Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Debt Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Longwood commissioners discuss charter changes to allow up to $150 million for public-safety projects and possible bond referendum
Summary
City commissioners weighed proposed charter amendments to raise debt thresholds to cover an estimated $150 million in water, fire and police facilities and discussed placing a general-obligation bond before voters; staff will draft ordinance language for further review.
City commissioners on Feb. 16 discussed proposed charter amendments that would modify Longwood's debt-restriction thresholds and allow the city to pursue up to $150 million in public‑safety‑related projects over a roughly 10‑year horizon, staff said.
City Manager Will said staff evaluated likely projects — including a new or refurbished water plant, replacement of two fire stations and a police headquarters — and used a conservative building cost assumption of about $1,000 per square foot to reach an approximate $150,000,000 figure. Finance Director (speaker 14) told the commission the planning horizon for those projects is roughly 10 years.
Commissioner McMillan proposed drafting charter language that would insert a $150 million cap for a 10‑year period if voters approve it. Several commissioners pressed staff for options, including phasing project funding and indexing other charter thresholds for inflation. One proposal discussed changing older thresholds (referred to in the transcript as “3 and 15”) to updated amounts of “5 and 25,” with staff directed to check the correct producer‑price index calculations.
City Attorney Dustin said a general‑obligation debt pledge is governed by the Florida Constitution and would require a referendum: “General obligation bonds pledge ad valorem taxes. Under the Florida constitution, anytime you pledge ad valorem taxes, you must have a referendum,” he said. Dustin and staff also explained that Longwood’s charter currently requires referenda for issuances over $6,000,000 regardless of pledge type, which is one reason commissioners considered asking voters directly whether they support a general‑obligation pledge to obtain potentially lower long‑term interest rates.
Commissioners raised practical questions about timing and resident buy‑in. Commissioner Boney and Commissioner Morgan cautioned that spreading projects over time could raise total cost while a single, larger go‑to‑voters request could better lock in current prices and simplify program delivery. Commissioner Shoonmaker and others asked staff to prepare draft ordinance language and to work with the city’s financial adviser so the commission can review a written proposal in advance of any formal readings.
The commission did not vote on a charter amendment or bond issuance. Staff was directed to draft proposed ordinance/resolution language and present options, including phased issuance scenarios and inflation adjustments, at a future meeting. The city attorney advised the commission to allow two months for ordinance preparation and review before scheduling any ballot measure.
What’s next: Staff will draft ordinance language and bring it back to the commission for further discussion and public hearings; commissioners indicated an intent to resolve direction in time to meet summer referendum preparation schedules if they choose to pursue a ballot measure.
