City Council 10-4-2011.pdf - The City of Titusville, Florida

approve the Economic Development Plan in its initial form and all amendments to such
plan.”
Member Long commented on Section No. 4. She also commented on whether the City
could put itself in a position of debt if it pledged future TIF revenue funds for future
bonds and payment of bond obligations if TIF revenues were not as expected.
Planning and Growth Management Director Courtney Barker advised the City would be
required to take over bond payment obligations, but as with the Community
Redevelopment Agency, it did not allow debt to exceed 50% of the obligations. The City
would be cognizant of these matters and the Council would have to approve such bonds.
Member Long clarified the rationale for having City staff provide the administrative
functions for the economic development zone interlocal agreement. She also expressed
concern on staff’s workload due to the scope of administrative responsibility was not yet
determined.
Planning and Growth Management Director Barker commented that Brevard County’s
main offices and the Economic Development Commission’s (EDC) office was in South
Brevard County. She expressed using local staff would provide continuity and
coordination by staff who worked locally, had knowledge of nearby properties, and
desired the growth of North Brevard County. Additionally, staff often collaborated and
participated in regional projects with other municipalities such as the Transportation
Planning Organization (TPO). Many projects were the result of regional collaboration.
The interlocal agreement would not be much different.
Vice-Mayor Johnson supported using local staff or City staff to provide administrative
support, which he believed would be advantageous and allow North Brevard to maintain
control of the funds allocated for North Brevard County. Furthermore, he advised there
was a precedence of regional collaboration. One example was Knight Armament.
Locally, the Space Coast Economic Development Commission (SEDC) worked and
collaborated with other organizations further away to bring this business to the north area
of the County.
Mayor Tulley clarified there were no public speaking cards submitted on the item.
Member Burson advised that she was uncomfortable with these issues due to the annual
SEDC contract renewal was not yet determined and the areas affected by the economic
development zone included areas other than the City.
Member Pritchett supported having City staff serve as the administrative support to the
economic development zone. Second, she commented that the word “may” could be used
in the proposed agreement to solve the issues related to staff support.
Mayor Tulley advised that staff’s administrative work requirement could be minimal for
the initial few years until the desired results of the economic development began to be