Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, June 11, 2009
11 a.m. Workshop

DISCLAIMER:
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.

11:12:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to
11:12:43 order.
11:12:43 Roll call.
11:12:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
11:12:51 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.
11:12:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
11:12:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
11:12:55 We need to open our workshop.
11:12:57 >> So moved.
11:12:58 >> Second.

11:12:59 >>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second.
11:13:00 (Motion carried)
11:13:01 Okay.
11:13:03 >>BONNIE WISE: Director of Revenue and Finance.
11:13:05 And this is one of our budget workshops.
11:13:08 And if I could, I would like to concentrate today on
11:13:11 the CRAs.
11:13:12 And the reason I am doing that is because we have
11:13:15 received some preliminary information from the
11:13:18 property appraiser's office just last week.
11:13:21 Now granted it is just preliminary, and on July 1 we
11:13:24 will get the final values from the property
11:13:26 appraiser's office for both the CRAs and for the
11:13:29 city as a whole.
11:13:31 But some of these numbers for the CRAs are really
11:13:36 much different than what we have experienced in the
11:13:38 past, and I thought it was different enough that I
11:13:42 really needed to bring it to your attention.
11:13:43 Like I said, we do expect that these numbers will be
11:13:46 changed in the final numbers on July 1.
11:13:49 But if we can go through that which we have, I would
11:13:52 appreciate it.

11:13:52 We have a presentation before you.
11:14:00 This is the first chart.
11:14:01 And historically what has occurred in the city,
11:14:04 taxable assessed values, have been increasing over
11:14:07 time.
11:14:08 And we did this since 2005, when all of our CRAs
11:14:13 were on board.
11:14:15 And the blue bars are how the city-wide assessed
11:14:21 values have increased.
11:14:22 And you can see that it has increased somewhat, less
11:14:26 than 10%, a little over 10% and we had some increases
11:14:29 in various years.
11:14:31 Last year, as you remember from my budget
11:14:33 presentation, we had in fiscal year '09, the year that
11:14:37 we are in, was the year that we had our assessed
11:14:40 values in city-wide actually declined.
11:14:43 And that was due to amendment 1, where we had the
11:14:45 increase in the homestead properties, and the value
11:14:51 changes.
11:14:51 But you can see that even in fiscal year '09, the year
11:14:55 that we are in, even though city-wide the assessed
11:14:58 values declined, the CRA values increased.

11:15:01 And why did that happen?
11:15:02 Because we had activity going on in our CRAs, we had
11:15:05 new construction in our CRAs, a concentrated effort
11:15:08 on what was occurring in our CRAs.
11:15:10 But the preliminary information and the yellow bars
11:15:13 that we have received for fiscal year '10 shows that
11:15:17 the city-wide, the one on the left, is going to
11:15:21 decline further, fully expect it.
11:15:24 We know that it's going to decline further.
11:15:25 But what we see now is that the CRAs are going to
11:15:29 decline even at a greater rate than city-wide.
11:15:32 And that is not what we had experienced historically.
11:15:36 We have seen such growth in our CRAs and now we are
11:15:39 seeing a 17% or so decline in assessed value in our
11:15:43 CRAs.
11:15:47 This then calculates what the TIF revenue associated
11:15:51 with those declines would be.
11:15:53 And so we have it there for you.
11:15:55 I know it's a lot of numbers on there.
11:15:57 If you could just concentrate, for example, in total,
11:16:00 but each CRA, the values have declined, and each CRA,
11:16:07 which means that the TIF revenues themselves would

11:16:10 decline as well.
11:16:10 So whereas last year the CRAs collectively had over
11:16:15 33.6 million in revenue, if these numbers were to be
11:16:19 the final numbers, then we would have almost $8
11:16:23 million difference less in our CRAs.
11:16:26 So about a 23% decline.
11:16:29 And so that's why we are here.
11:16:31 I am going to go through each CRA for you so you can
11:16:34 see.
11:16:35 And there is the TIF revenue on a historical basis.
11:16:39 So I guess in the previous chart compared '09 to '10 I
11:16:44 wanted you to see what happened on a historical basis.
11:16:47 The TIF revenue increases in the past have been 20%,
11:16:51 22%, 48%, another 15, another 14.
11:16:54 And so now we are looking at that 23% decline.
11:17:00 And I'm going to go through a little bit, because
11:17:03 there's always some confusion on how the TIF is
11:17:07 actually calculated.
11:17:08 I am going to show you an example.
11:17:09 But this red line in this case is the base year
11:17:13 assessment.
11:17:13 As you know, when a CRA is established, we have the

11:17:17 base year, and we calculate the TIF, the assessed
11:17:21 values compared to the base year, so I wanted to you
11:17:23 see how those values are now comparing to the base
11:17:26 year.
11:17:26 We are still away from the base year.
11:17:29 You can see the difference between the red line and
11:17:30 the top of the yellow line for each year.
11:17:33 But we are not as far apart as we were.
11:17:37 I know that Julie has gone through this chart with you
11:17:41 before on how a CRA is -- the TIF is calculated, but
11:17:46 as you know, and generally TIFs now are 30 years,
11:17:50 there's some differences for some older TIFs, but
11:17:53 generally say 30 years.
11:17:55 We have the base value, that green area, and the tax
11:17:57 increment is that red area that increases over time.
11:18:01 And that's the part that gets captured into the trust
11:18:05 fund.
11:18:05 The base amount still remains with the taxing entities
11:18:09 as they have received them initially.
11:18:11 That would be the city, the county, the port, they
11:18:14 keep the base amount, and it's the TIF revenue that
11:18:18 gets distributed into the trust fund.

11:18:22 What I have done is used East Tampa as an example.
11:18:25 So here we have the base year assessed value, $492
11:18:31 million, and then I compared it for '09 and '10 with
11:18:35 once again the preliminary numbers that we received.
11:18:37 And so you can see, what you do is you calculate the
11:18:40 difference between the base year and the assessed
11:18:42 value in that given year, and then you multiply it by
11:18:45 the appropriate millage rate in that year.
11:18:48 We do not know that all the taxing entities are going
11:18:51 to have that particular millage rate in fiscal year
11:18:56 '10.
11:18:56 If any of the entities make a change in their millage
11:18:59 rate that is would impact this.
11:19:01 But for purposes of this analysis we just assumed that
11:19:03 they were going to maintain the same millage rate in
11:19:06 '10 as they did in '09.
11:19:08 So in that case you can see that East Tampa, the
11:19:10 revenues would go from 6.5 million to 4.2 million,
11:19:16 basically.
11:19:18 And then we always have to budget at 95%.
11:19:21 So from 6.1 to just under $4 million.
11:19:25 And that is our 36% decline in TIF revenues for East

11:19:29 Tampa, for example.
11:19:34 And then I want you to see on a historical basis how
11:19:37 East Tampa TIF revenues have really increased.
11:19:42 And we have a big jump from '05 to '06.
11:19:46 We really have had some consistent increases last year
11:19:50 and the year we are in, '09, we actually had a slight
11:19:53 decline.
11:19:53 And now you can see that our fiscal year '10
11:19:57 projection is even less than our '07 that we have
11:20:00 received.
11:20:01 So what does that mean?
11:20:02 It's going to impact not just for East Tampa, and this
11:20:05 will be for each of the CRAs, and I do have charts
11:20:08 for each CRA, is that a project, we really have to
11:20:12 look at each of the budgets for the CRAs, and really
11:20:15 look at how we are going to finance some of those
11:20:17 projects that we were intending to finance.
11:20:20 You know, 22nd street, where is that on the priority
11:20:24 list compared to the other projects?
11:20:26 And, you know, in downtown, where is the park?
11:20:30 Every CRA has projects that we are going to have to
11:20:32 really evaluate and consider as we go forward.

11:20:36 This is the increment for downtown.
11:20:39 And so you can see that pretty steady for '04, '05,
11:20:45 '06, and we have seen some increases, we had new
11:20:48 construction in downtown in that time period.
11:20:51 And then we had that drop.
11:20:52 This is another one for downtown, because this one has
11:20:55 debt service outstanding.
11:20:56 The red line is the convention center debt service.
11:21:00 And you can see that in '04, '05 and '06 we did not
11:21:05 have sufficient TIF revenue to cover that debt
11:21:08 service.
11:21:08 Those of you who were on council at the time remember
11:21:10 when we finally crossed in that time period, when we
11:21:14 had sufficient TIF revenue, and the debt service, and
11:21:19 so we had that occur in fiscal year '07 and we had a
11:21:22 few years where now we have revenue in excess of the
11:21:28 debt service.
11:21:28 However, for the fiscal year '10 projection we are
11:21:35 getting closer to that red line which means we will
11:21:37 have the money to pay the debt service and only a few
11:21:40 million dollars to do everything else.
11:21:42 This is the Channel District.

11:21:48 We had huge growth in '09.
11:21:51 Lots of new construction.
11:21:52 And we had a big drop in '09.
11:21:56 Ybor City. This is Ybor 1.
11:22:00 And Ybor 2.
11:22:04 Drew Park.
11:22:08 And Tampa Heights.
11:22:11 Tampa Heights of course, that one came on a little bit
11:22:14 later than some of the others.
11:22:18 And then Central Park.
11:22:20 And that has declined as well.
11:22:26 This graph is a little bit complicated but I wanted
11:22:30 everybody to understand logistically how the property
11:22:33 tax works.
11:22:35 When we levied the property tax city-wide, we get the
11:22:39 entire property tax amount for the city.
11:22:42 And then the city pays into the trust fund the amount
11:22:46 in that calculation that I showed you.
11:22:48 So he would take our millage rate, our 6.5 or so
11:22:52 millage rate and calculate that based on the increment
11:22:55 change.
11:22:56 And then our moneys together with that which we get

11:22:59 from the county, together with what we get from the
11:23:02 port and the other entities, make up the entire trust
11:23:04 fund.
11:23:05 But I thought it was important to show you that over
11:23:07 time, as our city-wide collection of property taxes
11:23:11 have increased through '07, from '07 to '08 to '09 the
11:23:18 amount the cities paid into the TIF increased and that
11:23:21 goes back to the previous charges that I showed you
11:23:23 before that the TIFs were growing at a greater rate,
11:23:27 the assessed values and the CRAs were growing at a
11:23:30 greater rate than in the city.
11:23:32 So when we collect the whole property taxes, we
11:23:34 actually make a appointment by December 31st of
11:23:37 each year, we bill ourselves just as we bill the other
11:23:40 taxing entities, and we make those payments into the
11:23:43 trust fund.
11:23:44 And so you can see they are in the fiscal year '10
11:23:48 based on the preliminary numbers where we are.
11:23:52 There is another matter that we are watching very
11:23:55 closely, and this came up, I think, at one of the
11:23:58 meetings that we had in the mayor's office.
11:24:00 Historically, this is on a city-wide basis.

11:24:03 We budget at 95% collection of the property taxes.
11:24:09 And going back, and everyone if we went back to before
11:24:12 '04 we collect slightly above 95%, and that red line
11:24:16 you see is that budgeted level, that '95 collection.
11:24:20 So when we collect in excess of 95%, it's actually
11:24:23 money greater than that which we budgeted that will
11:24:26 fall to fund balance.
11:24:28 We are tracking fiscal year '09 in the yellow this
11:24:33 time, fiscal year '09 very closely because based on
11:24:37 what we have received to date, it is possible that we
11:24:39 might not actually receive the 95%.
11:24:42 So we are watching it very closely.
11:24:45 We are in constant contact with the tax collector, and
11:24:50 that's something that we will just continue to
11:24:52 monitor, but did want to bring to your attention.
11:24:54 This is an example of some history on our millage,
11:25:02 because as I spoke to you, I guess, last week or a few
11:25:05 weeks ago we talked about what occurred
11:25:07 legislativewise that will impact the city going
11:25:09 forward and those things that we talked about last
11:25:13 week I am going to mention some of it again today.
11:25:16 As much as it impacts the city, I'm concerned how it

11:25:18 will impact the CRAs as we go forward.
11:25:21 So in the past, what has happened is that the city's
11:25:25 millage rate has been at that 6.5 level -- I'm sorry,
11:25:28 I used that 6.5 as an example before.
11:25:31 In fiscal year '08, that you will recall, Florida
11:25:35 governments were required to go back to their rollback
11:25:39 rate, plus another amount for the.
11:25:42 For the City of Tampa that was additional 5%.
11:25:49 So that brought our rate down a total of 10.5%.
11:25:51 What occurred in fiscal year '09 on the assessed value
11:25:55 side, that 29.2 billion, is that amendment 1 passed.
11:25:59 And as I mentioned that increased the homestead
11:26:02 exemption, which ultimately decreases the assessed
11:26:05 value.
11:26:05 So you can see there where legislative action has had
11:26:10 an impact on our total property tax collection.
11:26:14 And I anticipate that in the next legislative session,
11:26:18 or in the referendum that will occur in November of
11:26:21 '10, there could be other things that impact our
11:26:24 ability to raise revenue.
11:26:26 So what happened?
11:26:28 I talked about this previously.

11:26:31 There will be a referendum in November of 2010.
11:26:36 And it will be a statewide referendum that requires
11:26:39 60% to pass.
11:26:42 And if there's two parts to this, as you know, we
11:26:45 already have our save our homes cap.
11:26:48 So the assess value of a homesteaded property cannot
11:26:51 exceed -- cannot increase more than 3%, the lesser of
11:26:55 3% or CPI.
11:26:58 What passed for amendment 1, commercial properties,
11:27:00 cannot increase greater than 10%.
11:27:02 But what will be on the referendum is to cap that
11:27:05 commercial increase to 5% going forward.
11:27:09 And that would not apply to school districts, but it
11:27:12 would apply to cities, counties, et cetera.
11:27:15 And then the second part of that is for first-time
11:27:19 home buyers.
11:27:19 And so that would give some incentive for first-time
11:27:23 home buyers.
11:27:24 Statewide, the house had estimated in the first year
11:27:29 that would be implement it would cost the state,
11:27:31 statewide, $100 million.
11:27:33 The next year, $185 million.

11:27:35 And the following year, $266 million.
11:27:39 But what does it mean for CRAs in our whole context?
11:27:42 Our CRAs have grown at really our assessed values
11:27:46 have grown at huge rates.
11:27:47 Now some of that is because of new construction.
11:27:49 Probably much of it is because of new construction.
11:27:52 But some of it is because the new construction exists,
11:27:56 and then the assessed value of the whole area
11:27:59 increases.
11:28:00 So if these limitations are put in effect, I'm not
11:28:04 sure we are going to see that 20, 30% that we have
11:28:07 seen increases in our CRAs going forward.
11:28:10 So it's really just more a conceptual, long-term, as
11:28:14 you think about your budgeting, as we make forecasts
11:28:17 for the future, what are realistic a function as he
11:28:21 would go forward.
11:28:22 I think that's important.
11:28:23 Because of what's occurring, too, we are really now
11:28:27 more than ever really kind of looking at those tax
11:28:29 certificate sales, and monitoring that a little bit
11:28:33 more closely.
11:28:34 We have seen in the paper today information on

11:28:38 foreclosures, I guess it was fewer foreclosures this
11:28:40 month than last but still much greater than prior
11:28:43 years.
11:28:43 These are all the kinds of things that we are really
11:28:46 trying to monitor for you and keep a good track on.
11:28:49 So I just wanted you to know that some of those new
11:28:54 options that are occurring this year, a little bit
11:28:56 different than what we had really experienced in prior
11:28:58 years.
11:29:00 With that I will open up to questions for you.
11:29:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.
11:29:08 I guess in reviewing this based on your projection of
11:29:11 revenues for the TIF money of 25 million-plus, I guess
11:29:16 that's about the same amount as it was in real dollars
11:29:19 in '07?
11:29:22 >>BONNIE WISE: Yes.
11:29:23 >> So even though we had a cut, and it seems large and
11:29:27 percentages, the overall, I'm looking at it like you
11:29:31 said 23%, even though that's large, I'm still
11:29:36 thinking, you know what?
11:29:37 We still are doing quite well compared to the
11:29:41 negatives and what's going on throughout the country.

11:29:45 Because of '07, and the high amounts of revenues that
11:29:50 were collect between '07 and the later part of '08.
11:29:54 >>> Right.
11:29:55 You can see from '07 to '08 and from '08 to '09 we did
11:29:59 have those big increases.
11:30:01 You are exactly correct.
11:30:01 So this does bring us right back to right where we
11:30:04 were in '07.
11:30:05 I am concerned just generally, you know, property tax
11:30:09 values lag somewhat, so it's everything as of January
11:30:13 1 of that year.
11:30:14 So if we look to the next year, what's going to be the
11:30:18 January '10 number, I would expect further decline.
11:30:21 But you are correct, on an absolute basis, that's
11:30:25 right back where we are.
11:30:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.
11:30:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
11:30:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:30:32 Bonnie, good presentation as always.
11:30:37 The question I have, the second-to-the-last slide and
11:30:42 the third to the last slide on that new legislation,
11:30:48 line 32, I don't know if that 10% on the commercial

11:30:52 side, the commercial I don't know if that's a huge
11:30:56 factor especially right now, because I mean things
11:30:59 aren't spiking in any regard so I don't know if that's
11:31:02 going to have much of an impact.
11:31:04 Would you agree on the commercial side?
11:31:05 >>> I would agree that in this market it's really
11:31:08 quite meaningless.
11:31:09 And it's really more a long-term, as we get out of
11:31:13 this recession that we are in, as we experience growth
11:31:15 in the future, that's where it would be limiting.
11:31:18 But I completely agree that in the short run that
11:31:20 won't have an impact.
11:31:22 >> Explain the first time home buyers exemption, maybe
11:31:26 with an example, if you want.
11:31:31 How that would work for people.
11:31:36 I mean, I heard about it but I don't really understand
11:31:38 it.
11:31:40 >>> Well, as I recall, it is a sliding scale.
11:31:43 And so I think the way it works, you know, a normal
11:31:47 homestead exemption now with $50,000, and I think it
11:31:50 allows additional homestead up to the $100,000.
11:31:55 However, each year it would decline, so the next year,

11:31:58 I believe, it's the max of 100,000, then the next year
11:32:02 the homestead exemption is at 80, I believe, and then
11:32:07 it phases out.
11:32:10 Exactly mathematically, I would really have to look
11:32:12 into it.
11:32:13 >> So it's probably difficult to calculate the impact
11:32:21 of that locally at this point?
11:32:24 >>> Right.
11:32:24 In fact, from the house level, we on a statewide
11:32:30 basis, they thought that that would impact 13 million
11:32:34 statewide.
11:32:35 So it would save probably on a local basis, it's not a
11:32:39 huge number, it's statewide, that's 13 million,
11:32:43 compared to the first part which has an impact of 100
11:32:46 million statewide.
11:32:46 >> In taxes?
11:32:52 >>> In tax collection, right.
11:32:54 >> And when we talk about the collections dropping,
11:33:01 possibly dropping below 95%, it's definitely of
11:33:04 concern.
11:33:08 But isn't it a short-term concern, because there's
11:33:11 always the assumption that the tax certificates will

11:33:13 get sold, and we will get the money, but it's just a
11:33:17 function of time?
11:33:19 >>BONNIE WISE: I'm hoping so.
11:33:20 First thing I'm hoping is that we actually get to the
11:33:23 95.
11:33:24 But yes, there's always a lag.
11:33:26 And so the tax certificates are sold.
11:33:28 They are sold within that three-year period.
11:33:30 It is a matter of time to when we would receive those
11:33:33 moneys.
11:33:34 >> Do you have some sort of standard accounting
11:33:38 principles to address that?
11:33:39 Like how long you can count on that, that the money --
11:33:44 ultimately the money will be coming in?
11:33:46 >>> I think that we are going to be spending more time
11:33:49 on that now than we really ever have before.
11:33:52 Now it's becoming more material.
11:33:55 I shouldn't say material.
11:33:57 There's more of it now to be concerned about.
11:33:59 But where in the past we have looked at it and spent
11:34:03 some time on it.
11:34:04 Now we are monitoring it a little bit more --

11:34:06 >> So our outside auditors might be looking at
11:34:09 something like that as well in terms of how we are
11:34:11 dealing with that?
11:34:12 >> I think I mentioned to you that Moody is analyzing
11:34:16 us right now, that's one of the things they
11:34:18 specifically asked for.
11:34:20 It's not just a City of Tampa thing.
11:34:21 This is a statewide, countrywide thing, frankly.
11:34:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:34:26 >>MARY MULHERN: I noticed that, too.
11:34:31 It looks like we are about even with 2007.
11:34:34 But my question is more of just a market question,
11:34:38 real estate market.
11:34:41 I hear a lot that the kind of the peak of the bubble
11:34:48 in real estate was 2005.
11:34:49 Do you hear that, too?
11:34:51 Is that what people are kind of thinking?
11:34:57 >>BONNIE WISE: Our numbers wouldn't frankly show that.
11:34:59 >> Yes, these numbers don't show that and that's what
11:35:02 is interesting for us as far as projections, because
11:35:05 say it was 2006 was the peak.
11:35:08 We could still -- I mean, I think the good news is, we

11:35:12 are only back to 2007, where we have seen a pretty big
11:35:17 increase.
11:35:17 But it seems like we might be in for another year,
11:35:25 that we kind of lag behind with the property
11:35:27 assessment, property appraiser's assessment.
11:35:30 >> For us city-wide our biggest increase year was
11:35:34 fiscal year '07.
11:35:36 >> Right.
11:35:37 So we would be in good shape if we kind of stayed
11:35:40 around that.
11:35:42 And if it's really not -- it's only a couple of years,
11:35:46 when you think about even when you go back to 2004, we
11:35:51 are way ahead of the curve on that.
11:35:54 So we still do have a pretty healthy increase in the
11:35:59 tax revenue, TIF revenues.
11:36:02 >>BONNIE WISE: We still have a difference between the
11:36:03 base year, certainly, and the increments.
11:36:08 That's the whole idea of the CRA, of course, is to
11:36:10 invest those moneys into the CRA to increase the
11:36:13 assessed values.
11:36:15 So I would say that in those years it really was
11:36:17 working.

11:36:18 We were really seeing fund increase and it was working
11:36:22 because they were increasing at a greater rate than
11:36:24 the whole city on a city-wide basis, because the whole
11:36:27 market was increasing.
11:36:28 But they were increasing more.
11:36:29 >> Right.
11:36:30 But I think that's because it was new construction,
11:36:32 and that was speculation is what was increasing the
11:36:36 valuations and the assessment.
11:36:40 When you look at 2007, on your TIF revenue history on
11:36:45 your second page, is that 48% increase, that's 48%
11:36:50 from the base?
11:36:52 >>> Yes, it's the revenues themselves, yes.
11:36:55 How much the revenues increased.
11:36:57 A huge year for CRAs.
11:36:59 >> But it's from the base year, not the year before.
11:37:02 >>> Right.
11:37:03 It's the revenues themselves, right.
11:37:04 >>MARY MULHERN: All right.
11:37:11 Well, a little bit of a silver lining, I guess.
11:37:14 >>> Yes.
11:37:15 I wanted you to know, like I said, I fully expect that

11:37:18 this property appraiser will have different numbers
11:37:20 when they give us -- whether they are materially
11:37:24 different, we just don't know.
11:37:27 We are hoping they are not materially different
11:37:30 because for budget purposes you need to know.
11:37:31 But they will vary.
11:37:33 And then for fiscal year '11, which I know it's hard
11:37:37 to think about the fiscal year '11 when we are just
11:37:40 getting to fiscal year '10, but for '11 that will be
11:37:45 based on the next year's January 1 property values.
11:37:48 So I expect that we'll see this type of thing again,
11:37:51 where we will see declines again.
11:37:55 It's just to what magnitude.
11:37:57 So as you go into your CRAs, I know you had a CRA
11:38:00 meeting this morning.
11:38:01 So that's why the timing was good, as you go into your
11:38:03 CRAs and start thinking about your CRA budgets,
11:38:06 there will be some things you will need to address as
11:38:08 you look at each of those CRA budgets, because of the
11:38:11 decline in revenues.
11:38:12 As I mentioned, we still should have should have
11:38:15 sufficient revenue to pay the convention center debt

11:38:19 service and the general fund will have to supplement
11:38:21 that debt service like we have for really most of the
11:38:24 years that we have had those bonds outstanding.
11:38:27 So that was my first concern when I saw those numbers,
11:38:30 do we have enough money to pay that debt service?
11:38:32 But we seem to be okay on that for right now.
11:38:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
11:38:39 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.
11:38:44 >>BONNIE WISE: All righty.
11:38:45 Thank you.
11:38:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me give to the clerk this memo
11:38:48 from Councilwoman Saul-Sena, her absence from this
11:38:52 meeting.
11:38:59 >>BONNIE WISE: Next week we have a workshop.
11:39:01 If I could, I would really like to concentrate on the
11:39:03 wastewater area.
11:39:07 It something that I think really requires some
11:39:10 attention.
11:39:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:39:11 >>BONNIE WISE: Thank you.
11:39:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
11:39:15 Is that it?

11:39:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Did I read something where you said
11:39:19 wastewater, did that mean -- thank you very much.
11:39:28 I just saw the body language there and it told me a
11:39:31 lot more than what you said.
11:39:32 >>BONNIE WISE: Yes, sir.
11:39:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern, did you want to
11:39:36 bring up an item?
11:39:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you want to ask the public if
11:39:39 anybody wanted to address this issue?
11:39:41 >> Oh, yes, thank you.
11:39:43 Anyone from the public wish to address council on the
11:39:45 this workshop?
11:39:46 >> Move to close.
11:39:57 >> Second.
11:39:59 >>MARY MULHERN: This was a question I got from Bonnie
11:40:00 Wise.
11:40:02 She asked if we were expecting to have line items for
11:40:06 the budget analyst in next year's budget.
11:40:09 And from what I recall of our discussion, I just
11:40:12 wanted to hear from counsel that we were -- since it
11:40:19 seems to be a fairly involved and active budget
11:40:22 advisory committee right now, we were not going to

11:40:26 attempt to fill that position.
11:40:29 I know there was some discussion about using some of
11:40:31 the money from this year's budget allocation for that
11:40:36 position for something.
11:40:37 Was it for the retreat?
11:40:40 >> $1500 port for the retreat.
11:40:42 >>MARY MULHERN: So I don't know if we want to maybe
11:40:45 budget for that for next year.
11:40:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What I would suggest is that we
11:40:51 allocate into the budget another $1500 for the
11:40:55 strategic planning session.
11:41:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: $1500 breaks down to about 225 per
11:41:03 council member.
11:41:04 So I would suggest that you make it divided by six
11:41:06 since I never attend, you get a true figure then.
11:41:09 >> Got to pay your dues, though.
11:41:09 >> I don't belong to that country club.
11:41:26 >>MARY MULHERN: We can include that in our City
11:41:27 Council budget without coming from that pot, right?
11:41:35 >> I think we further reduced our budget, as I recall,
11:41:39 for each City Council person already.
11:41:40 I could be wrong.

11:41:46 >> We could include that $1500 or whatever the right
11:41:50 number is.
11:41:50 But I guess the question is for the fiscal year '10
11:41:53 budget can we go ahead and eliminate the budget
11:41:56 analyst position?
11:41:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
11:41:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Certainly in my budget not getting
11:42:01 federal stimulus dollars.
11:42:06 >>MARY MULHERN: I'll make a motion that we eliminate
11:42:08 that.
11:42:08 >> Second.
11:42:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: With the caveat that we include the
11:42:12 1500 for the strategic planning.
11:42:13 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.
11:42:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I think the motion is in order.
11:42:16 So that is included in the motion?
11:42:18 >>MARY MULHERN: Including the 1500.
11:42:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify saying Aye.
11:42:23 Opposes?
11:42:23 Okay.
11:42:25 One last item is on the July date.
11:42:29 We had a discussion this morning about moving the

11:42:32 workshops around, taking up CRA on the 23rd, I
11:42:35 believe it was.
11:42:37 Mr. Shelby has come back with some recommendations for
11:42:39 us.
11:42:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, council.
11:42:44 I'm passing around a mockup calendar.
11:42:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: If we can just go ahead and move the
11:42:55 dates to your recommendation.
11:42:58 We can do the other ones later, I guess.
11:43:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you have enough copies?
11:43:02 Very quickly, council, one suggestion that had been
11:43:05 made is to have the CRAs at 1:30.
11:43:09 But council's motion was to void the afternoon
11:43:13 meetings when you had the night meetings.
11:43:14 So looking at the July calendar, what you would have
11:43:17 is the City Council workshop would commence at 9 a.m.
11:43:20 You would have the commendations, as you said.
11:43:22 Then as you look further down the Community
11:43:24 Redevelopment Agency would begin at 9:15.
11:43:27 Give or take, obviously. I set times a little bit
11:43:28 earlier.
11:43:29 You can always run a little later.

11:43:33 It's better to run a little later than to run ahead of
11:43:34 schedule to give people notice.
11:43:37 Then that being the case, I believe the budget of the
11:43:41 CRA would be taking a good bulk of that morning.
11:43:44 Then you would have at 10:30 or at any time thereafter
11:43:47 the workshop regarding the WMBE statistics.
11:43:52 That will be the first report of that department to
11:43:54 this council.
11:43:55 The following items that you see there would be
11:43:59 removed from the July agenda, continued to September.
11:44:03 Turning the page to go to August, you see August is
11:44:06 also another difficult month because there are only
11:44:11 four Thursdays in that month, but one of them is for
11:44:15 the Florida League of Cities week.
11:44:17 So therefore you only have three total weeks that
11:44:19 council meets.
11:44:21 Therefore, on the 27th, what you would do is you
11:44:25 would have the workshop commence at 9 a.m., with the
11:44:28 police Officer of the Month.
11:44:29 Then you would have the Community Redevelopment Agency
11:44:32 begin at 9:15.
11:44:34 And then the motion would be to change the times of

11:44:37 the remaining workshops, again beginning at 10:30 for
11:44:42 the cell phone tower, 11:00 for the issue of zoning,
11:44:47 and 11:30 on transfer development rights.
11:44:50 Then turning the page to September, you see that you
11:44:53 have a full day for the CRA meeting on the 10th of
11:44:57 September.
11:44:58 And, therefore, you would have on the 24th, I
11:45:01 would recommend you consider changing the time to
11:45:04 discuss the citation process of going to legal signs
11:45:09 to 9:30.
11:45:10 And then add those three additional items that were
11:45:12 continued from the July workshop.
11:45:16 10:00 the transportation technical manual.
11:45:18 10:30 the impact fee study.
11:45:20 And 11:00 the appeals process.
11:45:22 Granted, council, some of these things may run a
11:45:24 little bit late.
11:45:25 But of course as long as people have noticed
11:45:28 sufficient time in advance as long as the meeting
11:45:29 starts a little bit later, then they will at least
11:45:32 have time to be there.
11:45:33 And if things run dramatically late, council, could

11:45:36 you always move the appeal process to October.
11:45:38 That's pretty open.
11:45:39 But that being the case, that's my recommendation
11:45:42 unless council has any suggestions.
11:45:45 >> So moved.
11:45:46 >> Second.
11:45:46 (Motion carried).
11:45:50 >>BONNIE WISE: When we meet next week, we have to
11:45:52 discuss some preliminary budget hearing dates.
11:45:55 Maybe you could all bring your calendars so we could
11:45:57 try to get those hearing dates that you are
11:45:59 comfortable with.
11:46:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:46:01 Anything else?
11:46:02 Receive and file?
11:46:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
11:46:05 >> Second.
11:46:05 (Motion carried).
11:46:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anything else need to come before
11:46:08 council?
11:46:08 Nothing else then, we stand adjourned.
11:46:10 Thank you.

11:47:05 (The City Council meeting adjourned at 11:47 a.m.)
11:47:11
11:47:11

DISCLAIMER:
The preceding represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.