Afternoon. We'll call to order the city commission workshop for property tax reform and budgetary impact discussion. City clerk, can we get a roll call, please? >> Yes, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Davis >> here. >> Commissioner Dolison >> here. >> Commissioner Birdong >> here. Mayor Prom Mercer
>> here. >> And Mayor Yates >> here. appreciate everybody coming on a Thursday afternoon for this meeting. I know this is a little bit out of the ordinary, but I just kind of felt like with all of the news and media that's
out there, um you not knowing which direction the voters may go in November, we need to be prepared and we need to have discussions now on what our budget could look like uh and what changes we may need to implement. And so I think the sooner we start to have those
discussions, the better. I also think that in November, if the voters do not move this forward, these will not be wasted discussions. We can circle back to these discussions and um make uh make potential changes to to future budgets
and make sure that the city of Winter Haven continues to operate um fiscally and responsible to the taxpayers's funds. So, with that, I'll uh let the city manager take over. And uh well,
I'll I'll add one more thing. I'll just say for those in the audience, so we probably won't make any uh uh votes or actions tonight. We may have some some consensus on direction, but there won't be any actions tonight, and therefore, we won't have any opportunity for public
comment. Um but however, I I appreciate you coming and being part of this discussion. So, with that, city manager. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you to the commission and certainly the staff that have uh joined us this evening. I I do think you're
you're very appropriate wanting to have a conversation on this because whether it's property tax reform or other matters that may come about through decisions stemming from the state legislature, there's always the potential for impacts to local
government. whether that's in the form of a a new mandate that we have to absorb into our existing expenses or into other reductions in revenue streams that certainly have come about in in recent legislative sessions. So my in
trying to help the commission have dialogue and and conversation and and this is again it's in a public forum. this is the only time you all as as five can share your thoughts and and concerns and um concepts for how to to
manage these things is in this type of forum. So what I was hoping to do this evening if it if it aligns with with the commission's desires is to approach this through four kind of topics. First
starting off with what is the potential impact to the city of Winter Haven should property tax reform um be supported by the voters and we have a constitutional amendment change. Um, and
then the second topic being if that were to happen, what are your options for replacement revenue, which are somewhat limited, um, but certainly want to put some things out there that are viable
options. And then along that same theme, what are some things that you may be interested in looking at from organizational or operational changes? I.e., If you had to look at not doing things you're doing today, where do we
start looking at those? Um the concept of doing less with less. And then the fourth topic, and I'm going to ask the city attorney to really kind of guide us in this conversation, is there is specific legislation that has been
passed that um puts guard rails around what we as an organization, not just Winter Haven, but any municipal government and you as elected officials, what you can and cannot do in um speaking on the matter of a ballot
issue. So we want to make sure that we are doing what is permitted by law and not doing what is prohibited by law. So that's kind of the approach and if that's in step with your desires I'll I'll get us underway.
So, in terms of the impact to Winter Haven, and we've provided um copies of this in case you want to make notes, you know, for future reference, but it's also what's within the slides. um property tax that what is being
proposed is a increase in the homestead exemption initially to $150,000 in the first year and then to $250,000 in the second year for homesteaded properties.
So, what you have on the screen, and you, as I said, you also have a copy of this, is a uh report that was provided to us and the other administrations throughout the county by Pulk County Property Appraiser Neil Comi and his
staff that identified what we would be looking at um in that impact. And I've I've taken the liberty of highlighting a couple things here. So, Winter Haven, this is year one. We're at the very bottom there and we would stand to see a
reduction in our revenues of $7.691 million. I've also pointed out a few other ones because we don't live in a vacuum. Um certainly Pulk County does a lot of work
in and around Winter Haven, whether that's on roads or uh some of the regional parks that are in the area. um they have been an interlocal uh partner with us on a number of projects. You can see what he's forecasting their revenue
loss to be at $98 million. Um they have a they have a system of MSTUS that aren't highlighted, but you see them listed at the top there. the library MSTU. If you're not familiar with this, Pulk
County does not provide libraries in in terms of the structures and the services. Many years ago, Pulk County established the Pulk County Library Cooperative whereby the county provides through a funding formula certain dollars back to those cities that have
libraries in exchange for us providing library services to uninorporated residents. um they their revenues for that uh come from that MSTU. So MSTUs are also impacted. So that could potentially have
a reduction in the county's contribution back to our library operations. Uh certainly we know the Lake Region Lakes Management District that is the canal commission. They are a special district that has taxing authority that is who maintains canals and works
closely with on a lot of our boat ramp facilities. So, an impact to them certainly has an indirect impact back to us and to our residents. The Southwest Florida Water Management District, we do a lot of work with
SwiftMUD in terms of cooperative funding grants and those would potentially be impacted uh the partnerships that we have with them on on various programs. And then as we mentioned during our last presentation uh with Citrus Connection,
Lakeland Mass Transit also stands to be impacted. How that might affect us, I'm not real clear just yet, but certainly that's somebody that is a partner of ours that could could feel that pinch. So in year one, again, direct impact to
Winter Haven, uh 7.691 million. AJ, if you'll advance to year two for me. So, looks basically the same except the numbers have changed and you can see that at the full implementation of a $250,000
homestead exemption, Winter Haven would stand to see a revenue reduction of 10 point 10,320,38. Um, significant amount in in the grand scheme of things. And you can see those other entities highlighted again and
what their potential impacts are as well as all of the other cities within PK County. And I think this is a really good report. I'm grateful to uh property appraiser combi for for providing this out to all of us. Um the homestead parcel count I think is is an important
piece in there as well at 12,879 homesteaded parcels in Winter Haven. That's a pretty significant amount. When we looked at this, and I'm just going to look to our CFO Chris Reer for a nod of of verification, but when we looked at
this, the the percent of properties in Winter Haven that would be completely exempted from paying a city adorum property tax under this exemption is around 92% of our homesteaded properties. That means about 8% of the
homesteaded properties would continue to pay something. 92% would pay nothing >> outside of the normal school board. >> School board. Yeah, I'm just talking about when I say pay nothing, I mean in terms of city of Winter Haven adoreum property taxes.
>> I've had the pleasure of doing uh some budgetary briefings with each of the commissioners independently this week. Um and I share this same information with you. This is looking ahead to our fisc year 27 proposed revenues and this
is just within the general fund. So our our projected advalorum tax revenues for next fiscal year are $33,176,12. You can see from the pie chart that that represents the biggest section of your
general fund revenues. The um if you think about a loss of and let's just talk in year two a loss of $10.3 million equates to about 31%
of your total adorum revenues. So about a third of your revenues from advalorum would go away. In terms of the overall budget of all revenues within the general fund, it's
about uh little over 12% about 12.15% is what the the potential loss would be on this proposed let's just call it $85 million budget. So I'll pause there if there's any questions. I think you've all seen this.
You've spent time with me this week as we look at what what next year's revenues look like. Moving forward, our proposed expenditures, and I highlight the word proposed because we've not approved a budget as of yet,
but when we look at our budget for next year, and you think about the departments that we have, so police, fire, all the way down through our public affairs, um there's that $85 million budget.
The challenge becomes if you don't replace the revenue or supplement it with something other where within that do you cut $10.4 $4 million. And of course, police and fire and code
or safe neighborhoods. I define those as the, you know, the three three legs of the stool of public safety. That is, you know, that is critical essential things that we do in a community. That is what um we have to do first and
foremost. You have to have a safe community. People want quality of life. They want parks and recreation. They want quality roads, but all that comes after the fact of being safe. In considering what we spend on public safety
and what's anticipated for next year, those three units, police, fire, and safe neighborhoods total out around 38.8 million in cost. Adalorum revenue presently
is projected at $33.1 million. There's already a delta there of $5.6 million that we make up through other means through our state shared revenues, our franchise fees, our utility service tax
receipts that we we gain. Um, but if you take that 10.4 million out, it becomes even harder to do that. So, that's just to give you kind of what the the playing field looks like. Here's what your
revenues are today or proposed to be. Here's what that potential loss in revenue would be. And here's where you'd have to find that if you're not able to identify an alternative revenue source.
So, let me pause there and see if there's any questions or or thoughts from the commission on that piece. Um, so I have a comment about that. I've heard our CFO and others speak um
towards us local elected officials about how we would use public safety as a straw man argument. You know, if we this happens, we're going to cut all of our public safety and how dare we do that to the voters. And I don't believe anyone
up here is going to allow that to happen. However, um, as someone who fully supports our law enforcement, our first responders, our code enforcement, all of our public safety employees, I don't believe they are paid what they
they deserve. And I I just wonder, you know, what would this mean for us to be able to offer them better pay, better benefits, to truly recognize them, and also to retain them? because uh we can continue to fund them at the status quo,
but we're going to, you know, we're going to lose employees possibly as they move on to better opportunities. Um and we it'll be really hard for us to maintain a an experienced and trained workforce willing to serve our community. Um that that's I think my biggest concern here. we wouldn't be
cutting what we have already, but we would we would be setting us basically um a ceiling that we wouldn't be able to go beyond to provide extra uh to to support these people. >> I I think that's a good point. Um, you know, the language within the the bill
is a little different from what was considered in some of the bills that went through session in that um, yes, you you're not going to you're not going to cut those, but your ability to increase them becomes significantly
hindered. uh if you don't have the dollars to increase uh pay, to increase workforce size, um that's problematic because you're going to continue to grow as a community. And this is kind of an op-ed
for me, but I'm a I'm a strong believer and I' I've said this for, you know, the the 30 plus years I've been in local government, coming from a recreation standpoint. And I would say that Chief Monroe and members of the law enforcement community would agree. Every dollar you take away from a parks and
recreation budget, be prepared to add that to a police budget because the opportunities that those services provide to uh take young minds and put them into positive environments. When you don't have that, you know, there's there's al there's
other things that can come about. Um, but the problem becomes if you continue to grow and you're not you don't have an advalorum base going along with that, how do you fund expansion? How do you how do you grow that? And that becomes a challenge for us. I mean, I'm not saying it's it's insurmountable because I don't
know what that challenge truly looks like, but it does become somewhat difficult. >> Okay. I think one potential discussion to be had is in looking at potential replacements for this. We are one of the very few m
municipalities in PK County and I believe even probably across the state of Florida that does not implement a fire service fee. So is that something that in in my thought process
we would not implement that that is the sole answer but perhaps we can account for a portion of that $10.5 million by making cuts throughout the budget. Another piece of the puzzle could be a
fire service fee. Another piece of the puzzle could be, you know, potentially a small millage rate increase. And I think if you take a multitude of things, you you can get to the final equation so that we can
continue to offer the services to our residents that they're accustomed to receiving. Um, is that is that feasible? is that what are your thoughts on on on that?
>> So, it's a good segue into topic two of what are your replacement revenue options? Um, let me start with millillage. So, city of Winter Haven's Mill 6.59 mills. Uh, that has not changed since 2022.
It actually came down two ten of a mill in 2022. Um the way that you know we fund things the the revenues that come in off of your adorum today that millillage is applied to homesteaded properties,
non-homesteaded residential properties, commercial properties, industrial properties, the gamut. You could look at and there will probably be some cities and perhaps counties that say if we if we have a
smaller pool from which to receive advalorum revenues then the multiplier the millillage should increase to cover that. The downside to that in my opinion is
that you are charging some users of your services less and forcing others to pay more and so some people are basically um footing the bill for for other folks.
that kind of the regressive aspect of that in my opinion. If you think about those that are renting properties, your multifamilies, uh you know, apartment complexes,
that's a lot of your workforce. That is people that are trying to save money today. They can't afford to purchase a home and make it a homesteaded property. So they are renting a property until they can get to that financial stability
to do so. It pushes that further out because if you increase a millage rate on you know the ABC apartment complex fictitious property that is going to get passed along to to
renters. If you do that on your commercial properties, the small businesses that can't afford to own their own bricks and mortar facility and are leasing that space from somebody else. They're likely to see an increase
in that as well. That ultimately comes back to all of your consumers because they're going to turn around and if I have to pay more, then I've got to charge more. And so the land owner has to pay more, they charge more in rent. the the renter has to the the small
business has to pay more in a lease payment each month or rental payment. I've got to turn around and pass that on to the consumer. So, it's just moving the shelves around really. But I think the biggest problem I see with it in a millage increase is that you're you're
putting on the backs of a portion of your population the cost for services that are received by others who are not paying into that. >> Yeah. And I and I think that's where you know a rate increase to me, whether it be very small or regardless of size,
that that's your last resort. That that's because you just don't have any other options. Okay? And we're going to obviously explore what all options are on the table as we we progress here from today on forward through November when the when the voters decide. But when it
comes to a fire service fee, you've got a lot of um organizations who are nonprofit not paying any any property taxes now, but they're utilizing a large
portion of our buyer services. So, for example, hospitals, nursing homes, potentially churches, and if they're utilizing the services, and this has been kind of the argument that I've heard all along in this property tax
debate is it's kind of if you use it, you should pay for it. Um, everyone wants the fire department to show up their h at their house in the event of emergency. And so if everyone contributes to making that happen, then we can can kind of fill some gaps just
on that basis alone. >> Yeah. Before I jump to fire services, let me just see if anybody has any questions on the millage piece that I put out. >> No, I I I don't have a question, but I have a comment. U
to cut $10 million out of the budget. How do I want to phrase this? Unfortunately, it's going to cause
some things that we're going to have to do that perhaps we would not have wanted to do. And so the way I look at it is based on what I've been seeing and going through
the the the fiscal 27 potential budget. I think we got to look at all potential aspects for raising
revenues. And so uh I mean and at the end of the day we will look at it if it's necessary and make a decision.
And unfortunately, the decision that we're going to have to make if we have to make that decision and to a certain extent has already been made for us if that vote
goes through. I mean, this isn't something that the five of us up here want to do. cut10 million dollars out the budget, but that's not a decision
that we will make. And so there are going to be some real circumstances and some shifting and some things that we're going to have to do because the one thing we can't do.
The one thing that we can't do and that one thing is we cannot let our city and our residents regress 10 years ago or 15 years ago or 20 years
ago. We are where we are. So we can't go back. So, we've got to do all we can to try to maintain a level. Unfortunately, it's not going to be easy. But I think all revenue
potential revenue streams that we can attack needs to be researched, looked at going forward. And I just remember from uh we've looked at a a fire assessment
fee before and I know that that if we were going to even do that we would have to start working on that yesterday so to speak. And I'm just throwing that out there because we I've
been here long enough that we have actually went through the entire process of that fee and you have to uh you have to hire your consultants and they have to
do the study and I mean it's a it's a process. So, it's not like we could say, "Okay, we're going to implement a fire assessment fee in uh November." Doesn't work like that. I mean, it's more of a process. So, I'm just throwing
that out there. >> Yeah. >> About a year to get it on the tax ro. >> Yeah. I think and I think that's what I'm hoping for out of this discussion tonight is maybe we we do come to a consensus that staff bring us back a
a a proposal to move forward with a study on that. I mean, you don't have to order a study. We're not going to vote on that tonight. But but st if we can give that direction tonight, if that's if that's the consensus of the commit, one of the consensuses or only one, we can we can go that direction and get
things in motion. And you know ultimately again if it doesn't pass then it certainly doesn't need to be implemented but we need to have an understanding of of the direction we need to proceed as a city. >> Um
let me grab let me grab Okay. Um regarding the millillage I I just want to put it out there my opinion on that I would not be in support of raising millillage. uh if this were to go through, the folks that are still paying the taxes are still paying the taxes and putting the millage out there, that's
just putting extra burden on their backs to make up the difference for everyone else. And I just I I could not in good conscience do that. Um I would be um open to entertaining a fire assessment and I would offer my support if we're looking for consensus on doing um a
study on that. I had a question I guess to Commissioner Bon because we have the advantage that you have been here and you obviously were in involved in those conversations at the time that you all were considering that and I I was curious as to what circumstances
prompted your looking into that at the time and why it was not uh any action taken on that. Obviously there was there was a reason or rational reasoning for it. Something had cause at least you ought to consider that. And as much as
we know that other cities have in fact uh or do have that uh the fire u uh service fee or fees for that. So how is it that we pretty much kind of walk
away from that? I I I think we when we looked at it, we were looking at generating additional revenue and what it would do and uh when it was brought back and the the
cost and what we would do, I think we decided that we wouldn't do it. >> Was a study done at the time to look at it? Yes. So there was >> there was a study. The study was done. it was brought to us and we looked at it
and considered it. >> I believe I believe the ordinance actually passed though, didn't it? It just never implemented it. >> So, let me add a little context to that. The city looked at a fire assessment fee in 2015
and the catalyst for that, the impetus for it was really where we were in terms of the overall economy. Remember, we went through a pretty significant boom and followed by a great recession and
Winter Haven was a little late in getting to the table to look at fire assessments. Um, some of the other jurisdictions were looking at those in 2012, 2013 when times were really, you know, strained financially. Um the
commission did pass an ordinance and it is codified that gives kind of the framework for what would have to happen if you want to do a fire assessment and we can just this is just kind of transitioning into that is the next discussion in this topic of alternative
revenues. Um, so within our code, there is a section that speaks to the process for doing a fire assessment and um, it's it's it's rather lengthy and and I need to myself review that in greater detail
than I'm prepared to discuss tonight. But following that piece, then there is the actual assessment ordinances that go with it. and the commission never got to that point of actually considering an action to implement an assessment.
The polic or the the code was was um updated to reflect the process for how you get there and they we had begun the efforts to bring back a first reading on a fee and it it just didn't move forward even to that point. Um, I'm going to ask
uh Chief New Brand. I I asked him a few weeks ago to begin doing a little digging is our resident expert on all things fire to help me with this portion of the discussion. But I'll tell you the there are to the best of my knowledge
and I I think this is accurate, there are four entities within Pulk County that presently have a fire fee. City of Barto, City of Hayne City, City of Lake Wales, and then Pulk County also has a fire fee. None of you pay that Pulk
County fire fee is only on the uninccorporated area because fire services here in Winterhaven are provided by the city of Winter Haven. Um, Drew, if you wouldn't mind just giving a high level overview of of what
a fire service fee can do and and your your understanding of it, please, sir. >> Certainly. Good evening, mayor and commissioners. U fire assessment fee, the real purpose on why a fire assessment fee is put into place really is to preserve the property value. So,
it needs to be placed on real property uh to reduce fire loss, lower insurance risks, and improve quality of life for individuals. It provides a good opportunity to bring in the revenue that
funds personnel, equipment, stations, utility, um all the ancillary costs to operate the fire department that provides the real value to the properties on there. whether they're vacant or whether they have tangible
valuable properties on top of it. Uh the things that it will not cover which is which is a good element is the advanced life support services that we offer. So the major ALS portions of it we don't
cover with it specifically to Winter Haven. um we can we can reproduce greater than 90% of our budget is refundable through a fire assessment fee. Um so way that looks at us is we're
not able to pay for the paramedic incentive pays that we provide all of our paramedics online. Um we cannot pay for the administrative personnel that are designated strictly for emergency medical services. Um, and we're also
unable to pay for the continuing education training classes specific to advanced life support procedures. Everything else we have the ability within the state statutes to use the fire assessment fees towards. So that
would be the remainder of all the personnel um costs and services, the regular training operations, the administrative personnel and services, um fire apparatus, fire stations, keeping them maintained, capital
depletions, um all of the additional revenues that we go through there. Um and looking towards the budget um that was shown for potentially for 27 in there. Out of that $18.1 million in there, we have the ability to
reproduce upwards and over $17 million in it. So less than a million dollars of our budget goes strictly towards advanced life support procedures due to our arrangement with the county. Um from that, you're correct. four
entities within Pulk County that have it. Um, Barto, Lake Wales, Hayne City, and then Pulk County as a whole that have it. All of those entities use a different methodology approach on how they get to their end number on how what
property is assessed, what value on it. So, it's up to the study and what we need to be able to do to move forward to find out what that looks like directly here in Winter Haven for us.
the um Thank you, Drew. The when we looked at the fire study in 2015, now granted 2015, 11 years ago, Winter Haven's a very different place. Population's probably, I don't know,
little more than half of what it was it is today. Um operational expenses within the fire department. We at that time had two permanent stations, one trailer we were operating out of. And today we have five stations that were running um a
very appropriately staffed and equipped operation. So the costs are are higher than they were then. But in 2015, the study um with guidance from the administration at that time contemplated
about a 25% cost uh 25% of what was available through a fire assessment and I think it was estimated to generate about a million a half dollars. Now, we weren't looking at property tax reform at that point. This was just to
supplement the operational expenses of we need to expand facilities and we need to acquire equipment. How do we bolster that to some degree? Um, as the chief said, you know, we estimate, and this is us looking at it,
you know, not the study experts, but our belief is that you realistically could recover legitimately about $17 million of of expense through a fire fee. I wouldn't recommend that to you in any way, shape, or form. Um, but because
that far exceeds what you stand to lose, but I think that that's the guidance that we would have to put into a study to figure that out. One of the the unique things about a fire assessment is that it does
it does apply to all of those properties. So you have properties today that are exempt from paying property taxes. You mentioned it, Mr. Mayor. You have you have not forprofit major facilities,
hospitals per se here in Winter Haven, uh that they don't become exempt from a fire fee unless you choose to make them exempt from that. Um religious properties, you choose to do that if you so want to. other notfor-profit
um entities and the like. So that's stuff that has to be kind of worked out within a study. Um I would say that you're spot on in that this exercise
while it does cost something to produce that study, it is not wasted. That is, I think, very good information to have and to understand. Um, because whether or
not property tax reform is approved or fails under the November ballot, it at least lets you know what your options are for other things that may come about through future legislatures. It it does give you a good baseline
either to move on now or to build off for later. Um, if if that is something that the commission has an interest in, my recommendation to you, and it's just as a recommendation, I don't get to make
this decision. You all do. I would strongly recommend that you work towards doing that sooner than later. We are one of 17 municipalities in Pulk County. Four of those 17 have fire fees.
If the others are planning to consider something similar, there's not a whole lot of people that do fire fee studies out there. And when you have 411 municipalities and 67 counties across the state, I think the line the queue to
get those done could could form pretty quickly and that not only could increase the cost of those studies, but also delay the delivery time of them and put you up against a wall. So, if that is something that the commission is
interested in doing, I would suggest advancing that sooner than later. And we would >> could we actually we can't vote but could we be by consensus? >> You could give consensus for me to bring something back to you to consider >> that could be at the next commission meeting. You think
>> you I can't I can't have it to you for the next commission meeting. >> But if there's a consensus that you want to look at uh having a study done, we can begin the process to reach out to those individuals that that >> I think capable of doing it. I think
what we've heard thus far, I think that consensus exists. So yes, one more nod. >> Well, my question is that the study is not probably going to be cheap. >> Uh what do you estimate that probably just guesstimating what that might be?
>> Based on what we're seeing with rate studies, this is not too dissimilar from a utility rate study in in principle. I would guesstimate this is probably somewhere around $100,000. So, we'll spend $100,000 and then at the end
of that, so if it doesn't pass, you know, the property tax doesn't pass, we'll just have a nice study we pay $100,000 for basically move on. Is that what you're saying? >> That's for the most part. Yes. But that's also a study that if you have other issues that you have to overcome
from a financial standpoint, you've got that data to move forward as those come about. What may I add a comment? Um, and this to your point, Commissioner Dallas, I think as the city manager noted, if you
have that study that is current and looks at our data, looks at our, >> you know, current localized data. That is valuable information because it allows this commission under its current
ordinance scheme or code provisions to by resolution introduce or adopt after the appropriate advertising and public hearing and all of that a fire assessment. You may only decide depending on what happens in November that you want to very very
incrementally introduce a fire assessment notwithstanding what happens in November. >> Yeah, that's kind of what >> you you you may because as a city manager knows keep in mind there are other potential revenue deficits that could occur, >> right? You could be prohibited from
making a transfer from the utility fund to the general fund. That could happen legislatively. There could be other legislative things that happen that you don't know about yet, but that could
you might want to have another revenue source of recurring revenue potentially available to you. Doing this would allow for you to have that information for further review. Well, another hypothetical would be it's all about
getting the information. You got to have the information so you can then have different thoughts and present it and and ideas so that we can have the discussions. But let's say the voters vote no. It doesn't pass at 60% of the vote. Then we've got this information
now. We can circle back and say, well, look, we've done the practices. We we've looked at our budget. We can make these cuts within our budget. Now we can implement this fire fee in place and we could actually reduce the overall millage rate in the city. I mean you've
got different possibilities but if you don't have the information you're not able to even have those discussions. >> Yeah that I agree with. I'm just simply saying that uh I think perhaps it may it may be prudent to uh as you stated uh
John that uh you know some form of it would be move forward and to do you know what you just shared as well that it could it could be a win-win all the way around. I just don't think it's a great idea to spend that kind of money and not do something. the and and I think the
mayor's point there is interesting because if if you have a fire fee if you if it didn't if the property tax reform didn't pass and everything's kind of status quo that fire fee does give you a little latitude
to potentially affect a millage decrease by imple if you could implement it let's just say to generate $2 million That means that's $2 million less that you need off of Adalorum.
And that $2 million is spread across more properties than what the Adalorum is. So some that are getting a service today actually begin paying for it and some that are paying for it today may see a slight decrease. So there is a a
scenario where that could happen. And these are the ideas that could have been thought of within Tallahassee in 2027 had they let the normal practice just taken its course and and had the the committees convene at that point in time. But this is where we are today and
that that's okay. We're going to move forward and and work with it. Guess >> um on some of the other types of revenues um like um fiber optics uh do we have much room for um in city
easements or anything like that um to increase those rates. >> I don't know that I can give you a solid answer on that. I think that any any fee structure that we have is subject to being evaluated. Can we increase those?
I can't speak to, you know, fiber optics, that's going to be with, you know, your that's going to be more so within your communication service taxes, but your franchise fees are negotiated fees with your electric providers and the and the gas company. Um,
>> things that you do have options to to look at, and one of the things we're exploring right now, parks and recreation fees. you know, our parks and recreation fees are are pretty low um and probably need to increase, but at the end of the day, that's a that's a
revenue stream. AJ, can you back this up one for me, please? If you look at your parks and recreation fees, it's about $1.4 million that comes in. You know, you can't solve that problem. You can't crack that nut by in that area
or in your planning division fees. you can maybe eek out a little bit, but it's not going to be significant at the end of the day. I think that any place that we have a fee or a charge and this is kind of the downside of it is that we become a a very feeoriented
form of government that you're charging for every single little thing that's out there at the maximum price. And one of the things you have to keep in mind, particularly in the area of like parks and recreation fees, there's a delicate balance between what you charge and the
desire for people to have that service. If you take it too high, then participation drops and you didn't really gain anything. You actually end up losing in my opinion. Um, but I think that's the kind of the third trunch that you look at is all of your fees and
charges. Um, I want to if I can jump ahead for just a moment. I think >> Well, can we can we hit maybe just Are we good at least from a consensus standpoint to move forward to at least We're not voting on this tonight. We're just asking staff to put together a
proposal to bring back to us to actually vote on. Do Do we have that consensus for >> So, I think we're good. We're there. >> Okay. Very good. Um the other side of the coin and mayor you you mentioned
it's it's probably a a variety of approaches to asset to addressing or mitigating the loss of revenue. There's what additional revenue can you generate through other means. There's also where can you tighten the
belt? Now I I think I mean speaking from this seat and I use this analogy making up $10.4 million through cuts in our organization is not tightening the belt. It is taking the belt and making
it a watch band. You just you're going to you're just not going to do things that are that people depend on every day. But I think we also have to uh present to you opportunities where you as a commission can make decisions on
what do we not want to do in the future. Um your you know various programs that are out there that you fund to your nonprofit grant and aid your community partners those types of things maybe those don't have the same dollars to them. I don't know what that looks like.
Um I think that it's realistic. Could we find a small amount of of savings by not doing certain things? Certainly. It's a question of do you as a commission not want to do those things? And this is not a an opportunity for me to provide you a
list of what those would be, but as we're going through the 27 budget. In my briefings with you all, I kind of shared it's kind of a unique situation. We're trying to finalize the fiscal year 27 budget and predict what's going to happen in 28 at the exact same time. And
as we develop your 27 budget, I've told each one of you, I have to look at that and and my my leadership team who's here tonight, our our finance team, we cannot make decisions on investing
recurring expenses in the 27 budget without knowing what's going to happen in 28. You know, when you talk about adding positions and and expanding services, it'd be foolish for any government to say, "Yeah, we're going to go forward and do that." Only to have to
claw it back. But is is we know once we know what happens with property tax reform in the will of the voters then we come back to you and say okay here's where we think if if you have to make cuts where you have some opportunities
to do that could be as I mentioned those things that could be looking at different facilities that are operated and are those reduced in hours um and of course that's not your public safety, that's your your recreation
centers, your libraries, that you may have to to look at, you know, how do we do that differently? I don't know what that is today and that would be a a very lengthy exercise for all of us to go through. But I do believe it's a
combination where the biggest approach is how do you how do you find new revenue up to a point and where can you cut some things and have some savings to make up the difference? >> Little piece of little piece of
everything. >> Yes. to get >> probably a big piece of one and a little piece of another approach. >> Yeah. Not to share, you know, I think it's chipping around the edges. However, I think you still need to look at those things and I think just from that
standpoint, we do provide some very uh significant services in our community. I think that uh perhaps maybe people may take that for granted and uh and I think that uh this is kind of a wake up to the
reality that uh you know in order to maintain that at least at this level uh and the fact that uh you know some services can be impacted or and I if we didn't have the option say we may be like some of the other cities who
already have the fire assessment like Hayne City for example I think you mentioned that they already have that so we have that option to go to but if we didn't you know then what you the
money's got to come from somewhere obviously and so it's going to have some impact and I think looking at all things and I think I think you will do the prudent thing of course and that is to look at all areas as you have just mentioned
to consider, you know, um I know you mentioned grant aid for an example. You know, again, that's to me that those are that's money that we give to the community to try to help, you know, improve the life and quality of life for many of the citizens. And I think uh
many deem that very important uh to to do as well as other services that are provided. But everything would have to be certainly looked at and considered I think in uh under these circumstances and under these uh uh conditions that we're actually facing now.
>> Yeah, I think if Commissioner Dawson that's a good point that you know the things that we do I don't think a lot of people understand that we do those things. So,
our partnership with Pulk County Public Schools, we have a cooperative agreement that we provide the athletic venues for a lot of their sports. If you don't have those venues to provide, then those students suffer. We provide funding to
organizations like the Neighborhood Service Center or Meals on Wheels. Well, we may see a savings if we don't do that, but then they see a financial impact at their end. It's it's like throwing a pebble into a pond that those ripples go out and other people will
feel them eventually. Um and so I think we have to be very prudent in in how we look at that. Um particularly as it pertains to, you know, youth and seniors and and those that are dependent upon those organizations that we help keep afloat
because we don't provide those services ourselves. So again, I think that that's a that's a conversation for another day once we know more. But you know, our budget for next year, we do have those services in there. Um these are impacts
that would be felt the year after the um if we're so we've got consensus to to go and pursue a scope of work for a fire assessment study and we will do that. I can't give you a time frame for
when we bring that back, but I can assure you we will expedite that and um do do as much as we can to make that quick to get back to you so that if you want to go with that study, we can get it underway. The final thing I wanted to have
discussion on this evening is we are a responsible government. We we play by the rules. we adhere to the state statutes and um I think it's important that we all understand what we can and cannot do when it comes to this matter.
So I've asked city attorney to give somewhat of an overview on what various state statutes statutes say regarding advocacy now that it is a ballot issue and we've also provided I believe at the
dis for you a report that was provided by the Florida League of Cities of frequently asked questions some guidance they give to all municipal elected folks. Um, of course, the caveat with all of their guidance is first speak
with your city attorney. So, without further ado, I'll hand off to John Murphy. Thank you very much. Um, appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight as we celebrate our almost 250 year celebration on Saturday um for the
country. I uh the I think the city manager has provided to you a copy of two statutes um and they are in the elections code in Florida's um statutes. The first one that I wanted to point out and and it is mentioned and discussed in
this frequently asked questions document that the Florida League of Cities produced. I think this was produced a few months back. This was produced prior to the ballot measure having becoming a ballot measure. So it talks about before and after but the statute in question is
titled it's it's identified or codified at 106.113 Florida statute its title is expenditures by local governments and I wanted to kind of break it down if I can
um to provide at least some guidelines or some some degree of um of help as it relates to what you can and can't do or shouldn't and shouldn't do. And as I've looked at this, you know, this is something that affects
every single local government in Florida. Um, so it's all the cities, all the counties, all the districts. And so there's no um, you know, this this there isn't a lot of case law that interprets these particular statutes. Um, there is
some division of elections guidance, but the statute was recently amended in 2022, so there isn't much out there. So, we're traveling down a road and we have guardrails on the road, but we don't know how wide that road is. It could be a 40 foot road. It could be a 60 foot
road. It could be an 80 foot road. I don't know. Um, so we're going to try to provide you some highlevel guidance as we as we move forward. And what the statute talks about is it defines certain things
and it talks about a local government and what that is. we are local government and it talks about the expenditure of public funds. That's the title of the statute and it defines what those are and that's as you might expect all monies that are under the
jurisdiction or control of our of the city and there are some prohibitions on the expenditure of those public funds that are contained within the statute. The first prohibition there's there's three essential prohibitions.
The city may not expend or authorize the expenditure of these public funds for a political advertisement which is something that is defined and it is advocacy for or against the proposition
or any other communication which was new that was added in 2022 that can be a factual thing where it's not advocating one way or the other that is sent to electors concerning an issue or referendum or amendment.
Well, that's the amendment in question. So, there's a prohibition where we may not spend public dollars for a political advertisement or a communication sent directly to electors. What does that mean? Is that something that you would mail? Yes. Is that something that you might put on social
media and that's boosted or optimized to get to voters? Yes. Is that something that you put on your website and you try to enhance it so that it has more of a circulation? Yes. All of those things. So working in conjunction with Miss Hill
and her wonderful group of folks and the city manager etc. we are we are being very careful on the types of things that we are communicating and the types of issues that we're that we're putting out there to the general public. But so the first that's the first prohibition is
the city may not do those things. The second prohibition is the city may not hire someone to act on your behalf. So you can't get a consultant, you can't have a a pack, you can't have some other
entity do that. Oh well, you can't do indirectly what you can't do directly. So it's the same same prohibition. We can't do it. We can't pay someone to do it. So we have to be very careful with that. Um and then the third
prohibition is that you may not accept public funds, a person or group. um for a political advertisement or any other communications that are sent to elect to electors. So that's those are the three that I I I
would highlight and and I think that the Florida League of Cities did give a very good recitation on uh a readable one that I think is is is is a quality publication. It does of course very appropriately say this is not legal
advice and you should seek legal advice from your lawyer. But but it is that I think is is is well done. Um I think there are some exceptions that we need to make take note of on what the subsection does not preclude us from doing and it does not preclude the local
government from reporting on official actions of our local government in an accurate, fair and impartial manner. That would seem to be logical. And I think we do a pretty good job of making sure that our government uh actions that
our official that your official actions are appropriately published or appropriately posted so that the local constituency is is aware and we I think report pretty well on official actions of our city. You it also does not preclude the city from posting factual
information on a government website or in printed materials. But I want to footnote that and say that we've got to be careful. Even though we are permitted to put factual information on our government website uh or in printed materials, it cannot be
designed with the intent to be sent directly to the voters or to the to the citizens. So you've got to be very careful on that. Um what does that mean? Well, can you use I mean I'm granular on this. You know, can you get down to the level or are you we using public copers.
Are we using public staff and time to generate a document that is being sent to voters? That we have to be mindful of that because they're not really supposed to do that under the statute. But you can do other things. Um you may you may
also host and provide information at a public forum. This is a public forum. Um you know we can certainly provide information. You can provide factual information in response to an inquiry someone. Someone asks something, we can answer it and you can provide
information as otherwise you know required or authorized by law. Public records request comes in you got to provide it. The exception the the second exception that is worth noting is that it does not preclude
a person acting on behalf of our local government from doing those same things. So it's the same dichotomy as as I mentioned in the first two prohibitions. And then the third exception which is pertinent to you all as elected officials and and I'll read it because
it's short. It says with the exception for the three prohibitions specified in subsection two. This section does not preclude an elected official of the local government from expressing an opinion on any issue at any time. So I think you all have a much greater degree
of latitude to express your viewpoints. I would I would you know say again uh I tend to give conservative advice because I think that's appropriate and I don't know what size road we're traveling down yet. So I think that um other than to
say that you as elected officials and certainly in this forum when you're convened as a governing body whether it's in workshop session or in regular session or special session I think you probably have a great deal of latitude of what you verbally say and what you
orally tell folks. Um I think that we have the business of government that has to be conducted and so you have to do it and I think that's a responsible way to address this issue is a meeting like tonight where you are
convened in a duly noticed workshop discussing these matters uh and having a dialogue with staff about issues that are important that have budgetary impact and that matter. So I think those are the kind of things but I will suffice to
say that as an elected official, you have a little bit more flexibility than say a an appointed official that may or may not have that same degree of of first amendment, if you will, or you know, the ability to speak on an issue. In fact, people will vote and elect you
so that you do do that. I mean, that's part of the essence of your of your of your position. Someone would say, well, I get a salary. I get a you know, I get paid, you know, from as a city commissioner. You do. you get paid when you're acting collegially, when you are
acting as a city commission. Um, and so I think if you go to individually and have speak or talk to your constituents, I I think there's you have a little bit more flexibility. I'm not suggesting that you go out and campaign or that you engage necessarily in electioneering
efforts, but just be mindful this law does exist and there are penalties that uh that apply if you violate this or are found violated this. Um, and they can be financial. Um, the elections commission
is the is the division of elections is generally the one that is the arbiter for this um particular statute. And it can be, as the um Florida League of Cities noted, they did a pretty good job of describing what those um what those
uh financial penalties are. Um they can result in fines of up to $2,500 per pound of um of what is alleged to have, you know, what what ultimately may be found to be violative of the statute. There's another statute that the city
manager noted as well that I wanted to bring to your attention and that's also in the elections code and it's 104.31 and that statute directly addresses political activities of state, county, and municipal officers and employees. I will not go through that in granular
detail tonight. read it to the extent that you're you know that you're that you wish to do so. But I will tell you that this statute says that it is a criminal act if you violate the elections code with
some degree of intent. And so you know that line has not really been firmly established yet in terms of judicial precedent that I'm aware of. So just be mindful that in addition to the financial penalties that can occur
administratively, there are also criminal penalties that could apply just like sunshine law. Um you know these are important and you need to be mindful of it. Um I am going uh next week Thursday, Friday, Saturday to the
annual Florida municipal uh attorney seminar that is held every year. Um, and I plan to and one of the topics they'll be presenting on with my colleagues and lawyers throughout the state obviously is is this. So I I hope along with other members of my firm to bring back some
more definitive guidance as we continue to travel down the road. Certainly if you have questions, I'm open and happy to answer any that you might have specifically as it relates to things that you might want to say or do. Um, I've already engaged in dialogue with
city management as to, you know, those kinds of things. Um, and so, and we'll continue to do so. So that that's the thumbnail sketch of make sure you're aware that there are laws out there that are contained within the elections code
that prohibit us from spending public money and from engaging in communications sent to the voters that are even factual in nature, not just advocacy. And that there are certain exceptions that apply. And as elected
officials, you enjoy probably among the more broader latitude on those matters, but you still can't expend public funds on electioneering and or communications that would be considered advocacy or information factual
>> to the voters directly. Do you have an update? Um, and you may not, that is totally out of right field, I know, but do you have any update as to the legal challenge that's being presented on the the ballot language? And then, you know, I find it interesting that, you know,
the governor started this and now he's not, you know, really supporting this particular measure. So, um, any any updates on on what the legality of the ballot language could be? I do not yet, mayor. And I
will find that out. Um, as you noted, and you all know that an action is pending in the uh circuit court for the second circuit court court in Leyon County up in Tallahassee. And um I I I'll I'll see what I can find out and
report back to you on that issue. Um but I'm not aware yet. Ultimately, the remedy that's being sought is um the the ballot title that is is being challenged as being um misleading as being as being um
beyond the parameters of neutral neutral presentation. Um and uh we'll see what the court says. I believe that one of the remedies that is provided in that matter is that the attorney general, Florida attorney general is then directed to reddraft the title uh so
that it meets with judicial or legal requirements. And so I don't >> and that's where I'm I'm just wondering since now the governor doesn't support this particular measure and the attorney general works very closely with the governor how that language might
actually get drafted and presented. >> That's a good point. Obviously the attorney general would answer to the court. Um it would be it would be the nature if the court were to inclined to do that in the nature of a judicial order that would have to be adhered to. Um but yeah I I'll find out what I can
about that. back here. >> So, those are the four topics that I wanted to hit with you based upon the guidance that you all gave to me. I think um I have my marching orders. I can tell you that um you've heard from me individually where we're we're
looking to finalize our budget for next year and we'll have a budget workshop coming up in July later this month. uh at which time you set your your tenative millage and your budget um hearings.
It is a it is this kind of like a it's unprecedented time to think of what we're dealing with because while we dealt with recession economics and certainly when when Commissioner Birdong was on the commission and we had to to make some
hard choices of how are we going to get through those hard economic times there was a light at the end of that tunnel. this being a constitutional amendment piece, it's it's one of those forever things. So, it's a little different. It it is
very unprecedented. And to be doing that at the same time that we're trying to to present to you a a balanced budget for next year is unique. Uh but we know uh the direction you've given us to seek out a scope of work for a study to um
determine what a a fire assessment might look like for the city of Winter Haven and we will endeavor to get that to you. Um beyond that, those were the items that I was prepared to speak on this evening and I'll certainly stand for any questions beyond that. >> Leave it for the commission now if
you've got any final questions or comments on the topic. So, we'll go to Commissioner Davis first. >> All right. So, now seems to be the time for me as an elected official of the government to express my opinion on any issue at any time. Um, and uh I I want
to I want to caveat this by saying um you know, as a conservative, I voted for this governor twice. I am friends with quite a few folks in his administration. I have a lot of respect for what they do, and I have no worries that we are going to weather this as a city just
fine. we'll do what we have to do. But ultimately, I'm frustrated. Um, I heard the governor speak today at a press conference. He said his typical talking points and they really offended me because I think that they are insulting to the voters. They uh they simplify
something that is very complicated. And so I put together my thoughts in writing. So I want to make sure I expressed all of my points and in the tone that I intended. Um, so first I want to begin with something that's not controversial, which is everyone likes likes lower taxes. I do, you all do,
most people in this room do. The question before the voters, however, is not whether lower taxes sound good. Of course they do. The question is whether the arguments being made in support of this proposal are actually complete, accurate, and honest. Because when you get past the slogans, that's where the
real discussion begins. We've heard the claim that property taxes are like paying rent to the government forever on a home you've already paid off. That's a clever soundbite, but ignores a fundamental reality. Florida does not have a state income tax, and local governments must still provide roads,
water systems, parks, police protection, fire services, infrastructure, and a host of other services that residents expect every single day. Those services are not free, and somebody has to pay for them. The issue isn't whether government services cost money. The
issue is who pays the bill. If this amendment passes, the cost of government doesn't magically disappear. Asphalt doesn't become free. Utility infrastructure doesn't become free. Public safety doesn't become free. The only question is whether the burden gets
shifted somewhere else onto renters, businesses, homeowners above the exemption threshold, or through new assessments and fees. And that's the conversation Flidians deserve to have. We've also been told that local government budgets have exploded in
recent years. Well, yes, many budgets have grown. Florida has also experienced tremendous growth, especially here in East Pulk County. Infrastructure demands and utility, excuse me, as have infrastructure demands and utility systems have also um
the demand has grown. In many municipalities, including Winter Haven, significant portions of budget growth are tied to utility revenues and utility operations rather than simply increases in property tax collections. Budget growth by itself proves very little without context. And I will tell you
after I'm meeting today to discuss the budget, it is a very complicated budget. You can't just look at the numbers and think you understand it. You have to dig in. And I don't think most voters are going to be able to do that. And this brings me to a point I feel very strongly about. I reject the premise
that local governments as a general matter are spending irresponsibly. Now is it possible that some local governments somewhere are wasting money? Of course it is. Human beings are involved and wherever human beings are involved, mistakes and mismanagement are possible. In those instances, there
should be accountability and laws are already in place to deal with such situations. But I do not accept as a self-evident truth the notion that municipalities across Florida are bloated, irresponsible, and riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse. That is an
assertion. It is not evidence. And state officials are not qualified to sit in judgment of municipalities, nor do they do so with clean hands. The bottom line is this. Facts matter. And what has been remarkably absent from
this debate is facts. I ask our state officials, if there are municipalities engaged in fraud, identify them. If there are local governments wasting taxpayer dollars, show us where. If there are examples of of abuse, put them on the table. But broad accusations
directed at every city, every county, and every local elected official in Florida are not facts. They are talking points. And voters deserve better than talking points. They deserve evidence. What concerns me most is that the public is being encouraged to believe there is a cost-free solution here and there
isn't. Government services will continue to exist. Growth will continue. Infrastructure demands will continue. In many cases, local governments are required to accommodate growth because state law preempts local authority to stop it. Yet, when the roads need
widening, when utilities need expansion, and when public safety services need enhancement, local residents understandably expect their local government to meet those needs. You cannot simultaneously require local governments to address the consequences of growth and then pretend there is no cost associated with doing so. That's
not fiscal policy. That's fantasy. Ultimately, this debate should not be driven by emotion. It should be driven by facts. Voters should absolutely scrutinize their local governments. They should demand accountability. They should insist that every tax dollar be spent wisely. I welcome that scrutiny
and I've engaged in that scrutiny myself since joining this commission. But voters should also understand what is actually being proposed. They should understand who who may ultimately bear the financial burden if this amendment passes. And they should understand that eliminating one source of revenue does not eliminate the underlying costs that
revenue currently supports. My hope is that Flidians approach this amendment with healthy skepticism, thoughtful analysis, and a commitment to understanding the full picture, not just the bumper sticker version of it. Because on issues this important, our citizens deserve facts, not slogans,
substance, not theater, and honest debate, not political caricatures. Thank you, >> Commissioner Dawson. >> Really, >> if you'd like I mean, do you have anything do you have anything prepared or Really
>> beat that. >> I think we can go home. I don't know what y'all want. >> Enough said. I mean, you know, >> sorry, I'm a little shy. >> Uh well, I I I think the meeting was uh was necessary tonight. I appreciate the uh
the opportunity to have a uh a discussion tonight I think on a very important issue and matter that I think many people are concerned about and many people like you have stated very eloquently that they're not quite u have all the facts and information
there's a lot of information that's out there and more even to come and I think we'll probably even make it even more challenging for people to really make an informed decision uh but uh but I think we have a way forward I think that we are being responsible as a uh commission
and as a city government to uh do what is right on behalf of the citizens of Winter Haven. So tonight uh I'm I'm happy to be here and thankful for the opportunity to be able to share in an open debate uh discussing this very important issue.
Well, there's much more for me to say, but uh I'm confident that no matter what the voters do, we're going to be responsive and we're going to continue to move this
city forward. So, I'm I'm very very concerned, but I'm also confident that this is not going to derail the city of Winter Haven. So,
we will survive and not just survive, we will thrive. That's the way I feel about it. I've seen some times where we have overcome some tremendous
budgetary uh shortfalls and I'm not going to just say shortfalls the great recession as it has been identified. We had some real real challenges and not only did we meet those
challenges, we didn't raise taxes and we continue to provide the services. So, hey, Commissioner Davis, I couldn't have said it better myself,
but you said it. So, we're going to move forward and this is what we need to do and this is what we're doing and we will be in front as opposed to behind the
eightball. We're good to go. >> Mayor Pro Tim, >> I agree with what everybody said and thank you for the speech. It was very good. It covered a lot of things. Um but these times I guess are going to require
um significant uh actions and um looking at these will require greater detail. Um this may not some of these items may not be what we do may not be the desires of the commission. Um but we will do what's
right for Winter Haven. >> Again, I just want to thank everybody for for coming this evening. Um finding I know we don't normally have meetings on Thursdays, but it's this I felt was needed. Um in working and talking with other municipalities across the state,
it's evident many have just kind of dug their heels in the sand and this is horrible and we don't want to do this. I get all that, but at the end of the day in November, the voter gets to make a choice and and and they're going to make a choice one way or the other. And where
Winter Haven is different from others is I think we like a collaborative effort. We like to talk these things out. We like to be prepared so that we can make the best decision for our citizens moving forward. This will not be the last session. I would I would encourage
us to potentially have another one, you know, September, October because I think things are going to continue to evolve and change um between now and and November. And I think the more information, the more education that we can get amongst ourselves and also out
there to the citizens, everyone can make an informed decision in November. And if that decision is they want a a homestead exemption of $250,000, that's fine. we'll we'll get to work. We'll we'll make it happen and we'll try
to do that without um impacting the services that uh our citizens have become accustomed to. Um and there's a lot more that goes into that. So again, appreciate everyone's uh efforts for being here tonight. Thank you for the audience members out here. And uh with
that, we will adjourn.