on its merits alone. Thank you. Great. Would the applicant like to speak to the commission? Okay. The applicant has denied speaking for the to the commission for the record. So, we'll close public input. The public hearing has closed and I'll give it back to you, Mr. Mayor.
Okay. Okay. Uh before us, uh we have a vote. Can I get a first? Well, we need a motion. I mean a motion. Let's have a discussion about a couple things. We need a first to discuss
how we correct. If you want to have discussion beforehand, you can. So this so this came before us a while back with a drive-thru in it
and everything. And now It's coming back in front of us to restate the driveway. I'm sorry, the drive-thru that was already in before. What? What am I missing there?
It was before it was in the back. Now it's I I don't remember it being in the back, Jeff. Was it in the back? That's what I just Or was it on the north end? The steps that we've gone through to this point are the annexation, the
assignment of future land use, and the assignment of the design district for the property. The next step was the preliminary plat, which is only dealing with creation of the commercial tract and the tracks and lots for the open space, the storm
water, and the actual town home lots. didn't have anything to do with the actual construction or the site plan itself, but it has a representation has been on each of those sets of plans as they've come through to you. This is the first formal request for site plan
approval. That site plan approval is kind of hinging on a waiver to allow that drive-thru to be in the front. To this point, they haven't gotten to the point to ask that question or in a process to ask that question.
kind of feels like we're talking about this when we should have been talking about this a while ago. It wasn't and that these people who have come out here would have had a chance to talk back before we already approved it. It's already approved project. I mean, it's
already there. The drive-thru is going to be there. Whether it's 20 feet around the corner or not, its impact is still there. They should have had a right to be here. months ago and talk about this. It wasn't that stage of the process yet
is what the issue is. We're now at that stage with the site plan to ask for this for that. Did we advertise the previous We advertised for the preliminary plaque which dealt with the creation of the lots and tracks, not the building of the
commercial or for that matter the building of the town hall. So essentially they didn't know what they want. They really wanted until today. No, they had it. They It just wasn't that stage of the process yet. Okay.
We approved something with a drive-thru, but we didn't we didn't approve. You never approved the site plan for the commercial. We don't approve something with a drive-thru. We just approved a commercial aspect and a residential aspect. And then they went back and came
up with the commercial. Yeah. With the commercial. This development was kind of multicomponented once you even got to the development stage. First they had to create the lots and tracks for the subdivision and they were always sorry they were
always upfront about having that commercial park right next to 40 state route 44 the whole time. That has not changed. Correct. Right. Okay. So the what's before us is uh do we want to allow a waiver for it to face 44?
Correct. Okay, Emily, my question is, are the residents upset about the drive-thru or the whole project?
Because we've not had this kind of an audience in the past about this project. So, it sounds like they're objecting to the drive-thru where it's placed, but we've approved the project, right? We've approved the project,
but you know, you have to you have to go back to Daniel D. Vanza, he is 100% correct, but if that drive-thru is anywhere else, we're not even here. Yeah. Exactly. So that's why I feel we not not to defend ourselves or
seem to be put in a odd situation. Um I know a lot of these people. They are phenomenal people, neighbors. I have family that lives in there. So, this is
real. Um, I just think I would have liked to address this earlier and I think they probably would have liked to address it and like to have come here before anything even started. But I don't think that
but we're at a point that we stuck our foot in the mud. But that the system does not work the way you would like for it to work. There are steps to get to
and we're at the step that we need to be at to discuss this. Mhm. Well, and let's uh let's not forget for the fact that sorry that if that if they wanted to to redesign it and still put the drive-thru in made our
code and then it would be administrative approval and we wouldn't even we wouldn't even be here by the waiver. So that's why Yeah, I know between them. Um this is their homes. Y this is their place.
Uh I'm not sure the impact and how it will be. Unfortunately, you don't really know till you go through, but you can certainly um expect the worst, and I think that's our human nature. Um
but I think if that drive-thru is 20 ft around the edge of that point and passing through, I don't know, I don't like I don't like being in this situation. Okay. Uh Mike
I don't like where we are, but um it is the way we've set our our our rules and regulations up. So, okay, I've already stated my position. Okay. So, Mr. Mayor, all we have is the waiver request. So, we just need a motion on
whether um you would like to move forward with or Okay. Can we get a motion on moving forward? What's the alternative? If they can, if if I'm not mistaken, they
can put it at the north end of the building. They can go back and redesign and place the window and the majority of the drive through, put that in quotation marks, on either the side or the rear of the building, and they'd be in compliance with the
section of code that they're asking for the waiver for. And if that were to happen, that would be an administrative review. It would not come back to commission. Right. Correct. Here we go. Okay. Um, reluctantly re very reluctantly, I
uh make a motion for approval for resolution number 25-55. Yes. Thank you. Can I get a second? Okay. Uh, the motion. I I'll make a second. Uh,
roll call, please. Commissioner Asbat, I. Vice Mayor Ashcraft, I. Commissioner Holland, I. Commissioner Lee, I. Mayor Hawkins, nay. Next, we have resolution number 25-59. a resolution by the city commission of
the city of Eustace Lake County, Florida. Uh yeah, I will pause right here. Take a take a two-minute break. Okay, perfect. All right, the time is 7:08.
Oh, where she at? We're missing an attorney, so we'll wait for her to to uh arrive. Thank you, madam attorney. Okay. See, I was not completely ready. So now I just need a second.
All right. Okay. Okay. So next we have resolution number 25-59. A resolution by the city commission of the city of Eucus Lake County, Florida. Adopting the tenative millillage levy of advalorum taxes for the city of Eustace
Lake County for the fiscal year 202526 providing for an effective date. Second, Mr. Mayor, city commissioners, and members of the public, as required by section 200.065 065 Florida statutes. I
will now read into the record the required disclosures for the adoption of the proposed millage rate. The taxing authority is the city of Eustace. The roll back rate that is the rate that would generate the same sorry that would generate the same
advalorum tax revenue as last year excluding new construction is 7.0709 mills. The proposed millage rate to be levied for the upcoming tax year is 7.5810 mills. This proposed rate exceeds the
roll back rate by 7.21% thereby representing a tax increase under Florida law. This announcement is made in accordance with the Florida Truth and Mill Trim requirements and must be made prior to the adoption of any millillage resolution. At this time,
the city commission may proceed with consideration of the resolution adopting the mill rate. Miss Carrie presentation Lori, finance director. This will be very brief because I know we've had several meetings and workshops and discussions regarding budget. Just
to give you a general overview of where we're at, um, this is a process that starts with for us for staff in February. So it's a very long and arduous process. Uh what you have now is what the just the last remaining steps which is the tenative millillage um our
advertising the adoption of the millillage and then getting certifying it to the property appraiser and then we actually have a budget to start next year with. Uh just some of the budget highlights that we have. Uh personal services costs are uh the majority of our expenditures
all the way across the board in almost all of our funds. Um we had a 5.5% increase in health insurance which was significantly lower than it was last year. They had made some changes to the plan and that that helped reduce costs significantly. Um our total citywide
increase was 462,000 just for health insurance. Uh we had a colon adjustment for all employees. um 5% and we had a total of 522,000 for that in the general fund. And the odd number is because some people are
prrated between different funds. And then the citywide with the benefits, uh it was 766,000. Everybody will also be receiving a $1,000 flat pay um increase if they are hired on before October 1st. And that
helps us with keeping compression at bay. And uh let's see. And that total cost is uh 155,000 for the FICA and 256,000 citywide. And the state of Florida has
given us some of our estimates. Um 12 uh 1.2 million for municipal revenue sharing, 1.6 6 for half cent sales tax, uh 2.7 for local discretionary sales tax and 644,000
for communication tax. And that is a staff estimate because we just got the state figure on when yesterday or Tuesday. Uh uh general liability and workers comp increased by 10% uh for 161,000. So that that's one of
our big hitters that we have no control over. Uh we did have a decrease in the fire pension rate of three and a half%. So their investments are doing really well and we they have a total increase in pension of 97,000. The police pension rate remained flat
and their increase based on salaries salary increases uh staffing is 216,000. And just to give you a very brief overview of where we are with all of our funds, um we are projected to have a fund balance decrease in the proposed
budget as we had discussed because some of the uh capital projects are coming out of our fund balance this year. And uh the other projects uh other funds are all for the most part they're um increasing. revenue funds. The big uh decrease there
is a transportation fund which we have already discussed um that is significantly lagging in in revenues coming in. Uh enterprise fund is a utility. We're doing fine there. Uh we have a lot of capital so it's not concerning that our fund balance is
decreasing there at all. And this is just a brief overview of our revenue and our expenses. And as you can see again, our revenue is less than our expenditures because we are making up that shortfall in the general fund from reserves and then it's coming from
reserves in the other funds. But that's more of just an accounting function than what what you all are um reviewing tonight. And our millage rate we are proposing 7.581. And this will be the 12th year that we
have that. It may be 11th. I'm trying. I've got two records that show two different things and the budget is uh budget that you have presented it in front of you is based on 7.5810. So if uh we were to when we budget for
property tax uh by state statute we can budget no higher than 96% because there are always delinquencies those who don't pay. We choose to budget at 95%. It's a better it's a better percentage for us. It's more accurate.
And if you were to have a home valued at $200,000 less your $50,000 exemption, their property tax at the proposed millage rate would be 1.1 or $1,137. If we went to the roll back rate of 7.0709,
it would be $1,61. An annual savings of $76 or $6.33 per month per household. That's not per person. Uh this is just a comparison of the millage functional millage rate and it's
all the cities do things a little bit differently with assessments and bonded debt and this and that. So this is the closest that we can come to comparing apples with apples. And as you can see where city of Eustace does not have a fire assessment a fee which is
significant revenue for some of the other cities. And so that's where we struggle with the advorum because our advorum covers all of our fire. We don't have any other way to generate revenue for our fire department. Um even having
said that we functionally we are the second to lowest millage rate. Uh this just tells you our gross value taxable value over the past 10 years. So it it's gone up significantly and that's it. Any questions?
So again we're doing more with less. You got it. Thank you. Any other questions from Miss Carr from the commission? Would anyone in the audience like to speak on resolution number 25-59? Okay, Mr. Donanzo, please come up. Three
minutes. I I just think it's interesting that the taxable value has increased substantially and you want the millage rate to go up. I don't understand that. Also, I pay attention and I get the reports on the number of building permits that go on in the city of Esus. And of course, the county is
substantially more, but not only is the value going up, but also the number of properties that are being built and constructed, and you want to increase the tax rate. And it it sounds real good that, oh, it's, you know, $6 a month,
but I I just understand one thing. Nobody nobody ever asks for less less money. They always want more. And I just want to remind everybody, we've increased the value of our properties. We've increased the number of our properties and we want more taxes. I I
just think you need to take that into consideration. Did we ask for more taxes? Okay. Do we have anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on this resolution? Okay. Seeing none, I will close public input. Okay. I go back to you, Mr. Mayor.
All right. Can I get a motion? I move approval of of resolution 25-59. You got a second. Second. Been moved and promptly second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Obati, no.
Vice Mayor Ashcraft. Nay. Commissioner Holland. I. Commissioner Lee. I. Mayor Hawkins. I make a motion we uh we go back to the roll back rate. Late.
I think that's up for consideration tonight, is it? It's We needed a super majority. Super majority to pass. So, it's not um the 7.581 isn't going to go through.
We need four votes for that. I make a motion we go back to the roll back rate. What can you explain to me what just what So, he is proposing. Didn't that just happen? If we don't approve it by supermajority, what
happens? You have to come back. You have to discuss um a a millage rate and then decide and and vote depending on the millage rate. Uh it will require a three or a four member vote. Do you need to reevaluate the budget for that?
Yes. Okay. So, it would not be tonight. Uh unless you No, it has to be tonight. uh tenative millillage must be atten any additional numbers. So I maybe I can speak a little bit to this. Sorry
wait cuz we need some numbers some data for for I'm sorry there is a motion on the floor. Do we need to resolve that before I No, this this this was all on our packet. This was all in our packet. What supermajority would do and then what
what 2/3 2/3 and then majority. So, we didn't pass the 7.5 by supermajority. I have a motion on the floor right now to go back to the roll back rate. A second. Thank you.
Okay. So, we'll allow for discussion and we'll let Tom address. So, we have uh going back to the roll back rate um would the full roll back rate is in the 7.07 range. That's over a $900,000 impact. We
would have to come up with about $900,000 in cuts tonight. Um the adjusted roll back rate is the roll back rate adjusted for uh per capita personal income. Uh that number also only
requires uh three votes. Uh that is 7.3898. Uh and that would be a reduction of about 334,000. So we do I mean we have a motion on the floor uh that I suppose that has to resolve itself before we figure out
or the roll back rate of 7.07. Okay. All right. Any further do you guys want to discuss the motion? Um well I don't need to discuss it because I didn't want to do it. Um, you know, I think that uh uh
you know, again, we do more with less. Uh, and you know, the vital thing is the blue and the red that protect us won't won't affect them. We're not talking about taking away raises. We're not talking about taking
away personnel. We're not talking about we're talking about 11 years of the same rate to get us to $20 million in reserves. We haven't spent it. So why do we keep putting money in reserves? The east residents after 11 years
deserve one year of a break. I think it is I think it is a tough time. Public safety is my number public. Public safety is my number one thing. I don't want to see one dime come out of public safety out of fire or police. I
want to make that clear. And the staff that's here or the police chief is here or the fire chief. That is how I feel passionately unconditionally. There are some other things in that budget that um many I've discussed tried to bring up and I am not comfortable representing uh
to the people who put me up here uh to manage and to watch over this. Our budget needs help. We need better planning ahead of time. uh we should have started this thing way before and uh and there are there is a lot of
things in that budget that are in my personal opinion fluff and I was put here to do a job and uh I want to work with everybody and I want us to to
um get along. I want us to understand, respect each other's sides, which I think we're getting better at. Uh, but our budget can't be a rubber stamp, and I feel like it's a rubber stamp. This is a bad time
for people. Uh, and we didn't the money is increasing, the incoming money is increasing, and there's new construction to add to that, right? So, that's not addressed up in there. Um, and uh, our staff has worked hard and I
think they've done a overall a great job. I think we're weak on the uh, on the leader side. Um, but I want to try to get through this, but uh, we got
to start earlier, work better. We can always go back, amend our budget, we can go back into the reserves. Uh but I cannot face um our community um on this budget.
Okay, we've got you can close discussion and then you can vote. How how do we go about explaining our cutting $900,000 and feel that that's a reasonable thing to do um to providing services and the
things that the city needs? I I just have an issue with and I can tell you why because I believe the I believe the budget has has has too much in it that we don't use every year and we're we're holding we're holding place
place acres for money that we don't that we don't use. And let's not and let's not forget the fact that we've had reserves for many many many many years that weren't even invested on behalf of the useless residents to make them more money.
Gary had to push for that almost a year ago to finally get to finally get that in. So the useless residents deserve a break. Not $900,000 because they have to have services too. There's one that was
Emily. We're not cutting services. We're not cutting services, please. I'm talking there was one that was 300,000. You know, maybe we should consider that, but $900,000 cut is just too much. We're not cutting services and there's
reserves to cover it. You You are cutting services. When you have a fire department, it is one at a time. When you have a fire department that's underst staffed, you have a police department with needs, you are cutting services if you go to that
full roll back rate of $900,000. Okay, we the motion has been made and you're right, but I'm not talking about I'm not talk about talking cutting any services. Everyone's going to get their raise. Everyone's getting their $1,000. There is a motion still on the floor.
And this is for the 7.0. is for the full roll back rate. Full roll back. Full roll back. Mr. Mayor, uh Tom, oh, I'm sorry. I do want to clarify you do have you have two options. Um you can cut the
necessary money from the budget or you can alternatively keep the budget the same and take the make a transfer from reserves. Now, we have as staff, we have recommended as many transfers from
reserves as we feel comfortable for capital items, one-time expenses. It is reasonable and best practice to use reserves for one-time expenses. You have the option of using reserves for operating expenses, but it is not
recommended and it is not best practice um because those are recurring operating expenses and you just get further behind each year if you keep transferring from reserves to cover operating expenses. So those you have two options. You also
have a hybrid of the two. uh you can make uh cuts, you can make certain cuts and then take a certain amount from reserves and do a hybrid of the two. Uh but those are really your two options. Okay.
Could I say something? Yes. Oh, yes. Go ahead. Um just to just for reference, um our increase without new instru uh construction was about 1.2 1.3 million. your salaries, um, life insurance, life
and health insurance, the thousand dollars and your liability are a million205. So, just to put it in perspective. So, are you saying here you're going to cut raises? Is that what you're going to say? No. Okay. That's what I'm hearing because you're saying you don't want to. So,
no. And and there and there won't be. I still have a motion on the floor that's been seconded. Okay. Uh, roll call. Commissioner Ozbody. Hi. Vice Mayor Ashcraft. Hi. Commissioner Holland. Nay. Commissioner Lee.
Nay. Mayor Hawkins. Nay. We have another motion to establish a rate tonight. Okay. Let's talk about it. Where we Where are we going to meet in the middle? Lori, what was the other the 7.3
7.3 uh let me check would be 333,000 that we'd have to cut and that requires a three vote. I move that we can we discuss No, no, no, it doesn't. Make sure we got the right rate because there is there is one at 73 that still needs a still needs
to 2/3 or I'm sorry. Yeah, 2/3. So Liz before I'm just trying to expare everybody all the 2/3 is three. Um that's the calculation. Two3 2/3 is four majority is three votes
and high 2/3 is four. Please let it let it talk. The highest you can go with three votes is 7.3898 and that's the Florida adjusted for household income. It's the roll back rate adjusted by the state of Florida
for inflation. Right. Three votes and we'd have to cut about 340,000 or so. Do we have that in reserves that can be taken out to cover that? That that's a commission decision. But yes, we we have that amount in reserves.
Um if that's how you'd like to close the gap, it makes more sense than $900,000 if that's what we have to do that. I have a question. Basic question. I'm not the greatest uh smartest guy in the
world, but if twothirds of five people is 3.33, so it has to be four. It always has to round up. I know I'm fat, but I don't know that I pick up. I'm still fat enough, too. So, yeah. No. So, then it gets you get it. No, then then it has to be four. We
we've talked about this before. So, the the 7.3898 is the highest you can go with three votes. Yes. Correct. What is it? 7.3898. And that will require about 335 to
340,000 in reduction. I make I make a motion that the miller's rate is 7.15. We just come from I just I just made it up. 7.15. I I made the motion. Second. No, just
I'll second it so we can discuss it before push it. What's what's the what's the rationale? Well, this just I just want to know where it came from. You guys are way too experienced than I am. 7 Okay. 15.
If I may just provide a clarity as to the numbers you want or rate you want. There's a simple simple majority is all that's required to go up to 7.3847 789 3898 7.38 98
98 sorry that's the 2/3 that's 33 that's up to a simp that's a simple majority because that would account for the adjustment by Florida anything in excess of that two 2/3 is not a simple majority
no 2/3 is anything between 7.389 99 plus up until 8.1232. Okay. Thank you. And then unanimous after 8.1232. Okay. So do you we can we put up a we have a
slide on the various uh millage rates. Um so Sasha do you agree with that there's only three people need to vote simple majority for uh for the millillage up to 7.38. I'm just going to say 7.38 so I don't keep going. Um 7.38
that's a simple majority because that's adjusted for for the Florida rate and that's just three out of five. Anything in excess of that up until 8.12 requires four out of five and in excess of 8.12 which we're not considering would be unanimous.
So right now we're considering Gary made up a number of 7.1. What was that Gary? That did get a first and a second. How many votes are required? I want to make a motion. Thank you. After this
7.15 is still $74,000. No, we're not. We had a second on there for the motion. We got a second and we've discussed. Okay, we've discussed. Okay.
All right. Roll call, please. Commissioner Asbody, no. Vice Mayor Ashcraft, I. Commissioner Holland, no. Commissioner Lee, no. Mayor Hawkins, wait a second. What did we just You're voting on 7.1.
7.1. Gary, now I will make a motion. Gary's motion. Gary voted no for his own motion. Correct. No, he voted no. He said yes. You voted no. That was four to one. That was an error on my part. I want to make a motion. That was That was an error on my part.
I'm sorry. This is my first time. I'm sorry. Hey, make a difference. It wouldn't have made a difference. It wouldn't have made a difference. I know where it's going. It's not going to make a difference. Hold on. Okay. Okay, guys. I make a motion to set our military. Hold on a moment. I'm sorry.
Mayor Hawkins, I did not get your vote. Nay. Thank you. And I'm asking to amend my vote. Okay. Because I did not understand what we were saying. So I am amending my vote because there's no impact. We still have three nos confirmed. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we we'll leave it at that.
That's fine. So then I make a motion to set our miller rate at 3.8 8 or 98. Is that correct? And I'll second. Say that again. You said three. You said 7.38 98. I second it.
And that was for discussion purposes. That was how much? 333 and we have the we have money in reserve that cover it and that requires a majority simple majority.
Okay, I see where it's going. I'm learning and I again we yes we have that money in reserves. It wouldn't be best practice. Uh we have put together some potential potential cuts for you to look at. I don't know if you're interested in seeing those. Let's look at Yeah, let's look at them
tonight. You have it. We're here. Let's do it. So, I don't know if you want me to run through this list, please. Um, we would propose uh reduction of K9 obedience classes for $12,000.
Uh reduction of the uh habitat housing rehab program. uh reducing it by 40,000 still maintaining 60,000 which we believe we could do uh two homes with 60,000 um eliminating the risk coordinator that
is a not an existing position but proposed new position in uh that would be in human resources total cost salary and benefits uh would be just under 76. Uh we are proposing one new fire one new police officer. Again, nobody loses
their job, but we would eliminate the proposed new position uh just under 95,000. And that was a position we needed. Okay, continue. Um you can cut other things. Let him finish, please. Let him finish. Complete. Let him finish.
This is completely out of line. Let him finish. Go ahead, Tom. Uh we had proposed three firefighters at midyear. So these are half a year, three firefighters at April 1st. Again, salary and benefits just under 150,000. Uh the
life safety captain is an upgraded position. Um but the total cost of that position is just over uh 142. And then uh elimination of uh some banquetss uh the sheriff's gayla, community service awards, golden eagle, and then uh Trout
Lake. um those collectively come to 521,000 and so that you would not have to cut all of those to get to the 334. Um but some combination of those uh would get you there.
Anything dealing with public safety I'm against. Yeah. Yeah. Me too. because there's there's other places to cut and this this is just something to to emotionalize the public when you put public safety in there. That is completely out of line, Tom. And you know, there's other places you can cut.
Okay. Discussion. I I think I think there's a lot of things in our budget that I saw and I'll and I'll bring up one thing that's the big I and my my a big point I brought up. We have a roof at the community
center that we have $350,000 going into. I've talked and I've done many roofs in in in the construction side and I think Daniel has too and $350,000 to replace that roof is insane. The pricing that I'm getting verbally and there's some
roof people in here is somewhere around 70 60 80 and then there's some additional stuff Rick said that our our public works guy that might need to be done. So, there's some piping and some drain. So, maybe we're up to 80 and we put in our budget 350. I don't know how
the public feels about that, but if you voted for me and I saw that and I don't open my mouth, you better never vote for me again because that is reckless. And when I came out to run for this and it's in my flyers that I sent out was to stop
reckless spending. And that's it. How we get there here, I don't like it. I'm not really proud of all the, you know, drama or whatnot. Public safety is my number one thing. I don't want to cut anything out of public safety. And I agree bringing this up
there is an emotional this is this is this is again an emotional response from the public. And I'm sorry, please, with all due respect, let me finish. I know. So, what I'm saying we need to do is come together, get back onto that budget. Obviously, I'm telling you right now, the roof is going to be my first
thing. And there's some other stuff that we need to do, and let's work through getting to the end. Putting this up there, it does what it does. It it it it pokes the bear. So, how do we get to where we want to get? How much
are we going to have left over in this budget this year based on our spending? You know, am I mistaken? We have to have this done by when? Today. That's not what I was told. Are you sure it has to be done tonight? If it's not done tonight, what's the
actual date of cutoff? There's a date specific. We just set the millage rate. We can adjust those numbers however we want. The budget. Yes, you can. But the millage rate needs to be set. So then maybe my comments were just about the suggestion which triggered a nerve. So the mill rate we just said. So
that's good with the state. We need to work on budget, right? We haven't said it yet. We haven't said it yet. We have a motion. I think a motion and a second. I think I is is he I believe the uh we need to set the the the mill rate tonight but um we have a motion in a second on the table and then discussion
kind of took up more than that. I'm done mayor. Okay. Thank you. Mayor, could I say something please? Oh please. I'm sorry. If we do this we cannot pass the budget until we have the direction if we are reducing expenditures or if we are um
taking it from reserves. So we have to make a decision. So we have the line we only have to make we want to take it from the reserves on the millage rate tonight. We can come back and redo the budget um at a later time but the mill the millillage has to be done today to meet to meet the
Is that what you're saying? They're they work together but they go together because what happens is um on the resolution um let me see what Lori, how long have you been doing this? I've been in government for 25 years. Thank you. Okay. In finance,
right? Um, if you see attached to the tenative millillage, there's this in the back. That's what we have to advertise and it's expenditures and expected fund balance. And so, we have to know tonight
in order to meet the advertising deadlines, are we changing on this schedule an expense column or part of the fund balance column? But but the the trim only only does the miller rate. We don't advertise the public the budget,
but we do. Not on the trim notices. No, no, not on the trim notices, but in our advertisement in the paper, we do. Okay. And we're running up against a deadline on that. Okay. What's that deadline, ma'am? That I do not know on the top of my head. I know it's three days, three to
five days before the next meeting, but then we have to meet the newspapers deadline on top of that. And when is that deadline? We have to advertise between three and five days before the next hearing which is the final hearing which is on September 18th. So we have a really
small window but according to the trim process we need to vote on the military and also have to vote on a balanced budget tonight and this is the first hearing. We advertise for the public. We
don't have to send out notices to trim notices anymore unless we would go higher which we're not. So this is all part of the trim pro process which is set by the state of Florida. I think the issue to the balance if we remove the um the uh positions
from it how much will be left? I I was trying to add up that but but it went off before I could see. So, if we put those back in, what would how much would that be left if we cut the others but not those?
Yeah. Here we go. What was your question, man? My question is if we remove the if we take out the the um police officers, street firefighters, life cap, all of the safety stuff, what would be left over? Would that be we we need we need
to cut $300,000. So would that I'm trying to figure out how much we if we remove those how much would be left? Are you um are you proposing to remove the risk coordinator or No, I'm saying if we remove the police,
fire, fire, and um and then see what do we have left over? You saying remove four? All anything that's that's Yeah. anything that's um um a position. Yeah. Okay. And HR as well. I'm trying to run the numbers real
quick. I I don't think we should limit ourselves to this list. This is this is just I know we got to do something. So maybe we need to take a minute get a copy of the budget and I'll come forward with somebody. Wait, wait. How much is that
left over? I am not for anything to cut out law enforcement fire. She's taken them off this list so to see how much we have left. So, did you um I'm sorry. Did you want to remove the risk coordinator or leave that in?
What is the HR? Leave it in. Leave it in. Okay. So, um that's about four my quick and dirty. 460. My quick and dirty. If you remove if you remove all of the new positions
and the life safety captain, it leaves you uh it gets you about $59,800 according to my quick and dirty of shortage. Everything else on the list except the people, everything else on the list adds up to about 598.
Oh, that's George. How much do you think on the roof? That that roof that roof is $120,000 tops. May I just quickly that that roof project is coming out of reserves. It does not affect operating expenses.
Okay. So if you were to eliminate that project, it doesn't help this number at all. Yeah. All right. It gives us more money to it gives us more money to put towards this again. Um the we
one-time reasonable one-time projects or equipment we have removed from the operating budget as much as we could and we are paying for those one-time projects and equipment with reserves. So
I I don't like going off of this list. I I don't know. I I don't like going off this list. We have to go off of the the budget to be handed this um is is is not good is not good practices. Uh we have to look at the entire budget. There's a
lot of fat in everything from um okay for everything. Mr. Oh, if we can if I would just suggest that we vote on the on the trim number now and then we'll postpone the resolution for a little bit just to give
them an opportunity to go back and get the budget information and maybe move that to the the latter part of the evening. That way we can proceed with the rest of the business and it gives you guys an opportunity to consider other areas as well. And again, but we would need so we have prepared this list. We have
an even expanded list. Um, well, why don't you give us everything you got, sir? Please don't don't don't spoon feed us one at a time. Give us everything. We want to resolve this. Don't hold. How many list versions do you have, sir? Please give them to us. Just come down. Okay. Miranda, can you print out uh
copies of this? You can't put it up there. I mean, here it doesn't matter. Uh, we don't have it. But I think what we have is a motion and a second for the trim at 7.3 898. 3898. Okay.
And so let's we could vote on that. No, it hasn't been voted on. It's still pending. It was discussion. So it's been moved and and and properly second. Moved by Commissioner Holland, seconded by Commissioner Lee. Right. Okay. Correct. Roll call, please.
Commissioner Asbody. No. Vice Mayor Ashcraft. Hi. Commissioner Holland. Hi. Commissioner Lee. Hi. Mayor Hawkins. Hi. Did you have something? Yes. I was just going to say if you give us the direction tonight or now that we
either cut we're taking that difference from expenditures or from fund balance, we can move forward with the budget. We're prepared for that. If you do some combination of expenditures and fund balance, then we've got to go back upstairs and revise.
I mean, so right now we're only 333687, correct? We can't come up from that from from reserves. We certainly can, but it is not best practice to use that for uh recurring expenses. Miranda has gone to this. Let's move on.
Let's move the budget to the back of the the agenda if that's okay. Mr. Mayor. Yes, please. And then let's look at the long list. Yeah. Okay. Okay. A man with attorney. All right. Next, we're going to move to resolution number 25-69.
A resolution of the city commission of the city of Eustace, Florida, providing for a commission determination of a code enforcement lean on property located at 926 North Bay Street authorizing implementing actions and providing for an effective date.
Mr. Martin. Good evening, commissioners. I'm sorry, you already you already introduced, right? All right. So, resolution number 25-69 approves a code enforcement board order reducing an uh an unpaid code enforcement lean
internally $55,250 to $20,000 and releases a lean against 926 North Bay Street upon payment. That's the budget in uh the resolution also provides the city commission an opportunity to consider a
compromise regarding the fine reduction. So, basically, it's the same thing that we've done before. The uh additional options proposed would be uh no payment due, full payment of $55,250 due or the lean be reduced to uh an
amount to be determined by the commission uh payable within a certain number of days um determined by the by the city commission. What's what's Can you tell us what the details about it about the case? Yeah.
All right, I can do that. Uh, so this violation involved a uh the budget in they installed a uh driveway at the rate of their property without permit. So the permitting reasons for that especially for commercial is to um they were
required they were required to submit a permit submit a survey showing that they had not increased or gone above their imp the uh impervious surface ratios that are set by our uh the land development regulations. So it took
four years to get them in compliance. Uh so that's where the $55,250 fine came from. Now uh the property owner, Miss Patel, she was here today, but uh she got a phone call, had a family emergency, and she had to leave.
So Miss Patel petitioned the uh code enforcement board. She sent uh she submitted an application that the board reviewed. The application requested that the board reduce the fines to $20,000. So the the code enforcement board approved her request. Mhm.
and agreed to reduce the fines from 55,250 to $20,000. Wow. Okay. Any questions from the commission? No. Do we have any members in the audience that would like to speak on resolution
number 25-69? I have a question. Yes, sir. How do you go from 55 to 20? How do you make that determination? That's what the applicant requested. The property owner requested that it be uh reduced from the 55 250 to50 to 20,000. And you think it should I mean
I'm sorry. And you think it should Are you the board has decided that it should be? Yes. That the the board approved the request to reduce it to 20,000. That was the property owner's u request. So what we do is when we uh when we get when we
finally get resolution uh in compliance and there is a fine in place, we give the property owner an opportunity to fill out a fine reduction application. So the application will state how much the fine is and it asks them what amount
of reduction are you requesting. So we leave that in the ballpark of them. We don't suggest we don't we try not to influence that whatsoever. Uh so they came back with an application requesting that it be reduced to 20,000. All our costs have been covered.
Correct. Uh absolutely. Okay. Mr. Mayor, wait one second. I'm sorry I didn't close public input. Sorry. All right. So, anyone in the audience wanting to speak on this resolution? Okay. Seeing none, I will close public input. Mr. Mayor, I move approval of uh
resolution 25-69. Second. Okay. Been moved and properly second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Asbody. I. Vice Mayor Ashcraft. Hi. Commissioner Holland. Hi. Commissioner Lee.
Nay. Mayor Hawkins. I. Okay. Uh the next resolutions are 2570 and 71. Um, I just want to inform the commission that they involve the same uh property owner. They're just different
properties, but we have um the property owner here and we also have the code enforcement um chairman wanting to speak with you. Uh and because it they're sort of related, we're going to have presentation
for both of them um essentially at uh first the first resolution consideration just to make it easier. That way we have all the information and then you'll vote on the second one. So before we get started, can we take a two-minut break? Sure.
Okay. Ajourn Okay. All right. Okay. Uh back in session. Uh commissioners, before we get started, uh we're approaching our 2hour time limit. Uh would you like to continue
or would you like to stop? continue with the budget issue where we don't have a choice. All right. I would like to stop but uh I would vote to continue. Okay. All right. So, we'll have that joint presentation as I explained earlier uh because the properties
involve the same property owner and they're the cases are essentially related. Um, so we have resolution number 25-70, a resolution of the city commission of the city of Eustace, Florida, providing for commission determination of a code enforcement lean on property located at 67 Glover Street,
authorizing implementing actions and providing for an effective date. You can proceed, Mr. Martin. Again, Eric Martin, code enforcement supervisor for the city of Eustace. Uh resolution number 25-70 approves a code enforcement board order
reducing two unpaid code enforcement leans totaling $61,750 to 26. Hold on. Sorry. Uh uh Re Kelly, could you hold on? We'll call you next time. Sorry about that. Start over again. Okay.
All right. Start again. All over, please. Y resolution number 25-70 approves a code enforcement board order reducing 200 unpaid code enforcement leans totaling 61,750 to $26,000
and releases the leans against 67 Glover Street upon payment. The resolution also provides the city commission an opportunity to consider a compromise regarding the fine reduction. The additional options proposed are uh no
payment shall be due and the city shall properly release the lean, full payment of the $61,750. Uh and finally, the lean shall be reduced to a dollar amount determined by the city commission and um payable
within a number a certain number of days established by the city commission. So, um there were two cases um involving this property. In 2020, there was an unsafe structure. By the time the permit
to demolish was obtained, uh the fines had accrewed to $29,000. And then the second violation uh involved the undeveloped property um that was that's located in a uh residential land use district. It was
being used for outdoor storage. So by the time that got into compliance, u a fine of $32,750 did acrew. So on June 9th, the code enforcement board
uh reviewed two reduction applications submitted by uh Harold J. Kell Kelly, the property owner of 67 Glover Street. His requests were that the uh case 20- Z00176 lean
um he requested that it be reduced to $10,000. $29,000 to $10,000. 29 to10. Yep. And then the case 24-000063, he requested that it be reduced from $32,750
to $16,000. That was the June 9th. So then as you recall um in August, Mr. Kelly attended the code enforcement board and uh submitted another letter asking them to reconsider the reduction
uh and take the uh fines all the way down to administrative costs. So um the city's total administrative costs in the case are $4,400. So staff staff's recommendation is the board approve resolution 25-70
approving the tote enforcement board's order. So so we're looking at a total of 26 26. Yes, sir. Okay. That is for resolution 25-7. And and how much was the original? Was it did you say
the original uh was 61,750? And this was at the request of Mr. Kelly. That was the first request that Mr. Kelly submitted. Okay. All right. You ready for 25-71?
Yes, please. All right. So, resolution 25-71 approves a code enforcement board order uh reducing two unpaid code enforcement leans totaling $50,200
to $19,125 and releases the leans um against 600 LC Street. That's a vacant lot. So the resolution also provides the city commission u an opportunity to consider a compromise regarding the fine
reduction. The additional opt options proposed are again no payment due uh full payment due of 50,200 or uh reduce it to a different amount payable within a certain amount of time uh certain amount of days determined by the city commission. So there were two
violations in 2024. The first one involved the undeveloped property located in residential land use district being used for outdoor storage and then the other one was for uh unauthorized accumulation of solid waste being stored and being placed on the uh vacant
property. So on June 9th 2025 the code enforcement board review reviewed again two fine reduction applica fine reduction applications submitted by Harold J. Kelly uh the owner of 600 um LC Street. It's actually
Temple of Powers Ministries, but he's the president of that corporation. So, um, his request was that the board for case 24-000051 be reduced from $33,250
to $16,625. So, case 24-00388, his request was for the board to reduce it from 16,950 to uh 8,475.
So this is where it gets um the board approved the uh first request for the six to reduce to 16625 but they all they discussed the uh the second case and um determined that they would approve a reduction more of what
Mr. Kelly requested and reduce it down to $2,500. That was the 16, correct? That is the one that was 16950 and they voted to reduce it to 2500. Okay. And again, um same as before, Mr. Pelli attended
the August hearing um submitted a letter to the code enforcement board requesting that they reconsider the fine reductions to administrative costs and those are $2,400. So staff's recommendation is for the city commission to approve resolution
number 25-71 approving the code enforcement board's order. Okay. What's the total on that one, Eric? Uh 50,200. 50 or 15? 50. Okay.
Okay. All right. Okay. Any questions right now for sir Mr. That's he would pay 50 or has been reduced. That is a total the uh the the reduction approved by the board is 19,125.
Okay. Wait a minute. Say that again. 50,200 is a total cumulative fine for both cases, right? Uh and the the reduction code enforcement board approved is 19,125
total total for both cases. 1662 16625 for 24-000051 and 2500 for 24-00388. Okay. All right.
Okay. All right. We have um chairman here from the code enforcement board that wishes to speak to you on both cases and then we also have Reverend Kelly. Before I have Alan come up here, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on either resolution?
Okay, thank you. You can come up here, Helen. My name is excuse me, my name is Alan Pascowski. I'm the chairman of the code enforcement board and I would like to address the city commissioners. I know
it's been a long evening, a lot of discussion, but I would like to just share with you before you decide on either of these cases uh and the code enforcement board's rulings some pertinent facts that I think are
necessary for you to make an informed and intelligent decision as well as allowing Mr. Kelly when he presents to be able to present the whole picture because these two cases are intertwined. And so I think before you were to vote
on one without hearing the whole story would be an injustice to you as well as Mr. Kelly. Um Mr. Martin obviously gave do a very thorough summary so I will not go back
to that. I would just reiterate that since 2020, the property at 67 Glover Street has had 10 code violations, 65 inspections,
176 case logs, 30 notices issued, four citizen citizen complaints, and 14 code enforcement board hearings. The property at 600 LC Street has had five code violations. This is since
2024. Has had five code violations, 26 inspections, 82 case logs, 17 notices issued, three citizen complaints, and nine code enforcement board hearings.
Obviously, from the period between 2020 and 2024, Mr. Kelly, the owner of both these properties, uh, became a frequent flyer in front of the code force report. He appeared each time
and his sworn testimony at each of these 24 code enforcement hearings when he attended was always very articulate. He was his arguments and discussions and were seemingly plausible
and resulted in the CE portion board granting him several requests for extensions. Each of one each of those predicated on his personal promises of timely and total compliance
if just given a little more time. After numerous appearances regarding the two properties, it became more apparent to the code enforcement board that Mr. Kelly's promise pathway to compliance was in fact being built upon broken
promises, excuses, gamesmanship, and what I would summarize kind of as a lot of talk with little action. Which brings us to Mr. Kelly's
appearance at the 9 June 2025 code enforcement hearing which he presented four separate signed and notorized applications requesting reduction of approved code enforcement fines. Mr. Martin summarized those for you. I
could if you want resummariz waste any of your time doing that. I would just state sort of big picture Mr. Kelly's properties in total had accumulated $111,950 in fines which the code enforcement
board reduced to $45,125 which is a reduction of $66,825 after each individual ruling and they were all unanimous by the code enforcement board members uh was thoroughly explained to Mr. Kelly that these reductions required approval by
the city commission because leans were involved and that you as city commissioners had the option to accept, deny, increase or decrease the code enforcement board reduction in it ruling, which meant that the city commissioner's final ruling
could range anywhere from zero in fines to $111,950 in fines. certainly within your authority anywhere in between. Lastly, Mr. uh Mr. Kelly was also informed that he had the right to appear
before the city commission when his case was scheduled to be heard. Lastly, Mr. Kelly was informed that once a final decision was made, each approved amount was payable within 30 days or a time set by the city commission
after they made their decision or not pay the original fine imposed would become due. Mr. Kelly acknowledged an understanding of what was explained to him on each individual request and
stated he was not concerned he had the necessary funds. Each of Mr. Kelly's requests were treated fairly without bias. Final code enforcement decisions were based solely on the individual merits
articulated in each reduction request and the properties associated violations. The fine reductions he which he requested on his applications were granted in three of his four requests
and reduced in the fourth one by $5,975 less than he asked for. So this in code enforcement board's understanding should have concluded our
dealings with Mr. Kelly until his case would to be heard in front of the city commission which time you have had an opportunity to address the city code enforcement board rulings. Um, unfortunately that didn't happen
because on one August or I'm sorry on 11 August of 20125 at our CB hearing, Mr. Kelly appeared in person and presented to the code enforcement
board a request a letter which I have if you care to hear from it u asking us to reconsider our findings and his four previous code enforcement reduction requests
and consider reducing all his fines to purely administrative fees and that certainly generated much discussion among the C with the CV attorney, our code enforcement board attorney, Mr. Martin and the city
attorney, not Miss Garcia, but the city attorney, uh, Mr. Rossi, whether or not we could even entertain this after the fact request. After much discussion and legal
consultation, uh it was decided to allow Mr. Kelly to present his new fine reduction request. He provided a code enforce to the code enforcement board a letter dated August
11th, 2025 which stated in part that since the 9 June 2025 code enforcement board fine reduction meeting, he had engaged in conversations with several of the city commissioners
who all encouraged him to submit a written request asking the code enforcement board to now consider eliminating all $111,950 of his fines in leans and reduce them to just administrative fees.
During this discussion in the August 11th hearing, no specific commissioners names were mentioned by Mr. Kelly, nor did the code forcement board members who asked who he spoke to or who had
encouraged him to submit his request. Mr. Kelly's letter further stated that reducing his fines to administrative fees would not only help him bring his properties into full compliance but also strengthened his ongoing commitment to
being a responsible property owner in our community. Question is why was he not his concern since 2020? After much discussion which included Mr. Kelly. The code enforcement board unanimously voted to deny Mr. Kelly's
request to reconsider this matter. Now, I'm further aware of an undated letter from Mr. which was sent to the city of Eustace thanking the commission for allowing him to present his case in which he again requests that all penalties be reduced to administrative
fees only quote so that he can transfer sell the properties with clean title free of leans and violations. Mr. Kelly's letter further states that fines are the only barrier standing in
the way of the sale of his properties. Perhaps he should have realized that prior to acrewing $111,950 in fines in leans being placed on his properties. Perhaps Mr. Kelly should be appreciative
of fact that three of his fine reductions were accepted by the code enforcement board as requested and his fourth request was further reduced by an additional $5,975. Quite frankly, the code enforcement board felt that Mr.
Kelly's motives were very apparent and totally self-s serving. the less fines he has to pay, the more profit he makes from the sale of his these properties. Question: Why does Mr. Kelly believe the
residents of Eustace should help subsidize his personal real estate ventures? pending any questions. Uh on behalf of myself, I would respectfully request that at an absolute minimum commission
approve once again at an absolute minimum you approve the reduced fines submitted by the code enforcement board which total $45,125. Obviously, we have the power to increase or decrease this amount.
have any questions? I'll be happy to answer them. If not, I appreciate the opportunity to present this evidence in front of the city commission. Thank you. Thanks, Al. We can hear from Reverend Kelly now.
Mr. Kelly, please state your name uh as you approach, please. My name is Harold Kelly. I live here in US, Florida, 2241 Jenna Circle. First of all, thank you all for allowing me to share my case. Um
there's a whole lot that can be said, but it's not necessary. I take full responsibility for everything that was mentioned by Mr. Martin and the other gentlemen. Um, take full responsibility. So, I don't try to
slide by that. But what I do want to say to you all, um, one of the reasons that I asked for the, um,
total reduction of fines and leans is because it was done by someone else that came before the code enforcement board. I was here that afternoon when it was done. um at one of my
times of going before the board. So they were allowed to um just pay administrative fees. Now I want to say that's the reason one of
the reason why I asked that that request. Now um I know He said something about self- serving. Not only self- serving, let me just share this if you all, some of y'all
don't know me. I came here in 99, 1999. Since that time, I'm really make this brief. I have uh came here as an assistant principal over at Leburg High School. Since that time, I've been here at Middle School. Then I retired two
years ago. In those 19 years, 17 years, I have done I have spent I think it was $137,000 trying to help families that have been in trouble, families that um
that were about to be put out of their homes. And this was done through my church. Um I was able to help families. Now that has nothing to do with the code enforcement board. I understand that. Um
because I have reached out and try to help people. Um I've just asked for one favor of this board. If you all would consider the fact these properties already
to get them in a place where the community. The community can move on and homes can be built. U one of the gentlemen already has three apartments right behind the street right
behind where one of the prop properties are. I I'm just asking for leniency if you could. Um it's not going to totally benefit me. Uh I still pastor church. I still help people. Um a lot of families.
So, if y'all can the the board can consider helping me by reducing these fines to administrative fee um uh to administrative fees, I I would really appreciate it. I know it's asking
a lot. Uh you all it it's totally my responsibility. I accept that. Mr. Kelly, yes. Um did you talk to any of the city commissioners about the reduction of your fine? I did speak with one.
Okay. And I don't wanteneral I don't want to know who in a general conversation this um you said that you um uh you were sitting you were at a meeting and you heard
about the reduction to administrative costs. I was here at one of the code enforcement. So if you were at one of the meetings, why did you just ask for a simple reduction and not okay administrative cost?
Yes, sir. At one of the um times when Mr. Martin came to one of my locations, uh when I asked he said, "Well, Mr. Kelly, you can ask for a reduction, but
the board is not that they're really not giving reductions at this time." Those were his words on two occasions. Um, and of course I would have asked for no um
all fine or reductions if if I had known that. But I'm trying not to be, as other gentlemen said, self-s serving and trying to be respectful. How many uh how many code enforcement meetings have you been to?
Oh, that's good. Good. I don't know 10 maybe. Okay. And at the 10 since 2020, had there been any any discussion about administrative costs at any of those meetings that you had been to?
No, sir. Not understanding. But did you witness any of those? Yes. Okay. So, you knew about it. You knew that was a possibility. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Okay. I was sitting here when the gentleman uh I I I was
about to ask the gentleman that one of the gentlemen that is going to purchase one of the properties to come with me cuz that's what happened that night. The gentleman stood beside um the the owner of the property and uh
he he agreed of course he agreed to buy the property and he was granted u leniency and just to have to pay administrative cost. Okay. Uh 2020 is the beginning of one of
the cases. Uh and You do say that you were at fault. Uh, absolutely. Okay. Um, I still haven't heard a reason why we should go below what the code enforcement board.
Uh, the reason being the main reason as I as I just said, Mr. Martin specifically indicated to me, Mr. Kelly, you can ask for a reduction, but enforcement board is not
um it's not reducing uh and he and his word was they're not reducing fines at this time. So again, as I said before and and and I didn't I didn't swear, but I'm not
lying because he we had this conversation twice at two of the locations. both locations. Can I jump in? Yes, please. So, so Mr. Kelly. Yes, sir. The the property at 67 Glover Street, I
mean, the chairman said there was many notices put out on those. I mean, why I mean, why why so long to take any action? I mean, you know, the code enforcement department is and it's not here to make money. It's here to gain
compliance. So why after so many of those notices no compliance? Okay. Did you have a property manager maybe or that was the problem? I tried to handle I'm sorry. No, I can say but are don't the notices go to the owner of the property as well
as the property manager. The notices were on the lot. They they put it on the steak right there in the front of the lot. So I did get the notice that there was a uh out of compliance notice. So again, as I as I said already, it it's on me.
It's my responsibility to follow through since I was trying to I had a um so um when I initially started, I was going to build on Glover and I was going to build on uh LC,
I kept running into roadblocks. I would get um I kept turning in my applications to the uh building department and they kept returning them back to me for whatever the case was. Finally, I got everything approved. And
as soon as I got everything approved and ready to build, two days later, I think it was, here comes another notice said, "You cannot start because you need this." After such a long time, I just threw my hands up in the air. Um and again, it's my fault. My um
uh general contractor uh even said to me, "Mr. Kelly, they they're not going to they're going to keep on giving you problems." Uh again, so do you think the city gave you problems? I'm just going just telling you what he said. Okay. Let me let me ask you something. Yes, sir.
Um when um you say that you you got notices on the property, Mr. Martin, do we send notice to to uh Mr. Kelly's resident. Yes, I got one at the house. Absolutely. We send him certified mail. We send him regular mail. The uh 67
Glover Street, his uh mail address of record is um his 2241 Jenna Circle. The Temple of Powers Ministries. Um the mailing address for that one was originally 1613 East Bates Avenue, which
it that's an empty building. So, we had to go into his LLC accounts. We found him mailing a address out of 890 Abrams Road where the church is there. So, we uh for the LC property, we were mailing
some there. They were getting returned. So, we started mailing them to because we're required by law to mail them to an address listed on the Lake County Property Appraisers records regardless of whether or not we know it's going to be returned. We have we still have to do it. It's a waste of $10, but we have to
do it. So, we we with the LC one, we started actually posting and mailing copies of those to Mr. uh Kelly's um residents as well. And we physically post. Did did Did you make personal contact
with Mr. Kelly in 2020? Absolutely. Okay. And and it's continued from 2020 until today. So in 2020 that was the unsafe permit violation. Um so Mr. Kelly originally because when we send a notice
out for unsafe structure, you're required to obtain a permit to repair and rehabilitate or demolish. Uh and we're giving you a deadline to obtain that permit. So um Mr. Kelly, he came in and he applied for his permit and then
he says no. And he withdrew that and then he says I'm going to build on it. And then he goes no, I'm not going to build on it. And withdrew that and then he applied for another demo permit. He pulled it back maybe two two or three times. And so by the time he actually
got his demolition permit, the deadline for compliance had expired and the uh $29,000 in fines had acrewed. had he just got his demolition permit like
he intended originally because the house that was there, it was too far gone. Um when there was no there was absolutely no flooring in it. So what was going to happen is it was going to cost more than 50% of the building value to to fix it
up. And uh according to the Florida building code, anything over 50% is considered substantial improvement and you got to bring it to code from the foundation all the way up to the roof to current code. And there's a cost in that. So once the building official laid that
out to Mr. Kelly, that's when he says, "Okay, I'll just go ahead and tear it down." And that's when he finalized his demolition permit. So the So the Sorry, Eric. Is the So the structure is gone. The structure is gone. Okay. But during 2020 and 2023, it probably took three more notices. He
tore the house down. It took a while to finish cleaning up. It took maybe uh two months to finish cleaning the demolition debris up. And then he left the slab there. He left some accessory structures in the back. The city's got a code under
demolition. If you demolish the primary structure and you do not redevelop it within 180 days, you have to remove all improvements. So, and we told him that. I'm sorry. Did we tell him that? Absolutely. Okay. So, so and he he actually spoke with um
with development services as well. Okay. If I make can I share something with that? In 2021 20 and 22, I have a building now in Tallahass where I'm from. It looked worse than that one.
It's upstanding now. I have renters in it now. Uh they were told the building department there told me you cannot build on this. Uh you need to demolish it. It's standing right now. I can give you the address and show you pictures where it's standing right now. So I'm I'm just sharing the reason why.
No, I didn't say it couldn't be done. It just has to be um Pastor Kelly, you know, you have personal relationship with a lot of us up here. You should have came to us earlier about like, hey, what can I do? I mean, I don't understand why it took so long. I'm sorry. Say that again.
I said, you have personal relationship with most of us up here. I mean, we've we've met you many many many times. I don't understand why it just took so long. It's like, hey, what can I do? What how do I approach this? You know, um I just don't understand why it took so long to get anything done.
Okay. So again much of the problem and while while I was teaching before I retired in 22 I had started collecting uh building materials uh and I've never done it this
way but I put myself in a bad position by getting all the material not having a shelter. I know that now. I've done never done the way before, but that's why I say I take total responsibility. And uh
yes, I'm still trying to handle things so that I don't get in this situation and just met miss deadlines. That that's where I was. Mr. Mayor, um I think we've heard enough. I call for the question on this. Um three of us have sat on the code
enforcement board that's sitting up here and I have full faith in our code enforcement board. I and I have complete faith in Eric Martin and Chief Capri um running that department. Um so I just call the question and I'd like to go
ahead and make a motion uh on resolution 25-70 for approval. Okay, we'll go ahead and close on the hearing. Sir, you can have a seat. I think they're You can have a seat. They've heard enough. So that's for the recommendation of
40,000. Yeah, we would need clarification as to what that's a motion to agree with what they came up with the board has agreed to. Okay. Did we get audience? Did we talk to audience? I asked earlier before we brought them up because I knew it was going to be a long presentation. I mean, I'll I'll second for a little
bit more discussion. I I just I hate to do this to Pastor K. I I I do too. I just I just don't understand why it took so long to get to get to get anything done. And I wish Yeah. Unfortunately, it's
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And I agree with um with you guys, but I have never heard a record like what they read about all the incidents and how many times and all of this. That was more than anything I've ever heard before. So, um you know, I agree that
it's we we regret doing it, but it's not good. Got a motion and a second. You got a first and a second. A motion and properly second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Asbody, I. Vice Mayor Ashcraft,
nay. Commissioner Holland, I. Commissioner Lee, I. Mayor Hawkins, I. Mr. Mayor, I move approval of Oh, I have to read the title. Sorry. Yes, I do. Sorry. Trying to get this over. Move it cuz it's going to be 10:00.
I know. So, we have resolution number 25-71, a resolution of the city commission of the city of Eustace, Florida, providing for the commission determination of a code enforcement lean on property located at 600 LC Street, authorizing implementing actions and providing for an effective date. We've
had presentation and discussion. Sorry, we can proceed with a vote with a motion. Yeah, I approval of resolution 25-71. I'll second. Okay, it's been moved and promptly second. And that's for the recommendation of the
code enforcement board. Correct. Commissioner As I. Vice Mayor Ashcraft. Nay. Commissioner Holland. Hi. Commissioner Lee. Hi. Mayor Hawkins. Hi. Do you wish to go back to the budget now
or? No. Let's finish with because we have people that are waiting for for us. All right. So, we will start um next with second readings. Um, we have ordinance number 25-09, an ordinance of the city commission of the city of Eustus Lake County, Florida,
amending the city's land development regulations, amending section 109.4 use regulations table to classify concrete aggregate u shredder/crusher as an industrial use and to specify the land use categories in which the use is
permitted by right or subject to conditional use approval. Amending sections 115-3.1 urban districts, 115-3.2 suburban districts, and 115-3.3 rural districts relating to the district
regulations. Amending sections 109-5.4 urban, 109-5.6 suburban, and 109-5.8 rural to update performance standards. Amending section 110-3 regarding development pattern and design districts. Adding a new section to 110-4
building lot types to establish a single family detached lot type which may be renumbered as necessary. Adding sections 115-4.1 B3 to establish open space requirements for single family subdivisions. Multif family mixeduse and town home
developments. Adding section 115-4.9D to allow storm water facilities to function as amenities. Amending section 115-7.3 to require street trees and to prohibit on street parking on residential streets unless designated parking spaces are provided. Amending section 102-21
regarding site plans and preliminary plats providing for legislative findings providing for codification severability conflicts scrivener errors and an effective date. Okay. So commission but there's an asterct beside this right? There is I'm about to get into
um so as you recall uh since the first reading of this ordinance since this is our second uh we did have a change in the legislature uh with Senate Bill 180 and that has now been codified um in uh Florida chapters 2025-190 and it's essentially temporarily
restricting municipalities from adopting or enforcing certain land development regulations. So what we've done based on the discussion is uh to ensure compliance with that state law uh and preserve this this ordinance's enforcability we revised it to
essentially make it uh effective later. Um so basically one of these things will have to happen um either the legislature changes the um
the content of the law. it gets struck down or it sunsets which is currently for our city it's uh October of 2027. So um since that's still there uh we're basically making it effective when one
of those triggering events occurs and we've added a whereas clause that uh recognizes this limitation and basically indicates that we cannot really enforce this until one of those triggering events happens because this isn't really changing the subject uh or the scope of
what we've done before. Um the title isn't is unchanged so we don't have to readvertise but we're just basically revising it to conform with the requirements of the law so that we're not in violation of anything here. I know that we had prior discussion too
about the class action. Um I just heard earlier this week that they have enough municipalities that have signed on to proceed with challenging SB80. Um so that is going to proceed. um doesn't necessarily involve
the city, but it will impact all the m municipalities in Florida um since they are moving forward with that. But um as it stands right now, it's still what we have uh to deal with right now. So, we're basically just incorporating it,
but respecting the restrictions we have based on the legislaturator's intent. Any questions for me on this? I do have something I want to say in addition to the fours but but for the updated moment. Yep. No problem.
I did want to um acknowledge here that we got a letter from Mr. Kading. Um he submitted some memoranda which the commission has received because he couldn't attend uh tonight's uh presentation. So he did submit memoranda
from um November 7th of 2024 as well as September 4th today 2025. both of the documents. Um I want to say that they will be included in tonight's official record as being recognized by the city and you know we talk about property
rights a lot and vested rights and um right now he is concerned about his vested rights which we've talked about before. Um we have previously received a draft of a development agreement that we um got from Mr.
Kitting. We are reviewing it. working um with him on that and I did speak with him and um kind of you know explained where we are as far as why we're doing what we're doing now and again that it's not really effective until one of the triggering events occur so we're conforming with the law and we still
fully intend um to keep this process fair and transparent and of course um respecting all of the affected land owners should you know they be affected by these changes. So, um I just wanted to put that for the record that you know we are
acknowledging receipt of his um concern and we are going to u proceed with the amendments of course as noticed because um again this is still a safeguard as to his property rights and we will continue to work with him. Okay. Would anyone in the audience like
to speak on this ordinance? Seeing none, I will close public input. Okay. Thank you. Back to you, Mr. R. Okay. Uh um I make a motion to approve ordinance 25. I show none.
Okay. Make it a second. Second. Okay. It's been moved and properly second. Uh roll call, please. Commissioner As. Vice Mayor Ashcraft. Hi. Commissioner Holland. Hi.
Commissioner Lee. Hi. Mayor Hawkins. Hi. Okay. Um, next we have for second reading a subset of ordinances 25-20 through 26. Uh, we'll start with ordinance number 25-20, an ordinance of the city commission of the city of
Eustace, Florida, voluntarily annexing approximately 10 acres of real property at Lake County Property Appraiser alternate key number 104141 located on the east side of the intersection of County Road 44 and County Road 44A.
Any additional presentation Jeff? Okay. No. Um any questions for Jeff from the commission? But actually no, I will get ahead of that. Uh before um we start the discussion last time this was um again a move to tonight so that we can get some
clarification on the status of the PUD. We did um make contact with um count the Lake County attorney and um it's clarified that the PUD is in effect. It is valid to for all the properties
listed in the PUD and the uses are restricted to those within the PUD. So the applicant has the opportunity to apply for reasonzoning with the county for this particular project, but as the PUD stands, it would not allow for any commercial activity um or any commercial
uses on the property. So I just wanted to give you that update. So So uh Okay, I got you. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Um, do we have any cards done? I do.
Okay. Uh, uh, please, uh, for the essence of time, if there, uh, a lot of you that want to talk about one subject, uh, and you know that the person before you or next to you, please just give him
the nod and say, you know, ditto. Okay. Uh, so I have a card from Travis. Would you like to speak now or after? At the end. Okay. Uh, Peter Dempsey. I am Peter Dempsey and I am a city
resident. Uh we are here again to oppose the proposed land use amendment as it would adversely transform our peaceful neighborhood and the surrounding communities. And the change would directly impact its neighboring
communities through increased noise, lighting, odors, potential toxic contamination, etc. Also, traffic to the area would increase. In addition, our property values would decrease, putting an undue financial
burden, which no one would want or approve. At the last hearing, a question was asked by a commissioner uh to the affected residents if we would rather see homes or commercial uses. The
resounding answer was homes. There is a time and place for commercial uses. However, this location is neither the time nor the place for such a use. When a development comes into a community, it should be in harmony with the area and
not a burden. The allowable commercial uses such as gas stations, car washes, fast lube, oil changes, car sales, food and beverage stores with alcohol, drive-thru restaurants, tattoo parlors, or indoor
shooting ranges do not belong in this neighborhood. This is not an all-inclusive list, but you get the idea. Would you want to live where your backyard abuts to any of these land uses? The applicant can say he won't do any of
those, but as the commissioners know, whatever he says or promises are not legally binding. What dictates the allowable land uses under the city's development regulations, general commercial use, and you just heard some of the uses.
A point of clarification, the applicant said det there was a deteriorating fence uh that belonged to Spring Ridge Estates and it's falling on his property. However, uh we believe this is not the case. Uh we think the the fence belongs
to him. Uh we have two property survey markers for this property and it shows that uh the fence to be behind the marker. Um our HOA denies ownership of of this
fence. Um therefore we ask that the commercial land use change for these properties not be approved. Thank you. Donald Doyle. Good evening. My name is Donald Doyle. I do not live in the city of Eustace, but
I live just north of the subject property on the other side of county of 44A. Thank you all for taking the time to investigate the plan unit development PUB. As you confirmed in your supplemental staff report, the duty is currently valid and full in effect.
Um, when Mr. Salchuk talked about the measures he was taking to protect Spring Ridge estates from noise and light, we asked him about lake estates. I did not understand his answer. He talked about that kind of shrubbery and that kind of barrier is something he planned on keeping, especially across the back and
up to one side. The map he presented may answer the question. The handout I gave you, the map is the first page. The map shows green items that may be shrubbery. If so, these are along the back near Springidge Estates and they are along the east side near the 2.8 acre parcel.
There are no green items on the side near Clear Lake Estates. Mr. Sek said he thinks Clear Lake does not even know that they are over there. I know they are over there. Mr. Sek talked about the huge burn and the big fence and the massive pine trees on the Clear Lake properties. Only one of the four
properties in Clear Lake near his property has massive trees along the back of the property. In my house, I see over 200 feet of trees on his property. It is difficult for me to tell from the map provided, but it looks like the trees that I see will be removed if the property is developed. Depending on how
high the buildings are, then I will see the buildings and their associated lighting, and I might see the lighting in the parking area. If the properties are not down next to the city and houses are built, perhaps many of these trees can be saved to provide a buffer from county 44 and county of 44A. When they
mow between the trees, I hear the mower, even though the burm in the fence is behind my house. I'm concerned about noise from businesses with drive-through speakers, large motors or fans, commercial air conditioner units, or trash dumpsters to empty toxic vapors and chemical odors would be a concern,
too. Please remember that some of these businesses may be open all night. The second sheet of the handout shows the permitted use in general commercial land use district. You wonder why we concerned about gas stations, car washes, drive-throughs, dry cleaners,
shooting ranges, and fast loops because they would all be permitted by general commercial. Please see the third sheet of the handout. On the right side of the drawing, you see the current PUB. The drawing shows that the vast majority of the surrounding properties are residential. I believe placing
commercial uses in the middle of these residential areas will negatively impact the character, possibly the property values of surrounding neighborhoods. I believe the uses allowed by the current PD are much better fit for the area. I believe annexing the property and allowing the 31 uses uh permitted by the
general commercial is like signing a blank check. You should not leave the door open wide to all those uses because someone sometime may want to build them. I encourage you to deny the annexation request to help preserve the character, quality of life, and property values in
these neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you. Marquez. Now, is there anyone that wants to say ditto to that? Good evening once again. You all know I am not a speaker, but I
am passionate about my neighborhood and my city. I will be very brief as this has been a very long evening. Are you passionate enough to tell us your name? Oh, Trina Mars. See, I told you I'm not a speaker. I'm nervous. I live directly north of this proposed
project. I'm going to address a disturbing observation that appears insignificant on the surface, but bear with me. Please hear me out. On August the 7th, Mr. Saltchuk stated, and I quote, "Every single one of those houses
dumps their dead trees and garbage on our land. I have never, as Donald also stated on August the 21st, he has not." I pondered why he would utter such an untruth statement. I believe the point was to discredit the residents in your
eyes. I went yesterday to the land development office for an update and was informed whatever he said or was posted regarding 2520 through 2525 was nonbinding. I left stunned. I remember
that all those pictures he showed us doesn't mean anything. I listened intently. August the 21st to the discussion regarding the city of used as being burned previously. I listened. Don't allow Clear Lake or Spring Ridge
estates to become latest burn victims. Protect and maintain our hometown appeal. Thank you. Thank you, Danielanzu. Oh, please tell me you can ditto. Daniel. Daniel.
I cannot say ditto. Yeah, you can. I am a small time guy and let me tell you when I moved to Eustace my wife cried because the only thing here was Kmart and I and I came from Altoont Springs and by the way I lived
by all this and uh so I I I'll just tell you first of all Lake County is a very desirable place and we're only going to get more and more people. There are thousands of residential units planned here. And so the idea that the idealic
country meadows are going to remain is absolutely gone. And I want to tell you something else I heard tonight a comment and I don't and some of you will know. I love when a millionaire can say that you and Madora are uh proposing development
and it's basically out of hand. Well, the thing is is guess what? They don't live in town, do they? They don't have to face one of the largest populations in the mun municipality here. And we're talking about our tax rate, but you know, the amount of money we collect, we actually
serve more people with less than any of the communities around us. So, the thing is is growth is is part of it. And you know, can how much does it cost us uh to supply garbage and water services to one person versus 10 people? Of course, it's
it's a shared you you get to spread the cost along, and that's what's happening. So, this gentleman's bought some property. I looked at I I know the location. I've looked at it. I I think what he's proposed is actually very reasonable. Uh I think the residents,
you know, the idea that uh they're not going to get something built there or they're going to be able to keep an open field or grasslands in the definite uh in, you know, through the the future is unrealistic. Just a couple remaining points is um
I really think it is significant that we remember the developer lives there. He he's built a home and he's actually anchored here. He's not coming in and he's going to build this and leave. He's actually got his home there. And and I
think also with regard to the uh the idea of what he has planned is in is great. Coming back to gas stations. Let's talk about gas stations. When you're going to increase the population of Lake County by 50,000 people, I can
assure you you are going to have more gas stations. So, he doesn't have a gas station proposed there and I think that's an awesome thing. So, uh and of course land rights, we can get into that. Development rights, we can get into that. But I think, uh I think the commission understands the wave that's
coming. You know, it it's going to be it's not just here. It's going to be across Lake County. A very desirable location in Florida. Thank you, Daniel. Other than Travis, that's it for cards.
Okay, we'll have you speak, sir. Thank you for your time this evening. I try to keep it short, but I have a few things to talk about. Um, I know Mr. Doyle had some comments and is emphatic about what I said and misqued.
Um, if I said that Clear Lake threw the debris on my property, that was a a mis information. Um, I showed you pictures in the PowerPoint presentation of the debris that was from
Springidge. I'm not harping on that. I'm just making a point that although they say they don't own the fence, they've enjoyed it for 15 years and uh they could have maintained it as well as as good neighbors would uh try to do was my
only point. U they spoke about trees. Um I showed you a drawing. Can we make this thing go? I don't know how to do that. So, in this drawing, um, the large circle trees are heritage trees that
would be left there, and you're trying to tell me that I'm not going to leave them there. I am going to leave them there. You said I'm not going to put a fence or I'm not going to have the shrubbery uh that will create the um noise block, but they're there. That's what I'm planning on doing. You know, in
your building ordinances, what the setback is. I'm providing 185 ft of setback from Spring Ranch. I'm putting in retention ponds and BMS. I've offered a 7 foot fence. I'm putting in mature trees that aren't 31 in like 44B. I'm
putting in 7 foot junipers. Those will all be approved by you in the process of having this done. I've never said I'm going to put a gas station there. And you can see in the drawing that I've I've redone the process so that there
are five buildings, not a strip center as uh mentioned in a letter that you received from Beth Brockoff. U which was very definitive to towards me. Uh I didn't appreciate this letter. Let's not make it adversarial. No, we're not. You got this letter. Okay.
And you're thinking about this letter when you make your decision and that that concerns me. There's nothing deceptive about my plan. There isn't going to be a big change from this drawing. I I'm the one that spent the I spent $1.1 million on my residence and I live
right there. I have 1,600 ft of frontage there. I spent $1.6 million on the property and I'll probably have all in 15 million. And that's what it's going to look like. It's not going to be a strip center. It's not going to be a gas station, you know, and I don't want dry
cleaners. And you guys are going to see and approve the building facads. You saw pictures of the facades that were uniquely different. But, you know, all that said, um, it just doesn't seem to be enough for anybody. Now, there was a comment from
Mr. Doyle, I think it was, where he said the county commission said that the putt is active or the attorney did and therefore I couldn't change anything. Well, I spoke to the county attorney and some other commissioners and they can approve a change and uh they uh said
something. Give me a second here. in consideration of the uh approving the change by the county. Um that in fact it's a a serpentine configuration or sprawl that changes the
availability and and the usage change by the county's opinion. See, it's a it is a signalized hard intersection, lighted intersection. I front on two sides of that intersection. That's not a residential area.
And the county acknowledges the uniqueness of this corner and it is of their opinion that if I take it in front of them, they're going to consider making this commercial as their overlay is. So to say that the pud is active, it
it's a legal opinion. If I come into the city here and my comment was based on that, it is dissolved and it is no longer active. So I'm not saying it's inactive. I'm saying it can be put into position of being inactive. I can come over and be part of the city. I can
develop something that makes sense that helps our our uh traffic flow, our concurrency issues that you have. Now, I didn't cause them, but I can help remedy them. Unlike 44B, I have three entrances onto this property.
And the one that faces 44A would turn right only. The one that is furthest south on 44 would turn left and right. and then the one closest to the intersection would only turn right. That would only help traffic. It wouldn't cause the troubles like that are
happening over on 44. If you look at the um let me see if I can go back. If you look at this drawing in in consideration of the size of these buildings, the amount of mass land that is in the middle in the park settings
that we have, you're not going to hear any noise. You might not There's no way you're not going to hear something. But the deferred lighting, the the amount of traffic we can hold on the property and disperse without the traffic flow of a jam that will happen like on 44B,
you know, everything there makes perfect sense to be there on that hard lit corner. If I provide the buffers and I do what I said going to do, then what's the problem? Now, some of you say, "Oh, he's going to change everything." And this nice letter that was sent to you says gas stations and the percentages
and things and I said the strip mall never said a strip mall to you did I never said that and I've showed you a plan that differs from that but um I I don't know what will make people happy and it's late and I'm I'm getting off topic and it was so eloquent in my
mind but I had some points of facts that I just wanted to point out and then I'll defer to you folks my property is almost completely surrounded by the city you have your utilities on my property all of
That that's that also was of interest to the county as to you have to provide all the utilities. If I'm in the county and I develop this, I'd rather develop it with you. My property fronts two sides of a major signalized intersection of 44 and 44A.
The comment by the county is that the property is best suited for commercial. That is the statement made by county commissioners and the county attorney. And so if I bring it forward to them, they have the right to dissolve the pud for that purpose on that property as to
the overlay. It's active in its situation right now, but it doesn't have to be if I make that application. There's a very different situation where the city annexes land that is in the serpentine configuration or the sprawl. That was the other point and I said that
already, but that was the point with the county commissioner and the attorney. This is a unique hard corner. It's not residential. Uh it's not in a corridor with no res no commercial corridor or lighted intersection. I'm on it. I'm right on the intersection.
The city has approved Mr. Keing's property who's already now in the city of Eustace for multi-use and commercial. I don't know if the folks sitting behind me realize that it's coming and they're talking to you right now about what they're going to build there.
The Gford family is putting in and making application for multif family. That's right across from their entrance. I don't know if they realize what's coming. My plaza serves a purpose for the new traffic flow, the new people that are coming.
It defers traffic. Like I said about the um traffic flow considerations, concurrency is one of those things where you try to diverse the traffic, try to make it go in different directions. This plaza would service that. Also with three entrances and exits, it makes traffic flow easier. I'm not going to be
a burden to anybody by being there. From that respect, controversially, Florida statutes 163-2511 and 163-3253 allows for a developers agreement. City of Eustace has used developers
agreements in the past. I have offered that. I've offered to put this developers agreement in front of you. I said it in the first reading. I said it in our attempted second reading. The county commission says that there might be a
legal position for you to have this invoked with me. I don't know the law like you do. I'm not going to try to defer or say that you're right, I'm wrong, or otherwise. I'm saying right here that I'll I'll gladly do a developers agreement with you and and
take off the list of general commercial the things that everybody in this room is opposed to. Well, not every one of them or I wouldn't be allowed anything. But I would certainly take off the gas stations, the dry cleaners, the tattoo parlors, and anything else that is not
nice. Please remember, I live all down the one side of that property. I want what they want. I want to protect what they're wanting to protect. All those heritage trees are there because of our design to leave them there. I don't think I could be a better
partner for the anybody in this room. I ask that you look into that statute to see if there's something that we can do. Well, um, he brought it up. No, no, no. I'm going to answer because I was actually on the same page you were. So, I asked I asked our city
attorney to give us to opine on it. So, um, I have the, uh, I printed out the 2024 Florida statutes titled six of the county organizations and intergovernmental reg regulations and relations on chapter 163. It seems like
there's a lot of open language there and I'm not opposed to having a meeting with the board commission. You know, I'm not sure how this happens or what we do, but just know I'm I'm not opposed to it. And I think that what I want is what everybody else in this room wants. They just don't realize it. I
don't have to give you 185 foot buffer. You guys know that, but I'll do it. I want it. I'm not putting in warehouses in commercial distribution as indicated by this other lady. You've been given the wrong information. I'm not deceptive.
Okay. All right. Sashi. Yeah. I'm happy to speak on that. Um, so I appreciate that. First of all, I just want to clarify about the pew Oh, please, please. She wants to talk about the development program. Yeah. Well, okay. Do you want to do that now? Um, what were you going to say first?
Well, two things. Um, the So, the PUB, it is valid and is in effect now. It can be amended through the county or you can apply for uh resoning with them. As far as the um the overlays, I mean, I think you received the email from Miss Marsh
on that um as far for with her explanation. So yeah, I got the same letter. Okay. So that's the information that we're all working with as far as the current status of the PUD. Uh as far as the development agreements, so development agreements usually are um done for large projects because of the
demands on infrastructure um concurrency and things like that. The concern related to your property and and this particular annexation is when we get into what we call contract zoning. Um, basically by annexing into the city
under GC, you have certain uses and entitlements that you have just based on what our code allows. And um, you would be giving up those rights in exchange for annexation, which is exactly what the law prohibits. We're not supposed to
look at those factors. Um, interject, too. I'm not giving up any of my rights. I'm agreeing with a quorum of what we'd like to have there and I instead of just making it a verbal commitment I'd like to make it in writing to give peace of mind because like they
had reminded you that you've been burned before. So how do I take that fear out of your minds and their minds? I understand but what I'm saying is under GC right now under under this categorization for this for the city you're able to you have a wide spectrum
of options. Um, right. So, you would basically be allowed um a big group of entitlements that you currently don't have or you would have to go to the county for. And you're saying I'm not going to allow certain uses to appease opposition of the public, not based on
the evidence that's before the commission tonight. Uh because essentially the concern are over gas stations or certain uses that would be allowed under GC. Um, so the caution here that I've advised the commission is you may be okay with it, but going
forward, whoever purchases this property, ends up with it could look at this and challenge us to the city for I'm the one that bought it. I'm the I'm the guy, but you you have it now, but in future, the conditioning Oh, I see what you're saying.
of the uses is the problem with the basis of the ordinance. So we need to look at annexation on what the statute requires. It is discretionary um for for the commission to consider based on things that uh our code permits as well
as you know um the compatibilities and um traffic concerns all these different things. But all of that we look at annexation through the statute which is 171 which is completely separate than the development agreements and then your designation is what will govern. So we
really uh that is the the concern here. Normally development agreements make sense when we're looking at a big project because we have to really evaluate the services that are being provided in the area. I believe we already have services in that area. So it's not um what do you mean by services like water? Yeah.
And basically infrastructure concerns and things like that. So you know it's um that's when we look at those development agreements for those bigger projects because of those demands. Not to say that it can't be done, but the concern with your property is it's you're in a unique situation
because again, you can go through the county if you choose to. But right now, by annexing as a condition of this annexation, which would give you all these entitlements um under GC, you're basically saying, well, I let me come in
and you know, we will forgo these uses which could expose us to uh potential litigation, not just by you, but also by your neighbors. So, because they're impacted by the the ordinance. So, that's why we're it's it's a it's a it's a critical
consideration for the commission. Is is there a way to Mike, you're going to have to help me with this one. Is there a way to do a PUD under GC? I mean, you know, when we annex a piece of property in for housing, we can sometimes do a PUD.
Can we do a PUD for GC? Yeah, we could. Our code does allow for for that. We can under GC. Yeah, just a just a thought, but we can't require it though, right? No, I mean again it's it's
it's essentially the same restriction. No, after the annexation if he would like to do it after. I mean, it's up to him. But again, it cannot be a condition of annexation. No, I'm I'm not making it. I'm just trying to Okay. Or he cannot he can choose then not to do it. Right. Right. Exactly. So annexation is a
completely separate statute. So again, okay. Um, thank you. So I guess in summary, what I'd like you to just say is that like the county said, I'm completely surrounded by you. You have multiple commercial development going down 44A. You have multiple
residential all the way down the side of Clear Lake that's coming. You have that across the street and you're dealing with Mr. Keing. Now, I'm probably the most friendly person and I'm giving you the most environmentally friendly uh commercial improvement. And if you
look at historical places like Winter Gardens, Winter Park, Windermir, Mount Dora did not lower the value of their homes. It increased them. The average price in downtown Mount Dora is over $497,000.
Wasn't like that before, was it? So, if it's done right and it's done responsibly and it's left to look the way my facades that I showed you and with all that open space and gardens, it's only going to add value.
I haven't had one person in the audience consider what I've said and go, that might not be so bad. That actually might improve my property. Just think about 185 ft of buffer. Think about having nice stores there,
some national, some local. That's all I'm asking you to consider. That's what I'm into. 1,600 ft of my property is going to be facing this and I'm going to do what I say and I just thank you for your time and your consideration. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Okay, we'll go ahead and close u public input. Okay. Um, and Mr. Mayor, again, just to reiterate, you have this ordinance before you. Um, decisions that are being made tonight
have to be based on competent evidence for our planning, um, land planning considerations. Okay. Um, can I get a motion? I'll make one for discussion.
Okay. Have a first. Can I get a second for discussion? Discussion. I'll second it. Okay. I don't know what else we have to discuss. I think we've pretty much been through every option. Um,
it's a it's one of those hard decisions where you're stuck between a rock and a hard place as we usually are because somebody years and years before before you, Mike, made decisions that
that we we got stuck with with the dairy farm up on 44, things like that. growth is coming there and it's going to come and from what I'm seeing from people who already have in there,
it's coming and it's going to be in masses. But we're I'm here to listen to the residents and uh I think uh he's genuine. Uh I
think he said a few things that probably I don't buy into at all. Uh, I went there. I drove there. I saw that fence. Um, I saw your pretty concrete fence across from it. I I think uh all that stuff was a bunch of of distraction, but
uh I think I think growth is coming. It's going to be there. Uh I think if he's genuine, but we cannot prove it. We cannot hold him to it. He could be the winner of the billion dollar lottery that was sold down here and he'll be gone. Um,
I can't put ourselves or our community into an unknown scenario and I don't like doing that, but unknowns get us in trouble. So, I
struggle with this and uh I think it's going to come though, but I don't think it's going to be now is is my is my uh personal Yeah. And then fortunately, you know, he's right, he could try to go to the county and do the same thing. So that's the other thing. And then then you go with the if I'm thinking if I'm
you be careful what you wish for. Will they give you the buffer? Yeah. But you guys are all here and you're all unanimous in the neighborhood saying that I mean I work for you, but um be careful. County will
I think the hunch is they'll give him whatever he wants and then what are you going to do? I don't know. You're So that's that's where that's that's where I'm at. Yeah, I think that's that's where I'm at here. It's like, do we do we want or we want them to have it?
So that that's my problem. Do we want to control what goes there or do we let the county do it and maybe take the risk of 150 apartments sitting on that corner, which is even worse than a commercial piece sitting there and it's worse than a housing development sitting there.
Yeah. So I I Yeah, that's that's what I see. I see this coming back down the line if we don't approve it or the county giving him probably everything he wants. Is it better that the county does it than me? And we still have to supply the utilities.
Probably. I I I I can't bring myself to that. and they're going to make us provide the utilities, but we have a loyalty to our s to our residents and if that's what the county wants to do to us. Okay. Uh
and just to just to comment really quick, um the dissatisfaction of the neighbors is an illegal basis for denial. We have to look at the evidence that's before you as far as what staff has compiled um you know the
statutory requirements uh for annexation but also the compatibility of the um the use in the neighborhood. You have to look at traffic, you know, the land planning concerns because we do have in our code
basically the parameters under GC. So, I just wanted to make sure that it's not to appease the public because I mean obviously these are concerns that are being raised and they're bringing up certain issues for the commission to consider such as traffic and noise and light and all these different things. But I just wanted to make sure that we're not
just considering that because you said you one at a time, please. Should I clarify that then is what you're suggesting. I'm just wanting to make sure that it's clear that it's not just based on public disscent. No, I feel that it's I'm sorry. No, you're good. Uh she they were
talking about shoes don't want me. So if you look at the area right now it does not fit. So it does not match the area now. The community compatibility. Yeah. The community. Will it later? Mike has something to say. Will it later? Yeah. I think it will.
Um does it match the zoning? Maybe. So, but if I can, commissioners, I I had basically at the last minute thought, look, at at the end of the day, we didn't have our our presentation like we did last time, but I did just want you guys to to see
that before you is is this is an enclave and you need to understand that across the street on the west side of of I guess that's 44 Okay. So, you got General Commercial
directly across the street from it. And now he's he's the the the last corner uh that is is coming in that corner right now of that that intersection, that red light. Three of those corners are in the city. This is the last
corner. And you'll see that to the west on the south side is general commercial. to the south obviously is suburban residential, but even as as as we re-examine the area, we recognize that even I mean it
is truly an enclave now. And I didn't realize that. I I assumed that to the east it was not, but uh it is truly an enclave in the city. And it's general commercial to to the the Keing property to the to
the west is general commercial on the north side is suburban residential. So you can see on the and now there's the the little corner the little house there at the red light that is MCR. Now you you'll notice on the on the
bottom here that that below the GC is also MCR and that is a 12 unit allowance. uh right there. So, apartments can go right directly across from Spring uh Spring Ridge. Uh but is is sorry Mike is all this is all
this SR south of 44 that's us? No. Yes. The SR is suburban residential five units an acre. So I guess I was wrong. Sorry. It is an UNC. Thanks for correcting it. But now let me also point out I still don't like it. I understand. I I just I want you guys
to see the full picture here. the the what you see the ADT that stands for average annual daily trips. Okay. So that intersection to the to the east is 4200 trips that are basically heading
east beyond the red light. To the west the a daily trips are equal 15,400 cars a day right now. and along that roadway north and south there
is also 4,200 trips per day. Now that's the current daily trips. I mean, I I I understand that that people are concerned about traffic, but I I again, I wanted you guys to see more
of the picture of this is an enclave and you know, I at least you have a clear picture that general commercial is already on that that intersection on the south side. So, okay.
Thank you for bringing this up, Mike. Thank you. I was thinking that we've had um other um protests about what was happening to their neighborhoods and all of that. I
keep thinking about the 7-Eleven and the bakery and all of that, but I the the buildings that he showed, I think if I had to live across the street from or in the neighborhood, I'd rather see buildings like that than a service station or or um tattoo parlor or
whatever it and and I would have to believe that he would follow through with what he has, but I think it would we know we cannot turn this down because of opposition to it. Yeah. You know, the thing that uh that
that worries me is, you know, the the unknown. That's that's the big thing for me is is the unknown. But I'm glad that Mike, you know, gave us that that quick presentation, but we we always have the unknown.
Yeah, that's true. That's true. Did you have a question? Uh, Vice Mayor, I was only going to say that an annexation is is our discretion. We we don't have to do it. We don't likely do it. The county will likely do this.
It's annexation is we don't we're not required by law to annex things and that's our discussion. That's all I wanted to make a point of. Okay. All right. Any uh anything else? Uh let's take a vote. Oh, we need a motion first.
Oh, we have the motion. Sorry. Getting late. Okay. So, the motion is for approval of the annexation. Yes. Motion for approval of annexation. Yes, I did that. Okay. So, I'm just I'm just confirming that. Okay.
The motion on the floor right now would be for approval of the annexation before we vote. So, no one has to retract votes. We're clear because we've had a lot of discussion already. So, I want to make sure. Okay. It's been first and properly second. Correct. Okay. Roll call.
Commissioner Asody, no. Vice Mayor Ashcraft, hi. Commissioner Holland, no. Commissioner Lee, I. Mayor Hawkins, hi. So, the motion did not pass. Um,
now Okay. All right. Okay. Now, that uh eliminates the next two and I presume the next annexation Would you still like that one? The 2.8 heard? No.
Okay. Okay. Uh, next. Okay. I'm sorry, sir. Probably not closing conclave. I understand that. All right. So, I believe now we have verse readings. Okay. Go ahead. Um,
let's just give a second to let the audience clear up. Uh, yeah, we'll give a second. Good night. Thank you all. Randy. All right. Uh, go ahead and close that door. Uh, madam attorney. Yep.
Let's go ahead and get started. Okay. All right. We're in session. Okay. Next is ordinance number 25-03, an ordinance of the city commission of the city of Florida. You're in session. voluntarily annexing approximately 50.5 acres of real
property at alternate key numbers 109770 and 1094712 generally located north of County Road 44 and east of State Road 19. Mr. Lane or Mr. Richardson first reading. First reading is presenting
tonight. Oh. Hello. Oh, really? Hello. That was Daniel, sir. Sound like you stepped up. Really?
Mike, is this up tonight or are we doing this for another meeting? It was what we had for LPA. 23. No. 253. Oh my gosh. We had this at OPA. Hey,
I may I We um Did we skip an item? I knew it was CIP 23. 23. 253. So 25 20 through 25 were all linked to
the initial property. We skipped 25 26. Thank you. Yeah. Oh, my bad. It's a dirty bottle. Yeah, it's a little Apologies. Apologies. Capital improvements. Yes. Am I going to add 14?
My goodness. Okay. Apologies, Mike. Okay. Well, 25. Yes, those are gone. Yeah. Okay. So, wait. Um, are we doing 26 next then? Yeah. Okay. So, you can have a seat again. Yes.
All right. I'm sorry. Um, okay. Second reading, ordinance number 25-26, an ordinance of the city commission of the city of Eis Lake County, Florida, approving the annual update of the 5-year capital improvement schedule of a comprehensive plan under Florida statute 1633177
section 3B providing for conflicting ordinances, severability, and an effective date. Miss Carr, I have no presentation. No additional presentation. Okay. Any questions from the commission for Miss Carr? No. No. Would anyone in the audience like to
speak on ordinance number 25-26? Seeing none, we will close public input. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I move approval of ordinance number 25-26. Second. Okay. It's been moved properly. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Azotti. I. Vice Mayor Ashcraft. I.
Commissioner Holland. I. Commissioner Lee. I. Mayor Hawkins. I. Okay. Now you're up, Mike. Okay. So, we're back to ordinance number 253, first reading. I'll reread it. Okay. An ordinance of the city commission of the city of Eustace, Florida,
voluntarily annexing approximately 50.5 acres of real property at alternate key numbers 1097070 and 1094712, generally located north of County Road 44 and east of State Road 19.
Yes, as we discussed at the LPA, uh this is the Sster property. Robert Sangster owns the property. It's 50.5 acres. Uh is actually uh it is an enclave and uh it's actually going to go MCI as the
future land use uh district. The uh it will have two design districts. 10.5 acres is basically going to be suburban corridor which is consistent with the property adjacent to it and north of it the 40 acres remaining will go uh rural
uh neighborhood. So um at the at the end of the day we we've had discussions about the environmental issues that are on there. um you know he has removed the concrete uh and obviously the concrete equipment that was on there
and at this point in time uh if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer you. Sorry I maybe I misheard how much is going rural neighborhood 40 acres. Okay. And if if you'll read the definition of
the that whole entire rural uh neighborhood section, it talks about uh you know a large amount of open space being required for that. And because of the wetland that is up there, I mean it it's not he's not going to be able to do much with that. Okay.
When you that was pretty strong statement. I just wanted to understand nothing wrong with it, but you said he's not going to be able to do much there. meaning that because of the wetlands and and the flood plane and the flood plane and the topography that's on the site. So what will happen to that property
then if it's if it's annex it just stays the way it is forever. So to well he's going to have to work around uh you know that they will definitely have to uh to stay clear of that that water body that that is is on there. So um you know he uh with it being in the
flood plane he can't fill uh that area. He he will have to hire engineers and and I I recall pointing this out during the very first meeting, I think back in in April, the fact that they will have to get a letter of map amendment for the
flood plane if they're going to develop in there. You know, FEMA or or our flood plane manager cannot allow people to build there uh in that flood plane. uh you know, we we have something that talks about you can't bring additional fuel into that that flood plane that's
there. So, in order for him to really do any sort of development that's on there, he he's going to have to have an engineer that's going to basically get FEMA to agree to a letter of map amendment to the actual map panels that exist for the city there.
Okay. So if if there's so much of a flood plane and wetlands there, then why would he want so much for suburban neighborhood? Well, again, the suburban commercial is along the corridor there. And and obviously he his his engineer is more
apt to be able to get a letter of map amendment along the frontage there more than he would along that wet area. as as was previously mentioned, you know, by some of the residents there there is a drainage basin that runs through there.
And so, you know, it's it's going to be, you know, I'm Yeah, I'm a little confused because I thought this was coming in predominantly to be all most of MCI. When did when did the rural rural neighborhood come in? Well, the the the design district now, I'm sorry. The the the the MCI is going
to cover the whole property. Oh, okay. But the design districts are going to basically be the 15 acre or the 10.5 acres along the the roadway there. I understand that. And then that 40 acres is going to be north of there. All right. Thank you.
So what would be in there? Some examples. It will be commercial. So there'll be no residential there or there there can be residential there. Not in the MCI. Not in the MCI. So it will have to be commercial predominantly. Yes. Mhm.
And they won't be able to build on the wetlands, so they're limited to that front area on 44. And and now don't get me wrong, of the 40 acres that are north of there, I mean, if if they can actually determine by by engineering reports and such that
that is not in the flood plane, then or they can get it out of the flood plane with with uh you know, some I guess assistance from FEMA, then certainly they can do, you know, some type of industrial areas back there. But by our code, that the wetland that that does
exist in there, they're going to have to sit off of there. There there's going to have to be a buffer around that that that wetland back there. How serious of a wetland is it? How intense? How at this point, we we don't have those analyses. And and we won't really see those until they actually tried to to
come forward and develop in there. And that's why, you know, as part of the development process, we do require them to submit that environmental impact uh analysis there. But MCI does allow housing. I thought I
asked this the last meeting. MCI is mixed commercial industrial, right? MCR is mixed commercial residential. So MCI there there can't be predominantly homes there anyway, right? That's correct. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Well, do we have um anyone in the audience?
Cindy Newton. Cindy Newton, unincorporated Eustace. I'll keep it short. Uh first of all, I would like to clarify generally speaking, when FEMA does a a map revision uh for a flood plane, they look at the
entire area. They won't just focus on that one property. And usually it expands out. Since that's a drainage basin, it would probably end up going all the way to Hitch Ditch. All that would be changed. So if that's requested, you're looking
at a huge change all through there more than likely. Uh I just wanted to give you an update on the code enforcement issues on the property so that you're so that you have an idea. Uh there's code enforcement issues on both
properties. Uh the front one is under an order now. There was a hearing July 16th and they gave them 60 days to bring it into compliance. The back property is still an open case. They're still investigating.
So I just wanted you to have that information. I'm not in opposition or anything on it. I just wanted you to thank the information. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on this
ordinance? Seeing none, I will close public input. Refresh my memory. It's currently zoned which has a density of four to one. So if it's stays where it
is, they could build four times the acreage. Can they count the wetlands in their calculation? And Mike, if you could just come up here. They said they couldn't do residential. Well, they can.
Yeah. Yeah. The property is is urban low, four units an acre and uh and obviously the county I think they they address density the same way we do. I'm sure it's net density. So they if uh the person has the wetland on the property that they won't be able to to count that
th those acreage uh points for for density. So here we go again. Almost the same thing. Want a bunch of houses there or do you want commercial there? Commercial. That's what I'm that's what I'm hearing. Yeah. Am I right, Mike? Pretty much. And I recall these are some of the same
discussions that we had back in April. Yeah. Okay. Um, I get a motion. Any additional questions for staff? Any addition? Any additional questions? Yeah. Was there an issue why they didn't just do that? Why are they coming into
the city? Is there just to get away from code enforcement violations? Was that the summary of this? Uh, okay. I guess staff would have to answer. Yeah. Okay. All right. Before we have uh
ordinance number 20-03 approval second. Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Asbody. No. Vice Mayor Ashcraft. I. Commissioner Holland. Hi. Commissioner Lee. Hi. Mayor Hawkins.
Hi. Next is ordinance number 25-04. An ordinance of the city commission of the city of US Lake County, Florida, amending the city of US comprehensive plan pursuant to Florida statute 163.3187 changing the future land use designation
of approximately 50.5 50 acres of recently annexed real property at alternate key numbers 1097070 and 1094712. generally located north of County Road 44 and east of State Road 19 from urban
low in Lake County to mixed commercial industrial in the city of Eustace. We've um had presentation. Any additional questions for staff? Would anyone in the audience like to speak on ordinance number 25-04? Seeing none, I will close public input. Mr. Mayor,
Mr. Mayor, move approval of ordinance 25-04. Second. Okay, it's been moved and promptly second. Uh, roll call, please. Commissioner Ozbody, no. Vice Mayor Ashcraft, I. Commissioner Holland, hi. Commissioner Lee, I. Mayor Hawkins,
I. And last ordinance for this group is ordinance number 25-05, an ordinance of the city commission of the city of Eustace Lake County, Florida, assigning the rural neighborhood design district designation to approximately 40 acres of recently annexed real property at
alternate key numbers 1097070 and assigning the suburban corridor design district designation to approximately 10.5 acres of recently annexed real property at alternate key 1094712 north of County Road 44 and east of State Road
We've had a presentation. Are there any questions for commission from commit four? No. Let me start again. Are there any questions from the commission for staff? No. Would anyone in the audience like to speak on ordinance number 25-05? Okay. Seeing none, I will close public
input. Mr. Mayor, mayor, move approval of ordinance 25-05. Second. Been moved and promptly. Second. Roll call, please. Commissioner Ozbody. No. Vice Mayor Ashcraft. I. Commissioner Holland. Hi, Commissioner Lee. Hi, Mayor Hawkins.
I think that gets us back to the budget resolution. Yes. So, we have resolution number 25-60, a resolution by the city commission of the city of Eustace County, Florida, adopting a tenative budget for the
fiscal year 2025-26, providing for an effective date. That's a lot of stuff. It is. Who Who's going to Okay. So, so
Tom's giving us the uh the extended list. the extended list. But I mean really really um ladies and gentlemen, I mean wouldn't it be easy for us to just do reserves instead of go down this list and pick pick apart everything that one
of us one of us wants to do or um take um take food away from from the teens at the recreation. I mean really I mean it would be easier just to take reserves. We have any discussion on that?
Uh, and I think we could amend the budget later if we if we need to. Yes. I mean, really, there's some there's some things in here that that that I don't like the tone of this. I I don't either to be honest with you. And I think I think it's deflamatory. I
do. and, you know, putting putting public safety in there is is is trying to um evoke a response from the public. Um, and they're not really I I wasn't done and they were not really understanding the intent of what's what's trying to
what's trying to be done here. So, you know, are we going to take are we going to take um stuff away from GeorgeFest? Are we going to take um team building activities away from staff, movies in the park? We're going to take movies away from the kids. Um, okay. Well, I
could go on and on. Did this Tom, this list this came from uh the department heads, correct? The the initial list came from department heads. Uh this this kind of
expanded list is something that uh Miranda Burroughs and I uh went through the budget and uh this is uh beyond what the department heads uh recommended. Um so uh we
and we he's talking it was the it was the paper on the mic. Sorry. So again, there's there's some there is value in um dipping into reserves.
However, it would be irresponsible of me to present that as the option. And so we certainly it it's a it's an option. It's something we could do. It would be the least painful thing to do. Um but again I it would have been irresponsible for
me uh to say that's the just take it from reserves uh is not um is not what I would have felt comfortable doing. But in the end uh it's a good option. It's the least painful and uh we can um we don't have
to impact programs by doing that. Okay. But we have a risk coordinator. What is that? So the risk coordinator is a position that's going to be in human resources. It's going to be about coordinating with our liability insurance company and it's
also going to be about um limiting risk on do we have a heaving sidewalk and do we need to get it repaired so we don't get a trip and fall or is there um is there an ADA issue? So, it's going to be someone that's going to be trying to
limit our risk, limit our lawsuits, and keep us protected and we do not currently have that uh that is a function provided by finance uh kind of on a part-time basis. Can can I ask you you a question
regarding the risk um in the last year lawsuits risk related? Yeah, I don't know if I could give you a number specifically uh because a lot of those go uh right from
from a claim to PRM. Um and we have folks internally that coordinate with PRM. Uh so I don't know if I could give you a number on what kind of lawsuit activity we've seen. Okay. Lori, you said it is not best practice to take from reserves. Correct.
Correct. Okay. And you've been doing this how long? 25 years. Okay. All right. And what is professional inventory services? Oh, uh that is uh that's for the Clifford House. That would be bringing
in a professional company to go through the Clifford House and inventory what's at the Clifford House or the risk coordinator. Is it something we think we need to have right away. Karen, hi Karen. Lori
I do you mind if I answer that? Sure. I believe we do. Um it's not uncommon for small cities for the workers comp to be under HR and the rest of it to be under finance. And I've been responsible for it at
smaller cities. But as we get into this latigious society, we are getting left and right and we just we deal with a lot of it and honestly it's not our wheelhouse. We're doing the best we can
but we're really concerned about saying something we shouldn't or or or giving bad advice. So we kind of just remove ourselves from as much as we possibly can. The other concern that prompted it is the state has been toying with
increasing sovereign immunity. Uh right now our liability is capped through sovereign immunity, but there's been a lot of last several years they've talked about increasing those caps. So those lawsuits become more and more um troublesome.
That'll be back next year. I promise. I'm sure it will. Yeah. And not that I should be contributing, but I will. Um, I have seen a definite increase in the amount of claims that have come through and that have been forwarded to PRM for processing in the
last 12 to 18 months. Okay. Since I've been here. Yeah. Well, pretty much. Yeah. What's the character event? Those are uh recreation and those are uh events like Blueie uh or characters that um you know
we have uh an event at the Banshell or at Carver Park or at uh one of our facilities. You know, one area that I've noticed um quite a bit spent on is um what do you call promotional items. there's a lot of
money spent on that that could be kind of sliced down that we don't have to purchase so much and every department seems to have some. So that's some that's the area I think we should look at. Well, once again, I think it's easier to take from reserve
right now than it is trying to take away the special events from the kids that we're we're we're I don't see anything on here. I would I would think this this and and I and honestly I think it's I think it's really really funny too you
have the uh housing rehab program on here when you knew that uh I bought the I brought Daniel here for that as well and when you see habitat cutting but we don't see lake community action cutting late community action is in CRA so it doesn't affect general fund
well that's a good reason thanks we I will tell you that the team has really poured over these numbers um quite a bit. Um you know there are there are things we just can't cut like uh in HR uh background checks or
no one's saying to cut those things. I guess what I'm saying is we've spent a lot of time p and these were the things that were possible to cut. There are things that we just can't cut. Um and these were the things we felt that were
the most reasonable. On the other hand, we have people hurting. We have people suffering. We have people in our community who can't afford to pay for their own food and are paying taxes. And we keep taxing them till we break them
emotional, psychologically. Um we're we're impacting hurting our people with taxes and taxing and taxing. And then we have things in our budget that we need to work better on earlier
earlier on. Uh so to give me this limited list after a book that was huge, I I don't know. I don't think that's the way to get us all on the same page and across the line. Well, I think that uh I think everyone acknowledges that that we
needed to do better uh when it came to uh you know going over the the budget and I think that's why they've given us dates. Uh yeah, that was great. Exactly. So, so we all recognize that, but what's here before us now is
where do we cut exactly? And that's the that should have been something that we shouldn't be doing at 10:00 at night. It should have been something we should have been doing along the process. Um, but we had the option and we had the option when we went through the budget
to make cuts and I did and I occurred because of of the roll back and other than that so we weren't we didn't know we were going to have a roll back and you know you know what bothers me um I I believe that the staff has really
poured over this and decided that they these are the things that they presented to us but I really think we need to be kinder to each other than to say, "Oh, they put this in here to move emotions and all of that." I think, well, that's my opinion. I sure it's your opinion. I'm just saying. I'm just saying. And I guarantee
you was I'm still the one speaking right now, and I I just think we need to be careful about how we talk to each other and how we say. You can have your opinion, but it's not how, but how. You know what? We We all got elected to work for the USS taxpayers, and that's
what we're here for. And I believe we're all trying to We can do it in a kind of way to our staff. All right. One at a time. I'm not doub I'm not saying they didn't do hard work on this decision. Let's discuss. We need to make sure we get public comment. Yeah. A discussion.
Would anyone in the audience like to speak on this resolution? Okay. Seeing none, I will close public input. Lori Lori, what's what's in reserves financially? 18 million. That's what I thought it was 18 to 20.
Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. I think it went down. My brain's asleep right now. No, mine is two. I'm sorry. Yeah, I thought you said 18. It's 18 to 20. Yeah, you said 18. I thought um we are anticipating ending this this
year at 191 and next year. Um right, if you go to roll back uh 17 um 8. Okay. So, how much is carrying forward on you? all the way to roll back 11 million because
my motion would be to adopt the budget with the millage rate that we have set. What was that again? 7.38 7.38 7.38.98 using reserve money and then throughout
the year make budget amendments to our budget to cover those reserves. That's a great that's a great that's a great hybrid solution. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, got it first. I'll second it. Hold on.
The only thing we can change is the percent. There's a whole lot of brain work going on over there. I know there is a lot of brain work going here all night. We'll provide sleeping bags for staff since you have an early morning meeting. And you still have the the CS at the
library. Okay. Correct. I think this is the only thing we have to change because Who's that other lady? What's her name? Mary. She seems pretty She seems pretty sharp. She's your sister.
Assistant finance director. Like right here, right here. Would that have been I like your style. The number right here shows you. So all I see. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Mother of my brother sent me a text.
Is it listening? I'm sorry. You watching? We're good. We're good. Are we good? Yes. Okay. We were just uh because procedurally there are certain requirements. This is how I I had that little spiel earlier with um trim notice, but we had those changes. So the next
time that we present what you voted on the 3.8 7.3898, we'll have a different percentage because obviously it's a different number. Um but we're good. And then the budget, you're going to give instruction on that, but the titles are all the same. So we're we're we're fine there. We were just clarifying.
You got my motion? Did we But did we close public hearing? Oh, yeah. A while back. Oh, yeah. And I second. You closed it. I closed it a while back. Okay. And he second and I second it. Okay. Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Asati.
I. Vice Mayor Ashcraft. Hi, Commissioner Holland. Hi, Commissioner Lee. Hi, Mayor Hawkins. Hi. Thank you. Thanks everyone. All right. Okay. Um,
was that it Sasha? Yes. Okay, please. All right. Okay. Next up, if we next up. Okay. On other business, discussion of economic and cultural
advisory committee. Okay. So this is this is me and with with the work that Christine Cruz and I are doing with Japan and with the WG Sports Center being here um in Eustace, which is um
uh part of an organization that has a FIFA soccer license. Um, I just thought it'd be nice to have a discussion about putting people on like a an economic and cultural advisory committee.
Can you hold on a minute? Yeah. What else, Tom? Yes. Uh, do we need staff? All of them. So, we can let them go. I That's your call. Yeah. As staff, you guys can go. Okay. Not you.
Oh, sorry. You're not staff. You're a subcontractor. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You guys can leave. Bye. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I'm sorry. No, no, you're fine. Thank you, everyone. And like I said, I I put some notes here about what I thought the committee would
do. You know, it would be a um it'd be a group of like expert local business, community leaders without adding staff costs. The committee would work alongside city staff to identify opportunities for investment, workforce development, and
cultural exchange. It would also give residents a direct role in contributing to the city's success, ensuring decisions reflect community priorities while building pride and ownership in EUs's future. Um, and you see the handout that I had um some great help
putting together. Um, did you give that to us? Uh, everyone got a copy. So, you know, it would bring together the Japanese Cultural Center, American Bloom, the WG Sports Foundation, African-American
Heritage Committee, Chamber of Commerce lead, Lake County Tourism, and International Business Opportunities, which I know Pam Rivas is talking to someone from the Czech Republic to try to re relocate
here. So, just thought it would might be helpful for us to have uh have a committee. I don't know how I don't know what it looks like, but um I just wanted to open up for discussion to see what what everyone else had thoughts about it.
Um okay. I think I'd like to because I haven't had a chance to read. I'd like a chance, Gary. No, no disrespect. I'd like a chance to No, yeah. No, it's just I'm just bringing it up for discussion. I I don't want any decisions here tonight. I'm
just I'm just kind of giving you my presentation of it. So, okay. And and and honestly, we've been here long enough tonight, so we don't need to even do more about it. So, Okay. By the way, how was your trip to Miami?
The trip was the trip was amazing. Um the general counsel uh there uh was really interested in Eustace. um he has ties to a lot of businesses in Japan. He's actually going to be here for the Japanese festival in March to take a
tour of Eustace. Um so it was a very very productive trip. And we also met with uh Select Florida, which is like the governor's um department of international commerce um mainly focusing on Japan right now. So, you
know, I think I think it's an opportunity for us to leverage some really unique things that we have here in town. The Japanese Cultural Center, the WG U indoor soccer um um league. Mhm.
Um and to see if we can get um any company um interested in developing or uh relocating jobs to uses. So, that's really what it comes from. It comes from an economic standpoint. Can can we place it on next week's or the next agend?
Exactly. Yeah. Did you get a chance to talk to the consultant uh that that Al had I met them I met them last night but I Okay. Yeah. I wasn't on the list to talk to. They're going to they're they're going to call you.
Yeah. They're my All right. Well, since we're already into future agenda items, anything else? No, that's it for now. Okay, Mike. No, I'm ready to go home, sir. George. No, sir. No. Okay. All right. Uh Tom,
I know. Uh yeah, quickly. Um you received a draft form for the city attorney evaluation. Um and so we're asking you to review that, see if it's the instrument you'd like to use, uh talk about process, and
uh figure out how you want to move forward. Certainly, the city attorney should be involved in that discussion. as far as process and form. So, take a look at that and uh give us some feedback as to how you want to move forward. And then just briefly, um we just
recently went through police accreditation. Uh you received uh information from Chief Capri. I want to thank him and and the police department for the great job they're doing and the reacredititation. Uh and then uh we'll want to recognize
uh the events and communications department. uh they brought home eight sensational awards from uh FFEA and um not quite as many as we did in the past, but more number one awards this year.
So, eight versus as opposed to nine awards uh but more number ones. Uh so, want to thank them for everything they do. When do we meet the new uh the new lady? Uh she actually starts on Monday. I met her on a tour at the museum. Very
nice. Yeah. So, um she starts on Monday and we will um get her uh introduced to all of you moving forward. So, that's it. Okay. All right. I I'm sorry. I
I did have one one follow-up thing and I totally forgot with all this discussion. So, um I've actually joined the city softball team and our first game is Are you one of two? No. Oh. Um, and our first game is 911. [Laughter]
Can we have the truck out there? It's It's I think our first game Sam left already. I think our first game's the 16th. So, I will be out um representing the commission on the softball. Where's the game? Carver. Carver 6:00.
Do we have to file a notice for us all to go? Terry, don't we have to have him out there? We have to have some kind of medical stuff on Okay. Uh this the 16th I I believe that's our first game. I'm not sure the time yet, but it is it is it is in the evening on the
Please let me know. I'll come out and support you. Appreciate that video, too. And and what time is it, Carrie? Hey, and oh, and one last thing. Hey, I know I know tonight was a little What time is it? Hey, listen. Okay. Hey, I know tonight was a little tense. No. Yeah, it was. But you know what? We
still all came together and got it done. Yeah. So maybe I I appreciate that. I mean maybe my interpretation of tense is it was a little it was a little debated at times. No, but that's what we're supposed to Well, I know. But and we all have our we
all have our our um our ways of doing it, but we still got together and got through it. So I I am thankful for everyone for that. I think we got a lot accomplished tonight. So we we we had to been here for five and a half hours. And guess what? It's after 10. You guys,
we got a lot of comfort and not one slam door. There you go. It was going good. You had to take a shot. Had to take a shot of