Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Thursday, June 11, 2009
11 a.m. Workshop

The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
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.)

The preceding represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
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.