Clermont City Council Workshop Transcript 9/8/26

5:48 I call this uh city of Clermont uh workshop uh council workshop and and to
5:54 order. Uh city council workshop meetings are for information gathering discussion purposes only. Uh the city council will
6:02 not vote on any issues at workshop meeting. The council reserve the right to discuss additional items or delete item from the attendive agenda. Uh think
6:12 only thing I see on the agenda tonight is discuss tenative budget for uh FY2026-2027.
6:20 Um I understand this is be streamed but not on teams and before we go any further Mr. Van Wagon will you mind leading us in prayer please?
6:29 Sure.
6:30 Father we ask for your wisdom today. We ask for you to lead and guide us. Help us to make the best decisions for our
6:37 community. And we just thank you for your continued blessing in our in Clermont. And I pray your blessing on our citizens, our businesses, our
6:47 council. Just be with them and watch over each and every person. And thank you for all you've done for us. In Jesus name we pray. Amen.
6:54 Amen. Thank you.
6:57 Yes, sir. I just wanted to let y'all know I wanted to have one more discussion before we went into our
7:04 meetings on Thursday just to make sure we're all on the same page to let you look at the budget again. If you want to
7:11 talk about the millillage again, whatever you want to discuss. I just wanted to give you an extra discussion before we got into that because I felt
7:19 like there were probably more questions and there was a lot of moving parts with the budget from the last discussion. So Scott and I have had numerous
7:27 conversations and uh want to invite Scott to just come and share with you some of the things we were looking at. Thank you.
7:34 Thank you.
7:43 Thank you Rick and thank you councel Scott Bore finance director. got a short uh few slides here just kind of reset
7:51 where we are in the process and what the uh budget is looking like at this point and then um as Rick said we'll open it
7:58 up to Q&A and discussion points whatever the council sees fit. Uh quickly as you'll recall we had our workshops in
8:05 July July 7th and 8th and then later in the month city council uh passed the maximum millage rate of 4.29.
8:13 Um then our first of two trim hearings is scheduled for this Thursday, September the 10th. That is a 5:30 meeting and we'll follow that up with
8:21 the final one on September 24th where we'll adopt the final millage rate and the final budget.
8:30 Uh couple uh notes on the postworkshop updates. You'll recall at the quarterly
8:37 uh budget report at the last city council meeting, I gave you an initial estimate for the general fund. We believe conservatively we're going to
8:45 have a roughly a $4 million surplus at in the general fund at the end of this current fiscal year. And then citywide,
8:53 um we're going to be returning a fund balance really across the board uh to a large degree because of our capital spending. We had a $51.7 million capital
9:02 budget this year. we're going to end up spending in the neighborhood of 1820 millions for this year. And what that means is that all of our fund balance
9:09 policies across the uh uh spectrum will will be in good standing and in solid position at the end of this fiscal year.
9:18 After those meetings in July uh on August 16th to be specific, we did distribute a packet to the city council providing you with updates that came out
9:26 of those meetings. Uh these were updated rates on contracts. This was updated projections on revenues due to the decrease in the millage rate so on and
9:35 so forth. Um that was our schedule of changes and then um as of today our tenative budget book is available online
9:43 as well on the finance department's uh budget portal. It looks very similar to what the proposed budget uh format was.
9:51 And then once uh we have the final adopted budget, we will expand that into a full-blown online budget book in
9:58 compliance with the GFOA's recommendations, but that is available as of today.
10:06 Terms of the general fund status, uh you recall in late spring, maybe June, uh we did pass a uh pol or a comprehensive uh
10:16 policy that included a definition of what our budget balance definition is.
10:20 And uh that is in compliant that is conforms with the GFOA recommendation that governments maintain structurally
10:28 recurring revenues that are greater than or equal to reoccurring expenditures in adopted budget. And the reason that is important is because it helps you zero
10:36 in on reoccurring versus non-reoccurring uh revenues and expenditures within your general fund budget. So on paper, the
10:43 general fund, it shows a a budget deficit of $5.6 million as we sit here today. If you drill down past that
10:51 non-reoccurring items, it's a structural deficit of $870,000, which on one hand, sorry, mayor.
10:59 So, is that a change? It is a change. Yes, sir.
11:02 So, I have what I have here in front of me is is this correct? I'm I'm showing 6.3 million the total debt.
11:09 We emailed updates two days a two business days ago and you should have an update package available to you in hard
11:17 copy. Did that not make it to you? What did Okay.
11:22 What's being projected here, sir, is updated numbers.
11:27 Total budget deficit of $5.6 million, a structural deficit of $870,000.
11:33 Um on on one hand, having a structural deficit of that amount is a long-term concern. On the other hand, in the
11:42 context of TRIM in the state of Florida, what they care about is whether or not you have avail resources available to
11:49 fully cover what you anticipate in your budget. And in our case, that is a resounding yes.
11:55 That leads us into a conversation about the status of the general fund reserves.
12:00 On this slide here, this is a a a snapshot or a snip of our balance sheet in the general fund at the conclusion of
12:07 the most recent fiscal year. And if you go all the way down to the bottom, you see we had a total fund balance of $44.5 million. Now, some of that has already
12:17 been assigned or it is in a non-spendable format. But the number that we typically refer to in discussions of fund balance is that
12:25 unassigned fund balance number of $36.6 million. So that's where if we adopt a budget with a with a deficit or a
12:33 structural deficit, that is the line that is uh most applicable and covers whatever that deficit is in a planning p planning context, planning perspective.
12:48 This slide here takes that status as of the last fiscal year and now we're incorporated into the plans for this
12:55 current year and what in projecting out what that will look like at the conclusion of the uh fiscal year 2627.
13:03 So starting at the top there's that same $36.6 million.
13:07 You add into what you think is going to uh occur in the current fiscal year.
13:13 We're projecting then a starting unassigned balance of $40.6 million.
13:18 Then moving down, you start deducting off of that. You factor in a 25% balance fund balance requirement, which is the
13:26 our rainy day fund, if you will, to cover uh operations uh in um
13:33 if necessary in a in a uh in a worse consideration format. Uh that equates to
13:41 about $13.8 $8 million. You factor in our structural deficit. And then thirdly, you factor in um something I'll
13:49 speak in a lot more detail here in a moment, and that is a proposed resolution to assign a portion of that fund balance to future projects. You
13:58 factor those three things in, it brings that unassigned fund balance projection for the end of the fiscal year down to
14:04 $5.4 million. Still a very strong position to be in in the general fund.
14:12 So, I'm going to go backwards a moment and I want to talk more about the sun assigned fund balance resolution and this has come about through prior
14:19 discussions with city council including the uh budget workshops back in July.
14:24 So, I'm back on now on that that snapshot of the fund balance and you'll see these last two categories down here an assigned line and an unassigned line.
14:34 So, what one option available to the council for using that 36.6 6 million is
14:42 to make a state public statement via resolution saying we've identified programs, we've identified projects that aren't quite ready to the point of
14:50 including in the budget, but we want to set aside dollars and resources towards these purposes in the future. So, if
14:57 council moves elects to move forward with something like that, what that all all that means is on the balance sheet, you're moving money from 36.6 up into this assigned category of $3.1 million.
15:11 So now I'm going to move forward.
15:13 So what we've done in conjunction with attorney wall is we prepared a draft of a resolution for the September 22nd meeting to where we assigned $15.8
15:22 million of existing cash reserves towards the three future programs and projects that you see listed here. EMS transport, parking garage, and uh potential land purchases in the future.
15:33 Now this is a starting point. This is a draft format. It can be anything and everything or nothing that the council likes to do. You don't have to do this,
15:41 but again, it's an option available to you to make a public statement that this is how we intend to utilize these uh unassigned fund balances in the future.
15:51 One alternative option I threw out here just for a discussion and I actually brought this up in the past um is
15:58 pension stabilization funding. Um, you know, you could one thing that is becoming more and more popular in
16:05 government finance is is you utilizing a program to where um you you open escrow
16:12 investment accounts for specific long range purposes. Um, this could help stabilize as the name says um what the
16:20 impact on millages in the future through investment returns. So, for instance, if you took a million, $2 million, whatever
16:27 we deem appropriate, and invest that into this specific purpose, um that would offset future growth in pension
16:35 liability going forward. And in our case, it could be something that we want to look closely at given the tremendous numbers that we're talking about with
16:43 additions, particularly on the fire side.
16:50 That prepares uh my that that concludes my prepared remarks. Um you know again we'll just open it up for questions and
16:58 uh we have most of our directors here and uh respond to any inquiries that the council has.
17:06 Okay. Before I open up the council u workshop but we this is a public meeting. Anyone in the in the chamber
17:14 that wish to speak this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes.
17:20 This is a public forum. Anyone in the chamber that wish to speak to the light may come to microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes.
17:29 Seeing no one I close close down public comment. Uh Mr. Wayne, we have nobody online. Anyone? Okay. So, bring it back
17:38 to council. Let's say you Mrs. Council Member Strange I have a question for staff Mr. Bor
17:48 and it relates to Do you want to do questions? Are we following the same format? Questions first and then statements. How do we want to do this? Yes.
17:55 Yeah. Okay. So, questions first. Um in the most recent budget presentation,
18:02 Mr. Bore, we were at the 75% mark of the fiscal year. If I recall correctly, our general fund was operating with
18:09 expenditures at the 65% mark across the board. Um, I acknowledge I have not dug into each individual
18:18 department to see where those particularly might have been, but my question to you is,
18:27 do you think we could use those numbers, the actual numbers rather than the budgeted numbers from fiscal year 26 to
18:36 build a budget for fiscal year 27? that would show how to make up that deficit of 890,000.
18:46 I'd answer that question in two broad ways. One is is I've already stated we believe we're going to return 4 million
18:54 plus uh to the general fund. That's predominantly lack of capital spending, but some of it does include operating.
19:02 Second way is that keep in mind in the fourth quarter we do have another pay uh another month with a third pay period in it.
19:10 So that 65% is probably more because of that is more real realistically closer to 70 because
19:18 of that. Um so in short I would say no I would stay with the budgeted numbers. Um but
19:26 uh there is going to be some operational expense obviously returned to the to the fund balance.
19:33 So can you speak to or guide us on any direction on how we make up the 870,000 structural deficit?
19:42 Well uh first I would go back to my comments earlier. uh in the state of Florida's mind in the context of trim we
19:51 have excessive fund balance available to make up that if that is not an approach that council wants to take and you do
19:58 want a truly structurally um balanced budget uh
20:07 it's more than likely going to have to come from the expenditure side whether it is a a capital uh a vehicle a project
20:16 whatever it might be and more than likely would have to come on the expenditure side and related to
20:24 I like the way that you presented the structural deficit and the unassigned versus assigned. I think that's really
20:31 helpful for purposes of us balancing the budget. I think the end results that's a great way to do it. Thank you. Um, what
20:40 the way I'm approaching this budget is looking, as you said, at the recurring revenues compared to recurring expenses,
20:49 what you've defined as a structural deficit, imagining if we didn't have the general fund reserves,
20:56 and so if we didn't have those general fund reserves and we were just looking at a structural structurally balanced budget, my
21:05 question to you is knowing the numbers as Do I'm going to add more context.
21:13 We have had conversation publicly and in private about capital funds being 10% of
21:20 your budget. That that would be a healthy target. So my question is when we have a structural deficit of 870,000
21:29 recurring revenues compared to recurring expenses, does that 870,000 include the 10% capital that would be best practices.
21:50 So, our budgeted capital outlay for 27 is $7.1 million in the general fund.
22:00 Is that included in the calculation of the $870,000 structural deficit? Yes. And what was that number? Well, some of it is.
22:08 Okay.
22:08 Um, so we have vehicles that we've classified um as reoccurring.
22:15 Um, there's couple other minor things as well. Um but general uh the f first thing that comes to mind is in the
22:23 police department we do have a sizable budget item for vehicle replacement that is obviously capital.
22:31 Okay, I'm with you. So for if you take out the unassigned fund
22:40 balance and you look at what we have allocated right now for capital and you compare it to the recurring revenues and
22:49 expenses, do we have currently in the budget 10% towards capital?
22:58 It is likely less than 10%.
23:04 But I don't I can't sit here definitively and say one way or the other, but my hunch is that is below 10%.
23:14 And do we have a capital fund that exists outside of general fund reserves or within general fund reserves?
23:23 Yes, we do. Um that that could capital spending could for governmental activities can come from a few different sources. We have of course recreation
23:32 impact fees whenever it's applicable we can utilize those. Similarly on fire and police impact fees. Um we also have that
23:41 was written in within our policy uh city manager has discretion through the budget process to include um dollars in
23:51 excess of our fund balance policy to move into fund 320 for governmental capital spending. This current budget
23:59 does still have a $1 million transfer for that purpose. So theoretically, that's where you could reduce that
24:08 number to get to a true structurally balanced budget. But that would come at the expense again of some eliminating or
24:16 deferring some projects that are currently planned next year within fund 320. So, and when I look at the paperwork that was provided, the
24:23 citywide summary, I can see fund 320, capital projects and expenditures. We're
24:31 anticipating starting fiscal year 27 with 1.219 and looking to add 1.11.130.
24:40 That's the proposed way to handle 320. Yes.
24:45 And to just distinguish so that I'm clear in the context of capital, we are looking at different types of capital.
24:51 One being recurring, for example, police cars and police and uh fire vehicles that we have to purchase every year versus capital that might go towards
25:00 fixing a pier, for example, once every 20 to 40 years.
25:05 Uh yeah. Uh fixing a pier, um a sidewalk uh or extension. Um, it could be any
25:13 number of different things that are periodic in nature.
25:16 Okay, that's all I have. Thank you so much, Council Member Bay.
25:23 Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Boore.
25:26 Um, question with uh regard to the citywide capital budget. I'm looking at slide three, I
25:33 believe, the uh postworkshop updates. Um so the citywide capital budget 51.7
25:42 and our actual uh projected expenditure is 18.1 is that not in the current year that we're still in.
25:51 Yeah. In the current So what accounts for such a dramatic difference from what was budgeted to what's being spent?
25:59 And let me also further clarify that um the bullet point above it might be misleading. Those two numbers are not just specific to the general fund. That
26:08 is citywide. Citywide. So, our enterprise funds are included in there. Okay.
26:12 And some of the larger capital projects on a citywide basis that immediately come to mind that were budgeted and
26:19 we're not getting to this year are the Hartwood Marsh um extension or reconstruction or the utility relocation
26:27 I should call it. Y um it is a meet in the middle projects.
26:31 Uh there are a couple others, but those are two examples, larger examples that come to mind. Okay.
26:36 Um so it's it's hard for me in my role to sit here and say why we didn't get to those. Sure.
26:43 Um I'd have to defer to the other department directors who oversee those items, but but those are a couple glaring examples.
26:50 Okay. And um so 52 million minus $18 million
26:58 obviously what it there's a there's quite a bit of difference there. What what happens to the remaining dollars
27:05 because that's obviously more than 4 million that's that's going back. So what happens to those other dollars that aren't being used in this fiscal year that were budgeted for this fiscal year?
27:16 The majority of that goes back into the applicable fund balance. Now, there was one item this year, uh, $15 million that
27:24 we did anticipate for a loan issuance for the parking garage. So, that $15 million since it was bond proceeds as opposed to cash reserves just goes away.
27:34 So, if you factor that in, that $18 becomes 33. So, we're actually talking 33 about $18 million that will go back into the applicable fund balances.
27:45 Okay. So, that bond just does it. It it was we budgeted for it but we didn't take it. So correct it's essentially zeroed out.
27:53 Correct. It's on both the revenue and expenditure side. So it's neutral.
27:56 Net zero. Net zero. Neutral. Yes. Thank you. That's the terminology I saw in some other documents.
28:01 Um Mr. City Manager, is it possible for us
28:08 to get um a list of what equated the 51.7?
28:16 What equ so what was budgeted to total that 51.7 and then what was actually
28:25 being estimated to be spent of the 18.1 to get that those two lists for us before the before we take any other action. Is that possible?
28:35 Absolutely. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Those are my questions. Council member Myers. Good afternoon, Scott.
28:43 Hi. You already answered the question I had was concerning the deficit. So I thank you for your hard work that you and your team are doing for us. Thank you.
28:51 Thank you. Council member Peterson.
28:55 Previous we had a a meeting where we discussing what would the uh effects be if the property tax vote goes through?
29:02 Is this being is this showing here it not going through or do you have a secondary one showing that what would be the effect of that?
29:11 We did not place we we made a decision at the start of the cycle in the spring not to incorporate a proforma
29:19 um one way or the other into this current cycle. And the reason that city manager and I felt confident in that was because of the status and the strength
29:28 of our general fund reserves. Now, we did an internal analysis as to what that might look like, but we did not incorporate that into any of our budget planning this year.
29:40 Thank you. Oh, thank you.
29:46 Uh on your last slide, you got to assign 15.8 million of existing cash reserve
29:53 toward future programs and projects. And underneath that, we got 5.3 million for EMS, uh 6 million for downtown parking garage, and 4.5 million for future land
30:02 purchases. Is there a reason why we don't ever show the 9.1 million for the me meet us in the middle project?
30:10 No reason, sir, other than um this is the three that uh Mr. Van Wagner and I
30:19 identified in our preparations based on prior um conversations, directions, if you will. Um that could certainly be
30:28 added. It's that this is again at the discretion of the city council.
30:33 Okay. Well, we add that. Well, how did that affect our bottom line if we start showing that 9.1 million?
30:40 Well, that would exceed what we're projecting it to be. Um, now if you want to get into a discussion
30:49 andor debate as to what items should be on there or even if you should do this at all, uh, that is amongst the five of
30:56 you. Um but if you would add just if you would just simply add $9.1 million now you're into a projected um deficit in terms of the unassigned fund balance.
31:07 Yeah. Well, I was just curious when we we've u got $9.1 million that's been basically approved by this council. Um
31:16 and we never we never even show that on our budgets or anything. I'm just trying to figure out why we don't we don't do that. Part of the discussion you guys
31:24 have had is that's coming out of the parks and wreck impact fees and this is the general fund. So that's why so if
31:31 you wanted to change that you could but all of our discussions have been this is a new project so it qualifies for the
31:38 impact fees. We've had numerous discussions with Christian and with everybody and it does qualify for impact
31:46 fees if that's what you choose to do for the meetings in the middle. Yes.
31:50 Yeah. Well, I I've always been under the impression that we were going to use general fund as well as impact fees. And of course, we have already have uh some
31:58 grants that's already been allocated for that.
32:01 We do have some monies set aside for that, but I have no direction from you guys on percentages, numbers, what you
32:10 want. And I'm I'm not even sure it it could be lower. It could be a higher number than 9.1. I I don't know until we
32:16 get that in what that is. So, I I would need some direction from y'all once I get some hard numbers for you, which
32:24 Freddy believes will be uh November and be able to be presented to the council in December is what he's planning on.
32:32 Right. But the exact Well, we looking at November maybe the exact price, but I know it was approved for 9.1. So, um I
32:39 would think if we not showing that in our budget somewhere in some kind of way, breaking it down and showing it in the budget somewhere, is our budget
32:46 accurate? Okay. in there because it's there, but I I keep going through everything and I never see anything on on the 9.1. And it doesn't have to be
32:54 the whole 9.1. As you say, if only we using three or four million from the general fund, hey, that need to be
33:01 shown. Okay. Uh we just say uh the other piece of it coming from impact fees, that's fine. I know the whole project
33:08 cannot be funded by impact fees because the whole project, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. W doesn't qualify for impact fees.
33:16 it. I don't think that's the analysis. I mean, it depends on how much we have in impact fees and where they come from.
33:23 So, for example, my understanding is that the idea behind the project is that it would be a benefit to everyone in the city, right? And if it is, then we can use generously from our impact fees.
33:35 Generously.
33:35 Yeah. Yeah. Well, because you know there's case law that says look when an impact fee comes from the wellness way area for example
33:42 probably should have a direct benefit to wellness way and so on wherever we get it from. So we're trying to be more sensitive to that in how we allocate the impact fees.
33:53 What I mean, mayor, is put it simply, if all we had was $9.1 million in impact fees, then I don't think we could use
34:00 all 9.1 on that one thing because I'm not sure that it's necessarily a direct benefit to some of the outlying places
34:08 that we get impact fees from, but I think a high percentage could be.
34:13 Well, I don't know how much we have. Well, and I don't think if it even come in at 9.1 million. A little high. Yeah. I've never It was never my intention anyway to use
34:21 all impact fees for it. I always suggested that we use uh impact fees as well re as well as general funding plus
34:30 whatever we get from uh grants and everything which we I know already we got 2.5 million in grants. Okay. But I
34:38 would just like to see that so we'll have a more accurate.
34:42 I apologize. I didn't hear every comment that was made in the last two minutes, but I did verify with our budget manager. Um, we do have $900,000 plus in
34:51 the proposed budget of the general fund for dock replacement, which is one component of the meet in the middle project.
34:59 Yeah. Well, that's that's the one component of of the uh project I think we can actually use impact fees on is on
35:06 the dock and everything. when we did this whole thing. Um, that's what made us somewhat do the project the way we
35:13 did because by shifting the dock from where it was at to where we're doing it now, it help us qualify for uh impact fees. So, so that's the one area uh I'm
35:23 really looking to use impact fee wherever that portion come in at because that's the one portion that actually qualify for for impact fees that I know
35:31 of the whole project when we put it out there. But I'm just I'm just saying, hey, I think maybe that we need to sit down and make a determination what we
35:40 need to show because to me uh we've allocated this way. I've said it in council meeting and uh for 9.1 million,
35:48 we're not showing that anywhere. So we we need to make sure we we all um accounting for that some somewhere, I think. Okay.
35:56 uh whether it's impact fees or whether it's general fund a combination of grants course uh I know I'm not
36:05 expecting to come in at 9.1 million so it's I'm expecting a little bit le less than that of course I know one portion
36:12 of the original bid at 9.1 million we've already uh taken care of this out of there over $300,000 the removal of the
36:19 docks okay uh of the old pier uh which FEMA took care of for us so that that little portion is gone away as well already. Okay.
36:28 Um, other question you mentioned about, um, reoccurring expensive, vehicle, police,
36:36 uh, fire. Uh, what do we have? I guess I need to talk to chief about this. What about PPEs for for the fire department?
36:44 Are that in in there? Are we accounting for that replacement every so often? How often we need to replace that?
36:51 I'm going to have to defer to Chief. And would that would that fall under reoccurring? Um,
36:58 you know, so cuz I think when we start trying to do these capital uh requirement budgets years ago, we and
37:06 doing the vehicles and everything, I thought PPEs was in there and everything and I Yes, Chief.
37:13 Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Uh, yes, we do. We uh we actually have established an account just for bunker gear replacement. Uh, one of the things
37:21 I ran into, uh, 7 years ago when I came into the department is we have a mandate by the manufacturer that the gear has to be replaced every 10 years.
37:29 Okay.
37:29 So, with that, we're able to plan it out. Each firefighters issued two sets.
37:33 At the time, we had 75 firefighters, 150 sets of gear. So, just for replacements, we knew we had to buy 15 sets per year.
37:40 So, we've built that in in addition to accommodating new hires, occasionally having a set that can't be repaired. So, that money is in there. the I don't have
37:48 the exact figure, but we're somewhere in the neighborhood of about 200,000 a year for bunker gear replacement.
37:53 And you say 15 sets is what we I know we we went through this exercise.
37:58 We've increased this year with the additional firefighters we have on.
38:01 We're now at 96 firefighters. So that's a that's a higher number that we have in the budget. Uh but we plan to replace onetenth of our bunker gear every year,
38:10 plus a few sets in addition for hiring new people that we can't fit into older gear and everything else.
38:15 Okay. So, so that is we already have it allocated as part of the recurring. Yes, sir. Capital is a cost of doing business.
38:22 Yeah. Well, I just I just hadn't heard much about cap PPEs lately and everything and want to make sure we we taken care of that as well because I
38:29 know we went through that exercise here a couple years ago to try to get that taken care of along with the vehicles and all. So, thank you.
38:34 Yeah, I believe we we've had it in the budget now for three to four years.
38:37 Okay. Thank you. Uh that's all the questions I have.
38:43 I had another question come to mind. Can I have council's permission to ask it?
38:47 It's just one. May may I interject first real quickly? Uh give you an update on the meet in the middle discussion. Kyle once again um
38:54 also confirmed that a million dollars is included in the general fund for the tiered seating project. Which the tiered seating?
39:03 Okay.
39:03 Yeah. So that brings our general fund total for project related expenses to be in the middle to $1.9 million.
39:14 Thank you.
39:15 Uh what about the if I'm not mistaken, it's another grant out there for 1.5 million for that area as well. Right.
39:22 State Florida. State of Florida.
39:24 Yeah, I don't know the status of that, Mr. Mayor. I don't remember the status on that. We'll have to But there there
39:33 was a 1.5 million we were pursuing with the state. Okay.
39:38 And Scott, that's in the recurring general fund operating revenue. Those that one 1.9 million as as capital projects. Uh this type of
39:47 capital project, it would not be reoccurring.
39:49 Okay. So it's already listed under capital. Yeah.
39:52 The fund 320. In other words, no. Uh general fund general fund.
39:59 So but it has been taken into consideration. It's been removed from the expenses to calculate the 870,000.
40:05 Correct. Yes. Thank you. That's what I wanted.
40:08 Um, but I did have a question. Um, Christian, there was a reference to $18 million
40:15 being going back into some enterprise funds.
40:20 Assuming those numbers could be assuming those monies could be used, and I don't know if they can, and I'm not asking today because we're in the public workshop, legally, could we use those
40:29 funds that we're sending back to the enterprise fund as they might relate to the bond that we have on our utilities?
40:36 Could we use those funds to pay down a portion of that bond?
40:45 I don't see why not. I mean, Scott, do you have an opinion on that?
40:50 It would depend on the bond covenant and the agreement that was in place. That's my default answer.
40:56 Well, the covenant would protect the bond holders from us defaulting, right?
41:03 Oh, yeah. No, Scott's right. because there are scenarios where you have to have a minimum.
41:08 In other words, sometimes bond holders acquire it for a specific term and that's part of why they're in it.
41:15 The reoccurring revenue streams that come with it. So, we'd have to review that.
41:18 So, related to that, could we dedicate those monies towards payment of the bond
41:25 to perhaps help our utility rates go down?
41:30 That also would require a review of these specific covenants because even though the ma that might math so to speak, right?
41:37 Uh the covenants may do you say that? I said it last week.
41:41 Um the I think it's just a general English. Um but I said it first.
41:46 The covenants may require that we keep rates at a certain rate. And
41:54 um I was just curious.
41:56 It's an interesting idea. I'm just saying that usually when we engage in this kind of thing, the city is required to maintain things at a certain rate.
42:05 Uh so I I don't know. We'd have to review that unless you know off the top of your head.
42:11 No, that's the best answer I could give right now. But I would offer this as well. Um keep in mind that just because we didn't spend the money on a capital
42:20 project this year doesn't mean that the need for that project goes away, right? you know, we could utilize that money in in next year's budget or
42:28 perhaps the following year depending on the timeline of of those projects. So, I was just wondering if legally it could be done. Yeah. And then we get into the
42:37 that was that was it. I have comments if if we want to start that. Yes, ma'am. Go ahead.
42:45 We're currently looking at a 4.29 29 millillage with a deficit when we consider the operating expenses of
42:52 recurring revenues and over expenses of $870,000.
42:59 For context, that's a $63 million budget. And $870,000 on a $63 million budget is it's a very small percentage.
43:09 It's a big number, but it's a small percentage. I believe we have extremely competent staff. I have all the confidence in the world in our staff. We
43:16 have not done anything to cut this budget so far. And to be sitting at 4.29 with an $870,000 deficit.
43:25 I believe that staff can get us down to that 4.21 target that at least I ran on.
43:31 And it's important to me, but it must be important to the citizens of Clermont or I don't think I'd be sitting up here.
43:37 So my goal will be for us to get to 4.21. I will remind the council and staff that at the workshop we did ask
43:44 staff to come back to us with a balanced budget of 4.21.
43:48 Regardless of what number we're at, I encourage this council to ensure that the budget is balanced, that our recurring revenues and expenses um be
43:57 equal so that the citizens have a clear path moving forward.
44:03 I believe that we should fund fund 320 with 10% of whatever we decide to be this year's operating expenses. I
44:12 believe we can do that from the general fund reserves and I would support that to help us get to 4.21.
44:19 I think in the future that the fund 320 should be funded from any surplus from the pri prior year and that
44:27 we should ensure that the fund 320 is always at 10% of the operating expenditures.
44:35 I can support $6 million to be earmarked for a six minute response time which may include EMS. Those can be broken out or
44:43 put together. It makes no difference to me. I like six for six, six million for six minutes. if it feels right and I think that we can explain it to the
44:50 people quite easily. For context, that would include opening fire station 6, anticipating fire station 7, ensuring
44:58 fire station 5 is properly funded, and continuing to work on the transport question. I think that we should consolidate the existing funding from
45:07 our general fund reserves that relate to downtown to a simple downtown grants program and identify a number that we're happy with for that number and not get
45:15 into the minutia that we should refer to the CRA and our partners in the downtown area to identify what those projects should be. And finally, I wanted to
45:23 comment that meet us in the middle was never funded. It was sent to engineering so we could get a final number. We did
45:30 not have a plan in place for how to fund it, where to fund it, or what numbers, which is which is why it's not funded.
45:36 Um, I think that would be one of the downtown projects that should be included in whatever we agree is appropriate to spend from the general fund towards downtown projects.
45:48 Yes, sir. Mr. Bang. Thank you, Mayor.
45:54 Thank you, mayor. Um, my time's up. No, just kidding.
46:00 Um I think that staff has presented um
46:07 has worked with what we have asked them to do in terms of presenting um the consensus of what the council has
46:16 asked which which we gave them a 4.29 and they presented us with the 4.29.
46:22 Um that lowers our tax bill for our residents. Um and I support that.
46:29 What I'm not willing to arbitrarily support in theory is arbitrary numbers
46:38 of where we think we should be um without context and without data. Um
46:47 we have made cuts uh I believe there was a a document that was emailed to us uh from Mr. bore back in October um that
46:56 that showed that um if I'm reading this correctly um it was a a net reduction of $545,100
47:06 um from changes uh based off the proposed tenative budget and of that 491 was to adjust the lower millage of the
47:14 4.29 29. And so we we have made some cuts. Um I think that we are um we have
47:22 a lot of unknowns relative to amendment three that um I think we need to be judicious and
47:29 cautious of making um making allocations to specific items
47:38 without knowing the outcomes of that and how it could affect us. I had a conversation earlier today with the city manager that um you know depending upon
47:46 the outcome of amendment three, we may start the budget process in January of next year because we're going to have to
47:54 really look at things depending upon the outcome of that. And so I think um it would behoove us to give ourselves
48:01 maximum flexibility going into next year if need be. And if not, um, any resolution that would earmark things for
48:10 projects, um, we could entertain in January. Um, I'm also very concerned
48:16 about, uh, using one-time money for ongoing expenses. Uh, that's not a best
48:23 practice when it comes to, uh, fund balance. Fund balance is to to, you know, we have an opportunity. Let's
48:30 replace that dock. I know there's some ongoing expenses with that doc, but it's not ongoing staffing every year we're adding to the general fund. Uh we got to
48:39 be conscientious of that. And then finally, I think too, if we're going to start earmarking, um we need to have a whole earnest conversation of what all
48:46 projects might be considered for that and have the public weigh in on what they would like to see as a part of that
48:54 earmarking rather than us just saying we're earmarking that. Thank you, Council Member Mars.
49:03 Thank you. I I agree with a lot of what um Mr. Bane said and what Miss Strange
49:09 said as well. Um with this amendment three hanging over our heads, we really aren't able to make um I think
49:18 definitive um cuts uh expenders spending money here, spending money there or whatnot until we know for certain how the voters are going to weigh on this.
49:30 And um that's just kind of where I'm at on that. We just I think we're in a holding pattern truthfully on when it comes to spending more money at this time. Um but that's all I have for now.
49:41 But thank you. Thank you, Council Member Peterson.
49:46 Meet in the middle project keeps on coming up and I I my understanding was it was impact fees were the primary funding source for the uh meet in the
49:53 middle project. At any rate, we keep on hearing, you know, from that we were going to split it off because the veterans keep on coming to us. When is
50:02 it coming? When is it coming? When is it coming? We do have we do have a lot of grant money that came from uh uh we got
50:10 1.5 from the state, another one from uh South Lake Hospitals Fund, Livewell Foundation. And uh I I I think it would
50:18 be nice to show the the citizens that we're not just, you know, talking about this year after year, but show some some
50:27 kind of an improvement somewhere in the system. Whether it be the tears, whether it be some of the pavilion, may maybe it could be the the the uh the fountain
50:36 that was going to be going there at the end of uh of the walk, even though the walk's not there yet, but it can be an anticipation. I think it'll be a good
50:44 point to show that that we are not just talking about things, we're doing things also. And with that, thank you.
50:52 Thank you. Uh Mr. vein. I'm not going to repeat a lot of the things you said, but uh one of my real concerns is as well
51:00 when I look through this here um seemed like we've allocated funds and we
51:07 budgeting for use some reserves for ongoing expenses and that always scares
51:14 me when we use reserve uh for ongoing expenses. My philosophy has ever always been you never use uh reserve for ongoing expenses, reoccurring expenses.
51:25 year after year after year. One-time projects I have no problem with using uh reserve for uh but to commit ourselves to
51:34 to funds expenses when we already at a deficit and we have to use reserve to do it. I think that's a bad bad practice.
51:42 Okay. Um and I keep hearing everybody everybody concerned about what's going to happen with the tax bill that's hanging over amendment three and
51:49 everything. Of course, that's not affecting this budget. However, I do feel like we need to be judicious in what we're doing here and make sure we
51:57 we uh handle the taxpayers dollar wisely.
52:03 Okay. Uh as Mr. Bane said, we've already we've asked staff to go back go to 4.29 and uh
52:11 I can support that. Um, now we asking now here we want to try to even cut it a little bit further. And while we already
52:19 in a deficit, why are we looking to even go even lower and put us further in a deficit and still allocate more have to allocate more money to um reoccurring expenses? I I just I can't support that.
52:31 Okay. uh for us as to meet us in the middle. Um my understanding and and we if I'm not
52:39 mistaken the the the motion was to uh move forward with me in middle middle at $9.1 million and if things changes
52:48 within the next two years, we'll come back and re revisit that. Um you want to go back and look at your October minutes, October 28th minute, that's
52:56 exactly what's in there. So that's why it keep coming up. And you're right, Mr.
52:59 Peterson. It has always been said we will use a combination of funds, not just one fund. It was going to be a combination of funds. Uh we never went
53:08 down sat down. I think my original proposal would use half impact fees and half uh general fund. However, that
53:17 would before we start getting grants in as well. And I do know there's other funding that's that's going to probably be available for that. So, I think we
53:24 need to be look looking uh serious consideration. And with you along with you, Mr. Peterson. I do believe we need to be looking at moving that project
53:32 forward as soon as possible. Um so we can show the people we we mean business and and get them off our back for the last almost 10 years now we've been
53:40 working at this project. So we need to move it forward and that's all I have to say. Okay. Anything else?
53:51 Just for clarity. It's kind of clear like mud. So I appreciate that.
53:57 I'm c I heard a lot of things and I just want to see where I have consensus and where I don't have consensus if you all
54:05 wouldn't mind the resolution. Do you want us to wait or go forward with that?
54:10 I've heard yes and I heard no from everybody. So the fund balance allocation designating
54:18 funds for different things. Well, I for me I'm not I'm not like I say I think one of the things need to be in there if we going to start allocating all these
54:26 funds and everything. um meet us in the middle need to be in there as well for for the resolution right if you if you're going to do I'm
54:34 not I'm not too thrilled about doing a resolution allocating all these fun and most of the projects I see on here basically uh we got EMS well we
54:42 allocating funds there in the resolution $5.3 million there for a project that we don't even right now we're not sure whether we're going to even be able to
54:50 have the project we still got to wait for uh approval from the county to come back and I don't know where we are on that but yet still we're allocating parking garage. We're in the talk for
54:59 that. Um, but we allocating $6 million for that. Okay. Land purchase, downtown land purchase.
55:06 Okay. I know we in the process of uh trying to trying to get that across this finish line and everything. So, I have no problem with that. But then, like I
55:13 say, it's another project sitting at the 9.1 million that we have in procurement and everything else, but we're not showing any any funding and having
55:20 anything set aside for it. So, I have some concern for that. I just need some direction if I could. some more specifics.
55:29 Yeah, I would say my my my advice to you or or my vote would be to to not have that resolution come forward
55:37 without additional conversation and workshopping to decide what should be included. I support a resolution.
55:46 I'm willing to vote to approve 6 million for EMS fire station 6 minute response time. I'm willing to support up to six
55:53 million for downtown projects. I'm willing to support 6 million for future property tax um deficit balance if
56:02 amendment three takes over so that we have some flexible okay reserves in there and that should leave about 6 million for additional projects
56:10 to be determined in the future. But I think we need to show the people what it is that we're working on and not keep holding on to over $20 million of public
56:19 money without having some sort of direction for it. Ditto.
56:27 Ditto. For which one?
56:33 So, yes. I I like what you said, Allison, with um the EMS because I support EMS. I
56:40 support parking garage and future land p uh purchase because this is just allocating it for that. Um Yeah.
56:50 So, to Mr. Bane's point but to point I was going to say that's not what she said. So I don't think there's consensus.
56:58 So what I was saying was I mean frankly I think that the idea of the land that we were going to purchase downtown is not going to happen in the business
57:06 world. It's been almost two years since we approved that and they haven't come to the table to sign the contract. So I'm simply saying rather than stating
57:14 that project instead of saying this much for a garage, this much for a land purchase we say a number. I propose six
57:21 million, but a number for downtown projects that we would use in partnership with the CRA to have whatever the CRA identifies. We've got
57:30 the parking garage, we've got meet in the middle, we've got, you know, land that might be purchased or sold. I mean, all those things. But I think that's in partnership with CRA. So, so what I'm
57:39 suggesting is that we move forward to say there's a certain amount of money from the general fund reserves that we're willing to spend downtown.
57:48 That project that all that needs to be figured out. It might be all six million goes to meet me in the middle and that might be what the council decides and and maybe nothing goes to the garage or
57:57 maybe, you know, maybe we sell the land that we've been talking about selling and we use that. But my point is to earmark that. That's where I'm coming from is if we say six million for EMS,
58:05 six million for downtown, six million in reserve specifically for anticipating the losses of amendment three because
58:14 that's looks like it's going to be 5 million over five years of our existing money. So, and that still leaves something like another 3 to six million
58:23 that we would have for other projects as the year goes on, but it at least identifies subbuckets for the money. that that's
58:32 where I'm coming from. So for clarity, if you're if you're saying you would support 10 million to be spent downtown in the CRA, I would not support that. I
58:40 think that's too much for one area of the city without further discussion. But what I would but that doesn't mean that couldn't come into play in a future
58:49 discussion. I'm willing to go up to six in general in the CRA is what I was saying.
58:54 And I I guess my point back to what I said before is like we can do this.
59:00 There is no need to do this in September. We can do this in January if we know that the amendment. We can do it in December if we know that the
59:08 amendment has passed or not. Uh but we have an opportunity to engage the public to find out what are the opportunities
59:16 that they want us to earmark these funds for. And I don't think we have to to the city manager's question, do we have consensus of what this resolution speaks? I don't think we have consensus.
59:26 So it's what what I'm hearing is Council member Strange's proposal, Council Member Peterson agreeing with that.
59:36 I am not agreeing with it. The mayor's not agreeing with it. And Sean and Council Member Myers is agreeing with pieces of it. I don't think we have
59:43 consensus to have a resolution on the agenda for the 22nd to earmark this. Why
59:51 are we rushing to earmark our reserves when we have opportunities to discuss this with the knowledge of how the outcome of amendment three vote goes?
1:00:03 Well, let me see. And I I always have a problem with trying to allocate funds or just pull some
1:00:12 arbitrary number out of the air and say, "Hey, we going to throw this money here without doing some type of financial analysis or whatever to see what we actually getting into." Okay. And that
1:00:20 seemed like what we're trying to do here. We just pulling the funds out. I know EMS, they've been through the exercise and come up with the 5.3. Well, I thought the last information I got on
1:00:29 them was 5.6, but I see it's changed to five uh 5.3. Uh parking garage. We throw 6 million out there allocated towards we
1:00:36 don't even know what the parking garage going to be or what you even have a concept of the parking garage yet. Okay.
1:00:41 So, we just pulling number arbitrary out of number without really going through the exercise asking as Mr. debating and say asking the public what they think
1:00:50 and where they think we should be uh spending this money and all and uh I I totally agree with that. We need to go through those exercises uh before we
1:00:58 just start willy-nilly throwing figures out and put big uh things on on the paper here. Um to answer Mr.
1:01:05 Miss uh Miss Strange, I don't think it's been two years since we uh offered that land purchase. I only has it even been six months. I think we just did their
1:01:13 land purchase, try their land purchase this year, not two years ago. Okay. Um, but are we not doing an order anymore? Just jumping in everywhere.
1:01:22 But this is uh we we're coming up on the close of our uh time here. So to try to Well, we we have a agreement that three
1:01:30 people want to allocate funds towards the project. Three people said that they wanted to move forward with the MS and that would be allocating and giving our
1:01:38 fire department the the certainty that they need to continue moving in the direction that they're moving. It doesn't mean we have to allocate every penny,
1:01:46 but if we have projects that we do think and and here's my take on it for for public and council. If we're going to
1:01:53 hold on to $20 million of the people's money when we're collecting 27 million in taxes each year, as far as I'm concerned, we need to be cutting this
1:02:00 millillage down to 3%. three mills because there's no reason why we can't do that and we'll just use it as the fund balance for the next three years
1:02:08 while we figure it out. But we've taxed the people this money. We've taken their money and if we hold on to it just a little bit longer because we're afraid
1:02:15 to take action, then we're not doing our jobs. We're up here to make decisions.
1:02:19 And on the issue of EMS, specifically the six-minute response time, fire station 6, that's an issue of lives. And I am not it's not something I want to
1:02:27 compromise on because I don't want that to be my family. So, I think the question is, should staff move forward with a resolution? At least three of us
1:02:36 have said yes, we like the idea of a resolution. We all seem to agree on the EMS if we don't want to be general with
1:02:43 downtown. Well, we can leave the rest to be determined, but it sounds like we have an agreement that yes, we want to move forward with at least a commitment of the EMS.
1:02:51 Well, um there were not going to be a vote taken here today. So, um if we
1:03:01 Well, I I'll be I'll continue to be in communication with the five of you. So, thank you. I will not support it uh at this point.
1:03:08 Not not with those type figures and not going through proper exercises. Um anything else?
1:03:16 Seeing nothing else, we going to adjourn this meeting.