[1. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:04] >> YOUR MICS ARE LIVE NOW. READY WHEN YOU ARE. >> OKAY. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO THE SEPTEMBER 1ST WORKSHOP. WE WILL START, AS WE ALWAYS SHOULD, WITH THE ROLL CALL. WILL BE LED BY COMMISSIONER JOYCE TOO. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT ST STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, [4.1 Constitutional AMENDMENT 3 — PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION — City staff will present the potential impacts of Amendment 3, slated for the November 3, 2026, General Election ballot. Constitutional Amendments require 60% voter approval. If approved, Amendment 3 will become effective January 1, 2027. ] INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> THANK YOU, EVERYONE. CITY STAFF HAS PREPARED A PRESENTATION THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO GIVE TO THE CITIZENS AND THE COMMISSIONER, AND I BELIEVE OUR CITY MANAGER MS. CAMPBELL IS GOING TO PRESENT THAT. SO TAKE IT AWAY, MS. CAMPBELL. >> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. THIS WORKSHOP HAS BEEN ON OUR RADAR FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS, SINCE THE LEGISLATURE WRAPPED UP THEIR EFFORTS IN SPECIAL SESSION EARLIER THIS YEAR. WE DID A COUPLE OF SESSIONS, BUDGET 101 AND PROPERTY TAXES WITH EMPLOYEES IN THE COMMUNITY BEFORE THESE MEASURES WERE FINALIZED. AND SINCE THEY'VE BEEN FINALIZED, WE DID UPDATE THE INFOR INFORMATION. THE GOAL TONIGHT IS NOT TO GIVE PROS OR CONS. THAT'S NOT THE STAFF'S ROLE, TO ADVOCATE FOR ONE POSITION OVER ANOTHER. IT IS JUST WHAT IS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME LIKELY TO BE BASED ON ALL THE INFORMATION WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO GATHER. AND THAT SETS UP OPTIONS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROCESS. WE JUST WANT TO UNDERSAND THE IMPACT TO THE CITY'S BUDGET TONIGHT. AND IT'S SEPARATE AND APART FROM OUR BUDGET PROCESS. IT HAS COME CORRELATION, OBVIOUSLY. ONE YEAR CAN AFFECT THE NEXT YEAR. BUT THIS IS SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE BUDGET HEARINGS WE WILL HAVE ON SEPTEMBER 3RD AND SEPTEMBER 15TH. SO WHAT I WANT TO GO THROUGH TONIGHT IS WHAT THE BALLOT ITEM ACTUALLY SAYS. WHICH OF OUR FUNDS ARE AFFECTED. AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES AND HOW YOU COULD PROCEED WITH BALANCING. AGAIN, IT'S NOT SPECIFIC CHANGES THAT I AM RECOMMENDING OR THAT THE TEAM IS RECOMMENDING. IT'S JUST TO GIVE YOU THE GENERAL IMPACT TO THE BUDGET. GIVE YOU AN ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE PICTURE. AND THEN WE CAN GET INTO THE SPECIFICS IN MORE DETAIL AFTER NOVEMBER 3RDRD. WHICH IS THE BIG DAY IN QUESTION. WE HAVE THIS SLIDE FROM THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION WHEN THERE WERE TWO ELECTIONS IN FRONT OF US. OBVIOUSLY THE AUGUST ELECTION IS PAST US NOW, SO THIS QUESTION IS UP FOR VOTERS TO DECIDE ON ON NOVEMBER 3RDRD. WHAT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE ACTUALLY SAYS, THIS IS THE TITLE OF IT. IT IS A LEGISLATIVELY REFERRED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS NOT AN INITIATIVE OF THE VOTERS PLACED ON THE BALLOT. THIS IS COMING TO US DIRECTLY FROM THE LEGISLATURE. A "YES" VOTE DOES FOUR SPECIFIC THINGS. IT INCREASES HOME STAT TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM NONSCHOOL TAXES. AND THEN ADJUSTING UPWARD BY THE CPI STARTING IN 2029. AND IT DOES DIRECT THE LEGISLATURE TO RAISE THE EXEMPTION FURTHER UP TO A FULL EXEMPTION, ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY HOW OR MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT. THE SECOND STEP IS THAT NEW RESIDENTS RECEIVE A SMALLER EXEMPTION UNTIL THEY'VE LIVED HERE FOR FIVE YEARS. THE THIRD COMPONENT IS THAT IT DECREASES NONHOMESTEADED PROPERTY VALUE EVALUATIONS. RIGHT NOW THAT CAP IS 10% EVERY YEAR, AND THAT WOULD BE LOWERED TO A 5% INCREASE IN VALUE EVERY YEAR AS THE MAXIMUM. IT ALSO LIMITS HOW COUNTIES AND CITIES CAN SPEND PROPERTY TAXES. IT GIVES US A LIST THAT I'LL COVER IN A MOMENT ON HOW WE CAN SPEND THE MONEY THAT WE DO GET FROM PROPERTY TAXES. AND THEN A "NO" VOTE WOULD BE OPPOSING THESE FOUR CHANGES TO THE STATE'S CONSTITUTION, AND IT DOES NOT CHANGE THEN, DOESN'T HAVE ANY IMPACT, ON THE CURRENT SYSTEM. BECAUSE THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, IT WOULD REQUIRE 61% VOTER APPROVAL TO PASS. [00:05:02] THIS LIST IS THE LIMITATIONS ON PROPERTY TAXES SPECIFICALLY AS IT APPLIES TO CITIES. IT WOULD ALLOW US TO COVER PUBLIC SAFETY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE, EMS WITH PROPERTY TAXES. WE CAN REFINANCE OR FINANCE INFRASTRUCTURE, ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, STORM WATER, THINGS LIKE THAT. WE CAN FINANCE OR REFINANCE NATURAL RESOURCE PROJECTS. WE COULD ISSUE BONDS AND MAKE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS WITH PROPERTY TAXES. AND WE CAN MEET OUR OBLIGATIONS FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. THIS LAST ONE THAT I PUT IN ITALICS WAS ADDED BY THE LEGISLATURE AFTER IT CAME TO THEM FROM THE GOVERNOR. AND I THINK THIS GIVES US BROOD FLEXIBILITY IN HOW WE SPEND THE PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS. BASICALLY IT SAYS THAT IF YOU AS THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE BUDGET, OR THE EXPENDITURE, AND IT'S LEGAL, THEN YOU CAN SPEND PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS ON IT. SO TO ME, THAT ONE IS VERY, VERY BROAD AND ALLOW US TO HAVE WIDE LATITUDE ON HOW WE SPEND THE PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS, SO LONG AS IT'S APPROVED BY THIS BODY. THIS LIST SHOULD LOOK FAMILIAR TO YOU. THIS IS THE LIST OF 30 DIFFERENT BONDS THAT WE BALANCE INDIVIDUALLY WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS. AMENDMENT 3 DOES NOT AFFECT ANY OF THE RED FUNDS THAT I'VE STRICKEN THROUGH. IT DOESN'T AFFECT ANY OF OUR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS, PENSION FUNDS, INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS, TAX FUNDS, ENTERPRISE FUNDS. IT ONLY AFFECTS THREE FUNDS THAT WE DIRECTLY PAY FOR EXPENDITURES OUT OF USING PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS. THAT'S THE GENERAL FUND, THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA, AND OUR CAPITAL FUND. THOSE ARE THE ONLY THREE FUNDS THAT AMENDMENT 3 WOULD IMPACT. IN A DIRECT WAY, ANYWAY. SO THE GENERAL FUND AND -- I'M USING PROJECTIONS FOR '26/'27 THAT WE'VE PRESENTED TO YOU IN THE DRAFT BUDGET. FOR NEXT HERE IT'S 49.7 MILLION. WE'RE PROJECTED TO BRING IN 23 MILLION FROM PROPERTY TAXES, OR ABOUT 47% OF THE GENERAL FUND IS DERIVED FROM PROPERTY TAXES. IN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY. ONE, IT'S A MUCH SMALLER FUND. A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN 400,000 A YEAR IN REVENUE. BUT 98% OF THAT COMES FROM PROPERTY TAXES. BECAUSE THAT IS A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING SPECIAL DISTRICT, ITS ONLY REVENUE IS REALLY PROPERTY TAXES. THERE'S ABOUT 2% THAT'S INTEREST EARNINGS ON THE FUND ITSELF. AND INTERESTINGLY, THAT FUND IS JOINT FUNDED BY THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. WE GET CITY TAX DOLLARS PUT INTO THAT DISTRICT, BUT WE ALSO GET THE COUNT Y TAX DOLLARS PUT INTO THAT DISTRICT. SO OF THAT 395,000, 42% IS COMING FROM THE CITY AND 56% IS COMING FROM THE COUNTY'S CONTRIBUTION. AND THEN OUR CAPITAL FUND. AGAIN, THIS YEAR IS A BIG YEAR FOR THE CAPITAL FUND. 16.1. AND WE ARE TRANSFERRING 5.2 MILLION INTO CAPITAL FROM THE GENERAL FUND, OR ABOUT 32% OF THAT CAPITAL FUNDING IS COMING DIRECTLY FROM THE GENERAL FUND. I EMAILED THIS SHEET TO YOU SEVERAL WEEKS AGO. THIS CAME FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AFTER THEY HELD A REVENUE ESTIMATING CONFERENCE. THEY ISSUED A 18-PAGE DOCUMENT SHOWING THE PROJECTED IMPACT TO EVERY COUNTY AND CITY IN THE STATE OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. SO THIS IS JUST A SCREEN SHOT DIRECTLY FROM THAT REPORT SHOWING WHAT WE COULD ANTICIPATE IN THE WAY OF CHANGES TO PROPERTY TAXES. THEY ESTIMATED THIS YEAR IN ABOUT 22 MILLION IN COLLECTIONS. THE FIRST YEAR OF REDUCTIONS WOULD GO DOWN ABOUT 11%. THE SECOND YEAR WOULD GO DOWN ABOUT 12%. AND THE THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH YEARS ARE 3, 4, AND 4 RESPECTIVELY. SO OVER THAT FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, A 31% REDUCTION IN PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS GOING FROM 22 MILLION DOWN TO 15 MILLION IN PROPERTY TAXES BY THE FIFTH YEAR. EACH YEAR IN OUR BUDGET BOOK WE SHOW THE HISTORY OF THE CITY'S TAXABLE VALUE, OUR MILLAGE RATE, AND OUR RECEIPTS FROM PROPERTY TAXES. SO WHEN WE LOOK BACK AT THE HISTORY OF OUR BUDGET BOOK, WE NEED TO GO BACK TO '21/'22 TO FIND A COMPARABLE YEAR WHEN WE BROUGHT IN $15 MILLION IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUE. SO LOOKING BACK TO THAT YEAR IS ROUGHLY WHERE WE WOULD NEED TO TARGET OUR PROJECTIONS. AS I MENTIONED, PROPERTY TAX IS [00:10:11] ONLY A PORTION OF THE GENERAL FUND REVENUE. ABOUT 47%. THESE ARE THE OTHER CATEGORIES OF REVENUES THAT WE ALSO COLLECT IN THE GENERAL FUND. THERE ARE 69 OTHER REVENUE LINE ITEMS THAT WE COLLECT IN THE GENERAL FUND THAT MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE THERE. SOME THAT WE HAVE DIRECT CONTROL OVER IN ADJUSTING. SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE REVENUE SIDE, THIS WOULD BE -- IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE UP THAT LOSS OF REVENUE BY GENERATING NEW REVENUES, THIS IS THAT SIDE OF THE EQUATION. YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER FRANCHISE FEES, PERMIT FEES, CHARGES FOR SERVICES, RECREATIONAL COSTS OR CHARGES, A LITTLE BIT OF FINES AND FORFEITURES. SOME CONTROL OVER INTEREST EARNINGS. AND REIMBURSEMENTS. THESE WOULD BE REIMBURSEMENTS OR TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS IN THE CITY TO PAY FOR THINGS LIKE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. SOME EXAMPLES OF WAYS YOU COULD INCREASE REVENUES IS TO INCREASE THE MILLAGE RATE. YOU CAN GO UP TO 10 MILLS. CURRENTLY WE'RE PROJECTED TO BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 4.6 AND 4.8. SO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO INCREASE THE MILLAGE. INCREASE FRANCHISE FEES, SPECIFICALLY ON SOLID WASTE AND ELECTRICITY. COMPARED WITH SOME OTHER MUNICIPALITIES IN OUR REGION, WE ARE NOT COLLECTING AT THE SAME PERCENTAGE LEVEL THAT OTHER PLACES ARE. SO WE'RE RUNNING A LITTLE BIT LOW ON FRANCHISE FEES AS FAR AS A PERCENTAGE. AGAIN, WE HAVE FIRE ASSESSMENT FEES OR OTHER SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. THOSE WOULD BE LEVIED. SIMILAR TO A STORMWATER FEE WHERE YOU DETERMINE WHAT THE BENEFIT IS AND YOU DETERMINE HOW MUCH OF THAT PROPERTY IS DERIVING A BENEFIT BY THE CITY SERVICES BEING PROVIDED, AND THEN YOU LEVY AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST THOSE PROPERTIES. AGAIN, SOME CONTROL OVER INTEREST EARNINGS. AND THEN INCREASING TRANSFERS AND REIMBURSEMENTS FROM OTHER FUNDS WITHIN THE CITY. NOT ALL OF OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS ARE PAYING THEIR FULL WEIGHT IN ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. WE'RE TRENDING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT NOT EVERYBODY IS PAYING THEIR FULL CONTRIBUTION. AND THE CITY IS NOT DOING ANY TRANSFERS OF PILOT FEES, PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES. SOME MUNICIPALITIES RELY ON A PILOT TRANSFER TO SUPPLEMENT THEIR GENERAL FUND. IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU'RE RUNNING A PROFITABLE ENTERPRISE FUND, YOU COULD TRANSFER SOME OF THAT PROFIT INTO THE GENERAL FUND AS AN OFFSET. AND THE THINKING BEHIND THAT IS THAT IF IT WERE A PRIVATE SECTOR ENTERPRISE, THAT PRIVATE SECTOR WOULD BE PAYING TAXES AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE CITY AS A WHOLE. AND SO WHY NOT TREAT ENTERPRISE FUNDS THAT SAME WAY. SWITCHING GEARS AND LOOKING AT THE EXPENDITURE SIDE OF THINGS. I WANT TO PUT INTO BROADER CONTEXT HOW THAT LOSS OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE IMPACTS THE FUND OVERALL. SO IN THAT FIRST YEAR, DECREASE OF ABOUT 4.9%. SECOND YEAR, DECREASE OF 5%. AND THEN YEARS THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE, JUST BETWEEN A POINT AND A HALF AND TWO%. SO THE GENERAL FUND WOULD BE TO GO FROM 49 MILLION PROJECTION NOW DOWN TO A 42 MILLION PROJECTION IN YEAR FIVE. SO A $7 MILLION DECREASE DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME. I WANT TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE IF YOU TOLD ME THURSDAY AT OUR PUBLIC HEARING THAT I NEED TO GO CUT THE BUDGET BY 5%, WE COULD GO CUT THE BUDGET BY 5%. BUT WHAT WE CAN'T DO IS DEFER THINGS. BECAUSE THESE ARE SUSTAINED CUTS YEAR OVER YEAR OVER YEAR. WE NEED TO BE REDUCING EVERY YEAR INTO THE PROJECTED FUTURE. OVERALL IT'S A 13.9% REDUCTION OVER THE FIVE YEARS OF THAT PROJECTION. WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR COST CENTERS, WHERE ARE WE SPENDING OUR MONEY IN THE GENERAL FUND? 37% OF IT GOES TOWARDS PUBLIC SAFETY. 16% OF IT GOES TO GENERAL GOVERNMENT. LIKE HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION, TECHNOLOGY, FINANCE, FACILITIES, AND THEN ALL THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEGAL CLERK, MANAGER, AND COMMISSION DEPARTMENTS. TRANSFERS MAKE UP ABOUT 14%. [00:15:02] THE LARGEST BULK OF THAT, AGAIN, BEING THE TRANSFER TO CAPITAL. OUR RESERVES OF 7 MILLION. PARKS AND RECREATION IS 10% OF THE GENERAL FUND. TRANSPORTATION, THAT'S OUR STREETS DEPARTMENT. STREETS DEPARTMENT IS A LITTLE OVER 4%. WE HAVE A 1% CONTINGENCY BUDGETED. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT, THAT'S OUR DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. IT PAYS FOR ALL THE CONTRACT SERVICES FOR THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. WE HAVE A SMALL AMOUNT OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS. AND THEN OUR MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LIBRARY BUILDING. JUST A VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF THAT SAME INFORMATION. THOSE BROAD CATEGORIES OF WHERE OUR EXPENDITURES GO. THE SMALLEST FOR CONTINGENCY, DOWNTOWN, CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS, AND LIBRARY ARE ALL LESS THAN 1% EACH. THOSE ARE THE TINY SLIVERS THAT YOU SEE AT THE TOP. WE ALSO BREAK UP OUR EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY. BROADLY THEY'RE PERSONNEL OPERATING IN CAPITAL. BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE SERVICE INDUSTRY, IT IS VERY NORMAL THAT 50% OF OUR BUDGET IS TOWARDS PERSONNEL. SO 24 MILLION OF NEXT YEAR'S GENERAL FUND GOES TOWARDS PERSONNEL. 33% TOWARDS OPERATING COSTS. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES OF 1.4 MILLION. THAT'S OPERATING CAPITAL. THAT WOULD BE EQUIPMENT OR VEHICLES THAT THEY'RE BUYING OUT OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTS. THIS IS NOT THE BIG CAPITAL FUND. A LITTLE BIT ON DEBT, LESS THAN 1% PAYMENT ON DEBT. TRANSFERS, TOTALLING ABOUT 11%. AND THEN OUR CONTINGENCY OF 1%. BY CATEGORY, THAT'S WHERE OUR EXPENDITURES ARE. WHEN I APPLY JUST AN EQUAL REDUCTION OF 13.9% ACROSS EVERY CATEGORY, WHERE WE WOULD NEED TO BE IN FIVE YEARS, THOSE ARE THE -- IT'S NOT A STRATEGIC REDUCTION, IT'S JUST AN EQUITABLE REDUCTION. PERSONNEL WOULD NEED TO GO DOWN TO 21 MILLION. OPERATING DOWN TO 14 MILLION. CAPITAL DOWN TO 1.2 MILLION. DEBT STAYS THE SAME. WE HAVE TO PAY THAT DEBT NO MATTER WHAT. TRANSFERS WOULD GO DOWN SLIGHTLY, AND OUR CONTINGENCY WOULD ALSO GO DOWN SLIGHTLY. AND IF I APPLY THAT SAME PERCENTAGE TO OUR GENERAL FUND HEAD COUNT, NEXT YEAR WE'RE PROJECTING 168 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES. AND BY 2031, WE WOULD NEED TO BE DOWN TO 144 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES OR A REDUCTION BETWEEN 23 AND 24 POSITIONS IN THE GENERAL FUND. THAT MAKES EMPLOYEES VERY NERVOUS. WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THEIR SESSIONS. BUT I WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND ON WHAT WE EXPERIENCE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS IN TURNOVER. SO I ASKED THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT TO RUN OUR TURNOVER FOR JULY 1ST TO JUNE 30TH FOR EACH OF THE LAST TWO YEARS. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IN '24/'25 WE HAD 18 PEOPLE EITHER RESIGN OR RETIRE OR BE TERMINATED. AND THEN FOR THIS PAST YEAR, 22 POSITIONS. SO WE'RE TRENDING LESS THAN 15% TURNOVER, WHICH IS GREAT FOR GOVERNMENT. BUT IT DOES SHOW THAT WE HAVE SOME NATURALLY-OCCURRING TURNOVER THAT'S TAKING PLACE ANYWAY. MY HOPE WOULD BE THAT WE COULD ACHIEVE THAT 13% REDUCTION JUST THROUGH NATURAL ATTRITION. IT STILL NEEDS TO BE STRATEGIC. THERE ARE SOME POSITIONS THAT I WOULD FILL OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN IF THEY BECAME VACANT, BUT THERE ARE OTHER POSITIONS WE COULD IDENTIFY AS STRATEGIC AND APPROPRIATE TO ELIMINATE IF THERE WAS TURNOVER THERE. IN PREPARATION FOR NOT KNOWING WHAT'S COMING, AS VACANCIES ARE OCCURRING RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE SOME THAT I AM AUTHORIZING TO BE FILLED AND THERE ARE OTHERS THAT I'M REQUESTING HOLDS ON. SO FOR INSTANCE, THERE HAVE BEEN TWO POSITIONS SO FAR, I WOULD SAY IN THE LAST 30 DAYS, THAT I'VE ASKED THE DIRECTORS TO WAIT UNTIL NOVEMBER 3RD BEFORE WE DECIDE WHETHER TO FILL THAT POSITION OR NOT. THERE ARE PROBABLY FIVE OR SIX OTHER POSITIONS THAT HAVE COME IN THAT I'VE SIGNED OFF ON AND SAID, GO AHEAD AND FILL THAT POSITION. WE KNOW WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO NEED PATROL OFFICERS, FOR INSTANCE. SO THESE ARE THE DEPARTMENTS IN THE GENERAL FUND. THEY'RE GROUPED BY THEIR FUNCTION. UNDER PUBLIC SAFETY WE HAVE POLICE, FIRE, OCEAN RESCUE, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT. UNDER PARKS AND RECREATION WE HAVE RECREATION, PARKS, PEC CENTER, MLC, YOUTH, AND AQUATICS. UNDER COMMUNITY SERVICES OR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WE HAVE PLANNING, PLANNING GREENWAY, AND A SMALL PORTION OF THE BUILDING [00:20:04] FUND. MOST OF THE BUILDING FUND IS IN ITS OWN SPECIAL REVENUE FUND. THERE IS A SMALL PIECE OF THE BUILDING FUND THAT I'LL TOUCH ON THAT IS IN THE GENERAL FUND. WE HAVE OUR STREETS DEPARTMENT, OUR DOWNTOWN DEPARTMENT. THIS GROUPING HERE IS OUR ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS THAT I MENTIONED. THEN WE HAVE THE CHARITABLE AND LIBRARY, TRANSFERS, CONTINGENCY, AND RESERVES. SO THESE ARE THE CATEGORIES OF PLACES WHERE WE WOULD NEED TO FIND EITHER ADDITIONAL REVENUES OR ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS. ONE THING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER IS THAT A LOT OF THESE DEPARTMENTS GENERATE SOME REVENUE. SO WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER TO REDUCE SOMETHING, ELIMINATE SOMETHING, WE NEED TO LOOK AND SEE IF THEY'RE GENERATING SOME REVENUE THAT WOULD ALSO GO AWAY WITH IT. 90% OF ALL REVENUE THAT BOTTOM LINE CAN BE SPENT ON ANYTHING. $45 MILLION OF THE REVENUE THAT COMES INTO THE GENERAL FUND CAN BE SPENT ON WHATEVER YOU DETERMINE IS APPROPRIATE. BUT, AGAIN, SOME OF THESE ARE GENERATED SPECIFICALLY WITHIN A DEPARTMENT, AND THAT REVENUE NEEDS TO GO BACK INTO THAT DEPARTMENT. THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THAT IS IN THE GENERAL FUND IS RELATED TO BUSINESS TAX COLLECTION. AND THERE'S ONLY A PARTIAL HEAD COUNT ASSIGNED TO THAT FUNCTION. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT GENERATES REVENUE, 332,000, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY EXPENDITURES REALLY ASSOCIATE WE D WITH IT. AND THEN IT'S JUST DECLINING PERCENTAGES OF WHO'S GENERATING REVENUE FOR THEIR DEPARTMENT. I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT FOR ADMINISTRATION, THAT 22% OF DEPARTMENT, THAT COMES FROM THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES TO ENTERPRISE FUNDS. SO CHARGING THE AIRPORT FOR HUMAN RESOURCES OR CHARGING GULF FOR IT. THOSE ARE THE KIND OF PAYMENTS THAT COME BACK IN FOR ADMINISTRATION. AND WHILE I SAID EARLY ON THAT THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS ARE NOT DIRECTLY AFFECTED, THIS IS ONE AREA WHERE THERE WOULD BE A RIPPLE EFFECT TO THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS. BECAUSE WE CHARGE THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES BASED ON HEAD COUNT, IF THE GENERAL FUND HEAD COUNT GOES DOWN, THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS ARE GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A LARGER PROPORTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. SO IN THAT WAY THEY WOULD SEE SOME EFFECT, MAYBE SOME INCREASE TO ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LARGER HEAD COUNT PROPORTIONATELY. AS AN EXAMPLE -- AND I'M NOT RECOMMENDING THIS, I JUST WANT TO USE IT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE. IF YOU SAID, SARAH, I WANT YOU TO MAKE 13% REDUCTIONS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND LOOK AT THE SRO PROGRAM. WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE OFFICERS IN SCHOOL, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE CAN PROVIDE THAT. I WOULD TELL YOU THAT THAT IS OUR PAYMENT FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO PROVIDE SRO SERVICES. SO WHEN YOU ELIMINATE A PROGRAM, WE NEED TO SEE IF THERE'S A CORRELATING REVENUE THAT'S GOING TO GO AWAY WITH IT. AND SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO POLICE DEPARTMENTS, I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER BACK TO 2021 POST-COVID. WE WERE HAVING A LOT OF COMMUNITY RIOTS AND CALLS TO DEFUND THE POLICE. AND THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE ADOPTED NEW LANGUAGE RELATED TO POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGETS SPECIFICALLY. SO IF THE FIVE OF YOU EVER DECIDE TO LOWER THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY MORE THAN 5%, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING WITH THE STATE. THE CITY DOES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT HEARING AND PRESENT EVIDENCE AND DATA ABOUT THE DECISION YOU MAKE. BUT JUST KNOW THAT THAT'S A SPECIAL TRIGGER THAT'S OUT THERE TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN THE FACE OF CALLS TO ELIMINATE THEM. AND, AGAIN, THESE ARE ALL EXAMPLES OF THINGS YOU MIGHT WANT TO DO. YOU MIGHT WANT TO INCREASE SOME REVENUES. YOU MIGHT WANT TO DECREASE SOME EXPENDITURES. THERE'S ANY NUMBER OF YEARS THAT YOU COULD COMBINE THESE IDEAS INTO A SOLUTION THAT'S SUSTAINABLE FOR THE CITY'S FUTURE. BUT AT THIS POINT I WILL END BY TALKING POINTS AND TURN IT OVER TO THE FOUR OF YOU TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO HANDLE IT, MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU, MS. CAMPBELL. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY MANAGER? >> AS PROPERTIES GET DEVELOPED [00:25:04] IN THE CRA AREA, AND THAT'S BASICALLY ALL PROPERTY TAX, AND WE HAVE A BASELINE AND THE COUNTY AS A BASELINE. SO AS WE INCREASE THE VALUE OF THAT, THAT STAYS WITHIN THE CRA? COULD THAT BE SPENT ON ANYTHING WITHIN THE CRA WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS? >> NO. THERE ARE CERTAINLY RESTRICTIONS, AND WE UPDATED THAT CRA PLAN JUST A FEW MEETINGS AGO BECAUSE WE WANTED TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE COULD SPEND THE MONEY ON. BUT IT HAS TO BE LISTED AND IDENTIFIED IN THE CRA MASTER PLAN IN ORDER TO ALLOW US TO SPEND THE MONEY ON THAT. >> I HAVE A CRA QUESTION. SO THE $7 MILLION LINE OF CREDIT THAT WE HAVE, AT SOME POINT THE PAYMENTS ON THAT KICK IN, WHETHER IT'S INTEREST ONLY OR WHATEVER. THE PLANNING ASSUMPTION HAS BEEN THAT WE WOULD USE TIF MONEY TO PAY THAT DEBT SERVICE. BUT BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US IS THAT'S GOING AWAY. SO TO ME THE QUESTION THEN IS WHAT WILL WE HAVE TO DO TO SUPPLEMENT THAT SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO MANAGE THAT DEBT SERVICE? ASSUMING THAT WE COULD LOSE UP TO 98% OF OUR TIF MONEY IN THE SHORT-TERM. I REALIZE IT WILL SLOWLY BUILD BACK, BUT WE HAVE -- WE WILL HAVE SHORT-TERM DEBT OBLIGATIONS THAT OUR PLANNED PAYMENT IS NOT THERE ANYMORE. >> LET ME CLARIFY. THAT FUND GENERATES 98% OF ITS REVENUE FROM PROPERTY TAXES. I DON'T THINK THAT 98% OF ITS VALUE WOULD GO AWAY. THAT IS A SPECIAL DISTRICT. IT HAS VERY LITTLE RESIDENTIAL IN IT, SO I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE A HUGE IMPACT TO THE 150,000 OR 250,000 HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN THAT DISTRICT. BUT WE CAN DO SOME CALGARY LA -- CALCULATIONS. IF THE COUNTY DECIDES THAT THEY COULD NO LONGER AFFORD TO PARTICIPATE IN A TIF-FUNDED PROGRAM AND THEY DECIDE TO END THE PLAN, ALL OF THE PROJECTS AND DEBT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT WOULD ROLL TO THE GENERAL FUND OBLIGATIONS. >> CAN THE COUNTY DECIDE TO MOMENTARILY -- >> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE AGREEMENT. >> WE HAVE TO NOTIFY THEM WHEN WE MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN. BUT WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. I'M NOT SURE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE CITY MANAGER? >> CAN WE GO BACK A FEW SLIDES? THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS -- GO BACK, BACK... ONE MORE. SO -- KEEP GOING. ONE MORE. ONE MORE FROM THAT ONE. OH, WAIT. SO I'M TRYING TO -- SO THESE NUMBERS HERE, THE 5% IN '26 AND THE 5% -- OR '27 AND THE 5% IN '28, HOW DOES THAT GO THEN -- GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. >> ARE YOU COMPARING IT TO THIS? THE REDUCTION IN PROPERTY TAXES IS 11%, 12%, 3, 4, 4. BUT THAT GETS DILUTED IN THE GENERAL FUND BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT REVENUES IN THE GENERAL FUND. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE IMPACT ON THE GENERAL FUND ITSELF, IT'S A LITTLE BIT LESS. IT'S 5, 5, 2, 2, 2. >> ALL RIGHT. SO THE OTHER THING -- AND I ASKED THE FINANCE DIRECTOR LAST WEEK THE ISSUE WITH THE SALES TAX. AND SO OUR PERCENTAGE THAT WE GET IS BASED ON A POPULATION WITH THE COUNTY. SO OUR PERCENTAGE OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS HAS ACTUALLY GONE DOWN 2 AND A HALF PERCENT IN TERMS OF -- IT WENT FROM, LIKE, 13% TO 11% NOW OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO THEN THE NEXT QUESTION I ASKED WAS, WELL, IF YOU ASSUME THAT THE POT IS BIGGER BECAUSE THERE'S MORE PEOPLE IN A COUNTY SO THEY'RE GENERATING MORE TAX, WE WOULD GET MORE MONEY EVEN IF OUR PERCENTAGE WENT DOWN. SO I ASKED HER TO GO AND DO THAT ANALYSIS, WHICH SHE DID. [00:30:06] IN FACT, THE THING THAT'S INTERESTING IS THAT THE REVENUE ON THE STATE SALES TAX COMPONENT HAS BASICALLY STAYED FLAT OVER THE SAME FIVE YEARS. WHICH DOESN'T REALLY QUITE MAKE SENSE TO ME BECAUSE I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE NUMBER SHOULD GO UP. SO WE ARE ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO BE ADVANTAGED, IT WOULD APPEAR, BY THE GROWTH IN THE COUNTY ON SALES TAX AND WHAT PERCENTAGE OF SALES TAX WE'RE GOING TO GET BACK. >> RIGHT. I CIRCLED THAT LINE THERE. THOSE ARE THE GROUPING OF REVENUE SOURCES THAT COME FROM SALES AND FUEL TAXES. AND IT'S HAVING SORT OF A NEUTRALIZING EFFECT. THAT GROWTH, BUT OUR PROPORTION OF POPULATION IS DECLINING AND THEN THERE'S SOME GROWTH, SO IT KIND OF EVENS OUT. UNLESS THEIR SPENDING GOES UP REALLY DRAMATICALLY -- >> THE OTHER CONCERN IS THAT THE STATE'S SALES TAX REVENUES WERE GOING TO GO DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. WHICH IS PART OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING OVER THERE. SO THAT SALES AND FUEL TAX NUMBER IS EITHER GOING TO STAY FLAT OR DECLINE IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS FOR US, IN ALL PROBABILITY. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO HELP US WITH ANY KIND OF SHORTFALL REVENUE, WHICH IS A CONCERN, I THINK. AND IF WE THOUGHT WE COULD GET SOME HELP THERE, WE'RE NOT. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS THAT WE'VE SEEN TODAY. SO I JUST THINK THAT MEANS WE NEED TO LOOK FOR OTHER PLACES TO -- I MEAN, I REALIZE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME BIG CUTS, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR ADDITIONAL REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> SOME OF THESE ITEMS IN HERE, ARE THEY -- DO ANY OF THEM HAVE RESTRICTIONS? LIKE, I'M THINKING RECREATION. IF WE CHARGE AT THE POOL, DOES IT HAVE TO STAY AT THE POOL? >> WE DON'T DRAW A DIRECT DOTTED LINE TO THEM RIGHT NOW. BUT IN THEORY, YES. THE MONEY GENERATED BY RECREATIONAL STAYS IN RECREATIONAL, AND THEN IT ONLY NEEDS TO BE SUPPLEMENTED BY A LOWER AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAXES OR OTHER REVENUES. SOME ARE DIRECTLY LOCKBOXED TO A CERTAIN FUND. FOR INSTANCE, WE GET SOME HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE MONEY AND AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE MONEY FROM THE STATE, AND THOSE CAN ONLY BE APPLIED TO THE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION PLANS. SO THERE ARE SOME RESTRICTIVE REVENUES THAT COME INTO THE GENERAL FUND. >> OKAY. SO NOT INCREASING ANY AND ALL FEES WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BRING MONEY BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND? >> YOU COULD. IT'S NOT PROHIBITED. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. CAN YOU GO BACK A FEW SLIDES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE? THAT ONE THERE. THOSE PROJECTIONS, WHAT DID THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE USE IN TERMS OF INCREASES? >> GOOD QUESTION. I PULLED THAT 18-PAGE MEMO BACK OUT THIS AFTERNOON AND WAS READING IT AGAIN. IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME WHETHER THEY BUILT IN GROWTH IN THE COMMUNITY OVER THAT SAME PERIOD OF TIME. THEY WENT INTO A VERY ELABORATE EQUATION ON WHAT THEY DID, BUT IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THEY TOOK THE REVENUE ESTIMATES AND PROPORTIONATELY APPLIED THEM BACK TO THE REVENUE. BUT I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THAT. >> SO, FOR INSTANCE, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS GOING FROM 22 MILLION IN PROPERTY TAX BUT YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE HAS SAID PROPERTY VALUES, SAY, STAYS AT A STEADY INCREASE. SO SHOULD THAT HAPPEN, THAT'S GOING TO OFFSET QUITE A BIT OF THAT. >> COULD BE A WORST-CASE SCENARIO. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY USED A HISTORIC VALUE OF GROWTH AND APPLIED IT OR A CPI VALUE OF GROWTH AND APPLIED IT. I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY USED. >> RIGHT. BUT THAT STILL DOESN'T STOP ANY -- I MEAN, NOT JUST THIS COMMISSION BUT ANY COMMISSION TO OFFSET THAT? >> RIGHT. >> SO WITH A MODEST INCREASE IN -- AND I SAY THIS TO SAY I'VE [00:35:01] HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR PROPERTY APPRAISER ABOUT THIS. SO WITH MODEST INCREASES OF WHAT WE WOULD HAVE IN PROPERTY VALUES, AT A NORMAL STEADY PERCENT, NOT TO MENTION KEEPING THE [INAUDIBLE] FLAT, WHICH IS WHAT THE COMMISSION DID LAST YEAR. THE POTENTIAL ACTUALLY THERE TO REALLY ONLY DECREASE FROM THE 2026/'27 PROPOSED BUDGET DOWN TO TECHNICALLY WHAT IS 2025'S BUDGET. IN THE FIRST YEAR WITH AN INCREASE OF 150,000. AND THEN IN YEAR TWO -- IT'S RIGHT BELOW THE 2025/2024. THAT'S WITH THE MODEST INCREASES OF PROPERTY VALUES PLUS WHATEVER HAPPENS WITH THE MILLAGE INCREASES. I MEAN, THOSE NUMBERS ARE PRETTY EASY TO PULL AND PRETTY EASY TO PROJECTION. WHILE I UNDERSTAND THOSE NUMBERS LOOK SCARY ABOUT GOING BACK TO $15 MILLION FROM THE 2020 TO '21 BUDGET, I REALLY THINK WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT THE INCREASES OF PROPERTY VALUES PLUS WHATEVER ANY COMMISSION HAPPENS TO DO, YOU COULD BE LOOKING CLOSER TO THAT NUMBER OF 19 MILLION TO 18 MILLION JUST OVER THOSE FIVE YEARS WITH ALL THE INCREASES THAT WOULD BE BUILT IN. NOT TO MENTION ANYTHING THE COMMISSION WOULD DO WITH THE MILLAGE RATE. I SAY THAT AS A STATEMENT TO SIMPLY SAY -- I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR AMENDMENT 3 OR AGAINST IT. I'M SIMPLY STATING THAT I DON'T WANT TO SCARE CITIZENS INTO A, YOU KNOW, THE SKY IS FALLING. BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR PROJECTION IS NOT STATIC. THE PROJECTIONS BEING SHOWN HERE ARE NOT GOING TO BE STATIC OVER FIVE YEARS. WE WILL HAVE OTHER FACTORS THAT COME INTO PLAY WHEN IT COMES TO PROPERTY TAX REVENUES. BECAUSE SIMPLY IT'S NOT JUST ONE SIMPLE THING. THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT GO INTO IT. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> I HAD A SIMILAR CONVERSATION WITH MR. LILY. HIS TAKE ON IT WAS THAT THIS TAKES US BACK TO THE '22/'23 TAX BASE AND THAT YOU WOULD THEN SLOWLY BUILD BACK, BASED ON PROPERTY APPRAISALS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE CITY. WE WILL NOT BUILD BACK AS QUICKLY, SAY, THE COUNTY MIGHT BECAUSE THEY HAVE A MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT. BUT IT JUST KIND OF GIVES YOU A NEW LEVEL SET, A NEW FLOOR. AND THEN YOU WOULD SLOWLY, MOSTLY WITH CPI I THINK, BEGIN TO REGAIN BACK WHERE YOU WERE. BUT IT WILL TAKE A LOT TO -- I MEAN, WEED HAVE TO HAVE A LOT OF INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES TO GET US BACK TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. >> THE WAY I'M LOOKING AT IT IS IF YOU HAVE -- IF EACH YEAR YOU GET TO KNOCK OFF ANOTHER $100,000 ON YOUR PROPERTY VALUE, AND IT CAN ONLY GO UP 3% ANY WAY A YEAR, THE PROPERTY VALUES ARE NOT GOING UP ON THAT LEVEL HERE. I MEAN, YOU'RE GOING TO BE REDUCING THE VALUE THAT THE MILLAGE RATE WOULD BE ABLE TO ATTACH TO. AT LEAST WITH ALL THE HOMESTEADER PROPERTIES. EVEN WITH THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, THAT'S ALSO ANOTHER BIG HIT. I'M NOT SURE I AGREE THAT -- OF COURSE THIS IS ALL JUST SPECULATION ANYWAY, BUT I THINK IT'S GOING TO HURT A LOT MORE THAN WHAT WE JUST DISCUSSED. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> YES, MA'AM. 3 >> GOING FORWARD, SO INTO NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS IN NOVEMBER AND THIS AMENDMENT 3 VOTE, ARE WE ALREADY DEVELOPING A PLAN ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO REACH OUT TO THE CITIZENS AND GET FEEDBACK? BECAUSE AS YOU SAID, WE CAN'T JUST DEFER THINGS IF THE NEXT YEAR WE CUT AGAIN AND THE NEXT YEAR CUT AGAIN AND THE NEXT YEAR CUT AGAIN. WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO CUT THINGS. WE HAVE TO CLOSE THINGS. WE HAVE TO INCREASE FEES. HOW DO WE FIND OUT WHAT DO OUR RESIDENTS WANT? DO THEY STILL WANT THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE THEY HAVE AND THEY WANT A WHOLE BUNCH OF FEES TO GO UP AND THEY WANT MILLAGE TO GO UP AND THEY WANT TO KEEP THE SERVICES? THEY LIKE THEIR SERVICES? OR -- YOU KNOW, WE HAVE 14,000 RESIDENTS. THEY'RE ALL GOING TO WANT 14,000 DIFFERENT THINGS. GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE POOL. NO, DON'T CLOSE THE POOL. CLOSE THIS, DO THIS. HOW ARE WE GOING TO KNOW WHAT TO DO? >> I THINK THAT CONVERSATION STARTS HERE TONIGHT WITH THIS [00:40:01] GROUP. AND ON NOVEMBER 4TH WE CAN HAVE A LENGTHIER CONVERSATION, IF WE NEED TO. IT COULD BE SURVEYS, IT COULD BE COMMUNITY FOCUS GROUPS. IT COULD BE ANY NUMBER OF THINGS. YOU CAN GAMEFY BUDGETARY DECISIONS. YOU CAN HAVE LITTLE ROUND TABLES AND PEOPLE GET MONOPOLY MONEY AND THEY KIND OF CHOOSE WHERE THEY WOULD SPEND THEIR DOLLARS AND THEN WE CAN APPLY THAT INFORMATION GOING FORWARD TO WHERE WE WOULD MAKE ADJUSTMENTS. THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO GET THE FEEDBACK. >> OKAY. I'M GOING TO NEED A LOT. I'M GOING TO NEED A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON WHAT ON EARTH WE'RE GOING TO DO IF THIS PASSES. OKAY. >> I ALSO THINK, JOYCE, YOU CAN LOOK AT THIS YEAR'S BUDGET AND BEGIN TO SEE THINGS THAT STAND OUT AND GO, THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY. WHY ARE WE DOING THAT. AND EVEN IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, THERE'S ROOM TO CUT SOME THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT NOT REALISTICALLY BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT NEXT YEAR OR DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS WITH AMENDMENT 3. SO DO YOU DO IT NOW, OR DO YOU POSTPONE IT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS? AND THEN YOU MAKE, YOU KNOW, MUCH HARDER DECISIONS ABOUT -- FRANKLY, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THINGS. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO STOP DOING SOME THINGS. SO THEN IT BECOMES A QUESTION OF WHAT ARE THOSE THINGS WE'RE GOING TO STOP DOING. I MEAN, AND EACH ONE OF US SHOULD, AT THIS POINT, HAVE A LIST IN OUR BACK POCKETS THAT SAYS, THESE ARE THE THINGS I WORRY ABOUT, AND THESE ARE THE THINGS I THINK ARE ON THE TABLE FOR SERIOUS DISCUSSION. >> THANK YOU. >> DID Y'ALL SEE THAT WE GOT AN EMAIL FROM THE FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY ABOUT -- THEY WANT TO INVITE -- >> YES. >> THEY WANT TO INVITE SOMEONE TO A PANEL DISCUSSION THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HOST TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ABOUT THIS. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE LIBRARY IS A LINE ITEM IN OUR BUDGET. SO THEY'RE VERY INTERESTED IN THIS. >> THEY'RE CONCERNED BECAUSE THE COUNTY WILL ALSO LOSE THE SAME FUNDING. AND THE COUNTY ACTUALLY FUNDS -- >> IT'S THEIR LIBRARY, IT'S OUR BUILDING. >> SO I THINK SARAH'S THE EXPERT ON THIS. AND IF SOMEONE ATTENDS THIS PANEL. WHAT DO YOU THINK? CAN WE ASK THE CITY MANAGER IF SHE CAN GO? [LAUGHTER] >> I THINK SHE WOULD BE THE PERFECT PERSON. >> BUT NOT TO ALL THREE. >> NO, NO. THESE WERE THEIR THREE OPTIONS FOR DATES. >> ALL RIGHT. ONE OF THEM IS ALREADY A CITY COMMISSIONER MEETING. >> I THINK IT WAS THAT AFTERNOON. MAYBE 2 OR 3:00 P.M. I'M AVAILABLE ON ALL THREE. ON. >> AND CAN WE MAKE A REQUEST TO THE PUBLIC? IF YOU HAVE AN ORGANIZATION, IF YOU HAVE A GROUP, IF YOU HAVE A C CLUB, PLEASE REACH OUT TO THE CITY IF YOU WANT TO EDUCATE YOUR FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS, MEMBERS. THE CITY'S GOING TO NEED A LOT OF FEEDBACK. A LOT. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? >> AND THIS PRESENTATION WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THEIR WEBSITE, AND WE CAN ALL PULL IT DOWN? >> YES. >> OKAY. >> EXCELLENT. >> THANK YOU, MS. CAMPBELL. THIS IS REALLY EXCELLENT WORK. >> YEAH. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. AND THERE'S NO OTHER FURTHER COMMENT OR DISCUSSION. WE WILL ADJOURN UNTIL 6:00 P.M. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.