE OUR CUMULATIVELY, THESE ARE NOT RECURRING RESERVES, THESE ARE CUMULATIVE. WE TRY TO SAVE. CERTAINLY, WHERE WE FIND OPPORTUNITIES, WE WILL PUT THOSE DOLLARS AND SET THEM ASIDE INSTEAD OF NECESSARILY APPROPRIATING THEM. WE HAVE $1 MILLION IN TRANSPORTATION RESERVES AND WE HAVE $21 MILLION IN OUR GENERAL FUND RESERVE.$12 MILLION IN TRANSPORTATION RESERVES. I DON'T RECOMMEND THAT. BUT IT'S BOARD POLICY WE UTILIZE ALL OF THOSE AT ONE TIME. YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE AVAILABLE FUNDS OUT THERE.
AGAIN, KIND OF TO BRING IT HOME, THE MOST OBVIOUS THERE IS THAT $43 MILLION IN IMPACT FEE RESERVES. LET'S LOOK AT THE $43 MILLION AND LET'S KIND OF LOOK FORWARD. THIS HAS BEEN A BANNER YEAR CERTAINLY FOR IMPACT FEES, AND SO WE USED THIS YEAR AS A PROJECTION FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS WORTH OF IMPACT FEES, AND WE SAID THAT, OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, IF WE WERE TO MAINTAIN OUR CURRENT RESERVES, WE'D HAVE ABOUT $157 MILLION, WHICH IS FANTASTIC, TO PUT TOWARDS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. SO, IN FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, WE'LL HAVE $157 MILLION. AND, AGAIN, KIND OF BRINGING FORWARD, AND THIS IS NOT TO BE CLEVER AT ALL, THIS IS KIND OF CATEGORIZING THAT $500 MILLION PROJECT -- OR THE $500 MILLION THAT A SURTAX COULD BRING AND PUTTING THEM INTO SIMILAR CATEGORIES. IN FIVE YEARS' TIME, 157 WOULD ADDRESS ABOUT A THIRD OF THAT $500 MILLION IN PROJECTS. THAT $500 MILLION IS IN TODAY'S DOLLARS, AND FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, WE'RE GOING TO BE CHASING THAT. SO, I THINK ONE OF THE POINTS THAT HAS BEEN MADE IS THAT WE'VE -- THERE'S BEEN A LOSS OF REVENUE, AND WE'RE TRYING TO KIND OF FILL THAT HOLE AGAIN TO KIND OF CATCH UP. WE'VE LOST THOSE DOLLARS, AND WE HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT NEEDS TO BE HERE AND NOW. AND SO, WE'RE CERTAINLY SEEING THAT MOVING FORWARD AS WE SEE WITH THE 2018 IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPACT FEES, THAT WE ARE GETTING THOSE DOLLARS. BUT WE ARE STILL TRYING TO CATCH UP. AND I REALLY DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO CATCH UP. QUESTION 5: WHY DOES THE COUNTY HAVE A FUNDING DEFICIT? AND I WILL KIND OF -- THAT WAS MY -- THAT WAS MY LONGEST THING AND I'LL MOVE FASTER IN THE INTEREST OF TIME.
I PRESENTED THIS A COUPLE OF MONTHS BACK. SINCE 2008, AND THIS IS THE WHOLE I'M TALKING ABOUT, THE COUNTY'S LOST ABOUT $381 MILLION. CERTAINLY, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE GREAT RECESSION, AND I WILL, BUT THERE WERE OTHER ITEMS THAT CAME UP AT THE SAME TIME. IN 2007 AND REALLY UNBEKNOWNST TO -- REALLY KIND OF UNDER THE RADAR, THE STATE OF FLORIDA ESTABLISHED A LOCAL PROPERTY TAX MANDATE THAT ROLLED MILLAGE RATES BACK. THERE REALLY WAS NO DISCUSSION ON IT. IT WAS A REQUIREMENT TO ROLL MILLAGE RATES BACK. ALL COUNTIES DID SO. THAT HAD ABOUT A -- INITIALLY HAD A $57.1 MILLION LOSS TO THE COUNTY. WE ROLLED WITH IT. THERE WAS ADDITIONAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAX REFORM AND, HECK, I VOTED FOR SOME OF THAT AS WELL BECAUSE IT WAS ON REFERENDUM. PART OF THAT WAS ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS. IF YOU REMEMBER BACK A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, IT USED TO BE A $2500 EXEMPTION, AND THEN IT INCREASED TO 50,000.
THAT WAS THE ADDITIONAL LOCAL PROPERTY TAX REFORM WE ALL VOTED ON, AND IT WAS A STATEWIDE. THERE'S BEEN SMALLER ONES SUBSEQUENT TO THAT. THE OTHER WAS -- AND, AGAIN, KIND OF NOT OUT THERE, WERE SOME CAPS THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE. CERTAINLY MAKES SENSE NOW LOOKING AT THIS 10 OR 15 YEARS LATER, BUT A 10% CAP ON NON-RESIDENTIAL. SO, THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN -- THERE'S
[00:35:04]
BEEN THAT 3% CAP ON YOUR HOMESTEADED PROPERTY. PRIOR TO 2007, 2008, THERE WAS NO CAP ON COMMERCIAL, AND THE STATE IMPLEMENTED A 10% CAP. AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT MANY COUNTIES LIVED -- OR CERTAINLY -- CERTAINLY -- I'LL SAY LIVED ON THOSE PROPERTY TAXES THAT CAME IN. ONCE THAT CAP WAS PUT IN PLACE AND THOSE ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS, THE COUNTY LOST $188 MILLION. SO, KIND OF KEEPING A CUMULATIVE TOTAL HERE, NOW WE'RE 245 MILLION. WE ROLLED WITH IT. WE REDUCED OPERATIONS, THERE WERE PLENTY OF LAYOFFS OVER THE TIME, BUT THE COUNTY ROLLED WITH IT. WE LIVED WITHIN OUR MEANS. AT THE SAME TIME THAT THIS PROPERTY TAX REFORM HAPPENED, I THINK WE STRUGGLED WITH THE REFORM THAT WAS HERE. CERTAINLY, OVERSHADOWING ALL OF THIS WAS THE GREAT RECESSION AND, AGAIN, $79 MILLION OVER THE YEARS, AND WE'VE COME OUT OF THAT, AND I THINK WE'VE COME OUT OF THAT SMARTER. I THINK WE'VE ALL COME OUT OF THAT SMARTER AS TO HOW TO RESPOND TO THAT. $79 MILLION, 324 MILLION NOW, AGAIN, SINCE 2008. WE ROLLED WITH IT. IMPACT FEE REDUCTIONS THAT WER IMPLEMENTED. IMPACT FEES WERE NOT ADOPTED AT THEIR FULL AMOUNT, AND PART OF THAT WAS TO STIMULATE THE LOCAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, COMING OUT OF RECESSION, OR DURING RECESSION, LET'S TRY TO STIMULATE THE POLICY. THE POLICY OF THE BOARD WAS LET'S TRY TO STIMULATE THE LOCAL ECONOMY, LET'S REDUCE THOSE IMPACT FEES. $27 MILLION LOSS. NOW WE'RE UP TO A $352 MILLION LOSS. AND THEN FINALLY, IN THE LAST TWO YEARS CERTAINLY DURING COVID IT MADE SENSE TO, BUT THE COUNTY WENT TO ROLL-BACK RATE ON ALL THEIR MILLAGE RATES, BUT THE MAIN THREE, THE GENERAL FUND, THE FIRE DISTRICT FUND, AND THE TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUND THAT HAS A RECURRING EFFECT. THAT WAS $29 MILLION IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. AND, AGAIN, I KIND OF SAY, WE ROLLED WITH IT. WE WERE AT A $381 MILLION LOSS. SO, OPERATIONS WERE CERTAINLY THERE. WE PUT AS MUCH INTO CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT THERE IS A BIG REVENUE LOSS THAT HAS BEEN EXPERIENCED BY THE COUNTY, ALL THE WHILE, WE ARE SEEING GROWTH COMING BACK AND A SLOW DEMAND FOR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS. THIS IS A SLIDE THAT REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON, WHEN SHE WAS A COMMISSIONER, AULD -- ALWAYS LIKED. THIS IS A GREAT REPRESENTATION. THIS IS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME -- OF YOUR INCOME, OF OUR INCOME, BECAUSE I'M ALSO LIVING IN THIS COUNTY, PER CAPITA SPENT ON GOVERNMENT.THIS IS ABOUT AS GOOD A VISUAL I CAN, NOT DEVELOP OR MORPH, BUT REALLY KIND OF TELLS THE PICTURE. DESPITE THAT LOSS, THIS COMMISSION, PREVIOUS COMMISSIONS DID NOT PASS ON THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF THAT $381 MILLION LOSS TO THE TAXPAYER, AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT WAS AT ITS HEIGHT, RIGHT IN THAT 2007/2008 TIME PERIOD WHEN REFORM CAME THROUGH. WHAT THE STATE DID, NOW, AGAIN, LOOKING AT IT IN HINDSIGHT BECAUSE WE STRUGGLED THROUGH THAT REFORM, IS THEY TOOK THAT BURDEN DOWN FOR REALLY ALL RESIDENTS THROUGHOUT ALL 67 COUNTIES AND THEN KIND OF PUT IT OUT THERE THAT IF YOU NEED TO RAISE MILLAGE RATES LOCALLY, IF YOU NEED TO ADDRESS IT, YOU ADDRESS IT, AND YOU RAISE YOUR INDIVIDUAL RATES AS NECESSARY, BE IT A SALES TAX, BE IT PROPERTY TAX, BE IT GAS TAX.
BUT OVERALL, UP TO THIS POINT, I'M GOING TO SAY, AND CONTINUED INTO '23, WE HAVE NOT -- OR I SHOULD SAY, THE COMMISSION HAS NOT PASSED IT ON. YOU HAVE REMAINED AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME THAT YOU SPEND ON GOVERNMENT AT ABOUT 1%. OKAY.
ARE THERE OTHER WAYS TO ADDRESS THE INFRASTRUCTURE BACKLOG? AND CERTAINLY, THERE CERTAINLY ARE. AND, AGAIN, WE KIND OF PUT THIS UP THERE. THIS IS A SIMILAR QUESTION THAT EVERY COMMUNITY HAS HAD TO CONSIDER. 60 OF 67, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT AN ADVOCACY, THIS IS JUST A CONSIDERATION OUT THERE. 60 OF 67 FLORIDA COUNTIES HAVE IMPLEMENTED A DISCRETIONARY TAX. SEVEN HAVEN'T. MAYBE THESE ARE QUESTIONS THEY'VE RESOLVED OR QUESTIONS THAT ARE STILL OUTSTANDING. BUT IN TERMS OF
[00:40:01]
HOW DO WE ADDRESS THAT INFRASTRUCTURE WITH REVENUE SOURCES, OTHER THAN A SALES TAX, HERE ARE SUGGESTIONS, AND THIS COMES FROM THE BUDGET OFFICE. AGAIN, I'M NOT AN ADVOCATE, BUT I KNOW THE DIFFERENT REVENUE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE. WE CAN LEVY THE REMAINING DISCRETIONARY GAS TAX OUT THERE. ST. JOHNS COUNTY STILL HAS REMAINING SIX CENTS OF ADDITIONAL GAS TAX IT HASN'T LE LEVIED. IT'S NOT BEING PROPOSED. I HAVE NOT HEARD THE COMMISSION SAY THIS BUT, AGAIN, I'M KIND OF PULLING OUT THE POTENTIAL TOOLS IF I'M BEING ASKED AND THIS IS A QUESTION THAT'S ASKED. IT PROVIDES ABOUT $7 MILLION ANNUALLY. SO, AGAIN, I'LL JUST LOOK AT THE LIST WE HAVE THERE. $7 MILLION A YEAR WOULD FUND -- WOULD NECESSITATE ABOUT 30 YEARS OF THOSE DOLLARS TO PLAY CATCH-UP ON THOSE ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS THAT ARE OUT THERE. AS WELL, AND THIS IS KIND OF AN INTERESTING AND BEHAVIORAL FOR SOMEBODY LIKE ME OR MY BUDGET OFFICE, BECAUSE WE ARE FASCINATED BY THE BEHAVIOR OF REVENUES. THE COUNTY DOESN'T SEE GAS TAX GOING UP WITH POPULATION. YOU WOULD THINK A LOT OF SALES TAX, CERTAINLY, THERE ARE VARIOUS REVENUES THAT GO UP AS YOUR POPULATION INCREASES, AND GAS TAX, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, WHILE IT DOES GO UP, IT DOESN'T GO UP AT THE SAME RATE WITH POPULATION. WE'RE SEEING THAT CERTAINLY IN OUR OWN LIVES IN CONSIDERATION OF MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT VEHICLES, HYBRID AND ELECTRIC VEHICLES OUT THERE. THE OTHER, CERTAINLY THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS COME FROM THIS COMMISSION AND, AGAIN, NOT A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BUDGET OFFICE, BUT AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX CAN ADDRESS INFRASTRUCTURE. A PARED-DOWN LIST, I DON'T THINK IT COULD BE -- I'M SORRY, A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE COULD ADDRESS $500 MILLION. AGAIN, IT PLACES THE BURDEN, THOUGH, ON US THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND REMOVES ANY BURDEN FROM THE TOURIST OR VISITOR THAT COMES TO THE COMMUNITY. WE CAN ALSO ADDRESS THE INFRASTRUCTURE BACKLOG WITHOUT ADDITIONAL REVENUE. CERTAINLY, THERE'S THAT $43 MILLION. SO, I MEAN, I KNOW WE HAVE THAT $43 MILLION IN RESERVES AND THERE'S SOME LEVEL THAT MAYBE CAN COME OUT OF THAT $20 MILLION IN GENERAL FUND RESERVES. IF PEOPLE AGREE TO WHAT THAT PROJECT LIST -- MAYBE NOT EVEN THE PROJECT LIST, EVEN CLOSE TO THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT? IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A $500 MILLION DEFICIT, WE'RE NOT GETTING THERE. WE'RE CERTAINLY APPROACHING IT WITH $43 MILLION, BUT WE WON'T SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THAT LIST. WE COULD LEVERAGE DEBTS. THAT IS ANOTHER THING THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT ADVOCATED FOR, BUT IT IS A TOOL. WE COULD BORROW AGAINST CURRENT GAS TAX THAT'S OUT THERE. WE BORROW 50 MILLION, WE PAY 95 WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE BECAUSE OF THE INTEREST, 30 YEARS. OVER 30 YEARS, WE'D GET $5 MILLION. THERE'S OTHER BORROWING THERE THAT COULD GET US AN ADDITIONAL $125 MILLION. 240 MILLION IN ALL. AGAIN, STEPPING AWAY FROM THE ADVOCACY THING, WHEN THE BOARD SAID, LET'S LOOK AT THE SURTAX AND LET'S LOOK AT CASH FUNDING THIS, THAT IS KIND OF A CONSIDERATION HERE WHEN YOU BORROW MONEY AND WE ALL KNOW THIS FROM OUR MORTGAGES OR OUR CAR PAYMENTS, THAT WE ARE PAYING INTERESTS ON THOSE COSTS. SO, THOSE ARE OTHER ITEMS. THEN, ANOTHER NON-CASH, WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL REVENUE SOURCE, WOULD BE -- AND, AGAIN, IT'S CERTAINLY NOT MEANT TO BE ANY SORT OF THREAT, BUT ADJUSTING THE TIMING EXPECTATIONS. SO, THE SALES TAX PROJECT LIST COULD BE -- AND, AGAIN, IT'S A TENTATIVE LIST THAT'S OUT THERE -- COULD BE COMPLETED IN 10-15 YEARS. WITHOUT A SALES TAX AND LOOKING FOR VARIOUS DOLLARS AND WAITING FR IMPACT FEES TO COME IN, MY ESTIMATE IS THAT SAME PROJECT LIST WOULD BE COMPLETED IN 30-50 YEARS. CERTAINLY NOT COMPLETED IN MY LIFETIME, BUT CERTAINLY DONE IN A LONGER TIME FRAME. LAST QUESTION: WHO DECIDES WHAT PROJECTS ARE FUNDED USING THE SALES TAX, AND HOW WILL THAT SALES TAX BE USED? SO, RESPONSE HERE: THE COMMISSION HAS DIRECTED THE COUNTY TATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO FINALIZE THE BYLAWS FOR A SALES TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH FIVE MEMBERS, ST.JOHNS COUNTY RESIDENTS POSSESSING EXPERIENCE IN BUSINESS AND FINANCE. THE BYLAWS WILL OUTLINELINE
[00:45:02]
CERTAINLY THE PURPOSE AND THE MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORGANIZATION, AND ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, THAT COMMITTEE WOULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AS PART OF THE PUBLICLY HELD ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. SO, THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD VET THROUGH THE COUNTY'S AND THROUGH MY DEPARTMENT'S ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS. THE 1% SALES TAX, AGAIN, WHAT IS FUNDED, I'LL KIND OF REITERATE, MAY NOT BE USED FOR OPERATING, NOT USED FOR SALARIES OR MAINTENANCE. IT'S GOING INTO, IF AT ALL, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. LIKE WE HAVE ON ALL OF OUR BUDGETING AND ACCOUNTING, FULL ACCOUNTING ANNUALLY. CERTAINLY, IN ANY SORT OF INTERMITTENT PHASE, IF YOU CAN GET MY NUMBER, AND AT ANY POINT, THOSE DOLLARS CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR. THE ACCOUNTING IS EXTREMELY TRANSPARENT. IN TERMS OF HOW WE WILL USE THESE FUNDS, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A -- THERE IS A WEB PORTAL THAT IS OUT THERE THAT'S BEEN DESIGNED THAT CERTAINLY HAS -- AND I WILL KIND OF EMPHASIZE WHAT THE RECOMMENDED PROJECT LIST IS.AGAIN, I WILL REITERATE THAT THIS EVENING. IT'S NOT A FINAL LIST, IT'S NOT A PERMANENT LIST, IT'S NOT EVEN THE LIST. IT WAS A SUGGESTED LIST IDENTIFYING THOSE INFRASTRUCTURE DEFICIENCIES OUT THERE BY VARIOUS DEPARTMENT HEADS, SO YOUR PUBLIC WORKS AND YOUR PARKS AND RECREATION, YOUR LIBRARIES.
I WILL SAY, AT SOME LEVEL, THE COMMITTEE WILL MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS, IF APPROVED, AS TO WHERE THAT FUNDING WOULD GO.
I DON'T KNOW, DO WE HAVE THAT PORTAL? AND THIS IS THE EXAMPLE OF KIND OF HOW THAT PORTAL IS. THESE ARE THE PROJECTS THAT WERE ON THAT SAME LIST. SO, INSTEAD OF THROWING IT UP ON THE SCREEN, THE LIST YOU CAN PULL UP AT ANY TIME ON THE WEBSITE. THE REASON FOR THE PORTAL IS PART OF OUR AUDIT THAT WE WERE REQUIRED BY STATUTE TO GO THROUGH THIS SUMMER, QUITE FRANKLY, TESTED THE COUNTY ON, CAN YOU MANAGE THIS PROGRAM? THAT'S A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT. THE NEED TO ESTABLISH AT LEAST AN INITIAL WEB PORTAL WAS SHOWN AND SHOWS THAT WE CAN MANAGE THIS PROGRAM.
THIS IS NOT A FINAL LIST. THIS IS, AGAIN, MIRRORING THE LIST OUT THERE. THERE'S CERTAINLY BEEN, YOU KNOW, HESITATION PUTTING A LIST OUT THERE BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS THE INTERPRETATION THAT THAT LIST IS FINAL. BUT, AGAIN, HERE THIS EVENING, IT IS A PROPOSED LIST. THESE ARE SUGGESTED PROJECTS THAT ARE CERTAINLY OUT IN THE COMMUNITY. AND WITH THAT, MY PORTION IS DONE, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY -- I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME IN LISTENING AND ALLOWING ME TO GO OVER. WE CAN GO RIGHT
INTO QUESTIONS. >> AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, YOU CAN LINE UP AT THIS MICROPHONE AND
ASK YOUR QUESTION. THANK YOU. >> HI. I'D LIKE TO -- CAN YOU HEAR ME? I'M GLAD TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS BECAUSE -- NOT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE ANYBODY'S MIND IN THE ADMINISTRATION, BUT -- AND ANYONE WHO CAME HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS SALES TAX INCREASE BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BENEFIT FROM IT FINANCIALLY, BUT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO CAME HERE WANTING TO KNOW THE TRUTH. AND WE GOT NUMBERS FROM YOU, BUT WE
DIDN'T GET THE WHOLE TRUTH. >> OKAY. I LISTENED TO THE PRESENTATION, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY GAVE ON MARCH 1ST, WHEN THEY FIRST PRESENTED THIS, AND I LISTENED TO YOURS.
>> YES. >> THERE'S ONE THING THAT THOSE PRESENTATIONS AREN'T GIVING US. YOU'RE HERE TO PROMOTE THIS SALES TAX. I KNOW YOU SAY YOU'RE NOT, BUT WE WOULDN'T BE HERE, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE GIVEN IT TO US IF YOU WERE PROMOTING.
DON'T INSULT OUR INTELLIGENCE BY SAYING YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO PROMOTE IT. IN FACT, IT RUINS YOUR CREDIBILITY WHEN YOU SAY THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT'S THE NATURE OF MY QUESTION. ST.
JOHNS COUNTY COMMISSION LOST THEIR CREDIBILITY WHEN THEY PROPOSED THIS SALES TAX INCREASE WHEN TWO MONTHS LATER, THEY VOTED FOR EXPANDING THE SILVER LEAF DRI. THAT'S NOT EVEN IN HERE. THEY SHOWED A HOTSPOT MAP AT THAT MEETING, WHICH SHOWED --
[00:50:10]
WHICH SHOWED NEW BUILDING PERMITS ARE ALL NORTH, ALL EXCEPT TWO, ARE NORTH OF STATE ROUTE 16 AND INTERNATIONAL GOLF BOULEVARD. THEY'RE ALL DESIGNED TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR DEVELOPERS TO GET COMMUTERS FROM JACKSONVILLE TO COME DOWN AND LIVE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. ONE OF THE REASONS -- SO, I ALSO QUESTION THIS PRESENTATION BECAUSE IT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE FACT THAT SILVER LEAFDER, HUDSON COMPANIES, RECEIVED IMPACT FEE CREDITS FOR BUILDING COUNTY ROAD 2209. THOSE ARE -- IF EVERYONE DROVE DOWN SILVER LEAF PARKWAY, IT'S A PRIVATE HUDSON ROAD AND WE'RE PAYING FOR IT. THEY HAVE BIG SIDEWALKS AND TELL ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF LIVING IN THE PROPERTIES.>> SO MY QUESTION WILL GO FOR THE CORRECT. HOW DO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER HAVE CREDIBILITY WHEN THEY GAVE AWAY $78 MILLION? AND WHEN THEY DID THE MASSIVE EXPANSION, THEY UPPED IT TO $1.87 MILLION IN IMPACT FEE CREDITS THAT HUDSON COMPANIES DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WAS BUILT RIGHT DOWN THROUGH TIMBER PROPERTY OWNED BY HUDSON WHICH MADE SILVER LEAF DRI POSSIBLE. I QUESTION THE PROJECTS THAT YOU HAVE IN THAT MAP. A LOT OF THEM COULD BE BACKLOGGED BECAUSE ALL THEY'RE DOING IS FURTHER DEVELOPMENT. IT MEANS IT'S FOR NEW INFRASTRUCTURE. AND THAT DOESN'T BENEFIT ANYONE LIVING IN THIS COUNTY ALREADY. IT BENEFITS THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO MOVE TO THIS COUNTY AND THE DEVELOPERS WHO ARE BUILDING THE DEVELOPMENTS FOR THEM. AND, ALSO, YOUR FEES -- THE AMOUNT OF MONEY YOU NEED TO SPEND FOR INFRASTRUCTURE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE COUNTY ROAD 2209 PAST 16, DOWN ALL THE WAY TO 208. YOU ALREADY HAVE THE RIG RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN. THAT'S OPENING UP THE WHOLE WEST HALF OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY TO DEVELOPMENT. THEY POST IT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO I-95, BUT IT'S NOT. I DRIVE I-95 EVERY DAY UP TO JACKSONVILLE. EVEN IF THERE'S A TRAFFIC JAM ON I-95, I NEVER THINK OF GOING TO SILVER LEAF PARKWAY. IT TAKES TOO MUCH TIME AND IT'S TOO SLOW. SO, NOW, HERE'S MY QUESTION. WHERE DOES THE FOURS FOUR COMMISSIONERS WHO VOTED FOR THIS TAX WANT US TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY, THEY'RE FAVORING OF BIG DEVELOPMENT, APPROVING OVERDEVELOPMENT WHEN IT WILL ONLY BE USED TO TURN ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND THE NATION'S OLDEST CITY INTO JACKSONVILLE'S NEWEST SUBURB?
>> VERY WELL SPOKEN. >> WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION AGAIN?
WHAT IS THE CREDIBILITY. >> WHERE IS YOUR CREDIBILITY IN
ASKING FOR THE SALES TAX. >> I CAN ANSWER THAT. JESSE IS NOT HERE TO ADVOCATE FOR OR AGAINST. WE DO HAVE AN ELECTED
OFFICIAL HERE. COMMISSION DEAN. >> YOU ASKED WHAT THE CREDIBILITY IS OF THE COMMISSION, SO I THINK A COMMISSIONER SHOULD SPEAK, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE? THE CORRECT REASON I VOTED TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT SO YOU THE VOTER COULD VOTE IT UP OR DOWN, AND I HAVE NOT ADVOCATED FOR YOU TO VOTE YES. I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE FACTS. MY CREDIBILITY RESTS IN A VERY SIMPLE HISTORY HERE. FROM THE GREAT RECESSION TO
[00:55:04]
2018, WE COLLECTED ALMOST NO IMPACT FEES, AND OUR REVENUE WENT DOWN ALMOST 30%. SO, THAT PREVIOUS COMMISSIONERS, I'M NOT BLAMING THEM FOR MAKING MISTAKES. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT WERE NOT COLLECTING THE REVENUE TO BASICALLY PAY FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PROJECTS THAT STARTED TO BE BUILT AFTER THE GREAT RECESSION, EVEN THOUGH MANY WERE PERMITTED IN THE EARLY 2000S, SUCH AS SILVER LEAF, WORLD GOLF VILLAGE, SO THERE WAS A TREMENDOUS BACKLOG CREATED. I BECAME A COMMISSIONER IN '16.IN 2018, WHAT WE DID WAS WE VOTED TO INCREASE IMPACT FEES FOR THE FIRST TIME TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE ALLOWED BY LAW. SO, THERE'S MY CREDIBILITY. MY CREDIBILITY IS I TOOK ACTION, AND I INCREASED IMPACT FEES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE. SO, THOSE DEVELOPMENTS, INCLUDING SILVER LEAF THAT YOU MENTIONED WERE PAYING IMPACT FEES AFTER 2018, INCLUDING THE EXPANSION. SO, WHAT WE STILL HAVE -- IF WE DO NO MORE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS COUNTY, NO MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STARTING THIS WEEK, WE'RE STILL GONNA HAVE THE $500 MILLION DEFICIT. AND SO, WE'RE EITHER GOING TO HAVE THE DEFICIT AND OUR QUALITY OF LIFE IS GOING TO SUFFER, OR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SALES TAX. IT'S A BINARY FUNCTION. IT'S EITHER YES OR NO AND YOU THE VOTER HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE NO. I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU. I'M EXPLAINING. YOU ASKED, WHERE'S MY CREDIBILITY? I JUST EXPLAINED IT. (INAUDIBLE).
>> I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU.
>> HI, THERE. THANKS FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. YOU WENT THROUGH AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF DETAIL. FIRST OF ALL, WHAT IS THE CURRENT TAX OF THE COUNTY IN OUR SALES TAX? WE'RE PAYING 6.5 SALES TAX. WHAT DOES THE COUNTY GET?
>> IT GETS ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT.
>> CORRECT. THIS PENNY PLAN, IT SOUNDS GOOD, OR A 1% TAX, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT, SOUNDS GOOD. BUT THE REALITY OF IT IS, THE COUNTY IS GOING TO TRIPLE ITS TAKE ON SALES TAX IN THE COUNTY.
IT'S A TRIPLING OF OUR SALES TAX, OF THE COUNTY'S PORTION OF
IT, CORRECT? >> THE COUNTY'S PORTION. YES, IT WOULD GO FROM ONE HALF TO ONE AND A HALF.
>> 200% INCREASE THAT THE COUNTY WOULD BE TAKING. THANK YOU.
THE NEXT IS, WE HAD PRETTY MUCH OF A BANNER YEAR OF REVENUES
LAST YEAR, RIGHT? UM -- >> RELATIVE TO PRIOR YEARS,
WASN'T IT A RECORD? >> SURE, SURE, ABSOLUTELY? WE ROLLED BACK TO, WHAT, 12.5% ON THE MILLAGE? ?
>> IN 2022, WE DID NOT ROLL BACK FOR 2023.
>> OKAY. OKAY. I GUESS MY POINT BEING, UM, I UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED, BUT I'VE LIVED CALIFORNIA, INDIANA, MASSACHUSETTS, NORTH CAROLINA. I'VE NEVER SEEN SUCH A BEAUTIFUL COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE. THIS IS GORGEOUS. I WORKED 11 HOURS TODAY. I SURE WISH I COULD HAVE BEEN IN A PLACE LIKE THIS. SO MY POINT BEING, PERHAPS THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD FIND A WAY TO CONSTRICT ITSELF TO REDUCE THE OVERHEAD BURDEN OF THE GOVERNMENT, YOU PUT UP THE INSURANCE COSTS, ET CETERA, MAYBE THAT'S THE KIND OF LEADERSHIP WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE TAXPAYERS AND CITIZENS. CAN YOU CONSTRICT THAT? CAN YOU NOT BE SO GENEROUS WITH YOUR PENSIONS, WITH, YOU KNOW, THE SALARIES, WITH EVERYTHING? THIS INFRASTRUCTURE IS SPECTACULAR. I'M PROUD TO BE HERE AND BE A TAXPAYER, BUT TIMES LIKE THIS MAY REQUIRE THAT SORT OF AN APPROACH. ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU WAS, I CALCULATED MAYBE $712 MILLION WAS SPENT BY TOURISTS LAST YEAR, IS THAT FAIR?
>> NO, THAT'S NOT ACCURATE. WE LOOKED THAT UP, ACTUALLY, ON THE TOURISM WEBSITE, AND THAT'S AN OUTDATED NUMBER THAT'S THERE.
>> SO, WHAT'S THE REAL NUMBER? >> THE REAL NUMBER IS CLOSE TO $1.5 BILLION. IT'S ACTUALLY DOUBLE THAT NUMBER, A LITTLE
OVER DOUBLE THAT NUMBER. >> OKAY. SO THEN THAT WOULD MAKE A 1% ON THAT WOULD BE, WHAT, 15 MILLION? NO. YEAH, 15
MILLION. WOULD IT NOT? >> OKAY. I'M TRACKING ON YOUR
1%. >> YOU SAID IT'S 1.5 BILLION IS
[01:00:03]
THE ACTUAL SPEND. >> THAT'S THE OVERALL -- THAT'S THE -- THAT'S THE ESTIMATE OF TOURISM SPEND LAST YEAR.
>> OKAY. SO, LET'S JUST ASSUME IT'S KIND OF THE SAME THIS YEAR.
SO, 1% OF THAT, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO ADD A PENNY, RIGHT, IT'S THE PENNY PLAN, IS HOW MUCH MONEY? 15 MILLION.
>> OKAY. SO, 15 MILLION -- I AM TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THIS. HOW DOES THAT GET TO THEM PAYING 40% WITH THIS TAX? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T -- IT DOESN'T CALCULATE TO ME. I HAD ABOUT 14% WITH THE $712 MILLION REVENUE NUMBER -- OR SPEND NUMBER. SO, MAYBE IT'S 30%, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT 40%.
>> I MEAN, IT'S -- THE CALCULATION IS 40%. I CAN CERTAINLY SIT DOWN WITH YOU ON IT. AGAIN, IT'S MORE OF A SPEED
SHEET -- >> YOU HAD 26 BEFORE?
>> 28-40%. IT'S LEADING THE DECISION-MAKER, WHICH IS THE VOTER, THE CITIZEN HERE, DOWN THE WRONG PATH TO SUGGEST THIS WILL BE COVERED, 40% OF IT, BY THE TOURISTS.
>> OH, I'M GOING TO SAY, I STRONGLY WOULD AGREE WITH THAT CALCULATION. I MEAN, WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT CALCULATION. WE LOOKED AT -- ACTUALLY, WE LOOKED AT VOLUSIA RECENTLY. THEY'RE AT CLOSE TO 40% AS WELL. AGAIN, I'D HAPPILY SIT DOWN WITH ANYONE ON THAT CALCULATION. IT'S NOT AN INTERPRETATION -- I MEAN, IT'S A CALCULATION OF WHAT TOURISTS WOULD PARTICIPATE, THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THAT SALES TAX.
>> IF WE ALLOCATED THAT ALL OTHER SPEND, LET'S JUST ASSUME YOU'RE RIGHT AND IT'S 1.5 BILLION AND NOT 712 MILLION, WHICH MY NUMBER SAYS, YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT 40%, NOT EVEN CLOSE.
>> YEAH, I MEAN, WITHOUT SITTING DOWN WITH YA ON IT, I'M NOT SURE
I'M UNDERSTANDING. >> I WENT THROUGH THE NUMBERS, I'M TIRED, IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. I GOT TO TELL YA, THAT'S WHERE I COME OUT. I DON'T THINK 40% IS EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE. I THINK IT WILL BE A LOT LESS THAN THAT. THEN WE WILL BE CRYING, GEE, THE SALES TAX WAS NOT ENOUGH, LET'S RAISE IT AGAIN, OR YOU GUYS WILL HAVE EXPLAINING TO DO. I THINK I'LL LET THE OTHER FOLKS CHAT, BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, YOUR EFFORT TODAY.
I'M TRYING TO STICK TO THE NUMBERS HERE. OBVIOUSLY, MY -- MY PERSPECTIVE IS CLEARLY VOTE NO ON THIS TAX.
>> MY QUESTION ACTUALLY IS A STATEMENT. FROM THE SLIDES YOU PRESENTED TODAY, YOU DISCUSSED A $352 MILLION DEFICIT. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, $27.5 MILLION IS DUE TO IMPACT FEES BEING REDUCED FOR DEVELOPERS. MAYBE GOING FORWARD, MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T BE REDUCING THEIR IMPACT FEES. THEY SHOULD PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. WHY ARE THEY DOING THAT? BECAUSE SPENDING ALL OF THAT MONEY AND ADVERTISING TO PROMOTE IT IS GOING TO SAVE THEM MONEY IN THE LONG RUN. WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT OUR MONEY, AND WITH INFLATION AND WITH TAXES GOING UP FEDERALLY, WE DON'T WANT THEM GOING UP LOCALLY. AND MY OTHER QUESTION -- OR ACTUALLY A STATEMENT -- MAYBE IT IS A QUESTION. IF WE WANT TO TA TARGET TOURISM, IS THERE A WAY TO IMPOSE A TOURISM TAX, MAYBE A PERCENTAGE POINT OR SOMETHING ON HOTEL AND ROOM SERVICE ON HOTELS? BECAUSE THAT WOULD REALLY TARGET AND HAVE THE
TOURISTS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. >> SURE. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THERE IS A TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAS IMPLEMENTED. THAT IS OUT THERE, AND IT IS RECOUPED. AND, AGAIN, IT'S UTILIZED FOR SOME TOURISM ASSETS AND REINVESTED BACK INTO TOURISM.
>> WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF THAT?
>> IT'S 5 CENTS. >> MAYBE WE SHOULD MAKE IT A
DOLLAR. >> AND THERE ARE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ON THAT. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A TALK-BACK RESPONSE. IT'S MORE THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON THE LEVEL OF TAX.
WE'RE CAPPED -- I BELIEVE WE'RE CAPPED AT THAT TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT TAX. >> THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR
INFORMATION, BUT I SAY VOTE NO. >> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, REAL QUICK, YOU MADE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE LOWERING OF THE IMPACT FEES. JESSE, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REITERATE THAT AND THEN WE'LL
TAKE THE NEXT QUESTION. >> OKAY. SO, CERTAINLY EVERY
[01:05:05]
FIVE YEARS, IMPACT FEES ARE REVIEWED AND THERE IS A CL CALCULATION, IT'S A VERY LARGE CALCULATION DONE EVERY FIVE YEARS. THEY ARE PROVIDED AS THE FULL AMOUNT, AND THEN, REALLY, AS A POLICY, THE COMMISSION DECIDES AT WHAT LEVEL THEY WANT TO LEVY OR FINALLY CHARGE THAT IMPACT FEE. AND CERTAINLY DURING -- AGAIN, AS THE POLICY DECISION, IT WAS TO REDUCE IMPACT FEES TO STIMULATE, AGAIN, LOCAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, IF YOU RECALL, AGAIN, DURING THE GREAT RECESSION, A CONCERN WAS THOUSAND -- HOW TO RAMP UP BUSINESSES OR GROWTH OR STIMULUS IN OUR COMMUNITY. SO, IMPACT FEES WERE, AS A POLICY, REDUCED.AND, AGAIN, IT'S KIND OF AN EARLIER SLIDE. SINCE 2018, THE COMMISSION IS CHARGING THE MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE AT THE
MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE RATE. >> ALL RIGHT. FIRST OFF, I WANT TO THANK YOU GUYS VERY, VERY MUCH FOR BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER AND TALKING TO EVERYBODY AND TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE POINT OF VIEW YOU'RE COMING FROM. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HOLD MEETINGS LIKE THIS, I APPRECIATE THE STAFF AND THE FIRE AND POLICE FOLKS. HENRY DEAN, THANK YOU FOR SHOWING. I WOULD HAVE REALLY APPRECATED GOING MORE IN-DEPTH INTO SOME OF THE SUGGESTS WHERE WE SAID, MEH, THAT'S KIND OF BORING, SO WE WON'T TALK ABOUT IT TODAY. I MADE A FEW NOTES ON A FEW OF THE THINGS I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO GO A LITTLE MORE IN-DEPTH ON.
MAYBE WE CAN ANSWER THESE NOW, MAYBE WE CAN WATCH THE TAPE LATER AND CONSIDER THESE. WHAT KIND OF GROCERIES WILL BE TAXED WHEN WE SEE -- WHEN YOU SAY, MOST GROCERIES WON'T SEE THE IMPACT FROM THIS? BECAUSE WHEN I THINK OF MOST GROCERIES, I THINK OF Q-TIPS AND LITTLE THINGS MOST OF US DON'T BUY ALL THE TIME, BUT IF THE MAJOR GROCERIES ARE AFFECTED THEN, OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO FEEL THAT.
>> OKAY. ON GROCERIES, IT IS NON-PREPARED FOODS WILL NOT SEE THAT. PREPARED FOOD, IF YOU GO PUBLIX AND BUY A PREPARED SANDWICH, THAT HAS TAXES. IF YOU BUY TURKEY AND BREAD, THOSE
ARE NOT TAXED. >> I WOULD HAVE APPRECIATED A LITTLE MORE -- AND I'M NOT COMING DOWN ON ANYBODY. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE CONFRONTATIONAL. I GUESS MY QUESTION FOR THAT WOULD BE, WHERE EXACTLY CAN PEOPLE FIND THAT FULL BREAKDOWN?
>> DO YOU WANT PUT THAT -- >> OKAY.
>> EITHER YOU SCAN IT OR, IF YOU'RE LIKE ME DON'T REALLY GET THE SCANNING THING, YOU CAN GO TO THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE W WWW.SJCFL.GOV.THAT'STHEPROPOSED LIST.
>> GOOD DEAL. I THINK AS FAR AS MANY PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED, THE TOURIST IMPACT ON THIS DOESN'T REALLY MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
WE CAN THROW A BUNCH OF NUMBERS AROUND ABOUT HOW MUCH TOURISTS WILL BE PAYING. 100% OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY RESIDENTS WILL FEEL THIS. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE TROUBLE IN HAVING THIS PASS, UNFORTUNATELY, NO MATTER HOW MUCH EDUCATION IS OUT THERE.
I THINK WE'RE JUST IN A TIME OF HEAVY INFLATION, GAS GOING UP, FOOD GOING UP, EVERYTHING, IT WILL BE TOUGH TO HAVE PEOPLE VOTE TO HAVE MORE MONEY BE BROUGHT DOWN ON THEM. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AS FAR AS A PLAN "B"? I THINK WE SHOULD BE PREPARING FOR THAT. FROM ALL INDICATIONS, IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH EDUCATION WE HAVE, THAT PEOPLE WILL VOTE FOR THIS. YOU GUYS HAVE TO KNOW THAT.
>> WE'LL CERTAINLY -- RIGHT. WE'LL WAIT UNTIL THE VOTE IS OVER, AND WHILE I'LL SAY THERE'S BEEN NO POLICY DECISION ON A PLAN "B," THE ITEMS THAT I KIND OF PUT UP THERE WOULD BE SOME OF THE FINANCIAL RECOMMENDATIONS. YOU KNOW, MOVE THEM ARE NONFINANCIAL TO SET A DIFFERENT EXPECTATION; YOUR PROJECTS MAY NOT GET -- AND, AGAIN, NOT AS A LINE IN THE SAND, BUT WE MAY
[01:10:04]
HAVE TO SET A DIFFERENT EXPECTATION FOR WHEN PROJECTS GET COMPLETED. WE MAY -- IF THE PUBLIC CANNOT WAIT, WE MAY HAVE TO LOOK AT BORROWING -- YOU KNOW, BORROWING, LEVERAGING DEBT, LEVERAGING OUR CURRENT GAS TAX, LEVERAGING OUR CURRENT HALF CENT -- A PORTION OF OUR HALF CENT SALES TAX TO LEVERAGE DEBT AND, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS WERE LEVYING OTHER TAXES AND, AGAIN, NO POLICY DECISION. I'VE NOT HEARD FROM ANYONE -- ANY COMMISSIONER OR ANY ADMINISTRATOR AS TO ANY PLAN "B." AS WELL, WE'LL HAVE TO GO WITH THE PROPERTY TAX OR WE'LL HAVE TO GO WITH GAS TAX. THERE'S BEEN NO DISCUSSION. I THINK THE IDEA OF THIS WAS, LET'S -- THE COMMISSION SAID, LET'S PUT THIS TO THE VOTER, AND THEN, FROM THERE, WE HAVE TO, I THINK, COLLECTIVELY AS A COMMUNITY GOTO A PLAN "B" IF NECESSARY. >> OKAY. SO, NOTHING IN STONE
>> THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE, KIND OF. I GUESS, ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE -- AND FORGIVE ME IF ANY OF THESE ARE DUMB, I JUST FEEL LIKE THEY'RE MAYBE QUESTIONS THAT OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE THAT AREN'T HERE TO ASK THE QUESTIONS. ARE WE ABLE TO LOBBY THE STATE AND KIND OF GET SOME OF THOSE RULES CHANGED ON HOW MUCH DEVELOPERS CAN CONTRIBUTE? I KNOW WE'RE -- WE ARE CHARGING KIND OF THE MAXIMUM AS WE'RE ALLOWED TO RIGHT NOW, BUT CAN WE -- IS THERE WIGGLE ROOM AT THE STATE LEVEL? AND ARE WE
ABLE TO PURSUE THAT? (APPLAUSE) >> THE PROBLEM -- I DIDN'T REALLY STATE WELL PROBABLY.
>> EVEN IF WE RAISE THE IMPACT FEES, LET'S SAY WE TRIPLE THEM, LET'S SAY THE LEGISLATURE ALLOWED US TO DO THAT, RIGHT NOW THE IMPACT FEE LAW IS THERE: THERE HAS TO BE A NEXUS BETWEEN THE IMPACT THE DEVELOPER CREATES AND THE AMOUNT WE CAN CHARGE HIM. ONLY HIS IMPACTS ARE CHARGEABLE. THAT'S THE STATE LAW. I DON'T THINK THE STATE IS GOING TO PASS A LAW THAT WOULD TRIPLE A NEW DEVELOPMENT'S IMPACT FEES TO GO BACK AND COVER A $500 MILLION DEFICIT THAT STARTED IN '08.
>> WE COULD DO IT TO KIND OF CATCH UP.
>> WELL, I DON'T THINK WE CAN CHARGE -- I DON'T THINK THE LEGISLATURE WOULD ALLOW ANY COUNTY TO CHARGE NEW DEVELOPMENT FOR SINS OF THE PAST, IF YOU WILL. I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO
ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. >> SURE, SURE. I APPRECIATE IT.
>> YOU SAID, COULD WE LOBBY. WE COULD TRY. I DON'T THINK THE COURT SYSTEM WOULD ALLOW THAT. WE CAN ONLY CHARGE A DEVELOPER HIS IMPACTS, AND I THINK THAT'S THE BEST WE CAN DO. IT'S GOING FORWARD. THAT'S MY PROBLEM. PUT YOURSELF IN MY POSITION.
>> I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE A COMMISSIONER. YOU HAVE A TOUGH
JOB. >> WE CAN ONLY CHARGE GOING FORWARD THE HIGHER IMPACT FEE THAT WE PUSHED THROUGH IN 2018.
SO, GOING FORWARD, SINCE 2018, WE'RE DOING A PRETTY GOOD JOB IN COLLECTING THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE WE NEED FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT, NEWING WITH 2018 GOING FORWARD. OUR PROBLEM, AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS MENTIONED YET, THE PREVIOUS COUNTY COMMISSON IN 2015 ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED THIS PROBLEM SEVEN YEARS AGO. AND THEY ACTUALLY PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AT THIS COMMISSION MEETING, HAD A DEBATE, AND WE'RE VOTING TO PUT THE ONE-CENT SALES TAX INCREASE ON THE BALLOT, AND THAT FAILED 3-2. MY POINT IS, THEY RECOGNIZED THE PROBLEM SEVEN YEARS AGO. AND I, FRANKLY, WOULD FEEL, AS ONE COMMISSIONER, IRRESPONSIBLE IF I DID NOT BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION AND ASK YOU TO VOTE IT UP OR DOWN. IT MAY PASS, IT MAY FAIL. I'VE DONE ALL I CAN DO TO BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION AND VOTE.
>> WE APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE, SIR. THANK YOU. YEAH, EVERY COMMISSIONER DOES A SERVICE, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WHAT THEY DO FOR SURE. I DEFINITELY RESPECT FOLKS WHO ARE WILLING TO PUT THEIR TIME AND ENERGY INTO MAKING OUR COUNTY BETTER, IF THEY CAN. WE TALKED ABOUT INFLATIONARY COSTS GOING UP OVER TIME. WE CAN AGREE TO SOMETHING WITH A DEVELOPER NOW, BUT IN SEVEN YEARS, OBVIOUSLY, THOSE COSTS WILL BE VERY, VERY DIFFERENT. IS IT POSSIBLE, AND IT MAY NOT BE, IS IT POSSIBLE TO SAY A TIME LIMIT. HEY, THIS AGREEMENT IS VALID FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS, BUT IF YOU START BUILDING AFTER THAT, WE HAVE TO
[01:15:01]
TAKE INFLATIONARY COSTS INTO ACCOUNT AND COME BACK TO THE TABLE AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THAT WILL REALLY REALISTICALLYCOST TODAY? >> SO, THE COUNTY MOVING FORWARD ON AGREEMENTS, AND I THINK THAT IS MAYBE WHAT THE COMMISSIONER WAS SAYING, IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO GO BACK TO AGREEMENTS, BUT I'M NOT A POLICY PERSON. MOVING FORWARD, THIS COMMISSION IS PUTTING INFLATIONARY FACTORS INTO THESE AGREEMENTS MOVING
>> SO, THAT IS GOOD. >> THAT'S GOOD. LET'S SEE. IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN CHANGE ANY OF -- SOME OF THIS RESTRICTED MONEY? AS YOU SAID, SOME OF IT IS RESTRICTED BY ORDINANCES.
ARE THOSE FLEXIBLE ORDINANCES THAT ARE RESTRICTING SOME OF THIS MONEY TO FREE SOME OF THAT UP?
>> I'M NEVER GOING SAY NO ON IT WITHOUT LOOKING. THERE'S $958 MILLION THERE. AGAIN, KIND OF LOOKING AT THE BIGGER EXAMPLES, AGAIN, I REITERATE, WE CAN'T TAKE THE UTILITY MONEY AND PUT IT INTO CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE, UNLESS THE BOARD APPROVES A FEE SIMILAR TO DUVAL WHERE JEA PAYS THE CITY AND THE JEA PASSES THAT ON TO THE END USER. SO, THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ON THESE REVENUES, BUT I'LL NEVER SAY THERE ISN'T, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THESE FUNDS THAT ARE IN THERE. I MEAN, WE GET DOWN TO COURT REVENUES, AND I ALWAYS THROW THIS ONE OUT, A DRIVER EDUCATION FUND. YOU GO 35 THROUGH A 20 MILE-AN-HOUR SCHOOL ZONE ONE MORNING AND THE POLICE PULL YA OVER, A PORTION OF THAT SPEEDING TICKET GOES INTO A DORY SCHLOSSBERG DRIVER EDUCATION FUND WHICH HELPS FOR DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR HIGH SCHOOLS. THAT MONEY CAN'T BE REROUTED. A LOT OF THESE DOLLARS COME DOWN FROM THE STATE AND/OR WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE PLACE WHERE YOUR GARBAGE REVENUE IS GOING INTO, AGAIN, A PARK OR A LIBRARY PROJECT. I'LL NEVER SAY NO THAT THERE ISN'T MAYBE ONE IN THERE THAT WE COULDN'T CERTAINLY REVIEW.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. TWO MORE QUESTIONS, GUYS, THEN I PROMISE, I'M OUT OF HERE. NATIONAL BEST PRACTICES, THAT DOESN'T --
(INAUDIBLE). >> I DON'T THINK THAT'S LEGAL FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BUT OKAY. NATIONAL BEST PRACTICE -- I'M SORRY. I HAVE THE MICROPHONE, SIR. IF YOU'D LIKE TO TALK AT THE MIC, COME STAND UP HERE AND MAKE THAT SUGGESTION. NATIONAL BEST PRACTICES, WHEN I HEAR THAT, I DON'T NECESSARILY HEAR THAT THAT'S A MANDATORY THING. IT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING SUGGESTED, IT SOUNDS LIKE.
>> OH, OKAY. YES. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ON THE RESERVES?
>> YES, SIR. >> IS THERE ANY FLEXIBILITY THERE? IS THAT MANDATORY? OR IS NATIONAL BEST PRACTICES JUST
A SUGGESTION? >> GFOA BEST PRACTICES. A RESERVE FOR 60 DAYS. THAT'S WHAT THAT REPRESENTED IS 60 DAYS. IT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE TARGET. WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO STAY THERE. BUT IT IS CERTAINLY A BEST PRACTICE. THAT REPRESENTS -- AND, AGAIN -- THE ABILITY TO RESPOND TO, AGAIN, THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE IS A BIG ONE OUT THERE. AND, AGAIN, POST-IRMA, SO WE HAD MATTHEW AND IRMA KIND OF BACK-TO-BACK, WE HAD DRAWN THAT RESERVE DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY.
>> VERY RARE CASE, HOWEVER. >> VERY RARE CASE, BUT WE HAD THE ABILITY TO RESPOND. WE HAD THE ABILITY FOR THE COUNTY TO DO THE DEBRIS REMOVAL, TO REBUILD WALKOVERS THE BEACH, YOU KNOW, THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS. THERE WERE ROADS THAT WERE INUNDATED.
WE WERE ONE OF THE FEW COUNTIES THAT DIDN'T HAVE TO BORROW TO DO THAT. BUT, YES, IT IS A BEST PRACTICE. BUT THAT IS CERTAINLY OUR -- AGAIN, OUR COLLECTIVE EMERGENCY FUND, OR RESERVE, I
SHOULD SAY. >> THEN MY FINAL QUESTION: IF WE WERE IN A BORROWING SITUATION AND WE DID HAVE TO PAY INTEREST, HOW WOULD WE BE PAYING THAT INTEREST? WHERE WOULD THAT
MONEY COME FROM? >> THAT MONEY WOULD HAVE TO COME OUT OF OPERATIONS, SOMEWHERE, SOMEHOW, WE'D HAVE TO PULL THAT OUT OF OPERATIONS. IT'S NO DIFFERENT IN YOUR HOME DEBT.
YOU PAY YOUR DEBT FIRST. SO, PAYING THAT INTEREST PORTION OF IT, SO, AGAIN, I MENTIONED BORROWING 50 MILLION, PAYING BACK 95. THAT $45 MILLION HAS TO COME OUT OF OPERATIONS SOME PLACE. IT'S COMPETING. IT'S NOT A NEW REVENUE.
[01:20:01]
>> SURE, SURE. THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING ALL OF MY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, GUYS, FOR BEING PATIENT WITH ME. AND THANK YOU, AGAIN, TO EVERYBODY WHO IS HELPING PICKUP TRUCK THIS ON.
>> HI, THANKS, AGAIN, FOR BEING HERE. YOUR PRESENTATION WAS VERY WELL DONE. HE ACTUALLY HAD A FEW OF MY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE INFLATIONARY ISSUE AND SO ON, LIKE YOU SAID, MOVING FORWARD AND LISTENING TO THE COMMISSION SPEAK TO THE ISSUE THAT THED DEVELOPERS ARE NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE. HOW ABOUT THE INDICES? I MEAN, THEY'RE ALMOST LIKE DOUBLE. YOU SAID IT WAS 8%, THE INDICES BEING USED AND NOW IT'S 16,
DOUBLE THAT? >> AN INDEX IS AN INDEX, RIGHT.
WE WILL ESTABLISH AN ORDINANCE OR RULE, HEY, EVERY YEAR WE'RE GOING TO INDEX OUR -- LET'S SAY OUR FEE. WE LOOK AT INDEXES FOR VARIOUS THINGS, YOU KNOW, WHAT LEVEL OF OPERATIONAL INCREASE WE'D EVEN CONSIDER FOR A DEPARTMENT, WE LOOK AT VARIOUS INDEXES. I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. GOVERNMENT -- THE GOVERNMENT INDEX THAT WE USE FOR, AGAIN, INFLATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR '23 WAS 2.3%, I THINK. SO, THE INDEXES DON'T ALWAYS WORK. SOMETIMES THEY WORK, SOMETIMES THEY DON'T. THE PROBLEM IS IS ONCE YOU PUT THEM INTO LET'S SAY AN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE THIS INDEX, UM, WE FIND THAT SOMETIMES THE INDEXES DON'T WORK. BUT, YET, WE'RE KIND OF TIED TO THOSE. THIS IS A FASCINATING YEAR, IF YOU WILL.
I MEAN, I CAN'T RECALL THE LAST TIME WE'VE HAD -- I MEAN, AGAIN, YOU THINK OF POST-COVID, WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS, THE ABILITY TO GET STUFF -- YOU KNOW, A LOT OF OUR STUFF COMES, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, FROM OVERASSESS AND KIND OF THE COG, THE POTENTIAL RAILROAD UNION STRIKE THAT CAME UP AND STILL MAY COME UP, THE LOS ANGELES -- YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY HAD EVERYTHING BACKED UP IN THE PORT, ALL THE THINGS WE'RE SEEING IN THIS INFLATIONARY KIND OF PERFECT STORM THIS YEAR. AND A LOT OF THESE INDEXES ARE GOING TO BE HESITANT IN PUTTING ALL THESE COSTS IN. THESE ARE ALL NEW. I MEAN, THE POST-COVID
WORLD HAS NOT NORMALIZED YET. >> WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO CHANGE THE INDEX TO REFLECT THE TRUE 16% INSTEAD OF THE 8% CURRENTLY
BEING USED? >> ONE WOULD HAVE TO FIND THE RIGHT INDEX. SOMEBODY MAY ALSO ACCUSE YOU OF CHANGING INDEXES THAT WORK TO YOUR BENEFIT, RIGHT? SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE LOOK AT IMPACT FEES, THERE'S A CONSTRUCTION, THE ENR CONSTRUCTION INDEX. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ENR IS, BUT IT'S A VERY SPECIFIC INDEX USED FOR CONSTRUCTION THAT WE HAVE UTILIZED FOR IMPACT FEES. IF WE SUDDENLY CHANGE IT AND IT GOES UP TO 16%, OR WHAT IF IT DROPS NEXT YEAR TO 4%, IT'S DIFFICULT, RIGHT? WE KIND OF TIE IN AND LOCK INTO AN INDEX THE BEST WE
CAN. >> BUT FOR HOW LONG ARE YOU TIED
INTO IT? >> UNTIL AN ORDINANCE CHANGES.
RATHER, IN '23, THE CURRENT YEAR, WE WILL BE AT IMPACT FEES -- I SHOULD SAY THE COUNTY WILL BE, I WON'T BE, BUT WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THAT IMPACT FEE STRUCTURE AND THAT WILL CERTAINLY BE -- THAT'S PART OF IT, THAT'S ONE OF THE VARIABLES IN THERE, THE INDEX, SO THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED.
>> OKAY. THAT WOULD BE A CONSIDERATION I WOULD RECOMMEND.
>> YES. >> THE OTHER QUESTION IS: IF A DEVELOPER -- THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE PARK, AND THAT SOME OF THE PARK THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE BUILT IN SILVER LEAF, AND I MIGHT BE WRONG, BECAUSE YOU GET INFORMATION FROM ALL OVER, AND I'M HERE TO GET ACCURATE INFORMATION. THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A PARK BUILT BY THE DEVELOPER. MAYBE IT DIDN'T HAVE EXACT PARAMETERS AROUND HOW BIG AND HOW MANY BALL FIELDS, IF ANY, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, BUT IF A DEVELOPER HAS IN THEIR PLAN THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD A PARK, AND THEY DON'T BUILD THE PARK, HOW CAN THEY GET AWAY WITH NOT BUILDING THIS PARK AND NOW GOING TO THE TAXPAYERS TO BUILD THE PARK?
>> SILVER LEAF WAS NEVER REQUIRED TO BUILD A PARK TO PUT IN IMPROVEMENTS, BUT THEY DID, THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO, BUT THEY DONATED 40 ACRES FOR A PARK SITE. IT'S TO BE A REGIONAL
[01:25:05]
PARK, NOT A PRIVATE SILVER LEAF PARK. IT'S NOT IN A GATED COMMUNITY. WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN RIGHT NOW IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT THAT DO NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLAY BALL BECAUSE WE'RE OVER BOOKED. SO, WE'RE GOING TO SPEND COUNTY MONEY FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE BALL FIELDS, BUT MR. HUDSON DONATED THE 40 ACRES ON HIS OWN VOLITION. THAT'S WHERE WE AREWITH SILVER LEAF. >> IS HE PAYING TAX ON THAT
>> BUT HE WON'T ANY MORE? >> WHEN HE DONATED TO THE COUNTY, I WOULDN'T EXPECT HIM TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES ON COUNTY
PROPERTY. IT'S A PARK. >> SO IT'S TOTALLY THE PEOPLE'S
LAND? >> IT'S THE PEOPLE'S LAND, AND IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE BALLPARKS FOR CHILDREN THAT TODAY DO NOT HAVE ACCESS.
>> OKAY. I DID HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT WHY DOES IT TAKE ROAD PROJECTS SO LONG TO BE COMPLETED. I LOOK AT ANYWHERE, U.S. 1, SANMARCO TOOK FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. YOU KNOW, YOU SEE THE BARRIERS UP, AND IT'S ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT OF A HAZARD AND SUCH, AND THE EQUIPMENT'S THERE, THEN YOU SEE VERY LITTLE -- I MEAN, IT TAKES YEARS AND YEARS FOR 100-YARD
STRETCH. >> I'VE HAD QUITE A BIT OF EXPERIENCE IN MY PREVIOUS LIFE IN GOVERNMENT WATCHING AND DEALING AND TRYING -- I USED TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF THE ST. JOHNS DISTRICT. IT TOOK 40 YEARS TO BUILD THE UPPER BASIN PROJECTS, THE HEADWATERS WITH THE ST. JOHNS RIVER, VERY FRUSTRATING. GOVERNMENT MOVES VERY SLOWLY. KUDOS TO THE GOVERNOR GETTING THAT SANIBEL BRIDGE DONE IN THREE DAYS
INSTEAD OF 30. >> GOVERNMENT RUNS SLOW. I GET
>> ANYWAY, MY LAST POINT/QUESTION WOULD BE: SO, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THE DEVELOPERS DEVELOPING, AND PARTICULARLY AT A RAPID RATE HERE IN THE COUNTY, WE REALLY WOULDN'T HAVE A LARGE NEED FOR ROADS TO BE WIDENED AND TO BE MAYBE IMPROVED, YES, MAINTAINED, OBVIOUSLY, OF COURSE, BUT WITH THE INFLUX OF PEOPLE -- WE'RE THE, I THINK, FOURTH OR FIFTH LARGEST GROWING COUNTY IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES, VERY RAPID DEVELOPMENT, SO NOW WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE NEED ALL OF THIS INFRASTRUCTURE AS A RESULT. I MEAN, THERE'S NO OTHER REASON WHY WE WOULD NEED, AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, INFRASTRUCTURE WITHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT, AM I CORRECT ON
THAT POINT, RIGHT? >> I'M WITH YOU.
>> OKAY. ALSO PEOPLE TALK ABOUT ROADS, OKAY, IMPORTANT, SCHOOLS, FIRE, POLICE AND SO ON. WE NEED ALL OF THAT WHEN YOU HAVE TENS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING IN. BUT TRY TO GET A DOCTOR APPOINTMENT, DENTAL APPOINTMENT, VETERINARIAN. A FRIEND OF MINE'S DOG JUST DIED BECAUSE EVEN THE EMERGENCY CARE COULDN'T HANDLE. THERE'S A WHOLE LOT MORE OF ROAD, SCHOOLS, FIRE, POLICE. IT'S EVERYTHING.
OVERCROWDING. MAYBE THE PARKING LOT AT PUBLIX WON'T HOLD THE CARS. MAYBE PLAN "B" COULD BE THAT WE PUT A MORATORIUM ON ANY ADDITIONAL FROM THIS DAY MOVING FORWARD BUILDING OF ANY TYPE, ANYTHING UNTIL WE HAVE THAT CATCH-UP. I HEARD THE PRESENTATION. WELL, WE'LL CATCH UP. THE MONEY WILL COME IN.
YOU KNOW, THE MONEY COMES IN SORT OF SLOWLY, THIS OR THAT.
>> LET ME ADDRESS THAT. I'VE TRIED TO MAKE IT CLEAR NOW AT LEAST TWICE, AND I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN THIS AS BEST I KNOW HOW, SO I WANT EVERYONE TO LISTEN, AND I'LL BE AS CLEAR AS I KNOW HOW TO BE. EVEN IF WE DON'T GO FORWARD WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT AT ALL IN THE WHOLE COUNTY STARTING TODAY, IF WE DO NO NEW DEVELOPMENT, WE NOW HAVE 300,000 PEOPLE, AND WE HAVE A $500 MILLION BACKLOG IN STRUCTURE TO SERVE THOSE 300,000 PEOPLE.
OKAY. THERE ARE SOME SECTORS WITHIN THE COUNTY, I READ THE PAPER, I READ THE BLOGS, THAT WOULD LIKE TO SAY, NO GROWTH.
WELL, THAT'S NOT GONNA SOLVE THE PROBLEM, IN MY OPINION. I'M ONLY ONE VOTE ON A COMMISSION. I'LL TELL YOU ONE LAST TIME: I WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE IF I DIDN'T BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION AND FOR YOU TO VOTE. BECAUSE IF WE STOPPED DEVELOPMENT TODAY, IT'S NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE BACKLOG PROBLEM. WHETHER YOU VOTE YES OR NO -- AND I'LL CLOSE AGAIN SAYING WE'LL EITHER HAVE THE REVENUE TO FILL THE BACKLOG OR A
[01:30:01]
DETERIORATION OF OUR QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE PROJECTS THAT YOU NEED AS CITIZENS AND THE SERVICES YOU NEED WHEN THOSE PROJECTS ARE BUILT, LIKE FIRE STATIONS AND LIBRARIES. SO, IT'S A CHOICE.YES OR NO. I'M TRYING TO PUT THAT TO YOU IN A WAY THAT YOU HAVE THE FACTS, AND YOU CAN VOTE. WHERE DID SHE GO? I WAS TRYING TO ANSWER HER QUESTION. (INAUD
(INAUDIBLE). . >> I APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWER SO MUCH. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, AS A CITIZEN, WE WATCHED THIS FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS BEING APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS. SO, THEREIN BECAME THE PROBLEM THAT WAS CREATED BY THE APPROVAL OF SUCH -- I'M ALL FOR GROWTH, BUT THIS IS EXPLOSIVE GROWTH.
>> WE SOLVED THAT PROBLEM STARTING WITH 2018. WHEN WE INCREASED THE IMPACT FEES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE SHOULD BY FLORIDA LAW, WE SOLVED THAT FUTURE GROWTH PROBLEM. IT'S SORT OF A CONUNDRUM. IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING. WE'RE DEALING WITH CURRENT AND FUTURE GROWTH THROUGH THE PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES THAT ARE NOW REALISTIC AND FAIR. THE PROBLEM IS BECAUSE OF THE GREAT RECESSION, THE LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO REDUCE OUR MILLAGE, ALL OF THOSE PROBLEMS CREATED A BACKLOG. IF I DIDN'T BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION -- THE EASIEST THING I COULD HAVE DONE POLITICALLY IS KICKED THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AND SORT OF SLINK OFF INTO A HAPPY RETIREMENT, BUT I WOULD BE REMISS AND IRRESPONSIBLE, IN MY OPINION, SO IT'S UP TO YOU THE VOTER. BUT I NEEDED TO BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION.
>> I GUESS LAST POINT: WHAT IS THE CHANCE THAT WE WOULD HAVE A MORATORIUM ON BUILDING FROM TODAY MOVING FORWARD.
>> I UNDERSTAND THE BACKLOG. I GET THAT. THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THAT, BUT LET'S STOP THE GROWTH SO WE DON'T CONTINUE ADDING MORE AND
MORE TO THE CURRENT PROBLEM. >> OKAY, WELL, AS ONE COMMISSIONER, I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR A MORATORIUM BECAUSE IF A LANDOWNER HAS SUFFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, I HAVE TO BALANCE HIS PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH YOUR RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN, YOUR INTEREST. AND THE FACT IS THAT THERE IS A BALANCE THERE. IF THERE ARE SUFFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE -- NOW, LAST WEEK IN THIS VERY AUDITORIUM, LAST TUESDAY, WE VOTED TO DENY TWO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS UNANIMOUSLY FOR A LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND IN -- NOT BEING CAPABLE. WE HAVE 15 MINUTES LEFT IN THIS TOWN HALL. WE DID GO OVER ON THE PRESENTATION, BECAUSE THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND IT MORE.
IF YOU HAVE NOT ASKED A QUESTION, IF THAT'S OKAY, IF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT ASKED A QUESTION, IF THEY CAN ASK A QUESTION FIRST, THEN IF WE HAVE EXTRA TIME AT THE END, THEN THOSE WHO ALREADY WENT CAN GO AGAIN.
>> THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE AN APPRECIATION FOR EDUCATION, SO THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS TOWN HALL TOGETHER.
MY QUESTION IS REGARDING IMPACT FEES. WHERE IS THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE IMPACT FEE CR CREDITS? HOW MUCH IS STILL OWED AND TO WHOM? HOW MUCH WAS GIVEN TO WHOM? SO, IMPACT FEE CREDITS, WHERE COULD WE GET THE REPORT? I KNOW THERE'S SUPPOSED
TO BE A REPORT EVERY YEAR. >> SO, I H I HAVE MIKE ROBERSON COMING DOWN WHO IS THE DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
>> GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION. SO, WE TRACK IN OUR DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT, WE TRACK IMPACT FEES. I'M NOT SURE THE ANNUAL -- YOU MIGHT BE TALKING ABOUT THE ANNUAL DRI REPORT THAT DEVELOPERS ARE SUPPOSED TO SUBMIT. IF A DEVELOPER DISOBEDIENTED A PARK, IT'S WORTH MONEY. IN TURN, THERE'S AN APPRAISAL. WE GRANT THE CREDITS. FOR ALL THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE DONE COMMITMENTS, WHETHER IT'S PROVIDED THE COUNTY WITH MONEY OR DID ROAD CONSTRUCTION, WHATEVER IT IS, WE TRACK THAT, AND AS THEY COME IN WITH A DEVELOPMENT, WE DEDUCT THAT FROM
[01:35:02]
THEIR IMPACT FEE CREDIT, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?>> IT DOES. THE QUESTION IS, WHERE IS THAT INFORMATION THAT WE CAN ACCESS REGARDING IMPACT FEES?
>> WE HAVE IT. IF SOMEBODY ASKS US FOR IT, WE CAN LOOK IT UP. I MEAN, IT'S TRACKED IN A DATABASE IF WE GO TO WHATEVER DEVELOPMENT AND THAT TYPE OF THING. THE PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST WOULD GET
YOU THE DATA. >> WHAT ARE THE REIMBURSABLE
DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS? >> SO, WHEN A DEVELOPER COMES IN, THERE'S GOING TO BE IMPROVEMENTS THAT A ARE SITE-SPECIFIC THAT THEY'VE GENERATED THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED -- MAYBE THEY NEED A RIGHT-TURN LANE IN FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S ON THEIR OWN DIME. THEY'RE NOT GETTING CREDIT FOR THAT. THEY GENERATED THAT. THEN THE OTHER SIDE THEY GENERATED IMPACTS TO THE ROADS, FOR EXAMPLE. SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ENGINEERS AND SMART PEOPLE THAT DO CALCULATIONS ON WHERE THOSE IMPACTS WOULD OCCUR BASED OFF THE POPULATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? AND FROM THAT POINT, THERE'S A PROPORTIONATE SHARE AMOUNT THAT'S GENERATED, RIGHT? AT THAT POINT, THAT'S WHAT'S CALCULATED. THAT'S THE AMOUNT OF MONEY -- OR AMOUNT OF ROADWORK THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED AND ON THE HOOK FOR. ONCE THEY HAVE EITHER PAID THE COUNTY OR MADE THE CONSTRUCTION, THEN, IN TURN, WE WOULD GIVE THEM THE IMPACT FEE CREDITS FOR THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE, YOU
KNOW, ADDRESSED THOSE IMPACTS. >> WHAT ABOUT THE
INFRASTRUCTURE? >> INFRASTRUCTURE'S A BIG WORD.
WHAT SPECIFICALLY DO YOU MEAN? >> WELL, IN TERMS OF WHAT IS REIMBURSABLE? YOU TALK ABOUT THE ROADS, BUT WHAT ELSE IS
REIMBURSABLE? >> DONATION OF LAND FOR PARKS.
IF THEY WERE TO PROVIDE MONEY TO SHERIFF OR THE FIRE, RIGHT, THAT TYPE OF THING. THAT WOULD BE -- IF THEY BUILT SOMETHING OR DONATED LAND FOR THAT, THEN THAT MONEY WOULD IN TURN BE GIVEN BACK. IT WOULD BE ADDRESSING THOSE IMPACTS THAT THEY CREATED.
THAT'S THE BEST WAY I CAN SAY IT.
>> THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. >> YES, MA'AM.
>> THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS ON TONIGHT. REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
SEEMS LIKE BOTH OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE SORT OF BEEN ANSWERED ALREADY. I KNOW THE YOUNG GENTLEMAN MENTIONED ABOUT THE IMPACT FEES POSSIBLY HAVING SOME KIND OF STATE LEGISLATION TO POSSIBLY INCREASE THEM, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THAT ALREADY. I GOT YOUR ANSWER. SHE SORT OF BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE CREDITS, SO SORT OF BOTH OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED, BUT MY QUESTION TO YOU, REAL QUICK ONE: COULD THE IMPACT FEE CREDITS BE
STOPPED? >> I GUESS I'LL PUT IT IN A WAY THAT IF YOU -- THEY'RE OWED THOSE CREDITS. I DON'T THINK LEGALLY IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT. NUMBER ONE, IT'S AN AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE THAT THE COUNTY AGREED TO, WHERE THEY'RE PROVIDING THIS INFRASTRUCTURE, WE AGREE THAT IT WAS SOUND, AND, BOOM, THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT. IN TURN, WE WOULD BE TAKING AWAY, WE'D BE GOING AGAINST OUR AGREEMENT. I'M SURE BY STATUTE, WE CAN'T TAKE MORE THAN NECESSARY, RIGHT, MORE OF THEIR IMPACTS. SO, IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO TAKE THAT MONEY AWAY BECAUSE THEY PUT THAT MONEY IN TO ADDRESS THOSE IMPACTS. DOES
THAT MAKE SENSE? >> MAKES SENSE.
>> THANK YOU. >> JUST TO ADD TO THAT. FLORIDA LAW REQUIRES THE COUNTY TO GIVE THEM IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR THE DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION, IF IT'S ROADS OR FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT. SO, IT IS A REQUIREMENT. THE COUNTY IS NOT DECIDING TO GIVE THEM CREDIT WILLINGLY. IT'S A STATE REQUIREMENT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? I'M CHARLIE WILLIAMS. I'M 78 YEARS OLD. I THINK WHAT WE HAVE IS A LOGISTICS PROBLEM. I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS, AND I'M GIVE YOU EXAMPLES OF THEM. THE FIRST QUESTION IS: WHEN IS THE COUNTY GONNA LEARN TO BUDGET? AND THE SECOND IS: WHEN ARE THE BUILDERS GOING TO BE CHARGED FOR ALL THE AMENITIES THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY TAXPAYERS? THE FIRST ONE IS THE BUDGET. I'M 78 YEARS OLD. I USED TO WORK, I HAD A BIG HOUSE, A POOL, ALL THE AMENITIES. I RETIRED ACTUALLY 24 YEARS AGO, I WAS GIVEN SIX MONTHS TO LIVE WITH PANCREATIC CANCER. I
[01:40:06]
RETIRED BECAUSE I HAD TO. I HAD A BIG HOUSE. I BOUGHT A SMALL HOUSE, I REBUILT IT. EVERYTHING I HAVE IS PAID FOR BECAUSE I'M ON A BUDGET CALLED A FIXED INCOME. AND THAT IS WHAT THE COUNTY IS ON. I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER ISSUE, AND THAT'S AN ACCOUNTING ISSUE. YOU MIX NEW CONSTRUCTION WITH OLD CONSTRUCTION AND YOUR RECORDS, AND THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE LIVED HERE THINK OR BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING.A LINE-ITEM BUDGET COULD SOLVE A LOT OF THAT SO YOUR TAXPAYERS COULD KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING. THESE QUESTIONS AND ALL THIS INFORMATION IS PUBLIC INFORMATION. I WANTED SOME INFORMATION FROM THE ELECTIONS OFFICE, I CALLED THEM. THEY SENT HELP THE RECORDS IN AN EMAIL. I PRINTED THEM OUT. I LOOKED OVER THEM. ALL OF THAT IS AVAILABLE. BUT WHEN ARE YOU GONNA -- IF I'M SPENDING MY MONEY, I HAVE A BUDGET. IF YOU'RE SPENDING MY MONEY, YOU HAVE A DEFICIT. THAT'S NOT ALLOWED. AND I THINK SOME THINGS WILL CHANGE IN THIS COUNTY BEFORE TOO LONG BECAUSE FOR TOO LONG THE BUILDERS ARE GETTING MILLIONS RICH OVER THE BACK OF PEOPLE MAKING LESS THAN $125,000 A YEAR, AND THAT'S GOT TO CHANGE. THANK YOU.
(APPLAUSE) >> ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS NOT ASKED A QUESTION YET?
>> WE HAVE FIVE MINUTES. HE WAS IN LINE FOR IT.
>> I'M LOOKING AT THIS FROM A SIMPLE POINT OF VIEW. NUMBER ONE, I HEARD IN PREVIOUS COMMISSION MEETINGS, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT RAISING THE TAX, AND A COMMISSIONER WHO'S NOW IN COMMISSIONER HEAVEN, SAID SOMETHING ABOUT, HE USED THE TERMINOLOGY, IT'S ONLY, IT'S ONLY X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS. WELL, I LOOK AT THIS AUDIENCE HERE, I DON'T THINK I SEE ANYBODY FROM HASTINGS HERE. THIS IS THE THIRD WORLD OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND HASTINGS, SOME PEOPLE ARE LIVING ON $800 A MONTH. WHEN YOU ARE LIVING ON $800 A MONTH, THE TERMINOLOGY ONLY MEANS SOMETHING ELSE, OKAY. IT DOESN'T MEAN, LIKE, SOMEBODY WITH A $5 MILLION ONLY IS NO BIG DEAL. WHEN YOU CROSS THE TRACKS, THAT MONEY MIGHT BE TO BUY HEAT OR FIX THEIR ROOF OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S THE PROBLEM I DON'T LIKE. ANOTHER THING IS, I THINK THIS WHOLE IDEA OF PUSHING THE -- I'M THINKING IT'S LIKE A SHELL GAME BECAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED RIGHT AT THE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF SENDING IT FOR A VOTE. ANOTHER THING, I THINK SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING LIKE, WELL, IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL, IT'S ON A PENNY. IF IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL, THEN JUST DROP IT. THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY. THANK YOU.
GOD BLESS AMERICA. >> THANK YOU, SIR. WE HAVE TIME
FOR ONE MORE QUESTION. >> ROSE KENNEDY'S FAVORITE BIBLE VERSE IS TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN, MUCH IS EXPECTED. THESE DEVELOPERS EXPECT TO BE GIVEN THE MOON, AND WE'RE DOING IT.
HE VOTED AGAINST THIS DUMB SALES TAX INCREASE AND SO WILL I.
RUSSELL LONG, HE USED TO SAY DURING TAX TIME THAT THE IDEA OF TAX REFORM WAS, DON'T TAX ME, DON'T TAX THEE, TAX THAT FELLOW BEHIND THAT TREE. HE WANTS US TO PAY FOR HIS INFRASTRUCTURE.
WE'RE GOING TO VOTE HIM DOWN. IT'S ILLEGAL AND IT'S, FRANKLY, A SIN. AS FAR AS THE IMPACT FEES, WE HIRED A REALLY LOUSY CONSULTANT. HE'S SOME 80-YEAR-OLD GUY. HE'S NOT EVEN A LAWYER. HE'S AN ECONOMIST. HE DID A REALLY BAD JOB, NEVER RESPONDED TO MY OPEN RECORDS REQUEST, I WAS BLOCKED IN GETTING THEM ANSWERED. HIS METHODOLOGY WAS FLAWED. HE HAD A HUGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. ON MARCH 15TH, WHEN THIS TURKEY WAS PUT IN FRONT OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION TO VOTE 4-1 TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT, I HAD THAT MORNING SUBMITTED 25 SUGGESTIONS FOR GOVERNMENT REFORM FOR OUR COUNTY COMMISSION TO CONSIDER BEFORE EVEN ADDRESSING A TAX INCREASE. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WROTE ME BACK OR TALKED TO ME ABOUT THOSE 25 IDEAS? ZERO. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY OF THOSE IDEAS WERE EVER PUT ON THE COUNTY COMMISSION AGENDA BETWEEN MARCH 15TH AND TODAY? ZERO. LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE
[01:45:05]
ADMINISTRATION BACK IN THE '70S LOOKED AT POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN SEVERAL SUBURBS OF D.C., AND THEY FOUND A HIGH CORRELATION BETWEEN POLITICAL CORRUPTION, PAYOFFS, BRIBERY, AND DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE AN INSPECTOR GENERAL IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, DO YOU KNOW HOW BIG THEIR STAFF IS? ONE FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT EMPLOYEE. THERE'S CORRUPTION GOING ON IN THE COUNTY. IT'S A LOT BETTER THAN IT USED TO BE. I'M GLAD HENRY DEAN IS THERE, BUT THERE WERE PRIOR COMMISSIONERS WHO RUBBER STAMPED THESE DEVELOPMENTS SHOULD BE SEEING GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS. THE ADMISSIONS MADE IS THERE IS NO PLAN "B." COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST ACTUALLY SAID AT A MEETING OF THE ROUNDTABLE, THERE IS NO PLAN "B." THERE'S NO PLANNING IN THIS COUNTY. WE DON'T HAVE A CHIEF ECONOMIST, WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE WHO KNOW TURKEY ABOUT A DARN THING AND UNQUALIFIED COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, CONRAD HIRED WITHOUT AN APPLICATION, HIRED WITHOUT AN INTERVIEW. HE FIRED TREY ASNER. HE FIRED OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION EXTREME.THE O'CONNELL CASE, I ASKED ABOUT THE COLD CASE BUDGET FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. HOW MUCH IS THE BUDGET TO INVESTIGATE COLD CASES? I'VE NOT YET GOTTEN AN ANSWER.
CONRAD TOLD ME RELEASE, TWO YEARS IN A ROW, BUDGET MEETINGS.
I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER YOUR
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.