--------- Wednesday, September 29th, 2025. The time is 6 p.m. Uh Mary, is there a quorum and proper notice been given? >> Yes, mayor. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh going to have
a workshop with discussion and public input. Uh presentation by Ref. Talis. Ref. >> Yes. So, I'll introduce Lori who will introduce Ref. Talis. >> Thank you. >> Hello. our finance director. Uh as you
know, uh we in order to meet the extraordinary circumstance, we have to have two workshops for impact fees. And so this will be our second workshop and it will pretty much be the same information, but I'm going to have Michelle from Rap Telus um give her
presentation. >> Welcome back. >> Good evening. Michelle Galin with Repelis. I'll be going through the same presentation that you guys saw at the first workshop. So, we'll look at the extraordinary circumstances facing the police and fire impact fees. Um the
methodology and major assumptions in the impact fee study and then the existing and proposed fees and how that compares to your nearby communities. So, the city is considering impact fees for police, fire, parks, library, water, and wastewater.
And uh as it relates to the fire and police impact fees, those are increasing more than the 50% maximum outlow outlined in the Florida statute. And so that is increasing due to several uh extraordinary circumstances, including the city is anticipating considerable
growth over the next 10 years. And with that growth, the city is going to need to invest significantly into its police and fire facilities um including new facilities to maintain the existing level of services and also uh provide um
apparatus and vehicles. And recent uh inflationary increases into construction costs have increased the cost to build these facilities significantly over the last few years. And over the last few years um the costs for vehicles and major apparatus for fire have increased
uh considerably. So it is recommended that the city adopts the police and fire impact fees is fully calculated in the study and then phase in the remaining fees as outlined in the statute. So the main objective of the study was to update the uh methodology used to
calculate the impact fees and to update it based on the most recent and localized data. So we reviewed historical investment into the facilities and then looked at the plan improvements that are necessary to meet the demands of growth. And by updating these impact fees, the city is
minimizing the burden of falling onto existing users and business owners to uh provide these new facilities as it relates to growth. So this study follows general uh statutory parameters and accepted case law for the Florida impact fee act.
So impact fees are onetime charges that is charged to the new development to recover the cost to provide additional capacity for that new growth. They do not fund deficiencies and level of service. They do not fund the replacement of existing assets and they do not fund the ongoing operating and
maintenance of each of the departments. and the impact fee study follow the general rational nexus test outlined in the impact fee uh statute that says the city has shown that there is a need to collect these impact fees that the uh impact fees will be used to provide a
benefit to new development and then the cost recovered is proportionate to the facilities needed to be for each land use. So for uh municipal impact fees, we calculated total capital costs by looking at the existing investment into
facilities and vehicles. And then we looked at the city's planned improvements um for additional capacity to meet the demands of growth. And then we allocated that between residential and non-residential using functional population and census data. And then we divided that by the functional units to
get a fee per residential unit and a fee per non-residential unit like thousand square feet, number of rooms, things like that. And it is recommended that the city reduce the current non-residential land use classes from about the 40 so you have now to the eight you'll see shortly.
So the city has about $2.6 $6 million invested into the existing uh vehicles. Um and then has identified some capital improvements necessary for growth and that includes a public safety complex shared with fire. So we're including about $6.4 million of that in the study.
And over the next 10 years, it's anticipated that the city will need to hire additional officers to maintain that level of service. So over the next 10 years, we are estimating about a million dollars of additional vehicles to serve those additional police officers.
So you can see that the impact fee for residential is increasing to the $746. So that is uh significantly above the 50% max outlined in the impact fee statute. And with uh the city investing about $7.5 million into their police
facilities with about $2.6 6 million of existing. That is a significant investment that the city is making to help meet these demands of growth. And largely across the board with non-residential, we're seeing those large increases besides a few that are decreasing based on the new cost
allocation methodology that's reweing some factors. So for fire, the city has about $3.3 million invested into the existing vehicles and facilities and have identified about $13.3 million of future improvements that will provide the
benefit to growth, including an administration building, vehicle purchases, an additional fire station 3, and then that public safety complex. So like police, you're getting the significant increase up to $1,230
for a single family home. And again, um, some of the large increases across the board, minus a few. So, for parks, the city has about $11 million invested into the existing facilities with a current planned improvement of about $2 million that
would benefit growth. And so, as compared to police and fire, parks currently does not have the same significant investment. So, it is recommended to phase in the fees over the four-year period and not go for the extraordinary circumstances. So by year four, the single family home will be
about $898, which is below the fully calculated fee of the $1,253. The city has invested about $1.5 million into the existing library facility with plans to expand the facility for about $2 million total. We factored in some
grant funding, so we're assuming about $1.5 million to the fee calculation. And so you can see that uh it's a uh increase of about $2. So we are recommending to phase that in and not go for the extraordinary circumstances there.
So when we look for an at an impact fee as it relates to single family home for municipal impact fees, it's increasing from 1,176 to 3,169. So it's just under a $2,000 increase. And this is the fully calculated
fouryear phase in fee. Now, for utility fees, um the city has about $18 million invested into the existing water uh treatment and transmission lines and with plans of about 3.75 million of expansion,
including the Eastern Water Plant and some main expansions. And then for wastewater, the city has about $47 million invested with plans to do just under $13 million, including uh wastewater treatment plant expansion, some lift stations and force main
expansions, and some reclaimed water lines. So, we are recommending to phase in that fee over four years. And for the water fee, you're getting to the fully calculated amount of 1,183. And the wastewater amount of $4,02
is just under the fully calculated $4,390. So we're not seeing the same extraordinary need as with police and fire. So we are recommending to just do the 50% cap phased in over four years. So you can see how the city's existing
impact fees and phased in impact fees relate uh to compare to nearby communities. So, the existing fees are on the lower end and by the fourth year, you're going on to the higher middle end of the communities nearby in Central Florida, but you're still um below
several of the comparison points on this list. >> Can you go back to that one, Michelle? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thanks. So this is the second workshop of two extraordinary circumstances workshops and so uh following this meeting will be
the second reading of the ordinance. And as a summary, the impact fees calculated will help align the costs of expansion as it relates to capital improvements for new development, which is commonly known as growth paying for growth. The impact fee study uses recent
and local data and generally follows a conservative impact fee calculation approach and by adopting the fees the city is making a commitment to do the projects as outlined in this study or similar projects that would provide the same benefit. So the commission should
consider adopting the impact fees as presented. And if you have any questions, >> actually I I had one. Excuse me. Sorry. The um the impact fees for the utility and wastewater. Was there I know it says
expansion, but I'm trying to understand what that what expansion means. Like are we are we adding to the plant or is that everything coming online? Um and then when we get to a point we actually do have to expand and are those
calculations part of that? Um so I think >> yeah um yeah >> and I maybe I can answer yeah part of that. >> Okay >> so we have a number of projects in our five and 10year plan. Some of those projects are for capacity expansion
actually being able to serve more customers. But some of the improvements that we're looking to do that qualify for impact fee funding are uh more about uh upsizing of lines, improving uh
flows, uh improving water quality. So all of our all of the projects that qualify for impact fee funding are not about capacity, although capacity projects are included in that. And um we
are we do have some projects that are in the uh for the in town or main plant for sewer. Um we do have a couple of upsizing projects for the eastern plant. But again, those aren't really to expand
capacity. Those are to improve safety, improve water flow. >> Yeah. And I and I understand. What but what there is a point where we are mandated to expand based on capacity. Correct Rick? >> Hi Rick. Eric, director of engineering.
Um yeah, it's when we get to 80% of our D capacity, our plant capacity on wastewater, we need to start putting in motion plans for our next expansion to be able to to kind of serve the open areas. So in the main plant we have what
they call 180 district and you're covering a lot of undeveloped area >> out east. Our service boundary is tied to projects. So it's not like you know
the eastern area from 46 to 44. So if we were to do any modifications, it >> how how close how close are we now? >> So right now we're running at about 200
210,000 gallons a day on a million gallons. So we're at 20 22%. Okay. >> Um you know, we've talked about the the two large projects out there. If both of those projects come in, that's taken us
right to about 80%. We don't need to expand. We at that point we can say we have no more capacity. And people that have been calling us, we're telling them we're not honoring any more capacity at this point because we have those two projects
that'll take us there. >> So, we have no plans um for any development. >> Well, maybe it was just the wording because you know, you see on the presentation it said expansion and it >> Yeah. And and I went back, you know, Tom had asked me and I was like, >> "We don't have four million out there at
Eastern." And it was like four million for the water. >> There was one project and I'm not moving on any of those projects without bringing it to you. Um there's one of the projects, one of the parcels is kind of going to
run sewer from like 44 up Cardinal Lane. And at that point when they do do that, um I do have a placeholder in there on the water 324,000 that would take if if their engineers said they need a 10 in,
we can do it a 12 or 16 and just pay the material cost. And that's what that is, the construction cost, any improvements on any projects out at Eastern, all that will be borne by the developer. And I know this is a little off topic, but um you know there was a lot of talk with US
water about this utility district. Is is that any movement on that or thinking or >> So we have been uh we're working with US water. Uh they I mean they their core business is not consulting. They did
that kind of as a favor to us. And so, uh, we spent some time, um, working with them and we had some questions that they, uh, recently were able to answer. And so, we've got to come back to you with some more information on that. >> How many years do we get to 80?
>> I'm just saying, how many how many years do we get it done? >> Right now, they haven't even ped the developers. >> No, I mean, just just an estimate. Five years. >> Okay. >> If if that moves >> Okay. >> at the quickest it I think it could move. >> All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Okay, great.
>> Yep. Thanks. >> Okay, any questions? Uh, does anyone in the audience like to speak on this matter? >> So, I have two cards. Um, I know there was some discussion about speaking at the workshop versus speaking at the um
commission meeting. Uh, you're welcome to do both if you'd like. Uh, it's up to you. I've got a card from Jennifer Prior and Danielle Stra. unless um good evening mayor and commissioners.
I'm Jennifer Prior. Um I'm a Eustace resident, but I'm also representing the Homebuilders Association of Blake and Sumpre counties. And we're not just builders. We're um folks that are supporting the construction industry. So lenders, realtors, title companies,
insurance companies, suppliers, and subcontractors. Um, we understand impact fees. We get it. You know, growth needs to pay for growth, but this seems like um growth, the impact fees is trying to catch up to the growth because impact
fees weren't increased for 20 years. And so our ask is that the fire and police be phased in like the other uh fees, like the other impact fees. Um because the growth um I mean in the study it
said 2.3% is um estimated a year. That's you know steady predictable growth and that's what um the builders need is to know the impact fees to plan for those um for the steady predictable growth. So
that's our ask and I had uh submitted a statement from the board of directors. I have um I had emailed it to everyone, but I have a copy if I need to submit that for the record. >> I believe we've got that. >> Okay. >> But I'll be happy to take it just in case.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, J. >> You know, that actually is a great question. Why Why did it take us 20 years? >> Let's let Daniel would you like to speak now? >> Okay. Thanks, Danielle.
Good evening everyone. So, first of all, thank you of course for your investment, your service to the city um and all the residents that live here. Um as you consider of course adjusting the impact fees, I know that you're not taking this lightly and that
it is your diligence and you're looking to provide the best services for all the residents of the city. Um, obviously I understand and acknowledge the need to provide uh the essential services for the city itself and that you're looking
at impact fees as a way to support the city's growth. As a local builder, I am of course in line with the homebuilders association's statement and the request for consideration to phase in the fees. As an affordable housing advocate, I want to emphasize that although the
increases, some of them might not seem major when you look at the big picture, um, every dollar matters when it comes to providing an affordable product that you can sell at an affordable price. Um, there are many individuals and families
obviously that are priced out of the current housing market. And it's Habitat's mission to bring people together to build homes, community, and hope. Uh we aim to offer those who have been priced out the ability to access home ownership just like everyone else.
Um and everything that comes along with that, the generational wealth building, opportunity for greater educational outcomes, civic engagement, all of those beautiful things. So, as uh consideration for the commission, I would like to propose discussion for the
future uh for an opportunity for an affordable housing impact fee waiver program or some kind of reduction program that we could discuss. As a partner of the city, I'd be more than happy to provide examples of where this is happening in other cities as the county and ways that it has been done successfully.
um Story, Lozado, Glover, Black, Watson, and Shapiro. Those are recent families that were housed and h homes built here in the city through Habitat's program over the past few years. Um because of
our opportunity to build for these families, obviously, it's been a life-changing event for them. I'm very much looking forward to the opportunity to build for future families. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Danielle. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this matter?
>> Okay. I'm sorry. Care Clay. >> No, I just I mean I'm I'm really trying to understand why it it it it's taken us 20 years to get here and the increases may have not been as drastic if we maybe have looked at this. I don't know what the interval interval
everyone thinks. >> Yeah, I think it at this point we're just kind of Monday morning money. And and I know we all wear many hats and I'm sure you guys know one of the hats that I wear is a mortgage professional and I know unfortunately that these
costs will be will be passed along to the buyer which makes home ownership just a little more further further out of their reach. I know we need them. I just don't understand why it had to take so long to get here and now the increases are so large or was there any
other way we could have could have done could have done this before before 20 years >> just a thought [Music] >> I okay >> I I I guess I don't have the answer to
that other than it it wasn't I guess it wasn't a priority of either the commission or the staff >> I I know But but we we we did a waiver program for so many years. Why why didn't we why didn't we look at it then to see how much we were
>> I I I I think that you have >> and and us up here, >> right? And and the goal, you know, the goal and I'm glad we're looking at these. The goal is that the our current residents should always have to subsidize future future housing projects. This should have been done
years ago in my in my in my opinion. >> Gary, I think that we tried to look at it years ago and you had some commissions that just would not go along with it. You had you had commissions that put moratoriums on other communities bypassed
and it was a way that we were trying to keep that some of the commission was trying to keep up by not raising impact fees all along. It would have been far better had we have been slowly raising impact fees along the way. Now we're
asking the taxpayers of the city of Eustace >> to cover >> to to cover everything. >> And it's it's not fair and it's not fair. But it's it's but it's also not fair. I mean, we all know >> it's not it's not fair to the builders. It's not fair to the mortgage people. It's not fair to any homeowners, people
wanting to be homeowners. >> And and just and just for just for the record, I had brought up an idea of doing a waiver program for infield development and and nobody no one seemed to be interested in it. You know, that's what we should be encouraging is infield
development, not all this sanexation on the outside and nobody no none of you wanted to even talk about it for infill waiver program for infield develop impact fees that we we control not not everything. So that's uh I I agree with
I agree with her. We you know it's another thing I think we should discuss encourage infield development and not annex annex annex >> sad part about is if we don't do something now we're continuing that pattern so we have to
>> um as much as it hurts we have to >> just future topics for discussion. Okay, great. Okay. Um, anything else? >> No other discussion? >> So, we'll just move this on to the next meeting. >> Okay.
>> Anything that's advertised 6:30. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. We're We are adjourned. We're going to move this uh to the next special meeting starting at 6:30. Adjourned. Part: 2
uh special meeting. Today is September 29th, 2025. The time is 6:30 p.m. Uh please join us for the invocation and pledge of allegiance. Well, a moment of silence. Are you going to do both? >> I'll do both. >> Okay. Uh invocation and pledge of
allegiance by led by Commissioner Mike Holland. >> If you would like to bow with me. Father, we thank you for this community that you've given us. We thank you for Lake County. We thank you for Eustace. Father, it's a special place and we thank you for that. Father, tonight we raise up Aaron Bair, our business owner
and friend from Elm Marie that lost his life last week. Father, we just ask that you be with his family and his friends as they suffer this loss and that we help this community come together and celebrate his life later. Father, be with us as with the decisions that we
make tonight for this community and for its future. For it's in your name we pray. Amen. >> Amen. Please join me in the pledge. >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under
God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you, Mike. Okay. Call of order. Uh Mary, is there a quorum and proper notice been given? >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. Please. Uh Tom, an agenda update. >> Um there is no change to the agenda. >> Okay. >> Only one thing on there. >> My turn. >> All right. For second reading, we have ordinance number 25-27. An ordinance of the city commission of
the city of Eustus Lake County, Florida, relating to municipal impact fees, amending chapter 2, article 4, division 4, law enforcement impact fees. Chapter 38, article 5, fire impact fees. Chapter 58, article 3, library impact fees. Chapter 66, article 2, parks and
recreation impact fees. And chapter 94, article 7, water and wastewater capacity impact fees of the code of ordinances adopting updated impact fees for police, fire, parks, and recreation, library, and water and wastewater services based
on the 2025 municipal impact fee study prepared by Rafelis Financial Consultants, Inc. making legislative findings including ex extraordinary circumstances justifying an exemption from the phase and limitations of section 163.31801 Florida statutes providing for
codification severility and conflicts and providing for this ordinance that and providing that this ordinance shall be adopted prior to October 1, 2025 with an effective date of January 1, 2026 pursuant to section 163.31801
Florida statutes. We just had presentation at the workshop. Um, no one else came in from the audience. So, um, I think we can forgo the presentation. >> Okay. >> If that's all right with everyone. >> Okay. Yes.
>> Okay. >> Um, we did have two speakers from the public. Would you like to speak again >> at this meeting? No. Okay. For the record, um, we have no public input. So, any questions from the commission?
>> Anyone else that would like to speak? >> No one else came in, but if anyone else that >> Okay, >> Cindy. No, there's no one >> Okay. >> wishing to speak. >> All right. >> We won't force them. >> No questions from the commission.
>> No question. >> Okay, then I will I will close public input. I'll get it back to you, >> Mr. Mayor. Uh, I move approval of ordinance 25-27 on its second and final reading. >> I'll second it.
>> Okay. Uh, roll call, please. >> Commissioner Holland. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Lee. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Asbat. >> Hi. >> Vice Mayor Ashcraft. >> Hi. >> Mayor Hawkins. >> Hi.
Okay, thank you. And next up, we'll have anything else? >> So, I just uh just some logistical information. Uh so, the um approved tonight uh effective January 1st and so
we will engage in outreach and education and actually statutoily required advertising uh to let folks know what was approved tonight. uh effective date of January 1st. And so what that means is any um
permit applications that are sent in prior to January 1st would fall under the old fee structure. The uh it would not be until applications after January 1st that the
new fees will go into effect. And so you'll see some information uh we've got to advertise in the newspaper. you'll see uh information up on our website uh as we work towards that January 1st implementation uh and then again it is not effective
until applications after January 1st. >> All right. Thank you, Tom. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Yes. Is there a reason why we wait till then? >> Statutoily required. >> That's the earliest. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's uh 90day advertising
and education period. >> Yeah. Okay, next up, future agenda items and comments. Uh, Mike, >> nothing until Thursday, sir. >> Okay, Emily, >> nothing till Thursday.
>> We have a commission. >> Well, since I've already been talking about it, I really do think we got to need to consider an affordable housing alternative for the fees. Housing is one of the biggest things that's out of reach for a lot of people right now. I I I think it's something we
we really should take a look at. And also, I'm going to bring it up again about the infill infield development program for primary homes up to uh four four unit four units should be considered as well. And that and
currently plotted currently plotted lots. >> Okay. And I'm fine if Danielle wants to bring the program back and speak to us. I don't >> I was going to say the same thing. Yeah. >> Don't have a problem with it. >> Yeah, I agree. George,
>> um I'd like us to consider um pulling off the uh next meeting resolution 2572 until we have more discussion, perhaps a a workshop or something on it rather than to have it
at that time. You know, I agree with that, too. I was looking at it and I feel like we should have some input. >> What What I mean, it's the number. What's What's the ordinance? >> It's uh it's uh guidelines for
commissioners uh communications under Sunshine Laws. >> That's under the regular portion of the meeting. Correct. >> Is that regular on the agenda, you mean? >> Yes. I have the agenda there. Just the
information. >> He just has the information, not the agenda. >> Let me just take a look at the >> It's not under consent, right? Do you know? >> No. No, no, no. >> Okay. So, that would be it's a resolution I prepared and we would be
discussing it at the time >> of the resolution. It's not on consent. No. So that's I would be presenting the the pre presenting the contents of that or of that resolution and getting your input on that as well. >> Okay. >> So we would have it up for discussion. >> Okay. So it's up for discussion
>> if not on consent. That's why it was >> Yeah. I'd still like I'd still like to see us pull in and work on uh work on it a little bit before we come out with it. So I still maintain that. >> Is that everything under sunshine?
Um it's specifically guidance on developer meetings. It's I mean that's already advertised so we would have to discuss it >> at the meeting >> on Thursday. Okay. Um so I would so it doesn't necessarily as you know if there is um some instruction or feedback at
that point not to move forward to table it etc. we can go through that process but it's already been advertised and we you know would need to present it and it's an opportunity for me to get feedback on it as well. >> Okay. So you're saying that at the meeting when we first open up that is the time
to bring up removing it off the agenda. Is that what you're saying? That it's not proper to do now. >> It wouldn't. Yeah. This meeting is only for today's objective which was the second or a reading of the ordinance for impact fees. So we have this already
advertised. If you want to um not move forward with it like you you would all would vote. you can table the action etc. But it's already been prepared and it is an opportunity for you to give feedback as far as if there's some issue with it in
particular that you have but it has to happen in the sunshine. So unless I don't know that a full workshop is necessary for that. Um it's been something that's been discussed for a while. >> So it has to be a presentation and then we make the decision at that point
whether we Yes. Yeah. If you choose to uh change, you know, if you don't want to move forward with it as presented, if you want to make revisions, if you would want to table the entire item because you feel like you need more time to have a separate meeting on it, that's fine. But it's already been advertised, so we should at least have the opportunity to
have discussion on it. Um again, and because it's already available, we need to be able to discuss it during, you know, in the sunshine at this meeting. >> That's what I was wondering. >> Not this meeting, but next meeting. >> Yeah. When it said a proclamation, it sounded so final. So that's what I wanted to make sure that we got to have
some feedback and discuss, you know, the issue >> just like of the Yeah, that's why it's under the regular portion of the meeting. It's not under consent or anything. That's it's to give you guys an opportunity to discuss it. >> But but you're saying that if they if we decide that we want to table it
and discuss it in another manner, we could still that's still an option. >> Of course. Absolutely. It doesn't have to it doesn't that's that's completely up to the commission's discretion. But because it's been advertised and the information is already available. We need to be able to go through the presentation and engage in what your
thoughts are. Uh Commissioner As rest of the commission because um we can't pull it preemptively at that meeting if we're going to have subsequent discussion um on that item without letting the public know. So we need to have the presentation take
place >> and nothing can be discussed between now and then. >> We pull things off agenda or at least the city manager does >> at the at the meeting too. >> Those are consent agenda. >> It's at the meeting the actual >> and we discuss those from consent.
They're moved to the regular hearing portion >> when when that happens. >> Don't things Mike am I wrong? Things get pulled that are not on the consent. Also, city manager will say, "I'm going to remove this off the agenda." It's not a consent item. It was a regular item.
>> You since it's been advertised, we cannot >> those were advertised. >> It would have to be pulled at at the meeting on Thursday, you could pull it at that point. >> Okay. >> But >> should you have consensus, right? But again, if we have the presentation on it
and I get feedback, it's up to the commission if you want to table it, you know, move forward with and there's no, you're not restricted in any way just by having the presentation >> because it's been advertised. You have to present first. Correct.
>> That would be appropriate. Um because again, it's it's already part of the packet. Now, >> if we're you can voice your concerns on Thursday if you'd like as to what that is because it's not for like for today. >> Um, but typically what happens is we
have advertised it already. Those items that you're possibly discussing may have been pulled by applicants or they might have been because they didn't meet approval at LPA and then it doesn't get forwarded to commission. So, there's that's just a procedural issue there.
But um >> I'm not sure I'm convinced of all that, but uh I made my point. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. Um Tom, >> uh nothing, sir. >> Okay. Madam attorney, >> I do have one more question. Can you can you tell me where that came from? Who
put that on the agenda? >> I prepared that at the request of a commissioner. >> You put that on the request of a commissioner? Yes. Can you tell us who that commissioner is? It's actually procedure um that has been asked for before. >> So, is that public? Can you tell us who
that commissioner is? >> I know that um Commissioner Lee wanted some direction on developer processes and I've had conversations with all of you about it. So, we went ahead and prepared. >> Yes. But my question was, did somebody
direct you to do that? And you're saying that Commissioner Lee directed you. Is that right? >> On the input from >> Well, I'm just trying to understand it. I'm sorry. I've gotten I've gotten feedback from commission that we need a procedure because we have differing views on how to handle developer
meetings that falls under sunshine and that's why I'm trying to give you guys the freedom to do what you need to do. >> Sunshine covers pretty good too. Yeah. >> So, >> if I may finish, >> we had different >> We have Exactly. So, it's a matter of
establishing a policy because we've had different views on how to handle it and there's there's a statute for that and we you guys have ethical obligations. So, I prepared a procedure for your consideration that falls within the sunshine that gives you the flexibility
to have your one-on- ones if you'd like to, but it's best, which I've said before, and I said this publicly at our workshops when we talked about downtown all these redevelopment projects, etc. I've said it's best to have the developers come before the commission and speak publicly so that you all get
the information at once and the public gets it as well instead of giving the perception that there's some kind of conversation taking place or anything like that because >> you're doing a lot of speculating but I guess go ahead. >> Well, I want to make one thing clear. I
didn't direct with that be written. I think Sasha composed it compared considering what everyone was saying. For me, it was a matter of if I'm going to meet with them, you know, what are the guidelines? >> Exactly. >> And and everybody else was taking a different tact or approach to it. But
that was my only issue with it. My my question >> and I don't see a problem with >> So >> yeah, I don't see a problem with >> and I I have some concerns about it, but I would express it when the time appropriate time >> and that's why I prepared it all inclusive to have a discussion and that's there was going to be a
presentation to get the feedback from all of you. you have some say here. >> Uh, no, because I thought we talked about we weren't going to talk about it here. We're going to talk about it at the meeting on Thursday. So, >> okay. Okay. >> I just want to make sure like it was
consistent with >> Yeah, >> I have given you all guidance on it and it's just best to have a procedure in place so that it's transparent for everyone and I have said it >> before. Yeah, that's why it was put together >> and brought up for discussion at the next meeting. >> Okay. Anything else?
>> All right. >> Okay. >> It wasn't my turn. >> Oh, it's your turn now. Oh, wait a minute. Were you done? >> Yes. >> Okay. Your turn. Now it's your turn. Okay. All right. So, me uh I have nothing. So, that was easy. Uh we are
ajourned. You're welcome.