A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to examining the ethical obligations of committee members, with a particular focus on compliance with state and local laws. Members were reminded that they must avoid any communication with applicants or petitioners regarding matters pending before the Town Council. This rule is currently under review by the Town Council, underscoring its importance. Additionally, public officials, including advisory board members, were advised against soliciting or accepting gifts that could be construed as influencing their performance. The legal counsel stressed that members should avoid using confidential information for personal benefit and must refrain from using their positions to gain favors inconsistent with town policy.

The legal counsel clarified that advisory board members are classified as public officials under Chapter 112 of the Florida Statutes, despite being unpaid, appointed volunteers. This classification carries significant responsibilities, including abstaining from investments that could conflict with official duties. The complexities surrounding the Sunshine Law and public records were also elaborated, emphasizing the legal distinction between the two. Members were advised to avoid using intermediaries to share information and to collaborate on summarizing discussions within formal meetings rather than through email.

The discussion then transitioned to the fiscal year 2025 budget, which took center stage. The committee prioritized the FY 2025 budget discussion over the FY 2024 budget, leading to a unanimous decision to focus on the more immediate fiscal concerns. The town manager and staff presented a balanced budget proposal, highlighting proposed millage rates and assessments. Specific numbers discussed included a proposed millage rate of three mills, a road and drainage assessment of $250 per acre, and a solid waste assessment of $450 per unit.

A critical highlight was the proposed capital improvement plan, with a budget of $2.54 million and a balanced general fund of $4.261 million. Within this general fund, a transfer of $569,000 to the capital improvement plan and $221,000 to the road and drainage fund was proposed. Proposed adjustments, including a $50 rate increase in the solid waste fund, were discussed as necessary measures to address this funding gap.

The committee also tackled the status of the solid waste fund, highlighting a proposal to utilize $61,900 from accumulated reserves to balance it. Notably, the committee decided against transferring any funds from the general fund to the solid waste fund. The discussion touched on the capital improvement plan’s funding sources, including ARPA money, grants, and accumulated reserves from the road and drainage fund. Gas tax funds are projected to be transferred to the capital improvement plan and the road and drainage fund for improvements, in compliance with state statute.

A critical concern was the Public Works Department’s budget and staffing levels. Initially, there was mention of a missing $528,000, leading to inquiries about the number of employees within the department. The committee members sought clarity about the total workforce, emphasizing the need for a clear organizational chart to ascertain who occupies each position, their respective salaries, and whether these positions are filled. The conversation highlighted the complexities of understanding the staffing situation due to overlapping roles and administrative positions.

Further debate emerged regarding engineering services and associated costs. It was stated that the budget for the upcoming year included $350,000 allocated for a resiliency grant, aimed at funding engineers to develop a plan to address the town’s needs. Concerns were voiced about the financial implications of maintaining multiple engineering firms and the potential for redundancies. The committee was urged to consider cost-cutting measures to address the reported budget shortfall.

Additionally, the committee discussed the town’s capital improvement fund, which had generated $250,000 less than the previous year, partly due to a one-time FEMA grant. The committee was warned about the extensive capital improvement plan for the next several years, with estimates suggesting a shortfall of about $100 million for necessary infrastructure upgrades. The projected expenditures were laid out for upcoming years, raising concerns about the town’s preparedness for potential infrastructure failures.

Emergency preparedness was another focal point. Discussions revolved around the need for a more detailed understanding of departmental budgets and personnel structures. Concerns were raised about the town’s preparedness in the event of a hurricane, the level of compensation from FEMA and the state, and the lack of dedicated emergency funds. Instead, the town would need to utilize reserves or an emergency line of credit, which had been used in the past. The committee discussed the necessity of having sufficient cash flow to handle emergencies, emphasizing the importance of maintaining liquidity during unforeseen events.