The fiscal year 2025 budget introduced key changes, particularly in the revenue section where an increase in revenue from ad valorem taxes was noted due to an overall rise in the city’s valuation. The agency discussed potentially reducing costs to the general fund by decreasing the size of the CRA and examining several parcels for this purpose. The reserves were estimated to be around $3.2 million, with the city manager emphasizing that not all funds would be expended due to the ongoing Waterfront project.

Concerns were raised about projected revenues, particularly the expected reduction in interest generated from available funds. The city manager expressed a conservative outlook on revenue. Expenditures were discussed, with updates provided regarding insurance allocations and the financial responsibilities of various city departments. It was noted that past expenditures for police, fire, and council had ceased in the previous fiscal year, influenced by audit findings.

The city attorney’s budget was mentioned, with an anticipated increase of $10,000 due to expected legal activity. The finance operations associated with the CRA were discussed. It was noted that the CRA might not be able to allocate funds toward the wages of council members, as this did not seem permissible under CRA laws.

A significant portion of the budget discussion focused on community redevelopment fund grant expenditures. A $100,000 budget had been allocated for grants, divided equally between residential and commercial projects. The commercial program had not been successfully implemented, leading to a suggestion to double the budget for both residential and commercial lines to $100,000 each, totaling $200,000. This idea received support, as there was community need for assistance in these areas.

The meeting also saw a discussion on the need for maintenance and funding related to waterway access and dredging in the CRA area. There was an acknowledgment of the overlap between CRA goals and resiliency initiatives, particularly in areas crucial for economic development. Concerns were raised about the deteriorating conditions of certain canals, specifically mentioning the Blue Point Drive area. The conversation highlighted the challenge of determining responsibilities for maintenance, with some canals owned by Pasco County. The group had reached out to the county but had not yet received a response.

A suggestion was made to allocate funding for dredging to address the conditions of the canals. The complexities of dredging were noted, with regulatory challenges for municipalities and the necessity for a licensed operator to conduct dredging. The need for funding was reiterated, with a proposal to treat dredging similarly to pothole maintenance, focusing on isolated problem areas.

The issue of waterfront access, specifically concerning the police boat’s inability to navigate at low tide, was discussed. A strong recommendation was made to prioritize dredging efforts in key areas to ensure emergency services could operate effectively. Skepticism was expressed about using taxpayer dollars for projects benefiting waterfront property owners, with a participant questioning the fairness of funding such projects from the budgets of residents who do not live on the water.

Additionally, the topic of infrastructure maintenance, particularly concerning water pipes, was brought up. The CRA’s focus on visible structures rather than underground utilities was noted, complicating the allocation of funds for routine maintenance tasks. The CRA funds are intended for capital projects rather than standard repairs, leading to further deliberation on navigating this funding challenge.

A discussion about the administration of grant programs highlighted an issue with a residential home grant application. A resident applied for a $5,000 grant for roof replacement but failed to complete necessary details, particularly the contractor information page. Despite communication from a representative about the requirements, the resident completed the work without the proper documentation, leading to a debate about adhering to established rules and guidelines. The consensus leaned towards adhering to the established protocols to maintain the integrity of the grant process.

The meeting also covered the new community redevelopment agency commercial grant program proposal, which would provide financial assistance to business owners for property enhancements. Grants would offer up to $10,000 for single-unit businesses and up to $20,000 for multi-unit businesses, with several eligibility requirements. Concerns were raised about the disparity in funding eligibility between commercial and residential projects, leading to a suggestion to split the program into distinct types for facades and internal improvements.