City Commission Work Session I - Budget 6/12 (live)

Bornstein is making the introductions.  Click here for back up material - really just the agenda.

He is talking about General Fund costs that are non-controllable versus controllable.  $11 million are controllable, $19,5 is non-controllable (FY12)  The FY13 draft budget shows that 70% is non-controllable.  The property tax value has dropped 6% which amounts to $5.5 million from ad-valorem.  He is emphasizing the contribution of the enterprise funds - $9.9 is budgeted for FY12/13.  $4.4 million comes to the city from the utility - he terms that a "dividend" to the general fund.

Costs - almost 60% goes to public safety and police/fire and pension costs.  Police is $12.2 million.  The cost portion is not filled with a lot of "largess."  In this year's budget the city will have $2.5 million in the undesignated fund balance - in five years it will be $5 million in the hole.  He says that is what we are facing in terms of providing for the health of the general fund in order not to be in that position.  I took a video of the Commission's discussion of the general fund.

Beach - Total combined projects equal $13.7 million, which includes $2.1 million for infrastructure.  Parking lo\t lighting is at $800,000.  Bornstein is presenting three options of pay back the $6,000,000 for the casino - 30 year bond, 20 year loan and 13 year payback plan.  The 13 year pay back plan is the cheapest - $6.4 million at 1% interest back to city versus other options.  The 30 year bond about doubles the total payment figure.  Carr says that the business plan assumed a 20 year loan at about a 4.5% interest rate for a total payment of $9.2 million.  McVoy points out that the internally financed plan is paying back city money to the city with interest - instead of the other scenarios pay money to other entities.  Amoroso asks what sort of scenario would require that the funds be paid back quickly.  Carr responds that some sort of catastrophic claim on the insurance fund.  That will be talked about tomorrow.

The revenue is now projected above the numbers in the original business plan - including the pier revenues.  Carr says none of the tenants are getting free rent except for their buildout period.  The current case exceeds the projections by $33 to $42K past the first year.  Benny's pier payment early is a gift.  "Slightly better than the most likely projection."  Expenses are about $80K higher from the original FY13 projection versus what the projections are now.  The pool is not open at all now and not generating revenue as it was project - Memorial Day to Labor Day.    McVoy "Why would we want to open the pool during the summer?" - my right hand to God!

Bornstein says the pool complex is a white elephant and the current complex does not reflect the new reality represented by the new building.  He says that this is something that we have to talk about.  He is referring to it as a luxury.  I have some video on the discussion.

Carr thinks that we have under-estimated revenue from the ballroom and the parking.  Amoroso doesn't believe a CAM of $7 is enough - he doesn't think it is going to pay for what it needs to pay for.  He thinks that the CAM can be raised after the first year.  Maxwell is asking questions about the total amount due to Anderson and Carr.  Amoroso thinks that the ballroom revenues are way under-estimated and Maxwell is saying that we need a date that we can have events.  Bornstein there are varying philosophies on the Commission on how to handle the ballroom space - some think that it should be used like a public park - guess who that is.  Mulvehill says that they need to discuss the options so that they don't miss an entire city.  Maxwell asks when that will be - Bornstein needs to have the policy direction.  They want to have a special meeting on it.

I will attempt to get the PowerPoint and post parts here.